Am I insane? Was there DR in 2nd edition D&D?

[Murrdox]

Okay, so I was talking to a friend about changes to be made in 3.5, and he starts talking about how the new DR rules are stupid and he's probably not going to use them, and that it was fine ever since 2nd edition.

I told him that as far as I remembered... in 2nd edition things were just IMMUNE to things... there was no such thing as "Reduction". If you wanted to hurt a Golem, you needed a +3 weapon... and that was it. Don't bother using anything else, other weapons are ineffective.

He says that things DID have DR in 2nd edition. We have no 2nd edtion books to settle this.

How did DR work in 2nd edition? Anyone care to settle this one for us?

 

[Destil]

There was no DR in 2E (mabye in combat and tacticts or something, but I don't even think there). Just the "Needs +X to hurt".

 

[Bob5th]

I 95% sure that none of the 2E rules had DR.

 

[Grazzt]

DR didnt exist in 1e or 2e, at least not the way it currently works.

Basically it was "+x or better weapon to hit" in previous editions.

 

[Dreeble]

Field Plate?

Heya:

Wasn't there Field Plate Armor and Full Plate Armor that "sorta" was like damage reduction? Actually closer to Stoneskin, I suppose, since I think it ran out and ruined the armor or something. I think they acted like 1/- and 3/- or similar.

Take care,
Dreeble

 

[Murrdox]

The only thing I remember about that was that certain armor took less damage from certain types of weapons... or it might have been an AC increase vs certain types of weapons... I don't remember.

The last time I played 2nd edition was when I was in 8th grade... soo....

 

[Judas]

Re: Field Plate?

Heya:

Wasn't there Field Plate Armor and Full Plate Armor that "sorta" was like damage reduction? Actually closer to Stoneskin, I suppose, since I think it ran out and ruined the armor or something. I think they acted like 1/- and 3/- or similar.

Take care,
Dreeble

The only differences in 2E about Field/Full Plate:

Field Plate: AC3 and is actually what is used and worn in battle.
Full Plate: AC2 and is mainly used for cerimonial purposes, as it was too bulky to use effectively in actual combat.

My group basically house ruled back then that you could use Full in combat, but you didn't get your dex bonus to ac. Heh, and look how 3.X E does armor now...

Oh yeah, Field plate cost less than full, as full was way too expensive.

 

[Celebrim]

Dreeble: Actually, you have to go back to the 1st edition UA for that rule.

Yes, Full Plate and Field Plate originally absorbed damage from attacks. Once it had absorbed sufficient damage (depending on the quality of the armor) it was reduced in effectiveness to standard plate.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes, Full Plate and Field Plate originally absorbed damage from attacks. Once it had absorbed sufficient damage (depending on the quality of the armor) it was reduced in effectiveness to standard plate.

Which was irritating, because it also became more encumbering, and was expensive to repair, and it never lasted more than two combats.

Gah.

-Hyp.

 

[Belbarrus]

Original D&D, AD&D and AD&D 2nd edition did not have Damage Reduction as it is known in the D&D 3rd Edition.

In the AD&D Unearthed Arcana, they introduced Field Plate and Full Plate. Field Plate gave AC3 and Full Plate AC 2. They both had damage absorbing abilities. I dont recall the exact details, but Full plate would absorb 2 points of damage per attack (it may have even been per die of damage from an attack). But there was a limit to how much damage could be absorbed. Once the maximum was hit, the armor was considered 1 armor class lower and could no longer absorb damage. These penalties lasted until the armor was repaired. Magical versions of the armor increased the damage absorbing limit, but also increased the cost of repairing the item.


Belbarrus