Splitting up Hit Dice: Mass and Fighting Ability

General ACKS Forums House Rules
,
41
  1. Armor as damage reduction can make games quite a grind, if weapon damage is close to damage reduction. If damage greatly exceeds damage reduction then it is moot.

One problem with armor as damage reduction is that historically, armor worked. That is to say, attacks which hit armor were misses; and successful attacks were those that found gaps in the armor, not those that got through the armor.

From Sumer to Ancient Rome has fascinating information on this. A typical melee weapon would generate 70-100 joules of KE. To penetrate 2mm of bronze on leather took in excess of 120+ joules. “Oh, but the bludgeon force will still kill you”. No, in fact, a 110-joule blow from a mace gets distributed by the armor, such that it is reduced to about a 15-joule blow.

If one wanted to be realistic, you would need a system where:

  1. armor serves as a divisor (e.g. 1/2, 1/3/, 1/4), rounding down so some blows deal no damage, for attacks hacking through armor

  2. armor serves as a penalty to hit for attackers who are avoiding armor

  3. Yes, I think so.

  4. Don’t know… I think it would be very easy to screw up the game!

42

Oh, that’s interesting - that does shift my view on avoidance vs. ablation. I’d figured there was some distribution, no idea how much.

Google Books has the ToC and an index of tables/illustrations…

Table 4.7: Wound Lethality in the Iliad by Area of Body

That…that might be too much for me :slight_smile: May have to see if I can get it via the library - even the e-book version is college textbook priced.

Given two plate-mailed combatants of equal capability having at each other, you’d think just standing there hacking away just ringing blows off their armor would fatigue one sooner than the other. That’s not exciting DND combat though.

43

Earlier in the thread, many of you brought up Conan D20 and its use of “Defensive Bonus” and “Armor as Damage Resistance”. This evening I worked through scores of different battle combinations to compare different combatants under different rule mechanics to see if I could find a set of rules that would yield approximately the same outcomes as Armor as AC.

Here are those mechanics.

  1. All combatants possess a Defensive Bonus of (10-Base Attack Throw)/2, rounded down. Defensive Bonus is increased by DEX modifier, Bladedancer’s Graceful Fighting, Swashbuckling proficiency, magical items and spells “of protection”, “displacement” or “shimmering”, and spells that improve AC through luck, speed, or divine favor. Because highly dexterous targets are harder to hit than sluggish ones, a target’s Defensive Bonus is added to the attack throw value necessary to hit it.

  2. When a target is struck, it reduces the damage dealt by its Armor Class. AC is improved by armor, shields, magical adjustments to armor and shields, Weapon & Shield proficiency, magical items “of armor”, and spells that create magical armor or shields or render the subject “invulnerable”. Any attack deals at least 1 point of damage. An attack dealing dealing 10 or more points of damage before armor deals a minimum of 2 points of damage after armor. An attack dealing 20 or more points of damage before armor deals a minimum of 3 points of damage after armor, and so on.

  3. All combatants possess the capability of scoring critical hits. The likelihood of scoring a critical hit is based on the attacker’s modified attack throw (including target’s defensive bonus):
    16+ : No critical hit possible
    11-15: Natural 20
    6-10: Natural 19-20
    1-5: Natural 18-20
    -5-0: Natural 17-20
    -6- -10: Natural 16-20
    etc.
    On a critical hit, the target suffers maximum possible damage, ignoring armor.

How do these rules impact the length of combat?
At levels 1-4, fights are approximately the same in length. The defensive gains a slight edge, making them about 8% longer.
At levels 5+, fights are about 30% longer. The increase in Defense Bonus from leveling up, combined with the variety of magical protections available, does make things a bit longer.

THEREFORE (OPTIONAL)
4. Increase damage die of all weapons by one step, such that small weapons deal 1d6 damage, medium weapons deal 1d8 damage, medium weapons wielded two-handed deal 1d10 damage, and large weapons deal 1d12 damage.

INTERESTING SIDE EFFECTS
Under traditional ACKS rules, a 9th level fighter (plate +2, shield +2, sword +2, weapon & shield proficiency) will kill a fully-buffed 9th bladedancer (2 swords +2, leather +2, weapon finesse, swashbuckling, shimmer, swift sword, striking) in 10 rounds, while the 9th level bladedancer will kill the fighter in 14 rounds, meaning the fighter will tend to win. Under the rules presented here, the bladedancer will kill the fighter in 11 rounds, while the fighter will kill the bladedancer in 13 rounds, meaning the bladedancer will tend to win.

At first I thought this was anomalous, because the bladedancer’s d6+2 swords can hardly penetrate the fighter’s armor, even with a spell of striking. But the impact of criticals is disproportionately felt by high AC characters, and two weapon fighters, or other characters with great attack throws, fighting low-DB opponents, score crits quite frequently.

OTHER NOTES
Weapon Focus proficiency should apply to any critical hits, and allow the character to deal an additional roll of damage on top of the max damage.

44

Interesting!

45

Is having a 9th-level BD be able to kill a 9th-level Fighter on average a desirable outcome?

46

Hm.

I wonder how the simulation changes if the shield’s AC bonus is given over to the Defensive Bonus rather than Armor Class, under the (half-baked) theory that putting a wall of metal or wood betwixt you and a weapon is just as good as dodging?

47

Given that it’s a best-case situation for the bladedancer (she has all of her buffs up and the fighter has no buffs at all), I think it’s fine.

If the bladedancer doesn’t have Shimmer, Striking, and Swift Sword, it’s a wipe-out.

48

I wrestled with that. I think if one looks only at man-to-man combat that makes sense. But when you add giants and ogres and dragons to the mix, it becomes apparent that the shield can’t really block 100% of such an attack.

49

Hm. That would be true, excepting Steve Rogers. I could see some additional bits to fix that alongside/related to the minimum damage rules you had above but I doubt the extra complexity would be worth it.

50

I don’t think I was entirely clear. I’ve played with these rules, and I am familiar with what they do. My question is: why is that of value to you? Saying, for example, that they make sense of the progression of weapons as armour got heavier, or that they force/encourage players to choose different weapons is fine, but doesn’t tell me why you see value in this where I see none (or so little it isn’t worth the effort). Having players juggle weapons because of this just becomes a mini-game in and of itself, and I see no more value in it than I do in clever grid tricks in 3.x or 4E, not to mention that it gets particularly strange with monster ACs. As far as a realism angle, the rest of the system is so far from that that the introduction of Weapon vs. AC isn’t nearly enough to scratch that itch for me.

Also, just to be crystal clear, I am not trying to slag anyone for liking these rules. I want to understand what the underlying motivation for adopting them is. Verisimilitude or realism? A style of “tactics” that requires the right weapon for the right job? Something else?

51

In my particular case I just like verisimilitude. Thomas Weigel has often said that ACKS reminds him of GURPS, in that I take a very reality- and physics-based approach to my designs. So I sometimes wrestle with the fact that the combat is based on such a complete abstraction. Which is not to say that ACKS combat isn’t fun – in fact, pound for pound, I reckon it has the best example of D&D-style combat, and in particular, the best balance between fighting and magery – but that doesn’t mean I don’t occasionally grimace at the abstract nature of it all.

Also, I don’t think that AD&D with Weapons v. Armor rules was a fun or playable system. But I do acknowledge that the system made much less “sense” in terms of world-coherence when those were removed.

52

Ah, okay. Fair enough. I agree with you, generally - that’s why I tried to adopt those rules several times myself. I think I’ve finally (mostly*) given up on “realism” in D&D; the system just isn’t built for it, but it’s plenty fun and playable.

*I say “mostly” because part of the attraction of ACKS is its somewhat simulationist bent which extrapolates the rules to their logical, in-game conclusion. In spite of that, it still maintains the best of the playable core of the game.

53

Probably one of the main reasons I ended up choosing ACKS as “my D&D” is the combat system: it strikes the perfect balance, for me, and the simplicity and quickness of the rules is a major part of that. I’ve got The Riddle of Steel and HarnMaster for when I feel like having realistic simulationist combat (TROS having the single best pre-modern hand-to-hand combat system there is in terms of realism, while still being among the most playable ones I know), but if you have a liking for D&D, that’s an itch that has to be scratched, and I find that doing it with simple rules is what works best.

… it certainly doesn’t hurt when you find a game that incorporates or makes unnecessary/extraneous all your houserules for AD&D.

I can’t help being interested in the split HD and HD-by-mass etc., but ultimately, for a D&D system, I was looking for something simpler than AD&D and something with more depth than BECM, and I got it.

54

I’ve heard such good things about Riddle of Steel; I’ll have to check it out.

In any event, I hope none of our ACKS loyalists get alarmed by this thread. There’s a reason its just a forum post under “House Rules”!

55

Wait, I thought this was all part of the run up to Advanced Adventurer Conqueror King, to be kickstarted in 2015 :stuck_out_tongue:

56

Maybe.

57

I prefer High-level Adventurer Conqueror King System Master rules, also known as HACKsMaster…

58

This is one of those rare issues where 3rd ed did a slightly better job I thought (with touch ac and such). I am very interested in these rules but would need the monsters all updated before I could use it.

How would oozes and undead work?

59

I don’t think it’s too raw of a deal for Str to be reduced in effectiveness. Str as is is far more mathimatically effective in combat than dexterity or con so actually it’s good if it were downgraded a bit.

I read a post or blog somewhere where someone compared a Str 18 fighter vs a dexterity 18 one and the advantage of dpr is far in the favor of the Str character.

60

Here are some revised thoughts on this topic.

  1. Hit Points are replaced by “Wound Points” and “Morale Points”. Loss of Wound Points represent physical injury, while loss of Morale Points represent fatigue, pain, and fear.

  2. Man-sized creatures have 5 Wound Points, modified by their CON adjustment. For large creatures, total WP are multiplied by 2. For huge creatures, WP are multiplied by 4. For gigantic creatures, WP are multiplied by 8. For colossal creatures, WP are multiplied by 16.

  3. Classed characters gain their Hit Dice and Con Modifier as additional Morale Points on top of their Wound Points.

  4. Because a monster’s Hit Dice subsume both its WP and MP, monsters reverse-engineer their Morale Points. To calculate how many Morale Points a monster has, subtract its Wound Points from its Hit Points (or a flat 5x HD).

EXAMPLES:

  1. Marcus is a 7th Fighter with 18 CON (+3 modifier). Marcus has (5 + 3) 8 Wound Points. He has 7d8+21 Wound Points. Assume he rolls 6, 5, 4, 7, 1, 2, 8, for a total of 33+21 = 54 Morale Points.

  2. Theog is an Ogre. A large-sized 4HD+1 monster, he has 22hp under conventional rules. Theog has 5 x 2 (large size) 10 Wound Points. He has (22-10) 12 Morale Points.

  3. Dumbo is an Elephant. A gigantic-sized 9HD monster, Dumbo has 40hp. Dumbo has (5 x 8) 40 Wound Points. He has (40-40) 0 Morale Points.

  4. Smaug is a Dragon. A colossal-sized 20HD monster, Smaug has 105hp. Smaug has (5 x 16) 80 Wound Points. he has (105-80) 25 Morale Points.

HEALING:

  1. Cure Light Wounds heals 1 Wound Point and 1d6 Morale Points.
  2. Cure Moderate Wounds heals 2 Wound Points and 2d4 Morale Points.
  3. Cure Major Wounds heals 1 Wound Point per 2 caster levels and 2d6 Morale Points.
  4. Cure Serious Wounds heals 1 Wound Point per caster level and 2d6 Morale Points.
  5. Cure Critical Wounds heals 3 Wound Points per 2 caster levels and 3d6 Morale Points.
  6. Wound Points heal at a rate of 1 per day, multiplied by size modifier (x2, x4, etc.)
  7. Morale Points recover at a rate of level per hour.

ATTACK THROWS:
Monster attack throws are based on Morale Points, by diving Morale Points / 4.5 and adding +1 to calculate Fighting Hit Dice. If Fighting Hit Dice turn out to be negative, you fight as a normal man.

However, monsters gain armor penetration. Large monsters ignore up to 2 points of armor, huge monsters ignore up to 4 points of armor, gigantic monsters ignore up to 6 points of armor, and colossal monsters ignore up to 8 points of armor.

EXAMPLE:

  1. Theog, with 12 morale points, has (12/4.5 +1) 3.67 Fighting HD, so he attacks as a 3+ hit die creature (7+). As a large creature he ignores 2 points of armor.
  2. Dumbo, with 0 morale points, fights as a 1 HD monster (10+). As a gigantic creature, he ignores 6 points of armor. Dumbo doesn’t really care if you are a skirmisher or a plate-armored knight… except insofar as the skirmisher has a higher DEX, he’ll be harder for Dumbo to hit!
  3. Smaug, with 25 morale points, has (25/4.5 +1) 6.56 Fighting HD, so he attacks as a 6+ hit die creature (4+). As a colossal creature he ignores 8 points of armor.

Consider Smaug attacking a Fighter with DEX 13 (+1), Plate +1 (+7), Shield +1 (+2), Weapon & Shield proficiency (+1). His AC is 11.
Under conventional ACKS rolls, Smaug’s attack throw is -3, and he would hit on 8+.
Under these rules, Smaug’s attack throw is 4+. He ignores 8 points of armor, reducing the Fighter to AC 3, so he hits on 7+.