Greetings!
Do you embrace weapon distinctions in your campaigns? I know, for example, that D&D 5E provides a fairly generalized assortment of basic weapon types, making the essential argument that shorter swords are all alike, longer swords, and so on, are all basically the same weapon, and have the same damage type and performance details within the category type or classification. Honestly, this is a fine approach that provides a simple, fast, and easy framework from which to deal with, and it certainly has strong merits in its favour.
However, and I know it can seem to be contradictory in desire--I admit there are competing and conflicting desires and goals!--but I also like the numerous little details in damage and performance between weapons. Historically, for example, there are numerous models to examine. Hand Axes may seem just like a simple hand axe--though the barbarian Franks were famous for developing and using the Francisca--which was a hand axe that was more easily and accurately thrown, as well as being lighter in weight, and able to be used both as a missile weapon on foot, or when fighting from horseback. It has been noted that many Frankish warriors and knights went into battle equipped with several Francisca axes. Likewise, the Viking "Bearded"axe--it too, was a "Hand Axe"--but it was also well-able to be thrown in combat, and was very lethal in hand-to-hand combat. Furthermore, the "Bearded" axe was also known to be of such cunning design as to be a swift-striking weapon--providing the warrior to make sharp, quick strikes, more so than when using other, more standard types of hand axes.
Then you have the Composite Recurved Bow--known for having an effective range of a longbow, but having superior penetration power, and also being easily and customarily used from horseback while mounted. I'm also reminded of the Dacian Falx--a heavy, curved two-handed sword used by fierce Dacian barbarians fighting against the Roman Empire. The Dacian Falx was known to be a very effective and fearsome weapon--easily cutting through heavily-armoured Roman Legionaries. Similarly, while the Roman Gladius is well-known as one of history's most brutally effective and lethal weapons--the Celtic Falcata was also known, even to Roman historians--as a fine weapon that was also very lethal, and had a longer reach than the Gladius. Similar distinctions can be found with a wide range of weapons, from different kinds of battle axes, different kinds of flails, as well as maces and war hammers. Each, much like many of our own firearms of today, provide different performance advantages, disadvantages, or other weapon properties.
D&D often simplifies these distinctions, as noted--and avoids perhaps burdensome and cumbersome details--and yet, throughout history, warriors from the world over selected very different and distinctive weapons for use in battle, and seem to have eschewed simply gravitating towards a simplified, common weapon that was otherwise deemed as being "Good Enough". I generally strive to provide a bit more distinction and different properties with weapons in my own campaign, because I'm cursed with a love of history and weapons and am always cognizant that warriors throughout history developed and embraced different weapons for particular reasons. Historical warriors didn't embrace simplified, generic weapons, so I always get annoyed when I am tempted to do the same in my own campaigns.
What do you think about it, my friends?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
For me, it really varies. I preferred Cyberpunk 2020 for a huge variety of weapons over the narrow range of options in Cyberpunk Red. OTOH, I don't mind WFRP (2e & 4e) where "Hand Weapon" represents a great many one-handed weapons (but there are some that are distinctive enough that they fall outside this grouping). FFG Star Wars tried to do it both ways, with the starting books giving generic categories (e.g., a "blaster rifle" entry) and then detailing specific versions of weapons in each category in the expansion books. I guess it matters where the game puts its detail because it is possible for a game to detail too much and become a mess just as it is possible to detail too little.
Yes. Weapons in my system have a variety of properties that make them distinct... accuracy, lethality, parrying, offhand/one-hand/versatile/two-handed, reach, high-crit, improved crit, thrown, ranged, etc.
In addition there are fighting styles available to warriors that benefit from specific weapons. With the right training you can use a flail to bypass shields, or more easily trip with a polearm, or get extra reach out of a spear lunge, etc.
Your choices of weapons (because you'll have enough options as a fighter-type to excel at several) says a lot about who you are as a warrior.
I have mixed feelings on this subject. On one hand, most RPGs (particularly D&D) provide too limited distinction between weapons of different types and fail to incorporate crucial elements into their weapon's properties, such as speed and (specially) reach, which can play a vital role in weapon selection and help highlight why different types of weapons were historically used, rather than all weapons being the same. In D&D in particular practically the only difference between weapons is the amount of damage they do, which turns higher damage weapons into the obvious superior choice regardless of circumstance, so that a sword is ALWAYS better than a dagger, even in close quarters when wrestling someone on the ground or when quick-drawing weapons, where the dagger is superior IRL.
On the other hand, many distinctions between different weapons (particularly different sword types) are largely aesthetic, and would have little impact (if any) or be too difficult to incorporate properly in terms of the game rules to even bother with them. There is also the issue of bookkeeping and bloat that would ensue to distinguish between the different variations of what's essentially a "long sword" mechanically speaking, as well as the problem of the designer's bias when it comes to assigning certain characteristics to their favorite weapon vs others.
From a pure game design perspective I tend to prefer generic characteristics as a base, starting with size classifications (Light, Medium, Heavy) to determine base damage, modified by weapon type (slashing weapons tend to cause more damage than blunt, but blunt are better against armor; firearms do even more damage and are good against armor, but have limited ammo and are more expensive, etc.), then sprinkle some appropriate weapon properties to distinguish between different weapon designs, such as Long Reach (better in open quarters combat; bad in close quarters), Short Reach (better in close quarters combat; bad in open quarters), Armor Piercing (bonuses vs armor), Hooked (bonus to disarm or tripping maneuvers), etc. This approach takes way less bookkeeping and allows me to improvise weapons (the goblin had a light curved sword; it does basically the same damage as any light slashing weapon and is medium reach) and know what sort of properties weapons have without having to look up long lists of hard to recall weapon names.
I think it depends on the context of the game--system, setting, and particular campaign. I don't mind, for example, if some weapons are slightly better, more expensive, status symbols, etc.--as long as money and status is meaningful for player choices in the game. If the weapon distinctions don't provide meaningful choice for the players, then to me it is mere noise.
Lately, I have been gravitating towards weapon properties that are very slight nods towards simulation without worrying too much about modeling accurately. That also has to be done in the context of the game. For example, I've got a D&D-ish game that lets helms give +1 AC and "ignores one level of critical". Shields have slight variety and can be sacrificed to "ignore one level of critical". Of course, for that to mean something, I had to have a critical system that wasn't exactly more damage. Never mind exactly how, but I did. Then it follows that weapons like maces and hammers can get increased levels of criticals. Does that exactly model the purpose of hammers and maces? No. What it does is very simply mean that weapons and maces can counter act the effects of helms and shields--which due to the way armor proficiency works in the game are likely to be used by those who favor heavier armor. At the same time, this only happens with the critical system. It isn't the be all and end all of weapon choices, meaning the guy with a sword can fight the opponent wearing plate too. All else being equal, his friend with the mace is likely to end the fight sooner.
I like variety, though I am not a gun bunny or gearhead. So Shadowrun makes my eyes roll, as does D&D polearm love. But I love new toys that can change the context state! So shields or polearms in formation, different types of armor defenses against damage types, new cool thief gear, travelling gear, fashion, trade goods, etc.
And yet it is hard to find enough people who wanna bother. :'( So I often run things simplified anyway. I try to spice up treasure if I can, but I have even been given the "eh, can't we just have gold piece values and move on?" At that point I balk and suggest video games for "I shoot & hit shit to feel awesome!" so I can free up table space and my freetime.
I'm designing a game where weapon distinctions are front-and-center. There's no classes or skills, so aside from four stats, characters are mostly distinguished by their equipment. Weapons have their own distinct movesets and a ton of customization.
In general, I like poring over detailed equipment splatbooks, particularly when it is real-world gear like the gun book from Twilight: 2000. It is disappointing when things are generic, or when dozens of guns have exactly the same stats.
That said, I want that stuff to boil down to "roll this" during play. I don't want every different item to be an exception to the rules of the game. I don't want to have to find a table in a gigantic rulebook just to roll damage.
I would also like equipment to have modifiers to social rolls. If you're carrying Excalibur, you should get pluses to Leadership. If you're in full armor where inappropriate, you should get penalties to reaction checks. If your gear is elegant, you come across like a hero. If your gear is gucci and sweet looking, you come across as suave. If your gear is sinister and menacing, you get pluses to intimidation, but regular people see you and run away.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 27, 2020, 08:44:04 AM
Yes. Weapons in my system have a variety of properties that make them distinct... accuracy, lethality, parrying, offhand/one-hand/versatile/two-handed, reach, high-crit, improved crit, thrown, ranged, etc.
In addition there are fighting styles available to warriors that benefit from specific weapons. With the right training you can use a flail to bypass shields, or more easily trip with a polearm, or get extra reach out of a spear lunge, etc.
Your choices of weapons (because you'll have enough options as a fighter-type to excel at several) says a lot about who you are as a warrior.
Greetings!
That sounds awesome, Chris! I like little details like that which go along with different types of weapons--and as you mention also, such details can impact whole fighting styles for warriors.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: VisionStorm on December 27, 2020, 09:23:35 AM
I have mixed feelings on this subject. On one hand, most RPGs (particularly D&D) provide too limited distinction between weapons of different types and fail to incorporate crucial elements into their weapon's properties, such as speed and (specially) reach, which can play a vital role in weapon selection and help highlight why different types of weapons were historically used, rather than all weapons being the same. In D&D in particular practically the only difference between weapons is the amount of damage they do, which turns higher damage weapons into the obvious superior choice regardless of circumstance, so that a sword is ALWAYS better than a dagger, even in close quarters when wrestling someone on the ground or when quick-drawing weapons, where the dagger is superior IRL.
On the other hand, many distinctions between different weapons (particularly different sword types) are largely aesthetic, and would have little impact (if any) or be too difficult to incorporate properly in terms of the game rules to even bother with them. There is also the issue of bookkeeping and bloat that would ensue to distinguish between the different variations of what's essentially a "long sword" mechanically speaking, as well as the problem of the designer's bias when it comes to assigning certain characteristics to their favorite weapon vs others.
From a pure game design perspective I tend to prefer generic characteristics as a base, starting with size classifications (Light, Medium, Heavy) to determine base damage, modified by weapon type (slashing weapons tend to cause more damage than blunt, but blunt are better against armor; firearms do even more damage and are good against armor, but have limited ammo and are more expensive, etc.), then sprinkle some appropriate weapon properties to distinguish between different weapon designs, such as Long Reach (better in open quarters combat; bad in close quarters), Short Reach (better in close quarters combat; bad in open quarters), Armor Piercing (bonuses vs armor), Hooked (bonus to disarm or tripping maneuvers), etc. This approach takes way less bookkeeping and allows me to improvise weapons (the goblin had a light curved sword; it does basically the same damage as any light slashing weapon and is medium reach) and know what sort of properties weapons have without having to look up long lists of hard to recall weapon names.
Greetings!
Excellent, VisionStorm! As true with so many topics, we embrace the same kind of thinking. I have the same mixed feelings. I often bounce back and forth between a love for ease of use and simplicity--but being often too simplified and generic--and wanting more details which capture the historical realities and dynamics of real warriors fighting on the battlefield.
Did you know that
Rhino Armour was very popular with warriors in India? Apparently, this armour was heavy, hot, and generally cumbersome, but otherwise seemed comfortable, and was greatly applauded for it's great effectiveness in battle. While only a minority of Indian warriors could get ahold of such armour--as I imagine it of course had supply limitations--those that used such armour loved them.
Why the Russian Chechen never became adopted throughout Europe seems a mystery, and a missed opportunity. The Russian Chechen was a hammer weapon, a hammer-head on one side, and opposite it was a powerful metal spike. It was evidently brutally effective in hand-to-hand combat, and especially lethal against heavily armoured opponents. There were one-handed versions of the weapon primarily--though two-handed versions may also have been used. Both line infantry warriors and mounted horsemen alike greatly favoured the Chechen.
Also, curiously, in India--while large, sweeping words and sabers often have cache, as well as large, foot-bows, according to several references I have, many Indian infantry warriors loved using maces, some being simple, handle/ball of metal type weapons, while others had elaborate flanged arches along the head. Many were also decorated with bronze, silver, or gold, with some having symbolic carvings and inlays. Maces were evidently easier to train with than say, becoming particularly skilled with a sword--while providing a warrior with a lethal weapon effective against other infantry or cavalry warriors.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
The real challenge when making all these specific weapons is still making them all roughly equal to each other -- that there isn't just one obvious choice -- and that is what makes it be such a bother when designing it. Plus there's only so many ways you can distinguish 5 different types of axes before they start becoming duplicates of each other, mechanically.
For instance, take the handaxe and the bearded axe given as an example in the OP. Or the Dacian and the Falcata.
If I were to write up a system, I think I would have generic weapons. But, if you used a specialized weapon in the the correct style, it would give you a small bonus (almost always a +1.) Be that to hit or perhaps initiative or damage depends on the design and style. And, it might be a trade off where the heavy version is also -1 to initiative. That way you could have your base weapons and then a list of modifiers to customize them for each warrior or martial culture.
Yes, I like weapon distinctions. Having a list of a hundred weapons with many of them mechanically identical seems really useless.
Simple is important too, though. In the system I'm currently developing, weapons are differentiated by reach and by being good or bad at specific maneuvers. Frex, sword is baseline with no bonuses/penalties, and axe is "+2 to strike, furious attack, drive, shatter, stagger, knock down, -1 to defense." I'm hoping that it's simple enough when I try it out in actual play to not slow down the game.
Weapons distinctions for the sake of themselves are fun and interesting to me in a scholarly sense. As far as that translates to gaming, I want the enumerated distinctions to be relevant to the game mechanics in a meaningful way. If the game is about fine-tuned move-by-move combat in a gladiatorial arena, then each weapon's specific swinging characteristics, advantages vs armor types, etc., become interesting. If the game's goal is cinematic fantasy heroics, then more interesting to me is which superhero type moves each weapon is capable of. If the game is post-apocalyptic salvage, then the quality of each weapon might be the most important thing.
I've seen some works give each weapon a lot of mechanical detail, but in the game none of those details ever got used. Perhaps we were playing the wrong game for our gaming goals, or maybe those works didn't fit the game for which they were ostensibly written. Or maybe those works were designed for scholars of ancient weaponry, and they're inclusion in the game system was aimed more at collectors than players.
Either way, in the end I am a gamer first, not a scholar or collector. So for me, if the only useful distinction (for example) is "melee or missile", then that's all the detail I care for the game to provide.
Just as a note to anyone who really wants to pursue this;
GURPS 3e was, by far, the best system for weapon distinction. Everything from types of hand axes, to various forms of pistols, to ... well, you name it. The combat system was essentially a wargame (originally Man-to-Man), and it really showed in the advantages and disadvantages of different weapons in different circumstance.
The system distinguished between action (Swing/Thrust) and damage form (Crushing, Cutting, Impaling). The different damage forms were affected by armor differently. Weapons also had set Reaches they could be used at, described in hexes, or "C" for same-hex action.
Ex.
Axe: Swing+2 damage (determined by STR), Cutting, Reach 1, Min ST 12 (for speedy recovery), and took an extra action to ready after each attack.
Broadsword: Swing +1, Cutting OR Thrust +1, Crushing, Reach 1, Min ST 10
Dagger: Thrust -1, Impaling, Reach C, Min ST -, May be thrown, Max 1d damage.
Spear held 1-H : Thrust +2, Impaling, Reach 1, Min ST 9, May be thrown
Spear held 2-H: Thrust +3, Impaling, Reach 1,2, Min ST 9.
(It takes one action to change grips)
So all three weapons have clear situations where they are preferable. The axe does the most raw damage if the opponent is unarmored, but takes more strength to wield effectively and more awkward a weapon overall.
The broadsword is the most flexible option, and can be used in alternate methods depending on the foes armor.
The dagger is the only one of the 3 usable at C range, meaning if you get close enough, the only threat. It also impales which has much higher crit damage.
The spear is very flexible also, adapting to grip (for shield use, or throwing, ... or longer reach).
The mechanics do a great job of making the popular weapon choices make perfect sense. In the above examples, the broadsword and the spear are not always the best choices, but they are the most flexible and make logical selections when you need to be adaptable/don't know what you are facing.
It's also worth noting players had defensive options when attacked (Parry, Block, or Dodge ... making Shields VERY important) and armor manifested as either/both Passive Defense (harder to hit) and Damage Resistance (reduces damage suffered).
I recall that weapon distinctions mattered in Exalted (with modifiers to things like speed, accuracy, defense/parry, and attack rate in addition to damage). Beyond that, BattleTech was where I really learned to appreciate weapon distinctions. There was a world of difference between playing a missleboat and a beamslinger in that game.
Quote from: SHARK on December 28, 2020, 01:30:20 AM
That sounds awesome, Chris! I like little details like that which go along with different types of weapons--and as you mention also, such details can impact whole fighting styles for warriors.
Well, here's a little example by way of two of the weapon groups; balanced blades and cleaving blades.
Some notes for reading the entries;
- RS is "Required Skill" and is broken down into Basic (B), Expert (E) and Master (M). Non-warriors typically are skilled only with some basic weapons and occasionally one expert weapon. Warriors have skill in all basic weapons and expert skill in two to four groups (ex. balanced blades are a group, cleaving blades are another, as are bows and spears).
- Qualities in parenthesis are useable only if you have skill with the weapon greater than the base level. Ex 1. with basic skill in a dagger you can use its accurate and offhand properties, but you'd need expert skill with a dagger to use its thrown property. Ex 2. you need expert skill to use the accurate and versatile properties of a longsword, but must have master skill to use its lethal property.
- Unless otherwise noted, weapons require one-hand to use, offhand means it can be used in your offhand. Versatile means it can be used either one-handed or in two-hands with a damage bonus, 2H means you must use two hands to wield it, double means it can be used as two offhand weapons.
- Accurate grants a +1 bonus to attack rolls with it; lethal increases the damage die by one type (ex. d8 to d10), improved crit triggers crits on a natural 18-20, melee 2 means you can attack targets 2 paces away (the system uses the Roman paces which is actually two steps), polearm interacts with certain talents, shield 1 means its grants a +1 shield bonus to your armor (shield bonuses stack to a maximum of +2 and superior armors also grant shield bonuses such that superior heavy armor like full plate is so good that using a shield is redundant).
- Weapons with a * after their damage already have the lethal quality applied to it (meaning you can't have it added again on a higher quality weapon).
- Costs are in silver cents (1/100th of a pound of silver) and weights include scabbards and the minor tools needed for routine maintenance.
Balanced Blades | RS | Dmg. | Qualities | Cost | Wt. |
| | | | | |
Dagger | B | 1d4 | Accurate, Offhand, (Thrown 5) | 10¢ | 1 lb. |
Throwing Blade | E | 1d4 | Accurate, Offhand, Thrown 10 | 15¢ | ½ lb. |
Short Sword | E | 1d6 | Accurate, Offhand | 30¢ | 2 lb. |
Side Sword | E | 1d8 | Accurate, (Improved Crit) | 30¢ | 3 lb. |
Longsword | E | 1d8 | Accurate, Versatile, (Lethal) | 40¢ | 4 lb. |
Great Sword | E | 1d10 | 2H, Accurate, (Lethal) | 50¢ | 5 lb. |
Pole Sword | E | 1d8 | 2H, Accurate, Melee 2, Polearm | 40¢ | 8 lb. |
Parrying Dagger | M | 1d6 | Accurate, Offhand, Shield 1 | 30¢ | 2 lb. |
Double Sword | M | 1d8 | Accurate, Double | 60¢ | 4 lb. |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
Cleaving Blades | RS | Dmg. | Qualities | Cost | Wt. |
| | | | | |
Sickle/Kama | B | 1d6 | Offhand, (Thrown 5) | 15¢ | 2 lb. |
Long Knife/Cutlass | B | 1d8* | (Offhand) | 15¢ | 2 lb. |
Hog Splitter/Scythe | B | 1d10 | 2H, (Improved Crit) | 20¢ | 5 lb. |
Falchion/Saber | E | 1d10* | Versatile, (Improved Crit) | 30¢ | 3 lb. |
War Falchion | E | 1d12* | 2H, (Improved Crit) | 50¢ | 6 lb. |
Pole Falchion/Scythe | E | 1d10* | 2H, Melee 2, Polearm | 40¢ | 10 lb. |
Double Falchion | M | 1d8* | Double, High Crit | 50¢ | 5 lb. |
Other weapon groups include Axes/Picks, Bludgeons, Bows, Flails, Slings, and Spears.
Here are some of the talents which can interact with balanced and cleaving blades specifically and a couple of their properties like thrown and polearm. Note that Focus is a level based bonus that is determined differently depending on your class;
Battering Blows: Your weapon attacks with axes, bludgeons, cleaving blades or flails can target Fortitude instead of Armor. Also, when you hit a prone target using one of those weapons they take Focus extra damage.
Bladed Defense: Balanced and cleaving blades you wield gain the shield 1 quality and you can shift 1 pace as a reaction when missed by an attack.
Knock Them Around: When you hit with a bludgeon, flail or polearm you can also shift the target 1 pace or knock it prone.
Lunging Attack: When you make a weapon attack with a balanced blade, bow or spear you can shift 1 pace before you attack as a free action.
Polearm Fighting: Polearms you wield gain the shield 1 quality and enemies who move into an adjacent square trigger a Free Strike from you.
Precision Strikes: Your attacks with balanced and cleaving blades, bows and spears can target Dodge. Also, when you hit a flat-footed target with an attack using those weapons, you can deal ½ Focus extra damage to it.
Throwing Expert: When you use a weapon with the thrown quality, its damage die increases by one type and its range increment by 5 paces.
Two-Weapon Fighting: When wielding a weapon in your offhand it gains the shield 1 quality. When you wield an offhand weapon in both hands, you deal 1/2/3 (by tier) extra damage with weapon attacks that hit (this damage is added after Quick Strike halves the damage of its attacks).
* * * *
Hopefully this helps outline how these parts can fit together into a fighting style.
I just watched a fascinating doc about the Ulfberht swords. These were distinguished by being extremely valuable, limited in supply, and way ahead in terms of their materials technology. This meant they could be longer for the same weight, hold their edge better, cut better, be less likely to bend or shatter, and so on. These properties would seem magical to the people of the time. To get these properties required a very precise mixture of components and literal alchemy to get right. And it is an interesting real world example of a clear advantage in combat.
For extra flavour, there was speculation that the original mix may have included human bone (possibly of their ancestors) to imbue the metal with these powers. Also, due to their value and distinctive branding, there were a lot of fakes that looked similar but didn't have the superior metallic properties.
There was also the tradition that when you defeated someone in combat, you would bend their sword and bury it with them to prevent their spirits from being able to attack you from the after life. Which is also a good way to prevent the second hand market from deflating their value.
Note that their main advantage (being more durable in combat) only really makes a difference if weapons can break which is not something D&D traditionally covers.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on December 28, 2020, 02:03:54 AM
The real challenge when making all these specific weapons is still making them all roughly equal to each other -- that there isn't just one obvious choice -- and that is what makes it be such a bother when designing it. Plus there's only so many ways you can distinguish 5 different types of axes before they start becoming duplicates of each other, mechanically.
For instance, take the handaxe and the bearded axe given as an example in the OP. Or the Dacian and the Falcata.
My favorite model for doing this isn't an RPG at all - it's the first Halo game. They did an amazing job with the weapons. Each one is is strong and needed in particular situations, even the lowly pistol you start off with,all the way to the end of the game. If I can do this in an RPG, I feel I've succeeded.
Quote from: mightybrain on December 28, 2020, 03:22:17 PM
Note that their main advantage (being more durable in combat) only really makes a difference if weapons can break which is not something D&D traditionally covers.
Slight derail, but I've started to houserule more powerful crits in D&D 5e (usually by making the first set of crit dice max rolls, then roll the second set), but allowing players to sacrifice a shield or weapon in their hand to avoid the crit. Gives some potential for breakage, and makes back-up weapons important. We'll see how it works...
I wrote an extensive analysis (and "fix") of 5e weapons.
http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/05/5e-d-melee-weapons-one-by-one-analysis.html
The TL;DR is that is works reasonably well with few outliers (quarterstaff is OP, mace/morningstar is UP, polearms are redundant, pikes are too heavy for their reach) and gaps (bludgeoning polearm, knives, more spears, falchions, sabers, bucklers, and high-quality weapons if you like those).
I published a small PDF trying to fix these outliers and gaps, plus giving some additional ideas:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/291160/5e-Manual-of-Arms-Weapons
I do agree different crits would make things more interesting.
A couple of extra pages on 5e about weapons would make the level of detail about right for me. Instead, they chose weapon distinction be defined by magic weapons, which is fine, I guess.
I did a streamlined AC modifier table when I made this: https://uncivilwar2020.blogspot.com/2020/06/a-change-of-pace-osr-project.html . Instead of having to figure out your just the armour AC you only need to know the type and if you are using a shield. With this retrofit a whip weilding Dark Elf Thot cannot hurt a paladin in full plate. It also buffs up fighter types as they can weild weapons like Picks and Polearms which make it easier to penetrate tough skin on large creatures.
In my OD&D, I use base D6 for all weapons with -1 for dagger/staff and +1 for 2H weapons. As I used D6 for HD, those numbers work. Then, I put the weapon distinctions on top. A mace is good for smashing vs. a sword is easier to conceal vs. a spear that attacks from the 2nd rank vs. a flail gains +1 vs. shields, etc.
Once I initiated this, players then chose weapons based on something other than largest die and they were excited to play a fighter with a spear or a hammer & shield.
1st edition AD&D had length, space, speed, armour class, and opponent size damage adjustments as well as weight and cost.
Some of the stuff in 1e wasn't completely explained in the rules. I don't know if the omission was accidental, or if at some point they decided to drop parts and did not want to redo the tables (which would have been a lot more work in the 1970's).
I'm thinking of Weapon Speed in particular. The PHB had one version that did not quite match the DMG, and nowhere did 1st ever address how to treat Natural Attacks (that showed up in 2e and was an Initiative modifier tied to Size), by which time Weapon Speeds were gone. The system as printed is not compatible with either the Initiative system, nor the Attacks per Turn tables.
I was in a thread over on RPGG talking about this ~5 years ago, and we eventually found comments from Gygax that the Speed stuff never worked out the way he wanted. Plus, it did not give proper advantage (such as Pike vs. Dagger, which should completely reverse after the 1st round).
They did give it a try, though. I think the intent was supposed to be for some kind of duel system, because similar problems happened with Armor Type as soon as monsters entered the picture.
In a system like D&D hitting first is usually only significant for 1 hit die creatures like normal men. Weapon speed and first attack is more important in systems like Runequest, BRP, and GURPS where hit points are fixed and the first good strike can end a combat.
I've got Arms Law and the Armory and Martial Arts Companion. I do wish they'd done the Armory in the RMSS Arms Law format. I love that the first critical against armor is an A Krush.
I used to read the Arms Law crit tables for fun. Just a few entries at a time ... I didn't want to run out of new stuff to see, lol.
That was the only game I've personally seen that tracked damage to your weapons and armor in that level of detail. I don't remember how it worked at all.