damage reduction, useful?

[Magesmiley]

DR is kind of like AC in that there is a curve that you need to stay ahead of for it to be extremely effective. DR 3/- at 13th level isn't terribly effective, on the other hand DR 11/- at the same level is fairly powerful (Dwarven Defender with roll with it from SS taken 4x). The trick is much the same as with AC - you get the most benefit out of the highest few points of it you have. Having a little is barely better than having none. Having a lot makes you indestructible in combat, especially if its backed with a lot of HPs.

Regarding the using the full armor bonus as DR... that's a scary idea. Players need to be aware that it cuts both ways. Present a dragon (or other monster) to them which gets the benefits and see exactly how keen they are to use the system. Some of the natural armor bonuses get quite obscene. It also would hurt fighter-types more than any other character I think. Yes they get more staying power, but their combat effectiveness is chopped considerably. It tips the balance of damage inflicted from weapon damage vs spells more in the spells direction, making the party wizard more effective than the fighters at killing stuff.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Until you get up to DR 4 or higher, I just don't think it's worth it.

 

[moritheil]

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. While I agree that high DR at low levels makes one nigh-indestructable in melee, I don't think that AC is useless if one is below par. Its utility seems to scale more evenly, due to the vagaries of Power Attack.

 

[Stalker0]

See, that's exactly what I was thinking. I have a member in my group though that argues that a peasant with a club probably wouldn't be able to do much damage to a knight in full plate armor anyways.

From a realistic point of view, plate armor does make one nearly invulnerable to many types of weapons. There's a very good reason people were willing to pay for the inconvience and cost of having it

But dnd is not realistic, it instead encourages a wide variety of archetypes. The heavy knight, the swashbuckler, and the knife fighter can all be done in dnd. While their damage differs, they all have a reasonable chance to hit. But DR heavily favors the heavy fighting styles over the lesser ones.

Iron Heroes try to modify this a bit by making the DR variable. Plate armor has a d8 DR...that means you roll a d8 when you get hit and that's how DR the armor has for that attack. It helps the problem somewhat, though I think the core problem remains.

 

[kigmatzomat]

See, that's exactly what I was thinking. I have a member in my group though that argues that a peasant with a club probably wouldn't be able to do much damage to a knight in full plate armor anyways.

Ironically, that's the complete opposite of the reality. A guy in full plate was easier to beat to death using mallets than with swords. Swords require skill to get past plates, while mallets apply such a huge amount of force that the plate armor can't prevent concussions or joints being dislocated. And by "mallet" I mean "5ft handle with a 1-2ft diameter wodge of wood at the end." They generally had round heads so that you didn't have to worry about hitting the target from a particular direction.

Pretty much every historical docmentaries that address "knight vs. peasant" says that a knight on horseback is equal to any 3 or 4 peasants but that on the ground peasants will bludgeon knights to death, or at least unconsciousness. One of the best examples was that short-lived show on the Discovery Channel with the title I can't remember that had the techno-mage from B5, where the cast had to learn how to do something in about 24 hours and then square off against skilled opponents.

 

[Jack Simth]

Well, mechanically, on average, the mechanics of armor as DR will have effects on viable builds:

3 DR helps out more against opponents with more attacks - the level 5 fighter with a greatsword that deals 2d6+8 with each swing (ignoring power attack for now) at +10 deals 3 less points of average damage, while the level 5 fighter with two short swords dealing 1d6+4/1d6+4 at +10/+10 soaks the effect of the DR twice - while without the DR, they both average the exact same amount of damage, with the DR, the two-hander deals more average damage than the two-weapon fighter. All else being equal, the DR makes the two-weaponer easier to deal with faster than it does the two-hander. The more DR, the more of a discrepancy between the challenge posed by the two fighter-5 builds.

3 AC helps out equally against opponents with one big attack as it does with opponents with multiple attacks - the level 5 fighter with a greatsword that deals 2d6+8 with each swing (ignoring power attack for now) at +10 deals 15% less average damage, the same damage loss as the level 5 fighter with two short swords dealing 1d6+4/1d6+4 at +10/+10. All else being equal, each fighter poses essentially the same challenge to the party; the two builds remain on par with each other regardless of what happens to the party's AC.

When Power Attack gets into the mix, the two-hander has even more of an advantage over the two-weaponer.

From the party's perspective, armor as DR makes the two-weapon fighting build even less viable than in the core ruleset, at least compared to the two-hander build.

When you throw power attack into the mix, you don't want to exchange AC for DR on one-for-one; the two-handed fighter will simply power attack more - and the +2 damage per -1 to attack puts you at +1 damage taken for each point of AC you traded for DR. The Two-weaponer must power attack (not that you can Power Attack with shortswords....), and while he does indeed get two points of extra damage for each point of attack bonus he loses, he's staying even with the AC you traded for DR - so when you trade your AC for DR at one-for-one with the against the Two-Weaponer, nothing happens.

Long story short: Armor as DR variant makes two-handed weapon fighting even more attractive compared to two-weapon fighting than in the core ruleset. Good? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[The Levitator]

Boy, this is a great thread with some great perspectives! I have Iron Heroes, but we haven't been able to implement many of the changes into DM Genie, so we haven't tried it as THE system to game with. I kind of like the variable approach to DR in IH, but I've been hesitant to incorporate the high DR until I had a chance to hear what others think.

It seems to me that high DR can work, if that's the kind of world a person wants to build. I understand that it's always dicey trying to implement realistic physics into an abstract combat system, but my players like gritty combat a lot.

My biggest question right now is, does Armor DR balance or imbalance a low-magic campaign? The campaign I'm running isn't necessarily low magic, but it's a world turned upside-down by a complete domination of the land by orcs, orogs and ogres, all being controlled by a coven of daywalking vampires. The characters are 3rd level gestalt right now and are primarily combatting small groups of humanoids. But when they get up enough in levels, they will be facing the Coven, who are highly magical. The premise is that mankind has for the most part been eradicated, with most being killed. Some were kept for labor and breeding. The Coven, while powerful, is still small in numbers and needed help in thinning the herd before taking control. So they worked underground, training the orcs, orogs and ogres and turning them into a massive army to overpower the humans. The campaign started with the main attacks just completed and the heroes running for their lives to escape capture or death. Magic is low in the sense that most of the human cities have been overrun and there's nowhere to go to get items. There is a faction, or rebellion holed up in Myth Drannor. The orcs don't want to go into Cormanthor and they figure it's mostly elves anyway. I'm giving the heroes (it's a 2 person side campaign) more magic than they would normally have because the humanoids have stockpiled what they've found and it's not like the heroes can just go into town to buy anything. So while they hae a pretty good advantage now with the items they have comparatively, they will eventually be going up against minions of the Coven and even the Coven itself which will be much more magical.

We're using the standard UA Armor as DR variant right now. Is there anything I will have to do to balance it once they get up high enough to start leading the rebellion and eventually facing the Coven? I'm extremely open to suggestions.

I apologize for taking this a little off track from the original question about adamantine armor, but it seems that many here are offering some really great perspectives regarding DR in genereal.

 

[Jack Simth]

DR doesn't particularly affect spells, for the most part, except perhaps things like Spiritual Weapon, Mage's Sword (using the d20 name, for now), or the Summon lines, nor does AC from physical armor, shields, or natural armor - most spells that deal with AC at all are touch attacks (again, excepting things like Spiritual Weapon, Mage's Sword, or the Summon lines).

You may find that it doesn't remain a low-magic campaign as soon as the party starts fighting normal-magic opponents.

 

[moritheil]

IIRC DR affects neither Spiritual Weapon nor Mage's Sword. Spiritual weapon in particular "strikes as a spell."

It would, however, affect the Wu-Jen spell Iron Scarf.

 

[Vanye]

One of the best examples was that short-lived show on the Discovery Channel with the title I can't remember that had the techno-mage from B5, where the cast had to learn how to do something in about 24 hours and then square off against skilled opponents.

Conquest, with Peter Woodward. Great show.