|
1 year ago ::
Feb 15, 2012 - 4:05PM
#101
|
|
|
A) If hit points are an abstraction, then the armor may not technically block mental damage, but perhaps it makes the wearer feel more protected; like carrying around a lucky charm, a placebo effect could occur. It makes you feel stronger, therefore you are stronger.
That sounds pretty contrived, as though you made up a rule and tried to hammer an excuse to it.
I did. I was simply trying to give a suggestion of alternates. I admit, looking back, it wasn't well thought out. 
B) Nope. The character will have 4 hit points left, but the armor may be dinged up.
Then where is he getting the HP? If the character naturally has 20 HP (26 w/armor) and loses 22 of them, by this logic the only thing keeping him alive is the armor. How many hit points does this character have when he wakes up in the morning, before putting on his armor?
It's not as though I disagree with what your suggestion is trying to accomplish. I would like to see a system wherein armor isn't tied to a character's to-hit number, so that lightly armored, swashbuckling fighters are as viable as heavily armored tank fighters. However, what I've found is that armor-as-damage reduction systems tend to be much clunkier than D&D's traditional armor-as-defense system.
If I wanted to do armor-as-damage reduction, I would have armor grant players the ability to ignore damage from a set number of attacks, so:
Light Armor: Ignore damage from 2 attacks per adventure (but not ancillary effects)
Medium Armor: Ignore damage from 3 attacks per adventure (but not ancillary effects)
Heavy Armor: Ignore damage from 4 attacks per adventure (but not ancillary effects)
Enchanted Armor: Ignore damage from attacks equal to base armor, + some ancillary effects
Shields: Adds to defense value
Some types of spells might have damage that can't be absorbed by armor, such as psychic, poison, etc.
Monsters might use a more abstract system like the one you mentioned, in order to make combat go swifter, and so that you can rule that armor from vanquished enemies is ruined beyond repair when someone inevitably figures out that they could otherwise switch out their armor everytime and make themselves immune to damage.
During each extended rest during an adventure, a character with the appropriate skill (blacksmithing, metallurgy, whatevs) can make a check to repair some of the damage to the armor.
Otherwise, I think that 3rd edition handled this pretty well with different armor types and maximum dex bonuses.
I would rather see a more simplified version of armor rules in the core of D&D Next. Medieval antiquities fetishists have Rolemaster, they can wait for the inevitable D&DN: Arms and Equipment expansion.
I like that idea. Maybe there's a way to combine the two.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 15, 2012 - 4:22PM
#102
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I don't understand how physics can tie these characters down at all.
Bigger Heavier armor is handsdown better in ADnD land and Zorro/Armor free Conan in your AD&D world are functionally utter idiots. IE Lancelot is the only one with a head on his shoulders.
No I am asking the armor differences to be negligible and just mostly flavor.
In fact plate armor was a technological one up on chain armor and all around better. (I dont want that fact interfering with the fantasy)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 15, 2012 - 5:47PM
#103
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
dmgorgon, just to make sure you are aware, I agree with you regarding making armor matter mechanically, and I am not advocating making all characters have the same AC, and letting armor be pure fluff. I'll assume there are some people that might prefer it that way, and far be it from anyone else to say nay to that. Ideally, I want to see D&DN to allow for viable builds that share a similar design goal, but wish to have more control over how the defenses are explained (keeping the focus on defenses to stay in theme with the OP).
What I don't want is the only option for a "defender" styled character is to wear heavy armor and tote a big shield. There should be alternatives such that a lighter-armored character could still be the center of attention because they have punishments for leaving them alone (the quintessential definition of defender in 4e). If a defense-focused light armor wearer has a significantly lower AC than a defense-focused heavy armor character, then AC should not be the target defense for the majority of front-line opponents, or else my first sentence is proven true. This said, if the heavy armored character must suffer penalties due to the armor (for sake of "realism"), then there needs to be equal gain that isn't just a harder chance of getting hit. I like the ideas of inherent DR (although I think reducing damage dice by steps would be better). I also like some of the more recent suggestions for keeping the core armor types generic, and just providing historical examples for additional flavor.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 15, 2012 - 6:13PM
#104
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
I don't understand how physics can tie these characters down at all.
Bigger Heavier armor is handsdown better in ADnD land and Zorro/Armor free Conan in your AD&D world are functionally utter idiots. IE Lancelot is the only one with a head on his shoulders.
No I am asking the armor differences to be negligible and just mostly flavor.
In fact plate armor was a technological one up on chain armor and all around better. (I dont want that fact interfering with the fantasy)
How could that fact interfer with the fantasy? I just don't get it. It's only a few points of AC anyway.
I also don't think that in the Conan setting knights walked around in plate armor. That type of armor would be technologically out of scope for hyboria. Armor types in that setting would at best be chain or a breastplate.
I think that Conan is a fighter / theif with 100 hp and 18(90) STR, 18 DEX in AD&D. He wouldn't be that easy to hit and if you did hit him he could take it.
I'm not sure what you mean by functional idiots, but if you are refering to the system's lack of special predefined powers that isn't a very good argument. The use of improvised actions was what the game was all about in those days. With 4e the game is all about powers and what the cards in your had say you can do. Functionally, I can play a fighter in AD&D and do just about everything a fighter can do in 4e. On top of that I get several attacks per round which allows me to do even more. For example, I can have my AD&D 13th level Zoro character perform 3 disarms per round, or 1 disarm, a trip, and a pin. The choice is mine , I'm having a lot more fun, and I don't feel restricted by encounter or daily powers.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 15, 2012 - 6:29PM
#105
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I just don't get it. It's only a few points of AC anyway.
The Movie Conan or Zorro are 8 points different... than Lancelot if I recall and so I cant play a character like the Prince of Persia fighting with his Plate armored brothers without him looking stupid.
Your heavy armor is just plain better AD&D very stringently limits the fantasy.
Movie Conan should be just fine without armor as those around him wearing heavy armor.... because the Swords and Sorcery genre works that way. .. even Elric dropped the heavy armor use. Both inspirations for early D&D, in some ways but D&D was so wed to wargaming mind set that heavy = better armor ruled the roost.
Note I dont mind distinctions but in the end I am far more comfortable if the differences in fighting effectiveness betwee differing armor are subtle and more an issue of flavor or how you get there... the Fencer character is parrying and interupting enemy attacks alah threatening the enemies soft bits when they are in the middle of an attack... and so on. He doesnt bounce the hits like a Plate wearer but because of wearing lighter armor he avoids them more etc. Elric in Plate bounces them Elric in Light colorful leathers uses more of a fencers methods.
IF you dont get that the almost complete heavier is better interferes with the fantasy I dont know what to say.
But we are talking about armor not your misunderstanding about having a repertoire of maneuvers. I played 1e and "mother may I" didnt do crap for special combat moves.. so I wasnt even considering that.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 15, 2012 - 7:55PM
#106
|
Date Joined:
Mar 27, 2007
|
I hope 5th ed goes to an Armor is Damage Resistance model. It makes more sense and puts a bigger gap between light armored characters and heavy tank characters.
Armor should be Damage Reduction mechanic wise. In the real world [yes I know D&D doesn't have to follow real world physics] heavy armor makes you easier to hit by slowing your reaction and reflexes but prevents you from taking as much damage. So....Armor Class would be eliminated and Reflex defense determines how easy you are to be hit by melee and ranged weapon attacks. All armors provide damage reduction but negatively impact your reflex defense, speed, and physical skills. The heavier the armor, the more damage reduced from physical attacks, but the worse your reflex defense is so you are actually easier to hit with physical weapon attacks but take less damage. Example:
Armor
|
DR
|
Speed Penalty
|
Reflex Penalty
|
ACP
|
Leather
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Hide
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
Chain
|
6
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
Scale
|
8
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
Plate
|
10
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Light Shield
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
Heavy Shield
|
4
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
All penalties can be reduced by strength modifier so that a character with an 20 strength functions better in plate than someone with a 16 strength. Maybe that could be feat based. Magic armor could reduce penalties and/or increase DR to make it more usable by weaker characters. Seems plausible to me.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 15, 2012 - 8:35PM
#107
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Seems plausible to me.
It could be interesting and I too would like to see what was come up with, though actually balancing the positive and negative effects so they arent wild and wonky is generally very tough, speed penalties are highly situational for instance how do you identify the benefit higher speed is granting? and Damage Resistance is ummm well pretty heavy.
One thought I had is to think of it as Ablative damage restistance.. ie like temporary hit points. You are getting tired while wearing it and trying to defend yourself its not that you are actually breaking the armor down, its just less effective as the fight wears on because you are somewhat slower, or some such rationale
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 16, 2012 - 7:09AM
#108
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
The Movie Conan or Zorro are 8 points different... than Lancelot if I recall and so I cant play a character like the Prince of Persia fighting with his Plate armored brothers without him looking stupid.
Your heavy armor is just plain better AD&D very stringently limits the fantasy.
Zoro is a character that comes from a very different time peroid than Lancelot Zoro doesn't need armor because guns have made armor useless. If Zoro was a fighter in an Arthurian based campaign he would be using heavy armor and he wouldn't have a rapier either. The problem is that you are trying to compare two fighters from completely different technology levels and make them equal. You are doing the same with Conan. It just can't be done.
Heavy armor is just plain better in real life (against everything but guns) and that's why it's better in AD&D. I also think that anyone fighting someone in plate armor should be at a disadvantage. In D&D this isn't much of an issue because it's very easy to make up the difference with dex and magic. As the DM, I might drop bracers of AC 2 for the lightly armed fighter and the problem doesn't exist anymore.
Now the advanatages of a lightly armored fighter should be the following.
1. No need to have the armor repaired at a blacksmith
2. No restriction to the characters dex
3. No threat of drowning (like Beowulf).
4. No need to have a squire help to put armor on. A character using full plate might not have time to put on his armor.
5. Less damage from electricity or heat metal spells
6. Touch based /insubstantial attacks should be more likely to hit someone in heavy armor.
7. No large great helms to restrict vison and hearing
8. Don't need to spend 10,000 gp for full plate.
9. No need to worry about rust monsters.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 16, 2012 - 7:36AM
#109
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2011
|
Since 3e, I've viewed choice of armor as largely "well how DEX dependant is your character anyways?"
But in most stories the armor is pretty irrelevant, it's like flavor text to say "sturm brightblade is a knight, so here's his plate n' chain"
D&D's a game though, so you expect the armor to have some sort of gameplay function.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 16, 2012 - 9:53AM
#110
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Heavy armor isn't always made of metal. Considering it's fantasy, using dragon scales/hide for "plate armor" is a fairly popular non-metal source. Other mythical beasts with either tough or bony hides could be used as well. In all cases, a real danger with heavy armor is fatigue (specifically extended out of combat movement). One appropriate penalty for the heavy armor is gaining a fatigued status after any extended exertion. A short rest will remove that status. Wandering around town won't necessarily qualify IMO, but trekking through rough terrain, inclement weather, or right after combat that lasts more than a round or two would be prime examples. This would have an intended side-effect that most surprise encounters will leave the heavy armor wearer starting out as fatigued.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
