Weapon Vs. AC Adjustments

[Scott]

Another concept that I like, but have only rarely used. One idea I had to remove some of the confusion with AC and AC type was to change the AC type to a letter. Chain mail is AC 5, and AC Type 5, but chain mail +2 and a 16 dexterity is AC: 1, but AC type 5.
If the type was a fixed letter, I think it would be a little less confusing and easier to implement. The AC would be 5F in the first case or 1F in the second. The adjustments would be easier to read on a character sheet as well.
10: +2, 9: +1, 8: 0, 7: 0, 6: 0, etc,
Vs.
A: +2, B: +1, C: 0, D: 0, E: 0, etc,

[GRWelsh]

I tried using these, I think, one time. It did change the way you looked at certain weapons... what sticks out for me were that quarterstaves and open-handed monk attacks were so ineffectual against plate mail. Across the board, most weapons became much less likely to hit someone in plate mail with a shield. A guy in platemail would just shrug off most sling stones and small missile fire. Other than against a pick, a few pole-arms and heavy blunt melee weapons, plate mail suddenly made people feel nearly invulnerable.

The way I look at it, mid to high level fighters in plate mail and shields are arrogant enough, with their high hit points and the fact that they already can hardly ever hit by men-at-arms or troop types... why emphasize this even more?

If you put these rules into effect, basically you'd see all the light footmen, slingers, bandits in padded armor and monks high-tail it for the hills. There would be a lot more jousting with lances. When not jousting, the heavily armored fighters and clerics would spend most of their time trying to dent each other's armor in with two-handed swords maces, and flails. You might see your first player -- ever --take a proficiency in a bec de corbin.

I suppose if you wanted to play a 'shiny knights' campaign, where the noble warrior caste was far superior to all other rabble, these would be good modifiers to implement.

[GT]

That sounds a bit like Mythus, except the armor advantages were countered by potential critical hits... it probably works better in Mythus, but I never really tried it in AD&D, except in rare, special instances. Actually, I have a simplified "Critical Chart" I tried in the 80's (for both PC and foe), and it went pretty smoothly. ^__^

[Scott]

I was going to check the Mythus rules for inspiration. Aren't they similar to the 2E method that bases modifiers on piercing, slashing, bludgeoning?

[GT]

Somewhat: Cutting, Piercing, Blunt, Impact (like a fall), Fire, Stun, Chemical, Electrical... and then four "armor areas"--Non-Vital (a hand or leg wound, for example), Vital, Super-Vital (a lung or gut blow, for example), and Ultra-Vital (through the heart or brain!). Different armors have different values in each of the four areas and against the various attack types; so a helm for example would be worth more armor points in the Ultra-Vital category and fewer in the Non-Vital, whereas gloves would be worth more in Non-Vital and little to none in more critical areas. Also, leather would shield you more from an electrical attack than plate mail, but less against a slashing blow, etc. It sounds more complex than it is--once the numbers are plugged in on the HP's sheet, it's business as usual! ^__^

[Scott]

Anybody interested in trying out some of these rules? Maybe a short one shot online adventure? Gary, how about Trast? I think he only needs 100 experience points to level. Anybody else?

[grodog]

Scott---

If you have it, dig out a copy of Dragon 74 and the Combat Computer therein: it makes using W vs. AC tables a breeze!

[Merkholz]

The idea of weapon adjustments really do appeal to me but I've always thought that it complicates play too much. In addition I think that the mechanic fails in regard to the various monsters. What if any Armor type does a fire giant, a catoblepas or a lurker above have?

If complicated mechanics should be applied to the game I think that it would be prudent to add a difficulty level to weapons. Learning to fight with a long sword or a khopesh is way more difficult than a club or a spear. Such minutiae are a bane to a good old dungeon romp.

M

[GRWelsh]

Nov 24, 2008 16:51:17 GMT -5 Scott said:

Anybody interested in trying out some of these rules? Maybe a short one shot online adventure? Gary, how about Trast? I think he only needs 100 experience points to level. Anybody else?

Well, okay... since you took the time to write these adjustments on my character sheet.

[Scott]

One more volunteer. Greg? Gene? Anyone? Nothing protracted at this point.

[amalric]

Same as Gary here - tried it once, but it didn't stick. Those guys in platemail were virtually tanks, and the idea of being proficient in a bec de corbin didn't appeal to anyone.

It's a nice idea, but in practice it doesn't really work - imho.

[GT]

You're all thinking "fighter-versus-fighter"... a couple of good lightning bolts... ^__^

[GT]

...or, a well-timed "heat metal"! ^__^

[edgewaters]

Nov 23, 2008 12:26:25 GMT -5 Scott said:

Another concept that I like, but have only rarely used. One idea I had to remove some of the confusion with AC and AC type was to change the AC type to a letter. Chain mail is AC 5, and AC Type 5, but chain mail +2 and a 16 dexterity is AC: 1, but AC type 5.

Why not just divide it into 3 basic classes, say unarmoured or lightly armoured, chain-type armour (including natural armours like scales), and plate armour (including natural armour like carapaces and very very thick skin). Call them A, B, and C.

Then, after each weapon, you could just have something like AC:+1/+1/-1 or something, the exact numbers based on the adjustments for AC 8, 5, and 3 respectively. Similarly after AC you could have something like AC 5(B) which would tell you to look at the second number (+1 in this example).