Armor Class and Defense

[Mengu]

In many systems, targets in heavy armor are easier to hit, harder to hurt. D&D has just never really taken this path. Armor DR also introduces another element into the game system, AP (Armor Piercing). And then you have to deal with things like mindblast, does armor protect against it or not? Do you need a helmet? Does that mean we have to start tracking armor locations? Can you make called shots to get around armored areas? How about fireball against armor? Fall damage? It just gets more and more complicated.

To keep it simple, I think armor as AC bonus works fine.

 

[dkyle]

One thing that I'd like to see go away is the expectation that, in combat between similar foes, half the attacks should do nothing, because they miss. A miss takes almost as much time to resolve as a hit, and does nothing to progress the combat. It's also not that much fun for the player, who has just wasted their turn.

But implementing that would pretty much require that AC become a DR mechanic, instead of a miss-chance mechanic, so it's probably not practical in core DnD.

 

[TimA]

Armor DR also introduces another element into the game system, AP (Armor Piercing).
Really not necessary but its hardly a mind breaker to assign an armor piercing number to some weapons and have the weapon ignore that much armor on a hit.


And then you have to deal with things like mindblast, does armor protect against it or not?
No

Do you need a helmet?
Armor includes a helmet

Does that mean we have to start tracking armor locations?
No

Can you make called shots to get around armored areas?
Only if they take their helmet off. Can you try to stab an unarmored armpit instead of an armored chest? No.

How about fireball against armor?
Default, no. Armor doesnt help against magic. Option. Yes provides cover bonus to saving throws.

Fall damage?
Just 1 pt for the padded part of armor.

It just gets more and more complicated.
No it doesnt. 9 spell levels, prestige classes, destiny paths and skill systems get "more and more complicated".

Subtracting 1-8 pts of damage from an attack does not.

To keep it simple, I think armor as AC bonus works fine.

This might be one of the only times I will say something nice about 4e. They got the defense scaling with level correct. They didnt do it first but they did recognize that it was better.

Your defense bonus should absolutely scale with your attack bonus and armor should be DR. That helps low level characters survive longer, reduces the need for the magic christmas tree, feels more realistic and is just an overall improvement in the combat mechanic.

 

[Elf Witch]

I had a DM who used alternate rules for his 3.0 game. In his games Armor protected you from the amount of damage so if you had 8 points of armor it took at least 9 points to damage you.

Basically heavily armored people got hit more often but it didn't hurt as bad people with high dex got hit a lot less but when they did it hurt more.

Higher dex meant harder to hit your AC didn't add to this.

I don't remember everything it has been almost ten years but I do remember that it made playing a dex style fighter a lot more fun and didn't make combat any more complicated or take longer.

 

[variant]

There's no need for armor piercing. More damage is more likely to pierce armor. The system isn't meant to be going for pure realism, it is still abstract. Your roll of the damage dice is as much as a factor in determining how effective you are at getting through the armor's weaknesses as is a roll to hit.

I think this system would also open up the possibility of a more versatile number of weapons with their own innate bonus to hit depending on the tier of the weapon on scale with tiers of armor. Leather would give say +2 Defense and +1 AC(damage reduction) while say a Dagger would be 1d4 Damage and +1 to hit. While Full Plate would give say +3 Defense and +5 AC, a Broadsword would give +3 to hit and 1d10 damage.

 

[SteveC]

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.

 

[Derren]

Yes, having Defense and Armor as DR would be good things, IMO. Not only is it more realistic (armor does not make one harder to hit, its entire purpose is to absorb damage) it's also much better from a game design standpoint.

Actually I would say the complete opposite.
Armor does not reduce damage, it protects you from being damaged. The entire point of weapon development is to pierce or bypass armor, not to do enough damage so that a fraction of the damage you do goes through the armor.

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).

DR has its place in D&D but not as replacement for AC.

 

[variant]

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.

You still have hit points. It isn't as if it would be a gritty system where you have 10 hit points throughout your adventuring career.

Arguing that "this such and such system over here does "such and such" isn't a valid argument against this system. Naturally things such as damage, hit points, and hit chacne have to be scaled and balanced for the system.

Actually I would say the complete opposite.
Armor does not reduce damage, it protects you from being damaged. The entire point of weapon development is to pierce or bypass armor, not to do enough damage so that a fraction of the damage you do goes through the armor.

Damage reduction does protect you from getting hurt. Hit points are not health points. Leveling up doesn't magically make you able to take 5 longswords wounds to the gut and keep walking.

In typical D&D, your weapon basically has zero effect on how easy it is to penetrate armor. A claymore which was built to penetrate heavy armor has no greater chance to hit against someone with their AC from armor than someone with the exact same AC from being nimble. Also, when it does it, the half-inch of steel between the attacker and flesh is no different than the light summer clothes and cloak.

 

[Derren]

Damage reduction does protect you from getting hurt. Hit points are not health points. Leveling up doesn't magically make you able to take 5 longswords wounds to the gut and keep walking.

In typical D&D, your weapon basically has zero effect on how easy it is to penetrate armor. A claymore which was built to penetrate heavy armor has no greater chance to hit against someone with their AC from armor than someone with the exact same AC from being nimble.

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.

 

[variant]

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)

I disagree. A sword has a much longer reach and is far more effective by that fact. If daggers were so effective, you could just equip an army with daggers and win against an enemy army that is fully armored.

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.

A sword going through an inch of steel is going to do a lot less damage coming out the other side than one going through a piece of cloth.