Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Feb 13, 2009 10:19:18 GMT -6
Just some quick thoughts in response to James Maliszewski's interest in some weapon versus armour modifiers similar to those in Greyhawk for his Dwimmermount campaign.
Light Armour = AC 9-8 Medium Armour = AC 7-4 Heavy Armour = AC 3-2
Heavy Armour (Types VII-VIII)
Weapons that are very good against heavy armour treat AC 2 and 3 as AC 4; heavy flails and picks fall into this category.
Weapons that are "good" against heavy armour treat AC 2 and 3 as AC 3 and 4 respectively. Two handed swords, maces and hammers fall into this category.
Weapons that are "poor" against heavy armour treat AC 2 and 3 as AC 1 and 2 respectively; pole arms, battle axes and pikes fall into this category.
Weapons that are "very poor" against heavy armour treat AC 2 and 3 as though AC 0 and 2 respectively; daggers, swords, hand axes and spears fall into this category.
Medium Armour (Types III-VI)
Weapons that are "good" against medium armour get +1 to hit against them; flails, morning stars, military picks, pole arms, and halberds fall into this category.
Weapons that are "very good" against medium armour get +2 to hit against them; two handed swords are of this sort.
Light Armour (Types I-II)
Weapons that are "good" against light armour get +1 to hit against them; daggers, hand axes, swords, and flails.
Weapons that are "very good" against light armour get +2 to hit against them; two handed swords, pole arms, and morning stars.
Special Notes
Shields are particularly effective against long swords, negating their bonus against armour class 8.
Swords & Wizardry (2009)
Greyhawk (1976)
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Feb 13, 2009 19:52:38 GMT -6
Trying to get something that approximates the ranged weapon table has been harder, and I think it necessitates a redistribution of the "light. medium, and heavy" classifications. If applied to the melee table such a change would be relatively slight, the main difference being that daggers, hand axes and swords would be be good against AC 9-7 instead of 9-8.
Swords & Wizardry, of course, dispenses with "horse bows" and "composite bows", and includes statistics for javelins, throwing axes, throwing hammers, darts, slings, etcetera. Inspiration as to what might be appropriate would have to be taken from an examination of Swords & Spells and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons in that case, and I haven't the time to spare at the moment. Perhaps in a few days I will have time to do so, until then his will have to suffice:
Light Armour: AC 9-7 (Types I-III) Medium Armour: AC 6-4 (Types IV-VI) Heavy Armour: AC 3-2 (Types VII-VIII)
Heavy Armour
Ranged weapons that are very poor against heavy armour treat AC 3 as AC 1 and AC 2 as AC −1; short bows, horse bows, and light crossbows are of this sort.
Ranged weapons that are poor against heavy armour treat AC 3 as AC 2 and AC 2 as AC 0; long bows, composite bows, and heavy crossbows are of this sort.
Medium Armour
Ranged weapons that are good against medium armour gain a +1 bonus to hit; long bows, composite bows, heavy crossbows, and the arquebus are of this sort.
Light Armour
Ranged weapons that are very good against light armour gain a +2 bonus to hit; long bows, composite bows, heavy crossbows, and the arquebus are of this sort.
Ranged weapons that are good against light armour gain a +1 bonus to hit; short bows, horse bows, and light crossbows are of this sort.
Special Notes
None as yet.
Swords & Wizardry (2009)
Greyhawk (1976)
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 13, 2009 21:29:05 GMT -6
Totally OT, but those are awesome tables! (Much envy and desire to catch up to Matthew in web-fu) :-)
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Feb 14, 2009 10:34:21 GMT -6
This is superb work, Matthew. Thank you so much for doing it. Have an exalt.
I'll be inflicting it on my players this weekend.
|
|
korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Post by korgoth on Feb 14, 2009 12:10:40 GMT -6
Very nice work.
What's the best way to make it printable?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2009 12:22:48 GMT -6
Very nice work. What's the best way to make it printable? Take out all the bad words! (giggle)
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Feb 14, 2009 16:03:07 GMT -6
Totally OT, but those are awesome tables! (Much envy and desire to catch up to Matthew in web-fu) :-) Heh, heh. Luckily the coding at Dragonsfoot and here is the same, so it was a snap to produce the tables! I think I learnt how to do tables under the auspices of Nazim and Torctref Spleenkiller. This is superb work, Matthew. Thank you so much for doing it. Have an exalt. I'll be inflicting it on my players this weekend. Thanks; no problem at all, very interesting really. Call it a fortuitous collision of interests. I hope they work out for you, and that you share any changes you make. Very nice work. What's the best way to make it printable? Thanks. I guess the neatest way would be to shunt it into a word document and convert to pdf, but I imagine the tables would be a problem. If I find some time I will do it myself and make it available for download. Take out all the bad words! I don't think I included the bastard sword! ;D
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on May 22, 2009 17:18:59 GMT -6
A quick addition to these tables is to present them as the numbers needed to hit before fighting ability is factored in (a level one fighter has +1 to hit, for instance):
Swords & Wizardry (2009)
Swords & Wizardry (2009)
|
|
|
Post by apeloverage on May 22, 2009 23:38:09 GMT -6
These are very cool - exalt!
|
|
|
Post by apeloverage on May 22, 2009 23:40:42 GMT -6
Should some weapons be good or bad against shields?
EDIT: Although that would require seperate columns for eg 'AC8 from armour and shield' as opposed to 'AC8 from tough hide'.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on May 23, 2009 9:57:58 GMT -6
These are very cool - exalt! Thanks! Should some weapons be good or bad against shields? EDIT: Although that would require separate columns for eg 'AC8 from armour and shield' as opposed to 'AC8 from tough hide'. These tables were written to roughly approximate the original Greyhawk tables, so AC 8, 6, 4, and 2 are representative of shields. However, the only instance where shields are really taken into account is for long swords, which do not get a bonus to hit versus an unarmoured opponent with a shield. It can, of course, be used without reference to shields, most simply by removing those columns, so that you would be left with Unarmoured (AC 9), Leather Armour (AC 7), Mail Armour (AC 5), and Plate Armour (AC 3). Alternatively, the numbers could be retooled to use the full range of classes, so that: AC 9 = Unarmoured AC 8-7 = Light Armour AC 6-4 = Medium Armour AC 3-2 = Heavy Armour Then separate consideration could be given to shields to figure which weapons they are likely most and least effective against.
|
|
|
Post by Haldo Bramwise on May 25, 2009 6:42:56 GMT -6
I have begun to adapt this for S&W:WB, where all weapons do essentially the same amount of damage and we only use four categories of armor (without reference to shields) - Unarmored, Leather Armor, Mail Armor and Plate Armor.
While all weapons do nearly the same damage, it only makes sense to me for certain weapons to be at least more effective in hitting certain types of armor. I also like the idea of giving these bonuses to monsters who do damage similarly to human weapons.
I am thinking that for the majority of attacks there will probably not be any modifier and that in a few weapon-to-armor combinations would have a +1/-1 modifiers (at the most).
But I thought our resident Master of all things medieval (Matthew) might already have such a system already worked out. As with all things WB, the simpler the better.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on May 25, 2009 14:17:45 GMT -6
I was going to contest that "master" appellation, but then I remembered that I do have a masters in medieval studies, so I will let it stand. ;D
It is a hard subject, in my opinion, not least because there are few ways to gauge the effectiveness of X to Y at the level of abstraction Swords & Wizardry assumes, but on the other hand that self same abstraction means that we can get away with pretty general ideas and comparisons. The best way to keep the game balanced when every weapon is otherwise the same is to make each good and bad against one armour type, but that can be frustratingly forced.
I guess the most widely accepted idea is that impact weapons like the mace, hammer, and pick are better against plate armour than bladed weapons like swords and axes or traditional spears, but then you have sturdy thrusting swords and spears designed to better overcome plate armour (I am assuming that we are talking some sort of plate and mail here, rather than full harness, but it does not really matter all that much).
The problem that occurs to me is that "armour busting" weapons might enjoy similar advantages versus mail or leather as they would against plate, so I sometimes feel that they ought to be rated better against all kinds of armour. Alternatively, it may be easier and more accurate to think of swords, axes, and spears as being partially nullified by plate. It is a hard call, but I think if you are going with a plus/minus system then you should not worry too much about historical authenticity and instead defer to what makes for a fun game.
|
|
|
Post by Haldo Bramwise on May 25, 2009 15:55:41 GMT -6
I was going to contest that "master" appellation, but then I remembered that I do have a masters in medieval studies, so I will let it stand. ;D It is a hard subject, in my opinion, not least because there are few ways to gauge the effectiveness of X to Y at the level of abstraction Swords & Wizardry assumes, but on the other hand that self same abstraction means that we can get away with pretty general ideas and comparisons. The best way to keep the game balanced when every weapon is otherwise the same is to make each good and bad against one armour type, but that can be frustratingly forced. I guess the most widely accepted idea is that impact weapons like the mace, hammer, and pick are better against plate armour than bladed weapons like swords and axes or traditional spears, but then you have sturdy thrusting swords and spears designed to better overcome plate armour (I am assuming that we are talking some sort of plate and mail here, rather than full harness, but it does not really matter all that much). The problem that occurs to me is that "armour busting" weapons might enjoy similar advantages versus mail or leather as they would against plate, so I sometimes feel that they ought to be rated better against all kinds of armour. Alternatively, it may be easier and more accurate to think of swords, axes, and spears as being partially nullified by plate. It is a hard call, but I think if you are going with a plus/minus system then you should not worry too much about historical authenticity and instead defer to what makes for a fun game. Thank you Master Matthew. Unfortunately, my Masters only covers up to the Roman Empire and I never seem to want to adventure in the ancient world.
|
|
|
Post by snorri on May 25, 2009 16:29:09 GMT -6
What should I say... I worker on "Sea and river workers in Mesopotamia from 26th to 18th century BC" for my master One very good thing, Matthew, is that you included Arquebus. Nothing fits best Od&d - it's clearly mentionned both Chainmail and FFC.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 12, 2009 17:23:06 GMT -6
One very good thing, Matthew, is that you included Arquebus. Nothing fits best Od&d - it's clearly mentionned both Chainmail and FFC. Heh, heh. Yeah, I quite like seeing how the Arquebus is rated in Chainmail and OD&D to bows and crossbows. All good fun!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 12, 2009 20:48:10 GMT -6
Should some weapons be good or bad against shields? Awesome work Matthew With regard to the question of weapon types versus shields -- it is my understanding that the flail in particular was specifically for "getting around" shields. Admittedly, there is little historical evidence of flails being used in a military context, but medieval fantasy supports the notion that the chain part of the weapon could "wrap around" a shield, allowing the nasty spiked weight to whip around and hit whatever is hiding behind it. The tables given here don't reflect this idea, but FWIW I allow flails a +1 to hit versus shield equipped opponents.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 14, 2009 14:20:00 GMT -6
Thanks!
Depends on the flail and the shield, I would think. The large two handed military flails that appear in OD&D are probably more of the "hinged" sort than the "chain" type commonly imagined or depicted. The chain types will go around a shield, but not as effectively as if they directly struck the target, in my opinion. As you say, though, their military use is not well attested.
Speculatively, I would suggest that the trick for the combatant with the shield is to judge at what distance the chain flail is going to strike and step back sufficiently to receive the blow on his shield. Alternatively, he may seek a way to disable the flail by catching it on the shield somehow or step into the attack to prevent a second. Complicated stuff to "simulate" though, so simply negating a shield bonus with a flail seems fair enough to me, as long as we are not talking negating magic and parrying (dexterity) bonuses as well!
However, that does make it pretty much the best weapon on the chart in terms of hit chances, so you would have to be careful about implementing such a rule. I would probably reduce all of its hit bonuses by 5% if I were going to allow a two handed chain flail to negate shield bonuses in OD&D, which would give you:
rather than:
|
|