What's the point of all these armor types?

[Talakeal]

So, looking over the armor section in the PHB, it seems that the majority of these are simply trap options, being strictly inferior to others in the same category. Am I missing something? The only limiting factor some of them have is a higher gold cost, which I can't imagine being prohibitive past the first couple of levels.

Furthermore, its not like these armors are all vital for RP reasons, as a lot of them are pretty dang redundant. It seems like it would have been a heck of a lot easier for both players and designers (and given much more freedom for imagination) if they had just used the Studded Leather stats for all light armor, the Half Plate stats for all medium armor, and the Full Plate stats for all heavy armor and just renamed them "Leather, Mail, Plate", as aside from the occasional stealthy guy wearing a breast plate or weak guy who still has heavy armor proficiency for some reason wearing mail there doesn't seem to be any point whatsoever to the other armor types.

Is the armor list really just there for nostalgia / people who want to gimp their characters for RP reasons? What the heck am I missing?

[Demonic Spoon]

First off, I'd like to point out that 5e does not have the concept of WBL. There's no guarantee that 750 GP or 1500 GP (for full plate) will be attainable easily in the first couple of levels.

Secondly, some armors are probably more intended for use with NPCs and whatnot than PCs. I imagine the justification for putting such things in the PHB is that it would be pretty obnoxious for a DM to have to look at two separate armor tables to find stuff. Also, crappy armors still probably have a place for 1st-3rd level adventurers who haven't earned enough money yet or don't have access to a convenient blacksmith.

Keep in mind that many of the armor descriptions even say "This armor type is only useful for those who can't get anything better", e.g. hide, ring mail.

[Naanomi]

Druid armor restrictions also make Hide have some use

[Sidmen]

I'm pretty sure it just boils down to tradition.

I've played a game (Dragon Age) that just used six types of armor Light Leather, Heavy Leather, Light Mail, (etc. for mail and plate) and it worked out just fine. They gave plenty of descriptions of what various armor styles would fit in which category (coat of plates over mail hauberk is light plate, scale could be light or heavy, etc.)

But D&D has always had its long list of armor types, and people would scream bloody murder if they got rid of it.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Because when you're starting at Level 1 those "small" differences in cost mean the difference between a better weapon or better armor.

Also what you have left over for the say 5-20+ gp to spend on such essential basic supplies as rope, torches, food, 10' poles, etc. Maybe even buy a mount and wagon.

And if when you take what you are given and aren't free to just buy the perfect magic item selections for your build, sometimes the adventure throws armor with a better enchantment but worse base at you.

[Falka]

Characters at level 3 have about 300 gp in their pockets, so... yeah, I don't think they'll get Plate anytime soon.

[akaddk]

To annoy people like you.

[Angelalex242]

Parties may pool money to get the heavy armor guys plate.

A party of Paladin, Druid, Warlock, Rogue, and Monk...

Well, the Druid, Warlock, Rogue, and Monk can cheerfully channel money to the Paladin to get him his Plate, and away they go.

[Falka]

Parties may pool money to get the heavy armor guys plate.

A party of Paladin, Druid, Warlock, Rogue, and Monk...

Well, the Druid, Warlock, Rogue, and Monk can cheerfully channel money to the Paladin to get him his Plate, and away they go.

It depends on your alignment. Warlocks can have some cost components if they pick up a Familiar and some spells. Not everyone is LG. :p

[ambartanen]

Because when you're starting at Level 1 those "small" differences in cost mean the difference between a better weapon or better armor.
But you don't buy your starting gear you just make a few multiple choice picks for gear and then are then given insufficient money to buy any interesting armor or weapons. Sure, it limits everyone to ****ty starter armor and often prevents people from getting the weapons they want but that just stacks further disadvantage on first level characters. Better gear is something to work towards, I suppose.


And if when you take what you are given and aren't free to just buy the perfect magic item selections for your build, sometimes the adventure throws armor with a better enchantment but worse base at you.

Why would anyone enchant armor that is strictly inferior to other armor? Especially now that magic items are supposedly extremely rare and special!

If there really isn't any wealth by level table though, I'd be quite happy. A huge part of optimizing 3.5e was abusing the wealth by level table at higher levels.

[hymer]

But you don't buy your starting gear you just make a few multiple choice picks for gear and the thin

You can get a bunch of gold and buy your equipment if you want (PHB p. 143).


Why would anyone enchant armor that is strictly inferior to other armor? Especially now that magic items are supposedly extremely rare and special!

There can be any number of reasons. The armour is really old, and back then this was the best option known. Or the enchantment wasn't deliberate, the armour simply soaked up a heroic deed done by its wearer. Or enchanting a suit of armour was easy for one enchanter, getting his hands on quality armour was the hard part. Or he was making this piece as an 'essay in his craft', so the particular armour may have been chosen for study purposes or availability. Or it used to be full plate, but parts were lost, and now it's been repaired to half plate. And so on.
That being said, I expect most enchanted armours to have something specific going for them besides the enchantment. That quality need not be what the finder is hoping for, however.

[TripleD]

Why would anyone enchant armor that is strictly inferior to other armor? Especially now that magic items are supposedly extremely rare and special!


Historical verisimilitude?

Sure you have plate armor now, but maybe 700 years ago the best available to the king-whose-tomb-you're-raiding was chainmail.

[Falka]

Why would anyone enchant armor that is strictly inferior to other armor? Especially now that magic items are supposedly extremely rare and special!


Depends on what you define as inferior. Druids, for instance, cannot access the best armors of a category due to material restrictions (can't be made of metal). So an enchanted Hide Armor made by a Druid enchanter wouldn't be awkward at all.

[ambartanen]

Historical verisimilitude?

Sure you have plate armor now, but maybe 700 years ago the best available to the king-whose-tomb-you're-raiding was chainmail.

Ok, sure, but then you better have the enchantment be something interesting and useful to the wearer otherwise they'd never replace their state-of-the-art full plate for it. There are, however, only so many times you can get away with that excuse for having the inferior items enchanted, especially when none of the DnD settings seem to include this kind of progressive and recent improvement in technology you are talking about.


You can get a bunch of gold and buy your equipment if you want (PHB p. 143).
Ah, indeed I can. Hadn't noticed that.


That being said, I expect most enchanted armours to have something specific going for them besides the enchantment. That quality need not be what the finder is hoping for, however.I am holding out hopes that magic items are relevant to the storytelling and actually interesting but this being DnD, I won't hold my breath. After all, this is the system that turned fighting someone with a burning sword from awesome to trite.

[Morty]

I'm pretty sure it just boils down to tradition.

I also think that's the long and short of it, yeah.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Ok, sure, but then you better have the enchantment be something interesting and useful to the wearer otherwise they'd never replace their state-of-the-art full plate for it. There are, however, only so many times you can get away with that excuse for having the inferior items enchanted, especially when none of the DnD settings seem to include this kind of progressive and recent improvement in technology you are talking about.


In universe its generally not like OOTS where everyone is perfectly aware of mechanics much less trying to optimize at all. Something as simple but not really worth wasting mechanics on as "I like the fit and feel better" which would be of considerable value to real people not people looking just looking to min-max their AC. Other:

"You can keep your fancy armor, I can wear a chain shirt under my tunic and not look like I'm trying to start a war."
"What's that splint is superior to chain, well not after my wizard friend has enchanted it as reward for rescuing his daughter from those orcs."
"This breastplate is a symbol and heirloom of my noble house, I could not be seen in anything else."
"I've tried for years to attract a master armorer to these parts, but the local Clerics of Banjo were happy to bless what armor we have."
"Ehh I'm too cheap to spend an extra thousand gold on fancy plate when it cost me the same to enchant this chain instead. Same difference right?"

There are countless potential circumstances, especially when one considers more mythic story based origins.


I am holding out hopes that magic items are relevant to the storytelling and actually interesting but this being DnD, I won't hold my breath. After all, this is the system that turned fighting someone with a burning sword from awesome to trite.

Well you go a couple of decades of gamers unceasingly demanding more loot constantly and trying to fill every slot they have for even more bonuses, then its going to be hard to keep magic items feeling special. Especially when increasing their potence is one of the easiest ways to bork the game's math.

[ambartanen]

There are countless potential circumstances, especially when one considers more mythic story based origins.
Fair enough. I guess I've been playing with too many people obsessed with optimization lately and have started to look at it from a very narrow perspective.


Well you go a couple of decades of gamers unceasingly demanding more loot constantly and trying to fill every slot they have for even more bonuses, then its going to be hard to keep magic items feeling special. Especially when increasing their potence is one of the easiest ways to bork the game's math.

Hopefully they decide to go another route with this edition. Although I don't exactly see what that would be since unique and interesting magic items can't really be put in a simple reusable table. At least I hope there aren't any items that give a flat bonus to attack/armor class/saves without any drawback.

[TheOOB]

Should also be noted that NPC's, for the most part, use the same armor. Yes Padded armor may suck for the players, but it's cheap enough so your average yeoman man be able to afford it, and if you're arming 100 militiamen than difference in price between it and leather starts looking more relevant.

[Morty]

Should also be noted that NPC's, for the most part, use the same armor. Yes Padded armor may suck for the players, but it's cheap enough so your average yeoman man be able to afford it, and if you're arming 100 militiamen than difference in price between it and leather starts looking more relevant.

What are they doing in an armour table for the PCs, then?

[Yorrin]

What are they doing in an armour table for the PCs, then?

Because it's not an armor table for PCs. It's a table of the armor that's readily available in the world. Sure, the PCs can use it, but so can everyone else in the world.

[hymer]

What are they doing in an armour table for the PCs, then?

If the PCs want to equip a militia some time? To keep them from being annoyed at having equipment types sprung on them? For completion's sake?

[Morty]

Seems to me like the same could be achieved more efficiently by paring down the list to the three armour types and assigning AC penalties to NPC soldiers for inferior armour.

[hymer]

Seems to me like the same could be achieved more efficiently by paring down the list to the three armour types and assigning AC penalties to NPC soldiers for inferior armour.

I'm glad they didn't, fo what it's worth. Looking at that armour table gives me a good feeling inside. :smallsmile: I even think they did a good job at giving each armour type a niche, something they failed to do with weapons.

[INDYSTAR188]

Hopefully they decide to go another route with this edition. Although I don't exactly see what that would be since unique and interesting magic items can't really be put in a simple reusable table. At least I hope there aren't any items that give a flat bonus to attack/armor class/saves without any drawback.

In my opinion the best way to make an item unique is to give it a short back story with some minor mechanical bonus. Example, flaming sword - kinda boring but Glamdring the foehammer is cooler. A background where it helped destroy a goblin king and now gives advantage on intimidate rolls vs goblin-kin and +1d4 damage vs them takes boring old flaming sword and makes it cooler.

[obryn]

Seems to me like the same could be achieved more efficiently by paring down the list to the three armour types and assigning AC penalties to NPC soldiers for inferior armour.
Something similar to 13th Age would work, where your AC in various categories of armor is static based on your class. With a shield adding on if you're using one.

You pretty much have Unarmored, Light armor, and Heavy armor. The trappings of each of those are flexible.

[EvilAnagram]

Seems to me like the same could be achieved more efficiently by paring down the list to the three armour types and assigning AC penalties to NPC soldiers for inferior armour.

Or people who want options can have options and low-level PCs can feel like they're accomplishing something when they finally get the armor they want.

[Morty]

Something similar to 13th Age would work, where your AC in various categories of armor is static based on your class. With a shield adding on if you're using one.

You pretty much have Unarmored, Light armor, and Heavy armor. The trappings of each of those are flexible.

13th Age's way of doing it seems pretty sensible, yes. If a bit restrictive on which class should use which armour, maybe.


Or people who want options can have options and low-level PCs can feel like they're accomplishing something when they finally get the armor they want.

No options are actually removed, you know, except for illusory ones. People can describe their armour however they want.

[Soular]

A lot of guys here have the right of it.

I am a casual optimizer, meaning RP comes first.

Other posters have already made very good examples, here a couple more:

If we are entering an evil aligned city, then you can be sure I will be wearing that crappy ringmail with the rune of Orcus stitched into it.

Not all cultures have access to all armors either. You defeat a samurai that has wandered far from home, and his armor is his family heirloom and has enchantments out the yin-yang on it. Well, it isn't gonna be plate, but it may actually be a lot better.

Adventure on the high seas? That breastplate is looking a lot more attractive than full plate all of a sudden.

It's really up to the DM to give players incentive to wear anything other than the very best (numerically) armor they can find.

[Joe the Rat]

It seems like it would have been a heck of a lot easier for both players and designers (and given much more freedom for imagination) if they had just used the Studded Leather stats for all light armor, the Half Plate stats for all medium armor, and the Full Plate stats for all heavy armor and just renamed them "Leather, Mail, Plate", as aside from the occasional stealthy guy wearing a breast plate or weak guy who still has heavy armor proficiency for some reason wearing mail there doesn't seem to be any point whatsoever to the other armor types.

Is the armor list really just there for nostalgia / people who want to gimp their characters for RP reasons? What the heck am I missing?No, taking the list down to leather, mail, and plate is serious nostalgia - going back to Basic. It's also practical, as it greatly simplifies the equipment options if you want a more Basic game, and can freely describe/RP having different armors in the same weight class. If scale sucks no worse than chain, your dragon-themed fighter or water-based cleric can finally look the part. You could probably reduce the weapons list a bit with the same sort of eagle eye for redundancies (spear and trident; battleaxe and longsword could be covered mechanically by "Medium Blade," etc.), though they did try to give different weapons different features to keep them unique.

Consider beyond just prices, you are looking at fiddly-middling AC adjustments - getting an AC between leather and mail, or between mail and plate. Something a little tougher that the rogue can still rogue in... or that the Druid can wear to be less squishy. Also, note that medium has a few point-pairs - an armor with an AC, and another more expensive one with the same AC and no stealth disadvantage. Sometimes you want to be sneaky AND protected... up to a point at least.

At the end of the day, I'd say it's better choice to give more options (from which you can pare down) than to have too few options (with everyone who wants them homebrewing them into existence).

[warty goblin]

It makes explaining the game to new people a lot easier. I noticed this with the weapons table the other night; I was taking a couple of people with no prior D&D experience through building their first characters, a process for which there's a lot of points where the rules basically say 'whatever you want.' Which is great, but freaky for new people, and requires somebody to explain what everything means and how to build a character that fits in well with the campaign and flavor of the world. The weapons table though was really easy; I basically had to explain the versatile mechanic, and he knew right off the bat he wanted a warhammer. Telling him he probably wanted a 'medium weapon' that he could describe however he wanted would just have caused another bout of unfun decision paralysis. Same thing with armor, simply telling him he had chainmail was great; it saved a lot of unnecessary front-loaded decision making in a game that for a new player is already chunked right full of intimidating decisions.

[Yuki Akuma]

It makes explaining the game to new people a lot easier.

This right here.

Not everyone playing 5e will be a fantasy RPG veteran.

[BRC]

This right here.

Not everyone playing 5e will be a fantasy RPG veteran.

There's also something to be said for low-level progression.

I'm 1st level right now, wearing Leather armor. Studded Leather, or a Chain Shirt are both strictly superior, AND theoretically within my grasp. It's a nice early, within-my-grasp, progression that i can shoot for before I start dreaming of magic swords and my own battleship.

[Morty]

Isn't that just a matter of presentation? So long as leather armour is there as an example of the 'light armour' category and chainmail of the 'medium armour' category, I don't see why a new player would have trouble with that. No more trouble than with the whole table full of fiddly numbers, anyway.

[ambartanen]

It makes explaining the game to new people a lot easier. I noticed this with the weapons table the other night; I was taking a couple of people with no prior D&D experience through building their first characters, a process for which there's a lot of points where the rules basically say 'whatever you want.' Which is great, but freaky for new people, and requires somebody to explain what everything means and how to build a character that fits in well with the campaign and flavor of the world. The weapons table though was really easy; I basically had to explain the versatile mechanic, and he knew right off the bat he wanted a warhammer. Telling him he probably wanted a 'medium weapon' that he could describe however he wanted would just have caused another bout of unfun decision paralysis. Same thing with armor, simply telling him he had chainmail was great; it saved a lot of unnecessary front-loaded decision making in a game that for a new player is already chunked right full of intimidating decisions.
Are you saying the armor and weapon tables are fine as they are? Because all your examples support simplifying and only letting players have meaningful choices.

What's so complicated about explaining "There are four armor types: none, leather, chain, and plate. The best for your character is chain." Put all four types into a table to simplify things further.

But, yes, they've actually done a pretty decent job in this edition of making most of the existing armor types viable types for someone at some point. I guess a strength based rogue might like having the breastplate, a low level fighter with 8 dexterity would love chain mail, and I am virtually certain to some day play an 8 str, 8 dex cleric bedecked in ring mail. I'm still not convinced there's any good game design reason to put in all the armor types but assuming they needed to be put there to appease the fans for continuity, they've done a good job distinguishing them. Still don't expect to see many characters past level 5 wearing anything other than studded leather, half-plate, and plate.

Edit:
It's really up to the DM to give players incentive to wear anything other than the very best (numerically) armor they can find.
Wait... why does the GM need to incentivize players into not wearing optimal armor?

[Person_Man]

D&D and its immediate predecessor Chainmail evolved from tabletop war games. Tabletop war games at the time Chainmail was created were virtually all historical simulations that reenacted specific battles and/or time periods. Since they were specifically meant to be historical simulations and the people who played this very niche and semi-expensive hobby were generally well educated history buffs, a great deal of attention was paid to different types of armor, weapons, and other equipment, and the minor but historically important variations between them. For example, if you're playing a game that reenacts the Battle of Agincort or just using armies contemporary to that time period, its a really important distinction if a unit is armed with longbows or crossbows, the types of arrowheads they're using and the amount of ammunition they're carrying, whether they're wearing leather or ring mail or chain mail, the exact features of the terrain around them, and so on.

The first three editions of D&D maintained this simulationist tradition of trying to represent the difference between a wide variety of different types of equipment, so that DMs could run games in whatever setting they choose, and players could choose the equipment that best fit their particular character concept. ("I want my character to use a giant warhammer, because warhammers are awesome!") For a variety of reasons, some players and DMs think its really important to make distinctions between a dagger, dirk, knife, kukri, throwing knife, and so on. And to some degree it also contributed to some important game balance considerations, since in 1E/2E certain types of armor were more effective against certain types of attacks, magical weapons and armor were limited by class, and other more minor rules.

5E is specifically meant to be a return to the traditions of the non-4E editions of D&D, and long fiddly lists of weapons and armor are a D&D tradition. I don't agree with it, I just thought it was useful to understand the context.

[Sartharina]

In my opinion the best way to make an item unique is to give it a short back story with some minor mechanical bonus. Example, flaming sword - kinda boring but Glamdring the foehammer is cooler. A background where it helped destroy a goblin king and now gives advantage on intimidate rolls vs goblin-kin and +1d4 damage vs them takes boring old flaming sword and makes it cooler.The problem with 3.5 is that such a backstory doesn't matter - it's just an 8,300 GP sword. Your wizard can make a better one for cheaper and have a bonus you actually care about.

[obryn]

D&D and its immediate predecessor Chainmail evolved from tabletop war games. Tabletop war games at the time Chainmail was created were virtually all historical simulations that they usually reenacted specific battles and/or time periods. Since they were specifically meant to be historical simulations and the people who played this very niche and semi-expensive hobby were generally well educated history buffs, a great deal of attention was paid to different types of armor, weapons, and other equipment, and the minor but historically important variations between them. For example, if you're playing a game that reenacts the Battle of Agincort or just using armies contemporary to that time period, its a really important distinction if a unit is armed with longbows or crossbows, the types of arrowheads they're using and the amount of ammunition they're carrying, whether they're wearing leather or ring mail or chain mail, the exact features of the terrain around them, and so on.

The first three editions of D&D maintained this simulationist tradition of trying to represent the difference between a wide variety of different types of equipment, so that DMs could run games in whatever setting they choose, and players could choose the equipment that best fit their particular character concept. ("I want my character to use a giant warhammer, because warhammers are awesome!") For a variety of reasons, some players and DMs think its really important to make distinctions between a dagger, dirk, knife, kukri, throwing knife, and so on. And to some degree it also contributed to some important game balance considerations, since in 1E/2E certain types of armor were more effective against certain types of attacks, magical weapons and armor were limited by class, and other more minor rules.

5E is specifically meant to be a return to the traditions of the non-4E editions of D&D, and long fiddly lists of weapons and armor are a D&D tradition. I don't agree with it, I just thought it was useful to understand the context.
The whole point of different armor and weapon types was lost after Weapon vs. AC charts were removed after 1e. Remove those, and you might as well forget about the interesting distinctions between a Glaive and a Guisarme. :smallfurious:

Yes, I'm joking. Mostly.

[eastmabl]

It makes explaining the game to new people a lot easier. I noticed this with the weapons table the other night; I was taking a couple of people with no prior D&D experience through building their first characters, a process for which there's a lot of points where the rules basically say 'whatever you want.' Which is great, but freaky for new people, and requires somebody to explain what everything means and how to build a character that fits in well with the campaign and flavor of the world. The weapons table though was really easy; I basically had to explain the versatile mechanic, and he knew right off the bat he wanted a warhammer. Telling him he probably wanted a 'medium weapon' that he could describe however he wanted would just have caused another bout of unfun decision paralysis. Same thing with armor, simply telling him he had chainmail was great; it saved a lot of unnecessary front-loaded decision making in a game that for a new player is already chunked right full of intimidating decisions.

This can be where the Quick Build rules for equipment can be very helpful for new players. Instead of "you can get anything your little heart desires," you get 1-3 options for what your character will have at level 1. These options generally give you a well rounded pack for your level 1 player.

[Theodoxus]

It's a bit of a half-way point for me. There's too much granularity the way it is - I'd be happy with a simple 'leather, chain, plate' and maybe some attributes akin to the weapon chart (disad for stealth, slow for weak, available in non-metal for druids, maybe a few more.)

On the other hand, more granularity would probably be better- if more complex. Damage resistance to specific damage types; leather vs slash, chain vs pierce, plate vs bludgeon... as an example.

I find it interesting that Heavy Armor Master provides a static defense rather than resistance... it harkens back to fiddly numbers rather than the elegance of most of the rules.

[BRC]

It's a bit of a half-way point for me. There's too much granularity the way it is - I'd be happy with a simple 'leather, chain, plate' and maybe some attributes akin to the weapon chart (disad for stealth, slow for weak, available in non-metal for druids, maybe a few more.)

On the other hand, more granularity would probably be better- if more complex. Damage resistance to specific damage types; leather vs slash, chain vs pierce, plate vs bludgeon... as an example.

I find it interesting that Heavy Armor Master provides a static defense rather than resistance... it harkens back to fiddly numbers rather than the elegance of most of the rules.

Not really. I think it makes perfect sense.


In 3.5 feats were plentiful, so the idea was that there was some other deterrence to characters just throwing on full plate. For Arcane Casters it was Arcane Spell Failure, for Monks, Druids, and Barbarians they lost class features. For Rogues it was the skill check penalties.

Now, in 5e, getting proficiency is a bigger investment (You need a level, or one or two of the more valuable Feats). Instead, the different Armor types are for different types of characters.

Light armor is for dex-based characters.

Medium armor is for characters with some Dex bonus, but not a lot.

Heavy armor is for characters that don't care about their dex bonus.

I'm AFB, but I think that in the end things line up pretty nicely. Studded Leather + 5 dex is 17 AC (with no penalty on the ever-useful Stealth), Half-plate +2 Dex is 17 AC (With penalty on Stealth), with a non-penalty Breastplate at 16. Full Plate I think hits 19, but that's very expensive, requires a high strength score, and provides penalties on stealth. A more reasonably priced Heavy armor I think ends up at 17 AC with penalty on stealth, but you don't need a dex bonus.

Studded Leather is the hardest to get the cap with, but it's also the cheapest, so that makes sense.

[INDYSTAR188]

The problem with 3.5 is that such a backstory doesn't matter - it's just an 8,300 GP sword. Your wizard can make a better one for cheaper and have a bonus you actually care about.

Oh I agree completely. I used to play 3.5 back in the day, now we play 4E but I'm trying to convince my guys to give Next a chance. One of my least favorite parts of 3E/4E is the constant need to find ways to bump up your characters with magic items that give a +X to whatever roll.

I suppose what I should have said is now, with magic items being scarcer you have more agency as a DM to insert them into the game with more interesting backstories and mechanics to make them feel special. I'm not sure how it's going to actually play out in one of my games but I think my PCs would probably each end up with a 'named', attunable item that has an interesting backstory. I think this helps make them feel cool. So in the example from my last post, the boring flaming sword as presented in the DMG (or wherever it'll be) is a mechanical framework that as the DM I have agency to modify for my players.

[micahwc]

As an alternate suggestion which I think may have some merit, perhaps some of the lesser armors are enchanted because they are more comfortable to wear than the min/maxed types. Full plate protects you well, but probably gets a little annoying to wear after a while. I could easily see an encumberence removing enchantment being very popular.

As a person who wore modern body armor every day for more than a year I can tell you that it gets old real quick. 50 pounds of extra weight takes a toll over time. You feel it in your knees, back, shoulders, hips, and just about everywhere else. I could easily envision a fighter having a full plate set for when he knows he is going to be in the thick of things, who may only where a half plate the rest of the time. Or leather armor when he is just lounging around the castle and doesnt want a full suit of plate metal around him all day. I lost half an inch of height in a year of doing this. That cant be good for an adventurer.

Maybe it rains a lot and the upkeep on iron armors takes a lot of time, so they use something a little inferior for the day to day stuff and keep the iron plate mail in the armory for when they really need it.

[Soular]

Edit:
Wait... why does the GM need to incentivize players into not wearing optimal armor?

Not quite. But the GM should provide choices. If the only choices are whats in the PHB, well then there really isn't any choice at all, is there? You would just choose the best armor that is available for your class.

However, if for roleplaying/world reasons, there exist suits that are not of the optimal type, but confer some other bonus, even if intangible, then the player has a choice.

For instance: A fighter might well prefer to wear the suit of splint mail that belonged to his great grandfather, Beoric the Mad. Or perhaps there is an ornate and distinctive breastplate of a type once worn by a long lost dwarven clan that to this day still strikes fear in the hearts of goblins. Give the owner a small perk like advantage on Intimidate rolls/fear effects against goblins as they crap their pants because a boogeyman from their legends appears before them.

All I am saying, this is a game about creating bitchen, memorable characters. Yeah, you could shoot for every last bit of optimization, but that's not how I play.

How about a +1 "Breastplate of Ricochet" that forces enemies using bows and crossbows to fire with disadvantage. Is that statistically better or worse that non-magical plate? These are the kinds of choices a DM should be giving his players. The rulebook is not set in stone, its like the cookbook, and you are the chef. Take the information therein and let your imagination run wild.

[warty goblin]

Are you saying the armor and weapon tables are fine as they are? Because all your examples support simplifying and only letting players have meaningful choices.

What's so complicated about explaining "There are four armor types: none, leather, chain, and plate. The best for your character is chain." Put all four types into a table to simplify things further.


I think they support giving players explicit choices, even if there isn't any meaningful differences. Giving a new player the ability to quickly make a choice from a list of options is a good thing. If the paladin equipment choice had been 'medium armor, options include chainmail, scale armor, partial plate armor, and so forth' it would have forced my already overwhelmed buddy to make another decision in a vacuum, which he would not have enjoyed. Having a nice reasonably sized list I think gives a new player a good sense of what sort of stuff is in the world they're trying to invent a character for, and that's helpful in coming up with a character concept. Same thing with the weapons table, they could simply have a versatile one handed weapon you could describe however you wanted. But that would again have shifted more decision making burden onto somebody who didn't need any more.

I realize people have said this already, but I think having the ability to upgrade armor within a class is a good thing for the first few levels. It means that a person can legitimately feel like they're reaching the upper levels of the ordinary in their characters' fields when they move from the starter armor to the next best, just like getting second and third level spells is a big thing for the caster sorts.

[Person_Man]

This can be where the Quick Build rules for equipment can be very helpful for new players. Instead of "you can get anything your little heart desires," you get 1-3 options for what your character will have at level 1. These options generally give you a well rounded pack for your level 1 player.

Yeah, I wish 5E had been closer to Legend in this respect: Ideally each class would start with a set package of Proficiencies, +2 to its primary ability score, set Background ability, Tracks of class abilities, and a preset package of equipment. There would be absolutely zero choices other then choosing a class and fluff. Dirt simple and quick so that a new player can just pick it up and start playing. Then from that point forward you only need to make decisions in the game itself or when you level up.

Then there would be Character Customization rules and lists that let you swap out whichevery packages you want to make your own class, purchase your own equiptment, take a Feat in place of the ability score bonus, etc. You want to customize your precise proficiencies, background, abilities, weapons and armor from a list of 100+ different options, zodiac sign, whatever, then go crazy.

[INDYSTAR188]

I realize people have said this already, but I think having the ability to upgrade armor within a class is a good thing for the first few levels. It means that a person can legitimately feel like they're reaching the upper levels of the ordinary in their characters' fields when they move from the starter armor to the next best, just like getting second and third level spells is a big thing for the caster sorts.

Do you do this for your current campaign? I've never done this before so bear with me. Could you give me an example using equipment from 5E? I hope to run a game soon-ish and this fits my general starting story as well as sounds cool (to me). Do you ask your players their opinion about this first?

[Snails]

Certainly in 1e/2e/3e a level 1 new PC would spend 2-5 sessions gathering coin to get outfitted in optimal normal gear. You might even hit level 2 before that happens.

I remember my 3.0 ranger having to flee for his life with his best bow on the ground (he swapped to longspear, to lend a hand while low on HP). I had to switch to a backup short bow for the next morning.

Is it a bad thing for low low level PCs to have something to look forward to buying?

[ambartanen]

I think they support giving players explicit choices, even if there isn't any meaningful differences. Giving a new player the ability to quickly make a choice from a list of options is a good thing. If the paladin equipment choice had been 'medium armor, options include chainmail, scale armor, partial plate armor, and so forth' it would have forced my already overwhelmed buddy to make another decision in a vacuum, which he would not have enjoyed. Having a nice reasonably sized list I think gives a new player a good sense of what sort of stuff is in the world they're trying to invent a character for, and that's helpful in coming up with a character concept. Same thing with the weapons table, they could simply have a versatile one handed weapon you could describe however you wanted. But that would again have shifted more decision making burden onto somebody who didn't need any more.
I really don't agree with you on this. Imagine you still had the exhaustive and pretty decent weapon and armor illustrations from 3.5e around. You could tell your friend that chain armor, shield and a single handed martial weapon are his best choice at the start and show them the illustrations of hide armor, chain shirt, breastplate, half plate, hammer, axe, longsword and so on and they just pick the one that looks the coolest except they don't need to worry about making the "right" choice. You are doing the same now anyway but without the illustrations or the assurance that their own preference is the only factor to consider.


I realize people have said this already, but I think having the ability to upgrade armor within a class is a good thing for the first few levels. It means that a person can legitimately feel like they're reaching the upper levels of the ordinary in their characters' fields when they move from the starter armor to the next best, just like getting second and third level spells is a big thing for the caster sorts.
That's certainly an element. I will probably upgrade my warlock's armor to studded leather as soon as we reach a town and I suppose that will feel like an accomplishment? Really having enough money to increase AC by one probably feels as exciting as buying your character's first +1 weapon... which, to me, is not very since I've done it too many times but I suppose many people enjoy it.


These are the kinds of choices a DM should be giving his players. The rulebook is not set in stone, its like the cookbook, and you are the chef. Take the information therein and let your imagination run wild. I really don't see why you are focusing your examples so much on the armor. Sure, they are all valid examples of interesting additions to the game and world but their relation to armor is tangential at best. Maybe those goblins feared warriors in red chain mail or green eyed paladins or celestial speakers and these can all tie to the PCs in interesting ways and enrich the world. The point is that there are a limited number of these coming up in play, probably no more than one or two a session and even that might not be a sustainable rate. Why specifically focus them on making sub-optimal armors more attractive when they serve a much more important and general function?

[Soras Teva Gee]

Are you saying the armor and weapon tables are fine as they are? Because all your examples support simplifying and only letting players have meaningful choices.

What's so complicated about explaining "There are four armor types: none, leather, chain, and plate. The best for your character is chain." Put all four types into a table to simplify things further.

Its easy to pick armor off the exist list:

"Here's your list what do you like best?"
"Chainmail"
"Done, write it down on your sheet"

See how easy that was? (Note of course what I didn't do even slightly)

Your way... well nine hells why stop there and keep bothering with equipment at all? You can just build that in to a characters stats you know, either a static bonus or maybe an improving one listed in the class features. No choices needed you've simply got the best protection the game allows here and maybe we can leave room for the DM to give magical equipment solely based on unique special features. Describe your character as you want with total freedom, chainmail bikini to shiny knight it makes no difference. (Not like it isn't highly debatable whether equipment differences are accurate anyways)

You idea is actually a little condescending. Oh every heavy armor user must wear plate because its mechanically the best. I mean if your going to hold people's hands and do all the work for them why not just DO the work for them without the pretense of choice? You have 4 armor choices, but you always choose option 3 for your class so that's your choice, except its not a choice at that point.

Well I'll say evidence suggests that people like having choices, and thus like their equipment externalized so they can choose it for their character and have it matter in some way mechanically. Sure its a tradition, but traditions exist because logically that's how most people must like it, even if only subconsciously. Even the ability to make bad choices goes into that, knowing something is a bad choice and averting it... is a reward in and of itself. Obviating the option of the bad choice denies the reward in not making it, idiot proofing the game is a great way to tell your audience what you think of their intelligence. Not that most options should be intentionally bad or anything, but that you should present options not worrying about optimizing as more then a tertiary priority and let the players figure out what suits best for their own reasons.

Ideally even the "bad" choices will have use for someone else of course, but one can hardly expect an even distribution of those. In that sense I deny there are bad choices on the armor table because there is going to be a use for someone for each option. Someone will decide AC 16 is good enough and they have another use for the 125 gp they save by going with chain over splint or some future race gets heavy armor proficiency but their build only leaves them 13 not 15 strength.

For the more extreme end of the spectrum... sometimes the campaign starts with you stripped naked and thrown in a dungeon for example. Gonna be awhile before you can afford that plate probably a good thing the DM doesn't have to homebrew lesser options for you yes?

Good game design should incorporate narrow possibilities like that, they're not "likely" per say but the option is there. You've got it figure out that X is better, do it nobody is stopping you. I'll keep up my quirk of sometimes picking less optimal options because it fits my characters background or whatever aesthetics I'm favoring, I'd rather nobody stopped me.

[Urpriest]

Its easy to pick armor off the exist list:

"Here's your list what do you like best?"

"Well, which one is best?"

75% percent of new players are going to respond with something like that. They've got no other reason to prefer one of them, after all, and they're looking to you for advice.

In general, I agree that crappy armors can give a "low level progression" of sorts. We won't really know what sort of progression they'll give until something akin to WBL is released, if something akin to WBL is ever released.

[warty goblin]

Do you do this for your current campaign? I've never done this before so bear with me. Could you give me an example using equipment from 5E? I hope to run a game soon-ish and this fits my general starting story as well as sounds cool (to me). Do you ask your players their opinion about this first?
I'm a player in my current group actually, but I was helping out with character creation since I had one of the two PHBs at the table, and had a chance to read it in advance. The new folks wanted to play fighter types, so I ended up a druid - not my first choice - but they're going out on a limb for me and the DM trying D&D in the first place, so I want this to go well for them, and somebody needs to cast Cure Wounds. So equipment upgrades are probably not a big thing in my character's future, but if I had gone fighter-type, I'd certainly be looking forwards to getting full plate as the capstone of ordinary martial equipment. It's the reserved parking spot, but for people who stab goblins instead of file memos.


I really don't agree with you on this. Imagine you still had the exhaustive and pretty decent weapon and armor illustrations from 3.5e around. You could tell your friend that chain armor, shield and a single handed martial weapon are his best choice at the start and show them the illustrations of hide armor, chain shirt, breastplate, half plate, hammer, axe, longsword and so on and they just pick the one that looks the coolest except they don't need to worry about making the "right" choice. You are doing the same now anyway but without the illustrations or the assurance that their own preference is the only factor to consider.
That would be pretty decent actually. Well, except the 3.5 weapon illustrations, which cause me mental anguish. On the other hand I find a list that presents some slightly different options pretty nice as well, since it presents some variety in the world and are pretty easy to come to grips with, all things considered.


That's certainly an element. I will probably upgrade my warlock's armor to studded leather as soon as we reach a town and I suppose that will feel like an accomplishment? Really having enough money to increase AC by one probably feels as exciting as buying your character's first +1 weapon... which, to me, is not very since I've done it too many times but I suppose many people enjoy it.
I'm very much coming at this from the perspective of a new player. Half of the players in my group have never played an RPG before, the fourth player played once a long time ago, and I've not played one in about six years, so am basically a new player for all that I have a shelf of RPGs I've picked up for light reading. Which means that things like getting better equipment and new spells is actually pretty exciting. Hell, just getting to play at all is exciting; and the culmination of a cunning strategy I put into effect last February when I got the gaming group together in the first place to play Descent.

[Soular]

I really don't see why you are focusing your examples so much on the armor. Sure, they are all valid examples of interesting additions to the game and world but their relation to armor is tangential at best. Maybe those goblins feared warriors in red chain mail or green eyed paladins or celestial speakers and these can all tie to the PCs in interesting ways and enrich the world. The point is that there are a limited number of these coming up in play, probably no more than one or two a session and even that might not be a sustainable rate. Why specifically focus them on making sub-optimal armors more attractive when they serve a much more important and general function?

Huh? You lost me. I am not sure what you are asking. Nor am I understanding how what I said wasn't clear.

Maybe it's time for an anecdote?

In a game, a long time ago, my fighter eschewed his typical +1 plate mail for a suit of banded mail (IIRC) he had taken off of a slain soldier in service to an evil Emperor (think Luke and Han in stormtrooper armor). The armor was totally normal in every way, except that it was emblazoned with the heraldry, and made in the style of that regions military. He spent the entire adventure rocking that banded mail because it opened doors for him that his unadorned, but +1 plate could not. It quite likely saved his life at least once. The last act of that story arc involved us murdering the crap out of an officer in said army, and from that fight he got a similar suit of armor with a +2 bonus, as well as a couple enchantments on it. He used that armor for ages as it marked him as an agent of the Empire when needed, and as a badass freedom fighter when among "good" folk.

It was not just a scribble on my character sheet; it was a roleplaying hook, and my trophy. Between its bonus and the spells weaved into it, it kept pace for a few levels. Only until I found some plate mail so awesomely better that I couldn't justify wearing the banded mail anymore did I finally hang it up. But it still sits among my most treasured trophies. My new +Whatever Plate of Awesome was somewhat dear to me, but it will never sit in my trophy room. And at the level we were adventuring at by then, the Plate was replaceable with some effort. My stolen +2 banded mail, in contrast, was priceless and irreplaceable.

This is a roleplaying game, not a combat sim.

[Soras Teva Gee]

"Well, which one is best?"

75% percent of new players are going to respond with something like that. They've got no other reason to prefer one of them, after all, and they're looking to you for advice.

In general, I agree that crappy armors can give a "low level progression" of sorts. We won't really know what sort of progression they'll give until something akin to WBL is released, if something akin to WBL is ever released.

They hardly need to ask that, taking the biggest number you can afford is generally a good idea and hardly rocket science. The armor table is not some major stumbling block at any level. Picking a weapon I think is going to consume more time and armor will be what can be gotten after.

None of that changes that eliminating those possibilities is just not a good idea.

[Zweisteine]

The reason inferior armors exist in the rules is because someone made them in the game world. In that world, ideal components, or the skills to make them,* are not available at all times. So someone made half plate, and so it exists.

If something exists in the world and players can getteir hands on it, it belongs in the PH. Maybe nobody will use it, but I can think of no complaints against the Heavy Mace in 3.5, despite it being strictly worse than a morningstar.

*Yeah, sure, you don't need much in the way of skills to craft any more, but it's still thematically there.

[captpike]

Because it's not an armor table for PCs. It's a table of the armor that's readily available in the world. Sure, the PCs can use it, but so can everyone else in the world.

were that the case they should be labed as such. "NPC only armor, is worse then the armor above but much cheaper"

and of course they should not charge some classes to use their class features, but not other by charging for heavy armor more then the starting gold

[Morty]

Your way... well nine hells why stop there and keep bothering with equipment at all? You can just build that in to a characters stats you know, either a static bonus or maybe an improving one listed in the class features. No choices needed you've simply got the best protection the game allows here and maybe we can leave room for the DM to give magical equipment solely based on unique special features. Describe your character as you want with total freedom, chainmail bikini to shiny knight it makes no difference. (Not like it isn't highly debatable whether equipment differences are accurate anyways)


That's indeed a very good idea - one that was proposed on the first page here. It would certainly keep the fiddly and floaty numbers down, and D&D could really use that. Granular differences between different suits of armour can be dealt with by tags, which are easy to keep optional if you don't want to bother with them. A new player would see that her fighter will have, say, 19 AC in heavy armour and that's that. A more experienced player who wants to customize their equipment would use tags to create more unique pieces, or simply flat-out superior, but more costly ones - that's without making it magical in any way.

[ambartanen]

Its easy to pick armor off the exist list:

"Here's your list what do you like best?"
"Chainmail"
"Done, write it down on your sheet"
"No, you aren't proficient with heavy armor. You can only take light or medium."
"Ok, beastplate."
"Well, no, you can't get that either."
"Why?"
"You don't have enough money to buy it."
"Well, which ones can I buy?"
"Padded, Leather or Hide."
"Ok, I take Hide then. It's the best I can afford."
"You can definitely get it but it isn't the best for your character."
"But it's farthest down the list!"
"Right, but they aren't ordered by how good they are."
"So which one should I buy?"
"Whichever one you like."
"Well what do they look like? Who would wear them? How would people react to seeing me in them? This table doesn't give me any useful information to base a preference on."



Your way... well nine hells why stop there and keep bothering with equipment at all?
I really don't like bothering with equipment. I've had GMs that enjoy making their players do it and it has always made players miserable.
"I stuff my backpack full of gold coins from the hoard."
"You can't."
"Why can't I?"
"You gear list doesn't include a backpack, I checked."

Also keeping track of the specific number of rusty daggers and copper pieces we were getting off our enemies at level 5+ was infinitely annoying.


No choices needed you've simply got the best protection the game allows here and maybe we can leave room for the DM to give magical equipment solely based on unique special features. Describe your character as you want with total freedom, chainmail bikini to shiny knight it makes no difference.
Yes, I would very much like that. I've also mostly been playing systems that behave exactly this way for years. If someone wants to play a paladin in a chain mail mankini, is historical accuracy the reason to prevent them?


You idea is actually a little condescending. Oh every heavy armor user must wear plate because its mechanically the best.I never said everyone must wear plate. Who am I being condescending to anyway? The brand new players who are more excited about picking their character's historically inaccurate armor than starting the game?



For the more extreme end of the spectrum... sometimes the campaign starts with you stripped naked and thrown in a dungeon for example. Gonna be awhile before you can afford that plate probably a good thing the DM doesn't have to homebrew lesser options for you yes? How is "no armor" a homebrew option?


You've got it figure out that X is better, do it nobody is stopping you. I'll keep up my quirk of sometimes picking less optimal options because it fits my characters background or whatever aesthetics I'm favoring, I'd rather nobody stopped me. If you pick inferior armor specifically and exclusively because it is inferior... err, go ahead I suppose. Wouldn't you need to homebrew some even worse armor though? Like negative armor class and penalty to constitution?

If you just care about the look, background and other non-mechanical properties of your armor, why do you care whether it's inferior or not? You seem to be saying you actively prefer worse armor for roleplaying purposes which is just perplexing.


Huh? You lost me. I am not sure what you are asking. Nor am I understanding how what I said wasn't clear.

Maybe it's time for an anecdote?

(pretty cool story)

This is a roleplaying game, not a combat sim.
My point is that the stats of the armor were irrelevant to the meaning it had for your character. Unless you are attributing some particular sentimentality to having a lower armor class for a while rather than the story you actually told, you might as well have had the banded mail and full plate both been "heavy armor" with identical stats and lost nothing at all.

[Angelalex242]

Your stories are irrelevant.

No matter how much fluff you put behind your inferior armor choice, it will just get you killed eventually when the laws of probability dictate you get hit 10 or 15 percent more often.

"But I was roleplaying!"

Congratulations, you are now roleplaying a corpse. To accurately roleplay the corpse effectively, lie down on the floor, shut your eyes, and don't say a word for the rest of the gaming session.

[Sartharina]

were that the case they should be labed as such. "NPC only armor, is worse then the armor above but much cheaper"

and of course they should not charge some classes to use their class features, but not other by charging for heavy armor more then the starting gold

Except it's not. Players are in the same world as NPCs, and can be on just as tight of a budget as anyone else.

All armor classes are acquirable from the start, depending on your class features. You're not supposed to start with the best armor of its class at the very start of the game - you work up from Chain to Splint to Plate, and from Scale to Half-plate.

[hawklost]

Your stories are irrelevant.

No matter how much fluff you put behind your inferior armor choice, it will just get you killed eventually when the laws of probability dictate you get hit 10 or 15 percent more often.

"But I was roleplaying!"

Congratulations, you are now roleplaying a corpse. To accurately roleplay the corpse effectively, lie down on the floor, shut your eyes, and don't say a word for the rest of the gaming session.

There are many reasons a player might not have the best armor in the game, and especially in the early levels
1) Not enough gold (mostly early levels)
2) Not enough STR for the heavy armors
3) Disadvantage on Stealth = Bad for some people (Failing your stealth check 30% more of the time could mean you are dead, see your own glib comments about death)
4) Metal armor = against spell
5) Weight is too much for character
6) Magical Properties make the inferior armor better than your 'best armor' (Go only finding magic in dungeons)

RP Reasons, which are still Valid
1) Family Heirloom that everyone recognizes, you could get bonuses on checks because you were it
2) DM might actually enforce Donning/Removing armor for players to get Short/Long rest benefits
3) Someone wishes to be less noticeable (People in Full plate are more noticeable than someone in chain mail)
4) No Blacksmith has that kind of armor ready and therefore player must order it and wait the time or continue adventuring and hope someone has it somewhere
5) City forbids people wandering around in certain armors (or any armor possibly, but some might be hidden)

[Demonic Spoon]

With regards to this being confusing to new players: I completely sympathize with the perspective that new players shouldn't have to dig through rules in order to not gimp themselves. However, despite the various options and some of them being subpar (at least in the very long term), it's pretty trivial to figure out what armor is good for your type of character. The only things a new player needs to know in order to pick armor (assuming they aren't using one of the starting packages, of course...) are

-how much money do I have?
-What armor do I have proficiency in?
-Do I care about stealth?
-How much AC will this give me (including my dex bonus)?

[Soular]

Your stories are irrelevant.

No matter how much fluff you put behind your inferior armor choice, it will just get you killed eventually when the laws of probability dictate you get hit 10 or 15 percent more often.

"But I was roleplaying!"

Congratulations, you are now roleplaying a corpse. To accurately roleplay the corpse effectively, lie down on the floor, shut your eyes, and don't say a word for the rest of the gaming session.

You are so wrong, and incapable of realizing it. The point is that not every armor is plate mail. And many sets of "inferior armor" have enchantments on them. The reason the banded mail had enchantments on it was that the region had never progressed past that level of armor technology. The reason doesn't really matter, it could be anything. My point is that the +2 banded mail suit with whatever those enchantments were on it was better than my straight +1 plate mail.

These are ways to increase the flavor and variety of the armor arms race so the players get to decide on more than how many pluses it has. It's also a way to gradually level up a PC's armor in a more interesting and memorable way.

If your campaign is so droll that the worth of a set of armor is determined solely by it's type and number of pluses, then you need a DM with more imagination. If many campaigns are like this, no wonder people find Fighters boring to play.

[Morty]

These are ways to increase the flavor and variety of the armor arms race so the players get to decide on more than how many pluses it has. It's also a way to gradually level up a PC's armor in a more interesting and memorable way.


And none of it requires a full-sized, superfluous equipment table. If you want to introduce a set of heavy armour made using inferior technology, but with powerful magic on it, you simply put an 'inferior' tag on it, so it gives its wearer less AC than their class normally has in heavy armour, but it has X and Y magical properties. Voilà. It works better if enchantments don't add a flat AC bonus, of course, but such small numerical increases are better off represented with mundane craftsmanship in any event.

[hawklost]

And none of it requires a full-sized, superfluous equipment table. If you want to introduce a set of heavy armour made using inferior technology, but with powerful magic on it, you simply put an 'inferior' tag on it, so it gives its wearer less AC than their class normally has in heavy armour, but it has X and Y magical properties. Voilà. It works better if enchantments don't add a flat AC bonus, of course, but such small numerical increases are better off represented with mundane craftsmanship in any event.

So we have a table with

Light, Medium, Heavy
Disadvantage, Inferior, and Str requirements
You seem to think the cost is worthless so we will ignore that on the table

Light
L1 - Inferior, Disadvantage
L2 - Inferior
L2.5 - Disadvantage
L3 - ------

Medium
M0.5 - Inferior, Disadvantage
M1 - Inferior
M2 - Disadvantage
M3 - ------

Heavy
H1 - Inferior, Disadvantage
H1.5 - Disadvantage
H2 - Str 13, Disadvantage
H3 - Str 15, Disadvantage

Is this the kind of table you wish to see? (I added in the x.5 to make it fully filled out.) Of course, with Light armor the difference is only 1 point while with Heavy a Inferior heavy is 4 AC lower than a normal heavy, so your table is way different unless you give some granulation on it.

[Soular]

So we have a table with

Light, Medium, Heavy
Disadvantage, Inferior, and Str requirements
You seem to think the cost is worthless so we will ignore that on the table

Light
L1 - Inferior, Disadvantage
L2 - Inferior
L2.5 - Disadvantage
L3 - ------

Medium
M0.5 - Inferior, Disadvantage
M1 - Inferior
M2 - Disadvantage
M3 - ------

Heavy
H1 - Inferior, Disadvantage
H1.5 - Disadvantage
H2 - Str 13, Disadvantage
H3 - Str 15, Disadvantage

Is this the kind of table you wish to see? (I added in the x.5 to make it fully filled out.) Of course, with Light armor the difference is only 1 point while with Heavy a Inferior heavy is 4 AC lower than a normal heavy, so your table is way different unless you give some granulation on it.

I hope you agree with me, hawklost, when I say that would be fricken' boring!

@morty: Is your character just a bunch of numbers on a sheet of paper, or is he something more? Little details enable immersion in the fantasy setting, details like: the type of your armor, the physical description of your weapon, the way your character looks, the clothes he wears. None of these grant bonuses in game, but without them you may as well be playing 4E (*spit).

[Morty]

So we have a table with

Light, Medium, Heavy
Disadvantage, Inferior, and Str requirements
You seem to think the cost is worthless so we will ignore that on the table

Light
L1 - Inferior, Disadvantage
L2 - Inferior
L2.5 - Disadvantage
L3 - ------

Medium
M0.5 - Inferior, Disadvantage
M1 - Inferior
M2 - Disadvantage
M3 - ------

Heavy
H1 - Inferior, Disadvantage
H1.5 - Disadvantage
H2 - Str 13, Disadvantage
H3 - Str 15, Disadvantage

Is this the kind of table you wish to see? (I added in the x.5 to make it fully filled out.) Of course, with Light armor the difference is only 1 point while with Heavy a Inferior heavy is 4 AC lower than a normal heavy, so your table is way different unless you give some granulation on it.

Not really - the point is to avoid having a big table. No, what I'd like to see is every class having an AC value for a given armour type, and then a set of optional tags to customize it for those who want it. It's simpler and more modular this way, which is allegedly 5e's goal - except, apparently, when it isn't.



@morty: Is your character just a bunch of numbers on a sheet of paper, or is he something more? Little details enable immersion in the fantasy setting, details like: the type of your armor, the physical description of your weapon, the way your character looks, the clothes he wears. None of these grant bonuses in game, but without them you may as well be playing 4E (*spit).

Ah, so now I'm accused of not being able to think past the numbers. Can't you do any better than this old strawman? What, exactly, stops me from describing my character's equipment in lascivious detail if the numbers are simplified and streamlined? Do I really need fiddly numbers and modifiers for that?

[Angelalex242]

There are many reasons a player might not have the best armor in the game, and especially in the early levels
1) Not enough gold (mostly early levels)
2) Not enough STR for the heavy armors
3) Disadvantage on Stealth = Bad for some people (Failing your stealth check 30% more of the time could mean you are dead, see your own glib comments about death)
4) Metal armor = against spell
5) Weight is too much for character
6) Magical Properties make the inferior armor better than your 'best armor' (Go only finding magic in dungeons)

RP Reasons, which are still Valid
1) Family Heirloom that everyone recognizes, you could get bonuses on checks because you were it
2) DM might actually enforce Donning/Removing armor for players to get Short/Long rest benefits
3) Someone wishes to be less noticeable (People in Full plate are more noticeable than someone in chain mail)
4) No Blacksmith has that kind of armor ready and therefore player must order it and wait the time or continue adventuring and hope someone has it somewhere
5) City forbids people wandering around in certain armors (or any armor possibly, but some might be hidden)

1:I can't argue low levels. Even my Paladin/Fighter/Cleric has to wear chain at level 1, but that's not by choice. It's just the downside of being low level.
2:Might come up for a cleric. No fighter or paladin in his right mind is going to have insufficient strength.
3:Who needs stealth? Fighters/Paladins/Clerics aren't meant to be stealthy. That's what rogues and rangers and monks are for.
4:Metal armor also increases AC. The existence of one or two spells penalizing metal armor doesn't negate its worth.
5:See 2. Only ever going to come up for a cleric.
6:What wizard or cleric in his right mind is going to enchant less then Plate? (weak clerics can probably make a 'lightened' enchantment for plate so their weaker selves can use it.)
=======================
1:Pshaw! Family Heirloom isn't going to be enough for me. And the DM trying to bribe me with one isn't going to get far.
2:Don/Remove: Ambushes favor Arcanists, druids, rangers, monks, and barbarians. Being vulnerable to one isn't that big a problem.
3:Being noticeable...if the area is too dangerous to attempt wearing your plate, you shouldn't attempt it yet. Level grind till you can win with your plate.
4:DM Jackassery provokes complaints, b*******, and moaning from players. That is all.
5:Also DM Jackassery.

[Soular]

Not really - the point is to avoid having a big table. No, what I'd like to see is every class having an AC value for a given armour type, and then a set of optional tags to customize it for those who want it. It's simpler and more modular this way, which is allegedly 5e's goal - except, apparently, when it isn't.

That's a good idea. I didn't know this was the point you were trying to make.

My only concern is that even with a table + description, it hasn't been made any simpler than it already is in 5E.



Ah, so now I'm accused of not being able to think past the numbers. Can't you do any better than this old strawman? What, exactly, stops me from describing my character's equipment in lascivious detail if the numbers are simplified and streamlined? Do I really need fiddly numbers and modifiers for that?

I was making a point, not an accusation. Causing butthurt was not my intention, I apologize.

[Morty]

That's a good idea. I didn't know this was the point you were trying to make.

My only concern is that even with a table + description, it hasn't been made any simpler than it already is in 5E.

Quite, which is why I'm advocating doing away with tables and making all the detailed tags optional. A fighter in heavy armour has, let's say, 20 AC, a cleric in heavy armour has 18 AC. The DM can leave it at that, or introduce tags which lower or increase AC, cost, penalties, maybe add DR or something - depending on the level of complexity everyone wants.


I was making a point, not an accusation. Causing butthurt was not my intention, I apologize.

No offence taken, but you might want to avoid such loaded terms.

[hawklost]

Quite, which is why I'm advocating doing away with tables and making all the detailed tags optional. A fighter in heavy armour has, let's say, 20 AC, a cleric in heavy armour has 18 AC. The DM can leave it at that, or introduce tags which lower or increase AC, cost, penalties, maybe add DR or something - depending on the level of complexity everyone wants.

No offence taken, but you might want to avoid such loaded terms.

So you are advocating that the class dictates the armor value? Do you also want to put in levels for it just in case someone who is a Fighter wants light or medium armor? What about costs? Does that come in as well?

It seems like you are making 9+ mini tables so that each class can have their own unique AC ranking. any time a new class comes out, a new table would need to be created. Do you also advocate removing dwarven armor training because that is a whole different table there.

[hawklost]

1:I can't argue low levels. Even my Paladin/Fighter/Cleric has to wear chain at level 1, but that's not by choice. It's just the downside of being low level.
2:Might come up for a cleric. No fighter or paladin in his right mind is going to have insufficient strength.
3:Who needs stealth? Fighters/Paladins/Clerics aren't meant to be stealthy. That's what rogues and rangers and monks are for.
4:Metal armor also increases AC. The existence of one or two spells penalizing metal armor doesn't negate its worth.
5:See 2. Only ever going to come up for a cleric.
6:What wizard or cleric in his right mind is going to enchant less then Plate? (weak clerics can probably make a 'lightened' enchantment for plate so their weaker selves can use it.)
=======================
1:Pshaw! Family Heirloom isn't going to be enough for me. And the DM trying to bribe me with one isn't going to get far.
2:Don/Remove: Ambushes favor Arcanists, druids, rangers, monks, and barbarians. Being vulnerable to one isn't that big a problem.
3:Being noticeable...if the area is too dangerous to attempt wearing your plate, you shouldn't attempt it yet. Level grind till you can win with your plate.
4:DM Jackassery provokes complaints, b*******, and moaning from players. That is all.
5:Also DM Jackassery.

2:Might come up for a cleric. No fighter or paladin in his right mind is going to have insufficient strength.
Hi, my name is mr Ranged fighter who uses Dex over Str in everything. i have a high dex and a high con but used Str as a lower stat because I don't feel the need for it.

3:Who needs stealth? Fighters/Paladins/Clerics aren't meant to be stealthy. That's what rogues and rangers and monks are for.
As a DM, I love players who feel that way. For some reason the Rogue/Ranger/Monk really hates being near you and when ambushes do happen because the Rogue was off searching in front while enemies heard you and came in from behind, you get to be the nice target they destroy.

5) Weight is too much for character - 5:See 2. Only ever going to come up for a cleric.
Welcome to a game where the Raw is followed and Weight limit enforced. Complain all you want, but you cannot carry everything and sometimes weight does matter.

6:What wizard or cleric in his right mind is going to enchant less then Plate? (weak clerics can probably make a 'lightened' enchantment for plate so their weaker selves can use it.)
One who is commissioned to enchant something less than plate. One that can use something less than plate. One that decides that the cost of plate +magic was too much for most people and sold something less. One that doesn't use Heavy armor.
---------- RP reasons---------
3:Being noticeable...if the area is too dangerous to attempt wearing your plate, you shouldn't attempt it yet. Level grind till you can win with your plate.
Shouldn't attempt it yet? Do you go around expecting enemies to have color coding so you know what you can and can't handle when? Have you ever actually played a DnD game where you might want to blend in? Where you might need to actually be somewhat 'stealthy'in the sense of not being noticed instead of hiding? Or are all of your DnD games consisting of someone pointing your Fighter and saying 'kill' and he runs off to kill the targets without paying attention to other things around?


4) No Blacksmith has that kind of armor ready and therefore player must order it and wait the time or continue adventuring and hope someone has it somewhere
- 4:DM Jackassery provokes complaints, b*******, and moaning from players. That is all.
I guess you have never played a game where you are in a small town or village. There are limits to how much most of those places have and can produce. Sometimes it is even days/weeks to get to the nearest large city that can handle something over 1000 gp. Sometimes actually roleplaying being in the wilderness and small areas can be fun, instead of always being a day or two next to a kingdom's major city.

5) City forbids people wandering around in certain armors (or any armor possibly, but some might be hidden)
- 5:Also DM Jackassery.
How dare a city not want people wandering around with their weapons and Armors! Curse them for wanting the Guard to be better equipped than random mercenaries and travelers! I demand my DM give me what I want and say screw it to any story or plot that goes against me!

Sorry, but all your RP responses consist of "I want this and a DM who does something different is just a jackass". Sometimes roleplaying means you don't get to play with all your biggest toys. A Caster might be forbidden from spell casting due to restrictions in the City or environment, a Rogue might be hunted if he tries to sneak around by other Rogues who run the area. A Fighter might lose his favorite armor for some time. Its called a living world. You are not the only thing there and this is not a video game with a stupid computer behind it. DMs can make things interesting by actually DMing and changing the worlds effects around.

[Morty]

So you are advocating that the class dictates the armor value?

More or less.


Do you also want to put in levels for it just in case someone who is a Fighter wants light or medium armor?

Presumably. 13th Age gives every class the values for every armour type, although it only uses light and heavy. Classes like rogues or rangers wearing heavy armour get slapped with penalties.


What about costs? Does that come in as well?

Like you yourself noted, I don't treat costs as terribly relevant. Each armour category would have its own cost, with heavy armour being the most expensive, and adding tags would increase or decrease it, should the players choose to use them.


It seems like you are making 9+ mini tables so that each class can have their own unique AC ranking.

I don't think a couple more lines added to the class's table is a lot.


any time a new class comes out, a new table would need to be created.

Is that a problem?


Do you also advocate removing dwarven armor training because that is a whole different table there.

It would have to be adjusted to this kind of system, yes. It could be as simple as saying that a dwarf has X AC in light/medium armour or her class value, whichever is higher.

[Angelalex242]

Alright, fine. Hawk, agree to disagree, I'm going to go play in my world, you go play in yours, and let us fervently hope the two never meet.

[ambartanen]

This is only tangentially related to the topic but one of the QA questions got me wondering. Many monster entries include the "(natural armor)" tag next to a creature's AC. It seems likely natural armor isn't meant to stack with regular armor, unarmored defense, mage armor and other such things. The draconic sorcerer gets her AC set to 13+dex but the scales aren't explicitly called natural armor.

So do you think natural armor is considered a different type of armor? Do you think it should be? Seems logical to me in that wearing a padded armor under your plate doesn't improve your AC so having scales under a breastplate shouldn't either.

[hawklost]

I think they call it Natural Armor to tell the players that the creature is not wearing any actual armor but that they just have that much AC (No looting the scales of a dragon to get more AC!)

[cobaltstarfire]

What, exactly, stops me from describing my character's equipment in lascivious detail


Well nothing is stopping you or me* from doing that, but the average person (newcomers in particular) will be as stuck with a perfectly blank canvas as they would be with too many options and fiddly bits. People like to be given a choice as long as it's only 3-4 choices too.

I don't personally mind the current armor list, but I really love it when books give people some fluff to use as a springboard.

* Really I think it'd be hard for me too, because I don't really know much about armor. I think I'd struggle really hard with describing armor without doing an image search for particular types(which is something I do most of the time when I draw armor...) Having a little table with descriptions and some pictures really makes things easier on that front.

[Sartharina]

The tags aren't "Inferior" and "Disadvantage" (Ideally). Ideally, they'd be "Superior" and "Mobile"... actually, there might be an "Inferior" option for starting gear. Heavy armor affords you the privilege to dump Dex.

[Morty]

Well nothing is stopping you or me* from doing that, but the average person (newcomers in particular) will be as stuck with a perfectly blank canvas as they would be with too many options and fiddly bits. People like to be given a choice as long as it's only 3-4 choices too.

I don't personally mind the current armor list, but I really love it when books give people some fluff to use as a springboard.

* Really I think it'd be hard for me too, because I don't really know much about armor. I think I'd struggle really hard with describing armor without doing an image search for particular types(which is something I do most of the time when I draw armor...) Having a little table with descriptions and some pictures really makes things easier on that front.

We shouldn't generalize here, I think. One player might stick to bone-dry descriptions after years of gaming; another might narrate with detail during their first gaming session. In any event, I don't think it's a big problem. If we don't have an armour table, the classes themselves tend to come with descriptions of example members in them - a good way to showcase examples of gear they might be packing.

[captpike]

Except it's not. Players are in the same world as NPCs, and can be on just as tight of a budget as anyone else.

All armor classes are acquirable from the start, depending on your class features. You're not supposed to start with the best armor of its class at the very start of the game - you work up from Chain to Splint to Plate, and from Scale to Half-plate.

yes they are in the same world, but they are not the same. PCs are special, all but unique by virtue of being PCs, they should have no problem getting basic armor. it would be like playing a SEAL and bairly being able to afford your bullets.

sure that would would if every bulid of every class had to upgrade their armor in three steps, and each one cost the same. and of course you would have to ahear to strict WBL to make sure you stayed on track.

otherwise you have rogues who get their class features at level 1 for free, and paladins who have to save up their gold for several levels just to use their most basic of features.

[captpike]

@morty: Is your character just a bunch of numbers on a sheet of paper, or is he something more? Little details enable immersion in the fantasy setting, details like: the type of your armor, the physical description of your weapon, the way your character looks, the clothes he wears. None of these grant bonuses in game, but without them you may as well be playing 4E (*spit).

better then playing a game with meaningless mechanics where nothing ever makes sense, and the only people who prefer it are those who lack the intellectual ability to understand its successor

[Beige]

firstly, avaliability: things cost different amount, so making everything only the most expensive of the section simply means its hard as **** for someone to actually obtain the needed item. especially since the recomended wealth for a level 3 character is about 300...

you really want to tell the fighter he's never allowed heavy armour?

plus, honestly, the choice is fun. yes, it may be a little worse, but its simply more fun to say you have chainmail rather than medium armour. medium armour is the most boring description ever, and makes your shiny suit of protective goodness sound like just another tick box. and DnD is as much about roleplaying and coolness as it is about mechanics, even if different people come in it for different reasons

[captpike]

plus, honestly, the choice is fun. yes, it may be a little worse, but its simply more fun to say you have chainmail rather than medium armour. medium armour is the most boring description ever, and makes your shiny suit of protective goodness sound like just another tick box. and DnD is as much about roleplaying and coolness as it is about mechanics, even if different people come in it for different reasons

easy enough to have a section encouraging the player to fluff their armor, so a fighter could say he wears plate, and a cleric mail even though the math for both is the same

[Sartharina]

yes they are in the same world, but they are not the same. PCs are special, all but unique by virtue of being PCs, they should have no problem getting basic armor. it would be like playing a SEAL and bairly being able to afford your bullets.No, your stance is more like wanting to play Samo Hahya, and then arguing that you should get a free .50 cal nigh-vision amplified scope anti-material Sniper Rifle, instead of the civilian-issue hunting rifle he actually had.

Player characters aren't that special as you seem to think they should be until at least Level 3, and probably not until level 5.


sure that would would if every bulid of every class had to upgrade their armor in three steps, and each one cost the same. and of course you would have to ahear to strict WBL to make sure you stayed on track.No you wouldn't. It's all attainable within a few levels, and the cost of not having 'the best' isn't significant anyway.


otherwise you have rogues who get their class features at level 1 for free, and paladins who have to save up their gold for several levels just to use their most basic of features.Paladins start with decent heavy armor (Chainmail), and they don't have to buy DEX for good AC, unlike the rogue. And their armor options get better with level, while the rogue is stuck with leather armor. Both classes have their AC scale (slowly) with level - Rogues have to increase their DEX to get better armor (They start with AC 14 or 15, two or one behind a Paladin's 16. They're both melee warriors. They go up to 17 over at least 8 levels), free to spend their wealth on more tools, while Paladins upgrade their armor itself, free to spend their stat points on other attributes, or Feats.
better then playing a game with meaningless mechanics where nothing ever makes sense, and the only people who prefer it are those who lack the intellectual ability to understand its successorI never thought I'd see you burn 4e so badly. :smalltongue:

[pwykersotz]

I never thought I'd see you burn 4e so badly. :smalltongue:

If I was drinking anything, it would have just spewed from my nose.

[ambartanen]

The proposed change to mechanics seemed intuitive and minor to me but clearly neither side is being convinced here. I suppose I'll just leave it as a suggestion for a houserule for whoever is interested.


plus, honestly, the choice is fun. yes, it may be a little worse, but its simply more fun to say you have chainmail rather than medium armour. medium armour is the most boring description ever, and makes your shiny suit of protective goodness sound like just another tick box. and DnD is as much about roleplaying and coolness as it is about mechanics, even if different people come in it for different reasons

I am completely flabbergasted by the number of people who seem to think having their character wear chain mail makes them awesome roleplayers just because they purposefully pick inferior armor when they have access to a better one. To be clear, "I am wearing chain mail" is a super boring and non-evocative description while wearing "heavy armor" can be described in intricate detail if a player is interested in doing so. If one isn't, however, they are able to just say something vague along the lines of "wearing the silvery armor of the knights of Bahamut" without worrying whether they are actually in uniform or limiting themselves and the DM to describing all future knights of Bahamut wearing that particular armor type.

P.S. Just to show how I imagine this armor table looking for someone interested in using it:


Armor Type Armor Class Stealth Price Examples
Light 12 + Dex Yes 30 gp gambeson, leather armor
Medium 13 + Dex (up to 2) Disadv. 60 gp chain shirt, lorica segmentata, breastplate
Heavy 16 Disadv. 100 gp chainmail, splint, plate armor

where you can just slap optional unique keywords onto armor for effects


keyword cost multiplier effect
inferior x 1/2 -1 AC
superior x 10 +2 AC, not available for light armor
quiet x 1 -1 AC, no disadvantage on stealth
noisy x 1/2 adds disadvantage on stealth

I believe this lets you create any armor from the original table or at least a close enough approximation and even fills in a few missing options.
Quirks:

Need to add a requirements that armors that grant over 15 AC, require at least (AC - 3) Str to use effectively.
Combining superior and inferior tags lets you create intermediate improvements at five times the cost of the base armor.
The quiet tag isn't forbidden to heavy armor since anyone willing to lose 1 AC on their heavy armor to paint it in camo and strap it down to prevent clinking, is welcome to do so. Of course, they chose to wear heavy armor in the first place so can good can they be at sneaking?
If you want to make "ring mail", you have to make inferior quiet noisy heavy armor which is clunky but there you have it- 25gp, 14AC, heavy armor.
Hide armor isn't represented because armor composition isn't tracked. For druids, you have to say non-metal armors are light or inferior medium ones.


So some examples of how you can make the different armors:
* Plate armor is a superior heavy armor (1000 gp, 18 AC, disadv).
* Padded armor is an inferior noisy light armor (7.5 gp, 11 + Dex AC, disadv).
* A breastplate is superior quiet medium armor (600 gp, 14 + Dex(2) AC, disadv).
* Split mail is inferior superior heavy armor (500 gp, 16 AC, disadv). Yes, it sounds funny but it is still a valid description since it is inferior to other superior armor but still better than the regular one :P

Keywords are unique so you can't make superior superior heavy armor for (10,000 gp, 20 AC, disadv) although that price is so exorbitant that you might as well have the player hire a bunch of magicians to build them actual power armor after five years of researching the technology. Hardly something that needs to be in the basic rules though.

P.P.S. Just to clarify, I am not saying this method is simpler than just using the table in the PHB, I just like ordering stuff logically. My original suggestion would have just been the first table (except armor would come as superior in the first place).

[jmbrown]

My opinion on armor is that it's totally a player's choice and it's the DM's responsibility to put value in those choices. If a player chooses to wear "sub par" armor then provide options they can explore.

Mechanically though, 5E does raise a point for "sub par" armor if you choose the encumbrance variant of carrying. At 5 x strength your speed is reduced to 10'. At the maximum starting of 15 strength, this means you can wear full plate and maybe a sword and shield or two-handed weapon. A person in chain mail might have worse AC but they're also moving full speed.

That's if you use that variant though I expect no one will actually use it.

[Morty]

Hide armor isn't represented because armor composition isn't tracked. For druids, you have to say non-metal armors are light or inferior medium ones.

Or, if we're using class-based AC, they need to wear light armour but it gives them a lower AC than a rogue or ranger would have.


Split mail is inferior superior heavy armor (500 gp, 16 AC, disadv). Yes, it sounds funny but it is still a valid description since it is inferior to other superior armor but still better than the regular one :P

I don't think an armour that is both inferior and superior should be something that exists. Way too confusing, even if it makes mechanical sense.

[pwykersotz]

I am completely flabbergasted by the number of people who seem to think having their character wear chain mail makes them awesome roleplayers just because they purposefully pick inferior armor when they have access to a better one. To be clear, "I am wearing chain mail" is a super boring and non-evocative description while wearing "heavy armor" can be described in intricate detail if a player is interested in doing so. If one isn't, however, they are able to just say something vague along the lines of "wearing the silvery armor of the knights of Bahamut" without worrying whether they are actually in uniform or limiting themselves and the DM to describing all future knights of Bahamut wearing that particular armor type.

Nice charts! I like them very much.

To your point above, your mischaracterizing it just slightly. You're labeling the result (wearing chainmail) as the intention (roleplaying). The point is not to be less efficient and call it roleplaying, it's to roleplay no matter what the mechanical benefits/penalties are.

If I create a squire, my first thought is not to assign armor and then to roleplay justify it. It's to figure out who he is, what he does, and why he does it. Say his lord is a stern knight who has vanity issues. He views armor as a status symbol. I love the idea of starting as a squire and working my way to the most powerful knight in the kingdom. I might create this scenario to give a little flavor to the world, to make it feel as though things have meaning. Well, I'm not then going to spend all my pennies on Half-Plate at level 1, even if I can afford them. I haven't earned it in the eyes of my master.

Now on the other side of it, of course you can build a mechanically powerful character and roleplay it...but it's not the same thing. They're two different animals.

[Sartharina]

If I was drinking anything, it would have just spewed from my nose.Actually, I probably should have made a post indignantly defending 4e because I do like that system, and probably would have had the same effect.

[Soular]

better then playing a game with meaningless mechanics where nothing ever makes sense, and the only people who prefer it are those who lack the intellectual ability to understand its successor

Oops! Seems like I hurt the feels of a 4E fanboi.

Because, yanno, only an idiot would doubt the superiority of 4E. So I guess the entire world is wrong, because every edition of D&D has been a success except 4E.

Yes, I realize it's still too early to call 5E a success. But if fan and reviewer opinions count for anything, this game will put WotC back on the map after the debacle of 4E.

That said, I don't dislike 4E, not really. I spent a bit of coin on the 4E books, only to have WotC consign it to an early demise. I really think that 4E and 5E are different enough that they could've re-labelled 4E into D&D Tactics or something, and run the two products side-by-side. So I know your feels, bro. But a sh*tzillion retro-clones, Pathfinder, the continued success of OSRIC, and the overwhelmingly positive reception of 5E doesn't mean players are unintelligent. It just means we were looking for something else.

[Morty]

Now on the other side of it, of course you can build a mechanically powerful character and roleplay it...but it's not the same thing. They're two different animals.

The point behind streamlined armour tables and class-based AC is to remove "building" from the equation to a large degree, if not entirely.

[Talakeal]

So, from the looks of it there are two camps:

A Player decides their fighter is going to be from an eastern culture and decides to wear splint mail over plate armor.

Group A believes that he can't do this unless splint mail is listed as an option, and he is just more or less playing magical tea party unless he can select it from a list.

Group B believes that if there is a full list of armors anyone who picks suboptimal choice is gimping their character for no reason and possibly letting their party down, so therefore he is just playing poorly unless he selects the best.



I personally believe that you shouldn't have to compromise your characters RP for the sake of sound tactical decisions, and believe a game should work hard to remove "trap" options wherever possible.




On a personal level I simply separated the fluff and the rules when writing Heart of Darkness. The fluff will, say, describe padded, hide, leather, studded leather, and chain shirts and then say "these choices use the rules for light armor" which is presented on a separate page and is more or less mechanically balanced with other armor types. While D&D has a legacy to uphold and I am not suggesting my route would work for them, I do feel their current solution is both impractical and unbalanced.

[ambartanen]

Well, no, our "camp" is saying essentially the same thing you are. There shouldn't be suboptimal choices and people shouldn't be punished for roleplaying.

On the other other hand, the other "camp" has a number of arguments and the only one I really don't agree with is that you only get to be roleplaying if your choice is suboptimal.

[Talakeal]

Well, no, our "camp" is saying essentially the same thing you are. There shouldn't be suboptimal choices and people shouldn't be punished for roleplaying.

On the other other hand, the other "camp" has a number of arguments and the only one I really don't agree with is that you only get to be roleplaying if your choice is suboptimal.

Isn't that just the old Stormwind fallacy taken to its logical conclusion?

[ambartanen]

Isn't that just the old Stormwind fallacy taken to its logical conclusion?

Don't know what that is.

P.S. Found some topic on the wizard's forums but it's wall of text and I can't read it right now.

[Morty]

Generally speaking, when you decide to divide a discussion into two "camps", what follows will not be an accurate depiction of anyone's position.

[Yuki Akuma]

Don't know what that is.

P.S. Found some topic on the wizard's forums but it's wall of text and I can't read it right now.

"Stormwind fallacy" is a name given to a specific type of false dichotomy - that 'roleplaying' and 'optimisation' are mutually exclusive, which should be self-evidently untrue.

That is, it's not 'bad roleplaying' to take the best options, nor is it 'good roleplaying' to take the worst.

I'm not entirely sure how it applies to this conversation, but that's what people mean when they cite the Stormwind fallacy. (Stormwind, by the way, is the person who coined it.)

[LaserFace]

Aside from embracing the limitation of wealth on choice of armor, I like including all the armors listed in the manual (and even enjoy adding to that list with custom outfits) because this helps to compound how I choose to represent differences in culture, social class and resources available to a region.

For example, it makes a statement like "all this lord's knightly vassals are afforded Full Plate" a much more meaningful statement about a character if the rest of a kingdom's knights are more like, early european and use chain armor or something. You can do this other ways, but I feel this can draw directly from perceptions people already have of ancient warriors, and paints an image that conveys a clear tone and is readily understood.

Personally, I don't believe the "RPing with Armor" thing discussed here doesn't inherently make you a "Better" roleplayer, but it seems to be making use of a roleplaying opportunity the book is handing you. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to opt out of that - not all stories depend on disparities conveyed by arms and armor - but I think in some cases, neglecting it is simply in poor taste.

That said, you could probably find any number of ways to address this concern while trimming down the armor list, perhaps even ignoring it entirely; leaving all armor description as appearances separate from mechanics. Or maybe doing something else. I don't think any of this is less valid, although I personally prefer sticking to the way it is.

[Angelalex242]

Well, if I was playing an eastern game, I'd assign the ultimate Samurai Armor, the O-Yori, the same stats as Plate. It's not historically accurate, but the Samurai need all the AC they can get, and it's definitely expensive enough to cost 1500 gp.

[Talakeal]

Generally speaking, when you decide to divide a discussion into two "camps", what follows will not be an accurate depiction of anyone's position.

All too true. Unfortunately almost all real life issues end up this way do to the nature of politics :(

[Talakeal]

Don't know what that is.

P.S. Found some topic on the wizard's forums but it's wall of text and I can't read it right now.

The stormwind fallacy basically boils down to the idea that roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive.

The notion that one must choose a sub optimal choice to be a real role-player seems to me like the same line of thought taken one step further.

[pwykersotz]

The stormwind fallacy basically boils down to the idea that roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive.

The notion that one must choose a sub optimal choice to be a real role-player seems to me like the same line of thought taken one step further.

Fortunately, no one has said this.

[Morty]

All too true. Unfortunately almost all real life issues end up this way do to the nature of politics :(

They only end up this way if we let them. Which is why we shouldn't try to boil things down into binary disputes between two clear-cut camps.

[Soras Teva Gee]

The stormwind fallacy basically boils down to the idea that roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive.

The notion that one must choose a sub optimal choice to be a real role-player seems to me like the same line of thought taken one step further.

Stormwind "fallacy" is utterly meaningless because it not being mutually exclusive does not in turn say anything about rate of incidence. If its still true 99% of the time then it never creates the false dichotomy because then its simply too high a chance of doing so. Since language is an imprecise tool that includes concepts like hyperbole any position 'guilty' of stormwind is the same position as a slight deviation that is not guilty of it. Like "that while not absolute the optimizing mentality degrades roleplaying too often" which is completely immune to the fallacy and assuming language to be an imperfect tool cannot be separated out simply by assumption.

Arguing that something is "not 100% true, therefore you are wrong" is essentially strawmanning the opposition into an extremist position they may or may not agree with while giving yourselves a blank check so long as you are not 100% wrong.

This does not produce practical results unless you assert reality has an unfailing tendency towards being simply binary black and white. Rather one must argue that something is not "common enough" or "bad enough" to be problematic, which doesn't seem to happen. Or in gaming terms like arguing that oh because something is still vulnerable to 1/20 critical hits the game mechanic is totally not overpowered, while another is arguing it should be susceptible to a roll of 15.

Like most "fallacies" uttered in internet debates of all types it is nothing more then a dirty perversion of the truth used by the speaker to lie through their teeth.

Now then back to what you were doing all.

[Talakeal]

Stormwind "fallacy" is utterly meaningless because it not being mutually exclusive does not in turn say anything about rate of incidence. If its still true 99% of the time then it never creates the false dichotomy because then its simply too high a chance of doing so. Since language is an imprecise tool that includes concepts like hyperbole any position 'guilty' of stormwind is the same position as a slight deviation that is not guilty of it. Like "that while not absolute the optimizing mentality degrades roleplaying too often" which is completely immune to the fallacy and assuming language to be an imperfect tool cannot be separated out simply by assumption.

Arguing that something is "not 100% true, therefore you are wrong" is essentially strawmanning the opposition into an extremist position they may or may not agree with while giving yourselves a blank check so long as you are not 100% wrong.

This does not produce practical results unless you assert reality has an unfailing tendency towards being simply binary black and white. Rather one must argue that something is not "common enough" or "bad enough" to be problematic, which doesn't seem to happen. Or in gaming terms like arguing that oh because something is still vulnerable to 1/20 critical hits the game mechanic is totally not overpowered, while another is arguing it should be susceptible to a roll of 15.

Like most "fallacies" uttered in internet debates of all types it is nothing more then a dirty perversion of the truth used by the speaker to lie through their teeth.

Now then back to what you were doing all.

Yeah, that's pretty much all fallacies though. Just because an argument is fallacious does not mean that it is wrong, and just because something is generally true does not mean it is necessarily true.

[captpike]

Stormwind "fallacy" is utterly meaningless because it not being mutually exclusive does not in turn say anything about rate of incidence. If its still true 99% of the time then it never creates the false dichotomy because then its simply too high a chance of doing so. Since language is an imprecise tool that includes concepts like hyperbole any position 'guilty' of stormwind is the same position as a slight deviation that is not guilty of it. Like "that while not absolute the optimizing mentality degrades roleplaying too often" which is completely immune to the fallacy and assuming language to be an imperfect tool cannot be separated out simply by assumption.

Arguing that something is "not 100% true, therefore you are wrong" is essentially strawmanning the opposition into an extremist position they may or may not agree with while giving yourselves a blank check so long as you are not 100% wrong.

This does not produce practical results unless you assert reality has an unfailing tendency towards being simply binary black and white. Rather one must argue that something is not "common enough" or "bad enough" to be problematic, which doesn't seem to happen. Or in gaming terms like arguing that oh because something is still vulnerable to 1/20 critical hits the game mechanic is totally not overpowered, while another is arguing it should be susceptible to a roll of 15.

Like most "fallacies" uttered in internet debates of all types it is nothing more then a dirty perversion of the truth used by the speaker to lie through their teeth.

Now then back to what you were doing all.

its a fallacy because there is no relationship between being optimized and roleplaying. you can be optimized and good at RP, just as you can unoptimized and bad at RP.

you might as well say that short people can't RP, it would make as much sense.

it needs to be said because people are falling for it still

[rlc]

On the other other hand, the other "camp" has a number of arguments and the only one I really don't agree with is that you only get to be roleplaying if your choice is suboptimal.

that's not true, though. as has been pointed out in the rest of the threads, there are plenty of reasons to pick the suboptimal choice (price, availability, etc), but as has also been said, roleplaying isn't necessarily one of them.
going back to this example, about eastern culture

A Player decides their fighter is going to be from an eastern culture and decides to wear splint mail over plate armor.

once samurai got access to western armors, they started using them. getting the best stuff that you can is actually very good roleplaying.

[captpike]

once samurai got access to western armors, they started using them. getting the best stuff that you can is actually very good roleplaying.

I never understood the thought process that would have characters make sub optimal choices in situations where they lives are on the line for "RP", what are you RPing a moron?

if I am playing a wizard and can take advantage of the 5min work day to increase my chance of living though the adventure I will. I am playing a character who wants to live to spend his gold, not that is suicidal.

[Arzanyos]

Who will hire you then, if you use the five minute workday. Plot hooks go to the risk takers, not the risk averse.

[LaserFace]

I never understood the thought process that would have characters make sub optimal choices in situations where they lives are on the line for "RP", what are you RPing a moron?

if I am playing a wizard and can take advantage of the 5min work day to increase my chance of living though the adventure I will. I am playing a character who wants to live to spend his gold, not that is suicidal.

Can you elaborate on this? I honestly don't understand the context here. Do you encounter players who give absolutely no justification for an alternative behavior, apart saying the words "I'm roleplaying."? I also don't understand what a 5min workday means.

But, like someone discussed earlier, wearing inferior armor that allows you to be mistaken as an ally of your enemy can provide a greater advantage than, say, +2 to AC. Depending on circumstances, that could strike me as perhaps daring and clever, not really moronic.

[Demonic Spoon]

Can you elaborate on this? I honestly don't understand the context here. Do you encounter players who give absolutely no justification for an alternative behavior, apart saying the words "I'm roleplaying."? I also don't understand what a 5min workday means.


In the example above, the hypothetical eastern warrior came from a culture in which splint mail was the thing everyone used. Therefore, it makes sense for that character to use inferior splint mail. This doesn't make sense because presumably a practical warrior would eventually learn and start using superior armor. Thus, it's "roleplaying" that may not make a whole ton of sense.

"5 min workday" refers to the fact that a combat round is 6 seconds, so the actual amount of time in any given day that adventurers spend in combat is very small.

[captpike]

Who will hire you then, if you use the five minute workday. Plot hooks go to the risk takers, not the risk averse.

when possible you rest it is not always possible. the only reasons you should have more then one fight in a day is if you have no choice, if your on a timer, if you were jumped ect.

you should never have two in a day if you have a choice in the matter, doing so means you have a character who does not want to live or your metagaming (trying to make the game more fun by playing your 16+ int character as stupid)


Can you elaborate on this? I honestly don't understand the context here. Do you encounter players who give absolutely no justification for an alternative behavior, apart saying the words "I'm roleplaying."? I also don't understand what a 5min workday means.

But, like someone discussed earlier, wearing inferior armor that allows you to be mistaken as an ally of your enemy can provide a greater advantage than, say, +2 to AC. Depending on circumstances, that could strike me as perhaps daring and clever, not really moronic.

no I mean players who do the sub optimal thing for no reason whatsoever and call it RP. like picking a worse type of armor even though their character would want to live, therefor would pick the best armor he can afford. or have their characters do 3-5 fights a day even though they could easily have done those fights one per day. if they were done one per day they would have a clear and a easy victory. doing them in the same day means they are risking their life for no reason whatsoever.

yes you can not always do that but you should if you can unless your character does not want to live.

[LaserFace]

Edited for direct reply


In the example above, the hypothetical eastern warrior came from a culture in which splint mail was the thing everyone used. Therefore, it makes sense for that character to use inferior splint mail. This doesn't make sense because presumably a practical warrior would eventually learn and start using superior armor. Thus, it's "roleplaying" that may not make a whole ton of sense.

"5 min workday" refers to the fact that a combat round is 6 seconds, so the actual amount of time in any given day that adventurers spend in combat is very small.

Thank you for the clarification.

I will say that I think it's sensible for this hypothetical warrior to eventually upgrade to superior armor when it becomes available, but if they are fresh off the bus (as it were), I'd applaud the player who acknowledged a setting's material and arrived in expected gear.



no I mean players who do the sub optimal thing for no reason whatsoever and call it RP. like picking a worse type of armor even though their character would want to live, therefor would pick the best armor he can afford. or have their characters do 3-5 fights a day even though they could easily have done those fights one per day. if they were done one per day they would have a clear and a easy victory. doing them in the same day means they are risking their life for no reason whatsoever.

yes you can not always do that but you should if you can unless your character does not want to live.

I was specifically wondering if anyone here actually encounters players who staunchly refuse to wear the best equipment without at least some attempt at reasoning their decision, with claims to perhaps religious or other supernatural beliefs, or really anything. Or is this discussion purely hypothetical?

[Arzanyos]

when possible you rest it is not always possible. the only reasons you should have more then one fight in a day is if you have no choice, if your on a timer, if you were jumped ect.

you should never have two in a day if you have a choice in the matter, doing so means you have a character who does not want to live or your metagaming (trying to make the game more fun by playing your 16+ int character as stupid)



This is the kind of mentality that gets adventurer's not hired. Some characters put stock in more than their own hides.

[captpike]

This is the kind of mentality that gets adventurer's not hired. Some characters put stock in more than their own hides.

what? I said that when possible you rest, if you need to do rescue someone by the end of the day then yes you do as many fights as you need to do (and charge more because you are risking more). otherwise you do not. you might as well have a fighter who refuses to wear armor, knowing that it will cost him his life.

what character reason would you give for doing 3 fights in one day, risking your life for nothing whatsoever, instead of doing three fights in three days and winning each easily and without contest? when in either case you did what you needed to do to get payed.

the 5min work day is not a metagame problem because it does not rely on out of character knowledge, its a mechanics problem.

[Arzanyos]

Think about it. Baron Moneybags asks you how long it would take to storm the tower of Archmage Baddude. You say "about three weeks, assuming we can fortify a camp close enough to the tower." He'd probably reply "Well, these other adventurers will do it for the same pay in one week. Your services are not needed here."

[captpike]

Think about it. Baron Moneybags asks you how long it would take to storm the tower of Archmage Baddude. You say "about three weeks, assuming we can fortify a camp close enough to the tower." He'd probably reply "Well, these other adventurers will do it for the same pay in one week. Your services are not needed here."

please either read what I wrote or go away.


what? I said that when possible you rest, if you need to do rescue someone by the end of the day then yes you do as many fights as you need to do (and charge more because you are risking more).


when possible you rest it is not always possible. the only reasons you should have more then one fight in a day is if you have no choice, if your on a timer, if you were jumped ect.


WHEN POSSIBLE YOU REST, OTHERWISE YOU DO NOT. that is also why you should charge more. doing one fight a day you have very little real risk, doing 3+ you do.

[Arzanyos]

I have read what you said. I am saying that that is not a hard and fast rule. It may be your rule, but it is not everyone's. Human's are impatient by nature, they often charge in before they are "fully rested".

You can use your system, I'm just saying that from the questgiver's perspective, it would be more efficient to hire the group that is willing to fight longer hours and get the job done quicker.

Also, if you don't like risk, why are you an adventurer?

[captpike]

I have read what you said. I am saying that that is not a hard and fast rule. It may be your rule, but it is not everyone's. Human's are impatient by nature, they often charge in before they are "fully rested".

You can use your system, I'm just saying that from the questgiver's perspective, it would be more efficient to hire the group that is willing to fight longer hours and get the job done quicker.

Also, if you don't like risk, why are you an adventurer?

as I said no less then three times beforeWHEN THE SITUATION CALLS FOR IT, YOU DO FIGHT MULTIPLE TIMES PER DAY

just because you have a dangerous job does not mean you are rush into every situation without thought.

for some quests yes, you accept that you will have to risk more, and so you charge more. but all else being equal you should not do more then one fight per day unless you want to die. for the same reason that a SEALwould never go on a mission with only 5 bullets when he could wait a day and have as many clips as he wants (without a very good reason). yes 5 bullets could be enough but why take the chance?

[Arzanyos]

Yes, I know. I'm talking about situations when the haste is NOT necessary. Also, it's not exactly like your example. I'd say it's like a SEAL going in with only, say, 3 clips instead of waiting for a fourth.

[captpike]

Yes, I know. I'm talking about situations when the haste is NOT necessary. Also, it's not exactly like your example. I'd say it's like a SEAL going in with only, say, 3 clips instead of waiting for a fourth.

if its not necessary then your questgiver would not care. or would encourage you to move slowly so you would be more likely to win.

my comparison was apt, the difference between having one or two casters being free to use all their spells in a fight, vs being able forced to hold back is the difference between easily winning with no or little risk and having real risk of death.

[Arzanyos]

What, pray tell, is so wrong with risk?

[captpike]

What, pray tell, is so wrong with risk?

...death? why risk death for literally no gain?

[Arzanyos]

Risk and death are not the same thing. Also, risk and gain are not mutually exclusive.

EDIT: Like, with the dragon in the other thread. Why risk death by trying to defeat it? What do you gain? You gain having defeated a dragon.

[captpike]

Risk and death are not the same thing. Also, risk and gain are not mutually exclusive.

EDIT: Like, with the dragon in the other thread. Why risk death by trying to defeat it? What do you gain? You gain having defeated a dragon.

sure, you can and should risk for gain. however conversely you should never risk death for nothing. when you get the same reward for doing a quest in three days or one day why do it in one? you are risking death for no reward.

[Arzanyos]

What I'm trying to say is that you cannot always set your terms. There are other adventurers out there, and they can and will scoop your plot hooks if they get the chance.

[captpike]

What I'm trying to say is that you cannot always set your terms. There are other adventurers out there, and they can and will scoop your plot hooks if they get the chance.

of course, but by the same token you can always go to someone else if the questgiver refuses to pay extra for speed, even though it means you more then double your risk

[Arzanyos]

Yes you can. If that's no skin off your nose, then all right.

[rlc]

what i've learned from playing rpgs is that most of the risky quests are the important ones. those tend to be risky whether or not you're fully healed. the ones that have little to no risk are generally the "go get me this" quests.

[Sartharina]

"Stormwind fallacy" is a name given to a specific type of false dichotomy - that 'roleplaying' and 'optimisation' are mutually exclusive, which should be self-evidently untrue.

That is, it's not 'bad roleplaying' to take the best options, nor is it 'good roleplaying' to take the worst.

I'm not entirely sure how it applies to this conversation, but that's what people mean when they cite the Stormwind fallacy. (Stormwind, by the way, is the person who coined it.)

Unfortunately, it tends to be overly liberally-applied by munchkins to say that gimping a character for the sake of Roleplay is 'bad'. Yes, I can play a Blessed God of Battle or Master Conjurer as a character just as interesting, unique, and well-rounded as a rookie swordsman trying to make a name for himself, or amateur wizzard struggling to learn magic despite handicapped intellect - but sometimes I do want to play the rookie farmboy instead of the born-and-bred God Of War. One's not inherently better than the other, but they are different, and statting them the same feels... dishonest to me.

sure, you can and should risk for gain. however conversely you should never risk death for nothing. when you get the same reward for doing a quest in three days or one day why do it in one? you are risking death for no reward.Actually - doing it in One day instead of Three gives you Two extra days to get more quests (More money+experience!) or more days to PAAARTAY! If you can do a quest in one day, why stretch it out over three?

[ambartanen]

Unfortunately, it tends to be overly liberally-applied by munchkins to say that gimping a character for the sake of Roleplay is 'bad'. Yes, I can play a Blessed God of Battle or Master Conjurer as a character just as interesting, unique, and well-rounded as a rookie swordsman trying to make a name for himself, or amateur wizzard struggling to learn magic despite handicapped intellect - but sometimes I do want to play the rookie farmboy instead of the born-and-bred God Of War. One's not inherently better than the other, but they are different, and statting them the same feels... dishonest to me.?

One is inherently better by your own words. A farmboy that picked up a sword for the first time yesterday has no place adventuring with a demigod of war unless that relationship is the central point of the adventure. Those differing power levels are why people pick different systems and settings or at least starting levels for games that have such different characters. Please explain to me what adventuring group that risk their lives on a daily basis against powerful enemies would pick a fighter with 10 str, 10 dex and 10 con but 20 int as their ally. It is obvious not only to the players but to the characters that that character is incompetent at their job. And while struggling against your own limitations might be quite impressive and require interesting character motivation, the first troll you meet will bash you allies' heads in making the other players suffer for the incompetence of the fighter or he will become a sidekick/mascot figure there for the entertainment. Alternatively, the group might want to play some adventure about incompetent/comical characters but DnD (any version) is just a poor system to do that.

I wanted to answer a few different people but there have been so many posts that I kind of lost track so I will just try to answer everyone at once:

My position is that having clearly inferior choices in the armor table is bad because it punishes roleplaying and leads to silly arguments. The current armor table does in no way accurately reflect reality or represent historical armors so it's not like you are maintaining realism by sticking to it meanwhile you punish a fighter with Japanese-flavored armor descriptions because "his armor is inferior to high Middle Ages European plate" which is just stupid. In fact, you just punish imagination in gear descriptions and forcibly divide people into "optimizers" and "roleplayers" as several people in this topic have heavily implied that you aren't really roleplaying unless you pick a non-optimal choice. What I want is to make a samurai and knight equally well armored fighters instead of having one have an advantage. I am, however, seeing a lot of opposition from people who seem to think that would ruin their fun in playing a samurai or make it impossible to do so.

So let's imagine the PHB included a healer's kit that contains cat gut, an iron needle, bandages, disinfectant, a scalpel and other miscellaneous gear of that type. Now, an injured character might go to a regular healer and have his injury disinfected and sewn up. They might, otherwise, go to an alternative medicine practitioner and be given some lemon juice and sugar diluted in water to drink. In the real world the first is very likely to work but the second won't do anything helpful. According to these (imagined) rules the second approach doesn't do anything because it doesn't use the explicitly described healer's kit. I think the second approach should be just as effective as the first because this is a fantasy game and, so long as someone is a healer, they should be able to describe things however they want.

The discussion has gone on for so long, however, that I doubt anyone's opinion can be changed at this point. I have seen a few pretty good reason to keep the non-optimal armors (initial cost, upgrades at low levels, distinguishing badassness of NPCs, buying gear for retainers) and I admit that my attempt at a generalized table ended up being equally complex to the one in the PHB.

[Morty]

It was a nice discussion, I suppose, until someone mentioned Someone's Fallacy.

[cobaltstarfire]

My position is that having clearly inferior choices in the armor table is bad because it punishes roleplaying and leads to silly arguments.


I was thinking about this and yeah it makes sense..but the way the rules are set up I don't see it as a punishment, not for level 1 anyway.

The maximum starting gold (for the classes in basic) is only 200, and no one gets plate in the starting package right? I imagine the low level monsters are also balanced around that? And as you level up and find/become able to afford better gear you eventually end up with superior armor. Then you may even get lucky and find some magical stuff later on.

I don't mind having room to grow, either from a rp standpoint, or an optimization standpoint.

[Sartharina]

One is inherently better by your own words. A farmboy that picked up a sword for the first time yesterday has no place adventuring with a demigod of war unless that relationship is the central point of the adventure. Those differing power levels are why people pick different systems and settings or at least starting levels for games that have such different characters. Please explain to me what adventuring group that risk their lives on a daily basis against powerful enemies would pick a fighter with 10 str, 10 dex and 10 con but 20 int as their ally. It is obvious not only to the players but to the characters that that character is incompetent at their job. And while struggling against your own limitations might be quite impressive and require interesting character motivation, the first troll you meet will bash you allies' heads in making the other players suffer for the incompetence of the fighter or he will become a sidekick/mascot figure there for the entertainment. Alternatively, the group might want to play some adventure about incompetent/comical characters but DnD (any version) is just a poor system to do that.Heroes don't get to choose who get to be heroes. They pick the 13 STR/10 Dex/13 Con guy because he happens to be the guy who's there, and extra actions are appreciated. What he lacks in brute force he has to make up for in resourcefulness and luck. And this has nothing to do with comicalness. The farmboy isn't any less a person than the God of War, which is what you're arguing.



Also - I imagine Samurai Armor would likely be Half-Plate, or perhaps a Superior form of half-plate that has 1 greater AC than normal Half-plate, so that a DEX 14 Samurai has the same AC as a Full-plate knight.

[rlc]

My position is that having clearly inferior choices in the armor table is bad because it punishes roleplaying
the problem is that your position is oversimplifying things. unless you're roleplaying a character who refuses to learn and grow, then you should try to make the very best decisions. the eastern example is a good one because, even though samurai wore splint mail and folded their iron for their katanas for many years, it's because that's the best that they had. when they got ahold of better quality western stuff, they used it.

[LaserFace]

You guys are totes aware you're all just arguing past each other, right?

[Elderand]

You guys are totes aware you're all just arguing past each other, right?

http://www.troll.me/images/creepy-willy-wonka/you-must-be-new-to-the-internet-thumb.jpg

[rlc]

man, "totes" is one of those words that just makes me cringe.

[LaserFace]

http://www.troll.me/images/creepy-willy-wonka/you-must-be-new-to-the-internet-thumb.jpg

hahahaha

GG

[Morty]

I was thinking about this and yeah it makes sense..but the way the rules are set up I don't see it as a punishment, not for level 1 anyway.

The maximum starting gold (for the classes in basic) is only 200, and no one gets plate in the starting package right? I imagine the low level monsters are also balanced around that? And as you level up and find/become able to afford better gear you eventually end up with superior armor. Then you may even get lucky and find some magical stuff later on.

I don't mind having room to grow, either from a rp standpoint, or an optimization standpoint.

Is getting slightly better AC or slightly lower penalties to checks really meaningful progression and growth?

[Sartharina]

Is getting slightly better AC or slightly lower penalties to checks really meaningful progression and growth?Frankly... Yes.

That said, I loved that Scale Armor was awesome in 4e, and miss it this time around :(

[Logosloki]

If you are playing in magical late medieval Europe where your players are drowning in money and items then there is no real point to a massive armour table. A full armour table should really be an optional rule in the DMs manual as it is more useful to the DM for making, advancing and enhancing foes and items and for setting restrictions due to the setting you are playing ala Dark Sun. What your players need is Clothing, Light, Medium and Heavy armours which have their mechanical differences and then you, the DM should be encouraging the players to fluff up their armour with a good descriptive sentence.

There is a case to be made, much like the electrum piece for when you are designing a tomb from antiquity or ancient times to use inferior armour on denizens of the dungeon but I would still make any magical or well crafted items mechanically the best for the setting (other loot can be whatever you like).

[cobaltstarfire]

Is getting slightly better AC or slightly lower penalties to checks really meaningful progression and growth?

You're talking to someone that would be fairly excited to get a borderline useless magical trinket with some odd ball ability to try to find a weird use for. :smallbiggrin:

But yes, a slightly better AC with less penalties would be something I consider nice, slightly better is still better in my opinion.

[Sartharina]

If you are playing in magical late medieval Europe where your players are drowning in money and items then there is no real point to a massive armour table.We're not talking about 3rd and 4th edition here.

[Logosloki]

We're not talking about 3rd and 4th edition here.

Do you object to the magical medieval Europe part or to the drowning in money and items part? Because neither has anything to do with edition.

[Soular]

There is a case to be made, much like the electrum piece for when you are designing a tomb from antiquity or ancient times to use inferior armour on denizens of the dungeon but I would still make any magical or well crafted items mechanically the best for the setting (other loot can be whatever you like).

The problem I have with this is that it eliminates choice for the players. Getting new armor becomes nothing more than, "I look for any plate mail. Is the + bigger than the suit I'm wearing? If not then throw it on the pile and we'll sell it with the rest of the trash."

Let's say I want to give the fighter something cool, but I think the current balance between party members is really good, and I don't want to give him a flat efficiency buff. Right now he is wearing his +2 Plate Mail of Boring Ubiquitousness.

So they cleared out a temple full of undead in a long lost, underground city. And for arguments sake, lets say that the highest level of armor technology found in this place has been chain mail. But after beating the armor off the undead high priest, they discover that though the armor is possibly hundreds (if not thousands) of years old, once cleaned up it gleams like new without a single sign of damage on it. After a bit of research, the armor's true properties are known: +2 Chain Mail of Proverbial C0ck-block. It renders the wearer immune to the extra damage from critical strikes, or sneak attacks, or any other bonus physical damage from enemies. (This is just an example - obviously it would need to be statistically tested against his plate before introducing something like it into a game.)

Now the fighter has a real choice. Yes, he will get hit more often when wearing the chain mail, but the incoming damage will be far less peaky, and much more manageable. Heck, he may end up taking less damage anyway without the crits and such. Oh, and he has a badass suit of armor of a style and craftsmanship that no one has seen in centuries. That alone can lead to plot hooks and such down the line. And later when it's time to buff the fighter a bit, well, he may just happen across a +2 Plate Mail of Shock and Awe. Something that will be a clear upgrade over anything he has had before, but not too high that he becomes unmanageable.

I am not saying this is the best way to run a campaign. It's just my way. I like it because it allows the players to upgrade more often, and make choices between potentially cool special effects. It makes the game feel more dynamic, and the poor guy doesn't feel locked into the same old suit of armor for five levels.

[Soular]

Also - I imagine Samurai Armor would likely be Half-Plate, or perhaps a Superior form of half-plate that has 1 greater AC than normal Half-plate, so that a DEX 14 Samurai has the same AC as a Full-plate knight.

I like your thinking.

I would, however, suggest treating the armor as a very expensive variant of Scale Mail that allows the use of the character's full DEX bonus. This way, to a lumbering ox of a fighter the armor is worthless. But to a fighter that relies on DEX a great deal, the armor is very valuable.

Samurai were very capable archers, which would mean that many would have had a pretty decent DEX score in D&D-land. And their armor would be highly sought after by DEX based characters.

Hell, go all the way and make the katana a 200GP longsword with finesse added to its weapon properties. Again, not really of much use to most fighters, but supremely valuable for a DEX-based fighter.

[Logosloki]

The problem I have with this is that it eliminates choice for the players. Getting new armor becomes nothing more than, "I look for any plate mail. Is the + bigger than the suit I'm wearing? If not then throw it on the pile and we'll sell it with the rest of the trash."

Let's say I want to give the fighter something cool, but I think the current balance between party members is really good, and I don't want to give him a flat efficiency buff. Right now he is wearing his +2 Plate Mail of Boring Ubiquitousness.

So they cleared out a temple full of undead in a long lost, underground city. And for arguments sake, lets say that the highest level of armor technology found in this place has been chain mail. But after beating the armor off the undead high priest, they discover that though the armor is possibly hundreds (if not thousands) of years old, once cleaned up it gleams like new without a single sign of damage on it. After a bit of research, the armor's true properties are known: +2 Chain Mail of Proverbial C0ck-block. It renders the wearer immune to the extra damage from critical strikes, or sneak attacks, or any other bonus physical damage from enemies. (This is just an example - obviously it would need to be statistically tested against his plate before introducing something like it into a game.)

Now the fighter has a real choice. Yes, he will get hit more often when wearing the chain mail, but the incoming damage will be far less peaky, and much more manageable. Heck, he may end up taking less damage anyway without the crits and such. Oh, and he has a badass suit of armor of a style and craftsmanship that no one has seen in centuries. That alone can lead to plot hooks and such down the line. And later when it's time to buff the fighter a bit, well, he may just happen across a +2 Plate Mail of Shock and Awe. Something that will be a clear upgrade over anything he has had before, but not too high that he becomes unmanageable.

I am not saying this is the best way to run a campaign. It's just my way. I like it because it allows the players to upgrade more often, and make choices between potentially cool special effects. It makes the game feel more dynamic, and the poor guy doesn't feel locked into the same old suit of armor for five levels.

I shouldn't of really made the statement so definite, this is the sort of thing I like too where you give up some general power for power in a special situation. It can be hard to judge though.

[Sartharina]

I like your thinking.

I would, however, suggest treating the armor as a very expensive variant of Scale Mail that allows the use of the character's full DEX bonus. This way, to a lumbering ox of a fighter the armor is worthless. But to a fighter that relies on DEX a great deal, the armor is very valuable.

Samurai were very capable archers, which would mean that many would have had a pretty decent DEX score in D&D-land. And their armor would be highly sought after by DEX based characters.

Hell, go all the way and make the katana a 200GP longsword with finesse added to its weapon properties. Again, not really of much use to most fighters, but supremely valuable for a DEX-based fighter.Ah... like the katana from the playtest? (A finesse two-handed weapon that dealt 1d10 damage)

That said - I was acknowledging the DEX requirement by making it Half-plate armor. Half-plate is a medium armor this time around, meaning it requires a +2 DEX bonus (Not insignificant) to get full defensive bonus out of.

[Soular]

Ah... like the katana from the playtest? (A finesse two-handed weapon that dealt 1d10 damage)

That said - I was acknowledging the DEX requirement by making it Half-plate armor. Half-plate is a medium armor this time around, meaning it requires a +2 DEX bonus (Not insignificant) to get full defensive bonus out of.

Your memory is better than mine! I would have quoted the playtest had I remembered.

As for the (+1 non-magical) Half-plate samurai armor, my only issue is that it has become better than any other half-plate in the game, for any character.

However, by opening up the DEX restriction instead, you make it far better for a narrow range of characters, the DEX-based ones. This serves to explain both its rarity and value in the game.

Not saying my way is better. I just wanted to offer a counter-point.

[Morty]

Frankly... Yes.

That said, I loved that Scale Armor was awesome in 4e, and miss it this time around :(

4e armour table was somewhat less useless than in other editions, because the proficiencies were more granular. Scale armour actually had a point, because fighters weren't proficient with plate by default. And so on. Still nothing that couldn't be replaced by class-based AC you can improve by feats, though, I think.


You're talking to someone that would be fairly excited to get a borderline useless magical trinket with some odd ball ability to try to find a weird use for. :smallbiggrin:

But yes, a slightly better AC with less penalties would be something I consider nice, slightly better is still better in my opinion.

See, I'd much rather have a borderline useless trinket than a marginally more effective armour. A trinket, useless as it may be, does something. If I'm creative, I might use it to my advantage. But slightly smaller odds of being hit, with the consequences of being hit constantly lessening as I level up? Dull. Now, if all the armour types actually had properties outside small numbers... that might be worthwhile.


The problem I have with this is that it eliminates choice for the players. Getting new armor becomes nothing more than, "I look for any plate mail. Is the + bigger than the suit I'm wearing? If not then throw it on the pile and we'll sell it with the rest of the trash."

Let's say I want to give the fighter something cool, but I think the current balance between party members is really good, and I don't want to give him a flat efficiency buff. Right now he is wearing his +2 Plate Mail of Boring Ubiquitousness.

So they cleared out a temple full of undead in a long lost, underground city. And for arguments sake, lets say that the highest level of armor technology found in this place has been chain mail. But after beating the armor off the undead high priest, they discover that though the armor is possibly hundreds (if not thousands) of years old, once cleaned up it gleams like new without a single sign of damage on it. After a bit of research, the armor's true properties are known: +2 Chain Mail of Proverbial C0ck-block. It renders the wearer immune to the extra damage from critical strikes, or sneak attacks, or any other bonus physical damage from enemies. (This is just an example - obviously it would need to be statistically tested against his plate before introducing something like it into a game.)

Now the fighter has a real choice. Yes, he will get hit more often when wearing the chain mail, but the incoming damage will be far less peaky, and much more manageable. Heck, he may end up taking less damage anyway without the crits and such. Oh, and he has a badass suit of armor of a style and craftsmanship that no one has seen in centuries. That alone can lead to plot hooks and such down the line. And later when it's time to buff the fighter a bit, well, he may just happen across a +2 Plate Mail of Shock and Awe. Something that will be a clear upgrade over anything he has had before, but not too high that he becomes unmanageable.

I am not saying this is the best way to run a campaign. It's just my way. I like it because it allows the players to upgrade more often, and make choices between potentially cool special effects. It makes the game feel more dynamic, and the poor guy doesn't feel locked into the same old suit of armor for five levels.

I feel like we've been over this. A simplified system wouldn't stop you from doing just that. What you're doing is making a badly thought-out system work, but it doesn't justify the existence of an ineffective model in the first place.

Although I'll also say that passive effects like a slightly higher AC or damage reduction should be the domain of mundane craftsmanship.



Hell, go all the way and make the katana a 200GP longsword with finesse added to its weapon properties. Again, not really of much use to most fighters, but supremely valuable for a DEX-based fighter.

As if WotC was capable of imagining a finesse fighter who isn't Errol Flynn. It's not iconic enough, probably.

[cobaltstarfire]

See, I'd much rather have a borderline useless trinket than a marginally more effective armour. A trinket, useless as it may be, does something. If I'm creative, I might use it to my advantage. But slightly smaller odds of being hit, with the consequences of being hit constantly lessening as I level up? Dull. Now, if all the armour types actually had properties outside small numbers... that might be worthwhile.

Given that magic items are supposed to be more special, and therefore less common, I really can't expect armor to have special little abilities on them until later on in the game when maybe I'll find the ultimate armor with some sort of magic on it, and that'll be cool

But I'll admit even if I get excited just because I got something I will agree with you, armor is generally kind of dull. But adding extra properties won't change that much for me (unless it's some on use property I suppose) because armor is passive, I can't do much with it other than become less likely to take damage. I also don't mind having my chances of not getting hit slightly climb, I have a really bad habit of forgetting that con is actually an important stat to have. >.>


(btw I appreciate that your responses aren't like entire books, it's much easier to have a conversation!)



I have to admit, my favorite "armor" to date was in rolemaster. I got a "floppy pink hat" with +5 AT (I can't remember what AT is but it had something to do with not being hit, or not being hit as critically). I was playing a Were that tended to stay in wolf form. So I got to be what was basically a dog wearing a floppy pink hat. I couldn't care less about the +5 to my AT, I just loved the mental image of a spanish wolf wearing a hat, barking lightning at people. It replaced my "ridiculous hat" that did nothing late in the game.

[Morty]

Given that magic items are supposed to be more special, and therefore less common, I really can't expect armor to have special little abilities on them until later on in the game when maybe I'll find the ultimate armor with some sort of magic on it, and that'll be cool

That's why I'm not talking about magic, but about properties granted by mundane craftsmanship. Slightly better AC, damage reduction, different interaction with different damage types, critical hit deflection - those are all things that don't need magic. Let magic and legendary craftsmanship give really fantastical powers to equipment.


But I'll admit even if I get excited just because I got something I will agree with you, armor is generally kind of dull. But adding extra properties won't change that much for me (unless it's some on use property I suppose) because armor is passive, I can't do much with it other than become less likely to take damage. I also don't mind having my chances of not getting hit slightly climb, I have a really bad habit of forgetting that con is actually an important stat to have. >.>

It's true that armour as it is in D&D doesn't really do anything other than passively protect. In a better system, one could try to make it different, but in 5e as-is, we might as well give every class an appropriate AC score and call it a day. Numbers aren't exciting and they don't create the fiction.

[cobaltstarfire]

I wonder if that's another thing that fall into the broad category of "let's wait and see what variants are in the dmg", although even if they are non-magical I'd still expect stuff like that to be fairly uncommon, since it seems like the sort of armor that needs a very skilled craftsman and proper materials to make, maybe even a weird trade secret.

At the end of the day I'd probably play with any of the different armor rules people have mentioned in this thread, as long as they don't confuse me or make it harder to build a certain concept.

If I made a custom way of handling AC I think it'd probably be too complicated and a bad fit for 5e's design philosophy. Something like having 3 basic types of armor (light/medium/heavy) with a set AC for each, and then so many "slots" to modify the properties of the armor. Where how many slots a modification takes up is dependent on the level and strength of the modification. (I've been playing Transistor a lot lately and I really like the system it has)

[Morty]

I wonder if that's another thing that fall into the broad category of "let's wait and see what variants are in the dmg", although even if they are non-magical I'd still expect stuff like that to be fairly uncommon, since it seems like the sort of armor that needs a very skilled craftsman and proper materials to make, maybe even a weird trade secret.

Why is that? There's nothing about minor numerical properties that warrants making them uncommon, and it conflicts with the goal of providing customization to those who want it.

[cobaltstarfire]

I think it's mostly to me an enhancement is an enhancement, whether it's magical in nature, or mundane (extra DR, %dodge, energy resistance, whatever). It's still an extra bell added to the armor to make it shinier than if it was just the base armor. So it feels like something that has to be balanced against magic gear.

I'm not actually sure where that relates exactly to customization though, making something less common than the most basic stuff doesn't hurt customization, it just makes you have to work for it, whether that's getting lucky and looting it, finding a craftsman capable of it, or gathering the proper materials for it.


We may be talking about slightly different things though, I'm not sure.

[Morty]

I think it's mostly to me an enhancement is an enhancement, whether it's magical in nature, or mundane (extra DR, %dodge, energy resistance, whatever). It's still an extra bell added to the armor to make it shinier than if it was just the base armor. So it feels like something that has to be balanced against magic gear.

This is where magic items letting you do things come in. A magic armour shouldn't give you better numbers, it should let you float or reflect arrows.


I'm not actually sure where that relates exactly to customization though, making something less common than the most basic stuff doesn't hurt customization, it just makes you have to work for it, whether that's getting lucky and looting it, finding a craftsman capable of it, or gathering the proper materials for it.

Well, no point in getting into specific of just how common or uncommon tags should be, really.