As DM do you match targets or completely go random?

[sepulchre]

Redpriest wrote:

Under those circumstance, I don't think the rule is at all odd.

Nicely stated.

Matthew wrote:

Turning one minute rounds into six second rounds works good in some areas, bad in others, but exploration in 1 minute turns has serious time scale problems. I suspect that is why Classic Dungeons & Dragons retained ten minute turns when using 10 second rounds.

Honestly, given the nature of the game, I can't imagine working without a one minute melee rd. , especially as a DM. Even with high hit die most characters are low to mid level with not especially high hit points and within a few rounds of combat death is not unusual. The minute melee round not only seems realistic but it seems to fit with the flow of the game.
Ten second rounds suggest to me a 1st person context in which one might exchange the D20 for %Dice and permit a heavier measure of complexity through finer adjustments to PCs.

geneweigel wrote:

However if its an instantaneous cluster fuck in a hallway with all kinds of opponents (the average dungeon encounter) then random comes in and gets applied always no "ifs", "ands" or "buts".

Seems to follow.

Heres my general rule: If somehow the players think they've been cheated then you're doing something wrong. STOP!

I think that's wise, and something I should be a little more aware of myself.

[Matthew]

Honestly, given the nature of the game, I can't imagine working without a one minute melee rd. , especially as a DM. Even with high hit die most characters are low to mid level with not especially high hit points and within a few rounds of combat death is not unusual. The minute melee round not only seems realistic but it seems to fit with the flow of the game.
Ten second rounds suggest to me a 1st person context in which one might exchange the D20 for %Dice and permit a heavier measure of complexity through finer adjustments PCs.

Whilst I agree that the one minute round works great within the assumptions of the game, I cannot agree it is very realistic at the skirmish level on which the game is typically played. Even Chainmail acknowledges that three minutes fighting would result in fatigue, so there must be assumed frequent and lengthy periods of inaction in the combat round, which does not seem to jive with the fast paced combat referred to in OD&D.

Is the random targeting a concession for those playing without miniatures?

I don't have my DMG handy, as I'm at the office, so I'm not able to read the paragraph in question.

But it seems to me that with minis it is obvious who is hitting whom during combat and everyone just ignores that the static display is an abstraction of a fluid activity.

So with minis it makes sense to apply the facing rules, etc. in AD&D or to sub in some other combat rules.

While if you're not playing with minis I could see the "random target in melee" an equitable solution to the problem of a player's or DM's tendency to structure the combat (fairly or unfairly).

I'm just thinking "out loud" here, as I have next to no experience with minis aside from a little 40K about 15 years ago.

Thoughts? Does this dog hunt, or is it a senseless bitch with fleas?

It definitely works well when no miniatures are assumed, but I think it probably has its roots as a rule in large formations of varied troop types fighting a melee on the battlefield.

[Mrk]

I like making up new encounter charts as I think the things you encounter on the road depending on what's going on in the land. I might make a separate chart with specific monsters or what-nots, but I usually like to either design an encounter beforehand or make one up on the spot.

[sepulchre]

Matthew wrote:

I cannot agree it is very realistic at the skirmish level on which the game is typically played.

Matthew, though I sympathize and even identify with your point, seems to me a skilled warrior is capable of remaining in the 'circle' without succumbing to the chief enemy that brings on fatigue, fear. To my mind, the increase of hit points with level is an expression of this warrior spirit. Also the increased chance to hit, # of attacks against 0-lvl types, and against leveled characters serve to finish fights more cleanly and faster.

[Dwayanu]

As with the facing rules, it's really going to depend on the situation. I think that in a very fluid situation, it might be hard to justify negating a shield for a particular attacker. Likewise, I don't think it's likely to be practical just to ignore a foe. Defense might well necessitate offense at some point -- perhaps the very potentially telling blow for which a roll is made.

Really, the default level of abstraction is so great that I don't think hit-point losses necessarily map directly to any particular cause. You're going to wear down a foe more quickly on average when equipped with a better weapon, but it does not follow that every "hit" is a strike with that weapon.

The neat thing is that one can go to a grosser or finer level of detail as befits the fight at hand. Sometimes, we may just want a quick and dirty answer to "Who won, and at what cost?" At other times, we may want to explore the process more.

[AxeMental]

I think the facing rules and the fluid rules for lack of a better word (where you can't pick your target) don't really mesh (I see the facing rules as less optional). In reality, we all just stick our figs down and hammer it out not really thinking that much about the time thing (other then spell duration which is more related to rules). 6 seconds, 30 seconds a minute...the length of a round doesn't really make that much of a difference game wise.

Part of the confusion is that you have no way of knowing what rules are needed until you sit down and play.

[Flambeaux]

Once upon a time, I matched targets. Having watched the joyful chaos that ensued this weekend as both Tim Kask and Rob Kuntz randomly determined who was hit by attacks, I've gotta give this a spin when I next get a group together face to face or online.

[AxeMental]

F, did fighters still hold the line? How exactly did it work?

[Matthew]

Matthew, though I sympathize and even identify with your point, seems to me a skilled warrior is capable of remaining in the 'circle' without succumbing to the chief enemy that brings on fatigue, fear. To my mind, the increase of hit points with level is an expression of this warrior spirit. Also the increased chance to hit, # of attacks against 0-lvl types, and against leveled characters serve to finish fights more cleanly and faster.

I think the key issue with it for me is that under the Chainmail rules every fight could end in one round of melee or go on for longer. In AD&D there are many fights that will not be resolved in one round, which is good for game play, but bad for the one minute round. In OD&D fighters could face down normal or semi-fantastic opponents, such as orcs, and slay as many as they had hit dice. That is the sort of pace of action that we see in the Slithering Shadow Conan tale.

There are some good emulation aspects to AD&D, but fast paced action with anything over 1−1 hit dice is not one of them. Clearly sacrifices were made with regard to "realism" or "authenticity" in favour of game play. That is no bad thing, but attempting to explain it away, rather than noting and accepting it, engages the problem on the wrong ground to my mind.

If we take the example of a hero versus four orcs, for instance. Using the Chainmail combat system it can be over in 1 round either way, and may go on a bit longer (but probably not much). Using the OD&D system you have a similar sort of variance, but in AD&D it is going to take a minimum of 4 rounds for the Hero to win (though it might be over in 1, if the orcs get lucky).

The main culprit for this stretching out of combat is the hit point rule, which is what it is designed to do (make combat more of a to and fro gradual affair). For it to exhibit the same pace of action as Chainmail, it seems to me that the time scale needs to be shortened. All moot, of course, since it was not, but the causes and consequences are observable.

Actually, might be worth starting a new thread about this in one of the subforums... One Minute Rounds and the Alternative Combat System.

[Algolei]

I think that's just for missile fire into combat. Totally random target friend/foe, but slightly larger chance for a large person (monster or character) to be the one getting fired at, IIRC.

Nah, it is for melee too (see "Who Attacks Whom", DMG, p. 70). There is also a provision for choosing targets; the idea seems to be that in the whirling chaos of an abstracted one minute combat round you cannot choose easily who you will manage to deliver a telling blow against.

I think it would help to post the actual paragraph from the DMG. So I will.

Who Attacks Whom:

As with missile fire, it is generally not possible to select a specific opponent in a mass melee. If this is the case, simply use some random number generation to find out which attacks are upon which opponents, remembering that only a certain number of attacks can usually be made upon one opponent. If characters or similar intelligent creatures are able to single out an opponent or opponents, then the concerned figures will remain locked in melee until one side is dead or opts to attempt to break off the combat. If there are unengaged opponents, they will move to melee the unengaged enemy. If the now-unengaged figures desire to assist others of their party, they will have to proceed to the area in which their fellows are engaged, using the movement rates already expressed.

I don't think this paragraph was meant to intend that randomly-assigned targets was standard. Most of the sentences begin with "If." It just seems to be a guideline in case of "mass melee." I think it all depends on how you interpret that. What is "mass melee," and when can you, and when can't you, choose a specific target?

The third sentence of this five-sentence paragraph even specifically details how melee should go when opponents do single out their targets; the fourth sentence prescribes what unengaged opponents will do; and the fifth sentence explains what unengaged figures might have to do in order to engage a target to help others of their party.

[Matthew]

I don't think this paragraph was meant to intend that randomly-assigned targets was standard. Most of the sentences begin with "If." It just seems to be a guideline in case of "mass melee." I think it all depends on how you interpret that. What is "mass melee," and when can you, and when can't you, choose a specific target?

The third sentence of this five-sentence paragraph even specifically details how melee should go when opponents do single out their targets; the fourth sentence prescribes what unengaged opponents will do; and the fifth sentence explains what unengaged figures might have to do in order to engage a target to help others of their party.

Well, all the rules are guidelines. I agree that it is not a rule meant to be applied all the time, though, just when it is useful to do so. Of course, the section on page 63 detailing the "as with missile fire" section makes no reference to mass melee. So, is it possible to single out targets at range when there is no mass melee? Is a mass melee basically what we call a melee that is not a single combat? All unknowns, but the DMG glossary does say:

Melee - Combat with hand-held weapons between more than two figures. This is distinguished from list combat, which is between two opponents, and missile (q.v.) combat, which is at a distance and involves thrown or propelled weapons.

So I think it is a good bet that "melee" and "mass melee" are the same thing in different stages of editing.

The sorts of places I consider the random determination of attacks most useful are in instances where fighters are seeking to protect other party members from attack and all are engaged in melee. That said, in practice I allow targeted attacks when it is feasible and use random determination when it is not.

[Algolei]

I don't think this paragraph was meant to intend that randomly-assigned targets was standard. Most of the sentences begin with "If." It just seems to be a guideline in case of "mass melee." I think it all depends on how you interpret that. What is "mass melee," and when can you, and when can't you, choose a specific target?

The third sentence of this five-sentence paragraph even specifically details how melee should go when opponents do single out their targets; the fourth sentence prescribes what unengaged opponents will do; and the fifth sentence explains what unengaged figures might have to do in order to engage a target to help others of their party.

Well, all the rules are guidelines.

I could have just as easily said "a rule in case of 'mass melee'." I wasn't arguing that rules and guidelines were different.

I agree that it is not a rule meant to be applied all the time, though, just when it is useful to do so.

Exactly. The question then becomes, when is it useful? I was just suggesting that "mass melee" vs. "melee" could be indicative of larger or smaller hand-to-hand combats, in which case "when it is useful" would be "when large numbers are fighting."

A hairy furball, so to speak.

Of course, the section on page 63 detailing the "as with missile fire" section makes no reference to mass melee.

Is that under MISSILE DISCHARGE? I do notice a paragraph of interest there which reads:

"If one opponent group is significantly larger than the other, accurate missiles which have a small area of effect can be directed at the larger opponent group with great hope of success. You may assign a minor change of the missile striking a friend if you wish, but this writer, for instance, always allows archery hits to hit a giant or a similar creature engaged against a human or small opponent."

(Well, it interests me, at least. My old DM always rolled arrow hits randomly, and my Fighter took a lot of arrows in the back while fighting giants!)

So, is it possible to single out targets at range when there is no mass melee? Is a mass melee basically what we call a melee that is not a single combat? All unknowns, but the DMG glossary does say:

Melee - Combat with hand-held weapons between more than two figures. This is distinguished from list combat, which is between two opponents, and missile (q.v.) combat, which is at a distance and involves thrown or propelled weapons.

So I think it is a good bet that "melee" and "mass melee" are the same thing in different stages of editing.

It's possible, of course, and I think it can be interpreted however the DM feels like interpreting it. It's not like anyone's going to be getting a visit from the Rules Police, after all! This isn't 4E, y'know!

In my case, I've usually allowed players to tell me which opponent they wish to be striking. There have been times when I rolled randomly, either because of the confusion of the situation or because the players didn't care one way or the other. Of course, movement through a combat zone ought to be tricky, so I've always tried to restrain my players from suggesting they could move through a line of orcs to get to the cleric behind them, for instance. (Not enough of my D&D players back then had ever played in a football game [talkin' American-style football, of course].)

Transposing the difficulties of realistic combat onto a table top game of miniatures can lead to headstrong arguments. The "fog of war" doesn't transfer well. Maybe players should try playing blindfolded for a change to see what it's like? "The orc lunges at you!" "I jump back to avoid his weapon." "You fall off the cliff then." "Damn, I forgot that was there!"

Mwah ha ha ha ha!



...sorry, daydreaming again.

[Matthew]

I could have just as easily said "a rule in case of 'mass melee'." I wasn't arguing that rules and guidelines were different.

Sure, my intention was just to indicate that I do not consider the rule applicable in every circumstance of melee.

Exactly. The question then becomes, when is it useful? I was just suggesting that "mass melee" vs. "melee" could be indicative of larger or smaller hand-to-hand combats, in which case "when it is useful" would be "when large numbers are fighting."

I would consider it useful in a melee between two orcs, a fighter and a magician, especially when the fighter is trying to ward off the orcs from the magician. That is to say, I consider it subjectively applicable.

Is that under MISSILE DISCHARGE? I do notice a paragraph of interest there which reads:

"If one opponent group is significantly larger than the other, accurate missiles which have a small area of effect can be directed at the larger opponent group with great hope of success. You may assign a minor chance of the missile striking a friend if you wish, but this writer, for instance, always allows archery hits to hit a giant or a similar creature engaged against a human or small opponent."

(Well, it interests me, at least. :lol: My old DM always rolled arrow hits randomly, and my Fighter took a lot of arrows in the back while fighting giants!)

Yep, and I think the text in "Who Fights Whom?" supports a similar contention, that even in a mass melee there will be instances where particular opponents can be targeted, but that this is a subjective determination. If there are nineteen orcs in a melee with one hero, I might forgo the 1 in 20 chance of his being hit as well, same as if there are three kobolds and an ogre, I might allow the players to target the ogre.

It's possible, of course, and I think it can be interpreted however the DM feels like interpreting it. It's not like anyone's going to be getting a visit from the Rules Police, after all! This isn't 4E, y'know!

It is also notable that this is the only mention of "mass melee" in the book, so it is likely not a technical term, just a subjective decision.

In my case, I've usually allowed players to tell me which opponent they wish to be striking. There have been times when I rolled randomly, either because of the confusion of the situation or because the players didn't care one way or the other. Of course, movement through a combat zone ought to be tricky, so I've always tried to restrain my players from suggesting they could move through a line of orcs to get to the cleric behind them, for instance. (Not enough of my D&D players back then had ever played in a football game [talkin' American-style football, of course].)

Transposing the difficulties of realistic combat onto a table top game of miniatures can lead to headstrong arguments. The "fog of war" doesn't transfer well.

Yeah, I have had this issue crop up as well. Last time it happened the player characters were in an ruined temple facing off against a line of orc warriors with an orc spell caster standing behind them. At the time we were using a "move/countermove" procedure, and one of the fighters wanted to barge his way through the line to reach the spell caster.

Technically, armies are thought to have fought in depth to prevent being "burst through", and since there was only a single line of orcs in that instance, it did not seem too unreasonable a possibility. At the time, I ruled that the two orcs he tried to burst through would get free attacks against him, but then he would freely be able to attack the spell caster.

If we had been using the "written order" or "simultaneous action" approach, I would have ruled that the two orcs would give ground against him, and that the spell caster would have the option of moving (and thus spoiling his spell) or remaining in place and getting caught up in melee. At that point, there would be a 1 in 3 chance of the fighter getting an attack on the spell caster.

[Flambeaux]

F, did fighters still hold the line? How exactly did it work?

Axe,

All of the DMs I played with this weekend asked us for a statement of marching order and an order of battle before we started playing.

So if the fighters are in the front rank (two or three files depending on corridor width) the random assignment rolls were among the front rank. This was mechanically done by d6 roll with the possibilities defined before the roll (1-2 hit you, 3-4 hit PC A, 5-6 hit PC B, etc.)

If we were in a room and the room was small enough that everyone was in melee (within 10' off any opponent regardless of whether or not melee was actively engaged in by the PC) it was a d8 or a d10 roll (based on number of players at the table).

Is that a clear explanation, or did I just create more confusion?

[Aelfgar Strongbow]

Maybe I like to over-plan too much, but I would prefer to post every encounter in advance, and use some enemy groups with an insurmountably high challenge rating for the party's level. It just seems more realistic to have areas that the players obviously can't handle yet. I don't like the idea that the world fits some linear pattern that grows with each character as they advance, catering to their experience (or lack thereof) as they slowly climb up in levels. I expect that players would be sensible enough to test the waters before rushing into an engagement, and flee if they come across something too powerful.

Video games have largely influenced my attitude on open-endedness and linearity. In my opinion, Final Fantasy II (Famicom) handled it perfectly. The game presented you with a fairly open-ended world that the party could freely explore for the most part; however, while a lot of things were accessible to you from the start, venturing too far into the wilderness meant being faced with more powerful cretures. Unless you spent a lot of time level-grinding, it would be impossible to navigate through those areas, but that was totally left to the player's discretion. You could senselessly level-grind and explore all you wanted, or tackle various story events to advance the actual game.

I like to create a campaign world that's already "complete," in a sense. All the towns, caverns, dungeons and strongholds would be in place, along with various wildernesses and enemy encounters inbetween. There may be an underlying plot that brings it all together, but whether or not the players explore that plot is their choice. They can very well go off and raid dungeons, kill enemies or find employment doing local mercenary work. (as long as none of these digressions compromise other players' enjoyment of the game -- a fragmented party is a bad thing)