D&D Armor & Weapons

[@anarionelendili8961]

Personally, I'd probably make the Shield the main thing to block/deflect blows. Something like a Gambeson is better than nothing, but its main thing is to protect against hits that get through, so I would be more inclined to give it higher DA and lower AC, if I were to adopt this system. I think Hollow World Nithian Empire had a similar-ish system. And Gazetteer Orcs of Thar. As for the weapons, I would put Longsword in to Martial Weapons as a two-handed weapon. It was not meant to be used in one hand, and would be a huge pain to do so, even if you were strong. You'd be better off with a normal one-handed sword designed to be used in one hand. This also would give a Longsword a niche where it belongs: two-handed sword that doesn't require as specialized training as those huge Greatswords. After all, it was a very common knightly (backup) weapon in the battlefield in the 15th century. I also would cut down the number of polearms even more than you do. For example, merging Lucern Hammer and Poleaxe would not lose much in the grand scheme of things. Bill and Halberd can be merged, same with Bardiche and Glaive, and given that the Halberd is superior in all ways, might just as well drop those two. Fauchard is either a glaive or a bill, so can be dropped, too. Partisan and a longspear are alike enough that might as well merge those two, as well. I seriously doubt that the wings in the partisan's blade are THAT useful in a disarm, too. Sure, better than nothing, but a sai it is not. (In our BECMI campaign, we have just one polearm, called Polearm. :P )

[@TheGrandfathersCave]

The usefulness of shields is definitely in its ability to block attacks. With the two-action system I run parry maneuvers are quite common and the shield works wonders! I must go back and rewrite the descriptions, but bothe the longsword, waraxe and maul can be wielded two-handed with martial proficiency; exotic proficiency is only for one-handed use. I partially agree with you on polearms. I remember the simple take from BECMI 😊 but I just love them polearms 😄

[@anarionelendili8961]

@@TheGrandfathersCave OK, I must have missed that part (2H Longsword use already a thing). I'd still not allow 1H use as a routine, but at least requiring another feat would balance it out some.

[@anarionelendili8961]

@@TheGrandfathersCave As for Shields, I would probably do something like the light armor not giving any AC, but increasing the DA to 2. And Shield AC to like +4. Medium armor might give +1 AC, while Heavy armor starts giving significant AC boni, but diminish the shield bonus, too. So that when you are in full plate, it is better to ditch the shield and grab a two-handed weapon instead.

[@ForestFWhite]

I agree with one point here - and this is corroborated by the medieval weapon enthusiasts - a long sword is a 2H weapon! Exceptions like the English Bastard Sword and Japanese Katana (which were common more into the renaissance) were weighted very differently than a typical longsword/tachi. At some point, D&D changed the meaning of long sword and it stuck, but if we want to stick to the history, the long sword is the 2H sword. This doesn't mean you cannot have falchions, cutlasses, scimitars, and cavalry sabres as 1H slashing weapons, but they aren't long swords.

[@josephpurdy8390]

1e AD&D handled a roll of 20 "to hit" differently than modern iterations. There wasn't any additional damage granted. Technically, there was no critical hit. What it did do was permit the attacker to hit an AC that was up to 5 AC lower. Then, what would normally be allowed on a roll of 20. That also ment that up to +5 "to hit" on an attack where a 20 is rolled was negated. Since, those plusses to hit were irrelevant. If an attacker had a +6 or more "to hit." Then, rolling a 20 would be supplanted by the "to hit" modifier.

[@TheGrandfathersCave]

Already playing AD&D we house-ruled that a 20 did double damage.an optional rule?! In this version of D&D the risk of crits is increased by the Threat! rule which has a possibility of causing extra damage... even on lower rolls.

[@ForestFWhite]

Great concepts - I prefer choices or access to weapons and armor be meaningful! I consider armor/shields cover you wear/carry. Attackers may miss entirely, hit an uncovered spot, or the cover blocks damage according to its structure and material. Making armor and shields cover means you can combine it with cover rules, which retains some of the simplicity while honoring the AC and DR aspects of the armor.

[@TheGrandfathersCave]

Interesting take. Would you elaborate on that?

[@ForestFWhite]

​@@TheGrandfathersCave We envision three outcomes of any attack working similar to 3rd edition D&D - a touch attack is connecting with a target by rolling above a base number + modifiers for size and dexterity. If the attacker doesn't roll high enough for a touch attack, they miss completely. However, if they hit the touch attack difficulty and do not exceed the touch attack difficulty + armor or cover AC (from 1-10 perhaps, where 10 is full cover or a magical suit of armor with a shield) the cover/armor reduces the attack by its damage resistance (DR) - from stone walls being 20 or more, steel tower shield 12, a big tree 10, chain mail 5, padded armor 1, or some similar scale with weapon damage. This means a catapult stone or boulder thrown by a giant can still hurt a target with full cover if it rolls above the touch attack target, but is greatly reduced if your cover has high DR (like the wall) or does full damage if they get a really good roll (the boulder lands just right without hitting the wall, e.g. a high arc and hitting from above). We might have to do some to work keep track of cover DRs and ACs, but it makes one system for cover and armor, and scales up to high damage attacks that might get through very high DR defenses. I believe this is how traveler (Mongoose version) handles it but I haven't played that in a while.

[@TheGrandfathersCave]

@@ForestFWhite Sounds interesting if somewhat time consuming. I would love to hear how it works out in practice.

[@mixofreak]

I have my volume at maximum, and VoiceMeeter boosting it another 17 decibels. I could barely discern some of the words you said because the volume is soooooo low in your mix.

[@TheGrandfathersCave]

Thanks for letting me know! I honestly don’t know what went wrong, but will try to do better next week 😉

[@jasonreiyn9311]

I would point out that your argument regarding Butler's ineffectiveness outside of use of having a blade based on the argument that that's what's shown in the treaties I would like to buy express my concern about that because that argument doesn't take into account that most treaties do not go into combat with more common items such as clubs Mace's or axes. So I think that is not a fair assessment because I believe judging a Shield's value because of a bunch of book writers who specialized in swords doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[@TheGrandfathersCave]

That is a good point! I will have to think about that 😊