I just let the defenders roll a Saving Roll to see how successfully they defended, and that determined how much of their attack rolls got added to the total. Abstract but elegant, since we started the turn by agreeing the magic-user would not get hit, and the rest of the rules was used to determine what other effect that had.

Stuart, take a look at T&T. You might like it! It has a very fluid combat system.

For D&D I see no specific problem with having a combat stance that’s called “defensive fighting” or something like that. You declare at the start of the round whom you are defending, and then all attacks at that target hits you instead. If many fighters choose to do the same you could just roll a die to determine who took the hit. That’s probably how I’d do it.

Opponents might choose to roll their attacks against the character with the lowest AC in the group (although it may not always be initially apparent which target that is), so the AC for the group would effectively be the lowest AC.

However there are lots of times when the group might not agree on where the damage roll should go. If it’s almost certain to be a killing attack there might not be consensus around who’s PC or favorite retainer is going to get taken out. More complex decisions like “Wizard’s Sleep spell interrupted VS favorite retainer dies” might also not reach an easy group consensus. For this and other reasons I think it’s better to keep specific targets for each attack roll, and then consider whether the group wants the damage roll moved to another character.

@rmckee78: Tunnels and Trolls is another one of those games I’ve heard about, but never had a chance to look at or play. It was Warhammer and Warhammer 40K that introduced me to the idea of the defender deciding which member of a damaged group gets removed from the game. It really made sense for me as to why you’d want to put your 40K characters in a unit rather than have them all fight as independent skirmishers.

I agree with you about the strategic importance of interrupting spellcasters (see my reply to Rob above). Ideally you would have a fighting group of warriors *in front* of the spell-caster, blocking the hallway. A single warrior might be in a 2-person fighting group with the Wizard to act as a bodyguard in case anyone got past the shield wall, or snuck up on the party from behind.

As the attackers, decisions about how many characters to send against the main enemy fighting group and how many to use to try and sneak around and flank them, or attack spellcasters and archers would become more important considerations as well.

In T&T if you want to interrupt a spell caster you just say to the GM that your PC wont add to your side’s total, but do a stunt instead. It then gets resolved wit the Saving Rolls general resolution mechanic.

It’s damn slick in play.

I think this is a good idea for melee when there is a large number of combatants on both sides. The only problem I see is that interrupting the spell caster is a big part of the strategy of combat (Is it possible to do this in S&W anyway? I know it is in OSRIC and AD&D, we always played with AD&D combat rules). Allowing for directed fire for spells and missile fire would help some.