Armor & DR... once again. Weapon types

[ThomasBJJ]

Ok, I still haven't found a system I like for allowing armor to provide Damage Reduction.

So, I was thinking to myself that AD&D 1st & 2nd edition had tables where certain types of weapons worked better or worse against certain types of armor.

The best example of this was in the 2nd edition PHB...

Table 52: Weapon Type vs. Armor Modifiers (Pg. 90)

ARMOR TYPE // SLASH/PIERCE/BLUDGEONING
Banded Mail: +2/+0/+1
Brigandine::: +1/+1/+0
Chainmail*:: +2/+0/-2
Field Plate::: +3/+1/+0
Full Plate:::: +4/+3/+0
Leather**:: +0/-2/+0
Platemail:::: +3/+0/+0
Ring Mail:::: +1/+1/+0
Scale Mail::: +0/+1/+0
Splint Mail::: +0/+1/+2
St.Leather:: +2/+1/+0

*Includes bronze chainmail
**Includes padded armor and hides

The numbers in the table are added to the attackers THAC0, which means that a positive number means that it is harder for the attacker to hit.

I think a good, simple "Armor/DR" system should be limited to Damage Reduction 1, 2, or 3. and leave AC values alone.

Converting this table to my simple DR system could look like this:

ARMOR // SLASH / PIERCE / BLUDG.
Light Armor
-Padded ::::: 0 / 0 / 0
-Leather ::::: 0 / 0 / 0
-St.Leather :: DR2 / DR1 / 0
-Chain Shirt : DR2 / 0 / 0

Medium Armor
-Hide ::::::::::: 0 / 0 / 0
-Scale Mail :::: 0 / DR1 / 0
-Chainmail :::: DR2 / 0 / 0
-Breastplate :: DR3 / 0 / 0

Heavy Armor
-Splint Mail :::: 0 / DR1 / DR2
-Banded Mail : DR2 / 0 / DR1
-Half-Plate :::: DR3 / DR1 / 0
-Full Plate ::::: DR4 / DR3 / 0

Now, this is a pretty straight conversion of the table. I would rather not have Full Plate be DR4, but I can live with just that one suit being that tough. I'm not sure I agree with all the other modifiers either. According to the 2nd ed PHB, Leather armor offers NO protection from piercing weapons whatsoever.

I'd like for most armor to have at least a DR1 on one of the 3 S/P/B categories, if not more. and probably no armor should have a DR against ALL 3 types.

Suggestions and improvements welcomed.

 

[ThomasBJJ]

Also, I should add that I dont want a complicated "realistic" system. IMO this is already adding one more step to the combat resolution. Add too many variables and exceptions and die rolls, combat will become too bogged down.

An extremely streamlined system could be:

Light Armor provides DR1
Medium Armor provides DR2
Heavy Armor provides DR3

And that is against all weapon types.

I would like some help allocating DR0, 1, 2, or 3 (maybe 4) to the above table.

 

[hong]

Question. A balor currently has AC 30 (-1 size, +1 Dex, +20 natural). What would this become under your system?

How about a troglodyte (AC 15: -1 Dex, +6 natural)?

 

[ThomasBJJ]

I would probably have to decide a DR value to each point of Natural armor.

Maybe DR1 for every 3 points on Natural Armor bonus, up to a maximum of DR3.


I think in the case of a creature having a Natural armor bonus of +20, the designers should have maybe lowered the natural armor bonus a bit and given the creature some non-magical DR. Since this that that is what they were trying to simulate anyways.

A quickling should have a high AC, but no DR.

A tarrasque should have a low AC, but a ton of DR.

 

[ThomasBJJ]

Also, you could just use the streamlined rules I posted above.

I'd give the Balor the same DR as I'd give a character with Heavy Armor (DR3), and the Trog has natural armor comparable to Medium Armor (DR2).

 

[WastedTime]

I have to say, I do like the idea of DR. I like it because it allows me to separate armor types more diversely including homebrew armor types of different nations/races in my campaign. The one problem I have is its effect on the different type of weapons. Mainly, that a DR of 3 affects a dagger much more so than a say a great axe. I wonder if DR could be done in a percentage instead. For example, perhaps leather armor would have a DR of 10%. This would then more evenly affect the different type of weapons (with the rule that damage can not be lowered beyond 1). Of course, this is farther away from the D20 system and requires some calculations. I'm not so sure how this rule would work out, but its just a thought.

 

[ThomasBJJ]

I agree. But then again, I think attacking someone in a suit of Full Plate armor with a dagger would be a very bad tactical decision, and would be reflected in these rules. In this case, the Axe would be the much better choice, in both the game and the real world.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Also, I should add that I dont want a complicated "realistic" system. IMO this is already adding one more step to the combat resolution. Add too many variables and exceptions and die rolls, combat will become too bogged down.

An extremely streamlined system could be:

Light Armor provides DR1
Medium Armor provides DR2
Heavy Armor provides DR3

And that is against all weapon types.

Consider this taken...

I like this, as it means that one large attack can more effective overall than multiple small attacks. It also means that tanks in full plate will once again outshine the mithral chain shirt people.

Also, in the case of the Balor and other creatures with lots of NA, I would rule that NA does not provide DR. This is for a couple of reasons:

1) Most high NA creatures already have some form of DR. (And this armor DR shouldn't stack.)

2) Natural armor is still a part of the creature. Meaning it too can be damaged. (Real armor is an external part of the creature, and the creature's hit points are not tied to it.)

3) Balors can wear armor, too.
.
.
.
A question: should shields provide DR that stacks with armor? Possibly:

Small shield: DR 1/-
Large shield: DR 2/-
Tower Shield: DR 3/- (only works against half the battlefield)

(Bucklers should not provide DR, as they are too small to be effective as anything but an AC bonus. Besides, every TWF and archer would take a mithral buckler just for the DR.)

 

[Sepulchrave II]

So, I was thinking to myself that AD&D 1st & 2nd edition had tables where certain types of weapons worked better or worse against certain types of armor.

I think that it's virtually impossible to devise a realistic system based on slashing, piercing and bludgeoning types, because they cover so many weapons. Bludgeoning weapons include saps (useless vs heavy armour) and maces (very useful vs. medium-heavy); piercing weapons include picks (heavy penetration) and rapiers (useless vs. plate); slashing weapons include battleaxes (good penetration) and scimitars (poor penetration) etc.

Perhaps there should be six types of weapon: slashing, chopping, bludgeoning, crushing, piercing and penetrating.

Of course, you'd have to redefine the weapons in the PHB - axes would be chopping; longswords, slashing; 2-handed swords would be slashing and chopping; quarterstaves, bludgeoning; maces, crushing...etc. etc...

 

[ThomasBJJ]

A question: should shields provide DR that stacks with armor? Possibly:

I would say no. IMO a shield is truely a device to make it more difficult to be hit. I think the AC bonus is enough. It could be argued that a shield would make it harder to land a good solid blow, though. So I could see it either way. Trying to avoid too much DR though, and making some weapons obsolete.


Now, my other concern...

Assuming I'm going with the streamlined rules (Light Armor = DR1, Med. Armor = DR2, etc.) Armor wearers are now getting "something for nothing". They already get the high AC, which presumably is an abstract attempt to factor in the protection the armor provides. To leave that alone AND add in DR on top of it, might be too much.

Again, a simple solution is in order to avoid the "combat bogdown".

How about this:

Light Armor = DR1 & Reduce AC by 1
Med. Armor = DR2 & Reduce AC by 2
Heavy Armor = DR3 & Reduce AC by 3

Reason being that heavier armored guys are slower, and easier to hit, but avoid more damage. This may or may not totally screw up game balance, and make some armor undesireable. I haven't really given it a good look yet. Anyone with decent statistics skills that is interested could try to figure out the ramifications of this adjustment.