D&D 1E How about a little love for AD&D 1E

[billd91]

Light and quick weapons are better at hitting unarmed targets than heavier ones.

What would you rather be trying to swat a pixie with?

Apparently a bardiche which has a +3 vs AC10. Or maybe a heavy crossbow at +4?

 

[fuindordm]

It's clear that a lot of thought went into that table. A dagger or club might be advantageous against completely unarmored opponents because you can change the trajectory of your swing almost as quickly as your opponent can dodge; but if your target even has light armor they can soak the blow on most of their body, and the advantage disappears.

It's kind of like how the DMG goes at lengths to explain how initiative is not a simple d6 roll either--longer weapons logically go first, but only when opponents close for combat; faster weapons logically get more blows in (but not always, that would be imbalanced, so only on a tied d6); any number of other factors might intervene.

Gygax was trying really hard to make a coherent set of simulationist combat rules, but the irony is that damage itself was completely abstracted into hit points!

 

[fuindordm]

Apparently a bardiche which has a +3 vs AC10. Or maybe a heavy crossbow at +4?

Bardiches are best for swatting bards.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Bardiches are best for swatting bards.

No, that's a bard-lich

 

[James Gasik]

No, that's a bard-lich

No no, that's an Archlich.

 

[Lanefan]

Bardiches are best for swatting bards.

Bardiche = Bard-ouch?

 

[overgeeked]

Bardiche = Bard-ouch?

Bard-itchy?

Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Scratching. You scratch yourself so much you cause yourself damage.

 

[Voadam]

Bard-itchy?

Bard-ish.

Fancy looking polearm with so many projections it can jack of all trade stab, slash, bludgeon, disarm, trip, but all subparly.

 

[Cruentus]

It's clear that a lot of thought went into that table. A dagger or club might be advantageous against completely unarmored opponents because you can change the trajectory of your swing almost as quickly as your opponent can dodge; but if your target even has light armor they can soak the blow on most of their body, and the advantage disappears.

It's kind of like how the DMG goes at lengths to explain how initiative is not a simple d6 roll either--longer weapons logically go first, but only when opponents close for combat; faster weapons logically get more blows in (but not always, that would be imbalanced, so only on a tied d6); any number of other factors might intervene.

Gygax was trying really hard to make a coherent set of simulationist combat rules, but the irony is that damage itself was completely abstracted into hit points!

I don't think that much thought actually went into the table, as Gary himself ignored the weapon v armor chart, psionics, space required for weapons, etc., which he talked about in his ENworld Q&A back in 2003.

Here is a very interesting look at that table, tracing it back to Chainmail, and that it wasn't originally a modifier chart, but a 'final target number' for attacks in Chainmail based on the Fighting Man. It was pretty much straight rolled over to 1e, without much adjustment. Here is a blog post (not mine) about it that I found fascinating, if the conclusions are true The Big Mistake in Weapon vs. Armor Adjustments

There was a lot of complexity baked into 1e for various reasons, and Gary ignored a lot of it for his home games, and left it up to DMs to include what they wanted to make the game how they wanted - which I appreciated! 1e was my favorite edition, the PHB, and DMG in particular, offering so much random content, and charts, and options, and ideas. I still mine it today, and adapt it into my games.

I'm running OSE Advanced, and pulling 1e stuff in to flesh things out where necessary.

 

[Celebrim]

It was pretty much straight rolled over to 1e, without much adjustment. Here is a blog post (not mine) about it that I found fascinating, if the conclusions are true The Big Mistake in Weapon vs. Armor Adjustments

That's a really interesting link, and I think a lot of his conclusions were true but I disagree with some of his big take aways. He makes the observation that Gygax was not happy with some of the results of the math and adjusted them, but he uncharitably then concludes that Gygax did not realize about the armor effect on the tables. For example, assuming he's correct that in Chainmail the mace ignores armor, he uncharitably claims that Gygax missed this and made the mace a poor weapon. This is in fact not true, as the mace in 1e AD&D is a much better weapon against heavily armored foes than any sword. For example, it's +1 to hit against plate, compared to -1 for the long sword and -2 for the short or broad sword. He then notes that the military pick wasn't in the table and says that as such it was given reasonable values, but in fact that value is but +2 versus plate - barely better than the mace.

I do remember making small adjustments to the table - in particular to axes - but while I'm sure that the numbers can be quibbled with they are fun as is and completely alter the way you think about weapons in D&D. For example, halberds and morning stars are awesome when you factor in the weapon versus AC table, and the two-handed sword (a weapon wielded by Gygax's personal character) is if anything (perhaps unsurprisingly) over-powered. Monks are (to my delight) rendered almost completely useless.