I dunno if everyone will remember this, but does/has anyone used the old weapon vrs armour modifiers for a prolonged period? The feel of them seems very accurate, they add a new dimension. In 2nd ed the guys in charge seem to have got them seriously wrong with the 3 weapon types, just look at the bonus swords get against plate mail !!??!!. _________________ The only Good hobbit is a well-done hobbit.
I'm not familiar with the 1st ed modifiers, but you are right about the 2e numbers. I think its +3 for plate mail with slashing and against full plate its a +4!
While I like the idea of weapon vs. armor type modifiers, I don’t like the implementation, and even if implemented correctly, it can slow combat down. As an example, think of the room in the Moathouse in T1 with the small group of bandits. You have a group of nine opponents, with different armor types, and each with multiple, different weapons. It does add an additional layer of depth to combat, but it also increases bookkeeping, and pausing to check a source of reference.
My problem with implementation is that it is not consistent. The same idea behind weapon vs. armor attacks should be applied to the AC and ‘weapons’ of ‘monsters’.
Two equally skilled fighters (same level, Str, THAC0, etc.), one with a footman’s flail and one with a quarterstaff are attacking a third fighter equipped with plate mail and a shield. The fighter with the footman’s flail has a 45% (+9) better chance of hitting just from the weapon modifiers. The same two fighters now attack an anhkheg with the same weapons, and they have the same chance to hit.
Similarly, a dagger used against plate mail & shield vs. an unarmored opponent would have an additional -6 chance to hit on top of the actual AC difference due to the modifiers, but a pseudo-dragon’s tail stinger (basically, a dagger) has no modifiers.
Scott
The system is too cumbersome to use in regular combat.
I assume it simply doesn't matter in the chaos of a melee.
I do use the rules in the case of a duel, where a specific weapon is
hitting a specific armor in a formalized setting. Also with just two combatants it is not much extra work.
I also use it for bare-handed attacks, as otherwise pummelling
becomes more effective than weapons attacks if the attacker has high strength!
I agree with Kirt completely. Trust me Yabusama san. It's one of those rules that look great on paper, Then by the third round of combat, Your ready to fix a nice hot bath and slit your wrist! But I do love Kirt's Idea with using them for duels. Bravo!
And if the combatants have their choice of weapons in a duel, they sometimes choose based on the armor type of their opponent (assuming they are profecient, etc.).
The other time I use this is if there is a character class with a sworn opponent. For example, rangers with a racial enemy, or in my own campaign, the dwarven class of "Slayer" which is dedicated to the eradication of a specific race. In this case, if a PC with such a class takes a proficiency in a weapon with a high bonus against the armor most often used by the enemy, I allow them to use the to-hit bonus even if it doesn't get calculated for anyone else. Especially if this means they are taking weapons with lower damage, for the purpose of a better story line.
For example, in my campaign there is a Dwarven Slayer who is sworn to slay drow. He has taken proficiency in weapons that give high to hit mods against chain, because that is the most common drow armor. I allow him to use the mods when he is attacking drow in chain, but don't calculate it on other occassions.
BTW, I also use weapon speed factor adjustaments to inititiative in duels.
I would never use that rule in a combat involving more than three or four people either.
I'm going to chime in with a 'thumbs down' on weapon vs. armor-type modifiers. It really takes away from the pace of the game, especially in the example given with multiple armor types and multiple weapons. Historically, the idea has merit, but the D&D combat system takes too many shortcuts in other areas to incorporate this. D&D combat is fluid and abstract. This modification isn't a game-breaker because it is applied evenly and fairly across the board. From experience though, it does really slow down play.
I tried it in 1e after we had played for a few years and we didn't like it. My group tried the scaled down 2e version when it came out and even that seemed too detail heavy - we always seemed to be checking the numbers as nobody could ever remember the list by heart.
For us, it was enough to say that a lower AC means the target is harder to hit - end of story. Having this kind of system encourages some players to carry an arsenal of weapons, each one giving them an advantage against a particular armor type. While this might be realistic, I feel it takes away from the style and development of the characters and the spontaneity and flow of the game. Instead of boldy rushing into combat with sword drawn, the player would first check the opponent's armor type and then refer to the book to see what his best weapon choice would be - no thanks.
Thanks for all the replies. As you can probably tell I am leaning towards giving them a go, so I will try and answer/defend some of the potential drawbacks.
Speed. Yes if you had to reach for the book and look up your stats then speed will suffer, so I plan to dish out to each player a small card with their PCs weapons on, and their stats. As time goes by they will get to know that weapon X is good vrs heavy armour, weapon Y vrs light armour.
Monsters I totally agree that after fighting someone in armour and having dice modifiers, it makes no sense to have no modifiers vrs a monster type not wearing armour. So I would impose armour equivalents to monsters, in the example used an ankheg would probably come in as wearing the equivalent of platemail (guessing as I cant remeber their AC).
Just my two copper... _________________ The only Good hobbit is a well-done hobbit.
So I would impose armour equivalents to monsters, in the example used an ankheg would probably come in as wearing the equivalent of platemail (guessing as I cant remeber their AC).
Just my two copper...
Remember though that the monster's AC is not the same as armor type. The monster's final AC has factors like Dex and size figured into it, so even though an anhkheg has an AC of 2/4 you would probably use 3/8 for the armor type modifiers.
Sorry for using 1E stats; I don't have my new MM handy.
Scott
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
But I do love Kirt's Idea with using them for duels. Bravo!