D&D 5E Armor: damage reduction

[Diamabel]

One thing to remember when considering heavier armour = damage reduction is that you create a scenario wherein you penalize those who cannot wear heavy armour, as well as fail to include other factors.

If a person in full plate was fighting an unarmoured monk, do you believe the monk would actually have a harder time hitting the person, or do you think the AC includes a representation of the damage reduction capabilities of the armour already?

If you want to add in damage reduction I don't think it's a bad idea, but I would recommend you remove the Armour Class of these items, and simply convert it from "to hit" to "damage reduction" so you're not creating the double dip scenario, wherein full plate both makes you harder to hit (which is obviously false) AND reduces damage.

I don't think you are so much punishing those who can't/won't wear armour(any) as you are providing a concrete reason for those who can to do so.

Yes, the monk would have a harder time hitting a person in plate armour to any effect- glancing blows, etc(AC).. and when they did hit, some (or all) of the blow might be absorbed.(Armor took the brunt of the hit, leaving the wearer bruised but far better off than without armour)

Personally, I think the addition of DR to armour has merit- as things stand, you can achieve near equal AC to plate armour through light armour+DEX bonus to AC, which comes with all the inherent benefits of DEX for free- higher initiative, acrobatics, stealth etc, and none of the detriments (disadvantage on stealth, time to don/doff, potential movement speed penalties).

 

[bid]

Incidentally, Heavy Armor Master feat is replaced by the following:

- increase STR score by 1 (max 20)
- no 5 foot speed reduction for wearing heavy armor
- double DR against critical hits

But this feat modification is secondary to the main question, above.

FTFY, that's how I'd handle it.

Tinkering is fun, but I'm not sure it's all that good. Low-armor classes are already penalized by smaller HD, in a way this is double-dipping against them.

 

[dmnqwk]

I don't think you are so much punishing those who can't/won't wear armour(any) as you are providing a concrete reason for those who can to do so.

My point is when you introduce damage reduction for heavy armour, it should be EASIER to hit someone in full plate, because their movements are inflexible and rigid and they are forced to rely on their halberd, or greataxe to prevent attacks.

Therefore if you include damage reduction:

Light Armour - 10 + Dex, DR: 2
Medium Armour - 10 + Dex (max 2), DR: 4
Heavy Armour - 10, DR: 6

If you wish Armour to offer Damage Reduction, then you need to re-design it so it cannot provide similar levels of protection in Armour Class, because it is far harder to hit someone unarmoured than in full plate, and if the damage reduction is how you wish to simulate this that's okay. But don't let Plate Mail offer both an AC of 18 AND heavy armour reduction, because the AC system already includes what you think should happen - that heavy armour reduces the damage of blows - because it is already included in the AC.

 

[Diamabel]

My point is when you introduce damage reduction for heavy armour, it should be EASIER to hit someone in full plate, because their movements are inflexible and rigid and they are forced to rely on their halberd, or greataxe to prevent attacks.

Therefore if you include damage reduction:

Light Armour - 10 + Dex, DR: 2
Medium Armour - 10 + Dex (max 2), DR: 4
Heavy Armour - 10, DR: 6

If you wish Armour to offer Damage Reduction, then you need to re-design it so it cannot provide similar levels of protection in Armour Class, because it is far harder to hit someone unarmoured than in full plate, and if the damage reduction is how you wish to simulate this that's okay. But don't let Plate Mail offer both an AC of 18 AND heavy armour reduction, because the AC system already includes what you think should happen - that heavy armour reduces the damage of blows - because it is already included in the AC.

I understand what you are saying, however armour is not as encumbering/mobility limiting as you think it is. The reduced mobility from heavier armours is already represented in the system by limiting the AC you can gain from dexterity.

It is FAR harder to hit someone to *any* effect in full plate than someone who is unarmoured. And even if you *do* hit, it either needs to hit in a vulnerable spot (in the visor, palms of the hands, etc), OR it needs to hit exceptionally hard.. a direct hammer blow to the helmet that doesn't glance, for example. These two facets can be represented by AC and DR.

Contrast that to an unarmoured opponent- yes, you can dodge better, but you have almost no protection (via armour) from weapon blows... a weapon that contacts you will likely do some degree of damage - it only takes a couple of lbs pressure from a sharp blade to puncture human skin.

TL;DR: Armour makes you both harder to hit *and* more resistant to blows that do hit you.

 

[dmnqwk]

TL;DR: Armour makes you both harder to hit *and* more resistant to blows that do hit you.

Plate Armour offers an AC of 18, which is higher than a suit of Studded Leather worn by the world's most dexterous person. In a combat, AC does not represent just the ability to avoid a blow, but includes the damage reduction capabilities you are looking to separate. AC is a simplified system of damage soaking, combined with avoidance, that computer games would split into Armour, Dodge, Parry, Block etc.

Plate Armour offers more protection, already, than Studded Leather worn by the most dextrous person and so unless you re-work the AC value of heavy armour to remove the implied reduction it has (because if Armor does not include the reduction as part of the AC, why is it harder to "hit" someone just because they have armour.) you would be skewing the balance towards heavy armour.

If this was a video game, instead of hitting and missing, you would probably hit all the time but end up with the armour soaking part of the damage. Over time it'd work out the same, but DnD needs to simplify things to get it into as few dice rolls as possible.

But don't forget AC is not "hit and miss" but includes the factors such as glancing blows, deflected attacks, armour mitigation etc you'd find in video games on their own when a computer can make those calculations quickly.

 

[Diamabel]

Plate Armour offers an AC of 18, which is higher than a suit of Studded Leather worn by the world's most dexterous person. In a combat, AC does not represent just the ability to avoid a blow, but includes the damage reduction capabilities you are looking to separate. AC is a simplified system of damage soaking, combined with avoidance, that computer games would split into Armour, Dodge, Parry, Block etc.

Plate Armour offers more protection, already, than Studded Leather worn by the most dextrous person and so unless you re-work the AC value of heavy armour to remove the implied reduction it has (because if Armor does not include the reduction as part of the AC, why is it harder to "hit" someone just because they have armour.) you would be skewing the balance towards heavy armour.

If this was a video game, instead of hitting and missing, you would probably hit all the time but end up with the armour soaking part of the damage. Over time it'd work out the same, but DnD needs to simplify things to get it into as few dice rolls as possible.

But don't forget AC is not "hit and miss" but includes the factors such as glancing blows, deflected attacks, armour mitigation etc you'd find in video games on their own when a computer can make those calculations quickly.

AC might claim to include the damage reduction capabilities/mitigation, but I feel it does a poor job of it. It is, IMO, an oversimplified system that fails to capture the actual worth of armour.

Would a few points of extra DR skew things towards heavy armour in certain situations? Well... yes, and for good reason- Plate armours are the most expensive, most advanced, best protection available (barring magic)

If we are going to to look at the pure "game" factor of armour, and as I mentioned earlier, the extreme utility of high dexterity in general- Adding extra damage mitigation to heavier armours helps bring things into balance. The classes that usually forego heavier armours tend to have other methods of mitigation- barbarian rage+Con bonus to AC, rogue's free disengage/uncanny dodge, monks Wis bonus to AC, etc..

Further, damage reduction for heavy armour already exists (for the cost of 1/2 of a feat with heavy armour master).. it's not much of a stretch to hard bake it into armour itself.

 

[dmnqwk]

Further, damage reduction for heavy armour already exists (for the cost of 1/2 of a feat with heavy armour master).. it's not much of a stretch to hard bake it into armour itself.

It's called power creep. You feel heavy armour deserves more, but you have to understand the game rules already include part of what you want to accomplish. You would be better re-designing the entire Armour Class system to incorporate a damage soak mechanism. Otherwise you are screwing over players who wear light armour. I am definitely not supportive of rules which screw over a particular playstyle, unless said playstyle is unbalanced (such as how overpowered Eldritch Blast is now looking as a cantrip).

 

[Warbringer]

I give armor a hp buffer pool of which half can be used on any attack.

(AC-10)*5 for the number hps (+10 per plus)

However, now reduce the base AC bonus (AC-10)/2 round up, add 10, add any magic bonus.

So magic chain mail +1 is now

AC=14
Hit point pool (40)

 

[Diamabel]

It's called power creep. You feel heavy armour deserves more, but you have to understand the game rules already include part of what you want to accomplish. You would be better re-designing the entire Armour Class system to incorporate a damage soak mechanism. Otherwise you are screwing over players who wear light armour. I am definitely not supportive of rules which screw over a particular playstyle, unless said playstyle is unbalanced (such as how overpowered Eldritch Blast is now looking as a cantrip).

That is your assessment and opinion, and I just don't agree with it ^_^ The nice thing about house rules.

 

[Psikerlord#]

What would be the consequence of introducing the following additional rule concerning armor (that otherwise work as in the PHB):

Light armor: damage reduction 1 vs percing, slashing and bludgeonning weapons
Medium armor: damage reduction 2 vs percing, slashing and bludgeonning weapons; and all medium armor provides disadvantage on stealth checks
Heavy armor: damage reduction 3 vs percing, slashing and bludgeonning weapons; and all heavy armor reduces speed by 5'.

Some monsters having natural plating could have some measure of damage reduction vs percing, slashing and bludgeonning weapons also, from 1-3 depending on the type of plating.

******

Incidentally, Heavy Armor Master feat is replaced by the following:

- increase STR score by 1 (max 20)
- no 5 foot speed reduction for wearing heavy armor
- immunity to critical hits from percing, slashing and bludgeonning weapons

But this feat modification is secondary to the main question, above.

I think this would be an excellent change and work perfectly well. Certainly wont break anything. Your heavy armour wearing guys and enemies will be tougher is all.