Quote from: Aos;518268I agree, but there is no reason not to tinker with it to make it less bad, or more to your liking.

True.

So as not to be a mere naysayer, here is my big suggestion for giving an AC bonus for skill at arms: keep the bonuses small and infrequent if you're using an old-school rule set.  One thing that old-school D&D combat gets right is the matrix between attack bonuses and AC.  Yes, attack bonuses outpace AC, but this is important in a game where Hit Dice increase with levels; the more parity between attack bonus and AC, the more chance for long, grindy combat.

Quote from: misterguignol;518267It seems you want a higher degree of realism in regards to combat with a fictional creature that is pretty fiercely anti-realist.

If the question becomes "How to we accurately model a trained warrior's prowess in combat against a ghosty thing that is ethereal and gosknowshowitreallyworks?" then there isn't anywhere to really go from here, you know?

D&D isn't a simulator of real-world combat.  It's really, really bad at that.

An argument I can understand but....

I like my games to run of a physics engine model. I want the rules to basically be a physics engine that I can apply to the world.
Now the world might include spectres, goblins, intelligent glowing fungus ... all irrrelvant as I have incorporated them into the world and they need to be run by the same physics engine.

Now I could run GURPS ... but what I want to do is take DnD and make it more to my liking which I think I can do with out breaking the rest of the game.
I think that is totally possible.

Look at the basic AC rule..... a 10th level fighter no armour or magic AC10 a first level thief with no armour but AC 16 AC 9 .
So 10 levels of fighter training and experience is worth less than some native agility .....

Quote from: jibbajibba;518274Look at the basic AC rule..... a 10th level fighter no armour or magic AC10 a first level thief with no armour but AC 16 AC 9 .
So 10 levels of fighter training and experience is worth less than some native agility .....

Here's the thing, though: you're focusing on one part of how combat works without seeing it in connection to the other parts.  AC is one factor in a fight between a first level thief and a tenth level fighter.  But despite the AC difference, you know it's not the thief who is walking away from that fight.  Again, AC doesn't model the totality of defensive capability (Hit Points are also in the mix).

I don't mean to crap on your idea at all; you're free to tinker as you wish, of course.  I just think you might not be seeing the forest for the trees; I think D&D already accounts for what you're talking about.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518241its an ad absurdia example yes... but AC 10 is AC 10 . My detail example compares a 1st level AC 10 fighter with a 10th level AC10 figther. You might argue that the difference between the two examples is similar.

Supposing a PC had to catch the royal 3 year old prince as they ran past them in order to help them escape the bandit attack most 1e DMS would say roll to hit vs AC10 to grab the royal prince as they dash past.....

Well, in AD&D you attack a level 1 AC10 fighter and hit, you've possibly killed him.  If you attack a level 10 AC10 fighter and hit, you're gonna have to do that a whole lot more times, that's how skill gets factored in, that nebulous cloud of HPs.

You could certainly add a defense AC increase, but if so, I would consider instituting a different level of HPs, as increased AC plus HPs is double-dipping skill.

Personally I prefer the new Hackmaster style of competing rolls for attack and defense and Armor is just damage absorption (with the ability for all kinds of cool and chaotic stuff happening on both sides when the Nat 20s fly.)  

Quote from: jibbajibba;518270Apparently I am not allowed to

I'm sorry man.

The problem with advancing AC as you progress is the numbers (especially in d20) get out of hand really fast. I agree, in real life fighters would probably get harder to hit (though to be very honest i dont think D&D fighters are at all like fencers---fencing is very precise, fighting with armor and a long sword seems a lot less about that kind of finessing). This is the sort of thing better handled by a skill based game than a level/class based one.

Quote from: misterguignol;518275Here's the thing, though: you're focusing on one part of how combat works without seeing it in connection to the other parts.  AC is one factor in a fight between a first level thief and a tenth level fighter.  But despite the AC difference, you know it's not the thief who is walking away from that fight.  Again, AC doesn't model the totality of defensive capability (Hit Points are also in the mix).

I don't mean to crap on your idea at all; you're free to tinker as you wish, of course.  I just think you might not be seeing the forest for the trees; I think D&D already accounts for what you're talking about.

As per my first note I outlined all of that

Quote from: misterguignol;518275But despite the AC difference, you know it's not the thief who is walking away from that fight.  

Imo, the fact that you know this is part of the problem, and I do believe it's a problem with HP and AC. I don't think you can fuck with one without touching on the other. Also there is a problem with the fact that in regards to missile fire one die roll does represent one strike.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;518279The problem with advancing AC as you progress is the numbers (especially in d20) get out of hand really fast. I agree, in real life fighters would probably get harder to hit (though to be very honest i dont think D&D fighters are at all like fencers---fencing is very precise, fighting with armor and a long sword seems a lot less about that kind of finessing). This is the sort of thing better handled by a skill based game than a level/class based one.

I don't think its a matter of skill vs. class; it's a matter of scale, and keeping it from getting out of hand is not more difficult than putting a cap on it.

I've adjusted HP/AC and missile combat in my game making them each more to my liking.

Quote from: CRKrueger;518276Well, in AD&D you attack a level 1 AC10 fighter and hit, you've possibly killed him.  If you attack a level 10 AC10 fighter and hit, you're gonna have to do that a whole lot more times, that's how skill gets factored in, that nebulous cloud of HPs.

You could certainly add a defense AC increase, but if so, I would consider instituting a different level of HPs, as increased AC plus HPs is double-dipping skill.

Personally I prefer the new Hackmaster style of competing rolls for attack and defense and Armor is just damage absorption (with the ability for all kinds of cool and chaotic stuff happening on both sides when the Nat 20s fly.)  

Now that HP point is an excllent one.

You are dead right in a system with HP as a damage buffer you don't want to double up. Again my prefered system lets you chose from a menu as you advance levels so you can buy HP, attack, defense, skills and other combat stuff but you can't get all of it.

So do you become a fighter with high hits, like a heavyweight boxer who can take a lot of blows but absorb it all or do you train to be more of an evasive fighter who doesn't get tagged to often and wins with pin point strikes or do you just go all out attack and hope you can win in the the very first part of combat.

Under hit points I want a wound system but I want hit points to run in a way similar to 4e where they recover fast and really represent that elusive mix of stamina, skill to roll with a punch, luck and evasion. So it heals fast you cna have second wind or a surge (avoid the word healing cos its not actually healing) .

All this is what I am baking into my current heartbreaker project.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518283All this is what I am baking into my current heartbreaker project.

I'm addressing all the same issues, but in a different way in my current heartbreaker. Neat.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;518279The problem with advancing AC as you progress is the numbers (especially in d20) get out of hand really fast. I agree, in real life fighters would probably get harder to hit (though to be very honest i dont think D&D fighters are at all like fencers---fencing is very precise, fighting with armor and a long sword seems a lot less about that kind of finessing). This is the sort of thing better handled by a skill based game than a level/class based one.

but 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.

Quote from: Aos;518282Imo, the fact that you know this is part of the problem, and I do believe it's a problem with HP and AC. I don't think you can fuck with one without touching on the other. Also there is a problem with the fact that in regards to missile fire one die roll does represent one strike.

On some level it's all about how willing you are to trade ease of use for realism.  I take ease of use over realism every damn time.  I have no problem with HP and AC as they are because I find them to be functional in play.  I also have no problem thinking of attack rolls in melee and ranged attack rolls are abstractions of different things even when they use the same mechanic.

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.

What do Hit Points represent in the scenario above?

Quote from: misterguignol;518288On some level it's all about how willing you are to trade ease of use for realism.  I take ease of use over realism every damn time.  I have no problem with HP and AC as they are because I find them to be functional in play.  I also have no problem thinking of attack rolls in melee and ranged attack rolls are abstractions of different things even when they use the same mechanic.

This is fine, but really, I assure you the changes I've made are no more or less easy to use. Ease of use was my chief design goal; modeling the system to be more to my liking was secondary. Really, what I've done is add a very, very simple crit system- but I have integrated it with the other systems, because as you stated above they have to be taken as a whole. it still only takes 5 minutes to make a character and combat runs almost exactly the same, except it usually ends a little sooner.  Don't get caught in the trap of thinking that because one way is easy there can't be another easy way you like better.

Quote from: misterguignol;518290What do Hit Points represent in the scenario above?

Fortitude, luck, stamina and skill- not physical damage, imo.