A combat inconsistancy: My ideas for fixing combat modifers. [Archive] - Wizards Community

A combat inconsistancy: My ideas for fixing combat modifers. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Voldar_Mecorthio
08-09-06, 02:36 PM Combat in D&D seems to be flawed. The modifiers are grouped together in nonsensical ways, and it just seems wrong. I have some ideas to fix combat though:

It seems to me that armor class is seperated into two catagories: Agility and hardness. Agility reprosents how difficult you are to hit, and includes Dexterity bonus, deflection, a monk's bonus, dodge, and any other bonus that reprosents being difficult to hit. Hardness isn't how difficult you are to hit, it's how well you can absorb hits. Armor, shields, natural armor, and that kind of stuff are this way.

It doesn't seem right to group them both together. Agility should be the only AC, hardness should be damage reduction. Wearing a suit of full plate and a tower shild as big as you are makes for a very big target, but good luck actually hurting the guy inside. Wearing no armor but having lightning fast reflexes makes you hard to hit, but if you are hit... ouch.

Similarly, Strength applying to melee attack bonuses doesn't make sense either. I don't care how much force you can put behind your greatsword, If I can jump out of the way then you can't hit me. Dexterity should apply to the attack roll, and strength to the damage.

Those are my changes. To sum them up:

AC is only dexterity, deflection, the basic 10, Luck, and any other modifier that reprosents being hard to hit.
Armor, Shields, Natural amor, or anything that reprosents hardness gives damage reduction equal to the amount of their AC bonus devided by 2, add 1.
Magical bonus like divine/profane give half AC and half DR.
Melee attack rolls are based on dexterity, damage stays the same, as does the mechanic for ranged combat. Enhancement bonuses stay the same.

Any comments? [EDIT: changed a few things]
Titan W
08-09-06, 02:59 PM UA and the varient rules SRD (I think) have rules for using armor a DR and due to the power of the DR ability it's not a 1-1 raito otherwise peoplei n full plate would be untouchable until about 12th level except by spellcasters.

I think full plate gave like DR 5/- as an example. (Light armors were like 1/- or something I forget the details)

The idea of Strength being used for attack bonus was that it represents using speed to make an attack harder to see and thus evade, and no, using a larger blade in two hands is not harder to direct than a rapier in one if you're just using speed of attack to direct your damage, using a thin blade with complex movements is why weapon finesse applies to the rapier in the first place, and not to a huge blade.

(Speed is an application of force which strength determines and vice versa)

and you never applied 1.5 strength to attack with a two-handed weilding, only on the damage of the weapon.
ShinQuickMan
08-09-06, 03:16 PM Melee attack rolls are based on dexterity, light weapons get a +1 bonus, and two handed weapons get a -1 penalty. Damage stays the same, as does the mechanic for ranged combat. Enhancement bonuses stay the same.

By this logic, one handed weapons held in two hands should also merit an attack bonus.

But I agree more with what Titan W suggested.
Tony Vargas
08-09-06, 03:23 PM It seems to me that armor class is seperated into two catagories: Agility and hardness. This isn't just how it seems to you - it's the difference between regular AC and Touch AC.
calvinNhobbes
08-09-06, 03:26 PM Any comments?
I got a few. And let me preface my comments with I do not think your system is wrong or necesarily illogical, and that many people have the exact same view as you for how combat should work, but I think the D&D system is actually a very good model for how comabt works.

AC represents the chance of damaging your opponent. Obviously the first step is actually hitting them, represented by the touch AC which is comprised of agility attributes like dexterity, magic deflection, and dodging. The second step is bypassing their armor. You are NOT trying to break through it. If that were the case then you have to deal enough damage in a single blow to not only overcome the hardness of the armor, but then also enough damage to destroy the armor. You are trying to find a weak spot, or hit an area unprotected. The armor AC is the chance of you finding such a spot. Likewise, the natural armor AC is not the chance you are going to crack through the monsters thick scales, but the chance you will hit a weak spot between them.
EDIT: Also note that damage can be highly variable. In my games, armor does add DR, but in flavor not mechnically. Say a spear trap hits you. If I roll a 1 or 2, maybe it stuck you but directly in you breast plate, punching through it enough to damage you but not fatally. Say I rolled a 6, well now the spear hit a weak spot in the side of the armor and punched right into you lung causing a potentially lethal blow.
EDIT 2: As another aside. I houserule that adamatine armor does not give DR since that is obviosuly not consistant on my view of how AC and DR work. It instead significantly increases the AC.

DR represents how much damage an opponent can resist if you manage to get through their armor. Most humanoids have no DR. If you get through the hard metal shell, the middle is soft and gooey. Similarly, a giant has a high natural armor, from thick harden skin, but if you can manage to get through it, they are just as vulnerable. Compare this to a zombie which has extraordianry DR/slashing. A zombie has no soft middle really because it is dead. Stabbing and beating on it is no very effective. The zombie has a little natural armor from its dried hardened skin and muscles, but most of it's protection is from not having a soft vulnerable inside. You need to hack off parts of it to be effective. This logical view needs to be some what suspended for supernatural DR like silver because we are now in the magical world.

Now for strength vs dexterity for attack and damage rolls. Picture in your mind a 90 lb, 14 year olympic gynast doing handstands, and flips and somersualts on a 4 inch wide balance beam. I think it is safe to give her at least a 16 dex. Now give her a two-handed sword. Now give the 25 year old, 18 strength weight lifter the same sword. Who do you think would be able to swing it more effectively and accurately? As an exercise, go to the gym and pick up a five pound dumbell in one hand and swing your arm as hard as you can, but then try to stop your arm exactly in front of you. Even with just 5 lbs it is hard to stop your own momentum. A weak person would have little chance of controlling it. In fact the weight would control them. Obviously certain weapons are designed to be used more with agility than strength and the game accounts for this with weapon finesse.
Voldar_Mecorthio
08-09-06, 03:51 PM Good point about two handed weapons, I changed that. I understand how the different variables included in AC, but I don't like how they include many different variables in the same roll, so the seperate AC and Dex to attack rolls stay.
Flintlockhandmedown
08-09-06, 04:03 PM Well, for starters, this would shatter the careful balance the developers have made. It would cause all sorts of imbalances: magic items and granting the so called 'agility' type of armor class would become overpowered, items and abilities granting DR would become underpowered, dexterity would become worth more and strength would become worth less.

Your changes would make a level two fighter all but invulnerable in full plate and a tower shield. The DR 12 it would grant would stop all but the mightiest attacks. This would make playing any class that isn't able to wear full plate or cast spells ludicrous, with the exception of monks, who would be the only characters with decent actual AC.

Another thing, strength should firmly remain as the modifier for melee attacks, simply because the stronger you are, the faster you can swing a weapon, and the easier you can bat your opponent's weapon out of the way. To apply rules similar to these, you'd need to do a massive overhaul of the game. v4.0 perhaps, but not today, Lenny, not today.
Flintlockhandmedown
08-09-06, 04:17 PM Picture in your mind a 90 lb, 14 year olympic gynast doing handstands, and flips and somersualts on a 4 inch wide balance beam. I think it is safe to give her at least a 16 dex. Now give her a two-handed sword. Now give the 25 year old, 18 strength weight lifter the same sword. Who do you think would be able to swing it more effectively and accurately?

Do you know how strong you need to be to be a gymnast? I'd say shes probably heavier than 90 pounds and has a decent str score. Pure semantics of course, I fully get and agree with your point.

Hmm...let's see, I'd say you could lift half your maximum load with your arms only, like they do on those hanging handle things when they hold themselves aloft like a T, and I'd say she's medium size and is 110 lbs. So that would mean she would have 16 Str, max load 230, half that 115. Actually I'm not sure the girls do that but that would mean the heavier guys would have even higher str scores to do that.

Then again, using the same logic, weight lifters would have str scores in the 20's, since they lift hundreds of lbs. over their heads, which according to D&D is impossible for non-magicked humans. The heaviest weight ever lifted over a man's head was 586 lbs., which would require a str score of 23 according to D&D. So I guess it's impossible to convert real life to D&D. Anyways.
Nom
08-09-06, 07:41 PM DR has this nasty problem that if it is to be effective against powerful attacks it renders you invulnerable to weak attacks. This is because AC is a statistical measure, whereas DR always applies.

If I add 2 points of AC, I reduce my chance of suffering damage from X% to (X-10)%. This applies regardless of whether the attack has a 2 point or a 20 point damage potential.

In contrast, if I add 2 points of DR, I render the 2 point attack completely ineffective, while having negligible effect on the 20 point attack.

Also consider that Power Attack with a two-handed weapon allows trading to-hit for damage at 1:2. Thus, any AC to DR conversion must be at least this good. At low levels, I'd gladly reduce AC by 5 to gain DR 10/- - that's approximately invulnerable. At high levels, where a single hit can do 50+ points, DR 10/- will only reduce it to 40+ points, whereas 5 points of AC has a 25% chance of reducing it to 0.
Voldar_Mecorthio
08-09-06, 09:15 PM I reduced the original DR value, should I reduce it more? I understand that this is a radical change, and I'm not going to impliment it in my games until it's completly finished. I don't want low level fighter being invincible, so should I reduce the DR any more? OA's armor=DR rules say half DR and half AC, but I don't want armor adding to AC, so I said that the DR is half plus one. Is that okay?
Alric
08-09-06, 09:20 PM You know the old saying, if its not broken don't fix it. Theres really no reason to try and make your games more complex. As some people already said wearing armor does help you avoid being hit. If you take a glancing blow while not wearing armor you could actually get your entire arm cut off. Yet if the same glancing blow hit someone in full plate, it might bounce off harmlessly.
Nom
08-10-06, 12:36 AM I reduced the original DR value, should I reduce it more? I understand that this is a radical change, and I'm not going to impliment it in my games until it's completly finished. I don't want low level fighter being invincible, so should I reduce the DR any more? OA's armor=DR rules say half DR and half AC, but I don't want armor adding to AC, so I said that the DR is half plus one. Is that okay?reducing DR is the last thing you want to do. As I noted above, DR from armour needs to be at least twice the AC you gave up just to have a hope of breaking even against powerful attacks. The drawback is that it then renders you invulnerable to less powerful attacks.

The D&D AC rules have a few "features". Shields are actually a really effective way of avoiding being hit. Dodging only helps so much, especially when your opponent can afford to absorb your blows on his armour while you cannot afford to even take a glancing blow. And the rules just assume that parrying might be going on, without considering the defensive effect of armed vs unarmed.

All these features downplay the value of armour & shields vs Dex. Mechanics that further skew this consideration in favour of Dex don't make it more realistic.
calvinNhobbes
08-10-06, 10:04 AM Do you know how strong you need to be to be a gymnast? I'd say shes probably heavier than 90 pounds and has a decent str score. Pure semantics of course, I fully get and agree with your point.

Hmm...let's see, I'd say you could lift half your maximum load with your arms only, like they do on those hanging handle things when they hold themselves aloft like a T, and I'd say she's medium size and is 110 lbs. So that would mean she would have 16 Str, max load 230, half that 115. Actually I'm not sure the girls do that but that would mean the heavier guys would have even higher str scores to do that.

Then again, using the same logic, weight lifters would have str scores in the 20's, since they lift hundreds of lbs. over their heads, which according to D&D is impossible for non-magicked humans. The heaviest weight ever lifted over a man's head was 586 lbs., which would require a str score of 23 according to D&D. So I guess it's impossible to convert real life to D&D. Anyways.

Female olympic gymnasts are very very tiny. Barely over 5 feet tall (usually shorter), and almost never over 100 lbs. The reason being, the larger you are the less control you have over your body due the physics (moments of inertia, torque on the joints, etc.) . Even male gymnasts are usually shorter than average. A female gymnast most likely does not have a strength score over 10 simply because they are so petite and women in general are not as strong as men especially their upper body. Which is why women do not do the iron cross in gymnastics. In general their upper body is not strong enough to do it.

Strength is one of those attributes that has an easy to define quantitative measure and therefore it can off the scale. However, one thing to note about example you gave. The 586 lb record is for the clean and jerk, which is not quite the same as just lifting the weight over your head. It is complicated movement that utilizes not only strength, but also skill, training, agility and speed. For example, I can military press 200 lbs but jerk 230 lbs, even though I have bad form. Also remember that in modern times we are much much stronger than past generations simply from our superior nutrition and supplementation muscle building chemicals.
Also remember that in D&D terms the 3-18 range is the normal range. A world class olympic record holding weight lifter is 1 in a billion. I see nothing wrong with making 1 in a billion people having a "superhuman" ability. As another example, do you think Einstein or Newton just had an 18 intelligence? Maybe they were special and had a 20.

The greatest attribute of D&D compared to a video games is you don't have to set a limit.
calvinNhobbes
08-10-06, 10:05 AM delete, double post
Nobody_
08-10-06, 10:54 AM I think this is a stupid debate really. Let me tell you why. D&D has two aspects to how rules are determined.

1) Realism

2) Game Balance

Both must be consisered. You are considereing only Realism when you make these changes.

Making Dexterity in charge of three significant combat values is very far from balanced, even if you do think it makes sense (although, as stated above, and undermentioned, agility (not speed) with a heavier, non-finessable weapon, requires strength).

Damage reduction from armor, while possibly more realistic, changes the mechanics of play dramatically. I don't even want to think about those consequences. Let me just say that there is a reason that the barbarian only gets DR+1 every four levels.

What about Hit points? A hit from a great sword should cleave any person in two, yet high level characters have enough hit points to take dozens of hits from large weapons like the great sword or the great axe (Or howabout a 30 foot magical explosion that doesn't kill you). Hit points should really never be higher than your constitution, and never get higher, because, realistically, hit points are based upon the size of a person, and the ability to take physical abuse without dying.

In fact, All AC should be damage reduction, because, realistically, if a person barely breaks your DEX AC, then they just made a glancing blow instead of a solid hit, which should only deal minimal damage.

That means that we need to make BAB increase the damage you deal, and now, we don't even have attack rolls any more, or we would, but they would only be modifiable with luck ponuses or penalties.

But it gets better, because, realistically, BAB would also increase your ability to avoid combat damage as well, because, realistically, the ability to fight with a weapon allows you to predict your opponents attacks as well, and avoid taking damage.

And so, ignoring a hundred other things that don't really make any sense in D&D (like Hide in plain sight, uncanny dodge, Improved evasion, Rules for Grappling, Rules for Tripping, Speed Climb, ALL Epic Level Skills, The system for leveling up, the entire magic system, the combat system, actions per turn, rules for flanking, ect...) you have a scenario where a single higher level character could take on literally thousands upon thousands of low level ones without taking a single point of damage.

Well thats a pretty crappy system if you ask me, and I want no part of it. The ramifications of sweeping rule changes are incalculable without lots of play testing. So here is the deal. You play test your system over the course of ten, 20-level campaigns, and then, if you think that it is balanced, suggest it.

Otherwise, what is the point?

That is my much needed, and probably provocational, rant on this subject. I leave it at that.

-Nobody
Voldar_Mecorthio
08-10-06, 10:56 AM I got rid of the two handed = hard to wield rule, it wasn't realistic, so you can stop arguing about it if you want. Or if you want to argue about it please start a new thread, don't hijack mine.
Tarsam_di_Caela
08-10-06, 11:01 AM As Titan_W has already told you there is an optional system in Unearthed Arcana in which characters trade AC for DR. You may take a look there for the ratio conversion and use it as reference. You may take also a look on the comments about how your game will change when using the optional rules.

Have you ever played Rolemaster? The combat mechanic is similar to your ideas. Is also much more realistic than D&D, hence more complex (which doesn't mean more or less funny). Characters die ofter in such realistic mechanics because that is was happen in real life. As my Rolemaster DM said once "the cementerys are full of dead heros".
Thelon Fairblade
08-11-06, 11:43 AM Another idea is to do what the Elric/Stormbringer system did, and Iron Heroes does: variable DR. Chain shirt provides 1-4 DR. Banded Mail provides 1-6. Full Plate provides 1-9 (or , to reflect its wonderfulness, perhaps 2-9 [d8+1] or even 4-9 [d6+3]).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Voldar_Mecorthio 08-09-06, 02:36 PM	Combat in D&D seems to be flawed. The modifiers are grouped together in nonsensical ways, and it just seems wrong. I have some ideas to fix combat though: It seems to me that armor class is seperated into two catagories: Agility and hardness. Agility reprosents how difficult you are to hit, and includes Dexterity bonus, deflection, a monk's bonus, dodge, and any other bonus that reprosents being difficult to hit. Hardness isn't how difficult you are to hit, it's how well you can absorb hits. Armor, shields, natural armor, and that kind of stuff are this way. It doesn't seem right to group them both together. Agility should be the only AC, hardness should be damage reduction. Wearing a suit of full plate and a tower shild as big as you are makes for a very big target, but good luck actually hurting the guy inside. Wearing no armor but having lightning fast reflexes makes you hard to hit, but if you are hit... ouch. Similarly, Strength applying to melee attack bonuses doesn't make sense either. I don't care how much force you can put behind your greatsword, If I can jump out of the way then you can't hit me. Dexterity should apply to the attack roll, and strength to the damage. Those are my changes. To sum them up: AC is only dexterity, deflection, the basic 10, Luck, and any other modifier that reprosents being hard to hit. Armor, Shields, Natural amor, or anything that reprosents hardness gives damage reduction equal to the amount of their AC bonus devided by 2, add 1. Magical bonus like divine/profane give half AC and half DR. Melee attack rolls are based on dexterity, damage stays the same, as does the mechanic for ranged combat. Enhancement bonuses stay the same. Any comments? [EDIT: changed a few things]
Titan W 08-09-06, 02:59 PM	UA and the varient rules SRD (I think) have rules for using armor a DR and due to the power of the DR ability it's not a 1-1 raito otherwise peoplei n full plate would be untouchable until about 12th level except by spellcasters. I think full plate gave like DR 5/- as an example. (Light armors were like 1/- or something I forget the details) The idea of Strength being used for attack bonus was that it represents using speed to make an attack harder to see and thus evade, and no, using a larger blade in two hands is not harder to direct than a rapier in one if you're just using speed of attack to direct your damage, using a thin blade with complex movements is why weapon finesse applies to the rapier in the first place, and not to a huge blade. (Speed is an application of force which strength determines and vice versa) and you never applied 1.5 strength to attack with a two-handed weilding, only on the damage of the weapon.
ShinQuickMan 08-09-06, 03:16 PM	Melee attack rolls are based on dexterity, light weapons get a +1 bonus, and two handed weapons get a -1 penalty. Damage stays the same, as does the mechanic for ranged combat. Enhancement bonuses stay the same. By this logic, one handed weapons held in two hands should also merit an attack bonus. But I agree more with what Titan W suggested.
Tony Vargas 08-09-06, 03:23 PM	It seems to me that armor class is seperated into two catagories: Agility and hardness. This isn't just how it seems to you - it's the difference between regular AC and Touch AC.
calvinNhobbes 08-09-06, 03:26 PM	Any comments? I got a few. And let me preface my comments with I do not think your system is wrong or necesarily illogical, and that many people have the exact same view as you for how combat should work, but I think the D&D system is actually a very good model for how comabt works. AC represents the chance of damaging your opponent. Obviously the first step is actually hitting them, represented by the touch AC which is comprised of agility attributes like dexterity, magic deflection, and dodging. The second step is bypassing their armor. You are NOT trying to break through it. If that were the case then you have to deal enough damage in a single blow to not only overcome the hardness of the armor, but then also enough damage to destroy the armor. You are trying to find a weak spot, or hit an area unprotected. The armor AC is the chance of you finding such a spot. Likewise, the natural armor AC is not the chance you are going to crack through the monsters thick scales, but the chance you will hit a weak spot between them. EDIT: Also note that damage can be highly variable. In my games, armor does add DR, but in flavor not mechnically. Say a spear trap hits you. If I roll a 1 or 2, maybe it stuck you but directly in you breast plate, punching through it enough to damage you but not fatally. Say I rolled a 6, well now the spear hit a weak spot in the side of the armor and punched right into you lung causing a potentially lethal blow. EDIT 2: As another aside. I houserule that adamatine armor does not give DR since that is obviosuly not consistant on my view of how AC and DR work. It instead significantly increases the AC. DR represents how much damage an opponent can resist if you manage to get through their armor. Most humanoids have no DR. If you get through the hard metal shell, the middle is soft and gooey. Similarly, a giant has a high natural armor, from thick harden skin, but if you can manage to get through it, they are just as vulnerable. Compare this to a zombie which has extraordianry DR/slashing. A zombie has no soft middle really because it is dead. Stabbing and beating on it is no very effective. The zombie has a little natural armor from its dried hardened skin and muscles, but most of it's protection is from not having a soft vulnerable inside. You need to hack off parts of it to be effective. This logical view needs to be some what suspended for supernatural DR like silver because we are now in the magical world. Now for strength vs dexterity for attack and damage rolls. Picture in your mind a 90 lb, 14 year olympic gynast doing handstands, and flips and somersualts on a 4 inch wide balance beam. I think it is safe to give her at least a 16 dex. Now give her a two-handed sword. Now give the 25 year old, 18 strength weight lifter the same sword. Who do you think would be able to swing it more effectively and accurately? As an exercise, go to the gym and pick up a five pound dumbell in one hand and swing your arm as hard as you can, but then try to stop your arm exactly in front of you. Even with just 5 lbs it is hard to stop your own momentum. A weak person would have little chance of controlling it. In fact the weight would control them. Obviously certain weapons are designed to be used more with agility than strength and the game accounts for this with weapon finesse.
Voldar_Mecorthio 08-09-06, 03:51 PM	Good point about two handed weapons, I changed that. I understand how the different variables included in AC, but I don't like how they include many different variables in the same roll, so the seperate AC and Dex to attack rolls stay.
Flintlockhandmedown 08-09-06, 04:03 PM	Well, for starters, this would shatter the careful balance the developers have made. It would cause all sorts of imbalances: magic items and granting the so called 'agility' type of armor class would become overpowered, items and abilities granting DR would become underpowered, dexterity would become worth more and strength would become worth less. Your changes would make a level two fighter all but invulnerable in full plate and a tower shield. The DR 12 it would grant would stop all but the mightiest attacks. This would make playing any class that isn't able to wear full plate or cast spells ludicrous, with the exception of monks, who would be the only characters with decent actual AC. Another thing, strength should firmly remain as the modifier for melee attacks, simply because the stronger you are, the faster you can swing a weapon, and the easier you can bat your opponent's weapon out of the way. To apply rules similar to these, you'd need to do a massive overhaul of the game. v4.0 perhaps, but not today, Lenny, not today.
Flintlockhandmedown 08-09-06, 04:17 PM	Picture in your mind a 90 lb, 14 year olympic gynast doing handstands, and flips and somersualts on a 4 inch wide balance beam. I think it is safe to give her at least a 16 dex. Now give her a two-handed sword. Now give the 25 year old, 18 strength weight lifter the same sword. Who do you think would be able to swing it more effectively and accurately? Do you know how strong you need to be to be a gymnast? I'd say shes probably heavier than 90 pounds and has a decent str score. Pure semantics of course, I fully get and agree with your point. Hmm...let's see, I'd say you could lift half your maximum load with your arms only, like they do on those hanging handle things when they hold themselves aloft like a T, and I'd say she's medium size and is 110 lbs. So that would mean she would have 16 Str, max load 230, half that 115. Actually I'm not sure the girls do that but that would mean the heavier guys would have even higher str scores to do that. Then again, using the same logic, weight lifters would have str scores in the 20's, since they lift hundreds of lbs. over their heads, which according to D&D is impossible for non-magicked humans. The heaviest weight ever lifted over a man's head was 586 lbs., which would require a str score of 23 according to D&D. So I guess it's impossible to convert real life to D&D. Anyways.
Nom 08-09-06, 07:41 PM	DR has this nasty problem that if it is to be effective against powerful attacks it renders you invulnerable to weak attacks. This is because AC is a statistical measure, whereas DR always applies. If I add 2 points of AC, I reduce my chance of suffering damage from X% to (X-10)%. This applies regardless of whether the attack has a 2 point or a 20 point damage potential. In contrast, if I add 2 points of DR, I render the 2 point attack completely ineffective, while having negligible effect on the 20 point attack. Also consider that Power Attack with a two-handed weapon allows trading to-hit for damage at 1:2. Thus, any AC to DR conversion must be at least this good. At low levels, I'd gladly reduce AC by 5 to gain DR 10/- - that's approximately invulnerable. At high levels, where a single hit can do 50+ points, DR 10/- will only reduce it to 40+ points, whereas 5 points of AC has a 25% chance of reducing it to 0.
Voldar_Mecorthio 08-09-06, 09:15 PM	I reduced the original DR value, should I reduce it more? I understand that this is a radical change, and I'm not going to impliment it in my games until it's completly finished. I don't want low level fighter being invincible, so should I reduce the DR any more? OA's armor=DR rules say half DR and half AC, but I don't want armor adding to AC, so I said that the DR is half plus one. Is that okay?
Alric 08-09-06, 09:20 PM	You know the old saying, if its not broken don't fix it. Theres really no reason to try and make your games more complex. As some people already said wearing armor does help you avoid being hit. If you take a glancing blow while not wearing armor you could actually get your entire arm cut off. Yet if the same glancing blow hit someone in full plate, it might bounce off harmlessly.
Nom 08-10-06, 12:36 AM	I reduced the original DR value, should I reduce it more? I understand that this is a radical change, and I'm not going to impliment it in my games until it's completly finished. I don't want low level fighter being invincible, so should I reduce the DR any more? OA's armor=DR rules say half DR and half AC, but I don't want armor adding to AC, so I said that the DR is half plus one. Is that okay?reducing DR is the last thing you want to do. As I noted above, DR from armour needs to be at least twice the AC you gave up just to have a hope of breaking even against powerful attacks. The drawback is that it then renders you invulnerable to less powerful attacks. The D&D AC rules have a few "features". Shields are actually a really effective way of avoiding being hit. Dodging only helps so much, especially when your opponent can afford to absorb your blows on his armour while you cannot afford to even take a glancing blow. And the rules just assume that parrying might be going on, without considering the defensive effect of armed vs unarmed. All these features downplay the value of armour & shields vs Dex. Mechanics that further skew this consideration in favour of Dex don't make it more realistic.
calvinNhobbes 08-10-06, 10:04 AM	Do you know how strong you need to be to be a gymnast? I'd say shes probably heavier than 90 pounds and has a decent str score. Pure semantics of course, I fully get and agree with your point. Hmm...let's see, I'd say you could lift half your maximum load with your arms only, like they do on those hanging handle things when they hold themselves aloft like a T, and I'd say she's medium size and is 110 lbs. So that would mean she would have 16 Str, max load 230, half that 115. Actually I'm not sure the girls do that but that would mean the heavier guys would have even higher str scores to do that. Then again, using the same logic, weight lifters would have str scores in the 20's, since they lift hundreds of lbs. over their heads, which according to D&D is impossible for non-magicked humans. The heaviest weight ever lifted over a man's head was 586 lbs., which would require a str score of 23 according to D&D. So I guess it's impossible to convert real life to D&D. Anyways. Female olympic gymnasts are very very tiny. Barely over 5 feet tall (usually shorter), and almost never over 100 lbs. The reason being, the larger you are the less control you have over your body due the physics (moments of inertia, torque on the joints, etc.) . Even male gymnasts are usually shorter than average. A female gymnast most likely does not have a strength score over 10 simply because they are so petite and women in general are not as strong as men especially their upper body. Which is why women do not do the iron cross in gymnastics. In general their upper body is not strong enough to do it. Strength is one of those attributes that has an easy to define quantitative measure and therefore it can off the scale. However, one thing to note about example you gave. The 586 lb record is for the clean and jerk, which is not quite the same as just lifting the weight over your head. It is complicated movement that utilizes not only strength, but also skill, training, agility and speed. For example, I can military press 200 lbs but jerk 230 lbs, even though I have bad form. Also remember that in modern times we are much much stronger than past generations simply from our superior nutrition and supplementation muscle building chemicals. Also remember that in D&D terms the 3-18 range is the normal range. A world class olympic record holding weight lifter is 1 in a billion. I see nothing wrong with making 1 in a billion people having a "superhuman" ability. As another example, do you think Einstein or Newton just had an 18 intelligence? Maybe they were special and had a 20. The greatest attribute of D&D compared to a video games is you don't have to set a limit.
calvinNhobbes 08-10-06, 10:05 AM	delete, double post
Nobody_ 08-10-06, 10:54 AM	I think this is a stupid debate really. Let me tell you why. D&D has two aspects to how rules are determined. 1) Realism 2) Game Balance Both must be consisered. You are considereing only Realism when you make these changes. Making Dexterity in charge of three significant combat values is very far from balanced, even if you do think it makes sense (although, as stated above, and undermentioned, agility (not speed) with a heavier, non-finessable weapon, requires strength). Damage reduction from armor, while possibly more realistic, changes the mechanics of play dramatically. I don't even want to think about those consequences. Let me just say that there is a reason that the barbarian only gets DR+1 every four levels. What about Hit points? A hit from a great sword should cleave any person in two, yet high level characters have enough hit points to take dozens of hits from large weapons like the great sword or the great axe (Or howabout a 30 foot magical explosion that doesn't kill you). Hit points should really never be higher than your constitution, and never get higher, because, realistically, hit points are based upon the size of a person, and the ability to take physical abuse without dying. In fact, All AC should be damage reduction, because, realistically, if a person barely breaks your DEX AC, then they just made a glancing blow instead of a solid hit, which should only deal minimal damage. That means that we need to make BAB increase the damage you deal, and now, we don't even have attack rolls any more, or we would, but they would only be modifiable with luck ponuses or penalties. But it gets better, because, realistically, BAB would also increase your ability to avoid combat damage as well, because, realistically, the ability to fight with a weapon allows you to predict your opponents attacks as well, and avoid taking damage. And so, ignoring a hundred other things that don't really make any sense in D&D (like Hide in plain sight, uncanny dodge, Improved evasion, Rules for Grappling, Rules for Tripping, Speed Climb, ALL Epic Level Skills, The system for leveling up, the entire magic system, the combat system, actions per turn, rules for flanking, ect...) you have a scenario where a single higher level character could take on literally thousands upon thousands of low level ones without taking a single point of damage. Well thats a pretty crappy system if you ask me, and I want no part of it. The ramifications of sweeping rule changes are incalculable without lots of play testing. So here is the deal. You play test your system over the course of ten, 20-level campaigns, and then, if you think that it is balanced, suggest it. Otherwise, what is the point? That is my much needed, and probably provocational, rant on this subject. I leave it at that. -Nobody
Voldar_Mecorthio 08-10-06, 10:56 AM	I got rid of the two handed = hard to wield rule, it wasn't realistic, so you can stop arguing about it if you want. Or if you want to argue about it please start a new thread, don't hijack mine.
Tarsam_di_Caela 08-10-06, 11:01 AM	As Titan_W has already told you there is an optional system in Unearthed Arcana in which characters trade AC for DR. You may take a look there for the ratio conversion and use it as reference. You may take also a look on the comments about how your game will change when using the optional rules. Have you ever played Rolemaster? The combat mechanic is similar to your ideas. Is also much more realistic than D&D, hence more complex (which doesn't mean more or less funny). Characters die ofter in such realistic mechanics because that is was happen in real life. As my Rolemaster DM said once "the cementerys are full of dead heros".
Thelon Fairblade 08-11-06, 11:43 AM	Another idea is to do what the Elric/Stormbringer system did, and Iron Heroes does: variable DR. Chain shirt provides 1-4 DR. Banded Mail provides 1-6. Full Plate provides 1-9 (or , to reflect its wonderfulness, perhaps 2-9 [d8+1] or even 4-9 [d6+3]).