Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zepherdragon 06-13-06, 06:38 PM	Its been a while since I've last posted a 4.0 Think Tank thread so for all those new to reading these, I'll remind the readers of the purpose of these. To start, all of my 4.0 threads have to do with an entirely new style of playing D&D. My objective is to bring to D&D what 3.x did to AD&D by bringing in more detail for character development beyond Role Playing. I would like constructive criticism about what I have thought up because nothing is set in stone. This Think Tank deals with a more accurate and realistic AC system that uses all of the elements pre-existing in the current 3.x system. Instead of lumping AC into both a complete miss and armor ability to stop attacks, I've separated the two. One one hand there is the ability for an attack to miss the target completely. This is based on deflection, base AC (10, also known as the counter roll), dexterity, shields (depending on how you use it) and parrying (the weapon in your hand). Each one of these contributes to preventing an attack from striking the body. On the other hand, there is the armor and natural armor that contribute to the absorption of attacks when they do hit the body. In the 4.0 system the AC is represented by Deflection + Base AC 10 + Dexterity Modifier + Shield + Parry Ability (weapon defense). The Armor and Natural Armor bonuses have been converted into straight Damage Reduction. My logic, and I hope people will agree, is that there is one roll to hit the target and then a damage roll to see how well the hit landed. If the damage rolled is less than the DR of the target, as provided by armor + natural armor, then the attack was not strong enough to damage the target. This system does away with Touch AC because 4.0 AC is the touch AC. Even if a weapon isn't strong enough to damage the target with the blade, touch effects are still counted. What actually happens when an attack is made is this... First the attack must be able to get past the first layer of protection, deflection. Deflection bonuses make attack "veer off". I take this to mean that there is a bubble around the defender that pushes attacks away from them. This effect is the first obstacle an attacker must overcome. The second layer of defense is the Base AC 10. This is the average value of a defensive roll to counter the attack roll. I believe it is the defenders natural ability to simply duck, side step, or jump over the attack. The third layer is the Dexterity Modifier, which is added to the Base AC 10 to represent the extra agility granted from a high dexterity. The fourth and fifth layers are interchangeable based on the characters preference and these are shield and weapon deflection. Depending if the character wants to first parry an attack or ward off an attack with a shield this is the last layer of protection. Once all these layers are defeated by an attack roll, the attack hits the target. Its now time to roll damage to see how well the attack landed. You can further break down PCs AC to see what layer of protection defeated the attack roll. *not important but interesting* Say you have +5 deflection AC (1-5), + Base AC 10 (6-15), +5 Dex modifier (16-20), +5 Parry Ability (21-25), and +5 Shield deflection ability (26-30) and encounter a hostile enemy. You engage in combat and the enemy rolls a total attack value of 4, that attack would be defeated by the deflection part of your AC and sound something like this, "A small puppy is thrown at you by the angry troll but the puppy veers away from you landing harmlessly in a pile of leaves." On the next attack the attacker rolls a total attack value of 27, "The angry troll swings his mighty club at you but you deflect it away with your shield." The detail may not even be that descript but at least you'll know how you're avoiding being hit. ******** In contrast to 3.X where the ability to hit is your ability to "land a solid, damaging blow," the 4.0 system uses the actual damage you roll to determine weather the attack was damaging. Character builds now must consider if they want to wear no armor and keep their agility high, or wear bulky heavy armor to withstand attacks. The level of detail added to combat without extra die rolling should appeal to people not afraid to try something new. *Things I'd like to hear back on* Should I just have one Shield/Weapon deflection AC instead of factoring in both? It would be kind of had to first try and block with a shield, fail and then get an attempt with your weapon. Should Deflection AC also grant some sort of DR? It is slowing the attack down somewhat. I'd say +1 DR for every 2 AC the Deflection grants.
TheCobra 06-13-06, 06:58 PM	Yes, that's how it should be. However, going down that road can get pretty complicated.
Atirakis 06-13-06, 06:59 PM	Questions; 1. What kind of DR would the armors get? 2. Instead of base 10 would it be better to have an opposed roll? Comments; 1. I like this system alot so far 2. Yes 1 type of "parry/shield block" skill is enough. Characters can choose which one to use 3. Deflection as DR might be too much depending on what kind of DR the armors will have. Just off the cuff I would say 1:2 or 1:3 ratio would be appropriate
Chikngizrd 06-13-06, 11:27 PM	Not to speak heresies using WotC's dime, but one of the very best instances of this system is found in Mongoose publishing's Conan RPG.
RendakorRahn 06-13-06, 11:47 PM	I'd put base 10 before deflection, since rolling above base 10 reflects the opponents ability to actually HIT you. A flatfooted commoner has 10 AC, so missing him does not indicate that he jumped out of the way, rather it indicates that the attack itself was not precise enough. Other than that, system looks great, I like the emphasis on indicating HOW attacks missed, as well as armor provided DR instead of AC. (We've done this in a number of homebrew games as well. Just makes more sense.) Deflection giving AC and DR might be a bit much, depends on how high you were planning to have armor's DR go, and if you intended them to stack. Maybe have deflection's DR be substantially lower, but DR 1/-, while the armor would provide DR 10/adamantine or some such. Just my two cp.
Archangel62 06-13-06, 11:52 PM	Well... the problem is that the AC system as designed is pretty much armor as DR makes things rather complicated when you do this. Iron Kingdoms does a somewhat credible job with this stuff but it's been mixed in terms of overall effectiveness.
Keoki 06-13-06, 11:52 PM	Not to speak heresies using WotC's dime, but one of the very best instances of this system is found in Mongoose publishing's Conan RPG. I agree. It's just too bad the rest of that game sucks so hard :(
Dragonsblood 06-14-06, 01:03 AM	I don't think worn/natural armor as DR is complicated book keeping wise, but monsters and the CR system would need to be redone (but it would need to be redone anyway, so big deal). Perhaps attack bonuses would need to be lowered and damage raised. Overall I think it's a good idea. I'd also like to see full defence and defensive fighting give a larger bonus to shield wearers than characters without shields.
Vahenir 06-14-06, 01:21 AM	Interesting and well-thought. Bravo. My first, and primary, concern here, though, is that it will be far too easy to get high AC values relatively early in the game. The only way to even begin to remedy this, that I can think of, would be to impose severe Max Dex limits on armour. But then you have the issue that many people won't agree with that decision (myself included) because it is wholly untrue to armour (which defeats the purpose of the new system). Perhaps a flat bonus? All heavy armour provides +2 Deflection to armour class, all medium armour provides +1 Deflection to armour class, and light armour is not significant enough in strength, bulk, and protective value to be capable of providing a deflection bonus? To my mind this helps limit things, and is also quite realistic - a double bonus. Should I just have one Shield/Weapon deflection AC instead of factoring in both? It would be kind of had to first try and block with a shield, fail and then get an attempt with your weapon. I would say the player should only -benefit- from the highest Deflection bonus. So if Grog The Fighter has a shield (+3 Deflection, let's say) and a longsword (let's say +1), his total would only be +3. However, if Grog drops his shield, his Deflection bonus falls to +1, because he does still have his sword. This keeps, again, AC values lower, and is still simple to understand. The only issue, of course, would be that shields, even the smallest ones, would need a higher Deflection bonus than most weapons. Otherwise the entire point of using shields would be lost, as any player is apt to say "but my sword has a higher Deflection bonus, so shields are useless." I think it's good to avoid gimping sword-and-board in a new edition. Keep shield bonuses high, and weapon bonuses exceedingly low. Perhaps even a more 'across the board' style -- light weapons having no bonus, single-handers having a +1, two-handers having a +2. Something like that. Should Deflection AC also grant some sort of DR? It is slowing the attack down somewhat. I'd say +1 DR for every 2 AC the Deflection grants. I would say. . . no. The proposed idea, firstly, would add more math to a game that already includes plenty. Streamlining is good, where possible. If you don't fully deflect a blow, and it hits you - you still have the DR from your armour. That's good enough. Let the opponent's damage roll be the decider on whether you can flavour it as having 'slowed' his weapon or not. Ya know? If Grog gets hit for 20 damage after DR, obviously he didn't slow the weapon down enough in his failed attempt to deflect. If he gets hit with only 4 damage, then you can describe that hit as having been slowed by Grog's failed attempt to deflect the blow away. but one of the very best instances of this system is found in Mongoose publishing's Conan RPG. Heartily agreed. The d20 Conan RPG has, in my opinion, the best armour-weapons system of any RPG. Realistic in the best ways, while still simple and easy to use. Love it.
Zepherdragon 06-14-06, 01:29 AM	I'm very happy to see some good feedback for once :) I didn't actually know Connan had a system like this but at least people are famillar with a similar system. Any of the 4.0 Think Tank posts that I make are based on AD&D and 3.X but vary greatly in the physical aspect of combat. I spent WAY too much time researching the strengths of metals. I have a DR system based on the difference between the strengths iron and steel. Baring the most advanced scientifically strengthened steel, its about twice as hard as wrought iron. So the system is pretty solid when it comes to consist realism in the game. A sneak peek at 4.0: Armor - Armor pieces (apparently as the Connan game), but bases stats are given for the common combinations of armor such as chain mail. - Law of Averages, one DR value is given in spite of various armor pieces and lack of armor protecting parts of the body. This is based on the ratio of protection a piece of armor protects the entire body. I'm sure people will dissagree with my numbers on this but I'd really like more qualified people crunching these numbers anyway. - Bilayer Armor Construction, Full plate mail doesn't just consist of metal plates, there's leather under the metal that can contribute to overall DR. Not to mention skinning and tanning the hides of exotic beasts and using that leather instead of simple cow hide. Would love to hear from some RL armor smiths on armor construction. I tried very very VERY hard to eliminate any arbitrary numbers in 4.0 and keep things consistant. This is what I mean every time I refer to realism, consistant within the realm of possibility in D&D.
kalmarjan 06-14-06, 02:08 AM	Perhaps this could be simplified a little bit like this: Your base roll to hit is 10. If you do not manage to roll over this with your bonuses, you do not hit. If you do roll over it, then you actually strike the armor. If you manage to roll a critical hit, then with a confirmation, you bypass the armor itself. To make this work, you would have two hit point pools. One is your hit points, the other your defense points. (Representing your armor.) When your defense points are used up, then you are taking the damage to your HP. I think something like this would be a little more realistic, as the armor is supposed to protect you from getting the damage, but it should only go so far. One thing that never made sense to me is the fighter who fights the troll, gets a rend, but at the end of the fight, his armor is normal. Didn't he just recieve an attack that nearly tore him in half? The bonus of this is I think it would be easier to keep track of, less complicated than figuring out DR, and if your armor is taking mighty hits, then you would be sweating it to get out of there before your armor fails. I don't know if this sounds stupid, but I believe that systems like Palladium did this. (Rifts for example, but it has been a LONG time since I last played rifts.) Sandeman
Vahenir 06-14-06, 02:16 AM	I spent WAY too much time researching the strengths of metals. I have a DR system based on the difference between the strengths iron and steel. Baring the most advanced scientifically strengthened steel, its about twice as hard as wrought iron. So the system is pretty solid when it comes to consist realism in the game. This is neither here nor there, so consider this just a mild aside, but: The basic hardness of metal is only one of many concerns for both weapons and armour. Plate armour, for instance, was not hardened as much as it could be. The harder an object, the easier it breaks. Softer metal will bend, which is better for armour. It will absorb some of the blow. Mail, especially, was made of 'mild steel' or iron, so that the links would deform with a blow, rather than snap or be driven into the skin. - Armor pieces (apparently as the Connan game), but bases stats are given for the common combinations of armor such as chain mail. I'm honestly not sure what you mean here. Can you elaborate? Law of Averages, one DR value is given in spite of various armor pieces and lack of armor protecting parts of the body. This is based on the ratio of protection a piece of armor protects the entire body. I'm sure people will dissagree with my numbers on this but I'd really like more qualified people crunching these numbers anyway. I haven't seen the numbers - but the idea is sound. The Conan RPG does this as well. One DR rating, which represents both the protective value of the armour, and the actual amount of the body the armour covers (the latter being the more significant factor). We don't need multiple DR ratings for different areas of the armour - that's too complex and silly. - Bilayer Armor Construction, Full plate mail doesn't just consist of metal plates, there's leather under the metal that can contribute to overall DR. Not to mention skinning and tanning the hides of exotic beasts and using that leather instead of simple cow hide. Would love to hear from some RL armor smiths on armor construction. While not an armourer, this is my main field of interest - which I study a great deal and with intent to make a career of it - so I think I can speak intelligently here. There is no leather, as you describe, or very little of it, in period armour. Armour was worn over padding, what you might call 'padded armour' or a gambeson/jack/aketon. However, I find that this is rather irrelevant. . . The DR of any given 'type' of armour should naturally include whatever would have to be worn with the armour. In the case of plate, for instance, the DR value would represent the combination of the plate armour as well as the padded garments that you would have to wear underneath it. It would suffice to have a mention simply of what other armour garments are included in one set of armour. For instance with plate, again, you just make the note that a plate harness is worn over a gambeson. Thus, players and DMs alike know that the armour can be taken off, leaving only the gambeson, which is already statted elsewhere in the armour table. Simple and easy. Aside: There is no such thing as 'full plate mail.' You cannot make mail from plates, and you cannot make plates out of mail. The term is plate harness. Mail is -one- distinct type of armour. Plate is one distinct type of armour. The terms are contradictory.
Sunrider 06-14-06, 02:21 AM	Firstly, some new and revised terminology: Defence rating = 3.x AC Armour class = damage reduction Now for some changes to the system: - Either introduce a BDB as a counter to BAB, or just combine a two into a 'base combat bonus' (BCB) which is a measure of your overall fighting ability. BCB can be distributed between attack bonus and defence rating once per round. - Power Attack and Combat Expertise/Improved Combat Expertise are no longer feats, while Fighting Defensively is eliminated (being rolled with Combat Expertise into the same system) - instead, they're functions of the BCB system (BAB and BDB would become redundant, since they can be exchanged so easily - may as well simplify it by just combining them into BCB). Damage, accuracy and defence essentially become three interchangeable abilities (of course, two-handed weapons would gain more from damage points, as per Power Attack), all of which are important. Total defence is still available - essentially, you put your entire BCB into defence and gain an extra bonus on top of it, but can't make any attacks. - Bonuses to Attack rolls and Defence are based on Dex - Weapon Finesse is either eliminated, or does something totally different. Not unbalancing, since you still need Str to get through AC (revised version - same as DR in current version). Possible weapon-finesse style feats to base these on Wisdom or Intelligence. - Bonuses to Damage are based on Str (with extra damage for two-handed weapons). Possible feats to base this off Int (as per Swashbuckler ability, representing the ability to target weak spots). - Defence rating equals: 10 + Dex modifier + Shield bonus + Deflection bonus + Dodge bonuses + whatever other random bonuses (e.g. class-based). This represents how hard you are to hit/almost hit (hit = current 'critical hit' that goes straight to wound points, almost hit = current 'normal hit' that drains your Stamina (VP) in order to avoid injury). - Armour class (current DR) = Armour bonus + Natural Armour bonus. This applies to - DR as a separate concept is eliminated (rolled into AC). - Armour and natural armour bonuses, as well as other current bonuses which contribute to 3.x AC, will need to be rebalanced. - WP/VP system replaces HP. Modified Star Wars version, not UA version (where it's too hard to actually kill someone). Sneak Attacks don't deal extra damage; instead, the attack becomes an automatic critical hit (provided you actually hit the target). Possible bonuses to allow increasing penetration of AC (current DR) by sneak attacks, representing the ability to go around armour plates or find weak spots. Critical hits don't multiply damage - instead, they bypass VP and cause WP damage (normal amount, not multiplied). Also, VP should heal faster than it currently does (basically, it just represents stamina being depleted), and WP slower, and they should heal as a percentage of your maximum rather than as a flat number based on hit dice (why should a Barbarian take three times as long to heal as a wizard?). Introduce feats to allow for negation of critical hits, etc. Rebalance weapons around this new system, otherwise weapons with high Crits dominate. - More changes to WP/VP system. VP are based off vitality and class. You have WP equal to your Strength score (plus other bonuses, e.g. Toughness), don't become disabled until you have WPs equal to 0 - Con bonus (i.e. -4 for someone with 18 Con) and don't die until your WP reach the negative of your Constitution score. Size modifiers to WP apply. What all this means: - Heavily-armoured fighters and lumbering creatures with tough hides get hit all the time. They don't, however, take much damage from it. - Lightly-armoured fighters and agile creatures are very hard to hit but, when you do hit them, they go down fast. - Against a large, hard-hitting enemy who may be a bit clumsy (e.g. your typical big tough brute), light fighters with high defence ratings are good - basically, you don't want to get hit, regardless of your AC (DR). - Against typical, skilled humanoid enemies, AC is good - you may get hit, but you won't take much damage. - Combat-wise, characters operate in a very similar manner to sci-fi spaceships. The reactor produces a certain amount of energy (BCB). Guns, shields and engines all draw upon the same, limited energy supply. You can boost one at the expense of the other two, distribute them evenly, or manipulate them however you like. The same thing happens under this system. You have a limited BCB, which must be distributed between the requirements of defence, accuracy of attacks and power of attacks. The best thing to do depends on your abilities (feats, etc.) and the situation (who are you fighting? multiple enemies? time-critical). Needs some fine-tuning, but that's the gist of it...
Sunrider 06-14-06, 02:30 AM	P.S. Another thing I'd like to see is a much-increased reliance on feats, skills and (for spellcasters) spells, and a much-reduced reliance on magic items. I prefer characters to rely on their own abilities and mundane equipment, rather than relying on magic items (as opposed to just magic/psionic/supernatural abilities) for everything. Makes it seem far more heroic... King Arthur had Excalibur, Roland had Durandal. Luke Skywalker had his lightsaber (a mundane item) and the force, and nothing else. Xena had only her skill. None of these heroes had a backpack full of magic gear. Making class abilities and feats/skills more potent (or making magic items far less potent or reliant on charges) would improve the 'heroic' feel of the game... we like heroes because of what they can do, not because of what their 760kgp worth of magic items can do for them. Also, the feat system should be expanded. Many class abilities can become feats, allowing for greater customisation of classes without extensive multiclassing. Maybe even get rid of 'feats' and 'skills' as separate entities, and combine them into one concept - you get a certain number of 'skill' points per level, and can use them to either improve your 'skills', or to gain new abilities ('feats'). Finally, more tech stuff and more differentiation between various grades of masterwork gear would be good for striking a balance between magic and mundane. Enhancement bonuses, for example, can be readily explained by a better-forged sword or stronger armour - no need to get magic involved (although a cleric casting GMW could do the same thing, temporarily). Other abilities, such as flaming swords, would, of course, be magical, but IMO a better balance is needed - at the moment, combat classes are 10% class abilities and 90% magic items.
Esponer 06-14-06, 03:03 AM	One possible issue with the suggested system of moving the benefits of armour to a damage reduction system is that you could very quickly find yourself leaving rogues too fragile. 90% evasion (represented by a high AC) is fantastic, but if a lucky hit kills you immediately, you're quickly going to find the system far too cruel. Of course, the system already works something like this - almost all defence systems in the game go towards increasing what is effectively your evasion, and there are very few sources of damage reduction. However, my issue with both D&D 3.5 and Zepherdragon's system is that they both don't quite handle the two different ways in which a defence method could protect you. For instance, let's discuss armour. In D&D 3.5, armour has the strange habit of increasing what is effectively your evasion: your ability to not be meaningfully harmed at all. In reality, while it would be quite possible to attack someone in armour and do no damage, whether or not this should happen should be relative to how strongly you hit (implying that when armour does this, it's because its DR absorbs the entire damage). Zepherdragon is quite right in identifying that armour should probably be represented by DR. But what about your ability to actively evade harm? It's not just a case of "dodge or don't dodge", as D&D 3.5 and Zepherdragon's system would both suggest. A partial dodge can reduce the amount of damage you take to a minimum, while still leaving you technically hit by a glancing contact. What I'm asking is this: if a defence method (dodging, deflecting with a weapon or shield, deflecting with a magical field, absorbing with armour) could be described as meaningfully having some beneficial effect even when contact has been made, is it not badly represented only by an AC bonus? Most defence methods fall into this category: armour, Zepherdragon correctly identified. Deflection, he also correctly identified. But dodging is important too. How you want to handle this is up to you. A very adventurous system indeed would be to focus far more on DR than AC, and have almost all defence methods provide some form of DR. As you couldn't then have nothing adding to AC, this might very quickly become too complicated. Another possibility is to have thresholds which reduce or increase your resultant damage based on the gap between your attack roll and their AC (or defence roll, if you change it to such). Attack roll exceeds AC; attack hits. Attack roll exceeds AC by less than 5; attack hits, but deals half damage. Attack roll exceeds AC by more than 15; attack hits, and deals double damage. It could be an ability of rogue-type classes to increase these thresholds to their benefit, perhaps even having a "quarter damage" threshold. This would aptly represent the ability of both dodging and deflection to reduce the damage you take even after you're hit, by forcing only a glancing blow to contact. Zepherdragon's suggestions, combined with my suggestions, are almost identical to a system I already have lying around. I'm concerned that in the name of attempting to be more realistic, you can quickly make a system too complicated, so I think that it may be the case that the above suggested system with thresholds based on how much you beat the opponent's AC may be too complicated for tabletop roleplaying. It could be simplified and ignored, but bear in mind that if you do so you run the risk of leaving rogues with a "dodge or be hit for all the damage" issue, which at higher levels could make playing a rogue a game of Russian roulette. I agree with Sunrider's focus on individual abilities and feats over magic items. At higher levels in D&D, the reliance on magic items is one of the things I like least with the system. The idea of combining skills and feats is an intriguing one, also. In my own system, I do away with classes, skills and feats and have only one method of advancement (which is referred to as skills: not to be mistaken with skills in D&D 3.5). These skills cost skill points to learn, and skill points are essentially equivalent to XP points (no levelling up whatsoever). You advance spellcasting, mundane skills, special combat abilities and the equivalent of special class features all through exactly the same method. Challenge rating is the sum of a creature's basic challenge rating, and the amount of SP it has gained/spent.
Johannixx 06-14-06, 03:16 AM	I too have to tout the Conan d20 system as being the finest example of melee mechanics that I have yet seen. It is realistic, yet doesn't suffer in terms of playability. My one gripe is that, per the core Conan rules, there is no way to 'finesse' ranged attacks. Some other things cropped up, but were dismissed upon further study. It initially appeared that a lone Hyborian knight in full plate harness would be immune to the attacks of even a horde of low-level Picts with stone or copper hand axes and daggers. They just couldn't pierce the armor's DR, nor did they have enough attack bonus to finesse around it. Then I realized, this would probably be true in reality as well. How would the Picts deal with such an invader? They would trip, grapple and immobilize him with a mass rush. Sure, the knight would probably kill a Pict or two in the initial melee, but then he'd be screwed.
Sunrider 06-14-06, 03:22 AM	One possible issue with the suggested system of moving the benefits of armour to a damage reduction system is that you could very quickly find yourself leaving rogues too fragile. 90% evasion (represented by a high AC) is fantastic, but if a lucky hit kills you immediately, you're quickly going to find the system far too cruel. Not really - it's no worse than the current WP/VP system used in Star Wars. Normal 'hits' just do VP damage, while crits do WP damage. As for lucky hits... well, that's up to the roll of the dice, and makes the game much more interesting IMO. Combat should be risky - even a high-level character should have to think twice before charging into a hail of arrows/bullets/blaster bolts, just because they're being fired by 3rd level enemy soldiers (for someone with 14 Str and 14 Con, though, you'd need to cause 28 damage for an outright kill). OTOH, that's why I suggested feats to negate crits (maybe a bit like action points, but recharged each day - that way, you can use them for other things as well, and just reinforces the heroic, but not superheroic, nature of PC characters).
Zepherdragon 06-14-06, 03:29 AM	Esponer, you're right about the fragile rogue... Thus I had the idea of rolling with the punches so to speak. Using skill to reduce the damage taken. This can either be a Feat or Skill benefit. And again about BAB, I've removed the BAB completely from the combat system because I've gotten rid of the ridged class system. You can buy feats and skills for points as long as you have the prerequsites. Still havent decided how to price each skill though. Theres a bunch of stuff relating to the new class system but that will be posted in that specific thread soon. It doesn't seem as bad as it sounds so just hold judgement untill you see the system. It removes nearly all the limitations on any Pc you can dream up. It even takes into account min/maxing and keeping balance in power. Also about magic items, take a naked level 20 warrior and toss him up against a CR 10 encounter... Not very pretty. I'll post my 4.0 Combat system later today. It's going to get an uproar about how complex it is, but trust me, its no more complex than the current 3.X system, it's just... different. Try not to get confused with what you're now able to do with the simple rules of combat with complexity. It lends to completely free up combat into something very exciting.
Zepherdragon 06-14-06, 03:34 AM	How would the Picts deal with such an invader? They would trip, grapple and immobilize him with a mass rush. Sure, the knight would probably kill a Pict or two in the initial melee, but then he'd be screwed. I remember seeing some things about the late medieval agaes on the History Channel regarding foot soldiers wearing nothing but clothing taking on fully armored knights. They would indeed have to knock him down or dent the armor so that it imobilized him and then slide a dagger through the holes where the arms are to kill him or beat his head in through the helmet with a hammer. Pretty nasty stuff but that's how it goes.
pvrhye 06-14-06, 03:56 AM	I think it would be interesting if BAB very directly affected AC. That is to say, you could move armor into the realm of damage reduction (I like the idea of damage reduction rolls on dice for armor just like weapons have damage rolls.) relying on attack rolls to parry an attack (shields would improve this value for defensive purposes whereas weapon enhancement bonuses would effect it for offensive purposes.) Armor would grant attack penalties regarless of proficiency (although the unproficient would have greater penalties) I think this system intrinsicly rewards fighters who choose not to wear armor, but still maintains the fighters armored role (They have the BAB to afford to toss a little to thier AC).
Sunrider 06-14-06, 04:08 AM	I think it would be interesting if BAB very directly affected AC. That is to say, you could move armor into the realm of damage reduction (I like the idea of damage reduction rolls on dice for armor just like weapons have damage rolls.) relying on attack rolls to parry an attack (shields would improve this value for defensive purposes whereas weapon enhancement bonuses would effect it for offensive purposes.) Armor would grant attack penalties regarless of proficiency (although the unproficient would have greater penalties) I think this system intrinsicly rewards fighters who choose not to wear armor, but still maintains the fighters armored role (They have the BAB to afford to toss a little to thier AC). That's a bit like my Base Combat Bonus system - basically, you have a certain number of points, which can be distributed between attack bonus, defence bonus (as per Combat Expertise) or extra damage (as per Power Attack). With the changes to AC and DR, you'd have to play a fine balancing game between the three... even the 'Grok Smash'-type barbarian (or, at least, the player of said barbarian) will have to do a little thinking. I don't like the idea of armour giving penaties to attack rolls though, apart from those due to nonproficiency. Basically, armour would just fill a different niche to what it does now - rather than reducing your chance of being hit, it reduces your chance of taking damage (whether real, WP damage or stamina-draining VP damage).
Jhulae 06-14-06, 08:07 AM	Honestly, this seems like such a better system. I hate the binary AC currently in the game. I love "Armor as DR", as it does more accurately reflect (as much as a game can) how armor works. True20 does the same thing. There's a roll to hit, and if you're hit, then armor helps prevent being hurt.
Esponer 06-14-06, 12:55 PM	Not really - it's no worse than the current WP/VP system used in Star Wars. Normal 'hits' just do VP damage, while crits do WP damage. As for lucky hits... well, that's up to the roll of the dice, and makes the game much more interesting IMO. Combat should be risky - even a high-level character should have to think twice before charging into a hail of arrows/bullets/blaster bolts, just because they're being fired by 3rd level enemy soldiers (for someone with 14 Str and 14 Con, though, you'd need to cause 28 damage for an outright kill). OTOH, that's why I suggested feats to negate crits (maybe a bit like action points, but recharged each day - that way, you can use them for other things as well, and just reinforces the heroic, but not superheroic, nature of PC characters). Firstly, I get the impression from the comments made so far in this topic that I'd be best off learning about the WP/VP system in this Star Wars game (personally I'm a little weary of the normal HP system and would love to see alternatives), and the Conan d20 system. Are either of these, or any component of their core rules, open game content? If so, could somebody link me to some such rules material? What I'm worried about is that in a situation where the rogues avoid all damage and the knights absorb the damage, at some point becoming a rogue will simply be too foolish. Lucky hits is fine, but there's absolutely no fun in having a 10% chance to be hit and killed, and a 90% chance to avoid all damage. That's something of an extreme, but it highlights the point. It's not just a balance issue though, as many games get away without it getting out of hand (like D&D 3.5 in fact - partially due to the fact that at high level people usually hit anyway). It's the fact that you can quite easily dodge and only take a glancing blow. Just as much as armour reduces damage as well as possibly negating it, so too does your ability to dodge. Of course, everything depends on how much you want to complicate the system. If I had enough free time, I could probably design a system which was both ridiculously complicated and ridiculously realistic. It could not be a tabletop RPG, however: it would have to be a computer game. There has to be a limit in the complexity of tabletop RPGs, and it may be that trying to accommodate for dodging reducing damage would pass that limit in most cases. Esponer, you're right about the fragile rogue... Thus I had the idea of rolling with the punches so to speak. Using skill to reduce the damage taken. This can either be a Feat or Skill benefit. Could be effective. Adding new dimensions is fine if they're not part of the regular combat system. The question that you're faced with is whether or not dodging to reduce damage as well as avoid damage completely should inherently be part of the combat system. May I have your opinion on the concept of half-damages and double-damages based on how much the attack score beats the AC / defence score? One logical continuation of this system is that a critical hit is based upon your attack score relative to your opponent's AC / defence score, rather than just your attack score. More comments from me later, perhaps.
The_Ditto 06-14-06, 01:31 PM	Check out the Hero game: "Champions" ... (I suspect GURPs also had something similar) .. I recall playing years ago with this concept ... - attack roll to hit, vs target "DC" of the defender .. (based mainly on DEX). - Damage had to "penetrate" defenses ... - two types of "armor": Normal, and "resistant" defenses ... Basically you had "armor" that could reduce the damage of .. say, a punch, or club .. and you had "armor" that could reduce the damage of "sharper" things, such as knives, bullets, swords, teeth, etc. Some special attacks would be "NND" (No Normal Defense) which bypassed all "armor" completely (ie Incorporeal, or poison ...) IMHO .. if you want that detail, use that system .. those systems are *extremely* flexible and it's pretty easy now-a-days to find things converted. :tiphat:
tiluvias99 06-14-06, 04:14 PM	Seems very similar to the Revised Rules I wrote up. You could check it out; it's in my sig.
Zepherdragon 06-14-06, 05:07 PM	Okay, I'm going to qnatify as much as I can from the previous posts and address what I can :). There's still HPs, so even though you're wearing no armor, you can still be tough as heck. When I post about ability scores, this will be spelled out in more detail. Constitution above and beyond average people, thus anything with a positive modifier, grants not only extra hps, but perhaps a DR bonus to natural armor. Its like being so healthy that your bones don't break under normal forces. Unrealistic constitution scores puts you on a level with super heroes. I mean, why can superman withstand bullets? There's got to be a "realistic" explanation (remember my definition of realism). I imagine PCs and BBEGs being able to take a sword to the head and the sword break just because they're that damn tough. It may seem like I'm complicating things, but I'm only taking advantage of preexisting elements in D&D and putting them to more frequent use. DR only protects you from matertial sources, no matter what your DR is in armor, a magic missile slices right through! Tank PCs with very high DRs are strong in only one aspect of combat. I like the terminology from Sunrider. I hope when using the new termiology on the thread, peopel don't get too confused. Defence rating = 3.x AC Armour class = damage reduction So far as I see, I haven't added anything new to the combat system, I've only changed the way things function. Shield or pary to Armor rating is now one category, use which ever is higher by default. Thanks to Vahenir on this. Attack bonuses, which will be covered in a different thread, are dex based + skill based + circumstance based + weapon bonus. The skills, which are class skills and feats combined, are like weapon focus. Instead of 3.X weapon focus of only a perminate +1 increase to hit, its +1 initally plus +1 for every three levels once you obtain the feat with no limit on its maximum value. This is so that a lv 1 feat, is still usefull in epic levels granting a more proportinate variable. A lot of feats that granted a one time only +x bonus to a skill or ability, now continue to grow as your character grows. The whole combat system hasn't been posted yet so there's a lot of things about the new system that no one knows is the case. Once I gather more feedback, I'll post a complete Combat system with everything we all have shared. So much of combat is skill based and not so much level or magical weapon/armor based. Just trust me, it's a balance between Defence Rating and Attack Bonuses. You'll see :).
da chicken 06-14-06, 10:56 PM	Meh. The hallmark of D&D is a fast and uncomplicated combat system. It should take less than 5 minutes to resolve the events of any one round. It's not meant to be realistic. It's meant to be fast paced so it's entertaining and engaging. There's no lasting injury or damage beyond lost HP. It's an entirely cinematic and stylized play style. Throw that away, and you're not playing D&D. 'Mise well be playing Rolemaster.
Neodymium 06-14-06, 11:58 PM	I'm rather fond of much of what sunrider has proposed. although i think a system like A Game of Thrones should be used to answer the Weapon Finesse question. Where no ability normally affects attack bonus, but there are feats for all of them.
Crash01234567890 06-15-06, 12:25 AM	Meh. The hallmark of D&D is a fast and uncomplicated combat system. It should take less than 5 minutes to resolve the events of any one round. It's not meant to be realistic. It's meant to be fast paced so it's entertaining and engaging. There's no lasting injury or damage beyond lost HP. It's an entirely cinematic and stylized play style. Throw that away, and you're not playing D&D. 'Mise well be playing Rolemaster. Uhm...have you ever played any other edition of D&D? Trust me the complicated and slow systems outweight the fast paced ones in D&D's history. So what is this crap about about not playing D&D without getting a round/5 minutes. D&D is all about Fantasy Roleplaying. That's it, bottom line. You can't claim anything else about it, because it's changed so much since it's birth with the original. Now, If you happened to mean that throwing it away causes you not to be playing 3.5, then you are correct. Is that a bad thing though. Afterall this is a thinktank for 4.0. I like the system you have so far for this DR and AC, but I think you're focusing on the wrong parts of D&D for changing in 4.0. D&D has long been the main fantasy RPG and it seems to have become more of a wargame in 3.0/3.5. We need it to return back to roleplaying. I think the main focus should be detering away from the complex rules and back to the realm of versatility and easy modification. What we need is to remove the classes and levels that have been present in every edition of the game. Make it into a skillbased game much like shadowrun (3rd) and Deadlands. The feel of these RPGs and the laid back systems would be great for D&D if harnessed right and the character customization would literally be endless. Damage systems would have to be redone, but it could easily work out and if fast is the key try looking at the Serenity and 7th Sea systems and rape them for ideas. As for Armor, I like DR, but it's a little too invariable. What I think would work for the game better than coverage is a simple hit location roll and armor that covers locations. It wouldn't really slow gameplay much, just roll your to hit and the percentile dice at the same time to tell you where you hit. I also think that rather than reducing it with a solid number, armor should bring down the die type of the weapon used. Such as 2D6 to 1D8 to 1D6 to 1D4. after 1D4 start subtracting one each time. While not really much different I just like the feel of this better.
Horatio Hornblower 06-15-06, 03:08 AM	Great idea for improving combat. This system is also like Striker, the miniature rules for GDW's sci-fi RPG Traveller. In Striker, first you roll to hit (basically the D&D touch attack). Then you roll to penetrate and damage in a single roll. The roll is modified by adding weapon penetration and subtracting armor value. Damage is based on how far you exceeded the roll to pentrate. There are four wound catagories based on the penetration roll: No effect, light wound, serious wound and death. Notice no hit points. A brutal system, but very realistic. Now I'm not suggesting anyone uses the wound catagories from Striker because it's too deadly. I included it just to complete the example. I did bring this up because we played Traveller using the Striker miniature rules for years and it was great. Having one roll to hit and another for penetrating armor is the best way to go. It makes more sense and also gives you better resolution for missile weapons. I'm sure you've seen all the threads about trying to figure out how to use guns in D&D. The system in this tread would work a lot better. Pull the trigger or release the string. Do I hit? Okay, does it get through the armor? Yes, roll damage. I really like the idea of using deflection bonuses on the attack roll. Great thread everyone.
starfire311 06-15-06, 10:03 AM	ok I got a few comments 1st I think the deflection mod should be applied after the base 10 AC because that 10 represents getting a number that would be good enough to hit you if you ahd no other defenses. so on a roll of a 4 the attack didnt even come close enough to you to be stopped by your deflecion bonus in your example 2nd I already use this to a decent amount of success, I dont keep track of the layers like you do. here is what I have Defense (instead of AC) 10+Class dodge bonus+Defletion+Insight+other dodge+dex+Class parry bonus+shield Flat-footed Defense 10+Defletion+Insight+Class parry bonus+shield Touch Defense 10+Class dodge bonus+Defletion+Insight+other dodge+dex Armor Rating Armor+Natural Armor So armor provides an armor rating that reduces damage taken and it still has a max dex and it also provides a penalty to class dodge bonus. BTW we also use WP/VP