OD&D The one man army is awesome.

[Garthanos]

So if the fighter and the rogue are directly across from each other fighting a troop of 20 orcs, the orcs as a troop unit can't be flanked, which means the rogue and the fighter don't get the +2 bonus to hit. It isn't to suggest the orcs as a military unit can't be outflanked by a unit of elven cavalry and run down.

I can go with that though at some point those fighter and rogue may be of a scale that all the attention does get drawn to the battlecries and brass and such of the fighter and the rogue may indeed be able to tear into them from the edges like batman, so not even sure that immunity is appropriate at the level it would be most likely to come into play.

 

[Hriston]

I was reading today because I have been finding Chainmail inspiring for D&D actually - I haven't played Chainmail so bear with my ignorance.
The Superhero piece in Chainmail who got identified as a One Man Army his piece on the battlefield represented one character and is valued as 8 figures (edited not units) which is referred to as having a 1:20 men ratio am I right in thinking that means a One man army == 160 typical soldiers?
That is awesome it fits with gets within charge distance and induces morale checks

Note that the 1:20 ratio is figures to men, and that, although described as having “the fighting ability of four figures” in the Fantasy Supplement, the hero and superhero attack and defend as “4 men” and “8 men” respectively on the Fantasy Reference Table (Appendix D).

I think the Fantasy Supplement is written with a variable scale in mind and that most of the figures described (besides troop types like dwarves, elves, orcs, and goblins) are conceived of as individuals using the man-to-man rules when not engaged in “fantasy combat”. So when the hero is described as the equal of four figures, I think that’s assuming a 1:1 scale.

 

[Garthanos]

Note that the 1:20 ratio is figures to men, and that, although described as having “the fighting ability of four figures” in the Fantasy Supplement, the hero and superhero attack and defend as “4 men” and “8 men” respectively on the Fantasy Reference Table (Appendix D).

That leaves some contrast/ambiguity are those men however to be differentiated from dwarves or elves as men ie races... as opposed to specifying the relative figure value? Are they attacking 4 times and 8 times seems a bit like the meaning.
I am thinking there is reason some talk of preferring later rules for clarity

Also I suppose on could considering earlier are we thinking attack and defense as being the same as value? if your attack alone was 4 x that of men and your defense basically allowed you to last 5 times as long. To defeat the hero the attacks all had to be at once you had to be surrounded basically so it was situational how long one could have an impact on play I would say.

The point cost of Dwarves was 2 (the same as heavy foot were they then just one dwarf but called Dwarves? ) with the Hero being 20 (which is still 20x light foot). Do the points mean per figure in one part of the game and per element/person/dwarf/elf in another? but not 4 unless they are peasants.

I mean being worth 10 dwarves and 20 light soldiers or 40 peasants in point value sure sounds more like a figure.

 

[Cleon]

Yes but they were worth 4 figures which did not represent a single character but rather a squad/platoon each

A level 4 fighter was only worth a few more than 4 single first level characters it LOST a lot in the translation
And an 8th level fighter in AD&D is not a one man army

Bear in mind that a typical squad/platoon/mob would not be composed of 1st level fighters in early D&D. Being 1st level was a step up from the "average human" who didn't have a level per se. Instead they were "Normal Man" level in BECMI, had "1-1 HD" in Original D&D or were "0-level" in 1st edition AD&D.

Fighters had the special ability to attack such opponents once per level in those editions - so a 4th-level "Hero" AD&D fighter could attack 0-level bandits or footsoldiers four times in a melee round, just as a Hero figure did in Chainmail.

In really primeval OD&D the ability of fighters to attack opponents with less than 1 full HD once per level meant a fighter over 2nd level could attack 1st level wizard multiple times per round, since those characters had HD of 1-1 originally (i.e. 1d6-1 - the system assumed the same dice was used for HD). I think that got amended when the MU got four-sided HD but my memory might be playing me tricks.

 

[Garthanos]

Bear in mind that a typical squad/platoon/mob would not be composed of 1st level fighters in early D&D. Being 1st level was a step up from the "average human" who didn't have a level per se. Instead they were "Normal Man" level in BECMI, had "1-1 HD" in Original D&D or were "0-level" in 1st edition AD&D.

I quite agree AD&D for instance tried to evoke a bit of the one man army with the attacks per zero level minion. I mean that might be awesome in theory too my experience was it just never quite worked out in practice (with those things never really used in adventures or encouraged to be, it could help show off that awesome, but I don't think I saw it once when it would have been coolest). I stand by however level 8 not feeling at all one man army.

To be honest even just that one little thing is better in some ways than the latest version of D&D in my opinion. To my thinking in spite of advancing hit points it has become far less so in the most recent game (where the high level fighter character is barely better at hitting (like a level 6 but only achieved at level 20!!) and while it has a slow but universal increase in attacks and considerably more hit points, it has nothing at all that really represents that outclassing of adversaries offensively making it at best a slog. And while the previous edition had the swarm as a general monster design mechanic and included angry mobs and orc throngs, and demon hoards not to mention many methods for attacking all adjacent enemies pretty easy as one leveled up and so on and so forth- they began characters able to handle 4 minions and could handle a small mobs by level 4 or 5 - though not 80 til early Paragon (like name level ust with more personalized effects). It seemed better connected to the Chainmail flavor text and less faded feeling than 5e or even AD&D - all of course being opinion. During Paragon Tier the numbers you can match up via swarms work out to be rather like the figure count designated in chainmail.

4e has 3 tiers of play in case you are unfamiliar

• lowest is heroic (Analogous to hero)
• second is paragon (Analogous to superhero)
• third is epic (even more so advancing to demigods but also post level 20 in 4e)

5e has 4 tiers much like the above but with a pre-heroic tier where you are playing a normal joe but the ability to deal with outclassed enemies either right away or eventually both seems to have been seriously under done in 5e (in tier 1 there just arent really outclassed adversaries).

 

[Cleon]

I quite agree AD&D for instance tried to evoke a bit of the one man army with the attacks per zero level minion. I mean that might be awesome in theory too my experience was it just never quite worked out in practice (with those things never really used in adventures or encouraged to be, it could help show off that awesome, but I don't think I saw it once when it would have been coolest). I stand by however level 8 not feeling at all one man army.

It only came into play a few times in my games when the PCs were facing a horde of goblins or the like, but it was rarely a fight that really mattered or that the party had any serious chance of losing. By that time their ACs were high enough a standard AD&D goblin had little chance of hitting them. The only occasion of significance I can recall is when one of the PCs decided to attack a watch barracks (don't ask!).

To be honest even just that one little thing is better in some ways than the latest version of D&D in my opinion. To my thinking in spite of advancing hit points it has become far less so in the most recent game (where the high level fighter character is barely better at hitting (like a level 6 but only achieved at level 20!!) and while it has a slow but universal increase in attacks and considerably more hit points, it has nothing at all that really represents that outclassing of adversaries offensively making it at best a slog.

Yes, their decision to flatten out the maths definitely makes the progression of levels feel less significant. I would prefer it if being 8th level felt a lot more significant than it currently does compared to being, say, 4th level. Being worried by the same weaker foes but in somewhat larger numbers doesn't jive well with many previous editions.

Unfortunately this leads to high-level characters and creatures feeling a lot less, well, "epic" when you compare them in battle to low-level peons or mid-level threats. I wonder how many, say, Gladiators or Guards it would take to have a 50-50 chance of beating a Kraken in 5E? A creature which, remember has a Challenge of 23, which is way higher than the CR 12 of a 3E Kraken. There doesn't seem to be a close correlation between Challenge/Level/CRs of monsters between editions in the more recent versions of D&D.

To my mind an 8th level martial character should not be considered equivalent to some elite town guard or SEAL team member (who ought to be 4th level or so at most - i.e. "hero-level") but to Conan or Rambo. They are larger than life figures who can slay giant carnivorous snakes or killer apes while nearly naked and armed only with a dagger!

 

[Garthanos]

It only came into play a few times in my games when the PCs were facing a horde of goblins or the like, but it was rarely a fight that really mattered or that the party had any serious chance of losing. By that time their ACs were high enough a standard AD&D goblin had little chance of hitting them. The only occasion of significance I can recall is when one of the PCs decided to attack a watch barracks (don't ask!).

Yeah you nailed the thing on top of that it wasnt practical for game play convenience to do really high numbers either.

Yes, their decision to flatten out the maths definitely makes the progression of levels feel less significant. I would prefer it if being 8th level felt a lot more significant than it currently does compared to being, say, 4th level. Being worried by the same weaker foes but in somewhat larger numbers doesn't jive well with many previous editions.

I think by 5th level things feels pretty good as a starting point while it might still be improved its good however the sense of advancement just isn't there.

Unfortunately this leads to high-level characters and creatures feeling a lot less, well, "epic" when you compare them in battle to low-level peons or mid-level threats. I wonder how many, say, Gladiators or Guards it would take to have a 50-50 chance of beating a Kraken in 5E? A creature which, remember has a Challenge of 23, which is way higher than the CR 12 of a 3E Kraken. There doesn't seem to be a close correlation between Challenge/Level/CRs of monsters between editions in the more recent versions of D&D.

To my mind an 8th level martial character should not be considered equivalent to some elite town guard or SEAL team member (who ought to be 4th level or so at most - i.e. "hero-level") but to Conan or Rambo. They are larger than life figures who can slay giant carnivorous snakes or killer apes while nearly naked and armed only with a dagger!

I agree... they should while the level numbers are slightly higher in 4e that edition did cling much tighter to original script in this regards hence 5e lacks some larger than life feel expresses it exactly (thanks) that is what I am missing it has some flavor of it around the edges sure but doesn't seem like it delivers. 3e also had enough from what I hear that at least optimized martial builds might.

 

[Hriston]

That leaves some contrast/ambiguity are those men however to be differentiated from dwarves or elves as men ie races... as opposed to specifying the relative figure value? Are they attacking 4 times and 8 times seems a bit like the meaning.
I am thinking there is reason some talk of preferring later rules for clarity

Also I suppose on could considering earlier are we thinking attack and defense as being the same as value? if your attack alone was 4 x that of men and your defense basically allowed you to last 5 times as long. To defeat the hero the attacks all had to be at once you had to be surrounded basically so it was situational how long one could have an impact on play I would say.

The point cost of Dwarves was 2 (the same as heavy foot were they then just one dwarf but called Dwarves? ) with the Hero being 20 (which is still 20x light foot). Do the points mean per figure in one part of the game and per element/person/dwarf/elf in another? but not 4 unless they are peasants.

I mean being worth 10 dwarves and 20 light soldiers or 40 peasants in point value sure sounds more like a figure.

I haven’t had access to my copy of Chainmail for a few days, so apologies for the delayed response. I’m not sure if I’m able to parse what you wrote here, but as far as the point values of various troop types, those are given in the man-to-man rules and seem quite consistent with the values in the Fantasy Supplement, so I would say that all point values are based on a 1:1 ratio. So a single hero would be considered the equivalent of eight armored foot soldiers, ten heavy foot soldiers, or twenty light foot soldiers respectively in terms of point value.

Edit to add: I think the most appropriate equivalent comparison is between the hero and four heavy horse, the assumption most likely being that a hero is going to ride a mount into battle.

 

[Hriston]

To further add to the above and bring this directly back to the OP, no, a superhero does not equal 160 men. When the text says that heroes “have the fighting ability of four figures”, and that superheroes “are about twice as powerful” (i.e. have the fighting ability of eight figures), it is within the context of the statement found at the beginning of the section entitled “Man-to-Man Combat” that “Instead of using one figure to represent numerous men, a single figure represents a single man.”

 

[Garthanos]

the assumption most likely being that a hero is going to ride a mount into battle.

Now you have me analysing in more depth thanks for that.

Basically in that means Chainmail Are you saying the hero is not 20 points but rather only 8 points if not mounted? See that doesnt work very nicely for me.

You arent 2.5 times as awesome by being mounted in any edition of D&D ever even the specialists in it like Cavaliers could not claim that.

Historically In real life few cultures had mounts who actually fought much themselves it was mostly about the mobility and many used mounts to get to the battle field and then just dismount. Basically assuming the hero would be mounted during the fight is attributing a huge amount of their power and effectiveness to a mount which seems counter to legendary heroes too. Where as for me add 3 pts worth works better. To me even if you are assuming the 20 is mounted a not mounted hero might be 17pts.

Further battlefield size affects the assumption of being mounted. I feel makes more sense in the big battle and less in the man to man. You need to reach more enemies when the ground space of the figures and the whole battlefield is greater and that is boost a mount really grants and maybe that is a multiplier but not in smaller battles like in man on man scenario.

I kind of think we should not assume the hero is mounted in man to man scenarios. Most of the enemies are close enough to be handleable and you do not need the mount then the value of the mount becomes the hero gains access to more enemies faster when the hero wants it and less when they don't and more enemies are available with a big war scenario.

It occurs to me only a small amount of unit/squadron can really attack one man in a minutes time anyway and vice versi

I think i just looked too close at the sim and it isnt designed for that.