Homebrew Homebrew: Simple Armor durability and degradation rules - Page 4
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 74
  1. #31
    Member
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)



    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Okinawa, Japan
    Posts
    710
    Quote Originally Posted by 5ekyu View Post
    I think that the basic system has a built in fail that mskes head in sand suffocation inevitable.

    At 5th level, characters have (and tend to take) 3-4 times the Hp they have at 1st. At 10th, thats maybe conservatively 6-8 times.

    So any armor durability rules that make it a factor at all at 1-3 but leaves armor durability the same at 5th, 10th etc is going to see massive drawbacks to failure soon enough unless the GM decides to, as some suggested, give out magic armor so everybody gets it.

    Why,put in system that puts all rhis in if it then requires you to give out items to throw it away by say 10th?

    If in your games the armir wearers are beating the spellcasters so badly, then it makes sense.

    In your games, if heavy armor builds are outshining light armor plus dex plus spell based builds, then it makes sense.

    Those are just not results i see overwhelmingly happening in games i play, run or see discussed.


    Big Picture: Some character concepts in the fantasy genre have real world analogs but others dont. That is where the flaw in the general approach of "hey lets add more realism in" runs aground. We dont have "real world" magic to extrapolate these "logical" additions into for spells. We dont have "massive hit dice gains" to extrapolate into.

    So, it ends up being a skew to already tenuous balances between the character concepts and game elements that are trying to represent somewhat mundane elements as competitive in the magic world.

    This is a great way to get armor wearer PCs out of the game.
    I updated my original post to address this. Taken as a single homebrew change your not wrong. If on the other hand you consider that making a grittier world with other homebrew options effecting other classes then that argument becomes irrelevant. An example would be if I also had a rule removing arcane focus from the game and as a result requiring casters to track individual materials for spells instead of hand waving everything but cost materials alternatively it might be used in a low magic game where casters are not an option at all. I know your going to say well what about Barbarians and Monks then and that's again a valid point. I however, am not trying to come up with all the rules for a homebrew campaign in this post and raising the question and continually measuring a single homebrew option by what other options I might or might not have topic and off point unless your using it to illustrate how to improve the idea.

    Your post about AoE and acid damage is 100% on point and exactly what I am looking for. That was a constructive post.

    Your point about armor getting damaged more during longer fights near the end of the game is not necessarily true because you lose HP each time you get hit but you will only lose armor durability if they miss and in a relative small range. If the armor only breaks down after level 15 to begin with it might be that it only causes a once a game event and your worries are unfounded. Neither of use really have a point here with out play testing and it could easily be resolved by raising durability if its too low. So while I am listening to that argument its not supported with anything tangible and in a post as hostile as this one it comes across as concept hate ravings not constructive conversation.

    Saying someone's idea is "stupid because its not my style" is not a useful post. Nor is saying "The game is not about realism and I don't want it" because that is totally irrelevant in that wanting a cost and wear of battle with cost that does not require ether of us to have or want a game with magic to be "realistic". Its not about being realistic, its about having a wear and degradation with a cost to unpredictability for story points and to mix the game up once in a while. I would make magic items durability free yes but I still image most players not to have magic armor possible at all during the campaign. If they don't want to deal with though I would consider trying to get some a valid approach but then... there is still a cost to that and working to resolve an issue which drives events and story and that's not a bad thinking in a game of story telling ... at least in my unimportant opinion. You of course have a right do disagree.

  2. #32
    Member
    Time Agent (Lvl 24)



    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Posts
    4,189
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonCross View Post
    Nor is saying "The game is not about realism and I don't want it" because that is totally irrelevant in that wanting a cost and wear of battle with cost that does not require ether of us to have or want a game with magic to be "realistic". Its not about being realistic, its about having a wear and degradation with a cost to unpredictability for story points and to mix the game up once in a while.
    It's not that armor degradation is not "realistic"*, it's that you've done nothing to balance out the new penalties. Builds that rely on heavy armor are significantly nerfed, light armor builds moderately so, no armor builds not at all. I would never play a heavy armor type in this game because apparently at higher levels armor is about as useful as wrapping yourself in tinfoil.

    Add in some penalties to non-armor wearing people for getting hit as they accumulate bruises and scars and maybe there's something to discuss. Tying the damage to armor to a PCs HP might help because HP represent far more than physical damage.

    However, even then it reminds me of a video game I played a few years ago where all guns fell apart after being firing a hundred or so rounds even if you kept up with maintenance. It was meant to be "realistic" (it wasn't, a good gun with proper maintenance should be able to fire thousands of rounds). It just ended up being annoying and something you had to meta-game around it.


    *Although I think there are better ways of implementing "gritty", you're playing the wrong game if realism is your goal, and the penalties are too harsh given the action film nature of combat.

  3. #33
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    4,073
    @ClaytonCross

    Sub-systems need to be analyzed as part of a whole especially when they impact a small subset of the players' options in a direct way. So, asking for feedback with a sort of handwave "dont worry the rest of the game will be balanced to fit it" kind of attitude is just a basic design process fail. What happens if the wizard debuff is worse than this and so you need a better fix for this or if the barbarian debuff that works the way you want is just less and so this needs toning down later etc etc etc?

    creating a bunch of isolated changes with the hopes that they balance out in the end... often fails.

    this is especially true if you take "how often it happens" and throw it into "playtest" as opposed to design. You mention that *maybe* it wont happen more than once a "game" (do you mean campaign?) Is that the design goal? is that an accident? Are you really wanting to add an entire sub-system of swing-by swing economics to add all that paperwork in the roleplaying and dial-it so that tracking really only matters once in an entire campaign?

    A design goal would be "this should add abc paperwork and the actual risk of fail should be an in-gameplay limiting factor one session out of ???" that is a stark contrast to maybe once in a game" and such.

    Assuming we are still to the version where it is based on how often the AC is "hit" (a miss within the range of the armor bonus) then you have a case where characters who go for studded leather have a 10% change of armor damage on most any attack, breastplate 20%, and plate 40%.

    unless armor damage is not an issue, this really shifts things towards dex-based options where the cheaper armor gives you less likely chance of damage and so on. its an 8-to-1 difference in chances of taking armor damage on top of a 45g to 1500 gold price tag for armor between studded and plate to begin with plus the various "class features" given up for the proficiencies.

    So, even within the basic "fighter" the light armor dex-based option gets a big plus... but then we can *imagine* an overhaul of dexterity in combat that magically fixes this new shift. or we can *imagine* that in your games the "dex fighters are pretty strong as compared to strength fighters" is already not a thing at all.

    Or one can start with design goals including specific goals for how often it should be a factor, specific goals about the amount of extra tracking vs impact and so forth.

    Design then build works a lot better for most things than build then make everything else fit it.

    ---

    As for the scaling levels thing here is the rub, the armor "frequencies" d not change as you level up. The number of attacks and amount of damage you take *does?* and it goes up!!! So the durability is fixed but the threat is escalating.

    Well maybe maybe not. maybe your 15th level fighter has only one attack just like first. maybe your 15th level spellcaster does no more damage than your 2nd? We don't know anymore because there is this nebulous set of "other changes to make this fit" that we cannot expect or anticipate or use at all as assumptions since we now have you with a generic universal caveat of "other changes will balance it out".



    But assuming that at 15th level character get more attacks or more damage or more Hp and so on, then you have scalating threat and hurt to the armor but static armor durability.

    That means at some level you have "armor durability is an X% problem." and at lower levels it is less of a problem and at higher levels it is more of a problem. *That is what is called a scaling problem.* Same work required but at some spans of the campaign its not really worth bothering with and at others its very tough to keep up.

    But then again, as you stated earlier, your "gritty" campaign assumes that everybody will be into magic armor after a bit so it wont even be in play after a time - cuz you know, everybody is in magic armor is an essential quality of "gritty" gameplay.

    ---

    i highlight this because this feels a lot more like an off-the-cuff "i have an idea so lets run with it" thing that is getting very defensive response rather than the "one part of an overall whole" planned thing with a defined goal and purpose.

    ---

    basically, something as significant as this needs a lot more of a set of starting goals and design decisions made within a larger set of campaign goals and design constraints than it seems to actually be being given. otherwise you get a lot of unforseen breakdowns. trying to sell *iots part of a big plan with other changes putting it in context* when acid and force damage was not considered... tough sell.

    But as a final point, there are settings and worlds and game systems built from the ground up and majorly playtested to achieve a more gritty play experience. i would strongly suggest you look at a number of those for possible just use them or for better ideas of how the whole system works together to achieve that overall goal - because at least as far as what we can see from this thread - the more likely result/outcome seems to be to seriously favor a sub-set of build types if this is applied to DND5e bigger system. its not creating a gritty armor game if the result is folks just stop wearing armor and maxdex becomes the rule of the land. it creates a swashbuckler style game instead.

    **oh no it wont because...**

    sure, have fun with that.
    XP Oofta gave XP for this post

  4. #34
    Member
    Greater Elemental (Lvl 23)

    Blue's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cedar Grove, NJ 07009
    Posts
    5,004
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonCross View Post
    I don't disagree in any way. Though at the same time, If I were to play this I would I imagine it would be more of a "hardcore" setting mode. I don't imagine it would be my only homebrew rule. I might disallow arcane focus for example and make casters track material components as well. So while I get your point picking at the rule as a debuff, I think most people who don't hate the idea for existing would also tend toward other similar rule for balancing the debuffs all around. I am more interested in refining or improving the idea than discarding it on premise under the understanding this is homebrew intended to be homebrew for a specific type of play which will be reflected by more than this one rule. At that point your agreement (while completely valid in a normal game) becomes entirely void.
    That works for a particular feel of play if that's what you are going for. You can restore balance by debuffing other classes in addition to armor wearers, but remember we're looking at potentially invalidating what tanks can do partially through an adventure, and I can see that as being no fun for the player.

    Also remember that this affects front liner more than otehr armor wearers, so you can't assume it's just casters to balance. For example, Archery is already considered on the plus side of the power curve, and it will be impacted a lot less by the armor changes.
    XP ClaytonCross gave XP for this post

  5. #35
    Member
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)



    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Okinawa, Japan
    Posts
    710
    Quote Originally Posted by Oofta View Post
    It's not that armor degradation is not "realistic"*, it's that you've done nothing to balance out the new penalties. Builds that rely on heavy armor are significantly nerfed, light armor builds moderately so, no armor builds not at all. I would never play a heavy armor type in this game because apparently at higher levels armor is about as useful as wrapping yourself in tinfoil.

    Add in some penalties to non-armor wearing people for getting hit as they accumulate bruises and scars and maybe there's something to discuss. Tying the damage to armor to a PCs HP might help because HP represent far more than physical damage.

    However, even then it reminds me of a video game I played a few years ago where all guns fell apart after being firing a hundred or so rounds even if you kept up with maintenance. It was meant to be "realistic" (it wasn't, a good gun with proper maintenance should be able to fire thousands of rounds). It just ended up being annoying and something you had to meta-game around it.


    *Although I think there are better ways of implementing "gritty", you're playing the wrong game if realism is your goal, and the penalties are too harsh given the action film nature of combat.
    I get what your saying but with out having play tested it I don't actually know the impact. If for example the armor only falls apart once or twice during the campaign then your point is not valid. Similarly your video game example would have been less annoying if the durability was 1,000 instead of 100. It also could be a mute point if durability was 10,000 and you never fire that many round during the game. So this is not necessarily a balance issue of significant impact if the durability is appropriately adjusted. Most of the arguments against this are arbitrarily calling it "the end of armor" based arbitrary opinion but you have not played it (nor have I) enough to know how it effects the game and a simple durability adjustment will resolve the issue your talking about.

    The HP idea is a good idea, maybe like the heavy armor master feat but I worry that makes it too complicated and I am not sure how I would implement that into the system and if I did how I would not infringe on the feat. I will put some more though into that and by all means if you have some idea on how to implement that please feel free to though it out.

    While I respect your opinion on having better ways for a more gritty campaign. The idea of failing resources and pushing forward into darker harder times is the approach I want and having to maintain armor and account for material components is exactly in line with my goal. If its not something you want to play that is fine, I am not trying to push it on anyone.

  6. #36
    Member
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)



    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Okinawa, Japan
    Posts
    710
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue View Post
    That works for a particular feel of play if that's what you are going for. You can restore balance by debuffing other classes in addition to armor wearers, but remember we're looking at potentially invalidating what tanks can do partially through an adventure, and I can see that as being no fun for the player.

    Also remember that this affects front liner more than otehr armor wearers, so you can't assume it's just casters to balance. For example, Archery is already considered on the plus side of the power curve, and it will be impacted a lot less by the armor changes.
    Good post. I did not think about archer you are correct but unless there is an archer that doesn't use arrows its still possible for them to run out, just like casters, and tanks with armor falling apart. It is also true that they could all possibly take some from enemies replacing arrows, armor, and reagents as they go. Which is very much the feel I am looking at with a rule like this. That said it brings up a point that grabbing arrows which are usually easy to spot and retrieve is going to be a lot easier than searching a dead mage for the reagents you need (only allowing specific spells of not of the wizards choosing) or looking through bodies to find a suit of armor that will fit you and replace your broken breast plate (which might end up being a lower set of armor). Shields would be about as easy as arrows maybe easier. The only way to reduce arrow flow is just to limit the number of arrows enemies carry and keep the archers low but that kind of ham strings the GM. I think it might be easier to say you find x number of reagents you need pick what you want then aid those 10 and just let armor be adjustable so if you kill an enemy in plate you can use the plate but .... then your starting to make all this arbitrary... So I would prefer some way to allow archers but not fill archers quivers.... Mixing crossbows, bows, and hand crossbows might me a way to do that.

  7. #37
    Member
    Time Agent (Lvl 24)



    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Posts
    4,189
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonCross View Post
    I get what your saying but with out having play tested it I don't actually know the impact. If for example the armor only falls apart once or twice during the campaign then your point is not valid. Similarly your video game example would have been less annoying if the durability was 1,000 instead of 100. It also could be a mute point if durability was 10,000 and you never fire that many round during the game. So this is not necessarily a balance issue of significant impact if the durability is appropriately adjusted. Most of the arguments against this are arbitrarily calling it "the end of armor" based arbitrary opinion but you have not played it (nor have I) enough to know how it effects the game and a simple durability adjustment will resolve the issue your talking about.

    The HP idea is a good idea, maybe like the heavy armor master feat but I worry that makes it too complicated and I am not sure how I would implement that into the system and if I did how I would not infringe on the feat. I will put some more though into that and by all means if you have some idea on how to implement that please feel free to though it out.

    While I respect your opinion on having better ways for a more gritty campaign. The idea of failing resources and pushing forward into darker harder times is the approach I want and having to maintain armor and account for material components is exactly in line with my goal. If its not something you want to play that is fine, I am not trying to push it on anyone.
    Let's make sure I understand your proposal. If a PC is missed because of their armor alone, the armor takes damage. Armor has Armor Points (AP) depending on type of armor, plate has 54 AP, shields have 20 AP. Someone with plate armor and shield is going to have their armor damaged half the time they are missed. Your damage is only 2 points, so someone in plate armor could take 27 "hits" to their armor before it falls apart. Assuming damage to armor 20-25% of the time (depending on plate only or plate + shield) that's 0.5 average damage per attack. For argument's sake let's say the PC is attacked 10 times per combat for 5 damage per combat. That's low for most front line fighters at mid-to-high levels because most monsters have multi-attack. So being conservative, after 6 combats your armor falls apart. That's an average adventuring day according to DMG guidelines. In the real world, a soldier may need to repair their armor on a regular basis (although I don't think it would be that often) but then again in the real world anyone getting into fights 6 or more times per day wouldn't have survived very long anyway.

    So instead what's going to happen is your fighter will just stock up on shields and replace their shield after 2-3 combats. Your heavy weapon fighters on the other hand are just SOL. Expect them to all become barbarians.

    Then you turn around and say it's not going to matter because it won't affect magical armor and you assume your PCs will have magic armor at mid to high levels, but then what's the purpose of a finicky rule like this? To me it's just extra tracking and paperwork on the part of the DM and the player.

    But it also goes back to my basic issue. Every time people try to justify a rule like this because it's "more realistic" they never come up with any rules to make light or no armor dex based characters more realistic. All it does at this point is penalize one type of build and add a bunch of annoying tracking. Well, that and keep the shield merchants in business.
    XP 5ekyu gave XP for this post

  8. #38
    Member
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)



    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Okinawa, Japan
    Posts
    710
    Quote Originally Posted by 5ekyu View Post
    @ClaytonCross

    Sub-systems need to be analyzed as part of a whole especially when they impact a small subset of the players' options in a direct way. So, asking for feedback with a sort of handwave "dont worry the rest of the game will be balanced to fit it" kind of attitude is just a basic design process fail. What happens if the wizard debuff is worse than this and so you need a better fix for this or if the barbarian debuff that works the way you want is just less and so this needs toning down later etc etc etc?

    creating a bunch of isolated changes with the hopes that they balance out in the end... often fails.
    Your saying no one can have a starting point for and idea and must go immediately to a completed project. That makes no since because all tasks have a starting point. So your right I don't have a complete idea or I would be submitting to GMguild with a gritty campaign guide instead of posting an idea here. Saying the idea needs work .... is the point of the post. Saying additional balance will be needed makes perfect since but of itself is not useful beyond the understanding more will be needed. It is not a "Fail" to have a starting point to build from and as a larger idea forms and it may have to be rebalanced. That is the only take away from most of what you have said numerous times. At the same time that is a normal process for any material homebrew or not. Even wizards of the costs builds off ideas play tests them improves them starts assembling ideas individually then combines them in several design groups to see what combinations work and which don't. This is not a fail, its just how design work is done. I have seen your posts. Your a smart guy and you know this. So your continual statement about me failing come across as an attack instead of legible on topic argument I know your capable of. That said you did sneak some valid points in below and I will try to respectfully reply one by one.

    Quote Originally Posted by 5ekyu View Post
    this is especially true if you take "how often it happens" and throw it into "playtest" as opposed to design. You mention that *maybe* it wont happen more than once a "game" (do you mean campaign?) Is that the design goal? is that an accident? Are you really wanting to add an entire sub-system of swing-by swing economics to add all that paperwork in the roleplaying and dial-it so that tracking really only matters once in an entire campaign?

    A design goal would be "this should add abc paperwork and the actual risk of fail should be an in-gameplay limiting factor one session out of ???" that is a stark contrast to maybe once in a game" and such.
    The design goal is for it to be impactful but not game crippling. That is a balance which can be shifted with durability but needs play testing and feed back to really grasp due to different play styles classes and the fact that without any play testing I can't really get a feel for it. Doing the math is all well and good but just like this whole topic is a place to start talking about an idea. I need some in game experience to really start to understand if it can make a game more fun for players or just waste time. It also would only be effective to play test people who actually want to play a "gritty" campaign where they struggle to survive and win. I have a fellow GM who loves to run gritty campaigns for his players but only wants to play heroic campaigns. He would be a great GM to run it but a horrible player to test it. I have another friend who is basically the exact opposite so he would be a good person to test it as a player and give good feed back. --- So I need it tested by its target demographic to really see how it works and to tweak it. ---- I know you have heard this before as its done by many game designers in alpha / beta designs. So consider this the Alpha of my "gritty campaign" design I need to build and test each part to see if they work before I try and see what works together. The best way to do that is play THIS peace with a team of all armor wearing characters since it does effect those that don't. I would similarly isolate the other parts for casters and archers etc. So that I can see if and how it works for them before waisting time balancing them against each other in mixed groups.

    Quote Originally Posted by 5ekyu View Post
    Assuming we are still to the version where it is based on how often the AC is "hit" (a miss within the range of the armor bonus) then you have a case where characters who go for studded leather have a 10% change of armor damage on most any attack, breastplate 20%, and plate 40%.

    unless armor damage is not an issue, this really shifts things towards dex-based options where the cheaper armor gives you less likely chance of damage and so on. its an 8-to-1 difference in chances of taking armor damage on top of a 45g to 1500 gold price tag for armor between studded and plate to begin with plus the various "class features" given up for the proficiencies.
    Your forgetting that I gave each armor class different multipliers for durability (light x1, medium x2, heavy x3) so you double the % from 10 to 20 but then double the durability so that they last about the same time. Now you do make a valid point about expense. That does have two factors to consider. The first is they are paying for more protection which really the point and having to look at the price tag and say "err I want it but do I want it that bad?" is EXACTLY the effect I am hoping for so that is working as intended. Right now everyone just wants the best armor because its just a one time buy upgrade. If it becomes an upkeep upgraded it becomes a real consideration. I have never seen anyone buy splint armor if plate was available have you? They just save for plate every time. The second is after testing if no one is willing to buy plate because the 1 point of AC is not worth it maybe I need to amend my rule for armor durability to make it a harder decision. That would be initially independent of changes from other non-armor classes but also party of a gritty campaign. If player will need to talk about where they spend party resources. Do they buy diamond reagents for mage spells or better armor for the group tank. Right now I am playing game with permanent armor and arcane focuses and no one really needs that much money so their is very little debate. You may have a very different experience but that is the design thought that has me creating this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by 5ekyu View Post
    So, even within the basic "fighter" the light armor dex-based option gets a big plus... but then we can *imagine* an overhaul of dexterity in combat that magically fixes this new shift. or we can *imagine* that in your games the "dex fighters are pretty strong as compared to strength fighters" is already not a thing at all.
    Don't Dex based fighter already have "a big plus" in base D&D? After all by rules you can't start with plate but you can start with studded leather. So strength based character will have to pay 1,500 gp in order to max armor but Dex based fighter can upgrade their weapon attack state and get a free AC boast!! Also, you can sleep in light armor with no effects according to Xanthar's, taking it off on can be done during combat, heavy armor takes so long that is not possible. So your basically saying D&D is already wrong and no one will play Strength based characters....but We both know that is not true I have 3 strength players in a group of 7. They play that way because its what they want and because of the weapons they chose.

    Quote Originally Posted by 5ekyu View Post
    Or one can start with design goals including specific goals for how often it should be a factor, specific goals about the amount of extra tracking vs impact and so forth.

    Design then build works a lot better for most things than build then make everything else fit it.
    I disagree. I have an idea. I need to refine it by getting second opinions pointing things like me not accounting for AoE acid damage. Then I need to refine it again by play testing it. I do not need to tie the idea down to specifics that might not work at all by hamstringing myself with preconceptions based on nothing. I need to change and adapt until I find away to achieve my goal in the simplest and most functional way I can. THEN tweak it and ideas I combine with it or even thought it out if it does not combine well with the others. But I have to have something before I can do anything to it. You build a house by defining the parts then assembling them. I need to know my parts so I have and Idea of what I am working with before I try to assemble it. That will of course involve tweaking them so they fit together.

    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by 5ekyu View Post
    As for the scaling levels thing here is the rub, the armor "frequencies" d not change as you level up. The number of attacks and amount of damage you take *does?* and it goes up!!! So the durability is fixed but the threat is escalating.

    Well maybe maybe not. maybe your 15th level fighter has only one attack just like first. maybe your 15th level spellcaster does no more damage than your 2nd? We don't know anymore because there is this nebulous set of "other changes to make this fit" that we cannot expect or anticipate or use at all as assumptions since we now have you with a generic universal caveat of "other changes will balance it out".



    But assuming that at 15th level character get more attacks or more damage or more Hp and so on, then you have scalating threat and hurt to the armor but static armor durability.

    That means at some level you have "armor durability is an X% problem." and at lower levels it is less of a problem and at higher levels it is more of a problem. *That is what is called a scaling problem.* Same work required but at some spans of the campaign its not really worth bothering with and at others its very tough to keep up.
    If your fighting a single dragon at level 15 who gets 3 attacks against you, you have 3 chances of hitting you. With there high attacks and high damages they can kill you to or 3 turns (6-9 attacks) and they don't miss much due to really high attack modifiers so your chances of armor reduction is actually not that high.

    If your level 6 and fighting 6 goblins you get 6 attacks against you in a turn, they have low health so you kill them quickly over 3 turns (6 attacks turn 1, 4 attacks turn 2, 2 attacks turn 3 = total of 12 attacks)

    Your example is dependent on so many factors that it is just as flawed as mine. Without play testing it, I really don't think you can adequately see how it would effect your game. It could be that the design is too much a burden at low levels complete contrast to your explanation if your scenarios match up with my scenario above. On the other hand you could be right. But your argument alone does not confirm that. So while I applicate the concern, it does require play testing to see what the disparity is, how bad it is, then look at how to adapt to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by 5ekyu View Post
    But then again, as you stated earlier, your "gritty" campaign assumes that everybody will be into magic armor after a bit so it wont even be in play after a time - cuz you know, everybody is in magic armor is an essential quality of "gritty" gameplay.
    I would agree that handing out magic items in game geared to be "gritty" is not the intent. I stated it as a "well if you have on player that wants to play this way and the others don't" here is a solution to allow both styles of play at the same table with minimal impact. I say minimal because you don't have to give an armor with a +X you could just say they get magic armor that does need repaired. It could also be a way to resolve an issue of imbalance as an interim solution to finding a fix for the system I am talking about. It was not a good point on my part and I deserve that reply.

    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by 5ekyu View Post
    i highlight this because this feels a lot more like an off-the-cuff "i have an idea so lets run with it" thing that is getting very defensive response rather than the "one part of an overall whole" planned thing with a defined goal and purpose.
    So "off-the-cuff" and "starting point" are to me part of idea crafting. So I will say your right in that categorization. I would say however my defensive response is to the complete dismissal and aggressive nature of calling the idea, my thought process, my approach, and almost directly me a "fail". You attack some one with delivery offensive wording, you should expect them to be defensive its a natural response. You could have worded thinks more diplomatically and/or more analytically and not provoked that response. That said I have listened to your responses and looked for incite such as your AoE acid comments. While others might just right you off as hostile I am taking your arguments seriously and debating them with you. Much of what your saying has a train of though and I am tracking it. It is however not 100% by reality. Let me be clear in that I am not saying you are wrong I am saying without playtesting to support it, you COULD be wrong. That is not the same thing. Because you could also be right. However because I can see how that is not necessarily true I will not abandoned my idea on the premise of your point but I do recognize I need to test my idea with that in mine.

    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by 5ekyu View Post
    basically, something as significant as this needs a lot more of a set of starting goals and design decisions made within a larger set of campaign goals and design constraints than it seems to actually be being given. otherwise you get a lot of unforseen breakdowns. trying to sell *iots part of a big plan with other changes putting it in context* when acid and force damage was not considered... tough sell.
    again I disagree, I am not building a house without looking at materials first. If you design a roof with steal you can build it differently than with wood. I need to work on the parts then integrate them into the whole if I can. Some might get thrown out because the don't fit and this might be one of them but I am going to look at for its own merit before I discard it or I will have nothing to build with.

    Quote Originally Posted by 5ekyu View Post
    But as a final point, there are settings and worlds and game systems built from the ground up and majorly playtested to achieve a more gritty play experience. i would strongly suggest you look at a number of those for possible just use them or for better ideas of how the whole system works together to achieve that overall goal - because at least as far as what we can see from this thread - the more likely result/outcome seems to be to seriously favor a sub-set of build types if this is applied to DND5e bigger system. its not creating a gritty armor game if the result is folks just stop wearing armor and maxdex becomes the rule of the land. it creates a swashbuckler style game instead.

    **oh no it wont because...**

    sure, have fun with that.
    This is basically saying "your idea is dumb and you should not bother with homebrew its not a thing you can do" .... and you asked earlier why I would be defensive to your posts? ... Because your being hostile... /shrug.

  9. #39
    Member
    Gallant (Lvl 3)



    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    (near) Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    298
    After the 1st ten or so posts: TLDR.
    To the OP: Why not set the armors damage point value to it's value as added to AC. Only track damage when critted upon (if crits are used), decreasing it's damage value by one and therefore lowering AC in the process. If a shield is being used, randomly determine if the shield or armor is damaged (say 50/50).

  10. #40
    Member
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)



    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Okinawa, Japan
    Posts
    710
    Quote Originally Posted by Roadkill101 View Post
    After the 1st ten or so posts: TLDR.
    To the OP: Why not set the armors damage point value to it's value as added to AC. Only track damage when critted upon (if crits are used), decreasing it's damage value by one and therefore lowering AC in the process. If a shield is being used, randomly determine if the shield or armor is damaged (say 50/50).
    That is not a bad idea. Someone else said something very similar about one part and then second person mentioned another. My view..

    1. The largest part to me is that that a critical hit to a player seems like it could also be looked at as an attack that made it past the armor so thematically it would/could do little or no damage to the armor. So taking hits on missing the player in the range of the armor represents using the armor in that defense. Also, these means AoE would never damage armor since enemies can't get a critical on a save. That was also pointed out as an issue. But there is a pass or fail on a save so going with failed saves was a path I had considered to respect that.

    2. It makes since to me that the more likely you are to be saved by your armor then the more damage the armor is taking in place of you. Using the rating of the armor to determine when the armor is damaged on a miss reduces the chance but by comparison to the protection.

    If it turns out that the durability rate is too low due to being hit in that rang too often I think I would just change the multiplier to increase durability so that I could thematically keep the "armor takes damage when doing its job". That said I am not discarding the idea I am holding as a secondary back up to the mechanical goal. It could be after testing that the way I describe is just too much to track and happens too often and in that case I might through it aside for something along what you have said. Thematically though that seems more like a way to increase the effect of critical hits in a way that would effect players but not really NPCs. I am ok with wear and tear not being as big an issue with NPCs but having critical carry a higher penalty against players adds up. Its the same reason we stopped using the critical blow table in our games because we were all missing legs, arms , and eyes by level 7. I want more gritty than hardcore, if my statements prior said otherwise I chose my word poorly.

    3. Tracking AC changes has been mentioned by several people. Its something to consider. Right now a all or none approach would be easier to track, however if balancing this to other rules requires me adding durability then I might have to add AC degradation to keep it relevant if that durability increase also causes it to lose impact on the game. So it would be a minor tweak to refine a major change.

    Again, not a bad path to the same thing. I need some testing to see where I am at first though I think.

Similar Threads

  1. Armor Degradation
    By Falstaff in forum *Pathfinder & Starfinder
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: Friday, 23rd July, 2004, 04:56 PM
  2. Armor Degradation
    By Falstaff in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Friday, 23rd July, 2004, 12:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •