Minimizing Dice rolls by making A.C damage reduction

[Shuruke]

Ok hear me out

But I think itd speed up combat if we just treated armor class as armor or reduction of damage
Whether by moving to lower the damage or etc.

For this their is a few options

A.c is lowered by 10
So just Dex or just armor etc

Goblin would have 2 damage reduction
4 with a shield

Where as something like red dragon would have like 14

Things like sharpshooter or great weapon master would make it so its harder to bypass armor
Ie u minus damage roll by 5 and if it bypasses armor you then do 10 extra damage

Crits would be tricky but I think a crit could just be if you bypass armor by x amount u deal increased damage
Id probably have bypass by 5 increase damage by 5, bypass by ten increases damage by an additional 5 (things that extend crit lower this each by 1)

Advantage or disadvantage would just lower or increase armor by 5


I think this would work at lower levels but my issue is
Damage increases and a.c doesn't

(All of this would only apply to attack rolls)

Sounds fun but might just make things more complicated rather than easier


Worst case scenario I try it out and update u guys

[47Ace]

The most obvious problems I see are that it nerfs fighters, warlocks all damage overtime spells. Buffs paladins and rogues a lot particularly rogues. Buffs all non eldritch blast cantrips. It throws so much out of balance it is probably not worth doing. It would be fascinating way to do attacks in a different dice light system but it would require a major rewrite for 5e.

[stoutstien]

Ok hear me out

But I think itd speed up combat if we just treated armor class as armor or reduction of damage
Whether by moving to lower the damage or etc.

For this their is a few options

A.c is lowered by 10
So just Dex or just armor etc

Goblin would have 2 damage reduction
4 with a shield

Where as something like red dragon would have like 14

Things like sharpshooter or great weapon master would make it so its harder to bypass armor
Ie u minus damage roll by 5 and if it bypasses armor you then do 10 extra damage

Crits would be tricky but I think a crit could just be if you bypass armor by x amount u deal increased damage
Id probably have bypass by 5 increase damage by 5, bypass by ten increases damage by an additional 5 (things that extend crit lower this each by 1)

Advantage or disadvantage would just lower or increase armor by 5


I think this would work at lower levels but my issue is
Damage increases and a.c doesn't

(All of this would only apply to attack rolls)

Sounds fun but might just make things more complicated rather than easier


Worst case scenario I try it out and update u guys
i think you are better just adding a form of DR to medium and heavy armor. slash and piercing dr for heavy makes narrative sense. maybe just slash for medium

[Wuzza]

Surely you'd still have to roll to hit, how else would you determine if they miss? And then apply numerous modifiers vs rolling a dice.
Would obviously minimise dice rolls, but I cant see that it would speed up combat.

[Pex]

Adds math. You need to rewrite the game. All of this because you can't stand taking a few seconds to roll a die?

Combat takes long when players don't know what their character can do, when they don't know the rules, when they don't pay attention to what's going on, when they can't make up their mind on what to do, when the DM has a three to one ratio of bad guys vs PCs, when the DM thinks it does because he's one mind able to control all the bad guys at once so they work as a team inherently coordinated and perfect and doesn't care when a monster is killed off while PCs are individuals who each have to adapt to the ongoing changes of the battlefield and care about their character's survival. Combat truly takes long when it's boring because it's an endless slugfest that has no meaningful outcome to the story because the DM just felt like putting in a combat for the sake of having a combat.

House rules are fine. When you feel the need to rewrite the Player's Handbook you're better off playing a different game that has what you want. If no game does publish your own and make money.

[Shuruke]

The most obvious problems I see are that it nerfs fighters, warlocks all damage overtime spells. Buffs paladins and rogues a lot particularly rogues. Buffs all non eldritch blast cantrips. It throws so much out of balance it is probably not worth doing. It would be fascinating way to do attacks in a different dice light system but it would require a major rewrite for 5e.

Mmkies that's what my friend and I are thinking

Theirs always Numenara option of just making it a contested check

Mainly just weird idea that came up that I thought could be cool and or interesting

[Shuruke]

Adds math. You need to rewrite the game. All of this because you can't stand taking a few seconds to roll a die?

Combat takes long when players don't know what their character can do, when they don't know the rules, when they don't pay attention to what's going on, when they can't make up their mind on what to do, when the DM has a three to one ratio of bad guys vs PCs, when the DM thinks it does because he's one mind able to control all the bad guys at once so they work as a team inherently coordinated and perfect and doesn't care when a monster is killed off while PCs are individuals who each have to adapt to the ongoing changes of the battlefield and care about their character's survival. Combat truly takes long when it's boring because it's an endless slugfest that has no meaningful outcome to the story because the DM just felt like putting in a combat for the sake of having a combat.

House rules are fine. When you feel the need to rewrite the Player's Handbook you're better off playing a different game that has what you want. If no game does publish your own and make money.

Truthfully im just kinda messing around with idea
From DM point of view I'd like another way to do attack rolls just like their is Intiative variants etc

Would their b another system better for it
Most likely

But I'm mainly just passing idea around
It wouldn't be rewriting player handbook I don't think. But it would effect alot

Thanks for your input!!


PS. I feel like you've had lots of poor experiences with bad DMs and I wish u best of luck in finding a better Dm. I had one like that and it got me into dming cuz I knew their could b better.

[Bjarkmundur]

I have a principle regarding forum etiquette. I would not apply this AC change to my game, but I don't feel like explaining why would make an interesting or productive discussion.

I'd much rather talk about implementation and how this would affect the gaming experience.

Doing 10 damage with a hit chance of 50% is equivalent to dealing 5 damage with a hit chance of 100%. We can use that fact to elimate hit rolls. We know that player a with +4 to hit has a 55% hit chance against 14 AC. If we increase or decrease the target AC the hit chance will also change. We can calculate that a 2 point change in AC would result in a 10% swing in DPR.

Start by averaging out all the player basic attacks and multiply the result by 0.55 if they have +4 to hit, or 0.60 if they have +5 to hit.

Now you convert all ACs into low, medium, high and superior, representing 12, 14, 16 and 18 AC respectively. Now you can convert that into +10%, 0%, - 10% or - 20% damage modifier for the players.

Advantage no longer applies to basic attacks. Basic attacks are no longer single attacks, but represent an ongoing struggle between two creatures, with multiple hits that average out over a 6 second period.

Now when a player decides to make a basic attack, simply ask for their DPR, and multiply the number using the monster's damage reduction, and Bob's your uncle.

This should only apply to basic attacks and cantrips.
Spells, battlemaster dice, sneak attack etc. Should still be rolled, since its fun :)
This could make players want to use basic attacks less, and look for more creative solutions to most problems.

[Shuruke]

I have a principle regarding forum etiquette. I would not apply this AC change to my game, but I don't feel like explaining why would make an interesting or productive discussion.

I'd much rather talk about implementation and how this would affect the gaming experience.

Doing 10 damage with a hit chance of 50% is equivalent to dealing 5 damage with a hit chance of 100%. We can use that fact to elimate hit rolls. We know that player a with +4 to hit has a 55% hit chance against 14 AC. If we increase or decrease the target AC the hit chance will also change. We can calculate that a 2 point change in AC would result in a 10% swing in DPR.

Start by averaging out all the player basic attacks and multiply the result by 0.55 if they have +4 to hit, or 0.60 if they have +5 to hit.

Now you convert all ACs into low, medium, high and superior, representing 12, 14, 16 and 18 AC respectively. Now you can convert that into +10%, 0%, - 10% or - 20% damage modifier for the players.

Now when a player decides to make a basic attack, simply ask for their DPR, and multiply the number using the monster's damage reduction, and Bob's your uncle.

This should only apply to basic attacks and cantrips. Spells, battlemaster dice, sneak attack etc. Should still be rolled, since its fun :)
This could make players want to use basic attacks less, and look for more creative solutions to most problems.

Hey that's really helpful thanks!
I didn't think to look at the percentages and just base it off of that

Thanks for help!

[Bjarkmundur]

Advantage no longer applies to basic attacks. Basic attacks are no longer single attacks, but represent an ongoing struggle between two creatures, with multiple hits that average out over a 6 second period.*

You're welcome, happy to help :)

[Bjarkmundur]

Do you want to look at how this would affect different damaging cantrips, such as Vicious Mockery, or are we fine leaving the discussion as is?

[Shuruke]

Do you want to look at how this would affect different damaging cantrips, such as Vicious Mockery, or are we fine leaving the discussion as is?

Well idea is only for attack rolls not for saves

However I'm interested in knowing how itd effect the pro of having a save spell compared to an attack if that's what your asking

[LordEntrails]

How boring. Well you're at it, just have everything do average damage and get rid of attacks rolls and damage rolls. That would save lots and lots of time!

Of course, that means that as soon as you see a creature and know its AC, damage and HP, the combat is already resolved.

[Great Dragon]

Coming in late.

@Bjarkmundur - very nice.

The original post looked a lot like the old D20 Star Wars RPG, where everyone was easy to hit (AC 10 +Dex) and Armor (counting Natural for D&D) only reduced damage, except Energy types.

Your 'Armor system' against average damage would make 1d4 almost nothing, and even 1d6 barely noticeable. Which is fine if no one ever uses a Dagger, Shortsword (most Simple Weapons?) or Hand Crossbow without Sneak Attack. Or never just punches someone without being a high level Monk.

[Laserlight]

Good idea--I'd prefer Armor as reducing damage, not ToHit--but I think it takes too much of a rewrite to be viable. I'd go with EABA or some other system

[Shuruke]

How boring. Well you're at it, just have everything do average damage and get rid of attacks rolls and damage rolls. That would save lots and lots of time!

Of course, that means that as soon as you see a creature and know its AC, damage and HP, the combat is already resolved.

I guess ?

The thing I find boring is my players getting to do nothing cuz they missed

Everyone likes rolling doce so why not just have them roll damage dice?

Not being sarcastic its Just I'm not interested in it just being DPR
I was happy it was pointed out because I can use it as a basis

[Great Dragon]

I guess ?

The thing I find boring is my players getting to do nothing cuz they missed

Everyone likes rolling doce so why not just have them roll damage dice?

Umm... Then why are they/you playing a Tabletop RPG and not a co-op MMO?
Where all the Dice (Hit, Damage, etc) are done automatically.

[Kane0]

Umm... Then why are they/you playing a Tabletop RPG and not a co-op MMO?
Where all the Dice (Hit, Damage, etc) are done automatically.

Because then their hands wouldnt be free for doritos and mountain dew.

How about a variant rule: when you would need to make an attack roll you can choose to treat it as a hit and deal damage as if all the damage dice rolled 1s with no chance at a critical hit.

[Shuruke]

Umm... Then why are they/you playing a Tabletop RPG and not a co-op MMO?
Where all the Dice (Hit, Damage, etc) are done automatically.

Just throwing ideas around, and seeing of their is a way to make some kind of variant to hit

And I didn't say amytuing about automatic rolls or anything of the like?

Just in my experience players enjoy actually getting to do something
Where as rolling to hit you eother get to do something or don't.

Maybe even jist making misses be half damage or whatever

I am just doing this to brainstorm and look for ideas from pther rpgs or people

I really liked your statement about the star wars 10+dex and the rest as armor
That could be very interesting!! ^.^

[Lord Vukodlak]

For armor as DR to work the system has to be built around it. D&D is not so you'd have to redesign the game.
And in every system where Armor is DR that I've seen, its rolled. You take the armor dice add it to body dice and that resists the damage. And that's after a to-hit and a dodge roll.

[Pex]

I have a principle regarding forum etiquette. I would not apply this AC change to my game, but I don't feel like explaining why would make an interesting or productive discussion.

I'd much rather talk about implementation and how this would affect the gaming experience.

Doing 10 damage with a hit chance of 50% is equivalent to dealing 5 damage with a hit chance of 100%. We can use that fact to elimate hit rolls. We know that player a with +4 to hit has a 55% hit chance against 14 AC. If we increase or decrease the target AC the hit chance will also change. We can calculate that a 2 point change in AC would result in a 10% swing in DPR.

Start by averaging out all the player basic attacks and multiply the result by 0.55 if they have +4 to hit, or 0.60 if they have +5 to hit.

Now you convert all ACs into low, medium, high and superior, representing 12, 14, 16 and 18 AC respectively. Now you can convert that into +10%, 0%, - 10% or - 20% damage modifier for the players.

Advantage no longer applies to basic attacks. Basic attacks are no longer single attacks, but represent an ongoing struggle between two creatures, with multiple hits that average out over a 6 second period.

Now when a player decides to make a basic attack, simply ask for their DPR, and multiply the number using the monster's damage reduction, and Bob's your uncle.

This should only apply to basic attacks and cantrips.
Spells, battlemaster dice, sneak attack etc. Should still be rolled, since its fun :)
This could make players want to use basic attacks less, and look for more creative solutions to most problems.

Instead of rolling you're doing algebra, so warriors get math while spellcasters get to roll dice and have fun. There's a reason Fighter Can't Get Nice Things is a thing.

[Mikal]

I guess ?

The thing I find boring is my players getting to do nothing cuz they missed

If they hit all the time what’s the point in playing?


Everyone likes rolling doce so why not just have them roll damage dice?

Because the chance of failure is a component of a game and making it auto succeed is stupid, boring, and dull?

[Bjarkmundur]

@Shuruke, ah you're right, I forgot about... Well... All the other stats in the game xD
I'd love to look at different takes on this, and how each affects the gameplay.
If a group of players where never introduced to the idea of hit chance, and played in a very narrative game, no one would think twice about it. Player says "I try to stab the monster with my Longsword" and DM reply "You feel thankful for all your years of training when you deal 6 damage to the goblin". Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

@LordEntrails, don't like the subject of a thread, don't reply to it. I'll give you a point for at least adding a new perspective or insight. Some one suggested that to-hit would still be in the game, and I suggested that all the "fun" dice would still be rolled, such as situational or temporary bonuses. It's just like when monsters deal flat damage, tbh.

@Great Dragon, having 10+dex as being a "difficulty to hit" and Armor "difficulty to damage" is a pretty cool mechanic :)

[Bjarkmundur]

Don't take this to seriously, we're just having a chat and coming up with random ideas. No one here is going to steal your DM guide and rewrite it while you sleep.

It's just tinkering for the sake of tinkering.:)

I do like the idea of DR, and would love to hear from you how vulnerabilities and resistances affect your gameplay experience.

I love idea of "monotonous things are easy" and "clerics shouldn't have to roll religion checks for easy stuff. He's a cleric, of course he knows this". Using the same reasoning we can assume that "of course cantrips and basic attacks have little impact and always hit. The character has been practising it for years!"

You could always add "take ten" to this discussion.

[Shuruke]

Don't take this to seriously, we're just having a chat and coming up with random ideas. No one here is going to steal your DM guide and rewrite it while you sleep.

It's just tinkering for the sake of tinkering.:)

I do like the idea of DR, and would love to hear from you how vulnerabilities and resistances affect your gameplay experience.

I love idea of "monotonous things are easy" and "clerics shouldn't have to roll religion checks for easy stuff. He's a cleric, of course he knows this". Using the same reasoning we can assume that "of course cantrips and basic attacks have little impact and always hit. The character has been practising it for years!"

You could always add "take ten" to this discussion.

Thatd all be really cool!!

And truthfully I feel like resistances and vulnerabilities would make this pretty interesting
They'd actually probably work the same

Or on the other hand you cpuld make them more important by having them factor toward armor instead of damage
Ie if 12 damage is rolled and the enemy had an armor of 8 you cpuld do it one of two ways
They take 4 damage lowered to 2 for resistance
Or the 12 is lowered to 6 from resistance and therefore the enemy isn't hurt. The later would be a bit to strong I think and would make it so save spells worked better than attack on resistant enemies.


So far what I've worked on is this

Armor is 5+dex and any other bonuses (armor that doesn't include dex would replace dex here, and natural armor would replace dex with con)

Damage would now always add proficiency bonus if profocoent in weapon
Ie a dagger at level one is 1d4+2 plus stat
A punch is 1+prof+str

Advantage would add 5 damage
Dis Advantage would minus 5

Features that give bonuses to hit such as guided strike , bless , etc Would add onto damage at half effect (bless is a +1 or +2 guided strike +5)

Sharpshooter and Great weapon master wpuld be decided before rolling
U -5 from the damage u roll and if it still breaks armor you then add 10 to the unmodified number (ie re add 5 then add 10)

This sounds fun to me but I doubt ill ever use it just fun to think about

This would make heavy armor master fun because it would be practically +3 to your damage reduction

So someone with armor style , heavy armor and a shield would have
If chain
6 scale+2 shield+1 armor style
For 9

A dagger from an average person proficient wouldn't worry you much unless they knocked you prone or had an ally helping them

Idk just spunds like it would open up room for cooperation

Could be lots of fun!!

P.S They are write we won't rewrite your DMG but might make a doc for a fun variant rule ^.^

[Bjarkmundur]

This sounds fun to me but I doubt ill ever use it just fun to think about

Idk just spunds like it would open up room for cooperation
Could be lots of fun!!

P.S They are write we won't rewrite your DMG but might make a doc for a fun variant rule ^.^

Exactly! I love these kind of exercises. Although I'm still confused about what you decided to keep. You kept damage rolls but removed hit rolls? Do damage rolls now include both, as in "you need to beat the target DR, and then deal full damage if you do" or is it just a flat DR to all damage? And this only applies to attacks targeting AC? Can you describe a turn, using your suggestion, so I can visualize it?

I want to ask, what effect do you think your suggestion would have on the experience?
Think about it this way, when an enemy has had piercing resistance, or fire resistance, how does it make you feel?
Now, if we'd change it to "has advantage to saving throws against effects that deal fire damage". How would that make you feel?

If we can analyse that, we have a theory how AC vs. DR ( or damage rolls vs. DR ) changes the gameplay experience.

I've personally always felt worse about dealing half damage than missing on a basic attack. I always end up comparing it to my fireballs "ugh, only 4 damage because the enemy had resistance". I know it's better than missing, but somehow my brain would rather deal a lot of damage half the time than half damage all the time.

[Great Dragon]

@Great Dragon, having 10+dex as being a "difficulty to hit" and Armor "difficulty to damage" is a pretty cool mechanic :)

Thanks.

I can do without Doritos, but I gotta have my Mt Dew!!! 😀

IDK about resistances, I think that most creatures that have it usually don't wear armor. Those few that have both Natural Armor and Resistances would be considered very powerful. Say, half damage from what was left after being reduced by Armor by Resistance - minimum of one HP? (Dragons)

I think that most of the time Armor DR and Resistances don't stack.

The Bear Barbarian gets kinda scary with this option. But, if you treat P/B/S and energy types as separate, it's not so bad.

Like say 6 (1d10) + 5 Stat = 11 -8 Armor = 3 minus 3 Feat = 1 damage.

(I would make Plate Armor unavailable until at least 5th level, with the -3 feat only available at 8th and up)

Adding Proficiency could make things more interesting. 6 weapon + 5 Stat + 6 Prof = 17 -8 armor = 9 -3 feat = 6 damage. (With up to four hits At 20th level)

Fights would take a long time!

Even a Great Sword would only add a point or two damage.

[Shuruke]

Exactly! I love these kind of exercises. Although I'm still confused about what you decided to keep. You kept damage rolls but removed hit rolls? Do damage rolls now include both, as in "you need to beat the target DR, and then deal full damage if you do" or is it just a flat DR to all damage? And this only applies to attacks targeting AC? Can you describe a turn, using your suggestion, so I can visualize it?

I want to ask, what effect do you think your suggestion would have on the experience?
Think about it this way, when an enemy has had piercing resistance, or fire resistance, how does it make you feel?
Now, if we'd change it to "has advantage to saving throws against effects that deal fire damage". How would that make you feel?

If we can analyse that, we have a theory how AC vs. DR ( or damage rolls vs. DR ) changes the gameplay experience.

I've personally always felt worse about dealing half damage than missing on a basic attack. I always end up comparing it to my fireballs "ugh, only 4 damage because the enemy had resistance". I know it's better than missing, but somehow my brain would rather deal a lot of damage half the time than half damage all the time.

The idea would be something like this

1. Action is declared for attack
2. Dm determines Adv or disadvantage and other modifiers
3. Damage is rolled and compared to Armor
4. If damage is less than armor no damage is done
5. If damage is greater than armor that much extra damage is done and other riders are added such as sneak attack
6. Resistances or vulnerability are factored into damage.


I am unsure about the resistance effect
Most of the time the table I am at find ways to work around resistance.
Generally research is able to be done to make sure Silvered weapons or at very least an alchemical silver like poison coating on weapons for few attacks.

But also resistance is alot more serious. It gives advantage on save and halves damage so a fireball on a tiefling would be made at advantage and half it 8d6 goes from
28 average 14 on save
To 14 average 7 on save with more often saves

So itd work kind of the same here?
Makes communication and Rp alot more fun and its been really enjoyed so far
(I've never played witcher series but my gf has and some of this prep or its much harder comes from that.)

Generally as part of Intiative fighting an enemy knowledge on that enemy is given out based on passive knowledge scores and background/ classes

Also DM doesn't tell us how little damage we did because of resistances but describes it naratively. (Something I've also stolen from gf)
That fireball you rolled 20 damage on the creature although looking like it didnt evade it well comes out with steam rolling off of it and only minor burns
Followed by "**** , ****. Guys guys we got a problem" or some other in character rp

For me its more of a work together thing I guess
I've had players really work together to make thos enemy waaaay easier to hit just for it to not happen and then they are left with feeling like worling individually would be been better


Like a big creature with 19 a.c. being knocked prone by the druids spell
The cleric blessing allies
And the fighter walking up to attack and then missing every attack even though they had advantage +7 and +1d4

Same scenario
9 armor
Using greatsword at +7 damage for prof and str
+5 for advantage
+1 or +2 for bless
At that point your doing 2d6+2 with another +1 or +2 for bless

Probably still flawed
But I feel like it naratively makes and could be lots of fun


Guess it just takes the luck factor out for players with cursed dice

[Grod_The_Giant]

"Armor as DR" is very different from "attacks auto-hit."

The former is... well, it's not simple, but it's doable. You can calculate how much each point of AC is worth in DPR reduction when compared to the average monster attack bonuses, at which point you can flip that into damage resistance. (ie, if 18 AC reduces the average monster's DPR by 20%, then plate mail ought to provide about a 20% damage resistance.) For simplicity's sake, I'd compare that to average monster damage to turn it into a flat number. (ie, if the average monster damage is 10, then wearing plate ought to reduce damage by 2.) Calculate that for levels 1-20 against equal-CR monsters, run a linear regression, and work out a level-based formula that's easy to remember that comes reasonably close to the actual numbers-- "AC bonus + 1/3 Level" or something.

Still a bunch of math, but it would be all upfront and leave you with something playable. If you break down AC bonuses into ones that increase AC (ie, Dex, Unarmed Defense, Shields) and those that increase DR (ie, armor, natural armor), it would make an 18 AC Monk and an 18 AC Fighter feel very different, which is a good outcome.

"Attacks auto-hit" would... hmm. I guess you could say "well, the system generally assumes the average attack has a 65% chance to hit, so roll damage and then cut it down by a third." Use Bjarkmundur's "low/medium/high AC" categories for a bit of added nuance-- say 50% for a High AC target, 66% for a Medium AC target, and 75% for a Low AC target. Rolling damage and dividing is a pain and feels bad, though, so you'd probably want to flip things around. Work out the average damage for that level/CR, multiple that by your percentage, and record that on your sheet. ie, if Greg the 5th level Fighter has a High AC, and a CR 5 monster does an average of 20 damage, then Greg should have DR 10.

It's... functional, again, but a lot cruder. You'd need to inflate the complexity a bit to handle things like low attack/high damage and high attack/low damage monsters, though, and I'm sure there are a bunch of other rules you'd need to tack on, but it's a start.

In both cases, the key is to hide the math as much as possible. Level-based scaling for DR has its problems*, but your absolute worst-case scenario is making players grab their probability chart and go "uh... my bonus is +6, his AC is 16, that means I do 72.5% damage... roll, math..."




*You'd lose a lot of the "weak monsters are still a threat at high levels" part of Bounded Accuracy. Under RAW, a dozen goblins won't kill a 10th level Fighter, but they'll hit him a few times by sheer luck and wear down his HP a bit. Under an Armor as DR system, you might run into a situation where it's mathematically impossible for a mook to break through the PC's DR. That's not necessarily bad, but it is a change in the game's paradigm.

[Shuruke]

"Armor as DR" is very different from "attacks auto-hit."

The former is... well, it's not simple, but it's doable. You can calculate how much each point of AC is worth in DPR reduction when compared to the average monster attack bonuses, at which point you can flip that into damage resistance. (ie, if 18 AC reduces the average monster's DPR by 20%, then plate mail ought to provide about a 20% damage resistance.) For simplicity's sake, I'd compare that to average monster damage to turn it into a flat number. (ie, if the average monster damage is 10, then wearing plate ought to reduce damage by 2.) Calculate that for levels 1-20 against equal-CR monsters, run a linear regression, and work out a level-based formula that's easy to remember that comes reasonably close to the actual numbers-- "AC bonus + 1/3 Level" or something.

Still a bunch of math, but it would be all upfront and leave you with something playable. If you break down AC bonuses into ones that increase AC (ie, Dex, Unarmed Defense, Shields) and those that increase DR (ie, armor, natural armor), it would make an 18 AC Monk and an 18 AC Fighter feel very different, which is a good outcome.

"Attacks auto-hit" would... hmm. I guess you could say "well, the system generally assumes the average attack has a 65% chance to hit, so roll damage and then cut it down by a third." Use Bjarkmundur's "low/medium/high AC" categories for a bit of added nuance-- say 50% for a High AC target, 66% for a Medium AC target, and 75% for a Low AC target. Rolling damage and dividing is a pain and feels bad, though, so you'd probably want to flip things around. Work out the average damage for that level/CR, multiple that by your percentage, and record that on your sheet. ie, if Greg the 5th level Fighter has a High AC, and a CR 5 monster does an average of 20 damage, then Greg should have DR 10.

It's... functional, again, but a lot cruder. You'd need to inflate the complexity a bit to handle things like low attack/high damage and high attack/low damage monsters, though, and I'm sure there are a bunch of other rules you'd need to tack on, but it's a start.

In both cases, the key is to hide the math as much as possible. Level-based scaling for DR has its problems*, but your absolute worst-case scenario is making players grab their probability chart and go "uh... my bonus is +6, his AC is 16, that means I do 72.5% damage... roll, math..."




*You'd lose a lot of the "weak monsters are still a threat at high levels" part of Bounded Accuracy. Under RAW, a dozen goblins won't kill a 10th level Fighter, but they'll hit him a few times by sheer luck and wear down his HP a bit. Under an Armor as DR system, you might run into a situation where it's mathematically impossible for a mook to break through the PC's DR. That's not necessarily bad, but it is a change in the game's paradigm.

That's very helpful!!

Tbh I'm currently looking through bonuses to hit at different CR

However I don't think it'll hit point of enemy goblins not harming level 10 fighters

Way I'm seeing it is for the DR it'll go same way as a.c
Unless magoc items are involved for most part a level 1 and level 10 player wont have much difference in AC
Maybe a +2 difference
16-18 or 17-19
Shield and fighting style may change this

So the way I'm looking at this is
Damage reduction/"Armor"
Is 5+dex
Or 5+ armor bonus if heavy armor
Add things like shield or etc as needed

But a scale mail fighter and full plate would look like
11 armor
13 armor

A goblin would deal 1d6+4 schimitar
Or 1d6+4 bow
Which would never hurt the fighter
However
With advantage it becomes 1d6+9
Or rolling 3 or higher on normal 16 a.c. fighter
And 5 or higher on the 18

Is this accurate probably not
But
At low levels goblins can hurt and at high levels just throw slightly more proficient goblins or ones with poisoned blades


Prpbably not best way to do it

So far its looking like instead of 5 for base 3 will most likely work better
Not sure yet
Math and time is needed

[Sigreid]

If I were going to monkey with it I think what I would do is have AC be 10+Dex for everyone and have armor have damage resistance. So, most people and creatures hit really regularly but it takes a hefty hit to get through heavier armor.

[LordEntrails]

The thing I find boring is my players getting to do nothing cuz they missed
They got to attack. Just becaused they "missed" doesn't mean that they didn't do anything. Its perspective. To me, damage is just the consequence of success, it's not the big thing, attacking, and hitting or missing is the big thing.

Consider changing how you narrate the outcome.


Everyone likes rolling doce so why not just have them roll damage dice? So eliminate attack rolls and reduce the times they roll dice... I think this is the perspective thing again.


And I didn't say amytuing about automatic rolls or anything of the like?
How is eliminating a roll, and making an attack automatically hit anything different that an "automatic roll"?


Just in my experience players enjoy actually getting to do something
Where as rolling to hit you eother get to do something or don't.
Rolling to hit IS doing something. Change your narration :)


@LordEntrails, don't like the subject of a thread, don't reply to it. I'll give you a point for at least adding a new perspective or insight. Some one suggested that to-hit would still be in the game, and I suggested that all the "fun" dice would still be rolled, such as situational or temporary bonuses. It's just like when monsters deal flat damage, tbh.
"Fun" dice? Change yoru narrative. Change your perspective and the attack rolls become the another set of "Fun dice".


If I were going to monkey with it I think what I would do is have AC be 10+Dex for everyone and have armor have damage resistance. So, most people and creatures hit really regularly but it takes a hefty hit to get through heavier armor.
This is a way I've gone before, and it works well. Except of course it adds to the math. It doesn't make anything easier or simpler and doesn't "minimize dice rolls".

But, I don't do this anymore, simple because I do not find adding "crunch" to the game makes it any funner. It just slows down game play and causes chaos. ("Oh, did you remember my 3 points of DR versus fire?")

[Great Dragon]

@Grod_The_Giant.
For me, I really don't want to have to go back to AD&D 1e and be required to constantly do Trig (small amounts of Algebra is ok) in my head, just to play.
But then, I'm Old now and a little lazy. 😁

If you do go the "Armor is DR" route, just remember to enforce both Encumbrance and Donning/Doffing Rules.

And maybe the Price of Heavy Armor is also a barrier, especially at Low Levels. Making Armor being available (due to Expertise Required, Time, Material Cost, and Demand) to only those working directly for the King - or at least a Noble - would work.

Plus, it makes all the Classes, but focused mostly on Rogues (especially Assassins) be much more sneaky, and try to catch their foes without their Armor.

The thing that I see this doing is making Party Teamwork - because taking the foe on with Armor is viewed as being too difficult and going Solo has a bigger chance of success to catch them without it - more difficult to encourage.

[MrStabby]

The party balance issues have already been addressed. Probably more could be said but either you listen and accept there are problems there or you don't. Simply listing more problems won't change anyones mind. At least this directs people from the overpowered two-weapon fighting style towards underused options like great weapon mastery.

The other issues are more interesting. Worldbuilding becomes harder. You need to go further to explain why the goblin kingdom and the human kingdom are at war, when the platemail armoured humans can absorb all the damage from the goblin attacks. You can explain it: special weapons, heroes that do more damage or whatever but the "more goblins" answer doesn't really help. We regress to the 3.5 days where an army doesn't really matter that much.

I am also not sure how much simple or more fun it is. There is a reason why people like to gamble. Some uncertainty is good; it adds drama to a session. Where a critical hit or a string of misses can make a difference you get a really exciting game.

I think damage resistance is good, as a concept. I have nothing against it, but I don't like removing the to-hit roll. I could see something like damage resistance for non-metal armours and AC bonus from metal armour - still rolling fewer dice but somewhat better preserving game balance. Maybe sometimes quicker, not simpler (assuming that you can do mental subtraction more quickly that determining if a die roll is higher than a particular number)