I'll leave these here for easy reference, to anyone following the discussion.

Chainmail



AD&D



(BTW, if anyone can find this AD&D table as a spreadsheet, please let me know!)


But I'll emphasize that I'm less concerned with historical aspects, or if and how mistakes have been committed. What I'm looking for are cool/flavorful ideas that we can use in our games - for example, "the mace is great against armor", etc.  - see SHARK's post.

(It's still an interesting discussion anyway)

EDIT: I wrote a small post on the subject. While I haven't managed to reduce these tables to B/X levels of simplicity, I think I'm getting close.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/06/weapon-versus-armor-from-ad-to-bx.html

Anyway, here is part 2:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/05/ad-dmg-cover-to-cover-part-ii-pages-9-22.html

We are reading the original DMG - the ultimate DM book - but from a B/X and OSR point-of-view. Here is part I. Today we will tackle:

    THE GAME 9
    — APPROACHES TO PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS 9
    — DICE 9
    — USE OF MINIATURE FIGURES 10
    — AIDS TO PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS 11
    CREATING THE PLAYER CHARACTER 11
    — GENERATION OF ABILITY SCORES 11
    — NON-PLAYER CHARACTERS 11
    — THE EFFECT OF WISHES ON CHARACTER ABILITY SCORES 11
    — CHARACTERISTICS FOR PLAYER CHARACTERS 11
    — PLAYER CHARACTER NON-PROFESSIONAL SKILLS 12
    — STARTING LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE FOR PLAYER CHARACTERS 12
    CHARACTER AGE, AGING, DISEASE, AND DEATH 12
    — CHARACTER AGE 12
    — AGING 13
    — Unnatural Aging 13
    — DISEASE 13
    — DEATH 15
    CHARACTER ABILITIES 15
    — EXPLANATION OF ABILITIES 15
    CHARACTER RACES 15
    — PLAYER CHARACTER RACIAL TENDENCIES 15
    CHARACTER CLASSES 16
    — FOLLOWERS FOR UPPER LEVEL PLAYER CHARACTERS 16
    — The Paladin's Warhorse 18
    — SPYING 18
    — THIEF ABILITIES 19
    — THIEVES AND ASSASSINS SETTING TRAPS 20
    — ASSASSINATION EXPERIENCE POINTS 20
    — ASSASSINS' USE OF POISON 20
    — THE MONSTER AS A PLAYER CHARACTER 21
    — LYCANTHROPY 22

The game
First, we get a small paragraph repeating what we have heard before: D&D is about fun, not "realism" or "simulation". Sounds obvious, but it is valuable advice if you are coming from wargames - as they did at the time.

Next, we get a section explaining dice. Again, this looks obvious now, but it was necessary back in 1979, since the stranger dice types (including the iconic d20) were a lot less common. One interesting things is that it teaches you what a bell curve is - I find this knowledge to be essential to DMs (and, well, to everyone) and sorely lacking in modern DMGs.

In the end of this part, we get an interesting alternative for the habitual reaction rolls, and a good conclusion on dice in general. I'll reproduce it here (as a curiosity), but TBH I won't try it in my games, since it requires special dice and a lot of rolling and thought for something that can easily be resolved with 2d6.

Unfortunately, this is apparently something common in the book: we get decent advice mixed with unrefined, convoluted, in unnecessarily complex systems.

    The author has a d6 with the following faces: SPADE, CLUB, CLUB, DIAMOND, DIAMOND, HEART. If, during an encounter, players meet a character whose reaction is uncertain, the card suit die is rolled in conjunction with 3d6. Black suits mean dislike, with the SPADE equalling hate, while red equals like, the HEART being great favor. The 3d6 give a bell-shaped probability curve of 3-18, with 9-12 being the mean spread. SPADE 18 means absolute and unchangeable hate, while HEART 18 indicates the opposite. CLUBS or DIAMONDS can be altered by discourse, rewards, etc. Thus, CLUBS 12 could possibly be altered to CLUBS 3 by offer of a tribute or favor, CLUBS 3 changed to DIAMONDS 3 by a gift, etc.

    In closing this discussion, simply keep in mind that the dice are your tools. Learn to use them properly and they will serve you well.

The sections on miniatures and playing aids (sheets, etc.)  are not especially relevant or useful nowadays, since most of it has gone digital.
Creating the PCs

    As AD&D is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow
    participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession which he
    or she desires. While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters
    by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a
    suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal
    characters tend to have short life expectancy — which tends to discourage new
    players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class
    which he or she really can't or won't identify with. Character generation, then,
    is a serious matter, and it is recommended that the following systems be used.
    Four alternatives are offered for player characters: [...]

Coming from a BX/OSR view, this is strange advice, as many are used to roll 3d6 in order and play with what they get.  In practice, however, I agree with Gygax - why not let players get the class/race they want? Most players will create the same kind of PCs over and over again (in my experience), but they are having fun, so be it.

So, instead of the usual 3d6 in order, we get FOUR different methods of generating PCs, the most famous being "roll4d6, drop lowest. That's a lot of redundancy and needless dice rolling, and generates very high ability scores. I might choose a less benevolent method for my own games, however: maybe assign 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, 7, or roll 3d6 seven times and assign to taste. Even better, just roll 3d20.
NPCs, wishes, Characteristics for PCs

NPCs have their own methods of generating ability scores. I find this unnecessary. Wishes can augment ability scores, but after 16 they only improve by one decimal point per wish. Okay. PCs shouldn't have (random) NPC characteristics (e.g., personality - the table is actually on page 100) forced upon them, as they should play the PCs as they see fit. Except for weight and height somehow.  Okay.
Player Character non-professional skills

Now, we get something useful. PCs are defined by their class "virtually to the exclusion of all other activities", but might have some past experience determined randomly. This is nice as it replaces many skills and backgrounds in modern games. It can be ported directly to B/X, and a similar system is used in modern games such as Shadow of the Demon Lord and my own Dark Fantasy Basic (both with a bit more specific advice on how to use these backgrounds mechanically). Just roll 1d100 and check the table below:


    When secondary skills are used, it is up to the DM to create and/or
    adjudicate situations in which these skills are used or useful to the player
    character. As a general rule, having a skill will give the character the ability
    to determine the general worth and soundness of an item, the ability to find
    food, make small repairs, or actually construct (crude) items. For example, an
    individual with armorer skill could tell the quality of normal armor, repair
    chain links, or perhaps fashion certain weapons.

Starting level of experience for player characters
Some advice on dealing with PCs of different levels, and also players of different levels of experience. All very vague and nothing particularly useful except for the advice of running separate high level and low level campaigns, so that new players can have a taste of high level if they want.

CHARACTER AGE, AGING, DISEASE, AND DEATH
This section has several detailed tables on starting age, aging, disease, death and resurrection. As such, they can be used in B/X as written. While I'm not particularly interested in checking monthly to see if the PCs suffer from parasites or mild ear disease, I can see the point if you're running a particularly extended and realistic campaign. But fun trumps realism, remember? Which is why we don't get realistic combat or even critical hits (IIRC). Instead, we have urinary system infection.

A sword to the head without a helmet is in the rules, but this won't cost you an eye or ear. Disease might. I'm not even sure there are rules for PCs that have lost an eye or part of their hearing. Guess we will see later on (let me know in the comments, or remind me to edit this post in a few months!). In short, these rules are interesting, but half-baked at best.

CHARACTER ABILITIES, RACES
An explanation on what abilities (Strength, Dexterity, etc.) mean and how they function, followed by a section explaining dwarves, elves, etc. Mildly useful if you still want to understand the difference between Wisdom and Intelligence ("while the intelligent character will know that smoking is harmful to him, he may well lack the wisdom to stop"). The race descriptions are pretty standard.

CHARACTER CLASSES
Frist, we get lots of random tables for followers the PCs can get when they reach high levels. These are organized as troops, presumably for domain management and mass battles. Rangers get special creatures, including, potentially, a copper dragon or storm giant. The paladin's special warhorse is also described here.

Then we have rules for spying. Especially for NPC spies (assassins). No idea why this is in the PC section, but it is useful to gather information.

Thief skills are next. Back Stabbing does not function against creatures with no discernible backs. Opening locks, finding traps, disarming traps take 1-4 rounds each. Useful information. Slippery walls can be added to make climbing harder for the thief. "Slightly slippery is the norm for some reason, which DOUBLES the chance of failure. Sounds like a bad choice and a needles nerf on the thief.

OTOH, we learn that thieves and assassins can set traps. Assassins also learn to concoct poisons, and this section contains a poison table that is very useful for B/X games, as B/X does not contain a similar tool.

THE MONSTER AS A PLAYER CHARACTER is included in character CLASSES for some reason. Here, the author insists in the "humanocentric" tone of AD&D, discouraging PCs that want to de dragons, demons, devils, etc. This is contrary to OD&Ds suggestion that you could start the game as a low-level Balrog or dragon (and seems to contradict the advice we've read a few pages ago that players should be able to pick race, class, and personality as desired). I think each method has its own pros and cons, which deserve a post of its own (this one!). Suffice to say, this is general advice and could be useful for any RPG. I'll highlight this bit (emphasis mine):

    The game features humankind for a reason. It is the most logical basis in an
    illogical game. From a design aspect it provides the sound groundwork. From a
    standpoint of creating the campaign milieu it provides the most readily usable
    assumptions. From a participation approach it is the only method, for all players
    are, after all is said and done, human, and it allows them the role with which
    most are most desirous and capable of identifying with. From all views then it is
    enough fantasy to assume a swords & sorcery cosmos, with impossible professions
    and make-believe magic. To adventure amongst the weird is fantasy enough
    without becoming that too!

Next, we get advice discouraging PCs to become lycanthropes, very much in the same vein, but more detailed. Apparently, these are allowed, with lots of downsides. Nothing particularly useful for my games here. Well, enough for today.

What have we learned today?

Lots of cool tables, but everything seems a bit unnecessarily complex, sometimes redundant. Some philosophical essays that are worth a read, and at least two subsystems that are easy and fun to use in B/X games: secondary skills and poisons. The spying section is equally useful, since B/X does not have an assassin class but does have spies you can hire, with no rules except for some very vague guidelines.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 02, 2023, 08:54:49 AM
(BTW, if anyone can find this AD&D table as a spreadsheet, please let me know!)

I got this file a long time ago from who knows where, but it's basically a Word Doc of all the major tables in AD&D. You should be able to copypasta the AC-armor type table directly into a spreadsheet.

EDIT: Nevermind, it won't attach. I'll just put up a link
EDIT2: Scratch that again, that file didn't have the actual table you wanted. Went ahead and just dumped it into a spreadsheet. May need some cleanup.
https://file.io/EY623dKEI967

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 04, 2023, 04:15:43 PM
While I'm not particularly interested in checking monthly to see if the PCs suffer from parasites or mild ear disease, I can see the point if you're running a particularly extended and realistic campaign. But fun trumps realism, remember? Which is why we don't get realistic combat or even critical hits (IIRC). Instead, we have urinary system infection.

A sword to the head without a helmet is in the rules, but this won't cost you an eye or ear. Disease might. I'm not even sure there are rules for PCs that have lost an eye or part of their hearing. Guess we will see later on (let me know in the comments, or remind me to edit this post in a few months!). In short, these rules are interesting, but half-baked at best.

A couple of things you should keep in mind while reading the DMG.  First, it's a toolkit.  RPGs developed during play, especially back then.  Just about everything you see in the D&D rules was something that was needed, tried, or adjudicated during a session (or, was a post hoc attempt to address something that happened during play).  So a lot of the "advice" in the DMG seems arbitrary or random because E.G.G. was taking notes, ideas, memories, and theories from what had happened in his and others' game sessions and putting it out there for folks to use.

Second, D&D was not a "finished" product.  It's not like a video game (lol... see other threads), in that the rules are constantly changing, adapting, and in development.   So E.G.G. was giving you a snapshot of the game and his thoughts as they were at that moment in time.  So some things will be emphasized and some glossed over, simply because of what was pressing in his games at that time.  If you are looking for a "completed work" like a novel or something, you're not going to get it.  But as an example of real "game design" on the fly and the mentality of a DM, the DMG is unmatched in utility.

Third, the game was different back then, even from table to table.  E.G.G. would run sessions (not "adventures," as those only existed for tournament play) for single players with a single character, and the next day run a session where each of six players had three characters and a dozen henchmen.  This is where the wargaming roots blend in.  Disease might not be a strong concern for a PC in the modern game, but when you consider that arguably until WW2 more soldiers died from disease than from combat, it might be a serious issue for the large groups he ran for.

So, once again, thanks for doing this.  I've enjoyed reading your commentary.  But don't forget Chesterton's Fence.  Some of the best education from the DMG is trying to figure out why some material is included, and what that says about the design of D&D at the time...

Quote from: Brad on June 05, 2023, 10:28:47 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 02, 2023, 08:54:49 AM
(BTW, if anyone can find this AD&D table as a spreadsheet, please let me know!)

I got this file a long time ago from who knows where, but it's basically a Word Doc of all the major tables in AD&D. You should be able to copypasta the AC-armor type table directly into a spreadsheet.

EDIT: Nevermind, it won't attach. I'll just put up a link
EDIT2: Scratch that again, that file didn't have the actual table you wanted. Went ahead and just dumped it into a spreadsheet. May need some cleanup.
https://file.io/EY623dKEI967

Thank you! I couldn't download it, unfortunately, but I managed to paste from my PHB. Wrote a small post about this, BTW.

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/06/ad-weapon-speed-and-armor-piercing-made.html

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 05, 2023, 10:54:18 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 04, 2023, 04:15:43 PM
While I'm not particularly interested in checking monthly to see if the PCs suffer from parasites or mild ear disease, I can see the point if you're running a particularly extended and realistic campaign. But fun trumps realism, remember? Which is why we don't get realistic combat or even critical hits (IIRC). Instead, we have urinary system infection.

A sword to the head without a helmet is in the rules, but this won't cost you an eye or ear. Disease might. I'm not even sure there are rules for PCs that have lost an eye or part of their hearing. Guess we will see later on (let me know in the comments, or remind me to edit this post in a few months!). In short, these rules are interesting, but half-baked at best.

A couple of things you should keep in mind while reading the DMG.  First, it's a toolkit.  RPGs developed during play, especially back then.  Just about everything you see in the D&D rules was something that was needed, tried, or adjudicated during a session (or, was a post hoc attempt to address something that happened during play).  So a lot of the "advice" in the DMG seems arbitrary or random because E.G.G. was taking notes, ideas, memories, and theories from what had happened in his and others' game sessions and putting it out there for folks to use.

Second, D&D was not a "finished" product.  It's not like a video game (lol... see other threads), in that the rules are constantly changing, adapting, and in development.   So E.G.G. was giving you a snapshot of the game and his thoughts as they were at that moment in time.  So some things will be emphasized and some glossed over, simply because of what was pressing in his games at that time.  If you are looking for a "completed work" like a novel or something, you're not going to get it.  But as an example of real "game design" on the fly and the mentality of a DM, the DMG is unmatched in utility.

Third, the game was different back then, even from table to table.  E.G.G. would run sessions (not "adventures," as those only existed for tournament play) for single players with a single character, and the next day run a session where each of six players had three characters and a dozen henchmen.  This is where the wargaming roots blend in.  Disease might not be a strong concern for a PC in the modern game, but when you consider that arguably until WW2 more soldiers died from disease than from combat, it might be a serious issue for the large groups he ran for.

So, once again, thanks for doing this.  I've enjoyed reading your commentary.  But don't forget Chesterton's Fence.  Some of the best education from the DMG is trying to figure out why some material is included, and what that says about the design of D&D at the time...

Good points, thanks. You're right, disease makes more sense in this "wargame" context (like many things seem to make...). Although, still, could be vastly simplified (again, as everything else)

And yes, AD&D does look like a collection of house rules often. I definitely agree with the Chesterton's Fence idea and I think there are good house rules to collect in there (I believe AD&D weapons make more sense than B/X, for example, as discussed in my post mentioned in my last comment).

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 06, 2023, 01:11:34 PM

And yes, AD&D does look like a collection of house rules often. I definitely agree with the Chesterton's Fence idea and I think there are good house rules to collect in there (I believe AD&D weapons make more sense than B/X, for example, as discussed in my post mentioned in my last comment).

I like to consider it this way:  However well or not AD&D handles a thing, however much that applies or not to my current circumstances--if there was a rule for something, it was something that at one time or another needed handling.  This sounds like pablum.  Yet it is not true of all games.

I'm enjoying reading your blog series.  It's a lot of fun to pour through these voluminous books, looking for little rule passages (at least for me).

Regarding the Weapon Types, General Data, And "to Hit" Adjustments table, the thing that threw me off for a long time, was upon reading the passages again, it's for Armour Type, not the AC.  That cleared things up quite a bit for me and it is briefly mentioned in the PHB:

"Weapon Factors:
You have already seen information regarding the damage each type of
weapon does, how heavy each is, how long and how much space each needs,
and each weapon's relative speed factor. The same charts also give relative
efficiency against armor types. Your referee will use these factors in
determination of melee combats by relating them to his Attack Matrices."
PHB pg.105


And confirmed use of the WvAC table in the Staff of Striking characteristics:

"Staff of Striking: This oaken staff is the equivalent of a +3 magic weapon.
(If weapon vs. armor type adjustment is made, the staff of striking is always
treated as the most favorable weapon type vs. any armor.)"
DMG pg. 134

So, core 3, it seemed AC 2-10 range for armour-type (not Class) made a lot more sense (which UA expanded upon with various plate options take it to 0, I think).
It seems one of those rules that's there to find, but not easy to find (sums up AD&D pretty well hah!)


The thing that gets me is what am I adjusting: attack die roll result, or base AC on the table?
Under the DMG sub-header Important Note Regarding "To Hit" Adjustments is the mention of avoiding making things 'unhittable':

"...Such changes MUST be
made to the armor class of the figure concerned, not to the dice score rolled in
attacking. An inspection of the combat tables will show that the dice roll
progression will make some opponents hit proof if the dice rolls are adjusted
downwards rather than the armor class being moved upwards. (At some point,
the upwards armor class adjustment could also make such opponents virtually
invulnerable, but this is less likely and not necessarily undesirable.)..."

So, it seems one adjusts the AC (not the die roll) on negatives AND positives for the WvAC table.  I've searched around for another place (Dragon, etc.) that states this clearly to be the case, but have yet to find confirmation that this is correct approach overall.  Dragon #74 explained the reasoning the whole WvAC better (and I recommend reading it if confused).  Still, it seems to conflict somewhat with the DMG on their example excerpt:

"...the DM notes that the battle axe brings with it a -1 penalty to
hit against armor class 5. To account for this, the DM
can either subtract 1 from the character's base to hit
number (making the number needed 14 instead of 13), or
add 1 to the player's actual roll (decreasing the result)
before announcing whether a hit has occurred...."

So, it seems AC adjusted, or die roll adjusted is an option.  I've heard from others that negatives are AC, positives add to the die roll is the way to go.  I'm just trying to find some feedback or documented material that states it clearly.

I'm probably over-thinking it (most likely) and it's staring me in the face, but I just can't see the clear answer here.

I know we have some smart AD&D-minded cookies in this forum, so I welcome your input. I love this fiddly stuff but it's probably aged me a few years trying to make sense of it all (I think the DMG might really be a tome for Haste spell.  Perhaps...)

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 06, 2023, 07:12:14 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 06, 2023, 01:11:34 PM

And yes, AD&D does look like a collection of house rules often. I definitely agree with the Chesterton's Fence idea and I think there are good house rules to collect in there (I believe AD&D weapons make more sense than B/X, for example, as discussed in my post mentioned in my last comment).

I like to consider it this way:  However well or not AD&D handles a thing, however much that applies or not to my current circumstances--if there was a rule for something, it was something that at one time or another needed handling.  This sounds like pablum.  Yet it is not true of all games.

Agreed. That what makes AD&D valuable and gives it a "genuine" feel IMO.

Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies on June 07, 2023, 05:15:31 PM
I'm enjoying reading your blog series.  It's a lot of fun to pour through these voluminous books, looking for little rule passages (at least for me).

[...]
So, core 3, it seemed AC 2-10 range for armour-type (not Class) made a lot more sense (which UA expanded upon with various plate options take it to 0, I think).
It seems one of those rules that's there to find, but not easy to find (sums up AD&D pretty well hah!)

Thanks!

Well, this is complicated. It is clear that chainmail means to adjust by weapon type, but AD&D mentions AC in the table. However, AC does not tell you what armor you're using for sure because AD&D adds new types of armor. Which generates some mistakes - for example,  it seems like sometimes the intention is to make a weapon good against shields, but we cannot know if AC 4 means you have a shield, as it could be "Chain mail + shield/splint mail/banded mail".

Seems like we have no option but true ignore armor types and rely on AC (although we can disregard dexterity and magical modifiers).

Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies on June 07, 2023, 05:15:31 PM
The thing that gets me is what am I adjusting: attack die roll result, or base AC on the table?
Under the DMG sub-header Important Note Regarding "To Hit" Adjustments is the mention of avoiding making things 'unhittable':

"...Such changes MUST be
made to the armor class of the figure concerned, not to the dice score rolled in
attacking. An inspection of the combat tables will show that the dice roll
progression will make some opponents hit proof if the dice rolls are adjusted
downwards rather than the armor class being moved upwards. (At some point,
the upwards armor class adjustment could also make such opponents virtually
invulnerable, but this is less likely and not necessarily undesirable.)..."

So, it seems one adjusts the AC (not the die roll) on negatives AND positives for the WvAC table.  I've searched around for another place (Dragon, etc.) that states this clearly to be the case, but have yet to find confirmation that this is correct approach overall.  Dragon #74 explained the reasoning the whole WvAC better (and I recommend reading it if confused).  Still, it seems to conflict somewhat with the DMG on their example excerpt:

"...the DM notes that the battle axe brings with it a -1 penalty to
hit against armor class 5. To account for this, the DM
can either subtract 1 from the character's base to hit
number (making the number needed 14 instead of 13), or
add 1 to the player's actual roll (decreasing the result)
before announcing whether a hit has occurred...."

So, it seems AC adjusted, or die roll adjusted is an option.  I've heard from others that negatives are AC, positives add to the die roll is the way to go.  I'm just trying to find some feedback or documented material that states it clearly.

I'm probably over-thinking it (most likely) and it's staring me in the face, but I just can't see the clear answer here.

I know we have some smart AD&D-minded cookies in this forum, so I welcome your input. I love this fiddly stuff but it's probably aged me a few years trying to make sense of it all (I think the DMG might really be a tome for Haste spell.  Perhaps...)

About the modifiers in the table,  I'm pretty sure that they are meant to affect your roll. For example, a fist  is terrible (-7) against plate armor, while a bec de corbin is good (+2).  Does not seem to make sense otherwise.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 07, 2023, 11:25:57 PM
<snip>About the modifiers in the table,  I'm pretty sure that they are meant to affect your roll. For example, a fist  is terrible (-7) against plate armor, while a bec de corbin is good (+2).  Does not seem to make sense otherwise.

Hmn, but if applied to the roll , seems to run into that problem Gygax stated to avoid.  Honestly, a fist against plate seems pretty accurate: I've not personally mangled my fist hitting plate but if I hit my fridge, likely a broken hand would be the only result.
(Note: Let's just not worry about Monks regarding this for my own sanity)

I think it comes down to the use of the repeating 20's in the Weapon tables.  By adjusting on negatives, it still has more chance being in that region than an 'unhittable' via adjusting attack roll.

I mean yea, I can suss it out, make a ruling like most did, or ignore the table all-together like many did, but it's sort of figuring out via written word that appeals to me.

More so looking to find something written in the old mags (Sorcerer's Scroll, Leomund's Tiny Hut etc.) that broaches this topic and makes it clear to the reader without the somewhat vague 'Gygaxian' prose.  It's quite amazing (at least to me) how little there was said on it in these old mags.

Sorry, I think I misunderstood: the fist is obviously bad against plate, as it should be. I was thinking of THAC0.

Yes, it does make impossible to hit plate for certain weapons. But if you turn things around (not sure you're proposing this), it would be EASIER to punch someone in plate than someone without armor.

I'm not sure what weapon tables you're referring to. Maybe attack matrices?

EDIT: gotcha, you're talking about attack matrices and I was thinking of THAC0. Yes, it could work if you make the "-7" as a "-7 to AC" instead of the attack roll. So you could still hit someone in plate with your fist on level 1 if you roll a nat 20. Makes sense.

Yea, sorry been talking about the weapon table so much, I bungled the nomenclature.
You figured out my synapse mis-firing.
Too many tables! (somewhere, a Rolemaster player snickers at the folly of my statement).

Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies on June 08, 2023, 04:45:05 PM
Yea, sorry been talking about the weapon table so much, I bungled the nomenclature.
You figured out my synapse mis-firing.
Too many tables! (somewhere, a Rolemaster player snickers at the folly of my statement).

Hehahah yes, RM was cool, tripping invisible turtles all the way to victory!

Here is part III:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/06/ad-dmg-cover-to-cover-part-iii-pages-23.html

We are reading the original DMG - the ultimate DM book! - but from a B/X and OSR point-of-view. Here is part I. Today we will tackle:

    ALIGNMENT 23
    — ALIGNMENT LANGUAGE 24
    — CHANGING ALIGNMENT 25
    MONEY 25
    — PLAYER CHARACTER STARTING MONEY 25
    — PLAYER CHARACTER EXPENSES 25
    — VALUE AND REPUTED PROPERTIES OF GEMS AND JEWELRY 25
    — NOTE REGARDING THE MAGICAL PROPERTIES OF GEMS, HERBS, et al 27
    ARMOR, ARMOR CLASS, & WEAPONS 27
    — TYPES OF ARMOR AND ENCUMBRANCE 27
    — DEXTERITY ARMOR CLASS BONUS 28
    — WEAPON TYPES, "TO HIT" ADJUSTMENT NOTE 28
    HIRELINGS 28
    — STANDARD HIRELINGS 28
    — EXPERT HIRELINGS 29
    HENCHMEN 34
    — LOYALTY OF HENCHMEN & HIRELINGS, OBEDIENCE, AND MORALE 36

ALIGNMENT

This part describes what the various alignments mean. It contains a simple explanation; law/chaos are groups vs. individuals, and good/evil is respect for human rights versus might makes right. Neutrality means balance. It doesn't really put an end to the discussion (I'm not even sure that this it's possible),  and it is not perfectly faithful to Anderson nor Moorcock, but it's a good start.

It adds a few notes on planes and their alignments, and stresses the importance of keeping tracks of PC's actions and change their  alignment accordingly. "It is of utmost importance to keep rigid control of alignment behavior with respect to such characters as serve deities who will accept only certain alignments".

Next, we have a section on alignment language that aims to avoid player abuse, once again, and one more section describing the penalties for changing alignment.

Makes me wonder - if alignment is so prone to player abuse, maybe we should try some other approach?

I am not a big fan of alignment, nor do I think this solves most questions (such as nepotism, euthanizing evil creatures, unjust laws, individual rights against the group, etc.) - see " additional reading" for my take on alignments.

This is still better and clearer than most modern takes.


MONEY

The section on money starts by saying "the amount of funds which each player begins with is kept low to prevent the game from becoming too easy". I think I'm seeing a trend here. Then, we have player character expenses ("not less than 100 gold pieces per level of experience per month") - possibly for the same reason. You must consider the maintenance of henchmen, strongholds, taxes and tithes. I'm not sure I'm particularly interested in running a game about accounting, and I certainly dislike dealing with taxes.

Next, we have a whole page on gems - their size, color, value, quality, and so on. It also describes their magical properties, and adds some fantastical examples ("Star Ruby: translucent ruby with white "star" center") that I didn't know (but they actually exist!). I find this extremely flavorful and interesting. It is by no means essential to your games, but very cool. This is top-tier "random table" stuff.

ARMOR, ARMOR CLASS & WEAPONS

A detailed account of various types of armor and shields, and some notes on Dexterity as it relates to AC. Can basically be used as written for B/X, if you care for this much detail. There's also an important note about a subject we've been discussing lately:

    WEAPON TYPES, "TO HIT" ADJUSTMENT NOTE
    If you allow weapon type adjustments in your campaign please be certain to remember that these adjustments are for weapons versus specific types of armor, not necessarily against actual armor class. In most cases, monsters not wearing armor will not have any weapon type adjustment allowed, as monster armor class in such cases pertains to the size, shape, agility, speed, and/or magical nature of the creature. Not excluded from this, for example, would be an iron golem. However, monsters with horny or bony armor might be classed as plate mail if you so decide, but do so on a case-by-case basis. Naturally, monsters wearing armor will be subject to weapon type "to hit" adjustment.

HIRELINGS

The cost and description of various types of hirelings, including experts (alchemists, armorers, spies, and, of course, gem-cutters). The most interesting part here, in my opinion, is the list of troops and their organization. For example:

    Captain: A captain is nothing more than a capable leader, a fighter of 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th level (according to the d10 score, 1-4 = 5th, 5-7 = 6th, 8-9 =7th, 0 = 8th) but NOT capable of working upwards. A captain can command as many scores of troops as he or she has levels, i.e., 4th level enables command of 80 men, 5th level enables command of 100 men, etc. In addition, the level of the captain dictates the number of lieutenants which can be controlled. This is exclusive of serjeants and any auxiliary types such as servants, cooks, etc. The monthly cost of a captain is 100 gold pieces per level.

This makes high-level fighters a lot more interesting in mass combat - and they get a clearer place in society. Even tough these are not PC fighters ("NOT capable of working upwards"), they both indicate the potential capabilities of fighters and also sketch how an old school "warlord" class could look like (my version is a lot simpler, but not as focused on mass combat).

Likewise, the book contains a very detailed (two pages long!) description of another expert, the sage. Again, extremely interesting and could perfectly be a class of its own. It would be a fine addition to B/X and AD&D games. As most things you'll find is this book, it is unnecessarily complex, but full of inspiration.

HENCHMEN

Henchmen are individual adventurers, not merely laborers, employees or experts. They have PC classes, go to dungeons with the PCs and get a share of treasure, so they get more attention/detail. This section describes their classes, levels, races, costs, and hiring process. Their personality traits are described in other part of the book (PERSONAE OF NONPLAYER CHARACTERS). The organization is still strange, but at least we know where to look.

This section finishes with an entire page of modifiers to henchmen loyalty, obedience and morale. Each individual entry is interesting - I specially like the idea, for example, that while most creatures prefer to follow lieges of similar alignment, chaotic creatures make bad leaders and followers in general. However, keeping track of all these things looks like a nightmare. I prefer the much simpler 2d6 checks of B/X. Anyway, here is a good summary:



What have we learned today?

Once again - "lots of cool tables, but everything seems a bit unnecessarily complex, sometimes redundant". We have gems that we can use as written if you want that kind of detail, various troops for mass combat games, and two potential new classes waiting for a B/X adaptation: the commander and the sage.

Coming next... TIME! SPELLS! (prepare yourself: part IV is my favorite part of the DMG so far!)

Contains affiliate links. By purchasing stuff through affiliate links you're helping to support this blog.

Additional reading (on alignment):
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-alignment-part-i-alignment-origins.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/05/languages-alignment-or-otherwise.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/07/dark-fantasy-basic-one-page-hacks-and.html

Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies on June 07, 2023, 05:15:31 PM
So, it seems AC adjusted, or die roll adjusted is an option.  I've heard from others that negatives are AC, positives add to the die roll is the way to go.  I'm just trying to find some feedback or documented material that states it clearly.

I'm probably over-thinking it (most likely) and it's staring me in the face, but I just can't see the clear answer here.

I know we have some smart AD&D-minded cookies in this forum, so I welcome your input. I love this fiddly stuff but it's probably aged me a few years trying to make sense of it all (I think the DMG might really be a tome for Haste spell.  Perhaps...)

Probably over-thinking it. But then again, there is a bit to think about.

There are two versions of how to use the hit tables. The non-amended, and the amended. The non-amended one itself is not a single method. "Penalties and bonuses may modify either the die roll or the number needed to hit, as long as one method is used consistently." (DMG, pg 73)

That part right there requires some thought be applied. If you apply your +2 STR to hit bonus to the die roll, it makes it easier to hit. Of course. But if you applied +2 instead to the number needed to hit, then that would make it harder. So that's not correct. You have to apply common sense to the interpretation here. Probably the most obvious application is to subtract the adjustment. Which means if the adjustment is a penalty, you have to minus a minus.

Or, here's another thing you can do. You won't hear this anywhere else, but it pretty much guts the criticisms of minusing a minus being confusing. So what you would do is apply bonuses and penalties to the die roll. The defensive adjustment (due to Dexterity) can likewise be counted among the to-hit adjustments. But the defensive adjustment due to magical armor (the magical +), those are adjustments to the attacker's number needed to hit. So that whole thing about having a -2 defensive adjustment from a 16 Dex and a +2 defensive adjustment from a +2 shield, and both of those being a good thing, what that's saying is -2 to the attacker's die roll, +2 to the number needed to hit, and it all makes perfect sense.

The "amended" version is more strict. All adjustments are applied to the die roll, but second and successive 20's require a natural 20 on the die to hit regardless.


So here's a scenario for you. 1st level fighter (THAC0 20) w/ 18/51 STR (+2 to hit) swings his long sword at someone wearing +2 Chainmail and 18 Dex (-4 to AC).

Method 1: Determine defender's overall AC as -1. Using the attack matrix, we find the fighter needs a 20 (the second successive 20 for those who are counting) to hit his enemy. But he gets a +2 bonus to the die roll. So he will hit if the d20 rolls 18-20.
Method 2: Determine defender's base AC as 5. Using the attack matrix, we find the fighter needs a 15 to hit, but this is adjusted to 17 because of the defender's +2 armor. He gets a +2 to the hit roll from his Strength, but a -4 due to the defender's Dex. And so he will hit if the d20 rolls 19-20.
Method 3: Determine defender's overall AC as -1. Using the attack matrix, we find the fighter needs a 20, and the fact that it's a second successive 20 now matters. This means he will only hit on a natural 20. And so he will hit if the d20 rolls 20.

Note that if you are using the amended version of the repeating 20's and choose to make the Dex adjustment a hit modifier rather than an actual shift in AC (call this Method 4), then the result is the same as Method 2 since the 6-20's rule never comes into play.

Now all of these are 100% kosher by the book. And they can have some neat effects. Like if you use Method 4, then he could hit on a 19. But if it's a monster with a natural AC of -1 instead, then he's going to need the natural 20. And so that's a way you could give tough monsters an edge while letting a little air out of min-maxers who stack bonuses.

And by the way, before anyone jumps the gun and says this is just confusion, or poor editing, or chaos at TSR during the time the DMG was published, or that there's some mathematical error, I'm going to point out that something somewhat similar comes up again in Gary Gygax's Lejendary Adventure, where there is little consistency as to whether a bonus is subtracted from the die roll or added to the target number (this is a percentile roll-under system). If you get into the weeds of the system, though, there are subtle differences in effect. Just like with what you're seeing with how the number needed to hit varies depending which method you use. So I think it's an intentional feature of the design. It's the task of the advanced Game Master to simply understand the differences in effect and simply go with the one that seems most reasonable to the GMs sensibilities or the GMs world.


Anyway, I got one more for you. Method 5. This involves using THAC0 and working off of calculation rather than referencing the attack matrix. The very last paragraph of DMG pg 73, with its instructions on how to deal with ACs not on the table, set the precedent that determining hits by calculation/formula/pattern rather than using the table. So using THAC0 calculations is perfectly fine BtB.

So here's how to do THAC0 calculations, and this is how it should have been explained in 2E, and I think had it been done this way, there never would have been an impetus to flop the ACs in 3E. AC will now be treated as yet another attack roll adjustment. Going against AC 5? Add 5 to your hit roll. Against AC -3? -3 to your hit roll. And then the total just has to make or beat the THAC0. Once again, at no point does it call for minusing a minus.

There's still the matter of 0th level humans, 1/2 HD creatures, 1st-4th level thieves, and 1st-5th level magic-users needing a 20 to hit AC 1 (THAC1 = 20) on account of the six repeating 20's rule. One really handy way you can simulate the 6 repeating 20's via calculation is by treating THAC1 = 20 as THAC0 = 21, but counting a "natural 20" as if the die had somehow rolled a "25." So if a 1st level fighter with a +2 to hit adjustment, if the player rolls a natural 20, count it as 25, then add the 2, that's 27, meaning if the AC is as low as -7, you still hit.

This is the most consistent of methods since it will get you the same results no matter how you apply the modifiers. It's going to yield results similar to method 2, reaffirming that it is a kosher, by the book method. And this is the method I use.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 02, 2023, 08:53:13 AM
Here's the difficult part: If the mistake Delta claims occurred, it wouldn't change the "pecking order", as it would have been repeated for every weapon (except the spear).

Well, yeah. I think that's a huge problem, that so long as the purpose of the mace is linked to its place in the pecking order, Delta is just babbling nonsense. Even if he's right about the mistake, he's wrong that it altered the purpose of the mace. And that the example of the mace no longer supports the case that there was an arithmetic error. And I think you've indicated that was the piece you found most convincing. So it's all a big nothing burger.

In my expert opinion as a mathematician, I will say the small magnitude of variations from what Delta thinks happened indicate that this was probably one of the things Gary did to get the AD&D adjustments. But the high number of variations indicate that Gary didn't just "blindly" accept the results of the arithmetic, that he actually assessed the results for reasonability and made appropriate adjustments. That's a clear indicator that what Delta is claiming was an arithmetic error was not an error of any kind. That the end results actually are precisely as intended.

You can like them or dislike them. Doesn't mean it's an error. I am certainly willing to entertain that there might have been some transcription error that got the adjustments swapped for the Footman's Mace and the Horseman's Flail. And even that's predicated on the idea that Gary was distinguishing mace and flail by whether or not the head was fixed or connected by chain. But that's got nothing to do with anything that Delta posted.

Quote2H sword: my bad, I looked at the wrong column. I mean a 2H is better against AC 8 than AC 10, which is equally absurd IMO. Same for the shield hurting the wielder.

There could be an explanation for this, but again, I'm looking for useful/cool ideas, and " drop your shield when you see a mace/flail", or "lose the leather armor when you see a 2H sword" is not something I can use.

We always interpreted 2H swords having a harder time hitting someone in no armor is it was something of a bonus to acknowledge the exceptionally free movement of someone running around in their skivvies. When I started using these adjustments in the mid-90's, a lot of RPGs were big on imposing penalties for using armor. I never liked the idea. I think something that was designed to be effective protection in combat should not make you a sitting duck. That didn't make sense to me. But one single instance against a particularly slow weapon (highest weapon speed of all non-pole weapons) is a way of acknowledging that there is some performance loss in using armor without overturning the utility of leather armor. I thought it was fair and reasonable and made enough sense.

As for drop your shield when you see a footman's flail, that is literally something we said and were aware of. And I think that is usable information, but for the fact that I don't recall there ever being an instance of someone running around with a shield but no armor. If such a thing ever did happen, then we'd need them to run into someone who was swinging a footman's flail or mace. It's like that time in August 1965 when for about an hour George Carlin was both fine and dandy at the same time, but no one asked him how he was feeling.