Regarding shield AC vs dual-wielding AC, the difference would only be +1AC per Prof.bonus increase with my plan, as you add Prof. bonus to armour (if you're wearing only armour you're proficient in) and replacing shields with +prof is you're proficient, so someone with +4 prof bonus would still have 2 higher AC than when they were +2 Prof., but could be +4 compared with that if they have a shield. Personally, once you get to the point where it makes an impact (+4+ Prof. Bonus), I feel most people will have abandoned any nonmagical shield because +2AC means little-to-nothing aganst +12 to hit, so they go for "kill it before it can ht me again" instead!
Feats is also a cool option, and I will definitely look at re-writing the relevant ones and adding more!
Currently I've gone for:
Reduce AC by 3 across the board
Add "Half Helm" as medium armour (+1AC) and "Full Helm" as heavy armour (+2AC, disadvantage on perception checks)
Add poficiency bonus to AC if you're wearing only stuff you're proficient in
Bucklers (1/2 prof., or +1), shields (Prof., or +2) and Pavise (1+prof. or +3)
So if you start at lvl 1, proficient in heavy armour, with Plate armour (somehow), and a full helm, then you have AC 15 (plate) + 2 (helm) + 2 (prof) for AC19. If you have a shield, and are proficient, this increases to AC21.
At level 9, your Prof. bonus goes to +4, so you hve either AC21 without a shield, or AC25 with a shield. At level 17 ,with Prof. +6, you have AC23 without a shield or AC29 with a shield (or AC30 with a Pavise!).
This makes sense to me, as you should be able to have the most proficient knight at level 17 being extremely good at using their armour and shield to not get hit. The AC increasing either way is also going to help balance it, I think. That said, with the amount of attacks fighters have at that point, they may never not have the shield. Perhaps a limit on the shield? Or the shield could be 1+1/2prof, so it's +2 at level 1 and +4 at level 17, to close the gap?
Related observation: there's only one type of non-magical Shield. Obviously this was for simplification purposes; but it does mean that a Tower-shield, a Kite-shield, and a Buckler all provide identical +2 AC protection.
I would instead do shields as +1 AC +½PB if proficient, so if you aren’t proficient you get a +1 from a shield and if you are it’s at minimum +2 up to +4 at higher levels. That seems more balance to me.
I would instead do shields as +1 AC +½PB if proficient, so if you aren’t proficient you get a +1 from a shield and if you are it’s at minimum +2 up to +4 at higher levels. That seems more balance to me.
I don't really see any flaws in that idea....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
⌜╔═════════════The Board══════════════╗⌝
...and started me on my way into my next chapter in life...
I would instead do shields as +1 AC +½PB if proficient, so if you aren’t proficient you get a +1 from a shield and if you are it’s at minimum +2 up to +4 at higher levels. That seems more balance to me.
I don't really see any flaws in that idea....
Right? And then a small shield (like a buckler) could just add straight +½PB if proficient, and a large shield could add +2 AC +½PB if proficient. Nice and neat.
I would instead do shields as +1 AC +½PB if proficient, so if you aren’t proficient you get a +1 from a shield and if you are it’s at minimum +2 up to +4 at higher levels. That seems more balance to me.
I don't really see any flaws in that idea....
Right? And then a small shield (like a buckler) could just add straight +½PB if proficient, and a large shield could add +2 AC +½PB if proficient. Nice and neat.
Simple, yet flexible/alterable, based on your character build and amount of experience with shields (level).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
⌜╔═════════════The Board══════════════╗⌝
...and started me on my way into my next chapter in life...
The PB route looks fairly good. For TWF the +1AC in the 5e Dual wielder feat should be moved to the fighting style ( it should have been there from the get-go) and changed to +1/2 PB instead of a straight +AC. In 1DnD it’s not there in either place so it should be added to the fighting style. That would solve the AC vs damage question to at least some degree.
I like the idea of adding your dex bonus into heavy armor AC. I just do not see any reason to not use it.
Richard the third had severe scoliosis and even he trained in and wore full plate armor into combat and on horseback jousting. It never once reduced his movement.
Weight encumbrance should be a problem but that is all.
I can see shields giving a 1,2,or 3 to ac but only if proficient with them.
The static AC I can see being a problem. That's something that I observed in looking at the armours - the only way to progress AC is magical armour, and even then it tops out at +3. When you're fighting a Tarrasque with +19 to hit, that's sucky.
Well, mundane armor really isn't going to do much against a hundred ton monster that can tear down castle walls.
D&D has a long history of not clearly distinguishing 'hard to hit' and 'hard to hurt'. On a human scale this doesn't do too badly, hurting someone in armor with medieval weapons is mostly a matter of hitting them at points where the armor is thin or nonexistent, so armor and evasion really are somewhat cumulative, but it has problems outside of that scale, both on the high and the low (heavy armor should be amazing against a swarm of kobolds and meaningless against a purple worm, high dexterity should be a lot worse against the swarm of kobolds and a lot better against the purple worm), but going to a different damage model that actually distinguishes the two concepts pretty much turns it into Not D&D.
D&D has a long history of not clearly distinguishing 'hard to hit' and 'hard to hurt'. On a human scale this doesn't do too badly, hurting someone in armor with medieval weapons is mostly a matter of hitting them at points where the armor is thin or nonexistent, so armor and evasion really are somewhat cumulative, but it has problems outside of that scale, both on the high and the low (heavy armor should be amazing against a swarm of kobolds and meaningless against a purple worm, high dexterity should be a lot worse against the swarm of kobolds and a lot better against the purple worm), but going to a different damage model that actually distinguishes the two concepts pretty much turns it into Not D&D.
More accurately, it turns it into 4e D&D, where you had four different defenses--AC (representing your armor and general physical toughness), Reflex (dodging), Willpower (ability to take mental attacks), and Fortitude (poisons and other toxins)--and attacks targeted one of those defenses, based on what you would need to avoid them. Different Abilities would influence different stats--Fortitude, for example, looked at your Strength or Constitution.
There also were no saves--probably because Wizards thought folks would have fun actually being the one to roll their attack, rather than have your enemy get to decide whether you hit or not--with spells likewise having a +X to hit against the relevant defense. This made balancing spellcasters and martial classes a lot easier, since they used the same basic mechanics--just against different targets.
Of course, no one liked 4e, so realism and a system that puts martials and casters in comparable systems was thrown out. One of many places where the game suffered because Wizards decided to throw out everything about 4e, rather than consider keeping the parts that worked.
O noes, a goblin with a scimitar has a massive one in three chance of hitting a 1st-level sword and board fighter... assuming it even gets an attack off and isn't killed before it lands a blow
It kinda is an "o noes". A well equipped and armored soldier should wipe the floor with poorly armed 3ft tall dudes. The soldier should be able to wade through throngs of them, slaying several per swing of their blade. Picture a knight in shining armor battling a swarm of 3 year old sized enemies. It isn't a fair fight. It shouldn't be a fair fight.
The static AC I can see being a problem. That's something that I observed in looking at the armours - the only way to progress AC is magical armour, and even then it tops out at +3. When you're fighting a Tarrasque with +19 to hit, that's sucky.
Well, mundane armor really isn't going to do much against a hundred ton monster that can tear down castle walls.
An unarmored fighter shouldn't be able to survive a ancient dragon bite. But he can. Because high level characters are superheros.
D&D has a long history of not clearly distinguishing 'hard to hit' and 'hard to hurt'. On a human scale this doesn't do too badly, hurting someone in armor with medieval weapons is mostly a matter of hitting them at points where the armor is thin or nonexistent, so armor and evasion really are somewhat cumulative, but it has problems outside of that scale, both on the high and the low (heavy armor should be amazing against a swarm of kobolds and meaningless against a purple worm, high dexterity should be a lot worse against the swarm of kobolds and a lot better against the purple worm), but going to a different damage model that actually distinguishes the two concepts pretty much turns it into Not D&D.
There is an optional rule for armor as DR that works to capture this feeling. Using optional rules doesn't make it "not D&D".
I have used a variant that does both armor as AC but also as DR indirectly, by having modifiers that add to hit/damage only add to hit, but then whatever the hit exceeds target AC by is added to the damage total. It causes there to be a strong correlation between high attack rolls and higher damage, and hits that just barely land doing less. Though it can be spiky at lower levels.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
More accurately, it turns it into 4e D&D, where you had four different defenses--AC (representing your armor and general physical toughness), Reflex (dodging), Willpower (ability to take mental attacks), and Fortitude (poisons and other toxins)--and attacks targeted one of those defenses, based on what you would need to avoid them.
Nope. Cleanly distinguishing the two would mean that even on attacks that are affected by armor, AC 16 via studded leather and 18 dex would behave differently from 16 dex via chainmail and 10 dex. The usual way other game systems accomplish this is by having armor reduce damage instead of making you harder to hit, and then some monsters are inaccurate but incredibly hard hitting, others are high accuracy but don't hit very hard.
So I've made the slightly-more-complex version, which involves a little more calculation before the fight but after that your AC acts the same as before. I'm now making more complicated optional rules for Armour, and I've got 2 options to pick from:
1: Flat damage reduction. Your Armour reduces incoming Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage by a fixed amount. This will make heavy armour more effective vs "death by a thousand cuts".
2: Total damage absorbtion - armour has a new form of temporary hitpoints which you can use to absorb an amount of Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage, and once it's gone, damage hits you. This comes back at the start of each of your turns.
I'm leaning towards the first one, because it's far simpler to keep track of. Thoughts?
D&D has a long history of not clearly distinguishing 'hard to hit' and 'hard to hurt'. On a human scale this doesn't do too badly, hurting someone in armor with medieval weapons is mostly a matter of hitting them at points where the armor is thin or nonexistent, so armor and evasion really are somewhat cumulative, but it has problems outside of that scale, both on the high and the low (heavy armor should be amazing against a swarm of kobolds and meaningless against a purple worm, high dexterity should be a lot worse against the swarm of kobolds and a lot better against the purple worm), but going to a different damage model that actually distinguishes the two concepts pretty much turns it into Not D&D.
More accurately, it turns it into 4e D&D, where you had four different defenses--AC (representing your armor and general physical toughness), Reflex (dodging), Willpower (ability to take mental attacks), and Fortitude (poisons and other toxins)--and attacks targeted one of those defenses, based on what you would need to avoid them. Different Abilities would influence different stats--Fortitude, for example, looked at your Strength or Constitution.
More like 3rd Edition, where you had AC, Touch AC (for non-physical effects that ignored your worn armor, like most spell attacks), and Flat-footed AC (which didn't give you your Dex bonus to AC because you were surprised). In practice this largely meant that characters who relied on armor for protection were hosed against spellcasters who had no trouble reliably hitting their 10 or so touch AC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
So I've made the slightly-more-complex version, which involves a little more calculation before the fight but after that your AC acts the same as before. I'm now making more complicated optional rules for Armour, and I've got 2 options to pick from:
1: Flat damage reduction. Your Armour reduces incoming Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage by a fixed amount. This will make heavy armour more effective vs "death by a thousand cuts".
2: Total damage absorbtion - armour has a new form of temporary hitpoints which you can use to absorb an amount of Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage, and once it's gone, damage hits you. This comes back at the start of each of your turns.
I'm leaning towards the first one, because it's far simpler to keep track of. Thoughts?
I would go with the first - it’s far easier for the DM and player to keep track of and could probably be put into a table: Armour. AC. Slashing DR. Piercing DR. Bashing DR. Max Dex Bonus. Other gambeson/Padded 11. —— —— -1. +4. Stealth soft leather 11. -1. -1. -1. +5. Stealthy cuir Boilli. 12. -2. -1 -1. +3 -1 to stealth Hide. 12 -2 -1. -1. +2. -1 to stealth Chain Shirt. 13. -3. -2. -1. +2. Disadvantage. To stealth Scale. 14. -3. -2. -1. +2. Stealth disadvantage Breastplate. 14. -3. -2. -2. +2. Stealthy Hauberk. 15. -3. -2. -2. +2. Stealthy (Light chain, plates between 2 layers of cloth/soft leather) Half plate. 16. -4. -3. -2. +1. Stealth disadvantage ( breast & back, lamellar skirt, greaves/boots) Chainmail. 17. -4. -3 -2. 0 Stealth disadvantage lamellar. 18. -5. -3. -2. 0. Stealth disadvantage (banded/splint by culture) platemail. 19. -5. -4. -3. 0. Stealth disadvantage (Breast & back over chain + other plate pieces) articulated plate. 20. -6. -4. -3. +1. Stealth disadvantage Buckler. +PB —- —- —- —— shield. +1+PB large Shield. +2+PB
costs will probably have to be increased for the heavier armors to force them deeper into the tiers and then some of the special armors (elven chain, Mithril, Admantine, Dragon Scale, etc will have to be adjusted for a better fit.
In a video game where all of the math is handled behind the scenes, granular "realism" is trivial, but with pen and paper, this kind of thing can get overwhelming. Especially for new players. This is one of the major reasons for the changes between 3.x and 5e, and is associated with a massive increase in the appeal of game. Adding simple rules that can be applied broadly will be easier to swallow than large charts of options.
In a video game where all of the math is handled behind the scenes, granular "realism" is trivial, but with pen and paper, this kind of thing can get overwhelming. Especially for new players. This is one of the major reasons for the changes between 3.x and 5e, and is associated with a massive increase in the appeal of game. Adding simple rules that can be applied broadly will be easier to swallow than large charts of options.
Yeah the whole topic was that people somehow freak out over like an extra handful of mundane options yet there are entire chapters, pages upon pages upon pages to describe all the various spell options. You're doing that.
Why is the slightest degree of complexity bad when it comes to armor or weapons but we can dedicate 82 pages of the PHB to all the various spells? And also a whole other chapter to how spells work. Yet a simple table with a few modifier is a "yikes"??
It really is a fascinating phenomena. You see it all the time. What makes spells different that people will tolerate several degrees of magnitude more complexity from them than they will from normal equipment?
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
People act like they trade out armor faster then MU's trade out spells.
Its simple. Base AC=10+dex+armor type(and its magic)+shield(and its magic)+and any other magic item+remember to add it all those buffs you got from someone else=Whats so hard about that?Your doing it anyways.
Adding damage reduction to armor massively changes the balance of single attack vs multiple attack, and single attacker vs multiple attacker. Mechanically it's not too hard -- just list the character as having resist 3 crushing or whatever.
People act like they trade out armor faster then MU's trade out spells.
Its simple. Base AC=10+dex+armor type(and its magic)+shield(and its magic+and other magic item+remember to add it all those buffs you got from someone else=Whats so hard about that?Your doing it anyways.
The basic formulation is fine. Plug in the numbers and you get a number to work with.
The only issue is when you have to make new calculations on the fly depending on factors the DM may or may not remember to tell you, such as an unfamiliar weapon's damage type. Having different AC for Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing shouldn't be baked into armor by default because every single player, and monster, will be needing to keep track of it separately. People already routinely struggle to calculate AC correctly, regardless of how "simple" it may seem. The more similar things are, the harder it is to remember the differences between them. (e.g. Chain Mail vs. Chain Shirt)
If you want to make an armor/weapon equivalent to spells, you'll need to break away from the minor differences and do something more creative. Reclassify armor by something narratively significant, rather than Armor Class. For example, have armor organized by trade schools: "Unaffiliated/Mundane", "Agility", "Durability", "Utility", "Affinity", etc...
Mundane armors would be an analog to Simple weapons. They would have scaling AC with scaling Strength requirements, but be limited in potential.
Agility armors would all have the stealth trait, and benefit from Dex builds.
Durability armor would have stealth disadvantage, higher AC, damage reduction, and higher STR requirements.
Utility armor could allow for faster access to scrolls, potions, or other resources.
Affinity armor may have lower AC, but could act like Imbued Wood Focuses to augment casting.
Or something along those lines...
Features are memorable and interesting, whereas a wall of numbers turns into an accounting project. (e.g. Consider how the Weapons tables includes a moderate selection of Weapon Properties such as Finesse, Heavy, Thrown, Versatile, etc...)
Regarding shield AC vs dual-wielding AC, the difference would only be +1AC per Prof.bonus increase with my plan, as you add Prof. bonus to armour (if you're wearing only armour you're proficient in) and replacing shields with +prof is you're proficient, so someone with +4 prof bonus would still have 2 higher AC than when they were +2 Prof., but could be +4 compared with that if they have a shield. Personally, once you get to the point where it makes an impact (+4+ Prof. Bonus), I feel most people will have abandoned any nonmagical shield because +2AC means little-to-nothing aganst +12 to hit, so they go for "kill it before it can ht me again" instead!
Feats is also a cool option, and I will definitely look at re-writing the relevant ones and adding more!
Currently I've gone for:
So if you start at lvl 1, proficient in heavy armour, with Plate armour (somehow), and a full helm, then you have AC 15 (plate) + 2 (helm) + 2 (prof) for AC19. If you have a shield, and are proficient, this increases to AC21.
At level 9, your Prof. bonus goes to +4, so you hve either AC21 without a shield, or AC25 with a shield. At level 17 ,with Prof. +6, you have AC23 without a shield or AC29 with a shield (or AC30 with a Pavise!).
This makes sense to me, as you should be able to have the most proficient knight at level 17 being extremely good at using their armour and shield to not get hit. The AC increasing either way is also going to help balance it, I think. That said, with the amount of attacks fighters have at that point, they may never not have the shield. Perhaps a limit on the shield? Or the shield could be 1+1/2prof, so it's +2 at level 1 and +4 at level 17, to close the gap?
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Related observation: there's only one type of non-magical Shield. Obviously this was for simplification purposes; but it does mean that a Tower-shield, a Kite-shield, and a Buckler all provide identical +2 AC protection.
I would instead do shields as +1 AC +½PB if proficient, so if you aren’t proficient you get a +1 from a shield and if you are it’s at minimum +2 up to +4 at higher levels. That seems more balance to me.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I don't really see any flaws in that idea....
⌜╔═════════════ The Board ══════════════╗⌝
...and started me on my way into my next chapter in life...
⌞╚════════════ Extended Signature ════════════╝⌟
Right? And then a small shield (like a buckler) could just add straight +½PB if proficient, and a large shield could add +2 AC +½PB if proficient. Nice and neat.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Simple, yet flexible/alterable, based on your character build and amount of experience with shields (level).
⌜╔═════════════ The Board ══════════════╗⌝
...and started me on my way into my next chapter in life...
⌞╚════════════ Extended Signature ════════════╝⌟
The PB route looks fairly good. For TWF the +1AC in the 5e Dual wielder feat should be moved to the fighting style ( it should have been there from the get-go) and changed to +1/2 PB instead of a straight +AC. In 1DnD it’s not there in either place so it should be added to the fighting style. That would solve the AC vs damage question to at least some degree.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I like the idea of adding your dex bonus into heavy armor AC. I just do not see any reason to not use it.
Richard the third had severe scoliosis and even he trained in and wore full plate armor into combat and on horseback jousting. It never once reduced his movement.
Weight encumbrance should be a problem but that is all.
I can see shields giving a 1,2,or 3 to ac but only if proficient with them.
Well, mundane armor really isn't going to do much against a hundred ton monster that can tear down castle walls.
D&D has a long history of not clearly distinguishing 'hard to hit' and 'hard to hurt'. On a human scale this doesn't do too badly, hurting someone in armor with medieval weapons is mostly a matter of hitting them at points where the armor is thin or nonexistent, so armor and evasion really are somewhat cumulative, but it has problems outside of that scale, both on the high and the low (heavy armor should be amazing against a swarm of kobolds and meaningless against a purple worm, high dexterity should be a lot worse against the swarm of kobolds and a lot better against the purple worm), but going to a different damage model that actually distinguishes the two concepts pretty much turns it into Not D&D.
More accurately, it turns it into 4e D&D, where you had four different defenses--AC (representing your armor and general physical toughness), Reflex (dodging), Willpower (ability to take mental attacks), and Fortitude (poisons and other toxins)--and attacks targeted one of those defenses, based on what you would need to avoid them. Different Abilities would influence different stats--Fortitude, for example, looked at your Strength or Constitution.
There also were no saves--probably because Wizards thought folks would have fun actually being the one to roll their attack, rather than have your enemy get to decide whether you hit or not--with spells likewise having a +X to hit against the relevant defense. This made balancing spellcasters and martial classes a lot easier, since they used the same basic mechanics--just against different targets.
Of course, no one liked 4e, so realism and a system that puts martials and casters in comparable systems was thrown out. One of many places where the game suffered because Wizards decided to throw out everything about 4e, rather than consider keeping the parts that worked.
It kinda is an "o noes". A well equipped and armored soldier should wipe the floor with poorly armed 3ft tall dudes. The soldier should be able to wade through throngs of them, slaying several per swing of their blade. Picture a knight in shining armor battling a swarm of 3 year old sized enemies. It isn't a fair fight. It shouldn't be a fair fight.
An unarmored fighter shouldn't be able to survive a ancient dragon bite. But he can. Because high level characters are superheros.
There is an optional rule for armor as DR that works to capture this feeling. Using optional rules doesn't make it "not D&D".
I have used a variant that does both armor as AC but also as DR indirectly, by having modifiers that add to hit/damage only add to hit, but then whatever the hit exceeds target AC by is added to the damage total. It causes there to be a strong correlation between high attack rolls and higher damage, and hits that just barely land doing less. Though it can be spiky at lower levels.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Nope. Cleanly distinguishing the two would mean that even on attacks that are affected by armor, AC 16 via studded leather and 18 dex would behave differently from 16 dex via chainmail and 10 dex. The usual way other game systems accomplish this is by having armor reduce damage instead of making you harder to hit, and then some monsters are inaccurate but incredibly hard hitting, others are high accuracy but don't hit very hard.
So I've made the slightly-more-complex version, which involves a little more calculation before the fight but after that your AC acts the same as before. I'm now making more complicated optional rules for Armour, and I've got 2 options to pick from:
1: Flat damage reduction. Your Armour reduces incoming Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage by a fixed amount. This will make heavy armour more effective vs "death by a thousand cuts".
2: Total damage absorbtion - armour has a new form of temporary hitpoints which you can use to absorb an amount of Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage, and once it's gone, damage hits you. This comes back at the start of each of your turns.
I'm leaning towards the first one, because it's far simpler to keep track of. Thoughts?
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
More like 3rd Edition, where you had AC, Touch AC (for non-physical effects that ignored your worn armor, like most spell attacks), and Flat-footed AC (which didn't give you your Dex bonus to AC because you were surprised). In practice this largely meant that characters who relied on armor for protection were hosed against spellcasters who had no trouble reliably hitting their 10 or so touch AC.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I would go with the first - it’s far easier for the DM and player to keep track of and could probably be put into a table:
Armour. AC. Slashing DR. Piercing DR. Bashing DR. Max Dex Bonus. Other
gambeson/Padded 11. —— —— -1. +4. Stealth
soft leather 11. -1. -1. -1. +5. Stealthy
cuir Boilli. 12. -2. -1 -1. +3 -1 to stealth
Hide. 12 -2 -1. -1. +2. -1 to stealth
Chain Shirt. 13. -3. -2. -1. +2. Disadvantage. To stealth
Scale. 14. -3. -2. -1. +2. Stealth disadvantage
Breastplate. 14. -3. -2. -2. +2. Stealthy
Hauberk. 15. -3. -2. -2. +2. Stealthy (Light chain, plates between 2 layers of cloth/soft leather)
Half plate. 16. -4. -3. -2. +1. Stealth disadvantage ( breast & back, lamellar skirt, greaves/boots)
Chainmail. 17. -4. -3 -2. 0 Stealth disadvantage
lamellar. 18. -5. -3. -2. 0. Stealth disadvantage (banded/splint by culture)
platemail. 19. -5. -4. -3. 0. Stealth disadvantage (Breast & back over chain + other plate pieces)
articulated plate. 20. -6. -4. -3. +1. Stealth disadvantage
Buckler. +PB —- —- —- ——
shield. +1+PB
large Shield. +2+PB
costs will probably have to be increased for the heavier armors to force them deeper into the tiers and then some of the special armors (elven chain, Mithril, Admantine, Dragon Scale, etc will have to be adjusted for a better fit.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Yikes. Remember to keep playability in mind.
In a video game where all of the math is handled behind the scenes, granular "realism" is trivial, but with pen and paper, this kind of thing can get overwhelming. Especially for new players. This is one of the major reasons for the changes between 3.x and 5e, and is associated with a massive increase in the appeal of game. Adding simple rules that can be applied broadly will be easier to swallow than large charts of options.
Yeah the whole topic was that people somehow freak out over like an extra handful of mundane options yet there are entire chapters, pages upon pages upon pages to describe all the various spell options. You're doing that.
Why is the slightest degree of complexity bad when it comes to armor or weapons but we can dedicate 82 pages of the PHB to all the various spells? And also a whole other chapter to how spells work. Yet a simple table with a few modifier is a "yikes"??
It really is a fascinating phenomena. You see it all the time. What makes spells different that people will tolerate several degrees of magnitude more complexity from them than they will from normal equipment?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
People act like they trade out armor faster then MU's trade out spells.
Its simple.
Base AC=10+dex+armor type(and its magic)+shield(and its magic)+and any other magic item+remember to add it all those buffs you got from someone else=Whats so hard about that?Your doing it anyways.
Adding damage reduction to armor massively changes the balance of single attack vs multiple attack, and single attacker vs multiple attacker. Mechanically it's not too hard -- just list the character as having resist 3 crushing or whatever.
The basic formulation is fine. Plug in the numbers and you get a number to work with.
The only issue is when you have to make new calculations on the fly depending on factors the DM may or may not remember to tell you, such as an unfamiliar weapon's damage type. Having different AC for Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing shouldn't be baked into armor by default because every single player, and monster, will be needing to keep track of it separately. People already routinely struggle to calculate AC correctly, regardless of how "simple" it may seem. The more similar things are, the harder it is to remember the differences between them. (e.g. Chain Mail vs. Chain Shirt)
If you want to make an armor/weapon equivalent to spells, you'll need to break away from the minor differences and do something more creative. Reclassify armor by something narratively significant, rather than Armor Class. For example, have armor organized by trade schools: "Unaffiliated/Mundane", "Agility", "Durability", "Utility", "Affinity", etc...
Mundane armors would be an analog to Simple weapons. They would have scaling AC with scaling Strength requirements, but be limited in potential.
Agility armors would all have the stealth trait, and benefit from Dex builds.
Durability armor would have stealth disadvantage, higher AC, damage reduction, and higher STR requirements.
Utility armor could allow for faster access to scrolls, potions, or other resources.
Affinity armor may have lower AC, but could act like Imbued Wood Focuses to augment casting.
Or something along those lines...
Features are memorable and interesting, whereas a wall of numbers turns into an accounting project. (e.g. Consider how the Weapons tables includes a moderate selection of Weapon Properties such as Finesse, Heavy, Thrown, Versatile, etc...)