Rant on d20

[evileeyore]

This was said:

AC: "Not at all"? Only if you discount that magic is a central part of the balancing. More like "slightly".

to which mmadsen said:

I was considering what was intrinsic to the class/level, not what extra equipment might do.

To which I say:

NIH! Err, I mean, Psion may have meant that as you grow in levels your AC benefits from increases in Magic. Ya know like from spells like say Shield...

I know he probably meant from purchasing better armor, and I agree with him.

If as your character increases in level he fails to gain significant monetary rewards to better increase his equipment, then your DM is subtely cheating you. You can't just hand wave magic items and such away (okay you could...). Afterall why would there be an entire section in the DMG devoted to them? Why would characters have the option to make such themselves? It is part of the system and the genre. (if you like a lower magic campiagn, hey cool, but remember thats all you)

Also I take exception to assertions that damage increases only slightly. Magic users (whether divine or arcane) gain a steady increase in their damage capacity as they continue to level. In fact every class has a means of increasing their damage capacity as they level up (some to a much lesser degree however...).

The comparision between the 5 level fighter and the 20 is however apt. I feel something needs to be done about this flaw. It seems unrealistic that your fine at 100%, fine at 75%, going strong at 50%, feeling no pain at 25%, perfectly capable at 5%, then drop dead.

Although honestly I can't really see any way to mitigate this lack without making combat more deadly.

 

[Numion]

I was thinking about something...

One of the strange things about Hit Points is that damage isn't tied to your attack roll. If you're a 20th level fighter with 18 Str, you still can't stab the 5th level fighter through the gut on your first swing. 2d8+12 isn't going to cut it against a guy who's got 4d10+10 hit points. So you do 20 damage against his 32 hit points; still a lot of damage, but he is still fighting at 100%.

It doesn't matter what your attack score is, you just can't land solid blows on people.

Or am I misreading this?

Yes you are. 3e has rules for critical hits that can cause more damage than a regular hit. Critical hit causes the normal multiplied by a number from 2 to 4. So, in your example, a critical would've killed the 5th level fighter. Since critical hits are tied to the characters attack roll and combat capability (feats etc.), landing solid blows is, contrary to your statement, possible in D&D, and easier with more skilled characters.

 

[SableWyvern]

Someone mentioned earlier that what one person considers realistic, another has problems with.

Upper Krust stated:

A 5.56mm round delivers 27 Kilojoules of kinetic energy.

However, such a method for determining damage/penetration is a gross oversimplification. How well armour is penetrated depends on how that energy is distributed; how much damage a bullet does depends on how it acts after entry. Does it tumble, fragment, or punch straight through?

I've scene ballistic professionals argue inteminably about the damage-dealing capablities of 7.62 vs the Australian Army's (relatively) new 5.56mm. Game designers certainly aren't equipped to make those kinds of decisions.

I'd love to see a game system that could effectively incorporate grazing fire and beaten zones. It aint gonna happen though (GDW's attempt with Traveller: The New Era was a nice idea, but poorly executed).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi SableWyvern!

However, such a method for determining damage/penetration is a gross oversimplification.

I agree. But as a logical basis for extrapolating 'core' damage its technically flawless.

How well armour is penetrated depends on how that energy is distributed; how much damage a bullet does depends on how it acts after entry. Does it tumble, fragment, or punch straight through?

Well, before I address the above. I was considering the following (this incorporates Armour as Damage Reduction incidently).

Crushing Weapon/Slam (Armour normal)
Slashing Weapon/Claw (Armour 1/2)
Piercing Weapon/Bite (Armour 1/4)

Damage Reduction for armour could be double current AC bonuses?

Balancing weapons could be as simple as making Crushing weapons do more damage (after all they will affect a greater surface area).

eg.
Mace 1d12; Longsword 1d8; Spear 1d4.

Or maintain current damages and rework weapon Critical Hits.

eg.
Mace x4; Longsword x3; Spear x2.

Obviously variant armour types will be available, with variant mechanics.

Weapons themselves could be subdivided into particular categories. Notably missile weapons.

ie.
Bodkin (even greater armour piercing, less damage)
Broadleaf (typical armour piercing)
Blunt (less armour piercing, more damage)

This could parallel your above comments "Does it tumble, fragment, or punch straight through?"

ie.
Punch as per Bodkin
Rifling as per Blunt

I've scene ballistic professionals argue inteminably about the damage-dealing capablities of 7.62 vs the Australian Army's (relatively) new 5.56mm.

Other than the basic E=mc2 principle; you would only need a few rules (as I mentioned above) to govern impact/armour and injury/damage.

Game designers certainly aren't equipped to make those kinds of decisions.

I don't see whay not!?

I am not advocating a system that details every feasible aspect of combat; simply one that has its roots in reality.

I'd love to see a game system that could effectively incorporate grazing fire and beaten zones. It aint gonna happen though (GDW's attempt with Traveller: The New Era was a nice idea, but poorly executed).

I doubt it would be too hard to create a capable system governing the above.

I know our DM has used rules for Beaten Zones in the past, and I am sure another friend has rules for Grazing Fire (since he devised a WWII based RPG). I'll see if I can dig out any answers.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I get the feeling most of you would be more happy with a different game than Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[SableWyvern]

Flexor: Yup. I prefer Rolemaster. But I'm currently playing D&D because it's crazy hit points, wierd armour system and all the rest are still fun.

UK:

Crushing Weapon/Slam (Armour normal)
Slashing Weapon/Claw (Armour 1/2)
Piercing Weapon/Bite (Armour 1/4)

But, the popularity of weapons like the warhammer was due to it's effectiveness against plate/chain armour - much harder to deflect.

Balancing weapons could be as simple as making Crushing weapons do more damage (after all they will affect a greater surface area).

When energy is spread over a wider area, shouldn't it be less effective at penetrating? (Warhammers tended to have a very small head for this purpose, similarly a sword focuses energy along a particularly narrow edge.)

Bodkin (even greater armour piercing, less damage)
Broadleaf (typical armour piercing)
Blunt (less armour piercing, more damage)

I actually ruled IMC that bodkins (only available for longbows) ignore armour DR (I run with Medium 1/- and Heavy 2/-) out to three range increments, but do only 1d6.

Personally, I've got no use for modern rules for d20, so don't go to too much trouble searching for them on my account. I'm actually pretty happy with D&D, and if I want more comprehensive rules, I'll play a different game.

 

[LostSoul]

Yes you are. 3e has rules for critical hits that can cause more damage than a regular hit. Critical hit causes the normal multiplied by a number from 2 to 4. So, in your example, a critical would've killed the 5th level fighter. Since critical hits are tied to the characters attack roll and combat capability (feats etc.), landing solid blows is, contrary to your statement, possible in D&D, and easier with more skilled characters.

In my example, I used a damage of 2d8+12 vs. 4d10+10. The 2d8+12 is a critical hit with a longsword, from a fighter specizalied in it, with 18 str.

An example: Fighter20 says, "I'm the best shot with a bow! Look, I can hit targets that I can't even see! I'll hit a bullseye on that target 450 feet away, every time!"
Fighter5 says, "Okay, take this longbow and shoot at me, 30 feet away. I bet you can't hit me on one shot."
Fighter20 aims, rolls a critical, and does 3d8+3 damage. He rolls his maximum of 27. Fighter5 is still left with 5 hit points. The arrow nicks him.
"Cripes," says Fighter20. "That's the best I can do!"


What I forgot, though: Power Attack. 2d8+32 (let's say he dumps +10 to Power Attack) is going to hurt the other guy. 1d8+16 isn't, though. Power Attack makes everything work in melee combat.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi all!

I get the feeling most of you would be more happy with a different game than Dungeons & Dragons.

As most know, I like a bit of Epic Level Gaming; these sorts of levels are where mechanics start to unravel in D&D.

I agree with SableWyvern though that its still fun.

But, the popularity of weapons like the warhammer was due to it's effectiveness against plate/chain armour - much harder to deflect.

When energy is spread over a wider area, shouldn't it be less effective at penetrating?.

Yes. Thats exactly what I have been saying!

I meant we could explain superior base damage to compensate for inferior armour penetration.

Piercing weapons will have minimal surface contact (point); then slashing weaponry (edge) and finally crushing weaponry (area).

eg.
Versus an unarmed Commoner a Spear might deal 1d6 damage while a Warhammer 1d10.

Versus a soldier in Full Platemail (reducing damage by 8); the spear would deal 1d6-2 whereas the Warhammer 1d10-8. Obviously piercing weapons are more useful against heavily armoured foes (notably so with regards dragons etc.) whereas crushing weapons are more useful against unarmoured targets.

(Warhammers tended to have a very small head for this purpose, similarly a sword focuses energy along a particularly narrow edge.)

I know medieval 'warhammers' were like this (notably the martel; represented by most of the picks in the PHB), but you should take a look at the Warhammer illustration in the Players Handbook. Its a big breezeblock on a stick!

Even so the contact area will be greater than either piercing or slashing weaponry.

Obviously 'pointed' warhammers would be piercing weapons (though I would label these Martels/Picks to avoid confusion)

I actually ruled IMC that bodkins (only available for longbows) ignore armour DR (I run with Medium 1/- and Heavy 2/-) out to three range increments, but do only 1d6.

So you use armour as absorbing damage in D&D.

Personally, I've got no use for modern rules for d20, so don't go to too much trouble searching for them on my account.

I wasn't. I'm just messing about with a few ideas here and using real world analogies to explain my reasoning.

I'm actually pretty happy with D&D, and if I want more comprehensive rules, I'll play a different game.

I still say there are improvements that can be made; some easily incorporated (like armour reducing damage) and others requiring more effort (hit points; proper strength; skill/BAB/Hit Dice)

 

[Numion]

An example: Fighter20 says, "I'm the best shot with a bow! Look, I can hit targets that I can't even see! I'll hit a bullseye on that target 450 feet away, every time!"
Fighter5 says, "Okay, take this longbow and shoot at me, 30 feet away. I bet you can't hit me on one shot."
Fighter20 aims, rolls a critical, and does 3d8+3 damage. He rolls his maximum of 27. Fighter5 is still left with 5 hit points. The arrow nicks him.

...or the Fighter20 rolls a critical, using Point Blank Shot, Weapon Specialization, Composite Longbow of Might +4 rolls 3d8 + 21 damage. He rolls his maximum 45 and says "Thats what I call The Real Ultimate Power!, you suck!"

With magic eq the damage would be 3d8 + 57 (+5 arrows, + 5 bow, +2 bracers of archery, +2 weapon spec, +4 STR, +1 point blank shot).

 

[LostSoul]

...or the Fighter20 rolls a critical, using Point Blank Shot, Weapon Specialization, Composite Longbow of Might +4 rolls 3d8 + 21 damage. He rolls his maximum 45 and says "Thats what I call The Real Ultimate Power!, you suck!"

Ah yes, Weapon Specialization. I had a feeling I forgot something. I used a normal bow & arrows because I wanted to get right down to the skill. Fighter5 could stand 40 feet away and take only 3d8 damage.

The system seems tighter than I thought! Since you can describe a miss when somebody's using a Power Attack as: "He's waiting for an opening," it's cool. Ranged combat is different, but that's okay, because highly skilled guys can dodge out of the way - Fighter20 no longer has any influence on the arrow once it's been shot.

Cool.