maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Mar 14, 2012 22:51:19 GMT -8
The 'AC vs damage soak' argument was mentioned in another thread - and the mere mention of it made my head near-explode with urges to derail, so I have started this one. Firstly - apologies if this was covered at great length in another thread - I could not find it (maybe in the forum's past life?). Now - my opinion on this. Damage Soak and AC are two mechanics that are different in a fundamental way - they are not doing the same thing. You can't compare them. I would classify AC as a mechanic in the same category as an active defence (like in GURPS - yes - in this respect D&D is like GURPS). Damage soak is reducing damage done by a flat number which does not scale with the particular attack - whereas AC is effectively reducing damage over time by a percentage. This means these two mechanics cause damage over time to scale in very different ways. Extremely simplified example:AC: > Hero has a basic to hit TN of 11 (50% chance to hit) > Goblin's AC increases this to-hit target to 16 (25% chance to hit) > sans other bonuses - Hero rolls a d20 and will hit 25% of the time. > If a hit will do 20 damage - thats 5 damage per round on average. DS: > Attackers Basic hit TN is 11 (50% chance to hit) > Goblin is wearing armour that will soak 10 damage > If a hit does 20 damage - thats 5 damage per round on average. The same as AC. If we up the damage to 30 - AC: > Basic TN 11 (50% chance) > after goblin's AC the TN is 16 (25% chance) > 30 damage, once every 4 rounds is 7.5 damage per round on average. DS: > TN 11 (50% chance to hit) > Goblin's armour soaks 10 damage > 20 damage (after soak of 10) - once every 2 rounds, is 10 damage on average. And if we up the damage to 300 - AC: > Basic TN 11 (50% chance) > after goblin's AC the TN is 16 (25% chance) > 300 damage, once every 4 rounds is 75 damage per round DS: > TN 11 (50% chance to hit) > Goblin's armour soaks 10 damage > 290 damage (after soak) - once every 2 rounds, is 145 damage per round. Big difference with scaling there. Now you COULD just give a psuedo damage soak as a % and be done with it - this is mathematically identical but instead of hitting less - you 'soak' a % of the damage - but thats no fun Instead, you sub out AC for an active defence roll - AC: > Basic TN 11 (50% chance) > after goblin's AC the TN is 16 (25% chance) > 300 damage, once every 4 rounds is 75 damage per round Active defence: > Basic TN to hit of 11 (50% chance) > Goblin has a dodge roll of 11 - (50% chance) > So Hero hits once every two rounds, and goblin dodges these hits 50% of the time, that's a damaging hit once every 4 rounds.... and 75 damage per round on average (with the exact same frequency as AC ) The way these probabilties interact to produce the result is slightly different - and I would personally prefer the active defense roll as the second die roll causes your results revert to the mean twice as quickly (less random). Then - if you want damage soak - add that too. So AC is not 'instead of' damage soak - it is 'instead of' active defense. You could add damage soak to a game that uses AC without issue (or use the 'psuedo-soak' metioned above - but that's really just mathsturbation). Whew! Got it all out. I feel better now tl:dr - AC is not comparable to damage soak - so if you dislike armour class, consider using an active defense roll instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2012 10:28:32 GMT -8
Nothing wrong with a little mathsturbation. Tappy being one of the biggest proponents of mathsturbation did a nice splice in the infamous 4E Homebrew Con game and I have to say it is more enjoyable to have both because it makes your armor feel VITAL instead of helpful. I mentioned how it worked in the 4E thread but a quick overview was your defenses were active defenses (all basic attacks went against reflex) and your armor was a flat 3 soak and scaled with higher levels, such as that plate armor was d10+3.
How many systems have an AC (not active defense) and Soak combined with it?
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Mar 16, 2012 11:38:53 GMT -8
AC vs Damage Soak Argument -- Pathfinder Variant Rules
I wrote a group of articles on Douchey DM about the Pathfinder Variant Rules a while back and had been experimenting with them, and here's the thing;
They do not alter the fundamental feel of the game. Why? Because to do that one would have to change every aspect of the game including damage in general how much damage is done by an attack how damage is implemented on the target ... the list goes on for a while ... after which you have basically made a new game that looks a great deal like GURPS or Hero. At least that's where I would end up but then I like GURPS and Hero.
In game play the net result is that more attacks do damage but the damage gets soaked so you end up rolling more dice. It works better if you roll the attack and the damage at the same time but it still makes for more work over all.
I will keep using them because they're fun but they don't fundamentally alter the game.
Cheers,
JiB
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2012 18:54:16 GMT -8
You got a link to you articles?
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Mar 19, 2012 11:28:20 GMT -8
You got a link to you articles? Why surely I do. 1. Armor as Damage Reduction in Pathfinder wp.me/pUIgW-9t2. Vigor and Wounds vs Hit Points in Pathfinder wp.me/pUIgW-9x3. Pathfinder Variant Rules, Character Advancement wp.me/pUIgW-9ACheers, JiB
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2012 13:02:19 GMT -8
Also, Armor Soak and AC give different levels of - I don't know, satisfaction? Abstraction? Choice? You'll get my meaning:
Consider the classic explosive arrow. (Note: for practicality I will be considering AC <=> DnD. Feel free to talk about another system you know of that uses AC and scratches my itch for possibility mentioned here forth)
AC: You hit: damage is dealt (+ or - any damage soaking mod's), then explosion's damage is dealt to other possible targets in blast radius. You miss: You missed. The arrow just dissapears, or goes off into the blue, or explodes harmlessly in midair. That's it. Granted, in DnD there are several attacks that hav an effect even if you miss, i.e. dragons' breaths', to represent the fact that they still affect the world around the target, but in this case there are more than two possibilities.
AS: You hit: Damage is calculated, armor reduces that damage accordingly, and then the same procedure is applied to the other potential target(s) in the blast radius. You miss: the arrow didn't hit the target. Up to the GM to decide whether it has no further effect on the world, or continues to fly on and explodes against the wall three feet further on.
However, if you use AS, the arrow can hit the target (and explode), the target can be protected from his/her/it's armor, but the explosion still takes place. Whereas with AC either you're hit and take damage, or not hit at all. Wearing tougher armor keeps the arrow from exploding as well... I know, most "arrow"-type attacks in DnD roll against reflex, not AC, but still, think of this as food for thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2012 16:44:00 GMT -8
I hear a lot of talk about AC being replaced with REF and damage soak. However, there is little talk about how AC is calculated in 4e for characters that do not wear heavy armor.
If you wear hide, leather, or cloth armor...you add your INT or DEX modifier to your AC. Effectively, you use REF instead of AC.
In fact, Heavy Armor is not even very good. With a good INT or DEX (+5), and unarmored defense feat (+2), a character can have the defenses of scale mail(+7) and none of the skill penalties.
There are even defender builds that use light armor because it creates a better AC.
Now to my point. Do you think it is a good idea to give the wizard better defenses than the fighter by removing heavy armor's AC value and replacing it with DR?
At Paragon Levels, monsters are doing 50+ points a damage a hit. Not getting hit is WAAY more valuable that DR 10 would be. If your fighters are getting hit because of their low REF, the DR will be like pinata armor to a katana.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Apr 3, 2012 6:40:44 GMT -8
I hear a lot of talk about AC being replaced with REF and damage soak. However, there is little talk about how AC is calculated in 4e for characters that do not wear heavy armor. If you wear hide, leather, or cloth armor...you add your INT or DEX modifier to your AC. Effectively, you use REF instead of AC. In fact, Heavy Armor is not even very good. With a good INT or DEX (+5), and unarmored defense feat (+2), a character can have the defenses of scale mail(+7) and none of the skill penalties. There are even defender builds that use light armor because it creates a better AC. Now to my point. Do you think it is a good idea to give the wizard better defenses than the fighter by removing heavy armor's AC value and replacing it with DR? At Paragon Levels, monsters are doing 50+ points a damage a hit. Not getting hit is WAAY more valuable that DR 10 would be. If your fighters are getting hit because of their low REF, the DR will be like pinata armor to a katana. Thoughts? The breakage there is with the d20 construct itself not with armor as either ac or dr. In every d20 construct as levels go up the magic on the weapon becomes much more important than the weapon itself ... We'll take a basic example: Longsword 1d8 damage Longsword +3 1d8+3 damage Longsword +3, (x) elemental = 1d8+3 + 1d6 Longsword +3, (x) elemental (x) burst = 1d8+3 + 1d6 + (1d10 on crit) Longsword +3, (x) bane 1d8+3 + 2d6 (vs bane type) As you can see, quickly the magic becomes much more impactive than the weapon itself. The same is true of armor. The magic that is applied to the armor does much more in terms of warding off damage (regardless of whether we're talking ac or dr) than the armor itself so as you noted, with the right feats and the right magic, clothing is just as (if not more so) effective than armor. This is one of my more significant complaints with the d20 system in general. It is also one of the reason why my campaigns tend to be lower in magic and lower in level than other campaigns. I've long thought (or maybe wondered is a better word) if it would be better for non-magical types to develop much improved resistance to magic as they progressed in level in an effort to keep the playing field level and to reduce the reliance on magic in these constructs. I don't know if it would or not I've never experimented or worked out how I would do that. It's much more along the lines of a mulling thought while I'm driving or shaving or some other nonsensical thing. Cheers, JiB
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Apr 3, 2012 10:22:47 GMT -8
That math isn't as accurate in the 4e setting. In 4e, if you are relying on just swinging your sword, you're kind of doing something wrong (mathematically speaking). Power damage formulas for weapon attacks are based on X[w], where X is a set multiplier, and w is your weapon's damage. Both the damage and the properties of weapons become quite important.
By the time you're wielding that Longsword +3, you aren't doing 1[w] damage on your attacks anymore. You're doing between 2-4[w] damage.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Apr 3, 2012 12:04:36 GMT -8
That math isn't as accurate in the 4e setting. In 4e, if you are relying on just swinging your sword, you're kind of doing something wrong (mathematically speaking). Power damage formulas for weapon attacks are based on X[w], where X is a set multiplier, and w is your weapon's damage. Both the damage and the properties of weapons become quite important. By the time you're wielding that Longsword +3, you aren't doing 1[w] damage on your attacks anymore. You're doing between 2-4[w] damage. That would actually be an improvement in my opinion, but are you doing 1 attack that does 2-4[w] or multiple attacks, because in 3.x and Pathfinder as you move up in level you attack more times per round so that actually alters the math yet again though things become murkier because hit probabilities get involved. JiB
|
|
clanhanna
Journeyman Douchebag
The Muffin
Posts: 221
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller, O.R.E, Mongoose Traveller
Currently Playing: Vampire: The Masquerade, Vampire: The Dark Ages, D&D 5e
Currently Running: Vampire: The Dark Ages
Favorite Species of Monkey: Peanut-buttery Rhesus
|
Post by clanhanna on Apr 3, 2012 15:45:07 GMT -8
It's one attack that does 4[W] damage. If the particular power deals multiple attacks, you roll both attack and damage per attack separately. When a lvl15 power, say, has a single attack in the 4[W] range, an equivalent two-attack power at similar level would be, likely 2 attacks at 3[W].
+3 Longsword (1d8) would therefore make two attacks, each one rolling 3d8+9 (+ STR modifier + whatever other modifiers, of course).
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Apr 4, 2012 5:46:24 GMT -8
It's one attack that does 4[W] damage. If the particular power deals multiple attacks, you roll both attack and damage per attack separately. When a lvl15 power, say, has a single attack in the 4[W] range, an equivalent two-attack power at similar level would be, likely 2 attacks at 3[W]. +3 Longsword (1d8) would therefore make two attacks, each one rolling 3d8+9 (+ STR modifier + whatever other modifiers, of course). Time to build a model ... Look for data later today. My feel for this is that the numbers are going to come out about the same but we'll see. JiB
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Apr 4, 2012 10:14:34 GMT -8
Stat modifiers don't always get added into each attack either. For instance, the Ranger power Twin Shot allows you to make two 1[w] attacks, but you don't get to add in your STR/DEX modifiers.
|
|
clanhanna
Journeyman Douchebag
The Muffin
Posts: 221
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller, O.R.E, Mongoose Traveller
Currently Playing: Vampire: The Masquerade, Vampire: The Dark Ages, D&D 5e
Currently Running: Vampire: The Dark Ages
Favorite Species of Monkey: Peanut-buttery Rhesus
|
Post by clanhanna on Apr 4, 2012 12:17:23 GMT -8
Stat modifiers don't always get added into each attack either. For instance, the Ranger power Twin Shot allows you to make two 1[w] attacks, but you don't get to add in your STR/DEX modifiers. That is true. Also, stat modifiers are only added once per attack, regardless of what multiplier precedes the [W]. So the power might deal 3[W] + STR modifier damage. With a Strength of 18, say, the stat modifier is +4. With the +3 Longsword used in previous examples, it would deal 3d8+((3x3)+4) or 3d8+13, not 3d8+(3x(3+4)) or 3d8+21.
|
|
joegun
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 249
Preferred Game Systems: Savage Worlds
Currently Playing: Just GM'ing right now.
Currently Running: Rippers Resurrected, and Savage RIFTS!
Favorite Species of Monkey: Baboon
|
Post by joegun on Apr 6, 2012 10:00:31 GMT -8
Stat modifiers don't always get added into each attack either. For instance, the Ranger power Twin Shot allows you to make two 1[w] attacks, but you don't get to add in your STR/DEX modifiers. That is true. Also, stat modifiers are only added once per attack, regardless of what multiplier precedes the [W]. So the power might deal 3[W] + STR modifier damage. With a Strength of 18, say, the stat modifier is +4. With the +3 Longsword used in previous examples, it would deal 3d8+((3x3)+4) or 3d8+13, not 3d8+(3x(3+4)) or 3d8+21. I think this is the elusive Crunch we have been talking about
|
|