My OD&D weapon/damage procedure

[foster1941]

I just posted this over on the Classic D&D forum at DF where I suspect it will look like so much Greek to the 'kiddie D&D' fans, so I figured I might as well cross-post it here where people are more likely to understand what I'm talking about (originally posted in answer to a poll-question about whether people use variable weapon damage, 1d6 for everything, or something else):

I've recently become enamored of using 1d6 damage for all weapons but using the Weapon vs AC adjustment table from Supplement I. Thus bigger weapons like flails and two-handed swords (which tend to have better adjustment charts) will tend to hit more often than daggers, hand axes, hammers, etc. but all hits still do the same amount of damage. (Note that this is also combined with using d6 hit dice for monsters and the (lower) vol. I hit-dice tables for characters.)

I don't know if using the weapon vs AC chart (which btw I use for ALL opponents, not just those wearing armor as in AD&D) provides enough of an advantage to make these big weapons actually worth taking (i.e. if the 'to hit' bonuses statistically balance out the higher Enc. value, inability to use a shield, possibility of opponents with small weapons getting multiple attacks (per Chainmail man-to-man rules), etc.) because I haven't done any sort of statistical analysis and have only limited experience using this in actual play, but at least so far I'm liking the feel and relative simplicity of it.

[northrundicandus]

Without mathematically analyzing the issue, my first instinct is that the bonuses of the Weapons vs. AC chart doesn't offset the use of a shield or the potential for mutiple attacks - especially if you use Suppl. 1's stength adjustments for damage.

I may sit down with Excel and try to figure out some actual damage numbers and probabilities.

[northrundicandus]

northrundicandus said:

Without mathematically analyzing the issue, my first instinct is that the bonuses of the Weapons vs. AC chart doesn't offset the use of a shield or the potential for mutiple attacks - especially if you use Suppl. 1's stength adjustments for damage.

I may sit down with Excel and try to figure out some actual damage numbers and probabilities.

Well I'm going to have a hard time figuring out the multiple attack part, as I don't own a copy of Chainmail.

[foster1941]

northrundicandus said:

Well I'm going to have a hard time figuring out the multiple attack part, as I don't own a copy of Chainmail.

Chainmail p. 26:

Melee Table:Note that each weapon listed has a number designating its class. The shorter and lighter the weapon, the lower its class. A man wielding a weapon four classes lower (1 vs. 5, 2 vs. 6, and so on) strikes two blows during every melee round. If a man has a weapon eight classes lower, he will strike three blows during every melee round. (See Appendix B.)

Chainmail p. 41

1. Dagger
1. Hand Axe
3. Mace
4. Sword
5. Battle Axe
6. Morn. Star
7. Flail
8. Spear
9. Pole arms
9. Halberd
10. 2 Hnd. Swd.
11. Mtd. Lance
12. Pike

Figures with a weapon 2 classes higher strike first in the first round of combat but strike last in the second and subsequent rounds.

There's also a set of (pretty complicated) parrying rules that rely on weapon class:

Chainmail pp. 25-26

a. For any weapon 2 or more classes higher than the attacker the ability to parry does not exist.
b. For any weapon 1 class higher to three classes lower than the attacker the defender may parry the blow by subtracting 2 from the attacker's roll, but he has no counter blow.
c. For any defender whose weapon is four to seven classes lower than the attacker, the defender has the option to give the first blow OR parry the attacker's blow, by subtracting 2 from the attacker's roll. If the attacker equals the original requirement for a kill the higher weapon breaks the defender's weapon. If the parry is successful, the defender gets one counter blow.
d. For any weapon whose class is eight or more classes lower than the attacker, the defender gets the first blow and may parry the second or strike the second. He subtracts one for the parry and a roll equal to the original kill requirement breaks the weapon. (Pikes, spears or lances of the attacker do get the first blow over lower class weapons if there is a charge. Here the length of the weapon prevents the defender, even with his lighter weapon, the ability to get the first blow.)

If you can manage to reflect all of that in an excel chart I'll be impressed.

[Bregh]

foster1941 said:

I just posted this over on the Classic D&D forum at DF where I suspect it will look like so much Greek to the 'kiddie D&D' fans, so I figured I might as well cross-post it here where people are more likely to understand what I'm talking about (originally posted in answer to a poll-question about whether people use variable weapon damage, 1d6 for everything, or something else):

Dunno if I'm one of the 'kiddie D&D' fans, but I'll give it my $.02.

I was using the Weapon v. AC chart for awhile in OD&D, as I use it regularly in OAD&D to offset the universal plurality of long sword specialists and the like.

I was pleased with it in OD&D, until I extrapolated a rule from Holmes' Basic wherein heavier weapons struck only every other round. I compensated for the delay by allowing the heavier weapons to do an additional die of damage, so that damage delt over the course of melee would be consistent between the weapons (subject to the frequency of actually making the "to hit" roll, naturally), but that Players could have their characters wielding the weapons they saw as apropos in their mind's eye, without resorting to min-maxing their choices, and still having those choices make an impact on play.

Having done that, the Weapon v. AC Type chart seemed superfluous and redudant as a method of differentiating equipment choices and still maintaing play balance.

If I hadn't have done it, however, I would continue to employ the WvACT chart, and in that regard find your methods here spot on.

[foster1941]

The 'kiddie D&D' crack was a playful jab at the fans of the Moldvay and Mentzer edits (which although their fans tend to gloss over it, were clearly crafted and marketed as a way to make the game more accessible to the under-12 set -- make the language and rules easier, make the artwork flashier, remove the 'adult content,' sell it in toy-stores, etc.). You of course are playing REAL D&D.

The idea of giving heavy weapons 1 attack every other round but letting successful hits do double damage is interesting, and if I hadn't gone wholly revisionist and decided to go with the Chainmail charts using 2d6 instead of 1d20 (see my other post about that on this board) I might have given that a chance. Heck, if this Chainmail thing turns out not to work in practice as well as it does in theory, I might still...

[Bregh]

My bad, TFoster, there was supposed to be a winkie after my reference to your "kiddie D&D" jab, to show I saw the humour. That'll teach me to double check my posts.

I'll have to do some checking for your posts wrt using the 2d6 from Chainmail as opposed to the d20 that is otherwise so standard. It sounds interesting, and I almost always enjoy reading your take on things gaming.

It will be very interesting to see how your experimentations with D&D using Chainmail's methods overall will go, given that although the system was designed with Chainmail in mind, the game's creators generally did not use its procedures themselves. I wonder how many, at the time, did.

[Thoth Amon]

foster1941 said:

The 'kiddie D&D' crack was a playful jab at the fans of the Moldvay and Mentzer edits

Yep. That's me! ;D