The thing that has always bugged me in D&D is the "Armor makes you harder to hit" issue, I know it's not that what it means, maybe you hit the opponent but not hard enough to deal damage, but most of us aggree that it doesn't feel that way. So, I've always played with Armor as DR and I would really like to see (maybe as an optional rule) this concept in Pathfinder.
I would suggest converting directly all Armor (and natural armor) to DR, but at higher bonuses the conversion should be less; converting on a 1 to 1 basis for high AC's is not a good idea, a +8 Armor giving you 8 DR is too high in the game concepts and you have the problem that light-weapon combatants (including bow/crossbow shooters) don't deal enough damage, they hit fast and constantly but never deal damage. So there should be the need for some "aiming" which would let one strike vulnerable areas for a penalty (it would seem as the inverted idea, DR becomes AC, but it makes sense).
Any ideas?
I know there's all the "backwards compatibility" thing, but it's not that hard to convert to a DR system, your AC lowers and your DR increases... so please those that are going to be against, use other arguments.
Are you familiar with the Armor as Damage Reduction from Unearthed Arcana ?
If not, check it out.
Mongoose's Conan d20 rules also used armor as DR. :)
I thought that it worked really well. I second this idea.
Iron heroes has some good stuff on this. 2E did a version of their Armor Class rules where AC was adjusted base on which type of weapon was being used on which type of armor. I adapted the bonuses from that as my starting point for DR. Still, some tweaks are needed when dealing with newer types of armor to the game ( dwarven stone/mountain armor, planar gear armor maybe).
ledgabriel wrote: The thing that has always bugged me in D&D is the "Armor makes you harder to hit" issue, I know it's not that what it means, maybe you hit the opponent but not hard enough to deal damage, but most of us aggree that it doesn't feel that way. So, I've always played with Armor as DR and I would really like to see (maybe as an optional rule) this concept in Pathfinder.
I would suggest converting directly all Armor (and natural armor) to DR, but at higher bonuses the conversion should be less; converting on a 1 to 1 basis for high AC's is not a good idea, a +8 Armor giving you 8 DR is too high in the game concepts and you have the problem that light-weapon combatants (including bow/crossbow shooters) don't deal enough damage, they hit fast and constantly but never deal damage. So there should be the need for some "aiming" which would let one strike vulnerable areas for a penalty (it would seem as the inverted idea, DR becomes AC, but it makes sense).
Any ideas?
I know there's all the "backwards compatibility" thing, but it's not that hard to convert to a DR system, your AC lowers and your DR increases... so please those that are going to be against, use other arguments.
I just stumbled across this post. I had thrown together some numbers along this idea a while ago. they don't paste terribly well, but here is the gist:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pX_ThFI3L65ufR__Vug-0Iw&hl=en
I wanted to make medium armor viable while making heavy armor.. well, heavy. in most of my games, nearly everyone ends up in chain shirts.
I love the idea of Armor as DR. I've looked into this idea a lot. I've mostly given up on the prospect because I found fixed DR armor is problematic and variable DR armor (Iron Heroes) can slow the game by adding additional rolling (per round at least if not per hit).
Sean K. Reynolds has a good article on his web site discussing the problems of Armor as DR.
The main points, too wide a range to differentiate the armors without making low damage weapons useless against high fixed DR armors. With 4 armors in each of 3 categories starting with a minimum of DR 1 Heavy armors would completely negate all d4 and some d6 weapons.
The Conan RPG deals with this by having a minimum damage rule and giving weapons an Armor Piercing rating as well as having special rules for dealing with damaging armor and finesse. There is also the matter of magic weapons and armor being fairly non existent. This adds complexity and may not work well in a higher magic setting.
Most Armor as DR systems seem to work best in settings with little to no magic weapons or armor. They also tend to add complexity to game play. Most generally incorporate some type of defense bonus system to offset lower AC values.
The system in Unearthed Arcana is something of a hybrid, which seems to split armor rating into half AC half DR. I view it as a compromise that falls short on all sides.
I'm familiar with this variant. I like it. I think it's fairly realistic, and I love that it means Mage Armor protects as well as full plate, but won't absorb any damage.
I don't think it should be core. It adds too much bookkeeping, and favors monsters.
Freesword wrote: Sean K. Reynolds has a good article on his web site discussing the problems of Armor as DR. Thanks for the link.
I have DM'd a campaign where we played with Armor as DR. On paper the system is sound and makes a lot of sense. It just seemed far more "logical" to me.
Having ran that campaign for 1 year I can now say that I would never do it again. I could state my reasons, by Sean K. Reynolds has already done it for me in his article. I would also like to heavily stress his fourth point...
"The AC system already models how well armor absorbs damage. Wearing full plate is eight points of AC better than not wearing armor at all; that +8 AC translates to 40% of the attacks that would hit the unarmed guy do no damage to the guy in full plate. In effect, the AC system gives you an all-or-nothing percentage-based damage-absorbing value, kind of like improved evasion."
Maybe keep it open as an optional rule for those that want to tinker around with it... but I sincerely hope this never becomes a core rule.
I love the concept of armor as DR but at this point it's way too much of a backwards compatibility issue.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
check out the "game of thrones" campaign setting's rules on AC (class defense bonus & armor as DR). works quite well with a few adjustments (i.e. CDB=BA) :) also allows for bypassing of armor and targeting of specific parts of the body.
Ah, nostalgia... One version or another of Armor as Damage Reduction or Armor as Extra Hits has been around for a very long time.
Rifts uses armor as extra hits. Kind of clunky, since it represents enormous amounts of them in Rifts, but there are other systems that use that method without too much problem. AD&D used to for some magic items, like some rings from the Forgotten Realms (I seem to recall they were actually called Rings of Armor, but I’m not going to go downstairs to check) which added a given number of HP to you when they were activated. The first edition rules for Full Plate for Cavaliers also provided some bonus HP as I remember (again, I’m not going downstairs to check).
Runequest III (for example) uses Armor as Damage Reduction and it works quite well - but their armor doesn’t come in too many varieties, is locational, and the underlying character doesn’t have many hits. Runequest III had very fragile characters - but that’s what they were shooting for, and the best armor available didn’t absorb that much damage.
Hero (sort of) uses Armor as Damage Reduction, and has many nigh-undamageable characters - but that’s no problem in a superhero setting. They split up damage between hit points (body) and stun anyway.
Other systems used separate absorption and deflection ratings for cut, thrust, and blunt impact as well as resistance and deflection ratings for various types of energy. I can’t recall one offhand that also used an ablative effect as well, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Too much bookkeeping for most people.
World of Synnibar (yes, I know, Boo, Hiss, but it’s the only one I know of offhand that uses the system) has armor that divides the damage you take by some factor. Potentially workable, too complicated in execution for anything but a computer-run game unless - perhaps - you either use a very easy fraction or allow the armor to protect against energy too, and thus can simply adjust the wearer’s hit points.
Given that d20 has exotic materials, strange technologies, weird magic, and a hundred campaign-specific oddities running about, why restrict yourself? This doesn’t require any modifications to the core rules, it simply requires a few additions to the equipment list:
Keep the standard armor available and working as-is.
If someone wants to get armor forged by the Blind Smiths of Or’kall that works according to the armor rules from Unearthed Arcana or whatever source you have handy, let them give it a try. If it doesn’t work, well, you should be able to come up with some way to make him get new armor - and the Blind Smiths just aren’t available right now. Something pretty similar can be done for any other option that fails to work.
If someone else wants to wear enchanted armor that provides a pool of extra hits (maybe half only to keep him alive), that either heals with him or must be repaired by craftsmen, but which doesn’t raise his AC much, go ahead and let him try some.
If someone wants to wear armor that reduces incoming damage by some easy percentage - or just multiplies his hit points by the inverse of that percentage - so, its some sort of exotic force field device.
If someone wants to wear armor with some weird combination of such effects, look at it, let him try it, and see how it works.
If you want to shake up your players with the exotic armor worn by the six-armed invaders from beyond and their four-handed repeating crossbows, so be it: it’s just another weird monster power.
Quentyn wrote: World of Synnibar (yes, I know, Boo, Hiss, but it’s the only one I know of offhand that uses the system) has armor that divides the damage you take by some factor. Champions (Hero) had this too (confusingly enough called Damage Reduction). It came in 25%, 50% or 75% reduction amounts, IIRC.
Although I am not in favor of the "Armor as DR" concept, the best system I have seen is in RPG Objects' "Blood & Guts - Combat Procedures Manual".
Although its a d20 Modern sourcebook, they do include all the Armor and DR adjustments for all the D&D Player's Handbook armors too.
I've had this issue with D&D longer than I care to admit.
The "realistic" solution, IMHO, is simply to convert the armor's AC rating directly to DR, meaning leather gives you 1/-, and plate gives you 8/-. Yes, this means that people who weild light weapons won't hurt people in heavy armor, but we're talking "realism" here. (There's a reason little rogues with daggers run from fighters in full plate with two-handed swords.) Slipping a dagger between the plates of heavy armor would be represented by the critical system, allowing those characters to damage heavily armored foes once in a while.
Natural armor is really too high for direct conversion, so it should be cut in half or in thirds, and the monster's current DR should be dropped (or incorporated, so that a character with the right kind of weapon reduces or eliminates the DR from natural armor).
And, since we're talking about "realism", hit points should be limited to the character's Con score, or maybe Con plus Level. A defense bonus related to a character's level would replace the function of hit dice, lessening the damage a high level character takes in comparison to a low-level character.
This addresses the issue I have in a system where a high-level character can get what amounts to a "scratch" (say 20 or even 30 points for a 20th level fighter), that takes a higher level spell to heal than the "scratch" a low-level character gets (1 point for a firstie).
Such a system might seem to be extraordinarily deadly, but I've used it in the past, and it actually works out better than you'd think. It also means that lower-level monsters (those doing just a d6 or d8 or so of damage) can still be a real threat if they get a critical in. And arrow criticals suddenly become the threat they should have been all along (because of the x3 damage mod).
As far as magical armor is concerned, the enhancement bonus applies to AC, not DR. The only way to increase DR would be to use adamantine construction.
Oh, and just so you know, the quotes around "realism" aren't there for sarcasm. They're just an acknowledgement that it's really hard to be serious about realism in an RPG, especially a fantasy RPG.
Ah, the armour as DR debate.
I'm a mixed kettle of fish when it comes to this, as if you modify the armours to being DR/- the character's AC drops (and we all know how effective AC is at higher levels!).
I've been tinkering with some house rules and have decided to use the Unearthed Arcana armour rules where armour provides BOTH AC and DR/-, as that is what I feel armour does (it prevents hits outright and reduces damage). In response to the dropping of AC, I added a Defence stat based on the BAB or Reflex of the character. Not perfect, but it works for me.
All in all I feel the most realistic way of dealing with armour is to have hit locations, and different DRs for each armour type (some will have more than one), which is too much work for me to be fun anymore (though it would work nicely in a computer/video game...).
Cheers! :D
How about an optional rule that the DR depends on what AC you beat.
You hit touch AC but miss armour AC - full armour & shield DR applies.
You hit armour AC but miss armour+shield AC - full armour DR applies.
You hit armour+shield AC - minimum armour DR applies.*
So a guy in field plate with a metal shield may have DR 10 against an 'armour & shield hit', DR 8 against an 'armour hit' and DR 2 against a 'weakness in armour hit'.
Light armour fighters should probably get a touch (dodge?) AC bonus in such a system, else no one would wear them.
I wouldn't recommend it for most D&D campaigns though, it'd be too time consuming in play.
Yes, I've been also tempted to de-abstract-ise AC in something more realistic like armor = DR. Then I ran into the problem that hp is a very abstract concept in itself. It sound more logical to have armor reduces the gravity of a hit, but then it doesn't sound logical to have a fighter soak up 20 hits from a 2 handed sword without slowing down his pace (as long as he has hp that is.
So I found that the abstract system of AC wasn't too bad after all...
However, my attempt at armor = DR was something of the sort. Bare in mind that it was 2ed AD&D, so I'm making the translation as I go along:
- Base AC was higher to start with (based on the assumption that unencumbered fighter are more apt to evade blows)
- Armor reduced damage but decreased your mobility (and worsen your AC in a more significant way than reducing or negating DEX bonus to AC)
- DR gained from an armor was significant, but damage dealt minimum of 1 hp.
This was working better in 2ed AD&D since damage were generally lower than in 3,5. A +10 to damage was something huge! Under 3.5, it can easily reach +20 or +30...
Also, hp were more or less capped at level 10, and bonus from CON was less common, so even with a minimum 1 point of damage rule, you'd eventually run out of hp...
Rules are made simple for the sake of better gameplay. Armor class does not represent the difficulty to hit but the difficulty to injure an enemy.
Even in unaltered form armor class provides damage reduction. A leather armor with +2 AC is roughly the same as 10%/magic. This seems pathetic at first but once enemies start dealing heavy damage it becomes a very cheap way to reduce damage. Leather armor costs in tens but DR items in thousands of gold coins.
The fact that DMs only declare the hit or miss of attack cannot be blamed on the rules. At decisive or dramatic battles I use an AC chart for the players and monsters.
Like this
Size - Natural Armor - DR - Armor - Deflect - Shield - Dodge/dex
10 10 10 12 12 13 16
You start from the left and determine what exactly protected you from the attack. 16-14 misses,13 is shielded, 12-11 is a weak blow deflected by your armor, 10 and lower means you are fighting a 76 year old blind beggar wielding a cabbage.
I like the UA DR & AC rules and will try them out in my next campaign.
I'm also considering increasing the crit range of all light weapons by 1 to ease the issues with light weapons not dealing [or hardly dealing] any damage against Full Plate.
I'm not sure whether to make that rule apply to only light weapons or all weapons though, what do you think?
Power Attack could be problematic with lower AC's. Just a thought.
This may have been covered... but Monte's offers the extra d20 roll instead of assuming a base 10 for AC. There's a touch more rolling but the variable adds some fun chaos to the equation.
stuart haffenden wrote: Power Attack could be problematic with lower AC's. Just a thought. Hence why you should have some sort of Defense Bonus to AC...
Cheers! :D
ComicJam wrote: stuart haffenden wrote: Power Attack could be problematic with lower AC's. Just a thought. Hence why you should have some sort of Defense Bonus to AC...
Cheers! :D In theory, I like this idea (it works well enough in Conan RPG), but it might be problematic in terms of balance. Unless there's a level-based bonus to AC (such as in 4E), it doesn't work with the low and high ends of the "spectrum".
Asgetrion wrote: In theory, I like this idea (it works well enough in Conan RPG), but it might be problematic in terms of balance. Unless there's a level-based bonus to AC (such as in 4E), it doesn't work with the low and high ends of the "spectrum". Definitely, it would have to have some sort of level-based defense bonus to work, hence I would have a BAB/2 dodge or competence bonus to touch AC, with additional modifiers for armour type & encumbrance.
For the ones who are willing to trade gameplay speed for a good DR rule, I suggest using this:
Base Defense Bonus = Base Attack Bonus (this rule works even for monsters, since the natural armor bonus math presented in the Monster Manual already scales according to the monster´s hit dice).
Armor as Variable DR:
I suggest the adoption of a variable Damage Reduction for armor, in simetry with the already variable damage from weapons. Thus:
LIGHT
Padded - DR = 1; Max Dex = +8
Leather - DR = 1d2; Max Dex = +6
Studded - DR = 1d3; Max Dex = +5
MEDIUM
Hide - DR = 1d4; Max Dex = +4
Chain - DR = 1d5(*); Max Dex = +3
HEAVY
Scalemail - DR = 1d6; Max Dex = +2
Platemail - DR = 1d8; Max Dex = +1
Fullplate - DR = 2d4(**); Max Dex = +1
(*) To emulate a "d5", roll a d10 and consider results of 1-2 as "1", 3-4 as "2", 5-6 as "3", 7-8 as "4", and 9-0 as "5".
(**) The fullplate with a variable DR of 2d4 has a average DR of 5, wich is better than the platemail with a variable DR of 1d8 and an average result of 4.5.
Also, by adopting variable armor DR, you do not make low damage weapons useless against DR armors, that is, d6 and some d4 weapons will still be useful.
Natural Armor DR vs. Manufactured Armor DR
According to the rules presented above, since manufactured armor provides DR it is logical that natural armor will have to provide DR too.
However, natural armor DR works different from manufactured armor DR, because:
1st - Natural Armor provides a "fixed" DR equal to the character´s natural armor bonus, while Manufactured Armor provides a variable DR (1d2, 1d3, 1d4, etc).
2nd - Natural Armor DR does not stack with Manufactured Armor variable DR. Whenever you roll a low result for your manufactured armor variable DR (e.g. you roll a "1" in a d4 for your hide armor DR), you can use your natural armor DR instead, if it is greater (e.g. in the previous example, if the character also has a natural armor of 2, he could use his natural armor as DR, instead of the manufactured armor DR).
Gabriel Domingues wrote: Armor as Variable DR:
I suggest the adoption of a variable Damage Reduction for armor, in simetry with the already variable damage from weapons. Thus:
*snip!*
That's like the system used in some versions of Chaosium's Stormbringer RPG. It works, but the extra dice rolling is a little more time consuming than a fixed DR.
Gabriel Domingues wrote: Natural Armor DR vs. Manufactured Armor DR*snip*
1st - Natural Armor provides a "fixed" DR equal to the character´s natural armor bonus. *snip*
2nd - Natural Armor DR does not stack with Manufactured Armor variable DR. Whenever you roll a low result for your manufactured armor variable DR (e.g. you roll a "1" in a d4 for your hide armor DR), you can use your natural armor DR instead, if it is greater *snip*
Don't like that, firstly there should be as much variability in the placement and thickness of natural armour as artificial armour. Many monsters have thick shells on only part of their body, and the like.
Secondly, if you convert two monsters from the MM, one with +8 armour from full plate and the other with +8 natural armour from thick scales, the second monster ends up much better off, with 8 DR instead of 2-8.
I think they'd be better off both using variable DR.
As for combining natural & regular armour (or two layers of armour, like plate over chain), I prefer some sort of limited stacking which provides a +1 to +3 DR bonus depending on the strength of the weaker armour. Something like this:
Both layers equally strong = +3 DR. (e.g. plate atop plate, result plate+3)
one layer almost as strong = +2 DR. (e.g. plate atop chain, result plate+2)
one layer ~1/2 as strong = +1 DR. (e.g. plate atop hide, result plate+1)
one layer < 1/2 as strong = no adj. (e.g. plate atop leather, result plate)
JRM wrote: Don't like that, firstly there should be as much variability in the placement and thickness of natural armour as artificial armour. Many monsters have thick shells on only part of their body, and the like. It´s true that many monsters have natural armor represented by thick shells that protect only part of their body. However, these are a minority. The major part of monsters with natural armor are represented by monsters with an extraordinary tough skin that equally protects all parts of monster bodies. (E.g. Dragons, Ogres, etc.). A good must be made to catch the average cases, not thinking on the exceptions. Afterall, on special cases (when natural armor represented by thick shells protect only part of a monster´s body) you can always rule or let the players make called shots to avoid the natural armor.
In the other hand, manufactured armor will never, ever, cover equally all parts of an humanoi´s body with an equal protection (not even the fullplate).
So that´s the reason why I think that natural armor should always provide a fixed DR, while manufactured armor will always provide a variable DR.
JRM wrote: Secondly, if you convert two monsters from the MM, one with +8 armour from full plate and the other with +8 natural armour from thick scales, the second monster ends up much better off, with 8 DR instead of 2-8.
I think they'd be better off both using variable DR.
The monsters presented in the Monstrous Manual have a natural armor progression based on their hit dice. So you will see that in most cases, if you use their BAB as a Base Defense Bonus, this Base Defense Bonus will be very near to their natural armor bonus, resulting that they will keep the same original AC.
The problem is when you have to convert monsters with high CR and huge natural armor bonuses. If you simply convert their natural armor bonus to fixed DR, you will get some broken DR numbers, making then virtually impossible to hurt (e.g. an elder Red Dragon).
To avoid that, I use the following rule when converting monster with high CR and natural armor bonuses:
Fixed DR = 1/2 monster´s original natural armor bonus.
For that reason, I do not use the limited stacking rule you have proposed, also because it can lead to some inconvenients, such as, according to your rule when a monster with natural armor +1 and stacking with a padded armor (+1 DR) would get +3 DR bonus. Off course you could make an errata/clarification to your armor stacking rule, but you must agree that it would add even more complexity.
Gabriel Domingues wrote: It´s true that many monsters have natural armor represented by thick shells that protect only part of their body. However, these are a minority. The major part of monsters with natural armor are represented by monsters with an extraordinary tough skin that equally protects all parts of monster bodies. (E.g. Dragons, Ogres, etc.). A good must be made to catch the average cases, not thinking on the exceptions. Afterall, on special cases (when natural armor represented by thick shells protect only part of a monster´s body) you can always rule or let the players make called shots to avoid the natural armor.
In the other hand, manufactured armor will never, ever, cover equally all parts of an humanoi´s body with an equal protection (not even the fullplate).
In the real world, animals with scales and thick hide don't have uniform protection across their entire bodies. Some parts have thinner armour for increased mobility (i.e. legs, necks) or to save weight (usually places that are difficult to reach, like the belly of a crocodile).
Maybe a variable+fixed DR? That way you can represent a creature with uniform excellent protection (DR 1d4+4) and one that has excellent protection on some body parts, poor on others (DR 1d8).
As for the DR stacking suggestion. Yes, you'd need a fix for low DR. I'd just pulled some sample numbers out of the air.
Hmm, maybe adding a fraction of the lower DR would be a better approach? Something like 1/3. It'd certainly be simpler.
That would work out as:
Full Plate (+8) plus +3 to +5 armour (studded to breastplate) = +9.
Full Plate (+8) plus +6 to +8 armour (splint to full plate) = +10.
Two layers of Hide / Studded (both +3) = +4.
Two layers of Splint / Banded (both +6) = +8.
It has a problem in the midranges though, i.e. a double layer of Chainmail would offer identical protection to a layer of chainmail and a chainshirt, and the latter is cheaper, lighter and probably imparts lower penalties.
Would work better for combining natural & regular armours though, since encumbrance doesn't apply for natural armour and cost is only an issue if the NA comes from an item, and those are already expensive.
JRM wrote: Maybe a variable+fixed DR? That way you can represent a creature with uniform excellent protection (DR 1d4+4) and one that has excellent protection on some body parts, poor on others (DR 1d8). It´s a very creative suggestion indeed. I support that. The only problem I see is that you cannot create a general conversion rule to implement this idea. To implement this idea you would need to analyse each monster from the Manual, and set the "variable+fixed" DR according to a case by case analysis. Not very practical, though it would be excellent as an optional rule, or for a future realease of a completely new Monster Manual.
JRM wrote: As for the DR stacking suggestion. [...]
Hmm, maybe adding a fraction of the lower DR would be a better approach? Something like 1/3. It'd certainly be simpler.
[...]
It has a problem in the midranges though, i.e. a double layer of Chainmail would offer identical protection to a layer of chainmail and a chainshirt, and the latter is cheaper, lighter and probably imparts lower penalties.
I think that the stacking of manufactured armor is not a problem that rules should care about. Indeed, most heavy armors already supposes the stacking of other armor in their natural built. Take the fullplate for example. Bellow the metal plates, specially in the joints, what you will find is the chainmail. So I don´t think that rules should confer a bonus for players stacking manufactured armor. What must be covered by the rules is the stacking of the natural armor + manufactured armor.
Thinking on balancing issues, I have already posted my suggestion above (manufactured and natural armor never stack, just use wichever is greater). Your suggestion is not bad too, but adds more complexity and doesn´t sound like 3e rules, since the 3e rules rarely, if ever, relly on fractions to rule anything due to simplicity obsession.
Gabriel Domingues wrote: I think that the stacking of manufactured armor is not a problem that rules should care about. Indeed, most heavy armors already supposes the stacking of other armor in their natural built. Take the fullplate for example. Bellow the metal plates, specially in the joints, what you will find is the chainmail. So I don´t think that rules should confer a bonus for players stacking manufactured armor. What must be covered by the rules is the stacking of the natural armor + manufactured armor. Well with full plate the chainmail usually only exists in the gaps the plates can't cover, like the armpits. That said, all the medium & heavy D&D armours should already be considered 'stacked' with Padded armour, since they'd include an undercoat to absorb the blows. I believe there are a couple of examples of multi-layers of metal armour (such as two layers of maille over your padding, or chain with some metal plates over it), and some cultures made soft armours in extra-thick multiple layers, usually because tougher materials were unavailable (e.g. Chinese paper armour, some Aztec cotton armour).
Plus, there may be characters/monsters with superhuman strength who could comfortably carry around the weight of armour much thicker than normal, and I'd like some way to represent this.
Besides which I think there should be some benefit to wearing both natural & artificial armour, since there are plenty of D&D monsters that do so, and under your system if their natural armour is better it's a pointless encumbrance.
JRM wrote: Besides which I think there should be some benefit to wearing both natural & artificial armour, since there are plenty of D&D monsters that do so, and under your system if their natural armour is better it's a pointless encumbrance. Absolutely not a pointless encumbrance. Take your previous example. A monster with a original natural armor bonus of +8. If we convert it to a fixed DR of 4 (1/2 monster's original natural armor bonus), this monster will have the same average protection of a character wearing a platemail, wich confers a variable DR of 1d8 (average 4.5).
However, if this monster with fixed DR 4 from natural armor chooses to wear a platemail, he will have a great benefit. This monster will be able to use the "good rolls" from his platemail variable DR (results of 5-8), but won´t be prejudiced by the "bad rolls" of the armor variable DR (results of 1-3), since his natural armor confers a fixed DR of 4. That is, the monster, with fixed DR 4 from natural armor, wearing a platemail, will have a variable DR of 4-8 (average 6), while the same monster without the platemail will have a fixed DR of 4.
In the other hand, a character wearing the same platemail, but without natural armor, will have a variable DR of 1-8 (average 4.5), wich is worst then the monster in platemail with a DR of 4-8 (average 6).
JRM wrote: Asgetrion wrote: In theory, I like this idea (it works well enough in Conan RPG), but it might be problematic in terms of balance. Unless there's a level-based bonus to AC (such as in 4E), it doesn't work with the low and high ends of the "spectrum". Definitely, it would have to have some sort of level-based defense bonus to work, hence I would have a BAB/2 dodge or competence bonus to touch AC, with additional modifiers for armour type & encumbrance. I've added in my own Defence Bonus to D&D to make it a little less reliable on Magic Items:
If a(n) (N)PC has high BAB or Ref progression, (s)he gains 1/2 Level (rd. dwn.) Defence Bonus to AC (half again Touch). If not, (s)he gains 1/3 (rd. dwn., half again to Touch AC). This represents the character's increased reactions in dodging or parrying.
Cheers! :D
Gabriel Domingues wrote: Absolutely not a pointless encumbrance. Take your previous example. A monster with a original natural armor bonus of +8. If we convert it to a fixed DR of 4 (1/2 monster's original natural armor bonus), this monster will have the same average protection of a character wearing a platemail, wich confers a variable DR of 1d8 (average 4.5). Well, since I prefer fixed DRs I was thinking of a creature with 4 points of natural armour DR and 4 points of regular armour DR. Under your variable system I guess it'd be a monster with natural DR 4 wearing Hide armour (1d4 DR according to your earlier post), which would offer it no advantage.
Oh, and the average for the DR 4-8 example you gave is 5.25, not 6. It's not a uniform distribution like 1d5+3. There's a 50% chance of a '4' result and a 12.5% chance of 5, 6, 7 or 8. So, the result will be 4 half the time and a uniform 5-8 (mean 6.5) the other half, averaging (4+6.5)/2 = 10.5/2 = 5.25.
Alternatively, you can calculate the average as (4+4+4+4+5+6+7+8)/8 for the same result.
Armor as DR:
You don't need this because you already have it. Take, for example, full plate on a fighter with no Dex bonus. He's AC 18; 10 base +8 armor. If someone attacks him and rolls 11 to 17, they've hit him, but the armor has absorbed every single point of damage, which is waaaaaaaaay better than DR 1/-. When you start reducing armor bonuses to get DR you're shooting yourself in the foot; a 1 point drop in your AC means a 5% greater chance you'll be hit, and you would have to get hit a ton of times with DR 1/- to compensate for the attacks that would have missed you completely because of the armor bonus you lost.
Base defense progression:
This already exists in many forms. Most PCs can take combat expertise if they wish and the total defense and fighting defensively options are available to everyone (they even get better with ranks in tumble).
JRM wrote: Well, since I prefer fixed DRs I was thinking of a creature with 4 points of natural armour DR and 4 points of regular armour DR. Under your variable system I guess it'd be a monster with natural DR 4 wearing Hide armour (1d4 DR according to your earlier post), which would offer it no advantage. A creature with natural armor fixed DR 4, must be compared to an armor wich confers the SAME average protection (wich, in case, is the platemail, 1d8 DR, average DR 4.5) to get some benefit from the natural armor stackling according to the rules I have proposed. In the other hand, if a creature with natural armor fixed DR 4 is wearing a Hide Armor (DR 1d4, average 2.5), it is quite reasonable that it will not get any benefit from the hide armor since this last one provides a much weaker protection.
JRM wrote: Oh, and the average for the DR 4-8 example you gave is 5.25, not 6. It's not a uniform distribution like 1d5+3. There's a 50% chance of a '4' result and a 12.5% chance of 5, 6, 7 or 8. So, the result will be 4 half the time and a uniform 5-8 (mean 6.5) the other half, averaging (4+6.5)/2 = 10.5/2 = 5.25.
Alternatively, you can calculate the average as (4+4+4+4+5+6+7+8)/8 for the same result.
Thanks for the help with the maths (I´m just a lawer). But even after your "math correction" the average for stacking natural armor and the platemail in the DR 4-8 example (5.25 average) is +1 better than the average for the same character with natural armor fixed DR 4, but without the platemail (DR always 4, instead of 5.25). So it is not a pointless incuberance indeed.
Gabriel Domingues wrote: A creature with natural armor fixed DR 4, must be compared to an armor wich confers the SAME average protection (wich, in case, is the platemail, 1d8 DR, average DR 4.5) to get some benefit from the natural armor stackling according to the rules I have proposed. In the other hand, if a creature with natural armor fixed DR 4 is wearing a Hide Armor (DR 1d4, average 2.5), it is quite reasonable that it will not get any benefit from the hide armor since this last one provides a much weaker protection. Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, since I don't think it's unreasonable, since physical armours do stack in the real world, even if one is weaker than the other.
Anyhows, I guess that might wrap it up for this thread, as everyone seems to have lost interest. If we come up with any new ideas on DR as armour it's probably best to start a new thread.
JRM wrote: Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, since I don't think it's unreasonable, since physical armours do stack in the real world, even if one is weaker than the other.
Anyhows, I guess that might wrap it up for this thread, as everyone seems to have lost interest. If we come up with any new ideas on DR as armour it's probably best to start a new thread.
Well, following your suggestion about using fixed DR for armor, I was thinking about something like this lastly:
LIGHT ARMOR
Padded -------- DR 1 --- Max Dex +6 ---- Check Penalty 0
Leather ------- DR 2 --- Max Dex +5 ---- Check Penalty -1
MEDIUM ARMOR
Chainmail ----- DR 3 --- Max Dex +3 ---- Check Penalty -3
HEAVY ARMOR
Scalemail ----- DR 4 --- Max Dex +1 ---- Check Penalty -5
Platemail ----- DR 5 --- Max Dex +0 ---- Check Penalty -6
This suggestion tries to streamline armors, dropping piecemeal sets (like chainshirt and breastplate), also keeping in mind that we cannot convert armor bonus to DR in a 1:1 fashion because of the balance issues (avoids making d4 and d6 weapon inutile against a platemail with a DR of 8, for example).
So, I agree with you that armor as DR should use a fixed and not a variable DR. I just don´t know exactly how should we rule the stacking of natural armor with manufactured armor DR, or even if they should stack.
As an optional rule for combining natural & manufactured armor DR bonus, I suggest the following:
Characters (or monsters) with DR from natural armor and from manufactured armor should use the DR of the source of protection with the greatest DR value, plus a +1 DR bonus if the secondary source of protection provides a DR of at least 1/2 the DR of the primary source of protection.
E.g.:
A character with a natural armor 4 (DR 4) wearing a platemail (DR 5) would have a total DR 6 (5 + 1).
A character with natural armor 1 (DR 1) wearing a padded (DR 1), would have a total DR 2 (1 + 1).
Lastly, a character with natural armor 1 (DR 1) wearing a chainmail (DR 3) would have a total DR 3 (3 + 0).
DR in armors will not just add to book keeping in the sense that extra dices will have to be rolled and more numbers will have to be tallied. It will have impacts throughout the rest of the D20 rule set as well. People in this forum have already mentioned the consequences to Power Attack and Expertise. Think about how DR in armors can affect the monster manual.
If AC is to be transferred to DR, then AB would not be as important in differentiating fighters from other classes as it is in D20. ie. if AB is not critical in combat, then a wizard can simply buff his dagger and fight as fighters, and fighters would become redundant. In effect, DR in armor would kill one of the pillars of D20.
My point is that this natural DR rule will not simply be a supplement to D20 as it can lobotomize much of the rules. If Paizo is to include DR into armors, it should be fully committed to making changes throughout D20, and not simply make the DR as an optional rule. Having said that, I am still in favor including DR and I hope that Paizo would make such a commitment.
CharlesBrown wrote: DR in armors will not just add to book keeping in the sense that extra dices will have to be rolled and more numbers will have to be tallied. It will have impacts throughout the rest of the D20 rule set as well. People in this forum have already mentioned the consequences to Power Attack and Expertise. Think about how DR in armors can affect the monster manual.
If AC is to be transferred to DR, then AB would not be as important in differentiating fighters from other classes as it is in D20. ie. if AB is not critical in combat, then a wizard can simply buff his dagger and fight as fighters, and fighters would become redundant. In effect, DR in armor would kill one of the pillars of D20.
My point is that this natural DR rule will not simply be a supplement to D20 as it can lobotomize much of the rules. If Paizo is to include DR into armors, it should be fully committed to making changes throughout D20, and not simply make the DR as an optional rule. Having said that, I am still in favor including DR and I hope that Paizo would make such a commitment.
I don't think we're actually expecting any of this to get into Pathfinder, we're just musing about the possibilities of DR armour.
Gabriel Domingues wrote: Well, following your suggestion about using fixed DR for armor, I was thinking about something like this lastly:
LIGHT ARMOR
Padded -------- DR 1 --- Max Dex +6 ---- Check Penalty 0
Leather ------- DR 2 --- Max Dex +5 ---- Check Penalty -1
MEDIUM ARMOR
Chainmail ----- DR 3 --- Max Dex +3 ---- Check Penalty -3
HEAVY ARMOR
Scalemail ----- DR 4 --- Max Dex +1 ---- Check Penalty -5
Platemail ----- DR 5 --- Max Dex +0 ---- Check Penalty -6
This suggestion tries to streamline armors, dropping piecemeal sets (like chainshirt and breastplate), also keeping in mind that we cannot convert armor bonus to DR in a 1:1 fashion because of the balance issues (avoids making d4 and d6 weapon inutile against a platemail with a DR of 8, for example).
I don't have that much problem with DR 7 full plate being nigh invulnerable to a 1d6 damage weapon, since it's a fair reflection of their historical effectiveness, clubs and ordinary arrows were pretty ineffectual against a Knight in Shining Armour unless they struck the weak spots and holes in their armour, or where wielded with greater than normal force (150 lb longbows, morningstars).
My preference for Armour as DR is a Conan-RPG like system were a good enough attack roll slips through the weaknesses in the armour, and characters get a level-based defence bonus on their AC that scales with their Base Attack Bonus.
Streamlining the Armour Types like that makes sense if you want to cut down the range of DRs available. If you wanted to reintroduce the other types you could always just 'tweak' the encumbrance of the five you've got listed (e.g. Hide armour protects as Chain (DR 3) but encumbers as Scale (+1 Dex, -5 Check), Chainshirt protects as Leather (DR 2) but encumbers as Padded (+6 Dex, -0 Check).
Gabriel Domingues wrote: So, I agree with you that armor as DR should use a fixed and not a variable DR. I just don´t know exactly how should we rule the stacking of natural armor with manufactured armor DR, or even if they should stack.
As an optional rule for combining natural & manufactured armor DR bonus, I suggest the following:
Characters (or monsters) with DR from natural armor and from manufactured armor should use the DR of the source of protection with the greatest DR value, plus a +1 DR bonus if the secondary source of protection provides a DR of at least 1/2 the DR of the primary source of protection.
It's more that I would rather have natural and artificial armour both use the same system, I don't have anything against variable DR as such, although it would be a bit more time-consuming.
The +1 bonus for stacking secondary armour looks good. My preference is for a wider range of DR, but you don't want that if your base armour range is only 1-5.
Now here's the tricky bit, what do you do about magical armour? Does the magical bonus just add to DR, in which case +3 Leather offers the same protection as Platemail?
JRM wrote: I don't think we're actually expecting any of this to get into Pathfinder, we're just musing about the possibilities of DR armour. As we are already in Beta stage, I have the same thought as well. What you read from me was just my wishful thoughts out loud. Too bad really. The fact that many changes would have to made throughout D20 to accommodate DR could be the leverage upon which Pathfinder deviates from 3.5, for the better IMO.
PS. I have always thought that its odd that 3.5 has AC based armors and yet has non-armor based DR rules like silver, magical, bludgeon, etc. There is a sense of inconsistency here. IMO, the rule should either commit to including DR or get rid of it, no on-the-fence solution. Oh well, I'll start dreaming of 2nd edition Pathfinder for more streamlining.
JRM wrote: Now here's the tricky bit, what do you do about magical armour? Does the magical bonus just add to DR, in which case +3 Leather offers the same protection as Platemail? I think magical armour bonuses should add to AC as in my imagination magical armour produces a kind of small force-field around the wearer. That's just me though...
Cheers! :D
As we are working in the realm of "this will never make it into the book", I would like to see DR work as follows:
DR as current AC bonus, no AC bonus for armour.
No strength or dexterity bonus to hit.
A parry bonus equal to Base Attack that must be split between multiple opponents.
Criticals ignore armour DR.
Low coverage armour or no armour might add to crit modifier.
Just my thoughts!
After following this thread for a while I feel it is time to add to it again.
I'm still not convinced that Armor as DR is worth the trouble (although I see it necessary under some circumstances mostly involving adding firearms) even though I love the concept and it makes logical sense to me. That being said I have gained some interesting insights into the concept from this discussion.
The first is the discussion of natural armor. I had not even considered it's implication to the concept of Armor as DR, thinking only in terms of manufactured armors. Since it stacks with manufactured armors and there are creatures with both natural armor and DR already this must be carefully considered.
Next is the matter of stacking DR. Creatures with existing DR adding in the additional DR from manufactured and natural armor could end up virtually immune to weapon damage.
Lastly is the concept of a sliding DR from armor based on the AC hit. This I think deals well with the first two points. Basically manufactured and natural armor are added to AC normal with full damage if this AC is hit. The sliding DR factor comes in if the AC hit is between the total AC with armor (natural and manufactured) and AC-armor. The amount between the AC hit and total AC is subtracted from the damage as DR. This is factored in before any other DR the creature may have.
As an example to illustrate what I mean lets take a Wererat in Hybrid form with a buckler (+1AC) and wearing a Chain Shirt (+4 AC). [For those who would point out that Lycanthropes do not use armor or shields in their hybrid form, I'm stretching a bit for the purpose of demonstration because of a lack of humanoids in the SRD with both natural armor and DR]
His AC would be 21 (10 + 3 (DEX) +1 (buckler) + 3 (Natural) + 4 (Armor))
He already had DR 10/silver.
Hitting AC of 21 or higher would bypass any DR from armor but the DR 5/silver would still apply.
Hitting AC 13 would miss completely.
Hitting AC 14 would apply DR 7/- (Max armor and natural armor) to the attack before the DR 10/silver would be applied.
Hitting AC of 18 would apply DR 3/- (AC 21-18)to the attack before the DR 10/silver would be applied.
Hitting AC of 20 would apply DR 1/- (AC 21-20)to the attack before the DR 10/silver would be applied.
Note: DR x/- is used as I am not sure having magic or other existing bypasses apply is appropriate.
I don't believe in converting shields to DR. I see them more as actively deflecting the attack than reducing the damage taken.
This system has two drawbacks as I see it. One is the obvious complexity. The other is that hits will be more frequent all be it at slightly reduced damage. This could be offset with some sort of class defense bonus (possibly 1/2 BAB perhaps).
Critique of this idea is welcome and appreciated. While I don't expect to see anything along these lines added to the core rules I do see possibilities as a house rule option that could work well in some situations.
Recent threads in New Rules Suggestions
|
