I may have posted this in the wrong forum so I’ll repost here (hope i dont place this in the wrong spot a second time!):
I come from a Palladium background from many years ago and I really liked the idea of Structural Damage Capacity. Otherwise it seems a bit silly for armor to not wear out, or worse, be subjective and tell a player when it is worn out and needs repair or replacement.
I’m playing with two other players and came up with an idea that was modded from my prior system (which was also modded some back in the day) so that Armor helps in a couple of ways - you end up with more HP in a sense, with armor having greater use than simply adding to AC.
I roll attack (say +6 for an example) and you roll a defense (add dex save to your roll). If attack beats the dex/dodge you are hit. BUT - the AC comes into play. If you have an AC of say 15 and my attack that hit was only a 13, the armor catches it and the damage is absorbed and subtracted from its SDC. If my hit (say, a 17) gets above the AC then the damage is divided in half, between the armor and the HP (think of a ballistic vest, a bullet hits but still absorbs the strike to at least minimise damage).
The heavier the armor the less dex you’d have of course, for balance, along with stealth penalties.
So far ive enjoyed this method, though I’m a bit stuck what each sort of armor should have for SDC. Padded, chain, ring, plate, etc etc etc…Suggestions…?
If you’re enjoying it, then go for it. Sounds like it could be fun for the right group. A few downsides I see are, first, rolling for defense on every attack will really slow down play — especially as you level and monsters start getting multiple attacks. Second, the extra bookkeeping would get annoying, at least to me it would. (and if you’re going to open that can of worms around gear deteriorating, shouldn’t weapons also? And shields?)
Third, after a few hits, it seems like that heavily armored fighter is no better off than the unarmored (or mage armored) wizard. So it seems like it would really screw over martials, as you basically severely nerf one of their class features. Gear deterioration in general hurts martials (except monks) much more than casters. About the only way around this (and to answer your question) would be to give very high SDC numbers. And at that point, it becomes a why bother situation. Finally, it really doesn’t seem like it’s going to scale very well. I’m playing on an early T3 game, and the monsters are hitting like trucks. Far, far more damage than they did at low levels (plus other damage like poison or necrotic or something which I would think would just ends up bypassing armor altogether.)
Also, just overall, the idea of it not wearing out in game is explained by the assumption that the character is maintaining it. Spending short and long tests replacing worn straps and hammering out dents and such.
First Edition Unearthed Arcana (back when it was its own text book), had hp for the heavier armors. It was not carried forward into future editions because of the reasons already listed above.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Ive been trying to find a list, as my book is long gone and I wasnt planning to get another.
Why is the dodge roll bad? Not asking pointedly, thats how we always did it in Palladium. I really hate the AC thing in DnD but enjoy the game quite a lot otherwise.
someone asked prior about weapon degradation. I'm not necessarily against it but i wouldnt be as stiff about it as I would armor. Maybe if theyre trying to beat an iron door down with a sword or some such. Natural 1s tend to cause weapon damage, but i leave that to a random die roll (even/odd) rather than outright penalizing a crappy attack roll (nat 1).
Ive been trying to find a list, as my book is long gone and I wasnt planning to get another.
Why is the dodge roll bad? Not asking pointedly, thats how we always did it in Palladium. I really hate the AC thing in DnD but enjoy the game quite a lot otherwise.
someone asked prior about weapon degradation. I'm not necessarily against it but i wouldnt be as stiff about it as I would armor. Maybe if theyre trying to beat an iron door down with a sword or some such. Natural 1s tend to cause weapon damage, but i leave that to a random die roll (even/odd) rather than outright penalizing a crappy attack roll (nat 1).
I don't know if bad is the right word, it could be fun for some people, and that's really all that matters. But it will certainly slow things down a lot.
I'm not sure what level you're at currently, but before long, you'll likely be facing enemies that get three attacks per round. Right now, the DM could pick up three d20's, roll them all at the same time, do the math and read off to-hit totals. With a defense roll, the DM and you each roll, then each do the math, then compare, then repeat it twice more. Imagine if a second enemy then attacks you, now we've got to go through that three more times. And also, wouldn't the rules then also apply to enemies? So, when the player attacks, and they are getting 2 attacks a round (or more for a high-level fighter) the whole thing happens again in the other direction.
Edit to add: The game's math assumes PCs will hit 55-60 percent of the time. It's really one of the major factors everything is balanced around. So, if you start adding in extra variables and randomness, you can end up undermining that math. In a game where the deck is stacked to favor the PCs winning their fights, increasing the randomness generally hurts the PCs.
And then with the equipment degrading, for you, the player, you only have to track yourself. But the DM has to track all that stuff with 4-6 or however many enemies. That's a lot of bookkeeping to put on one person. (And what happens with natural armor? Do the creature's shell or carapace or whatever start to break open? Which, OK, let's say it does, but now the DM has to assign a value to each specific creature, so more work for the DM.)
And nat 1's causing an extra penalty really screws martials, again. If you're a wizard, half the time, you force enemies to make a save, so you won't roll at all, let alone a 1. And if you do make a spell attack roll, how do you work out the consequences of a nat 1 on, say shocking grasp (does their hand get hurt) or firebolt (somehow their staff from 100 feet away). And fighters, who get 3 and eventually 4 attacks, will end up rolling more nat 1's than anyone else. So, the person who is supposed to be a master of armed combat ends up, kind of backward-ly, being the one who breaks their sword the most.
My overall suggestion would be to play through for a while before you start making changes. Do at least one full campaign so you can better understand the impacts of house rules.
For hit points of the armour, I'd just use a conversion from the coin value of the amour. Take the coin value from the PHB and divide by 5, thus Full Plate is 300 hp, and Padded Armour has only 1 hp.
So instead of SDC maybe do more of a soak factor. There are some feats that already incorporate that some. Also with this you can say for in game that the armor does take damage but not enough some simple fixing on say a long rest would fix. And with that heavier armor would soak more damage then say leather
Point number 2. With this you inflate HP pools and would then have to inflate the damage done or add a new damage type for almost an armor piercing factor. - means more rules changes and things to remember. This also looks at like later on how does this work with spell VS a sword. 1 sword hit does not equal a spell that can do multiple d8..etc So now anyone in heavy plate is a god against anything swinging a weapon while once spell eats there HP. Example long sword VS firebolt at level 11. A fighter could attack 3 times but then the armor eats damage from each attack. Where the firebolt at lvl 11 does 3d8 (don't kill me if that is not exact) and requires a to hit ac. So between those two the fighter swinging 3 times would do less damage then a mage casting firebolt once.
Point number 3. DnD kind a went the way of Keep It Simple Stupid method (k.i.s.s) where Palladum I'm pretty sure doesn't understand simple. As others above have said the amount of book keeping and other things can get tedious.
Lastly..... this is all my opinion if your players are enjoying then go for it. I personally though that was a cumbersome part of that system as it was just another number I needed to keep track of in a sea of number.
So dodge roll and things like that is all just part of your AC. AC is your dodge/deflect. A rogue wearing no armor but has a +5 from there dex in game wise would look like he is in the matrix dodging things were a figher wearing full plate an arrow might still "hit" but just bounce off since ingame terms it failed to make the defenders AC.
There is no two stats to do the same thing just one stat to rule them all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I may have posted this in the wrong forum so I’ll repost here (hope i dont place this in the wrong spot a second time!):
I come from a Palladium background from many years ago and I really liked the idea of Structural Damage Capacity. Otherwise it seems a bit silly for armor to not wear out, or worse, be subjective and tell a player when it is worn out and needs repair or replacement.
I’m playing with two other players and came up with an idea that was modded from my prior system (which was also modded some back in the day) so that Armor helps in a couple of ways - you end up with more HP in a sense, with armor having greater use than simply adding to AC.
I roll attack (say +6 for an example) and you roll a defense (add dex save to your roll). If attack beats the dex/dodge you are hit. BUT - the AC comes into play. If you have an AC of say 15 and my attack that hit was only a 13, the armor catches it and the damage is absorbed and subtracted from its SDC. If my hit (say, a 17) gets above the AC then the damage is divided in half, between the armor and the HP (think of a ballistic vest, a bullet hits but still absorbs the strike to at least minimise damage).
The heavier the armor the less dex you’d have of course, for balance, along with stealth penalties.
So far ive enjoyed this method, though I’m a bit stuck what each sort of armor should have for SDC. Padded, chain, ring, plate, etc etc etc…Suggestions…?
Thanks for any help or feedback.
If you’re enjoying it, then go for it. Sounds like it could be fun for the right group.
A few downsides I see are, first, rolling for defense on every attack will really slow down play — especially as you level and monsters start getting multiple attacks. Second, the extra bookkeeping would get annoying, at least to me it would. (and if you’re going to open that can of worms around gear deteriorating, shouldn’t weapons also? And shields?)
Third, after a few hits, it seems like that heavily armored fighter is no better off than the unarmored (or mage armored) wizard. So it seems like it would really screw over martials, as you basically severely nerf one of their class features. Gear deterioration in general hurts martials (except monks) much more than casters. About the only way around this (and to answer your question) would be to give very high SDC numbers. And at that point, it becomes a why bother situation. Finally, it really doesn’t seem like it’s going to scale very well. I’m playing on an early T3 game, and the monsters are hitting like trucks. Far, far more damage than they did at low levels (plus other damage like poison or necrotic or something which I would think would just ends up bypassing armor altogether.)
Also, just overall, the idea of it not wearing out in game is explained by the assumption that the character is maintaining it. Spending short and long tests replacing worn straps and hammering out dents and such.
Hmmm all fair points! Thanks!
First Edition Unearthed Arcana (back when it was its own text book), had hp for the heavier armors. It was not carried forward into future editions because of the reasons already listed above.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
The defense roll is probably not a good idea.
If an attack rolls 9 or less I would say it is a clear miss and no armor damage is done.
For SDC values, look at the Palladium list. Are they way out of wack for D&D?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Ive been trying to find a list, as my book is long gone and I wasnt planning to get another.
Why is the dodge roll bad? Not asking pointedly, thats how we always did it in Palladium. I really hate the AC thing in DnD but enjoy the game quite a lot otherwise.
someone asked prior about weapon degradation. I'm not necessarily against it but i wouldnt be as stiff about it as I would armor. Maybe if theyre trying to beat an iron door down with a sword or some such. Natural 1s tend to cause weapon damage, but i leave that to a random die roll (even/odd) rather than outright penalizing a crappy attack roll (nat 1).
I don't know if bad is the right word, it could be fun for some people, and that's really all that matters. But it will certainly slow things down a lot.
I'm not sure what level you're at currently, but before long, you'll likely be facing enemies that get three attacks per round. Right now, the DM could pick up three d20's, roll them all at the same time, do the math and read off to-hit totals. With a defense roll, the DM and you each roll, then each do the math, then compare, then repeat it twice more. Imagine if a second enemy then attacks you, now we've got to go through that three more times. And also, wouldn't the rules then also apply to enemies? So, when the player attacks, and they are getting 2 attacks a round (or more for a high-level fighter) the whole thing happens again in the other direction.
Edit to add: The game's math assumes PCs will hit 55-60 percent of the time. It's really one of the major factors everything is balanced around. So, if you start adding in extra variables and randomness, you can end up undermining that math. In a game where the deck is stacked to favor the PCs winning their fights, increasing the randomness generally hurts the PCs.
And then with the equipment degrading, for you, the player, you only have to track yourself. But the DM has to track all that stuff with 4-6 or however many enemies. That's a lot of bookkeeping to put on one person. (And what happens with natural armor? Do the creature's shell or carapace or whatever start to break open? Which, OK, let's say it does, but now the DM has to assign a value to each specific creature, so more work for the DM.)
And nat 1's causing an extra penalty really screws martials, again. If you're a wizard, half the time, you force enemies to make a save, so you won't roll at all, let alone a 1. And if you do make a spell attack roll, how do you work out the consequences of a nat 1 on, say shocking grasp (does their hand get hurt) or firebolt (somehow their staff from 100 feet away). And fighters, who get 3 and eventually 4 attacks, will end up rolling more nat 1's than anyone else. So, the person who is supposed to be a master of armed combat ends up, kind of backward-ly, being the one who breaks their sword the most.
My overall suggestion would be to play through for a while before you start making changes. Do at least one full campaign so you can better understand the impacts of house rules.
For hit points of the armour, I'd just use a conversion from the coin value of the amour. Take the coin value from the PHB and divide by 5, thus Full Plate is 300 hp, and Padded Armour has only 1 hp.
So instead of SDC maybe do more of a soak factor. There are some feats that already incorporate that some. Also with this you can say for in game that the armor does take damage but not enough some simple fixing on say a long rest would fix. And with that heavier armor would soak more damage then say leather
Point number 2. With this you inflate HP pools and would then have to inflate the damage done or add a new damage type for almost an armor piercing factor. - means more rules changes and things to remember. This also looks at like later on how does this work with spell VS a sword. 1 sword hit does not equal a spell that can do multiple d8..etc So now anyone in heavy plate is a god against anything swinging a weapon while once spell eats there HP. Example long sword VS firebolt at level 11. A fighter could attack 3 times but then the armor eats damage from each attack. Where the firebolt at lvl 11 does 3d8 (don't kill me if that is not exact) and requires a to hit ac. So between those two the fighter swinging 3 times would do less damage then a mage casting firebolt once.
Point number 3. DnD kind a went the way of Keep It Simple Stupid method (k.i.s.s) where Palladum I'm pretty sure doesn't understand simple. As others above have said the amount of book keeping and other things can get tedious.
Lastly..... this is all my opinion if your players are enjoying then go for it. I personally though that was a cumbersome part of that system as it was just another number I needed to keep track of in a sea of number.
So dodge roll and things like that is all just part of your AC. AC is your dodge/deflect. A rogue wearing no armor but has a +5 from there dex in game wise would look like he is in the matrix dodging things were a figher wearing full plate an arrow might still "hit" but just bounce off since ingame terms it failed to make the defenders AC.
There is no two stats to do the same thing just one stat to rule them all.