I have thought about how most exoskeleton base armor would be easily crushed by king kong, dinosaurs, really big dragons etc.
Basically giving a feat to some special creatures where only dex, non-force magical effects (crushes mage armor and shield just like regular material armor) and the like count for ac. and perhaps allow a feat with progressions that is like dwarf's ability to get bonuses when fighting big things.
Going to have players on a "monster island" type adventure for several levels......
I see where you're coming from but.....
I think the players will get pretty pissed if they're on this wild, untamed island and all their pretty, shiny toys get busted with no way to fix them. (For the sake of this argument, I have to assume none of them walk around with blacksmiths tool and an anvil in their back pack.) AND Someone who designed a non-Dex based PC will likewise feel screwed when they realize that not only does their armor get bunged up, there is no way for them to gain the dex/doge/etc needed to not get hit, again, due to scarcity.
I'd give the big'uns more abilities like swallow whole, "throw annoying man with pokey stick", and "smash man making sparkles with handy tree". Stuff that targets CMD rather than touch AC. That way at least teh clanks have SOME hope of avoiding the doom.
Touch attacks are really for stuff that bypasses armor like it isn't even there. A ghost can reach right through that armor and hit the guy inside. Lightning might fry the guy inside, armor or not. Scorching Ray definitely cooks him with or without armor. Etc.
But big smashy monsters don't get to ignore armor. It is specifically designed to protect us from smashy things, even big smashy things. This is what armor does - removing that quality from armor is like removing the damage from a sword. Armor that cannot protect from smashy things really isn't armor, any more than a sword that cannot cut things isn't a sword.
Not only would this be weird and nonsensical, but it would be unfair to the guys wearing the armor. Are the wizards penalized too? What about monks? What about rogues with really light armor, they only suffer just a little. But those plate wearing fighters and paladins, they're screwed.
No, this is the wrong way to go about it.
I know what you're thinking, and believe it or not, I agree with your idea: Really big smashy stuff will still kill you even if you wear armor. No suit of full plate will save you if you stand in front of a speeding locomotive, or if a cave collapses on you, or if you jump out of an airplane without a parachute - all three of those cases you'll be flat as a pancake, with or without your plate armor.
And really big monsters should be able to do this too. I get where you're coming from.
But the way to do this is to do lots and lots of damage. That locomotive might do 50d6 damage, and that cave-in might do 100d6. And if you want King Kong to smash your paladin flat, let the big ape do 40d6 or 50d6 on an attack and you'll have a flat paladin.
And if you want the armor to be flat too, just apply that damage to the armor with a Sunder attack. And if you want the armor and the paladin to both become flat, just use Greater Sunder.
The good news is, this also flattens wizards, monks, and rogues equally.
|
The problem stems from the way D&D-like games handle armour. They way it's played is it reduces the chance to be hit where as it's more likely heavier armour would increase your chance to be hit but decrease your chance to be injured. Your suggestion, while sensible, would involve a very significant re-write of the core combat rules to maintain some semblance of balance (as pointed out by DM_Blake).
Your ideas are reflected better in a game like Rolemaster.
S.
Interesting...
It would certainly give barbarians an edge and be very cool thematically ("Monster Island" FTW), but these monsters are already capable of making even heavily armored PCs a puddle of goo. I would advise against doing it unless the players are told and agree to it before character generation.
|
The problem stems from the way D&D-like games handle armour. They way it's played is it reduces the chance to be hit where as it's more likely heavier armour would increase your chance to be hit but decrease your chance to be injured. Your suggestion, while sensible, would involve a very significant re-write of the core combat rules to maintain some semblance of balance (as pointed out by DM_Blake).
Your ideas are reflected better in a game like Rolemaster.
S.
Actually this is not correct. Armor does not reduce your chance to get hit. It reduces the chance of someone damaging you. Heavy armor does impede your ability to get out of the way, by reducing your dex mod. Also large monsters do have advantages, they have massive strength bonuses which increase their change of doing damage (Bt increasing their attack roll) and in turn making it easier to hurt the player. All you need to do is describe the folding armor.
Actually this is not correct. Armor does not reduce your chance to get hit. It reduces the chance of someone damaging you. Heavy armor does impede your ability to get out of the way, by reducing your dex mod. Also large monsters do have advantages, they have massive strength bonuses which increase their change of doing damage (Bt increasing their attack roll) and in turn making it easier to hurt the player. All you need to do is describe the folding armor.The problem stems from the way D&D-like games handle armour. They way it's played is it reduces the chance to be hit where as it's more likely heavier armour would increase your chance to be hit but decrease your chance to be injured. Your suggestion, while sensible, would involve a very significant re-write of the core combat rules to maintain some semblance of balance (as pointed out by DM_Blake).
Your ideas are reflected better in a game like Rolemaster.
S.
If you don't get hit you don't get damaged(from the big monster). My math says if you have to roll higher on the dice to hit me, your chance to miss me goes up. By that logic your chance to hit me is reduced. How does a high dex help you stay out of the way? Everyone knows light armored characters are easier to hit than heavier armored one. A higher movement speed might help if you are a skirmisher, but dex, not so much.
|
|
It reduces the chance of someone damaging you.
True, because the D&D-like game concept is the increased AC (from armour) represents the increased difficulty of finding a weak spot in the armour, thus all weapons do the same amount of damage if you are naked or in full plate. But we quibble over terms, to be damaged by a big critters big teeth you have to be hit - so "hit" and "damage" in a D&D-like game from a melee non-touch attack are synonymous really. Effect (damage) follows cause (you got hit).
That aside, you could treat the armour as in object and apply damage to it as well as the player. This poses a few problems however. In D&D-like games it is assumed that you "are hit" multiple times and the "to hit" roll presents a good/damaging hit (the rest being nicks and grazes). So do you say that armour is damaging only with a penetrating hit (i.e. they got hit) or each round or when the creature exceeds the touch AC (i.e. did the PC get out of the way?).
Given the power and damage potential of the big creatures (built into their CR) I think you will have to be very careful. Destroying a fighters armour in the first two fights is right up their with using DM fiat to remove a wizards spellbook or a thieves toolkit etc.
S.
Thanks for the conversation.......
helps with ideas that get rattling around.