We discussed weapon versus armor in several posts. I think it is an interesting subject, but I'm still not sure it is worth the effort.
It probably works better when you're running troops of humanoids against each other, a la Chainmail. But what about dragons and ogres? AD&D suggests the table doesn't apply to them.
But, arguably, knowing if you foe is a dragon or ogre is more relevant than chain versus plate.
So maybe we should do "weapon vs. monster" tables instead of "weapon vs. armor"?
Of course, we already have something like that at least since AD&D. I don't remember if if it is from some OD&D supplement (let me know!), but even in Chainmail the weapon versus armor table has a couple of columns for horses (and also different hit probabilities against ogres, dragons, etc.).
Could we create a minimalist version for B/X and other OSR games?
I think it would be a good idea. Let's see. Instead of specific monsters, I like to think of monster types.
I think it would be a good idea. Let's see. Instead of specific monsters, I like to think of monster types.
- Giants are resistant to small weapons, but more vulnerable to large weapons, especially swords and polearms. Same for oozes. (although I think giants also deserve an HP boost for that). The downside is that David vs. Goliath becomes harder.
- Golems are resistant to cutting and piercing weapons, plus weapons made of wood. You need a mace of pick for that. Of course, a golem made of straw is weak against cutting and strong against bludgeoning.
- Plant creatures and wood golems are more vulnerable against cutting weapons, especially axes.
- Arrows and daggers are weak against ALL these creatures (you're unlikely to reach their vitals), plus undead, but maybe daggers are good against unarmored and defenseless humanoids. Would give thieves a reason to use them over longswords.
- Blunt weapons are good against skeletal undead and similarly brittle creatures.
- Lycanthropes require silver weapons. Demons, fey and golems have magic resistance. Elementals resist most weapons and certain elements, and so on. Swarms resist all weapons.
Dragons and other monsters are treated according to size.
How to enforce that? I think a simple -1 to +2 to both attack and damage will suffice. Anymore than that would probably be a headache.
If we only had giants and oozes to deal with, I'd give them some damage resistance - maybe 4 points? - but allow a weapon to roll two dice instead of one. So a dagger would have a hard time but a 2h-sword would deal more damage than usual (2d10-4).
And then we'd have to consider giants in armor... sigh. Maybe doing a simple version is not so simple after all. But it might be worth the effort, at least to different weapons and make the monsters more... tangible?
The problem with this is it assumes something incorrect, and it isn't your fault, as Gary chose to excise it from the 1974 version of the game. In the 1973 OD&D drafts, the Chainmail resolution and the d20 resolution are meant to live together. You aren't supposed to just pick one, but in fact use the resolution method appropriate for the situation.
ReplyDeleteChainmail for man to man (or man to orc or lizard man, whatever) and the d20 resolution for man to monster (or monster to monster). The fact that the attack bonus means less for the d20 compared to Chainmail 2d6, and there are no man vs monster benefits, means the game is already balanced against that.