Armor Class and Defense

[ArmoredSaint]

Going through armor is exactly what weapons like the claymore were created for. Weapons were created to penetrate the armor of their time as armor was created to prevent them from penetrating. The weak points in the heavy plate armor are where the armor is weakest and the steel is thinnest.

I'm not sure that I buy your argument.

Claymores, strictly speaking, were used in the fringes and backwater countries of Europe, where few people would have had up-to-date armour. This is a strong argument for the weapon having evolved in an environment that didn't have to deal that much with heavy armour.

Moreover, combat manuals of the time show, time and again, that men with swords attacked men in full plate harness with the point of the sword, not the edge. The claymore seems to be a sword designed to focus on cutting, which is not how you tackle a man in full plate. I don't think it would be the weapon of choice for fighting a man in full plate; for that, you'd be better off with a pointier sword better suited to fitting its acute point in between the plates. You didn't kill a man in plate by trying to chop through--that was an exercise in futility.

 

[Derren]

Claymores, strictly speaking, were used in the fringes and backwater countries of Europe, where few people would have had up-to-date armour. This is a strong argument for the weapon having evolved in an environment that didn't have to deal that much with heavy armour.

Zweihänder (literal translation "two handers") were also used in Germany which was with Italy the biggest armor producer in Europe. But there it was mainly uses by Landsknechte against pike formations. Not against people in heavy armor.

 

[dkyle]

Well, looks like we'll be going around and around on the realism question.

But, this is what I really want to discuss, anyway:

Ok, what is better for the game? The mechanic where you can kill on a miss and can calculate that you will do X damage every round and thus will kill the enemy in Y rounds no matter what happens and where small weapons are made useless because they loose a lot of damage against armored opponents no matter what they do so everyone is practically forced to run around with a 2-handed sword?
Or the mechanic where you will have tension because you don't know if you or the enemy will hit and where you can wield small weapons and still be effective?

Depends on how the mechanics work. What I'm envisioning is:

1. Very low miss chance. By default, only a 1 would miss. Exceptional dexterity (and related class features/feats) would increase the miss chance, but going higher than 5 would be nearly impossible. So there's no "kill on a miss". It's just that misses are rare. I prefer this because misses waste time; it takes almost as long to resolve a turn where the attack misses, as one where it hits, but the miss does nothing to progress combat.

2. Damage would be much more variable. For example, the d20 might actually become part of the damage result. Static damage bonuses would be less common, and bonus dice would be more common.

3. Crits would still exist, and they would produce that tension you're looking for.

4. In many games, lower damage weapons have higher armor-penetration. A dagger might have an ability to ignore a certain amount of armor DR, more than the amount of average damage lost compared to larger weapons (e.g., d4 dagger with AP6 vs d8 longsword with AP2). Net result is that Daggers are more useful vs. heavy armor, and bigger weapons are more useful vs. light armor.

 

[Derren]

1. Very low miss chance. By default, only a 1 would miss. Exceptional dexterity (and related class features/feats) would increase the miss chance, but going higher than 5 would be nearly impossible. So there's no "kill on a miss". It's just that misses are rare. I prefer this because misses waste time; it takes almost as long to resolve a turn where the attack misses, as one where it hits, but the miss does nothing to progress combat.

2. Damage would be much more variable. For example, the d20 might actually become part of the damage result. Static damage bonuses would be less common, and bonus dice would be more common.

3. Crits would still exist, and they would produce that tension you're looking for.

4. In many games, lower damage weapons have higher armor-penetration. A dagger might have an ability to ignore a certain amount of armor DR, more than the amount of average damage lost compared to larger weapons (e.g., d4 dagger with AP6 vs d8 longsword with AP2). Net result is that Daggers are more useful vs. heavy armor, and bigger weapons are more useful vs. light armor.

Ok, so 1. we don't even have attack rolls any more and instead we automatically damage the enemy by standing next to him. We just roll to confirm a crit? Where does the fighting skill of the character come in? When everyone hits automatically there would be no difference between a wizard and fighter in close combat.
2. You want damage to vary wildly so you can either deal 2 or 40 damage to an enemy (2D20 as example) which either completely marginalizes the DR armor gives because you have a good chance to roll way above the DR or you make doing damage at all based purely on luck on the damage roll as the DR of armor is so high that you hardly can do damage with the only way to buff it being increasing your damage. Accuracy as stat is removed.
And 4, you also want to add a armor penetration mechanics to D&D to make your idea work?

 

[Splurch]

In our group we made a system to use armor as DR. We use a defense score like Iron Heroes for each class that works with Dex to give you your score (Like AC) and then the DR is based on armor such as Leather 1 DR, Chain Shirt 1D3 DR, etc.. The Defense score is a base 10 like AC and it scales per level and its different for each class just like BAB (Fighter starts with +3 at first level as an example). We also treat HP's as bruise damage and we've added wound points which equal your CON score and once you tap into your wound points you are down to 1 action and wound points are harder to heal. All in all it's been pretty fun to run with lately.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

The best armor as DR I have seen is ken hoods grim and gritty.(revised)

The system made monsters and spells very nasty... only good for a really gritty approach.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[ArmoredSaint]

Zweihänder (literal translation "two handers") were also used in Germany which was with Italy the biggest armor producer in Europe. But there it was mainly uses by Landsknechte against pike formations. Not against people in heavy armor.

Exactly. I think many (if not most) zweihänder also have a different, somewhat narrower blade geometry than claymores, making them better-suited to thrusting between plates of armour.

 

[Izumi]

Still assuming...
1. D20 Roll. (Timing to reach impact velocity on a targeted area of opponent.)
2. Basic Attack Bonus (Learned/natural skill and Judgement to reach impact velocity faster using less energy to hit your targeted area on opponent)
3. Strength Modifier (Additional physical power to reach correct velocity faster and make sure of catching the correct timing.)
4. Armor Class (A static defense number that represents the level of protection an armor bestows upon the wearer which can only be bypassed by a well timed strike to a vulnerable area with appropriate skill and timing regardless of weapon type.)
5. Damage Roll (The percussion impact randomized by targets motion at impact, speed at impact, absorption of impact, or evasion attempt etc.)
6. HP (The abstraction that measures all the heroic intangibles regarding not getting immediately killed by a successful attack. However, even the greatest of heros can only last so long before being overcome. This rule was added for all those kind of people who hated dying awesomely in one hit by that giant head-eating centipede creature.)

Considering that hp represent intangibles and the damage roll is randomized not because of the weapon, but because of the armor's defensive properties..wouldn't you agree that damage reduction is already covered and super slow to the game anyways?

 

[variant]

I'm not sure that I buy your argument.

Claymores, strictly speaking, were used in the fringes and backwater countries of Europe, where few people would have had up-to-date armour. This is a strong argument for the weapon having evolved in an environment that didn't have to deal that much with heavy armour.

Claymores evolved during the Scottish conflicts with the English.

4. Armor Class (A static defense number that represents the level of protection an armor bestows upon the wearer which can only be bypassed by a well timed strike to a vulnerable area with appropriate skill and timing regardless of weapon type.)

D&D AC represents a lot more than that. Dexterity adds to AC, as do various feats and class bonuses representing the skill of the character.

Considering that hp represent intangibles and the damage roll is randomized not because of the weapon, but because of the armor's defensive properties..wouldn't you agree that damage reduction is already covered and super slow to the game anyways?

If the damage roll just measured the defensive properties of the armor, it would be modified based on the type of armor it is going against. Not all armors are equal. It also wouldn't be exactly the same when going against an unarmored opponent.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I don't remember if it was the Zweihander, but at least one form of greatsword was designed to use against armored knights.

Specifically, it was intended to knock/drag him from the saddle, and then use the serrated edge to saw through the neck armor of the prone foe.

I've seen this simulated at the RenFest several years back. Live weapon demos are awesome.