I've been researching historical weapons and armor recently, and the more I learn the more I feel the rules systems for most RPGs just don't grasp the concept.
I've looked at the variant rules: armor as damage reduction, but I feel that still somewhat misses the mark in some aspects, and completely misses it in others.
I'm determined to write up my own variant rules, and would like to toss out my rough ideas so far to see if I can gain more insights through this community.
Here's a link to the google document where I'm drafting this up: Revision: Armor as DR
And here's what I've written up so far:
1) Different armors and shields were more or less effective against different types of weapons. Just as an example, any metal armor tended to be extremely effective against any kind of slashing attack.
2) Many weapons were designed and used specifically with the purpose in mind of doing more damage to armored opponents
3) Weapons were regularly used both defensively and offensively, not either/or. Bonuses to defensive and offensive capabilities depended on several factors, including:
- user’s skill (BAB or ½ BAB added to Defense value? Weapon training?)
- weapon length (longer weapons have slight? moderate? large? advantage over shorter ones?)
- other design considerations (some weapons, like flails, just weren’t designed to parry well at all)
sundering weapons
4) Armor should provide protection against many non-weapon based attacks:
- a blast of fire to bare flesh should obviously hurt more than flesh encased in metal
- being encased in metal should make electricity hurt a lot less (eg. a tesla cage)
5) Just as there should be measures to bypass armor DR, there should also be counter measures (which can get expensive and require you to anticipate specific dangers):
- ghost touch armor
- radiant energy armor
- bug repellent :D
And GMs should come up with creative new ways to bypass DR.
6) There are weak spots in armor. But weak spot does not mean no armor. A critical hit should treat damage as being dealt against armor of a lesser category (heavy becomes medium, medium becomes light, and light armor ignored on a crit), and a confirmed vorpal hit (or double vorpal?) should ignore armor DR altogether.
7) While many damage based spells should be less effective against armored opponents, not all should, and spell selection should become more of a priority.
1) Magic weapon vs magic armor: how much DR is ignored per difference in weapon enhancement number above armor enhancement number?
2) Does the critical defense check really make sense? The target’s ability to defend their self is already taken into account in their defense total, why are they defending their self a second time just because the attack is worse?
3) Why does adamantine completely ignore armor DR? Does a little more hardness really make that kind of difference?
4) Additional bonuses to either DR or Defense that scale with BAB?
5) Should force spells ignore armor? Magic armor?
There were rules for increasing or decreasing the effectiveness of specific armours against types of damage in editions before 3rd. Few people used them. It slows down combat even more when with each attack you need to stop and ask "Is that B, P, S, or a combo?".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Re-writing the AC system is bad. This is a game, not a war enthusiast re-enactment manager.
The system assumes monsters hit you an X amount of the time, and DR exists to modify the end damage result by Y. Z is the damage per attack.
But this is not a matter of X=ZY.
If you modify the To-hit numbers (X) and give extra DR (Y) to everyone who wears armor, that leaves Z (Damage dealt) unmodified which means Z will always invariably skew whatever AC->DR system you may try to write. This is also the reason why the old Armor=Dr system is an optional secondary system to the 3.x To-hit vs AC system.
If you re-write Ac, you also need to re-write the manner of how DR actually works and how damage is dealt. All from scratch.
Also you need to create a DR erosion system, which is a lot of bookkeeping for everyone involved.
Example of skewed Armor0Dr mechanics:
Fighter fights Dragon. Dragon has +12 to hit. Fighter has 26 armor. Dragon deals 16 damage on hits. Hits only 30% of the time. Damage per round is roughly 5.
Under Armor=Dr rules, Fighters Ac is 17, but his DR is 10. Dragon deals 6 damage on hits. Hits roughly 75% of the time. Damage per round is roughly 5. Looking good so far?
Fighter fights Goblin. Goblin has +4 to hit. Fighter has 26 armor. Goblin deals 4 damage on hits. Hits only 5% of the time. Damage per round is roughly 0.25 (Remember to multiply by the amount of goblins :) )
Under Armor=Dr rules, Fighters Ac is 17, but his DR is 10. Goblin deals 0 damage on hits. Too bad for the goblin.
Theres other stuff behind the issue too, but iv´e got class to attend. Please give the armor=Dr system a try before you make a final decision about it, you never truly understand things till you try them out.
It's already talked about in ultimate combat p. 191 to 192 as a variant rule. Now if you really insist on making it from scratch, good luck.
It is indeed talked about in ultimate combat. That would be exactly and precisely what I was talking about when I said "I've looked at the variant rules: armor as damage reduction, but I feel that still somewhat misses the mark in some aspects, and completely misses it in others."
There were rules for increasing or decreasing the effectiveness of specific armours against types of damage in editions before 3rd. Few people used them. It slows down combat even more when with each attack you need to stop and ask "Is that B, P, S, or a combo?".
Thank you, I'll look into that. I appreciate your concern, but I think I wont be in too terribly much over my head with keeping track of B, P, and S, as it already comes into play with some monsters and existing types of damage reduction.
Re-writing the AC system is bad. This is a game, not a war enthusiast re-enactment manager.
While that may not be how you choose to use the game, I do enjoy the extra authenticity. I understand it's not what everyone looks for, so I'll clarify for you that this thread is not an attempt to persuade the community to adopt it; I am developing a revision of the armor as DR system that I will try out. Maybe I'll like it, maybe I won't. Please try not to loose any sleep over it.The system assumes monsters hit you an X amount of the time, and DR exists to modify the end damage result by Y. Z is the damage per attack.
The system also assumes that different weapons can be treated exactly the same as the target changes. That assumption is incredibly wrong, but it works for simplicity's sake. What I am attempting here is to add a little bit, and if it ends up being too complicated then I will move on and let it go.But this is not a matter of X=ZY.
If you modify the To-hit numbers (X) and give extra DR (Y) to everyone who wears armor, that leaves Z (Damage dealt) unmodified which means Z will always invariably skew whatever AC->DR system you may try to write. This is also the reason why the old Armor=Dr system is an optional secondary system to the 3.x To-hit vs AC system.
If you re-write Ac, you also need to re-write the manner of how DR actually works and how damage is dealt. All from scratch.
Also you need to create a DR erosion system, which is a lot of bookkeeping for everyone involved.Just as the current variant rules have, I intend to provide for ways to bypass DR. Like I said, going for history authenticity. In history, as swords became more and more useless against armor, swords were either modified, or new weapons invented that managed to make more of a dent. I believe I have been very clear so far that I am not talking about a system of blanket DR, have I not?
Example of skewed Armor0Dr mechanics:
Fighter fights Dragon. Dragon has +12 to hit. Fighter has 26 armor. Dragon deals 16 damage on hits. Hits only 30% of the time. Damage per round is roughly 5.
Under Armor=Dr rules, Fighters Ac is 17, but his DR is 10. Dragon deals 6 damage on hits. Hits roughly 75% of the time. Damage per round is roughly 5. Looking good so far?Fighter fights Goblin. Goblin has +4 to hit. Fighter has 26 armor. Goblin deals 4 damage on hits. Hits only 5% of the time. Damage per round is roughly 0.25 (Remember to multiply by the amount of goblins :) )
Under Armor=Dr rules, Fighters Ac is 17, but his DR is 10. Goblin deals 0 damage on hits. Too bad for the goblin.
This last example isn't too far off from historic examples of how armor worked. Putting armor in its historical context, one would not be terribly surprised at a goblin sized creature with small weapons being utterly ineffective against a fully armored knight. There are cases of a few dozen knights standing against several hundred opponents (twice the height of goblins) with virtually no casualties among the knights. Because good armor actually worked really well. Goblins in that scenario would have to land lucky shots in weak spots (critical hits) or overwhelm the armored opponent and peel his armor off. Or of course they could use weapons designed to attack armored opponents (not a new concept in this thread though). To me that is dramatically more authentic than the current system or the variant system in Ultimate Combat of which Etacolibre so kindly reminded me.Theres other stuff behind the issue too, but iv´e got class to attend. Please give the armor=Dr system a try before you make a final decision about it, you never truly understand things till you try them out. To repeat what I said in the OP, and then repeated to Etacolibre, I have given the armor as DR system a try. I liked it somewhat, but feel I want to play with it some more.
Replies inserted in bold.
I'm somewhat puzzled by the replies I've received so far. Despite stating my familiarity with the existing armor as DR variant rules in the OP, it's been repeatedly suggested I check out that system first. I'm being told what I'm trying to do is complicated. I'm being told it will slow down combat.
That last concern: it will slow down combat, seems like a legitimate concern, so I'll address that. If I work the defense and DR values into the character sheets, I believe that will resolve most of this concern. I have a fairly good grasp of which weapons do piercing/slashing/bludgeoning damage, so I honestly can't see that adding any time to combat. But as I get more complicated than that with how types of spells will be affected and calculating differences between enchantments on weapons vs armor, it may indeed slow things down.
Ultimately, I'm not saying it's a perfect idea though. I'm saying I like the extra authenticity, and I want to see if it's worth it to add the extra bit to my game sessions. And what's the worst that will happen? I'll either decide it's too much trouble, or I, and my players, may end up really liking it. It doesn't hurt to try, and I had posted here in hopes of getting any insights into bettering the ideas I've presented.
But if your intention is to just post here to tell me "why bother?", then I ask you the same thing. If you don't want a system like this in your game, then relax, I'm not changing your game.
But if any of you have some helpful advice, I am curious.
|
I will give your docs a go when I'm out of the office and can access the files.
I'm a big advocate of armor as DR, just haven't used it heavily in my D&D/PF games but it is a staple for my Gamma World game (and old TSR Post Apocalyptic rpg).
I utilize secondary and tertiary DR (based on value of hit), increased or decreased DR based on weapon used vs. material composition and overall protection based on type of armor coverage and if armor comes into play at all (ex: bulletproof vest vs. a full suit of leather) and all done in one attack roll.
It isn't an easy system, but some of the slowdown is mitigated by combining many of the features into the attack roll which does help on overall speed and use of the system. If an attack hits the same roll is also used to determine how well it hit and if armor blocked some/part/none of the attack. The type of attack/weapon used vs. armor composition also determines the baseline DR. Some DRs go up when faced with certain weapon types (rigid is better vs. slashing for example) while other armors are less effective.
Anyway - I'll comment more when I read the file.
Don't be discouraged by the detractors - this is a common occurrence in the suggestion threads were doomspeakers come in and try to dissuade innovation or variance from the standard - in a home rules section of the game.
@Captain Wacky
I'll need to take a look at 2nd ed DnD. Thanks for the idea.
The tuck, aka estoc: yes, exactly. That is a longsword modified precisely with armor in mind. The mace and morningstar were all about fighting armored opponents, but at the cost of reach. The flail also, but at the cost of defense.
As far as parrying not being a thing until fencing, I have read and seen enough historical information to know that is completely false. There are many clubs that teach historical european martial arts (HEMA) using lessons based off of teachings of historical masters, and they demonstrate parrying and defense with all manner of weapons, not just swords and shields. Spears, for example, were phenomenally good defensively. Having seen spear vs sword demonstrations, I'm thinking it would make sense that weapon length be tied to active defense bonus (ie. not count when flat footed or flanked).
Even with the insulation from flames, it would make sense to add a crit system for spells where they happen to hit or go through a weak spot.
Tesla cages (should have said Faraday) do insulate in a weird physicky way, but my understanding about armor is that it is the path of least resistance for a current. Normally when a person is electrocuted, most of the current goes through their nervous system because that is the path of least resistance. For example heart attack often occurs because of the disruption to the normal pattern of currents travelling through the nerves to the heart and damage to those nerves, not because of electrical damage to the rest of the heart. But in a full suit of armor, the armor itself offers even less resistance, so the current chooses that path to the ground, leaving the occupant relatively unharmed.
I'm not familiar with the Stormbringer system. Got any good links?
I will give your docs a go when I'm out of the office and can access the files.
I'm a big advocate of armor as DR, just haven't used it heavily in my D&D/PF games but it is a staple for my Gamma World game (and old TSR Post Apocalyptic rpg).
I utilize secondary and tertiary DR (based on value of hit), increased or decreased DR based on weapon used vs. material composition and overall protection based on type of armor coverage and if armor comes into play at all (ex: bulletproof vest vs. a full suit of leather) and all done in one attack roll.
It isn't an easy system, but some of the slowdown is mitigated by combining many of the features into the attack roll which does help on overall speed and use of the system. If an attack hits the same roll is also used to determine how well it hit and if armor blocked some/part/none of the attack. The type of attack/weapon used vs. armor composition also determines the baseline DR. Some DRs go up when faced with certain weapon types (rigid is better vs. slashing for example) while other armors are less effective.
Anyway - I'll comment more when I read the file.
Don't be discouraged by the detractors - this is a common occurrence in the suggestion threads were doomspeakers come in and try to dissuade innovation or variance from the standard - in a home rules section of the game.
I haven't put together specifics yet on this thought, but what you said reminds me of an idea that crits vs armor should not just depend on the weapon used and crit feats, but also the type of armor. Some armor has more weak points than others. For example, it's a lot easier to make chain mail that is uniform all over (except for the eyes, but magic could solve that), because it's flexible, but platemail simply must have gaps, overlaps and openings to work.
... Spears, for example, were phenomenally good defensively. Having seen spear vs sword demonstrations, I'm thinking it would make sense that weapon length be tied to active defense bonus (ie. not count when flat footed or flanked)...
I believe that the defensive bonus of spears is intended to be taken into account by that fact that they have reach. Can't hit someone who is using stand still to keep you from getting in range.
I've played with a homebrewed armor as dr system in a couple of Campaigns. Basically all armor had dr equal to half its armor value +1 plus any magical modifiers, and all creatures had a defense value equal to half its bab. Critical hits ignored armor dr. I also allowed a fighting offensively combat action which gave a -4 to defense but adds 2 damage (or 3 damage with a 2 handed weapon). Furthermore the defense score was reduced by an amount equal to the armor check penalty. I started to work on system where different armor had modifiers to dr depending on its type, but i never got around to finish it. I personally think the system worked great and most of my players loved it.
I've played with a homebrewed armor as dr system in a couple of Campaigns. Basically all armor had dr equal to half its armor value +1 plus any magical modifiers, and all creatures had a defense value equal to half its bab. Critical hits ignored armor dr. I also allowed a fighting offensively combat action which gave a -4 to defense but adds 2 damage (or 3 damage with a 2 handed weapon). Furthermore the defense score was reduced by an amount equal to the armor check penalty. I started to work on system where different armor had modifiers to dr depending on its type, but i never got around to finish it. I personally think the system worked great and most of my players loved it.
What I want incorporated into my homebrew system are mechanics that treat different weapons and spells appropriately, not a blanket level for all armor that responds identically to all kinds of attacks. As I fine tune it more, I want the system to acknowledge the different strengths and weakness of specific designs of armor too.
The more I learn about how armor and weapons actually worked, the more I view the current system in this kind of light: video about historical adviser for big Hollywood film.
Essentially the current system manages to entertain well enough, but those who want a little more authenticity can quickly see how superficial the design is.
... Spears, for example, were phenomenally good defensively. Having seen spear vs sword demonstrations, I'm thinking it would make sense that weapon length be tied to active defense bonus (ie. not count when flat footed or flanked)...I believe that the defensive bonus of spears is intended to be taken into account by that fact that they have reach. Can't hit someone who is using stand still to keep you from getting in range.
A defensive bonus that completely vanishes as soon as someone closes in.
Just look at the results: the majority of players favor swords of one form or another over spears. Historically the sword was a backup weapon for just about every unit in history, not the primary weapon. The spear was FAR more common a primary weapon because it worked well to hold back enemies, and not just for the first "round" of engagement.
Here's a little more information on the topic from a guy who teaches Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA): Historical fencing (HEMA) Swords vs. Spears - thoughts and experience
A system that reflects reality a little better will lead to players more often making characters that favors weapons that worked well in reality.
Now I know this isn't everyone's cup of tea; some people like a lot more fantasy in their fantasy. I personally find reasonable authenticity and a slightly higher level of complexity to be more satisfying.
|
Armor as DR has some advantages. Unfortunately it can cause problems with creatures with high bonuses to hit, especially at higher levels. With BAB progression on NPC's and Monsters and AC not going up for armored hulk type characters, you'll easily end up with creatures that will have to roll low numbers to hit. Sure the DR will soak some damage but if you're being wacked by a Giant with massive strength your DR is not going to protect you.
There is also the problem with Ability/Level Drain attacks. The main protection one has against such attacks is that you have an AC to avoid being hit. DR does jack aginst Ability/Level drain attacks and such creatures will hit more easily and more often as the Armor Class of the Player characters will be much lower. Unless the PC's are walking around with Death Wards, they'll be screwed in any fight with a Ability/Level draining creature.
So if you have armor as DR, you either have to adjust the BAB of monsters & NPC's or give some kind of Defensive AC bonus for classes.
The armor as DR system I envision takes away armor bonus to defense (formerly known as AC) but will add weapon bonuses to defense. So players should not actually get hit more often by attacks that do extra stuff on hit, like ability/level drain attacks. Not to mention I've also written in this very thread about armor mitigating magical/spell effects, not jsut straight weapon damage.
And like Orich points out, it's a slow witted DM who doesn't modify the encounters to fit the new system.
|
I've been researching historical weapons and armor recently, and the more I learn the more I feel the rules systems for most RPGs just don't grasp the concept.
I've looked at the variant rules: armor as damage reduction, but I feel that still somewhat misses the mark in some aspects, and completely misses it in others.
I'm determined to write up my own variant rules, and would like to toss out my rough ideas so far to see if I can gain more insights through this community.
Here's a link to the google document where I'm drafting this up: Revision: Armor as DR
And here's what I've written up so far:
1) Different armors and shields were more or less effective against different types of weapons. Just as an example, any metal armor tended to be extremely effective against any kind of slashing attack.
2) Many weapons were designed and used specifically with the purpose in mind of doing more damage to armored opponents
3) Weapons were regularly used both defensively and offensively, not either/or. Bonuses to defensive and offensive capabilities depended on several factors, including:
- user’s skill (BAB or ½ BAB added to Defense value? Weapon training?)
- weapon length (longer weapons have slight? moderate? large? advantage over shorter ones?)
- other design considerations (some weapons, like flails, just weren’t designed to parry well at all)
sundering weapons
4) Armor should provide protection against many non-weapon based attacks:
- a blast of fire to bare flesh should obviously hurt more than flesh encased in metal
- being encased in metal should make electricity hurt a lot less (eg. a tesla cage)
5) Just as there should be measures to bypass armor DR, there should also be counter measures (which can get expensive and require you to anticipate specific dangers):
...
- ghost touch armor
Go for it. I know most will respond with the typical KISS response, but if you want more don't be afraid to experiment. Personally I wouldn't go as far as you on the realism, but I could see adding in damage reduction vs. weapons types, like the example you gave with metal armors being more effective against slashing weapons. Personally I would like a fatigue system, and a hit location system. I would design them myself, but my tendency to make things convoluted, usually I over think things, generally keeps my designers instinct in check. Do me a favor, when you work out some specifics on your new armor system, post it. I'd like to see it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I vastly prefer Armor as DR systems to AC, most games I play that use it refer to it as Soak.
That said converting Pathfinder or most any d20 game to use this kind of system is a monster of a task because the whole system is built around the idea of Armor as AC. Not that you couldn't easily build a system that 'realistically' represents Armor as DR, but that balancing such a system against the rest of the game is an incredibly huge feat that would likely require changes to most of the systems in the game.
That said, I'm far from a historical expert on the topic, but my understanding is that when it came to plate armors many were designed with the idea being the armor deflected the blow away rather than imply absorb the impact of the blow as a deflected blow transfers far less force to the person wearing the armor. If this is in fact true I would recommend that you not completely do away with the AC bonus of armor, but simply reduce them as well as provide DR.
I might be wrong, but it looks like the chain mail is attracting the electricity, and his rubber boots are grounding him.
Faraday suits need to have metal going head to toe. While there may be a lot of rubber on the boots, there must be significant metal in them else you'd see the electricity arcing around them to get to the ground. If not, let me ask: where do you think the current is flowing to?
The metal does no attracting. Electricity works on a quantum level to determine the path of least resistance, and chooses what would be the best path before actually going down it. That's what makes evasion vs lightning bolts make no sense: wherever you dodge, the electricity is already there with you.
Another misunderstanding posted earlier in this thread is that a Faraday suit insulates. This is a half truth. A Faraday suit causes electricity to create an electro magnetic field that creates insulation. Without the electricity flowing through the suit, there is no actual insulation though.
A typical Faraday suit will have metal pieces resting right against skin, and as the electricity flows along the surface of the metal, it is actually flowing right next to the wearer's skin. But electricity conducts along surfaces, and creates fields as it does so to guide it along the best path, and in a Faraday suit, or a suit of armor, that best path is definitely not your skin or nerves.
Hey Blaeringr, just wondering if have made any progress on this system.
I was scrolling through the threads looking for almost this exact topic.
I have started creating a weapons and armor system that gets away from the +1/+2/+3 and moves to a "lower magic" type of progression. incorporated is multiple weapon materials for both armor and weapons.
I have also kept the DR and AC. The AC of armor is straight from the source then 1/2 rounded down to the wearers DR. the DR is increased or decreased depending on material and craftmenship of said weapon or armor, there are multiple levels of both, rather then just "masterwork"
Wondering if you have made any progress on your end?
Sen