AC or DR
- Thread starter interwyrm
- Start date
TheGM
First Post
DR for players was unnecessary.
I'm happy with the core rules implementation except that the one suit of armor that allows DR for PCs is not available. Or nearly not available.
One of the things that 3.5 did that I disagree with is introduce the silly concept that characters can have/do nearly everything monsters can. DR for PCs? Bah. Take your lumps and move on.
I'm happy with the core rules implementation except that the one suit of armor that allows DR for PCs is not available. Or nearly not available.
One of the things that 3.5 did that I disagree with is introduce the silly concept that characters can have/do nearly everything monsters can. DR for PCs? Bah. Take your lumps and move on.
wingsandsword
Legend
Not to mention the Barbarian class. Granting /- DR is pretty nice, even if it's only a point or two.Merlion said:
DR is a perfectly valid way of representing the effects of armor. It actually seems a little counterintuitive to have two separate ways of representing a creature having really tough hide: Natural Armor bonus and Damage Reduction. It's really hard for your sword to hit it either way, it's just the way the mechanic falls.
Armor as DR makes it more consistent. Rolling to hit the AC means your weapon made meaningful contact with the target. Breaching the DR means that you actually punched through the tough hide/armor plating on the target and hurt it. Without it, your weapon hitting the beast but not breaking through it's tough hide could either be missing the AC because of Natural Armor, or not breaching it's DR, two different mechanics to describe the same thing.
Only a few decades of "Armor increases the number you have to roll to hit" tradition in D&D without the concept of Damage Reduction is why it seems strange to people.
Aus_Snow
First Post
Isn't the Unearthed Arcana Armour-as-DR system more Armour-as-AC-and-DR? I noticed there wasn't a category for that ('half/half', or 'both'). . . or does just 'DR' cover that?
Anyhow, although I voted for DR, I'm still wondering why it's often thought of as being more 'gritty'. Any reasons for this? It's not like I care whether it might or might not be; I'll keep using a version of it, regardless. Paired with a defence bonus, I find it works well enough. In fact, it seems to work much better than the base system, for my purposes.
Anyhow, although I voted for DR, I'm still wondering why it's often thought of as being more 'gritty'. Any reasons for this? It's not like I care whether it might or might not be; I'll keep using a version of it, regardless. Paired with a defence bonus, I find it works well enough. In fact, it seems to work much better than the base system, for my purposes.
The Thayan Menace
First Post
1,000 Years of Power
What about this guy's armor?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0805051sword1.html
What about this guy's armor?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0805051sword1.html
Merlion
First Post
Jdvn1 said:
Huh? How would armor granting DR affect these creatures?
Now yes having Natural "armor" act as DR (which it really should) would, but obviously it would have to be implemented in a balanced way (the variant presented in Unearthed Arcana is a good starting point.
Jdvn1 said:
Thats extremely debateble. Attack bonuses and AC dont really scale very well in the current system. I think converting many of the things that add to armor class into simple damage prevention would help this in the long run, as well as being more logical.
Besides which, forums like this exist in part for people to discuss changes to the rules...so saying that the system works and one shouldnt change it in any way is simply...incorect. For many, it doesnt work.
And furthermore, the original poster isnt actually proposing changes to the D&D system...he's gathering info and ideas for a new system.
Similar Threads
