In the current D&D 3.5 campaign we are playing, we are using the alternate armor rules where some is subtracted some from the actual AC of the Armor and is put towards the DR. We also are using the alternate facing rules (+4 from the sides, +10 from the back).
Right now the PFRPG core rulebook does not allow for these rules. To Paizo, do you plan on coming out with alternate rules for both of these as well?
Yes, I know you can say we can already do it on our own with the rules D&D 3.5 set up. However, my DM is such a stickler for keeping the the rules of the core book. He will say due to it's not in the core rulebook, if he starts house ruling something like that, it could throw off the balance of what was playtested.
Yes, I know, sounds strange. But, it's him. He is a very good DM, but he likes to stay with the official books only (and D&D 3.5 is no longer official for him if we play PF).
Now, if I got some mention from Paizo that it was ok to do so, that probably would be enough for him. Hey, can't argue with the developers. :)
Or, do you (Paizo) plan on coming out with books with those alternate rules?
Not if Sean has anything to say about it! :D
Hmm, interesting.
I see his points, but I guess it's not an issue we really have run into. The armor DR does lessen damage from the weapons (which is obviously the point), but hasn't made them useless. But then we don't have anyone using a Dagger. :P
|
UA-style armor as DR is utter crap. Having your armour stop the enemy from hitting beats getting hit and knocking off a funny amount of damage every time.
Also, if you put facing in one rule, you need facing for all the other rules. There is enough headache with the game ignoring facing in every instance except the gaze attack rules, which suddenly assume that some kind of facing is being tracked.
UA-style armor as DR is utter crap. Having your armour stop the enemy from hitting beats getting hit and knocking off a funny amount of damage every time.
Oh, I don't know. I kind of like the armor having DR. I'd have to agree that it's better not to be hit at all than to have DR to lessen the blow, the problem with how 3.0/3.5 (and how I assume is carrying over in PF) is you get to a certain level and your AC becomes meaningless, at least for most classes. Most creatures have such high BAB's that they just don't miss you unless it's that 3rd or 4th attack.
What's nice with DR on the armor is no matter what level you become, it will always be useful as it will always take off that few points of damage.
But, I can certainly see Sean's arguments, as well.
Also, if you put facing in one rule, you need facing for all the other rules. There is enough headache with the game ignoring facing in every instance except the gaze attack rules, which suddenly assume that some kind of facing is being tracked.
Not sure what "all the other rules" you are referring to in regards to facing. I am talking about combat, really. Sure, you can force it when RPing, out of combat, but the DM has only really done that when we have made a point of saying "We are looking in this direction and will keep looking in that direction." Then yes, we might miss something behind us (if we failed our listen checks).
I was just curious if Paizo had plans on implementing these rules, but it sounds like neither all too popular on these forums.
I used to play a lot of Runequest when I was younger. Combat was based entirely on Armor as DR. It also incorporated dodging, active parrying, and shield parries to avoid getting hit. Critical hits ignored armor – so that sort of balanced out the inability to penetrate armor with a dagger. And the DR ranges for armor weren’t that impressive. I think for chainmail you got something like DR 4. You could also layer armors (leather under chain or plate), and armor and DR were body location specific (as were hits – though you could call your shots to hit a specific location, it did reduce your chances of hitting).
It was a cool system and compared to old 1e D&D combat was slow. I’m not sure how it would compare to 3e+ (including PFRPG) combat in terms of speed, flow, and resolution.
If you are looking for a system for Armor as DR that actually works (and as worked for 20+ years), you could do worse.
P.S.: I should also note that wearing more or heavy armor slowed you down and decreased your "to hit" probabilities. So there was a trade-off.
CJ
I read the link. I was unconvinced. For one thing, there have been plenty of gaming systems that DID or DO use armor as DR. Just because 3.x or the D20 system in general doesn't use it, doesn't mean it can't be done.
As to Sean's specific arguments, I had a couple of objections:
in Given #2, he states,
[i]If you have a wide range of DR values for armor, it means that some weapons that don't normally do a lot of damage (such as the dagger) won't be able to hurt high-DR foes [b]unless they crit.[b][i]
(Bold added by me)
He then goes on to give this example:
[i]if you give full plate DR 8, it means a person with a dagger can't ever hurt someone in full plate (barring Strength and other bonuses to damage), when historically that wasn't true at all ... it was hard, but a skilled person can find [b]the gaps in the armor[b][i]
Again, the bold was added by me. Ummm... finding a gap in the armor, a particularly vulnerable point or vital spot -- isn't that what a crit is supposed to simulate?
I'll admit that for a pseudo-medieval setting such as is common in most fantasy games, armor as AC is a fine abstraction, and I have no objecitons to it. Where I believe it breaks down is in modern/future settings, with the introduction of firepower -- especially post black powder weapons, with the introduction of nitrocellulose as the propellant. I suppose that is one reason guns are so verboten in many fantasy settings -- they really do change everything, as history shows us.
Now, having said all this, and having myself House-ruled a system that I believe accounts for firearms and uses armor as DR, I can see why it won't be added into the official rules -- it *IS* a lot of work. But whether it's WORTH that work or not, well, that's a matter of personal opinion. Though as has been pointed out, when it comes to canon rulebooks, some personal opinions weigh more than others. ;-)
There are so many interesting and exciting new things that they should be doing that I hope they don't waste time on these kind of alternate rules for years to come yet.
Waste for you, not necessarily for everyone else.
I came to this site looking for information on this subject because I am planning a Pathfinder Game using DR.
The reason I want to use DR is because I want to give players a tactical reason to chose different armors. thus... a light fighter with high dex wearing armor would be better in a battle against a single high damage dealing target (like a giant). while a guy using heavy armor would be better in a battle with multiple low damage opponents (bunch of goblins).
as it is now there is not all that much reason for a player with say a +5 dex bonus to chose studded leather over half plate or a chain shirt (yes there are reasons but they dont seem critical)
There are very good arguments on both sides except that many of the arguments on the against side seem to be focused on making the system more complicated than it needs to be.
AC system is extremely simple... does the DR system does not have to be THAT much more complicated to still be fun and fair?
The system I was looking at did not effect weapons in any way (no penetration bonus although some weapons may have an ability to bypass DR at close range example cross bows) and at first glance does not require a large amount of changing the numbers in the books
the essence of the system is this.
All AC bonuses remain AC bonuses with the exception of Armor and Natural which convert directly to DR. Magic armor bonuses become deflection bonuses. example leather armor would be DR2 max dex 6 while plate armor would be DR9 max dex 1. a creature with natural armor +2 wearing leather armor would now have DR4 that same creature wearing +2 leather would have DR4 and deflection bonus to AC of +2
Rather than weapons having a penetration bonus armors would simply have a DR vulnerability. thus chain armor would have DR4/pierce for example
Specific DR bonuses would not stack but would layer giving the wearer the best possible DR per attack. Thus a creature with DR5/blunt but also wearing DR10/slash armor would have DR10 against everything but slash which would be DR5.
its a very simple system but at first glance works well.
i was wondering if any one else has used a similar system that is simple but effective.
note:
no need to throw in random complications like cumulative damage to armor/reduced effectiveness, or penetration tables for every weapon etc.
all of these things are pretty much glossed over in the general rules and there is no reason to worry about them now.
|
Not if Sean has anything to say about it! :D
Mongoose's treatment of armor-as-DR (with Finesse used to counteract the dagger-versus-plate scenario) in the Conan D20 system pokes a lot of holes in Sean's argument, at least as it's presented there. If you're looking for a solid basis for an armor-as-DR system, it's worth a read-throguh.
|
|
Stormbringer RPG from Chasoium had a system where armor had a dice value for DR. I don't have my rulebook with me here at work, but i think leather armor was something like 1d6-1 damage reduced. The system is altogether more deadly though since it is purely percentile based attack vs parry combat and your HP are a static number related to your size and CON. The dice based DR seems to give some variance to simulate the fact that sometimes a blow strikes a sturdy part(max protect) and sometimes it strike a weak point(0)
Pathfinder could put out an Unearthed Arcana style book, but if they did, I'd rather it not be optional rules I can get for free on D20srd.org.
For example, I really like the Words of Power alternate magic system. It's innovative, works well within the game, and more importantly, I've never seen it before.
If I want Armor as DR and facing, I have rules for that already and can add it to my home games if I so choose.
@TC: So, your DM is OK with optional and erratically balanced house rules for 3.5, but the same house rules are somehow less balanced unless Paizo reprints them? Weird guy.
Tons of optional combat rules like called shots, armor as damage reduction, and new ways to track character health
What's the value gained for facing?
A tactical one and book keeping (a lot). I have used it but, it slow the game down. As board base tactician it cool but most folk do not see the extra work as worth it.
[excited face for UC]
anyway, after reading sean's post, an interesting thought occured regarding the whole DR kills weapons like daggers. but what if there was a way to bypass the DR.
Leather usually has +2, so it gives +1, 1/-
Chainmail: +5, so it's +3, 2/-
Full plate: +8, so +4, 4/-
If you beat the AC by enough*, you ignore DR
Leather: +2 so you got +1/+3, 1/-
Chainmail: +5, so it's +3/+7, 2/-
Full plate: +8, so +4/+12, 4/-
DR = original AC/2
AC w/DR = original AC-DR
AC to bypass DR = Original AC+DR
So the guy in Full Plate with 12 dex had an AC of 20
this gives him an AC of 16/24, DR4/- So if you attack with a 17, you'll hit and have the damage reduced by 4, but if you score a 25, you'll do full damage.
seems to address the whole skilled attacker can stab you through plate with a dagger and damage you.
So for those that have used DR, how's this seem like it would balance for you???
|
You mean a trained fighter (trained enough to make his living with a sword) is assumed to keep his back pointed in the same direction for a full six seconds - during combat???
hah hah
*wipes tear from eye, tries to catch breat*
..hold on, I've got a reply..
bwa hah hah
..just gotta..
*holds gut*
can't breath
hah hah hah
..stop laughing
Well, if we suppose that said fighter assumes he's only fighting one opponent, ie. in the context of a duel, or if he's focused on something (perhaps he's reading a map?), this hardly seems as guffaw-worthy.
A +5 or +10 bonus to attacks for coming at your enemy from the side or rear seems completely broken to me.
Battles will become exercises in maneuvering behind your opponent. There is much more to combat than that, me thinks.
|
Well, if we suppose that said fighter assumes he's only fighting one opponent, ie. in the context of a duel, or if he's focused on something (perhaps he's reading a map?), this hardly seems as guffaw-worthy.You mean a trained fighter (trained enough to make his living with a sword) is assumed to keep his back pointed in the same direction for a full six seconds - during combat???
hah hah
*wipes tear from eye, tries to catch breat*
..hold on, I've got a reply..
bwa hah hah
..just gotta..
*holds gut*
can't breath
hah hah hah
..stop laughing
They have a rule that addresses this already though, it's called being flat footed. In both cases the fighter would be caught unaware of his assailant or flat-footed.
|
|
Battles will become exercises in maneuvering behind your opponent. There is much more to combat than that, me thinks.
RW battles are won by superior position, range over detection, superior technology/weaponry (dagger vs. full suit of plate) and superior force (power, numbers and skill).
Battle should be an exercise in maneuvering, planning and tactical decisions. That of course is not the focus of 3.5 or PFRPG.
3.5/PFRPG are more about feat/spell selection and utilization of class abilities vs presented foes. Usually straight forward combats with PC actions overwhelming the enemy by number of incoming actions. It is never a tactical situation (or rarely, where tactics and positioning make a difference), and is more about initiative and controlling the small area of battle (or the enemy) with spells. The CR system just reinforces player dominance (a set of equally matched foes would be a CR +3 or 4 encounter) and reduces the need to think/consequence out actions (since PC mistakes carry less weight or impact).
Facing, weapon speed , weapon vs.armor, etc were dumped just to make the game easier - dumbing down. Now that doesn't have to always be a bad thing, but details, depth and complexity were dropped by new school developers with the idea that it would make the game easier to understand and speed play. They then substituted a combat system focused solely on miniatures/board placement. That didn't turn out so well.....
I have played games with DR as armor - far superior mechanics than "to hit/miss" binary systems. If people here are making the argument that 3.5/PFRPG has the most sound, realistic or intelligent designed combat systems all I have to say is : Go out and play other games!
Most DR as armor systems are going to need degrees of success to work properly. Something can be done to make it functional in d20 (as suggested up thread: hit +x over target AC to bypass DR) but a binary system makes it more difficult to incorporate.
Damage is all about how well you hit vs the targets armor.
Sample- Degrees of success: Miss, glancing hit (x .5 damage), slight hit (x1 damage), hit (x2 damage), Solid hit (x3 damage) and critical hit (x5 damage).
The roll to hit is affected by attackers skill, stat etc, the target gets his dex subtracted (plus any other factors), that is your actual to hit value (usually in a column system), so it is much easier to hit targets overall. Speed, movement, size , cover, visibility, condition of attacker, etc would all factor in the "to hit" roll. Something the size of a T-rex would be very easy to hit, getting through its armor would be a different story.
So a DR suit of armor of leather (DR 4) vs a dagger (dmg 4) the wearer would take damage only on a a "hit" (4 gets through), or a "solid hit" (8 pts gets through) and would be walloped by a "critical hit" (16 points get through).
Using the current (dated) binary system limits the use of DR as armor, but again -with a few tricks it could be done.
I would like to see what they offer in UC, may use it instead of the current legacy system used in my PF game.
[excited face for UC]
anyway, after reading sean's post, an interesting thought occured regarding the whole DR kills weapons like daggers. but what if there was a way to bypass the DR.
Leather usually has +2, so it gives +1, 1/-
Chainmail: +5, so it's +3, 2/-
Full plate: +8, so +4, 4/-If you beat the AC by enough*, you ignore DR
Leather: +2 so you got +1/+3, 1/-
Chainmail: +5, so it's +3/+7, 2/-
Full plate: +8, so +4/+12, 4/-DR = original AC/2
AC w/DR = original AC-DR
AC to bypass DR = Original AC+DRSo the guy in Full Plate with 12 dex had an AC of 20
this gives him an AC of 16/24, DR4/- So if you attack with a 17, you'll hit and have the damage reduced by 4, but if you score a 25, you'll do full damage.
seems to address the whole skilled attacker can stab you through plate with a dagger and damage you.
So for those that have used DR, how's this seem like it would balance for you???
I haven't played in an armor as DR game, but I can say this wouldn't quite work. If overcoming DR is viewed as slipping past the defenses, or even hitting hard enough that you break them, it still favors bigger weapons. Mainly because considering the classes with high BAB's (fighter, paladin, barbarian) use bigger weapons, and the people using daggers and other finesse weapons (rogues primarily) are already at a disadvantage to hit. It presents the same basic problem as the original.
|
|
Pathfinder and 3x tries to capture this with being flat footed. Simply adding facing will be nonsensical (no fighter in a real fight is going to leave his back faced the same direction for 6 full seconds) and adds a degree of complexity which will slow down combat (and, of course, the slower combat runs, the more boring it is).Battle should be an exercise in maneuvering, planning and tactical decisions. That of course is not the focus of 3.5 or PFRPG.
The Flat-footed bonuses/negatives a is a poor substitute for tactical play. And every fighter (in real life) doesn't get to chose who or what is going to be behind him at all times. Combat is not (or should not) be a static exercise. That is why shields are needed and placed on the off-hand, why armor is designed to at least offer some protection (not much ) from the rear. Because attacks are expected to come in all directions, ideally if the fighter is in control the should be from in the from. Not having a facing, even when moving in a fixed direction is dullard city.
Using the reasoning that a "fighter would never allow his back exposed in a fight" = no rules for facing in 3.5/PF is absurd. That wasn't the reason the rules were changed.
Let's not re-write history to suit our needs or arguments - weapon speed, facing, et al, were dumped for simplicity and accessibility (marketability) of the game. Plain and simple.
|
|
I haven't played in an armor as DR game, but I can say this wouldn't quite work. If overcoming DR is viewed as slipping past the defenses, or even hitting hard enough that you break them, it still favors bigger weapons. Mainly because considering the classes with high BAB's (fighter, paladin, barbarian) use bigger weapons, and the people using daggers and other finesse weapons (rogues primarily) are already at a disadvantage to hit. It presents the same basic problem as the original.[excited face for UC]
anyway, after reading sean's post, an interesting thought occured regarding the whole DR kills weapons like daggers. but what if there was a way to bypass the DR.
Leather usually has +2, so it gives +1, 1/-
Chainmail: +5, so it's +3, 2/-
Full plate: +8, so +4, 4/-If you beat the AC by enough*, you ignore DR
Leather: +2 so you got +1/+3, 1/-
Chainmail: +5, so it's +3/+7, 2/-
Full plate: +8, so +4/+12, 4/-DR = original AC/2
AC w/DR = original AC-DR
AC to bypass DR = Original AC+DRSo the guy in Full Plate with 12 dex had an AC of 20
this gives him an AC of 16/24, DR4/- So if you attack with a 17, you'll hit and have the damage reduced by 4, but if you score a 25, you'll do full damage.
seems to address the whole skilled attacker can stab you through plate with a dagger and damage you.
So for those that have used DR, how's this seem like it would balance for you???
No it doesn't, it actually does address a fix of sorts.
If the argument is that secondary fighters have a hard time getting through armor due to low attack bonuses then there is no argument. Step up your to-hit or don't complain. Weapon Fineness shouldn't be a feat tax, it should be a stat use/choice based upon the specific weapon in hand.Also there should be a Finesse based feat progression similar to Weapon Focus/Specialization for those DEX based fighters or secondary combatants. So the only thing secondary fighters (that is those that want to actually melee) would be concerned about would be behind a few points in Base Attack Bonus. Not all classes can do all things.
If you wanted to get very technical you could also include a base AC "to beat DR" value. In other words total up the targets AC for a hit, but only count the Armor value + X as the number needed if the target is hit to bypass DR. X could be based off DR as the poster suggested or if a greater level of depth is desired X could vary vs. Piercing/Slashing/Blunt weapons (with values derived from historical aspects of actual armor use).
More complicated than most 3.5ers would like, but it would work.
|
|
I agree that "Combat is not (or should not) be a static exercise." It's good to see that you agree that a fighter would not have a defined "rear" over a six second period of time.
A fighter has a defined rear every round, it just changes over the course of the fight and over each round. Thus, there is exposure based upon positioning and facing.
Nice attempt to obfuscate, a failure but a nice attempt none the less.
|
|
For all intent and purposes undefined rear (your explanation) and rear facing per round are two different things.
The fighter will always have a front and rear facing, how it is defined in this games terms would be in rounds, that is what we are limited to. You stated -
no fighter in a real fight is going to leave his back faced the same direction for 6 full seconds
That is wholly different than changing facing every six rounds, nor is a suitable exucse to ignore the fact that there is a facing. And yes, if fighting in a formation the fighter would have a fixed rear for any length of time (over a few rounds in game terms), so the abstract/ever shifting facing over six seconds doesn't fly. Perception of incoming attacks be damned, a fighter in formation (or pressing) is facing a specific facing.
A fig facing doesn't need to be limited to front/back - you will have oblique sides, FOV, etc. A fighter could have his fig counter facing a direction, have a field of view and still also be able to sense (or know) that there are foes behind him. Guess what, unless he is going to expose himself to an undefended attack from the front that rear foe (perceived or not) does not need to worry about his shield, full armor value or maybe even his Dex (unless the fighter shifts positions).
You wouldn't change the facing every 2 seconds because the full round is the mechanical restraints of gaming we are dealing with here. Just like the foes he is fighting wouldn’t have their minis dodging and weaving around the fighter’s fig every 1.2 seconds. We go by rounds, general facing that shifts round to round is very suitable for gaming, much better than an abstract blob with shield cover and perception of 360 degrees at all time and every round - that is just idiotic.
Every round you could shift that figs facing (and thus FOV, shield side, oblique, etc) as the fighter player sees fit. Makes much more sense than fighters (or any PC) being able to hit foes in all directions, defend with his shield in all directions and sense foes in all directions all the time.
Like I said earlier, goes over the expectations of 3.5 and standards of play set by the current rules.
|
|
Wow, failure at reading comp 101 (no surprise considering who I am dealing with).
Thread title: Future alternate rules for Armor DR and for facing?
Really, you lose your argument so you retreat to raw without even knowing the context of the thread?
Please, next time fight the troll reflex and stay out of a thread unless you know what the thread is actually about. At least make an effort to comprehend before you spew idiotic guffaws/insults when people are discussing "ALTERNATE RULES".
Sigh
|
|
I've made every effort in this thread to treat you with respect. Sure, the whole idea of adding facing to the game is profoundly stupid, but I've not made the fact that you support such a bad idea personal.
Right, because facing was in earlier editions = stupid idea, got it.
You actually insulted the op and every other poster with your imbecilic and childlike (par for course) tirade up thread before I even posted here. All you have offered are insults or nonsensical defense of nonsensical rules. Otherwise you offer and give nothing to any argument. Especially in a request thread for alternate rules.
Instead, I've focused on the fact that facing is unrealistic and unnecessarily complicates the game. All you seem interested in doing is having a personal argument.
Yes because abstract 360 defense and perception is more realistic.
The next time you find yourself unable to make an intelligent defense of what you want, you'll get further if you acknowledge that fact rather than let your shame drop you into volleying ad hominems.
I defended my argument perfectly - older editions and superior games address facing. The reason why a slew of rules were dropped was to make the game more accessible to your ilk. All true.
All you offered was -
"You mean a trained fighter (trained enough to make his living with a sword) is assumed to keep his back pointed in the same direction for a full six seconds - during combat???
hah hah
*wipes tear from eye, tries to catch breat*
..hold on, I've got a reply..
bwa hah hah
..just gotta..
*holds gut*
can't breath
hah hah hah
..stop laughing"
...it went downhill from there.
You really should follow your own advice about losing arguments and attacking posters. You did both by not acknowledging the context of the thread while spewing guffaws like the village idiot. Seriously, try following your own advice.