Pretty self-explanatory I think. Personally I'm for straight subtraction or a combination of subtraction & % of damage, though in the later still weighed more toward subtraction than multiplication than the old Fallouts were.

 

(I think armour in Fallout 1-2 also reduces the chance you'll take damage but while I don't actually know the exact mechanics it feels like a fairly minor effect.)

Fallout 1 and 2 already had a combination of everything since they have AC/deflection, damage threshold, and reduced damage by %.

Depending on the armor, I think it would make sense to have a chance for deflection and then whatever gets through is reduced with some kind of damage reduction. It might even be workable to implement blunt, piercing and slashing effectiveness for different armor types?

I like it when there are parts of realism in games, so I usually like how weapons make different types of damage and you need different types of armor to be protected. On the other side this leads to a lot of micromanagement, so you need to carry with you several armors to be protected against the possible types of weapons others may have and I guess this will be not so much fun quite fast.

I would like to see a system, where there is dodge as well (dex-based) and classes like the monk have high chance not to get hit at all. Armor should reduce dodge (you are less flexible - but it depends also on type of armor of course) but increase chances of you taking less damage when hit. The calculation of how much damage does not get through: depends on how the "hp" (I know it will not be called that in that game) are calculated, if they are done like in most other games with few more every level, then a combination of substraction and %-damage reduction is the best idea, I guess.

Edited October 26, 201213 yr by Rink

Good topic OP.

 

I like abstract and realistic approaches, as long as it feels granular and fun.I would like to see shields use a seperate mechanic to armour (parry) and would be interested in seeing how abstract versus damage absorption / reduction works.

I think the only not votable option would be very cool: a combination between 1 and 3.

 

Armour shall provide two benefits: there should be the chance that the armour protects the wearer from any damage (but depends on the combat system working in the background) and there should be the "normal" case that armour reduces a certain percentage of the taken damage.

I'd prefer a system with two different "protection" stats: Evasion and Armor Class.

 

Evasion is a chance to avoid an attack entirely, by dodging, deflecting blows, jumping etc. Armor Class is the ability of the armor to protect the user, ie. not avoid attacks, but absorbing damage.

 

As such, characters focused on armor wearing wouldn't be able to entirely avoid attacks, but would benefit from the increased protection it gives (tanking, in other words). Characters who don't wear armor (or just the lightest suits) would instead focus on avoiding attacks and outmaneuvering the enemy.

 

Although the end result is seemingly the same, it would also have further repercussions, eg. dealing with mages or bowmen. Say, you're facing a lightning mage in metal armor or a fire mage in robes? You're fried. You're facing bowmen wearing heavy armor? Sorry, you're a porcupine.

 

 

Fallout simulated some of the above principles, with metal armor being more resistant to energy weapons.

 

Food for thought.

Voted for 1 & 2, not found of percentage reduction at all (3).

 

1 - chance for glancing hit fully deflected by armor, or totally avoided one (should depend on armor type, character's dex, attacker's aim... D&D like). Armors like chainmail should provide more of this than full plate imo.

2 - represents direct hit. If you try to pierce gothic full plate with a fork - you shouldn't do much with common direct hits anyway, unless it's crit to the eye.

So, my vote is for 2-stage armor mechanics: to hit + point by point armor damage reduction (armor reduction could be mitigated by crit damage multipliers, or crit ignoring portion of armor)

 

As for percentage reduction - i think it's silly. Say, full plate protecting from 30% of anything. (in epicenter of nuclear explosion as well).

That leads to strange mechanics, where you either could totally ignore armor and rely on health (even 30% hp saving at cost of mobility? - screw it (fallout 3 style, no-brainier on harder difficulties)), or stacking those percents as high as possible (if possible) (same fallout 3, heavy armor + drugged = ignoring anything). While anything in the middle is pointless.

Combining 2 & 3 is funny for munchkin like me, but not good. Often leads to utter invulnerability that is much easier achievable than if 3 only.

 

I'd say - avoid any global percentages if possible or be careful and make them affectable somehow if not. Oblivion's 100% chameleon 100% magic resist were... just dull, newer finished the game. Had split feelings about magic resist in BG/BG2. Before you had spells affecting it - it was just annoying, after - it was great. (hurling 3 of "Lower resistance" in a sequencer at in theory magic immune demon...)

Edited October 26, 201213 yr by SGray

If it was a combination of subtraction and % reduction (and possibly deflection), I think the subtraction would have to be before the % reduction, or characters could probably get ridiculously though.

 

I'm a bit sceptical to the need for having a seperate deflection stat for armour, assuming subtracting armour wouldn't a glancing blow just be represented by a low damage roll that gets completely absorbed by the armour?

I'm a bit sceptical to the need for having a seperate deflection stat for armour, assuming subtracting armour wouldn't a glancing blow just be represented by a low damage roll that gets completely absorbed by the armour?

Agreed, hasn't considered damage rolls )

Nevertheless: mechanics for dodge should be implemented anyway, so why to create completely separate thing? If i have something solid on my shoulder or on my hand - it'll allow me to dodge less to mitigate a blow, while weight of such armor could still limit my mobility. Implement partial success for dodge probably?

I think the armour should be a combination of reducing chance to take damage based on weapon types / damage types speed of attacks vs ability to dodge and avoid. Once a hit is confirmed the damage is then reduced (or increased if applicable ie trapped in a melting plate armour suitor similar).

Combination of 1,2 and 3, but 1 reversed. The heavier armor and baggage, the harder it should be to avoid being hit.

 

Discussed here as well.

 

After a bit of thinking, I'm leaning towards Fallout system afterall.

 

With both damage treshold and percentage reduction in addition to damage avoidance by dodgin skill and other factors like dexterity and encumbrance. Only I'd like the damage tresholds a bit higher than in FO. In D&D terms something like 8 points and 50% for full plate would be fine. So without strength bonuses youwouldn't be able to hurt a knight with sword or bow at all, unless you score a critical. And if it'd be a critical bypasses the treshold (but not % reduction), you'd still be looking at 1-4 points max.

 

If that sounds unreasonable, it shouldn't. Crusader knights were described to look like porcupines after battle, with arrows pointing everywhere, unable to penetrate thechainmail but still stuck in padding or the cloth bit over the armor, they'd be fine, besides a few scratches an occasional bleeders. Or how later medieval knights (wearing plate) would abandon shields alltogether, because they were protected well enough to make them practically invulnerable and they needed heavy 2-handed weapons to harm opposing knights.

 

Further, I'm in favor of shields adding to the dodging/deflection skill, and I wouldn't like heavy armor to negate all dodging. Maybe there could be an armor skill, where anyone can wear any armor, but untrained wearer suffers much higher dodge penalties?

 

--

All 3, dodging, treshold and reduction, because that'd make an agile fighter a viable option. And would help with situations where going against big opponents that'd hit 34 points of damage, I'd still like a definite advantage from wearing armor. Taking 30 or 34 points is no big difference if going by treshold alone.

Edited October 26, 201213 yr by Jarmo

I think it should be a combination of all types, but not for all armors. Some armor will be built to deflect some blows entirely, resist any real damage below a certain threshold, and absorb a portion of the blows that get through (full articulated plate for example). But not all armor includes all of these aspects. Chain for example does very little if any deflection, but has a pretty decent "penetration resistance" (against attacks not specifically designed to bypass it at least) as well as still lowering the amount of damage for those attacks that do get through.

 

Some "armor" is purely or almost purely deflection with very little absorbtion (like would be the case if shields are included in the normal armor mechanic). Basically I'd like all "defense forms" have deflection, penetration resistance, and absorbtion ratings - but many/most defenses would not include non-zero stats for all 3 categories.

 

Also, if damage types are included (which I'm expecting them to be but isn't a sure thing at this time) I would also like to see armor that has the ability to "convert" damage from one type to another - especially if differing types of damage have differing secondary effects and/or defense-layering is possible. Using the chain example above, it would have good penetration resistance, but instead of just being flat damage reduction, it could convert a portion of the damage from say, slashing to crushing damage instead - negating the entirety of the original slashing damage remaining, but still passing on the crushing portion.

 

The "conversion" portion could also be handled in the weapon/attack itself, with say, a greatsword dealing 60% slashing and 40% crushing damage, and the chain would negate the slashing portion but leave the crushing portion to be dealt with by either other defenses, or passed through to the health mechanic.

 

Basically - we have the ability for the computer to handle most of the bookkeeping for the mechanics, which is a major reason many P&P combat systems abstract armor as much as they have in the past (D&D included) so let's make the most of it...

Edited October 26, 201213 yr by RaccoonTOF

I just want a good system where certain armor types have positives and negatives.

 

2E was a bit flawed where there was basically no point wearing Chainmail (made you easier to hit by bludgeoning attacks) if you had an alternative with the same AC.

 

Light armor should allow for more mobility but not much protection from damage, whereas heavier armor limits your mobility but protects more from incoming damage.

 

The Health and Stamina mechanic could be connected to armor somehow as well.

 

For instance, when you get hit by damage you have a few things that the damage can potentially be spread across

 

Your stamina value, your health and your armor.

 

Lighter armor mightn't protect you as well from health damage as heavier armor etc

idk how it worked in Jagged Alliance 2, but i want that!

I quite liked it in Baldur's Gate I found it easy to follow without being too oversimplified.

Really like the Fallout 1&2 method, where different armors respond differently to different type of damages.

Not sure how it would work in a fantasy setting though.

I kinda liked the old World of Darkness/Vampire the Masquerade system of Armor level - a catchall for deflection/glancing blows - and then a "soak" level, which was absorbtion. So there is one roll for tohit, and then another for damage - and damage subtracts the soak value. I voted for 1&3, having thought a bit it doesn't make much sense to me that any equipment would subtract the same percentage of damage from all damage sources. I could see "physical soak" and "magical soak" values, but I don't know.

Fallout had it right: a combination of 1, 2, and 3. You definitely need #1, because good armor does have a chance of totally deflecting a blow (though I'd like the combat thing to mention it bouncing off of the armor rather than counting it all as a "miss"). Between #2 and #3 you can argue about which one is better, but you need #1 and at least one of #1 and #2. Going straight #1 is also silly.

I like having a distinction between defense and damage resistance. Beyond that, "keep it simple" usually works. I'm sure the developers will come up with a good design that works for their system.

Edited October 27, 201213 yr by rjshae

It'd still be pretty important to have different weapons do different kinds of damage, although it's a major source of controversy when you'd have to decide which weapon is good against what kind of armor.

 

Far as armor goes, I'd go with bigger is better. Plain chain is not as good against blunt trauma as padded cloth, but you'd usually wear some kind of padding under the mail anyway, so I'd be just fine if chain is just better.

 

For weapons, I'd just lump them into good, average and weak against armor.

 

Swords and scimitars and the like, would be weak, but they'd have a big base damage and quick strikes.

Hammers, maces and stuff like that would be good, but with lower base damage and slower strikes.

 

The average bit is hardest, I'd say piercing weapons at least, but I'm unsure if perhaps axes should be here,

or at the weak group, only with maybe higher base damage but slower strikes.

 

Pretty sure this grouping wouldn't get universal acceptance, especially as it comes to which weapon does what.

 

But basically it would give options, you could still deal with a heavy armor opponent with your sword, but it'd just take more strikes than usual.

Or you could fight with a mace, while it doesn't slice up unarmored opponents as fast, goblins and the like are still down with one strike.

I don't really know how nitty-gritty armour needs to be or if giving weapons different effectiveness against armour in general is a good idea. I mean, realistically, if you have the tech to make good plate (which PE seems to have), all other armour is pretty much simply inferior, and if you want lighter armour you wear lighter plate or only a breatsplate and helmet or the like. And while you'll never actually cut through plate swinging a sword at it (mostly you'll just deal blunt trauma), you could, realistically, thrust using a half-sword grip but I sincerely doubt fighting will be that detailed, so making swords crap against armour for the sake or realism might make them less effective than they should realistically be because it doesn't take into account other aspects of fighting the game doesn't consider.

Edited October 28, 201213 yr by limaxophobiacq

Not complete realism, where the armor either blocks the blow, or the spear goes 5 inches through and you die.

 

But unless the weapons are good against different targets, what's there to separate them?

If mace against an unarmored opponent does less damage than a sword, as it should, and the same is true for armored opponent,

then what's the point of using mace? Would blunt weapons just be a category of bad weapons, don't use these.

 

In D&D they're not good, but viable because of abundant skeletons and because clerics are forced to use them.

 

If on the other hand, warhammer does just the same damage as a sword and swings just as fast, then there's no separation.

Different classes just for visual flavor? If it's just the same otherwise but better against skeletons, why ever use a sword?

A combination of avoidance, deflection, and damage reduction.

 

The lighter your armor, the better your avoidance.

 

Plate armor and shields may additionally deflect some weapons (mostly stabbing and slashing attacks, but not maces or hammers).

 

Hits neither avoided nor deflected cause (the weapons damage roll - the armor's armor rating) damage points.

 

To compensate for blunt weapons being undeflectable, stabbing weapons could score bigger critical hits against lightly armored targets (representing deep piercing wounds) while slashing weapons could cause bleeding against lightly armored targets (representing deep gashes).

 

Might be a bit complicated, but the nice thing about CRPGs is that you can keep all this under the hood and not require a GM to memorize a lot of extra rules.