|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Mar 13, 2017 14:23:10 GMT -5
Armor Class is, I believe, part of a nomenclature carried over from miniature war games. It works well in dungeons & dragons to signify particular types of actual armor, but there is more to an opponent's defenses than just armor. And it is in this sense that I came to the realization that: it is better to think of AC as a Defense Rating. While AC in dungeons and dragons does include other elements, such as magical components, the assistance of magical spells--etc., it does not, IMO, explicitly * include things like, the involved speeds of the defender, and/or luck; both of the latter being things that easily could be incorporated as components of the game... if one so desired. Of course, I may just be wrong in how I am thinking of such things. For example-- AC 2 is designated as representing plate armor & shield, worn and used by a human, elf, dwarf, hobbit, humanoid, etc. But if a creature, say a tiger, is given an AC 2 no such armor is worn, and the rating is assumed to result from its hide, speed-agility... or so one can deduce from the statement : such things as speed, ferocity [ ] are subsumed in the matrixes. (Vol.1, p.19). A giant turtle should have a lousy AC if its defense is based on speed and ferocity, yet its shell is far more resistant to attack than a tiger's hide. So, things aren't so clear-cut as we would like, nor the books suggest. Clearly, it is left for the referee to make rulings and clarify things; as has been the case, and part of the game's history, for decades. A simpler example/comparison would be two humans in plate armor and shield. Both would have an AC 2. So where does speed and ferocity come into play? In this case, it doesn't. Or, at least, it is not represented in any modifying affect on the AC of the combatants. Which, IMO, is a small lacking within the game. Both speed and ferocity could easily be mechanics of combat if the referee desired such. So, again, we must rely on the default position that, the referee will deal with such things if desired. For most of us, we've been using the AC for decades, and are quite used to it; it is pretty well imagined in our frontal lobes and we have no problems utilizing it within the scope of the adventure. But for newer players just coming to the table, wrapping one's head around the idea can, sometimes, not be so easy. Just tinkering with my noodle on a lazy Monday afternoon. I should probably not be doing that, huh?  * As a defined and described mechanic such as, adding/subtracting to one's own or an opponents AC. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Mar 13, 2017 19:19:15 GMT -5
Haven't there been many attempts at this and are they not usually slow and cumbersome to use? How would you go about it, that would not slow the game down. I could see this being done in chargen for the players so there would only be one number to add or subtract, but then how would you handle it for all of the monsters?
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Mar 14, 2017 18:26:55 GMT -5
Haven't there been many attempts at this and are they not usually slow and cumbersome to use? How would you go about it, that would not slow the game down. I could see this being done in chargen for the players so there would only be one number to add or subtract, but then how would you handle it for all of the monsters? I think there have, but I am not familiar with them nor know if they succeeded or failed. I would probably associate speed and ferocity with bonuses connected to attributes--like, a high DEX or STR bestows a +1 to initiative/to damage or something to that effect. Perhaps high DEX/speed would allow more attacks. I dunno. This is only a bit of supposing, and I'm hoping the thread prompts the reader to ponder and come up with his or her own conclusions. |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Mar 14, 2017 19:02:15 GMT -5
There are two distinct mechanisms at play.
Respecting characters, armor class is literally a number assigned to the classification of armor that they utilize.
Since the ACS requires that monsters have an armor class, and not all monsters wear armor, an armor class was assigned to them by gygax fiat.
since the numbers in the 3lbbs are "empirically derived" from what worked best in actual play, I would stick with the text verbatim.
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Mar 14, 2017 20:20:32 GMT -5
I suppose that it comes down to if one wants a combat simulator, or an adventure simulator. I feel that newer editions of the rules went towards combat because that was where the majority of users wanted to take it. I like my combat open to interpretation, I see a man fighting a man as a totally different thing from fighting a tiger, one has to avoid a tiger, and pick your strikes carefully. This makes sense to me. There is almost an illusion that the combat mechanics are simulating something, but I wonder how much of that is just us suspending our disbelief?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 17, 2017 9:16:46 GMT -5
I don't think it is broken, so I am mainly in favor of changes that speed things up rather than slow them down. I have not seen anything that can be applied rapidly on the fly for both the PCs and NPCs.
|
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on Mar 30, 2017 15:40:57 GMT -5
I'm not exactly sure what you were expecting, but I addressed this issue by removing the armor from the to-hit process. Now the to-hit roll is just about hitting so it includes any sort of dodging, parrying, size mods, shields, etc. And the armor roll is only armor. It's an all-or-nothing armor save rolled by the defender. Because the defender can roll it while waiting for the attacker's roll, it doesn't add to the game time, plus most monsters don't actually have armor so I won't be rolling it for them anyway.
Not only does this make it easy to implement attacks that avoid armor (such as magic spells) but, due to the math involved, it makes higher level character less dependent on armor as they level up (whereas the normal D&D system is the exact opposite.)
I won't ever run D&D by the old AC rules again.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 11, 2017 16:27:00 GMT -5
It's an abstract definition used within a game to allow the players to ascertain how to use it as it corresponds to the mathematics of said game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 12:15:20 GMT -5
It's an abstract definition used within a game to allow the players to ascertain how to use it as it corresponds to the mathematics of said game. Bravo. Whether armor makes you harder to hit or reduces damage when you are hit is, long term, irrelevant. The important point is that armor increases your survivability. |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Apr 21, 2017 11:46:05 GMT -5
A person over at DF posted in the general forum, asking for help in trying to come up with a way for the character/s to make a DEF (defensive) roll against monster attacks, of or under a certain number to avoid being hit, rather than having the DM roll attacks for the monsters themselves. Naturally, this jolted my junk and I responded with what I believe to be the perfect response.
Though the morning is still kind of early here, the whole exchange of ideas got me back to this thread. And to thinking. So, I'm gonna mull over some goop in my brains and sort it out and return to this thread with my conclusions. The subject matter will be:
1. Players do all the dice rolling. Period. (This removes the "us" vs. HIM [the GM] mindset.)
2. The GM is responsible for the world and how it interacts with the characters; there is nothing--truly--random.
The first has direct connection to this thread. The second, might belong somewhere else. We'll see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 11:55:03 GMT -5
Dungeon World already does that. Word for word.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Apr 21, 2017 12:09:49 GMT -5
Dungeon World already does that. Word for word. So they took my idea before it was a thought in my pea brain? The bastards! |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Apr 21, 2017 12:45:08 GMT -5
Dungeon World already does that. Word for word. So, I actually had to google what that was all about. Never heard of 'em. And I'm sure whatever they came up with, isn't the same brilliant thing I'm thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 21, 2017 13:38:41 GMT -5
Dungeon World already does that. Word for word. So, I actually had to google what that was all about. Never heard of 'em. And I'm sure whatever they came up with, isn't the same brilliant thing I'm thinking. Said the image in the mirror to itself... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 17:50:59 GMT -5
In Tony Bath's ancients wargame circa 1970, you rolled to hit and the target got a saving throw depending on its armor.
And with a few minutes of work I can devise a system using that method that is mathematically equivalent to OD&D.
There is truly nothing new under the sun. Vanity of vanities, this too is vanity.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Apr 21, 2017 20:05:29 GMT -5
Oh yeah? I'm working on it. But this, is striking: |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Apr 23, 2017 21:57:05 GMT -5
A person over at DF posted in the general forum, asking for help in trying to come up with a way for the character/s to make a DEF (defensive) roll against monster attacks, of or under a certain number to avoid being hit, rather than having the DM roll attacks for the monsters themselves. Naturally, this jolted my junk and I responded with what I believe to be the perfect response. Though the morning is still kind of early here, the whole exchange of ideas got me back to this thread. And to thinking. So, I'm gonna mull over some goop in my brains and sort it out and return to this thread with my conclusions. The subject matter will be: 1. Players do all the dice rolling. Period. (This removes the "us" vs. HIM [the GM] mindset.) 2. The GM is responsible for the world and how it interacts with the characters; there is nothing--truly--random. The first has direct connection to this thread. The second, might belong somewhere else. We'll see. I don't like number one, and who plays with mindset that the GM is your enemy? Why would you do that? I don't agree with number two, the GM is responsible for the world and how it interacts with the players; however, the players interact with the world and the can take things down many different and exclusively different pathways, many of which the GM could not anticipate and has to respond to. So the game can go in truly random directions as long as the GM is not constantly railroading the players back onto a specific path. What GM worthy of the title would railroad the players? No one that I would game with! |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 24, 2017 5:36:06 GMT -5
There is no us vs, them with a fair DM. Got an unfair DM? Torch him and her and move on.
Every GM fudges to maje things work, they just won't admit to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 13:17:16 GMT -5
Heh. The basis proposition of the 'Free Kriegsspiel Renaissance Manifesto" is that the judge CANNOT "fudge," because in Free Kriegsspiel the judge's word IS the rules.
I'll put up a link when the first draft is ready.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 13:19:19 GMT -5
I don't like number one, and who plays with mindset that the GM is your enemy? 14 year old boys, mostly. They're feral little beasts. We've all read "Lord of the Flies." Sadly, many people have never gotten over their first 14 year old DM, and many, many people still sulk when they lose. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 24, 2017 13:38:41 GMT -5
Ah yes, FKS is not comparable to D&D in this manner. In the rules, yes. But D&D is also a conceptual system with many intricate orderings of exchanges of information and processes which can be fudged to change these.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Apr 24, 2017 13:55:51 GMT -5
I don't like number one, and who plays with mindset that the GM is your enemy? 14 year old boys, mostly. They're feral little beasts. We've all read "Lord of the Flies." Sadly, many people have never gotten over their first 14 year old DM, and many, many people still sulk when they lose. Even worse, having wandered several, if not many, rpg game forums since 2007, it has amazed me the attitude of the posters claiming to be a GM/DM/Ref, and how they think about their games, campaigns and adventures in this mindset. I see it even today, where such folk talk about their joy in waylaying their players. The mindset is there--on both sides. And it's a sad thing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 20:02:11 GMT -5
Ah yes, FKS is not comparable to D&D in this manner. In the rules, yes. But D&D is also a conceptual system with many intricate orderings of exchanges of information and processes which can be fudged to change these. "FKR" is more a mindset for the referee than a game, reflecting my personal belief that the game was more fun before publication. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Apr 24, 2017 22:05:40 GMT -5
Heh. The basis proposition of the 'Free Kriegsspiel Renaissance Manifesto" is that the judge CANNOT "fudge," because in Free Kriegsspiel the judge's word IS the rules. I'll put up a link when the first draft is ready. How close are you to completing that first draft? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 25, 2017 3:03:54 GMT -5
Ah yes, FKS is not comparable to D&D in this manner. In the rules, yes. But D&D is also a conceptual system with many intricate orderings of exchanges of information and processes which can be fudged to change these. "FKR" is more a mindset for the referee than a game, reflecting my personal belief that the game was more fun before publication. Yep. But it's applied to the actual game which still exists, so FKS is used to describe a game of any sort which has no rigidly placed rules, thus my summary. Did you get the book yet? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 14:02:40 GMT -5
Not yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 1, 2017 11:10:20 GMT -5
Were you replying to me or Rob or both of us?  |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 1, 2017 11:56:52 GMT -5
Were you replying to me or Rob or both of us? I believe he was responding to me, but if the shoe fits... |
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Feb 13, 2018 4:08:03 GMT -5
I considered changing AC for a bit, but came to the realization,why do I need to? I don't. In my mind, AC like others have mentioned previously; that AC is an abstraction that reflects not only the defensive quality of the armor worn but how much actual damage gets through to actually hurt the PC inside. Full Plate & shield might make you slower & easier to hit, but it also is harder to actually harm you when you are hit. But combat itself is an abstraction, it isn't one hit, it is a ballet of strikes, feints, dodges & parries, with damage being done once a strike actually passes the armor worn.
It wasn't until B/X that multiple attacks by fighters, bonus to hit & variable damage became a thing; as such the concept of what occurred during combat changed giving the impression of each attack was a separate strike.It was only in later editions of D&D/AD&D & RPGs like Palladium embraced the inferred multiple attacks as separate full attacks not simply multiple strikes within a single attack round. Even if I end up using B/X D&D, I'd consider multiple strikes either hitting the same target or separate foes within range in a given combat round. But the only change will be who is being attacked not how AC plays into it beyond the basic abstraction itself.
I don't need a fancy alternative combat system for AC/defense beyond the one in the Men & Magic OD&D book or the rules in B/X. It is simple & quick to use. The thing is I just need to find local people willing to play either OD&D or B/X instead of 5e or 3.5 D&D/PF.
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on Feb 13, 2018 12:03:54 GMT -5
When I made my new rules, I did armor a little dif. Now the principle benefit is Damage Resistance, that is like 3 for plate plus a much smaller increase to ac.
|
|
