I'd like to get some opinions on how you prefer armour* to be treated in games.  Do you prefer Armour to:

* reduce the chance of someone being "hit" (eg. Armour Class)
* reduce the damage inflicted by a "hit"
* allow an armour check/save to avoid damage
* have it's own health/hit points that get used before the character is injured
* another approach

I'm primarily thinking Fantasy genre, but if you prefer different treatments for different genres, that's worth mentioning!

I was planning on using the classic d&d/d20 approach with AC... but I've seen a lot of people complain about that due to the abstract nature of it and how touch attacks work.

Your feedback is appreciated (and helpful!)

* I know some people prefer "armor"

You know I always liked pre Gurps 4E where armor allowed hits to be deflected (I know helmets and most harder armor were shaped for the specific reason to cause blows to slide off a bit--its why flat topped helmets often gave way to rounded or pointed helms) as well as absorbing the impact damage.  But the problem is that armors work differently--mail for example being links diffused blows much in the same way kevlar works--you might get bruised by a sword but the cut which would kill was absorbed in the links. Brigandine worked similarly but was different of design with more rigid impact deflection/absorbtion (metal plates sewn in leather often with mail sleeves.

However, modelling each kind of armor differently adds complications that can put people off a game, just as an abstraction can bother some people. The best abstraction to me is to have it counter damage--that can if written the right way cover both the deflection effect of some armor and the absorption/diffusion effect of armor as well.

Armor as DR is the way to go.

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPunditArmor as DR is the way to go.

RPGpundit

I do armor as DR too.
However, have a way to counter the DR as well.

Another vote for Damage Reduction.

Ever since I got the book, the armor system in Storbringer 5th has intrigued me.  Armor doesn't reduce a fixed amount of damage, but a variable amount based on a die roll.  Haven't seen it in play yet, but it doesn't seem like it would add that much complexity or time to a combat round.

Armor should always be viewed in context. Especially for D20, it's not as  simple as changing it to straight damage reduction, one has to consider the related factors, too. First of all, strength adds to the change to hit partly because of the ability to penetrate armor. Without armor proding AC bonuses, this isn't the same anymore -- yet it's not totally invalid, as it's a lot harder parrying someone if he has enough force between his swings.

You also need a way to circumvent DR for the finesse fighters. Conan has either armor penetration (if Str bonus + AP value > DR then DR = DR * 0.5) or finesse (if the attack roll is equal or more than AC + DR, DR is completely out of play). Game of Thrones has a pretty decent called shots mechanic.

Unearthed Arcana split the DR into two parts, one half goes to AC as usual, the other is DR. This kinda resembles the PD/DR mechanic of GURPS 3 and could be elaborated for a more "realistic" setup.

Iron Heroes does variable DR by the way, as Elric! did. Worked quite well.

I'm not a fan of armor damage, most of it is way to involved for casual play.

What I do like is separation between thrusting/slashing and crushing attacks, as done in Harnmaster or Artesia (and partly in GURPS or even AD&D 1).

But generally DR is the way to go. Now ask me about fixed AC vs defense rolls

Quote from: RPGPunditArmor as DR is the way to go.

I like it, but it doesn't take into account the fact that while the armour stopped the actual blow you still could be bruised from the impact.  Mail, for example, was particularly bad at this, which is why people wore quilted jackets underneath

How about:

1) Armour as DR
2) Damage stopped by the armour is converted into non-lethal (bruising etc.)
3) And the armour also has a rating for how much of this non-lethal damage was absorbed

QuoteArmor should always be viewed in context. Especially for D20, it's not as simple as changing it to straight damage reduction, one has to consider the related factors, too.

Just to be clear -- my interest is for work on my in development game, which is a complete system and will not use the d20 license.  I do, however, appreciate many of the things about d20, and even more so the B/X edition of D&D.  I want a light-weight mechanic.

QuoteFirst of all, strength adds to the change to hit partly because of the ability to penetrate armor. Without armor proding AC bonuses, this isn't the same anymore -- yet it's not totally invalid, as it's a lot harder parrying someone if he has enough force between his swings.

Yes, strength would also let you wield a heavy weapon and shield more easily, particularly while wearing armour.  

QuoteBut generally DR is the way to go. Now ask me about fixed AC vs defense rolls

While I initially asked about armour, I think attack rolls, defence rolls, armour, hit points, and wounds are all related -- more so depending on the particular system.

I have a system worked out that I'm quite happy with -- but armour doesn't seem quite right, so I'm giving it a second look -- which is where I appreciate everyone's comments.  I expected more people to support AC rather than DR, which is very interesting.

Edit:

I believe (and so it's reflected in my game) that an experienced warrior does NOT get hit by an opponents axe, arrows, or other attacks* throughout a fight -- they parry, dodge or block the attack.  Armour changes a killing or wounding blow into a lesser injury, or none at all.

* Unarmed combat is a bit different.

Armor as DR - that's how we do it with Epic RPG.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI like it, but it doesn't take into account the fact that while the armour stopped the actual blow you still could be bruised from the impact.  Mail, for example, was particularly bad at this, which is why people wore quilted jackets underneath

How about:

1) Armour as DR
2) Damage stopped by the armour is converted into non-lethal (bruising etc.)
3) And the armour also has a rating for how much of this non-lethal damage was absorbed

JAGS does this. When armor is hit by a penetrating attack it gets an "armor save" to convert the damage to Impact (far less severe). Some of that damage may or may not get through but if your bulletproof vest makes its save you're probably just slightly bruised instead of badly bleeding.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoJAGS does this. When armor is hit by a penetrating attack it gets an "armor save" to convert the damage to Impact (far less severe). Some of that damage may or may not get through but if your bulletproof vest makes its save you're probably just slightly bruised instead of badly bleeding

Cool.  I've often wondered about writing this up, but then I don't know if I'd want to play something that reached that level of complexity

Ah - I'm in the ghetto here. I prefer everything as front-loaded as possible, to speed up resolution. Armor is a reduction in the chance to hit in my games. It's so much faster I take the hit from those who prefer DR and smile. Yes it's not as realistic. Yes it's abstract. I don't care. It's faster, and it works just fine. It all evens out in the long run. People with better armor take less damage per attack.

-clash

Bulletproof armor in nWoD converts lethal to bashing damage, for what it's worth.

IIRC, Artesia converts edged to bludgeoning damage unless a serious wound is caused.

Some truly ancient German RPG had both "endurance points" and "hit points", where only major hits actually made you bleed. I'm not entirely sure, but I think armor only helped you with your precious hit points...

For realism, the age of plate offers some rather interesting options. For one, shields got out of favor as you needed to do serious damage to actually get through the bulletproof steel. And people actually trained in "parrying" with the armor, probably more as a last resort. That means taking the blow in the right angle on the parts of your armor where it would do the least damage.

I've yet to find a game that truly "gets" the difference between heavy chain and late-medieval plate. There's more difference than just a few points of DR. I blame the myth of Agincourt partly for this...

It doesn't really matter to me as long as it works. For instance, D&D armor makes you harder to hit, while d20 Modern armor provides damage reduction, and Hackmaster armor provides both. They all work well for the system they're used in.

One approach you missed is used in Rolemaster: armor makes you easier to hit but harder to damage. I like that one as well.

I vote for DR.

GURPS 3e has PassiveDefense and DR.
4e just has DR.