BAB v. AC: Is it a war we need?

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Sure. I imagine there are any number of ways in addition to that one.

[Koumei]

1202869602[/unixtime]]I understand that people want to be invulnerable and unbeatable to at least someone in the setting, but that kind of self-insertion gaming is just a public form of masturbation.

Except, given nearly everyone at the table wants that, it's generally more socially acceptable. And people have always fought level-appropriate foes anyway - it's unlikely to really come up in-game, and simply deprives PCs of knowing they actually are better than Bob the farmer.

Besides, off the top of my head, I can only recall one game system where anyone is a threat to anyone, and we all know how shit the World of Darkness is. In every single aspect.

[K]

1202889120[/unixtime]]
Except, given nearly everyone at the table wants that, it's generally more socially acceptable. And people have always fought level-appropriate foes anyway - it's unlikely to really come up in-game, and simply deprives PCs of knowing they actually are better than Bob the farmer.

Being better than Bob the farmer is about being able to cut through six Bobs in six seconds, not about standing around going "Ho, ho, ho, I'm just better than you."

Bob being able to draw blood is not going to make people think their characters are Shadowrun/WoD-weak. This a HP system where a character really is better than six Bobs in every objective stat combined.

The game is actually improved if PCs know that they have to follow some social niceties rather than setting every county sheriff on fire when he asks for road taxes; they have to make choices like "I could kill them all, but they might wound me...eh, 10 GP is cheaper than a minor healing potion."

I've played many a game where I wasn't fighting level-appropriate things. Most the the time the DM says "hey, i need X monster for my plot" and he expects the PCs to run away like bitches when said monster gets revealed.

Having killed those monsters, I was damned happy they didn't have "unbeatable because I'm too big of a wuss to play without God-mode turned on DR." Sometimes, I just wounded the monster in a real and lasting way and then ran away, but to succeed in the plot that was all that was needed.

[Username17]

Given your desires about fighting enemies, I think AC/BAB fights is exactly what you want. It allows you to take less damage from groups of mooks on average, but the potential threat of an individual intact.

The county sheriff is well below you in power, but if he happens to roll a 19 on his attack roll he'll be handing out real damage that you really care about. That means that avoiding combat with him has real value even though the "average" damage that he will be handing out is pretty small.

Lowering the to-hit chances of weak foes is a better method of reducing relative enemy damage than increasing hit points or handing out DR. Not just because it is easier to keep track of, but because it is a method of decreasing average threat which does not decrease potential threat - which preserves an element of excitement.

If you just have a pile of hit points so big that the dirt farmers can't hand out enough damage to keep you from curing it with your belt of healing they might as well not exist. But if your armor class is so high that they are very unlikely to do significant damage to you that puts you in the same place on average, but preserves a feeling of threat.

-Username17

[Koumei]

When you put it like that, K, I agree with you. So it isn't "Bob could seriously kill me. If there's six of him and only four of us, then he (they) will win.", it's "If I pick a fight with Bob, he can still hit me. He might even hurt me a bit. I'll probably win still, and he likely won't hurt me enough that I'll be in mortal peril, but I can't punch him in the face then sit down and ignore him."

[K]

1202892875[/unixtime]]Given your desires about fighting enemies, I think AC/BAB fights is exactly what you want. It allows you to take less damage from groups of mooks on average, but the potential threat of an individual intact.

The county sheriff is well below you in power, but if he happens to roll a 19 on his attack roll he'll be handing out real damage that you really care about. That means that avoiding combat with him has real value even though the "average" damage that he will be handing out is pretty small.

Lowering the to-hit chances of weak foes is a better method of reducing relative enemy damage than increasing hit points or handing out DR. Not just because it is easier to keep track of, but because it is a method of decreasing average threat which does not decrease potential threat - which preserves an element of excitement.

If you just have a pile of hit points so big that the dirt farmers can't hand out enough damage to keep you from curing it with your belt of healing they might as well not exist. But if your armor class is so high that they are very unlikely to do significant damage to you that puts you in the same place on average, but preserves a feeling of threat.

-Username17

I still have yet to hear one argument that makes BAB v. AC worth the effort of running the numbers.

I mean, if you have 60 HPs and Bob can on hit you on a 20 he can't confirm and does 1d6 damage, I just don't feel any threat at all. I mean, seriously? Toss ten Bobs in my way and I still don't care. There may be one element of threat and excitement, but the required elements (of which there are several) are not there.

Now, if Bob can hit me on a 15 and every time he rolls a 6 on his d6 damage he gives me a Wound like Lost Eye or Gimp Arm that I need magic to cure, then I actually care about his feelings. He still has 6 HPs, and would die in a single one of my attacks, but if Bob and his five buddies attacked me it might leave a mark despite the fact that they'd all die.

The whole idea of Mooks has to go. They are only valid in one situation: as part of a dangerous Unit.

I kill vrocks not because each one is that bad, but because they work together to cast a dangerous Dance of Ruin. See also Shocker Lizards, Kuotoa, etc.

The habit of DnD to make speedbump creatures just makes people not want to bust out the Zombies! minis to represent them because its just way too much logistics. They tried to fix it with the Swarm rules, but we all know the failure of that.

[K]

1202892963[/unixtime]]When you put it like that, K, I agree with you. So it isn't "Bob could seriously kill me. If there's six of him and only four of us, then he (they) will win.", it's "If I pick a fight with Bob, he can still hit me. He might even hurt me a bit. I'll probably win still, and he likely won't hurt me enough that I'll be in mortal peril, but I can't punch him in the face then sit down and ignore him."

Right. Both DR and impossibly high AC lead PCs toward arrogance and dismissive behavior. You can create a system where NPCs are dramatically worse than heroes without completely removing their ability to affect you (and no, the possibility of a few points of damage or 5% chance to hit is not a real effect).

[Username17]

I mean, if you have 60 HPs and Bob can on hit you on a 20 he can't confirm and does 1d6 damage, I just don't feel any threat at all. I mean, seriously? Toss ten Bobs in my way and I still don't care. There may be one element of threat and excitement, but the required elements (of which there are several) are not there.

Now, if Bob can hit me on a 15 and every time he rolls a 6 on his d6 damage he gives me a Wound like Lost Eye or Gimp Arm that I need magic to cure, then I actually care about his feelings. He still has 6 HPs, and would die in a single one of my attacks, but if Bob and his five buddies attacked me it might leave a mark despite the fact that they'd all die.

The point is that there is a middle point between these extremes. If Bob hands out a real amount of damage, but only hits on a 19+ then he won't accomplish much on average, but he has a real chance of dishing out pain you care about.

And honestly I would rather see you having 20 hit points and getting hit on a 19-20 than see you having 60 hit points and getting hit on a 15-20. It's the same average number of attacks from the hobo before you drop, but you care about the results of each individual attack more.

-Username17

[Crissa]

Can't we make a system of access to higher AC/BAB without it being something that gets bigger every level? We really don't want to give out more than +10 bonuses anyhow, so we ought to be meager with what abilities do give attack and defense bonuses.

-Crissa

[Username17]

1202898685[/unixtime]]Can't we make a system of access to higher AC/BAB without it being something that gets bigger every level? We really don't want to give out more than +10 bonuses anyhow, so we ought to be meager with what abilities do give attack and defense bonuses.

-Crissa

I'm not even with you there. What's the point of even having 12th level if it doesn't mean that those assholes at 1st level are pushed off the RNG. I mean I am totally fine with Sauron walking onto the battlefield and chopping everything in half because nothing is big enough to oppose him. It's Sauron, that's his fvcking job.

A setup where large numbers of guys who are somewhat waker than you can take you down and stupidly large numbers of people who are massively worse than you can't encourages heroes to fight giant monsters and not fight armies of humans, and it encourages nations with armies to go hire heroes instead of just sending in the army.

A system where AC pushes people down the RNG until it eventually pushes them off actually does create a setup which is terribly desirable. And because it's your Defenses rather than a force field you can't just go to sleep or read a book because stupidly large numbers of hobos with favorable battlefield conditions would pop back onto the RNG and become a real threat again.

-Username17

[K]

1202905935[/unixtime]]
I'm not even with you there. What's the point of even having 12th level if it doesn't mean that those assholes at 1st level are pushed off the RNG. I mean I am totally fine with Sauron walking onto the battlefield and chopping everything in half because nothing is big enough to oppose him. It's Sauron, that's his fvcking job.

I'd argue his job is to do AoE attacks and turn the course of the combat by breaking the morale of whole units. People aren't really getting that close to him before he Sauron Blasts everyone nearby.

He's wearing heavy armor and you can easily have a NO BAB situation here where wearing heavy armor means no one is really hitting him with arrows, and anyone who gets close is getting attacked before they make valid attacks.

He basically loses when a few guys who can survive a few of his AoEs are able to attack him.

1202905935[/unixtime]]
A setup where large numbers of guys who are somewhat waker than you can take you down and stupidly large numbers of people who are massively worse than you can't encourages heroes to fight giant monsters and not fight armies of humans, and it encourages nations with armies to go hire heroes instead of just sending in the army.

I'd argue the opposite.

Why risk the social and political upheaval of losing a major battle with your army when you can just hire four guys who can't be killed? Armies are expensive and losing battles means you can't raise more armies because people don't believe in you anymore.

Why would heroes risk death vs fire giants when they can kill whole armies without risk and loot them for pocket change?

If small guys can hurt big guys, adventurers are forced to go for the high payoff for moderate risk represented by the giants rather than the low payoff for high risk represented by fighting armies.

1202905935[/unixtime]]
A system where AC pushes people down the RNG until it eventually pushes them off actually does create a setup which is terribly desirable.

Until you can come up with at least one argument that is at least attractive, I'd disagree with you here.

[CatharzGodfoot]

K, I'd say that the ease of math with d20/changing bonuses is a real advantage.

I do like your idea, though. It would work very nicely for a d6 game, where your attack roll is 1d6 - defense, and to hit a person has to roll higher than defense. Defense values range from 0 to 3, which is a very manageable range. It has a real 'board game' feel.

I still see the BAB vs. AC setup as more desirable in general though, due to its more linear nature.

[Username17]

Why risk the social and political upheaval of losing a major battle with your army when you can just hire four guys who can't be killed?

Anyone who actually can't be killed is not going to work for whatever you have to offer them.

Anyone who can't be killed by the vast majority of the enemy army but can be hurt by the enemy elites will be insufficient to take out an entire enemy force because the elites can drag them down.

---

The dynamic of adding/subtracting to d20s for attack rolls is that a difference of one level more or less makes little difference if your levels are close; and the adding or subtracting a level when there is already a large discrepancy makes a big difference to the offensive output of the weaker party.

That's good because it means that when you are outclassed you want quality and when you aren't you want quantity. That's exactly the right dynamic.

---

As to being completely immune to low level opposition: why the fuck not? The higher levels are optional and epic. They don't even exist if you want to keep telling the normal stories.

-Username17

[JonSetanta]

1202942812[/unixtime]]
As to being completely immune to low level opposition: why the fuck not? The higher levels are optional and epic. They don't even exist if you want to keep telling the normal stories.

Uh, cuz life don't work like that.

[the_taken]

1202952148[/unixtime]]

1202942812[/unixtime]]
As to being completely immune to low level opposition: why the fuck not? The higher levels are optional and epic. They don't even exist if you want to keep telling the normal stories.

Uh, cuz life don't work like that.

Life don't work so that you can jolly well mosey out of the realm of dead whenever you prove you're hardcore enough, nor do people made of smoke and fire hire Simple Plan to sing at their wedding.

[JonSetanta]

1202953477[/unixtime]]
Life don't work so that you can jolly well mosey out of the realm of dead whenever you prove you're hardcore enough, nor do people made of smoke and fire hire Simple Plan to sing at their wedding.

Thanks for responding (unlike everyone else in this thread.. lulz) but huh??
I'll enunciate; higher level characters should not be completely immune to lower levels because even we humans, as compex seemingly-intelligent multicellular beings are laid low by the simplest of organisms: bacteria.
In a horde vs. hero battle, the hero should not walk away unharmed.
In Samurai Warriors or Dynasty Warriors, one of the most epic of all epic games, even on the easiest play mode availible it is still possible for your best warrior to die if you walk away from the controller and check back in half an hour.
Similarly, in RPGs, a level 20 fighting thousands at once should not have a guaranteed cakewalk.

[RandomCasualty]

My main issue with high level vs army is that it's not a fun battle to run. It's just plain boring. You put up a bunch of minis and the majority of the time is spent doing 100 attack rolls as a bunch of archers open fire, a bunch of warriors rush him and all, and most of them are flat out ineffective.

While 1 against 1000 may be epic in a movie or story, on the gametable it's just an epic waste of our time.

I'm wondering if we should just let people get pushed off the RNG, but add some special rule that even on a missed attack, you always take 1 damage. (and get rid of the nat 20 always hits)

That makes it possible to have somewhat epic battles, and faster to run them because NPCs don't roll at all.

[Username17]

I think that we should let people pushed off the RNG and let people combine attacks for bonuses. That way when you are fighting it out with dozens or hundreds of dudes they automatically reduce the number of die rolls required by group attacking.

Uh, cuz life don't work like that.

No. But the Mahabharata does. We aren't making a life simulator, we're making a story generator. It's supposed to emulate art, not life.

-Username17

[JonSetanta]

1202978954[/unixtime]]
No. But the Mahabharata does. We aren't making a life simulator, we're making a story generator. It's supposed to emulate art, not life.

Well put.
If I understand y'all correctly, I agree; mass quantities of mooks should be treated as a group effort more powerful than their individual contributions would allude to.
Whether by some 'swarm' conglomerate or just plain numeric bonuses, a horde should indeed be at least scratching-up and embedding-with-arrows on the hero, however minor.
And a war they shall have.




Note the dude fulla arrows. That's what a L4 warrior looks like after fighting 1000 troops, even if the hero did survive.

[Koumei]

1202957533[/unixtime]]
In Samurai Warriors or Dynasty Warriors, one of the most epic of all epic games, even on the easiest play mode availible it is still possible for your best warrior to die if you walk away from the controller and check back in half an hour.

But that's often the only way you can get killed. Try playing as Ling Tong, holding "forward", and constantly tapping "Circle, Circle, Circle, Triangle!"

You're almost guaranteed to win DW every single time by doing that. I even won it while too drunk to control a Katamari in any meaningful fashion. I was almost dozing off at the game (it was a very comfortable chair, in my defence) and still had a total victory.

[K]

1202942812[/unixtime]]

Why risk the social and political upheaval of losing a major battle with your army when you can just hire four guys who can't be killed?

Anyone who actually can't be killed is not going to work for whatever you have to offer them.

Um, why?

I constantly work at jobs where I can't get killed. In fact, I prefer jobs where I can't get killed.

Is the lord's money not good enough? I mean, as a lord, you'd rather pay 20K gold to some adventurers to kill anb army over an afternoon rather than spend the same amount equiping an army with plate and trained horses and supply lines just to risk the embarrassment of losing them.

1202942812[/unixtime]]
Anyone who can't be killed by the vast majority of the enemy army but can be hurt by the enemy elites will be insufficient to take out an entire enemy force because the elites can drag them down.

Why? Are the PCs not going to do something simple like push themselves off the RNG to deal with elites? I mean, toss in smoke or something and suddenly even the elites can't touch your massive AC and you kill the whole army without breaking a sweat.

And thats all because the system is allowing you to be immune at some point.

1202942812[/unixtime]]
The dynamic of adding/subtracting to d20s for attack rolls is that a difference of one level more or less makes little difference if your levels are close; and the adding or subtracting a level when there is already a large discrepancy makes a big difference to the offensive output of the weaker party.

That's good because it means that when you are outclassed you want quality and when you aren't you want quantity. That's exactly the right dynamic.

I'm still not getting why this is good. As far as I can see, the raising BAB v AC mechanic works wonders in a system where the most complicated attack is "roll attack die, so static damage" of Red Box DnD because it reduces the number of HPs and damage you need to work with to present "Awesomeness" of levels disparities, but its an unnecessary and unbalanced complication in the variable damage/AoE/status effects/non-AC defenses of the modern RPG.

You really can do away with it entirely and lose nothing.

1202942812[/unixtime]]
As to being completely immune to low level opposition: why the fuck not? The higher levels are optional and epic. They don't even exist if you want to keep telling the normal stories.

I really think we have a profound difference of opinion here. You want DnD to be fairy tales and Pokemon and old legends, and I want DnD to represent the fantasy stories of DnD and the fantasy books and movies of the last 80 years.

In your source material, heroes are living symbols for things and of course they can't ever be touched by lesser things or fail, and only appropriately big things ever challenge them. You want LEGENDS.

In my version, being a hero is about being smart and able and making mistakes and living with them. Even in epic, it about making big mistakes and having big successes. This is a STORY.

From a game standpoint, I think your version sucks because its makes players arrogant so that they ignore or bully all NPCs in the setting. Frankly, I don't want to play with people who do that. Hell, I don't even want to be tempted to do that (and I have sinned in that regard).

[Username17]

I really think we have a profound difference of opinion here. You want DnD to be fairy tales and Pokemon and old legends, and I want DnD to represent the fantasy stories of DnD and the fantasy books and movies of the last 80 years.

In your source material, heroes are living symbols for things and of course they can't ever be touched by lesser things or fail, and only appropriately big things ever challenge them. You want LEGENDS.

In my version, being a hero is about being smart and able and making mistakes and living with them. Even in epic, it about making big mistakes and having big successes. This is a STORY.

No. I want both methods of play to be available within the same game by having different power levels attainable by the PCs.

If we were going to have everyone be on the human scale, we'd do away with levels altogether and just go skill based. Which is a fine thing to do. And if we were making Conan or Earthdawn we'd be all over that shit. We'd jack the Shadowrun 4 engine and throw down with a quality melee mechanic and move on with our lives. That would work, and it would be a good game.

But it wouldn't be a game which would involve people riding around on gryphons running lances through elephant sized dragons. And more importantly: it wouldn't be a game system that could be easily scaled up to include that.

Level based systems have value. And that value is that you have the option of playing at Legendary levels where you fight massive monsters and disperse armies.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

Before we can even think of pitting a character against an army, we need to be able to make fighting an army fun to play as a battle, instead of just tedious.

I had one epic PC fight an army once and basically I just fast forwarded by it and said, "OK, you hack through those guys in about 2 hours, and you're left with only 25 hit points left, but you killed em all."

Actually running that battle is unthinkable.

[Manxome]

What about treating a large group of soldiers as making a single area-of-effect attack rather than a bunch of single-target attacks? Instead of abstracting the situation as 100 archers each taking aim at the hero and firing an arrow, you abstract it as 100 archers firing "one volley" into his general area.

Even if they're using melee weapons, the abstraction probably still works--they attack by enveloping an enemy and then making an area attack against all foes in the area they occupy. 100 swordsmen can't all be within range of one target anyway.

You'd need the system to treat area attacks as being fundamentally different from point attacks (no "dodging" area attacks without actually moving outside the area, etc.), but that's something that you might plausibly want anyway. Then, if the volley's big enough, the hero's going to get hit (unless he's got an ability that specifically works against area attacks), but most of the arrows are presumed to miss (they're spread out over a large area), and you only need to make one roll for damage.

One could potentially also treat a large group of soldiers as a single targetable entity that's resistant or immune to non-area-of-effect damage (on the theory that picking off 100 opponents one-by-one is just stupid). You'd probably want to take into account the size of the area affected relative to the army, though. Also maybe rules for losing attack strength as the army takes damage.

The biggest potential issue with switching to a different set of mechanics at large scales is that you need to define a point where you make the transition, and players on one side or the other might gain a tactical advantage by exploiting that transition.


Of course, it sounds like New Edition isn't distinguishing between dodging and soaking, so I'm not sure how you'd represent an undodgable attack. Maybe by denying the target their level bonus to AC?

[Bigode]

Word.

Well, I'll just give you the good news: first, area attacks in New Edition are to be resisted via Fortitude (level + Con) instead of Dodge (level + Dex), exactly for the evasion issue; and, I take it that taking wounds does cause penalties, so an unit would be an entity with a variable number of wounds, that loses members as wounds stack.