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