|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 4:54PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Apr 26, 2004
|
I will also point out that no damage reduction can make you completely immune to damage as the minimum damage is always 1 on a hit.
Unless they changed something in 4th edition that i'm not aware of (also, i'm under the impression that 4E doesn't have DR, but was wrapped into resistances. I'm not the best at 4E rules despite playing it bi-weekly, older editions are my thing), resistances and DR in older editions did indeed allow you to go below 1 damage on any given attack
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 6:08PM
#32
|
|
|
Wow Larry, that's a very cool mechanic. I like how it keeps the balance, and provides options. My only problem with it is how it still feels very abstract, which was my problem with AC in the first place.
My preference remains with pieces of armor functioning as a form of resistance rather than a form of deflection. When wearing armor, if you get hit by a weapon, it may still hurt. You may get bruised and bloody even if the armor has "absorbed" the blow(beating DR), or the armor may deflect the attack entirely(DR mitigates).
With AC, functionally you are either deflecting the attack with your armor/shield, dodging/avoiding the attack, or getting hit without any mitigation.
My argument against AC:
Chance just so has it that I get hit by a creature for 10 points of damage, and my robed cleric companion gets hit by the same creature for the same amount of damage.
A) Why, if I am wearing plate armor, do I get hit for the same amount of damage as someone without?
B) Did the creature destroy that piece of armor I was wearing?
C) Did it simply find a hole in my armor that bypasses the deflection part? In which case, why am I wearing plate armor if there are holes in it?
I'm sure we will see AC continue, but we won't see THAC0 come back. They changed the system considerably from 2nd to 3rd. So my point is, we should have D&D Next really be the NEXT iteration of the game, not just a repeat of the systems we've already house ruled in the past. There has to be a simple way.
Thanks. And this method from my previous post will do what you are looking for. It turns armor into total DR, armor provides no deflection at all if you use this method.
As for abstract, already hitpoints are abstract, so no avoided that. But this reduces it quite a bit, the abstraction that is.
You can think of it like this, using the system basically gives you an AC (I call it Reflex or just Ref) that is equal to 10 + Dex bonus if you use Light armor, 10 + half Dex bonus if you use Medium and 10 flat out if you use Heavy. If the attack hits your Ref then it deals the damage to you, but reduced by your DR amount which is just your normal D&D AC - Ref. So Armor and Shield bonus totally convert into DR using this system.
It gives players the option to just use the old AC system if they like, but just using the original AC and ignoring the whole Ref and DR in parenthesis. So it lets multiple players choose the method they like best.
You can see it flavorwise as this:
1) If I attack Ref I am just attacking normally for any opening you give me and your armor/shield reduce my damage if I hit your Ref.
2) If I attack the normal AC (no different than normal D&D) then what I am really doing is either "power attacking" where I suffer a -1 to hit for each +1 damage I cause as I try to slam hard to get past your armor (which means I likely miss more often as my focus on power reduces my accuracy) or "precision attacking" you where I aim at joints or weak points in your armor. You can use the power attack flavor for big Str type weapons and the precision flavor for Dex type weapons.
So really it is not quite as abstract as you think, at least as much as is possible for D&D. And it is easy to use and apply and gives options to all players. You still need to hit the full AC to impose any special non-damage effects of an attack, so this does not make attacking Ref superior for attacks with lots of riders. It just impacts damage, that is all.
I have allowed a slight tweak to this and it seems to work, where I just say compare the attack to both the Ref and AC (pretty fast really once you get used to it) and if you hit both, deal full damage and effects. If you hit just Ref, deal only damage (no effects) and reduce it by DR. If you miss both, you miss. Kind of like 4E prismatic spray that attacks Fort, Ref and Will. This removes the need to choose, you just get the better of the two. This simulates that a high attack roll means you found a weak point or saw a wide opening and put all your power behind the attack breaching the armor or a combination of both.
If you use the first method, where the player must choose which option he uses, then you may want to grant that on a critical hit, if it would have still hit the normal AC, they ignore the DR, to make criticals still something special even if you choose the Ref/DR method for that attack. So you can have both types of attacks happening in the same group and same combat (a player can even switch between them from attack to attack) and still have the flavor of armor acting as DR even for the group who chooses the normal AC method, because you can say those attacks are less accurate (hit less often) because they are power attacking or precision attacking to bypass the armor, so either option can still give you the same overall feel which I think you were looking for.
I find it works great.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 7:06PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
I do like it, and after that explanation I see how it works in terms of flavor.
Ref functions practically identically to Touch AC, and I like how the second option gives a window of DR or bust.
I've noticed that my players like to roll dodge, especially when they have luck re-rolls, etc. It seems to keep them more involved in combat as well, rather than walking away from the table when its not their turn, they could get attacked and may need to defend themselves.
Could the same choice remain on player defense?
Option A: The opponent rolls attack vs the players AC
Option B: The player rolls Ref vs the opponent's static attack
Ref does not seem to scale well in that situation, compared to the stat growth of Dex. But Defense bonuses could easily compensate for that as I'll post below. EDIT: Forgot that the difference between Ref and AC becomes DR
In greater detail, the system I'm currently using works like this:
Dodge
d20 + Dodge vs NPC attack + 11
Dodge = Dex modifier(up to maximum that armor permits) + misc/magic modifiers + Defense Bonus - armor check penalty
Defense Bonus
Each class's armor proficiency determines their starting defense bonus, which advances by +1 at 3rd level and every 3rd level after that(level 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21)
Starting defense bonus
Unarmored: +2
Light armored: +3
Medium armored: +4
Heavy armored: +6
Damage Reduction
Padded 1
Leather 2
Studded Leather 3
Chain Shirt 4
Hide 3
Scale Mail 5
Chain Mail 5
Breastplate 6
Splint Mail 6
Banded Mail 7
Half-plate 8
Full plate 10
+2 DR for every enhancement bonus
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 7:17PM
#34
|
|
|
Sure, it could work just fine as you wanted it. You basically want the players to do all the rolling, and just set the mobs AC and "take 10 Attack" score as targets for the players. Same system works either way. If the player rolls d20 + AC vs. Static Attack of the Mob, this is normal rules. If player rolls d20 + Ref vs. Static Attack of the Mob, it means the mob will more likley hit (as the player will fail to beat its Static Attack more often), but the damage the mob does in this case is reduced by the DR, so it plays the same, exactly the same. So the player decides to roll his Ref + d20 and gains a DR against the mob damage if he fails. If the player uses his higher full AC for this roll, so AC + d20, he has better chance to beat the Static Attack of the mob, but if he fails, he eats the full damage, no DR cushion for that one  Still gives a nice choice to the player, let them pick their poison. Larry
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 7:31PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Well then, I think you/we have a very effective variant established.
Maybe we'll see something similar published as a module, would be nice to see these kinds of options included in the core book.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 7:46PM
#36
|
|
|
I don't think it really makes any difference, honestly. HP is so abstracted now that it intrudes on AC's headspace anyway. As long as the math works out for you, I say go for it.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 7:57PM
#37
|
|
|
The beauty of this system is how simple and easy to turn On/Off it is, even for each player, even for each attack. All it takes is 2 extra stats next to AC to work, they are easy to calculate no matter how D&D Next decides to work armor and AC, you just use the concept as presented in the first post of mine and clarified in the second post, and you can add these 2 extra stats (Ref and DR) easily. Then your player can either ignore them and just look at AC, or use them, and even do this on an attack by attack basis.
It almost does not need a module, it is so simple. The only benefit a module would give it is in the Monster Manual, where they record these 2 values for you so spare the DM that little bit of extra work (and I mean little) for each monster. It gives you the feel of armor as DR without any hassle or significant work/change of the existing rules.
|
|
|
