Upper Krust, where are you? [Immortal's Handbook]

[Sonofapreacherman]

Upper_Krust.

Well... I’ll say this. The beauty of implementing a "damage size modifier" is precisely that you "tack it on". Meaning, tacking it on is a feature rather than a detriment.

It achieves the desired effect of factoring size and weight into damage modifiers without having to recalculate Strength and melee damage every time. When faced with the choice of tacking on a single extra modifier (using an established game mechanic), versus another rule that recalculates Strength and melee attacks, then assuming both rules achieve the same desired effect...

...tacking it on every time.

Heck, we already tack on situational bonuses and penalties all the time during regular game play. This one is painless by comparison. In that sense, "taking on" will always be less bothersome than "recalculating".

Just so you know, I’m not really trying to persuade you Upper_Krust. You either like damage size modifiers or you don’t. In fact, you’ve already said as much. The solution you came up with is interesting to me because I originally pursued the same line of thought (increasing Strength and melee damage) until my brain tripped over damage size modifiers. As house rules go, it offers minimal change for the maximum impact. Less is more. Occams razer couldn’t be more happy.

 

[Gez]

Another little house-rule I've forgot to post the other day:

Each size category higher allows a creature to ignore 1 point of natural armor, armor, and damage reduction.

A snail's shell is a good shelter against a hedgehog, but not against an absent-minded human stepping on it. Similarly, a full-plate is not going to be much useful against an absent-minded elephant (or tarrasque) stepping on you.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again Forsaken One!

Inspired me to play a Neutral Evil Nomad in my next game this week

Glad I could help...it was nothing - honest!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Upper_Krust.

Hello mate!

Well... I’ll say this. The beauty of implementing a "damage size modifier" is precisely that you "tack it on". Meaning, tacking it on is a feature rather than a detriment.

It achieves the desired effect of factoring size and weight into damage modifiers without having to recalculate Strength and melee damage every time. When faced with the choice of tacking on a single extra modifier (using an established game mechanic), versus another rule that recalculates Strength and melee attacks, then assuming both rules achieve the same desired effect...

...tacking it on every time.

Heck, we already tack on situational bonuses and penalties all the time during regular game play. This one is painless by comparison. In that sense, "taking on" will always be less bothersome than "recalculating".

Just so you know, I’m not really trying to persuade you Upper_Krust. You either like damage size modifiers or you don’t. In fact, you’ve already said as much. The solution you came up with is interesting to me because I originally pursued the same line of thought (increasing Strength and melee damage) until my brain tripped over damage size modifiers. As house rules go, it offers minimal change for the maximum impact. Less is more. Occams razer couldn’t be more happy.

Your method doesn't solve the damage dice problem. Therefore in and of itself it does not have all the answers.

Though I do like the 'tack on' ability.

However if you apply it across the board that means you affect the things that are already 'fixed' like monster manual giants and golems; as well as numerous ELH monsters.

So essentially with either method (yours or mine) theres potentially some changes necessary.

It will be interesting to see what Core Rulebook changes Monte Cook makes in his Arcana Unearthed book? I remember he spoke before of armourworking as damage reduction (not in the context of this book though).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Gez mate!

Another little house-rule I've forgot to post the other day:

Each size category higher allows a creature to ignore 1 point of natural armor, armor, and damage reduction.

A snail's shell is a good shelter against a hedgehog, but not against an absent-minded human stepping on it. Similarly, a full-plate is not going to be much useful against an absent-minded elephant (or tarrasque) stepping on you.

Seems a trifle redundant given that increasing strength gives you a superior attack bonus (reducing natural armour/armour) and damage bonus (reducing the effects of damage reduction) anyway...?

 

[Gez]

It will be interesting to see what Core Rulebook changes Monte Cook makes in his Arcana Unearthed book? I remember he spoke before of armourworking as damage reduction (not in the context of this book though).

Aaah ! I don't like it (see my aptly named rant on that forum for my reasons).

Seems a trifle redundant given that increasing strength gives you a superior attack bonus (reducing natural armour/armour) and damage bonus (reducing the effects of damage reduction) anyway...?

Well, not that much. Damage reduction avoidance is not going to be necessarily a damage bonus, given that most creatures just don't have it. It's here just to allow sheer strength to compensate for a possible lack of magic. Similarly, the armor avoidance is not necessarily a to hit bonus, the svirneblin monk is still going to be hard to hit. It just allow for sheer brute strength to pierce armor more easily.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

So essentially with either method (yours or mine) there’s potentially some changes necessary.

It will be interesting to see what Core Rulebook changes Monte Cook makes in his Arcana Unearthed book? I remember he spoke before of armour working as damage reduction (not in the context of this book though).

HA! Yes indeed. It's like you are either reading my mind or moving in the same logical direction.

To balance the damage size modifier, I too have been slowly incorporating armor as damage reduction in my game. This change, however, quickly become multi-faceted.

First of all, Armor Class (AC) was eliminated from my game altogether and replaced with "Evasion Class" (EC), which is the number required to make a touch attack. Armor is now represented as Hardness Rating (HR), using the same values that exist now (for example, a chain shirt has a HR 4). This is the number that the damage roll has to beat in order deal damage to the target.

There are even rules for damaging armor, including a list of hardness ratings and hit points for the respective armor types (that I lifted for the official D&D FAQ).

Essentially, creatures become easier to hit, but harder to hurt.

To top it off (for characters that either choose not to or don't were armor) I have incorporated standardized "parrying" into the game, using rules and feats that are similar to those presented in Dragon #301.

As well (and I think you'll like this change) Dexterity is the now only attribute used to resolve all "attack" rolls, whether melee or ranged, and the Max Dexterity Bonus for armor types applies to both Evasion Class and attack rolls. Not just Evasion Class.

The next change might be more controversial. So that Dexterity didn't become the "everything" attribute, Initiative is now a function of Wisdom.

I thought it would be Intelligence at first, until one of my friends made a really good point. Wisdom is the "instinct" and "perception" attribute. The human body frequently responds to danger much faster than our minds do. That was logical enough to convince me that Wisdom was more appropriate.

That's a lot of changes for one post, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Feel free to either post them here or Email them to me. Whichever medium facilitates more than your regular one line replies.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Gez mate!

Aaah ! I don't like it (see my aptly named rant on that forum for my reasons).

I know!

Well, not that much. Damage reduction avoidance is not going to be necessarily a damage bonus, given that most creatures just don't have it. It's here just to allow sheer strength to compensate for a possible lack of magic.

But as I mentioned the extra strength does this anyway.

Even given the unfathomably loose adherance to Einsteins theory of relativity in d20; size should in no way be given armour penetration beyond its actual strength capacity.

You just seem to be overcomplicating the matter unnecessarily mate; trust me.

Similarly, the armor avoidance is not necessarily a to hit bonus, the svirneblin monk is still going to be hard to hit. It just allow for sheer brute strength to pierce armor more easily.

If anything, an increase in size would actually denote worse armour penetration since the surface area of the comparative weapon (natural or manufactured) would likely be greater.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again mate!

HA! Yes indeed. It's like you are either reading my mind or moving in the same logical direction.

Great minds...yadda, yadda!

To balance the damage size modifier, I too have been slowly incorporating armor as damage reduction in my game.

This change, however, quickly become multi-faceted.

As I predicted many moons ago.

First of all, Armor Class (AC) was eliminated from my game altogether and replaced with "Evasion Class" (EC), which is the number required to make a touch attack. Armor is now represented as Hardness Rating (HR), using the same values that exist now (for example, a chain shirt has a HR 4). This is the number that the damage roll has to beat in order deal damage to the target.

I suppose the new terminology avoids any confusion.

There are even rules for damaging armor, including a list of hardness ratings and hit points for the respective armor types (that I lifted for the official D&D FAQ).

Could get a bit pedantic; whats it like under play?

Essentially, creatures become easier to hit, but harder to hurt.

To top it off (for characters that either choose not to or don't were armor) I have incorporated standardized "parrying" into the game, using rules and feats that are similar to those presented in Dragon #301.

I was just about to suggest parrying.

If we were doing a Monte Cook (reworking the PHB) I would have a skill bonus instead of BAB and add that bonus to AC.

As well (and I think you'll like this change) Dexterity is the now only attribute used to resolve all "attack" rolls, whether melee or ranged, and the Max Dexterity Bonus for armor types applies to both Evasion Class and attack rolls. Not just Evasion Class.

As it should be.

The next change might be more controversial. So that Dexterity didn't become the "everything" attribute, Initiative is now a function of Wisdom.

I thought it would be Intelligence at first, until one of my friends made a really good point. Wisdom is the "instinct" and "perception" attribute. The human body frequently responds to danger much faster than our minds do. That was logical enough to convince me that Wisdom was more appropriate.

Very interesting, my first impression was 'hes asking for trouble here' but after thinking about it; sounds plausible.

That's a lot of changes for one post, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Feel free to either post them here or Email them to me.

Already replied when I got to this point.

Whichever medium facilitates more than your regular one line replies.

I apply occams razor to my responses.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Could get a bit pedantic; what’s it like under play?

Well, if you choose *not* to track armor damage, simply add hardness rating, natural armor, and damage reduction together.

But if you do choose to track armor damage, as I have done, it becomes a simple matter of assigning hardness ratings and hit points to each of the armor types. The D&D FAQ offers a really good suggestion in that regard. Hardness rating 10 for all the metal armors, hardness rating 5 for all the leather armors, and hardness rating 0 for padded leather. Each armor has a number of hit points equal to 5x their (former AC; now HR).

Light armor
Padded / Hardness: 0 / Hit Points: 5
Leather / Hardness: 5 / Hit Points: 10
Studded / Hardness: 5 / Hit Points: 15
Chain shirt / Hardness: 10 / Hit Points: 20

Medium armor
Hide / Hardness: 5 / Hit Points: 15
Scale / Hardness: 10 / Hit Points: 20
Chain / Hardness: 10 / Hit Points: 25
Breast plate / Hardness: 10 / Hit Points: 25

Heavy armor
Splint / Hardness: 10 / Hit Points: 30
Banded / Hardness: 10 / Hit Points: 30
Half-plate / Hardness: 10 / Hit Points: 35
Full plate / Hardness: 10 / Hit Points: 40

So when should a successful attack that damages a target also damage the armor?

Potentially always. A good point was made to me not so long ago. You can’t attack armor without also attacking the wearer (at least not without a special feat).

Let's start with an example. A chain shirt offers HR4 of protection for the wearer, but the chain shirt itself has a hardness of 10.

If the target sustained 8 points of damage, the chain shirt would remain undamaged, but the target would take 4 hit points of damage.

If the target sustained 12 points of damage, the chain shirt would take 2 points of damage (falling from 20 hit points to 18 hit points), and the target would take 8 hit points of damage.

I would even agree that if the chain shirt fell to 10 or less hit points (1/2 or less maximum hit points), the chain shirt would become one-half as effective. Meaning, the armor bonus would downgrade from HR4 to HR2, until the chain shirt lost all its hit points (becoming completely useless) or was consequently repaired.

Admittedly, this does involve a little more bookkeeping on my part, but so far that extra work has been worth the added level of realism.

The cost for repairs could be resolved easily as well. A chain shirt costs 100 gold and has 20 hit points. Divide 100 gp by 20 hit points and you get 5 gp per hit point. Well, 5 gp seems kind of steep to me, so make it 5 silver pieces instead. That seems more reasonable.

I would even say that repair cost depends on the severity of damage. You could say that if a chain suit sustained one-half or more hit points in damage, then the repair cost would increase to 2 1/2 gp per hit point. Inflation x5.

It should also be said that (with this system) shields fall under the standardized rules for parrying.