Armor Class and Defense

[dkyle]

Except that this scenario automatically assumes that armor is pierced by brute force. Bypassing armor with a small but specialized weapon can't be portrayed with DR (Example, a guy with a dagger is a lot more dangerous to a full plate wearer than someone with a sword)

And for the realism, when you manage to penetrate armor one way or another, the one inside the armor typically takes the full damage or at least close to it (killing him most of the time) instead of just getting scratched as his armor absorbs the damage.

Armor is all or nothing. AC represents that, DR doesn't.

First off, armor is not always all or nothing. Warhammers were designed to damage through full plate via blunt force trauma, not by poking through a gap. If we wanted "realism", piercing weapons would have a significant miss chance vs Plate, bludgeon would have a high DR, and slashing would be neigh ineffective. And arrows were capable of punching through plate, but given the loss of kinetic energy from doing so, DR would be a reasonable way to model that.

But DnD is not realistic to that level. There's no actual "realism" difference between Armor as miss chance, and Armor as DR, because what a "hit" means and what "HP" mean are incredibly abstract, anyway. DR vs. a dagger could mean that the plate armor made it easier to deflect the blow, but that it was still tiring to do so, but less so than the dramatic dodge that would have been needed without armor.

The question, then, is what makes for a better game. And overall, I like the idea of almost all attacks doing at least something.

 

[variant]

Damage reduction and defense represent two types of defenses: resilience and agility, or passive and active.

 

[TimA]

The problem with armor as DR systems is that they tend to undervalue the DR considerably. Monsters in D&D, especially large ones, do tons of damage, and the small amount of DR your armor provides does not mitigate that at all. Compound that with the assumption many of these systems make that armor actually makes you easier to hit... and you don't have much reason to wear it.

I'd suggest that if you want armor as DR, you take a look at Runequest--the old system, that is. Runequest initially did DR for armor in specific response to D&D, and it does it better than a halfway system like the one in Unearthed Arcana.

or just fix monsters so that they follow the same system as players and let really bad ass monsters be. Because they are REALLY BAD ASS MONSTERS and you shouldnt mess with them.

Theres a reason in mythology it took really epic heroes to handle things like Grendel, the Medusa and the Minotaur.

 

[variant]

Ultimately I think damage reduction in a lot of ways is better than more hit points that you get as you level up. If you have armor that gives you 5 damage reduction and get hit five times, that can be up to an additional 25 hit points, with no healing needed to regain them back. That's 5 levels of the average of a d10 hit die.

 

[mkill]

The inofficial "List of things that always get suggested for any new edition of D&D, but never implemented" (outside of Unearthed Arcana), looks something like...

1. Classless system / point buy
2. Limit to 4 classes
3. Limit to 4 races / race as class again
4. 7th ability score (any)
5. Armor as DR
6. Mana points / spell points
7. Disadvantages
8. Hex Grid
9. Wounds
10. Remove +X magic items

Looks like you rolled a 5 on d10 when you made this thread.

 

[Mattachine]

As as for the design, I don't want naked guys to have as good or better defenses as a guy wearing armor. Armor was invented for a reason and in the end someone in armor should always be better protected than one without (at the same level).

I agree, except that explorers, sailors, and many others wore little armor because of armor's significant drawbacks. In my games, better armor means a more significant tradeoff in terms of skills, movement, and (especially) endurance.

 

[Minigiant]

I agree, except that explorers, sailors, and many others wore little armor because of armor's significant drawbacks. In my games, better armor means a more significant tradeoff in terms of skills, movement, and (especially) endurance.

Yeah. I hope 5E armor hurts you speed and skill rolls severely but gives a great Armor class boost. Especially since the math is flatter.

Armor as DR will probably be a module. If I were a gambling man, I'd bet on it.

 

[variant]

The idea that armor is incredibly encumbering is a myth.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg]Down from horseback with armour - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't want to see armor as DR in the core kernel. My group has tried numerous approaches, and it's never worked well (even in homebrewed systems). It constrains design (unnecessarily, IMO) by forcing damage into a narrow range (because otherwise DR is either overpowered or useless) and becomes a nuisance when players forgot to account for it.

IME, you lose more than you gain by it. If it's included as a module, that's fine, but I don't imagine I'll ever use it.

 

[erleni]

Leveling up doesn't magically make you able to take 5 longswords wounds to the gut and keep walking.

It absolutely does. High level D&D characters are like John Wayne in the movies: they can keep fighting with 5 knives sticking in their back, a slit throat and a bulette still chewing one of their legs.