Post/Author/DateTime	Post
loaba 11-02-05, 05:13 PM	Armor Type DR vs Weapon Type ---------------------------------------------------------- Armor DR per Weapon Type Armor Type Bonus Slashing Piercing Bludgeoning Light Armor ---------------------------------------------- Padded +1 none none none Leather +1 none 1/- 2/- Studded Leather +2 2/- 2/- none Chain Shirt +2 3/- none 1/- Medium Armor --------------------------------------------- Hide +2 1/- none 3/- Scale mail +2 2/- 2/- none Chainmail +3 4/- none 1/- Breastplate +3 3/- 3/- none Heavy Armor ---------------------------------------------- Splint mail +3 2/- 2/- 3/- Banded mail +3 2/- 3/- 2/- Half-plate +4 3/- 3/- 2/- Full Plate +4 4/- 3/- 2/- Anyone remember the Armor Type vs. Weapon Type rules from 1e and 2e? My 3e group has an older player who really embraced that aspect of the previous combat system and in an effort to placate him, I created this chart using the variant Armor Damage Reduction rules found in the UA as a foundation. I placed this topic in the DM's forum first, but since this is combat-related, I thought I might park it over here as well. This chart is not set in stone, it is a work in progress. All input is appreciated (but if you tell me this is a dumb idea, be polite about it, eh?).
Tyler Do'Urden 11-02-05, 05:45 PM	I think you should swap the bludgeoning and piercing values for the heavy armors. Plate does much better against a mace than against a rapier. I mean the whole point of the estoc was to get through/between armor plating.
loaba 11-02-05, 05:55 PM	^I could see that, but then the whole point of blugeoning weapons was to break plate armor. :D
Kendrick 11-02-05, 06:22 PM	From a quick once-over of those values, it looks like that system would give a significant boost to bludgeoning weapons. Adding up the total DR offered by armor as you suggest, gives total slashing DR 26, total piercing DR 19, and total bludgeoning DR 16. Looks like it would be a huge hit against slashing weapons if you did that.
Rulebook 11-02-05, 06:25 PM	percision weapons were good and all, but things like hammers and maces are what scared knights, not guys with thin pointy swords.
loaba 11-02-05, 06:26 PM	^Yup, that it does. Thing is, that's accurate from a historical reference. One thing you could do is create a Greatsword alternate based off the Scottish claymore, that might placate some of your edge-guys. Also, another thing you could do is have the Greatsword (and probably the Bastard sword as well) treat Slash DR as 1/2.
Kendrick 11-02-05, 06:34 PM	And even if you don't consider the total of all armors, bludgeoning still gets a big boost. The armors I see most heavily used are the Chain Shirt, Breastplate, and Full-Plate. These have a cumulative DR of slashing 10, piercing 6, and bludgeoning 3. This looks like a fairly terrible idea to me, balance-wise. Among other things, it's a major hit against fighter-type characters at mid-high levels where that DR of 4 at most is next to meaningless, and the penalty of up to 4 AC keeps on hurting them.
Kendrick 11-02-05, 06:40 PM	^Yup, that it does. Thing is, that's accurate from a historical reference. So in your quest to pretend that D&D combat rules should be taken literally, you've decided that daggers should average more damage against an opponent in a chain shirt than a longsword. Bravo.
loaba 11-02-05, 06:57 PM	:rolleyes: Kendrick, take a deep breath. It will be okay. This system has not been playtested as of yet, and I am sure that any problems will become apparent in due time. What I forsee happening is that combat will become a bit more lethal and certain weapons in particular situations will shine more than others. If it really disrupts game-play, my group will figure that out and adjust as needed. Now, about your points... AC - yes, the AC values are lower, people are going to get hit and they are going to use up the HPs. Hmm, how is this a problem? That's just how combat works; it's dangerous. Bludgeoning weapons - kill. Sorry, that's a fact. Look at the development of weapons and armor, it's a game of one-up. Blunt force trauma is just plain hard to guard against. Balance - why must everything be perfectly and exactly balanced? Somethings are just plain better than others.
Kendrick 11-02-05, 07:07 PM	Balance - why must everything be perfectly and exactly balanced? Somethings are just plain better than others. People already complain about the fighter types being underpowered at high levels, and your system would give them yet another kick-in-the-nuts while leaving casters untouched. The result of implementing your system is that spellcasters and other armor-independant character types, such as monks, become more attractive while fighter types become less attractive. Your attempt to make melee combat more "realistic" (and it doesn't even do that - the peculiarities of the D&D system mean that your changes introduce more nonsensical anomolies) will result in fewer players being willing to play melee characters and engage in melee combat.
allenchan 11-02-05, 07:12 PM	Exactly, this just is one more thing that makes casters better. ps: why the heck is this not in the house rules forum???