Two average guys (assume all 10s) get into a fist brawl, they wear no armor with no bonuses or penalties (AC 10). There's a 45% chance to miss that person standing ready. First guy swings, although he doesn't have the unarmed feat, he'll be fine because neither does the other guy so no worries of provoked attacks of opportunities. Somehow he'll entirely miss the guy standing 5 feet in front of him 50% of the time, this goes both ways. Even if he does hit, if the damage roll turns out to be a 1, in narrative terms it was just a scuff (only when the damage knocks out his opponent does it matter). I can deal with the hitpoint damage, but why does he miss 45% of the time? I mean, he could of been using any weapon (a sword, a whip, a sling). What are these odds based on? What are we supposed to be describing it as? Dodging? although there's a feat for that which at most increases it by 5%. Parrying? although you could parry a sword with your fists, even without being a monk or having improved unarmed strike. Luck?
Just taking a deeper look at the reasoning and background of this mechanic deep cooked into the base of the game.
Edit: Thanks for the catch Bugleyman
All the "misses" aren't necessarily misses also, some are just ineffectual hits.
He hit but it was a glancing blow that didn't actually do any damage?
I think one should take hit points as abstract, not representing physical damage. There's no reason an expert swordsman would be able to take multiple blows fatal to a beginner.
In your scenario there are hits, dodges, parries and 'shaken off' blows - all rolled into the abstract mechanic of a 50% chance of losing some multiple of hit points.
All the "misses" aren't necessarily misses also, some are just ineffectual hits.
This. And in combat should often be described as such.
Nitpick: You actually miss 45% of the time, not 50%. But yeah, think of it dodged, blocked, glancing blows, etc.
So if I take the same scenario and give them knives. Or better yet, one of them knives and the other nothing. Is the guy with the knife just ineffectually hitting / totally missing the fisticuffs guy 45% of the time? The 10 AC doesn't even require awareness, so the fisticuff guy could be flat footed when all this happens.
Well, the knife guy is getting extra stabs from the AoO's now. ;)
Misses could be tears to the clothes and a glancing blow could be one of those papercut style slashes you see across people in movies. fisticuff guy is probably hurling himself out of the way instead of shifting to make something a glancing blow. It's all in the matter of how you choose to describe the visuals.
Also if they are level 1 commoners, then using average results... Fisticuffs guy would be bleeding out on the ground in about 4 rounds, which is 24 seconds or so. Not so out of tune for a scrap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scratches, scrapes hitting his clothing instead of him whatever but things that don't actually cause lethal damage.
Well, the knife guy is getting extra stabs from the AoO's now. ;)
Misses could be tears to the clothes and a glancing blow could be one of those papercut style slashes you see across people in movies. fisticuff guy is probably hurling himself out of the way instead of shifting to make something a glancing blow. It's all in the matter of how you choose to describe the visuals.
Also if they are level 1 commoners, then using average results... Fisticuffs guy would be bleeding out on the ground in about 4 rounds, which is 24 seconds or so. Not so out of tune for a scrap.
Good point, though it is an interesting realization that catching someone off guard means absolutely nothing to AC if they never had a dex bonus to apply to it in the first place.
Let's also compare this to an immobile target. The dex would be 0 (-5) and a -2 if since it's inanimate (AC of 3). Meaning the "average" person would miss a manikin 10% of the time if they didn't spend a full round action (6 seconds) lining up a shot. We aren't talking about someone clumsy or anything. And since we are talking about the whole abstractness of someone just hitting something, some might describe that one attack which took 6 seconds as multiple attacks that did apparently nothing. Average people really suck at hitting stuff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if I take the same scenario and give them knives. Or better yet, one of them knives and the other nothing. Is the guy with the knife just ineffectually hitting / totally missing the fisticuffs guy 45% of the time? The 10 AC doesn't even require awareness, so the fisticuff guy could be flat footed when all this happens.
Yes, it is a stab that isn't fully effective.
By calling it AC for so long, I think a lot of people have forgotten that it's Armor Class and that Strength adds to your rolls against that for a reason. A "miss" is not you failing to connect at all, it's you failing to connect meaningfully. A good chunk of the "hit roll" is penetrating armor enough to hurt the guy wearing it.
Yep, I made a simple combat system where how well you actually hit determined the damage, in one opposed roll by each side for every attack (representing 1-2 seconds of game time).
Not genius, but it meant there are no hits 10 over their ac, that then came up with minimum damage, or something that barely hits and does maximum damage.
Yep, I made a simple combat system where how well you actually hit determined the damage, in one opposed roll by each side for every attack (representing 1-2 seconds of game time).
Not genius, but it meant there are no hits 10 over their ac, that then came up with minimum damage, or something that barely hits and does maximum damage.
Actually, the vast majority of roleplaying games I've seen have the accuracy of the attack affect the damage. D&D is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that doesn't, actually.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
@OP: Go to your average local martial arts dojo that teaches striking techniques. Watch any two people spar. Count the attempted strikes and the actual hits. Alternatively, watch UFC, where they'll tell you these stats throughout the fight. Or go here. You'll see in said link that the #1 fighter for Significant Strike Accuracy has a 67.8% average. #10 has 54.7%.
Honestly, 45% is not that unrealistic. It's especially not unrealistic among untrained combatants.
A Song of Ice and Fire has a nice combat system...
@OP: Go to your average local martial arts dojo that teaches striking techniques. Watch any two people spar. Count the attempted strikes and the actual hits. Alternatively, watch UFC, where they'll tell you these stats throughout the fight. Or go here. You'll see in said link that the #1 fighter for Significant Strike Accuracy has a 67.8% average. #10 has 54.7%.
Honestly, 45% is not that unrealistic. It's especially not unrealistic among untrained combatants.
Well put. It isn't hard to hit someone over time, but it is hard to make everything hit.
A Song of Ice and Fire has a nice combat system...
Gregor uses: bash in face.
It is super effective.
It is more of He hits for 8 Damage but must best your Armour Rating of 6. You take 2 Health of Damage.
@OP: Go to your average local martial arts dojo that teaches striking techniques. Watch any two people spar. Count the attempted strikes and the actual hits. Alternatively, watch UFC, where they'll tell you these stats throughout the fight. Or go here. You'll see in said link that the #1 fighter for Significant Strike Accuracy has a 67.8% average. #10 has 54.7%.
Honestly, 45% is not that unrealistic. It's especially not unrealistic among untrained combatants.
Woah, I didn't realize how often people can miss someone in front of them. Thanks for the link. It's just weird when you realize that to describe some damage that did little hitpoint damage (it landed but it missed on being lethal), and to describe some misses (you scuffed up his clothing, but didn't really hit him) sound like they should almost be the same description (you hit but not really).
Still, I feel like that a good portion of that miss is the person defending themself, which shouldn't happen if they aren't properly armed (unarmed against an actual weapon) so they can actually block/redirect the attack, and aware. Being flat footed should still matter to a person of average dexterity ability to defend themself. Or are there rules, I'm forgetting?
Just taking a deeper look at the reasoning and background of this mechanic deep cooked into the base of the game.
It's an abstract.
The basic construction of the game assumes that you succeed roughly 50% of the time, modified by lots of stuff. You'll see it reflected constantly throughout the system, like when a DC is set at 11+X.
The deviations from that base assumption all have a reason, like purposely increased difficulty.
It is more of He hits for 8 Damage but must best your Armour Rating of 6. You take 2 Health of Damage.
As an aside, my system is similar. Attack vs defence (which does not cover armour), there are four possible injury types if attack exceeds the defence. Hit for 1 damage, 3, 4 and insta-kill. The higher up you go requires you to beat them by more. Heroes will have 7-8 hp by the way, so you can die and kill fast.
Anyway, after being hit, armour soak comes in, armour blocks 1,2 or 3 damage. 2 and 3 soak armours are rare with 3 being sets almost mythic in their ability to take damage, they shrug off the first two hit types and almost negate the third, whereas 2 dampens a good hit (3), but doesn't shut it down entirely. The problem is that 2 and 3 armour sets make noise and slow you down, so if you are in soak 2 and want to flee, someone in soak 1 or 0 will catch you.
Go punch a door. You "hit" it. You still are really unlikely to damage it. In Pathfinder, they call that a "miss".
If it was living and not able to move, kind of like a living manikin, you "hit" automatically. The "miss" associated with inanimate objects is about the basic difficulty of damaging things. Otherwise you would damage a floor with every step.
And don't think of Natural Armor of 0 as having no Natural Armor. Just understand that you can't have less than 0. Human skin still stops some attacks. If it didn't humans would be mortally wounded by a cat scratch, as it takes out a major artery.
@OP: Go to your average local martial arts dojo that teaches striking techniques. Watch any two people spar. Count the attempted strikes and the actual hits. Alternatively, watch UFC, where they'll tell you these stats throughout the fight. Or go here. You'll see in said link that the #1 fighter for Significant Strike Accuracy has a 67.8% average. #10 has 54.7%.
Honestly, 45% is not that unrealistic. It's especially not unrealistic among untrained combatants.
Woah, I didn't realize how often people can miss someone in front of them. Thanks for the link. It's just weird when you realize that to describe some damage that did little hitpoint damage (it landed but it missed on being lethal), and to describe some misses (you scuffed up his clothing, but didn't really hit him) sound like they should almost be the same description (you hit but not really).
Still, I feel like that a good portion of that miss is the person defending themself, which shouldn't happen if they aren't properly armed (unarmed against an actual weapon) so they can actually block/redirect the attack, and aware. Being flat footed should still matter to a person of average dexterity ability to defend themself. Or are there rules, I'm forgetting?
Re: unarmed vs. weapon: The abstraction does not really deal with this particular point beyond the fact that the weapon wielder will have twice as many attacks as the unarmed, untrained combatant due to threatening. That essentially clears up that problem, though.
It is more of He hits for 8 Damage but must best your Armour Rating of 6. You take 2 Health of Damage.As an aside, my system is similar. Attack vs defence (which does not cover armour), there are four possible injury types if attack exceeds the defence. Hit for 1 damage, 3, 4 and insta-kill. The higher up you go requires you to beat them by more. Heroes will have 7-8 hp by the way, so you can die and kill fast.
Anyway, after being hit, armour soak comes in, armour blocks 1,2 or 3 damage. 2 and 3 soak armours are rare with 3 being sets almost mythic in their ability to take damage, they shrug off the first two hit types and almost negate the third, whereas 2 dampens a good hit (3), but doesn't shut it down entirely. The problem is that 2 and 3 armour sets make noise and slow you down, so if you are in soak 2 and want to flee, someone in soak 1 or 0 will catch you.
I have a ASoIaF Character who uses a Bastard Sword and with his Armour he gets hit if the enemy rolls over a 5 (usually on 2-3 d6) but can ignore 10-12 Damage per attack. They literally have to crit me (whose power is determined by how many 6s you roll) to have a chance of damaging me.
Keep in mind that being caught flat-footed just means you don't get a bonus to your AC. You're still partially dodging. Having a penalty to your AC due to Dex means your AC is lower. If you're actually unable to respond to the attack (such being a stationary object) you're looking at a -5 or so to your AC.
If you are unable to respond at all that is when you are Helpless.
If you are unable to respond at all that is when you are Helpless.
Exactly!
Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks get no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.
As a full-round action, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. An enemy can also use a bow or crossbow, provided he is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. (A rogue also gets his sneak attack damage bonus against a helpless foe when delivering a coup de grace.) If the defender survives, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity.
Creatures that are immune to critical hits do not take critical damage, nor do they need to make Fortitude saves to avoid being killed by a coup de grace.
Actually, the vast majority of roleplaying games I've seen have the accuracy of the attack affect the damage. D&D is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that doesn't, actually.
Seriously? How about Call of Cthulhu, Champions, Traveller, Mutants and Masterminds, Dragon Age, Villains and Vigilantes.. There are lots of games that use a roll to hit/roll damage mechanic in which the accuracy has limited effect on damage save for some kind of critical hit mechanism.
Actually, the vast majority of roleplaying games I've seen have the accuracy of the attack affect the damage. D&D is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that doesn't, actually.Seriously? How about Call of Cthulhu, Champions, Traveller, Mutants and Masterminds, Dragon Age, Villains and Vigilantes.. There are lots of games that use a roll to hit/roll damage mechanic in which the accuracy has limited effect on damage save for some kind of critical hit mechanism.
Oh, ok, sorry. Let me rephrase:
D&D is the only game I can think of that I don't think is a terrible game (except possibly Dragon Age, which I never played).
And aren't M&M and V&V d20 games anyway?
That could simply be them learning how to absorb the force. It is the same as someone knowing how to relax and tighten their muscles to avoid injury in a Car Crash.
Basically them learning to not Panic as they fall and instead angle themselves so they roll to dissipate some of the force when they hit the ground.
Actually, the vast majority of roleplaying games I've seen have the accuracy of the attack affect the damage. D&D is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that doesn't, actually.Seriously? How about Call of Cthulhu, Champions, Traveller, Mutants and Masterminds, Dragon Age, Villains and Vigilantes.. There are lots of games that use a roll to hit/roll damage mechanic in which the accuracy has limited effect on damage save for some kind of critical hit mechanism.Oh, ok, sorry. Let me rephrase:
D&D is the only game I can think of that I don't think is a terrible game (except possibly Dragon Age, which I never played).
And aren't M&M and V&V d20 games anyway?
Terrible? Call of Cthulhu is a terrible game? I assume you mean the mechanics...
Let's see, in D&D You can roll a 20, confirm the critical and still deal minimum damage...
A 1 HD monster can roll a 20 hitting a 45 AC, then roll maximum damage...
want to kill a level 20 character, throw a 1000 1 HD monsters at them...
Terrible? Call of Cthulhu is a terrible game? I assume you mean the mechanics...
Uh, the mechanics are the game. The fluff is the roleplaying ;)
And yes, I hate d100 based games. A lot.
that's ok I hate d20s...a LOT. nothing like having a 5% chance to roll anything on the die...talk about random....
With d100, you only have a 1% chance of rolling a 1 or 100...it has a curve...
And Mechanics are PART of a game, Fluff is the other PART of the game.
A Game SYSTEM is the mechanics, GURPS is a system, Pathfinder is a Game.
that's ok I hate d20s...a LOT. nothing like having a 5% chance to roll anything on the die...talk about random....
With d100, you only have a 1% chance of rolling a 1 or 100...it has a curve...
Uh, no more curve than a d20 has. Both are flat probability distributions.
Oh, ok, sorry. Let me rephrase:
D&D is the only game I can think of that I don't think is a terrible game (except possibly Dragon Age, which I never played).
Oh, them's fightin' words. I'll take CoC over any indie punk or White Wolf/colon games any day.
And aren't M&M and V&V d20 games anyway?
Mutants and Masterminds might be a d20 game, but it departs significantly from D&D in its damage mechanic (no rolling at all there). And Villains and Vigilantes isn't a d20 game at all.
that's ok I hate d20s...a LOT. nothing like having a 5% chance to roll anything on the die...talk about random....
With d100, you only have a 1% chance of rolling a 1 or 100...it has a curve...
Uh, no more curve than a d20 has. Both are flat probability distributions.
Oh, ok, sorry. Let me rephrase:
D&D is the only game I can think of that I don't think is a terrible game (except possibly Dragon Age, which I never played).
Oh, them's fightin' words. I'll take CoC over any indie punk or White Wolf/colon games any day.
And aren't M&M and V&V d20 games anyway?Mutants and Masterminds might be a d20 game, but it departs significantly from D&D in its damage mechanic (no rolling at all there). And Villains and Vigilantes isn't a d20 game at all.
Ah, true, I was thinking of 2d10 curves...duh, I retract my argument. I'll blame the Vicodin. *shifty eyes*
If you are unable to respond at all that is when you are Helpless.Exactly!
Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks get no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.
As a full-round action, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. An enemy can also use a bow or crossbow, provided he is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. (A rogue also gets his sneak attack damage bonus against a helpless foe when delivering a coup de grace.) If the defender survives, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity.
Creatures that are immune to critical hits do not take critical damage, nor do they need to make Fortitude saves to avoid being killed by a coup de grace.
Do inanimate objects count as helpless, or are they a separate entity? If not, inanimate objects are actually harder to hit than armor-less, helpless creatures...
|
Yep, I made a simple combat system where how well you actually hit determined the damage, in one opposed roll by each side for every attack (representing 1-2 seconds of game time).
Not genius, but it meant there are no hits 10 over their ac, that then came up with minimum damage, or something that barely hits and does maximum damage.
Go look up Rolemaster.
They have a very nice system where each weapon has its own table cross reference to each type of armor.
Generally speaking: no armor is very difficult to hit but takes more damage when something connects. Full plate is very easy to hit, very hard to hurt. Light weapons are easier to hit with, but ineffective against heavy armor.
Technically the way you roll a d100 is 2d10...
Objects have AC modifiers as well as counting as Helpless. Though yes Tiny and such Items are harder to hit than say a Colossal Statue.
Technically the way you roll a d100 is 2d10...
Except one die is high, (d%) thus you end up with 100 possible combinations. Therefore 1% chance for any specific result.
Unlike a straight 2d10 roll, where
1,1=2 is a 1% chance, 10,10=20 as a 1% chance
1,2 or 2,1 = 2% chance of rolling 3
and
1,10 or 2,9 or 3,8 or 4,7 or 5,6 or 6,5 or 7,4/8,3/9,2/10,1 = 10 combinations out of 100 or 10% chance of rolling an 11
But it still falls on a Bell Curve not a Linear Route. Albeit the Bell Curve isn't like on say... 4d6
|
Azaelas Fayth,
No it doesn't.
What is your chance of rolling 5 on a d%? 1%. What about 23? 1%. Every number from 1 to 100 has a 1% chance of being rolled. That is pure flat distribution. No question. It's only when you get 2d10 representing numbers between 2 and 20 rather than 1-100 do you get normal, if somewhat flat, distributions.
It still generates a bell curve but the curve is flatter than even a 2d10's bell curve.