Armor Class and Defense

[variant]

I have been thinking that a modern incarnation of AC should be damage reduction obtainable from armor, magic, natural, etc instead of a defense type roll. 'Defense' would take up the typical dice roll defense score that AC used to be. I look to the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana rules where it split AC of armor into DR and AC. It wasn't exactly balanced for 3.5 because the system wasn't really built for it, but I think the concept is sound. The AC of the armor would represent the physical toughness of the armor while the Defense of the armor would represent the skill of the wearer in using that armor in an active defense (an example being using your armored arm to deflect an attack).

I think this would also allow for a better balance between defensive and offensive magical items. A +1 sword would give +1 attack and +1 damage as usual, but +1 magical armor would give +1 Defense and +1 AC (DR). You could also have the ability to divide each of these up in different kinds of magical abilities.

In my opinion, I think this would allow for AC to take a role in the game that it was originally meant to represent (pure physical toughness) while giving it a more modern mechanic.

 

[howandwhy99]

Many games over the decades have used Armor as Damage Buffer. I imagine we'll see this as an option, but not core. (Didn't 3.0's Unearthed Arcana include something to this effect?)

The thing is, D&D has used Armor & Shields as a cover bonus for the wearer and user since the beginning of the hobby. Does this mean it has to be this way? Absolutely not! Play the game your way, with your rules. But will a unification, distill the core, get to the "heart of D&D", iteration of the standard D&D game make AC a damage buffer by core rules? I highly doubt it.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Yes, having Defense and Armor as DR would be good things, IMO. Not only is it more realistic (armor does not make one harder to hit, its entire purpose is to absorb damage) it's also much better from a game design standpoint. Why? Because AC, at least prior to 4e, was almost entirely gear dependent and defending oneself had nothing to do with skill (with the exception of the inclusion of dexterity and some niche cases like the monk class). This created a ton of scaling problems. Characters got better and better at hitting, but the only way to improve their defense was through the purchase of magic items, and this was the primary cause of the "christmas tree" problem.

4e addressed this by having AC scale at the same rate as attack bonus, but it still had to deal with the oddities of including armor for some characters and not others. Fighters could get double-digit bonuses from their armor, while wizard didn't wear any. So to solve that they made it so heavy armor doesn't stack with one's Dex/Int bonus to AC, but that just encouraged fighters to dump those stats.

Having "Defense" instead of AC and having armor provide DR eliminates all of these problems and is more realistic to boot. Sadly, AC is such a sacred old cow that I doubt they will ever adopt this approach, no matter how obviously better it is from a game design standpoint or how much common sense supports it. Tradition is a stubborn thing.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes, having Defense and Armor as DR would be good things, IMO. Not only is it more realistic (armor does not make one harder to hit, its entire purpose is to absorb damage) it's also much better from a game design standpoint. Why? Because AC, at least prior to 4e, was almost entirely gear dependent and defending oneself had nothing to do with skill (with the exception of the inclusion of dexterity and some niche cases like the monk class). This created a ton of scaling problems. Characters got better and better at hitting, but the only way to improve their defense was through the purchase of magic items, and this was the primary cause of the "christmas tree" problem.

4e addressed this by having AC scale at the same rate as attack bonus, but it still had to deal with the oddities of including armor for some characters and not others. Fighters could get double-digit bonuses from their armor, while wizard didn't wear any. So to solve that they made it so heavy armor doesn't stack with one's Dex/Int bonus to AC, but that just encouraged fighters to dump those stats.

Having "Defense" instead of AC and having armor provide DR eliminates all of these problems and is more realistic to boot. Sadly, AC is such a sacred old cow that I doubt they will ever adopt this approach, no matter how obviously better it is from a game design standpoint or how much common sense supports it. Tradition is a stubborn thing.

You are mxing problems with features. And you overlook the problem of heavy hitting weapons vs daggers. One heavy attack vs many small attacks.

If the system is laid out for a damage reduction system, it should work however.

To the opening post. I could totally see Armor bonuses going only up to a certain level and damage reduction (in a small scale) for better aromor. I like the thinking about magic armor also always increasing the DR part. Seems fair.

Some example numbers:

Leather: +2AC +1DR
Studded Leather: +1AC +2DR
Hide: +3AC +1DR
reinforced hide: +2AC +2DR
Chain: +4 AC, +1DR
Scale: +3 AC +2 DR
Breatplate: +4 AC + 2DR
Brigandine: +3 AC + 3DR
Field Plate: +4AC + 3DR
Full Plate: +3 AC + 4DR

Something like that. Heaviest Armor should not have DR above 4 DR. Maybe 5 at most.

 

[triqui]

I'm a fan of DR armors. But they really don't work well with D&D. Why? Because of anachronism. In D&D, several weapons from several different ages live together with different armors. If you give Full plate a DR, it should have a decently high DR, better than a Half Plate. Half plate better than Breast plate, and so on. That means a PC in Full plate can bassically defeat as many gobllins with shortswords as he faces, because goblins with shortswords can't touch him. Which is realistic, actually. Romans used gladius, because barbarians fighted barechested or with leather armor. If a group of roman legionaries with short swords face a group of Teuton Knights in gothic plate armor, they would be slaughtered without mercy.

Armor *defined* the weapons and fighting styles. When normans started to use full hauberks of mails, weapons and tactics had to change to reflect that fact. Javelins got cut from armies arsenals: they didn't have enough piercing power to kill someone in mail armor. Longbows and then crossbows where needed. Axes slowly disapeared too, to be substituted with warhammers and warmaces. Pollaxes and Halberds were developed to counter plate-mail, and zweihanders were developed to counter polearms.

In D&D, you have a viking culture next to a rapier wielding venetian-like city. You mix javelin-throwing pigmy with iron-clad full plate templars. Some players use rapier-wielding Errol Flynn clones, and some others play with barechested barbarians wavering a claymore.


A DR full plate renders a lot of those themed characters inneffective. A d6 short sword can't pierce a DR 6 full plate.

There's where the problem arise.

Beyond that: when you have a system with armor as DR, some playstiles become better than other. A monk with two kamas that can attack 6 times for 1d6+6 might be on par with a raging barbarian who can charge for 2d6+40. But when they face a Plated Giant that happens to have DR 10, the monk is close to useless.

 

[trancejeremy]

If I wanted that, I'd play Runequest.

And it's been tried before - the Gaz 12, Thaytis and Alphatia for D&D offered a DR system. Didn't like it there. Don't want it now.

Heck, even in the original UA, the rules for Full (or maybe Field) plate let it absorb damage. But only a limited amount before needing to get repaired.

Personally, I think it adds needless bookkeeping and complication. I don't care about "realism" or "verisimilitude", I want quick and easy combat.

All this would do is make combat longer. Because unless you drastically reduce the amount of hit points characters have (which are already too much in 3e/4e), characters will take less damage and get hit more often, which means more dice rolling. And yet the net result would likely be the same

Like say Fred has 30 hit points. Under the old system, he'd get hit 25% of the time and take 1d8 damage. Now, he'll get hit 45% of the time, but take 1d8-4 damage

 

[BobTheNob]

Im with you. Its not a bad idea. I have had the same thought and had punchs at implementing...inevitably abandoning due to flow on effects you end up conjuring (I eventually learned to houserule by need rather than perception or desire).

If a system was designed from ground up, it works nicely. Primarily, damage would need to be knocked up a bit to stop fights being cling-clang 20 round endurance bouts. But this is D&D, best you would see for something like this is an option.

I would say its ok as a "option", but its too fundamental an idea. If something is going to be a play option, it has to integrate seamlessly, not completely change the playing field.

Look, its not a bad idea (and definite kudos for raising it), and other systems out there do it, but like so many suggestions being put forward, it aint D&D. I wouldn't defend AC as the greatest implementation of defence mechanics, but on the whole its works "well enough". In terms of where designers can focus their efforts, I wouldn't imagine this idea being up the priority list.

 

[variant]

I think the best way to balance combat would be reduce the power curve. Don't have a level scaling BAB or defense and let any bonuses for AC (damage reduction), defense, attack, and damage all come from ability scores, class powers, feats, armor and weapons. Also, just as you would have ability scores that adjust attack, damage, and defense, you could have one that effects your damage reduction.

 

[Cobalt Meridian]

Years ago I tacked a similar "armour as DR" system onto the 2nd ed rules (with the addition that all successful "attacks" always dealt 1 damage so that swarms of knife-wielding goblins were still dangerous). It was OK but raised the question of what hit points were and whether or not there should be hit locations and wounds and stuff. And then questions were raised about magical attacks - would plate offer resistance to some elemental attacks. Before long I found we were drifting away from D&D and into a horrid Runequest hybrid that no-one in my group particularly cared for.

So, yeah it can work but only as part of reworking of the combat and damage system.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I think the best way to balance combat would be reduce the power curve. Don't have a level scaling BAB or defense and let any bonuses for AC (damage reduction), defense, attack, and damage all come from ability scores, class powers, feats, armor and weapons.

Yes, I removed the 1/2 level from all character's and monster's attacks, defences and skills in my 4th Ed campaign, I highly recommend it.