I'm curious what the masses think of this optional rule system?
I've read one persons commentary online, bashing the system, but I'm curious what the pros think.
I like it a lot, except maybe the way crits are confirmed. The system gives reason now to choose heavy vs light now, instead of the standard AC race.
I want to add it to my games, but don't want to change the table unless I'm sure. So I open the boards for discussion: yes or no and why?
I'm gonna use it in my next game, albeit slightly houseruled so it's not too harsh on our fighters.
Changes are: +1 weapons ignore light armor DR, +2 ignore medium, +3-5 ignore heavy armor. Huge(not large) and larger ignore armor DR.
That way, our fighters won't reset to 10-12defence(ac) when something larger comes going, but he wouldn't wanna overly charge something larger than an ogre, though we may opt to remove that as well, because if the armor is less effective due to size and force of a huge creature, why isn 't shield effected?
And it kills the scenic image of a fighter bashing it out with a dragon, who now has to cover due to 10-12 ac while the rogue and monk go all out melee with it.
As for crit confirmation? it hurts my head.
I wasn't aware that different sources for DR/armor changed which size can affect it. Any chance you can copy/paste that section or paraphrase/point to it?
I'm curious what the masses think of this optional rule system?
I've read one persons commentary online, bashing the system, but I'm curious what the pros think.
I like it a lot, except maybe the way crits are confirmed. The system gives reason now to choose heavy vs light now, instead of the standard AC race.
I want to add it to my games, but don't want to change the table unless I'm sure. So I open the boards for discussion: yes or no and why?
I am not a fan of the Armor provides DR rules.
Normally:
More often then not non-combat classes often have a hard enough time landing a successful hit in melee against their enemies, but when they do manage to score a hit they often get to do some damage. The Wizard who is out of spells may not make an idea melee combatant, but at least when he does score a hit he maybe doing some damage to whatever he hit.
With Armor providing DR:
You need to have a weapon that does a D8 damage or more, and combine that with a high Strength score to have a chance of damaging any foe wearing the equivalent of Medium Armor or better.
Wizard with a Quarter Staff: 1D6 -5 through -9 depending on foe's armor
Bard with a Rapier: 1d6 - 5 through -9 depending on foes armor
Cleric with Mace: 1d6 -5 through -9 depending on foes armor
Now that I think bout it, got a bit flabbergasted by how few weapons would hurt someone in heavy or medium armor :/
Might use it for my CC game when Kingmaker closes up, but probably with a few changes. Haven't looked too closely at them yet.
I'd prefer size differences over determined sizes to bypass DR.
May be used with vigor/wounds system, but that will also be revised I think, to be more similar to WH40K RPG rules.
I wonder if Paizo tried to balance this with the wealth by level tables.
True, a low level character isn't going to do much vs full plate, but no one has full plate at the early stages (well, no NPC anyway).
As you get higher level you do more damage and also get access to better armor.
Of course spells still bypass DR, so that acid splash still does damage.
Any other thoughts floating around?
It's only an issue at very low levels, and generally only in non-full-BAB-humanoid vs full-BAB-humanoid scenarios.
The only real problem I have is that even chainmail basically prevents the vast majority of Small or smaller non-swarm, non-magic creatures from hurting you except on crits.
I believe that thinking the problem is limited to lower levels is inaccurate.
The only way the Bard's Rapier, the Cleric's Mace, or the Wizard's Staff is ever going to see modifiers that increase damage out put will be when they are high enough level to find magical weapons or if they start investing in raising their Strength Attribute. By the time the Bard, Cleric, or Wizard start getting Magical Weapons to help over come Armor's DR, the people and or creatures they are likely going to be fighting will have Magical Armor which effectively negates the advantage of having a magical weapon.
Wizard with a Quarter Staff +1: 1D6 -6 through -10 depending on foe's armor
Bard with a Rapier +1: 1d6 - 6 through -10 depending on foes armor
Cleric with Mace +1: 1d6 -6 through -10 depending on foes armor
I am of the opinion that Armor Providing DR instead of AC can work and can be a very fun game mechanic, if the game you are playing is created from the ground up with that mechanic in mind, but that Armor providing DR is FAIL in regards to being a mechanic that can easily be slapped onto an already existing game system such as Pathfinder.
Armor providing DR really does create far more trouble and problems then it is worth in my opinion, but instead of listing the potential troubles I can foresee I will instead provide a link to a man who knows a hell of a lot more about d20 mechanics then myself.
Thanks for posting the link.
I am still not sure about the damage limitations, so devil's advocate walking...
Clerics normally use a d8 weapon and drop a 14 into STR.
1d8+2
Power attack: 1d8+4
Who knows what spells or extra goodies he has, so let's just round for arguments sake to 1d8+6
Since the chances to hit are much higher (defense vs AC), he will do damage more often. Now, we have to assume for this argument that everyone is not wearing full plate, since most people don't. I do see a lot of chain mail and breast plate, so let's base this off breast plate. That means on a successful hit, he is taking 1-8 points of damage, since the DR of 6 cancels out the static modifier.
This is less, but he is hitting more often and with a 3/4 BAB since defense is much lower than AC. is it a wash?
Fighters are harder to kill, rogues are harder to hit. Makes sense to me, :)
one thing that always bugged me about armor as DR is that it reduces the AC of all characters but nobody gets to improve AC as they level up.
I mean, the guy gets better at hitting things but not at avoiding getting hit? I was so sure there would be a defense by level table next to the armor as DR one...
Has anyone tried the new DR rules with the piecemeal armor rules? I'd be very interested in this...
So you'd need to check which location had been hit and the DR applied to that area, sounds very much like WHFRPG
I was thinking more to an overall contribution to DR value just as the overall contribution to AC.
The standard piecemeal subsystem AFAIK does not include the location checking.
No it doesnt require to hit location IIRC
|
A few of us started taking about this and the wounds system -
I like Armor as DR, I just think (as SKR suggested) it will take a large amount of detail and thought to make it work for 3rd ed.
The thing I am shifting to is halving the values of AC so it is part DR and part AC (abstract as deflection, penetration, etc). So a suit of Splint Armor would add +3 DR and +4 AC (to be hit).
The reason why I like the divided approach is that low damage attackers/low damage attacks actually have a chance at hurting the armored target.
My biggest beef with Armor as DR (as presented) is that the weapons in 3rd ed have such horrible damage ranges that the system gives very little to work with.
Chainmail, for example, would be way less effective against a bludgeoning weapon than a sword. It stops the sword from cutting through you, but it does nothing to slow the momentum of a mace.
This can be fixed by giving each weapon or armor a DR signature. So using the offered system:
Chain would be DR 6 (S:8/P:6/B:4)The above would be going by the suggested to hit bonus/negs by weapon from 2nd ed AD&D. Just as an example, and yeah – more work.
The way I look at it is that nothing good is easy. A system like this would require a re-evaluation of many aspects of the game - how feats and attacks work, magic armor, etc.
|
|
The thing I am shifting to is halving the values of AC so it is part DR and part AC (abstract as deflection, penetration, etc). So a suit of Splint Armor would add +3 DR and +4 AC (to be hit).This is how the 3.5 version worked, and it's completely and utterly useless. It's a picture-perfect case of trying to do two things and utterly failing at both. You're halving the AC, so you get hit way more often, but you don't get enough DR to make up for it. You end up taking more damage in pretty much every single circumstance.
LIKE I SAID
A system like this would require a re-evaluation of many aspects of the game - how feats and attacks work, magic armor, etc.
There is a good chance that with an alternate system (and as SKR suggested) you would have to examine the whole system for balance.
Tacking on DR as AC substitute under the current rules will not work.
You need to look at to-hit bonuses, bonus damage from Str, all the extra damage added to weapons via magic (item creation of combat spells), none of these variants rules offered exist in a vacuum. Other changes would have to be made to make the whole thing work.
The reason why retaining part of the AC as AC and not all DR:
It helps lighter armor/Dex combatants. If you eliminate physical armor AC and just have DR then all you are going to end up with is Dex bonuses as AC = always being hit.
Since armor has been removed from their defense paradigm, their Ac will plummet out of appropriate range and the yare sunk.
Under these rules high DEX/light armor combatants are going to get slaughtered since their Dex mod isn't going to be enough to protect them.
At one point you have to institute a change in the way numbers add up.
They key here is functionality, to have a system where AC drops considerably you are going to have something else in the system that gives - in this case it would be all the stackable bonuses that are given to combatants.
For this to work you either have to lower some of the "to hit" bonuses all combatants get or increase the Dex/AC value for light/no armor - since now AC would reflect attack avoidance.
Either way it's a major change.
|
|
And because I know someone's going to call me on the enhancement bonus double dipping, here's the citation:
Defense = 10 + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + other modifiers (including armor’s enhancement bonus, but not armor bonus or natural armor bonus)
--
Armor in this system keeps all of its normal statistics and qualities, but its armor bonus (including any enhancement bonus added to armor bonus and natural armor bonus) is converted to DR/armor.
Uh no, Bracers add an "Armor Bonus" not an "Armor Enhancement Bonus", the braces sub as armor.
|
|
The reason why retaining part of the AC as AC and not all DR:
It helps lighter armor/Dex combatants.No, it doesn't. It hurts them just as badly, possibly even worse, than it hurts heavy armor wearers. Dropping their AC by 4 (+5 chain shirt is 9 AC/2 = 5 AC, 4 DR) to give them DR 4/whatever is NOT a good trade. That amount of DR is meaningless, and the extra hits from the AC penalty more than makes up for the small amounts of damage they reduce from each hit.
Further, it "helps" them by completely screwing over heavier armor combatants.
Reading comp FAIL
You need to look at to-hit bonuses, bonus damage from Str, all the extra damage added to weapons via magic (item creation of combat spells), none of these variants rules offered exist in a vacuum. Other changes would have to be made to make the whole thing work.
They key here is functionality, to have a system where AC drops considerably you are going to have something else in the system that gives - in this case it would be all the stackable bonuses that are given to combatants.
For this to work you either have to lower some of the "to hit" bonuses all combatants get or increase the Dex/AC value for light/no armor
At one point you have to institute a change in the way numbers add up.
So, we can all be friends, right?
I'm planning on playtesting the rules this weekend. I'm done crunching numbers and want to see what the Paizo guys really came up with.
I'll post my thoughts after the first session. Then, if I remember, I will post my second game conclusions.
I will run the game, RAW, I don't want to houserule everything. It will be hard enough converting all the encounters on the fly.
|
|
I'm planning on playtesting the rules this weekend. I'm done crunching numbers and want to see what the Paizo guys really came up with.
I'll post my thoughts after the first session. Then, if I remember, I will post my second game conclusions.
I will run the game, RAW, I don't want to houserule everything. It will be hard enough converting all the encounters on the fly.
If you run a low level party with secondary fighters (rogues, clerics) then you may have some issues with 1d6 or 1d8 unmodified damage ranges getting through even low armor. As players level up and get a little more damage out potential then it becomes less of an issue.
I would keep my eye on the second stringers getting frustrated going melee and not doing much (or any) damage even if they hit every round.
What about converting half of the damage soaked into nonlethal damage?
About 2 years ago I co-DM'd a no-magic (for PCs) 3.x game, and we used the following armor as DR rules (there were no firearms, so please take that into account):
1. Armor granted its normal AC bonus.
2. Armor granted DR equal to the AC bonus, though half (rounded up) was nonlethal damage. Minimum damage was 1 point of nonlethal damage.
3. Shields became Deflection bonuses (not sure how this would interact with stacking with magic deflection- probably just alter what a shield bonus applied to.)
4. Finesse fighters used a Conan-esque method of ignoring armor.
5. Each class had a scaling Defense Bonus. Either Defense or Armor applied, not both.
6. Can't remember the other house rules (I think crits ignored DR, larger creatures ignored non-magical DR if 2 sizes bigger, and the like).
Wasn't the best, but it ran well enough. Low-level fights took much longer, but getting knocked unconscious was a reality. Fun, but cumbersome.
Found this link, it could work easily, too:
Reaper Miniatures
|
My question is Magic, by the variant system RAW:
It's not unreasonable for a PC to have by level 3 a +1 weapon. Most APs will include one or two by the end of the first book.
Now, that PC completely negates the DR armor provides, and the enemies will now have consistently lower ACs - or am I misreading that?
There's also no indication that +2 armor isn't bypassed by a +1 dagger. So my +2 scale mail means my AC/Defense is still 14 (it was 12 but went up by 2 for the magic armor), but that rogue with a +1 dagger just negated all of my DR. I was hoping for some sort of "magic armor trumps weapons" clause - +1 armor means that +1 weapons no longer autobypass. +2 weapons trump +1 armors, but in a tie, armor wins.
You guys have spent a lot of energy on the hypothetical 20th level character in +5 plate, I really want to see how this works on the level 4 guy with a +1 chain shirt versus the rogue with the +1 dagger, because I'm not spending months of my adventuring career at level 20, but I do spend a lot of time at levels 1-6...
I've always been a proponent of armor as DR. I think it makes more sense. the one thing I would add is an AC bonus based on class and level like the Conan RPG.
|
|
I've always been a proponent of armor as DR. I think it makes more sense. the one thing I would add is an AC bonus based on class and level like the Conan RPG.
The variant adds +1 DR/5 HD or levels, I don't think it would break the system if it was a +1 AC/+1 DR per 5HD/levels.
AC takes a considerable backseat in this system - a nice addition would be a light/no armor combat style feat or proficiency - something that lets you add extra Dex (1.5) or some kind of scaling bonus while you are fighting in melee.
I have to check out the Conan RPG to see how they handle light/no armor.
|
Reaper Miniatures
|
The rules do account for that. Magic armor gives DR/adamantine.My question is Magic, by the variant system RAW:
It's not unreasonable for a PC to have by level 3 a +1 weapon. Most APs will include one or two by the end of the first book.
Now, that PC completely negates the DR armor provides, and the enemies will now have consistently lower ACs - or am I misreading that?
There's also no indication that +2 armor isn't bypassed by a +1 dagger. So my +2 scale mail means my AC/Defense is still 14 (it was 12 but went up by 2 for the magic armor), but that rogue with a +1 dagger just negated all of my DR. I was hoping for some sort of "magic armor trumps weapons" clause - +1 armor means that +1 weapons no longer autobypass. +2 weapons trump +1 armors, but in a tie, armor wins.
You guys have spent a lot of energy on the hypothetical 20th level character in +5 plate, I really want to see how this works on the level 4 guy with a +1 chain shirt versus the rogue with the +1 dagger, because I'm not spending months of my adventuring career at level 20, but I do spend a lot of time at levels 1-6...
D'oh! Missed that.
+4 weapons being equivalent to Adamantine, so (I want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly) weapons of +4 or +5 bypass all magic armor DR?
This is definitely a system in which you're going to get hit a lot more often, and rely on DR to save you. At low levels, even orcs are pretty lethal, kobolds and goblins less so (because they have small weapons so do less damage, less gets past the DR), but you're overall aking more HP loss per fight, as I understand things.
|
Reaper Miniatures
|
It's actually +5 for adamantine. +4 is alignment.
I was getting my information from here which has exactly the inverse.
After my first game playtest, this is where I am at: not as impressed as I should be.
There was a lot of confusion at my table regarding how the rules are. The rules seem to conflict at this point:
Magic weapons and attacks from Large or larger creatures bypass the DR 4/ armor, but not the DR 5/bludgeoning.
This is referring to a skeleton with both armor and natural armor and it's on DR.. The rules state that magical weapons completely bypass the armor and natural armor, but a bludgeoning weapon is require to bypass the creatures normal DR (see more text from the UC for all the details, or the bestiary for skeletons)
Ok, makes sense. However,
If a creature is wearing armor and has a natural armor bonus, the creature adds its armor bonus to its natural armor bonus to determine the amount of DR/ armor that it has (see Table 5–2).
How table 5-2, which I can't post, so if you don't have access, I am sorry, shows if you have natural armor and nonmagical armor (like leather armor), their DR's stack, but they are only overcome by adamantine, instead of magic. Yet, this text doesn't explicitly state that, it only says they stack. The example doesn't help:
For instance, if a creature wearing a +2 chain shirt has DR 6/armor is then subject to a barkskin spell cast by a 6th-level druid (gaining a +3 natural armor bonus), its DR becomes DR 9/armor for the duration of the spell. This DR is bypassed by adamantine, or the attacks of Huge or larger creatures.
Why doesn't this example help? A +2 chain shirt already had DR/adamantine, so having the natural armor bonus doesn't increase the bypass restriction. So, this means that having natural armor and either non-magical or magical armor only increases the DR, but what is used to bypass it. If this is true, the first quoted example still holds true, as does the second, but the table now has no use.
This is further complicated by the next paragraph:
A creature that has both DR from a source other than armor and a natural armor bonus gains the effects of an enhanced form of DR, similar to how the composition of the armor grants special DR/armor defenses (see Table 5–1). If a creature has magical armor, natural armor, and DR, it takes the best form of the special protection provided by both its armor and its mix of DR and natural armor to its DR/armor.
Again, referring to changing now armor is bypassed, but referring to a third source to get an enhanced form of DR. But again, the first example they used had three forms of DR and yet received no enhanced bonus. Simple said, my players are confused.
I think they mean if you have natural armor and a DR listed from table 5-1, then you go to 5-2 to find your new DR. So this is how we played it.
How did the play test go? Next post...
Group:
3rd lvl Cavalier
3rd lvl Ranger
4th lvl Paladin
4th lvl Wizard
5th lvl zen archer
The Zen archer destroyed all who stood in his way. As long as he has one ki point, all his attacks are considered magic, therefore all DR was ignored (NPC do not have magic armor at this level). Due to the new defense rating, he could hit on anything 5-7 and below on the die roll and bypass DR with each hit. Very powerful.
The Paladin wore half-plate and the cavalier wears full-plate, so their DR was great, but their defense score floated around 12. The mobs they fought had bonuses between +6 and +13 to hit (hill giant), so rolling to strike was almost pointless.
The PC's felt the same way. They were able to best the defense scores of the NPC's pretty easy, so the excitement of rolling was lost a bit, replaced with how much damage you could inflict.
The DR did save the party from death, which was a really good thing. In a battle that would have dropped a character in three rounds, allowed him to survive for 6. That was pretty rewarding. Now, just to say, everyone knew this was a test session, so true death is waived allowing PC's to respawn.
The crit confirmation system is too complicated, as many have said. Everyone did write their numbers to they could just roll, but finding the DC's to beat took time. Granted, I am sure it will get easier, but having to convert crit DC's, defense totals and new DR ratings on the fly is a pain. Kind of expected with a new system though.
tring to
People did complain about large creatures being able to bypass normal armor, thinking large creature are far too common. The horse in the party became a destructive force since it would go through a creatures DR that a character couldn't without a magic weapon spell.
I have more I can say, but this is probably enough for now. All in all, we are trying to decide if this system is adding anything to the game. We are on the fence.
The thing is that to really do armor as DR you need to rework pretty much everything in the game that affects to hit, AC, DR, HP, and saves from massive damage. So almost everything besides skills and some saves. It just doesn't make sense to make this and optional rule.