Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grommilus" data-source="post: 250789" data-attributes="member: 5863">Upper_Krustabout slashing, piercing, and bashing weapons.  a short sword, a piercing weapon, would have a considerably harder time getting thru a metal plate than a pick, or even an axe.  How the critical hit system works in 3e, the bigger the x on the crit, the better that weapon would be at getting thru heavy armor (aprox, the scythe could just be rethought of as a huge pick, and that words).  so in effect, the different penatration values for weapons would be tracked with the weapon (compared to the armor type if you wanna get technical, cause padded stops clubs pretty good, but platemail stops everything pretty equally, save picks and mace/hammer type attacks, though a single modifier might be better for a rpg).  To balance weapons, cause the ones with high crit multipliers pierce most armors better, some weapons are simply easier to hit your target in a meaningful place with.  For example, with an axe, or even easier: a pick, you only have to avoid the hurting end, a sword is a whole mess of hurting end.  Representing that weapons with large messy ends like swords and flails hit more often cause of the difficulty in avoiding the damage dealing end.Oh, and definatly keep parry and dodge outa the game, I'd much rather say my ac is yadda rather than making opposed rolls.For some armors I can see giving the armor a bonus to your ac, cause they really do make you harder to hit by deflecting and outright stoping even really hard swings.  A good way to do this to have armors have an armor value, which requires a seperate roll to get by.  So the attacker would roll to hit, then roll to penatrate, then roll damage.  Penaration could be based on skill, weapon, and str of the swinger.  the really good armors could also soften some of the damage (kinda like how high quality armor worked in Alternity, it would basically reduce a wound's status).  So plate armors could take a severe wounds and turn it into a lesser wound.  I like that alot more than damage reduction, because damage reduction tends to favor big hitters like barbarians over faster hitters like dexterous ranger types, unless you do percent reduction, which is only feasable in the computer rpg buisness.  I know the damage reduction bit is well recieved, but i think it's much easier to have it go all or nothing for doing damage to an armored foe, simply because if it reduces from every attack, then small, fast foes will have no chance of injuring you, even though realisticly they could be slipping thier weapon thru the chinks of your armor.  Now, some types of natural armor could be considered to be regualar type armor with a to penetrate roll, but others would be toughness(see below).  An iron golem is basicaly impenatrable (it's internals are iron), so an easier way to represent this would be HP.I can see the arguement for mass=hp, but then you get to the whole system of how tough a material is, like a crystaline mass vs a mass of stone of equal density and therefore volume.  For a logical system, you'd really need to seperate str and a stat called toughness (or whatever).  Hence, dwarves, while weighing the same or less than your average human, where still harder to harm, due to thier natural toughness, kinda like a stone giant or other alternate material monster.  I'm not saying nat armor =  toughness, unless that nat armor stems from the fact that your internals are also as tough as the outside (so a dragon wouldn't have extremely high toughness, but a monster like a golem or a stone giant would).  But, as you can see from these examples, a stone man (genisai?) would have higher toughness than a human of the same size, but comparative str.  Since in DnD toughness often = Constitution, making these the same stat might work (but only if you think creatures such as golems, stone giants, and dwarves are also good at extended action, which I'd say yes to for all 3)  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Maybe instead of worrying over weight, you just have a Size stat, which, in addition to making you easier to hit and harder for you to hit others, combines with toughness to give you HP.  So basically HP would be a function of how big you were, (resulting cause a 6 inch long cut on the chest means alot of difference on a halfling than on a hill giant) and your toughness, (resulting from how hard it is to actually alter your physical state enough to result in an injury, such as soft fleshy parts of a human vs the rock hard flesh of a stone giant, and by flesh I don't just mean skin).There was game I once played, don't remember the name, had a stat called Body that was basically exactly how much force was required to cause significant bodily harm, and was a function of your character's weight and resilency. so combining weight and toughness into one stat is possible, but it might be easier to keep em seperate, cause alot of times your actual weight could definatly matter.That is to say, even though I see your point, I'd still like to make clear that I like the current HP system for DnD, because it more easily facilitates heroic action, like that scene in the PH where Tordek is in the mouth of a red dragon, and, insted of being instant bitten in twain (if he had crappy hp and the dragon had a resonable str for it's size) he is able thru his heroic nature to keep attacking, at least for a while (taking bite damage each turn).  Same with Luke vs the Rancor.. it coulda squized him in two before it put him in it's mouth, but didn't. =)anywho, think i'm spent, lataGrom</blockquote>

Verification