[UPDATED] WotC Gives You Some Official 5E Modern Armor!

This took me rather by surprise - WotC has just posted statistics for D&D 5E versions of modern armor types, including leather jackets, tactical vests, forced entry units, and other items straight from d20 Modern. The article is titled "Firearms", but its focus is adding armor to use alongside the existing firearms in the Dungeon Master's Guide.

UPDATE: WotC has just renamed the article from 5E Firearms to My New d20 Modern Campaign.

Find the article here.

​

 

[Umbran]

Heh. Mearls himself posted a little while ago, too.

 

[ccooke]

Oops! Nevermind then!



Okay, I take back my "nevermind"!

While certain 5E rules mimic DR, it does not exist as a concept in 5E. So, having a sidebar about adding DR to 5E in Helmick's article would remain a good thing to do.

No, that's not quite what I said.

The letters "D" and "R" together used to denote the reduction of damage do not appear in 5e rulebooks (as far as I can tell in about 30 minutes of searching).

The concept of reduction of damage very much does exist, in multiple places and used as examples in the rules.

The use of DR in the article is consistent with the way 5e does damage reduction. The only thing that's different is using "DR" as a shortcut. And that, given that it's being used in the correct way, is just a matter of style from someone who is more used to the older usage than the 5e expanded non-keyworded descriptions.

 

[diaglo]

Heh. Mearls himself posted a little while ago, too.

who?

i thot he was mearls.

 

[Dan Helmick]

I think you vastly overestimate my level of influence at the office, lol.

Just as a little inside baseball: the creative process, as most of you probably know, is one of constant revision. Part of why it's so weird taking a large doc and carving it up is that you look back at what you wrote and say to yourself "What was I thinking?"

The reason I elected to start with this part of what I wrote is that it bore the most resemblance to what I'm actually using in my game. Huge chunks of what I wrote have been excised and most of what I plan to write bears little resemblance to that larger doc I mentioned.

I'm hoping that, since so much of it is brand new stuff, I don't fall into the trap I did with the "DR shorthand" error in this article.

Thanks for reading, all.

Regards,
Dan H.

 

[houser2112]

The use of DR in the article is consistent with the way 5e does damage reduction. The only thing that's different is using "DR" as a shortcut. And that, given that it's being used in the correct way, is just a matter of style from someone who is more used to the older usage than the 5e expanded non-keyworded descriptions.

Not really, if memory serves. The only place I can recall that has the 3E-style "subtract a fixed number from damage" damage reduction is the Heavy Armor Master feat. 5E's version is Damage Resistance, which is percentage-based. Perhaps there is 3E-style DR as a monster ability that I'm not aware of (I haven't read the whole MM yet), but I can't think of anywhere in the PH or DMG that use it other than HAM.

 

[ccooke]

Not really, if memory serves. The only place I can recall that has the 3E-style "subtract a fixed number from damage" damage reduction is the Heavy Armor Master feat. 5E's version is Damage Resistance, which is percentage-based. Perhaps there is 3E-style DR as a monster ability that I'm not aware of (I haven't read the whole MM yet), but I can't think of anywhere in the PH or DMG that use it other than HAM.

Heh.

Earlier in this thread I quoted three examples from the PHB alone - one of them in the PHB's section on how to adjudicate damage.

Take a look here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...Armor!/page3&p=6590062&viewfull=1#post6590062

It is very clear that the concept does exist and is a core part of 5e. It's not as common as it was in 3e, because 5e is a simpler system. But considering that every single Monk has a damage reduction class feature, it can hardly be considered absent.

What is different is that the 5e style does not use "DR" notation for it. That is completely in line with the "text not keywords" approach the system has taken to concepts in general. Given that it is rarer in 5e, that's a good approach for clarity of communication, too. While it is a part of the core game, it's more likely that a random player might never have encountered the rule.

 

[houser2112]

You got me on the monk. That "A magical aura that reduces all damage by 5" is rather wishy-washy because it's so hypothetical, though.

 

[ccooke]

You got me on the monk. That "A magical aura that reduces all damage by 5" is rather wishy-washy because it's so hypothetical, though.

It's a clear example of damage reduction in the basic how-you-apply-damage rules, though. I would expect it's not using a named effect to make it more generic.

But yeah, it's not as clear cut as the monk.

 

[MReav]

.I want to see an Urban Druid. I can totally see one as a crazy cat lady.

 

[Dire Bare]

No, that's not quite what I said.

The letters "D" and "R" together used to denote the reduction of damage do not appear in 5e rulebooks (as far as I can tell in about 30 minutes of searching).

The concept of reduction of damage very much does exist, in multiple places and used as examples in the rules.

The use of DR in the article is consistent with the way 5e does damage reduction. The only thing that's different is using "DR" as a shortcut. And that, given that it's being used in the correct way, is just a matter of style from someone who is more used to the older usage than the 5e expanded non-keyworded descriptions.

Nope, it's what I said!

I got ya, sorry if I didn't make that clear myself. But DR as a distinct concept or rule does not exist in 5E. Obviously, the basic idea of DR exists in certain spots, but as you DID say, the term "Damage Reduction" is not anywhere in the core books.

So my point still stands. Experienced D&D fans were probably not all that confused about Helmick's use of DR in his article, but newbies might be very confused. So, a simple sidebar explaining DR and maybe even tying it to the examples you listed would be a good thing.

Still, excellent article and I'm looking forward to more!