Quote from: misterguignol;518311Dude, 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.

Maybe later, this thread has depleted my previous enthusiasm for the topic.

I agree with Guignol. From there the alternative is to create a new thread specifically dedicated to the discussion of variants and avoid the whole "in actual D&D hit points work this or that way" line of thought.

In Design & Development, maybe?

You mean like here?  

The best explantion I have read of Hit points is in V&V except they call it Power.

Quote from: estar;518247So how would you referee a duel to the first touch in older D&D?

I'm late to this question but I want to throw my hat in. I would deal with it as a special case rather than by the book D&D, with the justification that btb is for life or death battles. I would handle, depending on how quickly I want it resolved.

A) an opposed attack roll from each combatant. Higher roll after all modifiers wins. or, in the chart-based descending AC system, whichever roll hits the best AC wins.

B) I would play it out just like a normal D&D battle and rule that 1/2 HP equals a "touch". Then both combatants get all lost HPs back after a short rest.

AC should scale softely with level.

You can meet AC 4 opponents at level 1, but you might meet an AC1 guy from time to time.

At level 10, you should still meet AC4 guys...but now guys with AC of 1 should pop up ever few encounters.

You don't want to always be fighting orcs, you always want non-specialists to still feel like they can do something useful...but you still want noticeably tuogh guys to pop up.

When everything scales, it turns the game world into a place where only specialists can do anything, and then only things in their speciality.

Quote from: Opaopajr;518228As you said though, to pursue this is to pursue a game different from AD&D. Because AD&D already abstracts this out into Hit Point increases per level. In this way damage from a lower leveled character isn't as much of a threat to the HP bloat a veteran has to work with.

(And well, there's also weapon skill as AC modifiers, but then we're talking 2e weapon styles in the Fighter's Handbook and the like.)

It's already there, just not expressed in a way everyone enjoys.

I think hit points work out pretty well in the end in this manner.  And there are work-arounds, as you mention, just not very popular ones.

On the other hand, treating armour as a skill with ranks does offer some intriguing options.  Limiting it by type or maximum skill level for non-Fighters keeps their primacy in combat intact, and allows Fighters to 'specialize' after a manner.  Perhaps even in conjunction with weapon skill ranks that can be divided between attack and defence on the fly, like a Defender weapon, only non-magical in nature.  It doesn't exactly take an avid SCAer to realize there is more to fighting than stapling some sheet metal to your ass and holding a few planks of wood in front of you.  

Obviously, 3.x already has such a system in place, but it shouldn't be too difficult to whip something up for earlier editions.  Some minor modifications to the 2e system, which can then be retro-fitted for 1st edition.

Hey, SB, pm me an email addy and I'll have a doc for you in 2-3 weeks tops. The block is gone and I'm like 60% done.

Quote from: Aos;518458Hey, SB, pm me an email addy and I'll have a doc for you in 2-3 weeks tops. The block is gone and I'm like 60% done.

Awesome!  The addy is on the way.

Quote from: StormBringer;518198Scaling everything with level = always fighting orcs.

You do realize that AC scaled with level in previous editions, it just wasn't based on a formula?  When a high level monster's AC was -3, that AC scaled with level.  You also suppose that AC and attack bonus need to scale at the exact same rate (which they don't) and that you'll never meet anyone of a lower-level.

Quote from: Blackhand;518242I have a better idea.  Why don't we all quit playing these tabletop games and play World of Warcraft?

All these "new fangled" ideas and conventions, in some form or another, stem from that plague.

UGH FUCKING ASCENDING AC JUST GO PLAY VIDEOGAMES

Care to explain how "getting better at defending yourself as you level" equals stupid WoWshit?

QuoteScaling AC only really works if the characters are largely limited to light armor. Something that supports swashbuckling and monks. Other than that, I don't like the idea.

You'd have to rework armor bonuses, obviously.

Quote from: B.T.;518461You do realize that AC scaled with level in previous editions, it just wasn't based on a formula?  When a high level monster's AC was -3, that AC scaled with level.  You also suppose that AC and attack bonus need to scale at the exact same rate (which they don't) and that you'll never meet anyone of a lower-level.

Well, no.  As Jibba mentions above, a 20th level Fighter and a 1st level Fighter have the same AC 10 when they aren't wearing armour, and they have the same AC 2 wearing plate and shield.  Additionally, two 10HD monsters can have very different ACs; simply being a 10HD monster does not grant an AC -3.

While it is the DMs job to make sure high level characters are challenged, that doesn't mean all creatures of a certain HD should provide the exact same challenge.

Quote from: StormBringer;518474While it is the DMs job to make sure high level characters are challenged, that doesn't mean all creatures of a certain HD should provide the exact same challenge.

Having similar ACs doesn't mean they are the same challenge.  A dragon and a demon can have the same AC and still be radically different encounters.  In addition, this assumes that "scales by level" equates to "automatically the same," which ignores the variable effects that stats have on such monsters.

Quote from: B.T.;518481Having similar ACs doesn't mean they are the same challenge.  A dragon and a demon can have the same AC and still be radically different encounters.  In addition, this assumes that "scales by level" equates to "automatically the same," which ignores the variable effects that stats have on such monsters.

That's because 'scales by level' implies 'automatically the same'.  For an opponent to be a challenge at a certain level, it can't be drastically different than anything else that is a challenge at that level.  If it is significantly easier to hit, it won't be as challenging.  If it has significantly fewer hit points, it won't be as challenging.  And the converse is also true; significantly harder to hit makes it a significantly more difficult opponent; viz CRs and ECLs in 3.x and how poorly those work.

The problem generally gets to be that once you start scaling, everything else pretty much has to follow.  Brendon mentions it above, and I have written about it before also.  You can't have just the one mechanic scale (especially with no upper limit) and ignore the rest.  If AC scales with level, but attacks and damage don't, then combat will take even longer than it does in 3.x and 4e now.  Everyone will be looking to roll that 19 or 20 just to get a normal hit.  Combat task resolution becomes almost binary.  If you are attacking AC75 with +20 to your roll, there is no point in rolling (unless you allow a 20 to always hit regardless).  If you can't scrape together at least +55 in bonuses, combat is a non-starter; you simply can't participate.  If you allow a 20 to always hit, then it is just a matter of waiting around until someone rolls that 5%.  If hit points and damage haven't scaled with AC, then you are fighting the same lower level fight when AC wasn't so high, it just takes forever to resolve from everyone waiting to hit that 5% chance.

If you scale attack bonuses but not the others, then combat will go more quickly, but it will also be much more lethal for the players.  Dealing and receiving quasi-autohits every round is just a matter of attrition, and you are wasting time rolling the attacks.  Just apply damage every round and see who falls out first.  You can't scale just AC or just attacks.  They both have to scale together, even if not necessarily precise parity.  But they do have to be close.

Hence, it doesn't really matter that the dragon and the demon have different damage or special attacks if everyone at the table is only hitting 5% or 10% of the time. The effects of the attacks are nearly meaningless, because they are rarely applied.

When you are talking about scaling AC by level, you are necessarily talking about scaling everything else, or it simply doesn't work.

In HackMaster there isn't a "AC" but since you are making opposed rolls you have an Attack Bonus and a Defense Bonus. Different Classes have different bonuses, that go up at different rates. Also, you get BP(Building Points) every level that you can spend on skills, proficiences, talents and/or weapon specializations(Attack, Defense, Damage, Speed) so those can go up depending on how you spend your points. So, yes, there is a way to do it and make work.

QuoteThat's because 'scales by level' implies 'automatically the same'. For an opponent to be a challenge at a certain level, it can't be drastically different than anything else that is a challenge at that level. If it is significantly easier to hit, it won't be as challenging. If it has significantly fewer hit points, it won't be as challenging. And the converse is also true; significantly harder to hit makes it a significantly more difficult opponent; viz CRs and ECLs in 3.x and how poorly those work.

I have no idea where you're getting this nonsense.  THAC0 scales by level; is a wizard the same as a fighter in combat?  Furthermore, you can still have a fair bit of divergence between stats (thereby influencing AC), and different monster abilities can significantly alter how a combat plays out.  For instance, a baubau is CR 7 with 19 AC and a succubus is CR 7 with 20 AC.  Are they "the same"?  What about a CR 6 ettin with 18 AC?  Is that the same as the demons?

QuoteThe problem generally gets to be that once you start scaling, everything else pretty much has to follow. Brendon mentions it above, and I have written about it before also. You can't have just the one mechanic scale (especially with no upper limit) and ignore the rest. If AC scales with level, but attacks and damage don't, then combat will take even longer than it does in 3.x and 4e now. Everyone will be looking to roll that 19 or 20 just to get a normal hit. Combat task resolution becomes almost binary. If you are attacking AC75 with +20 to your roll, there is no point in rolling (unless you allow a 20 to always hit regardless). If you can't scrape together at least +55 in bonuses, combat is a non-starter; you simply can't participate. If you allow a 20 to always hit, then it is just a matter of waiting around until someone rolls that 5%. If hit points and damage haven't scaled with AC, then you are fighting the same lower level fight when AC wasn't so high, it just takes forever to resolve from everyone waiting to hit that 5% chance.

If you scale attack bonuses but not the others, then combat will go more quickly, but it will also be much more lethal for the players. Dealing and receiving quasi-autohits every round is just a matter of attrition, and you are wasting time rolling the attacks. Just apply damage every round and see who falls out first. You can't scale just AC or just attacks. They both have to scale together, even if not necessarily precise parity. But they do have to be close.

Hence, it doesn't really matter that the dragon and the demon have different damage or special attacks if everyone at the table is only hitting 5% or 10% of the time. The effects of the attacks are nearly meaningless, because they are rarely applied.

When you are talking about scaling AC by level, you are necessarily talking about scaling everything else, or it simply doesn't work.

This is precisely the reason I want to scale AC in D&D.  Since attack bonuses scale, AC should scale with them.