Conversion of First Edition Weapon Attack Adjustment Table for Fifth Edition

[Hriston]

NOTICE: The chart is no longer available here. I've made a new chart and started a new thread.

I have just uploaded Conversion of First Edition Weapon Attack Adjustment Table for Fifth Edition to the downloads area.

I was inspired by a recent thread to go ahead and convert this table for 5E. This is the final draft of the rough table I posted in that thread.

I based the converted values on the concept that modifiers to the attack roll would correspond to the relevant ability score modifiers and substituted 5E values accordingly. The result is that lower-end modifiers tend to be larger, but flatten-out as they increase. I think this makes the modifiers matter as much as they do in 1E when compared to the distribution of ability scores resulting in attack roll modifiers, while at the same time retaining bounded accuracy as a design element.

I've swapped some of the weapons that weren't originally represented for weapons that seem like a good fit. I've also retained the armor categories from 1E, which originally corresponded to AC, keeping in mind that the table was designed to compare individual weapons with individual types of armor. I've also added natural armor to each category with the idea that it represents a particular hardness of surface, following EGG's suggestion to regard a creature's chitinous shell as equivalent to plate armor.

Feedback is appreciated.


**UPDATE**

My analysis (which should have been done before I posted, but I was so eager to have done with it, oh well!), has made me aware that there are a few problems with the chart, mostly stemming from my inclusion of natural armor, which I now understand EGG was wise to avoid. I believe it can be fixed, and a revision, at least mentally, is underway. My apologies to the thirty people kind enough to have already downloaded it.


There are some other minor problems arising from an inclination in the original tables for some weapons (notably the Great club, for which I used the modifiers for the Footman's mace, a weapon far too large to match the smaller version found in 5E) to be so effective against shield only that the act of donning a shield makes one more likely to be hit. I don't feel that this should be the case in any event and will be correcting such occurrences. The same goes for a few instances of an armored target being easier to hit than one that is unarmored. I think in the original some amount of encumbrance was accounted for in the tables, which in 5E should be accounted for by the inclusion (or not) of the individual's Dex modifier.


Anyway, now that I am aware of these issues, I'll be replacing the chart with a new one, so to anyone who is interested, please be on the lookout for the revision.

**UPDATE 6/9/15**
The revised version of the table is now available by following the link given above.

 

[Ranes]

Very interesting. I'll try it out, thank you.

The only concern I have is some of the break points or modifier thresholds might be a little hard to rationalise in terms of the fiction (I'm thinking of those weapons - especially melee weapons - that see a modifier go from +3 to 0 over 1 AC when there isn't much to differentiate between the armour types represented). I appreciate that these things tend to show up in any attempt to express meaningful difference between particular weapon-armour combinations over such a limited numerical scale.

Looking forward to taking it for a spin. Thanks again.

 

[Hriston]

The only concern I have is some of the break points or modifier thresholds might be a little hard to rationalise in terms of the fiction (I'm thinking of those weapons - especially melee weapons - that see a modifier go from +3 to 0 over 1 AC when there isn't much to differentiate between the armour types represented). I appreciate that these things tend to show up in any attempt to express meaningful difference between particular weapon-armour combinations over such a limited numerical scale.

Thanks for your interest. I actually read your post earlier, before it was edited, but since I hate to post from my phone I waited until I got home. I don't know, of course, what Gygax was thinking when he compiled the original tables, but to address your concern I think the rationale has to do with there being a limit to a weapon's ability to bypass the added defense of certain armors or shield/armor combinations. In your unedited post you mentioned the halberd and the maul as examples of such weapons, in that they lose a +3 bonus they had against an opponent in full plate when that opponent dons a shield. Rather than the shield in this case effectively bumping the opponent's AC by five points, however, it should be thought of as hindering the ability of these heavy weapons to continue to break through defenses that are so resilient against lesser weapons.

Also, I should probably explain the size of the bonus. The original table had +1 for halberd v. plate which I converted to +3 based on the fact that a +1 attack bonus in first edition results from a 17 strength. Since the probability of rolling a 17 is the same across editions, my assumption is that the resulting modifiers can be regarded as equivalent. Thus in all cases but one, I have substituted in +3 where the original has +1. Of course this means that a 0 on the original chart is actually the equivalent of between -1 and +3 in fifth edition (a 0 modifier resulting from a strength score of 8-16 in first edition). I've opted to leave it as 0 except in a few places where adding a shield would actually make you easier to hit, in which case I've used the +1 instead to avoid that situation. With this in mind, however, wherever a 0 appears, a number between -1 and +3 could be substituted as you see fit.

Another note as regards your concerns is that while the halberd row is converted straight from the original chart, the maul as a weapon was not represented in first edition, so I used the lucerne hammer's numbers for the maul due to their both being two-handed bludgeoning weapons.

 

[Ranes]

First off, thank you very much for the reply and for the articulate explanation of the reasoning behind the table entries. (Ah, and you caught me mid-edit, too. I should go back to drafting replies in a word processor…)

I understand the logic more clearly now, although I suspected something along those lines. My issue wasn't with the logic but with the hypothetical reaction of a more simulationist player to suddenly falling off a +3 cliff, so to speak (although the original table has the occasional gap of +/-2). I should have said that it was a purely hypothetical concern, however. As my usual players stand, I doubt if I'd be taken to task over it, if anyone actually noticed it in the first place.

Also, I think your point about being able to swap out a 0 with anything from -1 to +3 is a good one for anyone using this to remember.

I'll let you know how it works out when I incorporate it into a game (hopefully soon).

 

[mattcolville]

As I suspect is true of a lot of people, I like the *idea* of this mechanic but this chart is a lot to handle. I think for my game I'll try something where a weapon just has one effect. Mace is +1 against Plate for instance.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I will be interested to hear how it works out in play. I liked the idea in 1E but found it too cumbersome to use.

 

[Hriston]

My analysis (which should have been done before I posted, but I was so eager to have done with it, oh well!), has made me aware that there are a few problems with the chart, mostly stemming from my inclusion of natural armor, which I now understand EGG was wise to avoid. I believe it can be fixed, and a revision, at least mentally, is underway. My apologies to the thirty people kind enough to have already downloaded it.

There are some other minor problems arising from an inclination in the original tables for some weapons (notably the Great club, for which I used the modifiers for the Footman's mace, a weapon far too large to match the smaller version found in 5E) to be so effective against shield only that the act of donning a shield makes one more likely to be hit. I don't feel that this should be the case in any event and will be correcting such occurrences. The same goes for a few instances of an armored target being easier to hit than one that is unarmored. I think in the original some amount of encumbrance was accounted for in the tables, which in 5E should be accounted for by the inclusion (or not) of the individual's Dex modifier.

Anyway, now that I am aware of these issues, I'll be replacing the chart with a new one, so to anyone who is interested, please be on the lookout for the revision.

 

[davout1805]

Regarding the issue of being cumbersome to use. One could convert the chart into a collection of cards. Each weapon has its own card and each armor column has its own card. The edges of a weapon card is divided into sections with a modifier in each section. The edges of an armor card is also divided into sections but only one section has a mark to identify what section of the weapon card to use. To find the effect you match up the weapon card with the armor card. Easier to explain with a picture. I did something similar for combat maneuvers for another game.

 

[Hriston]

Hi everybody,

I just wanted to let anyone who's interested know I uploaded a new version of the chart which can be found by following the original link. The old version is no longer available. I wasn't sure how else to announce this, so I'm giving my thread a bump. Thanks to anyone who uses it, and let me know if there are any problems.

 

[Hriston]

I updated the font and the layout to look more 5E-ish, and hopefully to be a little easier to read.