AC or DR
- Thread starter interwyrm
- Start date
The_Gneech
Explorer
I like the "armor = DR" option myself, but there has to be a way for finessing low-damage types to bypass it (via some kind of to-hit penalty or an armor-piercing option, etc.).
In D&D, the reason AC makes you harder to hit rather than giving you DR, is because BAB is always growing. To counter that, a DR-based armor has to be countered with a Defense Bonus, a cap, removing iterative attacks, or something.
-The Gneech
In D&D, the reason AC makes you harder to hit rather than giving you DR, is because BAB is always growing. To counter that, a DR-based armor has to be countered with a Defense Bonus, a cap, removing iterative attacks, or something.
-The Gneech
Viktyr Gehrig
First Post
I very much prefer Armor to provide Damage Reduction. (I actually go with both Damage Reduction and Damage Conversion...)
I have a couple of different means of bypassing it, as The Gneech recommends-- I allow characters to take a -4 penalty and a standard action to completely disregard manufactured armor for a single attack, and I desginate several weapons as "armor piercing", removing the DR component of the armor.
edit: I also use a variant of Class-based Defense bonuses, mimicking Poor, Medium, and Good saving throw progression.
I have a couple of different means of bypassing it, as The Gneech recommends-- I allow characters to take a -4 penalty and a standard action to completely disregard manufactured armor for a single attack, and I desginate several weapons as "armor piercing", removing the DR component of the armor.
edit: I also use a variant of Class-based Defense bonuses, mimicking Poor, Medium, and Good saving throw progression.
Last edited:
To me, piercing weapons should be less effected by armor than slashing ones. Impact weapons also should be less effective than padded armor than they are against chainmail. (That seems to me to make sense, but if any creative anachronists or the like know better, correct me)
If the goal is to have a more realisitic approach, I hate them both. To make it realistic, it would be so complicated it would get boring pretty quick (assuming a d20 system). The compromise I would prefer is AC and hit points are fixed at level 1 depends on size and constitution. Weapons would deal a fixed amount of damage (something like half the max 4 for d8, 2 for d4 and so on)
tetsujin28
First Post
Very easily done, especially with the stuff in Iron Heroes. Since armour provides a die, rather than a set DR, it's quite possible for a dagger to do some damage. As an example, studded leather is DR 1d3/magic, whilst plate is 1d8/magic.The_Gneech said:
Merlion said:
All historical fighting style that I know of study how to strike where the armor doesn't protect. Not how to strike so hard that you go through. However, some specifically designed weapons tend to "ignore" armor all together. IMO, YMMV and all the acronyms you want if one does not agree with me
However I really like the idea of a random damage reduction even though it generates more dice rolling mechanics...
Last edited:
Merlion
First Post
Thats fine, but also very complicated.
I think that having armor reduce damage is at least somewhat more logical than adding to your Armor Class and actually making you more diffacult to strike.
I'm not going for total realism...that would be almost impossible...but I'd just like there to be at least some basic logic
painandgreed
First Post
If I was doing it, I woudl say armor did DR X/crit. It would act as damage resistance but would be by passed or reduced by critial hits. I would also have hit locations and called shots. Then I'd modify it due to damage type and even by weapon as some weapons are better against some armors. There would probably be several other things I'd do to the AC/armor rules and in the end you'd end up with a possibly more realistic rule set that wouldn't be as simplistic or easy to play as the current version which is one of the reasons I think D&D maintains its popularity.
Similar Threads
