Holmesian-Inspired Armor Redux

A little over a week ago, there was a "shields ought to be better" meme that popped up in the OSR corner of the blogosphere. Even I peripherally took part. Subsequently, Paladin in a Citadel had some thoughts on Dexterity, Jeff Rients took a shower, Erin of Welsh Piper commented on my own armor thoughts and Epées & Sorcellerie came out in English. Given my own current obsession with Holmes, I have been riffing off all of these thoughts from a Holmesian-kind-of-POV. The results:

In Holmes, Dexterity = initiative. Therefore, it is not a huge leap to say that Dexterity also = AC, where AC is the target number for the attacker. If Dex = AC, this doesn't leave much for armor to do. I very much like E&P's handling of this, where characters can choose to use either Dex or their armor's AC (which ever is better); however, Dex also equalling initiative inspires me to take armor off in a different direction.

I am intrigued by the notion that armor, rather than preventing a hit, reduces damage. I am also intrigued by the idea that wearing heavy armor also has a disadvantage. Thus, the heavier the armor, the less Dex becomes available for purposes of AC and initiative but the more damage resistance is available. Here is my rough draft:

• Leather: DR = 1; max Dex = 15
• Chain: DR = 2; max Dex = 12
• Plate: DR = 3; max Dex = 9
• Small Shield: DR=1
• Large Shield: DR=2; Dex penalty -1

Thus, if you wear plate and carry a large shield, you are going to be slow and be hit a lot, but won't necessarily take a lot of damage. If you have an 18 Dex, you are going to go first in most combats and aren't going to be hit that often, but when you are, you will take full damage.

Also being a fan of Weapon vs. AC tables, there is also a fun little wrinkle that can be thrown at this system:

• Blunt Weapons vs. plate reduce the DR of plate by 1
• Piercing Weapons vs. chain reduce the DR of chain by 1
• Slashing Weapons vs. leather reduce the DR of leather by 1

Any thoughts?

Holmes & Cook: Armor Class

In his monster section, Holmes only has stats for four types of dragons (black, brass, red and white). Though dragons do not appear in Cook's monster section, he does include them in his wandering monster tables, including three not found in Holmes (blue, gold and green). While this is interesting in and of itself, one of the more intriguing discrepancies between Holmes & Cook on dragons is armor class. Holmes gives all dragons an AC of 2, whereas Cook gives them an AC ranging from -2 to 3.

This prompted me to look at the armor class ranges of all monsters in both editions. I discovered something very interesting: there are no monsters in Holmes that have an AC lower than 2. While there are eight monsters in Cook that do, they have an average of 18 HD and only two (the dragon turtle and the 16HD elemental) have a negative AC.

Further, in Holmes, the lowest AC found in the combat tables is AC 2. This emphasizes the reality that in Holmes there are really only four armor classes:

• No armor
• Leather
• Chain mail
• Plate

I say this because, what does one do with the bonuses of magical armor? If the lowest AC found in the game is AC 2 and one is armored with a +1 shield and plate +1, what good does all that magic do? The traditional answer in D&D to this problem is to continue out the combat table to include lower ACs; however, if one accepts the reality of only four types of AC, this leaves open the possibility of penalties to the attacker's roll.

Conceptually, understanding the shield and any magical bonus as a penalty to the attacker's roll transforms the shield and the magic bonus from being AC to being things the attacker must overcome in order to be able "to hit" the target AC.

In other words, if I were a 1st level character trying to hit an NPC wearing leather and carrying a magic +1 shield, I would normally hit on a '12' (according to Holmes); however, I would have to overcome the shield and the magic because I would be subtracting 2 from my roll. This penalty could be easily be understood and noted as a Defensive Bonus.

This implementation has a couple of consequences and a rather cool implication:

1. There can be major simplification of combat tables with only four types of AC.
2. There has to be a conversion of monster ACs that do not fall into these four types. For example, AC 4 becomes Chain/DB 1.
3. For those that want shields to play a larger role in D&D combat, this concept of shields giving a Defensive Bonus rather than affecting the AC allows for a greater range of bonuses than the meager +1 that normal D&D allows. These bonuses could be tied to size and/or material. For example:

Buckler +1DB
Small Shield +2DB
Large Shield +3DB
Tower Shield +4DB

I have yet to playtest such a system, but a imagine a major complaint might be the math. A reminder: there are very few bonuses in Holmes. Strength has no bearing on combat. Most encounters would require only the penalty due to a Defensive Bonus. For those so inclined, I imagine that implementing a house rule where rolling the exact number you need to hit (a 14 in the example above) would result in maximum damage or some kind of critical hit would give enough incentive that players would adapt very quickly.

Armor Class without Shields

One of my favorite renditions of Swords & Wizardry is Mike Davison's Ruins & Ronin. One of the minor tweaks that I enjoy is the way R&R handles armor and AC. Since the Japanese historically did not make use of the shield in the same way the Europeans did, shields are not part of the game, nor are they there to create a nice, clean AC progression. Rather, R&R allows players to cobble together various armor pieces where a full set of O-yori armor is AC -1.

If this principle were applied to European armor, then several aesthetic and mechanical things could be accomplished:

• It allows players to be more whimsical in their character conception through armor
• It has more potential for respresenting historic armor types from a wider range of time and place.
• It allows the shield to be something other than an AC modifier
• It conceptually makes more sense with a Weapon vs. AC table than the traditional "+shield" AC progression.
• It suggests a simple encumbrance rule where AC (modified by STR or DEX) x10 = movement (I must admit, I am borrowing this from something I read in the blogosphere, but I cannot remember who was the originator).
• It can make helmets mechanically important.

At the moment, I am approaching this from an abstract pov, so as to make it as flexible as possible. If the body is divided into three parts (head, torso, lower body) and armor divided into three types (light, medium, heavy) this creates the potential for an AC progression of 9 (no armor) to 0 (heavy armor for all three body parts) where Heavy = -3, Medium = -2 and Light = -1.

In addition, the torso and lower body can be divided into parts. Each part can have different styles of armor. Add up the different parts, divide by the number of parts (rounding down) in order to get the AC. For example, a retiarius gladiator is often depicted wearing heavy armor on one arm, but none on either the chest or other arm. Thus -3 +0 +0 = 3; 3/3 = 1. In addition, they are often depicted with a heavy armor helm. Thus, the final AC would be 5.

Movement rate = ACx10. This can be modified by the STR bonus. Thus, AC 0 with a 13 STR would allow a movement of 10 ft. If the character is wearing nothing but light armor, the STR bonus can be substituted for the DEX bonus.

I must admit that I am thinking of using this set-up in context of the 1 hit = 1 hp experiment I came up with over the weekend. Therefore, the following are directly related to that concept; however, with a little fiddling I can see them applicable to a variable damage system as well.

• Shields can negate one attack per round; however, the character using the shield cannot attack the creature whose attack was blocked that round.
• Two-handed weapons do +1 damage (x1.5 in variable?)
• Wielding two weapons affords a +1 to hit (allow the character to add their DEX bonus to hit?)

I would also consider making the latter two only available to fighters.

Another Monster and a New Stat Block

I always find it interesting how important actual play is to understanding a game, and how to judge its design, and how its presentation. For example, as much as I love 3.5 on paper, I don't enjoy playing it.

In this light, I have decided to change the stat block I use when creating monsters. In play, the guys that I sit at the table with like to explore the wilderness, hunt down lairs and loot them. As such, I have been highly dependent upon random encounters and have found the follow items from a monster stat block to be essential:

• Number Appearing — This gives me a baseline for determining the number of creatures encountered (and how many to expect inside a lair).
• % in Lair — this helps determine whether or not the party has stumbled upon the monsters in or out of their home.
• Morale — since this comes into play so much, especially with larger encounters in the wilderness, I need this stat at my finger tips.
• Hoard Class — When that lair is actually found, I need to know what kind of treasure is in it.
• XP — If I know exactly how much XP each monster is worth, I can easily keep a running tally.

I have also found that the following items unnecessarily clutter up the stat block:

• AAC — though I have a group of guys that discovered our hobby through 3.5, they have adjusted very smoothly to AC and using THAC0.
• Challenge Level — Frankly, I've never used this. The players know quite well that I don't dumb down or weaken the monsters in places they have no business being. Characters have been killed for not running away when they should have. The game is about choices. When I present to them a monster, it is what it is. The characters are then free to try their luck and skill or to run away and then face the consequences of their choice.

Keeping these things in mind for my home-brew monsters, I present the Flacara:

Flacara

[Those] Who said, "Let us inherit the holy place of God for ourselves."
O my God, turn them like a wheel,
Like straw before the face of the wind,
Like fire that burns through a thicket,
Like a flame that sets mountains on fire;
Thus You shall pursue them with Your storm,
And You shall trouble them in your wrath.
—Psalm 83:13-16

Number Appearing: 2d4
% in Lair: 25%
Alignment: Chaotic
Armor Class: 3
Move: 9
Hit Dice: 2+1
Attacks: 1 weapon (1d6+1) + Flame Damage (1d6)
Special: Flame Damage

Save: F3
Morale: 9
Hoard Class: XIV
XP: 59

These vile creatures are about the size and stature of a Dwarf. Their flesh is cracked, blackened, and emaciated. As though burning from within, flames burst through the cracks and orifices all over their bodies. A Flacara's face is a mask of pain, something they take delight in inflicting on others. Every round spent in melee with a Flacara, a character must make a save vs. breath or take 1d6 fire damage. When a Flacara is using metal weapons or is fighting unarmed, any successful hit will generate an additional 1d6 flame damage unless a save v. breath is successful. They are immune to fire and cold attacks will actually add hit points. Flacara value gems over all other treasure.

AAC vs DAC

There was quite a hubbub over at Grognardia yesterday about Descending AC vs. Ascending AC. I find it fascinating that such a small thing can result in such an explosion of emotion and words. The reason for this, I believe, is that underlying this debate is the much greater issue of the universal mechanic, of which AAC is a part and which DAC flies in the face of.

If I am really honest with myself, I have to admit that the universal d20 mechanic of 3rd Edition is awfully attractive. In concept, it is elegant, it appeals to my love of patterns and it is so darn pretty. This beauty, however, does come with consequences.

By implication, a universal mechanic should be able to handle any and all situations that come up during play — whether or not the use of the mechanic is appropriate or even necessary. A natural assumption that arises out of this ability to handle every thing in play, is the belief that the mechanic should handle every thing in play. In fact, if your goal is to run tournaments that are fair — that reduce the human element to a minimum so that the system practically runs itself — this is even desirable. The die roll is left to handle everything.

I believe those of us who prefer DAC (which I do, for a variety of geeky reasons, including weapon vs. AC tables), tend to read more into AAC than a math equation. It reminds me vb of the universal mechanic that has not only successfully reduced the human element of the game, but has also reduced the amount of freedom and creativity in the game. Using the universal mechanic reduces the freedom of the DM to arbitrarily make a ruling based on a d8 or a d12. Using the universal mechanic reduces the freedom of players to role play, to try to solve problems creatively, and to act and think outside the box — because to go outside the box means to go outside the mechanic, which is designed to handle everything.

As a Christian, one of the the things I value most is human freedom. It is one of the foundations upon which the whole Christian world-view is built. Without it, my faith means nothing. As such, I prefer the older versions of the game, because they better express human freedom in their game play. It also means that I value the ability for everyone to choose their own path; however, I also encourage everyone to understand the consequences of their choice. Have I played 3rd edition? Yes. Do I enjoy it as much as I enjoy playing older editions of the game? No. I find the free-flowing creativity that results from a deliciously non-universal mechanic to be a lot more enjoyable — in many ways because I'm making it up as I go along.

At the end of the day, the choice to use AAC or DAC is loaded with far more than a simple math equation. To choose DAC clearly states that one rejects a universal mechanic and embraces the freedom that comes from the older styles of play. And, as we saw yesterday, those who make that choice can be quite emotional and vocal about it.