Behold! Weapon vs. Armor matrix.

[cooper]

Part of the reason I believe people don't use the weapon vs. ac chart is that it's hard to keep track of everything. Taking the idea from the attack matrices that predate thac0--and that was included in the CHAINMAIL version of dungeons and dragons, I believe having a chart will help solve this problem. Of course the weapon vs. AC charts in Ad&d are also pale shadow of the interesting complexity of the CHAINMAIL weapon vs. armor chart. Who cares about boring things like the dry, bland, and colorless chart that simply says things like pointy weapons get a +2 vs. chain armor?

This is for Thac0 21. A 1st level fighter would subtract 1 from each line. A 4th-7th level fighter would subtract 3 from the chart provided because of his 17 thac0 etc, etc. Ideally, you would make up an new attack matrix covering 0-level, 4-7th, 8-12, 13+. This may not line up with the weapon vs. armor chart provided in the greyhawk/1e rules, as I took the matrix directly from CHAINMAIL (logical, since that's what gygax did).

Using a chart like this, especially with non-variable weapon damage, goes a long way toward fixing serious problems like the fact that crossbows suck in all version of D&D (notice how much better a heavy xbow than the bow vs. a large creature for example) or to show how useful a dagger or long sword is to a dismounted and prone enemy in plate armor as representing the ability to shove the blade through the plated enemies visor in a coup de grace! or how a spear does better than a sword against horse sized creatures or larger. Neat things that were lost in the move from CM to 0D&D. This chart makes d6 weapon damage work much better IMO. AC 10 needs adjustment to be AC 9 for use in 0d&d.

I havn't put all the missile weapon in (horse bow, long bow, light xbow, composite bow) yet.

Weapon vs. Armor chart attack matrix

[coffee]

Interesting.

So, do you envision this to be only used against opponents who are actually wearing armor? Such as humans, humanoids, etc? So that any creature not basically humanoid would fall under the "Creature" columns (which was horse, in the original rules)?

How would you factor in, say, a dragon? Or a Ghost? I'm just curious.

[cooper]

I think the default for creatures not wearing armor is to assume they're skin is unarmored (for humanoids), or leather (for creatures with hides)

edit: I have adjusted the large category from chainmail (it should show up in a few minutes). Looking at how the original numbers lined up with the unarmored human, I have given positives or negatives to an attackers roll based on how particular weapons fared vs. unarmored large creatures.

Look at what probably caused Gygax to invent the small, medium/large category of variable weapon damage that we see in greyhawk/1e (eg. 2 handed sword does 1d10/3d6 vs large). A good example is comparing the mace vs. the sword. They are equally capable vs. men except a mace does quite well against plate armored foes, but the sword does much better against large creatures. This comports with verisimilitude and sm/l weapon dmg and weapon vs. ac modifiers from all editions and gives a reason to pick weapons even when they all do d6 dmg because bonuses to hit and bonuses to damage are interchangable modifiers when looking at damage over time (dps).

For magical protection like that of a ghost, take the "unarmored" category and then apply penalties like you would with magic armor. A ghost with AC0 means the weapons all use the "unarmored -10" category; just like say chainmail+5 armor uses the chainmail category with a -5 penalty to the opponents attack roll. So the ghosts is AC 0 (unarmored) or a dragon is AC 2 (leather) or Demogorgon is AC -9 (Large leather), grazzt AC -9 (plate)

There perhaps would need to be a change to the creature write ups in the books. Instead of listing AC, it should be listed showing the modifier to the attack matrix.

Ghost: AC Unarmored -10
dragon: AC leather -6 (large)
demogorgon: AC leather -17 (large)
grazzt: AC partial plate -14 (large)
PC in plate: AC plate.
PC in chainmail +3: AC chainmail -3
Kobold: AC leather


how's that? A bit more complicated than I intended. In most play, people will be fighting mostly humanoids. yes, demogorgon is complicated, but his armor class is no more complicated that keeping track of all of his spell like abilities, wishes, gate spells, and psionics. At high levels things get complicated! In truth there isn't any problem with just switching over to the normal attack matrix when fighting fantastic creatures and just use the man to man matrix for...men fighting men.

[waysoftheearth]

Hi Cooper,

This seems somewhat similar to the table Tombowings discussed recently here, though the exact numbers (and how they were derived) differ.

Jan 2, 2011 18:48:11 GMT -6 cooper said:

Part of the reason I believe people don't use the weapon vs. ac chart is that it's hard to keep track of everything.

Agreed

Jan 2, 2011 18:48:11 GMT -6 cooper said:

Of course the weapon vs. AC charts in Ad&d are also pale shadow of the interesting complexity of the CHAINMAIL weapon vs. armor chart.

In my gaming experience interesting is good, but complexity is bad. I don't have CHAINMAIL, so I can't comment on that, but I do have the AD&D PHB, and have always found the table of adjustments for weapon types versus AC too cumbersome for genuine use. In fact, I can't recall any group I've ever gamed with using it, and sticking with it.

Jan 2, 2011 18:48:11 GMT -6 cooper said:

Who cares about boring things like the dry, bland, and colorless chart that simply says things like pointy weapons get a +2 vs. chain armor?

Perhaps someone who prefers to simply remember that "Oh, spears and daggers and pointy things are +2 to hit versus mail!" rather than consulting rulebooks and matrices of figures at the onset of each combat round?

I guess it all comes down to what you want out of your game, but to my mind the matrices of figures seem too complicated to be practical at the gaming table. Perhaps I'm just not reading it right, but surely there are simpler fixes to the particular problems you quote?

Jan 2, 2011 18:48:11 GMT -6 cooper said:

the fact that crossbows suck in all version of D&D

Presumably due to their awful rate of fire compared to bow, and lower damage (in AD&D)? Well, if they all do 1d6 damage, and all fire once every round then the gap isn't so great. If you want crossbows to fire every other round (or bows to fire twice per round) then have crossbows cheaper (or bows more expensive), or give all classes the use of crossbows (they require little or no training to use), or only fighting-men the use of bows (they require a great deal of training to use). These things, and their kind, seem far simpler to me.

Jan 2, 2011 18:48:11 GMT -6 cooper said:

how useful a dagger or long sword is to a dismounted and prone enemy in plate armor as representing the ability to shove the blade through the plated enemies visor in a coup de grace!

As far as I recall, helmets are sold separately in D&D, so a AC2 (or whatever) doesn't imply a visored helm is worn. Besides which, many visors had grills or holes rather than slots. Assuming a "visor slot" existed, pushing a blade into it is not going to be an easy thing to do unless the opponent is already incapacitated. In which case it isn't combat at all, but merely dispatching the dying. No attack roll would be required to perform the coup de grace, and hence any attack adjustments would be redundant.

And if the opponent is not yet incapacitated, then we're dealing with an abstract combat system, so I'm pretty happy with a flat +2 or +4 adjustment versus prone (but not incapacitated) opposition regardless of AC. Perhaps -- if you really wanted to go to town -- you could use a +(10 - AC) adjustment to represent the fact that the heavily armoured are more prone than the lightly armoured. But for all that, I suspect that a solid clout on the visor with a military pick, maul, pole axe or even a basic mace is going to be a pretty nasty affair, any way you look at it.

Jan 2, 2011 18:48:11 GMT -6 cooper said:

or how a spear does better than a sword against horse sized creatures or larger

True, weapons are not differentiated in the 3LBBs. But by the introduction of weapon types versus AC (the subject of the original post) with supplement I, three damage categories were given for spear and one for sword. They were as follows (damage versus small - medium / large opponents, respectfully):

Spear, thrown/thrust 1-6/1-8
Spear, thrust vs. charge 1-8/2-12
Spear, set vs. charge 1-10/2-16
Sword, 1-8/1-12

The way I read it, a spear is more effective than is a sword when set to receive charging opponents, especially large opponents. It is approximately equivalent to a sword when used to thrust in melee, and less effective than a sword (in melee) when it is thrown.


My three coppers

[aldarron]

Interesting coop. I came up with a similar large creature modifier column on a CHAINMAIL derived chart I've been fooling with.

Waysofearth. I agree with you in principle and as mentioned elsewhere, I'm not a believer in the versimilitude of these tables anyway, and usuall prefer more abstract methods. But, in practice its not difficult to use the CHAINMAIL table, at least, it is no more difficult to use than the usual D&D combat table. Its really the same thing, only instead of Lvl 3 vs AC 7 on the table, its Longsword vs AC7, etc.

Cooper takes a different approach than I do in that he follows the D&D pattern of altering the to hit numbers by class and level. (thaco reduction) so that a level 4 fighter has a smaller to hit number than a level 1 fighter and that does complicate things as it does in D&D. I think its a fair interpretation of CHAINMAIL and the 3LBB's (and more fun) to keep all numbers mostly the same regardless of class or level, but allow extra attack rolls per round as per Fighting Capability. However, as you please.

[cooper]

www.2worthingtons.net/downloads/newcombat.pdf

Welp, Nagora over at dragonsfoot has one upped me.

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 3, 2011 9:45:06 GMT -6 aldarron said:

it is no more difficult to use than the usual D&D combat table. Its really the same thing, only instead of Lvl 3 vs AC 7 on the table, its Longsword vs AC7, etc.

Yes, but as I've mentioned elsewhere, it's often not quite so simple because armour type is rarely listed as a statistic, and AC commonly includes adjustments beyond armour type.

In fact, the (very beautiful!) document at www.2worthingtons.net/downloads/newcombat.pdf addresses this exact issue by suggesting that AC be noted not as a single number (like AC2) but as an armour type and an adjustment (like AC4+2).

[tombowings]

Yes, using the notion AC 7-4 (for AC3 difficulty, but using the AC 7 to-hit modifier) works well.

In practice I've been having it go as follows:

Player: "I thrust my spear at the bat."

Me: "Alright, you take a -4 to hit on this roll 'cause it's flying around so fast you barely see it."

Player: [Rolls a 17] "I hit AC 6 or less."

Me: "Great, you hit. Now roll damage."

[aldarron]

Jan 3, 2011 15:49:51 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Jan 3, 2011 9:45:06 GMT -6 aldarron said:

it is no more difficult to use than the usual D&D combat table. Its really the same thing, only instead of Lvl 3 vs AC 7 on the table, its Longsword vs AC7, etc.

Yes, but as I've mentioned elsewhere, it's often not quite so simple because armour type is rarely listed as a statistic, and AC commonly includes adjustments beyond armour type.

Ah good point. I tend to ignore all those later rules and prefer to treat Armor Class strictly as armor type so its less of an issue for me.

[waysoftheearth]

I'm sure it is all workable, but whether it is valuable depends on what you want out of your game.

If you want a detailed simulation of medieval combat that attempts to model the various weapons versus armour "arms races" of those times, with 4 specialised types of daggers, 19 types of pole-arm, 6 different kinds of arrow-heads, 7 differently designed swords etc. etc. (such as in the huge list of weapons available by the advent of Unearthed Arcana) then the kinds of matrices being discussed will likely be appealing.

On the other-hand, if you are happy with the level of abstraction where "a sword is a sword" regardless of its design, then any detailed model of "sword" versus each of 10 different armour types will necessarily be a gross generalisation of questionable value to the simulationist camp, and an unnecessary overhead to the abstractionist camp.

That being said, I can certainly appreciate the research and detail contained there -- all very nicely done indeed. Just not quite in line with what I enjoy most in my own games. But each to their own!

[tombowings]

I think what bothers most people about all weapons deal 1d6 damage and have the same to-hit table isn't that it's not realistic--we're playing a game with elves and fireballs, after all. While I can only speak for myself, of course, what I actually dislike is the "illusion of choice." (And if my choices aren't going to matter, at the very least be up-front about it.)

By "illusion of choice" I mean the idea that there is a list of 20 or so weapons and are exactly alike in everything but name and visualization. I want the choices that I make in a game about making choices to matter (if that makes any sense at all).

Similarly, if I want my magic-user to try and grapple a dragon, I don't want the DM to say, "well, make an attack roll;" "you succeeded? Great, now roll 1d6 damage and tell me the result." It doesn't do it for me if trying to grapple the dragon has the exact same consequences as trying to hit the dragon.


Or, trying this:

"There's a stone passage to the left and a cavernous tunnel to the right. To the left you see half a dozen pairs muddy footprints, as if made by an exceptionally small-footed creatures. To the right, the half-inch-thick cob-webs may make it difficult for you to traverse the muddied floor. What do you do?"

If the party chooses to go left, the DM would tell them:

"Following the footsteps, you pass into a square chamber. In the center of chamber is a human head floating in a vat of translucent green ichor. The footsteps continue ahead, passing through an oak door. There is also a passage to the left."

If the party chooses to go right, the DM would tell them:

"You climb through the cob-webs. They going is a little rough, but you manage to get across them just fine. The cavern opens into a oblong cavern. In the center of the caver, surrounded by a set of oaken chairs is a floating head. The cavern splits off, to the left and right. The left passage is twisted; the right one is narrow."

This doesn't quite do it for me.


Now, if my players preferred to have all weapons act exactly the same, I'd have no qualms doing it that way. But I'd like to at least have an option to present them if they think their choice of weapons should matter.

[aldarron]

Jan 3, 2011 20:10:23 GMT -6 tombowings said:

I think what bothers most people about all weapons deal 1d6 damage and have the same to-hit table isn't that it's not realistic--we're playing a game with elves and fireballs, after all. While I can only speak for myself, of course, what I actually dislike is the "illusion of choice." (And if my choices aren't going to matter, at the very least be up-front about it.)
...

By "illusion of choice" I mean the idea that there is a list of 20 or so weapons and are exactly alike in everything but name and visualization. I want the choices that I make in a game about making choices to matter (if that makes any sense at all).Now, if my players preferred to have all weapons act exactly the same, I'd have no qualms doing it that way. But I'd like to at least have an option to present them if they think their choice of weapons should matter.

Well.... When the concern is "making choices matter" (or at least appear to) regarding weapons in combat, and those choices are meant to have some semblance to reality then I would say the most relevant aspect of any weapon is skill. Gygax, to my knowledge, had no experience with any sort of weapon use - sport or otherwise. It was all an academic exercise for him, and the patterns he set in Chainmail/Greyhawk/AD&D continue to set the tone for weapons vs. armor combat, as the posts here demonstrate.

Contrarywise, many gamers with some experience in handling weapons have tended to prefer non variable or very simply variable to hit/damage systems because of the realization of the role played by the combatants' skill in the use of a weapon.

So, to "make the choice matter" it would be more realistic IMHO, to either penalize or provide bonuses for weapon familiarity. Realistically, (ha ha) if I were transported to a medival tourney and had to face the black knight, I would pick up the longsword because I am personally much more familiar with swords and how to use them than I am with a heavy mace or a great axe. I'd stand a much better chance with my weapon of choice, even though the others might theoretically be better against the black knights armor.

Now its true that a fighter should be expected to be familiar/competent with a range of weapons, especially if they come from a noble family where a broad training was available. Even so, people always have favorites, and always will bring thier best game with the weapon they are most comfortable with. They are more likely to land hits with it.

Tom I think you've got a pretty clever system worked out and I'm sure you guys are having fun with it so don't think I'm encouraging you to change anything. Just providing food for thought.

[tombowings]

It's all good, aldarron, I like having people point out flaws in my creations. That often why I post them here. Thanks for the feedback.

[bluskreem]

I've been tempted to give the original a go in my next Carcosa one-shot, but I think your chart might fight my needs much better. (We tend to chuck all the hit and damage dice at once, and it's much easier to differentiate the one D20 from the mess.) Thanks.

[arcadayn]

Jan 4, 2011 9:46:31 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Jan 3, 2011 20:10:23 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Contrarywise, many gamers with some experience in handling weapons have tended to prefer non variable or very simply variable to hit/damage systems because of the realization of the role played by the combatants' skill in the use of a weapon.

Hmm. Anyone's "experience" with medieval weapons today is not even near accurately testing the value of a particular weapon vs a particular armor in combat. No modern sport can do this with any validity.

Are you referring to the types of exercises I've seen on the History channel and Wolrd's Deadliest Warrior? Those shows actually demonstrate the value of individual weapon designs very succinctly.

[aldarron]

Feb 6, 2011 8:56:34 GMT -6 arcadayn said:

Jan 4, 2011 9:46:31 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Jan 3, 2011 20:10:23 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Contrarywise, many gamers with some experience in handling weapons have tended to prefer non variable or very simply variable to hit/damage systems because of the realization of the role played by the combatants' skill in the use of a weapon.

Hmm. Anyone's "experience" with medieval weapons today is not even near accurately testing the value of a particular weapon vs a particular armor in combat. No modern sport can do this with any validity.

Are you referring to the types of exercises I've seen on the History channel and Wolrd's Deadliest Warrior? Those shows actually demonstrate the value of individual weapon designs very succinctly.

<blink> Arcadyn, with all do respect, I can't imagine any way that you could possibly know with such certainty that modern experience is so irrelevant in all cases concerned. I completely and utterly disagree with you. The laws of physics and biology have not changed in the past thousand years.

Second, I was not refering to any tv shows, which for the little I have seen of them are entertaining but otherwise filled with hubris and crap. In some of these weapon/armor posts I have refered to archaeological and forensic anthropology studies of original materials, burial remains and expriamental archaeology, but not, as I recall to prime time TV or movies.

If I were to accept your supposition of the irrelevancy of modern experience as fact, then my entire profession (archaeology), which is built on analogy, would have to be abandoned as hopeless.

[tombowings]

I'd like to jump in and say that archeology is, by far, the most awesome academic pursuit. Not that I regret the choice of English and history.

[aldarron]

Feb 7, 2011 0:12:42 GMT -6 tombowings said:

I'd like to jump in and say that archeology is, by far, the most awesome academic pursuit. Not that I regret the choice of English and history.

Yeah, its tough to get anything close to decent pay though outside of teaching positions. and most work involves a great deal of travel which can be tough when raising a family, but its fascinating work.

[Professor P]

Feb 7, 2011 8:21:24 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Feb 7, 2011 0:12:42 GMT -6 tombowings said:

I'd like to jump in and say that archeology is, by far, the most awesome academic pursuit. Not that I regret the choice of English and history.

Yeah, its tough to get anything close to decent pay though outside of teaching positions. and most work involves a great deal of travel which can be tough when raising a family, but its fascinating work.

Are you insinuating that teachers make good pay? Because, in my experience, we certainly do not.

[aldarron]

Feb 7, 2011 13:08:16 GMT -6 Professor P said:

Feb 7, 2011 8:21:24 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Yeah, its tough to get anything close to decent pay though outside of teaching positions. and most work involves a great deal of travel which can be tough when raising a family, but its fascinating work.

Are you insinuating that teachers make good pay? Because, in my experience, we certainly do not.

Average pay for an Archaeologist with a BA is about $12-13 an hour, an MA will get you a couple bucks more. It also not unusual to go several weeks or longer without work, depending on the construction market and where you are based. <shrug>

[arcadayn]

Feb 6, 2011 22:20:41 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Feb 6, 2011 8:56:34 GMT -6 arcadayn said:

Hmm. Anyone's "experience" with medieval weapons today is not even near accurately testing the value of a particular weapon vs a particular armor in combat. No modern sport can do this with any validity.

Are you referring to the types of exercises I've seen on the History channel and Wolrd's Deadliest Warrior? Those shows actually demonstrate the value of individual weapon designs very succinctly.

<blink> Arcadyn, with all do respect, I can't imagine any way that you could possibly know with such certainty that modern experience is so irrelevant in all cases concerned. I completely and utterly disagree with you. The laws of physics and biology have not changed in the past thousand years.

Second, I was not refering to any tv shows, which for the little I have seen of them are entertaining but otherwise filled with hubris and crap. In some of these weapon/armor posts I have refered to archaeological and forensic anthropology studies of original materials, burial remains and expriamental archaeology, but not, as I recall to prime time TV or movies.

If I were to accept your supposition of the irrelevancy of modern experience as fact, then my entire profession (archaeology), which is built on analogy, would have to be abandoned as hopeless.

First off, I apologize if you feel that I was attacking your profession. I must admit that I did not know what it was until now, nor have I read any of your posts where you discuss archeological evidence. I have the utmost respect for archaeology. I even considered archaeology as career while I was in college.

What I am saying is that no modern sport accurately reflects the damage particular weapons do to armor and wearer. I am definitely not inferring the irrelevancy of modern experience as fact in all cases concerned. I inferred your original statement of gamers having experience with weapons as referring to gamers participating in fencing, SCA, or something similar. If you had referred to archaeological and forensic evidence, I would not have questioned its validity. However, I do stand by my assertion that none of the aforementioned sports can truly demonstrate the effectiveness of real weapons vs real armor. Its just not possible without causing serious injury.

Actually, the History Channel television shows I'm referring to were BBC productions done by the historians and curators at the Tower of London. One scene that stuck with me and really changed my perception of armor was of a man in full plate doing cartwheels. It has been a few years since I last saw them aired and can't remember the exact title of the program. I agree that Deadliest Warrior is mostly crap. However, it does sometimes provide a very visceral demonstration of the effectiveness of a particular weapon vs a particular type of armor. It is definitely a guilty pleasure of mine though!

[aldarron]

Ah, no worries; no insult was imagined and no apology needed. True, sport activities involving two (or more) participants do not simulate, or give a particularly good indication of damage inflicted in lethal combat (except where things go wrong) or the changes in behavior (caution and slopiness usually) that accompany the fear of dying, but that is just a part of the experience and not particularly necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of arms, armor or training. Projectile weapons, for example can be perfectly replicated and tested against targets, and merely wearing armor, or engaging in a fencing match can give a great deal of insight into what is realistic and what is not, as your own comment about the cartwheeling in armor dude shows.