I'm Stumped: Scaling AC, Armor, and the RNG?

[ckafrica]

My question is if Armor is no longer AC how do we make heavy both heavy armor and light armor (I think 4e is right and medium is dumb) attractive mechanically? what should be the balances and trade offs?

Here's what I would suggest.

Heavy armor:
Pros- Grants DR against attacks, making you good against a swarm of monsters.

Cons- Makes it hard to move around, be stealthy and prevents use of agility based powers. Possibly makes it easier for you to be hit.

Sure but what is the balance point? Is it make you slower because we all know how important mobility can be.

Should it be that the is an all out penalty to DEX? It would make sense in a european context of no heavily armored ranged attackers but does not address samurai (unless you imply that japanese armor was simply not good enough to be "heavy" or that archer samurai wore lighter variations. I really don't know enough or care to be honest) I have a friend who has worn reproduction plate and says its much quieter than chain. modility is shit but enough to load and fire a crossbow just fine. But I don't need simulationist, I want mechanically balanced.

Ultimately the question is what is a fair penalty to take on in return for +25% DR? (I'm not sure that's why I'm asking)

And yeah, I don't think medium armor should really exist unless you can think of a good middle ground between heavy and light, but honestly I dont' even think it's a big deal. Really I don't even support there being a lot of armor types. You should be wearing "Heavy" armor and get to flavor it as banded mail, chain mail, or plate armor, depending on what you want.

Similarly, light armor could be leather, ring, studded leather or a chain shirt.

For me, I don't want any tie up with a kind of real armor and the mechanical armor types. I want heavy to be rhino hide as often as its plate armor and I want people to have light plate running round as they were in leather.

Add some minor characteristic advantages for certain materials if you wish (+2 save vs cold for leather maybe) but otherwise leave what kind of armor I wear up to my imagination.

[RandomCasualty2]

Sure but what is the balance point? Is it make you slower because we all know how important mobility can be.

The main big thing would be that it prevents you from using agility based dodging powers. In the set up I had envisioned, you'd want those kinds of powers against heavy hitters like giants, which could do sufficient damage to make your DR virtually moot. So agility people might have powers like " Once per encounter, as an immediate action, make one hit against you into a miss." Maybe a declared dodge or something that gives him a 50% miss chance against the first attack someone makes for the whole combat, and other stuff like that.

The drawback to the agility fighter is that he has no DR, and his dodging powers only work on one or two foes at a time, so that a horde of monsters chews him up, because eventually he runs out of defensive powers, or can't use his powers on everyone and gets screwed. Basically creatures that have a lot of attacks, like a monk or a hydra are a lot better against the agility fighter than a heavy hitter like a dragon.

So the guy in heavy armor is designed for wading through an army, and the lightly armored guy is designed for taking out singular tough foes.

For me, I don't want any tie up with a kind of real armor and the mechanical armor types. I want heavy to be rhino hide as often as its plate armor and I want people to have light plate running round as they were in leather.

Add some minor characteristic advantages for certain materials if you wish (+2 save vs cold for leather maybe) but otherwise leave what kind of armor I wear up to my imagination.

Yeah, I'd like that too. Mechanically people just have "light armor", flavor wise it can be one of many types of light armor. The only important thing is that people in the game world can identify it as being light armor.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Let's say we live in a perfect world with a scaling AC bonus, where armor provides DR, where everything is supposed to stay on the RNG...

First I'd like to just point out that you don't really need to use the armor as DR variant. So long as attack bonuses scale at roughly the same rate as AC, armor works just fine adding to AC. Dudes in heavy armor will be consistently hard to hit for NPCs, but that's the way it should work anyway. (Monsters still won't have that problem.) But if you like the armor as DR variant, that works fine too.

Why not convert saves to defense scores (a lá Saga Edition) and have AC be Reflex Defense?

Assuming you mean tacking each save bonus onto a base DC of 10, the only thing I see that may be a problem is if you ignore max Dex bonus. I think it would be best to leave AC as the fourth defense. Otherwise, no issue.

TS

[Psychic Robot]

Max Dex bonus! I forgot. Pshaw, forsooth, and whatnot.

[Manxome]

Yet another way to handle DR, if you want to make it more effective vs. lots of weak attacks than single strong attacks without completely negating damage, is to say that it negates a flat amount but not more than a certain percentage of damage done. That still nominally involves a division, but one could very plausibly say something like "that percentage is always 50%" and have done with it; dividing numbers by 2 isn't especially difficult.

So if you've got DR 4, then when someone smacks you for 24 damage, you take 20. If you get hit 3 times for 8 damage each, you take 12. But if you get hit 6 times for 4 damage each, you still take 12, because it can't negate more than half the damage. So armor just cuts all damage in half, unless your opponent can meet some minimum threshold of raw power, and then it negates a smaller and smaller percentage the more damage he does per hit.

You could also take a page from Descent and use rerolls. After your attacker rolls his damage dice, you can pick any subset of those dice and force him to reroll them, keeping the new result (we assume you'll usually make him reroll high numbers and not low numbers). If there are a lot of dice involved (e.g. because there were a lot of separate attacks), this is pretty powerful; if it was a small number of dice with a bunch of static bonuses, it's pretty weak. It's also kind of meta-gamey, but it doesn't require any additional math.

[RandomCasualty2]

Yet another way to handle DR, if you want to make it more effective vs. lots of weak attacks than single strong attacks without completely negating damage, is to say that it negates a flat amount but not more than a certain percentage of damage done. That still nominally involves a division, but one could very plausibly say something like "that percentage is always 50%" and have done with it; dividing numbers by 2 isn't especially difficult.

So if you've got DR 4, then when someone smacks you for 24 damage, you take 20. If you get hit 3 times for 8 damage each, you take 12. But if you get hit 6 times for 4 damage each, you still take 12, because it can't negate more than half the damage. So armor just cuts all damage in half, unless your opponent can meet some minimum threshold of raw power, and then it negates a smaller and smaller percentage the more damage he does per hit.

That's actually not a bad idea.

[ckafrica]

Manxome:

1 is better than 2. more dice rolls is bad. The game is already slow enough. another good thing about SAGA/4e is that they did attempt to reduce the amount of dice rolling per turn. It sucks when you've got people at the tablle who are wishy washy combined with lots of dice rolls. It's fine in a well oiled group, but for all of us you don't exclusively game with hardcore rpg nerds it's one more thing to slow things down

[Psychic Robot]

Here's yet another dumb question: should a character's defenses/saves receive a slight bonus over attacks/spells? It seems to me that this might be useful because it seems that most players boost their attacks rather than their defenses.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Here's yet another dumb question: should a character's defenses/saves receive a slight bonus over attacks/spells? It seems to me that this might be useful because it seems that most players boost their attacks rather than their defenses.

I'm not sure I understand your question. By making saves a static DC you've already reversed their 1/2 point edge over former spell DCs. Other than that, could you be more specific?

TS

[ubernoob]

Here's yet another dumb question: should a character's defenses/saves receive a slight bonus over attacks/spells? It seems to me that this might be useful because it seems that most players boost their attacks rather than their defenses.

In a system where attack stats diverge very far from defense stats that's an idea. Better to just have pretty good caps on stat fluctuation though. Once Sinister, Veekie and I have a working draft we'll surely post it here for critique.

[Psychic Robot]

I'm not sure I understand your question. By making saves a static DC you've already reversed their 1/2 point edge over former spell DCs. Other than that, could you be more specific?

TS

For instance:

Pretend that all fighters start with an attack bonus of +5. Then everyone gets a scaling AC bonus, yes? Fighters should obviously get the highest because they should be the best at dodging blows. So let's say that fighters get a +5 AC bonus, rogues get a +3 AC bonus, and wizards get a +1 AC bonus. This is all well and good, but fighters are likely to pump their attack stats over their defensive stats--at least, in my experience. That means that the percentages you've set up will likely get thrown out of whack because of two things:

1) Fighters will boost Strength at the expense of Dexterity.
2) Monsters get really huge Strength at higher levels.

So wouldn't it be better to give everyone an additional +1 or +2 boost to AC/saves?

[Tequila Sunrise]

Ah, I see. Well yes, you could give everyone a flat bonus to defenses, but it wouldn't really matter in the long run. And frankly, attacks are really supposed to outstrip defenses especially at higher levels. That's why options like Power Attack and Manyshot exist; because the game is balanced around converting your extra AB into damage.

TS

[ubernoob]

Ah, I see. Well yes, you could give everyone a flat bonus to defenses, but it wouldn't really matter in the long run. And frankly, attacks are really supposed to outstrip defenses especially at higher levels. That's why options like Power Attack and Manyshot exist; because the game is balanced around converting your extra AB into damage.

TS

In 3.5 they do because 3.5 has AC as a nonscaling stat. In a better designed game attacks wouldn't need power attack to matter and they wouldn't be able to afford the decreased accuracy anyways.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Hold on a second, why didn't we want players of sufficient level to be immune to two hundred kobolds throwing spears?

I mean, c'mon. Discounting his weakspot, Smaug is not going to be taken down by a hundred hobbits shooting arrows even if he sticks to the ground. A pathetically minimal goal for D&D involves PCs getting strong enough to kill Smaug. You do the math.

[ckafrica]

Hold on a second, why didn't we want players of sufficient level to be immune to two hundred kobolds throwing spears?

I mean, c'mon. Discounting his weakspot, Smaug is not going to be taken down by a hundred hobbits shooting arrows even if he sticks to the ground. A pathetically minimal goal for D&D involves PCs getting strong enough to kill Smaug. You do the math.

Well Smaug really won't be killed by 100 hobbits because even IF they hit they'll do like 1 point of damage. So maybe he takes 5 points of damage a turn from the 5 who roll 20. With Smaug having hundreds of hitpoints, the likelihood of him being in a situation where they can take him down are remote

[Tequila Sunrise]

Ah, I see. Well yes, you could give everyone a flat bonus to defenses, but it wouldn't really matter in the long run. And frankly, attacks are really supposed to outstrip defenses especially at higher levels. That's why options like Power Attack and Manyshot exist; because the game is balanced around converting your extra AB into damage.

TS

In 3.5 they do because 3.5 has AC as a nonscaling stat. In a better designed game attacks wouldn't need power attack to matter and they wouldn't be able to afford the decreased accuracy anyways.

Right, but as Psychic Robot has made no mention of any intention to massively revamp 3e, I'm assuming that he wants to maintain the game's current balance, such as it is. And as a side note, saying that AC doesn't scale in 3e isn't strictly true. It just scales via magical items (PCs) or natural armor bonuses (monsters) rather than directly from level.

TS

[Psychic Robot]

Although I didn't mention it, I'm on page 434 of a system re-write.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Wow. Wow again, because it's worth repeating. So what are you changing about the game? Or maybe a more direct question would be: what is your goal for this rewrite?

TS

[Psychic Robot]

1. Make fighters not suck; nerf casters.
2. Make the math work better.
3. Simplify the system while keeping the options and interesting aspects of 3e.
4. Give players more control over how their characters progress.

The entire thing started off when I was working to expand the generic classes found in Unearthed Arcana. Then I realized that I was seriously hindering the game's potential by working within the limitations of 3e (which was sparked by my frustration with the 3e skill system and the release of Pathfinder).

Unfortunately, I know that I can't make everyone happy, but I'm hoping that the system turns out to be functional and enjoyable.

[Judging__Eagle]

Although I didn't mention it, I'm on page 434 of a system re-write.

Seriously?

Sounds interesting.

Personally, I'd agree with most of what's been said here, with one exception.

You could have scaling AC; but only if you strip things that would be used to increase AC.

So, a Balor has CR-based AC; but no natural armour, weaker Balors have less, and more powerful ones have more.

Same with PCs, they just get "armour class bonus", but their rings can't give deflection modifiers to AC, their "magic sheild" has an ability (arrow catching, makes bite attacks, has wings, shoots spines), but DOES NOT give more AC than normal, EVER.

Same with Magical armour. Maybe it lets you breathe underwater, or changes to fit your body at all times, but it never, ever gives more AC just b/c it's magical.


You can't have both a scaling system and gear that does the same. If not things go insane.

Also, with such a sysytem you have a really good inlking as to what value AC can get to; the highest logical dex (or wis), armour and sheild combo, with a bonus based on CR (or whatever).

AC would be somewhat like SR at this point. The tougher the (natural) armour that you want for a character, the bigger their base number. So... a Trog, Zombie, kobold, gargoyle have AC of 3 + CR; a moderate encounter has an AC of 5 + CR; while a boss encounter or a tough encounter, like say a boss Dragon that the group is preparing to fight has say.... 10 + CR AC.

[Tequila Sunrise]

1. Make fighters not suck; nerf casters.
2. Make the math work better.
3. Simplify the system while keeping the options and interesting aspects of 3e.
4. Give players more control over how their characters progress.

The entire thing started off when I was working to expand the generic classes found in Unearthed Arcana. Then I realized that I was seriously hindering the game's potential by working within the limitations of 3e (which was sparked by my frustration with the 3e skill system and the release of Pathfinder).

Unfortunately, I know that I can't make everyone happy, but I'm hoping that the system turns out to be functional and enjoyable.

Well good luck with your project. I have the utmost respect for anyone who revamps or creates their own game. A lot of gamers complain about this or that, but don't ever do anything about it.

Myself, I gave up trying to make D&D fit my vision of the perfect RPG years ago. Now I tinker with the beginnings of my own game.

TS

[JonSetanta]

I have the utmost respect for anyone who revamps or creates their own game. A lot of gamers complain about this or that, but don't ever do anything about it.

Myself, I gave up trying to make D&D fit my vision of the perfect RPG years ago. Now I tinker with the beginnings of my own game.

A great number of gamers set out to revise the supposedly logical and mathematically precise D&D only to come across the shocking revelation that it's a gigantic can of Sacred Cows.
That's the first step.

The second is to write a fuckload of revisions only to be sneered at or ignored by those gamers that have done the exact same thing, repeatedly, for years before.

You have your audience, PR, and I'll look forward to your revision too, but.. well... that's all part of the eternal cycle of D&D.
There have been many before you and will be many after you, but this one is yours.