Armour as DR instead of AC - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Armour as DR instead of AC

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
grail_quest
Aug 08, 2008 15:26:34 I'm considering an Armour as DR instead of AC model. Haven't thought further than the mundane level of normal people swinging swords and wearing normal plate. Haven't considered anything like godplate or what to do with animal armour ratings yet.

The initial conversion would have the AC from armour changed into an equal amount of DR, with the following:

Armour reduces damage. Unless otherwise stated, armour reduces only physical or impact damage, and additional damage from a strength modifier is blocked last. For example, against a sword cut inflicting 3 damage from the sword plus 2 damage from strength modifier, the 3 damage from the sword is taken off first. If weapon damage is entirely blocked, regardless of the weapon type, damage is considered blunt or crushing.
There are four general types of armour: Rigid, Semi-Rigid, and Pliable.

Pliable
Pliable armour tends to have the lowest encumbrance because of its flexibility. Pliable armour is designed to stop penetration, and padding worn underneath or woven into it dulls impact.
Pliable armour can stop all weapon damage, but blocks only up to ½ Strength damage (round up). Weapon damage is blocked first. If a blow from a dagger inflicts 3 weapon damage and 3 damage from strength modifier, pliable armour can stop up to 5 damage (3 from the weapon and 3
#2
wyld_mutation
Aug 08, 2008 15:57:27 ... For me that would be too much to remember. The question you have to ask is if the system adds any meaningful benefit to the game.

I find that AC is just fine. It gets the point accross. What about the AC system do you dislike? Why does it need a new system for you?
#3
Saric
Aug 08, 2008 17:21:44 That's great, but what about fireballs being tossed at fighters with fullplate?

Also, you have to do the exact same conversion for monsters, because a lot of them should have tough rugged hides or scarab shells etc and should be able to gain the same benefit as "pc's" to be fair/balanced.

In a nutshell, you're penalizing physical damaging characters but not casters.
#4
Xeviat-DM
Aug 08, 2008 22:33:57
In a nutshell, you're penalizing physical damaging characters but not casters.

Not exactly. Warriors target AC, and AC would the the only defense changed in this. In fact, I'd say that in such a system weapon attacks would go after Reflex then, and weapon damage would be the only thing affected by Armor DR. Weapon's proficiency bonus could turn into a DR reduction, but that's complicated.

I like Armor as DR. Apparently a bunch of WotC designers do too. But they said they weren't able to balance it; something about too many defensive variables. As it is now there are Defenses, Damage Rolls, and HP. If DR was brought in, then one of these elements would need to be fixed.

I like the idea of heavy armored characters being easier to hit but harder to damage, and that is really good for imagry, but AC functions that way in game play. If someone's in light armor, describe misses as them dodging; if they're in heavy armor, describe misses as hits off their armor. Apparently someone wearing heavy armor IRL learns to turn into the blow, not avoid it, which is why Dex/Int doesn't apply now.
#5
holy_beholder
Aug 09, 2008 1:46:57
-
There are four general types of armour: Rigid, Semi-Rigid, and Pliable.

First learn to count.;)

Secondly its looking a bit excessive on the complexity. You could do the same thing by making armors have an AC and a DR. AC would be added on to reflex, if people hit the AC they ignore the DR. If they hit reflex without hitting the AC, they don't ignore the DR. The passive defense would be handled by not giving people dexterity or intelligence towards reflex/AC making it way easier to smack somebody and get right through. You could also keep the pliable/rigid distinction, semi rigid would be handled with a double AC, with the lower number hitting the pliable, and the higher a fleshy spot. Double AC and double DR for that matter.
#6
Saric
Aug 09, 2008 2:14:32
Not exactly. Warriors target AC, and AC would the the only defense changed in this. In fact, I'd say that in such a system weapon attacks would go after Reflex then, and weapon damage would be the only thing affected by Armor DR. Weapon's proficiency bonus could turn into a DR reduction, but that's complicated.

When you play a melee oriented class, what do the vast majority of the attacks target? AC. When playing a ranged caster class such as a warlock, wizard or "caster" cleric, how many powers target AC? umm pretty much 0.

Thus its penalizing melee more than casters.

Now if reflex was used as you suggested, it would be strange. A lot of implications could arise, but it is something to consider. And who knows, maybe it could work.

I like Armor as DR. Apparently a bunch of WotC designers do too. But they said they weren't able to balance it; something about too many defensive variables. As it is now there are Defenses, Damage Rolls, and HP. If DR was brought in, then one of these elements would need to be fixed.

I always liked dr too in 3rd edition, it made weapon selection feel important even though you usually had to carry a golf cart of weapons around. I would suppose putting in minor damage reduction numbers such as "resist melee 2 or 1" wouldn't be gamebreaking. It would need some work.
#7
grail_quest
Aug 09, 2008 2:57:51
I find that AC is just fine. It gets the point accross. What about the AC system do you dislike? Why does it need a new system for you?

Because AC bundles too many things together and then it doesn't quite work. Rolemaster has it better: Shields stop you from getting hit, whereas Armour changes how you take damage. And that seems closer to how things are.

You could try the abstracted combat argument, but at some point I feel it stretches the imagination too far. In reality, plate armour was so good that warriors stopped using shields because they didn't need it, and switched to two-handed weapons that cut or crushed because they needed it. Those with one-handers were using a half-swording technique and aiming for the armpits because there wasn't plate armour there. You could make a case for AC in that specific instance, but in the general case, armour is DR, not deflection AC.

Virtual immunity like that might not work out so well for D&D, but I still prefer armour to be armour. It's odd when the AC of armour was the only thing that prevented you from taking damage when a giant stepped on you or a dragon dropped a boulder on you. That just doesn't make sense. Not that it makes sense that a shield would block that too; I'm still working on that.
#8
grail_quest
Aug 09, 2008 3:00:08
First learn to count.;)

The 4th was for how to handle shields, which I hadn't solidified yet. Shields are deflection type AC, but not against really big attacks, when it should be DR. Also, I wanted to do up shields as levels of cover too, but the idea of cover was more or less dropped since 3.5E.
#9
alex319
Aug 18, 2008 7:52:32 Don't forget about martial powers that have some kind of extra effect on a hit. These will become significantly more powerful under your system, as they will hit far more often (because ACs will be a lot lower).
#10
grail_quest
Aug 18, 2008 13:23:11
Don't forget about martial powers that have some kind of extra effect on a hit. These will become significantly more powerful under your system, as they will hit far more often (because ACs will be a lot lower).

I'm considering n[W] should be tallied after each [W] is reduced by DR. It certainly will be for, for example, each of the two attacks in Twin Strike (which will now allow stat bonus to damage).

After such a modification, it might all be nerfed even if you can hit more often.

And, I've yet to account for high-end armours like godplate, and what to do with basic magic armour (e.g., what will +1 armour mean?)
#11
pboyer
Aug 31, 2008 0:54:50 I wanted to create a thread on this subject and I was glad to see that there's already one floating around.

I have been playing a Warlord. At level 1, he had +6 to hit; he is considered to be a front-line fighter. Against 18 AC, which is pretty typical in a level 1 encounter, my Warlord has a 40% to hit, 50% with combat advantage. Humans with the Action Surge feat can use an action point to increase their hit percentage to 65% for "must hit" situations.

A rogue, a character designed to actually hit enemies, can expect to have +9 to hit at level 1. Against 18 AC, that's 55% or 65% with combat advantage.

I ran a level 10 encounter for my group and noticed that the hit percentages remains fairly stable.

My gripe is that it's not fun to attack and miss all the time. Forget about burning up encounter powers and unreliable daily powers on misses. It's just not fun to miss all the time.

I want to know what kind of research has been done on having the four defenses act as damage reduction. It need not apply only to armor. i.e A rogue dives out of a fireball blast and gets his feet singed for 3 damage, but evades the brunt of the attack.

Perhaps I'll look at possible scaling and balance issues. My main concern is what happens if at-will, encounter and daily powers start landing more because the attack's damage is not fully mitigated.

However, first I want to work on a submission for [4E]Expert Dungeon Master Competition #3: Forge an Artifact! :P

Please share your thoughts and opinions.
#12
ff6shadow
Aug 31, 2008 0:58:30 I've considered just granting the party a +1 to hit per tier rather than try and rework the system if you find missing so often really irritable. Personally, missing is where the challenge comes from. If you're hitting all the time, you aren't really be challenged.
#13
rikiji
Aug 31, 2008 1:16:14 To be honest, you'd have to rebalance weapon damage and every power in the game with the weapon keyword (~355 currently).

Also, remember that there are several powers that target AC that do not do physical or impact damage (especially in the Cleric and Paladin lists - Swordmage will probably add to this). This system will make those powers extremely powerful without additional rule modifications to deal with them - which adds complexity to what is already looking to be an averly complicated system.

Plus, you're going to at least double the time it takes to run a standard encounter unless you create some form of electronic tracker to streamline the damage calculations - which is additional work.

All in all, I can see it as an interesting theoretical project if you're really into game theory - but I can't see the time investment being practical for a system you actually planned on playing with.
#14
pboyer
Aug 31, 2008 1:26:49 Wider accessibility has been one of the major design philosophies in 4e and you are absolutely correct with your statement. Added bookeeping in fact makes the game less accessible.
In addition, you definitely tickled my thinking cap with your comment about "several powers that target AC that do not do physical or impact damage."

I noticed there's another active thread indicating that other players "feel my pain" of low hit percentages: Does anyone else feel restricted
#15
vonklaude
Aug 31, 2008 7:20:21
... For me that would be too much to remember. The question you have to ask is if the system adds any meaningful benefit to the game.

I find that AC is just fine. It gets the point accross. What about the AC system do you dislike? Why does it need a new system for you?

I don't like AC because three defences, not four, is the correct number for an RPG.

I like the OP's suggestion of DR for that reason, but it would have to be perforce very low numbers, and there would be some complication in deciding what is resisted and whether it stacks with other forms of resistance.

Another note is that armour prevents hits becoming critical, turning damage into milder concussion than lethal penetration or shock. There might be an angle there for how damage is recovered or how much damage can kill you. Imagine, for example, armour adding HP and/or preventing criticals.

-vk
#16
wyld_mutation
Aug 31, 2008 8:27:58 FFT...

Or Diablo...

I like the system as written, complication just bores me.
#17
grail_quest
Sep 01, 2008 12:03:32
...but it would have to be perforce very low numbers, and there would be some complication in deciding what is resisted and whether it stacks with other forms of resistance.-vk

I've played HERO, and over there if you can't damage something because it's got too much armour, too bad. I think D&D is too hung up on there always being some way of inflicting damage. Why should non-magical arrows fired from a mundane short bow be able to hurt anything if you can just get lucky with a hit roll? For me, at some point the abstraction becomes too much and implausibility sets in.
I did some thinking on shields and, going with the RoleMaster model, shields would provide AC while body armour becomes DR. And active use of a big shield (like a Tower Shield) would be providing near 100% cover in one or maybe two arcs, for an AC of possibly +10.

Yeah, there's a lot of balancing. But I like to start from what would be reasonable/plausible first and let balance figure itself out later.

If Armour is for physical damage only, then we're down to 3 defenses with no immediate modification. All attacks vs. AC become attacks vs. Reflex.
The next thing we need to look at is why some attacks are currently vs. AC and not vs. Reflex, and whether that is an artificial balance issue or an attempt to model armour stopping an attack (as opposed to a mix of reflex + armor attack deflection + armor damage reduction).
#18
Zuggster
Sep 01, 2008 14:43:26 The Iron Heroes Campaign Setting (D20 System, not WoTC) used DR as well as AC, and in my opinion, did it fairly well. Now, IH is mainly a Low-No magic campaign, I think it can be done more easily than it can be done for D&D at this time (without alot of conversions). But that doesn't mean it can't be done.

If I remember correctly, Leather Armor provided something like 1-2 Points of DR (it wasn't a set amount) and it went up slowly from there (Plate was only like 2-8 points of DR I think). Shields applied a Bonus to AC and not DR.

Translating that system (mind you a 3rd ed one), to one where creatures do a decent amount of damage means the players will be in more trouble, but their powers will most likely hit more often (3W going against "unarmored" opponents).

DR of creatures have to be able to not take as much damage from Encounters and Dailies and not overpower what At Wills or Lower Level Abilities can do (since lower ACs mean attacks hit more often). Otherwise players will have too easy (or too difficult) a job to get through it.

Its a very tricky balance, that IH did well in a Low/No Magic 3rd Ed setting, but I think with the current System (4th) would be difficult to balance (but if you're up for it....) correctly.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 grail_quest Aug 08, 2008 15:26:34	I'm considering an Armour as DR instead of AC model. Haven't thought further than the mundane level of normal people swinging swords and wearing normal plate. Haven't considered anything like godplate or what to do with animal armour ratings yet. The initial conversion would have the AC from armour changed into an equal amount of DR, with the following: Armour reduces damage. Unless otherwise stated, armour reduces only physical or impact damage, and additional damage from a strength modifier is blocked last. For example, against a sword cut inflicting 3 damage from the sword plus 2 damage from strength modifier, the 3 damage from the sword is taken off first. If weapon damage is entirely blocked, regardless of the weapon type, damage is considered blunt or crushing. There are four general types of armour: Rigid, Semi-Rigid, and Pliable. Pliable Pliable armour tends to have the lowest encumbrance because of its flexibility. Pliable armour is designed to stop penetration, and padding worn underneath or woven into it dulls impact. Pliable armour can stop all weapon damage, but blocks only up to ½ Strength damage (round up). Weapon damage is blocked first. If a blow from a dagger inflicts 3 weapon damage and 3 damage from strength modifier, pliable armour can stop up to 5 damage (3 from the weapon and 3
#2 wyld_mutation Aug 08, 2008 15:57:27	... For me that would be too much to remember. The question you have to ask is if the system adds any meaningful benefit to the game. I find that AC is just fine. It gets the point accross. What about the AC system do you dislike? Why does it need a new system for you?
#3 Saric Aug 08, 2008 17:21:44	That's great, but what about fireballs being tossed at fighters with fullplate? Also, you have to do the exact same conversion for monsters, because a lot of them should have tough rugged hides or scarab shells etc and should be able to gain the same benefit as "pc's" to be fair/balanced. In a nutshell, you're penalizing physical damaging characters but not casters.
#4 Xeviat-DM Aug 08, 2008 22:33:57	In a nutshell, you're penalizing physical damaging characters but not casters. Not exactly. Warriors target AC, and AC would the the only defense changed in this. In fact, I'd say that in such a system weapon attacks would go after Reflex then, and weapon damage would be the only thing affected by Armor DR. Weapon's proficiency bonus could turn into a DR reduction, but that's complicated. I like Armor as DR. Apparently a bunch of WotC designers do too. But they said they weren't able to balance it; something about too many defensive variables. As it is now there are Defenses, Damage Rolls, and HP. If DR was brought in, then one of these elements would need to be fixed. I like the idea of heavy armored characters being easier to hit but harder to damage, and that is really good for imagry, but AC functions that way in game play. If someone's in light armor, describe misses as them dodging; if they're in heavy armor, describe misses as hits off their armor. Apparently someone wearing heavy armor IRL learns to turn into the blow, not avoid it, which is why Dex/Int doesn't apply now.
#5 holy_beholder Aug 09, 2008 1:46:57	- There are four general types of armour: Rigid, Semi-Rigid, and Pliable. First learn to count.;) Secondly its looking a bit excessive on the complexity. You could do the same thing by making armors have an AC and a DR. AC would be added on to reflex, if people hit the AC they ignore the DR. If they hit reflex without hitting the AC, they don't ignore the DR. The passive defense would be handled by not giving people dexterity or intelligence towards reflex/AC making it way easier to smack somebody and get right through. You could also keep the pliable/rigid distinction, semi rigid would be handled with a double AC, with the lower number hitting the pliable, and the higher a fleshy spot. Double AC and double DR for that matter.
#6 Saric Aug 09, 2008 2:14:32	Not exactly. Warriors target AC, and AC would the the only defense changed in this. In fact, I'd say that in such a system weapon attacks would go after Reflex then, and weapon damage would be the only thing affected by Armor DR. Weapon's proficiency bonus could turn into a DR reduction, but that's complicated. When you play a melee oriented class, what do the vast majority of the attacks target? AC. When playing a ranged caster class such as a warlock, wizard or "caster" cleric, how many powers target AC? umm pretty much 0. Thus its penalizing melee more than casters. Now if reflex was used as you suggested, it would be strange. A lot of implications could arise, but it is something to consider. And who knows, maybe it could work. I like Armor as DR. Apparently a bunch of WotC designers do too. But they said they weren't able to balance it; something about too many defensive variables. As it is now there are Defenses, Damage Rolls, and HP. If DR was brought in, then one of these elements would need to be fixed. I always liked dr too in 3rd edition, it made weapon selection feel important even though you usually had to carry a golf cart of weapons around. I would suppose putting in minor damage reduction numbers such as "resist melee 2 or 1" wouldn't be gamebreaking. It would need some work.
#7 grail_quest Aug 09, 2008 2:57:51	I find that AC is just fine. It gets the point accross. What about the AC system do you dislike? Why does it need a new system for you? Because AC bundles too many things together and then it doesn't quite work. Rolemaster has it better: Shields stop you from getting hit, whereas Armour changes how you take damage. And that seems closer to how things are. You could try the abstracted combat argument, but at some point I feel it stretches the imagination too far. In reality, plate armour was so good that warriors stopped using shields because they didn't need it, and switched to two-handed weapons that cut or crushed because they needed it. Those with one-handers were using a half-swording technique and aiming for the armpits because there wasn't plate armour there. You could make a case for AC in that specific instance, but in the general case, armour is DR, not deflection AC. Virtual immunity like that might not work out so well for D&D, but I still prefer armour to be armour. It's odd when the AC of armour was the only thing that prevented you from taking damage when a giant stepped on you or a dragon dropped a boulder on you. That just doesn't make sense. Not that it makes sense that a shield would block that too; I'm still working on that.
#8 grail_quest Aug 09, 2008 3:00:08	First learn to count.;) The 4th was for how to handle shields, which I hadn't solidified yet. Shields are deflection type AC, but not against really big attacks, when it should be DR. Also, I wanted to do up shields as levels of cover too, but the idea of cover was more or less dropped since 3.5E.
#9 alex319 Aug 18, 2008 7:52:32	Don't forget about martial powers that have some kind of extra effect on a hit. These will become significantly more powerful under your system, as they will hit far more often (because ACs will be a lot lower).
#10 grail_quest Aug 18, 2008 13:23:11	Don't forget about martial powers that have some kind of extra effect on a hit. These will become significantly more powerful under your system, as they will hit far more often (because ACs will be a lot lower). I'm considering n[W] should be tallied after each [W] is reduced by DR. It certainly will be for, for example, each of the two attacks in Twin Strike (which will now allow stat bonus to damage). After such a modification, it might all be nerfed even if you can hit more often. And, I've yet to account for high-end armours like godplate, and what to do with basic magic armour (e.g., what will +1 armour mean?)
#11 pboyer Aug 31, 2008 0:54:50	I wanted to create a thread on this subject and I was glad to see that there's already one floating around. I have been playing a Warlord. At level 1, he had +6 to hit; he is considered to be a front-line fighter. Against 18 AC, which is pretty typical in a level 1 encounter, my Warlord has a 40% to hit, 50% with combat advantage. Humans with the Action Surge feat can use an action point to increase their hit percentage to 65% for "must hit" situations. A rogue, a character designed to actually hit enemies, can expect to have +9 to hit at level 1. Against 18 AC, that's 55% or 65% with combat advantage. I ran a level 10 encounter for my group and noticed that the hit percentages remains fairly stable. My gripe is that it's not fun to attack and miss all the time. Forget about burning up encounter powers and unreliable daily powers on misses. It's just not fun to miss all the time. I want to know what kind of research has been done on having the four defenses act as damage reduction. It need not apply only to armor. i.e A rogue dives out of a fireball blast and gets his feet singed for 3 damage, but evades the brunt of the attack. Perhaps I'll look at possible scaling and balance issues. My main concern is what happens if at-will, encounter and daily powers start landing more because the attack's damage is not fully mitigated. However, first I want to work on a submission for [4E]Expert Dungeon Master Competition #3: Forge an Artifact! :P Please share your thoughts and opinions.
#12 ff6shadow Aug 31, 2008 0:58:30	I've considered just granting the party a +1 to hit per tier rather than try and rework the system if you find missing so often really irritable. Personally, missing is where the challenge comes from. If you're hitting all the time, you aren't really be challenged.
#13 rikiji Aug 31, 2008 1:16:14	To be honest, you'd have to rebalance weapon damage and every power in the game with the weapon keyword (~355 currently). Also, remember that there are several powers that target AC that do not do physical or impact damage (especially in the Cleric and Paladin lists - Swordmage will probably add to this). This system will make those powers extremely powerful without additional rule modifications to deal with them - which adds complexity to what is already looking to be an averly complicated system. Plus, you're going to at least double the time it takes to run a standard encounter unless you create some form of electronic tracker to streamline the damage calculations - which is additional work. All in all, I can see it as an interesting theoretical project if you're really into game theory - but I can't see the time investment being practical for a system you actually planned on playing with.
#14 pboyer Aug 31, 2008 1:26:49	Wider accessibility has been one of the major design philosophies in 4e and you are absolutely correct with your statement. Added bookeeping in fact makes the game less accessible. In addition, you definitely tickled my thinking cap with your comment about "several powers that target AC that do not do physical or impact damage." I noticed there's another active thread indicating that other players "feel my pain" of low hit percentages: Does anyone else feel restricted
#15 vonklaude Aug 31, 2008 7:20:21	... For me that would be too much to remember. The question you have to ask is if the system adds any meaningful benefit to the game. I find that AC is just fine. It gets the point accross. What about the AC system do you dislike? Why does it need a new system for you? I don't like AC because three defences, not four, is the correct number for an RPG. I like the OP's suggestion of DR for that reason, but it would have to be perforce very low numbers, and there would be some complication in deciding what is resisted and whether it stacks with other forms of resistance. Another note is that armour prevents hits becoming critical, turning damage into milder concussion than lethal penetration or shock. There might be an angle there for how damage is recovered or how much damage can kill you. Imagine, for example, armour adding HP and/or preventing criticals. -vk
#16 wyld_mutation Aug 31, 2008 8:27:58	FFT... Or Diablo... I like the system as written, complication just bores me.
#17 grail_quest Sep 01, 2008 12:03:32	...but it would have to be perforce very low numbers, and there would be some complication in deciding what is resisted and whether it stacks with other forms of resistance.-vk I've played HERO, and over there if you can't damage something because it's got too much armour, too bad. I think D&D is too hung up on there always being some way of inflicting damage. Why should non-magical arrows fired from a mundane short bow be able to hurt anything if you can just get lucky with a hit roll? For me, at some point the abstraction becomes too much and implausibility sets in. I did some thinking on shields and, going with the RoleMaster model, shields would provide AC while body armour becomes DR. And active use of a big shield (like a Tower Shield) would be providing near 100% cover in one or maybe two arcs, for an AC of possibly +10. Yeah, there's a lot of balancing. But I like to start from what would be reasonable/plausible first and let balance figure itself out later. If Armour is for physical damage only, then we're down to 3 defenses with no immediate modification. All attacks vs. AC become attacks vs. Reflex. The next thing we need to look at is why some attacks are currently vs. AC and not vs. Reflex, and whether that is an artificial balance issue or an attempt to model armour stopping an attack (as opposed to a mix of reflex + armor attack deflection + armor damage reduction).
#18 Zuggster Sep 01, 2008 14:43:26	The Iron Heroes Campaign Setting (D20 System, not WoTC) used DR as well as AC, and in my opinion, did it fairly well. Now, IH is mainly a Low-No magic campaign, I think it can be done more easily than it can be done for D&D at this time (without alot of conversions). But that doesn't mean it can't be done. If I remember correctly, Leather Armor provided something like 1-2 Points of DR (it wasn't a set amount) and it went up slowly from there (Plate was only like 2-8 points of DR I think). Shields applied a Bonus to AC and not DR. Translating that system (mind you a 3rd ed one), to one where creatures do a decent amount of damage means the players will be in more trouble, but their powers will most likely hit more often (3W going against "unarmored" opponents). DR of creatures have to be able to not take as much damage from Encounters and Dailies and not overpower what At Wills or Lower Level Abilities can do (since lower ACs mean attacks hit more often). Otherwise players will have too easy (or too difficult) a job to get through it. Its a very tricky balance, that IH did well in a Low/No Magic 3rd Ed setting, but I think with the current System (4th) would be difficult to balance (but if you're up for it....) correctly.