What do you think about this rule?

[Sir cryosin]

Last night my character had it rough the party found out why he's called bulletproof Jimmy. (He looks like a firing rage dummy after this fight.) Anyway in the battle the DM crit on me. So after the battle he told me your AC is down by 1. I said ok why? He said for now on if you get crit on your armor is damaged and you lose 1 AC. Everyone is fine with this rule at are table. But I just thought it would be a good topic to bring up to ya'll.

[N810]

Pretty strange...
is it because you made so many armor saves last game ?
(and now your armor is heavily damaged)

maybe you could get a smith to fix it or get another set of armor...

Also, you should do an arcana check of your armor to see if it cursed... :vaarsuvius:

[hymer]

Last night my character had it rough the party found out why he's called bulletproof Jimmy. (He looks like a firing rage dummy after this fight.) Anyway in the battle the DM crit on me. So after the battle he told me your AC is down by 1. I said ok why? He said for now on if you get crit on your armor is damaged and you lose 1 AC. Everyone is fine with this rule at are table. But I just thought it would be a good topic to bring up to ya'll.

Nah. More bookkeeping, no thanks. Too specifically aimed at specific characters and pieces of equipment. And you have to come up with rules for repairing armour, a further needless complication. To add to this, it's an anti-PC rule, as they'll carry around damaged armour, whereas I expect your DM isn't going to randomly lower monsters' AC.
So not likely to be used at my table. :smallsmile:

[gfishfunk]

That sounds a lot like adding syphilis to the disease table. It might make the experience more realistic, but I don't want to have to deal with that at my table.

[Sir cryosin]

No my DM's pretty fair so if we crit on one of his monsters then they will lose 1 AC to. But I see the cantrip mending is going to be more usefull. I don't think he thought it all out but I don't see it as that bad of a rule. It make since that you go thrown so many battles but your armor never take damage.

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, I'm with the majority here. There are plenty of game systems that utilize that level of reality. D&D (and 5E specifically) ain't one of them. It brings too many questions... how does that interact with classes that provide non-armor AC? Your dragon sorc loses a bit of scaly skin forever? The monk loses a point of Wisdom? The barbarian isn't quite as angry? Yeah... no.

[Ninja_Prawn]

That sounds a lot like adding syphilis to the disease table. It might make the experience more realistic, but I don't want to have to deal with that at my table.

Your disease table doesn't include syphilis?!

[Once a Fool]

I wouldn't. For reasons that i'll get to below. And I certainly wouldn't as a surprise in the middle of a game. Because that's just (very) unfair.

But, not only is this:
a tax on resources and penalty that only effects players,
overly and pointlessly complicated,
actually a punishment of heavier armor wearers more than light (or no) armor wearers (assuming it caps at the armor's value),

...even ignoring all of that...

It creates a death spiral scenario, where the more you get hit, the more you're going to get hit and, at a certain (pretty quickly reached) point, the only misses against you will be automatic misses.

As far as house rules go, this one is just terrible game design.

A better one, if you want to model damaged armor in the game, would be to have heavier damaged armors give a speed penalty and lighter damaged armors give disadvantage on stealth checks. And be repairable during a short rest.

[Finieous]

Lose a point of armor (if you have some) to turn a crit into a regular hit sounds fine -- similar to the popular "Shields Shall Be Splintered!" OSR house rule. Basically, I'm okay with this kind of added complexity if it adds a tactical and/or resource-management decision for the player, but not if it's just bookkeeping.

[Gemhammer&Sons]

For now on if you get crit on your armor is damaged and you lose 1 AC.
Seriously, how does that even work? What amour bark skin or natural armor for wild shapes, would they be immune to that?

[coredump]

Lose a point of armor (if you have some) to turn a crit into a regular hit sounds fine -- similar to the popular "Shields Shall Be Splintered!" OSR house rule. Basically, I'm okay with this kind of added complexity if it adds a tactical and/or resource-management decision for the player, but not if it's just bookkeeping.

Thats kind of a neat mechanice.... interesting.


As for OP... I'm not a big fan of the rule, but it doesn't bother me either. It really isn't that much bookkeeping, and it adds a bit to the immersion, and gives you something to spend gold on.


Keep in mind this is only an issue for the players, as 99% of the bad guys don't live long enough to worry about repairing armor.

[Once a Fool]

No my DM's pretty fair so if we crit on one of his monsters then they will lose 1 AC to. But I see the cantrip mending is going to be more usefull. I don't think he thought it all out but I don't see it as that bad of a rule. It make since that you go thrown so many battles but your armor never take damage.

But the monsters don't have to participate in future battles. They're going to be attacked far fewer times with that penalty in effect. They will not have nearly as many chances for cumulative penalties to accumulate.

You are correct about mending allieviating these issues, but turning a specific cantrip into a necessity for the party is pretty poor game design.

Now, if the armor wearers can repair their own armor through mundane means after (every) combat, it becomes fair. Still cumbersome and resource-consuming, but much less dangerous.

[Douche]

Strangely enough, I am not your DM, but I was thinking this would be a cool mechanic just yesterday (after seeing a topic on making crits more interesting)... Provided that's the only crit effect (and it only lasts for the duration of that combat)

I was just thinking about how crits screw over the players more than the enemy, since they have more opportunities. If you ask me, losing 1 AC for a single fight is preferable to taking twice as much damage.

[hymer]

No my DM's pretty fair so if we crit on one of his monsters then they will lose 1 AC to.

Most monsters don't wear armour, and almost none have been in battle and been critted against before the fight with the PCs. I didn't mean he wouldn't apply it in battle.


But I see the cantrip mending is going to be more usefull.

So it should have been mentioned by the time people picked their cantrips. And it may turn out to be a cantrip tax for PC parties: Someone really should have Mending, or the frontliners are going to get it in the knackers.


It make since that you go thrown so many battles but your armor never take damage.

You want weapons to wear down as well? Damage to boots for marching? Random rolls for disease? Checks to see if your rations have gone stale? Those are as pertinent. It's fine if you want things like this, but you're asking for our opinions, so don't blame me for airing mine. :smallredface:

[Once a Fool]

Lose a point of armor (if you have some) to turn a crit into a regular hit sounds fine -- similar to the popular "Shields Shall Be Splintered!" OSR house rule. Basically, I'm okay with this kind of added complexity if it adds a tactical and/or resource-management decision for the player, but not if it's just bookkeeping.

I had a similar rule for the first 5e game I ran. Specifically, you could sacrifice shield, weapon, or armor (that last one was for the barbarians. The weapon one was largely for monks) to completely negate a physical hit. Can't remember if anyone ever used it, though. Seems like the kind of thing my brother (who plays barbarians and monks often) would have designed a character around.

[eastmabl]

Was the critical hit from a rust monster?

Otherwise, it's unnecessary rule. If the group continues to play with it, I suggest that you press your DM for adamantine armor (all critical hits are negated).

[Talamare]

The way Armor works in 5e it would not compliment having this system

Too many alternative AC methods that would result in it having weird or unintuitive interactions. OR it just ends up unfair

[Doug Lampert]

But the monsters don't have to participate in future battles. They're going to be attacked far fewer times with that penalty in effect. They will not have nearly as many chances for cumulative penalties to accumulate.

You are correct about mending allieviating these issues, but turning a specific cantrip into a necessity for the party is pretty poor game design.

Now, if the armor wearers can repair their own armor through mundane means after (every) combat, it becomes fair. Still cumbersome and resource-consuming, but much less dangerous.

What's that you're doing during a short rest Bob?

Tending your wounds, repairing your armor? That sort of thing.

Look: Real armor got damaged, real weapons broke or dulled, real arrows warp over time, real composite bows would delaminate and become very expensive sticks if it was too damp, real people suffer wound effects from moderately serious wounds for the rest of their lives.

And real magic doesn't work, even the people who think it does work don't think you can chant for 6 seconds and rearrange reality. Real lizards the size of busses don't fly.

The questions for a game rule are things like: "does it fit the genre", "does it help immersion", "does it make the game more fun".

1) Does it fit the genre: Nope. Knights in shining armor could go out on 3 year quests and still had good armor at the end despite the lack of maintenance.
2) Does it help immersion: Not for me, picky little rules like this make me start wondering about all the other far less realistic crap we have in D&D like games.
3) Does it make the game more fun: Beats me, I've never played with that rule, I've played with vaguely similar rules where armor took damage, and I'd have to say, for me, NO, it doesn't make the game more fun.

Further, if "mending" fixes the damage, then all it really is, is a requirement that someone in the party have mending. A tax on your cantrips. Wonderful. What's the gain here?

But if it fits whatever genre you're trying to emulate, or it helps your immersion, or you find it makes the game more fun, go for it.

[solidork]

One funny thing: in my experience, critical hits are frequently narrated as being attacks that bypass the armor with exceptional accuracy. If they're hitting you where the armor doesn't cover how are they damaging the armor? Obviously you can change how you narrate, I just thought it was amusing to think about.

As for the rule, it's relatively inoffensive as far as simulationist additions go. If it was presented to me at the start of a campaign it wouldn't make me decide to not play in it. If it gives a chance for a player to get some use out of their blacksmithing/leather working proficiencies it might actually be kind of neat, since those don't usually matter much. Springing it on you in the middle of a campaign is kind of bad form though.

[JNAProductions]

Seems unneeded and fiddly. It also punishes martials more than casters, and, while the classes are pretty well-balanced, casters do get some of the shinier toys. I would not like to play under this rule. That being said, it wouldn't be a game-breaker for me either. It'd just be something I dislike.

[Sir cryosin]

Most monsters don't wear armour, and almost none have been in battle and been critted against before the fight with the PCs. I didn't mean he wouldn't apply it in battle.



So it should have been mentioned by the time people picked their cantrips. And it may turn out to be a cantrip tax for PC parties: Someone really should have Mending, or the frontliners are going to get it in the knackers.



You want weapons to wear down as well? Damage to boots for marching? Random rolls for disease? Checks to see if your rations have gone stale? Those are as pertinent. It's fine if you want things like this, but you're asking for our opinions, so don't blame me for airing mine. :smallredface:

I have no problems with what you are saying you are right. I was just making a statement there. And thank you for your opinion I sent my DM this link. So he is now putting more thought in to it.