Troll Lord Games

I realize that in the early days of D&D the rules were generated from fertile imagination and inspiration from various works of fiction. Although, like everybody else, I once was accustomed to the armor rules and took them for granted, I now think the D&D armor ratings owed more to imagination than reality. Unfortunately, the C&C ratings clearly follow the pattern of D&D ones. Im not claiming to be a weapons expert, but as a medieval period archaeologist and Viking age reenactor I have a fair knowledge of period arms and armor, have studied a good dozen battlefield forensic reports and, yes, seen first hand the effects of period weapons on the bones of the fallen.

For thousands of years, shields have been the most common form of protection for warriors. The simple fact is that a shield and a good helmet are the best protection a warrior can have next to full plate armor. Shields are big, heavy and clumsy to use, but they remained perennially popular because they are extremely effective protection. All forms of body armor can be pierced by pointed weapons, but even when a weapon failed to pierce, the concussive effects were often enough to shatter bones and bruise organs and or drive the armor itself into the flesh. Chain mail will do almost nothing to protect against a hit from a mace. Metal plate is much harder to pierce than chain, lamellar or hardened leather and provides good protection against all weapons, but the most versatile and mobile protection is a good shield properly used. Because of its mobility and toughness, a shield is difficult to pierce and deflects a substantial amount of the concussive force. Further, even if a point or an edge manages to penetrate a shield it is unlikely to reach the body in most cases. Unfortunately the game mechanics treat armor and shields as if the exact opposite were true, with shields providing a measly +1 bonus, equal in effect to cloth armor. I think a shield should provide a +4 AC bonus or perhaps a range of +3 to +5.

Probably because shields are so weak, the rules indicate a PC attacking with two weapons suffers a -3 and a -6 penalty to the primary and secondary weapon. Clearly it makes no sense that a fighter trained in the use of a sword would instantly become clumsy with it to the tune of -3, just because they are holding a dagger instead of a shield with the secondary hand, but such a stiff penalty is necessary to keep players from abandoning their measly +1 AC shields. By giving shields their proper due of +4 AC a more sensible penalty of 0 (primary hand) and (-3) secondary hand can be applied.

Without making things too complex I propose the following chart. It recognizes that edged/pointed weapons have different effects than blunt force weapons on different types of armor. Wearing more than one armor item will combine the protective effects, but also the encumbrance values. It would not be unusual for a medieval warrior to be wearing a brigandine over chainmail with a helm and shield, for example and by my chart that would produce an EV of 10. Note, mostly for my convenience, I have lumped a number of functionally equivalent armor types listed separately in the C&C Players Handbook. The EV is based on the Handbook, except that chainmail, cloth and leather, hardened leather etc. are all one EV rating less, because they are not necessarily difficult to wear, especially compared to full plate. Lastly, let me say that I'm not wedded to any of these numbers and welcome well reasoned suggestions for raising or lowering any of them.

ARMOR; EDGED/POINTED; CONCUSSION; ENCUMBRANCE

Gambeson,

heavy cloth,

and normal leather +1 0 1

Helm (metal plate) +1 +1 1

Chain mail,

lammelar, brigadine, +3 +1 2

Hardened leather,

banded, partial plate,

splint, scale +3 +2 3

Small shield +3 +3 2

Medium shield +4 +4 3

Large shield +5 +5 4

Full plate +7 +7 4

I've always thought shield rules were underwhelming as well. So in my game i give them a solid boost, amounting to the equivalent of cover. Small = 25% cover, medium 50% cover, large 75% cover. And i grant the appropriate AC and saving throw bonus according to the amount of cover the shield provides (+2, +4, +6 respectively if i recall).

Of course, they have disadvantages, encumbrance, loss of a hand, chief among them.

-Fizz

Hi people, for a start.

Shield vs Armor is a tricky one i considered dabbling with too. (Finally didn't in my current C&C game, but mostly because we actually wanted to go for the "old school" thing as it was).

I actually having to fully agree with you, Aldarron, about the relative uses of Armor and Shield, realistically speaking. Historical and physical facts are as they are.

And even worse, storytelling wise, i have to agree too, since i'm a lot more used to games where defense is ACTIVE, opposed to the D&D/C&C style, which is PASSIVE.

Your numbers feel about right, i guess, and i would use them too, although what Fizz said brought up another thought i think i have seen in at least one or two game systems:

Having a shield may very give a character an actual "save vs hit" after the attacker passed the AC (which again would require to power down armor boni to AC unless you want to go for endless fights).

The only thing i may be a bit uncomfortable with is actual permanent Damage Reduction from armor. It sure is the most "realistic" way to handle it, but then again, the higher HD for fighting classes are there to manage part of the fighters exposure in battle.

So, maybe, if i had to go down another way than the classical "Armor for AC, Shield underpowered" take, i am now thinking of:

- Shield is core to AC (with about Aldarron numbers, and still keeping it a passive defense thing to lower the amount of rolls in a round)

- Armor gives the wearer a set amount of bonus HP PER BATTLE (unrealistic per se, but ensuring a "wear down" feeling in line with the original spirit, and without having to lower base HD as it is... and to add optional flavor, you could even lower this set amount a bit battle after battle, to reflect the wear and tear on the armor, needing fixing and repairing from time to time)

For now just an idea to toy with, and number crunching would still have to be figured out, but what da ya think, folks ?
_________________
People, i'm a German living in France, so please be forgiving about my English...

I kept things simple and I didn't like the Shield rules as set up in the PHB.

All shields grant a +1 to AC at all times regardless of the number of opponents you are facing. However, they convey a different AC bonus against missile weapons and other similar ranged attacks.

In those circumstances, a buckler conveys no bonus (effectively becoming 0 instead of the +1 it gives in melee) and a small shield remains the same. A medium and large shield grants more protection relative to better coverage. I can't recall the numbers off hand since most of my players that use shields will typically go for a buckler or small shield.
Medium is probably +2 and Large either +3 or +4.

It's worked rather well.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Quote:
However, they convey a different AC bonus against missile weapons and other similar ranged attacks

Which actually makes perfect sense and i will bite myself in the a**e right now for not thinking about this earlier, whatever take you go with on shields anyway !

OUCH !
All right, done !
_________________
People, i'm a German living in France, so please be forgiving about my English...

Aldarron wrote:
I now think the D&D armor ratings owed more to imagination than reality."

Just for the record, I'm fairly certain 1979 1st ed AD&D had exactly this kind of system, it's just that most people chose to ignore it on the basis of fiddlyness (it was probably optional).

Every weapon was classified as piercing, slashing or bludgeoning and this was then compared to the specific armour type worn by the defender (natural armour class didn't count). This then gave you a plus or minus to-hit, which I seem to remember could be quite hefty (going back 25 years here...) something like +4 for piercing vs. chain mail.

The system was certainly in use in 1st ed Oriental AD&D, where we decided to try it because armour usage wasn't so common and the weapons were quite exotic. It did give really good results, with a katana wielding samurai being able to make mincemeat of a bunch of scruffy bandits in seconds (very Kurosawa). Conversely even a lowly bushi could pound the snot out of the very same samurai, because his huge two handed club (tetsubo?) got a hefty bludgeoning modifier against his lacquered armour.

ghostSmacker wrote:
Just for the record, I'm fairly certain 1979 1st ed AD&D had exactly this kind of system, it's just that most people chose to ignore it on the basis of fiddlyness (it was probably optional).

Every weapon was classified as piercing, slashing or bludgeoning and this was then compared to the specific armour type worn by the defender (natural armour class didn't count). This then gave you a plus or minus to-hit, which I seem to remember could be quite hefty (going back 25 years here...) something like +4 for piercing vs. chain mail.

Those were the stripped down 2nd ed. rules. In 1st ed. it was much more complicated, with a full page table detailing every single weapon and every possible AC with a bonus or penalty to hit vs. that AC. I've never met anyone who actually used it.

Tenser's Floating Disk wrote:
Those were the stripped down 2nd ed. rules. In 1st ed. it was much more complicated, with a full page table detailing every single weapon and every possible AC with a bonus or penalty to hit vs. that AC. I've never met anyone who actually used it.

You haven't spent much time at Dragonsfoot, have you

Hmm, I never had the oriental adventures rulebook so I don't know what was in there. I did find this on page 28 of the DMG (1e) in the paragraph on large shields "You may allow them to add +2 to this armor class rating with respect to small (non-war engine or giant hurled) missles..." On the same page there is also a "weapon type "to hit" adjustment note" pointing out that some DM's allow adjustments for weapons vs specific types of armor but "not neccessarily against actual armor class". So the idea there was that the weapon gets a bonus to hit certain kinds of armor.

Different shield ratings against different missles makes some sense to me too, but I think my current ratings are okay for this except for the buckler. I didn't mention Bucklers before because I never played a game where anybody used one and I think they could basically stay at +1 but maybe it would make more sense if they were rated as a +2 against melee weapons and only +1 agains missle weapons. A similar loss of one AC bonus point from +3 to +2 might make sense for the small shield too, although I tend to prefer to keep my figures simple and only use one modifyer when it doesn't make much difference.

For medium and large shields, the "shield bonus only applies to the front and only to one opponent" rule is somewhat silly, at least from a realistic standpoint. Anyone who has actually used or seen a real shield being used knows how versitile and manueverable they are. However, a buckler, or a small shield likely could not be effectively employed against more than one attacker at a time. As to the back attack, it already has an attack bonus and its entirley possible for the defender to turn or otherwise potentially bring the shield into play even when attacked from behind so I think its a judgement call based on the circumstance rather than something that should be a hard and fast rule.

paladin2019 wrote:
You haven't spent much time at Dragonsfoot, have you

I've used it. The original 1E character sheets had spots for filling in the modifiers per weapon.

Let me tell you, it makes fighters *nasty*. I had a fighter that carried 4 weapons - a mace, a sword, a spear, and a dagger. Depending on the foe, he could select the perfect weapon to rip them up.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

For me there were always two other problems with the AC adjustment table in the old PHB. The first was that a given AC isn't always reached in the same way - is AC 4 chainmail plus shield or banded armour without a shield? The second is humanoid monsters such as orcs and goblins: are they wearing armour or carrying shields? How much of their AC is natural and how much is down to armour?

Tenser's Floating Disk wrote:
is AC 4 chainmail plus shield or banded armour without a shield?

Yes

Tenser's Floating Disk wrote:
The second is humanoid monsters such as orcs and goblins: are they wearing armour or carrying shields? How much of their AC is natural and how much is down to armour?

Read the monster description.

paladin2019 wrote:
Yes
Read the monster description.

It told you nothing.

Fizz wrote:
I've always thought shield rules were underwhelming as well. So in my game i give them a solid boost, amounting to the equivalent of cover. Small = 25% cover, medium 50% cover, large 75% cover. And i grant the appropriate AC and saving throw bonus according to the amount of cover the shield provides (+2, +4, +6 respectively if i recall).

Of course, they have disadvantages, encumbrance, loss of a hand, chief among them.

-Fizz

I too was underwhelmed by the treatment of shields in the PHB, and I really, really like this houserule. I think I'm going to pick this up for my home games.

What about some penalties to movement and perception/visual wisdom checks as well?

I used the weapon versus armor table in 1E as well. If you really and truly want to differentiate weapons AND armor than use the chart and weapon speed modifiers (yes, I used these too). Otherwise quit pretending. That section on the 1E Player sheets really helps speed up play once you get the table filled out.

I suggest you switch to how long 1E rounds are rather than try and convert everything to C&C rounds. Or say a C&C round is 20 half second increments, that way spells in the C&C PH will still work as written. When you look at the damage of those big weapons and go Ooooh! the weapon speed of 7 or higher may make you go Ouch!
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

When I want weapon vs. armor considerations, I'll play RM.

When I want quick and seamless I'll play C&C.

Are the AC's and everything realistic? Nah, but a lot of things are abstracted in the game. I like my games...gamey.

DangerDwarf wrote:
When I want weapon vs. armor considerations, I'll play RM.

When I want quick and seamless I'll play C&C.

Are the AC's and everything realistic? Nah, but a lot of things are abstracted in the game. I like my games...gamey.

Me too, which is why I quit using them in 2E.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Yeah, we tried it a bit in the 2nd Edition days but dumped it as well.

I have tended to lead to an almost DR like quality for shields -- a small shield absorbs 1 point of damage / round, a medium 2, and a large 3. This is in addition to the normal AC modifier granted. I have not yet decided if I will allow magical shields to adjust the damage reduction but may do so on a point-for-point base.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Tenser's Floating Disk wrote:
It told you nothing.

You're right, I'm sorry. It's not in the individual descriptions.

MM, p5 wrote:
ARMOR CLASS describes the general type of protection worn by humans or humanoid creatures, protection inherent to the creature due to its physical structure or

magical nature, or the degree of difficulty of hitting a creature due to its speed, reflexes, etc.

So you use the AC type modifier of the humanoid creature's AC, but not for other types of creatures.

DangerDwarf wrote:
When I want weapon vs. armor considerations, I'll play RM.

When I want quick and seamless I'll play C&C.

Are the AC's and everything realistic? Nah, but a lot of things are abstracted in the game. I like my games...gamey.

I agree with DD on this. If I want realitic weapon n' armor considerations I'll play RMC/X not C&C/1ed AD&D. Not that I'd be against using such rules it's just most likely won't come up unless the players wanted to use them. With C&C/1st ed. AD&D I just want quick n' fun old school gaming goodness & leave the realism n' deadliness of RMC/X to when I play them.
_________________
Let me wet my blade with your blood.

RIP Gary Gygax you will be missed.