Sword and Board a different type of fix

[sephiroth1084]

The idea is interesting, but I feel it should also be expensive. Why? Barbs are the only class that get DR/-. Why should any random meleer be able to get that? Answer, none.. no balance. (yes, I know this is DDO and not PnP but bare with me for now.)

WF can get DR/adamantine if they so desire. At the coast of feats. They can get DR 3/ad. They can increase this by 1 every 3 levels via a feat.

There is full plate out there out of... tempest spine, plate mail of the giants or some such that grants DR 5/-.

So.. if you want to increase your DR, I'm going to say it is going to cost you a feat. And realistically, it should also require Combat Expertise. Why? CE increases your AC, DR helps to reduce the damage you take. So it makes sense that if you know how to take a hit, you'll take less damage. I'd also make the feat part of the bonus feats able to take as a fighter.

It should definitely cost a feat, though perhaps might get tacked onto Shield Mastery or the improved version to make those more useful/attractive, but should definitely not require CE.

[Borror0]

Yes, a change like that would mean redesigning all melee balance from a the ground up. That's why it shouldn't be done: If the devs were willing to do that kind of effort, they'd be able to rebalance the AC system without switching to a non-AC system.

That's there was to say about this topic.

[Pyromaniac]

I'd like to see the ability to dual wield shields. Greensteel shields with damage modifiers on them would help as well. That would improve AC on S&B so it could get closer to good AC in DDO.

We'd have to make it Board & Board but why not?

[Aesop]

I'd like to see the ability to dual wield shields. Greensteel shields with damage modifiers on them would help as well. That would improve AC on S&B so it could get closer to good AC in DDO.

We'd have to make it Board & Board but why not?

Shield Bonuses don't stack so it wouldn't improve AC and it would further lower damage output for a net loss

Aesop

[Pyromaniac]

Ah good point, maybe that greensteel shield should have a shield bonus that stacks? As far as DPS, I'm not sure it would make that much of a difference given how low S&B is vs two weapon fighting.

[Kromize]

Shield Bonuses don't stack so it wouldn't improve AC and it would further lower damage output for a net loss

Yea...that's just one more fail in the game. :/ If you have your shield, and then a spell that basically puts a magic shield in front of you, they don't stack?

And why is there no deflection? Why is there not a chance to completely deflect an attack if it hits your shield?

[Aesop]

Ah good point, maybe that greensteel shield should have a shield bonus that stacks? As far as DPS, I'm not sure it would make that much of a difference given how low S&B is vs two weapon fighting.

Compare a light mace to a Khopesh in dps potential... it would be roughly equivilent


Aesop

[rezo]

I can see that a fighter or barb. having a enhancement line that increases there armor bonus for ex., "AP" for +1 to armor class and so on up to like +5 to armor class that stacks on every thing not just raise dex. mod up for armor or tower shield dex. mod up. Just a thought...........

[EinarMal]

Ah good point, maybe that greensteel shield should have a shield bonus that stacks? As far as DPS, I'm not sure it would make that much of a difference given how low S&B is vs two weapon fighting.

S&B should be much lower than THF or TWF in the DPS department, the current problem is the benefits that it gives (blocking DR) doesn't make up for that.

Really prior to monks TWF AC was much harder to come by, and you usually had to sacrifice a lot of DPS (dex build) to get up that high.

Somehow you have to make S&B offer more things besides blocking DR to compensate for the DPS.

Ideas:
-Static DR as mentioned

-Static resists that stack against AOE spells (some of the fireball gets blocked by the shield etc...)

-Improved shield bash of some sort that stuns targets

-Higher bonus to AC shields

-Shield surfing ability (so you can hop on your shield and get a 50% movement increase (haha now that would be uber )

I don't think DPS is the way to go, it just seems like it should be lower when you are swinging a one handed weapon vs. TWF or a big sword (and that is pretty much baked into 3.5 rules). What you need to do is offer better benefits to offset the loss of DPS, it is always about trade offs, and currently the shield is just a bad trade with blocking DR.

Most of these should be feats, but you can easily add feats that are shield oriented to offset the DPS loss. They should not be free to prevent the TWF from getting those benefits just by picking up a shield. Add more cool and creative shield feats and the problem is solved honestly. With just 4-6 new and USEFUL shield feats you could make it more attractive again.

[esoitl]

While I respect your opinion I highlighted in red where you went horribly wrong with your argument. This is DDO based on 3.5 but in no way limited to or bound by it. The 3.5 rules have been consistently and regulary abandoned when dealing with DDO. Look at the massive to hit bonuses and hit points mobs have (well above 3.5 standards) or the players progressive increase to hit as the weapons chains deepend as opposed to the way it should be which is diminishing. To use 3.5 as the sole basis of your argument is, sadly, not realistic.

In the system that we have today wear a robe wearing ranger/monk splash can get a higher AC then a fighter clad in fullplate is simply ridiculous. It has to be fixed. It should be fixed. However, there is no viable way to fix the AC problem without a major game overhaul or some major nerfs. I advocate neither of those.

I do advocate something to help Sword and Board. Like it or not they need help. They lack DPS compared to TWF, they lack AC compared to some of the same TWF, They give up usefull feats like evasion to avoid the numerous AoE spells at end game. They give up all of the to what wear armor that doesn't even benefit them as much as not wearing armor. Seems all fullplate in the game should be sold and be done with it. Or we can actually discuss one of the few, if not only means, currently avaiable that doesn't involved a major nerf or rewriting of the basic game code , which is balancing things out by changing DR. Yes it shoudl be reflected in AC but, frankly, you and I both know its not.

Actually I could have used any D&D Handbook I liked. It's been the same concept ever since I started playing using the original books.

In red, you're not understanding it yet again. I tried to use the quote I did because it encompasses both 'types' of AC if you will. I'll quote again: AC represents how hard it is for an opponent to land a damaging blow.
I'll break down the two examples to hopefully make this clearer.
A) Heavy Armour with Shield giving a 70AC: This is a Fighter that has hunkered themselves down in metal. They have suffered mobility for the downright ability to stand and deliver.
Why is this characters AC high? Because getting through that much metal is a very difficult task. No armour is however impervious to all attacks and since it has these weaknesses some blows will find their way through the armour and damage it's wearer.

B) Monk/Ranger splash 70AC: This is the ultimate in finesse. Such a character cares not for wearing any sort of protection but will rely on their own wits and ability to avoid needing protection.
Why is this characters AC high? You can't hit something that isn't there and this character is just never there. Having the insight(WIS bonus) as to where an opponent will strike and the ability(DEX bonus) to not be there allows this type of warrior to essentially avoid ever being hit.

Does that make sense?
I mentioned before, every roll that falls below AC doesn't mean that the attack totally missed. In case A maybe 90% of those blows just clanked off the armour or the shield of the wearer. Armour DR was never a part of D&D as the system they introduced worked off of this principle so while using that system, adding an armour DR seems to be combining two different systems and adding far too much a bonus for donning a set of platemail.

Look at how example B gets such an AC from above. A big chunk comes from stats which we can skyrocket through the abundance of very powerful items and the enhancement system they put in place. They can get a massive chunk from items(+10 dodge, +4 insight, +8 armour). Would a live DM ever allow someone to flesh this out? No, hell no, but it's the problem with these types of games.... the dev team has to put these type items in the game or it just becomes a bore. The system is massively unbalanced towards the Ranger/Monk splash at the moment because of the items introduced and enhancements available. When the armour bracers in the game almost equal the base value of Full Plate and you give an item with +4 dodge and allow full stat bonuses, you're stacking everything to one side.
What would really help sword and shield Fighters match ACs would be to add in some items to tip the scales. Give them something where they can actually get a decent bonus to their AC like the Ranger/Monk has been given, introduce their PrE lines to help them out, try to introduce powerful but not unbalanced items.
Revamping the while system at this point is probably counter-productive.

[esoitl]

And why is there no deflection? Why is there not a chance to completely deflect an attack if it hits your shield?

There is one.
It's called your shield bonus to AC.

[EinarMal]

There is one.
It's called your shield bonus to AC.

Yeah but the bottom line is currently S&B is just not a good trade off, the DPS loss is too great compared to blocking DR.

They need to add additional shield feats that adds other benefits to having a shield besides standing and blocking.

You see very few S&B builds and players today, it should be a more viable option just for diversity sake. I would bet 90% of new melee builds go TWF, both THF and S&B need to be more balanced to make all there paths attractive.

They do not need to be equal in everything, but you have to get more pros and cons of both into the equation. Maybe it is just me, but when everyone and their brother is wielding two weapons now it is kind of sad and boring to me.

I don't even think inflating AC further is the answer either, it already is pretty broken for a d20 system which does not work well when you start getting numbers in the 70's-80's possible. Class enhancements are also a bad idea in general. Let's say I want to build a Bard who uses a shield, they are totally screwed. A non-grinder play might hit 50 AC with that build, which if you continue inflation cannot do anything with cap level mobs and still hit the 70 AC guy. Also if you make an enhancement fix to the game (probably with Fighters/Paladins) they are doubly screwed.

What about a cleric that wants to use a shield, or a rogue, they are 3/4 BAB characters and many plan to fight as their main means of contributing.

That is why scaling back dodge bonuses (and maybe capping wisdom/dex bonus to AC like jump) should be done IMO. Get really high AC back down to around 55-60, so it becomes more of an option for everyone without grinding for 3 dodge items etc... etc...

Giving even more AC to shields is a bad idea overall and so is fixing S&B with class based enhancements. Feats that add useful features to shields is a much better approach as it included any class who wants to take them.

[Borror0]

I don't think DPS is the way to go, it just seems like it should be lower when you are swinging a one handed weapon vs. TWF or a big sword (and that is pretty much baked into 3.5 rules).

Except DPS is a big one to loose in DDO.

Right now, S&B is at the 40-50% of other DPS methods. Something should be done to bring S&B DPS more in the area of 60-70%. This could be done in multiple ways and the most common idea is adding shield bashing hooks in your attack chain, if one picks up Improved Shield Bash. Note that requiring TWF feats would not be improving S&B, but rather merging it with TWF.

Once DPS has been brought back closer to other fighting stylesm you still got to offset that lower DPS.

Armor Class is the tricky one as the views of others regarding what should be done varies.

Some would like, or don't mind, TWF staying the best AC builds as they are more nimble and thus can dodge hits better. However, Armor Class is not the chance to be hit, but the chance to be damaged. If AC was solely about avoiding hits, there would be no Armor or Natural Armor bonus to AC. The 'chance of being hit' is what they call in D&D Touch Attack.

In other words, there is nothing preventing the game developers from giving S&B more AC if they fell like it. It is more of a debate within themselves on if they think it feels right that natural dexterity has more effect on the character than magical equipment. Or, if they feel verisimilitude is worth sacrificing in this case.

Personally, I feel the delta between S&B and De-based TWF AC must be reduced now for balanced to ever exist between the two.

Once AC and DPS are out of the way, if there are any need for further balancing, there are tons of ways to keep offsetting the DPS loss. Passive DR is the most obvious, but there has been a lot of suggestions. Just read the post Aesop copies and pastes in about topic relevant thread for a few creative ideas.

Oh, and improving S&B also means adding better shields. Both named and randomly generated ones, if possible.

[GlassCannon]

I can block and attack at the same time with my SwordShield. Take that, D&D!

[Kromize]

There is one.
It's called your shield bonus to AC.

Once again, a poster fails to read and comprehend what he/she is replying to.

I'll say it again.

And why is there no deflection? Why is there not a chance to completely deflect an attack if it hits your shield?

You know, so even if they do roll above your ac, you can still deflect it because they hit your shield, and you know how to use your shield.

Understand what I'm saying? Please?

[eonfreon]

Once again, a poster fails to read and comprehend what he/she is replying to.

I'll say it again.

And why is there no deflection? Why is there not a chance to completely deflect an attack if it hits your shield?

You know, so even if they do roll above your ac, you can still deflect it because they hit your shield, and you know how to use your shield.

Understand what I'm saying? Please?

No, I think he did understand. This is what I got from it:

The mechanics are that you have your AC (from whatever modifiers; dex, armor, magic, wisdom, CE, etc) + shield bonus to AC.
So let's say your non-shield AC is 40 and your shield AC is 47 (just pulling numbers), if you're using a shield and the MOb's to-hit roll would've hit ACs 41-46 then they in effect would have hit your unshielded person, but instead hit the shield and were "deflected". Your chance to deflect an attack with the shield occurs whenever the blow would have hit your lower AC but instead "missed" because of your higher shield AC.
So "deflection" is built into the system in effect.
BTW, lots of good points.
While balancing for DR increases would require the implementation of a new system that probably deviates quite a bit from PnP, I don't think it would be anywhere near as hard as recreating the AC from ground up- nor necessary.
DR can be balanced by BAB, just as Blocking DR is now. And Feats.
The key is making it desirable without unbalancing it further.
I think there is a lot of potential with DR- even passive DR which can be percentage based rather than point-based, and still has to activate- it isn't on 100% not does it block 100%.
Anyway, lots of good ideas. Keep them coming, I like reading them.

[Kromize]

So let's say your non-shield AC is 40 and your shield AC is 47 (just pulling numbers), if you're using a shield and the MOb's to-hit roll would've hit ACs 41-46 then they in effect would have hit your unshielded person, but instead hit the shield and were "deflected". Your chance to deflect an attack with the shield occurs whenever the blow would have hit your lower AC but instead "missed" because of your higher shield AC.
So "deflection" is built into the system in effect.

But then that assumes that you only use your shield to deflect. And not actually take a direct impact, but lessen the damage/force dramatically by putting your shield between the blow. With the AC system it's a hit or miss, which takes out a ton of possible attack circumstances. Critical hit, direct hit, hit, slight hit, graze, miss...hit but deflected by shield, hit but reduced by shield, hit, and slightly reduced by shield(graes off shield onto opponent)...as compared to hit/miss...

Just saying what I think...
-_-

[RavenStormclaw]

Actually I could have used any D&D Handbook I liked. It's been the same concept ever since I started playing using the original books.

In red, you're not understanding it yet again. I tried to use the quote I did because it encompasses both 'types' of AC if you will. I'll quote again: AC represents how hard it is for an opponent to land a damaging blow.
I'll break down the two examples to hopefully make this clearer.
A) Heavy Armour with Shield giving a 70AC: This is a Fighter that has hunkered themselves down in metal. They have suffered mobility for the downright ability to stand and deliver.
Why is this characters AC high? Because getting through that much metal is a very difficult task. No armour is however impervious to all attacks and since it has these weaknesses some blows will find their way through the armour and damage it's wearer.

B) Monk/Ranger splash 70AC: This is the ultimate in finesse. Such a character cares not for wearing any sort of protection but will rely on their own wits and ability to avoid needing protection.
Why is this characters AC high? You can't hit something that isn't there and this character is just never there. Having the insight(WIS bonus) as to where an opponent will strike and the ability(DEX bonus) to not be there allows this type of warrior to essentially avoid ever being hit.

Does that make sense?
I mentioned before, every roll that falls below AC doesn't mean that the attack totally missed. In case A maybe 90% of those blows just clanked off the armour or the shield of the wearer. Armour DR was never a part of D&D as the system they introduced worked off of this principle so while using that system, adding an armour DR seems to be combining two different systems and adding far too much a bonus for donning a set of platemail.

Look at how example B gets such an AC from above. A big chunk comes from stats which we can skyrocket through the abundance of very powerful items and the enhancement system they put in place. They can get a massive chunk from items(+10 dodge, +4 insight, +8 armour). Would a live DM ever allow someone to flesh this out? No, hell no, but it's the problem with these types of games.... the dev team has to put these type items in the game or it just becomes a bore. The system is massively unbalanced towards the Ranger/Monk splash at the moment because of the items introduced and enhancements available. When the armour bracers in the game almost equal the base value of Full Plate and you give an item with +4 dodge and allow full stat bonuses, you're stacking everything to one side.
What would really help sword and shield Fighters match ACs would be to add in some items to tip the scales. Give them something where they can actually get a decent bonus to their AC like the Ranger/Monk has been given, introduce their PrE lines to help them out, try to introduce powerful but not unbalanced items.
Revamping the while system at this point is probably counter-productive.

Sigh.... I understood it the first time. I understood it the second time. However, this is DDO not DnD and for the very reasons you have stated there is a problem. Monk/ranger can have a AC equal to a Sword and Board but it should not be as superior as it currently is in DDO. That is what needs to be fixed in case you didn't understand. Fix the glaring gap between the two and I could live with that. I would accpet some major changes to shield Ac bonus in conjuction with DR changes as well. To put it simply: the game is unbalanced in favor of one type build and needs to be fixed. Like it or not my suggestion is a vialbe method to fix it. You don't like it... fine you've made your point however that makes it no less wrong.

[Mercules]

ARMOR AS DAMAGE REDUCTION
In the abstract d20 combat system, a character’s armor defends him by reducing the chance that an attack will deal damage. That system simplifies the realities of battle in order to streamline combat resolution. An attack that fails due to a character’s armor or natural armor doesn’t really fail to connect, but rather fails to connect with enough force to deal any damage. (That’s why touch attacks ignore a character’s armor and natural armor — the touch attack only needs to connect to deliver its effect, and need not actually breach the target’s armor.)

If you’re willing to add a layer of complexity to your combats, consider this variant. In this system, armor reduces the amount of damage dealt by an attack instead of merely turning would-be hits into misses. Armor still prevents some hits outright, but also reduces the deadliness of attacks that do connect. In essence, the system "gives up" some of armor’s ability to turn hits into misses in exchange for a small reduction in damage dealt by any given attack.
ARMOR DAMAGE REDUCTION VALUES
In this system, armor offers two benefits against attacks: a minor bonus to AC, which functions just like the armor bonus in the standard d20 rules but is usually lower in value; and damage reduction. See Table: Armor and Damage Reduction for the armor bonus and DR values for common armor types. (All other armor statistics, such as maximum Dexterity bonus, armor check penalty, and arcane spell failure chance, are unchanged.)

For armors not covered on Table: Armor and Damage Reduction, you can determine the new armor values and damage reduction based on the standard armor bonus. To determine the armor’s damage reduction, divide the armor’s normal armor bonus by 2 (rounding down). To determine the armor’s new armor bonus, subtract the DR from the normal armor bonus. For example, studded leather has a normal armor bonus of +3. That gives it a DR of 1/- (half of 3, rounded down) and a new armor bonus of +2 (3 minus 1).
Table: Armor and Damage Reduction
Armor Armor Bonus1 Damage Reduction

1. Add any enhancement bonus to this value.

Light armor
Padded +1 none
Leather +1 1/-
Studded leather +2 1/-
Chain shirt +2 2/-
Medium armor
Hide +2 1/-
Scale mail +2 2/-
Chainmail +3 2/-
Breastplate +3 2/-
Heavy armor
Splint mail +3 3/-
Banded mail +3 3/-
Half-plate +4 3/-
Full plate +4 4/-
MAGIC ARMOR
An armor’s enhancement bonus (if any) increases its armor bonus to AC, but has no effect on the armor’s damage reduction. A +3 chain shirt, for example, adds +5 to AC and grants damage reduction 2/-.
STACKING DAMAGE REDUCTION
The damage reduction granted by armor stacks with other damage reduction of the same type (that is, damage reduction that has a dash after the number). A 7th-level barbarian wearing a breastplate has DR 3/- (1/- from his class levels and 2/- from his armor). A fighter wearing full plate armor who is the target of a stoneskin spell, however, has DR 4/- from the armor and 10/adamantine from the spell.
SHIELDS
Shields function normally in this variant, granting their full shield bonus to AC. Unlike with armor, a shield’s effectiveness is measured wholly by its ability to keep an attack from connecting with your body.
NATURAL ARMOR
A creature’s natural armor also provides a modicum of damage reduction. Divide the monster’s natural armor bonus (not including any enhancement bonus) by 5 to determine the monster’s damage reduction. The same value is subtracted from the monster’s natural armor bonus to find the monster’s new AC. These calculations are summarized in Table: Natural Armor and Damage Reduction.

If the creature already has damage reduction, either add the value gained from natural armor (if the existing damage reduction is of the same type) or treat it as a separate DR value (if it is of a different type).

For example, a mummy normally has a natural armor bonus of +10. This gives it DR 2/-, and its natural armor bonus is reduced by 2 points to +8 (making it’s AC 18). Since the mummy already has DR 5/- as a special quality, its total damage reduction becomes DR 7/-.

A mature adult red dragon has a natural armor bonus of +24. This gives it DR 4/-, and its natural armor bonus is reduced by 4 points to +20 (making its AC 28). The dragon’s existing damage reduction is 10/magic, so the two damage reduction values remain separate.

Finally, a frost giant has a +9 natural armor bonus, so it gains DR 1/- from natural armor. The chain shirt it wears gives it an additional DR 2/-. If the frost giant were a 7th-level barbarian, the barbarian class levels would give it DR 1/-. These three values add up to DR 4/-. The giant’s AC would be 20 (10, +8 natural armor bonus, +2 chain shirt).
Table: Natural Armor and Damage Reduction
Natural Armor Bonus Damage Reduction Subtract from Natural Armor
0-4 none 0
5-9 1/- 1
10-14 2/- 2
15-19 3/- 3
20-24 4/- 4
25-29 5/- 5
30-34 6/- 6
35-39 7/- 7
40-44 8/- 8
BEHIND THE CURTAIN: ARMOR AS DR
It’s pretty easy to see the effect of this variant system: attacks hit more often, but do less damage. What does that really mean?

Low-level combat tends to be less dangerous for armored characters. Although their ACs are lower (and thus their chance of being damaged is higher), this is more than offset by the reduced damage suffered by attacks. A typical goblin warrior, for instance, can barely hurt a character wearing splint mail, because the armor’s damage reduction entirely negates the damage dealt by an average hit. Even though the goblin will hit more often, it will likely end up dealing less total damage over the course of a typical battle.

A mid-level fighter in full plate armor must still be cautious when fighting an ogre, but his armor reduces the ogre’s average damage by 25% while only increasing its chance to hit by 20% — a net gain for the fighter.

At higher levels, however, the balance shifts back in favor of monsters that deal large amounts of damage per hit. When facing a Huge earth elemental, a fighter in full plate will be hit 20% more often (due to the 4-point reduction in AC), but his 4 points of damage reduction now only reduces his opponent’s average damage by less than 17%. Advantage: elemental. Thus, high-level characters must be more careful when battling monsters with extreme damage-dealing capability.
COMBO: DEFENCE BONUS AND DAMAGE REDUCTION
You can combine the defense bonus variant and the armor as damage reduction variant in a variety of ways to create a more complex system.

Using both systems as written, many characters will wear armor even if the armor bonus provided is lower than the defense bonus gained from class level. Because the character gets the higher of his defense bonus or armor bonus, the character can wear armor and benefit from its damage reduction while relying on his defense bonus for a higher Armor Class.

If that’s not to your liking, you can rule that a character’s armor bonus overrides his defense bonus, even if the defense bonus is higher. This forces characters to make a tough choice between having a high AC and having damage reduction.

This is the way they SHOULD have implemented AC and DR in DDO. They could alter it and maybe boost the DR provided a bit to match the damage the mobs in DDO pump out. This would have dealt with the "touch" attacks missing instead of giving creatures that give touch attacks a huge attack bonus. Then offer shields bonus DR as well(to make Sword and Board useful) and add a few "Magical" bonuses to DR from some effect. Now the no armor classes can dance around not getting hit(because we could lower To Hit some) and the Full Plate Tower Shield group can be hit a lot but only take small amounts of damage at a time.

[eonfreon]

But then that assumes that you only use your shield to deflect. And not actually take a direct impact, but lessen the damage/force dramatically by putting your shield between the blow. With the AC system it's a hit or miss, which takes out a ton of possible attack circumstances. Critical hit, direct hit, hit, slight hit, graze, miss...hit but deflected by shield, hit but reduced by shield, hit, and slightly reduced by shield(graes off shield onto opponent)...as compared to hit/miss...

Just saying what I think...
-_-

I understand what you're saying and somewhat agree, in that such a system would have certain advantages (i.e. be more specifically tied into your to-hit minus the opponents defense, so that the higher the to-hit "roll" the greater the damage, mitigated by "parrying", "deflection", etc).
But in the DnD simplified system it's all abstract and up to the imagination of the roleplayers in the PnP version.
The first roll determines whether you did "damage" and the second roll determines how much. The concept is that the low damage dice roll ( say they did 1 or 2 before bonuses ) would equal a "glancing" blow or "scratch" whereas a high roll (whatever is the max or close to max of the die roll) would be a more direct "hit", deeper cut, breaking bones, etc. The "to-hit" just gives you the right to roll damage dice and see how well you "hit", the exception being "critical hits".

And it's even more abstract then that.
The "hits" aren't all hits even. From what I remember it's also a combination of wearing out your opponent. When two fully armored knights fight they are getting worn out as well as taking physical damage, such that, at some point one will be "worn down" enough that a good connecting blow will finally get through his "defenses" (i.e. AC, DR, and Hit Points) and take his life (or at least his consciousness).
Hit Points are very much part of AC and DR and just as abstract. It doesn't really represent his "Health" but also his Training and other factors.
That's why a Wizard may have a Higher Constitution but have less Hit Points then an equal level Fighter. If a Wizard had a 16 Con and a Fighter had a 14 Con you would think that the Wizard is "hardier" but the Fighter has been trained to fight and knows how to take and survive physical damage and thus has more Hit Points.

So, I do agree that all those factors exist and would be fun to see how it could be implemented well into a video game.
However, as it stands now, the system does take all those things into account in a way, but in an extremely abstract way.

In short, losing Hit Points doesn't mean you took any physical damage. It could just mean you were "worn" down, tricked, thrown off balance, and have gotten closer to the moment of your death, as you get down to the point were it'll just take one or two final hits to kill you.

I'm sure you know all this, and are just sharing your ideas and thoughts, but I figured I'd clarify it for any other readers.