Quote from: StormBringer;518962In other words, what mental insufficiency convinces you that a simple re-wording of what I said not only contradicts what I said, but trumps it as well?

Because like I said, you cretinous illiterate, I was reading your statement in the context of this thread (which was talking about scaling PC abilities and hadn't discussed encounter design at all). But, like I said, I'm glad that you are finally willing to admit that scaling PC abilities does not actually result in "always fighting orcs". This is, of course, a complete reversal from your position the last time we talked about this. I'm happy that I was able to help you see the light and understand how game design works.

Don't ruin it by reverting to your former idiocies.

Oh, wait. Too late.

Quote"Scales with level" and "level appropriate challenge" are synonyms.

Okay. Since you have now admitted that you really are incapable of comprehending the concept of fighting an NPC that isn't the exact same level you are, that only leaves us with one question:

Are you trolling or stupid?

Quote from: beejazz;519006Foes have level =/= always fighting foes the same level.

That's unpossible, beejazz! The Enlightened Word of Stormbringer tells us that if you improve a PC's abilities it cannot be that such a PC will ever face an opponent with a level different than their own! Lo, if you even do so much as give him a bonus to his Lockpicking skill, he shall never again encounter a lock which does not require him to roll a natural 15 on a d20 roll! Yea, even the humblest cottage shall forevermore be sealed with bolts of adamantine and tumblers of mithril!

As far as I can tell, Stormbringer's main argument against scaling AC is that it results in every encounter being the same.  This is wrong for a few reasons.

• It presupposes (as Justin noted) that you are only fighting opponents of your level.  Chances are that characters will encounter lower-level enemies and higher-level enemies in their adventuring careers, so this is moot.

• It ignores the effects that ability scores have on AC.  A gelatinous cube and a pixie might both be level five, but they are going to have wildly different ACs--the gelatinous cube is big and slow, whereas the pixie is small and nimble.  If your AC is equal to 10 + half your level + your Dexterity modifier and the gelatinous cube has 6 Dex while the pixie has 18, you're looking at the cube having an AC of 10 while the pixie has an AC of 16.

• It ignores the abilities of different kinds of monsters.  Even if two monsters have the same (or similar) ACs, the encounters between them can be very different due to their special abilities.  A succubus (CR 7) has AC 20 and an ettin (CR 6) has AC 18.  Are these two creatures the same?

Justin, please just put StormBringer on ignore and move on. I did and it makes forum use much less sanity-blasting.

Interestingly one of the things i am doing in my sample setting for my heartbreaker is removing all 'varieties of humanoids of different levels' so whereas D&D and most fantasy games have the equivalent of 1st level orcs, 2nd level hobgoblins, 3rd level bugbears, 4th level ogres etc etc giving the PCs an appropriate challange they can face as they progress.

The plan, in my sample setting although the game rules will have a toolkit for demi-humans, is that there will be no non-human races. There will be humans and there will be monsters. Monsters will be exactly that monsters not reskined humans of an appropriate level to challenge PCs.
The Pcs can face monsters like Giants and dragons, should they seek them out, but the world is a settled one with ancient empires and the vast majority of opponents will be humans and the vast majority of them will be low level. My current feel is to go down the 10 1st level to a 2nd level sergeant type progression so a 3rd level guy will be the leader of 1000 men.

Because I am kind of aiming for a S&S feel I want my 10th level guys to take on a dozen 1st level guys not only ever meet 10th level guys. This means i need to work on the math and I want to make sure that numbers count as in 'real life' numbers are really key. However, I still want a 10th level guy to emerge victorious most of the time just at great risk.

Anyway needs me to really work on the math.

14 pages, not reading it.

I've tried a model where your class/level-based "to-hit bonus" (halved) grants a sort of "natural AC".  The catch being that it doesn't stack with armor.  So, you can effectively play a naked barbarian after a few levels of dealing with leather, and it's not automatically suicide (at the very least, you can outrun the paladin ).

For example:  5th level fighter hits AC0 with a 16.  Compared to 20 when he started, that's a difference of 4.  Halved, that's 2, subtracted from his base AC of 10, he's walking around at the equivalent of leather armor.  Not especially game-breaking, but it's a damn sight better than 10 when you get ambushed in the whorehouse, and it's at least a semi-viable option.  (Not necessarily the most attractive one, and by the time this would be a no-brainer compared to mundane armor, magical gear is going to be relatively easy to come by.)  An 8th level fighter (assuming you use the "Fighter Progession" option from pg 74 of the 1e DMG) is walking around at the equivalent of plate mail - but at this point, mundane plate mail (in most medium-magic campaigns) isn't THAT great compared to the swag available. * **

Most folks still wear armor, which tells me I haven't made it TOO good.   YMMV.

* I should add here that I use the HackMaster crit tables in my AD&D game - in which the crit severity is based on AC, and the attacker's chance to hit - and "naked armor" DOESN'T help with that, IMC.  You might be able to get away with fighting in a silk teddy or whatever, but the first time something nasty lands a nat 20 crit on you, you're going to wish you hadn't.

** I'll also freely admit I haven't road-tested this at higher levels - anybody see any obvious pitfalls I'm missing, here?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;519011I'm happy that I was able to help you see the light and understand how game design works.

You barely understand how your keyboard works.  But it is fun to watch you curl up into a ball of tender weeping and burning rage when your oh so precious and delicate ego is viciously torn apart as you are confronted with the idea that your ideas are not always the totality of knowledge.
I'll come back to this a few more times, but let me highlight this again, because you clearly don't have a reading comprehension problem, you hav a reading problem in general; ie, when it isn't something you wrote, you don't read it.

Quote from: StormBringer;518198Scaling everything with level = always fighting orcs.

See if you can pick out the crucial concept there.

QuoteDon't ruin it by reverting to your former idiocies.

Oh, wait. Too late.

Uh huh.  Do you get this spun up when people tell you your brand of shoe isn't what they like?  Do you break down into these furious crying jags over less than stellar reviews of your favourite movies?  How do you find the strength to walk out the door in the morning knowing someone you may have to interact with doesn't put you on a pedestal?

I can only imagine you were raised in one of those environments where you got a trophy for 'participation'.

Let me touch on this again, but I will give you a hint this time:

Quote from: StormBringer;518198Scaling everything with level = always fighting orcs.

There is a reason one of the words is in bold.  See if you can guess why that is.

QuoteOkay. Since you have now admitted that you really are incapable of comprehending the concept of fighting an NPC that isn't the exact same level you are, that only leaves us with one question:

See if you recognize this next collection of words:
"Should AC scale with level: yes, no, and why."

Look familiar?  You want to piss and moan about lower level NPCs or whatever bullshit you are talking about, look in a mirror, because you brought that shit up.  As though the concept originated in your mind alone, and it is some kind of revelation to everyone else here.  Holy shit!  We can use opponents that aren't precisely calibrated to the CR appropriate to the party?  This kind of thinking is the height of 3tardation.

QuoteThat's unpossible, beejazz! The Enlightened Word of Stormbringer tells us that if you improve a PC's abilities it cannot be that such a PC will ever face an opponent with a level different than their own! Lo, if you even do so much as give him a bonus to his Lockpicking skill, he shall never again encounter a lock which does not require him to roll a natural 15 on a d20 roll! Yea, even the humblest cottage shall forevermore be sealed with bolts of adamantine and tumblers of mithril!

Yes, my exact words were "Do not ever present an encounter with differing levels".  That is exactly what my whole argument consists of.

No, wait, that is the strawman argument you are entirely making up because you have no clue how to even comprehend the actual discussion here.

Tell you what, how about you head over to tBP, start up a nice Tangency thread with a

• in front of it so you don't have to deal with people that might not think you are the best thing since cell division.  You know, those pesky people that don't agree with you 100% on all matters.  Maybe you could ask for vibes.

But if you want to post over here, shut your fucking cryhole and present something like a point.  Whining like a child because you can't direct the conversation doesn't cut it.

Here's the answer, by the way:

Quote from: StormBringer;518198Scaling everything with level = always fighting orcs.

Notice how that part doesn't say "AC" or "hit points" or "magic items" or in fact anything specific.  It certainly doesn't say anything about things that don't scale.  You know, like the lower level NPCs you have been flogging like it is the only topic in the world, despite the fact that no one else gives a shit.  When the only answer you can give is the obvious one that is already common knowledge, you need to rethink why you are even talking.  "Hey, guys, maybe you should put the peanut butter and jelly on the inside of the bread!"  Thanks for the hot fucking tip.

It means everything.  Hit points already increase by level, attack bonuses already increase by level.  In 3.x and 4e, ability scores increase by level.  It is approaching the point where everything is increasing with level, and AC is about the only thing left that doesn't, and now we are looking for ways to increase that by level too.  I mean, it's not like the next dozen posts after mine understood exactly what I was talking about.  Except for that part where they did.  So, it looks suspiciously like you are the one having some problems keeping up with the discussion.  Here, Jadrax sums it up nicely:

Quote from: jadrax;518199It used to be, level made you better by a) making  you better to hit and d) making you able to absorb more damage. While b)  you ability to not be hit and c) you ability to actually deal damage  where fixed. So you had tow things staying still, and two things raising  with level, and they where asymmetrical, which was interesting, but  arguably hard to balance.

Then it moved to all four increasing with level, which is less  interesting and somewhat redundant. If a) ability to hit and b) ability  to to damage both increase, why not combine a and b into one new stat.  The same with c) AC and d) Hit points.

Indeed, if there is no non-scaling with level component involved in  Attack and Defence, you could just make the whole thing an opposed Level  Check and be done with it.

See how that fucking works?

Maybe you should stick to blogging about the theatre.  I dunno, maybe vegetable gardens or education reform.  Hell, anything else.  Because you are completely clueless about games.

You're dismissed.

Quote from: B.T.;519021As far as I can tell, Stormbringer's main argument against scaling AC is that it results in every encounter being the same.  This is wrong for a few reasons.

No, that is the argument you made up whole cloth and attributed to me.

Did you even read the original post on this thread?

Quote from: B.T.;519021As far as I can tell, Stormbringer's main argument against scaling AC is that it results in every encounter being the same.  This is wrong for a few reasons.

• It presupposes (as Justin noted) that you are only fighting opponents of your level.  Chances are that characters will encounter lower-level enemies and higher-level enemies in their adventuring careers, so this is moot.

• It ignores the effects that ability scores have on AC.  A gelatinous cube and a pixie might both be level five, but they are going to have wildly different ACs--the gelatinous cube is big and slow, whereas the pixie is small and nimble.  If your AC is equal to 10 + half your level + your Dexterity modifier and the gelatinous cube has 6 Dex while the pixie has 18, you're looking at the cube having an AC of 10 while the pixie has an AC of 16.

• It ignores the abilities of different kinds of monsters.  Even if two monsters have the same (or similar) ACs, the encounters between them can be very different due to their special abilities.  A succubus (CR 7) has AC 20 and an ettin (CR 6) has AC 18.  Are these two creatures the same?

Toot.

Quote from: B.T.;519098Toot.

So, you didn't really read the original post, then.

Quote from: StormBringer;519097No, that is the argument you made up whole cloth and attributed to me.

QuoteThen you need to take up your argument over a) with reality, because increasing all the numbers simultaneously means nothing really changes. You can make a big show about demons having a tail and horns, so it's totally different than a dragon, who is a slightly darker shade of red, but if the odds have remained the same since first level, you aren't playing an improved character. You are playing the exact same character with a shinier sword. Hell, you proved my point for me:

Quote...a baubau is CR 7 with 19 AC and a succubus is CR 7 with 20 AC. Are they "the same"?

Yes, they are the same. You proved it with the numbers. Like I explained exhaustively before, you can't have hit points, AC, attacks and damage all scale equally or you are on a pretty treadmill always fighting orcs. If the player's AC bonus scales with the monster's level, you will never get off that treadmill.

I'm not sure what argument I'm making up here.  These are your words.

Quote from: B.T.;519104I'm not sure what argument I'm making up here.  These are your words.

Ok, so the AC on the two CR7 creatures are not pretty much the same and both higher than the CR6 creature?

It seems to me both sides here agree but define 'Scaling With Level' differently.

Quote from: B.T.;519021It ignores the effects that ability scores have on AC.  A gelatinous cube and a pixie might both be level five, but they are going to have wildly different ACs--the gelatinous cube is big and slow, whereas the pixie is small and nimble.  If your AC is equal to 10 + half your level + your Dexterity modifier and the gelatinous cube has 6 Dex while the pixie has 18, you're looking at the cube having an AC of 10 while the pixie has an AC of 16.

Is saying the exact same thing as

Quote from: StormbringerThen you need to take up your argument over a) with reality, because increasing all the numbers simultaneously means nothing really changes. You can make a big show about demons having a tail and horns, so it's totally different than a dragon, who is a slightly darker shade of red, but if the odds have remained the same since first level, you aren't playing an improved character. You are playing the exact same character with a shinier sword. Hell, you proved my point for me:

Just with different wording.

Quote from: StormBringer;519109Ok, so the AC on the two CR7 creatures are not pretty much the same and both higher than the CR6 creature?

They are similar, but what you wrote completely ignores the rest of the differences between the two creatures:

QuoteA baubau fight is not the same as a succubus fight. It's just not. Even if they have the exact same stats and saving throws--which they don't--they are drastically different encounters. So the fighter has a 75% chance to hit the babau and a 70% chance to hit the succubus. Big deal. The rest of the stats make a big difference. The babau teleports in, sneak attacks, and teleports out. Attacking him in melee is going to result in melted weapons. On the other hand, the succubus shapechanges into a hottie, plants one on the fighter, and, if forced to fight, suggests that he protect her. And chances are if someone gets into melee range with her, she's going down in a single round of combat.

And, again, this isn't "moving the goalposts."  I had originally written:

QuoteFurthermore, you can still have a fair bit of divergence between stats (thereby influencing AC), and different monster abilities can significantly alter how a combat plays out. For instance, a baubau is CR 7 with 19 AC and a succubus is CR 7 with 20 AC. Are they "the same"? What about a CR 6 ettin with 18 AC? Is that the same as the demons?

Quote from: B.T.;519112They are similar, but what you wrote completely ignores the rest of the differences between the two creatures:

Ok, so they are similar.  I just wanted to make sure before we dragged in every possible permutation of every creature that has ever been published.

Because whoever started this thread asked a fairly simple question:

QuoteShould AC scale with level: yes, no, and why.

Prior to 4e, AC didn't scale with level.  This created problems in which  attack bonuses rapidly increased while armor bonus plodded along.  This  had the unique effect of increasing your chances of hitting an  equal-level opponent the higher you went.  Whether this is a good thing  is up for debate.  In some ways, I feel that it was, but it also  presented problems for the system.

Tell me your thoughts.  Show your work.

So, the initial poster didn't seem to want to explore every possible combat situation for every monster in D&D, just some ideas about what might happen if AC scaled with level.  It even specifically mentions mundane attacks in combat, "increasing your chances of hitting an  equal-level opponent".  So, nothing about every other special attack or ability a monster might have, and specifically refers to an equal-level opponent.   Also, they seemed willing to entertain both sides of the discussion:  "yes, no, and why".  So they probably were toying with the idea and wanted some direction or other ideas to consider.

Clearly the original poster wanted to have a discussion about a specific mechanic without dragging in the entire set of core books.  Bringing up all the other stats a monster has is not only irrelevant to what happens when AC is scaled with level, the original poster obviously wanted to keep the discussion focussed on just the mechanics that deal with AC more or less directly.  I don't think they would appreciate your obfuscation of the topic by dredging up all kind of information that is outside the scope of that topic.

I also think that when the initial dozen posts advised this as being a bad idea, you should have let the original poster respond instead of jumping all over people with your already decided opinions that you are unwilling to re-consider.  The original poster may have had some further comments or clarifications, since they asked a question in good faith with the understanding that the answers may not perfectly agree with their own thoughts.  When someone asks "yes, no and why", it's a pretty solid indication they are at least open to other ideas, even if they eventually discard them.

Why would the original poster ask for opinions just to try to prove everyone wrong, especially if they already had their answer and were not even vaguely interested in revising it?  That is not only counter-productive, it is complete asshole behaviour.  Adding to the confusion by using examples of pretty much everything else a monster would do besides attack isn't very helpful.  How is that relevant to AC?

In light of the general consensus that scaling AC with level is (at the very least) problematic, I would like to hear if the original poster has amended their thoughts at all.

When I'm posting and asking for opinions on rules changes, I know that there's like a 90% chance that people are going to disagree with me.  Whether it's about what constitutes a "broken" rule or potential changes to mechanics, I know that the majority of posters here are going to side with the "old school" mechanics.  In this case, non-scaling Armor Class.

In almost every case where I'm asking about opinions on a rules change, it's precisely because I am working on something in my spare time and I've got an idea that is rolling around my noggin that just won't let me rest.  It means that it's troubling me, that I'm trying to fit the puzzle pieces together in my brain and they aren't fitting just right.  Thus, I ask here for ideas and feedback.  In almost every case, I already have an idea of what I'm going to do, but I need criticism to help me put things in the right order.  When people argue against my idea (in this case, scaling AC), and I have to defend it, it helps me solidify my own ideas.

In fact, you may have helped more than you think.  Originally, I was writing up variant rules in which AC scaled directly with attack bonus, both advancing at the same rate.  Armor gave a small bonus to AC and provided damage reduction.  The idea was troubling me, though, so I posted this thread.  Talking to the people here made me realize a couple of things:

• Armor needs to have a substantial effect on AC because that's how D&D works.
• Attack and AC don't need to scale at the same rate due to the above.
• Damage reduction against every attack is too much work to track.
• Blackhand is a moron.

So I'm working on a hybrid system.  AC increases as you level, but at about half the rate that your attack bonus does.