Armor thoughts

[AeroDm]

Hmm... I took it differently. Lets see if I got it.

Fighter with dex +2 for AC 12(we'll ignore the class defense atm) in full-plate.

Ogre hits an 11 or lower, misses as normal
Ogre hits a 12 or higher, damage is rolled as normal but...
-the first 10 points of damage are negated from the total damage the fighter takes from the ogre. This 10 damage is then subtracted from the total of the full-plate (40 iirc).
-any damage beyond 10 is applied normally to the figher

Critical hits I believe went straight to the fighter?

I have two thoughts to add.

The first is that full-plate costs an awful lot to only take 40 damage before being broken. Perhaps consider having it take 40 damage and then reduce its hardness by 1 or 2. When hardness reaches 0 it is broken. This also serves to make the armor absorb less and less of the damage before applying it to the fighter.

The second is that the difference between breastplate (hardness 10, hp 25) is a much better bargain money wise compared to full-plate (hardness 10, hp 40). Plus it has lower armor check, lighter weight, doesn't hinder run movement as much, et al. I'd grant +1 AC for medium armor, +3 for heavy. This makes light armor advantageous for those who don't want move penalties and low armor check, medium armor better, and heavy armor the best for AC goodness.

Hope that helps

 

[Planesdragon]

Hmm... I took it differently. Lets see if I got it.

Fighter with dex +2 for AC 12(we'll ignore the class defense atm) in full-plate.

Ogre hits an 11 or lower, misses as normal
Ogre hits a 12 or higher, damage is rolled as normal but...
-the first 10 points of damage are negated from the total damage the fighter takes from the ogre. This 10 damage is then subtracted from the total of the full-plate (40 iirc).
-any damage beyond 10 is applied normally to the figher

Close. Very, very close.

The 10 damage that the Full Plate's hardness takes isn't subtracted from the Full Plate's armor. Like DR or any other use of hardness, it's just resisted (and no damage is taken if it reduced the damage below 0.)

When the Ogre hits the fighter, the first 10 points of the Ogre's rolls are reduced, and then the remainder is inflicted upon the _armor_, not the fighter.

Critical hits I believe went straight to the fighter?

Attacker's choice--either critical damage to the armor, or non-critical damage to the person inside the armor.

The second is that the difference between breastplate (hardness 10, hp 25) is a much better bargain money wise compared to full-plate (hardness 10, hp 40). Plus it has lower armor check, lighter weight, doesn't hinder run movement as much, et al. I'd grant +1 AC for medium armor, +3 for heavy. This makes light armor advantageous for those who don't want move penalties and low armor check, medium armor better, and heavy armor the best for AC goodness.

Hmm... good idea.


The full example, for those keeping track:

Fighter with Dex Bonus of +2 and wearing Full Plate (hardness 10, HP 40) is attacked by an ogre.

The ogre hits AC 13, a hit. He rolls damage, but it's an 8, so no effect (less than hardness.)

The ogre hits AC 30, a hit. He rolls regular damage, getting max damage of 21. The fighter's armor loses 10 hp. (Now hardness 10, 29 HP.)

The ogre rolls a 20, and makes a 15 on its threat confirmation. The ogre decides to hurt the figher, and so inflicts normal damage on the character. The ogre rolls 9 damage, and the fighter takes 9 damage.

The ogre rolls a 20, and makes their threat confirmation. This time the Ogre decides to get rid of the armor, and strikes at the armor: inflicting critical (x2) damage. By a bizzare tweak of die rolling, the Ogre rolls max damage again--42. The armor's hardness soaks 10, and then the armor takes its full HP (29), leaving 3 hp which is inflicted on the fighter.

With the armor out of HP, the fighter is well advised to rid himself of the full plate--it's doing nothing but giving him and amor check penalty at the moment.


MaraderX hit upon a system I discarded on the drawing board--armor gives soak off a pool, like a Resist Energy spell. The system I decided to propose is a lot closer to the core mechanics, and doesn't add any more bookkeeping than any other method of inflicting damage on armor.

 

[Yair]

I am still concerned that the expensive, magical, armor will get destroyed fairly soon (vs. your magical sword, say, which would only be destroyed on a deliberate sunder).
While the system does make sense, I think I would make the armor more durable... somehow...
Regardless, now that I've had more time to think about this idea - it sounds even better

 

[Planesdragon]

I am still concerned that the expensive, magical, armor will get destroyed fairly soon (vs. your magical sword, say, which would only be destroyed on a deliberate sunder).
While the system does make sense, I think I would make the armor more durable... somehow...

Magical armor becomes quite a bit more useful with this system: either it's a way to gain a real AC bonus, or it's a way to gain a lot more HP.

DAMAGING MAGIC ITEMS
A magic item doesn’t need to make a saving throw unless it is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its
wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save. Magic items should always get a saving throw against spells that might deal damage to them— even against attacks from which a nonmagical item would normally get no chance to save. Magic items use the same saving throw bonus for all saves, no matter what the type (Fortitude, Reflex, or Will). A magic item’s saving throw bonus equals 2 + one-half its caster level (round down). The only exceptions to this are intelligent magic items, which make Will saves based on their own Wisdom scores.

Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as nonmagical items of the same sort. A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost.

REPAIRING MAGIC ITEMS
Some magic items take damage over the course of an adventure. It costs no more to repair a magic item with the Craft skill than it does to repair its nonmagical counterpart. The make whole spell also repairs a damaged—but not completely broken—magic item.

Shields and weapons have special rules for adding HP and hardness due to their magical bonus. It would probably make sense to follow one or the other of these--either magical armor would have a +1 AC, +1 hardness, and +1 HP per point of enhancement, or it's have +1 hardness and +10 hp per point of enhancement. Hmm...

In either case, since armor that's at 0 hp is "ineffective" and not really "destroyed", it'd be fairly easy to fix.

 

[Halivar]

I always despised the AC rules, but for simplicity it can't be beat. Now a much better system would be where armor absords some small amount of damage, based on what the attack was.

For instance, full plate provides:
DR 15 vs slashing
DR 10 vs piercing
DR 5 vs bashing

Also, armor has a maximum point "bypass" limit. Once you taken 30 hitpoints of damage after the armor DR, the armor is considered battered and useless. You can fight many fights with slashy swords in plate-mail, but a couple good bludgeons from a mace or flail and the armor is too misshapen to be worn.

This provides a means by which fighters are forced to replace their armor every so often (IRL armor was only really good for one good melee; instead of repairing armor, they just scrapped it).

Of course, other rules can be thrown in, like plate being DR 0 vs stiletto, but damage from such attacks don't count towards the damage bypass limit.

That's what I'd do if I didn't have D&D AC system (as silly as it is). But I do have the D&D system, and so that's what I use.

 

[Planesdragon]

Now a much better system would be where armor absords some small amount of damage, based on what the attack was.

"Better" as in "more historic" maybe, but not "better" as in "more fun."

Also, armor has a maximum point "bypass" limit. Once you taken 30 hitpoints of damage after the armor DR, the armor is considered battered and useless. You can fight many fights with slashy swords in plate-mail, but a couple good bludgeons from a mace or flail and the armor is too misshapen to be worn.

This, actually, is what I'd consider a bookkeeping nightmare--i.e., a change that adds complexity but not any more enjoyment.

If i was going to remove the whole AC system, I'd toss damage along with it, have a nebulous "defense roll" based on everything that is armor or HP, and have weapons that do more damage simply add to the attack roll. Toss on a WW style "wound" system, and you've got a very different game that's still close enough to be called "d20."


btw, do you have a refernce for your armor claim? I know that some pieces of armor get scrapped after being battered (wooden or leather armor), but others strike me as being much more likely to be fixed (chain and plate).

 

[Halivar]

This, actually, is what I'd consider a bookkeeping nightmare--i.e., a change that adds complexity but not any more enjoyment.

Well, everyone has to decide for themselves what kind of complexity is acceptable. It's not a good idea to throw out new ideas just because they add to bookkeeping. The fact that D&D has rules at all means that there is going to be some bookkeeping involved. From there, everyone must judge for themselves how much is too much.

Like I said, we don't play it the way I suggested, but if I could rewrite the rules for D&D myself, that's how I'd do it.

btw, do you have a refernce for your armor claim? I know that some pieces of armor get scrapped after being battered (wooden or leather armor), but others strike me as being much more likely to be fixed (chain and plate).

No reference right off the top of my head, but do consider that there was no such thing as welding back in the Middle Ages, so you couldn't mend or patch armor. Once armor got cut up, it was done for. Of course, in D&D world a simple casting of mend object is pretty sufficient for most scrapes.

 

[fusangite]

The mechanic you're describing is essentially the Runequest armour mechanic. As a former RQ player, I really quite liked it. However, I don't think there's much point in having it unless you make other reforms to damage, such as through the creation of separate hit locations.

 

[Halivar]

The mechanic you're describing is essentially the Runequest armour mechanic. As a former RQ player, I really quite liked it. However, I don't think there's much point in having it unless you make other reforms to damage, such as through the creation of separate hit locations.

Back when I played historical miniature wargames, I used to love rule-bloat. I always wanted to code separate hit locations into our MUD just to be more real.

Of course, I would never, ever, ever, ever (well, maybe just two ever's) try that on the table-top.

 

[Coredump]

Huh??

No reference right off the top of my head, but do consider that there was no such thing as welding back in the Middle Ages, so you couldn't mend or patch armor. Once armor got cut up, it was done for. Of course, in D&D world a simple casting of mend object is pretty sufficient for most scrapes.

Huh?? You may want to do a bit of research first. They did indeed have welding, and they could fix armour. Hell, fixing chain is no harder than making it in the first place.

People keep thinking that the middle ages was some barbaric cave man situation where they didn't really know what they were doing. They had skills we are still trying to figure out.

Armour was pretty expensive (depending on quality and time period) do you *really* think they would just throw it away instead of repairing it?

edit:

. You can fight many fights with slashy swords in plate-mail, but a couple good bludgeons from a mace or flail and the armor is too misshapen to be worn.

This provides a means by which fighters are forced to replace their armor every so often (IRL armor was only really good for one good melee; instead of repairing armor, they just scrapped it).

WHAT??!!?? Heck, I didn't read this at first. Sorry to be harsh, but what TV show have you been watching??? First, in the time of plate mail, they were not using "slashy swords"
Armour could withstand MUCH more than a couple of bludgeons from a mace.

And ONE MELEE???? This is not ablative armour here. It is steel. (okay, coal hardened iron) Armour was meant to last, not disintegrate. Play whatever game you want, and have fun. But if you want to learn about "IRL" than you need to do a bit more research and learning.

Of course, other rules can be thrown in, like plate being DR 0 vs stiletto, but damage from such attacks don't count towards the damage bypass limit.

Why? It would still be much harder to hit someone in full plate. It should be more of an AC change, but still, something. And if you are going to be this 'realistic' than the Longsword guy in the full plate should get an AoO against the stilleto weilder, and probably a +XX to hit as the guy has to close so much.

Realism begets realism, begets realism, begets realism, begets waaaayyy tooo much bookkeepping and headaches.

.