D&D 5E Armor as partially DR

[Brad Prentice]

Hey -- about to try out a DR from armor system. interested in your comments...

Since 5e monster damage tends to be lowish, I thought I'd start small. Most light armors give DR 1, mediums DR 2, heavies DR 3 (although I played with these a bit to match armor types). But the armors provide some AC also (just not as much as before).

To get these numbers I just subtract the new DR from the armor's original AC.

I think this gives armor a little more effectiveness? I know in some cases it's better and in some it's worse. A plate armored knight should be able to shrug off kobold pokes but he should be more worried than before about dragons.

I also added back movement penalties with armor.

Also to simulate unbalanced weapons like axes and hammers and picks, I want to try giving them a constant -2 attack and +2 damage. This is to model how they are more unwieldy (therefore strike less frequently) but when they do hit the hit hard.

What do you think?

Armor	AC​	DR​	Move​	Encumbrance​
No Armor	0​	0​	+5’ Athl/Acro​	No (1 x Str)​
Padded* Leather Studded	001​	011​	​	Light (2 x Str)​
Hide Chain Shirt Scale* Breastplate Half Plate*	01212​	22233​	-5’​	Med (5 x Str)​
Ring* Chain* Splint* Plate*	2445​	2233​	-10’​	Hvy (10 x Str)​
	​	​	-20’ + disadv on physical checks​	Extra Hvy (15 x Str)​
	​	​	max 5’​	Drag(30 x Str)​

 

[Blue]

The issue with this is that D&D damage range is not designed with straight DR in mind. They mix and match scaling by number of attacks (each which would be affected by DR) and by damage (which quickly grows that the DR is minimal). If you have a giant swing for 30 damage, 3 HPs saved will not add up to the value of a single miss over the course of combat.

The concept isn't bad, but 5e damage isn't designed around allowing it.

 

[Xeviat]

Armor as DR could have worked in 4E, where the "damage by level" for PCs and NPCs was far more bounded. It's all over the place in 5E, and bounded accuracy's stated goal of letting low level creatures still be a threat at higher levels means DR would ruin that; a higher DR for lower AC would make low level monsters do next to no damage.

This isn't saying you couldn't achieve this, but I think it would require a lot of changes. It's something i'd like to see, personally, but Armor as HP bonus might be easier to do within the system.

 

[Brad Prentice]

The issue with this is that D&D damage range is not designed with straight DR in mind. They mix and match scaling by number of attacks (each which would be affected by DR) and by damage (which quickly grows that the DR is minimal). If you have a giant swing for 30 damage, 3 HPs saved will not add up to the value of a single miss over the course of combat.

The concept isn't bad, but 5e damage isn't designed around allowing it.

I agree with you that 5e damage isn't designed around this.

That's part of what I like about it -- a giant's club shouldn't be stopped much by armor but a similarly levelled claw/claw/bite monster would be. Makes armor a more interesting choice. Luckily, monster damage *does* seem to be scaled this way ... big hits vs small hits.

 

[Brad Prentice]

Armor as DR could have worked in 4E, where the "damage by level" for PCs and NPCs was far more bounded. It's all over the place in 5E, and bounded accuracy's stated goal of letting low level creatures still be a threat at higher levels means DR would ruin that; a higher DR for lower AC would make low level monsters do next to no damage.

This isn't saying you couldn't achieve this, but I think it would require a lot of changes. It's something i'd like to see, personally, but Armor as HP bonus might be easier to do within the system.

Monster / spell damage does vary but it follows a pattern at least. And it's one that models reality IMO pretty well ... at least *I* find it believable that armor protects you better against goblins and magic missiles than it does against giants and lightning bolts.

And with DR between 1 and 3 ... goblins still have a danger since they deal d6+2. Gives goblins more incentive to attack the mages. IMO, that's part of the point of good rule mods -- to give good choices.

 

[Brad Prentice]

Armor as DR could have worked in 4E, where the "damage by level" for PCs and NPCs was far more bounded. It's all over the place in 5E, and bounded accuracy's stated goal of letting low level creatures still be a threat at higher levels means DR would ruin that; a higher DR for lower AC would make low level monsters do next to no damage.

This isn't saying you couldn't achieve this, but I think it would require a lot of changes. It's something i'd like to see, personally, but Armor as HP bonus might be easier to do within the system.

Monster / spell damage does vary but it follows a pattern at least. And it's one that models reality IMO pretty well ... at least *I* find it believable that armor protects you better against goblins and magic missiles than it does against giants and lightning bolts.

And with DR between 1 and 3 ... goblins still have a danger since they deal d6+2. Gives goblins more incentive to attack the mages. IMO, that's part of the point of good rule mods -- to give good choices.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Real life battle axes, warhammers and war picks are in no way "unbalanced". They are much lighter than the tool versions we are familliar with, and balanced for attacking rather than for work.

 

[FrogReaver]

Monster / spell damage does vary but it follows a pattern at least. And it's one that models reality IMO pretty well ... at least *I* find it believable that armor protects you better against goblins and magic missiles than it does against giants and lightning bolts.

And with DR between 1 and 3 ... goblins still have a danger since they deal d6+2. Gives goblins more incentive to attack the mages. IMO, that's part of the point of good rule mods -- to give good choices.

There's a 2 part defense system. The HP defense and AC defense. Your HP defense is the part that protects you against little blows better than big blows. The AC defense is the what is used as general protection and it is allowed to be a combination of glancing blows and dodging the attack outright. When you are hit that generally represents the monster landing an on you in a place that you will be hurt. As such it really doesn't make sense for your armor to provide damage reduction. To hit you in plate the goblin rolled a 17 and landed a well placed attack at one of your armors weak points. In other words, in order to land an attack in D&D terms he hit you in such a way as to bypass your armor.

Now I'm with you that "in reality" plate maybe shouldn't have as big of a comparative bonus to avoiding and glancing giant hits as more dex based armors since glancing a goblin blow is easy for plate but glancing a giant blow is hard. And while damage reduction could possibly solve this, it actually further convolutes what HP and AC are supposed to stand for in the first place (as noted above) and that's perhaps the bigger crime.

That's my take anyways. Damage reduction is a cool mechanic but it's not really a more realistic mechanic IMO. Also a whole system needs designed around DR in mind or it's going to remain a pretty fiddly mechanic. I don't think there is a good way to "hack" d&d to solve the simulationist situation you want solved. If I was designing a game from scratch I could keep that in mind and maybe have certain monsters ignore your armors contribution to AC while keeping your dex contribution. Of course if you are going that far you probably don't give damage bonus to weapons based on dex and stuff like that. Or I could design a system where AC was your chance of dodging an attack and damage reduction was what armor provided. But just to make sure it's said, taking a system without those "ideas" already planned into it and just adding damage reduction or some other solution to goblin vs giant attack realism isn't going to work well IMO.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you wanted a more simulationist feel I'd suggest:

1. Having both a chance to hit the target at all and a chance to bypass armor as separate things along with damage as a third
2. As such you roll to hit, you roll to bypass armor and then if you hit and bypass armor you roll damage.

In this system, goblins would probably have a moderate chance to hit but a low chance to bypass armor. A giant would probably have a lower chance to hit but a much higher chance to bypass armor. In general for a PC strength would primarily affect your ability to bypass armor and damage and dex would affect your ability to land the hit and provide you a better chance of being missed.

 

[Blue]

I agree with you that 5e damage isn't designed around this.

That's part of what I like about it -- a giant's club shouldn't be stopped much by armor but a similarly levelled claw/claw/bite monster would be. Makes armor a more interesting choice. Luckily, monster damage *does* seem to be scaled this way ... big hits vs small hits.

If you are making an informed decision to nerf heavy armor and that works at your table, go for it. This is a severe down-power once you start hitting about level 5 and gets much more so as you level up.