Post/Author/DateTime	Post
CJDragon 01-31-05, 03:10 PM	I'm not sure if I'm posting this in the right place, so I appologise if it should have been somewhere else, but im still kinda new.... :rolleyes: The players said they wanted more of a challenge by including rules that make the game more realistic. However, its my job to come up with these rules..... So far i have: 1. Parrying to be used more often to suppliment defences (not sure if this is in core rules.... basically opposed attack rolls) 2. Dividing up AC's so that you apply dex mod first, then dodge mods, then defletion, then shield, then parry and lastly armour. If an enemy doesnt score a hit on you but would hit your weapon/shield/armor, then they could damage the item. They roll damage as normal and if they beat the hardness they score damage. This will mean that players using mundane armour may have to buy new armour frequently 3. New material types for weapons and armour to make choices more tactical, such as a weapon with +5 hardness, but -7hp. This allows two characters with the same equipment to still be different, and also mean they could by the same item more than once, but from different materials 4. Weapons take damage from attacking items and basically anything with a hardness value. I think a formula such as the opposing items hardness +attackers strength is good Does the formula for attacking items not work in some situations, or does anyone have a better one? has anyone got any rules like these that they have used? Any material ideas for aromor and weapons? Basically anything that you think could help, i would be gratful to recieve thanks
Eightbitmage 01-31-05, 03:23 PM	While yes, these changes make the game a bit more realistic, they make it so that you have to roll a lot more dice and keep track of a lot more stuff, which slows the game down a lot. This is the problem with most realistic things. Yes you can take them into account, but it will make combat about 30 min longer. Not to mention making it so that armored chars have to worry more about money. (although i guess it could be arranged that any repairs to armor come out of the loot before its devided.) As for the different types of weapons, I don't see much reason why not. Just make sure they are balanced, and priced accordingly.
Alcari Ambaron 01-31-05, 03:26 PM	im not very much in favor of this idea, for the same reasons as Eightbitmage. but i think the damage on shields and armor should not be the smae for all weapons, a rapier is less likely to damage a shield then a longsword, and a punching dagger/arrow could rip a hole in a shield, destroying it.
Board_Rider 01-31-05, 04:02 PM	While I applaud you for trying to incorporate "realism" into the game, I am afraid that I agree with the above two posters. Trying to bring in realism to an already exhaustive and abstract combat systems usually leads to more trouble than just leaving the system as is. Especially at high levels when combat drags on enough. I like the system though...
Stuntman 01-31-05, 04:16 PM	The players said they wanted more of a challenge by including rules that make the game more realistic. What exactly do you mean by more of a challenge? Do your players want their stuff to break more easily? If so, then change the tactics of your monsters and NPC's. Use sunder, grease and disarm more often. Don't forget that if a player rolls a 1 on a save, the effect can affect an item the PC is carrying. Parrying is already handled by the rules. It's called fighting defensively, total defense, combat expertise and improved combat expertise. If you want a simple method that allows for armour and weapons breakage, just use a simple damage point system. If a player is hit, his armour loses one hp. Simple as that. If a player attacks and rolls a 1, his weapon takes 1 point of damage. The only thing is that adding all of these rules will slow the game down. I recommend against adding new rules for this reason. The current combat rules are quick enough to keep combat moving at a good pace and complex enough to do special maneuvers. Another thing is that if you start doing stuff like this, you put characters that use weapons and armour at a disadvantage and put spellcasters at an advantage. If your players aren't being challenged enough, perhaps you should just increase the number and CR of your encounters.
Tek 01-31-05, 04:22 PM	It sounds to me like your players are slightly bored of combat, and they think realism will fix that. As everyone else has stated, it won't. Infact, it will make it more boring on a ten fold scale. Why not try and add flavor another way? Make your encounters more tactical. I've seen good ideas like.. fighting in a library where you can push the shelves down on your enemies, fighting on ledges that are lethal (beware of the bull rush!) and other similar situations. I would say try those before trying new rules.
Thoronmir 01-31-05, 04:33 PM	Tinkering with the RAW should be a last resort. D&D just isn’t built to track all the “realistic” conditions you’ve listed. Personally, I’d never capitulate to the players if it meant making so many more rolls and recording so much additional information. As has been said, try tweaking things in how you run encounters before you tweak the rules. If all else fails and your players still demand “realism,” you can always try a “minor” adaptation I implemented in a campaign. Rather than restore actual Hit Points, all healing (magical or otherwise) simply converts actual damage to non-lethal damage, which must then be recovered naturally. No more did the PCs rise from the shadow of death fully restored and renewed. Make that your first rules change in the name of “realism” and I bet your players quit complaining.
CJDragon 01-31-05, 04:54 PM	Thanks for all the feed back so far, but here are some things i forgot to mention (when i typed in the original i deleted the entire post acidentally, so had to type it again and forgot some stuff) Me and my friend are actually co-dming this campaign. We had too many players so we thought that having two dm's meant not only one less player to have to work with, but extra dm work 2. Thus we have one person doing the story reading, social interaction and "paperwork" each session, and one to keep the pace moving and do the combat. Otherwise I would agree and say that it was more hassle than its worth, but as thers two of us I think the added realism system combined with our talents mixed (im good at coming up with storys, hooks and flavour text, he's good and map drawing, world building and has pretty much memorized all 3 core rule books) So do you still think it would be too much work, even with 2 dm's? Thanks again for any feedback
Stuntman 01-31-05, 05:35 PM	Regardless of how many DM's you have, the game is still turn-based. When it is one character's turn, you still have to deal with his round of actions before moving onto the next character. You will still need to roll more dice for the added complexity in combat. With more dice and more rules, it will still slow down combat. If you want to make combat more interesting, use more interesting combat scenarios, tactics and battlefields. Make good use of terrain that slow down characters or provide cover and/or concealment (debris, structures and foliage). Create a tactical situation that is unfavourable to the PC's. Make it more than just move, attack, full-attack. Make them fight in a canyon, or burning building. All of these can be done with the existing rules.
PaladinSix 01-31-05, 06:49 PM	While modifying the core rules to make things more "realistic" can (and probably will) slow things down, If you and your co-DM think you can handle the extra paperwork, I say give it a try. One thing you might want to pick up is a copy of Unearthed Arcana. It has variant rules for hit points and damage, combat facing, and defense bonuses, among many others. There is also a back-issue of Dragon magazine (#301) that has rules for parrying, including several new feats. Might be available on the Paizo Publishing website. As far as weapon and armor damage, I use a system to what Stuntman described. Successful hits deal 1 hp of damage to armor (total HP=armor value x 5), and rolling a critical failure on an attack has a chance to deal 1 hp of damage to a weapon (among other things). Always bear in mind, however, that the D20 system is not really designed to be "realistic." Its designed to be fun and easily playable. Contrary to what many seem to think, fun and realistic are not mutually exclusive, but some systems are written to emphasize one over the other.
mercurial67 01-31-05, 07:23 PM	Try using a lot of the optional rules in the DMG before you come up with some of your own. Especially the more complicated ones. If you really want to add a bit more realism, there is one optional rule which states you can only take a standard action when you are at 1/2 your hitpoints or less. It means full round casting times suddenly take two rounds (two standard = full round action) and fighters can only take a single attack. It also forces them to think about their health much sooner than when they are down to the last 10hp. There are lots of optional rules already present. If you want even more, try Unearthed Arcana. It has several interesting ones as well such as getting rid of hit points and just requiring fort saves. Personally I like having the players roll ALL the dice (treat creature attacks as if they had a 10+attack bonus and then the players AC become (standard AC - 11) + 1d20). That gives them more to do (and you less) AND makes them feel like they have a bit more control. I actually do that for spell resistance so they are warding the spell off instead of the enemy breaking through their defenses.