D&D 5E Why AD&D Rocks and 3e - 5e Mocks all over AC...
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
1e had that, or a variant, in its "weapon vs armour type" tables.
I'm not sure how many (but I suspect not many) DMs used these tables; but they sure sound like what you're after with this.
Horwath
Legend
I am really not after this
It just makes the system too complicated with few benefits.
Attack riders depending on damage type or weapon use seems much more elegant.
Be that with basic abilities that everyone can use, or with feats like Piercer, crusher, slasher or combat maneuvers.
Demetrios1453
Hero
My old college group would start games saying we wanted to use those tables (they existed in 2e too) and then promptly forgot about them a session or two in.
Interestingly enough, the Baldur's Gate CRPGs did incorporate them...
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
We used them all the time, but it helped that I put space on character sheets for them so people remembered to use them:
I even used them for natural armor which mimicked armor types.
It made having at least two weapons a good option, one weapon for heavier armors and one weapon for lighter or no armor. For example, a horseman's military pick and a broad sword, two "knightly" weapons, would give you a bonus (using one or the other) vs. virtually every armor type (except AC 6).
Mannahnin
Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
I think the reason most folks didn't use weapon vs. armor, despite it having some value in theory, comes down to a combination of fiddliness and some basic math errors which betray the whole endeavor right from the start.
The weapon vs. AC charts in Chainmail encapsulated "hit" and "damage" together, simulating, for example, how a mace is much better at hurting someone in plate than a sword. But when D&D divorced hit from damage, Gary erroneously converted over the difference in "to hit" without accounting for damage.
deltasdnd.blogspot.com
The weapon vs. AC charts in Chainmail encapsulated "hit" and "damage" together, simulating, for example, how a mace is much better at hurting someone in plate than a sword. But when D&D divorced hit from damage, Gary erroneously converted over the difference in "to hit" without accounting for damage.
The Big Mistake in Weapon vs. Armor Adjustments
Where did the 1E D&D weapon vs. armor adjustments come from? Are they reasonable? Have we overlooked something key for 50 years?
deltasdnd.blogspot.com
Willie the Duck
Hero
I think it also wasn't well communicated exactly what this was about or why one would want it.
With regards to realism, the wargamers originally thought to be the primary buyers of the initial game would know (at least vaguely) about this weapon being great against lightly- or unarmored foes but bad against mail or plate, and this other weapon being specifically designed for plate, and so on. The HS or college kid who ended up being the bread and butter buyer BITD? Maybe, but certainly not in total. There needed to be a sales pitch, and the game never really did it (I'm guessing because Gary himself wasn't really that into that part of it, and included it most to satisfy the base that did).
With regards to gamist reasons to want it, it makes all the sense in the world when you are doing Chainmail unit vs. unit clashes, but less so in D&D (especially AD&D and oD&D post supplement I). In Chainmail, perhaps you know (or see on the sand table) your opponent is playing 4rd century Visigoths with mail, spear and shield and thus you knew to bring the right troops with the right kit to defeat that (or, if already in-play, which units to bring forward to face them). In D&D there aren't as many instances where you can have pre-knowledge of your opponents, and (barring more bags of holding than you'll ever need for treasure hauling) are unlikely to carry around a weapon for each situation. Even less so once you have some magic weapons, and thus any minor benefit you get from optimal weapon vs. armor setup is competing with one of the items getting +X to all attacks (and damage). Even more less so once the variable weapon damage came into being and the answer to every question became 'longswords, greatswords, and longbows whenever possible. Daggers and halberds if the DM bothers with weapon reach or cramped quarters issues.'
Throw in some other D&D game conceits and the WvsAC table ends up seeming like a distraction (again, one that never received a great pitch for why one would want it). Things like some characters only being able to use some weapons*; monsters which can only be hit by magic; some monsters skin types clearly correlating to a given armor type but many others not; and perhaps most importantly weapon proficiencies making weapon choice have to be done at a several-level timeframe, rather than when one knows they are about to face opponents with a given type of armor.
*and the magical mace or warhammer probably going to the cleric because that's all they can use, rather than being kept for the fighter when up against a platemail wearing opponent
With regards to realism, the wargamers originally thought to be the primary buyers of the initial game would know (at least vaguely) about this weapon being great against lightly- or unarmored foes but bad against mail or plate, and this other weapon being specifically designed for plate, and so on. The HS or college kid who ended up being the bread and butter buyer BITD? Maybe, but certainly not in total. There needed to be a sales pitch, and the game never really did it (I'm guessing because Gary himself wasn't really that into that part of it, and included it most to satisfy the base that did).
With regards to gamist reasons to want it, it makes all the sense in the world when you are doing Chainmail unit vs. unit clashes, but less so in D&D (especially AD&D and oD&D post supplement I). In Chainmail, perhaps you know (or see on the sand table) your opponent is playing 4rd century Visigoths with mail, spear and shield and thus you knew to bring the right troops with the right kit to defeat that (or, if already in-play, which units to bring forward to face them). In D&D there aren't as many instances where you can have pre-knowledge of your opponents, and (barring more bags of holding than you'll ever need for treasure hauling) are unlikely to carry around a weapon for each situation. Even less so once you have some magic weapons, and thus any minor benefit you get from optimal weapon vs. armor setup is competing with one of the items getting +X to all attacks (and damage). Even more less so once the variable weapon damage came into being and the answer to every question became 'longswords, greatswords, and longbows whenever possible. Daggers and halberds if the DM bothers with weapon reach or cramped quarters issues.'
Throw in some other D&D game conceits and the WvsAC table ends up seeming like a distraction (again, one that never received a great pitch for why one would want it). Things like some characters only being able to use some weapons*; monsters which can only be hit by magic; some monsters skin types clearly correlating to a given armor type but many others not; and perhaps most importantly weapon proficiencies making weapon choice have to be done at a several-level timeframe, rather than when one knows they are about to face opponents with a given type of armor.
*and the magical mace or warhammer probably going to the cleric because that's all they can use, rather than being kept for the fighter when up against a platemail wearing opponent
GMMichael
Guide of Modos
Lots of talk about dexterity and armor... but AC has only one job in D&D: it's a damage gatekeeper. Damage serves one primary job: reducing hit points. And what are hit points? Well, they're not just meat. So to me, it's not a question of how well you roll in armor or whether an unarmored person dodges better. It's this:
Why does a given D&D edition reward some characters with more survivability than others?
Why does a given D&D edition reward some characters with more survivability than others?
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
That's the weapon side, but where's the armour side? Armour is what's under discussion here, and its effect on "hittability" and-or damage taken.I am really not after this
It just makes the system too complicated with few benefits.
Attack riders depending on damage type or weapon use seems much more elegant.
Be that with basic abilities that everyone can use, or with feats like Piercer, crusher, slasher or combat maneuvers.
I agree the weapon-vs-armour-type business is overly complicated for most purposes, and have thus never used it myself; but I can't see a way of differentiating different weapons' effects on different armours that doesn't end up looking pretty much like those tables.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Does it, though?
Curious for anyone reading: do any of you have long-term stats for your games around survivability or death frequency by class? I do, for my/our games, and they show that absent a few rarely-played outliers survivability doesnt really depend on class much if at all; but I'd be interested in seeing stats from different versions/editions of the game to see if this finding holds up there.
Similar Threads
