Dex vs Armor...?

[Wanderlust]

I realize that Hit Points are supposed to be an abstract representation of characters rolling with the blow and all that, but still... Something ain't sittin' right with me. So, here is a proposal for you fiends to pick at: Damage Reduction.

Ok, I know, I'm beating a dead horse, but wait! What if we were to give weapons an Armor Penetration Value (AP).

Ex: You have a dagger and because your a sneaky git you want to see if it fits in between the ribs of a Paladin wearing full plate. Now, when I think of a dagger punching through steal, well, that's a feat that I'd be mighty impressed with. So, let's say a Dagger's AP is 0. Now, that platemail suit of armor gives +8 protection (or Damage Reduction); and therefore, I have to do 9 points of damage to even scratch the Holy Man, which isn't going to happen with this dagger that does d4 damage. Yeah, sure you can hit the Paladin quite easily, but that doesn't mean you'll really hurt him. Next, Bruno, the stunted fighter, comes along with his big axe. Now, that axe has some weight to it and some punching power. So, let's say his axe has an AP of 3. So, Bruno takes a swing and hits, but he doesn't need that 9 points of damage to hurt the Paladin. He only needs 6 to injure the goody-goody.

So, basically, do you all think that this could feasibly work?






Wanderlust

 

[memesis]

Look into game systems like GURPS for inspiration. GURPS rates armor with two attributes: PD (Passive Defense) and DR (Damage Reduction). PD adds directly to your defense roll (in D&D terms, Armor Class); DR simply subtracts from inflicted damage. Generally, a critical hit bypasses DR and does the weapon's damage (you got in through an opening in the plate mail, concussive force through the armor, whatever).

This is a sound rule in my judgement and I wish D&D had thought to use it much earlier.

 

[Wanderlust]

A thought just occured to me to do something to the effect of using the crit multiplier as the AP. I don't have the PHB with me at the moment, so correct me if I'm wrong, but then a pickaxe would have an AR of 4. But, due to the fact that pickaxes aren't exactly your run of the mill weapons, not to mention that they aren't exactly very well balanced for combat, one could make them exotic weapons...

But this is more of a guideline rather than the rule. I'd still say daggers get 0 AP, and I might increase the AP of Longbows...




Wanderlust

 

[Tonguez]

Consider this

All weapons do say D10 Damage (becuase all of them have a chance of doing damage)

A Dagger has a Penetration rate of 0
A Short sword has a PR of 4
A Long Sword has a PR of 7

Enter Fullplate Armoured Paladin with DR 9

The Dagger must roll a 10 to inflict 1 point of damage (thus representing that lucky strike that just happened to take out an eye)
The short sword must roll 6+
The Long sword must roll 3+

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

Wanderlust:

So, let's say a Dagger's AP is 0

Actually, I think that you have you AP values backwards. The stilletto and most other daggers were used because they would penetrate armors that deflected the blows of larger weapons.

Another example would be the bec-de-corbin (sp?), which was somewhere between a warhammer and a can opener.

If you insist on using rules like armor DR, then you should probably set the AP values for smaller weapons high (after all, that was why they were used) and the AP values for larger weapons low.

Basically the character will end up using big slow weapons against lightly armored foes and the lighter AP weapons against the tank.

ps. It also keeps you from completely nerfing characters who want to use lighter weapons and creating an environment where daggers are only useful for picking your teeth.

 

[Silver Griffon]

Wanderlust:


Actually, I think that you have you AP values backwards. The stilletto and most other daggers were used because they would penetrate armors that deflected the blows of larger weapons.

Another example would be the bec-de-corbin (sp?), which was somewhere between a warhammer and a can opener.

And the introduction of the rapier helped make plate armor obsolete. It is another example of a light weapon designed to penetrate/bypass heavy armor.

The basic idea behind this thread seems to be sound if you want more realism. But adding that level of realism also means that you are actually making the continued existence of heavy armor questionable. The weapons and armor options available in D&D cross over various time periods and geographical regions. It is fantastic, not historic In reality, heavy armor began fading out of use long before the firearm came along and drove the last nail in its coffin.

 

[Wanderlust]

Originally posted by whatisitgoodfor

Actually, I think that you have you AP values backwards. The stilletto and most other daggers were used because they would penetrate armors that deflected the blows of larger weapons.

I'm sorry, but by the time of the stilletto and rapier armor had been made obsolete by the development of gunpowder weapons, not light weapons. So, by the time of the Rennaisance swordplay was more of a gentleman's art without the constraints of all that bulky armor. It also led to the development of fencing, but nevermind that. Oh, and also, the stilletto wasn't intended to punch through plate, but it could slip through chain... Though usually it was only up against doublets.

Dagger's were used against those wearing plate, though, but generally to slip into places not protected, such as the arm pit. So, to my mind the AP values stand, but in the cases of called shots to areas like the arm pits full damage applies.

Originally posted by whatisitgoodfor

ps. It also keeps you from completely nerfing characters who want to use lighter weapons and creating an environment where daggers are only useful for picking your teeth.

I realize this, and so I'm tempted by either the creation of a feat or just simply allowing the following rule:
If a character is using a weapon with which he is proficient and that is one size category smaller himself, he may make one extra attack per turn. This also stacks with the bonus from two-weapon fighting.

So, wha'dya think?

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

I realize this, and so I'm tempted by either the creation of a feat or just simply allowing the following rule:
If a character is using a weapon with which he is proficient and that is one size category smaller himself, he may make one extra attack per turn. This also stacks with the bonus from two-weapon fighting.

Ah.

So your ultimate goal is to have the game dominated by Trolls and Ogres Dual wielding light picks. After all, they can get three extra attacks with a decent AP value and their high Str bonus will really make those extra attacks count a lot more than using a large weapon would.

 

[DreamChaser]

If we want to be accurrate and realistic, we should note that in combat, there are 2 sets of 2 opposing forces:

Attackers skill and natural ability with his weapon (Attack Bonus) VS the defenders skill and natural ability at evading (Defense Bonus)

AND

The attacker's weapon damage dealing potential plus the raw strength of the attacker (Damage) VS the protective quality of the defender's armor coupled with his ability to roll with a blow (Soak).

Each character should have the following stats:
--> an attack modifier based on strength/dexterity, class skill, feat training, magical competence, etc. (this is currently covered by Attack Bonus)

--> a defence modfier based on dexterity, class skill, feat training, and magical effects that make evasion easier and mitigated by heavy armor or encumberance. (This is currently covered, more or less, by Armor Class)

--> weapon damage based on weapon, feat training, magical effects that make a weapon sharper, more impacting, etc, and strength. (This is currently covered by Weapon Damage)

--> a soak ability based upon their hit die, their armor, feat training (toughness), magic that made a character more resilient or made armor tougher, DR (would be a bonus to soak unless the weapon was of suffecient magic to overcome it), etc. (This is current covered partly by Armor Class but mostly by hit points).

In this system, a character would have a fixed number of hit points that almost never went up, because they would soak damage instead of taking it. Combat would be longer at even levels and much shorter and grimmer at uneven levels and would be strongly influenced by the equipment characters had (which is historically accurate anyway).

The soak ability would need to be divided into physical soak and magical soak (Energy Resistance would affect this). Spell damage would have to be altered to keep balanced and force effects would be considered weapons (so magic missile could be physically soaked).

Soak would be calculated based on Hit Die. A barbarian would gain a d12; fighter, ranger, paladin a d10; cleric, monk, druid a d8; rogue, bard a d6; wizard, sorcerer a d4. This would be modified by armor worn (straight bonus), magic (straight bonus), damage reduction (straight bonus), etc.

All in all, this system would be more accurate, but more time consuming. Each attack would involve 4 rolls. Attack roll V defense roll. Then if the attack connected, Damage V Soak.

potentially more time consuming, but perhaps more accurate.
DC

 

[DreamChaser]

an example--I really did roll too

chain mailed, long sword wielding fights quick, leather armored rapier wielding rogue (each 1st level).

Fighter has a Attack bonus of +6 (18 str plus class plus focus), a defense bonus of -4 (class - armor), a weapon damage of 1d8+4 (str), and a soak of 1d10+5 (armor), and 15 hit points (Con).

Rogue has a Attack bonus of +5 (18 dex, finesse), a defense bonus of 6 (class plus dex plus dodge), a weapon damage of 1d6 +1d6 on a sneak attack, and a soak of 1d6+2 (armor), and 11 hit points (Con).

First round.
Rogue sneak attacks fighter. rolls (with a +4 for being unseen) for a total of 7+5+4=16; fighter rolls defense for a total of 3-4=-1. The rogue hits. For damage he rolls 6+2 (sneak)=8. Fighter rolls soak for 2+5=7. The rapier manages to sneak through the armor and deals 1 point of damage to the fighter (f=14 hp, r=11 hp).

Round 2.
Now the fighter is mad. He swings around and slashes at the rogue. Rolls 17+6=23. The rogue tries to evade with a 19+6=25. He leaps back from the blade and moves in for another strike (2+5=7) as the fighter tries to move under the weight of his armor (8-4=4) but fails. The rogue rolls damage (6) and the fighter soaks (4+5=9). The rapier fails to damage.

Round 3.
The fighter takes another swing at the rogue (7+6=13) as the rogue dodges to the side (15+6=21). The rogue stabs (20!+5=25!; 17+5=22) at the fighter (15-4=11) and gets a critical hit, easily breaking through the armors defense through the joint. Rolling damage, the rogue gets (5+6=11) and the fighter soaks without the benefit of armor (9) and manages to deflect much of the blow but still takes 3 damage (f=11 hp, r=11 hp).

Round 4.
The fighter is ticked now and attempts to run the rogue through (17+6=23) VS (9+6=15) and hits. The sword does (7+4=11) damage which the rogue tries to soak (3+2=5). The rogue has taken 5 points of damage (f=11 hp, r=6 hp). The rogue, attacks the fighter again (18!+5=23, 5+5=10) VS (15-4=11). The rogue nearly gets in another critical but the chain mail prooves to strong. The rogue rolls damage (2) which the fighter's armor protects from easily. The rogue now in fear for his life, turns to run. The fighter takes an AOO with a +2 for the rogue's back being turned (19!+6+2=27; 17+6+2=25). The rogue tries to evade (12+6) but takes the blade square in the back. The long sword slips through his leather armor with no resistance for (10+5+2+5=22) and the rogue tries to soak (6). The 16 points he takes is enought to kill him. (f=11 hp, r=-5 hp).