Armor as Damage Reduction as Feats? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Armor as Damage Reduction as Feats? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
ClothedUpon
12-23-04, 06:58 PM Feat: Armor as Damage Reduction

Instead of blanketly implementing Armor as Damage Reduction from Unearthed Arcana, I'd like to make the ability to take advantage of the potential damage reduction provided by armor into a feat or series of feats. The idea is that some are proficient with their armor while others are better at maximizing its potential benefits.

Has anyone done this? What were the results? How'd you implement it?
Ranger REG
12-23-04, 09:06 PM I implement the d20 Modern armor non-proficiency bonus: +1 for light, +2 for medium, and +3 for heavy. No DR. ACP toward all movement of any kind and attack roll. For FX, divine and arcane spellcasting automatically fail.
Degobah
12-24-04, 12:51 AM It wouldn't work. Since the DR variant reduces the AC bonus from the armour, a character would be actually taking a feat that reduces their armour's ability to protect them (by halving its AC bonus). Then there's the realism issue of armour reducing weapon impacts for one person and doing nothing for everyone else.
ClothedUpon
12-24-04, 05:27 PM I implement the d20 Modern armor non-proficiency bonus: +1 for light, +2 for medium, and +3 for heavy. No DR. ACP toward all movement of any kind and attack roll. For FX, divine and arcane spellcasting automatically fail.

Thanks, Ranger REG.

I'm not too familiar with d20 modern. I stick pretty close to 3.5 DnD and sometimes throw in ideas from previous editions of DnD. That said, I don't really understand what the d20 Modern non-armor proficiency bonuses are and do.

From what you written, the idea of an AC penalty toward all movement and any kind of attack roll sounds interesting, though.

I might have to go and check the d20 Modern SRD and see what I can learn about this concept.

Thanks.
ClothedUpon
12-24-04, 05:42 PM It wouldn't work. Since the DR variant reduces the AC bonus from the armour, a character would be actually taking a feat that reduces their armour's ability to protect them (by halving its AC bonus). Then there's the realism issue of armour reducing weapon impacts for one person and doing nothing for everyone else.

Thanks, Degobah.

You have good points that would have to be addressed.

1. The DR variant as presented in Unearthed Arcana does change the AC bonus provided by the armor. I not sure I really want to implement that idea across the board. I'd kind of like to keep the AC benefits to armor as is in the Player's Handbook. The primary reason for this is that not everyone would necessarily be as well trained at using armor as damage reduction. And, as you've noted, if it's a feat or series of feats, I don't want everyone who doesn't have the feats to start getting hit more often because of the lack of training to take advantage of the armor's DR capabilities. I'd like to leave the AC bonuses the same as the PHB.

2. I like the issue you raise concerning realism. However, I'm not sure that it would really reduce realism to say that one person knew how to better avail themselves of a particular type of armor or armor type than another. The way I see it is that if a character can take a feat like weapon focus that grants a +1 to hit with a certain weapon, why not let another character take a feat that would grant a point of damage reduction (or multiple points based on armor type)?
ClothedUpon
12-24-04, 06:01 PM (This is a little off the topic of the idea of feats to improve one's ability to utilize armor for damage reduction.)

ARMOR: Harder to Hit or Harder to Hurt?

In my opinion, I perceive that in the standard DnD rules the bonuses to AC provided by armor do not actually deacrease the wearer's chance of being hit. Many times, when a miss is rolled by an attacker, the blow might really have connected, but not with enough force to do damage. In that case, even with the standard rules, the armor is providing damage reduction. It's just not measured on a point by point basis. It's all or nothing. A connecting blow either does damage or is damage reduced entirely because of the armor.

Effectively, any attack roll that results in a number high enough to hit the character or creatures Touch AC connects, but the armor (or other things) provide enough protection to negate the damage (which is why I believe that the Strength modifier is usually applied on attack rolls).

In effect, the entire AC bonus provided by a given type of armor in the standard 3.5 rules is damage reduction of sorts. It just doesn't work like other types of damage reduction.

That said, I'm wondering why we don't just use the Touch AC, instead of having a seperate AC that factors in adjustments for armor. What would be the effect of just using the straight armor bonus provided by a given armor as damage reduction instead of an AC bonus (other than making many weapons irrelavant against persons or creatures using certain types of armor)?

Also, certain weaposn would probably be better at bypassing the DR or certain types of armor, too. Any ideas.
Vahenir
12-27-04, 09:48 PM 2. I like the issue you raise concerning realism. However, I'm not sure that it would really reduce realism to say that one person knew how to better avail themselves of a particular type of armor or armor type than another. The way I see it is that if a character can take a feat like weapon focus that grants a +1 to hit with a certain weapon, why not let another character take a feat that would grant a point of damage reduction (or multiple points based on armor type)?

It is unrealistic. Let's say my friend Steve and I put on two identical harnesses (D&D full plate). I am fully versed in wearing armour, he is not. Now, we pick up two pieces of soft plastic pipe. I am a fully capable swordsman and I'm trained in a multitude of weapons and fighting styles. I'm not going to be able to hurt him. Why? Not because he's good at wearing armour - because he's not. That is evident by the fact that he's having trouble moving in it. Why can't I hurt him? Because the armour is solid steel.

Fact is - it's the armour itself.. not how well you wear it, that determines how protected you are from attack. How good you are at wearing the armour is what determines how well you move around in it.
Robbo
12-28-04, 05:30 AM I agree that a given suit of armour should always provide the same level of protection to whoever wears it (except perhaps if it doesn't fit properly!). Creating a feat for armour in general seems nonsensical, although I could imagine feats that improve the effectiveness of a buckler or even Wonder-Woman style wrist bands, giving a bonus in a similar way to Weapon Specialisation...but to AC or DR...
Ranger REG
12-31-04, 02:44 AM Thanks, Degobah.

You have good points that would have to be addressed.

1. The DR variant as presented in Unearthed Arcana does change the AC bonus provided by the armor. I not sure I really want to implement that idea across the board. I'd kind of like to keep the AC benefits to armor as is in the Player's Handbook. The primary reason for this is that not everyone would necessarily be as well trained at using armor as damage reduction. And, as you've noted, if it's a feat or series of feats, I don't want everyone who doesn't have the feats to start getting hit more often because of the lack of training to take advantage of the armor's DR capabilities. I'd like to leave the AC bonuses the same as the PHB.
Alone it would be an issue, but if you marry "Armor as DR" with "Class Defense Bonus" rules (see Unearthed Arcana) they work well together. As with d20 Modern, I'd rather stack armor's AC bonus with Class Defense Bonus.
trodaimionn
12-31-04, 02:12 PM What I have done is created a series of feats that reduce the penalty to max Dex, armor penalty and arcane spell failure. Goes like this

(Armor Type) Maneuverability (General, Fighter)
Prereq. ability to use this type of armor
This feat increase the wearers ability to move in armor. It reduces the penalty to max Dexterity and aromor penalty by 1, as well as reduce arcane spell failure by 5%.
This feat may be purchased multiple times, its effects stack.
Ranger REG
01-01-05, 08:35 PM Personally, I don't like the stacking capability of the feat. It should be taken multiple times, but for each armor (e.g., studded leather, chain shirt, hide, etc.).
Schmidit
01-01-05, 11:03 PM In the ebberon campaighn the warforged race can take a feat that gives them a +1 to DR. You can take it multiple times and the feat stacks. This doesn't seem to bad because even at 18th level you'll only have DR 6, and at that level it wont be to overpowered.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ClothedUpon 12-23-04, 06:58 PM	Feat: Armor as Damage Reduction Instead of blanketly implementing Armor as Damage Reduction from Unearthed Arcana, I'd like to make the ability to take advantage of the potential damage reduction provided by armor into a feat or series of feats. The idea is that some are proficient with their armor while others are better at maximizing its potential benefits. Has anyone done this? What were the results? How'd you implement it?
Ranger REG 12-23-04, 09:06 PM	I implement the d20 Modern armor non-proficiency bonus: +1 for light, +2 for medium, and +3 for heavy. No DR. ACP toward all movement of any kind and attack roll. For FX, divine and arcane spellcasting automatically fail.
Degobah 12-24-04, 12:51 AM	It wouldn't work. Since the DR variant reduces the AC bonus from the armour, a character would be actually taking a feat that reduces their armour's ability to protect them (by halving its AC bonus). Then there's the realism issue of armour reducing weapon impacts for one person and doing nothing for everyone else.
ClothedUpon 12-24-04, 05:27 PM	I implement the d20 Modern armor non-proficiency bonus: +1 for light, +2 for medium, and +3 for heavy. No DR. ACP toward all movement of any kind and attack roll. For FX, divine and arcane spellcasting automatically fail. Thanks, Ranger REG. I'm not too familiar with d20 modern. I stick pretty close to 3.5 DnD and sometimes throw in ideas from previous editions of DnD. That said, I don't really understand what the d20 Modern non-armor proficiency bonuses are and do. From what you written, the idea of an AC penalty toward all movement and any kind of attack roll sounds interesting, though. I might have to go and check the d20 Modern SRD and see what I can learn about this concept. Thanks.
ClothedUpon 12-24-04, 05:42 PM	It wouldn't work. Since the DR variant reduces the AC bonus from the armour, a character would be actually taking a feat that reduces their armour's ability to protect them (by halving its AC bonus). Then there's the realism issue of armour reducing weapon impacts for one person and doing nothing for everyone else. Thanks, Degobah. You have good points that would have to be addressed. 1. The DR variant as presented in Unearthed Arcana does change the AC bonus provided by the armor. I not sure I really want to implement that idea across the board. I'd kind of like to keep the AC benefits to armor as is in the Player's Handbook. The primary reason for this is that not everyone would necessarily be as well trained at using armor as damage reduction. And, as you've noted, if it's a feat or series of feats, I don't want everyone who doesn't have the feats to start getting hit more often because of the lack of training to take advantage of the armor's DR capabilities. I'd like to leave the AC bonuses the same as the PHB. 2. I like the issue you raise concerning realism. However, I'm not sure that it would really reduce realism to say that one person knew how to better avail themselves of a particular type of armor or armor type than another. The way I see it is that if a character can take a feat like weapon focus that grants a +1 to hit with a certain weapon, why not let another character take a feat that would grant a point of damage reduction (or multiple points based on armor type)?
ClothedUpon 12-24-04, 06:01 PM	(This is a little off the topic of the idea of feats to improve one's ability to utilize armor for damage reduction.) ARMOR: Harder to Hit or Harder to Hurt? In my opinion, I perceive that in the standard DnD rules the bonuses to AC provided by armor do not actually deacrease the wearer's chance of being hit. Many times, when a miss is rolled by an attacker, the blow might really have connected, but not with enough force to do damage. In that case, even with the standard rules, the armor is providing damage reduction. It's just not measured on a point by point basis. It's all or nothing. A connecting blow either does damage or is damage reduced entirely because of the armor. Effectively, any attack roll that results in a number high enough to hit the character or creatures Touch AC connects, but the armor (or other things) provide enough protection to negate the damage (which is why I believe that the Strength modifier is usually applied on attack rolls). In effect, the entire AC bonus provided by a given type of armor in the standard 3.5 rules is damage reduction of sorts. It just doesn't work like other types of damage reduction. That said, I'm wondering why we don't just use the Touch AC, instead of having a seperate AC that factors in adjustments for armor. What would be the effect of just using the straight armor bonus provided by a given armor as damage reduction instead of an AC bonus (other than making many weapons irrelavant against persons or creatures using certain types of armor)? Also, certain weaposn would probably be better at bypassing the DR or certain types of armor, too. Any ideas.
Vahenir 12-27-04, 09:48 PM	2. I like the issue you raise concerning realism. However, I'm not sure that it would really reduce realism to say that one person knew how to better avail themselves of a particular type of armor or armor type than another. The way I see it is that if a character can take a feat like weapon focus that grants a +1 to hit with a certain weapon, why not let another character take a feat that would grant a point of damage reduction (or multiple points based on armor type)? It is unrealistic. Let's say my friend Steve and I put on two identical harnesses (D&D full plate). I am fully versed in wearing armour, he is not. Now, we pick up two pieces of soft plastic pipe. I am a fully capable swordsman and I'm trained in a multitude of weapons and fighting styles. I'm not going to be able to hurt him. Why? Not because he's good at wearing armour - because he's not. That is evident by the fact that he's having trouble moving in it. Why can't I hurt him? Because the armour is solid steel. Fact is - it's the armour itself.. not how well you wear it, that determines how protected you are from attack. How good you are at wearing the armour is what determines how well you move around in it.
Robbo 12-28-04, 05:30 AM	I agree that a given suit of armour should always provide the same level of protection to whoever wears it (except perhaps if it doesn't fit properly!). Creating a feat for armour in general seems nonsensical, although I could imagine feats that improve the effectiveness of a buckler or even Wonder-Woman style wrist bands, giving a bonus in a similar way to Weapon Specialisation...but to AC or DR...
Ranger REG 12-31-04, 02:44 AM	Thanks, Degobah. You have good points that would have to be addressed. 1. The DR variant as presented in Unearthed Arcana does change the AC bonus provided by the armor. I not sure I really want to implement that idea across the board. I'd kind of like to keep the AC benefits to armor as is in the Player's Handbook. The primary reason for this is that not everyone would necessarily be as well trained at using armor as damage reduction. And, as you've noted, if it's a feat or series of feats, I don't want everyone who doesn't have the feats to start getting hit more often because of the lack of training to take advantage of the armor's DR capabilities. I'd like to leave the AC bonuses the same as the PHB. Alone it would be an issue, but if you marry "Armor as DR" with "Class Defense Bonus" rules (see Unearthed Arcana) they work well together. As with d20 Modern, I'd rather stack armor's AC bonus with Class Defense Bonus.
trodaimionn 12-31-04, 02:12 PM	What I have done is created a series of feats that reduce the penalty to max Dex, armor penalty and arcane spell failure. Goes like this (Armor Type) Maneuverability (General, Fighter) Prereq. ability to use this type of armor This feat increase the wearers ability to move in armor. It reduces the penalty to max Dexterity and aromor penalty by 1, as well as reduce arcane spell failure by 5%. This feat may be purchased multiple times, its effects stack.
Ranger REG 01-01-05, 08:35 PM	Personally, I don't like the stacking capability of the feat. It should be taken multiple times, but for each armor (e.g., studded leather, chain shirt, hide, etc.).
Schmidit 01-01-05, 11:03 PM	In the ebberon campaighn the warforged race can take a feat that gives them a +1 to DR. You can take it multiple times and the feat stacks. This doesn't seem to bad because even at 18th level you'll only have DR 6, and at that level it wont be to overpowered.