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

[Azlan]

I think that if you, personally, are averse to alterante rules that incorporates concepts such as armor DR and modifiers for weapon type vs armor type; that if you, personally, think D&D is better off not incorporating such concepts into its rules; then you should (please!) keep your criticisms to yourself when someone posts these types of alternate rules. I mean, we who are interested in discussing and exploring these types of alternate rules already know that a majority of players out there don't particularly care for them.

Myself, when I post such alternate rules, I'm looking for constructive criticism on the rules themselves; I'm not looking to get into yet another debate over the need or justification for them. If I post a set of alternate rules that, say, incorporate armor DR, I do not want to be lectured again and again by the naysayers and the "core believers" on how D&D was not designed to be that way -- I already freakin' know that. (Any idiot perusing the core rulebooks can see that D&D was not designed that way.) What I do want is constructive criticism on whether or not my alternate rules are the best way to go about incorporating armor DR; and if not, what might be some better ways?

 

[CRGreathouse]

I like the new padded armor. It makes you near-immune to (non-monk) punches and kicks... A commoner now now takes 7 times longer to knock another commoner in padded armor out!

 

[LostSoul]

Honestly, I think that if you want to change the AC system you're going to have to change the HP system as well, since the two go hand-in-hand like young lovers off to the Motel 6.

If you like it and it works for your group, cheers.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think that if you, personally, are averse to alterante rules that incorporates concepts such as armor DR and modifiers for weapon type vs armor type; that if you, personally, think D&D is better off not incorporating such concepts into its rules; then you should (please!) keep your criticisms to yourself when someone posts these types of alternate rules. I mean, we who are interested in discussing and exploring these types of alternate rules already know that a majority of players out there don't particularly care for them.

Myself, when I post such alternate rules, I'm looking for constructive criticism on the rules themselves; I'm not looking to get into yet another debate over the need or justification for them. If I post a set of alternate rules that, say, incorporate armor DR, I do not want to be lectured again and again by the naysayers and the "core believers" on how D&D was not designed to be that way -- I already freakin' know that. (Any idiot perusing the core rulebooks can see that D&D was not designed that way.) What I do want is constructive criticism on whether or not my alternate rules are the best way to go about incorporating armor DR; and if not, what might be some better ways?

In which case, you should state those facts.

If you are intent on introducing a certain rule, and merely want a better way to achieve a specific outcome, say so.

The first post in this thread said no such thing. It said he was thinking about introducing such a rule, and he wanted any thoughts on doing so.

People give responses to the rules you write. If they think the rules you wrote were unnecessary, slow the game down and generally contribute little to the experience, then they are entitled to say so, provided they give their reasons for thinking so, or the reasons for their thinking are relatively obvious. There hasn't been a single post on this thread which gave an unsupported opinion. In fact, the only post NOT giving constructive criticism was your own.