Question about Attribute bonuses, AC and Hit Points
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:21 am
Does DCC inflate AC and Hit Points in the same way that 3e and 4e do?
The reason I ask is because this is one of the things that annoys me about 3e and later.
Consider that you have a monster of significant level or hit dice that it has a 33 AC. The regular schmoe has to roll a 20 just to hit it. And then, likely, that 20 is a crit! So joe schmoe could only crit the creature. And if joe schmoe was a low level fighter, we go from swinging wildly, never landing a solid blow to impaling that creature's spleen to the wall. Hence the introduction of the maligned critical threat die.
One of the things I felt Lamentations of the Flame Princess did right was limiting the ACs. ACs fall within a range of 12 to low twenties. Leather is 14 AC, Chain is 16, yadda yadda.
Hit Points were also mitigated a bit, with Con bonuses only counting towards hit point totals up to level 10 and then just a straight plus after that.
I also know that 3e introduced the inflated attribute bonuses, which subsequently pulled us into the era of needing an 18 in a "prime attribute" to be considered "viable" as a character. As well as things like Armor Penalties, so that characters with a Dex of 20 didn't run around with an Armor Class bonus of +10 on virtue of them being super-agile in an inflated bonus to differentiate Scale Mail from Chain.
Does DCC mitigate this as well?
I mean, I think the good of the old-school attribute bonuses (-2/-1/0/+1/+2) was that it circumvented an attribute arms race. 18 was a nice to have. No doubt. But the character was substantially better by how you played it, less so by inflated attribute scores.
Further, increased Hit Points and escalating ACs led us to the grind of both 3e and 4e. I think it really started with 3e. Where you had creatures with 40 AC and 350 hit points. Sure, 2e and AD&D drifted slowly in that direction with negative AC. But I think pulling in the reins a bit is only a good thing where Hit Points and AC are concerned.
Sure, Cthulhu can have an AC of 33. Whatevs. But with AC and Hit Points and Attribute Bonuses inflated to 3e levels... And with how they're all pretty intricately entwined...
I'm wondering how DCC will address this issue. How it's going to avoid "the grind" that was the bane of high-level combat in 3e (and even low-level play in 4e). And how it will avoid issues like mid-level Fighters with a ridiculous 24 strength. And situations where certain monsters are completely out of the league of a group because their bonuses are simply not high enough to even hit it.
This much I felt Lamentations of the Flame Princess got right. I had a party of first level adventurers who decided to go take on an 18 HD monster. But even at 18 HD, the creature's AC was only in the 16-17 range. So he was "hittable" -- just out of the party's league by virtue of the damage it dealt and the amount of damage it could withstand -- which was still a relatively meager 90 hit points, much less even than a 10th level Barbarian in 3e.
Whereas in 4e or even 3e, the creature would've likely had an AC in the mid-twenties or higher. Making it virtually untouchable until the party were at a specific "level" -- which leads inevitably to discussions of "balanced encounters". In my experience, balanced encounters are much less important if the characters can feel (somehow) like they have a chance. I mean, if a party can hit a creature but soon realize they aren't going to win the War of Hit Point Attrition, I've found it's much easier to accept that than if they're rolling 17s and 19s and still not landing a blow.
What are DCC's plans in this area?
I read it has 3e scale attributes, which concerns me a bit because I see that as perhaps the root of the problem spoiling the whole tree as it were.
But are we looking at 3.5 and 4e levels of hit points and AC? Or closer to B/X and OD&D? Considering the goal is kind of OD&D through the lens/time-capsule of 3e.
The reason I ask is because this is one of the things that annoys me about 3e and later.
Consider that you have a monster of significant level or hit dice that it has a 33 AC. The regular schmoe has to roll a 20 just to hit it. And then, likely, that 20 is a crit! So joe schmoe could only crit the creature. And if joe schmoe was a low level fighter, we go from swinging wildly, never landing a solid blow to impaling that creature's spleen to the wall. Hence the introduction of the maligned critical threat die.
One of the things I felt Lamentations of the Flame Princess did right was limiting the ACs. ACs fall within a range of 12 to low twenties. Leather is 14 AC, Chain is 16, yadda yadda.
Hit Points were also mitigated a bit, with Con bonuses only counting towards hit point totals up to level 10 and then just a straight plus after that.
I also know that 3e introduced the inflated attribute bonuses, which subsequently pulled us into the era of needing an 18 in a "prime attribute" to be considered "viable" as a character. As well as things like Armor Penalties, so that characters with a Dex of 20 didn't run around with an Armor Class bonus of +10 on virtue of them being super-agile in an inflated bonus to differentiate Scale Mail from Chain.
Does DCC mitigate this as well?
I mean, I think the good of the old-school attribute bonuses (-2/-1/0/+1/+2) was that it circumvented an attribute arms race. 18 was a nice to have. No doubt. But the character was substantially better by how you played it, less so by inflated attribute scores.
Further, increased Hit Points and escalating ACs led us to the grind of both 3e and 4e. I think it really started with 3e. Where you had creatures with 40 AC and 350 hit points. Sure, 2e and AD&D drifted slowly in that direction with negative AC. But I think pulling in the reins a bit is only a good thing where Hit Points and AC are concerned.
Sure, Cthulhu can have an AC of 33. Whatevs. But with AC and Hit Points and Attribute Bonuses inflated to 3e levels... And with how they're all pretty intricately entwined...
I'm wondering how DCC will address this issue. How it's going to avoid "the grind" that was the bane of high-level combat in 3e (and even low-level play in 4e). And how it will avoid issues like mid-level Fighters with a ridiculous 24 strength. And situations where certain monsters are completely out of the league of a group because their bonuses are simply not high enough to even hit it.
This much I felt Lamentations of the Flame Princess got right. I had a party of first level adventurers who decided to go take on an 18 HD monster. But even at 18 HD, the creature's AC was only in the 16-17 range. So he was "hittable" -- just out of the party's league by virtue of the damage it dealt and the amount of damage it could withstand -- which was still a relatively meager 90 hit points, much less even than a 10th level Barbarian in 3e.
Whereas in 4e or even 3e, the creature would've likely had an AC in the mid-twenties or higher. Making it virtually untouchable until the party were at a specific "level" -- which leads inevitably to discussions of "balanced encounters". In my experience, balanced encounters are much less important if the characters can feel (somehow) like they have a chance. I mean, if a party can hit a creature but soon realize they aren't going to win the War of Hit Point Attrition, I've found it's much easier to accept that than if they're rolling 17s and 19s and still not landing a blow.
What are DCC's plans in this area?
I read it has 3e scale attributes, which concerns me a bit because I see that as perhaps the root of the problem spoiling the whole tree as it were.
But are we looking at 3.5 and 4e levels of hit points and AC? Or closer to B/X and OD&D? Considering the goal is kind of OD&D through the lens/time-capsule of 3e.