The couple of discussions round naked fighters reminded me of this pet gripe again....
A 20th level fighter in no armour is as easy to hit with a sword as a 5 year old child. Thsi does not make sense and is easy to fix.

The case for

i) Game reasons
   The game already shows how hitting isn't just about doing damage through armour.
   Monks have increasing AC with level due to their intense martial training - can't fighters train too?
   Dex gives you an ac bonus  - thus speed and agility make you harder to hit, if Speed and agility why not skill and training?
   You get bonus when attacking from the flank +1 or behind +2 therefore if you are trying to hit someone who is less aware of you they are easier to hit. If this is the case then shouldn't training and skill to make you more aware make you harder to hit?
   In 2e  you can get an AC addition from certain weapons styles - indicating skill improves AC again (likewise optional classes like the Swashbuckler etc in Dragon magazine often had AC bonuses due to class skill) - so again the idea of skill improving AC is inherrent in the game.

ii) Real life reasons
   When you train to fight a lot of it is weaving ducking and moving.
   When I trained at fencing the teacher was impossible to hit even when he wasn't using a blade, likewise many of my martial arts instructors over the years.


The Case against

i)    Too Complex - really? giving someone base AC and then adding armour (ie 1 simple addition is too complex?)
ii)   Hit points represent the ability to dodge blows etc already - this only works if you accept that HPs are skill and luck and 'energy' and so they should heal quickly as in 4e rather than over days. Also touch attacks and so on.
iii)    That is not the way D&D works - grognard defence 101

I think increasing Base AC at a rate similar to THACO is neat and tidy (F - 1/2, T - 1/4, W 1-5  ...C - 1/3 - although I would switch clerics and thieves for other reasons but a separate debate).

Discuss

I think this would be a great idea for a "Swords & Sorcery", "Swashbuckling" or "Sword & Planet" type of campaign where heroes seldom or never wear armor (Like the vast majority of classic fantasy adventure fiction)... but it would be a poor fit for a standard D&D game where PCs already have magical armor, magical shields, Rings of Protection, etc. I've seen some high-level Tank fighters with pretty incredible ACs.

Quote from: jibbajibba;710040iii)    That is not the way D&D works - grognard defence 101

See, you had me until you had to go and be a dick.

Also for the case against-the law of diminishing returns. Points in AC represent huge margins of difference. Compare wearing a leather jerkin to full plate. Whatever training and natural reflexes offer you is going to eventually reach the point where they wouldn't provide you the same amount of garunteed protection as a Chainmail Haulberk.

This of course ignores the monk, because I think the class and its inclusion in D&D is stupid.

"Im a brave Paladin, knight of the realm"
" Im a crafty wizard, researcher into the occult"
"Im a witty bard, singer of glories and entertainer at courts"
"Im a ninja!"

Quote from: jibbajibba;710040ii) Real life reasons
   When you train to fight a lot of it is weaving ducking and moving.
   When I trained at fencing the teacher was impossible to hit even when he wasn't using a blade, likewise many of my martial arts instructors over the years.

Yeah, definitely – but on the other hand, is the teacher going to be that much harder to hit with an arrow? I think this is an argument for melee combat being an opposed check, and then you roll against (an easier) AC. And say that if the opposed rolls are within 2 or 3 of each other you both get to roll vs. AC.

Additionally, a flanking opponent may just have to beat that same check minus 4, or maybe he gets to roll directly against AC regardless, depending on how gritty you want things.

Quote from: Piestrio;710044See, you had me until you had to go and be a dick.

No I didn't

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;710043I think this would be a great idea for a "Swords & Sorcery", "Swashbuckling" or "Sword & Planet" type of campaign where heroes seldom or never wear armor (Like the vast majority of classic fantasy adventure fiction)... but it would be a poor fit for a standard D&D game where PCs already have magical armor, magical shields, Rings of Protection, etc. I've seen some high-level Tank fighters with pretty incredible ACs.

But those things are there becuae of the system right.
Change the system and you erode the need for the "iron man" PC where basically anyone can pilot the +5 Plate +4 shield and the actual character is almost interchangable.

Like you say in the classic fiction adventurers are much more lightly armoured and only don the flull palte when they expect to ride into an actual battle on a horse.

I would say that the system generates the need for those items.

Quote from: jibbajibba;710052No I didn't

You are just a peach aren't you?

Quote from: Imp;710048Yeah, definitely – but on the other hand, is the teacher going to be that much harder to hit with an arrow? I think this is an argument for melee combat being an opposed check, and then you roll against (an easier) AC. And say that if the opposed rolls are within 2 or 3 of each other you both get to roll vs. AC.

Additionally, a flanking opponent may just have to beat that same check minus 4, or maybe he gets to roll directly against AC regardless, depending on how gritty you want things.

a great point.
want to keep combat slick and not get bogged down in multiple rolls to resolve each blow.
Hmm... let me think on that for a moment.

Quote from: TristramEvans;710045Also for the case against-the law of diminishing returns. Points in AC represent huge margins of difference. Compare wearing a leather jerkin to full plate. Whatever training and natural reflexes offer you is going to eventually reach the point where they wouldn't provide you the same amount of garunteed protection as a Chainmail Haulberk.

This of course ignores the monk, because I think the class and its inclusion in D&D is stupid.

"Im a brave Paladin, knight of the realm"
" Im a crafty wizard, researcher into the occult"
"Im a witty bard, singer of glories and entertainer at courts"
"Im a ninja!"

Intersting point.
The counter argument would be that if you can't hit me I don;t need protection, because you can't hit me. Certainly a guy in, even custom made Plate, is going to be easier to hit but harder to hurt than a guy in a lioncloth (based on teh same level of skill).
I think a limit is reasonable but I am not sure where it should sit.
With the rough system I proposed a 12th level figther would have AC 5 (1st level 10, 3rd 9, 5th 8, 7th 7, 9th 6, 11th 5) which as we have said before is probably someone like Conan. So should Conan's skill give him +5 AC? I think that is reasonable. It's like is 12 levels of training equal to 18 Dex and a shield?

At the very top end the 20th level guy, then I can see that a base AC of 1 might be seen as too good but at that level we are talking the almost unknon super hero. A 1st level fighter sans specialisation or anything, with a THACO of 19 would hit this guy 15% of the time in a fencing match ... is that really too high?

As it stands in a match to the touch a 1st level guy will hit the Dex 14 20th level guy 55% of the time does that seem correct?

Hmm, I think the problem with an abstraction is that trying to make logical inferences of differing aspects of it tends to call attention to its abstract nature.

Consider:wouldn't a fighter who is improving thier reflexes with experience and training effectively be increasing thier Dex (and thus thier Dex bonus to AC)?

I propose an alternate solution: a Dex-based Saving Throw called Dodge that a player can use in place of thier AC when actively dodging or invading incoming attacks. This could be increased with levels while still allowing a fighter who is not focusing on defense (trying to perform a called shot or a mighty blow, for example) to still be relying on armour to save his bacon.

Quote from: jibbajibba;710040The couple of discussions round naked fighters reminded me of this pet gripe again....
A 20th level fighter in no armour is as easy to hit with a sword as a 5 year old child. Thsi does not make sense and is easy to fix.

Of course it's easy to fix: BUY ARMOR.

AD&D, like OD&D, uses XP for GP. What this means is that your current XP total is your cumulative wealth, less about 20% that came from monsters defeated. By 20th level, some of this has been spent on a keep, taxes, maintenance, training, and hirelings/henchmen, but there's bound to be enough extra for some plate mail. BUY IT.

Quote from: jibbajibba;710040The Case against

i)    Too Complex - really? giving someone base AC and then adding armour (ie 1 simple addition is too complex?)
ii)   Hit points represent the ability to dodge blows etc already - this only works if you accept that HPs are skill and luck and 'energy' and so they should heal quickly as in 4e rather than over days. Also touch attacks and so on.
iii)    That is not the way D&D works - grognard defence 101

That's not a thorough presentation of the case against.

(1) It's not too complex -- it's more complex than it's worth.
(2) Hit points *do* represent luck, energy, stamina, dodging blows, etc. That's what it says in the rules. If you don't like that and want to change to HP as real, physical damage, then:
 (a) You're playing gritty and shouldn't be using cinematic AC improving with level, anyways;
 (b) You probably should switch to armor absorbing damage.
(3) There's already a class that improves AC with level, as you point out: the monk. Does every freaking class have to have the same abilities?
(4) There's already a mechanic in AD&D to represent warriors with skimpy or no armor who dodge attacks: the Dex modifier.
(5) High-level fighters shouldn't have improved AC against *higher* level fighters, because you're just screwing up the fighter more. At most, give them an AC bonus if facing lower-level opponents.

The way I handle naked, dodging fighters: I focus on Move and on piece-by-piece armor rules.

If you move faster than your opponent, you get an attack and defense bonus. I only give a +1 or +2, and weapon reach can negate that.

Your total AC = the best AC covering head or vitals. Wearing a helm and a loin cloth? AC 3 on a normal attack. On a surprise attack, use your *worst* AC instead (and I give thieves a damage bonus = AC.)

I also have a called parry rule I'm thinking about trying.

And the case against.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;710060And the case against.

Not bad but falls into the same pitfalls.

So for a start I am not saying that a lightly armoured fighter is a match for a guy in plate I am saying that a really experienced skilled fighter is a match for a guy in plate. If the skilled guy is also in plate he will be even better because Plate (+8 AC) adds to his base AC.

So this in't a clamour to allow swashbucklers its a clamour to allow fighters to get better at dodging as they progress. In fact all classes to a degree but Fighters in the main.

The other examples

Parry in 1e - remove your Strength bonus from your oppoents chance to hit you. So 20 levels of experience count for nought but being musclebound helps you parry .... sorry weak.
3e does have some options that help mitigate the situation but again fairly weak sauce especially compared toet h other 'Feat' options out there.

HP - I mentioned HPs becuase its a good arguement. I love HPs being skill luck talent etc whcih is why in my games I have HPs and wounds and the two are separate. However, if you stick to HPs heal 1 per day in the 1e model you are saying they are physical damage, might not be what you put in the test but its what you are saying with the actual rule. If you want HPs to heal Level HP per turn of rest and damage that causes a loss of HPs isn't real damage so can't deal poison damage or whatever .... and you can solve touch attacks then I am with you on using HPs as an aternate.


Lastly battlefield and adventuring are different. If you are on a battlefield then you can't use your skill to the same level because there are too many opponents and too much random stuff. This is not the case then 3 of you meet 5 of them in a 20 foot room.

Now comabt D&D is about abstration a rule for increasing AC for all classes as they level is tidy abstract adds no extra complexity to combat (though as I have said missile fire is interesting).
As it stands now 2 fighters of 20th level without armour will hit each other with every swing. Every attack will be a hit (AC 10 a 20th level fighter hits on a 1, well actually a -6) . I would have thought 2 competant equally skilled opponents would roughly the same chance of hitting each other regardless of their level? In a modified system we get closer to this.

Quote from: talysman;710059Of course it's easy to fix: BUY ARMOR.

AD&D, like OD&D, uses XP for GP. What this means is that your current XP total is your cumulative wealth, less about 20% that came from monsters defeated. By 20th level, some of this has been spent on a keep, taxes, maintenance, training, and hirelings/henchmen, but there's bound to be enough extra for some plate mail. BUY IT.

Wandering round an underground tunnel in Full plate is one of the last things I would want to do.
This argument is just basically saying This si the way the game is which I think I covered.

[/QUOTE]
That's not a thorough presentation of the case against.

(1) It's not too complex -- it's more complex than it's worth.
(2) Hit points *do* represent luck, energy, stamina, dodging blows, etc. That's what it says in the rules. If you don't like that and want to change to HP as real, physical damage, then:
 (a) You're playing gritty and shouldn't be using cinematic AC improving with level, anyways;
 (b) You probably should switch to armor absorbing damage.
(3) There's already a class that improves AC with level, as you point out: the monk. Does every freaking class have to have the same abilities?
(4) There's already a mechanic in AD&D to represent warriors with skimpy or no armor who dodge attacks: the Dex modifier.
(5) High-level fighters shouldn't have improved AC against *higher* level fighters, because you're just screwing up the fighter more. At most, give them an AC bonus if facing lower-level opponents.

The way I handle naked, dodging fighters: I focus on Move and on piece-by-piece armor rules.

If you move faster than your opponent, you get an attack and defense bonus. I only give a +1 or +2, and weapon reach can negate that.

Your total AC = the best AC covering head or vitals. Wearing a helm and a loin cloth? AC 3 on a normal attack. On a surprise attack, use your *worst* AC instead (and I give thieves a damage bonus = AC.)

I also have a called parry rule I'm thinking about trying.[/QUOTE]

i) I don't think its complex - my suggestion is for example far less complex than the examples you give.
ii) HPs  - see my previous comment - all for using HPS provided they work as described and not 1hp heal per day.
iii) A monk's AC reduces as they level due to skill, clerics and wizards gain more spells as they level due to skill. If something represents martial skill it should apply to all classes using martial skill just like gaining spells as you level applies to all classes that use spells.
iv) Dex modifier, as I pointed out, indicates skileld people are harder to hit. It is basically saying being quick is innate and no amount of Skill or training or experience can match it. I disagree
v) You are not screwing the fighter ... 2 fighters of 5th level ot 15th level should be hitting each other just about as often. In my example a 5th level fighter (AC8) fencing with a 15th level figthjer (AC 3) will need to roll an 11 the 15th level guy will need to roll a -2 .... seems okay