Quote from: Opaopajr;518228As you said though, to pursue this is to pursue a game different from AD&D. Because AD&D already abstracts this out into Hit Point increases per level. In this way damage from a lower leveled character isn't as much of a threat to the HP bloat a veteran has to work with.

(And well, there's also weapon skill as AC modifiers, but then we're talking 2e weapon styles in the Fighter's Handbook and the like.)

It's already there, just not expressed in a way everyone enjoys.

weapons skill as AC modifers is there and is a tretch and I bet most of the guys that reject Ac based on level aren't keen on wepaons specialisation and wepson styels from 2e either

Now hit points kind of cover it (as I noted above) but not in a first touch bout, whcih is really common, I mean it is how fencing works as a sport, as well as being a staple of the fantasy genre.

So I am not sayign that in a down and dirty fight the 10th level guy won;t always beat a 1st level guy, he will for sure. I am merely saying that the way DnD gets to that result is rather crude and in many way prevents certain character types.

So thing RPGs should promote rules that promote roleplaying and add the options of variation and the like. A system that allowed a light armoured fighter who didn;t need the benefit of a heap of magic items but was still playable woudl in my opinion be a good thing.
Look at the UA barbarian or the 1e monk. They had to stack them through the yazoo with class powers to make them playable without heavy armour and/or magic wepaons.
The monk in particular because a figther shoudl be better at fighting than a monk. An oriental fighter who was a martial aartist should be better at fighting than an orienal monk... but monks get AC bonuses et when unarmoured but fighters don;t

To deal with your 'duel to first touch' scenario, you either have to have the GM adjudicate it in a different manner, or play a different game.

Now the GM can adjudicate whatever advantage to the veteran player. For example:

- Both players get full round Standard Parries (2e) added to their ACs. AC bonus = Lvl/2 (+1 if fighter class)

- Both players get a free extra (2e) Parry Strike v. opponent's attacks. Roll To Hit versus an attack that hits you to Parry it away.

- Both players duel until 1/10th of their HP total is lost. The other lost HP is explained away as glancing blows that ripped clothes instead of cut flesh.

No new rules and already three different methods to adjudicate to-touch. And in all the decisive advantage is to the 10th lvl veteran. See, it's not hard!

Quote from: Opaopajr;518231To deal with your 'duel to first touch' scenario, you either have to have the GM adjudicate it in a different manner, or play a different game.

Now the GM can adjudicate whatever advantage to the veteran player. For example:

- Both players get full round Standard Parries (2e) added to their ACs. AC bonus = Lvl/2 (+1 if fighter class)

- Both players get a free extra (2e) Parry Strike v. opponent's attacks. Roll To Hit versus an attack that hits you to Parry it away.

- Both players duel until 1/10th of their HP total is lost. The other lost HP is explained away as glancing blows that ripped clothes instead of cut flesh.

No new rules and already three different methods to adjudicate to-touch. And in all the decisive advantage is to the 10th lvl veteran. See, it's not hard!

no never said it was hard But ..... I was trying to answer a 1e questiona dn the 2e ruels are just extra rules to answer the issue and the 1/10 hp idea is a new rule so ... i reckon those are new rules

There are many, many ways to fix it I just think increasing AC with level is the most elegant. I also play in low magic worlds and that fits that option as well.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518227But it also means that in a unarmoured fencing match a 1st level fighter has as much chance of landing a blow on a 10th level fighter as he does an untrained 3 year old..... just saying.

At least in AD&D 1e, that's not true. 1st level fighters have a 5% better chance of hitting than Normal Men(-at-Arms). While untrained 3 year olds are not specifically covered, most GMs I know would greatly reduce their chance of hitting. IMHO, the lack of a special rule for 3 year olds fighting Fighter class characters is not a flaw in the game system -- rather it is an example of the type of edge case the GM is their to make rulings on rather than add pages and pages of edge case coverage to the rules.

Also, D&D combat was never designed to cover the sport of fencing. This lack has never really caused problems in any game I've been in since 1975. One game needed rules for non-lethal fencing-like "courtly duels" and just used the rules from En Garde slightly modified so that the character with the lower level had to plot is moves further in advance than his opponent.

Quote from: RandallS;518235At least in AD&D 1e, that's not true. 1st level fighters have a 5% better chance of hitting than Normal Men(-at-Arms). While untrained 3 year olds are not specifically covered, most GMs I know would greatly reduce their chance of hitting. IMHO, the lack of a special rule for 3 year olds fighting Fighter class characters is not a flaw in the game system -- rather it is an example of the type of edge case the GM is their to make rulings on rather than add pages and pages of edge case coverage to the rules.

Also, D&D combat was never designed to cover the sport of fencing. This lack has never really caused problems in any game I've been in since 1975. One game needed rules for non-lethal fencing-like "courtly duels" and just used the rules from En Garde slightly modified so that the character with the lower level had to plot is moves further in advance than his opponent.

The chance for a 1st level fighter to hit an AC 10 3 year old or an AC 10 10th level fighter are identical.....

I'm trying out AC= 10+1/2lvl+ dex bonus with armor as damage reduction in my upcoming game. I've decided against static hit points though.

Quote from: Aos;518237I'm trying out AC= 10+1/2lvl+ dex bonus with armor as damage reduction in my upcoming game. I've decided against static hit points though.

I think that is workable.
In my game as noted I wanted to aovid always fightign orcs and introduce variation for hte 2 classes, Caster, Rogue, Warrior so you get a number called Defence. its 10 + dex bonus + defense bonus.

Defense bonus is a number you can buy a point of as you progress a level but it costs more for rgues than fighters and more for casters than rogues. In addition there is a bunch of stuff you can opt to buy defense bonus and attack bonus are just 2 of them.

It means levelling is mor ecomplex as its got options but the bit I care about the playing the game at the table bit is the same as your version.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518236The chance for a 1st level fighter to hit an AC 10 3 year old or an AC 10 10th level fighter are identical.....

This is a silly example.

Is the child able to defend itself?  If so, how?  Why even roll for this sort of thing?

Quote from: misterguignol;518240This is a silly example.

Is the child able to defend itself?  If so, how?  Why even roll for this sort of thing?

its an ad absurdia example yes... but AC 10 is AC 10 . My detail example compares a 1st level AC 10 fighter with a 10th level AC10 figther. You might argue that the difference between the two examples is similar.

Supposing a PC had to catch the royal 3 year old prince as they ran past them in order to help them escape the bandit attack most 1e DMS would say roll to hit vs AC10 to grab the royal prince as they dash past.....

I have a better idea.  Why don't we all quit playing these tabletop games and play World of Warcraft?

All these "new fangled" ideas and conventions, in some form or another, stem from that plague.

Quote from: Blackhand;518242I have a better idea.  Why don't we all quit playing these tabletop games and play World of Warcraft?

All these "new fangled" ideas and conventions, in some form or another, stem from that plague.

Well apart from Runequest that was doing some of them in '78 you mean

Quote from: jibbajibba;518236The chance for a 1st level fighter to hit an AC 10 3 year old or an AC 10 10th level fighter are identical.....

In D&D, this is handled by the 10th level fighter having many times the hit points of the three year old. In my D&D games, a three year old human is going to have 1 hp where as a 10th level fighter is going to have a average of 45-50 hp. Like it or not, in D&D hit points represent nicks, scratches and near misses as well as actual damage.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518227first to score a touch wins.

Right there is your issue. D&D Combat is abstract in that the dice roll NOT equal to a swing of the weapon. Instead it shows the result of a round of combat. Likewise Hit Points abstracts the defenses of the fighter along with representing the capacity to withstand physical damage.

In this case the rule are saying that in a round of combat with unarmored opponent the 1st level Fighter has a 50% of doing some damage that wears down the target's combat effectivness . The experienced fighter has a higher number of hit points so he is far more able to sustain his efforts over multiple rounds than the 1st level fighter.

The reason for this is found all the way in Chainmail.

Combat rounds in Chainmail are a minute long and since the rules are about MASS combat with many figures on the table they give a binary result of alive or dead. Heroes were worth four normal fighters and took four hits to kill, super heroes were worth eight and took eight hits to kill.

D&D expanded fighting man equivalent into level, hits into a 1d6 roll and hits to kill to 1d6 hit points per level. Everything in older D&D combat stems from that conversion.

In contrast many other RPG systems (like Runequest) focused on the idea that the dice roll is equal to a single swing or a single shot. This has a whole different set of implications than the route D&D took from Chainmail.  Most of these system adopted the idea of a limited number of hit points which solely represent the capability to withstand physical damage. Most of these system represented experienced fighters as not only being able to hit more often but able to defense better. Causing successful attack rolls to be converted into misses.

The downside of doing this is that combat takes longer than D&D abstract combat. The upside that many gamers found it more satisfying as the action is visualized much easier.

The problem is that in altering D&D combat to make more "realistic" you wind up with a hybrid that possesses none of the advantages of either approach and many of the disadvantages. You make it less approachable to people familiar with older D&D. And you render material made for older D&D largely useless as they relied on the abstract combat.

So how would you referee a duel to the first touch in older D&D?

I would have both do a to hit roll based on the AC plus whatever Dex bonus they have. If they hit the target would make a save to avoid being touched. Otherwise I would have them roll damage (considered temporary). If the hit points of either fall below 5 hit points then the hit is automatically a touch.

The understanding is that the d20 roll + save is the result of a minute of fencing around.

This would make the 10th level fighter near unbeatable in regards to a 1st level opponent, yet there is a small chance of the 1st level fighter winning. In addition it works with the abstract combat mechanics of older D&D.

Quote from: estar;518246The problem is that in altering D&D combat to make more "realistic" you wind up with a hybrid that possesses none of the advantages of either approach and many of the disadvantages. You make it less approachable to people familiar with older D&D. And you render material made for older D&D largely useless as they relied on the abstract combat.

Your first point is correct, but if the changes are simple it would likely be rendered moot within a session.  Your second point, however, is at least open to argument. As long as the target numbers are on the roughly the same scale, you can use most support materials with alterations ranging from none at all to extremely minimal; I've been doing it for a while now and it is really no hassle at all. I have altered CG and Combat, but I have kept the goal of staying compatible with standard D&D support stuff at the top of my mind. I think you'd have to screw with npcs in modules to get their AC to match your system, but that should probably be an eyeball issue, and monsters you don't need to do anything.

P.S. I ordered Majestic Wilderlands yesterday, can't wait for it to arrive.