Was letting my mind wander while thinking on system design issues and up came bubbling this question. In AD&D, as primary example, we use the same attack matrices for melee weapons as we do for missile weapons. Now that I’ve asked the question, I find it odd that the same matrix is used for both.
I’ve never run across any early commentary on why we do it, so I assume that it migrated from Chainmail to D&D just because that’s the way it’s done. Have any of you seen commentary on this from the Long Ago?
I got there because I was thinking of an archer class that doesn’t have much training or experience in melee fighting so bonuses in archery and penalties in melee, then wondered why I couldn’t just use two different matrices. (It’s much easier to handle in my bespoke rules, because there are no matrices, just modifiers based on class abilities. In the D&D riff, however….)
Chainmail has different attack matrices for missile and melee in both of its combat systems (“Troop Type” and “Man-to-Man”).
When Gygax decided to focus on “Alternative Combat System” (d20-based) in Supplement I: Greyhawk, it also inherited separate melee and missile adjustment matrices against different armor types.
This system was also used as a basis for the AD&D ruleset, but it was now spread across two books. While the Dungeon Master’s Guide may give you the impression that the attack matrix is the same for all weapons, you should also take into account the “Weapon types, general data, and “to hit” adjustments” tables in the Players Handbook (p. 38), which give to-hit modifiers for each melee and missile weapon type.
I would assume it’s a matter of reducing unnecessary complexity (though obviously this wasn’t much of a historical design concern for Gygax at least…). Given the rather abstracted nature of D&D’s early combat system variations between missile and melee weapons and abilities can all be modeled with bonuses and such rather then introducing a whole distinct set of combat mechanics.
Yeah. B/X and such would codify this a little bit through the Range Increments: A Missile Weapon is usually going to be more likely to have modifiers when used based on whether it’s at Short (+1) or Long (-1) range. DEX being a factor can also create the need for additional modifiers that wouldn’t appear with the Melee Attack Rolls.
Since we usually do use the Matrices for Attack Rolls, this usually just means we have an extra row/column for those attacks.
The table on p. 38 of the PH is used for situations where the foe is armed similarly to the PCs; that is, wearing the same types of armors. They don’t apply against monsters not wearing armor.
Both the melee table there and the missile table offer adjustments to the same attack matrix, in that circumstance of facing foes wearing armor. That underlying matrix doesn’t change with the different attack type.
Chainmaill offers three different combat systems. I’m thinking of the alternative system that slid directly into AD&D, which I think uses one matrix. I didn’t go check, relying on my old man memory.
I’m wondering if separate matrices could prove interesting. Perhaps quicker advancement in early levels for missile fire, which then slows a great deal; melee capability advances more slowly and steadily through levels. I’ve reckon I’ll have to play with that sort of thing to figure out if there’s anything of interest to it.
It just struck me as an interesting question that I’d never seen addressed.
I’m guessing this is the likely answer – it’s just easier to use the same table for both.
That approach discounts any fundamental differences between melee fighting and archery, though. Range adjustments offer some modeling of how range affects accuracy with missiles. Weapon vs armor mods speak to how effective the weapons are vs specific armors. None of those modifiers speak to how different melee is from archery, and that’s what I’m wondering about.
Early games like Tunnels & Trolls completely decouple the two Methods of Attacks. Melee is handled through mostly the standard Combat Procedure (which is a roll off of Dice+Adds compared to the Other Side, very swift and frantic!) while Missile Attacks get resolved via a Saving Roll (the level of difficulty is determined by Range/Distance and size of the Target.)
This was pretty fiddly all things considered, and I think the Abstract Nature of Combat in these games is a feature and not a bug most of the time, because it allows for the Dice to Decide things more consistently.
Realism isn’t much of a concern for me in D&D combat… and D&D combat isn’t much concerned with realism. Because of this, when discussing old D&D mechanics I tend to find realism is a dubious basis for house rules.
I’m much more interested in what having different rules for one type of combat or another would bring to the game experience and if it’s worth the complexity cost. We are talking about combat that is fundamentally:
Initiative system;
D20 to hit (plus/minus modifiers);
Damage roll (plus/minus modifiers);
Repeat.
For example.
The missile rules I use, that I think provide some interesting effects in the context of the rank/flank system of combat I use. Basically missiles are only useful/safe in the initial round of combat (or in rare cases such as offhand throwing weapons as reactive attacks), otherwise they have a flat 25% chance (5 or under on attack die) of doing full damage to the ally nearest the target.
To me this creates interesting player questions - keeping an offhand throwing axe or starting combat to trade a reactive attack vs. a charging enemy for the defense of a shield or damage of a 2 handed weapon. For rear line combatants there’s always the temptation to fire into melee … but it’s high risk vs. reward. It also makes positioning more important - choke points are useful, but they radically constrain the party as well as its foes - sometimes it’s worth it to get everyone in the big open room and surround outnumbered enemies.
These sorts of things don’t require anything as complex as an entirely new subsystem, and I can’t think of many advantages in D&D combat that would be worth adding that much increased complexity to a simple and highly abstracted set of rules.
One way that I tend to model the efficacy/deficiencies of particular weapons against certain Opponents is just to bump up or down the damage die. This doesn’t really require any additional maths/modifiers and just uses the same amount of “die rolls.” It is also usually pretty impactful or rewarding for the Players (changing the dice they roll gives it a tactile quality, and might cause them to change tactics/carry more types of Weapons for a variety of situations.)
So if those Skeletons are particularly well-suited for resisting Missile Fire, attacks with arrows might use a d4 instead of a d6. A Balloon Golem or something would be very susceptible to this though, so we’d bump that d6 up to the d8.
This can make those Weapon Choices a bit more interesting, without grafting on too much more complexity, or instituting a “DR” style framework that can reduce damage to 0 (something I never really liked: It snatches defeat from victory by turning that ostensibly successful Attack Roll into a waste of time!)
I’ve not been worried about realism for most of the decades I’ve been playing. Verisimilitude in the abstraction is enough for me.
In this instance, I’m wondering why no variations on the model when so many other parts of it have seen so many variants and far more involved mechanics. I’ve not seen commentary on it, nor was it anything Gary and I conversed about.
I’ve been looking at different advancement rates and how they can help define classes and sub-classes and that question popped up.