| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of all the things they've done for Starfinder, I highly doubt using AC (because Starfinder runs on the d20 system so that's a given) is something that will break it for people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Armor class Is way Too long.
I also like pie.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder is *far* from the first sci fi with armor class. And given the power scale of Starfinder, it's the more practical system to go with. And armor class in Starfinder is not a Pathfinder-compatibility thing; it's a d20-compatibility thing, because Starfinder is still rooted in the same d20 system.
There are three basic models for how armor works, all valid in their own ways. Ablative, reductive, and deflective. Different games use these methods or combinations thereof for different reasons.
Ablative armor takes damage in your place. This is armor that gives you more hit points. Force fields are ablative armor.
Reductive armor reduces incoming damage. This can be by a flat amount (a la damage reduction), a dynamic amount (soak pools; not really present in Starfinder in any capacity), or a percentage (seldom used in Starfinder). This is the most logical form of modeling armor to most people, but has certain issues in implementation.
Then, there's deflective armor. This is the armor class model. The purpose of armor is to deflect attacks from vital points, making you less likely to be hit in a meaningful way.
Given the vast scale of power in d20 games, reductive armor is deeply problematic. You go from characters dealing two damage to two hundred, and varies widely from one character to the next. If you have flat reductive armor, a la current damage reduction, then you run into a problem where, once you start putting creatures of varying level even within a reasonable range together, you get divergence such that some characters have amounts of reduction that are just so low as to be irrelevant and others have reduction so high that lower-level characters literally can't hurt them, instead of just being unlikely to hurt them. If you go with a percentage-based reduction, you have to do complex math for every hit. Dynamic soak is another roll and more math to every attack.
Deflective armor, on the other hand? The armor class model? This isn't an archaic technique. Armor class exists in nearly every game, in one form of another. If you're rolling to hit someone, you need a difficulty to hit them, whether that's a static number or a dynamic dodge roll. If you have attack rolls scaling in any way, you also usually need the target number for a successful attack to scale as well, or you have guaranteed hits in short order. Whether it's ATN, attack difficulty, dodge TN, or whatever, it's there; it's just a question of how much you can interact with it and how you boost it.
It's the mechanic that works with d20.
Reductive armor as primary means works better with games that have a tighter numerical scale. Like how in Shadowrun, the difference between a pistol and an assault cannon is, like, the difference between 8 and 16 damage, and as you advance, you're going up one or two damage here or there. Even after a very long campaign, you're still on the same order of magnitude.
For a d20 game, that just doesn't work effectively, as damage gets so varied and granular.
It also works on more constrained numerical scales, and in systems where you're expected to endure a few hits. If you know damage is going to be somewhere in the 5-10 range, you can make soak values that work.
The mechanic is often similar, it just goes by different names. Usually in the form of some dodge value or pool, instead of it being structured as armor.
However, D&D has one of the most wildly disparate scales of any game out there, until you start getting into the metasystems like Hero system.
For most games, numbers are more constrained, and reduction is the more practical option. For d20, not so much.
I liked Star Wars Saga method which used reflex as your AC. Armour could provide AC but at higher levels, your reflex save would overtake it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Great replies all around, thanks for the input. I was asked why I dislike AC so much, specifically in sci-fi. Actually, I dislike AC in every possible way, but I've learned to deal with it in D&D or Pathfinder, only because changing such a huge part of the foundation of the game would disrupt the whole system. I was hoping StarFinder would start off without it.
As for what I don't like about AC (the deflective style, according to Omnius's great post above) here are some of the highlights.
For the record, it's not may favorite methodology either. I've always had some logic problems with it involving armor either working perfectly or not at all on each individual hit. That's weord.
1) In an AC system, armor lasts forever. There's never any damage to armor or shields.
From a realism perspective, this actually isn't a problem with armor (though it is with shields). Real armor is pretty durable and might eventually wear out, but only over the course of very long periods of time, not a single fight.
Shields break pretty often, though.
2) Higher AC armors such as (in the fantasy versions) Full Plate armor would make it easier to hit someone (because of thier limited mobility and vision), just much much more unlikely to actually do damage to them... which when combined with #1 makes it a bit ridiculous.
The first part is actually pretty much not true. Full plate is actually really flexible. People can do jumping jacks and cartwheels in it, for example. It is very heavy, which matters much more in a real fight than it tends to in games, but it's not actually particularly restrictive.
It reducing damage is indeed much more accurate than making one harder to hit, however.
3) Light armor should have no effect on whether or not you hit your target... it's basically a tough layer of clothes.
Again, realistically, it would indeed reduce damage rather than the likelihood of being hit.
4) Ranged weapons fire should never have the defender's AC a factor in whether or not she gets hit. A crossbow bolt can definitely penetrate even plate armor.
This is only partially true. I mean, yes powerful crossbows could penetrate plate in theory...but not reliably. If they hit at an angle they glanced off, for example. That being represented as the attack not hitting is valid enough.
5) Can we finally just all agree that as fantastic and as long-lived is D&D / d20 / Pathfinder, the first version was crappy as far as system design goes, but it lasted so long only because there was so little competition for so many years?
Not exactly. D&D and all their successors enable a very particular style of game and do it very, very, well. People like that style of game, so they continue to be successful.
Anyway, that's all just my .02 cents. I certainly didn't mean to antagonize, I was just venting a little frustration at something that has bothered me for a long time.
If anyone is interested in a system I've designed to replace armor class, I've posted a blog with details at dicemechanic.org. Even if you hate my ideas, I'd love some feedback on it. It's still being playtested, and there's kinks to work out.
For the record, my responses aren't intended to argue against doing this, I'm basically just being pedantic.
One reason (and a fairly significant one at that) why I love Anima Beyond Fantasy.
Your facility at not being hit isn't dependent on what armor you're wearing at all. Your armor is what applies after you've failed to successfully defend yourself. Lighter armors reduce the incoming damage by a low percentage and heavier armors reduce by a lot. And facing multiple levels worth of baddies doesn't matter so much since it's all proportional to the damage they're dishing out, whether a dozen points at low level cut to half or a few dozen points at high level also cut to half (and the remainder is, of course, damage to your hit points which will be appropriate to your level, and may tell you whether you can handle the baddie or should retreat).
One reason (and a fairly significant one at that) why I love Anima Beyond Fantasy.
Your facility at not being hit isn't dependent on what armor you're wearing at all. Your armor is what applies after you've failed to successfully defend yourself. Lighter armors reduce the incoming damage by a low percentage and heavier armors reduce by a lot.
I'm afraid that isn't really true, at least not assuming you're using the original version of Anima (I haven't seen the second edition, since it didn't get released hardback in the States that I know of). Your armor just increases the amount they have to beat your Defense roll by 10 per point of armor you have. In essence this isn't any different than having an AC, except instead of having an AC of 10 + Dex + other bonuses, you'd be rolling 1d20 and adding your modifiers against each attack, then comparing your Armor bonus to see if that negated the attack.
The only issue I have is applying Dex to your AC vs. ranged attacks. You don't dodge bullets or other projectiles. Hit or miss is all about the shooters skill and/or cover.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only issue I have is applying Dex to your AC vs. ranged attacks. You don't dodge bullets or other projectiles. Hit or miss is all about the shooters skill and/or cover.
You move/shift position with greater agility and speed, making you a harder target to begin with.
I'm afraid that isn't really true, at least not assuming you're using the original version of Anima (I haven't seen the second edition, since it didn't get released hardback in the States that I know of). Your armor just increases the amount they have to beat your Defense roll by 10 per point of armor you have. In essence this isn't any different than having an AC, except instead of having an AC of 10 + Dex + other bonuses, you'd be rolling 1d20 and adding your modifiers against each attack, then comparing your Armor bonus to see if that negated the attack.One reason (and a fairly significant one at that) why I love Anima Beyond Fantasy.
Your facility at not being hit isn't dependent on what armor you're wearing at all. Your armor is what applies after you've failed to successfully defend yourself. Lighter armors reduce the incoming damage by a low percentage and heavier armors reduce by a lot.
Um, yes, it really is true. You make your attack roll, they make their defense roll, shields come into play but armor means zilch at this point of the process, and if your attack roll is higher by any amount, you hit. If you have hit, their armor may negate the damage altogether if it's high enough (or if the margin by which you beat them is slim enough), though they are still put on the defensive. If you are also doing damage, the question of how much is dependent on the twin factors of how much your attack beat their defense and how good their armor is.
For example, if I make an attack roll totalling 180 and your defense roll totals 130, then my margin of success is 50. If you're wearing studded leather giving you a relatively low AT of 2 against my damage, then I'm dealing 30% of my base damage, regardless of how much my base damage is. If you had full heavy plate giving you a much better AT of 6 against my damage, then I didn't get to inflict any damage at all.
And as far as I know, that's true of the original and Core Exxet.
For example, if I make an attack roll totalling 180 and your defense roll totals 130, then my margin of success is 50. If you're wearing studded leather giving you a relatively low AT of 2 against my damage, then I'm dealing 30% of my base damage, regardless of how much my base damage is. If you had full heavy plate giving you a much better AT of 6 against my damage, then I didn't get to inflict any damage at all.
And as far as I know, that's true of the original and Core Exxet.
But here's what I'm saying: In essence, that's exactly the same thing as AC. It removes a step, that's it. Now, it'd be closer if PF damage scaled up based up on how much you exceeded an opponent's AC by, but in the end, every game system has an AC, unless you automatically hit.
But here's what I'm saying: In essence, that's exactly the same thing as AC. It removes a step, that's it. Now, it'd be closer if PF damage scaled up based up on how much you exceeded an opponent's AC by, but in the end, every game system has an AC, unless you automatically hit.For example, if I make an attack roll totalling 180 and your defense roll totals 130, then my margin of success is 50. If you're wearing studded leather giving you a relatively low AT of 2 against my damage, then I'm dealing 30% of my base damage, regardless of how much my base damage is. If you had full heavy plate giving you a much better AT of 6 against my damage, then I didn't get to inflict any damage at all.
And as far as I know, that's true of the original and Core Exxet.
Yes, every game either has auto-hits or something that the attacker must roll against to first score a hit. But how that process takes place and the role armor plays in whichever process the game in question happens to go with is still a factor. Onmius above described three different roles (ablative, reductive, and deflective) armor can take in various games. They all are ultimately AC with more or less steps but they are not the same process. The role of armor as Pathfinder presents it is deflective. The Anima process is reductive (and doesn't, I think, run afoul of the problems Omnius described because of how it's proportionally reductive and therefore relevant regardless of level). If you look at it through a skewed enough lens, sure, it will be the same as everything else. But it really isn't. The hows and whys matter.
I have, however, played D&D since the mid-70's, so I know how this system generally works.
It could be worse. Remember the previous incarnation of AC where lower was better, to the point of negative values. And with its abominable counterpart, THAC0.
Yes, I know, some people like this kind of AC and THAC0, because of good memories or because they like quirky rules. Personal preference and such...
There are so many quality science fiction RPG's out there; Traveller (old or new), Star Frontiers, N.E.W., Alternity, Ashen Stars, Uncharted Worlds, Serenity, Star Wars d6, the new Star Trek Adventures, and the list goes on. You've got a lot of competition for our hearts and minds, Paizo. Using A.C. just to keep it Pathfinder friendly may have been a mistake.
All of the games you've listed are played by one-tenth (or less) of a player base than Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder together. For any of the its flaws, no one has made anything better stick in the minds of the average gamer. Personally, I liked Alternity's system of armor and wounds, but very few others seem to.
AC is kinda like Democracy to Winston Churchill - it's the worst, except compared to everything else. :)
I'm afraid that isn't really true, at least not assuming you're using the original version of Anima (I haven't seen the second edition, since it didn't get released hardback in the States that I know of). Your armor just increases the amount they have to beat your Defense roll by 10 per point of armor you have. In essence this isn't any different than having an AC, except instead of having an AC of 10 + Dex + other bonuses, you'd be rolling 1d20 and adding your modifiers against each attack, then comparing your Armor bonus to see if that negated the attack.One reason (and a fairly significant one at that) why I love Anima Beyond Fantasy.
Your facility at not being hit isn't dependent on what armor you're wearing at all. Your armor is what applies after you've failed to successfully defend yourself. Lighter armors reduce the incoming damage by a low percentage and heavier armors reduce by a lot.
Um, yes, it really is true. You make your attack roll, they make their defense roll, shields come into play but armor means zilch at this point of the process, and if your attack roll is higher by any amount, you hit. If you have hit, their armor may negate the damage altogether if it's high enough (or if the margin by which you beat them is slim enough), though they are still put on the defensive. If you are also doing damage, the question of how much is dependent on the twin factors of how much your attack beat their defense and how good their armor is.
For example, if I make an attack roll totalling 180 and your defense roll totals 130, then my margin of success is 50. If you're wearing studded leather giving you a relatively low AT of 2 against my damage, then I'm dealing 30% of my base damage, regardless of how much my base damage is. If you had full heavy plate giving you a much better AT of 6 against my damage, then I didn't get to inflict any damage at all.
And as far as I know, that's true of the original and Core Exxet.
Well, that sounds nice and straightforward.
I have no idea how it works in practice, but just reading that and I'll stick with my AC thank you very much...
Great replies all around, thanks for the input. I was asked why I dislike AC so much, specifically in sci-fi. Actually, I dislike AC in every possible way, but I've learned to deal with it in D&D or Pathfinder, only because changing such a huge part of the foundation of the game would disrupt the whole system. I was hoping StarFinder would start off without it.
As for what I don't like about AC (the deflective style, according to Omnius's great post above) here are some of the highlights.
1) In an AC system, armor lasts forever. There's never any damage to armor or shields.
2) Higher AC armors such as (in the fantasy versions) Full Plate armor would make it easier to hit someone (because of thier limited mobility and vision), just much much more unlikely to actually do damage to them... which when combined with #1 makes it a bit ridiculous.
3) Light armor should have no effect on whether or not you hit your target... it's basically a tough layer of clothes.
4) Ranged weapons fire should never have the defender's AC a factor in whether or not she gets hit. A crossbow bolt can definitely penetrate even plate armor.
5) Can we finally just all agree that as fantastic and as long-lived is D&D / d20 / Pathfinder, the first version was crappy as far as system design goes, but it lasted so long only because there was so little competition for so many years?
Anyway, that's all just my .02 cents. I certainly didn't mean to antagonize, I was just venting a little frustration at something that has bothered me for a long time.
If anyone is interested in a system I've designed to replace armor class, I've posted a blog with details at dicemechanic.org. Even if you hate my ideas, I'd love some feedback on it. It's still being playtested, and there's kinks to work out.
1) Most everything lasts forever, not just armor. Maintenance is assumed. Accounting wear and tear on your stuff gets handwaved across the board, and including such a mechanic would be a deeply obnoxious extra layer of accounting.
2) Field of vision is limited, to a degree, yes, but mobility not nearly so much as you might think. One of the most terrifying things about a large, strong warrior in full, properly fitted armor is how much of their mobility they retain.
3/4) The job of armor in most cases is not to rigidly sit there and eat attacks by virtue of being really really strong.
Rather, their job is to divert incoming attacks away from vital spots. If you point a crossbow dead on at a suit of plate mail, yes, it has the raw power to punch through. However, if you shoot it off center or at an angle, it will glance off, because a suit of armor gains as much of its protection from its shape as its material. While ranged weapons can have the power to penetrate, you need to line up a much better shot to do it, which becomes even harder when your target sets into motion.
Likewise, lighter armors slip and glide and catch and distribute impact in ways that redirect impact, or are loose and flowing in ways that make it harder to identify the vital points to shoot. Even wearing a plain old poncho can genuinely (if only slightly) protect you from a variety of threats more than able to go straight through your poncho.
5) We can agree that d20 is long-lived.
Well, that sounds nice and straightforward.
I have no idea how it works in practice, but just reading that and I'll stick with my AC thank you very much...
Oh, you sweet, innocent cherub, that omits so much of what else goes on, it's not even funny. I didn't mention counterattacking or deliberately absorbing hits or how sneak attack is less a class-specific thing and more something everyone and their grandmother can do, it's just that Thieves and Acrobatic Warrior can manage it more consistently, for the sake of brevity.
Of course, Anima isn't as simple in use. It has Rolemaster in his heritage. I don't think any Anima-enthusiast would argue that it's easy or simple. I was saying that I like it for how conceptually straightforward it is, while avoiding the pitfalls of reductive AC that Omnius had noted. Armor comes into play when I expect it to and does what I expect it to do.
As opposed to, say, a system where a typical 20th-level Fighter has no inherent improvement to his ability to defend himself than he did at 1st. At best, he's got Dex stat increases and maybe the Dodge feat. Whoop-de-do. For all the Base Attack Bonus he gets, conceptually, I expect a Base Defense Bonus, too. I've finally caught up on all the Pathfinder Tales novels and in all the countless battles portrayed therein, the various warriors are written like they know as much about defending themselves as they do about attacking. They're not written as though they're relying on their various armor or ring or amulets, but as though all the times they successfully defend themselves are things they could do again without armor.
In comparison with the conceptual dissonance of 3.X's AC, I can handle some slightly more complex math.
Armor class is massive simplified abstraction to make sure the simulation is fast and easy. Asking the questions "What about hitting less armored areas (aka called shot systems)?" or "What if armor did not make it harder to hit but harder to damage (aka armor as dr systems)?" is asking for deeper, more complex simulation of defensive systems.
But deeper and more complex simulations always ask for more math and math is not fast. Video games have it easy, they can implement anything you want and the computer just grinds the numbers and does that instantly. But tabletops still gotta manage with mental calculations only, every combat encounter should not have on paper calculations to it.
And then apply it to vehicles/spacecraft and suddenly a high-level soldier has a good enough attack bonus that he can shoot a pistol at a tank and eventually destroy it. Armour and weapon penetration really are badly modelled by AC and attack bonus.
That's what DR and Hardness simulate.
(They're not really essential gameplay features if all you're trying to simulate is 'heroic warrior stabbing a monster', so a lot of systems don't bother with them.)
So StarFinder is compatible with Pathfinder.
Okay, you've already lost me. Sure, you can CONVERT from Pathfinder to Starfinder, but you can't convert in the other direction, so I wouldn't say they're compatible.
I've gotta ask, though. Armor Class? In science fiction? Really? I had high hopes that somehow they'd finally put to rest that tired, unrealistic, awkward, old-fashioned system and stepped forward into the future.
If you hate Armor Class so much, why are you playing d20 system games? There are plenty of other system types.
StarFinder in my opinion is extremely well done, very fleshed out, has a great background, excellent player races/classes...
What...?