|
5 years ago ::
Mar 08, 2008 - 10:33PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2005
|
Really, in the end, there's not much difference between the two systems if you do them correctly; you should take the same amount of damage regardless. The issue is that in D&D attack rolls and damage rolls scale in a certain manner, and if you just keep it as dexterity then at high levels you ALWAYS get hit, so it is all about the DR, which just gets ugly.
Basically, D&D wants to work in a certain way, and that way supports AC much more. GURPS and Alternity both use "DR" but in rather different ways; in GURPS you have many layers of defense, but if something penetrates all of them, you take a ton of damage. In Alternity, its all about not getting hit; armor takes away some of the sting, but you're still getting hurt through it, albiet gradually, and having less armor simply increases the damage rate and nothing else.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 09, 2008 - 3:49AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Nov 18, 2006
|
Roll d20 and compare one value against another. That is DnD's
mechanic for determining success.
Introduce damage reduction, and you introduce another step. This
slows down play.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 09, 2008 - 9:12AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2007
|
There should be no armor class, just a reflex save and damage reduction. Armor would grant a damage reduction bonus while a shield would give you an evasion bonus to reflex, though maximum dexterity penalties would still apply to the highest bonus to your reflex save you can get from dexterity for wearing armor while shields could also be given a penalty. You would only have 3 saves and a damage reduction score but there would be no minimum damage, if you cannot beat a characters damage reduction then it is effectively a miss. Classes would still gain a bonus to saves with experience which would increase a characters ability to avoid damage which makes more sense and also explains real world reasons of adding and eventual toning down armor, and even enhancement bonuses to armor would add a bonus to damage reduction while enhancements to shields would go to reflex defeating the need for these too stack. Dnd has it wrong and this is a simpler more effective, efficient and realistic system. SW Saga edition tried to go in this direction but I believe they wanted to avoid too much change but it isn’t such a radical system that one couldn’t add it with ease I just wish WotC would recognize a superior system in the core rules, and kill the worst sacred cow of all AC. If you really wanted to get less simple you could also bring back 2nd edition ADND’s weapon vs. armor scores - where a mace would finally get to shine as its real world counterpart as one of the greatest weapons of the middle ages due to its devastating ability to ignore most damage reduction from plate armor – but that is better left as an optional rule for people who love complexity.
any thoughts or suggestions
Arguments like these make me wonder what 4E Unearthed Arcana will look like.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 09, 2008 - 9:14AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2007
|
Armor class gets played with every couple of editions. Anyone remember the old AC 10 to AC -10?
And before that, it was 9 to -9
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 09, 2008 - 11:12AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2008
|
There are two issues I have with Armor as DR
First the possibility of a character saying "Great... the guys in full plate, guess I'll stay back since my dagger can't bet his DR"
Second... armor as holes that can be exploited. Where an attack roll against AC can represent this (ie. a thief being able to hit a full plated walking tank with a dagger even if it is only for d4 pts of dmg), DR total negates this possibility.
I feel the abstraction that AC represents not only solid steel(leather/wood/etc.) protection but dodging as well has always felt "right" to me.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 09, 2008 - 7:27PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Dec 18, 2007
|
I am currently in process of writing a system for a friend of mine who plans to fund the publication with a movie he's putting out this April. (go ahead, laugh. I'm not sure he can do it either, but it's about the only way I'm ever going to see my stuff in print) I do mechanics, he does worldbuilding, but I digress...
We have a system that uses DR, AC an injury track and HP. In short, the "AC" is based on things like dodging and shield use. You then have an HP threshold (based on armor and level, essentially) that determines what hits deal injuries. Under a certain damage roll (2 for unarmored, untrained folk) the hit is ignored because it grazes. Higher damage outputs deal Wounds, (your thresholds drop by 1; now only a 1 is ignored for the unarmored, untrained folk), then you go through Injured, Hobbled, Incapacitated and then Dying.
The difference between Wound and Injured damage (for instance) is enough that its a real threat (about 3HP) but generally requires one or two Wounds to get in common range, even for the unarmored. One factor we've had to limit is damage dice - you're generally only rolling one or two damage dice, but the range goes to d20, d30 and beyond. Armor is something of a problem since it tends to make people invulnerable at first, but after a hit or two those thresholds have dropped to reasonable range. We also have fairly intuitive in-combat armor-piercing and armorless hit rules (even called shots for those stealthy assassination attempts) to circumvent that pesky armor.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 09, 2008 - 9:29PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Mar 23, 2005
|
I personally have tried DRmor in several different methods, and trust me, it just does not work anywhere near as good as the current system. DR in general is a nightmare because it's far too large a swing, you either have a character that bypasses it altogether (energy dmg, sneak attack, or being a PABar), or a character that is nearly useless against it (TWFers in particular, though most noncasters fall in this category). In fact, it makes PABars horrendously powerful, because they can afford to tank their BAB as much as possible and shoot their damage with Scythes and Gaxes into absurd lvls. Even splitting DRmor so that it's some combination of AC and DR bonus, you still end up with the unhittable, undamageable tank scenario. So AC is good as is.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2008 - 12:59AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Sep 13, 2001
|
I've played in a group that uses DR for armour as well. We felt that it was intuitive that armour should reduce the damage delt. Over time, I noticed that such a system just did not work and eventually we changed back to the regular AC system for armour.
I fully understand that people would intuitively think that armour should reduce damage. In reality, armour deflects blows. Hits against heavily armoured targets are due to a blow penetrating a weak spot in the armour. Better armour protects the target better by exposing fewer weak spots. Having a better armour class means there are fewer exposed vital spots for a hit to cause damage. If you look at armour this way, the current AC system makes sense.
<\
\>tuntman
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2008 - 1:07AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2005
|
I fully understand that people would intuitively think that armour should reduce damage. In reality, armour deflects blows. Hits against heavily armoured targets are due to a blow penetrating a weak spot in the armour. Better armour protects the target better by exposing fewer weak spots. Having a better armour class means there are fewer exposed vital spots for a hit to cause damage. If you look at armour this way, the current AC system makes sense.
Actually, this is untrue. AC, as in D&D, is actually entirely unrealistic; in reality, armor IS DR; this is why armor in reality tends to suck unless you've got a huge amount of it relative to the force concentrations possible by current technology.
Chainmail may not be easy to cut, but it can be broken, stabbed through, or damaged, and even if it isn't you may still get hit in the face. Apart from that, though, taking a blow with a sword while wearing chainmail HURTS; all chainmail does is spread out the damage, so instead of being hit with a sharp edge, its like getting hit with a crowbar. Same goes for plate mail, but it does an even better job of not getting penetrated and spreads it out even better; it still hurts to get hit in it though, and it is still penetrable by lances and longbows.
Modern guns can shoot through a lot of armor because of sheer force concentration; they aren't actually stronger than sword swings in terms of actual energy, but because they're so much narrower they put holes in you. Thus armor has had to get all the better to resist it, and it still hurts a lot if you get shot while wearing even the most modern of body armor; it just spreads it out, which is ultimately what all armor does.
Now, in the cases of tanks and such, they're just so big that they spread out the force a lot more, and so thick it is nearly impossible to penetrate.
Reality is not D&D though, and getting shot a few times in the body armor cracking your ribs is hardly fun; thus the AC system, which is more enjoyable even if it is less realistic.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2008 - 1:48AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2005
|
Well, AC represents how hard it is to be hit, and taken like it is difficult to represent armour and especially heavy armour. Armour does not prevent to get hit it prevent to get hurt.
Now before going any further, we can look at it which ever way we like a guy in leather does not have a chance against someone in full plate.
Fighting someone in armour just make fighting someone with a longer weapon even worse.
So no, AC in D&D does not fell right, and it can not feel right.But is a bloody game for crying out loud.
As long as, after all bonuses, heavy armour gives you the best AC by 2 or 3. It is fine.
To make more the difference and make heavy armour a viable investment
Give:
An extra bonus to heavy armour when fighting defensively
The ability to learn TWF where heavy armour is considered the second weapon or a shield.
And may be a fortitude bonus against constriction /compression and ignore the first D6 of fire/acid/cold/blast or a DR against those. Basically mail given almost nothing and plate giving the most.
Using weapons, (like in 2nd Edition) and requires a thorough knowledge of armour and weapons and combat technique.
For example the historical mace was phased out because it sucked against plate, it was great against mail.
Beck de Corbin (the actual war hammer) is the anti-plate weapon (and you will find one on most the pole axe or at least a thrust orientated spike.
But then when fighting against plate you had dagger and sword that were really designed to be stiff and to be good thrusters and combat methods were such that you exploit the gaps in the armour.
As well you can use your armour as if it was a second weapon either to strike or to parry strike.
Technically it is not an issue it can replace the large small creature damage dices and we can have feats to ignore armour (and probably some feat to use a bit or armour to reflex)
PS
is not AC in 4e based on reflex anyway.
When using light armour AC= base reflex + ac (I said base reflex because reflex bonus like the rogue do not seems to be included but it is 10+ ½ level +best of int/dext).
|
|
|
