Quote from: Imp;373000Man, I was going to work out a full graphic containing the various armor types and three or four weapons as an example. Maybe when I get a little time later. One largish problem from a graphic design perspective is that leather-riveted leather-chain mail-plate mail is a lot more visually busy than AC 9-8-7-6 etc. I'm not totally sold on my idea, to be honest.

Yeah, tell me about it.  How simple can a graphic be and still relay the needed information?  A question for the ages.  

QuoteI would have stuck shield bonus in a separate column that gets added onto the AC adjustment, so that a shield would be a big help against for example arrows and darts and no good vs. flails, but maybe that's too complicated.

I forgot to bring this up earlier, but it goes rather close to the heart of the matter.  Right before the chart, in fact, is a description of the number of attacks in a given round a certain sized shield is effective in protecting against.  Shields are, on the one hand, simplified into the AC system, but on the other hand, they have a few fiddly bits that show how they aren't exactly the same as the rest of the armour system.

Naturally, flails and other flexible weighted weapons were designed specifically to nullify the advantage of a good, stout shield.  It is not an easy problem to solve, certainly.

QuoteI do believe that weapons vs. AC saw a lot more play than reach or speed factors. At least it's in one obvious table. Reach is pretty obvious too, but easy to forget. Speed factor... oogh.

I would probably agree with this.  Although speed factor is much more useful when using individual initiative, and using the number rolled (after mods) as the segment in which the player can act, or even just the order of events, if one does not want to get into the segment-by-segment detail level.

QuoteI also think that not having a very consistent basis to apply weapons vs. AC was a bigger obstacle to its adoption than the fact it was an additional table... it's true, it was reprinted on all sorts of character sheets and DM's screens. I suppose an additional downside of my house weapons/armor chart is that it's too big to fit on a PC sheet.

Agreed.  I was alluding to that earlier, albeit a bit clumsily, perhaps.  The original chart it was derived from is much much cleaner and more specific, although I forget exactly where it was.  Chainmail, perhaps, or an early Dragon magazine?  I should have saved the discussion as a bookmark.

Quote from: Benoist;373011I honestly don't think it complicates it too much. The purpose of this table to me is to be printed out and basically glued on my side of the DM's screen (maybe on the PCs' character sheets too, if they really want to manipulate these bits for themselves/are experienced with the game/etc). Three lines aren't going to make much of a difference, in this regard.

No, the three lines themselves won't.  Implementing them, however, is a different story.  Not to pick on Imp too much here, but some of those categories need some re-vamping anyway.  Which isn't surprising, he admitted he was throwing ideas out for consideration and wasn't referring to a finished idea, so I am not trying to demolish the idea in its entirety because of that.  Presumably, the categories could be re-structured in some way, and the resulting chart would be easier to use and therefore more likely to be used.  As Eliot mentioned above, there are some quirks regarding high AC due to speed or other non-armour related factors to consider.  Although strictly speaking, that wouldn't be a factor of how effective a certain weapon is against the armour itself, which is what the chart is supposed to simulate.

Sure, sure. I wasn't implying the categories were perfect as they stand in Imp's example either.
Nobody is.

Quote from: Imp;373000I do believe that weapons vs. AC saw a lot more play than reach or speed factors. At least it's in one obvious table. Reach is pretty obvious too, but easy to forget. Speed factor... oogh.

Oh god. Speed factors sucked. I've never seen them in play. Ever. Thank God.

Quote from: StormBringer;373015As Eliot mentioned above, there are some quirks regarding high AC due to speed or other non-armour related factors to consider.

Well in the original weapon vs. AC chart, agility is factored in somewhat, which is why some of your very heavy weapons get penalties vs. AC 10/9/8, so I think I'd throw in an "elusive" category that would cover pixies, swarms (swarms don't get a lot of play in 1e), and your superhumanly quick adversaries...

QuoteRight before the chart, in fact, is a description of the number of attacks in a given round a certain sized shield is effective in protecting against.

You know I never used this? Shields are pretty weak in 1e anyway, and besides, this rule is like 3e's Dodge feat, except even worse.

Quote from: Imp;373020You know I never used this? Shields are pretty weak in 1e anyway, and besides, this rule is like 3e's Dodge feat, except even worse.

The rule linking the size of shields and their efficiency against a certain number of attacks? I never used it back in the day, but use it now. It's actually a very cool rule, especially when you're using miniatures (whereas, I always hated the Dodge feat, still do), along with the modifiers for flanking and rear attacks, and all that jazz. Gets some getting used to, though.

Quote from: Imp;373020Well in the original weapon vs. AC chart, agility is factored in somewhat, which is why some of your very heavy weapons get penalties vs. AC 10/9/8, so I think I'd throw in an "elusive" category that would cover pixies, swarms (swarms don't get a lot of play in 1e), and your superhumanly quick adversaries...

I would have to say those should provide straight bonuses apart from the AC type, or possibly a reduction in damage.  Being faster than the other guy doesn't precisely negate the ability of a pick to drive straight through plate armour, or a mace to crush the person below the chain mail.  Regardless of how quickly someone can move, the armour in question is still vulnerable to the weapon(s) designed specifically to counter its effectiveness.

QuoteYou know I never used this? Shields are pretty weak in 1e anyway, and besides, this rule is like 3e's Dodge feat, except even worse.

Exactly.  Shields in general were handled pretty poorly, overall, although the number of attacks they could block was a fair attempt to differentiate them from one another.  Probably something like a -1 to the attackers hit roll for normal weapons, -2 vs missile weapons, and no benefits for flails or the like would be more in line with how they usually work.  Naturally, a skilled user may get additional bonuses, but that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

In an abstract combat system that was purportedly subsuming all the fiddly combat details into one roll, an additional 'saving throw' in the form of dodge or parry seems way out of place.  I can see a 'stance' of something like a full defense, which would provide a penalty to the attackers hit roll, perhaps.  But adding in more rolls to see if the dodge or parry was successful or something is adding complications back into what is designed as a quick and simple system.

Quote from: Benoist;373018Oh god. Speed factors sucked. I've never seen them in play. Ever. Thank God.

Hate to be a pain but we always use them and not weapon versus armour type. modifiers.

2e initiative d10 + weapon speed - dex bonus its easy and differentiates wepons.

As has been said the AD&D weapon vs armour table felt like an add on and as AC is an abstract it renders the table difficult to interpret.

If you are fighting an Orc and it has an AC of 7 does that mean it it wearing studded leather? or just that its hide is tough or just that its hide and the leather armour its wearing add up to 7 or doe it mean its wearing inferior scale aremour.  If you are fighting a giant beetle should you ignore its AC and for the purposes of weapon adjustments and count a chitinous exoskeleton as field plate?  You are fighting a gelantious cube, now one would assume a slashing weapon would be good but a thrusting weapons would be bad and a bludgeon woudl be useless? So weapon vs armour for me is like a hit location system. To make it work each monster needs its own table.
I can see that you only use it versus humanoid creatures in armour but they you have to rethink all of the humanoid monsters and work out what armour they would wear and in order to make the system work, ie provide variety you need to vary the armour each time. Now that isn;t rocket science but its a bit of a pain and bloody easy to forget.

Quote from: StormBringer;373023I would have to say those should provide straight bonuses apart from the AC type, or possibly a reduction in damage.  Being faster than the other guy doesn't precisely negate the ability of a pick to drive straight through plate armour, or a mace to crush the person below the chain mail.  Regardless of how quickly someone can move, the armour in question is still vulnerable to the weapon(s) designed specifically to counter its effectiveness.

Anyway, either you model stuff like elusiveness through specific mods on the WP/AC table, OR you implement Speed factors for weapons, but not both: it'd be a sort of weird double-dipping otherwise, where you'd strike first AND have a huge mod on your ability to hit in some cases.

Quote from: StormBringer;373023Exactly.  Shields in general were handled pretty poorly, overall, although the number of attacks they could block was a fair attempt to differentiate them from one another.  Probably something like a -1 to the attackers hit roll for normal weapons, -2 vs missile weapons, and no benefits for flails or the like would be more in line with how they usually work.  Naturally, a skilled user may get additional bonuses, but that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

That I'd want to house rule somehow. The blocks/number of attacks bit is really cool in tactical combat. It's the mods that are fucked up. The ones you suggest actually represent a step in the right direction, as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't want to see shields become mandatory pieces of artillery, though. Maybe if a Barbarian or Ranger could use a Dodge ability allowing to mirror the effects of shield without actually holding one... I don't know. Just "writing out loud", here..

Quote from: StormBringer;373023In an abstract combat system that was purportedly subsuming all the fiddly combat details into one roll, an additional 'saving throw' in the form of dodge or parry seems way out of place.  I can see a 'stance' of something like a full defense, which would provide a penalty to the attackers hit roll, perhaps.  But adding in more rolls to see if the dodge or parry was successful or something is adding complications back into what is designed as a quick and simple system.

I did implement roll-for-AC in some 3rd ed games I ran, and it was way more trouble (in terms of additional rolls every round) than it was really worth, honestly. Your defense in this regard, especially in a game like AD&D, should be based on Player's skill, i.e. how smart you play, position yourself, use terrain etc, rather than yet-another-roll during combat.

Quote from: jibbajibba;373024Hate to be a pain but we always use them and not weapon versus armour type. modifiers.

Hey it's alright, dude.

Quote from: StormBringer;373023I would have to say those should provide straight bonuses apart from the AC type, or possibly a reduction in damage.  Being faster than the other guy doesn't precisely negate the ability of a pick to drive straight through plate armour, or a mace to crush the person below the chain mail.  Regardless of how quickly someone can move, the armour in question is still vulnerable to the weapon(s) designed specifically to counter its effectiveness.

I had thought about that, but I decided it's too fiddly, and I still don't think the AC chart is pure armor, because otherwise nothing would be penalized vs. AC 10 and a few of the heavier weapons are. Stacking bonuses should be kept to a minimum if possible.

Also there aren't that many 1e monsters that use pure speed as a defense and none that I recall are decked out in field plate. Maybe that should be a possibility but then is it worth complicating things for a case that doesn't really exist...

Oh wait, did you just mean to say that a pixie should be AC 2 and unarmored? I guess that could work although being really hard to peg might be worth qualifying as its own type of defense & make some types of implements (nets? iron fairy-swatters?) worthwhile in certain situations.

(I don't want to throw in DR really, once you do that you're looking at overhauling the whole AC system.)

QuoteProbably something like a -1 to the attackers hit roll for normal weapons, -2 vs missile weapons, and no benefits for flails or the like would be more in line with how they usually work.  Naturally, a skilled user may get additional bonuses, but that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Yeah, that's weapon spec stuff...

Shield adjustments may be rare enough that footnotes can cover it: one that says flails & similar ignore shield bonuses, another that says missile weapons suffer a -2 penalty against medium & larger shields.

Jeebus, just how often did that 'shields only block so many attacks a round' even theoretically come up in a campaign?

About the only time it did in the many years I played was when a hydra popped up one time.

Never had a shitload of orc archers shooting at you?

Shields that only block so many attacks came up fairly often in AD&D, especially if you didn't use a battlemat, because there are no attack of opportunity type of rules.

So in abstract terms you would have a group of 5 mid level adventurers against say.. 25 orcs. When it came to melee, you would say.. "Ok these 5 attack this character, these 5 attack that character.." (usually trying to be as even as you could, but also considering the "giant class" rule of fighters*). The AD&D DMG then had a hex diagram that showed exactly how many figures could surround a character. Mass battles like this were not uncommon in AD&D, just because that's what the "no. appearing" line usually recommended.

So then usually it was like "ok, these 2 dudes have to hit AC 3.. but these other 3 ignore your shield bonus.."

One of the reasons I like using miniatures more is because as you become less abstract...  placement and terrain become more interesting, and just a couple of defenders can bottleneck a passage effectively, (which keeps the rest of the group safer).


*The fighters play by a "giant class" rule that says they can get 1 attack per level in a round against as many 1 hit die monsters, so you would want to surround the front line people as much as possible.

Quote from: Doom;373070Jeebus, just how often did that 'shields only block so many attacks a round' even theoretically come up in a campaign?

Quote from: Imp;373076Never had a shitload of orc archers shooting at you?

Or found yourself battling corsairs on the deck of a galley? Or were surrounded by a slew of goblins?

In other words, pretty often, particularly in a status quo setting where a that corsair is a 0-level human no matter what level your character is. (Those are fun encounters for fighters after getting a few levels under their belts due to the AD&D "mook rule", in which fighters get one attack per level per round against opponents with less than one hit die. I like to give the fighters a chance to get their Conan on from time to time.)

I would also use shield-side versus non-shield side when I could, as a player and a referee. For example, my character would send a henchman to attack on the shield side of an opponent, forcing the opponent to choose between letting my character attack the lower armor class or pivoting to defend and giving my henchman a flank attack.

Y'know, as an aside, one of the reasons I was - and remain - puzzled by players who went on and on about how "tactical" 3e's combat rules were is because so much of what they were describing was so similar to AD&D. Flanking, attacks of opportunity, bull rushing, cleave - all had their origins in AD&D's combat system.