PDA

View Full Version : D&D 3.x Other Optional armour strength/weakness rule?



Avianmosquito
2017-07-27, 07:11 PM
So, this is a simple question. I was thinking of adding to my setting's AC+DR armour a rule that each armour type has a damage type that it is strong against (providing double DR, but AC remains the same) and another that it is weak against (providing no DR, but AC remains the same), and making that rule optional. If I do so, do you think it would be the preferred version, or would the simpler version without damage type strengths and weaknesses be prevalent instead?

Knitifine
2017-07-27, 07:34 PM
I would go with Double the DR, overcome by one type of damage.

Light Armor is overcome by Slashing.
Medium Armor is overcome by Bludgeoning.
Heavy Armor is overcome by Piercing.

Avianmosquito
2017-07-27, 07:43 PM
I would go with Double the DR, overcome by one type of damage.

I can see this idea having merit. There are a few sets that challenge this, however. A breastplate, for example, leaves huge gaps on the limbs slash weapons easily exploit to lethal effect while the plates thrusts struggle to avoid are impenetrable. Really, it is best against piercing weapons and worst against slashing ones, I could argue it's /slashing, but it feels dishonest to say that blunt weapons don't perform better than piercing ones. Maybe I can rationalise by having the clothing beneath it be padded, arming doublets instead of buff coats.


Light Armor is overcome by Slashing.
Medium Armor is overcome by Bludgeoning.
Heavy Armor is overcome by Piercing.

That's dramatically oversimplified and rather laughable. Why would a byrnie be weak to slash attacks? Why would a brigandine be weak to piercing? Is not the whole point of providing alternative armour with the same AC/dex to change the strengths and weaknesses of the gear? Why would heavy be weak to piercing anyway? Historically, bludgeoning weapons were the answer to heavy armour.

I'll stick to the case by case decisions, thanks.

Knitifine
2017-07-27, 08:03 PM
That's dramatically oversimplified and rather laughable. Why would a byrnie be weak to slash attacks? Why would a brigandine be weak to piercing? Is not the whole point of providing alternative armour with the same AC/dex to change the strengths and weaknesses of the gear? Why would heavy be weak to piercing anyway? Historically, bludgeoning weapons were the answer to heavy armour.

I'll stick to the case by case decisions, thanks.
This was an incredibly hostile way to phrase your response.

Simplicity of design is ideal because complexity slows down play dramatically. It's important to focus on the elements of the story that are the most interesting (which is why magic tends to be the most complex system in fantasy RPGs). In some games where the entire party and all of their enemies consists of medieval soldiers it might be ideal to have a complex interaction chart for how each weapon behaves against each type of armor.

Avianmosquito
2017-07-27, 08:26 PM
This was an incredibly hostile way to phrase your response.

So, thinking your idea is silly qualifies as "hostile".


Simplicity of design is ideal because complexity slows down play dramatically. It's important to focus on the elements of the story that are the most interesting (which is why magic tends to be the most complex system in fantasy RPGs).

It really doesn't. How much slower is it fighting a zombie because it has DR 5/Slashing? It's the exact same mechanic.


In some games where the entire party and all of their enemies consists of medieval soldiers it might be ideal to have a complex interaction chart for how each weapon behaves against each type of armor.

You don't need a chart. You just need a /. Does anybody issue charts for the vulnerabilities of udead? Each armour entry would just read DR X/Y, such as a byrnie's DR 4/piercing.

JBPuffin
2017-07-27, 08:33 PM
So, this is a simple question. I was thinking of adding to my setting's AC+DR armour a rule that each armour type has a damage type that it is strong against (providing double DR, but AC remains the same) and another that it is weak against (providing no DR, but AC remains the same), and making that rule optional. If I do so, do you think it would be the preferred version, or would the simpler version without damage type strengths and weaknesses be prevalent instead?

Depends on the situation...I think you want some armor without strengths/weaknesses, and some that have them. Can be quite entertaining when creating artifact armors (everice plate, anyone?), but also can lead to a Pokemon-like environment. As a DM, I probably would only use it for special armor.

Avianmosquito
2017-07-27, 09:04 PM
Depends on the situation...I think you want some armor without strengths/weaknesses, and some that have them. Can be quite entertaining when creating artifact armors (everice plate, anyone?), but also can lead to a Pokemon-like environment. As a DM, I probably would only use it for special armor.

That's why the rule is optional.

Avianmosquito
2017-07-27, 11:47 PM
So, here's how I see it working.

Light cloth (AC 1 standard clothing):
DR 2/Slashing

Light leather (AC 1 alternative clothing):
DR 2/Piercing

Heavy cloth (AC 2 standard clothing):
DR 2/Slashing

Heavy leather (AC 2 alternative clothing):
DR 2/Piercing

Gambeson (AC 3 standard light armor):
DR 4/Slashing

Kozane dou (AC 3 alternative light armor):
DR 4/Bludgeoning

Byrnie (AC 4 standard light armor):
DR 4/Piercing

Iyozane dou (AC 4 alternative light armor):
DR 4/Bludgeon

Breastplate (AC 5 medium armor):
DR 6/Slashing

Hauberk (AC 6 medium armor):
DR 6/Piercing

Brigandine (AC 7 heavy armor):
DR 8/Bludgeoning

Plate (AC 8 heavy armor):
DR 8/Bludgeoning

Note that the exact DR will vary from 0 to 3x this, depending on quality, and there are also fighter-only perks (armor specialization) that add up to 4 and wondrous armours that add 2 for a maximum DR of 30 for fighters at very high and epic levels. That's not very hard to penetrate by the level where that becomes a thing, however, since we're talking levels 20+.

I think personally it's pretty simple. 12 types of armour, four of which are clothing and provide very little DR anyway, and now with only one weakness instead of a weakness and a strength (thanks to Knitifine for that suggestion) it's very easy to keep track of mentally.

Ursus Spelaeus
2017-07-28, 06:03 AM
You could set the armor's base DR by armor material and apply a bonus to that according to armor type.

For example:
Cloth/Leather; DR 1/slashing
Chain; DR 1/piercing
Plate; DR 1/bludgeoning

Light Armor; No increase to DR
Medium Armor; Increase DR by +1
Heavy Armor; Increase DR by +2

Some masterwork materials might have special properties, like...
Adamant Chain; DR 2/piercing and adamant
Faerie Silk; DR 1/Cold Iron

Just a thought.

Eldan
2017-07-28, 06:12 AM
I'm having terrible flashbacks to AD&D.

Avianmosquito
2017-07-28, 06:19 AM
I'm having terrible flashbacks to AD&D.

Oh hey, it's one of those insults where if you try to explain the comparison the whole illusion of you having a point collapses.

Eldan
2017-07-28, 06:37 AM
There was a table that gave special modifiers for different weapons against different armours. It was so annoying that no one I know ever used it.

Not meant as an insult, really. But do you think the added complexity of having to remember this is worth it?

Avianmosquito
2017-07-28, 12:17 PM
Not meant as an insult, really. But do you think the added complexity of having to remember this is worth it?

I do. Those who don't need not use it, the rule is optional, and it takes no more effort to remember this than it does to remember the weaknesses of various undead.