Low armor campaigns, why "compensate"?

[Dogbrain]

Why is there so often an idea that one must "compensate" for a low-armor campaign by inventing AC substitutes? Why not make it plain to the players that it's going to be DANGEROUS to get into fights? That's what I've done, and it's worked rather well.

 

[EricNoah]

I think the idea is that the rules allow you to get better and better at attacking, but they don't really allow you to get better and better at defending. D&D "defense" is all about armor and other types of protection rather than being skilled at dodging etc. I think that's the motive.

 

[aurance]

There's no need for compensation, really, because hit points are supposed to reflect your "dodging and weaving" layer of defense.

Class-based defense bonus should only be necessary if there is some mechanism to easily bypass hit points and inflict more visceral damage (a la wound points) - but then I would question the need for hit points anyway, in such a case.

 

[EricNoah]

One could argue, however, that the "hit points-as-dodging" paradigm doesn't work too well since the guys who are supposed to be able to dodge the most (rogues and monks, let's say) don't have the most hit points. A class-based defense bonus that improves by level allows you to tweak each class so that some classes are better at staying out of harm's way than others.

 

[aurance]

One could argue, however, that the "hit points-as-dodging" paradigm doesn't work too well since the guys who are supposed to be able to dodge the most (rogues and monks, let's say) don't have the most hit points. A class-based defense bonus that improves by level allows you to tweak each class so that some classes are better at staying out of harm's way than others.

I'm not certain that rogues should be able to dodge the most.

Skill in combat must necessarily include the ability to anticipate and deflect blows, which the warrior classes do best - who, incidentally, have the highest hit points.

Rogues are good at "acrobatic" dodging, reflected in their ability to float around fireballs, traps and such. This sort of acrobatics wouldn't necessarily help you in man-to-man combat.

Monks should be good at dodging, I agree, but they have pretty decent hit points and an AC bonus built into their class structure. Seems good enough to me.

 

[Aaron L]

I think he was just throwing out rogues and monks as random "quick guy" examples.

 

[Ourph]

I think he was just throwing out rogues and monks as random "quick guy" examples.

But aurance makes and excellent point. Being "quick" doesn't necessarily translate to being able to survive in combat. A very fast swordsman who hasn't studied swordplay won't know what to expect from his opponent, won't be able to anticipate his opponent's attacks and won't be able to adequately deflect those attacks. There's a difference between being able to put your sword in a particular place quickly and knowing where to put it to best block your opponent's blow. Fighters know this, Rogues don't. The only flaw is the Monk class, who really (IMO) should get bigger hit dice.

 

[Umbran]

I can think of three reasons to compensate...

1) If you don't compensate, you get to a point where the monsters don't need to make attack rolls except to see if they get a critical, and they don't need to roll to confirm. This takes away a pretty big chunk of uncertainty, which many DMs and players would not like to do.

2) If you happen to like lots of combat and action, saying, "getting into combat is very dangerous" discourages the behavior you want.

3) Failure to compensate serously throws off the CR system, which many people like.

 

[mmu1]

First and foremost, without an AC "substitute" you very quickly get into a situation where just about every blow hits - and far from making combat dangerous and exciting, it makes it a predictable and dull HP contest.

The rest of it can be summed up in one sentence - removing armor makes it impossible to play the game as written.

Many people want to be able to make stylistic changes for the sake of giving their campaign a different feel without forcing themselves and their players to deal with drastic changes in gameplay and balance.

In other words, people ask for these "AC substitutes" because most like to play the game their way, not your way.

 

[mmu1]

There's no need for compensation, really, because hit points are supposed to reflect your "dodging and weaving" layer of defense.

Which is why hit points are modifed by Constitution, ancient dragons are known for their ability to nimbly dodge blows, a hit from a scorpion you "dodged" by spending HP still forces you to make a save vs. poison, narrowly "dodging" a giant's club that's the size of a tree takes less effort than dodging a high-level halfling rogue's surprise attack with a nasty hat-pin, and a high level character can survive hitting the ground after falling from a 100' cliff by weaving (a crude parachute, perhaps?).

Hit points are an abstract mish-mash that's not represented by avoiding blows well at all, especially when you consider the nature of D&D healing magic as well.

Vitality points represent what you're talking about perfectly, but that's a different system.