Damage reduction instead of AC? Please Help.

[IceBear]

Sorry if you thought I was being anal. I was actually trying to think of where you would get the best input for your question

IceBear

 

[Victim]

I think Power Attack would be a required feat, since it also an easy way to breach the DR.

Characters relying a large number of weak attacks will become much weaker than characters that use bigger attacks. Also, strength becomes much more important - it is required for power attack and damage per attack becomes much more important since you need lots of damage.

Shields should probably be an AC bonus, not DR.

 

[Seaver]

Sorry if you thought I was being anal. I was actually trying to think of where you would get the best input for your question

IceBear

Not at all, I'm sorry if I came off as if I thought you were being anal. I understood what you were trying to do. If nothing else Henry put it here, not me.


In response to AuraSeer above:

Well now you've just made this Rules forum appropriate more or less since you are discussing mechanics and hit probability in a general sense.

And yeah, we had been thinking about that. I figure that the defense bonus that classes get in some d20 systems counter act that lack of AC. We were planning on adding that to the standard PHB classes. Hey, now it belongs in House Rules.


It's the hijack game...everyone can play.


Hey wait, since we are discussing where this belongs does that mean it truly belongs in Meta, which is supposed to be used to, "Post comments and questions about the message boards and other parts of EN World."

Then again what truly determines a thread's appropriate forum? Its initial topic, its current topic, the over all combination of all topics involved, maybe just the fickle whims of the mods?

What determines the current topic? The most recent post, the more recent posts, the majority of the posts, or even the majority of the more recent posts, plus the last post?

If it's all the topics then this may belong simultaneously in Rules, Publishers, House Rules, and Meta. If that is the case then this thread no longer belongs to one specific forum in which case should it just belong back in General where it started?

 

[jlhorner1974]

There seem to be 2 main design theories for armor:

1. Armor makes you harder to hit, but does not reduce damage

In this case, weapon damage is usually on the low side (the most common weapons do d8 or less, and the mightiest is only 2d6). All other factors equal, characters with heavy armor do take less damage on average (since they aren't hit as often), but it is still possible to damage a heavy armor wearing character with a low damage weapon (like a knife or dagger). Combats are usually fairly quick.

2. Armor is DR

In this system, all weapons have to do more damage to account for the fact that practically no hit will ever do full damage. What's the point of having a weapon dealing 1d4 damage if most people have DR of at least 3. In Star Wars, for example, the damage is much higher. Most weapons do at least 2d6, with 2d8 and higher not uncommon. A careful design balance needs to exist between weapon damage and armor DR to assure that combats neither end in a single round (damage too high relative to DR) nor should they take forever (DR too high relative to damage). 1st level characters with heavy armor will still be tough to damage.


I happen to think that the Star Wars Revised rulebook is a great place to start with "Armor as DR rules", as Star Wars probably ranks high as one of the most heavily playtested "Armor as DR" rulesets, I think. If you are looking for a modern/futuristic campaign, I would look both at Star Wars (Armor is DR) and d20 Modern (Armor is not DR, but the system is well done, IMHO), as well as Spycraft by AEG (Armor is DR) and formulate something based on those.

If you are looking for fantasy, I don't know of a lot of big name companies using Armor vs. DR rules. The modern/futuristic books above should be able to help if you want to try to roll your own rules.

 

[Seaver]

The campaign is going to be Steampunk inspired by Iron Kingdoms.

I almost started drooling looking at some of the stuff in the Monsternomicon, neat stuff to kill PCs! And I'm strictly a player.

My DM happened to be there and I kept showing him picture after picture of things that I wanted him to try and mangle our characters with while practically squeeling with glee at the artwork. I loved the infernals.

I'm the type of player that loves the challenge of dealing with the things he hates to fight.

 

[melkoriii]

You will need to categorize each armor/shield/spell into what it gives.

Also remember that you will probably need to have multiple DR for each armor.

Plate Acts differently then Chain when it comes to Slashing/Blunt and Piercing.

Chain would stop Slashing better then Piercing and Piercing better than Blunt.
Say DR: Sl 8, P 6, B 4

Plate would stop Blunt better than Slashing and Slashing better than Piercing.
Say DR: B 16, S 12, P 8

I would follow a rule of Good (DR of PHB AC x2) Average (DR of PHB AC x1.5) and Bad (DR of PHB AC x1)

This would do two things.

One would make the type of Armor you have be more strategic then just More AC for lass Dex.
Two would be that Weapon types would become important. Weapons that have two damage types would be favored like the Warhammer (in Medieval times Warhammers were feared because they could Hurt both Light foot men and Knights alike doing Blunt and Piercing.

Remember that Full Plated Knights were easy to hit (no dex to AC) but hard to hurt.

Shields should give cover bonus and not AC or DR.

Bucklers (small sized) would be 1/4th cover (+2 AC, +1 Save)
Small-Shields (medium size) would be ½ cover (+4 AC, +2 Save)
Large Shields (Large size) would be ¾ cover (+7 AC, +3 Save)
Tower Shield (Large size but acts as Huge) would be 9/10 cover (+10 AC, +4 save and IE)

Remember that shield would only cover half of the battle field and Would be in a (on or off) sense.

 

[Ranger REG]

Re: Re: Damage reduction instead of AC? Please Help.

Spycraft uses DR based armor.

Actually, a combination of Damage Reduction and Defense Bonus, something I would prefer in armor statblock.

Personally, I cannot understand why Wizards prefer one or the other, when both stats can work together when scaling archaic armor with modern armor.

 

[AuraSeer]

Remember that Full Plated Knights were easy to hit (no dex to AC) but hard to hurt.

The same thing is true in D&D. Simply making contact is a touch attack, which is very easy to do on the dude in the tin can. Actually damaging him requires a regular attack roll, which is harder.

Representing this with a single number makes the calculation simpler, which speeds up combat. The systems that use two numbers for armor tend to value realism over simplicity. (Ever play GURPS? Character creation alone takes hours...)

 

[shurai]

Remember that Full Plated Knights were easy to hit (no dex to AC) but hard to hurt . . . . Shields should give cover bonus and not AC or DR.

Based on the context of your post, I'm going to assume that by 'Knights' you mean historical aristocrats rather than D&D fighters. In any case, I think the modern idea that plate armor was so immoble and heavy is largely false, for a few reasons.

First, plate is custom made to fit the wearer by an expert smith (the best in the area the knight has dominion over, since he can afford it and he probably gets dibs, after all). This means that it fits the knight's body very well, and is made to the knight's specifications. Remember that plate was around for awhile, so both the knights and the smiths had many years of practical experience in improving upon the design.

Second, it's often underestimated what a stupendous badass the average fighting knight was. They purposely wore their armor away from the battlefield all the time, so they could learn to bear its weight effortlessly. On top of this, they trained all the military arts (swordsmanship, horsemanship, lance-work, etc) in their armor, so they'd have the strength to kill someone while wearing it.

I think most of the time our image of an armored knight as a clumsy but well-protected warrior is the result of weak, untrained hollywood actors who can't move well in the likely sub-quality costume armor that they wear. Also, I think sometimes when people 'suit up' for fun at a Rennaissance Faire or Society for Creative Anachronism meeting, they're wearing stuff made by an ameteur that's not designed to fit them personally. Nevermind that they're likely weak and untrained by a knight's standards. I don't mean to say that the plate wearers of history suffered no disadvantages, for certain, but most games seriously over-penalize plate in particular.

So for fairness (read: balance) I'm willing to accept D&D's rules about dex bonuses and armor, but in real life I don't think it was nearly so extreme. The fact is, if you get someone who's only moderately agile and someone who's naturally canny and train them both to fight in armor, the dextrous one will win more often than the average guy. D&D says that in Plate, they're on equal terms.

As to the shields issue, the use of a shield is a part of one's fighting art. Nobody who learns to fight with a sword (or other melee weapon) learns how to attack but not evade, counter-attack, block, disarm, etc. I think most games get this dead wrong: A person's skills at melee fighting should be applied to both attack and defense, and having a shield is just part of the techniques.

The shield doesn't provide cover alone unless you just hold it in front of you. The proficient swordsman (not just experts) will use his shield to deflect the enemy's weapon, or bind it, or beat it out of the way, not just intercepting it but drawing it out of line so that a counterattack is more likely to succeed. The advantage of having a shield to even the average footman is an incredible one.

For an example, check out the video game Soul Calibur (or Soul Calibur 2 these days). The game has its unrealistic moments, but Sophitia (or Cassandra) will show you how a shield ought to be used. She smashes into her opponents with it, uses it to set up attacks, smack her opponent's weapon out of the way, etc. Gladiator also has some excellent shield-work. In fact the fighting coreoghraphy in that movie was very good, and mostly realistic from what I saw.

A +2 armor bonus? Please. : ]

Whoa, who brought in the Cursed Soap-Box of Ranting? My bad.

 

[AuraSeer]

When you want to use a shield in GURPS, you check your ranks in the Shield skill, refer to a chart to find the ability modifier, apply that to your Strength, and divide the result by 2. That tells you what you need to roll in order to block an attack.

In D&D, you add a +2 armor bonus.

Yay, simplicity!