This chart predates the concept of characters having levels or stats, so the only variables that determine the chance of killing a man is what weapon you've got and what armor the other dude is wearing. I really like this chart. You roll 2d6 and if you get high enough your foe is dead meat. Also, you have good reason to carry multiple weapons, even though they all do the same damage. Sometime I kick around the idea of using this chart with OD&D, at least when fighting man-like foes capable of wearing armor and wielding weapons.
Now let's look at a rather infamous chart from AD&D, the weapons vs. AC chart on page 38 of the first edition Players Handbook. Dig it:
As much as I like the original weapon versus armor mechanic in Chainmail, I'm pretty much convinced that this chart blows goats. And the reason why is that somewhere along the way the armor system was tweaked without anyone noting the implications for this chart. In a world where each AC corresponded to exactly one type of armor, this chart could be made to work. But AD&D isn't such a world. Most of those single digit numbers in bold at the top of the chart represent more than one kind of armor. AC 7 (or more correctly, Armor Type 7) is the stand-in for no less than four different kinds of armor: leather & shield, padded & shield, studded leather, and ring mail. Similarly, Armor Type 4 is chainmail & shield or splint mail or banded mail.
Maybe I can buy that leather and padded work the exact same way for purposes of weapon vs. AC. Ditto studded leather and ringmail. Most days I can't even remember the crazy differences between splint and banded, other than banded gets you three more inches of movement. Heck, I'm not even sure if either of those two armors ever actually existed. It's when shields get added to the mix that my sense of versimilitude goes out the window. I just can't see how, in terms of armor penetration, a suit of leather plus a shield always automatically equals a suit of ringmail. It just doesn't add up in my head.
And why the heck aren't wooden and metal shields treated differently? If I made a suit of platemail out of wood, would you expect it to block weapons the exact same way steel plate does?
I don't mind things not making sense in my games. In fact I tend to encourage it. However, if we're going to go to the trouble to get down-and-dirty with this level of combat detail, then I expect it to hold together logically. I'd much rather ditch weapon versus AC entirely or go with something more hardcore (like Arms Law's doom-laden charts). The PHB version dwells in a wishy-washy middle ground where it only makes half-ass sense to me. I guess cutting the number of armor types down would also be a way of making the PHB system work. Not too many players give a crap about anything other than leather and plate anyway.
And why the heck aren't wooden and metal shields treated differently?
ReplyDeleteMostly, I think because there's no such thing as a completely wooden shield. They would have a band of metal around the edge, which is where the vast preponderance of blows would hit.
Plus, the way I read p. 36 of the PH, you don't count the shield as part of the "base AC" for using the weapons vs. armor table.
"Armor types are given on the table below. Note that the inclusion of a shield raises armor class (AC) by a factor of 1 (5%)."
So yes, leather and padded armor are the same when it comes to how effective weapons are against them. Ditto splint and banded (the latter is, I think, the lorica segmentata used by the Romans, while the former is metal pieces sewn onto leather). You don't count the shield bonus when determining the weapon vs. armor bonus, any more than you use the DEX or magical bonuses.
This makes even more sense when you note that shields of different sizes can only be counted against a set number of attacks. That makes it nonsensical to think they would be included in the weapon bonus against some attacks, but not others.
Don't forget about Chain Mail, the compromise between mobility and defensiveness.
ReplyDeleteOf course if you're going for realism in a fantasy world, once you make a magic force shield, that should be able to stop all weapons.
Mostly, I think because there's no such thing as a completely wooden shield. They would have a band of metal around the edge, which is where the vast preponderance of blows would hit.
ReplyDeleteA lot of debate on this subject. It seems that metal rims were perhaps not very common, and that in fact raw hide would more conventionally be used. Completely metal shields were probably rarer than completely wooden ones.
Ditto splint and banded (the latter is, I think, the lorica segmentata used by the Romans, while the former is metal pieces sewn onto leather).
Not from what I can tell of Gygax's description in the DMG, but a lot of folks draw that conclusion.
This makes even more sense when you note that shields of different sizes can only be counted against a set number of attacks. That makes it nonsensical to think they would be included in the weapon bonus against some attacks, but not others.
Whilst I would like to agree with you, the counter argument to this is "why have an armour class 9 on the table, then? No AD&D body armour supplies AC9, only shields. So do you count shields when no armour is involved, but not when armour is worn?
Not too many players give a crap about anything other than leather and plate anyway.
The main thing to note about the tables is that they tend to give more bonuses to "likely" two handed weapons than one handed weapons. Two handed swords suck as a cweapon choice, except if you use the weapon versus armour table.
As much as I like the original weapon versus armor mechanic in Chainmail, I'm pretty much convinced that this chart blows goats.
ReplyDeleteI did an article interviewing several goats on this very topic in the mid-1980s, but Dragon rejected it on the grounds that it contained too much explicit detail.
So... how do you resolve hits in OD&D then?
ReplyDeletePersonally, in my (one) game, I just used the straight up "Alternative Combat Table" from LBB Vol1. Of course, that means that anyone who can afford a Plate and Shield requires a 17+ to hit for quite a while. I wasn't sure I was using it correctly.
Even aside from that, the table, though it does look stupidly complex and counterintuitive, does make some difference between weapon choices. From my understanding of weapons in OD&D, they are all identical. A cheap dagger does just as much damage, chance to hit, and everything else, as a greatsword... 1d6. I like that at least the weapons v armor table creates some kind of difference between weapons.
Though honestly, I wouldn't use it. I strive for simplicity in combat situations. I get less "uh... I think... I got a 15. No, 17. Wait, do I get flanking? Uh, 19. No, 16, because of that spell. Wait, yeah, 15 because of bane. Yeah, 15" sort of responses.
It's been a while since I've looked at the 2e PHB, but didn't that amend the chart to qualitative modifiers? In other words, I seem to remember the chart giving S/P/B modifiers versus, say, "banded" rather than a set AC number. If that's the case, I'd be inclined to use the 2e chart if I was going to go with Weapons vs. AC in a campaign.
ReplyDelete"Most of those single digit numbers in bold at the top of the chart represent more than one kind of armor. AC 7 (or more correctly, Armor Type 7) is the stand-in for no less than four different kinds of armor: leather & shield, padded & shield, studded leather, and ring mail"
ReplyDeleteIt's a long time since I owned a copy of the 1e PHB. However, I thought that the AC nos. in 1e PHB chart were supposed to be the base armour class of the armour type (ie before modifying for shields or dex or magic)?
If that's the case, I'd be inclined to use the 2e chart if I was going to go with Weapons vs. AC in a campaign.
ReplyDeleteI would not recommend it. The S/P/B system is pretty borked in terms of historical authenticity and game balance. The important benefit that two handed weapons got from the first edition weapon and armour charts was lost for second edition.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteHave you seen this: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14037.phtml
It's a retro-style D&D clone that uses a modified version of the Chainmail combat system (as recommended by the original little white books), instead of D20.
Yeah, I plan to get that in my next Lulu order.
ReplyDeleteThe armor chart I designed for my use goes from 0 to 10, with one point in between types to allow for bonuses. The bonus can be a shield, a magical enchantment, or 2 pieces of the next better armor (like a metal helmet and breastplate over leather) Thus, the best armor (10), is enchanted plate and an enchanted shield.
ReplyDeleteI think the bottom line is that most gamers felt the chart was clunky and decided not to use it. I have played a lot of AD&D, and I never met anyone that used it. Everyone makes great points, but at the end of the day, it bogs down play, and does not add to the experience.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I clearly see how it was used in Chain Mail, but the mechanics of AD&D are such that it comes across as different and not value added for game play.
Big thumbs down on the weapon vs AC thing.