The Armor Class Equalizer

Sometimes the best weapons to use against armored opponents are not those that inflict the most damage, but those that deprive them of the advantage of wearing armor. Armor is best for deflecting or absorbing attacks, but it is the worst for avoiding attacks. The mounted knight or man-at-arms is particularly vulnerable to the hooked pole arms used by footmen and peasantry to pull them off their steeds.

This is a simple rule that can be added to any role-playing game that utilizes armor class in combat resolution.

Any attacker who uses an appropriate weapon with the intent of pulling, pushing, toppling, entangling, or unhorsing an opponent may consider that opponent to be unarmored in terms of armor class regardless of whatever armor that opponent may be wearing. If the opponent is aware of the attack and able to react, the opponent's armor class will be modified by his or her Dexterity bonus or penalty, if any. Appropriate weapons include whips, bolas, man-catchers, and most pole arms (namely those with hooks and/or tines). If the attack is successful, it causes no damage, but the victim is affected as follows:

• whip: entangled (potentially tripped or disarmed)
  
• bola: entangled (potentially tripped)
  
• man-catcher: caught (potentially pushed or pulled)
  
• pole arm: unhorsed or tripped
  

Effects may be adjudicated by GM fiat, GM-player negotiation, attribute checks, or any extant rules covered by the system being used.

Fixing Charts

I changed my armor class chart. Finding no evidence of studded leather armor ever having actually existed, I jettisoned it. It joins banded mail and ring mail as armor types I do not allow. Leather armor returned to its place at AC 7, and padded armor remains at AC 8. I dropped lamellar armor and laminar armor from AC 4 and included the following note below the chart instead: "Lamellar and laminar armor vary in armor class depending on the material used. If metal, the armor class is 4, otherwise it is 6." This has the nice effect of placing one standard armor type at each armor class. (For a Renaissance game, full plate is AC 2.) I omitted my new helmet rule from the chart as I haven't playtested it yet. I like it; it makes sense to me, but I don't know if it works. We shall see. After all that tinkering with shield rules, I think I'm back to the Basic/Expert standard, but I'm keeping my variant of the Shields Shall Be Splintered rule with the following proviso: it only works with large shields. Bucklers will not protect you from dragonfire! [See Concise Shield Rules.]

I also changed my weapon charts again. I upgraded the spear to 1d8 damage, the lance to 1d10 damage, and the pole arm to 1d12 damage. It makes the distribution of weapons by damage-causing capacity rather more symetrical: four 1d4 weapons, eleven 1d6 weapons, eleven 1d8 weapons, four high damage weapons (two 1d10 weapons and two 1d12 weapons). I changed "halberd" back to "pole arm." It's more versatile, like "sword," which I really like.

Use Your Helmet

What is a suit of armor without a helmet? Answer: less effective. What is a helmet without a suit of armor? Answer: better than nothing. The same can be said of a shield and it improves one's armor class with or without armor, yet the helmet is nothing without a corresponding suit of armor and its absence results in a penalty. The inconsistencies of Dungeons & Dragons do not surprise me, but that doesn't mean they are not worth addressing.

If any historical argument needs to be made for assigning protective value to the helmet alone, one need only look to history. On the battlefields of ancient Greece, often the only protection a soldier had was a helmet, a shield, and possibly greaves. On the battlefields of the two World Wars (and many other wars of the modern era), a soldier had no protection but a helmet. If the helmet is insignificant alone, why is it the one piece of protection that is considered indispensable in warfare from the distant past to the present?

The 1st edition AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide provides no guidelines for use of a helmet without a corresponding suit of armor, but it does state that the lack of a helmet will attract more attacks to the head, which will have an armor class of 10. It's odd that no other missing piece of armor should likewise incur an armor class penalty. Basic/Expert D&D does not address the subject of helmets at all (as far as I can tell).

I propose that helmets should be treated as shields in that each should improve one's armor class by 1. The armor class rating for suits of armor should apply to the suits themselves. Armor class represents the character's protection in general. The exception to this is if hit location rules are in effect, in which case each hit location will have a separate armor class based on its protection.

Helmets, of course, restrict one's senses depending on the style of helmet, and they may have to be removed or tilted back or require the visor to be lifted to facilitate certain activities.

Armor Class Inconsistency

Leafing through the AD&D Monster Manual, Monster Manual II, and the Basic/Expert D&D rulebooks, it strikes me that the assignment of Armor Classes is disconcertingly arbitrary. Why, for example, would an orc have an Armor Class of 6? They have neither natural armor nor superhuman reflexes, so what accounts for this? If the Armor Class represents armor worn, why don't the descriptions mention it (as they do for elves and dwarves in the Monster Manual)? If damage can be described as "by weapon type," would it not be logical to describe Armor Class as "by armor type" for those creatures who wear it and have no other advantages?

That would solve the problem if it were the lone problem with Armor Class assignment. Why does a gelatinous cube have an Armor Class of 8? It's a 10' cube of protoplasm that causes no damage when it makes physical contact. It should have an AC of 9 or 10 (depending on the edition), i.e. equivalent to an unarmored person. If anything, it ought to be easier to hit, perhaps even impossible to miss.

Why do ogres, who are "human-like creatures" who "wear animal skins for clothes" (Basic D&D), have an Armor Class of 5? If their skin is as tough as chain mail, is that not worth mentioning? The Monster Manual says "They care for their arms and armor reasonably well." Does that mean ogres wear chain mail? Where do ogres get suits of chain mail that fit them? Surely creatures of "low" intelligence do not make chain mail armor.

In the future, I will be treating the Armor Class of all humans, demi-humans, humanoids, and the like as "by armor type," but I think I'll need to reevaluate the Armor Class of most other monsters to see if the rating is justified by their description or abilities. If not, I'll decide on a case-by-case basis whether to change the Armor Class or alter the description (or both).

The side benefit is that it adds an element of uncertainty where player knowledge is concerned.

Armor Classes Revised Chart

This is my revised armor chart for Basic/Expert D&D and Labyrinth Lord. It isn't anything revolutionary. Sometimes I nitpick. This is one of those times. For example, I don't like to see the word "mail" attached to a form of armor unless it really involves chain mail. "Mail" and "chain mail" are synonymous (the latter being redundant). The article "Demystifying Chain Mail and Ring Mail" by Dan Howard explains my reasons for excluding certain types of armor mentioned in AD&D, i.e. ring mail and banded mail.

[Edit: I changed this chart on 4 May 2014.]

ARMOR CLASSES
Type of Armor	Armor Class
Unarmored	9
Padded	8
Leather	7
Scale	6
Mail	5
Splint & Mail	4
Plate & Mail	3
(Shields improve armor class by 1.)

Lamellar and laminar armor vary in armor class depending on the material used. If metal, the armor class is 4, otherwise it is 6.