Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 8673385" data-attributes="member: 7026594">One of the challenges with weapon vs. armor in D&amp;D has also always been, how important in it?&nbsp; What percentage of opponents is it really relevant against?&nbsp; If you run a game with a ton of human and humanoid antagonists, armor will come up all the time.&nbsp; If you run a game with a ton of monstrous and bestial antagonists, weapon vs. armor is going to be much less relevant.That being said, I've always had a soft spot for the concept, and kind of liked the 2E optional rule for just Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning vs armor types.&nbsp; Delta tried writing a variant on this way back in 2009.&nbsp; [USER=6987520]@DND_Reborn[/USER] in the other thread pointed out that this chart/proposed rule has a bit of an issue in that it seems to be designed more to balance the armor types than to simulate that heavier armors are in fact better.There's some really good discussion in the comments here, though, with Matthew (now showing in the comments as &quot;Unknown&quot;, but it was definitely Matthew, who I believe was or is a Dragonsfoot moderator, and is a highly studied medievalist) pointing out how the Slashing/Bludgeoning/Piercing categories are really a game artifact and don't really match up to actual weapon characteristics, preferring instead to talk about chop, cut and thrust.&nbsp; Under this schema, crushing weapons functionally &quot;chop&quot;.I particularly like this comment:I tend to agree with Delta, though, that +1 modifiers to hit are a little too small and fiddly to bother with, though, so I'd upgrade those to +2. As a note re: the suggested damage modifiers, bear in mind that those are in context of OD&amp;D, with minimal modifiers.&nbsp; So a +1 to damage is pretty substantial there.&nbsp; If I were trying to use this in a more modern version I might just upgrade those to +2 as well, for symmetry and to help make them relevant.[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2009/02/proposal-weapons-vs-ac.html[/URL]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mannahnin, post: 8673385, member: 7026594"] One of the challenges with weapon vs. armor in D&D has also always been, how important in it? What percentage of opponents is it really relevant against? If you run a game with a ton of human and humanoid antagonists, armor will come up all the time. If you run a game with a ton of monstrous and bestial antagonists, weapon vs. armor is going to be much less relevant. That being said, I've always had a soft spot for the concept, and kind of liked the 2E optional rule for just Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning vs armor types. Delta tried writing a variant on this way back in 2009. [USER=6987520]@DND_Reborn[/USER] in the other thread pointed out that this chart/proposed rule has a bit of an issue in that it seems to be designed more to balance the armor types than to simulate that heavier armors are in fact better. There's some really good discussion in the comments here, though, with Matthew (now showing in the comments as "Unknown", but it was definitely Matthew, who I believe was or is a Dragonsfoot moderator, and is a highly studied medievalist) pointing out how the Slashing/Bludgeoning/Piercing categories are really a game artifact and don't really match up to actual weapon characteristics, preferring instead to talk about chop, cut and thrust. Under this schema, crushing weapons functionally "chop". I particularly like this comment: I tend to agree with Delta, though, that +1 modifiers to hit are a little too small and fiddly to bother with, though, so I'd upgrade those to +2. As a note re: the suggested damage modifiers, bear in mind that those are in context of OD&D, with minimal modifiers. So a +1 to damage is pretty substantial there. If I were trying to use this in a more modern version I might just upgrade those to +2 as well, for symmetry and to help make them relevant. [URL unfurl="true"]http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2009/02/proposal-weapons-vs-ac.html[/URL] [/QUOTE]

Verification