Plate Armor...What the actual hell?

[DracoKnight]

So...can anyone explain to me why plate is so damn expensive? It goes from 200 gp (Splint) to 1500 gp. It jumps 1300 gold for 1 AC. I'm not bitching just because I wanna buy plate for 500 gp. I'm just trying to figure out, as a DM, why their armor prices are so screwed up.

[Ralanr]

Well that really good plate armor back in the old days was only affordable to nobles, because it was freaking expensive.

I believe there was a tactic to capturing knights alive for ransom. If he can afford plate armor, his family must be rich.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Long story short, it's always been that way, all the way back to ADnD (1.3).

The folks who made this game have messed up ideas about armor.

[djreynolds]

It's the cost of manufacturing it to usually one person. Even body armor is sized and too small you can't breath and too large you feel like a turtle. Plate armor was tailored to individuals. It used to be if you won plate armor you had to pay to have it configured to you. It really is cool stuff, I've worn some and it was surprisingly very maneuverable for 60-70 lbs.

[Sigreid]

It actually makes sense in a historical context. A suit of full plate armor, such as worn by high nobility and royalty represents the very height of engineering for the time. Not only did it require extreme skill to craft the individual pieces, but the craftsman had to have a solid understanding of how the body moves and fit it like a well tailored tuxedo. Scale armor on the other hand, I can craft in my garage with some sheet metal, and good leather.

[Slipperychicken]

So...can anyone explain to me why plate is so damn expensive? It goes from 200 gp (Splint) to 1500 gp. It jumps 1300 gold for 1 AC. I'm not bitching just because I wanna buy plate for 500 gp. I'm just trying to figure out, as a DM, why their armor prices are so screwed up.

It was quite time-consuming and expensive to make, required a lot of specialized skill, and needed to be balanced and tailored. There's also the fact that plate involved padding and chain beneath the plates themselves.

Despite what video games might have you believe, there's more to armor than strapping road signs all over your body.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Despite what video games might have you believe, there's more to armor than strapping road signs all over your body.

That just about says it all, doesn't it?

Metalworking techniques and the creation of high quality iron and steel were state secrets. People who knew them were in demand, and were very very busy. Part of the cost was simply getting on the list. Fittings were necessary. And it goes on and on.

Still don't buy it? Imagine making an elbow piece that keeps the elbow covered while connected to tubes above and below (bicep, forearm) as the arm moves. You need at least two other pieces that move with (articulate) the tubes from 180 to about 20 degrees and "hide" under the elbow cover without exposing the skin underneath. And this has to be as light and as durable (opposites) as you can make it. You now have about 1/12 of the system. Don't even think about gauntlets.

[TheOOB]

Plate armor was only ever worn by well to do nobles, the wealthiest of knights, and maybe an insanely wealthy mercenary or two. It has to be crafted for a specific person and takes months where every other type of armor can be produced in large quantities to some degree.

[PoeticDwarf]

So...can anyone explain to me why plate is so damn expensive? It goes from 200 gp (Splint) to 1500 gp. It jumps 1300 gold for 1 AC. I'm not bitching just because I wanna buy plate for 500 gp. I'm just trying to figure out, as a DM, why their armor prices are so screwed up.

Because a low level adventurer may not get plate.
If you're lv. 9 or higher, 1500gp isn't that much. So you can buy it.

And 1AC can save your live.

[Naanomi]

Breastplate, not too expensive
Add a few torso bits for half-plate, still reasonable
Full plate adds arms and legs and a huge price jump. Arms and legs are hard to make.

Also remember that the gold cost of any weapons or armor puts it all in the 'exorbitantly expensive' range for your basic farmer

[Shining Wrath]

Where 5e is wrong is not so much the price, as the benefit. There were two kinds of plate: parade plate, which was immensely ornate and not very functional, and full battle plate, which was immensely functional.

As in "there are very few things you can do to a person in full plate that will kill them" functional. There's a reason why the misericorde was invented.

Full plate ought to be something like AC 20 and provide damage reduction of 3 against all attacks except psychic, radiant, and necrotic. Yes, even against force.

[Slipperychicken]

Also remember that the gold cost of any weapons or armor puts it all in the 'exorbitantly expensive' range for your basic farmer

I find it helps to think in silver pieces rather than gold. It puts things in perspective to see even lesser armors costing in the thousands, when even a well-off person makes maybe 10 silver per day and spends most of that on living expenses.



Full plate ought to be something like AC 20 and provide damage reduction of 3 against all attacks except psychic, radiant, and necrotic. Yes, even against force.

I still think armor should just be damage-reduction, as it is in many other games. That would model its effects a lot better.

[VoxRationis]

That just about says it all, doesn't it?

Metalworking techniques and the creation of high quality iron and steel were state secrets. People who knew them were in demand, and were very very busy. Part of the cost was simply getting on the list. Fittings were necessary. And it goes on and on.

Still don't buy it? Imagine making an elbow piece that keeps the elbow covered while connected to tubes above and below (bicep, forearm) as the arm moves. You need at least two other pieces that move with (articulate) the tubes from 180 to about 20 degrees and "hide" under the elbow cover without exposing the skin underneath. And this has to be as light and as durable (opposites) as you can make it. You now have about 1/12 of the system. Don't even think about gauntlets.

Not to mention shoulders! It took me ages, even looking at pictures, to figure out how they could have articulated.

[Shining Wrath]

I find it helps to think in silver pieces rather than gold. It puts things in perspective to see even lesser armors costing in the thousands, when even a well-off person makes maybe 10 silver per day and spends most of that on living expenses.



I still think armor should just be damage-reduction, as it is in many other games. That would model its effects a lot better.

I think there's room for both; AC to measure how completely covered you are by the armor, DR to measure how much benefit you get from the armor.

So if you've got a foe in scale with shield (making numbers up as I go, don't hold me to this as thought-out)
Scale gives +4 to AC because it covers a lot of the body, and grants DR 6 because it's fairly hard to penetrate
Shield gives +2 to AC because it covers about half the body, and grants DR 3 because it keeps the blow away from the body (if we want to get complicated, it grants DR equal to the STR modifier of the wielder plus 1 or 2).

Roll a 11, you hit the shield, then the scale, and the blow loses 9 points of damage.
Roll a 13, you bypass the shield, hit the scale, the blow loses 6 points of damage
Roll a 17, you bypass both shield and scale, and the blow does full effect
Roll a 9, you missed.

In this system full plate would be, perhaps, AC 20 and DR 10 - you can see how a ordinary peasant with a club has almost no chance of hurting the knight even though he's hitting the armor almost every blow. A giant, on the other hand, would hit the armor and knock the knight back, doing some damage.

[Sigreid]

I find it helps to think in silver pieces rather than gold. It puts things in perspective to see even lesser armors costing in the thousands, when even a well-off person makes maybe 10 silver per day and spends most of that on living expenses.



I still think armor should just be damage-reduction, as it is in many other games. That would model its effects a lot better.

AC is not entirely wrong. Armor design did Pay a lot of attention to angles of deflection. It has always been true that it's much easier to redirect force than oppose it.

[Slipperychicken]

AC is not entirely wrong. Armor design did Pay a lot of attention to angles of deflection. It has always been true that it's much easier to redirect force than oppose it.

Still though, deflection could easily be seen as an instance of reducing damage to zero. And even when you get a solid hit in, good armor will still greatly mitigate the blow. But as far as Armor Class is concerned, as long as it connects, the target might as well be naked.

[Sigreid]

Still though, deflection could easily be seen as an instance of reducing damage to zero. And even when you get a solid hit in, good armor will still greatly mitigate the blow. But as far as Armor Class is concerned, as long as it connects, the target might as well be naked.

Fair enough. I think combat is hard to model for a game so I just roll with it. Worth noting that when D&D first introduced field and full plate they did have DR.

[Doug Lampert]

Well that really good plate armor back in the old days was only affordable to nobles, because it was freaking expensive.

I believe there was a tactic to capturing knights alive for ransom. If he can afford plate armor, his family must be rich.

This is true for full plate, but cheap plate, which you can also make if you can make the good stuff is also much better than scale, and was so cheap that common soldiers were expected to have it. Plate was basically the first type of armor where entire armies could afford metal armor, many pikemen and archers wore plate.

Plate was the most expensive personal body armor ever, but at the time it was also the cheapest (really useful) personal body armor ever.

Even low quality plate is much cheaper than chain (drawing wire is hard), it hangs better and distributes the weight better than chain, once you take padding into account it weighs less and inhibits movement less than chain (plate cut the padding drastically since the metal did a lot of the distribution of the blow), and it's better protection.

Except for joint coverage and a few other specialized uses all other types of metal armor basically went out of use nearly as fast as plate could be manufactured once steel plate became possible. D&D armor is horribly anachronistic, showing armors that weren't ever really used within 300 years of each other as both being on sale at the same time and place.


Breastplate, not too expensive
Add a few torso bits for half-plate, still reasonable
Full plate adds arms and legs and a huge price jump. Arms and legs are hard to make.

Also remember that the gold cost of any weapons or armor puts it all in the 'exorbitantly expensive' range for your basic farmer
This also, articulated plate joints were HARD to make, and in something D&D ignores they were maintenance hogs, bent metal in that armor joint is a lot better than sharp metal in the flesh below, but it still needs work.

[VoxRationis]

This is true for full plate, but cheap plate, which you can also make if you can make the good stuff is also much better than scale, and was so cheap that common soldiers were expected to have it. Plate was basically the first type of armor where entire armies could afford metal armor, many pikemen and archers wore plate.

Plate was the most expensive personal body armor ever, but at the time it was also the cheapest (really useful) personal body armor ever.

Even low quality plate is much cheaper than chain (drawing wire is hard), it hangs better and distributes the weight better than chain, once you take padding into account it weighs less and inhibits movement less than chain (plate cut the padding drastically since the metal did a lot of the distribution of the blow), and it's better protection.

Except for joint coverage and a few other specialized uses all other types of metal armor basically went out of use nearly as fast as plate could be manufactured once steel plate became possible. D&D armor is horribly anachronistic, showing armors that weren't ever really used within 300 years of each other as both being on sale at the same time and place.


This also, articulated plate joints were HARD to make, and in something D&D ignores they were maintenance hogs, bent metal in that armor joint is a lot better than sharp metal in the flesh below, but it still needs work.

It's true that munition-grade plate was mass-produced for the common soldier, but it showed up slightly after the full plate showed up (14th v. 15th century, at least according to the Wikipedia pages on the respective armor types). We could simply argue that the game assumes a pre-15th cent. timeframe, and that the plate armor depicted is of the earliest kinds of full plate. That would also explain why wheellocks aren't common weapons. But yes, including scale and mail alongside full plate is anachronistic, excepting in cases where different cultures with different armor preferences are interacting.

[Coidzor]

I find the lack of Dex to AC at all to be more of a challenge to my immersion than the cost, and I know why they did that.

[Slipperychicken]

I find the lack of Dex to AC at all to be more of a challenge to my immersion than the cost, and I know why they did that.

This is another reason why I would rather have armor as DR; so characters in heavy armor could still benefit from dexterity.

It would mainly let us portray knights and men-at-arms as the agile and reactive combatants which they were IRL. But it would also clearly distinguish between attacks which miss entirely (attack roll 10 or lower), ones which are avoided because of the defender's agility (atk roll between 10 and target's AC), and ones which the target's armor and shield deflected or absorbed (hit, but damage reduced to zero).

[Shining Wrath]

This is another reason why I would rather have armor as DR; so characters in heavy armor could still benefit from dexterity.

It would mainly let us portray knights and men-at-arms as the agile and reactive combatants which they were IRL. But it would also clearly distinguish between attacks which miss entirely (attack roll 10 or lower), ones which are avoided because of the defender's agility (atk roll between 10 and target's AC), and ones which the target's armor and shield deflected or absorbed (hit, but damage reduced to zero).

And then you could adjust either AC or DR based on proficiency; full plate on a non-proficient person doesn't reduce damage quite as well as someone who knows how to take advantage of the angles and cushions and what have you.

[Sigreid]

And then you could adjust either AC or DR based on proficiency; full plate on a non-proficient person doesn't reduce damage quite as well as someone who knows how to take advantage of the angles and cushions and what have you.

I did like in Star Wars Saga Edition how as you leveled up your level increased your AC out of armor, and soldiers had a talent that let them add part of their armor rating to that level adjusted AC as a unique class feature.

[PoeticDwarf]

I still think armor should just be damage-reduction, as it is in many other games. That would model its effects a lot better.

Maybe, but that isn't going to work in DnD (5e).
And psy damage would be too OP.

[Doug Lampert]

This is another reason why I would rather have armor as DR; so characters in heavy armor could still benefit from dexterity.

It would mainly let us portray knights and men-at-arms as the agile and reactive combatants which they were IRL. But it would also clearly distinguish between attacks which miss entirely (attack roll 10 or lower), ones which are avoided because of the defender's agility (atk roll between 10 and target's AC), and ones which the target's armor and shield deflected or absorbed (hit, but damage reduced to zero).

The problem with armor as DR is that you have to TOTALLY redo the weapons.

The actual advantage of longer weapons (a great sword as opposed to a dagger for example), is that it's easier to HIT with the great sword. Better reach, faster (it really is), better able to get around or past defenses.

Lots of those big heavy two handed pole weapons had hooks and bars to try to unbalance or hinder the guy in plate, because even with a big two handed weapon, you weren't overcoming the "DR", you needed to get the guy helpless so you could hit where the armor isn't (which AC does a sort of, kind of model of).

The most damaging/penetrative strike most people can make is a full extension lunge with their weight behind a stabbing sharp point, it makes surprisingly little difference how hard this hits whether it's delivered with an 9' spear, 4' sword, or 12" dagger.

A dagger (Misericord or Poignard) was often carried as the weapon best able to damage the guy in full plate, if armor is DR you need to give these weapons some of the highest damages in the game. Maces and mauls and a few other big two handed weapons also do better against armor and thus need more damage in an "armor is DR" world.

So you wind up with most longer/heavier weapons getting more attacks or big bonuses to hit, while a dagger or blunt weapon gets a penalty to hit or provokes opportunity attacks when used or something else to explain why there weren't lots of armies using the things for their main weapon.

Just tagging an "armor is DR" rule onto existing D&D combat actually makes the system less realistic.

[Ralanr]

The problem with armor as DR is that you have to TOTALLY redo the weapons.

The actual advantage of longer weapons (a great sword as opposed to a dagger for example), is that it's easier to HIT with the great sword. Better reach, faster (it really is), better able to get around or past defenses.

Lots of those big heavy two handed pole weapons had hooks and bars to try to unbalance or hinder the guy in plate, because even with a big two handed weapon, you weren't overcoming the "DR", you needed to get the guy helpless so you could hit where the armor isn't (which AC does a sort of, kind of model of).

The most damaging/penetrative strike most people can make is a full extension lunge with their weight behind a stabbing sharp point, it makes surprisingly little difference how hard this hits whether it's delivered with an 9' spear, 4' sword, or 12" dagger.

A dagger (Misericord or Poignard) was often carried as the weapon best able to damage the guy in full plate, if armor is DR you need to give these weapons some of the highest damages in the game. Maces and mauls and a few other big two handed weapons also do better against armor and thus need more damage in an "armor is DR" world.

So you wind up with most longer/heavier weapons getting more attacks or big bonuses to hit, while a dagger or blunt weapon gets a penalty to hit or provokes opportunity attacks when used or something else to explain why there weren't lots of armies using the things for their main weapon.

Just tagging an "armor is DR" rule onto existing D&D combat actually makes the system less realistic.

Which then leads to reworked combat into more realistic simulations. This is probably why it won't happen since D&D doesn't want to be very realistic or very unrealistic.

For some people the middleground isn't comfy.

[Slipperychicken]

The problem with armor as DR is that you have to TOTALLY redo the weapons.


Yeah, I've sometimes went on about "armor-penetration" ratings for weapons, using those to represent weapons' effectiveness against armor (reducing the DR applied to their damage). A club or a sling wouldn't do so well against heavy armor, but a maul or heavy crossbow would fare better. Daggers might also have a good penetration rating, which would help justify their continued use.

[EvanescentHero]

Didn't the original D&D have weapons that were better against certain types of armor? Like it was easier to damage a guy in plate with a bludgeoning weapon or something?

While far more realistic, that's way more fiddly than many people, myself included, want to get.

[obryn]

It's a game balance decision intended to gate off higher armor classes.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Didn't the original D&D have weapons that were better against certain types of armor? Like it was easier to damage a guy in plate with a bludgeoning weapon or something?

While far more realistic, that's way more fiddly than many people, myself included, want to get.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Every weapon had both a to hit and damage adjustment based on the AC they attacked. AC was presumed to be a specific combination of armor with or without shield. The warhammer was a great weapon vs AC 4 through 2 because it penetrated (good to hit) and used force (good damage). But checking every weapon in used versus ever armor combination in use was way too much to take.

Once upon a time, two guys wanting to simulate mass combat would look up the relative effectiveness of a weapon versus the armor worn. It was a fairly efficient attempt at realism when you had a group of (10? 60?) longbowmen determined to be +3 to hit and +4 damage versus the chainmail and no shield of a certain group of Norman axe-users. One die roll determined if the longbowmen were effective over a one minute period in shooting up their target, and one die roll to determine how much hurt happened to the ax guys. If the axe guys (rated as having eight or ten hits worth of damage) took more hits that their point value then they ceased to be combat effective (ran away, fell wounded/dying on the field, etc.) and the battle raged on. Time elapsed to simulate? Much less than the minute of game time simulated. Whole battles were simulated in about (or maybe less than!) the time it took to fight them.

Nowadays, your elf draws a bead on one baddie carrying what might have been a chair and wearing castoff bits of armor held together by bootlaces or whatever...***sigh*** AC15. Looking up the longbow bonuses in this situation, arguing whether there's advantage, cover, or a sneak rules to apply, looking at range mods, rolling the die, adding, double checking, rolling damage, bitching about the roll, subtracting hits by the DM who you insist now describes the bad guy as bloodied, staggered, unfazed, dead, etc... Time elapsed most of a minute to simulate six seconds.

Results may vary, check your DM for ideas to streamline this process. I've got a bunch. I'm gonna go put 'em in a thread and ask for feedback.

Remember, this is an improvement over 3.5 and 4 (or so I've been told).

[BigONotation]

Heavy armor should all provide DR.
I do not like the Heavy Armor Master feat at all and have removed it from the campaigns I run.
Chain and Splint provide 1 DR.
Plate is 3 DR.

[Ralanr]

Heavy armor should all provide DR.
I do not like the Heavy Armor Master feat at all and have removed it from the campaigns I run.
Chain and Splint provide 1 DR.
Plate is 3 DR.

How has that worked out?

[BigONotation]

How has that worked out?

No complaints so far. Of course, out of my two current campaigns there is 1 person in splint and 1 person in full plate. It doesn't seem to irk anyone else around the table, and I believe it pleases our wizard the most (ironic I know) because he couldn't understand why from a gamist perspective something would have a such a high cost for such little benefit.

[Knaight]

Well that really good plate armor back in the old days was only affordable to nobles, because it was freaking expensive.

I believe there was a tactic to capturing knights alive for ransom. If he can afford plate armor, his family must be rich.
This isn't accurate. By the late 1400's, it wasn't uncommon for fairly good plate armor to be widely distributed throughout an army, particularly in central and central-eastern Europe. It was by no means cheap, but common soldiers frequently wore it, and it was often high quality. There were distinct designs that only ever showed up for nobility or royalty, but that often had more to do with decoration than the practical end. Once fire gilding was developed (1510ish), it often even came at the expense of protection to some degree due to the interference of the fire gilding process with tempering. On the other hand, you could get people making stuff that looks like this: http://40.media.tumblr.com/3cf1649f47063af8c50fbcca2c57f26e/tumblr_n6gmxbOPW81rlaql2o1_500.jpg


It actually makes sense in a historical context. A suit of full plate armor, such as worn by high nobility and royalty represents the very height of engineering for the time. Not only did it require extreme skill to craft the individual pieces, but the craftsman had to have a solid understanding of how the body moves and fit it like a well tailored tuxedo. Scale armor on the other hand, I can craft in my garage with some sheet metal, and good leather.
It doesn't make that much sense compared to other things on the list though. Plate armor costs as much as a small herd of elephants. It costs as much as 20 mail hauberks - and mail was also the pinnacle of engineering for its time, it was also very expensive, and the labor involved in mail production is ridiculous. It takes a good long time even for modern people making butted mail out of already existing wires. Add in better rings (e.g. alternating riveted and solid ones), the need to actually draw wire or punch solid rings, and the metallurgical constraints, and you get something significantly more expensive than plate ever was until you start getting into the decorative side again.

This isn't a realism decision. It's a game mechanics decision to make it take longer to get expensive armors and the associated AC bonus.

[VoxRationis]

It doesn't make that much sense compared to other things on the list though. Plate armor costs as much as a small herd of elephants. It costs as much as 20 mail hauberks - and mail was also the pinnacle of engineering for its time, it was also very expensive, and the labor involved in mail production is ridiculous. It takes a good long time even for modern people making butted mail out of already existing wires. Add in better rings (e.g. alternating riveted and solid ones), the need to actually draw wire or punch solid rings, and the metallurgical constraints, and you get something significantly more expensive than plate ever was until you start getting into the decorative side again.


And yet we see the Western Roman Empire fall back to equipping its soldiers with mail again, abandoning the (vaguely plate-like) lorica segmentata of Trajan's empire, which, while not exactly like plate, would have required similar beating of iron and steel into flat sheets rather than wire rings. As labor-intensive as it is for hobbyists to make it now, mail must have been somehow more logistically practical, at least below a certain ceiling of development, back in the day. Perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way, though.

[Hawkstar]

This is another reason why I would rather have armor as DR; so characters in heavy armor could still benefit from dexterity.

It would mainly let us portray knights and men-at-arms as the agile and reactive combatants which they were IRL. But it would also clearly distinguish between attacks which miss entirely (attack roll 10 or lower)
5 or lower. Mostly-Inanimate objects have a dexterity modifier of -5.

[pwykersotz]

Yes, yes, and yes.

Every weapon had both a to hit and damage adjustment based on the AC they attacked. AC was presumed to be a specific combination of armor with or without shield. The warhammer was a great weapon vs AC 4 through 2 because it penetrated (good to hit) and used force (good damage). But checking every weapon in used versus ever armor combination in use was way too much to take.

Once upon a time, two guys wanting to simulate mass combat would look up the relative effectiveness of a weapon versus the armor worn. It was a fairly efficient attempt at realism when you had a group of (10? 60?) longbowmen determined to be +3 to hit and +4 damage versus the chainmail and no shield of a certain group of Norman axe-users. One die roll determined if the longbowmen were effective over a one minute period in shooting up their target, and one die roll to determine how much hurt happened to the ax guys. If the axe guys (rated as having eight or ten hits worth of damage) took more hits that their point value then they ceased to be combat effective (ran away, fell wounded/dying on the field, etc.) and the battle raged on. Time elapsed to simulate? Much less than the minute of game time simulated. Whole battles were simulated in about (or maybe less than!) the time it took to fight them.

Nowadays, your elf draws a bead on one baddie carrying what might have been a chair and wearing castoff bits of armor held together by bootlaces or whatever...***sigh*** AC15. Looking up the longbow bonuses in this situation, arguing whether there's advantage, cover, or a sneak rules to apply, looking at range mods, rolling the die, adding, double checking, rolling damage, bitching about the roll, subtracting hits by the DM who you insist now describes the bad guy as bloodied, staggered, unfazed, dead, etc... Time elapsed most of a minute to simulate six seconds.

Results may vary, check your DM for ideas to streamline this process. I've got a bunch. I'm gonna go put 'em in a thread and ask for feedback.

Remember, this is an improvement over 3.5 and 4 (or so I've been told).

I was on board with your point which seemed to be focused on lamenting that single person combat takes far more time to abstract than army combat. Until you took a sharp left and turned it into...what? A criticism of 5e as compared to 3.5 and 4e? Which is weird because most of what you listed doesn't exist in 5e.

[Frozen_Feet]

[Armor] was is quite time-consuming and expensive to make...

Fixed your typo.

I'm involved with a lot of martials artists and LARP folks who take armor seriously, including Real Steel folks who bash each other with weapons made of, well, real steel.

A well-made helmet alone can cost you from 250 to 400 €. A full suit of armor, consisting of plate, mail and padding, can cost you several thousand. By comparison, 1300 € is enough to get you an used car.

If there's something wrong with the pricings, it's the fact that they only consider AC, not difficulty of manufacture. As noted, pikeman's armor (or the infantry version without leg protection) arguably was more protective than simple chainmail, but very easy to cast and hammer in to shape, allowing it to be produced en masse; chainmail and scalemail, on the other hand, are extremely labor intensive handicrafts, upping the costs even though partial solid plate armor would be better.

It's also good to remember that a full suit of armor isn't just one material or type of construction - a "full plate armor" also has layers of padding and mail to complement the plates.

[Shining Wrath]

And what none of us has considered thus far is producing armor in a D&D world. What techniques, unknown to medieval and equivalent tech smiths on this world, do master elven and dwarven smiths master over the centuries? How much knowledge of these presumably superior techniques reaches human craftsmen?

If you're in a high-magic setting, what effect does it have that there's a fire elemental powering the forge and the smith's hammer was blessed by a cleric of Moradin?

We're coming dangerously close to trying to introduce physics into our D&D. Fie upon us all! Fie, I say!

[Naanomi]

The idea of marginal benefit is hard for some people to grok, that something is only 1 AC better and cost so much more seems counterintuitive, without also taking into account that in a market there is tremendous value in being the objective 'best' option, regardless of how marginal the difference between the best and second best is... That one more inch on the newest TV, that imperceptible but present difference of the top end graphics card... Even ignoring gamist and manufacturing considerations, economic principles could easily keep full plate at extremely disproportionate prices

[EvanescentHero]

The idea of marginal benefit is hard for some people to grok, that something is only 1 AC better and cost so much more seems counterintuitive, without also taking into account that in a market there is tremendous value in being the objective 'best' option, regardless of how marginal the difference between the best and second best is... That one more inch on the newest TV, that imperceptible but present difference of the top end graphics card... Even ignoring gamist and manufacturing considerations, economic principles could easily keep full plate at extremely disproportionate prices

And in a 5e environment, an extra point of AC is worth a lot!

[MeeposFire]

The problem with armor as DR is that you have to TOTALLY redo the weapons.

The actual advantage of longer weapons (a great sword as opposed to a dagger for example), is that it's easier to HIT with the great sword. Better reach, faster (it really is), better able to get around or past defenses.

Lots of those big heavy two handed pole weapons had hooks and bars to try to unbalance or hinder the guy in plate, because even with a big two handed weapon, you weren't overcoming the "DR", you needed to get the guy helpless so you could hit where the armor isn't (which AC does a sort of, kind of model of).

The most damaging/penetrative strike most people can make is a full extension lunge with their weight behind a stabbing sharp point, it makes surprisingly little difference how hard this hits whether it's delivered with an 9' spear, 4' sword, or 12" dagger.

A dagger (Misericord or Poignard) was often carried as the weapon best able to damage the guy in full plate, if armor is DR you need to give these weapons some of the highest damages in the game. Maces and mauls and a few other big two handed weapons also do better against armor and thus need more damage in an "armor is DR" world.

So you wind up with most longer/heavier weapons getting more attacks or big bonuses to hit, while a dagger or blunt weapon gets a penalty to hit or provokes opportunity attacks when used or something else to explain why there weren't lots of armies using the things for their main weapon.

Just tagging an "armor is DR" rule onto existing D&D combat actually makes the system less realistic.

And doing all that makes me not want to have that sort of system (and why it does not exist in current D&D play). The more hoops you have to go through/more complicated you make the game the less people want to play it on paper particularly newer/casual players. Dragon Age Origins had a system where attack was against defense and then your damage with a weapon was resisted by your armor which was penetrated by your weapon's armor penetration rating (which each weapon had a different value). I did not mind that in a video game since the computer does all that calculation for you but on a table top game that would be a mess.

[Steampunkette]

So, yeah. Plate armor is expensive because it was expensive in reality. Just like magic scrolls were super costly.

Meanwhile any commoner with a few gold pieces lobbed at them by a benevolent PC could easily acquire a longsword, battleaxe, or other weapon that was forbidden to peasantry by feudal lords to keep the populace unarmed for easy domination without fear of well armed rebellion.

Wait... no... that's not right...

In short, it's expensive because the devs want simulation sometikes and other times they just don't care, based on what is eazy to write down. Based on the game function and relative value of armor class, give your PCs full plate as soon as the AC of a dex based defensive character hits 18+. Reduce cost accordingly.

Right around level 2 to 3, depending on chargen method.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I was on board with your point which seemed to be focused on lamenting that single person combat takes far more time to abstract than army combat. Until you took a sharp left and turned it into...what? A criticism of 5e as compared to 3.5 and 4e? Which is weird because most of what you listed doesn't exist in 5e.

Sorry I lost you. You have a good editorial eye! My final point was unclear. I never played 3, 3.5, or 4. I just read that some combats might take two hours to resolve, and for all the flaws, 5e looks like an improvement.

[georgie_leech]

Sorry I lost you. You have a good editorial eye! My final point was unclear. I never played 3, 3.5, or 4. I just read that some combats might take two hours to resolve, and for all the flaws, 5e looks like an improvement.

Combat in any edition, or game for that matter, can take hours to resolve when you're inexperienced. It gets considerably faster as you get better at understanding the mechanics and your options. 4e becomes a lot more streamlined, and one of the complaints leveled at high-op 3.5 is that it frequently devolved into rocket tag, where whoever went first won in that round.

[pwykersotz]

Sorry I lost you. You have a good editorial eye! My final point was unclear. I never played 3, 3.5, or 4. I just read that some combats might take two hours to resolve, and for all the flaws, 5e looks like an improvement.

Ah, good times. Thank you for clarifying.

[thereaper]

My understanding was that mail was more labor-intensive but plate required better technology, so the question of which was more expensive was ultimately a question of the exact time period and the amount of labor available.

In any case, the cost of armors in the PHB is clearly there to prevent certain characters from reaching certain levels of AC until certain levels. That's why there are some armors that are strictly inferior to others in all ways except price.

[Knaight]

And yet we see the Western Roman Empire fall back to equipping its soldiers with mail again, abandoning the (vaguely plate-like) lorica segmentata of Trajan's empire, which, while not exactly like plate, would have required similar beating of iron and steel into flat sheets rather than wire rings. As labor-intensive as it is for hobbyists to make it now, mail must have been somehow more logistically practical, at least below a certain ceiling of development, back in the day. Perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way, though.

Rome was also a society that had a lot of slave labor, and the lorica segmentata was made without the blast furnace, which was absolutely necessary for proper plate. That's before getting into the possibility of mail just being better than the lorica segmentata. There's less field maintenance, it's arguably more protective, it fits a wider range of people (and Rome mass produced armor more than having it custom made), so on and so forth.

[BW022]

So...can anyone explain to me why plate is so damn expensive?

It that expensive. By 3rd-level most parties could get that kind of money together and by 4th or 5th, a single PC could do so. It is far less than any magical item -- if you can even buy them in your world. However, reasons why the price are such...


1. It does represent a non-linear scaling of mundane AC. 75gp for 16, 200gp for 17. and 1500gp for 18.

2. It is on bar with medium non-linear medium armor scaling. 50gp for 14, 400gp for 14 (no disadvantage), 750gp for 15.

3. It provides lower levels PCs with some type of goal in terms of acquiring money and equipment. Wizards needs scrolls, material types clerics and fighters need expensive armor.

4. It means that PCs don't immediately start with insane ACs which either can't be hit, or require monsters so powerful to hit that any non-plate person is slaughtered.

5. It means that starting martial types actually get better over their first few levels. Characters literally aren't in the same armor for the entire campaign.

6. It means that PCs remain balanced at starting levels. The difference between an AC 20 plate and shield fighter and an AC 15 rogue is massive. Against a +3 attack creature the rogue is literally going to be hit 2x as often (12-20, vs. 17-20). The game could quickly dissolve into players always wanting to be a heavy armor character since the AC difference is so massive anyone with it would literally dominate the game.

7. It avoids rock-paper-scissors fights. You have a PC with such high AC (at low levels) no one can hit him, but as soon as they do... the fight is over. Miss, miss, miss, hit, drop. It doesn't permit characters to develop different tactics over time.

8. It lessens the need of other classes to provide bonuses, buffs, healing, etc. and makes spells such as mage armor or shield extremely poor alternatives than just taking an armor feat or class who can wear it.

9. It removes a good source of non-magical treasure or rewards for specific PCs. A PC finding or being gifted a suit of plate or half-plate would be an extremely good reward.

10. It allows wealthy bad guys to have definite advantages over PCs. It allows bad guys with plate or other expensive armors to be more serious foes.

etc.

I've never found it a problem. I find that groups typically work together to get plate on their front-line folks are fairly early levels. Further, by 5th, it isn't an issue. At lower levels, plate provides such a massive AC difference between character types that you seriously have to consider its affect. Monsters able to threaten a fighter in plate... will devastate any other PC. Low level PCs can almost walk through a half-dozen goblin archers.

[mephnick]

Maybe I'm doing treasure wrong but no way could my 5th level PCs spend 1500gp on one item. I think they might have 500gp each.

I thought it was meant more as a level 7-8 type thing.

[VoxRationis]

Rome was also a society that had a lot of slave labor, and the lorica segmentata was made without the blast furnace, which was absolutely necessary for proper plate. That's before getting into the possibility of mail just being better than the lorica segmentata. There's less field maintenance, it's arguably more protective, it fits a wider range of people (and Rome mass produced armor more than having it custom made), so on and so forth.

If it were out-and-out better in terms of protective qualities, it would seem unlikely that they went away from mail at first, giving legionaries the segmentata at rates much higher than their auxiliaries, and then went back to it later as the Empire declined. I concede superiority in terms of maintenance and ease of fit, but its use through the history of the Roman army doesn't fit with mail being more protective than segmentata.

[Slipperychicken]

Maybe I'm doing treasure wrong but no way could my 5th level PCs spend 1500gp on one item. I think they might have 500gp each.

I thought it was meant more as a level 7-8 type thing.

Are you rolling on the treasure tables to determine loot? Because that might be the cause of the discrepancy.

[1Forge]

I do some blacksmithing as a hobby, and I can say that making a breastplate is easy, making half plate (like the armour gondorian soldiers wear) is challenging and time consuming but can be done, full plate is so much more complicated and difficult to make that this price is just fine, you have to fit everything just perfectly out of high quality steel, fit it just right to the client so they can move in it, and make sure it is the appropriate thickness and strength. Real plate armour is very complicated when compared to lameller armour splint mail and even Half plate, honestly the skill it takes to make good armour is very underrated. Especially when consider that armour has to keep you alive for the rest of your questing. When most people think of plate they're either thinking of plate mail or half plate those armours are more common seen in video games and are easier to make.( that's why soldiers were thought to wear plate by historians they had breasplates plate mail and half plate and full plate was given to the richer people like generals and nobility)

Though if the smith had an armour press and assistants then full plate would be much easier to make, so might be slightly cheeper. Some kingdoms near the end of the rennessnce had these presses so your game could have one in a capitol of a rich kingdom.

[HoarsHalberd]

Where 5e is wrong is not so much the price, as the benefit. There were two kinds of plate: parade plate, which was immensely ornate and not very functional, and full battle plate, which was immensely functional.

As in "there are very few things you can do to a person in full plate that will kill them" functional. There's a reason why the misericorde was invented.

Full plate ought to be something like AC 20 and provide damage reduction of 3 against all attacks except psychic, radiant, and necrotic. Yes, even against force.

And vulnerability vs fire (you will cook in it). Lightning should either be vulnerable or normal damage. Force should not be affected (it's not pushing back, it's disrupting your being.) And poison damage shouldn't either because if you're being damaged at all by poison then it's not in contact with the armour.

[Knaight]

Though if the smith had an armour press and assistants then full plate would be much easier to make, so might be slightly cheeper. Some kingdoms near the end of the rennessnce had these presses so your game could have one in a capitol of a rich kingdom.

If by some kingdoms near the end of the Renaissance you mean just about every armor workshop in any of the numerous cities that had them, sure - at least as regards assistants. The lone armorer who does everything themselves is a fantasy trope with no real connection to reality, particularly by the late medieval period.

[VoxRationis]

And vulnerability vs fire (you will cook in it). Lightning should either be vulnerable or normal damage. Force should not be affected (it's not pushing back, it's disrupting your being.) And poison damage shouldn't either because if you're being damaged at all by poison then it's not in contact with the armour.

Really? One might argue that the lightning would go to ground around the wearer, since the metal gives it an easy, conductive conduit that doesn't involve the heavy resistance that comes with skin. It should act rather like a Faraday cage, which are quite effective at protecting humans from electricity. Plate armor is rarely worn directly in contact with skin, so there'd be extra insulation between the metal and the wearer anyway.

[HoarsHalberd]

Really? One might argue that the lightning would go to ground around the wearer, since the metal gives it an easy, conductive conduit that doesn't involve the heavy resistance that comes with skin. It should act rather like a Faraday cage, which are quite effective at protecting humans from electricity. Plate armor is rarely worn directly in contact with skin, so there'd be extra insulation between the metal and the wearer anyway.

That's why I said normal damage. Problem is the armour heats up incredibly. You'd cook alive, and the thinner metal at the joints would melt and fuse and more of the electricity would be attracted to arc through the armour into the ground. So normal or vulnerable.

[Ralanr]

If anything lightning damage just does what shocking grasp does.

[VoxRationis]

That's why I said normal damage. Problem is the armour heats up incredibly. You'd cook alive, and the thinner metal at the joints would melt and fuse and more of the electricity would be attracted to arc through the armour into the ground. So normal or vulnerable.

The key difference is that it wouldn't be through the person into the ground, as it would be if the lightning struck an unarmored person. And while the heat would be bad, it would still be better than direct contact with the arc.

[Slipperychicken]

And vulnerability vs fire (you will cook in it). Lightning should either be vulnerable or normal damage. Force should not be affected (it's not pushing back, it's disrupting your being.) And poison damage shouldn't either because if you're being damaged at all by poison then it's not in contact with the armour.

Here's a video explaining why a medieval suit of armor is excellent protection against lightning. I feel so glad I bookmarked it from the last time this came up.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNxDgd3D_bU

[Doug Lampert]

And vulnerability vs fire (you will cook in it). Lightning should either be vulnerable or normal damage. Force should not be affected (it's not pushing back, it's disrupting your being.) And poison damage shouldn't either because if you're being damaged at all by poison then it's not in contact with the armour.

Heat is dealt with by the pads, and for a six second exposure padding plus plate will be EXCELLENT protection against any reasonable level of heat. If it cooks the guy in plate then that means he dies 10 minutes after the guy without plate. And he's got ten minutes to get out of the plate (leather gloves with metal surface plates will provide excellent hand protection while you're getting out.

Similarly lightning is a non-threat to someone in plate.

Force is badly defined, but there are PLENTY of force spells that are pushing or blocking, claiming it's not pushing it unjustified by any of the fluff and leaves wall of force, various hand spells, and mage armor all unexplained; while force is actually a force (duh) explains pretty well all the uses.

Poison requires a method to get to you, in most cases the armor will interfere with that and can easily reduce the exposure (if not eliminate it).

[Dienekes]

And vulnerability vs fire (you will cook in it). Lightning should either be vulnerable or normal damage. Force should not be affected (it's not pushing back, it's disrupting your being.) And poison damage shouldn't either because if you're being damaged at all by poison then it's not in contact with the armour.


That's why I said normal damage. Problem is the armour heats up incredibly. You'd cook alive, and the thinner metal at the joints would melt and fuse and more of the electricity would be attracted to arc through the armour into the ground. So normal or vulnerable.

This is wrong, simple calculations of heat transfer can tell you why. Heat on direct skin will always be more efficient than heat through metal. It's the difference between cooking a chicken in a pot and throwing a chicken on a fire.

Now, what you could argue for is heat exhaustion being a thing in armor.

Lightning would be either entirely negated in a full body metal suit, or vulnerable if it's just a breastplate and helmet or other non-encircling armor.

Force, I have no idea what Force actually is, but honestly, it's usually described to me in a way that just makes me think it should be bludgeoning damage. But I'm willing to just think: it's magic and leave it at that.

Poison would be weird. Something like: if attacking with a poisoned weapon and the target's armor negates all physical damage of the weapon that was used in the attack, then the poison does not affect the target of the attack, otherwise armor provides no benefit.