[Rant] Armor as DR is bad !

[KarinsDad]

AC is a measure of how hard it is to injure a creature with a physical attack, it is NOT a measure of how hard it is to hit a creature with a physical attack. The people advocating that armour should provide DR miss this fundamental point. We know armour doesn't make you easier to hit, it makes you less likely to suffer injury.

This statement in inaccurate. Someone in armor is easier to hit due to their lack of mobility. Whether or not that person is damaged is dependent on how strong and how accurate a blow is struck.

In an actual combat, a person in heavy armor should be heavily bruised. They should be getting hit all of the time. A person in lighter armor should have fewer bruises, but should also have more serious wounds when wounded. A blow that results in a simple fracture of a person in heavy armor should result in a compound fracture of a person in light armor.

The concept of both warriors taking the exact same amount of damage if hit is nonsensical. Armor does not result in the same damage per successful hit, it results in less damage per successful hit over no armor. A dagger against an opponent in plate mail should result in many "1 hit point of damage" shots. Against an opponent in no armor, the same dagger should result in fewer "4 hit points of damage" shots.

A DR system could reflect this "less serious" vs. "more serious" damage more accurately than an AC system. However, such a system would work better with a wound system rather than a hit point system due to the lack of realism of "hit points of damage adding up". A dozen minor cuts will not significantly slow most warriors down in real life, but a single gut stab will take out nearly any warrior.

 

[SylverFlame]

The problem is: if you use a vastly overpowered weapon (for example, a rifle against medieval armor), armor doesn't realistically reduce your chances of being injured -- either the attack misses, or it blows through armor and does damage. What armor does do is reduce the severity of those injuries which are suffered.

First off, if you're using a rifle, a high powered weapon, against medieval armour, of course it's gonna blow through. Black powder rifles were not as powerful due to the space where the powder is located being "loose" (compared to present standards). In fact, at the time of the War of 1812, there were documentations of soldiers being approximately a hundred feet from rifle fire and having the bullet bounce off their chest and they were only wearing a jacket. Hence, don't shoot till you see the whites of their eyes, otherwise you waste time and get shot yourself.

Now, on the same note, english longbows (came about a mite bit earlier than guns) could pierce full armour with ease. The very fine tip caused this, and the fact that the arrow had the momentum of falling (due to a larger arc) to force it through.

Due to those reasons, I'm not buying the whole "blow through armour" idea. Of course, if it's modern rifles you're talking about, then happy hunting and good show for convincing someone to don plate and run around with Bugs Bunny ears on.

EDIT: Spelling

 

[AnthonyJ]

First off, if you're using a rifle, a high powered weapon, against medieval armour, of course it's gonna blow through.

So all rifles should be touch attacks?

Now, on the same note, english longbows (came about a mite bit earlier than guns) could pierce full armour with ease.

Significant doubt as whether this is true. Plenty of stories of knights with dozens of arrows sticking out of their armor and no significant injury.

Due to those reasons, I'm not buying the whole "blow through armour" idea. Of course, if it's modern rifles you're talking about, then happy hunting and good show for convincing someone to don plate and run around with Bugs Bunny ears on.

Um...the point is not that medieval weapons will blow through armor (the DnD system is not terrible for medieval weapons vs medieval armor unless you're using arbalests), the point is that there are weapons that will blow through armor.

More relevant to DnD, a lot of monsters are fully capable of striking through armor; a suit of medieval armor will not stop a greataxe swung by a giant.

In the fantasy genre, the way the warrior survives against the giant is because the giant will actually have trouble hitting. In DnD, the giant almost never misses, and the fighter just sucks it up with hit points.

 

[Darklone]

So all rifles should be touch attacks?

19th century cavalry still wore harnesses ... and the opposing infantry waited till they got close enough to be able to penetrate the armour.

Modern rifles are better, sure... do siege weapons in D&D use touch attacks ?

 

[Caliban]

A very popular house rule is using armor as a damage reduction factor, rather than as the damage avoidance factor it is in D&D.

Here's why D&D is more realistic. With armor as DR, you will only be able to hurt people with the biggest weapons. Unless you've Conan-like strength, you're not going to ever hurt a full-plate armored guy with a dagger.

And that's where the irrealism lies. Daggers were created to pierce armors, because larger, less precise weapons couldn't be used to target the holes in the articulations. Against heavy armor, daggers were the most efficient weapons. With armor as DR, they are the least.

Beside, with armor as DR, and a heavy armor, you become invulnerable to everything. In a Renaissance game using this method, people in full-plate were immune to pistols -- in real world, pistols were among the reasons full-plates were forsaken.

So, unless you add in armor penetration factors to each weapon - a damage reduction reduction if you want - armor as DR is wrong.

That's my rant of the day. Everything here is IMHO, since it's a rant.

A few random thoughts:

Just have a higher attack roll = more damage. (Every 5 points above the number needed = +1 damage, or whatever ratio makes the most sense)

Heavy armors give a higher DR, but can actually lower your AC.
Critical hit's ignore the DR, and lower the crit multiplier by x1 for all weapons.

 

[SylverFlame]

For AnthonyJ

Read the rest of the post. I said MODERN rifles will blow through armour. NOT muskets and such. Flintlocks and other black powder rifles (as I mentioned) would be useless until the enemy were within about 70 feet, give or take (though likely less).

Now, if you are using modern rifles, then you should (theoretically) have modern armour (like kevlar) to compensate. If you do not have that, then you likely don't have any armour to stop your rifles, and the issue of DR for armour in your campaign becomes moot.

Seeing as how the giant example is becoming prevelant, you can see how DnD is not a realistic system in any way. If you get hit by a large chunk of wood moving at high speed, a good solid hit will shatter your bones and kill. Squish, you're dead, roll new character. Since this is not the case, realism is gone.

Just because of that, I don't feel DR should apply. Wearing Plate or Leather won't matter when that giant club hits you with the force of a car travelling at speed. Whichever you're wearing, you are not going to walk away. In fact, the leather would be better as you can move out of the way easier and avoid the hit all together, or at least roll with it, in which case you only have some of your bones shattered.

 

[Silverglass]

8 is pretty huge. A CDG or crit from a normal (10 STR) person will never beat that DR.

Heavy weapons were needed to maintain "damage per round" against heavier armors. 2 guys with 10 HP and +0 atts fight. First, we'll give the guys padded armor and daggers so that normal hits do 2.5 and they'll hit each other 50% of the time. Damage per round is 1.25 and time to kill is 8 rounds. Now we'll arm someone with Full Plate and small shield. He gets hit 10% of the time. Damage against him is .25 and so time to kill is a whooping 40 rounds. So using bigger weapons will have a big impact on that time. Just giving the guy a longsword will shave off 20 rounds.

Finally, I thought polearms were developed against cavalry or adapted from farming tools. Isn't the purpose of pike hedges?

In many ways, Power Attack can circumvent the whole armor versus DR arguement anyway.

Well DR 8/- for Full Plate is really the maximum that you should ever consider as it does make people dagger proof, but then is that a completely unrealistic thing to do considering how bad a situation someone would be using a dagger against a plate armoured opponent. As I said the DRs of the best armours should be penetrated by light weapons on a critical and heavy weapons on normal hits.

But if you are introducing DR for Armour then you should change the rules so that against a helpless opponent CDG should ignore some or all of the DR of armour. DR for armour is not something I am bothered about but I would probably allow CDG to bypass armour DR.

It was more Spears and Pikes that were developed to counter cavalry than the slashing and bludgeoning polearms (although they could do so in a pinch), though not solely for this purpose as they were pretty good against formed infantry as well. During the periods where there were battles with heavily armoured soldiers that is when Halberdiers, Lochaber Axes, Lucerne Hammers (see below) and the like started to make an appearance on the battlefield. And while some Polearms were more of a "blade on a stick" for the peasant foot, many of them were developed further as weapons designed to counter heavily armoured knights on horse or on foot (which happened more often than you might think).

"The Lucerne Hammer was a pole arm weapon which proved to be extremely effective at dismounting riders and smashing through armour. Named the Lucerne Hammer because vast numbers of the weapon were found stored in the armoury at Lucerne, Switzerland, the weapon was wood-hafted with a metal head. Similar to the poleaxe and war hammer in design, the Lucerne Hammer was fitted with a four-pronged hammer head rather than a simple hammerhead or blade. Not particularly useful for slashing, the Lucerne Hammer was excellent for thrusting, smashing, and ripping open armour (even against a mounted opponent). "

 

[KarinsDad]

Well DR 8/- for Full Plate is really the maximum that you should ever consider as it does make people dagger proof, but then is that a completely unrealistic thing to do considering how bad a situation someone would be using a dagger against a plate armoured opponent. As I said the DRs of the best armours should be penetrated by light weapons on a critical and heavy weapons on normal hits.

I agree.

I posted a rough idea of how to use DR with armor earlier in this thread, but it was actually a little too overwhelming with regard to DR (i.e. a DR of 8 is just too overwhelming IMO). A better model which combines the ideas of missing due to not inflicting any damage and lowering damage when armor is actually penetrated might be:

Full Plate: Armor Bonus +4: DR: +4
Half Plate: Armor Bonus +3: DR: +4
Splint/Banded: Armor Bonus +3: DR: +3
Breastplate/Chainmail: Armor Bonus +2: DR: +3
Scale Mail/Chain Shirt: Armor Bonus +2: DR: +2
Hide/Studded Leather: Armor Bonus +1: DR: +2
Leather: Armor Bonus +1: DR: +1
Padded: Armor Bonus 0: DR: +1
No Armor: Armor Bonus 0: DR: +0

This would result in characters getting hit more often, but taking less damage per hit in heavier armors.


Course, with this model, I would get rid of Maximum Dexterity modifiers for armor as well.

 

[Ace]

I will not go into details this time....

Actually: Armour as AC instead of DR is more realistic. So. Statement. My opinion. Comes from fighting with swords. Your opinion may vary.

Now another statement: Rapiers were not developped after armour became obsolete. They were in use since 2000 years B.C. (bronze rapiers from Kurgan for example). They got more common as armour disappeared, but they were NOT new.

Bronze Rapiers? OK I Googled this and lo and behold there were such things described at one page as "a 30cm (1 foot or so) cross between a sword and a dagger" I'd call that a longknife myself YMMV

As far as AC or DR well my opinion (and it does vary here) is that armor is both- a poorly aimed blow will "slide off" or "deflect" from armor -- your AC in action and a well aimed blow will be "blunted" or "absorbed" by the armor DR more or less.

If someone wishes to test this its pretty easy, and I am NOT recomending this, just get a suit of SCA plate armor (full coverage) for one guy and a hunting knife for the other one (heck be sporting get a poinard somewhere)

All things being relativly equal my money is on the armored guy -- add a sword to the mix and well if it was a real fight the guy with a dagger is toast. That however is Real Life (tm) and not D&D

Now be that as it may in D&D the two systems (AC or DR) are used for different things --

Armor as DR is mainly for gritty games where HP are equal to CON or something like that -- and a dagger won't hurt a man in heavy armor. Even in D20 Star Wars armor only effects Wounds (the HP as COM) not Vitality (the regular HP)

Armor as AC is for regular D&D games where folks have lots of HP. Each system works great in its own realm but they don't mix super well

The main exception here is (IMO) micro DR for heavy armors. giving 1 or 2 points to heavy armor works fine, heck it was first used in AD&D Unearthed Arcana for Petes Sake. Talk about time tested!

The main thing though is to use what is fun for your group.

That is all ....

 

[Fanog]

Seeing as how the giant example is becoming prevelant, you can see how DnD is not a realistic system in any way. If you get hit by a large chunk of wood moving at high speed, a good solid hit will shatter your bones and kill. Squish, you're dead, roll new character. Since this is not the case, realism is gone.

Just because of that, I don't feel DR should apply. Wearing Plate or Leather won't matter when that giant club hits you with the force of a car travelling at speed. Whichever you're wearing, you are not going to walk away. In fact, the leather would be better as you can move out of the way easier and avoid the hit all together, or at least roll with it, in which case you only have some of your bones shattered.

I agree that the rules as they are now, aren't totaslly realistic. However, that can never be as reason to try and make them more realistic.

In this case, you can try to change the way hit points work along with the way armor works. Try a (very rough) system where every character has hp equal to his/her Constitution score. Now have armor as DR, with full plate giving DR 6 (or 8, doesn't really matter for the argument.

Consider a giant smashing you with a club. If you're wearing full plate, the chances of a hit by the giant should be roughly 95%. (You can't dodge anything, period.) The damage from this giant club is going to be pretty heavy, but a portion is absorbed by the armor. The result is that this character is going to be skwered pretty good, but he'll probably live is he has a good Con. With Con 8 or so, he might not be so lucky.

Now consider the same gians club attack on someone wearing no armor. He could duck, move, etc to avoid the attack. Chances of this succeeding would be pretty high (because he has no armor, his defense wouldn't be hampered). However, if he is unlucky enough to be hit, he's going to be toast no matter what. In this case, the plate armor would save one character, while the other would take his chances at avoiding the blow.

As far as I can tell, this scenario is about as realistic as can be, due to the inclusion of a couple of rules.
- armor give DR, but hampers Defense (AC).
- hit points should be fixed, so that the actually mean something in terms of someone's health: no triple-digit hp's (Ugh)

I've written up a system using armor as DR, a "fixed-hp-system"and a Parry system to have high attack bonus mean something. I might post it sometime.

Fanog