AC.. what to do if you don't like it

[dehro]

I don't like it but am stuck coming up with an alternative that encompasses all things that can be thrown at you in a realistic manner.

The way I see it, a suit of armor should absorb some of the damage you're taking when a weapon connects with it, rather than determining whether you're hit at all. The notion that some guy who is not parrying but is wearing half a ton of armour (bringing his AC high in the double digits) could be "missed" by a half decent fighter is something that I always thought a bit questionable.
likewise, armour should absorb at least part of the blast of whatever magic aimed at it (unless it's a metal armour and you're hit by lightning... but then, I can see ther would be a ton of exceptions and variants there too)..
so.. is there a valid alternative as to how the use of armour works in D&D?
do you play the influence of suit(of armor)ing up in a different way than the rules say? what is your variant like? what are the advantages? does it account for encumbrance, materials and such?

just to be clear, this is not for a game I'm playing in or running.. it's more of a generic topic for debate.

[Theobod]

I don't like it but am stuck coming up with an alternative that encompasses all things that can be thrown at you in a realistic manner.

The way I see it, a suit of armor should absorb some of the damage you're taking when a weapon connects with it, rather than determining whether you're hit at all. The notion that some guy who is not parrying but is wearing half a ton of armour (bringing his AC high in the double digits) could be "missed" by a half decent fighter is something that I always thought a bit questionable.
likewise, armour should absorb at least part of the blast of whatever magic aimed at it (unless it's a metal armour and you're hit by lightning... but then, I can see ther would be a ton of exceptions and variants there too)..
so.. is there a valid alternative as to how the use of armour works in D&D?
do you play the influence of suit(of armor)ing up in a different way than the rules say? what is your variant like? what are the advantages? does it account for encumbrance, materials and such?

just to be clear, this is not for a game I'm playing in or running.. it's more of a generic topic for debate.

I have had a lot of success with an Armor as DR variant I cribbed from... somewhere? Maybe ASoIaF d20.

Basically: Armor (and natural armor) rather than granting AC grant a new kind of DR called ArmorDR. This DR stacks with any one other source of DR you may have (unlike regular DR) and applies to all regular attack forms except Touch, which always ignores it (thus firearms penetrate platemail etc but a Melfs Acid Arrow doesn't due to being a regular ranged attack)
This tends to make AC rather low in comparison to usual but makes armoured characters more generally sturdy. It has been a major success wherever used but it pairs best with Wounds and Vitality, so Crits bypass DR, thus still allowing a plucky knife fighter to at least occasionally slip a blade between plates, rather than flat noped (barring PF Called Shots to unarmored locations, always wear a helmet!).

[Canine]

The SRD and PFSRD also have the alternate rules for Armor as DR; I can't link them from the office, but searching the site for "Armor as DR" should bring them up.

[Telonius]

Here's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm) the link to d20srd.

EDIT: I haven't crunched the numbers, or tried this variant myself, but it seems to me like it would make miss chances and high hitpoint totals more powerful than they are now. With overall AC lowered, and DR of a very small amount, armor isn't going to be worth as much.

[Theobod]

Oh cool, there is actually a set of rules for something similar on the SRD :smallcool: The things you learn.
That system is an odd midway point between the extremes and actually doesnt do much to obviate the OP's concerns regarding Armor preventing Hits, as it still somewhat does that.

Semi related:
I usually combo the ArmorDR variant I stated above with a ShieldCover variant I found in iirc the same source, shield bonuses (from real shields wielded properly) is doubled and shield bonus of all kinds count as cover, even in melee, and thus works vs touch and provide half the bonus to ref saves and may, depending on total, grant evasion/improved at the 4 and 8pt boundaries. Usually I allow this to stack with static cover, so a Heavy Shield wielding fighter in a doorway gets 4Cover vs melee and 6 cover vs ranged with a +2/+3 on ref (usually the latter, not many melee attacks that force ref saves but there are a couple).
This keeps the AC up provided you are willing to use a shield (making the style actually relevent)

All of the above is usually combined with e6, Wounds and Vitality.

[Flickerdart]

The way I see it, a suit of armor should absorb some of the damage you're taking when a weapon connects with it, rather than determining whether you're hit at all. The notion that some guy who is not parrying but is wearing half a ton of armour (bringing his AC high in the double digits) could be "missed" by a half decent fighter is something that I always thought a bit questionable.
Yeah, this is a common misconception.

When you fight a dude in armour, you don't just try to hit his armour. That's stupid, and you will break your sword, and he will laugh at you and then kill you. You aim for weak spots - joints, gaps, etc. Then, because the enemy does not want to die, and is dodging you, you miss them, and your attack slides harmlessly off the armour.

This is true even with heavy weapons like mauls and warhammers - while the areas you attack change (you want to collapse the chest plate) now you need to strike at a 90 degree angle, or else the impact will be dissipated. Again, your enemy will be trying to avoid dying.

In addition, armour is substantially lighter than "half a ton." Just google "cartwheels in armor (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cartwheels%20in%20armor)." The belief that soldiers could barely move in their battle gear is as ridiculous as thinking their swords weighed 10-20 pounds.


I have had a lot of success with an Armor as DR
DR in 3.5 is useless after level 5 or so. When you're being hit for 20, 30, 40 damage a pop, reducing that by two or three points does nothing to slow your inevitable demise.

[ExLibrisMortis]

(thus firearms penetrate platemail etc but a Melfs Acid Arrow doesn't due to being a regular ranged attack)
In 3.5, melf's acid arrow requires a ranged touch attack. In 3.5, DR doesn't protect against energy damage either, and I wouldn't personally like to mix terms like that - DR should be DR-like, you know? Neither of those are problems with the system, of course, and armour as DR is one of my more favoured UA mods. Trouble is, it heavily encourages heavy two-handed damage, miss chances, and EmpTwinMax touch attack blasting. All of these are already top-notch in their respective areas, whereas it's the AC optimization, TWF-with-many-weak-attacks, and mundane archery that are behind. Again, this is not a problem with the system - is not up to an armour verisimilitude rule change to fix balance issues. I just mean to suggest you may find other issues become more pronounced with such a change.

[Belzyk]

I run a home made ac. So at 15 ac you gain a 10% damage reduction and every 5 ac after that an aditional 10% to a max of 50% damage reduction for stupidly armored people. It scales considering it's a % and just requires a calculator on hand. I mean you have a cell phone so chances are it's on you when you play. Also I added a spell damage reduction in the form of the resistances. They now also work as a percentile. For every 10 energy reduction you get 10% up to 50% to that element. I also got rid of immunities to elements. No offense but a red dragon can still be burned and a white dragon can still take magical cold damage. They are immune to natural versions of this like fire and lava. But if it is supernatural they take damage. Just immunity gives them a 75% reduction

One final note. I do not allow ac to go over 22. Anything past that is just to the damage reduction

[Flickerdart]

I run a home made ac. So at 15 ac you gain a 10% damage reduction and every 5 ac after that an aditional 10% to a max of 50% damage reduction for stupidly armored people.
35 AC is "stupidly armored"? It's a trivial number to reach for a high-level character, and largely necessary in order not to get pulped in combat. Consider your basic fighter with 12 Dexterity, a +5 full plate, +5 heavy shield, +2 amulet of natural armor, and +2 ring of protection. For under 70k gold, this is less than half of WBL for a 14th level character, leaving plenty of cash to go towards weapons and other things. An optimized character (using greater magic weapon'd armor spikes and magic vestment spells) would have a much lower budget for this sort of thing.

And you need it, too. Monsters in the CR14 range include Planetars and Trumpet Archons (+21 to hit), various dragons (+27 to +28 to hit), and werewolf lord (+24). By the time you reach the high levels, you're looking at attack bonuses in the 30s, and a mere 35 AC is pathetic.

Capping AC at 22 just makes Power Attack (and other ways to trade to-hit for damage, like Rapid Shot) deliciously overpowered, and ensures that high-level characters die a lot unless coddled.

[CharonsHelper]

Here's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm) the link to d20srd.

EDIT: I haven't crunched the numbers, or tried this variant myself, but it seems to me like it would make miss chances and high hitpoint totals more powerful than they are now. With overall AC lowered, and DR of a very small amount, armor isn't going to be worth as much.

I tried a version of this before - and it's a hot mess.

I like the idea of armor = DR, but you need to build a system from the ground up with that in mind. 3.x was designed with armor = miss in mind and was balanced around it.

Armor as DR makes two-handing Power Attack the only way to fly for martials. Shields are worthless since you're freakishly easy to hit anyway.

BAB is nearly worthless other than when it gives you iterative attacks.

Foes with low dex and high armor are far harder to kill, while those with light armor supplementing high dex/deflection are easy. (Currently they're hard to hit - with armor=DR you hit them nearly as easy as everything else - and they have almost no DR to compensate.)

It doesn't work well.

Systems with armor = DR can work. 3.x with armor = DR slapped on doesn't.

[Belzyk]

35 AC is "stupidly armored"? It's a trivial number to reach for a high-level character, and largely necessary in order not to get pulped in combat. Consider your basic fighter with 12 Dexterity, a +5 full plate, +5 heavy shield, +2 amulet of natural armor, and +2 ring of protection. For under 70k gold, this is less than half of WBL for a 14th level character, leaving plenty of cash to go towards weapons and other things. An optimized character (using greater magic weapon'd armor spikes and magic vestment spells) would have a much lower budget for this sort of thing.

And you need it, too. Monsters in the CR14 range include Planetars and Trumpet Archons (+21 to hit), various dragons (+27 to +28 to hit), and werewolf lord (+24). By the time you reach the high levels, you're looking at attack bonuses in the 30s, and a mere 35 AC is pathetic.

Capping AC at 22 just makes Power Attack (and other ways to trade to-hit for damage, like Rapid Shot) deliciously overpowered, and ensures that high-level characters die a lot unless coddled.

Capping at 22 ac and taking nearly 30 or 40% of incoming damage negated has worked very well for my group. I use any ac higher then 22 to go towards raising dr %. Also forgot to mention we use full HD so whatever your hit die is is what you get a level. So yes my fighters and meat shields may get full attacked but they usually only take 1/2 the damage because of the dr%

Btw I'm open for input on the system I use to better it.

Do you think it would be to powerful if I didn't restrict the ac and still allow the dr% to go up like I said?

[Bohandas]

Unearthed Arcana has alternate armor rules

And they're ogc so you can get them for free (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/variantAdventuring.htm)

[dehro]

Yeah, this is a common misconception.

When you fight a dude in armour, you don't just try to hit his armour. That's stupid, and you will break your sword, and he will laugh at you and then kill you. You aim for weak spots - joints, gaps, etc. Then, because the enemy does not want to die, and is dodging you, you miss them, and your attack slides harmlessly off the armour.

This is true even with heavy weapons like mauls and warhammers - while the areas you attack change (you want to collapse the chest plate) now you need to strike at a 90 degree angle, or else the impact will be dissipated. Again, your enemy will be trying to avoid dying.

In addition, armour is substantially lighter than "half a ton." Just google "cartwheels in armor (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cartwheels%20in%20armor)." The belief that soldiers could barely move in their battle gear is as ridiculous as thinking their swords weighed 10-20 pounds.


DR in 3.5 is useless after level 5 or so. When you're being hit for 20, 30, 40 damage a pop, reducing that by two or three points does nothing to slow your inevitable demise.

Yeah, I have a fairly decent grasp of the real world mechanics of armours.. Which brings me to another issue.. If we're going for the weak spots in armours, then those same armours should be a whole lot more breakable.. Or, alternatively, the chances of failure to penetrate them should be much higher, reducing the effects of weapons in heavily armoured people even further.. Dragging out melee fights even further than triple digit hit points already do. Unless you factor in fatigue, wounds and blood loss as crippling factors giving huge malus...
I guess the whole point is I'm trying to figure out a more satisfactory way of managing combat.. But can't really pinpoint what would be satisfactory

[Goodkill]

i made a thread about this recently. armor gives a "deflection bonus" which is the same as ac except lower, and gives damage reduction. the whole idea behind this was to make combat a tiny bit more realistic. i was going to use it for my video game but had to abandon it when i abandoned d20.

[JonVMD]

Try this rule:
Instead of using 10 + AC bonus , roll a d20 and add to the AC bonus . Not exactly what you want , but it's something different

[Fouredged Sword]

I find that armor as DR mixes well with the class AC bonus and vitality point system. Fighters are skilled at dodging as well as hitting. Armor is a great thing because it reduces the damage of the very lethal critical hits.

I also prefer this in low level or E6 games.

[Martin Greywolf]

1) If you think you know medieval armor, think again

Medieval armor is a huge topic, and mechanics behind how it works are incredibly complex. Are we talking, iron, mild steel, proper steel, was it heat-treated, how slanted is it, are we using partial harnesses or full plate, what are gambesons like, what are clothes themselves like, what are the weapons in question optimized to fight against and so on and so forth. There is not a single person who is an expert on medieval armor alive - we have people who are experts in certain narrow areas (say, late medieval England), but that's about it.

These aren't small distinctions either, just the difference between mild steel and heat-treated steel is one of a life or death if a warbow archer decides to point-blank you (and they will, since it was their go to tactic for armored opponents), and these are pieces worn by two people on the same side in the exact same battle.

Statements like "you never try to cut through armor" are not true simply by virtue of being so generalized they are meaningless. You can even use swords to directly punch through full plate, it's called Mordhau, and was absolutely a thing.

And let's not forget that armor can actually harm you directly under certain circumstances. Chain mail can't go against late medieval warbows, and if poorly made will actually make your wounds worse because the arrow will push in broken rings of mail to act as additional shrapnel. In a world of giants wielding longbows the size of tree trunks... yeah.

Lastly, weapons used themselves should affect your "armor points" in some way, it's a hell of a lot easier to parry with a mace than with a flail, and being able to do that when all you have is a buckler is a pretty important consideration - not so much when you have large shields in play, but look at that, we added another bunch of variables.

2) AC does make sense for human vs human

When you fight against someone in armor, you try to hit the parts of him that aren't covered by it if reasonably practical. From this point of view, armor certainly is an all or nothing thing - a twohanded axe to the head is equivalent to being hit during dodgeball (I happen to know from experience). That definitely shouldn't take away from your HP, unless you want to tell me that a dodgeball players die after being hit 20 times or less.

Where this falls apart is a) against big opponents, like dragons, and b) against very specialized weapons (pollaxes, warhammers). Here, if a hit hits you, it will hurt a lot, and armor will only make it less severe.

3) Armor as DR makes no sense in many situations

A guy with a dagger either hits your plate armor on a plate and does bugger all to you, or he hits a gap covered by gussets (then you use chain mail rules), or he hits an empty gap, and then full dagger damage goes through. The latter situation shouldn't really be handled by DR, should it?

4) Armor is not a closed system

What does attack and damage represent then? Attack is skill via BAB, sure, but how about strength bonuses? How is it that a dumb ogre is just as likely to hit an unarmored guy as a highly trained duellist who happens to be on the lean-not-buff side? Damage represents power of the attack, but it can also represent precision (sneak attack).

In situation like this, you cannot have a system that always makes sense, there will be edge cases where it falls apart.

5) Systems that work more realistically will be more cumbersome

You could, in theory, make a list of armor types (cloth, chain mail, plate), assign DR and an AC to each and use both, with some creatures and weapons having various bonuses against a type. AC would be useless against a dragon the size of a small mountain, daggers would be able to go through chain mail and plate easier than cutting blades, slashing weapons would be better at getting through cloth and so on.

The amount of math this would add is staggering.

Using bot AC and DR for armor and calling it a day would also work - you loose out on quite a bit of realism, but gain less math. Problem is, you then need to go through all the stats of all the things and rethink what their AC or DR should be.

In the end, I think all we can do is agree that DnD is not set up in a way that would simulate armor very well, and either accept it as a necessary price for playing in the first place, or find a game that is more geared towards what we want. That doesn't mean that a game with a better armor system has to be more complex, mind (system I'm running right now just as no armor, light armor and heavy armor and abilitites that make your armor act as if it was a class or two worse, and it works like a charm), it just has to have it's mechanics set up to handle this sort of thing better.

Edit: I added bold to where a point begins for better readability.

[Elkad]

Armor as DR either needs to be much bigger numbers (DR equal to the AC bonus at least, including enhancement bonuses), or it needs to be a percentage reduction. I'd double the adamantine bonus as well.

So +5 Adamantine Full Plate would be DR:19. Pile on a few points of Natural Armor at the same rate.



As a percentage, reduce damage by 5% per AC point (including enhance bonuses again). Add 10% for Adamantine. I'd probably keep NA behind armor as regular damage reduction at 1:1.

Same +5 Adamantine Full Plate. DR:75%. A hit for 100 would do 25dmg. With a +2NA amulet, 23dmg. The guy hitting for 20 would do 5 points, or 3 through +2NA.

Now armor does something useful.

Oh, and boost the daylights out of shields. Heavy should add your BAB to your AC or something similar. Animated shields would use the BAB of the creator (at whatever CL he created it at).

[Starbuck_II]

Remember, if you actually did realism you would have to model how piercing/blunt/slashing weapons are more effective vs certain armors as well.

Like this:

Armor Change:
1.
Light Armor AC Bonus Max Dex ACP ASF DR Speed (30 ft.) Speed (20 ft.)
Padded +1 +7 0 5% — 30 ft. 20 ft.
Leather +2 +6 0 5% 1/slashing 30 ft. 20 ft.
Studded Leather +3 +5 -1 10% 1/piercing 30 ft. 20 ft.
Chain Shirt +4 +4 -2 10% 1/bludgeoning 30 ft. 20 ft.

Medium Armor AC Bonus Max Dex ACP ASF DR Speed (30 ft.) Speed (20 ft.)
Hide Armor +4 +6 -2 15% 2/slashing 25 ft. 15 ft.
Brigandine +5 +5 -2 15% 1/— 25 ft. 15 ft.
Chain Hauberk +6 +4 -3 20% 2/bludgeoning 25 ft. 15 ft.
Breastplate +7 +3 -4 20% 2/piercing 25 ft. 15 ft.

Heavy Armor AC Bonus Max Dex ACP ASF DR Speed (30 ft.) Speed (20 ft.)
Lamellar +7 +5 -4 25% 3/slashing 20 ft. 15 ft.
Scale Mail +8 +4 -4 25% 2/— 20 ft. 15 ft.
Chainmail +9 +3 -5 30% 3/bludgeoning 20 ft. 15 ft.
Full Plate +10 +2 -6 30% 3/piercing 20 ft. 15 ft.

[Psyren]

Full disclosure: I'm a bit biased in favor of this system because I'm also in a Dragon Age tabletop campaign, where Armor as DR is a default rule. Dragon Age however has a bit more bounded accuracy as well because modifiers become much harder to increase the higher you get them.


I tried a version of this before - and it's a hot mess.

I like the idea of armor = DR, but you need to build a system from the ground up with that in mind. 3.x was designed with armor = miss in mind and was balanced around it.

Armor as DR makes two-handing Power Attack the only way to fly for martials. Shields are worthless since you're freakishly easy to hit anyway.

BAB is nearly worthless other than when it gives you iterative attacks.

Foes with low dex and high armor are far harder to kill, while those with light armor supplementing high dex/deflection are easy. (Currently they're hard to hit - with armor=DR you hit them nearly as easy as everything else - and they have almost no DR to compensate.)

It doesn't work well.

Systems with armor = DR can work. 3.x with armor = DR slapped on doesn't.

Pathfinder has its own version of Armor as DR (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/variants/armorAsDamageReduction.html) that I think works far better. Notable changes:

1) The armor's enhancement bonus is added to BOTH Defense and DR, rather than just defense. Magic armor in PF thus makes you harder to hit and also absorbs blows that land on you better.

2) The DR from your armor and natural armor stack not just with each other, but also with the best form of DR you have for that attack regardless of that DR's type. So while in the 3.5 version, your DR from armor will not stack with a Stoneskin spell (you'd only use the higher one), in PF they would stack and simply be checked against incoming attacks differently. (So if you had on a +2 Chain Shirt and then were subject to a Stoneskin spell, you'd have DR 16/armor against most attacks, and DR 6/armor against attacks that count as adamantine. If you were also a Barbarian, this value would get even higher.)

3) On top of the DR value provided by the armor itself, all creatures that wear armor gain a +1 bonus to their DR from armor every 5 HD. This benefits PCs more than monsters (as many monsters only have natural armor.)

4) Natural armor is no longer split between defense and DR - now it applies fully to DR. This makes monsters much easier to hit, and bonus damage like sneak attack, deadly aim, bane etc will assist PCs with powering through it.

5) The DR/armor values are higher in PF. For instance, a Chain Shirt in 3.5's system would only provide DR 2/-; the same in PF provides twice as much, and of course the enhancement bonus gets added to both that and defense as noted in point 1. PF Full Plate also provides more than twice as much DR as 3.5 full plate (9 vs. 4) before enhancements. Combine with the stacking in point 2 and you can end up with very tanky martial PCs, especially since most monsters use a "thousand cuts" approach to damage.

So using this system, an Fighter 20 with +5 Full Plate, a +5 Natural Armor amulet and a Stoneskin buff would have DR 34, enough to completely shrug off all of a Balor's attacks unless it crits (and even then it would just tickle*.)

*not counting the Vorpal property obviously



3) Armor as DR makes no sense in many situations

A guy with a dagger either hits your plate armor on a plate and does bugger all to you, or he hits a gap covered by gussets (then you use chain mail rules), or he hits an empty gap, and then full dagger damage goes through. The latter situation shouldn't really be handled by DR, should it?

This is actually an argument in favor of Armor as DR. The less precise blows that land on the plate doing bugger all is exactly what Armor as DR represents. Hitting the gap meanwhile counts as precision damage (e.g. sneak attack or critical hits) which would indeed have better odds of damaging the foe through his DR - just as the system intends.

[LTwerewolf]

1) If you think you know medieval armor, think again

Medieval armor is a huge topic, and mechanics behind how it works are incredibly complex. Are we talking, iron, mild steel, proper steel, was it heat-treated, how slanted is it, are we using partial harnesses or full plate, what are gambesons like, what are clothes themselves like, what are the weapons in question optimized to fight against and so on and so forth. There is not a single person who is an expert on medieval armor alive - we have people who are experts in certain narrow areas (say, late medieval England), but that's about it.

This statement is like saying "there's no such thing as a language professional because there's more than one language" or saying "there is no such thing as a mechanic because cars are different." Of course there are people that understand armor. The style difference between German and French armor doesn't mean a French armor specialist is entirely lost when it comes to German armor.



These aren't small distinctions either, just the difference between mild steel and heat-treated steel is one of a life or death if a warbow archer decides to point-blank you (and they will, since it was their go to tactic for armored opponents), and these are pieces worn by two people on the same side in the exact same battle.

Plenty of evidence that with later armors, war bows didn't do much to the armor. Like a lot of evidence actually. Most of the deaths related to bows were either because it found a gap somewhere and hit either something super important, or they died from disease afterward.


Statements like "you never try to cut through armor" are not true simply by virtue of being so generalized they are meaningless. You can even use swords to directly punch through full plate, it's called Mordhau, and was absolutely a thing.

That technique does not punch through armor in any respect. It's intended use is both to disarm and to be used in the same fashion as a mace (which is not to punch through armor). The poignard came into wide if not universal use for a reason.


And let's not forget that armor can actually harm you directly under certain circumstances. Chain mail can't go against late medieval warbows, and if poorly made will actually make your wounds worse because the arrow will push in broken rings of mail to act as additional shrapnel. In a world of giants wielding longbows the size of tree trunks... yeah.

It's why plate was worn over chain, and why padding was worn under it. Chain was never ever worn on its own.


Lastly, weapons used themselves should affect your "armor points" in some way, it's a hell of a lot easier to parry with a mace than with a flail, and being able to do that when all you have is a buckler is a pretty important consideration - not so much when you have large shields in play, but look at that, we added another bunch of variables.



People really overstate the value of parrying. Yes it's a thing. It's also a thing that if done too often damages your weapon beyond use. Weapons are weapons, and they need to be taken proper care of in order to continue functioning as such. When forced to parry with something that's not dedicated to doing it, it means you're already not in a great situation. It's why bucklers and parrying daggers were a thing.

[Emperor Tippy]

When I don't mind more complicated homebrew I do the following.

Everybody has a base miss chance equal to the dexterity differential between the attacker and defender times five percent. So if your Dex is 20 or more points higher than your attacks Dex, you enjoy 100% miss chance and thus can not be hit by that attacker. This miss chance stacks with all other miss chance providing things.

Everybody has damage reduction equal to Constitution modifier plus Strength modifier plus Armor/Shield bonus from any worn armor. So someone with 20 Con, 20 Str, and wearing Full Plate has DR 18/-.

The armor check penalty for armor is subtracted from both the attackers and defenders Dexterity miss chance.

So someone with 20 Dex in Full Plate is treated as if they had 14 Dex for Miss Chance calculation.

This system actually ends up fairly well balanced in play but ends up slowing down the game significantly if you are playing it with pen and paper.

[dascarletm]

SNIP


That's interesting, one question though:
Does the miss chance/DR replace AC altogether or does everyone need to roll a 10 to hit on each attack?

[Emperor Tippy]

That's interesting, one question though:
Does the miss chance/DR replace AC altogether or does everyone need to roll a 10 to hit on each attack?

Replaces AC all together. Buffs to attack rolls are buffs to the attackers Dexterity for purposes of overcoming that miss chance. Natural 20's are still auto hits (regardless of the dexterity differential) and natural 1's are still auto misses.

Basically, you roll a d20 and need to equal or exceed whatever the dexterity differential is. So something like True Strike is essentially an auto-hit practically all the time.

This does noticeably increase the value of BAB and actually makes it so that, on average, characters take more hits (even if average damage taken per hit tends to drop significantly).

In the end its not really a better or worse system than RAW, it just rewards slightly different build types and allows a more granular damage system.

[Psyren]

Everybody has a base miss chance equal to the dexterity differential between the attacker and defender times five percent. So if your Dex is 20 or more points higher than your attacks Dex, you enjoy 100% miss chance and thus can not be hit by that attacker. This miss chance stacks with all other miss chance providing things.

Doesn't this hose Str builds? What if I have 500 Str and dumped Dex? I might be clumsy, but if I swing my weapon fast enough I'm bound to connect, yet I'd have 0% (or I guess 5%) under this system.

What about attacking with mental stats, like Smite Evil or Intuitive Attack?

[Segev]

Just throwing a thought out there; I have not tested this at all. But what if armor gave bonus hp, instead?

Maybe it gives its AC bonus in "armor hp" for every hit die of the wearer. When he removes the armor, its AC is reduced by the damage he's taken in a proportional way. i.e. for every [character's number of HD] hp their armor took, the AC of the armor is reduced by one. Repairs cost money/time and need the armorer skill.

[smetzger]

5) Systems that work more realistically will be more cumbersome

You could, in theory, make a list of armor types (cloth, chain mail, plate), assign DR and an AC to each and use both, with some creatures and weapons having various bonuses against a type. AC would be useless against a dragon the size of a small mountain, daggers would be able to go through chain mail and plate easier than cutting blades, slashing weapons would be better at getting through cloth and so on.

The amount of math this would add is staggering.


Actually 1st Edition did have rules for specific weapons against specific armor types. Not much additional math just a chart. It did not get rid of AC, rather you got a to hit adjustment based on what weapon and armor was in use.

[Emperor Tippy]

Doesn't this hose Str builds? What if I have 500 Str and dumped Dex? I might be clumsy, but if I swing my weapon fast enough I'm bound to connect, yet I'd have 0% (or I guess 5%) under this system.
Yes, to some extent at least. Frankly I've never been a fan of Strength being responsible for both attack and damage rolls.


What about attacking with mental stats, like Smite Evil or Intuitive Attack?
Would just add onto the Dexterity bit like anything else in the case of bonuses like Smite Evil. Intuitive Attack and the like you can just add in the modifier.

So someone with IA, 20 Dex, and 20 Wis would have an attack score of 25 before attack bonus is factored in.

As a real world example, level 10 Monk with 20 Dex and 20 Wis. BAB is +7/+2 so has an attack score of 32/27 and tries to attack a level 10 Rogue with 30 Dexterity. The Monks first attack will hit on anything but a 1 and the Monks second attack will hit on a 3 or better.

Now each hit will have its damage reduced by the Rogues Str mod plus his Con mod plus the armor value of whatever armor he is wearing.

---
Yes, this variant straight buffs melee classes and makes casters decently squishier.

[Jay R]

Trying to simulate combat on a move-by-move basis is far too complex. I prefer to assume that, over the course of 20 rounds, the armor is supposed to reduce the total amount damage done, which is what the simulation has it doing.

As long as you're thinking about the dice and the simulation, you're not fighting Frost Giants. Don't sweat the minor imperfections in the system, and you can get deeper into the fantasy.

[Psyren]

Just throwing a thought out there; I have not tested this at all. But what if armor gave bonus hp, instead?

Maybe it gives its AC bonus in "armor hp" for every hit die of the wearer. When he removes the armor, its AC is reduced by the damage he's taken in a proportional way. i.e. for every [character's number of HD] hp their armor took, the AC of the armor is reduced by one. Repairs cost money/time and need the armorer skill.

Probably this should be treated as temp HP. Otherwise, taking off your armor could kill you, which is a pretty novel way to go out even by D&D standards :smallbiggrin:


Yes, to some extent at least. Frankly I've never been a fan of Strength being responsible for both attack and damage rolls.

This makes Mighty Glaciers impossible though. Giants gotta eat!

Heck, Dragons are pretty iconic (being right there in the game's name and all) but their Dex sucks, which is why Frigid Touch gets so much press.

This also causes wonky math with heavy armor. In the default system, Full Plate + Tower Shield and 12 Dex gives you solid protection without hurting your combat prowess (much.) Under this ruleset, nobody would go near the things because you'd be eating -16 to attack no matter how strong you are.

[ShurikVch]

Yeah, this is a common misconception.

When you fight a dude in armour, you don't just try to hit his armour. That's stupid, and you will break your sword, and he will laugh at you and then kill you. You aim for weak spots - joints, gaps, etc. Then, because the enemy does not want to die, and is dodging you, you miss them, and your attack slides harmlessly off the armour.It's strongly depend on which armor is on the target, and what weapon you use
For example, in full mail suit there is no "weak spots" - everything is covered; but strong strike can pierce the mail, and heavy blunt weapon will hurt regardless
Also, later appeared various armor-piercing weapons: horseman's pick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseman%27s_pick) and other similar weapons were intended to pierce the armor
Larger weapons - pole weapons and larger swords - are not especially precise, but were good for penetrating armor
This is true even with heavy weapons like mauls and warhammers - while the areas you attack change (you want to collapse the chest plate) now you need to strike at a 90 degree angle, or else the impact will be dissipated. Again, your enemy will be trying to avoid dying.Oslop - heavy cudgel from Ancient Rus' - can be up to 26.5 lbs
Do you expecting any armor will stop it?
Even the not-immediately-lethal hit will knock the target down

In addition, armour is substantially lighter than "half a ton." Just google "cartwheels in armor (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cartwheels%20in%20armor)." The belief that soldiers could barely move in their battle gear is as ridiculous as thinking their swords weighed 10-20 pounds.Firstly, armor's weight strongly depend on which age we are speaking about: armor of early ages was occasionally pierced by bone-tipped arrows; of closer times - withstands musket fire from the point blank range
Also, even the armor of the same age vary by quality and weight: heavier armor may differ from lighter by +50% of weight (or even be thrice as heavy); how we can know the video don't used the cheapest and lightest design?
And finally, more recent armor have removable external parts, which allowed to quick switch of better protection to lighter weight
http://coollib.com/i/7/275707/i_005.png
See the "second breastplate" on the left?
It's a special bulletproof plate, which was intended to withstand gunfire, and then quickly removed before the start of close combat
The question is: should we count the armor's weight with all those "extra parts", or without?

Oh, and about the swords: not 20 pounds, of course, but swords around the 10 lbs. certainly existed - Tau Kien (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_Kien); also, some of those (http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html#.V-QR5K3Wjcs) swords (especially No: LRK 16662.)


DR in 3.5 is useless after level 5 or so. When you're being hit for 20, 30, 40 damage a pop, reducing that by two or three points does nothing to slow your inevitable demise.But what if armor gives DR 40?

[ace rooster]

One system I've thought about using is gradiated AC values. Basically, you have your touch AC, and your full AC. If something beats your touch AC, it hits you, but your armour applies it's DR. If it beats your full AC, it just goes through.

It allows some variations in armour, as something like a breastplate would be +5 AC for DR 10, where full leather armour could be +10 AC for DR 5.

Not sure how to interact it with natural armour, except to have 3 ACs (touch, overlap, full), which might be beginning to get a bit too much.

If you want to go very off piste, you could try it with my weapon accuracy variant too. It is beginning to be a completely different game though.

One important thought behind this is that characters do not commit to attacks that will not work, and will put them in danger, so a 'miss' can represent a character not seeing an opening, as well as a swing and a miss. I think I might introduce a reckless attack mechanic, where you trade 4AC for a +2 to hit, with this in mind. Combat expertise could be traded the other way too.

Weapons have an accuracy expression, typically something like [3 d4+1, 4.] (roll 3 4 sided dice, for any 4s you add 4 to the total and reroll the dice. Add one to the total)

What makes this interesting is that there is no cap on the value attainable, and differing weapons can have very different behaviours. Additionally, the exponential fall off allows you to model large numbers of attacks reasonably, giving you a system that should be a decent starting point for mass combat (400 arrows at the dragon, for example, could be handled).

For example, [2d10-5, 9] has about a 1 in 20 chance of rolling 25+, but a pretty low expected value around 7. This could be a very precise weapon with low range, such as a dagger. You don't get many chances with a dagger, but there is no better weapon for putting through an eye hole, or the missing dragon scale.

Something like a large unbalanced club would be more in the range of [2d4+1,4]. Big wild swing that is hard to place, and predictable. A low variation around an expected value of 7ish, and rapid fall off makes the club a poor weapon. The dragon gets it's tail for free though, so it doesn't really mind.

A greataxe might be [2d8,8]. Accurate, and reasonably safe to attack with, the greataxe is a reliable performer. Weak points are hard to find with it, but there is no better weapon for slaughtering hordes of foes!

A longsword could be [2d6,5]. Harder to place than a dagger, but much easier to get attacks with. Better than an axe when that armour is just too strong.

A shield gives you a flat +2 to hit, due to being able to get closer safely.

[lastoutkast]

Have one AC number but make conditions have bonuses to hit like +2 to hit a flat footed enemy.

[SangoProduction]

Yeah, I have a fairly decent grasp of the real world mechanics of armours.. Which brings me to another issue.. If we're going for the weak spots in armours, then those same armours should be a whole lot more breakable.. Or, alternatively, the chances of failure to penetrate them should be much higher, reducing the effects of weapons in heavily armoured people even further.. Dragging out melee fights even further than triple digit hit points already do. Unless you factor in fatigue, wounds and blood loss as crippling factors giving huge malus...
I guess the whole point is I'm trying to figure out a more satisfactory way of managing combat.. But can't really pinpoint what would be satisfactory

...That's what HP and AC abstracts, or "factors in".

There really is no satisfactory way of managing combat in 3.5 (at least martial combat, where their big move is "I run really far and hit it with my sword!"). You have to do the descriptions yourself to make it engaging.

[dehro]

@ace rooster.. I actually quite like your ideas...

[Jay R]

For example, in full mail suit there is no "weak spots" - everything is covered; but strong strike can pierce the mail, and heavy blunt weapon will hurt regardless.

Fiore dei Liberi disagreed with you. In his 15th century fighting manual, Fior di Battaglia, he taught to fight against full plate by aiming at underam, elbow and knee joints, to slide a sword blade up under the over-lapping plates, to open an opponent's visor with one hand to strike the face, etc.

[He also spends a lot of time on how to throw or trip your opponent or break his arm. It's a fairly brutal fighting style.]

But he never shows just pounding away against the guy's armor.

[ShurikVch]

Fiore dei Liberi disagreed with you. In his 15th century fighting manual, Fior di Battaglia, he taught to fight against full plate by aiming at underam, elbow and knee joints, to slide a sword blade up under the over-lapping plates, to open an opponent's visor with one hand to strike the face, etc.Chainmail don't have any plates. Or did you meant some other type of armor? Scalemail? Plated mail?

[Jay R]

Chainmail don't have any plates. Or did you meant some other type of armor? Scalemail? Plated mail?

Oops. I thought you meant plate. Yes, chain is susceptible to blunt trauma and can be punctured. [It also has weak spots at the face, up under the coif, and up under the hauberk.]

[2D8HP]

IIRC Rolemaster and Runequest had rules similar to some of the alternatives being proposed on this thread.
Anyway, I thought this piece by one of the guys who helped write rules for early D&D would be germane:
What we really meant—Pt. 1--AC


In recent weeks I have found myself, as part of an exciting new project I have embarked upon, doing a lot of synopsizing what some have come to see as complex or confusing concepts. One example that springs to mind is the old stat known as Armor or Armor Class (AC). In*OD&D*it was a really simple system that ranked plain old street clothes as AC9, while at the other end of the non-magical spectrum was plate mail and a shield at AC2


If Hit Points (HP) are considered to be your ability to avoid/evade a mortal blow (which they were in OD&D), then AC was how hard you were “to hit” (in this case threaten your well-being to some degree).


“To Hit” is another term that does not exactly mean what it seems to mean based on just the words. Confused yet? Consider “the Mountain” from*Game of Thrones*on HBO. This is one HUGE dude encased in metal. If three or four puny (normal-sized) guys attack him, chances are that their weapons will actually make physical contact with The Mountain lots of times; this is not what is referenced in “To Hit”. Of those several physical contacts, only a small proportion of them will actually strike with a potential to do actual damage;*i.e.*pierce the armor at a weak point or joint, or slice or pierce some flesh. Those are what are winnowed out of the combat to be represented by the To Hit number.

Back t0 AC; something as small and ephemeral as a pixie or sprite, or small and quick like a stirge would be somewhat difficult to simply swat out of the air like an over-sized wasp. To simulate that facet of their being I make them hard “to hit” by giving them a very good AC.


(OD&D had a descending AC system starting at 9 and going down; other systems use an ascending system, where 1 is street togs and 7 or 8 is really buff. Readjust this in your head to match your system; the concepts remain constant. Something slow and ponderous, such as a pachyderm, would be easier to strike, but the thickness of the skin somewhat mitigates this as well as the high number of HP an elephant or mammoth might have.)


AC does not always indicate what is being worn. AC is a combination of several concepts, not only the weight of the metal being worn.


To maintain perspective remember this: we were trying to bring miniatures to the table top. Several of the seemingly complex considerations and calculations were second nature to miniatures gamers. We tried to abstract a lot of what was second nature in minis to a whole new milieu—Table-top Role-playing (and this before it was even*called*role-playing).


Once this concept is grasped in the abstract, it then becomes more clear why extraordinary attributes can affect AC, or otherwise make the PC harder “To Hit”. These same attributes also can grant the PC more HP, all in recognition of how that last, fatal blow is just that, fatal. I have never counted anything more than “dead”; hit 0 HP and you died. Whether or not your PC can be Raised or Resurrected is another matter entirely. We had PC’s brought back from dead several times, although not always with absolute best results.



But anyway, that’s what we meant.