REACTIONS TO OD&D: RANGED COMBAT

Let's start this essay with a couple of quotes from "Volume 1: Men & Magic" regarding ranged combat. First, from the Alternative Combat System attack matrices on page 20:

To put this rule in context for those who aren't familiar with OD&D, allow me to explain: Both melee and long-range missile attacks use the same attack matrices. But at medium distances missiles receive a +1 bonus and at short ranges they receive a +2 bonus to hit.

Compare and contrast this with 3rd Edition. Here both melee and ranged attacks use the same Base Attack Bonus, but at medium and long ranges the missile fire suffers penalties.

One critique of 3rd Edition is that ranged combat specialists are at a significant disadvantage compared to melee combat specialists. How many of those complaints would disappear if you implemented an OD&D-style system of giving bonuses for close range missile attacks instead of penalties for distant missile attacks?

(And how many more would disappear if you took the equally radical step of giving ranged attacks a Dex-based bonus to damage like the Strength-based bonus that melee attacks receive? All of them. But I digress.)

(EDIT: It has been pointed out that the word "decrease" might actually mean that Armor Class is improved against missile attacks at medium and close ranges. I hadn't really considered that possibility because it seems natural to me that the closer something is, the easier it is to hit with a missile weapon, but it's certainly true. This, by the way, is why I don't miss the "lower AC is better" days in the least. Is that +2 a bonus or a penalty? Only her stylist knows for sure.)

And here's another quote from "Men & Magic", this one from the "Bonuses and Penalties to Advancement due to Abilities" table (which, like many things in OD&D, is only partly about what it says it's about):

To understand the importance of these entries, you first have to understand one other thing: There are no equivalent bonuses (or penalties) for melee attacks.

So, once again, we see OD&D giving a significant advantage to ranged combatants compared to their melee brethren. In doing so it stands in contrast with 3rd Edition (where ranged combatants require special equipment, class abilities, and/or feats to even begin equalizing with melee combatants).

It stands in even starker contrast with 4th Edition, where ranged combat has been completely nerfed for the convenience of the miniatures game. And this is slightly ironic because I suspect one of the reasons that OD&D is so friendly to ranged combat is because of its roots in the Chainmail wargame: Chainmail needed to cope with the reality that charging ranged attackers Agincourt-style is, historically speaking, a really dreadful idea. One that people have been willing to repeat time and time again throughout history (World War I, I'm looking at you), but a really dreadful idea nonetheless.

PALIMPSEST INVERSION

Of course, all of this goes out the window if you interpret the OD&D rules slightly different. Here's a quote from "Volume 2: Monsters & Treasure":

This little paragraph is incredibly confusing for many reasons: First, the basic combat system is largely detailed in Volume 1. It is not meaningfully discussed in Volume 3 (only Aerial Combat and Naval Combat are given any substantive treatment there).

Second, based on its formatting and context the passage appears to be referring to an "Attack/Defense" entry on the table immediately preceding this text... but no such entry is to be found. It's actually referring to Hit Dice. (A troll has 6 + 3 HD, hence the +3 bonus it receives.)

Third, the most literal interpretation of the paragraph is "monsters attack like men once for every HD they have". There are two problems with this: First, the Alternative Combat System has separate attack matrices for men and monsters -- so if monsters end up attacking "as a man-type", what's the point of the attack matrix for monsters? Second, the text only refers to monsters... which means that monsters get 1 attack per HD, but the PCs don't. I don't really see any way for that to be viable, do you?

For the most part, as far as I can tell, this passage is almost universally ignored. Or used only when the Chainmail rules are used for mass combat.

But one way in which it has been interpreted is that everyone (monsters and men alike) get 1 attack per round per HD.

However, by combining that with certain rules from Chainmail, another interpretation also arose: Everyone (monsters and men alke) get 1 attack per round per HD... but only when engaged in melee.

Which, of course, immediately shifts the pendulum of power away from ranged combat and places it rather firmly and definitely in favor of melee combat.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

In lump sum, therefore, OD&D serves -- in its many-faced way -- as excellent fodder for a discussion of how ranged and melee combat should relate to each other.

But this also speaks to one of the broader themes in these reactions to OD&D: There are many who like to talk about "old school" gaming as if it was some sort of unified style of play, but could there be any larger bifurcation of play styles than those created by the disparate interpretations of the mechanics we've seen here?

In one set of mechanics, ranged combat has a distinct edge. Smart use of a sling or bow is strongly advantageous, leading to combats being conducted from the maximum possible distance. (And even when the combat tightens up, there's still every reason to continue using your ranged weapon if you can.)

But in the other set of mechanics, the melee fighters grind up the battlefield -- completely outclassing the damage-dealing capabilities of the ranged combatants through their sheer number of attacks per round.

FEBRUARY 2009: 

PART 1 - PART 2 - PART 3 - PART 4 - PART 5

RETURN TO THE ALEXANDRIAN - SUBSCRIBE