D&D 5E Armor: damage reduction

[Diamabel]

If you want DR for armor, I suggest using a different system rather than rewriting this one. It just isn't designed for it.

It's a simple addition to correct a (perceived) imbalance in the base game design, rather than a full on rewrite. Kinda the nice thing with PnP, being able to correct game balance/inconsistencies so easily.

 

[Wrathamon]

If you want DR for armor, I suggest using a different system rather than rewriting this one. It just isn't designed for it.

He is suggesting DR that the game already supports (with race and feats).

A full Armor as DR system, I agree with you that D&D doesn't simulate that sorta of system very well.

I think the first answer is correct.

Low-levels it will feel very good to overpowered, it will give players survivability. As they level it will just start to be annoying to subtract all the time and potentially slow the game down.

 

[Diamabel]

[MENTION=6788929]Diamabel[/MENTION]: yes, I've been considering the non-armor bonuses:

Monks: I'll give them a flat +1 AC, no damage reduction.

Barbarians: I'll allow them to re-roll 1-2 once on their d12 for hit points when they level up. This is a small compensation, but then again barbarians do have the choice to don light or medium armor.

Natural armor and Spells: It's likely that I would award damage reduction according to armor-equivalent bonuses:
11-13 = light armor equivalent, so DR = 1
13-15 = medium armor equivalent, so DR = 2
16+ = heavy armor equivalent, so DR = 3

I'll leave some space for subjective adjudication here, depending on the type of creature.

I'd have to rule from the outset for Barkskin (AC 16) and mage armor (AC 13) so they'd probably be -3 and -2 respectively.

Or, maybe the spells and natural armor creatures don't get damage reduction. Because, the creature made from rock doesn't have a distinct armor, it's its skin that is chipped when you hit the hard stuff. Hmmm. Dunno. This would make PCs and armor-wearing NPCs tougher than non-armor wearing monsters. Do I want this?

RE: Barbarian - My group doesn't roll for HP. In fact, I felt that the "average" roll per die type disproportionately punished the classes with higher dice types. I raised HP/level to Max die roll minus two, plus con mod. (1d6 =4, 1d8=6, 1d10=8, 1d12=10)

Perhaps consider a flat +1-2 hp/level to make them a more reliable damage sponge

I once played in a campaign where a friend of mine had a level 3 fighter with 4 hp max... turned me off rolling HP forever.

Regarding natural armour class, etc.. I think assigning DR appropriate to armour based on a thick/hard skin as a guideline would work. It's going to be pretty difficult to appreciably damage something like an earth elemental(at all) with sling stones, even with a direct hit.

 

[Skyscraper]

RE: Barbarian - My group doesn't roll for HP. In fact, I felt that the "average" roll per die type disproportionately punished the classes with higher dice types. I raised HP/level to Max die roll minus two, plus con mod. (1d6 =4, 1d8=6, 1d10=8, 1d12=10)

This is a very interesting houserule. I'm a fan of rolling dice, but were I to consider flat HPs, I would certainly use this.

Regarding natural armour class, etc.. I think assigning DR appropriate to armour based on a thick/hard skin as a guideline would work. It's going to be pretty difficult to appreciably damage something like an earth elemental(at all) with sling stones, even with a direct hit.

Yes, indeed. DR would make using small weapons less of an interesting option vs. armored oppponents. Something to think about.

 

[Pssthpok]

Armor could just grant "armor hit points" akin to temporary hit points, except critical hits bypass them and deal damage directly to your normal hit points.

Light armor: +3 (1d4) per character level or CR
Medium armor: +4 (1d6) per level per character level or CR
Heavy armor: +5 (1d8) per level per character level or CR

Armors in each category would differentiate itself by virtue of weight, aesthetic, and its effect on speed and stealth - as usual.
Shields could still grant a +2 to AC, with an option to admit that a shield is simply granting its wearer "half cover" (hence the +2), and that a kite shield would grant three-quarters cover (for a +5 AC bump).

Then you have the option of having magic armor either increase the armor HP by +1-3 per level or, better, just putting the bonus straight to AC.

 

[Skyscraper]

By the way, thanks for the replies everyone. Again, many very constructive posts in response to my inquiry on this board.

You can keep'em coming

 

[LapBandit]

In my campaigns there is no Heavy Armor Master feat. Heavy Armor provides DR against bludgeoning/piercing/slashing:
Chain 1DR
Splint 2DR
Plate 3DR

 

[Huntsman57]

I would go with 1 point of damage reduction per point of armor class derived from physical armor (0-8). However, Damage avoidance (traditional AC) would be a measure of your skill, dexterity, shield use, and magic. Skill would be an innate feature that would increase your "avoidance" by 1 point every 3 levels.

Thus a 9th level Rogue with a 20 dex and studded leather armor would have a damage reduction of 2 and an avoidance of 18 plus any magical upgrades.

A 9th level fighter with full plate and a shield would have 8 points of damage reduction and an avoidance of 15 plus any magical upgrades.

I used a system for this is a modern campaign and it worked fairly well though I've never tested it in 5E nor in a vanilla D&D setting.

 

[dmnqwk]

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.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

major rant on a minor issue: everybody and his mother now has darkvision. It's nothing out of the ordinary to have darkvision. On the contrary, it's NOT having darkvision that essentially makes you a lesser being. Most monsters have them, and most PC races.

/rant

Tangent: most monsters only have short-range (60') darkvision though. I love fighting monsters with darkvision in the dark, because all you have to do is be 65' away and have a buddy with a torch near the monster, and now suddenly all the PCs get advantage on their attack rolls. Dancing Lights works too, at the cost of your concentration.

Similarly, you can use Greater Invisibility against dragons if you just stay more than 120' away.