It can work with D&D's statistical range if you make it absorb a maximum per hit.

This way you can have 1, 2, and 3 point armor that takes 10, 20, and 30 points of damage before being destroyed.  The reason this works with the hit dice and damage dice is that it doesn't add too much to the damage needed to kill a 1 HD guy.

Quote from: David Johansen;441982It can work with D&D's statistical range if you make it absorb a maximum per hit.

This way you can have 1, 2, and 3 point armor that takes 10, 20, and 30 points of damage before being destroyed.  The reason this works with the hit dice and damage dice is that it doesn't add too much to the damage needed to kill a 1 HD guy.

I don't think it is a good idea for D&D (at least 3.0 - Pathfinder) because two weapon fighters are already so screwed by the system compared to the Two Hand Fighter. A two weapon fighter will encounter the DR from armor multiple times, doubling its effect where the two hander will functionally ignore it.

Quote from: Cranewings;441985I don't think it is a good idea for D&D (at least 3.0 - Pathfinder) because two weapon fighters are already so screwed by the system compared to the Two Hand Fighter. A two weapon fighter will encounter the DR from armor multiple times, doubling its effect where the two hander will functionally ignore it.

Not if the damage was absorbed per round rather than per hit.

Furthermore, you could throw in a rule where each subsequent encounter decreased the DR value of the armor by 1, which could be fixed by spending an hour repairing the damage (Craft DC 25 or so). This would cover armor ablation and give a compelling reason to give someone a craft skill other than playing "fantasy sims".

Keep in mind, I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass...it's just the skeleton of an idea.

Completely damaged armor (ie. "armor hit points" going to zero like in a video game) could be deemed as totally useless as armor, where the fighter/paladin/etc ... would have to go back to town to have it repaired.

In a game where the players are doing the "15 minute day" anyways (where the players go back into town after using up all their daily powers in 4E D&D), repairing broken/useless armor would be another thing they would do along with other daily costs (ie. drinks, food, etc ...).

Tracking damage of armour would be a boring bookkeeping exercise.

Having armour absorb damage per round would be silly as it has no basis in reality and the whole point of a rule that uses armour to absorb damage rather than makes you harder to hit is to make it more realistic. You would be replacing 1 unsatifying abstract system with another much more complex unsatisfying abstract system.

Is it realistic that if you were attacked by a gang of fairies (realisitc faries mind ) hitting you with tiny swords that your armour could absorb all of the damage and not get scratched...yes of course. Therefore should armour protect equally from each blow from a 2 weapon fighter well yes each blow hits the same armour after all. Is this balanced? Well who cares the question is 'Is it more realistic?'

In reality armour is pretty tough tracking its degrdation over time is a chore you should avoid. Armour shoudl be damaged only when something major happens so the giant gets a crit with their tree trunk etc. I can see maybe 3 states, Ok, Damaged and broken where damaged gives you 50% effect until its repaired.

If armour is too tough then you need to introduce a few penalties for wearing it. So wearing plate mail in a hot dank dungeon and walking round in it for hours gets tiring, a lot more tiring that walking round in a chainmail haulberk for example. So you are going to climb the cliff in your field plate...really ?

Use piecemeal amours, a breastplate with greaves and bracers actually gives you decent protection for not much weightetc etc .....

Jibba, you have to care that one way screws the two weapon fighter and the other doesn't. Even if it is realistic in real life that both swords hit the same armor, it isn't realistic to suggest that a guy with a two handed weapon is flat out better than a guy with two weapons. There are a thousand examples of situations where it is better to have two weapons than a giant weapon, but those situations don't really exist in the rules (other than maybe the garbage that passes as grappling rules in most games).

The game seriously messes with two weapon fighters. They need twice the wealth dedicated to their weapons, they have to select the same feats twice to be good with both weapons - using up feats that could have been spent on stuff like Iron Will, Step Up, Improved Critical, and sense it is so hard for fighters to get a full attack, most of the time the two weapon fighter gets one feeble swipe while the two handed fighter gets his full normal swing with all of its extra damage...

If you want Armor as DR, you really need to come up with enough rules that gives two weapon fighters a say, +1 damage per two levels to cover it, with some extra damage at the start.

I already allow characters with two weapon fighting take weapon focus and weapon spec with regard to a set of weapons. It isn't enough of a bonus though.

Quote from: Cranewings;442093Jibba, you have to care that one way screws the two weapon fighter and the other doesn't. Even if it is realistic in real life that both swords hit the same armor, it isn't realistic to suggest that a guy with a two handed weapon is flat out better than a guy with two weapons. There are a thousand examples of situations where it is better to have two weapons than a giant weapon, but those situations don't really exist in the rules (other than maybe the garbage that passes as grappling rules in most games).

The game seriously messes with two weapon fighters. They need twice the wealth dedicated to their weapons, they have to select the same feats twice to be good with both weapons - using up feats that could have been spent on stuff like Iron Will, Step Up, Improved Critical, and sense it is so hard for fighters to get a full attack, most of the time the two weapon fighter gets one feeble swipe while the two handed fighter gets his full normal swing with all of its extra damage...

If you want Armor as DR, you really need to come up with enough rules that gives two weapon fighters a say, +1 damage per two levels to cover it, with some extra damage at the start.

I already allow characters with two weapon fighting take weapon focus and weapon spec with regard to a set of weapons. It isn't enough of a bonus though.

Not sure I agree with that. There is a reason why 2 weapon fighting styles are limitied in the Real and why generally they are used as a primary + defensive pair.
What you are basically saying is that there is an element of the rules that is not realistic that you like and an area of the rules that is not realistic (realistic being a relative term of course)  that you don't like and want to change. But it turns out making one realistic has an effect on the other that makes it ineffectual and more well... realistic.

You also need to look at the wider picture and the math. The two weapon figther already gets a load of benefits, from twice the change of a crit, to the ability to strike multiple oponents to a higher chance of getting a hit at all.

So the two weapon figther become great at fighting lightly armoured multiple foes and the two handed guy becomes great at fighting heavily armoured single foes..... that actualy sounds pretty reasonable.

Any reference to them spending more money on two weapons are  irrelevant as they are just gamist concerns, in fact not even gamist, meta-gamist

Jibba, I don't see how two weapons is really that limited: the burmese, phipipines, and thai seem to get along pretty well with all their two weapon styles. I didn't say they were equal at everything - I said they a lot of applications.

And I have looked at the math, in the context of the game. The two weapon guy would have more damage and more critical hits if he was taking full attacks but the simple fact of the game when it is being played is that fighters rarely every get full attacks in. So that is almost a moot point. Even if they did, first level two weapon fighter is going to get a -2 to both swings for fighting that way, so he probably can't do too well with power attack, taking another -1. He also needs a high dex to do it at higher levels, so his strength or his con, which are much more important, are going to be lower unless you roll randomly, and roll equally great. On top of that, the two hand fighter guy is going to power attack without a negative, and he has a feat left for cleave, so he will probably get a second attack anytime the two weapon fighter gets both of his, at his full bonus, with all of the extra damage holding it two handed gives.

As far as the magical swords, it isn't a meta game concept. The two weapon guy knows he has to find or buy twice as much stuff as his two hand fighting buddy. That is obvious in character. If they are splitting wealth equally, then he can't do it.

To finish my thought on here, because I feel side tracked: talking about 3.x D&D and Pathfinder...

Two weapon fighters need twice the feats to get proficiency as well as twice the gold or luck to get the equipment they need just to keep up with the two handed fighter. The two weapon fighter can't run up to an enemy and attack with both weapons, so he has to make a single strike with a comparatively feeble attack to his team mate, while the two handed power attacking fighter, with better strength or constitution, can run up, hit, and then use cleave to swing again. Neither is likely to get to take many full attack actions but the two weapon guy gets one better attack and probably a second attack when cleaving.

While it isn't balanced at all, and doesn't reflect real life anymore than the rest of the unbalanced combat system, armor as DR rubs salt in the wound by nerfing the two weapon fighter during his only opportunity to be better than a two handed fighter (MAYBE) and that's during a full attack.

Lowering the AC bonus granted by armor is also going to cause the two weapon brute to hit more often, and sense his damage is so high he will be functionally ignoring the DR.

If you put AR in as DR, you should put in a host of additional rules - weapon type vs. armor type, weapon speed, extra attacks for lighter weapons, and so on and on because your game isn't any more realistic without them but you are dumping a giant turd on one of the classic ways to play a fighter that a lot of people enjoy.

Quote from: Cranewings;442150Jibba, I don't see how two weapons is really that limited: the burmese, phipipines, and thai seem to get along pretty well with all their two weapon styles. I didn't say they were equal at everything - I said they a lot of applications.

.

I would say that all those styles are aimed at lightly armoured opponents but ....


If you want to end up with a balanced combat game then to be honest stick with the RAW. The game has been well tested. The risk you run here is you are adding additional complexity which slows down combat and because you have to compromise the increased 'realism' for balance you end up with a kludge.

If you want to change the system then the result need to be an improvement.

jibba, I think you might have me mistaken for someone else. I'm the one against changing the system. It normally doesn't use AR as DR.

Though we will have to disagree about it being well tested and balanced. I think it is no such thing, but adding DR to armor makes it way worse.

Quote from: Cranewings;442215jibba, I think you might have me mistaken for someone else. I'm the one against changing the system. It normally doesn't use AR as DR.

Though we will have to disagree about it being well tested and balanced. I think it is no such thing, but adding DR to armor makes it way worse.

Apologies.

On the original topic, I already mentioned this on the Gaming Den version of this thread but I'm fond of 'Armour Bypass' where there's a separate roll to get through armour, as seen in Dragon Warriors. Villains & Vigilantes' armour system is interesting as well since its an interesting hybrid of the DR and ablation systems. [armour is a percentage you roll against, roll and if the armour is hit you subtract damage from the armour percentage].

On the current tangent I kind of agree two weapon fighting isn't super - one thing to consider though is that if you're using armour as DR, its probably not also being added to the AC/to-be-hit number. Since the two weapon fighter gets a -2 to hit, that might be a slight benefit for the TWF'er.