Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Van Owen 11-30-04, 12:59 AM	Ever notice how, by higher level armor becomes less and less effective, until around 12th Lv+ it becomes about as effective as wet cardboard? (Actually, the wet cardboard would be more effective as it would have a lower Armor Check Penalty) I decided to do something about this in my last D&D campaign. I've overhauled the Armor System, allowing armor to offer its full AC bonus, as well as offer Damage Reduction based on the the specific category of armor. I've also created a new category of armor, Suit Armor, which has two types, Field Plate and Full Plate; in addition, I have given masterwork armor additional bonuses, which now gives you a decent reason to buy it. My changes: Light Armor offers its full AC Bonus and 1 pt of DR. Medium Armor offers its full AC Bonus, and 2pts of DR Heavy Armor offers its full AC Bonus, and 3 pts of DR Suit Armor is special; more on that in a bit. Masterwork Armor, besides its normal Armor check bonuses, adds +1 pt of Maximum Dextarity Bonus, and +1 pt of DR the additional cost is as follows: Light Armor adds +150 gp to the cost Medium Armor adds +300 gp to the cost Heavy Armor adds +600 gp to the cost So, under these rules, a suit of masterwork half plate would cost 1200gp, offer 7pts of AC, 1pt of max Dex bonus, and 4 points of DR. Not bad! Suit Armor is already considered masterwork; the masterwork cost is calculated into the total armor cost. I'm going back to the hallowed days of 2nd Ed here. Suit armor is the pinnacle of the armorsmith's craft; only the best could achieve it, and only the wealthy could afford it. The stuff that they call Full Plate here was Field Plate in Second Ed. Wearing any form of suit armor should be a mark of prestige, but the 3.0/3.5 rules made it just another type of armor, and depending on your dex, not the best type, either. The new rules change this. Wearing Suit Armor requires the Heavy Armor proficiency. Field Plate Armor costs 3000 gp, offers 8 points of AC, 2 points of Max Dex bonus, and 5 points of DR with an armor check penalty of -5, and an arcane spell failure chance of 35%. Weight is 50 lbs, movement rate for a human is slowed to 20. Full Plate Armor costs 7000 gp, offers 9 points of AC, 1 point of Max Dex bonus, and 6 points of DR with an armor check penalty of -6, and an arcane spell failure chance of 40%. Weight is 55 lbs, movement rate for a human is slowed to 20. All of the above information Assumes the armor is made of Steel. Exotic materials or racial construction may add either bonuses to Max Dex Bonus, or extra points of DR, but keep in mind the extra cost. I've playtested this system at lower levels, and it has worked very well. Different armors have different properties besides just AC ratings. Not all armors perform the same vs all weapons, and in Second Ed, the creators understood this and created an optional "Weapon Type vs Armor Modifiers" table the results are duplicated here. The modifieres listed next to the armor type are for Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning weapons. Leather Armor 0/-2/0 Studded Leather +2/+1/0 Scale Mail 0/+1/0 Chain Mail +2/0/-2 Splint Mail 0/+1/+2 Banded Mail +2/0/+1 Plate Mail +3/0/0 Field Plate +3/+1/0 Full Plate +4/+3/0 Of course, armors have changed a bit since then. Expanding the list to Third Ed armors, and making some needed corrections to the Second Ed modifiers, yields us this: LIGHT Padded Armor: 0/-1/+1 Leather Armor: 0/-2/+2 Studded Leather: +2/+1/0 Chain Shirt: +2/0/-2 MEDIUM Hide Armor: +1/0/+2 Scale Mail: +1/+1/0 Chainmail: +2/0/-2 Breastplate: +2/0/0 HEAVY Splint Mail: 0/+1/+1 Banded Mail: +2/0/+1 Half Plate: +3/0/0 SUIT Field Plate: +3/+1/0 Full Plate: +4/+3/0 Clearly, there is an advantage to keeping around maces, hammers, picks, and short swords in dealing with opponets wearing many of these armors. I've never seen this system actually used by a DM in 2nd Ed, the usual complaint being it wasn't needed, resulted in outrageous ACs, or it was too time consuming. To the latter, it really isn't time consuming, as the type of attack is pretty obvious--all the player has to do is write on their sheet under AC the different numbers. For example a fighter with a 10 dextarity wearing chainmail and carrying a large shield would simply write AC=19/17/15. Attacks by monsters also fall into the S/P/B categories; Claws are slashing, teeth are piercing, and tail slaps are bludgeoning. Most PCs will be more than happy to do the extra work, when they see that they are the ultimate beneficiaries of the system. It also makes choosing armor dependant on more factors. In my final series of armor upgrades for D&D/D20, I'm reforming how the helmet, the piece of armor that, even to this day, has seen the most continous use. Helmets do two things, regarding game mechanics; they protect the head, and due to their nature reduce perception, expressed as a penalty to Spot and Listen Checks. They also increase the weight of armor worn. Under my system, most helments will offer a single point to AC, and have an additional chance of stopping a critical hit, by adding to the AC for the confirmation roll only, for our purposes, this will be called a critical threshold. First, however, we'll look at the types. Cap: This most basic of all head protection is a padded, leather, or even steel skullcap that is that is worn much like a hat. It offers no vision penalty, and a small -1 penalty to listen checks. Unlike other headgear, it does not add to AC, but adds 1 point to AC when rolling to confirm a critical hit. Usually, it is worn with lightler armors such as Padded, Leather, Studded Leather, etc... Note: This also includes arming caps, which are worn under heavier helmets. Coif: Basically, a padded chainmail hood, fitting closely around the neck, and pretty closely around the head, leaving the face from chin to forehead uncovered. It adds a +1 to AC, has no penalty to Spot Checks, and has -1 penalty to Hearing checks. The coif offers an additional +1 to AC when rolling to confirm a crit. Often a heavily armored knight will wear a coif under his normal helm. This offers no increased bonus, except the knight can remove the helmet and still enjoy some measure of protection. Open Faced Helm: This is the most commonly encountered form of head protection for the average soldier who can afford it, or the adventurer who desires maximum head protection with a minimum of penalties to perception. Examples of this type of helment are the nasal helm, the pot helm, the kettle helm, Roman Legionary helms, Morions, and many others. Regardless of type, they feature an iron or steel covering that back, sides, and top of the head, leaving most of the face open. It grants the wearer +1 AC, -1 to Spot checks, -2 to listen checks, and an additional +2 to AC when rolling to confirm a crit. Closed Helms: Much like an Open-Faced Helm, save for the presence of a piece of armored plate (often a visor) protecting the face. Types of this helm include the Greek Corinthian Helm, the medieval Sallet (when worn with a Bevior) and the Armet, the typical helm worn with suit armor. It grants +1 to AC, -2 to Spot checks, and -3 to Listen checks, adding +2 to AC (above and beyond the normal bonus) when rolling to confirm a crit. Masterwork versions of these helmets are special, which will be explained later on. Great Helms: Massive Helms which cover the entire head, leaving only slits for the eyes and holes for breathing, these offer unsurpassed protection, at the cost of being able to percieve the world around you. Great helms offer +1 AC, -3 to Spot checks, and -4 to listen checks. They also offer +3 (above and beyond the normal bonus) to AC when rolling to confirm a critical hit. Masterwork Helmets cost an additional 75 gold pieces, and feature additional reinforcement, so have their critical Threshold increased by +1. Masterwork Chain mail is assumed to come with a masterwork Coif, making it an exception, as the coif is already part of the armor. Masterwork Close Helms and Masterwork Great Helms offer an additional bonus: they provide a +2 to saves vs spells that require vision to work, such as Color Spray, and Blindness, and even such effects as a Basklisk's gaze. When purchasing a suit of Field or Full Plate, an Masterwork Close Helm is included in the price of the armor. The following is a list of helmets and their statistics, starting with AC, bonus, Spot Check penalty, Listen Check Penalty, Critical Threshold, and, lastly, weight. Remember with the critical threshold, that the additional Bonus to AC is in addition to the normal AC bonus provided by the helm. Cap: 0/0/-1/+1/2lbs Coif: +1/0/-1/+1/3lbs Open-Faced Helm: +1/-1/-2/+2/5lbs Close Helms: +1/-2/-3/+2/6lbs Great Helms: +1/-3/-4/+3/10lbs Cap: 1 gp Coif: included in armor cost, otherwise, 5gp Open helm: 5 gp Close Helm: 10 gp Great Helm: 25 gp Note on Critical thresholds: I refuse to follow the 3.5 Edition Rule that the Keen enchantment and the Improved Critical feat do not stack. One represents a sharper, more dangerous weapon, while the other represents increased skill with a given weapon. While this leads to characters becoming "Crit *****s" (ie getting Keen and taking Improved Crit, Scimatar) The critical Threshold makes this tactic less desirable. If you are not allowing keen and Improved Crit to stack, I recommend that you reduce the critical thresholds shown here. My rationalle with this is to provide more detail with the armor system, add more realism, and improve the overall protective qualities of the AC system. Regards Enchantments, even though the helm adds an AC bonus, I consider them when enchanted to be wonderous items, not armor. Therefore, they cannot hold armor/shield enchantments, but can hold deflection bonus enchantments and other kinds of enchantment. As I allow all deflection bonuses to stack, this isn't too bad, but still takes up a "head slot" Integrated into my entire overhaul, a character with a 12 Dex, wearing a suit of masterwork Half Plate armor, carrying a large shield with a normal Kettle helm would have the following qualities: AC of 24/21/21 vs Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning weapons, 4 points of Damage Reduction, 1 point of max Dex bounus (already figured in), an armor check penalty of -8 (-6 masterwork half plate armor, -2 for the shield) an -1 to spot checks, a -2 to listen checks, and an AC of 25/23/23 vs Critical hit confirmation rolls from slashing/piercing/bludgeoning weapons. A formidable opponent. Balance in the AC system has been restored. Comments welcome.
Draco Strang 11-30-04, 07:10 AM	This is exactly why the tables in the 3.5 book are they way that they are. This is almost ungodly complicated. If you look at old 2nd edition stuff, the PHBs have tables for armor bonuses and penalties vs. slashing/piercing/bludgeoning. It really is just too much to keep track of. Now, instead of the DM knowing that the goblins have longswords and spears (1d6 weapons for them) the DM now has to track slashing/piercing for them, in addition to everything ELSE going on in combat. It just ungodly complicates everything.....Do you see where I am coming from? Yes, historicaly maille sucked vs. spears and arrows, but in the DnD world, they just offer varying "points" of AC. Tis a tad broken, but simplifies everything, P.S.-It is an excellent post, and you seem to have really thought out your system. If it works for you, rock out man.
Escef 11-30-04, 08:07 AM	So, how do you treat natural armor?
Soepkom 11-30-04, 08:28 AM	And remember that under 3.x rules you effectively already have 3 ACs, Normal, Flat-Footed and Touch with your system you would have 7 types of AC to manage, which is a little much, escpecially considering things like other types of AC bonuses, natural armor in particular, like the poster above me pointed out
Ramius_Mordale 11-30-04, 08:38 AM	Honestly, I thought it was pretty cool and well done. But as the man said before me its a time hog in combat. Plus your assuming people are able to completely understand the whole system. Here's pretty much what has happened, 2nd Edition was made for a more specialized crowd. You had to take hours(and if you were really good at it maybe 30 minutes to 15 tops) to make a character versus just 15 minutes, or like 5 minutes for me now, in 3.0/3.5 system. Now I've never played in the 2nd Edition system but I do own the old PHB and DMG as well as a few other random ones in the mix. Needless to say the system was devoted to more mathematically inclined individuals and more dedication to the game to learn its mechanics. Reason why they went with the d20 system to open it to a more diverse market. Now to me I follow what you are saying, but for some others its just scrabble and statistics that just too numerous to keep track of. A lot of people here haven't ever played under the 2nd Edition rules or have access to 2nd Edition material so basically you are speaking like greek to them. But I do have to agree with Draco Strang, 2nd Edition does from what I read have things that really slow down combat if you add in too many exceptions. Versions 3.0/3.5 were made to speed up the combat time and flow of the game, making it less relied on mechanics. I do agree with you though, the Keen ability and the Improved Crit ability should still stack, and I think they should have left the spell focus feats like they were giving a +2 instead of just +1. Personally, I think it was an attack on unbalancing the spellcasters edge in the game. But whatever, its just made me more cunning with my casters and more brutal and effective with them too. Now what I think should be revamped is the Critical Hit Chart and the Spell Critical Hit Chart from 2nd Edition. *Shivers* Just thinking about the mayhem that would insue is enough to make my skin crawl with horror and glee. :D In any case, I think you did a great job with your system and I'm glad you and your group use it, but for some its just too time consuming to use. Good luck with that man. -Ramius-
Seeker95 11-30-04, 09:19 AM	Adding a vote for: nice idea, but too complicated. It takes the worst of GURPS, 3e and 2e and mixes them together to make something akin to a root canal.
Stuntman 11-30-04, 01:09 PM	I've had personal experience when using the 2E optional rules for differing AC values vs. weapon type. I found it to be really not worth the extra effort in determining AC. You have to do some extra calculation, and you usually don't see the benefit or hindrence of the few points of AC. As for the DR rules, I think it may be overpowered. My DM when playing 2E use a similar DR rule, but DR values were much higher. It basically dragged combat out a lot. Your's won't as much, but DR is something that is hard to acquire as is. Barbarians don't get it until level 7 and the special armour that has DR has just a little and costs a lot. Giving DR to regular armou will just lessen the value of DR abilities. I appreciate the effort, but I just don't see enough value in using it. Also, you end up affecting other aspects of D&D.
Van Owen 11-30-04, 06:56 PM	Regards natural armor, it is unchanged, though it still stacks with armor. The main complaint I hear is the complexity of the system, and the extra time and calculation. The easy way around this has been to simply take some space on character sheets (I encourage players to make their own) and make categories for different circumstances. (I'm in the habit of precalculating everything out, and writing it down) The S/P/B formatt works well, with another for flat footed, and another for touch attacks, and another for crit rolls. I'm playtesting it right now in my Ravenloft campaign. So far the players seem to like it. In an earlier, Forgotten Realms campaign, I tested out the armor DR system, and with scale mail, at least vs some very advanced goblins, it performed like a charm. The goblins had 12 Stregnth, and 19 dex, they were using shortswords with Weapon Focus-short sword, and Weapon Finess-short sword. The party was second level, and getting their a** handed to them. Their scale mail's DR was the only thing on many occasions that saved them, and even then barely. Regards the Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning modifications, one of the nice things I have witnessed are players starting to put more thought into weapon selection. Instead of the usual scimatars, rapiers, and longswords, I'm seeing weapons like picks, and warhammers come to the fore. For those characters who can wear it, heavy armor is back in fashion. Previously, everyone was going for mithral shirts. The system is being tested and refined. This is Armor Revision 1.1, and I figure it may go through some other refinements along the way. Other ideas that I decided not to go with were a Base Defense Bonus, where players gained a misc bonus to AC as they went up in level, and simply doing away with the max dex bonus to armor, like in Second Ed.
angryman 11-30-04, 10:08 PM	OK, it's a good idea, just needs simplifying. Our group did the same but more scaled down. Light armour gives 1/- Medium armour 2/- Heavy 3/- That's it. It stacks with barbarian DR (otherwise the barb gets screwed), and adamantium (2/-) Usually you'll end up with mid-high level fighters ALL running around in adamantium full plate for 5/- DR. This makes a nice difference, but we never found it unbalancing. The only problem is that unarmoured characters (monks, duellists) get a bit screwed over.
Escef 12-01-04, 04:38 AM	There is also the armor damage reduction rules in Unearthed Arcana. It lowers the AC bonus of armor but gives DR as a nice compensation.
KMFDM 12-01-04, 08:55 AM	I actually did the almost exact thing. Most of our numbers are even the same. BUt I also did criticals different for each type of weapon: slashing cuts a limb, bludgeon breaks bones, piercing... well pierces. I used it for a short Greek campaign, and the players thought it was exciting, but very clunky and it slowed down the game. Im all for realism and gritty/dangerous games, but sometimes you just gotta 'Keep It Simple Stupid'. (KISS) I will try using the system again, I've thought of a few ideas to KISS it, but I dont see myself using it unless it was specifically for nit 'n gritty games. Excellent work though, great minds think alike.
WhiteHarness 12-01-04, 01:04 PM	I LOVE this! If this were the official D&D armour system, I'd bother to play the tired, broken old game again. Complicated? Only if you don't really enough about armour to try and see that it gets fair and realistic representation in your game. Overpowered? Not even. If anything, the regular armour rules are woefully underpowered. People wore armour because it works. I absolutely adore the idea that Full plate affords its wearer both a full 9pts of AC (+bonus vs. weapon type) AND 6pts of DR! Excellent! Finally an armour system that recognizes the awesome advantage armour provided. To hell with game balance; it's the responsibility of the DM to make sure his scenario is "balanced" and thus neither too difficult nor too easy for his players. It shouldn't be built into the rules set. If you don't want low-level characters running around with what you reckon to be "overpowered" equipment, then don't grant them access to it! Regular, non-magical field/full plate ought to be nearly as treasured and sought-after a possession as magic armour; maybe the sort of thing one might see on an adventurer of say, 7th-level or higher, with magical armour reserved only for the truly elite. Once again, Van Owen, a truly excellent and highly punctilious re-write of what is rapidly becoming a joke of an abstract RPG-representation of a very technical subject. Something as complicated as armour deserves better treatment than it has always gotten in D&D. I, for one, am delighted to see armour portrayed as being the enormous benefit it was to historical warriors. Praise unto you, sir. :)
Van Owen 12-01-04, 01:41 PM	Admittably, I'm running Ravenloft, which is not as combat intensive as some other games, so the system will likely work for that setting. Longer term, this campaign will serve as a testbed for what will and will not work in other settings. The Armor DR system will likely stay, and I may replace the S/P/B modifiers with either deleting the max dex penalties for armor, and allowing all deflection bonuses to stack. Regards unarmored characters, I use the D20 Swashbuckling Adventures book, which is full of nifty things for duelists, and such, including the Unarmored Defense Profiencies, which if the character takes all three as feats, (Basic, Intermediate, & Advanced) they have +17 AC by Lv 20. I've always regarded the armor system as being the greatest drawback of 3.0/3.5. A 2nd Ed first level fighter with a 17 dex, wearing chain mail and shield had an AC of 1, or in 3rd Ed, a 19 AC. Assuming an 18/50 strength he had a total strike bonus, counting specialization of +4 vs +9 points of AC from armor, shield, and dex. Defense has a clear advantage. Now, take the same fighter in 3rd Ed, with a 17 dex, wearing a chain mail, and carrying a large shield. Our fighter has an 18 strength, and weapon focus in his chosen weapon. Total strike bonus has increased to +6 vs the same +9 AC. The advantage defense had before is eroded, and By a noticeable margin. Things get worse. Now, by lv 5, the 2nd Ed fighter has got a suit of field plate, (+8 AC) and has managed to get a sword and shield +2 as part of his booty from a good haul. His Attack bonus with everything figured in is +10 vs +14 AC (8 points of armor, 3 points from the +2 shield, and 3 points from Dex) Still the same 4 pt lead in the favor of defense. The 3rd Ed fighter on the otherhand with the same stuff, except 3rd Ed Full plate (still +8 AC) has an attack bonus of +12 vs +13pts of AC. Not a good balance there. This is why something has to be done. Perhaps a quicker option would be to delete the max dex bonuses to armor, while adding additional armor types, that will go all the way to a base AC of +10. My bet offhand would be Half plate, AC +7, 3/4 plate AC+8, Field plate AC+9 and Full Plate AC+10. The +9 and +10 AC armors are needed to account for the extra +2 points of hit bonus that the 18 Strength confers. In 2nd Ed, even the much coveted 18/00 fighter, only had +3 to hit, and that was with a 1:100 roll on his strength percentile. I would recommend going back to the old habit of rolling percentile strength, which I always personally thought added a bit of suspense to character creation, but you would have to suspend the gaining ability points every 4 levels. While one could simply allow a point to bump the stregnth bonus to the next percentile, a character who rolled lucky the first time with say an 18/95 Strength would at 4th level acquire an 18/00 stregnth, and by 8th level a 19 which would place him in the giant category. (You might get around this by saying that it takes two points devoted the strength to raise it a category--that is more workable) The other problem some would find with this method is along with the percentile strengths, one would have to rewrite the lower numbers back their second Ed equivalents, so a 14 Strength would give you no bonus. This might cause a lot of player complaints. Also, unless careful, you would have some jackanapes try to get away with taking an 18 dex and weapon finess to end up with the same +4 bonus you were trying to avoid. Depending on his strength score this could or could not be a problem. Some rewriting of the feat would be good.
Escef 12-01-04, 02:27 PM	I've always regarded the armor system as being the greatest drawback of 3.0/3.5. A 2nd Ed first level fighter with a 17 dex, wearing chain mail and shield had an AC of 1, or in 3rd Ed, a 19 AC. Assuming an 18/50 strength he had a total strike bonus, counting specialization of +4 vs +9 points of AC from armor, shield, and dex. Defense has a clear advantage. Now, take the same fighter in 3rd Ed, with a 17 dex, wearing a chain mail, and carrying a large shield. Our fighter has an 18 strength, and weapon focus in his chosen weapon. Total strike bonus has increased to +6 vs the same +9 AC. The advantage defense had before is eroded, and By a noticeable margin. Things get worse. Now, by lv 5, the 2nd Ed fighter has got a suit of field plate, (+8 AC) and has managed to get a sword and shield +2 as part of his booty from a good haul. His Attack bonus with everything figured in is +10 vs +14 AC (8 points of armor, 3 points from the +2 shield, and 3 points from Dex) Still the same 4 pt lead in the favor of defense. The 3rd Ed fighter on the otherhand with the same stuff, except 3rd Ed Full plate (still +8 AC) has an attack bonus of +12 vs +13pts of AC. Not a good balance there. This is why something has to be done. Ok, you've forgotten to mention that the 3e fighter's attack bonus increases by no more than his 2e counterpart, so your gripe is not with 3e, but with (A)D&D in general. Furthermore, comparing 2e 18/50 strength to 3e 18 strength is just wrong. 3E 18 Str is more comparable to 2e 18/00 Str's +3/+6 than it is to the old 18/50 (which at +1/+3 is more compareable to a 3e 14 or 15). It is this difference that accounts for the 3e fighter's 2 point lead in attack bonus. A lead that you have demonstrated does not increase. (At least not before level 8, given equal equipment.) Comparing defensive bonuses at 5th level the 3e fighter has a one point worse AC, not a significant difference (especially as there are more ways to boost your AC in 3e than there were in 2e). I think your houserule moves the game closer to being a strategy/war game. While this is not inherently wrong, there are many who don't care for it. And I will remind you that realism is not necessarily more fun. A realistic jet combat game wouldn't hold many people's attention, because you get a missle lock and fire long before you even see your enemy. So, if these rules work for you, great. But I think if you keep heading in this direction you'll be playing a d20 fantasy game and not actual D&D. Just an observation. P.S.- Did you blow off Roland's head?
Van Owen 12-01-04, 02:48 PM	I'm not comparing the total AC difference of the characters, I'm comparing the Attack bonus vs the AC of the characters; ie their ability to hit someone of the same AC as themselves. Yes, I did blow off Roland's head--with a Thompson .45... ((Van Owen is my nom de guerre, he was originally a character I ran for a long time in a home brewed Highlander campaign.))
Van Owen 12-01-04, 03:06 PM	I do agree with you on one point, however; the 3rd Ed 18 Strength is equivalent to the 2nd Ed 18/00 strength--just much easier for everyone (yes, everyone) to get. I chose the 18/50 stregnth in my example as a statistical likelihood of what a 2nd Ed fighter would roll as a percentile, vs the assured bonus of the 3rd Ed 18. I accidently assigned it a +2 to hit bonus vs the actual one of +1 which only proves my point.
Sulaco 12-02-04, 09:34 AM	You've obviously put a lot of work into this system, but I think you are doing yourself a disservice. D&D rarely benefits from anything that makes it more complicated. If you want a very detailed RPG system there are many of them out there to choose from, but D&D's great strength is its (relative) simplicity. Back in 2e I had pages and pages of new rules, house rules, mods, and complicted system like the one you detail here and all it did was complicate things needlessly. It finally hit me one day that only a scant few of all these hundreds of mods actually mades the game any (most of those mods have since been integrated into 3e in some way). My advice is twofold: First, never stop tearing apart rules systems and writing your own game rules. Even if you scrap what you wrote it will give you a better understanding of the game and game design in general, and you never know where that may lead. Second, don't bother trying to make D&D more realistic, it is a losing game. it is like trying to apply real-world financial models to Monopoly - you might be able to do it but ultimately it doesn't make the game any more fun and it really isn't worth the effort. There are other systems (Harnmaster, Morrow Project, Phoenix Command, Rolemaster) which are far more detialed and areas of damage and armor and you would be a lot better off choosing one of those if that is what you are interested in. So though it may seem contradictory, keep up the good work...but don't bother. ;)
Soulmage 12-02-04, 12:01 PM	I too always felt that armor was underpowered in the game and experimented with a lot of variant rules as you have to improve its value. Then the UA came out. A lot of folks talk about how cool the Armor as DR rule is, but they're missing the REAL gem in that book. Armor as Damage Conversion Under this rule, armor converts damage to non-lethal damage equal to its armor bonus. A few tweaks/clarifications have made this system work beautifully in my game: 1. Natural armor doesn't grant conversion (saves the DM a lot of work). 2. Only actual physical armor provides conversion, magic items that provide armor bonus do not, although enhancement bonuses on suits of armor do increase its conversion value. (If you allow magic items like bracers of armor to provide conversion, you defeat the whole purpose of the rule). 3. The following attacks bypass conversion and go straight to lethal damage. - Spells - Sneak attacks - Criticals - Elemental damage (breath weapons, lava, cold, etc.) Try these rules for a while. I think you'll be wonderfully pleased by them. For hit point tracking, PCs just need to keep two columns. One of actual hit points where they subtract as they take damage. One of subdual damage where they add as they take damage. If the subdual column ever equals or exceeds the actual column, the character is unconcious.
No-man 12-02-04, 01:47 PM	Very good idea, may slow down play a bit, but that's the price for realism. Van Owen, may I suggest you stay out of Mombasa?
Soulmage 12-04-04, 11:36 PM	Actually, after a couple sessions people get used to it and combat flows just as smoothly as before.
Van Owen 12-05-04, 02:17 AM	Pretty much. Especially in a group like my own of 3 players and the GM. (me)