Another "Armour as DR" Thread (sort of)

[trs31]

Hi, since seeing this thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?373681-Armor-as-DR/page2) I’ve been thinking about a system of armour as damage reduction of my own and I would appreciate the views of other gamers on my thoughts.

I agree with some of the posts in the above thread that introducing damage reduction based on armour has the potential to make some characters/monsters very difficult to damage at low levels which can make some characters feel useless (your dual dagger wielding rogue vs. your great sword wielding fighter for example). The only solution to this that I have ever seen is using a damage reduction dice rather than a static value as Monte Cook uses in his Iron Heroes game. So for example leather armour grants 1d4 damage reduction while full-plate grants 1d8. When damage reduction kicks in the player rolls their damage reduction dice and subtracts it from the damage they take.

This brings me to on to the change I was thinking of making to my game. I have always disliked the fact that (short of scoring a critical hit) the “to hit” roll has no real effect on the amount of damage an attack deals. On most occasions whether the damage from a successful hit is low or high depends only on the way the damage dice falls. I have been wondering if the game could be balanced around using the modified attack roll on the d20 to calculate damage. My early thoughts are this:

1) The attacker (a) rolls a d20 and adds any modifiers for proficiency and strength or dexterity as normal.

2) The defender (d) either rolls a d20 of their own or takes 10 (in the case of monsters this cuts down on the number of rolls) and adds their dexterity modifier and their proficiency modifier if they are 1) defending with a weapon they are proficient with or 2) they are proficient in dexterity saves (i.e. dodging). (This is equivalent to a dexterity save and the result sets the DC for “a” to hit them).

3) If “a’s” modified roll is higher than “d’s” modified roll the attack is a hit (which is pretty much what happens now but replacing armour bonuses with proficiency bonuses).

4) This is where things diverge a little more from the core rules. If the attack is successful “a” rolls a damage dice based on the weapon they are using e.g. 1d8 if using a long sword. Rather than adding any strength or dexterity modifier though they instead add this roll directly to the result of the modified attack roll they have just made. “d” dose the same with any damage reduction dice they have from the armour worn. They roll the dice and add the result directly to the modified roll they have just made (or the static DC used if they are a monster). “d’s” combined rolls are then subtracted from “a’s” combine rolls and the result is the damage dealt.

While this is meant to feel less abstract than bundling everything up in to AC (I think it dose) your mileage may vary. Both players and monsters would be taking more damage with this system so hit points will need to be adjusted (I think giving players maximum hit point per level rather than average might do it). Spell damage would need to be adjusted too. My question though is could this work with the right tweaking and if so what might those tweaks be?

 

[GMMichael]

It works as long as you don't mind the difference between offense and defense results being 15-20, which could be a lot of damage. The flip side is when your defender rolls 20, attacker rolls 1, and the defender's benefit for doing such a good job of defending is:
"attacker misses!"

This would would much better with 2d10 or 3d6 instead of d20. So much better, that it's on my drawing board for future rules/house rules.

 

[Orich Starkhart]

I think you could somewhat ameliorate the increase in damage by increasing the DR for heavier armor compared to what Iron Heroes suggested.

As a first pass, how about setting the variable DR so that the average result roughly equals the bonus to AC the armor provides in the unmodified D&D 5 game:

AC bonus DR dice
11 +1 d2
12 +2 d3
13 +3 d4+1
14 +4 d6+1
15 +5 d6+2
16 +6 d8+2
17 +7 d6+d4+1
18 +8 2d6+1

 

[trs31]

Thankyou both for the feedback.

DM Mike I agree that what I'm proposing could be a little "swingy" and I can see the benifits of using 2d10 rather than 1d20. I'd rather keep all checks the same though for the sake of consistency. I'm not sure how replacing all 1d20 checks with 2d10's would play. I had been considering using one of the optional action points systems so that players could avoid one or two really bad rolls.

I also see what you mean about no effect if a defender rolls really well. I don't think it would be unbalanced to give a defender that rolls a 20 advantage on their next melee attack if it is against the same opponent.

 

[RangerWickett]

My thought would be, for simplicity, have a flat Damage Reduction for armor.

Then, if you have a finesse weapon, and you have advantage, you can give up advantage on your attack roll in order to bypass DR. Basically, you need to knock a guy down if you want to stab through his eyeslit or armpit.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My thought would be, for simplicity, have a flat Damage Reduction for armor.

Then, if you have a finesse weapon, and you have advantage, you can give up advantage on your attack roll in order to bypass DR. Basically, you need to knock a guy down if you want to stab through his eyeslit or armpit.

Crits would of course rather naturally get around most DR, but you might also allow them to negate it as well, at least for such weapons.

 

[MoutonRustique]

The big problem of DR is how it plays out against multiple attacks Vs big single attacks.

If you're not afraid of some "complex" book-keeping, you could have DR be applicable only once per turn - in this way, you do not overly penalize multiple attack damage. On the other hand, you could then have the inverse effect - you could "waste" DR... So yeah, not a simple thing to do (w/o changing many things downstream).

Another option you could use would be to have the defender roll Vs the attacker's skill :

"A" rolls against "D" AC - on a hit, he rolls damage
"D" (roll = prof + armour bonus +d20) rolls against "A" skill (target = hit bonus +10) - on a "hit" he rolls mitigation
the ( ) values are brainstorming ideas - just off the top of my head

This creates an additional lever which can be pretty cool (new design space for items, feats, etc) or a huge hassle...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The big problem of DR is how it plays out against multiple attacks Vs big single attacks.

If you're not afraid of some "complex" book-keeping, you could have DR be applicable only once per turn - in this way, you do not overly penalize multiple attack damage. On the other hand, you could then have the inverse effect - you could "waste" DR... So yeah, not a simple thing to do (w/o changing many things downstream).

Another option you could use would be to have the defender roll Vs the attacker's skill :

"A" rolls against "D" AC - on a hit, he rolls damage
"D" (roll = prof + armour bonus +d20) rolls against "A" skill (target = hit bonus +10) - on a "hit" he rolls mitigation
the ( ) values are brainstorming ideas - just off the top of my head

This creates an additional lever which can be pretty cool (new design space for items, feats, etc) or a huge hassle...

I am not at all convinced that it is a problem. In the context of 4e-like games where I would probably apply such a rule its easy enough to simply write exceptions in the mechanics of individual powers. Basically if you naively bring your dagger to a fight with a bunch of plate-clad knights you're just screwed. I would suggest that in systems like this where choice of weapon could have a huge impact on your effectiveness that the game be geared towards facilitating characters ability to handle more than one type of weapon effectively. A lot of D&D doesn't care too much what weapon you use as a fighter, but all of them harshly punish most weapon choices for other classes. I think in general rogues are the MAIN issue, since they fight with weapons exclusively, generally use the smaller damage ones and get punished for using anything else. Writing in a 'back stab exception' for them seems like it would go a long ways.

 

[MoutonRustique]

I am not at all convinced that it is a problem. In the context of 4e-like games where I would probably apply such a rule its easy enough to simply write exceptions in the mechanics of individual powers. Basically if you naively bring your dagger to a fight with a bunch of plate-clad knights you're just screwed. I would suggest that in systems like this where choice of weapon could have a huge impact on your effectiveness that the game be geared towards facilitating characters ability to handle more than one type of weapon effectively. A lot of D&D doesn't care too much what weapon you use as a fighter, but all of them harshly punish most weapon choices for other classes. I think in general rogues are the MAIN issue, since they fight with weapons exclusively, generally use the smaller damage ones and get punished for using anything else. Writing in a 'back stab exception' for them seems like it would go a long ways.

I meant "problem" as in "issue" - i.e. if you don't want to adversely affect one fighting style over another with DR (i.e. making single attacks better than multiple attacks - since the original system did not factor in the additional reduction in damage.)

(IME) Rogues, especially with powers like backstab actually suffer the least from DR - as they do a single big damaging blow. Rangers and other multi-attackers (which includes fighters in 5e) would probably be those most affected. These rules can often have a non-negligible impact when applied to existing systems in terms of rewarding and punishing build choices.

My personal solution for this is to treat all a character's damage from a turn as a "single" damage instance - it has the benefit of fitting the narrative I prefer of what an "attack action" means in the context of a round : not a numbered quantity of telling strikes, but instead a more fluid "you had a good offense in that sequence" narrated as desired.

Lastly, I'd not have crits ignore DR - the increased damage already deals with that.

Lastly (for real this time), there is a fundamental question about the role you want DR to play that is essential : can it reduce damage to nil from a regular attack? This is very important with regards to how we deal with DR.
(a) it can reduce regular attacks to 0, then you open up a good deal of "hits that become none-hits, but still hits" that can cause a good deal of suspension whiplash - especially from the hp=meat crowd. I'd advise against it.
(b) no, DR only reduces somewhat the effects of a hit but should never really reduce by more than 60%(?) (with some very weak attacks possibly negated, but only rarely)

Solution (b) present much less troubles - on the other hand, it can be harder to calibrate and requires to be quite aware of damage figures whenever you play with DR values... But it is still the path I would suggest.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I meant "problem" as in "issue" - i.e. if you don't want to adversely affect one fighting style over another with DR (i.e. making single attacks better than multiple attacks - since the original system did not factor in the additional reduction in damage.)

(IME) Rogues, especially with powers like backstab actually suffer the least from DR - as they do a single big damaging blow. Rangers and other multi-attackers (which includes fighters in 5e) would probably be those most affected. These rules can often have a non-negligible impact when applied to existing systems in terms of rewarding and punishing build choices.

My personal solution for this is to treat all a character's damage from a turn as a "single" damage instance - it has the benefit of fitting the narrative I prefer of what an "attack action" means in the context of a round : not a numbered quantity of telling strikes, but instead a more fluid "you had a good offense in that sequence" narrated as desired.

Lastly, I'd not have crits ignore DR - the increased damage already deals with that.

Lastly (for real this time), there is a fundamental question about the role you want DR to play that is essential : can it reduce damage to nil from a regular attack? This is very important with regards to how we deal with DR.
(a) it can reduce regular attacks to 0, then you open up a good deal of "hits that become none-hits, but still hits" that can cause a good deal of suspension whiplash - especially from the hp=meat crowd. I'd advise against it.
(b) no, DR only reduces somewhat the effects of a hit but should never really reduce by more than 60%(?) (with some very weak attacks possibly negated, but only rarely)

Solution (b) present much less troubles - on the other hand, it can be harder to calibrate and requires to be quite aware of damage figures whenever you play with DR values... But it is still the path I would suggest.

Yeah, I'm more coming at it from the standpoint of someone doing deep mods to a game anyway, so I am not so concerned about how fighters and rogues do or do not work now, I'd just retool them to work in a way that is viable with the new system.

As for meat-point adherents and their verisimilitude issues... First I don't see why a 'non-damaging hit' has to offend them all that much, the dagger bit into the guy's armor, but it was just too strong, the point never never got through to flesh. If there's some additional effect that needs to be triggered it could be reliant on doing damage vs hitting, or in many cases it may not be a problem if the effect is say a knockback, or a magical effect, etc. And finally, not everyone can be pleased. If I'm writing my own rules it is to please me, not other people. If anyone else can use what I do and enjoy it great, but the point would be missed if I had to compromise my fun to cater to them. I imagine they'll be welcome to do their own hacks and conversions, and if I ever produce something that is fit to show to other people I expect they'll be free to hack on that too.

Oh, and lastly, I don't really have a big problem with a "you never do less than 1 damage" rule. In fact I'd probably arrange it such that 0 damage was very unlikely to start with.