TheRPGSite

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.

Scaling everything with level = always fighting orcs.

It 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.

If AC scales with level, then you might as well have a single combat bonus, to which you would add an equipment bonus to get defence and offence values.

Having AC scale at the same rate as AB means that you'll pretty much always hit a monster of similar level to you on the same roll, (sometimes referred to as being on a treadmill, or not going anywhere), which makes sense but is kind of dull. On the other hand, if you're fighting goblins, then they're going to get increasingly easy to dispatch as you go up in levels and leave them behind, which probably works well in a sandbox style game where the world doesn't level up around you.

If AC doesn't scale with level, then you'll gradually notice your attacks landing more often as your level goes up, which is nice, but you won't gain immunity to goblins (who will be a threat if there are lots of them). However, it's probably more difficult to make sense of, as HP become your major source of defence, which some people just don't like.

So, you'll have to weigh up how much abstraction you can wrap your head around against how much you like how it affects gameplay. From a purely subjective perspective, I think I preferred AC to not scale with level, (but only for D&D).

Scaling ACs and scaling DCs are things I coukd do without.

yes but not as AC more as a defense score and it depends on hit points.

When I used to fence our instructor also taught the UK olymic team. You couldn't hit him. serious you just couldn't.

He was in effect high level and I wasn't.

However you do want to avoid always fighitn orcs. The way to do this is to let PCs buy attack or defense (or some other stuff) as they progress. So when a fighter goes up a level he can add damage, attack, defense or hit points.  What that means is that at 5th level 2 fghters will not have idientical attack and defense so you avoid always fightign orcs.

Now you have to remove armour from this or it makes no sense.

Lastly if you use a 4e healing surge model where HPs are recovered quickly and you are happy with abstract combat then you cudl argue that my missed attacks were actually just minor hit point damage his dodges , the ability to do which rise in level (with hit points) are partly about him dodging and not taking damage. Now of course that fails if you add poison and a load of other stuff but  kind og works in D&D (you need hearling surges as its obvious that if I fight him again tomorrow or in 2 hours he will still be hard to hit unless i have improved as he will have had a day to recover)

It's a good idea, but you must remove bonus to AC from actual armour then, and replace it with damage reduction/something like that.

Quote from: B.T.;518197Prior to 4e, AC didn't scale with level.  This created problems in which attack bonuses rapidly increased while armor bonus plodded along. ur thoughts.  Show your work.

Armor should remain the same. It doesn't magically increase it's protection because your are a experienced fighter.

But...

It can indeed magically increase it's protection because you are now a experienced adventurer with gold at your disposal to hire a wizard to enchant said armor.

You can get a pretty hefty bonus by having armor, ring, shield, etc enchanted up to the max bonus.

so in the end you wind up with the same thing but done in a way that makes you feel like you are a character in a world rather than playing a game.

Substituting AC for a level-dependent defense score, using armor as damage absorption and using static hit points (say, Con score) is one fix I've often considered... But by the time I'm done I might as well be playing Runequest. ;)

Nevertheless, sometimes it's easier to get a group of casual gamers to play a houseruled version of a familiar system, than it is to persuade them to try a new, unfamiliar game.

Quote from: Rincewind1;518212It's a good idea, but you must remove bonus to AC from actual armour then, and replace it with damage reduction/something like that.

Of course

Quote from: estar;518216Armor should remain the same. It doesn't magically increase it's protection because your are a experienced fighter.

But...

It can indeed magically increase it's protection because you are now a experienced adventurer with gold at your disposal to hire a wizard to enchant said armor.

Exactly. However, I would not mind a limited bonus for fighter classes to represent their experience using armor effectively. Assuming as soft cap on level of 20, a bonus of: a) +1 AC plus +1 AC every fifth level for actual fighters, and b) +1 every fifth level for fighter subclasses -- with the bonus treated the same as a DEX bonus to AC in TSR D&D (you have to be conscious and able to move to get it) -- would be okay. This type of rule might be a good idea if all/most classes can wear all types of armor.

I think scaling AC or DC by level in general does not make for the type of game I like. I want "challenges" fixed by what they are and not varying with level of the PCs).  

Side Note: I also think that scaling saving throws vs spells by the level of the caster (as WOTC D&D does) simply makes higher level spell-casters far too powerful.

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

Repeated for truth.

Besides, what's wrong with a fighter with more experience figuring out the weaknesses in armor better? It just means equivalent-leveled fighters with equivalent armor would have to rely on other gear and situational tactics to best the other. It also means that expected passive defenses cannot muscle through a far more crafty and capable opponent.

To quote the estimable Martha Stewart, "It's a good thing."

Quote from: estar;518216Armor should remain the same. It doesn't magically increase it's protection because your are a experienced fighter.

But...

It can indeed magically increase it's protection because you are now a experienced adventurer with gold at your disposal to hire a wizard to enchant said armor.

You can get a pretty hefty bonus by having armor, ring, shield, etc enchanted up to the max bonus.

so in the end you wind up with the same thing but done in a way that makes you feel like you are a character in a world rather than playing a game.

The problem of course is that a 10th fighter wearing no armour should be harder to hit than a 1st level fighter wearing no armour.

I actually think that skill at wearing armour is another thing that is a bit ignored. If I stick an untrained guy in a suit of field plate he will be slow and cumbersome, if I stick a trained guy in it he will be much more able to move about and importantly use the armour itself to defend from blows.
Armour Use is you like is a definite skill and it varies with type. Using a studded leather bracer to deflect a sword thrust is very different from using a steel splauder to block a mace.
This is particularly relevant in Japanese armour where the suit of armour isn't as integrated or articulated so there are metal plates tied over a padded jacket with lots of gaps. The skill is to block the sword with the metal bit.

However.... that is as has been said a game of a different colour.

You could build a D&D mod with increasing defence score with level, armour that absorbs damage and which you need to spend proficiency slots on to master (and avoid penalties). My heartbreaker works in precisely this way with levelling giving you the option to buy stuff from a menu which includes attach, defence , hitpoints and skills. But its not really D&D anymore at that point.

Quote from: Opaopajr;518224Repeated for truth.

Besides, what's wrong with a fighter with more experience figuring out the weaknesses in armor better? It just means equivalent-leveled fighters with equivalent armor would have to rely on other gear and situational tactics to best the other. It also means that expected passive defenses cannot muscle through a far more crafty and capable opponent.

To quote the estimable Martha Stewart, "It's a good thing."

But 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.

Imagine a DnD training hall. The 10th level PC is ther and he gets challenged by a newbie. first to score a touch wins. Initiative the newbie wins. He now has a 50% chance of scoring the first touch, now if he misses the 10th level guy will probably win as he has to get a 5 to hit AC 10 but the point is that in anything that resembles, genre, real life, immersion or commone sense the 10th level guy should scor ehte point every time (well maybe 99 times in 100)

Quote from: jibbajibba;518225The problem of course is that a 10th fighter wearing no armour should be harder to hit than a 1st level fighter wearing no armour.

As 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.

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!
:p

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!
:p

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.

Quote from: RandallS;518245In 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.

Which is exactly what I said in my first post.

Then I outlined how there are examples of play like a first touch bout (or it could be a touch attack like a strike from a Ghoul or a ghost) where that maybe doesn't fit perfectly.

I then suggested possible solutions but agreed that by the time you implemented them you were probably not playing DnD anymore.

Of course your point brings up back to the question of why it takes me 3 days in 1e to recover from your blow which didn't actually touch me :) but that is a hit point argument so out of scope for this thread.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518250I then suggested possible solutions but agreed that by the time you implemented them you were probably not playing DnD anymore.

If one can maintain compatibility with whatever support materials one desires this, imo, becomes a meaningless distinction.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518241its 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.

They don't need to have different ACs to model one of the fighters being better than the other.  The 10th level guy already has a bigger bonus to hit and likely has multiple attacks.  The guy who gets hit more often and more times?  He's the lesser of the two fighters, despite them having identical ACs.  These examples are not equal.

QuoteSupposing 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 guess most 1e DMs have a serious lack of imagination or a strange addiction to rolling dice.  I would just say "Ok, you've grabbed the prince; he struggles and squirms in your arms--what do you do next?"

In other words, rolling to his AC is not a good way to model the hypothetical scenario you've just outlined.

Quote from: misterguignol;518252T

In other words, rolling to his AC is not a good way to model the hypothetical scenario you've just outlined.

Well, I think that's his point; it isn't and he'd like it to be.

Quote from: misterguignol;518252They don't need to have different ACs to model one of the fighters being better than the other.  The 10th level guy already has a bigger bonus to hit and likely has multiple attacks.  The guy who gets hit more often and more times?  He's the lesser of the two fighters, despite them having identical ACs.  These examples are not equal.



I guess most 1e DMs have a serious lack of imagination or a strange addiction to rolling dice.  I would just say "Ok, you've grabbed the prince; he struggles and squirms in your arms--what do you do next?"

In other words, rolling to his AC is not a good way to model the hypothetical scenario you've just outlined.

You obviously have never tried to catch a 3 year old :)

There is an example I think in the 1e DMG of a PC trying to grab a scroll case as it flows past in a stream and the advice is make a to hit vs AC 8 (that might be my old memory playing tricks) .

but again my example was just an absurd one the point is a good warrior should be harder to hit, not just better at hitting.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518254You obviously have never tried to catch a 3 year old :)

It's true; I've never been featured on To Catch a Predator.

QuoteThere is an example I think in the 1e DMG of a PC tryign to grab a scroll case as it flows past in a stream and the advice is make a to hit vs AC 8 (that might be my old memory playing tricks) .

For all the majesty of the 1e DMG, sometimes Gygax just plain gives bad advice if that's the case.

Quotebut again my exampel was just an absurd one the poitn is a good warrior should be harder to hit, not just better at hitting.

Fair enough, but that's not how D&D usually works.  Combat is abstracted to the point where being harder to hit is wrapped up in a bunch of other things besides Armor Class.

Quote from: Aos;518251If one can maintain compatibility with whatever support materials one desires this, imo, becomes a meaningless distinction.

To some of us yes :)

Quote from: misterguignol;518255Fair enough, but that's not how D&D usually works.  Combat is abstracted to the point where being harder to hit is wrapped up in a bunch of other things besides Armor Class.

but when that Spectre is about to drop you 2 levels and 3 months of game play ....

Scaling AC only really works if the characters are largely limited to light armor. Something that supports swashbuckling and monks. Other than that, I don't like the idea.

In newer editions I think AC should scale if attack bonuses scale.

I know that in older editions, hp represented straight misses sometimes, and attacking might represent several attacks, but certain things make that feel less right. Multiple attacks (iterative or against low HD foes) makes it seem like multiple swings isn't the norm for a single attack. Arrows do likewise. In later editions, shorter rounds make it seem as if rolling to hit once is really rolling to hit once. And so on.

But then I'm working on a system that is decidedly not D&D for all this. I think there's genuinely an unmet demand for a leveled game with RQ style rules-as-physics or 4e style powers lists (or both) in place of certain commonly complained about D&Disms.

Quote from: estar;518246Right there is your issue. D&D Combat is abstract in that the dice roll NOT equal to a swing of the weapon.

Tell that to the guy with the longbow. ;)

Quote from: jibbajibba;518258but when that Spectre is about to drop you 2 levels and 3 months of game play ....

It seems you want a higher degree of realism in regards to combat with a fictional creature that is pretty fiercely anti-realist.

If the question becomes "How to we accurately model a trained warrior's prowess in combat against a ghosty thing that is ethereal and gosknowshowitreallyworks?" then there isn't anywhere to really go from here, you know?

D&D isn't a simulator of real-world combat.  It's really, really bad at that.

Quote from: misterguignol;518267It seems you want a higher degree of realism in regards to combat with a fictional creature that is pretty fiercely anti-realist.

If the question becomes "How to we accurately model a trained warrior's prowess in combat against a ghosty thing that is ethereal and gosknowshowitreallyworks?" then there isn't anywhere to really go from here, you know?

D&D isn't a simulator of real-world combat.  It's really, really bad at that.

I agree, but there is no reason not to tinker with it to make it less bad, or more to your liking.

Quote from: Aos;518268I agree, but there is no reason not to tinker with it to make it less bad, or more to your liking.

Apparently I am not allowed to :(

Quote from: jibbajibba;518270Apparently I am not allowed to :(

Sidenote: therpgsite isn't (currently) a great place for mechanical tinkering or getting good feedback on same, unfortunately. I'll let you know when I find a place. Currently I do most of my work on the cbg but I feel kind of weird sometimes obsessing over mechanics in a board for worldbuilding.

Quote from: Aos;518268I agree, but there is no reason not to tinker with it to make it less bad, or more to your liking.

True.

So as not to be a mere naysayer, here is my big suggestion for giving an AC bonus for skill at arms: keep the bonuses small and infrequent if you're using an old-school rule set.  One thing that old-school D&D combat gets right is the matrix between attack bonuses and AC.  Yes, attack bonuses outpace AC, but this is important in a game where Hit Dice increase with levels; the more parity between attack bonus and AC, the more chance for long, grindy combat.

Quote from: misterguignol;518267It seems you want a higher degree of realism in regards to combat with a fictional creature that is pretty fiercely anti-realist.

If the question becomes "How to we accurately model a trained warrior's prowess in combat against a ghosty thing that is ethereal and gosknowshowitreallyworks?" then there isn't anywhere to really go from here, you know?

D&D isn't a simulator of real-world combat.  It's really, really bad at that.

An argument I can understand but....

I like my games to run of a physics engine model. I want the rules to basically be a physics engine that I can apply to the world.
Now the world might include spectres, goblins, intelligent glowing fungus ... all irrrelvant as I have incorporated them into the world and they need to be run by the same physics engine.

Now I could run GURPS ... but what I want to do is take DnD and make it more to my liking which I think I can do with out breaking the rest of the game.
I think that is totally possible.

Look at the basic AC rule..... a 10th level fighter no armour or magic AC10 a first level thief with no armour but AC 16 AC 9 .
So 10 levels of fighter training and experience is worth less than some native agility .....

Quote from: jibbajibba;518274Look at the basic AC rule..... a 10th level fighter no armour or magic AC10 a first level thief with no armour but AC 16 AC 9 .
So 10 levels of fighter training and experience is worth less than some native agility .....

Here's the thing, though: you're focusing on one part of how combat works without seeing it in connection to the other parts.  AC is one factor in a fight between a first level thief and a tenth level fighter.  But despite the AC difference, you know it's not the thief who is walking away from that fight.  Again, AC doesn't model the totality of defensive capability (Hit Points are also in the mix).

I don't mean to crap on your idea at all; you're free to tinker as you wish, of course.  I just think you might not be seeing the forest for the trees; I think D&D already accounts for what you're talking about.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518241its 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.....

Well, in AD&D you attack a level 1 AC10 fighter and hit, you've possibly killed him.  If you attack a level 10 AC10 fighter and hit, you're gonna have to do that a whole lot more times, that's how skill gets factored in, that nebulous cloud of HPs.

You could certainly add a defense AC increase, but if so, I would consider instituting a different level of HPs, as increased AC plus HPs is double-dipping skill.

Personally I prefer the new Hackmaster style of competing rolls for attack and defense and Armor is just damage absorption (with the ability for all kinds of cool and chaotic stuff happening on both sides when the Nat 20s fly.)  :D

Quote from: jibbajibba;518270Apparently I am not allowed to :(

I'm sorry man.

The problem with advancing AC as you progress is the numbers (especially in d20) get out of hand really fast. I agree, in real life fighters would probably get harder to hit (though to be very honest i dont think D&D fighters are at all like fencers---fencing is very precise, fighting with armor and a long sword seems a lot less about that kind of finessing). This is the sort of thing better handled by a skill based game than a level/class based one.

Quote from: misterguignol;518275Here's the thing, though: you're focusing on one part of how combat works without seeing it in connection to the other parts.  AC is one factor in a fight between a first level thief and a tenth level fighter.  But despite the AC difference, you know it's not the thief who is walking away from that fight.  Again, AC doesn't model the totality of defensive capability (Hit Points are also in the mix).

I don't mean to crap on your idea at all; you're free to tinker as you wish, of course.  I just think you might not be seeing the forest for the trees; I think D&D already accounts for what you're talking about.

As per my first note I outlined all of that :)

Quote from: misterguignol;518275But despite the AC difference, you know it's not the thief who is walking away from that fight.  

Imo, the fact that you know this is part of the problem, and I do believe it's a problem with HP and AC. I don't think you can fuck with one without touching on the other. Also there is a problem with the fact that in regards to missile fire one die roll does represent one strike.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;518279The problem with advancing AC as you progress is the numbers (especially in d20) get out of hand really fast. I agree, in real life fighters would probably get harder to hit (though to be very honest i dont think D&D fighters are at all like fencers---fencing is very precise, fighting with armor and a long sword seems a lot less about that kind of finessing). This is the sort of thing better handled by a skill based game than a level/class based one.

I don't think its a matter of skill vs. class; it's a matter of scale, and keeping it from getting out of hand is not more difficult than putting a cap on it.

I've adjusted HP/AC and missile combat in my game making them each more to my liking.

Quote from: CRKrueger;518276Well, in AD&D you attack a level 1 AC10 fighter and hit, you've possibly killed him.  If you attack a level 10 AC10 fighter and hit, you're gonna have to do that a whole lot more times, that's how skill gets factored in, that nebulous cloud of HPs.

You could certainly add a defense AC increase, but if so, I would consider instituting a different level of HPs, as increased AC plus HPs is double-dipping skill.

Personally I prefer the new Hackmaster style of competing rolls for attack and defense and Armor is just damage absorption (with the ability for all kinds of cool and chaotic stuff happening on both sides when the Nat 20s fly.)  :D

Now that HP point is an excllent one.

You are dead right in a system with HP as a damage buffer you don't want to double up. Again my prefered system lets you chose from a menu as you advance levels so you can buy HP, attack, defense, skills and other combat stuff but you can't get all of it.

So do you become a fighter with high hits, like a heavyweight boxer who can take a lot of blows but absorb it all or do you train to be more of an evasive fighter who doesn't get tagged to often and wins with pin point strikes or do you just go all out attack and hope you can win in the the very first part of combat.

Under hit points I want a wound system but I want hit points to run in a way similar to 4e where they recover fast and really represent that elusive mix of stamina, skill to roll with a punch, luck and evasion. So it heals fast you cna have second wind or a surge (avoid the word healing cos its not actually healing) .

All this is what I am baking into my current heartbreaker project.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518283All this is what I am baking into my current heartbreaker project.

I'm addressing all the same issues, but in a different way in my current heartbreaker. Neat.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;518279The problem with advancing AC as you progress is the numbers (especially in d20) get out of hand really fast. I agree, in real life fighters would probably get harder to hit (though to be very honest i dont think D&D fighters are at all like fencers---fencing is very precise, fighting with armor and a long sword seems a lot less about that kind of finessing). This is the sort of thing better handled by a skill based game than a level/class based one.

but in the literature when Lancelot, Robin Hood or Jaimie Lanister fights a bunch of guys who are all armoured and he (our hero of choice) isn't armoured he manages to avoid their blows skipping between them parrying a blow there and dodging a blow here before despatching them clinically.

Now I knwo DnD isn't meant to be emulative of any thign but surely you want your heroes to measure up to the folks that inspired you to start playing in the first place...

I agree with the fact that things can get out of hand. That id the design issue right. Designign a game that can do it and avoids getting out of hand that is hte key.

Quote from: Aos;518282Imo, the fact that you know this is part of the problem, and I do believe it's a problem with HP and AC. I don't think you can fuck with one without touching on the other. Also there is a problem with the fact that in regards to missile fire one die roll does represent one strike.

On some level it's all about how willing you are to trade ease of use for realism.  I take ease of use over realism every damn time.  I have no problem with HP and AC as they are because I find them to be functional in play.  I also have no problem thinking of attack rolls in melee and ranged attack rolls are abstractions of different things even when they use the same mechanic.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518286but in the literature when Lancelot, Robin Hood or Jaimie Lanister fights a bunch of guys who are all armoured and he (our hero of choice) isn't armoured he manages to avoid their blows skipping between them parrying a blow there and dodging a blow here before despatching them clinically.

What do Hit Points represent in the scenario above?

Quote from: misterguignol;518288On some level it's all about how willing you are to trade ease of use for realism.  I take ease of use over realism every damn time.  I have no problem with HP and AC as they are because I find them to be functional in play.  I also have no problem thinking of attack rolls in melee and ranged attack rolls are abstractions of different things even when they use the same mechanic.

This is fine, but really, I assure you the changes I've made are no more or less easy to use. Ease of use was my chief design goal; modeling the system to be more to my liking was secondary. Really, what I've done is add a very, very simple crit system- but I have integrated it with the other systems, because as you stated above they have to be taken as a whole. it still only takes 5 minutes to make a character and combat runs almost exactly the same, except it usually ends a little sooner.  Don't get caught in the trap of thinking that because one way is easy there can't be another easy way you like better.

Quote from: misterguignol;518290What do Hit Points represent in the scenario above?

Fortitude, luck, stamina and skill- not physical damage, imo.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518286but in the literature when Lancelot, Robin Hood or Jaimie Lanister fights a bunch of guys who are all armoured and he (our hero of choice) isn't armoured he manages to avoid their blows skipping between them parrying a blow there and dodging a blow here before despatching them clinically.

Now I knwo DnD isn't meant to be emulative of any thign but surely you want your heroes to measure up to the folks that inspired you to start playing in the first place...

I agree with the fact that things can get out of hand. That id the design issue right. Designign a game that can do it and avoids getting out of hand that is hte key.

Except this was never a source of inspiration for me. If anything my king arthur inspiration comes from Excaliber which emphasized the armor side of armor class over slipping and dodging blows.

It simply isn't something I desire in D&D and it actually breaks down under scrutinity because the game uses a single ac for all kinds of attacks. I can understand slipping a sabre, but not an arrow.

Quote from: Aos;518292Don't get caught in the trap of thinking that because one way is easy there can't be another easy way you like better.

It's probably less that I'm caught in the trap and more that I'm lazy and don't like to tinker with the baseline rules all that much, to be honest.

Quote from: Aos;518293Fortitude, luck, stamina and skill- not physical damage, imo.

Exactly.  Which is why I think D&D already accounts for growing martial prowess as a character levels up.

Quote from: misterguignol;518296Exactly.  Which is why I think D&D already accounts for growing martial prowess as a character levels up.

Yes. It's called Hit Points. Not AC. I agree.

Quote from: misterguignol;518296It's probably less that I'm caught in the trap and more that I'm lazy and don't like to tinker with the baseline rules all that much, to be honest.

Me neither, but I made the mistake of starting...

Quote from: misterguignol;518296Exactly.  Which is why I think D&D already accounts for growing martial prowess as a character levels up.

I agree, however, if we accept this premise we must also accept that HP don't account for physical damage.

Quote from: Aos;518298I agree, however, if we accept this premise we must also accept that HP don't account for physical damage.

Not only. It's a compound. An abstraction.

Before we go any further,  I want to make it clear that I've got no issue with folks who want to play raw. However, I love D&D, but whereas I have no problem with Vancian magic or a half a dozen other nonsensicals, I have always (since I was like 12) disliked the HP, missiles and AC work; and as I'm working on my game, I've come to the point where I want to make a D&D variant, not another D&D.

However, if you like to play RAW, I'm cool with that. I've even made it so you can take anything from my game (except for a few healing spells that already have equivalents in straight up D&D) and use it with TSR D&D.

So you know if your happy with the way D&D rolls, that's great, but look at this thread not as an opportunity to defend that, but as an intellectual exercise geared towards looking at alternate ways of doing things.

Quote from: Aos;518298I agree, however, if we accept this premise we must also accept that HP don't account for physical damage.

Not necessarily; it's an abstraction that covers all of that stuff.  It's loosely associated with the game world, but it's a very big abstraction, I'll grant you that.

Quote from: Benoist;518301Not only. It's a compound. An abstraction.

See my post above.

Quote from: misterguignol;518303Not necessarily; it's an abstraction that covers all of that stuff.  It's loosely associated with the game world, but it's a very big abstraction, I'll grant you that.

Exaclty. I dont see how one goes from the point made to "hpmdont account for physical damage". The game doesnt make a whole lot of sense if physical damage isn't a large part of HP.

Quote from: Aos;518302So you know if your happy with the way D&D rolls, that's great, but look at this thread not as an opportunity to defend that, but as an intellectual exercise geared towards looking at alternate ways of doing things.

But...the thread title is asking if AC should scale with level and why or why not.  That's literally what this thread was about.

A game wherein someone cannot be killed with a single sword thrust doesn't make a lot of sense anyway, so lets not go in that direction, if you please.

Quote from: Aos;518304See my post above.

I'm cool with experimenting and building variants and whatnot. But you made the point that hit points don't represent physical damage in actual D&D as a logical follow-up on your initial point, not me, and there, I have to point out to you, you're actually wrong, in that one thing does not equate the other, that if hit points account for some things (endurance, morale, fortitude etc.), this logically completely excludes this other thing (physical damage). This is not true.

Hit points are actually a compound of all these things, and I do believe they actually work pretty well that way, in that a "hit" from there can be interpreted at the game table in any number of ways, which accomodates for the players and DM's imaginations and how they see the battle unfolding in their mind's eye. Try to "fix" that, and you're basically restricting that field of possibilities towards one particular interpretation or the other, which works great I guess if your expectations actually fit with this or that particular interpretation, but doesn't work if you see it any other way.

Quote from: misterguignol;518307But...the thread title is asking if AC should scale with level and why or why not.  That's literally what this thread was about.

Well then I guess we're done, because all this thread is people posting ideas and other people posting "HP accounts for that."  That's kind of boring.

Quote from: Aos;518310Well then I guess we're done, because all this thread is people posting ideas and other people posting "HP accounts for that."  That's kind of boring.

Dude, start a new thread explicitly for variants!  I don't have much to contribute, but I would honestly love to see what you've come up with.

Quote from: Benoist;518309I'm cool with experimenting and building variants and whatnot. But you made the point that hit points don't represent physical damage in actual D&D as a logical follow-up on your initial point, not me, and there, I have to point out to you, you're actually wrong, in that one thing does not equate the other, that if hit points account for some things (endurance, morale, fortitude etc.), this logically completely excludes this other thing (physical damage). This is not true.

Hit points are actually a compound of all these things, and I do believe they actually work pretty well that way, in that a "hit" from there can be interpreted at the game table in any number of ways, which accomodates for the players and DM's imaginations and how they see the battle unfolding in their mind's eye. Try to "fix" that, and you're basically restricting that field of possibilities towards one particular interpretation or the other, which works great I guess if your expectations actually fit with this or that particular interpretation, but doesn't work if you see it any other way.

Once again it really depends on what the 'fix' is and how its implemented, but I'm all done rustling everyone's jimmies.

Quote from: misterguignol;518311Dude, start a new thread explicitly for variants!  I don't have much to contribute, but I would honestly love to see what you've come up with.

Maybe later, this thread has depleted my previous enthusiasm for the topic.

I agree with Guignol. From there the alternative is to create a new thread specifically dedicated to the discussion of variants and avoid the whole "in actual D&D hit points work this or that way" line of thought.

In Design & Development, maybe?

You mean like here? (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=518315#post518315)  :D

The best explantion I have read of Hit points is in V&V except they call it Power.

Quote from: estar;518247So how would you referee a duel to the first touch in older D&D?

I'm late to this question but I want to throw my hat in. I would deal with it as a special case rather than by the book D&D, with the justification that btb is for life or death battles. I would handle, depending on how quickly I want it resolved.

A) an opposed attack roll from each combatant. Higher roll after all modifiers wins. or, in the chart-based descending AC system, whichever roll hits the best AC wins.

B) I would play it out just like a normal D&D battle and rule that 1/2 HP equals a "touch". Then both combatants get all lost HPs back after a short rest.

AC should scale softely with level.

You can meet AC 4 opponents at level 1, but you might meet an AC1 guy from time to time.

At level 10, you should still meet AC4 guys...but now guys with AC of 1 should pop up ever few encounters.

You don't want to always be fighting orcs, you always want non-specialists to still feel like they can do something useful...but you still want noticeably tuogh guys to pop up.

When everything scales, it turns the game world into a place where only specialists can do anything, and then only things in their speciality.

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.

I think hit points work out pretty well in the end in this manner.  And there are work-arounds, as you mention, just not very popular ones.

On the other hand, treating armour as a skill with ranks does offer some intriguing options.  Limiting it by type or maximum skill level for non-Fighters keeps their primacy in combat intact, and allows Fighters to 'specialize' after a manner.  Perhaps even in conjunction with weapon skill ranks that can be divided between attack and defence on the fly, like a Defender weapon, only non-magical in nature.  It doesn't exactly take an avid SCAer to realize there is more to fighting than stapling some sheet metal to your ass and holding a few planks of wood in front of you.  :)

Obviously, 3.x already has such a system in place, but it shouldn't be too difficult to whip something up for earlier editions.  Some minor modifications to the 2e system, which can then be retro-fitted for 1st edition.

Hey, SB, pm me an email addy and I'll have a doc for you in 2-3 weeks tops. The block is gone and I'm like 60% done.

Quote from: Aos;518458Hey, SB, pm me an email addy and I'll have a doc for you in 2-3 weeks tops. The block is gone and I'm like 60% done.

Awesome!  The addy is on the way.

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

You do realize that AC scaled with level in previous editions, it just wasn't based on a formula?  When a high level monster's AC was -3, that AC scaled with level.  You also suppose that AC and attack bonus need to scale at the exact same rate (which they don't) and that you'll never meet anyone of a lower-level.

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.

UGH FUCKING ASCENDING AC JUST GO PLAY VIDEOGAMES

Care to explain how "getting better at defending yourself as you level" equals stupid WoWshit?

QuoteScaling AC only really works if the characters are largely limited to light armor. Something that supports swashbuckling and monks. Other than that, I don't like the idea.

You'd have to rework armor bonuses, obviously.

Quote from: B.T.;518461You do realize that AC scaled with level in previous editions, it just wasn't based on a formula?  When a high level monster's AC was -3, that AC scaled with level.  You also suppose that AC and attack bonus need to scale at the exact same rate (which they don't) and that you'll never meet anyone of a lower-level.

Well, no.  As Jibba mentions above, a 20th level Fighter and a 1st level Fighter have the same AC 10 when they aren't wearing armour, and they have the same AC 2 wearing plate and shield.  Additionally, two 10HD monsters can have very different ACs; simply being a 10HD monster does not grant an AC -3.

While it is the DMs job to make sure high level characters are challenged, that doesn't mean all creatures of a certain HD should provide the exact same challenge.

Quote from: StormBringer;518474While it is the DMs job to make sure high level characters are challenged, that doesn't mean all creatures of a certain HD should provide the exact same challenge.

Having similar ACs doesn't mean they are the same challenge.  A dragon and a demon can have the same AC and still be radically different encounters.  In addition, this assumes that "scales by level" equates to "automatically the same," which ignores the variable effects that stats have on such monsters.

Quote from: B.T.;518481Having similar ACs doesn't mean they are the same challenge.  A dragon and a demon can have the same AC and still be radically different encounters.  In addition, this assumes that "scales by level" equates to "automatically the same," which ignores the variable effects that stats have on such monsters.

That's because 'scales by level' implies 'automatically the same'.  For an opponent to be a challenge at a certain level, it can't be drastically different than anything else that is a challenge at that level.  If it is significantly easier to hit, it won't be as challenging.  If it has significantly fewer hit points, it won't be as challenging.  And the converse is also true; significantly harder to hit makes it a significantly more difficult opponent; viz CRs and ECLs in 3.x and how poorly those work.

The problem generally gets to be that once you start scaling, everything else pretty much has to follow.  Brendon mentions it above, and I have written about it before also.  You can't have just the one mechanic scale (especially with no upper limit) and ignore the rest.  If AC scales with level, but attacks and damage don't, then combat will take even longer than it does in 3.x and 4e now.  Everyone will be looking to roll that 19 or 20 just to get a normal hit.  Combat task resolution becomes almost binary.  If you are attacking AC75 with +20 to your roll, there is no point in rolling (unless you allow a 20 to always hit regardless).  If you can't scrape together at least +55 in bonuses, combat is a non-starter; you simply can't participate.  If you allow a 20 to always hit, then it is just a matter of waiting around until someone rolls that 5%.  If hit points and damage haven't scaled with AC, then you are fighting the same lower level fight when AC wasn't so high, it just takes forever to resolve from everyone waiting to hit that 5% chance.

If you scale attack bonuses but not the others, then combat will go more quickly, but it will also be much more lethal for the players.  Dealing and receiving quasi-autohits every round is just a matter of attrition, and you are wasting time rolling the attacks.  Just apply damage every round and see who falls out first.  You can't scale just AC or just attacks.  They both have to scale together, even if not necessarily precise parity.  But they do have to be close.

Hence, it doesn't really matter that the dragon and the demon have different damage or special attacks if everyone at the table is only hitting 5% or 10% of the time. The effects of the attacks are nearly meaningless, because they are rarely applied.

When you are talking about scaling AC by level, you are necessarily talking about scaling everything else, or it simply doesn't work.

In HackMaster there isn't a "AC" but since you are making opposed rolls you have an Attack Bonus and a Defense Bonus. Different Classes have different bonuses, that go up at different rates. Also, you get BP(Building Points) every level that you can spend on skills, proficiences, talents and/or weapon specializations(Attack, Defense, Damage, Speed) so those can go up depending on how you spend your points. So, yes, there is a way to do it and make work.

QuoteThat's because 'scales by level' implies 'automatically the same'. For an opponent to be a challenge at a certain level, it can't be drastically different than anything else that is a challenge at that level. If it is significantly easier to hit, it won't be as challenging. If it has significantly fewer hit points, it won't be as challenging. And the converse is also true; significantly harder to hit makes it a significantly more difficult opponent; viz CRs and ECLs in 3.x and how poorly those work.

I have no idea where you're getting this nonsense.  THAC0 scales by level; is a wizard the same as a fighter in combat?  Furthermore, 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, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm) 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 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ettin.htm) with 18 AC?  Is that the same as the demons?

QuoteThe problem generally gets to be that once you start scaling, everything else pretty much has to follow. Brendon mentions it above, and I have written about it before also. You can't have just the one mechanic scale (especially with no upper limit) and ignore the rest. If AC scales with level, but attacks and damage don't, then combat will take even longer than it does in 3.x and 4e now. Everyone will be looking to roll that 19 or 20 just to get a normal hit. Combat task resolution becomes almost binary. If you are attacking AC75 with +20 to your roll, there is no point in rolling (unless you allow a 20 to always hit regardless). If you can't scrape together at least +55 in bonuses, combat is a non-starter; you simply can't participate. If you allow a 20 to always hit, then it is just a matter of waiting around until someone rolls that 5%. If hit points and damage haven't scaled with AC, then you are fighting the same lower level fight when AC wasn't so high, it just takes forever to resolve from everyone waiting to hit that 5% chance.

If you scale attack bonuses but not the others, then combat will go more quickly, but it will also be much more lethal for the players. Dealing and receiving quasi-autohits every round is just a matter of attrition, and you are wasting time rolling the attacks. Just apply damage every round and see who falls out first. You can't scale just AC or just attacks. They both have to scale together, even if not necessarily precise parity. But they do have to be close.

Hence, it doesn't really matter that the dragon and the demon have different damage or special attacks if everyone at the table is only hitting 5% or 10% of the time. The effects of the attacks are nearly meaningless, because they are rarely applied.

When you are talking about scaling AC by level, you are necessarily talking about scaling everything else, or it simply doesn't work.

This is precisely the reason I want to scale AC in D&D.  Since attack bonuses scale, AC should scale with them.

Quote from: B.T.;518644I have no idea where you're getting this nonsense.  THAC0 scales by level; is a wizard the same as a fighter in combat?

I think we are using 'scaling' in two different ways.

Quotea 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 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ettin.htm) with 18 AC?  Is that the same as the demons?

That is what I was referring to.  The CR 7 creatures have a higher AC than the CR6 creature, and both the CR7 creatures have roughly the same AC.  AC scales with the CR, which has the side effect of providing roughly the same odds at any given CR in combat.  Which makes sense, because that is pretty much how the underlying concept of CR works.  THAC0 doesn't scale with your level, it just increases; that's kind of the point.

I just realized this example of duel to touch is pretty fair right off the bat and needs no real change. I'm using 2e from familiarity sake -- however, I'm adding no specialization or other greater finagling:

1st lvl fighter, THAC0 20, AC 10, 1 atk/round.

10th lvl fighter, THAC0 11, AC 10, technically 3/2 atk/rnd (but just one for the first round, so whatever).

1st lvl fighter has to roll (THAC0 20 - AC 10 =) 10+, a 55% chance to hit.

10th lvl fighter has to roll (THAC0 11 - AC 10 =) 1+, a 95% chance to hit. (due to 20 always hit, 1 always miss, up to DM discretion)

Then, since the 10th lvl fighter is gonna win in the first round, barring catastrophic failure, this averages out quite well.

The only chance a 1st lvl character has is to win a contested roll (the d10 initiative) AND land his first (and likely last) blow -- otherwise he is almost assured a loss. Considering novices do get lucky blows vs. pros at times, I'm OK with this. I don't have time to crunch it through Any Dice, but this isn't a 55% chance for the 1st lvl fighter to win the duel. Because of needing to beat initiative, the nature of the tide of battle as the PHB states, it significantly reduces this from a 55% chance of victory.

Throw in anything else, like specialization, parry, etc. from core, or (god help us,) anything from optional supplements, and this meager possibility for the 1st lvl fighter goes to essentially nil. Which isn't something I exactly want, now that I come to think of it...

So yeah, now that I've decided to bother crunching this, I'm OK with D&D even for dueling! Thanks!

Well the obvious way to do it is to have AC scale at a slower rate that THAC0/ BAB and do one of a) make this AC scaling not cumulative with armor (the way the optional 3e rules handle it), or b) make armor & other AC bonuses do a bit less.

And honestly, I really don't think there is a slippery slope towards the "always fighting orcs" apocalypse or whatever. To the extent 4e D&D is like that it's because it drastically over-solved some perceived problems with 3e monsters (namely, that they'd never have a chance to use their whole suite of abilities in the course of a typical fight).

Quote from: B.T.;518644I have no idea where you're getting this nonsense.  THAC0 scales by level; is a wizard the same as a fighter in combat?

You're talking about an increase. This is not the same as when I talk of scaling.

Remember, infinity chasing infinity? Yeah, that's scaling.

It's about when everything attempts to keep up with each other, a.k.a parity. Increases in that situation don't mean anything because other things will come in its place to keep on par. That's scaling.

And to avoid ambiguity, to the dictionary! These are the definitions I'm using:

Scaling
verb [ trans. ]
represent in proportional dimensions; reduce or increase in size according to a common scale : [as adj. ] ( scaled) scaled plans of the house.
• [ intrans. ] (of a quantity or property) be variable according to a particular scale.

Parity
noun
the state or condition of being equal, esp. regarding status or pay

Because I want increases to mean something I explicitly do not want things to perpetually equal out, with the only meaningful change being different monster/task skins.

When I am talking about AC scaling, I mean that it should increase based on a set level-dependent formula in the same way that 3e saving throws do.

Refresh my memory (I don't have 3e on hand): isn't Saving Throw progression by level simply a gradual increase? Roughly the same as THAC0 2e and Saving Throws in 1e(?) and 2e?

If so, it seems counter-productive to add that atop everything else because you already have a mechanism to make larger jumps in AC called Armor. Further, adding AC to the list of things that increase per level just increases the range THAC0 has to chase, eventually nullifying the point of the d20 die as randomizer.

A fixed progression chasing a static bonuses readily purchasable at 1st lvl is doable. It's experience gradually inching over a modular barrier erectable from the start.

However a fixed progression chasing another fixed progression ends up with the problem outlined above. It's experience trying to inch over a modular barrier that also increases by inches each level of experience. Eventually the modular aspect will take a backseat (because of its fixed valued nature in the face of infinity) and the two increasing values will chase each other until the system gives out or boredom ensues.

Again, I should relate here at one time I was deeply enamored with AD&D 3e upon release. However the more I experienced the system and questioned my dissatisfaction with changes I earnestly wanted from 1e & 2e, the more I came to look under the hood and try to find why I liked what was before and didn't like what I so desperately wanted. In this case the nature of competing values perpetually chasing each other without limit, either explicit or implicit, ended up showing me why I was so frustrated with getting what I wanted.

Quote from: Opaopajr;518669Refresh my memory (I don't have 3e on hand): isn't Saving Throw progression by level simply a gradual increase? Roughly the same as THAC0 2e and Saving Throws in 1e(?) and 2e?

3e saving throws come in two varieties: "good" saves that equal 2 + half your level, and "poor" saves that equal a third of your level.  Personally, I prefer the 2e system (with a static save DC) but it doesn't work in the 3e system where you add attribute modifiers to your saving throws.

QuoteIf so, it seems counter-productive to add that atop everything else because you already have a mechanism to make larger jumps in AC called Armor.

With regard to 3e: armor stops mattering at higher levels because of the ridiculously high attack bonuses of monsters.  Your first attack is basically a guaranteed hit (first two if you're getting bonus attacks due to haste or similar abilities), and your second attack has a high probability of hitting.  Your third and fourth attacks don't much matter because their attack bonus is so far below everything else.

I don't know how 2e handled this.

QuoteFurther, adding AC to the list of things that increase per level just increases the range THAC0 has to chase, eventually nullifying the point of the d20 die as randomizer.

No, not at all.  You can limit the increases to AC so that the two don't scale evenly.  The d20 is actually "nullified as randomizer" in systems with fixed AC, where the fighter can automatically hit opponents with his high attack bonus.

QuoteA fixed progression chasing a static bonuses readily purchasable at 1st lvl is doable. It's experience gradually inching over a modular barrier erectable from the start.

However a fixed progression chasing another fixed progression ends up with the problem outlined above. It's experience trying to inch over a modular barrier that also increases by inches each level of experience. Eventually the modular aspect will take a backseat (because of its fixed valued nature in the face of infinity) and the two increasing values will chase each other until the system gives out or boredom ensues.

This makes no sense whatsoever.  The purpose of scaling AC by formula is threefold.  First, it represents characters getting better at defending themselves as they advance.  Second, it ensures characters are not entirely helpless without their equipment.  Third, it gives the DM a guideline for creating his own monsters to ensure that they appropriately challenge the party without carelessly slapping +5 armor on the monster or throwing +10 natural armor on it or randomly setting its AC to -1.  (In before any of these are decried as bad things.)

QuoteAgain, I should relate here at one time I was deeply enamored with AD&D 3e upon release. However the more I experienced the system and questioned my dissatisfaction with changes I earnestly wanted from 1e & 2e, the more I came to look under the hood and try to find why I liked what was before and didn't like what I so desperately wanted. In this case the nature of competing values perpetually chasing each other without limit, either explicit or implicit, ended up showing me why I was so frustrated with getting what I wanted.

AC didn't increase with level in 3e.  You just don't like 3e.  The fact that you're complaining about high-level monsters having high AC to match the fighter's high attack bonus is full-on retarded because 2e did the exact same thing.  (Hint: compare a dragon's AC to that of an orc.)  What you're annoyed about is clearly the optimization culture that 3e fomented, where you're constantly striving for every +1 you can muster to get the advantage over your enemy.  And that's fine because I also despise it, but I realize that it has less to do with scaling AC/saving throws/save DCs and more to do with the number of options presented to the players (feats, magic items, wealth-by-level, ability score boosts, etc.).

Quote from: Opaopajr;518654I just realized this example of duel to touch is pretty fair right off the bat and needs no real change. I'm using 2e from familiarity sake -- however, I'm adding no specialization or other greater finagling:

1st lvl fighter, THAC0 20, AC 10, 1 atk/round.

10th lvl fighter, THAC0 11, AC 10, technically 3/2 atk/rnd (but just one for the first round, so whatever).

1st lvl fighter has to roll (THAC0 20 - AC 10 =) 10+, a 55% chance to hit.

10th lvl fighter has to roll (THAC0 11 - AC 10 =) 1+, a 95% chance to hit. (due to 20 always hit, 1 always miss, up to DM discretion)

Then, since the 10th lvl fighter is gonna win in the first round, barring catastrophic failure, this averages out quite well.

The only chance a 1st lvl character has is to win a contested roll (the d10 initiative) AND land his first (and likely last) blow -- otherwise he is almost assured a loss. Considering novices do get lucky blows vs. pros at times, I'm OK with this. I don't have time to crunch it through Any Dice, but this isn't a 55% chance for the 1st lvl fighter to win the duel. Because of needing to beat initiative, the nature of the tide of battle as the PHB states, it significantly reduces this from a 55% chance of victory.

Throw in anything else, like specialization, parry, etc. from core, or (god help us,) anything from optional supplements, and this meager possibility for the 1st lvl fighter goes to essentially nil. Which isn't something I exactly want, now that I come to think of it...

So yeah, now that I've decided to bother crunching this, I'm OK with D&D even for dueling! Thanks!

You missed the key point... the 1st level guy has exactly the same chance of winning the battle on round 1 if he is fighting a 1st level guy, a 10th level guy, a 100th level guy, or indeed using RAW a 3 year old girl.

He has 27.5% chance to win initiative and hit his opponent.
If you think you could go to the olympics and win slightly over 1 in 4 of your bouts then you should enter :)

That is my point.

The scene where the student challenges the master and then tries to hit him whilst the master moves round the training room evading each blow through the slightest moves until eventually landing his own touch is iconic. From Zorro, to the Count of Monte Chirsto, to Highlander, to every Jacky Chan film ever made, in fact every film or book where a rookie gets trained by a master.

Now I have no issue with you not caring about it and deciding not to use the rules that way , of course its your game. I am just poining out a possible limitation of the RAW.

I should also add that not having AC scale with level (thus being equipment-dependent) does have some benefits.  In a system where AC is entirely level-dependent, you can't have creatures with high AC without creatures that are high level.  In contrast, in D&D, you can easily give low-level creatures a high AC by means of equipment--in Pathfinder, for example, you can throw on banded mail and a heavy steel shield to give a character 20 AC at level 1.  It might not seem that impressive, but it's kind of nice that you can deck out an entire regiment of warriors for a few thousand gold and give them a decent chance to survive a few rounds of combat.

Ugh, hate breaking down quotes in a back and forth. Things get all cluttered...

Quote from: B.T.;518673With regard to 3e: armor stops mattering at higher levels because of the ridiculously high attack bonuses of monsters.  Your first attack is basically a guaranteed hit (first two if you're getting bonus attacks due to haste or similar abilities), and your second attack has a high probability of hitting.  Your third and fourth attacks don't much matter because their attack bonus is so far below everything else.

That's an issue of level scaling and not putting a reasonable cap on game scope. Admittedly 2e had similar problems as people could have levels beyond 20 -- and increase their THAC0 accordingly as well. But at that point you're minor deities and the game's scope really cannot handle that in a meaningful manner. Throw in 20 always meant success and 1 always meant failure and it helps mitigate what in all likelihood will end up being a clown show regardless. I think D&D designers should've just had the guts and said that beyond a certain level is beyond the game's scope.

Well, they probably did that with Human longevity being so short, level progression being more measured, and insisting strict time records being kept. But a lot of tables ignored such recommendations. So at that point you're kinda asking for it... But that's another discussion, isn't it?

Quote from: B.T.;518673No, not at all.  You can limit the increases to AC so that the two don't scale evenly.  The d20 is actually "nullified as randomizer" in systems with fixed AC, where the fighter can automatically hit opponents with his high attack bonus.

Infinity does not care about evenly scaling. Whether you count by ones, twos or 10s, infinity's end result is that eventually in competition with itself numbers become irrelevant. Since limits is no factor in infinite level scaling it is only a matter of choosing time and place within the progression to see where they are in relation. However, since RPG games are about not keeping characters evenly within strictly equivalent time and place progression the advantage of pacing becomes rendered meaningless.

Now the system may try to favor one scale's progression over the other, as you offer. But the end result is infinity will eventually overwhelm their system as people will find how to buff out their time and place location by system manipulation. People will find a way to select a place upon infinity that does not maintain this deliberate progression parity.

This seems confusing so let me elaborate. i.e. BAB increases by 2, AC increases by 1. This goes on forever. Naturally BAB outpaces AC if you keep at a comparatively equivalent parity place within the progression (BAB 10, AC 5; BAB 70, AC 35). The thing is no one ever selects their AC or BAB in accordance to such pairings. They will always be selected irrespective of comparatively equivalent place in sequence (BAB 70s will not always encounter AC 35s). Thus your pacing sequence becomes a nominal effect; in truth you have the entirety of either infinity to place your BAB or AC depending upon your build manipulation. You may select/build up to BAB 70, but what is stopping your AC opponent from selecting/building up to 110?

Quote from: B.T.;518673This makes no sense whatsoever.  The purpose of scaling AC by formula is threefold.  First, it represents characters getting better at defending themselves as they advance.

Setting fluff that is currently not represented in a To-Hit roll manner because combat is deliberately abstracted and Hit Points is there to do this very job.

Quote from: B.T.;518673Second, it ensures characters are not entirely helpless without their equipment.

They are already not helpless. Note: Hit Points. Further note: Dex AC modifier and Full Parry. Additional resources are available in supplement form.

Quote from: B.T.;518673Third, it gives the DM a guideline for creating his own monsters to ensure that they appropriately challenge the party without carelessly slapping +5 armor on the monster or throwing +10 natural armor on it or randomly setting its AC to -1.  (In before any of these are decried as bad things.)

Appropriately challenge the party? Carelessly [statting up] a monster? Are these complaints about Balance and Poor GMing to be rectified by rules adjuncts? Guidelines for GM monster creation fine, but come now, we both know rules can never fix these things.

Quote from: B.T.;518673AC didn't increase with level in 3e.  You just don't like 3e.  The fact that you're complaining about high-level monsters having high AC to match the fighter's high attack bonus is full-on retarded because 2e did the exact same thing.  (Hint: compare a dragon's AC to that of an orc.)  What you're annoyed about is clearly the optimization culture that 3e fomented, where you're constantly striving for every +1 you can muster to get the advantage over your enemy.  And that's fine because I also despise it, but I realize that it has less to do with scaling AC/saving throws/save DCs and more to do with the number of options presented to the players (feats, magic items, wealth-by-level, ability score boosts, etc.).

AC didn't increase with level in 3e, this I know. But, like with many other problems I'm sadly familiar with (*cough* skills, i.e. Diplomacy), I know why certain solutions which were already enacted won't be productive if expanded upon other areas. (There was a cap on placing more NWPs for a +1 increase in one NWP skill. You could only have a +16 in any skill. Now NWPs were hard to get, but I thought this was unnecessary at first. Now after seeing the result of lifting the cap in 3e I am thoroughly convinced my previous negative assessment about NWP cap was wrong.) We don't need to make the same mistakes to learn from them.

And yes, I don't like 3e. I like saying that by the way. Thanks, I always enjoy indulging in that opportunity. ;)

By the way, I'm not complaining about high lvl monsters having high AC. That's just observing the extremes of a finite spectrum. There was a de facto AC of -10 in the MM and the end result is people tended to play with that framework in mind. And that's wonderful stuff because it gives workable parameters to the game's scope.

I'm saying having a scaling AC progression (i.o.w. no cap) to achieve a sort of parity solution to BAB -- or other problems -- is not going to be productive because we've already seen in other areas how it is unproductive. Systems with finite parameters cannot contain infinity in a meaningful way. And infinity trying to contain infinity eventually becomes an aimless exercise, as neither has a hope to contain the other. Eventually it devolves into skillful justification to achieve your desired positioning (which directly correlates to your optimization culture comment). So why are we still riding this carousel?

Quote from: jibbajibba;518690He has 27.5% chance to win initiative and hit his opponent.
If you think you could go to the olympics and win slightly over 1 in 4 of your bouts then you should enter :)

That is my point.

Oh no, I get that point. It's just I am okay with a larger element of luck factoring into the equation. For me 27.5% is fine for me in a game where properly simulating a duel is not a game priority. Yup, it's not represented in RAW. So what? It provides a smallish number I can live with.

Now you want a lower number that better represents your feelings about how the duel should be simulated. Well, you could implement any of the GM rulings I offered (full Parry, Parry as counterstrike, and HP % target), but that requires going beyond RAW and making a judgment call. Thankfully this is an RPG and those are (were?) usually welcomed. Or you could select a game better designed to simulate that.

Or instead of a ruling you could add a progression to AC subsystem that could complicate the game further and create greater problems than that one situation. Not the choice I would make, as I don't prioritize dueling, and do value keeping power spectrums contained. But hey, more power to you if it makes you happy.

On 2E THAC0, if there was a question...
 
THAC0 starts at 20 for 1-1 HD, 1+ is 19 and each 2 HD lowers it an additional 2.
Consequently a monster of 15+ Hit Dice has a THAC0 of 5 (so equivalent to a +15 attack bonus in 3E).
Looking at the Monster Manual and other places there a couple of monsters that break this...the Tarrasque has a -5 THAC0 (i.e the equivalent of +25 to hit in 3.0), the Dragon of Tyr has -3...but generally it tops out at 5.
 
Gargantua (Godzilla) are 50 HD and THAC0 5, Zarratan are island sized (up to 70 HD) and are THAC0 5. Monsters generally also don't have Strength scores/gain to hit adjustments from Strength, though there might be exceptions. There is one creature (the lesser death) that never misses and so doesn't have a THAC0.

Quote from: Opaopajr;518701Oh no, I get that point. It's just I am okay with a larger element of luck factoring into the equation. For me 27.5% is fine for me in a game where properly simulating a duel is not a game priority. Yup, it's not represented in RAW. So what? It provides a smallish number I can live with.

Now you want a lower number that better represents your feelings about how the duel should be simulated. Well, you could implement any of the GM rulings I offered (full Parry, Parry as counterstrike, and HP % target), but that requires going beyond RAW and making a judgment call. Thankfully this is an RPG and those are (were?) usually welcomed. Or you could select a game better designed to simulate that.

Or instead of a ruling you could add a progression to AC subsystem that could complicate the game further and create greater problems than that one situation. Not the choice I would make, as I don't prioritize dueling, and do value keeping power spectrums contained. But hey, more power to you if it makes you happy.

I don't think improving AC with level does complicate things though, in actual play. Say you go with simple make AC bonus = thaco bous so a 10th level fighter is on +5 then the fighter AC at 10th level in no armour is AC 5
that is it... then the game plays no need for extra rules of any description.

Not so very complex...

Hit Points, Armor Class, damage, number of attacks and attack bonus all contribute to the same thing: who will win a given fight.

In theory they represent different things, but there's enough "oh but this can represent fighting skill and luck as well as actual armor" that they actually overlap.

So I think if you look at whether AC or attack bonus or both should go up, you're looking at a higher level of detail than the simulation actually has (despite its claims to the contrary).

So the answer is probably that you should figure out what you want to happen at the levels you care about first, then derive stats that give that result, not start with the stats as they are. In other words don't start with "should AC go up with level?". Start with "Should ten first-level Fighters beat a beholder? How long should the fight last? What about one tenth-level Fighter?".

These sort of problems seem to always be about high level characters. Which makes sense to me, given that the inventors of D&D seem to have cared about/often played low-level characters and extrapolated high-level stats without too much testing.

Quote from: Age of Fable;518711Hit Points, Armor Class, damage, number of attacks and attack bonus all contribute to the same thing: who will win a given fight.

In theory they represent different things, but there's enough "oh but this can represent fighting skill and luck as well as actual armor" that they actually overlap.

So I think if you look at whether AC or attack bonus or both should go up, you're looking at a higher level of detail than the simulation actually has (despite its claims to the contrary).

So the answer is probably that you should figure out what you want to happen at the levels you care about first, then derive stats that give that result, not start with the stats as they are. In other words don't start with "should AC go up with level?". Start with "Should ten first-level Fighters beat a beholder? How long should the fight last? What about one tenth-level Fighter?".

These sort of problems seem to always be about high level characters. Which makes sense to me, given that the inventors of D&D seem to have cared about/often played low-level characters and extrapolated high-level stats without too much testing.

Lot of truth to the bolded bit.

Quote from: Age of Fable;518711These sort of problems seem to always be about high level characters. Which makes sense to me, given that the inventors of D&D seem to have cared about/often played low-level characters and extrapolated high-level stats without too much testing.

I think this just re-inforces the idea that high level play was really never meant to be the same as low level play.  Dungeon crawling and even some hex crawling give way to courtly intrigues, back room dealings, and weeks of planning to take out a high level monster like a dragon and haul the gold back to civilization.  Details of combat in high level play were not important, because any glitches that would come up could be handled on a case-by-case basis.

But if B.T. insists on a bonus for AC by level, try this:  Rename Base Attack Bonus to Base Combat Bonus.  Use the same numbers for attack rolls and AC, allowing protection from one attack until multiple bonuses appear on the BaB table. So a BaB of +4 provides a +4 to hit, and a +4 to AC.  Then allow the lower bonuses for second, third and fourth attacks against that character.  Hence, a 15th level Fighter would have an AC bonus of +15 on the first attack, +10 on the second attack, and +5 on the third attack; if it is being treated as something of an active skill, a character can only defend against a certain number of attacks each round.  If you want to boost Fighters, only allow the AC bonuses for them.  If that turns out to be too much bookkeeping, and you would prefer it to be more of a passive ability, just total the bonuses for a given level and apply that to their AC.  That same 15th level Fighter would then have just a static +30 to their AC against all attacks.

Quote from: Opaopajr;518699Infinity does not care about evenly scaling. Whether you count by ones, twos or 10s, infinity's end result is that eventually in competition with itself numbers become irrelevant. Since limits is no factor in infinite level scaling it is only a matter of choosing time and place within the progression to see where they are in relation. However, since RPG games are about not keeping characters evenly within strictly equivalent time and place progression the advantage of pacing becomes rendered meaningless.

Now the system may try to favor one scale's progression over the other, as you offer. But the end result is infinity will eventually overwhelm their system as people will find how to buff out their time and place location by system manipulation. People will find a way to select a place upon infinity that does not maintain this deliberate progression parity.

This seems confusing so let me elaborate. i.e. BAB increases by 2, AC increases by 1. This goes on forever. Naturally BAB outpaces AC if you keep at a comparatively equivalent parity place within the progression (BAB 10, AC 5; BAB 70, AC 35). The thing is no one ever selects their AC or BAB in accordance to such pairings. They will always be selected irrespective of comparatively equivalent place in sequence (BAB 70s will not always encounter AC 35s). Thus your pacing sequence becomes a nominal effect; in truth you have the entirety of either infinity to place your BAB or AC depending upon your build manipulation. You may select/build up to BAB 70, but what is stopping your AC opponent from selecting/building up to 110?

You keep writing big walls of text about INFINITY SCALING, which is ridiculous hyperbole.  Even in an open-ended system like 3e, there is a soft cap on how high attack/AC will go (fighters will generally cap out around +37 to attack rolls).  That being said, you can simply institute level and stat caps.  So let's say we make stats stop at around 30 in 3e, making the maximum bonus to attack rolls and AC +10.  There.

QuoteSetting fluff that is currently not represented in a To-Hit roll manner because combat is deliberately abstracted and Hit Points is there to do this very job.

QuoteThey are already not helpless. Note: Hit Points. Further note: Dex AC modifier and Full Parry. Additional resources are available in supplement form.

QuoteAppropriately challenge the party? Carelessly [statting up] a monster? Are these complaints about Balance and Poor GMing to be rectified by rules adjuncts? Guidelines for GM monster creation fine, but come now, we both know rules can never fix these things.

First of all, I don't like that a level 20 fighter is as easy to hit as a level 1 fighter when he's not wearing armor.  It seems to me that the attack roll should be harder even if he's not wearing armor.  Second of all, while the fighter isn't technically helpless, he's going to die in short order when wearing something other than his magical fullplate.  I prefer a system that would give him slightly better odds without it.  Third of all, the "hurrrrr just need a good DM" argument is fucking retarded (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21952&highlight=feeling).

QuoteAC didn't increase with level in 3e, this I know. But, like with many other problems I'm sadly familiar with (*cough* skills, i.e. Diplomacy), I know why certain solutions which were already enacted won't be productive if expanded upon other areas. (There was a cap on placing more NWPs for a +1 increase in one NWP skill. You could only have a +16 in any skill. Now NWPs were hard to get, but I thought this was unnecessary at first. Now after seeing the result of lifting the cap in 3e I am thoroughly convinced my previous negative assessment about NWP cap was wrong.) We don't need to make the same mistakes to learn from them.

And yes, I don't like 3e. I like saying that by the way. Thanks, I always enjoy indulging in that opportunity. ;)

By the way, I'm not complaining about high lvl monsters having high AC. That's just observing the extremes of a finite spectrum. There was a de facto AC of -10 in the MM and the end result is people tended to play with that framework in mind. And that's wonderful stuff because it gives workable parameters to the game's scope.

I'm saying having a scaling AC progression (i.o.w. no cap) to achieve a sort of parity solution to BAB -- or other problems -- is not going to be productive because we've already seen in other areas how it is unproductive. Systems with finite parameters cannot contain infinity in a meaningful way. And infinity trying to contain infinity eventually becomes an aimless exercise, as neither has a hope to contain the other. Eventually it devolves into skillful justification to achieve your desired positioning (which directly correlates to your optimization culture comment). So why are we still riding this carousel?

No, you've made declarations about how it doesn't work because INFINITE SCALING, which is really stupid.  If you create a system where your AC is 10 + your level, you have a scaling AC system.  Is that system INFINITE SCALING?  No, not at all, but you seem to be under the false impression that it's going to lead to monsters with 800 AC or something equally dumb.

This whole thing is spurred by the nonsense of "durrr THAC0 best system evar" when THAC0 is really fucking stupid.  You want to roll high on your attack roll to hit a low AC, and you are better protected with lower numbers, and bonuses to your AC actually subtract from your AC.  The most counter-intuitive piece of shit I've ever seen.  Ascending AC?  Everyone gets it because it makes sense.

FOR YET ANOTHER FUCKING TIME, allow me to explain how this would work in 3e.  You have THAC20.  THAC20 is the number you need to roll on your d20 to hit an AC of 20.  You create your faggy little chart matrix because you want to hide the math from the players behind a multilayer smokescreen of bullshit, probably as part of a DM autofellator so that players can't figure out what the fuck is going on.  This chart has AC values ranging from 10 to 30 on it.

A fighter has a THAC20 of 19 at level.  He has a THAC20 of 14 at level 5.  He has a THAC20 of 0 at level 20.  Ascending AC is fully limited.

NOW TO MOVE BACK TO THE FUCKING ISSUE OF SCALING AC: In the THAC20 system, you can get up to +10 AC from your armor and shields.  You also add half your level to your AC, making it a scaling system.  Here is your AC formula:

10 + half your level + your armor.

The level cap is 20, so your AC maxes out at 10 + 10 + 10 or 30.  AC scales, it is fully limited, there is no INFINITY CHASING INFINITY.

Quote from: B.T.;518760You keep writing big walls of text about INFINITY SCALING, which is ridiculous hyperbole.



NOW TO MOVE BACK TO THE FUCKING ISSUE OF SCALING AC: In the THAC20 system, you can get up to +10 AC from your armor and shields.  You also add half your level to your AC, making it a scaling system.  Here is your AC formula:

10 + half your level + your armor.

The level cap is 20, so your AC maxes out at 10 + 10 + 10 or 30.  AC scales, it is fully limited, there is no INFINITY CHASING INFINITY.

You really should have named this thread "Tell me how awesome scaling AC with level is".

Quote from: StormBringer;518762"Tell me how awesome scaling AC with level is".

I did that, but it caused a collective grogneurism.

Quote from: StormBringer;518762You really should have named this thread "Tell me how awesome scaling AC with level is".

I wanted to see if anyone could provide a solid argument against it.  It appears not.

Quote from: Aos;518765I did that, but it caused a collective grogneurism.

*grumble grumble*

Quote from: B.T.;518767I wanted to see if anyone could provide a solid argument against it.  It appears not.

I got one for you: it's redundant and obfuscates the real math behind the game. If you have attacks that scale and AC that scales, that's really no different from scaling attacks by the difference between those two modifiers. So in fact you're doing the same thing in both cases, just separating the modifiers artificially. It's much better, easier to comprehend, to simplify the whole thing and have the math show at one end of the equation instead of both ends.

My urge to troll over the last couple of days is getting out of hand.

Quote from: B.T.;518767I wanted to see if anyone could provide a solid argument against it.  It appears not.

No, it only appears that way to you because you refuse to see the inherent problems with what you want to do.  I would guess you feel right at home asking what game system would work best for a Quackpunk 1811 game with elements of Cthulhu and then rejecting every single suggestion with ever more ridiculous reasons.

Quote from: StormBringer;518773No, it only appears that way to you because you refuse to see the inherent problems with what you want to do.

When those answers are (a) always fighting orcs (wrong) and (b) THAC0 is great (fuck you), there's no real discussion to be had.

Care to answer my previous post, BT?

Quote from: Benoist;518801Care to answer my previous post, BT?

No, as it was trolling.

Quote from: B.T.;518803No, as it was trolling.

Er? No, really. I swear to God. It was not trolling. I was dead serious.

Quote from: B.T.;518803No, as it was trolling.

Er? No, really. I swear to God. It was not trolling. I was dead serious.

Statistically, whether you scale the numbers on the two sides of the attack bonus (one modifier, +"A") v. AC (another modifier, +"B") equation or combine these modifiers to affect only one side of the equation (the attack bonus, +["A" minus "B"], versus the AC, which remains static) works exactly the same. If you have a choice between these two possibilities, with them being statistically equal, it makes no sense to obfuscate and complicate the math of the game by scaling both attacks and AC. I'll go for static ACs and scaled attack bonus instead.

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

No. You're still painfully, stupidly wrong about this. So I'll correct you once again.

There are two ways to achieve "always fighting orcs":

(1) You never improve and your opponents never improve, so you're always fighting the same opponents.

(2) You improve and all your opponents improve at the same rate, so you're always fighting the same opponents.

The only way to avoid "always fighting orcs" is if you improve (e.g., stuff scales with level) but at least some of your opponents don't.

Quote from: Benoist;518771I got one for you: it's redundant and obfuscates the real math behind the game. If you have attacks that scale and AC that scales, that's really no different from scaling attacks by the difference between those two modifiers. So in fact you're doing the same thing in both cases, just separating the modifiers artificially. It's much better, easier to comprehend, to simplify the whole thing and have the math show at one end of the equation instead of both ends.

That's only true if you're exclusively fighting "level appropriate" encounters. I know you don't play like that, Benoist.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518827That's only true if you're exclusively fighting "level appropriate" encounters. I know you don't play like that, Benoist.

Well no. In my example, always fighting level appropriate encounters would be like "A" (attack mod.) being always strictly equal to "B" (AC mod.), in which case the total attack bonus in my latter proposition ["A" minus "B"] would flatline throughout the levels, which doesn't have to be the case, does it?

And even if ["A" minus "B"] flatlined throughout levels, equating it to "always fighting orcs" is based on the notion that everything else is basically equal and the same throughout the game: the static AC and damage dealt by all creatures is exactly the same for all creatures regardless of equipment, magical properties, racial capabilities and whatnot, their Hit Points and Saves and HDs are all the same, and so on. Likewise for PC capabilities, perks acquired along levels (like say, abilities that make you attack better, or a magical sword or whatnot), damage output, etc etc. All these are variables which could be acted upon so that in effect, you don't always fight orcs.

But that wasn't my point. My point is that adding modifiers on two sides of the equation is more complicated, convoluted, harder to control with all the other moving parts of the game and obfuscates the math compared to putting all the same modifiers on just one side of the equation. So static AC and scaled attack bonuses make the most sense to me, on a practical point of view.

Quote from: B.T.;518796When those answers are (a) always fighting orcs (wrong) and (b) THAC0 is great (fuck you), there's no real discussion to be had.

Then 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 from: B.T.;518644...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.

As for b), I defy you to find anywhere where I say THAC0 is great.  It would help your cause immensely to make some kind of attempt at a good faith discussion, and that usually starts with at least a fundamental grasp of what other people are saying.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518827No. You're still painfully, stupidly wrong about this. So I'll correct you once again.

Didn't you embarrass yourself enough the last time and slink away from the conversation?

QuoteThere are two ways to achieve "always fighting orcs":

(1) You never improve and your opponents never improve, so you're always fighting the same opponents.

(2) You improve and all your opponents improve at the same rate, so you're always fighting the same opponents.

Point out where anything I said contradicts this.  Bonus points if you use #2 to do so, because that is exactly what I have been saying.
Addendum:  You don't get to claim the only valid definition.

QuoteThe only way to avoid "always fighting orcs" is if you improve (e.g., stuff scales with level) but at least some of your opponents don't.

I wonder where I heard that before...

Oh, yeah, I remember now.  It was the first fucking comment in the thread:

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

I see two options here:
1) Instead of rushing to get your rocks off by 'winning the interwebz', you might want to work on the reading comprehension just a touch.  If you want to present a smarter argument, it helps to actually have a smarter argument.

2) Read a book (http://www.amazon.com/Grasshopper-Games-Life-Utopia/dp/0879238402).  Try looking outside of your little bubble once in a while and actually explore other ideas.  I promise your world will not collapse.  Instead of linking to nothing but your own blog in a conversation, try finding something that isn't your blog that supports your contention or the point you are making.  Solipsism seems like a bulwark so you can fluff your ego thinking you are always right, but I swear, it's actually a very weak position to argue from.

QuoteThat's only true if you're exclusively fighting "level appropriate" encounters. I know you don't play like that, Benoist.

Or, the encounters that are comprised of "opponents" who are "scaled" to the character's "level" as "appropriate" is like "always fighting orcs", as implied by the CR system and rather more explicit in 4e.

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

I wish I could have a level of insight like that.

Quote from: StormBringer;518843Didn't you embarrass yourself enough the last time and slink away from the conversation?


Point out where anything I said contradicts this.  Bonus points if you use #2 to do so, because that is exactly what I have been saying.
Addendum:  You don't get to claim the only valid definition.


I wonder where I heard that before...

Oh, yeah, I remember now.  It was the first fucking comment in the thread:


I see two options here:
1) Instead of rushing to get your rocks off by 'winning the interwebz', you might want to work on the reading comprehension just a touch.  If you want to present a smarter argument, it helps to actually have a smarter argument.

2) Read a book (http://www.amazon.com/Grasshopper-Games-Life-Utopia/dp/0879238402).  Try looking outside of your little bubble once in a while and actually explore other ideas.  I promise your world will not collapse.  Instead of linking to nothing but your own blog in a conversation, try finding something that isn't your blog that supports your contention or the point you are making.  Solipsism seems like a bulwark so you can fluff your ego thinking you are always right, but I swear, it's actually a very weak position to argue from.


Or, the encounters that are comprised of "opponents" who are "scaled" to the character's "level" as "appropriate" is like "always fighting orcs", as implied by the CR system and rather more explicit in 4e.


I wish I could have a level of insight like that.

You are right if you scale everything at the same rate you are basically always fighting orcs.
That was why I want a synchronous progression that depends on player choice. So you have some choices that create different sorts of characters afer a degree of experience.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518844You are right if you scale everything at the same rate you are basically always fighting orcs.
That was why I want a synchronous progression that depends on player choice. So you have some choices that create different sorts of characters afer a degree of experience.

Definitely.  I would far prefer a skill or something similar that provides for AC bonuses the individual players can decide to increase or ignore.

I like how LotFP handles all this: AC tends not to grossly overinflate, having an AC of 20 or 21 is spectacularly good. And the answer it takes for the dilemma about what to do about attack bonuses going up and AC staying static is that, instead of inflating AC, it reduces attack bonuses!  The only class that does gain attack bonuses, the fighter, SHOULD be great at hitting; and he tops out at +9.

I would personally like it if the new edition of D&D did something like this, where instead of pumping up AC, it slows down the inflation of BAB.   Then you're not just "always fighting orcs", HP can keep going up at a reasonable pace, and you can still show a variety of levels of AC without going batshit.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;518822Er? No, really. I swear to God. It was not trolling. I was dead serious.

Statistically, whether you scale the numbers on the two sides of the attack bonus (one modifier, +"A") v. AC (another modifier, +"B") equation or combine these modifiers to affect only one side of the equation (the attack bonus, +["A" minus "B"], versus the AC, which remains static) works exactly the same. If you have a choice between these two possibilities, with them being statistically equal, it makes no sense to obfuscate and complicate the math of the game by scaling both attacks and AC. I'll go for static ACs and scaled attack bonus instead.

Players want to get better.  They want greater numerical bonuses because having higher numbers means you're stronger.  To eliminate the scaling altogether is simpler but less satisfying for that reason--you might get more hit points, but you won't be any more likely to hit the guy in platemail than you were ten levels ago.  Players want to play fighters who are so good at swordfighting they can punch through the armor of knights, dragons, and demons.

Quote from: StormBringer;518833Then 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:

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.

A 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.

Your whole "same AC means same fight" is retarded.

Quote from: B.T.;518878Players want to get better.  They want greater numerical bonuses because having higher numbers means you're stronger.  To eliminate the scaling altogether is simpler but less satisfying for that reason--you might get more hit points, but you won't be any more likely to hit the guy in platemail than you were ten levels ago.  Players want to play fighters who are so good at swordfighting they can punch through the armor of knights, dragons, and demons.

And if you scale AC with BaB, you still won't be any more likely to hit the guy in platemail than you were ten levels ago.  It's just dire vorpal adamantite shadowblack grimdark platemail now; but you still hit it on a 15 or better, just like you did ten levels ago.

Read this part carefully:

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.

So, essentially, you want to scale everything with level because you like big numbers.  Everyone here is telling you there are problems, and possibly serious problems.  But you like your big numbers.  So go have fun with your big numbers and stop looking for validation from us.  I even provided you with a rudimentary system for scaling AC with level; fiddle with those numbers and see how it works out.

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...

Your whole "same AC means same fight" is retarded.

So, when your simplistic argument fails utterly, you want to drag in all the details.  At least we know why you are moving the goalposts.  How about next time when everyone else is clearly limiting the discussion to a couple of distinct mechanics for simplicity's sake, you don't pretend the concept has completely eluded you and perhaps engage the conversation in good faith?

Quote from: StormBringer;518920And if you scale AC with BaB, you still won't be any more likely to hit the guy in platemail than you were ten levels ago.  It's just dire vorpal adamantite shadowblack grimdark platemail now; but you still hit it on a 15 or better, just like you did ten levels ago.

You do hit the guy in platemail better, as long as he's a lower level than you.  You also hit demons and dragons better.

QuoteSo, essentially, you want to scale everything with level because you like big numbers.  Everyone here is telling you there are problems, and possibly serious problems.  But you like your big numbers.  So go have fun with your big numbers and stop looking for validation from us.  I even provided you with a rudimentary system for scaling AC with level; fiddle with those numbers and see how it works out.

The only arguments against it were retarded.  UH INFINITY CHASING INFINITY and ALWAYS FIGHTING ORCS.  The former was patently stupid; the second makes the assumption that a first-level orc is the same as a gigantic demon prince.

QuoteSo, when your simplistic argument fails utterly, you want to drag in all the details.  At least we know why you are moving the goalposts.  How about next time when everyone else is clearly limiting the discussion to a couple of distinct mechanics for simplicity's sake, you don't pretend the concept has completely eluded you and perhaps engage the conversation in good faith?

Blow me.  If you'll note, I wrote earlier:

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?

I've maintained the same position from the get-go.

Quote from: RPGPundit;518874I like how LotFP handles all this: AC tends not to grossly overinflate, having an AC of 20 or 21 is spectacularly good. And the answer it takes for the dilemma about what to do about attack bonuses going up and AC staying static is that, instead of inflating AC, it reduces attack bonuses!  The only class that does gain attack bonuses, the fighter, SHOULD be great at hitting; and he tops out at +9.

I would personally like it if the new edition of D&D did something like this, where instead of pumping up AC, it slows down the inflation of BAB.   Then you're not just "always fighting orcs", HP can keep going up at a reasonable pace, and you can still show a variety of levels of AC without going batshit.

RPGPundit

I trust this is part of what you're going to tell them when you do your famous rants?  J/K. I may not agree with your viewpoints all the time like some Trollman syphoncant, but you damn well know far more than myself about what makes a good rpg.

This goes part and parcel with giving monsters relevant hitpoints depending on their role (hate that term) to keep monsters relevant longer as is being discussed in another thread on this forum.  Man, would I hate to be in Cook's and Mearls shoes right now. :)

Quote from: Benoist;518829But that wasn't my point. My point is that adding modifiers on two sides of the equation is more complicated, convoluted, harder to control with all the other moving parts of the game and obfuscates the math compared to putting all the same modifiers on just one side of the equation. So static AC and scaled attack bonuses make the most sense to me, on a practical point of view.

Except it only works the way you're claiming it does IF YOU NEVER FIGHT ANYONE OF LOWER OR HIGHER LEVEL THAN YOURSELF.

Let's break that down:

Character A at Level  X gets attack +5. A challenge of Level X gets AC +3. "Ah ha!" says Benoist. "You can simplify that! Instead of giving bonuses on both sides of the equation, just give Character a +2 bonus to attack! Ta-da!"

When we revisit Character A at Level Y he's getting attack +8. A challenge of Level Y gets AC +5. The not-so-clever Benoist once again says, "Ah ah! We just give him attack +3 and it all balances out!"

But then Character A at Level Y goes walking down the street and he runs in to a challenge at Level X. In the original system he'd be at attack +8 and the challenge would be at AC +3. Character A should have a +5 advantage, but in Benoist's revision he's only at a +3 advantage

Benoist's system doesn't work the way he thinks it does. The only way to make it work would be if Character A got an additional bonus or penalty based on the relative level of his opponent.

But such a system would mean that rather than adding a static bonus to character A's attack bonus and a static bonus to the target's AC before play, you're now adding a static bonus to character A's attack bonus and then adding an additional bonus on-the-fly every time he attacks a different target.

But adding a variable bonus every time you attack a target that isn't the same level as you? No thank you. That's a ridiculous level of added complexity that you're proposing.

Quote from: StormBringer;518843Didn't you embarrass yourself enough the last time and slink away from the conversation?

It's interesting that you're now claiming that your original post in this thread was (a) a complete non sequitur and (b) a complete repudiation of the position you took in that previous thread.

Guess my work here is done. Sorry for assuming you were still being a dumbass about this. Glad to see you're finally willing to admit how painfully, painfully wrong you were.

Quote from: StormBringer;518920And if you scale AC with BaB, you still won't be any more likely to hit the guy in platemail than you were ten levels ago.  It's just dire vorpal adamantite shadowblack grimdark platemail now; but you still hit it on a 15 or better, just like you did ten levels ago.

Except that's clearly not the same guy: He's both higher level and, apparently (according to you), wearing much better armor.

If you actually WERE facing the same guy in the same armor, he'd be much easier to hit (because your attack bonus improved) and he'd also have a much tougher time hitting you (assuming that your AC improved).

It's like you are literally incapable of comprehending the concept of fighting an NPC that isn't the exact same level you are. Are you trolling or just stupid?

Wow OK whatever makes you happy Justin.

Not at all what I meant, but whatever.

Jesus Christ Justin I just didn't consider it that way.

Can you tone down the anger a little bit?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518934It's interesting that you're now claiming that your original post in this thread was (a) a complete non sequitur and (b) a complete repudiation of the position you took in that previous thread.

Guess my work here is done. Sorry for assuming you were still being a dumbass about this. Glad to see you're finally willing to admit how painfully, painfully wrong you were.

You might want to let everyone else know the content of the posts you are making up and responding to while appending my name to them.  I mean, sure, it's easier for you to respond to this made up StormBringer so you don't look like an asshole that doesn't know the first thing about how games work.  It's just very confusing for the rest of us.

Check it:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518827(2) You improve and all your opponents  improve at the same rate, so you're always fighting the same opponents.

The only way to avoid "always fighting orcs" is if you improve (e.g.,  stuff scales with level) but at least some of your opponents  don't.

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

I know it's foolishly optimistic of me to think you will actually engage in the conversation that is occurring in this thread, but I will ask one more time:  how does your statement contradict my statement?

In 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?

QuoteExcept that's clearly not the same guy: He's both higher level and, apparently (according to you), wearing much better armor.

Which the Fighter still hits on a 15 or better, because some moron decided that it was a great idea to scale AC and BaB with level.

Seriously, are you and BT so abysmally bad at math that you don't even understand basic number concepts?  Do you spend days arguing with people that 4+5 and 3+6 can't possibly be the same thing because 4 and 6 are so different?

QuoteIf you actually WERE facing the same guy in the same armor, he'd be much easier to hit (because your attack bonus improved) and he'd also have a much tougher time hitting you (assuming that your AC improved).

Except, that wouldn't be scaling with level, would it?  "Scales with level" and "level appropriate challenge" are synonyms.  If encounters are meant to be a "level appropriate challenge", then they are going to "scale with level", by definition.  So, meeting a grubby 2nd level Fighter in shabby platemail at 20th level is an anomaly.  The expected standard is to meet Novice McNewbie in shabby platemail at 2nd level, but to meet MegaOverLord Deathius DoomStryke in dire vorpal adamantite shadowblack grimdark platemail at 20th level.

Here is where the math is giving you a bloody nose every time:

2nd level Novice McNewbie has an AC of 17 (half-plate or banded mail and lt shield) 12hp, BaB of +2 and a Str of 16 (+3 to hit) 4-9 points of damage (long sword).  The hypothetical party's intrepid Fighter has about the same stats.  In fact, we will say Novice McNewbie is all but a mirror image of the party's fighter.  "Level Appropriate Challenge", which the party's Fighter eventually defeats mano a mano.

The party continues to adventure, has many successes and a few defeats, until they eventually run afoul of MegaOverLord Deathius DoomStryke and his plans, leading to a confrontation between his team and the party.  Intrepid Fighter is 20th level and engages Deathius in single combat.  Now we are looking at an opponent with 120hp, a Str of 21 (+5 to hit), +20 BaB (plus iterative attacks), damage of 11-18 (+5 bastard sword), and AC 35 (adamantite shadowblack grimdark platemail +5, matching shadowblack grimdark shield, +5, misc +5 additional). Again, all but the mirror image of the party's Intrepid Fighter.

So, 2nd level encounter. Intrepid Fighter has a 45% chance to hit each round.  That makes damage output 2.925 per round, but we can safely call that 3.  Newbie lasts four rounds. Closer to five rounds if Newbie has an above average 15hp.

20th level encounter.  Intrepid Fighter has a cumulative 44% chance to land first two attacks.  Damage output is 17.98 (for first two attacks only) or 18 per round.  Deathius survives seven rounds.  Eerily similar combat, but it takes just under twice as long.  It would be five rounds if Deathius had a somewhat below average 90hp.
(All iterative attacks will land a paltry .6% of  the time, yet this bumps the damage output to 19.98 per round, but we  can call that 20.  Now it only takes six rounds to drop Deathius, two  more than Newbie.  With slightly less than average hit points per level,  Deathius would have 100hp, and would take the same five rounds to finish  off.)

I figure you aren't going to address anything I bring up anyway, so why not show the math?  As you can see, if you carefully scale the opponent, it will take five rounds of (somewhat simplified) combat in each case.  In fact, I would probably guess that my examples are somewhat underpowered at each level, but I would guess the theory still holds with more complex examples*.  

Hence, it's a trivial exercise to show that scaling everything with level only increases the numbers, it doesn't actually change the nature of the combat.  I am sure the first thing you will do is try to add all kinds of complicated feats, magic items and oddball skills from obscure splatbooks to divert attention away from your inability to comprehend the basic math at work here.  While I am quite certain you have a substantial portion of your identity tied up in being some kind of expert or elder statesman or whatever for 3.x, I simply don't care any longer.  Keep spouting moronic bullshit that is easily refuted; it's your 'cred' to worry about, not mine.

Also, getting a book on game theory or game design would be more efficient than having me teach it to you with sporadic RPGsite posts.

QuoteIt's like you are literally incapable of comprehending the concept of fighting an NPC that isn't the exact same level you are. Are you trolling or just stupid?

It's like you are literally incapable of comprehending the concept that we are talking about opponents and stats that scale with level and fighting an NPC that isn't the exact same level you are is completely fucking irrelevant to that topic. Did you not get someone to read these posts to you like I suggested last time?  Here, try this:  write down the title of this thread, and read it as slowly as necessary to understand the main thrust of the discussion.  I will give you a hint: it has to do with the phrase 'scale with level', and how that makes things that don't 'scale with level' almost entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

As I really don't want to have to keep explaining a four year old topic again and again, get back to me after you have read the original discussion (http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-402850.html).

Spoiler

Bonus:  This is also the thread where I get perma-banned from the d20 ghetto.

* I pretty much eyeballed the equipment, if someone could check the numbers for me, I will correct the other math if there are any errors

So mad that work has been so busy and that I missd this convo.
 Every system I have ever written has had some level of scaling with ability; in that I always felt that using HP purely was a very blunt instrument.  I never use CR, so I guess it was never a problem.  
And, as was mentioned, I also used a small amount of DR as well as AC/Avoid.  
And so I kind of ended up with in a similar place with Justin.  My heavier, skill based game is a little more deadly, so the skills dealing with defence (Basic Def, Shield use, with dropdowns of Protect and avoid ) do increase the character's ability to avoid getting hit and to avoid damage, as that is a very low HP/High damage world.  So protection and avoiding getting hit is critical to survival.  A medium sized weapon has a (2d6+14)/d6 damage, and a fighting type with 12 sessions under his belt generally has 20-25 HP, and the system averagesd about a 10% critical chance.  So it can happen that that fighting man without armor can get slain with one shot by that weapon without a critical being rolled...but that same guy with chain maille and a shield might protect (45-d10)/(2d6/2) (max of 45, average of 11, min of 6).  TThe protection skill of the character (which is the part that would 'scale' with ability, or get better with ability) is probably 4-9 points of that protection.

Even in my simple d20 games, I generally reduce HP after Level 1, and give a slight raise to AC as levels go on.

Should AC scale with level in D&D?  I think so.  It's basically a matter of perception.  HPs are so disconnected from the tangible bits of "do I hit or not", that most players never realize the connection.  Plus, all the D&D editions up until D&D4 may have defined HPs as also meaning skill and/or luck, but the other mechanics all reinforced the idea that HP solely indicated physical punishment.  After all, touch attacks didn't take HPs into account to hit, only AC.  Demoralization didn't affect HP, despite affecting a character's battle spirit.  Then there are system oddities that if you are paralyzed in the midst of a battle (due to sleep or hold), you can be automatically hit but you take normal HP damage, despite not being able to use your "battle skill" to avoid damage at all.  It all just reinforces the most superficial interpretation of HPs, that greater HPs refelect greater physical punishment capacity and nothing else.

The reliance on the static values of attribute bonus from Dex and equipment makes players feel they have no real ball in the court of defensive ability.  It's why D&D combat is regularly regarded as two immobile guys in plate mail armor repetitively swinging at each other until the other one drops.  Players feel no involvement in their characters' defenses.

This is one of the reasons why Classic D&D, while still a favorite, is mostly just a legacy game for me.  I prefer active defenses and contested rolls ala Palladium, Interlock, Tri-Stat, d6, etc.  I'd also prefer armor to be damage reduction instead of prevention of a hit.  Although, I have liked some of the hybrids of reduction and prevention.

Quote from: Gabriel2;518989Should AC scale with level in D&D?  I think so.  It's basically a matter of perception.  HPs are so disconnected from the tangible bits of "do I hit or not", that most players never realize the connection.  Plus, all the D&D editions up until D&D4 may have defined HPs as also meaning skill and/or luck, but the other mechanics all reinforced the idea that HP solely indicated physical punishment.  After all, touch attacks didn't take HPs into account to hit, only AC.  Demoralization didn't affect HP, despite affecting a character's battle spirit.  Then there are system oddities that if you are paralyzed in the midst of a battle (due to sleep or hold), you can be automatically hit but you take normal HP damage, despite not being able to use your "battle skill" to avoid damage at all.  It all just reinforces the most superficial interpretation of HPs, that greater HPs refelect greater physical punishment capacity and nothing else.

The reliance on the static values of attribute bonus from Dex and equipment makes players feel they have no real ball in the court of defensive ability.  It's why D&D combat is regularly regarded as two immobile guys in plate mail armor repetitively swinging at each other until the other one drops.  Players feel no involvement in their characters' defenses.

This is one of the reasons why Classic D&D, while still a favorite, is mostly just a legacy game for me.  I prefer active defenses and contested rolls ala Palladium, Interlock, Tri-Stat, d6, etc.  I'd also prefer armor to be damage reduction instead of prevention of a hit.  Although, I have liked some of the hybrids of reduction and prevention.

Good examples

Foes have level =/= always fighting foes the same level. There are pit fiends in the world when you're first level, and if you're dumb enough to take them on at that point they will kick your ass. The world is full of low level NPCs no matter how high in level you get. And if they're dumb enough to take you on one-on-one, they won't fare very well either. Whether a group of low level foes can beat you isn't dependent on scaling/non-scaling AC as much.

Having AC scale with level is pretty much the same as having anything else scale. Having both or neither scale (or capping both or neither) just removes auto-hits or auto-fails from "fair" fights. Also what qualifies as a "fair" fight in such a system varies depending on specific things. The 5e designers talk about flattening the math to extend the range where a given challenge is... well... challenging. And in my own game the active defense mechanic means that a bunch of low level foes will still kick your ass if you let them outnumber you (the math in the game I'm writing is anything but flat, but the levelling is much slower).

Lastly, things can scale at variable rates or with variable flat bonuses, the way hp scales. So there can be the equivalent of low or high hd classes or monsters on this scale. Things of equivalent level won't always have the same AC under a system with level based bonuses.

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=513854#post513854). 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.

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=513854#post513854) 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.