I want to err on the side of skill over AC abstraction in discussion - but I know it'll go everywhere.

So, working on some design stuff. To Hit task resolution. What is your preference and why?

1) Roll to hit AC based on Armorclass (So gear + Dex mods like D&D)?
2) Roll to hit vs. Static Defense value based on derived stats (Parry = Fighting Stat /2 +2 like Savage Worlds)
3) Roll to hit vs. Static Skill modifier. (Defense = opponents skill as a direct penalty like Talislanta)
4) Roll to hit vs. Opposed check. Winner take all.
5) OTHER

If you have an alternative favorite - PLEASE let me know and tell me how it works. But I'd like to know WHY as well (for any/all responses).

Don't have a strong preference, and interested in the responses you will get.

For D&D or very similar games, prefer the D&D method.  It works.  It is fast.  Most people get it relatively quickly, even if the idea behind it is a little abstract for them.

When I'm playing something else, I don't want the D&D method--usually.  Exceptions would be unabashedly D&D clones/derivatives that aren't monkeying with combat in general, to focus the game design on other areas.  Where as if the game is moving away from D&D combat specifically, then I want something else.

I'm distinctly not 100% satisfied with my approach so far in my homebrew system.  I think it qualifies as "Other" for this question, though:  

- Rolls to attack defend are mostly independent--as much as I can make them without breaking things.  It's a deliberate design goal for including some complexity without inflating handling time more than necessary.  Originally, it was roll attack and defense (both d100 roll under, not that it matters for this discussion), with neither directly opposed.  Instead, what is opposed is the attack and defense effects, which a combination of static and rolled values.
- Complicating things are critical hits, fumbles, and the fact that a defense "simple fail" still allows some defense effect.
- However, I found that in practice this created a math problem except in a very narrow range of competency ranges.  To solve a similar problem in other parts of the system, I already had a set of static adjustments to the roll based on difficulty (e.g. Easy, Moderate, Hard, etc.).  Applying those to combat seems to help, in that now making a defense roll doesn't directly oppose the roll, but does shift the difficulty up the chart.

In more abstract terms you can think of it as mixing your options #3, #4, and something else.  Characters have a static defense (just for being active and alert).  They can improve that with their defense skill (#3), which affects the chances that their opponent will miss and also helps their opposed effect (a little of #4).

Edit for why:  Had twin goals from the outset:  To emulate some of the feel and range of Dragon Quest (but simplifying as much as possible the complexity of that system), while basing the power ranges on something about halfway between the DQ, Rune Quest, GURPS lower-end versus the upper end of D&D, Hero System, etc.  Working within the constraints of a DQ feel is challenging.  I also wanted more uncertainty at the moment of player decision.    By default, DQ is your option #2 (defense based off of the Agility stat and shield skill).  It's clunky in practice, and the decision points are awkward in the flow of the fight.

Yeah Talislanta actually does #3 and #4. Where #4 is an overt defensive action Parry or Evade.

MSH - does something like that too (as well as some other things - technically they have mechanics for damage ablation as actions etc.) But ultimately they use a static resolution table. The closest example being the SWINGY d100 version of the Talislanta Universal Table + granular modifiers by Stat. Which is a pretty amazing piece of design considering most modern design uses small numbers and blows them outward to abstract for scale.

The funny thing is d100 games were a LOT more prevalent relatively, back in the day with Rolemaster, Runequest etc. MSH, as usual, is a fantastic outlier that sits like a boogeyman of design genius mocking us. MOCKING! US!

Hm, GURPS seems like a bit of an edge case here I guess? You roll vs. static skill # which you must succeed at, and the target ALSO gets an opposed dodge/parry/block roll (which are derived stats).

In any case, I don't have any real strong preference. I've enjoyed variations of all of the above in the past. I will say that I enjoy the defender getting a choice of defense and a roll, as it makes combat feel slightly more engaging when I'm on the receiving end of the attack (feels like having a little more control over my own fate).

The simple system:

Each figure has an Attack score and a Defense score, which are derived from their attributes, traits, talents, skills, equipment, conditions, and how they are fighting. i.e. you can fight aggressively or defensively to trade some points between Attack and Defense.

To hit, each figure rolls against their Attack skill minus their target's defense skill (or reverse, if you prefer high rolls to be better).

Armor tends to slow you down so it actually reduces Defense, but provides damage reduction if/when hit.


The more advanced system:

As above, but the attacker rolls to hit, and if he succeeds, the defender may (unless they're unable for various reasons) then be able to choose a defense where they roll to see if they can avoid the attack.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1118700... I will say that I enjoy the defender getting a choice of defense and a roll, as it makes combat feel slightly more engaging when I'm on the receiving end of the attack (feels like having a little more control over my own fate).

Yeah. TFT had no active defenses, and after playing GURPS, I see that as a huge mistake and miss it a lot when I play TFT.

I voted 1. While I've tinkered with other resolution systems, I think to hit versus AC is simple and elegant for what it accomplishes.
Now, if you want to model armor piercing, and staged protection (which I sometimes do) then other systems are more appropriate.

Everything in the whole game can be greatly simplified; by using rolls of 5, 10, 15, or 20 on a d20.  Incorporate Advantage and Disadvantage, too.

People tell themselves that such an idea is too simple, for it to work well; but it makes the game move, pure and simple.

Is the thing you are attempting Fairly Easy, Moderately Difficult, Difficult, or Extremely Difficult?  5, 10, 15, or 20.  Who needs books and books of rules, to play D&D?

Quote from: Razor 007;1118707Everything in the whole game can be greatly simplified; by using rolls of 5, 10, 15, or 20 on a d20.  Incorporate Advantage and Disadvantage, too.

People tell themselves that such an idea is too simple, for it to work well; but it makes the game move, pure and simple.

Is the thing you are attempting Fairly Easy, Moderately Difficult, Difficult, or Extremely Difficult?  5, 10, 15, or 20.  Who needs books and books of rules, to play D&D?

Well because you know in today's tribalist gaming circles, someone is going to say "No way that goblin could ever hit my 10th-Degree Samurai Musketeer Ninja Fencer from the Don Juan School of Battle-axery!" with a simple static roll. Or something like that.

I'm curious as to what "feels" right the most for you - regardless of the genre. I err less on "realism" than I do on Cinematic flair. I like my gun-fu like John Wick, or Hard Boiled, but there are times where I'm REALLY into Heat-style tactical gunplay. The D&D AC system is a problem for me, mainly because I don't like Armor being the determining factor as to whether I actually "hit". It's a pure abstraction (I know... not really interested in debating the 'why' vs. other task-resolutions, but I will if you press me). I mean I could JUST as easily play D&D and say AC = 10+To Hit bonuses + Dex Stat. THAT would work perfectly fine. But most purists would say "That's not AC". Like I said, it's about what represents actually *attacking AND hitting*.

The funny thing is - your array above is a basic form of Ranged attack for Interlock, and in some respects Talislanta's system (which also encourages players to try Stunts for effects with a GM added bonus/penalty for effect.) The only difference is the Universal Table is strictly static, with ALL modifiers coming from Stat + Skill +Modifiers with results on the one simple table. I still maintain it's a damn good design.

Harnmaster by far. Brutal, fast, and realistic. Basically opposed rolls followed by damage saves. Accumulated injury result in lower skill and harder damage saves.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4068[/ATTACH]

Quote from: estar;1118716Harnmaster by far. Brutal, fast, and realistic. Basically opposed rolls followed by damage saves.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4068[/ATTACH]

That looks pretty damned cool (and brutal!).

Quote from: tenbones;1118710The D&D AC system is a problem for me, mainly because I don't like Armor being the determining factor as to whether I actually "hit".

You read my posts on the history of AC, it doesn't represent the chance that you will be hit by a weapon it represent the change that you will die when somebody swings at you with a weapon. Later changed to a 1d6 damage roll. The closet that D&D has an actual to hit chance is the roll versus an unarmored target.

Quote from: tenbones;1118710It's a pure abstraction (I know... not really interested in debating the 'why' vs. other task-resolutions, but I will if you press me).

I think people would had less trouble if it was properly explained in the first place.

Then the general reaction wouldn't 'huh? OK I guess', to the one where you like having defense rolls or not. Defense rolls are intuitive but there are several equally good way to represent the odds of not being hit like Fantasy AGE's 10 + Dex + Defense Bonus.

Attack Skill vs Defense Skill

I prefer skill-based systems overall, and probably prefer passive defense to minimize rolls (Defense Skill = Difficulty). I would also probably make everything a modifier and eliminate Target Numbers. Instead, everything that improves your chances of success is a bonus, and anything that reduces your chances (such as Difficulty or opponent Skill Level) is a penalty. A total roll of 10+ means some degree of success.

This approach would also allow diceless GMing, since the GM can just have players roll Defense using the opponent's Attack value as a roll penalty.

For poll purposes and I would say #3 is the closest.

I don't think options one and two are mutually exclusive. I have an Armor defense for attacks armor helps with (ex. swords, arrows) and a Dodge defense for things it wouldn't (ex. 500 lb. boulders, dragon fire).

However, if your Dodge defense ends up higher than your Armor defense (hard, but by no means impossible) you can use your Dodge defense in place of your Armor defense (if you can dodge lightning bolts, an arrow is no more difficult).

More accurately though is that, depending on how you calculate it, AC is already a derived stat so it's really just a subset of option two. Base Value + Stat mod + item mod is the definition of a derived trait.

The derived trait could also be used for an opposed roll (roll + stat + item).

* * * *

A better question might be how to resolve the damage after you beat the target numer, because that's where there's more options and can help direct what your defense value will be based on).

D&D uses independent variable damage (other than crits, the quality of the hit has no effect on damage dealt) deducted from a health pool.

Mutants & Masterminds uses a save vs. damage DC of the attack with a margin of failure determining the effect.

The Silhouette system multiplied the margin of success by a multiplier (based on the weapon used) and compared it to a threshold to determine damage.

New World of Darkness added skill and weapon value into a dice pool and each success past the target's defense did a level of damage.

How you want to have damage dealt will probably give a better sense what you want to use for your attack target number (ex. For a margin of success based damage system, adding armor to your maneuverability to create a defense target number has the same effect as armor being damage reduction because the lower the margin of success, the lower the damage taken).

For me I prefer going simple.  If the wicked demon has +3 dex modifier, then that means in my game that should be a -3 to the TN for your d20 roll to hit the enemy.  So if your heroic paladin wants to smite that agile demon with his Strength 14, then that is a strength check of TN 11.  Maybe you got some energy/luck/fate points to improve those odds.

Yes my vote went for Roll vs Static Skill Modifier.

Quote from: estar;1118721You read my posts on the history of AC, it doesn't represent the chance that you will be hit by a weapon it represent the change that you will die when somebody swings at you with a weapon. Later changed to a 1d6 damage roll. The closet that D&D has an actual to hit chance is the roll versus an unarmored target.

Sure. But I've run into precisely ZERO people that look at it that way without having to explain it to them. And we both know that most discussions trying to explain what AC represents, regardless of the perspectives of the individuals engaged - intended by design or not, usually leaves them both unsatisfied. The history may be accurate - I take your word for it! But in the minds of most people, it's roll the die, do I hit? Roll damage. The natural logic is that Armor worn *has* something to do with actually being hit. We don't have to like it, that's just how it feeeeeeels.

I'm not even sure how long your version of the development of AC as a system was maintained in the minds of TSR? Any idea? Is that what all the TSR staff in the early days thought too? Because the moment Unearthed Arcana dropped with Field Plate and Full Plate - I think those two things forever made the Armor-to-hit notion cemented in the minds of people for time immemorial. The graveyards of internet forums are rife with the casualties of those Nerdzerker Crusades, heh.

Quote from: estar;1118721I think people would had less trouble if it was properly explained in the first place.

Then the general reaction wouldn't 'huh? OK I guess', to the one where you like having defense rolls or not. Defense rolls are intuitive but there are several equally good way to represent the odds of not being hit like Fantasy AGE's 10 + Dex + Defense Bonus.

I completely agree. I rather like the Fantasy AGE method. It's clean. But of course all the downstream stuff has to work with it too. I'm not Fantasy AGE-proficient, but this description is nice.