| Brewhunter |
So here we go. i have run these rule on the past three games and the players seem to like them. I don't have to beef up encounters, and players live longer. Everything is plugged into an excel spreadsheet where i can monitor initiative encounters and armor hp. (no extra work on the players or my part.)
Defense= 10+dex+shield+Misc Armor bonus + Hd (lv) modifier.
HD Mod. = HD or Lv /5
DR = Armor mod+ Natural armor+Existing DR - armor weakness weapon type.
Critical damage = (damage-DR)critical multiplier
*Optional Sunder on Critical to armor = (DMG - Item Hardness + Rend damage) critical multiplier. Note every 5 hp done to armor reduces the DR of that armor by 1
Rend damage is damage points the players volunteer to remove from HP damage to the foe to damage to the armor.
Armor weakness table: -1 DR
Padded or hide armor weak vs Piercing / Slashing
Pliable armor such as chain or studded leather weak vs Bludgeon (flight arrows)
Hardened Armor (such as leather or plate) weak vs Piercing.
The minus 1 to DR takes into account that the design of the armor is resilient to that type of attack but its actual DR dictates how resilient it actual is.
| Tryn |
Isn't there a "armor as DR" rule in the ultimate combat...
Yes it is Armor as Damage Reduction.
| Brewhunter |
Isn't there a "armor as DR" rule in the ultimate combat...
Yes it is Armor as Damage Reduction.
Yup the rules are a tad different and there are more tables which makes it a tad tedious to manage during the combat round. The charts created some redundancies, so this was my solution. We ran the formulas through our group and made the refinements and eliminated the redundancies. We have play tested it through 3 games so far and it is no more complicated to run than AC. We have not play tested the Optional Sunder on a critical yet, but I am hoping that will be a solution to allow player who can't over come the DR on some foes. Players can choose to weaken the DR so cumulative damage can be greater and promotes team work. Or that is the intent. I run my games from my laptop, so all the minor math is left to the spreadsheet, so I can concentrate on the story.
| Seldriss |
For a while I used damage reduction in D&D as per the Unearthed Arcana [DR = armor bonus/2], although I didn't lower the AC by one as in the book.
It worked fine and made an armor meaningful.
| Orich Starkhart |
Defense= 10+dex+shield+Misc Armor bonus + Hd (lv) modifier.
HD Mod. = HD or Lv /5
DR = Armor mod+ Natural armor+Existing DR - armor weakness weapon type.
Should we read the explicit inclusion of "HD" modifier as indicating you have taken on the work to convert monsters too?
Have there been concerns about escalating Defense against Touch Attacks as nerfing casters?
Since you are using armor as DR exclusively, do you also exclude strength bonuses to hit? Seems logical to do that when using Armor as DR exclusively, since that approach seems to remove the abstraction of AC corresponding to resistance to damage.
| Brewhunter |
Brewhunter wrote:Defense= 10+dex+shield+Misc Armor bonus + Hd (lv) modifier.
HD Mod. = HD or Lv /5
DR = Armor mod+ Natural armor+Existing DR - armor weakness weapon type.
Should we read the explicit inclusion of "HD" modifier as indicating you have taken on the work to convert monsters too?
Have there been concerns about escalating Defense against Touch Attacks as nerfing casters?
Since you are using armor as DR exclusively, do you also exclude strength bonuses to hit? Seems logical to do that when using Armor as DR exclusively, since that approach seems to remove the abstraction of AC corresponding to resistance to damage.
There are about a thousand ways to over complicate this. The HD does relate to the conversion of monsters. You can't use AC as DR just for the PCs it has to be uniform all around. All the monsters in the bestiary have their AC broken down so you get the natural, size and other modifiers. The HD modifier takes into account of xp and knowing how to get out of the way.
I understand your point about excluding the STR bonus though valid, I just did not want to cross that bridge and nit pick. Had I removed the STR bonus I would have had to replace it with DEX. Your point is valid don't get me wrong, we as a group just didn't want to mess with it. We don't have a lot of spell casters in the group, but a touch attack would use DEF if required. Magical shield spells would be used as DR.The games I run are very story base. The current one magic is outlawed. I don't give out a lot of magic items, in my experience character have a tendency to rely heavily on them on forget about their character feats and class specialties. I try to draw my encounters to demand the full use of the team rather than than the Fighter tanking his way through or some OP wizard laying down magical devastation.
| Orich Starkhart |
Had I removed the STR bonus I would have had to replace it with DEX. Your point is valid don't get me wrong, we as a group just didn't want to mess with it.
I'm not understanding the bit about having to replace STR with DEX.
I was simply curious about the STR to-hit and whether you had considered the rationale I mentioned; the best reason for whatever you do in rules modification is that it suits you and your players.
We don't have a lot of spell casters in the group, but a touch attack would use DEF if required.
One consequence is a PC caster may find a touch attack failing on a roll under your rules that would have succeeded under RAW. On the other hand, the PCs also benefit by the increase in DEF against enemy touch and ranged touch attacks, whether from casters or others.
Magical shield spells would be used as DR.
ooh, THIS is interesting. How much DR? I see shields as aiding defense even in armor as DR, though I also appreciate rules that physical shields have a certain capacity, or hit points, and can be split/sundered/splintered by enough damage over a series of attacks or in a single blow.
The games I run are very story base. The current one magic is outlawed. I don't give out a lot of magic items, in my experience character have a tendency to rely heavily on them on forget about their character feats and class specialties. I try to draw my encounters to demand the full use of the team rather than than the Fighter tanking his way through or some OP wizard laying down magical devastation.
I think I would enjoy playing in your campaigns. I've recognized just in reading these boards a (personally disturbing) belief that significant magical aid is assumed by the game rules as characters reach higher levels, and I find that the notion of a "build", never mind optimizing one, leaves a bad taste.
| Brewhunter |
Brewhunter wrote:Had I removed the STR bonus I would have had to replace it with DEX. Your point is valid don't get me wrong, we as a group just didn't want to mess with it.I'm not understanding the bit about having to replace STR with DEX.
I was simply curious about the STR to-hit and whether you had considered the rationale I mentioned; the best reason for whatever you do in rules modification is that it suits you and your players.
Brewhunter wrote:We don't have a lot of spell casters in the group, but a touch attack would use DEF if required.One consequence is a PC caster may find a touch attack failing on a roll under your rules that would have succeeded under RAW. On the other hand, the PCs also benefit by the increase in DEF against enemy touch and ranged touch attacks, whether from casters or others.
Brewhunter wrote:Magical shield spells would be used as DR.ooh, THIS is interesting. How much DR? I see shields as aiding defense even in armor as DR, though I also appreciate rules that physical shields have a certain capacity, or hit points, and can be split/sundered/splintered by enough damage over a series of attacks or in a single blow.
Brewhunter wrote:The games I run are very story base. The current one magic is outlawed. I don't give out a lot of magic items, in my experience character have a tendency to rely heavily on them on forget about their character feats and class specialties. I try to draw my encounters to demand the full use of the team rather than than the Fighter tanking his way through or some OP wizard laying down magical devastation.I think I would enjoy playing in your campaigns. I've recognized just in reading these boards a (personally disturbing) belief that significant magical aid is assumed by the game rules as characters reach higher levels, and I find that the notion of a "build", never mind optimizing one, leaves a bad taste.
I would think that I could only justify the str to hit bonus as a thought of knocking a sword aside or pushing through ones parry. Dex is more of a muscle memory attribute so I guess it would come down to the characters fighting style. Some styles use brute force, others use more of a finesse.
There are actually more hits on with using DEF. The last game I ran I had a player that found himself in the unfortunate situation of being in the mouth of a dire frog. He was using a touch attack spell inside his mouth but that ended shortly as the frog dived underwater. The frog was crushing him and drowning him but the DR on his armor prevented actual damage to him.As far as magical spells that would normally act as ac I would look at what the spell is doing. If it provides a kinect defense like dodge, as hand held sheild, I would put whatever points towards defense. If the spell is design to absorb damage like mage armor or shield then treat the bonus as DR. (Arrow pierces your magical shield, but loses so much energy that its tip barely scratches you) What would have been 4 dmg was reduced to 1 if the shield DR is 3. The magical armor would have no weapon type weakness unless the GM thought it logical.
Like I said I prefer a story based game not the ego struggle of GM v. Player. I try to keep my players alive, though sometimes just barely. I have a crazy crit house rule too if you are interested. :D