Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7984856" data-attributes="member: 20323">If you're mentioning the Chainmail or 1975 Greyhawk rules, I'm pretty sure those differentiated weapons according to the opponent's armor. There were extensive weapon vs. armor charts back then... I believe the earliest incarnation was called the &quot;Man-to-Man Melee Table.&quot; So instead of differentiating weapons by damage, they differentiated them by certain weapon being able to more easily hit against certain armor types. For example, maces were better at hitting plate armor, while piercing/slashing weapons generally were worse at hitting the better the armor.So there were very clear distinctions drawn between weapons mechanically.If you attempted to implement universal damage in 5e (where there is no weapon vs. armor chart) then you'd be left with having to answer the question: what does distinguish these weapons from each other?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 7984856, member: 20323"] If you're mentioning the Chainmail or 1975 Greyhawk rules, I'm pretty sure those differentiated weapons according to the opponent's armor. There were extensive weapon vs. armor charts back then... I believe the earliest incarnation was called the "Man-to-Man Melee Table." So instead of differentiating weapons by damage, they differentiated them by certain weapon being able to more easily hit against certain armor types. For example, maces were better at hitting plate armor, while piercing/slashing weapons generally were worse at hitting the better the armor. So there were very clear distinctions drawn between weapons mechanically. If you attempted to implement universal damage in 5e (where there is no weapon vs. armor chart) then you'd be left with having to answer the question: what [I]does [/I]distinguish these weapons from each other? [/QUOTE]

Verification