[MENTION=6880599]ClaytonCross[/MENTION]
Sub-systems need to be analyzed as part of a whole especially when they impact a small subset of the players' options in a direct way. So, asking for feedback with a sort of handwave "dont worry the rest of the game will be balanced to fit it" kind of attitude is just a basic design process fail. What happens if the wizard debuff is worse than this and so you need a better fix for this or if the barbarian debuff that works the way you want is just less and so this needs toning down later etc etc etc?
creating a bunch of isolated changes with the hopes that they balance out in the end... often fails.
Your saying no one can have a starting point for and idea and must go immediately to a completed project. That makes no since because all tasks have a starting point. So your right I don't have a complete idea or I would be submitting to GMguild with a gritty campaign guide instead of posting an idea here. Saying the idea needs work .... is the point of the post. Saying additional balance will be needed makes perfect since but of itself is not useful beyond the understanding more will be needed. It is not a "Fail" to have a starting point to build from and as a larger idea forms and it may have to be rebalanced. That is the only take away from most of what you have said numerous times. At the same time that is a normal process for any material homebrew or not. Even wizards of the costs builds off ideas play tests them improves them starts assembling ideas individually then combines them in several design groups to see what combinations work and which don't. This is not a fail, its just how design work is done. I have seen your posts. Your a smart guy and you know this. So your continual statement about me failing come across as an attack instead of legible on topic argument I know your capable of. That said you did sneak some valid points in below and I will try to respectfully reply one by one.
this is especially true if you take "how often it happens" and throw it into "playtest" as opposed to design. You mention that *maybe* it wont happen more than once a "game" (do you mean campaign?) Is that the design goal? is that an accident? Are you really wanting to add an entire sub-system of swing-by swing economics to add all that paperwork in the roleplaying and dial-it so that tracking really only matters once in an entire campaign?
A design goal would be "this should add abc paperwork and the actual risk of fail should be an in-gameplay limiting factor one session out of ???" that is a stark contrast to maybe once in a game" and such.
The design goal is for it to be impactful but not game crippling. That is a balance which can be shifted with durability but needs play testing and feed back to really grasp due to different play styles classes and the fact that without any play testing I can't really get a feel for it. Doing the math is all well and good but just like this whole topic is a place to start talking about an idea. I need some in game experience to really start to understand if it can make a game more fun for players or just waste time. It also would only be effective to play test people who actually want to play a "gritty" campaign where they struggle to survive and win. I have a fellow GM who loves to run gritty campaigns for his players but only wants to play heroic campaigns. He would be a great GM to run it but a horrible player to test it. I have another friend who is basically the exact opposite so he would be a good person to test it as a player and give good feed back. --- So I need it tested by its target demographic to really see how it works and to tweak it. ---- I know you have heard this before as its done by many game designers in alpha / beta designs. So consider this the Alpha of my "gritty campaign" design I need to build and test each part to see if they work before I try and see what works together. The best way to do that is play THIS peace with a team of all armor wearing characters since it does effect those that don't. I would similarly isolate the other parts for casters and archers etc. So that I can see if and how it works for them before waisting time balancing them against each other in mixed groups.
Assuming we are still to the version where it is based on how often the AC is "hit" (a miss within the range of the armor bonus) then you have a case where characters who go for studded leather have a 10% change of armor damage on most any attack, breastplate 20%, and plate 40%.
unless armor damage is not an issue, this really shifts things towards dex-based options where the cheaper armor gives you less likely chance of damage and so on. its an 8-to-1 difference in chances of taking armor damage on top of a 45g to 1500 gold price tag for armor between studded and plate to begin with plus the various "class features" given up for the proficiencies.
Your forgetting that I gave each armor class different multipliers for durability (light x1, medium x2, heavy x3) so you double the % from 10 to 20 but then double the durability so that they last about the same time. Now
you do make a valid point about expense. That does have two factors to consider. The first is they are paying for more protection which really the point and having to look at the price tag and say "err I want it but do I want it that bad?" is EXACTLY the effect I am hoping for so that is working as intended. Right now everyone just wants the best armor because its just a one time buy upgrade. If it becomes an upkeep upgraded it becomes a real consideration. I have never seen anyone buy splint armor if plate was available have you? They just save for plate every time. The second is after testing if no one is willing to buy plate because the 1 point of AC is not worth it maybe I need to amend my rule for armor durability to make it a harder decision. That would be initially independent of changes from other non-armor classes but also party of a gritty campaign. If player will need to talk about where they spend party resources. Do they buy diamond reagents for mage spells or better armor for the group tank. Right now I am playing game with permanent armor and arcane focuses and no one really needs that much money so their is very little debate. You may have a very different experience but that is the design thought that has me creating this post.
So, even within the basic "fighter" the light armor dex-based option gets a big plus... but then we can *imagine* an overhaul of dexterity in combat that magically fixes this new shift. or we can *imagine* that in your games the "dex fighters are pretty strong as compared to strength fighters" is already not a thing at all.
Don't Dex based fighter already have "a big plus" in base D&D? After all by rules you can't start with plate but you can start with studded leather. So strength based character will have to pay 1,500 gp in order to max armor but Dex based fighter can upgrade their weapon attack state and get a free AC boast!! Also, you can sleep in light armor with no effects according to Xanthar's, taking it off on can be done during combat, heavy armor takes so long that is not possible. So your basically saying D&D is already wrong and no one will play Strength based characters....but We both know that is not true I have 3 strength players in a group of 7. They play that way because its what they want and because of the weapons they chose.
Or one can start with design goals including specific goals for how often it should be a factor, specific goals about the amount of extra tracking vs impact and so forth.
Design then build works a lot better for most things than build then make everything else fit it.
I disagree. I have an idea. I need to refine it by getting second opinions pointing things like me not accounting for AoE acid damage. Then I need to refine it again by play testing it. I do not need to tie the idea down to specifics that might not work at all by hamstringing myself with preconceptions based on nothing. I need to change and adapt until I find away to achieve my goal in the simplest and most functional way I can. THEN tweak it and ideas I combine with it or even thought it out if it does not combine well with the others. But I have to have something before I can do anything to it. You build a house by defining the parts then assembling them. I need to know my parts so I have and Idea of what I am working with before I try to assemble it. That will of course involve tweaking them so they fit together.
---
As for the scaling levels thing here is the rub, the armor "frequencies" d not change as you level up. The number of attacks and amount of damage you take *does?* and it goes up!!! So the durability is fixed but the threat is escalating.
Well maybe maybe not. maybe your 15th level fighter has only one attack just like first. maybe your 15th level spellcaster does no more damage than your 2nd? We don't know anymore because there is this nebulous set of "other changes to make this fit" that we cannot expect or anticipate or use at all as assumptions since we now have you with a generic universal caveat of "other changes will balance it out".
But assuming that at 15th level character get more attacks or more damage or more Hp and so on, then you have scalating threat and hurt to the armor but static armor durability.
That means at some level you have "armor durability is an X% problem." and at lower levels it is less of a problem and at higher levels it is more of a problem. *That is what is called a scaling problem.* Same work required but at some spans of the campaign its not really worth bothering with and at others its very tough to keep up.
If your fighting a single dragon at level 15 who gets 3 attacks against you, you have 3 chances of hitting you. With there high attacks and high damages they can kill you to or 3 turns (6-9 attacks) and they don't miss much due to really high attack modifiers so your chances of armor reduction is actually not that high.
If your level 6 and fighting 6 goblins you get 6 attacks against you in a turn, they have low health so you kill them quickly over 3 turns (6 attacks turn 1, 4 attacks turn 2, 2 attacks turn 3 = total of 12 attacks)
Your example is dependent on so many factors that it is just as flawed as mine. Without play testing it, I really don't think you can adequately see how it would effect your game. It could be that the design is too much a burden at low levels complete contrast to your explanation if your scenarios match up with my scenario above. On the other hand you could be right. But your argument alone does not confirm that. So while I applicate the concern, it does require play testing to see what the disparity is, how bad it is, then look at how to adapt to that.
But then again, as you stated earlier, your "gritty" campaign assumes that everybody will be into magic armor after a bit so it wont even be in play after a time - cuz you know, everybody is in magic armor is an essential quality of "gritty" gameplay.
I would agree that handing out magic items in game geared to be "gritty" is not the intent. I stated it as a "well if you have on player that wants to play this way and the others don't" here is a solution to allow both styles of play at the same table with minimal impact. I say minimal because you don't have to give an armor with a +X you could just say they get magic armor that does need repaired. It could also be a way to resolve an issue of imbalance as an interim solution to finding a fix for the system I am talking about. It was not a good point on my part and I deserve that reply.
---
i highlight this because this feels a lot more like an off-the-cuff "i have an idea so lets run with it" thing that is getting very defensive response rather than the "one part of an overall whole" planned thing with a defined goal and purpose.
So "off-the-cuff" and "starting point" are to me part of idea crafting. So I will say your right in that categorization. I would say however my defensive response is to the complete dismissal and aggressive nature of calling the idea, my thought process, my approach, and almost directly me a "fail". You attack some one with delivery offensive wording, you should expect them to be defensive its a natural response. You could have worded thinks more diplomatically and/or more analytically and not provoked that response. That said I have listened to your responses and looked for incite such as your AoE acid comments. While others might just right you off as hostile I am taking your arguments seriously and debating them with you. Much of what your saying has a train of though and I am tracking it. It is however not 100% by reality. Let me be clear in that I am not saying you are wrong I am saying without playtesting to support it, you COULD be wrong. That is not the same thing. Because you could also be right. However because I can see how that is not necessarily true I will not abandoned my idea on the premise of your point but I do recognize I need to test my idea with that in mine.
---
basically, something as significant as this needs a lot more of a set of starting goals and design decisions made within a larger set of campaign goals and design constraints than it seems to actually be being given. otherwise you get a lot of unforseen breakdowns. trying to sell *iots part of a big plan with other changes putting it in context* when acid and force damage was not considered... tough sell.
again I disagree, I am not building a house without looking at materials first. If you design a roof with steal you can build it differently than with wood. I need to work on the parts then integrate them into the whole if I can. Some might get thrown out because the don't fit and this might be one of them but I am going to look at for its own merit before I discard it or I will have nothing to build with.
But as a final point, there are settings and worlds and game systems built from the ground up and majorly playtested to achieve a more gritty play experience. i would strongly suggest you look at a number of those for possible just use them or for better ideas of how the whole system works together to achieve that overall goal - because at least as far as what we can see from this thread - the more likely result/outcome seems to be to seriously favor a sub-set of build types if this is applied to DND5e bigger system. its not creating a gritty armor game if the result is folks just stop wearing armor and maxdex becomes the rule of the land. it creates a swashbuckler style game instead.
**oh no it wont because...**
sure, have fun with that.
This is basically saying "your idea is dumb and you should not bother with homebrew its not a thing you can do" .... and you asked earlier why I would be defensive to your posts? ... Because your being hostile... /shrug.
