The Gap in the Armor of Baldur’s Gate and 5e(acoup.blog)
acoup.blog
The Gap in the Armor of Baldur’s Gate and 5e
https://acoup.blog/2023/09/15/collections-the-gap-in-the-armor-of-baldurs-gate-and-5e/
62 comments
The author has written extensively about why he does things like this, and I'll sum up:
He is a professor of pre-modern military history, and students come into his classes thinking that pre-modern European battles were at least a little bit like the things they see in 300, or LotR, or D&D games, when in fact they get more wrong than right.
Also, the fact that a setting is fantasy is not carte-blanche for being unrealistic. We could e.g. critique characters as acting against their motivation if they do so, we don't just say "There are dragons so who cares if someone just randomly decides to hit themselves in the head with a hammer"
He is a professor of pre-modern military history, and students come into his classes thinking that pre-modern European battles were at least a little bit like the things they see in 300, or LotR, or D&D games, when in fact they get more wrong than right.
Also, the fact that a setting is fantasy is not carte-blanche for being unrealistic. We could e.g. critique characters as acting against their motivation if they do so, we don't just say "There are dragons so who cares if someone just randomly decides to hit themselves in the head with a hammer"
Like the Physics 101 teacher that has to teach students that Wiley Coyote is not an accurate representation of falling objects.
I am not sure how to read your comment. Did you mean to imply that people coming into his history class are stupid for thinking that their only experiences with certain items (swords, armor, &c.) have some grounding in reality, or did you mean to imply that people actually go into physics 101 thinking that Wile E. Coyote physics are real?
The latter. Nobody believes you hover until you hold up a that says "Egads!"
But a teacher complained he had to explain you keep moving laterally if you run off a cliff instead of falling straight down.
But a teacher complained he had to explain you keep moving laterally if you run off a cliff instead of falling straight down.
Maybe at the 101 level, but I think when we talk at the quantum level, the coyote may be on to something.
The whole Schroedingers cat thing and about state collapsing to “reality” under observation as manifest when the coyote, suspended in mid air, looks down and THEN a suddenly falls.
I bet there’s a lecture buried in that phenomenon somewhere. IANAQM.
The whole Schroedingers cat thing and about state collapsing to “reality” under observation as manifest when the coyote, suspended in mid air, looks down and THEN a suddenly falls.
I bet there’s a lecture buried in that phenomenon somewhere. IANAQM.
Funny, but as you probably suspect, it doesn't quite work like that :)
Just as there is hard and soft sci-fi, fantasy makes different levels of committment to realism. D&D has always been a flippant pastiche with little grounding in history.
"Always" isn't strictly correct, considering Gygax created D&D by adding Tolkien-esque fantasy element to a literal medieval wargame, Chainmail[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_(game)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_(game)
> D&D has always been a flippant pastiche with little grounding in history.
But it has often represented itself as more than that.
But it has often represented itself as more than that.
By whom?
I guess as a tabletop RPG you can run some sort of hyperrealistic variant of D&D, but at its core it's got a few to many talking swords for that sort of thing.
I guess as a tabletop RPG you can run some sort of hyperrealistic variant of D&D, but at its core it's got a few to many talking swords for that sort of thing.
With dragons and magic, I don’t think it’s representing itself as historically accurate.
Okay, let's try a different analogy. Let's say there was an urban fantasy where dragons attack present-day New York. If a character's 1993 Chevy Corvette breaks down because an issue with the carburetor, we wouldn't just say "it's not supposed to be realistic; dragons!" It would rightly be seen as an oversight by the author. Arms and Armor are a technology and D&D at least pretends that the (non-magical) versions of them are based on said technology.
This is how a lot of fiction operates though, it doesn't attempt to portray realism first. This is true in everything from western movies to rom coms. The story comes first, and the details have to be just believable enough to not stick out so much as to break immersion.
Although what breaks immersion varies. Someone who's at most shot a few cans or a deer won't perhaps question a bad guy being sent flying backwards from a revolver shot, a war veteran might see this as jarring and unrealistic.
Although what breaks immersion varies. Someone who's at most shot a few cans or a deer won't perhaps question a bad guy being sent flying backwards from a revolver shot, a war veteran might see this as jarring and unrealistic.
yup, checkout the anime "goblin slayer" if you want an idea of realistic humans fighting as realistic humans in a fantasy setting. warning: shit gets dark
FWIW, I read the first LN and couldn't really get into it.
I get that. I feel for arms and armor specifically, in a world where you have magical methods of production, magical materials and non-human races needing to utilize these, you're so far removed from pre-modern European tech as to make the comparison a bit redundant.
I mean the main trailer artwork has Laezel bearing a greatsword with a kind of semicircular notch in the blade with a hook on it like you could use it as a giant tin opener. Hopefully noone needs to be told that's unrealistic when she herself looks like some sort of psychopathic grinch knight.
I mean the main trailer artwork has Laezel bearing a greatsword with a kind of semicircular notch in the blade with a hook on it like you could use it as a giant tin opener. Hopefully noone needs to be told that's unrealistic when she herself looks like some sort of psychopathic grinch knight.
There's different kinds of ahistoricity that you can complain about. I'm far less bothered than the author about the way AC works (although the end result that everyone ends up around the same AC does raise an eyebrow to me), for example. But the opposite spectrum is introducing something like studded leather armor which is... why? It's an armor type that doesn't exist and that makes no sense [1], so it's not even a "well, in a fantastical setting, it might make sense" sort of scenario.
The other issue is that this kind of fantasy is often the way by which people learn about history. This means that when fantasy engages in very ahistorical treatments of things with potential historical analogues, people will assume that the fantasy treatment is realistic. This definitely applies to armor--people will look at the armor types in a fantasy game and assume they're at least broadly reflective of how armor in Medieval Europe worked, since it's not overtly coded in fantasy unless it's explicitly dragonskin or something like that. So when DnD is treating leather in a completely different way from how it normally works... that's a constant canard that historians are continuously having to try to rebut (much like myths about full plate meaningfully restricting movement).
[1] Just to remind you, studded leather is a misinterpretation of images depicting something like brigandine armor. In brigandine, the apparent studs have value--they're the attachment points for metal plates. But the entire point of studded leather as an in-universe armor type is that it doesn't contain these metal plates, so the studs serve no purpose.
The other issue is that this kind of fantasy is often the way by which people learn about history. This means that when fantasy engages in very ahistorical treatments of things with potential historical analogues, people will assume that the fantasy treatment is realistic. This definitely applies to armor--people will look at the armor types in a fantasy game and assume they're at least broadly reflective of how armor in Medieval Europe worked, since it's not overtly coded in fantasy unless it's explicitly dragonskin or something like that. So when DnD is treating leather in a completely different way from how it normally works... that's a constant canard that historians are continuously having to try to rebut (much like myths about full plate meaningfully restricting movement).
[1] Just to remind you, studded leather is a misinterpretation of images depicting something like brigandine armor. In brigandine, the apparent studs have value--they're the attachment points for metal plates. But the entire point of studded leather as an in-universe armor type is that it doesn't contain these metal plates, so the studs serve no purpose.
> A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry
I'm pretty sure the author is aware of this perception.
I'm pretty sure the author is aware of this perception.
The D&D cosmology is bonkers too. Every solar system exists inside its own separate "crystal sphere" which floats in the chaotic fiery substance called phlogiston that fills the universe. There's a hundred different dimensions and planes of existence. Gods exist in some crystal spheres, but not in others. There's an "astral plane" where time doesn't exist, but somehow creatures there can still move around, but they don't age.
It makes no sense, and it doesn't have to. It's all just for fun. D&D is a huge mishmash of all the ancient mythologies and folk tales, plus a bunch of modern ones invented just for the game.
It makes no sense, and it doesn't have to. It's all just for fun. D&D is a huge mishmash of all the ancient mythologies and folk tales, plus a bunch of modern ones invented just for the game.
ACOUP is very aware of the pedantry part. He is also an avid gamer himself (see his extensive articles about what the Paradox grand strategy games get right and wrong).
[deleted]
Part of the fun is immersion. A player can easily suspend disbelief if it's important for the game's conceit (it's like our world, but with dragons and magic). But if it's based on a misunderstanding of the base nature of the world, it's just a distraction with no value.
Sometimes it can be fun to get into the medieval mindset and have the rules reinforce their erroneous beliefs (maybe bloodletting is treated as a useful treatment for diseases, for example). But in this case, if the armor types are based on a misunderstanding in the Victorian era, I don't really see the fun in pretending that these other types of armor both exist and would be useful.
Sometimes it can be fun to get into the medieval mindset and have the rules reinforce their erroneous beliefs (maybe bloodletting is treated as a useful treatment for diseases, for example). But in this case, if the armor types are based on a misunderstanding in the Victorian era, I don't really see the fun in pretending that these other types of armor both exist and would be useful.
Wavering between "history" and "fantasy" is still 5e's biggest problem imo, especially at later levels of gameplay. Wizards/magic classes can basically just do whatever because "it's magic", but martial classes are still confined by mortal limitations because D&D grognards hated anything that reminded them of anime, such as guys with swords being cool.
His points aren't just about historical accuracy, they are also on value and language (being an unmitigated pedant, he would for example also probably object to something being called a "hot water heater").
I believe his points on historical accuracy are actually more about physics consistency although he does explain some of the confusion away with the mistaken Victorian historical assumptions.
I believe his points on historical accuracy are actually more about physics consistency although he does explain some of the confusion away with the mistaken Victorian historical assumptions.
IMO the biggest hit to realism in (A)D&D has was dropping morale (I think in 3e? I didn't play much 2e). Part of why undead were so scary was that they never ran or surrendered (hence the whole "Turning Undead" mechanic; you didn't need to turn living creatures; they'd often flee or surrender).
That group of peasants is going to fight to the last man (unless the DM has some situational awareness).
I'm someone who likes a certain amount of crunchiness, I prefer Pathfinder 1e over any D&D version, and both Pathfinder CRPGs over any D&D one (2nd place goes to the CRPG-only NWN2 system D&D 3.75). BG3 is fun enough, but I far prefer the UX of the owlcat games, and the changes larian made to the 5e rules dumb down an already simplified rule system even more.
Now sure, some changes are nice (frenzy barb becoming decent), but mostly I find it to make things more boring. But luckily for larian, I'm very much not your average gamer.
Now sure, some changes are nice (frenzy barb becoming decent), but mostly I find it to make things more boring. But luckily for larian, I'm very much not your average gamer.
I will die on the hill that all d20 systems are flawed and everything should be 3d6 or better instead. Except shadowrun, that's just crazy.
Though, no computer games use it (unless you squint really hard at ES1 & ES2)
Though, no computer games use it (unless you squint really hard at ES1 & ES2)
I've played some TTRPGs that have a d6-based system that I really like. The basic idea: you build your dice-pool out of only d6, roll it, and take the best single value that you rolled. Most player rolls use 2-3 dice, and the pool caps out at 5 dice.
If your best value is 6, the result is "success with nothing bad". If it's 4-5, the result is "success with a consequence". If it's 3 or lower, the result is "failed with a consequence".
Special-cases: a 0d6 dice-pool is rolled by rolling 2d6 and picking the worst value. And if two (or more) of your dice come up as 6, it's "success with an extra benefit".
If your best value is 6, the result is "success with nothing bad". If it's 4-5, the result is "success with a consequence". If it's 3 or lower, the result is "failed with a consequence".
Special-cases: a 0d6 dice-pool is rolled by rolling 2d6 and picking the worst value. And if two (or more) of your dice come up as 6, it's "success with an extra benefit".
Have you checked out the Dominions series? It uses D6s and an "exploding dice" style where you reroll and sum every time you get a 6 resulting in a really interesting long-tailed distribution.
https://illwiki.com/dom5/dominions-random-number
Edit: The genre is more of a strategy game than an RPG.
https://illwiki.com/dom5/dominions-random-number
Edit: The genre is more of a strategy game than an RPG.
I have not, but that looks pretty cool too
Is this a bad time to mention that SR 2e is my second favorite system? ;)
FWIW, my group is currently playing Free League's Alien, which is very much not crunchy.
FWIW, my group is currently playing Free League's Alien, which is very much not crunchy.
Remind me, was it in 1e->2e or 2e->3e that they fixed the whole "Street sams get to empty their magazines before mages even get to act" in the initiative system? SR 3e is one of my top systems, fwiw but I only played like 2 sessions in 2e.
My group is currently playing Fantasy Craft, which has a bit too much crunch for us. For the past 2 months I've had an idea for overhauling the battle system mulling around in my head.
My group is currently playing Fantasy Craft, which has a bit too much crunch for us. For the past 2 months I've had an idea for overhauling the battle system mulling around in my head.
2 to 3 was a rather minor change, 1 to 2 and 3 to 4 were bigger
I want Adnd 2e back...
My introduction to TTRPGs was actually hackmaster which is a crazy game that licensed adnd1 and just made it insane, D10000 for a crit, chance of dying during character creation, and many other things. Loved it ;)
looool for real? I need to check it out.
Their license expired, so you need to check out the old version, I think it was 4th edition (they started with that), it based on the very long running comic Knights of the Dinner table, which is also amazing
<Hairy_Dude_In_Trenchcoat_Outside_Playground>
"Hey kid, ever hear a Hero System?"
FIRST HITS ALWAYS FREE. That's how they sold it to me as an undergrad many moons ago.
Actually all the hits are free now, because Hero Designer and all the books are incidental to find on the interwebs, because who gives a shit? The hell is Hero System? Just think of the nerd cred you get when you reveal you not only play TTRPGs on the weekend, but you play a dead and forgotten one.
"Hey kid, ever hear a Hero System?"
FIRST HITS ALWAYS FREE. That's how they sold it to me as an undergrad many moons ago.
Actually all the hits are free now, because Hero Designer and all the books are incidental to find on the interwebs, because who gives a shit? The hell is Hero System? Just think of the nerd cred you get when you reveal you not only play TTRPGs on the weekend, but you play a dead and forgotten one.
Pathfinder 1e is amazing if you really like planning, spreadsheets, and tactics. It's seriously phenomenal.
5e is the best introductory system and the best system for a night of drinking though. Less thought, more play.
BG3 is even more introductory. It's an opening to d&d for new players and a soft, super fun system for old players. Source: I'm loving bg3.
5e is the best introductory system and the best system for a night of drinking though. Less thought, more play.
BG3 is even more introductory. It's an opening to d&d for new players and a soft, super fun system for old players. Source: I'm loving bg3.
>5e is the best introductory system
(To continue the sweaty nerd trend of this thread:) No, not even close. 5e is somehow both bloated and complex while being simultaneously being too constrained in what actions you can take for anyone not familiar with it, and mostly gets by via name recognition and becoming synonymous with "TTRPG" these days.
There's tons of PBTA games and similar that are much simpler for people to pick up in a single night of gaming, ones where all of your character's creation and rules fit on a total of maybe 4 pages. My current favorite is Monster of the Week, but there are lots of other good ones out there.
(To continue the sweaty nerd trend of this thread:) No, not even close. 5e is somehow both bloated and complex while being simultaneously being too constrained in what actions you can take for anyone not familiar with it, and mostly gets by via name recognition and becoming synonymous with "TTRPG" these days.
There's tons of PBTA games and similar that are much simpler for people to pick up in a single night of gaming, ones where all of your character's creation and rules fit on a total of maybe 4 pages. My current favorite is Monster of the Week, but there are lots of other good ones out there.
I really enjoyed running a one shot of Thirsty Sword Lesbians.
I guess maybe when I said it was the best introductory, I also included (in my head) the massive online following for 5e, making the meta of gaming a little easier for people with no experience with table tops.
I guess maybe when I said it was the best introductory, I also included (in my head) the massive online following for 5e, making the meta of gaming a little easier for people with no experience with table tops.
Just wondering, have you played Pathfinder kingmaker or Wrath of the Righteous? I have over 1500 hours in each and they are my all time favorite games by a huge margin.
D&D is the worst system that exists imo. It has huge fundamental flaws, core mechanics that make no sense (one example: big guy has high AC so bigger person is harder to hit with an arrow than small one.), and then decades of pointless redundant crap thrown on top of it for good measure, scores of feats and spells and classes that are all almost identical but not quite. Literally any other system is superior, and most other systems are just fine. I'm flabbergasted that it's still in use. When I was a kid it was considered a joke. My theory is that in 90's in EU it was regarded as a joke but in USA it persisted and after internet it spread back.
The only metric that matters for a game system is whether people enjoy it or not, and by that metric D&D is a massively successful system that's succeeded in table top and video games. Normally people know that it's a game and not real life, it doesn't have to 100% make sense if people are enjoying themselves. Don't be a stick in the mud.
But would people enjoy another system more? Do people only enjoy DnD because it's the first reasonable system in the genre they tried and don't know how much better it gets?
The grognards aren’t going to like it no matter what but I’m not sure how much this really matters for everyone else once you get to the point that human story telling, lore, etc. is doing most of the things which a player really cares about. Most people I know have generally been moving towards fewer die rolls because everyone thinks it’s about the story, not the simulation. When I think of the other systems I’ve heard people play the appeal was something like a different setting, not fine tweaks on how you handle combat.
cRPGs are interesting because you get less of that color but have the capacity to actually do all kinds of calculations - get rid of a single HP value and track body parts individually, process damage based on location, use complex non-linear calculations, all are orders of magnitude less work than the video effects will run. I think we’ll see more divergence there between what humans enjoy running versus playing if they don’t have to do the math.
cRPGs are interesting because you get less of that color but have the capacity to actually do all kinds of calculations - get rid of a single HP value and track body parts individually, process damage based on location, use complex non-linear calculations, all are orders of magnitude less work than the video effects will run. I think we’ll see more divergence there between what humans enjoy running versus playing if they don’t have to do the math.
I'm going to make a horrifying admission: I still game and run Hero System, a classless, point-buy, effects-based system dating back to the late 1980s' Champions.
The thing that always brings me back to Hero - aside from the infinite flexibility - is the fact that the mechanics separate Accuracy and Penetration. DND in all its incarnations always bugged the hell out of me because of how - *HOW* - a piece of steel means I SOMEHOW MISSED. In Hero, and in all "Armor as Soak" system mechanics, you hit, then the effect has to penetrate.
Good Lord why is this so hard to find in an RPG system.
Anyways, over the . . decades . . I've formulated a bucket list of extreme streamlining for Hero, since newer players aren't super keen on all the "math"[1]. And also, honestly, some of the mechanics beg for streamlining[2]. But Hero Lite, as I've been calling it, has been pretty damn sweet, even if my wife sometimes calls it a "simulator for bleeding to death". So, like real life, then.
And the players just need to track their STRONG (STR/BODY), STAMINA (END/STUN), and how many ACTIONS they got left. We use poker chips. Also sometimes someone's foot gets blown off. I have index cards for that, and also for stuff like "Grenades You Brewed Up in the Pool Supply Store".
Anyway, need to get ready for tonight's Star Wars HERO game. Far more important than mechanics is story, character, and tone. And yknow, everyone has fun, that's all that matters.
[1] For pete's sake it's not a lot of math. It's arithmetic with fractions. Is that hard?
[2] STUN and ENDURANCE have no business being two different attributes. Just use STUN, halve ENDURANCE costs, and call the stat STAMINA.
The thing that always brings me back to Hero - aside from the infinite flexibility - is the fact that the mechanics separate Accuracy and Penetration. DND in all its incarnations always bugged the hell out of me because of how - *HOW* - a piece of steel means I SOMEHOW MISSED. In Hero, and in all "Armor as Soak" system mechanics, you hit, then the effect has to penetrate.
Good Lord why is this so hard to find in an RPG system.
Anyways, over the . . decades . . I've formulated a bucket list of extreme streamlining for Hero, since newer players aren't super keen on all the "math"[1]. And also, honestly, some of the mechanics beg for streamlining[2]. But Hero Lite, as I've been calling it, has been pretty damn sweet, even if my wife sometimes calls it a "simulator for bleeding to death". So, like real life, then.
And the players just need to track their STRONG (STR/BODY), STAMINA (END/STUN), and how many ACTIONS they got left. We use poker chips. Also sometimes someone's foot gets blown off. I have index cards for that, and also for stuff like "Grenades You Brewed Up in the Pool Supply Store".
Anyway, need to get ready for tonight's Star Wars HERO game. Far more important than mechanics is story, character, and tone. And yknow, everyone has fun, that's all that matters.
[1] For pete's sake it's not a lot of math. It's arithmetic with fractions. Is that hard?
[2] STUN and ENDURANCE have no business being two different attributes. Just use STUN, halve ENDURANCE costs, and call the stat STAMINA.
Is this not a question of how complicated you want to make your game?
I always thought of DND AC as a combination of accuracy and effect. High AC might just mean you get hit but it doesn't do anything, or it could mean you dodge everything, or the attacker whiffs, or some other intervention happened. I've seen DMs do similar.
You want it more complicated, home brew some rules to make it more complicated, right?
I for one don't mind mathy/complicated games, but, as you say, fun should reign.
I always thought of DND AC as a combination of accuracy and effect. High AC might just mean you get hit but it doesn't do anything, or it could mean you dodge everything, or the attacker whiffs, or some other intervention happened. I've seen DMs do similar.
You want it more complicated, home brew some rules to make it more complicated, right?
I for one don't mind mathy/complicated games, but, as you say, fun should reign.
I guess my real question is, "Why Don't Any of the Lite Systems Use Soak?". You already got two rolls, a hit roll and a damage roll. Make the hit roll actually a roll to hit, and have damage that has to exceed a threshold.
But ok, I don't want to sound like an ignoramus. I get it[1]. It changes the game pretty fundamentally, and totally throws levelled systems under a bus.
Dig it: if your soak and "hit points" go up consistently, it's not going to be long before a lot of damage sources are just meaningless. That cuts into the drama of the game, it actually makes it a different genre; worth noting here that Hero started out as Champions . . a superhero game.
Now my counterargument to THAT - and yes, I am arguing with myself, it's Friday - is that some of the boss monsters in the DND5 module I ran for 4th level PCs had over 200 HP. Two Hundred God Damn Hit Points We're Going to Be Here All Night. So, which is more meaningless: doing 11 HP of Magic Missile to a 200 HP behemoth, or doing nothing at all because he's soaking 11 points of damage? Well, by definition the second one. But the first one can get damn boring if the GM lets it turn into a HP counting contest[2].
And a good GM never lets it come to that.
The encounter is never just a flat grid and a monster, it's a lava river, a waterfall, cliffs, flying mounts, a vat of toxic goo, freezing cold, the deaths of friends. There's also a real time component in addition to the game time: at one hour playtime, the players hear a distant army. Two hours, the ork scouts spot them. Three hours, they see the mass of the army. Etc, etc - the point is, the world moves on with or without the PCs, but the path it takes changes with the actions of the players. Gives the players a sense of danger, urgency, and reinforces the suspension of disbelief since the baddies aren't sitting in a cave waiting to be murdered.
[1] And let's be honest, people that want lite games are going to Fate anyway.
[2] Which - if I'm playing - my Bearbarian Druid is going to win, because damn, that build NEVER runs out of hit points.
But ok, I don't want to sound like an ignoramus. I get it[1]. It changes the game pretty fundamentally, and totally throws levelled systems under a bus.
Dig it: if your soak and "hit points" go up consistently, it's not going to be long before a lot of damage sources are just meaningless. That cuts into the drama of the game, it actually makes it a different genre; worth noting here that Hero started out as Champions . . a superhero game.
Now my counterargument to THAT - and yes, I am arguing with myself, it's Friday - is that some of the boss monsters in the DND5 module I ran for 4th level PCs had over 200 HP. Two Hundred God Damn Hit Points We're Going to Be Here All Night. So, which is more meaningless: doing 11 HP of Magic Missile to a 200 HP behemoth, or doing nothing at all because he's soaking 11 points of damage? Well, by definition the second one. But the first one can get damn boring if the GM lets it turn into a HP counting contest[2].
And a good GM never lets it come to that.
The encounter is never just a flat grid and a monster, it's a lava river, a waterfall, cliffs, flying mounts, a vat of toxic goo, freezing cold, the deaths of friends. There's also a real time component in addition to the game time: at one hour playtime, the players hear a distant army. Two hours, the ork scouts spot them. Three hours, they see the mass of the army. Etc, etc - the point is, the world moves on with or without the PCs, but the path it takes changes with the actions of the players. Gives the players a sense of danger, urgency, and reinforces the suspension of disbelief since the baddies aren't sitting in a cave waiting to be murdered.
[1] And let's be honest, people that want lite games are going to Fate anyway.
[2] Which - if I'm playing - my Bearbarian Druid is going to win, because damn, that build NEVER runs out of hit points.
My DM will often check the bonus the armor offers and, if the attack was close enough to hit that it was blocked by the armor's bonus, describe the attack as being stopped by the armor. Shields (spell and equipment varieties) work similarly. Otherwise it's dodged.
AC simplifies "harder to hit at all" and "harder to actually damage" into a single stat, which is frankly a positive. It's about simplifying combat enough that you can keep things moving. I've played enough TTRPGs to appreciate simplicity in combat: some developers truly believe that people want to sit around watching other people roll dice and do math for ages. If, for some reason, you only care about hitting a target, and not penetrating their armor or actually damaging them, the DM can always adjust the effective AC accordingly.
And I'd argue that the feats and spells are largely fine. Sure, there's not dramatic variation but that's because in a simple system there's only so much you can do, and DnD has a spell that mechanically covers every such niche. Combine that with the desire to have some mechanically similar but differing in roleplaying implications, and you've got DnD's spellbook.
And I'd argue that the feats and spells are largely fine. Sure, there's not dramatic variation but that's because in a simple system there's only so much you can do, and DnD has a spell that mechanically covers every such niche. Combine that with the desire to have some mechanically similar but differing in roleplaying implications, and you've got DnD's spellbook.
> AC simplifies "harder to hit at all" and "harder to actually damage" into a single stat, which is frankly a positive.
Agreed. In practice, if you're shot while wearing a bulletproof vest, the bullet isn't penetrating the armor, but it's still doing concussive damage to your skin and organs-- you can even still die from internal bleeding. This varies by caliber, range, penetrative ability of the round, etc.
For D&D, this would be the difference between being shot by an arrow while wearing plated mail, versus taking a cannonball to the chest. The calculation needs to be "was the attack successful" and the technicalities handwaved away. You take damage from the arrow depending on whether it pierces a gap in the armor. You take damage from the cannonball depending on whether it hits you or misses.
> some developers truly believe that people want to sit around watching other people roll dice and do math for ages.
It's cheap and quick to do any number of calculations in CRPGs, but it's a snorefest when you bring that approach to IRL gatherings after everyone's been drinking. At that point you might as well try to play FATAL.
Agreed. In practice, if you're shot while wearing a bulletproof vest, the bullet isn't penetrating the armor, but it's still doing concussive damage to your skin and organs-- you can even still die from internal bleeding. This varies by caliber, range, penetrative ability of the round, etc.
For D&D, this would be the difference between being shot by an arrow while wearing plated mail, versus taking a cannonball to the chest. The calculation needs to be "was the attack successful" and the technicalities handwaved away. You take damage from the arrow depending on whether it pierces a gap in the armor. You take damage from the cannonball depending on whether it hits you or misses.
> some developers truly believe that people want to sit around watching other people roll dice and do math for ages.
It's cheap and quick to do any number of calculations in CRPGs, but it's a snorefest when you bring that approach to IRL gatherings after everyone's been drinking. At that point you might as well try to play FATAL.
I think a crucial thing in tabletop is not that it's objectively better/easier. Tabletop is also primarily a social activity. So network effects really matter. Getting a friend into tabletop is often D&D; you can write stuff for them and let them pick up on their own pace while they try out wacky fun stuff like be 2 feet tall and roll intimidate vs a dragon.
I don't doubt there are other, easier, more fun tabletop systems. But a system your friends are playing vs a system you'll have to make new friends in is a comparatively massive bar to entry.
I don't doubt there are other, easier, more fun tabletop systems. But a system your friends are playing vs a system you'll have to make new friends in is a comparatively massive bar to entry.
You must love the Phoenix Command system then:
https://phoenixcommand.net/
"Phoenix Command is essentially a realistic wound ballistics simulator created from the authors' computer models and presented as tabular data in book form."
https://phoenixcommand.net/
"Phoenix Command is essentially a realistic wound ballistics simulator created from the authors' computer models and presented as tabular data in book form."
AC is a reasonable abstraction for the combination of hitting the target and penetrating the armor. Some editions even had touch AC for situations where penetrating the armor was unnecessary.
The real nonsensical part of the D&D system is hit points. Someone hits you in the face, and you take "damage" and lose hit points. As long as you have some HP left, this "damage" is completely harmless and does not affect your ability to fight. If you are a high-level character, you can be punched in the face many times with no adverse consequences. Until you reach 0 HP, which suddenly makes you unable to take any action.
I remember hearing that the AC/HP system was originally borrowed from some miniature wargame involving ironclad warships. It definitely makes more sense in that context than with living creatures.
Also, if I remember correctly, the class/level system was the part of D&D that was considered obsolete in the 90s. Back then, almost everyone was using a system where you developed each skill and ability independently. Then 3e resurrected D&D and classes and levels became popular again.
The real nonsensical part of the D&D system is hit points. Someone hits you in the face, and you take "damage" and lose hit points. As long as you have some HP left, this "damage" is completely harmless and does not affect your ability to fight. If you are a high-level character, you can be punched in the face many times with no adverse consequences. Until you reach 0 HP, which suddenly makes you unable to take any action.
I remember hearing that the AC/HP system was originally borrowed from some miniature wargame involving ironclad warships. It definitely makes more sense in that context than with living creatures.
Also, if I remember correctly, the class/level system was the part of D&D that was considered obsolete in the 90s. Back then, almost everyone was using a system where you developed each skill and ability independently. Then 3e resurrected D&D and classes and levels became popular again.
D&D never made 100% sense, but it has flavor, probably just because of that. AD&D (1st edition) in particular was a vast collection of bizarre and picturesque things which were a disaster design-wise but which we still remember fondly to this day.
(I am in the EU btw. No one I know ever considered it "a joke").
(I am in the EU btw. No one I know ever considered it "a joke").
There's no reason you have to treat a failed attack roll as a miss instead of a hit that does no damage.
Yeah, this complaint is nonsense. It mechanically nullifies the damage and we colloquially call it a 'miss' because it applies whether someone has armor or not, but how to interpret that depends on the situation.
For example, an Arcane Trickster throwing up a reaction 'shield' spell doesn't cause the hit to miss either, it just was blocked(as it added 5 to AC).
For example, an Arcane Trickster throwing up a reaction 'shield' spell doesn't cause the hit to miss either, it just was blocked(as it added 5 to AC).
The problem with armor class is that it sort of blends in two concepts of completely missing an attack, and the attack simply not doing any damage.
Generally I've had DM's that understand your characters AC: if you have high AC because you're quick and nimble, it would be some sort of dodge, but if you have high AC because you're huge and wear plate armor, the attack "miss" is treated as if an arrow simply bounced off your armor.
But yeah, the system is generally broken. That's sort of why the devs of Baldurs Gate 3 had to homebrew a lot of fixes, and in general just gave up on a lot of mechanics and can't really implement anything past level 12.
Generally I've had DM's that understand your characters AC: if you have high AC because you're quick and nimble, it would be some sort of dodge, but if you have high AC because you're huge and wear plate armor, the attack "miss" is treated as if an arrow simply bounced off your armor.
But yeah, the system is generally broken. That's sort of why the devs of Baldurs Gate 3 had to homebrew a lot of fixes, and in general just gave up on a lot of mechanics and can't really implement anything past level 12.
> big guy has high AC so bigger person is harder to hit with an arrow than small one
I'm not aware of any version of D&D where just being bigger makes you harder to hit. In the current (5th edition), I believe size has no effect on chance to hit. In some earlier editions, being bigger makes you easier to hit, and being smaller makes you harder to hit (e.g. 3rd edition: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm).
I'm not aware of any version of D&D where just being bigger makes you harder to hit. In the current (5th edition), I believe size has no effect on chance to hit. In some earlier editions, being bigger makes you easier to hit, and being smaller makes you harder to hit (e.g. 3rd edition: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm).
[1] a world in which you have half-demons, dragons, vampires, magic spells, mindflaying dimension-traversing humanoids with tentacle mouths, people with magic artifacts embedded in them and primed to explode etc