Armor Class – How Hard is it to Hit and Damage Something?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think the concept of armor reducing damage makes good sense, but, as you point out, the implementation leaves much to be desired.

Rolling a small damage die for a small weapon -- even before we start subtracting damage because of armor -- already has its problems. After all, a single dagger wound can kill someone, even if multiple dagger wounds still won't guarantee a kill.

Really, you want a system where each attack can disable or kill, but some attacks are much more likely to finish someone, and armor reduces the chance that an attack will be crippling.

The simplest approach might be:
End Damage is a combination of attack roll and damage roll. A smaller weapon deals less weapon damage but grants a bonus to the attack roll.

One approach I had in mind:
Attack & Damage are two rolls. Example
d20 vs Defense.
If you hit, a roll of 1-5 deals 4 points of damage, a natural roll of 6-10 deals 3 points, a roll of 11-15 deals 2 points and a roll of 16-20 deals 1 point.
If you hit, also roll damage against the enemies AC. If you hit, your natural roll depends damage as seen above, but you get an extra bonus for hitting both Defense and AC. (Maybe double final value, or just AC or just Defense value, or the damage is treated as lethal instead of nonlethal damage)*

This way, you could "easily" balance weapons by their attack and damage bonus, and Armor by their bonus to AC and penalty to Defense.

Of course, this creates a certain degree of "illusionismn" - ultimately, the weapon and armor are just a matter of style and preference, but they don't really affect your effectiveness. Of course this is ultimately what D&D seems to be striving for when it wants to allow "lightly armored finesse fighter" alongside the "Heavily Armored Brutal Fighter".

There might be still interesting options. For example, an off-hand weapon might grant an attack bonus or a defense bonus (a Shield offers a higher defense then attack bonus). A two-handed weapon offers a damage bonus. So there might still be some tactical decisions to be made (tieing in with my previous post) - if you fight many enemies, you want heavy armor and a higher defense bonus. If you are more the assassin or duel type guy, you want light armor and a high attack, using an off-hand weapon to be even more dangerous against the individual foe.

*
Why use the natural dice result and "lower = better"? I like the idea to use the roll for multiple purposes. That's something I liked in Warhammer - roll percentile to attack, and use the same roll, but with reversed order, to determine hit location. ALso, the alternative would be to use something like multiple "success rates" - so beating the DC deals 1 damage, beating the DC + 10 deals 2 damage - and this also always rewards people that roll high, creating a higher degree of swinginess - my approach rewards people who hit because of their skill, not because of their roll.

 

[xechnao]

I tend to see 3 "defense options" in combat:
- Parry
- Dodge (or is this just a different narration for a parry, or vice versa?)
- Soak

D&D combines all of them in one number, AC.

I've played a little of Warhammer. It uses Dodge and Parry as defensive options. They only work against one attack. This makes Warhammer very deadly against multiple enemies, and you really want to rely on the Armor and its damage reduction to avoid the worst.

I think how the "don't take any damage at all options" work defines a lot on the deadliness of a system. If you can bring them to bear against every enemy, dodging/parrying/armordeflection is very powerful and enemy numbers matter a lot less.

This creates an interesting dynamical change - if, for example, you can parry only once per round, a 3.x like Combat Expertise effect becomes less interesting the more enemies you fight. If it works against everyone, it gets more desirable the more enemies you fight.

I find this very interesting and I wonder how to balance such a system "fairly" - or if it's even possible (or needed - maybe it's okay if you get extra benefits / less benefit against different number of foes...)

You certainly have a D20 system pure gamist approach here. I need a simulationist approach and build an as good as gaming system upon it. If not I can not connect with combat roleplaying. See my post above -you personaly could think of it as a hybric among shadowrun's idea on melee and the D20 die.

 

[mmadsen]

This creates an interesting dynamical change - if, for example, you can parry only once per round, a 3.x like Combat Expertise effect becomes less interesting the more enemies you fight. If it works against everyone, it gets more desirable the more enemies you fight.

When I first started thinking about 3E's Expertise, I realized, as you point out, that it's more useful against multiple opponents than against a single opponent, which goes against what I'd like to see: a skilled fencer able to take on any one opponent, but a skilled warrior needing to wear armor, bring a shield, and stick next to his brothers-in-arms.

 

[mmadsen]

I tend to see 3 "defense options" in combat:
- Parry
- Dodge (or is this just a different narration for a parry, or vice versa?)
- Soak

D&D combines all of them in one number, AC.

D&D combines them into two numbers: AC and hp.

I can easily see combining everything into one number, a super-AC. If you defeat your opponent's AC, you have scored a telling blow -- they're disabled. (Or you roll on a Warhammer-style critical-hit table.)

I can also see using two AC-style numbers: one Defense score, to represent dodging, parrying, blocking, and otherwise avoiding a hit (like Touch AC), and one Toughness score, to represent taking a shot and not going down. A shield would help the first, and armor would help the second.

A clumsy troll might not ever hit a nimble hobbit, but he might hit an armored knight and crush him right through his mail.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Adding the second part of the equation: Damage.

PART TWO - DAMAGE
Just adding the second part of my question in terms of damage.

At present with 3e and 4e, the damage system seems to be fairly standardized into damage + attribute modifier. The only thing to differentiate using a dagger against a greatsword or battleaxe is the random d4, 2d6 or 1d8. Is this reflective of the situation or should an additional weapon loading be added?

For example, if an axe hits effectively should it have a larger weapon bonus to damage reflecting its damage dealing capacity compared to lets say a quarterstaff? For example, a fighter might deal 1d6+2 damage with a quarterstaff but the exact same fighter deals 1d8+5 with a battleaxe? Obviously, this assumes that armor as damage reduction is being used, so the majority of the quarterstaff damage will be soaked up by the armor of the defender whereas the battleaxe has that extra weapon loading to assist in breaching the armor's DR. Does the weapon loading of damage provide a suitable relationship between weapon used and armor attacked?

As a sidenote, I think a similar relationship should exist with the weapon used and the attack modifier to hit an opponent's AC. I find the proficiency bonus of 4e (providing a bonus on your attack modifier) very interesting but completely under-utilized. For example, a club is very easy for anyone to use effectively and so should receive a healthy bonus on the attack modifier [+3 for example]. A rapier on the other hand requires considerable skill in comparison. You might have someone unfamiliar with it cop a nasty penalty [-4], someone proficient with it might just break even [+0] whereas only a fighter specialized in its use gets the bonus [+3] for example.

Anyway just some thoughts between the relationship between the weapon used and hitting or the weapons used and the damage done versus an armor's DR.

I suppose the other related part of this is damage itself and how it relates to hit points. For every edition, D&D has combined two separate things into one:
- Physical damage
- Other factors such as the skill in turning a serious strike into a glancing blow, inner strength, divine favor or even luck.
I think it makes sense to split these two things into their respective corners:
- Hit points: representing physical damage
- Combat points: representing all the other factors but as well, the ability to perform particular maneuvers and skills.

The following was something I wrote a month ago but hey, tell me what you think as it applies to the concerns of damage in an encounter.

HIT POINTS

Hit points now represent the amount of physical damage a character can take before becoming incapacitated or worse. When a character loses hit points, this represents them taking a physical injury. When a character’s hit points reach zero or below, they have taken a serious and possibly life-threatening injury. When a character’s hit points reach their racial death limit or below (for humans it is -10), then they die.
Hit points do not change very much over the life and experience of a character. A character’s capacity for handling physical damage does not change that dramatically. Race as well as a character’s strength and constitution are the dominant factors. Character’s that must regularly handle physically damage also have more hit points than those that don’t.

If a character receives damage that takes them to zero hit points or below, then the character takes a serious injury such as a broken leg, blinding, the loss of a limb or possibly unconsciousness or death. The DM determines the injury and any resulting condition for the character.

If a character’s hit points reach their racial death limit, then the character dies. However, death is not always instantaneous. Sometimes a character can take several minutes to die, where unfortunately nothing can be done except to ease their pain; healing - magical or otherwise - does not work on a character on or below their death limit.

COMBAT POINTS
Combat points represent a variety of facets in combat. They represent how skilled a character is in avoiding serious injury, turning a life-threatening strike into a glancing blow. Sometimes, characters are just lucky or have a level of divine favor on their side. A portion of the number of combat points represents this too. Other characters have deep reserves of inner power, or have incredible physical or mental endurance to keep going, to be able to perform at one’s peak even when under pressure or injured. The greater a character’s ability to survive and succeed in combat, the more combat points they are likely to have.

However, combat points also represent a character’s ability to perform special or heroic manoeuvres, such as tumbling through a group of enemies untouched, cleaving from one foe into another or casting a difficult spell whilst surrounded by enemy swords. Players may spend a character’s combat points so that the character may perform these extraordinary actions in combat.

COMBAT AND HIT POINTS IN ACTION
When a character is struck in combat, the threat and the damage it could cause is subtracted from a character’s combat points first rather than their hit points. This represents the skill a character displays in avoiding serious damage that would normally affect their hit points. Alternatively, perhaps it was a character’s luck or even a deity watching over them assisting in avoiding the full impact of an incoming blow.
For example, imagine a character with a wildly swung axe being flung at their head. With a number of combat points up the sleeve, the character skilfully avoids the seriousness of the blow, the axe bouncing off of the character’s armor rather than severing head from neck; a certain number of combat points being subtracted in the process. The blow is still going to sting but after the battle, it is nothing a bandage and a kiss won’t fix.

Combat points act as a buffer and shield to a character’s hit points, but there are several times when a character’s hit points will be threatened instead with damage being directly applied to a character’s hit point tally.

HIT POINT LOSS
• If a character takes a critical hit, then the resulting damage is subtracted from both their combat points and their hit points. A critical hit represents physical damage being taken by the character.
• If a character is reduced to or has zero combat points, then any further blows will be subtracted directly from their hit points. Zero combat points represent a character being spent, exhausted or injured to the point where they can no longer reliably defend themselves.
• If a character takes damage that cannot reasonably be avoided by skill or luck, then this damage is directly applied. For example, an unimpeded fall from height would be directly applied – a serious hazard for both low and high level characters.

CRITICAL HITS
A critical hit represents an attack that seriously threatens a character. The damage from a critical hit is subtracted from both a character’s hit point tally and combat point tally

Determining a critical hit is similar to third edition whereby the skill of the attacker and the type of weapon used are a factor in successfully performing a critical hit. The Critical Range of a weapon represents the numbers whereby as long as a hit is successful against a target, a critical hit may have been made. A Confirmation Roll is then made. If this confirmation attack is a successful hit against the target, it means that a critical hit has been made.

HEALING HIT POINTS AND RESTORING COMBAT POINTS
The healing of hit points and the restoring of combat points happen at different rates. Hit points are slowly recovered naturally. It can take many days to many weeks to naturally heal the severest of wounds and injuries. The restoring of combat points on the other hand is relatively fast. A character might need a short rest to clear the wits or a slightly longer rest to be back to one’s best in terms of combat points.

The aim is for the system to allow continuity in a game whereby there is a lessened reliance on a character devoted to healing such as Clerics prior to fourth edition and on healing wands and potions. Characters may continue on adventuring, knowing that their combat points will be quickly restored, allowing them to fight effectively, even if carrying a minor wound (a small amount of hit point damage).

In doing so, the game neatly stratifies the health of the characters, so that players can have their character’s behave in a heroic but realistic manner. There are several points aside from unconsciousness whereby characters can react to the danger present, changing tactics to suit the level of threat.

For example, a character with almost full combat points and hit points is going to be going hard and going strong, trying their hardest to have an immediate impact upon the encounter. A player whose character is at low combat points is going to be much more wary, knowing that they are just a blow away from having their hit points totally exposed to the enemy.

A character who has taken hit point damage is also going to be cautious, knowing that another critical hit could cause serious injury or even death. It is hard to imagine characters enjoying such injuries and so players will be more inclined to take defensive action if serious hit point damage has been sustained. A player whose character is at zero or negative hit points is going to try everything possible to have their character avoid getting hit and thus sustaining either another long term injury or even death. Long term injuries can be costly in either time and/or specialized healing. Death is obviously the ultimate cost to the player and hopefully something that can be avoided if players take on board the various health cues available and suitable tactics based upon this. Combat should be more involved than the repeated whittling of hit points until unconsciousness of previous editions. Allow combat to be heroic but also somewhat realistic at the same time.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[mmadsen]

For example, a fighter might deal 1d6+2 damage with a quarterstaff but the exact same fighter deals 1d8+5 with a battleaxe?

I'm afraid I don't understand. The battleaxe already does more damage (d8) than the quarterstaff (1d6). Why would it also get a +3 bonus over and above that?

Did you intend for the +3 to apply only versus armor-as-DR?

 

[mmadsen]

For every edition, D&D has combined two separate things into one:
- Physical damage
- Other factors such as the skill in turning a serious strike into a glancing blow, inner strength, divine favor or even luck.
I think it makes sense to split these two things into their respective corners:
- Hit points: representing physical damage
- Combat points: representing all the other factors but as well, the ability to perform particular maneuvers and skills.

What you describe is the Wound/Vitality system from the older edition of d20 Star Wars.

I would say that neither physical toughness nor skill at rolling with a punch are well modeled by ablative hit points. Luck and divine favor aren't "realistically" modeled well by ablative hit points either, but for game purposes fate points make an excellent resource to manage.

Hit points now represent the amount of physical damage a character can take before becoming incapacitated or worse.

As I mentioned earlier, any one attack can kill a real man -- although some attacks are simply more likely to do it than others -- and sometimes many, many attacks won't finish someone off. People aren't particularly ablative.

Hit points don't model injury well, even abstractly. But they are a beloved game mechanic. So why not use them purely for luck and divine favor?

And if you're going to have hit points reflect luck and divine favor, why have them only come into play after you're hit? Why don't they keep you from getting hit? And why can't you apply them to things like saving throws? They're luck points, right?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I'm afraid I don't understand. The battleaxe already does more damage (d8) than the quarterstaff (1d6). Why would it also get a +3 bonus over and above that?

Did you intend for the +3 to apply only versus armor-as-DR?

A battleaxe (d8) will do more damage than a staff (d6) about 56% of the time based upon the die rolls alone and most of that time, not by much. The aim of a bonus damage factor is to recognise that getting hit with an axe, even if you have armor is a more serious threat than getting whacked with a quarterstaff. Am I overstating the effectiveness of an axe here (or understating that of the quarterstaff)? I've been hit with neither so I'm really only guessing.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

What you describe is the Wound/Vitality system from the older edition of d20 Star Wars.

I would say that neither physical toughness nor skill at rolling with a punch are well modeled by ablative hit points. Luck and divine favor aren't "realistically" modeled well by ablative hit points either, but for game purposes fate points make an excellent resource to manage.
As I mentioned earlier, any one attack can kill a real man -- although some attacks are simply more likely to do it than others -- and sometimes many, many attacks won't finish someone off. People aren't particularly ablative.

Hit points don't model injury well, even abstractly. But they are a beloved game mechanic. So why not use them purely for luck and divine favor?

I suppose it is similar to vitality/wounds, except that I envision combat points being restored very quickly. You get half your combat points back after a short rest (5 minutes) or you get all your combat points back after a long rest (1 hour). Hit points on the other hand heal more slowly (and if you're character's really beat up, you most likely are going to look for a healer).

However, think of Combat Points as a resource used up in battle. Damage gets taken off of combat points first. Think of this as skill or luck at avoiding a blow - you quickly recover from such blows after a battle. You can most likely do this ("avoid" getting hit) a couple of times but by then, you're character is going to be left wide open - any further hits being taken off of hit points (real damage if you will). As soon as a character takes real damage, they are most likely going to start looking for a way out of combat rather than marching on to unconsciousness regardless.

Additionally, I envisage using combat points to perform maneuvers in combat to seek advantage. Maybe not quite the level of the wahoo powers in 4e but interesting and effective stuff regardless. Cleaving, readying actions, power attacks and othe special maneuvers. They are actions that are gradually going to use up your combat points across the breadth of an encounter. You can eat them up rapidly trying to quickly overpower an enemy, or you can be more defensive, saving up the big maneuvers for when they are going to deal the most damage. It gives further dynamism to combat and provides a further (and more realistic) redline for characters aside from unconsciousness. As soon as a couple of characters start taking hp damage, it's time to retreat effectively. This would go for NPCs and monsters too. Copping physical damage is when your resolve is going to be tested.

And if you're going to have hit points reflect luck and divine favor, why have them only come into play after you're hit? Why don't they keep you from getting hit?

Well they kind of do. They stop you from getting hit effectively (dealing real hp damage). The number of combat points is representative of the skill, luck, divine favor you have and is a limited resource during an encounter. However, combat points are quickly restored after an encounter. The blow that did combat point damage is quickly forgotten. As I mention, they're nothing a quick rub and a kiss won't fix.

And why can't you apply them to things like saving throws? They're luck points, right?

Well in terms of saving throws, they do too, if the thing you're saving against is going to do combat point damage (rather than hit point damage if you're character's spent). In addition, some characters (the lucky ones let's say) might have an ability (costing combat points) that gives them some form of aid in avoiding whatever they are saving against.

Combat points are the resource, shield and buffer that helps keep a character alive, protecting their health. Blow all your combat points and you're in some trouble.

I'm not too sure how well I'm explaining this or not. Perhaps I should write up an example?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[mmadsen]

The aim of a bonus damage factor is to recognise that getting hit with an axe, even if you have armor is a more serious threat than getting whacked with a quarterstaff.

If you simply want a battle axe to do more damage, increase its damage die from d8 to d10 or d12. That's the canonical answer.

Of course, hit points aren't really about physical damage, are they? Most weapons should have a chance of killing or disabling in one blow, but heroes should rarely go down in one blow. Arguably, no one is taking a good axe blow to the skull, when they take 1d8 damage -- unless they're already down to one or two hit points.