D&D 5E Is it finally time..

Warbringer

Explorer
I would like that but as an optional rule. By optional I don't mean that DM has to decide whether to use armor hp in his games or not. By optional I mean that a player can choose to use it on round to round basis or not. Armor would have HP, and whenever you take damage from an attack that has to beat the Armor Class, you may spend some of armor's HP instead of your own. Simple, effective, and allows 1st level players to survive swingy fights.

Pretty much exactly what we do ... A quick decision to take it on armor or not.

Regarding some of he concerns raised about the math being fiddle or bothersome, they simply have not been an issue at the table, but I can see one more think for new players to track would be a concern.

Repair is easy, and armor in disrepair has no hops and 1 ac less .... Thats it
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Gundark

Explorer
No. I played an RPG years ago that had hp on armor and I hated it. It was annoying to keep track of and having to constantly get your armor repaired is an extreme nuisance.

What armor should do is provide damage reduction. Of course, they'll never do that. AC is too much of a sacred cow.

They have done that before and my guess is they will do it as an option this time around.
 


mlund

First Post
DR on armor isn't a hard thing to manage at the table.

Creating a HP pool for armor is a problem, especially with all the details or repairing, damaged states, etc. That's the kind of mindless book-keeping best suited for a computer game. Field Plate and Full Plate in UA are definitely examples of what not to do.

The real issue is balancing damage resistance. In a system that escalates damage by means of expansive multi-attacking (like 3.X), DR is far more powerful. In a system that escalates damage mostly by single attacks or effects (more like 4E and Next) it's not quite as volatile.

In some respects, it really does model monster-vs-player situations better. While it is really much harder to find purchase against Plate Mail with a sword, a Hill Giant isn't having any harder time connecting with his club against the guy in Full Plate as opposed to the guy in Ring Mail. The Plate Mail's superiority in this position doesn't come from an increased likelihood of binary success or failure with the Hill Giant dealing damage. Rather, it distributes the brunt of the blow, lowering the amount of damage done - possibly to a negligible amount if the Hill Giant rolls really low.

Something like Light Armor providing +1 AC, Medium Armor providing +2 AC, and Heavy Armor providing +3 AC with various DR levels would be pretty viable if a few adjustments were made for things like "Armor Piercing" attacks that trump Armor DR and making all Critical Hits automatically Armor Piercing. Also, a caveat that Armor DR can not reduce damage to less than 1 point would probably need to go in there too.

But that's just a thought experiment. AC ranged from 10-20 is pretty much Sacred Cow territory. Monkeying with that would lead to cries of "That's not really D&D!" - regardless of the legacy for armor DR from AD&D and 3.X (adamantine armor, anyone?)

- Marty Lund
 

Stormonu

Legend
But that's just a thought experiment. AC ranged from 10-20 is pretty much Sacred Cow territory. Monkeying with that would lead to cries of "That's not really D&D!" - regardless of the legacy for armor DR from AD&D and 3.X (adamantine armor, anyone?)

- Marty Lund

Well, not that much of a sacred cow. For over twenty years, it went from AC 10 to -10...


Personally, I'd rather go with a hp pool, so long as it was made easy for a DM to use for monsters.
 

mlund

First Post
Personally, I'd rather go with a hp pool, so long as it was made easy for a DM to use for monsters.

Oh, I don't think the DR should be a mechanic for enemies in general. Yes, a heavily fortified monster will just have higher AC and HP. Maybe an elite / solo / recurring villain template could use those DR mechanics like players, but if it isn't built to last more than 1 scene like a Player Character is then don't try forcing that round peg in the square hole the governs PCs.

- Marty Lund
 

Greenfield

Adventurer
Armor HP are an interesting idea. I could see "Ablative" as an armor trait.

But I agree that you'd need to keep track of real HP v Armor HP, since the armor won't repair itself when the Cure Serious kicks in.

I've worked with other systems that use armor as damage reduction as well. The Hero System (Champions, Fantasy Hero etc.) works that way.

One frustration I ran into played out as follows...

Player: I attack the enemy. (Rolls dice...) I hit!

DM: Let me check Activation (did he get his shield into play). (Rolls dice...)

Player: (Totaling dice rolled, counting 6s and 1s, as called for by Hero System) I did 25 points of Stun and 8 Body (their version of hit points).

DM: (Consults enemy character sheet...) It bounces. Next?

Lots of dice rolling, lots of math, ending in a functional miss. Talk about slow play.

I've experimented with a system that used a variant on that, where Armor points were good for damage reduction, up to one half of the damage dealt. So the guy always felt something if he got hit. It eliminated the frustration of hitting someone then finding out that you really didn't(i.e. no damage got through). But it added a bit more math to the system, and slowed play.

I don't mind the math, but I hate it when working the mechanics of the game drains off the adrenaline of the moment. Victory or defeat should feel like something more than successfully finishing your homework.
 

Crazy Jerome

First Post
Armor with hit points, at least a simple version, is a pretty decent way to handle it IF you want: A) Some form of armor DR, AND B) A simple way to handle damage/repairs to armor. If you want both of those things, now you've got both of them wrapped up in one simple package.

OTOH, if you only want DR or only want repair, that's not necessarily the best choice. And certainly if you don't care about either, then it's just extra, unnecessary baggage compared to the standard D&D way.

So a simple rule that keeps the AC values of armor lower and/or even not present in return for each armor giving hit points, is a great optional rule. Keep it simple, and you don't even need to change anything else. Just specify in the rule what it implies.

The main problem with the usual armor DR schemes (in many games, including D&D)--such as DR 4 eliminating the first 4 points of each hit--is that they imply a lot of armor reducing hits to no appreciable damage. This usually slows down the game, skews balance, doesn't do much against mega attacks, and certainly doesn't fit the typical D&D framework. Hordes of kobolds lose all threat, unless you put in a lot of supplemental rules for grappling, bypassing armor, etc., which just compounds the problems. The next choice is usually DR as a slight percentage, with the usual problem of lots of fiddly handling.

So I've thought that if they wanted a straight DR option, a good one would be to give each piece of armor a DR that doesn't kick in until N amount of damage, and set N high enough that it doesn't apply to most average attacks. Then let the armor knock out a pretty good chunk of points, then fail to prevent any further damage. So if ringmail stops the first 10 points of damage over 12, that's really nice when you are getting pounded by ogres. It's pretty useless against 20 archers turning you into their private pin cushion. And for giants, big dragons, and the like, it turns into effectively standard DR, since they are nearly always hitting for more than 22. A similar option would be half damage up to X damage threshold, with a minimum of 1 for each hit. Tougher armors have a higher threshold, but the mechanic is always half, which is easy math.

Of course, with the way Next is doing bounded accuracy, but letting hit points and damage values scale, you could also do some pretty neat things with letting armor knock a die or two of damage off of higher damage attacks. Plate--for any attack that does 3 or more dice of damage, drop the highest damage die rolled. For any attack that does 7 or more dice of damage, drop the two highest. And so forth. This obviously works better for groups that roll damage out in the open, as the plate guy gets to feel really good about taking those dice out before totaling the amount. :lol:
 

timASW

Banned
Banned
I use armor as DR. Basic armors give you 1-6 DR per attack, magic and masterwork etc, add to that. Then critical hits ignore DR from armor, including natural armor. Its not perfect but it gives a pretty good approximation of what I want.

Armor as HP I think would have to work the same way as a HP/vitality point system with armor being your vitality points. Regular hits tag that first and crits bypassed your armor and went straight to your HP.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
No. It's just damage reduction with more complication. Having armor with HP reminds me too much of video games that somehow wearing armor gives you increased health. DOES...NOT...COMPUTE.

Armor as "harder to do damage" or armor as "reduced damage" is fine, but giving armor some artificial HP value just feels weird.
 

Remove ads

Top