PDA

View Full Version : Flavor text, attack rolls, and AC bonuses



Random832
2009-07-23, 09:50 AM
Do you go to the effort to determine how much an attack fails by to determine whether it missed entirely, was dodged, or glanced off of armor, or do you simply say "It misses"? If you do, what order do you put these in?

Possible order:

Shield bonus - if missed by that, say it was blocked with their shield
Armor bonus (including enhancement bonuses on armor) - obviously, if a touch attack would have hit, say that it hit the armor but glanced off harmlessly
Natural armor bonus - Same as for armor bonuses but make reference to scales or tough hide instead.
Dodge bonuses or Dex bonus - say the character moved out of the way
Attack failed by more than that (incl. size modifier) - it simply missed entirely

If an attack penalty causes the attack to fail, say e.g. "He seems unaccustomed to his weapon - fortunately for you; that would have hit you"
Temporary HP, Damage Reduction, etc...

Rhiannon87
2009-07-23, 10:52 AM
I try to remember to do this, but often in combat (especially with multiple enemies) it's easier to just say "You missed." If there's something like DR or fast healing involved, I'll try to hint at that-- "Your weapon hits, but it doesn't seem to do as much damage as it should" or "The creature's wounds start closing up almost as soon as you make them".

That order of AC seems fairly accurate, too. We generally make a distinction between someone failing to hit the fighter with an AC of 30 (the attack hits her armor, but does no damage) and the armor-less rogue with an AC of 27 (he ducks under the weapon and avoids it entirely).

FMArthur
2009-07-23, 11:20 AM
I would check against AC in this order:

couldn't clear 10 (minus any dex penalty): learn to use that weapon properly!
didn't clear 10 + size: she's just too small to hit!
didn't clear 10 + size + dodge: defender just steps out of the way
didn't clear 10 + size + dodge + Dex: defender shifts stance / bends out of the way
didn't clear 10 + size + dodge + Dex + deflection: the blow glances off (depends on the deflection's source)!
didn't clear 10 + size + dodge + Dex + deflection + shield: defender blocks with the associated item in time
didn't clear 10 + size + dodge + Dex + deflection + shield + armor: defender didn't do anything, but her armor protects nonetheless
didn't clear 10 + size + dodge + Dex + deflection + shield + armor + natural: the tough skin/scales deflects the blow harmlessly

Did I miss anything?
Anyway, a full list of checks is far too much wasted time unless you can automate it. What I use is this:

Attacker couldn't clear 10 (minus any Dex penalty): Keep practicing, buddy...
Attacker couldn't clear defender's touch AC: Defender dodges
Still couldn't clear AC: The blow can't get through the defender's defenses.
Beat AC: You hit!

mcl01
2009-07-23, 11:29 AM
Wis/Int/Con bonuses to AC from other classes? :smallconfused:

FMArthur
2009-07-23, 11:32 AM
Wis/Int/Con bonuses to AC from other classes? :smallconfused:

I'd lump any other stats in with your dodge bonus... except Con, which I'd have to put at a natural armor level, I guess.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-23, 12:28 PM
Anyway, a full list of checks is far too much wasted time unless you can automate it.

Actually, a while back I did just that--I wrote a program where you put in the AC of a creature and the sources of modifiers, and when you put in an attack result it'll tell you what you should describe it as; it had the ability to mix it up a bit, too, so if a creature had +2 natural armor and +3 Dex and someone missed by 1, for instance, it would give either result, leaning toward the Dex as more probable.

Random832
2009-07-23, 12:32 PM
All you really need is a table, which you can probably prepare in advance in most cases.

AstralFire
2009-07-23, 12:38 PM
I come up with a descriptor for each miss, but I do not come up with any sort of detailed table or system for doing that based off of their various levels of AC. That just takes too much time.

Miss by 1 to 5: Describe some sort of near miss or glancing blow off of armor.
Miss by more: Describe some sort of clear miss.
Miss by a lot more: Describe epic fail.
Miss by even more than that: ((Guys, I warned you that this was a bad idea.))

John Campbell
2009-07-23, 01:42 PM
The problem with this method is that, in the D&D combat system, a significant portion of defense - the defender's actual fighting ability - is not included in AC at all, but is abstracted into that black box called "hit points". You really don't want to look inside that box.

Random832
2009-07-23, 01:46 PM
The defender's actual fighting ability - is not included in AC at all, but is abstracted into that black box called "hit points".

I would dispute that. The defender's ability to dodge attacks etc is included in the AC as the dex bonus. The only thing that can be in the "hit points" box (other than actual health) is the defender's awesomeness.

This is why O-Chul has so many hit points.

AstralFire
2009-07-23, 01:55 PM
The problem with this method is that, in the D&D combat system, a significant portion of defense - the defender's actual fighting ability - is not included in AC at all, but is abstracted into that black box called "hit points". You really don't want to look inside that box.

One of the many reasons I prefer a method that is only remotely methodical.

Deepblue706
2009-07-23, 04:08 PM
When describing attacks, I usually just explain it by what suits my whim, and doesn't contradict the mechanics of the target in question. Really, I don't think we're meant to think that hard on it.

Blue Ghost
2009-07-23, 04:16 PM
I do something like this. But if the opponent is wielding a shield, I would describe any attacks that fail to clear the dodge bonus as being blocked by the shield, because if you're wielding a shield, it would make more sense to utilize your shield than to try to dodge blows.

Darcand
2009-07-23, 04:24 PM
The only time I bother to really explain why attacks aren't landing is when the target is doing something out of the ordinary to avoid them, i.e. Fighting Defensively, protected by Mage Armor, or using a Crystal of Arrow Blocking. Nothing is more frustrating for a player then when their character can't see why their efforts are failing.

warrl
2009-07-23, 04:44 PM
Unless an attack is specifically targeting a certain piece of weapon or armor, I'd say it's all of a package - but you are free to make up whatever flavor you want.

It is NOT necessarily true that a shield block makes more sense than a dodge. In fact, in the case of a buckler I'd say it's more often the other way around.

Yet... if, say, an attack DOES bounce off the buckler, was it because the dodge effort failed? Or because an extremely similar display of dexterity succeeded and got the buckler into the proper place?

If it gets through to the armor - maybe the dexterity bonus and buckler change where the impact occurrs so that the blow slides off and does no damage. Or maybe the armor really does the job on its own.

There is nothing in the rules to dictate this. The rules only say that the attack missed. The rest is up to the player and DM.

So if you want to apply armor class points in a certain order, go right ahead. There's nothing in the rules to stop you - and if there were you could houserule it anyway.

Me, if I were creating a rule system for that (really I would just wing it) I'd start with the character's innate abilities (base, class/level bonus, dexterity bonus) and then go from the outside in: dodge, shield, armor, natural. Untyped bonuses of vague attachment go in whatever place seems like it would make sense or be the least bother or create nice effects.

kamuishirou
2009-07-23, 04:47 PM
The problem with this method is that, in the D&D combat system, a significant portion of defense - the defender's actual fighting ability - is not included in AC at all, but is abstracted into that black box called "hit points". You really don't want to look inside that box.

I agree. All of my descriptions of what happens with a blow is from the damage. The attack just tells me if it hits or not. Especially when it's the killing blow.

edit: Oh, and the misses do get described as appropriate. So those use the attack roll :).

AslanCross
2009-07-23, 06:16 PM
I usually just use the most prominent AC source. When the monster has a deflection bonus, though, I typically describe that first as it's a way of telling the players that it may have magic.

AstralFire
2009-07-23, 06:29 PM
I usually just use the most prominent AC source. When the monster has a deflection bonus, though, I typically describe that first as it's a way of telling the players that it may have magic.

Never thought of that before. Good one.

Skorj
2009-07-23, 06:32 PM
The only time I bother to really explain why attacks aren't landing is when the target is doing something out of the ordinary to avoid them, i.e. Fighting Defensively, protected by Mage Armor, or using a Crystal of Arrow Blocking. Nothing is more frustrating for a player then when their character can't see why their efforts are failing.

This. Flavor text is important when the opponent's AC is higher that the player would assume. Some explanation should be forthcoming. Otherwise combat flavor text is just repetitive and unnecessary (especially for mooks).

AstralFire
2009-07-23, 06:33 PM
This. Flavor text is important when the opponent's AC is higher that the player would assume. Some explanation should be forthcoming. Otherwise combat flavor text is just repetitive and unnecessary (especially for mooks).

I don't know if I'd agree with that. If you're taking a really long time doing it, sure, but if you can fire it away fast I find it really does help to keep combat feeling epic.

Lamech
2009-07-23, 06:56 PM
How do you guys describe temp hp?