. . . while you're at it. . . Fix heavy armor!

[Lord Zardoz]

I do not think that Armour as Damage reduction is a very good idea. One of the things that caused high level combat in 3.5 to break down was that there were too many variables to consider when making an attack roll.

Adding damage reduction to all armour means adding a new variable to the equation. Even worse, it adds a variable to the damage that will change with each different target you try to hit.

1. DR makes it hard to balance the heavily armored guy against the lightly armored guy. In the AC system, you simply compare expected attacks vs. expected AC, and expected hit points vs. expected damage. You can then cross reference those two to figure out how long a PC can survive.

2. DR adds an extra step of work. Rolling to hit is something we expect to do, and accounting for armor in that step speeds up the game. Adding another step, the check for DR or the time spent resolving it, slows the game down on every successful attack.

Yup. I called it. Yay me. I was right.

I should really go out and get a life...

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Victim]

Have you even played this game?

You'll notice there are plenty of other folks who managed to pick up the point of the post. There's a reason for that. . . and the reason is that heavy armor is NOT adequate as it currently operates.

If you're one of these people that believe heavy armor is a great choice currently, then you're probably wasting your time with this discussion. Nothing anybody says with regard to "fixes" is going to sway you since you disagree with the fundamental assumption of the thread.

I like the idea of armor as damage reduction, and think the Iron Heroes approach is a good one. It encourages people to wear as much armor as they possibly can given the other limitations they have to work with. This is as it should be IMO.

Why? If I feel that heavy armor is adequate now, then your fixing it is my breaking it. And thus something to be avoided.

Moreover, I find it amusing that you can talk about fixing heavy armor, and then use Iron Heroes as an example of desireable armor mechanics. Full plate's mobility penalties are even worse under that system and its protection is significantly less.

So I have to return your question: Have you even played this game?

 

[Warbringer]

Regarding Mearls' comments: hogwash

DR no more slows down combat than looking up the AC of armor or the damage a wepaon does. Seriously, come what level of math are we talking hear - 3rd grade!

As to the variable damage argument: all damage is variable!

The problem is going to be that if AC bonus remains the same, such as +8 full plate, +3 shield, coupled wit reflex (basically dex + 1/2 level) then the attack vs defense curve is completely out of alignment.

This means, increasing attack through heavy feats (maybe skill focus +5 - ala saga - which IMHO is horrible) or armor bonus collapse down to +5 max, and shields do something else apart from AC bonus.

Changing the nature of armor was good opportunity for 4e. Oh well

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Regarding Mearls' comments: hogwash

Agreement

Let me run an idea past since others were making there suggestions. This is based on kludging together some rules and ideas from AGoT d20, M&M, and my own house rules.

@Attack Bonus: straight by level and class strength and dex do not apply, except maybe with a special feat for a particular weapon. Sort of like the PL derived caps from M&M opponents of equivalent level and combat skill will have equal bonuses to hit.

@Defense/AC: Reflex Defense substituted for AC this is calculated like AC but with a class derived defense bonus that scales like attack bonus with modifiers added on top. Shields would count and be beefed up so that they were worthwhile but armor would give no bonus.

@Armor: would count as DR using formula of 1/2 current AC bonus + half material hardness. Since magical armor has greater hardness it would give greater DR scaling to a maximum of DR-19 for adamantine +5 full plate. It seems like a lot as a number but by the time it would be available to PCs the damage curve is waay up there and it's not nearly as disruptive as it seems, just enough to stretch out the fights beyond the usual high level two rounds of carnage.

@Extras: Been experimenting with adding a Parry Defense and some attacks attack Parry while others attack Reflex. With ability to swap one defense for the other limited numbers of times in a round as a feat chain. This adds complexity and I'm not very sure I'll implement it but I'm still playing around to find a way to differentiate it from Reflex without becoming too complex or slowing things down too much.

 

[Stalker0]

Regarding Mearls' comments: hogwash

DR no more slows down combat than looking up the AC of armor or the damage a wepaon does. Seriously, come what level of math are we talking hear - 3rd grade!

Considering you would still be looking up the AC and the damage of the weapon, AND THEN look up the DR penetration and calculate that from the damage, then yes DR does slow down the game.

But Mearls didn't provide what is the best reason why DR should not be included for armor....weapon balance.

Dnd tries to maintain some balance between a dagger master and a greatsword weilder. DR skews toward the GS wielder.


To me, AC is enough of a DR modification that no more is necessary for armor, you can balance armor just fine without.

 

[Stalker0]

One other thing you could do with armor is make into the equivalent of fortification armor in dnd.

Heavy Armor for example provides 25% crit reduction. In 3e this is a little clunky as you have attack roll, crit confirmation, and then crit reduction roll. In 4e since crits are automatically confirmed on a 20, then its 2 rolls compared to 3, maintaining speed.

 

[Roman]

This is an excellent thread - I especially enjoy hearing about ArmoredSaint's RL armor experiences.

ArmoredSaint, to what extend do you feel the armor you were wearing could mitigate the impact of a blow from a blunt object?

 

[ArmoredSaint]

Considering that I wear this armour weekly in SCA combat with rattan sticks (some of which can get quite big and heavy), I'd say it mitigates damage from blunt instruments very well indeed. I almost never get bruised, and in twelve years of SCA combat, have only been injured in it once (broken thumb). The thinner components of the armour do dent occasionally, but it's not much trouble to put right again; the thicker sections (breastplate, helmet) very rarely get dented. More bothersome is popping of rivets and ripping out of leather straps, which, IME, is more likely to result from landing wrong in a fall than from a weapon blow.

 

[Roman]

Considering that I wear this armour weekly in SCA combat with rattan sticks (some of which can get quite big and heavy), I'd say it mitigates damage from blunt instruments very well indeed. I almost never get bruised, and in twelve years of SCA combat, have only been injured in it once (broken thumb). The thinner components of the armour do dent occasionally, but it's not much trouble to put right again; the thicker sections (breastplate, helmet) very rarely get dented. More bothersome is popping of rivets and ripping out of leather straps, which, IME, is more likely to result from landing wrong in a fall than from a weapon blow.

Thanks - that's very interesting! In those re-enactments (I surmise that 'SCA' means 're-enactment', but I don't actually know what it means), though, how 'hard' do you hit yourselves with blunt instruments? Also, do you have any similar experience with cutting and piercing weapons?

 

[Baron Opal]

"SCA" is an acronym for Society for Creative Anacronism, a group of people who like to romanticize the pleasant, interesting and fun parts of mideval life and ignore the more unpleasant parts.

In SCA fighting you hit your opponent with a rattan stick as hard as you can, actually. If you have good armor, it's not so bad. If you have cheap / crappy armor it can hurt. If you are a fool and don't wear armor (and there are a few) you can get pretty hurt.