Magic Swords & Armour

[hamurai]

Page numbers refer to the numbers given in the premium edition PDF.

SWORDS, DAMAGE BONUSES: The swords all receive bonuses as far as the

probability of hitting an opponent is concerned, but some also gain a damage

bonus when they do hit. These swords are those with a +2 or +3 against specific

creatures, but not those with a general bonus of +2 or +3.

I'm trying to find an explicit statement on how hit probability is modified by magic swords. Do we deduct that from the descriptions of the other weapons following on the next page, e.g. the Axe +1 is "utilized [...] with the +1 bonus" (p.31)?

ARMOR: Armor proper subtracts its bonus from the hit dice of the opponents of its

wearer. If the shield’s bonus is greater than that of the armor there is a one-third chance

that the blow will be caught by the shield, thus giving the additional subtraction.

Armour subtracts its bonus from the HD of the attacker, so monsters would attack as lower-HD monsters against magic armour - that's RAW, isn't it? Additionally, if the target uses a shield, one would first have to roll if the shield is hit (in case it had a greater modifier), and then the attack roll.

Given these assumptions and not regarding the rules for other weapons, why wouldn’t swords raise the attacker’s HD likewise? Just a thought.

In fact, when we first played, we read magic armour as damage reduction. The confusion probably came from the German game Das Schwarze Auge (The Dark Eye), where damage would be noted as “Trefferwürfel” (Hit Dice), so magic armour subtracting from enemy HD would mean from 1 to 3 less damage taken, but equally hard to hit as normal armour. We ruled a minimum of 1 damage.

That made magic armour quite powerful against most attacks, which use only 1d6 damage.

[waysoftheearth]

IMHO you need to go back to CM magic weapons and armor to understand magic weapons and armor in D&D.

CM explicitly differentiates between normal and fantastic combat.

Normal combat is measured in terms of number of normal attacks. In normal combat, magic weapons add more attacks (explicit, CM3 p38). Magic armor removes attacks (this is only implicit).

Fantastic combat is measured in terms of relative attack and defense potency. In fantastic combat, magic weapons adds to kill probability (explicit, CM3 p38). Magic armor subtracts from kill probability (explicit, CM3 p38).

FWIW, the explicit reference to improving hit probability (in fantastic combat) in D&D is inherited from CM, which says: <<In fantastic combat the Magical Swords are most potent. ... they give a plus 1 to the dice score when employing the Fantasy Combat Table>> (CM3 p38).

Even though most contemporary OD&D play/players likely overlook this, it is pretty clear in the 3LBBs and contemporary writing (e.g. the FAQ in SR#1.2) that OD&D inherits CM's duality of normal and fantastic combat.

I read the 3LBB's magic armor, ring of protection, and protection vs evil spell references to "subtracting 1 HD from the attacker" literally. From that perspective it is an explicit reference to magical protection in normal combat. I.e., because 1 HD = 1 attack in OD&D's rendering of normal combat (M&T p5), reducing the number of HD means reducing the number of normal attacks. So this is the exact opposite of the advantage magical weapons provide in normal combat: magic weapons add attacks, magic armor removes attacks.

Fantastic combat works differently. CM kills become D&D hits (U&WA p25). Therefore, in the D&D context, a magical weapon improves hit (rather than kill) probability, whereas magical armor reduces hit (rather than kill) probability.

[hamurai]

OK, thanks. I thought I was reading over it in D&D, when it was just the lack of looking at CM.

I wonder how many folks had the same issue, though, when CM was not available.

[Mordorandor]

Here's the relevant text from Chainmail (2nd printing) on Magic Swords and Magic Armor.

"Magical Swords: Because these weapons are almost entities in themselves, they accrue real advantage to the figure so armed. In normal combat they merely add an extra die. It is in fantastic combat the Magical Swords are most potent. Besides allowing Elves to combat certain fantastic figures, they give a plus 1 to the dice score when employing the Fantasy Combat Table, and Magical Swords shed a light of their own over a circle 12" in diameter, which dispels darkness--but does not equal full light. Excaliber and other "Super Swords" would give a plus two or three! Morale Rating --10. Point Value --10."

"Magie Armor: Subtracts one from opponent's attack dice on Fantasy Table, three on Man-to-man attacks. Morale Rating --10. Point Value --10."

A few observations ...

"Because these weapons are almost entities in themselves," prepares us for all swords having INT in D&D.
"In normal combat" prepares us for some other type of combat that will be treated differently, namely, fantastic combat.
"Besides allowing Elves to combat certain fantastic figures" notes the benefit of a magic sword for an Elf is to get them onto the Fantasy Combat Table. They don't get the bonus to hit, like other fantastic types (presumably Hero and Super Hero).
"...they shed a light" preparing us for the trope in many D&D play-groups that all magic swords shed light.
"...which dispels darkness" which is normal darkness ... and which seems to suggest that the Chainmail spell of darkness is actually just normal darkness, not a magical darkness that later D&D emphasizes.
"...Excalibur and other "Super Swords" would give a plus two or three!" Wow, now this is interesting because of what I'll talk about below.
"Morale -- 10." Magic swords add to Morale! Interesting to see how referees might rig this mechanic for D&D hirelings and Morale checks.

"Magic Armor: Subtracts one from opponent's attack dice on Fantasy Table, three on Man-to-man attacks," really shocked me at first, because the assumption here is this kind of guidance in D&D is talking about a +1 sword, if you will. What about +2 or +3, like the Excalibur comment?
"Morale -- 10." Magic aror add to Morale! Interesting to see how referees might rig this mechanic for D&D hirelings and Morale checks."

Gary notes that Chainmail governs unless what is stated in D&D differs, in which case, D&D governs.

So yes, the initial thought is magical sword is valued by bonuses (top value conceived of at first as being +3, but later goes to +5 so that in a 1d20 method they can be somewhat-comparable to the kinds of percentile differences a +3 has with a 2d6 method). Those bonuses add to hit chances (not damage).

Magic armor subtracts from the number of dice in mass combat and subtracts from the roll result in M2M.

Gronan I believe at some point on these boards implied that the terminology of reducing the result from hit dice could be (and likely was practically) the simple practice of subtracting the value from the roll result.

So when D&D says "subtract from hit dice" the point was to "subtract the value from the sum result of the dice rolled."

And because D&D is meant to be man-to-man scale, noted in Book 3, this is likely the suggestion being made.

In the end, in man-to-man, sword bonuses add to the roll result, while armor bonuses subtract from the roll result.

It's only when an explicit equivalency of "reduced hit results" = 'reduced AC," which comes later to D&D, that the armor modifier applies to AC.

I keep best/max AC to 2 and use any other modifiers beyond that as a reduction to the hit modifier (AC 0 monster = AC 2, -2 to hit)

edit: and to be even more explicit, if in Chainmail, the idea was to apply -3 to hit with a "typical" suit of magic armor, what would +3 armor look like, a -9 modifier?   Likely not, since D&D governs when explicitly different from Chainmail, but think of what that means if still using 2d6 to resolve combat in D&D. A -3 penalty to 2d6 is massive. Which is again the likely genesis of upping the modifiers for swords and armors in D&D to +5.

[Desparil]

Oct 14, 2022 11:54:47 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

I keep best/max AC to 2 and use any other modifiers beyond that as a reduction to the hit modifier (AC 0 monster = AC 2, -2 to hit)

While Greyhawk veers off into the negatives and completely abandons the original meaning of the "class" part of armor class, it has always been weird that "second class" armor is the best you can do in the original three books.

[rsdean]

It is handy to have a searchable pdf…

My interpretation has always been that, in this context, the hit dice being reduced were the d20s thrown in combat. I looked at every use of “hit dice” in the three books, and the only other place that the term is used in the same way is in Monsters and Treasure page 12, where “ Sleeping Dragons may be attacked with a free melee round by the attacker and +2 on hit dice for chances of hitting.”

In that passage, characters are presumed to be attacking the dragon, and they don’t get a hit based on their hit dice (hit points), so the hit dice mentioned are presumably the dice they are throwing to hit; i.e. it gives a +2 on a d20 bonus to stab Smaug while he’s asleep.

[Mordorandor]

Oct 14, 2022 20:16:56 GMT -6 Desparil said:

Oct 14, 2022 11:54:47 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

I keep best/max AC to 2 and use any other modifiers beyond that as a reduction to the hit modifier (AC 0 monster = AC 2, -2 to hit)

While Greyhawk veers off into the negatives and completely abandons the original meaning of the "class" part of armor class, it has always been weird that "second class" armor is the best you can do in the original three books.

Love the "second class" observation!

Might it be that the intent was to have 20 - AC# = to-hit target number?

So someone thinking, "hm, maybe an 11 on 1d20 to hit AC 9 ... then 12 on 1d20 to hit AC 8 ... nice pattern?"

By the time we get to AC 2, it's the best you can do without introducing full plate armor (AC 1/TN=19) and full plate armor + shield (AC 0/TN=20), which then becomes a game design/flavor call ... since full plate armor reaches its peak in 15th and 16th centuries and thus implies all the things that came with it, like gunpowder and guns.

But then, I think I read somewhere on these boards, the 20-AC=TN formula might have been outlined in BTPbD or some other manuscript,  and was carried over to D&D in the modified form (for whatever reason) of (20-1) - AC# = TN.

One could extend this AC system by adding full plate (AC 1/TN=18) and full plate + shield (AC 0/TN=19), making the latter the "best class" armor and just ignoring gunpowder.

[Desparil]

Oct 15, 2022 11:23:00 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

Oct 14, 2022 20:16:56 GMT -6 Desparil said:

While Greyhawk veers off into the negatives and completely abandons the original meaning of the "class" part of armor class, it has always been weird that "second class" armor is the best you can do in the original three books.

Love the "second class" observation!

Might it be that the intent was to have 20 - AC# = to-hit target number?

So someone thinking, "hm, maybe an 11 on 1d20 to hit AC 9 ... then 12 on 1d20 to hit AC 8 ... nice pattern?"

By the time we get to AC 2, it's the best you can do without introducing full plate armor (AC 1/TN=19) and full plate armor + shield (AC 0/TN=20), which then becomes a game design/flavor call ... since full plate armor reaches its peak in 15th and 16th centuries and thus implies all the things that came with it, like gunpowder and guns.

But then, I think I read somewhere on these boards, the 20-AC=TN formula might have been outlined in BTPbD or some other manuscript,  and was carried over to D&D in the modified form (for whatever reason) of (20-1) - AC# = TN.

One could extend this AC system by adding full plate (AC 1/TN=18) and full plate + shield (AC 0/TN=19), making the latter the "best class" armor and just ignoring gunpowder.

Yeah, one of the drafts did have a table that was 1 off from what ended up being published. I don't think either Gary or Dave was still alive by the time that document reached the gaming public, though, so the best we have is speculation on why the change was made. If I had to guess, it was just to make hitting a little easier - same as the reason for adding Strength bonuses in Greyhawk - because everyone whiffing all the time makes battles longer and less exciting.

On the topic of armor, I don't think that it would even harm the game to include gunpowder. Chainmail includes arquebusiers, cannon, and bombards in its mass combat rules, after all. In a skirmish context, it would be simple enough to say that a gun's higher projectile velocity is counterbalanced by the lesser accuracy and therefore no modification to the target's armor class is necessary. As for the numerical value of full plate armor, it would be a simple matter to either state outright that AC 1 is the best possible. This would mean that there would be no benefit to using a shield with full plate, which is probably not 100% realistic, but it would certainly encourage the realistic end result of men in full plate armor using two-handed weapons. Alternatively, switch to the (20 - AC) table but shift all armor types up one class, maintaining the same target numbers but with leather as AC 8 and full plate as AC 2.

[cometaryorbit]

I think the only problem with gunpowder in D&D is that players expect guns to be *useful*. On an individual/small group scale, 16th century and earlier firearms aren't really better than bows - probably worse. Guns became common because of large armies with minimal training, not small well-trained groups.

[Red Baron]

My biggest frustration with magic armor and shields is that an extra roll is needed to determine if the shield bonus is used instead of the armor bonus. That, coupled with the smash magic helmets roll, means that a bunch of extra rolls to determine where a hit lands are required in a combat system which is supposed to run at a higher level of abstraction.

One may as well just use the blackmoor hit location tables.

[Starbeard]

Oct 14, 2022 4:23:21 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

CM explicitly differentiates between normal and fantastic combat.

Normal combat is measured in terms of number of normal attacks. In normal combat, magic weapons add more attacks (explicit, CM3 p38). Magic armor removes attacks (this is only implicit).

I've thought about how this would extrapolate if converted into D&D at face value.

So an F2 and a bandit face off. That's two attacks vs. 1. Got it.

Now, the F2 has a +1 suit. That would mean that the bandit has one attack reduced, giving him 0 attacks; so, he cannot harm the F2?

Or, perhaps two bandits need to gang up on the F2, giving them 2 attacks - 1 = 1 attack total?

Or should we always grant a minimum of one attack, so that one or two bandits = one attack, and three bandits ganging up gets a total of two attacks, etc?

[Mordorandor]

One might argue that the wearing of something fantastic makes the wearer fantastic, and thus a normal would not be able to hit him/her/it.

But yes, that might seem to be the case.

However, note that in CM, mention of normal combat and fantastic combat often assume mass combat.

in the Man-to-Man section of CM, magic armor is describe in this way.

"Magic Armor: Subtracts one from opponent's attack dice on Fantasy Table, three on Man-to-man attacks."

The Fantasy Table and Man-to-Man tables assume a 1:1 combat.

So how then to translate this to D&D?

I'd argue in a 1:1 scale, the method would be to subtract from the die/dice result, not subtract the number of dice rolled.

[Mordorandor]

Btw, assuming a combatant needed 7+ to hit a foe, he/she would need 10+ to hit one with magic armor in Man-to-Man.

That's a 42% difference. And one assumes just an "ordinary" magic suit of armor, like the "ordinary" magic sword is assumed to be a +1 weapon.

See the note that "Excaliber and other "Super Swords would give a plus two or three!"

Now, imagine Excalibur like armor in Man-to-Man!

[waysoftheearth]

Nov 8, 2022 11:11:02 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

Oct 14, 2022 4:23:21 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

CM explicitly differentiates between normal and fantastic combat.

Normal combat is measured in terms of number of normal attacks. In normal combat, magic weapons add more attacks (explicit, CM3 p38). Magic armor removes attacks (this is only implicit).

I've thought about how this would extrapolate if converted into D&D at face value.

So an F2 and a bandit face off. That's two attacks vs. 1. Got it.

Now, the F2 has a +1 suit. That would mean that the bandit has one attack reduced, giving him 0 attacks; so, he cannot harm the F2?

Or, perhaps two bandits need to gang up on the F2, giving them 2 attacks - 1 = 1 attack total?

Yes. FWIW, that is precisely how DD5 presents it.