I have always loved the weapon VS. armour type adjustments. For one thing, it gives fighters an incentive to carry both a sword and a mace, for example. Too often the fighters just try to get the best sword, and they all end up being the same. Maces are not just for clerics.
This comes about because OD&D RAW features treasure tables with a significant bias towards magic swords. It's a sort of roundabout but deliberate fighting-man class feature, since only they can use swords. So swords drop more often than say, magic hammers-- and they have a much more interesting range of powers when they do. Then, when a magic hammer or mace does drop, you feel almost compelled to give it to the cleric, since he can't use any swords that drop but you can. So there's combined mechanical and social pressure for fighting-men to use swords. Then some of the swords themselves will get mad at you if you cheat on them with other weapons!
I played with a DM a few months ago who used the classic all-d6 damage for weapons, but he spiced it up kind of like you did here by making certain monsters have resistance (1/2 damage) against certain weapons and vulnerability (x2 damage) against others. For example, good luck trying to kill a skeleton with arrows (they’d go right through their ribcages lol) but a mace will demolish them, making clerics even more specialized against undead.
I just swore out loud. This makes marital characters and combat so much more interesting. 7:03 Weapons actually being more than the amount of damage dice rolled. Awesome!
Videos like this are what make you my favorite TTRPG content creator. Well thought out concepts presented in a simple and concise format, without filler. Some things you suggest are likely to greatly reduce complexity for any given viewer's game, while others might increase complexity and crunch. Either way, you just lay it out there and welcome feedback. To my mind it's one of the best modern expressions of the original "spirit" of the game as a community endeavor, with different gaming groups (particularly refs) exchanging ideas, swiping what we like and passing on what isn't right for us. Long story short: I really appreciate what you do, please keep it up!
First Edition AD&D used a table of pluses or minuses for certain weapons vs types of armor, i.e., Armor Class Adjustment, and a Speed Factor to determine when in a round it might connect with a blow to the opponent. Basically, this was a translation of the Chainmail rules for the Advanced D&D rules release. As I recall, most people running games back in the late 70s and early 80s didn't use these parts of the rules, and as a result, combat didn't make much sense and homebrew rules popped up as a result.
Speed factor could make a huge difference since a faster weapon could get more attacks than a slower one in a head-to-head fight. And weapon vs AC made the range of weapons more sensible, if not necessary. But like you said, few used these rules. We sure didn't.
This is interesting! I have always felt that martial characters have been a little underwhelming as most casters can swing weapons and do crazy things with spells. This provided me with another perspective for how to give martial classes some extra utility. I don't think my current group will go for it, but it is something I can save for another campaign.
I've heard about this aspect of Chainmail before and how it reflects a more intelligent way of handling AC. Modifiers weren't meant to apply to AC directly, but the roll you made, but the D&D combat chart did away with the weapon/armor matrix for the most part (except for 1e's confusing tables). Still, even if one goes back to this, the tricky part is figuring out how monster attacks and armor fit into this. For instance, I've always contended that in a more "realistic" system, plate mail shouldn't provide any significant protection against the swing of a giant's club. You'd probably need a new attack matrix for every (or many) monsters, and an armor-equivalent for every monster. It's not surprising that they ditched that idea. I mean, imagine the massive stat blocks! It's a good thing we never went down that road ;)
A giant wild use a club against plate and get 8-12 attacks (based on HD) - but there are 2 other types of combat in Chainmail and using “fantasy” combat would likely work better for one or two heroes facing the giant, or troop combat for a giant facing a mob. I’ve used both.
I've been using a simplified system like this, inspired by the chainmail man-to-man combat system for years in my homebrew system. d20 to attack, but for a couple of years it's been roll low to hit, which makes the descending AC system make a bit more intuitive sense and simplifies the THAC0 calculations. I don't use any modifiers from abilities or levels (leveling up gives you more attacks), and all weapons do just d6 damage. Me and my players love rolling fists full of dice and it actually keeps things deadly for a fair bit longer, since a fighter's (and a monster's) damage potential scales proportionally with their hit points.
I just found your channel, love the content. We use a system that uses armor reduction that is dependent on armor type and weapon type. Slashing weapons do little to no damage against plate, for that a bludgeoning weapon is far superior. It also uses a contested role instead of initiative and gives bonuses to weapon reach, that is until your opponent breaches your guard, then you need to switch weapons or backup. I think the contested role cuts battle time in also half also because every round, either you or your opponent have a successful attack or defence. Keep up the good videos, I'm going to have to pillage your archives for more ideas
Cyberpunk 2020/Interlock makes armor work like Damage Resistance that can be ablated/damaged the more you get hit and I really love that because it means you are constantly needing to repair or replace your armor and weapons as they get destroyed.
I really enjoy videos like this. Getting to learn about how the original systems worked, helps understand why the subsequent systems were created. I've been enjoying your solo OD&D Wilderness Survival campaign on your streaming channel. I finally picked up WBFMAG as a result, and have been enjoying reading through it. Watching this gave me a few ideas to add to my heartbreaker I haven't worked on in a month or two. Thanks!
This is a great video. I was just recently thinking about how to introduce the Chainmail weapon chart into my homebrew B/X and I think you've just shown me the way. With a little bit of fiddling I can probably turn it into something really great. Especially since I had already turned the game into a 2d6 system.
I'm planning an old school D&D campaign, but class-less, maybe also level-less, with very few advancements, other than loot, so this combat system makes a lot of sense to me. Definitely gonna use it. PC Adventurers will start by buying equipment, weapons, scrolls, potions, instead of choosing a class, and weapons-vs-armor, I feel, makes it finally, really click. Good content, thanks.
This Weapon Class versus Armor Type system is also used in Metamorphosis Alpha 1st edition. It puts the onus on the Referee to let players know what the target number is to hit since you have to consistently cross reference a combat chart.
2:11 Okay go to the blog post, go to the pdf provided, open up equipment go to armor followed immeditately by weapons. In the charts it is the number in the parenthesis that is the D20 number, I made my own conversion and it pretty much lines up.
The one thing about D&D in general that has always bothered me is that AC is armor protection, Block/parry and the ability to dodging. I prefer to think of it as making a roll to cause damage instead, not necessarily to hit.
Wow, one of your best vids. Very interesting. I didn't think od&d interested me (started withAD&D) but this video changed that. Conti he the great work man.
Hey Daniel, I'm old school but I really do enjoy the easiness of 5e. But now some time has gone by and I do miss some of the chunkiness of AD&D. I been thinking about giving the different armor resistance against certain types of damage. Padded would be resistant to bludgeoning, chain mail resistant to piercing, plate resistant to slashing. Skeletons having resistance to piercing makes sense to me. Some say it's to bulky or to much to track, but you lose part of the game when you just keep slimming everything down. Did you see for 6e they are testing the old weapons with affects, tripping, prone, etc.. Reminds me of the 2e weapons. Thanks Daniel you have a wonderful day!
That is just great. I use a further ly simplified version of this same concept. Light weapons such as daggers, dealing a lower damage, have a +2 to hit, being easier to brandish and sneak into enemy's defences. While heavy weapons, dealing higher damage on average, can only be brandished in combat by +1 strength characters or better. Also, long weapons have the initiative (i use an action based initiative, spells first, then missiles, then melee, both sides act in each section)
Brilliant video Daniel ty. Don’t think I’ll use the whole system right now, but could well just improvise some things in B/X combat along these lines. Ty again!
We have mostly used special situational rules. A knife can be used when you wrassle someone. A pistol can be used when you are up close where a longarm might be awkward. Some weapons like spears and polearms automatically win initiative on the first round. Some heavy, cumbersome weapons do the reverse and automatically lose initiative. A crossbow or flintlock pistol has a punishing reload time. We've been trying the missile-magic-melee/movement initiative order which has greatly favored the PCs reliance on shotguns, pistols and rifles.
Hi Daniel. I am Ed. I love your perspective. Enjoying the channel very much! I am a big fan of Basic D&D too...specifically B/X. It would be cool to do a back and forth with youtube videos at some point and compare notes and share ideas, or at the very least strike up a written correspondence.
It reminds me a lot of the Conan D20’s Armor reducing dmg and weapons with armor penetration. Swords even Greatswords have a harder time getting through Armor then a Morning Star or mace which is kinda the point.
@@BanditsKeep Armor reducing dmg is a thing I've been adding into my DnD games because as someone who does Historical fencing it always bugged me that a Warhammer isnt any different then a 'longsword' in terms of damage if the opponent is in Full plate or naked.
In the first edition ad&d each weapon had adds and subtracts versus armor and I actually liked that This abstract system and actually doing living history combat is why I left dnd and went to BRP, Less chart heavy, ans more realistic But enjoyed hearing your explanation
@@BanditsKeep there are two systems for armor, the first is static and damage has to pass through armor to actually inflict hits, also there is parry, blocks and dodges The second system is more random with a random number, which represents damage getting through weak spots or at joints, also BRP has a hit body, so each part can be covered with different armor For instance chain could be 7 points or a d8-1 The first means that yiu have to inflict more than 7
@@BanditsKeep We played Delta Green from Pagan, which used the Call of Cthulhu 5th ed 90's rules straight off. All the PCs had armour on. They walked around with kevlar vests virtually the entire time, except when they didn't want to look like a carful of feds. You play people who can walk up and down the street in kevlar, everyone knows you are feds because you flash badges and ask questions anyways. A lot of them carried rifles and shotguns in the van, people don't question why a DEA guy on a raid has a shotgun. Armour absorbed damage. A kevlar vest stops 5 points or somesuch. It turned that this is enough to turn a lethal swipe of a monster claw or a shotgun blast into merely debilitating injury. Sometimes they had full SWAT suits with flak jackets, helmets and ballistic shields. CoC healing is still slow, but two weeks of bed rest is always better than dead. You still break out your secondary or tertiary PC who finishes the job. Some spells and abilities such as a mi-go electric gun bypassed normal kevlar. But a lot of threats are going to be a gangster or cultist with an ingram SMG, a weird winged thing with a bite. They allow some specialist equipment to provide armour against unconventional stuff. Thick arctic clothing against a frost blast, radiation gear, maybe an electrically insulated suit. That could give a couple points of armour too.
@@stefanjakubowski8222 The random armour was used in Elric! amongst others, I think. There was hit locations of sorts in the first CoC 90's sourcebook. You had a chance to hit the gap in a kevlar vest and bypass it. Each armour in there had a percentage coverage. It didn't matter where the hit landed, only if it landed on or outside the cover of the vest.
Do you have a video where you give a Broad overview of which rules you use for which portions of gameplay? I like the way this adds tactical options for low levels and I would love to try out something similar to your set up in an old school type game. (Chainmail for combat for example, X for exploration, X for building a Dungeon)
Thanks Daniel, Really enjoyed this and found the explanations concise and compelling. I'll have to revisit this system possibility , as I also prefer a "weighted" dice curve , and reduced bonuses and penalties.
I would simplify this down to Weapon Types vs Armor. Instead of having to list every weapon I'd just say "Pierce Weapons have -2 against Plate, Bludgeon has +2" This is the greatest failing of the 5E Combat system, that it doesn't lean enough into Damage Type interplay.
I recently noticed that 4e has a bit of this in it. Weapon proficiency gives a +2 or +3 depending on the weapon. But in 4e it's more of an accuracy vs damage thing. The old systems always surprise me.
@@BanditsKeep 4e has some interesting features if you really look for them. Like you can recreate the old style elves as fighter/magic-user by playing a hybrid class. Not a perfect system, but it deserves it's fair chance. I will say that I'm constantly finding that the older editions tend to have the core game system figured out much better than modern ones. I'd rather have a good core system instead of a unique feature for everything a class does.
I'm a huge fan of an old game called Melanda:Land of Mystery. Great, interesting combat system and unique spell configuration! A shame it didn't catch on!
@@BanditsKeep If you have trouble finding it, I have a digital copy I could 'lend' you! It was created by the two owners of Days of Knights, the gaming story in Newark, DE, under the Wilmark Dynasty. Hard to find, diamond in the rough, but the Character, Combat and Magic system are amazing, imo. The weapons/armor link up well with Palladium weapons books, inadvertently but fairly easily (similar to Chainmail in this video!).
@@BanditsKeep If you're interested, I'll send you a 'copy'. It's very expensive for a 'book' and it's crude in layout/art, so I wouldn't want you to be disappointed if you had to buy it.
This is a little too complex for me. I was thinking about assigning a weapon type to each class and giving them a chart to roll against for damage. As an example, a barbarian might have an axe that usually misses or does little damage but sometimes does a lot of damage. A cleric might have a mace that consistently does a small amount of damage. The advantage of being a fighter is access to all weapons. I want to handle armor as damage reduction like in Banner Saga. It would probably be in a simple computer game rather than a TTRPG, but it's still just a hypothetical game at this point.
You're making different trade-offs, & the thing is at the table I think the system from chainmail would actually generally be easier. The key point is it basically requires you to just keep 3 tables around, which you could easily print off as reference. Your system requires a table per weapon (& possibly per armor?), which becomes a real pain if folks acquire/switch weapons all the time BUT it's super easy to add new weapon variants (eg. just take the dagger table, & swap out some of the options)
@@kgoblin5084 It's only a table per weapon, but I agree. I looked at Bandit's Keep's charts, and they're definitely simpler. I thought it was harder than it actually was. I was going to have fewer different weapons, but I get what you're saying. If it's a computer game, the computer will be able to track all the tables. I just want different weapons to feel different. Weapons available will be tied to classes, so there won't be quite as many options for non-fighters.
@@talscorner3696 That's a good recommendation. I'm still investigating it. I understand what you're saying from looking at the reviews, but I'm considering whether I should buy it for other reasons. I've been debating with myself about my idea for the past year. I changed it to be like a deckbuilder, but I don't like it. I think this is what I'm going to do now: 1. Each weapon has a 1d12 roll that determines to-hit/damage. 2. Character class lets you learn fighting styles and weapon proficiences. 3. The base die roll for an unknown fighting style and unknown weapon is 1d4. 4. Fighting style brings it up to d6 or d8. 5. Proficiency/mastery brings it up to d10/d12. 6. High level characters might get extra dice. 7. Powerful weapons do more damage. What I have right now is part of a deckbuilder that interferes with multi-classing, which I intended to support. But thanks for the recommendation.
I've been building my own version of OD&D from various sources but weapons is something I was never satisfied with. I have gone for a static AC from your armor because tables don't go over well with my group, but weapons have a little more variability. Swords give an ac bonus against melee, axes deal 2d4+1 damage, ect.
Traveller had an armour matrix. Different weapons would get a different + against different types of armour. A kevlar vest is going to stop a kinetic bullet pretty well, but not a laser. Someone in battle dress, the standard tech-infantry field armour, is still going to be harder to deal with no matter what you use. Some civilian garb, basically heavy work clothes, can help against a stab or the natural weapon of an animal but be virtually useless against any sort of non-improvised weapon. AD&D 2e had three damage types as an optional rule. Slashing, piercing, bludgeoning I think. Each armour has three different ACs, one against each damage type. A suit of plate armour would be hard to get through with a slashing weapon like a sword or axe better. But a bludgeoning weapon like a pick or club can hit easier, even if it deals less damage.
Awesome as always, Daniel. Question though (forgive me if someone has already asked it): How do you work in character levels? Maybe +1 per attack range? So: F 1-3 gets +0, F 4-6 +1, F 6-9 +2; C 1-4 +0, C 5-8 +1, etc.?
Not gonna lie, don't think I dig this idea as much as a lot of your others. Nothing wrong with it, just a matter of personal taste! Using tables _at_ the table isn't really something I usually do, at least not in the middle of combat! I think if I wanted to do something like this, I'd probably simplify it to something like certain attack types having a bonus to hit versus certain kinds of armor, giving those really small and light weapons a bonus attack, and giving long weapons an initiative bonus to represent the length-based first strike capability. I'd just bake it into the weapons, I guess is what I'm saying. That said, mechanizing all that really isn't my style. I favor more free form equipment choices that are made more for character flavor than any statistical reason, and maybe give out some situational advantages based on their choices. A fighter carrying a belt of weapons using different ones to try and seek out those advantages is more than welcome to try, that'd be a flavorful choice in its own right! Would make for some fun back-and-forth like the ones I have with casters trying to use the random spells I give them off the Maze Rats tables, hehe.
I picked up Weapons Wits and Wizardry from the Clerics Wearing Ringmail blog. Thought it was a beautiful RPG, even though I was mainly picking it up because I thought it was the weapon vs. armor link. I don't think so, but it's a single book system and I like it a lot. :D
@@BanditsKeep I found it! Thanks, it just wasn't where I expected it to be. I was looking in combat when equipment was where that was at. And there's an interesting system on top. This is a huge win. 😄
I suggest a good slot-based encumbrance system if you're going to encourage equipment swapping with WVA. Here's the one I use: 1. Characters get (2*current STR) item slots. You still need containers like a backpack (18 slots) and large (6s) and small (2s) sacks to actually make use of those slots, but 2*STR represents an abstract limitation imposed by the objects' weight. Bags themselves cost 0 slots. Less than half full slots = 120' movement and able to use any dex bonus they might have at your table. 1/2 to 3/4 full = 90' movement and unable to use dex bonus. 3/4 to max = 60' movement, no dex bonus, and +1 dex penalty to AC. 2. Any weapon or object normally used in two hands costs two slots. 3. 100 coins of any kind cost a slot. 4. Items sold as a stack (e.g. arrows, bolts, mallet and spikes) cost one slot per stack. 5. Armor costs (10-AC) slots. 6. Enchanted stuff costs one fewer slot than it otherwise would, to a minimum of one slot. Note that this makes any scroll cost one slot, since using them requires two hands.
@@BanditsKeep Yeah, I'm with you-- I liked RAW just fine but my players didn't like how they needed to reference what everything weighed. I wanted to just go with BX simple, but they wanted "some" item management so this is what I came up with. We use item cards for each slot so it's easy to count on the fly.
I think it's interesting, but the wargame is really showing through. While the default combat system feels wonky players really only need to know two things, how to roll a dice and what their THAC0 is. I rolled a 12 and my THAC0 is 19 I hit AC7 or I rolled a 12 my to hit modifier is 1 I hit AC 13. But if I want detailed combat I'll play another game Pendragon or Rolemaster generally. Great Video though :D
For my B/X game, I'd experimented with rolling damage "with advantage" or "with disadvantage" when using the right or wrong weapon: so, a mace was at an advantage against plate, a sword against leather, and so on: based more on rock paper scissors than any medieval combat research. It was fairly satisfying. Though, on my 0e adventures, I have been using Man to Man (or a permutation of it) exclusively to date. 🙂
Hey Daniel (and/or other knowledgeable folks in the comments)-where do you recommend starting for someone who’s very much new to the “Old School” kind of D&D play? I’m really interested in learning more about this style of play and trying it out, and it’d be great to have a solid first place to go to get stuck in. Even watching actual play or something would be helpful. :)
This kind of stuff makes me too obsessive and I get stuck because the lack of realism in a system like that feels worse than lack of realism in a super simple system 😅 This is just my problem. I'm forever looking for the prefect balance is simplicity and granularity.
@@BanditsKeep I’m actually going to doctor it up and have the chart be like thaco and than you get bonuses to hit from abilitity scores like 5e but instead they are D6s and successful on a 3-6. Than you can use it to also make it so you can’t do damage to a creature unless multiple people hit it and such. There is allot more to the system I’m making but that’s Uber simplified lol
If this sort of thing is important to you, TMNT and Heroes Unlimited, I forget who makes them. Anyway your armor should be absorbing damage/taking damage before a hit gets through to you. They called it SDC, structual damage compasity. You'd get hit but until your armor's SDC is at 0 (yeah its hit points for armor) or you rolled high. Same goes for your character's body. Your HP never went up that much but you gained SDC every level. Your body taking so much before it becomes deadly. It seems if you are going into this level of detail in a basic game you'd want to handle the armor better. The weapon isn't usually hitting the character's body, it's hitting the armor.
In 5E games that I reluctantly play in (Remedial Role-playing) people don't understand when O choose to have my Fighter switch weapons. And New DMs don't understand why I ask to clarify what enemy is wearing what type of armor - so I can role-play being a fighter, and pulling out my war hammer when a plate armor enemy comes waddling out. I mean when they dash unimpeded all the way across the tiny battlemap...
I've been following your series on bandit's keep actual play where you use chainmail but for what I managed to undersrand you ruled it as only 6s or 5s and 6s in certain cases hit the target allowing the roll sometimes of more than 2d6s, is it a house rule you came up with or is it a variant of the chainmail system? I'm very curious and interested about it!
Chainmail has multiple combat systems - for the actual play (so far) I have been using the “troop” or mass combat system, not the “man to man” described here. I’m sure some man to man will come up eventually though.
I wonder why they chose to exclude the chainmail rules from AD&D? They based their combat in OD&D around chainmail, and then by excluding it, they created confusion for many players who weren't aware of how the original game was intended to be played. Just weird.
A lot of Chainmail is built into the combat of AD&D too. There are actually rules for weapons vs. Armor adjustments in the rules. I just don't think that a lot of people fully understood them.
@@BanditsKeep it's overly complicated but basically has over 50 weapons with their own chart indicating what damage they deal to each and every of the 20 different armor types, on a roll from 1 to 150...not for the faint of heart!!
This is nice. But from 5.13, it is purely your own interpretation of the rules. Nowhere in Chainmail nor OD&D it was mentioned that the number of attacks are a number of « moves » where you can either attack, switch weapon or parry. Maybe I missed something but where did you find this rule ? Also, do you apply it as mentioned in the book, against Normal Men only (men below Hero type, so below 4th level), and if so, do you include the monsters in that category (all monsters below 4th level). And lastly, how do you handle missile fired as it is written in the Man to Man combat table ? Because the multiple attacks is said to be applied to missiles. Thank you
Sorry I made a mistake, regarding missiles it’s in Appendix D, Fantasy Reference Table. This is the only place where it mentions multiple attacks, one per men, but it states it is about Missiles fire. Is this where you extrapolated what you say from 5.13 ? Thanks
Thanks, I’ll try and answer this as best I can, but I have made numerous podcast to cover the subject as it’s pretty complex. First, I don’t claim to be the expert on any of this, so take the following with a grain of salt. The main Chainmail rules do not account for super-humans like heroes. OD&D states you get a number of attacks equal to your fighting n capability- the example they use is for a troll. The parry vs attack comes from Chainmail where people only count as 1 man thus they have to pick, I figure it logical with multiple “men” you’d have multiple “actions”. Yes missile weapons can make multiple attacks depending on if the figure moves or not in Chainmail Base rules. As an aside, short weapons in man to man can also have multiple attacks. I think I covered everything at least briefly. If I missed something please do ask, and if you are really interested in how I came up with my interpretation and changes check out my podcast - starting from the earlier episodes where I walk through mechanics.
Thanks Yes I will listen to your podcast. There are things which are unclear to me. First, the Troll example is in the Monsters section, so I’m not sure it applies for PC’s too. But regardless of that, I feel something confusing : Let’s say you have a fighter lvl3 counting for 3men. So it would mean 3 attacks. Then you do the initiative as mentioned in the “normal” CM section. And let’s say you have the initiative. Now, maybe the monster can start before you because he has a better weapon ?? (With the Man to Man rules) This is one point that confuses me. Secondly, let’s say you started and the monster made a Parry and so on. But you still have 2 more attacks (because you’re a fighter lvl 3). Then When do you play these actions ?!? And third, if you mix that with the missiles, I’m totally lost. The idea on paper sounds nice but it seems to be very confusing at the same time. And I’m very used to rules of any kind, and an OSR hardcore addict ^^ I wish I could understand better
Also, does it mean that these multiple attacks as per the fighting capability, is possible against ANY foes under 4th level ? And for the monsters, they have these multiple attacks (like the troll examples) against any non Hero type Character ? (So Clerics and MU are un very bad posture ^^)
@@lesha313 this part is very unclear - some will say the strategic review says only above 1HD gets it and only against those not over 1HD. This would apply to PCs (of all classes) and monsters. With that interpretation a 2nd level fighter would face a troll 1 blow each. Others (myself included) give the attacks to everyone and against everyone. None of this is crystal clear IMO. If you haven’t read it, I’d look for strategic review #1. Also - if you want to go down a rabbit hole check out solo dungeon crawler here on TH-cam as they have a cool (and different than mine) interpretation.
So the other classes get benefits listed in their Class descriptions. But Fighters got their benefits from how combat was originally handled. This disconnect about BX Fighters has bothered me all my life. I have no love for 0e, but now I feel like using this set of combat mechanics solves this. BONUSES: I was under the impression the +3 Adj for an 18 was meant for the 2d6 roll. ON a d20, it's almost meaningless....
15% on a d20 doesn’t seem meaningless. - there was a blog post a while back where they show how even +1 can be a big deal depending on the target number.
How do you mechanically handle PCs who pick up a weapon they’re not trained in? Say a wizard who picks up a mace, or a cleric a sword (who will obviously face some penance from his church/god).
Hey I've been meaning to ask, your video quality is really crisp and has great colors. May I ask which camera you use and what your lighting setup is? :) Here's an example of what it looks like when I record. Quite a bit blander IMHO. th-cam.com/video/PH0_WVcx0zg/w-d-xo.html
I use a Nikon z6ii and record into a Ninja recorder. But more importantly I use a nice soft LED panel centered right above (and in front) of me - and I light the background to give the image dimension - I looked at your video, first think I would do is put a light on the background - a simple LED will do.
ahhh .. the old 'weapon vs armour type" adjustments :) a good notion .. but imho executed poorly by gary and his mates .. geniuses? probably :) martial arts experts of the european 1350-1450 period? well no lol :) The best approach is probably a Damage Resistance type of deal .. but due to whats now a 50 year precedent .. this would suit pretty well any game EXCEPT dnd lol
@@BanditsKeep unless .. you happen to watch scholargladitoria :) then you might find this a tad wanting. Theres definitely an argument, some weapons are clearly better, or worse, at certain armour types .. and a polearm is not a longsword is not a flail etc :) Im just sayin it CAN be tactically meaningful in a game .. and NOT offend your HEMA nerds too :) hes well worth a look .. IF youve never watched him, Id suggest starting with his vid "Medieval Fantasy REALISTIC WEAPON LOADOUTS - Roleplaying, Writing, Gaming, Movies" .. for a good realistic take on stuff like no you cannot actually wear a poleaxe etc or have it in your backpack lol
*I seriously tried to make a system where weapon type matters and I quickly discovered something... It sucks.* The main problem is that it just meant anyone who used weapon would be taking time to switch to the thing that's most effective which isn't a tactical thing it's an action economy thing. "This one is a skeleton instead of a zombie so I take out my mace and do the exact same thing that I would have done with my long sword" is actually pretty boring and effectively just a nerf to Martial characters. It's an appeal to realism that doesn't matter and only makes combat more tedious both in the constant weapon switching but also in this rule said where you're having to consult a chart for every attack instead of just rolling.
I’ve been using a system like this in my weekly game for over 2 years. Works great for us, makes PCs think about what weapons they carry - I use encumbrance and gold for XP. That’s being said, like everything’s else, it’s not for every group.
The problem with these charts is that they were created by Gygax, who had only the most surface level of understanding of how combat in history worked. Some of the numbers just don't make sense as well. If you have a shield and leather, halberds score on 7s but if you have a shield and mail, they score only on 6s? 2H swords better against armoured than unarmoured opponents? The idea always sounds so great, but I've played enough wargames to know that these things usually are not worth keeping. The sheer idea that you can differentiate between different weapons to the degree these charts are trying to is quite ludicrous. A simpler system in my opinion would be to have rigid "floors" and "ceilings". Swords Vs plate? High floor for real damage. Mace Vs plate? Lower floor. Daggers Vs bare skin? Low floor, decent ceiling. Sword Vs flesh? Lower floor and higher ceiling. Don't know if that makes sense, but you can tweak and tailor here and there, you can consider crits to be outside these divisions, so you can always "accidentally" do some real damage, etc.
I break armor down into light, medium and heavy; then I do what armor is suppose to do... absorb damage. If a Orc is swinging a weapon that does 1D10 damage, for Light armor the dice is down graded by 1 level to a 1D8. For medium armor it would down grade to 1D6 and for heavy armor it would down grade to 1D4. I also only let fighter's wear heavy armor and all dex negatives apply as regular. The one bonus to being a fighter; jacked armor and weapon choice.
The unclear thing to me is if you should allow multiple attacks against creatures that are not of the man-type 1 hit die variety. Edit: As this system is so much more fun than 1 attack per round, i'd like to know what anyone with more open minded friends have found :).
Sounds exciting! I'll work this video into my lobbying campaign for my group of young'uns, It's always nice to hear how people tinker with these systems. This was a good video, thanks for the reply! Subbed
@@BanditsKeep Awesome, that's exactly what i wanna hear. How much of the fantastic or mass combat rules do you use in your games? I've just started watching your actual play from a couple of years ago on the subject but have not gotten far. Later edit: i've dug into some of your stuff and answered most of my own questions :p. Thanks anyhwo, good work!
I’ve enjoyed Melee for sure - but the overall Fantasy Trip just never really grabbed me, I’ll have to bust it out again at some point and give it another shot.
@@BanditsKeep It helps if you house rule it a bit. Otherwise, tbh character death makes it more like a tabletop tactical medieval wargame than a fantasy RPG. I started playing D&D back in 1980/81. In 85 we went to mêlée and played that until college, life, etc rolled around. Now we play 5e a lot, just because it is easy and everyone can get on board with it. I like certain aspects of it, but sometimes 5e is too easy/too abstracted/too streamlined.
Another delve into the roots of the rules, as one sees the mechanic is to simulate man vs man, really the fighting man. I suspect the magic user was at the time a sort of ranged warrior and at times artillery piece. I have pondered that and how to crush down a party to just a fighting man and more skirmisher thief and brainy magic user to play from solo to just four people. These old rules sort of show me ways to do that.
The thing with the magic man is that there can be funny words for whatever the world needs them to do, so you can easily justify a sniper, artillery, melee, line breaker, etc
I can get enthusiastic about the weapons vs armour table if you severely limit the armour options available. Leather, studded leather (for orcs and other nutters), banded and field plate, no chainmail based options. Or no banded or full plate options. Everyone in the entire world uses a couple options and that lets you optimise your attack nicely. There is no reason to force mail or plate etc… then you can focus on the tactics rather than the huge table.
The problem with weapon vs. armor type and speed factors was it really bogged down combat. It gets bad. And poor DMs trying to keep it all straight... out the window.
@@BanditsKeep The English Longbow ended the reign of the plate armored French Knight. Ball & Chains were designed to attack over shields. Two handed swords were used to break enemy Pikes. Etc etc.
Being small, for their survival having a longer-reaching weapon is key, because their arms and legs are so short (also, apologies for taking so long, for some reason I missed this reply)
The dagger should be one of the most effective weapons against plate. Anyway, I usually don't care much for realism, but that system seems still terrible.
We managed with the three damage types in 2e without too much slog. Instead of checking a matrix with every single weapon against every single piece of armour, each armour got three ACs against each "type" of damage, and each weapon was assigned one damage type. Next up is weapon speed, we might give that a shot later on. Some weapons like a dart will act before bows and swords. I think they estimated "lightness" for that one. A dart or knife acts first. Ranged weapons act faster in general. A polearm would act slower.
It's actually surprisingly smooth once you get the swing of it. The initial Gygaxian prose can put people off - but _at the table_, I've found folks catch on well.
5e has tons of vestiges of older editions that don't make much sense unless you understand the rules of older editions. This is super enlightening!
All fixed in Arcanum by Bard Games - roll 11 to hit and armor soak is then applied to damage. No Full Plate in the time period.
For sure
@@MrRourk i love arcanum ported it over to another system
I have always loved the weapon VS. armour type adjustments. For one thing, it gives fighters an incentive to carry both a sword and a mace, for example. Too often the fighters just try to get the best sword, and they all end up being the same. Maces are not just for clerics.
For sure
This comes about because OD&D RAW features treasure tables with a significant bias towards magic swords. It's a sort of roundabout but deliberate fighting-man class feature, since only they can use swords. So swords drop more often than say, magic hammers-- and they have a much more interesting range of powers when they do. Then, when a magic hammer or mace does drop, you feel almost compelled to give it to the cleric, since he can't use any swords that drop but you can. So there's combined mechanical and social pressure for fighting-men to use swords.
Then some of the swords themselves will get mad at you if you cheat on them with other weapons!
I played with a DM a few months ago who used the classic all-d6 damage for weapons, but he spiced it up kind of like you did here by making certain monsters have resistance (1/2 damage) against certain weapons and vulnerability (x2 damage) against others. For example, good luck trying to kill a skeleton with arrows (they’d go right through their ribcages lol) but a mace will demolish them, making clerics even more specialized against undead.
Nice!
I just swore out loud. This makes marital characters and combat so much more interesting. 7:03
Weapons actually being more than the amount of damage dice rolled. Awesome!
Yes!
Videos like this are what make you my favorite TTRPG content creator. Well thought out concepts presented in a simple and concise format, without filler. Some things you suggest are likely to greatly reduce complexity for any given viewer's game, while others might increase complexity and crunch. Either way, you just lay it out there and welcome feedback. To my mind it's one of the best modern expressions of the original "spirit" of the game as a community endeavor, with different gaming groups (particularly refs) exchanging ideas, swiping what we like and passing on what isn't right for us.
Long story short: I really appreciate what you do, please keep it up!
Thank You! I appreciate your support and why you describe is what I’m going for so I’m happy to hear that feedback.
First Edition AD&D used a table of pluses or minuses for certain weapons vs types of armor, i.e., Armor Class Adjustment, and a Speed Factor to determine when in a round it might connect with a blow to the opponent. Basically, this was a translation of the Chainmail rules for the Advanced D&D rules release. As I recall, most people running games back in the late 70s and early 80s didn't use these parts of the rules, and as a result, combat didn't make much sense and homebrew rules popped up as a result.
I started doing living history when I started gaming and became so sad how unrealistic dnd was
But I loved 1st ed Ad&d
It’s certainly in AD&D - but as you say, some did not use it, we did.
2nd edition ad&d had a simplified weapon vs ac modifiers based on slashing, blunt, or piercing
@@BanditsKeep the original sheets had the ac bonuses for the weapons, I loved that sheet
Speed factor could make a huge difference since a faster weapon could get more attacks than a slower one in a head-to-head fight. And weapon vs AC made the range of weapons more sensible, if not necessary. But like you said, few used these rules. We sure didn't.
Fighters having multiple actions makes so much sense.
I agree
This is interesting! I have always felt that martial characters have been a little underwhelming as most casters can swing weapons and do crazy things with spells. This provided me with another perspective for how to give martial classes some extra utility.
I don't think my current group will go for it, but it is something I can save for another campaign.
Awesome!
As a historical european martial arts instructor, I can say this is so realistic and well done.
Awesome, thanks!
You cracked the code. I've long had love for weapons vs AC charts but they all seemed like such a pain to use. This is way better.
For sure, I’d be curious how it works for you.
I've heard about this aspect of Chainmail before and how it reflects a more intelligent way of handling AC. Modifiers weren't meant to apply to AC directly, but the roll you made, but the D&D combat chart did away with the weapon/armor matrix for the most part (except for 1e's confusing tables).
Still, even if one goes back to this, the tricky part is figuring out how monster attacks and armor fit into this. For instance, I've always contended that in a more "realistic" system, plate mail shouldn't provide any significant protection against the swing of a giant's club. You'd probably need a new attack matrix for every (or many) monsters, and an armor-equivalent for every monster.
It's not surprising that they ditched that idea. I mean, imagine the massive stat blocks! It's a good thing we never went down that road ;)
A giant wild use a club against plate and get 8-12 attacks (based on HD) - but there are 2 other types of combat in Chainmail and using “fantasy” combat would likely work better for one or two heroes facing the giant, or troop combat for a giant facing a mob. I’ve used both.
I've been using a simplified system like this, inspired by the chainmail man-to-man combat system for years in my homebrew system. d20 to attack, but for a couple of years it's been roll low to hit, which makes the descending AC system make a bit more intuitive sense and simplifies the THAC0 calculations. I don't use any modifiers from abilities or levels (leveling up gives you more attacks), and all weapons do just d6 damage. Me and my players love rolling fists full of dice and it actually keeps things deadly for a fair bit longer, since a fighter's (and a monster's) damage potential scales proportionally with their hit points.
Nice
I just found your channel, love the content. We use a system that uses armor reduction that is dependent on armor type and weapon type. Slashing weapons do little to no damage against plate, for that a bludgeoning weapon is far superior. It also uses a contested role instead of initiative and gives bonuses to weapon reach, that is until your opponent breaches your guard, then you need to switch weapons or backup. I think the contested role cuts battle time in also half also because every round, either you or your opponent have a successful attack or defence. Keep up the good videos, I'm going to have to pillage your archives for more ideas
That sounds very cool
Cyberpunk 2020/Interlock makes armor work like Damage Resistance that can be ablated/damaged the more you get hit and I really love that because it means you are constantly needing to repair or replace your armor and weapons as they get destroyed.
Nice - I’ve only played once, was a fun system - I learned to shoot people where they have no armor
I really enjoy videos like this. Getting to learn about how the original systems worked, helps understand why the subsequent systems were created. I've been enjoying your solo OD&D Wilderness Survival campaign on your streaming channel. I finally picked up WBFMAG as a result, and have been enjoying reading through it.
Watching this gave me a few ideas to add to my heartbreaker I haven't worked on in a month or two. Thanks!
Awesome
This is a great video. I was just recently thinking about how to introduce the Chainmail weapon chart into my homebrew B/X and I think you've just shown me the way. With a little bit of fiddling I can probably turn it into something really great. Especially since I had already turned the game into a 2d6 system.
Awesome
That's cool!
I'm planning an old school D&D campaign, but class-less, maybe also level-less, with very few advancements, other than loot, so this combat system makes a lot of sense to me.
Definitely gonna use it.
PC Adventurers will start by buying equipment, weapons, scrolls, potions, instead of choosing a class, and weapons-vs-armor, I feel, makes it finally, really click. Good content, thanks.
Cool, I’d love to know how it goes!
Dude. Just discovered your channel and wow you've got some really interesting videos. You've earned my subscription
Thank You! Welcome
Very cool! Don’t think it fits what my table wants out of combat, but it’s a really neat idea and makes OD&D/AD&D combat make much more sense 😊
I agree, once you see this you can see what they were going for
This Weapon Class versus Armor Type system is also used in Metamorphosis Alpha 1st edition. It puts the onus on the Referee to let players know what the target number is to hit since you have to consistently cross reference a combat chart.
Cool
2:11 Okay go to the blog post, go to the pdf provided, open up equipment go to armor followed immeditately by weapons. In the charts it is the number in the parenthesis that is the D20 number, I made my own conversion and it pretty much lines up.
The Differentiating Damage article might be good too.
Nice
The one thing about D&D in general that has always bothered me is that AC is armor protection, Block/parry and the ability to dodging. I prefer to think of it as making a roll to cause damage instead, not necessarily to hit.
Sure, that’s pretty much what it is
Wow, one of your best vids. Very interesting. I didn't think od&d interested me (started withAD&D) but this video changed that. Conti he the great work man.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Hey Daniel, I'm old school but I really do enjoy the easiness of 5e. But now some time has gone by and I do miss some of the chunkiness of AD&D. I been thinking about giving the different armor resistance against certain types of damage. Padded would be resistant to bludgeoning, chain mail resistant to piercing, plate resistant to slashing. Skeletons having resistance to piercing makes sense to me. Some say it's to bulky or to much to track, but you lose part of the game when you just keep slimming everything down. Did you see for 6e they are testing the old weapons with affects, tripping, prone, etc.. Reminds me of the 2e weapons.
Thanks Daniel you have a wonderful day!
That seems easy enough to add and try out. I’m wondering if some armor / weapons should also be vulnerable though.
This actually explains the different weapons and who can use what in 5e! Ty for this 😁
Indeed! You are welcome
I see Daniel vid - I upvote.
Thank You! 😊
7th edition 40k (ironically, another skirmish game) offers a heavily simplified version of this style of doing things that some folks might like ^^
That is just great. I use a further ly simplified version of this same concept. Light weapons such as daggers, dealing a lower damage, have a +2 to hit, being easier to brandish and sneak into enemy's defences. While heavy weapons, dealing higher damage on average, can only be brandished in combat by +1 strength characters or better. Also, long weapons have the initiative (i use an action based initiative, spells first, then missiles, then melee, both sides act in each section)
Cool
Brilliant video Daniel ty. Don’t think I’ll use the whole system right now, but could well just improvise some things in B/X combat along these lines. Ty again!
Thank You!
We have mostly used special situational rules. A knife can be used when you wrassle someone. A pistol can be used when you are up close where a longarm might be awkward. Some weapons like spears and polearms automatically win initiative on the first round. Some heavy, cumbersome weapons do the reverse and automatically lose initiative. A crossbow or flintlock pistol has a punishing reload time.
We've been trying the missile-magic-melee/movement initiative order which has greatly favored the PCs reliance on shotguns, pistols and rifles.
Awesome
Hi Daniel. I am Ed. I love your perspective. Enjoying the channel very much! I am a big fan of Basic D&D too...specifically B/X. It would be cool to do a back and forth with youtube videos at some point and compare notes and share ideas, or at the very least strike up a written correspondence.
Thanks! If you have discord, jump onto my server - lots of fun chats happening
It reminds me a lot of the Conan D20’s Armor reducing dmg and weapons with armor penetration. Swords even Greatswords have a harder time getting through Armor then a Morning Star or mace which is kinda the point.
Cool, perhaps they looked at old war games
@@BanditsKeep Armor reducing dmg is a thing I've been adding into my DnD games because as someone who does Historical fencing it always bugged me that a Warhammer isnt any different then a 'longsword' in terms of damage if the opponent is in Full plate or naked.
In the first edition ad&d each weapon had adds and subtracts versus armor and I actually liked that
This abstract system and actually doing living history combat is why I left dnd and went to BRP,
Less chart heavy, ans more realistic
But enjoyed hearing your explanation
Cool, how is BRP more realistic? I’ve only played Call of Cthulhu in that system so no one is wearing armor.
@@BanditsKeep there are two systems for armor, the first is static and damage has to pass through armor to actually inflict hits, also there is parry, blocks and dodges
The second system is more random with a random number, which represents damage getting through weak spots or at joints, also BRP has a hit body, so each part can be covered with different armor
For instance chain could be 7 points or a d8-1
The first means that yiu have to inflict more than 7
@@stefanjakubowski8222 nice!
@@BanditsKeep We played Delta Green from Pagan, which used the Call of Cthulhu 5th ed 90's rules straight off.
All the PCs had armour on. They walked around with kevlar vests virtually the entire time, except when they didn't want to look like a carful of feds. You play people who can walk up and down the street in kevlar, everyone knows you are feds because you flash badges and ask questions anyways. A lot of them carried rifles and shotguns in the van, people don't question why a DEA guy on a raid has a shotgun.
Armour absorbed damage. A kevlar vest stops 5 points or somesuch. It turned that this is enough to turn a lethal swipe of a monster claw or a shotgun blast into merely debilitating injury. Sometimes they had full SWAT suits with flak jackets, helmets and ballistic shields. CoC healing is still slow, but two weeks of bed rest is always better than dead. You still break out your secondary or tertiary PC who finishes the job.
Some spells and abilities such as a mi-go electric gun bypassed normal kevlar. But a lot of threats are going to be a gangster or cultist with an ingram SMG, a weird winged thing with a bite. They allow some specialist equipment to provide armour against unconventional stuff. Thick arctic clothing against a frost blast, radiation gear, maybe an electrically insulated suit. That could give a couple points of armour too.
@@stefanjakubowski8222 The random armour was used in Elric! amongst others, I think.
There was hit locations of sorts in the first CoC 90's sourcebook. You had a chance to hit the gap in a kevlar vest and bypass it. Each armour in there had a percentage coverage. It didn't matter where the hit landed, only if it landed on or outside the cover of the vest.
Do you have a video where you give a Broad overview of which rules you use for which portions of gameplay? I like the way this adds tactical options for low levels and I would love to try out something similar to your set up in an old school type game.
(Chainmail for combat for example, X for exploration, X for building a Dungeon)
Not a video, but in my podcast I talk about this type of thing
Damn I had that chainmail book
Perhaps one day again, king!
An original?
In the game I'm working in, armor will act as damage reduction and also interact differently with different weapons, and weapon reach will matter too!
Cool
Thanks Daniel,
Really enjoyed this and found the explanations concise and compelling.
I'll have to revisit this system possibility , as I also prefer a "weighted" dice curve ,
and reduced bonuses and penalties.
I do as well
I would simplify this down to Weapon Types vs Armor. Instead of having to list every weapon I'd just say "Pierce Weapons have -2 against Plate, Bludgeon has +2" This is the greatest failing of the 5E Combat system, that it doesn't lean enough into Damage Type interplay.
Gary did this in the 1e DMG - also in Greyhawk for OD&D. Port it over to your new school campaign, maybe? See how it works out!
That could work well - or even using the resistance rules - basically lowering damage.
I'd personally lean heavier into the reach aspect, but I definitely agree that 5e doesn't mess with damage types enough
I recently noticed that 4e has a bit of this in it. Weapon proficiency gives a +2 or +3 depending on the weapon. But in 4e it's more of an accuracy vs damage thing.
The old systems always surprise me.
Very interesting- I picked up the 4e core books a while back but have yet it look it over.
@@BanditsKeep 4e has some interesting features if you really look for them. Like you can recreate the old style elves as fighter/magic-user by playing a hybrid class. Not a perfect system, but it deserves it's fair chance.
I will say that I'm constantly finding that the older editions tend to have the core game system figured out much better than modern ones. I'd rather have a good core system instead of a unique feature for everything a class does.
I'm a huge fan of an old game called Melanda:Land of Mystery. Great, interesting combat system and unique spell configuration! A shame it didn't catch on!
I’ll have to look it up, thanks!
@@BanditsKeep If you have trouble finding it, I have a digital copy I could 'lend' you! It was created by the two owners of Days of Knights, the gaming story in Newark, DE, under the Wilmark Dynasty. Hard to find, diamond in the rough, but the Character, Combat and Magic system are amazing, imo. The weapons/armor link up well with Palladium weapons books, inadvertently but fairly easily (similar to Chainmail in this video!).
@@thomaswebb2584 cool, I’m reading some info on it now
@@BanditsKeep If you're interested, I'll send you a 'copy'. It's very expensive for a 'book' and it's crude in layout/art, so I wouldn't want you to be disappointed if you had to buy it.
Very interesting video usual! Maybe the Chain Mail combat system is a bit crunchy but indeed adds a strategic element that I like.
For sure
This is a little too complex for me. I was thinking about assigning a weapon type to each class and giving them a chart to roll against for damage. As an example, a barbarian might have an axe that usually misses or does little damage but sometimes does a lot of damage. A cleric might have a mace that consistently does a small amount of damage.
The advantage of being a fighter is access to all weapons.
I want to handle armor as damage reduction like in Banner Saga.
It would probably be in a simple computer game rather than a TTRPG, but it's still just a hypothetical game at this point.
Not sure how that is less complex, but it sounds interesting
You're making different trade-offs, & the thing is at the table I think the system from chainmail would actually generally be easier. The key point is it basically requires you to just keep 3 tables around, which you could easily print off as reference. Your system requires a table per weapon (& possibly per armor?), which becomes a real pain if folks acquire/switch weapons all the time BUT it's super easy to add new weapon variants (eg. just take the dagger table, & swap out some of the options)
@@kgoblin5084 It's only a table per weapon, but I agree. I looked at Bandit's Keep's charts, and they're definitely simpler. I thought it was harder than it actually was.
I was going to have fewer different weapons, but I get what you're saying. If it's a computer game, the computer will be able to track all the tables. I just want different weapons to feel different. Weapons available will be tied to classes, so there won't be quite as many options for non-fighters.
For the variable damage thing, look into Vulcania by Gear Games ^^
@@talscorner3696 That's a good recommendation. I'm still investigating it. I understand what you're saying from looking at the reviews, but I'm considering whether I should buy it for other reasons.
I've been debating with myself about my idea for the past year. I changed it to be like a deckbuilder, but I don't like it. I think this is what I'm going to do now:
1. Each weapon has a 1d12 roll that determines to-hit/damage.
2. Character class lets you learn fighting styles and weapon proficiences.
3. The base die roll for an unknown fighting style and unknown weapon is 1d4.
4. Fighting style brings it up to d6 or d8.
5. Proficiency/mastery brings it up to d10/d12.
6. High level characters might get extra dice.
7. Powerful weapons do more damage.
What I have right now is part of a deckbuilder that interferes with multi-classing, which I intended to support.
But thanks for the recommendation.
I've been building my own version of OD&D from various sources but weapons is something I was never satisfied with. I have gone for a static AC from your armor because tables don't go over well with my group, but weapons have a little more variability. Swords give an ac bonus against melee, axes deal 2d4+1 damage, ect.
Cool
Traveller had an armour matrix. Different weapons would get a different + against different types of armour. A kevlar vest is going to stop a kinetic bullet pretty well, but not a laser. Someone in battle dress, the standard tech-infantry field armour, is still going to be harder to deal with no matter what you use. Some civilian garb, basically heavy work clothes, can help against a stab or the natural weapon of an animal but be virtually useless against any sort of non-improvised weapon.
AD&D 2e had three damage types as an optional rule. Slashing, piercing, bludgeoning I think. Each armour has three different ACs, one against each damage type. A suit of plate armour would be hard to get through with a slashing weapon like a sword or axe better. But a bludgeoning weapon like a pick or club can hit easier, even if it deals less damage.
Cool
I like "Defensive Capacity Class" for my weapons, is basic armor class but for weapons, i like that
Cool
Awesome as always, Daniel. Question though (forgive me if someone has already asked it): How do you work in character levels? Maybe +1 per attack range? So: F 1-3 gets +0, F 4-6 +1, F 6-9 +2; C 1-4 +0, C 5-8 +1, etc.?
That could work - I generally increase the number of attacks vs increasing the bonus.
@@BanditsKeep Oh yeah, right, you said. That corresponds to OD&D.
Not gonna lie, don't think I dig this idea as much as a lot of your others. Nothing wrong with it, just a matter of personal taste! Using tables _at_ the table isn't really something I usually do, at least not in the middle of combat!
I think if I wanted to do something like this, I'd probably simplify it to something like certain attack types having a bonus to hit versus certain kinds of armor, giving those really small and light weapons a bonus attack, and giving long weapons an initiative bonus to represent the length-based first strike capability. I'd just bake it into the weapons, I guess is what I'm saying.
That said, mechanizing all that really isn't my style. I favor more free form equipment choices that are made more for character flavor than any statistical reason, and maybe give out some situational advantages based on their choices. A fighter carrying a belt of weapons using different ones to try and seek out those advantages is more than welcome to try, that'd be a flavorful choice in its own right! Would make for some fun back-and-forth like the ones I have with casters trying to use the random spells I give them off the Maze Rats tables, hehe.
I can see that, we have always used tables for combat so this is nothing new
I picked up Weapons Wits and Wizardry from the Clerics Wearing Ringmail blog. Thought it was a beautiful RPG, even though I was mainly picking it up because I thought it was the weapon vs. armor link. I don't think so, but it's a single book system and I like it a lot. :D
Excellent, I believe the weapons vs armor is in there
@@BanditsKeep I found it! Thanks, it just wasn't where I expected it to be. I was looking in combat when equipment was where that was at. And there's an interesting system on top. This is a huge win. 😄
2d6 is actually closer to d20 than I originally assumed. Increments are in something like 2.7%? vs 5%.
The main difference as I understand is that it is a curve - so each number is not a fixed percentage change.
I suggest a good slot-based encumbrance system if you're going to encourage equipment swapping with WVA. Here's the one I use:
1. Characters get (2*current STR) item slots. You still need containers like a backpack (18 slots) and large (6s) and small (2s) sacks to actually make use of those slots, but 2*STR represents an abstract limitation imposed by the objects' weight. Bags themselves cost 0 slots.
Less than half full slots = 120' movement and able to use any dex bonus they might have at your table.
1/2 to 3/4 full = 90' movement and unable to use dex bonus.
3/4 to max = 60' movement, no dex bonus, and +1 dex penalty to AC.
2. Any weapon or object normally used in two hands costs two slots.
3. 100 coins of any kind cost a slot.
4. Items sold as a stack (e.g. arrows, bolts, mallet and spikes) cost one slot per stack.
5. Armor costs (10-AC) slots.
6. Enchanted stuff costs one fewer slot than it otherwise would, to a minimum of one slot. Note that this makes any scroll cost one slot, since using them requires two hands.
Cool, I just use regular encumbrance, it works fine for me
@@BanditsKeep Yeah, I'm with you-- I liked RAW just fine but my players didn't like how they needed to reference what everything weighed. I wanted to just go with BX simple, but they wanted "some" item management so this is what I came up with. We use item cards for each slot so it's easy to count on the fly.
I was going to ask how you use natural attacks with this system, but you answered my question at the end. XD
👍🏻
I think it's interesting, but the wargame is really showing through. While the default combat system feels wonky players really only need to know two things, how to roll a dice and what their THAC0 is. I rolled a 12 and my THAC0 is 19 I hit AC7 or I rolled a 12 my to hit modifier is 1 I hit AC 13. But if I want detailed combat I'll play another game Pendragon or Rolemaster generally. Great Video though :D
Not sure the player needs to know anything more to do this, and no math 😊
Really neat!
Thanks!
Well put, thanks a lot.
🙌🏻🙌🏻
DR is the way...weapon type vs. aromor type is the way...
So many great ways to play
The old game was pretty nuanced but it just seems like there is easier ways from rules standpoint to accomplish the same thing.
Such as? I’d love to hear other ideas, so many great ways to play!
For my B/X game, I'd experimented with rolling damage "with advantage" or "with disadvantage" when using the right or wrong weapon: so, a mace was at an advantage against plate, a sword against leather, and so on: based more on rock paper scissors than any medieval combat research. It was fairly satisfying.
Though, on my 0e adventures, I have been using Man to Man (or a permutation of it) exclusively to date.
🙂
Hey Daniel (and/or other knowledgeable folks in the comments)-where do you recommend starting for someone who’s very much new to the “Old School” kind of D&D play? I’m really interested in learning more about this style of play and trying it out, and it’d be great to have a solid first place to go to get stuck in. Even watching actual play or something would be helpful. :)
check out the Bandit's Keep Actual Play channel !
@@nosaurian cheers!
Moldvay Basic - aka BX, not OSE. reading the book will help as I feel it teaches you how to play
WVAC is very underrated
Indeed
This kind of stuff makes me too obsessive and I get stuck because the lack of realism in a system like that feels worse than lack of realism in a super simple system 😅 This is just my problem. I'm forever looking for the prefect balance is simplicity and granularity.
Indeed
This actually fits the new system I am trying to make so much better than thaco! Thank you!
Excellent!
@@BanditsKeep I’m actually going to doctor it up and have the chart be like thaco and than you get bonuses to hit from abilitity scores like 5e but instead they are D6s and successful on a 3-6. Than you can use it to also make it so you can’t do damage to a creature unless multiple people hit it and such. There is allot more to the system I’m making but that’s Uber simplified lol
Thanks for the video.
Thanks for watching
If this sort of thing is important to you, TMNT and Heroes Unlimited, I forget who makes them. Anyway your armor should be absorbing damage/taking damage before a hit gets through to you. They called it SDC, structual damage compasity. You'd get hit but until your armor's SDC is at 0 (yeah its hit points for armor) or you rolled high. Same goes for your character's body. Your HP never went up that much but you gained SDC every level. Your body taking so much before it becomes deadly. It seems if you are going into this level of detail in a basic game you'd want to handle the armor better. The weapon isn't usually hitting the character's body, it's hitting the armor.
Palladium, and basically ittakes their armor idea from runequest
Indeed - the number here represents the weapon damaging the body through the armor
@@BanditsKeep after I saw a rattan weapon bend steel plate, I realized that dnd is just an abstract system
I’ve changed my BECMI to a d20 roll high hits instead of hit point system and armor has AP which are an “SDC” system and it works great.
In 5E games that I reluctantly play in (Remedial Role-playing) people don't understand when O choose to have my Fighter switch weapons. And New DMs don't understand why I ask to clarify what enemy is wearing what type of armor - so I can role-play being a fighter, and pulling out my war hammer when a plate armor enemy comes waddling out. I mean when they dash unimpeded all the way across the tiny battlemap...
At least some monsters do have more or less resistance to certain weapons
I really like this idea I also like weapons and armor to have HP
That’s a cool idea as well
I've been following your series on bandit's keep actual play where you use chainmail but for what I managed to undersrand you ruled it as only 6s or 5s and 6s in certain cases hit the target allowing the roll sometimes of more than 2d6s, is it a house rule you came up with or is it a variant of the chainmail system? I'm very curious and interested about it!
Chainmail has multiple combat systems - for the actual play (so far) I have been using the “troop” or mass combat system, not the “man to man” described here. I’m sure some man to man will come up eventually though.
Just remember that is 1 hit = Kill TABLE
In Chainmail vs no heroes, yes.
I wonder why they chose to exclude the chainmail rules from AD&D? They based their combat in OD&D around chainmail, and then by excluding it, they created confusion for many players who weren't aware of how the original game was intended to be played. Just weird.
I think people liked the d20 more
A lot of Chainmail is built into the combat of AD&D too. There are actually rules for weapons vs. Armor adjustments in the rules. I just don't think that a lot of people fully understood them.
Rolemaster style!
I’ve heard some good things about Rolemaster
@@BanditsKeep it's overly complicated but basically has over 50 weapons with their own chart indicating what damage they deal to each and every of the 20 different armor types, on a roll from 1 to 150...not for the faint of heart!!
TTRPG that does weapon and armor best to ne is
D100 Dungeon by MK Games from Martin Knight.
I love D100 Dungeon!!!
Cool, I haven’t tried that one yet
This is nice.
But from 5.13, it is purely your own interpretation of the rules.
Nowhere in Chainmail nor OD&D it was mentioned that the number of attacks are a number of « moves » where you can either attack, switch weapon or parry.
Maybe I missed something but where did you find this rule ?
Also, do you apply it as mentioned in the book, against Normal Men only (men below Hero type, so below 4th level), and if so, do you include the monsters in that category (all monsters below 4th level).
And lastly, how do you handle missile fired as it is written in the Man to Man combat table ?
Because the multiple attacks is said to be applied to missiles.
Thank you
Sorry I made a mistake, regarding missiles it’s in Appendix D, Fantasy Reference Table.
This is the only place where it mentions multiple attacks, one per men, but it states it is about Missiles fire.
Is this where you extrapolated what you say from 5.13 ?
Thanks
Thanks, I’ll try and answer this as best I can, but I have made numerous podcast to cover the subject as it’s pretty complex. First, I don’t claim to be the expert on any of this, so take the following with a grain of salt. The main Chainmail rules do not account for super-humans like heroes. OD&D states you get a number of attacks equal to your fighting n capability- the example they use is for a troll. The parry vs attack comes from Chainmail where people only count as 1 man thus they have to pick, I figure it logical with multiple “men” you’d have multiple “actions”. Yes missile weapons can make multiple attacks depending on if the figure moves or not in Chainmail Base rules. As an aside, short weapons in man to man can also have multiple attacks. I think I covered everything at least briefly. If I missed something please do ask, and if you are really interested in how I came up with my interpretation and changes check out my podcast - starting from the earlier episodes where I walk through mechanics.
Thanks
Yes I will listen to your podcast.
There are things which are unclear to me.
First, the Troll example is in the Monsters section, so I’m not sure it applies for PC’s too.
But regardless of that, I feel something confusing :
Let’s say you have a fighter lvl3 counting for 3men.
So it would mean 3 attacks.
Then you do the initiative as mentioned in the “normal” CM section.
And let’s say you have the initiative.
Now, maybe the monster can start before you because he has a better weapon ?? (With the Man to Man rules)
This is one point that confuses me.
Secondly, let’s say you started and the monster made a Parry and so on.
But you still have 2 more attacks (because you’re a fighter lvl 3).
Then When do you play these actions ?!?
And third, if you mix that with the missiles, I’m totally lost.
The idea on paper sounds nice but it seems to be very confusing at the same time.
And I’m very used to rules of any kind, and an OSR hardcore addict ^^
I wish I could understand better
Also, does it mean that these multiple attacks as per the fighting capability, is possible against ANY foes under 4th level ?
And for the monsters, they have these multiple attacks (like the troll examples) against any non Hero type Character ? (So Clerics and MU are un very bad posture ^^)
@@lesha313 this part is very unclear - some will say the strategic review says only above 1HD gets it and only against those not over 1HD. This would apply to PCs (of all classes) and monsters. With that interpretation a 2nd level fighter would face a troll 1 blow each. Others (myself included) give the attacks to everyone and against everyone. None of this is crystal clear IMO. If you haven’t read it, I’d look for strategic review #1. Also - if you want to go down a rabbit hole check out solo dungeon crawler here on TH-cam as they have a cool (and different than mine) interpretation.
Yeah no. I really liked when 3e moved away from look-up tables. I think the same can be achieved in much simpler ways.
Cool, let me know how.
I used to prefer 2e's simplified system over 1e's but dropped it for B/X/OSE
B/X is definitely simple and elegantly so
Maybe you can make a video how to use 2d6 in BX...it would be awesome!
Let me see what I can come up with
So the other classes get benefits listed in their Class descriptions. But Fighters got their benefits from how combat was originally handled. This disconnect about BX Fighters has bothered me all my life. I have no love for 0e, but now I feel like using this set of combat mechanics solves this. BONUSES: I was under the impression the +3 Adj for an 18 was meant for the 2d6 roll. ON a d20, it's almost meaningless....
15% on a d20 doesn’t seem meaningless. - there was a blog post a while back where they show how even +1 can be a big deal depending on the target number.
I honestly prefer systems that focus on weapon to weapon but I will admit that complexity of getting it right can be a big concern there.
Indeed
A 9, 10, 11, or 12 in 2d6 happens 10 out of every 36 roles. That's like getting a 15 or better on a d20.
Cool
How do you mechanically handle PCs who pick up a weapon they’re not trained in? Say a wizard who picks up a mace, or a cleric a sword (who will obviously face some penance from his church/god).
I have them fight as one less “man” so a low level MU simply can’t do it (as 1 man wild equal 0 men) but higher levels it is possible.
Hey I've been meaning to ask, your video quality is really crisp and has great colors. May I ask which camera you use and what your lighting setup is? :)
Here's an example of what it looks like when I record. Quite a bit blander IMHO. th-cam.com/video/PH0_WVcx0zg/w-d-xo.html
I use a Nikon z6ii and record into a Ninja recorder. But more importantly I use a nice soft LED panel centered right above (and in front) of me - and I light the background to give the image dimension - I looked at your video, first think I would do is put a light on the background - a simple LED will do.
ahhh .. the old 'weapon vs armour type" adjustments :) a good notion .. but imho executed poorly by gary and his mates .. geniuses? probably :) martial arts experts of the european 1350-1450 period? well no lol :) The best approach is probably a Damage Resistance type of deal .. but due to whats now a 50 year precedent .. this would suit pretty well any game EXCEPT dnd lol
If you say so, I’m no weapon expert. But it’s a game and in the game it works well for many
@@BanditsKeep unless .. you happen to watch scholargladitoria :) then you might find this a tad wanting. Theres definitely an argument, some weapons are clearly better, or worse, at certain armour types .. and a polearm is not a longsword is not a flail etc :) Im just sayin it CAN be tactically meaningful in a game .. and NOT offend your HEMA nerds too :) hes well worth a look .. IF youve never watched him, Id suggest starting with his vid "Medieval Fantasy REALISTIC WEAPON LOADOUTS - Roleplaying, Writing, Gaming, Movies" .. for a good realistic take on stuff like no you cannot actually wear a poleaxe etc or have it in your backpack lol
*I seriously tried to make a system where weapon type matters and I quickly discovered something... It sucks.*
The main problem is that it just meant anyone who used weapon would be taking time to switch to the thing that's most effective which isn't a tactical thing it's an action economy thing. "This one is a skeleton instead of a zombie so I take out my mace and do the exact same thing that I would have done with my long sword" is actually pretty boring and effectively just a nerf to Martial characters. It's an appeal to realism that doesn't matter and only makes combat more tedious both in the constant weapon switching but also in this rule said where you're having to consult a chart for every attack instead of just rolling.
I’ve been using a system like this in my weekly game for over 2 years. Works great for us, makes PCs think about what weapons they carry - I use encumbrance and gold for XP. That’s being said, like everything’s else, it’s not for every group.
The problem with these charts is that they were created by Gygax, who had only the most surface level of understanding of how combat in history worked. Some of the numbers just don't make sense as well. If you have a shield and leather, halberds score on 7s but if you have a shield and mail, they score only on 6s? 2H swords better against armoured than unarmoured opponents?
The idea always sounds so great, but I've played enough wargames to know that these things usually are not worth keeping. The sheer idea that you can differentiate between different weapons to the degree these charts are trying to is quite ludicrous. A simpler system in my opinion would be to have rigid "floors" and "ceilings". Swords Vs plate? High floor for real damage. Mace Vs plate? Lower floor. Daggers Vs bare skin? Low floor, decent ceiling. Sword Vs flesh? Lower floor and higher ceiling. Don't know if that makes sense, but you can tweak and tailor here and there, you can consider crits to be outside these divisions, so you can always "accidentally" do some real damage, etc.
I’m not playing a historical game - the charts are fun, that’s what matters to me 🤷🏻♂️
I break armor down into light, medium and heavy; then I do what armor is suppose to do... absorb damage. If a Orc is swinging a weapon that does 1D10 damage, for Light armor the dice is down graded by 1 level to a 1D8. For medium armor it would down grade to 1D6 and for heavy armor it would down grade to 1D4. I also only let fighter's wear heavy armor and all dex negatives apply as regular. The one bonus to being a fighter; jacked armor and weapon choice.
Cool
@Bandit's Keep I also have armor incur damage and once damaged it needs to be replaced or repaired
The unclear thing to me is if you should allow multiple attacks against creatures that are not of the man-type 1 hit die variety.
Edit: As this system is so much more fun than 1 attack per round, i'd like to know what anyone with more open minded friends have found :).
I allow the multiple attacks against everything - and monsters get them too.
Sounds exciting! I'll work this video into my lobbying campaign for my group of young'uns, It's always nice to hear how people tinker with these systems. This was a good video, thanks for the reply!
Subbed
@@tobiaslundqvist3209 cool - I’ve found this creates powerful characters at higher levels without having HP bloat
@@BanditsKeep Awesome, that's exactly what i wanna hear.
How much of the fantastic or mass combat rules do you use in your games?
I've just started watching your actual play from a couple of years ago on the subject but have not gotten far.
Later edit: i've dug into some of your stuff and answered most of my own questions :p. Thanks anyhwo, good work!
3D6 are better than 2! Play Mêlée!
I’ve enjoyed Melee for sure - but the overall Fantasy Trip just never really grabbed me, I’ll have to bust it out again at some point and give it another shot.
@@BanditsKeep It helps if you house rule it a bit. Otherwise, tbh character death makes it more like a tabletop tactical medieval wargame than a fantasy RPG. I started playing D&D back in 1980/81. In 85 we went to mêlée and played that until college, life, etc rolled around. Now we play 5e a lot, just because it is easy and everyone can get on board with it. I like certain aspects of it, but sometimes 5e is too easy/too abstracted/too streamlined.
Another delve into the roots of the rules, as one sees the mechanic is to simulate man vs man, really the fighting man. I suspect the magic user was at the time a sort of ranged warrior and at times artillery piece. I have pondered that and how to crush down a party to just a fighting man and more skirmisher thief and brainy magic user to play from solo to just four people. These old rules sort of show me ways to do that.
For sure
The thing with the magic man is that there can be funny words for whatever the world needs them to do, so you can easily justify a sniper, artillery, melee, line breaker, etc
I can get enthusiastic about the weapons vs armour table if you severely limit the armour options available. Leather, studded leather (for orcs and other nutters), banded and field plate, no chainmail based options. Or no banded or full plate options. Everyone in the entire world uses a couple options and that lets you optimise your attack nicely. There is no reason to force mail or plate etc… then you can focus on the tactics rather than the huge table.
Cool, use whatever armor make sense in your world.
The problem with weapon vs. armor type and speed factors was it really bogged down combat. It gets bad. And poor DMs trying to keep it all straight... out the window.
That is not my experience - my average combats are 5 minutes or less
Then the problem is the players and dm, not the mechanix.
Please replace Plate Mail with Plate Armor, I apologize for all the anachronistic games which confused you.
I’m not confused.
So... We could adapt this quite easily to use D12s 🤔
I like trying to use the least used dice, I feel it has untapped potential 😅
But you dont have a curve
You could but it would lose a bit of the probability curve
Someone less capable in combat shouldn't be using a dagger. . . A spear, or heck, even a staff would be better x.x;
Indeed - I think the idea is they just have it as a last resort, MU should probably not be running into combat at low or really any level.
GURPS is the way.
It’s certain one way
The technology to inflict damage will always outpace the ability to protect against it. Make armor weaker.
Assuming you have access to the technology, for sure!
@@BanditsKeep The English Longbow ended the reign of the plate armored French Knight. Ball & Chains were designed to attack over shields. Two handed swords were used to break enemy Pikes. Etc etc.
Goblins should have spears, come on xD
Tiny spears?
Being small, for their survival having a longer-reaching weapon is key, because their arms and legs are so short (also, apologies for taking so long, for some reason I missed this reply)
Wow 5e and even pathfinder are trash at this kind of thing
Many games go for simple which is fine for some things, I like a bit more crunch on occasion
The dagger should be one of the most effective weapons against plate. Anyway, I usually don't care much for realism, but that system seems still terrible.
Cool, terrible for you, great for some - thanks for sharing.
Dagger is very effective against plate in The Fantasy Trip and Worlds Without Number.
In chainmail combat it is, when the plate wearer is prone.
Seconding @GraveSlugg! Just got to get them prone and then the dagger is a 7+! Lots of subtlety in the manual - well worth the read.
🙂
This is all you. Overcomplicated and unnecessary for my table.
Cool, you do your thing, many fun ways to play
We managed with the three damage types in 2e without too much slog. Instead of checking a matrix with every single weapon against every single piece of armour, each armour got three ACs against each "type" of damage, and each weapon was assigned one damage type.
Next up is weapon speed, we might give that a shot later on. Some weapons like a dart will act before bows and swords. I think they estimated "lightness" for that one. A dart or knife acts first. Ranged weapons act faster in general. A polearm would act slower.
@@SusCalvin sounds interesting
It's actually surprisingly smooth once you get the swing of it. The initial Gygaxian prose can put people off - but _at the table_, I've found folks catch on well.
@@SusCalvin It should be flipped. Longer weapons should be far more likely to strike before shorter ones.