What if AC Improved With Level?

[inkmeister]

Let's say AC were capped at 0 or 20 (or -2 or 22 perhaps). Let's say that fighters improve their AC as they go up levels, just as they improve at hitting. Would this be an improvement? Why or why not?

I envision it this way: Fighters hit bonus = level, and AC = 11 + level, or 9 - level.

My thinking is that AC can represent more than armor, but also combat ability in a sense, specifically one's ability to avoid getting hit. A highly skillful warrior doesn't need the benefit of great armor, and can reap the benefits of ditching the heaviest armor, since at the highest levels, they would have very good AC either way.

I realize for some that HP serves this purpose, but that's not quite how I'm looking at the thing.

Thoughts?

[talysman]

It wouldn't work for me, because it turns AC into a number and dissociates the armor classes from the armor they represent.

[Deleted]

I think this is a good idea.

[Deleted]

Aug 25, 2013 12:06:40 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Let's say that fighters improve their AC as they go up levels, just as they improve at hitting. Would this be an improvement? Why or why not?

Whether it is an improvement depends on what you are trying to accomplish. I play this way (or, rather, I made the to-hit process depend solely on level rather than level vs armor)

The problem with using this method to encourage higher level fighters to ditch heavy armor is that is encourages the opposite. A bonus to AC will have a much higher effect on a character with heavy armor compared to one wearing no armor. Up until everything needs a 20 to hit at least.

[Deleted]

What if it is either improve your to hit bonus +1 or +1 to AC as a Fighter levels up?

[oakesspalding]

Not to pile on, but I think it makes hit dice redundant, plus given all the complaining one hears about how high level combats go on for too long, it would seem to push in the wrong direction. Unless of course one then tinkered with the slope of the attack tables or increased damage rolls at higher levels, etc., but then why introduce another arms race for no good reason?

Of course, if you were trying to construct a more fine-grained "realistic" combat system, then you would presumably take account of something like parrying ability along with armor type. But then you're just playing a different game.

In the original three little brown books armor class was generally treated as a specific armor type-none, leather, mail or plate (plus a possible shield, of course)-or the equivalent in monster hide, scales or whet have you. If you keep true to that scheme you can even graft on a workable table of armor adjustments by weapon-as was tried (imperfectly, in my view) in Greyhawk. However, even in the original edition, an annoying conflation of dodging ability, quickness, luck or what have you with protective power crept in for some monsters. For example, a Unicorn is rated as armor class 2. Does that mean that when you hit one with your sword it just bounces off as if you were striking steel? I would be inclined to give such a creature a more "normal" armor class-in the case of a Unicorn, it would have whatever a horse has, 6 or 7, I think-and, if you want to roughly preserve its overall value on defense, just give it a few extra hit dice.

So, for example, a 4th level fighter needs a 15 (a 30% chance) to hit armor class 2, but needs only a 10 to hit armor class 6 (a 50% chance). As written, a Unicorn has 4 hit dice (or an average of 14 hit points). So 50/30 * 14 = 23.33 (or 6+2 hit dice). Of course, then the creature would possibly graduate to a better attack row, so one might want to strike a "compromise" by scaling the adjustment back somewhat.

[Red Baron]

Aug 25, 2013 15:25:43 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

For example, a Unicorn is rated as armor class 2. Does that mean that when you hit one with your sword it just bounces off as if you were striking steel?

Obviously unicorns are actually made of steel. You have to interpret the rules to realize what Gary must have originally intended. I think you have just made a discovery here.

[zeraser]

This is how AC is handled in 4th edition, as most of you probably know - characters receive a bonus to AC equal to half their level. It certainly makes sense to me; it's a step toward addressing the weird asymmetry between to-hit rolls and HP on the one hand, which get better every level, and AC and damage on the other, which don't.

Whether this asymmetry is a major problem or not depends on your preferences, I guess, but I'd love to hear a deeper conversation about what the practical effects are on the players (as opposed to the characters) of missing a lot at low levels and hitting almost all the time at high levels. Is it demoralizing to new blood? Is it frustrating? Seems like it could be, which I think is why the 4e designers strove for 50/50 average to-hit odds at all levels.

* ...although (as Talysman points out) there may be some value in retaining the original mapping of AC onto particular kinds of armor.

[inkmeister]

I can see Talysman's point; OD&D does treat each specific AC number as a type of armor. I don't do it that way; I'd rather treat armor as a bonus to add or subtract from the base AC. It's easy to conceptualize Plate as +6 to AC. This is more new school admittedly, but I think in terms of hit bonuses and the like, rather than using old tables. It's the exact same thing, but simpler (for me).

[talysman]

I should mention that I did do an "armor improves with level" thing for my version of the monk. Instead of an AC bonus, I gave the monk this ability: "Armor class equals armor worn or AC 5 at 5th level, AC 3 at 10th." I kind of prefer setting minimums instead of adding bonuses, since it eliminates math and preserves the AC-to-armor-type link: a 10th level monk has armor *equivalent to* plate. If you applied something like this to fighters, it would keep heavy armor relevant for a while. I think you'd want to limit the effect in some way, though, such as not using the level-based AC when backstabbed.

[inkmeister]

As usual, good points and ideas, Talysman. I agree about being backstabbed, and I like your idea of minimums, though I'm leaning towards trying a straight up bonus, at first.

At the moment, I am thinking in terms of the more radical +1 AC (ascending style) per fighter level. I did not realize that 4e gave AC bonuses, but 1/2 level is less than what I'd want to do. I do realize that a side effect of this is going to be longer combats between equal level fighters. I still think it's an effect I'd prefer, in this case, and I like that it fits with general monster AC, where armor is often not the deciding factor in a creatures AC, but rather general ability to dodge and so on.

I should add that I plan to cap my game at level 8 or 9, so to hit bonuses and AC can't get too crazy, and I'd likely cap AC at 20 regardless.

[busman]

I did this with my Thief workup. AC bonus as levels rose, based on wearing light/no armor. Gave a nice alternative to the Fighting Man and made the Thief feel more unique. Only had one session with a person playing my thief though, so it was first level, and it didn't come into effect. I can't say how it would feel over the long term. On paper/in my head, it feels good.

[Necropraxis]

I like this a lot, and I've been considering several variants along similar lines. I think armor mechanics should change though, so that you don't end up with a huge double bonus at high levels.

Thinking of it as a defense number rather than an "armor class" might help with Talysman's objection.

So here's an idea: defense bonus = hit dice. This would be true of all classes, though fighters, having the most hit dice, will obviously have the best defense numbers. HD becomes an extremely parsimonious measure of fighting ability.

Armor could grant a bonus to the save versus death, or provide some damage reduction (if you don't mind increasing average combat lengths a bit).

[llenlleawg]

The thing is that OD&D is not designed on the premise that AC scales with hit dice/difficulty class of a monster. After all, a purple worm (15 HD), one of the most dangerous monsters, has an AC of 6, while (as noted above) a unicorn (4 HD) has an AC of 2. To be sure, the mightiest of the undead as well as dragons have an AC of 2, but both trolls (6+3 HD) and giants (8-12+2 HD) have an AC of 4. In other words, for the most part, the AC of a monster reflects a more "naturalistic" approach, with essentially "unarmored" monsters (like ochre jellies [AC 8] or black puddings [AC 6]) have ACs inferior to those more "(super)naturally" tough, such as both dragons and spectres at AC 2.

[busman]

I do think it's expected that PC AC will improve over time, though. Better armor, better spells, magical armor, etc. Dramatic improvement? No, but improvement should be expected.

[inkmeister]

Good comments all around. Untimately, I like what you are saying about connecting this up with hit dice. I'd be on board with that. In my own game, I'm going to experiment with de-randomizing HP, so instead of hit dice, you'll have a set amount of starting HP and HP given per level (varying based on class). So in my case, this will be based on level, and I want it to only apply to fighters (but my game only has two classes). With random HP and varying classes, your idea seems as good as any.

Again, to the objections, I have to remind that my personal plan is to have AC capped at 0. So I don't see that this can get too crazy. As Busman says, the expectation is that AC is going to improve one way or the other.

Oh, and I am thinking about the damage reduction idea. Chain might give -1 and Plate might give -2. And maybe a bonus for certain saves, as suggested. That's the less thought out part of my plan though, and not essential.

What I'm looking at is a situation where only fighters improve at hitting and dodging (by the way, defense bonus is a good change of terminology, thanks Untimately), and they get better HP. Magic users do the magic thing, but I am going to let them use all weapons and armor, I think. Why not? It's just one more thing to blow money on. But those are topics for another thread.

[drskull]

Keeping AC under control is one of the most important things in any form of D&D. Part of the reason I don't like newer versions of D&D is AC inflation. PC's end up with such high AC that ordinary soldier-type enemies are useless against them. That kind of bursts the bubble for me for running a campaign. I against anything that raises AC too far above AC 2.

[scottenkainen]

I'd be opposed to it on two grounds. One, I agree with some posters who seem to be saying this is one area where, if you tweak it too far, you're playing something different than D&D. AC being determined by armor worn seems to be a key mechanic in D&D. Two, I think there needs to be a combination of gradated skills and set skills in D&D. Hitting others and staying alive (to hit rolls and saving throws) seem to be the only important gradated skills for non-thieves. Most every other skill is set, like how secret door detection never advances.

Or would you, if you advance AC as a gradated skill, then let everything advance as well? Maybe a save vs. secret doors that goes up per level?

~Scott "-enkainen" Casper

[busman]

Or would you, if you advance AC as a gradated skill, then let everything advance as well? Maybe a save vs. secret doors that goes up per level?

That suggestion seems to be going against the pick and choose nature of the 3LBB as well, though, no? I see no reason it has to be a slippery slope.

There's also no reason it needs to be unbounded.

In my thief workup, for example, it's a 1, 2, 3, 4 point bonus every 3 levels (capped at 4) assuming Leather or less. So at level 10, a thief was at AC 3 (assuming no magic). This doesn't scale out of scope, nor take away from the fighting man directly. I dramatically prefer this idea to attribute based bonuses to HP/AC, etc. The idea that a more experienced adventurer is harder to hit doesn't fly in the face of verisimilitude, either.

[sepulchre]

Oakesspalding wrote:

...it makes hit dice redundant,

Agreed.

Talysman wrote:

"Armor class equals armor worn or AC 5 at 5th level, AC 3 at 10th." I kind of prefer setting minimums instead of adding bonuses, since it eliminates math and preserves the AC-to-armor-type link: a 10th level monk has armor *equivalent to* plate.

This approach goes against the grain of Gryhwk weapon factors and the MTM as weapons are numerically defined by their relationship/impact on particular armor types, resulting in a 'kill' (MTM) or 'hit points of damage' (3LLBs)which may also yield a kill result.

With the monk and other figures one wishes to distinguish with an AC modifier, I would levee a negative adj. against the opponent's 'to hit' die, the monk's armor type being 'none'. One means of justification: The weapon factor is based on the actual type of armor; a footman's flail vs. mail grants a +2 'to hit' adjustment or is recognized by a '6' regardless of whether dex and magical adjustments should bring his AC down to 1.

[riftstone]

Sounds somewhat similar to the super-hero game Villains & Vigilantes, where the "to hit" roll was modified by a "level vs. level" table.

[aesdana]

I was thinking along the same lines as I was re-reading the stories of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser.

They're heroes and don't often wear armor : sometimes a chain shirt for Fafhrd but more often only leather, fur or nothing. On the other side, their lesser foes, even when those foes are veterans, often have 'soldier armor' like chain for instance (as in The Jewels in the Forest).

Of course, these 2 heroes have better hit dice, etc. But I thought about giving fighting-men the possibility to fight as having a better armor as the one they're currently wearing. My 2 cents :

- Armors in Od&d are : none / leather / chain / plate.

- Lesser fighting men (and MU and clerics) would have an armor-type corresponding to their worn armor.

- Hero fighting-men (4 HD) would shift their armor-type by one step : none => leather, leather => chain and chain => plate (the latter remaining the best).

- Superhero Fighting-men would shift their armor-type by two steps : none => chain, leather => plate.

Of course, common sense still applies : if surprised, the effective armor should still be used (that's why heroes still use the better armor they can find in a mass battle). That is : it's always better to have the best armor you can find but it still has a cost (movement penalty).

As often with simple rules, there may be unintended side effects but I already see nice effects (no armor race ; simplicity ; good fighters without plate).

[bestialwarlust]

It's an interesting idea, but I prefer the hard caps on AC. I always point out to my group that just because you lose HP doesn't mean you're damage. It's an abstract mechanism a fighter has higher hp, so he is able to ward off that final mortal blow by expenditure of his Hero Points (some times I'll use that phrase instead of hit points).

"The orc swings at you with his battle axe finding weak points in your armor, but instead of landing a telling blow your skill and luck have warded off any fatal strikes you lose 5 hp to stay alive."

[Mushgnome]

Back when I played (gasp) 3e, there was a statistic called "base attack bonus" (BAB) which rises with level. From there it is the tiniest of logical leaps to also have a "base defense bonus" (BDB). In fact Mike Mearls used BDB in his 2005 Iron Heroes ruleset, which I used to really enjoy playing back in the day. I think Mearls went on to help design 4e (which I've never played)?

[Porphyre]

Sept 20, 2015 18:02:25 GMT -6 Mushgnome said:

Back when I played (gasp) 3e, there was a statistic called "base attack bonus" (BAB) which rises with level. From there it is the tiniest of logical leaps to also have a "base defense bonus" (BDB). 

Nicolas "snorri" Dessaux pseudo clone Epées & Sorcellerie also has level-dependent bonuses-to-hit and uses a nifty system for melee combat : no initiative roll; each opponent makes his attack roll (2d6+attack bonus). Highest roll wins first hit. If the roll beats the (ascending) armor class(*) the opponent takes damage and loses his attack roll for this round. 
In that way 
-the highest your level, the better you are at avoiding blows (i-e by taking initiative and preventing your foe to hit you)
-the armor is still relevant as a "passive" and non-evolutive defence (if you don't manage to "parry" the blow , you can still avoid damage thanks to your armor)
-the HP system is still relevant (representing your odds of survival by "evading" mortal blows, sheer luck, etc.)

Also, HD are d6 for all (Men & Magic-style) and damage is all d6 (d6+1 for two handed/really big weapns), so it doesn't needlessly leghten combats. 

(*) but you might also use Chainmail Man-to-Man tables

[Finarvyn]

I think that the best way to do the "AC improves with level" thing would be to remove HD and so I probably wouldn't use it, but that doesn't mean that it's not a cool idea. One thing I like about this place is the notion that folks can come up with unusual "our of the box" game mechanics and we can discuss them rationally.

Nice work, guys!

[TheObligatorySQL]

I've kinda had an idea like this in the past. I had all characters start at AC 9, and their AC improved by 1 for each step on the combat table as they advanced. So a fighter will cap out with a "natural" AC 4. To help keep armor viable, armor overrides this AC improvement, and since the highest you could get in the system is AC 4 without armor, plate armor is still necessary.

Didn't get around to trying it, but it seems alright.

[Finarvyn]

Another thought that popped into my brain is that one could get rid of armor types all together and instead focus on an AC which is based and class and level. In other words, one could argue that Conan's AC is based on Conan and not whether he is wearing platemail or just his fruit of the loom undies.

I'm not sure I'd do it that way, but it is very narrative and hand-waving sort of like making all weapons do 1d6 damage, whether it be a dagger or a bazooka.

I think if I did follow this chain of thought farther, I'd try to set up a chart for AC for each class by level. I assume that fighters would improve AC quickly while magic users might not improve at all.

[Porphyre]

Sept 22, 2015 14:40:11 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Another thought that popped into my brain is that one could get rid of armor types all together and instead focus on an AC which is based and class and level. In other words, one could argue that Conan's AC is based on Conan and not whether he is wearing platemail or just his fruit of the loom undies. 

Well, that is because he's not using the "Alternate Combat System" charts, but rolls instead as a Super-hero on Chainmail's  "Fantastic Combat" tables. 

[coffee]

Sept 22, 2015 14:40:11 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Another thought that popped into my brain is that one could get rid of armor types all together and instead focus on an AC which is based and class and level. In other words, one could argue that Conan's AC is based on Conan and not whether he is wearing platemail or just his fruit of the loom undies.

I'm not sure I'd do it that way, but it is very narrative and hand-waving sort of like making all weapons do 1d6 damage, whether it be a dagger or a bazooka.

I think if I did follow this chain of thought farther, I'd try to set up a chart for AC for each class by level. I assume that fighters would improve AC quickly while magic users might not improve at all.

I like it.

I wouldn't use it in every game, but I do like it. It works, but doesn't eliminate the search for magic items (especially those Bracers of Defense for the Magic-Users).