RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to Community Chat

15:44, 29th March 2024 (GMT+0)

Modeling armor differently.

Posted by badpenny
badpenny
member, 302 posts
eats shoots and leaves
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 16:31
  • msg #1

Modeling armor differently

In OSR/D&D you have armor providing an increase to AC and/or providing Damage Reduction.

What if it worked by degrading the die of the attack?

So assume three categories of armor: Light, Medium, and Heavy.  Each category degrades one step more, i.e. Light: 1, Medium: 2, Heavy: 3.

If you were wearing medium armor and were hit with a 1d8 attack, you'd step it down twice: d8 -> d6 -> d4. And I think d4 should be the lowest it could go.

The question is what if you're hit by a two die attack, e.g. 2d6 -> 2d4 -> ?

Maybe convert to the nearest single die?  2d6 becomes 1d12 -> 1d10 -> 1d8.
RosstoFalstaff
member, 54 posts
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 16:46
  • msg #2

Modeling armor differently

In reply to badpenny (msg # 1):

Well in DnD, we already have a progression for the changing of size of weapons. Simply reduce the size. So a greatsword used against leather deals 1d8, scalemail 1d6, and fullplate 1d4

Now whether this is balanced? I wouldn't imagine so, since that makes heavy armour massively powerful, reducing the damage from a two handed zweihander into a knife equivalent (with more damage from strength and power attack assumedly)
engine
member, 191 posts
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 16:50
  • msg #3

Modeling armor differently

Seems overly complicated, but some people dig that.

Seems like it would degrade the usefulness of martial classes even further (since their weapons can easily be rendered less effective, as well as making them unappetizing targets since enemies with weapons can't do as much damage even if they do manage to hit. But some people would dig that too.

As RosstoFalstaff it makes static bonuses more important.

What would it do to bonus damage dice?
swordchucks
member, 1306 posts
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 16:52
  • msg #4

Re: Modeling armor differently

RosstoFalstaff:
Now whether this is balanced? I wouldn't imagine so, since that makes heavy armour massively powerful, reducing the damage from a two handed zweihander into a knife equivalent (with more damage from strength and power attack assumedly)

I'd say the same thing, but from the other direction.  The damage value of the dice themselves aren't that important past a certain point.  Most damage comes from statics (like the bonus of a Power Attack) which wouldn't be reduced by this method.

The size progression chart in Pathfinder is in the FAQ here: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9t3f
engine
member, 193 posts
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 16:54
  • msg #5

Re: Modeling armor differently

How do shields figure in? Armor is already reasonably useful, it's shields that need a boost, at least in 3.5.
badpenny
member, 303 posts
eats shoots and leaves
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 17:08
  • msg #6

Re: Modeling armor differently

Well, AC makes you immune to damage (if not exceeded), and DR subtracts from damage, potentially eliminating all of it.

My thought was that while you're reducing the damage threshold, you still take some.
engine
member, 194 posts
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 17:18
  • msg #7

Re: Modeling armor differently

In reply to badpenny (msg # 6):

I'm sympathetic to that, since an attack that has zero effect winds up being boring. This approach just seems like an overly complicated and overly simulationist way to deal with that issue. Again, some people dig that. If your players due, then more power to you.
badpenny
member, 305 posts
eats shoots and leaves
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 17:31
  • msg #8

Re: Modeling armor differently

engine:
How do shields figure in? Armor is already reasonably useful, it's shields that need a boost, at least in 3.5.


One thing that occurred to me would be to have shields just for splintering.  Small shields get one soak, large shields get two, and magic shields get more before they reset out of combat.

I'm playing in a very simple (rules light) OSR system called the Black Hack.  My only familiarity with 3.5 would be as the d20 basis for Mutants & Masterminds (SHRPG).
engine
member, 199 posts
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 17:47
  • msg #9

Re: Modeling armor differently

In reply to badpenny (msg # 8):

I hope you try out this system and let us know how it goes.
chupabob
member, 185 posts
Sat 24 Sep 2016
at 18:38
  • msg #10

Re: Modeling armor differently

In hit point systems, there are basically two ways to use armor. Either armor makes a hit more difficult to land or it reduces damage. I recently played in a homebrew system game in which the GM had armor serving both purposes, and it made combat very slow. In old D&D and similar old school systems, armor typically makes the person inside harder to hit. In Palladium Fantasy, the armor rating IS the target number that the attacker tries to roll. This has some pros and cons, like the protagonist being able to confidently wade into hordes of minor foes and knowing that only very luck blows will get through. The con is that combat can go several rounds without either side being able to injure the other. Called shots can negate armor ratings.

In some alternative systems (like in the Senzar game that I run here), armor has no effect on who gets hit but does reduce damage. I generally prefer the later because it can make combat quicker and less frustrating. If a called shot is rolled in this type of game, it is not spent looking for a weak point on the armor but used as it intended to target a specific item or body part.

The suggestion of a die reducing armor fits into the later category. In my game, armor reduces incoming damage by a set number of points. Leather armor has an Armor Rating of 2, so it soaks the first two points of damage from every incoming source. These set numbers work great at low levels when damage potentials (like a single 1D6 knife stab) are low and armor becomes a significant strategic factor. At higher levels, damage potentials make this sort of armor soak basically not worth the effort. Magic armor with huge ratings of 20+ become desired.

In your suggestion, you are modifying the damage roll instead of reducing it by a constant number. This seems great to me if the system calls for using lots of different types of dice (like Senzar does). If the system rarely uses alternate dice (like D6 for example), this would be a pain.

Other than being a neato idea for dice-philes, I am not seeing any particular advantage to dice-size reduction as compared to fixed-damage reduction. It might be fun to playtest it like Engine wrote.
This message was last edited by the user at 20:32, Sat 24 Sept 2016.
Dirigible
member, 158 posts
Sat 24 Sep 2016
at 18:52
  • msg #11

Re: Modeling armor differently

Decent potential for modelling weapon type effectiveness vs. different armours with this system, incidentally, if you wanted to get even more complicated. Maces might suffer less die-steps down than swords against some armours, etc.
GreyGriffin
member, 4 posts
Thu 20 Oct 2016
at 17:17
  • msg #12

Re: Modeling armor differently

swordchucks:
I'd say the same thing, but from the other direction.  The damage value of the dice themselves aren't that important past a certain point.  Most damage comes from statics (like the bonus of a Power Attack) which wouldn't be reduced by this method.


This is my feeling on the issue, at least in D&D and Pathfinder.  Armor as Damage Reduction certainly can work, but the concept of armor as armor class is really tightly baked into the system.  (Just as an example, rogues now do much, much more damage since their lower attack bonuses are targeting much lower AC's.  Does armor reduce sneak attack dice?)  You'd have to do a significant amount of restatting.
Hunter
member, 1332 posts
Captain Oblivious!
Lurker
Fri 21 Oct 2016
at 05:52
  • msg #13

Re: Modeling armor differently

If you're going to use armor as a form of damage reduction then you need to take away the part where it makes you harder to hit.
GamerHandle
member, 942 posts
Umm.. yep.
So, there's this door...
Fri 21 Oct 2016
at 14:09
  • msg #14

Re: Modeling armor differently

And, if you're going really 'simulationist', as engine used earlier, you can take from Rolemaster's concepts: Armor makes you EASIER to hit - but, reduces the effectiveness of critical blows and makes you take overall less damage, however; you are damaged more frequently.

(For those not familiar with rolemaster) - there are 20 armor "types" - ranged from 1 to 20, in a d100 system.
At 1, you have basically skin/loose clothing.  At 20, you have complete body covering/full-steel plate with armor beneath that.

At Armor Type (AT20) - a roll of 50 from a knife might only do 4 concussion hits (against characters who typically have "~20" at level 1.)  It still hit, however; that same roll of "50" against an AT 5 - would have dealt an A-type/puncturing critical - which has the chance to cut out some of the tendons and muscles in your arm - rendering your shield useless.

So, yes - to the original poster (badpenny) - lots of possibilities with Armor; just depends upon the willingness of players to handle complexity, and the degree of verisimilitude you like.  Me?  I love Rolemaster, so anything you throw at me - the cooler.  But, most find it a drag.
jtcbrown
member, 89 posts
Fri 21 Oct 2016
at 18:02
  • msg #15

Re: Modeling armor differently

Changing armor from "AC" to "Damage Reduction" is pretty large undertaking in any D20-ish system.

I play HERO.  HERO has armor usually not affect whether someone can hit or not, and reduces the damage of attacks.  But, of course, you can build "armor" multiple ways.  Natural armor doesn't affect to-hit-chance at all, but a suit of plate mail can and should impede your movement and make it easier for attackers to land a blow on you.  Force fields would have their own benefits and drawbacks (usually, the drawback being they cost END to keep up.)

I definitely prefer similar systems.  Armor should either not affect the to-hit chance, or have a negative affect on such for the wearer if the armor is at all heavy, bulky, restrictive, etc.  But it should soften the blow and reduce damage taken.

If you really want to get into the weeds, then think of how different armors resist or reduce different types of damage.  Leather armor would be great against fire and slashing attacks, but not as good vs. blunt or piercing.  Plate would be least resistant to piercing, and do almost no good against lightning.
GreyGriffin
member, 6 posts
Fri 21 Oct 2016
at 20:13
  • msg #16

Re: Modeling armor differently

In reply to jtcbrown (msg # 15):

Armor reducing chance to hit makes quite a lot of sense, especially if you redefine "hit" as "being damaged/wounded/impeded by an injury."  A man in plate can be struck by a hundred arrows, but even though they impact on his armor, none of them really "hit" him.

Armor as Damage Reduction in general allows much more chip damage through (since's armor's DR is usually balanced to allow even low level characters to chew through it), but can actually make combat much longer as you can't balance around a soft chewy center in a hard candy shell.
jtcbrown
member, 90 posts
Fri 21 Oct 2016
at 20:41
  • msg #17

Re: Modeling armor differently

GreyGriffin:
In reply to jtcbrown (msg # 15):

Armor reducing chance to hit makes quite a lot of sense, especially if you redefine "hit" as "being damaged/wounded/impeded by an injury."  A man in plate can be struck by a hundred arrows, but even though they impact on his armor, none of them really "hit" him.

Armor as Damage Reduction in general allows much more chip damage through (since's armor's DR is usually balanced to allow even low level characters to chew through it), but can actually make combat much longer as you can't balance around a soft chewy center in a hard candy shell.


Yes, Armor reducing the chance "to be hit and take damage" does make perfect sense, in those systems that are designed around it.

Any way you slice it, there is no "realistic" way to emulate injury in an RPG.  Every system has its own take on it, be it very game-y, or an attempt to emulate reality.

HERO is designed such that only a "telling blow" will truly injure an armored opponent, while an unarmored opponent either has higher DCV (less likely to be hit), or have "armor-like" skills or talents that similarly reduce damage taken.

That isn't to say HERO is better, or anything.  It is just designed around this mechanic, while D20 is designed around Armor Class.  Changing that would almost require gutting the system.
GreyGriffin
member, 7 posts
Fri 21 Oct 2016
at 23:08
  • msg #18

Re: Modeling armor differently

jtcbrown:
Any way you slice it, there is no "realistic" way to emulate injury in an RPG.  Every system has its own take on it, be it very game-y, or an attempt to emulate reality.

HERO is designed such that only a "telling blow" will truly injure an armored opponent, while an unarmored opponent either has higher DCV (less likely to be hit), or have "armor-like" skills or talents that similarly reduce damage taken.

That isn't to say HERO is better, or anything.  It is just designed around this mechanic, while D20 is designed around Armor Class.  Changing that would almost require gutting the system.


Yeah, I agree, it would require significant rebalancing and restatting to work, and given how dependent most games are on content like the Monster Manuals, the volume of conversion that'd be necessary is pretty staggering.

Riddle of Steel actually had an interesting injury system.  You didn't have hit points (per se), but each part of your body could accumulate injuries, which would all accumulate to make you either fall down, get knocked out, rendered unable to fight by pain or incapacitation, or bleed out.  I never did get a chance to play it, but it looked like it might be tricky to keep track of.
jtcbrown
member, 91 posts
Fri 21 Oct 2016
at 23:34
  • msg #19

Re: Modeling armor differently

I'm tending towards simplicity these days.

HERO has optional rules for hit locations, wounding, disabling, "realistic" healing rates, long term injury, etc.

As do countless other systems.

But I've kind of taken a page from Savage Worlds (and HERO's own 'mook' or henchmen rules - one good hit and they are out.)  Most NPC's are either KO'd or dead after one or two good hits.  PC's take damage normally, ignore the wound/disable bit mostly, but have penalties if they take a good hit, and I use the hit location to narrate what the wound is.

Armor changes damage from cuts and punctures, generally, to bruises and/or broken bones.  Unless the attack logically can / should pierce the armor (mechanically, or by SFX - an "Armor Piercing" attack.)

I tend to also limit healing in my games, as I feel it makes players feel invincible and not think tactically; or at the very least tend towards tactics that would be suicidal if not for magical or easy-to-come-by healing.  Damn the torpedoes.  :(

So armor or defenses that reduce the likelihood of being hit and/or reduce damage taken are both more used / abused in my games :D

---

So, whatever system you use, don't go *too far* from the core rules.

If Armor "makes it harder to be hit / injured" but you *also* want it to reduce damage taken when hit, then optional rules or house rules that make critical hits less severe / less likely, or reduce the damage by only a small amount are probably OK.

If Armor "reduces damage" in the system, it should probably also either not affect the chance to be hit, or it should actually make it easier to be hit.

Just my thoughts on it.
Sign In