PDA

View Full Version : Justification for AC?



Raenir Salazar
2009-06-01, 05:41 PM
The mechanic if I am not mistaken is the higher ones AC the higher the chance that the enemy will miss.

But what about the fatc that Heavy armour is what contributes to this? Shouldn't Heavy armor be DR not makign you more nimble?

Alteran
2009-06-01, 05:42 PM
The justification is that with stronger armour you can ignore lighter hits. Whether or not this is accurate is another question entirely.

Drider
2009-06-01, 05:42 PM
what I do is say that, "it hits you, but the armor absorbs it all, lucky you, your friend is decapitated and explodes cause he saved 20 gold and lost 1 ac"


ninja'd :smallfrown:

RTGoodman
2009-06-01, 05:43 PM
Missing with an attack against AC isn't necessarily completely missing the target - the orc's sword could just glance off the fighter's shield, completely protecting him.

That said, if you don't like that idea, there's a pre-existing Armor as Damage Reduction (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm) variant out there.

DamnedIrishman
2009-06-01, 05:44 PM
The mechanic if I am not mistaken is the higher ones AC the higher the chance that the enemy will miss.


No, the higher your AC the more likely the opponent will fail to cause damage. This could be due to not hitting you at all (DEX bonuses) or blows bouncing off your armour.

Also bear in mind, an attack round doesn't represent a single swing, but two minutes of continuous combat, and any damage taken is the net result of that.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-01, 05:44 PM
It's not "miss", it's "fail to do damage." And it's called armor class. If anything, factoring in Dexterity and dodging is the odd half.

Edit:
Also, Defence and armor as DR (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/unearthedDefence.html), from the SRD, originally from UA.

Jayabalard
2009-06-01, 05:45 PM
But what about the fatc that Heavy armour is what contributes to this? Shouldn't Heavy armor be DR not makign you more nimble?Armor absorbs/deflects damage. a very light dagger slice isn't even noticeable through plate armor, but against skin it would leave a nasty cut.

AC just abstracts this away to keep everything simple and fast.

Starbuck_II
2009-06-01, 05:46 PM
The mechanic if I am not mistaken is the higher ones AC the higher the chance that the enemy will miss.

But what about the fatc that Heavy armour is what contributes to this? Shouldn't Heavy armor be DR not makign you more nimble?

The idea was that heavy armor offer more protection.
Look at Robin Hood (light armor like leather or Studded Leather) compare that to Knight in heavy armor (split mail).


Most attacks shouldn't have an easy chance of even penetrating the person in heavy stuff (representing harder to hit AC).

Armor to DR is in the book Unearthed Arcana. This might ework better themetically, but you'll be hit more often if you do this change.

Twilight Jack
2009-06-01, 05:47 PM
No, the higher your AC the more likely the opponent will fail to cause damage. This could be due to not hitting you at all (DEX bonuses) or blows bouncing off your armour.

Also bear in mind, an attack round doesn't represent a single swing, but two minutes of continuous combat, and any damage taken is the net result of that.

Two minutes? Where'd you get that figure from? Even in OD&D (when everything was still just a heartbeat away from Chainmail), a combat round only represented one minute (and it didn't make any sense then either; I could buy that a one minute round featured a dozen swings of the sword abstracted down to a single attack roll, but how on earth does the archer fire only one arrow in all that time? What about movement?).

Raenir Salazar
2009-06-01, 05:47 PM
ah so its Neverwinter Knights fault then since it protrayed it as my dodging the target.

Orzel
2009-06-01, 05:47 PM
AC is the rating for hitting your weak spots. Heavy armor covers and protects your weak spots better thus raiseing your AC.

Same with Dexterity because your weak spots are moving around so much and so fast it's hard to hit them.

DR and resistances are your ability to ignore or soften blows to your weak spots.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2009-06-01, 05:48 PM
I run a fun little house rule for heavy armor.
The thing you have to remember is, if you're using a piercing weapon or a slashing weapon, you can't just expect to hit any random spot and watch them die. Thus, piercing weapons and slashing weapons have to play Ac rules as normal. But when you have a bludgeoning weapon, it doesn't matter where you hi, because breaking the skin is not the goal, smashing bones is.
So for bludgeoning weapons, armor only grants you half the bonus to your AC, however your full AC bonus from it is counted as DR, excepting magical armor, which the magical bonus always applies to your AC.
It's not a perfect fix, but it makes things make more sense. After all, if I'm wielding a great mace, it doesn't matter how much armor you're wearing, all I have to do is hit you and you'll feel it.

DamnedIrishman
2009-06-01, 05:51 PM
Two minutes? Where'd you get that figure from? Even in OD&D (when everything was still just a heartbeat away from Chainmail), a combat round only represented one minute (and it didn't make any sense then either; I could buy that a one minute round featured a dozen swings of the sword abstracted down to a single attack roll, but how on earth does the archer fire only one arrow in all that time? What about movement?).

Ahem, I'm trying to remember the 3.5 rules from my very hazy memory. Isn't a full round (about) two minutes? Which means if you have a full-round attack action, you're fighting for two minutes.

The timespan might be different. But it's in there somewhere, I swear.

RTGoodman
2009-06-01, 05:51 PM
Maybe he's working under the assumption that each TURN is 6 seconds, rather than each ROUND?

EDIT: Too many people at once!


Ahem, I'm trying to remember the 3.5 rules from my very hazy memory. Isn't a full round (about) two minutes? Which means if you have a full-round attack action, you're fighting for two minutes.

The timespan might be different. But it's in there somewhere, I swear.


No, a round is actually only 6 seconds, and everyone's turn happens in that 6 seconds. At least, that's the norm for 3.x and 4E D&D.

DamnedIrishman
2009-06-01, 05:52 PM
Maybe he's working under the assumption that each TURN is 6 seconds, rather than each ROUND?

Meh, specifics.
:smalltongue:

Siosilvar
2009-06-01, 05:52 PM
Two minutes? Where'd you get that figure from? Even in OD&D (when everything was still just a heartbeat away from Chainmail), a combat round only represented one minute (and it didn't make any sense then either; I could buy that a one minute round featured a dozen swings of the sword abstracted down to a single attack roll, but how on earth does the archer fire only one arrow in all that time? What about movement?).

You mean 1st edition. OD&D rounds were 10 seconds.

Teron
2009-06-01, 05:52 PM
Two minutes? Where'd you get that figure from? Even in OD&D (when everything was still just a heartbeat away from Chainmail), a combat round only represented one minute (and it didn't make any sense then either; I could buy that a one minute round featured a dozen swings of the sword abstracted down to a single attack roll, but how on earth does the archer fire only one arrow in all that time? What about movement?).
For the record, a round in 3.X is 6 seconds.

shadzar
2009-06-01, 05:53 PM
Armor basically means that for most intents and purposes the AC is offered as more padding to divert blows.

Likewise a to-hit roll is also not really a to-hit roll as you can hit and do no damage, so a to-hit roll is really a damage check. Did you bypass the armor's padding in any way to impair the person you attacked with your blow?

So armor isn't make it more difficult to hit you as the to-hit roll is compared with it would seem, but to reduce the amount of damage taken to where some blows don't actually inflict damage.

So in a sense armor has always been damage reduction wherein the hits you make all the time just don't bypass the armor to give the damage to the wearer, and the armor can sustain more damage than you would think.

DamnedIrishman
2009-06-01, 05:53 PM
For the record, a round in 3.X is 6 seconds.

My bad.

SRD:


Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world. A round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action.

Dagren
2009-06-01, 05:57 PM
Did the "turn" survive into 3rd ed? It used to be a period of 10 (six second) rounds, or just another name for a minute.

Brogen
2009-06-01, 06:57 PM
Actually ten minutes in 2nd edition. Which retained the one round is one minute thing. I can't recall the page, but it was in the combat chapter, and had a description about someone trying to down a potion during that minute.

Knaight
2009-06-01, 07:03 PM
The justification is that with stronger armour you can ignore lighter hits. Whether or not this is accurate is another question entirely.

It works pretty well when you are fighting things your size or smaller. Explaining how a buckler does anything when fighting a colossal dragon is a little iffier. Nonmagical full plate shouldn't really do much, most shields should be totally ineffective, except for as cover if the dragon gets breath happy. But if your dealing with things your size, your fine. Its the larger large critters and huge critters with weapons that throw this off, and the even larger things with and without.

Dagren
2009-06-01, 07:14 PM
Actually ten minutes in 2nd edition. Which retained the one round is one minute thing. I can't recall the page, but it was in the combat chapter, and had a description about someone trying to down a potion during that minute.Really? I could have sworn that one turn used to be equal to a minute. Anyway, it doesn't seem to be in 3rd ed, right? I certainly haven't come across it recently.

Twilight Jack
2009-06-01, 07:15 PM
For the record, a round in 3.X is 6 seconds.

Yeah. But it was 1 minute in OD&D (white box). That was the only place I could ever remember combat rounds anywhere near the 2 minutes that were being suggested.

Lapak
2009-06-01, 07:17 PM
Really? I could have sworn that one turn used to be equal to a minute. Anyway, it doesn't seem to be in 3rd ed, right? I certainly haven't come across it recently.In 1e and 2e, a round was 1 minute and a turn was 10 rounds. Action in combat ran in rounds; action out of combat generally ran in turns.

In 3.x, a round is 6 seconds, and I believe that they did away with turns.

Orzel
2009-06-01, 07:18 PM
It works pretty well when you are fighting things your size or smaller. Explaining how a buckler does anything when fighting a colossal dragon is a little iffier. Nonmagical full plate shouldn't really do much, most shields should be totally ineffective, except for as cover if the dragon gets breath happy. But if your dealing with things your size, your fine. Its the larger large critters and huge critters with weapons that throw this off, and the even larger things with and without.

AC really doesn't factor in pure force. It's more about hitting an unprotected or underprotected area. In 3.X large creatures tend to miss a lot. And in 4th by the time you reach huge creatures, everyone is assumed to have high 1/2 level parrying/dodging skillz.

The dragon's claws rarely touches you and when it does, it mostly misses and only scratches your armor. High level D&D is now whiff mania.

RTGoodman
2009-06-01, 07:19 PM
In 3.x, a round is 6 seconds, and I believe that they did away with turns.

Sort of - combat is measured in rounds, but a "turn" is a particular character's part of the turn. As in, "until the end of your next turn" means until you go again next round.


High level D&D is now whiff mania.

Eh, not so much in 4E. Basically, if you've got an appropriate weapon for your level, you should be hitting basically 50-55% of the time (unless your opponent has a particularly high AC, like most Soldiers). And with level-appropriate armor, you should be getting hit about that same amount, unless the monster is particularly accurate.

derfenrirwolv
2009-06-01, 07:19 PM
The mechanic if I am not mistaken is the higher ones AC the higher the chance that the enemy will miss.

But what about the fatc that Heavy armour is what contributes to this? Shouldn't Heavy armor be DR not makign you more nimble?


Well, if it hits your armor in the right spot, then its not hitting YOU.


A realistic system would have an aiming system where you could either swing willy nilly, aim for parts not covered by the armor, or aim for parts covered by lighter bits of armor. Each type of armor would have its own d100 table for how much of each damage type it could take and how much would be transfered to the wielder. For example, someone fully covered in chainmail with a Bevor would be hard to hit where he wasnt covered (aim for the eye slots) but it would be fairly easy to aim a mace at the chain mail and just power through the absorption ability of the mail and thick coat underneath.

In other words, it would be horribly complicated.

Dagren
2009-06-01, 07:29 PM
In 1e and 2e, a round was 1 minute and a turn was 10 rounds. Action in combat ran in rounds; action out of combat generally ran in turns.

In 3.x, a round is 6 seconds, and I believe that they did away with turns.Ah, so I guess I was just confusing the whole "Round is six seconds" from 3e with the "turn is 10 rounds".

KillianHawkeye
2009-06-01, 08:14 PM
The mechanic if I am not mistaken is the higher ones AC the higher the chance that the enemy will miss.

But what about the fatc that Heavy armour is what contributes to this? Shouldn't Heavy armor be DR not makign you more nimble?

Keep in mind the difference between AC and Touch AC (in 3.x). Armor, shields, and natural armor are not added to Touch AC. So if an attack roll misses your AC but surpasses your Touch AC (which is very common for heavy armor users), then the attack actually does "hit" you. It just doesn't do any damage because your armor protected you.

And of course, touch attacks became attacks vs. Reflex in 4E, so I guess you could make a similar determination on being "hit" vs. being damaged.

Atsu333
2009-06-01, 08:40 PM
See, I like to stack the parts up.
1. the 10 - mostly just whether the enemy makes a decent swing at you
2. Size bonus - Whether they hit you depends on what size you are. if you're small, they might miss by swinging too high or something
3. Dex bonus - Whether you dodge the blow.(Wis bonus also factors in here)
4. Shield bonus - Whether you block it.
5. AC bonus - Whether your armor protects you
6. Natural Armor - Whether your skin protects you


And depending on what it's from, you place deflection and misc. mods in there, because if it's basically you have a force shield around you or something, the hits will bounce off, so that'd go right before shield bonus or something. I use this system to try to better describe the attacks in combat.

Anyways I find this a helpful rule for determining what the AC does.

Matthew
2009-06-02, 06:31 AM
Okay, with regards to rounds and turns, as far as I understand it:

TSR D&D

Chainmail: 1 Turn = 1 Minute
Original Dungeons & Dragons: 1 Turn = 10 Minutes, 1 Round = 1 Minute
Spells & Swords*: 1 Turn = 2 Minutes
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: 1 Turn = 10 Minutes, 1 Round = 1 Minute, 1 Segment = 6 Seconds
Classic Dungeons & Dragons: 1 Turn = 10 Minutes, 1 Round = 10 Seconds
Combat & Tactics**: 1 Round = 12-15 Seconds

* This is basically Chainmail for the alternative combat system .
** This is an expansion for AD&D from the mid nineties.

WotC D&D

[I]D20 Dungeons & Dragons: 1 Round = 6 Seconds

Whilst no explicit "turns" exist in D20, time outside of the "tactical" scale is measured on the "local" scale, which is handled minute by minute. Higher than that is the "overland" scale, which is measured in hours or days. Many spell durations are also measured in minutes, so whilst the precise idea of a "turn" has been lost, a time scale ten times longer than the round exists.

Attacks in a Round

It should be noted that although two shots with a bow in one minute is exceedingly slow (a point of controversy amongst AD&D players), during the AD&D surprise round it is possible to shoot six times in six seconds (another point of controversy)! The same problem occurs in D20 where even a sixth level character may shoot a crossbow twice in six seconds with Rapid Reload, or a bow three times if he has Rapid Shot, and it just gets worse from there. Neither edition does very well with regard to "authenticity" or "realism" on that score, though I prefer the D20 time scale (particularly if iterative attacks are dropped).

Armour Class

There are two ways to overcome armour; you can either bypass it, or you can penetrate it. I have noticed that adherents of the damage reduction system sometimes forget about the former. The abstraction of D&D means that the game rules do not tell us which of the above has occurred, but technically the damage roll relative to hit points may give us an indication, a low damage roll suggesting penetration, a high damage roll bypassing. In the context of the abstraction it would be reasonable for heavy armour to grant DR 2 and medium armour DR 1, reducing the potential damage as part of the abstraction. In Unearthed Arcana for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons field plate and full plate reduced damage in this way, so there is a long precedent.

Also bear in mind that dexterity is not only dodging ability, but also parrying (or was in AD&D). It makes no difference in actual play, just a point about the very abstract nature of judging whether a "hit" has been scored.