Another "Armor as DR" thread... wait, damage RESISTANCE?

[DiBastet]

TL;DR: For a limited-hp sword-and-sorcery people-are-monsters monters-are-rare kind of game, do you think that giving armor Damage Resistance (against physical damage from non-magical weapons) while keeping around half ac value, is a worthy compromise instead of trying to write up an Armor as DR sub-system? Note: There's no barbarian class, and it's a very light-on-magic-items kind of setting.

Long version

I've been digging a lot recently after what people did with armor as DR rules, and I came to this topic (/forum/showthread.php?396602-Another-quot-Armour-as-DR-quot-Thread-%28sort-of%29) where some math geniuses realized that 1 point of ac over 10 is more or less like a 5% reduction in overall damage. The claim was also disputed, but the claim gave the OP an idea of giving light armor light resistance, medium resistance and heavy armor, you guessed right, heavy resistance (25%, 50%, 75%) instead of flat DR values. Some blokes pointed that this idea is a little complicated, and I agree with that: damage resistance is a great rule, halving or doubling is easy to do and after years of dr/whatever I can it on the fly. 25%-75% is harder, but flat DR isn't the rule I'm looking for.

I'm designing a little hack on 5e for my current sword and sorcery dark fantasy campaign. Back on 3.5 my group had some fun with Grim 'n Gritty rules, and that's the level I'm aiming at. My idea is to tie serious wounds to the death and dismemberment rules and to the exhaustion track since I think it works great to emulate SAGA edition's condition track. On one hand, since there is so little hp (both for characters and monsters) there needs to be some kind of damage soaking, but on the other hand I really don't want to bring back damage reduction.

People try to give different levels of DR to different pieces of armor; heavier soaks more damage than lighter one does. But what if intead of using "DR in place of AC", I went to another route and wearing any armor gave you damage resistance against P/S/B from non-magical weapon, while also giving smaller AC bonuses?

This way while the the Damage Soaking part is the same for all armor -for the sake of simplicity and to use an easy mechanic already in place-, the Damage Avoidance keeps being different, and heavier armor helps you defend better.

There are some additional layers to this system, of course, like damage from siege weapons, huge creatures and dragonfire is considered Siege and ignores resistance against non-magical weapons; there are ways to bypass this damage resistance from armor, like critical hits, and some other details, BUT I won't bore you guys to death with all that. What I ask you guys is this:

Do you think that giving armor Damage Resistance (against physical damage from non-magical weapons) while keeping around half ac value, is a worthy compromise instead of trying to write up an Armor as DR sub-system?

 

[Sadrik]

Sure.
To make armor types better and worse you could have a damage save. Basically have a save for 1/2 damage (resistance) and the individual type of armor gives you a bonus to that save.

So all ACs could be 10 + DEX

Then you have a a fighter in plate. He gets hit with a sword. He rolls a save DC 20, you can adjust this save based on the size of the creature. He rolls d20 and adds his armor modifier + CON, if he makes it he takes 1/2 damage. In this way heavy armor will be better at resisting damage. The only thing is you may need to reduce HP. Perhaps give everyone a d6 HD as per the monster manual size matters for HP and it increases their HD type. D6 HD is not bad, tough High CON characters will still have plenty and if they have heavy armor they will be taking 1/2 damage all the time too, effectively increasing their HP.

 

[DiBastet]

Well, that would add another step. You propose con+armor vs something like 8+stat+proficiency for a soak roll after being hit? The idea of player rolling their defense isn't a problem, but the extra step isn't exactly what I'm looking into; if I used that I would do something like a save vs 12 + creature proficiency + creature attack stat, and make defense and soak into a single roll... But then again that wouldn't be different than attack vs ac but half damage on a failure.

Actually... that could be great for normal games; everyone contributes a little, like using damaging area spells, no more all-or-nothing and if hp is plot armor then making the save / opponent missing still takes a small chunk of hp because of the attriction involved and no one can rely just on a higher ac against hordes of enemies (with bounded accuracy no one should, that just increases the danger).

But that would be harsh work for the game I want to run now, with limited hp, healing and spells: Characters and creatures will have hp on a 15-50 range, so always taking small chunks of hp is really bad...

Ps: But then again, it could be -awesome-, you may be a highly skilled master, but you really can't charge those goblins alone... That's food for though...

 

[Sadrik]

So you could always use the average damage. Always. Then you are not adding a roll. You roll a save to reduce damage by half and remove the damage roll. No added roll. So the proposal is when you take damage you use your armor to resist damage. I think it should be armor only though not +CON. If you make the save you basically have damage resistance and take half damage.

Damage save is D20 + Armor bonus vs. DC 15, modify the damage DC by 5 if the creature is big or small DM call (advantage/disadvantage).

Meanwhile your AC is 8 + DEX + Proficiency + Armor* + Shield.
*No armor and Light is +0, medium -1, heavy -2.

PCs and opponents being easier to hit means that you will be rolling to take half damage more which means that HP will likely not need to change.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

Isn't the attack vs. AC roll essentially a damage resistance roll? Why add the extra percentile? If anything you could roll a percentile of achieving damage soak to avoid redundancy; of course the problem with soak is finding a number large enough to make a difference at higher levels, maybe scaling with masterwork or magic bonus, but not so large as to make a character immune to low die damage rolls.

 

[Sadrik]

I think that is a valid point. However there are many ways to skin a cat.

There are several ways you can think of attack rolls.
All attacks hit. All you are really doing is seeing if you can penetrate their armor and deal damage. This is why STR adds to the attack roll and not DEX. If they fail the attack roll this means it was a glancing blow. Armor negates attacks in a binary way.

All attacks miss. What you are doing is seeing if you can connect with your attack otherwise they dodge the attack and you deal no damage. This makes sense too. So it makes sense that DEX would add to the attack roll because you are trying to connect your attack. So under this idea what does armor do? Well it should reduce damage.

All attacks miss and hit. This is what we have in the current system. AC can be both someone excellent at dodging and someone who is heavily armored. So there are four quadrants with a 2x2 in how you explain a hit. It depends on the attack. If it is a DEX based attack then the idea is you are trying to hit in the soft spots of the armor and if it is a STR based attack then you are trying to pierce the armor. Armor reduces damage by negating attacks. If it is a DEX attack or STR attack against a high dodge creature then they dodge the attack if it is a STR attack against a highly armored opponent then they deflect the attack and finally if it is a DEX attack against a high armored attack then they failed to get in the cracks of the armor.

I think the third, the complex way the current game is causes a lot of consternation with people. One of the first two ways is simple and perhaps more advantageous. They also define the feel of the game. The first one you want to be heavily armored like knights. In the second you want to be lithe like swashbucklers.

 

[DiBastet]

I tried yesterday with the following:

AC: 10 + armor bonus + fighting skill instead of Dex (not getting into details but you buythe skill from +2 to +6). Medium and heavy armor limit you skill bonus to AC, but grant damage resistance from physical damage of nonmagical weapons. Keep in mind that this game uses a different method for HP. Both players and creatures have hp in the range of 15-45.

Light Armor: No damage resistance. Light armor is cheaper and with fewer exploration and social restrictions (mobility, exhaustion, price, acceptance and proficiency), but you get no damage resistance making it inept for serious combat.

Medium armor: apply only 1/2 fighting skill, but gain resistance to physicall damage from nonmagical weapons. Medium armor is the middle road, less ac bonus than heavy but more than light, gives damage resistance, but has some restrictions.

heavy armor: like medium but with more ac bonus. best for serious combat, but many restrictions that makes it a poor fit for serious exploration or social parts of the adventure.

Stat to AC while not using armor: Exactly as light armor. Possibility of AC as high as the best medium armor, but no damage resistance.

Of course that we only had a single session. but the players immediatly came to the conclusion that if you are proficient then it's on your best interest to keep different sets of armor stashed for different situations of combat/exploration/social interaction. Also most characters want to be proficient at least in medium armor (it's tied to the fighting skill) so they have the option of higher ac with light armor or damage resistance from physical attacks with medium. It was a city based session, so when a fight broke out the "bodyguard" pc who stood behind with medium armor and a bigger weapon protected his friends while the no armor or concealed light armor guys fled to cover. The "bodyguard" was at a clear advantage against the unnarmored bandits, and after some ineffective blows (because of the resistance) the bandits gave up.