What is Wrong with Armor in D&D 5e? New Armor System Fix w/ Mr Rhexx

[@TheDungeonCoach]

Download the FULL Armor and Weapons PDF here as a sneak peek to my Kickstarter! www.patreon.com/thedungeoncoach

[@tigerdro]

where you hiding that download?

[@TheDungeonCoach]

@@tigerdro what? Lol You can either join Patreon and get it there at the $10 or higher tier Or get it on my website linked in the description 👍🏼💜

[@AliceEverglade]

where do you add things like bladesong, the shield spell, mage armor or shield of faith?

[@blackreaper3525]

are the guard points and martial techniques meant to be use by only the players or are enemies suppose to be using them as well?

[@snozgobler]

@fire lord I think the important thing to keep in mind here is that this new system only increases the damage taken. Under normal circumstances if the knight the players are fighting has an AC of 19, then anything below a 19 misses for both the monk and the barbarian. With this new system, anything below a 10 misses, doing 0 damage. Anything 19 or above hits, doing full damage. Where this differs from 5e is that results between a 10 and a 19 are counted as hits, and if the hits are hard enough, they will do damage. What is the result of this change? People doing lots of small hits are in exactly the same position as they are in during normal 5e. They roll a lot of times, and some hit but some don't. Their damage is unaffected by this change because results or 19 and above do full damage and they are just as effective as they were before this change. However, people who do a small number of large hits, i.e. people who roll the dice fewer times and as a result are more likely to be negatively impacted by one or two bad die rolls, are less affected by bad RNG because they can do partial damage on a medium quality roll rather than doing 0 damage unless they get a really good roll. This system is an inherent buff to classes that do large individual instances of damage, but as I mentioned earlier, those classes are also the kind that are the most prone to "bad" turns at low level simply because of how RNG works. Does this mean that some classes are better at fighting armoured foes? Yes, but I personally don't think it's a bad thing to allow martial classes to have that kind of difference between them.

[@FrostSpike]

13:00 A combat "hit" in 5e is meant to be abstract... even a "hit" doesn't necessarily mean that the blow made contact. It just meant that the character had to exert themselves to dodge, parry, or otherwise try and avoid the blow - they might have succeeded, or they might not and it's actually caused some real damage. If the attacker rolls low for damage, it can be assumed that the blow was just glancing or that the armor took most of it or, if the attacker rolls high it's been a solid hit or the defender has suffered some considerable fatigue. (This is especially true in D&D pre-3.x - or really prior to D&D 2.5e Combat & Tactics when a round was a whole minute and not something that looks like a blow-by-blow account of melee.)

[@bryankia]

As an old grognard this complexity is very tempting. I like where your head is at and while I don’t know if my players will like this I will head on over to the Kickstarter and show my appreciation for your hard and considered work.

[@TheDungeonCoach]

Thank you Bryan!! I really do appreciate that!

[@vigilantgamesllc]

In that example about the giant, with this system you could also include special features in certain monsters like: "When this creature hits an enemy in between their EC and AC, this creature can deal no less than 2 damage." I pulled the number 2 out of my butt, but the point is that you could guarantee that certain monsters always deal some damage if their attack isn't dodged completely which feels good and makes sense.

[@jonumine6250]

Could work with a weapon with "armor piercing" or "Heavy" property, in which you always deal your proficiency modifier when hitting in between (+1, 2, 3 or even 4 if super strong).

[@oli9578]

I love the flavour of Armor Class in reducing damage when it comes to Barbarian and Monk's Unarmored ACs. The Barbarian's hardiness allows them to reduce damage because of their Constitution, and a Monk's Wisdom allows them to guide hits to where they will deal less damage.

[@pretty_fly_for_a_jeskai]

It's ironic that armor class sounds cooler when it's calculated without armor

[@ryanherbert4878]

Yyyuupp ​@@pretty_fly_for_a_jeskai

[@timothyhodgson9572]

The issue I have is that larger amounts of damage that would have fully missed if the system was AC only would now deal most of their damage. For example, a heavily armored character with AC of 20 gets attacked by some attack that does 35 damage and has a +8 to hit. With an AC of 20 there is a reasonably high chance that you will take 0 damage as the attack may miss (55% chance of a miss). However, with this system with a heavily armored EC of 10 this would put the damage reduction at 10. This means you are more likely to take 15 damage where previously you would have taken zero. You would get hit 95% of the time and take 15 point of damage 50% of the time and take full damage 45% of the time. This makes the system a disadvantage for high AC build with lower EC because they take more damage than they would have if the system was AC only. In my opinion this makes the melee characters less viable because the likelihood is the new AC EC calculation won’t affect casters as much as their AC and EC are probably closer together. I think the way to counteract this could involve proficiency in armor allowing you to reduce by (AC-EC)+prof, meaning that the reduction scales as you level up. This wouldn’t completely counteract the increased likelihood of taking damage, but it would help.

[@TheDungeonCoach]

This is a great recommendation and I will write this down to play around with during play testing! it is similar to a system I have in the PDF as well, so were synced up on that one!

[@timothyhodgson9572]

@@TheDungeonCoach I love the idea though, and have been working on something similar since I saw your glancing blow video. Keep up the great work, you’ve revolutionized how I DM.

[@ruga-ventoj]

@@TheDungeonCoach I know this is 4 months old and you probably past the play test stage but I'd still like to add my 2 cent as my opinion and idea is similar to this person. Taking one of the good ideas from 4e is to add proficiency to AC to show that a higher level PC in clothes will be better at fighting and dodging than a lvl 1 newbie in fresh chainmail. To translate to your formula, I would add PB to the base similar to spells. 8+PB and maybe add PB to the damage reduction too? I haven't seen the math to see if that's enough to make high AC low EC palatable. Also side idea about DEX being the god stat, I took an idea from another game and allowed INT to be substituted for some calculations instead of DEX. Like Initiative: fast reflex or fast processor. AC: dodge fast and skillfully or predict and dodge smart. Certain tools like thieves tool: either you use them with dextrous fingers or with knowledgable hands. Whatever feels appropriate.

[@ASUbuckaroo15]

Not too many creatures have that single high damage attack and when they do it would make sense "thematically" that the plate armored warrior gets banged up a bit where the nimble light armored player dodges. Sounds fun for a story but makes me sad as a strength based fighter to get hit more often for more consistent if less damage. An alternative to your solution to adding proficiency bonus to all armor class AR could be to have different armor types provide scaling AR. No change for light armor, but medium and heavy armor has a different increase to AR. Agreed that the current system as described in the video just makes for a larger incentive to lean towards dex focused armor types since the AC difference between maxed studded leather and plate is 1 yet the difference in EC would be 5.

[@Quiczor]

Yeah I am thinking of implementing this system in my current game for sure and that does hurt the heavy armoured memebrs of a party for sure. I was personally going to be upping the AC on heavy armours to account for that with custom armours. So basically heavy armours would be able to choose between if they want their EC to equal their AC like it used to be with special materials or if they want to just power up the AC to reduce damage that way. Now for normal DnD 5e you aren't likely to be getting hit for 35 damage a hit (Most enemies struggle to reach more than 2d8-4d8+3 damage per hit so 12-21 damage roughly which normal AC ranges would still account for. But in my game if an enemy is large is has double hp and damage and that multiple carries over per size category (So yes huge is 4x and gargatuan is 8x), it's actually working fantastically if people are wondering. Big enemies feel big (I've yet to throw a huge enemy at my players just yet) and the idea is that things that are gargantuan+ aren't really feasable to fight head on, you gotta get help, muster armies, or get really fancy magical equipment they can work towards to fight enemies that large ^.^

[@TheAnimeAtheist]

4:31 This is literally something baked into the core design of 5e, bounded accuracy, you cannot "fix" this without breaking a fundamental of 5e. Go ahead add increased complexity at your table to give a better feel of armor while keeping it balanced, go ahead, detract from the simple easy and quick style of 5e and how it wants to handle things, these changes hurt as they help to a very large degree. The only real way to fix this is to make or go to a different system. This discussion is a great highlight on how stiff of a game 5e can be and how it really doesn't handle meaningful homebrew all that well, a huge weakness of 5e that no one wants to admit to. Once WotC drops 5e, its playrate will drop harder than any other edition, because without splat it has no longevity.

[@xoxlyss]

There's definitely a standard for it because it's like an expansion for the monk's deflect missiles. I think it makes a lot of sense and works especially well for low level characters with monsters. As Colville says, "Missing sucks." So it lets the players hit the monsters more often when their to hit bonuses are lower.

[@TheDungeonCoach]

YES! Missing sucks is another great reason to go along side this system!

[@SweetThreat]

To think that we would see someone in 2021, reinventing Touch AC and armor hardness. Coach it seems like you're on track to homebrewing Pathfinder 2nd edition in 5E godspeed sir

[@TheDungeonCoach]

Hahaha I see that! Heck, I might just be making my own game system lol 😂

[@vigilantgamesllc]

I was thinking this, too, haha. Pathfinder 2e did so much right, but the amount of rules and huge numbers that come into play are just something I don't want to deal with. My players also prefer the simpler leveling system of 5E. I think the way PF has done their ancestries and heritages could definitely be brought over though.

[@ILikeIcedCoffee]

@@vigilantgamesllc Why would you want only part of your race's abilities given to you at level 1? That literally is the most confusing aspect of PF2e.

[@vigilantgamesllc]

@@ILikeIcedCoffee the point is that you could create more features and allow access to them later in place of another feature or something. It's not like I have it all worked out right now, just a thought. The races like tiefling they did very well, imo, because it's like a template you can throw on any race, but it doesn't bloat you at 1st level. This is also a matter of opinion. I believe the number bloat and the ruling over every little thing are the most confusing aspects of pathfinder.

[@ILikeIcedCoffee]

@@vigilantgamesllc Pathfinder 1 had plenty of substitute options and still didn't require them spread out over levels. Let's be very realistic. 5e is an extremely front loaded game, you spawn in as an experienced and competent adventurer. If they merely adjusted the hp a bit, and not designed levels 1 - 3 as a tutorial, those early levels would be quite easily playable full levels of play. You might be interested Ancestry and Culture books by Arcanist Press though.

[@bloodybagal]

The way I've been doing it in my game is I've redone the armor tables entirely, adding new armor and adding in a damage reduction bonus to all armor sets. Light armor gains its armor class from an uncapped dex mod. It also has the best bludgeoning reduction across the board for almost every piece of armor. Medium armor now adds your Strength modifier (capped at +2/3) to your AC, but it's mostly best against slashing damage. Heavy armor adds your Constitution (also capped at +2/3) to your AC, and has the best damage reduction all around but for steadily increasing prices. The reduction isn't too crazy since most enemies aren't hitting for very high numbers most of the time, so it caps out around 5 but that can still be a big difference between life and death in a combat encounter.

[@brahmdorst5154]

I like the idea of a glancing blow system, but balance wise this seems like a big nerf for tanks. Attacks that previously hit still do full damage but some attacks that used to miss entirely now do partial damage to heavy armor wearers but still miss light armor wearers.

[@aedonbael9287]

I was thinking the same thing. Better armor should protect more, not take additional partial damage hits they wouldn’t with just ac

[@ezramclain6320]

yes in fairness it seems like the damage reduction should be permanent but make you easier to hit

[@bulldozer8950]

That’s exactly what I was thinking. Essentially, you’ve now added a couple extra values as which you get hit but take reduced damage. For light armor, this is 2/20 rolls, or 10% of the time. That’s whatever. But for heavy armor it’s around 7-8/20 rolls or around 35-40% of the time. And since heavy armor and light armor tend to have close ac (general heavy armor is 1 higher at all levels) the armor reduction will be pretty much the same, so you’ve basically just changed it so heavy armor take damage 25% of rolls that light armor users don’t. It’s directly a nerf to heavy armor, and imo heavy armor is only ever the right choice if you want to use a two handed weapon, otherwise dex is superior due to stealth and initiative. And depending on your dex, light or medium armor might actually be better now because you’re getting hit for full damage more, but getting hit less. And that’s not good. I think raising heavy armors ac (and probably medium a bit) if you use this system is the way to fix this. That way you’ll get hit for full damage way less often than light armor users, but take some level of reduced damage way more often which is way more accurate to heavy armor.

[@brianj.841]

D&D has always combined hit and penetration as AC. You can hit plate armor, it just doesn't damage the wearer.

[@joshridinger3407]

possible solution: medium/heavy armor shouldn't nerf your dex bonus to ec/ac. possible side bonus or drawback (depending on your design philosophy): 'tanks' no longer incentivized to treat dex as a dump stat

[@BurnsTavern]

This is insane for the past month I’ve been working on some alternate systems for DnD armor being one of them! And this is literally the same thing it’s insane that I was working on this just yesterday and here he is working on the same exact thing (specifically the EC and AR which I called the same thing)! Keep it up!

[@TheDungeonCoach]

Were SYNCED UP! Thats so cool!

[@ajaafive1384]

Rhexx and DC in the same vid?! Let's gooo!!

[@TheDungeonCoach]

Let’s goooooo! We did it lol

[@LeMayJoseph]

Video: "You need a level up system in an RPG" Me: "What? No."

[@nickiekalla6766]

DM's never make players fix their armor. It's been caught on fire, bashed with every weapon for ages and immersed in acid. Armor never needs to be fixed. Is magical armor forever perfect?

[@Sygg-uj3ze]

Furthermore DMs can afflict the players with all kinds of disgusting blisters, ulcerative boils, and scabeous feverish infectious camp diseases, sickening the other PCs with the stench of their twollox, from armor related hygiene check fails, ditto for hipster beards

[@savagefrito]

No ac bonus for armor, just have it add to HP. I.e. each traditional AC bonus adds 3 HP, if it reaches 0 it's tattered and needs repaired (i.e by a mending spell, armorsmith skill , in town etc), magic bonus can be add +10hp per bonus. Barbarians and monk can use their con/wis mod for same stat. Now, since we lost AC bonus for HP .... Use proficiency bonus to raise AC instead.

[@savagefrito]

Further, you can say "masterwork" adds 5 additional HP... Oh the hide armor is monsters hide? Idunno add 3hp to make it unique...:) simplicity, RP value, skill use etc.

[@devincolborn523]

Problems I see with this system, specifically with AR: -it doesn't scale with damage. At level 1, you're fighting CR 1/8 creatures that deal 1d4+2 damage on a hit. A character with AC 17 literally cannot be damaged except by a crit. But just a few levels later, enemies are doing 2d10, 3d12, 6d6 damage + mods. So that heavily armored character is always getting hit thanks to an EC of 10, but now they're only blocking maybe 20% of the damage. It makes heavy armor builds the clearly superior option for early game, but then as time goes on it gets quickly outclassed by light armor builds who are just avoiding all damage most of the time. -it de-values Classes that perform multiple attacks. Because if enemies have an average AR of, say, 5, two attacks that deal an average of 10 will be vastly outclassed by, say, a spell that deals 20. Suddenly the damage curve is far less linear. Rogues will be the highest damage-dealers because they perform a single, powerful attack. Monks will be completely useless because their four attacks per turn won't even penetrate enemy armor most of the time, and certain spells, like Magic Missile or Scorching Ray, will be completely nerfed, as will most AOE spells I imagine. I'd love to see a follow-up video addressing these issues. Love your content, DC. ❤️

[@TheDungeonCoach]

for point 1 i think you NEED to have this in the game early on or else your heavy armor PCs will be dropping like flies... BUT just like RAW AC... if they roll higher than a 17.. they hit for full damage still, ya know? so I dont see to big of an issue here, BUT I will be play testing this for sure! 2nd point is VERY valid and my initial thought is to have the SUM of the damage dealt in the round be what is reduced instead of each hit.... so maybe like a once per turn type deal? idk we will have to playtest that to see how clunky that is... BUT this doesnt have to apply to Monsters tho, for the record. SURE have it apply on SOME but not all, this will give the 2h times to shine and the DW time to shine

[@devincolborn523]

@@TheDungeonCoach *fangirls internally* ... *ahem* I mean, uhh, hi DC. 😁😅 Yeah, these will definitely need thorough playtesting for sure. And if I might throw my 2 cents in for solutions: -for point one, what if the AR value wasn't tied to AC, but was instead a number between, say, 1-4 that you multiply by your level? Light armor will usually have around 0-1, representing its ineffectiveness at actually reducing damage. Medium armor will be 1-2, and heavy armor will be 2-3 with late-game armor maybe reaching 4. So if you're a level 5, heavily-armored Paladin with an AR of 3, you reduce all damage taken by 15. It'll need fine-tuning of course, but I think this is an elegant, simple system that scales nicely. -for the 2nd problem, I think it would require a complete re-work of how combat works. All Classes and Monsters would be re-designed to only perform one attack per turn, but deal more damage and perhaps have some other benefit based on the Class. A Fighter would probably just deal more damage consistently, whereas a Ranger might, say, coat their weapon in poison that weakens enemies as well as damaging them. And maybe Monk strikes could ignore AR all together like how kung-fu masters can punch a stack of boards/bricks and the kenetic energy will travel through all of them and only break the last one (I think that's a thing I saw once?😅). It would require a ton of work, yes. But so far that's the only reasonable solution I can come up with.

[@Gabriel1234452]

@Devin Colborn @The Dungeon Coach What about putting a minimum damage of 1, always, and add your profiency bonus for the types of armor you have proficiency ( And double the bonus with the light/medium/heavy armor master feat ). And do the reduction for the total damage sum like The Dungeon Coach said.. For example : You are at lvl 5 with 3 proficiency bonus and have a heavy armor of 18 AC EC = 10 AR = 8 + 3 ( if you have the armor master feat, 8 + 6 )

[@SwitchbackCh]

This is actually a really interesting problem I also have tried to solve with my custom RPG. One approach is to think of these damages as separate concepts: BURST damage (one big hit) and CHIP damage (many small hits). Taking action economy into account, while the tanky boss would be able to negate faster, weak attacks, the boss' numerous weak minions are the perfect targets. Meanwhile, the heavy-hitting barbarian may only get one hit in, which is great against a boss but horrible when dealing with hordes of enemies. This can create clearer roles and priorities in combat, with the heavy hitter/abilities focusing on big enemies, and the multihit attacks/abilities focusing on the adds/minions.

[@bulldozer8950]

I think it basically makes heavy armor useless. Heavy armor now has a much larger range of values that it can get hit on, while light armor only gets hit on 2 more values. And due to ac generally being pretty close, they reduce it by similar amounts. So heavy armor characters are getting hit about 20% more than light armor characters, and they are roughly the same in all other ways. That doesn’t seem good to me. I think you just need to find a way to buff heavy armor, perhaps with percent reduction or just higher reduction numbers, to make it viable.

[@e.w.3795]

Hey, I'm thinking about this for my next game. I have written this for my players and this is my rule: Each player and monster now has a damage threshold range. The range is related to the type of armor that you are wearing. If you have light armor, a shield, or unarmored defense feature then you have a +1, if you have medium armor then you have a +2, and if you have heavy armor then you have a +3. If you have a shield and some other type of armor, then you add the bonuses together. Your damage threshold is equal to your bonus + your armor class. So if you have plate armor and a shield then you have an AC of 20 and a damage threshold of 24. If you get hit by a bludgeoning piercing or slashing weapon and it beats your AC but not your damage threshold, then you still take damage but you have resistance 5+your bonus to the damage. The damage reduction may increase with different materials or magic items. This does stack with any other type of damage resistance. So if you get hit with a 24 and have plate armor and a shield then you would reduce the damage by 9 (5+plate 3+shield 1). But if they got a 25 to hit then you would take full damage. If you have magical armor you have no threshold. The thought process is that I want the damage that you reduce to be more if you have heavier armor and a shield and stuff, I wanted people with light armor to feel hit the most because they are usually the damage dealers and the squishy ones. I do the damage resistance rule of 5, 10, etc., and not normal resistance so that takes care of that. If you have any ideas or suggestions I would love to hear them, and feel free to post an updated version of it that is reworded because I'm not the best at spelling or grammar or explaining things. Thanks, I'm open to any suggestions

[@garrettwade1294]

I would like to check: did you mean to make a 25 the minimum for full damage if the threshold is 24? Because that makes it inconsistent with AC and DC where you need to meet the number. Now, I like this system, but I feel like it's missing a few things. Firstly, it obviously makes combat either last longer or means everybody gets higher hit bonuses. If it doesn't apply to monsters it keep the pace, but loses the threat. Maybe the threshold could be decreased by a bit to allow for lower hit bonuses as the game is balanced around it. Secondly, the resistance is maybe a bit too static. At low levels, it's too much. At high levels, it's basically nothing. Perhaps it should scale off of level or proficiency bonus to help keep pace while weakening it at lower levels. Maybe level/2+threshold bonus. Another thing, this kind of punishes monks and barbarians. Barbarians obviously don't need the resistance, but it still feels bad to know one of your core class features could cause the fighter to tank better than you damage wise. Unarmored defense might need to scale to allow them to keep up with heavy armor fighters and paladins. I shouldn't be punished for using a class feature more than the lack of AC might already give.

[@e.w.3795]

@@garrettwade1294 Hey thaks for the reply it helps to run it through before session 0 so I can have the kinks out before the pitch to my players. I am running a game that is based on giants which have an insain to hit mod so I dont see hitting the players as an issue. But I see where you are coming from and here are the changes that I can make: light armor is 1/2 your pb, medium armor is your pb, and meavy is 1 1/2 your pb. That way it can still be the same at low levels, but will level with the party. What do you think?

[@jfast8256]

I'm using a materia system for weapons and armor. You can augments the weapons and armor you have with the +1 materia etc you get. Also you can upgrade your armor into better types.

[@jeremysmith9319]

This system is pretty awesome! I’ve always hated the just hit or miss concept of AC bc it felt too simple and didn’t make me feel like my character was really involved in realistic combat. I will definitely be using this is my campaign

[@drew_and_dragons]

Had to say it before th video finished, but it also then increases how valuable maintaining armor is. Damages armor can lower the AC and damage reduction, not the EC. Injuries could lower EC and not AC. A lot of depth can be fleshed out with this system! LOVE IT!

[@TheDungeonCoach]

EXACTLY! YES you have more knobs and levers to pull!

[@drew_and_dragons]

@@TheDungeonCoach I also realized how cool it would be if you tracked each piece of armors own hit points. So when a piece reduces over X threshold, it deteriarates unless taken to be repaired or the party has the means to do so during a rest etc. Thanks for all you do to bring amazing new mechanics for DMs like me coach! PUT ME IN! 😂

[@swaghauler8334]

We used a similar house rule that we called DEFENSE. A Defense is the PC's Dex bonus + 10 PLUS the Proficiency bonus for certain Classes. This is used just like 5e's AC. In addition, different armors will add to your DEFENSE a score of from 0 to 6. Using heavier armor reduces your DEX Bonus just like you are doing with your EC. The second aspect of armor is its PROTECTION RATING. Our armor reduces damage from 1 (for the lightest armors) to up to 6 (for the heaviest Plate armors). We allow Monks the special Class ability to reduce Damage by their PROFICIENCY BONUS just like armor does.

[@AbhorashKenpachi]

What i always found weird is why you can't use you're dexterity/reaction when in armour. You aren't holding a boulder, you have a custom fitted armour and you are a professional (atlete), daily trained militaire. The Dexterity stat would still reflect YOU'RE nimbleness and you're strength and constitution would reflect how long you can wear it before getting exhausted by it. For example carrying an Axe by a child or a lumberjack (daily use), lumberjack wouldn't even by effected by the weight while a child would.

[@4thHogage]

Jesus, how have i never thought about this. GREAT VIDEO

[@CooperAATE]

Dael: Maybe we should get rid of levels...? Rhexx: lol *NO*

[@TheDungeonCoach]

Hhahaha I just saw that video too! lol!

[@Ellebeeby]

Get rid of Levels and you're playing Savage Worlds, etc.

[@tyler1673]

Very much a fan of how runequest does xp. It kind of removes levels but also doesn't.

[@diegorodrigues9528]

We should remove levels. Using xp to "buy" features like in storyteller is a lot better.

[@musingartisan]

The problem with removing Levels is that it only works in systems built from the ground up to accommodate such a thing. You cannot just tack it on in a home brew and expect it to work. The levelling system allows DMs/GMs to tailor encounters specifically to player power levels. By removing the level system you have no idea what your players are going to be like. If you use a points buy, you can have one player who just sinks every single point into combat, and becomes a combat monster very quickly, while another member of the same party will be placing their points into non-combat skills and abilities. How do you tailor a D&D campaign to account for such a thing? You could not, you would no longer be playing D&D. There are many systems that don't use levels for progress, and they work, but they are VERY different from D&D.

[@greygubbins2718]

The most important thing, in my opinion, is it's a simple fix for the issue. So many armor replacements I see make things too complicated to keep track of. Great stuff, thank you both.

[@fal_pal_]

I think the most important tidbit in this video is how you both pointed out the modular nature of 5es simplicity in its rules, and how we should be embracing changes to them to fit the d&d experiences we want rather than yielding to rules fundamentalism. The problem I had with 3.5/pathfinder in the past was immensely complex rules that, while immersive, were law, but the modular fluidity of 5e that you described allows us to craft more precisely the role-playing experiences we want.

[@kristophercook3965]

Incorporating this along with homebrew knockback rules is even more fun. Your tank gets hit by a giant's club, and his armor absorbs most of it, but he's knocked down. I love it!

[@monodescarado]

I put the system in the middle of the video to my players and the overall consensus was pretty negative. Their two main complaints were: 1. We will get hit more (even though they know it works both ways they didn't like the idea of taking more damage) 2. The casters will be forced to make more concentration checks.

[@scottrasnic5870]

This was a great conversation about trying to solve some of the awkwardness of AC. Options are good. Weapons deal bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. My feeling is that armor should be more or less effective against certain damage types. This makes your choice of armor matter. It also gives damage types more meaning. I have been developing a variation on AC where the different kinds of armor have a distinct AC for each damage type where the average is the same RAW. Again, the idea is to give players more options and to give those options more meaning.

[@edheldude]

This was done in AD&D 2nd Edition as an option in the core rules. It could be rather simple to mark ACs vs damage types. E.g. AC 14/18/22 for plate armor. A more simple system would be to give damage resistance vs damage types for certain armors.

[@Darkercube]

This is exactly something I was working on the last few months for a game I have coming up. I'm very anxious to try all your stuff on this! If you ever feel the need to talk with a historian and owner of multiple historically accurate (!) late medieval weapons and armours about how they work and feel, I'm always happy to get in contact with you! I always felt like 5e is missing something in terms of weapons and armours and your video's and written stuff really helps me creating a system that feels so much more realistic. Yeah, it might be a little bit more work but my entire group is made up out off re-enactors and history nerds. :) Kep up the good work DC!

[@TheDungeonCoach]

thanks for that!

[@imwatchin8807]

Ngl at first I was really not on board, but now at the end, it sort of make more sense and I think it's even easier to explain the new AC to new players, so yeah, i'm sold. Now i'll need a table to test that our

[@FrostSpike]

25:00 That sort of swingy damage was called the "Glass-Jawed Ninja" problem in Torg. Characters with a high-dodge ability but, when they were hit, took an absolute ton of damage.

[@Cappy-Bara]

Something that adds on to this greatly is having Armor Penetration for weapons like hammers and daggers where they would have an additional Stat that ignores some or part or the armor reduction; such as a hammer hitting plate, instead if being reduced by 8, it is reduced by 4 instead because a hammer has 4AP.

[@platypusbuk]

Much like Dark Heresy.

[@Cappy-Bara]

@@platypusbuk exactly, bearer of the word

[@indominusolympus8802]

Your AC system is interesting. It's similar to something that has been boiling around in my head for some time. The way I would go about it is having opposed attack and defense rolls to determine if you get hit. This fits with the flavor of a rogue actively trying to dodge an attack or a heavy armored fighter using their weapon to parry. When an enemy makes an attack roll against you, you make an opposing roll of 1d20 + your Proficiency modifier + your Dexterity modifier. Shields add a +2 to this roll. If you fail the contested roll, your enemy rolls damage like normal. Your armor will subtract that by its DR value. AC - 10 like you propose is perfect.

[@TheDungeonCoach]

Ooooo interesting so like a player made dodge roll, I see that! Love this idea too!!

[@individualismincarnate6467]

I think that might be fun, but if your PC is surrounded by enemies it will make it drag. I think as a resource it might me better. Use that as a free action 1x per turn (6 seconds isnt a lot of time so you can attempt to dodge once), maybe 2x for rogue/monk. The rest is just straight up AC.

[@edheldude]

Opposed rolls slow down the game. If you wish to have players roll, you could change enemy attacks to static numbers players have to dodge against. An orc might have an attack number 15. That'll free up the DM's mental space.

[@Darathrius]

One of my main questions is how you would deal with attacks that deal low damage but have nasty on-hit affects. Poison, paralysis, sneak attack, etc. With the EC vs AC range, you could effectively always hit someone with low EC but high AC, how would you rule when those effects come into play? My thought would be to only allow those effects on a full hit, or maybe lowering the DC for the saves if you roll in that range. Is that something that is touched on?

[@TheChroNikler498]

If I were to run this I would say the effect takes place only if the attack deals any damage to you. Like he said, the idea is that any attack that hits but does 0 damage is basically blocked by the armor, so the only way on-hit affects could work is if the actually hurt you.

[@williamjohnston5315]

So this discussion has gotten me thinking on why I like GMing and what I take from limited option games. And I don't think that, at my tables at least, the satisfaction comes from the combat, but rather the roleplay of combat. Describing in the combat is what I enjoy, and what I've had more fun with, then more complex game systems like Shadowrun or Song of Swords. The one thing I did enjoy what you touched on is what Starfinder does with two ACs (along with touch, flatfoot, etc.). I think that two AC system per armor would go into my revision to add more depth without adding complexity.

[@evanbosco2380]

Love seeing all the love and interesting in this system. It was SOOOOO much work, but it's so great to see it being so well received.

[@thirif]

First watch through I really love this, but on paper it feels like your heavier armor people are being punished because they’re taking more damage than before.

[@matthewchinnis4280]

I have to say I love your EC/AC mechanic. It's simple, it's intuitive, it's realistic. Very well done

[@Kellethorn]

Bravo. Genuinely really like this. I had my own homebrew system that somewhat addressed this by focusing on Weapon Strength/attack rolls rather than AC. I honestly think I'll tweak mine though and use both. For those interested my homebrew rules were as follows: -If you doubled an opponent's armor class, it counted as a "soft critical" --meaning you could double your damage, even if it wasn't a Natural 20. -"Soft" criticals did not stack with Nat 20's. Nat 20's were still important for procc'ing special class features, etc. though on top of their normal double-damage. -If you missed an attack by more than half the opponent's AC, you suffered a "soft failure" which could result in a monster in melee getting an opportunity attack against you, or you accidentally shooting an ally from range, instead of the monster (etc). It honestly has worked pretty well to make "high" and "low" rolls feel more rewarding/have bigger consequences and has encouraged my players to evaluate risks more carefully. - As mentioned, I don't think my homebrew will work "out-of-the-box" with this AC/EC/AR system (would probably be a bit too unbalanced), but I think I'll play around with the maths in excel to find a way to make them work together. I had never even considered tweaking AC itself, but love this idea. Cheers!

[@Dalipsingh111111]

Padded Armor: Can be worn underneath medium or heavy armor to get both ACs together, but when worn this way, you have disadv. on all Dex rolls. Also grants same effects as "Cold weather clothing." Maybe a little resistance to bludgeoning damage. Leather: Can be worn for sneaking around without making any noise. Giving you a little bonus to stealth. Can be eaten if necessary. Studded leather: can be upgraded to ring mail for little price or by artificier. It then either counts as medium instead of heavy, or doesnt have disadv. on stealth. Hide: Protection from cold, bonus when hiding in forests, because people might think youre an animal. Chain shirt: Cant be destroyed completely and easily repaired. Can be upgraded to chain mail for little price or from artificiers. Breastplate, Half Plate, Plate: Can be upgraded to the next level for little price or by artificier. Can be damaged to level lower by bludgeoning attack crits. Broken splint or Ring mail turns into leather armor. Half plate has a 1/6th chance (1d6 result 6) to reflect an arrow. Plate 1d4 chance. Just some ideas. Not Balanced at all.....

[@junsonofjack3740]

I love how passionate you both are. Whether or not I or my DMs use these systems, it was a great watch. Thanks.

[@tonyr.546]

Armor and weapon damage was a little more intricate in earlier editions. More complicated to a point but it made more sense, i.e: Heavy armor gives a dexterity nerf but is resistant to all weapon types. Studded leather gives no bonuses or penalties but it's only resistant to piercing damage. Chain mail is resistant to slashing damage, etc. I always loved this aspect of the optional rules for weapons and armor in 2nd edition. I love the streamlined combat and game mechanics in 5E but I grew up playing editions 1 to 3.5 and I do miss a lot of things like this. Thanks for covering this in such detail. I love that you're taking steps to make this mechanic better!

[@dragonxswords114]

Lets say all attacks hit the damage reduction range Plate armor: 18-10=8 reduction Half Plate: 17-10=7 reduction Studded Leather: 17-10=7 reduction I cant help but feel that full plate should block more than leather. Otherwise whats the point of climbing the armor ladder with feats if it just does the same thing? As an alternative....what if the damage reduced was your AC-EC? Then redo EC table to be Light armor and unarmored= AC Medium Armor= 13+dex (2 max) Heavy Armor= 13 With standard armor this would make it Plate: 18-13=5 Half Plate: 17-15=2 Studded Leather= EC of 17 with all or nothing to hit fully or miss entirely (Also maybe +1 to dex saves) This way there is progressive armor scaling for both dodge rate and hit reduction and would make a shield cause 2 extra damage reduction as well, and stop a full hit from happening.

[@dragonxswords114]

This also creates some fun scenarios. Spellsong wizard with EC of 22? Dodges EVERYTHING Guy wearing half plate and shield with AC of 22? 22-15=7 damage reduction 23 AC cleric in full plate with shield? 23-13= 10 damage reduction from everything! (Would be 13 with your version so slight nerf actually) But also....purple worm example works here. You dont want to bite them with purple worm and have it do nothing at all. Monsters would pose no threat. It creates a nice sliding damage scale and doesnt create a ton of damage reducion for high AC rouges and spellsong wizards. They just dodge everything which is great for roleplay as well. So light armored boys are more vurnerable to full attack roll hits but have evasion or absorb elements for spells making them more resistant. Meanwhile the big boys in plate are taking a beating with severely reduced damage or none at all. But are also more vulnerable to spells

[@TheDungeonCoach]

this is a super interesting take on this and I do like the AC - EC concept to also nerf the OP DEX stat

[@dragonxswords114]

@@TheDungeonCoach this is very true. Dex is used for WAY too much and strength is used for almost nothing. Although its more to make heavy armor fighters good against attack rolls and light armored targets good against spells. Also, if you are interested I also introduced a tower shield which requires 16 strength to use and gives disadvantage to stealth. As far as AC it gives the standard 2 from a shield + a constant half cover bonus.

[@Tony-dh7mz]

What about just making armour DR? You still have your Dex bonus, (and I would not limit that to light/mid armour, but all armour, BUT you take a penalty to Dex based on the weight of the armour and your Str) your version is EC Then make it that if you score 5 (you could set this to zero) points over your to hit number, that anything after is converted to damage, unarmored guy of AC 10, you hit him for 19, (four more points beyond the 15 (10+5=15)) and add 4 extra points of damage to your damage roll, You will hit more often, and do more damage, (faster more lethal combat) But armour would soak some of that,

[@blucomet5248]

Me: Sees DC uploaded 🙂 Also ME: Sees that he uploaded about the problems with armor 😁 ME AGAIN: Realizes there is a crossover with Mr. Rhexx 🤩

[@TheDungeonCoach]

Hahahahaha this made me smile

[@blucomet5248]

@@TheDungeonCoach you and Mr. Rhexx are my favorite Dnd KZbinrs. I watch you for Homebrew and Inspiration and I watch Mr. Rhexx for his incredible lore telling. You guys deserve all your love. You make us smile. Thank you 🙏🏻 😊

[@cannibalpizzayt4520]

I've been playing with this idea for a while, but I think it would be cool if ranged weapons had damage associated with the weapon and then damage associated the ammunitions. For example, a longbow would deal 1d4 damage and a standard longbow arrow would deal 1d4 damage, adding up to 2d4 on a hit. Then you could get different types of arrows for your longbow that deal different quantities and types of damage (acid arrows, barbed arrows, fire arrows, etc.).

[@stickblade]

I specifically played a Variant Human with the Heavy Armor Master feat at lvl 1 in a one shot to feel like that ubertank by reducing damage by 3. I've been playing with the gray areas of evasion versus armor in my own homebrew setting and this video gave me a lot to think about! You just convinced me to back the KS too 😁

[@SirShawn-qb2fk]

Something I am doing in a ttrpg I am making is 4 different types of AC that armor give bludgeoning ac, Piercing AC, Slashing AC, and base AC which is the average between the 3. AC is a damage reduction that you subtract from the damage that armor gives Reflex is your to hit Reflex: 10 + dex + proficiency bonus + shield bonus (armor still gives a cap)

[@Johnny0Masters]

Too complex. Im sure you can come up with a simpler and more elegant system :)

[@SirShawn-qb2fk]

@@Johnny0Masters I am trying to

[@rusbus94]

To me, this armor system seems to favor Dex builds more than the builds that use heavy armor.

[@OneNationRestorations]

Dead on with the meaningless value of gold. Love the collaboration. Solid!

[@lemonpossum7894]

I've been running mu own weapons and armor overhaul for years now in 5e and we've hit some of the same points, great DMs think alike

[@TheDungeonCoach]

I LOVE hearing that when others have similar stuff :)

[@robertoaguiar6230]

I also has my issues with armor class but I solved them making homebrew armor and putting damage reduction on these armors. I even made a barrel armor which is a barrel that you wear and it let you swim unlike heavier armors. You ever wondered what is the AC of a barrel? I did.

[@TheUnhousedWanderer]

Mr Rhexx has saved me untold hours of reading. His lore videos can't be topped.

[@beetlejuss]

As DM I just roleplay it: Attacks that miss by few: "you hit it but deal no damage", the attacks that miss by a lot: "enemy just evaded your attack"

[@EthanMckennaMusic]

Your channel is literal gold!

[@acetraker1988]

28-30 AC + Cloak Of Displacement + This, Yeah you are not gonna get me.

[@demnix6210]

the AR sounds good in theory, but only for basic physical attacks. I think you would want to address any secondary effects ( those that happen on hit), so poisons, sneak attacks, smites, grapples, on fire etc. It would feel bad for the mightiest paladin with 20 armor, to always get grappled by the small crab because it rolled a 12. I think a one approach could be to use reactions effects for each armor. no armor/ light armor -reaction to add proficieny to AC until start of turn or hit (kind of like displacer beast) Medium armor - reaction to reduce damage by proficiency Heavy armor and shields - reaction to half damage The fun thing is this scales with level very nicely. Keep up the good work Coach.

[@EldritchNight]

The issue I see with the new armor system is for spell casters using shield to save their life cause they're about to take a huge hit or when the tank is low on hp so the AR doesn't matter cause they'll go down if they take any damage

[@samuelreese1816]

I love the idea of an adjusted armor system. If you look at it like landing a basketball into a hoop, there is the air ball, the bank miss off the rim or back board, and the swish shot. In order to have a more organic interaction in combat, gradation like this will help with immersion and cohesion

[@jeffreysuzuki4855]

I absolutely love the way it should be easier to hit someone in heavy armor as opposed to someone in light armor. HOWEVER, it is NOT because they are slower or more sluggish in the heavy armor. I have seen many videos demonstrating how someone in plate armor can run, jump, roll on the ground, and do many things you would think they should not be able to do. I think it would be easier to hit someone in heavy armor because they have their vision and hearing impaired by their helmet. The heavy armor helmet really protects your head at the expense of having small vision slits and reducing awareness of what's happening around you. A medium helmet might allow better vision and hearing, but not protect the head as much as a heavy helmet. And no armor provides the maximum battlefield awareness. That is my take on why it's easier to hit someone in heavy armor vs. light vs. no armor.

[@AJPickett]

Quite excellent, like 5E and Palladium's S.D.C armor systems had a baby 🙂 I want this mechanic in 6th edition

[@jonsaucy8440]

As a DM I have always held the view that 5e has always been tilted in the PCs favor. That’s not a bad thing, until your players want more interesting/challenging encounters. If you have 5 players, especially one who has many summons/animate dead….the answer is not always increase the mobs. This can quickly lead to twenty minutes between turns; thus, players get bored. If you amp up the CR a bit, when it does hit; it will freaking hurt badly. And so, I am absolutely enamored with this solution. It’s simple, eloquent, and absolutely addresses the issues. Well played.

[@lunaredelvour2972]

My very basic dnd 5e armor/damage types overhaul that only just about works: *where was this when I needed you most*

[@destinpatterson1644]

This was a very helpful video, thank you so much for all the great work you do. I was already making my own armor system for my players and this was a massive help, especially the evasion class. Which I added to my system and made it so that if it lands in that range, they take half damage. If anyone is curious the system will be in the replies

[@destinpatterson1644]

∆ Unarmored Defense- Normal- Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing Temp HP Per Turn- equal to Dex and secondary stat's mod Damage Reduction- Dex mod Glancing Blow Class- 10 + Dex mod ∆ Light Armor- Vulnerability- Piercing Normal- Slashing Resistance- Bludgeoning Temp HP Per Turn- 2 HP Damage Reduction- 1 Damage Glancing Blow Class- 10 + Dex mod ∆ Medium Armor- Vulnerability- Slashing Normal- Bludgeoning Resistance- Piercing Temp HP Per Turn- 4 HP Damage Reduction- 2 Damage Glancing Blow Class- 10 + Dex mod (max 2) ∆ Heavy Armor- Vulnerability- Bludgeoning Normal- Piercing Resistance- Slashing Temp HP Per Turn- 8 HP Damage Reduction- 4 Damage Glancing Blow Class- 10 ∆ Small Shield- AC- +1 GBC- +1 ∆ Medium Shield AC- +2 GBC- +2 Prerequisite- 13+ Strength ∆ Large Shield AC- +3 GBC- +3 Downside- disadvantage on opportunity attacks Prerequisite- 15+ Strength

[@destinpatterson1644]

Ok so after so time working with this homebrew I've decided to change it a bit, but all of the shield stuff is the exact some. ∆ Unarmored Defense- Normal- Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing Damage Reduction- Dex mod + 1 Evasion Class- 10 + Dex mod ∆ Light Armor- Ignores Damage Reduction- Piercing Normal Damage Reduction- Slashing Double Damage Reduction- Bludgeoning Damage Reduction- 2 Damage Glancing Blow Class- 10 + Dex mod ∆ Medium Armor- Ignores Damage Reduction- Slashing Normal Damage Reduction- Bludgeoning Double Damage Reduction- Piercing Damage Reduction- 4 Damage Glancing Blow Class- 10 + Dex mod (max 2) ∆ Heavy Armor- Ignores Damage Reduction- Bludgeoning Normal Damage Reduction- Piercing Double Damage Reduction- Slashing Damage Reduction- 8 Damage Glancing Blow Class- 10

[@anderslundtoft2315]

My two favorite DnD youtubers! Well played Sir, Well played

[@DotJus]

I really like this style of more conversational / less edited content from you. I just pledge to your kick starter and am about to jump onto your Patreon. Keep it up my friend!

[@gstaff1234]

Great info and reasons to support the already funded Kickstarter. First time Kickstarter and it was to help out another Pro Level Educator. Peace!!

[@TheDungeonCoach]

PEACE!! Heck yea Greg, thanks for that!! I am honored to be your first kickstarter :)

[@aliciacordero8399]

So basically, implement touch AC and add a damage reduction to make up the difference? Thinking about it, one concern I would have here is that it would, or at least should, make things like an offensive plane shift easier to land... but maybe that's a feature not a bug. Actually, a *lot* of things get much more likely to hit but only for medium and heavy armor - light armor will now be the tankiest, because there's just not enough of a difference in AC for the introduction of EC to be worth it. The problem, as others have pointed out, is you're actually just adding more damage where the heavy armored character wouldn't have taken any with just AC, but not actually giving the heavy armored character anything in return; there's nothing to tip the scales back *and* it doesn't scale up, so it ends up where literally every attack from a level appropriate enemy that isn't a Nat 1 will hit you. One solution that jumps to mind is to add proficiency to heavy armor EC/AC, representative of angling your body so that blows glance off of the armor rather than fully dodging, and I'd consider adding magical bonuses to EC for heavy armor. But then that becomes a straight buff to heavy armor, where if you give them a +3 shield and+3 plate then nothing but a crit will deal full damage; granted it does work fine without magic armor. Maybe magic item bonuses and half proficiency to EC/AC, full proficiency instead to AR? This would make it start with a lower EC than light armor, and end higher with magical armor Level 5 plate+shield 11 EC/21 AC, at +6 to hit that's 1-4 miss, 5-14 reduced, 15-19 hit, 20 crit, with a reduction of 11 you'll mostly not take any damage except from poisons or sneak attack. Compare to 14/15 EC 16/17 AC with studded leather. Level 17 +3 plate+shield 16 EC/26 AC, at +11 to hit that's the same die ranges as at level 5, with a reduction of 19 you'll mostly tank any glancing blow from a balor's sword or a dragon's tail. Compare to 15 EC 20 AC with +3 studded leather; or 13 EC/23AC vs 15 EC/17 AC with mundane armor.

[@tripflipz5069]

This video is helpful and inspiring yet, I kinda already knew this concept. Let me explain: When my group plays DND combat situations, not every attack roll is a hit or miss. Kind of. Even if my players miss sometimes, I say they hit the enemy but didn't damage the armor or skin enough to create a wound. The way I usually decide when to do this is pretty simple. If the player (or monster) FAILS an attack roll that would add their STRENGTH for the roll, (as this typically applies to melee) this is when I say the hit made "contact" but didn't do serious enough "damage". If the player FAILS an attack roll that adds their DEXTERITY (usually applies to range attack) this is when I say the attack missed completely. This typically works out for the enjoyment of my players and makes combat feel really awesome. This has always just made sense to me since DEXTERITY attack rolls are based off the fact that you do damage because the attack is done swiftly and with accuracy just like an arrow. (If done swiftly but not accurately, then your attack just misses) While on the other side, melee is close quarters, so it seems natural that an attack based on STRENGTH deals damage only if you put enough effort behind it, and less effort doesn't mean you miss, it just means the attack is "ineffective". Note: this video is still informational and creative, and it opened my eyes to the possibility of armor customization which is super cool. I think that making types of armor have certain weaknesses and strengths is EPIC.

[@leeallen2301]

This looks like a very good system for solving the armour issue, I'm suggest it to my players. I was also working on a new armour system for 5e, but the closest I've got so far was to simply have players roll for their defence and add an armour bonus to the roll. The armour bonus is calculated simply by taking 10 away from the AC and what's left becomes their armour bonus. If the player rolls higher than the attack roll, they dodge or block the attack and take no damage, and if they roll equal to or lower, they are hit. I hadn't thought about damage reduction because I wanted to keep the simplicity, but make the players feel like they are actively trying to defend rather than just sitting there. The best system I have come up with is for my own RPG system. In that game, players roll multiple dice when they attack which consist of their stat, skill, and weapon dice. The defender will roll a similar set of dice, but rolling armour instead of weapon dice. The scores are compared and if the attacker is higher than the defender, they have hit. The clever part though, that that the amount of damage done is equal to the difference between the rolls. In this way, the armour dice are actively reducing the damage taken, and because there is only 1 roll on each side, combat as a whole is faster. But as I said, this is for my own system which is not based on a D20 like 5e, so I'm not sure if it could be adapted without a massive change to the rules.

[@drunk0robot]

Yeah, is simple but it didn't take long to see that something is weird about armor and AC, but didn't know much to make changes. This is so cool to see, Thanks! (Man, that recorded camera shots quality )

[@mikloskarpati2722]

I like the idea, but it seems to me the EC AC method would have the opposite effect of what was intended. As ppl pointed out below, this would buff DEX even more, while (with the numbers used as an example) flat out nerf heavy armor builds. Maybe if the EC (which is basically mechanically the same as the RAW AC if I understood correctly.) was somewhat smaller than the RAW AC, and if the ceiling for damage reduction was waaaay higher for heavy armor ( Depending on material for example? ) even this would lead to a constant need of armor upgrades for the heavy armor classes in my opinion. At first glance this sorely needs some internal scaling to avoid that. Also, I think you can't really separate out the AC system of 5E and change it, isolated from the attack and damage mechanics. Anyways, I'll test this with my party in the next one-shot as I generally like the idea.

[@donjonmastergaming5911]

My own personal supplement already had expanded materials for weapons/armour but I'm totally gonna have to raid yours for inspiration/help balancing what I've made so far 🤔

[@lunarshadow5584]

My first thought when it came to AC overhaul was similar to this 8 + prof + Dex is natural dodge/miss Armor however would give you the ability to halve the damage that goes beyond that with its extra AC + SB (shield Bonus) which can go beyond 22-26 but that does mean that there would be stronger enemies that hit harder in games with that kind of system as rolling attack to 30 would start being the limits of mortals and start into demigod territory. There could also be some extra stuff like light armor or cloaks and capes that block view of vital areas, maybe even some illusion magic that adds to the dodge/miss chance And of course there is the increase of Constitution that would have similar effects to Armor for reasons like that of barbarians where your muscle is thick like bear hide because of the constant training of your muscles or the strengthening of the quality of scales

[@apocalypsezero]

I understand the idea of systematically creating "visual action" the overall result is exactly the same or worse for the heavy armor players. This also creates more rules, rolls, etc. to deal with to stretch out the combat encounters.

[@DragonstarFighter]

the "armor reduction" value works fine until you get into creatures that hit a AC20 on a 5, and so the fact that they rolled a 4, hit a 19 your armor class of 21 is over your evasion class, so you take 70 points of damage instead of 80 when your AC of 21 would have protected you in prior systems

[@erikwilliams1562]

Also really screws over monks, barbarians and rogues unless they’re getting an EC of 30

[@odinforce29]

I have 3 problems with weapons and armor in RPGs: Armor, speed and Reach. 1 of them Reach I actually solved with my homebrew weapon reach class wich works really well and makes combat more tactical. 2 AC, I was working on something close to this, and now Just gonna use yours. (Thanks) 3 Attack Speed, I have no Idea How to make faster characters feel fast during combat. I tried making attacks and actions cost initiative, but It slowed things by adding constant math and tracking (Would love some suggestions)

[@TheDungeonCoach]

I love this and have written down your other 2 issues and will see what happens in the future :)

[@odinforce29]

@@TheDungeonCoach Thanks Coach. If you were wondering, my weapon reach system has 5 levels: 0 or touch (fists and knifes) 1 - short (short sword and dagger) 2 - Medium (most swords) 3 - long (Greatsword and spear) 4 - War (Pikes and long Polewapons) I don't allow them to carry war weapons, only for actual war scenes like sieges. I give a -2 penalty on attacks against wepons 2 levels or more higher than yours unless you're using a shield or two weapons. Also each level reaches an especific range (so no more "reach" property): War (10ft), Long (7ft), Medium (5ft), short (3ft), touch (2ft). I only enforce the shorter threat range for AoO not regular attacks, and I also rule that monks unarmed strikes have regular 5ft reach and don't have the attack penalty. It works great, specially with the +2 flanking bonus rule and the fact that I use hexagons, not squares for combat. It's a very tactical combat without slowing it down.

[@philpeters3689]

Utilise the bonus action and reaction. So give them a homebrew feat that allows them to act on those with a weapon attack in response to something else like a crit, a high roll, a miss or make increases to their attack of opportunities

[@crankysmurf]

AD&D not only had weapon speed but had plus/minus modifiers against certain type of armour. Like in real life, blades are pretty much useless against full plate armour but bludgeoning weapons were more effective.

[@slinggamer6387]

Yes, as crankysmurf said. 2nd and AD&D had weapon speeds and spell speeds. The function added to your initiative (remember things were a little backward so this will sound funny) after rolling initiative you would add the modifier to the roll, dart/dagger added 2 to the roll long sword added 5 and Great sword added 8 (or something like that). A spell would be 1 point per spell level, because there is chanting to do, and a spell could be interrupted by an attack like breaking concentration in 5E. So to add this to 5E you would subtract from your roll. Also we used to roll initiative every round. Also yes the caster had to know what they were going to do when they rolled initiative.

[@br41nc3ll]

Wow, this is a long video. It should be good 😁

[@TheDungeonCoach]

Really had a lot to dive into! And we just had too much fun!! Haha

[@elmsigreen]

Most of my players right now are simple light armor ranged characters except for one paladin that just runs into fights with his 22 AC that can go up to 24 with Shield of Faith and 29 with his ring of spell storing that the party sorcerer keeps refilling with the Shield spell. I've been trying to counter that by sending spellcasters against him but that seems very unfair because of all the hard work they have put into this strategy. I think this AC/EC system REALLY helps

[@iselreads2908]

Oh gosh, this armor system you guys cooked up! I snagged this to use in some oneshots to test it with my players and they love it! There's a bit of a learning curve, but they like what they've seen so far. Monks feel like epic dodge tanks avoiding everything launched at them, but it hurts when they get hit. One of my players made an armorer artificer wearing plate mail and wielding a heavy shield that got made out of mithral to negate some of that shield type's disadvantages. Add in that he picked up heavy armor master to further boost his AR stat, he was reducing almost every hit he took to 0. It took using some cannons Id placed in the arena or spells to effectively damage him, as is typically how you overcome high defense enemies in your typical RPG We also implemented our own version of your alternate resistance rules (our version using half your proficiency bonus times 5 if you got a racial or class feature) so the Barbarian has a nice middle ground. They get to be able to dodge most attacks using their unarmored defense, but they get the benefit of being able to reduce damage without being able to outclass the guy wearing heavy armor. Since this weapons and armor stuff is module in nature, we were able to take parts of the system we liked and leave behind what we didn't without many consequences. We might still run a few more oneshots to familiarize ourselves with it a bit more, but we definitely plan on integrating things into our current adventure. Thanks so much everyone who worked hard to make this way of doing this possible for the rest of us who wanted a bit more out of our gear in D&D

[@TheUglyGoblin]

A thought I had, (because I love this idea, but it becomes quite tragic at higher levels when the damage reduction doesn't feel like much for tanks) is that what iiiiif~ monsters themselves has an "Ignore Armour" stat based on their size. So like large creatures have an "Ignore Armour" property of 1. So someone in plate armour, instead of having an AC of 18 for that monster, is instead treated as though it has 17. But then the damage dealt to that target within that "Ignored Armour" threshold, deals half as much, or is reduced by the player's armour reduction score? Could be cool, no need to any maths on the players side. And it's easy to know what each monster's "Ignore Armour" score is. You just look at their size. Maybe gargantuan have an Ignore Armour score of 5, or heck, even 10 could be fun

[@Attaxalotl]

Something that might be worth considering is a damage reduction die (a D4 for shields and light armor, a D6 for medium, and a D8 for heavy). The living brick wall wearing a second brick wall with a third brick wall strapped to his arm shouldn't take as much damage from a random goblin's flint knife as the twink warlock who's only defense is a fancy cape.

[@Brandon-zw3hw]

I had something pretty much the same I was working with! So I took the variant roll rule from 3rd edition where you roll for defense using the ac - 10 vs attack roll so each player is rolling dice and making combat more dynamic. Then if the attack lands withing the armor rating, your armor or shield is hit, then brought back hardness and hit points to determine how damaged or destroyed your armor got. Then another system for repairing

[@JacobOphir]

I definitely plan on getting this book, because it brings to life all my dungeons & dragons fantasies, and what it should’ve been in my head when you hear the name Dungeons & Dragons!

[@razorbeard1396]

This is absolutely amazing!! Im a bit late to the party but definitely getting your book

[@TheDungeonCoach]

Thank you for that! It’s the best thing I’ve ever made 😇💜

[@ixelhaine]

Has a very "Touch AC" feel, also opens up giving melee characters things like Light and Heavy attacks, Light attacks get say 1.5× proficiency bonus to hit rolls, but take DOUBLE damage reduction from AR (more likely to hit, but less follow through if it hits thick armor); Heavy attacks ignore AR or half AR, but proficiency bonus is ½ to hit (less accurate, but more follow through against heavy armor) PS, I love that Glancing Blows took off.

[@nicholassmith3732]

Hey bud, I like your videos and I like your enthusiasm. It's easy to tell how much you really like this system. A piece of advice? Two actually. Simplify your info for your video descriptions and allow your guest to speak. You're better at it around 6 minutes in, but you still talk over your guest often.

[@TheDungeonCoach]

Thanks for the advice! I have done many collabs and never got this feedback before, so this is good to be aware of! I really do appreciate it!

[@MrMaltavius]

In the RPG I played as a teenager we had an Durability score, if the armor took damage above the durability score, subtract remaining points on the durability, when it hits 0 the item/armor/weapon is unusable and needs to be repaired. 1D6 damage (4) on Leather Armour, Leather Armour has Durability och 3 (for example) and after the hit the Leather Armour now has 3 (Durability -= Damage - Durability). But then we had damage reduction values on armour as well.

[@Rokuns]

Rhexx sent me here :D, Gonna be playing "Catchup" but so far really like your vids and hope you get more subs!

[@Sygg-uj3ze]

I want my serrated horned greaves and flamespewing chainsaw codpiece dammit

[@shanemabus]

I actually find everything works really well, as is. To me it feels more like you guys want to play an mmo more than dnd. But, if you're not into how the mechanics are, as is, there are so many tabletops put there. Definitely try one of those, it would help out the community for sure.

[@LJ-gu2dj]

Yeah I don't want D&D to turn into World of Warcraft.

[@linus4d1]

@@LJ-gu2dj likewise I think 5e should stay 5e and not try to be Pathfinder/Starfinder. Those systems target a different audience.

[@mattyb.5628]

Especially when 5E was specifically designed to be streamlined and be simpler to play overall. I think people get too caught up in how the numbers are supposed to represent "real world" effects. It's not supposed to be realistic, it's supposed to determine an outcome. Armor Class is just a mechanic to determine if an attack hits or misses. Mechanically, it doesn't matter why you missed. Maybe your attack just missed the target; or your sword hits but it bounces off the armor; or maybe you hit a sturdy piece of the armor; or maybe the target blocked you with his sword, and so on... We don't really need mechanics to decide these things, just a bit of imagination. While I like the concept of glancing blows, I feel that 5e's rules already get you most of the way there. If you want a creature's armor to actually matter, you could give it resistance to Slashing, Piercing and Bludgeoning damage. If you beat the target's AC by 5 or more, you bypass its resistance. You don't need any extra rules or mechanics to facilitate it.

[@jstogdill9195]

Previous editions had supplements that had systems like this and were fun to play which included armor repair, limb loss, permanent injuries etc. they were just really complex and a “good” dice day for the DM meant TPR (total party retirement).

[@python27au]

What I don’t like about the armour system in d&d is how the armours are depicted. I’ve warn mail before ants not that heavy or cumbersome or loud. The links don’t rattle or jingle, the weight is distributed between your shoulders and hips, and it has no real bulk that mostly comes from the padding underneath. I’d hazard that padded armour is much more encumbering than a mail shirt. Plate armour is no where near as restricting as the game makes out. Sure it would be restrictive compared a bloke in a t-shirt but armoured knights could still run, jump, roll, swim, and mount a horse otherwise theyd be useless on a battle field.

[@clone_69]

Your system works at lower levels, when enemies deal 1d8+3 or so damage. But when they start dealing large damage in multiple hits, I feel it ends up falling apart, your tanks will get hit more often, and having like 8 AR won't really matter when you are taking 20-30 per hit. I nice idea, but I think it need refinement to work at the higher levels.

[@matterjaws1498]

WOOO! I've been waiting for this one!

[@TheDungeonCoach]

Woop! This was super fun!! Crazy to chat with Rhexx all this time!

[@zenovkayos5811]

Love it. But I think the armor reduction should be based on percentage than the -10 static number. To account for scalability

[@AnaseSkyrider]

That requires a calculator, though, which most people don't want.

[@fguocokgyloeu4817]

I prefer the static number because that is how actual armor works but your scalability point stands. I think there is a better way because it doesn't make sense that armor capable of soaking half of a goblins spear also soaks half of a cannonball.

[@AnaseSkyrider]

@@fguocokgyloeu4817 It's very difficult to balance, though, that's the thing. Using D&D with real world logic, with a 1d4 dagger, the most protection you could get from a full suit of armor is probably like a -6 or -8 (accounting for damage modifiers) because a dagger can still find its way between armor slits or joints and do damage.

[@AdamPeeGuerra]

this hits the nail on the head. thank you for fleshing this out. you've earned my sub :D

[@DBArtsCreators]

There is an important difference between evading a hit and reducing a hit's damage to 0: if the hit has any secondary effects, those will still trigger even if the damage is reduced to 0 (say if the swing of the giant's club has a chance to push you or knock you prone on a hit). Evading the hit evades all the secondary stuff as well, meaning it is still the better option in comparison to relying on armor to reduce the damage of the blow (but of course, it would be harder to increase your Evasion in comparison to your Aror).

[@AllThatJaz22]

Ordered the book! Can't wait to see it in printed glory! Congrats!