Armor as Defense and DR

[PosterBoy]

We did a FREE article on DR armor for the dispatch.

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=3260&

 

[Aussiegamer]

I forgot, yes ranger Reg and his funny taunts.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

The problem with armor as DR, IMO, is that it is either overeffective or useless. I'll explain.

In D&D, when that great red wyrm is taking a bite at ya, he either hits or misses. So you either get 4d8 + 15 or something damage or nothing. Now, would you rather have AC+8 from plate or AC +4/DR 4 from your plate? The answer is obivious, the 4 points of DR is nothing compared to the 20% better chance of not getting damage at all.

But if you raise the DR of armor, you have the problem of many weapons in D&D being useless against heavy armor. A fact, that many would state as a feature not a bug, but even the heavyest plate can be defeated by a well-placed dagger. Not possible if plate is DR8. And I would stille rather have the AC+8/+40% chance of no damage at all, thank you very much.

One solution could be, that the better you hit, the more damage you do, and armor helps against this. This way, armor both provides AC and DR.
So you try to hit your opponent. Take his AC without armor (touch AC). Roll damage. Add the amount you beat his AC. Subtract opponents armor. End result = dam.
You should only add str once, either for hitting or for dam.
Another way could be to roll damage dice at the same time as the d20 and compare to AC + armor. Or use a dam. rating for weapons a la True20.

just my 2 cents.

 

[Aussiegamer]

I agree a straight 1 AC for DR swap just does not work. A 5% better chance to be hit for a minimumal 1 DR is too high a price.

You have to set the DR by the average damage, though i would consider a dragon not to be normal and be more like a tank, I set the damage for weapons to be more preidictable (as no tanle or such exists for setting the damage in d20 games) and then built the DR to suit that damage for that PL. Seems to work.

If you are going to have DR then have armour damage as well, thus they are worried if their armour is starting to get too damaged. This means even high DR armour needs to be looked after.

 

[Ranger REG]

In D&D, when that great red wyrm is taking a bite at ya, he either hits or misses. So you either get 4d8 + 15 or something damage or nothing. Now, would you rather have AC+8 from plate or AC +4/DR 4 from your plate? The answer is obivious, the 4 points of DR is nothing compared to the 20% better chance of not getting damage at all.

You can compensate this by offering Class Defense Bonus.

But if you raise the DR of armor, you have the problem of many weapons in D&D being useless against heavy armor. A fact, that many would state as a feature not a bug, but even the heavyest plate can be defeated by a well-placed dagger. Not possible if plate is DR8. And I would stille rather have the AC+8/+40% chance of no damage at all, thank you very much.

You can allow confirmed critical hits to bypass armor's DR.

 

[ogre]

Thank you Poserboy, I'm dl that now.

Sorcica
Excellent points. I too decided that one or the other was not good enough and settled on coming up with something that has both, while keeping the standard Defense bonus armor affords (leather +2, chain +4 etc)
The concept of doing more damage the better the to-hit roll seems very intriguing, but I wonder how cumbersome it may be. I think I'll toss around some ideas on that and see if it works.
As far as DR8 being better than +8 Defense, I think it may depend too on the lifeblood system one may be using. If you only have a static number of hit points that never increases with level, having DR may be better, if your using hit points that increase with level and are mid to high level, the +8 Defense is definitely better.

Aussiegamer
I agree. I am definitely having armor 'durability'. Each time a crit is scored, the durability, and hence the defense bonus and DA are lowered by 1 until repaired.

Anyway, I have updated my previous Damage Absorption (DA) rules, if anyone is interested. One thing I realized; negating damage all the time ends up creating more math and rolls. Why not just lower weapon damage instead and save the extra steps. So, I limited what types of damage armor can negate and left them with their standard Defense bonus.
What I came up with is:
Armor keeps the standard defense bonus.
Armor has DA vs specific damage types.
The better the armor the more damage types and higher the defense.
For example:
low-tech armor, such as plate armor provides something like, 1d6 DA vs slashing attacks and thats it. Leather may have 1d3 vs. piercing for example.
Plasteel armor provides the 1d6 vs slashing, but also 1d6 vs. ballistic.
Cerametallic armor provides DA vs. heat-based attacks, and slashing
Powered armor has DA vs various other energy attacks, acid, radiation, fire etc.

In the end, this provides some DA in certain circumstances. Makes advanced armors more than just a Defense boost and the best armors may not be the best at negating damage from every type of attack. (certain materials are heat proof, while others can be insultated from cold and electricity, even though they provide the same AC bonus and are of an equivalent PL). The DA roll only comes into play when it applies, not every attack, so I see that as a good thing.

Thanks for the feedback folks!

 

[DnDChick]

You could try doing this by having armor work like Cover. All you need to know is the character's Touch AC and Max AC. More recent character sheets already have a spot for you to note those anyway, so it's right there for easy reference.

Armor as Cover works like this:

If an attack roll is below your touch AC, the attack missed entirely.

If an attack roll falls between your Touch AC and your Max AC, the attack hit you but was taken by the armor. The Armor DR applies.

If an attack roll is greater than your maximum AC, it bypassed the armor "somehow" (either by striking an unarmored part your body, at a joint, etc..) and hits you. The Armor DR does not apply. This covers the "dagger can defeat plate mail" quandary. Plate mail protects well, but a high enough attack roll can avoid it.

The armor bonus provided by armor would depend on how much of the body it covers. Maybe +2 for just a vest, +4 for full torso and arms, +8 for full body, etc.

The DR provided by armor would depend on materials. 2 for padded or leather, 4 for chain, etc. This can alsy be modified by type ... for example chain would have a lower DR vs. arrows and bludgeoning weapons, etc.



And technically, these rules are nothing new for 3.X. Cover works like this. If an attack *would* have hit a person using Cover had they not had the AC bonus from Cover, the DM has the option of rolling damage agains the Hardness of the Cover to see if the attack penetrates anyway.

 

[Teflon Billy]

In D&D, when that great red wyrm is taking a bite at ya, he either hits or misses. So you either get 4d8 + 15 or something damage or nothing. Now, would you rather have AC+8 from plate or AC +4/DR 4 from your plate? The answer is obivious, the 4 points of DR is nothing compared to the 20% better chance of not getting damage at all.

The AC bonuses of the armor didn't change at all in our houseruling.

But if you raise the DR of armor, you have the problem of many weapons in D&D being useless against heavy armor. A fact, that many would state as a feature not a bug,

Yeah, it was exactly what we were trying to implement.

but even the heavyest plate can be defeated by a well-placed dagger. Not possible if plate is DR8. And I would stille rather have the AC+8/+40% chance of no damage at all, thank you very much...

That's a good point and one I wish I had not forgotten earlier.

Our rule was that Critical Threats (confirmed or not) ignored the non-magical DR of our houserule.

 

[ogre]

DnDChick

That is a really cool idea! It captures what I was trying to accomplish, while keeping with known game mechanics.
I wonder though... how difficult do you think it would be in actual gameplay? I know I've never bothered to use the 'cover gets hit' option as a GM. It would definitely be more math for the GM, but the extra recording of 3 Defense values shouldn't be too much trouble for the players.

Would normal cover still work the same and simply stack? I don't see why it wouldn't.

Characters will be getting 'hit' a lot more often. This does open the door to make DA much more powerful, as under the normal d20 rules, the DA is only replacing a 'miss'. In essence it just makes the game a little more deadly and armor more important, without making any new rules.

I'm going to try it out...

 

[DnDChick]

Let me know how it works out.

I think the cover bonuses for armor and for regular cover would stack with each other.

As for the characters getting hit more often, that is a problem. Perhaps you could implement a class bonus to defense? That's not a problem in d20 Modern since that game already has that, but it involves more tinkering to add to D&D so it's something to consider.

And how to handle types of magical bonuses to AC:

-- A deflection bonus, such as that provided by a ring of protection, would add to the armor cover bonus. It deflects attacks away before they ever get to you, so it wouldn't really work as DR.

-- An armor bonus, such as that provided by magic armor, would add to the DR. The armor is magically enhanced to absorb more damage than normal.