Personally, I think the problem comes down to terminology - I don't see Armor Class as indicating how hard you are to *hit*, it's how hard you are to *damage*. A near-miss against a high AC might mean the blow bounces harmlessly off, while the same near-miss against a low AC might mean the character narrowly dodges the blow. It's all down to how combat is narrated.
Yes, they unfortunately decided to call it a “to hit” roll when it really is a “to damage” roll. Way back in the early 80’s I became very anti-AC for all the reasons mentioned in this video. A decade later I decided to run some statistical exercises to see if the “soak” method differed from the “AC” method. Interestingly, to me anyway, it took roughly the same number of rounds for a PC to get to 0 HPs, but as the Professor said, in game time the soak method took longer. Therefore I embraced again the AC idea. When combat was originally conceived of at least for D&D it was abstracted. One attack was not one roll of the dice. The die roll represented many attacks. The AC system is likewise abstracted. It is about representing how less likely an armored person is going to be seriously injured compared to an unarmored one. If my statistical exercises were correct, what difference does it make if we say armor soaks damage or armor makes us less likely to be hit if it turns out that the same number of rounds of combat in both cases reduce the PC to 0 HPs? From the point of view of the game, they are identical methods so let’s use the simpler one. For my money, the system that makes the most sense within the D&D game engine is one like that employed in the Black Hack where armor actually adds to your HPs. It is abstracted, so it is consistent with how the other aspects of combat are represented, and it has essentially a degrading effect, which actually fits better with the whole idea of what HPs are supposed to represent. In that first round, when I am fresh and at full HPs (including those from my armor) I am not very likely to be killed by a single blow. But as combat wears on, and I have to parry or roll with near misses, I get fatigued (lose HPs) and now that armor benefit is almost nonexistent. A single blow could very well kill me. D&D AC has the same effectiveness at 100 HPs as it is at 1 HP which is not really in line with what HPs are supposed to abstractly represent, at least IMO.
Exactly. Iet’s not as simple as how hard it is to hit your static armor. You have dex modifiers, and it’s not if it physically touches you, but if it does damage when it does. As a DM I take these rolls as an indication of how the story plays out. Miss by a one? Then the arrow skips across your helm or glances off your shield. Don’t forget that the original games run by Gary and Dave had as many as TWENTY players! It wasn’t a game strictly of who could calculate numbers the quickest, but how you can make the game fun for your group. Don’t want to use XP, then check out The Processor’s video here about it. Want combat to be as quick as possible, use the combat system as provided. Can’t stand how simple it is, make it as complicated and you and your friends want it to be.
RQ fights tend to be shorter (for more powerful fighters, at least), because they don't get bogged down in round after round of slowly chipping away at a vast number of hit points. Therefore the fight involves fewer steps, not more. Also, details like hit location make the story of the fight more interesting. It isn't just another number of damage points, it's a slash to your left arm. RQ does take into account the skill of the defender, because as you said, the defender has a parry skill, so your criticism at 3:55 does not work. Indeed, factors like 'defence', dodge skill, effects of magic, and what happens when skills go over 100% also increase the significance of the nature of the intended target. D&D on the other hand just matches skill of the attacker against armour. Whether the target has a weapon to fend you off with or not is ignored. A naked man with a sword is a lot harder to hit in reality than an unarmed man with armour. When you have low-skilled fighters in RQ, someone lands a blow and it is unlikely to be parried, and often one blow ends a fight. With high-skilled fighters, they almost always have magic that proves decisive, but even when they don't, you have high-tension fight where the danger of one blow's landing is constant and is likely to end a fight. A very powerful fighter has a head with same number of hit points as a starting character. Also, critical hits, special hits, and fumbles added together mean that one of these is very likely to end a fight after a few exchanges. Weapons break too, which also adds to the quickness of the fight, and the sense of peril. I agree that with large numbers of combatants, the RQ system is slow, but does anyone roll for each blow in a fight involving 5 PCs and 30 NPCs? That is slow and dull in any system. Just roll for the PCs and their immediate foes, and let the GM come up with a quick approximation of all the rest. When I modded D&D, I added several ways fighters could use feats to increase damage, and I lowered the increase in HP per level a LOT. If a PC is threatened by a foe pointing a crossbow at his chest, he should never think "I have enough HP to survive the hit from that thing no matter what he rolls". Thanks for the mention! Lloyd
Thanks for replying, Lloyd! As usual, you bring up some good points. I really hope people read your response to see how much we actually agree. Too many hit points makes for slow combat and destroys suspense because you KNOW you can survive the crossbow to the chest. I--like you--hack D&D by lowering hit points. I also encourage DMs to roll out the immediate opponents and just decide the rest. Thanks for all you have done for this hobby and for helping to educate us on how medieval weapons and armor actually work. My players are HUGE fans of your channel. Keep up the great work and thank you for taking the time away from your HUGE channel to give some love to my tiny one. --Professor DungeonMaster
1. I read this in your voice. 2. I applaud you for modding d&d to make it your own. 3. This video comes on the heels of other videos meant to significantly speed up combat time. So that’s worth considering. 4. I would love to sit at a table with one of you DMing and one playing and both arguing over realism! Lol Cheers!
This is why I love the witcher RPG, hit points are low and damage is high, the skill of the fighter is rolled directly against the skill of the attacker hit, hit locations effect the damage, and armor reduces damage. It's slightly cumbersome but it is offset by how quickly things move
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Yes there is! It is made by the same guys who made Cyberpunk 2020 and uses a modified version of the system. I will say that the system was originally designed with firearms in mind and it shines through, but I believe there is enough expansion on melee and the addition of magic to stand out from CP2020. While the steps for combat are longer than, roll d20 and check AC, roll damage, most characters and won't usually have more than 50 hp and most weapons can kill anyone in two to three hits and that makes combat move faster. Plus as you stated this is not a system for the uninitiated and the Interlock system has always been aimed to be simulation-like in how handles combat. It's also system I believe starts to move faster once players get used to the steps which of themselves aren't to complex -Roll D10+Attribute+skill -Enemy contests the roll in the same way -Determine hit location (which a tangible effect on the damage) -Reduce damage by armor if any -Roll damage Like I said personally I think its quicker in practice than in theory, hey everyone's different. Plus the system really accentuates the the monsters and just how tough they are and how much fun they can be to fight especially for a tactically minded player. Highly Recommed giving it a look if you can. Also, I'm on the third book on I must say that it's quite the fun ride.
The AC system I feel can be fixed narratively. Instead of saying ,when I roll a 17 to hit an AC of 18, "you miss", say "Your blade glances off the armour, causing little to no damage".
That's essentially what I used to do as DM. It's all about the narrative. I would consider very low rolls an actual miss, while rolls just shy of succeeding were glancing blows.....not enough to penetrate and injure.
As much as I dislike the unrealistic armor system and prefer armor soak over flat AC, I realize the value of keeping things simple in a game that can get very complicated.
I always liked the old GURPS fantasy system.. armor has passive defense (PD) and damage resistance (DR). Some types of armor are good at deflecting damage, some at absorbing damage, and some are good at both. It even had effects for types of damage vs. types of armor.. chain is great at slashing/cutting weapons.. but not so great at piercing weapons, like arrows. Let you keep track of how damaged armor and shields were too.. the classic 'beat on their shield till it falls apart' mechanic. This certainly doesn't fit into the Occams Razor way of thinking.. but always made a lot more sense to me.
as a player and DM of the Dragon age RPG i can tell you that even with simple rules this system has a HUGE problem... in DA you have two defensive stats. Your defense (how hard it is to hit you) and your Armor rating (that absorbes damage) and they even factor in the hole "heavy makes you slower" thing by reducing you Dex if you are untrained in the type of armor you wear or your speed if you are trained. the problem is that (especially on the higher ends of the armor scale) you can become basicly imortal... as an example: the highest baselevel armor by the book gives you an AR of 10 (meaning every damage you take is normaly reduced by 10) every (base) weapon in the game deals from 1d6 to 3d6 dmg + an atribute. (e.G. the basic longsword deals 2d6+Str) this means unless you roll well on the dmg roll it means NOTHING. combining that with the high Hp that all characters have (MAGES start with 20+Con+1d6 Hp) and this can become a real slog... and then you have the usual balancing trouble... do you balance it so that the enemies can hit/dmg your fighter but twoshot your mages or do you go for the more mage friendly aproch and make them barly tickle the fighter... as an example: a session ago we hadd an ecnocunter were i (the frighter) got seperated fro the group and we all were attacked by a pack of some buff wolf-monster thingys... i sat there tanking two of them for 5-6 rounds and took 2(!) points of dmg while my mage buddy (assisted by our two hunting/war dogs) took on one of the wolfs and was mauled to shit... (the other mage took on the alpha wolf and barly managed to kill it thanks to cheesing the everliving s**t out of it.) i ended up running to the mages to save the almost dead one while ignoring the two other ones that were biting me in the arse... and YES the system offers you ways to somewhat cirumvent the AR of an enemy but that requires either specific magics (lightning ignores AR while fire gets reduced by AR...) or the sue of certain stunts (special combat action you can take if you roll doubles on your to-hit roll...) sorry for the wall of text ^^' TLDR: damage reduction is a dangerous tool and makes balancing a nightmare...
While I like the idea of damage reduction, I hate calling it "soak" like damage is a liquid. Lol I do agree however. Maube AC should represent how hard you are to hit (shields, dodges, partying) while armor (which can actually make you slower and easier to hit) simply lessens the impact of what does connect. Therefore at least some weapons should give you an armor class bonus as it's harder to stop a blade with a bare hand.
@@drizzt7dourden7 sounds to me like the real problem there is having stats that get out of hand. I like Dungeon Craft's idea of capping HP and I'd even go a few steps farther saying to cap armor and weapon stats too. A few enchanted items are cool (being common makes them more specifical) but it's less about who has a shinier sword and more about who knows how to use it.
idk. i think that in most situations, AC is actually more realistic. armor usually either prevents major damage or it fails to. I think its the exception where armor actually “reduces” damage rather than bypassing or failing to bypass it. if you keep hitting someone in the chest plate with a sword, you usually arnt doing reduced damage, you are doing none at all, besides making him a little uncomfortable. you do actual damage by hitting places with less/no armor, which would do the same effective damage as if the target was unarmored, but is harder to get at, or by hitting him with something that breaches the armor straight up. if something can breach an armor a little its kind of weird that it continuously only bits a “little” into a person each time. likewise a bullet tend to either be stopped by a vest or goes into a person. it doesnt just “go a little” into someone.
Prof. DM: This is Professor Dungeon Master coming to you from Dungeon University... Me: Well, let's see how serious is this video. Prof. DM: ... wearing my +1 Vest of Protection. Me: *Sweats profusely*
D&D style AC already models damage reduction. Your armor and dexterity contribute to how difficult it is to find an opening in your footwork, parries, shield blocks and gaps in armor coverage. Higher AC means less attacks threaten the life of your character (which means less attacks roll damage which reduces the damage you take). Hit points, then, represent your luck, stamina and combat experience (martial classes have more hp because they are more skilled fighters) that allow a character to avoid an otherwise injurious or fatal blow that does threaten to bypass their footwork and armor. Once your HP reach 0, a vital blow has finally slipped past your defenses and killed or seriously injured you, removing you from the fight. The descriptions of AC and HP in AD&D 1e and 3e I know for sure explain the system in a similar manner. You are simply unharmed (even if maybe bruised or bloodied and out of breath) if you have hp remaining. This system paired very well with the versions of D&D with low hit point pools that also used 1 minute as the length of a combat round. The attack roll represented the potential to exploit an opportunity to land a telling blow during the desperate melee swirling around the combatants.
Ars Magica has arguably the most realistic combat system among fantasy RPGs but also the most cumbersome to implement. Amusingly, back when I still ran games for it, a few players were so annoyed with all the necessary computations that they would often try to avoid combat just so they didn't have to deal with it. If you enjoy videos like LindyBeige's, may I also recommend a few of my faves: Shadiversity: th-cam.com/users/shadmbrooks Skallagrim: th-cam.com/users/SkallagrimNilsson Metatron: th-cam.com/channels/IjGKyrdT4Gja0VLO40RlOw.html
@@blablubb4553 D&D has one more step because in DW only the player rolls dice. Additionally, subtracting a single number every time you take damage is hardly going to slow down the game, so I would argue its two steps in DW to four in DnD. But in DW there is no initiative so its even less steps.
@@magnusanderson6681 So in DW the opponents or monsters do not roll to hit the players, nor do they roll damage? The DM never rolls dice? Or is there no DM at all?
@@blablubb4553 In DW, combat does not stop the usual game loop for a "combat minigame". You still go around the table, in no particular order, the players stating what they try and the DM stating the outcome. When a player *gets into melee with enemy(ies)*, they roll 2d6+STR and evaluate the result. If its 7+, they deal damage. If it is 9-, the monsters attack as well, which usually means the character will take some damage and possibly some other hardships like getting knocked down or pinned against a wall or having to choose between destroying their sword to stop the ogre from smashing your leg. Naturally, "I wade into the fray, my huge sword sending any who dare attack to an early grave" is only one possibility in combat. The rules specify how some work and lets the DM make something up for others. In combat the DM often will add a bit of structure from time to time as well, saying something like, "Cleric, you see the Ranger taking a beating from the ogre. But the wizard is only a short distance away and begins to say another incantation. What do you do?" or "You, Wizard, have stood in the back for quite a while. One of the goblins has taken advantage of the chaos to crawl right behind him. You turn around just in time to see it lunging at you with its rusted dagger." I suppose you could argue in another step if the player rolls a 7-9. I find the DW rules really interesting, and some of the things it does are even useful for 5e DMs. Combat is not one - it is impossible to run the above because a lot of 5e's character sheet assumes initiative and monsters getting their own turns). Monster design on the other hand it gets near perfectly if you're into that. The whole rules are available free at book.dwgazetteer.com if you're intrigued. Not sponsored. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
"Turok is no longer a barbarian. He is now a transient foreigner from a pre-industrial community." "What you call Turok?! Turok Barbarian of the Barbur Tribe! To say any less is an insult to Turok's ancestors! This will not go unchallenged! Turok seek Vengeance!" Joking aside, I, along with others, agree the problem lies more in terminology. Armor Class sounds kinda silly when you realize that, well, armor is armor and that certain armor types actually don't exist (or don't exist as they really did). Also armor doesn't make you hard to hit so much as harder to injure. It gets even more jarring when a monk has a higher AC score then a fighter in full plate. With that said, I understand (and agree with) the importance of the AC mechanic in keeping the game going and preventing the whole session getting bogged down due to everyone's attempt at calculus. If people at your table have a problem with the term, just change the name. Hell, in my homebrew system, I kept the AC mechanic but changed the name to Defense Class (DC). Kinda made more sense calling it DC, since it doesn't mean how difficult you are to hit so much as how good you are at defending yourself.
I had the same issue with AC. Always have. So far my quick solution is that Light Armor gives the character Resistance to either Slashing, Piercing, or Bludgeoning damage, depending on it’s flavor. Medium bestows 2 of these Resistances, while Heavy Armor gives the character all three of the basic damage types. Magic Weapons negate this property. Doesn’t add any extra rolls, just a teeny bit of math & my OCD doesn’t flare up.
The problem is that combat in d&d is representational An "attack" in d&d isn't really the swing of the sword. It's the 6 seconds that surround it. Your AC is your capability to not be damaged by an attack for whatever reason.
"To Hit" in D&D was never about hitting. It was about damaging. If you look at it as "To Damage", AC makes sense. Many misses in D&D are actually glancing strikes off the armor.
Sadly, HP was never meant to be represented your health, it was meant to represent physical and mental durability, but then weapons, features, traits and spells dealt damage which, yeah, they represent health, and you are correct, but that wording: "Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile." In short, WotC has no idea what they want.
@@SmolAnarchy in fairness, this is exactly how things are represented in second edition TSR IIRC…. But you are right, the enormous amount of gamer buffs that apply make that explanation virtually impossible to sell to the intelligent player or DM.
@@Xplora213 Yep. Here is an example of how poorly WotC has written their stuff: "You create a 20-foot-radius Sphere of fog centered on a point within range. The Sphere spreads around corners, and its area is heavily obscured. It lasts for the Duration or until a wind of moderate or greater speed (at least 10 miles per hour) disperses it." "A heavily obscured area-such as Darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage-blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the Blinded condition (see Conditions) when trying to see something in that area." "Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s Attack rolls have disadvantage." So... because you are in a fog cloud or darkness spell and both creatures have advantage and disadvantage, it cancels it out. Inside the fog cloud, both creatures attack normally, but here is a kicker, you can use ranged attacks 5 ft from you because of this without disadvantage, and also you can use heavy melee weapons as a small creature without disadvantage. But these rules are so confusing that people argue for several minutes trying to figure it out how it works.
Over AC = Hit Way under AC = Miss Close but still under AC = "glances off armor" or " You get your sword up deflect the blow" or "You take the blow on your shield" or whatever
exactly. And that's why armor adds to AC. Damage absorption doesn't make sense, in spite of what Dr Dungeon Master says... Slashing at plate armor with a sword just means you 'miss' unless you manage to hit a gap. A sword will never cut through plate which is what absorption assumes (it cuts you, just less bad if you weren't wearing it, is the idea). Which is bull. So if an attack misses against AC including armor, but would hit for AC excluding armor, then it is a hit against the armor, but the armor deflected the strike.
@@christopherrowley7506 Replace the sword with a hammer and think it through. Armor does absorb damage, protecting the soft, squishy flesh and brittle bones beneath. When the armor absorbs all the damage, it prevents you from being injured. Which is what you described. This is why AD&D had rules for different weapon effects (slash/pierce/bludgeon) versus different types of armor. (I don't know of anyone who actually used that rule.)
@@themcchuck8400 that's pretty cool that AD&D had that. I'm actually interested in 2e and having been reading through For Gold and Glory, but haven't gotten to combat yet. Yeah I agree it depends on the type of attack. Bludgeoning may absorb damage. I think in general for edged weapons though armor either works or it doesn't. If you check out Skallagrim's test cutting on youtube, things tend to not get through at all, are superficial, or critically serious. Also Tod Cutler's testing of longbow vs armor is pretty enlightening too. You are NOT shooting through a breastplate, but the ricochet may get your throat. And with a heavy bow with a straight on shot, you can easily get through chainmail, but at an oblique angle it might glance off. If you get gut shot with a barbed arrow while wearing chainmail that got punched through, where is the armor absorption? I really like the RPG Mythras which relies on absorption, I think otherwise its combat, hit locations, wounds system, is the best I've seen. So absorption doesn't ruin the game, but it does make it awkward to narrate sometimes. Every hit with an edge weapon is a glancing blow that went around the armor but didn't have the full impact (again you aren't cutting through mail or plate).
Agreed. Rule #1 of any RPG: You're the GM, you make the rules. So sweeping a broadsword at a little girl wearing a pretty dress? Doesn't mean you slice her in half - she could duck, back-flip... whatever. OK - lets say it connects - you hit her. percentage roll to see how effective - no its not in the rule book but Rule #1, remember? Oh look, 07% - you give her a nasty scar on her left arm, she runs off before your plate-armoured butt can keep up, and she'll be back to kill you in about 19 years..... (DM makes notes.... "Think I'll call her Arya") Seriously, used correctly and narritavly, the DM Carte Blanche to make the rules up is not only effective, but necessiary. Too many DM's get caught up sticking to the rules as one player says "But it says on page 184, paragraph 3......" They should reply "And on page one, Paragraph 1 - I AM GOD". The GM / DM is there to keep the story moving for ALL players... if that means occassionally fireballing a rule or two - fine. I always treat combat like watching a martial arts film... just narrate it, the dice are essentially percentage indicators. With level 1-5 characters you HAVE to - they're so delicate. The game is supposed to be 1) FUN 2)Narritive, 3) Rewarding.... getting killed in round one of your first fight sucks, at any level - I've had it more than once. Once players hit level 12+ yeah, they're big enough and hard enough to ACTUALLY play by the rules - but watch how the players cry when they lose - a guy ACTUALLY put a gun in my face when his Cleric died due to a dumb decision on his part.
I was also re-pondering this age-old conundrum recently. Spent several hours on Excel with my DPR formulas and tested out an Armor Damage Reduction scheme. I came up with a table that factored in not only how B,P, and S interacts with armor types, but also historical armor bypass techniques. I made sure that every hit would on average do at least 1 HP of damage, although that damage might be converted from Slashing to Bludgeoning. When I measured how effective the armor was against straight AC, I found that it had improved significantly. So, I factored in that carried weight slows defense and lowered the target AC to correlate, which combined with the armor bypass kept the balance. The only extra step was that you applied a negative modifier to the damage roll based on the target armor worn (similar to how a Barbarian takes reduced damage in 5e). I avoided defense rolls and hit locations specifically to make it compatible with D&D and not lengthen an already time consuming combat engine. During the beta-testing with some players... 5e quickly pulled the rug out from under all my work. The game includes as a core mechanic, extra damage dice. Lot's of them (examples too numerous to list). Damage reduction becomes an irrelevant tracking nuisance if you are no longer rolling a single die for damage. I realized that I'd need to use a percentage reduction, not a number. However, 5e is limited to Resistance (1/2 dam) and Immunity. I could create new Resistance categories; 1/4 & 3/4 pretty easily since they aren't hard to figure out on the fly. After converting the DR numbers into percentages of average damage, I discovered that there were 9 different reduction levels ranging from 16% - 85% damage reduction. Simplifying all of those interactions down to just 3 easy to compute Resistances might be possible, but you've just watered things down significantly. Conclusion: The juice ain't worth the squeeze. In game design, simplicity is easy, and complexity is easy. The real trick is to get complexity out of simplicity, that's rules elegance and it's the hard part of rules design.
That’s incredible! I have been working towards exactly that goal of realistic complexity/depth out of simplicity for my own personal TTRPG system for years. It includes realistic armor to weapon damage types comparisons just like what you’ve charted. I’d really appreciate a look at the chart you made, if you’d be open to sharing it?
GURPS is my favorite tabletop system by far. Roll to attack. Enemy gets a save to avoid the attack. Roll for damage. Subtract armor's resistance from damage. _If applicable_, multiply penetrating damage by an appropriate modifier (it's really no different from having things like monsters that take double damage from fire or cold, just acknowledging that things made of conventional fleshy material have a sort of "elemental weakness" to sharp things going inside of them/worse relative armor penetration than their lethality). Subtract from hit points. It's still only like five steps, all of which _can_ be done in D&D: Evasion Feat, Damage Reduction trait, elemental weakness...just not invoked in _every_ case in D&D.
I’ve got this for you professor DM, this system I’ve created balances realism in combat with fun. The system: The human body is made up of the head, face, neck, shoulders, arms, hands, torso, waist, legs, and feet. 10 vital organs. Often in games I find my players say they swing but don’t specify where they hit the person, this system will allow you to decide based off an extra simple roll ultimately deciding which organ has been struck. Unarmored AC is 10 by default. In arms and armor you have the Helmet, and gorget (head and neck) Pauldrons, rebraces, Couters, Vambraces, and gauntlets (shoulders, arms and hands) breastplate and faulds (torso and waist) Cuisses, poleyn, greaves, and Sabatons (legs and feet.) Each piece of armor adds +1 to your AC. Meaning someone fully suited in a suit of armor has 20+ AC. If you were to break down a suit of armor to every component of protection you would be very safe in that suite. If an enemy strikes you successfully, you would then have to determine where you were hit. For example if you’re not wearing any armor on the hands. Or not wearing a helmet, there is a good chance an enemy will strike there. You then roll a d10 representing the 10 major organs. The lower you roll, the lower on the human body the strike will be. The higher you roll, the higher the strike will be on the opponent. Ex: enemy AC = 15 Player rolls 16 to hit & 5 for the damage roll successfully landing the blow with the sword. Player rolls d10 Player rolled 10 Player drives the sword through the opponent’s open faced visor instantly killing/incapacitating them. Enemy AC = 10 Player rolls 20 to hit and 5 to wound critically hitting for double damage. Player rolls d10 at advantage Player rolls 8 Player cuts off opponent’s head. (If player rolled 9 strikes the head, 8 would be the neck, 7 one of the arms, 6 in the hands, 5 in the chest, 4 in the waist, 3, in the thighs, 2 in the calfs, 1 in the foot.) This extra dice roll which can be rolled with hit + damage + attack all at the same time Ex: Enemy AC = 20 Player rolls 16 to hit +4 for strength bonus = 20 Also rolls 6 for damage Also rolls d10 For anatomy/attack type rolling a 5 Result: Player swings their Warhammer into the Knight’s chest crushing them. This system is very simple and allows for a more realistic & immersive combat experience. It also takes the control of where the player would want to swing out of their direct control, allowing the DM to fairly decide for the player where they hit, how hard the hit was, and how that affects the rest of the round. I.e. if someone loses a finger bc an opponent rolled a 7 for damage and an anatomy roll of 6 to the hand, will that effect how well you can hold your sword? Will you swing at disadvantage? If they instead rolled 15 for damage to someone’s hand, is that hand cut off? This extra step brings a lot of layers of dimension to combat instead of it simply being “you were hit.” It’s now; “you were hit in the head with a Maul, your helmet was caved in slightly, you now have a concussion, as part of your skull was split open. now roll at disadvantage for the remainder of the combat.” Or you could say only roll disadvantage on intelligence, wisdom, or charisma checks as you just had your head almost caved in. Padded armor halves damage from any slash damage. But is vulnerable to blunt and piercing damage. Plate armor is invulnerable to slash damage, halves the damage from blunt force trauma and is vulnerable to piercing damage.
I remember he addressed that concept on some video but I didn't remember which. Searching on youtube and google brought back nothing of his, but with some keywords, it suggested your video. I'm satisfied to find the exact thing I was looking for !
Here's my system for armor as DR in D&D-like games. Defense and DR Armor provides DR (half usual AC bonus, +1 if medium armor, +2 if heavy armor) -> Or use the Dragon Age armor tiers: Light leather DR 1, heavy leather DR 2 (no max Dex bonus) | light mail DR 3, heavy mail DR 4 (max +2 Dex bonus for medium armor) | light plate DR 5, heavy plate DR 6 (no Dex modifier for heavy armor) Defense is 10 + prof + Dex (limited by armor as usual, as described above) Attack against Defense and roll damage as normal, reducing damage from the DR. It's not an extra step and the rule is "always declare total damage, let the player apply the reduction from armor" With the low-hp rules the armor becomes very important to reduce damage '-' Warrior types have 10 + level + Str mod + Con mod in HP. So, a level 5 fighter with Str 17, Dex 13 and Con 14 has 20 hp and Defense 14 (10 base, +1 Dex, +3 proficiency) or 16 with a shield. Wearing a heavy mail (DR 4) he can protect these few HP he has for a few hits. In these rules a crit adds +1d12 to the normal damage (no matter the weapon), so even a dagger is still scary.
A lot of people have problems with this because they confuse armor with armor class, just as they confuse health for hit points, and rolling to hit to mean they are just swinging their sword. All of these things are simple representations of the complexity of hand-to-hand combat. Armor class represents how difficult it is to damage you during the combat, how often a blow is deflected or absorbed by the armor, rather than allowing the character to be hurt. A suit of plate mail is going to afford better protection in that respect than padded armor is. You may get hit just as often, even more so since the plate mail is slowing you down, but the plate is going to stop many hits from damaging you that padded would not. In the same way that hit points aren't a health bar. They represent not only your stamina, your fatigue, and your injuries, but they also represent how skilled you are in combat and how easily you can turn what would have been a fatal blow into a glancing one. They wear down over time, as your character becomes more tired, moves more slowly, becomes more injured, until finally that eight point blow that should have been fatal but was just a glancing blow at the beginning of combat becomes the blow that puts you down when you are tired and worn out at the end. A poor attack roll could represent your sword glancing off your opponent's armor or shield, or it could mean your opponent dodged your thrust, or it could represent you not being able to get a good opportunity at all that round to try and damage your opponent. A good attack roll could mean you found a gap in your opponent's armor to thrust your weapon through, or succeeded in knocking his shield away just long enough so you could penetrate his armor on the return swing, or that your opponent stumbled momentarily and gave you the opening you needed to finish him off. In every game there has to be a line drawn between the complexities of reality, and simplicity and speed of game play. Lindybeige is right in that D&D's solution does not realistically portray how armor works and hand to hand combat works. It would be very easy to come up with a more complex system that represented it better, but in the end even that system would still be a gross simplification of what goes on in combat. It has to be. And since both are going to be simplifications anyway, I would tend towards the system that offers the easiest gameplay while still providing a satisfying feel to the combat. In the late 70's and early 80's we all tinkered around with D&D's systems I think. We experimented with armor and weapons being damaged or broken through use. We tinkered around with systems to more accurately reflect the damage that occurs in combat, to add more realism to our games. But truth be told, most of the time while these systems sounded cool and did make things more realistic, they bogged the game down a lot and didn't really make it a better experience. In the end, it is the stories that we remember, not the game mechanics. It wasn't how realistic a system we put together that led to the scar on my character Mohag's shoulder that was there because his armor had been so damaged that the pauldron failed that we talked about years later. It was the epic battle with the ogres, and how close we all came to being killed, and how the ogre chieftain would have killed the paladin with one more swing just as the ranger saved him with a lucky arrow that just barely rolled high enough to hit but did maximum damage, and the rest of the things we did and the things that happened. I don't remember a single dice roll from that session, but I remember that fight and the things I remember from that fight have nothing to do with game mechanics and everything to do with having a great time with my friends. Those are the things that become the tales told in inns and taverns across the realm, not how realistic the game mechanics are.
The only problem is that when stats get out of hand at the higher levels it looks less like actual combat or even Conan and more like a Kung Fu movie. Also while melee is abstracted, projectiles, especially ammunition are not.
Oh I agree. 5e has a lot of problems. The characters are so OP that it is very difficult to put them into plausible situations that would actually threaten them. It is a very poorly designed game that is not really true to its roots, but their design now is more that of a medieval superhero game, one where everyone personally possesses almost supernatural powers, and can gain additional superpowers very easily, than a game where people start off barely better off than the peasants around them and have to work hard and struggle to make themselves more powerful. Yes, projectiles are different in consuming ammunition but they are just as abstract in every other respect. We did tinker around with different ways to handle the ammunition problem to try and make things more realistic that way, because let's face it, you aren't always going to be able to loose that arrow in any given six second burst. You might drop the arrow or it get tangled up with other arrows as you draw it from the quiver. You might not feel confident that you won't avoid hitting your own friends and hesitate. The end of your bow might get hooked on some piece of debris or furniture accidentally and you have to take a moment to get it loose, and god forbid your bowstring break and you have to restring it. Unfortunately, nothing we ever tried really made things any better, so depleting the ammo on a one-for-one basis was what we stayed with even though it does represent what's going on rather poorly. If they truly want to fix this game's problems with combat, they really need to overhaul the whole system, starting with the action economy. That wastes far more time than anything else in the game. Six seconds is a very small amount of time for someone to be making as many decisions as they are currently making and taking actions based on those decisions. In real life, in the middle of a hand-to-hand combat, you would be extremely hard pressed to assess the field, choose where to move, figure out how to get there the safest way possible or weigh the risks of getting there via more dangerous routes, successfully make that move, engage in combat, land a blow, maybe land a second blow or cast a spell, then perhaps move some more, all in six seconds. And what takes your characters six seconds to accomplish takes a lot longer for a player to formulate. Most of the time the player announcing what they are going to do takes longer than their character has to get it all done! It is the single most broken aspect of combat in my opinion and the one that could be fixed the easiest and make the largest improvement in speed of combat.
@@georgewilson2575 very well put. I thought about having a game where in combat characters use action points like the old Fallout games. Maybe most people get 3 and if you're near level 20 you get 2 or 3 more, but some of those might be only for combat. Then assign each possible task a cost of action points, like moving so many feet takes one, opening a door, using one to up your armor class until your next turn, taking damage, a single shot, etc. Loosing a well aimed arrow or loading a crossbow might cost two points. First aid, putting on armor, moving a heavy rock so many feet, or picking a lock might cost 6 or so. The problems being that A) I'm not sure what should cost what, and B) It could he complicated. I don't want everyone to have to reference a chart all the time.
That concept is an interesting one. With a system like that initially there is going to be a lot of chart checking, but I think for most common actions it would become second nature. The ones you wouldn't use quite so often you would probably need a chart for. I am kind of torn at keeping the number of points low and keeping the costs low for everyone, or increasing the number of points and having variable costs for certain things based on class. I'll have to think about that one some more.
How I solved it: Grunthar and the Ogre both roll d20 and add their bonuses. This represents both their attacks and their parry/defense. Whichever gets the superior result damages the other. Armor does have damage resistance but it is general (no hit location involved normally). So there's just three quick steps: both roll and add their mods, winner rolls damage, subtract armor DR, done. Quick, accounts for skillful swordplay, accounts for armor. Like the Professor I keep PC and monster HPs low, and armor DR is modest ranging from 1-6 with the 1-3 being typical.
I suggest Steve Jackson's newly revised and re-published system called "The Fantasy Trip." It uses a simple "to-hit" roll based on the attacker's Dexterity, and the defender's armor subtracts from the damage rolled. Combat is very straightforward because there are no "Parry" or "Block" rolls to slow things down, though advanced characters can apply a negative to-hit modifier against an attacker in some circumstances, such as using highly skilled Unarmed Combat talents. While I enjoy the detail of RuneQuest and GURPS if I want to simulate the feeling of a gladiatorial combat that tests differently equipped fighters against each other, the simplicity of the D&D Armor Class system or The Fantasy Trip 3D6 system really speeds up game play. That's why I favor simplicity when playing a tabletop RPG with a group, even though--on my own time--I also enjoy more detailed and realistic combat scenarios between two gladiators/warriors.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 -- Glad to hear that you are familiar with it. Please take note that the game system has been revised and is once again available in print. Other RPG TH-camrs such as Jim Murphy (channel by the same name) highly recommend TFT (The Fantasy Trip).
D&d calculates parry’s, opponents armour, their ability to dodge, if a beam of light hits in your eye if you swing, etc Calculated in the roll of one 20 sided die for your convenience
And it opens up the possibility for the player to be a storyteller and narrate how every hit or miss happened. I like the abstraction of what hit points, armor, and attack rolls represent.
I'm with Lindybeige on this one. Just converted my 5e ed. game over to armour as damage reduction and loving it. No extra rolls required, just a little variation to the character sheet as prep. To be fair, D&D is far from my ideal system. I ran it vanilla far a while, but enough is enough.
I’ve mostly played edge of the empire/genesys from the past, which bases its difficulty to hit off of range (and some special abilities and circumstantial bonuses) and then has an absorption system (soak) which was based on brawn (strength) an what you wear. It didn’t seem to bog things down at all. My only criticism was that they made all the armor piercing weapons (those that ignored a certain amount of soak) with such low pierce values that it was just extra damage, since practically every character had two or three soak. Soak values actually made area of attack weapons a lot weaker vs armored characters than focused attacks, since they did less damage to each fighter individually. Stormtrooper armor wouldn’t stop a heavy blaster pistol, but it would shrug off a frag grenade.
really? imo, armor either prevents major damage, or it doesnt by and large. damage being “reduced” is more of the exception. a sword tends not to “bit into the armor just enough to hurt you a little”, but instead goes through or it doesnt go through. and a shell either penetrates a tank, or it doesn’t. if i were to include damage reduction, id personally only apply it if it hit the dc/armor class exactly.
I highly recommend taking a look at the D20 Everquest game with opposed Attack/ Defense rolls and Armor providing damage reduction. Really sweet stuff. I enjoy Lindybeige and his work. It's really cool this channel shouts out so amicably. Considering the Professor streamlines pretty much all mechanics in the game this video is perfectly in line. Good stuff. 👍
I just mentioned Pendragon, which is a variant of Lindy's favored RuneQuest system. Like EverQuest it uses opposed rolls for combat, and armor reduction. IMO, its easier, and more realistic that way.
Why not both? I've been having some armors like gambesons give soak, and others like plate armor give you AC. Harder to land a damage dealing blow on a heavily armored character, and padded clothing softens hits. And because it was typical to layer armor in real life, character usually have 2 or 3 things of armor, each yielding something the others might not.
I like the idea of your AC being affected by skill, weapons, and shields giving you a way to avoid being hit while armor only reduces damage should it actually happen.
VosperCDN was waiting for someone to mention RM or MERP. Also the crits were less the heavier the armor was, whereas less armored opponents would get more severe crits against them if you hit them.
@@a5nelson I like the parry system where you could use a proportion of your attach OB to minus off the opponent's attack. Made you less offensive but could save your neck until your allies arrived. also crits really did hammer those without greaves and helmets.
Ah Lindybeige. He has more in common with WotC than most people realise as we found out from In Search of Hannibal. They both want you to pay a fortune for a product. They both deliver trash (Or nothing in Lloyd's case) They both refuse to apologise or offer a refund.
I like the mechanism in the superheroes game Mighty Protectors. "To hit" is essentially based on agility and any environmental factors such as cover, visibility, etc. Your defensive powers - armor, force field, etc. - have resistance values vs specific damage types, and on a hit you simply subtract the appropriate defense from the damage roll. There's slightly more front-end prep this way in figuring out how to allocate points into your character's defenses, but once the game is underway it manages to be more realistic while still only requiring two dice rolls.
It also depends on which D&D you're talking about. In 3E (or Pathfinder), there were a couple of situational Armor Classes, namely flat footed AC, and touch AC. So then you have the added steps of evaluating which AC to use and calculating AC. While if armor is DR then there is no difference between touch AC and regular AC, because touch AC is your AC without armor. Also flat footed AC just becomes a static number for any given size. Medium creature is a 10, Small is 11, etc. D&D 5E doesn't have that baggage, but then you have to wonder why armor helps protect you from firebolt, but not fireball. Armor protects you from ray of enfeeblement, even though it doesn't do damage. It doesn't bother me too much in 5E because the system is largely constructed from handwavium, but it isn't internally consistent either. You can run a lot of things through narrative license, but when it comes to major wounds on PC's, I think it's better to be able to point to the dice as the culprit when someone loses an arm. PC's aren't going to care much if their awesome hit also severs limb, but they might when it's their arm that goes sailing down the bottomless pit. In the end both ways are valid ways to run games. It really just depends on what kind of game you want to run and how much "crunch" you and your players are into.
I think that's the point. D&D is the "beginner" game(as most plays I talk to started in a D&D game). It should be simple for ease of learning and play. I mean the old 2nd Ed. AD&D book said for 12 and up right on the cover. I always appreciate your takes on things although I do lean more to the Lindy camp on this idea. Your ideas are always insightful. Keep up the great work Prof.
@@jacobstaten2366 All I meant was it is a "entry" game to the hobby, as most people I have met in gaming have all played(and usually started with) D&D, because of its popularity. I know "easier"/ less rules heavy game are out there. Thats all I was saying, I guess I was unclear.
In Mystara's Gazeteer "Dawn of the Emperors" box set, for BECMI D&D, there are rules for damage reduction, and "Armor Value". These Rules were oriented to simulate gladiators combats, in the Roman style empire of Thyatis.
I'm with the prof on this one. Back in the day as a teenager when I discovered RPGs the D&D AC bothered me like it does Lindybeige and others. It seems unrealistic at first glance and we all experimented with a lot of ideas to make it feel more "realistic". And I remember Runequest and Pendragon and others. *But* besides the practical arguments from the prof here there's also more to the original to hit AC and HP idea of D&D that made me eventually circle around and appreciate this system as also quite realistic and armor absorption has its own problems. 1) HP is NOT equal to wounds or being 50% dead after loosing 50% of HP. HP was never meant as just a collection of bruises, bleeding wounds and broken bones. It's always been a useful abstraction for energy/exhaustion. If your 60 HP fighter gets hit with 5 points of damage s/he might not be bruised or bleeding at all. It might just have been a strong clash against shield or shield or an exhausting evasive maneuver. That also helps insofar our Heroes otherwise would be in constant critical condition which is not helpful for "realism". Only when it comes to the last few HP or especially large damage hits should we assume actual bleeding cuts or serious bruising. And that should be interpreted for RPG cineastic/theatre of mind purposes. 2) Damage absorption runs into problems when we look at low damage weapons vs strong armor. If your knife or dagger only does 1-4 damage and that knights plate mail absorbs 4+ damage we get to ridiculous levels of invulnerability. But a competent warrior fighting against and armored knight wouldn't try to punch his dagger through the plate, s/he would make feints and quick moves and try to get the blade in weak spots between plates. Which obviously are much harder to hit, but then might do plenty of damage if it gets there. Thus a lower chance to hit and normal range of damage actually ends up somewhat realistic and sensible. Especially, again, also if we remember that HP and damage are somewhat abstracted combination of actual wounds and exhaustion. A knife fighter against a strong armored opponent plays for time and tries to exhaust the opponent while trying not to get hit by sword/axe/mace counter attacks. So, with a proper consideration of what HP and damage actually mean and the abstractions involved, the system is not only relatively easy to use but also can create sufficiently realistic effects for the purposes of a RPG.
In the Fuzion d10 system you roll an attack, and if your target is able (as in not vs a missile weapon or attack they can't see et.) they roll as well, whoever is higher wins and the damage is the difference (plus any modifiers), then damage is resolved using a location and armor system in a similar manner. I always thought this was fast, and was a decent simulation of melee combat. It reflects the skill of each participant limiting the damage of their opponent while also making to so parrying is a simultaneous action.
WFRP 4e actually has a good solution to speeding up the generally plodding d100 combat. It makes all combats opposed tests, with the defender able to choose between dodge or the appropriate melee skill. In the latter case, the character who wins the test deals the damage. In addition, if the winner had positive success levels they get "Advantage", bonus success levels that stick around until you fail a roll or take damage. It makes it so low initiative characters can still contribute to combat by countering, means every round someone is taking damage, and means that characters doing well do better, which is fairly realistic.
This reminds me of Warhammer Fantasy Battles 8th edition. Roll Attacking Wepon Skill vs Defending Weapon skill to hit. Roll Strength vs Toughness to wound. Roll armor saves, or ward saves for armor or magic protection damage negation. Whatever gets through inflicts a wound.
At our table we’ve played Warhammer FRP but substituted the d100% with D6s, like the Warhammer battles game, we love the Warhammer setting & lore, but didn’t really enjoy the d100% system. Anyway, rolling dice pools of D6s is way cooler! ...and everything can just be straight converted, so if in WFRP your ballistics skill is 45, then you have 4d6 dice pool, super easy.
The homebrew "Triumvirate Edition" of Legend of the Five Rings had a neat system: Armor is damage reduction by default, but you can increase the difficulty of your attack roll to ignore it. Whether armor makes someone harder to hit or harder to hurt is up to the attacker. Perhaps it's a slower method, but it's got nice vibes.
One of the most misunderstood aspects of “roll to hit” is that it does not reflect one single action. A round is 6 seconds. A skilled warrior would be doing a whole lot of things in that time. The “roll to hit” is a simplified system to reflect the moment when a realistic opening presents itself. Of course it may miss, be parried, land but glance of armour or find its mark. That is precisely what the roll vs AC reflects and does so with beautiful simplicity. Also, AC is a bit of a nostalgic misnomer since it reflects more than just armour. It takes account of all factors that mean a strike doesn’t cause damage. For me, combat needs pace and pace needs efficient rules. Job done!
How about linking AC with the Proficiency Bonus? This could work like a Parry rule. So AC = Prof + Dex Mod and armor simply reduces damage equal to its AC bonus?
Love this. I’ve been mentally working through making the players roll all the dice. I was going to make the AC (less the 10) be the Defensive Saving Throw modifier and the DC be 10 + the attack modifier of the NPC. Using your suggestion for Prof + Dex Mod (per the armor type) actually makes sense for the direction I was trying to go. The armor itself acting as damage reduction might help solve another item I’ve been pondering...how to make armor and shields more interesting. Thank you for the inspiration!
@@davidrose7938 Fantastic! I like the way you think. I'm also a fan of the Cypher System, same system as Numenera, because all of the players roll the dice leaving the DM free to narrate instead of always checking rules. It sounds like you may have already read one of the two system, but if you haven't please do. You will likely find a lot of inspiration there. I've also recently encountered a system where armor is purchased in sections. Helm, Torso, Shield, are the three different sections. The different ACs are then added up to create a total Defense. You could do something similar with what you propose if you wanted to add that level of customization to your PC's gear without getting into the full 'Hit Locations' portion of things. In my own homebrew I added Arms and Legs as separate armor sections too.
@@davidrose7938 I like a few systems that use Dex+shield (and combat proficiency in melee) to make you harder to hit, and armor to absorb damage. There's even one (Dungeons & Delvers) where armor makes you a little harder to hit AND absorbs a little damage. But a successful hit always does at least one point of damage, to keep the game going and not disappoint the players.
Rolemaster. Do some math up front, roll one d100, compare to a table. (Maybe requires a second roll if you crit.) Rolemaster (realistically) accounts for weapon verses armor, shield parry, hit location, bleeding and more all in one open-ended roll. If simple is better, it doesn't get much simpler than Rolemaster combat. Character generation and advancement in Rolemaster is anything but simple, however, and has limited the system's overall appeal.
I like merp too its basically rolemaster lite! I think there's one called harp which is a similar engine from the same folks maybe it's sci-fi or something.
@@TheGuidermichael - HARP is, reportedly, Rolemaster Lite. There is both a Fantasy and a Sci-Fi set using it. I'm familiar with both Rolemaster and MERP, having owned them in the past, but never tried HARP. Been heavily considering checking it out for both systems as an interesting alternative. My hesitance has mostly been due to a lack of "monster manual" for HARP. Although you can reportedly use the Rolemaster ones for it fairly easily.
@@NefariousKoel oh yeah monster manual is a biggie. I have both Creatures & Treasures 1 & 2 they are full of great stuff (minus the 'Giant [insert normal animal here]' entries!)
Now, this is just me but... Fast Pace trumps clunky crunch, sure. What if D&D made the bulk of AC based on Dex and Class Training rather than about armour, and the actual armour bit have the small impact that Dex has these days? Call it Defences or Defence or whatever. It's the same but feels sensible. Let's go further: What if someone rolls to hit, with the bonus being how lethal their Class does with their weapon, and damage is the amount they beat your defences by. Boom. 1 Roll system. These three or four lines are my new 'combat manual' which I'd read over a 300 pg rule book any day of the week. My players 'squeeeee' when they roll and slay, not when they roll and roll and roll and slay. I agree with this vid, and furthermore I think you can make those simple mechanics more real too by flipping them sideways!
I really appreciate the links to competing viewpoints, and as a new DM, but long time player, I’ve watched these videos with my DM’s and the speed of combat has made things so much more exciting. Particularly the recommendation on everyone having two minutes to decide who’s doing what.
Depends, if thigs get too simple they also get boring. If your game is combat oriented (like DND) and all you do is ""ok I roll to hit", it gets really boring really fast.
We’ve played with a variant AC rule that asks the player how they are going to avoid being hit. If they are dodging then add DEX modifier to AC, if they are trying to parry the blow then add STR (or DEX still if using finesse weapons) or if they are going to block and absorb the blow add CON (but requires a shield). So now for example you can build a full plate knight carrying shield, who gets disadvantage to dodge because of his heavy armour but would add the armour + shield + CON to their base AC.
Big fan of you and lindybeige. You both add so much to my home game and my players [same campaign for a year now] come back every week. Thanks you guys!
I think both you and Lloyd are looking at this from very limited points of view. The question is not, "Which of these is better" but rather best seen as, "Which of these is better at providing the experience that I want in my game." If I were writing a WWII roleplaying game, I might want a game where the shooting skill of each character is important to the game. This would presumably be a very tactical game that focuses on the mechanics of the weapons and the movement of each soldier. I might instead want a game where unit morale is everything, with combat abstracted since most guys with rifles are very much like other guys with rifles in punching small holes in the enemy and everything riding on whether the Sergeant can motivate his men to follow all the way through with the assault on the pillbox. Or maybe I want an entirely roleplaying game of the Yalta conference, where combat isn't even a thing. The mechanics that support one of these are unlikely to be useful for the others. From watching your videos, your revealed preferences would seem to be for a game where combat is mostly abstracted and simplified and storytelling is the core of the experience. Lloyd's preferences seem to run (as do mine most of the time) to a game where combat decisions are core to the experience; where it's important to know that Character A stumbled the last time he attacked and is penalized this time as a result, for instance. Which is to say that your preference for two actions with essentially no detail is appropriate for your game. But Lloyd's preference for combat that explicitly models interesting details of the actions of the characters and spends more time and effort showing these is appropriate for his. I guarantee that both of these can be fun, though in different ways.
Faster/fewer steps is not necessarily superior, at least not objectively as your statement sounded. That is simply your taste. My Homebrew system works with opposed rolls from attackers and defenders, specified target locations, and also wounds and wound levels instead of HP and damage. Armor simply lessens the severity of wounds taken by absorbing strikes and lowering the wound level of the injury taken, even eliminating it entirely. It's very simple while also being very realistic and intuitive so after a single combat scene, it's very easy to remember and go through relatively quickly while achieving much more depth and immersion in fights.
Conan d20 (Mongoose Publishing) has a great combination of AC, Dodge for DEX and Parry for STR, with damage absorption depending on the type of armor. All resolved quickly and efficiently. Shields, in addition to bonuses for parry strikes, if not used (attached to the back) increase the reduction of back damage. Worth checking out.
Mongoose’s Conan RPG had armor as damage reduction and solved the to-hit roll defense by having a Parry and Dodge score. Parry used the character’s strength bonus and Dodge used dexterity. As a character leveled his Parry or Dodge would increase as per his class. A shield would benefit both Parry and Dodge. Essentially a character had two “Armor Classes” and str or dex benefitted each one respectively.
I think you're spot on. I'm running a game for first time players and keeping it simple is of utmost importance. However I narrate the misses above a 10 as hitting the armor but not well enough to do damage. My players seem to enjoy this narrative flavor.
I’m working on an armour as damage-reduction system for B/X D&D. I’ve realised that it only makes sense with a mechanic that keeps HP low. I’m thinking maybe the Con stat score for total HP and using the Dex stat score as ascending AC. That still keeps unarmoured AC at approx 10. This allows for high Dex, swashbuckling fighters to benefit from remaining unarmoured. I’m thinking 3 classes of armour- light, medium and heavy for all types, leather, padded, mail and plate. Maximum Dex limited to 15 for heavy, 16 for medium,17 for light. Taking a leaf from the Target20 system, to hit = d20 + level bonus +mods > or = target Dex score + mods. If hit, damage is rolled normally, Hit creature/character rolls damage reduction based on armour class i.e. d4 for light, d6 or medium, d8 for heavy. Armour is effective.
In a time where people are more than likely going to be new to D&D the path of least resistance is always going to be the best. You win this time, Professor.
Waaaay back in the early 1980s, we didn't really understand the B/X rules, so we didn't even bother to make attack rolls. We made combined hit points and armor class into one number. Each round, you just rolled damage. We just assumed that low damage rolls meant you didn't land a blow, but your foe lost HP by expending energy in dodging or parrying the blow. It was fast and fun, and I've been thinking of resurrecting it in some form.
I personally turned AC into a generic "defence" score which just straight reduced damage. I also added in the assumption that if you're spending your action, you are not getting the chance to hit but committing to a blow. The skill comes in with how many hits can you land in the same time a less-skilled martial character can only land the one. Instead there's just a simple damage roll, subtract the enemy's defence, that's how much damage you've taken, next turn. It works very well for the very low numbers in my custom system and my dyslexic players love it because less math is a win for them. However converting 5e specifically to it could be a bit harder, and it would have the same trouble of d4 weapons being even less desirable. My system is d6 based, hence why it works.
Your right. Your anser did suprise me; given you usually tend to want to change things from raw. As for parrying, I would say it uses your reactuon, which you only get one of per round. It's also a matter of nairation. For targeted shots, and discribing how you attack; I would dicribe it in detail at first, then drop of the flavor once it's been established.
In my modified 3.5 rules, the AC rating is changed to Damage Reduction. I use "defense" instead that is calculated by adding 10+ Dexterity Bonus+ Heroic Level+Size Modifier+Natural Armor (if any but in name only because it more so represents a natural ability to avoid being hit)+Magical bonus. To me, it makes sense that as a character progresses their heroic level adds to their ability to avoid damage because it reflects their experience with combat.
Here's a simple D&D system that uses opposed rolls: All combatants have a set number of skill levels (and combat bonuses from DEX) that they divide between Offense and Defense. To attack: roll a d20, add levels saved for that purpose. To defend: roll a d20, add levels saved for that. If it results in a hit, roll damage. Subtract armor from damage and apply to HP.
I think the original "sin" is hit points and how they escalate. Everything in DnD scales to account for this. If players had static hit points or vastly reduced scaling, then a DR/soak system for armor could work well.
well you could still keep it simple and just have AC based on Dex only, and armor has damage reduction. So your still rolling to see if you hit and roll for damage, the only extra step is subtracting the damage reduction. doesn't really seem like that big of a deal..
I dm for 5e and I thought of a way to interpret armour class. Depending on the type of armour the character uses they use their reaction to make a strength or dexterity save to see if they dodge an attack or absorb the hit/bounces off their armour Alternatively the character can make an attack roll to see if they block the blow. Based on which they choose I narrate the result differently When an attack roll fails I say the blow bounces of your armour or you dodge out of the way or you blocked the blow
I'm creating a RPG system that ignores the AC altogether. The players have a larger pool of Hit Points and ever attack hits. Armors and shields (or spells, or other abilities) may rise the total of HP.
I always thought of HP more as your total stamina to keep fighting and AC represents whether the weapon was able to connect to flesh or hit the armor itself, even if just pushing armor hard into you. Thusly a critical is when you actaully stab THROUGH the armor and other defenses to deal a mortal wound.
Iron Kingdoms used the same rules for combat that they used in Warmachine and Hordes and I am a big fan of it. You use your attack value, either ranged, melee or magical, and roll against a targets defense. Small, fast creatures have high defense, large, slow ones have low defense. If the attack hits, then you roll for damage, using the strength of the attack versus the targets armor. However much the strength + roll exceeds the armor is how much damage is dealt. That nimble little sprite might have twig armor so it can dodge hits but not take them, while a huge juggernaut might get hit constantly but take little damage to it's iron hull. It's simple but works really well in practice and also theme.
I always liked the Defense bonus in Star Wars d20. Armor gives DR and makes you slower, and the defense is a by product of your class. The more "combate oriented" the class, the more defense it gets.
I like the idea of adding the proficiency bonus to AC. Might work better if all ACs in the game were lowered by 4. Also, maybe use PB from 4e, so PB = half your level, rounded down.
Interesting side note, Arneson & Sniders' Adventures in Fantasy combat system (1978) does have a skill comparison like what you describe, you can also factor in height differences etc. to determine the chance to hit. Armor has a chance to absorb or negate some damage. It's fiddly, but maybe a bit less so than Runequest.
I know it's very trendy to talk about how heavy the armor worn by knights was and how slow it would make a person… However I've also seen HEMA fans wear it. They move just fine. The weight is very evenly distributed and it doesn't take much to get used to it, I'm told.
I grew up in a world where D&D may as well not have existed - it was all RQ and similar systems. AC is one of the reasons I prefer D&D. In Runequest you get what we in Sweden derisively call ping pong combat: I hit! No I parry! I hit! Parry! Hit! Parry! And nothing progresses…
The Harmaster RPG does hit location well -- modified opposed d100 skill rolls determine who gets hit and how hard, then roll damage + hit location, subtract armor value and see what kind of graphic wound is inflicted. No HP, but wounds like Grievous Stab, etc. with bleeding and shock effects. Great system!
I tend to agree with Lindy... RQ fights aren’t really any longer and are much more thrilling (and scary) than D&D fights at any skill level. If I’m a 90hp fighter, I don’t care that the two Orcs just hit me with back-to-back “lucky” to hit rolls for a total of 15 damage. In RQ, I’m concerned when I take 2 point of damage! Also, “special” and “critical” hits mean death hangs on every attack roll and fumbles can turn the tide either way in one roll. All that and I haven’t mentioned the “aimed bow shot that scores a critical and silently takes out the sentry.” Abilities like that allow the integration of combat and storytelling...
Thank you for this video. I am new to D&D (only played 5e but learning some 2e rules in Baldur's gate) and AC was a troubling rule to me. I found it hard to understand that heavy armour and DEX both boost the same stat. But I came to the same conclusion as you: simplicity is king. The outcome of being hard to hit (agility) and being resistant to a lot of damage (high defence from armour) comes out to meaning the same thing so may as well merge them for simplicity, even if the naming of that state is also confusing. Glad to see there is a large discussion about this very point already going on.
I think that a dual system is interesting, casual encounters should be solved with simply rules, but a final scene battle deserves more detailed moves and take more tests.
Nope. By your logic, the superior system is Tunnels and Trolls, where each side makes one combat roll, then the loser takes the difference in damage. (And guess what--it STILL uses damage-absorbing armor! Nyah!) Simpler isn't necessarily better. Simpler is (by necessity) more abstract. Simply flipping coin to see who wins would be simpler, but not better and certainly LESS satisfying (unless you really wanted a "beer and pretzels" rpg--which is a whole 'nother issue.) And I think you're doing a big disservice not just to Runequest but to "opposed rolls": lots of systems have separate Offense and Defense Rolls. However, I will agree with your points on complexity (in general) and Hit Locations (specifically.) The big problem that I have with D&D and Pathfinder is that they don't have a strong, clear, consistent game mechanic--it's kludgy all over the place with a special rule for this, that, and the other thing. And armor class is the worst offender of the bunch. You picked a strange one to defend, sir. Armor Class? Really?
I tend to agree with you. A really simple game would just be one attack/DG roll and an armor class simply subtracting from that number. Personally I like the idea of weapons, skill and shields being your AC while armor just reduces damage done.
Pathfinder 2 adds your training/proficiency to your defense, armored or unarmored. Its such an easy and intuitive rule that It still baffles me how 5e didnt go that way. Theres also the wound system for each time you go down, so no more heal shennanigans. The critical hit/ fumble deck is also pretty cool.
This video is fascinating. I really enjoy it. @Lindybeige, thanks for your input - I am taking notes. There is a reason why I really enjoy HeroQuest's combat system (yes HeroQuest 1989 from MB and GW). The system is asking you to roll a number of dice for attack which represents how well you handle a weapon, and the target rolls dice for defense. The Defense Roll covers everything all at once ; your natural defense (Agility, Reflex, Dodge, Parry) and the bonus defense (Shield, Armor, Deflection capacity + Damage Reduction). The result is the following ; it gives you the **aftermath of battle**. Each character (hero) actually starts with 2 ''Defense Dice'' as their natural ability to dodge hits and swings. After that, whatever piece of armor they might be wearing will allow hits to graze their protection, or in the worse case to hit a good unprotected spot. Then, there's Advanced HeroQuest that suggests are real good combat system as well. The better your Weapon Skill is, the lower you need to roll for accuracy (to-hit). Provided that your enemy has a lower mastery of their weapon, they will be easier to hit. However, if your enemy is better than you, you will need to roll higher to hit them, requiring more effort, more focus. I found that this is actually an excellent system that represents well real-life combat simulation. Here is how I resolve other things in battle : Any projectile thrown (Arrows, or Fireball, or Ray of Frost, Bolas, or Shuriken) is compared with Agility/Reflex/Quickness Any mind control ability, or psionic attack is compared with Mind/Wisdom/Intelligence Anything that threatens the body is compared to Vitality/Constitution/Endurance. The two big questions to ask are the following : 1 - How well did you perform your ability or attack ? 2 - How well the opponent can perform his or her ? Those are what I call Performance Rolls. A high performance will be much harder to escape or counter. I personally prefer damage reduction for armors, and any other ability to attempt dodging.
I like the soak / defence split in Fantasy Flight's Star Wars game (and Genesys too I assume). That game consolidates attacks into 1 roll for each attacker or 2 if they crit. It also allows you to represent both a character being tougher to actually pin down and hit AND characters' ability to shrug off damage.
For DnD I want to use a slight variant that takes into consideration the bonuses you get from dex and from armor and other bonuses. The attack roll against a target looks at the overall AC. If it beats the AC the target takes full damage. If the roll does not but beats the targets AC minus the Dex/dodge bonuses then the target takes damage minus the armor's AC bonus representing a deflection. The only issue comes down to is determining what bonuses to AC apply in which way. I see it as dodge bonuses and deflection bonuses. Dodge bonuses are bonuses that include the character moving their body in some way to evade the attack. Deflection bonuses are any bonuses that would deflect or absorb the attack.
I agree. Realism != Better. This is a game. The goal doesn't have to be (and to some, shouldn't be) realism. In fact, a ruleset that attempts to simulate realism leads to more complexity, and in many people's opinion, less fun.
Remember Advanced D&D had weapon modifiers depending on the armor of the target that simulates absorption...example whip vs plate mail even harder to hit
While DR (damage reduction) is a fun mechanic, and it's intuitive. But it isn't actually realistic, damage doesn't decrease the amount you get hurt, like a magic spell making your sword wounds into papercuts, but it doesn't it simply redirects damage away from you. When a sword hits your armor, if it's any good you shouldn't take damage. Actual hits on an armored character happen when you hit someone where they're unarmored. There are multiple specific weapon techniques based around getting around someone's armor, like arnis from the philipines.
I'm designing a game right now that uses simple combat armor. You have health pool. And you have armor pool. During combat players roll attack and dmg. And their roll determines if baddies hit them, if they both hit each other. Or if they hit enemy. The players choose where the damage goes. And that's it.
This argument reminds me of THAC0, and why I agree with it's removal from D&D. THAC0 is To Hit Armor Class 0(zero), AC originally being on a descending scale rather than the ascending scale we use today. so you have a target number for AC 0, say 15. You then subtract your targets AC, say 3 for scale armor and shield, from your THAC0, so 12 to hit, then you add your to hit bonuses, say +2 from your strength 15 (It was different back then, don't ask) for a Target number of 10. Then they brought in Base Attack Bonuses and reversed the scale on Armor Class, So AC 3 became AC 17 and THACO 15 became Base Attack Bonus +5, With a +2 Bonus to Attack from Strength you're still rolling a 10 or better to hit. But the Math is simpler and quicker. And the game is faster.
Great video. Honestly I would have attacked the premise. AC does not necessarily mean you did not get hit it means you did not take damage. I imagine heavy armor takes a few ringing hits in a good combat but prevents injury. No additional rule needed. It is simply a matter of how you flavor the narration.
Personally, I think the problem comes down to terminology - I don't see Armor Class as indicating how hard you are to *hit*, it's how hard you are to *damage*. A near-miss against a high AC might mean the blow bounces harmlessly off, while the same near-miss against a low AC might mean the character narrowly dodges the blow. It's all down to how combat is narrated.
Ha! I just essentially wrote the same thing!
Excellent video Professor as always! I very much agree with the above comment! I was going to add more, but really it is well said just the way it is.
@thor30013 I've always looked at AC the same way, glad to see like minded people.
Yes, they unfortunately decided to call it a “to hit” roll when it really is a “to damage” roll.
Way back in the early 80’s I became very anti-AC for all the reasons mentioned in this video. A decade later I decided to run some statistical exercises to see if the “soak” method differed from the “AC” method. Interestingly, to me anyway, it took roughly the same number of rounds for a PC to get to 0 HPs, but as the Professor said, in game time the soak method took longer. Therefore I embraced again the AC idea.
When combat was originally conceived of at least for D&D it was abstracted. One attack was not one roll of the dice. The die roll represented many attacks. The AC system is likewise abstracted. It is about representing how less likely an armored person is going to be seriously injured compared to an unarmored one. If my statistical exercises were correct, what difference does it make if we say armor soaks damage or armor makes us less likely to be hit if it turns out that the same number of rounds of combat in both cases reduce the PC to 0 HPs? From the point of view of the game, they are identical methods so let’s use the simpler one.
For my money, the system that makes the most sense within the D&D game engine is one like that employed in the Black Hack where armor actually adds to your HPs. It is abstracted, so it is consistent with how the other aspects of combat are represented, and it has essentially a degrading effect, which actually fits better with the whole idea of what HPs are supposed to represent. In that first round, when I am fresh and at full HPs (including those from my armor) I am not very likely to be killed by a single blow. But as combat wears on, and I have to parry or roll with near misses, I get fatigued (lose HPs) and now that armor benefit is almost nonexistent. A single blow could very well kill me. D&D AC has the same effectiveness at 100 HPs as it is at 1 HP which is not really in line with what HPs are supposed to abstractly represent, at least IMO.
Exactly. Iet’s not as simple as how hard it is to hit your static armor. You have dex modifiers, and it’s not if it physically touches you, but if it does damage when it does. As a DM I take these rolls as an indication of how the story plays out. Miss by a one? Then the arrow skips across your helm or glances off your shield.
Don’t forget that the original games run by Gary and Dave had as many as TWENTY players! It wasn’t a game strictly of who could calculate numbers the quickest, but how you can make the game fun for your group. Don’t want to use XP, then check out The Processor’s video here about it. Want combat to be as quick as possible, use the combat system as provided. Can’t stand how simple it is, make it as complicated and you and your friends want it to be.
RQ fights tend to be shorter (for more powerful fighters, at least), because they don't get bogged down in round after round of slowly chipping away at a vast number of hit points. Therefore the fight involves fewer steps, not more. Also, details like hit location make the story of the fight more interesting. It isn't just another number of damage points, it's a slash to your left arm.
RQ does take into account the skill of the defender, because as you said, the defender has a parry skill, so your criticism at 3:55 does not work. Indeed, factors like 'defence', dodge skill, effects of magic, and what happens when skills go over 100% also increase the significance of the nature of the intended target. D&D on the other hand just matches skill of the attacker against armour. Whether the target has a weapon to fend you off with or not is ignored. A naked man with a sword is a lot harder to hit in reality than an unarmed man with armour.
When you have low-skilled fighters in RQ, someone lands a blow and it is unlikely to be parried, and often one blow ends a fight. With high-skilled fighters, they almost always have magic that proves decisive, but even when they don't, you have high-tension fight where the danger of one blow's landing is constant and is likely to end a fight. A very powerful fighter has a head with same number of hit points as a starting character. Also, critical hits, special hits, and fumbles added together mean that one of these is very likely to end a fight after a few exchanges. Weapons break too, which also adds to the quickness of the fight, and the sense of peril.
I agree that with large numbers of combatants, the RQ system is slow, but does anyone roll for each blow in a fight involving 5 PCs and 30 NPCs? That is slow and dull in any system. Just roll for the PCs and their immediate foes, and let the GM come up with a quick approximation of all the rest.
When I modded D&D, I added several ways fighters could use feats to increase damage, and I lowered the increase in HP per level a LOT. If a PC is threatened by a foe pointing a crossbow at his chest, he should never think "I have enough HP to survive the hit from that thing no matter what he rolls".
Thanks for the mention!
Lloyd
Thanks for replying, Lloyd! As usual, you bring up some good points. I really hope people read your response to see how much we actually agree. Too many hit points makes for slow combat and destroys suspense because you KNOW you can survive the crossbow to the chest. I--like you--hack D&D by lowering hit points. I also encourage DMs to roll out the immediate opponents and just decide the rest. Thanks for all you have done for this hobby and for helping to educate us on how medieval weapons and armor actually work. My players are HUGE fans of your channel. Keep up the great work and thank you for taking the time away from your HUGE channel to give some love to my tiny one.
--Professor DungeonMaster
1. I read this in your voice.
2. I applaud you for modding d&d to make it your own.
3. This video comes on the heels of other videos meant to significantly speed up combat time. So that’s worth considering.
4. I would love to sit at a table with one of you DMing and one playing and both arguing over realism! Lol
Cheers!
This is why I love the witcher RPG, hit points are low and damage is high, the skill of the fighter is rolled directly against the skill of the attacker hit, hit locations effect the damage, and armor reduces damage. It's slightly cumbersome but it is offset by how quickly things move
@@ihaveterriblerolls9531 They have an RPG for the Witcher? I read the first book of the series. Great short stories--especially the first two.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Yes there is!
It is made by the same guys who made Cyberpunk 2020 and uses a modified version of the system. I will say that the system was originally designed with firearms in mind and it shines through, but I believe there is enough expansion on melee and the addition of magic to stand out from CP2020. While the steps for combat are longer than, roll d20 and check AC, roll damage, most characters and won't usually have more than 50 hp and most weapons can kill anyone in two to three hits and that makes combat move faster.
Plus as you stated this is not a system for the uninitiated and the Interlock system has always been aimed to be simulation-like in how handles combat. It's also system I believe starts to move faster once players get used to the steps which of themselves aren't to complex
-Roll D10+Attribute+skill
-Enemy contests the roll in the same way
-Determine hit location (which a tangible effect on the damage)
-Reduce damage by armor if any
-Roll damage
Like I said personally I think its quicker in practice than in theory, hey everyone's different.
Plus the system really accentuates the the monsters and just how tough they are and how much fun they can be to fight especially for a tactically minded player.
Highly Recommed giving it a look if you can.
Also, I'm on the third book on I must say that it's quite the fun ride.
The AC system I feel can be fixed narratively. Instead of saying ,when I roll a 17 to hit an AC of 18, "you miss", say "Your blade glances off the armour, causing little to no damage".
Exactly.
Or say "Your blade was blocked on their shield" or "They parried your attack" etc..... This fixes it on the spot really.
Agreed, a little narrative spiel helps keep the game interesting.
That's essentially what I used to do as DM. It's all about the narrative. I would consider very low rolls an actual miss, while rolls just shy of succeeding were glancing blows.....not enough to penetrate and injure.
That's what you're supposed to do. Those who take the "miss" literally are kind of dumb...
As much as I dislike the unrealistic armor system and prefer armor soak over flat AC, I realize the value of keeping things simple in a game that can get very complicated.
I always liked the old GURPS fantasy system.. armor has passive defense (PD) and damage resistance (DR). Some types of armor are good at deflecting damage, some at absorbing damage, and some are good at both. It even had effects for types of damage vs. types of armor.. chain is great at slashing/cutting weapons.. but not so great at piercing weapons, like arrows. Let you keep track of how damaged armor and shields were too.. the classic 'beat on their shield till it falls apart' mechanic. This certainly doesn't fit into the Occams Razor way of thinking.. but always made a lot more sense to me.
as a player and DM of the Dragon age RPG i can tell you that even with simple rules this system has a HUGE problem...
in DA you have two defensive stats. Your defense (how hard it is to hit you) and your Armor rating (that absorbes damage)
and they even factor in the hole "heavy makes you slower" thing by reducing you Dex if you are untrained in the type of armor you wear or your speed if you are trained.
the problem is that (especially on the higher ends of the armor scale) you can become basicly imortal...
as an example: the highest baselevel armor by the book gives you an AR of 10 (meaning every damage you take is normaly reduced by 10)
every (base) weapon in the game deals from 1d6 to 3d6 dmg + an atribute. (e.G. the basic longsword deals 2d6+Str)
this means unless you roll well on the dmg roll it means NOTHING.
combining that with the high Hp that all characters have (MAGES start with 20+Con+1d6 Hp) and this can become a real slog...
and then you have the usual balancing trouble... do you balance it so that the enemies can hit/dmg your fighter but twoshot your mages or do you go for the more mage friendly aproch and make them barly tickle the fighter...
as an example: a session ago we hadd an ecnocunter were i (the frighter) got seperated fro the group and we all were attacked by a pack of some buff wolf-monster thingys... i sat there tanking two of them for 5-6 rounds and took 2(!) points of dmg while my mage buddy (assisted by our two hunting/war dogs) took on one of the wolfs and was mauled to shit...
(the other mage took on the alpha wolf and barly managed to kill it thanks to cheesing the everliving s**t out of it.)
i ended up running to the mages to save the almost dead one while ignoring the two other ones that were biting me in the arse...
and YES the system offers you ways to somewhat cirumvent the AR of an enemy but that requires either specific magics (lightning ignores AR while fire gets reduced by AR...) or the sue of certain stunts (special combat action you can take if you roll doubles on your to-hit roll...)
sorry for the wall of text ^^'
TLDR: damage reduction is a dangerous tool and makes balancing a nightmare...
While I like the idea of damage reduction, I hate calling it "soak" like damage is a liquid. Lol
I do agree however. Maube AC should represent how hard you are to hit (shields, dodges, partying) while armor (which can actually make you slower and easier to hit) simply lessens the impact of what does connect. Therefore at least some weapons should give you an armor class bonus as it's harder to stop a blade with a bare hand.
@@drizzt7dourden7 sounds to me like the real problem there is having stats that get out of hand. I like Dungeon Craft's idea of capping HP and I'd even go a few steps farther saying to cap armor and weapon stats too. A few enchanted items are cool (being common makes them more specifical) but it's less about who has a shinier sword and more about who knows how to use it.
idk. i think that in most situations, AC is actually more realistic. armor usually either prevents major damage or it fails to. I think its the exception where armor actually “reduces” damage rather than bypassing or failing to bypass it.
if you keep hitting someone in the chest plate with a sword, you usually arnt doing reduced damage, you are doing none at all, besides making him a little uncomfortable. you do actual damage by hitting places with less/no armor, which would do the same effective damage as if the target was unarmored, but is harder to get at, or by hitting him with something that breaches the armor straight up.
if something can breach an armor a little its kind of weird that it continuously only bits a “little” into a person each time. likewise a bullet tend to either be stopped by a vest or goes into a person. it doesnt just “go a little” into someone.
Prof. DM: This is Professor Dungeon Master coming to you from Dungeon University...
Me: Well, let's see how serious is this video.
Prof. DM: ... wearing my +1 Vest of Protection.
Me: *Sweats profusely*
D&D style AC already models damage reduction. Your armor and dexterity contribute to how difficult it is to find an opening in your footwork, parries, shield blocks and gaps in armor coverage. Higher AC means less attacks threaten the life of your character (which means less attacks roll damage which reduces the damage you take).
Hit points, then, represent your luck, stamina and combat experience (martial classes have more hp because they are more skilled fighters) that allow a character to avoid an otherwise injurious or fatal blow that does threaten to bypass their footwork and armor. Once your HP reach 0, a vital blow has finally slipped past your defenses and killed or seriously injured you, removing you from the fight. The descriptions of AC and HP in AD&D 1e and 3e I know for sure explain the system in a similar manner. You are simply unharmed (even if maybe bruised or bloodied and out of breath) if you have hp remaining.
This system paired very well with the versions of D&D with low hit point pools that also used 1 minute as the length of a combat round. The attack roll represented the potential to exploit an opportunity to land a telling blow during the desperate melee swirling around the combatants.
All true. Including the length of the combat round-1 minute. Thanks for sharing!
Ars Magica has arguably the most realistic combat system among fantasy RPGs but also the most cumbersome to implement. Amusingly, back when I still ran games for it, a few players were so annoyed with all the necessary computations that they would often try to avoid combat just so they didn't have to deal with it.
If you enjoy videos like LindyBeige's, may I also recommend a few of my faves:
Shadiversity: th-cam.com/users/shadmbrooks
Skallagrim: th-cam.com/users/SkallagrimNilsson
Metatron: th-cam.com/channels/IjGKyrdT4Gja0VLO40RlOw.html
All these guys are great, can't go wrong here.
Dungeon World has armor damage reduction and as much steps than d&d : roll hack n slash, roll damage, subtract armor.
Thinking the same thing. I think Dungeon World combat is superior to AC
@@stevef7067 D&D has one step less because one does not subtract armor.
@@blablubb4553 D&D has one more step because in DW only the player rolls dice. Additionally, subtracting a single number every time you take damage is hardly going to slow down the game, so I would argue its two steps in DW to four in DnD. But in DW there is no initiative so its even less steps.
@@magnusanderson6681 So in DW the opponents or monsters do not roll to hit the players, nor do they roll damage? The DM never rolls dice? Or is there no DM at all?
@@blablubb4553 In DW, combat does not stop the usual game loop for a "combat minigame". You still go around the table, in no particular order, the players stating what they try and the DM stating the outcome.
When a player *gets into melee with enemy(ies)*, they roll 2d6+STR and evaluate the result. If its 7+, they deal damage. If it is 9-, the monsters attack as well, which usually means the character will take some damage and possibly some other hardships like getting knocked down or pinned against a wall or having to choose between destroying their sword to stop the ogre from smashing your leg.
Naturally, "I wade into the fray, my huge sword sending any who dare attack to an early grave" is only one possibility in combat. The rules specify how some work and lets the DM make something up for others.
In combat the DM often will add a bit of structure from time to time as well, saying something like, "Cleric, you see the Ranger taking a beating from the ogre. But the wizard is only a short distance away and begins to say another incantation. What do you do?" or "You, Wizard, have stood in the back for quite a while. One of the goblins has taken advantage of the chaos to crawl right behind him. You turn around just in time to see it lunging at you with its rusted dagger."
I suppose you could argue in another step if the player rolls a 7-9.
I find the DW rules really interesting, and some of the things it does are even useful for 5e DMs. Combat is not one - it is impossible to run the above because a lot of 5e's character sheet assumes initiative and monsters getting their own turns). Monster design on the other hand it gets near perfectly if you're into that.
The whole rules are available free at book.dwgazetteer.com if you're intrigued.
Not sponsored. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
"Turok is no longer a barbarian. He is now a transient foreigner from a pre-industrial community."
"What you call Turok?! Turok Barbarian of the Barbur Tribe! To say any less is an insult to Turok's ancestors! This will not go unchallenged! Turok seek Vengeance!"
Joking aside, I, along with others, agree the problem lies more in terminology. Armor Class sounds kinda silly when you realize that, well, armor is armor and that certain armor types actually don't exist (or don't exist as they really did). Also armor doesn't make you hard to hit so much as harder to injure. It gets even more jarring when a monk has a higher AC score then a fighter in full plate.
With that said, I understand (and agree with) the importance of the AC mechanic in keeping the game going and preventing the whole session getting bogged down due to everyone's attempt at calculus. If people at your table have a problem with the term, just change the name.
Hell, in my homebrew system, I kept the AC mechanic but changed the name to Defense Class (DC). Kinda made more sense calling it DC, since it doesn't mean how difficult you are to hit so much as how good you are at defending yourself.
If a bard creates a stand up show telling jokes about the Defence Class, will it be called DC Comics?
@@augustoluis6888 Ok, ok. I now dub you as a member of PMs... Pungeon Masters.
I had the same issue with AC. Always have. So far my quick solution is that Light Armor gives the character Resistance to either Slashing, Piercing, or Bludgeoning damage, depending on it’s flavor. Medium bestows 2 of these Resistances, while Heavy Armor gives the character all three of the basic damage types.
Magic Weapons negate this property.
Doesn’t add any extra rolls, just a teeny bit of math & my OCD doesn’t flare up.
Thank you for sharing!
A simple way to reflect damage absorption is through bonus damage determined by the die roll. For each number above the AC, add 1 point of damage.
The problem is that combat in d&d is representational
An "attack" in d&d isn't really the swing of the sword. It's the 6 seconds that surround it.
Your AC is your capability to not be damaged by an attack for whatever reason.
In that case level should affect AC , and not having a weapon should worsen AC.
That’s what more hp represent.
"To Hit" in D&D was never about hitting. It was about damaging. If you look at it as "To Damage", AC makes sense. Many misses in D&D are actually glancing strikes off the armor.
Sadly, HP was never meant to be represented your health, it was meant to represent physical and mental durability, but then weapons, features, traits and spells dealt damage which, yeah, they represent health, and you are correct, but that wording:
"Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile."
In short, WotC has no idea what they want.
@@SmolAnarchy in fairness, this is exactly how things are represented in second edition TSR IIRC…. But you are right, the enormous amount of gamer buffs that apply make that explanation virtually impossible to sell to the intelligent player or DM.
@@Xplora213 Yep. Here is an example of how poorly WotC has written their stuff:
"You create a 20-foot-radius Sphere of fog centered on a point within range. The Sphere spreads around corners, and its area is heavily obscured. It lasts for the Duration or until a wind of moderate or greater speed (at least 10 miles per hour) disperses it."
"A heavily obscured area-such as Darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage-blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the Blinded condition (see Conditions) when trying to see something in that area."
"Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s Attack rolls have disadvantage."
So... because you are in a fog cloud or darkness spell and both creatures have advantage and disadvantage, it cancels it out. Inside the fog cloud, both creatures attack normally, but here is a kicker, you can use ranged attacks 5 ft from you because of this without disadvantage, and also you can use heavy melee weapons as a small creature without disadvantage.
But these rules are so confusing that people argue for several minutes trying to figure it out how it works.
I"ve been playing D&D since 1st addition AD&D...I still learn something new on each video. Thanks for the inspiration.
Over AC = Hit
Way under AC = Miss
Close but still under AC = "glances off armor" or " You get your sword up deflect the blow" or "You take the blow on your shield" or whatever
exactly. And that's why armor adds to AC. Damage absorption doesn't make sense, in spite of what Dr Dungeon Master says... Slashing at plate armor with a sword just means you 'miss' unless you manage to hit a gap. A sword will never cut through plate which is what absorption assumes (it cuts you, just less bad if you weren't wearing it, is the idea). Which is bull. So if an attack misses against AC including armor, but would hit for AC excluding armor, then it is a hit against the armor, but the armor deflected the strike.
@@christopherrowley7506 Replace the sword with a hammer and think it through. Armor does absorb damage, protecting the soft, squishy flesh and brittle bones beneath. When the armor absorbs all the damage, it prevents you from being injured. Which is what you described. This is why AD&D had rules for different weapon effects (slash/pierce/bludgeon) versus different types of armor. (I don't know of anyone who actually used that rule.)
@@themcchuck8400 that's pretty cool that AD&D had that. I'm actually interested in 2e and having been reading through For Gold and Glory, but haven't gotten to combat yet. Yeah I agree it depends on the type of attack. Bludgeoning may absorb damage. I think in general for edged weapons though armor either works or it doesn't. If you check out Skallagrim's test cutting on youtube, things tend to not get through at all, are superficial, or critically serious. Also Tod Cutler's testing of longbow vs armor is pretty enlightening too. You are NOT shooting through a breastplate, but the ricochet may get your throat. And with a heavy bow with a straight on shot, you can easily get through chainmail, but at an oblique angle it might glance off. If you get gut shot with a barbed arrow while wearing chainmail that got punched through, where is the armor absorption? I really like the RPG Mythras which relies on absorption, I think otherwise its combat, hit locations, wounds system, is the best I've seen. So absorption doesn't ruin the game, but it does make it awkward to narrate sometimes. Every hit with an edge weapon is a glancing blow that went around the armor but didn't have the full impact (again you aren't cutting through mail or plate).
Agreed. Rule #1 of any RPG: You're the GM, you make the rules. So sweeping a broadsword at a little girl wearing a pretty dress? Doesn't mean you slice her in half - she could duck, back-flip... whatever. OK - lets say it connects - you hit her. percentage roll to see how effective - no its not in the rule book but Rule #1, remember? Oh look, 07% - you give her a nasty scar on her left arm, she runs off before your plate-armoured butt can keep up, and she'll be back to kill you in about 19 years..... (DM makes notes.... "Think I'll call her Arya") Seriously, used correctly and narritavly, the DM Carte Blanche to make the rules up is not only effective, but necessiary. Too many DM's get caught up sticking to the rules as one player says "But it says on page 184, paragraph 3......" They should reply "And on page one, Paragraph 1 - I AM GOD". The GM / DM is there to keep the story moving for ALL players... if that means occassionally fireballing a rule or two - fine. I always treat combat like watching a martial arts film... just narrate it, the dice are essentially percentage indicators. With level 1-5 characters you HAVE to - they're so delicate. The game is supposed to be 1) FUN 2)Narritive, 3) Rewarding.... getting killed in round one of your first fight sucks, at any level - I've had it more than once. Once players hit level 12+ yeah, they're big enough and hard enough to ACTUALLY play by the rules - but watch how the players cry when they lose - a guy ACTUALLY put a gun in my face when his Cleric died due to a dumb decision on his part.
I was also re-pondering this age-old conundrum recently. Spent several hours on Excel with my DPR formulas and tested out an Armor Damage Reduction scheme. I came up with a table that factored in not only how B,P, and S interacts with armor types, but also historical armor bypass techniques. I made sure that every hit would on average do at least 1 HP of damage, although that damage might be converted from Slashing to Bludgeoning. When I measured how effective the armor was against straight AC, I found that it had improved significantly. So, I factored in that carried weight slows defense and lowered the target AC to correlate, which combined with the armor bypass kept the balance.
The only extra step was that you applied a negative modifier to the damage roll based on the target armor worn (similar to how a Barbarian takes reduced damage in 5e). I avoided defense rolls and hit locations specifically to make it compatible with D&D and not lengthen an already time consuming combat engine.
During the beta-testing with some players... 5e quickly pulled the rug out from under all my work. The game includes as a core mechanic, extra damage dice. Lot's of them (examples too numerous to list). Damage reduction becomes an irrelevant tracking nuisance if you are no longer rolling a single die for damage.
I realized that I'd need to use a percentage reduction, not a number. However, 5e is limited to Resistance (1/2 dam) and Immunity. I could create new Resistance categories; 1/4 & 3/4 pretty easily since they aren't hard to figure out on the fly. After converting the DR numbers into percentages of average damage, I discovered that there were 9 different reduction levels ranging from 16% - 85% damage reduction. Simplifying all of those interactions down to just 3 easy to compute Resistances might be possible, but you've just watered things down significantly.
Conclusion: The juice ain't worth the squeeze. In game design, simplicity is easy, and complexity is easy. The real trick is to get complexity out of simplicity, that's rules elegance and it's the hard part of rules design.
That’s incredible! I have been working towards exactly that goal of realistic complexity/depth out of simplicity for my own personal TTRPG system for years. It includes realistic armor to weapon damage types comparisons just like what you’ve charted. I’d really appreciate a look at the chart you made, if you’d be open to sharing it?
Then there's GURPS. "Why do two steps when you can do ten?"
Its one extra step, the damage multiplier. And its simple. If your going to trash talk another system at least be knowledgeable about that system.
@@dane3038 agreed, this idiot never played gurps
GURPS is my favorite tabletop system by far.
Roll to attack. Enemy gets a save to avoid the attack. Roll for damage. Subtract armor's resistance from damage. _If applicable_, multiply penetrating damage by an appropriate modifier (it's really no different from having things like monsters that take double damage from fire or cold, just acknowledging that things made of conventional fleshy material have a sort of "elemental weakness" to sharp things going inside of them/worse relative armor penetration than their lethality). Subtract from hit points.
It's still only like five steps, all of which _can_ be done in D&D: Evasion Feat, Damage Reduction trait, elemental weakness...just not invoked in _every_ case in D&D.
What is funny is that 5E does have some damage absorption in a feat and when monsters have resistance.
I’ve got this for you professor DM, this system I’ve created balances realism in combat with fun.
The system: The human body is made up of the head, face, neck, shoulders, arms, hands, torso, waist, legs, and feet. 10 vital organs. Often in games I find my players say they swing but don’t specify where they hit the person, this system will allow you to decide based off an extra simple roll ultimately deciding which organ has been struck.
Unarmored AC is 10 by default. In arms and armor you have the Helmet, and gorget (head and neck) Pauldrons, rebraces, Couters, Vambraces, and gauntlets (shoulders, arms and hands) breastplate and faulds (torso and waist) Cuisses, poleyn, greaves, and Sabatons (legs and feet.) Each piece of armor adds +1 to your AC. Meaning someone fully suited in a suit of armor has 20+ AC. If you were to break down a suit of armor to every component of protection you would be very safe in that suite. If an enemy strikes you successfully, you would then have to determine where you were hit. For example if you’re not wearing any armor on the hands. Or not wearing a helmet, there is a good chance an enemy will strike there. You then roll a d10 representing the 10 major organs. The lower you roll, the lower on the human body the strike will be. The higher you roll, the higher the strike will be on the opponent.
Ex:
enemy AC = 15
Player rolls 16 to hit & 5 for the damage roll successfully landing the blow with the sword.
Player rolls d10
Player rolled 10
Player drives the sword through the opponent’s open faced visor instantly killing/incapacitating them.
Enemy AC = 10
Player rolls 20 to hit and 5 to wound critically hitting for double damage.
Player rolls d10 at advantage
Player rolls 8
Player cuts off opponent’s head.
(If player rolled 9 strikes the head, 8 would be the neck, 7 one of the arms, 6 in the hands, 5 in the chest, 4 in the waist, 3, in the thighs, 2 in the calfs, 1 in the foot.)
This extra dice roll which can be rolled with hit + damage + attack all at the same time
Ex:
Enemy AC = 20
Player rolls 16 to hit +4 for strength bonus = 20
Also rolls 6 for damage
Also rolls d10 For anatomy/attack type rolling a 5
Result: Player swings their Warhammer into the Knight’s chest crushing them.
This system is very simple and allows for a more realistic & immersive combat experience. It also takes the control of where the player would want to swing out of their direct control, allowing the DM to fairly decide for the player where they hit, how hard the hit was, and how that affects the rest of the round.
I.e. if someone loses a finger bc an opponent rolled a 7 for damage and an anatomy roll of 6 to the hand, will that effect how well you can hold your sword? Will you swing at disadvantage? If they instead rolled 15 for damage to someone’s hand, is that hand cut off? This extra step brings a lot of layers of dimension to combat instead of it simply being “you were hit.” It’s now; “you were hit in the head with a Maul, your helmet was caved in slightly, you now have a concussion, as part of your skull was split open. now roll at disadvantage for the remainder of the combat.” Or you could say only roll disadvantage on intelligence, wisdom, or charisma checks as you just had your head almost caved in.
Padded armor halves damage from any slash damage. But is vulnerable to blunt and piercing damage.
Plate armor is invulnerable to slash damage, halves the damage from blunt force trauma and is vulnerable to piercing damage.
I remember he addressed that concept on some video but I didn't remember which.
Searching on youtube and google brought back nothing of his, but with some keywords, it suggested your video.
I'm satisfied to find the exact thing I was looking for !
Here's my system for armor as DR in D&D-like games.
Defense and DR
Armor provides DR (half usual AC bonus, +1 if medium armor, +2 if heavy armor)
-> Or use the Dragon Age armor tiers: Light leather DR 1, heavy leather DR 2 (no max Dex bonus) | light mail DR 3, heavy mail DR 4 (max +2 Dex bonus for medium armor) | light plate DR 5, heavy plate DR 6 (no Dex modifier for heavy armor)
Defense is 10 + prof + Dex (limited by armor as usual, as described above)
Attack against Defense and roll damage as normal, reducing damage from the DR. It's not an extra step and the rule is "always declare total damage, let the player apply the reduction from armor"
With the low-hp rules the armor becomes very important to reduce damage '-'
Warrior types have 10 + level + Str mod + Con mod in HP. So, a level 5 fighter with Str 17, Dex 13 and Con 14 has 20 hp and Defense 14 (10 base, +1 Dex, +3 proficiency) or 16 with a shield. Wearing a heavy mail (DR 4) he can protect these few HP he has for a few hits. In these rules a crit adds +1d12 to the normal damage (no matter the weapon), so even a dagger is still scary.
A lot of people have problems with this because they confuse armor with armor class, just as they confuse health for hit points, and rolling to hit to mean they are just swinging their sword. All of these things are simple representations of the complexity of
hand-to-hand combat.
Armor class represents how difficult it is to damage you during the combat, how often a blow is deflected or absorbed by the armor, rather than allowing the character to be hurt. A suit of plate mail is going to afford better protection in that respect than padded armor is. You may get hit just as often, even more so since the plate mail is slowing you down, but the plate is going to stop many hits from damaging you that padded would not.
In the same way that hit points aren't a health bar. They represent not only your stamina, your fatigue, and your injuries, but they also represent how skilled you are in combat and how easily you can turn what would have been a fatal blow into a glancing one. They wear down over time, as your character becomes more tired, moves more slowly, becomes more injured, until finally that eight point blow that should have been fatal but was just a glancing blow at the beginning of combat becomes the blow that puts you down when you are tired and worn out at the end.
A poor attack roll could represent your sword glancing off your opponent's armor or shield, or it could mean your opponent dodged your thrust, or it could represent you not being able to get a good opportunity at all that round to try and damage your opponent. A good attack roll could mean you found a gap in your opponent's armor to thrust your weapon through, or succeeded in knocking his shield away just long enough so you could penetrate his armor on the return swing, or that your opponent stumbled momentarily and gave you the opening you needed to finish him off.
In every game there has to be a line drawn between the complexities of reality, and simplicity and speed of game play.
Lindybeige is right in that D&D's solution does not realistically portray how armor works and hand to hand combat works. It would be very easy to come up with a more complex system that represented it better, but in the end even that system would still be a gross simplification of what goes on in combat. It has to be. And since both are going to be simplifications anyway, I would tend towards the system that offers the easiest gameplay while still providing a satisfying feel to the combat.
In the late 70's and early 80's we all tinkered around with D&D's systems I think. We experimented with armor and weapons being damaged or broken through use. We tinkered around with systems to more accurately reflect the damage that occurs in combat, to add more realism to our games. But truth be told, most of the time while these systems sounded cool and did make things more realistic, they bogged the game down a lot and didn't really make it a better experience.
In the end, it is the stories that we remember, not the game mechanics. It wasn't how realistic a system we put together that led to the scar on my character Mohag's shoulder that was there because his armor had been so damaged that the pauldron failed that we talked about years later. It was the epic battle with the ogres, and how close we all came to being killed, and how the ogre chieftain would have killed the paladin with one more swing just as the ranger saved him with a lucky arrow that just barely rolled high enough to hit but did maximum damage, and the rest of the things we did and the things that happened. I don't remember a single dice roll from that session, but I remember that fight and the things I remember from that fight have nothing to do with game mechanics and everything to do with having a great time with my friends. Those are the things that become the tales told in inns and taverns across the realm, not how realistic the game mechanics are.
The only problem is that when stats get out of hand at the higher levels it looks less like actual combat or even Conan and more like a Kung Fu movie.
Also while melee is abstracted, projectiles, especially ammunition are not.
Oh I agree. 5e has a lot of problems. The characters are so OP that it is very difficult to put them into plausible situations that would actually threaten them. It is a very poorly designed game that is not really true to its roots, but their design now is more that of a medieval superhero game, one where everyone personally possesses almost supernatural powers, and can gain additional superpowers very easily, than a game where people start off barely better off than the peasants around them and have to work hard and struggle to make themselves more powerful.
Yes, projectiles are different in consuming ammunition but they are just as abstract in every other respect. We did tinker around with different ways to handle the ammunition problem to try and make things more realistic that way, because let's face it, you aren't always going to be able to loose that arrow in any given six second burst. You might drop the arrow or it get tangled up with other arrows as you draw it from the quiver. You might not feel confident that you won't avoid hitting your own friends and hesitate. The end of your bow might get hooked on some piece of debris or furniture accidentally and you have to take a moment to get it loose, and god forbid your bowstring break and you have to restring it.
Unfortunately, nothing we ever tried really made things any better, so depleting the ammo on a one-for-one basis was what we stayed with even though it does represent what's going on rather poorly.
If they truly want to fix this game's problems with combat, they really need to overhaul the whole system, starting with the action economy. That wastes far more time than anything else in the game. Six seconds is a very small amount of time for someone to be making as many decisions as they are currently making and taking actions based on those decisions.
In real life, in the middle of a hand-to-hand combat, you would be extremely hard pressed to assess the field, choose where to move, figure out how to get there the safest way possible or weigh the risks of getting there via more dangerous routes, successfully make that move, engage in combat, land a blow, maybe land a second blow or cast a spell, then perhaps move some more, all in six seconds. And what takes your characters six seconds to accomplish takes a lot longer for a player to formulate. Most of the time the player announcing what they are going to do takes longer than their character has to get it all done!
It is the single most broken aspect of combat in my opinion and the one that could be fixed the easiest and make the largest improvement in speed of combat.
@@georgewilson2575 very well put. I thought about having a game where in combat characters use action points like the old Fallout games. Maybe most people get 3 and if you're near level 20 you get 2 or 3 more, but some of those might be only for combat. Then assign each possible task a cost of action points, like moving so many feet takes one, opening a door, using one to up your armor class until your next turn, taking damage, a single shot, etc. Loosing a well aimed arrow or loading a crossbow might cost two points. First aid, putting on armor, moving a heavy rock so many feet, or picking a lock might cost 6 or so.
The problems being that A) I'm not sure what should cost what, and B) It could he complicated. I don't want everyone to have to reference a chart all the time.
That concept is an interesting one.
With a system like that initially there is going to be a lot of chart checking, but I think for most common actions it would become second nature. The ones you wouldn't use quite so often you would probably need a chart for.
I am kind of torn at keeping the number of points low and keeping the costs low for everyone, or increasing the number of points and having variable costs for certain things based on class. I'll have to think about that one some more.
Thank you
How I solved it: Grunthar and the Ogre both roll d20 and add their bonuses. This represents both their attacks and their parry/defense. Whichever gets the superior result damages the other. Armor does have damage resistance but it is general (no hit location involved normally). So there's just three quick steps: both roll and add their mods, winner rolls damage, subtract armor DR, done. Quick, accounts for skillful swordplay, accounts for armor. Like the Professor I keep PC and monster HPs low, and armor DR is modest ranging from 1-6 with the 1-3 being typical.
That's a very cool idea. Thanks for sharing!
I suggest Steve Jackson's newly revised and re-published system called "The Fantasy Trip." It uses a simple "to-hit" roll based on the attacker's Dexterity, and the defender's armor subtracts from the damage rolled. Combat is very straightforward because there are no "Parry" or "Block" rolls to slow things down, though advanced characters can apply a negative to-hit modifier against an attacker in some circumstances, such as using highly skilled Unarmed Combat talents.
While I enjoy the detail of RuneQuest and GURPS if I want to simulate the feeling of a gladiatorial combat that tests differently equipped fighters against each other, the simplicity of the D&D Armor Class system or The Fantasy Trip 3D6 system really speeds up game play. That's why I favor simplicity when playing a tabletop RPG with a group, even though--on my own time--I also enjoy more detailed and realistic combat scenarios between two gladiators/warriors.
I remember that game!
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 -- Glad to hear that you are familiar with it. Please take note that the game system has been revised and is once again available in print. Other RPG TH-camrs such as Jim Murphy (channel by the same name) highly recommend TFT (The Fantasy Trip).
“ Transient Pre-industrial “ has such negative connotations... as the language privileges the settled industrial people by definition.
There goes another phrase!
D&d calculates parry’s, opponents armour, their ability to dodge, if a beam of light hits in your eye if you swing, etc
Calculated in the roll of one 20 sided die for your convenience
Precisely!
And it opens up the possibility for the player to be a storyteller and narrate how every hit or miss happened. I like the abstraction of what hit points, armor, and attack rolls represent.
Also their is advantage and disadvantage that’s at your disposal
I'm with Lindybeige on this one. Just converted my 5e ed. game over to armour as damage reduction and loving it. No extra rolls required, just a little variation to the character sheet as prep.
To be fair, D&D is far from my ideal system. I ran it vanilla far a while, but enough is enough.
I’ve mostly played edge of the empire/genesys from the past, which bases its difficulty to hit off of range (and some special abilities and circumstantial bonuses) and then has an absorption system (soak) which was based on brawn (strength) an what you wear. It didn’t seem to bog things down at all. My only criticism was that they made all the armor piercing weapons (those that ignored a certain amount of soak) with such low pierce values that it was just extra damage, since practically every character had two or three soak.
Soak values actually made area of attack weapons a lot weaker vs armored characters than focused attacks, since they did less damage to each fighter individually. Stormtrooper armor wouldn’t stop a heavy blaster pistol, but it would shrug off a frag grenade.
really? imo, armor either prevents major damage, or it doesnt by and large. damage being “reduced” is more of the exception.
a sword tends not to “bit into the armor just enough to hurt you a little”, but instead goes through or it doesnt go through. and a shell either penetrates a tank, or it doesn’t.
if i were to include damage reduction, id personally only apply it if it hit the dc/armor class exactly.
I highly recommend taking a look at the D20 Everquest game with opposed Attack/ Defense rolls and Armor providing damage reduction. Really sweet stuff.
I enjoy Lindybeige and his work. It's really cool this channel shouts out so amicably.
Considering the Professor streamlines pretty much all mechanics in the game this video is perfectly in line. Good stuff. 👍
I just mentioned Pendragon, which is a variant of Lindy's favored RuneQuest system. Like EverQuest it uses opposed rolls for combat, and armor reduction. IMO, its easier, and more realistic that way.
@@godsmonkey , the beauty of this hobby is that there is no right answer. The rules, to quote Captain Barbossa, are more like guidelines.
@@DjigitDaniel Agreed. For me the opposed system works best. For others, an AC system is fine.
If you're having fun, then the answer is right.
Haha...oh the PC notice regarding what to call the Barbarian. Nice touch .
Thanks! New episode tomorrow @ 6pm, BTW.
Why not both? I've been having some armors like gambesons give soak, and others like plate armor give you AC. Harder to land a damage dealing blow on a heavily armored character, and padded clothing softens hits. And because it was typical to layer armor in real life, character usually have 2 or 3 things of armor, each yielding something the others might not.
The third (?) edition of Steve Jackson's GURPS did both. I believe they dropped it for the fourth ed.
I like the idea of your AC being affected by skill, weapons, and shields giving you a way to avoid being hit while armor only reduces damage should it actually happen.
GURPS has all of this, Passive and Active Defenses
Pathfinder 2e adds proficiency to AC. Great system. Also, 10 over the target number is a crit. Bakes minion rules into the math. Fantastic.
Rolemaster had the "easier to hit, but takes less damage" aspect to its combat system.
VosperCDN was waiting for someone to mention RM or MERP. Also the crits were less the heavier the armor was, whereas less armored opponents would get more severe crits against them if you hit them.
@@a5nelson I like the parry system where you could use a proportion of your attach OB to minus off the opponent's attack. Made you less offensive but could save your neck until your allies arrived. also crits really did hammer those without greaves and helmets.
Ah Lindybeige. He has more in common with WotC than most people realise as we found out from In Search of Hannibal.
They both want you to pay a fortune for a product.
They both deliver trash (Or nothing in Lloyd's case)
They both refuse to apologise or offer a refund.
I like the mechanism in the superheroes game Mighty Protectors. "To hit" is essentially based on agility and any environmental factors such as cover, visibility, etc. Your defensive powers - armor, force field, etc. - have resistance values vs specific damage types, and on a hit you simply subtract the appropriate defense from the damage roll. There's slightly more front-end prep this way in figuring out how to allocate points into your character's defenses, but once the game is underway it manages to be more realistic while still only requiring two dice rolls.
It also depends on which D&D you're talking about. In 3E (or Pathfinder), there were a couple of situational Armor Classes, namely flat footed AC, and touch AC. So then you have the added steps of evaluating which AC to use and calculating AC. While if armor is DR then there is no difference between touch AC and regular AC, because touch AC is your AC without armor. Also flat footed AC just becomes a static number for any given size. Medium creature is a 10, Small is 11, etc.
D&D 5E doesn't have that baggage, but then you have to wonder why armor helps protect you from firebolt, but not fireball. Armor protects you from ray of enfeeblement, even though it doesn't do damage. It doesn't bother me too much in 5E because the system is largely constructed from handwavium, but it isn't internally consistent either.
You can run a lot of things through narrative license, but when it comes to major wounds on PC's, I think it's better to be able to point to the dice as the culprit when someone loses an arm. PC's aren't going to care much if their awesome hit also severs limb, but they might when it's their arm that goes sailing down the bottomless pit.
In the end both ways are valid ways to run games. It really just depends on what kind of game you want to run and how much "crunch" you and your players are into.
Great point about fireboat and fireball. Never thought about that!
I think that's the point. D&D is the "beginner" game(as most plays I talk to started in a D&D game). It should be simple for ease of learning and play. I mean the old 2nd Ed. AD&D book said for 12 and up right on the cover.
I always appreciate your takes on things although I do lean more to the Lindy camp on this idea. Your ideas are always insightful. Keep up the great work Prof.
I don't think it's a beginner game given how complicated other rules can be (often needlessly), just a more well known game.
@@jacobstaten2366 All I meant was it is a "entry" game to the hobby, as most people I have met in gaming have all played(and usually started with) D&D, because of its popularity.
I know "easier"/ less rules heavy game are out there. Thats all I was saying, I guess I was unclear.
@@BobtheOdd fair enough.
In Mystara's Gazeteer "Dawn of the Emperors" box set, for BECMI D&D, there are rules for damage reduction, and "Armor Value". These Rules were oriented to simulate gladiators combats, in the Roman style empire of Thyatis.
I'm with the prof on this one. Back in the day as a teenager when I discovered RPGs the D&D AC bothered me like it does Lindybeige and others. It seems unrealistic at first glance and we all experimented with a lot of ideas to make it feel more "realistic". And I remember Runequest and Pendragon and others.
*But* besides the practical arguments from the prof here there's also more to the original to hit AC and HP idea of D&D that made me eventually circle around and appreciate this system as also quite realistic and armor absorption has its own problems.
1) HP is NOT equal to wounds or being 50% dead after loosing 50% of HP. HP was never meant as just a collection of bruises, bleeding wounds and broken bones.
It's always been a useful abstraction for energy/exhaustion.
If your 60 HP fighter gets hit with 5 points of damage s/he might not be bruised or bleeding at all. It might just have been a strong clash against shield or shield or an exhausting evasive maneuver.
That also helps insofar our Heroes otherwise would be in constant critical condition which is not helpful for "realism".
Only when it comes to the last few HP or especially large damage hits should we assume actual bleeding cuts or serious bruising. And that should be interpreted for RPG cineastic/theatre of mind purposes.
2) Damage absorption runs into problems when we look at low damage weapons vs strong armor. If your knife or dagger only does 1-4 damage and that knights plate mail absorbs 4+ damage we get to ridiculous levels of invulnerability.
But a competent warrior fighting against and armored knight wouldn't try to punch his dagger through the plate, s/he would make feints and quick moves and try to get the blade in weak spots between plates. Which obviously are much harder to hit, but then might do plenty of damage if it gets there.
Thus a lower chance to hit and normal range of damage actually ends up somewhat realistic and sensible. Especially, again, also if we remember that HP and damage are somewhat abstracted combination of actual wounds and exhaustion. A knife fighter against a strong armored opponent plays for time and tries to exhaust the opponent while trying not to get hit by sword/axe/mace counter attacks.
So, with a proper consideration of what HP and damage actually mean and the abstractions involved, the system is not only relatively easy to use but also can create sufficiently realistic effects for the purposes of a RPG.
In the Fuzion d10 system you roll an attack, and if your target is able (as in not vs a missile weapon or attack they can't see et.) they roll as well, whoever is higher wins and the damage is the difference (plus any modifiers), then damage is resolved using a location and armor system in a similar manner. I always thought this was fast, and was a decent simulation of melee combat. It reflects the skill of each participant limiting the damage of their opponent while also making to so parrying is a simultaneous action.
WFRP 4e actually has a good solution to speeding up the generally plodding d100 combat. It makes all combats opposed tests, with the defender able to choose between dodge or the appropriate melee skill. In the latter case, the character who wins the test deals the damage. In addition, if the winner had positive success levels they get "Advantage", bonus success levels that stick around until you fail a roll or take damage.
It makes it so low initiative characters can still contribute to combat by countering, means every round someone is taking damage, and means that characters doing well do better, which is fairly realistic.
This reminds me of Warhammer Fantasy Battles 8th edition. Roll Attacking Wepon Skill vs Defending Weapon skill to hit. Roll Strength vs Toughness to wound. Roll armor saves, or ward saves for armor or magic protection damage negation. Whatever gets through inflicts a wound.
Yep. Warhammer FRP is taken right from the Battle Game, which I believe was modeled on Runequest.
At our table we’ve played Warhammer FRP but substituted the d100% with D6s, like the Warhammer battles game, we love the Warhammer setting & lore, but didn’t really enjoy the d100% system. Anyway, rolling dice pools of D6s is way cooler! ...and everything can just be straight converted, so if in WFRP your ballistics skill is 45, then you have 4d6 dice pool, super easy.
The homebrew "Triumvirate Edition" of Legend of the Five Rings had a neat system: Armor is damage reduction by default, but you can increase the difficulty of your attack roll to ignore it. Whether armor makes someone harder to hit or harder to hurt is up to the attacker. Perhaps it's a slower method, but it's got nice vibes.
Lindybeige & Dungeoncraft? If my life was D&D, two Gods just did battle in the skies.
😁😁😁😁😁
Thanks, Terry. Please share!
While watching this, it made me think about AD&D 2E and THAC0.
One of the most misunderstood aspects of “roll to hit” is that it does not reflect one single action.
A round is 6 seconds. A skilled warrior would be doing a whole lot of things in that time. The “roll to hit” is a simplified system to reflect the moment when a realistic opening presents itself. Of course it may miss, be parried, land but glance of armour or find its mark. That is precisely what the roll vs AC reflects and does so with beautiful simplicity.
Also, AC is a bit of a nostalgic misnomer since it reflects more than just armour. It takes account of all factors that mean a strike doesn’t cause damage.
For me, combat needs pace and pace needs efficient rules. Job done!
That's my problem with multiple attacks. How can a fighter make 10 attacks in a 6-second round. It's impossible (unless they were fencing blades.)
Just roll one die to see if you win the combat. Done Super fast :D
Love Lindybeige's channel, but you are spot on here.
Lindybeige is the best!
How about linking AC with the Proficiency Bonus? This could work like a Parry rule. So AC = Prof + Dex Mod and armor simply reduces damage equal to its AC bonus?
Interesting idea. Thanks for watching!
Love this. I’ve been mentally working through making the players roll all the dice. I was going to make the AC (less the 10) be the Defensive Saving Throw modifier and the DC be 10 + the attack modifier of the NPC. Using your suggestion for Prof + Dex Mod (per the armor type) actually makes sense for the direction I was trying to go. The armor itself acting as damage reduction might help solve another item I’ve been pondering...how to make armor and shields more interesting. Thank you for the inspiration!
@@davidrose7938 Fantastic! I like the way you think. I'm also a fan of the Cypher System, same system as Numenera, because all of the players roll the dice leaving the DM free to narrate instead of always checking rules. It sounds like you may have already read one of the two system, but if you haven't please do. You will likely find a lot of inspiration there. I've also recently encountered a system where armor is purchased in sections. Helm, Torso, Shield, are the three different sections. The different ACs are then added up to create a total Defense. You could do something similar with what you propose if you wanted to add that level of customization to your PC's gear without getting into the full 'Hit Locations' portion of things. In my own homebrew I added Arms and Legs as separate armor sections too.
@@davidrose7938 I like a few systems that use Dex+shield (and combat proficiency in melee) to make you harder to hit, and armor to absorb damage. There's even one (Dungeons & Delvers) where armor makes you a little harder to hit AND absorbs a little damage. But a successful hit always does at least one point of damage, to keep the game going and not disappoint the players.
I LOVED the role aids modules and thats where i saw armor and shields that would soak up hitpoints. Loved that concept
Rolemaster. Do some math up front, roll one d100, compare to a table. (Maybe requires a second roll if you crit.) Rolemaster (realistically) accounts for weapon verses armor, shield parry, hit location, bleeding and more all in one open-ended roll. If simple is better, it doesn't get much simpler than Rolemaster combat. Character generation and advancement in Rolemaster is anything but simple, however, and has limited the system's overall appeal.
I like merp too its basically rolemaster lite! I think there's one called harp which is a similar engine from the same folks maybe it's sci-fi or something.
@@TheGuidermichael - HARP is, reportedly, Rolemaster Lite. There is both a Fantasy and a Sci-Fi set using it.
I'm familiar with both Rolemaster and MERP, having owned them in the past, but never tried HARP. Been heavily considering checking it out for both systems as an interesting alternative. My hesitance has mostly been due to a lack of "monster manual" for HARP. Although you can reportedly use the Rolemaster ones for it fairly easily.
@@NefariousKoel oh yeah monster manual is a biggie. I have both Creatures & Treasures 1 & 2 they are full of great stuff (minus the 'Giant [insert normal animal here]' entries!)
We used to play Merp then Rolemaster back in the 90's. Great systems, even in the rule books are poorly organised.
@@aaronhearst784 - Indeed. MERP was especially messy from what I recall. Even the 2nd Edition was the same level of disorganization.
Now, this is just me but... Fast Pace trumps clunky crunch, sure. What if D&D made the bulk of AC based on Dex and Class Training rather than about armour, and the actual armour bit have the small impact that Dex has these days? Call it Defences or Defence or whatever. It's the same but feels sensible. Let's go further: What if someone rolls to hit, with the bonus being how lethal their Class does with their weapon, and damage is the amount they beat your defences by. Boom. 1 Roll system. These three or four lines are my new 'combat manual' which I'd read over a 300 pg rule book any day of the week. My players 'squeeeee' when they roll and slay, not when they roll and roll and roll and slay. I agree with this vid, and furthermore I think you can make those simple mechanics more real too by flipping them sideways!
I really appreciate the links to competing viewpoints, and as a new DM, but long time player, I’ve watched these videos with my DM’s and the speed of combat has made things so much more exciting. Particularly the recommendation on everyone having two minutes to decide who’s doing what.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
KISS: Keep It Simple Sonny
Exaaaactly.
Depends, if thigs get too simple they also get boring.
If your game is combat oriented (like DND) and all you do is ""ok I roll to hit", it gets really boring really fast.
@@chadsmith8966 That's how they ruined several videogames, dumbing them down and robbing them of their rich content.
We’ve played with a variant AC rule that asks the player how they are going to avoid being hit. If they are dodging then add DEX modifier to AC, if they are trying to parry the blow then add STR (or DEX still if using finesse weapons) or if they are going to block and absorb the blow add CON (but requires a shield).
So now for example you can build a full plate knight carrying shield, who gets disadvantage to dodge because of his heavy armour but would add the armour + shield + CON to their base AC.
Big fan of you and lindybeige.
You both add so much to my home game and my players [same campaign for a year now] come back every week. Thanks you guys!
I think both you and Lloyd are looking at this from very limited points of view. The question is not, "Which of these is better" but rather best seen as, "Which of these is better at providing the experience that I want in my game."
If I were writing a WWII roleplaying game, I might want a game where the shooting skill of each character is important to the game. This would presumably be a very tactical game that focuses on the mechanics of the weapons and the movement of each soldier. I might instead want a game where unit morale is everything, with combat abstracted since most guys with rifles are very much like other guys with rifles in punching small holes in the enemy and everything riding on whether the Sergeant can motivate his men to follow all the way through with the assault on the pillbox. Or maybe I want an entirely roleplaying game of the Yalta conference, where combat isn't even a thing.
The mechanics that support one of these are unlikely to be useful for the others.
From watching your videos, your revealed preferences would seem to be for a game where combat is mostly abstracted and simplified and storytelling is the core of the experience. Lloyd's preferences seem to run (as do mine most of the time) to a game where combat decisions are core to the experience; where it's important to know that Character A stumbled the last time he attacked and is penalized this time as a result, for instance.
Which is to say that your preference for two actions with essentially no detail is appropriate for your game. But Lloyd's preference for combat that explicitly models interesting details of the actions of the characters and spends more time and effort showing these is appropriate for his.
I guarantee that both of these can be fun, though in different ways.
Faster/fewer steps is not necessarily superior, at least not objectively as your statement sounded. That is simply your taste.
My Homebrew system works with opposed rolls from attackers and defenders, specified target locations, and also wounds and wound levels instead of HP and damage. Armor simply lessens the severity of wounds taken by absorbing strikes and lowering the wound level of the injury taken, even eliminating it entirely.
It's very simple while also being very realistic and intuitive so after a single combat scene, it's very easy to remember and go through relatively quickly while achieving much more depth and immersion in fights.
Conan d20 (Mongoose Publishing) has a great combination of AC, Dodge for DEX and Parry for STR, with damage absorption depending on the type of armor. All resolved quickly and efficiently.
Shields, in addition to bonuses for parry strikes, if not used (attached to the back) increase the reduction of back damage.
Worth checking out.
I probably will. I've heard its very well illustrated and Seth Skorkowsky recently did a very thorough review of the system.
Mongoose’s Conan RPG had armor as damage reduction and solved the to-hit roll defense by having a Parry and Dodge score. Parry used the character’s strength bonus and Dodge used dexterity. As a character leveled his Parry or Dodge would increase as per his class. A shield would benefit both Parry and Dodge. Essentially a character had two “Armor Classes” and str or dex benefitted each one respectively.
Why not lump parry and dodge together?
I think you're spot on. I'm running a game for first time players and keeping it simple is of utmost importance. However I narrate the misses above a 10 as hitting the armor but not well enough to do damage. My players seem to enjoy this narrative flavor.
I’m working on an armour as damage-reduction system for B/X D&D. I’ve realised that it only makes sense with a mechanic that keeps HP low. I’m thinking maybe the Con stat score for total HP and using the Dex stat score as ascending AC. That still keeps unarmoured AC at approx 10. This allows for high Dex, swashbuckling fighters to benefit from remaining unarmoured. I’m thinking 3 classes of armour- light, medium and heavy for all types, leather, padded, mail and plate. Maximum Dex limited to 15 for heavy, 16 for medium,17 for light. Taking a leaf from the Target20 system, to hit = d20 + level bonus +mods > or = target Dex score + mods. If hit, damage is rolled normally, Hit creature/character rolls damage reduction based on armour class i.e. d4 for light, d6 or medium, d8 for heavy. Armour is effective.
I want to see a video that explores the question "SHOULD all your rolls be 20?"
Like the American Shooter slogan, "Keep 'em in the 10 ring." That might be expecting a lot depending on a lot of factors.
In a time where people are more than likely going to be new to D&D the path of least resistance is always going to be the best. You win this time, Professor.
I love the shoutout to Lindy, dude is great.
Waaaay back in the early 1980s, we didn't really understand the B/X rules, so we didn't even bother to make attack rolls. We made combined hit points and armor class into one number. Each round, you just rolled damage. We just assumed that low damage rolls meant you didn't land a blow, but your foe lost HP by expending energy in dodging or parrying the blow. It was fast and fun, and I've been thinking of resurrecting it in some form.
I personally turned AC into a generic "defence" score which just straight reduced damage. I also added in the assumption that if you're spending your action, you are not getting the chance to hit but committing to a blow. The skill comes in with how many hits can you land in the same time a less-skilled martial character can only land the one. Instead there's just a simple damage roll, subtract the enemy's defence, that's how much damage you've taken, next turn. It works very well for the very low numbers in my custom system and my dyslexic players love it because less math is a win for them. However converting 5e specifically to it could be a bit harder, and it would have the same trouble of d4 weapons being even less desirable. My system is d6 based, hence why it works.
Your right. Your anser did suprise me; given you usually tend to want to change things from raw.
As for parrying, I would say it uses your reactuon, which you only get one of per round.
It's also a matter of nairation.
For targeted shots, and discribing how you attack; I would dicribe it in detail at first, then drop of the flavor once it's been established.
In my modified 3.5 rules, the AC rating is changed to Damage Reduction. I use "defense" instead that is calculated by adding 10+ Dexterity Bonus+ Heroic Level+Size Modifier+Natural Armor (if any but in name only because it more so represents a natural ability to avoid being hit)+Magical bonus. To me, it makes sense that as a character progresses their heroic level adds to their ability to avoid damage because it reflects their experience with combat.
Here's a simple D&D system that uses opposed rolls:
All combatants have a set number of skill levels (and combat bonuses from DEX) that they divide between Offense and Defense.
To attack: roll a d20, add levels saved for that purpose.
To defend: roll a d20, add levels saved for that.
If it results in a hit, roll damage.
Subtract armor from damage and apply to HP.
I think the original "sin" is hit points and how they escalate. Everything in DnD scales to account for this. If players had static hit points or vastly reduced scaling, then a DR/soak system for armor could work well.
Good point!
It's worth mentioning that Runequest does NOT scale hit points.
well you could still keep it simple and just have AC based on Dex only, and armor has damage reduction. So your still rolling to see if you hit and roll for damage, the only extra step is subtracting the damage reduction. doesn't really seem like that big of a deal..
I dm for 5e and I thought of a way to interpret armour class.
Depending on the type of armour the character uses they use their reaction to make a strength or dexterity save to see if they dodge an attack or absorb the hit/bounces off their armour
Alternatively the character can make an attack roll to see if they block the blow. Based on which they choose I narrate the result differently
When an attack roll fails I say the blow bounces of your armour or you dodge out of the way or you blocked the blow
Thanks for sharing!
I'm creating a RPG system that ignores the AC altogether. The players have a larger pool of Hit Points and ever attack hits. Armors and shields (or spells, or other abilities) may rise the total of HP.
I always thought of HP more as your total stamina to keep fighting and AC represents whether the weapon was able to connect to flesh or hit the armor itself, even if just pushing armor hard into you. Thusly a critical is when you actaully stab THROUGH the armor and other defenses to deal a mortal wound.
Iron Kingdoms used the same rules for combat that they used in Warmachine and Hordes and I am a big fan of it. You use your attack value, either ranged, melee or magical, and roll against a targets defense. Small, fast creatures have high defense, large, slow ones have low defense. If the attack hits, then you roll for damage, using the strength of the attack versus the targets armor. However much the strength + roll exceeds the armor is how much damage is dealt. That nimble little sprite might have twig armor so it can dodge hits but not take them, while a huge juggernaut might get hit constantly but take little damage to it's iron hull. It's simple but works really well in practice and also theme.
I always liked the Defense bonus in Star Wars d20. Armor gives DR and makes you slower, and the defense is a by product of your class. The more "combate oriented" the class, the more defense it gets.
It's a great idea.
I like the idea of adding the proficiency bonus to AC. Might work better if all ACs in the game were lowered by 4. Also, maybe use PB from 4e, so PB = half your level, rounded down.
It works until ACs get too high. They should be 18, max.
Interesting side note, Arneson & Sniders' Adventures in Fantasy combat system (1978) does have a skill comparison like what you describe, you can also factor in height differences etc. to determine the chance to hit. Armor has a chance to absorb or negate some damage. It's fiddly, but maybe a bit less so than Runequest.
I know it's very trendy to talk about how heavy the armor worn by knights was and how slow it would make a person… However I've also seen HEMA fans wear it. They move just fine. The weight is very evenly distributed and it doesn't take much to get used to it, I'm told.
I grew up in a world where D&D may as well not have existed - it was all RQ and similar systems.
AC is one of the reasons I prefer D&D.
In Runequest you get what we in Sweden derisively call ping pong combat:
I hit! No I parry!
I hit! Parry!
Hit! Parry!
And nothing progresses…
Index Card RPG! Yeah! Great video once again friend.
The Harmaster RPG does hit location well -- modified opposed d100 skill rolls determine who gets hit and how hard, then roll damage + hit location, subtract armor value and see what kind of graphic wound is inflicted. No HP, but wounds like Grievous Stab, etc. with bleeding and shock effects. Great system!
Bloat Games has one coming out where armor just reduces damage. You still take a minimum of one. You number to hit based on the evade number.
That's an interesting idea. Thanks for dropping a comment!
I tend to agree with Lindy... RQ fights aren’t really any longer and are much more thrilling (and scary) than D&D fights at any skill level. If I’m a 90hp fighter, I don’t care that the two Orcs just hit me with back-to-back “lucky” to hit rolls for a total of 15 damage. In RQ, I’m concerned when I take 2 point of damage! Also, “special” and “critical” hits mean death hangs on every attack roll and fumbles can turn the tide either way in one roll.
All that and I haven’t mentioned the “aimed bow shot that scores a critical and silently takes out the sentry.” Abilities like that allow the integration of combat and storytelling...
Thank you for this video. I am new to D&D (only played 5e but learning some 2e rules in Baldur's gate) and AC was a troubling rule to me. I found it hard to understand that heavy armour and DEX both boost the same stat. But I came to the same conclusion as you: simplicity is king. The outcome of being hard to hit (agility) and being resistant to a lot of damage (high defence from armour) comes out to meaning the same thing so may as well merge them for simplicity, even if the naming of that state is also confusing. Glad to see there is a large discussion about this very point already going on.
I think that a dual system is interesting, casual encounters should be solved with simply rules, but a final scene battle deserves more detailed moves and take more tests.
I agree.
Nope. By your logic, the superior system is Tunnels and Trolls, where each side makes one combat roll, then the loser takes the difference in damage. (And guess what--it STILL uses damage-absorbing armor! Nyah!)
Simpler isn't necessarily better. Simpler is (by necessity) more abstract. Simply flipping coin to see who wins would be simpler, but not better and certainly LESS satisfying (unless you really wanted a "beer and pretzels" rpg--which is a whole 'nother issue.)
And I think you're doing a big disservice not just to Runequest but to "opposed rolls": lots of systems have separate Offense and Defense Rolls.
However, I will agree with your points on complexity (in general) and Hit Locations (specifically.)
The big problem that I have with D&D and Pathfinder is that they don't have a strong, clear, consistent game mechanic--it's kludgy all over the place with a special rule for this, that, and the other thing. And armor class is the worst offender of the bunch. You picked a strange one to defend, sir. Armor Class? Really?
I tend to agree with you.
A really simple game would just be one attack/DG roll and an armor class simply subtracting from that number. Personally I like the idea of weapons, skill and shields being your AC while armor just reduces damage done.
Pathfinder 2 adds your training/proficiency to your defense, armored or unarmored. Its such an easy and intuitive rule that It still baffles me how 5e didnt go that way.
Theres also the wound system for each time you go down, so no more heal shennanigans. The critical hit/ fumble deck is also pretty cool.
This video is fascinating. I really enjoy it.
@Lindybeige, thanks for your input - I am taking notes.
There is a reason why I really enjoy HeroQuest's combat system (yes HeroQuest 1989 from MB and GW). The system is asking you to roll a number of dice for attack which represents how well you handle a weapon, and the target rolls dice for defense.
The Defense Roll covers everything all at once ; your natural defense (Agility, Reflex, Dodge, Parry) and the bonus defense (Shield, Armor, Deflection capacity + Damage Reduction). The result is the following ; it gives you the **aftermath of battle**.
Each character (hero) actually starts with 2 ''Defense Dice'' as their natural ability to dodge hits and swings.
After that, whatever piece of armor they might be wearing will allow hits to graze their protection, or in the worse case to hit a good unprotected spot.
Then, there's Advanced HeroQuest that suggests are real good combat system as well. The better your Weapon Skill is, the lower you need to roll for accuracy (to-hit). Provided that your enemy has a lower mastery of their weapon, they will be easier to hit. However, if your enemy is better than you, you will need to roll higher to hit them, requiring more effort, more focus. I found that this is actually an excellent system that represents well real-life combat simulation.
Here is how I resolve other things in battle :
Any projectile thrown (Arrows, or Fireball, or Ray of Frost, Bolas, or Shuriken) is compared with Agility/Reflex/Quickness
Any mind control ability, or psionic attack is compared with Mind/Wisdom/Intelligence
Anything that threatens the body is compared to Vitality/Constitution/Endurance.
The two big questions to ask are the following :
1 - How well did you perform your ability or attack ?
2 - How well the opponent can perform his or her ?
Those are what I call Performance Rolls.
A high performance will be much harder to escape or counter.
I personally prefer damage reduction for armors, and any other ability to attempt dodging.
I like the soak / defence split in Fantasy Flight's Star Wars game (and Genesys too I assume). That game consolidates attacks into 1 roll for each attacker or 2 if they crit. It also allows you to represent both a character being tougher to actually pin down and hit AND characters' ability to shrug off damage.
For DnD I want to use a slight variant that takes into consideration the bonuses you get from dex and from armor and other bonuses.
The attack roll against a target looks at the overall AC. If it beats the AC the target takes full damage. If the roll does not but beats the targets AC minus the Dex/dodge bonuses then the target takes damage minus the armor's AC bonus representing a deflection.
The only issue comes down to is determining what bonuses to AC apply in which way. I see it as dodge bonuses and deflection bonuses.
Dodge bonuses are bonuses that include the character moving their body in some way to evade the attack. Deflection bonuses are any bonuses that would deflect or absorb the attack.
I agree. Realism != Better. This is a game. The goal doesn't have to be (and to some, shouldn't be) realism. In fact, a ruleset that attempts to simulate realism leads to more complexity, and in many people's opinion, less fun.
Remember Advanced D&D had weapon modifiers depending on the armor of the target that simulates absorption...example whip vs plate mail even harder to hit
It's all descriptive. A full plate armored fighter blocks blows and challenges them head on while a dex fighter parries and dodges.
True.
While DR (damage reduction) is a fun mechanic, and it's intuitive. But it isn't actually realistic, damage doesn't decrease the amount you get hurt, like a magic spell making your sword wounds into papercuts, but it doesn't it simply redirects damage away from you. When a sword hits your armor, if it's any good you shouldn't take damage. Actual hits on an armored character happen when you hit someone where they're unarmored. There are multiple specific weapon techniques based around getting around someone's armor, like arnis from the philipines.
I'm designing a game right now that uses simple combat armor. You have health pool. And you have armor pool.
During combat players roll attack and dmg. And their roll determines if baddies hit them, if they both hit each other. Or if they hit enemy.
The players choose where the damage goes.
And that's it.
The problem with armor class isn't the mechanic. It's the name.
Call it "Defense Index."
Solved.
yeah but it seems the term is stuck in the zeitgeist of the game. I think the d20 starwars game from years back used defense instead
This argument reminds me of THAC0, and why I agree with it's removal from D&D. THAC0 is To Hit Armor Class 0(zero), AC originally being on a descending scale rather than the ascending scale we use today. so you have a target number for AC 0, say 15. You then subtract your targets AC, say 3 for scale armor and shield, from your THAC0, so 12 to hit, then you add your to hit bonuses, say +2 from your strength 15 (It was different back then, don't ask) for a Target number of 10.
Then they brought in Base Attack Bonuses and reversed the scale on Armor Class, So AC 3 became AC 17 and THACO 15 became Base Attack Bonus +5, With a +2 Bonus to Attack from Strength you're still rolling a 10 or better to hit. But the Math is simpler and quicker. And the game is faster.
Great video. Honestly I would have attacked the premise. AC does not necessarily mean you did not get hit it means you did not take damage. I imagine heavy armor takes a few ringing hits in a good combat but prevents injury. No additional rule needed. It is simply a matter of how you flavor the narration.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment!
I've used Armor AC bonus as Damage Reduction for 20 years. I also use Vitality & Wound points , armor only effects wound points.
90 minute D&D session?!
“Pizza delivery man arrives”
Professor DM: “take it back, we’re done”