Weapon Type versus Armour Type

[phantasm72]

Matthew, whats the 'negate # armour' referring to in the chart? That the target effectively is unarmoured when being attacked by such a weapon?

[Matthew-]

Matthew, what is the 'negate # armour' referring to in the chart? That the target effectively is unarmoured when being attacked by such a weapon?

That is me hamfistedly trying to explain what the numbers mean; firearms negate 9 points of armour at short range, so if you look along the chart where that note appears you can see that AC 1-9 are all effectively treated as AC 10. At medium and long range I have factored in the range penalties with the decreased armour penetration, so five points of armour negation versus AC 1 at medium range is effectively 3 points of armour negation, or +3 to hit.

[Hawk]

One of the interesting things that Player's Option: Combat & Tactics introduced to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons was the concept of weapon type versus armour type. The Original Dungeons & Dragons Greyhawk Supplement and first edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook contained weapon type versus armour class tables nominally derived from Chain Mail, as I have discussed in the past here, and second edition contained the woeful damage type versus armour type tables referred to above, but Combat & Tactics finally got the idea right (if not exactly the execution) and it is interesting to see how it compares with the first edition weapon type versus armour class tables. So, I thought it would be worth directly comparing them here. I have treated "plate" as including banded and splinted mail, and "mail" as inclusive of scale armour. Not sure what the right way to do it really is, but it makes little difference:

Great post Mathew. I agree, after having a look at the system presented in Player's Options: Combat and Tactics, I have to say that it seems to be moving in the right direction. With regards to whether banded and splinted are 'mail' or 'plate' the armor descriptions which follow on the following pages clearly label them as in the 'mail' group. Ring mail is also classified in the 'leather' group and 'scale' is in the 'mail' group.

Halberd: An interesting return to form, having been rated as especially effective against medium and heavy armour types, but in both OD&D:GH and first edition AD&D rated as most effective against medium armour. A welcome change.

Bardiche: Previously rated good against light armour and poor against heavy armour, one does wonder why the two-handed axe did not get the same treatment, or for that matter the two-handed scimitar, as the pole-axes.

Yes I wonder about this too, and it may have just been an oversight.
Or it may have been not given a bonus so that the bastard sword would be a viable option for reasons other than it's lower speed factor over the 2-H axe. As a side note 2e does present two different sets of stats for 2-H axes, as the Arms and Equipment Guide says Great axes function with the same stats as Bardiches.

Staff: Although the penalties against heavy armour are nowhere near as harsh as in first edition, this is a welcome change; possibly should also be −1 versus medium armour types.

I don't mind the toning down of these penalties either, but the one thing they could have done was have more penalties for other types of weapons too.

Overall, the system presented in The Player's Options: Combat and Tactics book is certainly better than the standard 1e and 2e ones IMO, and is very easy to remember as we don't really have to look up specific numbers, just remember a few odd bonuses for certain weapons versus armor groups. I will consider adopting this into my campaign.

[Matthew-]

Great post Matthew. I agree, after having a look at the system presented in Player's Options: Combat and Tactics, I have to say that it seems to be moving in the right direction. With regards to whether banded and splinted are 'mail' or 'plate' the armour descriptions which follow on the following pages clearly label them as in the 'mail' group. Ring mail is also classified in the 'leather' group and 'scale' is in the 'mail' group.

Well spotted! I had forgotten there was an armour description section after the weapon descriptions, probably because the armour table comes before the weapon table. That is pretty much exactly what I would have expected (and possibly is why I would have expected it, as well). What also threw me off was that the chakram was listed as being less effective versus "scale", which does not appear as a designation in the armour description section. So, the table can be revised to read:

Weapon Type	AC 1	AC 2	AC 3	AC 4	AC 5	AC 6	AC 7	AC 8	AC 9	AC 10	Explanatory Notes
Cestus	−2	−2	−2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	−2 versus plate
Chakram	−2	−2	−2	−2	−2	−2	+0	+0	+0	+0	−2 versus plate, mail, and scale
Horseman's Flail	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1	+0	+1 versus shields
Horseman's Hammer	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1 versus plate
Horseman's Mace	+0	+0	+0	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1 versus mail
Horseman's Pick	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1 versus plate
Footman's Flail	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1 versus plate
Footman's Mace	+0	+0	+0	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+2 versus mail
Footman's Pick	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+2 versus plate
Morning Star	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1 versus plate
Maul	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1 versus plate and mail
Lucern Hammer	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+2 versus plate
Bec-de-Corbin	+3	+3	+3	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+3 versus plate
Claymore	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+2 versus plate, mail and leather
Bastard Sword	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1 versus plate and mail
Bardiche	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+2 versus plate and mail
Voulge	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+2 versus plate and mail
Halberd	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+2 versus plate and mail
Two-Handed Sword	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+2 versus plate and mail
Staff	−2	−2	−2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	−2 versus plate
Estoc	+1	+1	+1	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1 versus plate, +2 versus mail
Stiletto	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	+2 versus armour
Bow	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	Negates 2 armour at short range with pile arrows
Crossbow	+5	+5	+5	+5	+5	+4	+3	+2	+0	+0	Negates 5 armour at short range
Crossbow	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	−2	−2	Negates 2 armour at medium range
Firearm	+9	+8	+7	+6	+5	+4	+3	+2	+1	+0	Negates 9 armour at short range
Firearm	+3	+3	+3	+3	+3	+2	+1	+0	−2	−2	Negates 5 armour at medium range
Firearm	−3	−3	−3	−3	−3	−3	−3	−3	−4	−5	Negates 2 armour at long range

Yes I wonder about this too, and it may have just been an oversight. Or it may have been not given a bonus so that the bastard sword would be a viable option for reasons other than it's lower speed factor over the 2-H axe. As a side note 2e does present two different sets of statistics for 2-H axes, as the Arms and Equipment Guide says Great axes function with the same statistics as Bardiches.

Could well be. The two-handed axe was pulled from the Complete Book of Dwarves by the looks of things, where it was introduced as a "medium" weapon, meaning that the intent was likely to give "small" dwarves access to a 1d10 damage weapon, so it may have been a late addition. The "halberd" Gygax seems to have regarded as synonymous with the pole-axe for the purposes of AD&D, and I think his lead was largely followed on that issue by later authors, so it is interesting to see the bardiche singled out as equivalent to the two-handed axe as discrete from that. I am not sure where the two-handed scimitar originates from, possibly newly introduced. The bastard sword specifically retains its bonuses against armour regardless of whether wielded on-handed or two-handed, possibly to have it compete with the C&T version of the katana.

I don't mind the toning down of these penalties either, but the one thing they could have done was have more penalties for other types of weapons too.

I agree.

Overall, the system presented in The Player's Options: Combat and Tactics book is certainly better than the standard 1e and 2e ones IMO, and is very easy to remember as we don't really have to look up specific numbers, just remember a few odd bonuses for certain weapons versus armor groups. I will consider adopting this into my campaign.

Yes, indeed. I could see myself using this.

[McDeath]

I like how you put the tables in the forum; esp the header label. If the format isn't in the questions section on tables in the suppor forums under "Any way to insert tables? then you should quickly put up the how to. Probably a lot easier now with the phb3 or w/e it is called as I see all these tabs up above.

[WaterBob]

Weapon Type	AC 1	AC 2	AC 3	AC 4	AC 5	AC 6	AC 7	AC 8	AC 9	AC 10	Explanatory Notes
Cestus	−2	−2	−2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	−2 versus plate
Chakram	−2	−2	−2	−2	−2	−2	+0	+0	+0	+0	−2 versus plate, mail, and scale
Horseman's Flail	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1	+0	+1 versus shields
Horseman's Hammer	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1 versus plate
Horseman's Mace	+0	+0	+0	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1 versus mail
Horseman's Pick	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1 versus plate
Footman's Flail	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1 versus plate
Footman's Mace	+0	+0	+0	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+2 versus mail
Footman's Pick	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+2 versus plate
Morning Star	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1 versus plate
Maul	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1 versus plate and mail
Lucern Hammer	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+2 versus plate
Bec-de-Corbin	+3	+3	+3	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+3 versus plate
Claymore	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+2 versus plate, mail and leather
Bastard Sword	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1 versus plate and mail
Bardiche	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+2 versus plate and mail
Voulge	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+2 versus plate and mail
Halberd	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+2 versus plate and mail
Two-Handed Sword	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+2 versus plate and mail
Staff	−2	−2	−2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	−2 versus plate
Estoc	+1	+1	+1	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1 versus plate, +2 versus mail
Stiletto	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	+2 versus armour
Bow	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+2	+0	+0	Negates 2 armour at short range with pile arrows
Crossbow	+5	+5	+5	+5	+5	+4	+3	+2	+0	+0	Negates 5 armour at short range
Crossbow	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	+0	−2	−2	Negates 2 armour at medium range
Firearm	+9	+8	+7	+6	+5	+4	+3	+2	+1	+0	Negates 9 armour at short range
Firearm	+3	+3	+3	+3	+3	+2	+1	+0	−2	−2	Negates 5 armour at medium range
Firearm	−3	−3	−3	−3	−3	−3	−3	−3	−4	−5	Negates 2 armour at long range

Are the modifiers from the C&T book doing the job they're supposed to do? That is, make weapons unique--give a player a reason to pick one over the other, all other factors being close?

I'm not so sure. This looks like it gives weapons the same basic thing, +1 or +2 vs. plate or mail, over and over again.

On quick inspection, the system in the 2E PHB looks better than this (of course, nothing is a good, or as hard to implement, than the 1E system).

Unless...these modifiers were meant to be used with the PHB chart. If so, then we get a little more variance.

[Matthew-]

I like how you put the tables in the forum; esp the header label. If the format isn't in the questions section on tables in the support forums under "Any way to insert tables? then you should quickly put up the how to. Probably a lot easier now with the phb3 or w/e it is called as I see all these tabs up above.

I think that was where I read how to do it; you use "{theader}" and "{/theader}" for the headers.

[Hawk]

Are the modifiers from the C&T book doing the job they're supposed to do? That is, make weapons unique--give a player a reason to pick one over the other, all other factors being close?

I wrote up a quick table myself so that I could look at all the weapons at once and in most cases - not all of course! - if we take into consideration special qualities of weapons like dismounting, size category (S,M,L), disarming, AC modifiers, double damage vs charge, speed factor and weapon length there is usually some kind of reason that can be found to consider using almost all of the weapons. Some of these secondary reasons don't overcome the important ones like damage for some players but at least this table goes in the write direction with regards to enhancing tactical choice: give 2-H weapons an advantage in general, and make bludgeoning weapons more effective against heavier armor types.

Could well be. The two-handed axe was pulled from the Complete Book of Dwarves by the looks of things, where it was introduced as a "medium" weapon, meaning that the intent was likely to give "small" dwarves access to a 1d10 damage weapon, so it may have been a late addition. The "halberd" Gygax seems to have regarded as synonymous with the pole-axe for the purposes of AD&D, and I think his lead was largely followed on that issue by later authors, so it is interesting to see the bardiche singled out as equivalent to the two-handed axe as discrete from that. I am not sure where the two-handed scimitar originates from, possibly newly introduced. The bastard sword specifically retains its bonuses against armour regardless of whether wielded on-handed or two-handed, possibly to have it compete with the C&T version of the katana.

As an axe liker myself I'm quite happy with having a super meaty axe in the game! I suppose by not having the two handed axe have any to hit AC bonuses it keeps the bastard sword in as more of an alternative. Aside from what they did with horseman's flail, I don't really like that they kept the bonuses for the bastard sword wielded one handed. In this situation, we're faced with quite an unexpected and interesting question: aside from WS, for a non-elf, is there any reason to ever choose a longsword over a bastard sword?

Yes, indeed. I could see myself using this.

I do indeed see this system moving in the right direction, but I have to admit that to get it just right, we'll probably have to look outside of the books. My personal preferences would be to give the flails, maces and hammers similar bonus structures (as you said, it's hard to think of why they would perform differently), do something with the axes (not sure what!) and to give all the one handed swords a -1 penalty vs plate armor types.

Also, as you brought up in the thread in the 1e section, +2/+3 bonuses bring up some problems. For example banded mail would be better armor to wear against a footman's pick than plate mail. I don't think you should ever have a penalty for having better armor on, and the worst that should happen is that your superior armor type is only as effective against certain weapons as the next type down on the scale. To make it work like this, we could make the first + given in any armor type category as always just a +1.

So a footman's mace would read like this:

AC4: +2..AC5: +2..AC6: +1

This results in scale being as good against maces as chain, but not ring mail being better than scale male against maces.

[Nagora]

Matthew, what is the 'negate # armour' referring to in the chart? That the target effectively is unarmoured when being attacked by such a weapon?

That is me hamfistedly trying to explain what the numbers mean; firearms negate 9 points of armour at short range, so if you look along the chart where that note appears you can see that AC 1-9 are all effectively treated as AC 10. At medium and long range I have factored in the range penalties with the decreased armour penetration, so five points of armour negation versus AC 1 at medium range is effectively 3 points of armour negation, or +3 to hit.

I don't think the firearms mods should be applied as flatly as that. For example, I don't think a unarmoured person should be nearly as disadvantaged against them as a heavily armoured person. After all, the unarmoured person's defense consists mainly in not being hit, whereas the platemail guy's consists mainly in the armour not being penetrated. It seems to me that the gun should have more of a bonus of the latter than the former.

[Matthew-]

As an axe liker myself I'm quite happy with having a super meaty axe in the game! I suppose by not having the two handed axe have any to hit AC bonuses it keeps the bastard sword in as more of an alternative. Aside from what they did with horseman's flail, I don't really like that they kept the bonuses for the bastard sword wielded one handed. In this situation, we're faced with quite an unexpected and interesting question: aside from weapon specialisation, for a non-elf, is there any reason to ever choose a longsword over a bastard sword?

Quite so, bastard swords are quite a serious problem in AD&D in that they are long swords, but better. The reduced speed factor is probably not enough to sway the odds, though I suppose an argument might be made for magical weapons, in that bastard swords are far less likely to appear on the random tables. On the whole, I agree that a bastard sword should not retain its bonuses to hit when used in one hand, and I was surprised to find a specific note to the contrary. The problem I have with the two-handed axe is that I see no reason to use it over the halberd or other "more advanced" forms of the two-handed axe.

I do indeed see this system moving in the right direction, but I have to admit that to get it just right, we'll probably have to look outside of the books. My personal preferences would be to give the flails, maces and hammers similar bonus structures (as you said, it's hard to think of why they would perform differently), do something with the axes (not sure what!) and to give all the one handed swords a −1 penalty versus plate armour types.

Yes, indeed. A fairly simple thing to do would be to follow the general spread of numbers in first edition:

Weapon Type	AC 1	AC 2	AC 3	AC 4	AC 5	AC 6	AC 7	AC 8	AC 9	AC 10	Explanatory Notes
Sword/Axe	−1	−1	−1	+0	+0	+0	+1	+1	+1	+1	−1 versus plate, +1 versus leather
Mace/Hammer	+0	+0	+0	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1 versus mail
Pick	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+0	−1	−1	−1	−1	+1 versus plate, −1 versus leather
Two-Handed	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1 versus all

...so a two-handed pick would be a combination of "pick" and "two-handed"; two-handed swords and axes would lose a lot of their charm as heavy armour busting weapons, but they do the most damage on the whole.

Also, as you brought up in the thread in the 1e section, +2/+3 bonuses bring up some problems. For example banded mail would be better armour to wear against a footman's pick than plate mail. I don't think you should ever have a penalty for having better armour on, and the worst that should happen is that your superior armour type is only as effective against certain weapons as the next type down on the scale. To make it work like this, we could make the first + given in any armour type category as always just a +1.

So a footman's mace would read like this:

AC4: +2..AC5: +2..AC6: +1

This results in scale being as good against maces as chain, but not ring mail being better than scale male against maces.

Needless to say, I agree.

I don't think the firearms mods should be applied as flatly as that. For example, I don't think a unarmoured person should be nearly as disadvantaged against them as a heavily armoured person. After all, the unarmoured person's defence consists mainly in not being hit, whereas the plate mail guy's consists mainly in the armour not being penetrated. It seems to me that the gun should have more of a bonus of the latter than the former.

Are you envisioning the unarmoured character "dodging" the bullet?

I am not so sure about the wholesale negation of armour. I do take your point, though, that there is room for manoeuvre on this issue. I guess the question is really, if armour is no defence should it also be an encumbrance? Given that the first edition DMG takes the stance that the difficulty of defending oneself in armour is already subsumed in the armour class rating, then plate armour actually has a higher degree of natural protection than it seems, so if it is completely negated then the character would be easier to hit than somebody not so encumbered. Of course, that somewhat ignores magical armour (or maybe reduced weight is part of the reason there is a bonus), so perhaps if the "true" value of armour could be ascertained something like that could be done with regard to lighter armour types or unarmoured characters.

[WaterBob]

So...are the C&T modifiers supposed to be used in conjunction with the PHB Armor Type vs. Weapon Type table?

[Nagora]

I don't think the firearms mods should be applied as flatly as that. For example, I don't think a unarmoured person should be nearly as disadvantaged against them as a heavily armoured person. After all, the unarmoured person's defence consists mainly in not being hit, whereas the plate mail guy's consists mainly in the armour not being penetrated. It seems to me that the gun should have more of a bonus of the latter than the former.

Are you envisioning the unarmoured character "dodging" the bullet?

No, just the aim. That's really what I'm getting at: the unarmoured target is able to dodge and jink about and that component of his defense is not overcome by the pentration ability of the gun. At short range, they should be no worse off (in terms of "to hit") against a gun than a crossbow, as far as I can see.

The same guy in armour has two components to his defense: dodging and prevention of penetration. Only the latter is significantly affected by the gun's power. Here's what I mean (based on 1e).

Weapon Type	AC 1	AC 2	AC 3	AC 4	AC 5	AC 6	AC 7	AC 8	AC 9	AC 10	Explanatory Notes
Gonne, short	+9	+9	+9	+8	+7	+6	+5	+4	+3	+3	Negates most armour
Gonne, med	+5	+5	+5	+5	+5	+5	+5	+4	+3	+3	Negates med armour
Gonne, long	+3	+3	+3	+3	+3	+3	+3	+3	+3	+3	Negates light armour

[Hawk]

Quite so, bastard swords are quite a serious problem in AD&D in that they are long swords, but better. The reduced speed factor is probably not enough to sway the odds, though I suppose an argument might be made for magical weapons, in that bastard swords are far less likely to appear on the random tables. On the whole, I agree that a bastard sword should not retain its bonuses to hit when used in one hand, and I was surprised to find a specific note to the contrary. The problem I have with the two-handed axe is that I see no reason to use it over the halberd or other "more advanced" forms of the two-handed axe.

I too find it hard to situate the axes in the scheme of things. I'm no expert on the effectiveness of medieval weapons against armor types, but I suppose the axes that I'm thinking of are more like the viking/early/mid medieval era types and so not really designed with plate armor in mind like the latter developments such as halberds.
Grayhawkgives axes a bonus against chain, but considering the thrusting ability of swords I'd be hard pressed to give them an advantage in that area. I don't really know much about how battle axes developed or whether they were still widely used in later medieval times when the poleaxes started to develop so I'm not sure about the armor penetration abilities of axes in that era. Maybe the best thing is indeed to leave them bonus/penalty free and leave the option of taking a two handed axe open not on it's armor penetration abilities but on it's extensive damage potential of 1d10/2d8.

The bastard sword is still a tricky one and I'm tempted to give it no penalties but +1 vs mail types if used two handed, otherwise the same as a longsword.

Yes, indeed. A fairly simple thing to do would be to follow the general spread of numbers in first edition:

Weapon Type	AC 1	AC 2	AC 3	AC 4	AC 5	AC 6	AC 7	AC 8	AC 9	AC 10	Explanatory Notes
Sword/Axe	−1	−1	−1	+0	+0	+0	+1	+1	+1	+1	−1 versus plate, +1 versus leather
Mace/Hammer	+0	+0	+0	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+0	+0	+1 versus mail
Pick	+1	+1	+1	+0	+0	+0	−1	−1	−1	−1	+1 versus plate, −1 versus leather
Two-Handed	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1 versus all

...so a two-handed pick would be a combination of "pick" and "two-handed"; two-handed swords and axes would lose a lot of their charm as heavy armour busting weapons, but they do the most damage on the whole.

So is the two handed category here for any weapon class wielded two handed? You just, mmm...superimpose it over the relevant 1 handed category to find the final number? If so these results are pretty good and having no penalty against plate for 0-1st level types is probably a huge thing. I do however have a tendency to want to avoid bonuses or penalties in the light/no armor sphere.

By adding a +1 to for two handed use, it seems to work well with the idea brought up in Dragon Magazine (can't remember which one) and in Player's Options: Combat and Tactics of giving one handed weapons +1 damage if wielded two handed. As a side note, I use this idea IMC but to ensure that the bastard sword doesn't do less damage than a longsword or battle axe wielded two handed, I took the damage rating for a bastard sword given in Rules Cyclopedia of 1d8+1.

I like your figures but where I'm lying at the moment, I'd go with something like the following:

Hammer/flail/mace: +1 vs plate, no penalties
Pick: +1 vs plate, +1 vs mail
Axes: no bonuses/penalties
poleaxes: +1 vs plate, +1 vs mail
1-H swords: -1 vs plate
Bastard sword: +1 vs mail, no penalties
2-H sword: +1 vs plate, +1 vs mail

I'm sure that we all have different sensibilities as to what would be 'right' and I can even feel myself changing my mind the more I look at it. The pick comes out very well here against armors and maybe it is better to give it a penalty to counteract this. I like the simplicity of keeping the bonuses at +1 so as to avoid complication and the 'worse armor' is 'better' effect.

Anyway I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread and the other thread revived in the 1e section. Hopefully something usable and which feels right to our sensibilities will eventuate.

[Matthew-]

So...are the C&T modifiers supposed to be used in conjunction with the PHB Armour Type versus Weapon Type table?

The second edition damage type versus armour type tables? I do not think there is any particular supposition either way; they are both optional rules, use or combine them at your pleasure and peril.

No, just the aim. That's really what I'm getting at: the unarmoured target is able to dodge and jink about and that component of his defence is not overcome by the penetration ability of the gun. At short range, they should be no worse off (in terms of "to hit") against a gun than a crossbow, as far as I can see.

The same guy in armour has two components to his defence: dodging and prevention of penetration. Only the latter is significantly affected by the gun's power. Here's what I mean (based on 1e).

Weapon Type	AC 1	AC 2	AC 3	AC 4	AC 5	AC 6	AC 7	AC 8	AC 9	AC 10	Explanatory Notes
Gonne, short	+9	+9	+9	+8	+7	+6	+5	+4	+3	+3	Negates most armour
Gonne, med	+5	+5	+5	+5	+5	+5	+5	+4	+3	+3	Negates med armour
Gonne, long	+3	+3	+3	+3	+3	+3	+3	+3	+3	+3	Negates light armour

That seems reasonable to me; I am not totally convinced that the efficacy of early gunpowder weapons versus plate armour is best represented by total negation at short range, but I do think your table is better than the one we end up with in second edition. As I say, though, the second edition gunpowder rules really are overkill with exploding damage dice in addition to armour penetration.

I too find it hard to situate the axes in the scheme of things. I'm no expert on the effectiveness of medieval weapons against armour types, but I suppose the axes that I'm thinking of are more like the Viking/early/mid medieval era types and so not really designed with plate armour in mind like the latter developments such as halberds.

Greyhawk gives axes a bonus against chain, but considering the thrusting ability of swords I'd be hard pressed to give them an advantage in that area. I don't really know much about how battle axes developed or whether they were still widely used in later medieval times when the pole-axes started to develop so I'm not sure about the armour penetration abilities of axes in that era. Maybe the best thing is indeed to leave them bonus/penalty free and leave the option of taking a two handed axe open not on it's armour penetration abilities but on it's extensive damage potential of 1d10/2d8.

The Danish two-handed axe is often regarded as the precursor of the pole-axe, the major differences being that pole-axes usually have a rear fluke or hammer head, and a top-spike, which increases the versatility of the weapon. Whether that really needs to be represented at the abstract level AD&D assumes is another question. Gygax fluctuated between making the halberd/pole-axe best against medium or best against heavy armour, and I think when you look at the base-line probabilities of Chain Mail you end up with a relatively flat progression, which is also what we get in the second edition charts [i.e. AC 5 mail and AC 3 plate are equal for the halberd, the unfortunate side effect being that AC 4 banded armour ends up being better than AC 3 plate]. A progression of +0/+1/+2 makes each successive armour class equal to the first [e.g. AC 5 = AC 5, AC 4 = AC 5, AC 3 = AC 2].

The bastard sword is still a tricky one and I'm tempted to give it no penalties but +1 versus mail types if used two handed, otherwise the same as a longsword.

Indeed; in reality few swords, if any, were really equally suited to both one-handed and two-handed use, and the bastard sword basically remains "a bit of a cheat", but another possibility is to limit its one-handed use by strength and size (it being already limited by class).

So is the two handed category here for any weapon class wielded two handed? You just, mmm...superimpose it over the relevant 1 handed category to find the final number? If so these results are pretty good and having no penalty against plate for 0-1st level types is probably a huge thing. I do however have a tendency to want to avoid bonuses or penalties in the light/no armour sphere.

Yes, indeed. That is pretty much my default house rule for two-handed weapons, the +1 bonus to hit, offsetting the effective −1 penalty to hit imposed by a shield used in combination with a one-handed weapon. I typically only apply this modifier to "true" two-handed weapons, though. For 0-level types it makes for quite an interesting choice, weighing the larger damage die against the higher probability of being hit.

By adding a +1 to for two handed use, it seems to work well with the idea brought up in Dragon Magazine (can't remember which one) and in Player's Options: Combat and Tactics of giving one handed weapons +1 damage if wielded two handed. As a side note, I use this idea in my campaign but to ensure that the bastard sword doesn't do less damage than a longsword or battle axe wielded two handed, I took the damage rating for a bastard sword given in Rules Cyclopedia of 1d8+1.

Right, that was a problem with two-handed fighting style specialisation, whereby one-handed weapons used two handed got +1 damage and two-handed weapons got nothing; I usually use the next larger damage die myself, so a long sword used two-handed does 1d10, and a two-handed sword 1d12. I guess it would be reasonable for a bastard sword to do 1d10 and have a +1 bonus to hit.

I like your figures but where I'm lying at the moment, I'd go with something like the following:

Weapon Type	Plate	Mail
Hammer/Flail/Mace	+1	+0
Pick	+1	+1
Axe	+0	+0
Pole-Axe	+1	+1
One-Handed Sword	−1	+0
Bastard Sword	+0	+1
Two-Handed Sword	+1	+1

I'm sure that we all have different sensibilities as to what would be 'right' and I can even feel myself changing my mind the more I look at it. The pick comes out very well here against armours and maybe it is better to give it a penalty to counteract this. I like the simplicity of keeping the bonuses at +1 so as to avoid complication and the 'worse armour' is 'better' effect.

Yeah; one way to counteract that is to make the pick +1 versus plate and hammers/maces/flails +1 versus mail, which could be argued for from a historical perspective, and would probably work out quite well from a game perspective.

Anyway I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread and the other thread revived in the 1e section. Hopefully something usable and which feels right to our sensibilities will eventuate.

Always a pleasure, and thought provoking as well. I like the idea of not having the modifiers stack; not sure if the two-handed sword should be +0/+1 or +1/+1 as you have it, but definitely worth thinking about.

[Hawk]

Yeah; one way to counteract that is to make the pick +1 versus plate and hammers/maces/flails +1 versus mail, which could be argued for from a historical perspective, and would probably work out quite well from a game perspective.

Anyway I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread and the other thread revived in the 1e section. Hopefully something usable and which feels right to our sensibilities will eventuate.

Always a pleasure, and thought provoking as well. I like the idea of not having the modifiers stack; not sure if the two-handed sword should be +0/+1 or +1/+1 as you have it, but definitely worth thinking about.

Thanks for making my stats into a table! I haven't figured out the hows of that very well yet.

Looking at those stats from Player's Options again I have to say that I do like their general spread of numbers and each time I think of a different set of numbers it doesn't quite feel right either. There are some attractive points for me in having bonuses extend beyond +1 in order to really differentiate between the different potentials of weapons. I might be cursed to never get something that feels just right for this. Basically, for me to use weapon vs AC type, I would need something which does the following:

1) Is simple to remember and use and doesn't require consulting a chart.
2) Is close to what I feel is historically accurate.
3) Gives two handed weapons an edge, but not game imbalancing.
4) Gives blunt/crushing weapons an edge against heavy armor types.
5) Gives characters a reason to choose a weapon other than it's damage potential.
6) Doesn't result in a worse armor type being better than a better type.

Now point 6 is the tricky one to combine with point 1. Now, one way we could handle no. 6 is to ensure that the crossover ACs of either AC4 and AC7 or AC3 and AC6 (depending on which way you want to go) always have a +1 bonus. So if you want to give a pick +2 vs plate, it would be:

AC1: +2...AC2: +2...AC3: +1

So all you would have to remember in this is that the first AC type of a main type (AC3, AC6) only ever gets a +1. Or you could go with the other option of not exactly following 'armor types' per say, but instead give the highest AC in the next lowest AC type a +1 which would be:

AC1: +2...AC2: +2...AC3: +2...AC4: +1

This wouldn't be too difficult to remember either. i.e. a +2 vs plate also equals a +1 vs banded (AC4), a +2 vs mail also equals a +1 vs studded/ring (AC7).

Now, as you've considered giving the mace and hammer +1 vs mail and the pick +1 vs plate, this still makes the mace an effective weapon against plate armors compared to a sword because it isn't getting any penalty. Following this line of thinking, what we in fact could do is to base the whole weapon types vs AC system on penalties and not on bonuses. This would certainly solve any problems with worse armors being better than better armors and would keep in check bonus inflation. One handed swords/axes could get penalties against plate and or mail, blunt weapons against leather/none and two handed weapons no penalties.

Just some ideas.

[JoseFreitas]

Hawk:

What you're looking into in point 1) can be addressed by using armor types and not armor classes. Use Leather, Mail and Plate, and simply assign AD&D armor types to one of thse categories. Then you should have a category of None for AC10. And Shields should be disregarded.

Re. Axes: I feel they should be equally good against Mail and Plate types. if you look medieval drawings of battle scenes during the age of Plate Mail (ie. 1350 to 1450) you'll see SO MANY axes that it's probable they were very good against both.

For example, look at this image of a famous battle in Portugal (battle ocurred in the 1380's, miniature is from c. 1400):



You'll see a mace (used two handed), a couple of swords of the Arming sword type, one of them used two handed, and LOTS of axes. They do fall into a sort of middle ground between a two handed axe and a pole axe. Note one chap having his helmet cleaved by an axe blow.

[Hawk]

Hawk:

What you're looking into in point 1) can be addressed by using armor types and not armor classes. Use Leather, Mail and Plate, and simply assign AD&D armor types to one of thse categories. Then you should have a category of None for AC10. And Shields should be disregarded.

Re. Axes: I feel they should be equally good against Mail and Plate types. if you look medieval drawings of battle scenes during the age of Plate Mail (ie. 1350 to 1450) you'll see SO MANY axes that it's probable they were very good against both.

For example, look at this image of a famous battle in Portugal (battle ocurred in the 1380's, miniature is from c. 1400):



You'll see a mace (used two handed), a couple of swords of the Arming sword type, one of them used two handed, and LOTS of axes. They do fall into a sort of middle ground between a two handed axe and a pole axe. Note one chap having his helmet cleaved by an axe blow.

Cheers, sorry but no link came up for the image.

Don't get me wrong, I have indeed been approaching the whole topic in terms of 'armor types' and not armor classes and I'm certainly not factoring in the shield as 1e does in this debate.

The point I'm interested in is working potential +2 bonuses into a scheme using armor types which doesn't result in a better armor type being worse than a worse type. I put up two possible ways to deal with this:

1) The worst AC in any armor type (e.g. AC3 in the plate range) only ever gets a +1 bonus against it.

2) Or, you have a slight 'overlap' between the armor type with the target bonus and the next lower armor type. That is to say the highest AC in the next lower armor type (e.g. AC4 in the mail range vs plate) gets a +1 to hit.

The other obvious way would be to make sure the next lower armor type range all had a +1 bonus if the higher armor type range got a +2.

Or, I was considering how a system of only penalties would work and this might be a better way to go, but I'm not sure.

I generally agree with you about axes and my general position so far has been to give no penalties for the one handed types vs any armor type and bonuses for the poleaxes. This doesn't make battle axes fantastic against plate but not too poor either, and if you give swords a penalty it certainly gives axes a much deserved edge IMO in this area. Otherwise there is no reason to choose a battle axe over a longsword.

[Matthew-]

Thanks for making my stats into a table! I haven't figured out the hows of that very well yet.

No problem; it has taken me quite a while to figure out how to do it, but the result is quite pleasing on the eye.

Looking at those stats from Player's Options again I have to say that I do like their general spread of numbers and each time I think of a different set of numbers it doesn't quite feel right either. There are some attractive points for me in having bonuses extend beyond +1 in order to really differentiate between the different potentials of weapons. I might be cursed to never get something that feels just right for this. Basically, for me to use weapon versus armour type, I would need something which does the following:

1) Is simple to remember and use and doesn't require consulting a chart.
2) Is close to what I feel is historically accurate.
3) Gives two handed weapons an edge, but not game unbalancing.
4) Gives blunt/crushing weapons an edge against heavy armour types.
5) Gives characters a reason to choose a weapon other than it's damage potential.
6) Does not result in a worse armour type being better than a better type.

Now point 6 is the tricky one to combine with point 1. Now, one way we could handle no. 6 is to ensure that the crossover ACs of either AC4 and AC7 or AC3 and AC6 (depending on which way you want to go) always have a +1 bonus. So if you want to give a pick +2 versus plate, it would be:

AC1: +2...AC2: +2...AC3: +1

So all you would have to remember in this is that the first AC type of a main type (AC3, AC6) only ever gets a +1. Or you could go with the other option of not exactly following 'armour types' per say, but instead give the highest AC in the next lowest AC type a +1 which would be:

AC1: +2...AC2: +2...AC3: +2...AC4: +1

This wouldn't be too difficult to remember either. i.e. a +2 versus plate also equals a +1 versus banded (AC4), a +2 versus mail also equals a +1 versus studded/ring (AC7).

Yes, following you here, and I see the problem you allude to with +2 bonuses and mnemonic simplicity.

Now, as you've considered giving the mace and hammer +1 versus mail and the pick +1 versus plate, this still makes the mace an effective weapon against plate armours compared to a sword because it isn't getting any penalty. Following this line of thinking, what we in fact could do is to base the whole weapon types versus AC system on penalties and not on bonuses. This would certainly solve any problems with worse armours being better than better armours and would keep in check bonus inflation. One handed swords/axes could get penalties against plate and or mail, blunt weapons against leather/none and two handed weapons no penalties.

Just some ideas.

I would imagine that making lighter armours better than heavier armours is equally undesirable, but you are spot on with regard to maces still being better than swords under the above system. Nonetheless, much like you, often something does not feel quite right to me with these systems; perhaps fated to endlessly tinker!

Re. Axes: I feel they should be equally good against mail and plate types. if you look medieval drawings of battle scenes during the age of plate mail (i.e. 1350 to 1450) you'll see SO MANY axes that it's probable they were very good against both.

For example, look at this image of a famous battle in Portugal (battle occurred in the 1380's, miniature is from c. 1400):



You'll see a mace (used two handed), a couple of swords of the arming sword type, one of them used two handed, and LOTS of axes. They do fall into a sort of middle ground between a two-handed axe and a pole-axe. Note one chap having his helmet cleaved by an axe blow.

I love seeing two-handed maces, always a thrill to spot them for some reason! Despite the developments in armour, neither swords nor axes ever seem to go out of fashion, and we often see them shown cleaving through armour. One of the reasons I fluctuate between wanting and not wanting a weapon type versus armour type system is that every weapon has its own advantages and disadvantages, which are possibly better left represented as relatively equal in the abstraction of combat. The again, the visceral feeling of knowing a weapon choice penetrates heavy armour is very attractive.

The point I'm interested in is working potential +2 bonuses into a scheme using armour types which doesn't result in a better armour type being worse than a worse type. I put up two possible ways to deal with this:

1) The worst AC in any armour type (e.g. AC 3 in the plate range) only ever gets a +1 bonus against it.

2) Or, you have a slight 'overlap' between the armour type with the target bonus and the next lower armour type. That is to say the highest AC in the next lower armour type (e.g. AC 4 in the mail range versus plate) gets a +1 to hit.

The other obvious way would be to make sure the next lower armour type range all had a +1 bonus if the higher armour type range got a +2.

Or, I was considering how a system of only penalties would work and this might be a better way to go, but I'm not sure.

Another thought springs to mind, which is treating all mail types as AC X and all plate types as AC Y as a method of representing armour penetration.

I generally agree with you about axes and my general position so far has been to give no penalties for the one handed types versus any armour type and bonuses for the pole-axes. This doesn't make battle axes fantastic against plate but not too poor either, and if you give swords a penalty it certainly gives axes a much deserved edge in my opinion in this area. Otherwise there is no reason to choose a battle axe over a longsword.

Indeed; I think the sword/axe thing works out pretty well, though ultimately axes will probably have the edge for player-characters, given the way damage modifiers work in AD&D and propensity towards heavy armour. That is mainly theoretical, though, and probably will never manifest at the table.

[Unicorn]

Guys, I read this entire thread, and followed about 60% of it. Is there a possibility that one of you could post a "In Summary, this is the method and table I recommend" for a dummy like me? It appears you have reached a basic consensus. I'd love to print and cut the improved table/method and paste it in my Players Options Guide: Combat and Tactics. Maybe Steve would post it on the downloads page as a .pdf?

I have never used Weapon vs. AC in the game, but I have a player whose paladin is specialized in battle ax. (I let all warrior classes weapon specialize.) She is elven, and thus, ambidextrous, and fights with the 2-handed style, an ax in both hands. I have always supposed that she ought to be able to kick-enemy-butt better than the long-sword bearing fighter using a dagger in the off-hand. But the way we play it, the axes cleave platemail no better nor worse than than the longsword and dagger.

Similarly, I just designed a set of Dwarven guards with morning stars and double-crossbows. I was (and am still) a bit unsure of picking crossbow versus shortbow for them, but ended up with simply -- the crossbow seemed more Dwarvish. The table you showed makes me wonder, were these decent choices? What about the morning stars instead of axes?

PS. Are you guys assuming the battle ax has a blade on 1-side and a pick-type armor-piercing point on the other?

[migo]

While it was mentioned above that specialisation trumps the types, and that pretty much reflects how I felt. There was also that it was a level of detail that came up in one situation (humanoids), but was completely absent against monsters. If you're attacking a dragon do you have an advantage with a bludgeoning, slashing or piercing weapon? There isn't an answer, so I never felt like having the rule in place.

There was also the fact that you were pretty much going for magical weapons, because at higher levels you needed then to deal with monsters that couldn't be hurt by mundane weapons. Pretty much anyone who could get it would go for longsword proficiency, as you could get the +4 and +5 weapons (needed to fight the likes of a Demi-Lich), whereas other weapon types didn't go as high (Scimitar of Speed was an exception, as was the Sunblade, a hybrid shortsword/bastard sword). That +4 or +5 bonus would negate the weapon type vs armour modifications even more than specialisation would. Elven Fighter, Specialisation Long Sword +2/+2, and you'd get something magical the quickest.

It's sort of relevant if you're playing a low magic game without monsters, pulling stuff from The Castle Guide. It doesn't at all fit in with the fantasy nature of AD&D (regardless of edition).

[Matthew-]

Guys, I read this entire thread, and followed about 60% of it. Is there a possibility that one of you could post a "In Summary, this is the method and table I recommend" for a dummy like me? It appears you have reached a basic consensus. I'd love to print and cut the improved table/method and paste it in my Players Options Guide: Combat & Tactics. Maybe Steve would post it on the downloads page as a .pdf?

Sounds like an interesting endpoint. I would say the current consensus is that swords should have a −1 against heavy armour, plate and such (AC 1-3, more or less) and probably the same could be said for spears (though not all spears). There is definitely a strong sense that picks should get +1 versus heavy armour, and two-handed weapons against heavy and medium (AC 4-6), maybe even a general +1. Quite what to do about hammers, flails, and maces remains undecided as yet. It may even be that giving the pick a bonus is an unnecessary step itself once swords have a penalty.

Some quick tables for the basic sets of weapons might look like this (a few liberties taken here and there with weapon size and the the footman's flail/two-handed flail designations; the footman's hammer is an import from OSRIC):

Weapon	Cost	Speed	Length	Weight	Size	Space	Damage	Plate	Mail
Dagger	2 GP	2	c. 1'	1 lb.	S	1'	1-4/1-3	−1	+0
Short Sword	10 GP	3	c. 2'	3 lbs.	S	1'	1-6/1-8	−1	+0
Horse Man's Axe	1 GP	6	c. 1½'	5 lbs.	S	1'	1-6/1-4	+0	+0
Horse Man's Flail	8 GP	6	c. 2'	3 lbs.	S	4'	2-5/2-5	+0	+0
Horse Man's Hammer	2 GP	6	c. 1½'	5 lbs.	S	2'	2-5/1-4	+0	+0
Horse Man's Mace	5 GP	6	c. 1½'	5 lbs.	S	2'	1-6/1-4	+0	+0
Horse Man's Pick	7 GP	6	c. 2'	4 lbs.	S	2'	2-5/1-4	+1	+0

Weapon	Cost	Speed	Length	Weight	Size	Space	Damage	Plate	Mail
Long Sword	15 GP	5	c. 3½'	5 lbs.	M	3'	1-8/1-12	−1	+0
Foot Man's Axe	5 GP	7	c. 4'	7 lbs.	M	4'	1-8/1-8	+0	+0
Foot Man's Flail	8 GP	7	c. 4'	7 lbs.	M	6'	2-7/2-8	+0	+0
Foot Man's Hammer	5 GP	7	c. 4'	7 lbs.	M	4'	2-7/1-6	+0	+0
Foot Man's Mace	8 GP	7	c. 2½'	7 lbs.	M	4'	2-7/1-6	+0	+0
Foot Man's Pick	8 GP	7	c. 4'	6 lbs.	M	4'	2-7/2-8	+1	+0

Weapon	Cost	Speed	Length	Weight	Size	Space	Damage	Plate	Mail
Two-Handed Sword	50 GP	10	c. 6'	15 lbs.	L	6'	1-10/3-18	+0	+1
Halberd	10 GP	9	c. 5'	15 lbs.	L	5'	1-10/2-6	+1	+1
Two-Handed Flail	15 GP	9	c. 6'	15 lbs.	L	6'	2-8/2-8	+1	+1
Lucern Hammer	7 GP	7	c. 5'+	15 lbs.	L	5'	2-8/1-6	+1	+1
Morning Star	10 GP	9	c. 5'	12 lbs.	L	5'	2-8/2-7	+1	+1
Bec-de-Corbin	8 GP	9	c. 6'	10 lbs.	L	6'	1-8/1-8	+1	+1

I have never used weapon type versus armour class in the game, but I have a player whose paladin is specialized in battle axe (I let all warrior classes weapon specialize). She is elven, and thus, ambidextrous, and fights with the 2-handed style, an axe in both hands. I have always supposed that she ought to be able to kick-enemy-butt better than the long-sword bearing fighter using a dagger in the off-hand. But the way we play it, the axes cleave plate mail no better nor worse than than the longsword and dagger.

To be honest, there probably is not much to choose between the two, but it would be reasonable to suppose that giving a long sword a −1 penalty to hit AC 1-3 would somewhat balance the 1-8/1-12 damage range.

Similarly, I just designed a set of Dwarven guards with morning stars and double-crossbows. I was (and am still) a bit unsure of picking crossbow versus short bow for them, but ended up with simply -- the crossbow seemed more Dwarvish. The table you showed makes me wonder, were these decent choices? What about the morning stars instead of axes?

As with fighting with two-weapons, the advantage of having two attacks over one can potentially dwarf (pun intended) modifiers to hit and damage, depending on what other modifiers are in play. The Combat & Tactics version of the crossbow definitely makes it a more attractive weapon than previously, and in the case of relatively low level characters probably sufficiently to make it a viable choice. You can compare them in the form:

Short Bow: #A 2; FA X; D 1-6
Light Crossbow: #A 1; FA X, X+2 or X+5; D 2-7/2-9

So, versus armour class 4 enemies, a short bow used by a dwarf with THAC0 19 would do [0.60(1-6)] average damage at short range and [0.40(1-6) at medium range, whilst a light crossbow would do [0.55(2-7)] at short range and [0.30(2-7)] at medium range. Not much to choose between them. The bow would have more of an advantage versus unarmoured or lightly armoured opponents, though.

PS. Are you guys assuming the battle axe has a blade on 1-side and a pick-type armour-piercing point on the other?

There are a few different ways of thinking about that; you could just a) assume that rear flukes and top spikes are not significant enough to have an impact, b) increase the effectiveness of such a weapon to represent the flexibility, or c) allow the weapon to function as an axe or a pick. I think it is probably best to go with a), but allow characters to perform combat manoeuvres that seem to "zoom in" on the exact specifications of the weapon once in a while.

While it was mentioned above that specialisation trumps the types, and that pretty much reflects how I felt. There was also that it was a level of detail that came up in one situation (humanoids), but was completely absent against monsters. If you're attacking a dragon do you have an advantage with a bludgeoning, slashing or piercing weapon? There isn't an answer, so I never felt like having the rule in place.

Well, there is an answer, and it is the same one second edition gives for every lacuna, which is to say "make it up". It is not exactly difficult to rate these things on the fly.

There was also the fact that you were pretty much going for magical weapons, because at higher levels you needed then to deal with monsters that couldn't be hurt by mundane weapons. Pretty much anyone who could get it would go for long sword proficiency, as you could get the +4 and +5 weapons (needed to fight the likes of a Demi-Lich), whereas other weapon types didn't go as high (scimitar of speed was an exception, as was the sun-blade, a hybrid short sword/bastard sword). That +4 or +5 bonus would negate the weapon type versus armour modifications even more than specialisation would; elven fighter, specialisation long sword +2/+2, and you'd get something magical the quickest.

Certainly, if you are only using what is in the PHB/DMG, and expect to reach those kinds of levels. Most supplements vary quite a bit from the standard magical equipment available, though, and by all accounts very high level play has generally been a minority experience.

It's sort of relevant if you're playing a low magic game without monsters, pulling stuff from the Castle Guide. It doesn't at all fit in with the fantasy nature of AD&D (regardless of edition).

I think that is probably more of a personal stylistic deal, rather than something particular to the game system.

[migo]

Fair point. I always got a kick out of fighting the monsters. Fighting other humans... not so much.

[oralpain]

Interesting thread so far, but the numbers on those tables are so close to what's already in the C&T.

Also, those weights given are meant to represent total encumbrance, not actual weight, right? A real two-handed sword is in the ballpark of 4-6 pounds.

Fair point. I always got a kick out of fighting the monsters. Fighting other humans... not so much.

The natural hide of a creature may be close enough for a type of armor penetration to qualify. Many scaled beings could be considered to be in mail armor, insectoid or shelled beings could be considered to have plate, and anything that just has thicker skin (everything from bears to giants) could be considered to be in leather.

Many of the intelligent monsters in my games wear actual armor too, in addition to their natural defenses. If horses can be barded, so can a sphinx.

Smarter, older (old enough to have significant periods of time between molts), and more pragmatic dragons will often find some smiths in order to to get some armor made. Many dragons scoff at the notion of relying on anything besides their innate attributes, given their pride and superiority complexes, but they tend to die with more frequency than those who are willing to sacrifice arrogance (and maybe some treasure) for practical considerations.

I also have a Gelugon (Ice Devil) as a major NPC in one of my current campaigns that is wearing plate forged by itself and enchanted by a wizard who owed it a favor.

[Matthew-]

Interesting thread so far, but the numbers on those tables are so close to what's already in the C&T.

They are quite similar, as I think the general consensus is that Combat & Tactics probably got it more or less right, so minor improvements are what is being looked at.

Also, those weights given are meant to represent total encumbrance, not actual weight, right? A real two-handed sword is in the ballpark of 4-6 pounds.

The weights are mainly just the converted encumbrance values from first edition found in second edition. There are a few exceptions, but mainly the intention was to stay close to the default rules. If we were going to revise the weights, I would probably just advise something like a 2/3/5 lbs. split for the small/medium/large weapons on the table, with daggers excepted at 1 lb. There is a controversy over how the original encumbrance values were derived, but they are certainly said to be representative of more than just weight in the first edition DMG. Conversions for the above are:

Weapon Type	Encumbrance	Weight
Dagger	10	1 lb.
Short Sword	35	3 lbs.
Horse Man's Axe	50	5 lbs.
Horse Man's Flail	35	5 lbs.
Horse Man's Hammer	50	6 lbs.
Horse Man's Mace	50	6 lbs.
Horse Man's Pick	40	4 lbs.
Long Sword	60	4 lbs.
Foot Man's Axe	75	7 lbs.
Foot Man's Flail	150	15 lbs.
Foot Man's Hammer	n/a	n/a
Foot Man's Mace	100	10 lbs.
Foot Man's Pick	60	6 lbs.
Two-Handed Sword	250	15 lbs.
Halberd	175	15 lbs.
Two-Handed Flail	n/a	n/a
Lucern Hammer	150	15 lbs.
Morning Star	125	12 lbs.
Bec-de-Corbin	100	10 lbs.

So, as you can see, some slight tweaks, but mainly second edition just did a straight conversion of "encumbrance" to "weight" by dividing by ten.

[migo]

The natural hide of a creature may be close enough for a type of armor penetration to qualify. Many scaled beings could be considered to be in mail armor, insectoid or shelled beings could be considered to have plate, and anything that just has thicker skin (everything from bears to giants) could be considered to be in leather.

That makes sense, although goes directly against the RAW. I don't have C&T - I flipped through it and saw a bunch of stuff from 3e that I didn't like, so I'm going by the PHB. I see an issue that different armour isn't classified as plate, scale and leather/hide. If it were, that would make things a lot easier. As is, looking at field plate, full plate and plate mail (the latter which isn't even listed), the modifiers aren't even the same.

Many of the intelligent monsters in my games wear actual armor too, in addition to their natural defenses. If horses can be barded, so can a sphinx.

That's an interesting notion, certainly worthwhile for more important monsters.

[Matthew-]

That makes sense, although goes directly against the RAW. I don't have C&T - I flipped through it and saw a bunch of stuff from 3e that I didn't like, so I'm going by the PHB. I see an issue that different armour isn't classified as plate, scale and leather/hide. If it were, that would make things a lot easier. As is, looking at field plate, full plate and plate mail (the latter which isn't even listed), the modifiers aren't even the same.

The optional damage type versus armour type modifiers are pretty awful; the first edition weapon type versus armour class modifiers are somewhat better, and do talk about treating the various hides of monsters as equivalent armour types. The second edition PHB and DMG are silent on the issue, so the rule as written is to make it up.

[migo]

They're not silent, the PHB specifically says it doesn't apply to monsters with a natural AC. Part of the issue is also the reason for the AC isn't always stated - sometimes it's being very speedy (Snyads) and sometimes it's being very tough (Hook Horror).

[oralpain]

So, as you can see, some slight tweaks, but mainly second edition just did a straight conversion of "encumbrance" to "weight" by dividing by ten.

Yeah, I can see that, thanks for the chart.

I've been using more realistic/historical weights for weapons for as long as I can remember, but I'm considering using the stock values for encumbrance purposes, to represent bulk.

The natural hide of a creature may be close enough for a type of armor penetration to qualify. Many scaled beings could be considered to be in mail armor, insectoid or shelled beings could be considered to have plate, and anything that just has thicker skin (everything from bears to giants) could be considered to be in leather.

That makes sense, although goes directly against the RAW. I don't have C&T - I flipped through it and saw a bunch of stuff from 3e that I didn't like, so I'm going by the PHB. I see an issue that different armour isn't classified as plate, scale and leather/hide. If it were, that would make things a lot easier. As is, looking at field plate, full plate and plate mail (the latter which isn't even listed), the modifiers aren't even the same.

You're right, it's not BtB PHB/DMG/MM. Though it's certainly possible for a DM to deem a monsters natual armor is close enough to the type listed in the weapon vs. armor charts.

It is BtB with regard to the Combat and Tactics, and so are the leather/mail/plate categorizations and adjustments specific weapon types have against them. I personally don't use the chart in the PHB/DMG at all, just the latter per weapon modifiers, which as Matthew- has stated are very similar to the system developed in this thread.

They're not silent, the PHB specifically says it doesn't apply to monsters with a natural AC. Part of the issue is also the reason for the AC isn't always stated - sometimes it's being very speedy (Snyads) and sometimes it's being very tough (Hook Horror).

That's correct, but again the DM can always make a judgment call as to were the AC comes from.

The Combat and Tactics has more codified rules for this, and I generally use them, though there are always situations where common sense must be used.

The Ice Devil I mentioned earlier is AC -3 unarmored. This breaks down into 9 points from it's scales/chitin/hide, one point for dexterity, and three for innate magic. The NPC in my game is wearing plate mail (ill assume its non-magical for the moment), which according to the barding rules will reduce this by a further three points (-6 final).

So my Gelugon NPC is AC -3 from the rear and AC -4 surprised. It's AC 6 vs effects that do not observe armor or are exceptionally good at penetrating it (such as a large number of touch delivered spells, short range gun fire, nets, wrestling attacks, etc), AC -1 vs. a short range crossbow bolt, AC -3 in an antimagic shell, and so on.

[Matthew-]

They're not silent, the PHB specifically says it doesn't apply to monsters with a natural AC. Part of the issue is also the reason for the AC isn't always stated - sometimes it's being very speedy (Snyads) and sometimes it's being very tough (Hook Horror).

Sorry, I was not being clear; they are silent as to what you can do beyond using the chart. Obviously, you cannot use the table as it stands because it is designed for actual armour types, but I would not recommend using it anyway, since it treats picks and arrows as functionally identical.

I've been using more realistic/historical weights for weapons for as long as I can remember, but I'm considering using the stock values for encumbrance purposes, to represent bulk.

Ever since I began investigating real-world weights and measures, I have been doing more or less the same.

[migo]

I find that to be a huge pain. I always followed the weights during chargen, but once play started, none of us had any interest in stopping to compare whether the new equipment put you over. That's why I eventually decided to houserule each point of strength = 1 item, regardless of the weight. Awkward size can contribute to problems more than actual weight, so weight isn't really the only measure anyway (and armour specialisation pretty much acknowledges this). I remember one of the supplements had bulk ratings too. Of course, doing so takes out the advantage of studded leather over splint mail, but I just took a look at the strength tables. Strength 15, which is pretty hard to get already, has a weight allowance of 55lbs. Splint mail weighs 40lbs. That leaves you with 15lbs left, for weapons (4lbs for one weapon, maybe 2-3 for a backup, 2lbs for the backpack, some additional pounds for supplies and gear... you can't fit that into 15 pounds). It pretty much means that unless you're unusually strong, you are picking light armour anyway.