On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Peter Lubke wrote:
> I agree that the combat ability should include both offensive and
> defensive abilities (and that they have always been included).
I agree that both should be present. While I suppose they have both
always been present in some form, it seems clear to me that they have not
always been modeled equally well (nor indeed are they today).
> shouldn`t the difficulty of striking him be much harder if he bends
all his skills to defense?
Yes, something like this should probably be present.
The simplest solution is to use their combat skill bonus to improve
armor class. This still allows for an attack roll but without any
skill bonuses.
I am rather interested in a more flexible version of this – that is to
say, let BAB (or whatever we call it) represent an uncommitted pool of
points; each round, allocate some of them to help you attack, and the rest
of them to help you defend. This starts to look slightly more like the
Rolemaster combat system, but isn`t nearly as complicated as the
full-blown RM approach.
> I don`t agree with double-dipping however – that is, gaining bonuses
to both attack and defense.
I do. I think people like Conan and the Three Musketeers should have very
high ACs in melee combat, even though they wear no armor, because theyre so good at swinging their swords around that no one can get near them without similar skills. However, I wouldnt make the defense bonus so
purely class-focused: without their swords, they should not get nearly
as big an AC boost (although bar stools and suchlike could be substituted
with a substantial improvisation penalty).
The size scaling in 3e gives some precedent for “double-dipping”, in what
strikes me as an eminently reasonable way. That is, progressively smaller
things get progressively bigger bonuses to both BAB and AC, and larger
things penalties. This means, as the example points out, that both humans
and halflings hit humans easier than they hit halflings, and halfling vs.
halfling is the same as human vs. human. Since the BAB and AC bonuses are
identical, then the net bonus for the halfling to hit the human is the
same as the net penalty for the human to hit the halfling.
I think exactly the same idea should apply to BAB (absent confounding
factors like ability scores and magic). For example, compare Fighters of
different levels to the creatures of different sizes setup above. A Ftr 5
attacking a Ftr 1 already has the same bonus relative to another Ftr 1
making the attack (+4) that a Ftr 9 does when attacking a Ftr 5 relative
to another Ftr 5 making the attack. I think a Ftr 1 attacking a Ftr 5 or
a Ftr 5 attacking a Ftr 9 ought to have the mirror-image to-hit penalty
(-4). Then Ftr 1 vs. Ftr 1, Ftr 5 vs. Ftr 5 and Ftr 9 vs. Ftr 9 would all
play out exactly the same (no net bonus to either side), instead of the
current mechanic of increasing level causing both sides to hit more often
but each time inflict a smaller percentage of the total damage needed to
take down the opponent.
I realize this is the sort of thing which is supposedly represented by hit
points increasing with level, but I think hp do a rather poor job of it –
if hp are really supposed to model defense, then someone whos disarmed should have their hp drop substantially; someone whos tied up should have
their hp drop to or below their first-level total; armor should increase
hp, not AC; and missile weapons and falling should do much greater damage,
to reflect the fact that there is very little even a skilled fighter can
do to protect himself from those sorts of attacks.
I think the confusion between AC and hp is one of the greatest weaknesses
of the D&D combat system – anything representing the chance of a blow
landing or not should affect AC, and anything representing the resistance
to blows which actually land should affect hp. The current system is so
intermixed that it becomes difficult to decide how to implement small
alterations (such as a new spell or item). Dinosaurs should have terrible
AC (easy to hit things bigger than the canonical “broad side of a barn”),
but immense numbers of hp (even with a magic greatsword, itll take all day to hack up a brontosaurus). Conversely, normal-size insects should have extremely high AC, but less than 1 hp (almost impossible to hit, but any blow at all should kill). 3e does a good job of making a start at this with size modifiers, but I think the idea ought to be taken much further. Magic should still be able to provide either or both of AC increases or damage reductions; but the biggest change is that normal armor ought to actually *reduce* AC, while providing damage reduction instead. Id use BAB for both attack and defense bonus, and would have hp
determined only by species, size and Con – not level at all. This might
require some rescaling of spell damage numbers, but if we simultaneously
linearize the magic system, it ought to work fine. =)
Ryan Caveney
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
