|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 3, 2015 11:50:27 GMT -5
Can someone speak (in a kind way) to the benefit of having magic armor affect attack rolls rather than simply modify the target AC?
I am a liberal arts / humanities guy, so I may be wrong here, but I believe, mathematically, they will yield the same result, yes?
But if you have a table that goes down to zero (or -#, depending upon how many modifiers you allow to stack, whether you house-rule in DEX bonuses, etc.), itself easy enough to manufacture, it just seems easier to me to check the table than to do math in my head for every monster every time they are up against a member of the party who has a magic item.
Is it just for the benefit of the player not knowing just how magical their magical shield is? If so, I get that. But I must say, right now, I am willing to loose that mystique for the sake of simplifying my labor as a ref.
Any (kind, generous) help here, guys?
|
|
|
Post by merctime on Jun 3, 2015 12:20:26 GMT -5
Hey, brother!
The only benefit that comes to mind is not having to re-work the attack tables to include rolls necessary to hit less than a 2 AC, or not having to adopt the tables from the supplements or AD&D.
Other than that, like yourself, I'm not too clear on any effective difference in the two methods. I just choose the OD&D way so I can have attack tables that aren't a page-width long and take me longer to navigate primarily.
I would say it's like anything else... Purely personal preference.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Jun 4, 2015 10:15:43 GMT -5
Another advantage is that AC still indicates armor type. I've never quite bought that because I'm not convinced monster AC reflects armor type.
Frank
|
|
|
Post by merctime on Jun 4, 2015 11:18:10 GMT -5
I'm with you, Frank, on the monster AC thing. Seems to be there are other things that takes into account than leather armor and a shield, for example, in some cases. Monster AC is more of a difficulty to damage that creature than an armor type to me.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 4, 2015 14:16:26 GMT -5
I've always assumed "armor" in AC just means something more broad and metaphorical: like armadillo hides, etcetera.
|
|
|
Post by merctime on Jun 4, 2015 14:34:56 GMT -5
...Yeah, and stuff like maneuverability, or some magic thing like being incorporeal for ghosts and such. Like Hit Points, AC is a bit too all-encompassing to only represent one thing I think.
Still, I like that overall, for PC's and mannish-types that wear armor, it's pretty reasonably representative of the type of armor they wear.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 5, 2015 7:08:47 GMT -5
Can someone speak (in a kind way) to the benefit of having magic armor affect attack rolls rather than simply modify the target AC? I am a liberal arts / humanities guy, so I may be wrong here, but I believe, mathematically, they will yield the same result, yes? But if you have a table that goes down to zero (or -#, depending upon how many modifiers you allow to stack, whether you house-rule in DEX bonuses, etc.), itself easy enough to manufacture, it just seems easier to me to check the table than to do math in my head for every monster every time they are up against a member of the party who has a magic item. Is it just for the benefit of the player not knowing just how magical their magical shield is? If so, I get that. But I must say, right now, I am willing to loose that mystique for the sake of simplifying my labor as a ref. Any (kind, generous) help here, guys? All I can tell you is that bitd we never did it by the book, our AC tables went into negative numbers, but we never wrote it down we always did it in our head. The other thing we always did is that both defensive and offensive bonuses stacked. I still run it that way to this day, having never done it any other way.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jun 5, 2015 8:40:19 GMT -5
Admin Pete, yes, and that is what I am used to with the Planet Eris folks too.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Jun 5, 2015 11:24:19 GMT -5
...Yeah, and stuff like maneuverability, or some magic thing like being incorporeal for ghosts and such. Like Hit Points, AC is a bit too all-encompassing to only represent one thing I think. Still, I like that overall, for PC's and mannish-types that wear armor, it's pretty reasonably representative of the type of armor they wear. The problem I have always had is the weapons vs. armor table. AC as an abstract things is fine, but what weapons vs. armor table modifiers do you use for monster AC? Frank
|
|
|
Post by merctime on Jun 5, 2015 15:18:42 GMT -5
Frank, although I would love to because I find the idea enticing, I don't use the weapon vs ac table.
Particularly now, as I've shifted fully into the Delving Deeper one-minute combat turn (what many of us call a round and usually lasts six seconds).
Since my combat is that abstract over a longer period, I can thus abstract that table into my description of combat instead of having it provide any real, mechanical benefit. So I just describe a military pick being more effective against plate, even though mechanically in my game it really isn't. Its just for show.
But, for a six-second combat round, were I to use it, I'd love to make use of the weapon vs ac table.
I think, being a fellow who enjoys abstraction, that I would imagine a particular monsters AC and liken it loosely to a base armor type for that purpose. So, dragons would be the plate category (AC 3), Ogres or say a hippopotamus I would use the chainmail category (due to extraordinary thick skin) and a giant badger I would use the leather armor category.
I would only use 'base' armor types for this purpose, not including shields... And would base my guess off of my imagination of the creature instead of its actual listed AC.
So for the bonus/penalty from weapon vs ac, I'd only calculate that off of the basic armor types such as plate, chain and leather... But that would strictly be for the to hit modifier gained from weapon vs AC (Or, better named perhaps, "Weapon vs Armor TYPE"). The actual number required to do damage would still be determined from that monsters actual listed AC.
Of course folks using expanded base armors, like banded or scale, have more types to work with here.
I hope this makes sense! Its a bit jarbled I know.
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Jun 6, 2015 6:55:10 GMT -5
I've always liked extending the combat tables into the negatives. Actually, the "modern" approach which uses equations is almost better than tables.
Nowadays I just add a BAB (basic attack bonus) column to my class charts and use AAC (ascending armor class) instead of OD&D's AC. Then you just roll and add to beat a target number. No tables needed any more.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 8, 2015 5:02:11 GMT -5
I've shifted fully into the Delving Deeper one-minute combat turn (what many of us call a round and usually lasts six seconds) I don't think DD can be credited for the one-minute combat turn. Works well thou
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 23, 2015 1:48:57 GMT -5
Ffilz wrote:
This is a vestige of Chainmail and the MTM battery. Modifiers representing enchanted armor correspond to armor and those who donne armor, humans and humanoids. 'Monsters' are fantastic creatures battled by heroes using the FCT.
As much of the milieu of our campaign is low magic and low fantasy this narrow designation of AC is wholly operative.
Note, subtracting a dexterity adj (see supplement 1) from the 'to hit' dice rather than AC preserves the concept of armor as it relates to a particular weapon. A morning star vs. mail yields a different value than that of a dagger vs. mail.
I think monster AC is approachable as some have suggested by finding a corresponding armor to hide type. According to the AD&D monster manual, higher hit points account for the mass and toughness of a monster, so one can always impose a penalty 'to hit' upon an attacker given the deft or agile nature of a creature.
There is also some precedent for this correspondence between monster exterior and armor type in the 3LBBs: see giant squid (class 7 armor) and giant crab (class 2 armor) etc.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Aug 26, 2015 7:20:55 GMT -5
I've shifted fully into the Delving Deeper one-minute combat turn (what many of us call a round and usually lasts six seconds) I don't think DD can be credited for the one-minute combat turn. Works well thou I have been using 6 sec melee rounds and one minute turns for combat since back in '75. I would imagine many groups tried that independently at many different times over the years.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 27, 2015 8:47:16 GMT -5
Perilous, how have you handled movement rates in the 6 second melee rd? Have you just divided the turn rate by 10? This distinction has been pivotal in addressing charging vs. missile fire in our scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Aug 27, 2015 11:53:22 GMT -5
Perilous, how have you handled movement rates in the 6 second melee rd? Have you just divided the turn rate by 10? This distinction has been pivotal in addressing charging vs. missile fire in our scenarios. Bitd (ie in college) we took actual speeds in miles per hour and converted it to distance in 6 sec. Those sheets are long gone and for simplicity I am currently running it without doing anything other than substituting 6 sec melee rounds for 1 minute rounds but using the same movement rates. Distances are still covered in the exact same number of rounds. Now if you convert the movement rates it will result in a greater number of rounds to cover the same distance and I can speak from experience that that is a double-edged sword. However, if I find the time I will recreate the work.
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Aug 27, 2015 15:43:00 GMT -5
Can someone speak (in a kind way) to the benefit of having magic armor affect attack rolls rather than simply modify the target AC? I've always assumed "armor" in AC just means something more broad and metaphorical: like armadillo hides, etcetera. 1. I think fundamentally the two are interchangeable. I prefer to modify the target AC because it seems more intuitive to me, but I know folks who prefer to adjust attack rolls instead. I suppose if you are near the extreme end of the combat charts you may encounter the places where the numbers become stagnant (sticks on 20) but for most of the table it should have essentially the same effect on the mathematics. 2. I interpret "armor" in AC the way you do -- it's more of an abstracted thing. Heck, for most aspects of OD&D I try to abstract it out rather than pin things down. That philosophy difference is (to me) one of the factors that makes OD&D differ from AD&D -- AD&D tried to quantify and specify while OD&D does more hand-waving. I guess in my opinion it shouldn't matter whether a critter has high AC because it's hide is thick or has high AC because it's tiny or fast and hard to hit. Either way the challenge of the attack is difficult.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 27, 2015 23:59:49 GMT -5
Perilous wrote:
With no intention of thread-jacking Tetramorph's study, here's a movement rate/charge mock up as it might relate to my own track & field experience (In the 440" (400 meter) in high school, I ran 56 (state records hovered between 55-53, world record: 46 seconds). Despite framing this thread as an OD&D study, I have taken the liberty of setting this example with the encumbrance categories expanded upon in AD&D.
Encumbrance (PHB & WildSrvgd) MR" charge/turn(MR" x3) Charge/rd*
none 'run very quickly' 15" 450 yds 5"
normal gear 'run quickly' 12" 360 yds 4" heavy gear 'lumbering run' 9" 270 yds 3"
very heavy gear 'trot short distances' 6" 180 yds 2"
encumbered 'no trotting possible' 3" 90 yds 1"
* rounded figure. Note: MR"= (10's of yds/outdoors,10's of ft./indoors), rd. = 6 seconds, Turns = 1 minute.
The example above is to simulate advancing/charging while harried by missile fire. Pulling from Delta's Blog post concerning missile range, bow fire during skirmish/list combat is defined in 10's of feet, simulating arc and trajectory, rather than yards which would conform to higher arc/trajectory of mass combat missile fire, i.e. a longbow's long range is 170'-240' or roughly 60-80 yds. Thus, an archer would loose roughly 2 arrows (one at long range) at a mail-armored man charging (9") across a field before he could either beat a retreat or draw a weapon.
Fatigue/charging setting in on the 3rd rd. (see Gygax's Classic Warfare) or fatigue rules from Chainmail as they apply to the MTM battery can be applied.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 28, 2015 6:31:03 GMT -5
Can someone speak (in a kind way) to the benefit of having magic armor affect attack rolls rather than simply modify the target AC? I am a liberal arts / humanities guy, so I may be wrong here, but I believe, mathematically, they will yield the same result, yes? That is a convenient approximation, sure, but it's not necessarily what OD&D implies. The OD&D Attack Matrices do not specify rolls required for any AC lower than 2. You can derive your own, for sure, but it's not quite as straight forward as it might appear. In particular, you'll need to invent a rule to cover the first column (level 1-3 fighting-men, et. al.) versus ACs lower than 2. For example, you could legitimately rule that Attack Matrix I should: A. Stop at 17. Require a throw of 17+ to hit any AC lower than 2, or B. Stop at 20. Require a throw of 18+ to hit AC1, 19+ to hit AC0, and 20 to hit any AC lower than 0, or C. Never Stop. Keep subtracting 1 from the target number for each lower AC, indefinitely. 18+ to hit AC1, 19+ to hit AC0, 20 to hit AC-1, 21 to hit AC-2, 22 to hit AC-3, and so on. D. Something else? If you want to adjust ACs below 2 then you must necessarily decide how to handle the above. The implication of the OP (which I'm sure many folks go with) is that option C is the most "logical" approach, and is mathematically identical to "by the book" to boot. But what does "by the book" actually mean? It's worthwhile, perhaps, observing that the bottom-right-most part of OD&D's Attack Matrix I (M&M p19) implies some "final" target number might appear repetitively (perhaps a 17 or 20; cf options A or B above). If we turn to AD&D for "clarification" we might observe (DMG p74) that an AD&D Veteran requires a throw of 20 to hit any AC between 0 and -5 (the same pattern occurring for all AD&D Man-types). Recalling that AD&D THAC2 is "off by 1" in OD&D terms, the DMG might imply that an OD&D Veteran should require a throw of 19+ to hit any AC between 0 and -5 (something part-way between options A and B, above). If we turn to the Rule Cyclopedia for "clarification" we see (RC p106) that a RC Veteran, similarly, requires a throw of 20 to hit any AC between -1 and -5. Basic's THAC2 is (from memory) in alignment with OD&D, so RC might imply that an OD&D Veteran should require a throw of 20 to hit any AC between -1 and -5 (options B, above). I'm fairly sure option C is the way the 3rd edition D&D Attack Matrix works, but this "infinite continuum of Armor Classes" model seems quite different to the "finite set of discrete Armor Classes" of OD&D, and is not mathematically identical to the hit probabilities versus negative ACs specified in either AD&D or Basic RC. In summary: applying negative attack roll adjustments will produce the same mathematical result as adjusting the target AC by the same amount, BUT this is not necessarily what OD&D's Attack Matrix I implies, and is not what AD&D or RC state in their attack matrices.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 28, 2015 7:35:16 GMT -5
waysoftheearth, as always, a brilliant mechanical analysis. I cannot see, however, how your analysis helps me judge as a ref any differently. If I go with anything other than option C, I am rendering the magical armor bonuses meaningless. If I want to factor in magic armor and, as a ref, front end it on a chart, it seems to me that it is always, mathematically speaking, going to look like C. I am not thinking theoretically here. I need results implicit in the rules.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 28, 2015 8:01:51 GMT -5
If I want to factor in magic armor and, as a ref, front end it on a chart, it seems to me that it is always, mathematically speaking, going to look like C. Why wouldn't it look more like AD&D/RC attack matrices?
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 28, 2015 8:41:23 GMT -5
waysoftheearth, because there is no such thing as AC lower than 2 in Oe. If I wanted to come up with, let us say, "natural" AC lower than 2, then I would totally consult your analysis and I would absolutely choose an option other than C. But instead there are rules that allow for magic armor and these say that they affect the attack roll of the enemy. They do not imply that they only affect such rolls on a 1e or basic scale of general descending AC. They affect the roll every time. Now, for ease of play, I have decided to front in the math by extending my attack matrices as a ref. AC 1 through -1, let us call this "magic AC," are purely theoretical and only used for adjudicating magic armor so that I don't have to figure it from the attackers POV. The math is the same. If I use the extension of matrices from 1e or Basic, I am ignoring that the penalty to attacks affects every attempt on magic armor. I thus violate something implicit in the rules themselves, and unnecessarily penalize the players. And I don't want to do that.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 28, 2015 18:08:05 GMT -5
waysoftheearth, because there is no such thing as AC lower than 2 in Oe. If I wanted to come up with, let us say, "natural" AC lower than 2, then ... I would absolutely choose an option other than C. Yes, this was precisely the point of my post. But instead there are rules that allow for magic armor and these say that they affect the attack roll of the enemy. They do not imply that they only affect such rolls on a 1e or basic scale of general descending AC. They affect the roll every time. Yes, I agree almost entirely... I have decided to front in the math by extending my attack matrices as a ref. AC 1 through -1, let us call this "magic AC," are purely theoretical and only used for adjudicating magic armor so that I don't have to figure it from the attackers POV. The math is the same. Yes, the math is the same if you ignore the potentially implicit effect that there may be a "ceiling" target number which hits any AC. I.e., a figure may wear plate armor and carry a shield+3 while wearing a displacer cloak, effectively being AC 2 and adjusting attack rolls by -5. On your secret ref's theoretical attack matrix, this figure would be a theoretical AC -3. A Veteran would require a throw of 22 to hit this figure, whether he is AC-3 or AC2 @-5. All I'm suggesting is that there may be sufficient precedent to consider whether a throw of 20 would be a hit regardless. I'm not saying OD&D states this explicitly, only that it's a plausible interpretation. (As a side note, the 1973 draft and EPT both have double damage rules on very high hit rolls--20 in the case of EPT--but EGG supposedly did not like the notion of "critical hits". OTOH, EGG apparently thought--by AD&D at the latest--a 20 should hit anything down to AC -5.)
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 28, 2015 18:25:55 GMT -5
waysoftheearth, okay, now I see your point. I have been part of a play group where a 20 is always a hit, so that problem did not occur to me. It is amazing how much our currently assumed house rules affect the way we read things! Thanks
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 29, 2015 1:23:21 GMT -5
(M&T p31)
Up to this point in the discussion, I think everyone has assumed that "hit dice" means "attack dice". But what if it means what it says?
What it literally says is: A 4+1 HD Ogre attacking a Man in plate armor+2 would be counted only a 2+1 HD monster.
So...
A. If the Man were a normal man, the encounter would be resolved as normal combat.
In a normal combat scenario the plate armor+2 would cause the Ogre to have only two attacks as a normal man rather than its usual four attacks as a normal man.
FWIW, this is the exact reverse function of magical weapons in normal combat: (CM p38).
Or...
B. If the Man were a hero, the encounter would be resolved as heroic/fantastic combat.
In a fantastic/heroic combat scenario the Ogre would have a THAC2 of a 2+1 HD monster rather than its usual THAC2 of a 4+1 HD monster. On Attack Matrix II: Monsters Attacking this is the difference between requiring a throw of 12+ to hit AC2, versus requiring a 15+ to hit AC2. Although not mathematically identical, this is apparently where it is convenient to "simplify" magical armor's effect to a -1 attack roll adjustment per plus of protection.
Edit:
Observe how the Protection From Evil spell (M&M p23) also says: "taking -1 from hit dice of evil opponents" and notes that "this spell is not cumulative in effect with magic armor and rings".
I quoted the section on magic armor, above, and looking at rings we see:
The Ring of Protection (M&T p33) "serves as +1 armor would, giving this bonus to defensive capabilities". Notice the use of Chainmail-esque "defensive capabilities" language here, and recall that this language also appears in M&T (p5) as "Attack/Defense capabilities" where numbers of attacks per hit die versus normal men is discussed.
It seems that these three devices (magical armor, protection from evil, and ring of protection) all function in a similar manner.
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Aug 29, 2015 7:57:46 GMT -5
As to the whole "from the hit dice" thing, I used to run some OD&D campaings where I used Chainmail as my combat system. While you can use the man-to-man tables, I often ran games where the mass combat tables were my default system so that an ogre (for example) would actually roll four dice to hit. In cases like that, subtracting one die to hit (e.g. the ogre could roll three) seemed like a valid interpretation of the rule.
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Aug 29, 2015 8:04:06 GMT -5
there is no such thing as AC lower than 2 in Oe. I'm a little puzzled by this. Do you mean for 0E to represent the white box only? Because I'm looking at Supplement I Greyhawk (page 15) and I see what looks to me like AC numbers that go right up through -8 AC for +5 armor with +5 shield. Of course, this doesn't allow one to use the weapon type versus armor class tables.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 29, 2015 8:48:41 GMT -5
finarvyn, right, I don't use the other supplements much. And the point I am making is that there is no "natural" AC below 2. All the rest are the results of enchanted armor, thus "magical" AC.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 29, 2015 10:47:32 GMT -5
Waysoftheearth wrote:
Nice catch. Ways, how does this translate against normal opponents in MTM melee? As normals are only working with 2 dice, does the loss to their 'hit dice' turn out to be a negative modifier?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 29, 2015 19:08:32 GMT -5
how does this translate against normal opponents in MTM melee? As normals are only working with 2 dice, does the loss to their 'hit dice' turn out to be a negative modifier? "Hit dice" are a number of six-sided dice used to determine a) how many hit points damage can be sustained, and b) how many attack a monster-type should throw versus normal men. Although the b) case relates hit dice to number of attacks, hit dice remain independent of how each of these attacks are resolved. I can resolve whether each attack is a hit or miss by whatever means I like; I could throw 1d6 for each attack (e.g., CM mass battles), I could throw 2d6 for each attack (e.g. CM MtM), I could throw d% for each attack (e.g. 1973 D&D), I could throw 1d20 for each attack (e.g. OD&D's "Alternative" attack matrices). Regardless of whether I use a d6, 2d6, d%, d20, or whatever else to determine whether each attack hit or misses, the notion of subtracting one hit die implies one less attack. A 1 HD man with a -1 HD would have zero effective attacks, so the implication at the Man-to-Man level (or wherever belligerents have 1 HD each) appears to be that magic armor is impervious to normal attack. Note that prior to the OD&D magic armor rule, there was a CM magic armor rule which specifically states attackers suffer a -3 adjustment on the Man-to-Man tables if the target has magical armor (roughly equivalent to -6 on a d20). Although this rule is apparently superseded in D&D-land, it might be handy to bear in mind.
|
|