|
Post by malifer on Jun 27, 2013 9:39:11 GMT -8
So I didn't catch it when I was listening to the HJ actual plays, but now I'm reading l5r 4th edition and this game essentially uses Armor Class?
"Armor increases the Armor TN of the individual wearing it."
Heavy Armor is +10 to Armor TN.
Sure it uses reflexes as well, but D&D gives you a Dex bonus.
I cannot being to express my dissappoint.
|
|
SirGuido
Supporter
Drizztmas Santa
Ask me about the Drizztmas Exchange!
Posts: 2,127
Preferred Game Systems: L5R, Traveller, Fate Accelerated, Masks
Currently Playing: Nothing.
Currently Running: Nothing.
Favorite Species of Monkey: Anything in a Cage.
|
Post by SirGuido on Jun 27, 2013 12:18:31 GMT -8
No. It is NOT Armor Class. There is a base TN(your Reflexes rankx5+5) that is INCREASED by armor, and armor also has reduction. Your normal target number to hit someone is their Reflexes attribute times 5 plus 5. So its a reactive based number, its not static like AC.
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Jun 27, 2013 12:36:46 GMT -8
In D&D your Dex bonus can increase and improve your armor class.
But in any case it seems that Heavy Armor makes you harder to hit in l5r?
Which drives me crazy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 13:32:40 GMT -8
What gets me isn't the armour adding to the TN but the fact that being unarmed vs wielding your weapon doesn't affect it at all as written in the book. From a game point of view I suspect that's to stop shugenja being hit all the time during combat but the only way I can generally keep it from doing my head in is by just ignoring the oversight completely (though I may try and house rule something when I run my game).
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jun 27, 2013 15:23:08 GMT -8
Someone asked me about that in a recent episode. Yes, it does add to your opponents target number. It's similar to the old GURPS passive defense armor bonus, but more so. And as Sir Guido said, armor also soaks.
I've thought of house-ruling this, dramatically dropping the armor bonus to TN but upping the armor soak numbers.
I've left it as is so far, since we hardly fight anything.
|
|
|
Post by The Northman on Jun 28, 2013 4:43:28 GMT -8
We just try to always narrate the distinction between when a character avoids an attack entirely, when he moves just enough that the armor is able to deflect the blow, and when he gets hit solidly, protected by some of the damage by the armor's soak ability.
I don't want this to turn into the same old debate, but I've never had an issue with this particular abstraction since the roll to hit has always registered as 'the roll to hit in a manner which causes damage,' as opposed to whether you connected or whiffed entirely.
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Jun 28, 2013 5:56:53 GMT -8
I don't want this to turn into the same old debate, but I've never had an issue with this particular abstraction since the roll to hit has always registered as 'the roll to hit in a manner which causes damage,' as opposed to whether you connected or whiffed entirely. From the success of Pathfinder I am aware it doesn't bother most gamers. But it is my pet peeve. I can't justify how an man wearing no armor brandishing a sword is easier to hit than an Unarmed man wearing Heavy Armor. I realise this a personal preference, but I am now looking for a suitable generic system for a Samurai game. I know Savage Worlds, I just started reading GURPS, but there is also the Legend Samurai Supplement.
|
|
|
Post by The Northman on Jun 28, 2013 7:15:57 GMT -8
I'm sorry it's enough to turn you off a really fun system. I've always found it to be a nice balance of more traditional mechanical elements and simulation-style features. For what it's worth, as a person who doesn't have much choice about getting into a lot of fights of all different flavors (subduing people trying to get away, subduing people trying to hurt me, actually fighting someone who's really trying to hurt me, etc.), a game that truly simulated what fights are like would kind of suck. Because fighting sucks. And that's without swords.
|
|
SirGuido
Supporter
Drizztmas Santa
Ask me about the Drizztmas Exchange!
Posts: 2,127
Preferred Game Systems: L5R, Traveller, Fate Accelerated, Masks
Currently Playing: Nothing.
Currently Running: Nothing.
Favorite Species of Monkey: Anything in a Cage.
|
Post by SirGuido on Jun 28, 2013 7:40:21 GMT -8
*shrug* Not much you can do for some people.
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Jun 28, 2013 9:40:17 GMT -8
I'm sorry it's enough to turn you off a really fun system. I've always found it to be a nice balance of more traditional mechanical elements and simulation-style features. For what it's worth, as a person who doesn't have much choice about getting into a lot of fights of all different flavors (subduing people trying to get away, subduing people trying to hurt me, actually fighting someone who's really trying to hurt me, etc.), a game that truly simulated what fights are like would kind of suck. Because fighting sucks. And that's without swords. Here's the thing I'm not a simulationist. It's just that one thing. It is akin to saying a motorcycle is less manueverable than a winnebago. It was forgivable in the 1970s, but I don't like to play D&D nowadays either. indeed. That's how all this got started. I'm sad about it. I could continue to spend a good chunk of change for a system I will need to house rule to enjoy. The fluff and presentation of the book is good, but I wasn't sold on the dice pools or gambling for combat manuevers anyway. So best to leave it be. I'm not trying to start anything or say "you suck for liking this", I guess I just needed to vent a little. Partly because I had hoped I was wrong. Anyway I can still return it so no loss on my part. I will shut up now and leave this sub-forum so it can return to it's blissful baddassery.
|
|
|
Post by The Northman on Jun 30, 2013 5:21:50 GMT -8
Yeah that was legitimate bummeritude expressed on my part, not trying to give you a hard time. I was just trying to say that every way of determining that sort of stuff in games falls apart when I treat it too much like a pinata, so I've had to just stop.
|
|
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 Jun 30, 2013 19:01:18 GMT -8
I have pointed this out before (it was a long time ago), but the difference between AC and other methods of arbitrating combat like active defense rolls and armour soak is pure mathsturbation.
Some of the methods scale a little differently, but you need big numbers for it to have too much impact, and you mostly get the same mathematical results over time.
EDIT: Checked the old numbers I did, active defence rolls (e.g. GURPS) are mathematically IDENTICAL to AC, whereas soak scales differently. If you have soak in your game though I assume attacks scale roughly in line with it - giving a near identical net result.
I guess it depends how 'fun' you want your mechanics to be, and if you even care beyond fair arbitration of conflict. If you like more rolls, and like minusing a soak value from damage - use it.
If you prefer it all wrapped up in a single target number, use AC.
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Jun 30, 2013 20:07:25 GMT -8
Yeah that was legitimate bummeritude expressed on my part, not trying to give you a hard time. I was just trying to say that every way of determining that sort of stuff in games falls apart when I treat it too much like a pinata, so I've had to just stop. Nah it was cool. I have pointed this out before (it was a long time ago), but the difference between AC and other methods of arbitrating combat like active defense rolls and armour soak is pure mathsturbation. Some of the methods scale a little differently, but you need big numbers for it to have too much impact, and you mostly get the same mathematical results over time. EDIT: Checked the old numbers I did, active defence rolls (e.g. GURPS) are mathematically IDENTICAL to AC, whereas soak scales differently. If you have soak in your game though I assume attacks scale roughly in line with it - giving a near identical net result. I guess it depends how 'fun' you want your mechanics to be, and if you even care beyond fair arbitration of conflict. If you like more rolls, and like minusing a soak value from damage - use it. If you prefer it all wrapped up in a single target number, use AC. I don't think your rolls are taking into account the armed naked man vs. the unarmed armored man. It should not be harder for the naked man to survive this encounter. AC does this, it creates a "story" element that makes no sense. Math is all well and good but if your math cannot justify the fiction then it's probably a video game. Savage Worlds utilizes both damage soak and unarmed combatant as functions in a simple rules set. Traveller & Dungeon World have damage soak. I find these systems fun, fast, and logical enough. All use a target number. I really don't want to clutter up the L5R fans subforum any more with this though. But thank you for your input. Really I'm leaving. I'll be on the other subforums if you want to find me.
|
|
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 Jun 30, 2013 20:14:50 GMT -8
I really don't want to clutter up the L5R fans subforum any more with this though. But thank you for your input. Really I'm leaving. I'll be on the other subforums if you want to find me. No problem
|
|
|
Post by gandalftheplaid on Jul 1, 2013 22:17:28 GMT -8
I do hope that this won't put you completely off of L5R though. Not that I expect you to always play the same sort of character, but the thought of a samurai Chico* amuses me.
* Chico: A Mongoose Traveller character played by Malifer who is basically a combination of Lister (Red Dwarf) and Cheech.
|
|