Armor as Damage Reduction (how to make it work for you)

[Sonofapreacherman]

Hello again Dogbrain.

Oddly enough, there are piercing weapons that DO have just this sort of momentum, given that they are to be swung and tend to have a lot of mass. War "hammers" are swung piercing weapons (they're really a type of pick). Picks are swung piercing weapons. Halberds can be used as swung piercing weapons.

I was strictly referring to the stylized variant combat rules, more than the hard and fast reality of it.



That said, I am still interested in the realistic models. This thing is ... I would presume that the weapons you mentioned have two weapon qualities. The type of hammer pick you mentioned would be both a bludgeon and piercing weapon (depending on the side you use). Halberds are slashing and piercing weapons, depending on whether you swing with the axe blade or jab with the pointed end.

 

[feydras]

picture this...

Phaedra approaches the huge orc with shortsword drawn circling in warily. In a sudden move, she lunges forward feinting and stabbing. No fool, the orc effortlessly knocks aside the puny blade with his large dented shield. With a bark and a grin he follows with a slashing blow cutting a line across the elf's fine chainshirt and drawing first blood. Phaedra's heart races as she spins and tumbles left turning the orc's potentially lethal follow-up blow into merely a graze. Catching her footing, her warrior instincts return her calm bring with it a deadly focus.

The orc swings his battleaxe in a vicious arc but the elf slips in, meeting the swing and lifts the huge axe, ducking slightly, over her head. Phaedra's finely tuned battle instincts waste no time reacting to the orc's vulnerable opening. Realizing her sword stands little chance of penetrating the thick steel breastplate the orc wears, she skillfully twists her blade, bringing it down to strike at the beast's exposed legs. It is a devastating blow. Blood spurts as green skin and dark tendons are torn from his leg. The orc buckles and staggers. Phaedra tumbles to avoid a wild blow and springs back to her feet several yards from the enraged orc. The orc stumbles after her favoring his wounded leg as she gracefully puts some ground between the two. Moments later, a good hundred feet away Phaedra draws her longbow and peppers the exposed orc who stands bellowing in the open clearing. He scans frantically for cover, but sees only open rock and dirt. Arrow after well placed arrow pierce the fleeing orc's steel and bury into his flesh as he races, stumbling and tripping, towards a copse of trees in the distance. He never makes it.


Sorry, didn't mean to make this so long. The point was to emphasize the tactical options that become available using called shots, armor as DR, and piecemeal armor together.

My biggest challenge with a combo system is that the easier chance to hit (due to EC being lower than AC was) would translate into perhaps too easy of a chance to make a called shot. This seems a very workable problem, but I was hoping to get some other thoughts on it.

For a called shot effect i like the basic idea of 'Torn Asunder' by Bastion Press. Basically a successful called shot is a critical to the location which has an effect, instead of just more damage. A normal critical has a chance to result in an effect as well.

- feydras

 

[feydras]

compiled rule

sonofapreacherman,

At some point, as your system gells, can you post the Armor as DR complete rules with all the addendums and complimenting feats, in one attached file?

It would be easier to see all the rules together than weed through the growing thread to get them all.

Also, could you post the called shot rules that you had developed, even if you decided not to use it. And can i ask why you decided not to use it? Was it just to avoid the added complication or did it have some flaw that made it unworkable?

Again, thanks for the great work.

- feydras

 

[Spatzimaus]

It almost seemed like you were "thinking out loud", during some of it.

Yeah, I ramble a lot, and come up with stuff as I go. It makes the posts really long, of course, especially if they include math (like this one will).

The most important of which is that piercing weapons halve AC as damage reduction. That includes arrows. But piecing weapons cannot be used to power attack, lacking the prerequisite swing of a bludgeon or slashing weapon to build up momentum.

Good change, and it solves the archer issue, although you'd have to have a special setup for the multi-type weapons (a halberd is both slashing and piercing; do you force the player to declare which way he's using it when he attacks? Actually, that's not a bad idea. If he pokes with it, he gets DR penetration but can't Power Attack.)

It also makes spears a good weapon again.

This is because shields offer a much greater bonus to EC than the printed version of AC (about twice as much in most cases).

Good, D&D shields are just dinky.

Moreover, light weapons gain a +4 on parry rolls, single-handed weapons gain no bonus, and two-handed weapons take a -4 penalty on parry rolls.

You're giving a lot of bonuses to small weapons. Suggestion? Make light weapons always do 1/2 STR bonus, like an offhand weapon did before. That'll make up for the parry bonus. Also, have the Enhancement bonus to armor AC not be halved, since it'll be directly opposing the enhancement on the weapon. (Enhancement for weapons costs twice as much as for armor, and always gives +1 damage and +1 attack, so armor and shield enhancement should always give their +1 AC or EC, respectively). So, +4 Full Plate would be +12 AC normally, +8 against piercing weapons.

Alternately: give everyone Weapon Finesse, but require it. That is, if you pick up a dagger it'll always use your DEX to attack, even if your STR bonus is higher, because it's just not the sort of weapon that can power through defenses. Since these weapons tend to be piercing, it's not really a nerf.

Also, with those numbers it sounds just like the disarm/grapple rules, with +4 per size category difference. You could just have "parry" be a subset of the disarm rules or vice versa, which'd tie it into the existing feats pretty well.

You have to want more than simply... roll dice, beat AC, roll damage. You have to want a lot more tension in your combat for a little extra time (which quickly diminishes, in my experience, once the learning curve is over).

Sure, as long as a character concept that was useful before doesn't become totally irrelevant, a bit of complexity is a good thing.
Back when 3E first came out I wished they would have gone to more of a GURPS-style system with both avoidance and mitigation built into it; in D&D, DR is rare and almost always the result of magic. If DR was more common, to where everyone had at least a LITTLE, it'd add a lot more strategy to combat, without greatly increasing the time needed. That's why I agree with the basic concept of your system, it's just that I think the nuts and bolts need a bit of tweaking.

Except that the fighter and their good BAB hasn't made their parry roll yet, which can easily negate the bad BAB attack in the first place.

But he could parry a non-Sneak Attack roll just as easily, right? I'm not talking about whether offensive abilities are overpowered under your system, since clearly you've inserted more defensive options into the system. The issue I'm trying to bring up is that people depending on high-damage abilities like Sneak Attack will be stronger relative to a "normal" attack than they were in 3E, simply because these extras will kick in more often, regardless of AC, and AC won't really help against Sneak Attack (since your AC will basically be "used up" absorbing the base weapon damage).

Except that the Max Dexterity Bonus for armor also limits their BAB Dexterity bonus.

I wasn't mentioning Max DEX in this one. My point was that if I have a class that averages 10-15 damage per hit and hits ~50% of the time, I won't see any substantial change in damage output.

But that brings up another point: why bother with heavy armor now? As it was, in 3E there wasn't much reason to wear heavy armors, and you've made it even less desirable. It limits your attack bonus, it limits your EC, and the little bit of extra DR can be bypassed with piercing weapons, Sneak Attack, and Power Attack.

I presume you mean AC as damage reduction? If so, that is how it works now, so I'm not sure of your point here. You subtract your AC as damage reduction value from the damage you are dealt. Same thing really.

No, that's not what I meant. What I was trying to say:

OLD WAY:
1> Total the physical damage (weapon damage + enhancement + STR + Sneak Attack + Power Attack + Favored Enemy + critical hits)
2> Subtract AC, to a minimum of zero.
3> If the result is greater than zero, the nondamaging effects (poison and disease) kick in.
4> Nonphysical damage sources (Flaming) are treated separately, opposed by elemental resists.

This is how 3E works (with the caveat that the "AC" (DR) in step 2 is practically nonexistent for most targets), and I didn't see anything in your post that changed this.

MY SUGGESTED WAY:
1> Total the "base" physical damage (weapon damage + enhancement + STR).
2> Subtract AC, to a minimum of zero.
3> If the result is greater than zero, the "extra" physical damage (Sneak Attack + Power Attack + Favored Enemy + critical hits) and nondamaging effects (poison and disease) kick in.
4> Nonphysical damage sources (Flaming) are treated separately, opposed by elemental resists.

See the difference? All those extra damage sources were moved from #1 to #3, so you can't deal Sneak Attack damage unless the dagger would have penetrated the armor/DR in its own right. It makes sense for Sneak Attack and Favored Enemy (can't hit the vulnerable spot if your weapon can't penetrate), and for Power Attack... well, it keeps it from being too powerful, I'm sure you can come up with a flavor reason.

There, instant reason to have heavy armor again. It's like the Fortification ability; Full Plate may only stop 3 points more damage than a Breastplate (piddly at high level), but it also REALLY cuts down on the number of critical hits and sneak attacks you'll take.

Example:
All nonmagical. Attacker has a longsword, STR 14. Defender A is in full plate (AC 8), Defender B is in a breastplate (AC 5). Defender C is in a robe (AC 0). The attacker hits in all three cases (yes, I know he'll be more likely to miss C than A).

Without a crit it'd just be a straightforward "AC of X reduces by X points" for both methods:
A takes (1d8+2)-8 damage (only taking damage on 25% of attacks, for an average of 0.375 points)
B takes (1d8+2)-5 damage (only taking damage on 62.5% of attacks, for an average of 1.875 points)
C takes (1d8+2)-0 damage (always taking damage, for an average of 6.5 points)

Under your system, the plate-clad guy is nearly invulnerable to this sort of attack, while the robe-wearing guy gets sliced and diced easily. The relative ratio is 1huge.
With your 1/2AC penetrating rule, a rapier would do much better against A (1d6+2-4 doing 1.375 damage on average) and slightly worse against C (average 5.5 points). All of these trends I can agree with.

Now let's pretend he gets a critical hit (x2 damage, adding another 1d8+2 damage, which is about the same as +2d6 Sneak Attack); the two methods diverge:

OLD WAY:
A takes (2d8+4)-8 damage (median 5 points, almost always taking damage.)
B takes (2d8+4)-5 damage (average 8 points, always taking damage)
C takes 2d8+4 damage (average 13 points, always taking damage)

The difference in ACs becomes really minor, since it's only applied once. You could fix this by doubling/tripling AC on crits (that is, it's subtracted from each instance of the base weapon damage), I suppose, but that doesn't help for Sneak Attacks or any of the other things I mentioned.

MY WAY:
A only takes damage if (1d8+2)-8 > 0 (25% of the time), and if he does then he takes an average of 5 points of damage. Net: 1.25 damage per hit (median, not mean).
B takes damage if (1d8+2)-5 > 0 (62.5% of the time), and if he does then he takes an average of 8 points. Net: 5 damage per hit.
C will always take damage, an average of 13 points per hit.

The higher AC had an impact beyond just the straight +X points of damage reduction, which really helps make up for the inherent problems of heavy armor. And, the relative damage ratios between A, B, and C are a lot closer to what it is on non-critical hits.
Again, it's not just an occasional thing involving Sneak Attack or crits, I could do the same math with the 2-for-1 Power Attack in 3.5E.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

feydras.

Thank you for that fiction. When something is enjoyable to read, it doesn't seem long at all.



As for the variant combat system, I anticipate my web site will be going live any day now. You can find the entire combat system there, plus a whole lot more.

If you are interested, send me your e-mail by clicking here, and I will let you when that happens.

As for the called shot system, I didn't want to bog the system down with even more rules, although it seemed to work fine.

Basically, as I remember those rules, it worked using size modifiers.

Generic hit: Roll normal.

Torso: Treat as 1 size smaller than target.
Arm/leg/pseudopod/tentacle: Treat as 2 sizes smaller than target.
Hand/head/foot: Treat as 3 sizes smaller than target.
Claw/finger/toe: Treat as 4 sizes smaller than target.
Ear/eye/nose: Treat as 5 sizes smaller than target.
Single hair: Treat as 6 sizes smaller than target.
Single pore: Treat as 7 sizes smaller than target.
Anything smaller: Treat as 8 sizes smaller than target.

Meaning ...

If the EC of a medium human was 10, then the EC for an eye would be 26.
If the EC of a colossal dragon was 2 (10 - 8 for size), then the EC for an eye would be 11.
If the EC of a fine insect was 18 (10 + 8 for size), then the EC for an eye would be 274.

Lastly, I wanted to ask you, what do you mean by "piecemeal" armor exactly?

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Yeah, I ramble a lot, and come up with stuff as I go.

My brain works the same way.

You're giving a lot of bonuses to small weapons. Suggestion? Make light weapons always do 1/2 STR bonus, like an offhand weapon did before. That'll make up for the parry bonus. Also, have the Enhancement bonus to armor AC not be halved, since it'll be directly opposing the enhancement on the weapon. (Enhancement for weapons costs twice as much as for armor, and always gives +1 damage and +1 attack, so armor and shield enhancement should always give their +1 AC or EC, respectively). So, +4 Full Plate would be +12 AC normally, +8 against piercing weapons.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree. Enchanted armor doesn't work the same way as version 3.0 anymore. A +1 weapon can sunder a +2 weapon now, but the +2 weapon has a higher Hardness rating and more hit points. Meaning, enchantment bonuses are not invulnerable anymore. As such, halving the +12 AC of +4 full plate mail is already benefiting from the magical enchantment (by the fact that halving it comes to +6 instead of the regular +4 for mundane plate mail).

Alternately: give everyone Weapon Finesse, but require it. That is, if you pick up a dagger it'll always use your DEX to attack, even if your STR bonus is higher, because it's just not the sort of weapon that can power through defenses. Since these weapons tend to be piercing, it's not really a nerf.

This was first tenant of the variant combat system (back on page 1 in my original post). Dexterity modifies all attacks now; ranged and melee.

Also, with those numbers it sounds just like the disarm/grapple rules, with +4 per size category difference. You could just have "parry" be a subset of the disarm rules or vice versa, which'd tie it into the existing feats pretty well.

Indeed, that was the idea. Glad you noticed it.

Sure, as long as a character concept that was useful before doesn't become totally irrelevant, a bit of complexity is a good thing.

Unfortunately, this is a possibility, however remote. A kind dungeon master, who is intent on using the variant combat system, should let their player's change any combat oriented feats that are directly affected.

Back when 3E first came out I wished they would have gone to more of a GURPS-style system with both avoidance and mitigation built into it; in D&D, DR is rare and almost always the result of magic. If DR was more common, to where everyone had at least a LITTLE, it'd add a lot more strategy to combat, without greatly increasing the time needed. That's why I agree with the basic concept of your system, it's just that I think the nuts and bolts need a bit of tweaking.

Believe you me, the nuts and bolts of the variant combat system are addressed on my web site (soon to go public).

But that brings up another point: why bother with heavy armor now? As it was, in 3E there wasn't much reason to wear heavy armors, and you've made it even less desirable. It limits your attack bonus, it limits your EC, and the little bit of extra DR can be bypassed with piercing weapons, Sneak Attack, and Power Attack.

I would say that all heavily armored warrior-types don't rely on Dexterity *right now*, and usually keep their Dexterity low and their Strength and Constitution high. So to answer your question, there is more reason to wear heavy armor now, because any additional damage reduction you can get is always going to be a good thing. Sure there are high damage "inflicting" characters out there, but they will not be everyday opponents, and moreover, there *should* be characters that make heavily armored opponents a little scared.

MY SUGGESTED WAY:
1> Total the "base" physical damage (weapon damage + enhancement + STR).
2> Subtract AC, to a minimum of zero.
3> If the result is greater than zero, the "extra" physical damage (Sneak Attack + Power Attack + Favored Enemy + critical hits) and nondamaging effects (poison and disease) kick in.
4> Nonphysical damage sources (Flaming) are treated separately, opposed by elemental resists.

Okay, I see what you are saying here now. But I disagree with everything except sneak attack. Power Attack, favored enemy, and critical hits "should" contribute to overcoming armor as damage reduction. Those are largely the only options available to players trying to do so.

As for Sneak Attack, I see your point here most of all. It seems logical to me because sneak attack is already considered "extra" damage. Meaning it is not subject to multipliers. For that reason alone, I would leave sneak attack out of Step 1, as you put it (along with any other types of "extra damage", which includes flaming effects). Basically, any type of damage that cannot be multiplied cannot therefore overcome damage reduction.

Or ... just add it in normally. Because, after all, sneak attack is meant to be devastating. It is devastating in the current system and should be devastating in the variant combat system. Again, I am trying to keep the variant combat system simple, while also adding in some small degree of complexity.

Without a crit it'd just be a straightforward "AC of X reduces by X points" for both methods:
A takes (1d8+2)-8 damage (only taking damage on 25% of attacks, for an average of 0.375 points)
B takes (1d8+2)-5 damage (only taking damage on 62.5% of attacks, for an average of 1.875 points)
C takes (1d8+2)-0 damage (always taking damage, for an average of 6.5 points)

Under your system, the plate-clad guy is nearly invulnerable to this sort of attack, while the robe-wearing guy gets sliced and diced easily.

Except, as I will point out again, opponents A, B, and C all get to make parry attempts if they choose to do so. Parrying is no small addition to the game. Your math should take that into account as well.

Now let's pretend he gets a critical hit (x2 damage, adding another 1d8+2 damage, which is about the same as +2d6 Sneak Attack); the two methods diverge:

OLD WAY:
A takes (2d8+4)-8 damage (median 5 points, almost always taking damage.)
B takes (2d8+4)-5 damage (average 8 points, always taking damage)
C takes 2d8+4 damage (average 13 points, always taking damage)

The difference in ACs becomes really minor, since it's only applied once. You could fix this by doubling/tripling AC on crits (that is, it's subtracted from each instance of the base weapon damage) ...

Not to harp on this point, but critical or no, sneak attack or no, a parry can still negate it. Yes, it is easier to strike these characters, but if they are equal opponent warriors, you can count on at least one-half those attacks being deflected aside.

By breaking up damage into different *components* of damage (before damage reduction) smacks of way too much math during combat. And math during combat is the death of combat. Moreover, I am not convinced it is even needed. As I said earlier, I am not trying to reconfigure the whole kit and caboodle here. With a shield, EC is only a little less than the printed version for AC, but you get armor as damage reduction to boot (which characters never had before).

To me, that sounds like I am offering more protection to the characters than they ever had, while also giving them more combat options. That said, your point about "extra" sneak attack damage is still resonating with me. Let me think on it some more ...

 

[Spatzimaus]

Here comes a long one.

Enchanted armor doesn't work the same way as version 3.0 anymore. A +1 weapon can sunder a +2 weapon now, but the +2 weapon has a higher Hardness rating and more hit points.

I wasn't talking about sunder. Here's what I mean:

WEAPON: 2k gp, provides +1 attack (which opposes EC) and +1 damage (which opposes AC).

SHIELD: 1k gp, provides +1 EC
ARMOR: 1k gp, provides +1 AC

They're balanced right now; a +1 enchantment on a weapon exactly counteracts a +1 armor and a +1 shield, and they cost the same. But, if you add a situation where that +1 on the armor only adds +1/2 AC, it no longer cancels. It's a minor difference, and in non-Epic situations it's probably easy to ignore. It also makes enchanting your shield inherently more desirable than enchanting your armor, since the shield bonus would never be cut in half.

Hmm... idea: what if blunt weapons cut the shield EC in half, in the same way piercing weapons cut armor AC in half? Blunt weapons are about raw kinetic energy, and that's a bit harder to deflect with a shield than the edge of a blade is. Okay, it may be rationalization, but it'd make people use blunt weapons again, and help make up for their lousy crit ranges.

I would say that all heavily armored warrior-types don't rely on Dexterity *right now*, and usually keep their Dexterity low and their Strength and Constitution high.

Sure, but I'm arguing the other direction: I have no motivation to choose the heavy-armored archtype, since I get far more benefit from trying to keep my DEX high and go with light armor. Even if my DEX stinks (which seems to be suicide under your system), the benefit I'd gain from using heavier armor just isn't that much.

A high-DEX character in light armor would have good initiative, Reflex saves, EC, and attack rolls.
A character in heavy armor gets a few extra points of DR.

It's just not even close. You were saying that every little bit of DR helps, but what I was trying to show with the math was that if the attacker can do a large amount of damage per hit (with the Sneak Attacking Rogue as the primary example), the armor protection becomes almost inconsequential, and is vastly inferior to raising your EC.

Okay, I see what you are saying here now. But I disagree with everything except sneak attack. Power Attack, favored enemy, and critical hits "should" contribute to overcoming armor as damage reduction. Those are largely the only options available to players trying to do so.

Things that go before the AC check should be things that help you find the weak points in the "exterior" protection (armor or natural armor); things that go afterwards should be those that involve finding the anatomy of the creature inside that protection.
Favored Enemy (extensive knowledge of the creature type) can go in the first group. (It'd be even better if it was 1 point on each group, but that's too complicated)
Sneak attack definitely should be in the second. Crits I put in the same category as sneak attacks: hitting some critical organ by chance, so they'd go in the second too.
Power Attack, conceptually, should go in the first group (before the check), but then that just gets really, really powerful if you use the 3.5E 2-for-1 rule since ECs are now somewhat lower in your system than in stock D&D. If you remove that doubling I think it'd be fine.

As for how you can bypass DR, there are still a few options. Piercing weapons or high STR go a long ways. Magical weapons, especially if you add a "Sure Striking" sort of enchantment. Change what Adamantium does, to fit more with the "flavor". Armor in general shouldn't be trivial to bypass; if I'm using a longsword and my enemy is in full plate, there really SHOULDN'T be an easy solution that lets me trivialize his armor. I should have to pull out the right kind of weapon.

But okay, move Favored Enemy and Power Attack back to before the check, but only if you return Power Attack to its old 3E form. I'd still leave crits after, though (see the math in the last post).

For that reason alone, I would leave sneak attack out of Step 1, as you put it (along with any other types of "extra damage", which includes flaming effects). Basically, any type of damage that cannot be multiplied cannot therefore overcome damage reduction.

Exactly, although it's not necessary for things like Flaming, since DR never bothered it before anyway.

It is devastating in the current system and should be devastating in the variant combat system.

It's not THAT devastating in the current system. Someone in heavy armor in 3E isn't very susceptible to Sneak Attacks, since their high AC would mean the Rogue would miss a lot. Right now, heavily-armored Fighters seem to have an edge versus Rogues in a 1-on-1 fight, while this swings it the other way.

Except, as I will point out again, opponents A, B, and C all get to make parry attempts if they choose to do so.

That's not relevant to this discussion, and here's the step by step logic that explains why:

1> On a normal hit, someone in full plate will only take a small fraction (1/4th to 1/5th) of the damage someone in medium armor would take on a per-hit basis.
2> You say that the parry and EC rules keep this balanced.
3> And now the key step: I believe you. This is what allows me to ignore the specifics of the Parry rules. I accept your assertion that the balance in step 1 is as it should be once the minutae of your system are applied.
4> Therefore, someone in full plate SHOULD only take a small fraction of the per-hit damage someone in medium armor would, with parrying and your DEX rules presumably balancing the scales.
5> Now, I add in some repeatable damage source (say, Sneak Attack) that greatly skews the numbers so that the relative difference between the two types is far less significant (more like 1/2 to 2/3).
6> Ergo, we no longer have balance.

If the balance point for Parry/EC was somewhere between these two extremes, then it'd be fine for things like critical hits, which affect all players more or less equally, but if it's something specific to a single class then there's a problem.

By breaking up damage into different *components* of damage (before damage reduction) smacks of way too much math during combat.

But, it's math you're already doing. When you score a critical hit, you're already keeping track of two quantities: those things that multiply, and those that don't. The same goes here, especially if you split it exactly that way (as we discussed above), with variable effects going after the AC check.

It's no overhead change at all. If I have a +2 longsword, STR 14, and a +2d6 Sneak Attack, I already list my weapon damage as "1d8 + 4 + 2d6". This is not a change from 3E; you already had to list weapons this way for when you considered crits.

So, it's easy:
> The first number (1d8) is the "base weapon damage". It's the only variable amount that is multiplied on a crit, and only the "original" amount goes before the AC check under my suggestion. (This may seem awkward, but think of it the other direction: all variable effects go after the AC check, with the sole exception of the weapon's base d8)
> The second number (4) is from things like high STR, Favored Enemy, and Power Attack. It multiplies on a crit, and always goes before the AC check.
> The third number (2d6) is from things like Sneak Attack. It doesn't multiply on a crit, and always goes after the AC check.

So, the player wants to know if he penetrated the armor. He rolls the first two numbers as listed (1d8+4), with no need to calculate crits yet. Check to see if the AC was exceeded.
If he fails, he's done and he's actually reduced the amount of rolling he had to do.
If he succeeds and it wasn't a crit, he just rolls the third number and adds it to his existing total.
If he succeeds and it WAS a crit, he rolls all three (well, the second one doesn't actually need "rolling") and adds it to his existing total.

Besides, if you think that's bad, you should see my AC lines: I list everything out source by source, grouped into the "always on", "doesn't help with touch attacks" and "lost when flat-footed" groups. Same concept.

With a shield, EC is only a little less than the printed version for AC, but you get armor as damage reduction to boot (which characters never had before).

Without a shield, your EC will be quite a bit less than the printed version for AC. A character in +2 plate armor but no shield will have an EC 10 lower than his old AC, which makes a huge difference in to-hit chances. Add in Natural Armor and it gets worse.
So, if everyone was in light armor and/or used a shield, yes, the EC will be comparable to the old AC. And, the changes you've introduce definitely seem to skew the balance that way. I'd go Leather Armor + Large Shield + Rapier, personally.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

I wasn't talking about sunder.

You may not have been talking about sunder, but it does illustrate my point. Enchantment bonuses do not make magical items untouchable anymore. As such, an enchantment bonus to armor does not make it immune to piercing weapons that halve their AC as damage reduction.

They're balanced right now; a +1 enchantment on a weapon exactly counteracts a +1 armor and a +1 shield, and they cost the same. But, if you add a situation where that +1 on the armor only adds +1/2 AC, it no longer cancels. It's a minor difference, and in non-Epic situations it's probably easy to ignore.

Armor would only be cut in half by piercing weapons. That still leaves the vast majority of slashing an bludgeoning weapons that can 2 for 1 Power Attack. At epic levels, that is far more appealling than a 1/2 AC piercing weapon which cannot Power Attack at all.

Hmm... idea: what if blunt weapons cut the shield EC in half, in the same way piercing weapons cut armor AC in half? Blunt weapons are about raw kinetic energy, and that's a bit harder to deflect with a shield than the edge of a blade is. Okay, it may be rationalization, but it'd make people use blunt weapons again, and help make up for their lousy crit ranges.

Sure, but I'm arguing the other direction: I have no motivation to choose the heavy-armored archtype, since I get far more benefit from trying to keep my DEX high and go with light armor. Even if my DEX stinks (which seems to be suicide under your system), the benefit I'd gain from using heavier armor just isn't that much.

I think characters will always want damage reduction, especially against opponents that are easy to hit. Both heavily and lightly armored characters will be desirable, just in different situations.

A high-DEX character in light armor would have good initiative, Reflex saves, EC, and attack rolls.
A character in heavy armor gets a few extra points of DR.

A few extra DR points? Those few extra points are pretty serious (as my example later on will illustrate). Not to mentioned the benefit of high priority Strength (without focusing on Dexterity) to squash all those lightly-armored types with little or no armor as damage reduction to protect them.



Moreover, and this might be a shocker, the variant combat system relegates Initiative to Wisdom, making it more about "instinct" and "perception" (two hallmarks of Wisdom) than physical quickness. A good initiative bonus becomes more about "getting the bigger picture" around you.

I think some people will suffer from Dexterity withdrawal, until they realize how unimportant a Dexterity bonus is next to their base attack bonus. Even when Dexterity modifies all attack rolls, as it does in the variant combat system.

It's just not even close. You were saying that every little bit of DR helps, but what I was trying to show with the math was that if the attacker can do a large amount of damage per hit (with the Sneak Attacking Rogue as the primary example), the armor protection becomes almost inconsequential, and is vastly inferior to raising your EC.

The idea of *not* adding "extra damage" (which cannot be multiplied) to determine if AC as damage reduction is overcome in the first place, has grown on me overnight. My biggest concern, as always, remains how to "design" such a mechanic to work seamlessly in the variant combat system. It might all be in the phrasing ...

Things that go before the AC check should be things that help you find the weak points in the "exterior" protection (armor or natural armor); things that go afterwards should be those that involve finding the anatomy of the creature inside that protection.

Way too much complexity. The last thing the variant system should do is compartmentalize *stages* of damage. That just screams "no fun!". When combat starts, player's want to enjoy the fluidness of it. The variant combat system already adds one extra step. I am loathe to add any more.

Favored Enemy (extensive knowledge of the creature type) can go in the first group. (It'd be even better if it was 1 point on each group, but that's too complicated)
Sneak attack definitely should be in the second. Crits I put in the same category as sneak attacks: hitting some critical organ by chance, so they'd go in the second too.

It is relatively easy to say that all "extra" damage (meaning, non-multipliable damage) is only added to the final damage if at least 1 point of multipliable damage is dealt beforehand. To add any more exceptions, like criticals, would bog it down. Criticals are not necessarily organ finders. They represent many combat factors, not the least of which is plain old *luck*.

Power Attack, conceptually, should go in the first group (before the check), but then that just gets really, really powerful if you use the 3.5E 2-for-1 rule since ECs are now somewhat lower in your system than in stock D&D. If you remove that doubling I think it'd be fine.

The 2 for 1 rules is balanced by the piercing weapon rule.

Later on, there is a feat called Piercing Power Attack. It requires two hands and can only exchange 1 for 1.

Besides, if you think that's bad, you should see my AC lines: I list everything out source by source, grouped into the "always on", "doesn't help with touch attacks" and "lost when flat-footed" groups. Same concept.

Ha ha! But you and I are rare creatures indeed! For the most part, people enjoy the simplicity of combat. I feel that tide is shifting now, but only a little bit, and it will never shift completely to high realism. To give characters the ability to parry is akin to empowering them with the ability to save their own necks. Player's like that. It's the only reason why I think it will fly. With parrying, however, comes a whole slew of related changes necessitated by the introduction of such a mechanic. In short, I don't want to push it, for fear the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater. Parrying is a good idea for d20 combat. Both parrying, and the accompanying variant combat system, need to remain simple.

Okay, that said, you have convinced me that adding "extra" damage, like sneak attack damage and (to my way of thinking) extra magical damage, afterwards is a good balanced idea.

A character in +2 plate armor but no shield will have an EC 10 lower than his old AC, which makes a huge difference in to-hit chances. Add in Natural Armor and it gets worse.
So, if everyone was in light armor and/or used a shield, yes, the EC will be comparable to the old AC. And, the changes you've introduce definitely seem to skew the balance that way. I'd go Leather Armor + Large Shield + Rapier, personally.

All I can say is ... don't get hit.

It will hurt your character to death, while you will only be doing bits and pieces of damage with your rapier against that +2 plate armor opponent. Sure, the rapier will cut the AC10 down to AC5, but your average weapon damage will be 3 (rapier) + 2 or 3 (assuming your Dexterity is a greater priority than your Strength) + 2 (magic rapier).

Let's say you and your opponent are 10th level fighters. You will hit the heavily armored fighter virtually every time, but only do an average of 2 or 3 points of damage.

Meanwhile, the heavily armored fighter will be two-handing a greatsword. Your EC with a kite shield (-6 penalty to all movement based skills) will be something like 10 + 4 (shield) + 5 (Dexterity) + 2 (miscellaneous EC magic) = EC 21. At 10th level, you both enjoy a base attack bonus of +10. That means the heavily armored fighter, with an equivalent magic weapon to your +2 magic rapier, will be hitting your EC a little more than half of the time, and one-third of the time on their second attack.

Now look at the damage. The heavily armored greatsword wielder deals an average of 7 (greatsword) + 7 (+5 Strength bonus x 1.5 for two-handed usage) + 2 (magic greatsword) = 16 – 2 (leather armor) for an average of 14 points of damage. That's 7 to 4 times more average damage than you are dealing with a rapier.

Once again, all I can say is don't miss your parry rolls. Fortunately, the odds favor you there. Your total parry roll will be 10 (base attack bonus) + 5 (Dexterity) + 2 (magic rapier) for a +17 bonus. The heavily armored fighter's parry roll will be 10 (base attack bonus) + 2 (magic greatsword) – 4 (two-handed weapon) for a +8 bonus. That's a whopping 45% advantage for you in the parry arena.

But you can only parry once per round. So if the heavily armored opponent hits you more than once per round with a +12/+7 base attack spread, you have no option but to simply take the damage. That's a 60% hit chance on the first attack (hitting on a 9+) and a 35% hit chance on the second attack (hitting on a 14+).

So far it's all sounding pretty even, although I think your lightly armored fighter is only delaying their inevitable defeat. The first special attack I would attempt would be to sunder their magical rapier (without using the Improved Sunder feat). And if you used your attack of opportunity against me for making an untrained sunder attack, then I would devote my second 35% attack (1 in 3) to attack you directly, without any fear that you could parry it away.

I wouldn't underestimate heavily armored opponents in the variant combat system. They can take take damage and simply not care.

 

[willpax]

I've been lurking here for a while and use a variant armor as DR system myself, but like what I think is going on here. Have I missed the straightforward summation of your rules somewhere?

 

[slingbld]

Now the biggest criticism I hear towards using armor damage reduction is that weak melee weapons simply fail to break through high damage reduction armor.

Well, here's a controversial thought. Why should they? What man in their right mind would go up to a fighter in full plate armor wielding an dagger? They might score a critical hit, and with a decent Strength bonus, do some insignificant amount of damage, but it's largely pointless. You should be thinking about another (perhaps non-melee based) way to damage such an opponent.

Only problem is that Daggers (well dirks which are daggers in a sense, at least in D20 standards) were designed specifically to penetrate armors.
I can see this being overcome by introducing specific weapons (such as Dirks) that can ignore a certain amount of damage rduction. But that can start to slow the system down.