Mass Melee

[Gandalf Istari]

Page 70 of the DMG states:

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...

While this does go on to talk about intelligent individuals singly each other out for combat, the gist here (to me at least) seems to be that hits during melee in general are determined by random die roll.

What do others think about this rule? For starters, I'd have to say that it comes right out of EGG's wargaming background. I can also say that we never used this rule back in the day, and honestly until I had reread the DMG a month or so ago, I didn't even remember this rule being in there.

At first reaction I was taken aback at how silly this rule seems. Combatants might certainly be attacked from many different sides during a melee, and not even know where the attack is coming from, but it would seem that the attacker would usually know who he himself is taking a swing at. Certainly an attacker might hit someone else by mistake as the fight shifts and moves, but to me this would seem to be the exception not the rule, and of course a combatant might shift his target for some reason. As well, I could see maybe a combatant hitting opponents randomly who are in front of him, but what about on the flanks and the rear? It seems tough to hit opponents randomly who are behind you when using a piercing weapon like a dagger, one that is pretty much effective only when lunging forward.

On the other hand, this rule seems to inject that "bar room brawl" sense of combat that has always been my favorite. A mass of combatants basically lashing out at whatever foe is nearest, a swirling melee in which anyone can be hit at any moment. Having participated in my share of bar room brawls back in the day, I can certainly attest to the chaotic nature of multiple combatants fighting within a confined area.

So, anyone have thoughts on this? Does anyone handle combat this way? I've been thinking about it a bit lately, and thought I'd get some input from others.

[TheDungeonDelver]

You know, I never handled it like that. I always gave the party (and the monsters!) choice as to whom they were slashing and attacking. Charging is a different matter - when they go in they can't say "I'm going to go after that one spearman, the third from the left, close to the middle". They hit whom they hit.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I've always applied that rule, having come to D&D from a wargaming background.

[Gandalf Istari]

papersandpaychecks said:

I've always applied that rule, having come to D&D from a wargaming background.

Would you mind commenting further? Do you make attacks random on only opponents that the combatant is facing, or any opponent that is within the reach of the combatant (i.e., even those behind him)? I could see how certain weapons could hit opponents that are behind the combatant (swinging a two-handed sword up over your head, for example, or even a mace, axe, etc.), but not how other weapons could hit someone behind the combatant (e.g. a thrusting dagger).

Further, I would tend to assume that the random nature of melee attacks makes much more difficult for players to strategize and come up with tactics for fights. Has this been your experience, and if not, why?

Also, what do you make of the different examples of melee that are presented in the DMG in which the characters who are meleeing seem to always be targeting specific opponents in combat? Personally, some of the examples of combat don't seem to jive with the "Who Attacks Whom" rule from page 70. I'm really interested in some more extensive coverage as to how the rule has played out for people who've used it extensively.

[AxeMental]

I remember being a bit shocked by this rule when I was first made aware of its existance about a year ago. I suppose the logic is that action is so intense and movement so unpredictable that if you have 4 or 5 guys moving about your bound to have one move in the way of another. So, it makes since I guess. We never used it however because 1. it's tedious and is the only random element in the game, 2. I think EGG has an example someplace of spell casters being targetted by archers, 3. yeah, intelligent archers can direct fire to at least an area of a group. We do use it however when it comes to monsters attacking the group (were MUs can't be singled out so easily). Otherwise who in the hell would ever wear a pointy hat? You might as well wear a red bulls eye on your chest.

So: I'd consider the conditions (how tight the group is, and at what distance the firing is taking place). An archer firing at long range might have a hard time predicting who will be hit by the time the arrow reaches its planned placement. However, at close range it would be much easier to place. You also have to consider line of fire (fighters blocking the MU from arrows for instance) more so at close range then far (a straight shot vs. an angled shot).

Yeah, BTB it seems anytime a group is fired into its random, but it's also BTB for the DM to consider intelligence and conditions. Don't let the rules replace common since.

[Thoth Amon]

I have always allowed the players to decide who they will attack and have the monsters randomly decide.

I have read in novels where the soldier just stabs whomever he happens to be facing that second. The combatants move around and you might not always be facing the guy you were a minute ago.

[foster1941]

Yeah, the idea is to model one of those big chaotic melees where everybody's constantly moving around and stabbing at whoever they see, and in that regard probably makes more sense when you're looking at 20 or 30 figures on a side than a more common D&D scale -- 4PCs vs 6 gnolls, or whatever. I generally use this rule for non-intelligent monsters (giant rats, zombies, etc.), or if the player doesn't specifiy which bad guy he wants to attack, but if the player does specify (and they almost always do) I'll let them attack the person/monster they want to. I suppose I should try it the other way, to see how it affects the feel. I like the idea that, for instance, the players might know one of those gnolls only has 1 or 2 hp left but they aren't able to get an opening to swing at him.

For characters/monsters fighting in closed ranks, I'd make a judgment call probably something like this -- the characters in the second rank (fighting with spears or polearms) are able to attack, but are not able to be attacked as long as there is a friendly figure standing directly in front of them, so only the figures in the front rank would be included in the random roll.

[Gandalf Istari]

foster1941 said:

Yeah, the idea is to model one of those big chaotic melees where everybody's constantly moving around and stabbing at whoever they see, and in that regard probably makes more sense when you're looking at 20 or 30 figures on a side...

This is the thinking I'm tending towards, using it only when the number of combatants reaches a certain quantity.

For characters/monsters fighting in closed ranks, I'd make a judgment call probably something like this -- the characters in the second rank (fighting with spears or polearms) are able to attack, but are not able to be attacked as long as there is a friendly figure standing directly in front of them, so only the figures in the front rank would be included in the random roll.

This actually came up the other night while I was running my wife through B2, the module I chose to start our campaign. Her party got caught between goblins in front and behind in a corridor. She was smart, and had a ranger out in front with her cleric, and a fighter and bard in the back, with the wizard and thief in between. The goblins were stacked up in the corridor, so both sides had members that were safe for as long as their front rank held.

Of course, once the ogre from area 22 showed up, he was reaching over the heads of goblins to attack the bard and fighter (I figure he was tall enough, with arms long enough, and the goblins were small enough). Her fighter is a Jotun, a custom race I use in my campaign that is considered a Large creature (7 1/2 feet tall), so I allowed her fighter to retaliate. It was great! Goblins in the front rank kept hitting her fighter, while her fighter and the ogre were trading blows over the heads of the goblins and her magic user was peppering the ogre with magic missiles. With some lucky die rolls, and some quick thinking on her part, all of her party survived to defeat the goblins and the ogre, although they limped back to the Keep near death, hehe.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

gandalfistari said:

Would you mind commenting further? Do you make attacks random on only opponents that the combatant is facing, or any opponent that is within the reach of the combatant (i.e., even those behind him)?

The combatant attacks a randomly-selected foe within melee range. Given that rounds are one minute long in AD&D, I see no problem with changing facing, and indeed only apply the facing rules when one combatant is surrounded.

gandalfistari said:

Further, I would tend to assume that the random nature of melee attacks makes much more difficult for players to strategize and come up with tactics for fights. Has this been your experience, and if not, why?

It reduces the number of strategic options for the players, yes. But then, you don't exactly need to be a military genius to strategise in AD&D; combat strategy isn't a key element of the fun of the game, and I wanted a game of combat strategy I'd be playing Panzerblitz or Third Reich.

I run games for a large group of players who make extensive use of henchmen - fifteen or so in the player party, and sometimes up to thirty or forty mooks, so what I'm interested in doing is finding ways to speed up the battles. This means reducing the number of decisions involved and getting straight down to the dice rolling.

gandalfistari said:

Also, what do you make of the different examples of melee that are presented in the DMG in which the characters who are meleeing seem to always be targeting specific opponents in combat? Personally, some of the examples of combat don't seem to jive with the "Who Attacks Whom"; rule from page 70. I'm really interested in some more extensive coverage as to how the rule has played out for people who've used it extensively.

I'm afraid that I don't take the AD&D examples of combat seriously at all.

I'm a heretic. I ignore pretty much all the initiative rules and special cases, and I generally ignore surprise too (the idea that a bunch of players could be surprised by meeting a monster in a dungeon strikes me as odd, and also rather silly). I ignore weapon speed factors and weapons -v- AC type modifiers, I run combats in phases (statement of intent, initiative phase, melee phase, missile phase, spell phase, morale phase) and I come up with arbitrary modifiers to most rolls pretty much on the fly.

[Gandalf Istari]

I lost track of this thread for some reason. Thanks for clarifying P&P.

Hehe, guess I'm a heretic as well, as I don't usually use surprise, I don't use weapon speed at all, and I don't use BtB initiative either. I have been considering using a very limited weapon vs. armor type (based strictly on whether the weapon is a slashing, blunt, or piercing weapon, rather than delineating weapon vs. AC for each weapon as per the PHB) but haven't gotten around to writing anything up for it.