Armor

[Frenetic Pony]

Should armor require a skill to use?

 

I'm not sure, after all armor should already have other negatives, the only type of item you can equip (not cursed) to do so. What if heavy armor made characters slower, and made them use more stamina while wearing it, less able to dodge? Then, on top of all that, you have to have spend skill points to use it better, ugh. This also locks in who can wear what armor effectively, unless every class has access to the same skills equally.

 

Instead, by not requiring any skills, you don't have to worry. Who gets what armor is just based on whats appropriate for that character, with no need to level up a skill, or worry that you might want a different type of armor later because that party member might be better with light armor later, or because that heavy armor has this great enchantment that works really well with them.

[Wirdjos]

I would lean towards armor skills myself. I'm thinking of something more like armor familiarity. It would function a lot like BG's weapon proficiencies where you got to add a point every couple of levels and become better at using a particular class of weapon. You could still use the weapon class without any points in it, you just weren't able to use the weapon as well as someone who had the points. That could translate to movement speed and stamina drain when wearing armor (which I am also in favor of). Add a point to plate armor and reduce stamina drain and increase movement speed while wearing plate. The other armors could have different drawbacks and bonuses (I can't imagine say cloth armor being heavy enough to drain stamina), like stealth in leather perhaps, giving different reasons for chosing different armor types.

[rjshae]

How about just having a general Maneuver skill that deals with movement while encumbered or constrained? Armor/Load is compared to the Maneuver skill to see if a penalty is applied. The same skill can be used to overcome spell effects such web or grease.

[Wirdjos]

How about just having a general Maneuver skill that deals with movement while encumbered or constrained? Armor/Load is compared to the Maneuver skill to see if a penalty is applied. The same skill can be used to overcome spell effects such web or grease.

 

Those are some interesting implications. But I do have a few questions. Should strength, dexterity, or any other stat interact with such a skill? Should heavier armors like plate have a higher maneuver check and if so should armor dependant classes like the fighter start with points in maneuver.

 

I really like the idea of having an armor skill that does translate to other aspects of the game thus giving incentive for a fail sort of wizard to take it even if he never intended to take on armor. He could later grab some plate as the need arose and thus not feel like he made the wrong choices early on.

[TRX850]

I like the idea of putting points into an armour proficiency skill.

Using 3E terms for a moment, if my fighter had 8 ranks in armour proficiency, would that mean he/she could wear full plate with no negative effects other than whatever the base armour applies (like armour check penalty for hide/move silently etc) ?  But if I then add more skill points, I gradually offset and possibly improve their ability while wearing it? So if I add an additional 8 skill points, it cancels out the ACP penalty entirely? And along the way, the Max Dex Bonus (or equivalent) ?

It could also apply to Arcane Spell Failure, which would be an obvious bonus for wizards. Each skill point reduces the ASF by 5%, for example.
 

[rjshae]

 

How about just having a general Maneuver skill that deals with movement while encumbered or constrained? Armor/Load is compared to the Maneuver skill to see if a penalty is applied. The same skill can be used to overcome spell effects such web or grease.

 

Those are some interesting implications. But I do have a few questions. Should strength, dexterity, or any other stat interact with such a skill? Should heavier armors like plate have a higher maneuver check and if so should armor dependant classes like the fighter start with points in maneuver.

 

For the first, I'd say whatever stat would interact with the proposed Armor skill. For the second, I'd say that it would be a favored skill of a fighter just like sneak would be for a rogue.

 

I really like the idea of having an armor skill that does translate to other aspects of the game thus giving incentive for a fail sort of wizard to take it even if he never intended to take on armor. He could later grab some plate as the need arose and thus not feel like he made the wrong choices early on.

 

Remember, the designers are not limiting skills based on class. A wizard spending points on maneuver would be no different than a fighter spending points in lockpicking.

 

An armor skill by itself would just be a means to hinder armor use by non-fighter classes. Plus it's not clear that an armor skill is all that valuable. It needs to be balanced out with the other skills.

[Larkaloke]

I think it should probably require something to use particularly effectively. Any armor that is going to be much protection will have an effect on the way you move, and if you aren't used to compensating for that, it can through you off. 

 

A proficiency point system is probably the simplest way to go with it that makes sense. There is, it seems to me, only so good that you can get at moving in any armor; it starts to get a bit odd if somebody knows only how to move well in plate, but not when not wearing armor. Having no penalty to anything would presumably be the best thing there. 

 

On the other hand, I think that having a general maneuvering skill in fact makes the most sense, with applying some penalties to it from the armor. I think that dexterity or agility would generally be the stat to use for it, but that strength could then go against the armor penalty, since it's largely weight that would be generating the penalty in the first place (and some stiffness and such, but strength could have some effect against that as well). 

[TRX850]

Back when I was in the SCA, there were plenty of plate mail wearing members that excelled at dextrous fast movement.

 

One guy in particular was an ex-army, martial arts expert.  Not sure what his armour weighed, but it was heavy full plate.  And because it was perfectly tailored, he could maneuver in it like it was a second skin.  I wish I had video of it to show you guys.  It was amazing.  He trained in it for hours every day until it was as if he was wearing light, unrestrictive armour.

 

So I'd vote for proficiency points towards armour reducing all penalties to zero.  This is one case where reality should come before abstract systems.

[rjshae]

Wouldn't a feat/talent be sufficient to reflect that degree of training? Once you're proficient at moving in armor, is there any further benefit to be gained? You can only approach your ability to maneuver without armor; not exceed it.

[TRX850]

Wouldn't a feat/talent be sufficient to reflect that degree of training? Once you're proficient at moving in armor, is there any further benefit to be gained? You can only approach your ability to maneuver without armor; not exceed it.

 

I did consider that, but it's mostly true for fighters.  Wizards on the other hand might find it useful to keep putting points into an armour proficiency skill so that it reduced penalties for Arcane Spell Failure for example. Not sure it would be useful for other classes, unless there was some non-skill penalty that was affected.  Rogues have separate skill points for skills affected by heavy armour.  We can solve this problem though, just like the tonal conversation feature.

 

Of course, a talent/feat could also zero out any Arcane Spell Failure, a bit like the Armoured Arcana feat tier in IWD2.  I did try maxing that out for my Bard character once, and it was actually pretty useful.  Most walkthroughs say it's a waste of time though, but hey, some of us here prefer the path less trodden.

[Lephys]

I would just say that allowing any amount of proficiency to completely negate penalties like that should require a decent lack in something else. In other words, a Wizard obviously shouldn't be able to have the most amazing magic ever AND have no armor penalties with magic.

 

The only reason I point that out is to emphasize that you wouldn't want to have armor proficiency rely completely on the talent system, then have maximum spell effectiveness not rely on the talent system in any way.

 

If my Warrior rocks at weapon proficiency AND armor proficiency, he should lack the range of abilities (for example) that another Warrior might have who lacks either weapon or armor proficiency. OR, maybe if you have max weapon and armor proficiency, you don't get as many ability/spell uses per encounter/rest.

 

As with anything along the lines of specialization, if you have 3 options, with 3 tiers per option, there should not be 9 points to spend between them. Otherwise, you're simply delaying the inevitable mastery of all specializations, which kind of defeats the purpose of specialization.

[matwisto]

The manoeuvring  skill sounds good.

The ability to overcome encumbrance should also improve encumbered movement.

Perhaps a feat which allows a bonus towards encumbered movement based on CON?

This way, the character needs to take a feat and also be tough.

So most wizards would gain a small bonus, but they could improve it if they are strong or have a fitness spell.

[SymbolicFrank]

What is armor and what does it block?

 

In RL, a well-fitted ring mail (with as shield!) is probably the best general, medieval armor (with enough padding), and leather armor can be more restrictive than full plate.

 

Full plate might be somewhat heavy, but it's distributed all over your body and doesn't require a shield. Simple versions leave holes at the joints, full ones don't. A full suit of ring mail would be just as heavy and restrict you more, as it doesn't stretch. And leather armor needs to be quite stiff and bulky to offer protection against slashing and piercing attacks. A leather jacket won't work. There is a reason why knights in full armor were one-man wrecking machines in those times. Full plate was just incredibly expensive, otherwise everyone would use it.

 

So, the simplest way to balance armor is by making plate armor very, very expensive. And it has to be custom fitted, so you cannot buy it in a random shop. You could upgrade a simple plate armor by adding plates that cover the joints and protect the neck. And the skill of the smith could determine the protection level as well. To balance it further, a strength requirement would work.

 

 

In AD&D-like systems, there are many ways to protect from different damage sources:

 

Fortitude: the attacker just misses

Phantom images or such: the attacker hits a decoy instead

Blur: the attacker hits empty air

Dodge: you move out of the way

Deflection: you deflect the weapon

Block: you deflect the strike (with your shield)

Counter: you deflect the strike with your weapon (and strike back if you have two)

Armor class: your armor negates all the damage

Damage threshold: reduces all mechanical damage with this amount

Damage reduction: your armor absorbs part of the blow

 

Except for the last two, the attacker either hits or misses you. And wizards use spells instead of armor. So, actually you only have:

 

Fooling: the attacker strikes at empty air

Deflecting: you make the attacker miss completely or partly (glancing blow)

Tanking: your armor negates part of the damage

 

Full plate would be best for the last two, but magic can save the day in the first two. So, a fighter with lots of hitpoints would want a very expensive full plate to deflect hits and reduce damage taken, but a mage would want to improve his/her armor by putting a spell on it that helps deflecting damage, and spells to fool attackers into striking at empty air. But they would take full damage if that attacker does manage to land a blow.

 

For thieves, rangers and such, you can add a slight damage reduction to their armor, use countering for deflection and stealth for fooling.

 

 

That also allows either just three kinds of armor (light, medium and heavy) with many buffs, or very much customization if you want to take the types of damage (piercing, slashing, blunt, elemental and magic) into account as well.

 

 

[SymbolicFrank]

If we would translate the above ideas into game mechanics, you would get something like:

 

Light armor (max 3 enchantments):

- Robes, might have magic bonusses

- Coats, might have skill bonusses

- Leather armor, black: might have stealth/steal bonusses

 

Medium armor (max 1 enchantment, 25% damage reduction, min strength 150% of average):

- Reinforced leather: 50% blunt deflection

- Scale mail: 50% missile deflection

- Ring mail: 50% slashing deflection

 

Heavy armor (no enchantments except for uniques, 25% damage reduction, min strength 200% of average):

- Breast plate: 25% deflection

- Plate mail: 50% deflection

- Full plate mail: 50% deflection, +25% damage reduction (50% total)

 

(You would first have a breast plate made and fitted, upgrade it to a plate mail and then upgrade it to a full plate mail.)

 

An exceptional skilled blacksmith could add up to +25% deflection and +25% damage reduction, for ~10 times the normal price.

 

 

Permanent enchantments (insert cool names where appropriate, very expensive):

- Not here: +50% of all ranged attacks hit empty air

- Composed: +50% elemental damage resistance

- Where? : +25% stealth

- There! : +50% of all melee attacks hit empty air

 

Etc. Those values are the max for skilled mages, and they get weaker over time. So, do keep that mage in the party!

 

 

And, of course, many other types of all of the above can be added. Like:

 

Splint mail:

- Medium armor

- max 2 enchantments

- 25% damage reduction

- min strength 150% of average

- min agility 150% of average

- 25% missile deflection

 

[AGX-17]

Should armor require a skill to use?

 

I'm not sure, after all armor should already have other negatives, the only type of item you can equip (not cursed) to do so. What if heavy armor made characters slower, and made them use more stamina while wearing it, less able to dodge? Then, on top of all that, you have to have spend skill points to use it better, ugh. This also locks in who can wear what armor effectively, unless every class has access to the same skills equally.

 

Instead, by not requiring any skills, you don't have to worry. Who gets what armor is just based on whats appropriate for that character, with no need to level up a skill, or worry that you might want a different type of armor later because that party member might be better with light armor later, or because that heavy armor has this great enchantment that works really well with them.

Read. Updates. Please.

 

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/339083

We would like our armor system to accomplish the following goals:

 

Make wearing different types of armor a real choice for the player based on both character build and circumstance. E.g. a swashbuckling lightly-armored fighter will tend to wear one of a variety of light armor types (maybe a gambeson or leather cuirass), but in a circumstance where protection is of utmost importance, the player may still choose to wear heavy armor with a loss in build optimization.

 

Disassociate armor value from class type in favor of different build types. E.g. a wizard can wear heavy armor and be a different type of wizard instead of just "a wizard who is bad".

 

Allow a character to maintain a character concept throughout the game without suffering extreme mechanical penalties. E.g. a character who starts the game in some form of light armor can complete the game in some form of light armor with appropriate gameplay trade-offs compared to wearing heavy armor.

Relevant information bolded by me.

 

It has also already been confirmed that P:E will use a Damage Threshold system like New Vegas. No multiplicative damage resistance.

Edited March 7, 2013 by AGX-17

[Kveldulf]

I don't think armour should be a skill at all. I understand there exists some balancing consideration as to why. However, I feel it ruins apart of the mechanics/lore by inserting a typical and obvious balance element. Surely there are other elements one could levarge for the sake of balance.

 

Anymore, I just roll my eyes at D&D'ers stating that armor should be X restrictive/encumbering (just to make balancing fit). Here is a factoid outside of game balancing to think about..... heavy armour, or usually more specifically inferred, plate (combat not tourney or parade) harnesses, are not "heavy", nor do they incur such terrible restrictions to range of motion (which is usually imagined). If you would disagree with me, then I would recommend a lovely video from a Metropolitan Museum curator. His credentials trump any nay sayers imo. Video below ....

How to Mount a Horse in Armor and Other Chivalric Problems -

 

As for item balance I am not a fan of incremental, ultra relative cookies. I personally like the idea of a level one item being as effective as a level 50 item; this makes the economy easier to consider and item power less relative (and special items... more special).

[SymbolicFrank]

I don't think armour should be a skill at all. I understand there exists some balancing consideration as to why. However, I feel it ruins apart of the mechanics/lore by inserting a typical and obvious balance element. Surely there are other elements one could levarge for the sake of balance.

 

Anymore, I just roll my eyes at D&D'ers stating that armor should be X restrictive/encumbering (just to make balancing fit). Here is a factoid outside of game balancing to think about..... heavy armour, or usually more specifically inferred, plate (combat not tourney or parade) harnesses, are not "heavy", nor do they incur such terrible restrictions to range of motion (which is usually imagined). If you would disagree with me, then I would recommend a lovely video from a Metropolitan Museum curator. His credentials trump any nay sayers imo. Video below ....

How to Mount a Horse in Armor and Other Chivalric Problems -

 

As for item balance I am not a fan of incremental, ultra relative cookies. I personally like the idea of a level one item being as effective as a level 50 item; this makes the economy easier to consider and item power less relative (and special items... more special).

 

Great video, Kveldulf! Best I have seen about it thus far.

 

I especially like the part at 40 minutes in. where they show how all the joints are covered, and how flexible it all is. Then again, at 39 minutes in, they show us that armor with the groin completely open and uncprotected... ;-)

 

(Most likely it used chain mail shorts covered with a serious plate thong to go with it.)

 

 

Anyway, that goes to show what a great armor smith can do for you, and why it is silly when you can buy armor in any general store. Because it wouldn't fit, or offer much less protection if it did.

 

That goes for chain mail armor as well, which is why the general armor most often consisted of a loose chain mail vest, optionally fitted with plates in the front and back, and kept in place with straps. Add a skirt of mail plates and some bracers for the limbs to make it complete. Which is more or less how a generic plate mail suit would look like.

 

As they couldn't weld metal without throwing it into a forge at that time (no electricity, so no arc welders), ring or chain mail generally consisted of rings of bend wire, with a gap, and so didn't offer much protection against arrows or piercing attacks (which would force the ring open and pass through). And for protection against blunt attacks you would need padding, which can be either at the inside or the outside, it doesn't matter.

 

Actually, that's why they used plain wooden shields: if the weapon of your attacker gets lodged into the shield, you have a good chance to finish him off. While a weapon that glances over the shield can still damage you.

 

 

Btw, do you agree with the gist in my previous posts? It would be equally effective at level 1 as at level 50.

 

 

For game mechanics, does it matter if deflection reduces the damage or the hits, as long as it's a percentage? The damage received over time will be the same. And with both deflection and reduction, you don't need a damage threshold, if you round down.

 

And if you only look at the armor and enchantments, you don't need a to-hit or THAC0-analog, either. Melee attacks miss if fooled, get (partially) deflected or hit and (might) get reduced. Ranged attacks need a range modifier, like most magical attacks, which also (might) need to deal with a magic/elemental resistance, which can be a percentage as well.

 

 

That is great for your heroes, as they aren't so incompetent as to miss almost all the time, as in just about any D&D combat! Because I think that's just silly.

 

Instead, they hit clumsily at low levels. Which is much better.

 

But then again, that also goes for your enemies.

 

 

To make you better at hitting things, your skill reduces the deflection of the enemy (you get better at aiming at vulnerable parts). And for a ranged attack, it also reduces the range penalty. I would leave magical attacks simply as hit-or-miss and reduce them by the appropriate resistance.

 

Oh, and PLEASE don't give electrical attacks a bonus to damage if they hit someone wearing metal armor or walking in water! It's REALLY silly, they should get a serious reduction to damage instead.

[Lephys]

For game mechanics, does it matter if deflection reduces the damage or the hits, as long as it's a percentage? The damage received over time will be the same. And with both deflection and reduction, you don't need a damage threshold, if you round down.

It wouldn't, if all the enemies were doing the same amount of damage, and attacked with the same frequency.

[Somna]

What I think armor should have is a "customized fit" option, giving a result similar to what TRX850 mentioned. Armor that is not customized is what you have as standard armor. Armor that is customized should shave off penalties (if any) that standard armor may have and also either not count towards your weight limit or have effective weight reduction. Skill points or feats really shouldn't be necessary, although martial classes could get benefits that get around penalties standard armor will have.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Somna

[Merlkir]

 

As they couldn't weld metal without throwing it into a forge at that time (no electricity, so no arc welders), ring or chain mail generally consisted of rings of bend wire, with a gap, and so didn't offer much protection against arrows or piercing attacks (which would force the ring open and pass through).

 

This is incorrect. There are no western finds of butted mail (what you describe as open links), mail WAS in fact riveted. The increase in protective ability and durability is interesting. Most TV shows doing some kind of armour testing tend to use butted mail and therefore draw wrong conclusions.

 

 

Actually, that's why they used plain wooden shields: if the weapon of your attacker gets lodged into the shield, you have a good chance to finish him off. While a weapon that glances over the shield can still damage you.

 

 

This is dubious. If your attacker's weapon gets stuck in your shield, your shield becomes nearly unusable or breaks entirely. Then again, this issue is explained by the use of shields - the preferred use was to deflect attacks, not catch them head on.

 

Wooden shields were most often covered in rawhide for increased durability, pure wood is not good enough and breaks rather easily if hit by an axe for example.

[SymbolicFrank]

 

For game mechanics, does it matter if deflection reduces the damage or the hits, as long as it's a percentage? The damage received over time will be the same. And with both deflection and reduction, you don't need a damage threshold, if you round down.

It wouldn't, if all the enemies were doing the same amount of damage, and attacked with the same frequency.

 

 

Let's see, you get hit 10 times and each hit does 10 damage.

 

If your armor deflects 25%:

 

1. On average, 2.5 of the hits miss, leaving 7.5 hits. That's 75 damage.

2. Each hit gets reduced by 25%, leaving 10 hits of 7.5 damage. That's 75 damage. (You get bruised and such.)

3. In the second case, we can round that down to 10 hits doing 7 damage (damage threshold), leaving 70 damage.

 

Now, your armor also absorbs 25%:

 

1a. Each hit is reduced by 25%, so does 7.5 damage, rounded to 8 damage. * 7.5 hits = 60 damage.

1b. Each hit is reduced by 25%, so does 7.5 damage, rounded down to 7 damage (damage threshold), * 7.5 hits = 52.5 damage.

2a. Each hit is reduced by 25%, so does 5.6 damage, rounded to 6 damage. * 10 hits = 60 damage.

2b. Each hit is reduced by 25%, so does 5.6 damage, rounded down to 5 damage (damage threshold), * 10 hits = 50 damage.

3a. Each hit is reduced by 25%, so does 5.25 damage, rounded to 5 damage. * 10 hits = 50 damage.

3b. Each hit is reduced by 25%, so does 5.25 damage, rounded down to 5 damage (damage threshold), * 10 hits = 50 damage.

 

If your attacker hits you for 2 damage, you would get either 2, 1 or 0 damage, depending on which variant you use, and if he hits you for, say 100 damage, the difference is marginal.

 

Of course, if you want a damage threshold, you can do that when rounding down. That makes the difference for small damages larger.

 

 

 

As they couldn't weld metal without throwing it into a forge at that time (no electricity, so no arc welders), ring or chain mail generally consisted of rings of bend wire, with a gap, and so didn't offer much protection against arrows or piercing attacks (which would force the ring open and pass through).

 

This is incorrect. There are no western finds of butted mail (what you describe as open links), mail WAS in fact riveted. The increase in protective ability and durability is interesting. Most TV shows doing some kind of armour testing tend to use butted mail and therefore draw wrong conclusions.

 

 

Actually, that's why they used plain wooden shields: if the weapon of your attacker gets lodged into the shield, you have a good chance to finish him off. While a weapon that glances over the shield can still damage you.

 

 

This is dubious. If your attacker's weapon gets stuck in your shield, your shield becomes nearly unusable or breaks entirely. Then again, this issue is explained by the use of shields - the preferred use was to deflect attacks, not catch them head on.

 

Wooden shields were most often covered in rawhide for increased durability, pure wood is not good enough and breaks rather easily if hit by an axe for example.

 

 

Good point about the riveted rings, I looked it up and indeed, they used those in Europe. That makes ring mail much better, as long as you have enough padding, of course. You would still get seriously bruised and/or break bones with any successful attack, but it would be survivable.

 

About the shields: would you carry one when wearing full plate armor?

 

When wearing mail, I would definitely use one. And perhaps I would use one when wearing full plate to protect against missiles and spears while closing in, but it seems much better to ditch it when you get to melee range and swing your sword two-handed. You can still deflect with your arms, if needed.

 

If you expect your opponents to wear mail or plate armor, using a two-hander to bash them seems the best choice.

[SymbolicFrank]

What I think armor should have is a "customized fit" option, giving a result similar to what TRX850 mentioned. Armor that is not customized is what you have as standard armor. Armor that is customized should shave off penalties (if any) that standard armor may have and also either not count towards your weight limit or have effective weight reduction. Skill points or feats really shouldn't be necessary, although martial classes could get benefits that get around penalties standard armor will have.

 

I agree, but that mostly makes sense for full plate mail. That's why I proposed those to be fitted.

 

For chain mail it might make some difference, but not much. And for robes and such, the point is moot.

 

An interesting one would be reinforced leather armor: that should be very stiff and bulky, so a custom fit would improve your agility. And the same goes for exotic variants like splint mail.

[Merlkir]

About the shields: would you carry one when wearing full plate armor?

 

I'm not sure if/how that ties into the previous topic about shields, but I'll answer of course.

 

You most likely wouldn't. Of course there was a transitional period (as always), but as armour got better and better, the use of shields among plated knights diminished. I would consider taking a shield if I was facing longbowmen, just to close the distance, but plate itself is a pretty safe option. That is also why longswords (being used exclusively with two hands) became the standard swords for knights.

 

If you expect your opponents to wear mail or plate armor, using a two-hander to bash them seems the best choice.

 

I you expect your opponents to wear plate, you take a poleaxe and a mace. ;-) And of course, a sword as a backup sidearm.

[Somna]

 

What I think armor should have is a "customized fit" option, giving a result similar to what TRX850 mentioned. Armor that is not customized is what you have as standard armor. Armor that is customized should shave off penalties (if any) that standard armor may have and also either not count towards your weight limit or have effective weight reduction. Skill points or feats really shouldn't be necessary, although martial classes could get benefits that get around penalties standard armor will have.

 

I agree, but that mostly makes sense for full plate mail. That's why I proposed those to be fitted.

 

For chain mail it might make some difference, but not much. And for robes and such, the point is moot.

 

An interesting one would be reinforced leather armor: that should be very stiff and bulky, so a custom fit would improve your agility. And the same goes for exotic variants like splint mail.

 

That's why I said "shave off" and not "completely remove" there -- meaning reduce it by an amount dependent on what kind of armor it is (but it's not totally gone).

 

But something customized to you specifically should always *feel* more comfortable than something that's not, which should translate to effective weight reduction for you.

[Lephys]

 

 

For game mechanics, does it matter if deflection reduces the damage or the hits, as long as it's a percentage? The damage received over time will be the same. And with both deflection and reduction, you don't need a damage threshold, if you round down.

It wouldn't, if all the enemies were doing the same amount of damage, and attacked with the same frequency.

 

 

Let's see, you get hit 10 times and each hit does 10 damage.

 

If your armor deflects 25%:

 

1. On average, 2.5 of the hits miss, leaving 7.5 hits. That's 75 damage.

2. Each hit gets reduced by 25%, leaving 10 hits of 7.5 damage. That's 75 damage. (You get bruised and such.)

3. In the second case, we can round that down to 10 hits doing 7 damage (damage threshold), leaving 70 damage.

 

Now, your armor also absorbs 25%:

 

1a. Each hit is reduced by 25%, so does 7.5 damage, rounded to 8 damage. * 7.5 hits = 60 damage.

1b. Each hit is reduced by 25%, so does 7.5 damage, rounded down to 7 damage (damage threshold), * 7.5 hits = 52.5 damage.

2a. Each hit is reduced by 25%, so does 5.6 damage, rounded to 6 damage. * 10 hits = 60 damage.

2b. Each hit is reduced by 25%, so does 5.6 damage, rounded down to 5 damage (damage threshold), * 10 hits = 50 damage.

3a. Each hit is reduced by 25%, so does 5.25 damage, rounded to 5 damage. * 10 hits = 50 damage.

3b. Each hit is reduced by 25%, so does 5.25 damage, rounded down to 5 damage (damage threshold), * 10 hits = 50 damage.

 

If your attacker hits you for 2 damage, you would get either 2, 1 or 0 damage, depending on which variant you use, and if he hits you for, say 100 damage, the difference is marginal.

 

Of course, if you want a damage threshold, you can do that when rounding down. That makes the difference for small damages larger.

 

I may be mistaken, but you still seem to be missing the point I made about different enemies doing different amounts of damage relative to their attack speed. Basically, you're looking at the factors without looking at time.

 

I don't have as fancy of math to whip up (I'm slow, and it would take me too long... and I'm not making fun of your math, by the way. It is admirable, ^_^), but to make an example:

 

If you're wearing armor that grants 25% deflection (no-damage -- hit fails to penetrate armor and/or connect properly), and you're fighting an enemy that attacks once every .5 seconds and deals about 10 dmg per strike, then you're going to miss out on a certain bit of damage from the misses, but there are going to be so many hits it's not even funny, so the 25% absoption (making all the hits 7-or-so damage) might be better, maybe.

 

If you're wearing armor that grants 25% deflection against a foe who attacks once every 7 seconds and deals 170 damage, then he's not going to get very many attacks on you before you can take him down (maybe 4 or 5?), so the chance to deflect is probably a lot more valuable against this foe than the guarantee to absorb 25% of the 170 every time and just take all 3 or 4 or 5 hits.

 

So, my point was merely that the difference in effectiveness is situational. As long as the slower-striking, higher-damage enemy is always going to have enough hitpoints to allow him to last long enough to attack you the same number of times as the faster-striking lower-damage enemy, every single time, then yeah, it wouldn't matter, statistically. However, you've got more factors that your armor is in the pool with than JUST "What would happen if you got attacked this many times with this much damage, while wearing one armor or the other?"