D&D 5E Armor as Damage Reduction

[dave2008]

yes I know that.

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

It seems incredibly unbalanced to me. How is restricting greatswords to people with an 18 strength (one less than an ogre) a good balancing point? Do you care to explain?

Or is the requirement just for proficiency? I.e. you could use the greatsword, but just need the required STR score to apply your proficiency bonus on the to hit roll? I could get behind that approach, it still seems a little sever though.

You could do something like you need a STR score equal to or greater than the maximum damage (non-crit) the weapon could cause.

Thus we get:

Dagger: STR 4
Shortsword: STR 6
Longsword: STR 8
Glaive: STR 10
Greatsword: STR 12

This seems more realistic at least.

 

[Blue]

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.

That would weaken Dex a bit in how powerful it is, which is definitely worthwhile.

A concerns was if it adds more time to adjudicate and attack. Now in addition to figuring out how much you hit by and adding that in, you also need to know someone else's Dex mod. Or you need to give a partial damage and then the person taking it modifies it. A DM with a mixed group of foes could be all over the place.

 

[OB1]

That would weaken Dex a bit in how powerful it is, which is definitely worthwhile.

A concerns was if it adds more time to adjudicate and attack. Now in addition to figuring out how much you hit by and adding that in, you also need to know someone else's Dex mod. Or you need to give a partial damage and then the person taking it modifies it. A DM with a mixed group of foes could be all over the place.

Yes, I know a lot of people who would be happy about the slight Dex nerf that comes with this! I think it also weaken's GWM and SS, but I can't quite get my head around the math to figure this part out. I think it would make GWM and SS much less effective against high Dex opponents, while keeping it strong against heavily armored ones.

As far as paperwork, I'd take a page from 3e and have everyone record full AC and "Flatfooted" AC. In my previous example that would be 14/17, so when the DM says her roll total is 18, I know she hit me and is going to do 4 points of extra damage, where a 16 doesn't hit at all. DM would have a bit of work to do setting up monsters, but nothing too crazy.

 

[77IM]

Armor-as-DR slows the game down because it adds an extra subtraction step to every hit (I'm very slow at arithmetic).

One alternative I've always wanted to try was armor-as-hit-point-pool. Calculate AC just based on Dex, and then add a pool of "armor points" that absorb damage first (remainder carries over to real hit points). Light armor=1*(level+1), medium=2*(level+1), heavy=3*(level+1). Damage that doesn't come from an attack bypasses armor (e.g. spells with saves) and affects hit points directly. For simplicity, you get all your armor points back whenever you take a short rest.

This isn't very realistic. But, it's more realistic than armor-as-AC bonus; I feel nimble characters should get hit less, and heavily armored characters should withstand more damage, and armor points would do that. And, it's faster and easier than armor-as-DR because you only have to do annoying subtraction that one time per rest that the damage overflows your armor pool. And the DM doesn't even need to do that because most monsters don't get a short rest so their AP and HP can be combined into a single pool.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

In real melee combat armor definitely has a huge effect on the chance to "hit". Fighting doesn't just involve 2 people banging on each other, but trying to get past the other's defences to land a hit on a vulnerable area. If your opponent has a vulnerable body part covered by armor then there's simply no point in attacking it, you have to try something else. Since the defender has fewer weak points to defend he can concentrate his defensive manouvers to cover those areas, so hitting him will be harder. On the other side, if you are wearing armor then that gives you more leeway in what kind of offensive manouvers you can use without leaving yourself dangerously exposed, and having more options in combat makes attacking easier.

This is of course for combat between trained humanods. Fighting in armor will work very different against unintelligent beasts who keep ineffectually attacking armored body parts because they don't understand what it is, and especially against extra big opponents whose attacks are so strong they go through human armor like paper. And then you add elemental and magical attacks to the mix.

So in short I think that coming up with another armor system that actually makes more sense that the current AC system without having to rewrite the entire combat rules is going to be impossible.

 

[dave2008]

Armor-as-DR slows the game down because it adds an extra subtraction step to every hit (I'm very slow at arithmetic).

One alternative I've always wanted to try was armor-as-hit-point-pool. Calculate AC just based on Dex, and then add a pool of "armor points" that absorb damage first (remainder carries over to real hit points). Light armor=1*(level+1), medium=2*(level+1), heavy=3*(level+1). Damage that doesn't come from an attack bypasses armor (e.g. spells with saves) and affects hit points directly. For simplicity, you get all your armor points back whenever you take a short rest.

You are still subtracting twice (or 3x depending on how you want to look at it) in almost all cases. If a bugbear hits you for 8 damage, you subtract 3 from the armor pool, you then subtract 3 from the 8 damage, and then subtract 5 from your hit points. I don't see how this is faster than DR (subtract 3 from the 8 and subtract 5 from HP). Your system is at least as long, if not longer, to resolve.

That being said I do agree that DR adds a tiny bit of additional thought to the process, but after using it for a session or two it has become a non-issue for us. In some cases it actually reduces the thought time. If our plate wearing fighter (DR 8) is hit by an attack that does 8 or less damage he can just ignore it all together. In actuality, since I know that attack won't get through his armor I just narrate that it bounces off his armor. It removes the subtraction all together.

 

[Dorian_Grey]

This isn't very realistic. But, it's more realistic than armor-as-AC bonus; I feel nimble characters should get hit less, and heavily armored characters should withstand more damage, and armor points would do that. And, it's faster and easier than armor-as-DR because you only have to do annoying subtraction that one time per rest that the damage overflows your armor pool. And the DM doesn't even need to do that because most monsters don't get a short rest so their AP and HP can be combined into a single pool.

The target audience for this is good at math. We're all stats, comp sci, and physics people. I work with R, and love number crunching. Hence why I love projects like this. I enjoy creating the system, and my players enjoy gaming it. As for your idea, armor as hit points is the same as armor as damage reduction, it's just opposite.

What I think would be more interesting would be to keep armor as DR, but then let my players who take the various feats - assuming they already have proficiency in the armor type, can add bonus hit points while wearing armor. Something like 1d4/per proficiency bonus for light, 1d6/per proficiency bonus for medium, and 1d8/per proficiency bonus for heavy. That encourages additional defensive feat buying. Add a strength requirement and you could be going places with a big heavy tank type fighter and it also gives a benefit to strength builds. (STR 13 for light, 15 for medium, 17 for heavy).

 

[Blue]

In real melee combat armor definitely has a huge effect on the chance to "hit". Fighting doesn't just involve 2 people banging on each other, but trying to get past the other's defences to land a hit on a vulnerable area. If your opponent has a vulnerable body part covered by armor then there's simply no point in attacking it, you have to try something else. Since the defender has fewer weak points to defend he can concentrate his defensive manouvers to cover those areas, so hitting him will be harder. On the other side, if you are wearing armor then that gives you more leeway in what kind of offensive manouvers you can use without leaving yourself dangerously exposed, and having more options in combat makes attacking easier.

This is of course for combat between trained humanods. Fighting in armor will work very different against unintelligent beasts who keep ineffectually attacking armored body parts because they don't understand what it is, and especially against extra big opponents whose attacks are so strong they go through human armor like paper. And then you add elemental and magical attacks to the mix.

So in short I think that coming up with another armor system that actually makes more sense that the current AC system without having to rewrite the entire combat rules is going to be impossible.

Thank you. I had never considered things such as expanded offensive capabilities with armor because you aren't leaving yourself open. I play around with designing two very different RPG rulesets - one narrative and streamlined where combat isn't a big part, and one very crunchy that works for the wargamer in many of us and could be a minigame. This concept fits well into the second one of those. Must ponder.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I use DR for armor in my campaign. But it's based on the premise that armor is very useful and was designed to defeat the weapons of the time. Then there are weapons designed to overcome it. Most of it is based on historical research.

So, thick textile armors (padded, hide) have resistance against ranged piercing weapons. But broadhead and barbed arrowheads, along with the archery feat bypass this resistance.

Mail armor has resistance against slashing weapons and ranged piercing weapons. Bodkin arrowheads overcome this resistance.

Plate armor has immunity to slashing weapons, resistance to bludgeoning and ranged piercing weapons. Most swords can also be used for thrusting (piercing), but not scimitars or khopesh swords for example. There are specific weapons (estoc for one) that are designed specifically to overcome this as well. A person with the Polearm Master Feat also overcomes the resistance. Immunity is reduced to resistance.

It sounds more complicated than it is, but it really alters the tactics of the combats. Note that I also have the equivalent of called shots, and although it's harder to hit a head, somebody not wearing a helmet while wearing armor is probably in trouble.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In real melee combat armor definitely has a huge effect on the chance to "hit". Fighting doesn't just involve 2 people banging on each other, but trying to get past the other's defences to land a hit on a vulnerable area. If your opponent has a vulnerable body part covered by armor then there's simply no point in attacking it, you have to try something else. Since the defender has fewer weak points to defend he can concentrate his defensive manouvers to cover those areas, so hitting him will be harder.

How does that logic apply to an ogre with a big club? They probably aren't ignoring your armored parts, and are just hitting you as hard as possible. Or when you're fighting an earth elemental, it might not have any weak spots, so the only strategy left is to just hit it as hard as possible.

I mean, I get that armor-as-avoidance makes some sense for humans fighting each other, but that kind of combat isn't always the focus of these games.