Quote from: jibbajibba;518286but in the literature when Lancelot, Robin Hood or Jaimie Lanister fights a bunch of guys who are all armoured and he (our hero of choice) isn't armoured he manages to avoid their blows skipping between them parrying a blow there and dodging a blow here before despatching them clinically.

Now I knwo DnD isn't meant to be emulative of any thign but surely you want your heroes to measure up to the folks that inspired you to start playing in the first place...

I agree with the fact that things can get out of hand. That id the design issue right. Designign a game that can do it and avoids getting out of hand that is hte key.

Except this was never a source of inspiration for me. If anything my king arthur inspiration comes from Excaliber which emphasized the armor side of armor class over slipping and dodging blows.

It simply isn't something I desire in D&D and it actually breaks down under scrutinity because the game uses a single ac for all kinds of attacks. I can understand slipping a sabre, but not an arrow.

Quote from: Aos;518292Don't get caught in the trap of thinking that because one way is easy there can't be another easy way you like better.

It's probably less that I'm caught in the trap and more that I'm lazy and don't like to tinker with the baseline rules all that much, to be honest.

Quote from: Aos;518293Fortitude, luck, stamina and skill- not physical damage, imo.

Exactly.  Which is why I think D&D already accounts for growing martial prowess as a character levels up.

Quote from: misterguignol;518296Exactly.  Which is why I think D&D already accounts for growing martial prowess as a character levels up.

Yes. It's called Hit Points. Not AC. I agree.

Quote from: misterguignol;518296It's probably less that I'm caught in the trap and more that I'm lazy and don't like to tinker with the baseline rules all that much, to be honest.

Me neither, but I made the mistake of starting...

Quote from: misterguignol;518296Exactly.  Which is why I think D&D already accounts for growing martial prowess as a character levels up.

I agree, however, if we accept this premise we must also accept that HP don't account for physical damage.

Quote from: Aos;518298I agree, however, if we accept this premise we must also accept that HP don't account for physical damage.

Not only. It's a compound. An abstraction.

Before we go any further,  I want to make it clear that I've got no issue with folks who want to play raw. However, I love D&D, but whereas I have no problem with Vancian magic or a half a dozen other nonsensicals, I have always (since I was like 12) disliked the HP, missiles and AC work; and as I'm working on my game, I've come to the point where I want to make a D&D variant, not another D&D.

However, if you like to play RAW, I'm cool with that. I've even made it so you can take anything from my game (except for a few healing spells that already have equivalents in straight up D&D) and use it with TSR D&D.

So you know if your happy with the way D&D rolls, that's great, but look at this thread not as an opportunity to defend that, but as an intellectual exercise geared towards looking at alternate ways of doing things.

Quote from: Aos;518298I agree, however, if we accept this premise we must also accept that HP don't account for physical damage.

Not necessarily; it's an abstraction that covers all of that stuff.  It's loosely associated with the game world, but it's a very big abstraction, I'll grant you that.

Quote from: Benoist;518301Not only. It's a compound. An abstraction.

See my post above.

Quote from: misterguignol;518303Not necessarily; it's an abstraction that covers all of that stuff.  It's loosely associated with the game world, but it's a very big abstraction, I'll grant you that.

Exaclty. I dont see how one goes from the point made to "hpmdont account for physical damage". The game doesnt make a whole lot of sense if physical damage isn't a large part of HP.

Quote from: Aos;518302So you know if your happy with the way D&D rolls, that's great, but look at this thread not as an opportunity to defend that, but as an intellectual exercise geared towards looking at alternate ways of doing things.

But...the thread title is asking if AC should scale with level and why or why not.  That's literally what this thread was about.

A game wherein someone cannot be killed with a single sword thrust doesn't make a lot of sense anyway, so lets not go in that direction, if you please.

Quote from: Aos;518304See my post above.

I'm cool with experimenting and building variants and whatnot. But you made the point that hit points don't represent physical damage in actual D&D as a logical follow-up on your initial point, not me, and there, I have to point out to you, you're actually wrong, in that one thing does not equate the other, that if hit points account for some things (endurance, morale, fortitude etc.), this logically completely excludes this other thing (physical damage). This is not true.

Hit points are actually a compound of all these things, and I do believe they actually work pretty well that way, in that a "hit" from there can be interpreted at the game table in any number of ways, which accomodates for the players and DM's imaginations and how they see the battle unfolding in their mind's eye. Try to "fix" that, and you're basically restricting that field of possibilities towards one particular interpretation or the other, which works great I guess if your expectations actually fit with this or that particular interpretation, but doesn't work if you see it any other way.

Quote from: misterguignol;518307But...the thread title is asking if AC should scale with level and why or why not.  That's literally what this thread was about.

Well then I guess we're done, because all this thread is people posting ideas and other people posting "HP accounts for that."  That's kind of boring.

Quote from: Aos;518310Well then I guess we're done, because all this thread is people posting ideas and other people posting "HP accounts for that."  That's kind of boring.

Dude, start a new thread explicitly for variants!  I don't have much to contribute, but I would honestly love to see what you've come up with.

Quote from: Benoist;518309I'm cool with experimenting and building variants and whatnot. But you made the point that hit points don't represent physical damage in actual D&D as a logical follow-up on your initial point, not me, and there, I have to point out to you, you're actually wrong, in that one thing does not equate the other, that if hit points account for some things (endurance, morale, fortitude etc.), this logically completely excludes this other thing (physical damage). This is not true.

Hit points are actually a compound of all these things, and I do believe they actually work pretty well that way, in that a "hit" from there can be interpreted at the game table in any number of ways, which accomodates for the players and DM's imaginations and how they see the battle unfolding in their mind's eye. Try to "fix" that, and you're basically restricting that field of possibilities towards one particular interpretation or the other, which works great I guess if your expectations actually fit with this or that particular interpretation, but doesn't work if you see it any other way.

Once again it really depends on what the 'fix' is and how its implemented, but I'm all done rustling everyone's jimmies.