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

[Tyrion]

If you're talking a complete overhaul, then yes, I'd like to see AC as DR. It could add another level of strategy to combat. Of course, I'd like to see ways of armour-piercing so that small weapons such as daggers wouldn't become useless (for example, an assassin could have an ability to ignore the first 5 points of DR from armour using a small weapon by getting it in the cracks).

 

[Cougar]

Tyrion, I think that would make a great feat for dex based characters.

Also check out my related thread about the VP/WP system. They really should go together, in my opinion.

Here

 

[kenjib]

I think that theoretically DR sounds better, but when applied it doesn't work as well for the kind of game I want. It encourages everyone to use only the biggest weapons and have the biggest strength.

With AC, even if you do a small amount of damage you can still whittle away at someone. With DR if you do a small amount of damage it just becomes far too difficult to hurt someone at all.

I like having more variety and choices, and DR doesn't provide that as well as AC does, despite the fact that it looks better on paper.

I like the fact that with the AC system someone with a dagger or rapier can slightly hurt someone in full plate armor. Just having fun is more important than being true to life. This is fantasy.

Now, this dynamic would change if DR was based on percentages rather than subtraction. I would totally go for that if it could be made somehow practical at the table. I don't want to have to figure out 73% of 17 points of damage at the table. No thanks. Subtractive DR just doesn't cut it for me though.

 

[Zappo]

My vote is for AC. I think it works well enough, and is part of the D&D flavor. Oh, and this is also a free bump.

 

[Cougar]

Thank you Zappo (even though you voted against me, grrr). I'll return the favor whenever I can!

 

[Celtavian]

Re

I would like them to keep the AC system as is, but add DR to it.

Without being too in depth, the heavier the armor, the more protection from damage it should be provide.

Heavy armors should provide some kind of DR with scaling DR's for lighter armor.

I mean, let's face it, at higher level Armor Class means just about nothing. Most creatures always land an attack or two. DR would definitely go along way in making heavy armor truly heavy when compared to light.

The higher AC while flat-footed really isn't good enough considering the loss of movement and skill penalties. I play a heavy armored knight right now. It takes me forever to enter combat compared to light armored fighters who don't have a significantly lower AC, especially monks.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi all!

The whole system needs a complete overhaul, I'm not sure even an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Ed. (v.3.1) could cover things while still using the majority of (d20) peripheral material.

If 4th Ed. ever does surface (and you have to imagine its simply a matter of time) then it must change a number of the 'canon' rules including Armour Class.

For anyone voting above to retain AC theres no point gettin' all dewey eyed about it - you can always still play 3rd Ed.

The bottom line is that AC doesn't make sense, which is why the 'd20 system' doesn't lend itself well to other genres (or even this one).

 

[green slime]

I'm with Celtavian...

I'd like to see the heavy tanks gain more benefit for actually stomping around, sweating in heavy armour.

At the moment, IMC the lightly armoured mithral-breastplate fighter dances around the battlefield, using spring attack and mobility, with a level of barbarian to enormous advantage over the platemail bearing dwarf who can't get anywhere on time, and with only 2 better AC.

Granting heavy armour DR -/2 and medium armours DR -/1 is a thought I've had for a LONG time. Of course, that penalises the dagger wielding halfling... But then that little bug*e* is more likely to get in a sneak attack or two...

I can't quite make up my mind on this.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

...With AC, even if you do a small amount of damage you can still whittle away at someone. With DR if you do a small amount of damage it just becomes far too difficult to hurt someone at all...I like the fact that with the AC system someone with a dagger or rapier can slightly hurt someone in full plate armor. Just having fun is more important than being true to life. This is fantasy...

I do something in my Basic D&D campaign that I think takes the best of both systems...

Weapon Tables

Basically, armour still makes it more difficult to land a telling blow, and when such a blow does land it often does less damage than it would against an unarmoured foe.

I avoid the zero damage problem by having it affect the type of damage die rolled, rather than subtracting from a fixed die type.

Further, I allow attackers to score an additional point of damage for every -1 To Hit they accept on their attack roll. This allows a dagger to do as much damage against a man in plate as a battleaxe would, but the character isn't going to be able to wildly swing away when attempting to do so--instead, he will have to carefully aim for the chinks in the armour.

Taken all together, I really like the extra flavor it adds to combat.

 

[Buttercup]

I don't want 4th edition. I've got over a thousand bucks invested in this one, and what with the OGL, I think publishers will be producing titles for it for a good, long time.

3.1 might be okay, if it doesn't render my present collection unuseable without lots of conversion, but 4th? No.