tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4235572328009577701.post7234761549383331135..comments2024-03-22T05:09:24.512-04:00Comments on Spells and Steel: The 0-Level Man-at-armsCharles Ahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00941603544547428940noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4235572328009577701.post-37736042743668365702013-06-25T00:31:30.454-04:002013-06-25T00:31:30.454-04:00"I don't see how you can separate tactics..."I don't see how you can separate tactics from combat. "<br /><br />Like this: consider a peasant with a club is fighting a man-at-arms with plate and mail and a longsword.<br /><br />If that fight doesn't play out with the man-at-arms winning 998/1000 battles, your combat system is fundamentally broken.<br /><br />" The whole idea of tactics is so that you can AVOID a stand-up one-on-one fight. "<br /><br />This has nothing to do with a combat system, though, so is not relevant to a discussion about how a combat system models men-at-arms.<br /><br />"Fighting fair is for people who want to get killed, a competent soldier will ambush, camouflage, sneak, use teamwork, high ground, outnumbering, surprise, flanking and so on. "<br /><br />And a competent soldier, well-equipped, will know that they can annihilate an ignorant, poorly-equipped peasant with little or no personal risk.<br /><br />You left out one of the most important military tactics (maybe the most important) - defeat in detail.<br /><br />That's where you bring overwhelming force to bear on an inferior force. Man-at-arms vs. peasant is defeat in detail on the micro level.<br /><br />"An unarmoured peasant with a club may not fear a single man-at-arms very much,"<br /><br />They may not, but that doesn't change the fact that they will most certainly lose that combat.<br /><br />"even 50 peasants with clubs should fear 10 men-at-arms very much."<br /><br />This I'm not so sure about. If the peasant's morale holds (say, they're fighting raiders attacking their homes), I would wager they would carry the day, but with heavy casualties.<br /><br />Simply surround the knights, and mob them. You don't need tactics in that fight - sure, some of you will get sliced on the way in, but there's no way the knights could kill 4 guys each before the mob bore them to the ground.<br /><br />Numbers count for one hell of a lot, and that's one thing D&D doesn't account for at all - it's no harder to defend yourself against five men than one. This is obviously ludicrous.<br /><br />A skilled swordsman could easily take on one peasant, two with some small difficulty. Five would be more or less impossible.<br /><br />But I'll put this to you, since this is the case you seem to be arguing:<br /><br />Taking armour out of the equation for a second, do you really think that fight between a peasant with no training or experience, and a man-at-arms with 10 years of training and 3 battles under his belt would come down to a 5% advantage for the man-at-arms?<br /><br />Should that battle really come down to basically a flip of a coin?Charles Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00941603544547428940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4235572328009577701.post-51342365526164255002013-06-24T23:32:08.980-04:002013-06-24T23:32:08.980-04:00I don't see how you can separate tactics from ...I don't see how you can separate tactics from combat. The whole idea of tactics is so that you can AVOID a stand-up one-on-one fight. Fighting fair is for people who want to get killed, a competent soldier will ambush, camouflage, sneak, use teamwork, high ground, outnumbering, surprise, flanking and so on. <br /><br />Put another way, the 0-level peasant thinks fighting is one-on-one and fair, the 0-level man-at-arms is smart enough not to get themselves into that situation in the first place. An unarmoured peasant with a club may not fear a single man-at-arms very much, but even 50 peasants with clubs should fear 10 men-at-arms very much. That's because 10 men-at-arms will be a team working together with a plan, while the 50 peasants are just a mob. Tactics turn a crowd into a unit. <br /><br />Weapon proficiencies are an AD&D1e thing (in any case it doesn't matter what is in which edition since your blog is about your making your own edition). A fighter begins with so many, and gains one every so many levels, a magic-user less of each. Absent being proficient in a weapon, you have a malus to hit. Hanley Tuckshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13047638048463160737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4235572328009577701.post-87879718770994960382013-06-24T11:16:41.070-04:002013-06-24T11:16:41.070-04:00Tactics are a separate consideration, I think. I&#...Tactics are a separate consideration, I think. I'm talking here about just a stand-up one-on-one fight.<br /><br />And weapons proficiencies are a D&D/3E thing, methinks. There's nothing like that in Basic or 0e.Charles Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00941603544547428940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4235572328009577701.post-7906842337835243102013-06-23T08:14:57.399-04:002013-06-23T08:14:57.399-04:00It helps to remember that a "man-at-arms"...It helps to remember that a "man-at-arms" is supposed to have some sort of training. Thus, they get to use tactics - which the 0-level peasant doesn't. A group working as a tea beat a similar sized and armed group working as a bunch of individuals. <br /><br />As well, the 0-level peasant will logically not have any weapon proficiencies and thus have a to hit penalty, while the man-at-arms won't. <br /><br />Lastly, various house rules will allow things like shield walls which a peasant can't do. Hanley Tuckshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13047638048463160737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4235572328009577701.post-85822247435208778942013-06-19T23:22:23.677-04:002013-06-19T23:22:23.677-04:00I played "AD&D" (in quotes) in my ex...I played "AD&D" (in quotes) in my extreme youth, but really (like I think most people who started with BECMI) I was playing Basic D&D with a touch of AD&D thrown in.<br /><br />I toyed with negative modifiers for a while for untrained folks, and I may yet go back to it.<br /><br />I could see a Level 1 "Veteran" actually being a veteran if a normal person had a -5 to hit.Charles Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00941603544547428940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4235572328009577701.post-62498152621940201772013-06-19T17:55:06.233-04:002013-06-19T17:55:06.233-04:00The only way I was ever able to justify his by usi...The only way I was ever able to justify his by using the weapon proficiency rules in AD&D. I always assumed that 0 level humans were only proficient with improvised weapons and such, so they always had a negative modifier to their attack rolls. A 0 level "man-at-arms" had a weapon proficiency, and used the 0 level human chart with no modifier. Brendanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00908708023237168012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4235572328009577701.post-426791821526339052013-06-19T01:32:56.253-04:002013-06-19T01:32:56.253-04:00What kind of veteran has roughly the same combat a...What kind of veteran has roughly the same combat ability as a peasant?<br /><br />That's my point - calling 0-level's "Men-at-Arms" and calling Fighter 1's "Veterans" just isn't borne out by the numbers.<br /><br />A better title for a Level 1 fighter might be "Squire" or "Trainee", judging by their combat power relative to a peasant.Charles Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00941603544547428940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4235572328009577701.post-92136996725941570642013-06-18T14:21:42.676-04:002013-06-18T14:21:42.676-04:00Can I point out that tradtionally, a level 1 fight...Can I point out that tradtionally, a level 1 fighter was a veteran?Asarishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10479118016866405388noreply@blogger.com