Justification for AC?

[Raenir Salazar]

The mechanic if I am not mistaken is the higher ones AC the higher the chance that the enemy will miss.

But what about the fatc that Heavy armour is what contributes to this? Shouldn't Heavy armor be DR not makign you more nimble?

[Alteran]

The justification is that with stronger armour you can ignore lighter hits. Whether or not this is accurate is another question entirely.

[Drider]

what I do is say that, "it hits you, but the armor absorbs it all, lucky you, your friend is decapitated and explodes cause he saved 20 gold and lost 1 ac"


ninja'd

[RTGoodman]

Missing with an attack against AC isn't necessarily completely missing the target - the orc's sword could just glance off the fighter's shield, completely protecting him.

That said, if you don't like that idea, there's a pre-existing Armor as Damage Reduction variant out there.

[DamnedIrishman]

The mechanic if I am not mistaken is the higher ones AC the higher the chance that the enemy will miss.

No, the higher your AC the more likely the opponent will fail to cause damage. This could be due to not hitting you at all (DEX bonuses) or blows bouncing off your armour.

Also bear in mind, an attack round doesn't represent a single swing, but two minutes of continuous combat, and any damage taken is the net result of that.

[Tsotha-lanti]

It's not "miss", it's "fail to do damage." And it's called armor class. If anything, factoring in Dexterity and dodging is the odd half.

Edit:
Also, Defence and armor as DR, from the SRD, originally from UA.

[Jayabalard]

But what about the fatc that Heavy armour is what contributes to this? Shouldn't Heavy armor be DR not makign you more nimble?

Armor absorbs/deflects damage. a very light dagger slice isn't even noticeable through plate armor, but against skin it would leave a nasty cut.

AC just abstracts this away to keep everything simple and fast.

[Starbuck_II]

The mechanic if I am not mistaken is the higher ones AC the higher the chance that the enemy will miss.

But what about the fatc that Heavy armour is what contributes to this? Shouldn't Heavy armor be DR not makign you more nimble?

The idea was that heavy armor offer more protection.
Look at Robin Hood (light armor like leather or Studded Leather) compare that to Knight in heavy armor (split mail).


Most attacks shouldn't have an easy chance of even penetrating the person in heavy stuff (representing harder to hit AC).

Armor to DR is in the book Unearthed Arcana. This might ework better themetically, but you'll be hit more often if you do this change.

[Twilight Jack]

No, the higher your AC the more likely the opponent will fail to cause damage. This could be due to not hitting you at all (DEX bonuses) or blows bouncing off your armour.

Also bear in mind, an attack round doesn't represent a single swing, but two minutes of continuous combat, and any damage taken is the net result of that.

Two minutes? Where'd you get that figure from? Even in OD&D (when everything was still just a heartbeat away from Chainmail), a combat round only represented one minute (and it didn't make any sense then either; I could buy that a one minute round featured a dozen swings of the sword abstracted down to a single attack roll, but how on earth does the archer fire only one arrow in all that time? What about movement?).

[Raenir Salazar]

ah so its Neverwinter Knights fault then since it protrayed it as my dodging the target.

[Orzel]

AC is the rating for hitting your weak spots. Heavy armor covers and protects your weak spots better thus raiseing your AC.

Same with Dexterity because your weak spots are moving around so much and so fast it's hard to hit them.

DR and resistances are your ability to ignore or soften blows to your weak spots.

[Fiendish_Dire_Moose]

I run a fun little house rule for heavy armor.
The thing you have to remember is, if you're using a piercing weapon or a slashing weapon, you can't just expect to hit any random spot and watch them die. Thus, piercing weapons and slashing weapons have to play Ac rules as normal. But when you have a bludgeoning weapon, it doesn't matter where you hi, because breaking the skin is not the goal, smashing bones is.
So for bludgeoning weapons, armor only grants you half the bonus to your AC, however your full AC bonus from it is counted as DR, excepting magical armor, which the magical bonus always applies to your AC.
It's not a perfect fix, but it makes things make more sense. After all, if I'm wielding a great mace, it doesn't matter how much armor you're wearing, all I have to do is hit you and you'll feel it.

[DamnedIrishman]

Two minutes? Where'd you get that figure from? Even in OD&D (when everything was still just a heartbeat away from Chainmail), a combat round only represented one minute (and it didn't make any sense then either; I could buy that a one minute round featured a dozen swings of the sword abstracted down to a single attack roll, but how on earth does the archer fire only one arrow in all that time? What about movement?).

Ahem, I'm trying to remember the 3.5 rules from my very hazy memory. Isn't a full round (about) two minutes? Which means if you have a full-round attack action, you're fighting for two minutes.

The timespan might be different. But it's in there somewhere, I swear.

[RTGoodman]

Maybe he's working under the assumption that each TURN is 6 seconds, rather than each ROUND?

EDIT: Too many people at once!

Ahem, I'm trying to remember the 3.5 rules from my very hazy memory. Isn't a full round (about) two minutes? Which means if you have a full-round attack action, you're fighting for two minutes.

The timespan might be different. But it's in there somewhere, I swear.

No, a round is actually only 6 seconds, and everyone's turn happens in that 6 seconds. At least, that's the norm for 3.x and 4E D&D.

[DamnedIrishman]

Maybe he's working under the assumption that each TURN is 6 seconds, rather than each ROUND?

Meh, specifics.

[Siosilvar]

Two minutes? Where'd you get that figure from? Even in OD&D (when everything was still just a heartbeat away from Chainmail), a combat round only represented one minute (and it didn't make any sense then either; I could buy that a one minute round featured a dozen swings of the sword abstracted down to a single attack roll, but how on earth does the archer fire only one arrow in all that time? What about movement?).

You mean 1st edition. OD&D rounds were 10 seconds.

[Teron]

Two minutes? Where'd you get that figure from? Even in OD&D (when everything was still just a heartbeat away from Chainmail), a combat round only represented one minute (and it didn't make any sense then either; I could buy that a one minute round featured a dozen swings of the sword abstracted down to a single attack roll, but how on earth does the archer fire only one arrow in all that time? What about movement?).

For the record, a round in 3.X is 6 seconds.

[shadzar]

Armor basically means that for most intents and purposes the AC is offered as more padding to divert blows.

Likewise a to-hit roll is also not really a to-hit roll as you can hit and do no damage, so a to-hit roll is really a damage check. Did you bypass the armor's padding in any way to impair the person you attacked with your blow?

So armor isn't make it more difficult to hit you as the to-hit roll is compared with it would seem, but to reduce the amount of damage taken to where some blows don't actually inflict damage.

So in a sense armor has always been damage reduction wherein the hits you make all the time just don't bypass the armor to give the damage to the wearer, and the armor can sustain more damage than you would think.

[DamnedIrishman]

For the record, a round in 3.X is 6 seconds.

My bad.

SRD:

Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world. A round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action.

[Dagren]

Did the "turn" survive into 3rd ed? It used to be a period of 10 (six second) rounds, or just another name for a minute.

[Brogen]

Actually ten minutes in 2nd edition. Which retained the one round is one minute thing. I can't recall the page, but it was in the combat chapter, and had a description about someone trying to down a potion during that minute.

[Knaight]

The justification is that with stronger armour you can ignore lighter hits. Whether or not this is accurate is another question entirely.

It works pretty well when you are fighting things your size or smaller. Explaining how a buckler does anything when fighting a colossal dragon is a little iffier. Nonmagical full plate shouldn't really do much, most shields should be totally ineffective, except for as cover if the dragon gets breath happy. But if your dealing with things your size, your fine. Its the larger large critters and huge critters with weapons that throw this off, and the even larger things with and without.

[Dagren]

Actually ten minutes in 2nd edition. Which retained the one round is one minute thing. I can't recall the page, but it was in the combat chapter, and had a description about someone trying to down a potion during that minute.

Really? I could have sworn that one turn used to be equal to a minute. Anyway, it doesn't seem to be in 3rd ed, right? I certainly haven't come across it recently.

[Twilight Jack]

For the record, a round in 3.X is 6 seconds.

Yeah. But it was 1 minute in OD&D (white box). That was the only place I could ever remember combat rounds anywhere near the 2 minutes that were being suggested.

[Lapak]

Really? I could have sworn that one turn used to be equal to a minute. Anyway, it doesn't seem to be in 3rd ed, right? I certainly haven't come across it recently.

In 1e and 2e, a round was 1 minute and a turn was 10 rounds. Action in combat ran in rounds; action out of combat generally ran in turns.

In 3.x, a round is 6 seconds, and I believe that they did away with turns.

[Orzel]

It works pretty well when you are fighting things your size or smaller. Explaining how a buckler does anything when fighting a colossal dragon is a little iffier. Nonmagical full plate shouldn't really do much, most shields should be totally ineffective, except for as cover if the dragon gets breath happy. But if your dealing with things your size, your fine. Its the larger large critters and huge critters with weapons that throw this off, and the even larger things with and without.

AC really doesn't factor in pure force. It's more about hitting an unprotected or underprotected area. In 3.X large creatures tend to miss a lot. And in 4th by the time you reach huge creatures, everyone is assumed to have high 1/2 level parrying/dodging skillz.

The dragon's claws rarely touches you and when it does, it mostly misses and only scratches your armor. High level D&D is now whiff mania.

[RTGoodman]

In 3.x, a round is 6 seconds, and I believe that they did away with turns.

Sort of - combat is measured in rounds, but a "turn" is a particular character's part of the turn. As in, "until the end of your next turn" means until you go again next round.

High level D&D is now whiff mania.

Eh, not so much in 4E. Basically, if you've got an appropriate weapon for your level, you should be hitting basically 50-55% of the time (unless your opponent has a particularly high AC, like most Soldiers). And with level-appropriate armor, you should be getting hit about that same amount, unless the monster is particularly accurate.

[derfenrirwolv]

The mechanic if I am not mistaken is the higher ones AC the higher the chance that the enemy will miss.

But what about the fatc that Heavy armour is what contributes to this? Shouldn't Heavy armor be DR not makign you more nimble?


Well, if it hits your armor in the right spot, then its not hitting YOU.


A realistic system would have an aiming system where you could either swing willy nilly, aim for parts not covered by the armor, or aim for parts covered by lighter bits of armor. Each type of armor would have its own d100 table for how much of each damage type it could take and how much would be transfered to the wielder. For example, someone fully covered in chainmail with a Bevor would be hard to hit where he wasnt covered (aim for the eye slots) but it would be fairly easy to aim a mace at the chain mail and just power through the absorption ability of the mail and thick coat underneath.

In other words, it would be horribly complicated.

[Dagren]

In 1e and 2e, a round was 1 minute and a turn was 10 rounds. Action in combat ran in rounds; action out of combat generally ran in turns.

In 3.x, a round is 6 seconds, and I believe that they did away with turns.

Ah, so I guess I was just confusing the whole "Round is six seconds" from 3e with the "turn is 10 rounds".

[KillianHawkeye]

The mechanic if I am not mistaken is the higher ones AC the higher the chance that the enemy will miss.

But what about the fatc that Heavy armour is what contributes to this? Shouldn't Heavy armor be DR not makign you more nimble?

Keep in mind the difference between AC and Touch AC (in 3.x). Armor, shields, and natural armor are not added to Touch AC. So if an attack roll misses your AC but surpasses your Touch AC (which is very common for heavy armor users), then the attack actually does "hit" you. It just doesn't do any damage because your armor protected you.

And of course, touch attacks became attacks vs. Reflex in 4E, so I guess you could make a similar determination on being "hit" vs. being damaged.