Defense Bonuses & Damage Reduction/Conversion

[Mercule]

We've decided to use the class-based Defense bonuses from UA, but we want there to be _some_ motivation for players to wear armor. This is doubly true for the tank in the group. We've considered using either the damage reduction or damage conversion rules in conjunction with defense.

Now, the monkey wrench. I really like the way the Armsman from Wheel of Time had a lousy defense, but could stack the bonus from armor worn, so we're actually using the defense bonuses from WoT, rather than UA.

Has anyone done something like this? Is anyone using the UA defense with the UA damage reduction/conversion? How does it work?

Any input would be greatly appreciated. The tank, especially, is concerned about balance issues. And everyone is concerned about not actually having anyone (including enemies) actually killed at higher HD/level with damage conversion.

Note: Posted in General because UA isn't really core D&D or House Rules. Mods, feel free to move appropriately.

 

[Planesdragon]

IMC, I allow class-based AC bonuses and Armor bonuses to stack. To counteract this, I rule that any hit that "touches" but doesn't go through the armor is an attack on the armor--roll damage, apply hardness, and hurt the armor.

So far it's worked OK. I'm going to pull out some tanks the next chance I get, and see how it works. (For awhile I had all hits damage armor, but it just took too long and made Power Attack too good.)

 

[Mercule]

A lot of the concern from the tank is that the damage reduction option will unfairly penalize him because he would only get half the value of his armor.

For example, he has a 9 dex (-1), wears splint mail (+3 because of halving), and gets a +2 class bonus, for a total of AC 14 and DR 3. The Swashbuckler has an 18 dex (+4), wears no armor, and has a +3 class bonus, for AC 17. The Ranger is pretty similar to the Swashbuckler.

At 20th level, counting only class benefits and no stat boosts, the tank would have a -1 dex, +4 armor (full plate, halved), and a +8 from class, for 21 AC and 4/- DR. The Swashbuckler would have +4 dex, +4 dodge (class ability), and a +11 class for a total of AC 29 and 1/- DR (assuming leather armor).

At 1st level, he thinks the DR is a toss-up with the AC. But, at 20th level, he is adamant that he's got the seriously short end of the stick. What I'm looking for is anyone with experiences to say that he's either right or wrong. Or a good analysis of the case.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I haven't used them yet but I'd never stack the AC bonuses. You get one or the other. Sure, you may be easier to hit while wearing armor (makes sense... armor hinders your movement) but Full Plate gives you a 4/- DR so you take less damage from the hits. Put a Large Steel Shield into play and your guy has AC +6 and 4/- DR... not too shabby. If he takes three hits then that is 12 points of damage that didn't get through that an unarmored person would have to eat. If you are a powergamer and you play a Barbarian and buy Mithral Plate your personal DR would stack with that given by the armor.
As far as damaging armor I used to support the system when I played Palladium but in the end it gets to be just another thing to keep track of.

 

[Mercule]

I haven't used them yet but I'd never stack the AC bonuses. You get one or the other. Sure, you may be easier to hit while wearing armor (makes sense... armor hinders your movement) but Full Plate gives you a 4/- DR so you take less damage from the hits. Put a Large Steel Shield into play and your guy has AC +6 and 4/- DR... not too shabby. If he takes three hits then that is 12 points of damage that didn't get through that an unarmored person would have to eat. If you are a powergamer and you play a Barbarian and buy Mithral Plate your personal DR would stack with that given by the armor.

That's generally my thoughts. The tank player, though, is concerned that the additional 4 points of armor would net out to less damage than the aggregated 4 points of DR. Things like dragons or giants do enough damage that taking full damage less often is better than reduced damage more often.

I'm not sure I agree, but I don't have any evidence either way. I certainly don't want to unbalance the game either way, though.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I know from playing an 18th level character that eventually most monsters are going to hit you no matter what your AC is. Their bonus to hit is so high that the only way they'll miss is with a 1 (or some other relatively low number). At low character levels a high AC is better but in my experience I'll take a better DR at high levels.

 

[Psion]

First off, the UA defense adjustments are written assuming that they correlate to armor. Granting both a defense bonus that corresponds to the character's armor ability and full benefit of the armor seems like it will strongly favor characters who wear heavy armor.

Second, the one major problem with armor as DR is that it climbs in value too rapidly, and small weapons quickly drop of the map. Great swords and power attack for everyone!

So what I would do is this:
Use d20 modern style defense modfiers isntead. Second World Sourcebook actually has a list assigning these to D&D classes.

And use a different section of the UA: random modifiers. Convert the armor bonus to a die roll that is subtracted from the damage. That lets smaller weapons occasionally slip through.

Finally, I might actually apply the armor modifier to defense to represent "bulkiness." Since you are now modelling armor as defense, you can do that.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Second, the one major problem with armor as DR is that it climbs in value too rapidly, and small weapons quickly drop of the map. Great swords and power attack for everyone!

Honestly, there shouldn't be much chance of a dagger slipping through Full Plate unless you are VERY lucky. Full plate had overlapping plates and chain or padded wherever movement was needed. If you go into a battle with a dagger against someone in Full Plate wielding a Great Sword then you should expect to get killed. I'd say that weapons ignore armor based DR in the event of a critical hit. This reflects hitting one of those less armored spots. Normally I'd say it would only apply to piercing weapons which would make up for their overall lower damage potential compared to slashing and bashing weapons but that would make one more thing to keep track of so might as well go across the board. However, DR from spells or Natural Armor isn't ignored because those reflect a magical effect or the general toughness of the target.

 

[Psion]

Honestly, there shouldn't be much chance of a dagger slipping through Full Plate unless you are VERY lucky.

Nice thought, but as written even a chain shirt stops a dagger unless it is wielded by a brute! I think there needs to be more risk than that.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Nice thought, but as written even a chain shirt stops a dagger unless it is wielded by a brute! I think there needs to be more risk than that.

How do you figure that? A chain shirt gives AC +2 and DR 2/-. A dagger does 1d4 damage I believe. You've got a 50% chance to get some damage by the armor unless daggers do 1d2 damage now. :\

Just to make sure we are all on the same page you take the base AC in the PHB for armor and split it in half between AC and DR with odd numbers going to AC. Full Plate normally gives AC +8. With the UA Armor as DR rule it now gives AC +4 and DR 4/-. Heck, even a short sword can get through that.