Armor as DR

[Orich Starkhart]

This approaches the a castle wall falls does it have to roll to hit you? No likely you make a DEX save to avoid it hitting you. When very large creatures attack it feels like it should be an area attack. Then you have to dodge it.

Good point about the wall. The question is, where's the line separating an attack that is to be resolved through melee combat rules from one using saving throws or other mechanics? Maybe melee is for attacks from opponents no more than one size class larger (and evens smaller?)? Does the DM set a specific DC, or use an opposed check: the attack total is the DC the defender has to beat to reduce or avoid damage?

Regarding my ruminations about weapon parry modifiers or setting Parry to 6: I was trying to work out what the relationship should be between the unmodified Armor Class system and your replacement Parry system, not figure out how to factor Parry bonuses into the AC system - though I think that's a totally reasonable thing to do too. The question is whether an AC10 human medium size target is unarmed as well as unarmored. Your answers show that you think of the weapon bonus as additive to defense that is in the unmodified game: that the game just fails to consider that being armed matters for melee defense. So, if a characters "Parry" score encompasses defensive ability, it's equal to 8 + Proficiency + ability and other modifiers, and a weapon adds to that when appropriate - particularly, when in melee against foes armed with melee weapons.

I agree it seems to make sense to have more than one value for Defense/Parry. But leave it to the player. Characters will have a Defense value that applies generally, and then, recorded with each weapon, either a bonus to that defense (comprised of parry, size and any other modifiers associated with that weapon or use of that type of weapon) or the total of Defense and the bonus, to be used only against attacks to which it applies (perhaps melee attacks from weapons and creatures up to one size category larger or smaller).

I got my DMG today and there is no DR per say in there, however, there is a damage threshold rule for tough objects. It is immune to damage from a single attack up to a certain amount of damage. Then if you equal or exceed it takes full damage from the attack.

To align the DR with this Damage Threshold what would have to happen?

I suppose DR could operate as Damage Threshold, but then you could still have the issue of higher damage attacks usually defeating DR that's been held to levels that allow attacks from medium opponents and weapons to possibly get through. My previous example Frost Giant does minimum 9 points each time he connects with his axe, and averages 25.5. Fewer than 5% of the giant's attacks will connect for less than 16 points of damage. Half the time he'll do more than 25 points, whereas a greatsword attack from a 20 Strength human fighter does 2d6+5 (7-17, average 12); if DR is above 16, that fighter does no damage except on a critical hit, unless called shot/armor bypass is introduced, or he can use a weapon especially effective against that armor. But maybe that's appropriate. Similarly, perhaps it's appropriate that a hit from the Frost Giant's huge axe effectively ignores the protection of ordinary plate armor, deeply denting or slicing through it on most any hit.

 

[Orich Starkhart]

Not quite, [MENTION=6685730]DMMike[/MENTION]. Yes, AC and the DEX save reflect defense, but in different situations according to the game. With respect to combat, the notion of advancing defense skill in D&D is reflected in increasing hit points, not "armor points", except in an indirect way, in that with experience and advancement, characters generally acquire magic that might afford protective bonuses, as well as wealth and maybe prestige and favor which can be parlayed into increasingly effective armor, for those who have access to the required armor proficiency.

One of Sadrik's proposals
Parry class = 8 + Prof + DEX + Parry
Which is a hybrid between AC and Dex save.

A hybrid and redefinition (as armor is removed) I endorse, in general. Perhaps defense in combat ultimately becomes a dex save, and then armor protects from some of the resulting damage.

An interesting question given HP's new role. There are three game-rule outcomes:

1. The wall deals no damage.
2. The wall deals some damage, but you don't drop to zero HP.
3. The wall deals damage and you drop to zero HP.

Of these outcomes, only one has an in-game effect: character death. So what, exactly, is the difference between outcomes 1 and 2? Which defense skills, AC, Save, or Parry, apply to each? And if hit points are not required to represent injuries, why does option 1 exist?

0 hp isn't character death, necessarily - that depends on the amount of excess damage over what brought the character to 0.
The difference between options 1 and 2 depends on what can happen next. Is the character in the middle of battle?
The in game effect of 2 is that the character will go rest and get healed if they can, which may not not possible if they are engaged in a fight over the castle whose wall just collapsed, so the damage from the collapse has at minimum the effect of making this character that much closer to 0hp, potential unconsciousness, and death as they continue the fight.
Regarding "And if hit points are not required to represent injuries" - I suspect you're picking on the D&D-ism that a character functions at their full effectiveness until they fall to 0 hp. Not something I'm fond of either from a simulationist or narrativist perspective, but also not clearly germane specifically to the the questions of armor-as-DR, adding parry bonus for weapons wielded, and increasing shield bonus.

 

[Sadrik]

[MENTION=6762059]Orich Starkhart[/MENTION] you are very sharp. Much appreciated.

Good point about the wall. The question is, where's the line separating an attack that is to be resolved through melee combat rules from one using saving throws or other mechanics? Maybe melee is for attacks from opponents no more than one size class larger (and evens smaller?)? Does the DM set a specific DC, or use an opposed check: the attack total is the DC the defender has to beat to reduce or avoid damage?

I think your proposition of some mix between size category of the attacker and the target of the attack makes sense. This could be when the parry bonus of your weapons apply and when they do not apply. So if the some size categories bigger both cannot effectively parry against the other. This would effect the relative very small and very big. A pixie cannot parry an ogre and an ogre cannot parry a pixie. If parry could not apply then it would just be an attack against their base defense score.

As a side note here, what if all attacks were considered effective attacks, the fighter always delivers an effective attack in their barrage of attacks every 6 seconds (or more than one with multiple attacks). In this way, it is entirely up to the defender to defend that effective attack. At their disposal they can attempt to parry/dodge the attack by making a DEX save against the fighter's attack DC or perhaps roll with it/resist it by making a CON save to increase their effective DR against the attack. Under this idea you make no attack rolls, that is handled under your defense roll every time. So when the wall falls, you try to defend yourself and there is never a difference in how you roll.

Regarding my ruminations about weapon parry modifiers or setting Parry to 6: I was trying to work out what the relationship should be between the unmodified Armor Class system and your replacement Parry system, not figure out how to factor Parry bonuses into the AC system - though I think that's a totally reasonable thing to do too. The question is whether an AC10 human medium size target is unarmed as well as unarmored. Your answers show that you think of the weapon bonus as additive to defense that is in the unmodified game: that the game just fails to consider that being armed matters for melee defense. So, if a characters "Parry" score encompasses defensive ability, it's equal to 8 + Proficiency + ability and other modifiers, and a weapon adds to that when appropriate - particularly, when in melee against foes armed with melee weapons.

Yes this is a very nuanced delineation. So I do not think there is a right answer here only an answer. What is the best way to model the game you want to play. Do you want to make holding a weapon/shield/item more important mathematically or less important. What should the baseline defense of a person be?

Right now the baseline defense I have proposed is 8+Prof+/-DEX+/-size-armor

This is very similar to what the game is, 10+/-DEX

The two new ones I have there are size, because I think size should have an affect on how hard or easy something is to hit. I am uncertain about sizes role is in 5e. I have not been able to understand its effect yet. The other is armor penalty, so if you have heavy armor you get a penalty to your base defense, due to its burden (earlier you rightly said you thought it would more accurately be measured by overall encumbrance - I agree - though simplicity...).

On top of that comes the parry bonus from what you are holding. Shields provide the most bonus and ranged weapons provide the least.

Comparing this to the base game, armor bonuses increase your chances of being hit by up to 18 points (20 w/shield) including DEX modifiers. So any modeled system should remain within those values of the to hit score. I can see it being a little less even, considering their is also going to be a DR score.

Currently the best you can attain is 20 (shield +pole weapon+ 20 DEX), this is too high by my estimation. The numbers should be reevaluated. Perhaps:

Shield +2
Pole +1
Melee +0
Small Melee -1
Ranged -2
Unarmed -2

Having negative numbers is annoying though. This gets to your point that perhaps base 6 is better representative than base 8 along with the previously proposed parry numbers.

Shield +4
Pole +3
Melee +2
Small Melee +1
Ranged +0
Unarmed +0

I suppose DR could operate as Damage Threshold, but then you could still have the issue of higher damage attacks usually defeating DR that's been held to levels that allow attacks from medium opponents and weapons to possibly get through. My previous example Frost Giant does minimum 9 points each time he connects with his axe, and averages 25.5. Fewer than 5% of the giant's attacks will connect for less than 16 points of damage. Half the time he'll do more than 25 points, whereas a greatsword attack from a 20 Strength human fighter does 2d6+5 (7-17, average 12); if DR is above 16, that fighter does no damage except on a critical hit, unless called shot/armor bypass is introduced, or he can use a weapon especially effective against that armor. But maybe that's appropriate. Similarly, perhaps it's appropriate that a hit from the Frost Giant's huge axe effectively ignores the protection of ordinary plate armor, deeply denting or slicing through it on most any hit.

A couple of things here, you would have to have a called shot system in play to somehow avoid DR. Penalty to hit to try and avoid it. I think that makes sense. You could also look very closely and attempt to keep the DR values down as much as possible and not allow them to get that high.

I actually do not like the Damage Threshold rule I think a DR makes more sense. It is more granular. In this way an adamantine door is hit and say it has a DR of 10, it reduces the damage of the attack by 10. Under damage threshold any attack that deals 10+ deals full damage which is more all or nothing, and that is what AC is already doing.

 

[Orich Starkhart]

@Orich Starkhart you are very sharp. Much appreciated.

Thanks, and I'm glad I could help.

Regarding the effect of creature and weapon size on parry or combat/save mechanics, I think that weapon bonus to parry ought not apply for a combatant and weapon two or maybe three size categories smaller than the attacker and its weapon.

On the your idea of moving to defense rolls instead of attack rolls in melee: this seems to supply a satisfactory consistency - but might dramatically change the way melee feels in the game. I know that Unearthed Arcana specified this alternate for 3.5e, but i have no direct experience with this variant.

Right now the baseline defense I have proposed is 8+Prof+/-DEX+/-size-armor

This is very similar to what the game is, 10+/-DEX

We can make them more similar by adjusting proficiency before adding it - simply subtract 2 from the character's proficiency bonus. This replaces a range of 2-6 with the range 0-4.

As you know, I agree size should have some effect in combat; it seems the D&D 5 rules do not oblige us; apparently size adjustment was previously omitted from D&D 4 as well.

Regarding your assertion that the to-hit numbers should be no more than, and perhaps less than those achievable in the unmodified D&D 5, I agree in principle, as long as we are not considering that adding proficiency should not be allowed to increase defense beyond the range provided without magical enhancement in the base game.

At first glance, I thought the numbers you list as "reevaluated" look like a good start, but while you called the negative numbers simply "annoying", I see a deeper problem - the negative modifiers would imply one has lower defenses against a melee weapon, due to "parry" penalty, than the one has against thrown, missile, and other attacks to which parry would not apply.

Therefore, in a system where weapons supply a defensive/"parry" bonus dependent upon the weapon, I think we have to stipulate that the conventional AC10 applies to an unarmed - and untrained in unarmed melee defense, well as unarmored and shieldless - opponent.
I would make the following adjustments and clarifications:

• shields provide +3 (one point better than they increase AC in D&D 5), not +4
• pole weapons (long, heavy, usually two-handed, hafted weapons) provide +2, equivalent to swords, not +3 (the two pole weapons in D&D 5 Basic, halberd and glaive, are described as two-handed.)
• hafted weapons (mace, axe) and improvised weapons provide parry +1
• "light" weapons, even swords, provide parry +1
• two weapon fighting (two "light" weapons) applies the parry bonus for each weapon - total +2
• using a two handed weapon, or two-handing a "versatile" weapon, provides no boost to parry for the bigger weapon, because a possible bonus for parrying would be counteracted by a penalty to dexterity modifier to parry/defense/AC. (one's reactive agility is somewhat restricted by keeping hands both grasping a single rigid item in order to control it) So, a two handed sword supplies parry +2, a two handed war hammer or battle-axe supplies parry +1
• stacking is limited to the largest bonus +1. Shield plus longsword has the same defensive value as shield plus mace or axe - the benefit of the sword over the hafted weapon becomes less significant when it's combined with a shield.
• shield with longsword or hafted weapon - not "light" or "finesse" - results in a -1 penalty to dexterity bonus - using both the substantial shield and the heavy weapon results in a reduction by 1 to any dexterity bonus to parry/AC
• No additional bonus for holding only one item.

If there are "large" shields, I consider they may not qualify for greater parry bonus: the utility in covering more area may be compensated by reduced reactive agility due to weight and bulk of the shield, reducing Dexterity modifier by 1.

If there are "bucklers", they provide +1 parry.

Using the above, the best a character can do with maximum dexterity (20) is base parry = 10 + 5 + 3 + 1 = 19, (base plus DEX plus shield plus "light" or small weapon (e.g., shortsword), if unencumbered by armor.\("base parry" means parry before modifying it for proficiency bonus)
same character with shield and longsword has base parry = 10 + 5 + 3 + 1 - 1 = 18
same character with buckler and longsword has base parry = 10 + 5 + 2 + 1 = 18
same character two-weapon fighting has base parry 10 + 5 + 2 = 17, as well as the advantage of possible additional attacks.
same character wielding a two-handed sword has base Parry = 10 + 5 + 2 = 17
same character wielding a two-handed axe has base Parry = 10 + 5 + 1 = 16
same character wielding only a longsword has base Parry = 10 + 5 + 2 = 17
same character wielding a halberd or other polearm has base Parry = 10 + 5 + 2 = 17, as well as the advantage of reach.

It strikes me that your point about Damage threshold, that it's "all or nothing" and "that is what is AC is already doing" may describe the actual rationale for the damage threshold rule. Perhaps it's in lieu of of a more complicated rule that would reduce toughness as the object took damage, a more realistic approach. I prefer a more realistic approach.

 

[Stalker0]

The thing to remember is that even a +1 to AC is significant in 5e, so it represents a very solid improvement in defense. With that in mind, I don't think poles need a +1 parry over other melee weapons....unless you feel polearms are weak in any way.

Its not that polearms aren't good at parrying...they just aren't THAT much better at parrying.