TheRPGSite

I need it work like a save, but also incorporate AC range of 0 to 9.


So you've got players AC + Monster's HD (+HD Type) - Player's Melee score. Roll over number to succeed.


Example: Fighter AC 5 ME 4. Bugbear HD 3+8 (11).


5+11-4=12


Fighter needs to roll 13 or higher to avoid being hit.


Higher AC makes you easier to hit, but also soaks more.


Would this work?


What should the maximum Melee score be?


How do you come up with the Melee score?

Trying to parse this...why is the fighter's  AC being added to the monster's HD?

Tristram, because wearing bulky armor makes you easier to hit (at least in my opinion). But the armor will absorb more damage.

Quote from: vgunn;957195Tristram, because wearing bulky armor makes you easier to hit (at least in my opinion). But the armor will absorb more damage.

okay, but whose chances to hit are you figuring out in that formula? The Fighter's or the Monster's?

The characters defense roll. So the monster is trying to hit you (use HD+HD Type for its combat ability). Then add your AC. Subtract your combat ability score (along with any other applicable bonuses) and that gives you the number you'll need to roll over.

Does this help explain it any better?

He's doing a "players roll only" thing.  It assumes the monster always rolls the exact same thing for attack so just make it static and have the player roll for defense.

Quote from: CRKrueger;957216He's doing a "players roll only" thing.

\

Ah, I think that explains where my confusion lay...that and my associations with the term "Hit Dice" from D&D

Quote from: CRKrueger;957216He's doing a "players roll only" thing.  It assumes the monster always rolls the exact same thing for attack so just make it static and have the player roll for defense.

Thanks! That helped a lot.

The rest is a reply to vgunn

As for whether it works or not, it depends on what the OP's goals are. I like rolling dice as a GM. My players like rolling dice as players. So when I did my system I made all dice rolls opposed rolls, but reduced how many rolls are needed to resolve combat and other actions.

So, it helps to know your goals in setting up a system. My goals were:

1. Everyone gets to roll
2. Minimize number of rolls (to a "fun" level), but don't let everything depend on a single roll
3. Allow GMs to modify system lethality to suit their style, and provide guidelines for this
4. Reduce the math used during play
5. Use the same mechanism everywhere
6. (related to #3) Allow selection of task success rate, with the default being around 70% (but modifiable within the system rules)
7. Use all the die sizes
8. Incorporate roll-playing into dice results as bonuses (or minuses)

So, it is difficult to answer the OP's questions without knowing stuff like this. Some people are going to be fine with combat systems where a level 1 character misses most of the time. Others will dislike it infinitely. Same for tasks. Obviously, many people are OK with level 1 thieves failing most rolls most of the time--others equate this with pure torture.

Would this work?

So, your system "works" as in, you can implement it and people can play using it. But beyond "I like A" or "they like B", it is difficult to give good feedback on this.

Are you rolling a d20 or 3d6 or something else? This effects the results.

The Melee score being subtracted means that you could effectively have negative target numbers. What does that mean?

Do you have fumbles and criticals? How often do you want these?

What should the maximum Melee score be?
It depends on how you want things to work and the level of success you want at each level. I think you are wrong about higher AC making you irrevocably easier to hit. Watch some of the videos of people in real plate armor dancing, jumping around, and doing all sorts of athletic, dexterous stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc (The guy at the beginning is some professor that studies this stuff.) So, I want the Melee skill to be able to negate this "to be hit" disadvantage--I want Melee to go up to 19 or 20, so you could wear AC9 and still get a +10 to hit bonus--maybe even higher depending on HD and HD types you use for monsters.

How do you come up with the Melee score?
I'm not sure about this question--is this a homegrown system or are you using some sort of OSR/D&D backbone? You could use level times some class related modifier if you are using D&D classes. A fighter's Melee is 2x their level. A thieves' Melee is 1x their level. A magic user's Melee is 1/2 their level (round down). A cleric's Melee is 1.5 times their level.

Again without your goals and standards of what you want, there really isn't a good answer to this.

I played 3e this way for years. I precalculated the target number for each monster to make it all easy.

I've since redone my combat tables so that most rolls (to hit, skill checks, saves) can be rolled by either party, player or DM, with the exact same chance to succeed.

Armor shouldn't make you easier to hit and I would argue strongly again against armor soak, but that is a different topic.

Quote from: CRKrueger;957216He's doing a "players roll only" thing.  It assumes the monster always rolls the exact same thing for attack so just make it static and have the player roll for defense.

Not always roll, but most of the time. The number is static until the monster takes damage/loses morale.

@Tod13

The game sticks very close to B/X, just with players rolling for both attack and defense. DM still rolls for damage. For many aspects, I don't want to change anything--trying to keep monster stat block just about the same. The only difference is going with ascending AC ranging from 0 (unarmored) to 9.

Quote from: Tod13;957249Would this work?

So, your system "works" as in, you can implement it and people can play using it. But beyond "I like A" or "they like B", it is difficult to give good feedback on this.

Are you rolling a d20 or 3d6 or something else? This effects the results.

D20, roll over to succeed.

QuoteThe Melee score being subtracted means that you could effectively have negative target numbers. What does that mean?

If it were negative numbers, failure would come only on a roll of 1, and would not be a fumble.

QuoteDo you have fumbles and criticals? How often do you want these?

Natural 20 for a crit (though in defending, I guess it would allow for some sort of counter-attack, monster fumble, or initiative bonus the next round).

Natural 1 for a fumble (This would allow for max monster damage, with no armor soak or breaking weapon--things like that).

QuoteWhat should the maximum Melee score be?
It depends on how you want things to work and the level of success you want at each level.

Determining that number range is critical.

QuoteI think you are wrong about higher AC making you irrevocably easier to hit. Watch some of the videos of people in real plate armor dancing, jumping around, and doing all sorts of athletic, dexterous stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc (The guy at the beginning is some professor that studies this stuff.)

Take the exact same fighter and put them in leather armor. There is no doubt they would move about much quicker and be more difficult to hit.

QuoteSo, I want the Melee skill to be able to negate this "to be hit" disadvantage--I want Melee to go up to 19 or 20, so you could wear AC9 and still get a +10 to hit bonus--maybe even higher depending on HD and HD types you use for monsters.

Yes. For argument sakes, lets assume the max monster HD is 20. Lets also go with 20 as the max HD type. That's a total of 40.

QuoteHow do you come up with the Melee score?
I'm not sure about this question--is this a homegrown system or are you using some sort of OSR/D&D backbone? You could use level times some class related modifier if you are using D&D classes. A fighter's Melee is 2x their level. A thieves' Melee is 1x their level. A magic user's Melee is 1/2 their level (round down). A cleric's Melee is 1.5 times their level.

Trying to use OSR/D&D backbone.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;957257I played 3e this way for years. I precalculated the target number for each monster to make it all easy.

I've since redone my combat tables so that most rolls (to hit, skill checks, saves) can be rolled by either party, player or DM, with the exact same chance to succeed.

Armor shouldn't make you easier to hit and I would argue strongly again against armor soak, but that is a different topic.

This is good to know.

I'd love to hear your reason behind armor not soaking.

Quote from: vgunn;957278The game sticks very close to B/X, just with players rolling for both attack and defense. DM still rolls for damage. For many aspects, I don't want to change anything--trying to keep monster stat block just about the same. The only difference is going with ascending AC ranging from 0 (unarmored) to 9.



Yes. For argument sakes, lets assume the max monster HD is 20. Lets also go with 20 as the max HD type. That's a total of 40.

Trying to use OSR/D&D backbone.

I have some ideas for this. The idea is to have Melee equal something like

  - (*THAC0)

And I think you are going to want Melee to start in the negatives.

If you have Melee start at 0 (some number = 40 and some factor =2)...
an AC1 Melee 0 PC versus a 1d4 monster has a (1+1+4-0=6)
70% chance of defending.

A maxed PC against a max monster is (9+20+20-40=9)...
55% chance of defending.

A maxed PC against a 10/10 monster is (9+10+10-40=-11)...
5% chance of failing...

Quote from: Tod13;957298I have some ideas for this. The idea is to have Melee equal something like

  - (*THAC0)

And I think you are going to want Melee to start in the negatives.

If you have Melee start at 0 (some number = 40 and some factor =2)...
an AC1 Melee 0 PC versus a 1d4 monster has a (1+1+4-0=6)
70% chance of defending.

A maxed PC against a max monster is (9+20+20-40=9)...
55% chance of defending.

A maxed PC against a 10/10 monster is (9+10+10-40=-11)...
5% chance of failing...

Thanks for these numbers. It does help!

A 1d4 monster is about as weak as you can get. I don't want into negative numbers if possible for starting melee.

One thing I could consider is not have an immediate penalty for wearing armor, but start applying as each round passes. Assuming 1 minute rounds, nothing, then scaling penalties by armor type for subsequent rounds--measuring fatigue.

One thing I could consider is not have an immediate penalty for wearing armor, but start applying as each round passes. Assuming 1 minute rounds, nothing, then scaling penalties by armor type for subsequent rounds--measuring fatigue. Also, I wouldn't have to worry about armor soak issue.

Quote from: vgunn;957339Thanks for these numbers. It does help!

A 1d4 monster is about as weak as you can get. I don't want into negative numbers if possible for starting melee.

I figured since you said B/X, THAC0 would be a number you already had--so I'm glad you liked that idea.

What sort of percents are you wanting to attain for various levels? You can change the calculation to avoid negative Melee values, so for these tables, just see if the success chances are what you want.

In the tables below, I've converted the d20 roll into a % chance of success.
A negative number means they only succeed by rolling a 20. (I think--not sure about your rules.)
Numbers above 100 mean they only fail by rolling a 1.

Here are some numbers for Melee from 0 to 40.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]891[/ATTACH]

Here are the numbers from -20 to 20.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]892[/ATTACH]

Wow. Much appreciated!

Let me look at these numbers!

Quote from: vgunn;957399Wow. Much appreciated!

Let me look at these numbers!

Oh. Column A is number of dice (HD). Column B is HD size (HD type).

Quote from: vgunn;957195Tristram, because wearing bulky armor makes you easier to hit (at least in my opinion). But the armor will absorb more damage.

You might want to look into Palladium's combat system.

Quote from: vgunn;957195Tristram, because wearing bulky armor makes you easier to hit (at least in my opinion). But the armor will absorb more damage.

But are you tracking bulkiness separately from Armour quality? Because the two are far from synonymous. Chainmail is heavier and more restricting than plate, for example.

Tristam, I'll probably the way I handle AC after the all feedback (this site and some others). Also some good articles as well.

http://www.benjaminrose.com/post/mob...l-plate-armor/

How would we model this in a roleplaying game?

It seems to me that plate armor wouldn't make one any easier to hit, as long as you have the minimum strength required to move your arms and legs. You would get tired faster, for sure. I remember seeing a video from the historian Mike Loades that showed some guys fighting in full plate armor. They got tired really fast. I can't find that video now. But in my experience, most fights don't last long enough for that to be a factor. You might want to start factoring it in after a full minute of intense fighting, if the combat lasted that long.

So if I remove the aspect of making you easier to hit, I would want to model it making you fatigue as time passes in combat.

Video about how tiring it is to wear plate armor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...3XNOALA#t=223s

And continued here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3qqfrL8Frk

This guy wasn't used to wearing armor, but he was reasonably fit. He only lasted 2 minutes 16 seconds before becoming completely exhausted.

Now, playing with 1 minute rounds I should be able to model this in the game.

In round one you have no penalty for wearing armor. After that penalties reduce your melee score.

Round 2: Heavy -1, Medium 0, Light/None 0
Round 3: Heavy -2, Medium -1, Light/None 0
Round 4: Heavy -3, Medium -2, Light/None -1
Round 5: Heavy -4, Medium -3, Light/None -2
Round 6: Heavy -5, Medium -4, Light/None -3

You could, say at x-level, perhaps add a perk for Fighters that allows you to add an extra round before beginning to tire and start taking penalties.

Still, I think that wearing armor should provide a soak. A thought give medium armors a soak of one-point and heavy armors a soak of two-points if you are hit. Shields don't add AC, but provide an additional soak point. So hit you were wearing plate and using a shield, you'd soak 3 points of damage every time you were hit.

The equation then becomes:  Monsters HD + (either HD Type or To Hit bonus) Player's Melee score. Roll over number to succeed.

The AC penalty for fatigue comes off their Melee score. This looks good to me.

The issue I see is generating the needed range on the Monster's side. Take a 5e Goblin for instance. 2d6 (+4 to hit). 2+6=8. A first level Fighter is +2, so they'd need to roll a 7 or higher to avoid getting it. If you go with 2HD +4to Hit, this is a 6, minus the fighters bonus and they only need a 5 or higher to succeed.

Is this too easy?

I could go Monster HD+Type+to Hit Bonus In the example, this would give the Goblin a 12 (2+6+4). The Fighter would need to roll an 11 or higher to avoid being hit. 50% chance at 1st level.

Also remember the AC penalty applies as well to monsters wearing armor.

Quote from: vgunn;957279I'd love to hear your reason behind armor not soaking.

I don't like armor soaking (or damage reduction) because it doesn't effect weapons equally. It will encourage all PCs to carry the heaviest weapon possible because that will be reduced by the lowest percentage. Instead I use an all-or-nothing armor save. Plate saves on a 11+ d20 roll which, overall, reduces the amount of damage by 50% but doesn't require any math.

As to fatigue, I use a simple system by counting the number of rounds. Heavy armored fighters can fight for a number of rounds equal to CON/2. CON for medium armor, and CON*2 for unarmored. This way, fatigue only shows up in longer (and, hopefully, more important) battles and you only need to keep track of which PCs are fatigued rather than tracking individual penalties.

Sounds complicated to my tastes.