D&D 5E Armor as Damage Reduction

[CapnZapp]

I think your mostly correct for the general populace, but it has been working well for my group.

If I gave the impression I was telling you how to run your game, I apologize. I was indeed talking about the subject matter as regards the general product. I'm happy it works for you.

 

[dave2008]

If I gave the impression I was telling you how to run your game, I apologize. I was indeed talking about the subject matter as regards the general product. I'm happy it works for you.

No worries, the part you quoted was in the first person describing my actual group so I assumed that the comment was directed at my experience. Though I did think that may have not have been the case.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

Yes, monsters are a different issue, which I am still working on. But some quick fixes that will probably be permanent:

A creature's attacks reduce immunity and resistance due to armor by one level for each size larger the creature is over the target.

Creatures like great cats tend to go for the throat of a creature. So they may have a special ability that eliminates the disadvantage for a called shot.

The full process for my called shots is:

-5 to hit
Disadvantage on the attack
The target gains a saving throw (usually Dexterity or Constitution) to avoid special effects, the DC is 8 + your attack modifier
If the attempt fails, the target may gain an opportunity attack if within reach

Some examples:

Blind: You attempt to blind a creature by throwing sand in their eyes, knocking their helmet askew, or hitting them in the face. If the target fails the saving throw they are blinded. They can make an additional saving throw at the start of their next turn to end the condition.

Target Pain Point: You attempt to target a pain point, such as the groin, solar plexus, insole, etc. The target takes non-lethal damage equal to the damage caused. If the target fails their saving throw they are incapacitated. If they fail by more than 5, they are stunned. If they fail by more than 10, they are unconscious. The target can make another save at the start of their next turn to end the condition (except unconscious in my campaign, that has a different recovery.)

Target Deadly Point: You attempt to target a deadly point, such as the heart, head, throat, etc. If the target fails their saving throw they are incapacitated. If they fail by more than 5, it is a critical hit. If they fail by more than 10, they are reduced to 0 hit points and dying. The target can make another save at the start of their next turn to end the condition.

Sap: You attempt to knock the target out. If the target fails their saving throw, they are incapacitated. If they fail by more than 5 they are unconscious.

A helmet gives you advantage on saving throws against sap attempts, and wearing armor over the specific point grants advantage on the saving throw against called shots targeting that area. For example, plate armor would give advantage on the saving throws against all of these except blind. But if you were wearing plate armor without a helmet, then you'd have some vulnerabilities.

 

[Blue]

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.

Just to go farther afield, that could work out well in a system with a bell curve instead of a linear d20. Actually, it is a bell curve with d20+weapon die, but not a heavily curved one.

 

[mellored]

Just to go farther afield, that could work out well in a system with a bell curve instead of a linear d20. Actually, it is a bell curve with d20+weapon die, but not a heavily curved one.

if your going that far...

Str = 1d4 -> 1d12
Proficency = 1d4 ->1d12
Weapon = same as normal.
- AC

That's a nice 3 die bell curve.

Though you'd have to redo all the math in the game.

 

[LongInTheTooth]

Ok , so here are some general comments on this subject. So first a few issues. 1. I like the idea of some form of damage reduction from armour, the problem is that absolute reductions in the form of dr1 dr2 etc. effectively negates damage from mobs and has no impact on the heavy hitters. So for me in doesn't work.
2. 5e has gone to a lot of effort to simplify the system and the maths and has done a pretty good job in doing that, ultimately though, they have sacrificed some realism in that process. AC has always been in the category of a game mechanic, rather than an effort to mimic some form of reality, so to an extent you have to live with that. I do feel that armour and the choices you have in 5e around it have been significantly reduced. Unless you have an exceptional dexterity bonus, which is also harder to get in 5e, why would you use anything other than the heaviest armour?
Some ideas to solve the issue
1. Only apply the changes to the group's armour and not monsters or NPCs. The players only really care about damage done to their PCs and the choices they can make to minimise that.
2. Use a percentage based system instead of absolute, so for example take 10 off the AC and times it by 5%. So AC16 armour would give 30% damage reduction. Round down.
3. Restore a sliding scale to the dexterity bonus for armour types, so break up the light, medium, heavy grouping. It's too simplistic.
4. Lock the AC for all armour types, this could be the standard of 10, but perhaps 12 might offer slightly better balance.
5. Certain armour types could reduce crit hits in some capacity.

The net result of this, allows nimble characters to use traditional AC to avoid getting hit, but slow characters to tank up with super heavy armour, that can absorb the damage. Also makes metal types like mithril more flexible as they can give dexterity bonus or dr%.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Ok , so here are some general comments on this subject. So first a few issues. 1. I like the idea of some form of damage reduction from armour, the problem is that absolute reductions in the form of dr1 dr2 etc. effectively negates damage from mobs and has no impact on the heavy hitters. So for me in doesn't work.
2. 5e has gone to a lot of effort to simplify the system and the maths and has done a pretty good job in doing that, ultimately though, they have sacrificed some realism in that process. AC has always been in the category of a game mechanic, rather than an effort to mimic some form of reality, so to an extent you have to live with that. I do feel that armour and the choices you have in 5e around it have been significantly reduced. Unless you have an exceptional dexterity bonus, which is also harder to get in 5e, why would you use anything other than the heaviest armour?
Some ideas to solve the issue
1. Only apply the changes to the group's armour and not monsters or NPCs. The players only really care about damage done to their PCs and the choices they can make to minimise that.
2. Use a percentage based system instead of absolute, so for example take 10 off the AC and times it by 5%. So AC16 armour would give 30% damage reduction. Round down.
3. Restore a sliding scale to the dexterity bonus for armour types, so break up the light, medium, heavy grouping. It's too simplistic.
4. Lock the AC for all armour types, this could be the standard of 10, but perhaps 12 might offer slightly better balance.
5. Certain armour types could reduce crit hits in some capacity.

The net result of this, allows nimble characters to use traditional AC to avoid getting hit, but slow characters to tank up with super heavy armour, that can absorb the damage. Also makes metal types like mithril more flexible as they can give dexterity bonus or dr%.

Welcome to the forums! Have a like and hope to have good discussions with you!

We are currently (to keep it simple) thinking about implementing DR for armor on critical hits only.

Light = 1 DR
Medium = 2 DR
Heavy = 4 DR
Shields can be used to gain 2 DR, but are sundered if used so.

 

[LongInTheTooth]

Welcome to the forums! Have a like and hope to have good discussions with you!

We are currently (to keep it simple) thinking about implementing DR for armor on critical hits only.

Light = 1 DR
Medium = 2 DR
Heavy = 4 DR
Shields can be used to gain 2 DR, but are sundered if used so.

For me it's about choice. If your going to implement change, then by definition you are almost certainly increasing the complexity, so you need a win to counter that and that has to be tactical choices for the players. Arguments about verisimilitude are somewhat arbitrary in a game with scaling HP and monsters the size of houses. You could easily get dragged into a medieval arms race with specific damage to body parts with combos of weapon v armour. But does that make a better game. Of course if your designing the rules for a computer aided system in some form, then you can go for it. If you want to ask yourself one question, then perhaps it should be, if I was playing why would I want to wear lighter armour, if I could afford better? If you can't answer that you have a problem.

 

[DND_Reborn]

For me it's about choice. If your going to implement change, then by definition you are almost certainly increasing the complexity, so you need a win to counter that and that has to be tactical choices for the players. Arguments about verisimilitude are somewhat arbitrary in a game with scaling HP and monsters the size of houses. You could easily get dragged into a medieval arms race with specific damage to body parts with combos of weapon v armour. But does that make a better game. Of course if your designing the rules for a computer aided system in some form, then you can go for it. If you want to ask yourself one question, then perhaps it should be, if I was playing why would I want to wear lighter armour, if I could afford better? If you can't answer that you have a problem.

Whew... ok. Please take this as the constructive criticism it is meant to be: if you can break up your responses into sections, it helps in picking out the pieces and gaining an understanding of your points.

5E is designed to be simple--super simple really, so implementing a change which adds complexity is not necessarily a bad thing IMO. I do it because I want more verisimilitude--taking some of the abstractness of HP and AC out of the equation.

if I was playing why would I want to wear lighter armour, if I could afford better?

Maybe you can't carry the weight, you aren't proficient in wearing it, it hampers your stealth, etc. so you seek a higher AC in other ways and acknowledge you don't have to protection of better/heavier armor.

If you can't answer that you have a problem.

Consider it answered.

 

[LongInTheTooth]

Whew... ok. Please take this as the constructive criticism it is meant to be: if you can break up your responses into sections, it helps in picking out the pieces and gaining an understanding of your points.

Fair comment, I'm on a kindle not the PC and I'm being a bit lazy. Plus I'm not entirely au fait with the format.

5E is designed to be simple--super simple really, so implementing a change which adds complexity is not necessarily a bad thing IMO. I do it because I want more verisimilitude--taking some of the abstractness of HP and AC out of the equation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against home brew even if it's extremely complex. I also find the 5e system for armour a bit too basic and I use a % dr system myself. I came to this forum to see how others have approached the same subject. I'm very much of the opinion that you should do whatever feels right at your table. I have looked at other very realistic systems, the problem is you can't realistically kill a dragon with a club, so you have to make some allowances for the game element. I've read that some of these systems can take tens of minutes to make a single roll, which is a bit too hard core for me.

Maybe you can't carry the weight, you aren't proficient in wearing it, it hampers your stealth, etc. so you seek a higher AC in other ways and acknowledge you don't have to protection of better/heavier armor.


Consider it answered.

All good points, but they are true of the current rule set and they aren't going to stop any fighter type from just wearing plate. Because you can't beat just not getting hit. What I was trying to get across, is that most of the systems discussed in this thread actually reinforce the existing bias towards heavy armour. So how do you encourage versatility for the fighter classes, without over complicating play at the table? At the moment it feels like it's just, high dex wear studded leather, high str wear plate. Even magic versions of other armour types rarely encourage the player to swap.