Weapons v. AC post at DF

rogatny · Post by **rogatny** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:00 pm

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewt ... =1&t=34417

I know not everyone checks on DF daily, so I figured I'd cross post this one from Matthew. A ton of interesting fiddly information about the Weapon v. AC chart and its various incarnations from Chainmail to the PHB.

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:48 pm

Thanks for the mention, Chris. That thread started off as a response in the always entertaining lucern hammer thread, so the coding for the tables was keyed to Dragonsfoot, else I would have posted it here as well. Fortunately, through the power of Word "find/replace" function, I have managed to recode the tables to work here at Knights & Knaves:

Weapon Types versus Armour Class

Some of the recent discussion regarding pole hammers and Gygax's early conception of medieval arms and armour had me once again revisiting the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons weapon versus armour charts and their earlier incarnations. Opinions as to the charts themselves vary quite considerably. Adherents recommend them as a great enhancement to game play, making choice of weapon a more significant and rewarding decision. Detractors consider them to be an encumbrance to the rules, pointing to Gygax's own subsequent statements as to their unsuitability for fantasy adventure games, his assertions that he never used them, and a statement in the DMG implying that they were intended to be optional. Still others consider the modifiers to be an inauthentic reflection of medieval weaponry and armour, often being particularly perturbed by the overlapping armour classes. Apologists for Gygax point to Chainmail as the ultimate source for the numbers, and ascribe their inclusion to outside pressure or a desire to appease the war gamers in his audience.

For my part, and none too surprisingly, I think the truth lies somewhere between the various extremes. Dungeons & Dragons is a game that was developed organically, but it is also a game that was designed by people who actively played, and who were familiar with its precursors and analogues. They sometimes designed theoretically, which is to say they included rules that they either did not use or rarely used, but thought would appeal to others more strongly; however, more often they seem to have designed with a mixture of practicality, experience, and expectation. When attempting to try and more firmly grasp the design process, and the whys and wherefores behind the decisions that were made, it is usual to start with the earliest available sources, but I do not propose here to go any further back than Chainmail and the Man to Man Melee Table:

Chainmail (1975)

Class Weapon AC 9 AC 8 AC 7 AC 6 AC 5 AC 4 AC 3 AC 2
1 Dagger 6 8 7 8 9 10 12* 12*
1 Hand Axe 7 8 7 9 10 10 11 12
2 Mace 8 8 8 7 8 8 7 8
3 Sword 7 8 8 9 8 9 10* 11*
4 Battle Axe 8 8 8 8 7 7 9 10
5 Morning Star 6 7 6 7 6 7 8 8
6 Flail 7 7 7 7 6 7 6 7
7 Spear 8 9 8 9 10 10 11* 12*
8 Pole Arms 6 6 6 7 7 8 9* 10*
9 Halberd 8 8 8 7 6 6 7 8
10 Two Handed Sword 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 7
10 Mounted Lance 5 5 5 5 6 7 8 9
12 Pike 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 10
*If opponent is dismounted and prone a roll of 7 or better kills.

Note: For the sake of consistency I have reversed the armour classes and transposed AC 7 and 8, as Chainmail considered a shield to be better protection than leather or padded armour [i.e. in the original arrangement "shield" would have been AC 7, above it is AC 8].

For those who are not familiar with this table, a little bit of explanation may be necessary. The number to the left of each weapon name is its class, which determines by means of comparison between the weapons of two opponents whether a parry is possible, as well as influencing when, and how many, attacks take place in one round. The idea of "weapon class" is analogous to "armour class" and anticipates the more familiar Advanced Dungeons & Dragons concepts of weapon speed and length. Indeed, if you have ever wondered where the rule that allows a dagger on a tied initiative to strike multiple times versus a two handed sword came from, then you need look no further than the Chainmail man to man combat rules.

There is no variable damage in the man to man combat rules, casualties are determined by comparing armour worn to weapon used and rolling 2d6; a score equal or higher than the number in the table indicates a kill. However, some monsters and heroes can take multiple "hits" [i.e. kill results] before being slain and the dice roll may be modified by various factors. The percentage chance equivalents are: 12 = 2.77%, 11 = 8.33%, 10 = 16.67%, 9 = 27.77%, 8 = 41.67%, 7 = 58.33%, 6 = 72.22%, 5 = 83.33%. What this means in practice is that the mounted lance, for instance, has an equal chance of killing a character with armour class 9, 8, 7, or 6 [i.e. no armour and no shield; no armour with shield; leather or padded armour and no shield; and leather or padded armour with a shield]. Gygax supplemented the man to man melee table in Strategic Review #2 by dividing the pole arm class into various types:

Class Weapon AC 9 AC 8 AC 7 AC 6 AC 5 AC 4 AC 3 AC 2
10 Voulge 8 8 8 7 7 7 8 9
10 Bardiche 5 6 5 6 7 8 9 10
10 Guisarme* 8 9 8 9 9 10 10** 11**
9 Glaive 7 8 7 8 7 8 9 10
9 Fauchard 6 7 6 7 7 8 8 9
10 Glaive-guisarme 7 8 7 8 7 8 9** 10**
10 Guisarme-voulge 5 6 5 6 6 7 8** 9**
10 Bill-guisarme 6 7 6 7 8 9 9** 10**
9 Partisan 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 10
9 Spetum 7 7 7 7 8 9 9 10
9 Ranseur 8 8 8 8 8 9 9** 10**
9 Lucern Hammer 8 8 8 8 7 8 8** 9**
9 Pole-axe 8 8 8 8 7 7 8 9
*Bill-hook
** −1 if used to dismount a horseman.

In Strategic Review #4, the bo stick, jo stick, and quarterstaff were added, having been submitted by Steve Marsh; the last of these I reproduce below:

Class Weapon AC 9 AC 8 AC 7 AC 6 AC 5 AC 4 AC 3 AC 2
8/4 Quarterstaff 6 5 7 8 9 11 12 −

At first I did not quite understand the notation "8/4" and reference to length/speed as compared to a weapon factor in Chainmail. I now suppose it refers to "first strike" versus "number of attacks", though I remain unclear as to which value is used for parries. This is perhaps the first published instance of the division of weapon class into "length" and "speed", which is eventually applied to all weapons in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. A number of equivalent weapon names are also given in Strategic Review #4, as well as a short discourse on the military fork and, in light of Japanese examples, whether the "holy water sprinkler" can be regarded as a pole arm or not. For those following the great lucern hammer debate, Gygax also here mentions that:

The Bec-de-Corbin, by the way, corresponds to a Lucern Hammer only with regard to its effect on plate armor, with or without shield, for its thrust and hook sections were not as well developed. Its general usage was by two plate-armored knights "having it out" afoot on the field of honor. For this reason it can be generally ignored as unlikely in other combat situations.

All very interesting. However, when Gygax decided to write up "weapon type versus armour class" modifiers for the alternative Dungeons & Dragons combat system, it seems he decided to forgo the complexities of diverse pole arms in favour of a list that hearkened back to Chainmail, albeit with the addition of the "military" pick, and the (sometimes) "dwarven" (war) hammer:

Greyhawk (1976)

Weapon AC 9 AC 8 AC 7 AC 6 AC 5 AC 4 AC 3 AC 2 Damage
Dagger* +2 +1 +0 +0 −1 −1 −3 −3 1-4/1-3
Hand Axe +1 +1 +0 +0 −1 −2 −3 −3 1-6/1-4
Mace +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +1 +0 1-6/1-4
Hammer +0 +0 +0 +0 +1 +0 +1 +0 1-6/1-4
Sword* +1 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 −1 −2 1-8/1-12
Military Pick +0 +0 +0 +0 +3 +2 +3 +2 1-6/1-4
Battle Axe +0 +0 +0 +0 +1 +1 +0 −1 1-8/1-8
Morning Star +2 +2 +1 +1 +2 +1 +0 +0 1-8/1-6
Flail +1 +1 +1 +1 +2 +1 +2 +2 1-8/1-8
Spear* +0 +0 +0 +0 −1 −1 −1 −2 1-6/1-8
Pole Arms* +2 +2 +2 +1 +1 +0 +0 −1 1-8/1-12
Halberd* +0 +0 +0 +1 +2 +1 +1 +0 1-10/2-12
Two Handed Sword +2 +2 +2 +2 +3 +3 +2 +1 1-10/3-18
Mounted Lance +3 +3 +3 +3 +2 +1 +0 +0 1-8/2-24
Pike +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 −1 1-8/1-12
*If opponent is dismounted and prone use the following adjustments:

AC 5 AC 4 AC 3 AC 2
+1 +2 +2 +3

These numbers are clearly inspired by the man to man melee tables, but they are also significantly different. The two handed sword modifiers of +2|+2|+2|+2|+3|+3|+2|+1 mirror the pattern 6|6|6|6|5|5|6|7, but their meaning is completely at variance in terms of probability, and the use of variable damage as opposed to a "kill" makes no difference in that respect. Broadly speaking, the pattern should be more like +0|+1|+2|+3|+5|+6|+6|+6, but the probability curve generated by 2d6 renders even that a poor approximation (the probability range being 58.33% to 83.33%, with 72.22% being most frequent). The switch over from 2d6 to 1d20 is understandable and desirable in order for modifiers to maintain a discrete and absolute value, and I find myself wondering whether Gygax initially experimented by replacing the 2d6 roll with 1d20 using a modified man to man melee matrix; perhaps the reason armour class ratings were reversed for the alternative combat system is related to such a hybrid.

Comparing the Chainmail man to man melee matrix to the Greyhawk weapon types versus armour class table, I cannot agree that the former served as anything more than inspiration for the latter. Though the patterns are haphazardly imitated, to my mind there is no mistaking the conclusion that Gygax must have used a great deal of discretion in assigning these numbers, and his work in Strategic Review #2 and #4 shows that he had specific views on how various weapons fare against armour. Indeed, he went on to further modify these numbers for Swords & Spells (essentially Chainmail for the alternative combat system) a few short months later:

Swords & Spells (1976)

Weapon AC 9 AC 8 AC 7 AC 6 AC 5 AC 4 AC 3 AC 2 AC 1 AC 0 AC −1 AC −2
Base to Hit 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 −5
Dagger 60 50 40 35 25 20 15 5 − − − −
Hand Axe 55 50 45 35 25 20 15 5 − − − −
Mace 50 45 40 35 30 25 25 15 10 5 − −
Hammer 50 45 40 35 35 25 25 15 10 5 − −
Sword 55 45 40 35 30 25 15 5 0 − − −
Military Pick 50 45 40 35 35 35 35 25 20 15 10 5
Battle Axe 50 45 40 35 35 30 20 10 5 − − −
Morning Star 60 55 45 40 40 30 20 15 10 5 − −
Bastard Sword 55 50 45 40 40 35 25 15 10 5 − −
Flail 55 50 45 40 40 30 30 25 20 15 10 5
Spear 50 45 40 35 25 20 15 5 0 − − −
Voulge 50 45 40 40 35 30 20 10 5 − − −
Bardiche 65 60 50 45 35 25 15 5 − − − −
Glaive 55 50 40 35 35 25 15 5 − − − −
Guisarme 50 45 35 30 25 20 10 5 − − − −
Fouchard 60 55 45 35 25 20 15 5 − − − −
Glaive Guisarme 55 50 40 35 35 25 15 5 − − − −
Guisarme Voulge 65 60 50 45 40 30 20 10 5 − − −
Bill Guisarme 60 55 45 40 30 20 15 5 − − − −
Partisan 50 45 40 35 30 25 10 5 − − − −
Spetum 55 50 45 40 30 20 15 5 − − − −
Ranseur 50 45 40 35 30 20 15 5 − − − −
Lucern Hammer 50 45 40 35 35 25 25 20 15 10 5 −
Halberd 55 45 40 40 40 35 35 25 20 15 10 5
Two Handed Sword 60 55 50 45 45 40 30 20 15 10 5 −
Mounted Lance 65 60 55 50 45 35 30 20 15 5 − −
Pike 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 − −
Quarterstaff 55 50 50 35 30 15 5 − − − − −

For the sake of convenience, I have converted these percentage values to their corresponding weapon versus armour modifiers; as can probably be seen, many of the entries mirror what is presented in Greyhawk, but there is also rather a lot of divergence.

Swords & Spells (converted values)

Weapon AC 9 AC 8 AC 7 AC 6 AC 5 AC 4 AC 3 AC 2 AC 1 AC 0 AC −1 AC −2
Base to Hit 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 −5
Dagger +2 +1 +0 +0 −1 −1 −1 −2 − − − −
Hand Axe +1 +1 +1 +0 −1 −1 −1 −2 − − − −
Mace +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +1 +0 +0 +0 − −
Hammer +0 +0 +0 +0 +1 +0 +1 +0 +0 +0 − −
Sword* +1 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 −1 −2 0 − − −
Military Pick +0 +0 +0 +0 +1 +2 +3 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2
Battle Axe +0 +0 +0 +0 +1 +1 +0 −1 −1 − − −
Morning Star +2 +2 +1 +1 +2 +1 +0 +0 +0 +0 − −
Bastard Sword +1 +1 +1 +1 +2 +2 +1 +0 +0 +0 − −
Flail +1 +1 +1 +1 +2 +1 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2
Spear*** +0 +0 +0 +0 −1 −1 −1 −2 0 − − −
Voulge +0 +0 +0 +1 +1 +1 +0 −1 −1 − − −
Bardiche +3 +3 +2 +2 +1 +0 −1 −2 − − − −
Glaive +1 +1 +0 +0 +1 +0 −1 −2 − − − −
Guisarme +0 +0 −1 −1 −1 −1 −2 −2 − − − −
Fouchard +2 +2 +1 +0 −1 −1 −1 −2 − − − −
Glaive Guisarme +1 +1 +0 +0 +1 +0 −1 −2 − − − −
Guisarme Voulge +3 +3 +2 +2 +2 +1 +0 −1 −1 − − −
Bill Guisarme +2 +2 +1 +1 +0 −1 −1 −2 − − − −
Partisan +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 −2 −2 − − − −
Spetum +1 +1 +1 +1 +0 −1 −1 −2 − − − −
Ranseur +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 −1 −1 −2 − − − −
Lucern Hammer +0 +0 +0 +0 +1 +0 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 −
Halberd +1 +0 +0 +1 +2 +2 +3 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2
Two Handed Sword +2 +2 +2 +2 +3 +3 +2 +1 +1 +1 +1 −
Mounted Lance +3 +3 +3 +3 +3 +2 +2 +1 +1 +0 − −
Pike +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 − −
Quarterstaff +1 +1 +2 +0 +0 −2 −1 − − − − −
* Both long swords and short swords appear to have the same weapon versus armour modifiers, the difference between the two weapons is the size of the base on which figures wielding them are mounted (S&S, p. 2).
** There are "short spears", "spears" and "long spears" in Spells & Sorcery; they seem to only be differentiated by their "weapon length class" (S&S, p. 17). These three categories of spear are implied in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, but not explicitly referred to.

When comparing these numbers to the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons weapon type versus armour class table, it is important to bear in mind that under the new system there was both a shift in the meaning of armour class and in the fighting capability of a level 1 fighter. In combination, these result in the AD&D fighter having the same chance as a D&D fighter to hit lighter armour types, but a 5% less chance of hitting mail or better. I have outlined the changes below for quick reference:

Armour Class Dungeons & Dragons Advanced Dungeons & Dragons
10 − No Armour
9 No Armour No Armour and Shield
8 No Armour and Shield Leather or Padded Armour
7 Leather Armour Studded Armour; or Leather or Padded Armour and Shield
6 Leather Armour and Shield Ring Armour; or Studded Armour and Shield
5 Mail Armour Mail Armour; or Ring Armour and Shield
4 Mail Armour and Shield Banded or Splinted Armour; or Mail Armour and Shield
3 Plate Mail Armour Plate Mail Armour; or Banded or Splinted Armour and Shield
2 Plate Mail Armour and Shield Plate Mail Armour and Shield

Type AC 10 AC 9 AC 8 AC 7 AC 6 AC 5 AC 4 AC 3 AC 2 AC 1 AC 0
Greyhawk Normal Man − 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10%
Greyhawk Level 1 Fighting-Man − 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10%
Swords & Spells Level 0 Man at Arms − 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5%
Swords & Spells Level 1 Fighting-Man − 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10%
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Level 0 Man at Arms 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 5%
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Level 1 Fighter 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5%

In the case of the dagger it can be seen that the modifiers against heavy armour have been considerably worsened as compared to Greyhawk or Swords & Spells, making it even more difficult for low level fighting types to affect opponents so armoured. The hand axe has slightly better modifiers than in Greyhawk, but once the deterioration in fighting ability is considered the modifiers are overall worse. That is to say, whilst a level one Greyhawk fighting-man needs 20 to hit armour class 2 with a −3 modifier, a level one Advanced Dungeons & Dragons fighter requires a 21 to hit armour class 2 with the same −3 modifier.

Weapon Speed Length Space Encumbrance AC 10 AC 9 AC 8 AC 7 AC 6 AC 5 AC 4 AC 3 AC 2 AC 1 AC 0 Damage
Dagger 2 c. 1¼' 1' 10 +3 +1 +1 +0 +0 −2 −2 −3 −3 −4 −4 1-4/1-3
Hand Axe 4 c. 1½' 1' 50 +1 +1 +1 +0 +0 −1 −2 −2 −3 −4 −5 1-6/1-4

Indeed, whilst both a level 0 man at arms in Swords & Spells and a normal man in Greyhawk have a 5% chance of hitting AC 2 with dagger or hand axe, his chance in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is 0%. This has a knock on effect on the relative efficiency of the hammer and mace (horseman's, I assume), the latter of which gains an improved capacity against heavy armour in AD&D.

Weapon Speed Length Space Encumbrance AC 10 AC 9 AC 8 AC 7 AC 6 AC 5 AC 4 AC 3 AC 2 AC 1 AC 0 Damage
Horse Man's Mace 6 c. 1½' 2' 50 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +1 +0 +1 +1 +2 +2 1-6/1-4
Hammer 4 c. 1½' 2' 50 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +1 +0 +0 +0 2-5/1-4

Of course, in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons daggers and hand axes are very cheap, can function as off hand weapons, and can be thrown, so perhaps this is the reason for their poor modifiers. On the other hand, the hammer is similarly inexpensive and can also be thrown. Gygax may have had these balance concerns in mind, or their modifiers may be a result of a shift in his conception of their authentic effectiveness against armour. It is noticeable that the hammer, which is absent from Chainmail, is one of the few weapons that has consistent modifiers across GH, S&S, and AD&D. Something similar can be said about the long sword, but in percentage terms AD&D represents a change for both.

Weapon Speed Length Space Encumbrance AC 10 AC 9 AC 8 AC 7 AC 6 AC 5 AC 4 AC 3 AC 2 AC 1 AC 0 Damage
Short Sword 3 c. 2' 1' 35 +2 +0 +1 +0 +0 +0 −1 −2 −3 −4 −5 1-6/1-8
Long Sword 5 c. 3½' 3' 75 +2 +1 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 −1 −2 −3 −4 1-8/1-12

For a first level AD&D fighter, the long sword actually functions better against unarmoured (AC 10) or unarmoured and shield bearing (AC 9) opponents than in previous versions [GH 60%; S&S 60%; AD&D 65%; and GH 50%; S&S 50%; AD&D 55%] The short sword is at the same advantage against unarmoured opponents, as well as those that are lightly armoured and unshielded (AC 8) [GH 45%; S&S 45%; AD&D 50%], but such advantages are soon eroded against mail and heavier armours (AC 5-2) [GH 35%, 30%, 20%, 10%; S&S 35%, 30%, 20%, 10%; AD&D 30%, 25%, 15%, 5%, and 30%, 20% 10%, 0%]. When these probabilities are considered relative to the changes made to the mace, it seems reasonable to conclude that Gygax was purposefully making these changes in order to 1) imply historical authenticity (swords good against lightly armoured opponents, bad against heavily armoured opponents; maces good against heavily armoured opponents) or 2) create game balance (weapons behave differently versus armour types). Of course, it may be that both were of concern to him.

Weapon Speed Length Space Encumbrance AC 10 AC 9 AC 8 AC 7 AC 6 AC 5 AC 4 AC 3 AC 2 AC 1 AC 0 Damage
Morning Star 7 c. 4' 5' 125 +2 +2 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +0 +0 +0 2-8/2-7
Foot Man's Pick 7 c. 4' 4' 60 +0 −2 −1 −1 −1 +1 +1 +2 +2 +3 +3 2-7/2-8
Foot Man's Flail 7 c. 4' 6' 150 −1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +2 +1 +2 +2 +3 +3 2-7/2-8

Leaving aside the shift in the fighter's combat ability, the flail, pick and morning star remain broadly the same as they ever were. The pick has worsened somewhat versus lightly armoured opponents compared to the other two, but has the advantage of requiring less room and being less encumbering than either. This is an interesting contrast to two of the other heavy hitting weapons from Swords & Spells:

Weapon Speed Length Space Encumbrance AC 10 AC 9 AC 8 AC 7 AC 6 AC 5 AC 4 AC 3 AC 2 AC 1 AC 0 Damage
Battle Axe 7 c. 4' 4' 75 +2 +1 +1 +0 +0 −1 −1 −2 −3 −4 −5 1-8/1-8
Bastard Sword 6 c. 4½’ 4’+ 100 +0 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +0 +0 +0 +0 2-8/2-16

The modifiers for the AD&D bastard sword are considerably worse than those in S&S. I would hazard to suggest that this weapon was proving rather popular and being abused in some way (perhaps an analogue to the haste spell); its S&S pattern mimicked that of the two handed sword (+1|+1|+1|+1|+2|+2|+1|+0 versus +2|+2|+2|+2|+3|+3|+2|+1). The battle axe, though, is the true victim of the AD&D change over. The change in modifiers is all the more startling because there was no change between Greyhawk and Swords & Spells. I suspect that this was similarly proving a popular choice, and that the new weapon versus armour modifiers represent one handed use (the battle axe is suggested as a one handed weapon as early as Dragon #1, p. 13). On the other hand, it is also obvious that the AD&D battle axe is patterned after the bardiche and hand axe, whilst the GH battle axe is patterned after the halberd, following the precedent of the Chainmail man to man melee matrix.

Weapon Speed Length Space Encumbrance AC 10 AC 9 AC 8 AC 7 AC 6 AC 5 AC 4 AC 3 AC 2 AC 1 AC 0 Damage
Quarterstaff 4 6-8’ 3' 50 +1 +1 +1 +0 +0 −1 −3 −5 −7 −8 −9 1-6/1-6
Spear 6/7/8 5-13’+ 1' 40/60/80 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 −1 −1 −1 −2 −2 −2 1-6/1-8
Pike 13 18’ 1' 80 −2 −1 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 −1 −1 −1 1-6/1-12

The spear is another of the few weapons to have weapon versus armour modifiers that remain unchanged between the three products here considered. The staff and pike, on the other hand, get slightly worse against both light and heavy armour. Notable are the various speeds and encumbrances provided for the spears. These most likely correspond to the "short spear, spear and long spear" designations noted above in Swords & Spells.

Weapon Speed Length Space Encumbrance AC 10 AC 9 AC 8 AC 7 AC 6 AC 5 AC 4 AC 3 AC 2 AC 1 AC 0 Damage
Lucern Hammer 9 5’+ 5' 150 +0 +0 +1 +1 +2 +2 +2 +1 +1 +1 +0 2-8/1-6
Halberd 9 5’+ 5' 175 +0 +1 +1 +2 +2 +2 +1 +1 +1 +1 +0 1-10/2-12
Bec de Corbin 9 c. 6’+ 6' 100 −1 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 1-8/1-6

Gygax appears to have had quite the rethink as regards these weapons. The lucern hammer is brought more in line with his Chainmail version than that in Swords & Spells, whilst the halberd reverts to modifiers more in line with those in Greyhawk. More surprising is his decision as regards the bec de corbin. His previous statement regarding its effectiveness betray a complete misunderstanding of the use of the "fluke" or "beak", which he seems to have understood to be principally for "hooking" an opponent rather than puncturing armour; this has clearly been rectified in the AD&D version, and possibly informed his reassignment of the halberd and lucern hammer modifiers.

Weapon Speed Length Space Encumbrance AC 10 AC 9 AC 8 AC 7 AC 6 AC 5 AC 4 AC 3 AC 2 AC 1 AC 0 Damage
Lance (Heavy Horse) 8 c. 14’ 1’ 150 +0 +0 +1 +1 +2 +2 +2 +3 +3 +4 +4 3-9/3-18
Two Handed Sword 10 c. 6’ 6’ 250 +0 +1 +3 +3 +3 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 1-10/3-18

The AD&D versions of these two weapons are perhaps the most interesting of all those here considered, as they actually appear to be entirely "reversed", where they were previously best against light armour, they are now best against heavy armour. This could have been a mistake in the transcribing of the numbers (I know, because I did just that, a side effect of the differing arrangement in Swords & Spells), but it should be noted that their reversal somewhat better reflects the original Chainmail man to man probability curve:

Level 1 AD&D Lancer: 55%, 50%, 50%, 45%, 45%, 40%, 35%, 30%, 25%,
Level 1 CM Lancer: 83%, 83%, 83%, 83%, 72%, 58%, 41%, 27%,
Level 1 AD&D Landsknecht: 55%, 55%, 65%, 60%, 55%, 45%, 40%, 35%,
Level 1 CM Landsknecht: 72%, 72%, 72%, 72%, 83%, 83%, 72%, 58%,

Not perfect analogues, by any means, but a bit closer I think. It seems quite evident to me that weapon type versus armour class modifiers are a subject that Gygax put a great deal of thought into, and whether one agrees with his various assessments (and I largely do not) does not impact the likelihood that he thought them reasonably authentic and balanced in the proper context. It is also obvious that Gygax’s understanding of the properties of medieval arms and armour was not static, that he was willing to incorporate his changing perceptions into revisions of the tables, and that he likely gave all due consideration as to how these would impact the game. For my part, I think that further modification of these tables with an eye towards historical authenticity and balanced play would be very much in the spirit of their conception.

So, a long and rambling post filled with endless tables. I guess I could have just kept this information and my observations to myself, but I thought it was worth posting this stuff here. Maybe somebody will have the fortitude to read through it, and find it useful, interesting, or be able to contribute further; I hope they forgive any errors and the rough style of composition.

A Note on Spacing

One interesting thing that Swords & Spells explains is that creature size takes priority over "weapon space"; men have to be mounted on bases ⅝" wide (18.75 scale feet in files of 2-5 men) for short swords and various other similarly classed weapons, as a minimum. If using a long sword or equivalent then the bases have to be ¾" (22.5 scale feet). Larger weapons, such as morning stars and flails, etcetera, require 1" (30 scale feet), and two handed swords 1⅜" (41.25 scale feet). The proportional increases suggest that the space difference between a short sword (1’), footman’s mace (2’), long sword (3’), battle axe (4’), halberd (5’), and two handed sword (6’) is not as great as a straightforward reading of Greyhawk and the Player’s Handbook would suggest. That is to say the basic space requirements are probably of the order 6’, 8’, 10’, and 12’, which roughly matches a file of 3⅓ men in Spells & Swords. Given Gygax’s assertion in the DMG that 10’ in the dungeon "allows for the typical array of three figures abreast" (p. 10) then it should be understood that these numbers should be at least halved in the dungeon environment. That is to say, the idea of 6’ space on either side of a character wielding a two handed sword is better suited for wilderness scale (where feet become yards).

Previous Weapons Type versus Armour Class Threads

2007-11-06 Weapon versus Armour Class
2007-09-10 Weapon Type to Hit Adjustments
2007-08-29 Armour Class Adjustment Tables
2006-10-17 Weapon versus Armour Tables
2005-09-01 Weapon versus Armour Class
2005-05-11 Weapon versus Armour Class Observation
2004-09-30 Weapon to hit Adjustments
2004-02-26 Weapon versus Armour Types

northrundicandus · Post by **northrundicandus** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:46 pm

Dude!

That post entitles you to a custom forum title. What do you want it to be?

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:41 pm

A custom forum title? Cool. Something to do with my Silver Blade Adventures project, I reckon. Hmmn, thinking of one is more difficult than it sounds; how about "Master of the Silver Blade"?

[edit] Fixed the table issues inherited from the forum upgrade.

genghisdon · Post by **genghisdon** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:58 pm

All hail the master of the silver blade! (are you a githyanki slumming on the prime, Matthew?)

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:24 pm

genghisdon wrote: All hail the master of the silver blade! (are you a githyanki slumming on the prime, Matthew?)

Nothing so exotic. My campaign world is "Silver Blade", so it is "[Game] Master of the Silver Blade [Campaign]".

sepulchre · Post by **sepulchre** » Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:29 am

Matthew wrote:

...and whether one agrees with his various assessments (and I largely do not) does not impact the likelihood that he thought them reasonably authentic and balanced in the proper context. For my part, I think that further modification of these tables with an eye towards historical authenticity and balanced play would be very much in the spirit of their conception.

Matt, would you be willing to share some further thoughts on how you might envision the tables with an eye towards historical authenticity?

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:39 am

sepulchre wrote: Matt, would you be willing to share some further thoughts on how you might envision the tables with an eye towards historical authenticity?

It has been a while since I really gave this any serious thought, as I largely decided that it was a bad fit for the level of granularity in AD&D combat, but certainly two-handed swords and bastard swords are over valued as compared to some of the other weapons, the same might be said of the lance to a lesser extent, and axes really get much harder penalties than is necessary. However, it is possible to argue the case in various directions and remain plausible.

sepulchre · Post by **sepulchre** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:27 pm

Matthew wrote:

It has been a while since I really gave this any serious thought,

I realize this is a bit of thread necromancy.

I largely decided that it was a bad fit for the level of granularity in AD&D combat,

Do you think that granularity worked in the 'man to man' battery of Chainmail? Granted there is some ambiguity here, as Chainmail is a wargame, however significant parts were adopted for the 3LBBs. Is this opinion rooted in a leaner, more spare rpg?

certainly two-handed swords and bastard swords are over valued as compared to some of the other weapons, the same might be said of the lance to a lesser extent, and axes really get much harder penalties than is necessary.

Have read some of those comments before and can entertain those opinions.

However, it is possible to argue the case in various directions and remain plausible.

Ambiguity persists!

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:02 am

sepulchre wrote: Do you think that granularity worked in the 'man to man' battery of Chainmail? Granted there is some ambiguity here, as Chainmail is a wargame, however significant parts were adopted for the 3LBBs. Is this opinion rooted in a leaner, more spare rpg?

Good question. I am not particularly convinced that it is a good fit for Chain Mail either, but on the other hand the limited context (man versus man) and binary outcome (dead/alive) perhaps unexpectedly makes it more believable. That is to say, the number of variables are so few and the probabilities on such a small scale (5-12), it is hard to complain too much.

sepulchre · Post by **sepulchre** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 2:30 pm

Matthew wrote:

the limited context (man versus man) and binary outcome (dead/alive) perhaps unexpectedly makes it more believable....the number of variables are so few and the probabilities on such a small scale (5-12), it is hard to complain too much.

So, on account of there being few if any other variables involved in achieving one of two possible outcomes, weapon factors are an acceptable granularity. Yet, if I understand your meaning you note weapon factors are 'believable' in light of the scale of probability, suggesting there may be something to them besides adding a variable to the probability of success. Are they more credible with a smaller probability spread? It appears to me they have a noticeable impact on the outcome of the 'man to man' battery. If the spread were larger, say 3-18 would how would weapon factors appear? Are they made negligible by the context of the alternate combat system because of the use of hit points? What might make weapon factors 'believable'? Conceptually, I'm rather fond of them, but I have begun to wonder, especially based on your comments intended or unintended, whether or not weapon factors make sense when using hit points. Some may argue that hit points are not that different from 'hits', but depending on the outcome of the dice that extra granularity can very much extend melee. Thus weapon factors suddenly are an undue complication in determining the underlying binary outcome which has already been expanded by the introduction of hit points.

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:28 am

sepulchre wrote: So, on account of there being few if any other variables involved in achieving one of two possible outcomes, weapon factors are an acceptable granularity. Yet, if I understand your meaning you note weapon factors are 'believable' in light of the scale of probability, suggesting there may be something to them besides adding a variable to the probability of success. Are they more credible with a smaller probability spread? It appears to me they have a noticeable impact on the outcome of the 'man to man' battery. If the spread were larger, say 3-18 would how would weapon factors appear? Are they made negligible by the context of the alternate combat system because of the use of hit points? What might make weapon factors 'believable'? Conceptually, I'm rather fond of them, but I have begun to wonder, especially based on your comments intended or unintended, whether or not weapon factors make sense when using hit points. Some may argue that hit points are not that different from 'hits', but depending on the outcome of the dice that extra granularity can very much extend melee. Thus weapon factors suddenly are an undue complication in determining the underlying binary outcome which has already been expanded by the introduction of hit points.

I think you are probably right about that. They make a lot more sense when damage is dictated by something else, such as class or simply 1d6 for all weapons. It is probably the sheer number of variable factors that undermines the weapon versus armour modifiers, but also I am less than confident in our ability to plausibly convey the potential using a 5% increment system that prioritises fighting ability. In other words, +1 versus plate armour is not really a significant factor to a level ten fighter. Hits in Chain Mail are determined by solely by weapon versus armour factors, it is totally different paradigm.

sepulchre · Post by **sepulchre** » Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:29 pm

Matthew wrote:

(weapon factors) make a lot more sense when damage is dictated by something else, such as 1d6 for all weapons.

The 1d6 example conceptually follows (e.g. all weapons do 1d6), but again hit points are a new variable, adding a granularity to what was initially a binary outcome with weapon factors being the primary variable in the dice roll, modifiers like speed factor or circumstances like fatigue not withstanding.

(weapons factors) make a lot more sense when damage is dictated by something else, such as class

What were you thinking of here?

It is probably the sheer number of variable factors that undermines the weapon versus armour modifiers,

Indeed, the primacy of weapon factors is greatly diminished by other factors brought to bear on the dice.

I am less than confident in our ability to plausibly convey the potential using a 5% increment system that prioritises fighting ability.

It has been plausibly stated that the 5% increment system lends more to the rpg platform than that of the 2d6, that is, the spread is perceived to reflect more of a sense of chance being at work. As a consequence, the efficacy of weapon factors is diminished. Moreover, speaking to your point, the adjusted scores by level needed to land a telling blow as reflected in the Attack Matrices far exceed the value of weapon factors. A counterpoint might be that the heroic game (3rd/4th lvl.) reflect a mythic roleplaying that is beyond the bounds of 'normal men'. 'A different paradigm', indeed.

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:44 am

sepulchre wrote: The 1d6 example conceptually follows (e.g. all weapons do 1d6), but again hit points are a new variable, adding a granularity to what was initially a binary outcome with weapon factors being the primary variable in the dice roll, modifiers like speed factor or circumstances like fatigue not withstanding.

Right.

sepulchre wrote: What were you thinking of here?

That weapons with hit and damage variables are undermined by them. A +1 to hit goes from +5% chance of a kill to +5% chance of doing 1-6 damage, which is an obvious reduction in meaning.

sepulchre wrote: Indeed, the primacy of weapon factors is greatly diminished by other factors brought to bear on the dice.

I agree.

sepulchre wrote: It has been plausibly stated that the 5% increment system lends more to the rpg platform than that of the 2d6, that is, the spread is perceived to reflect more of a sense of chance being at work. As a consequence, the efficacy of weapon factors is diminished. Moreover, speaking to your point, the adjusted scores by level needed to land a telling blow as reflected in the Attack Matrices far exceed the value of weapon factors. A counterpoint might be that the heroic game (3rd/4th lvl.) reflect a mythic roleplaying that is beyond the bounds of 'normal men'. 'A different paradigm', indeed.

The biggest benefit of the d20 system is that the probabilities are linear. Recently I have been thinking about initiative, and because it is handled on two opposing dice there is a distinct lack of linearity when you add modifiers of any sort [i.e. the jump from +0 to +1 has more effect than the jump from +1 to +2]. I think we can definitely get away with just saying "high level D&D is about character ability, and not their gear", which is reasonable. On the whole I am only really interested in the broad strokes of combat in D&D, the details of how a sword performs against mail as opposed to an axe, translated into 5% increments, is just too much trouble when it has no bearing on fighting dragons or other fantastic creatures.

sepulchre · Post by **sepulchre** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:59 am

Matthew wrote:

...thinking about initiative, and because it is handled on two opposing dice there is a distinct lack of linearity when you add modifiers of any sort [i.e. the jump from +0 to +1 has more effect than the jump from +1 to +2].

That is to say, the jump from 0 to +1 signifies a larger margin for success than from +1 to +2?

... "high level D&D is about character ability, and not their gear",

Yes, plain to see, again a version of the game I am beginning to relate to less and less. I think I am more inclined to a game that focuses on proficiency and non-proficiency with gear and the morale or elite nature of a figure. Granted this view sets me more in the wargaming camp than that of the FRPG.

too much trouble when it has no bearing on fighting dragons or other fantastic creatures.

And here is the rub, very easy to forget weapons factors belong to the binary outcome of dead or alive in human melee. I think I have found them striking, because the game I have sought is populated with humans and the monstrous emerges or takes it shape in the human. An example of this being the berserker or animistic, warrior cult aspects of Gaul and Scandanavia.

Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Weapons v. AC post at DF

Weapons v. AC post at DF

Re: Weapons v. AC post at DF

Re: Weapons v. AC post at DF

Re: Weapons v. AC post at DF

Re: Weapons v. AC post at DF

Re: Weapons v. AC post at DF

Re: Weapons v. AC post at DF

Re: Weapons v. AC post at DF

Re: Weapons v. AC post at DF

Re: Weapons v. AC post at DF

Re: Weapons v. AC post at DF

Re: Weapons v. AC post at DF

Class	Weapon	AC 9	AC 8	AC 7	AC 6	AC 5	AC 4	AC 3	AC 2
1	Dagger	6	8	7	8	9	10	12*	12*
1	Hand Axe	7	8	7	9	10	10	11	12
2	Mace	8	8	8	7	8	8	7	8
3	Sword	7	8	8	9	8	9	10*	11*
4	Battle Axe	8	8	8	8	7	7	9	10
5	Morning Star	6	7	6	7	6	7	8	8
6	Flail	7	7	7	7	6	7	6	7
7	Spear	8	9	8	9	10	10	11*	12*
8	Pole Arms	6	6	6	7	7	8	9*	10*
9	Halberd	8	8	8	7	6	6	7	8
10	Two Handed Sword	6	6	6	6	5	5	6	7
10	Mounted Lance	5	5	5	5	6	7	8	9
12	Pike	8	8	8	8	8	8	9	10

Armour Class	Dungeons & Dragons	Advanced Dungeons & Dragons
10	−	No Armour
9	No Armour	No Armour and Shield
8	No Armour and Shield	Leather or Padded Armour
7	Leather Armour	Studded Armour; or Leather or Padded Armour and Shield
6	Leather Armour and Shield	Ring Armour; or Studded Armour and Shield
5	Mail Armour	Mail Armour; or Ring Armour and Shield
4	Mail Armour and Shield	Banded or Splinted Armour; or Mail Armour and Shield
3	Plate Mail Armour	Plate Mail Armour; or Banded or Splinted Armour and Shield
2	Plate Mail Armour and Shield	Plate Mail Armour and Shield

Type	AC 10	AC 9	AC 8	AC 7	AC 6	AC 5	AC 4	AC 3	AC 2	AC 1	AC 0
Greyhawk Normal Man	−	55%	50%	45%	40%	35%	30%	25%	20%	15%	10%
Greyhawk Level 1 Fighting-Man	−	55%	50%	45%	40%	35%	30%	25%	20%	15%	10%
Swords & Spells Level 0 Man at Arms	−	50%	45%	40%	35%	30%	25%	20%	15%	10%	5%
Swords & Spells Level 1 Fighting-Man	−	55%	50%	45%	40%	35%	30%	25%	20%	15%	10%
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Level 0 Man at Arms	50%	45%	40%	35%	30%	25%	20%	15%	10%	5%	5%
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Level 1 Fighter	55%	50%	45%	40%	35%	30%	25%	20%	15%	10%	5%