Fixing D&D's Terrible Weapon System

The charts for article this can be found here

This is part two of a discussion on D&D’s weapon system. Last week, I talked about the original version of D&D (chistened OD&D by the community), and its wargame inspiration. More importantly, I spoke about howt the game by Gary Gygax that preceeded Dungeons and Dragons, a wargame called Chainmail, offers a system that can make mundane weapons more impactful. You can read about that here.

Today though, I want to discuss building upon that foundation in a way that is more fun. While the original Chainmail tables are interesting, it’s more useful to adapt them than completely substituting the combat system for another, completely separate and different system. That being said, this new one is by no means perfect, and will definitely require both tailoring to your own campaign and preferences, as well as buy-in from the players.

With all that out of the way, it’s Target20 time again.

If you have not read any of my previous articles (only a slight exaggeration) then you might not be familiar with the amazing Target20 system. Developed by Delta (of Delta’s Dnd Hotspot) this is an alternate way to use the d20 for attack rolls. You eschew direct comparison to AC in any way (Either THAC0 or normal ascending AC) in favor of the following system: roll 1d20, add the enemy’s Descending AC (I’ll talk about this later) plus applicable bonuses (this too). If that number is greater than or equal 20, then it registers as a hit.

I’ve talked about it at length in my article about my system for solo D&D, but this is such an elegant way to calculate attacking in a really resonant way. The d20 is and should be the most used die in the game, the number 20 as a target makes a ton of sense. It also requires less math. You don’t have to compare it to a chart, nor do subtraction. Is basic, quick addition, and it makes for an instant resolution.

While this system is great, it doesn’t really work with Chainmail’s. On a foundational level, the math doesn’t work. 2d6s give a bell-curved result, whereas 1d20 is always a flat one. Besides, one compares to a table, while the other uses a more ephemeral endpoint. We could adapt the chart to a similar-percentage one with the d20, but that would just be the same thing, but a bit unwieldy. These systems are basically incompatible. If only there was some way to bridige the gap… Let’s say that one was to take the original values from the Chainmail chart, and interpret them as modifiers. Couldn’t you just to add them to the Target20 roll?

I have done just that.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

My method for this is pretty straightforward. The modifiers are derived from the original chart. Since it’s the most likely number to roll on 2d6, I treated a 7 as the default value. This means that 7 translates to 0. From there, I would add/subtract the value from the other numbers, as an example, a 6 would be a +1, and an 8 would be -1.

This works. It’s 100% functional. It’s also completely insane and straight-up unfair. Here’s a worst case scenario picture. You’re a 3rd level fighter who’s really pushed his luck, and now you’re fighting an enemy wearing Plate and Shield (AC 2) with a dagger. The Target20 calculations work like this: Armor class + Level Modifier + Weapon Vs Armor modifier. In this case, we’re looking at an AC of 3 (With Chainmai’s descending armor class) + 3 from the fighter’s levels, -5 from the Weapon and Armor mod. In this scenario, You would have a 10% chance to hit the enemy at all. In order to hit this one enemy once, you have to roll a 19 or greater.

Even in the most preferable conditions, you’re only really negating as many penalties as possible. In this system, it’s not uncommon to just take a -15% penalty, even in middle-of-the road scenarios. This isn’t fun, this is never fun, and I really don’t like it. The only reason I would recommend this is if you want to recreate the values of the original Chainmail system. You definitely can do this, but it doesn’t seem worth it to me. Fun is primary, and I want to preserve it as much as possible.

After puzzling this out, I wasn’t particularly impressed by slavishly recreating the original values. If I tweaked things further, it would lose the identity of the Target20 system — worse, it would become finicky and bloated, something I do not want at all. So, I decided to move on from accurately recreating the values. What we’re trying to capture is the spirit and mindset that this system gains, instead of perfectly accurate view of the source material. That being said, I really wanted to ensure at least taht kept most of the values were similar. So here’s my next idea:

Press enter or click to view image in full size

This chart uses the same basic system as the previous, deriving the values from the original chart. But it has a twist that you might have noticed, none of the values are greater than +/- 3. What I did here was take those modifiers from before and normalize them based on the original value. A 6, 7, or 8 from Chainmail’s chart would just be a +0. This is so much better. Using my worst-case scenario from before, 3rd level fighter w/ Dagger Vs Plate, you end up with a 20% of success, which just feels so much better and more achivable, but still disincentivises not matching weapons. You end up with a system that’s a bit smoother, which is great. A lot of the system is reliant on mitigating penalties, much like the original derived modifiers.

I was ready to compile this article using this system. I had cracked the code, we’ve ended up with a beautiful system to make mundane weapons more impactful and fun to use.

But then something happened. I was reading OD&D’s Greyhawk supplement for the article about OD&D’s cool system for getting Xp (Shameless plug, right: here), and I stumbled upon a funny little section right below the one about Xp. It reads “For those who wish to include weapon types in the determination of hit probabilities the following matrix drawn from the “Hand-To-Hand Combat” section of CHAIN-MAIL is offered.” (Gygax & Kuntz, 1975). This is followed by a chart that uses something that looks a lot like what I came up with, but is just slightly different.

In-short, I was bell-curved. Any idiot would come to the same conclusion as the inventor of Dungeons and Dragons: Just make up the values. These values are undoubtedly similar, but it’s even smoother than the normalized values. Remember that thing about mitigating penalties from both versions? Gary decided that that’s stupid. Most of the time, you won’t have a bonus or penalty, unless you’re in the most stupid situations. Most of the time, a sword is just +0, instead of a mess of negatives spiraling to -4. This is objectively the most usable and fun version of this system, especially to me.

So armed with the artistic license to create my own bespoke table, I’ve done just that. This new one is really just that Greyhawk table, but adjusted slightly, and most importantly, includes support to ACs used in Basic/Expert, which just adds a bit broader compatibility. Remember, the goal isn’t “accurate recreation,” we’re trying to add more fun and engagement.

Press enter or click to view image in full size It’s really tiny. Opening it in a new tab is slightly better.

As you can see, Ac now goes from 9 to -3, with 1 and 0 being a new general class of just “magic” and “magic + shield.” Usually, the only creatures that hold these values are dragons and other supernatural enemies, as well as probably the players at some point. This is to match with Basic /Expert D&D’s values, with the potential to be expanded on as neccesary(I know that AD&D goes up to -10, which seems excessive).

I want to talk about some of the more fine details of how this combines with the Target20 system.

Firstly, I don’t use the “Add fighter level” thing that Delta does, but rather the smoothed progression chart from Philotomy. This can be found here, and they really just serve as being a bit more engaging for Clerics and Thieves, rather than kneecapping their effectiveness.

When you make an attack roll in this new system, you do the following: Add the opponent’s AC + your level bonus + the bonus on the chart for your weapon. Then, you roll a d20, add that number, and if it’s greater than or equal to 20, you score a hit. If you get a natural 20, that’s an automatic hit. The other systems from Target20 are unchanged (Saving throws, and thief skills).

I do want to address two issues. Primary of which is that this system is a bit unwieldy. I’ve spoken in the past about player’s buy-in — how much things can be different from what the player already knows before they shut down. This is definitely an issue with this system, but I think it’s a worthy trade-off. I believe that once you spend some time with it, things will start to flow better.

Another thing to note is the fact that it might add some friction on the DM’s side. Most of the time, stat blocks won’t prescribe the weapons used by the enemies. This means you’ll have to come up with something yourself in the moment, which might cause things to slow down… or you could just roll for it. A d12 will get you where you want, but you could potentially use a d14 if you have one. Alternatively, you could make your own table.

Really, this system serves to add a supple amount of realism, without that much of a drawback. At the end of the day, the benefits outweigh the costs. I think this system is awesome, and really gives a great way to make mundane weapons matter more.

One last note, This system doesn’t really translate 1:1 D&D 5e+. An adaptation for that is out of the scope for this article, but I may revisit it in the future. I have two different solutions for this. First, try to reassign ACs to their descending counterparts. Because of the math being drastically different, it will not work 1:1. Regardless, it’s probably better to assign one of these values based on the fiction. If the stat block says something like “AC 14 (Leather),” then it’s leather armor, and Descending AC 7.

This isn’t great, but luckily there’s another solution: Play an older version of D&D that supports this. I could talk for hours about this, but D&D 5e already doesn’t prioritize the mindfulness I want to foster with this system, and it’s why I’ve moved away from playing it. If you use a version of OD&D, Basic / Expert or its one of their derivatives, then this is just a drop-in change, and it’s one I would thoroughly recommend.

This whole system pairs well with well-defined encumbrance rules. After all, if you’re barely keeping track of what stuff the characters can hold, then there’s really no reason to use this system at all. You can read more about that (and plentiful other house rules) here on Bear.

This blog is, and always will be, 100% human-generated.