** ARCHIVED FORUM - ANY CHANGES ARE REVERTED HOURLY **



It is currently Mar 29, 2024 5:20 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Armor Class
PostPosted: Dec 13, 2011 4:28 pm 
Offline
Lord of the Regency Council
Lord of the Regency Council
User avatar

Joined: Nov 17, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 7335
Location: Norway, Europe
From what I understand, Dave Arneson replaced the Chainmail Combat System with a rule system using the Armor Class Mechanic which he based on concepts from a naval combat game called Civil War Ironclads.

It seems to me that this was a pretty brilliant move. I dont know much about Chainmail, but so many other RPGs involve an attack roll, followed by a defense roll. One of the advantages of AC is that you eliminate one of the dice rolls, speeding up combat considerably.

The odd side of AC in D&D is of course that it doesnt distinguish between attacks that miss the opponents and attacks that hit, but dont cause damage.

What do you think of the Armor Class rules?

-Havard

_________________
Currently Running: The Blackmoor Vales Saga
Currently Playing: Daniel S. Debelfry in the Throne of Star's Campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Armor Class
PostPosted: Dec 30, 2011 7:49 pm 
Offline
Baronette
Baronette
User avatar

Joined: Jan 16, 2010 8:02 am
Posts: 658
Location: suburbs of Chicago
1. "Civil War Ironclads" was, as I remember it, a game also written by Dave but never published.

2. I think that the attack value versus defense value (which was also the main combat system behind most Avalon Hill and SPI wargames of the era) is much more efficient than what later RPGs put together in the name of "realism." Adding in parry or dodge or armor absorption rules simply slows the whole process down.

3. As to AC, I still have frustration that low is better and this is a rule I "fixed" decades ago in my own game. I can see where it comes from, however, when "First Line" or "First Class" ships were the best ones, "Second Line" were second best, and so on. Logical in context, perhaps, but illogical in a RPG, unless...

4. ...my personal theory is that one of the early combat systems goes back to 2d6 and trying to roll under AC to hit. This also explains why the best AC in the original game was 2 instead of 1. So, to hit an unarmored foe (AC9) you would have to roll 9-12 on 2d6, but to hit someone in plate and shield (AC2) you would have to roll 2 on 2d6. I would still have reversed it (let plate & shield be AC12 and unarmored be AC5, for example) so you would roll under, but that's just one guy's preference. :P

_________________
Marv / Finarvyn
Member of The Regency Council
Visit my board
since 1975

"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!"
- Dave Arneson



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Armor Class
PostPosted: Dec 31, 2011 10:05 am 
Offline
Comically Terrible
Comically Terrible
User avatar

Joined: Feb 02, 2010 4:27 pm
Posts: 1990
Location: TX, USA

_________________
Rob

Follow Thorn's Chronicle | |


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Copyright © The Comeback Inn
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.045s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]