Basic Fantasy RPG Forums

Gah.

Look at the table. The top line gives armor classes from 2 to 10. The attack matrices (in the DMG) run from AC 10 to -10. There's a reason for that. The table you reference began its life in the Chainmail rules, where there were no "+1" or "+2" magical armors, and the numbers referred to types of armor, not to numeric ratings of protection.

In 0e's Monsters and Treasure (2nd book of the 3LBBs), the description of magic armor begins thus:

Armor proper subtracts its bonus from the hit dice of the opponents of its wearer. If the shield's bonus is greater than that of the armor there is a one-third chance that the blow will be caught by the shield, thus giving the additional subtraction.

Note that this is using the Chainmail combat system, not the "alternate" combat system which we all know and love (because the alternate system officially became the default system in 1E, but was unofficially the default for anyone who came to the game without playing Chainmail first). Translated, this means that the original system did not apply the bonus for magic to the armor class, but rather to the attack roll (as a penalty). In the earliest games, armor class was not meant to be a numeric value of "protection" but to describe the type of armor in briefest terms. However, it did not escape DMs or players at the time that you absolutely could add the bonus to the AC as if it were that sort of protection value; those with less history in the game may have thought that's how it was supposed to work. Those were also the people who did not understand (as I did not, back then) that it was armor type and not value that was being used in that confusing table.

Greyhawk actually introduced the table more or less as you've shown it from the PHB, but since that game started at AC 9 and still had AC 7 leather, AC 5 chainmail, and AC 3 platemail, there were some changes between them. 2E kept the concept but dinked with the table somewhat; most significantly, it changed the armor types to names rather than numbers, to avoid exactly the confusion you're expressing above.

That table is daunting, and I'm positive it's one of the many things I cheerfully ignored as an elementary school-aged DM "back in the day".

However, I'm always a little awestruck at Gary Gygax's attention to detail. I just love that he broke pole arms down into the various subtypes, many of which had such exotic sounding names.

For playability, that table Library Lass posted is probably better for those who do want a tad more combat realism.

I lived through the latter part of the Edition Wars on Dragonsfoot... been exposed to a lot of people who know the classic games way better than I do. I actually went over there to verify my understanding of the table before posting. They've had many, many discussions on the topic.

See, I didn't have any of that context. I just had 1e. Yes, I obviously had hints of the other stuff behind it, but for actual rules in my possession, I just had 1e. So, seeing that chart made me think, "This makes no sense. Why would the modifier be the same whether they are using a shield or not, or it is a monster with tough armor. Let's ignore it and have fun." Heck, even now, *mumble* years later, I'd still toss it before trying to figure out a rational application of it.

DMG page 28 specifically says "armour type" and not class...
"
Weapon Types, 'To Hit' Adjustment Note
==========================
If you allow.... be certain to remember that these adjustments are for weapons versus specific types of armor, not necessary against actual armor class. In most cases monsters wearing armor wil not have any weapon type adjustment..."

Missed that paragraph. Still very vague, though.

So, taking it at face value, does that mean AC 5 means chainmail only? How do shields fit in? AC9 can only be achieve with a shield-only defense. So, is chainmail plus shield use the AC 5 modifier, the AC 5 + AC 9 modifier, or the AC 4 modifier?

Even with that retcon in the DMG, it is still an ambiguous mess.

weapon vs armor types is a mess

what would work a little cleaner and IMO much better would be some general armor types vs some general weapon types (really rough thoughts below):

Armor type
plate: +vs bludgeon. -vs piercing. no adjust vs slash.
chain/scale: no adjust vs bludgeon. - vs piercing. + vs slashing.
leather/hide:

The list could be expanded with more weapon/armor types, and further adjustments for more weapon types.

In Chainmail magic shield had only a 33% chance of working.

Also, in Chainmail, a shield was better than a leather armor.

daryen wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:05 pm
So, taking it at face value, does that mean AC 5 means chainmail only? How do shields fit in? AC9 can only be achieve with a shield-only defense. So, is chainmail plus shield use the AC 5 modifier, the AC 5 + AC 9 modifier, or the AC 4 modifier?

It seems to go like this:
10 No Armor
9 No Armor and Shield
8 Leather or Padded Armor
7 Studded Armor or Leather or Padded Armor and Shield
6 Ring Armor or Studded Armor and Shield
5 Mail Armor or Ring Armor and Shield
4 Banded or Splinted Armor or Mail Armor and Shield
3 Plate Mail Armor or Banded or Splinted Armor and Shield
2 Plate Mail Armor and Shield

Never bothered with this or speed factor.