Simple combat defense roll for players, does this work?

[vgunn]

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


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


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


5+11-4=12


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


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


Would this work?


What should the maximum Melee score be?


How do you come up with the Melee score?

[viking vince]

I have been hanging my hat on 1e for over 30 years and I have no idea what a "Melee score" is.

Of course, I don't find the BtB system difficult. Roll to hit, modify, check the table to see if you hit. How is that complicated?

[JBPuffin]

I have been hanging my hat on 1e for over 30 years and I have no idea what a "Melee score" is.

Of course, I don't find the BtB system difficult. Roll to hit, modify, check the table to see if you hit. How is that complicated?

I think it's something they've proposed as part of this system; it's also asked what the best way to calculate it would be.

[vgunn]

Of course, I don't find the BtB system difficult. Roll to hit, modify, check the table to see if you hit. How is that complicated?

Melee is just base attack + any combat bonuses.

Trying not to use a table.

[vgunn]

I think it's something they've proposed as part of this system; it's also asked what the best way to calculate it would be.

Yes. I want to try to keep monster stat blocks the same, just change to ascending AC.

[Lord Torath]

There are a bunch of RetroClones for D&D/AD&D/2E AD&D that have ascending AC. For Gold and Glory is one. Yora (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?43976-Yora)'s Signature has a whole list of them.

[Thrudd]

So how are you doing combat? Since the monster's HD is factored into the defense roll, I'm guessing this roll would replace the monster's attack roll? That means players roll attacks in the normal way, D20 plus attack bonus against the monster's AC? Damage is rolled the same way, and armor has a damage reduction value? Does the player automatically make a separate roll for every attack against them, or do they get limited defense actions?

It seems like this is giving characters with no armor an unnecessary advantage in combat - enemies will have a really hard time hitting them at all, which doesn't make a lot of sense. If armor is going to be damage reduction instead of altering the chance of being hit, then don't factor it into the roll at all. The difficulty of the defense roll should increase due to monster combat ability and decrease due to character combat ability and maybe dexterity. Have a penalty to dexterity that heavier armors apply, if that's really what you want to do. However, I don't think it's terribly realistic to do this - wearing armor does not really make it much or at all easier to hit someone, provided the armor wearer is strong enough and in good enough shape (as any character with armor proficiency would be).

Having armor in combat is always better than not having armor, period. That can be represented different ways. If you want a game that's more super-heroish, and you want armor to mainly be an aesthetic choice and not required for combat effectiveness, then don't factor it in at all - just give characters a defense score based on class, level and ability scores.

[vgunn]

There are a bunch of RetroClones for D&D/AD&D/2E AD&D that have ascending AC. For Gold and Glory is one. Yora (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?43976-Yora)'s Signature has a whole list of them.

Thanks, I will take a look at the list!

[vgunn]

So how are you doing combat? Since the monster's HD is factored into the defense roll, I'm guessing this roll would replace the monster's attack roll? That means players roll attacks in the normal way, D20 plus attack bonus against the monster's AC? Damage is rolled the same way, and armor has a damage reduction value? Does the player automatically make a separate roll for every attack against them, or do they get limited defense actions?

Yes. something along those lines for attack. Yes, the players rolls every time for defense.


It seems like this is giving characters with no armor an unnecessary advantage in combat - enemies will have a really hard time hitting them at all, which doesn't make a lot of sense. If armor is going to be damage reduction instead of altering the chance of being hit, then don't factor it into the roll at all.

A couple things. Not getting hit as often is fine, until you do. Then there's nothing but skin and cloth between you and the weapon. You'll want/need protection.

A high level knight in full plate going up against a barbarian lord in nothing but fur may look like it favors the one not being penalized for wearing heavy, bulky armor. But I'd wager the knight will win most of the time.


The difficulty of the defense roll should increase due to monster combat ability and decrease due to character combat ability and maybe dexterity. Have a penalty to dexterity that heavier armors apply, if that's really what you want to do.

I'm not married to anything at this point, so certainly it is something to consider.


However, I don't think it's terribly realistic to do this - wearing armor does not really make it much or at all easier to hit someone, provided the armor wearer is strong enough and in good enough shape (as any character with armor proficiency would be).

Here I disagree. Take the same fighter and mirror image them. But one in light armor and the other in heavy. The fighter in heavy armor will be easier to hit, but harder to wound.


Having armor in combat is always better than not having armor, period. That can be represented different ways. If you want a game that's more super-heroish, and you want armor to mainly be an aesthetic choice and not required for combat effectiveness, then don't factor it in at all - just give characters a defense score based on class, level and ability scores.

I agree that having armor is much better than not having any. No argument there.

[vgunn]

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

[Thrudd]

Here I disagree. Take the same fighter and mirror image them. But one in light armor and the other in heavy. The fighter in heavy armor will be easier to hit, but harder to wound.
What evidence are you basing that on? I don't think it's true. Harder to wound, of course. What makes them easier to hit? Encumbrance from armor in real life is not that extreme. It can be heavy, but the weight is distributed, and it is designed so as not to impede your ability to move your arms and legs (which are the most important factors in not getting hit). Unless you count hitting the shield as the person "getting hit" - then I'd agree that people with shields "get hit" way more often than those without. The much greater factor in not getting hit is one's fighting skill. I'd agree that someone severely encumbered/weighed down should have penalties in fighting, both attack and defense - but just armor by itself is not enough to cause that. Unless your game features armor types and materials different from the real world that are much heavier.

I don't think the scaling fatigue penalties are super realistic either, at least not for people who train and fight regularly in armor (those classes which are allowed to wear armor) and have suits of armor which fit them properly. In addition to being not realistic, I think keeping track of different accumulating penalties on all the characters would be a pain in the butt and not worth it (if the players even remembered to do it).

How much are you planning to have armor reduce damage? Another thing to consider before implementing this sort of thing is how it will affect the length and flow of combats. If you make it too easy for characters to avoid being hit or let them ignore too much damage, fights are either going to be very easy for the players or boring and drawn out for everyone as you go back and forth with nobody hitting anything, and when they do their damage gets reduced.

I think you should take some actual numbers for this system and run a bunch of simulations with characters of different classes and levels against different enemy types. See whether it gives results you expect and want and that make sense. Also note how many rounds fights last and how often there is no damage being dealt or taken. Are they within acceptable limits for an exciting game? Does the full-plate knight actually win against the unarmored barbarian most of the time? Does the fighter with armor usually beat the one without, when both are identical in other respects? How do you even deal with PC vs PC combat?

[vgunn]

@Thrudd

Here is a good article: http://www.benjaminrose.com/post/mobility-in-medieval-plate-armor/

How would we model this in a roleplaying game?

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

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

Video about how tiring it is to wear plate armor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9s9F3XNOALA#t=223s

And continued here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[vgunn]

@Thrudd,

For PVP. I would do something similar to Pendragon RPG.

If two people are in a challenge, or otherwise comparing or using their values against each other, each must roll and compare results. If only one Succeeds or Critically Succeeds, they win the opposed resolution. If both players Succeed, the one who rolled higher wins. If both Fail, there is no immediate result, though players can continue to challenge each other in subsequent actions. If both Fumble, there is also an impasse, though with much more embarrassing or humorous impacts. If In combat, if both Critically Succeeds each will take damage.

[Thrudd]

@Thrudd

Here is a good article: http://www.benjaminrose.com/post/mobility-in-medieval-plate-armor/

How would we model this in a roleplaying game?

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

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

Video about how tiring it is to wear plate armor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9s9F3XNOALA#t=223s

And continued here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure, a full minute of fighting is exhausting, even if you aren't wearing armor, even unarmed. Swinging around a weapon and shield in that time makes it even moreso. I would like to see them fight for two minutes without the armor and compare how much less exhausted they'd be (my guess is, not much, assuming they were exerting themselves realistically).
The 1 minute combat round is a conceptual problem with 1e AD&D, imo. As they also noted, most fights don't last that long. Which means, to be a better model, most AD&D combats should end in one or two rounds, expecting most characters to go down after one or two hits, max. I suppose having more than 1 or 2 HP should be regarded, in this case as an extraordinary person. But shouldn't those extraordinary people (aka all PCs) also have extraordinary endurance, in order that they have the slightest chance of winning against the extraordinary monsters they are fighting?

Alternatively, change to the Basic D&D model, or 2e and later model - 10 second or 6 second rounds. Now, the PCs can appear as closer to "normal" people at lower levels, and have them begin to accrue fatigue penalties after 6 or 10 rounds of combat. That seems more reasonable to me for playability purposes.

IMO, however, HP already models fatigue according to the abstract model that D&D combat follows. There doesn't need to be any accruing penalty to keep track of, when the character gets to zero HP, it means they were too fatigued from exertion and/or injury to keep up defense with the enemy and received a serious wound.

If you want the fatigue penalty, apply it to everyone/anyone engaged in melee. However, once again, test this out with simulations. I would worry that it will exacerbate an already slowed-down combat with even less chance of hitting.

[Knaight]

Sure, a full minute of fighting is exhausting, even if you aren't wearing armor, even unarmed. Swinging around a weapon and shield in that time makes it even moreso. I would like to see them fight for two minutes without the armor and compare how much less exhausted they'd be (my guess is, not much, assuming they were exerting themselves realistically).
The 1 minute combat round is a conceptual problem with 1e AD&D, imo. As they also noted, most fights don't last that long. Which means, to be a better model, most AD&D combats should end in one or two rounds, expecting most characters to go down after one or two hits, max. I suppose having more than 1 or 2 HP should be regarded, in this case as an extraordinary person. But shouldn't those extraordinary people (aka all PCs) also have extraordinary endurance, in order that they have the slightest chance of winning against the extraordinary monsters they are fighting?

The armor doesn't help, but it also doesn't change the fact that a minute is a long fight - two defensive fighters fighting with weapons that lend themselves to a defensive style in a dueling situation might go for two to three minutes. Changing any of these factors makes things more hectic and tends to make things end faster, particularly increasing the number of combatants on each side.

[vgunn]

Sure, a full minute of fighting is exhausting, even if you aren't wearing armor, even unarmed. Swinging around a weapon and shield in that time makes it even moreso. I would like to see them fight for two minutes without the armor and compare how much less exhausted they'd be (my guess is, not much, assuming they were exerting themselves realistically).

If you want the fatigue penalty, apply it to everyone/anyone engaged in melee. However, once again, test this out with simulations. I would worry that it will exacerbate an already slowed-down combat with even less chance of hitting.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned perhaps a perk (just for fighter-type classes) that allows you to go 2 rounds before applying the penalty.

For sure I've got to test it.