DR for Armor: Are There Published Alternate Rules for This?

[Azlan]

Time and time again, on these message boards, I've seen people asking about and discussing alternate rules for armor giving DR bonuses (instead of, or in addition to, AC bonuses) in 3E D&D. This seems to be something that many DMs and players want.

Myself, I was disappointed that 3rd Edition did not implement this in the first place, since obviously the effect of armor is not so much to reduce the wearer's chances of getting hit, but to absorb damage.

What I'm wondering is, with all the d20 supplements published in the past 2 or 3 years, have there been any that provide *comprehensive* and *playtested* alternate rules for armor DR in 3E D&D?

See, I want alternate rules that not only gives DR values for the various suits of armor, but also gives values for weapons that are designed to penetrate armor better than others (such as maces, picks, and hammers). And I want this to be as simple as possible, without going into the complexities found in a RPG such as RoleMaster.

Also, I want these alternate rules to discuss and give details for the natural armors of monsters, as well as discussing and giving details for the armor bonuses conferred by spells such as shield and mage armor.

And what about the value of armor DR versus spells such as burning hands and magic missiles, or versus traps such as spiked pits and shooting darts, or versus the breath weapons of monsters such as chimera and dragons? (Bear in mind that in 3E D&D, armor gives no protection versus these sorts of attacks, unrealistic and unfair as that may be. So, out of all the changes brought about by armor DR, this one would be the most radical.)

Above all, I want these alternate rules to be consistent, streamlined, balanced, and thoroughly playtested.

Is there a published d20 supplement out there, like that, for use with 3E D&D? If there isn't, how popular and profitable would such a supplement be?

 

[Thimble the Squit]

DR for armour

I'm not aware of any 3e DnD supplements produced applying DR for armour (though the rule would apparently make more sense). On the other hand, you might check out other d20 systems, such as Spycraft and Judge Dredd, whch (I believe) apply a DR value as well as an AC bonus.

In my own games, I apply a minor DR rule, whereby all armour bonuses to AC reduce the damage of critical hits by half their bonus -- so a fighter wearing platemail would take -3 damage from a crit. Admittedly, this does devalue fortified magical armour somewhat, but the both effects apply in any case.

As for "comprehensive" and "playtested", I'm afraid I can't help you there, sorry.

 

[Jack Daniel]

My rules are pretty thourough, but only in the context of a vitality/wounds system. In fact, giving armor any DR rating at all doesn't work with the hit points system.

 

[Crothian]

My rules are pretty thourough, but only in the context of a vitality/wounds system. In fact, giving armor any DR rating at all doesn't work with the hit points system.

Why do you say that?

 

[DreamChaser]

I would say it fits less because AC and HP are both abstractions of combat rather than actual things that can be easily measured. If you incorporated DR armor into a system that included HP as it currently exists you would be doing two things:

one you would be declaring that HP are less abstract than they really are and that a person can literally take more damage as they become more experienced.

you would be making combat much, much, much, much, much longer. as a 200 hp fighter ignored the first dozen or so hp of damage he took from each attack.

I think that the abstraction works fine as it is, as long as you don't think about it too hard. My players get caught up on the HP = wounds issue and get annoyed if I don't describe them loosing half their bicep every time they take 20 points of damage but I've been moving toward describing them working to dodge and roll with the blow, and losing *only* 20 hit points. A lower lever character would have taken the same 20 but would have rolled, evaded, dodged, and soaked the damage less effectively so it would have been a worse strike.

Just my thoughts.
DC

 

[Azlan]

I would say it fits less because AC and HP are both abstractions of combat rather than actual things that can be easily measured.

If the alternate rules are done right, it's possible to maintain that abstraction while using DR for armor.

The whole idea for using armor DR, in the first place, is because it "feels" right, it makes more sense, and because it opens the game to a whole new set of interesting options and viable alternatives.

By separating the defensive values given by Dex, size, and the Dodge feat into one class, and the defensive values given by armor into another class, combat "feels" more like the real thing, even though you'd still be dealing with abstractions and heroic fantasy un-realities.

With alternate rules incorporating armor DR, the term "AC" or "armor class" would no longer be used, since armor would no longer be the lead contributing factor toward determining how hard a target is to hit. "AC" would be replaced with a target's "to hit" difficulty class, or simply its "DC". Big fighters clad in heavy plate armor would have rather low "to hit" DCs, while monks and halfling rogues using Dodge and Tumble would have high DCs. On the other hand, the former example would absorb lots more damage from each successful hit than the latter examples.

Furthermore, the various melee and missile weapons would act and serve more realistically by assigning them penetration values based on those of their real-life counterparts. This way, weapons such as maces, picks, hammers, and crossbows would be viable alternatives to swords, axes, and bows.

...you would be making combat much, much, much, much, much longer. as a 200 hp fighter ignored the first dozen or so hp of damage he took from each attack.

True enough. So, to avoid this, a balanced, playtested set of alternate rules incorporating armor DR would have to a.) make the base damages of weapons higher, or b.) make criticals occur more frequently, or c.) a combination of the two.

I think that the abstraction works fine as it is, as long as you don't think about it too hard.

Again, true enough. Problem is, once you've played D&D for a while, you *do* find yourself thinking about it, harder and harder, as you play out combat encounters, again and again. I think the many posts regarding "armor DR" in these forums, throughout the past couple of years, is testament to that.

 

[Tetsubo]

Check out the book Arsenal. It has such DR for armour rules.

 

[uv23]

Although distinguishing hitability from damagability sounds simple, doing it properly ends up being far more complicated. You'd have to employ a piercing/slashing/crushing system versus different armor types for their DR values to have any real meaning. Grim & gritty isn't complete because it only addresses piercing weapons.

 

[Mr. Gnome]

...so basically, all attacks would be touch attacks, and armor would provide damage reduction? Interesting concept, although you would probably have to redo the whole BAB thing, either lowering the amount, or add a penatrating attack bonus in addition to the BAB. Hmm...

 

[Mr. Gnome]

...plus the fact that shields would probably affect the chance of being hit, but not the damage reduction...