New Armor Use [Archive] - Wizards Community

New Armor Use [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
JimProfit
11-24-07, 07:51 PM I don't think AC really fits the notion of "dodging" an attack. Armor would weigh you down, so you'd more likely get more hit. But then damage reduction doesn't exactly quite fit armor either.

In a crazed rant not even related to D&D. I thought of it. Armor provides a deflection bonus. A deflection bonus is issued by rolling a d100 and trying to get equal to or under the deflection score of your shield/armor whenever you're damaged. Bassicaly what armor/shields do now is provide a means of avoiding damage from any one source at a time.

Say padded armor, the cheapest kindof armor. Has an AC bonus of 1. So now you have a deflection score of 1. So it only has a 1% chance of "deflecting" the attack.

Full-Plate has an 8% chance. Bigger, but not very good.

One thing I did workout was that deflection using your armor is independant from deflection using your shield.

Say you're wearing a chan-skirt (4%) and a buckler (1%)

Pretty crappy odds, but you get to roll 2d100. One for the chain-skirt, and one for the buckler to "deflect" the attack.

What'chu think?:D
Krusk
11-25-07, 01:28 AM I dont think anyone will ever wear armor in your games again.

Full plate can at most be giving say a 15% miss chance? thats still pretty low odds, and the character would be better off spending the money on a sowrd that has a huge chance to hit anyone.

Not to say this is exactly a bad idea. Two suggestions.

1- Do this rule along with Armor as DR or half DR. This gives plenty of incentive for players to still wear armor, but still incorperates your idea, which makes sense.

2- give Double or even tripple bonus to miss chance. Leather with +1 ac gives 3% miss chance, and the full plate that normally gives 15 gives 45%.
Voran
11-25-07, 02:30 AM Hm. If you buffed the percentages I could see it working, but as the original example stands, even the best armor will be useful once in a blue moon.
Napoleon_the_Clown
11-25-07, 04:49 AM What's been said...

Full-plate offered great protection against weapons of the time. Which is why people who could afford it wore it, despite the expense of it. Making it worthless would be making the game even less realistic then it already is and also less fun.
Slapstick87
11-25-07, 08:20 AM Full plate should probably give at least ~75% deflect chance, but a critical hit should not have a chance to get deflected. Just swinging a sword at someone in a full suit of plate armor is pretty futile. Unless you get that one good hit that goes straight through the eyes and into the skull.
UAMDB
11-25-07, 10:34 PM Not counting bonus to hit every point of Armour adds about a 5% chance of not getting hit. You could maybe use something along those lines.
Rustmonster
11-26-07, 11:23 AM The AC system is an abstraction. It represents both dodging and being able to turn blows (with armour, natural armour, sheild bonus, etc). I see no need to change the system around, as later on, you will constantly be hit because of your low AC, and then will have to relie on the low percentage chance that your armour will actually be useful.
Holy_Beholder
11-26-07, 10:00 PM Rolling over deflection with a d100 is the exact same as rolling over armor, except for you roll once to bypass dexterity, and once to bypass armor. Maybe again to bypass the shield. The hundred sided die is entirely unnecessary, and there are two rolls to much.
Werral
12-02-07, 05:52 PM Holy Beholder is right. If your hit was deflected by armour and does no damge then in what sense can it be considered a "hit"?

If you followed this to it's logical conclusion you'd end up with:§

1) roll to hit.
Yay I hit!

No, because:
2) defender makes armour roll
They failed can I roll for damage now?
No, because 3) defender makes shield roll
and 4) defender makes dodge roll
and 5) defender makes parry roll

All of these things are seperate things, but they are all part of whether an attack "hits" (As in does damage) or not. Already the fact that with DR you can "hit" for no damage is a roll to many in my mind.
Knightblde
12-02-07, 09:23 PM The AC of Armor/Shield isn't to see if the weapon touches you, it is to see if it breaks through the armor.

Your idea turns all attacks into touch attacks with a saving throw. This makes no sense at all, and is clearly no longer D&D.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JimProfit 11-24-07, 07:51 PM	I don't think AC really fits the notion of "dodging" an attack. Armor would weigh you down, so you'd more likely get more hit. But then damage reduction doesn't exactly quite fit armor either. In a crazed rant not even related to D&D. I thought of it. Armor provides a deflection bonus. A deflection bonus is issued by rolling a d100 and trying to get equal to or under the deflection score of your shield/armor whenever you're damaged. Bassicaly what armor/shields do now is provide a means of avoiding damage from any one source at a time. Say padded armor, the cheapest kindof armor. Has an AC bonus of 1. So now you have a deflection score of 1. So it only has a 1% chance of "deflecting" the attack. Full-Plate has an 8% chance. Bigger, but not very good. One thing I did workout was that deflection using your armor is independant from deflection using your shield. Say you're wearing a chan-skirt (4%) and a buckler (1%) Pretty crappy odds, but you get to roll 2d100. One for the chain-skirt, and one for the buckler to "deflect" the attack. What'chu think?:D
Krusk 11-25-07, 01:28 AM	I dont think anyone will ever wear armor in your games again. Full plate can at most be giving say a 15% miss chance? thats still pretty low odds, and the character would be better off spending the money on a sowrd that has a huge chance to hit anyone. Not to say this is exactly a bad idea. Two suggestions. 1- Do this rule along with Armor as DR or half DR. This gives plenty of incentive for players to still wear armor, but still incorperates your idea, which makes sense. 2- give Double or even tripple bonus to miss chance. Leather with +1 ac gives 3% miss chance, and the full plate that normally gives 15 gives 45%.
Voran 11-25-07, 02:30 AM	Hm. If you buffed the percentages I could see it working, but as the original example stands, even the best armor will be useful once in a blue moon.
Napoleon_the_Clown 11-25-07, 04:49 AM	What's been said... Full-plate offered great protection against weapons of the time. Which is why people who could afford it wore it, despite the expense of it. Making it worthless would be making the game even less realistic then it already is and also less fun.
Slapstick87 11-25-07, 08:20 AM	Full plate should probably give at least ~75% deflect chance, but a critical hit should not have a chance to get deflected. Just swinging a sword at someone in a full suit of plate armor is pretty futile. Unless you get that one good hit that goes straight through the eyes and into the skull.
UAMDB 11-25-07, 10:34 PM	Not counting bonus to hit every point of Armour adds about a 5% chance of not getting hit. You could maybe use something along those lines.
Rustmonster 11-26-07, 11:23 AM	The AC system is an abstraction. It represents both dodging and being able to turn blows (with armour, natural armour, sheild bonus, etc). I see no need to change the system around, as later on, you will constantly be hit because of your low AC, and then will have to relie on the low percentage chance that your armour will actually be useful.
Holy_Beholder 11-26-07, 10:00 PM	Rolling over deflection with a d100 is the exact same as rolling over armor, except for you roll once to bypass dexterity, and once to bypass armor. Maybe again to bypass the shield. The hundred sided die is entirely unnecessary, and there are two rolls to much.
Werral 12-02-07, 05:52 PM	Holy Beholder is right. If your hit was deflected by armour and does no damge then in what sense can it be considered a "hit"? If you followed this to it's logical conclusion you'd end up with:§ 1) roll to hit. Yay I hit! No, because: 2) defender makes armour roll They failed can I roll for damage now? No, because 3) defender makes shield roll and 4) defender makes dodge roll and 5) defender makes parry roll All of these things are seperate things, but they are all part of whether an attack "hits" (As in does damage) or not. Already the fact that with DR you can "hit" for no damage is a roll to many in my mind.
Knightblde 12-02-07, 09:23 PM	The AC of Armor/Shield isn't to see if the weapon touches you, it is to see if it breaks through the armor. Your idea turns all attacks into touch attacks with a saving throw. This makes no sense at all, and is clearly no longer D&D.