Quote from: jadrax;519110It seems to me both sides here agree but define 'Scaling With Level' differently.

Is saying the exact same thing as

Just with different wording.

Well, I think I mentioned that before, but since Justin and B.T. have egos on the line, this will be dragged out for as long as possible.  They just want to employ every sophistry and rhetorical trick at their disposal until everyone else throws up their hands in exasperation and they can claim a 'win'.

For the official log:  'scaling with level' is something external to a character the DM does for the encounters that are designed to challenge the party.  Increasing attack bonuses or to hit numbers (depending on your edition) is not 'scaling'; that is 'levelling'.  The whole point of a class and level system is for increasing the abilities relevant to an archetype consistently, albeit somewhat more slowly.  Hit points don't 'scale with level', they increase as an indicator of expanding power, skill, influence or whatever.

Anyone here is free to reject that definition, but they would need to provide another that can be agreed on before continuing.  I thought it was pretty common knowledge that 'scale with level' was understood to encompass encounters and traps since 3.0 came out; that is what CR is all about, right?  Definitely, this was re-inforced in 3.5, and it was almost one of the foundational design goals in 4e.  I posted the link to an archived thread where that was flat-out stated to be the case in 4e before it came out.

Quote from: StormBringer;519095Yes, 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.

I'll just refer everyone back to this post where you do, in fact, claim that it is impossible to increase a bonus without also increasing the DC of every single check the PC encounters. (Any lower DCs are literally outside the "range of possibilities" according to you.)

At this point we know that you're saying really stupid things. We also know that you're so insecure in your position that you need to lace your barely coherent screeds with lengthy fantasies fueled by projecting your own inadequacies onto others. We also know that you're insistent that scaling character attributes by level necessitates characters always facing opponents with a level equal to their own (apparently out of the misguided belief that "4E does it that way, so there's no other way it could possibly be done").

Allow me to repeat the only pertinent question remaining: Are you stupid or are you a troll?

Quote from: B.T.;519123When 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.

if you are thinking about maintaining a DnD core then armour is important. The problem is that armour is only important if you take the DnD definition of a to hit roll being a 'hit to do damage' even DnD ended up having trouble here and added touch attacks in 3e that targeted ac10. The understanding here is that something that hits ac10 but doesn't penetrate armour still touches.

Now the underlying math to that much be - defense = ac 10 + dex bonus + other defense bonuses + armour
where other defense bonus is a monk's ac modifier, a parry type attack, a magical benefit from boots of speed, or a ring of protection etc etc .

So what you are talking about really is keeping that structure and just adding more stuff to the other defense bonus category.

That works fine but if you want to track touch separate and if you wanted to go the whole hog and add back in the weapon versus armour table (which actually gives some benefits to hit AC10 and is therefore breaking its own logical construction though you could of course fix that) then you actually get into a construction that is probably more complex than just using armour to reduce damage.

Imagine if armour gave an average protection. Say plate-male gave an average protection of 6, scale 5, chain 4, studded leather 3, leather 2 and padded 1. (you could add piecemeal armours and hit locations if you wanted to ).
now all i do if I am wearing chain is subtract 4 from each damage roll against me. Its +3 chain then I subtract 7.

I have to say that might actually be easier than trying to incorporate armour gives an AC buffer in a lot of the circumstances we have discussed in the thread.

Quote from: B.T.;519123• 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.

I can see how you'd miss it, what with all the shouting in here, but I mentioned something along these lines towards the bottom of pg 14.  Might prove useful, or at least relevant.  (I'm afraid my system doesn't address the Blackhand issue, sorry.    )

Can rainman and special school susie please knock it off?

It's getting embarassing for the both of you.

Quote from: StormBringer;519134Well, I think I mentioned that before, but since Justin and B.T. have egos on the line, this will be dragged out for as long as possible.  They just want to employ every sophistry and rhetorical trick at their disposal until everyone else throws up their hands in exasperation and they can claim a 'win'.

For the official log:  'scaling with level' is something external to a character the DM does for the encounters that are designed to challenge the party.  Increasing attack bonuses or to hit numbers (depending on your edition) is not 'scaling'; that is 'levelling'.  The whole point of a class and level system is for increasing the abilities relevant to an archetype consistently, albeit somewhat more slowly.  Hit points don't 'scale with level', they increase as an indicator of expanding power, skill, influence or whatever.

Anyone here is free to reject that definition, but they would need to provide another that can be agreed on before continuing.  I thought it was pretty common knowledge that 'scale with level' was understood to encompass encounters and traps since 3.0 came out; that is what CR is all about, right?  Definitely, this was re-inforced in 3.5, and it was almost one of the foundational design goals in 4e.  I posted the link to an archived thread where that was flat-out stated to be the case in 4e before it came out.

Right or wrong, I think you're the only one in this thread who has been using that definition of scaling with level (possible exception of Benoist, and I think he got that there was a misunderstanding a  while ago). As I see it, anything can scale with level. In D&D, hitpoints scale with level. In skyrim, bandits scale with level for no in-setting reason. One of these things is fine. The other's just weird.

We've mostly been talking about scaling player AC with player level (and secondarily about scaling monster AC with monster level, though there's no reason monsters have to use the same system).

The hostility a couple of simple misunderstandings caused here is part of the reason this isn't really my go-to place for mechanical discussion.

Quote from: B.T.;519123When 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.

I disagree that DR/Prot is too much work to track.  I've used it in every single system and game I played and created for the last few decades.

But I think you hit the rest of them pretty square.

Quote from: B.T.;519123In 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.  

If you basing it on d20, you might want to look at the Mongoose Conan rules, which have AC bonuses by level, and DR based armour. It's probably my favourite D20 damage system out there, although indeed it can be fiddly at times.