RPG Theory Defense vs Attack

[RagnaroksChosen]

So not 100% sure if this type of post would go here. But I've been working on a system and I had a few questions for you folks here.

Speaking theoretically, should some ones defenses be able to completely negate an attackers attack, be it through armor/magic etc?

For an example would it be considered unfair or unbalanced if say some one was attacking a monster in full plate with a dagger. Statistically speaking? Is it better to make a small almost impossible chance to get through.

I wanted to here what the homebrewer's here think.

Thank you.

[insecure]

Well, if D&D were realistic, yes, some armors could have a chance of negating attacks from some weapons. But balance would get even worse (for 3.5E), and I think that's why.
But, alternatively, you could give some kind of fortification against some types of attacks to some armors.

[azalinthegreat]

I'd argue that no armor, anywhere, can completely protect you from any particular type of weapon (barring magic like Wall of Force or something.) So, I'd vote for giving a small chance of the dagger getting through, in the dagger vs full plate example.

[AstralFire]

This depends entirely on the feel you're going for.

Generally, the less you are able to completely negate an attack increases lethality. This works in conjunction with how much damage an attack does. "Damage" below refers to damage after damage redux/mitigation comes into play.

- High damage, high negation lends itself towards always a chance of someone suddenly falling over. (D&D with Save or Dies and Miss Chances and SR and...)
- High damage, low negation makes for a survivable but hair trigger situation. (Guns, Grit-fests)
- Low damage, high negation makes for a situation where the players will feel very safe as long as they don't do something incredibly dumb. Repeatedly.
- Low damage, low negation can produce a similar feel to high damage, high negation, since damage is, of course, relative. I can't think of a game system off hand that works like this. Not a good one, anyway, since a success becomes barely differentiated from a failure. This is used in critical moments in Western action slugfests after both participants have been disarmed. Also some anime.

So generally, choice 1 is High Fantasy and Action, choice 2 is low fantasy, gritty punk, realistic action.

Speaking realistically about the full plate versus the dagger:
- Stabbing dagger: Actually a decent chance it'll get through. Armor was great against slashy, not as good against pokey or crushy. Damage would be reduced and a small chance of negation since anything but a head-on strike misses. You already -very much- want head-on with a piercing weapon, so that's not much different from usual. There are actually types of daggers specifically designed to pierce full-plate armor.
- Slashing dagger: Small chance it'll get through, basically impossible. Damage would be negated a lot, head-on attacks and resistance are NOT the essence of slashing - which you need to break through plate. If there were holes or chinks in the armor, chance of hitting would raise, but damage still negated.

Ultimately, however, I'd argue the system feel is more important than realism unless the feel IS realism.

[Miles Invictus]

It depends on whether you want balance or realism. It is more "balanced" for a dagger to have a significant chance of breaking through, but it is more "realistic" that it wouldn't.

It's possible to be both balanced and realistic, though; for example, you could make the dagger generally ineffective against armor, but grant it a high success rate if the target is ambushed, flanked, or immobilized. This is both balanced (it gives savvy players a way to win with the dagger) and realistic (since the player would win using the sort of tactics you'd need to use against a heavily armored foe).

[Spiryt]

Well, 2ed of D&D had simple and quite logical modificators to armors - mail was giving + 2 (or actualy rather - 2 ) bonus against slashing weapons, and identical penalty against impact one's.

Dagger, BTW was actually halfway decent anti armour weapon - when fight was getting into ugly, close quarter brawl/graple, strong strike into the opening, joint or other opening that must occur in almost any armor is quite good way to damage heavy armoured opponent.

And active pursuing such brawl was quite good tactic too strike such guy.

However noone indeed tried to just strike armor clad guy with dagger, that's obvious.

[RagnaroksChosen]

First of all thank you..
I wasn't expecting a good response like that.

The system I'm working on is trying to streamline attack rolls and damage rolls into one roll... such as the attacker rolls there attack and then the defender rolls there defense and you subtract the attackers total from the defenders total... that is how much damage... another question is how is the realism vs balance? Also believability? It wouldn't be that simple of course.. there would be other modifiers just from a very primitive level.

AstralFire: That is an amazing explanation. I am trying to hit more of a gritty feel. I'm trying to stay away from the Wuxia/anime feel although the more and more I look at the system I have a feeling I'm going down that route. High dmg vs high reduction seems very common in RPGs today...
Also what would white wolf's world of darkness be considered? on your chart... i would think high damage low negation but what's your feelings on that?

[Spiryt]

Exuse me,

There are actually types of daggers specifically designed to pierce full-plate armor.

Any examples, sources ? I haven't really heard about anything like that. Around plate armor - sure, but not trough. The big weapons were used to pierce plate armor, and they often were effective with really clean strike. Plate armor is really supreme protection against melee weapons.

In fact I believe that good mail would be also good against dagger - yes it can break trough the link with point, but actually pushing the rest of the blade to do serious wounds would require a bit heavier artillery. Not impossible certainly, but not very certain tactic.