Of armour and DR

62 posts / 0 new
Last post
Observation: I've played a few hp-based systems with "ablative" armour systems (armour provides bonus HP that is eroded) and with "DR" armour. My experience is that if these values are significant compared to (PC) hit points, they just don't work well.

Star Frontiers and Battlelords both had ablative armour (or shields), often at several times the number of hit points on a PC. This armour became the PCs hit points, and without it, any weapon useful against a PCs armour would crush the player within. There are systems built around this mechanic (eg Marathon/Halo computer games), but as a mechanic for an RPG where characters may or may not be armoured it works poorly.

DR armour has a similar problem. Warhammer Fantasy and RuneQuest both have situations where a DR-style defense exists at a level similar to or exceeding hit points. Again, you get an arms race: any weapon that is at least marginally effective against DR armour mushes those without it.

D&D has both these concepts (temporary hit points and DR or various resistances respectively), but (in 3.5) manages to avoid these issues, primarily because character HP are high enough that temporary hp and DR primarily have a "extend lifespan" rather than "primary defense" effect. As level (and damage) increases, DR does suffer from the problem of being "negligible or insurmountable", depending on the attacker.


Tangentially, I actually find that AC is a "better" representation of armour than DR. In both pre-gunpowder and modern settings, the role of armour is primarily to render attacks ineffective over the region it covers. Relatively softer armours (leather, flak vests) do allow some bleed-through, but this typically converts serious wounds into bruising. Serious damage occurs when the attack either avoids the armour or a very powerful attack punches straight through.

AC can be seen to model most of this; though it doesn't allow much for "leaking" damage on a "miss". DR, in contrast, applies an all-over reduction; this doesn't represent avoiding armour and - unless ridiculously high - doesn't manage "powerful blow straight through" either.

I'm sure a hybrid could be used (see UA for an initial attempt), though I'm not convinced the extra complexity to make it work well makes for a flowing game.
My hybrid solution works like this:

*BAB would be used in both attacks and AC (changing the acronym to BCB (Base Combat Bonus))
*Armor would be DR with maybe a little AC bump (+1 or +2 max). But there would be a bypass number so that if a monster rolls really high then the DR does not help.

So...

A 5th level elf wearing chainmail and a 16 dex. would have a 18 AC (10 base, +5 BCB, +3 Dex= 18) with a DR of say 7 and a Bypass AC of 23 (10 base, +5 BCB, +3 Dex, +5 chain= 23). So if he is attacked and the attacker rolls a 17 he misses entirely (most likely parried via the BCB), If the attacker rolls a 19 the attack hits but it does 7 less damage due to the armor. If the attacker rolls a 23 the attack goes through unabated.

There you go, my pitch. It has been stolen from several different sources but I like it.
I just half the effectiveness of armor but grant the players a defence bonus similar to Star Wars.

It means that a fighter in full plate is still a meaningful opponent, but a man in a bedshirt and a rapier can still contribute.
If my character cannot run around dressed only in his undies waving a sick around and still be hard to hit, i'll be ******. :D
My hybrid solution works like this:

*BAB would be used in both attacks and AC (changing the acronym to BCB (Base Combat Bonus))
*Armor would be DR with maybe a little AC bump (+1 or +2 max). But there would be a bypass number so that if a monster rolls really high then the DR does not help.

So...

A 5th level elf wearing chainmail and a 16 dex. would have a 18 AC (10 base, +5 BCB, +3 Dex= 18) with a DR of say 7 and a Bypass AC of 23 (10 base, +5 BCB, +3 Dex, +5 chain= 23). So if he is attacked and the attacker rolls a 17 he misses entirely (most likely parried via the BCB), If the attacker rolls a 19 the attack hits but it does 7 less damage due to the armor. If the attacker rolls a 23 the attack goes through unabated.

There you go, my pitch. It has been stolen from several different sources but I like it.

This is interesting because this is almost exactly what we use in my games.
- BAB applies to AC (perhaps I should start using BCB )
- Armour gives a bonus to AC (less than as written) but also provides DR
- DR can be by-passed by hitting the target by at least 5 over the AC (we list AC as two numbers; e.g. AC 16/21 or AC 22/27 where the first number hits but DR applies and the second number hits and by-passes DR. This '+5' rule applies to everything across the board, be it DR from armour or natural DR.
- Max dex limits from armour have been lowered a bit more so that in heavier armours you may be trading off dex bonus AC for some DR. High dex characters are just as viable in little to no armour as low dex in armour.
- at least 1 point of damage is always done with a successful hit even if DR is greater than damage rolled.
The Piazza A renaissance of the Old Worlds. Where any setting can be explored, any rules system discussed, and any combination of the two brought to life.
DR can be by-passed by hitting the target by at least 5 over the AC (we list AC as two numbers; e.g. AC 16/21 or AC 22/27 where the first number hits but DR applies and the second number hits and by-passes DR. This '+5' rule applies to everything across the board, be it DR from armour or natural DR.

while i have not actually implemented the system I proposed in my game (considering I'm only the player). I think it would be more to my liking to have a by-pass that reflected the nature of the armor itself. Say, a bypass +5 for shirts, +8 for full suit, and have monsters with innate armor have their own bypass number like Smaug who only had one small spot on his hide not covered in impenetrable armor. To me that would be a bypass of +20 or more.

It is nice to see that there are some like minded individuals out there.

I am however waiting with baited breath to see what WoTC is doing regarding armor and to hit and DR in this next go around (a.k.a. 4th ed.)

Cheers
This is interesting because this is almost exactly what we use in my games.
- BAB applies to AC (perhaps I should start using BCB )
- Armour gives a bonus to AC (less than as written) but also provides DR
- DR can be by-passed by hitting the target by at least 5 over the AC (we list AC as two numbers; e.g. AC 16/21 or AC 22/27 where the first number hits but DR applies and the second number hits and by-passes DR. This '+5' rule applies to everything across the board, be it DR from armour or natural DR.
- Max dex limits from armour have been lowered a bit more so that in heavier armours you may be trading off dex bonus AC for some DR. High dex characters are just as viable in little to no armour as low dex in armour.
- at least 1 point of damage is always done with a successful hit even if DR is greater than damage rolled.

I like this adaptation, I think I might start using it, but I think I'll modify it, so that the armor adds the full bonus, but a hit over the total AC surpasses the entire DR.

This would also allow for the return of called shots to bypass armor as well...

I also like the BCB, very innovative, and makes melee combatants nigh unstoppable.

So a 4th level fighter Dex 12 in full plate would have AC 10+1+8
+4=23, the DR would be 8 but any hit of 24 or better would bypass the DR. Any hit over his touch AC would be reduced by DR. Touch AC would equal 10+BCB+DEX. half suits (chain shirt and breastplate) should only provide half the AC.

In addition each type of armor should be susceptible to a penetrating type of damage (unless it's enchanted) for example, full plate was still vulnerable to crossbow bolts and later on blackpowder weapons so it's DR would only be half as effective against piercing weapons.

I was reading the OP post again, and I realized something, soft armors generally reduce deadly impacts to bruising...so the DR could reduce X amount of damage from lethal to non-lethal damage... getting clocked on the head by an ogre's club would usually pulp your head, but a concussion and being knocked unconscious is a good representation...
The Answer can be found in Iron Heroes with variable DR.
Plate: 1d8/magic DR

It works pretty well.
One advantage of a two-tier system is that it gives another dimension of armour benefits (albeit at the cost of complexity). The current system really only has 3 independent values: cost, AC, and Max Dex/ASF/ACP. And cost becomes a non-issue after a couple of levels anyway.

AC/DR adds a fourth independent variable, and also allows modelling some armours a little better. Some examples (numbers may need calibration):

Padded vest: AC +3, DR 5
Padded shirt: AC +4, DR 5
Leather vest: AC +3, DR 10
Leather jerkin: AC +4, DR 10
Chain shirt: AC +4, DR 20
Breastplate: AC +4, DR 40
Leather hauberk: AC +5, DR 10
Arm/Leg greaves: +1 each
Chain mail: AC +7, DR 20
Half plate: AC +7, DR 40
Full plate: AC +9, DR 40

The idea I've tried to capture is that material (cloth/leather/chain/plate) grants DR levels, while coverage grants AC. Heavier materials have a small negative effect on Max Dex/ASF/ACP. Increased coverage has a larger negative effect.

One could add a DR penetration advantage to piercing weapons, but that might be unnecessarily complex.
Padded vest: AC +3, DR 5
Padded shirt: AC +4, DR 5
Leather vest: AC +3, DR 10
Leather jerkin: AC +4, DR 10
Chain shirt: AC +4, DR 20
Breastplate: AC +4, DR 40
Leather hauberk: AC +5, DR 10
Arm/Leg greaves: +1 each
Chain mail: AC +7, DR 20
Half plate: AC +7, DR 40
Full plate: AC +9, DR 40

Whoa, Nom! Your numbers are a bit off. The armor your describing is tank armor and could take a direct hit from a Howitzer shell! If you divide the DR by 4 I think you have a realistic and workable number. The AC plus I assume is for the bypass, and that is pretty spot on.
Actually, T.rex, I think you are badly underestimating how much damage D&D weapons can do once you hit level 5 or so. The level 4 dwarf paladin I had for the D&D game day (not highly optimised) was dealing 2d6+5 (mean 12) on a standard blow, before PA or crits or bless or the like. That will basically ignore DR less than 5, and can reliably deal damage through DR greater than 10. A non-optimised level 4 dwarf shouldn't be hitting full plate hard enough to deal spill damage on an average strike!
No, I'm not. Realistically, medieval armor could not be manufactured to deflect 100% of a direct hit from something like a greatsword. The armor can only reduce the effect of the blow so that all of the force (damage) does not all go through to the soft meaty parts inside. Frankly, this points out an in-system flaw to our proposal; weapon damage goes up as characters go up levels but the level of protect remains static. Oh well, no system is perfect. If I had the wherewithal I would design around that flaw, but I waiting to see what WoTC does with the whole thing before I put too much energy into designing. My main concern is allowing characters to add their BAB (BCB) to their defence.
One aspect about DR that I don't like is the possibility of completely negating a hit. It removes the significance of the hit. The minimum of 1 is a stopgap solution.

The system I use is Durability. Armor has a Durability number. If an attack deals less than the Durability the damage is halved. If the attack deals more damage than the Durability the attack deals full damage.

This system is easy to use with called shots. Low-damage, accurate attacks can take a penalty to bypass Durability.

I think we won't be seeing a fractional BAB in 4e. It does not lend itself to balance because the difference in combat ability between classes becomes more and more pronounced as levels increase to the point where it becomes insurmountable.
Agreed, your DRs are WAY too high. The armor DR isn't supposed to be a complete damage sink, it's supposed to reduce damage you take...something it currently does not do at all...I worked out some numbers, they might need some massaging but I think they are close for my game.

Armor works to reduce damage taken during combat.
Armor reduces damage based upon its type.

LIGHT Type AB DR Max Dex
Padded Full +2 1/- +8
Leather Full +2 2/- +6
Studded Full +3 3/- +5
Chain Shirt Half +2 4/- +4

Medium Type AB DR Max Dex
Hide Full +3 3/- +4
Scale Full +4 4/- +3
Chain mail Full +5 5/- +2
Breastplate Half +4 7/- +3

HEAVY Type AB DR Max Dex
Splint Full +6 6/- +0
Banded Full +6 6/- +1
Half Plate Half +6 7/- +0
Full Plate Full +8 8/- +1

A hit on armor is determined thusly:
BCV = BAB
Base Combat Value is applied to both AC and to Attacks.
Any hit over the Touch AC will hit, but will be reduced by DR.
Any hit over Ready AC bypasses DR.
These are values for Medium size creatures.

Diminutive creatures have DR reduced 3/4 (full plate DR 2)
Tiny creatures have DR reduced by 1/2 (full plate DR 4)
Small creatures have DR reduced by 2/3 (minimum 1) (full plate DR 6)
Large Creatures increase DR +50% (full plate DR 12)
Huge creatures double DR (Full plate DR 16)
Gargantuan DRx3 (full plate DR 24)
Colossal DRx4 (full plate DR 32)

these numbers basically take into effect the thickness of the material.
Mithral and Adamantium materials add to the DR of the armor.

I'm also converting natural armor into a natural DR, which stacks with armor DR. This makes Large Armored Ogres very tough, as they should be.

off to write an essay...let me know what you think...
Agreed, your DRs are WAY too high. The armor DR isn't supposed to be a complete damage sink, it's supposed to reduce damage you take...something it currently does not do at all...

RL, it's supposed to stop you getting damaged as much as possible. The only reason "as much as possible != at all" is that there are limits to how much armour you can physically pile on.

What about DR values? In 3.5, I generally find that DR is worthless if it's less than half your ECL, maybe even if less than your ECL. Compared to the amount of damage that a "real" hitter can deal, it doesn't reduce the damage enough to make a difference compared to whatever else you could use instead. Lower DR will only stop the sort of attacks you didn't really care about anyway. Above about level 3, I think +1 AC or DR 5/- is a easy win for the AC.

And that is for DR that is supposed to take the edge off damage. In a two-tier armour DR system, a strike against the armour is supposed to stop the damage. DR 8 for full plate is laughable; it won't stop even half the damage from a standard hit from most CR 4 melee opponents, and that's before bonuses or criticals. Even the actually useful heavier armours (breastplate, full-plate) already carry harsh penalties (speed, ACP), but at least they stop attacks. With the numbers suggested above, they don't even do that.
I like this adaptation, I think I might start using it, but I think I'll modify it, so that the armor adds the full bonus, but a hit over the total AC surpasses the entire DR.

If I understand what you're saying correctly, than that is how it already works. E.g. If a character with an AC of 13 (+2 BCB, +1 dex) dons armour that has an AC bonus of +4, his AC improves to 17 and the by-pass AC is 22 (5 higher than the AC bonus).

Unless you mean you plan on using the AC bonuses as listed in the PHB and add DR to that. Let me just say that from experience this will make armour too powerful. Maybe tonight I can post what values we've actually been using in our games.

while i have not actually implemented the system I proposed in my game (considering I'm only the player).

We've been using this for about a year now and really like the feel it gives to be able to miss, do reduced damage, or connect fully. It also makes rolling higher on an attack roll mean something (outside of critical threats).

I think it would be more to my liking to have a by-pass that reflected the nature of the armor itself. Say, a bypass +5 for shirts, +8 for full suit, and have monsters with innate armor have their own bypass number like Smaug who only had one small spot on his hide not covered in impenetrable armor. To me that would be a bypass of +20 or more.

I originally thought about this as well. I came to a few conclusions of why not to;
- simplicity, I wanted to keep my system smooth and without unnecessary complexities while still containing detailed aspects. +5 across the board + no exceptions = no second guessing.
- the AC and DR are the variables so the by-pass could remain constant. In other words, the AC represents how hard it is to damage the opponent in any manner, so heavier armours are already providing a higher AC with DR and by-pass AC. DR is only representing the amount of damage that can be absorbed.
- skill in combat is already balanced out in the system and the 'luck' component is contained in a restricted range (i.e. 1 - 20). Combatants of roughly equal skill should have about a 50/50 chance of hitting each other well enough the cause damage that is mitigated by any armour. Using the '+5' rule would then give a 25% chance to hit with full damage. Heavier armours may make this chance even smaller.

I'll just say that using the '+5' rule works well from experience.

It is nice to see that there are some like minded individuals out there.

Ditto!

I am however waiting with baited breath to see what WoTC is doing regarding armor and to hit and DR in this next go around (a.k.a. 4th ed.)

Same here. Over the past couple of years I've developed the system we use today and 4E to us will just be something to extract good concepts from (and from what I've read, I think they are starting with a foundation of good concepts).

These are values for Medium size creatures.

Would you believe I never thought to adjust DR for size?
The Piazza A renaissance of the Old Worlds. Where any setting can be explored, any rules system discussed, and any combination of the two brought to life.
RL, it's supposed to stop you getting damaged as much as possible. The only reason "as much as possible != at all" is that there are limits to how much armour you can physically pile on.

What about DR values? In 3.5, I generally find that DR is worthless if it's less than half your ECL, maybe even if less than your ECL. Compared to the amount of damage that a "real" hitter can deal, it doesn't reduce the damage enough to make a difference compared to whatever else you could use instead. Lower DR will only stop the sort of attacks you didn't really care about anyway. Above about level 3, I think +1 AC or DR 5/- is a easy win for the AC.

And that is for DR that is supposed to take the edge off damage. In a two-tier armour DR system, a strike against the armour is supposed to stop the damage. DR 8 for full plate is laughable; it won't stop even half the damage from a standard hit from most CR 4 melee opponents, and that's before bonuses or criticals. Even the actually useful heavier armours (breastplate, full-plate) already carry harsh penalties (speed, ACP), but at least they stop attacks. With the numbers suggested above, they don't even do that.

That's because a CR4 melee opponent isn't real life. There's a reason full plate stopped being used, crossbows and black powder could penetrate it. It became too much cost to use.

Let's see...current D&D 3.5e system armor has a DR of 0.

Under my system Full plate has a DR of 8. That's 8 better than it currently is. and it maintains its existing AC value, and I added the BAB as an AC bonus as well.

Let's look at it this way, full plate was designed to be used on horse back, on horses which had been bred for war. This heavy cavalry was vulnerable to few things...lances, pikes, black powder and heavy crossbows. In game terms all of these weapons can penetrate the armor. Double damage for a charging lance and a pike set for charge, 2d6 damage for a black powder weapon and d10 for a heavy crossbow. Now if we could have made adamantine Full plate then it would have been almost immune, as the DR would rise to 11/-. I think you're not thinking with a realistic intention. A level 1 with full plate with a DR40 could waltz into an orc lair and eventually win as none of the orcs could touch him.
Would you believe I never thought to adjust DR for size?

Yup, I can believe it, I only thought of it off-hand. ;)
Agreed, your DRs are WAY too high. The armor DR isn't supposed to be a complete damage sink, it's supposed to reduce damage you take...something it currently does not do at all...I worked out some numbers, they might need some massaging but I think they are close for my game.

Armor works to reduce damage taken during combat.
Armor reduces damage based upon its type.

LIGHT Type AB DR Max Dex
Padded Full +2 1/- +8
Leather Full +2 2/- +6
Studded Full +3 3/- +5
Chain Shirt Half +2 4/- +4

Medium Type AB DR Max Dex
Hide Full +3 3/- +4
Scale Full +4 4/- +3
Chain mail Full +5 5/- +2
Breastplate Half +4 7/- +3

HEAVY Type AB DR Max Dex
Splint Full +6 6/- +0
Banded Full +6 6/- +1
Half Plate Half +6 7/- +0
Full Plate Full +8 8/- +1

A hit on armor is determined thusly:
BCV = BAB
Base Combat Value is applied to both AC and to Attacks.
Any hit over the Touch AC will hit, but will be reduced by DR.
Any hit over Ready AC bypasses DR.
These are values for Medium size creatures.

Diminutive creatures have DR reduced 3/4 (full plate DR 2)
Tiny creatures have DR reduced by 1/2 (full plate DR 4)
Small creatures have DR reduced by 2/3 (minimum 1) (full plate DR 6)
Large Creatures increase DR +50% (full plate DR 12)
Huge creatures double DR (Full plate DR 16)
Gargantuan DRx3 (full plate DR 24)
Colossal DRx4 (full plate DR 32)

these numbers basically take into effect the thickness of the material.
Mithral and Adamantium materials add to the DR of the armor.

I'm also converting natural armor into a natural DR, which stacks with armor DR. This makes Large Armored Ogres very tough, as they should be.

off to write an essay...let me know what you think...

Great write up Xaaon, it appears to be a good workable system. I will be happy if WoTC does some thing similar to this. BTW i also really like what you did with the size adjustment. :lightbulb

Nom, consider that in 3.5 steel only has a DR 10 by RAW, I cannot even imagine how one can extrapolate a DR 40 even considering the layering that goes into armor. I realize that you are trying to make armor useful at higher levels but that can be taken care of by magic enhancements.
That's because a CR4 melee opponent isn't real life.

But we're not trying to make this stuff work vs real life; we're trying to make it work in D&D.
There's a reason full plate stopped being used, crossbows and black powder could penetrate it. It became too much cost to use.

It was quite possible to make armour that crossbows and black powder couldn't penetrate. It was also hideously expensive and rather clumsy.
Let's see...current D&D 3.5e system armor has a DR of 0.

Don't be silly. If we assume a split AC model, it has a DR of infinite. Any attack that hits the armour doesn't hit, period.
Under my system Full plate has a DR of 8. That's 8 better than it currently is. and it maintains its existing AC value

Your math is broken. You are replacing the existing AC with a equal sized range where you get DR 8. Previously, a to-hit in that range would miss. Now, it reduces damage by 8. Personally, I'd rather have a miss than DR 8, and I think most people would agree with me.

Unless you mean that plate grants +8 AC and then DR 8, which is quite different from the ideas discussed above?
and I added the BAB as an AC bonus as well.

That's a wash, since it applies to everything.
I think you're not thinking with a realistic intention. A level 1 with full plate with a DR40 could waltz into an orc lair and eventually win as none of the orcs could touch him.

Unless they rolled greater than his full AC. I'm not discussing DR 40 and +8 AC. I'm discussing a model where the armour grants DR 40 within an 8 point range.
Nom, consider that in 3.5 steel only has a DR 10 by RAW, I cannot even imagine how one can extrapolate a DR 40 even considering the layering that goes into armor. I realize that you are trying to make armor useful at higher levels but that can be taken care of by magic enhancements.

Actually, steel armour has hardness 10 and hp = 5 * AC. Thus, a suit of full plate has sufficient hardness and HP to soak a 40 point hit aimed at the suit. This does leave open the question of what happens after two or three such hits. But considering that the current system grants armour infinite DR, infinite soak against weapons and that other suggestions above similarily ignore soak, about the only specific complaint that is appropriate is that a split AC model highlights the abstraction inherent in the "damaging items" rules.
I understand where you're coming from now.

we'll just have to agree to disagree tho.
Actually, steel armour has hardness 10 and hp = 5 * AC. Thus, a suit of full plate has sufficient hardness and HP to soak a 40 point hit aimed at the suit. This does leave open the question of what happens after two or three such hits. But considering that the current system grants armour infinite DR, infinite soak against weapons and that other suggestions above similarily ignore soak, about the only specific complaint that is appropriate is that a split AC model highlights the abstraction inherent in the "damaging items" rules.

Well, I would say the hardness equates better with penetrating armor than the Hit points of the armor itsself. Take a look at sundering;

Step 1: Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target whose weapon or shield you are trying to sunder. (If you have the Improved Sunder feat, you don’t incur an attack of opportunity for making the attempt.)

Step 2: Opposed Rolls. You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons. The wielder of a two-handed weapon on a sunder attempt gets a +4 bonus on this roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a –4 penalty. If the combatants are of different sizes, the larger combatant gets a bonus on the attack roll of +4 per difference in size category.

Step 3: Consequences. If you beat the defender, roll damage and deal it to the weapon or shield. See Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points to determine how much damage you must deal to destroy the weapon or shield.

While sundering cannot be used to destroy armor the concept is the same. DR is what is used to determine penetration and hit points are what is used to determine when the item is so beat to sh*t as to not be usable anymore. So, what I hear you are saying is that to penetrate the armor at all, even a little, the attacker would need to plow through the entirety of the armors hit points.
To put it another way:
your average joe-blow low level fighter wielding a great axe against an unmoving dummy and is allowed to take a wind-up swing has no hope of even scratching chainmail armor. your faith in ancient armor is much greater than mine!

Actually, T.rex, I think you are badly underestimating how much damage D&D weapons can do once you hit level 5 or so. The level 4 dwarf paladin I had for the D&D game day (not highly optimised) was dealing 2d6+5 (mean 12) on a standard blow, before PA or crits or bless or the like. That will basically ignore DR less than 5, and can reliably deal damage through DR greater than 10. A non-optimised level 4 dwarf shouldn't be hitting full plate hard enough to deal spill damage on an average strike!

No, I am not. The spill damage as you call it is intentional because this is what would normally a hit.
To reiterate the concept:
In the existing system combat is resolved by the attacker gets to use his str + BAB +magic from his weapon + sundry attack bonuses. The defender gets to use his armor+ dex + magic from his armor+ sundry defensive bonuses. The two are intended to be somewhat balanced so that something akin to a 50% chance to hit is achieved (ideally). The problem with this mathematical Nirvana is that the bonus to hit (BAB) goes up while the defense depends on magic upgrades and crutches to try to keep up. Resulting in the hit advantage more and more leaning toward the attacker.
The proposal being put forth says that the determination of the hit should be by comparing BAB of the attacker to the defender and then adding all the sundry magical doodads to create a 50% chance to hit parity that self-scales as levels goes up. But of course then the question begs, what should be done with the fantasy stand-by; armor. If you add it on top what the defender gets from their BAB, you are screwing up the parity and making the people with armor too hard to hit on average.
You see the BAB to BAB fight should work just fine without the armor. The fighters will hit each other about 50% of the time and every one is happy. The DR proposal is a stop gap measure that says that the extra defensive bonus that the armored defender gets is tempered with the fact that the protection is not nearly complete and while the armor will absorb some of the damage, it will not take care of all of it or in some cases not much of it. But that is alright because the defender is getting hit roughly the same percentage of times in the fight, the armor is just to take the edge off the hits that do get through.
The system you are proposing has the armor taking huge amount of the damage off of each hit. So much so that if the defender in you system is wearing full plate, he might as well get those extra AC points because anything less than a giant hits him nothing is going through.

Hope this helps.
:fight!:
The proposal being put forth says that the determination of the hit should be by comparing BAB of the attacker to the defender and then adding all the sundry magical doodads to create a 50% chance to hit parity that self-scales as levels goes up. But of course then the question begs, what should be done with the fantasy stand-by; armor. If you add it on top what the defender gets from their BAB, you are screwing up the parity and making the people with armor too hard to hit on average.

Then perhaps the entire proposal needs to be reworked. Essentially, the stated proposal aims to do a whole lot of math to make to-hit a no-op. That's silly. The whole point of modifiers is to skew the math in your favour. Level, abilities, and armour are all legitimate mechanisms for doing so.

Armour as AC fits this model nicely. If it means you need to bias the equations so that unarmoured targets (with everything else being equal) are easier to hit, then do so. AC allows for a scaling proportion of attacks to result in hits, without any significant math load.

Armour as constant DR is broken (i.e. unbalanceable) under any mechanism that allows significant variance in damage or increasing damage over time (see first post). One could implement armour as % DR, but unless the % is always half (what happened to different sorts of armour?), it won't be playable.
Armour as constant DR is broken (i.e. unbalanceable) under any mechanism that allows significant variance in damage or increasing damage over time (see first post). One could implement armour as % DR, but unless the % is always half (what happened to different sorts of armour?), it won't be playable.

Agreed.

The difference in armor types in a % DR system could stem from bypass levels (i.e. if damage exceeds a certain threshold full damage would be dealt, and damage below that would be halved.)

This threshold may need some mechanism to increase (feats, talents, or built-in) in order to keep up with increasing damage values.

This allows armor to reduce the effect of light hits, which meshes well with my perception of armor's effect. A well-armored opponent doesn't take much damage from a dagger or arrow, but isn't "harder" to hit. However, good hits (high-damaging ones) will go right through armor.
We tried a few methods for using armor as DR in 4e. None of them proved viable. Even systems that looked good on paper failed in playtest. Typically, the problems we encountered were:

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.

For instance, you might want a fighter to stand toe-to-toe with a monster for 8 rounds before dropping, but a mage only lasts 3. You can manipulate both AC and hit points to hit that sweet spot. Then, you can increment both values up at about the same rate to keep that comparison (mage vs. fighter) intact.

Once you add DR to the system, things get a little weird. It makes it hard to use all three factors (hit points, hit rate, DR) without dropping one or making one a constant.

For instance, you might say that all melee attacks hit 50% of the time, then use DR and hit points to differentiate survival. Or, hit rate and DR might change, but everyone gets the same hit points.

Now, DR works very well in online games that have threat/aggro systems. Under these rules, the guys with high DR focus almost exclusively on drawing attacks. That can be fun in a real time game, but in D&D it's a real drag. MMOs don't have to worry as much about the disparity between the heavily armor guy and the guy in light armor because there are lots of mechanics that simply prevent the light armored guy from suffering attacks.

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.

If I wanted to add DR to D&D, I think I'd do away with scaling attack bonuses. The to-hit number of the 1st and 30th level fighters would look a lot alike, as would their defenses. The issue would be that the 1st level guy would do little to no damage with each hit, while the 30th level guy smears the 1st level one in a single shot.

The potentially interesting thing is that it makes for a clear distinction between high defense, low armor guys, and low defense, high armor guys. The fighter might take hits all day, but his DR lets him shrug them off. The rogue dodges attacks, but if he takes two or three hits he needs to run. We don't really have that in D&D, because both rogues and fighters play with the same defense value.
If I wanted to add DR to D&D, I think I'd do away with scaling attack bonuses. The to-hit number of the 1st and 30th level fighters would look a lot alike, as would their defenses. The issue would be that the 1st level guy would do little to no damage with each hit, while the 30th level guy smears the 1st level one in a single shot.

The potentially interesting thing is that it makes for a clear distinction between high defense, low armor guys, and low defense, high armor guys. The fighter might take hits all day, but his DR lets him shrug them off. The rogue dodges attacks, but if he takes two or three hits he needs to run. We don't really have that in D&D, because both rogues and fighters play with the same defense value.

The problem actually is inherent in the hit point/damage system. Unlike virtually every other roll in D&D, hit points and damage rolls aren't based on a pass/fail mechanic, but rather a purely arithmetic one. Because the damage dice are also smaller, there's a much smaller range of things that can happen.

If you want armor as DR, you'd have to drop the hit point system and go with a d20 based damage system. So your damage roll might be a damage check versus the target's fort defense. For every point you exceed the DC, you inflict a wound. Armor would give a bonus to fort defense.

In this system of course, hit points would be fixed, since the fortitude defense automatically scales the damage.

I think this might be an interesting thing to play around with, though I'm not sure if it would work well or not.
The critical difference is that AC is a fractional system (given sufficient statistical samples), while DR as written is a fixed system. Each point of AC reduces the hit chance by 5% (absolute scale). Each point of DR reduces damage by 1 point. AC works the same regardles of the damage values and hit point totals. DR becomes rapidly more effective as hit points and damage get smaller, and rapidly less effective as they get larger.
I have an issue about armour granting static dr. How do you accommodate for attacks which center around hitting multiple times, each doing a little damage?

Take for example TWFing. Your dr values are based on what a 2-handed fighter might deal. But this appears to needlessly screw over TWFers since dr now applies to them twice.

AC at least did not have that problem. By being all or nothing, this meant that a 2-handed weapon fighter had the same chance of hitting as a 2-weapon fighter, and consequently, both could roughly deal the same amount of damage.

Likewise, damage scales with lv, but dr will not. You cannot possible decide on a single definitive dr to apply to all lvs (since too great a value screws over low lv play - I mean, dr40 at 4th lv?, while too small values become irrelevant at higher lv gameplay).

Sean K reynolds perhaps sums it up best, IMO.
I really appreciate whenever designers like Mike take the time to comment on these boards.

It gives you some insight into how decisions are made and how the game took shape.

So we don't have armor as DR in 4e, but it was considered. DR was ultimately dropped because they couldn't get the math to work out right (or the time added wasn't worth the payoff). However, the designers admit that it was a loss of a point of differentiation between characters.

So if it was possible to work out a DR system that was easy to use and scaled appropriately (fun with multivariable math that) it might be a system we'll see in 5e (or better yet in the 4e version of Unearthed Arcana). We should work on that.
I don't know why people keep insisting DR is hard to incorporate. I've played in a modified D&D game where armor as DR worked beautifully. My fear was always that the heavily armored guy would become unstoppable, but that was taken into account.

The changes were easy to understand:

--Dex was used for all attacks, melee and ranged.
--Max Dex values for armor therefore applied to attack rolls.
--Touch attacks became the new AC, so people were easier to hit, but shields could be added to AC.
--There were 6 shields ranging from +1 AC to +8 AC for towers.
--Piercing weapons halved the DR of armor, meaning arrows, spears and such.
--Parrying was a central part of combat; rolling over the attack that hit you.
--A character could sacrifice their AoO to parry or the off-hand attack of TWF.
--Shields could be used either to parry or improve AC each round (player's choice).
--There was even an system in place to trade Armor feats for Parry feats.

That was the gist of it. My DM got the whole system off the site of a D&D freelancer.

These changes added two steps to combat: armor as DR and parry rolls. The thing is, for all the time those two steps added to the game, the players felt a lot more invested in combat. Once you give up your AoO to parry, that means the enemy can use all kinds of special attacks against you without reprisal. It made combat more tense and interesting. The time factor was easily subsumed once we understood the changes.
My view on Damage Reduction is that you can simply your work by simply going with more hit points and fast heal.

All Damage Reduction really does is allow the target to soak up a few more blows if they are not being hit by the magic bullet.

It was a replacement to immunity which basically said that you either had the magic bullet or the target could not be affected no matter what you tried to do.

You add to this hodge podge of defenses vulnerabilities that do more damage.

You also have fortifications which reduce criticals.

All these different types of defenses start to have problems when you try to work out a unified systems that allows a designer to make a predictable monster and simpler set of rules for a person to understand and remember (I know some people take pride in knowing the full rules compendium as it was until recently spread over a dozen or more books but the average person would like one list of rules that can fit on one or two pages in at least point form. You can still have variety but the variety should still follow the guidelines specified in the main esential rules).

Mearl recently posted on his thoughts on DR and pointed out that DR creates a third wheel in the consideration of how much AC, BAB, and hit points makes a certain level of monster. If you just bump up the hit points then you can easily predict the monster and have the same feel as the creature has DR.

But what of crushing weapons used to kill skelletons (silver for werewolves, etc)? Vulnerabilities that offer an increase in damage can give this feel (I would though eliminate the multiplier vulnerabilities and specify a certain number of extra dice as this allows the ability to scale the vulnerability and avoids the nastiness of a multiplied super attack which explodes with extra multiplication).

You still have a fun system and it still feels right but you removed one extra rule from having to learn and simplified the vulnerabilities to likely an extra number of dice to roll with the normal attack.

Further, it now all works in the same unified system.
Sounds like Dex was the Best stat to have in your game.
Especially if you have Combat Reflexes combined with the Parrying rule.

Sounds like a Lightly armored guy with a high dex and spear and shield would kick everyone's but.

I don't know why people keep insisting DR is hard to incorporate. I've played in a modified D&D game where armor as DR worked beautifully. My fear was always that the heavily armored guy would become unstoppable, but that was taken into account.

The changes were easy to understand:

--Dex was used for all attacks, melee and ranged.
--Max Dex values for armor therefore applied to attack rolls.
--Touch attacks became the new AC, so people were easier to hit, but shields could be added to AC.
--There were 6 shields ranging from +1 AC to +8 AC for towers.
--Piercing weapons halved the DR of armor, meaning arrows, spears and such.
--Parrying was a central part of combat; rolling over the attack that hit you.
--A character could sacrifice their AoO to parry or the off-hand attack of TWF.
--Shields could be used either to parry or improve AC each round (player's choice).
--There was even an system in place to trade Armor feats for Parry feats.

That was the gist of it. My DM got the whole system off the site of a D&D freelancer.

These changes added two steps to combat: armor as DR and parry rolls. The thing is, for all the time those two steps added to the game, the players felt a lot more invested in combat. Once you give up your AoO to parry, that means the enemy can use all kinds of special attacks against you without reprisal. It made combat more tense and interesting. The time factor was easily subsumed once we understood the changes.

1. DR makes it hard to balance the heavily armored guy against the lightly armored guy.

Why does the light armoured guy need to be balanced with the heavily armoured guy? I mean historically(IRL), the heavily armoured guys wore the armour to gain an advantage. So should it be balanced?

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.

I've used the Conan D20 system , and i've not noticed much delay. Plus DR is already in the game . In mid and high level combat. I've often found that someone in combat has DR or a miss chance, or something that adds an extra step in combat. So I'm not convinced that DR for all combat adds a significant delay in resolving combat.
If I wanted to add DR to D&D, I think I'd do away with scaling attack bonuses. The to-hit number of the 1st and 30th level fighters would look a lot alike, as would their defenses. The issue would be that the 1st level guy would do little to no damage with each hit, while the 30th level guy smears the 1st level one in a single shot.

I do think the scale of attack bonus should be in proportion to how effect the armour should be. If a fighter is gaining +1 to hit each level, then at 8th level his ability to hit is matched by the defence bonus of full plate. But should it be this way?
I've wondered since I heard about 4E trying to increase the sweet spot of levels, that part of that problem is the scale of attack bonus vs armour bonues. And whether with 30 levels, this won't get worse, not better.
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.

I've used the Conan D20 system, and i've not noticed much delay. Plus DR is already in the game. In mid and high level combat. I've often found that someone in combat has DR or a miss chance, or something that adds an extra step in combat. So I'm not convinced that DR for all combat adds a significant delay in resolving combat.

I have played Conan and 20102000 is right. Its is such a better system that I cant even play the standard D&D rules no more! I find that in this system, you have a bit more things to keep track of, but that is not a problem as the way it works is so much fun and intuitive. In Conan, not just you armor is DR, but you get bonuses to your defense (Dodge & Parry). This makes armor static as Conan is not about going thou better armor. On the other hand, a character's defense goes up as one gains levels! Even your Initiative goes higher as is now just a Ref roll. The biggest draw this system is its favor of gritty action over frivolous magic use, and the ability for characters to survive at all levels without ever needing any magical items (if you cant tell, high-level D&D PCs are highly dependent upon unnatural AC bonuses). This may seem odd, but this game was design for a pulp-styled sword & sorcery setting (D&D is by default just High-fantasy).

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.

For instance, you might want a fighter to stand toe-to-toe with a monster for 8 rounds before dropping, but a mage only lasts 3. You can manipulate both AC and hit points to hit that sweet spot. Then, you can increment both values up at about the same rate to keep that comparison (mage vs. fighter) intact.

One of the things that is making me sick is how systematic Wizards is making D&D! That is why I never use CR! This is not wargaming, or ROLL-playing! This a ROLE-playing game!!! Why do GMs need to know how long a fight should last? And why should they fret over game balancing? I play to have fun, and not to over think things!
The Barbarian's Keep is a group for pulp sword & sorcery fans. The HeroQuest Dungeon is a fan group for the greatest boardgame ever! There is also a group for Gamma World, and other post-apoc games.
As I have said before I am more in the camp of having the BAB apply for attack and defense. It fills a fluff complaint with the RAW (that in a fight the combatants should be clashing weapons not weapons beating on armor)and it fills a attack vs. AC scaling issue i have always disliked with the RAW. Which is to say that in the RAW as characters as they go up in level get a better attack bonus but they never get better defense bonus which means that there is a growing disparity between the two. A disparity that is "fixed" by sundry defensive magic items that serve as shims to span the growing chasm between bonus to hit and AC.

As far as DR goes, I am not married to the idea and am willing to hear workable solutions. Especially since it is not going to be part of 4E as confirmed by Mr. Mearls.
One of the things that is making me sick is how systematic Wizards is making D&D! That is why I never use CR! This is not wargaming, or ROLL-playing! This a ROLE-playing game!!! Why do GMs need to know how long a fight should last? And why should they fret over game balancing? I play to have fun, and not to over think things!

That is called game design. You as a DM do not have to care about how long a typical fight takes. Game designers should. Lets say your critter have 12 special attack (manouvers, etc.) but the fight usually last 6 rounds. Half of its ability will never be used. Then why have them?
As another example. There is a feat that increases duration 1.5 times (I know 4th ed will have encounter as duration, this is just an example). The typical spell have 5 rounds of duration, the typical fight is 6 rounds. Then the feat is pretty useless.

CR is a DMs friend. It might have problems, but at least you have a vague idea what should you throw at a 2nd level party. I have spend hours flipping through Monsterous Compendium (I-II and some others too) just to find an interesting yet level appropriate critter. If it had poison (a save or die in 2dn ed), then they were out, similarly for petrification. Some could hit for too much, etc.
That is called game design. You as a DM do not have to care about how long a typical fight takes. Game designers should. Lets say your critter have 12 special attack (manouvers, etc.) but the fight usually last 6 rounds. Half of its ability will never be used. Then why have them?
As another example. There is a feat that increases duration 1.5 times (I know 4th ed will have encounter as duration, this is just an example). The typical spell have 5 rounds of duration, the typical fight is 6 rounds. Then the feat is pretty useless.

CR is a DMs friend. It might have problems, but at least you have a vague idea what should you throw at a 2nd level party. I have spend hours flipping through Monsterous Compendium (I-II and some others too) just to find an interesting yet level appropriate critter. If it had poison (a save or die in 2dn ed), then they were out, similarly for petrification. Some could hit for too much, etc.

Well I have not played a normal D&D game in years. Most of the opponents I throw at the players are minions with PC classes (I don't believe in NPC warrior or adept classes). They have lots of abilities (race/class abilities, feats, and combat maneuvers), but given their generic status, a single minion may not use most or all of its abilities, but when you use enough of them, you make uses of all their abilities. When I make up a scenario, I dont balance things out in a normal way. So a group of 4th level PCs are likely to encounter a Balrog...er..Balor as easy as a horde of Orcs. If I know the encounter is going to be difficult, then I throw in a plot device that would allow the players to win (a knife that is the only weakness of a powerful demon or gem stone that is the life-support of an army of powerful undead knights). I'm also likely to throw players against something they cant defeat, but none of my players ever get punish for running away or avoiding something that would get then killed out right (this is not a bad thing, the rules I use is lethal enough, and it can be fun running away from an unseen horror - think of the Evil Dead moves :devil. The monsters I use are all home-brewed or heavy-modified for the Conan rule set. When I design a monster, I give no thought about game balance or how long they will last. All I care about is what they are capable of, and how it play out in a scenario.

This is how a Succubus and a Marilith looks in the Conan game. As you can see, the stats look a lot smoother then D&D states (and no spell-like abilities or CR score :D).
The Barbarian's Keep is a group for pulp sword & sorcery fans. The HeroQuest Dungeon is a fan group for the greatest boardgame ever! There is also a group for Gamma World, and other post-apoc games.
Sounds like Dex was the Best stat to have in your game.
Especially if you have Combat Reflexes combined with the Parrying rule.

Sounds like a Lightly armored guy with a high dex and spear and shield would kick everyone's but.

Combat Reflexes was a good feat combined with the parrying rule, but +4 to +8 shields came with an attack penalty equal to 1/2 the AC bonus. As well, you couldn't power attack with piercing weapons. That was the trade off for halving DR. Only slashing and bludgeoning could power attack.

Even so, armor as damage reduction was still hard to beat. Keep in mind that plate, with a +8 to AC in the regular game, granted DR 8 in the game we played. All armor values were translated directly into DR values.
For instance, you might want a fighter to stand toe-to-toe with a monster for 8 rounds before dropping, but a mage only lasts 3. You can manipulate both AC and hit points to hit that sweet spot. Then, you can increment both values up at about the same rate to keep that comparison (mage vs. fighter) intact.

The recent Design & Development: Quests article on Dragon pointed out that this is not supposed to be a game of killing monsters and taking their stuff. WotC_Mearls' kind of thinking, where defeating the monster is assumed within some statistical parameters, quite turns my stomach. Whatever happened to an element of risk, where the players underestimate an encounter and someone does die unexpectedly. Let's broaden that bell curve, and allow for plausible negative outcomes. Make the players balance risk and reward, and sit at the edges of their seats, rather than start the adventure by planning how they will spend the loot.

MMOs don't have to worry as much about the disparity between the heavily armor guy and the guy in light armor because there are lots of mechanics that simply prevent the light armored guy from suffering attacks.

...

The potentially interesting thing is that it makes for a clear distinction between high defense, low armor guys, and low defense, high armor guys. The fighter might take hits all day, but his DR lets him shrug them off. The rogue dodges attacks, but if he takes two or three hits he needs to run. We don't really have that in D&D, because both rogues and fighters play with the same defense value.

Should the light armored guy be able to assume that he can avoid the attacks. Again, if every character has their way of negating any real threat in the encounter, then the pen and paper game loses any interest. At least in the MMO game, the characters can die, and suffer negative consequences for doing so.

If the light armored guy gets hit, then body parts, blood and gore litter the area. Occasionally, the same will be true for the high DR character. The low DR character presumably has armor that allows a higher Dex bonus to AC, and has a higher touch AC. Though the latter feature seems to be irrelevant in 4E, it would seem that the low DR character relies on AC to avoid hits and will suffer harsher consequences for getting hit. Does this feel like it is shifting to a superhero model, where the "main character" is whacked four city blocks into a building, which partially collapses on top of him, and he still gets up to attack on his round? That's not what I play D&D for. Will 4E be The Matrix or 300? Could it be both or either to different people?

I understand that there are a variety of gaming styles, and a variety of ability and gaming experience in this market. But the result of this design seems to be a railroading of the game in a certain direction. Unearthed Arcana provided a way for more experienced gamers, or those with different tastes, to adapt the game to their needs and/or desires. I want to have 6-round monsters have 12 powers, so I can be flexible as a DM as to how I use the creature, or have some element of uncertainty as a player. The manticore that does A or B all the time becomes boring over the course of two campaigns. Or is that to drive sales of Monster Manual XVII? I don't want to have to apply character levels and templates to a creature just to make it interesting - it should at least have the potential to be interesting every time.

The tight statistical evaluations and correlations that keep being referenced in design articles and blogs lead me to believe that 1) future "bolt-ons" like UA will not be provided, and 2) much of the market will fragment into an even wider spectrum of "which rules do you play with". A mix of 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0? Does it really help the game for the new "standard" to fragment the market further? And I mean that from both a "gaming legacy" standpoint and from the business model where future supplements become less and less relevant, hurting the game from a "market penetration" perspective.

Please, WotC_Mearls, show me something that will make veteran, gritty-realism-seeking gamers like me look forward to the launch of 4.0.

-Mike
That is called game design. You as a DM do not have to care about how long a typical fight takes. Game designers should. Lets say your critter have 12 special attack (manouvers, etc.) but the fight usually last 6 rounds. Half of its ability will never be used. Then why have them?

Because if you fight two of them, one can use half the manuevers and the other use the other half?

I understand what's trying to be said, but really. Just because something has more options that it needs is not bad game design.
The recent Design & Development: Quests article on Dragon pointed out that this is not supposed to be a game of killing monsters and taking their stuff. WotC_Mearls' kind of thinking, where defeating the monster is assumed within some statistical parameters, quite turns my stomach. Whatever happened to an element of risk, where the players underestimate an encounter and someone does die unexpectedly. Let's broaden that bell curve, and allow for plausible negative outcomes. Make the players balance risk and reward, and sit at the edges of their seats, rather than start the adventure by planning how they will spend the loot.

I like your spirit! :D That is how it goes at my game-table. If you have read my posts on this tread, then you have a clue on the way I game. ;) From what you have wrote, you would be right at home at my game table.

Should the light armored guy be able to assume that he can avoid the attacks. Again, if every character has their way of negating any real threat in the encounter, then the pen and paper game loses any interest. At least in the MMO game, the characters can die, and suffer negative consequences for doing so.

If the light armored guy gets hit, then body parts, blood and gore litter the area. Occasionally, the same will be true for the high DR character. The low DR character presumably has armor that allows a higher Dex bonus to AC, and has a higher touch AC. Though the latter feature seems to be irrelevant in 4E, it would seem that the low DR character relies on AC to avoid hits and will suffer harsher consequences for getting hit. Does this feel like it is shifting to a superhero model, where the "main character" is whacked four city blocks into a building, which partially collapses on top of him, and he still gets up to attack on his round? That's not what I play D&D for. Will 4E be The Matrix or 300? Could it be both or either to different people?

Please, WotC_Mearls, show me something that will make veteran, gritty-realism-seeking gamers like me look forward to the launch of 4.0.

A person in light armor should invest in abilities that will allow him to avoid attacks, as getting hit is dangerous. Barbarians & Rouges should have such abilities. A person in heavy armor should invest in abilities that will allow him to block attacks and to counter attack. Fighters should have such abilities.

In all likelihood, 4th ed is going to be more along the lines of The Matrix. If you want a 300 styled game, then you should invest in the Conan RPG.
The Barbarian's Keep is a group for pulp sword & sorcery fans. The HeroQuest Dungeon is a fan group for the greatest boardgame ever! There is also a group for Gamma World, and other post-apoc games.