Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Eliza_Stormwhisper 04-20-05, 06:05 AM	I have a simple proposition... instead of an armor type providing DR 3/- or so, why not have it "soak" a percentage of the damage taken? Leather armor would probably be 15% soak. So... if you took 20 damage, you lose 17 hit points. What do you think?
DM Zoc 04-20-05, 07:02 AM	Too difficult. The game tries to avoid multiplying fractions. It's also a bad idea to start working in percentages of anything, as numbers can get very big or very small depending on the situation.
Masterful_Norg 04-21-05, 02:09 AM	The way you've got it it would seem as though the armor becomes more effective the bigger the offending dammage source becomes. So even if its leather armor make sure you're wearing it when the bullet train hits, cause that's when its at its best.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 04-21-05, 02:15 AM	Hm. In response to these two replies: @DM Zoc: The epitome of laziness. @Masterful_Norg: I see what you mean. If armor is to serve as damage reduction, I don't think it should be an absolute value, but more dynamic. I can see the problems with my proposition.
HailSpork 04-21-05, 02:53 AM	If your group is math-oriented, there's no problem with percentages. However, in most groups I play in, there is no way we could do 15% of anything. Some people just can't do the math in their head, and the calculators would slow down the game. Also, the GM may want to do the math himself or check to see that some of the less math-inclined people didn't make a mistake. Anyway, a rule like that is very group-specific.
Tenzhi 04-21-05, 05:20 AM	@DM Zoc: The epitome of laziness. It's not so much a matter of laziness as a matter of what allows the game to run more smoothly. One might say it's lazy to not calculate wind-speed, inertia, and drag-coefficients into ranged attacks, for instance, but in reality doing so would greatly impact the ease and speed of play.
Jaxem 04-21-05, 04:38 PM	Greetings, The soaking version of armors could work, but it would require more than just a simple % of what it soaks. You would probably need to have a max amount of damage each armor can soak as well. An example: Lets say Leather soaks 15% up to a max of 10 points/attack. This would avoid the bullet train example mentioned since you would have a cap to how much protection it would grant. This would also make the possibility of having some armors have the same soak % but just have a higher cap. An additional complexity could also be to have an armor break after absorbing a total amount of damage. In the above example Leather Armor 15% Soak max 10pts/attack Break after 100 pts Just more ideas, -J [Edited to correct bad spelling :/]
weasel fierce 04-21-05, 07:50 PM	The best systems I have seen are either to just reduce the damage taken by a flat amount, or by a dice roll (I believe Stormbringer used that), to represent that armour does not cover equally well, in every location.
Loren Pechtel 04-21-05, 11:14 PM	Unearthed Arcana, page 112.
Sonn Athion 04-24-05, 04:24 PM	or by a dice roll (I believe Stormbringer used that), to represent that armour does not cover equally well, in every location. I don't really like this idea because you're effectively saying that armor jumps out of the way to avoid a blow. It would be more logical to apply DR by hit location.. that way a Roll of 17 to hit on the chest will always have DR 3..ect
HailSpork 04-24-05, 08:13 PM	you're effectively saying that armor jumps out of the way to avoid a blow That's a really odd interpretation... Still, with randomness in the damage roll itself, I don't think it's necessary to randomize the armor as well. A low damage roll may mean the armor was effective on that attack.
weasel fierce 04-24-05, 10:10 PM	I don't really like this idea because you're effectively saying that armor jumps out of the way to avoid a blow. No Im not It would be more logical to apply DR by hit location.. that way a Roll of 17 to hit on the chest will always have DR 3..ect Possible too, though it involves referring to a chart for each strike, as opposed to simply randomizing it. Also seems to be a bit too specific for D&D, which is inherently abstract in nature
Sonn Athion 04-24-05, 11:18 PM	Possible too, though it involves referring to a chart for each strike, as opposed to simply randomizing it. Also seems to be a bit too specific for D&D, which is inherently abstract in nature I was thinking more along the lines of Called Shots. I often have players that want to aim for arms, or the leg..ect.. So then a "to hit" penalty is used based on the location and then you consult what sort of DR the armor provides for that spot.. Hailspork, sort of elaborated on my "jumping armor" point.. the idea that damage is rolled is how you indicate where a blow lands.. if you're also rolling for amor that's an indication of where armor is at the exact time of the blow.. lets see if I can clarify this.. Player: Rolls an attack *17* Player: Rolls damage *6* DM: Rolls DR *3* Player: Rolls an attack *17* Player: Rolls damage *6* DM: Rolls DR *5* Both hits from the player were exactly the same so logically it's in the exact same location but the armor is a different value each time.. hence "Jumping armor"
weasel fierce 04-24-05, 11:22 PM	Both hits from the player were exactly the same so logically it's in the exact same location but the armor is a different value each time.. hence "Jumping armor" Only if you assume that hit roll determines location. Since the attack roll has no bearing on damage, save for criticals, this is not a logical conclusion. Mind, not saying that variable armour is the best solution, just that its a viable one.
Sonn Athion 04-24-05, 11:37 PM	Only if you assume that hit roll determines location. Since the attack roll has no bearing on damage, save for criticals, this is not a logical conclusion. Mind, not saying that variable armour is the best solution, just that its a viable one. Damage is an indication of the effect (or force) of the blow, and the "To hit" is the indication of location, Which is why a called shot is a penalty on the "to hit" roll. In summary, "To hit" decides whether or not you make contact, critical means you hit a vulnerable spot, and dmg roll is how hard/well you hit
weasel fierce 04-24-05, 11:53 PM	Damage is an indication of the effect (or force) of the blow, and the "To hit" is the indication of location, Which is why a called shot is a penalty on the "to hit" roll. In summary, "To hit" decides whether or not you make contact, critical means you hit a vulnerable spot, and dmg roll is how hard/well you hit Outside of critical hits (which function even against creatures with no vulnerable or even discernable locations, such as a black pudding), the hit roll has no bearing on what you hit, since D&D doesnt use locations. Called shots have a penalty because they are more difficult. If "to hit" is indicative of the location, what location do I hit if I roll a 5 ?
Sonn Athion 04-25-05, 12:06 AM	Outside of critical hits (which function even against creatures with no vulnerable or even discernable locations, such as a black pudding), the hit roll has no bearing on what you hit, since D&D doesnt use locations. Called shots have a penalty because they are more difficult. If "to hit" is indicative of the location, what location do I hit if I roll a 5 ? D&D uses hit locations in the variable rules. If you roll a 5 you hit the floor or perhaps a wall, or tree.. ect... Unless you're fighting an Ooze, in which case you hit the bottom left extremity (I note on Critical hits and monsters immune to crits; you're still making a hit in a solid location when you roll a nat. 20 but it has much less of an effect on a creature that doesn't require vital organs) Btw; the location of a called shot is still determined by a "to hit" roll meaning that the roll determines the location. Otherwise called shots should have a variable on damage and not "To hit" Another point; if "To Hit" Rolls were not an indication of hit locations then Criticals would be determined by a damage roll instead
weasel fierce 04-25-05, 12:09 AM	Variable rules are just that. Variants. Not the core rule. And if my hit bonus is good enough to hit on a 5, what body part do I hit ? Or if I roll a 10 ? Called shots modifying damage would make no sense. I aim for the head, so I do less damage ? Your level also modifies hit rolls. THat doesnt mean that level determines location.
Sonn Athion 04-25-05, 12:21 AM	Variable rules are just that. Variants. Not the core rule. Variants are added to give players with a strong grasp of the rules a more indepth and realistic game. D&D is streamlined for those who need to learn the rules and develop their Roleplaying skills. And if my hit bonus is good enough to hit on a 5, what body part do I hit ? Or if I roll a 10 ? The dice roll is the "luck" factor in the game, thats why its a roll. So you may not have a lucky swing but your skill as a fighter can compensate for that poor luck. Logically a roll of 5 would be a limb and a roll of 10 would be a torso shot.. depending on the level of the fighter of course. (a high level fighter could turn that 5 into a solid hit on the torso) Called shots modifying damage would make no sense. I aim for the head, so I do less damage ? Exactly, thats why "To Hit" Determines location Your level also modifies hit rolls. THat doesnt mean that level determines location. It most certainly does, a level 5 fighter is more likely to make solid contact between armor plates than a level 1 fighter.
weasel fierce 04-25-05, 12:27 AM	Logically a roll of 5 would be a limb and a roll of 10 would be a torso shot.. depending on the level of the fighter of course. If thats what you like to do, yeah. But the rules do not support anything of the sort. Doesnt mean its wrong to do so, but its interpretation, not what the writers intended. If it is indeed supported by the rules, please quote the page in the players handbook where it is stated, or where the hit location chart can be found. I may have missed something, but I am rather certain nothing such exists, simply because it is meant to be abstract and subject to interpretation. Mind, I am not saying that its wrong to interpret it such. Its a rather nice way of adding detail to combat encounters and make swordfights interesting. But its not what the rules as they are written, support or provide. WHich is what the above discussion revolved around, in relation to hte logic of hit points and the abstract nature of such (after all, hitting on a 17 does the same damage as hitting on a 10, hence meaning that if location is indeed determined by hit roll, location has no actual impact on the combat)
Sonn Athion 04-25-05, 01:02 AM	If thats what you like to do, yeah. But the rules do not support anything of the sort. Called Shots are the "by the book" way of doing hit location.. (If you want rules on how to handle this consult "Variant: Damage to specific Areas" on page 27 of the DMG) 3.0 (and 3.5) does not use hit charts in the core rules because it requires far too much time and research for the beginning player. (Though if you're interested you can update some from AD&D) "To hit" is boiled down to hit or miss because it makes the game streamlined and easy to understand.
weasel fierce 04-25-05, 01:06 AM	That gives one specific instance of how to hit a location, provided you declare your intention to do so. The basic "attack" roll and mechanic has nothing of the sort. Hence the original statement that it was logical to assume such, is erronous, if inventive and a show of creative thinking. AD&D doesnt have locations either. I believe original D&D had a section in Blackmoor, though it seems rather complex. Runequest is a good place to look for a good system, though it wouldnt work with large hit point totals, such as those we find in D&D.
Sonn Athion 04-25-05, 01:20 AM	The basic "attack" roll and mechanic has nothing of the sort. It was never a question of the Mechanic so much as the essence behind an attack roll and what it represents as a variable. So if you want to get back on track with the original discussion.. What does a variable DR represent? (Even if you disagree that the attack roll determines location then it would default to the damage roll) For hit location charts check out Player Option: Combat and Tactics for some great Critical hit locations...
weasel fierce 04-25-05, 01:24 AM	Allright, sorry if i got **** on you. I get a bit caught up in arguments since I tend to enjoy them :) A variable DR would represent a few things, since its fairly abstract: That most armour has strong and weak areas, for example, a plate mail suit is very hard to penetrate in the front, but the arms are likely exposed. Armour is not completely reliable, especially after being hit a few times by an umber hulk or a pick axe. Hence, even fairly uniform protection can let a blow through. A blow that is "blocked" may still hurt you, through blunt trauma and the sheer force of the hit. Of course, it can be argued that those are already represented by the damage roll, or at least partially so, and it does add an extra dice roll to the combat sequence.
Sonn Athion 04-25-05, 01:35 AM	Of course, it can be argued that those are already represented by the damage roll, or at least partially so, and it does add an extra dice roll to the combat sequence. I think thats what I (and my players) find odd about variable DR.. it's gained the nickname "jumping armor" because sometimes you have it and sometimes you don't.. If I've got this straight it sounds like Variable DR is determining Hit location... Ie: if I roll 1 for DR I'm being hit in the armpit... ect.. Though, just like attack rolls and damage rolls it would be more abstract than that.. I'm trying to find the exact logic.. The idea of armor becoming weaker after being hit and worn in makes perfect sense but it doesn't work for armor that was just forged
weasel fierce 04-25-05, 01:38 AM	Its sort of location yeah, among some other things. Good armour would be more likely to give good protection (by using a better dice roll). You could even have armour degrade over time (going from say, D6+3 to D6+1 or whatnot) The logic behind the mechanic is basically abstracting the hit location, without having to have rules for what happens to different locations.
Lina_Inverse 04-25-05, 02:22 AM	15% of 3 is zero.the things the armor is supposed to be best against,scratchs. and its just a strictly worse version of an armor increase.remember +1ac = FLAT 5% less damage per swing.
Draco Strang 04-26-05, 03:18 PM	15% of 3 is zero.the things the armor is supposed to be best against,scratchs. and its just a strictly worse version of an armor increase.remember +1ac = FLAT 5% less damage per swing. Say what? Lemme pull out my $100 dollar graphing calculator here...it's good at math. Yep...15% of 3 is 0.45. That's not zero.
Ulorian 04-26-05, 08:28 PM	Say what? Lemme pull out my $100 dollar graphing calculator here...it's good at math. Yep...15% of 3 is 0.45. That's not zero.But rounded down, it is zero.
Draco Strang 04-26-05, 10:48 PM	But rounded down, it is zero. Which, while true (and what D&D tells you to do) it's a lot closer to .5 HP than it is zero, and I can see a whole lot of houseruled systems using this "soak" method that would take into accout percentages of 1 HP. Some people are that ****.
Sonn Athion 04-26-05, 11:22 PM	Some people are that ****. "I am so smart, S.M.R.T" don't ask....
JohnS 04-27-05, 11:43 AM	I just use the system presented in Unearthed Arcana for soaking damage. It works fine (though, as a DM, I ceased using it on monsters - to difficult to keep track of lethal and nonlethal damage).