Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Figuring out what kind of armor orcs are supposed to be wearing is actually kind of a mess, because most of the typical weapons they're armed with (pole arms, flails, battle axes, etc.) are two-handed, which suggests that they shouldn't be assumed to be carrying shields, which means to have AC6 they should be wearing scale armor, but then their move should be 6", not 9" (plus almost all the illustrations of orcs show them with those distinctively-shaped shields, so declaring them to default to no shield feels "wrong"). My guess is that the illustrations were based off the old OD&D assumption that AC6 = leather + shield (though technically if that's the case then they should move 12", not 9"), but that what Gygax intended was for AC6 to be studded/ring/scale and have a 9" move rate (you can find other references to studded & ring armor being AC6 in the MM -- under gnomes and, IIRC, wood elves) which explains all 3 elements -- the AC, the move rate, and the 2-handed weapons. The only thing it doesn't explain is the art (which is, of course, the only thing most people are going to notice or care about). But what to do about "converting" them to AD&D -- do you decrease their AC to 7, drop their move to 6", or change up their weapons to be one-handed and give them studed/ring + shield?

I usually just go with "poor quality orc mail", rather than try to pin it down to any particular armour type available in the Player's Handbook.

When running AD&D in the past, I've simply used the stats and didn't sweat the details ("orc mail," indeed).

Now, the question is interesting to me because I recently started running an AD&D game, again. The players haven't fought any humanoids, yet: just humans, undead, and monstrous vermin of various sorts.

I think I'll follow the assumption that the humanoid AC values in the MM reflect OD&D armor classes, determine a "base movement rate" from that, and then apply the result in AD&D terms, with whatever combination of armor and weapons is appropriate.

Matthew wrote:I usually just go with "poor quality orc mail", rather than try to pin it down to any particular armour type available in the Player's Handbook.

Good call

T. Foster wrote:

Matthew wrote:I usually just go with "poor quality orc mail", rather than try to pin it down to any particular armour type available in the Player's Handbook.

Good call

What, you don't like my hopelessly nerdy and anal approach?

Philotomy Jurament wrote:

T. Foster wrote:

Matthew wrote:I usually just go with "poor quality orc mail", rather than try to pin it down to any particular armour type available in the Player's Handbook.

Good call

What, you don't like my hopelessly nerdy and anal approach?

Well, since it's the same approach I've been using for the past several years (and the margins of my MM are annotated to prove it) I can't object too strongly -- Matthew's is just a whole lot simpler!

T. Foster wrote:Well, since it's the same approach I've been using for the past several years (and the margins of my MM are annotated to prove it) I can't object too strongly…

Somehow I'm not terribly surprised; "Foster has being doing that/done that already" sounds all too familiar, to me. I think you could've saved me a lot of time by just writing a book, or something. (Of course, that wouldn't have been nearly as interesting or fun, so maybe it's best that you didn't.)

You two are going to have WAY too much fun at the Convention.

I agree with Scotty's notion that armor is included in the orc armor class. The question is, if the orc was stripped of his armor what would his armor class be? Is its skin thicker or tougher then a humans, his muscle harder, perhaps more cunning and quick in battle like an animal, perhaps a natural 9 or 8? Who's to say for certain? Same goes with their ability to inflict physical damage, just what sort of damage would an orc do without a weapon, certainly more then a human, probably more then a giant rat, right? Once again, look at the illustrations. You don't want to take the "monster" out of the monster by nickle and diming the logic to death. A DM can only find so many rules of course, and after that its his call. Its reasonable to rule monster by monster given their physical description, size, strength and comparison to other monsters that have similar attributes that don't use weapons. Where I might allow an ogre to do 1-10 with his bare hands and mouth (given its size and strength), I wouldn't allow an elf to do the same (as a demi-human I'd use the unarmed combat rules). What I wouldn't want to see is an orc or a ogre treated like an unarmed human when its clear they are not. It seems that is the logic that some of you guys seem to be following...that it is "their stuff" more then their natural attributes that make them so devistating in combat. Hogwash! If you want to play "by the book" then an orc does 1-8 points of damage with his sword or with his bare hands and teeth. Why? Because thats what the monster description says, and who are we to say what Gygax had in mind at the time. All I've read so far are guesses. We do know that if an orc chooses to use a smaller weapon they will do less damage and if larger do more (just as a werewolf can use a hand held weapon, say a dagger, and inflict less damage then they could with a hand attack). That is the nature of MM.

When determining BTB rules for D&D or any game, one should always default to include more not less, and take things at face value. If you read the orc description it says "the orc does 1-8 damage or by weapon type". Guess what, that means it does 1-8 or 1-8 if using a long sword, 1-6 if using a short sword etc. etc. Don't out think yourselves on this stuff, it wasn't meant to be rocket science. Remember, guys like Foster are reading into this. They are playing "house rules" in this case. Do not take it as BTB...if its stated in the book, thats BTB.

Philotomy Jurament wrote: I think I'll follow the assumption that the humanoid AC values in the MM reflect OD&D armour classes, determine a "base movement rate" from that, and then apply the result in AD&D terms, with whatever combination of armour and weapons is appropriate.

An interesting adjunct to this is that in the second edition First Quest boxed set the orc armour class was revised back to "7 (leather armour and shield)", but movement left at 9. When the Monster Manual was later compiled orcs were given "AC 6(10)" and "M 9(12)" and it was explicitly noted that they wear studded armour and carry shields.

Philotomy Jurament wrote: Somehow I'm not terribly surprised; "Foster has being doing that/done that already" sounds all too familiar, to me. I think you could've saved me a lot of time by just writing a book, or something. (Of course, that wouldn't have been nearly as interesting or fun, so maybe it's best that you didn't.)

Another (possible) advantage of the "orc mail" solution is that it often discourages the players from stripping their fallen enemies of their arms and armour for resale in the nearest town.

AxeMental wrote:
When determining BTB rules for D&D or any game, one should always default to include more not less, and take things at face value. If you read the orc description it says "the orc does 1-8 damage or by weapon type". Guess what, that means it does 1-8 or 1-8 if using a long sword, 1-6 if using a short sword etc. etc. Don't out think yourselves on this stuff, it wasn't meant to be rocket science. Remember, guys like Foster are reading into this. They are playing "house rules" in this case. Do not take it as BTB...if its stated in the book, that's BTB.

Again, the elf entry says the same thing, and the illustrations are no real guide to what is what in the Monster Manual (and anyway the orc illustration does not look particularly ferocious to me). I would always look at it from the point of view of the lowest common denominator, which is to say that I think it is implausible that an orc would be more fearsome unarmed than if wielding a dagger. Sure, he might have a natural attack of some sort, just as he might have a natural armour class better than 10, but in both cases that is up to the individual game master to decide.

Matt: "Sure, he might have a natural attack of some sort, just as he might have a natural armour class better than 10, but in both cases that is up to the individual game master to decide."

With that I cannot disagree.

ScottyG wrote: To me it seems like there’s still some Chainmail in there and some early stage OD&D in the stats.

And probably some Swords and Spells, which I think had just been put to rest when EGG started in on the MM during the early coalescence of AD&D.

AxeMental wrote:I always thought elfen chain to be Gygax's version of Tolkiens Dwarven Mythral chain worn by Bilbo and Frodo with no notable negative effects to stealthy movement.

Possibly but also, in my opinion, it was a nod towards Poul Anderson who pointed out in The Broken Sword and Three Hearts, Three Lions that Elves would need to have developed armor of a different material due to their weakness towards iron (and steel in his books). IIRC, EGG mentioned somewhere that Elves in his campaign were originally unable to cast spells in metal armor if they were multi-classed, unless it was in Elfin chain. Part of the reason why it was specified as being non-magical in the DMG was, I imagine, a matter of game balance (since Elven Fighter/M-U's were already pretty powerful compared to single classed M-U's of the same level). This changed and magical Elfin Chain was included in UA, I think, because of the inevitable power creep that occured over time, including people interpreting the PHB to mean Elves, Half-Elves and Gnomes could cast while wearing metal armor.

That would be an interesting quote to get hold of... ah, here it is:

Col_Pladoh wrote: The fact is that only elven chain was allowed for casting of magic-user spells in my campaign. A multi-classed elf could manage to get away with wearing even plate armour and casting, but not thieving, but not a half-elf, or gnome.

You know what I just realised... that is actually the second edition rule.

TheRedPriest wrote:

AxeMental wrote:Can elfin chain be worn by thieves ?

If you mean wear it and perform thief functions while so doing, then BTB, no.

I don't think it would be a horrifying stretch to allow it though. Considering it has the same Bulk, Weight and Base Movement stats as leather armor. Elvin Chain is supposed to be rare, so I couldn't see allowing it to unbalance a game.

Only if BTB means "no UA"

The official Dragon Magazine 103 UA errata
(here: http://www.acaeum.com/library/errata_ua.html )
lists the effect of various armors on thief abilities.