Homebrew: Simple Armor durability and degradation rules

Oofta said:

Let's make sure I understand your proposal. If a PC is missed because of their armor alone, the armor takes damage. Armor has Armor Points (AP) depending on type of armor, plate has 54 AP, shields have 20 AP. Someone with plate armor and shield is going to have their armor damaged half the time they are missed. Your damage is only 2 points, so someone in plate armor could take 27 "hits" to their armor before it falls apart. Assuming damage to armor 20-25% of the time (depending on plate only or plate + shield) that's 0.5 average damage per attack. For argument's sake let's say the PC is attacked 10 times per combat for 5 damage per combat. That's low for most front line fighters at mid-to-high levels because most monsters have multi-attack. So being conservative, after 6 combats your armor falls apart. That's an average adventuring day according to DMG guidelines. In the real world, a soldier may need to repair their armor on a regular basis (although I don't think it would be that often) but then again in the real world anyone getting into fights 6 or more times per day wouldn't have survived very long anyway.

Click to expand...

I have not looked at the math and know it needs adjustment but ok lets go.
Plate AC 18 x3 for heavy 54 durability check. Shield 20 durability check.
We are talking high level... but that is a vague number so I am going to say level 15
I am going to do pvp since I don't have an Monster Manual average attack so again level 15, Proficiency bonus +5 ability bonus +5? sure. So +10 to hit
You said a single attack is rare, so lets go 2 as an average between 1&3.
The range for hitting Armor and damaging plate is 10-17, 18 hits the character. The lowest you can roll is 1 but I as a GM would not even let hit the player maybe you through your sword across the room bay accident, So at +10 rolls of 2 - 7 hit the armor 8 - 9 hit the shield.
5% per number on a 20 sided die so 30% chance of hitting the armor, 10% hit the shield
2 attacks in a round for 10 rounds because apparently they are just standing there wailing on each other and 10 rounds is a long fight. 20 attacks
So 6 attacks hit the plate for 12 damage and 2 attacks hit the shield for 4 damage.
You will lose your plate halfway through your 5th fight, and your shield at the end of your 5th fight.

We usually do about "10 round fight" level but I will say around 15 that tends to double, we have some times 6 fights in a day but usually don't see long fights when we have so many and really every other post on that I have seen says the same thing but ... I will agree that does appear a bit low...
If I up it to (Light x2, Medium x4, Heavy x6, and shields to 40) then the armor lasts around 10 big fights and your looking at it needing repairs or breaking I am guessing 3-4 times from 1-20 the first time closer to level 10 with enough time to repair between major fights.

alternately I could drop the damage to 1 and get roughly the same effect. hmmm... that might be better. But I need to fix how mending effects it.

I am sure the reply will be something like "well that's not how we play"... return to play testing. I can't rate how you play I have no basis for comparison.

Oofta said:

So instead what's going to happen is your fighter will just stock up on shields and replace their shield after 2-3 combats. Your heavy weapon fighters on the other hand are just SOL. Expect them to all become barbarians.

Click to expand...

5 combats but I guess he never fights anyone with a shield and picks up a better one either. I also expect people will play fighter if they want to play fighter and barbarian if they want to play barbarian. I also might balance the fact barbarians take damage directly so I might for example make a another rule where anyone not wearing armor only heals a number of hit point equal to 1/4 their hit point (round down) during a long rest. This is as I explained before a starting point for the an idea. Though I was trying to focus on one at a time no who doesn't like the idea can seem to except that so ok. Before you complain about that rule its not solid I am just building ideas as I go and its on the list. Its not like we have not seen "healing is to fast and easy" threads from people thinking of making grittier campaigns before so I know there is support for the idea but just like this the implementation needs to be figured out.

Oofta said:

Then you turn around and say it's not going to matter because it won't affect magical armor and you assume your PCs will have magic armor at mid to high levels, but then what's the purpose of a finicky rule like this? To me it's just extra tracking and paperwork on the part of the DM and the player.

Click to expand...

So I mentioned this in another post but I don't intend to just hand out magic items but at the same time I have to have an answer for magic items. It would likely be a fairly low magic item campaign. Your statement I put in bold is D&D in a nut shell, paperwork and tracking things on a sheet, and I love it just the same. I am guess you do to or your just on these forums to be angry. I mean tracking health, temporary hit points, spell slots, inventory, gold, short and long rest abilities, who really wants to do this? THIS GUY every month at least once twice if I can.

Oofta said:

But it also goes back to my basic issue. Every time people try to justify a rule like this because it's "more realistic" they never come up with any rules to make light or no armor dex based characters more realistic. All it does at this point is penalize one type of build and add a bunch of annoying tracking. Well, that and keep the shield merchants in business.

Click to expand...

One rule at a time. Relax I am getting there but that will be another post. Its just too much to keep track of all the arguments at once. I theory craft one piece at a time and then see what fits together. Then what doesn't I fix one piece at a time. ...I don't know what more your going to ask of me but if you want whole thing wait until I have a complete book on GMguild before you post your complaints. lol (will likely not due that even if I get it all together)

Didn't seem simple to me.

I have tried a version where critical hits eats one point of AC. Some creatures attacks eats more on a critical hit. Some creatures have improved critical hit range. Oozes and rust monsters etc. always deals AC damage on a hit.

Repair up to 1 point of AC with mending, or all of it with creation/fabricate or whatever, or pay the difference in gold by going to the smithy.

ClaytonCross said:

I have not looked at the math and know it needs adjustment but ok lets go.
Plate AC 18 x3 for heavy 54 durability check. Shield 20 durability check.
We are talking high level... but that is a vague number so I am going to say level 15
I am going to do pvp since I don't have an Monster Manual average attack so again level 15, Proficiency bonus +5 ability bonus +5? sure. So +10 to hit
You said a single attack is rare, so lets go 2 as an average between 1&3.
The range for hitting Armor and damaging plate is 10-17, 18 hits the character. The lowest you can roll is 1 but I as a GM would not even let hit the player maybe you through your sword across the room bay accident, So at +10 rolls of 2 - 7 hit the armor 8 - 9 hit the shield.
5% per number on a 20 sided die so 30% chance of hitting the armor, 10% hit the shield
2 attacks in a round for 10 rounds because apparently they are just standing there wailing on each other and 10 rounds is a long fight. 20 attacks
So 6 attacks hit the plate for 12 damage and 2 attacks hit the shield for 4 damage.
You will lose your plate halfway through your 5th fight, and your shield at the end of your 5th fight.

We usually do about "10 round fight" level but I will say around 15 that tends to double, we have some times 6 fights in a day but usually don't see long fights when we have so many and really every other post on that I have seen says the same thing but ... I will agree that does appear a bit low...
If I up it to (Light x2, Medium x4, Heavy x6, and shields to 40) then the armor lasts around 10 big fights and your looking at it needing repairs or breaking I am guessing 3-4 times from 1-20 the first time closer to level 10 with enough time to repair between major fights.

alternately I could drop the damage to 1 and get roughly the same effect. hmmm... that might be better. But I need to fix how mending effects it.

I am sure the reply will be something like "well that's not how we play"... return to play testing. I can't rate how you play I have no basis for comparison.




5 combats but I guess he never fights anyone with a shield and picks up a better one either.

Click to expand...

For my assessment I was assuming the PC AC was 20 and a level 10 monster, a Stone Golem with +10 to hit. Although I goofed because it's worse than I thought.

With a +10 to hit, it's always going to hit at least an AC 12 (since 1's always miss) before the die is rolled. So 95% of the misses will be because of armor unless I'm missing something. That means that in a typical fight, 5 rounds means 10 attacks. Since the golem misses 50% of the time, that's 4.75 damaging hits to the armor per fight or 9.5 point of armor damage per combat (at 2 points /hit).

ClaytonCross said:

I also expect people will play fighter if they want to play fighter and barbarian if they want to play barbarian. I also might balance the fact barbarians take damage directly so I might for example make a another rule where anyone not wearing armor only heals a number of hit point equal to 1/4 their hit point (round down) during a long rest. This is as I explained before a starting point for the an idea. Though I was trying to focus on one at a time no who doesn't like the idea can seem to except that so ok. Before you complain about that rule its not solid I am just building ideas as I go and its on the list. Its not like we have not seen "healing is to fast and easy" threads from people thinking of making grittier campaigns before so I know there is support for the idea but just like this the implementation needs to be figured out.

Click to expand...

If I was forced to play with this rule I'd carry a bunch of shields and replace them after every other fight or not play a character with heavy armor. Replacing plate armor every day is not tenable.

So suppose you tweak your numbers. If you assume that HP reflects more than just ability to withstand blows but to also absorb or avoid most of the damage, then HP should factor into your armor's durability.

But that doesn't solve the basic issue, the question you've never answered, that several people have asked. What are you achieving other than adding finicky overhead? The answer "more realism" doesn't cut it for me because I don't think anyone here has any idea of how much damage armor would take in a typical combat along with PCs facing a ridiculous amount of combat.

Part of what's bothering me is that if you get hit the armor takes no damage which doesn't seem right either. If I have heavy armor, the chinks in my armor are few and far between. If I'm taking damage it's probably because the armor absorbed some of the damage but not all ... but then that gets into armor DR and how would low-level opponents be a threat and so on and so forth.

Want a grittier world? Simplify. Use the slow healing rules from the DMG along with some kind of armor damage based on how many HP you're down. You have to pay to get your armor fixed during your downtime, it slowly degrades and needs to be repaired. Lower quality armor would need to be fixed more frequently but at a lower cost. But at that point ... it just becomes fluff or an addition lifestyle cost.

Anyway, you don't seem too interested in feedback so good luck with this. If there's anything you don't understand about my analysis I can clarify but until then I think you'd have to start with a completely different game system for something like this to make sense.

Hit steel plate armor 54 times and it falls apart? Like, with any weapon -- dagger, arrow, quarterstaff, it doesn't matter? That pretty aggressively violates my suspension of disbelief. A smith is likely to hit the armor more than 54 times (in exactly the same spot, even) just hammering out a minor dent.

ClaytonCross

You have some fulffy goal of impactful but not crippling. Why not blue but not yelliw or spicy but not sweet?

Lets start with a very basic idea, shall we?

A "default" used for balancing 5e is between long rests 6-8 encounters of medium to hard. A default used for balancing 5e is magic items are rare and basically not assumed for balance in significant numbers.

So lets ask a basic fundamental question or two... Ones that *need to be answered* in order to assign numbers that create that outcome.

This is basic design 101. Its calked "requirements gathering". Really its more like Design 100.

1 - How many medium to hard encounters without access ti magic repair or buying new gear or forges for fixing etc should a plate wearing warrior expect to complete before his armor fails FOR IT TI BE CONSIDERED IMPACTFUL?

2- Same question for CRIPPLING?

3 - Should this system be built so that it varies by level or remain static as you level up?

4 - You have stated magic armor will be expected at some level? At what level should magic armor be assumed to be in place for all characters - essentially, what level does this sunset?

5 - Drawing on your point - should the system be built so that kobolds in numbers who frequently miss targets wearing place do a lot more plate degradation than a gigantic dragon with only 3-5 attacks most of which hit? Is that the flavor of "gritty" goal? Or is that an abberation caused by throwing numbers and such without design goals?

The last ine spotlights design vs dive in creation.

Dive in we create numbers and an idea and see what hapoens. Most likely, it fails to achieve a cohesive outcome.

Design we list a number of goals, give some specifics and then determine mechanics and numbers to get us there.

"If you dont know where you want to go, you are likely to end up somewhere else!"

So, using your example...

Requirement: Bigger badder more iconicalky tough foes (ancient dragons) should be as dangerous or more (maybe much more) to gear survivability than say a lot of low lufes (say a dozen kobolds).

If that was a requirement, then almost every number you put in is going the wrong direction.

1 - Choosing a set 2p or whatever to each attack that lands on armor treats each kobold sling stone the same as a mega dragon bite and so - wrong way. Damage to armor should scale by damage of attack because bigger threats have bigger attacks, not necessarily more attacks.

2 - Only misses threaten armor. Wrong way. Bigger threats hit more often, have fewer misses. Your design literally causes a warrior to be at more risk of armor loss from giving his enemy disadvantage on attacks. Do you really want a fighter in the big fight to see it as sometimes more beneficial to take a hit than take a miss if his armour is weak but his HP are strong?

3 - The ideas that AoE are less threatening to armor is also wrong way since oftimes the bigger threats get AoE attacks to help make them threatening.

There are more but thats just a few.

Design leads development, not the other way around, if you want a good chance of success.

You can decide "i want something good for supper" put six folks in a car and tell them to make six turns, two lefts, three right and a final left.... Give them values for each turn of 1 mile, seven miles, half mile, nine miles, 50 ft at the last.

But unless you already knew that spot...odds are they end up not in the parking lot of "a good place to eat."







How

Oofta said:

For my assessment I was assuming the PC AC was 20 and a level 10 monster, a Stone Golem with +10 to hit. Although I goofed because it's worse than I thought.

With a +10 to hit, it's always going to hit at least an AC 12 (since 1's always miss) before the die is rolled. So 95% of the misses will be because of armor unless I'm missing something. That means that in a typical fight, 5 rounds means 10 attacks. Since the golem misses 50% of the time, that's 4.75 damaging hits to the armor per fight or 9.5 point of armor damage per combat (at 2 points /hit).

If I was forced to play with this rule I'd carry a bunch of shields and replace them after every other fight or not play a character with heavy armor. Replacing plate armor every day is not tenable.

Click to expand...

Ok. more math different scenario. Testing needed.

Oofta said:

So suppose you tweak your numbers. If you assume that HP reflects more than just ability to withstand blows but to also absorb or avoid most of the damage, then HP should factor into your armor's durability.

Click to expand...

This is the start of an idea and I want to see where its going but its not quite a full suggestion and I am not sure how to fill in the blanks.

Oofta said:

But that doesn't solve the basic issue, the question you've never answered, that several people have asked. What are you achieving other than adding finicky overhead? The answer "more realism" doesn't cut it for me because I don't think anyone here has any idea of how much damage armor would take in a typical combat along with PCs facing a ridiculous amount of combat.

Click to expand...

So the basic question of why was/is that I want a grittier world. To elaborate a world where things degrade, supplies run short, and players struggle with hard decisions about want they need and how they are going to get it moving forward. I destructible armor from level 1 is one aspect of the game that I am looking at to go in that direction. But you know that you mention it below.... I also commented before I am not looking for "more realism" in a world with dragons and magic, I am using something we can relate to add draining resource to gold and to create story sub plots for replacing equipment and managing resources.

Oofta said:

Part of what's bothering me is that if you get hit the armor takes no damage which doesn't seem right either. If I have heavy armor, the chinks in my armor are few and far between. If I'm taking damage it's probably because the armor absorbed some of the damage but not all ... but then that gets into armor DR and how would low-level opponents be a threat and so on and so forth.

Click to expand...

Thematically if your looking at it like its the armors AC then a hit could hit the armor but at a point where it does more damage to the person than the armor to the point that while you maybe hitting the armor but the damage to its structure and functionality is unaffected.

Mechanically if your typically hit more than your missed particularly at higher levels so if you have a problem with how often the armor will take damage you just magnified it. I limited to hit and hit within the range of the armor to limit the rolls that would damage the armor.

If I do change to hits instead of misses it would be on critical hits only as mentioned a couple of times that has become my backup idea. The issues that make this my secondary choice is that first a critical could be an attack around armor and I feel like that is double jeopardy on hits because they are already taking hit point damage. Doing it on miss means tracking on or the other so your engaged ether way. If you had a fight against little "minions" there is not lose there if they keep missing adding armor damage mean that gains wear. If you have a powerful boss that never misses then you don't have to worry about your armor but you might die. This means in both situations you have worry and a drain which suites my goal. I could be wrong but I am more for tweaking and fixing this idea before I just through it out. If it doesn't work in the end going to a critical hit system will be my backup.

Oofta said:

Want a grittier world? Simplify. Use the slow healing rules from the DMG along with some kind of armor damage based on how many HP you're down. You have to pay to get your armor fixed during your downtime, it slowly degrades and needs to be repaired. Lower quality armor would need to be fixed more frequently but at a lower cost. But at that point ... it just becomes fluff or an addition lifestyle cost.

Click to expand...

The healing thing is something I am already considering... just not in this thread. It maybe a another post or since there are plenty on that already I may be able to get a good idea from just reading them. The bold statement is true so but "fluff" and "cost" to me could also be translated to "story" and "risk reward" and that's part of good story telling. "Just" is not how I would describe them unless I was playing "D&D combat simulator" or a heroic campaign where I have no problems and every loves me.... I don't enjoy those and this is not a thread for those people. I know some. Best wishes to them.

Oofta said:

Anyway, you don't seem too interested in feedback so good luck with this. If there's anything you don't understand about my analysis I can clarify but until then I think you'd have to start with a completely different game system for something like this to make sense.

Click to expand...

... So I adjusted damage on my original post based on yours (from 2 down to 1), I added AoE damage as a result of another and I am considering a critical system instead of a missing my deflecting damage on the armor. ...I am not only interested in feedback but I am using it. This is just a snide comment that shows your more interested in being hostile than helpful. Still... knowing this from your past posts I read and considered every point you made because even if your just here to be a jerk you can have a valid point. If your done on this thread that's fine. I would prefer constructive criticism from less hostile posters but If I only listened to nice reasonable people on these forums I would have a hard time getting a second opinion and different points of view.

It is what it is.

I wasn't kidding about pants. If combat inflicts damage on armor, it most certainly will damage clothing.

TheCosmicKid said:

Hit steel plate armor 54 times and it falls apart? Like, with any weapon -- dagger, arrow, quarterstaff, it doesn't matter? That pretty aggressively violates my suspension of disbelief. A smith is likely to hit the armor more than 54 times (in exactly the same spot, even) just hammering out a minor dent.

Click to expand...

I have stated a few times that the damage may be hit multiple times without it taking damage during "hits on the player" or other wise these 54 points of durability represent damage to the stability and function of the armor.

If a smith wanted to take armor apart and rebuild it into something else... he might not need 54 good hits to make it not functional. The Idea of a smith hitting it multiple times to create is not relevant or comparable. A real world example, a friend of mine is in the Armored Combat League and he bought 2 swords forged by a smith but one of them was quenched wrong after it was forged so when he fought with them the first time the incorrectly quenched sword broke on the first hit after being pounded likely hundreds of times by the smith. When a smith is done pounding metal used for combat the smith heats it and quenches it to hardened the steal. If it is done wrong instead of Harding it makes it brittle and subject to break. This would mean that a D&D group in my campaign was using a smith prone to mistakes but possible.

So your suspension of disbelief can hand magic, dragons, being sprayed with acid and sleeping it off, and having equipment that never wears out but ... having equipment that wears out faster than you would expect is too much for you?

Ok then. I really can't debate that. Best of luck on your adventures.

Ancalagon said:

I wasn't kidding about pants. If combat inflicts damage on armor, it most certainly will damage clothing.

Click to expand...

Sure but it has no effect on combat to fight naked and I don't want to here my players talking about how they swing in the wind with every attack (They would do such things). So... I am going to leave that alone. lol

Ancalagon said:

I wasn't kidding about pants. If combat inflicts damage on armor, it most certainly will damage clothing.

Click to expand...

Granted but is there a reason to track the state of your clothing? If so I'd be inclined to just say that after a couple fights your clothes are pretty trashed.