ExploderWizard
Hero
I was referring to the rogue being better at fighting than the fighter. A thief class can be ok.
D&D 5E Damage on a Miss: Because otherwise Armour Class makes no sense
I was referring to the rogue being better at fighting than the fighter. A thief class can be ok.
Balesir
Adventurer
Ah, OK. Well, *shrug* - use a system where the rogue is not "better at fighting than the fighter", I suppose?
tomBitonti
Adventurer
I thought the difference between a Rogue and a Fighter was in their focus:
A fighter's emphasis is raw martial skill.
A rogue's emphasis is in creating exploitable opportunities.
Although, in 3E, the different mechanics for bonus damage: Critical hits vs. Sneak attack dice, make somewhat a mess of this.
Thx!
TomB
A fighter's emphasis is raw martial skill.
A rogue's emphasis is in creating exploitable opportunities.
Although, in 3E, the different mechanics for bonus damage: Critical hits vs. Sneak attack dice, make somewhat a mess of this.
Thx!
TomB
Admittedly I'm not much of a fighter, but I thought these two things are the same. What does martial skill consist in, other than causing your enemy to offer you exploitable opportunities?
tomBitonti
Adventurer
A difference in emphasis: A rogue would practice tricks and misdirection, coming at you from behind in the dark, and kill with a well placed dagger to the kidneys. A fighter would practice raw weapon skill, and would come at you directly, relying on faster, or stronger, or more accurate blows, to defeat you.
A rogue would not want to face an armed, aware opponent; a fighter would relish such an opponent.
Thx!
TomB
Correct. However, proficiency with that armour type allows a PC to have the blow deflect. Otherwise, the rule would be that you are taking some damage on "misses". Since you aren't, something along these lines would have to be in play.
Balesir
Adventurer
Hmmm, this doesn't quite ring true. Maybe put it that the fighter is trained to make blows in such a way as to simultaneously guard against enemy attacks, whereas a rogue is focussed on making the attack count (preferably from a position where a counterattack is unlikely). This would have the effect (generally seen in D&D) that a fighter would do less damage, but would be better protected while doing so and, thus, less likely to get seriously hurt while they hurt the enemy.
I generally agree, although a combatant with brass knuckles (or any other situationally ineffectual weapon) against heavy armour should, or at least could, be looking for locks and disarms rather than punches.
True. But trying to go for hold against a guy in full plate & mace/sword/hammer is suicide IRL.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
What a strange mini-forum.
Armor Class used to mean class of armor. Skin, leather, chain, metal plates. And equivalents. It's basically Hardness, but not as a damage buffer like in 3.x.
Later games emulating D&D would use armor as a damage buffer and that works. New versions of D&D use it as an aggregate of many different things.
For example, early on Dexterity Reaction Modifiers used to modify AC. They didn't put the character in another kind of armor. They modified the target number needed to be hit. It was a variance on the default dodging and parrying already being done by the character. A player could apply less dexterity, even stop defending completely, and their AC would remain the same. But the target number needed to hit them would change.
Shields are separate. They are similar enough, but unique too as they are positional. All the other types of effects that can alter "To Hit" rolls and combat target numbers, like AC, are unique too and dealt with individually.
Armor used to take damage over time. It was fitted to the individual or the individual took a penalty to AC. Getting bludgeoned by a giant like in the OP didn't rattle a person for damage because the armor was fitted. Most tightly fitting was one's skin, but maybe something magical might be similar, like ironskin?
Early versions of D&D use Weapon Damage by Armor Class even beyond piercing/slashing/bludgeoning. Perhaps those might be used for massive attacks?
The most important thing here is: "To Hit" rolls represent one structure moving into another in such a way as to cause him, her, or it to lose Hit Points. Basically HPs are structural design points that can only take a limited amount of distortion before collapsing.
For creatures Hit Points represent life sustaining operations. For an object, like a corpse, they represent the structural integrity keeping the corpse from collapsing into pieces. They are both still structure, but what the HPs represent each time matters. Is a body harmed as well as the systems sustaining life? Yes, so maybe character HP are part of their body HP? But armor skins them and protects those interiors.
But again, maybe alternate damage by weapon type on armor type might help with the "rattling full plate warrior" smashed by a giant across a room?
Armor Class used to mean class of armor. Skin, leather, chain, metal plates. And equivalents. It's basically Hardness, but not as a damage buffer like in 3.x.
Later games emulating D&D would use armor as a damage buffer and that works. New versions of D&D use it as an aggregate of many different things.
For example, early on Dexterity Reaction Modifiers used to modify AC. They didn't put the character in another kind of armor. They modified the target number needed to be hit. It was a variance on the default dodging and parrying already being done by the character. A player could apply less dexterity, even stop defending completely, and their AC would remain the same. But the target number needed to hit them would change.
Shields are separate. They are similar enough, but unique too as they are positional. All the other types of effects that can alter "To Hit" rolls and combat target numbers, like AC, are unique too and dealt with individually.
Armor used to take damage over time. It was fitted to the individual or the individual took a penalty to AC. Getting bludgeoned by a giant like in the OP didn't rattle a person for damage because the armor was fitted. Most tightly fitting was one's skin, but maybe something magical might be similar, like ironskin?
Early versions of D&D use Weapon Damage by Armor Class even beyond piercing/slashing/bludgeoning. Perhaps those might be used for massive attacks?
The most important thing here is: "To Hit" rolls represent one structure moving into another in such a way as to cause him, her, or it to lose Hit Points. Basically HPs are structural design points that can only take a limited amount of distortion before collapsing.
For creatures Hit Points represent life sustaining operations. For an object, like a corpse, they represent the structural integrity keeping the corpse from collapsing into pieces. They are both still structure, but what the HPs represent each time matters. Is a body harmed as well as the systems sustaining life? Yes, so maybe character HP are part of their body HP? But armor skins them and protects those interiors.
But again, maybe alternate damage by weapon type on armor type might help with the "rattling full plate warrior" smashed by a giant across a room?
tomBitonti
Adventurer
I'm thinking 3E did the game (or at least the view of rogues) damage in this regard. In 3E, flanking is sufficient for a rogue to deal sneak attack damage. In 1E (I thought) a rogue needed to be hidden to use sneak attack (then called backstab).
Also, 3E took away a lot of the flavor / style difference between combat styles by factoring these into BAB (which is strictly comparable between classes: a +5BAB rogue fights equally as well as a +5BAB fighter, and equally as well as a +5BAB wizard) plus feats and class features, with the style differences shifted entirely to the feats and class features. (One of those class features is weapon proficiency. A non-multi-classed rogue has many fewer weapon proficiencies than a fighter. Which, as an aside, points out a weakness of 3E multi-classing, in that class features seem to be transferred too easily. A rogue/fighter can sneak attack with any weapon as a result, not just rogue/finesse type weapons, which seems odd. You might consider this not as a weakness but as a strength of the system.)
From the 1E point of view, a rogue doesn't want to be in the fray. When faced with an aware, capable, opponent, a rogue ducks out of sight. In 3E, a rogue is a part of the fray, and simply looks to avoid the worst attacks, while maneuvering for position (to flank) to make sneak attacks.
I'm thinking a part of the difference is to consider swashbuckler types as a kind of fighter distinct from rogues.
But, from a style point of view, a rogue might be alright in a dagger on dagger fight in a shadowy alleyway. Against an armored fighter kitted with sword and shield, a rogue should do poorly. That would seem to be the traditional view of rogues.
On the second point: A "hit" with brass knuckles might make no contact, but do hit point damage. A part of what hit points represent is "ablative luck". That is, if on average, three good attacks are necessary before obtaining a solid, debilitating hit with brass knuckles, that might be modeled with brass knuckles doing an average of 1/3 of the targets hit points on a successful hit. Whether one, all three, or just the last hit actually connects is not known, that being obscured by the combat model.
Thx!
TomB
Similar Threads
