|[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties

BP wrote:
> tussock wrote:

>> And yes, I see the smiley, I just don't care. What is it with
>>everyone being wrong on the internet lately?
>
>
> http://www.xkcd.com/386/

Note to self: use more obscure references.

--
tussock
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Keith Davies wrote:

<snip: good stuff>

> Seriously, tanks have it rough in 3e. If they're getting hit more often
> than the guys without armor, something's wrong.

That's a fair point. To play devil's advocate a moment, one might
note that real world warriors doing skirmish-type attacks often didn't
wear the heaviest available armour, as speed and endurance mattered more
than the protection.
Heavy armour was for heavy foot and heavy cav.; blocks you expect to
clash in place with the main weight of your enemy for an extended period.
If your DnD battles where similar, you'd want heavy armour too.

--
tussock

I'm like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gunna get.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

Del Rio wrote:
> tussock wrote:
>> Del Rio wrote:

>>> Although truthfully *skill* is what matters more in avoidance than raw
>>> dexterity. Between blocking / parrying and sidestepping / dodging,
>>> that's how a fighter avoids "getting hit".
>>
>> In the real world, fighters *don't* avoid getting hit, no matter how
>>much they'd like to. Real medieval and ancient warriors carried hundreds
>>of breaks and scars from training, the lists, and battle.
>
> So, you've never seen an agile fighter avoid a blow (duck under it,
> sidestep it, jump back from it, etc). Ok, I'll just have to take that
> one on faith. If I said that I had, would have you believe me?

I've done it myself against the haymakers of people who don't know
how to punch. I understand one can do the same against hollywood-like
weapon strikes. Obviously, anyone can back away out of reach. And so
what? If you're really fighting, you're really getting hit; a lot.
The historical documentation I've seen agrees.

OK, many of those wouldn't be "hits for damage" in DnD terms, or
might be abstracted into a single "hit for damage".

Oh, and I have watched people who /thought/ they were fighting but
were really just doing a vigorous little dance routine.

>>> Armor doesn't keep you from getting hit (in fact, by slightly impeding
>>> your movements with constriction and mass, and often obscuring your
>>> peripheral vision, it makes you slightly more prone to getting hit),
>>
>> Simply wrong. It causes sensible opponents to attack in ways that
>> are easier to defend against, making you get hit less often. Real
>> armour prevents whole classes of strikes with normal weapons from being
>> effective, allowing an easier defence and simultaniously more vigorous
>> attack.
>
> I see people get hit on their armor all the time, and it *does* hurt
> them.

Well, yes, but you're watching fights where enjoyment is the ultimate
goal and "hurt" is a part of the fun, rather than ones aimed at
incapacitation and death. Sport fighting is a bit different to serious
assaults.

> It just doesn't hurt them as much as it would if they weren't wearing
> the armor (or if they were using sharpened or penetrating weapons).
> Certainly it means that a class of light jabs and such that would
> ordinarily be a death of a 1000 cuts type of fight won't work because
> those just bounce. Back to that whole "modeling it as DR" - anything
> below 2hp damage (or whatever) just bounces.

Yes. But a real fighter with some skill will stop making those types
of attacks, instead making ones that might work, either by avoiding the
armour or putting a little weight behind them at a good angle. It's just
easiest to do it automatically by transforming that DR into a hit penalty
with AC.

>>> but armor absorbs the energy of the hit and distributes it across a
>>> wider area so it doesn't injure you as badly, which is what makes it
>>> worth using.
>>
>> People don't hit an armoured opponent the same way they hit an
>> unarmoured one. It's just not that simple, other than perhaps with
>> random shrapnel damage or the like.
>>
>> It's all modelled quite correctly in *DnD* by having armour make you
>> harder to *hit for damage*, even if that doesn't neatly model some
>> modern weapons or long-range missile fire.
>
> It isn't just *modern* missile fire that isn't accurately accounted for.

Long-range too, and, well, missiles are different. A light arrow is
no less likely to put a hole in your liver than a heavy one, but can't do
it at all through armour the heavy one will ignore.
Then you're not often in a position to aim for the weak spot with an
arrow, exploding or not. Aside from how they always seem to do just that
in various epic stories.


GURPS does it with "3d+1(2) pi++" type weapon damage stats, and it's
still a off here and there, even with super-detailed armour. Works out
the same either way as a long-term average. 8]

--
tussock

I'm like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gunna get.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties 

tussock wrote:

> Oh, and I have watched people who /thought/ they were fighting but
> were really just doing a vigorous little dance routine.

Those make the best fights for D&D.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] - Mike Mearls on magic-less parties