D&D 5E Armor house rule

[Oofta]

Nonsense. I've shot black powder since the 70s. Even Napoleonic era breastplates couldn't withstand a direct hit; they were intended as protection from edged weapons, although curvature could deflect a glancing hit.

Longbows where known to have drilled through armor and wearer and emerge out the other side. I've a longbow, and know it's penetration (Even though I'm a poor archer).

So no, I don't believe it, because I know better. Try reading Thordeman's 'Armor of the Battle of Wisby' which is a basic primer for the interaction of armor and weapons, and then move forward.

What type of armor? Breastplate worn by the common foot soldier? Reinforced plate that could protect from a musket at 20 feet? What kind of bow and what range?

There are too many variables to make a blanket statement.

 

[jmartkdr2]

If I were to give armor DR, I'd make it a small enough number that even weak enemies could generally get through it a little, or just make the minimum damage on a hit 1 instead of zero. I like the "heavy armor is 13-15 AC and DR 1-3" option the best for this reason.

Done right, heavy armor should actually scale better than it does in the current rules.

 

[Jd Smith1]

What type of armor? Breastplate worn by the common foot soldier? Reinforced plate that could protect from a musket at 20 feet? What kind of bow and what range?

There are too many variables to make a blanket statement.

Copies of a variety of armors, made with better steel than they had back then. My longbow is a class stick bow with a hundred pound draw. Using a bodkin point it can punch through a breastplate and a half-frozen turkey.

 

[Oofta]

Copies of a variety of armors, made with better steel than they had back then. My longbow is a class stick bow with a hundred pound draw. Using a bodkin point it can punch through a breastplate and a half-frozen turkey.

There are plenty of videos, not to mention a recent documentary on Amazon Prime documentary where they proved that a common soldier breastplate could easily be pierced by a musket where a well made reinforced armor was barely dented.

But I see there's no point, you've made up your mind. Have a good one.

 

[Jd Smith1]

There are plenty of videos, not to mention a recent documentary on Amazon Prime documentary where they proved that a common soldier breastplate could easily be pierced by a musket where a well made reinforced armor was barely dented.

But I see there's no point, you've made up your mind. Have a good one.

And a good day to you, too.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

How would armor as DR not completely nullify monsters that only do small amounts of damage or favor single hit monsters vs multi-hit monsters of the same CR?

It depends entirely on the DR values - also the temp HP idea solves this neatly. DR of 3 or the like won't nullify low end monsters any more than AC20 or 22 does right now. I think them hitting more often with the proposed lower AC will quickly even things out perhaps even make things worse for PCs.

I agree that this sort of thing rarely ends well though, especially as so many beings have AC from slightly unclear sources so you then either have a weird deal where only humanoids have DR or a massive task of adjusting ACs and giving DRs to the entire MM! Best to leave well enough alone.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There are plenty of videos, not to mention a recent documentary on Amazon Prime documentary where they proved that a common soldier breastplate could easily be pierced by a musket where a well made reinforced armor was barely dented.

But I see there's no point, you've made up your mind. Have a good one.

Yeah that's where "bullet-proof" literally comes from - Renaissance breastplates which were tested against black powder weapons.

 

[Horwath]

Armor in D&D is written in perfection in simplicity model.

One variable only, and it works.

More armor means more parts of the body are immune/resistant to weapon attacks(and some spells).

more armor, better protection.

more attack, better at aiming for the gaps in armor. And ALL armor has gaps.

Now, we can add that blunt weapons are more effective vs armor but that is needless complication.

But, IE if you attack a guy in plate; AC18, attack roll 18 or more is hit, attack 10-17 means that you hit the target but you hit on the plate. attack 9 or lower means complete miss(3E touch AC).
If you hit "touch AC" we can argue about dealing fraction of the damage as some amount of force is being trasferred to the body under the armor.

But then we would have to add weapon specific attack bonuses, as sword is more precise than a hammer, weapon speed modifiers(in a turn based game is really hard to balance, maybe look at PF2ndEd for MAP).


anyway, whole lot of problems for limited possible benefit.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Mixing armor as AC and armor as DR is a tricky proposition.

AC helps you avoid attacks entirely, including effects inflicted by those attacks. DR may reduce damage, but it doesn't include the latter, which makes it significantly less valuable. The armor isn't worth much if the cockatrice turns you to stone with ease, for example.

Additionally, damage scales dramatically as level increases, meaning that in order to keep the reduction relevant, DR needs to scale. 5 DR is quite significant at level 1, where an average hit might deal around 8 damage (62.5% reduction). It's virtually negligible at level 15, when an average hit is probably more like 30 damage (only 16.7%). (Granted, AC is also less relevant at higher level, but not to such a dramatic extent in most cases.)

It might not be a bad house rule for a swashbuckling oriented campaign, where the option to wear heavy armor might exist but be discouraged. But if you want the options to be balanced (or heavy armor to be superior) then flat DR with low AC isn't really going to cut it, IMO.

 

[DND_Reborn]

My players are very happy with 5e, but they are not pleased with the armor system. If you get hit, it doesn't matter at all whether you wear armor or not.

I was thinking of a house rule where heavy armor was fairly easy to hit (because the weight and reduced vision), but it soaks damage. Say AC 14-15.

Light armor would be harder to hit (the defender can feint, dodge, and maneuver) but it soaks very little. Say AC 20-22.

I'm still pondering shields. Historically, a medium shield was both a parrying device and a weapon.

Well, as you say, "If you get hit, it doesn't matter at all whether you wear armor or not."

Except, getting hit is where the armor helps you. But armor and AC aren't about getting hit, they are about avoiding damage. In D&D better protection (i.e. higher AC) means less damage, which is basically their version of the soak. It is pretty abstract, really, and I explain to new players that simply because you failed to beat the AC, there was still a good chance you "hit" and made physical contact.

Heavy armor, despite the weight, was well-balanced and still allowed a great level of maneuverability. You could move, duck, dodge, feint, etc. just about as well as you could in light armor. The only reasons people wore lighter armors was because they were cheaper and easier to manufacture.

Light armor does allow someone to use all their DEX, so in that sense they are harder to hit and damage.

Your idea of getting light armor up to AC 20+ is pretty high IMO. If you insist on doing it, I would suggest the following system:

Unarmored or Light Armor: You add double your DEX modifier to your AC. DR 1 point.
Medium Armor: You can add up to your full DEX modifier to your AC. DR 2 points.
Heavy Armor: You can add up to half (round down) your DEX modifier to AC. DR 4 points.

This will raise ACs quite a bit, but that might be more to your liking. Light armors (AC 12 max) with DEX 20, would give AC 22 max. Medium armor (AC 15) with DEX 20 would be AC 20 max. Heavy armor (AC 18) with DEX 20 would also be AC 20 max. The stronger armors offer more DR, so are still worth having.

Another option if you don't want higher ACs in general is this:

All armor values (AC - 10) are divided in half. The larger portion (if unequal) is AC, the smaller portion is DR. Some examples:

Studded Leather (AC 12) becomes AC 11 with 1 DR.
Breastplate (AC 14) becomes AC 12 with 2 DR.
Splint (AC 17) becomes AC 14 and 3 DR.

Normal DEX rules apply (full for Light, +2 max for Medium, none for Heavy).

With max DEX 20, Light armor can give you an AC 16, two points better than Plate or Splint (AC 14). The best medium would give is Half-Plate (AC 13) with +2 DEX would be AC 15. So, Light can be better than both as far as AC is concerned.

This system works well if you want to keep ACs more typical for 5E but desire armor to provide some level of soak or DR.

All shields, not just medium, were used offensively when the chance presented itself.

For shields, we have four variants at our table:
Buckler (AC +1), 1d4 bashing damage if used as an improvised weapon, has the Light property
Normal (AC +2), 1d4 bashing damage

Heavy Shields (requires separate proficiency, STR 13, only Fighters start with it, disadvantage on Stealth):
Kite (AC +3), 1d6 bashing damage
Tower (AC +4), 1d6 basing damage
Characters without STR 13 can use them still, but only gain AC +2.

Anyway, hope some of those ideas help you. Good luck.