PEACH Proficiency bonus as To Hit; Armor as Damage Reduction

[Eulalios]

Basically, instead of "AC" everybody has a "To Hit" which is
10 + DEX bonus (if allowed by armor) + proficiency bonus (if using a weapon with which you are proficient.

Then additionally, armor reduces incoming damage according to

damage reduction = armor's AC bonus

For example, a 2d level character with DEX 15, proficient wielding a long sword and shield would have To Hit 16 and damage reduction 2 (for the shield). Adding leather armor would increase to damage reduction 3, whereas plate armor would give damage reduction 10 (need a massive weapon and/or great strength to injure them) but To Hit 14. Perhaps a max roll on damage should always deal at least 1 point despite armor?

Thoughts?

[ArkenBrony]

I'm a big fan of armor as dr, but you stumbled on the big issue about it. dealing 0 damage feels really bad. 5e specifically circumvents this by making the highest AC's possible around 20, and by replacing damage reduction with resistance, half damage.

so in making this change, it's really important that you make dealing no damage unlikely, if not impossible, either by adding proficiency to damage, limiting dr, making minimum damage 1, or something like that.

an additional note, your fix of making max damage always deal one has the added problem of making fists, which always deal 1, and low die weapons, like daggers more effective against high armor targets than middle damage weapons, and in some cases, high damage weapons.

[Eulalios]

The fists thing is a problem. Could it be fixed by specifying that maximum rolled damage always deals at least 1?

Not sure whether the small die weapons issue is a big or a feature. High medieval warriors often carried small sidearms (e.g., poinard) specifically for ramming the sharp tip through joints or openings of plate armor at grappling range. So maybe it's appropriate for these weapons to be more efficacious than medium weight weapons? But that implicates a question about To Hit penalty for closing range from long weapon to short weapon, maybe drop the DEX bonus during the round where you close in?

edit what if damage reduction = 2/3 AC bonus (always round up)? Then leather has damage reduction 1, plate has damage reduction 6. Small weapons might deal 1 damage against plate, or more if wielded forcefully. Large weapons could reliably batter knights (if the To Hit was made).

[Arkhios]

Honestly, for armor as damage reduction to work properly, one would need to rework the whole concept of how you get your hit points (including how much and how often).

Secondly, I do agree that something reducing your damage to 0, even if you managed to make a clear hit, is a bit annoying to say the least. I'd say that any hit should deal a minimum of 1 damage, regardless of how much you reduce it. This goes hand in hand with a significantly lesser amount of total hit points (though how much is reasonable, I'm not the best person to figure out).

[cesius]

I liked the old 3.x version from Unearthed Arcana. Very similar to what you have, but armor values were split in half to AC and DR. So in your examples:


For example, a 2d level character with DEX 15, proficient wielding a long sword and shield would have To Hit 16 and damage reduction 2 (for the shield). Adding leather armor would increase to damage reduction 3, whereas plate armor would give damage reduction 10 (need a massive weapon and/or great strength to injure them) but To Hit 14.

It would To Hit 17 and DR 1, To Hit 17 DR 2 (I'm assuming odd numbers favor DR), To Hit 17 and DR 5, respectively. It becomes less likely someone's damage would be completely nullified, unless they're a Str 10 or less using unarmed attacks or d4 damage sources.

[olskool]

I posted my own 2e-derived House Rules in Nonsi's thread below this one. Rather than retype them, just look there to see how I did DR (I call them Armor Points or AP) 25 years ago.

I do have one question myself.. What does PEACH stand for in all of your posts?

[Marcloure]

In 5e, a lot of damage from NPCs come from multiattacks, not from very powerful single attacks. Some creatures make three or four attacks which deals around 15 damage each. Damage reduction of 10 would mean that creature only deals 20 damage even if it lands all 4 attacks, which is way few for a character with 80 hp.

AC 20 (full plate + shield) vs. 3x +7 attacks, 2d6+4 (11) damage.
40% to hit chance, 11*3*0.4 = 13.2 damage per turn

AC 13 (10 + 3[prof.]) vs 3x +7 attacks = 75% to hit chance
DR 10 (full plate + shield) vs. 2d6+4 (11) damage = 1 average damage per attack
Total: 1*3*0.75 = 2.25 damage per turn

Things can get way worse at lower levels, with enemies making two attacks with +5 to hit and 1d6+2 damage against damage reduction of 8.


I do have one question myself.. What does PEACH stand for in all of your posts?
Please Evaluate and Critique Honestly

[olskool]

[QUOTE=


Please Evaluate and Critique Honestly[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the definition of PEACH.

[olskool]

In 5e, a lot of damage from NPCs come from multiattacks, not from very powerful single attacks. Some creatures make three or four attacks which deals around 15 damage each. Damage reduction of 10 would mean that creature only deals 20 damage even if it lands all 4 attacks, which is way few for a character with 80 hp.

AC 20 (full plate + shield) vs. 3x +7 attacks, 2d6+4 (11) damage.
40% to hit chance, 11*3*0.4 = 13.2 damage per turn

AC 13 (10 + 3[prof.]) vs 3x +7 attacks = 75% to hit chance
DR 10 (full plate + shield) vs. 2d6+4 (11) damage = 1 average damage per attack
Total: 1*3*0.75 = 2.25 damage per turn

Things can get way worse at lower levels, with enemies making two attacks with +5 to hit and 1d6+2 damage against damage reduction of 8.




The problem with the math is the expectation of either the DM or the Players to ALWAYS do damage in combat. Sometimes the beast is simply too tough. My system is based on the concept that certain armors gave significant protection to their wearers on the battlefield. This means you can DO EVERYTHING RIGHT to get that hit and STILL DO NO DAMAGE because your target is simply THAT powerful. It is the reality-based equivalent to trying to hit a creature harmed only by magic weapons with a normal sword. We have made the change that LIGHT Piercing Damage Weapons (like Daggers and Shortswords) would IGNORE 1 point of AP and HEAVY Piercing Damage Weapons (Warhammers and Heavy Crossbow Bolts) would ignore 2 AP of an Armor's AP total (which ranges from 1 to 5) once damage types were introduced to us in 5e. So a person rolling 1D6+2 damage against Full Plate Armor (AP5) is going to do NO DAMAGE about half the time. A 1D6+2 damage roll against a Gambeson/Padded Armor (AP1) will see it's damage reduced by 1 point but will generally penetrate that armor type. I'm not concerned with the math only the level of protection facing me.

But then I've been playing RuneQuest for more than two decades. In this game, the average weapon does 1D8 damage, the highest powered character will have 16-20 HP, perhaps 6 to 8 Armor Points (starting characters have 1 to 3), and could end up facing a small Dragon with a 2D20 Bite, 15 Armor Point hide, and 40 Hitpoints to kill. YES... in this scenario... YOU RUN!

[JNAProductions]

The issue is, 5E is NOT that system.

I understand that it contains elements, like HP scaling, you might not like, but the solution to that would probably be to play Runequest, not try to change 5E to make it Runequest.

I guess, my main question, is what are you trying to accomplish? Because if it's realism... I'd recommend another system. D&D 5E is NOT realistic, nor is it meant to be.

[olskool]

The issue is, 5E is NOT that system.

I understand that it contains elements, like HP scaling, you might not like, but the solution to that would probably be to play Runequest, not try to change 5E to make it Runequest.

I guess, my main question, is what are you trying to accomplish? Because if it's realism... I'd recommend another system. D&D 5E is NOT realistic, nor is it meant to be.

I included my experience in Runequest as an example that it doesn't matter if a hit does no damage and also that you can survive a threat you cannot beat physically IF you use your head. I HATE the fact that the majority of D&D DMs need "stepped on" kills to prove success. You CAN defeat a monster without killing it.

As for D&D5e/AD&D, we used AP to make up for the LACK of HP at lower Levels (remember this started in AD&D 2e). Once higher Levels are reached, the 5AP reduction that Plate gives is marginal to a 10th Level Fighter but still a welcome reduction when battling creatures that can inflict big damage. I just find it amusing that ANYONE would be "crunching numbers" to determine the average damage reduction a DR might merit in a game where you can reasonably defeat a DRAGON, DEMON, or DEMIGOD. Thus I provided my AP solution as a proven method of extending life at lower levels while giving only a minor reduction to damage at higher levels.