Damage reduction instead of AC? Please Help.

[shurai]

AuraSeer, I think that simplicity is only a tradeoff for realism when people are at their maximum thought output. IE, a game can be made more real without being made more complex if the person writing the game can think on sufficiently sophisticated levels.

+2 is just goofy. It's why nobody lacking enough money to afford magical shields bothers carrying a shield. In reality, shields were a highly popular (and highly effective) weapon.

I could devise an equally elegant (yet more realistic) mechanic for dealing with shields . . . the only trouble is I'd have to redesign the D&D combat system to do it, which I'm willing to do but the designers weren't (since people liked it mostly the way it was in AD&D 2E).

-S

 

[Azlan]

I've had lots of experience with implementing, playtesting, and balancing rules concerning armor DR.

Converting the AC bonus for armor directly into DR can be problematic, as far as game balance goes. Imagine a PC trying to get damage past the natural armor of a gorgon (DR 9), a stone golem (DR 18), or a mature red dragon (DR 24)! Even with power attacks, little damage would be getting through, if any at all.

A better solution is to divide the AC bonus for armor in half, applying one half as a deflection bonus to the wearer's AC, and the other half as a DR bonus. In the case of fractions, round up for the DR bonus, and round down for the deflection bonus. For example, chainmail would give +2 AC and +3 DR.

BTW: You probably should no longer use the term "AC" if you're going to use DR with armor, since the armor a character is wearing is no longer the lead factor in determing how difficult it is to hit that character. Instead, use the term "DC", as in, "What's the difficulty class to hit the swashbuckler?"