(GH) Weapon bonus vs. AC

[thorswulf]

How many of you folks use the bonus/penalty to hit various AC of opponents from Greyhawk? The reason I ask is that some weapons which many players overlook in just the LBB OD&D rules are far more effective with these rules.

Consider the cleric armed with a flail, or a fighter with a two handed sword. These weapons become much more dangerous (As they should be) with these rules. I know this idea is another holdover from the Man to man rules in Chainmail, but it seems a very important one. Perhaps these rules are really only effective in Human vs. Human or near human combats. I mean an orc in plate with a shield is still going to be AC 2, and that cleric with the flail is going to need all the help he or she can get! Should these rules be used both ways in combat? Maybe the orc has a morning star and the cleric has chainmail.... I dont mind keeping weapons doing 1d6 damage, but it seems some weapons should be better against armor. Ideas?

[ffilz]

I have two basic issues with these tables.

The first is it adds a lot of complexity. In the old days I as GM had the combat tables. No THAC0 for the players or combat tables on their character sheets, though even with such it adds a significant section to the character sheet. And then there's the monsters - tons of extra detail for me to keep track of.

And then there's the monsters. These tables don't have an array of monster weapons on them (interesting aside - Chivalry and Sorcery rated different sizes of claws and bites and such, so it could have detail), nor is monster armor there. Sure, many monster weapons and armor can be easily mapped over to human weapons and armor, but some should have real differences.

Frank

[dwayanu]

To me, they are too much bother. I also have issues with the modifiers themselves. When playing Chainmail with point-buy / free-choice forces, the number of men armed with flails or two-handed swords bore no resemblance to historical practice!

I don't mind such detail in Traveller (which also rates claws and hooves and so on) because combat is less common in that game.

[Finarvyn]

I agree with both sentiments -- they add complexity that I don't want, and in general they are too much bother.

I figure that the best way to make a weapon more effective is simply to add to its damage; while I know that the ability to hit might be more realistic, I also know that OD&D combat system is highly abstracted and not intended to be realistic.

[Deleted]

IMO, I've always liked the idea of Weapon Bonus vs. AC, but in practice, it became kind of a pain (I tried it for awhile with 2nd ed.). While it certainly is more realistic, it adds a complexity to the game that doesn't translate well at the table. Just my op.

[Stonegiant]

My understanding that these charts like the ones in AD&D 1st edition were only intended for man on man combat and did not apply when fighting monsters. Also the added complexity I have found isn't such a big bother when the modifiers are written down on the character sheet as they also don't apply to a majority of the combat being fought. I do find that these charts become more important when one is using the 1d6 damage for all weapons system vs. the variable weapon damage system.

[ant]

oltekos said:

IMO, I've always liked the idea of Weapon Bonus vs. AC, but in practice, it became kind of a pain (I tried it for awhile with 2nd ed.). While it certainly is more realistic, it adds a complexity to the game that doesn't translate well at the table. Just my op.

This is me exactly, oltekos. I tried using it in 2nd ed. -- it seemed like a great idea to add a layer of extra depth to armour and weapons. Unfortunately we would either forget to do it more often than not or when we did remember there was usually much moaning and complaining (I'm -5 to attack the orc in plate with my greatsword!?!? Whyyyyyyyyyyy!?!?! )

[coffee]

I gotta agree with what's been said above -- the added complexity doesn't work for me, even for a perceived increase in "realism". Especially when used versus monsters who don't wear armor.

And don't even get me started on the use of the table when Dexterity modifiers to AC are taken into account!

But hey, if you want to use it, please do let us know how it goes!

[Finarvyn]

coffee said:

when Dexterity modifiers to AC are taken into account!

Probably fodder for a new thread, but I actually like DEX mods to AC, but mostly when a character isn't wearing armor. Gives the campaign a more swashbuckly feel...

[coffee]

Oh, I don't have a problem with Dex mods to AC, just when they're done in conjunction with that table. You have to have Dex modify the to hit roll, not the AC, otherwise the table doesn't accurately reflect the armor in use.