So I've been thinking, why is an unarmored fighter just as easy to hit as an unarmored wizard. Why doesn't the game factor in your ability to parry blows at least in melee
Yeah, I know right. That's one of my beefs with D&D and OSR, a single number called AC does a lot of work. It apparently covers dodging, parrying, and blows that land but are blocked by armor. I don't know why this is, but I'm sure there's a historic reason. Descending AC originally came from ship combat games, did it not?
AC is by far my one and main bugbear (any goblinoid, really) of all the OSR/D&D mechanics that exist. It irks me to no end, even though I have learned to live with it.
I would prefer static AC based on training and experience with armour as damage reduction, but I have learned to live with AC.
Thanks for picking at the scab for me though! :o :P
Quote from: Ocule on December 12, 2021, 04:24:23 PM
So I've been thinking, why is an unarmored fighter just as easy to hit as an unarmored wizard. Why doesn't the game factor in your ability to parry blows at least in melee
In the original combat system used by Dave Arneson, based on Chainmail, a higher level character was harder to hit. So it is definitely an "old school" way to do things. Personally, I use d20+Number of Hit Dice vs 11+ Target's Hit Dice for all combat tests. (with number of hit dice varying by class as in OD&D). For armor, I use an all or nothing Armor saving throw which, again, is based on a system Dave Arneson used in the 70s. For example, wearing leather armor will give you a 17+ save vs all attacks whereas platemaili will give you an 11+ save.
I use an armor saving throw rather than armor reduction because it affects all weapon equally, and it doesn't make a character immune to things like daggers.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 12, 2021, 05:15:50 PM
Quote from: Ocule on December 12, 2021, 04:24:23 PM
So I've been thinking, why is an unarmored fighter just as easy to hit as an unarmored wizard. Why doesn't the game factor in your ability to parry blows at least in melee
In the original combat system used by Dave Arneson, based on Chainmail, a higher level character was harder to hit. So it is definitely an "old school" way to do things. Personally, I use d20+Number of Hit Dice vs 11+ Target's Hit Dice for all combat tests. (with number of hit dice varying by class as in OD&D). For armor, I use an all or nothing Armor saving throw which, again, is based on a system Dave Arneson used in the 70s. For example, wearing leather armor will give you a 17+ save vs all attacks whereas platemaili will give you an 11+ save.
I use an armor saving throw rather than armor reduction because it affects all weapon equally, and it doesn't make a character immune to things like daggers.
Sounds pretty adaptable to various system and actually takes them into account. So it scales pretty much 1:1 with bonus to hit/thac0/whatever youre using?
Do any OSR games run with this premise already in mind?
Well, if you add hit points (particularly the non-meat portions) into the equation then Armor Class resolves rather nicely. AC is basically your passive defense, a guy swings at you and better armor means some stuff just bounces off. Then hit points are you expend as active defense to parry or dodge attacks that your armor fails to stop.
In the case of the unarmored wizard and fighter both would need active defense to avoid a sword strike... but the wizard has a d4 HD and the fighter has a d10 HD so, even with completely average Constitutions, by level 4 the wizard can actively defend against only about 10 hp while the fighter can actively defend against 22 hp before being overwhelmed.
It's the two (AC + hit points) working together that create a reasonably realistic depiction of active and passive defenses... at least for that particular balance of realism vs. speed of play.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 12, 2021, 07:04:31 PM
Well, if you add hit points (particularly the non-meat portions) into the equation then Armor Class resolves rather nicely. AC is basically your passive defense, a guy swings at you and better armor means some stuff just bounces off. Then hit points are you expend as active defense to parry or dodge attacks that your armor fails to stop.
In the case of the unarmored wizard and fighter both would need active defense to avoid a sword strike... but the wizard has a d4 HD and the fighter has a d10 HD so, even with completely average Constitutions, by level 4 the wizard can actively defend against only about 10 hp while the fighter can actively defend against 22 hp before being overwhelmed.
It's the two (AC + hit points) working together that create a reasonably realistic depiction of active and passive defenses... at least for that particular balance of realism vs. speed of play.
I'm ok with this in principle, but how many HP represent the meat and how many represent the active defense?
Quote from: Heavy Josh on December 12, 2021, 07:45:15 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 12, 2021, 07:04:31 PM
Well, if you add hit points (particularly the non-meat portions) into the equation then Armor Class resolves rather nicely. AC is basically your passive defense, a guy swings at you and better armor means some stuff just bounces off. Then hit points are you expend as active defense to parry or dodge attacks that your armor fails to stop.
In the case of the unarmored wizard and fighter both would need active defense to avoid a sword strike... but the wizard has a d4 HD and the fighter has a d10 HD so, even with completely average Constitutions, by level 4 the wizard can actively defend against only about 10 hp while the fighter can actively defend against 22 hp before being overwhelmed.
It's the two (AC + hit points) working together that create a reasonably realistic depiction of active and passive defenses... at least for that particular balance of realism vs. speed of play.
I'm ok with this in principle, but how many HP represent the meat and how many represent the active defense?
Does it really matter? Adding unneeded complexity to a system that works is pointless.
Quote from: Ocule on December 12, 2021, 04:24:23 PM
So I've been thinking, why is an unarmored fighter just as easy to hit as an unarmored wizard. Why doesn't the game factor in your ability to parry blows at least in melee
"Touch" AC has been around for a while. Your AC with only Dex bonus. I want to say I've seen it as early as AD&D, for certain effects, but I can't remember precisely.
Parry rules were introduced in 2nd edtion as an alternate rule in the Fighter's Handbook I think.
Quote from: Heavy Josh on December 12, 2021, 07:45:15 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 12, 2021, 07:04:31 PM
Well, if you add hit points (particularly the non-meat portions) into the equation then Armor Class resolves rather nicely. AC is basically your passive defense, a guy swings at you and better armor means some stuff just bounces off. Then hit points are you expend as active defense to parry or dodge attacks that your armor fails to stop.
In the case of the unarmored wizard and fighter both would need active defense to avoid a sword strike... but the wizard has a d4 HD and the fighter has a d10 HD so, even with completely average Constitutions, by level 4 the wizard can actively defend against only about 10 hp while the fighter can actively defend against 22 hp before being overwhelmed.
It's the two (AC + hit points) working together that create a reasonably realistic depiction of active and passive defenses... at least for that particular balance of realism vs. speed of play.
I'm ok with this in principle, but how many HP represent the meat and how many represent the active defense?
Depends on the system. My own game uses "hit points" that are entirely non-physical (actual wounds are reflected via "afflictions" like Head Injury, Injured Arm, Injured Leg and Internal Injuries that takes days or weeks to heal without magic and can worsen and even kill the character).
On the other hand when it came to a lot of the old school games I have heard about the general assumption was that only your first hit die was physical, the rest was mostly skill, stamina, spirit, luck, etc. It didn't matter much in play because non-magic healing was the same rate regardless... but it did provide a convenient breakpoint in that PCs had basically the same level of meat as generic human monsters (1 HD bandits and soldiers and the like) and at higher levels it was the other factors that kept you in the fight longer.
The more Modern variant of this is basically the Wound Point/Vitality Point system that first turned up in d20 Star Wars and then was added to the Unearthed Arcana material. It used your Con score for wound points and Con-modified Hit Dice for your vitality points. Vitality recovered quickly, wounds not so quickly... and critical hits would bypass vitality and do damage direct to wounds.
Quote from: Ocule on December 12, 2021, 04:24:23 PM
So I've been thinking, why is an unarmored fighter just as easy to hit as an unarmored wizard. Why doesn't the game factor in your ability to parry blows at least in melee
You might as well ask why a fighter has more hit points than a magic-user. Hit points are greater for fighters than magic-users, and increase each level. You might also ask why a magic-user's hit points ever increase.
Hit points obviously do not represent entirely structural changes, or the naked 6th level fighter would be built like a rhino. Nor is there any logical reason to expect that a 2nd level magic-user, having as they will 2-8 hit points with an average of 5.0, should be as
physically sturdy as a 1st level fighter with 1-10 hit points and an average of 5.5.
As well as structural changes in the person's physique,
hit points represent as well dodge, parry and fatigue, and fatigue from dodging and parrying. And this is why a fighter generally has more hit points than the same level magic-user, and it's why their hit points both rise each level. And it's why a 2nd level magic-user has the same average hit points as a 1st level fighter - the magic-user has become more practiced in getting out of the way.
This is the problem with merely reading a game system rather than playing it. All game systems are abstractions - all of them. And all game systems at their finest level of abstraction are nonsense - all of them. But if you have a
well-designed game system, then those fine elements
together will produce something which makes sense.
By itself, armour class makes no sense. By itself, levelling up makes no sense. By itself, hit points make no sense. But when you put these things together, you get something which is of course not realistic, but is
reasonable.
Quote from: Ocule on December 12, 2021, 04:24:23 PM
So I've been thinking, why is an unarmored fighter just as easy to hit as an unarmored wizard. Why doesn't the game factor in your ability to parry blows at least in melee
Why does the dog move faster than the racecar? How can the top hat, shoe, or iron move under their own power at all?
D&D is abstract for simplicity.
If you want crunchy combat pick up Gurps or RoleMaster.
An old school element in D&D having elements that are not a perfect fit?
SHUT UP! How DARE you! Old school elements where perfect until whiners DARED attempt to improve on them in any way.
Thats the real reason man was cast down from heaven. Because Eve asked if they could use a armor as damage reduction system!
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 12, 2021, 10:07:53 PM
By itself, armour class makes no sense. By itself, levelling up makes no sense. By itself, hit points make no sense. But when you put these things together, you get something which is of course not realistic, but is reasonable.
The single most dominant trait in the role playing community is spending time and emotional energy upon whatever does not appeal to you. Even though these are finite and incredibly valuable.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 12, 2021, 10:19:13 PM
An old school element in D&D having elements that are not a perfect fit?
SHUT UP! How DARE you! Old school elements where perfect until whiners DARED attempt to improve on them in any way.
Thats the real reason man was cast down from heaven. Because Eve asked if they could use a armor as damage reduction system!
You know, considering the drought and general dry conditions right now, you might want to be careful with any fire. All those straw-men you've surrounded yourself with are liable to go up in a heartbeat, and you'd be in a world of hurt...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 12, 2021, 11:18:43 PMYou know, considering the drought and general dry conditions right now, you might want to be careful with any fire. All those straw-men you've surrounded yourself with are liable to go up in a heartbeat, and you'd be in a world of hurt...
I don't even hate AC or streamlining. But classic fans are the only ones that have unironically told me that the past systems having glaring problems was a good thing because it made you aware that homebrewing was an option (and then also said it didn't have any said flaws at the same time). That system mastery = the game getting easier (and that being a feature of the game and not every game ever). I have heard more rediculous defenses thrown in the defense of 0D&D then I have of any other system. And there are things that 0D&D does better, but so many of the defenses I have heard are just ludicristly baised.
To continue this pained metaphor: Im not surrounded by strawmen. Just a group that insists on wearing and building everything out of straw.
Quote from: Ocule on December 12, 2021, 04:24:23 PM
So I've been thinking, why is an unarmored fighter just as easy to hit as an unarmored wizard. Why doesn't the game factor in your ability to parry blows at least in melee
Because AC is only one factor. Hit points is another. Both "work together" in D&D's abstract model, and the hit points aren't just how much damage you can physically take, but also how good you are at defense and avoiding damage that might have killed a "normal man" with average hit points. Eight points of damage to a zero-level "normal man" will take him down. The same eight points of damage to a 4th level "hero" might give him a scratch or a bruise instead of a mortal wound. And the same eight points of damage to a 9th level "lord" might mean the blow was completely dodged or deflected, just using up some of the lord's endurance.
Quote from: Ocule on December 12, 2021, 04:24:23 PM
So I've been thinking, why is an unarmored fighter just as easy to hit as an unarmored wizard. Why doesn't the game factor in your ability to parry blows at least in melee
Why does it matter?
I'm not saying it's a silly concern. But why it matters has something to do with the answer. An attack role presumably has some intent. If the intent is to kill, it is certainly not true that a fighter is just as easy to kill as a magic-user. Or if the intent merely is to hit because you've applied some poison to the weapon, then the question is whether or not the poison takes effect. And the answer to that is, the likelihoods do differ between the fighter and magic-user according to the saving throw.
But if we are talking about a die roll, which doesn't exist in the game world, and whether or not it beats some target number based on some stats that also don't exist in the game world? If question pertains to the mathematical abstractions used in D&D, the answer to the question is... it's a mathematical abstraction. Abstractions gonna abstract.
It's one of the reasons I play Savage Worlds for my D&D.
The ability to be hit, is literally keyed off of the ability to Fight (in melee) - for Ranged it's static (with modifiers based on range/cover). Armor absorbs damage. Everyone has the same HP. What makes the distinction between a caster and fighter in terms of "having more HP" is the tendency for fighter-types to have more stamina to recover from being stunned by glancing blows etc. and this is not a universal truism for casters.
I agree with what Kyle says - systems are just abstractions. A GM should choose the system that expresses the abstractions to *their* satisfaction. If the abstraction(s) of the system rub you the wrong way - find one that does.
I generally believe that the OSR/D&D depends more on familiarity than any kind of mechanical fidelity to these abstractions for its popularity. The AC/HP discussion is one that is decades old and ongoing. At this point, I've always wondered why it persists when there have been so many other options, even within the D&D/d20 community that have provided many many options to this particular sacred cow.
From my vantage - it's a cow that happily sits in its pasture. It provides milk to those that enjoy it.
I don't find AC/HP to be a good abstraction as it falls apart the second any sort of combat manuever comes into play.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 13, 2021, 01:30:06 PM
I don't find AC/HP to be a good abstraction as it falls apart the second any sort of combat manuever comes into play.
I agree with you.
1. Really well thought out combat maneuver meshing perfectly with attacker's strength and defenders weakness.
2. You hit! Roll damage.
3. Roll a 4.
4. Do that a dozen more times until it dies.
You could just skip 1.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 13, 2021, 01:52:13 PM
You could just skip 1.
Im sorry I don't understand your point.
I actually prefer to increase AC with level instead of Hp. The game plays differently then, of course. Normal armor (except shields) leads to damage reduction. There was a similar system in the 3e version of Unearthed Arcana. I can't remember if there was anything like it in AD&D, though.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 13, 2021, 01:56:52 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 13, 2021, 01:52:13 PM
You could just skip 1.
Im sorry I don't understand your point.
Sorry, my scenario was poorly written. Some systems (and GMs unfortunately) boil it all down to roll to hit and roll damage. Any kind of tactic or creativity get answered with "roll to hit." This is what I meant. Item 1 is skipped because the system or GM doesn't allow for it.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 13, 2021, 04:03:28 PMSorry, my scenario was poorly written. Some systems (and GMs unfortunately) boil it all down to roll to hit and roll damage. Any kind of tactic or creativity get answered with "roll to hit." This is what I meant. Item 1 is skipped because the system or GM doesn't allow for it.
While any system can suffer from this sort of thing, I find HP suffers more then a wound system. I find systems that just let you tank hits are pretty rare.
Was talking about this issue some more over discord and someone did point out how your ability to dodge, parry, and block. So for narration purposes a successful hit could be described as blocked or parried.
"You swing your axe at the bandit he raises his shield. Your strike leaves a gash in the wooden shield. He takes 5 damage"
With that description the bandit took no physical damage other than the fatigue and strain involved with blocking the strike but the bandit would be over half hit points.
Alternative I can see a system working where each class gains a defensive bonus to their "AC" based on their hit dice, shield and dex. If a strike is successful then damage is dealt is reduced by armor, or perhaps an all or nothing armor save.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on December 13, 2021, 11:35:45 AMQuote from: Ocule on December 12, 2021, 04:24:23 PMSo I've been thinking, why is an unarmored fighter just as easy to hit as an unarmored wizard. Why doesn't the game factor in your ability to parry blows at least in melee
Because AC is only one factor. Hit points is another. Both "work together" in D&D's abstract model, and the hit points aren't just how much damage you can physically take, but also how good you are at defense and avoiding damage that might have killed a "normal man" with average hit points. Eight points of damage to a zero-level "normal man" will take him down. The same eight points of damage to a 4th level "hero" might give him a scratch or a bruise instead of a mortal wound. And the same eight points of damage to a 9th level "lord" might mean the blow was completely dodged or deflected, just using up some of the lord's endurance.
Well explained. Also, in some versions of the rules a high dexterity allows for an AC adjustment, which continues to factor in the dodge or parry concept.
I've played in rules sets which are more "realistic" but they don't do the job better than AC and HP do it, IMO. I have found that "realistic" tends to imply "more bookkeeping" and the final result is pretty much the same as AC/HP.
Quote from: finarvyn on December 13, 2021, 05:40:18 PM
I've played in rules sets which are more "realistic" but they don't do the job better than AC and HP do it, IMO. I have found that "realistic" tends to imply "more bookkeeping" and the final result is pretty much the same as AC/HP.
This is something Bill and I have discussed on more than one of our streams. In scientific measurements we have accuracy, and precision. They're different things. Accuracy is how close to the true measure it is, precision is how many decimal points you have. If I say, "I'm six foot tall, plus or minus two inches," this is accurate, but not precise. If I say, "I'm 6 foot tall, plus or minutes one-sixteenth of an inch," this is not accurate, but it is precise. In fact I'm 5'10".
It's common for the media, politicians and so on to use precision to imply accuracy. If I predict, "the reserve bank interest rate will go up next year," it's probably going to be accurate, but it's not very precise, so nobody will be impressed even if I'm right. If I say, "it will go up by 1.22579%" it's so precise that people assume it must be accurate, and even if I turn out to be wrong I'll still be an authority people will call on to appears on news shows as a talking head.
Likewise in game system design, people confuse a plethora of details and charts and so on -
precision - with realism -
accuracy.
And of course that's not so. It can be light and reasonable, and astoundingly complex and bollocks.
The AC as making it harder to hit you vs absorbing damage thing is not a question of realism, since
neither of them get you realistic results - because we also have escalating hit points. If you want to make a naked fighter better than a naked wizard at not getting hit, cool - but then, using the same reasoning, nobody should ever be rolling 9d6 for their hit points. And if nobody has 9d6 hit points, then should there really be spells which can do 9d6 damage?
Wait, so we just wanted to change how hard it was for a naked fighter to get hit, now we're also changing hit points and spells?
So when you mess with one part of the system you end up having to mess with other parts of the system, too. And then you may as well write your own. I endorse writing your own game system, I've done it several times! One,
the adventure game of modern warfare, is in my sig. But it's a big task to do it properly. You have to playtest and everything, and be prepared for people to pick it apart the way we're all sitting here and picking apart D&D.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 12, 2021, 10:07:53 PM
...
By itself, armour class makes no sense. By itself, levelling up makes no sense. By itself, hit points make no sense. But when you put these things together, you get something which is of course not realistic, but is reasonable.
Great comments on precision vs accuracy by the way.
However, I have to quote your earlier remarks to make a point: Reasonable to whom?
To grognards who have been steeped in the various D&D and OSR iterations for decades? Yes, it is reasonable given the decades to mull it over (and perhaps a bit of Stockholm syndrome going on). It's easy and elegant because we've been doing it that way the whole time and we understand THAC0, too, so there.
I've introduced quite a few people to various flavors of D&D, OSR, and other games (DCC, BRP-likes, etc.) and I've heard more than a few comment about how d20 roll to hit against AC is confusing or just weird. I could quote several people close to me who've suffered through learning many new systems at my whim.
In my experience, by far the easiest to grok is d100 roll under your skill, and any added complexity, such as parrying rolls, hit locations, and armor as damage reduction are usually viewed as welcome clarification to what the fuck is going on during combat. The perhaps elegant abstraction of AC and HP (whether an intended touch by a genius designer or an accident of history that is backfilled with rationale) is often view as too abstract and the gain in speed is not worth the loss in comprehension. Even basic grognard assumptions about needless crunch slowing the game down do not hold with new players as much as one might expect. Slow and mildly crunchy is often easier to imagine than fast and abstract.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 13, 2021, 07:31:41 PMHowever, I have to quote your earlier remarks to make a point: Reasonable to whom?
A fair point. But I would add: there's reasonable
process, and then there's reasonable
outcomes.
I am not really concerned with reasonable processes, I am more concerned with reasonable outcomes. Whether we get those reasonable outcomes by using AC/HP, ascending or descending AC, tarot cards or whatever, I don't care. So long as the unreasonable process isn't burdensome, such as flipping between charts in 10 different books.
I believe that, given they're depicting a
magical world, the systems of AD&D1e, B/X and OD&D give reasonable outcomes without a burdensome process. Likewise RuneQuest and a few other games.
As an aside, my own preference is for a grittier game. I read a great blog recently (https://lukegearing.blot.im/magic-outside-of-levels) where he presented some ideas for - well, it's basically preparing magical items, generally of limited uses. You can see hints of similar things in AD&D's material components, and in the DMG there's also a list of ingredients required for various potions. I think you could have a good campaign where this was just about the only magic, no spells, just enchantments requiring obscure ingredients and conditions and sacrifices.
As for combats, I'd happily keep AC and HP - but past about 3rd level I can't really see more HP being anything but movie-style fantasy. Instead extra hit dice would just be, "roll, keep best." For example at 3rd level a fighter would throw 3d10 for their HP, at 4th level throw 4d10 and keep 3, at 5th 5d10 and keep 3, and so on. If a common man has 1-6 HP, then the fighter trends towards being as tough as 5 of the toughest common men. Which is pretty damned good.
But then you'd have to limit fireballs, etc, similarly.
I agree with most of what you say. HP inflation is tough to explain past a certain level, for sure.
Where I disagree is outcome vs process. To me the process is more important, possibly much more important. Combat that requires interesting decisions and that is easy to visualize can be quite satisfying. There is also drama in how a combat can swing, especially when you hit that sweet spot of tactics and luck. It may even be more fun to die in a rip and tear fight that swings wildly at the end, than to survive a hit, miss, hit, hit, miss slogfest. An outcome needs context to be appreciated and is not itself the kind of war story that players tell after the game. Rather, it's the time Darius's hand flew off trailing tendon and gore when we fought the minotaur. Yeah, we killed the beast, but come on, dude has a hook hand now.
I suppose I don't really know what a reasonable outcome is or why it should be a goal in itself. If the process is reasonable, then the outcomes will be reasonable because opposing participants can manipulate the process to their opposing ends. To complete my strawman, you could ask a computer to spit out reasonable outcomes in less than a second but that would dull as dishwater.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 13, 2021, 10:58:53 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 12, 2021, 11:18:43 PMYou know, considering the drought and general dry conditions right now, you might want to be careful with any fire. All those straw-men you've surrounded yourself with are liable to go up in a heartbeat, and you'd be in a world of hurt...
I don't even hate AC or streamlining. But classic fans are the only ones that have unironically told me that the past systems having glaring problems was a good thing because it made you aware that homebrewing was an option (and then also said it didn't have any said flaws at the same time). That system mastery = the game getting easier (and that being a feature of the game and not every game ever). I have heard more rediculous defenses thrown in the defense of 0D&D then I have of any other system. And there are things that 0D&D does better, but so many of the defenses I have heard are just ludicristly baised.
To continue this pained metaphor: Im not surrounded by strawmen. Just a group that insists on wearing and building everything out of straw.
And I've heard none of those thingsin this thread. So you are arguing against things no one here has said. That's the literal definition of strawmaning. Or maybe you should just stop listening to the voices in your head...
In OS D&D:
- THAC0 grows a lot, AC not as much
- HP grows a lot, damage not as much
You must combine these two things to see high-level PCs are tough because of their HP (and saves), not AC.
It doesn't HAVE to be this way; barbarians (and maybe monks?) get unarmored AC in 5e and IIRC old editions too. But this is the way it usually works.
In GURPS, we have the opposite: attack and defense grow, HP not as much.
In 4e, IIIRC AC raises with level for everybody.
It is mostly a matter of taste.
Quote from: Ocule on December 12, 2021, 05:21:30 PMSounds pretty adaptable to various system and actually takes them into account. So it scales pretty much 1:1 with bonus to hit/thac0/whatever youre using?
Yes, having a clear distinction between a roll to hit and a roll to damage opens up space to more clearly represent certain game effects, notably guns and magical attacks. By having attacks that avoid armor, such as guns, or magical attacks that can be avoided by dodging gives the DM more opportunities to create more variety in attack types.
In play, I found that increasing AC with level doesn't really affect the game as much as it would appear as there is a built in assumption, even in AD&D, that higher level characters will have better AC than lower level characters. This is true even of monsters. If you do a numerical analysis of monster HD vs AC in the Monster Manual, you'll see that the vast majority of monster fall into a fairly narrow range with the exception of a few outliers (such as Pixies).
In these versions of D&D, this increase in AC is achieved through the artificial means of giving players better and better magical armor.
But, if the AC increase is encoded into the rules, the effect that I noticed is, instead of forcing characters to armor up as they level, a high level character already has significant defensive ability and need armor less and less for survival. Thus a high level fighter can wade into an army of scrubs wearing nothing but a loin cloth Conan style.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 13, 2021, 06:44:44 PM
It's common for the media, politicians and so on to use precision to imply accuracy. If I predict, "the reserve bank interest rate will go up next year," it's probably going to be accurate, but it's not very precise, so nobody will be impressed even if I'm right. If I say, "it will go up by 1.22579%" it's so precise that people assume it must be accurate, and even if I turn out to be wrong I'll still be an authority people will call on to appears on news shows as a talking head.
The precision implying accuracy thing is a reasonable inference. In engineering school we're taught to use no more decimal places than can be justified by the precision and accuracy of our instruments. If I say something is 1.0645 m long, I may be wrong, but I used 5 places because I'm confident that the actual length is between 1.06445 and 1.06454. Of course one can't count on the news services to make any reasonable conclusion based on numbers. I can't count the number of times they've given statistics followed by a conclusion and a few seconds thought on my part showed that the latter did not actually follow from the former.
Unfortunately, HP systems also raise the problem of healing rates, which, in the case of 5e, have reached ridiculous levels.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 13, 2021, 10:16:10 PMAnd I've heard none of those thingsin this thread. So you are arguing against things no one here has said. That's the literal definition of strawmaning. Or maybe you should just stop listening to the voices in your head...
Im mostly having a laugh at your expense.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 14, 2021, 07:49:49 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 13, 2021, 10:16:10 PMAnd I've heard none of those thingsin this thread. So you are arguing against things no one here has said. That's the literal definition of strawmaning. Or maybe you should just stop listening to the voices in your head...
Im mostly having a laugh at your expense.
Decades of experience have taught me the word "strawman" is literally meaningless on RPG forums. There are certain foibles common among most people and exaggerated in gamers. Lack of ability (or more like lack of willingness) to understand what a person you're arguing against is actually saying is one of those things. And that leads to passing around the claim of strawman like a hot potato.
There's no reason to use the term. I can simply say most of the posts here have me scratching my head wondering what games these people are even playing. Yeah. There are many editions to D&D. And there are multiple common interpretations within some editions. And there are games under the OSR that are not exactly D&D. So there is more than enough reason to expect other people's experiences will differ from mine.
At the same time, though, it makes the comments even more absurd as they assume more universality than is justified. These criticisms are reflections on the critic. All these different options at your fingertips, and you opt for the one that you hate? It's like, seriously dude, are you even trying to have fun when you game?
That's what I would say rather than strawman.
It occurred to me that hirelings were expected to be more common in the older rule sets. A party of 5 could really number 10-20 when counting all the help, at least that's my understanding. If that party fights a similar-sized group of monsters, then yes, HP/AC would be a welcome abstraction. In the games I run, the party typically has just 1 or 2 followers and often they are non-combatants. Larger combats...maybe that's what I'm missing.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 14, 2021, 10:23:14 AM
It occurred to me that hirelings were expected to be more common in the older rule sets. A party of 5 could really number 10-20 when counting all the help, at least that's my understanding. If that party fights a similar-sized group of monsters, then yes, HP/AC would be a welcome abstraction. In the games I run, the party typically has just 1 or 2 followers and often they are non-combatants. Larger combats...maybe that's what I'm missing.
Same thing applies to large parties, whether PC or NPC. Also monsters, of course. The more combatants you have, the simpler the mechanics *must* be to have the game move at a pace reasonable to the group. There's wiggle room based on the skill, attention, etc. of the players, but it is only moderate wiggle. That is, with dedication, a group of say 7 players with 5 NPCs might use a system that for most groups would only be reasonable for 5 players and 3 NPCs, but for any given group there is still a cut off.
The Mongoose Conan game has a system where you had Parry, and Dodge defense. In melee combat a character could use Parry or Dodge as their Armor Class, but for ranged attacks Dodge was used.
Dex bonus was added to Dodge, and Str bonus was added to parry. This allowed low dex/high str characters to he something other than punching bags in melee.
Each class had it's own bonuses to Dodge and Parry based on the level of the character.
Armor was damage reduction.
Quote from: Ocule on December 12, 2021, 04:24:23 PM
So I've been thinking, why is an unarmored fighter just as easy to hit as an unarmored wizard. Why doesn't the game factor in your ability to parry blows at least in melee
Because both fighter and wizard can be armed with melee weapons and thus in the end it becomes a wash. The fighter has a greater selection of weaponry, but in the end be it fighter polearm or wizard dagger, it equals out as "armed" and is abstracted away in the general effort for survival in one minute rounds.
Further everyone in 2e has access to Optional Rule Parry. They explain why Parrying is optional rule because it is typically assumed -- PCs are typically acting beyond only defensively. But if you still want it here is an optional rule. Parry requires you to not move, Parry takes up all your actions, no spellcasting either. Parry gives you AC +1/2 your level benefit, or if a fighter AC +1/2 your level plus one benefit.
e.g. lvl 2 Wizard can Parry for -1 to their AC; lvl 2 Fighter can Parry for -2 to their AC.There are further optional methods strewn throughout various editions. For example 2e Complete Fighter Handbook has an additional optional rule Parry which involves using one's own attacks to make a "Parry attack roll" to cancel out a specific opponent's anticipated oncoming attacks. This further favors the fighter as they typically have more additional attacks to sacrifice for such declared anticipating defense.
Basically, it's out there optionally, and it's been available for a very long time, you just gotta look. It isn't the core method because such combat granularity is not the core priority for play. But for those who want it, and want it in different ways, yes D&D did it already (and probably in other ways new to you too). 8)
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 13, 2021, 10:09:48 PM
I agree with most of what you say. HP inflation is tough to explain past a certain level, for sure.
IMHO the reason that other non-D&D games with fixed Hit points
(which are explicitly treated as 'meat points'), had some form of 'Fate' or "hero point" mechanic, was to help the PC's be 'heroic' in spite of the occasional random bad die roll.
Until 5e you never saw a 'hero point' mechanic of any kind because that was assumed as part of the HP bloat.
The higher in level your PC got, the more "herioc" he became.
For D&D, HP bloat = meat points + hero point mechanic, all rolled into one.
Naturally that lead to some incongruities with verisimilitude at high levels - but the intent in early D&D was that around level 10 or so domain play kicks in...
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 13, 2021, 10:09:48 PM
Where I disagree is outcome vs process. To me the process is more important, possibly much more important. Combat that requires interesting decisions and that is easy to visualize can be quite satisfying. There is also drama in how a combat can swing, especially when you hit that sweet spot of tactics and luck. ...
IMHO interesting combat can be done in several ways. Even with "AC" based systems.
It is simply a matter of not locking up viable combat options in specific character classes.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 14, 2021, 10:23:14 AM
It occurred to me that hirelings were expected to be more common in the older rule sets. ... Larger combats...maybe that's what I'm missing.
It's not just larger parties. Straight-up speed of combat resolution at the table is also a worthy goal.
In my star wars homebrew system (count successes Die pool, d6 dice, success on 5-6) I had the PC's roll for their defense.
Now I don't, I just have the PC's and NPC's roll to the equal or over a target number DV (Defense value) Which is just the average roll the PC would make for their defense anyway. i.e. If the number of dice they would have rolled for defense is 6 then their DV = 2.
And I'm not looking back. Why?
Its not just that 4-5 pc's have one less roll each per round. All the NPC's also make one less roll each per round.
My PC's will typically go against storm troopers or other bad guy mooks 2-3 times their number. One less roll per round from everyone adds up, and speeds things up noticeably.
Do I loose some granularity from PC's/NPC's making heroic rolls or bombing out miserably? Yes. But I have found those trends to balance out in the offense rolls at the table anyway.
And most importantly: In play, at the table, my players don't notice the difference during the heat of the action.
Even better, the guy who actually has to run the game (me), now makes only half the rolls I used to during combat.
Win, win.
For me, a system like Rune Quest has to really deliver a unique experience to justify the additional complication it brings to combat during play. Especially for the GM running the game that has to track armor and hit locations for multiple combatants.
Not to mention the additional rules buy-in that the players have to invest in to really make a system like that sing during play.
The variability of player rules buy-in alone makes RPG's with AC or similar systems the GM's game of choice for their groups.
Quote from: Ocule on December 12, 2021, 04:24:23 PMSo I've been thinking, why is an unarmored fighter just as easy to hit as an unarmored wizard. Why doesn't the game factor in your ability to parry blows at least in melee
And that's how a thousand fantasy RPGs got their start...
I do enjoy active defense rolls, D&D is faster without them. Note I did not say better.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 01, 2022, 10:21:44 PM
It's not just larger parties. Straight-up speed of combat resolution at the table is also a worthy goal.
In my star wars homebrew system (count successes Die pool, d6 dice, success on 5-6) I had the PC's roll for their defense.
Now I don't, I just have the PC's and NPC's roll to the equal or over a target number DV (Defense value) Which is just the average roll the PC would make for their defense anyway. i.e. If the number of dice they would have rolled for defense is 6 then their DV = 2.
And I'm not looking back. Why?
Its not just that 4-5 pc's have one less roll each per round. All the NPC's also make one less roll each per round.
My PC's will typically go against storm troopers or other bad guy mooks 2-3 times their number. One less roll per round from everyone adds up, and speeds things up noticeably.
Do I loose some granularity from PC's/NPC's making heroic rolls or bombing out miserably? Yes. But I have found those trends to balance out in the offense rolls at the table anyway.
And most importantly: In play, at the table, my players don't notice the difference during the heat of the action.
Even better, the guy who actually has to run the game (me), now makes only half the rolls I used to during combat.
Since this is a homebrew let me suggest something even more radical; just have the PCs roll everything.
Switch the stormtroopers to not only static defenses, but to static attacks and let the players rolls their defense checks vs. those. The players feel like they have control of their fate (it's weird, but being the one to roll a random has that effect) and you've unloaded even more of the dice rolling from your plate.
You can keep rolling for major villain NPCs (Darth Vader gets to roll) and use rolls for allies of the PCs if you've got a larger battle so you've got randomness in the outcomes, but basically, leave the rolling to the PCs.
This is basically what I ended up doing in my own system as it kept the players more involved and meant I just had to focus on the actions of 5+ creatures at once and on descriptions of events rather than having to roll for all those things.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 02, 2022, 05:46:34 AM
..
Since this is a homebrew let me suggest something even more radical; just have the PCs roll everything.
Switch the stormtroopers to not only static defenses, but to static attacks and let the players rolls their defense checks vs. those. The players feel like they have control of their fate (it's weird, but being the one to roll a random has that effect) and you've unloaded even more of the dice rolling from your plate.
You can keep rolling for major villain NPCs (Darth Vader gets to roll) and use rolls for allies of the PCs if you've got a larger battle so you've got randomness in the outcomes, but basically, leave the rolling to the PCs.
This is basically what I ended up doing in my own system as it kept the players more involved and meant I just had to focus on the actions of 5+ creatures at once and on descriptions of events rather than having to roll for all those things.
I get why some GM's would prefer that kind of set up.
I actually like rolling for the bad guys. My players like it even better when I roll badly; I got Vader killed that way... And the combat time is the same.
IMHO another great tool to cut down combat time is not having the bad guys (aside from major villains) be made the same way as the PC's.
My stormtrooper stat block is a few key stats on a 3x5 card - with notes for when I up them to Elite troopers. They don't have hero points, armor, or as much wound points the way a PC would.
I do this for genre emulation. Like in the films the protagonists can take on a lot of stormtroopers, but then the big bad shows up he gets their undivided attention.
Games like RQ where everything is done to the same scale as the PC's tend to have longer combats, with the number of bad guys I throw at PC's quickly going into the 'deadly' TPK territory.
In RQ defense that type of universal stat range for a game enforces a different type of genre aesthetic than I am looking for in a Star Wars game.
QuoteSince this is a homebrew let me suggest something even more radical; just have the PCs roll everything.
Switch the stormtroopers to not only static defenses, but to static attacks and let the players rolls their defense checks vs. those. The players feel like they have control of their fate (it's weird, but being the one to roll a random has that effect) and you've unloaded even more of the dice rolling from your plate.
Beware: The Tacical Wargame Storygame ;)
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 05, 2022, 04:08:03 PM
Beware: The Tacical Wargame Storygame ;)
You must have missed the one that came out of the Forge about being British seaman and officers on ships of the line during the Napoleonic wars:
Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.I hear it had a small but enthusiastic following with some storygame larper's... ;)
After discussing it a bit in various forums im a bit more okay now than before on things if hit points also represent your overall defensive ability. Dex being dodge essentially so getting hit is forcing you to block or parry type deal. But still if attacker and defender roll at the same time I haven't really noticed any significant impact on speed of play.
Things that slow the game down in my experience is not enough damage on a successful hit compared to the amount of hit points a character may have, out of turn actions and consulting various charts or tables. And sometimes games that allow for too many attacks and damage dice ala pathfinder. Had a fighter type once who dual wielded, he was a slow counter and i usually went on to the next person while he counted up all his dice unless it was important to know if a creature died or not.
QuoteYou must have missed the one that came out of the Forge about being British seaman and officers on ships of the line during the Napoleonic wars:
Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
I hear it had a small but enthusiastic following with some storygame larper's...
I hope your joking... alas after Monsterhearts...
Quote from: Jaeger on January 01, 2022, 10:21:44 PM
IMHO interesting combat can be done in several ways. Even with "AC" based systems.
It is simply a matter of not locking up viable combat options in specific character classes.
This stood out to me. I agree, a lot of games do lock up to many options in specific classes, or specific feats. Why not let anyone bull rush or disarm etc someone with similar chances? This gives everyone options and can make things more dynamic.
It's a reason I've never been overly found of weapon specializations. Characters get "locked" in to certain approaches and patterns of play. If you find a cool Trident, why shouldn't your character be able to practice with it for a couple weeks of downtime and then be just as efficient with it?
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 05, 2022, 09:05:56 PM
QuoteYou must have missed the one that came out of the Forge about being British seaman and officers on ships of the line during the Napoleonic wars:
Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
I hear it had a small but enthusiastic following with some storygame larper's...
I hope your joking... alas after Monsterhearts...
Eh, I've played Monsterhearts briefly at a con, picked up a copy of 1e, and sell 2e on my marketplace (link to that (https://composedreamgames.com/marketplace/monsterhearts2-hc)).
It's weird sure, and not for everyone—there's a reason I have never run it for one of my groups—however, it is actually emulating a particular type of story. If your not into high school monsters shows where things are really messy (i.e. you accidentally killed your friend - who was sleeping with your romantic interest, or you decide to get back at them by sleeping with their old flame) then give it a pass . . . but if you really like shows like Vampire Diaries, well it's probably for you.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 12, 2021, 04:51:57 PM
Yeah, I know right. That's one of my beefs with D&D and OSR, a single number called AC does a lot of work. It apparently covers dodging, parrying, and blows that land but are blocked by armor. I don't know why this is, but I'm sure there's a historic reason.
I've always sort of attributed it to the idea of the one minute combat round, in which you only make one attack roll, but assume a cinematic exchange of movement, feints, strikes, parried blows, etc.
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 05, 2022, 09:05:56 PM
QuoteYou must have missed the one that came out of the Forge about being British seaman and officers on ships of the line during the Napoleonic wars:
Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
I hear it had a small but enthusiastic following with some storygame larper's...
I hope your joking... alas after Monsterhearts...
Completely made up.
But just the fact that at first glance it is impossible to tell if it was made up or not says all you needs to know about parts of the storygame movement...
Quote from: Thondor on January 06, 2022, 11:20:18 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on January 01, 2022, 10:21:44 PM
IMHO interesting combat can be done in several ways. Even with "AC" based systems.
It is simply a matter of not locking up viable combat options in specific character classes.
This stood out to me. I agree, a lot of games do lock up to many options in specific classes, or specific feats. Why not let anyone bull rush or disarm etc someone with similar chances? This gives everyone options and can make things more dynamic.
...
Yes, D&D is a big offender here. And is one of the reasons that I really don't like the universal Prof bonus increase it has.
You only need about 4-6 viable combat options that anyone can do to allow players to spot situations where "I hit it with my sword" is not
the only actual choice for non-fighters in a combat.
Yes everyone can do all the same combat maneuvers - Fighters would just be better at them.
Ok, so maybe the fighter is the only one who will take a punt at grappling with the Death Knight, but just having the other party members feel that they won't get their asses handed to them for trying to disarm or trip an Orc can go a long way to having AC based combat systems feel and play much more dynamically.
Agree. In 3,5 it was really refreshing to use maneuvres in reliable manner. Alas to do it I had to be a weretiger, so there's that.
Nevertheless bull rushing golem way beyond our CR into portal was... cool.
QuoteBut just the fact that at first glance it is impossible to tell if it was made up or not says all you needs to know about parts of the storygame movement...
Well thankfully most PBTA/FITD/Cortex derived from storygaming movement abandoned insane Edwardsian principles.
Just as I think there's a lot OSR games abandoning D&D basic schemes, and that's for good