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

[Sonofapreacherman]

I've been using armor as damage reduction for a while now, and with no significant slow down in game play (after the initial learning curve). But I did have to make some systemic changes to combat.

First of all, I made it so that Dexterity modifies "all" attack rolls to hit.

This may seem like a strange way to convert armor into damage reduction, but if you just bear with me, it will all make sense.

If Dexterity is now integral to aiming your shots "and" guiding your blows, then one has to wonder ... what are you hitting exactly? My answer to that question is simple.

The surface.

Meaning ... when Dexterity modifies all attack rolls (not just ranged) then you are no longer rolling to "overcome" armor; you are rolling to "hit" your opponent, and nothing more. This is essentially no different than making a touch attack. If you can wrap your mind around that concept, then you are well on your way to understanding how this variant combat system works.

Armor Class (AC) still exists in this variant combat system, but it serves a completely different purpose. Evasion Class (EC) replaces the old function of Armor Class, so that you roll against your opponent's Evasion Class in order to score a hit (which, once again, equates to making a touch attack). In order to damage your opponent after a successful attack, roll damage normally but subtract their Armor Class (AC) from that amount (which means that Armor Class basically equates to damage reduction). Armor Class (AC) is the sum of your armor bonus, natural armor, and damage reduction.

Stacking on armor has a definite advantage, but one that also comes with a new penalty. The Maximum Dex Bonus for armor affects two Dexterity modifiers now. Not just your ability to avoid attacks, but also your ability to make them. So while the heavily armored character takes less damage, their ability to successfully hit opponents is consequently impaired. Meanwhile, the lightly armored character is taking more damage but also hitting more often.

Which brings us full circle. While it becomes relatively easy to succeed at hitting your opponent's Evasion Class, the difficulty of damaging that opponent is now represented by overcoming the damage reduction of their Armor Class. This consequently maintains the presence of high Strength characters in melee combat without spawning a disproportionate number of Dexterity-based warriors.

Now some of the more veteran players among you will be quick to point out that the odds still favor heavily armored, Strength-based characters, and you'd be right. Which is why this variant combat system would be incomplete without rules for a "Parry" special attack action.

In order to parry a melee attack, you have to give up an attack of opportunity for that round and make an opposed attack roll against your opponent. There's a little more to it than that, and parry feats aplenty, but in the same way that armor limits the Maximum Dex Bonus on attacks, it also limits parrying (essentially being the same modified attack roll).

Meaning ... lightly armored characters will make successful parry rolls more often than heavily armored characters. And therein lies the balance (not to mention rules for Sundering Armor that is Worn or Natural Armor) and Sundering a Carried or Worn Object.

What I have found using this system is that combat becomes a lot more "tense". Melee-driven characters have to make a choice early on in their careers. Do I cover myself in armor and plow through combat, or do I wear little or no armor and avoid those attacks in the first place? Do I sacrifice my attack of opportunity to potentially deflect a successful attack, or do I save my attack of opportunity to prevent opponents from attempting special attacks with impunity?

Simply put, I have added an additional step to combat with the opposed parry roll. Some of you will scoff at me for that, and you're certainly inclined, but I can assure any skeptics that what little you lose in time will be more than made up for in strategy and suspense-filled action. Characters play a much greater roll in saving their own necks using these rules, and I can already tell you from experience -- they enjoy being so empowered.

Gone are the days of ...

DM: "What's your Armor Class?"
Player: "15"
The DM rolls some dice.
DM: "I hit. Take 10 damage."
Player: "Okay, I'm unconscious."

***

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.

If this school of thought does not appeal to you, then here is another way to go about it. The Chink in the Armor feat halves the AC of an opponent. Such a feat would do the exact same thing against armor used as damage reduction.

If you don't like using feats to solve a proplem, then here is yet another way to go about it. Fienting in combat negates the Dexerity bonus of your opponent. It could also negate a portion of armor used as damage reduction (by an amount equal to your Dexterity bonus).

Essentially, a rogue with 20 dexterity who successfully feints in combat to negate armor (rather than Dexterity), reduces the damage reduction of their full plate wearing opponent from DR 8/— to DR 3/—.

Making one deceptively small change to how Dexterity works has been a lesson in the cascading nature of revisions. One change lead to the next, that incited another, that prompted two more, and so on. As a friend of mine in Ireland put it ... "Necessity is a hard taskmaster". Still, I feel very strongly that armor can be used as damage reduction without any perceptable impact on game speed. In fact, I find it has improved the game tenfold.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Thats pretty much how I would do it.

However I think you have to recognise that some weapon types penetrate armour better than others.

Piercing Weapons should at least halve the Armour Value.

 

[glass]

Making one deceptively small change to how Dexterity works has been a lesson in the cascading nature of revisions. One change lead to the next, that incited another, that prompted two more, and so on.

and

However I think you have to recognise that some weapon types penetrate armour better than others.

Piercing Weapons should at least halve the Armour Value.

You gotta love it!

glass.

PS Like the idea, BTW.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Hey Krusty. Thanks for dropping by. Haven't seen you this side of an immortal handbook thread for a while.



And yes, you are that Irishman.

Hiya mate!

That's pretty much how I would do it.

However I think you have to recognize that some weapon types penetrate armour better than others.

Piercing Weapons should at least halve the Armour Value.

This is where I hit a crossroads of sorts.

Detailed realism versus streamlined simplicity.

Certain types of weapons are much better at overcoming certain types of armor. It's not just piecing weapon halving all AC/DR (Armor Class/Damage Reduction). It's also bludgeon weapons halving the AC/DR of chain-based armor, and perhaps even doubling it against slashing weapons.

This list, once fully realized, can become exceedingly detailed, which scares me to no end. That level of detail invariably equals slow-as-snails game play (the nemesis of every dungeon master trying to keep their storytelling fluid).

The changes I am suggesting already require a slight learning curve, which once understood, admittedly become "painless". But to compound that learning curve with variable AC/DR based on weapon types/armor types is going to throw a slug into the works like nobody's business.

So while I do realize that certain weapons types are realistically better at overcoming certain armor types, my instincts as a storyteller/dungeon master scream "NOOOOOO" to that level of detail. I say this with my eyes wide open to historical standards. I chose that stance, because so much of dungeons and dragons is already "stylized" for ease of game play. It is my belief that by ignoring variable AC/DR values, more problems are solved than created.

Thoughts?

 

[DanMcS]

This is where I hit a crossroads of sorts.

Detailed realism versus streamlined simplicity.

snip

I chose that stance, because so much of dungeons and dragons is already "stylized" for ease of game play. It is my belief by ignoring variable AC/DR values, more problems are solved than created.

Thoughts?

Some of it is abstracted out, but a lot of it is not. For instance, defense gets abstracted down to AC (how hard you are to hit, or to penetrate your armor once hit) and hit points (which represent toughness, skill at avoiding injury or being hit at all, ability to shrug off minor wounds, and anything else that gets tossed in there). Skills, feats, and abilities that improve defense mainly go toward AC; hit points are pretty immutable, save for Con-buffing spells. There are a couple exceptions, of course, like Mirror Image.

Contrast that with attacking, which presents the player with a dizzying array of weapons, feats, attack styles (power attack? two-weapon? finesse? rapids shot?), magical enhancements, exotic weapons, iterative attacks, etc, all of which have as their basic goal increasing the average damage your character deals in a round.

I'd kind of like to do away with the whole mess and just say "weapons do a d6+str bonus. For every additional feat you spend on a style (melee or ranged), it does an additional d6". That can represent multiple rapid attacks, focus and specialization, a big honkin serrated sword instead of a little wussy longsword, using twin weapons, your sword being on fire, sneak attack, or whatever you want. Do away with iterative attacks entirely, since it doesn't make sense to me that a system which assumes multiple feints and lunges in a round summed up by 1 attack roll loses that assumption at +6 BAB. I'll call it Fist Full of Dice, since that's certainly what you'll be rolling by 20th level. Yeah, that's the ticket.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

I think this is a wonderful mechanic. I'm actually considering using it.

One thing I don't like though, is the idea of a feint reducing the DR. It is not consistent with the main idea of changing armor to DR. If hitting means touching, and damaging means overcoming the armor's resistance, then it seems obvious that a feint would do the former and not the latter.

Take an example: let's say I'm a well-armored knight and I'm facing a wimpy opponent. I taunt him by throwing my arms to the sides and say, "Go ahead, take your best shot!" I'm allowing him to hit me, trusting that he won't be able to overcome my DR. Now, would it make sense for that opponent to feint?? Of course not! I'm letting him hit me. But if you allow feint to reduce DR, then it would make sense to feint despite my voluntary dropping of defenses.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Do away with iterative attacks entirely, since it doesn't make sense to me that a system which assumes multiple feints and lunges in a round summed up by 1 attack roll loses that assumption at +6 BAB

Its funny. I know exactly what you mean here, but I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. Rather, It seems there is still a bit of a transition going on between 1st edition/2nd edition thinking and 3rd edition thinking.

In 1st and 2nd edition, the combat round was 1 minute long. It was clearly assumed that a whole lot more was going on during the combat round than a few attack rolls. In 3rd edition however, the combat round is now 1/10 as long at 6 seconds. I don't think that we confidently assume that multiple feints and lunges are taking place during such a round anymore. In fact, I think it's safe to assume that everything our characters are "proactively" doing is now represented by a dice roll.

Except for parrying.

But even parrying is a functional dice roll in this variant combat system. Essentially, everything that a character does during a 6 second combat round is entirely defined by the player.

I already know that some people don't like the stream of dice rolls that only grow in number as they approach 20th level. But I also know that a lot of people take comfort in those dice roles, and more specifically, feel empowered by them (as they assert more control over the lives of their cherished characters). In the end, daunting though it may be, those dice rolls are simply the responsibility that comes with epic level game play.

Personally, I always retire my characters at 20th level. But that's me. I like the struggle up from 1st level.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Take an example: let's say I'm a well-armored knight and I'm facing a wimpy opponent. I taunt him by throwing my arms to the sides and say, "Go ahead, take your best shot!" I'm allowing him to hit me, trusting that he won't be able to overcome my DR. Now, would it make sense for that opponent to feint?? Of course not! I'm letting him hit me. But if you allow feint to reduce DR, then it would make sense to feint despite my voluntary dropping of defenses.

Good point. I think this problem can be solved in the wording.

You see, the way I imagine such a maneuver taking place is that the dagger wielder is aiming for those spots where a seam or a joint in the armor exists (near the elbow, behind the knee, around the ankles, that sort of thing). Now, without adding another level of complexity by incorporating "called shot" rules, the dagger wielder simply feints to reach those places.

The armor clad opponent, as per usual, is always assumed to be on the defensive, and thus protecting their vulnerable areas. The feint is to bluff that opponent into thinking you aren't aiming for those areas, when in fact you are. Assuming you are successful in such a bluff, your Dexterity bonus (representing your level of precision) determines how much of their armor you can ignore.

In the example you created, the armor clad opponent has willfully thrown down their defenses. I would therefore consider him a "helpless" opponent for the purposes of rolling damage. As such, even Armor Class used as a damage reduction would no longer reduce the damage inflicted.

I hope that helps.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

Did you consider changing the way hitpoints work as well? I ask because this is another feature of the D&D combat system that does not feel realistic. I understand the idea that hitpoints are supposed to represent not just how much blood you have left in your veins but also your ability to turn a damaging blow into a less damaging blow . . . but the fact is, that idea is not well-represented by the way hitpoints work. It just doesn't FEEL right.

So, since you've changed so much of the way combat works, why not go whole hog?

You may also want to consider this for the simple reason that you may have changed the balance between different classes. Fighter-type characters now not only have more hitpoints, they will also take less damage because of their armor. Won't they?

Do magical protections (spells, etc.) function as DR also? Is a deflection bonus now a type of DR?

 

[Spatzimaus]

I'd make a few small suggestions/bring up a few issues.

1> Right now, your EC is basically your flat-footed AC and your AC is the touch AC (minus 10, plus DR).
You can move Deflection over to AC, by saying that it's slowing down incoming attacks. Likewise, Shield and Cover AC should move over to EC, since they're more about preventing a blow from reaching your body in the first place.
This way, being flat-footed reduces both AC and EC, and the same for touch attacks.

2> Critical hits will now be WAY more common, since the confirmation rolls won't need to roll nearly as high.
Likewise, all of those "if I hit you I do X" abilities become way more powerful. That includes poison, disease, Sneak Attack, bonus damage dice from Flaming/Frost/Shock; unless it was delivered by a touch attack before, it'll now be stronger. Take Sneak Attack for example; if I'm attacking someone in full plate they'll have a low EC, I'll hit pretty much automatically, and my +9d6 sneak attack will easily blow through any armor or natural armor they have; in the core rules I'd be far less likely to hit.
Suggestion: only apply any of these bonus damage sources (including crits) if the base damage (weapon + STR bonus + enhancement) wasn't reduced to 0 by the AC.

3> On the other hand, against something with a high AC your only real option is to Power Attack, which ranged attackers can't do; you won't have any problem hitting the target (a dragon with AC of 2?), but damage is a different story. How does an archer defeat the 30+ point DR your larger dragons would now have? Someone in Full Plate would totally ignore any arrows fired at him (which totally goes against reality; longbow >> full plate)

Possible suggestion: move Natural Armor back over to EC, to separate it from armor AC; dragons would now be hard to hit again. It's not realistic, though, and it still has many of the same problems.
OR, make an "overflow" rule, where every 2 points you exceed the EC by adds +1 to your damage rolls. It's not as efficient as Power Attack, but you don't have to decide beforehand.

4> Add a little variability to the "armor bonus" AC to reflect an armor's vulnerable spots, by replacing the flat +X with 2dX. For example, Full Plate would be 2d8; anywhere from 2 to 16 with a mean of 9. Odd sizes get awkward (to roll a d5, do you take half of a d10, or a d6 where you reroll any 6's?).
Without this, daggers will never be useful against full plate; this way, there's always a chance the defender rolls low. Possibly you could explicitly list the set of dice for each type, to reflect that some armors are more uniform than others; chainmail might be 2d4 and breastplate is 1d8, to reflect that the chain is more consistently average but a BP is more all-or-nothing; this'd also allow you to avoid the awkward die sizes.

4.5> If you want to make daggers and such useful without adding rolling for everyone else, just say this:
"When using a finessable weapon (see the Weapon Finesse feat) or any bow, the armor DR is reduced from +X to +1dX. Armors with the Fortification ability neutralize this in the same way they do critical hits or sneak attacks."

Finessable weapons are pretty much limited to light blades and the rapier. You could possibly make this variability a Feat for an attacker, a sort of "find weak point" ability, with Weapon Finesse as a prerequisite.