Homebrew: Simple Armor durability and degradation rules

[Erechel]

Some time ago I've made simple enough Equipment Duration rules. In short, each fight saps 1 duration point for all equipment. Each piece of equipment has its own Duration value, based on its AC/max damage values. Once you have depleted all Duration points, you receive a penalty. Better equipment has more DP, worse equipment has less.

Link

 

[jasper]

what about monk, wizards, etc who don't wear armour? After 5 or more shots, we are going have a lot of nekkid adventurers running around.
Hmm. That would explain a lot of skimpy costumes in the movies.

 

[5ekyu]

Something I've witnessed in other games that feature armor degradation is that, when healing HP is easier than repairing armor, characters just stop wearing armor. (Armor degradation rules are more acceptable in games where healing is slow and difficult, with potential for complications. If it costs me 100gp to replace my armor, then that armor needs to have prevented more than 100gp worth of complications in order for it to be worthwhile.)

I can say with absolute certainty that, if you were my DM and wanted to use that rule, I would absolutely play a monk or wizard or something. There's no upside to being a paladin in that game; it's just more bookkeeping.

Yup plus no guarantee armor wpuld even survive a decent sized adventure once foreballs and such kick in.

 

[5ekyu]

I would say magic items are immune and so it will be less of a big deal a higher levels.

Uh ok so head in sand then? I mean its nowhere at all guaranteed that all armor wearers will have magic armor by fifth (fireballs and PCs with like 40ish or more HP.) 2-3 encounters can easily crash out some 30-40 hp medium armor. You expecting portable holes of spare armor by 5th?

Sure makess the "light armor or mage armor slot" question a no brainer for casters with the choices.

 

[Oofta]

I wouldn't want to play with these rules for a simple reason. No one would build a character that relies on armor. As others have noted, it become untenable at higher levels. As it is, heavy armor builds are already penalized. Why penalize them even more?

Now, if you had reasonable restrictions on what kind of AC bonus you could get from dexterity and other means then we're talking. But until then? Monks, barbarians, other high dexterity builds will be all you see.

Is D&D handling of armor realistic? Probably not, but then again neither is the rest of the game.

 

[jaelis]

Can I offer a different take on the idea?

Establish three classes of armor or shield condition:
- Undamaged
- Damaged
- Nonfunctional

The base AC of damaged armor is reduced by 2 (to a minimum of 10). The base AC of nonfunctional armor is 10. Strength requirements and stealth penalties are not impacted in either case. The AC bonus of a damaged shield is +1, and a nonfunctional shield is +0.

A given armor type has a maximum number of hit points equal to its base AC value. (IE 14 for scale armor.) A shield has a maximum of 6 hit points.

Every time you are hit by a critical hit, your armor and/or shield takes one point of damage. If you are using both armor and a shield, you decide which is damaged. The equipment is damaged when its hit points are reduced to 50% of its maximum, and nonfunctional when it has zero hit points.

A character proficient with the appropriate tools (smith's, leatherworker's, or carpenter's) can use them to repair armor or shields. They can repair 2 hit points per hour of work, or one hit point during a short rest (and still benefit from the rest). A character who lacks the required tools or their proficiency can still maintain armor which they are proficient in using, removing damage at a rate of one hit point per hour (and none while taking a short rest). In this case, however, it is not possible to improve the equipment's condition class, so damaged armor cannot have hit points restored above 50% and non-functional armor cannot be repaired. A mending spell repairs 2 hit points of damage with each casting, but cannot repair nonfunctional equipment.

Magic items and shields are not damaged by ordinary critical hits, but may be damaged in other ways as determined by the DM. They may require special means of repair as well.


That provides a little bit of realism and a reason to take tool proficiencies or the mending cantrip, but in most situations you can assume that characters with the time to maintain their equipment will be able to do so.

 

[5ekyu]

Can I offer a different take on the idea?

Establish three classes of armor or shield condition:
- Undamaged
- Damaged
- Nonfunctional

The base AC of damaged armor is reduced by 2 (to a minimum of 10). The base AC of nonfunctional armor is 10. Strength requirements and stealth penalties are not impacted in either case. The AC bonus of a damaged shield is +1, and a nonfunctional shield is +0.

A given armor type has a maximum number of hit points equal to its base AC value. (IE 14 for scale armor.) A shield has a maximum of 6 hit points.

Every time you are hit by a critical hit, your armor and/or shield takes one point of damage. If you are using both armor and a shield, you decide which is damaged. The equipment is damaged when its hit points are reduced to 50% of its maximum, and nonfunctional when it has zero hit points.

A character proficient with the appropriate tools (smith's, leatherworker's, or carpenter's) can use them to repair armor or shields. They can repair 2 hit points per hour of work, or one hit point during a short rest (and still benefit from the rest). A character who lacks the required tools or their proficiency can still maintain armor which they are proficient in using, removing damage at a rate of one hit point per hour (and none while taking a short rest). In this case, however, it is not possible to improve the equipment's condition class, so damaged armor cannot have hit points restored above 50% and non-functional armor cannot be repaired. A mending spell repairs 2 hit points of damage with each casting, but cannot repair nonfunctional equipment.

Magic items and shields are not damaged by ordinary critical hits, but may be damaged in other ways as determined by the DM. They may require special means of repair as well.


That provides a little bit of realism and a reason to take tool proficiencies or the mending cantrip, but in most situations you can assume that characters with the time to maintain their equipment will be able to do so.

What about attack that cannot crit like fireballs or cantrips that ise saves not attack rolls but still deliver damage?

 

[Blue]

The first question I always ask when introducing house rules several have already asked: does this add enough to play to justify the added complexity.

The second question is "does this change the balance for a subset of PCs?". Sometimes, if someone is underpowered I want it. In this case I haven't experienced anyone saying armor is OP, so that's not the case. In that case, this feels like a nerf to certain character types.

So, what bonus to do give to armor wearers to offset this? My first through would be that any damage the armor takes would be less damage that the PC takes. That puts every armor wearer at about 2/3 of the Heavy Armor Proficiency feat. But that doesn't scale particularly well we have giants doing 30+ damage per hit which still in single digit CRs.

Basically, tanks are already attacked the most, this rule also makes them the most likely to lose their armor. Since they are supposed to get in the way, losing their armor also make them least likely to be able to continue to fulfill their role. An ranged character like an archer or caster can still function with lower AC will a much less reduction in their efficiency in what they bring to the party. So we need a massive bonus to tanks to offset this nerf. Else tanks will all become no-armor like barbarians. (Or carry multiple sets of armor and swap them out all the time.)

 

[jaelis]

What about attack that cannot crit like fireballs or cantrips that ise saves not attack rolls but still deliver damage?

In my system those would not damage your armor. That makes sense to me, I can't really see a fireball doing significant damage to your armor without burning you up. But if you don't like that, you can say that your gear also takes a point of damage if you roll a 1 on your save.

 

[5ekyu]

In my system those would not damage your armor. That makes sense to me, I can't really see a fireball doing significant damage to your armor without burning you up. But if you don't like that, you can say that your gear also takes a point of damage if you roll a 1 on your save.

While one might rationalize fire not hurting armors even cloth based ones, its harder for that for things like force or even acid or such.