D&D 5E Armor house rule

[NotAYakk]

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.

In 5e damage per tap usually scales slower than damage.

Heavy Armor would be useless against a T-Rex bite, but strong against a similar CR creature that attacked 4x.

The issue is that for it to balance, it needs to be taken into account. And 5e does not.

Look at SC for a game where armormas DR is a core balance factor; low damage fast taps and slow taps with high damage and armor levels are a core part of the rock-paper-scissors balance of the game.

Retrofitting this into a game is going to have issues tho.

 

[dave2008]

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.

Will video evidence suffice? Or do you need more than that?

Here is the video for the Shining Knight (you need netflix). Where they demonstrate armor could withstand a musket. PS this armor predates Napoleon by about 200 years if I remember correctly

Here is video where a long bow fails to penetrate a breastplate: longbow vs breastplate
Here is another one: arrows vs armor

Here is a video of a crossbow vs breastplate

There are more videos on the topic, but they basically agree from a material analysis and historical evidence perspective. Armor could withstand a longbow and a gun, if built well

 

[DND_Reborn]

The other problem with many videos is they have the armor braced, so when it is struck there is no give. This does not represent how people in armor would actually take a hit. Now, the better videos have the armor on a mechanism that will move with the hit. In such videos, rarely does the weapon penetrate far, if at all.

 

[dave2008]

The other problem with many videos is they have the armor braced, so when it is struck there is no give. This does not represent how people in armor would actually take a hit. Now, the better videos have the armor on a mechanism that will move with the hit. In such videos, rarely does the weapon penetrate far, if at all.

You can see in the links above both examples, and neither case did the arrow penetrate.

 

[Fanaelialae]

In 5e damage per tap usually scales slower than damage.

Heavy Armor would be useless against a T-Rex bite, but strong against a similar CR creature that attacked 4x.

The issue is that for it to balance, it needs to be taken into account. And 5e does not.

Look at SC for a game where armormas DR is a core balance factor; low damage fast taps and slow taps with high damage and armor levels are a core part of the rock-paper-scissors balance of the game.

Retrofitting this into a game is going to have issues tho.

Sure, that's another relevant factor. However, even if you controlled for that (let's say, increasing the CR of hard hitting single attackers, for example) you'd still have the other issues I mentioned.

Plus, in the system where light armor grants AC, while heavy grants DR, you now have the issue that those single hitters have a significantly overinflated CR against light armor users (because AC scales equally well against the heavy hitter and the multi attacker, while DR doesn't).

I agree that you can certainly design a system based around armor as DR that works well. As you say, 5e simply wasn't designed that way.

DR is fine in 5e when it is additive, such as that granted from the heavy armor mastery feat. It's better at low levels than high, but since wearing plate still probably gives you the best AC you could have at any given level, it doesn't really matter that the value of the DR falls off at higher levels. The DR in that case is merely the cherry on top. The armor is still worth wearing whether you have the feat or not.

 

[Larnievc]

Every time I start thing about this I end up thinking about an armour save with the DC as the damage dealt and the Save bonus scaled to the normal AC -5 (or what ever you feel is right for armour in your game.

So if you get hit by a great sword for 11 damage and the wear plate armour (+8) your save bonus would be +3.

If you save you take no damage. Adjust the numbers to suit your style of game.

It’s an extra roll every hit but that’s the complexity/pseudo realism trade off.