D&D 5E Armor as Damage Reduction

[77IM]

You are still subtracting twice (or 3x depending on how you want to look at it) in almost all cases. If a bugbear hits you for 8 damage, you subtract 3 from the armor pool, you then subtract 3 from the 8 damage, and then subtract 5 from your hit points. I don't see how this is faster than DR (subtract 3 from the 8 and subtract 5 from HP). Your system is at least as long, if not longer, to resolve.

Then I'm explaining it wrong. The armor pool grows by level, and disappears when used up. In your example, now that the damage has exceeded the armor pool, those 3 points are used up, and you don't have to subtract them any more until the end of your next short rest. Or, to change your example a little, suppose you're 6th level and your armor pool is 18 points; that bugbear hit reduces your armor pool to 10, and no further subtraction is required. In fact you could take another such hit (reducing armor pool to 2) without further subtraction. It's pretty much armor-as-temporary-hit-points, or armor-as-diviner-arcane-ward.

 

[dave2008]

Then I'm explaining it wrong. The armor pool grows by level, and disappears when used up. In your example, now that the damage has exceeded the armor pool, those 3 points are used up, and you don't have to subtract them any more until the end of your next short rest. Or, to change your example a little, suppose you're 6th level and your armor pool is 18 points; that bugbear hit reduces your armor pool to 10, and no further subtraction is required. In fact you could take another such hit (reducing armor pool to 2) without further subtraction. It's pretty much armor-as-temporary-hit-points, or armor-as-diviner-arcane-ward.

Got it - I definitely didn't get that from the initial post. That is definitely more of "D&D" way to do it.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

How does that logic apply to an ogre with a big club? They probably aren't ignoring your armored parts, and are just hitting you as hard as possible. Or when you're fighting an earth elemental, it might not have any weak spots, so the only strategy left is to just hit it as hard as possible.

I mean, I get that armor-as-avoidance makes some sense for humans fighting each other, but that kind of combat isn't always the focus of these games.

Why did you quote the first paragraph of my post instead of the second one which talks about the EXACT THING that you are questioning about?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why did you quote the first paragraph of my post instead of the second one which talks about the EXACT THING that you are questioning about?

Good question, although that still doesn't address the issue of monsters who don't have weak points.

If you ignore the fact that real-world swordfighting involves aiming for gaps between their armor, and just treat everyone like a rock monster, the model is at least consistent.

 

[mellored]

IMO, I would just put it all together. It works out pretty well.

1d20+weapon+Str/Dex+proficiency - AC.

So if you rolled 11 on the d20, and a 4 on the d8 (plus 3 str, plus 2 proficiency) would do 20 damage.
Minus 16 AC from chain would be 4 damage.

Edit: which is basically what Edwin said.

 

[dave2008]

IMO, I would just put it all together. It works out pretty well.

1d20+weapon+Str/Dex+proficiency - AC.

So if you rolled 11 on the d20, and a 4 on the d8 (plus 3 str, plus 2 proficiency) would do 20 damage.
Minus 16 AC from chain would be 4 damage.

Edit: which is basically what Edwin said.

Well, you said it much more clearly then,; I didn't get that from Edwin's suggestion. I think I really like this idea, I will need to discuss it with my group. I like that the to-hit roll effects damage.

Of course this would mess with some reactions. I guess you just add the maralith's "parry" AC to the defense total and get 0 damage from the attack above. That makes sense. I think this could work.

 

[TallIan]

I've played systems where armour is a damage reduction mechanic and liked it. I used to feel that this would be a good thing to carry over to DnD until someone explained the AC like this:

It is a damage reduction system, it's just that it either reduces ALL the damage or none of it. So AC 10 + Dex (+ Wis) is your ”dodge" were the attacker misses completely, and any AC above that, from armour, is where the attacker hits your armour.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

 

[CapnZapp]

I've been using armor as DC with one of my groups since 4e. In 5e we currently use the AC-10 of the armor as DR. So plate is DR 8. Then add +1 DR for each magical +1 (nice bonus is magical armor doesn't break BA this way).

AC is unchanged, but you don't add (incorporate) armor to it, except as a penalty. -1 for light, -2 for medium, and -3 for heavy. Proficiency in the armor negates the penalty for light and medium and reduces heavy to a -1 penalty. It works for us.

I am honestly surprised.

I would have thought this makes (heavy) armor way too good, as in "nobody in their right mind doesn't wear the heaviest armor she can get hold of".

(Of course, if your group is okay with characters skewing away from low-armored high-Dex builds and the classes that rely on them, that's another matter)

I would have thought Jasper's suggestion ("Light DR 1, Medium DR 2, Heavy DR 3") would be closer to how good you could make 5E (and d20) armor (if the idea is to keep the class balance as is)...?

 

[Blue]

IMO, I would just put it all together. It works out pretty well.

1d20+weapon+Str/Dex+proficiency - AC.

So if you rolled 11 on the d20, and a 4 on the d8 (plus 3 str, plus 2 proficiency) would do 20 damage.
Minus 16 AC from chain would be 4 damage.

Edit: which is basically what Edwin said.

Edwin still has that you need to clear the AC to hit. So if a monster has an AC of 16 a final result of 1-15 is a miss. Looking above, it looks like it's just a reduction in damage. Is this what you intended, or does it still need to hit first?

 

[CapnZapp]

I'd love to see armor as damage reduction. But doing so is becomes a game balance and complexity issue. How complex do you want to make combat? You'll still need to adjudicate how hard it is to hit a creature. Is that now based on comparing martial skill, circumstances, corresponding attack/defense modes and battlefield conditions? Do varying armors provide sliding DR for varying damage types? Does it degrade with repeated damage?

The thing that appeals to me most about 5e is it's design simplicity and elegance. You can accomplish a lot of varied activities in a satisfying manner with it and it flows quickly. It's not something I want to sacrifice for more 'realism', though it something I'd love to see implemented some day.

I have put a lot of thought into armor as DR, and my ultimate conclusion is that it simply doesn't add anything... to a game with levels and loads of hit points.

A game where you, say, start out with 15 hp because you have 15 Constitution, and where you end up much later still with 15 hp (or perhaps 20 or 25) even after dozens of adventures, there armor as DR works, and might even be necessary. (Do note that D&D can be said to be such a game during perhaps the the first three levels, but no more).

But in D&D, it changes too much of the many small vs few big attacks. Except for the very lowest levels, I have found that keeping AC as is yields the superior experience: in speed and simplicity of play, and in actual verisimiltude results as well (when you look at a whole combat and not individual strikes).