D&D 5E Armor as Damage Reduction

[dave2008]

I am honestly surprised.

I would have thought this makes (heavy) armor way too good, as in "nobody in their right mind doesn't wear the heaviest armor she can get hold of".

(Of course, if your group is okay with characters skewing away from low-armored high-Dex builds and the classes that rely on them, that's another matter)

I would have thought Jasper's suggestion ("Light DR 1, Medium DR 2, Heavy DR 3") would be closer to how good you could make 5E (and d20) armor (if the idea is to keep the class balance as is)...?

I'm not worried about class balance. We have 6 PCs and only two are using plate. If my players cared about optimizing maybe it would be different. Also, perhaps you missed it, but I allow PCs and monsters to expend HD to increase the damage on their attacks. Typically I make the monster attack, realize they can't get through the armor and then it hits harder. Smarter creatures my just start off hitting the heavier armored people harder. This gives the heavy armor wearers some benefit, but not overpowered - IMO.

 

[dave2008]

I have put a lot of thought into armor as DR, and my ultimate conclusion is that it simply doesn't add anything... to a game with levels and loads of hit points.

A game where you, say, start out with 15 hp because you have 15 Constitution, and where you end up much later still with 15 hp (or perhaps 20 or 25) even after dozens of adventures, there armor as DR works, and might even be necessary. (Do note that D&D can be said to be such a game during perhaps the the first three levels, but no more).

But in D&D, it changes too much of the many small vs few big attacks. Except for the very lowest levels, I have found that keeping AC as is yields the superior experience: in speed and simplicity of play, and in actual verisimiltude results as well (when you look at a whole combat and not individual strikes).

I think your mostly correct for the general populace, but it has been working well for my group. I tried to mitigate this some by applying armor to only BHP (bloodied hit points - similar to 4e but much fewer and fixed amount) damage once, but we ultimately chose the simplicity of applying it to all damage. I am intrigued by [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION] 's suggestion.

 

[dave2008]

EDIT: double post

 

[mellored]

Edwin still has that you need to clear the AC to hit. So if a monster has an AC of 16 a final result of 1-15 is a miss. Looking above, it looks like it's just a reduction in damage. Is this what you intended, or does it still need to hit first?

Just DR.

But if you roll low on the d20, you will do 0 damage, same as a miss.
And stuff like advantage, bless, fighting style, and such still matter. (Appy resistance after AC)

Some things will need tweaking, like great weapon master and sharpshooter (say... reroll a damage die). Probably add proficiency to AC, and adjust sneak attack as well.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

That's why I use resistance and immunity in my "armor as DR" approach, to maintain consistency and simplicity.

In most cases there are options to overcome the resistance. For example, chainmail and plate are immune to attacks by slashing weapons (such as a sword), but most swords can also be used as thrusting (piercing) weapons. This armors are also resistant to piercing weapons, but there are specialized weapons (such as an estoc) that is designed specifically to pierce armor. Bodkin arrowheads also overcome the resistance, as do some fighting styles.

Really, all that you need to know when attacking, is if you have an ability that overcomes whatever resistance the target might have due to armor.

I have a separate equipment damage system if you want to track that. It doesn't come into play often, because we assume that when the party camps at night part of what they are doing is maintaining their equipment.

Here's the basics:
Textile Armor: Resistant to ranged piercing weapons that are not magical
Composite Armor: Resistant to ranged piercing weapons, and slashing weapons that are not magical (a chain shirt and scale mail have the same resistances)
Mail Armor: Resistant to piercing weapons, and immune to slashing weapons that are not magical
Plate Armor: Restistant to bludgeoning and piercing weapons, immune to slashing weapons that are not magical.

Some people question this, and ask why doesn't everybody wear the "best" armor? My answer is "they do."

They always wear the best armor they can afford that doesn't interfere with whatever else they are doing. That just makes sense to me. But those wearing heavier armor have a greater chance of fatigue in my campaign, in regions where that type of armor is common, it's also fairly common that tactics and weapons have been developed to overcome the armor, and in the end it doesn't seem to change things all that much.

But at lower levels, or for low level NPCs (town guard, for example), it makes a very big difference. I'm still tweaking the exact AC that armor provides under this system. For example, somebody with a high Dexterity might be harder to hit (higher AC), but takes more damage if they are hit. That's sort of the trade-off that I think armor provides, but only if you're well trained.

 

[dave2008]

Here's the basics:
Textile Armor: Resistant to ranged piercing weapons that are not magical
Composite Armor: Resistant to ranged piercing weapons, and slashing weapons that are not magical (a chain shirt and scale mail have the same resistances)
Mail Armor: Resistant to piercing weapons, and immune to slashing weapons that are not magical
Plate Armor: Restistant to bludgeoning and piercing weapons, immune to slashing weapons that are not magical.
.

I don't think mail should be immune to slashing since a sword used to slash will do some damage as bludgeoning weapon. I gues you could make swords do bludgeoning and slashing damage.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I don't think mail should be immune to slashing since a sword used to slash will do some damage as bludgeoning weapon. I gues you could make swords do bludgeoning and slashing damage.

Generally, chainmail was worn over some sort of padded undergarment, that also provided further protection. The reality is also that it did help considerably against bludgeoning damage because of the effect of spreading the blow across a wider area due to both the chain and the padding. I wasn't at the point where I felt that it was enough to give full resistance, and I didn't want to get into the DR approach.

Interestingly, a bastard sword or longsword could also be used as a bludgeoning weapon. Pictures and writings from the era show a technique where the knight held the sword by the blade and used it as a bludgeoning weapon using the cross guard or hilt to deal the blow.

As for the sword blow itself causing bludgeoning damage, that gets into some complications that I don't really want to worry about. The armors that provide resistance are essentially acknowledging that, because most like the weapon isn't penetrating the armor.

However, a great sword bypasses the immunity (it becomes resistance) because of the weight, and also because it is used in more of a chopping than cutting attack. In addition, the Dueling feat, for example, reduces the immunity or resistance by one as well, to reflect the training you have for using the weapon.

Part of the goal of the system is to provide some better reasoning for selecting certain weapons or feats. As a result, even though a longsword can be used as a piercing weapon, I'm tempted to restrict that capability to somebody with the proper training (feat) rather than just all people wielding longswords. Introducing the resistance, but making it so everybody can bypass it anyway is sort of pointless.

I also have a called shot system, and encourage players to take advantage of it regularly. Head shots are still rare, because the AC is 5 points higher. That is, the base AC for a head or limb in my campaign is 15, and if you're wearing a metal helmet it's a 19 AC. The called shot is at -5 and imposes disadvantage (although you can eliminate the disadvantage). So it's much more difficult until you get to higher levels. They are most effective against opponents that are lower level than you, but if they aren't wearing a helmet, then the AC may be the same or less than the rest of them, and without resistance or immunity to any attacks. I'd recommend a helmet.

 

[Zardnaar]

Armor as DR is bad idea in modern D&D due to power attack/-5/+10 type effects.

DR in addition to AC is fine.

 

[dave2008]

Armor as DR is bad idea in modern D&D due to power attack/-5/+10 type effects.

DR in addition to AC is fine.

I would image anyone using DR would also tweak those feats. Personally my group hasn't taken those feats yet so I haven't had to think about it. DR was a good idea for us

 

[dave2008]

However, a great sword bypasses the immunity (it becomes resistance) because of the weight, and also because it is used in more of a chopping than cutting attack. In addition, the Dueling feat, for example, reduces the immunity or resistance by one as well, to reflect the training you have for using the weapon.

That makes sense and is in line with what I was thinking. However, I was thinking from a monster perspective as well. You are essential eliminating a lot of claw damage. In addition, I know that chainmail works well against small sharks, but doesn't do a lot for you against a great white or tiger. The power of thier bites is to great.

Part of the goal of the system is to provide some better reasoning for selecting certain weapons or feats. As a result, even though a longsword can be used as a piercing weapon, I'm tempted to restrict that capability to somebody with the proper training (feat) rather than just all people wielding longswords. Introducing the resistance, but making it so everybody can bypass it anyway is sort of pointless.

Yes, I have considered this as well. I believe it would be more interesting if certain weapons were more or less effective against certain armors and/or monsters.

I also have a called shot system, and encourage players to take advantage of it regularly. Head shots are still rare, because the AC is 5 points higher. That is, the base AC for a head or limb in my campaign is 15, and if you're wearing a metal helmet it's a 19 AC. The called shot is at -5 and imposes disadvantage (although you can eliminate the disadvantage). So it's much more difficult until you get to higher levels. They are most effective against opponents that are lower level than you, but if they aren't wearing a helmet, then the AC may be the same or less than the rest of them, and without resistance or immunity to any attacks. I'd recommend a helmet.

That is interesting, we may have to give that a try.