Yet another take on AC

[Animal]

Let's rework AC and AR.

Armor should probably help characters survive the blows, not dodge them. So make armors Damage Reduction only items (maybe add some protection from elemental damage.. or not).

Now let's rename Armor class as Defense in order not to get confused, for armors now won't add to avoiding hits.

Keep only dodge (dex and spells like haste, that make you more reactive) and deflection (shields and spells like mage armor and shield, that magically deflect blows) defense bonuses. Armors should impose penalties on dodge bonus to defense - the heavier and more cumbersome the armor, the harder it should be to dodge and avoid hits. No penalties on deflection though.

Implement Combat Rating that scales with level. Combat rating gives a flat bonus to attack (like AR) AND defense.
Why combat rating makes sense? Classes that spend more time training with weapons should not only get more precise with their attacks, but should also learn to avoid incoming attacks better.
Let's say combat heavy classes (fighters and rogues) get +1 bonus every 2 levels, hybrid classes (various gishes) every 3 levels and casters (mages and clerics) every 4 levels. This goes in tune with current design for fighters (them getting higher AC armour with level). Rogues will end up with highest defense (imho makes sense as they're supposed to be quick and dodgy) but won't overshine fighters in tanking due to low DR. Clerics will have good DR, but weaker defense and mages will have to rely on protective spells and meatshields.

As it just occured to me, due to a very slow progression of combat rating, there will be more emphasis on such character choises as ability scores, gear and moduled stuff (like feats). Thus through items and modules DMs can tweak power levels in their campaigns (powerful bonuses on items will make for heroic campaigns, while keeping items at +3 threshhold will make for more gritty and realistic settings where a pack of goblins with rusted spears can still be quite challenging for the party).

Thoughts?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Armor as DR is notoriously hard to balance in D&D, because it in small amounts it does well against normal foes with normal weapons but is useless against anything monstrous*, while in large amounts it is useful against monstrous opponents but renders you immune to normal foes with normal weapons.

* And D&D Next is talking about scaling damage in later levels, so that needs to be taken into account as well.

 

[Harlock]

My thoughts are that I never considered Armor Class as strictly dodging in the first place. So I don't need more systems to represent or further complicate something that never affected me. Maybe if to-hit were renamed to-injure? That way people don't get the false idea that attack rolls are binary - hit or miss.

 

[Someone]

Armor as DR is notoriously hard to balance in D&D, because it in small amounts it does well against normal foes with normal weapons but is useless against anything monstrous*, while in large amounts it is useful against monstrous opponents but renders you immune to normal foes with normal weapons.

* And D&D Next is talking about scaling damage in later levels, so that needs to be taken into account as well.

If, and is a big if, that scaling damage involves increasing the number of damage dice thrown then DR could work as a function of that, 1-3 points for each die so it would scale as well. This could even work as a way to make different weapons more or less effective against armor, with penetrating weapons beign one large die of damage and weapons that are less effective against armor rolling multiple d4 or d6.

 

[Greensnakedrex]

I love the idea of a Combat Rating that scales with level. That is great thinking!
DR is tough to balance and gets wonky when applied to abstract hit points. I propose we link DR with a very basic wounds system- based in CON.

Con score = how many wounds you can take. Negative hp, falling damage, life drain, all go to wounds. Every point of wounds you have reduces your maximum HP total. Magical healing or slow mundane healing are the only way to recover wounds. This is a very basic mechanic that allows for abstraction for HP. No need for death spiral, falling unconscious, and so forth.

Now we can set up DR for armors. I was thinking of using durability. For example chain mail can have a durability of 2. You can use a point of durability to reduce wounds taken from a single source by half, or to turn a critical hit into a regular hit. Once the durability has been used, the armor must be repaired.

I say use the Combat Rating, but I think that armor should still give a bonus to AC, but it should be about half of what the AC bonus was in previous editions, but coupled with DR.

 

[B.T.]

Armor should probably help characters survive the blows, not dodge them. So make armors Damage Reduction only items (maybe add some protection from elemental damage.. or not).

Now let's rename Armor class as Defense in order not to get confused, for armors now won't add to avoiding hits.

No.

Keep only dodge (dex and spells like haste, that make you more reactive) and deflection (shields and spells like mage armor and shield, that magically deflect blows) defense bonuses. Armors should impose penalties on dodge bonus to defense - the heavier and more cumbersome the armor, the harder it should be to dodge and avoid hits. No penalties on deflection though.

No.

Implement Combat Rating that scales with level. Combat rating gives a flat bonus to attack (like AR) AND defense.
Why combat rating makes sense? Classes that spend more time training with weapons should not only get more precise with their attacks, but should also learn to avoid incoming attacks better.

No.

Let's say combat heavy classes (fighters and rogues) get +1 bonus every 2 levels, hybrid classes (various gishes) every 3 levels and casters (mages and clerics) every 4 levels. This goes in tune with current design for fighters (them getting higher AC armour with level). Rogues will end up with highest defense (imho makes sense as they're supposed to be quick and dodgy) but won't overshine fighters in tanking due to low DR. Clerics will have good DR, but weaker defense and mages will have to rely on protective spells and meatshields.

No.

To elaborate on why this is all "no":

First of all, the AC system you suggested is not AC. It's a system, one that is probably quite workable. But it's not how D&D has ever worked and it adds another layer of complexity to the game.

Second of all, scaling defense is right out. The developers have specifically said one of their design goals is to throw thirty orcs at high-level players as a legitimate threat. Boosting AC by any amount is going to completely wreck that design goal because it will mean that orcs are going to hit less and less often, until they can't hit at all.

Third of all, scaling bonuses at different rates like you suggested results in very messy math later on.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If, and is a big if, that scaling damage involves increasing the number of damage dice thrown then DR could work as a function of that, 1-3 points for each die so it would scale as well. This could even work as a way to make different weapons more or less effective against armor, with penetrating weapons beign one large die of damage and weapons that are less effective against armor rolling multiple d4 or d6.

I am not sure if this can deal with the design goal that low monsters can remain a threat in numbers? (That's what bounded accuracy enables).

Besides, substraction sucks. It's almost always better if you just make a comparison "is this number bigger". So you add more complexity and "harder" math operations to the game.

There has also be no edition of D&D where armor provided damage reduction. Sure, there were supplements, but it was never part of the core experience. This is the all-inclusive edition of D&D for all previous editions of D&D, not the "innovate D&D with entirely new features". It's about getting the core experiences of the past D&D editions right, and that just doesn't include armor giving damage reduction.

 

[Stormonu]

How about flipping this on its head?

Yes, armor grants you some bonus to AC.

It also grants you extra HP, perhaps based on level and/or quality of the armor (or a class ability - that'd be one way to make a plate-armored wizard never be as good as a fighter in plate). Think of it as "durability" - it doesn't heal and you either have to fix or replace it over time.

No need for DR where you keep subtracting from the damage you deal or risk scaling DR so you become invulnerable at some point to puny orcs. It's just extra HP, so while you may last longer, you still can be worn down.

So for example, a suit of leather armor grants AC 12. Lets say this particular suit of armor has 8 hit points. When you take damage, you can either scratch it off you hit points, or you can remove it from the armor. When it's time to heal, the cleric can heal the wounds you took directly to you HP. If you want to get back the HP your armor soaked, you need to take it to the local blacksmith and fix it, or buy a new suit. Looting a dead enemy's armor would likely be infeasible because, with their life on the line, they let the armor soak all the damage (and the DM can assume the armor HP was baked into the monster's HP).

 

[Someone]

I am not sure if this can deal with the design goal that low monsters can remain a threat in numbers? (That's what bounded accuracy enables).

Besides, substraction sucks. It's almost always better if you just make a comparison "is this number bigger". So you add more complexity and "harder" math operations to the game.

They'd remain a thread because armor would substract as much as always; it was just an idea to make it increase with the level of the attacker, not the defender. In any case, I was merely entertaining the OP's idea, I don't think any developer will read this thread and agree that 5e won't have any actual innovation (in fact I think 2.5e will be a better name)

 

[El Mahdi]

Armor should probably help characters survive the blows, not dodge them...

Yes and No.

Your correct in that armor doesn't help characters "dodge", but it does make characters harder to hit.

Remember, an opponent isn't just swinging their weapon at your character willy nilly. They are trying to hit vital areas, and directing their attacks accordingly. Real armor makes it harder for an opponent to bring a weapon to bear on those vital areas. That increased difficulty is modeled by the AC bonus. No opponent goes right at the strong parts of armor because of one simple fact: Armor Works. Having to limit your attacks to smaller areas of vulnerability makes attacking successfully more difficult.

But even when someone wearing armor is struck, in many cases the armor is able to absorb a portion of the strikes energy, which minimizes the amount of damage one takes. That's modelled by DR.

So: Real armor provides both an AC bonus and DR.

However, I've found complications with using a DR mechanic that leaves it as an unelegant solution IME. I prefer a system of armor increasing one's hit points like Stormonu's idea, but by a certain percentage when worn instead (based on the efficiency of the armor); and conversely, reduces current hit points by the same percentage when removed. Remember that Hit Points are an abstraction. They aren't just "wounds", but bruises, scratches, strained muscles, loss of energy (fatigue), your luck running out, expending divine intervention, etc., etc. Increasing Hit Points by a percentage due to armor works in concert quite well with this concept of abstraction.

For example:

I'd give light armor a 25% increase in Hit Points, Medium armor a 50% increase in Hit Points, and Heavy armor a 100% increase in Hit Points.

Easy math: multiply current Hit Points by 1.25 for donning light armor, divide by 1.25 when removing. Medium, multiply or divide by 1.5. Heavy, multiply or divide by 2.0.

(...or adjust the percentages up for more impact, or down for less impact)

Easy Peasy.