D&D 4E What do you want in 4E, defense and DR or straight AC?

[kenjib]

This has some good sides, such as making combats longer...

Making combat longer than it already is, is a good thing?

 

[S'mon]

Fascinating discussion of dragon stats here - I agree wholeheartedly on hp as square root of mass, being roughly equivalent to cross-sectional area, as the best way to go, while armour is proportional to thickness *if* we're only talking about (mostly 'natural') armour with minimal deflective ability - plate armour is almost entirely reliant on its ability to deflect damage, not absorb it, and real-world tank, ship etc armours are 'face hardened' so they have a very hard, brittle surface which makes small arms fire bounce off, and a softer, 'gooier' but very tough interior to absorb damage from heavier shells. The face-hardening could be considered analogous to AC* while the interior toughness is Hardness or DR in D&D rules.

Edit:*This requires that heavy weapons like ballistae & tank shells be given the ability to ignore a certain amount of armour/natural armour, though. Eg if you think a siege crossbow would be unaffected by full plate & shield, but begin to be slowed by heavier armour, giving it 10 pts of AC-reduction would be reasonable. I've instituted this in my game for ballistae etc although it hasn't come up yet. A heavy ballista might ignore 20 pts, a 100mm depleted uranium APFSDSDU shell 100 pts, etc.

I think the current rules for dragons approximate 'reality' by giving them both natural armour AC boost and DR for the big ones - DR ensures that swarms of arrows or spears have no effect on big dragons, as it should be.

I think modelling armour in RPGs is a lot more complicated than often recognised, hence I haven't voted either way yet. A DR approach is vital for modern games where body armour is all about absorbing & dispersing kinetic energy, whereas AC has an advantage modelling medieval plate mail. Neither approach is sufficient, though - how do you model the ability of a medieval peasant with a dagger to kill a knight by sticking the blade through his visor? DR systems underrate the ability of light weapons vs armoured targets, AC systems arguably overrate them.

It may be that a mixed approach, giving some armour both AC (deflection) and DR (absorption), is the way to go, and I have advocated this previously. I don't generally have a huge problem with the move away from heavy armour in 3e, it always seemed a bit unlikely in earlier editions how all the fighters always wore full plate everywhere! The max DEX caps are too harsh though, a 'half your DEX bonus' approach would make more sense IMO - a trained knight in full plate could be very nearly as dextrous as the man in studded leather, and probably moreso than the WW1 infantryman going into battle with a 50lb pack on his back!

 

[hong]

Making combat longer than it already is, is a good thing?

At high levels, combats tend to be settled within a couple of rounds. Basically whoever gets off a hasted full attack or multiple instakill-spell routine first, wins. Offense really outpaces defense, hit points and AC buffs notwithstanding.

 

[Celebrim]

Dispater: "...given that a dragon would also have to be dropped to -10 to be killed."

Ok, you got me. The dragon should have 858 h.p., not 868. Incidently, in my campaign, you are staggered if you are reduced to 0 h.p. or 10% of your max h.p. which ever is greater.

S'mon: " This requires that heavy weapons like ballistae & tank shells be given the ability to ignore a certain amount of armour/natural armour, though."

The stat is called 'penetration' and although defined in a variaty of ways, it is pretty common to use penetration when modeling modern weapons. Arguably, heavy bows and certainly mangonels and the like should have a certain ammount of 'penetration'.

Now that 3rd ed. has gone and separated AC (armor class) and AB (armor bonus) explicitly rather than implicitly (as in 1st edition) it becomes easier to model penetration and the like.

"It may be that a mixed approach, giving some armour both AC (deflection) and DR (absorption), is the way to go..."

It is the way GURPS does it.

 

[Sir Edgar]

I'd like WOTC to come out with a book of alternative rules on this, so people who want to play more detailed combat can and those who don't don't have to. I'd be interested in what they come up with.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Hmmm...Player's Option: Combat & Tactics 3E!

That should be wonderful.

 

[Jarval]

You could have armour give DR rather than AC, but have a hit still deal a minimum of 1 point/dice, even if the DR exceeds damage dealt.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again mate!

S'mon: " This requires that heavy weapons like ballistae & tank shells be given the ability to ignore a certain amount of armour/natural armour, though."

The stat is called 'penetration' and although defined in a variaty of ways, it is pretty common to use penetration when modeling modern weapons. Arguably, heavy bows and certainly mangonels and the like should have a certain amount of 'penetration'.

Now that 3rd ed. has gone and separated AC (armor class) and AB (armor bonus) explicitly rather than implicitly (as in 1st edition) it becomes easier to model penetration and the like.

Couldn't penetration be as simple as:

Crushing - Normal penetration.
Slashing - Armour half effective.
Piercing - Armour quarter effective.

"It may be that a mixed approach, giving some armour both AC (deflection) and DR (absorption), is the way to go...".

Agreed.

 

[Danyon Dehlmari]

(Oops... Wife's account...)

 

[Bendris Noulg]

That's how I handle Armor and Natural Armor: Divide the AC value in half for each, one offering Resistance (Round Up) and the other offering Absorbtion (Round Down).

There... I feel much more myself...