What are your thoughts on this?

   Weapon vs Armor Tables for B/X D&D
I never used the Weapon vs Armor tables in the AD&D Player's Handbook. Mostly because I find the chart really overwhelming with all 44 rows of weapons and 9 columns of armor. I also didn't know what to do when characters were fighting monsters that didn't have "weapons" and "armor" per se.

However, if we limit the number of weapons to the 19 in B/X D&D, and only include 4 columns for armor (Plate, Chain, Leather and Unarmored) it becomes a bit more manageable. And if instead of being a chart of modifiers we apply them to the numbers from the attack matrixes... we end up with a chart showing what you need to roll to hit the different types of armor using the different weapons.



* Tooth & Claw use Dagger

Raise target number by 1 if target has a shield
Add Character's adjustment for Dexterity to target number

Bonuses to Attack Rolls
Add Monster's Hit Dice (without bonuses) to attack roll
Add Character's adjustment for Strength to melee attacks and Dexterity to ranged attacks

Fighters and Demi-Humans get +2 at 4th, +5 at 7th, +7 at 10th and +8 at 13th level
Clerics and Thieves get +2 at 5th, +5 at 9th, +7 at 13th and +8 at 17th level
Magic-Users get +2 at 6th, +5 at 11th, +7 at 16th and +8 at 21st level

Note: 20 is always a hit, 1 is always a miss

These are all the same numbers from AD&D and B/X - I've just presented them differently.

It's a bit more detail than I've been using lately... but I have to admit I do like the choices in weapons making more of a difference and Plate armor generally offering better protecting than the 16+ to hit number it has without any of these modifiers being used.

It now makes sense to use a Warhammer if you're going up against an armored opponent (this would have been true in the middle ages) and there's even a reason you might decide to punch, kick or headbutt an unarmored enemy rather than use your weapon.

What do you think? Would you use the Weapon vs AC numbers now?

I like it from the point that although I'd happily play 1/2e D&D, I'd never use said tables.

These are almost getting into usable territory for me- like you I'd prefer b/X to AD&D's.

The test for me is whether they get remember to be used during play & whether they meld in nicely with that experience (groups may differ obviously).

I'd give Crossbow more penetration than a longbow but that's quibbling.


The simple armour tables make it easy to  categporise monsters into those which have AC simply due to nimbleness, hide, thick hide or truly thick dragsonscales/armour.

Not bad at all! That's the way of making a weapon vs armor table!

Reminds me of the tables in Spellcraft & Swordplay (first osr game I bought) and that's definitely a compliment.

Yes, and the table is such a size that it looks like you could have all four tables with the rules on a single sheet, one for each class.

This however

   Fighters and Demi-Humans get +2 at 4th, +5 at 7th, +7 at 10th and +8 at 13th level
Clerics and Thieves get +2 at 5th, +5 at 9th, +7 at 13th and +8 at 17th level
Magic-Users get +2 at 6th, +5 at 11th, +7 at 16th and +8 at 21st level

is a bit granular for my liking. Using similar numbers (and not worrying too much about levels 9+), I'd have fighters get +1 every 2nd level - probably starting at 1st to make them distinctly better than 0-level men-at-arms - clerics and thieves every 3rd level, and magic-users every 4th level.

It certainly makes a lot more sense than the wpn v armor tables in the PHB (which made no sense at all because it was based on AC which determined by things other than armor type).

But I probably wouldn't use it.  That's nothing against the table, but my personal preference is to trim away a lot of things that aren't needed.  We like to move fast in the combat round, and anything that takes longer than 5 seconds to determine if you hit or not is too long.

YMMV of course.

Love it. Easy on the eyes. Could see myself using it at the game table.

I don't like the values integrated to attack matrixes, because these are the province of the DM for me, not the player (I never use THAC0 in my O/AD&D games, never have). Now, the simplification itself is good enough, and the organization by type of armor instead of Armor Class makes more sense after the fact, since ACs lost their meanings as "Classes" of armor instead of difficulty to hit pretty much as soon as they were translated from Chainmail to D&D.

It might be worthwhile to extrapolate to what type of potential defenses fit with what type of armor, e.g. does animal hide count as Leather? Does a stone golem count as "plate"? Or do any of these variations warrant categories of their own? Etc.

All in all, I've been itching to use the WP vs. AC tables from AD&D but every time decided against it, mostly because I see the hassle of modifiers minutia to be a much greater issue than the boon of granularity of actions it's supposed to provide.

I always find it hard to use weapon versus armor because it is not straightforward to include monsters.  Where does a dragon claw fit into the table?  Or an Ooze? Trying to make the monster mimic weapons seems awkward.  

Rolemaster did try to put claws and unarmed strikes into tables, but that really understated the full variability.

So you end up putting a lot more detail into man to man combat.  From some games that is precisely the correct decision.  But it hasn't been typical in the games that I have played.

That being said, the look, feel and useability of those tables are pretty high.  Nice innovation.

Quote from: Votan;649819I always find it hard to use weapon versus armor because it is not straightforward to include monsters.  Where does a dragon claw fit into the table?  Or an Ooze? Trying to make the monster mimic weapons seems awkward.

Agreed – though, on the other hand, the simple breakdown into plate/chain/leather/unarmored makes the table easier/ less jarring to apply when a PC is swinging a sword at a dragon/ ooze/ golem or whatever.

That's a good chart!

I did a write up on Dragonsfoot thinking about how I could bring the idea to OD&D and S&W:WB. Instead of a chart, I wanted +1/-1 modifiers for weapons. I defined armor as light or heavy. I have playtested them in my OD&D games and they work nicely, giving me the differentiation between weapons. So even though every weapon does a base 1D6, there are significant reasons to choose a dagger vs. a sword but not so overwhelming.

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=32574

You have basically reinvented Chivalry & Sorcery combat, where that's the only system available. Complicated, but only in prep. One of the (many) reasons we used a program to generate character sheets. Once that was done, quite playable.

Quote from: Spinachcat;649832That's a good chart!

I did a write up on Dragonsfoot thinking about how I could bring the idea to OD&D and S&W:WB. Instead of a chart, I wanted +1/-1 modifiers for weapons. I defined armor as light or heavy. I have playtested them in my OD&D games and they work nicely, giving me the differentiation between weapons. So even though every weapon does a base 1D6, there are significant reasons to choose a dagger vs. a sword but not so overwhelming.

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=32574

The Good Assyrian posted something similar here a few years ago, a very palatable weapons vs. AC table for OD&D.

Can't be assed right now to look it up.

Quote from: FASERIP;650278Can't be assed right now to look it up.

Somebody get assed and find that post!!!

I'd love to see his writeup. I'd get assed, but I am crotched right now.

I was looking for it... I found one of yours instead.