Community

 
Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Page 4 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4
Switch to Forum Live View Armor should grant resistance to damage types
12 months ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 10:21AM #31
Mithrus
Date Joined: Jan 29, 2005
Posts: 3,233
I don't agree DR should be the default for heavy armor. I'd go with immunity to critical hits as core.
Magic Dual Color Test Show
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
Quick Reply
Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 10:35AM #32
dmgorgon
Date Joined: Jan 10, 2012
Posts: 2,836
I think that classes should not be using armor as a balancing factor at all.   That design is a bit too gamist.  

Here is what I would do.

First, get rid of all the DEX limitations.  There is a misconception that armor, particularly plate-type armor, transforms graceful warriors into humbering oafs who can be pushed down and sat upon with comparative ease.  Nothing could be further from the truth.   Armor is designed to be as accommodating as possible to a fighter's movements.     Armor might slow down a character's run speed because it's heavy, or be restrictive to acrobatics stunts, but for the most part it shouldn't limit your dex at all.    

What I would do is add a modifier to the attack roll that represents the armor's ability to deflect a blow and a second attribute that represents the armor's ability to absorb damage. 

The table might look like this (note, the modifiers need a lot more thought)

                 Slash, Pierce, Bludgeon
Chain           0/5, +0/1, +0/0
Splint           0/2, -1/2, +2/3
Plate           -3/5, 3/0, -1,2
etc...


What this means is that vs Chain piercing and bludgeoning are your best types of weapons to use.  If you're wearing chain and you get attacked with a slashing weapon the attacker won't suffer a penalty to the attack roll, but your armor will absorb 4 points of damage.  This makes sense because chain does't have any deflection properties.   On the other hand if you had plate on and some attacked you with a slashing weapon they would incur a -3 deflection penalty to the attack roll and the armor would absorb 5 points of damage.      On the other hand, if they attacked you with a rapier and found a hole in your armor you wouldn't get any DR.  The armor might be good a delfecting the blow, but if it does get through that opening you're in trouble.

I might even have a 4th column for weapons like axes that "Hack".   If an axe doesn't cut through the armor it will do bludgeoning damage, far more than a scimitar would anyway. 

The other problem I have with Armor is that it shouldn't help at all agaisnt attacks from a net or a bolas.    That might mean that AC is simply 10 + dex and nothing more.     Any protection that armor grants you is just deflection and absorption.      

Lastly, if I used this system I would also have helms return to the game.  That way if your oponent is using full plate and not using a helm you might be able to avoid his armor by taking a head shot.   

Quick Reply
Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 10:51AM #33
jfriant
Date Joined: Jan 22, 2012
Posts: 164
Has anyone played the Conan RPG where characters have a Dodge Defense and also a Parry Defense, Weapons have an "Armor Piercing" quality / value to them, and Armor grants Damage Reduction - where helments improve that value and Shields improve Parry Defense?

I haven't played it, but in reading the rulebook it sounds like an interesting approach I only wonder how quickly combat rounds can be resolved with this sort of a system.
What's the matter, you dissentious rogues,
That rubbing the poor itch of your opinion
Make yourselves scabs?
Quick Reply
Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 1:25PM #34
mat.shogun
Date Joined: May 24, 2012
Posts: 68

Jun 7, 2012 -- 2:39PM, GEBELL wrote:

All damage has a type in D&D Next (so far). 

In my opinion damage types have been a woefully underutilized aspect of the game world.  peircing/bludgeoning/slashing damage rarely matters (beyond the occasional mud golem or skeleton).

D&D Next, by keeping damage types, has an opportunity to tap into this potential.  I'd propose that armor at all levels provide resistance to damage types (not just magic armor at high levels).

basic idea for resistances:

leather armor: none
chain: 5/slashing
scale: 5/slashing; 5/peircing
plate 5(8?)/slashing; 5(8?)/piercing; 5/bludgeoning


Thoughts?




That's no bad at all, also if it potentially can slow too much the combat...

No more vancian.

No "edition war" for me, thank'you.
Quick Reply
Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 3:39PM #35
Uskglass
Date Joined: Oct 17, 2007
Posts: 925
These have been pretty much my feeling since playing AD&D 2nd and all further editions.
I always wanted a system where AC is a measure of nibleness while armour worn confers sturdiness.
I found a good implementation of this in Alternity eventually. 

The only pitfall I see with flat DR is the additional math, potentially slowing things down.
Also DR doesn't automatically scale with levels.
As a possible solution armour may downgrade the damage dice before they are rolled.
So for example a 3d8 slashing attack vs a heavy armor would become a 3d6 attack. 

I'd love to see a module covering options of this kind for armors. 
Quick Reply
Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 3:41PM #36
Maxperson
Date Joined: Mar 22, 2008
Posts: 22,484

Jun 7, 2012 -- 2:39PM, GEBELL wrote:



Thoughts?




Given the flat nature of AC and bonuses to hit in 5e, I don't see why armor shouldn't just be relegated to being damage reduction and have actual AC come from other things like dex and magic. Heavier armors = more damage reduction.  Creature hides and armor = damage reduction.

Quick Reply
Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 5:35PM #37
Larry_Hunsaker
Date Joined: Mar 5, 2009
Posts: 102

As a DM I used a simple rule for converting existing AC into DR. For D&D Next it would look like this:



-->AC: as per D&D Next


-->Dodge Defense (Dodge): Just 10 + whatever Dex (or whatever ability is used if changed from just Dex) bonus you get in that armor. So from the current playlets rules: 10 + Dex bonus if you use Light armor, 10 + half Dex bonus if you use Medium and 10 flat out if you use Heavy


-->Damage Reduction (DR): AC - Ref



You would have each PC and Mob record these 3 things where AC is currently recorded.


For example, say you have an 18 Dex fighter wearing Chain Shirt (AC 15+Dex) and using a Shield (+2 AC). His D&D Next AC is just 15+4+2=21. 


His Dodge = 10+4 or 14. 


Thus his DR = 21-14 or 7


So you record where AC us:


AC 21 (Dodge 14/DR 7)


Just add that extra bit in the parenthesis. Easy to add and easy to see. You just assume monsters with natural armor get their full Dex bonus to Dodge. Or D&D Next could have a module for this explaining how to do it or just have each monster already figured out with this extra bit.


How you use it in actual combat.


The only change is that each attack you make against AC requires you as the attacker to now decides to make this attack in 1 of 2 ways:


1) Default: you make a precision/power attack to try to hit a weak point in the armor or just hit so hard it gets through. This mean you attack AC as normal in D&D rules, and this changes nothing in the default rules.


2) You make an accurate attack. This means you just try to hit as the primary thing, and hope you cut through the armor. You then attack Dodge not AC. If you hit, you deduct the DR from your damage.



This approach is simple and it gives players the option to just use the old AC system if they like, by just using the original AC and ignoring the whole Dodge and DR in parenthesis. So it lets multiple players choose the method they like best. It lets one player play the normal D&D rules as they are, and another player choose the option 2 and play it that way. Each attacker would make a choice based on which method they prefer. It gives CharOp types fun in that they can try to figure out the best way to attack, while those who just want to roll and go use the default. 


Using option 2, there is a risk you may do no damage on a Dodge hit if you roll less damage than the DR, that is the risk you take for using it. I would suggest that on a critical hit (since that only happens on a flat d20 roll, not like in older editions where you hit by 5+) you allow both choices to ignore DR, this way those who use option 2 do not get gimped on a critical hit by suffering the DR whereas the other guy who used option 1 gets no DR applied. It just makes critical hits, well, more critical! So a critical hit has no difference in effect because of your attack choice (option 1 or 2) and thus remains equally exciting for both.


The only note to add is that if the attack has any other effect than damage (like prone or push), that attack, while it may have hit Dodge, must have hit AC to have these other effects happen. This keeps the game balanced as intended for these other effects, only damage is altered in this rule. Not really that much more math, and if you like it, you do it, if it is too much work, you just use the default.


So this rule does not actually change the core, it just expands it, like a module you can use on the fly if you want to, but only if you declare it before you roll, if you do not specify before you roll, it is assumed default.


You can see it flavorwise as this:


1) If I attack Dodge I am just attacking normally for any opening you give me and your armor/shield reduce my damage if I hit your Dodge.


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, suffering the same -1 to hit but gaining a +1 damage to represent hitting vulnerable areas in your defenses. You can use the power attack flavor for big Str type weapons and the precision flavor for Dex type weapons.


I use this in my 2E games and 3.5E also, I find it works great. 
 


The beauty of this system is how simple and easy to turn On/Off, even for each player, and 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 and you can add these 2 extra stats (Dodge 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 (deciding to try it out a few times and see how they like the feel, or using it only against BBEG types for flavor).


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.


As for the OPs specific request for typed DR (slash/pierce/blunt), this would work fine with the above approach. Instead of setting up a separate DR system for this, just incorporate it as a module that modifies the AC granted by each armor type, this way it can be used by any D&D player, those who use AC and those who like option 2 with Dodge and DR. 


For example, you could make a simple system where Heavy armor grants +2/+1/+0 vs. (slash/pierce/blunt) on AC. Medium grants a +1/+0/+0, and Light grants nothing special here. You could make it more intense if you wanted by upping the bonuses, so Heavy could give +4/+2/+1, Medium: +2/+1/+0 and Light +1/+0/+0 this way Unarmored becomes the no adjustment case.


Another approach is to just say Slashing weapons suffer Disadvantage vs. Heavy and Medium. Piercing suffers Disadvantage vs. Heavy. Blunt is normal against all. Then have a new weapon property for certain piercing weapons, Armor Piercing, this grants Advantage vs. Heavy (canceling out the Disad and making the attack normal) and Medium. Certain Blunt weapons could have a new property, Penetrating, this gives the attack Advantage as well vs. Heavy and Medium. Make 2-handed weapons, like the great sword or axe, like a double weapon, you can choose to use the Slashing stat, say d12, or the Blunt one, say d8 depending on how you use it, as just a heavy piece of metal (like a metal staff) or a blade. Gives some options for the heavy slashing types to work better against armor. Or make those weapons Penetrating. Perhaps the Bastard Sword would get Penetrating when used 2-handed, etc.


Using a system like this would need to see the weapon damage modified so blunt weapons deal less damage and slashing more in general to keep balance.


Whatever module they use for this, the above AC/Dodge/DR system would work with them all. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 5:40PM #38
Black_Knight999
Date Joined: Aug 1, 2008
Posts: 1,107
I think this would be a good idea if balance properly. They just need to make sure the DR is neither too high or too low.
Quick Reply
Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 12, 2012 - 8:17PM #39
Scetchmonkey
Date Joined: Jun 10, 2012
Posts: 73

Jun 7, 2012 -- 2:53PM, dmgurtook wrote:

I have actually completely changed the way AC works in my 4e games. My system works very well (so far) and has the bonus of making the plate wearing pally feel like he is wearing plate (through damage reduction), and the swordmage feel like he is dancing around using his magical 'shield' to great effect (with a slightly higher defense score).

As to how this would change DnDN, i think it would work better as a module.  It would take time and playtesting to see if the added math really adds enough fun and excitement to an already established system (however much next can be considered established). 

Now i really like the idea of doing this to armor (a lot of monsters already have very specific damage reduction, Skeletons to name an easy one), but i think it needs to be handled with kid gloves.  Giving a particular armor damage resistance 5 at first level is going to make the wearer nearly impervious to damage from minor enemies like kobolds and goblins.  This problem could be further complicated with the new Bounded Accuracy. 

In all honesty i think this has a place in 4e and 3.x, but until we get more meaty playtest rules, i dont currently see it working.




Actually I have noticed in 5E Skeletons  do not have damage reduction any more. Not a single playtest monster does. They all have resistances. Making armor into Damage reduction could be an easy change. If it is the Only damage reduction in the system. just have the rule that Damage reduction applies first and then damage is halved by resistance so you avoid the whole issue of hitting for 0.

Quick Reply
Cancel
12 months ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 3:11AM #40
BlakeRyan
Date Joined: Dec 19, 2007
Posts: 190
You could keep it simple -

Light armour = /5 Piercing, Medium armour = /5 Bludgeoning and Heavy armour = /5 Slashing


Regarding armour and elemental resistance -

how about Heavy armour = /5 acid (Advantage vs acid) but +5 (Disadvantage vs Electricity)

Light armour = 5/electricity (you are lighter on your feat) so Advantage vs Electricity and +5 or Disadvantage vs Acid.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4
Jump Menu:
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing