Gary's source book on armor!

For many of you my discovery will be yawn, that's so last century.

But for an hour I felt like Indiana Jones, minus the physique, charm and rugged good looks. Okay, I felt like me, only excited.

While researching for another blog topic on armor and encumbrance I stumbled upon this paragraph in the DMG under Magic Armor.

I'll quote in full (DMG page 165)

"Note: If you are unfamiliar with medieval armor types, you might find Charles ffoulkes' ARMOUR AND WEAPONS (Oxford 1909) a short and useful text. The armor types I have selected are fitted into a game system. Here is what they subsume: LEATHER ARMOR is cuir bouli, consisting of coat, leggings, boots, and gauntlets. STUDDED LEATHER adds protective plates set in the leather and an extra layer of protection at shoulder area. RING MAIL is leather armor sewn with closely set iron rings. SCALE MAIL is a suit of leather armor set with small overlapping iron plates. CHAIN MAIL needs no explanation. BANDED MAIL is horizontal strips of articulated armor plates worn over a suit of chain mail. SPLINT MAIL is a coat of

vertical plates of armor sandwiched within the layers of the garment and worn over chain. PLATE MAIL is a set of pieces of plate (shoulder, breast, back, elbow, groin/hips legs) worn over chain mail. Plate armor is a late development and is not considered, i.e. the full suit of solid plate used c.1500 is not an armor type used, but the reader should be aware that this form of protection was lighter and more mobile than plate mail! It is also two or three times more costly . . ."

Did you notice armour spelt correctly, the only time in D&D history.

Sorry, distracted, that's not the discovery. The discovery was when I googled  Charles ffoulkes' ARMOUR AND WEAPONS (Oxford 1909) and found you can download a free pdf version thanks to microsoft.

That's the first time I've ever said that.

Anyway click here!

What a treasure trove. Have you ever thought that Gary's armor types don't match the other armor texts you have read, well here is his source and it's like holding an ancient D&D tome in your own hand.

Just start reading at the age of mail.

And you'll discover padded armor, leather, banded, scale, ringed, all there.

This picture shows many of the types.

Read this sentence, beginning page 16.

Figure 3 & 4 above:

"If it is intended to represent leather the trellice lines would

probably be  formed of thongs applied  on to the groundwork with metal studs riveted in the intervening spaces (Plate I)"

Is this the inspiration behind studded leather?

If that's not enough check out this image in the weapons section.

Recognise the style anyone?

I've added this post to Links to Wisdom if you lose it. A true Link to Wisdom, me thinks, from EGG himself.

An ability score of 3 is unplayable (Argument 2a)

[Drum roll]            More Statistics and the Strength ability score

So let’s recap for a moment where we are with this topic.

Argument 1 – Using the ability score of intelligence as presented in the rules I argued that an Intelligence Score of 3 (was one step more intelligent than a dog – Intelligence 2). Additionally I argued that EGG strongly implied that your IQ divided by 10 was equal to your intelligence score. Therefore an Intelligence Score of 3 = IQ 30, which is severely mentally handicapped. 

Argument 1a – I supported Argument 1 by exploring the spell Feeblemind, which lowers a spell casters intelligence score (AD&D Moronic child, Intelligence score 5-7; B/X & Mentzer idiot, Intelligence score 2), which Mentzer describes as ‘helpless’.

Argument 2 – Comparing bell curves to a normal distribution (as is often done with the Intelligence score) and drawing on an excellent external post by Daniel Collins, I argued that applying a normal distribution to a 3-18 ability score is poor statistics and distorts ability scores at the extremes. If used on the Intelligence score, it makes clever people regard themselves as geniuses. If such poor statistics were applied to low Intelligence scores than an Intelligence score of 3 would be even worse than it is usually considered.       

My conclusion to date:

Reroll, readd, redo - An ability score of 3 is unplayable

Brains ready… here’s some more statistics! If you hold out it gets more interesting further below when I get to strength.

Disclaimer: Please I’m not a statistician, though I have taught statistics. To a statistician everything I say is likely to be over-simplified and not 100% true, but I think my general thrust is correct.

I wonder what Delta thinks?

Let’s look at how data can be categorized.

Data Type	Description	Examples
Categorical	Data is in a category, the category has no rank, in that no category is better than another	Male/Female D&D class or race D&D alignment
Ordinal	Data is in categories, sometimes has a number or letter and the categories/number/letter have an order or a rank. However the gap between each rank or number is not equal (or what each rank represents is not the same step between each rank).	1st, 2nd and 3rd in a race (1st is not twice as good or fast as 2nd) IQ (see below) D&D Treasure Tables (Category A is not twice as good as category B, sort of true but the order is chaotic) D&D spell levels (a level 3 spell is not clearly three times as dangerous as a level 1 spell, you know it’s better but you can’t know by how much) D&D level (since a different XP is required for each level, level 4 is not four times better than level 1. We know it is better but can’t say by how much) D&D Ability scores (see below)
Numerical (Discrete / Interval)	Data is a number, the gap (interval) between each number is the same, but there is no zero (without a zero one cannot say that one number is twice or half another number)	Temperature in Fahrenheit or Celsius (50 F is not half of 100 F – it’s not trust me; were we talking in Kelvin which has an absolute zero minus 273Celsius, than 100K is twice 50K) D&D Armor class (an AC of 2 is not twice as hard to hit as AC 4, but each step between AC 2,3,4 is equal on the monster ‘to hit’ chart anyway)
Continuous (Ratio)	Data is a number, the gap between each number is the same, and there is a zero (so one can easily say something is half of something else - ratio). Often is normally distributed in the population for human and natural biometric values.	Height, weight (all can be zero) D&D hit points, encumbrance, movement, experience points

Right got that?

Let’s pick up two ordinal values: IQ and ability scores.

Interestingly and perhaps surprisingly IQ is ordinal and not numerical or continuous, yet often it is treated, even in psychosocial literature, as being a normally distributed continuous variable. This is because the IQ test is a man made test that ranks people into categories depending on their result (ordinal). In the same way if someone got twice as much in an exam as you it is wrong to say they are twice as smart, they may be but the test doesn’t tell you that. IQ is not a measurement in the true sense of the word and an IQ of 120 is not twice as smart as 60, it is likely to be much more in fact. Even the gap in intelligence between 100 to 120 is not necessarily the same as the gap between 80 and 100 (so not numerical).

For further information or explanation see

http://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/statslab/topic1.php

Ability scores

When one looks at the below B/X table

Ability Score	Adjustments
3	-3
4-5	-2
6-8	-1
9-12	0
13-15	+1
16-17	+2
18	+3

The table looks so symmetrical it must be numerical.

But the gap or effect between 16 and 12 (+2) is not the same as 12 and 8 (-1). There is order 16 better than 12 better than 8, but one can’t say that 16 is twice as strong, smart, good looking as 8. The data is therefore ordinal.

This is even more apparent if one looks at retainers for Charisma (3 – 1 retainer, 18 - 7 retainers), Intelligence (3 – trouble speaking to 18 - +3 languages), XP adjustments (3 – 20%, 18 - +10%).

So what’s my point?

I think people often play D&D as if 3 is only half as bad as 6 or 3 times worse than 9. That is a 3 ain’t that bad. For intelligence score I think I have convincingly shown in my previous postings why this is not the case - 3 is awful, 3 is unplayable. But the other ability scores are more problematic. The way the ability scores are in the table above -3 to hit and damage is a disadvantage but not unplayable. Let’s think carefully here, it’s only a minus 15% chance to hit! You could live with that.

Or could you?

The ability score of Strength

In my first posting on this topic I said, "Intelligence is the only ability score that is related in the rules to a real life comparator." Spawn of Endra pointed out something I had overlooked in the Players Handbook (page 9). Strength of 3 = the ability to military press a maximum of 30 pounds, 18 strength, 180 pounds. (From the above that would make it a continuous variable, since at zero strength one could lift zero pounds and 18 strength is six times more than 3 and can also lift six times as much)

So like intelligence EGG identifies a real life comparator for strength that is divisible by 10 into an ability score. What a shame there is nothing for wisdom, dexterity, constitution (breath holding, fitness, colds per year perhaps) and charisma.

I must say researching strength has been very interesting if a little frustrating.  Interesting because if you thought we were an obsessive bunch of bloggers or had one up man ship dominating our hobby, you should see the body builder forums and blogs. Frustrating because what I really wanted to find was a normative table for the military press – I never found one.

The dreaded military press was properly performed standing, with legs unbent, and the weight lifted above ones head. It was military because it was used to test strength to get into the military and was once considered the preeminent test of strength. So why can’t I find a table!

Let’s look at maximum 30 pounds, strength 3.

This is very weak.

The bar for weightlifting (Olympic standard) for men is 44 pounds, women 33 pounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbell

So at strength 3 one cannot even lift over your head the bar, without any weights.

I would love to know what a child could do and how this compares. I don’t have any weights at home (hey I’m a nerd, hence this blog). I tried getting my four year old son and six year old daughter to lift some random objects over their head (carefully!). They had trouble holding the objects more than the weight so the experiment broke down. My daughter can lift her uncle who is about 65kg momentarily off the ground (feet together arms around waist). I’m 75kg and she can’t lift me.  So I wonder if she could manage 30 pounds weight over her head.

Now the military press is notoriously harder than other weight lifting, so maybe she couldn’t. Let’s assume for the sake of this argument she could, or maybe an eight year old could. Anyone got gym gear, a child and a tolerant wife to test this theory? Are we saying that an eight year old who we are assigning a strength of 3, would this eight year old in combat with a monster be only -15% to hit compared to the average man, and do a minimum of 1 damage, which in two hits would start killing normal men and women? I find this hard to believe.

Now D&D doesn’t have to be realistic but it does have to be internally consistent. Let's ask it again - Can someone who can only lift 30 pounds over their head really only be -15% to hit compared to the average man and do a minimum of 1 damage, which in two hits would start killing normal men?

No, I don’t think so.

I perceive there is internal illogic. The desire for symmetry in B/X ability scores is leading to some strange conclusions. AD&D has less symmetry (18 strength +1 to hit,+2 damage; 3 strength -3 to hit, -1 damage) but does not fare much better. Can only lift 30 pounds but weight allowance for encumbrance is only -350 pounds compared to normal.

Also I don’t think EGG is correct in relating strength to real life military press.

You see with Intelligence the natural human range is 0-228 (Marilyn Vos Savant)

http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/famous-people.html

Einstein 160, Stephen Hawking 160, Bobby Fischer 187

I don’t care how accurate or inaccurate these numbers are, the point is that on a D&D 0-25 score system (3-18 for most of the D&D world), in encapsulates the breadth of mankind and even extremes above and below mankind, to account for gods etc.

The military press world record: the heaviest recorded military press was 535lbs ,242.67 kgs, and was set by Dj maestro. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_heaviest_military_press

According to EGG that’s a strength of 53, twice as strong as the strongest god.

There’s a club for the over 300 pound overhead press.

http://www.wannabebig.com/forums/showthread.php?58674-Join-the-300lb-Overhead-Press-Club

Yet a body building enthusiast confesses to lifting only 85 pounds in the military press and the responses aren’t much better.

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/training/71244-how-much-can-you-military-press.html

This enthusiast 105 pounds

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/584162.html

So hardly 100 pounds = average, if that’s all these enthusiasts can manage unless they are role players after their gym sessions.

One 13 year old says he can do 165 pounds.

http://www.freetrainers.com/FT/jsp/Message.jsp?f_ix=15&t_ix=1024

Someone else says:

“A human being who has Athletic physical strength can military press the weight of the average human being or greater; roughly 175 lb (80 kg). In the real world, the vast majority of the population isn't capable of military pressing 175 pounds or more.” He then gets shot down by other commentators.

http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question90665.html

This for the strongest warrior comepetition.

Competitor 135lb Men/65lb women for this event.

http://www.mccscp.com/home/Files/SW/sw%20rules.pdf

I have no idea what the truth is and don't really care. But the randomness for the military press and the range seems huge, though I think the techniques aren’t clearly defined between these reported weights. So it's use as a comparator to D&D strength seems wildly implausible.

From my research I actually think grip strength is a better comparator to D&D strength. I’ll post that another day.

So bringing today’s ramble to a close.

Ability scores, as ordinal data, do not have to be symmetrical in their pluses and minuses, just ordered. Symmetry leads to confusion and the belief that 3, ain’t that bad. It is.

The rules regarding strength are confusing and inconsistent. -15% to hit with strength 3 is not consistent with the inability to lift more than 30 pounds over your head. You are likely much worse and much more debilitated as an adventurer.

Reroll, readd, redo - An ability score of 3 is unplayable

An ability score of 3 is unplayable (Argument 1a)

In response to the comments from my previous post, I want to repeat the clarification I made there. I do not doubt there are ability scores of 3 in a campaign world. My belief is that were they to be role-played appropriately as per the detrimental effect of that ability score - it would be no fun as a player and not allow adventuring as the game rules are intended. For this reason an ability score of 3, and in my opinion also of 4 and 5, are not legitimate choices for PCs; they exist only for NPCs or temporary magical effects for PCs. In character creation, were a PC to have an ability score of 3, then the correct action of the DM is to choose a method to increase that score (raise it to 6, ask PC to re-roll entire character, re-roll that ability only, create characters using 3d6 reroll all 1s, etc).

Argument 1a 

I was going to launch into statistics for Argument 2 but first, as an interlude, I give you Argument 1a: the spell Feeblemind. To understand the spell I need to repeat this table from my previous post.

IQ Range	Classification
70-80	Borderline deficiency
50-69	Moron
20-49	Imbecile
below 20	Idiot

Feeblemind

AD&D, 5^th level MU spell but the explanation is on page 62 Players Handbook, under Druid Spell 6^th Level, where it says the spell ‘causes the victim’s brain to become like a moronic child.' Sadly no further explanation is given, and I can’t find any other explanation, not even in the DMG spell explanation section (DMG 41-47). So whether the victim can cast spells or not, isn’t clear. I always assumed they couldn’t, why else would the spell be ‘solely for employment against those persons or creatures who use magic spells.’ But using the table above and assuming Gygax had this in mind, it was the 1970s, a Moron is IQ 50-69. Now on PH page 10 looking at the Intelligence table it says that an intelligence of 9 is the ‘Minimum Intelligence for a paladin or magic-user character.’ So, that would imply in typical AD&D confusion (all those words so little clarity) that spell casting or advancing as a magic-user, would be impossible while the spell is in effect.

B/X Cooke Expert X16 describes the 5^th level MU spell Feeblemind as making, ‘a magic user or elf unable to think or cast spells becoming a helpless idiot.” Clear on the not casting spells but an idiot is IQ <20. Interestingly Mentzer Expert doesn’t have the spell but it appears in Allston Cyclopedia as a 5^th level MU spell, so I assume it reappeared as an extra 5^th level spell in Mentzer Companion (my copy is behind a loft hatch, but I think it’s a fair assumption). Allston, page 52 says, Feeblemind, makes the victim, ‘helpless, unable to cast spells or think clearly (as if the victim has an Intelligence score of 2).’ Pretty clear here it's effect as linked directly to an Intelligence score. And definitely supporting the general belief that IQ divided by 10 = Intelligence Score.

From my Argument 1, an Intelligence Score of 3, has to be seen as unplayable, as it's one very minor step up from helplessness.

Reroll, readd, redo - An ability score of 3 is unplayable

Find traps or FIND TRAPS

I’m confused and this post will hopefully allow me to get my thoughts in order and make a coherent house rule.

Dwarves can find traps, so can thieves. What are the differences?

Let’s start with B/X

Traps (B22)

“Dungeons often contain traps, such as a trap door in the floor which springs open when a character walks over it. If any character does something which could trigger a trap (such as walking over a certain point), the trap will be sprung on a roll of 1-2 (on 1d6)…

Any character has a 1 in 6 chance of finding a trap when searching for one in the correct area. [16.6%] Any dwarf has a 2 in 6 chance. (This does not apply to magical traps, such as sleep trap.) Checking a specific area for a trap will take one one full turn. The DM should only check for finding a trap if a player says that the character is searching for one. Each character may only check once to find each trap.”

Thieves (B8)

“Find or Remove Traps is a double ability. The thief has the listed chance of finding a trap (if there is one) and the same chance (if the trap is found) of removing it. Either attempt may only be tried once per trap.” [1^st level thief 10%, 2^nd level thief 15% and 3^rd level thief 20%, which means the thief only surpasses a 1 in 6 chance at 3^rd level.]

Dwarves (B9)

“They are expert miners and are able to find slanting passages, traps, shifting walls, and new construction one-third of the time (a roll of 1 or 2 on 1d6) when looking for them.” [my emphasis]

Stock the Dungeon (B52)

“Room Traps:

Poison gas: Save vs Poison or die

Fog: Looks like Poison gas, but harmless

Pit: 1d6 points of damage per 10’ fallen

Ceiling Block falls: Save vs Turn to Stone or take 1d10 points of damage [nice use of a saving throw here as opposed to the ubiquitous d20 vs dexterity]

Pendulum blade from ceiling: 1d8 points of damage

Chute: No damage, but slide to the next level down

Treasure Traps:

Poison needle: Save vs Poison or die

Spring-fired darts: 1-6 darts hit for 1-4 points of damage each [more chance of a first level thief surviving the save vs poison or die, then these darts!]

Spray: Be sprayed with an unknown liquid that attracts Wandering Monsters; double chances for 1d6 hours [this is cool, I’ve never used before but I like it!]

Illusion: Anything, often a monster (as phantasmal force)

From the above Robert Fisher (who I much admire see my previous post) makes the following ruling:

Anybody can search for traps. Dwarfs have a 2 in 6 chance. Everyone else has a 1 in 6 chance. (p.B22). Thieves use the 1 in 6 chance until 3rd level when their F&RT skill becomes more favorable. The 1st & 2nd level thieves, however, must use their less favorable F&RT skill when attempting to disarm a trap.

I’ll make a number of observations:

Traps (B22) appears to imply LARGE Room traps not intricate needle in the treasure chest traps. Moldvay basic was concerned about the dungeon. I wonder what he would have said if he was talking about wilderness encounters. Unfortunately Cook Expert doesn’t discuss traps. My question to myself and to Robert Fisher is, can dwarves detect forest traps, can dwarves detect small Treasure Traps, or can only thieves?

Mentzer

Dwarves (Basic DMR 15)

"Because of their mining experience, dwarves can sometimes recognize special dungeon features made of stone or wood, such as

(1) sloping passages

(2) shifting walls

(3) new constructions

(4) traps

The traps a dwarf can find are those involving large dungeon features, such as a falling ceiling, floor pit, and so forth. The traps a dwarf may discover does not refer to all traps. For example, a dwarf would have no chance at detecting a small dart trap on a chest; this could be detectable only by a thief."

Observations:

While it is possible to conclude that this is Mentzer that was Moldvay I think this overlooks two key points: 1) Mentzer wrote with a clear vision of the future books in his series, each book was meant to build off the previous and 2) Neither Mentzer and Moldvay wrote in a D&D vacuum, they lived and breathed D&D and were well known to Gygax and the original players. What I am saying is that I think Mentzer is merely making explicit what Moldvay would already have agreed with. Indeed Robert Fisher might also say to me that this posting is just making explicit what he always believed, that dwarves and presumably everyone else on a 1in6, can only detect dungeon traps.

Let’s look for other assistance:

Dr Holmes

Page 6

“[Thieves can]… remove small traps such as poisoned needles.”

“Underground, [dwarves] can detect slanting passages, traps, shifting walls and new contruction about one-third of the time.” [my emphasis]

Original D&D

M&M page 7

“[Dwarves] note slanting passages, traps, shifting walls and new construction in underground settings.” [my emphasis]

M&M Page 10

“Strength will also aid in opening traps and so on.” [really, how exactly?]

Underworld Page 9

Traps are usually sprung by a roll or a 1 or a 2 when any character passes over or by them. Pits will open in the same manner.

Supp 1 Page 4

“[Thieves can] remove small trap devices (such as poisoned needles)”.

AD&D

DMG page 19

Thief abilities: “Small or large traps can be found, but not magical or magically hidden traps.”

DMG page 20

“Simple mechanical traps can be set by thieves or assassins.”

PH page 15-16

“Dwarves are miners of great skill. They are able to… detect traps involving pits, falling blocks and other stone work.”

Allston / Rules Cyclopedia

Page 261

“A trap is anything that could cause damage, delay or a magical effect to occur. The trap may be found, and possibly removed, by a thief character.”

Page 24

“Dwarves can sometimes detect traps (specifically, traps built into stonework or heavy construction, not other types of traps such as rope-traps in the forest or spring-out needles built into a jewelry box.”

Shall I bring all this together with a few observations:

So much for all singing from the same hymn sheet – the founders of D&D appear as confused as I do

The everyone can detect traps, 1 in 6 chance, rule of Moldvay basic I can not find repeated anywhere in other editions. But I like it, it’s simple and in keeping with other character abilities such as find secret doors, hear noise and open doors. If characters are being particularly sensible, using a 10’ poles for instance, it allows the DM to easily add a positive modifier to the d6 roll.

There is a strong recurrent theme that dwarves can only detect underground traps.

What types of traps thieves can detect, is up for debate. But the thought of limiting them to only small, treasure like traps, removes a potential strong advantage of having a thief in one’s party for exploration. I keep imagining how useful a thief companion would be for Indiana Jones, though in my opinion Indiana Jones fits the D&D thief archetype better than he does the fighter, despite the fights he engages in.

My house rule

Large Traps (Room/Underground or Wilderness Traps)

Small Traps (Treasure Traps)

Anyone can detect Large Traps with a 1 in 6 chance.

Dwarves can detect Large Traps when underground with a 2 in 6 chance.

Only thieves can detect Small Traps

Until 3^rd level thieves use their 1 in 6 chance to detect/find Large Traps but must use the given thief ability percentage roll to remove the trap.

Small Traps always use the given thief ability percentage roll at all levels, to both find and remove traps.

I just call the detection of slanting passages, traps, shifting walls, and new construction; dwarf sense, which is available when the dwarf is underground or around stone work and works on a 2 in 6 chance. 

PS A kind welcome to Gothridge Manor and ze bulette of Dungeons and Digressions . I am particularly chuffed because I read your blogs already.