If you change the way weapon bonuses are utilized by shifting from modifiers that apply to the attacker's to hit dice role, to effects that change the target's base AC and then derived modified AC, this is a major change to the system mechanics. Period. Modifiers on the attack have their effect upon die rolls, not upon the target. How a game handles armor class and to hit rolls is a core element of the games design.
Don't believe me? Here is a a quote directly from the Lamentations of the Flame Princess Referee book, page four:
"Here are the fundamental parts of this game:
*The six ability scores which give certain adjustments for all characters
*Character classes with capabilities separate from ability scores
*Levels gained by experience points and the accumulation of abilities based on that level
*Hit points, armor class, how to hit
*Saving throws
*Memorized/prepared spells
And that’s it. What the ability scores are, what
they adjust, what the classes are and what their
powers are, what experience is awarded for,
what happens when one gains a level, and the
categories of saving throws, all of these things
can be changed. Everything not related to these
points is completely irrelevant for defining
what the game is and can be discarded or mod-
ified or replaced as you like.
You are the Referee. If you don’t like something,
change it.
But it is always a good idea to understand the
rules and see what they are trying to do before
you decide they should be changed or replaced."
There you see a list of the fundamental mechanics of the game, or rather what makes it Lamentations. You, as a DM can change your game, sure, but notice that James does not recommend changing those core mechanisms, just small aspects of them. In this context the changes are mostly just changes to a game terms name, not to the system itself.
If you change the mechanic of how magical weapons to hit bonus works, you change item four in the above.
A change to a monsters AC is also a change to four above.
A change to how spells work is a change to four and six above.
So that is three fundamental mechanics changed with your ignoring non-magical armor class idea.
But if you still do not agree, then read on....
You would absolutely need to change spell hit and damage descriptions in order to account for this new system. If each creature has a shifted AC that a DM has objectively determined based upon his own views about a monsters physiology and what aspects of its defensive capabilities are magical and non-magical, then these same changes would apply to spells, and possibly other forms of attacks and damage, like holy water or oil fire. Or do you honestly believe that magical spells and magical weapons should operate on wholly different resolution mechanics within a single combat?
If you cannot see the implications of changing this mechanic, and the amount of work it would unnecessarily place upon the GM (see below for how to handle power creep) then I don't know what other arguments to make to you.
Go to http://odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi and post your idea.
And also ask them what the fundamental and core mechanics of D&D, OSR, and LotFP magical weapon damage happen to be. Maybe I am not being clear enough.
The Degenerate Elite wrote:Proposed rule variations do not, in general, attempt to replace core game mechanics...
Ed Dove wrote:And this proposal doesn't do that, either -- unless you consider magic weapons, armor & shields having plusses to be core game mechanics of LotFP even though the only time the LotFP rules even mention the possibility of magic weapons, armor & shields having plusses is when they're saying not to do that.
LotFP is based upon Dungeons and Dragons 0e, with some bit of Holmes and Moldvay - it has pluses that add to a weapons, and magical weapons, attack role. That is a fundamental mechanic of the game system. They do not subtract from AC. Most do not even provide pluses to damage. A change from this IS a mechanics change.
Ed Dove wrote:1) Replace the game mechanism that's most commonly & easily used to make magic weapons, armor & shields increasingly powerful -- plusses -- with something that doesn't have any set numerical value, and so can't be easily increased, to at least inhibit, if not prevent, a qualitative magical arms race.
So please explain how you are not advocating changing the game mechanism?
And again your basis for this "rules fix" is that an arms race exists in any game where a GM allows players to use plus magical weapons. This is fallacious and patently untrue. A GM is NEVER obligated to provide more weapons and more armor simply because the player desires them. This is, in fact, poor game mastering. Gygax himself called the handing out of magic items wholesale as"Monty Haul" gaming and advised to avoid it
You MAY provide a few +1 or +2 weapons in order to allow your campaign to progress to more difficult dungeon levels and to allow players to slay monsters by allowing characters to hit creatures that are immune to normal attacks. That is all.
The original D&D had provision for a +3 sword, spear, shield, and warhammer, as well as a few weapons that got +3 against certain enemies, nothing else. These four items would be fantastic artifacts obtained only at the highest levels of a campaign and probably after many, many PC deaths. They are more party rewards for dedicated play than they are individual awards for power gamers.
I apologize if this comes off as mean or bull-headed but you have some good ideas, I just want you to understand why this is not one of them.