Looking for Alternative Weapons vs. AC Tables

[tombowings]

I seen a few posters reference their alternative weapons vs. AC table (a la Supplement 1: Greyhawk p13-14) but have never seen anyone post theirs.

I'm working on my own such table to replace variable weapon damage and would love to see a few example for guidance.

Anyone up for sharing?

[waysoftheearth]

Hi Tombowings,

I'm pretty sure you've seen my attempt over here.

Weapon Type Versus Armour Type

This is (hopefully) a simplified version of the addition to the Alternate Combat System which appeared in Greyhawk (pages 13 and 14).

	Shield	Hide	Mail	Plate
Weapon Type
Light Weapon	-1	--	--	--
Missile Weapon	-2	--	--	--
Wrapping Weapon	+1	--	--	--
Damage Type

[/td]
[/tr]

[tr]
[td]Slashing Damage[/td][td]--[/td][td]+1[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td]
[/tr]

[tr]
[td]Piercing Damage[/td][td]--[/td][td]+1[/td][td]+1[/td][td]-1[/td]
[/tr]

[tr]
[td]Bludgeoning Damage[/td][td]--[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]+1[/td]
[/tr]

[tr]
[td]Untyped Damage[/td][td]--[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]-1[/td]
[/tr]

[/table]

Fails and whips are wrapping weapons because they "wrap around" shields.

Clubs, staffs, whips and slings are considered "untyped damage" because these (cheap) weapons are poor against plate armour.

The attack modifiers given under Weapon Type are cumulative with those given under Damage Type. Thus, a PC firing a crossbow at an enemy wearing chainmail and carrying a shield would be -2 (for missiles versus shields) and +1 (for piercing attacks versus mail). So our PC would attack with a -1 modifier overall.

[/blockquote]

Do you intend to adjust weapon damage versus AC, or adjust to hit rolls?

[talysman]

My weapon vs. AC table is pretty simple: three general types of armor (non-rigid/leather, semi-rigid/chain, rigid/plate) and three classes of damage:

• blunt: +1 advantage against rigid and semi-rigid armors
  
• edged: +1 advantage against nonrigid armor
  
• piercing: +1 advantage against semi-rigid armor made of rings or links and against nonrigid armor
  

My blog post goes into the effects of materials of different hardness, but that's the core.

[tombowings]

Thanks for the ideas, guys.

So I've finished by table of melee weapons (which I will post once I figure out how to).

It's similar to that of Supplement 1: Greyhawk, but based on the idea that all weapons (including two-handed weapons) will deal 1d6 points of damage.

Essentially, two-handed weapons hit more often than one-handed weapons, which hit more often than light weapons.

[tombowings]

Here it is (critique requested):

Attacker's Weapon Type	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Dagger	-3	-3	-2	-1	0	0	+1	+2
Hand Axe	-3	-2	-1	0	+1	+1	0	0
Mace	+1	+1	+1	0	0	0	0	0
Hammer	0	+1	+1	+1	0	0	0	0
Sword	-2	-1	0	0	0	+1	+2	+2
Military Pick	+2	+2	+1	+1	0	0	-1	-2
Battle Axe	-1	-1	0	+1	+1	+2	+1	0
Staff	-7	-5	-3	-1	0	+1	+2	+3
Morning Star*	0	0	+1	+1	+1	+2	+1	+2
Flail	+2	+1	+1	0	0	0	0	-1
Spear**	-2	-1	-1	0	0	0	0	0
Pole Arm*	-1	0	0	+1	+1	+2	+2	+3
Halberd*	+1	+1	+2	+2	+1	+1	0	0
2-Handed Sword*	+2	+3	+2	+1	0	0	0	0
Mounted Lance	+3	+3	+2	+2	+1	+1	+1	+1

*Requires 2 hands to wield effectively.
**The spear acts as a Mounted Lance when set against a mounted charge or a Halberd when set against a non-mounted charge.


Also, Daggers, Swords, Spears, Pole Arms, Halberds use the chart below when attacking prone opponents:

2	3	4	5
+3	+2	+2	+1

[waysoftheearth]

Dec 20, 2010 17:17:29 GMT -6 tombowings said:

(critique requested)

Hi Tombowings, I don't have a proper "critique" for you, but I can share a few observations...

I think your premise that larger weapons can be made more effective by hitting more often (rather than dealing more damage on each hit) is a sound one, and a good idea.

Regarding your table of figures, you seem to have omitted missile weapons as well as unarmed and/or natural (weaponless) attacks.

In terms of practicality, I suspect that a complex table of modifiers such as you have presented would actually be a burden at the gaming table, and hence would tend to get overlooked. I say this because this is exactly my own experience with the similar table in the PHB, and also my own simplified substitute (above).

Aside from the extra time taken to consult the matrix and adjust each attack roll, I have always found it a bit fiddly because the "Armour Type" which these tables generally refer to is not the character's AC, and is not (generally) a listed statistic of either PCs or monsters.

That's why I personally prefer a much simpler model which considers only the most basic armour "types" (none, hide, mail, plate) and shields separately.

You might (or might not?) achieve much the same result, far more easily with something as simple as:

• two handed weapons are +2 vs. mail and plate,
  
• light weapons are -2 versus plate.
  
• missiles are -2 versus shields (cumulative with above).
  

Just a few thoughts

[tombowings]

Thanks waysoftheearth

Most of these observations were things I took into consideration when creating the table in the first place. I think, however, it could be useful for everyone if I explain how I am getting around them or took them into account.

Let me start with how I've been running descending AC with a group of 16-17 year old (my youngest brother's friends are excellent playtesters).

At the bottom of the first (digest) page of the character sheet I use (based off Jame's Dwimmermount character sheet), there is a line of 8 little boxes labeled 2-9. Each box corresponds to an Armor Class. In these boxes, the player writes the number that must be rolled to hit each Armor Class.

When rolling to hit, the player tells me, the DM, the lowest (best) armor class he/she hits with his/her roll. EX: James rolls a 15 and says "AC 4."


Yesterday, I ran another playtest. I included three of these 2-9 boxes so that they could record the to hit numbers of up to three weapons. Because I never increase jump too much around on my weapons vs. AC table, having a higher armor class never makes a character easier to hit. Thus a character with a military pick could roll a 16 and say "AC 2" or roll a 13 and say "AC 4."

To make this a little clearer, I'll show a couple of to hit table for different weapons:

Weapon	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Hand Axe	20	18	16	14	12	11	11	10
Military Pick	15	14	13	13	13	12	12	12
Pole Arm	18	16	15	13	12	10	9	7
2-Handed Sword	15	13	13	13	13	12	11	10

What this means is that an increase in AC never makes a character easier to hit; have a higher is always a good thing.

While the game likely did slow down some, it wasn't somethings that was noticeable to me and all but one of my playtesters. And that playtester was the one that had a lot of fun picking (guessing) which weapon his fighter should use against which opponents.

I'm making a few assumptions here, though, that I should be more blatant about:

• Magic armor applies a penalty to hit rather than a bonus to AC.
  
• 2 is the best possible AC and 9 is the worst possible AC
  
• All weapons deal 1d6 points of damage on a hit.
  

As you can see, all of these are consistent, however, with the LBBs (although not necessarily Supplement 1).

Now, I'm still working on my ranged table (which is why I haven't posted it), trying to get the right relationships between the weapons vs. AC and rate of fire.

As of yesterday, most non-weaponed monsters rolled without any bonuses/penalty to AC. Ultimately, it seemed to work fine, but may be something to mess around with in the future.

[The Fiendish Dr. Samsara]

Well, I favour the simpler method too. Here's mine:



(from the post on the blog)

I've been quite happy with it in play and it's been much more flavourful than variable weapon damage.

[waysoftheearth]

Your method looks good Tombowings, and if it's working out well for your group then I'd say you are onto something.

I guess what tripped me up initially is that I assumed it was intended as an alternate Weapons vs. Armour Type system. But I see it now more as an alternate variable weapon damage system -- variable damage by adjusting how frequently damage is rolled. It's kinda neat that way

From that perspective it doesn't much matter that the same attack adjustment is applied applied to opponents with the same AC for very different reasons. I.e., a rabbit (AC 2 due to its small size and speed), a ghost (AC 2 due to being incorporeal), and a knight (AC 2 due his full plate armour, great helm and war shield).

Nice

[aldarron]

Some of the simpler methods here strike me as decent ideas, in game terms. Thats all good if you are having fun with it and I might try them out myself.

The trouble with the concept of weapons vs. armor is that it is mostly theoretical and especially so since few people have handled many of the weapons or armor, let alone taken the necessary time to take effort to really study medieval forensic battle data, modern experiamental archaeology, and medieval weapons design and development. Basically, in reality you cant say a category as broad as "two handed swords" is better than a "daggars" against plate or chain, nor can you say chain mail is better protection than leather or some cloth laminates against "arrows" or "missles" etc.

Weapons are tools, and just as hammmers won't all do the same job just because they have certain use and appearance similarities, neither will weapons that happen to be categorized by similarities in appearance and use. For example, some daggars and short swords were designed specifically to act as "can openers" against plate mail, some arrows were designed specifically to bust open chainmail, and so forth. All weapons are purpose driven to some extent and will function best in the purpose for which they were designed, regardless of the general "type" they are classified in for D&D.

Personally I wouldn't get much fun out of getting this fiddly and specific, but if you were really interrested in some kind of realistic weapon versus armor chart I think you would need to reclassify all the weapons into categories like Stiff heavy plate piercers, super sharp leather cutters, or some such, and then probably have secondary categories for length, weight, speed, lethality, and who knows what, similar perhaps to they way cartridges, calibers, loads, and bullets are sometimes classified for rifle amunition vs specific types of game and hunting conditions.

I think what I'm suggesting is that to model reality (if that's the thing that matters to you) with weapons v. armor you either keep it really broad, like Talysman's system or Waysofearth's or you go ultraspecific, but the middle ground approach, like in CHAINMAIL or AD&D is more about adding game mechanics than realism, for the reasons above.

[tombowings]

Funny things is, aldarron, you hit the nail on the head (although I didn't previously realize my own intentions): I am looking for fiddy game mechanic rather than realism. My goal is weapon differentiation. Even in the table I posted above, guesses and, in two cases, balance, have trumped research.

So I guess I'll have to agree to disagree.


After two sessions of playtesting (I still don't have missile weapons quite right), I'm quite happy with how things have been going.

I failed to mention before, that I gave PCs a number of weapon proficiencies (a la AD&D: 3 for fighters, 2 for clerics, and 1 for magic-user) and allow all classes to weapon any type of armor (although magic-users need one hand free to cast spells).

There were two fighters in the groups, a cleric, and a magic-user.

Fighter 1 took the military pick, dagger, and hand axe as his three. All of these weapons are super-specialized and one-handed, which meant he could take one just about any monster with an improved chance to hit and still retain his shield. However, he had to choose the correct weapon or be at a disadvantage; two-handed weapons have bonuses against a much wider scope of ACs than one-handed ones (which generally worked out well in practice).

Fighter 2 took the sword, halberd, and light crossbow. He spent a lot of the time trying to knock opponents prone so that he could use alternative chart for Daggers, Swords, Spears, Pole Arms, Halberds when attacking prone opponents. It was an interesting tactical decision that often got him into more trouble than he originally foresaw. Ultimately, he had a lot of fun with it.

The Cleric fared better than I originally expected. The combination of mace/hammer and staff is a good one, apparently. While the fighters did have the advantage in terms of weaponry, the cleric wasn't too far behind.

The magic-user took the arch-typical staff as his single weapon. He had a tougher time in melee than the fighters or the cleric (which is expected), but had fun getting to whack at monsters for a change (armor makes a big difference there).

Ultimately, I was happy with how things turned out. Thanks for the help guys.

[waysoftheearth]

I'm happy to hear that your group is playing and enjoying D&D Tombowings, that's ultimately what it's all about.

Thanks also for sharing some of the details. It's always interesting to learn how others are playing their D&D.

Another question did come to mind as I was reading thou...

Dec 22, 2010 12:24:23 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Fighter 1 took the military pick, dagger, and hand axe as his three. All of these weapons are super-specialized and one-handed, which meant he could take one just about any monster with an improved chance to hit and still retain his shield. However, he had to choose the correct weapon or be at a disadvantage

(emphasis added)

You mentioned earlier that players would make an attack roll, then announce the best AC they had hit. I read this as meaning the players didn't know their opponents' ACs.

But in the quote above, you mentioned that the player had to choose the correct weapon (to maximise his odds of hitting). This implies that the player must either know his opponent's AC, or guess, in order to make his choice.

If he must guess (as I suspect he must) then the visible "armour type" of the opponent would be the main clue as to which weapon would serve best. But (correct me if I'm wrong), your adjustments are based on armour class rather than armour type.

Therefore, the visible armour type is of little value to the player who must then simply guess which weapon to use. Which weapon would be most effective against an unarmoured AC3 Floating Head, for example? Or an unarmoured AC2 rabbit? Or a fully armoured AC7 elephant? Are those Orcs with ringmail, helm and shield AC6, 5 or 4?

It would appear that in these "trick" circumstances (where AC is the reverse of what it appears) the players may end up selecting less effective weapons -- until they figure out the monster's AC by trial and error.

No matter the circumstances, I suspect that players may be encouraged to track the ACs of encountered monsters in order to select the best weaponry when that monster type is encountered next.

Have you observed this?

[tombowings]

Waysoftheearth,

When I DM at least, 90% of the time armor class is directly linked armor type. Animals with though hides and fur are classed as leather armor. Beetles, scorpions and dragons are usually plate. Monsters with wings, long appendages, tails, and those sorts of things usually are considered to be wielding shields.

Monsters that rely on dexterity, I usually just apply a penalty to hit (just like magic armor) rather than an increase in armor class.

Thus the players had some idea what the AC of any given creature was and they were usually in the ballpark as to what weapons to use. They weren't always right, however, and sometimes made the wrong choice.

Things typically went. "Hu. This guys looks like he's got some tough skin. I draw my pick and drive it into his brittle skull." Or "Fur. Fur's like skin, right? I draw my sword to do battle with the bear."

Things get interesting with oozes and slimes, which are rather unpredictable. I hadn't intended this, actually, but I enjoyed the results.

Players did keep track of AC, but I ended up ruling that it took a round to sheath and draw a new weapon while still defending oneself. A weapon could also be drawn in haste and used that round, but at a bonus to hit for incoming attacks. Thus having a weapon in each hand was a actually viable choice, even with a +1 to hit or anything.

All this being said, I'm not sure I'm going to continue to use this table in my normal campaign. Some of the players have a bit shorter attention spans or are not as keen on tactical combat as this group. I'll likely run it by them and see what they think.