Even more Mike Mearls

[Mortellan]

I may have to settle on that answer F.E. but it still bugs me that if the goal of design is keeping PCs alive over multiple combats and monsters lasting only one encounter, then having DR for armor makes perfect sense for PCs and it is the monsters who should have HP/AC boosts instead of DR ratings.

 

[Fifth Element]

I may have to settle on that answer F.E. but it still bugs me that if the goal of design is keeping PCs alive over multiple combats and monsters lasting only one encounter, then having DR for armor makes perfect sense for PCs and it is the monsters who should have HP/AC boosts instead of DR ratings.

Fair enough: if you disagree with their conclusion about the game design, that's perfectly valid. And something worth discussing. (Though personally I'm not interested in discussing it.)

 

[Firevalkyrie]

I may have to settle on that answer F.E. but it still bugs me that if the goal of design is keeping PCs alive over multiple combats and monsters lasting only one encounter, then having DR for armor makes perfect sense for PCs and it is the monsters who should have HP/AC boosts instead of DR ratings.

Interesting hypothesis... My best experience with damage reduction comes from Mekton, which has two different flavors of DR, confusingly named things with the same acronym - "staged penetration," in which armor becomes less effective over time, and "stopping power," with which armor reduces the force of an attack on the defender. Both kind of took a bit of paperwork to get used to (and if the current notes/ramblings of Max Mike can be believed, are going away or at least appearing only in a modified form in Mekton Zero), so I can perfectly understand the desire of the designers of D&D to avoid such things.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I won't deny that, but there are aspects of 3.x that are just as time hogging as DR for armor, mainly mentioning feats that require just as much mental calculation/subtraction to arrive at a damage or attack number. They aren't dumping these AFAIK.

Well, wasn't it Jonathan Tweed that said he didn't like the Power Attack mechanic? Aside from the fact that it doesn't always work as advertised, it's also too complicated to use?

 

[Warbringer]

Armor as DR

I must admit that I remained perplexed by the argument that I can't do damage to the guy in armor with my dagger... not fair. All I can say is , what? Let me get this right the issue is that you can't hurt a guy in plate armor with a dagger... damn realism.

The fix.. a feat that ignores or partially ignores DR; a weapon that ignores DR (a pick, or two handed weapon); or better, critical system that recognizes that a critical occurs because of a skill differentiation. My ability to inflict a telling blow in kumite is as much a function of my oppoents skill as mine.

The argument about DR being an extra step is nonsensical; do we drop Strength adjustment as adding a bonus is an extrra step, or a magical bonus, or a circumstance bonus such as plunging shot. No, it is a part of the damage reslotion step, no more.

The truth is that the status quo of AC with all its gremlims maintains a sacred DnD cow, and wth so many other changes, that may have been one change too many.

Sundering, is an issue. A combination of an AoO cascade and it really being too easy to destroy weapons, is a problem. Removing the capability to destroy or remove someone's weapon in combat, is a step backwards for the game.

In my homebrew, AC is determined by dodge (AC) or parry (AC + Str bonus). However, in a parry, damage is absorbed, rather than avoided. A defender rolls damage as if they were attacking and subtract the roll from the damage done, the balance goes against hps (after Dr of course). If an attacker wishes he can direct all the damage against the blow, attempting to sunder or disarm the defenders weapon... I'd have liked to have seen something along this route.

Again, not a change towards simplicity

 

[Tquirky]

Let me get this right the issue is that you can't hurt a guy in plate armor with a dagger... damn realism.

I'm not sure it's even particularly realistic, because stilettos were specifically carried around for coup de graces on fallen armoured knights, from memory.

 

[MerricB]

I must admit that I remained perplexed by the argument that I can't do damage to the guy in armor with my dagger... not fair. All I can say is , what? Let me get this right the issue is that you can't hurt a guy in plate armor with a dagger... damn realism.

Actually, in Iron Heroes, the problem was far worse.

I, using a rapier, couldn't reliably hurt a person in chainmail. My damage? 1d6+1.

Meanwhile my friendly High-Strength guy was raging and dealing 2d6+8 damage and was basically ignoring the (1d4?) DR.

The dominance that system gave to high strengths was astonishing. It was far worse than in 3e, for at least in 3e the dex-based characters had other ways of dealing damage (sneak attack, etc.)

Cheers!

 

[Hussar]

I must admit that I remained perplexed by the argument that I can't do damage to the guy in armor with my dagger... not fair. All I can say is , what? Let me get this right the issue is that you can't hurt a guy in plate armor with a dagger... damn realism.

Actually, it's not terribly realistic. If you have armor as DR, you simply cannot hurt someone with a dagger. In reality, you rarely killed someone in heavy armor with sword attacks. You knocked him down, yanked out a dagger and hit a vital spot like under the arm or through the visor. Middle ages armore is pretty damn strong. You'd be making dents, but, very rarely cutting through plate.

There's a reason swords were the weapon of last resort on the battlefield. They aren't all that effective.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Actually, in Iron Heroes, the problem was far worse.

I, using a rapier, couldn't reliably hurt a person in chainmail. My damage? 1d6+1.

Meanwhile my friendly High-Strength guy was raging and dealing 2d6+8 damage and was basically ignoring the (1d4?) DR.

The dominance that system gave to high strengths was astonishing. It was far worse than in 3e, for at least in 3e the dex-based characters had other ways of dealing damage (sneak attack, etc.)

Cheers!

Actually, Dex-based characters in Iron Heroes have access to tons of sneak attack (including through the Precise Shot and Weapon Finesse feat masteries), plus non-Str stats to damage. Finesse fighters (the harrier, the executioner) get several abilities that allow them to load on sufficient damage to punch through DR. I'm not seeing how this holds at all.

"Far worse than in 3e" might not even be merely an overstatement, but an actual reverse of the real situation.

 

[ptolemy18]

My thoughts on this post:

(1) I'm so happy that Armor won't be DR! Although I liked other things in "Iron Heroes," I hated Armor-as-DR... adding an additional die roll to every attack to calculate Armor DR, agggh, and people say that monster summoner PCs take up too much play time! It's so much simpler to just have Armor equal AC. W00t! Good news.

(2) I enjoy Sunder, and I have played a character with Sunder feats (so I accidentally destroyed a hobgoblin's +1 sword once, so what? :/ It's not like me and the entire party cried ourselves to sleep over the horrible, horrible loss of one magic sword). I hope it stays in the game. The creators of "Book of Nine Swords" surely cannot deny the dramatic appeal of badass swordsmen chopping through their opponents' swords! As for the players potentially losing their gear once in awhile, I thought one of the design goals of 4e was to make gear less important anyway.

(3) It's nice of Mike Mearls to be honest and acknowledge the shady world of "product branding" which accompanies all monster and spell and feat and module naming at a big corporation like Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro. I am already a little familiar with this through working for a company that was involved in the Yugioh franchise, where the Yugioh cards have such stupid names partly because they wanted to make sure that they could trademark every name, even when the original Japanese name was something totally generic like "Dragon" (I exaggerate only slightly). I find this sort of thing kind of depressing because the whole core fantasy element behind D&D is originally based on public-domain mythology (or thinly disguised rip-offs of early 20th century fantasy authors), and in my own campaigns I prefer to use public-domain creatures from the non-D&D-specific end of the Monster Manual (the goblins, lizardfolk and dragons rather than the Mind Flayers, Beholders, and Otyughs) and give them "flavor" specific to my own campaign world, but I totally understand the reason why companies do this. Sigh... Ah, capitalism... As long as the Crocodile is not referred to as the "Visejaw Crocodile" in the Monster Manual 4e, I'll be happy.