|
Post by snorri on Nov 22, 2011 17:08:09 GMT -6
I tried at least two times to use a "damage reduction system" First in a classic campaign, with Rules cyclopedia and the dawn of the emperor fighting system. As I was using weapon masteries, damage were suaally high, so damage reduction had a limited impact. Second, in a 3.5 campaign, with normal damages - and it proved very frustrating. Players dislike "hit" and inflict no damages. Each times I come to the same conclusion: classical D&D system isn't realistic, but it's just fine for a game.
|
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Nov 22, 2011 19:05:30 GMT -6
And, for epiphanies, I had never heard of Philotomy. I thought I had read something in the AD&D books somewhere. I could be wrong. The only piece I'd discard from that is 'luck'. Personally, I don't really have a firm idea of what 'luck' is, or why it should increase with experience/level. I think the other factors mentioned above are sufficient. In AD&D, Hit points also represent favor/protection from divine sources. When talking about AD&D HP's, I've noticed that a lot of people fail to mention, or remember that, for some reason. So, I decided to mention it. ;D A lot of hp injury I see as being similar to the sort of wear and tear professional athletes have to deal with. All those minor injuries add up and begin to take a toll. Some damage is non-lethal, but represents much more than just minor scrapes. And a PC could take quite a bit of such damage, still function, but not at 100%. Professional athletes sometimes do so for almost a whole season. Which is why I don't completely agree with the "last 6 hp" argument. Just mostly agree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2011 20:01:04 GMT -6
*glug*glug*glug*glug*glug*glug*glug*glug*glug*glug*
|
|
3d6
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 62
|
Post by 3d6 on Nov 22, 2011 20:13:24 GMT -6
8-)ha^ maybe glug should be the last word, but gronan posted as I wrote and so I'm going to throw in these two cps. I pretty much agree with that mostly agree. I believe that I read (somewhere, sometime) that regarding D&D combat, GG had the fighting in the old Robin Hood (Errol Flynn) movie in mind. I have no idea if that's true, but it works for me. Explains, at least in my mind, to some degree, what th and hp "mean." And a few perhaps apropos words from Mr. Vance, '... I prefer the small-sword to the heavy equipment favoured by the mounted knight. With my small sword I will maim a full-armored man in half a minute, or kill him if I choose. It is the supremacy of skill over brute mass. Here! Lift this two-hander, strike at me... ...Aillas struck out, the blade was deflected. He tried once more; Tauncy wrenched and the sword flew from Aillas' hands. "Once more," said Tauncy. "See how it goes? Flick, slide, off, away! You may drive down the weapon with all your weight; I interpose, I twist! the sword leaves your grasp; I stab where his armor gaps; in goes the sword and out comes your life."'
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 23, 2011 17:06:24 GMT -6
I tried at least two times to use a "damage reduction system" First in a classic campaign, with Rules cyclopedia and the dawn of the emperor fighting system. As I was using weapon masteries, damage were suaally high, so damage reduction had a limited impact. Second, in a 3.5 campaign, with normal damages - and it proved very frustrating. Players dislike "hit" and inflict no damages. Each times I come to the same conclusion: classical D&D system isn't realistic, but it's just fine for a game. +1. I've tried a similar system with similar reactions. It works, but it changes the balance a lot and it just doesn't feel right.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Nov 23, 2011 17:17:09 GMT -6
3d6What jack vance book is that quote from?
|
|
3d6
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 62
|
Post by 3d6 on Nov 23, 2011 20:53:13 GMT -6
3d6What jack vance book is that quote from? yeah, I should've said, that's from Suldrun's Garden, near the beginning of Ch. 8.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2011 21:35:31 GMT -6
yeah, I should've said, that's from Suldrun's Garden, near the beginning of Ch. 8. It's a lovely quote, but historically nonsensical; the rapier was a response to lighter armor, not the cause of it.
|
|
|
Post by kent on Nov 25, 2011 17:53:54 GMT -6
No, but you might have expressed the idea in a single brief sentence. Im sorry but what you have said is nothing a twelve year looking at the table for the first time wouldn't conclude. True I am a little slow but having been away from d&d for many years. Been playing other games. I've come back starting way at the begining with OD&D and I'm giving things a serious re reading paying more attention instead of just reading words. No you're not slow. I didn't think that you might be just getting back into the swing of things and starting afresh. No, but you might have expressed the idea in a single brief sentence. I [']m sorry but what you have said is nothing [that] a twelve year [old] looking at the table for the first time wouldn't conclude. Might have expressed the idea in a single brief sentence, true. But chose instead to embellish the idea. And then also chose to share the idea freely so that we could choose to participate in this discussion. Let's try to encourage this kind of behaviour, shall we? Yes governess.
|
|
premmy
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 295
|
Post by premmy on Nov 25, 2011 18:46:56 GMT -6
As it were, I've been experimenting with a set of rules heavily involving a damage reduction system, and after playtesting it with my group I've come to the conclusion that it's quite possible to do it as long as you excercise a bit of consciousness as a rules designer.
The following major issues must be kept in mind:
I. - In D&D, hit or miss is decided by comparing two scales (and weighting one with a d20): the scale of the attacker's possible attack bonus values (THAC0, if you will), and the scale of the defender's possible AC values. Assuming no higher than roughly name level and no magical armour, and ignoring ability modifiers, both scales are about 10 digits wide: THAC0 20 to THAC0 10 for the attacker (if a fighter), and AC 10 to a bit above AC 0 for the defender. This rough equality assures that, assuming comparable competency of attack (via character level) and defense (via armor), the actual chance to and a damage-scoring hit will be 50% or so.
No, if armour reduces damage, it's only fair that it no longer improves AC. Suddenly, the attacker's THAC0 still ranges from 20 to 10, but the defender's AC is limited to the much narrower scale of 10 to maybe 7, and that's including a very generous Dexterity modifier. As a result, the attacker will enjoy a tremendous advantage - after level 2 or 3, the defender can no longer keep improving his AC at the same rate the attacker's improving his THAC0.
This must be addressed, and I've found the following to work:
- Similarly reduce the attacker's possible range of THAC0. Simplest fix: characters can only improve to the 5th level of character (or whatever number floats your boat). Now the two scales are roughly in balance again. - Shields still improve AC instead of reducing damage (since a blow that lands on your shield does NOT impact on your body - unlike a blow that lands on your cuirass). Also increase the AC bonus of shields - I have my "normal" shields give +2, while Scutum- or Kite-styled shields would have +3. - Make sure that ability bonuses are easier to get.
II. - Once the range of attack and defense values are rebalanced, the range of possible damag, damage reduction and Hit Point values must be rebalanced as well. Personally, I've done the following:
- Since characters can only advance to 5th level, that also takes care of the issue of having enough HPs which to last forever when protected by damage reduction. - Damage reduction was fixed at -1 for light armour (leather, etc.), -3 for medium (maille, various non-renaissance-full-plate armours) and -5 for heavy (renaissance armour, very, very, VERY rare). At the same time, most one-handed weapons do 1d6 HP damage, the two-handed nutcrackers 1d6+2. This has the following practical effects: A, Medium armour offers significant, though not insurmountable protection against one-handed weapons (the commonest type), and heavy plate renders the wearer a truly formidable force, as it should. B, On the other hand, two-handed weapons become a meaningful and significant choice, since the +2 to the roll almost completely negates medium armour and goes a long way to defeating heavy. (The tradeoff being that the 2 points of AC you lose from not having a shield become a relatively much more significant difference than the paltry 1 point in standard D&D.) Similarly, Strength bonuses also gain in relative importance.
EDIT: Oh, and for completeness' sake, I've also added another change once the numbers suggested that a bit more resiliency might be necessary. We all know the old-school mantra of "HP doesn't represent being stabbed, it represents luck, rolling with the blow, stamina, divine favour, etc.". Well, "Fair enough", I said, "then what DOES represent actualy being stabbed?" Because, you know, the mantra really doesn't address that question satisfactorily, "the last 6 or so HP" opening a whole new can of worms I won't go into here. So I've decided that HP does, indeed, represent being worn down (and it's consistent with all the above, since heavy armour would also protect you better against minor bruises and the like) - and it only represents that. HP has nothing to do with actual stab wounds. Instead, such wounds are represented directly by the characters' physical attributes, like in Classic Traveller. Once you're down to 0 Hit Points, you're so worn down and dazed that you can't dodge or roll with the blow. Any damage that gets through your armour's reduction is doubled and applied to Strength, Dexterity or Constitution, determined randomly. It works, because
A, you no longer have the situation where you can swing your sword at full 100% capability until you suddenly drop dead - wounding blows actually reduce your combat capability, B, you can take some genuine wounds, but the randomness means you have absolutely no idea how many, and C, this way you have a small buffer between your abstract Hit Points and actual death; important, since the former are now greatly limited by the level cap.
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Nov 25, 2011 19:10:00 GMT -6
Hi Premmy, I DM'd a campaign using Mike Mearls' excellent "Iron Heroes" rules. This was a variant 3rd edition that used armor as damage reduction. Here is a quick summary of the rules as I remember them: 1. Damage reduction ranges from 1 point for padded to 1d5 for chain to 1d8 for full plate (keep in mind these numbers are based on inflated 3rd edition damage output, not OD&D 1d6 range) 2. Armor DR is completely bypassed by magic weapons, spells, area effects, fire, cold, electricity, etc. 3. Shields give a "passive defense" bonus to AC 4. Classes have an "active defense" bonus to AC based on their class and level. Active defense is also improved by dexterity bonus, certain feats, etc In practice we found the rules were clunky, adding an extra die roll and calculation to every attack. Furthermore it created a disparity between the multiple-attack-low-damage finess fighters and the single-attack-high-damage power fighters. In a world where damage reduction is common, power attacks are superior. You might find this desirable in your campaign; in mine we found it very frustrating for the thief/swashbuckler/dual-wielding character concepts. (edit) You might also find this essay interesting: www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 25, 2011 21:07:45 GMT -6
FWIW -- I've also run a campaign with DR for armour.
The players (mostly seasoned war-gamers) liked the idea in theory, agreeing that it was a "better model" of "how armour works".
In practice it worked... ish.
Our mechanic was fairly naive (from memory; armour did nothing for AC, but ablated points from each hit. Light armour ablated 2 hit points, medium armour 4, and heavy armour 6 -- with variable damage die by weapon type).
It made medium armour formidable, and heavy armour more like indomitable (which might be desirable, depending upon your game). But even light armour lengthened combats significantly. Later I think we halved the DR to 1, 2 and 3 points.
Despite this, it still made a lot more work for the referee. I had to record AC and DR for every PC and NPC. During combat I was constantly having to look up DRs and subtract that amount from every hit. It might sound trivial, but it all adds up at the game table and bogs the game down considerably.
I threw it out after two or three sessions, realising (at last?) why a simple approximation is far and away better than various more "realistic" alternatives.
edit: inserted missing "than".
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Nov 25, 2011 22:23:00 GMT -6
From a "history of the game" perspective there is a very simple reason why armor makes you harder to hit (armor class) instead of providing damage reduction.
The original D&D combat system was based on the game Chainmail. (What we now think of as D&D combat was conceived as the "alternate combat system" for people who didn't own a copy of Chainmail.)
In Chainmail there are no hit points or variable weapon damage. One hit = one kill. So you aren't rolling "to hit" but rather "to kill."
If that's the case, then how do you account for some weapons and armor being "better" than others? The answer is simple: you make a table of weapons vs. armor with favorable match-ups having a higher "to kill" probability. A flail is more likely than a dagger to kill a solider in plate, for example.
"Roll to kill" is fine for a wargame, perhaps, but not for an RPG... players don't want their PCs to die with one hit! So "roll to kill" evolved into "roll to inflict 1d6hp damage" because on average 1d6 is a "killing blow" vs. opponents with 1d6 hit point.
The concept of "armor class" playtested fine in Chainmail and so was carried forward into D&D basically unchanged. (Especially if you use the weapon vs. AC tables that people seem to either love or hate.)
Armor class vs. armor damage reduction both have the same cumulative effect over time: to increase the defender's odds of taking zero damage from an attack. AC may seem less "realistic" but makes perfect sense from a meta-game perspective due to the easier record-keeping and game flow.
Another way to look at it: All weapons in OD&D do between 0-6 hp damage. For every "step" of AC there is a 5% greater chance of zero damage (a miss). Thus the range is always 0-6 but the average is weighted closer to zero the better the armor. This is statistically the same as damage reduction.
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Nov 26, 2011 5:32:28 GMT -6
"Roll to kill" is fine for a wargame, perhaps, but not for an RPG... players don't want their PCs to die with one hit! Misplaced E66 slash crit to come up with such a dichotomic statement, IMHO. So "roll to kill" evolved into "roll to inflict 1d6hp damage" because on average 1d6 is a "killing blow" vs. opponents with 1d6 hit point. Rewind to saving throws, please!
|
|
premmy
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 295
|
Post by premmy on Nov 26, 2011 8:34:36 GMT -6
Hi Premmy, I DM'd a campaign using Mike Mearls' excellent "Iron Heroes" rules. This was a variant 3rd edition that used armor as damage reduction. Here is a quick summary of the rules as I remember them: Well, personal experiences are bound to be different, I guess. Sorry to hear it didn't work out for you, but as a blind guess, I might suggest the problem lay not with the damage reduction issue as such, but the whole other bundle of... shall we say... problems that WotCD&D inherently has. Personally, I play old school and the present game system is a strong base of OD&D with a great bunch of home rules. I mean - and I must disagree with waysoftheearth here -, once you no longer have to deal with feats, HP inflation, etc. etc., that single small DR number really doesn't add any apprecieable amount of extra math or bookkeeping. (Maybe if you have a party of 8 fighting a diverse force of 14 enemies all of whom have different armour.)
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Nov 26, 2011 9:44:38 GMT -6
Hi Premmy, I DM'd a campaign using Mike Mearls' excellent "Iron Heroes" rules. This was a variant 3rd edition that used armor as damage reduction. Here is a quick summary of the rules as I remember them: Well, personal experiences are bound to be different, I guess. Sorry to hear it didn't work out for you, but as a blind guess, I might suggest the problem lay not with the damage reduction issue as such, but the whole other bundle of... shall we say... problems that WotCD&D inherently has. Personally, I play old school and the present game system is a strong base of OD&D with a great bunch of home rules. I mean - and I must disagree with waysoftheearth here -, once you no longer have to deal with feats, HP inflation, etc. etc., that single small DR number really doesn't add any apprecieable amount of extra math or bookkeeping. (Maybe if you have a party of 8 fighting a diverse force of 14 enemies all of whom have different armour.) "Iron Heroes" is not a WotC product, and we loved just about everything about it except damage reduction. Rolling a d5 every time you get hit is annoying. Anyway let's not turn this thread into an edition war. Non-variable DR just doesn't work for me, I don't like the idea that a guy with a dagger can never hurt someone in plate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2011 10:50:33 GMT -6
I threw it out after two or three sessions, realising (at last?) why a simple approximation is far and away better than various more "realistic" alternatives. You mean Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, who were veteran wargamers and had written numerous games individually and at least one together before D&D, actually knew what they were doing? That's just crazy talk!!
|
|
premmy
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 295
|
Post by premmy on Nov 26, 2011 12:05:44 GMT -6
Non-variable DR just doesn't work for me, I don't like the idea that a guy with a dagger can never hurt someone in plate. Nothing that couldn't be solved with a houserule. Say, attack rolls of natural 20 and other reasonable situations (e.g. knight held down by 20 peasants while the 21st pushes his dagger between the joints) bypass armour.
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 11, 2011 6:03:09 GMT -6
A possible solution would be a armor-variable damage. Roll against AC9, -1 to hit if opponent has a shield, and roll for damage accoridng to his / her AC AC 1 or lower 1d2 AC 2-3 1d4 AC 4-5 1d6 AC 6-7 1d8 AC 8-9 1d10 It shoud be playtested, just an ida I get in the tube
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Dec 14, 2011 22:08:56 GMT -6
A possible solution would be a armor-variable damage. Roll against AC9, -1 to hit if opponent has a shield, and roll for damage accoridng to his / her AC AC 1 or lower 1d2 AC 2-3 1d4 AC 4-5 1d6 AC 6-7 1d8 AC 8-9 1d10 It shoud be playtested, just an ida I get in the tube I think the problem with this is that it doesn't permit variable damage easily But it does get to the problem of reducing damage as actual armor ususally does.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 15, 2011 0:03:51 GMT -6
What about this (off the top of my head)..?
Attacker rolls d20. Adds his number of HD. Adds opponent's AC.
Damage caused is the amount by which this exceeds 20.
For example...
Sprig the Spittoon is a 2HD fighter attacking an AC7 Orc. Sprig rolls 1d20=15. He adds his 2HD and the Orc's AC7. 14+2+7=23. Therefore Sprig has hit and caused 3 hit points of damage.
Pugwald the Pugnacious is an 8HD superhero attacking an AC3 Antihero from behind (+4 advantage). Pugwald rolls 1d20=20! He adds his 8HD, his +4 advantage, and the Antihero's AC3. 20+8+4+3=35. Therefore Pugwald has hit and caused a huge 15 hit points of damage.
|
|
|
Post by Professor P on Dec 15, 2011 3:42:24 GMT -6
What about this (off the top of my head)..? Attacker rolls d20. Adds his number of HD. Adds opponent's AC. Damage caused is the amount by which this exceeds 20. For example... Sprig the Spittoon is a 2HD fighter attacking an AC7 Orc. Sprig rolls 1d20=15. He adds his 2HD and the Orc's AC7. 14+2+7=23. Therefore Sprig has hit and caused 3 hit points of damage. Pugwald the Pugnacious is an 8HD superhero attacking an AC3 Antihero from behind (+4 advantage). Pugwald rolls 1d20=20! He adds his 8HD, his +4 advantage, and the Antihero's AC3. 20+8+4+3=35. Therefore Pugwald has hit and caused a huge 15 hit points of damage. Woe to the PCs on the night the DM is rolling well...
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 15, 2011 6:49:11 GMT -6
What about this (off the top of my head)..? Attacker rolls d20. Adds his number of HD. Adds opponent's AC. Damage caused is the amount by which this exceeds 20. I tried a variant of that one. It works well, but players feel they love so much to roll for damage... I fear it's a part of the "core" of D&D. a possible variant involving both armor damage reduction and variable damage for weapons (highly speculative, for the same reason): 1d2 > 1d4 > 1d6 > 1d8 > 1d10 > 1d12 > 1d6+1d8 > 2d8 AC 1 or lower : lower dice by 2 AC 2-3 1d4 : lower dice by one AC 4-5 1d6 : normal dice AC 6-7 1d8 : high dice by one AC 8-9 1d10 : high dice by two. ie. Sprig the Spittoon is a 2HD fighter attacking an AC7 Orc with a long sword (1d8). Ifhe hits, he does 1d10 damage instead of 1d8. Then, he attacks an AC3 Antihero - a dangerous sport - and does only 1d6 damage.
|
|
|
Post by Ynas Midgard on Dec 16, 2011 7:05:49 GMT -6
I use the following (with an S&W Core-based system): - leather gives +2 AC - chain gives +4 AC and reduces damage by 1 - plate gives +6 AC and reduces damage by 2 - shield gives +1 AC and can be sacrificed to reduce damage by 6 - helmet gives +1 AC and can be sacrificed to reduce a critical hit to a normal hit - Dex does not give AC bonus What about this (off the top of my head)..? Attacker rolls d20. Adds his number of HD. Adds opponent's AC. Damage caused is the amount by which this exceeds 20. The core idea is neat and simple.
|
|