Weapon Length vs. AC

[talysman]

A while back, waysoftheearth posted about reducing the weapon vs. AC table to a single modifier for each weapon. I had been playing with the idea of adding weapon length in feet to the attack roll, and I noticed that, with a couple exceptions, crude weapon length -3 = the modifiers from that thread. Adding +2 vs shields for ax/flail and -2 vs shields for thrusting/missile weapons is an even better fit.

But recently, I was thinking: if I'm not worried about the exact numbers, just the same relative benefit of having a longer weapon, would it work if you just said "when attacking an armored opponent with a weapon, you can substitute the weapon length, in feet (dropping fractions) for the armor class, up to the max weapon length/AC of 9". This assumes the player picks the more advantageous number, of course, and that there are other reasons for using shorter weapons some of the time. And the ax/flail and thrust/missile modification would still be applicable.

The numbers are no where near the same, but it does effectively make certain weapons better against certain armor. But what does everyone else think?

[oakesspalding]

Why would, say, a 9' spear be so effective against plate armor that it would effectively negate it? Weapon length can be important, but it doesn't seem to necessarily be relevant to how effective a weapon is against armor per se. Or am I missing something?

[talysman]

Pikes, Spears and Polearms on waysoftheearth's table do have numbers that don't follow the pattern, so perhaps there could be an exception. Perhaps pole weapons don't get the bonus because they enable a long reach attack?

[oakesspalding]

For my own in progress neoclone of OD&D I came up with these numbers:

Weapon 20-Sided Die Score to Hit by Target’s Armor Class
Class Type 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

0 Unarmed 9 12 10 13 14 16 17 18
1 Dagger 10 13 11 14 15 17 18 19
2 Mace 9 12 11 14 13 15 17 18
3 Sword 7 10 9 12 15 17 19 20
4 Axe 10 11 11 12 13 14 16 16
5 Hammer 10 13 11 14 13 15 16 17
6 Staff 7 10 8 11 16 18 19 20
7 Sword (2-h) 7 8 7 8 12 13 16 16
8 Poleaxe 8 9 9 10 12 13 15 15
9 Morning Star 9 10 10 11 13 14 17 17
10 Spear 8 11 8 11 13 15 17 18
11 Bill 8 9 8 9 13 14 17 17
12 Lance 6 9 7 10 11 13 14 15


Missile Weapons 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Dagger 10 13 11 14 15 17 18 19
Axe 10 11 11 12 13 14 16 16
Hammer 10 13 11 14 13 15 16 17
Spear 8 11 8 11 13 15 17 18
Javelin 8 11 8 11 13 15 17 18
Sling 10 12 11 13 14 15 16 17
Bow 8 9 8 9 15 16 20 21
Crossbow 8 9 8 9 13 14 16 17

All weapons do 1d6 damage, although attackers have the option of doing double damage by taking a -5 to hit penalty (and triple at a -10 penalty). Higher level characters simply add their attack bonuses-4th level Fighting-Men add +2, 7th level Fighting-Men add +5, etc. In general, however, what might translate into extra damage (because the weapon is bigger or whatever) in Greyhawk and 1e is reflected in a higher probability to hit.

There are also additional damage modifiers for combat against large creatures that have more body mass to penetrate. Spears, poleaxes and two-handed swords will get a +2 damage bonus and daggers and maces will suffer a -2 damage penalty, for example.

The function of Weapon Class is similar to that in Chainmail. The higher class always gets first attack in the 1st round, but the lower class may get first attack or even double or triple attacks in subsequent rounds where initiative is tied.

The chart gives a higher value to shields, though their value declines as armor improves. This I think is more consistent with the historical record than the uniform -1 Gygaxian standard. The table yields quite different results (from, say, Chainmail/Greyhawk) as to the value of certain weapons against different armor types. Among other things, one gets a few "heretical" results such as that against an unarmored opponent, a staff is as good as any weapon and better than many, and against plate, a dagger may be more effective than a standard one-handed sword. These results are consistent with my (no doubt imperfect) research on Medieval and Renaissance martial arts.

I have put quite a bit of thought into this but I am of course still open to criticisms or suggestions.

(EDIT: Sorry, it's my first time actually participating in ProBoards-though I've been an avid reader for some time. I didn't realize the formatted table would collapse. I will try to correct it after work.)

[talysman]

I decided, per the discussion and further examinations of Simon's analysis of weapon vs. AC, that simply excluding missile weapons and pole arms from the weapon length benefit would work. Swapping defender AC and attacking weapon length when it benefits the attacker makes great swords more useful against plate without really altering attacks against unarmored opponents, and it keeps math to a minimum. So, I'll probably go with these rules:

1. Attacker can choose to use length in feet of melee weapons (but not missile weapons, spears, or pole arms) in place of target's Armor Class, if it is advantageous.
2. Axe, Flail/Chain: +2 vs. shields
3. Spear, Pole Arm, Projectile: -2 vs. shields
4. Bows and weapons > 2/3 warrior's height must be used two-handed
5. Attacks in Dex order unless surprised or tired/overburdened
6. On first attack, can substitute 3 x melee weapon/pole arm length for Dex.
7. On other attacks, ties go to shortest weapon.

Some weapons, of course, have special attack options (disarm with flail, wrap whip around target's neck, tangle victim with net.) My standard procedure for that is to use the damage roll as a test (5+ on 1d6 = special effect.) For things like nets, that's all the damage roll is used for (no real damage.)

I checked some typical match-ups, and it looks like most light weapons/light armor match-ups wind up looking like standard D&D combat -- well, Holmes D&D -- with at most a +/- 2 modifier for a couple weapons vs. shield. You need at least a broadsword before you see any combat effects, and even there, a broadsword only gives a benefit vs. plate and shield.

[waysoftheearth]

I found my way here from the "Do you use Variable Weapon Damage?" poll thread, so late to the party as ever. But nice summary talysman.

One theoretical issue could be that there can be a wide range of lengths even within one "class" of weapon, but if everyone's prepared to settle on a "standard sword" then that may not matter.

I'm not sure about points 4 to 7 (I prefer the FAQ method of initiative to Holmes)... have you been able to try it out yet?

That aside, I think point 1 could work well. Having had a good while to test my original table since I wrote that post, I don't see why this wouldn't work out too.

[talysman]

Well, a variant of #6, plus # 7 as written, have been my working method of initiative: longest weapon goes first on first round, last on following rounds. #4 is, of course, Holmes initiative, with the added bit about surprise, fatigue, and encumbrance. I've done Holmes separately, but I haven't tried all three together; I used to use Dex as the tie breaker for weapon length, instead of the other way around.

One issue that was raised on my blog that also applies to your weapon vs. AC mods is that, if a fighter with an ax faces an opponent with a shield, the shield user is better off dropping the shield. Should the +2 vs. shields modifier be lowered to a +1?

[waysoftheearth]

Yes, I had noticed that quirk too; it's an interesting possibility. Notionally, axes are better at splitting shields than are swords (shields were almost always of wooden construction), and this works especially well with the "shields shall be sacrificed" house rule.


IMC shields improve AC by 2 pips and can be sacrificed to ablate a hit. With those rulings a defender would not be any better off dropping his shield, and would actually be worse off due to losing the opportunity to ablate one hit.


In fact, in any game with the "splintered shields" rule, the player might well be better off retaining his shield, purposefully intending to sacrifice it on the first hit from an axe-wielding enemy, and thereafter be more difficult to hit. Sure he risks losing his shield to a roll that may have otherwise been a miss, but that's a calculable risk.


By more "standard" rules (is there such a thing?) where shields add only 1 pip to AC, the ref may well want to reduce all the split "versus shields" adjustments by 1. This will devalue those weapons slightly, of course, but that may not matter overly.