D&D 5E House rule for Victorian era aesthetic - no armor

[Tonguez]

I like this a lot, the ‘wearing clothes to cover vitals’ part invoked images of victorian louts wrapping thick wadding around their bellys and arms to prepare for a fight, whereas the Light style immediate had me thinking of kung fu.

I also like how this rules let you turn a cane or any other random item intom a shield

 

[Ratskinner]

Dex is already the uber-stat. Do you want every PC maximising Dex?

In a Victorian setting....sure (at least using D&D as a base). It makes a lot of genre sense, certainly worked in Boot Hill. Plus, I don't think it would warp things that much more than they already are. You'd still have folks maximizing their attack stat.

Additionally, I would think you would need to add some skills and whatnot that would push things a little toward the other stats.

Of course, some of this balancing act would depend on what exactly one plans on doing for a "Victorian Setting". Are we bouncing around Europe in fancy clothes hunting cultists or are we traipsing around central Asia as part of the "Great Game" (if you buy into that sort of thing). Then again, Victoria ruled for quite a while. It might be good to narrow it down a bit more.

 

[Li Shenron]

Perhaps it should be a movement action? Like, if you're bolting across the field, you don't have time to parry, etc.

Well my point was that it doesn't have to be an action at all. After all, gaining the armor bonus to AC normally doesn't require any action (assuming you are already wearing the armor). These abilities are meant to replace armors, so they could just work like them and have a bonus equal to a specific armor per category.

I know it costs time to don armor in the first place. But the reality is that it rarely comes into play, because in that rare occasion when the DM denies you to already have armor on, the donning is so slow that you won't choose to, you'll fight without armor because there is no time, combat will be over before you've donned your armor.

Most DMs don't bother and assume you always have armor when you need. If you do want to deny armor now and then, figure out a reason why this new ability doesn’t work, exactly when you want it not to work

 

[Morrus]

I think for me, balancing the game to represent that armour is not common is fine — but wearing armour should still be better than not wearing armour. Otherwise, why did anybody ever wear armour?

So create a new armour table more suited to the setting. Quilted longcoats, and stuff. We’re talking adventurers, not common nobles. The lady (adventurer) has thin iron plates sewn into her exquisite ballgown.The gentleman’s longcoat has a mithral lining. You can buy cloth treated to be as strong as chainmail.

Just change the names. Everybody gets to be protected and fashionable.

 

[Blue]

Why not just reskin the armors? Which leaves in visual identification. Someone wearing an unseasonably heavy longcoat is clearly visually different than someone who is wearing the latest light and airy spring fashions. Proficiency comes with knowing how to use them to protect yourself. Coats and draped fashions hiding where vulnerable spots are and the like.

Really, if you want to make a drop-in replacement it's the easiest, even if it lacks some verisimilitude.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I like the way you think. I don't think these rules have to be as faithful to the armor rules, though. What do we gain by retaining, say, the three-way light/medium/heavy distinction, or the same don/doff action economy? And as others have noted, how do guns play into this?

Here's a little brainstorm:

Against melee attacks, your parry AC is 10 + your Strength modifier. Against ranged attacks, your dodge AC is 10 + your Dexterity modifier. You can't parry gunfire, but neither can you effectively dodge around when somebody is waving a weapon in your face.
If a class would provide light armor proficiency, it grants +1 to both ACs instead. Medium proficiency becomes +2, heavy becomes +3. These values can possibly be higher; that would result in dodge or parry ACs getting higher than 18, but the other value would still probably be reasonable to hit. Which would encourage trying to attack enemies in their weak style.
"Shields" work exactly as you say, no change there.
Finally, cover gives you a flat AC as though it were D&D armor. Say between 15 and 20 depending on the quality of the cover. You're not really dodging around when you're taking cover, but it's still usually a good idea to do so.

 

[Laurefindel]

If you were playing in a steampunk game, what would you think of this house rule?
(...)
I have a tendency to overcomplicate things, from my history of writing for 3.5, 4E, and PF.

You don't think it's too complex? Or too obvious of a 'kludge' to make D&D mechanics fit the setting?

The "spend an Action" part is superfluous IMO. AC is based on your martial training - no need to complicated things further.

No training: AC = 10 + DEX
Light armor proficiency: AC = 12 + DEX
Medium armor proficiency: AC = 15 + DEX (max +2)
Heavy armor proficiency: AC = 16 + STR (max +2)
Tucked hand technique (shield proficiency): +2 AC, can't use that hand

I would even wave off the stealth penalty, donning/doffing time, sleeping in armor rule etc. If you really want to, you could create a "flat-footed" condition whereas a surprised character's AC is just 10 + DEX regardless of training.

 

[SanjMerchant]

What if you go the other route? Make guns ignore armor. That way, people will gravitate towards light armor (fluffed as reinforced clothing) because an enemy with firearms makes heavy plate and chainmail irrelevant. Some might go for medium armor as a compromise, to be prepared for both gun users and the occasional traditionalist with a sword (or a jerk with bayonet when things get up close and personal).

It's a decent analog for why people stopped wearing clunky metal armor in real life and you don't have to alter the base game, just make it a property of firearms particularly.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I fail to see how clothing and using it is going to make you harder to damage. What is the point of this?

 

[RangerWickett]

The point is that if you want a game to evoke Sherlock Holmes, and you want character options to be balanced, you can either redesign the entire AC system of the whole game, or you can give people a way to have high AC without wearing plate armor.

If I were designing a game from scratch, it'd be balanced around armor providing damage resistance, not making it harder to hit you, and then yes, guns would bypass that DR. But in 5E, fighters and paladins need heavy armor.

I guess I could make variants of those classes that trade away heavy armor proficiency and get something else, but I'm trying to find the least intrusive way to

a) have the right aesthetic
b) maintain access to all character options and let them be balanced
c) minimally damage verisimilitude