D&D 5E Armor as Damage Reduction

[dave2008]

But even with a mature group I'd dread killing off a character and then getting hit with a "those creatures special attack worked wonky with how we reworked AC and I don't think they should have killed my character". At that point do you bring the character back to life? And what if that upsets another player, whom thinks it was a legit death?

I've never had a character die in an ongoing campaign (except at the climax), that couldn't be brought back to life rather trivially. I've done it in side adventures before, but not in a multiyear ongoing campaign.

We we have experienced wonkiness and modified things mid combat as I mentioned before. We simply retcon it right then and there and then move on.

If I'm redesigning subsystems for a game in progress I try to put in the time upfront to let it run smoothly. But not everyone cares, and it seems like you've got a great table that's not worried about it. Fantastic.

I should be clear that even though I am the DM, I didn't redesign the system. We did it together as a group. Before we started this campaign we decided on several modifications we would try out. We are all responsible for the game and its rules. I think having that type of buy-in really helps resolve these type of issues.

 

[LapBandit]

In my campaigns, there is no Heavy Armor Master, instead Heavy Armor provides non-magical DR. DR 1 for splint, DR 2 for plate. Works for us.

 

[Horwath]

I like the general idea about this.


In addition to this,

This could be another way to try to balance dex vs str.

Dex would be attack bonus for every weapon(fine motor control-better air).

str would be damage bonus to every weapon attack.

dex would apply to AC in every armour

str would be requirement for every armour and every weapon.

I.E. armour would have str requirements of 10+DR value on average, cheap armour would have higher str per DR requirements while expensive masterwork armour have less str required.

weapons could go from 8 strength for a dagger to 18 strength for greatsword/greataxe

 

[Ancalagon]

I have many years of experience (as a GM) in a system (warhammer frpg 2nd ed) that had armor as DR being a central part of the combat rules - in fact that is the only thing armor did. A skilled warrior was better at *parrying/dodging* attacks, but if you got hit, armor reduced incoming damage.

(also, a "high level" character only had maybe 50-75% more HP than a starting character, so that "get better at parrying" bit was really important)

What we found is that the system was far more realistic than D&D's "buckets and buckets of hp". BUT it took more time. If each attack has a "subtract DR from incoming damage" step, it slows down the game.

This was also a system where the range of damage was narrower - a weak goblin would do 1d10+2 dmg and a giant's axe 1d10+7. Because of this balancing the DR of armor was much more straightforward than a system where one attack could do 1d4 and the next one 8d6....

Lastly, this was a system where a high toughness (ie, con) wouldn't give you more hp - it would give your more innate DR. A sturdy dwarf could simply shrug off a grazing attack that would hurt a weak halfling somewhat. Usually the damage bonus from strength and the DR from toughness canceled each other out.

 

[Blue]

I have many years of experience (as a GM) in a system (warhammer frpg 2nd ed) that had armor as DR being a central part of the combat rules - in fact that is the only thing armor did. A skilled warrior was better at *parrying/dodging* attacks, but if you got hit, armor reduced incoming damage.

This was also a system where the range of damage was narrower - a weak goblin would do 1d10+2 dmg and a giant's axe 1d10+7. Because of this balancing the DR of armor was much more straightforward than a system where one attack could do 1d4 and the next one 8d6....

Lastly, this was a system where a high toughness (ie, con) wouldn't give you more hp - it would give your more innate DR. A sturdy dwarf could simply shrug off a grazing attack that would hurt a weak halfling somewhat. Usually the damage bonus from strength and the DR from toughness canceled each other out.

Ah, reminds me of my Dwarven Troll Slayer, later a Giant Slayer. Suicidal git, but his toughness made him nigh impregnable vs. weaker creatures. I remember him separated from the rest of the party and came across a bear. He missed it the first two attacks with his axe so he figured his weapon was cursed. He tossed it away and pummeled the bear into submission with his bare hands.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

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.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I.E. armour would have str requirements of 10+DR value on average, cheap armour would have higher str per DR requirements while expensive masterwork armour have less str required.

weapons could go from 8 strength for a dagger to 18 strength for greatsword/greataxe

This reads as, "On average, most people can't wear any armor whatsoever. Anyone with slightly below average Strength is too puny to wield a dagger."

 

[dave2008]

I.E. armour would have str requirements of 10+DR value on average, cheap armour would have higher str per DR requirements while expensive masterwork armour have less str required.

weapons could go from 8 strength for a dagger to 18 strength for greatsword/greataxe

I would suggest you revise those numbers somewhat as historically men slightly above average were able to effectively wear plate and wield a greatsword. It is more a skill and training issue than a brute strength issue. Remember a greatsword only weighs 5 lbs +/- (historically - I don't have the PHB in front of me).

 

[OB1]

That would be a drop in expected damage per attack. It overcompensates for the damage inflation though not by too much, but then it also turns a number of hits into misses and that's what would really bring it down.

Just to give an example - let's take a d8 weapon (longsword, longbow, whatever) woth +4 Str, +3 proficiency, fairly average for a 5th thru 7th level character, vs. AC 14. (A 65% to hit chance using PHB method.) Actually, I'll ignore crits to make the math nicer but it's not a big change - that all hapen 5% of the time and add +4.5 damage.

PHB method: 65% chance to hit, d8+4 (avg 8.5) = 5.525 expected damage per attack.

No strength to damage, add to-hit extra to damage: 65% chance to hit. Attack Roll of 8-20 adds +0 to +12 damage. Average damage on hit is 10.5, expected damage per attack (10.5*.65) = 6.825. (23% higher)

Same as above, but increase AC by proficiency: 50% chance to hit, attack roll of 11-20 adds +0 to +9. Average damage on hit is 9, expected damage per attack (9 * .5) = 4.5 (18% lower)

As the base damage goes up (say, larger weapons, barbarian rage bonus, etc.) the difference becomes larger.

For all that, it's definitely in the range of playable.

Really like this concept from [MENTION=6801221]Edwin Suijkerbuijk[/MENTION] I thought of another wrinkle that could potentially even out the damage

Keep the increase of AC by proficiency, but on a hit add AC Dex bonus of the person hit to damage. In other words, Dex can help keep you from taking any damage, but once hit it doesn't reduce the damage you would have taken.

ie. If my AC is 17 from +3 Dex, +2 armour and +2 proficiency, if I am hit on a 17, I take an extra 3 damage.

 

[Horwath]

I would suggest you revise those numbers somewhat as historically men slightly above average were able to effectively wear plate and wield a greatsword. It is more a skill and training issue than a brute strength issue. Remember a greatsword only weighs 5 lbs +/- (historically - I don't have the PHB in front of me).

yes I know that.

But for game mechanics it's a good balance point.