Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LongInTheTooth" data-source="post: 8211751" data-attributes="member: 7029850">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 issue1. 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%.</blockquote>

Verification