AC vs Martial Defense (aka. DR on Armor) - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

AC vs Martial Defense (aka. DR on Armor)

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
nonstandard
Dec 28, 2008 15:17:46 One of the problems I had with the D20 system was that it scaled AC so high. Some D20 products fixed this by giving classes a +AC bonus (usually calling it something like Defense) and giving armor a damage reduction value instead. I liked this system, and I'm wondering if it can be adapted to 4e. Any thoughts?
#2
jrhorn424
Dec 28, 2008 16:59:20 Since the mechanics haven't changed from 3.5, I'd say just use the stuff from Unearthed Arcana.

You can search the SRD for variants on "Armor as Damage Reduction" and "Armor as Damage Conversion." The system my DM uses is as follows:

1) Armor bonus is split, half going to DR, half to DC (damage conversion). When splitting odd bonuses, the higher bonus goes to conversion.
2) Attacks are made against touch AC.
3) If an attack hits, the damage is reduced by the DR number. Damage after that equal to DC is converted to subdual damage. Damage after that is regular "lethal" damage.
#3
vebrandsson
Dec 28, 2008 17:54:49 I would almost suggest working on bringing back the old THAC0 system instead of this, but it couldn't effectively be adapted to 4e or even 3.x I don't think, and I'll give this idea merit as being realistic, but with the 4e add half your level to everything I don't know if a damage reduction system could be implimented with out throwing the system off. The biggest issue is making the conversion work for monsters, how much of a monster's defense is armor and how much is its "touch AC". You really have a hard time determining that, also how does this damage reduction effect elemental attacks, sure chain armor would reduce the damage from a maul, but wouldn't it amplify the damage from a lightning spell instead of reduce? The 4e system works fine as it is and trying to change it makes more problems than it would solve I think.
#4
nonstandard
Dec 29, 2008 20:02:44
The 4e system works fine as it is and trying to change it makes more problems than it would solve I think.

While I agree with much of what you have said, this I do not agree with. Though 4e is better than the 3e/3.5 system (IMO), I have always felt the constant escalation of HP, Attack Values, and AC along a linear pattern to be an inferior method.

Bringing back THAC0 is an interesting idea, I'll have to look at that closer. I see how it would work, but I also see the trouble with it, as you have said.

Personally, I think that the video-game feel of 4e amplifies one of my biggest problem with its predecessor, which is that higher level players are simply less mortal than lower-level. But at least 4e comes out at says it directly. To be honest, there's so much 'candy' in 4th edition, I haven't really gotten around to picking apart the faults.

As always, changing the way the rules work -no matter how small a change it may seem- is always a big project to do right.
#5
vebrandsson
Dec 29, 2008 20:17:34 Well the problem with a THAC0 system, is the new 4 defense system, 2e had at best a 2 defense system, your AC and your mAC and then you had your THAC0 and your mTHAC0, mAC could replace will defense at best but reflex and particularly fortitude would be hard to convert. I personally agree that 4e has a very videogame feel, and looking at the dndi programs starting with the character builder and ending with the online table top it looks like WotC is trying to convert D&D into a video game. I saw this comming when WotC bought out TSR, I knew that no good would come from it (and 3.x was clearly evidience that that was confirmed). The way they've scaled up the monsters to be just that increadably powerful at the higher levels the players have to continually scale else they just can't fight these higher creatures. The whole game system is build around this highly scaling system that leads to as you so well put it "less mortal" characters. In my opinion characters shouldn't get much increase, back in 2e atributes didn't scale with level, in fact short of a near dozen wishes it was near impossible to make them increase at all. You also got a lot less hp in those earlier editions (as you stopped rolling and got a generic 2 a level after lvl 9 or 10). Besides going back to the earlier editions the only thing you can do is live with what WotC decides to hand us. Personally I think the whole "add half your level to everything" system is really a bad idea. Characters can excell in things they've never done or had to do before on the first attempt because of the system and in 4e you level so quickly its not even funny. All in all its built to produce short games with ungodly characters, not unlike most videogames, its almost as if wizards looked at WoW and the Final Fantasy games and said lets merge them and 4e is the bastard child that combination produced.
#6
Einlanzer
Dec 29, 2008 23:22:48 Yeah I agree about the ramping up of power bit. I've always had a distaste for it in video games, where a character's power scaled to godlike levels eventually, and I hate they've incorporated into d&d. I know it's a fantasy game, but it really stretches the imagination a bit that a level 20 character could destroy countless hordes of level 1 characters just based on the level difference. I've thought of a few houserules to help out some, but none of them are easy to implement (reducing hp gained/level and the level bonus mechanic) especially considering you'd have to adjust monsters as well.
#7
nonstandard
Dec 30, 2008 5:29:21 Eh, adjusting monsters is no big deal. I hate the current monster system, it's inflexible and difficult to work with. There's no pattern to it, they're just like MMO monsters. So I figure i'll have to make most of my monsters (or tweak existing ones) anyway.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 nonstandard Dec 28, 2008 15:17:46	One of the problems I had with the D20 system was that it scaled AC so high. Some D20 products fixed this by giving classes a +AC bonus (usually calling it something like Defense) and giving armor a damage reduction value instead. I liked this system, and I'm wondering if it can be adapted to 4e. Any thoughts?
#2 jrhorn424 Dec 28, 2008 16:59:20	Since the mechanics haven't changed from 3.5, I'd say just use the stuff from Unearthed Arcana. You can search the SRD for variants on "Armor as Damage Reduction" and "Armor as Damage Conversion." The system my DM uses is as follows: 1) Armor bonus is split, half going to DR, half to DC (damage conversion). When splitting odd bonuses, the higher bonus goes to conversion. 2) Attacks are made against touch AC. 3) If an attack hits, the damage is reduced by the DR number. Damage after that equal to DC is converted to subdual damage. Damage after that is regular "lethal" damage.
#3 vebrandsson Dec 28, 2008 17:54:49	I would almost suggest working on bringing back the old THAC0 system instead of this, but it couldn't effectively be adapted to 4e or even 3.x I don't think, and I'll give this idea merit as being realistic, but with the 4e add half your level to everything I don't know if a damage reduction system could be implimented with out throwing the system off. The biggest issue is making the conversion work for monsters, how much of a monster's defense is armor and how much is its "touch AC". You really have a hard time determining that, also how does this damage reduction effect elemental attacks, sure chain armor would reduce the damage from a maul, but wouldn't it amplify the damage from a lightning spell instead of reduce? The 4e system works fine as it is and trying to change it makes more problems than it would solve I think.
#4 nonstandard Dec 29, 2008 20:02:44	The 4e system works fine as it is and trying to change it makes more problems than it would solve I think. While I agree with much of what you have said, this I do not agree with. Though 4e is better than the 3e/3.5 system (IMO), I have always felt the constant escalation of HP, Attack Values, and AC along a linear pattern to be an inferior method. Bringing back THAC0 is an interesting idea, I'll have to look at that closer. I see how it would work, but I also see the trouble with it, as you have said. Personally, I think that the video-game feel of 4e amplifies one of my biggest problem with its predecessor, which is that higher level players are simply less mortal than lower-level. But at least 4e comes out at says it directly. To be honest, there's so much 'candy' in 4th edition, I haven't really gotten around to picking apart the faults. As always, changing the way the rules work -no matter how small a change it may seem- is always a big project to do right.
#5 vebrandsson Dec 29, 2008 20:17:34	Well the problem with a THAC0 system, is the new 4 defense system, 2e had at best a 2 defense system, your AC and your mAC and then you had your THAC0 and your mTHAC0, mAC could replace will defense at best but reflex and particularly fortitude would be hard to convert. I personally agree that 4e has a very videogame feel, and looking at the dndi programs starting with the character builder and ending with the online table top it looks like WotC is trying to convert D&D into a video game. I saw this comming when WotC bought out TSR, I knew that no good would come from it (and 3.x was clearly evidience that that was confirmed). The way they've scaled up the monsters to be just that increadably powerful at the higher levels the players have to continually scale else they just can't fight these higher creatures. The whole game system is build around this highly scaling system that leads to as you so well put it "less mortal" characters. In my opinion characters shouldn't get much increase, back in 2e atributes didn't scale with level, in fact short of a near dozen wishes it was near impossible to make them increase at all. You also got a lot less hp in those earlier editions (as you stopped rolling and got a generic 2 a level after lvl 9 or 10). Besides going back to the earlier editions the only thing you can do is live with what WotC decides to hand us. Personally I think the whole "add half your level to everything" system is really a bad idea. Characters can excell in things they've never done or had to do before on the first attempt because of the system and in 4e you level so quickly its not even funny. All in all its built to produce short games with ungodly characters, not unlike most videogames, its almost as if wizards looked at WoW and the Final Fantasy games and said lets merge them and 4e is the bastard child that combination produced.
#6 Einlanzer Dec 29, 2008 23:22:48	Yeah I agree about the ramping up of power bit. I've always had a distaste for it in video games, where a character's power scaled to godlike levels eventually, and I hate they've incorporated into d&d. I know it's a fantasy game, but it really stretches the imagination a bit that a level 20 character could destroy countless hordes of level 1 characters just based on the level difference. I've thought of a few houserules to help out some, but none of them are easy to implement (reducing hp gained/level and the level bonus mechanic) especially considering you'd have to adjust monsters as well.
#7 nonstandard Dec 30, 2008 5:29:21	Eh, adjusting monsters is no big deal. I hate the current monster system, it's inflexible and difficult to work with. There's no pattern to it, they're just like MMO monsters. So I figure i'll have to make most of my monsters (or tweak existing ones) anyway.