Weapon vs AC idea. edited. And responds to Reynolds 'called shots rant'

[heirodule]

I'm one of the wierdoes who liked the old weapon vs. AC chart from the first edition books.

I'm thinking of bolting on the following houserule to simulate a bit of that, while keeping it simple and avoiding a cross indexed chart.

(Edited chart reflects Thresher's advice)

Light armor
Padded 5 gp +1 0 DR 2/P,S
Leather 10 gp +2 0 DR 1/HP,S
Studded 25 gp +3 -1 DR 1/HP,S
Chain shirt 100gp +4 -2 DR 2/PB

Medium armor
Hide 15 gp +3 -3 DR 2/HP,S
Scale mail 50 gp +4 -4 DR 2/HP,B
Chainmail 150gp +5 -5 DR 2/PB
Breastplate* 200gp +5 -4 DR 3/HP
* only to torso. Called shots against unarmored limbs at +4 AC

Heavy armor
Splint mail 200gp +6 -7 DR 2/HP
Banded mail 250gp +6 -6 DR 2/HP
Half-plate 600gp +7 -7 DR 3/HP
Full plate 1,500gp +8 -6 DR 3/HP

HELMETS
leather 2 gp DR 1 -2 listen
reinforced leather 3 gp DR 2 -2 listen
chain coiff 5gp +DR 1/PB -2 listen
Barbuta 10gp DR 3 -2 listen/-2 spot
great helm, visor up 15 gp DR 3/HP -2 listen/-2 spot
great helm, visor down 15 gp DR 4/HP -4 listen/-4 spot

P= Piercing, S= Slashing, B=Bludgeoning, HP=heavy piercing

the HP category is to try to avoid making a rapier an excellent choice vs plate. A critical with any weapon avoids the DR.

Piercing weapons would be: dagger, spiked gauntlet, all spears,
morningstar, darts, javelins, shortsword, raiper, tridents, all shortbow and longbow arrows, hand crossbow bolts, halfling siangham

Heavy piercing weapons: punching dagger, light and hvy crossbow bolts, lances, picks, halberd, scythe, siangham (removed composite from HP)

Explanation of helmets: Granting DR to helmets is to allow for called shots to the head on those who refuse to wear one. Such called shots won't do any more damage, but they would be a way of bypassing the DR of any armor worn. So its good to wear armor, but if you want the full advnatage of it, wear an appropriate helmet too.

leather: A simple cuer bouli leather cap with cheekguards.

reinforced leather: as the leather, with two intersecting bands of metal forming an arc over the top and a band around the forehead.

Chain coiff: This can be worn along with other helmet types, or on it's own. The DR and listen penalty are cumulative. {this needs work}

Barbuta: metal "corinthian" style helmet which covers the whole head, but open at the eyes and chin.

Great helm: The typical helmet worn with plate armors, encloses the head with only narrow slits for the eyes. Putting the visor up or down is a move equivalent action.

Any thoughts? Do the damage type assignments to armor make sense? The idea is that chainmail is good at stopping swords or maces, but not picks.

I also like that it gives a reason for using padded armor. Not very historical, but if we have dire flails...

 

[MarauderX]

Well, I never like the old way, and didn't use it - sorry!

The only thing I don't understand is why the whip doesn't do damage to a target with ANY type of armor. Just doesn't make sense that someone couldn't get whipped in the head or other vital area and not take that limited subdual damage. It's one of the restrictions I will do away with as a DM, and I am trying to abolish it everywhere.

 

[Steverooo]

Sorry, this system made no sense to me, at all. Chain usually includes padded as an undergarment, for instance, which is better against blunts, yet you have padded at DR 3 and chain at 2...

 

[Thresher]

Padded armour is relatively resiliant against piercing attacks but it gets ripped to pieces against anyone with a slashing weapon. It may have some nominal effect against bludgeoning, but it is a really awful armour.

Leather/Hide type armours dont stop a lot of slashing type damage, but they are resiliant towards piercing damage and bludgeoning.
As for things like 'studded' youre more or less looking at early composite type armours that tried to offset leather being cut to pieces by swords and the studs made it look more intimidating.

Banded mail, Im not sure this armour ever really existed so I find it hard to comment on it. Im sort of thinking its what roman legions wore around the 3rd century, the carapace type plate armour with leather reinforcements and straps. In which case it would be resiliant to slashing and bludgeoning.

Chainmail is intended to stop slashing attacks, which it does very well, it fares quite poorly against piercing and dosnt stop much in the way of bludgeoning either. The undershirt of chainmail armour someone mentioned is basically 2 cotton shirts padded with wool or hemp, it is not intended to stop anything except to cushion the weight of the armour and keep it off bare skin, underclothes. By its very nature chain carries most of its weight on the wearers shoulders.

Plate-type armours are more or less designed to be resiliant to most types of slashing, bludgeoning damage, you can pierce them but it isnt very easy. The advent of heavy plate armours saw the introduction of things like military picks, dirks, crossbows and later on- firearms, to try and punch holes in them. They dont have a lot of weaknesses at all to exploit apart from the weight.
The Breastplate and half-plate will have the same effects but the wearer is essentially 'less' covered with the armour, which its lower AC reflects. Both these where more common after the invention of firearms where soldiers still wanted some armour but they eventually fell into disfavour because of the weight and cost.
People like Spartans also wore the 'book' version of the breastplate before anyone else did.

Scale armours. These where relatively uncommon, the Persians used to have some of their heavy cavalry in scale armour and so did the romans early on. It is a surprisingly effective armour but very expensive to manufacture and suffers from the same problems that chainmail does, it rests very heavily on the shoulders of the wearer. Beating the owner to death should work ok, as would slipping a piercing weapon between the scales, but slashing is highly resistant.

That help you any?

 

[heirodule]

Thanks for the helpful feedback. I'll edit the main post to reflect some changes.

Padded armour is relatively resiliant against piercing attacks but it gets ripped to pieces against anyone with a slashing weapon. It may have some nominal effect against bludgeoning, but it is a really awful armour.

I';m sure it is. I'm willing to allow this to be "fantasy padded" and give it it least one serious advantage in being a cheap protection for bludgeoning only. I could make the bypass weapon type just be HP, which would help stop the rapiers, but let the "moment-arm piercing" weapons (my rule of thumb for defining heavy piercing)

Leather/Hide type armours dont stop a lot of slashing type damage, but they are resiliant towards piercing damage and bludgeoning.

Sounds like it needs HP bypass added too.

Plate-type armours are more or less designed to be resiliant to most types of slashing, bludgeoning damage, you can pierce them but it isnt very easy. The advent of heavy plate armours saw the introduction of things like military picks, dirks, crossbows and later on- firearms, to try and punch holes in them.

That was my thinking too. I'm not sure I want to classify a dirk or dagger as HP for purposes of bypass, though it may make sense to say that any crit is assumed to ignore DR.

The Breastplate and half-plate will have the same effects but the wearer is essentially 'less' covered with the armour, which its lower AC reflects. Both these where more common after the invention of firearms where soldiers still wanted some armour but they eventually fell into disfavour because of the weight and cost.

This is where I just realized that this rule would meet the "obejections" to called shots thatSean Reynolds anti-called shots "rant"
raises. The breastplate could offer relaitively strong protection, but called shots would then be useful against the wearer as a balancing factor. Aim for the unarmored arm, (at +4 AC for small size, say) and you get to ignore the high DR.

We could also reintroduce helmets, which are woefully missing from d20, by allwoing a called shot to the head to bypass unhelmeted armor DR.

Reynolds objection was directed at a system of called shots that gave bonus damage for hitting unarmored spots, which is a problem, unless we're reducing damage by armor generally.


Thanks!

 

[Al]

Personally, I can think of several reasons why this is a very bad idea.

1. Heavy Armour just got a whole lot better.

Heavy Armour is already very good, particularly for frontliners with a poor Dexterity. By implementing DR, you take what is already a powerful combination, and make it even more powerful.

2. Breasplates.

Breastplates I have a big problem with. The point that Sean Reynolds made is quite simply- a breastplate is simply the 'breast' bit of full plate. The 'breast' bit accounts for +5AC, not the full +8AC, for the specific reason that it does not cover the full body. From a logical pov, therefore, your model falls down.

From a game-balance pov, it is also weak. Breastplate are listed as +5AC, but *everyone* willl simply call a shot at the legs, as this is easier- and why +4? +4 indicates diminutive- and personally, my legs are longer than 1'.

3. Medium Armour is weakened.

Let's be realistic. The only medium armour worthwhile at the mid-high levels is the Breastplate (and usually the mithril variety). By weakening the Breasplate (to effectively +4AC) the entire Medium Armour category is degraded even more (as if it weren't overlooked enough).

4. Helmets

First of all, the chain coif is worthless. Secondly, the helmet is included in the effective AC of the armour! Arguably, you could say that not having a helmet for heavy armour is a -1 AC, but having separate helmets gets confusing. Thirdly, why does a called shot to the head not do any more damage? If someone stabs me in the head, I am a whole lot more in trouble than if they stab me in the leg. Fourthly, why does it only bypass DR and not AC? All in all, a poor idea.

5. Archers are empowered.

What is the only weapon type to bypass all armour DRs? Heavy Piercing. What is the only HP weapon regularly used at high levels (ignoring a few mad deathcult clerics with scythes)? Composite bows. Conclusion: see a lot more bows.

6. Finesse fighters out, tanks in.

Finesse fighters and two-weapon fighters are disempowered- lots of DR kicking around effectively means that each attack they land is more detrimentally affected (in % of damage absorbed) than by 2h weapon wielders, for example. e.g. Two-shortswords man does average 5hps per hit. -3 for DR and he only gets 2 damage x2 = 4 hps damage per round if all attacks hit. Greatsword man does average 10hps per hit. -3 for DR and he gets 7hps per hit. At the moment, they do the same damage/round if all attacks hit (i.e. 10pts). Under the new system, greatsword wielder does nearly double.

...and the fundamental problem

AC is abstract, and an abstraction built from the notion that it is an aggregate of the armour covering of the whole body. If called shots are used, then the whole abstraction idea just collapses. Moreover, it is an abstraction of stopping the ability to be hit- if DR is introduced for standard armours, surely it also tends this abstraction? Yes, full plate stops more damage, but why does it both stop more damage AND make you harder to hit? Either one or the other- the former as a realistic simulation and the latter as an abstraction.

I don't always agree with Sean Reynolds (notably his rant on the effigy) but on this one he was spot on. Called shots, armour DR and weapon types v. armour are all very bad ideas for DnD.

 

[heirodule]

Personally, I can think of several reasons why this is a very bad idea.

1. Heavy Armour just got a whole lot better.

I don't see that as too bad of a problem

Breastplates I have a big problem with. The point that Sean Reynolds made is quite simply- a breastplate is simply the 'breast' bit of full plate. The 'breast' bit accounts for +5AC, not the full +8AC, for the specific reason that it does not cover the full body. From a logical pov, therefore, your model falls down.

From a game-balance pov, it is also weak. Breastplate are listed as +5AC, but *everyone* willl simply call a shot at the legs, as this is easier- and why +4? +4 indicates diminutive- and personally, my legs are longer than 1'.

Good point. Maybe I'll just forget the helmet & called shots with breastplate idea. I think we need to do something with helmets though...

Thirdly, why does a called shot to the head not do any more damage? If someone stabs me in the head, I am a whole lot more in trouble than if they stab me in the leg. Fourthly, why does it only bypass DR and not AC? All in all, a poor idea.

I'm still going with the abstract combat rules as much as possible, and I agreed with Reynolds that giving out extra damage in terms of dice from the weapon was unbalancing to the unarmored charcaters.

5. Archers are empowered.

What is the only weapon type to bypass all armour DRs? Heavy Piercing. What is the only HP weapon regularly used at high levels (ignoring a few mad deathcult clerics with scythes)? Composite bows. Conclusion: see a lot more bows.

Good point. Composites taken off the HP weapon list.

AC is abstract, and an abstraction built from the notion that it is an aggregate of the armour covering of the whole body. If called shots are used, then the whole abstraction idea just collapses. Moreover, it is an abstraction of stopping the ability to be hit- if DR is introduced for standard armours, surely it also tends this abstraction? Yes, full plate stops more damage, but why does it both stop more damage AND make you harder to hit? Either one or the other- the former as a realistic simulation and the latter as an abstraction.

I'm thinking of this really from a weapon-centric point of view: not that some armors are way more powerful, but that some weapons should just be better at dealing with some armors. And I'm trying to avoid a whole weapon vs AC charct like 1st edition had.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Judgement category 1: Is it more realistic?

Why is a spear in the same category as a rapier?

Precisely what is the difference between a longspear and a lance? Why does one fit into HP and one not do so?

I thought that weapons which would be classfied as rapiers (ie - estoc? That right?) were part of the reason that heavy plate armour began to get phased out. So why are they less effective than a club against that armour?

Half marks.

Judgement category 2: Is it more fun?

Well... probably not. I don't think it makes all that much difference.

On the plus side, it makes people use different weapons for different targets.

On the minus side, it makes people use different weapons for different targets in a game where specialisation is quite common.

Half marks again.

Judgement category 3: Does it speed up gameplay?

No. It certainly doesn't. It adds more calculations to the resolution of combat.

No marks.

So, out of 3, this scores a dismal 1, and I think I was being generous. Not worth using as it stands. I think the problem is that it's not realistic enough for a simulationist game, but not simplistic enough for an abstract one. It ends up introducing unnecessary complexity without really changing much.

 

[Guilt Puppy]

Just to chime in for the "armor giving DR makes no sense" crowd:

I could see giving armor penalties/bonuses versus certain types of weapons (you could probably model it so that it balanced out enough that it wouldn't effect game balance much... people would be more inclined to carry around a lot of weapons, but to get that benefit they'd have to sacrifice other gear, et cetera...) But DR? Armor is not built to take the force from blows, but to avoid them. (Padded and to an extent leather armor are an exception to this...)

Of course, if you really wanted to be accurate about it, piercing weapons would be better than slashing or bludgeoning weapons in all cases...

Really, bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing weapons all interact with armor very differently. While piercing weapons are the most likely to get past armor, slashing weapons are going to do more damage when they do... Bludgeoning weapons, on the other hand, have the added benefit of being able to damage through armor (at least, more than slashing, and way more than piercing.)

Here's how I'd model it, if you really want to know:

Piercing: +1 to hit armored enemies, -1 damage to all enemies. At first it seems odd that it would be better at hitting armored characters than unarmored one, but really it's just negating the effects of the armor (since you're never going to have less than +1 from anything considered armor.) A more accurate way of modelling it would be -1 AC to opponents, but that's harder to track.

Slashing: -1 to hit armored enemies, and a flat +1 to damage. Makes slashing weapons universally better against unarmored opponents -- but against armored opponents, your blade is going to be gliding right off.

Bludgeoning: -1 to all attacks -- however, if it hits touch AC, it still does damage -- however, each armor is given a certain amount of DR which applies only to bludgeoning touch attacks.

That DR should be substantial, up to 15 to 20 or so for full plate. Bludgeoning weapons would become kind of a weird case... You wouldn't want to use it against unarmored opponents, for certain, but against people wearing chain shirt or something with low DR they'd be very nice.

In short, slashing weapons would be best against unarmored/light-armored opponents, bludgeoning weapons against opponents in medium armor, and piercing weapons against heavily armored opponents... This gets a little closer to actual weapon/armor dynamics (at least compared to the core rules), without getting too complicated to implement. (although I personally wouldn't want to take the trouble )

Some things it really doesn't resolve: Shields, and magical armor bonuses. Piercing weapons don't really negate a shield (although I wouldn't consider a character with a shield "armored" for those purposes), and it's hard to say how well they'd "pierce" through magical armor (in other words, should a monk with Bracers be considered armored for these purposes? I wouldn't say so...)

With bludgeoning weapons, the touch attack isn't going to do much of anything if it "touches" the shield and not the body armor... Of course, you could model that as "if it would hit ignoring the armor bonus from a suit of armor", but more people have touch AC written down on their character sheets. Also, with magical armor bonuses, it's tough to say how much of a blow that absorbs... None? All?

In cases of multiple damage types (such as a S/P scythe, or B/P morningstar), I'd simply stack the effects... A scythe would have no bonuses or penalties against anyone, and a morningstar would have a -1 to hit unarmored characters, a -1 to all damage, a +0 to hit armored characters, and the benefit of bludgeoning impact... In short, it would become not a great weapon, but a fairly good choice against armored characters -- you're just shifting the penalty of bludgeoning from attack over to damage. (Statistically, a bonus to hit is usually worth more than a bonus to damage, so that's a good trade-off for its penalties against unarmored characters.)

It's not a perfect model by any means, and it's full of problems, but it meets the criteria of maintaining balance, reflecting more closely (but still abstractly) the real physics of weaponry, and being reasonably easy to implement and track.

(An even simpler way would be to keep the bonuses/penalties entirely on attacks... Piercing +1 to armored, -1 to unarmored, vice versa to slashing -- it's easier to dodge a stab than a swipe, but that stabs going to be much better at sneaking through armor. Bludgeoning, then, could simply be kept as is -- a dependable weapon, good in all circumstances. The effects of impact through armor don't get reflected in this much, except for in the difference between it and slashing -- it's not really better at passing armor than slashing weapons, except for the occasional hit that rings through the armor. Which would do less damage, but you could just say that's what a low damage roll means Very much an abstraction, but an operable one...)

 

[Thresher]

Ah, its very hard to do much with the D20 system which is why I dont write anything for it myself.
It looks simple on paper but with the morass of source materials you have to go through just to make it all mate-up its not worth the effort in my opinion. This is especially true when it comes to messing around with the combat system.

Still, what people do with other people in the privacy of their own homes with dice is not my concearn

Anyway, D&D is best approched from a point of veiw like a computer game like Quake.
You have armour, you have hp's and if you run out of hp's you die.

Reality and armour are a bit more difficult. Driving a 1D4 piercing weapon through someone breastplate means that they die, usually very painfully and messily. D&D dosnt support that, and I suppose it dosnt need it.
Unfortunatly I dont really have anything to add, Im currently writing a space combat system for another game so maybe I'll come back one day to D&D and look at working around damage in the post 3.5 era, maybe we'll get lucky and have armour work after level 20+ too