Crazy idea... Damage Reduction from Armor ???? Thoughts?

[BB944]

So I was watching some of my favorite youtube channels and a guy went off on a rant about how armor is useless. Well it was satirical way of complaining that armor in movies seem to offer no protection.

Then I was thinking about how the armor class system in D&D and now the D20 system never quite sat right with me because of the hit/miss system. Now I personally narrate the misses with "hits your shield" or "grazes you chest armor" to take into account that the Breast plate that they were wearing factored into the protection from the hit.

But I wonder if a house rule would give a little more weight to those who take the route of wearing armor, or more specifically Heavy armor.

So here is my proposed crazy idea.

Armor type provides damage reduction to each damage die rolled against it.

Light armor = 1 damage adsorbed
Medium armor = 2 damage per die
Heavy armor = 3 damage per die.

I know that this is a serious game balance change... but I just thought I would see what you guys think. After all... getting "hit" with a mace when wearing hide would hurt A LOT more than when wearing plate. Even though it was harder to get the hit to hurt at all with the latter.

Then again we all know how (2nd edition different a/c vs different damage types) realism can get way out of hand... so this may be a bad idea.

And in terms of monsters... same ideas, if the monster is wearing armor then DR if not then none.

[Findulidas]

I suspect the reason they didnt to this in the first place is because its another number to flat out keep track of in basically every single roll.

[Willie the Duck]

Well, since the world has tried adding damage reduction armor to D&D 999 times, what's the 1,000th going to hurt?

Try it. At the very worst, it'd have the same effect as doubling or tripling hit points--most damage dice are d4s, 6s, or 8s, so heavy armor changes the averages from 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 to .25(assume DR can reduce damage to 0), 1, and 1.875.

But... what does that mean for AC values? Are you going to rework the AC and to-hit systems as well, or leave as-is?

[Arkhios]

They did it in Pathfinder, though it was a variant rule. I never got the chance to try it myself, sadly.

[BB944]

No change to A/C, and yeah I feel that there should be a possibility for your armor to reduce the hit to 0 if it is 'light' or 'poorly' aimed enough. Stabbing a guy with a dagger wearing 1/16th inch steal plate, could never touch his skin ..even though you pierced the plate. Just a thought.

I really am basing this off of another RPG called Iron Kingdom (i think that is what it was called). They had an a "how hard to HIT" then they had a "how much it hurt" where nimble characters got higher points to the first and heavy armored characters got more to the second. So if you hit the nimble guy (hard) it was going to HURT! but if you hit the Armored guy (easy) it was not.

Been over 2 years since i played it and it was only a few times. But that rule stuck with me as a "that makes sense" rule.

And on the note of "one more thing to track" that is kind of the reason that I pointed out that too much 'realism' can really drag the game down.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

They did it in Pathfinder, though it was a variant rule. I never got the chance to try it myself, sadly.D&D 3.5 did the same thing. You can find a rundown of how they did it here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm).

[Mellack]

I think the DR idea also opens up arguments about different kinds of weapons. A rondel dagger was basically designed to stab guys in chain or plate armor, but would still be a dagger. Against a pick or warhammer, you would actually be better off in hide than you would be in chain.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

I think the DR idea also opens up arguments about different kinds of weapons. A rondel dagger was basically designed to stab guys in chain or plate armor, but would still be a dagger. Against a pick or warhammer, you would actually be better off in hide than you would be in chain.Yeah, you'd kind of just have to ignore that the same way base 5e does to avoid getting really complicated.

[Nifft]

It could probably be made to work.

I'm interested in seeing the results (probably over in the Homebrew forum).

[Naanomi]

Hackmaster works that way (pulling off 1-2 damage per die depending on armor type, in addition to supplying AC).

Most armor in WoD works on a damage reduction system as well

[BB944]

I think the DR idea also opens up arguments about different kinds of weapons. A rondel dagger was basically designed to stab guys in chain or plate armor, but would still be a dagger. Against a pick or warhammer, you would actually be better off in hide than you would be in chain.

Yeah it does... but be aware that 5e makes a huge point not to do this for simplicity and frankly it gets a few of them fundamentally wrong as previous threads have gone on and on about (dare i sake .... Pike!!!!???)

I understand that the reason the war pick was used at all was because of the use of plate armor, same with the war hammer. But it is just a way to give a better 'feel' for those who protect themselves with armor.

[coolAlias]

You should also track how much damage the armor has absorbed so you can calculate repair costs, re-introduce weapon vs. armor tables, etc. ;)

On a more serious note: ask your players if this is something they would find interesting and, if so, try it out.

Note that without making any changes to AC, you are making heavier armor strictly better than lighter armor which is in turn strictly better than no armor, since those in lighter or no armor are still easier to hit and don't benefit from any damage reduction.

[PeteNutButter]

I played at a table that tried it 3.5e. He did a flat DR for each type of armor. I don't like doing it per die as it would make a longsword do more damage than a greatsword. It was hard as hell to get armor in the beginning of the game so wouldn't be too powerful. When we finally got it, it was definitely very strong. It really made the tanks feel like tanks though.

If it were implemented in 5e, I'd think it would greatly outpace dex for a defense stat unless you gave some kind of extra buff for dex builds. By the end of the campaign everyone will be in plate, via taking feats/MC into cleric etc.

It is more "realistic" but loses some of the fantasy flavor when you see a D&D party with a rogue in plate, wizard in plate, ranger in pate, and the druid just weeping to himself behind a tree.

[BB944]

You should also track how much damage the armor has absorbed so you can calculate repair costs, re-introduce weapon vs. armor tables, etc. ;)

On a more serious note: ask your players if this is something they would find interesting and, if so, try it out.

Note that without making any changes to AC, you are making heavier armor strictly better than lighter armor which is in turn strictly better than no armor, since those in lighter or no armor are still easier to hit and don't benefit from any damage reduction.

Yup.... because ... it is :)

If you really think about it, it is more expensive, reduces movement, (most cases especially if you use encumbrance), and reduces the possibility of gaining more protection from other things, short of a shield and a RoP.

By using light armor you increase your combat effectiveness with mobility and skills (such as sneak and hide) But you sacrifice the protection of t heavier, more expensive armor.

In the end, higher level characters (rouges, mages, rangers, Barabarians, monks, etc.) subsdise this with other abilities and higher stats that affect their armor (blade dancer???).

So though the war cleric and the fighter are tough in the beginning it will all level out in the end. Besides, what is the point of wearing armor that costs so much if it is not going to make that sword hurt less.

And the DR/Die I like because it scales with riders. Making heavy armor always 'worth' it.

I got our characters to a pretty high level in my last campaign I ran. And to be honest... our Dwarven Cleric of light wearing Dwarven Plate and a shield got hit pretty much as often as the mage using staff of defense with a button for the shield spell.

His armor provided less protection than his hit point pool did (compared to the mage). The fighter with an AC of 21 was not avoiding attacks as often as one might think compared to the barbarian with the ac 16. Especially when mobs have a +11 or higher to hit.

But, that is anecdotal and not a good example as to averages. But what it did do, is add you my question of "Why wouldn't the plate armor provide additional protection vs the bare chest of the barb?" I know that Hit points are not 'how much damage the body can take' but a composite of all variations of combat fatigue. So ... shouldn't plate armor had more 'effective' hit points instead of just 'hit avoidance'?

[Sigreid]

You could try Rune Quest or one of the other games where your skills keep you from getting hit and your armor absorbs damage.

[coolAlias]

It is more "realistic" but loses some of the fantasy flavor when you see a D&D party with a rogue in plate, wizard in plate, ranger in pate, and the druid just weeping to himself behind a tree.

Not to mention the poor monk, and forget about an unarmored barbarian concept.

Besides, there is already the Heavy Armor Master feat that provides DR 3 for such characters. If someone really wants to feel like a tank, they can take that feat without introducing complexity for every character ever that wears armor.

Now, I enjoyed the heck out of 2e AD&D, including the weapon vs. armor tables. I think it would be awesome to have the game world reflect reality better, but as soon as you address one realism issue, a dozen others rear their beautiful heads, beckoning seductively. Few can resist enough of those to avoid their game being dashed upon the rocks of reality and dragged to a horrible (though perhaps entertaining or even fun) death.


His armor provided less protection than his hit point pool did (compared to the mage).
That's the design intent of 5e and bounded accuracy. Higher level monsters end up hitting everyone pretty much regardless of AC, so your HP becomes your defense system.

As to your points about lighter armor being more mobile, yes but only if you use non-dwarf characters with low Str in heavy armor as a comparison.

Also, I thought the idea was that characters in heavy armor would be easier to hit but harder to damage, whereas those in light or no armor are harder to hit but take more (normal) damage? Maybe that was someone else's idea.

[Lombra]

It all is a problem of framing. You are not missing someone wearing a full plate, you are hitting the metal plates in an uneffective way. When you do damage to HP of a full plated fighter,he is receiving well-aimed hits that debilitate him. Personally, I have AC framed as layers of protection priority: if you add DEX to your AC your priority is to dodge the attack, if you don't add DEX to your AC then your first priority is to use your physical defenses (shields/heavy armors).

Not to mention that there is a feat that actually gives you damage reduction while wearing heavy armor.

[JellyPooga]

If you realy want to go down this route, I'd suggest lowering the AC values of armour, giving the likes of Barbarians, Monks and other lightly or unarmoured characters (with high Dex) some kind of edge without having to compromise their style. It would also make the choice between going light, medium or heavy more significant; do you want a high AC and not be hit at all, or are you happy to be hit and let your armour absorb the majority of the incoming damage? Some careful balancing and playtesting would be needed to get the ratio of AC:DR right and certain features and items, like the Draconic Sorcerers unarmoured AC, shields, spells (e.g. Mage Armour) and magic robes would need consideration on where on the scale they fall.

[BB944]

I played at a table that tried it 3.5e. He did a flat DR for each type of armor. I don't like doing it per die as it would make a longsword do more damage than a greatsword. It was hard as hell to get armor in the beginning of the game so wouldn't be too powerful. When we finally got it, it was definitely very strong. It really made the tanks feel like tanks though.

If it were implemented in 5e, I'd think it would greatly outpace dex for a defense stat unless you gave some kind of extra buff for dex builds. By the end of the campaign everyone will be in plate, via taking feats/MC into cleric etc.

It is more "realistic" but loses some of the fantasy flavor when you see a D&D party with a rogue in plate, wizard in plate, ranger in pate, and the druid just weeping to himself behind a tree.

Yeah I thought of that too... but then I thought of this
https://youtu.be/5hlIUrd7d1Q?t=32


But I do want to point out that I am seeing the need to adjust the AC situation... maybe the DR reduces the AC by the same number? So Ring Mail would have an AC of 11 and Leather would 'just' provided the DR???

[BB944]

I need to type faster lol


You guys make good points... I know that it was almost bad if not all bad idea. But I just was thinking yah' know?

The point about the realism abyss is so true. it gets so many degrees of nasty so fast, and if you give one credit they all want some.

But I think a play test is in order. The feat would only make this 'more so' but not per die. It would make it to where to certain enemies with certain weapons just arn't going to hurt the Plate wearing dude unless they crit. and even then .. not much.

But that is kinda cool to...

[Lombra]

Here's how I would do it if one really wants AC damage reductions: AC isn't calculated based on the armor that you wear, but by 10+ what your armor allows to add as dex bonus (no limit t light, up to +2 from mediums, zero from heavies) and you reduce the damage that you take on each attack equal to the flat AC bonus that the armor would have given you, example:

Studded leather: AC=10+DEX; DR=2
Half plate: AC=10+DEX (max. +2); DR=5
Full plate: AC=10; DR=8
Shield: +2AC (maybe +2DR? More AC makes more sense to me)

On top of that a rule for maintenance of armor could work based on the absorbed damage that an armor took (unless they are magical)

It totally doesn't work with those numbers in the current damage system but I think that it's a good way to start thinking about it.

[coolAlias]

But I do want to point out that I am seeing the need to adjust the AC situation... maybe the DR reduces the AC by the same number? So Ring Mail would have an AC of 11 and Leather would 'just' provided the DR???
That wouldn't be a bad starting point.

Play test it and adjust it keeping in mind a character simply maximizing Dex would end up with AC 15, or 18 for mage armor or dragonborn or any number of other 13+Dex builds, and possibly AC 20 or higher for 20 Dex / 20 Wis Monk or Con for Barbarian.

Also, DR per damage die is a neat idea, but it severely nerfs rogues' sneak attack (among other things); it's possible for a high level rogue to do almost no damage at all against a character in heavy armor, even with a sneak attack.

Of course, that would be a good reason to allow lightly-armored or armorless characters to have a better AC than those in heavier armor.

EDIT: I like Lombra's idea, too. And yeah, this thread moves far faster than I can type! :/

[GlenSmash!]

If I was was going to play a game with Armor as DR, I would also want weapons that historically were effective against Armor to have some means of bypassing DR.

[BB944]

as a pro for the 'per die' it makes the +3 Ax SOOO much more powerful than the +3d6 of the Sneak attack.
but a con for sure to remove a key class defining ability like that...

And Lombra's Idea definitely has some value. I especially like the fact that it makes a power curve for armor that is high in the beginning but as you come across more challenging foes... no amount of armor is going protect the young fighter from the teeth of a dragon.

Shield should be just AC as it is a 'stop the hit' vs make it hurt less imo

[coolAlias]

Perhaps slightly tangential, but I also often find myself wishing there was a way to fight defensively in 5e such as there was in 3e, and I think that would be even more useful under a system like you are proposing.

Totally agree with GlenSmash, too, but there we go introducing the weapons vs. armor table! I also miss the distinctiveness of weapons from 3e. Weapon choice still matters, but in a much narrower range.

If only we could have both the crunch of 3e with the simplicity of 5e.

[Lombra]

The unarmored defenses should be reworked too: an armorless barbarian gets a DR equal to his CON (rage would be humangously powerful), while monk's unarmored defense should give +WIS to his current AC. (AC should now read as: Agility Class?)

The thing is that at low levels what I proposed should be balanced by the DM in not allowing or making it difficult to earn good medium/heavy armors.
I don't really see the need to add weapon vs armor effectiveness tables with this system.

[coolAlias]

More good ideas from Lombra, I like it.

Would DR from armor / Barbarian Con apply to all damage types, or only bludgeoning/piercing/slashing? If the latter, would it only be nonmagical, so any +1 weapon bypasses DR completely?

[JellyPooga]

On the subject of the "per die" issue being much more significant against the likes of Sneak Attack...is that such a bad thing? Just to throw the notion out there, doesn't it make a little bit of sense that a lightly armoured, skirmishing kind of guy should struggle to get a decent hit in against a beefy plate armoured brute? It seems...sort of appropriate in a weird kind of way.

[BB944]

The thing is that at low levels what I proposed should be balanced by the DM in not allowing or making it difficult to earn good medium/heavy armors.
I don't really see the need to add weapon vs armor effectiveness tables with this system.

Yeah, and to be blunt... getting plate armor is neigh impossible for a pre level 5 character.

But Nobels and Kings can purchase them. It shouldn't make them better at dealing with monsters than an experienced cleric.

[BB944]

On the subject of the "per die" issue being much more significant against the likes of Sneak Attack...is that such a bad thing? Just to throw the notion out there, doesn't it make a little bit of sense that a lightly armoured, skirmishing kind of guy should struggle to get a decent hit in against a beefy plate armoured brute? It seems...sort of appropriate in a weird kind of way.

sooo much agree to this!

and it makes magical weapons worth more

[coolAlias]

On the subject of the "per die" issue being much more significant against the likes of Sneak Attack...is that such a bad thing? Just to throw the notion out there, doesn't it make a little bit of sense that a lightly armoured, skirmishing kind of guy should struggle to get a decent hit in against a beefy plate armoured brute? It seems...sort of appropriate in a weird kind of way.
Agree, I was just pointing it out as a possibly unintended consequence. If intentional, then go nuts!

However, that kind of negates the agile-fighter trope a la Bronn from Game of Thrones - would you consider introducing fatigue that would cause those in armor to slow down as combat slogs on, or some other method where an agile fighter with perhaps a dagger or rapier could somehow overcome an opponent in full plate?

[BB944]

More good ideas from Lombra, I like it.

Would DR from armor / Barbarian Con apply to all damage types, or only bludgeoning/piercing/slashing? If the latter, would it only be nonmagical, so any +1 weapon bypasses DR completely?

Running with that,

I would propose that it is a straight DR. instead of an armor. And it applies to all dmg. the Rage would provide half dmg that would then get reduced by his con bonus.

Makes the Hit Points more about what they can 'take' vs the cuts they can overcome

[Lombra]

More good ideas from Lombra, I like it.

Would DR from armor / Barbarian Con apply to all damage types, or only bludgeoning/piercing/slashing? If the latter, would it only be nonmagical, so any +1 weapon bypasses DR completely?

That's tricky.

I would make it work versus magical weapons... or not, and you have to get a magical armor to protect against magical weapons (kinda makes sense?).
I also would make it work versus magical effects that don't require a save. Or envirormental effects that don't require a save.

And obvoiously it doesn't prevent falling damage.

Edit: nah it makes sense that it works versus magic weapons too, they already are more effective because of the bonus they get.

[MrStabby]

It works, and I like the per die thing but it needs a big rework of other aspects.

You could just have things like rapiers or whips or weapons not designed to pierce armour use d4s in multiples. 3d4 damage for a whip could be OK given damage reduction.

Armour piercing weapons can use fewer d12s. Average damage doesn't have to shift.

You could also work it from the other side and have dex cap the damage per die - some weapons are better vs armour, others better vs unarmoured.

[PeteNutButter]

It works, and I like the per die thing but it needs a big rework of other aspects.

You could just have things like rapiers or whips or weapons not designed to pierce armour use d4s in multiples. 3d4 damage for a whip could be OK given damage reduction.

Armour piercing weapons can use fewer d12s. Average damage doesn't have to shift.

You could also work it from the other side and have dex cap the damage per die - some weapons are better vs armour, others better vs unarmoured.

This is a good idea if running with the damage reduction per die. With current weapon damage you run across a heavy armor and you better drop that maul and use your rapier...

[lperkins2]

I've done this before in both 3.5 and 5e. It works best if you are running a grimdark CaW campaign, and also limit the HP gain (I often do first 3 levels worth of HP). Make the armor give substantial DR and the PCs will walk out of most fights unharmed. Of course, a single crit can totally ruin someone.

For 5e, I used AC=10+dex+shield, even for those in heavy armor. Of course, heavy armor needs a high strength score, so it makes you more MAD to try to boost AC too. DR=CON mod + armor-based-AC-bonus (8 for plate, 1 for leather, et cetera). Classes which have an alternate AC algorithm get special handling.

Barbarian gets bonus DR equal to con mod, or total DR=2 x CON. Dragon sorcerer gets 3 points of bonus DR, monk gets just higher AC.

The campaign ended before we got to super high levels, but up to level 5 it worked really well. It might have fallen apart at higher levels, but I don't think so. The one thing to keep in mind is that spell which target AC, and magic in general if you are going with the reduced HP, can totally screw over a party. It fits well with a grimdark campaign, where enemy spellcasters are freaking scary, but you have to toss the CR table out the window if you go this route.

[Isaire]

I don't dislike the AC system. For some damage types, it makes perfect sense - either the dagger strikes an unprotected part of your armour and you take damage, or it doesn't and you don't.

For other damage types, it makes less sense. Bludgeoning should be more effective against plate, and slashing not at all effective. So you end up with a damage system where:

Heavy armour - add AC and DR to slashing, add AC to piercing, nothing to bludgeoning
Light armour - add AC and DR to bludgeoning, otherwise rely on DEX for piercing and slashing (maybe light resistance to slashing)
Medium armour - where does this fit? add AC to piercing and slashing, 1/2 DR for slashing, 1/2 AC for bludgeoning??

To make a realistic system quickly becomes impossibly complicated..

[Pex]

There's already a feat for that for heavy armor.

[Sigreid]

What could also work and be fun would be for the armor to have a temporary hit point pool that the resisted damage goes for. Then your armor has to be repaired now and then.

[Mellack]

Note that this would also mess with the current critical hit system. Normally a critical sneak attack or smite is huge. But especially for the rogue it really wouldn't matter. They are doing an average of 0.5 per die if there is a DR of -3/die. Basically why should they bother? It sounds like the old versions where if you faced undead or others immune to sneak attack you might as well start building camp since you couldn't help fight.
I don't mean to be down on the idea, it sounds interesting. But it will require a rewriting of much of the base game to accomplish.

[Sigreid]

Note that this would also mess with the current critical hit system. Normally a critical sneak attack or smite is huge. But especially for the rogue it really wouldn't matter. They are doing an average of 0.5 per die if there is a DR of -3/die. Basically why should they bother? It sounds like the old versions where if you faced undead or others immune to sneak attack you might as well start building camp since you couldn't help fight.
I don't mean to be down on the idea, it sounds interesting. But it will require a rewriting of much of the base game to accomplish.
If I were to do this cruts would ignore the DR. You hit a soft spot.

[Ghatt]

I think damage reduction would work fairly well at lower levels, but would make heavy armor fairly obsolete at mid to high levels, assuming you lower the AC benefits of armor that is. I think to really make damage reduction work you'd have to redesign the HP system entirely. Not that you couldn't do it but you may as well design your own d20 rpg at that point, because you'd have to redesign tons of class abilities and spells in order to retain a semblance of balance.

[Cybren]

Yeah, you'd kind of just have to ignore that the same way base 5e does to avoid getting really complicated.

It opens up design space for more kinds of weapons that interact with AC or DR differently, but it has other odious effects that wouldn't mesh with the rest of 5E, like the assumptions regarding how damage scales over levels. If they built 5E to have this from the ground up i think it could work fine, but they didn't, so integrating it into the existing game is probably going to cause loooots of headaches

[Nerdynick]

As others have elaborated on, you face the "realism abyss". I think that, unless you are running a grimdark game or one with a lot of people interested in realism, its best to leave it out.

Historically, you killed a guy in plate mail by wrestling him to the ground, pulling up his visor, and stabbing him in the face. Alternatively, you used a spear or "half-sworded" to target chainmail joints. Hammers were semi-effective, but most had a a pick on the back end that was a bit better. Both ends were significantly more useful on horseback.

The dreadful, unromantic truth of it is that the guy in armor almost always wins (especially in a melee, rather than a duel). And the people with the most money put the most people in armor. And most groups aren't going to want the really realistic rules that don't let them be as awesome.

Edit: Although if you wanted to explore a more realistic injury system, I would look at including the exhaustion rules.

[RSP]

Why not just change the Heavy Armor Master feat to be DR 3, per weapon attack damage die (and take out the doesn't work against magic weapon attacks but - I've always hated that; when did mundane armor stop working against magic weapons? And what if you're wearing magic armor?)?

This would give the DR you're thinking of, at the cost of a feat, scale with CRs, while not reducing the effectiveness of things like Sneak Attack or poisons.

A creature hit you with a 3d8+6 attack? Subtract 9 damage. 5th level Rogue hits with a dagger (1d4+3d6)? Subtract 3 damage.

The bonus is you get to make HAM worthwhile beyond the first 5 levels or so.

[JellyPooga]

Another possibility is instead of straight damage reduction in the normal sense, armour provides a damage threshold where any damage die that rolls lower than X is disregarded. E.g. if Plate Armour had a Damage Threshold of 4, any damage die of 4 or lower is disregarded but any 5 or 6 counts in full.

This method allows the "per die" thing without completely crippling the likes of Sneak Attack (a really good hit is still really good, but generally it'll struggle against heavier armours due to low damage die type).

I would combine this with lowered AC for armour. Using (AC-10)/2 as both the amount to reduce the AC by as well as the Damage Threshold (rounding fractions up). Using this method, for example, Plate Armour would grant an AC of 14 and have a Damage Threshold of 4, while Studded Leather would grant AC:11+Dex and DT:1. Of consideration might be to add 0.5 DT to Medium Armours (before rounding) and 1 DT to Heavy Armours, to compensate the limited/no Dex to AC they suffer. This would give an Armour Table that looks a bit like this;

Light
Padded/Leather: AC:10+Dex, DT:0
Studded: AC:11+Dex, DT:1
Medium
Hide: AC:10+Dex (max 2), DT:2
Chain: AC:11+Dex (max 2), DT:2
Scale/Breastplate: AC:11+Dex (max 2), DT:3
Half-Plate: AC: 12+Dex (max 2), DT:3
Heavy
Ring: AC:11, DT:3
Chain: AC:12, DT:4
Splint: AC:12, DT:5
Plate: AC:13 DT:5

Thoughts?

[coolAlias]

@JellyPooga The only problem I see with that is it becomes practically worthless beyond the first few levels. As soon as enemies are dealing more than 3 or 4 points of damage per hit on a regular basis, you may as well take your armor off because it's not doing you any good. EDIT: Oops, I misunderstood - it's per damage die, not per attack. Yeah, that could work, too. So an ogre doing 2d8+4 would do no damage at all against full plate if they rolled a 3 on both dice, even though the total damage they'd normally inflict would be 10?

I liked Sigreid's idea of armor granting a certain amount of temporary HP. It gives the feeling of DR without getting too complicated or negating special attacks like smite or sneak attack, and you could have it scale with level or proficiency bonus.

It's also neat because it models the idea of being able to tire an armor-wearing opponent out enough to be able to defeat them. You'd probably want to make the temp HP a different pool so that the character can still benefit from other sources of temp HP.

Depending on how many temp HP are granted by armor (old AC bonus * proficiency modifier?), you'd want to lower the AC accordingly. It could also work in combination with a regular DR system.

I don't think I'd run with such a rule in my own games, but I could maybe see it working out for a gritty realism campaign provided everyone was on board.

[JellyPooga]

EDIT: Oops, I misunderstood - it's per damage die, not per attack. Yeah, that could work, too. So an ogre doing 2d8+4 would do no damage at all against full plate if they rolled a 3 on both dice, even though the total damage they'd normally inflict would be 10?

I would probably keep any static damage modifiers the same, so your ogre rolling two 3's would still deal the 4 damage from his Strength modifier. He did, after all, score a hit! Other static mods like Sharpshooter and GWM would also apply. This might devalue heavier armours a little too much though and I'm not sure how I'd resolve it.

The elegance of using a Damage Threshold is that is bypasses the whole arithmetic thing of calculating damage and then subtracting some; you just ignore any dice rolled with a value equal to or less than your opponents DT.

[malachi]

Iron Kingdoms RPG (the FMF version, not the d20), which the OP referenced at one point, has heavier armors lower your DEF (equivalent to DnD's AC) but give more ARM (equivalent to DnD's DR).

Banner Saga has a separate armor pool and health pool, and each time you attack you can choose to damage one or the other; attacks to the health pool are reduced by the current size of the armor pool (and character damage is based on the current value of the health pool). Something like that could be implemented if you want to be a little more complicated than 5e wants (do dx+stat-armor to the target's health, or do dy to the target's armor; you'd need to rejigger the AC values for most armors and figure out what dy will be for each weapon).

[Nerdynick]

Iron Kingdoms RPG (the FMF version, not the d20), which the OP referenced at one point, has heavier armors lower your DEF (equivalent to DnD's AC) but give more ARM (equivalent to DnD's DR).

Banner Saga has a separate armor pool and health pool, and each time you attack you can choose to damage one or the other; attacks to the health pool are reduced by the current size of the armor pool (and character damage is based on the current value of the health pool). Something like that could be implemented if you want to be a little more complicated than 5e wants (do dx+stat-armor to the target's health, or do dy to the target's armor; you'd need to rejigger the AC values for most armors and figure out what dy will be for each weapon).

Both excellent games and settings, though I really only played the d20 IKRPG.

In the d20, they had rules for steam armor (which was pretty much power armor), and one of the many benefits it gave was bonus hit points. What if, instead of reducing damage, it just gave you more hit points?

[Steampunkette]

Honest Suggestion: Treat it like an object's Damage Threshhold.

Leave Monks and Barbarians as they are: Hard to hit. Everyone else gets only their Dex to AC, unless they're wearing heavy armor, in which case they get no AC bonus.

Whatever your armor class bonus would be from an armor, say an 8 from Plate and a 2 from a shield, becomes your Damage Threshold. If you're hit by an attack that deals less than 10 damage you take no damage. If the attack does 11 points or more, you take full damage. Any magical bonuses to armor apply normally, while shield bonuses increase armor class.

Note, that this makes creatures with a large singular attack much more effective, while creatures that make a large number of weaker attacks become essentially ineffectual. At least until the higher levels where even a relative weakling will rip through even enchanted armor on every average hit.

This system would be particularly powerful at low levels, and make certain enemies (Dragons, for example) nearly impossible to harm with conventional weapons.

[N810]

I was thinking .... Damage reduction (DR)
from Armor doesn't help a lot against blunt damage, and armor piercing weapons.
maybe have armor be more specific to what type of damage it protects against...

DR works against all slashing damage.
DR works against all non-light piercing damage.
DR Works against all non-light bludgeoning damage.

I think this will make some of the less used weapon types a little more valuable.

[BB944]

So... How this has evolved lol!

The Damage Threshold is a neat idea! I mean it really does add to the fact that if you did not find the 'weak spot' you did nothing, or if you did not hit 'hard enough' you did nothing.

On the note of stamina in battle, many other games have attacked this with the 'Fatigue' stat or similar. Where larger weapons drew further from it and the heavier your armor, the less you had to pull from. Though it is cool it would literally require a whole new stat or proficiency. like Initiative or passive perception. At this point.... new RPG based on the D20 system :smallbiggrin:

So Armor Class is the chance to hit and do a varied amount of damage when you do, based on the weapon and any riders + bonuses.
Heavier armor provides better protection, but less mobility and less stealth. That is the logic anyways :)

I started this thread because I wanted to be able to give the players that wore armor the feel of 'protection' rather than just 'avoid the hit' all together.


So based on the great ideas so far... I will likely do the following:

Each armor provided a straight Damage reduction vs Slashing, Piercing, and Bludgeon Damage. (no armor is going to help you vs a Fire Ball) and heavy armor will also provide a Damage Threshold (representing the extra protection)
the DT will be the AC -12 -DR minimum 2
The Armor Class (avoid the hit) could be reduced by the sum of the DR and the DT from the original amounts

Light Armor = DR 1
Medium Armor = DR 2
Heavy Armor = DR 2 + DT. All Heavy Armor would have AC 12 (showing how easy it is to 'hit' them)

So the new armor table would show as follows


Armor
Cost
Armor Class
DR (S/P/B)
DT
Strength
Stealth
Weight


Light Armor









Padded
5 gp
10 + Dex
1/DMG Die
--
--
Disadvantage
8lb.


Leather
5 gp
10+Dex
1/DMG Die
--
--
--
10 lb.


Studded Leather
45 gp
11+Dex
1/DMG Die
--
--
--
13 lb.


Medium Armor









Hide
10 gp
10 + Dex (max +2)
2/DMG Die
--
--
--
12 lb.


Chain Shirt
50 gp
11 + Dex (max +2)
2/DMG Die
--
--
--
20 lb.


Scale Mail
50 gp
12 + Dex (max +2)
2/DMG Die
--
--
Disadvantange
45 lb.


Breastplate
400 gp
12 + Dex (max +2)
2/DMG Die
--
--
--
20 lb.


Half Plate
750 gp
13 + Dex (max +2)
2/DMG Die
--
--
Disadvantage
40 lb.


Heavy Armor









Ring Mail
30 gp
10
2/DMG Die
2
--
Disadvantage
40 lb.


Chain Mail
75 gp
12
2/DMG Die
2
Str 13
Disadvantage
55 lb.


Splint
200 gp
12
2/DMG Die
3
Str 13
Disadvantage
60 lb.


Plate
1,500 gp
12
2/DMG Die
4
Str 13
Disadvantage
65 lb.


Shields









Sheild
10 gp
+2
--
--
--
--
6 lb.



So it would work like this:

I am a fighter wearing Plate and a shield
So my AC = 14
I have Heavy Armor Feat so my DR = 2/ DMG Die (of the Piercing/Bludgeon/Slashing damages) + 3 (Piercing/Bludgeon/Slashing damages)
and Each Die from that Damage type needs to roll greater than 4 to be counted towards the total.

So I am being attacked by an Ogre, Assassin and 2 Goblins

The Ogre hits with his great club for 2d8+4
The Assassin hits with his Sneak attack for 5d6 +3 (and the poison Dmg of 7d6)
Each of the Goblins hit with their Short Swords for 1d6 +2

Ogre rolls a 2 and a 8 so he does a total of 7 Damage (the 8+4 =12 -2DR -3 DR)
The Assassin Rolls the following for his weapon attack and his sneak attack:
4+3,and 3, 1, 4, 1 so he does 11 since his Short Sword did not get pas my Armor. But his Sneak attack does as it is not the same Damage type. So 11 -3 = 9 dmg + the 28 Poison Damage. The -3 is from HAM as the +3 dex bonus is considered piercing

the Goblins did 5+2(-2 -3) = 2 and 4+2(-3) = 0 as the 4 was not high enough to get through

Ogre most of the damage avoided entirely, but the assassin's poison hurt!

Ogre = 7 dmg
Assassin = 37 (assuming failed Save)
Goblin 1 = 2 dmg
Goblin 2 = 0 dmg

So based on this little example I can see two things right away

Guys in heavy armor are going to be f-n tough! and this will make combat a mathematical Mess! But more fantasy type (and Fancy e.g. poison) attacks will be deadly as they should and normal attacks against normal armor are going to be less effective.

In the case of the Barbarian, I think that their unarmored bonus should go go into armor class, as it is a force of will and endurance that they are not affected by most hits, but when they do it is just their bare skin that stops it from there. Same with Monks as this allows them to get a much higher AC than any heavy armor wearing creature could have.

Magic Armor adds to the AC of the armor (hit prevention) and I don't see the need to change other forms of armor (like mage armor or natural armor)

Complex? yes... Fun??? Maybe. Gritty and adds flavor? yes

I will play test this weekend and see how it goes

--edit--
Numbers

-second Edit... math fail

[coolAlias]

Let's see if I followed all of that.

For bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage:

Base damage = (sum of each weapon die greater than your armor's DT) - (armor DR * number of weapon dice counted towards damage)

Next apply any additive modifiers such as damage bonus from Str/Dex, attack riders, Heavy Armor Master DR, etc.

Finally apply multiplicative modifiers such as resistance.

Seems a little awkward, but certainly doable.

I'm not sure I like the fact that Str/Dex bonus to damage can't push the damage total over the DT, as in the assassin's short sword example. It does keep the system a little simpler, though.

Why does HAM DR affect all damage types, but not the regular armor DR?

Would you consider allowing armor to protect you from force damage, such as magic missile? Seems thematically appropriate to me, at least.

If you always have enough dice on hand to roll the entirety of weapon damage in one go, it shouldn't take too long to filter out any that don't pass the DT, so at least that part might go quickly in practice.

In your playtest, don't forget to apply it to monsters, too. ;)

[BB944]

The idea is that the damage gets affected only if it is the weapon damage die. the riders (str bonus, sneak attack, etc) should not get affected unless they are of the piercing/Bludgeoning/Slashing type.
I'm sorry if my math failed .... I will edit the post. But the Dex bonus is supposed to by pas the DR. Only the D6 that rolled under 5 should be removed.

-edit-
RE: HAM
Re-read the feat... It should be as normal. so yes, it should only 'further' reduce the damage from normal weapon types
-edit

This way when a paladin hadouken's on your face, the 'Holy Power' is not going to be stopped by some mundane piece of steel.

And when it comes to monsters... the idea that Steampunkette had is super tempting

-edit again... Clarity

[coolAlias]

Steampunkette's idea would work for both players and monsters, and it would be far simpler to use.

For example, standard Chain Mail would mean any attack of 6 damage or less simply doesn't hurt you at all, but an attack for 7 finds an unarmored spot or otherwise breaks through and does the full 7 damage.

That's it - super easy to calculate and big attacks, even if made with multiple dice, are still effective. This will help big scary monsters remain big and scary while simulating the fact that a guy in full plate doesn't have much to fear from goblins.

The only thing remaining would be to allow the goblins (or whatever) to kill said armored person by grappling them to the ground and stabbing them in the face after pulling off their helm. Perhaps small(?) piercing(?) weapons like daggers could ignore the armor's damage threshold when used against a grappled opponent.

[BB944]

....
The only thing remaining would be to allow the goblins (or whatever) to kill said armored person by grappling them to the ground and stabbing them in the face after pulling off their helm. Perhaps small(?) piercing(?) weapons like daggers could ignore the armor's damage threshold when used against a grappled opponent.

Advantages allow a greater chance for crits

So 2d6 + 2 is likley to break through the 10DR

[coolAlias]

Advantages allow a greater chance for crits

So 2d6 + 2 is likley to break through the 10DR
True, but I don't think that captures the feeling well enough - a guy in full plate should tremble in fear at the thought of being overrun like that, don't you think?

[Steampunkette]

Alternate thought on Damage Threshholds from Armor:

Increase the Damage Threshhold by Proficiency Bonus.

That way armor is still effective as you gain levels, but not inviolate.

Alternatively, apply Proficiency Bonus to Armor Class while wearing armor with which you are proficient.

Perhaps Both, and ditch the per-die modification?

[coolAlias]

Alternatively, apply Proficiency Bonus to Armor Class while wearing armor with which you are proficient.
I like this idea. A lot.

To me it represents that people trained in the use of armor could, in fact, dodge pretty darn well. Since you'd be dropping base armored AC to 10-12, this would give those characters a much-needed way to improve their AC.

What about unarmored or lightly-armored characters, however? Would everyone apply their proficiency bonus to armor class? If not, what benefit would unarmored characters get in return? Maybe bonus movement speed?

[Steampunkette]

I like this idea. A lot.

To me it represents that people trained in the use of armor could, in fact, dodge pretty darn well. Since you'd be dropping base armored AC to 10-12, this would give those characters a much-needed way to improve their AC.

What about unarmored or lightly-armored characters, however? Would everyone apply their proficiency bonus to armor class? If not, what benefit would unarmored characters get in return? Maybe bonus movement speed?

Could fold Proficiency Bonus into the Unarmored Defense itself? Dunno.

[Zippdementia]

Keep in mind that D&D is less simulation and more dramatic storytelling. When you "take damage" you aren't necessarily getting hit with a weapon. When you have 90 hit points it doesn't actually mean that you can survive being stabbed 89 times but die on the 90th.

AC and hit points are just a system placed over storytelling. Sometimes in my games, when my paladin gets hit but only takes a few points of damage I describe it as something like, "the dagger punctures your armor. While your chain shirt underneath protects your heart, a cold sweat breaks out on your brow as you realize that you can only take so many hits, that you only have so much luck."

If you are looking for a simulation system, you want to try something more complex, like Burning Wheel. D&D is meant to be simple, especially 5th edition, and all attempts to change that have ended in tears.

[coolAlias]

D&D is meant to be simple, especially 5th edition, and all attempts to change that have ended in tears.
5e, yes. Older editions? Not so much. D&D has a long tradition of simulationism, after all, and for some people, that is what makes the story worth telling. ;)

But you are right, 5e may not be the best edition to try and add simulationism. The OP acknowledged that but would still like to try.

Do you have any feedback on the ideas proposed so far?

[Laurefindel]

IMO, armour as Damage Reduction works better in systems where damage and hit points remain relatively constant throughout the character's career. In D&D, it's hard to come with a DR system that works for early levels and later ones equally well.

[Sharur]

IMO, armour as Damage Reduction works better in systems where damage and hit points remain relatively constant throughout the character's career. In D&D, it's hard to come with a DR system that works for early levels and later ones equally well.

Actually, as long as we're talking physical damage(piercing, slashing, bludgeoning), I think it has relatively constant value above CR2. Especially when you consider 5E seems to think that 3 rounds of combat is expeccted, judging from the CR calculation rules (although at my tables 4-5 seems closer to the mark), which means surviving for 1 more round is significant, especially when one considers the availability of healing and the ability to dish out damage at higher levels.

Here's my analysis, assuming "best physical damage attack" and "normal conditions", so not counting sneak attack damage and the like, using the 3DR from heavy armor master, and only looking at physical attacks, and for "combined attacks" i.e. attacks that do both physical and elemental damage, only looking at the physical, because I would never let armor based DR affect elemental (fire, poison, necrotic, etc.) damage anyway, unless the armor was specifically enchanted to do so. I also tried to pick the most common/iconic D&D monsters:

CR(% Reduction Range): Example: Expected Damage, with "+" denoting multiple attacks (% reduction)
1/8(75-100%): Kobold:4(75%), Twig_Blight:3(100%)
1/4(60-75%): Bullywug:3+5(75%), Goblin:5(60%), Zombie:4(75%), Skeleton:5(60%)
1/2(33-75%): Hobgoblin:6(50%), Orc:9(33%), Lizardfolk:5+5(60%), Sahuagin:5+3(75%)
1(27-75%): Bugbear:11(27%), Goblin_Boss:5+5(60%), Harpy:3+6(66%), Yuan-ti_Pureblood:4+4(75%)
2(30-66%) Orog:10+10(30%), Lizardfolk_Shaman:5+4(66%), Sea_Hag:10(30%)
3(23-30%) Bugbear_Chief:12+12(25%), Green_Hag:13(23%), Basilisk:10(30%), BeardedDevil:6+8(42%)
4(21-33%) Orc_War_Chief:14+14(21%), Lizard King/Queen:17+7(25%), Helmed_Horror:18(33%)
5(17-40%) BarbedDevil:10+6+6(40%), Baragula:11+9+9(31%), HillGiant:18+18(17%), Troll:9+11+11(36%)
6(25-38%) Hobgoblin_Warlord:8+8+8(38%), Githzerai_Zerath:11+11(27%), Vrock:10+24(25%)
7(16-27%) Stone_Giant:19+19(16%), Oni:15+8(26%), Yuan-ti_Abomination:11+11+11(27%)
8(12-30%) Frost_Giant:25+25(12%), Cloaker:10+7(35%),Hydra:10+10+10+...(30%)
9(11-34%) Fire_Giant:28+28(11%), Abominable_Yeti:14+14(21%), Bone_Devil:8+8+13(31%), Grey_Slaad:10+10+6(34%)
10(21-27%) Death_Slaad:12+12+9(27%), Aboleth:12+12+12(25%), Y.Red_Dragon:17+13+13(21%)
11(8-23%) Behir:(15%), Rehamoraz:40(8%), Horned_Devil:15+15+10(23%)
12(38%) Erinyes:8+8+8(38%)
13(15-43%) Nalfshnee:32+15+15(15%), Rakshasa:9+9(33%), Ultraloth:7+7+7(43%), Vampire: 8+8(38%)
14(21-26%) Ice Devil:10+12+12(26%), A.Black_Dragon:17+13+13(21%)
16(23%) Marilith:13+13+13+13+13+13+15(23%)

Conclusion: DR does slowly decrease in value, but still have significant value (20%) by the end of the third tier, at which point magic items and elemental damage come to the fore. This is also because rider effects also become more relevant at higher levels, so reducing AC is not a good idea. Small amounts of DR are very effective against swarms of small threats, but against the punishing blows of larger foes, it is far less effective. So yes, you can tank a swarm of goblins, but the lone giant, not so much.

[Dragonix]

DR is fine for house rules. 5E is just designed to favor efficiency. Since DR causes both the player and DM to calculate, it's off. ;)

[Knaight]

IMO, armour as Damage Reduction works better in systems where damage and hit points remain relatively constant throughout the character's career. In D&D, it's hard to come with a DR system that works for early levels and later ones equally well.

Generally I'd agree with this - however, 5e has a very flat damage curve by D&D standards (at least in terms of individual attacks), and if Proficiency is added to DR or DT it helps cover that. This does leave big threats that do a lot of damage per hit significantly stronger and threats that rely on lots of weaker hits weaker, but if anything that helps with the feel of armor.