[Rant] Armor as DR is bad !

[Al'Kelhar]

Yeah, maybe it is an Australian thing. Why don't you go play another game? This IS the House Rules forum, isn't it? Your definition of fantasy vastly differs from mine, and it's not even the point. We're supposed to be discussing balance.


You're right. It sucks when the DM has no balance. That's nothing new. It's an overzealous assumption that only idiot DMs are out to use Grim n Grittty rules, or assign DR ratings to Armour.

I apologise if my comments have come across as a little belligerent. I note that the topic was noted as a [Rant], and I pointed out that my comments were a rant, too. However, the comments on the thread continue to miss the point about AC and DR as concepts in D&D 3E combat. It's fun to have an argument about whether armour impedes mobility, and whether a modern rifle is better able to penetrate armour than a C19 musket, but the discussion is irrelevant to the question of whether armour should provide DR instead of AC. I have no objection to people wanting to have more realistic combat mechanics than D&D provides, but simply saying "armour should be DR, not AC" is just plain wrong because it misunderstands those two concepts within the scheme of D&D combat mechanics. I have no objection to people creating systems of combat in which protective vestments of whatever sort enhance resistance to damage as opposed to enhancing difficulty to hit, but if you want to do this in D&D you have to change a whole lot of other things to keep the system internally consistent and operational. Natural armour has to become DR instead of AC. Hence, being a fighter with a +1/level BAB increase is no more important than being a wizard with +1/2 levels BAB increase, because most things are within a few points of AC 10. So you've just nerfed the fighter class, there. Perhaps fighters should then get a scaling class ability to overcome DR instead? Do shields provide DR bonus or AC bonus? If you suggest that everything which currently does not contribute to touch AC should provide DR, then shields should provide DR. But their purpose is to deflect blows, not to limit damage from blows which hit. And while we're making D&D combat "realistic", who says a battleaxe does as much damage, on average, as a longsword, or a heavy mace, or a light flail? What statistical studies of injuries prove that these weapons all maim and kill as efficiently as each other? And better than a scimitar, and worse than a halberd? Etc. In short, if you make armour provide DR, consider the impacts it has on the combat system as a whole, and if your rationale in doing so is simply to make D&D combat more "realistic", there's a lot more things you have to change than just whether armour provides DR.

We now return to your regularly scheduled program.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[SylverFlame]

Reply to fanog

In the case of a lowered HP system, where AC is different than "heavy armour, good AC", then I can definitely get behind the DR argument. However, in the present DnD game I feel the system that is there is a good one.

The present system is already balanced between HP and defense and you can even see this by giving different different HD to different classes and creature type. Under the present system things work, and massive DR's given by armour mess with the balance.

This is, of course, my personal opinion, which does not make it the only opinion, or necessarily right. Just felt like adding the disclaimer at this point.

 

[KarinsDad]

I have no objection to people creating systems of combat in which protective vestments of whatever sort enhance resistance to damage as opposed to enhancing difficulty to hit, but if you want to do this in D&D you have to change a whole lot of other things to keep the system internally consistent and operational. Natural armour has to become DR instead of AC. Hence, being a fighter with a +1/level BAB increase is no more important than being a wizard with +1/2 levels BAB increase, because most things are within a few points of AC 10.

Ok, let me take a stab at it.

Natural Armor becomes a DR equivalent.

Regular Armor becomes:

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

Mage Armor and similar protections (Bracers of Armor) are now DR.

Armor Enhancement bonuses for armor (not shields) are DR.

All other bonuses to AC (e.g. shields, Rings of Protection, Dex modifiers, Dodge, etc.) are still AC bonuses.

All characters (and monsters) get the Power Attack feat for free (i.e. the ability to attempt to aim for a weak spot).


Ok, not too many rules changes here. How is this unbalanced? What core rules does this upset or force to be changed as well?


Granted, I agree that this is more cumbersome, but that is not the issue. The issue is that creating a DR system is not that hard to implement, nor does it have to affect that many rules (as per your supposition).

 

[Camarath]

All characters (and monsters) get the Power Attack feat for free (i.e. the ability to attempt to aim for a weak spot).

What about an option like this instead.

Fighting Aggressively(?) as a Full-Round (or Standard) Action: You can choose to fight aggressively when taking a full attack (or standard attack) action. If you do so, you take a -4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 bonus to damage for the same round.

 

[AnthonyJ]

Here's an alternative which accomplishes basically the same thing as 'armor as DR':

Let everyone do a 'Cruide Attack'. This treats every attack as a touch attack, and grants the target DR equal to the amount of armor being bypassed.

Within the DnD system as it is at the moment it's pretty unlikely that anyone would want to do this (most things with damage sufficient to bash through armor also have enough attack bonus that they don't have to), but it might be useful for ballistae, guns, and the like.

 

[Fanog]

In the case of a lowered HP system, where AC is different than "heavy armour, good AC", then I can definitely get behind the DR argument. However, in the present DnD game I feel the system that is there is a good one.

I agree with this, mostly. The system is a good one, in that 1) is is easy to work with; 2) is reasonable realistic for the heroic genre for which it is used; 3) is internally balanced.

However, the concept of his points doesn't really jive with me, for some reason. High-level fighers can take dozens of full-force blows from sword and axes, because "their high hit points represent their ability to turn a grievous wound into a lesser one through dodging etc. This just seems so round-about for me. When my Fighter is at 35 hit point out of a total of 100, is he really injured? It just doesn't seem like he is, when you know that he can still take about five longsword in the gut and be okay.

As an analogy, consider the following: In a certain campaign world, magic is a really tricky business. Every spell has a chance of failing, say of about 50%. Now let's chose the following rule to model this effect: "Wizards can only prepare half the spells they normally can. This is to represent that half their spells will fail."

On average, the system would work well, and it's easier than throwing a die every time you cast a spell. But, it's less realistic and the concept of a spell loses its real, basic meaning. That's about the same thing that bugs me about hit points, basically.

(Was this relevant for the discussion? I don't know. I think using armor as DR only works for gritty'er games, where a hit point really has a meaning in terms of a character's health. One blow, one wound. Armor as AC is, I think, intrinsically linked to the concept of suffering less serious wounds as you gain more levels.)

Fanog

 

[KarinsDad]

Fighting Aggressively(?) as a Full-Round (or Standard) Action: You can choose to fight aggressively when taking a full attack (or standard attack) action. If you do so, you take a -4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 bonus to damage for the same round.

That might work except for the monsters that have natural armor 12 or higher. The +2 really isn't going to cut it ( stop doing that KD).

A rule of -2 to BAB, +1 to damage with no cap (except BAB itself, just like Power Attack is limited) might work though.


PS. I forgot to mention the "armor does not have a maximum dex bonus" rule.

 

[Enkhidu]

So, let me see if I understand you.

You think that highly protective armor is less flexible, but this lack of flexibility should not result in a lack of ability to hit or to parry?

Are you saying that any flexibility lost due to more protective armor is irrelevant to the flexibility needed for combat?

Well, to be more clear, I'm saying that highly protective/less flexible armor does not substantially hinder the ability to attack, though it does put a limit on defensive motions (which D&D already takes into consideration with the max dex bonus). Striking takes far less flexibility than dodging, unless the armored fighter is wearing guantlets (which make the hands and wrists less flexible, greatly reducing the range of motion of a strike - there's a reason a finess fighter doesn't wear guantlets!).

That being said, I like the numbers you put forth. I played with the same idea in the past, though I figured I'd simply cap the tech level of the campaign firmly at crusader level armor and weapons and make all armor DR (which would mean chain mail, while still giving DR 5, would be the best armor available as nothing better had yet been invented).

What do you all think of adding another wrinkle into the discussion - if armor grants DR, would it be overcome by Adamantine (or other materials with a substantially greater hardness)?

 

[Camarath]

That might work except for the monsters that have natural armor 12 or higher. The +2 really isn't going to cut it ( stop doing that KD).

A rule of -2 to BAB, +1 to damage with no cap (except BAB itself, just like Power Attack is limited) might work though.

You are very right it would be quite hard to damage a NA 12 if that converts to DR 12/-. I think your change is a good idea. I am not sure it needs a cap since not having one would allow the characters to convert other bonuses to attack such as True Strike in to damage as well as BAB and taking too much of a penalty would simply cause the attack to fail.

Fighting Aggressively as a Full-Round (or Standard) Action: You can choose to fight aggressively when taking a full attack (or standard attack) action. If you do so, you may take multiple -2 penalties on all attacks in a round to gain a +1 bonus to damage per -2 penalty to attack for the same round, these penalties and bonuses stack. Note that since this action can not be use in a Coup de Grace Action since it requires a a separate Full-Round or Standard Action to use.

Also you might consider a rule that converts the value by which one's attack roll exceeds the target's AC into Damage on a 2 to 1 (or 3 to 1) basis. So that if you rolled an attack of 20 and the argets AC was 10 you would get bonus damage of (20-10)/2= 5 poins of bonus damage (or (20-10)/3= 3). This would be IMO fair in a game that used Armor Bonuses and Natural Armor Bonuses as DR.

 

[Aaron2]

Well, to be more clear, I'm saying that highly protective/less flexible armor does not substantially hinder the ability to attack, though it does put a limit on defensive motions (which D&D already takes into consideration with the max dex bonus).

I also think the Max Dex penalty is a fairly decent one.

One thing about Armor-as-DR is the "immune to dagger" effect. Having a DR of 4 makes you immune to these weapons (baring Str bonus of course)*

I suggest having variable DR for armor. Like in Stormbringer.


*It gets even sillier in Star Wars where armor has no effect on Vitality damage so you can beat away all of a character's vitality and then become completely ineffective.