D&D 5E Weapon and Armor Types

[Warpiglet-7]

Some time ago I was in a discussion where some folks were saying weapon choices are not very interesting.

And we all know that the god stat of dex has led to a lot more rapiers than would otherwise be the case.

So here is my question: what would armor vs. weapon damage type bring to the game?

In days of old (late 80s friends…when I rocked a huge spiral perm and concert shirts—-now it’s just concert shirts) we ignored the weapon vs armor table in the DMG. I have NEVER used it.

Currently we have slashing, bludgeoning piercing damage. How complication would several armor types bring? By looking at a simple matrix you could determine a simple modified to hit and or damage.

This would be enough I think to make some consider a weapon they don’t normally take and by extension, make strength a little more of a pick vis a vis dexterity.

In short, I think it would add to diversity in character types and weapon choices and perhaps armor choices too. Verisimilitude would potentially be enhanced without a ton of added complexity.

Thoughts?

 

[John R Davis]

I just started running Ad&D for the first time in 30 years. One of the great things is the Weapon V Armour types table. It would definitely help make 5th ed weapons more interesting ( and stop Dex being the superstat).

I adore the Footmans Flail

 

[Mannahnin]

We were just discussing these tangentially in another thread.

Last year Dan "Delta" Collins did an analysis of the original Greyhawk and 1E charts vs. the Chainmail rules they were derived from, and concluded that they embody a fundamental math error. Because they basically just convert the Chainmail target numbers/adjustments almost directly over into D&D's combat system, but fail to account for the fact that basically any hit was a kill/casualty in Chainmail, so the exact same adjustments don't make sense when imported into a system where hit and damage are separate. Infamously, the mace goes from one of the best options for getting through heavy armor, to mediocre at best, in part because its damage is inferior to swords once Variable Weapon Damage is introduced.

The Big Mistake in Weapon vs. Armor Adjustments

Where did the 1E D&D weapon vs. armor adjustments come from? Are they reasonable? Have we overlooked something key for 50 years?

deltasdnd.blogspot.com

 

[Stormonu]

I used the 1E tables for a while, and the 2E simplified versions for a short time. If the information is on the sheet, it's easy for the players. I stopped using it because as DM running so many different monster types it slowed things down looking the information up (even on a screen).

If you can keep it really simple - maybe along the lines Bludgeon, Slashing, Piercing vs. None, Light, Medium and Heavy Armors, it would probably work. The more complex, the more load it puts on the DM to adjudicate and track.

 

[Mannahnin]

One of the challenges with weapon vs. armor in D&D has also always been, how important in it? What percentage of opponents is it really relevant against? If you run a game with a ton of human and humanoid antagonists, armor will come up all the time. If you run a game with a ton of monstrous and bestial antagonists, weapon vs. armor is going to be much less relevant.

That being said, I've always had a soft spot for the concept, and kind of liked the 2E optional rule for just Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning vs armor types. Delta tried writing a variant on this way back in 2009. @DND_Reborn in the other thread pointed out that this chart/proposed rule has a bit of an issue in that it seems to be designed more to balance the armor types than to simulate that heavier armors are in fact better.

There's some really good discussion in the comments here, though, with Matthew (now showing in the comments as "Unknown", but it was definitely Matthew, who I believe was or is a Dragonsfoot moderator, and is a highly studied medievalist) pointing out how the Slashing/Bludgeoning/Piercing categories are really a game artifact and don't really match up to actual weapon characteristics, preferring instead to talk about chop, cut and thrust. Under this schema, crushing weapons functionally "chop".

I particularly like this comment:

Weapon types. The are basically three types of attack: chop, cut and thrust. A chop is exactly as it sounds, as is a thrust. A cut is when you draw a weapon across the target, rather than directly impacting it. The "cut" is partly why swords are often treated as very effective against unarmoured targets.

All weapons are compromises between these three modes of attack, with swords generally being the most versatile (which is to say relatively "good" at all of them). Axes, picks, maces, flails, and hammers are impact weapons that put emphasis on the "chop", but are broadly designed on different principles (edge, point, flat), and many specific examples combine principles (a flanged mace, a spiked hammer, a narrow edged axe, etcetera).

Similarly, many spears are designed to "cut" as well as "thrust" with broad heads, though this is often more evident on polearms (many of which go further and become a combination of cut, chop, and thrust).

Dividing up weapons into categories most often results in concentration on one mode of attack (Gygax particularly does this, denoting "principle modes of attack" for pole arms), which is what leads to something like the 2e "slashing, bludgeoning, piercing" table, and your own efforts. Treating a pick as though it has the same properties as a spear, or a sword as though it is an axe.

Of course, if you start over thinking these things you end up with RoleMaster and there are compromises that have to be made for an abstraction like D&D that demands relatively simple combat resolution.

The easiest thing to do, in my opinion, is to designate some weapons "armour piercing" or somesuch thing and give them a +1 to hit against mail and plate, but reduced damage compared to other weapons (I do not recall if you are using d6s or variable damage).

If you were using D6s for example:

Normal weapons (sword, axe) = +0/+1
Armour piercing weapons = +1*/0
Two handed weapons = +1/+1

So a sword would have +0 to hit and do 1d6+1 damage.

A mace would have +1 to hit* and do 1d6 damage.
A two handed axe would have +1 to hit and do 1d6+2 damage
A two handed pick would have +2 to hit** and do 1d6 damage.

* +0 against lightly or unarmoured opponents.
** +1 against lightly or unarmoured opponents.

Of course you could go into much greater detail or do something completely different, just some thoughts.

I tend to agree with Delta, though, that +1 modifiers to hit are a little too small and fiddly to bother with, though, so I'd upgrade those to +2.
As a note re: the suggested damage modifiers, bear in mind that those are in context of OD&D, with minimal modifiers. So a +1 to damage is pretty substantial there. If I were trying to use this in a more modern version I might just upgrade those to +2 as well, for symmetry and to help make them relevant.

Proposal: Weapons vs. AC

Math, history, and design of old-school D&D.

deltasdnd.blogspot.com

 

[ninjayeti]

While I agree with the design goals expressed here, I worry that there is a pretty easy workaround for PCs - carrying multiple weapon types. Every Str-based character is going to walk around with a battleaxe, warhammer, and (ironically) rapier (which can also use Str). Every Dex-based character now has a scimitar and sling to back up their obligatory rapier. Everyone becomes a "Swiss Army" character who can pull out whatever tool is most advantageous for the particular situation.

 

[Charlaquin]

Personally I think this would be easier to manage with armor as damage reduction instead of armor as AC.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

While I agree with the design goals expressed here, I worry that there is a pretty easy workaround for PCs - carrying multiple weapon types. Every Str-based character is going to walk around with a battleaxe, warhammer, and (ironically) rapier (which can also use Str). Every Dex-based character now has a scimitar and sling to back up their obligatory rapier. Everyone becomes a "Swiss Army" character who can pull out whatever tool is most advantageous for the particular situation.

I don’t think that is a work around! I do this already. I like to have a sword and usually a hammer or mace.

Note though that I take strength based characters much of the time while the rest of the world likes dex.

I think it could still work it’s magic in making some weapons more common and strength more important.

Then again, I could see str and dex modifiers being averaged to come up wi th an attack value but that would probably be unnecessary if someone did armor mods.

The real trick would be creatures. How many lost their type of hide or armor?

 

[LordEntrails]

So here is my question: what would armor vs. weapon damage type bring to the game?

It would slow combat down. For some it would add a sense of realism. For some it would add tedium.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Maybe just have certain armours provide resistance against a specific damage type. Chainmail provides resistance to slashing or whatever is appropriate. That is the simplest way I can think.

Another, more complicated way, would be to have certain armour types provide DR 5 or whatever against certain types. As far as keeping track, it's easy for a player since they rarely change armour types and they usually know what kind of damage they are taking.

It's more complicated for a DM. But, with that said, they have to track resistances and vulnerabilities so this is no different. Just jot it down in the stat block if they happen to be wearing armour.

I think you'd definitely want to avoid armour types that give DR 5 vs bludgeoning and DR 3 vs slashing. What I mean is, a specific armour type giving varying protection to different types of damage.