Another take on the Attack Matrix

[peterlind]

In reviewing D&D Basic 2nd edition (Moldvoy), Eric Holmes had this to say on the topic of Armor Class in Dragon #52:

"Armor Class: The new rulebook continues to avoid the unnecessary proliferation of armor types found in the AD&D game, which also incorporates splint mail, scale mail, and ring mail. This is good, but herein also lies a missed opportunity. I think the numbering system should have been adjusted to make plate armor and shield, the best non-magical protection possible, AC 1. Then all magic armor could be represented by zero or negative numbers to indicate armor class. A minor point, at best."

When playing around with this in my mind, I could see that the range of AC 2 to 9 would be shifted to AC 1 to 8. Also, the best AC for an OD&D creature is -8. Thus, now I could see this range between 8 and -8 materializing. I started to work on an alternate Attack Matrix for the Alternate Combat System, but wanted to do something different with the negative AC numbers, to give them some kind of distinctive reason for being there. Hence, for every 2 points of negative AC, you have -1 to hit and -1 to damage, up to a max of -4 to hit and -4 damage. If the matrices are tightened up in terms of max level, this might work. Here is my first go at this:

drive.google.com/file/d/0B3U1JYviYYT7TklmYTZibzdQY2c/view?usp=sharing

Your comments and suggestions are much appreciated.

[Finarvyn]

I like the "feel" of what you suggest and it certainly has a symmetry I like, but I have a couple of issues with it.

(1) It still has the "negative is better" problem that conventional AC has, and I flipped the charts decades ago so that bigger is better. (Ascending AC) THis is a personal preference, I know, and not a mechanical one.

(2) It instantly makes every published OD&D/AD&D/2E/etc resource inaccurate. Pick up a random module and you need to adjust AC to the new scale. While not hard to do, I'd have to ponder a while to decide if it's worth the effort.

Still, a nifty idea. Continue to develop it and see what happens ... maybe it will catch on.

[spacelem]

Magic weapons (I think with the exception of swords) add to both to-hit and damage, whereas armour only reduces to-hit. I think the reason for this lack of symmetry is that it's quite easy to hit things at high levels, but enemy HP is normally quite high relative to how much damage you can do. Damage reduction probably cuts out quite a high proportion of incoming damage (it's roughly quarter of a d6's damage), which will make it more difficult to kill high level enemies.

I don't think DR is a good fit for D&D unless you're willing to also reduce HP at higher levels.

Off topic: in an experiment to maintain low level lethality, I've been toying with replacing HP = some number of (HD+con bonus) with just a single HD + Con bonus + bonus-to-hit (rerolling every level, EPT style). In such a situation, DR will be more appreciated.

[aldarron]

Dec 1, 2015 5:06:29 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

(2) It instantly makes every published OD&D/AD&D/2E/etc resource inaccurate. Pick up a random module and you need to adjust AC to the new scale. While not hard to do, I'd have to ponder a while to decide if it's worth the effort.

Yeah, that's a sticking point for me too.

I have another thought about the issue that might be a way out. Here is the thing: what is "plate mail" in OD&D? People often complain that plate is priced way too low. But the price comes out of the Blackmoor price list. If you look closely at the information in the FFC, it seems Arneson's "full plate" may not be what we think it is. The cost of full plate is only 40 gp, less than double the cost of leather (22gp), or a shirt of Chainmail (24 gp) and exactly double the cost of a large shield (20 gp). It is also only 1/8 the cost of horse armor (320 gp). So I ask you, what is "full plate" in Blackmoor and "Plate mail" in OD&D? Given those prices it must surely be a metal breastplate - like for example the sort worn by Conquistadors. It cannot possibly be a full suit of knightly armor, in my opinion.

What I'm getting at is that we could add an AC 1 category for a full armor suit with shield.

[peterlind]

Thanks for your comments. I would like to address them briefly in reverse order, if you don’t mind.

>What I'm getting at is that we could add an AC 1 category for a full armor suit with shield.< Yes, I did consider this: AC 1 could be full plate, and AC 0 could be full plate and shield. My concern here, though, is that the technological norm of the game is being pushed from the default medieval era, since these forms of armor were not introduced until the late medieval/early renaissance eras. Perhaps a way to deal with this is to add a category for Dwarven Plate?

> I don't think DR is a good fit for D&D unless you're willing to also reduce HP at higher levels.< Yes, a valid concern, so any new system should be play tested and adjusted as needed. One thing that I have considered is to allow magical bonuses to hit to negate the damage reduction. Another way to approach it is to allow the damage reduction to be reduced based on a higher attack roll. For example, under the table, a 13th level fighter needs to roll a 13 to hit AC -8 and would be at -4 damage. Perhaps it could be allowed that for every 1 or 2 points the fighter’s attack roll exceeds a 13, the damage reduction is reduced by 1. In this way, there might be less “whiffs” against opponents with high AC.

[peterlind]

>(1) It still has the "negative is better" problem that conventional AC has . . . <

Though perhaps unintended from a design standpoint, I think that having a non-conventional AC enhances the mystique that surrounds OD&D. If players cannot easily determine their chances to hit a monster, it adds to the mystery . . . I think that the concept of “negative AC”, again unintended, gives one an opportunity to make the concept of AC become non-linear. For example, suppose negative AC was defined as a form of defense that is only possible through magic. Then, each “point” of negative AC could be given a designation for a type of magical, mystical, or supernatural defense. Against each form of magical defense, the attacker’s ability to do damage will be based on the type of magical weapon used. For example, let us suppose that AC -4 is designated as “fire.” This form of negative AC could have its own defensive variables: modifier to hit, modifier to damage, attack roll or damage adjustment based on type of attack (i.e. cold more effective). In addition, taking a page from prismatic wall: Perhaps each form of defense could have a “back door” spell against which it is particularly vulnerable -- that provides a form of negation on a temporary basis or other special effect against the creature. This could keep magic-users relevant against tough creatures that might have magic resistance . . .

(2) It instantly makes every published OD&D/AD&D/2E/etc resource inaccurate. . .

You are correct. . . this is intended . . . 

[Stormcrow]

*shrug*
I don't see why symmetry is important. As long as you get the results you want, who cares what numbers are on the column headers?

[Finarvyn]

Dec 1, 2015 12:57:12 GMT -6 peterlind said:

>(1) It still has the "negative is better" problem that conventional AC has . . . <

Though perhaps unintended from a design standpoint, I think that having a non-conventional AC enhances the mystique that surrounds OD&D. If players cannot easily determine their chances to hit a monster, it adds to the mystery . . .

I suppose this might be the case for some, but for me the awesomeness of OD&D lies in its simplicity and not some hidden mystery. For me, having a simple system that is easy to understand is a lot better than something obscure that is tricky somehow.

That was always my problem with 2E's THAC0 -- while it might be a simple concept, I had something I liked better so I never bothered to figure it out. It remains a mystery to me to this day, and I'm not sure that makes 2E any better of a game just because I don't understand it.

[starcraft]

THACO was simply 1 number to remember vs a bunch. If you know your to hit AC 0 is 20 and the orc's ac is 5 you know you need a 15. Supposedly easier, but I agree with you - not really a big jump from spending 2 seconds looking at the attack matrix.

As mentioned in the holmes section below, I did away with attack matrices and simply gave higher level folks more attacks. A 1st and 10th level fighting man need the same roll to hit AC 5 - 14 or whatever I am too lazy to look it up.

The difference? 1st level guy has one shot at it. 10th level guy might have 6. It keeps armor from becoming useless at high levels and makes magic weapons and armor far more important.

It should be noted however that I play a bit of a Robert E. Howard style of D&D with low magic. Any sort of magic user is a fearsome opponent and long swords +5 are not growing on trees 2nd edition Forgotten Realms style

[Mike]

Dec 1, 2015 20:46:47 GMT -6 starcraft said:

THACO was simply 1 number to remember vs a bunch. If you know your to hit AC 0 is 20 and the orc's ac is 5 you know you need a 15. Supposedly easier, but I agree with you - not really a big jump from spending 2 seconds looking at the attack matrix.

As mentioned in the holmes section below, I did away with attack matrices and simply gave higher level folks more attacks. A 1st and 10th level fighting man need the same roll to hit AC 5 - 14 or whatever I am too lazy to look it up.

The difference? 1st level guy has one shot at it. 10th level guy might have 6. It keeps armor from becoming useless at high levels and makes magic weapons and armor far more important.

It should be noted however that I play a bit of a Robert E. Howard style of D&D with low magic. Any sort of magic user is a fearsome opponent and long swords +5 are not growing on trees 2nd edition Forgotten Realms style

I've adopted Starcraft's system of multiple attacks rather than increasing the probability of success for a single attack. Works a treat for my bunch. I do it slightly differently. Every bump on the chart is worth an extra attack (FTR 2, CLR 3, THF 4, MU 5 - progression from AD&D).

[spacelem]

How do you guys handle extra attacks for monsters, particularly ones who already have multiple attacks? And do the extra attack rolls slow things down at all?

As for PCs, I'd be tempted to stick with one attack, but instead roll multiple damage dice.

[starcraft]

For monsters, I use hitdice equivalent fighting-man attacks - a 4 hd ogre attacks as a 4 hd fm. As far as creatures (say Hydras) with multiple attacks to begin with, I use HD equivalent or stated # of attacks - whatever is greater.

The multiple rolls really doesn't change the pace of the game TBH. The issue I have with multiple damage dice vs attack dice is that it is all or nothing. having the potential to inflict 3d6 vs 1d6 means less when each combatant has the same chance to hit.

My thinking is that the 'to hit' roll is really a 'chance to damage' roll. In abstract combat folks are getting hit constantly - it's about which blow is the one that hits it's mark. Parsing words - I know, but it's my take on it. I just prefer more skilled opponents getting more chances to hurt you rather than doing multiples of damage with 1 strike. Again, not a huge difference mechanically, but flavor I suppose.

[Harbinger]

For me, the best system by far is Delta's Target 20. Player rolls, adds their class/level BAB number and tells DM total. DM mentally adds target's (descending) AC and if the sum is 20 or less more, they hit. Requires no mental gymnastics and you never have to add a number larger than 9. Really fast at the table. It is close enough to the OD&D attack matrix values that no one would really notice.

www.superdan.net/gaming/oed/target20/Target20.pdf

[Porphyre]

Dec 29, 2015 15:37:19 GMT -6 Harbinger said:

Player rolls, adds their class/level BAB number and tells DM total. DM mentally adds target's (descending) AC and if the sum is 20 or less, they hit. 

20 or more, you mean ? 

[Harbinger]

Dec 29, 2015 15:56:28 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

Dec 29, 2015 15:37:19 GMT -6 Harbinger said:

Player rolls, adds their class/level BAB number and tells DM total. DM mentally adds target's (descending) AC and if the sum is 20 or less, they hit. 

20 or more, you mean ? 

Whoops. Was typing this while being pressured to finish up so the family could go out. 20 or more.

Simple example:

A fighter is +1 per level, so a 3rd level fighter is +3.

A 3rd level fighter is trying to hit AC 5.

Player rolls 11, 11+3 = 14, player tells DM "14"
DM calculates 14 + AC 5 = 19. A miss.

Player just has to remember to add 3 to every combat roll, DM just has to add the AC value.

Very easy to use.

[Porphyre]

With OD&D Hit Dice , you can also use them as attack bonus. It is not the execat equivalent of the Alternative Combat Matrix, but it falls pretty close. I'm sure the math is covered in another thread (maybe even this very one!) but I don't have the time to look for it.

[peterlind]

Dec 1, 2015 9:43:07 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Dec 1, 2015 5:06:29 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

(2) It instantly makes every published OD&D/AD&D/2E/etc resource inaccurate. . .

I have another thought about the issue that might be a way out. Here is the thing: what is "plate mail" in OD&D? People often complain that plate is priced way too low. But the price comes out of the Blackmoor price list. If you look closely at the information in the FFC, it seems Arneson's "full plate" may not be what we think it is. The cost of full plate is only 40 gp, less than double the cost of leather (22gp), or a shirt of Chainmail (24 gp) and exactly double the cost of a large shield (20 gp). It is also only 1/8 the cost of horse armor (320 gp). So I ask you, what is "full plate" in Blackmoor and "Plate mail" in OD&D? Given those prices it must surely be a metal breastplate - like for example the sort worn by Conquistadors. It cannot possibly be a full suit of knightly armor, in my opinion.

What I'm getting at is that we could add an AC 1 category for a full armor suit with shield.

Thanks again for your comments. I have modified the attack matrix so that it is back to the standard combat table, except that it adds Full Plate at AC 1 and Full Plate and Shield at AC 2. For negative AC, I still have the alternate progression, essentially -1 to hit and -1 damage per 2 points of negative AC.

drive.google.com/file/d/0B3U1JYviYYT7S3dPRjlyWnBvMmc/view?usp=sharing

What do you think about modifying the rule for negative AC (this is just one possible approach)? Thanks.