Armor as DR

[GMMichael]

Good points.

I disagree that weapons do not contribute. Certainly it's harder to get a good hit on a person armed with a sword than one who is not armed, if they can block or parry with their sword or if that sword is a threat to the attacker. I suppose the effect of weapon might be insignificant, or at least smaller, in combination with a shield. Perhaps where Sadrik had +2 for a sword, +3 for sword alone, it should be +1 for sword, +2 if it's the only thing held, and shield at +3 or +4 makes for sword and shield parry at +4 or +5.

Weapons shouldn't contribute to parrying bonuses because their design is offensive, while the shield's is defensive. If you are able to parry with your weapon, it's because you have training in the skill of parrying. So, weapon parry bonuses can be redundant.

please elaborate on this point about the definition of hit points.

For 5th edition, hit points are significantly different than those in previous editions. In particular, 5e makes significant effort to reduce numbers and math. Hit points aren't lower than in previous editions, but everything else is. One consequence is that hit points are the major feature of high-level characters.

What's the difference between high- and low-level characters? Do all high-level characters have dragon hide and massive bodies? No, the main difference is that high-level characters are hard to kill.

A little rearranging gives you: hit points = hard to kill, not durability.

 

[Sadrik]

Coincidentally, recently I encountered the assertion that the axe was a poor defensive weapon.
Should that difference affect the parry bonus? Perhaps the swords get +2, axes and other hafted melee weapons (axes, maces, hammers) get +1 or even 0?

I agree with this and this was the intent - make certain weapons and items more and less defensively attuned. So a longsword vs a battleaxe might be:
Longsword 1d8, +2 Parry, slashing/piercing
Battleaxe 1d10, +1 Parry, slashing

Of course that is how I would do it if I were rewriting the weapon list. As is you just tack on a Parry score based on what I had previously provided.

Shield Parry +4
Pole weapon Parry +3
Melee weapon Parry +2
Small melee weapon Parry +1
Ranged weapon Parry +0

I see that the "easier to be hit" is reflected in your penalties to parry for medium and heavy armors, and apparently the parry penalty you give medium and heavy armor replaces the cap on dexterity modifier in the rules? (since you later state that heavy armor still gets a DEX, in contrast to the armor table (in the Basic rules) showing that heavy armor AC is not affected by dexterity modifier).

Yes I believe caps are bad. instead it should be modified in this way it does not limit the exceptions. If you have heavy armor on you should always be dragged down by it. Not only in certain instances of high DEX, or inthe case of 5e heavy armor in instances of low DEX.

I prefer that the weight and bulk of armor affects the dexterity modifier to defense (whether "Armor Class" or your "Parry") rather than caps that modifier or causes it to be ignored. Using a penalty rather than a cap will mean that every character is easier to hit when it is in heavy armor than when it is not, and that increasing dexterity will always benefit defense, regardless of armor worn. The dexterity 18 fighter in heavy chain or plate should more adroitly dodge blows than the dexterity 10 fighter in the same armor.

I do too. I would institute encumbrance as the factor for the parry penalty and the factor for the perhaps lowering movement rate. This is however a little further from where the game is currently written. You could do both and you only tae the most extreme

regarding the modification to parry bonus when it's the only item in one's hands:
I do think the X1.5, round down rule for held items looks more appropriate than doubling.

Yes if you have two items they stack. I suppose if you had more arms you could only pick your two best items though. I think if you only have one item in hand you could just give a blanket +1 too. In this way it removes the x1.5 and makes it pretty easy.

So a couple of examples:
You only have a shield out. Your parry is 15+DEX
You only have a greatsword out. Your parry is 13+DEX
You have shield and longsword out. Your parry is 16+DEX
You have a longbow out. Your parry is 11+DEX

Shield Parry +4
Pole weapon Parry +3
Melee weapon Parry +2
Small melee weapon Parry +1
Ranged weapon Parry +0

Seems reasonable that the parry modifier for weapon size could simply offset a creature size modifier to AC/parry. Except size modifiers surely are already built into the stat blocks, so adding additional parry for this proposal would be appropriate - unless one decides the current AC also accounts for that.

Some complexity is here though.
Suppose each size level adds -1 Parry, but each size level of the weapon adds +1 Parry. These would counteract each other while a weapon is being held only.

Examples:
A large sized ogre gets -1 parry for being large so his base parry would be 8 (10 -1 size -1 DEX). Then if he had a large greatclub that would grant parry +4 (+2 for base, +1 for only one item, +1 for size). So total Parry would be 12. This is 1 point higher than the 11 AC the creature normally has.

What do you think of my observation that the conventional AC may account for the wielding of a melee weapon, which can be accommodated by either:
a) the parry modifier to a weapon should be normalized to 0 for the melee weapons, while small and light weapons (e.g.: dagger) get -1, pole weapons (e.g.: spear, halberd) get +1,
or
b) the base Parry for a human becomes 6, to account for adding both Proficiency and weapon parry bonus.

So the ogre would be -1 while wielding a small weapon and -2 with a bow, +1 with a spear and +2 with a shield. This seems very reasonable. In this method you would never stack items you would only ever take the best defensive item.

For your item b. I do not know what you are referencing. Though I think the proficiency in the weapon is what should grant your parry, so 8+prof+item+size+DEX.

Regarding armor - thanks for clarifying about DR 2,3,4 relating to die size:
Perhaps magic armor bonuses should be considered deflection and therefore modify Parry rather than DR.

If you want to roll dice/have variability in DR, how about d3 for light, d4+1 for medium, d6+2 for heavy to start with?

I think it will be ok to have them add to DR but note that this gives the option for armor to give potentially to either one. So +1 armor might be + 1 DR armor or +1 Parry armor.

Dice for DR I would only use that if the damage rolls are averaged. So longsword does 4+STR, then you roll your armor's DR to reduce the damage.

As far as HP lasting too long - this is of course going to depend on the specific DR value(s) and on the nature of attacks the characters suffer in the campaign. The math has to work differently if we simply translate a fixed AC to a fixed DR.

One possible mitigation for the fact that armor-as-DR doesn't reduce hit probability, so in this system armor helps less than AC against high-damage attacks: perhaps DR can be proportional to proficiency bonus?

A possible solution is to drop all HD by one die type. so d4 for wizards, d6 for clerics and rogues, and d8 for fighters. In this way the DR is accounted without potentially lengthening an encounter.

The intent too is that this would make things easier to hit in general because AC is now based on what you are holding not what you are wearing. So many character types archers in combat, spellcasters in combat and monks trying to punch a knight will all be more easily hit because they are not afforded the same level of protection as someone with sword and shield. This means that being hit more often translates to more damage being dealt.

Agreed that "parrying" is a skill, but I think [MENTION=14506]Sadrik[/MENTION]'s "Parry" refers to defense in general rather than solely to parrying action.
I disagree that weapons do not contribute. Certainly it's harder to get a good hit on a person armed with a sword than one who is not armed, if they can block or parry with their sword or if that sword is a threat to the attacker. I suppose the effect of weapon might be insignificant, or at least smaller, in combination with a shield. Perhaps where Sadrik had +2 for a sword, +3 for sword alone, it should be +1 for sword, +2 if it's the only thing held, and shield at +3 or +4 makes for sword and shield parry at +4 or +5.
Yes, but if one is "swinging" a two hand weapon, one is not defending oneself with that weapon except for the possibly significant factor of intimidation. Keep the weapon between one and one's attacker, now it's defending one - while also threatening, if it's pointy, and such a threatening weapon's length might function to keep the opponent out of range to make an effective strike.

Conceptually nailed it.

that depends how rules heavy ones wants to get. Why can't or shouldn't one assign a static defense value to different weapons depending on any of several factors, such as speed, reach, type (polearm, sword, hafted...) and an assumption of training?

I think this does add a little bit of change but it is not that much more difficult to master at the table. Players would ask what they are wielding to determine their relative chances to hit it rather than what type of armor they are wearing. Armor would determine how easily damaged... Overall this is certainly not rules heavy inasmuch as D&D is not rules heavy already.

what about increased vulnerability to higher level high-damage attacks making DR seem pointless?

I think this is where magic items come in. They might increase the DR of the armor you are wearing. Potentially adamantine +3 Plate might give you DR10 (5+3+2).



There is one other concern. That is Parry is for melee attacks. When someone shoots a bow you do not parry the arrow with your sword (without supernatural effort). So, what should the "AC" computation be for ranged attacks? perhaps take 10 on your dex save? Perhaps simply 10+DEX+size+armor penalty?

 

[BigVanVader]

I think wearing full plate should make you immune to slashing damage, full stop. If your character only has a sword, and the big bad villain is in full plate, you're in trouble.

Unless, of course, your character half-swords and can get the edge of his sword into the weak points of the armor. Which might leave you with even more math to figure out. But it would still be cool to attempt.

 

[Sadrik]

I think wearing full plate should make you immune to slashing damage, full stop. If your character only has a sword, and the big bad villain is in full plate, you're in trouble.

Unless, of course, your character half-swords and can get the edge of his sword into the weak points of the armor. Which might leave you with even more math to figure out. But it would still be cool to attempt.

This is a doable system. You just have to have a called shot system in play.

Also I don't thing plate should make you immune to damage, I can see if you wanted to model combat like that you could increase the DR of of plate to slashing damage (and potentially other types of damage as well), perhaps +5 DR vs. slashing and fire, and -5 vs electrical and thunder (or whatever seems appropriate). Then with a called shot system you just add a penalty to avoid the bonus DR.

 

[Orich Starkhart]

Good points.

Thanks.

Weapons shouldn't contribute to parrying bonuses because their design is offensive, while the shield's is defensive.

Logical, but not entirely convincing: Items can be useful for purposes other than those for which they were designed/intended.

If you are able to parry with your weapon, it's because you have training in the skill of parrying. So, weapon parry bonuses can be redundant.

Redundant with what, in the D&D 5 system? Is there a parry skill, or action/reaction? I have access only to the Basic rules at the moment; in those there is Dodge, but no explicit parry action or skill. I supposed the redundancy is with the per-level increase in hit points? BY that logic, I propose that consistency demands that the Dexterity modifier should affect hit points per level, instead of AC.

For 5th edition, hit points are significantly different than those in previous editions. In particular, 5e makes significant effort to reduce numbers and math. Hit points aren't lower than in previous editions, but everything else is.

So, your position is that the changes in effective attack bonus and AC, associated with "bounded accuracy", change the nature of hit points? I don't see it; the pool of hit points represent, as far as I can tell, mostly the same thing they did in previous editions, and it always was something common to all characters.

A little rearranging gives you: hit points = hard to kill, not durability.

Rearranging of what? A paragraph in the Basic rules claims that hit points represent both "hard to kill" and "durability". How are these different, or in conflict, in your view?

 

[GMMichael]

Redundant with what, in the D&D 5 system? Is there a parry skill, or action/reaction? I have access only to the Basic rules at the moment; in those there is Dodge, but no explicit parry action or skill.

So, your position is that the changes in effective attack bonus and AC, associated with "bounded accuracy", change the nature of hit points? I don't see it; the pool of hit points represent, as far as I can tell, mostly the same thing they did in previous editions, and it always was something common to all characters.

A parry bonus from a weapon would be redundant with ranks (outdated term?) in a parry skill. Although Sadrik may have defined them otherwise, I'd prefer to see:
Parry skill: one's ability to avoid taking damage.
Weapon parry bonus: an increased ability to avoid damage due to the design of a weapon.

If we can agree on this, then a parrying dagger, certain hilts, and a rapier (used in a duel) might be worth parry points. But really, since damage can come from a giant fist, 20' long tentacle, or dragon claws, I don't see how the above tools would make a difference. At least, not like a shield would.

Re: new hit points: yup, bounded accuracy and magic item limits turn hit points into an epic-ness meter. In 3rd edition, you could take a two-handed weapon, power attack, high strength, and a good +3 or +4 magic bonus to deal 25+ damage in one hit. That's not likely in 5th edition. Yet, hit points look like they climb just as high, and starting hit points are even higher (at least for the fragile classes).

In 3rd, your ability to kill your enemy scaled with your level and the difficulty of the enemy - as enemy hit points increased, so did your damage ability. In 5th, your damage output isn't scaling as much. Something has changed from previous editions.

 

[Orich Starkhart]

Sadrik -
Good to know I'm grasping what you're proposing.

A few comments on a couple items:

Some complexity is here though.
Suppose each size level adds -1 Parry, but each size level of the weapon adds +1 Parry. These would counteract each other while a weapon is being held only.

Examples:
A large sized ogre gets -1 parry for being large so his base parry would be 8 (10 -1 size -1 DEX). Then if he had a large greatclub that would grant parry +4 (+2 for base, +1 for only one item, +1 for size). So total Parry would be 12. This is 1 point higher than the 11 AC the creature normally has.

The Ogre in the DM Basic rules wears hide armor and has a -1 dexterity modifier. I surmise that the stated AC11 assumes other factors, since Hide on a human would be AC11 absent other modifiers, and taking one away for dexterity should bring the character back to AC10.

So the ogre would be -1 while wielding a small weapon and -2 with a bow, +1 with a spear and +2 with a shield. This seems very reasonable. In this method you would never stack items you would only ever take the best defensive item.

Why no stacking? Usually not a problem, as many weapons would provide no modifier to parry, but if some weapon has +1 and the character wielding it also uses a shield they should get the benefit. Also note, if the base AC10 assumes the person is armed, then lacking a weapon implies -2 to parry, which could be made up by the bonus for carrying a shield alone.

For your item b. I do not know what you are referencing. Though I think the proficiency in the weapon is what should grant your parry, so 8+prof+item+size+DEX.

As it stands, your proposal grants an across-the-board increase to defense in melee. I was suggesting that perhaps the baseline AC10 should be assumed to include a melee weapon defense - while we also have to assume that AC10 does not include a shield, since that grants separate +2 to AC in the unmodified D&D 5 rules. In order to accommodate Proficiency in the equation, you reduced the base "Parry" number from 10 to 8, so if it's appropriate to assume the AC10 medium size opponent is armed, the base needs further reduction to 6, unless what's desired upon introduction of "Parry" is generally increased defense, in trade for moving all armor to DR. The unarmored character armed with a longsword had AC = 10+ dexterity modifier, with Parry based at 8, now it has Parry = 8 + prof + weapon parry bonus + dexterity modifier. Level 1-4 average dexterity person, unarmored and armed with longsword was AC10, becomes Parry 12 or 13 under Sadrik's Armor as DR and Parry

regarding magic armor:

I think it will be ok to have them add to DR but note that this gives the option for armor to give potentially to either one. So +1 armor might be + 1 DR armor or +1 Parry armor.

potential for interesting differences here

A possible solution is to drop all HD by one die type. so d4 for wizards, d6 for clerics and rogues, and d8 for fighters. In this way the DR is accounted without potentially lengthening an encounter.

this change could alleviate a problem with low quantity damage attacks becoming mostly irrelevant to well-armored characters, at the expense of making the non-armor wearing classes more vulnerable too.

Regarding the point I raised about high damage attacks trivializing DR:

I think this is where magic items come in. They might increase the DR of the armor you are wearing. Potentially adamantine +3 Plate might give you DR10 (5+3+2).

Okay.

There is one other concern. That is Parry is for melee attacks. When someone shoots a bow you do not parry the arrow with your sword (without supernatural effort). So, what should the "AC" computation be for ranged attacks? perhaps take 10 on your dex save? Perhaps simply 10+DEX+size+armor penalty?

It should be whatever it is, less the weapons bonus, with provision for the possibility for applying all or part of the bonus, perhaps for different bonus, dependent on especially fine reflexes and perception.

I think wearing full plate should make you immune to slashing damage, full stop. If your character only has a sword, and the big bad villain is in full plate, you're in trouble.

Unless, of course, your character half-swords and can get the edge of his sword into the weak points of the armor. Which might leave you with even more math to figure out. But it would still be cool to attempt.

I agree, with the clarification that half-swording is a thrusting (piercing damage) attack

This is a doable system. You just have to have a called shot system in play.

Also I don't thing plate should make you immune to damage, I can see if you wanted to model combat like that you could increase the DR of of plate to slashing damage (and potentially other types of damage as well), perhaps +5 DR vs. slashing and fire, and -5 vs electrical and thunder (or whatever seems appropriate). Then with a called shot system you just add a penalty to avoid the bonus DR.

One system I read about called that penalty "armor bypass". I suppose materials and workmanship would affect the bypass value, though in D&D 5 it might be appropriate to attack with disadvantage to model the attempt to bypass armor.

OS

 

[Sadrik]

If we can agree on this, then a parrying dagger, certain hilts, and a rapier (used in a duel) might be worth parry points. But really, since damage can come from a giant fist, 20' long tentacle, or dragon claws, I don't see how the above tools would make a difference. At least, not like a shield would.

This approaches the a castle wall falls does it have to roll to hit you? No likely you make a DEX save to avoid it hitting you. When very large creatures attack it feels like it should be an area attack. Then you have to dodge it.

A large sized ogre gets -1 parry for being large so his base parry would be 8 (10 -1 size -1 DEX). Then if he had a large greatclub that would grant parry +4 (+2 for base, +1 for only one item, +1 for size). So total Parry would be 12. This is 1 point higher than the 11 AC the creature normally has.

The Ogre in the DM Basic rules wears hide armor and has a -1 dexterity modifier. I surmise that the stated AC11 assumes other factors, since Hide on a human would be AC11 absent other modifiers, and taking one away for dexterity should bring the character back to AC10.

Ah I missed this they have Hide (Medium armor) and so this would have reduced their parry by 1 again making them have 11 AC, the same AC they have in the book. I also did base 10 rather than 8+proficiency in the computation.
With proficiency Ogre Parry would be:
8 -1(DEX) -1(Medium armor) -1(size) +3(Proficiency 7HD) +4(Greatclub +2 base, +1 for single item, +1 for size) = DC 12 to hit if he dropped the club he would be DC 8 to hit. This method is if the proficiency gives the character their defensive training.
Alternatively the proficiency bonus could be linked to the proficiency in the weapon. Which someone proposed.
8 -1(DEX) -1(Medium armor) -1(size) +7(Greatclub +2 base, +1 for single item, +1 for size, +3 for Proficiency and 7HD) = DC 12 to hit if he dropped the club he would be DC 5 to hit.

What do you think of my observation that the conventional AC may account for the wielding of a melee weapon, which can be accommodated by either:
a) the parry modifier to a weapon should be normalized to 0 for the melee weapons, while small and light weapons (e.g.: dagger) get -1, pole weapons (e.g.: spear, halberd) get +1,

So the ogre would be -1 while wielding a small weapon and -2 with a bow, +1 with a spear and +2 with a shield. This seems very reasonable. In this method you would never stack items you would only ever take the best defensive item.

Why no stacking? Usually not a problem, as many weapons would provide no modifier to parry, but if some weapon has +1 and the character wielding it also uses a shield they should get the benefit. Also note, if the base AC10 assumes the person is armed, then lacking a weapon implies -2 to parry, which could be made up by the bonus for carrying a shield alone.

This is a tangent to tacking these modifiers onto the standard AC rules to generate a similar feel to what I was proposing but not what I proposed as my idea above.

The unarmored character armed with a longsword had AC = 10+ dexterity modifier, with Parry based at 8, now it has Parry = 8 + prof + weapon parry bonus + dexterity modifier. Level 1-4 average dexterity person, unarmored and armed with longsword was AC10, becomes Parry 12 or 13 under Sadrik's Armor as DR and Parry

This is all true.
Though I think it might make more sense to have two values.
Defense (8+Prof+DEX+size-Armor) used when you wield nothing or are attacked with a ranged attack.
Parry (Defense+weapon+size) used while in melee combat.

One system I read about called that penalty "armor bypass". I suppose materials and workmanship would affect the bypass value, though in D&D 5 it might be appropriate to attack with disadvantage to model the attempt to bypass armor.

I got my DMG today and there is no DR per say in there, however, there is a damage threshold rule for tough objects. It is immune to damage from a single attack up to a certain amount of damage. Then if you equal or exceed it takes full damage from the attack.

To align the DR with this Damage Threshold what would have to happen?

 

[Orich Starkhart]

A parry bonus from a weapon would be redundant with ranks (outdated term?) in a parry skill.

True, if we had a system that implemented such a skill. But D&D 5 doesn't seem to, and [MENTION=14506]Sadrik[/MENTION] didn't propose such a thing.

Although Sadrik may have defined them otherwise, I'd prefer to see:
Parry skill: one's ability to avoid taking damage.
Weapon parry bonus: an increased ability to avoid damage due to the design of a weapon.

Sure. Would you like to start a thread to develop this idea and how it would fit into combat in D&D 5 - or any other D&D?

You have a point that parrying with a melee weapon doesn't seem like it would be effective at all against a huge giant's fist, a tentacle, or dragon claws. Your parry skill would apply only against an attack that can be parried/blocked with an object - and yes, I agree, sometimes a shield could have effect when a weapon would not. Perhaps each step of size reduces the parry bonus - so parrying at +2 against other medium creatures' weapons becomes +0 against huge ones. Or, one can parry only up to one size larger, and that at a penalty. Perhaps there's a bonus against weapons of small size, especially wielded by creatures of a size smaller than the defender.

I see the sort of defense bonus proposed by Sadrik as related to both a weapon's abilities to
a) be used defensively to parry and block, maybe even just be an obstruction, and
b) pose a counter-threat to the attacker.
It's probably still appropriate to allow size differences to counter both of these - the Frost Giant above will find the human's longsword (much?) less of a threat than another human would.

Hit points are an "epic-ness meter". I like it.

OS

 

[GMMichael]

True, if we had a system that implemented such a skill. But D&D 5 doesn't seem to, and [MENTION=14506]Sadrik[/MENTION] didn't propose such a thing.

Yeah I thought about adding in the proficiency bonus to the mix. Makes sense to do so.

Perhaps it could be:
8 + Prof + DEX + Parry

Talking 5e, right? In which your armor class is a fixed number that your armor gives you, plus a DEX bonus? And your DEX save is your proficiency bonus plus your DEX bonus?

Here's a look behind the curtain, gang. AC is a skill. Dex saves are a skill. And I'm using the 3.5 definition. So, where are the skill ranks? They're the proficiency bonus.

AC = defense skill, but instead of proficiency, you use your armor points. Furthermore, every d20 roll for AC is 10. Check with Unearthed Arcana: AC can be run with a die instead of a fixed number.

DEX save = defense skill, by 5e definitions. This one increases with proficiency instead of armor type.

One of Sadrik's proposals
Parry class = 8 + Prof + DEX + Parry
Which is a hybrid between AC and Dex save.

This approaches the a castle wall falls does it have to roll to hit you? No likely you make a DEX save to avoid it hitting you.

An interesting question given HP's new role. There are three game-rule outcomes:

1. The wall deals no damage.
2. The wall deals some damage, but you don't drop to zero HP.
3. The wall deals damage and you drop to zero HP.

Of these outcomes, only one has an in-game effect: character death. So what, exactly, is the difference between outcomes 1 and 2? Which defense skills, AC, Save, or Parry, apply to each? And if hit points are not required to represent injuries, why does option 1 exist?