D&D 5E Proficiency bonus based AC and armor as temp HP with reduced AC bonus?

[jmartkdr2]

It is an nice thought but IME light armored PCs typically have good (16) to great (20) DEX anyway.

Isn't that because characters without at least a 16 dex never choose to wear light armor?

If you're a great-weapon fighter, you either wear heavy armor or take a major hit to AC under the current rules.

 

[Quartz]

That's an interesting idea, although it makes a Hexblade dip even sweeter for the paladin.

Definitely a combo to consider carefully before allowing.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Isn't that because characters without at least a 16 dex never choose to wear light armor?

If you're a great-weapon fighter, you either wear heavy armor or take a major hit to AC under the current rules.

If you're a great-weapon fighter you are already taking a hit to AC (no shield), and the trade-off is (in theory anyway) the additional damage you inflict.

Now, you can choose to wear medium or heavy armor (AC 17 with half-plate and DEX 14 which is reasonable, or 18 with plate). By contrast, Studded Leather with DEX 14 would be AC 14. Of course 3-4 points lower is a big deal, but again that is supposed of be the trade-off.

This sort of a rule would remove the trade-off, so you could max out AC 18 (eventually... most games don't get this far anyway).

EDIT: This would actually be a better feature for GWF style IMO than the minor bump to damage it offers.

 

[jmartkdr2]

If you're a great-weapon fighter you are already taking a hit to AC (no shield), and the trade-off is (in theory anyway) the additional damage you inflict.

Now, you can choose to wear medium or heavy armor (AC 17 with half-plate and DEX 14 which is reasonable, or 18 with plate). By contrast, Studded Leather with DEX 14 would be AC 14. Of course 3-4 points lower is a big deal, but again that is supposed of be the trade-off.

This sort of a rule would remove the trade-off, so you could max out AC 18 (eventually... most games don't get this far anyway).

EDIT: This would actually be a better feature for GWF style IMO than the minor bump to damage it offers.

That assumes that you have a 14+ dex score - when you're going to be wearing heavy armor anyways, you might have a 10. So now you're dropping to a 14 for scale mail or a 12 for studded leather - those are not small drops, especially since only that 12 (or a 13 with a chain shirt) has any upside (no disadvantage on stealth.) It's only a reasonable trade-off if 3 points of AC is comparable to not having disadvantage on stealth (while the rest of the game prices that at 1 point of AC - and most people don't take it at that cost).

The houserule opens options, which to me is always a good thing.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Definitely a combo to consider carefully before allowing.

It might work okay if you don't get the option as a first-level paladin.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That assumes that you have a 14+ dex score - when you're going to be wearing heavy armor anyways, you might have a 10. So now you're dropping to a 14 for scale mail or a 12 for studded leather - those are not small drops, especially since only that 12 (or a 13 with a chain shirt) has any upside (no disadvantage on stealth.) It's only a reasonable trade-off if 3 points of AC is comparable to not having disadvantage on stealth (while the rest of the game prices that at 1 point of AC - and most people don't take it at that cost).

The houserule opens options, which to me is always a good thing.

But you probably won't have DEX 10, unless you choose to wear heavy armor. If you aren't planing on wearing heavy armor, odds are your DEX will be 14 IME. I've only see one exception. So, if you are "strong" (assumable if you are using a great weapon and relying on STR) you can handle wearing medium and heavy armor, even if you have a more modest DEX.

Ok, I am all for house-rules and options, so let's look at this from a different angle:

Greatsword and studded leather, DEX 10, prof +6 so AC 18.
Greatsword and plate armor, DEX 10, no prof, so AC 18.

What incentive (if any) would the guy in plate armor have for wearing it? That makes no sense considering the whole point of armor evolving was because it made you harder to hurt. Now, I think upthread others mention things like DR, etc. so are you including that? (My apologies if I missed it, I only briefly skimmed the thread).

 

[vivsavage]

I really like this idea in general. It would play very well with a Lord of the Rings campaign, where most of the characters aren't wearing armor (only Gimli and Frodo are said to wear any, while Boromir had a shield).

 

[DND_Reborn]

It reminds me the Defense Bonus in d20 SW. I know others and myself have proposed systems like the OP and in some of the posts here, with Armor working as DR providing some depending on how much you want in your game. I think I suggested something like 1, 2, and 4 points for light, medium, and heavy armors. shrug

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Part of my thinking for the different approach to AC and armor has to do with technology levels that are different from the typical D&D campaign.

For lower-tech or post-apocalyptic settings like Dark Sun, there was the idea of piecemeal armor. In that setting you couldn't necessarily get a full set armor, and just collected parts of armor together. Though it's system they added to AC, but under my house rule idea, I guess that would be something like: you have vambraces made from a large reptile that's 3 temp HP, and a chitin chestpiece from a Kank (giant ant-beetle) so that's like an additional 8 temp HP and a Tembo skull as a helmet for 4 temp HP.

For higher-tech settings where I get that Dex is probably even more important with the presence of firearms, armor was mostly abandoned in favour of mobility. There were elite soldiers such as Cuirassers who did wear breastplate armor, in Napolean's time they planned on breastplate being good enough to protect it's wearer from one gunshot (assuming a 1d12 musket), so I'm guessing it's around 15 temp hp. But things also depends if the genre is Flintlock-Fantasy, Victorian Gothic Horror (probably no one has armor beyond a stylish coat) or Steampunk (mechanical plate armor could be a thing).

 

[jmartkdr2]

But you probably won't have DEX 10, unless you choose to wear heavy armor. If you aren't planing on wearing heavy armor, odds are your DEX will be 14 IME. I've only see one exception. So, if you are "strong" (assumable if you are using a great weapon and relying on STR) you can handle wearing medium and heavy armor, even if you have a more modest DEX.

Ok, I am all for house-rules and options, so let's look at this from a different angle:

Greatsword and studded leather, DEX 10, prof +6 so AC 18.
Greatsword and plate armor, DEX 10, no prof, so AC 18.

What incentive (if any) would the guy in plate armor have for wearing it? That makes no sense considering the whole point of armor evolving was because it made you harder to hurt. Now, I think upthread others mention things like DR, etc. so are you including that? (My apologies if I missed it, I only briefly skimmed the thread).

At level 17+, presumably there's magic armor available, but if not - yeah, The epic-tier fighter has skin as tough as metal. I'm okay with this result.

If you're level is 16 or less - the tradeoff exists (although it varies).

Now, if that's too unrealistic - you probably don't like high-level play anyways for a whole host of reasons, even if low-level dnd is realistic enough for you (that is, barely). Realistic armor should be DR instead of making you harder to hit (which should be all dex-based), but that's a whole different houserule. Not a bad idea for one, but much harder to balance.

But I guess that's the main counterargument to the rule - it's designed to make armor less important, which is highly ahistorical.