tappy
Journeyman Douchebag
Host
Posts: 192
Preferred Game Systems: Apoc World, Monsterhearts, L5r, Wod
Favorite Species of Monkey: Space Monkey
|
Post by tappy on Apr 6, 2012 10:52:09 GMT -8
Maxinstuff -
I don't want to put words in Stu's mouth, but I believe Stu's argument for Soak instead of AC is not based on mechanics, it is based on how Stu believes armor actually works. I don't think a mechanical argument is going to sway the simulationists who feel that the abstraction itself is the issue, not how the abstraction works in the context of an attrition based game.
Now, lets get to your argument.
1. It seems that your argument assumes that the DR of the armor is a constant throughout levels 1-30. Looking at the book, it would seem that would be an incorrect assumption, I would assume that the DR is scaled from 3-5 on the low end to 15-20 on the high end. These are the ranges of resistance found in the books, so assuming that similar ranges would be found in armor DR would no be out of the question.
2. While I agree that damage in 4e needs to be looked at as a function of average damage over time, your numbers are not based on numbers found in the game. They are hypothetical positions that reinforce your argument. Indeed it is an extremely simplified example, but for the numbers to have any meaning, they must be made as close as possible to the actual numbers. If you use numbers closer to those found in the book, the argument becomes less compelling.
The argument of a goblin doing 20 points of damage is in itself a skewed number, as monsters don't start doing 20 points of damage on average until level 19 for lurkers and Artillery, or level 25 for soldiers and skirmishers, and even 30th level controllers will typically only do 19 damage per round on average. a 10th level monster 11 points of damage per round.
There is no monster in the game that can do 300 points of damage per round. the highest damage in the game is around 50-ish for at wills that can be done every round
Furthermore, the percentage chance for to hit calculation you use in the example s also not based on the numbers seen in the book.
For a 10th level character to get hit 25% of the time by a 10th level soldier, the armor class of that character must be 33. Even assuming +2 plate armor and a shield the best a fighter is going to get at that levels is around a 27, which is getting hit 50% of the time. As said before the monster does on average 11 points of damage
For a 20th level character to get hit 25% of the time, the AC would need to be 43. I can reasonably get the AC of a fighter to 37 at this level, which is getting hit 50% of the time. monster damage is on average 19
For a 30th level monster to get hit 25% of the time would require an ac of 53. I can resonably get the AC of a fighter to 47 at this level, again giving, again, a hit percentage of around 50%. Monster damage is around 24.
the other salientquestion is what do you use for physical attacks when you do not have AC? I use the highest non-AC defense. at level 10 this is ususally around 22-24, at level 20 it's around 32-34, and level 30 it's around 42-44.
So what we are looking at here is the following. P=Percentage to hit D=monster Damage S=Armor Soak
P(D-S)
AC Calculations Level 10 .5(11) = 5.5 Level 20 .5(19) = 9.5 Level 30 .5(24) = 12
DR Level 10 .75(11-4) = 5.25 Level 20 .75(19-7) = 9 Level 30 .75(24-9) = 11.25
Now I have skewed the DRs to roughly match the AC because the goal is not to change the mechanical nature of the numbers, but have the abstraction make sense to the more simulationist player. You can see here that DR can easily have the same mechanical nature as AC, and can easily be more effective.
I will discuss my "infamous" 4e houserule later, I need to go workout.
|
|
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 13:11:54 GMT -8
Wow Mathgasim!
|
|
tappy
Journeyman Douchebag
Host
Posts: 192
Preferred Game Systems: Apoc World, Monsterhearts, L5r, Wod
Favorite Species of Monkey: Space Monkey
|
Post by tappy on Apr 6, 2012 14:07:31 GMT -8
I AM the mathsterbation MASTAH!
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Apr 8, 2012 16:39:37 GMT -8
I just have one thing to say to all this math talk. Uploaded with ImageShack.us*Ahem*
|
|
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 9, 2012 10:15:09 GMT -8
I AM the mathsterbation MASTAH! Sho Nuff!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2012 10:01:11 GMT -8
You are all making excellent points. However, my original point had nothing to do with magic. It was the mechanic that cloth, leather, and hide armor gets to add the REF or INT modifier to its AC. Chain, scale, and plate do not. For Dex or Int based characters, this is a 4,5,6+ bonus to AC that tanks do not receive.
You could now add magic to the modifiers but they would be added to all the armor types and cancel out. Ultimately, my point is that all the heavy armor does is give the charcters with lower DEX/INT scores a chance at not being hit. Wizards and Artificers are already covered.
After that, you guys hit the point on the head. Getting hit with DR is much worse than getting missed without DR. The weapon multiples, quarry/sneak attack dice, stat and magic adds, feat bonuses, and crit mods all make getting hit a very bad thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2012 10:36:39 GMT -8
Maxinstuff - The argument of a goblin doing 20 points of damage is in itself a skewed number, as monsters don't start doing 20 points of damage on average until level 19 for lurkers and Artillery, or level 25 for soldiers and skirmishers, and even 30th level controllers will typically only do 19 damage per round on average. a 10th level monster 11 points of damage per round. There is no monster in the game that can do 300 points of damage per round. the highest damage in the game is around 50-ish for at wills that can be done every round I am assuming you are looking in the first Monster Manual. When 4e first came out, the monsters did less damage but were tougher. WOtC realized this made combat last For.Ev.Er. so they changed the math. In MM3 I just started flipping randomly through the book and found the following at-wills: Level 3 Brute: 2d6+2 dam (12 dam) Level 7 Lurker: 3d6+5 dam (16 dam) Level 11 Brute: 2d10+10 dam (21 dam) Level 19 Soldier: 3d8+14 dam (30 dam) Level 22 Brute: 4d10+16 dam (38 dam) (49 if grabbed) Level 30 Soldier: 3d8+15 dam (31 dam) (4 attacks/round) = 124 dam Level 25 Dragon: Close Burst 5: 4d10+4 (25 dam)+15 ongoing PLUS a bite (25 dam) PLUS a claw (22 dam). PLUS an Aura-1 of 15 poison damage. One person can take an Avg of 102 damage plus many others could take 40+. I play a 17th level Scale-wearing warlord in 4e. I am hit far more often than the wizard in our party because wizards have all sorts of spells that boost their defenses higher than a tank. Because of this, I am often going from pristine to bloodied in a single round, while the wizard remains untouched. Reducing my character's defenses (from an AC of 31 to his REF of 24) and giving him a DR of 10 will get him killed in every battle.
|
|
tappy
Journeyman Douchebag
Host
Posts: 192
Preferred Game Systems: Apoc World, Monsterhearts, L5r, Wod
Favorite Species of Monkey: Space Monkey
|
Post by tappy on Apr 10, 2012 21:05:11 GMT -8
Maxinstuff - The argument of a goblin doing 20 points of damage is in itself a skewed number, as monsters don't start doing 20 points of damage on average until level 19 for lurkers and Artillery, or level 25 for soldiers and skirmishers, and even 30th level controllers will typically only do 19 damage per round on average. a 10th level monster 11 points of damage per round. There is no monster in the game that can do 300 points of damage per round. the highest damage in the game is around 50-ish for at wills that can be done every round I am assuming you are looking in the first Monster Manual. When 4e first came out, the monsters did less damage but were tougher. WOtC realized this made combat last For.Ev.Er. so they changed the math. In MM3 I just started flipping randomly through the book and found the following at-wills: Level 3 Brute: 2d6+2 dam (12 dam) Level 7 Lurker: 3d6+5 dam (16 dam) Level 11 Brute: 2d10+10 dam (21 dam) Level 19 Soldier: 3d8+14 dam (30 dam) Level 22 Brute: 4d10+16 dam (38 dam) (49 if grabbed) Level 30 Soldier: 3d8+15 dam (31 dam) (4 attacks/round) = 124 dam Level 25 Dragon: Close Burst 5: 4d10+4 (25 dam)+15 ongoing PLUS a bite (25 dam) PLUS a claw (22 dam). PLUS an Aura-1 of 15 poison damage. One person can take an Avg of 102 damage plus many others could take 40+. I play a 17th level Scale-wearing warlord in 4e. I am hit far more often than the wizard in our party because wizards have all sorts of spells that boost their defenses higher than a tank. Because of this, I am often going from pristine to bloodied in a single round, while the wizard remains untouched. Reducing my character's defenses (from an AC of 31 to his REF of 24) and giving him a DR of 10 will get him killed in every battle. Honestly, it doesn't really matter. also, multiple attacks adding up damage makes DR MORE effective, not less. I'm willing to play ball, as I think my calculations will stand up to even the skewed playing field you give me, even using MM3 creatures. lets look at that level 30 soldier, using your calculations Vs AC .5(31x4)=62 damage Vs DR .75((31-10)x4)=63 damage convinced yet? how about the level 19 soldier? .5(30) = 15 damage .75(30-10) = 15 damage ok, well what about that level 22 brute... .5(38) = 19 damage .75(38-10)=21 damage Huh... still coming out relatively the same, 1-2 damage per round is not enough to guarantee the death of a fighter. what if we go lower? the level 11 brute then .5(21)=10.5 .75(21-10)=8.25 Balls! it's even more effective! level 7 lurker (I'm assuming this is sneak attack damage, but I'm willing to assume it is an at-will it can do every round) .5(16)=8 .75(16-10)= 4.5 Level 3 brute .5(12) = 6 damage .75(12-10) = 1.5 damage. Fine, lets look at that dragon. I assume you are looking at the level 25 volcanic dragon. the blast is only every 3 rounds, and is against reflexes. this means the to-hit is the same, regardless of which system you are using, which makes DR significantly more attractive, so whatever DOT it comes out to, DR will be more effective than AC. lets look at the rest then, shall we? AC calculation 1(15)+(.5(25+22))=38.5 DR calculation 1(15-10)+(.75((25-10)+(22-10)))= 29 DR comes out on top. Even if you rules that the DR does not apply to the aura, DR is .5 more, but when you include the DOT from whatever the blast comes out to, DR is at least the same, if not better. Ok, maybe these numbers are fucked up. Lets use an actual level 17 creature from MM3 against your character of AC 31, vs your REF of 24 plus a DR of 10. I'm really knee capping myself here, but I still think that the numbers are not as you assume them to be. Astral Hulk - level 17 Soldier Claws +22 vs AC damage 2d10+14 (24 damage) Vs AC 31 .50(24)=12 Vs Ref 24 .85(24-10)=11.9 so you can see, even using your numbers, a flat DR of 10 doesn't really change the numbers of high level opponents, and is far more effective at lower levels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2012 11:42:00 GMT -8
The numbers are certainly compelling. Now, for the devil-in-the-details issues.
Is the DR 10 for Leather, Hide, Chain, Scale, or Plate? Are there different DRs for each? Is it scalable by level (e.g. 5=Heroic, 10=Paragon, 15=Epic)?
Is it DR(ALL) or only DR (Weapon) or somewhere in between? Does it work on Auras or Ongoing Damage?
Do all players get to add their INT/Dex Mod to their basic defense? For example, if a Rogue bought the armor feats, can he have both a high defense and high DR? If so, wouldn't that make them the tank?
Finally, all this talk of damage is good. You have shown there is a definite possibility that DR could be used to balance the removal of AC.
However, you have completely ignored all the other effects that come from being hit (e.g. knocked prone, slid, dazed, stunned, slowed, penalty to defense/attack, etc...). These effects will hit the lower defensed tank much for frequently with the DR system. Now, I admit, many times these effects target REF, FOR, and WIL but sometimes they target AC.
In the end, this is really a matter of taste. As I said earlier, heavy armor is as much a burden as a help in 4e. With its penalty to move and skills, it's not usually worth the extra couple points of AC. All the feats needed to make your AC good (and remove the move and skill penalties) could be used to take the enemy out faster, thus preventing the need for all the AC (and shortening the battle to boot).
Good discussion, all!
|
|
tappy
Journeyman Douchebag
Host
Posts: 192
Preferred Game Systems: Apoc World, Monsterhearts, L5r, Wod
Favorite Species of Monkey: Space Monkey
|
Post by tappy on Apr 11, 2012 12:53:33 GMT -8
The numbers are certainly compelling. Now, for the devil-in-the-details issues. Is the DR 10 for Leather, Hide, Chain, Scale, or Plate? Are there different DRs for each? Is it scalable by level (e.g. 5=Heroic, 10=Paragon, 15=Epic)? Is it DR(ALL) or only DR (Weapon) or somewhere in between? Does it work on Auras or Ongoing Damage? Do all players get to add their INT/Dex Mod to their basic defense? For example, if a Rogue bought the armor feats, can he have both a high defense and high DR? If so, wouldn't that make them the tank? Finally, all this talk of damage is good. You have shown there is a definite possibility that DR could be used to balance the removal of AC. However, you have completely ignored all the other effects that come from being hit (e.g. knocked prone, slid, dazed, stunned, slowed, penalty to defense/attack, etc...). These effects will hit the lower defensed tank much for frequently with the DR system. Now, I admit, many times these effects target REF, FOR, and WIL but sometimes they target AC. In the end, this is really a matter of taste. As I said earlier, heavy armor is as much a burden as a help in 4e. With its penalty to move and skills, it's not usually worth the extra couple points of AC. All the feats needed to make your AC good (and remove the move and skill penalties) could be used to take the enemy out faster, thus preventing the need for all the AC (and shortening the battle to boot). Good discussion, all! Let me first apologize for my candor in my previous post, reading it again, I kinda came off like a dick. That was not my intention, as I am not Bruce. Yes indeed, the devil IS in the details. I need to get my act together with posting my houserule for 4e, but looking at my spreadsheet its all in shorthand, and nothing is explained. I have some work that I need to do on that before I can send it out to those who requested the rules, and/or post it here. I have always disliked the feeling that you are penalized for heavy armor. Also, you are correct, offense IS defense. A dead monster misses 100% of the time. I have a busy day at work, and a tax appointment tonight, but I like this discussion, and I'll post my personal take on this ASAP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2012 19:43:46 GMT -8
I remember being in Tappy's game and his armor was not a static DR so I was wondering Tappy how you allocated these numbers you were using. I recall cloth armor the mage was wearing was a static 3 and i had a d6+3 and the tank had a d10+3. Being a bard I was wearing leather if I recall correctly, but I was wondering what numbers you were running to say these dice were fair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2012 13:21:20 GMT -8
First, I apologize if the phrase "You have completely ignored" sounded dickish. It was meant to bring up a new point, not to find fault in the argument.
That said, I kept finding myself going back to the idea that DEX/INT based characters would become the tanks of the party if there wasn't a way to balance them out.
Then it hit me. STR/CON mods as DR. Different armor types could give a flexible DR amount based on their material plus the wearer's STR/CON.
You often hear about how a bullet proof vest stops a bullet but breaks a rib. Maybe that is an example of good armor on a low STR/CON person. A tougher person would have just received a nasty bruise.
Here is a non-tested example of what I mean.
Cloth Armor: 0 pts DR plus 0.0 x STR/CON mod. Leather Armor: 1 pts DR plus 0.5 x STR/CON mod. Chain Armor: 2 pts DR plus 1.0 x STR/CON mod. (-1 REF) Scale Armor: 3 pts DR plus 1.5 x STR/CON mod. (-2 REF) Plate Armor: 4 pts DR plus 2.0 x STR/CON mod. (-3 REF)
This system would allow all people to choose different armor types but each would get a different result. Quick but weak people would get a small DR bonus for heavy armor and lose some of their dodginess. This will encourage them to stay in lighter armor. Tough slow people would also be slower but they get a much bigger DR for their troubles. This would encourage tougher players to armor-up and be the tanks they were meant to be.
Now I think this a weapon DR. Fire, Acid, Cold, Electricity, Poison, etcetera might be able to bypass much of this...unless you buy feats or add magic to the armor to bolster the defensibility.
Thoughts?
|
|
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 Apr 13, 2012 3:54:15 GMT -8
Maxinstuff - I don't want to put words in Stu's mouth, but I believe Stu's argument for Soak instead of AC is not based on mechanics, it is based on how Stu believes armor actually works. I don't think a mechanical argument is going to sway the simulationists who feel that the abstraction itself is the issue, not how the abstraction works in the context of an attrition based game. Now, lets get to your argument. 1. It seems that your argument assumes that the DR of the armor is a constant throughout levels 1-30. Looking at the book, it would seem that would be an incorrect assumption, I would assume that the DR is scaled from 3-5 on the low end to 15-20 on the high end. These are the ranges of resistance found in the books, so assuming that similar ranges would be found in armor DR would no be out of the question. 2. While I agree that damage in 4e needs to be looked at as a function of average damage over time, your numbers are not based on numbers found in the game. They are hypothetical positions that reinforce your argument. Indeed it is an extremely simplified example, but for the numbers to have any meaning, they must be made as close as possible to the actual numbers. If you use numbers closer to those found in the book, the argument becomes less compelling. The argument of a goblin doing 20 points of damage is in itself a skewed number, as monsters don't start doing 20 points of damage on average until level 19 for lurkers and Artillery, or level 25 for soldiers and skirmishers, and even 30th level controllers will typically only do 19 damage per round on average. a 10th level monster 11 points of damage per round. There is no monster in the game that can do 300 points of damage per round. the highest damage in the game is around 50-ish for at wills that can be done every round Furthermore, the percentage chance for to hit calculation you use in the example s also not based on the numbers seen in the book. For a 10th level character to get hit 25% of the time by a 10th level soldier, the armor class of that character must be 33. Even assuming +2 plate armor and a shield the best a fighter is going to get at that levels is around a 27, which is getting hit 50% of the time. As said before the monster does on average 11 points of damage For a 20th level character to get hit 25% of the time, the AC would need to be 43. I can reasonably get the AC of a fighter to 37 at this level, which is getting hit 50% of the time. monster damage is on average 19 For a 30th level monster to get hit 25% of the time would require an ac of 53. I can resonably get the AC of a fighter to 47 at this level, again giving, again, a hit percentage of around 50%. Monster damage is around 24. the other salientquestion is what do you use for physical attacks when you do not have AC? I use the highest non-AC defense. at level 10 this is ususally around 22-24, at level 20 it's around 32-34, and level 30 it's around 42-44. So what we are looking at here is the following. P=Percentage to hit D=monster Damage S=Armor Soak P(D-S) AC Calculations Level 10 .5(11) = 5.5 Level 20 .5(19) = 9.5 Level 30 .5(24) = 12 DR Level 10 .75(11-4) = 5.25 Level 20 .75(19-7) = 9 Level 30 .75(24-9) = 11.25 Now I have skewed the DRs to roughly match the AC because the goal is not to change the mechanical nature of the numbers, but have the abstraction make sense to the more simulationist player. You can see here that DR can easily have the same mechanical nature as AC, and can easily be more effective. I will discuss my "infamous" 4e houserule later, I need to go workout. Firstly - I did not intend to single out D&D in my example (but I did mention it so I can see how you could get that impression). The numbers I was using were, how shall I say this, pulled from my rectum. They were examples - and simplified ones at that. I was merely trying to demonstrate the fundamental mechnical difference between DR and AC. I suggested active defences as a possible substitute for AC instead of trying to shoehorn DR in where it might not fit. Secondly, why - oh why - would you scale the DR of armour with.... anything? (I'm assuming level a this point) In my example I stated that a scaling DR would not be any good - as the only difference between a scaling DR and AC is which hand you are stroking your math peen with. Some like the left and some like the right but it is the same mechanic whatever you call it. This to me is no change at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2012 10:18:21 GMT -8
Max,
The reason you would scale DR is because damage and hit points are still being scaled by level. It is, of course, possible to remove all of the damage and hit point scaling too but that moves beyond the AC vs. DR discussion and into a full blown new game system.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Apr 13, 2012 10:40:16 GMT -8
Max, The reason you would scale DR is because damage and hit points are still being scaled by level. It is, of course, possible to remove all of the damage and hit point scaling too but that moves beyond the AC vs. DR discussion and into a full blown new game system. Yeah! You could make a game where everyone has 3 hit points and their ability to avoid getting hit (we'll call it parry) and their ability to withstand damage (we'll call it toughness) could go up by various means in the game ... and then to make it exciting I think we should add a benefit system (we'll call it bennies) ... Oh wait ... never mind. JiB
|
|