Does anybody miss the 1e PHB weapon vs armor type adjustments?

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Everyone seems to be doing one, so I thought I'd give it a try

I was thinking that reintroducing the adjustments found in the 1e PHB would be a good way to add a bit of individuality to weapons; and, since most characters are proficient with a wide range of weapons now, it would also allow for a bit of tactical consideration with respect to the nature of the expected opposition when deciding how to equip yourself for an adventure.

I think it would also tend to make Shields and the Heavier Armours more attractive options (a good thing in my estimation).

 

[Ravellion]

I think that with size of the weapon (ie. finessable, two handed use etc), varying crit ranges and proficieny types, this would just add some bookkeeping. It's also really hard to use with monsters.

Rav

 

[Ace]

Yuck! too complicated for DND!

 

[Numion]

Didn't 1e also have a different damage for weapons for hitting larger creatures? I always thought that was dumb. Why not just give less hitpoints to larger creatures then?

 

[JDeMobray]

Sort of.

What I did in my late-era 2e campaign was work up a table based on the Weapon vs. Armor Type table (which in 2e based the adjustments on the P-S-B damage type) that gave a Damage Reduction based on the type of armor worn vs. the various damage types.

 

[kenjib]

They were cool in that they reinforced more realistic interactions between various weapons and armor, but to tell the truth adding more charts to cross-reference during combat isn't worth it to me. They also only really work well in a campaign setting in which the primary opponents are humanoids, as the numbers only exist for humanoid armors, and trying to cover every conceivable monster natural armor type would be a bit of a logistical challenge I should think. I suppose you could define some broad categories like leathery hide, scales, fur, feathers, chitenous shell, stone skin, etc. but you could never cover every imaginable armor type and you also would have trouble dealing with the various combinations of these types.

 

[kenjib]

Another thing you could do would be to split armor class into three numbers: slash, pierce, and bludgeon.

That would be a quick and dirty way to approach the same issue.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Not at all. I never used them over the course of playing 1e (about 10 years). I also never used speed factors. I experimented with both a few times just to see what would happen, and they bogged down combat. 3e combat is slower, true, but at least it seems more logical or intuitive - even AoO, after some use.

 

[Crothian]

d20 combat now runs like an almost well oiled machine. no need to bring those tables back and confuse things even more.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Way too much bookkeeping for not enough payoff.