Homebrew: Simple Armor durability and degradation rules

Also, hit points "represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck." I think a pretty common view is that many "hits" are not literal weapon strikes, but rather glancing blows and near misses that wear through your endurance and luck. I don't feel like that squares very well with interpreting a near miss as a hit that damages your armor.

ClaytonCross

"A grittier world" is not a useful goal at this level of weeds development. Its like saying "a world with magic" in that it is a big picture setting element or style but it leaves so broadly open a swath that most anything can be fit inside it.

Saying you want tbere to be times when decisions have to be made about resources and choosing lesser options.. That is a little more specific but hits some issues agaiin due to lack of specificity. Let me illustrate:

A party with a portable hole will just dump extra suits into it. No real problem there.

You already mentioned everybody gets magic armor so... unless you define some tier for that serms like that is an inconsistent approach if as said magic armors are exempt. In my experience, everybody get magic armor is not grittier than many games that just go 5e as written mostly.

As for painting others as dismissive your notions as opposed to the mechanics, sorry but you serm wed to the mechanic over the goal.

No armor dmg on a hit is something several have mentioned as criticism, esp from "gritty".

No accounting for AoE - first with just casual dismissals then with basically very little impact - again something brought up.

Bigger attacks not doing more armor damage - again inconsistent and brought up.

And of course, direct questions yield "dodges" referencing "personal attacks."

You go off on wanting to make characters have to sometimes make these new decisions for "grittier" but lets look at the decisions...

Imagine a warrior in sigbificantly damaged plate (paid for with more gold and class features BTW than say light or medium).

Imagine the fight is a fairly typical boss fight with boss and minions.

Losing the armor may open him up to the minions - making for even,higher DPR loss.

So it may be that what passes for "smart play" under CC's world is to **not** use class abilities that give enemies disadvantage on rolls to hit because he has more HP buffer or better HP recovery/healing available than armor.

Or...

may be that what passes for "smart play" under CC's world is for the crossbow minions to rush into 5' reach so their crossbows get disadvantage and "miss" the man but "hit" the armor.

Both of those are direct results of your mechanics... Are they also direct desired aspects of your vague goals about decisions or are they unforseen outcomes of a mechanic first approach?






There are already ways that "lesser armors" are driven by circumatances - most specifically stealth, weight and price.

TheCosmicKid said:

So a deflected blow damages my armor, but a blow that connects solidly enough to wound me does not? And you are pointing out this consequence of your system in an attempt to reestablish its verisimilitude?

Click to expand...

That's not what I said you omitted the part where I said a hit could still "damage" the armor just not in a meaning full way that is why the player is hut. Also a hit could mean that you hit the player in an unprotected location on there body. Your making a decision to contrast my design because you want to not because its a design flaw. Let me demonstrate your way.

If a player fails to block with his shield because it never contacted at the enemy making a critical hit on the head... you damage the shield ... what? why? It was never impacted but by your logic the player was hit so the shield needs to fall apart.

My logic is not perfect but I do believe it makes way more since then what you are comparing me to.

Ancalagon said:

As someone who has worn armor and done some swordfighting... (Not with live steel mind you!).

When a hit damages you, it can mean 3 things:

1: you were hit where there is no armor

2: the hit "ignored" the armor. This is a bit rare, but the perfect example is being hit on the head, hard, while wearing a helmet. Sure your skull isn't cleaved open, but you are still stunned for a moment just from the sheer force of the impact.

(One of the reasons I stopped swordfighting. This is bad for you)

3: the hit defeated the armor. The spear has rammed through the chain mail etc.

1 and 2 will not damage the armor, but #3 certainly will!

Alternatively, some misses ( a jab in the gut that glances off due to armor) won't harm the armor *at all*.

So I really question the premise.

Click to expand...

I am in HEMA and ACL. When I fight ACL we do use steel weapons.

"1: you were hit where there is no armor" I am considering as a hit or possible critical hit, you don't hit the armor or shield you don't damage the armor or shield.

"2: the hit "ignored" the armor. This is a bit rare, but the perfect example is being hit on the head, hard, while wearing a helmet. Sure your skull isn't cleaved open, but you are still stunned for a moment just from the sheer force of the impact."

Another option and basically also what you are describing in #3 if your wearing plate mail.

"3: the hit defeated the armor. The spear has rammed through the chain mail etc." If your wearing plate with chain under it, damaging chain at the joints does not weaken the plates of the plate mail and represents small damage that would not be tracked on platemail damge as I am considering the hit range for plate to be the plates.

4. You block a blow with your shield easy deflecting it, the shield takes a hit and does its job, taking visible damage but not hurting the person wearing the armor. (Where is this in your example? you in all your sword fighting never took a blow to your shield and armor and said, What you hit me? I didn't even feel that. ---Enter judge call-- Because this happens all the time with us and it is why we have 2 judges for fight, also as a result of such blows we often have straps knocked off and arm guards hanging and the fighter has to be stopped because they did even realize it but can't continue without risking really hurting their arm.)

5. The player dodges or parries the blow I am using the 10 + Dex bonus range. So that dodging a blow does not damage the armor.

jaelis said:

Also, hit points "represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck." I think a pretty common view is that many "hits" are not literal weapon strikes, but rather glancing blows and near misses that wear through your endurance and luck. I don't feel like that squares very well with interpreting a near miss as a hit that damages your armor.

Click to expand...

Sure that is the common understanding and I am fine with that but armor adds to AC so how does a hit, miss due to this AC bonus without hitting the Armor?

I mean dex bonus is pretty commonly viewed as the dodge. So I fine with glancing blows from "hits" not damaging armor because its already accounted for in the damage to the player as you just said per the common view so hits should not damage armor because that's already considered in the game. If the AC bonus is not a reduction in damage taken from a hit but an extinction of a miss (as is the game mechanic). The armor is taking the blow without damaging the player. So where did the damage go? I say it was absorbed by the armor since... that is what happened.

So your argument supports my design as far as I can see. It certainly does not refute it.

5ekyu said:

ClaytonCross
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of testing both as its objective and timing.

Decisions like "how many battles before armor fail do we want" (the impactful vs crippling) are not determined by testing. They are design goals.

Testing is not first to set goals but is well after goals to see if the model reaches the goal.

By the time UA releases stuff, it has already seen design, goals, requirements, been vetted against already establish data etc and passed whatever their internal criteria are - then it is handed out to gauge interest. If you look at a lot of the dev comments on feedback to UA they rarely focus on power or balance or frequency or numbers - they mention and spend more time on interest, uniqueness and other broader isdues like complexity vs simplicity.

Alpha and beta are way after goals/requirements and internal dev and testing.

As for content vs personal blah blah, i note you dismissed the actual question for details about the "system" and goals and chose to go straight for personal.

Some might see that as indicative of what you want to engage in.

As for your meta-think on dragons vs kobold daggers and their armor shredding capabilities, that would be a very difficult sell to players for most settings that would be called gritty. In my experience, most players have preconceived notions about how durable armor is against mostly typical small weapons (extremely durable in fact) and they also have little to no problem seeing masdive dragon strike as much much more damaging.

Part of that can stem from fantasy lit/film/source which have on numerous occasion described or shown "teeth as big as daggers" or "claws like swords" and the like.

I can well imagine if I tried to sell gritty and kobold knive shred armor better that dragons mouth full of daggers - mostly my players would laugh.

It is easier to see your attempt to claim that as a feature or goal as driven by "need to defend the mechanic" than to see it as an actual in play game world gritty reality you **wanted** to design a sysyem to create. But if you want to stick to the "goal" and such position thats fine.

I myself coined in my games decades ago "My Stupid Rule." It says in short that if i would feel stupid in play in game explaining how some rule worked and the redults it creates, i di not use that rule.

I have found that as a bery usefil guiding principle in many different settings in many diffetent systems. It also works well way outside of rpgs to most any design appproach.

Telling someone that the giant dragon with rows of teeth "as big as daggers" does no damage to their plate armor on a bite and on a miss does less danage to the armor that say four kobolds stabbing them with daggers and missing **would not pass** "My Stupid Rule."

You may find that kind of disconnect between "in game reality" and "gritty claim" to limit your proposal's appeal beyond those invested in finding a way to make your initial idea work.

I would be fine with providing more direct sub-system analysis and suggestion and less design and process related info or inconsistency info, but again, you serm unable or unwilling to set basic benchmarks or targets to aim for.

Click to expand...

I am going to put this here...

jaelis said:

Also, hit points "represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck." I think a pretty common view is that many "hits" are not literal weapon strikes, but rather glancing blows and near misses that wear through your endurance and luck. I don't feel like that squares very well with interpreting a near miss as a hit that damages your armor.

Click to expand...

So your telling me it doesn't make since because I am not counting dragons "Hits" and he is telling me, its common to say a Hits dropping HP is also considered to be hits on the armor that the player is taking. This means that damage your talking about is accounted for and would be redundant if I also damage the armor durability. I agree with him on that or you have to suspend belief that dragon with claws like short swords and teeth like daggers not killing a player on a single hit. If you can't get past the "stupid" of a 30ft dragon with a 6 foot mouth not damaging the armor in HP instead of armor durability, I don't understand how your ok with a player in leather armor or less taking the same bit and not dying on the first hit. Which means I really don't see how you can play vanilla D&D with out breaking your "rule of stupid" regularly.

As far as you attacking my process again... Its off subject and I disagree. I don't feel the need to debate that since its not the point of the thread and comes across like an attempt to attack me personally because I had answers for your attacks on the actual topic. If you want to debate the topic ... lets debate the topic. You made some points their and I have adjusted my idea to them but if you just want to say me posting this thread was stupid in different ways I am going to ignore all your topics not actually on the topic of the thread, I feel its a difference of opinion and we are just wasting each others time there with no viable goal to it.

ClaytonCross said:

Sure that is the common understanding and I am fine with that but armor adds to AC so how does a hit, miss due to this AC bonus without hitting the Armor?

I mean dex bonus is pretty commonly viewed as the dodge. So I fine with glancing blows from "hits" not damaging armor because its already accounted for in the damage to the player as you just said per the common view so hits should not damage armor because that's already considered in the game. If the AC bonus is not a reduction in damage taken from a hit but an extinction of a miss (as is the game mechanic). The armor is taking the blow without damaging the player. So where did the damage go? I say it was absorbed by the armor since... that is what happened.

So your argument supports my design as far as I can see. It certainly does not refute it.

Click to expand...

Well consider a wizard with Dex 14, AC 12, vs a fighter with Dex 14, AC 16. A monster attacks each and rolls a 14. The wizard takes damage, but we describe that as a scratch or some exhaustion from the effort of dodging. The fighter doesn't take damage, but you'd like to apply that damage to his armor instead. And if I understand, this is not "narrative" damage like hp, it is honest material damage that needs to be repaired. Somehow it seems like the "hit" on the wizard is narratively less significant than the "miss" on the fighter. That's what I'm getting at.

5ekyu said:

... omitted...

A party with a portable hole will just dump extra suits into it. No real problem there.

You already mentioned everybody gets magic armor ... omitted...

Click to expand...

First I never said everybody gets magic items, I only mentioned it as way to let one disgruntled player get away from this. Second, I have said in other posts, It would likely be a low magic campaign so magic armor and portable holes etc.. would be uncommon. I am not saying they would not have a chance at it but with the aim of gritty I would be thronging it out as you describe.
My quote was:
"I would say magic items are immune and so it will be less of a big deal a higher levels." so I can see why you though this was my final solution but and perhaps a little dismissive of your concern. For that I am sorry but my primary thought was that without play testing I don't know if what your saying is true but if it was I could compensate by giving the tank magic armor while I figure out a fix. It is not the fix but then again I am still not sure that is an issue.

To your actual statements on the system.

5ekyu said:

No armor dmg on a hit is something several have mentioned as criticism, esp from "gritty".

Click to expand...

I answered this several times. its already covered by HP not being just health and I don't want to double stack that. It seems unfair to the player. I like the idea of balancing misses and hits to a constant drain for the gritty feel better.

5ekyu said:

No accounting for AoE - first with just casual dismissals then with basically very little impact - again something brought u.

Click to expand...

I did not dismiss this I just overlooked it and when you brought it up I IMMEDIATLY accounted for it. As far as "little impact" I changed all damage to 1 in the first post after talking to Oofta where he did some math and I did some math and a good case was made that the armor would degrade too quickly. So half the damage should double the life of armor (it may still need to be tweaked, play testing needed). As such though AoE damage does the same damage as any other.

5ekyu said:

Bigger attacks not doing more armor damage - again inconsistent and brought up.

Click to expand...

Most people do not roll damage on a miss in my experience because why would you? HP scales with damage on hit to hits so that is already accounted for.
Armor damage scaling on hits is likely to cause the issue of armor being worthless at high levels that you and Oofta brought up. Not scaling durability lose with damage makes the armor durability system hold up better across levels which goes to help with your concern on that point. Its also not an uncommon design as I have seen damage as a 1 per hit no matter the damage in many RPGs that work fine. So its beneficial to scale, viable for mechanic, and since higher damage usually comes from targets that at more prone to hit its already addressed in the HP system.

5ekyu said:

And of course, direct questions yield "dodges" referencing "personal attacks."

Click to expand...

Simply untrue, I answered them before and I answered them here yet again.

5ekyu said:

You go off on wanting to make characters have to sometimes make these new decisions for "grittier" but lets look at the decisions...

Imagine a warrior in sigbificantly damaged plate (paid for with more gold and class features BTW than say light or medium).

Imagine the fight is a fairly typical boss fight with boss and minions.

Losing the armor may open him up to the minions - making for even,higher DPR loss.

So it may be that what passes for "smart play" under CC's world is to **not** use class abilities that give enemies disadvantage on rolls to hit because he has more HP buffer or better HP recovery/healing available than armor.

Click to expand...

Sure I actually approve of people wanting to balance damage to armor and damage to HP but it is a balance since if they lose there armor they might be able to look a corpse to replace it but if they die they are dead. ... game over... This is cool dynamic and I actually like it and support that as a gritty game dynamic that I am aiming for.

5ekyu said:

Or...

may be that what passes for "smart play" under CC's world is for the crossbow minions to rush into 5' reach so their crossbows get disadvantage and "miss" the man but "hit" the armor.

Click to expand...

Why would they not just drop a crossbow and pull a shortsword? This is bad tactics by the NPCs not smart tactics form the players. A smarter player tactic if being attacked would be to find full cover and wait for the crossbowman to come to them while killing the melee characters free from crossbow fire. Or if the enemy is defending, divide and conquer by ambushing small groups at close range so that they draw their short swords on tern one and crossbows are not a factor. Because what is your alternative stand at range and let them shoot you?

5ekyu said:

Both of those are direct results of your mechanics... Are they also direct desired aspects of your vague goals about decisions or are they unforseen outcomes of a mechanic first approach?

Click to expand...

So far I am on board with this so, if you can come up with an example where I agree we have a problem then as a result of the problem I would look at a fix. Play testing would be a good way to do that. Your just "thronging the baby out with the bath water" on mere premise. Why not look for solutions and fixes instead of trying to just call the premise wrong without testing? What is it about this idea that so offends you that you attack me and my though process without ever considering a way to make it work?

5ekyu said:

There are already ways that "lesser armors" are driven by circumatances - most specifically stealth, weight and price.

Click to expand...

In my experience playing this is only ever true with people choosing the breast plate over half-plate to be more stealthy. I literally have a player who took encumbrance for plate because he would prefer +4AC over at +25lbs then with a -10 speed over Ring Mail. In fact given the chance I have never seen a player take the ring mail over plate for any reason.... and that is why I am looking at this rule. Price is not even a consideration because they always save to go strait to plate without stepping up. If no plate is on sale they just save their money until they find it or spend more money to hunt it down. It a grittier campaign I would like to make it more a thing than it is.

jaelis said:

Well consider a wizard with Dex 14, AC 12, vs a fighter with Dex 14, AC 16. A monster attacks each and rolls a 14. The wizard takes damage, but we describe that as a scratch or some exhaustion from the effort of dodging. The fighter doesn't take damage, but you'd like to apply that damage to his armor instead. And if I understand, this is not "narrative" damage like hp, it is honest material damage that needs to be repaired. Somehow it seems like the "hit" on the wizard is narratively less significant than the "miss" on the fighter. That's what I'm getting at.

Click to expand...

Low lets say 5, so its not really level dependent even most level 1 characters can survive that and your narrating it as a scratch.
The wizard gets to dodge 1-11, a role 14 hits but at level 1 he is almost dead (but alive) and a level 20 its just a scratch. In both cases take the character closer to death from which it can not recover.
The Fighter gets to dodge 1-11, deflect 12-15 using a breastplate, at role of 14 hits the armor for 1 point of damage instead of 5 so the character is no closer to death and the armor barely feels the damage.
If the Fighter is tanking for fight with multiple deflections then it still can take basically 5 times the damage per hit to the armor up to 28 times before taking any damage... That's the same as having 140 temporary hit points before taking damage from the same blow. Now the at the same time the Mage is casting spells with materials without a focus both the Mage and the Fighter will be paying to keep up their combat pace every few fights. The fighter did his job and the mage did his, and the armor could easily make the difference in the fight.

A brand new breast plate is 400gp, As single Chromatic Orb cost 50gp with or without a focus and they have 2 spell slots at level 1 so possible 100gp per battle. So if they go through 4 battles before they repair and replenish they are at the same cost.

So For a mage do his best at his job in the game he will constantly be spending money to do his job as many of the good spells have cost materials that the rules do not let you void with a focus but a fighter doing his job has a one time buy that never fades or takes damage? It seems like a fighter doing his job of taking hits encoring a cost only sets the playing field closer to your wizard. I mean your not going to argue that a level 1 fighter should be hurt by the same requirement to us up a 50gp to swing his sword but your going to except the loss of wizards to cast spells on the same comparison?

Chromatic orb does not consume its material component.