Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8969503" data-attributes="member: 4937">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.</blockquote>

Verification