Should they bring back 1e AD&D weapon vs armour adjustments?


3.5/d20/OGL

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Back in the day where the choices were Basic/Expert D&D or AD&D (1e) we used the full table of weapon to hit modifiers against armour class (when it went from 10 down).

We had a retro-game using 1e AD&D the other weekend and again used the weapon vs armour adjustments. We were reminded how good they were at making weapons different and interesting. For example against a platemail + shield opponent a Long Sword gets a -2 to hit, whereas the Footman's Pick get +2. A full 40% advantage using the pick against a heavily armoured person. The reverse is true against unarmoured opponents.

-7 to hit with quarter staff against platemail + shield!

I really like this. I think unlikely, but I would like to see this as an option in d20 type D&D.


I don't remember it as being difficult, but a lot of people seem to remember it that way. We used it, but many didn't. The differences in weapons in PF center around critical hit range and damage multiplier and people don't seem to have an issue with what, imo, is an equally complex (i.e. not that complex) system. It would however upset everyone's current calculation on "optimal weapons". Why does that make me smile? :D

The one thing about it is that you need to know the type of armor (plate, chain, etc.) not just the AC which derives from a number of factors. That and the lack of impact on natural armor unless you classify it as well (i.e. scales, fur, hide, blubber etc.). I remember Judges Guild turning out cards for weapons that included that information along with all other pertinent information.


It was too fiddly and applied too often.

If it was feat-based (or WP-based) it would work. "Hammer Expert: +2 to attack rolls against heavily-armored targets." Stuff like that. You would only need to remember stuff that applies to your feat or WP.


Kimera757 wrote:
If it was feat-based (or WP-based) it would work. "Hammer Expert: +2 to attack rolls against heavily-armored targets." Stuff like that. You would only need to remember stuff that applies to your feat or WP.

That's pretty much what I do now.


We never bothered with them, but we did use weapon speed factors.


Kimera757 wrote:


It was too fiddly and applied too often.

If it was feat-based (or WP-based) it would work. "Hammer Expert: +2 to attack rolls against heavily-armored targets." Stuff like that. You would only need to remember stuff that applies to your feat or WP.

We came into D&D from miniatures (including Chainmail) and board wargaming. The reams of rules you needed to absorb to play an SPI board game made everything else seem easy. Looking back on it we had too much time on our hands and were too far down the rules rabbit hole to notice how fiddly something was :)

But, yeah, fiddly sounds right...

Liberty's Edge

DungeonmasterCal wrote:
We never bothered with them, but we did use weapon speed factors.

We found trying to understand the initiative system of 1e and weapon speed factors was about billion times more complicated than using the to hit adjustments.

Weapon speed factors were in spell casting and was it surprise or first round attacks?

Scarab Sages

Stefan Hill wrote:
Back in the day where the choices were Basic/Expert D&D or AD&D (1e) we used the full table of weapon to hit modifiers against armour class (when it went from 10 down).

Gald I'm not the only person who used that table. You had to calculate base ac before dex 'though otherwise the modifiers didn't make sense. The 2nd ed version wasn't as satisfying.

The only problem with the table is that it had a vast bias in favour of swords (as, in fact, did the entire damage system in 1st & 2nd edition). Weapon modifiers against different armour types is a great idea 'though. Hated the descending ac system with double negatives in the maths. BAB and ascending ac makes much more sense (I experimented with ascending ac in 1st ed and it was popular back then). Sometimes house rules are fun.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The 1e character sheets had a line for each weapon so it wasn't such a pain to keep track of. No where near the seeming endless modifiers of 3e/4e.

I could run a battle from start to finish with players vs a dragon, some ogres, and an angry fish using 1e in about the same time it takes me to write down the initiative order in a d20 game... Modern mechanics, was a definite step in A direction.


I liked the speed and modifiers. I also liked the fact I had plan as a player not to rely on one weapon.


That table... ugh. It is legendary for its sheer intractability. It's a brilliant idea to make mandatory if they want most people to give up in disgust.

Liberty's Edge

Sissyl wrote:
That table... ugh. It is legendary for its sheer intractability. It's a brilliant idea to make mandatory if they want most people to give up in disgust.

I really am interested to know what you found so bad about it. The character sheets from TSR had space for the modifiers, they only applied to armored opponents, and they made weapons behave differently enough. Under 2e and beyond you can say d4 weapon, d6 weapon, d8 weapon... etc and rewlly that is about your choice. PF added some more fluffy bits but basically still your choices.

The modifiers also made armor or lack of behave as you would envision it too.

Obviously from you post you really think it was a bad idea.


What is a bad idea about it? Well, it's another modifier to keep track of in every attack. That is the obvious part. Less obvious problems: It only deals with armours, shouldn't each monster have its own table for each weapon (Hmmm, a juvenile blue dragon, let me get my lucerne hammer...)? And worst of all, if you are playing at a level where +/-3 matters, your DM needs to consider the weakness and strength of each enemy's armour against each weapon type favoured by each member of the party. Add to this that the payoff is a simple modifier, and there is very little reason to use it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:


What is a bad idea about it? Well, it's another modifier to keep track of in every attack. That is the obvious part. Less obvious problems: It only deals with armours, shouldn't each monster have its own table for each weapon (Hmmm, a juvenile blue dragon, let me get my lucerne hammer...)? And worst of all, if you are playing at a level where +/-3 matters, your DM needs to consider the weakness and strength of each enemy's armour against each weapon type favoured by each member of the party. Add to this that the payoff is a simple modifier, and there is very little reason to use it.

Yes it was another modifier. Pathfinder doesn't have them and... err, no it does. Yes, it only dealt with man made armor types because monster AC was the result of a number of factors. We messed around with "monster armor types" (scale, hide, etc.) and also with equating them with similar man made armors. So, no even if you extend it to monsters you wouldn't need one for each monster. It's not up to the DM to consider the effects of the weapon plusses / minuses any more than it's up to the DM to consider PC feat selections (or do you micromanage like that as DM or expect your DM to do so?). It's up to the PCs.

It was simpler to drop it and there were good reasons for doing so in a combat system as abstract as D&Ds. The idea that it was too complex compared to the current system is wrong. Imo, of course :)


Perhaps. A bit of it is making weapon types different, and that has since 3.0 been done through special abilities of various weapon types, like the bonuses to tripping and the like.


I always loved the idea of it, but never ever used it. Same with weapon speed factors - in my heart it was great in theory. Perhaps also in play, for others, but sadly never saw use.

Having said that, for PF I don't think it would be too hard to make some broad mods for weapon groups vs certain kinds of armors...


Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

I always loved the idea of it, but never ever used it. Same with weapon speed factors - in my heart it was great in theory. Perhaps also in play, for others, but sadly never saw use.

Having said that, for PF I don't think it would be too hard to make some broad mods for weapon groups vs certain kinds of armors...

Ditto. While I appreciated the "realism" that weapon adjustment vs. armor type and weapon speed factors attempted to simulate we never used them in our game. They both were just a little more work than we wanted as we were less concerned with a true combat simulation and more interested in just having fun in wacky dungeons (White Plume Mountain how I've missed you!)


Stefan Hill wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
That table... ugh. It is legendary for its sheer intractability. It's a brilliant idea to make mandatory if they want most people to give up in disgust.

I really am interested to know what you found so bad about it. The character sheets from TSR had space for the modifiers, they only applied to armored opponents, and they made weapons behave differently enough. Under 2e and beyond you can say d4 weapon, d6 weapon, d8 weapon... etc and rewlly that is about your choice. PF added some more fluffy bits but basically still your choices.

The modifiers also made armor or lack of behave as you would envision it too.

Obviously from you post you really think it was a bad idea.

It provided a modifier against an AC which was supposed to be for a specific armor or set of armor and shield. It incorporated the difference that a shield makes in the attacks.

Except that the same AC could be a specific armor, or a different specific armor with a shield.

I can't remember anymore whether there were also dissimilar armors of the same AC value which made the modifiers just seem fairly arbitrary.


Im trying to bring back some type of weapon speed for my own games and I already have a funky special armor quality thing going on for masterwork (although not magical) armors.


Freehold DM wrote:
Im trying to bring back some type of weapon speed for my own games and I already have a funky special armor quality thing going on for masterwork (although not magical) armors.

Everquest RPG did this for d20 games.

Weapons had the rate they gave iterative attacks be weapon specific and built off how fast the weapons are, so daggers get more strikes quicker than polearms and two-handed swords.


Voadam wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Im trying to bring back some type of weapon speed for my own games and I already have a funky special armor quality thing going on for masterwork (although not magical) armors.

Everquest RPG did this for d20 games.

Weapons had the rate they gave iterative attacks be weapon specific and built off how fast the weapons are, so daggers get more strikes quicker than polearms and two-handed swords.

intersting. Hm.

Mine leads more towards feat selection and training with specific weapons. Weapon focus, finesse, etc give init bonuses for that specific weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I once tried to make a different combat system... it had a floating combat round, with (IIRC) each creature getting an attack every 1d6 + size modifier (3 for medium) + weapon speed ticks or something like that. The idea was that smaller creatures with smaller weapons got more attacks. Each edition insists on some kind of "justice" in that everyone's round is equally fast, and there really is no reason.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 3.5/d20/OGL / Should they bring back 1e AD&D weapon vs armour adjustments? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 3.5/d20/OGL