Damage Reduction in DCC RPG

[Hamakto]

What is everyone's take on damage reduction and its place in DCC RPG?

Especially in reference to armor and making a dagger a more deadly weapon.

All weapons get a +1 die jump from their current values (i.e. dagger goes to d6)

Armor (or equivalents) would reduce the damage taken by the target when hit.

Leather armor: DR1
Platemail: DR5

That means that a person using a dagger will rarely hurt someone in platemail when striking them (unless they have high strength). But someone in lighter armor, the dagger would be a deadly weapon.

This goes back to some of the realism in books from Appendix N. But it does signify a major change from current d20 combat model.

Instead of giving a monster a +3 natural armor bonus, they would just receive a DR2 bonus to signify a thicker skin.

The reason I am bringing this up is to bring combat and spell damage back into alignment. Creatures (may or will) have fire resistance, cold resistance, etc. If the d20 model is utilized, then it will be DR10 fire or something like that. If not, ignore it.

Heck... you could even adapt 'spell resistance' as a DR number on a monster. For example, you subtract the DR rating for the monster when you roll against the spell completion table. That would symbolize how difficult it would be to cast a spell at a monster.

Just something to mull over...

[Machpants]

I thought it had been stated elsewhere they are gong for the DnD style armour makes you harder to hit, not reduction.

[finarvyn]

I thought it had been stated elsewhere they are gong for the DnD style armour makes you harder to hit, not reduction.

I believe you are correct on this.

The thing is, to me damage reduction really changes the effect of armor on the game and any significant adjustment such as this needs careful consideration.

The effect of damage reduction is minimul for lighly armored characters, but grows progressively greater with highly armored characters. Tie armor reduction with both a highly armored character and a high level character and the total effect can be staggering.

It's like giving the high level fighter significantly more hit points than the magic user (since the fighter tends to be more armored and the magic user less so). This isn't such a bad effect in OD&D where everyone used d6's but once you move to a "d4 for MU, d10 for fighter" type model you enhance an already imbalanced number.

Also, one must consider how to work this in for monsters. Does each monster need to get a "damage reduction" stat, do they fit along a standard chart (e.g AC XX is DR YY), or is the effect ignored entirely. If you ignore DR for monsters but count it for characters, again the fighter gets a major boost.

My point is, I have no problem with damage reduction but a game designer really needs to understand the long-term effects that such a simple tweak can do to the balance of the game.

Just my two coppers.

[Hamel™]

True.

Moreover, a DR System needs radical changes to all the battle process:

- CA becomes Evasion, not Resilience
- being CA now an Evasion, high Dex improves it
- the better your DR, the worst your CA (penalty to Dex Bonus)
- Game Designers have to consider a "virtual" Dex for each monster in order to set their Evasion/CA (where, in the OS flavour, monsters are statless but HP/CA/THAC0), doing a further creation step

[smathis]

My point is, I have no problem with damage reduction but a game designer really needs to understand the long-term effects that such a simple tweak can do to the balance of the game.

I agree with finarvyn on this 100%.

Back in my 3e days, I was a fan of the "Armor as DR" approach. Then I got to play with "Armor as DR" out in the wild with Conan d20 and other games. I was underwhelmed. For all the problems it introduces, it's simply not worth it, IMO.

The AC bonus is simpler and, while it strains verisimilitude, it plays better in my experience.

I understand the appeal of "Armor as DR". But I hope DCC doesn't use it. I would not begrudge house rules or a 3PP that implemented it for the core rules. But I wouldn't use those rules in my own game. I wouldn't take issue with someone who did, however.

Short answer: I'd play in a game that used DR.

But I wouldn't run one that did.

[Hamakto]

True.

Moreover, a DR System needs radical changes to all the battle process:

- CA becomes Evasion, not Resilience
- being CA now an Evasion, high Dex improves it
- the better your DR, the worst your CA (penalty to Dex Bonus)
- Game Designers have to consider a "virtual" Dex for each monster in order to set their Evasion/CA (where, in the OS flavour, monsters are statless but HP/CA/THAC0), doing a further creation step

I do agree that it is not a trivial (or tack on change) to the combat process. But more of an attempt to bring in more Appendix N novel flavor into DnD. My through was to do a hybrid of DR and existing AC. Take away some of the bonuses to AC that people are getting, and replace them with DR. The thought was to balance a bit more realism and grittiness without sacrificing the basis of a d20 combat system.

Part of the thought behind it was to bring the damage system from combat inline with how damage from spells is assigned (and reduced). I am not a total fan of a one system fits all approach (i.e. 4e). This post was more of a way to bring this up for discussion to see if there was support for it. It would make some of the Hit Point/Damage/Healing discussions easier to balance. But not necessary.

For example: Wizards/Thieves get d6 hp per level
Clerics/Warriors get d8 hp per level
or maybe Warriors get d10 per level


The difference between a Wizard and Thief in taking damage is that a Thief will wear light armor and get a DR1 or DR2 for his trouble. This effectively gives the Thief more HP because he will be able to take more damage.

Cleric/Warrior ---- most of the time a cleric will not be able to wear as heavy as armor as a fighter because w/out multiple high ability scores, they will not be able to devote the STR stat necessary to wear heavy armor. So in this scenario the Cleric would wear DR3 armor and a Warrior could arrive at DR4 or DR5 armor. This provides a subtle amount of additional HP's to the characters w/out creating a large base HP range between Wizards and Warriors.

Hopefully this provides a bit more information into what I was suggesting to do with this idea. It is not something that I am 100% sure will work, but since we are tossing out ideas I figured it would be worthwhile.

[smathis]

Hopefully this provides a bit more information into what I was suggesting to do with this idea. It is not something that I am 100% sure will work, but since we are tossing out ideas I figured it would be worthwhile.

I understand the appeal of "Armor as DR". I was a huge proponent of it from a verisimilitude standpoint back when I played 3e.

But there are some key assumptions in the last post that may or may not be applicable.

First on the topic of "bring(ing) the damage system from combat inline with how damage from spells is assigned". We don't know if DCC is going to use damage reduction in spells. 3e started introducing DR for monsters that could be bypassed with special weapons (silver, magical, etc). But we don't know if DCC has that either.

So "Armor as DR" may not be accomplishing that goal.

The second is on the topic of Armor DR granting additional hit points to make characters more resilient. Well, first, it works. But my experience is that it maybe works TOO well. Hence, Conan d20 saw an increase in weapon damage dice pretty much whole hog.

It's much worse for the Wizard though. Because it's not like the Thief gets 1 or 2 extra hit points a level or even a session. The Thief gets 1-2 extra hit points PER ATTACK. That's the "working too well" part. Couple that with a Fighter who could have anywhere from 3-5 DR and we're talking about a serious mathematical disparity.

That Wizard with 30 hps and the Fighter with 100 from the Healing and Clerics thread? Assuming a low armor type for the Fighter (say DR2 to keep it conservative). And the Fighter getting hit 2 times per combat and the session featuring 4 combats.

That puts the Wizard at 30 and the Fighter effectively at 116 -- based on conservative estimates. A Fighter with DR4 would clock in at 132. The Fighter doesn't need that much help in this area.

I think one way this would work better is to put everyone on even footing regarding hit points. Everyone rolls 1d6 per level and the DR is what differentiates the classes. But doing a roughly class-based DR is just too much when coupled with varying hit dice, IMO.

It's a good topic. I've had a great deal of experience with "Armor as DR". I'm very familiar with what's good about it and what's not. There are systems that use it in exactly the way described. I've run those systems before. So I'm familiar with the good and the bad. Fortunately, there's not much ugly.

Most systems that use Armor as a DR are compelled to up damage dice. Because, well, the DR works too well. It backs the system into a corner where either some weapons (like daggers) do absolutely no damage. Or all weapons do at least one point of damage -- which damages that verisimilitude because now a small rock will do as much damage as a dagger. So the designers up damage output. Which hurts the squishy types like Thieves and Wizards even more. Which often leads to a Defense bonus based on level. It's a kind of change that can impact a lot of little things.

The idea has a lot of merit. Please don't get me wrong. It's been done, though. And pretty well. But, in the end, what I got at the table from the feeling that FINALLY armor was doing what it was meant to do wasn't worth the hassle and random system funkiness.

Just sayin'.

A worthwhile discussion, though. Thanks for bringing it in.

[Hamel™]

Part of the thought behind it was to bring the damage system from combat inline with how damage from spells is assigned (and reduced). I am not a total fan of a one system fits all approach (i.e. 4e).

If you talk about fixed HP in 4E, maybe that makes 4E more Old School than Old School itself (being that system used also in D@D, Arnesonian Game).

This post was more of a way to bring this up for discussion to see if there was support for it. It would make some of the Hit Point/Damage/Healing discussions easier to balance. But not necessary.

For example: Wizards/Thieves get d6 hp per level
Clerics/Warriors get d8 hp per level
or maybe Warriors get d10 per level


The difference between a Wizard and Thief in taking damage is that a Thief will wear light armor and get a DR1 or DR2 for his trouble. This effectively gives the Thief more HP because he will be able to take more damage.

Cleric/Warrior ---- most of the time a cleric will not be able to wear as heavy as armor as a fighter because w/out multiple high ability scores, they will not be able to devote the STR stat necessary to wear heavy armor. So in this scenario the Cleric would wear DR3 armor and a Warrior could arrive at DR4 or DR5 armor. This provides a subtle amount of additional HP's to the characters w/out creating a large base HP range between Wizards and Warriors.

Hopefully this provides a bit more information into what I was suggesting to do with this idea. It is not something that I am 100% sure will work, but since we are tossing out ideas I figured it would be worthwhile.

Good point.

More HP could justify a worst potential DR, but we still have the problem about AC: having something able to absorb damage means that your Evasion should get worst.

Also, if both Thieves and Wizards use d6 for HP, a Thief/Wizard with Dex 15 and no armour (DR0) would have the same Evasion/AC.. but we know that a Thief should evade better than someone who spent years on a seat.



Finally, depending on the nature of combat itself, DR could impact also in different ways other than damage reduction: damage dice reduction or attack dice reduction.

The second is on the topic of Armor DR granting additional hit points to make characters more resilient. Well, first, it works. But my experience is that it maybe works TOO well. Hence, Conan d20 saw an increase in weapon damage dice pretty much whole hog.

True: usually you need to enhance weapon damage or lower HP.

[Black Dougal]

I am going to take what may be an extreme position on this one.

I think that a separate DR mechanic should not be added to DCC RPG. I also think it should be removed from 3.x/PFRPG. It is completely redundant.

I see Armor Class as being a combined, catch-all sort of stat. It is a way to take the all the things a PC can use to defend himself from damage (armor type, armor quality, shield vs. no shield, battlefield reflexes, etc.) and coalesce it into one number which a player or a DM can easily use to resolve an attack. In my view any sort of DR whether naturally occurring as in some monsters, due to enchantment, or as a feature of some armor should already be accounted for in bonuses to the AC score.

DR as you are describing it is creating a game mechanic for something that is best resolved using proper description of events (by either DM or player) in game. When your dagger fails to overcome the AC of your opponent it is up to you and the DM to say if the opponent dodged out of the way or if your attack gouged the opponent's armor without piercing it. No codified rule is necessary, just a little imagination.

[Hamakto]

Hopefully this provides a bit more information into what I was suggesting to do with this idea. It is not something that I am 100% sure will work, but since we are tossing out ideas I figured it would be worthwhile.

It's much worse for the Wizard though. Because it's not like the Thief gets 1 or 2 extra hit points a level or even a session. The Thief gets 1-2 extra hit points PER ATTACK. That's the "working too well" part. Couple that with a Fighter who could have anywhere from 3-5 DR and we're talking about a serious mathematical disparity.

That Wizard with 30 hps and the Fighter with 100 from the Healing and Clerics thread? Assuming a low armor type for the Fighter (say DR2 to keep it conservative). And the Fighter getting hit 2 times per combat and the session featuring 4 combats.

That puts the Wizard at 30 and the Fighter effectively at 116 -- based on conservative estimates. A Fighter with DR4 would clock in at 132. The Fighter doesn't need that much help in this area.

The point is that there would no longer be such a big gap between warrior and wizard hp. In my example I suggested that d6's for Thieves and Wizards and d8's for clerics/warriors. So if we do not include any bonus HP for high stamina(?). You are talking 38 hp for a level 10 wizard and 50 hp for a level 10 fighter (assuming max hp at level 1). Even if we go at d10 for a fighter, you are only looking at 60hp. So a few extra hits is not making that much of a HP difference between the classes.

I did not expand on that earlier because that was an underlying assumption in my brain. I just did not communicate it very well.

[Hamakto]

I am going to take what may be an extreme position on this one.

I think that a separate DR mechanic should not be added to DCC RPG. I also think it should be removed from 3.x/PFRPG. It is completely redundant.

I see Armor Class as being a combined, catch-all sort of stat. It is a way to take the all the things a PC can use to defend himself from damage (armor type, armor quality, shield vs. no shield, battlefield reflexes, etc.) and coalesce it into one number which a player or a DM can easily use to resolve an attack. In my view any sort of DR whether naturally occurring as in some monsters, due to enchantment, or as a feature of some armor should already be accounted for in bonuses to the AC score.

DR as you are describing it is creating a game mechanic for something that is best resolved using proper description of events (by either DM or player) in game. When your dagger fails to overcome the AC of your opponent it is up to you and the DM to say if the opponent dodged out of the way or if your attack gouged the opponent's armor without piercing it. No codified rule is necessary, just a little imagination.

See this is where I disagree. How do you handle monsters that only get hit by Silver? Cold Iron? You cannot just bump up their AC because then that entire part of mythology and story driving gets removed from the RPG.

What my goal to do is try to bridge the mechanic of DR for spells and combat into a composite HP total that allows for an abstract way to represent damage. (i.e. goes along with my thoughts on Healing and Clerics thread).

[Black Dougal]

I am going to take what may be an extreme position on this one.

I think that a separate DR mechanic should not be added to DCC RPG. I also think it should be removed from 3.x/PFRPG. It is completely redundant.

I see Armor Class as being a combined, catch-all sort of stat. It is a way to take the all the things a PC can use to defend himself from damage (armor type, armor quality, shield vs. no shield, battlefield reflexes, etc.) and coalesce it into one number which a player or a DM can easily use to resolve an attack. In my view any sort of DR whether naturally occurring as in some monsters, due to enchantment, or as a feature of some armor should already be accounted for in bonuses to the AC score.

DR as you are describing it is creating a game mechanic for something that is best resolved using proper description of events (by either DM or player) in game. When your dagger fails to overcome the AC of your opponent it is up to you and the DM to say if the opponent dodged out of the way or if your attack gouged the opponent's armor without piercing it. No codified rule is necessary, just a little imagination.

See this is where I disagree. How do you handle monsters that only get hit by Silver? Cold Iron? You cannot just bump up their AC because then that entire part of mythology and story driving gets removed from the RPG.

What my goal to do is try to bridge the mechanic of DR for spells and combat into a composite HP total that allows for an abstract way to represent damage. (i.e. goes along with my thoughts on Healing and Clerics thread).

Silver, cold iron, etc. are a non-issue. Most, if not all, of that can be expressed through Special or Supernatural Abilities & Weaknesses. It is going to be specific to certain monsters, thus it can be a one-off addition to the stat block. It does not require a game mechanic such as DR.

[smathis]

Hopefully this provides a bit more information into what I was suggesting to do with this idea. It is not something that I am 100% sure will work, but since we are tossing out ideas I figured it would be worthwhile.

It's much worse for the Wizard though. Because it's not like the Thief gets 1 or 2 extra hit points a level or even a session. The Thief gets 1-2 extra hit points PER ATTACK. That's the "working too well" part. Couple that with a Fighter who could have anywhere from 3-5 DR and we're talking about a serious mathematical disparity.

That Wizard with 30 hps and the Fighter with 100 from the Healing and Clerics thread? Assuming a low armor type for the Fighter (say DR2 to keep it conservative). And the Fighter getting hit 2 times per combat and the session featuring 4 combats.

That puts the Wizard at 30 and the Fighter effectively at 116 -- based on conservative estimates. A Fighter with DR4 would clock in at 132. The Fighter doesn't need that much help in this area.

The point is that there would no longer be such a big gap between warrior and wizard hp. In my example I suggested that d6's for Thieves and Wizards and d8's for clerics/warriors. So if we do not include any bonus HP for high stamina(?). You are talking 38 hp for a level 10 wizard and 50 hp for a level 10 fighter (assuming max hp at level 1). Even if we go at d10 for a fighter, you are only looking at 60hp. So a few extra hits is not making that much of a HP difference between the classes.

I did not expand on that earlier because that was an underlying assumption in my brain. I just did not communicate it very well.

I think that mitigates the issue somewhat. But still, we're talking about a Wizard with 50 hp and a Fighter between effectively 76 and 92hp. Seems like we're not moving forward or backward, in relation to hit points. Just kind of inflating everyone all at once. So now a Wizard is 50% harder to kill, while the Fighter is pretty much where he always was. Which, IMO, is too high.

I'd like a Level 10 Fighter to have 50 hit points. And a Level 10 Magic-User to have 25.

How could we reconfigure the DR thing to make that happen? Having everyone roll the same hit die regardless of class is one way. I'm sure there are others.

See this is where I disagree. How do you handle monsters that only get hit by Silver? Cold Iron? You cannot just bump up their AC because then that entire part of mythology and story driving gets removed from the RPG.

What my goal to do is try to bridge the mechanic of DR for spells and combat into a composite HP total that allows for an abstract way to represent damage. (i.e. goes along with my thoughts on Healing and Clerics thread).

I think Occam's Razor applies here. If you have a monster that only gets hit by Silver or Cold Iron... POOF! The monster can only be hit and damaged by Silver or Cold Iron. No need for any DR or AC stuff.

If you want a less cut-and-dry version... Monsters that "can only be hit" by Silver or Cold Iron can only take critical hits with those weapons. All other weapons only do half damage.

Here's a question. And I'm really not trying to dogpile here. I'm interested in this conversation so I'm wanting to pick brains.

Does the DR for Armor ever go down? Because Armor gets dinged up, damaged and all sorts of stuff. I know in traditional D&D AC doesn't usually drop (for anything short of a Rust Monster). But if we're going for verisimilitude, shouldn't Armor be able to take "damage" too? And how would that work?

[smathis]

I think that a separate DR mechanic should not be added to DCC RPG. I also think it should be removed from 3.x/PFRPG. It is completely redundant.

I don't know if this is a pitch to get DR into the DCC RPG, at this point, or just an exploration of DR as a mechanic. Just from the level of complication involved, I'd be surprised if DCC featured DR. And I agree with your point. Extreme, though it is.

But from the standpoint of Hamakto exploring an idea, I'm liking this thread. I'm enjoying his approach and willingness to discuss the topic. In the end, I think Hamakto could come up with something really, really good that no one has done before. Hence, I question, challenge and overall come across as a jerk. I don't want to see what's in Star Wars SAGA, Conan d20 or d20 Modern. We know those mechanics had shortcomings. Gimme something new, that's better and more elegant!

Whether or not something makes it into DCC isn't my focus. I like the people on this forum. I'm excited about DCC rpg and enjoying the discussions we're having while I'm wiling away the hours until the playtest.

If it leads to something that gets a shout out in the corebook, cool. Smiles all around. If not, it's sure been great throwing ideas at each other in a big Creative Dirt-Clod War.

[Black Dougal]

I think Occam's Razor applies here. If you have a monster that only gets hit by Silver or Cold Iron... POOF! The monster can only be hit and damaged by Silver or Cold Iron. No need for any DR or AC stuff.

If you want a less cut-and-dry version... Monsters that "can only be hit" by Silver or Cold Iron can only take critical hits with those weapons. All other weapons only do half damage.

I personally am a fan of the K.I.S.S. principal.

Here's a question. And I'm really not trying to dogpile here. I'm interested in this conversation so I'm wanting to pick brains.

Does the DR for Armor ever go down? Because Armor gets dinged up, damaged and all sorts of stuff. I know in traditional D&D AC doesn't usually drop (for anything short of a Rust Monster). But if we're going for verisimilitude, shouldn't Armor be able to take "damage" too? And how would that work?

I am not in favor of adding something like this, but if you want to add some sort of condition attribute to armor there are a couple ways to do it without adding in DR. (Sorry if I sound like a broken record. Just trying to add perspective to the discussion.)

There could be a "condition modifier" which acts as a temporary negative bonus to the overall AC bonus provided by the armor. This would probably require creating some sort of "armor condition table" containing the associated negative bonuses. It would also require a die roll to see if an attack places a condition on the armor with the percentage chance increasing for each condition already on the armor. Alternatively, the armor itself could have an HP score. Then at certain percentages of HP the AC bonus would drop. At zero HP the armor is considered broken and unusable.

The above may be a bit clunky, but they should fit into the existing AC/HP mechanic fairly easily. It feels more K.I.S.S. compliant to me.

Honestly, I think this belongs in the realm of 3PP or house rules.

[smathis]

The above may be a bit clunky, but they should fit into the existing AC/HP mechanic fairly easily. It feels more K.I.S.S. compliant to me.

Honestly, I think this belongs in the realm of 3PP or house rules.

Yowzers! That's a rule-and-a-half there. I could see something like that working for either AC or DR. Lots of hoops to jump through, though.

I agree 100% on the 3PP/House Rules thing. All this stuff could be compiled into DCC's version of The Book of Experimental Might.

[Black Dougal]

I think that a separate DR mechanic should not be added to DCC RPG. I also think it should be removed from 3.x/PFRPG. It is completely redundant.

I don't know if this is a pitch to get DR into the DCC RPG, at this point, or just an exploration of DR as a mechanic. Just from the level of complication involved, I'd be surprised if DCC featured DR. And I agree with your point. Extreme, though it is.

From the first post:

What is everyone's take on damage reduction and its place in DCC RPG?

I agree on the level of complication. I feel DR in 3e/PFRPG is just rules bloat.

But from the standpoint of Hamakto exploring an idea, I'm liking this thread. I'm enjoying his approach and willingness to discuss the topic. In the end, I think Hamakto could come up with something really, really good that no one has done before. Hence, I question, challenge and overall come across as a jerk. I don't want to see what's in Star Wars SAGA, Conan d20 or d20 Modern. We know those mechanics had shortcomings. Gimme something new, that's better and more elegant!

Whether or not something makes it into DCC isn't my focus. I like the people on this forum. I'm excited about DCC rpg and enjoying the discussions we're having while I'm wiling away the hours until the playtest.

If it leads to something that gets a shout out in the corebook, cool. Smiles all around. If not, it's sure been great throwing ideas at each other in a big Creative Dirt-Clod War.

It is a good idea. If he really wants to do DR though, I suggest he completely scrap and redesign HP/AC/etc. while adding in DR so that it is a cohesive whole. Don't just bolt a form of DR onto the side of the existing design.

[smathis]

It is a good idea. If he really wants to do DR though, I suggest he completely scrap and redesign HP/AC/etc. while adding in DR so that it is a cohesive whole. Don't just bolt a form of DR onto the side of the existing design.

I agree. I think DR changes the playing field. It's like adding a third boxer in a boxing match. I don't think it can be done elegantly without addressing hit points, Armor Class, damage outputs and all those things that go with it. That's a reason, I think, why so many DR systems seem half-baked (to me). I mean, the ones that worked best, IMO, were the ones where armor was rare to the point of being non-existent (like Star Wars Saga).

Meaning, they worked best because the mechanic never really came up.

[Hamakto]

One more thing to note here. I seem to remember a post saying that AC were going to be much more restrictive than their 3e and 4e counterparts.

They will have to be because the bonuses are going to be more simplified.

There are no longer going to be:

1. absurdly high ability scores
2. feat bonuses
3. racial bonuses to hit
4. divine bonus to hit
5. (insert bonus type here).

I think it was mentioned that it was going to be simply: d20+level_combat_die+STR+magic_weapon

This means that monsters will not have absurdly high AC bonuses to account for damage reduction.

Heck, for all I know they may just get bonus HP to give the 'illusion of DR'

[Black Dougal]

One more thing to note here. I seem to remember a post saying that AC were going to be much more restrictive than their 3e and 4e counterparts.

They will have to be because the bonuses are going to be more simplified.

There are no longer going to be:

1. absurdly high ability scores
2. feat bonuses
3. racial bonuses to hit
4. divine bonus to hit
5. (insert bonus type here).

I think it was mentioned that it was going to be simply: d20+level_combat_die+STR+magic_weapon

This means that monsters will not have absurdly high AC bonuses to account for damage reduction.

Heck, for all I know they may just get bonus HP to give the 'illusion of DR'

PCs will have lower AC. So will the monsters. Same goes for HP. This simply as a matter of scale. Both scores are deflated in DCC, but should remain in balance against each other. There is no need for absurdly high bonuses to AC. There is no need for artificially inflated HP scores. There is no 'illusion of DR' since DR is not needed.

[Hamakto]

PCs will have lower AC. So will the monsters. Same goes for HP. This simply as a matter of scale. Both scores are deflated in DCC, but should remain in balance against each other. There is no need for absurdly high bonuses to AC. There is no need for artificially inflated HP scores. There is no 'illusion of DR' since DR is not needed.

I am not sure I followed that 'DR is not needed' comment.

With lower AC's... characters are going to hit their targets much more often as they level up.

Example: If a warrior gets bonus dice like this.
1 d2
2 d4
3 d6
4 d8
5 d10
6 d12
7 d14
8 d16.... etc...

But AC does not scale appropriately, then a warrior of 7th levels combat bonuses are going to scale up faster then the opponents AC. If the bonuses scale faster than the monsters, then we are in the realm of several options:

1. artificially inflate monster HP's to provide extra toughness
2. provide some sort of DR to account for their uniqueness (i.e. weakness vs silver... or an iron golem)

Because in prior edition of DnD 3e and 4e mainly, they accounted for tougher more damage resistant monsters with HIGHER AC (and yes, sometimes DR on top of that). If we are not going to be providing extra toughness via higher AC, then were is that going to be symbolized in the game stats?

I am not trying to be difficult, but trying to 'grapple' with how this is going to work with very few concrete statistics.

So let me summarize...

AC is not going to be inflated
Attack bonuses look to outstrip AC

I know it has been brought up that a simple rule for the monster that needs special weapons to hit would be 1/2 damage if you do not have X. That is a possibility.

Lets bring up a Dragon... they are the most fearsome of beasts. In 1e and 2e, they were tough but beatable. In 3e, they became much more powerful. But since it was a scale up (both characters and monsters), it was not too overpowering.

Since I am rambling on right now... lets take a side step to DR for fire. In the old days, you had 100% resistant to fire, 50% resistant to fire.

In 3e, you have immunity to fire and DRX vs fire.

The one nice advantage to DRX fire, is that a creature could be immune to environmental effects that caused low X damage per round, but still be vulnerable to higher amounts of fire damage (i.e. fireball). That way a parties wizard could still do something against it if necessary.

My favorite house ruling was if you bundled up in furs and such for the cold, that would count as DR1 or DR2 vs cold (depending on the quality).

So where does this leave me? I like the concept of DR, but it does not seem like there is much support for adding it to DCC RPG.

[Black Dougal]

So where does this leave me? I like the concept of DR, but it does not seem like there is much support for adding it to DCC RPG.

Don't get me wrong. I like the concept of DR also. As you have described it I think it doesn't fit with the design goals of DCC RPG. (I am just a playtester, however, so I have no real power. ) One of Joesph's stated goals was to keep it simple. I think just throwing in DR on top of the existing HP/AC systems adds too much complexity.

To do DR the way that you want to I think you would need to redesign how damage is adjudicated and how armor and armor classes work. I think that is definitely worth looking at. I understand that you want an actual metric for DR. Cool. Design it in from the start. You might come up with something Joseph likes and wants to add.

There is much talk about this being a "pre-D&D" game. I very much disagree with calling it "pre-D&D". I call it a re-imagining of the original D&D game. To me playing it feels like when I used to play the Mentzer Basic game back in the '80s. It is an OSR game which is not a clone and is more directly influenced by the original Appendix N sources than the original. When I first played it my comment was "Wow. This is all of the retro, none of the clone". So, the closest analogues would be some of the retro-clones like Microlite74, Labyrinth Lord, and Swords & Wizardry. One of the key features of "Basic D&D" or "Classic D&D" and those retro-clones is that the rules are simple. They are easily learned and remembered.

Keep the mechanics clean and simple and I think you will meet with more success.

Hopefully this is more helpful than some of my previous posts?

[JRR]

My problem with DR is that anyone not wearing armor, magic users, monks, etc, get screwed royally. In WFRP, my fire mages died weekly due to no armor. The dwarf gets hit for 6 points of damage and takes one due to to his plate mail. I get hit for 6 and I'm almost dead. It makes armor a necessity. That might mirror a medieval society fairly well, but medieval society didn't have wizards. No one will ever want to be a spell caster, well, unless they're a masochist like me.

[finarvyn]

I've seen several posts with numbers about the effect of DR. Let me toss in some numbers of my own instead of trying to address each individual post's suggested effects.

I should mention that these numbers aren't with any particular rules edition in mind, and I don't have any charts handy. It's supposed to illustrate in general how AC boost versus Damage Resistance might affect combat in a D&D combat system.

Let's consider an 8th level Fighter (say he has 8d10 hp). Let's further give the fighter plate mail (AAC 17) with 5 DR points per hit.

8d10 hp translates to 8*5.5 or roughly 44 hit points.

AAC 17 would give a basic opponent about 20% chance to hit him (17-20) and maybe he takes 4.5 points (1d8) each hit, for about 0.9 points damage per round. The fighter could survive (44/.9) roughly 49 rounds of combat.

Give the armor AAC 10 and 5 DR points and things get interesting. The AAC 10 would be hit 55% of the time (10-20) but the armor would absorb 5 hits out of every 8 and the hits that do make it though would do 1-3 points, or 2 points average per hit. Put those factors together and you get 0.6875 points damage per round. The fighter survives (44/.6875) roughly 64 rounds of combat.

You see the general trend. One would have to juggle numbers around to determine what DR is "fair" in order to offset the loss of AC. Too much or too little and game balance shifts strangely.

[Hamakto]

I've seen several posts with numbers about the effect of DR. Let me toss in some numbers of my own instead of trying to address each individual post's suggested effects.

I should mention that these numbers aren't with any particular rules edition in mind, and I don't have any charts handy. It's supposed to illustrate in general how AC boost versus Damage Resistance might affect combat in a D&D combat system.

Let's consider an 8th level Fighter (say he has 8d10 hp). Let's further give the fighter plate mail (AAC 17) with 5 DR points per hit.

8d10 hp translates to 8*5.5 or roughly 44 hit points.

AAC 17 would give a basic opponent about 20% chance to hit him (17-20) and maybe he takes 4.5 points (1d8) each hit, for about 0.9 points damage per round. The fighter could survive (44/.9) roughly 49 rounds of combat.

Give the armor AAC 10 and 5 DR points and things get interesting. The AAC 10 would be hit 55% of the time (10-20) but the armor would absorb 5 hits out of every 8 and the hits that do make it though would do 1-3 points, or 2 points average per hit. Put those factors together and you get 0.6875 points damage per round. The fighter survives (44/.6875) roughly 64 rounds of combat.

You see the general trend. One would have to juggle numbers around to determine what DR is "fair" in order to offset the loss of AC. Too much or too little and game balance shifts strangely.

The problem we are playing with right now is what is a basic opponent for a 8th level fighter. If a 7th level equivalent encounter does 2-8+2 damage? Then combat will go quicker. If it really does d8 damage, then it is an issue.

I was playing with some more numbers for DR. It is hard to find a good number for DR since we do not really know the numbers in the game.

If DCC is keeping to very low damage output for opponents, then DR numbers could be something like this:

Leather, Studded Leather (DR1)
Chain (DR2)
Banded/Plate (DR3)
Mithral (LoTR) (DR4 or 5)

Yes, the AC bonuses would be different for the various AC... so it is more of a combination effect.

Look at 2 8th level fighters going at each other...

45 hp each.

One on a picnic with his GF (19AC, 14 STR) d8+2 damage --- will hit AC 17 65% of the time
One in plate armor (17AC, 14STR) d8+2 damage --- Will hit AC10 90% of the time

The additional damage reduction would almost guarantee that he wins the combat. Which would be appropriate for someone with far superior equipment. Even if he got lucky in combat, it would be a tough fight to win the battle. Those extra HP's from DR would be key in winning a fight. Just like in classic literature. The better AC opponent (especially in plate armor) will win most fights. The few points of AC difference as you climb in levels will make less of a difference to the fight unless DR is involved.

SIDE NOTE: If critical hits are rolls equal to the targets AC, then the unarmored person would be more likely to score a critical. Than the person in plate armor against the squishy. Maybe that is another balancing point.

You could even do a chart like this:

Code: Select all

Armor            AC Bonus      DR    MAX AGL Bonus
Leather               +1            1            +5
Studded Leather   +2            1            +4
Ring/Brigadine       +2            2            +3
Chainmail             +3            2            +2
Banded/Split         +3            3            +1
Plate                   +4            3            +0

Shield                  +1            -            -1 modifier

Please note all numbers are raw numbers right now... just for the basis of discussion.

That table still lets AC have a value, more hits would land but the DR would be the major difference in the combat.

As damage is assigned to a character, any hit points above have can be described as scratches, bumps, bruises, or exhaustion. One you hit half, you are bloodied and take more significant cuts more serious damage.

Why am I spending so much effort on this? I am trying to come up with a simple, more book representative combat system. That works into some of my ideas on the HP thread. And to avoid damage that hits a characters stat score. I hate recalculating bonuses on the fly when adventuring.

So if we can bring things together a bit more, we can have a cleaner running game.