Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Masterclass #12: AC v. Armor Absorption (Patreon)

Published:
2020-11-21 13:01:00
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Videos

Downloads

  • Comparison of Lethality - TYP Fighters (Rev 1).docx
  • Comparison of Lethality - TYP Fighters (Rev 1).docx

Missing 1 full-res photo, 2 files, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

Patron Old Man Zed has run a comparison between 5E, Warhammer 1st Ed, and Dungeonhack to answer the age old question: does armor absorption make a statistical difference. We share the data.

Files

Previews only

Masterclass: Armor Absorption v. D&D

This video is about Masterclass: Armor Absorption v. D&D

Comments

Bill Carroll

If you've got armor dice, roll hit and damage and armor all at once

Laurenz Mettmann

For me playerfacing with Armor Rolls is the way to go. Players roll their Defense Roll, their Armor Roll + Other Absorption at the same time, like you can do with rolling Attack Rolls and Damage Rolls at the same time. It takes only slightly more time, but you can imho easier narrate it based on the dice results. Also it adds a lot to the character fantasy when a big boy warrior gets hit but just stands there like a man takes the hit while letting his armor absorb it which he bought for his earned money. A nimbel thief player character with a higher defense roll will dodge and parry attacks left and right because he choose to spend his gold and exp into a broadsword and a parrying dagger. Mathematicly it might not make a big difference, but for the players and their the immersion it makes a huge difference. My players often told me that they think it is more logical and more organic for them.

MoldvayINC.

My method of making armour absorb damage is like this: Damage is NOT determined by weapon type- it has everything to do with the armour worn. Heavy armour only allows d4 damage through, medium allows d6 damage through, light allows d8, no armour d10. This put the focus on the importance of armour rather than on weapons. In no armour, a dagger can kill you just as well as a halberd. It also speeds the process u[ by not having to subtract any damage from a roll. Using the current Dungeonhack rules where stat bonuses take the place of level as the way of determing expertise, I have heavy armour only allow a maximum DEX bonus of 2, Medium 3, light 4 and no penalty for unarmoured. This allows the archtype of lightly armoured or non armoured swashbuckling-type fighters to exist as a valid and playable option. Also, I would remove the "Armour Points" from the current rules... probably... maybe.

GraphicOrgnizer

I’m pretty new to RPG’s, and have not gotten much into homebrew rules, but I have been wondering about something. What if a character’s chance of getting hit decreased over time i.e. their training and adventures make them more agile but their armor class stayed the same since presumably they would not be a whole lot tougher than they started out. So what would happen mechanically hand aesthetically if players armor class stayed the same unless they put on armor and then that armor absorbed a certain number of points from each hit but their ability scores, such as dexterity, could increase with experience making them harder to hit. This seems like a fair balance between realism and maintaining speed of combat. Is there some affect that I am not thinking of while considering this?

MoldvayINC.
>>48122154

That sounds reasonable. The current Dungeonhack rules work like that. The only consideration is that you end up having characters in heavy armour being just as nimble as characters with no armour. Real plate armour allows for amazing range of motion and agility, but it does have an effect. Heavy fabric armour- like a gambeson can protect just as well as plate- it’s thick, restrictive and less durable. Does all that make sense?

DM Wisdom

Monster hits. Deals 8 points of damage. GM moves on to the next player to keep things fast. If the character that was struck has light armor (padded, leather, studded) they will absorb 1d4 points of damage. Medium (hide, chain shirt, scale mail, breastplate, half plate) 1d6 points absorbed. Heavy 1d8 points absorbed. Add a shield everything goes up by +1. Magical or master craft armor would give you the "+" bonus on top. So a character wearing a +2 chain shirt and a shield would have 1d6+1(shield) +2 (magic) for a grand total of 1d6+3, of course. So after the monster hits dealing 8 points of damage the GM goes on to the next player. The player that took the 8 damage rolls 1d6+3 (d6 roll is 3 + 3 = 6) 6 points of absorption, net of only 2 points of damage.

Jesse Davenport
>>48126706

I think this is a key consideration for armor absorption systems, if you choose to use them. Monsters need to have static damage to keep things moving quickly. Similarly, they should have static absorption for the same reason. From a player's perspective, they're still rolling dice and having fun.

DM Wisdom
>>48126706

I would definitely go with static armor absorption for monsters, if you are going to use it. With my own systems in the past I used armor absorption with a map HP cap for player around 30.....so the armor absorption was crucial.

Randy Pytel
>>48121816

I really like this concept! My only concern, as a GM who does mostly cyberpunk genre sci-fi, this feels like a dagger and an assault rifle would do the same damage vs an unarmed combatant. I'm thinking if I added a bonus die or a static bonus to really powerful weapons, it might make the damage more realistic. Just a spitball guess: Handguns +1 Light rifles/SMGs and such +D4 Heavy weapons +D6 I also really like the idea of lowering the DEX bonus on the to hit roll depending on armor. Great ideas! Thanks

Laurenz Mettmann
>>48126706

Monster with static values and a standard distribution of stats is a very good tool to keep combat fast. But Shields adding to the armor is weird. A shield is an offensive and defensive weapon and not armor per se. I would rather let it add to defense

Jay

Bottom Line Up Front - I agree with PDM on this. However, armor absorption rules can always be added as optional rules for those who wish to use it. Although I really like the idea of an armor absorption system, it will slow things down a bit too much for my taste. Too many questions arise when it comes to using armor absorption such as can my dagger pierce that heave metal plate armor? If no, then it comes down to what do I need to roll to hit a spot with no armor such as the face or a joint? For me, I like the ideas presented in Lamentations of the Flame Princess supplement V.A.M or Eldritch C. They say all damage is on a 1D8 and armor points toward Armor Class are doubled for small weapons (Leather 2 points is now 4 = 14 to hit) and heavy weapons halves the armor points toward Armor Class (Leather 2 points is now 1 = 11 to hit). Even without the armor rules I still like the idea of a dagger being just as lethal as a sword. In this case 1D8 aside from a critical success. I like my game to be lethal enough to make the player use caution but also use luck dice to keep them from being wiped out too quickly. Adding more steps to combat with a table of 5-8 players can slow things down significantly. Just my two cents.

Jay
>>48121816

Another good idea Korg. A dagger to the neck is just as lethal as a sword to the neck. However, this makes those who don't wear armor very vulnerable. A mechanic to keep that Ninja from being hit as often as a fighter might be good and Wizards are just waiting to be outright slaughtered. I'm toying with a method from Lamentations of the Flame Princess that uses a standard D8 for all damage and doubles armor points for small weapons and halves them for large weapons. I posted it below. I will likely play test both methods and see what my player prefer.

MoldvayINC.
>>48121816

Thanks for responding. Well, I think that firearms ignore most armour anyway- hence why it was abandoned historically. Treat everyone as wearing no-armour when shot with them. If you have special ballistic armour they defend differently and are made to only cover vitals- otherwise they are far too heavy to wear. And, a dagger statistically more deadly that an assault rifle. If you get stabbed you are more likely to die. It’s because blades kill by causing haemorrhage and bullets kill by impact. Cheers!

DM Wisdom
>>48126706

You're right.....in fact I would go as far as to say shields should have a 1d6 bludgeoning......and two weapon fighting most definitely could include a shield in your off hand.

Laurenz Mettmann
>>48141291

The problem with the Daggers vs Heavy Armor can be easily solved via narration and some knowledge about historical armor. Sure it needs some time to study them, but it is really worth it.

Laurenz Mettmann
>>48126706

Research Bucklers. Those were small metal handshields and are criminal underrated. Sadly Shields in general are so under appreciated in fantasy and need more love. They were absolutely vital and need to get more recognition in TTRPGs. Especially like stuff that the had often thinners rims so that enemy weapons would stuck into them.

MoldvayINC.
>>48121816

Thanks Jay, My feeling is that characters SHOULD be very vulnerable when wearing no armour. If they go that route they need to be very agile and avoid being hit in the first place. In low-hit point games characters really need to protect those precious HP and armour is the way to do it. The way to help non-armoured folks from dying too soon is to give them Talents that help out. In my game I have monks who are holy monastic healer-types. I let them add their wisdom or Ethos bonus to their Defence. Rogues and sneaky infiltrator-types get dodge and evasion talents to either reduce incoming damage or increase their Defence. In my game I also do other stuff like fighting methods that use paired historical weapons like- sword and buckler, rapier and dagger, spear and shield, harness-fighting (harnisch fetchen- which is the method of fighting in heavy armour), to give additional benefits to attack and defence. Historically, these methods are all about either defence or protecting you while you make your attack. They're not just holding a shield in one hand and attacking with the other- it is a method using both offensive and defensive weapons at the same time. You defend yourself with your sword or rapier and once your swords are crossed you use your buckler or dagger to control the opponent's weapon which allows an attack while they're occupied in this manner. I also modify damage by the attacker's strength. The LOFP method looks interesting. I'll look it up. Thanks!

MoldvayINC.
>>48126706

Absolutely! Shields, bucklers and targets are game-changers in real life. Getting punched with a bucker edge, let alone a targe or shield, will break bones or kill just as well as with the main weapon. Thomas Page, writing in 1745 about the highland method of sword and targe says that if you don't understand the method, you're better off without it. It will only hinder your sword unless you've been trained in using both together. Most people think you just hold a shield and fight with your other hand... NO. It's a paired Offensive/Defensive weapon method. I agree with you!

Jay
>>48141291

I realize this but I'm good testing out a the method I've mentioned along with Korgs idea. Thanks for your input.

Jay
>>48121816

Your welcome Korg. I understand why you choose to use this method and now that you've cleared up a few of the defensive measures through talents and so forth it makes it more interesting. I’m likely to try your method along with the one I’ve mentioned. The only reason I’m leaning toward the 1D8 for all damage is to simplify as well as keeping it lethal. While I still plan on using Critical Success for additional damage, I also plan on adding talents of my own as optional player perks upon leveling up. For instance, a Fighter might choose to master a specific weapon in which case they roll 2D8 and keep the higher of the two plus Str or Dex as applicable for damage. For me its mainly about streamlining my rules along with simplification. I hope to focus more on story, roleplay, and problem solving while keeping game mechanics common knowledge for my players. You make great arguments for why you choose the rules you use yet for me it’s not necessary. I can clearly see why you do what you do and many of these methods make perfect sense. However, it just comes down to preference and what my players are going to enjoy along with what keeps the game moving. Anyway, I like your input as it usually gives me something to consider that I haven’t already thought of. Thanks again.

Old Man Zed

PDM - thanks for sharing this with folks. Your treatment of the topic was great, and the advice on how to manage my grumpiness with hits v. misses was very helpful. The discussions here in the forum on how Player Facing Combat can open the level of complexity one chooses for their system is really interesting. I can't imagine any more complex than simple binary/AC at zoom table of 6 or 7 people in the standard style (DM rolls too many dice), but when they are each taking care of their own PFC rolls, it is pretty easy to slip in a little more complexity on the armor side without overly taxing the flow of combat. I am still working with my table on getting them to describe how each of their fights go (which I ask them to roll off screen, in parallel, then describe how it turned out) - this gets to the issue of helping them describe near misses, shield blocks, parries and blows to armor - which for a DM is one thing, but for quiet player something else altogether...

MoldvayINC.
>>48121816

I completely understand what you’re going for. And I want the same thing but I like some alterations to try to make things more reflective of how I view reality 😁 I add other Talents or expertises like “Lethal” that doubles the critical range for a fighter with a specific weapon, etc.

Emily Martin
>>48151389

Old Man Zed, it would be interesting to see what the values would be across all 7 major versions of D&D/AD&D, to see how that compares, as well as Gygax's other system he used in Mythus. (Rolemaster, Ars Magica and just for giggles, Phoenix Command, would be interesting but alot of work for sure). Good work on this!

Old Man Zed

Interesting indeed. The various d&d's would be pretty easy. Rolemaster would be a bit of a pain, and not sure how representative it would be just looking at a fighter with sword and chain shirt. Rolemaster has those damn charts for damage and crits, puts a real monkey wrench in a simple analysis. One of the main reasons that I chose a 3rd level fighter (versus, say, 5th) is that they still only have one attack per round across the three systems. Things get pretty messy in this analysis if they don't all have the same number of attacks. Not sure how earlier d&d versions handled multiple attacks.

Old Man Zed
>>48151389

I ran a broader version of this analysis looking at characters in all three systems from levels 1 to 12. The fundamental results are still generally the same (WFRP is the most lethal), but it was very interesting to see how the lethalities changed level after level, and then start to run away at high levels as DnD characters begin their gradual ascent to 'demi-godhood.' I can't post them on Patreon, but if you send me an email (zed@jhu.edu) I will send you a copy.

Stuart Bonham

I fail to understand how rolling at 13 and missing is different to rolling at 42 on Warhammer and missing...

The Byronic Ted

Would be interesting though, because a lot of people complain about 5e getting a superhero game from 5th level onward. There seems to be a change in the math.

Kyle Dresser
>>48126706

It makes the most sense for me to have Armor absorb and Shields add to Defense/Armor Class. My hack currently uses the naked Agility score as the Armor Class, modded by shields and any combat proficiencies.