Troll Lord Games

I might be missing something but most monsters have AC 15+ in both monster books. I always lower the AC otherwise its a "Miss Fest" with my party of players that are LVL 2 & 3.

Am I missing something?

A third lvl fighter will have at least a +3 if not a +5 to hit thus making it a 50% chance... a good thief will be +2 or so with ranged weapons and spells don't miss much..

But change as you need to...

What are you're PCs AC? If the PC and the monsters have about the same HD and same ACs should work pretty well...

A third level fighter using a specialized weapon and 18 strength should be at +6 to hit, making it a 60% chance to hit AC 15.

There are times at low levels when there are a lot of misses. That can make for exciting encounters as the tension mounts to see whether the monsters or PCs will score a hit and break the other side.

I think they are not high enough!

~O

Omote wrote:I think they are not high enough!

~O

Thats because the vast majority of the AC's in the book are only really good for challenging 1st to 5th level parties. You can buy some leeway on that by having the evil Clerics and Mages (Shaman/Witch Doctors) cast AC buffing spells. Eventually, assuming you run games above those levels, you will start having to go outside the books to boost AC's to challenging levels for higher level games. So I think the Trolls have set it up this way on purpose, since it seems most games don't go above 8th or 9th level for most groups. So those of us who are the exception and not the rule will have to adapt.

Buttmonkey wrote:A third level fighter using a specialized weapon and 18 strength should be at +6 to hit, making it a 60% chance to hit AC 15.

There are times at low levels when there are a lot of misses. That can make for exciting encounters as the tension mounts to see whether the monsters or PCs will score a hit and break the other side.

Third level fighter would have +3 bth, +1 for spec weapon, +3 for strength, so that's a +7 total, for a 65% chance to hit, say, a Goblin.

In AD&D, the same fighter would get +1 to hit for strength, and no bonus for proficiency, so vs. AC 5 they'd hit on a 13, so they'd hit 45% of the time. If they were level 1 or 2 it would be only 35%.

So C&C is easier than AD&D at low levels. But what game is OP comparing to?

Aergraith wrote:

Buttmonkey wrote:A third level fighter using a specialized weapon and 18 strength should be at +6 to hit, making it a 60% chance to hit AC 15.

Third level fighter would have +3 bth, +1 for spec weapon, +3 for strength, so that's a +7 total, for a 65% chance to hit, say, a Goblin.

In AD&D, the same fighter would get +1 to hit for strength, and no bonus for proficiency, so vs. AC 5 they'd hit on a 13, so they'd hit 45% of the time. If they were level 1 or 2 it would be only 35%.

It also depends on what kind of 18 the fighter has.

An 18 strength for a fighter could give a hit probably bonus of +1 (01-50%), +2 (51-99%), or a +3 (100%).
A 3rd level fighter needs to score at least a 13 to hit AC 5 without adustment.

So, it would be 12 or higher to hit with 18/1-50% (a 45% chance), 11 or higher to hit with 18/51-99 (a 50% chance), 10 or higher to hit with an 18/00 (a 55% chance).

Either way you are correct, C&C is easier.

BUT if we also take into account the type of armor and assign hit bonuses based on weapon... then you can have a big difference. Some weapons give a +1 or +2 to hit an AC of 5 (if that is an actual armor set, or if the DM states the monster's hide is similiar etc.) In that case it is about the same IF that type of weapon is used, the two-handed sword gives a +2 to hit AC 5 types, giving that same fighter a 65% chance, more than the C&C counterpart using the same weapon. Of course that's assuming a STR of 18/00... An 18/51-99 would be the same 60%.

This all assumes one does not include Unearthed Arcana in the mix.

An 18 strength should be sooo rare.

slimykuotoan wrote:An 18 strength should be sooo rare.

Depends on the way you have your players generate their attributes. Look at my Tuesday game, nearly every character has an 18. This happened as a result of 4d6 drop the lowest.

slimykuotoan wrote:An 18 strength should be sooo rare.

It is extremely rare, its just common among adventurers, who are a very rare subset of a general society.

Treebore wrote:

slimykuotoan wrote:An 18 strength should be sooo rare.

It is extremely rare, its just common among adventurers, who are a very rare subset of a general society.

With a straight 3d6 the odds are 0.463% (http://www.d20source.com/post/795611958 ... olling-3d6). The odds of rolling an 18 with the 4d6 drop the lowest method is 1.620% (http://prestonpoulter.com/2010/10/19/th ... he-lowest/), yet it comes up way more often in the games I've been in than that number would suggest.

Kayolan wrote:

Aergraith wrote:

Buttmonkey wrote:A third level fighter using a specialized weapon and 18 strength should be at +6 to hit, making it a 60% chance to hit AC 15.

Third level fighter would have +3 bth, +1 for spec weapon, +3 for strength, so that's a +7 total, for a 65% chance to hit, say, a Goblin.

In AD&D, the same fighter would get +1 to hit for strength, and no bonus for proficiency, so vs. AC 5 they'd hit on a 13, so they'd hit 45% of the time. If they were level 1 or 2 it would be only 35%.

It also depends on what kind of 18 the fighter has.

An 18 strength for a fighter could give a hit probably bonus of +1 (01-50%), +2 (51-99%), or a +3 (100%).
A 3rd level fighter needs to score at least a 13 to hit AC 5 without adustment.

So, it would be 12 or higher to hit with 18/1-50% (a 45% chance), 11 or higher to hit with 18/51-99 (a 50% chance), 10 or higher to hit with an 18/00 (a 55% chance).

Either way you are correct, C&C is easier.

BUT if we also take into account the type of armor and assign hit bonuses based on weapon... then you can have a big difference. Some weapons give a +1 or +2 to hit an AC of 5 (if that is an actual armor set, or if the DM states the monster's hide is similiar etc.) In that case it is about the same IF that type of weapon is used, the two-handed sword gives a +2 to hit AC 5 types, giving that same fighter a 65% chance, more than the C&C counterpart using the same weapon. Of course that's assuming a STR of 18/00... An 18/51-99 would be the same 60%.

This all assumes one does not include Unearthed Arcana in the mix.

Ah, quite right! I thought about the percentile strength after I posted and thought, wow, I'm really gonna get it.

Kayolan wrote:

Treebore wrote:

slimykuotoan wrote:An 18 strength should be sooo rare.

It is extremely rare, its just common among adventurers, who are a very rare subset of a general society.

With a straight 3d6 the odds are are 0.463% (http://www.d20source.com/post/795611958 ... olling-3d6). The odds of rolling an 18 with the 4d6 drop the lowest method is 1.620% (http://prestonpoulter.com/2010/10/19/th ... he-lowest/), yet it comes up way more often in the games I've been in than that number would suggest.

I'm just saying that Adventurers are likely not only an exceptional subset of a given society because they are insane enough to risk their lives for the adventure, but that they would also likely have exceptionally high attributes among their own subset. I'm not even trying to talk real math about it.

Treebore wrote:

Kayolan wrote:

Treebore wrote:

slimykuotoan wrote:An 18 strength should be sooo rare.

It is extremely rare, its just common among adventurers, who are a very rare subset of a general society.

With a straight 3d6 the odds are are 0.463% (http://www.d20source.com/post/795611958 ... olling-3d6). The odds of rolling an 18 with the 4d6 drop the lowest method is 1.620% (http://prestonpoulter.com/2010/10/19/th ... he-lowest/), yet it comes up way more often in the games I've been in than that number would suggest.

I'm just saying that Adventurers are likely not only an exceptional subset of a given society because they are insane enough to risk their lives for the adventure, but that they would also likely have exceptionally high attributes among their own subset. I'm not even trying to talk real math about it.

I understand that, just saying how common those 18's are when we actually look at the odds of them occurring.

Kayolan wrote:

Treebore wrote:

Kayolan wrote:

Treebore wrote:

slimykuotoan wrote:An 18 strength should be sooo rare.

It is extremely rare, its just common among adventurers, who are a very rare subset of a general society.

With a straight 3d6 the odds are are 0.463% (http://www.d20source.com/post/795611958 ... olling-3d6). The odds of rolling an 18 with the 4d6 drop the lowest method is 1.620% (http://prestonpoulter.com/2010/10/19/th ... he-lowest/), yet it comes up way more often in the games I've been in than that number would suggest.

I'm just saying that Adventurers are likely not only an exceptional subset of a given society because they are insane enough to risk their lives for the adventure, but that they would also likely have exceptionally high attributes among their own subset. I'm not even trying to talk real math about it.

I understand that, just saying how common those 18's are when we actually look at the odds of them occurring.

Well, thats another reason I went to just allowing players to create their PC attributes however they want. I got a minor in Probability and Statistics over 15 years ago, and I saw how often players attribute scores "beat the odds". So rather than force players to, um, bump the dice, or whatever, I just went all the way to letting them generate their attributes however they wish.

Based on the roll 3d6 i dare you thread, there were very few 18s. That's C&C's way of telling us that 18s are rare in their game world (prior to house ruling that adventurers are unique snowflake super heroes). Assuming btb character gen, there's a good chance (incredibly good if you accept the above math) the fighter is not attacking with an 18, more likely a 15 or 16 at best. If you assume an 18 to calculate hit probability, rather than a realistically probable strength score, you'll come up with misleading info as to how hard it is to hit things in a certain ruleset. And if you're lax in creating characters, you're very likely to break the AC curve late in the game, since the AC curve was very clearly designed with btb character gen in mind.

I would say a typical btb fighter is probably attacking with a +5 which puts it at right about a 50/50 chance to hit AC 15. And with Orcs at 13 and Zombies at 12 there are a fair number of low level enemies that are even easier to hit.

Using btb character gen the AC/to hit curve is very solid. Certainly relative to other games. Even running high level campaigns, I've not had to muck with it. But I don't really use AC to make an encounter challenging. I prefer to use things like terrain features, enemy tactics, environments/lairs that benefit the enemy, and reinforcements. I like that my groups high level heroes are hitting alot. It makes it feel like they're really advancing in power. If the enemy AC was keeping pace with the heroes to hit bonus, it would be self defeating, and the hit probability wouldn't change much. I think the system would be much worse if a level 1 hero had to hit on a 12 or higher against a 1 HD creature and a level 15 hero would have to hit on a 12 or higher against a 15HD creature. This is the track that modern D&D took and I was not particularly in love with it.

Eblan85 wrote:I might be missing something but most monsters have AC 15+ in both monster books. I always lower the AC otherwise its a "Miss Fest" with my party of players that are LVL 2 & 3.

Am I missing something?

Eblan, what % of the time do you think that your 2nd or 3rd level fighters should be hitting monsters wearing armor like chain?

Eblan85, See what a simple little question can do... Do the mass of reply and runaway theme answer your question? We aim to help but our internal replies usually get pretty involved pretty fast if the right "characters" get involved ;}

We're here to help, really...

Situational adjustments are key to success. The party should be focused on tactics that give them advantages, not standing for a beat-down against foes that likely outnumber them.

Omote wrote:I think they are not high enough!

~O

Agreed. Especially for Zombies!

Ancalagon wrote:

Omote wrote:I think they are not high enough!

~O

Agreed. Especially for Zombies!

I just ran a zombie encounter recently, pretty high level, too. It was great. Started with 30 and 5 more dug their way out of the ground each round. Their AC felt ok. And the heroes were having a blast. Zombies are cannon fodder. And for low level characters, even a small horde of 10-12 can get scary if someone gets swarmed.

I think it's all relative. How much of a challenge do you want the players to face? If you want them to mow through ranks of foes, lower the AC. If you want them to have to concentrate on one or two foes at a time, keep them where they are or raise them. Personally, I want my players to sweat and have to use good tactics (which those SOBs usually do) and use up resources when they are lower level. Adventuring is dangerous. That's why only the foolish... er, I mean brave do it.

R-

mbeacom wrote:

Ancalagon wrote:

Omote wrote:I think they are not high enough!

~O

Agreed. Especially for Zombies!

I just ran a zombie encounter recently, pretty high level, too. It was great. Started with 30 and 5 more dug their way out of the ground each round. Their AC felt ok. And the heroes were having a blast. Zombies are cannon fodder. And for low level characters, even a small horde of 10-12 can get scary if someone gets swarmed.

I wasn't in that game, but it reminds me of the other night in Rigon's game. It was a bottleneck situation with only 1 character at a time able to make it through the door, and then a small antechamber. The next room had skeletons ???? I can't remember how many, but enough to put a hurting on us if things went wrong ??? I was worried we would get swarmed so ran into the room and jumped up on the table and started fighting defensively (to up my AC as much as possible) and yelled for the clerics. Luckily, all the skeletons focused on me long enough to get the druids & cleric into the room so they could start trying and turning them. the first 2 rolls ... only 1 skeleton turned per attempt. Luckily the 3rd cleric was successful and turned them all. I only got hit once (taking me down to 4 HP, boy 1st level characters are easily breakable ). If we hadn't used good tactics, and gotten a good turn roll, things could have been bad ...

Rigon wrote: ... Personally, I want my players to sweat and have to use good tactics (which those SOBs usually do) and use up resources when they are lower level. Adventuring is dangerous. That's why only the foolish... er, I mean brave do it.

R-

Are you sure about that ????? Other than the above mentioned skeletons, I remember more than a few time yelling "NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Don't charge you'll ...... get cut down yet again" ... "I go to protect the body until we can get the cleric here to cast CLW"

But back to the AC, Like others have said, modify it as needed to what you want. Make it tougher and increase the AC if you want the party to sweat a bit. Lower it to make cannon fodder truly fodder.

Lurker wrote:
Are you sure about that ????? Other than the above mentioned skeletons, I remember more than a few time yelling "NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Don't charge you'll ...... get cut down yet again" ... "I go to protect the body until we can get the cleric here to cast CLW"

Well, don't be too hard on yourself, lad, no harm done. You'll learn the role of barbarian tactical support in time. Hang in there!

Aergraith wrote:

Lurker wrote:
Are you sure about that ????? Other than the above mentioned skeletons, I remember more than a few time yelling "NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Don't charge you'll ...... get cut down yet again" ... "I go to protect the body until we can get the cleric here to cast CLW"

Well, don't be too hard on yourself, lad, no harm done. You'll learn the role of barbarian tactical support in time. Hang in there!

But I thought you were supporting me !