D&D 4E What would you want to see in 4e?

[glass]

first:
please refer to the statement i chose to show as a fallacious argument. he has asserted that no extra-record keeping is required for an armor-as-dr system, and in support of his argument, asked someone else to prove the opposite. please, click on the link that has been provided and read the text. the burden of proving one's point is always neccecary in any logical debate.

Fair enough. I was trying to avoid describing a specific system because I didn't want to get into debating the specifics of any one implementation rather than damage-reducing armour in general.

But as you rightly point out, I can't really do that, so how about this as a hypothetical system:

1. Roll to hit vs target's flat footed or normal defence.
2. Roll or calculate damage for the attack
3. Subtract armour soak value (if applicable)
4. Apply damage to target's hit points

Items of info required: attacker's attack bonus, attacker's weapon damage, defender's normal defence, defender's ff defence, defenders armour soak, defender's hp (6 items).

Items of info required in current system: attacker's attack bonus, attacker's weapon damage, defender's normal AC, defender's ff AC, defender's touch AC, defender's hp (6 items).

So, what extra records am I keeping in my hypothetical system? None!


glass.

 

[glass]

lgburton did it fine for me, post 156. Fussy, fussy.

Interesting. I went back to reread post 156, and I didn't find any mention of record keeping. I did, however find this which I missed first time through, and feel the need to respond to:

in order to add armor as DR, you create a greater variable scheme for situational modifiers (such as adamantine weapons bypassing DR) that must be constantly kept track of in combat.

Why? Adamantine weapons don't bypass armour AC, why should they bypass armour DR? You may (or may not) want to create extra situational modifers, but you don't need to.

as a DM and a player who is quite used to introducing people to the game, i find that adding that additional layer of complexity to what is already a complex and precariously balanced system seems unwise without totally re-writing the combat system.

So do I, which is why I would prefer it to be a standard and integral part of the system, because IMO it doesn't really work very well as an optional extra.


glass.

 

[Steverooo]

What extra record keeping is require with an damage-reducing armour system? Name one item!

Well... DUH!... The DR of the armor?

(Gentlemen, let's give it a rest, shall we?)

 

[glass]

Well... DUH!... The DR of the armor?

I said extra piece of record keeping. If you record the DR of the armour instead of it's AC bonus, that's not extra (as I have already pointed out twice in this thread).

(Gentlemen, let's give it a rest, shall we?)

Why? Debate is what the forum is all about. In any case, if you want the debate to die off, why are you joining in with it?


glass.

 

[drothgery]

Items of info required: attacker's attack bonus, attacker's weapon damage, defender's normal defence, defender's ff defence, defenders armour soak, defender's hp (6 items).

Items of info required in current system: attacker's attack bonus, attacker's weapon damage, defender's normal AC, defender's ff AC, defender's touch AC, defender's hp (6 items).

So, what extra records am I keeping in my hypothetical system? None!

It's not extra recordkeeping, it's extra calculations that have to be done. While both systems require keeping around the same number of pieces of data, any given attack is going to use one fewer in the typical case (conventional weapon against armored opponent). Moreover, unlike bonuses to damage, DR soak can't be pre-calculated for the typical case (no special immunities or vulnerabilities) because you never know how much DR an opponent will have.

DR: attacker's attack bonus, attacker's weapon damage, defender's relevant defence, defenders armour soak, defender's hp (5 items)

AC: attacker's attack bonus, attacker's weapon damage, defender's relevant AC, defender's hp (4 items).

 

[Ethernaut]

The one thing I think I would like to overhaul in DnD are what I consider to be the many "bland" magical spells and (especially) items. I would rather the magic items actually allowed the characters to do something they couldn't before. So rings of featherfalling, boots of flying, figurines of wondrous power, staffs of wizardry, etc. -all the type of magic items I consider to be fun would still have a place in the game. Gauntlets of Ogre Power would still be there even - it's just that they would really make a man as strong as an ogre (just like they did in AD&D).

Amen to that! While I don't imagine that they could/would/should strip out all the bland magic items, they could go a long way to bringing back the magic of magic by what they emphasize in the magic-item section of the DMG. Similarly, I'd like less buffing spells that merely give bonuses and more spells that let the caster or the target to cool stuff. I *hate* keeping track of bless/prayer/bull-strength/etc buffs in combat but it's a joy when your character suddenly can fly or become invisible.

Along these lines, I'd like to tone down the assumption that mid to high level characters have tons of magic items at their disposal. I'm not opposed to high-magic games on all occassions, everyone is free to play the way they want to play. But right now it is hard to run a low-magic game without buying other products with special rules (i.e. Grim Tales). Encounter Levels assume higher level players carry tons of magic items.

 

[glass]

It's not extra recordkeeping, it's extra calculations that have to be done.

According to BelenUmeria, it is the extra record keeping. I was calling him on it. I never claimed there wasn't any extra arithmentic.

While both systems require keeping around the same number of pieces of data, any given attack is going to use one fewer in the typical case (conventional weapon against armored opponent). Moreover, unlike bonuses to damage, DR soak can't be pre-calculated for the typical case (no special immunities or vulnerabilities) because you never know how much DR an opponent will have.

However, I should point out that not all calculations are equal. This one is pretty easy as D&D arithmetic goes, and can be done almost as an afterthought while the rest of the group moves on. Hell, most people could probably do it in the amount of time it takes to reach for the pencil to note down the damage anyway.

DR: attacker's attack bonus, attacker's weapon damage, defender's relevant defence, defenders armour soak, defender's hp (5 items)

AC: attacker's attack bonus, attacker's weapon damage, defender's relevant AC, defender's hp (4 items).

The attacker's attack bonus and the defender's relevant defence will generally be precalculated. The real calculations will be in combat:

AC: Weapon variable damage (addition), target's hit points (subtraction) (2 calculations).

DR: Weapon variable damage (addition), damage modified for soak (subtraction), target's hit points (subtraction) (three calculations).

Of course, you could (as I have suggested previously) make the damage a fixed number (which could be precalculated) and leave the randomness just in the DR roll, which takes it back to 2 each. But that would mean no randomness at all against unarmoured targets unless everyone had at least a little natural armour, or unless you start adding the DoS of the attack roll (which is of course, another calculation).

FWIW, I would favour the second option. I would accept the slight increase in handling time for each attack, and offset it by reducing the number of attacks. So, high/epic level characters will cap out at 4 or 5 attacks rather than being able to get 12 or 15...


glass.

 

[Ghostwind]

Guys, regarding Armor as DR, I think we can safely say that you both have valid points but neither is right or wrong. It's an agree to disagree situation.

Ehternaut, I like your suggestion of bringing the "magic" back to magic items.

 

[lgburton]

According to BelenUmeria, it is the extra record keeping. I was calling him on it. I never claimed there wasn't any extra arithmentic.

However, I should point out that not all calculations are equal. This one is pretty easy as D&D arithmetic goes, and can be done almost as an afterthought while the rest of the group moves on. Hell, most people could probably do it in the amount of time it takes to reach for the pencil to note down the damage anyway.

The attacker's attack bonus and the defender's relevant defence will generally be precalculated. The real calculations will be in combat:

AC: Weapon variable damage (addition), target's hit points (subtraction) (2 calculations).

DR: Weapon variable damage (addition), damage modified for soak (subtraction), target's hit points (subtraction) (three calculations).

Of course, you could (as I have suggested previously) make the damage a fixed number (which could be precalculated) and leave the randomness just in the DR roll, which takes it back to 2 each. But that would mean no randomness at all against unarmoured targets unless everyone had at least a little natural armour, or unless you start adding the DoS of the attack roll (which is of course, another calculation).

FWIW, I would favour the second option. I would accept the slight increase in handling time for each attack, and offset it by reducing the number of attacks. So, high/epic level characters will cap out at 4 or 5 attacks rather than being able to get 12 or 15...


glass.

very nice =). thanks for the explanations of the way you see it possibly working. i'll concede that you certainly have out-debated the nay-sayers of armor as DR.

i'm not certain that even a well-written system of armor-as-dr would provide the mechanic i like, but you have certainly proven that a well concived system would not be signifigantly more difficult in terms of record-keeping or arithmatic than the current system.

anyhow, thanks for the real debate, rather than the usual in-tar-web fl4m3 w4rz.

 

[Zendragon]

Only a couple of requests:
No AoO or 5 foot step rule.

No more monsters (including tieflings and other planar creatures) as character classes.

Limit more feats and skills to specific classes

Limit multiclassing to 2 core classes and 1 prestige class.

Get rid of favored classes for core races.

Make the different aligned monks have different abilities. (Why would an evil monk and good monk learn the same abilities anyway?)

A Ranger variant the did not cast spells. Give the player the option.

Do something good with the Bard. After 3 versions, maybe the 4th time will be the charm.

Don't have DR built into armor. You don't have spell resistance built in, why have damage resistance built in. I don't see barbarians and druids taking less damage while wearing hide armor and furs from a cone of cold. I don't hear the fighter types asking to take more damage from lightning bolts because they are wearing heavy plate. Keep the DR seperate.