Radical Idea: Armor

[CatharzGodfoot]

d3s?

I hate you.

d6: 1-2 = 1; 3-4 = 2; 5-6 = 3.

Heck, I think we should include d5s, d7s and d9s.

And d30s.

[Ravengm]

I also find it funny in the Deadlands system that having 3 ranks in a skill actually makes it more likely for you to bust.

[JonSetanta]

Holy. Shit.
Some tard actually made a d3.
And a d7.





You do realize all this rage this is bad for my blood pressure?

[bosssmiley]

And of course who can forget the original rules of Star Wars where wearing armor actually caused you to get hit more often and take more damage (because you took extra damage based on how much they hit you by and the damage reduction afforded by wearing armor was less than the bonus damage that enemy attacks received for the defense penalty it granted)?

I thought that was an intentional design outcome based on the conceit that heroes rarely wear armour in Star Wars, and that those who do (Stormtroopers) tend to die like flies.

[angelfromanotherpin]

The golden target I think is one in which people who engage in melee naturally want to wear heavy armor and people who carry bows don't. Off the top of my head that could be achieved by giving melee attacks massive to-hit bonuses or higher rates of fire. In short, nearly the complete opposite of the D&D model where bows get rate of fire bonuses in exchange for low damage output.

-Username17

I vote for melee having a high rate of fire. Historically, professional archers were getting of a shot every three seconds; while even an axeman was probably swinging at least twice that fast.

[Koumei]

Sigma: never mind that, half the abnormal dice appear to not be even - just look at the d5 and d7, there are not equal odds of rolling the various things.

And why the fuck is there a d16 and a d26? What purpose could they possibly serve?

[baduin]

The golden target I think is one in which people who engage in melee naturally want to wear heavy armor and people who carry bows don't. Off the top of my head that could be achieved by giving melee attacks massive to-hit bonuses or higher rates of fire. In short, nearly the complete opposite of the D&D model where bows get rate of fire bonuses in exchange for low damage output.
-Username17

That is not universally correct. That idea is common in Western countries for 3 reasons:

1) Archers in Western Europe were peasants, and couldn't afford good armor; they were also infantry, and couldn't wear too heavy armor since they had to walk.
2) Archers are much less likely to be hit. If you are fighting in melee, you will get hit, and quite often. If you are shooting as a part of a big unit,from behind a shieldwall or as a horse archer you may never be attacked in your life.
3) Archers cannot wear certain kinds of armor if they want to shoot bows - they cannot wear gauntlets and must have lower face open.

Despite that, noble horse archers in the sedentary states of Asia were very heavily armored (nomad were too poor). See eg Byzantinian cataphracts or early Samurai.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clibanarii

[RandomCasualty2]

I thought that was an intentional design outcome based on the conceit that heroes rarely wear armour in Star Wars, and that those who do (Stormtroopers) tend to die like flies.

Yeah, in Star Wars most people who wore armor did suck. Boba Fett was like the only exception, and he should just get something from a PrC or something.

[Bigode]

Caedrus: for D&D, hell no - how much of any weapon damage worth talking about is dice (except for rogues, if you'd count SA)? For TNE, might be actually interesting, though the projected normal die is the d6, leaving somewhat less room for variation.

[Caedrus]

Caedrus: for D&D, hell no - how much of any weapon damage worth talking about is dice (except for rogues, if you'd count SA)? For TNE, might be actually interesting, though the projected normal die is the d6, leaving somewhat less room for variation.

Of course not for D&D, I was assuming a completely new edition rebuilt from the ground up. Like, for example, TNE.

As I mentioned in my original post, you would obviously have to shift the focus of all damage towards dice in order for this concept to work at all.

Basically, you increase the focus on dice for damage rolls, rather than lotsa modifiers.

Not really sure where you got the idea that I would even remotely consider suggesting this for D&D @_@

I thought that was an intentional design outcome based on the conceit that heroes rarely wear armour in Star Wars, and that those who do (Stormtroopers) tend to die like flies.

Yeah, in Star Wars most people who wore armor did suck. Boba Fett was like the only exception, and he should just get something from a PrC or something.

That was my impression with Saga as well. The better you are, the less armor you're supposed to wear.

[Bigode]

Caedrus: previous posts were being rather explicit and specific about D&D, except for the part where Frank mentioned TNE. Also, the "D&D redone" you mentioned. If you're gonna kill Power Attack, you might as well not even bother calling it D&D, because you're enormously changing the damage/hp paradigm.

[Caedrus]

Caedrus: previous posts were being rather explicit and specific about D&D, except for the part where Frank mentioned TNE. Also, the "D&D redone" you mentioned. If you're gonna kill Power Attack, you might as well not even bother calling it D&D, because you're enormously changing the damage/hp paradigm.

Ah, yeah, the D&D redone thing is... well, it's pretty much rebuilt from the ground up (it's basically my own TNE). You might as well not call it D&D, as you said.

I was referring to using a new system for a new edition like TNE, not using something like that for D&D. I was assuming this thread was for TNE, because I was following a link from the TNE sticky. Hope that clears up the confusion.

[Bigode]

Yeah, it's linked as a TNE thread, and it went off-topic in usual TGD fashion.

[Amra]

I vote for melee having a high rate of fire. Historically, professional archers were getting of a shot every three seconds;

Every five seconds. 12 shafts a minute was the standard rate and they could keep that up until they ran out of arrows. One every three seconds is do-able, just, but you can't sustain it for long.

The best longbow speed-shooter that I know has a personal best of 23 arrows in the target in sixty seconds... but that's with all the arrows very carefully set up and using a medium-weight bow. And, of course, only trying it for one minute. I wouldn't care to comment whether he shot all of those at full draw, either

while even an axeman was probably swinging at least twice that fast.

Not for long he wasn't, trust me. Besides, "swinging a sword or axe" != "meaningful attack".

On the rest, well, it's true enough that archers weren't going to be wearing plate armour; but then nobody except the nobility could afford it, or the horse and the training that went with it. Many archers were wearing pretty decent stuff though; a plated brigandine and a sallet wouldn't have been unusual. They were peasants, yes, but professional bowmen were also getting paid a lot compared to the grunts.

Archers can and do wear gauntlets whilst shooting, but not fully-articulated steel ones... apart from anything else, you'd probably end up cutting your string!

Here endeth the mediaeval geeking

[RandomCasualty2]

This generally doesn't work because it encourages people to go either DR or evasion, depending on circumstance. At low levels, DR tends to be better, and at higher levels, evasion tends to win, but it's never a good idea to mix them.

Basically you're either in no armor, or you're in full plate.

[Psychic Robot]

Frank's right about DR sucking at high levels, and Mearls sort of addressed it in Iron Heroes by adding a defense bonus. Unfortunately, the way that Iron Heroes did it was by giving everyone a scaling bonus that largely ended up the same at high levels--I think the mage ended with a +15 bonus, and the highest that you could get was a +20 (or so).

Wouldn't it be easier to increase base AC to 15-ish (rather than 10) and give everyone a bonus equal to 1/2 his BAB? Or just giving a bonus equal to his BAB?

[Caedrus]

d3s?

I hate you.
Treat "puzzle" as "heavy".

It was just an example. I also suggested the possibility of d2s (to maintain the -1 damage per class average), which *is* a real die type that we occasionally use for currency.

[Caedrus]

d3s?

I hate you.
Treat "puzzle" as "heavy".

Actually, if you wanted to go below 1d4, I don't see why you couldn't just avoid rolling altogether and say "it's all 1s."

That would basically set off an alarm to players saying "you're not doing it right against the puzzle monster" as surely as when you see 1 damage pop up after a CRPG attack that isn't Paper Mario.

[RandomCasualty2]

Frank's right about DR sucking at high levels, and Mearls sort of addressed it in Iron Heroes by adding a defense bonus. Unfortunately, the way that Iron Heroes did it was by giving everyone a scaling bonus that largely ended up the same at high levels--I think the mage ended with a +15 bonus, and the highest that you could get was a +20 (or so).

Well that's kind of good. I mean you don't really want a divergent system. that only means that high levels screw up the system and push people off the RNG.

[Psychic Robot]

Well that's kind of good. I mean you don't really want a divergent system. that only means that high levels screw up the system and push people off the RNG.

How do you mean?

[RandomCasualty2]

Well that's kind of good. I mean you don't really want a divergent system. that only means that high levels screw up the system and push people off the RNG.

How do you mean?

What's important is the gap between the bonuses of an expert and a poorly skilled character of the same level.

A +6 versus a +1 is equivalent to a +16 vs a +21. Even though at first glance you might be inclined to think the +6 is mcuh better than the +1, because it's six times the +1 and the +21 isn't even double the +16. But when you're rolling on a d20, the probabilities are going to be even. The +6 and the +21 both have a 25% edge over the +1 and the +16.

And there's no need to increase that bonus gap as you get higher in level. All it does is push people off the RNG, and there's really no reason for it.

When you increase that gap, you only make it so that people can fall farther and farther behind as they gain levels. You do need to scale by level, but the gap between two people of the same level shouldn't increase or decrease.

Otherwise people fall off the RNG and you're not playing the same game anymore. It was one of the reasons that 3.5 as a system broke at high levels.

[Psychic Robot]

You do need to scale by level, but the gap between two people of the same level shouldn't increase or decrease.

But shouldn't the fighter be better at avoiding blows than the wizard?

[ubernoob]

You do need to scale by level, but the gap between two people of the same level shouldn't increase or decrease.

But shouldn't the fighter be better at avoiding blows than the wizard?

See the 4E paradigm. Determine the relative math at level one and give everyone exactly the same progression after that.

[Psychic Robot]

Is that something that 4e did right, or are you being facetious? I mean, it seems to me that a fighter should have a much larger to-hit number than a wizard at level 20 (+20 vs. +10). But maybe that results in game-breakage.

[Judging__Eagle]

Is that something that 4e did right, or are you being facetious? I mean, it seems to me that a fighter should have a much larger to-hit number than a wizard at level 20 (+20 vs. +10). But maybe that results in game-breakage.

No, one attack-roll stat, one armour stat.

"Touch" AC is really secret code for "Wizard AC"; Frank spelled this out a while back.