Armor protects why does it make me harder to hit?

[bestialwarlust]

So I was pondering the D&D combat system and I've come up with this that I thought I'd add to my D&D home brew rules book that I have. This is how I imagine the combat system to be interperted. What are your thoughts? am I off base? am I thinking to hard about it?

Armor protects why does it make me harder to hit?

In order to understand this better we need to look a little deeper at what's going on in the game system. D&D uses an abstract combat that is sometimes not well defined. Looking at the combat tables we can see the AC's listed for unarmored all the way to plate. each has it's own value, well you say the numbers get higher there fore wearing heavier armor means you dodge better that doesn't make sense!.

I believe that it's more a problem with the wording than anything else. At first level an unarmored person can be hit on a roll of 10 or better on a d20 so roughly a 50% to hit. This would be correct as most people don't stand around waiting to get hit. Your opponent is always moving. So if you score a 10 or better (modifiers appy of course) you damage your target. Now let's say your oppponent now wears leather armor giving him an effective AC of 7 why is he harder to hit? He's not! What's that you say? He's not harder to hit? but I have to roll a higher number. This is true of course, but let's adjust perspective and wording a bit here. Going with the idea that you're still a first level character, a roll of 10 or better still scores a hit. Ok now you're confusing me, according to the chart I need a roll of 12 or better. And you are correct. You do need a 12 or better to penetrate and damage your target, but not neccessarily "to hit" him. Confused? of course you are so here's what I'm trying to say. If you look at the combat chart just follow the numbers across the unarmored section if you roll that number or higher (again this includes your modifers on your hit rolls) you may indeed hit your opponent but it doesn't mean you penetrated his armor. Think of the numbers after unarmored as the rolls required to penetrate armor and not "to hit". In actuallity as you, or the monster, increase in level your base number needed to hit drops. The numbers after unarmored are what you need to penetrate your targets protective armor. And as you get better so does your skill at getting around armor. If the weapon vs Ac rule is used then the weapon can also play a factor into that. So if you roll the number you need to hit an "unarmored" target you should check the weapon vs AC chart and see if you did actually score a strike. So in this case I would drop the column of weapon vs AC 9.

[geoffrey]

I agree with what you're saying. Otherwise things would get silly: "This is bizarre. Every time I swing at that guy in plate mail, I either totally miss or I draw blood. How come my sword never hits his armor without harming him?"

[Deleted]

Nov 21, 2011 21:34:08 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

So I was pondering the D&D combat system and I've come up with this that I thought I'd add to my D&D home brew rules book that I have. This is how I imagine the combat system to be interperted. What are your thoughts? am I off base? am I thinking to hard about it?

Armor protects why does it make me harder to hit?

In order to understand this better we need to look a little deeper at what's going on in the game system. D&D uses an abstract combat that is sometimes not well defined. Looking at the combat tables we can see the AC's listed for unarmored all the way to plate. each has it's own value, well you say the numbers get higher there fore wearing heavier armor means you dodge better that doesn't make sense!.

I believe that it's more a problem with the wording than anything else. At first level an unarmored person can be hit on a roll of 10 or better on a d20 so roughly a 50% to hit. This would be correct as most people don't stand around waiting to get hit. Your opponent is always moving. So if you score a 10 or better (modifiers appy of course) you damage your target. Now let's say your oppponent now wears leather armor giving him an effective AC of 7 why is he harder to hit? He's not! What's that you say? He's not harder to hit? but I have to roll a higher number. This is true of course, but let's adjust perspective and wording a bit here. Going with the idea that you're still a first level character, a roll of 10 or better still scores a hit. Ok now you're confusing me, according to the chart I need a roll of 12 or better. And you are correct. You do need a 12 or better to penetrate and damage your target, but not neccessarily "to hit" him. Confused? of course you are so here's what I'm trying to say. If you look at the combat chart just follow the numbers across the unarmored section if you roll that number or higher (again this includes your modifers on your hit rolls) you may indeed hit your opponent but it doesn't mean you penetrated his armor. Think of the numbers after unarmored as the rolls required to penetrate armor and not "to hit". In actuallity as you, or the monster, increase in level your base number needed to hit drops. The numbers after unarmored are what you need to penetrate your targets protective armor. And as you get better so does your skill at getting around armor. If the weapon vs Ac rule is used then the weapon can also play a factor into that. So if you roll the number you need to hit an "unarmored" target you should check the weapon vs AC chart and see if you did actually score a strike. So in this case I would drop the column of weapon vs AC 9.

You are thinking about it too much! Have an exalt! Seriously though if you continue that line of thought you could come up with a very realistic method to simulate real life armored combat, unfortunately it would also slow the game down and people like me would admire the work and thought, but wouldn't use it simply because it slows down the game. That is why I don't use most of the stuff in the Greyhawk supplement. I love a lot of things in Greyhawk as a player, but as a ref they slow the game way down and they also increase the amount of work to ref a game, when I was young and had lots of time, and games ran 8 to 10 to 12 hours or more I didn't care. Now that I am a lot older, have little free time and the games are a lot shorter and not as often, I care. ;D

[kent]

Nov 21, 2011 21:34:08 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

am I thinking to[o] hard about it?

No, but you might have expressed the idea in a single brief sentence. Im sorry but what you have said is nothing a twelve year looking at the table for the first time wouldn't conclude.

[ralph]

You've clearly had an epiphany, but I suspect most of us have had that one already
We also extend it to mean that any spell that requires touch needs to roll vs AC 10 (modified for Dex if necessary) against an unwilling target.
It is the term 'to hit' that may be confusing. It should be 'roll to wound' perhaps.

[talysman]

Nov 22, 2011 0:41:35 GMT -6 ralph said:

It is the term 'to hit' that may be confusing. It should be 'roll to wound' perhaps.

Or, more accurately, "roll to kill", with hit points being luck in avoiding being killed.

Every round of combat means some kind of hit, but unless the attacker rolls successfully to kill, all the hits are bruises, minor cuts, scrapes, and the like. These pretty much disappear immediately; they're just descriptive flourishes.

[DungeonDevil]

"To hit" is gaming shorthand for 'to hit and wound or injure' just like "weight" means 'both ponderousness and bulk or encumbrance' and "dungeon" means 'any enclosed area bounded by walls and a ceiling, whether underground (artificial space, or natural caverns) or above-ground (interior of castle).

[waysoftheearth]

Nov 21, 2011 23:56:11 GMT -6 kent said:

Nov 21, 2011 21:34:08 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

am I thinking to[o] hard about it?

No, but you might have expressed the idea in a single brief sentence. I[']m sorry but what you have said is nothing [that] a twelve year [old] looking at the table for the first time wouldn't conclude.

Might have expressed the idea in a single brief sentence, true. But chose instead to embellish the idea. And then also chose to share the idea freely so that we could choose to participate in this discussion. Let's try to encourage this kind of behaviour, shall we?

[rleduc]

The related point is 'what do you mean by hit points?'. If you conceive of them purely as the ability to withstand wounds, then a successful 'to hit' must involve physical damage. If I recall correctly, in AD&D, the notion of 'hit points' is more broad: they represent the above plus other intangibles. I don't recall the exact language, but it was something like stamina, dodging skill, etc.

Admittedly a bit strange but explained why a 10th level magic user without armor was so much harder to kill with a sword than a first level fighter in armor.

Discussing the meaning of hit points gets a bit removed from the sources pretty quickly, as the definition gets circular. Hit points are how much 'damage' you can withstand and weapons do that 'damage'.

It's perfectly reasonable to go down the road you're on, but it will inevitably bring up a lot of contradictions. The ideas came from miniatures wargaming, and so sprang from very simple roots.

Real combat with swords etc would probably lead to more permanent injuries, e.g. missing or useless limbs. Such very deadly combat rules or permanent wound rules could give a very different game.

[Finarvyn]

As others have noted, a "hit" is assumed to be one that makes it through the armor, not counting a blow that bounces off and does no damage. The person in platemail would be "hit" as often as anyone else, but fewer of those blows would cause injury.

Frankly, I find this system more elegant (if less realistic) than most others out there. Some games use a dodge or "roll to penetrate armor" or other such, but I find that those systems just add another layer of dice rolls to combat and slow it down. I'd prefer for my combat system to be simple and easy to use, and the current one works nicely for me in that regard.

[zarathustra]

Yeah, I always thought the AC was abstract enough to also represent the hits that struck but did no real damage.
You could say Plate does not make you harder to hit, just harder to hurt.

The roll does not represent "one swing, one hit or miss" but tells of the general tide of that little segment of battle.

[Ynas Midgard]

We actually used to interpret the rules this way when we were beginners.
Anyway, a "hit" is something that makes you less able to fight, thus a "hit" is not necessarily a blood-spilling blow but something which gives the attacker an edge over his opponent. Otherwise we would end up with warriors bathing in their own blood yet having too many Hit Points.

[bestialwarlust]

Nov 21, 2011 23:56:11 GMT -6 kent said:

Nov 21, 2011 21:34:08 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

am I thinking to[o] hard about it?

No, but you might have expressed the idea in a single brief sentence. Im sorry but what you have said is nothing a twelve year looking at the table for the first time wouldn't conclude.

True I am a little slow but having been away from d&d for many years. Been playing other games. I've come back starting way at the begining with OD&D and I'm giving things a serious re reading paying more attention instead of just reading words.

[bestialwarlust]

Nov 22, 2011 5:29:43 GMT -6 rleduc said:

The related point is 'what do you mean by hit points?'. If you conceive of them purely as the ability to withstand wounds, then a successful 'to hit' must involve physical damage.

Agreed I think Philotomy's defenition nails that pretty well.

[rleduc]

Nov 22, 2011 6:49:59 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

Agreed I think Philotomy's defenition nails that pretty well.

Philotomy's definition?

[bestialwarlust]

Nov 22, 2011 7:14:13 GMT -6 rleduc said:

Nov 22, 2011 6:49:59 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

Agreed I think Philotomy's defenition nails that pretty well.

Philotomy's definition?

That the last 6 HP is where the "real" damage occurs. Assuming you're using the d6 for HP and damage, which I'm going to do.

From his site

www.philotomy.com/#damage



"Damage & Hit Points

In my OD&D game, hit points are an abstract measure of a PC's well-being and fitness for combat. Hit points include factors like physical well-being, mental well-being or morale, how tired the PC is, how lucky he is, and even skill. As a PC takes damage, the declining hit points represent his resources being used up in combat. Not only is it physical damage, but it's also his muscles getting tired, sweat getting in his eyes, his breath running short, his resolve weakening, his reactions slowing, and his reserves of skill and luck being used. This means that the referee's description of combat should take these factors into account. Consider a 10th level Fighting Man with 50 hit points and a 1st level Fighting Man with 5 hit points. Each of these Fighting Men enters combat and each receives 6 points of damage from an enemy swordsman. This damage runs the 1st level Fighting Man through, killing him. However, the 10th level Fighting Man is still up, fighting, and not even terribly diminished. He's not really ten times as tough, physically, it's just that his superior luck and skill allowed him to evade or deflect the blow which would've killed a 1st level fighter. Instead of killing him, it just used up some of his resources.

In OD&D, a normal man has 1-6 hit points, and all weapons do 1-6 hit points of damage. In other words, the average man can be slain with a single damage roll from any weapon. This makes perfect sense given D&D's abstract system: a dagger thrust can kill you just as readily as a chop from a greataxe. When describing OD&D combat, I only describe severe or mortal wounds when the last 6 hit points are reached. Prior to that, damage is described as near-misses, parried blows that would've slain a lesser warrior, scratches, bruises, et cetera. This means that players can get a sense of how tough and skilled an enemy is by the effect their damage rolls have. If the PCs have dished out 14 points of damage, and I'm describing how the bad guy just got nicked on his forearm and is starting to sweat, they know that this guy has some serious hit points. On the other hand, if the first four points of damage they inflict opens a gaping, bleeding wound and their foe cries out in anguish, they know this probably isn't an 8th level superhero they're fighting."

[kesher]

Amen, as always, to Philotomy!

And amen, too, to anyone new to these boards expressing a personal epiphany; maybe we hashed out the subject over multiple threads two years ago, etc., but so what? It doesn't mean I'm not going to get some insight, and if I can point to past threads, so much the better!

[bestialwarlust]

For me the epiphany was recent because I've always dealt with "fluid" AC. I started as a kid back in '81 with the moldvay/cook set and shortly after that when onto AD&D. I only recently acquired a copy of OD&D boxed set a few years ago.

I've been writing up my own OSR version of OD&D and so some new things are really starting to stand out for me. I find it interesting how some minor changes from OD&D to all other versions can really make a difference. At least to me. I never considered using any type of weapon vs AC until reading OD&D and see the reasoning behind it.

[rleduc]

And, for epiphanies, I had never heard of Philotomy. I thought I had read something in the AD&D books somewhere. I could be wrong.

The only piece I'd discard from that is 'luck'. Personally, I don't really have a firm idea of what 'luck' is, or why it should increase with experience/level. I think the other factors mentioned above are sufficient.

[Deleted]

Nov 22, 2011 8:47:08 GMT -6 rleduc said:

I had never heard of Philotomy. I thought I had read something in the AD&D books somewhere. I could be wrong.

Philotomy Jurament is the name of a pre-gen PC in one the published TSR modules IIRC.

[Deleted]

* sigh *

Okay, once again.

ABSTRACT.

ABSTRACT.

A-B-S-T-R-A-C-T.

An OD&D combat round is one minute. One roll of the dice does NOT equal one swing of the sword. The d20 roll is an abstract resolution of "After a minute of swording away furiously at the other bugger, have I done anything useful"?

That's why higher AC makes you harder to hit. If your enemy is in plate armor, you have less of a chance of doing something useful to him.

If I sound irritated I am. This is CLEARLY explained in the little brown books (albeit in slightly different language) and I'm sick and tired of explaining this over and over again for 38 years.

[cooper]

Actually the combat round in 0d&d is 6 seconds, the 1 minute round didn't exist (officially) until ad&d--though I'm sure it was in gygax's game before then. Combat only became abstract with the 1 minute round. CM and M&M combat isn't abstract at all.

[Aplus]

Nov 22, 2011 14:54:03 GMT -6 cooper said:

Actually the combat round in 0d&d is 6 seconds, the 1 minute round didn't exist (officially) until ad&d--though I'm sure it was in gygax's game before then. Combat only became abstract with the 1 minute round. CM and M&M combat isn't abstract at all.

Huh? From Chainmail:

The ratio of figures to men assumed is 1:20, the ground scale is 1":10 yards, and one turn of play is roughly equivalent to one minute of time in battle.

Where's there an indication of 6-second rounds? Not saying there isn't one, but I'd like to know where it is, since I have been operation under the assumption that OD&D uses Chainmail's 1-minute combat round (or turn) for some time.

Also, HAIL LORD GRUMPY!

Edit: Also, from U&WA p.8

THE MOVE/TURN IN THE UNDERWORLD:
In the underworld all distances are in feet, so wherever distances are given in inches convert them to tens of feet.

Movement (distances given in Vol. 1) is in segments of approximately ten minutes. Thus it takes ten minutes to move about two moves — 120 feet for a fully armored character. Two moves constitute a turn, except in flight/pursuit situations where the moves/turn will be doubled (and no mapping allowed).

Time must be taken to rest, so one turn every hour must be spent motionless, and double the rest period must be taken after a flight/pursuit takes place.

Time spent searching for anything (secret passages, hidden treasure, etc.), loading treasure, listening, ESP'ing, hiding, will be adjudged by the referee as to what portion of a turn will be used by the activity. Typically, ESP'ing will take but a quarter turn, while searching a ten foot section of wall for secret passages will require a full turn.

Melee is fast and furious. There are ten rounds of combat per turn.

Sounds like 1-minute combat rounds to me...

[cooper]

There are multiple rounds of combat per 1 minute combat turn in chainmail. This was left undefined, men and magic gave a set number of 10 rounds per combat turn. Not to be confused with the exploration turn of 10 minutes. Gary modified the official to the one we all know an love only in dragon magazine later before ad&d was written.

It is explained fully in this thread: odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=adventures&thread=6497&page=1

There are threads in the chainmail forum explaining how multiple rounds of melee work in mass combat during the 1 min. Turn. Rounds and turns are not synonymous in Chainmail.

[Deleted]

You guys DO realize you're dicing this more finely than the buggers who wrote the rules.

Also, time notwithstanding, even OD&D CLEARLY states that one die roll is not one sword swing. Swo there.

[bestialwarlust]

I know it's abstract that's why I try emphasis on try not to dissect it too much. But it's in my nature to ask why or how does it work that way and why. I'm bad at just accepting things "just because", but that is one reason I'm back with OD&D.

Just being able to play without all the excessive "fiddly bits". So I just make small house rule adjustments for how I want things to work and it doesn't break the whole system.

If I want less abstract and more fiddly I have plenty of other RPG's for that. Tinkering and stuff like this is what makes OD&D fun for me. I tend to run my rounds to about 6 - 10 seconds for my games nothing hard and fast. But they tend to be anything less than a minute.

*offers gronan a beer*

[rleduc]

I agree that it is important not to fetishize the text. We're getting to the point where soon I expect people will start using textual methods from studies of ancient manuscripts or biblical textual criticism.

It is a game, guys. A sort of long version of the rules to Monopoly. It means what you want it to mean, that is whatever you find fun.

By all means, mess around with the mechanics to suit yourselves. Everyone else did and does. Want to say heavier armor ablates some of the damage - make your house rule! There are similar house rules for shields. Find this idea abhorrent? Don't use it!

But don't get too hung up on what it all "means". What verisimilitude there may be is at the game table, not so much in the rules. Don't invest the text with layers of meaning it just can't support.

In some of the online games here, Waysoftheearth and others deliberately distort the rules to give things a new feel. Judicious use of this is good. But you only find out what rules are judicious by trying. So I can't see denigrating anyone's attempts to put a twist on things without trying them myself.

[Deleted]

Nov 22, 2011 15:54:16 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

I know it's abstract that's why I try emphasis on try not to dissect it too much. But it's in my nature to ask why or how does it work that way and why. I'm bad at just accepting things "just because", but that is one reason I'm back with OD&D.

Just being able to play without all the excessive "fiddly bits". So I just make small house rule adjustments for how I want things to work and it doesn't break the whole system.

If I want less abstract and more fiddly I have plenty of other RPG's for that. Tinkering and stuff like this is what makes OD&D fun for me. I tend to run my rounds to about 6 - 10 seconds for my games nothing hard and fast. But they tend to be anything less than a minute.

*offers gronan a beer*

I am going to give you a second Exalt!

[Deleted]

Nov 22, 2011 15:58:44 GMT -6 rleduc said:

I agree that it is important not to fetishize the text. We're getting to the point where soon I expect people will start using textual methods from studies of ancient manuscripts or biblical textual criticism.

It is a game, guys. A sort of long version of the rules to Monopoly. It means what you want it to mean, that is whatever you find fun.

By all means, mess around with the mechanics to suit yourselves. Everyone else did and does. Want to say heavier armor ablates some of the damage - make your house rule! There are similar house rules for shields. Find this idea abhorrent? Don't use it!

But don't get too hung up on what it all "means". What verisimilitude there may be is at the game table, not so much in the rules. Don't invest the text with layers of meaning it just can't support.

In some of the online games here, Waysofmeans and others deliberately distort the rules to give things a new feel. Judicious use of this is good. But you only find out what rules are judicious by trying. So I can't see denigrating anyone's attempts to put a twist on things without trying them myself.

You are also worthy of an Exalt! And as soon as the hour is up, you will get it.

[geoffrey]

Nov 22, 2011 14:03:48 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

One roll of the dice does NOT equal one swing of the sword. The d20 roll is an abstract resolution of "After a minute of swording away furiously at the other bugger, have I done anything useful"?

Succinctly put.