AC as DR Variant, Partly to Make S&B Possible [3.5]

[Baron Corm]

I don't like the fact that missing AC by even 1 point will negate all of your damage, and hitting that number will deal all of your damage. I propose the following variant:

When an attack fails to hit an AC, it can have no effects other than damage.
When an attack fails to hit an AC, do not negate all of the damage. First, reduce the damage by the amount the attack failed to hit by. The defender chooses which damage type to reduce first, if there are multiple. Second, halve the total damage.
Whenever you would gain an iterative attack, the damage reduced per miss increases by 1.
When wielding a shield, the damage reduced is doubled.

For example, Alfred, 6th level rogue, has a +10 attack bonus, and rolls a 10 on his attack roll. He is attacking Regdar, 6th level shield-wielding fighter, who has an AC of 25. Alfred rolls 28 for damage. Alfred deals 4 damage to Regdar. The damage was reduced by 20, because the attack missed by 5, and Regdar has one iterative attack and is wielding a shield. This is the equivalent damage reduction of having three iterative attacks and not wearing a shield. It was then halved, reducing the damage by an additional 4.

To go along with this variant, I have created a bunch of feats (below) which will hopefully help to make fighting with a shield more interesting. The shield fighter should feel awesome when he is avoiding damage, just as the THF feels awesome when he is dealing damage.

This helps out other fighters too, though. Instead of wasting your turn if you get a low attack roll, now you can still deal some damage. On the other hand, it makes fights with melee monsters more deadly.

What do you all think?

Some Feats

Combat Expertise - Requires 13 Int

At the start of every round, you can subtract an amount from your caster level, if applicable, and all attack rolls during that round, and add the same amount as a dodge bonus to AC, for 1 round. The number cannot be higher than your base attack bonus. When wielding a shield, you gain double the AC bonus. Using your shield to shield bash negates the additional bonus for 1 round.

Defender - Requires 13 Int, Combat Expertise

The amount of damage that is reduced on a missed attack roll against you is doubled.

Expert Shield Bash - Requires 13 Int, Combat Expertise, Improved Shield Bash

You can shield bash while retaining your additional bonus from Combat Expertise.

Canny Defender [Tactical] - Requires 13 Int, Combat Expertise, Defender, Improved Shield Bash

You add your Intelligence bonus to initiative checks and as a dodge bonus to AC whenever you take at least half of your BAB as an attack penalty with the Combat Expertise feat.

While using your shield to shield bash, you can allocate any amount of your attack roll penalty from Combat Expertise to your move speed instead, in increments of -5. This applies to all move speeds you have for 1 round. It applies to all attacks made for 1 round.

You may make a shield bash at your highest attack bonus as a swift action against any creature lower in the initiative order than you.

Elusive - Requires 15 Dex, Evasion as a class feature, Dodge

The damage reduced when an attacker misses you is multiplied by 1.5. This bonus does not stack with the bonus from wielding a shield.

[Drolyt]

What's S&B? This variant isn't a bad idea, but it needs work. At higher levels it becomes impossible to avoid damage completely no matter how much the attack fails by, I mean don't DnD characters dodge? This will also mostly help melee types, other classes not only don't benefit from dealing more damage but have too few hit points to survive this variant. Combat will also be over much sooner, and I feel it will help monsters more than PCs. If I were you I would try to come up with a way to do this that doesn't actually change the lethality of battle, but does increase the realism, which I think is what you are going for. Anyway that is my 2 copper pieces.

[Eldan]

The problem with this variant lies in the power attack feat:
with a two-handed weapon you can take a -1 to hit for +2 damage. Which means that, no matter what happens, you come out one point of damage ahead. It gets even worse with frenzied berserkers and the chargers: what stops them from just power attacking for maximum against every enemy? If I can deal either 190 and hit the enemy, or miss the enemy and still deal 200, I know what I'd do.

[Pronounceable]

You're going completely the wrong way. You should increase the damage of hits exceeding AC with extra goodies for bigger gaps. That would also cause all sorts of unforeseen problems and take the game away from standard DnD (which is a good thing), but it'll be much more intuitive.

[Baron Corm]

I originally had it as subtracting 1 per miss per BAB of the defender, but that was just way too much. I especially had in mind the fact that most monsters do very low damage with a single attack. They don't have weapon enhancements and few have Power Attack, unless modified. So I've got to find some number in between.

I made some adjustments to the first post, and added feats. Some numbers:

Base: 1 per miss
Base (Shield): 2 per miss
Base (Defender): 2 per miss
Base (Shield + Defender): 4 per miss

4 Iteratives: 4 per miss
4 Iteratives (Shield): 8 per miss
4 Iteratives (Defender): 8 per miss
4 Iteratives (Shield + Defender): 16 per miss

Better?

@cnsvnc: The main idea really was to make fighting with shields more interesting. They don't have much support. However, giving damage bonuses for beating the AC would make the system feel more complete. I'll work on it.

@Eldan: TBH, not knowing how much to Power Attack for reduces fun of the game, for me. Being able to do it with impunity unless your opponent is wielding a shield isn't so terrible. If it becomes a problem, the DM can make monsters with shields more prevalent than they currently are. Most Power Attackers get Shock Trooper anyway, heh.

@Drolyt: S&B stands for Sword and Board, which means sword and shield, but rhymes. Creatures still dodge, even if they are taking damage. Hit points are an abstraction. This will help mostly melee types, and was meant to. However it also applies to weaponlike spells.

I'm not sure exactly where this will end up but I'm going to keep working on it. I think the best thing for it would be a playtest, if anyone could do that. Barring that I'm going to attempt to go over situations in my head and engage in wrestling matches with the numbers until they work.

[Godskook]

If you want to make Shields useful, why not:

Definition: Defense of Opportunity is a new mechanic for players using a shield. At any time you would gain an Attack of Opportunity, you also gain a DoO as well unless otherwise specified. Abilities that don't provoke AoO don't provoke DoO. However, without training, you are not eligible to use a DoO. You are allowed as many DoO per round as you are AoO.

Shield Defense
When wielding a shield, you may use an DoO to block an attack made against you. You forfeit your shield bonus to AC. You gain a base 20% chance of blocking the attack +5 for light shields, +10 for heavy and +20 for tower. For every additional shield bonus lost(from magic shields or spells), you gain that much *5% more of a block chance. You may not make DoOs against iterative attacks.

Would that do it?

[Ezekiel Moon]

It... really doesn't fit for every hit to deal damage, even though you block or dodge. If you successfully dodge, you get the hell out of the way.

What I'd do is, divide the different sources of AC into two categories - reduction and avoidance. Dodge and Shield bonuses, for instance, would fall under avoidance; Armor and similar bonuses would fall under reduction. The natural AC of 10 for a player character would be distributed evenly, five to reduction and five to avoidance. If an attack roll is lower than the avoidance AC, it fails; if it's lower than the reduction AC, it's reduced by two or three times either the value of the reduction AC or the difference between the attack roll and total AC; if it's lower than the total AC, but higher than either type individually, it's reduced flatly by the difference between the attack roll and total AC.

[Draz74]

It... really doesn't fit for every hit to deal damage, even though you block or dodge. If you successfully dodge, you get the hell out of the way.

Not true, if Hit Points represent stamina as well as actual wounds on your body. Dodging can require quite an impressive effort, leaving the agile fellow in question winded and less able to dodge a subsequent attack.

[Ezekiel Moon]

That argument is so flawed I don't know if I can even formulate a proper counter to it.

Let's see... overexertion is represented by nonlethal damage, unless it involves pushing oneself far enough beyond your physical limits to actually cause internal damage. That's not going to happen every time you dodge. Sometimes your opponent will swing and just... not make it. The blow could glance off your shield which you just barely got up in time thanks to a luck bonus. Or your opponent could bring down their sword only to find you stepped away from that spot several seconds ago thanks to an insight bonus. Or you might overexert yourself, just not enough to manifest as half a point of nonlethal damage.

And as for being "less able to dodge a subsequent attack", that would materialize as an AC penalty, not hit point damage. Losing hit points doesn't make you more likely to get hit.

[Draz74]

That argument is so flawed I don't know if I can even formulate a proper counter to it.

Let's see... overexertion is represented by nonlethal damage, unless it involves pushing oneself far enough beyond your physical limits to actually cause internal damage. That's not going to happen every time you dodge. Sometimes your opponent will swing and just... not make it. The blow could glance off your shield which you just barely got up in time thanks to a luck bonus. Or your opponent could bring down their sword only to find you stepped away from that spot several seconds ago thanks to an insight bonus. Or you might overexert yourself, just not enough to manifest as half a point of nonlethal damage.

And as for being "less able to dodge a subsequent attack", that would materialize as an AC penalty, not hit point damage. Losing hit points doesn't make you more likely to get hit.

That's one interpretation.

Specifically, it's the interpretation that says HP damage only represents actual wounds. Which leads to the interpretation that my 10th level Barbarian can take 15 arrows straight to the chest and still function at full capacity.

Then there's the other interpretation, backed up explicitly in at least one book (I forget which one), which says that HP represent not only sheer toughness when wounded, but also stamina, luck, and the ability to turn a serious attack into a glancing blow (e.g. via parrying). This interpretation is even implicitly made standard in 4e, where you're not "bloodied" until you're down to half HP. But it's got plenty of 3e adherents, too, especially on these Forums.

You can keep describing all HP damage as physical wounds if you want. There are some things that make more sense with that interpretation, such as Cure spells, or why injury poisons work on any "hit." But there are things that make a lot less sense that way, too. So don't call me an idiot for offering a different perspective.

[Ezekiel Moon]

Sorry, didn't mean to come off quite so hostile.

I'd think taking one arrow straight to the chest would be quite lethal in the first place - and that's what alternative critical hits are for.

What I'm trying to say here is, to be gradually weakened by wounds isn't the same as to be gradually weakened without being wounded. The first is an extra mechanic integrated into hit points, the second is a mechanic that can be expressed through temporary penalties and nonlethal damage and really shouldn't be stuffed into hit points. I can see why you'd want to, since it's easier than keeping track of all those things separately, but at the same time, that's why nonlethal damage exists in the first place. Besides, that's what I like about 3.5, it has all the mechanics you need to track everything without stuff overlapping.

And all this still doesn't do a thing to suggest that you should take damage even when your opponent misses. Again, you don't necessarily have to make a huge effort with every move. Doubly so for characters wearing light or no armor - they're just sidestepping that attack, no major exertion, no glancing blow. And what if someone's shooting at you and misses? Should you still take damage for that? It doesn't work. It's not fair to say, "Okay, the arrow went sailing over your head, but you decided to do a completely pointless dodge and pulled a muscle and took lethal damage anyway."

[Baron Corm]

The damage on a miss is not supposed to represent exertion. It's supposed to represent the fact that you didn't completely dodge the blow. It's changing the definition of "missing" with regard to AC. If the character has a high enough AC, he could feasibly still negate all of the damage, which would represent a complete and total dodge. If the attacker "misses" by only a little, he still gets a grazing blow. Or a relatively solid blow.

But hit points are still an abstraction and you can reflavor it however you wish.

[Ezekiel Moon]

I'm still back on the part about hit points representing stamina. If that's the case you should take lethal damage when you run. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Draz74]

I'm still back on the part about hit points representing stamina. If that's the case you should take lethal damage when you run. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Yeah, there's lots of things that don't make sense about HP, no matter which of the two ways you look at what they represent. :smallyuk:


It's not fair to say, "Okay, the arrow went sailing over your head, but you decided to do a completely pointless dodge and pulled a muscle and took lethal damage anyway."

Heh, very true. :smallamused:

How often should characters really attack that poorly, though, such that their attacks can be neatly sidestepped? -- or just miss completely, like your arrow? In fantasy movies, for example, that only seems to happen when the attacker is much lower "level" than the target. (Or when there are extra circumstances like concealment or extreme fear involved.)

Well, apparently this isn't what the OP had in mind. But I'm still curious what other people think about the "missing still causes damage" idea, because I've been considering a version of it myself:

Incidentally, my system also uses Vitality and Wound points rather than just Hit Points, so it makes the separation between stamina/luck/etc. and wound endurance a little more concrete.

Extra-bad misses, or "whiffs," could still be built into the rules -- perhaps on a roll of Natural 1, or when the target has an Elusive Target-like ability (or in the aforementioned cases of concealment or fear).

To the OP: I think the idea is workable conceptually, but that you'll run into a lot of balance problems with it in practice. As demonstrated by the clear brokenness of Power Attacking in this system ...

One thing I would certainly recommend to you, though, is to make the "shield" thing a little less exclusive, because some critters just can't use a shield and should still be able to defend themselves well. There would need to be a monster ability that mimics the same effect.

[paddyfool]

You want to have armor as damage reduction and make shields better? Why not just use the Unearthed Arcana Armor as Damage Reduction variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm) and then increase a shield's bonus to AC in proportion to BAB? The latter might work by saying "any shield bonus to AC >0 (whether derived from a shield, two weapon defense, or whatever) is subject to an increase of one third BAB (rounding down)". This way, a character with a BAB of 3 would get an additional +1, a character with a BAB of 6 would get an additional +2, etc. (Of course, it still doesn't make Two Weapon Defense worth it when compared to Improved Buckler Proficiency, but that's a tougher one to fix).

[Ezekiel Moon]

How often should characters really attack that poorly, though, such that their attacks can be neatly sidestepped? -- or just miss completely, like your arrow?

I figured the default assumption when an arrow misses is that it just misses. It's harder to dodge an arrow than a sword, but it's also harder to aim with one. As for sidestepping, it's not a question of how poorly the attacker is attacking, but rather how well the defender is defending. That's why I say it should depend on the type of AC that contributed to the miss. Maybe dodging something can still get you barely hit - or maybe you're just really fast. And for certain types of bonuses, such as Luck and Insight, it's not a matter of a last-second dodge. With a Luck bonus to AC, something screwy happens and you just don't get hit at all. With an Insight bonus, you really do see the attack coming far enough in advance to casually sidestep, like in the anime.

The way I figure, dividing AC up between Avoidance and Defense also serves to further define each class's approach to defense. A rogue is going to want as many bonuses to Avoidance as possible to reduce the chance of taking damage, while a cleric would be better off pumping on the Defense to take a uniformly small amount... and fighters and barbarians might want a slightly more even spread.

[thevorpalbunny]

That's one interpretation.

Specifically, it's the interpretation that says HP damage only represents actual wounds. Which leads to the interpretation that my 10th level Barbarian can take 15 arrows straight to the chest and still function at full capacity.

...

You can keep describing all HP damage as physical wounds if you want. There are some things that make more sense with that interpretation, such as Cure spells, or why injury poisons work on any "hit." But there are things that make a lot less sense that way, too. So don't call me an idiot for offering a different perspective.

Your perspective is wrong. I am sorry, but the death by dodging is completely nonsensical, and the "15 arrows in the chest" argument is missing a critical point:

By our standards (Earth, Sol System, The Milky Way, Reality, Sanity) that 10th-level barbarian is a SEXY SHOELESS GOD OF WAR. The best warrior our world has ever known is 5th level. The best anything our world has ever known is 5th level. Aragorn son of Arathorn, of Middle-Earth (roughly on-par with out world, but with tangible gods) is 5th level. Gandalf the White is maybe 8th, and he is an effing ANGEL; Gandalf the Grey is 6th or 7th.

I could reproduce the mechanical arguments for why this is true, but I am tired so I will instead redirect you to The Alexandrian; Justin Alexander is a far better writer than me and did all this work before me. Hit Points (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/explaining-hit-points.html). Calibrating Expectations (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)

Honestly, these should be required reading for anyone trying to fix problems they perceive in 3.5.He shows, consistently, that many problems people see are their fault, not the game designer's.

On the more basic topic, I like the goal but not the means. I'm no medieval combat expert, but didn't armor deflect attacks more than it mitigated them? Admittedly, it's very difficult to deflect a bludgeoning attack, and weaker armors like chain mail and basic leather didn't deflect much, but unless you want to create different systems for different damage types I think the AC abstraction is closer to how armor worked than the DR concept. A hit with a sword or spear was generally getting an attack at an unprotected area, not punching through the armor.

[Draz74]

@ Vorpal Bunny:


Your perspective is wrong. I am sorry, but the death by dodging is completely nonsensical, and the "15 arrows in the chest" argument is missing a critical point:

By our standards (Earth, Sol System, The Milky Way, Reality, Sanity) that 10th-level barbarian is a SEXY SHOELESS GOD OF WAR. The best warrior our world has ever known is 5th level. The best anything our world has ever known is 5th level. Aragorn son of Arathorn, of Middle-Earth (roughly on-par with out world, but with tangible gods) is 5th level. Gandalf the White is maybe 8th, and he is an effing ANGEL; Gandalf the Grey is 6th or 7th.

I could reproduce the mechanical arguments for why this is true, but I am tired so I will instead redirect you to The Alexandrian; Justin Alexander is a far better writer than me and did all this work before me. Hit Points (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/explaining-hit-points.html). Calibrating Expectations (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)

Honestly, these should be required reading for anyone trying to fix problems they perceive in 3.5.He shows, consistently, that many problems people see are their fault, not the game designer's.

Psshhh. Gotta love when people assume you're an idiot. :smallsigh: I assure you, I've read those articles multiple times. They make some great points. I've also seen many flaws in them insightfully pointed out in various discussions on these boards over the years, no offense to Justin. The Hit Points article even admits openly that its interpretation is quite incompatible with the healing system.

I'd like to mention again the part where one book specifically declared that HP include luck, divine favor, and other reasons you don't die when you're attacked in combat. Also -- you're trying to tell me that no desperate in-combat dodging would ever wear you out, that you can keep pulling stunts forever? If not, than HP is the only way the game really gives us to simulate that. And no, obviously I'm not advocating "death by dodge;" that's applying a logical fallacy to what I said. Duh. HP obviously still represent physical wounds sometimes, especially where killing blows are concerned.

Incidentally, my personal conclusion regarding the "calibrating your expectations" concept is that most fantasy literature should be modeled using something similar to E6. That works better than either the 20-level model, or the Alexandrian "nobody gets past level 5" system. This goes double where LotR is concerned.

[Ashtagon]

@ Vorpal Bunny:

Incidentally, my personal conclusion regarding the "calibrating your expectations" concept is that most fantasy literature should be modeled using something similar to E6. That works better than either the 20-level model, or the Alexandrian "nobody gets past level 5" system. This goes double where LotR is concerned.


I find it curious that you slam the Alexandrian "nobody gets past level 5" system, then in almost the same breath praise the E6 system. E6 is essentially "nobody gets past level 6". That makes it basically the same as the Alexandrian model, except that the Alexandrian model (being based on 20 levels) allows the the possibility of superhuman characters, because it doesn't put a solid ceiling on level progression.

My personal take on it is that 90% of people should be level 1. 90% of the remainder are L2, 90% of what's left are L3, and so on. In simpler terms...

90% L1
9% L2 (about 1 in 10)
0.9% L3 (about 1 in 100)
0.09% L4 (about 1 in 1000)
0.009% L5 (about 1 in 10,000)
0.0009% L6 (about 1 in 100,000)
0.00009% L7 (about 1 in a million)

[lesser_minion]

The PHB actually has a pretty extensive description of hitpoints, and the thing it lists as being the most important factor is the ability to turn a more serious blow into a less serious one. This is combined with simply being as hard as nails. Things such as luck, dodging and divine favour (this is where they were first mentioned as factors in a character's hitpoints) can improve a character's ability to turn a more serious blow into a less serious one.

Divine favour was actually described as characters such as paladins and clerics surviving attacks such as fireballs and lightning bolts which would easily kill a commoner. In those cases, the character would almost invariably pick up a couple of burns. They just wouldn't be left as a charred and blackened corpse.

Cure spells are actually an issue from earlier editions of the game, where characters healed 1 hp per day, implying that characters could just take more punishment, rather than become able to mitigate it away. They forgot to change the name when they changed the explanation.

Fatigue from dodging is actually represented by the rules for light activity - if you get into a fight, you don't get natural healing for that particular day.

[Draz74]

I find it curious that you slam the Alexandrian "nobody gets past level 5" system, then in almost the same breath praise the E6 system. E6 is essentially "nobody gets past level 6". That makes it basically the same as the Alexandrian model, except that the Alexandrian model (being based on 20 levels) allows the the possibility of superhuman characters, because it doesn't put a solid ceiling on level progression.

I neither claimed that E6 was perfect, nor "slammed" the views presented in the Calibrating Expectations article. I said that Calibrating Your Expectations "presents some great points," and even though I've seen some very clever examples of where it fails to work, I agree with that article on the whole.

To get back slightly closer to the topic, none of this changes the fact that I think it's perfectly reasonable to design a system where HP represent a character getting worn down gradually in more ways than actual bodily harm.

I would ask the OP, though: If your "damage even on a miss" rule was supposed to represent glancing blows, rather than wearing the defender down through desperate dodging or whatever, then:


why can't a "miss" still have non-HP effects, such as injury poison? It only takes a tiny prick to poison someone.
aren't glancing blows already represented in the game by rolling a 1 on your damage roll? Of course, that's not perfect ... especially when Thog rolls 1d12+487 damage on his Power Attack.

[Baron Corm]

To get back slightly closer to the topic, none of this changes the fact that I think it's perfectly reasonable to design a system where HP represent a character getting worn down gradually in more ways than actual bodily harm.

I would ask the OP, though: If your "damage even on a miss" rule was supposed to represent glancing blows, rather than wearing the defender down through desperate dodging or whatever, then:


why can't a "miss" still have non-HP effects, such as injury poison? It only takes a tiny prick to poison someone.
aren't glancing blows already represented in the game by rolling a 1 on your damage roll? Of course, that's not perfect ... especially when Thog rolls 1d12+487 damage on his Power Attack.


Glad to see we're back on topic! Heh. This system was definitely not designed for realism purposes. I gave up trying to make d20 have true realism a long time ago. Of course I still try to make things as realistic as possible, but the first two goals are fun and balance. The system's two main goals were really "make missing suck less" and "make shield fighters feel cooler".

To address the Power Attack issue finally, I've got the idea of halving all damage on a miss, before the damage is reduced. The damage reduction numbers would have to be made a little lower (maybe?), but this makes it so that you still really want to hit that one number. It helps the issue of lethal combat for the PCs as well. On the flip side, making the initial damage that much lower makes shield fighters feel less cool. [Edit: I think I fixed this by making the halving occur after the damage is reduced.]

As for the reason for non-damaging effects being negated, this was mostly a balance issue. As for a real reason... I suppose the cut just wasn't deep enough? I'd rather work toward finding a reason for this than changing it, if you have any suggestions.

Like you said, static bonuses negate the whole damage roll thing after a few levels. If there were a way to just reduce the maximum damage of the roll, that might indeed make more sense, but... unless you changed Power Attack (and Strength bonus, etc) to add in 1d6s somehow, you can't do that. And I don't really want to do that.