Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General D&D Armor - How It Should Work

That's the opposite of what we (I) want, though. We want a more complex armor system with tradeoffs, such that one character won't ~always wear a single armor, and where more expensive armor (within a given tier) isn't strictly better.

E.g., in 5e/BG3, a character will always choose leather over padded, studded leather over leather, and a Dex-based character will almost never wear medium or heavy armor. In your suggestion, it'd remain the same except now there is no non-magical armor progression or choice at all. A str-based paladin with 0 dex will wear [generic heavy armor], and that's that. The differences between armors are too extreme to swap between armors.

What I want, and what I think GM4Him wants, is a system where armor (within a tier) can be a meaningful choice. Does your rogue want the [light] armor that gives +1 AC and Disadvantage on just Stealth, or +2 AC but Disadvantage on Athletics and Acrobatics? An assassin might choose the latter, but a swashbuckler the former. Characters might even possibly swap armors dependent on the area you're exploring and enemies you expect to encounter that day/hour!

Anything that promotes the creation of more swashbucklers has my full-throated support.

...When not wearing armor you may add your Charisma modifier to your Armor Class


As a bonus action you may twirl your moustache and take the Dodge Action

Yes. Exactly. A rogue might need stealth for one mission, and wear Padded, but on another need acrobatics and where leather. And yet another they might not wear any armor because they need both stealth and acrobatics. Suddenly, different types of armor have different value and purpose.

Ok so this is a super narrow digression on the general topic here, but just because the Druid taboo was brought up regarding hide and such. I always thought the "no metal armor" restriction for druids was a weird call. Especially since they were allowed to use draggers scimitars and sickles, not just as an option, but as basically their class thematic archetypal weapons niche heheh. So it just didn't really make sense to me, especially since actual Druids (or at least the cultures we associate with them) did work metal, quite prolifically, to the extent that you could probably make a case for Druids having some kind of deep wisdom about it even. About the 7 ancient metals and their secrets perhaps. Or like maybe riffing on how Iron was first discovered falling from the sky as shooting stars, going that whole angle with it. I think the taboo shouldn't be against the use of the metal per se, but rather the mining of it or how it was wrought from the earth. And like keeping with that, perhaps there are certain balanced methods employed by wise Elves or Dwarves, where the veins of ore are tapped and the furnaces stoked in way that was less disrespectful of the natural processes somehow, whereas something crafted by humans using a more quick and easy/destructive method would be more the taboo. I think they could spell that out a bit, like in the lore, and then you have some more room to provide masterwork or enchanted versions of the same, so the druid as a class doesn't totally miss out on whatever cool new tradeoff dynamic is cooked up for the tiers. I do feel like Hide kinda only exists, because Druids, but for a Druidic ethos that's almost even a weirder one than the metal taboo thing. Like I guess you could say that on some version the hide was collected in some sort of sacrificial rite where it was made holy as a gift or whatever. But that kind of idea of just a bunch of pelts stichted together that we usually get seems pretty far off from that lol. To me it bring up a point, more for the game than the proposed system revamp, which is just that the armor isn't really visualized all that well to type. Like the versions of leathers we see, being more like clothing than armor, or the "padded armor" being more like just regular old clothing made of regular old cloth hehe.

I 100% agree about how weird it is that druids don't wear metal especially because of their weapons, as you pointed out, but also because metal is natural too. It's bizarre that they'd consider any kind of shaping of nature or combining it to be taboo. It's like saying they don't make medicines because they must combine ingredients.

But, I guess, they didn't want druids looking like knights in full armor. They wanted to hinder them to keep them more like wizards.

Guys, not every design decision in D&D was made because of "realism" or logic; some things are the way they are because of thematic considerations. Besides which, you can bypass the "Why metal scimitars but no metal armor for Druids?" question with the introduction of (enchanted) crystal or dragonbone blades.

I think the reasoning behind the metal taboo is supposed to represent a slightly anachronistic battle between environmentalism and technology. It's maybe out of place in FR's renaissance setting, but I remember hearing somewhere that the reason Britain no longer has woods is because of the massive raw materials required for steel production (I guess you can draw a line between that and Bessemer), if all the 'metal' in question is steel then it makes more sense, I suppose. It also makes for an interesting scenario where in Bronze Iron Age settings there would be no taboo for the reasons you've said.'

Of course the Metal taboo being just a way of nerfing the class is another matter, I don't know if that pans out but I've seen it around enough. Is it another thing that removing spell casting failure caused?'

As for the look of the armors, I'm note sure I can agree with you, I've thought they've done a nice job with them, especially how they change with +1 modifiers. Leather armor in D&D can be a single leather jerkin or something more substantial and I would expect it to function the same mechanically, because I think of AC as being that abstract.

Meh. I get it. It's also not like I homebrew armor when I play with people. We just accept D&D armor for what it is and move on.

However, I also wouldn't cry if they made armor a bit more interesting and a bit more real than 5e currently has it.

Of course, I always preferred the Damage Reduction armor systems. I thought Damage Reduction made so much more sense. Armor slows you down but the better the armor the more it soaks up damage. So you might get hit more, but the enemy can't get through to injure you. Meanwhile, light armor means your more agile and harder to hit, so you might have a higher defense without armor but one lucky hit takes you out.

In my experience, players always felt more rewarded if they hit more frequently, even if they only slowly dwindled down their enemies because of DR. On the other hand, high DR could get real frustrating and often they would hate their weapons, saying they weren't good enough. The worst was when a DR was beyond a weapon's max damage. It was like, Well, we're screwed. Still, it made more sense.

That armor's too strong for blasters."

Yeah I mean I get that it's all just thematic, but even there I found the theme kinda curious. Like sure, I can see a Ranger going there, cause they're often presented as like expert hunters with a deep connection to the wild and knowing how to survive and make use of all they can. A ranger who takes the hide, or maybe works it into leather, I can sort of rationalize. Also because they still have that one foot in the civilized world, just as an archetype. Whereas for the Druid, it almost seems like it would be profane. Like why hunt the deer when we got all these goodberries right here? Or why sport leathers when I can turn my skin to bark or stone? lol

Sure dragonbone and magic flint or whatever is cool, but then it's like you hop into the game and things aren't set up quite like that. The druid's rocking the same metal scimitar or cured leather as anyone else, that they just picked up at the local shop. For me it's easier to contextualize in terms of the specific game, rather than the broader rules framework. So for example in BG1, we got Jaheira starting in out in leather with a quarterstaff and specialization in clubs, so it's strongly suggested that's her deal there and she's staying true to the taboo. But as a player, there's not much point to keeping that idea going. Probably the first thing you're doing is buying her some chainmail, or steeling the split off Khalid lol. But then we get the Ankhegs and that whole find. I actually think they designed and intended the ready to go Ankheg plate for her. Even if was better and more useful on Viconia cause of the STR weight thing, I think Jaheira was probably meant to stumble across that one off the beaten path thematically. Faldorn could wear it too I think right? But yeah anyway, it was nice cause they put it in there sort of recognizing that without it, she's almost certainly strapping Full Plate Mail like Minsc. They also sold it a bit, with the idea that they needed to be culled to preserve the balance this time of year. Or anyway the set we find, who knows, maybe that ankeg passed from natural causes and just left the shells behind, hidden there for just such a Druid to chance upon hehe. Just branching off that whole 'one best per tier and that's that' idea mentioned at the head of the thread. Anyhow, it's a ramble. Nice Clyde Pirates there! Probably why it made me recall the scimitar heheh

Here's an armor alternative using Damage Reduction, which I personally think works better. Just for those who don't know, DR is Damage Reduction. Basically, if I get hit and an enemy does 5 damage, if my DR is 4, they only do 1 damage. With this system, AC would be solely based on Dex bonus +10. So Dex 16 is +3, AC is 13 or higher. Shields still add to AC.

Light Armor
Hide Armor = 1 DR, No Dex Max, No Dis at all
Leather = 2 DR, No Dex Max, Dis on Stealth
Studded = 3 DR, No Dex Max, Dis on Stealth
Padded = 3 DR, Dex Max +3, Dis on Acrobatics

Medium Armor
Chain Shirt - 4 DR, Dex Max +3, Dis on Stealth
Cuirass - 4 DR, Dex Max +2, Dis on Acrobatics
Half Plate - 5 DR, Dex Max +1, Dis on Acrobatics and Stealth
Scale Armor - 6 DR, Dex Max +1. Dis on Acrobatics and Stealth

Heavy Armor
Ring Mail - 7 DR, Dex Max 0, Dis on Acrobatics and Athletics (except Shove), requires Str 13
Chain Mail - 8 DR, Dex Max 0, Dis on Stealth, requires Str 14
Splint Armor - 9 DR, Dex Max 0, Dis on Acrobatics and Athletics (except Shove), requires Str 14
Plate Armor - 10 DR, Dex Max 0, Dis on Acrobatics, Stealth, Perception and Athletics (except Shove), requires Str 15

Small Shield - +1 to AC
Medium Shield - +2 to AC
Large Shield - +3 to AC

Now, this might seem undoable. After all, a 1d4 damage weapon would never deal any damage to a DR 10 plate armor enemy even if they had Dex+4 and rolled a 4 doing max damage of 8. Only with a CRIT would they deal any damage, maybe. True.

So add Armor HP. Basically, you wear the armor down every time you hit. Plate starts at 10 HP. You do 8 damage. It has 2 HP left. Second hit does 4 damage. HP reduced to 0 with 2 remaining. Plate DR reduced by 1 to 9 DR and 9 HP. The 2 remaining come off the 9 HP, leaving 7 HP left.

Now add to this that blunt weapons do double damage to armor and suddenly hammers and maces become WAY more valuable in combat. A 1d4 Hammer hits and does 3 damage, soaked by DR, so it does 6 off the armor.

Hit and actually take HP off a target? Let's say you do 8 damage against armor with 3 DR. You deal 3 damage to the armor HP and 5 to the target. Was it blunt? 6 off armor and 5 off target. Was it sharp or piercing? 3 off armor and 10 off target because sharp or piercing do extra damage to flesh.

Well, anyway. It's just an idea I had a long time ago.

Again (apologize if I come across as flippant), 3/3.5e also had damage reduction as a mechanic that worked together with AC. I actually don't mind armor helping to avoid the attack rather than reduce its damage by default - the implication is that something like the full plate just makes most blows glance off, and whatever bypasses your AC finds a weaker spot in the armor / gets past your shield, while something like a gambeson or leather take into account the character having superior mobility (hence the very high Max Dex Bonus). DR/damage immunity were a property on rarer materials (like adamantine) and having them applied constantly is a very big deal (since you normally get them from temporary magical effects like protection from elements, or stoneskin - which is a very disappointing spell in 5e, in my opinion, compared to its previous incarnations).

Them wanting to streamline the hell out of their mechanics to purge the math that would scare the wider public away certainly is a good reason I went to look for solace in Pathfinder back in the day. The vulnerability/resistance/immunity triad hardly allows for any wiggle room for having subtler effects - like how every tiefling just takes 50% less damage from fire, rather than, say, absorbs 5 points of damage from fire attacks. You can't do anything more with that kind of DR apart from just getting full immunity.

The ironic thing about DR, what didn't really work well for me in 3e, would probably work better with 5e's bounded accuracy.

In the armor revamps I've played around with in my head, the first half of your health is your 'stamina', with any damage received after you reach half health (when you're 'bloodied' as it were) being more serious damage. Stamina you can get back more easily, but damage received after that would need active healing to regain. Critical hits bypass your stamina, and sneak attack bypass your armors damage reduction, and possibly your stamina too.
What I've never figured out is how to decide what AC is after armor becomes just a source of damage reduction. In my head being a Dex fighter should become less and less effective during a fight, as your acrobatics and fencing take a toll, but this is possibly no longer heroic fantasy, but without a dedicated defense skill it does seem like Dexterity and possibly Strength are what we have left.

Regarding armor class:
Many players (rightfully, in my opinion) complain that BG3 differs in many cases from the DnD 5E rules. Looking at shove as bonus action, proper reactions and so on.
I am happy that they did not mess with the armor system as well.
I see no reason to make the armor system more complicated and I fail to see the advantage the proposed changes would bring.

If you want to manage several different armor types, remember how they stack or not, and which of them are applied when flat footed or touch attacks come into play: Play Kingmaker or WotR.

I do not say DnD 5E is perfect.
They made many many things more simple compared to DnD 3E and I can understand that some players complain about it.
But looking at many comments from players, 5E is already difficult enough for them, especially since BG3 is really bad in explaining its own rules.

The Starfinder system has a mechanic similar to this. Essentially you get back all your Stamina through 10 min rests, but your HP is only naturally restored by ~[level + Con mod] each long rest. To get more HP recovery, you need to use spells or spend days resting with medical care.

I've seen an armor system (maybe suggested online, maybe in some official system, idk) where armor had both AC and DR. The difference between the attacker's roll and your AC was added to damage. E.g., 23 to hit AC 17 -> you deal normal weapon damage + 6. And then DR was applied to that damage total. It makes glancing blows (17 to hit) deal minimal damage and high rolls can be pretty meaty, theoretically making combat more descriptive and varied in terms of the effectiveness of each strike.

To be clear, I don't particularly want such an above system. I'm perfectly fine with 5e's all-or-nothing AC system. Although I would like (subtractive) DR to return in some form in D&D - the immune/resistant/vulnerable system is too broad imo.

Agreed - 5E was designed to simplfy many aspects of older D&D mechanics, and that is something I accept. I really (really) don't want more home brew in a game that already deviates significantly from 5E. Armour is simply an abstraction, and they have abstracted that further in 5E, just as they simplified many systems. Changing amour would I think be a major change and may have unexpected side effects. We have already seen how messing with the action economy has affected things, for the worse in my view. Besides, a change that implements a non 5E system would be a further slap in the face to those who simply want the promised 5E game.

I'll have to check out Starfinder. I like the idea of armor having an AC and a DR. And having levels of success during an exchange. I think Pathfinder might do something like that now too, I think it really adds something to combat, especially for Fighters, who need a bit of a boost in their combat role, hitting someone is easy, doing damage is the real trick. It might even make critical hits worthwhile again

5e's designed prioritizes 'playability' which I think history has shown was a successful decision, but it means there are a number of places where rules no longer exist or are lumped into a broad catch-all system like resistance or the advantage/disadvantage system.
I think advantage has really overtaken the entire system to it's detriment, it's become duct tape for anywhere the rules have been pared back into total abstraction

To be clear, I only meant that Starfinder had the Stamina/HP-separation mechanic.

But yeah, their 2nd edition levels-of-success (beating or failing the AC/DC by 10 or more) seems pretty neat, making high rolls all that much more exciting and impactful.

Agreed. Especially given that Advantage and Disadvantage don't stack beyond canceling out, so getting multiple sources of Advantage actually feels detrimental because you've wasted some resource. Also there are resulting rules that don't feel right, e.g., two blinded characters [wearing heavy armor] attacking each other at normal.

I enjoy "Armor as DR" in other TTRPGS (such as GURPS); however, it is my preference that D&D sticks with "Armor Class".