Armor and Realism

[Easy_Lee]

Ah, armor. How misunderstood it is. How convenient it is in fantasy settings to just write it down, not worry about it, and pretend it's always on with no drawbacks. How common it is for folks in Hollywood to pretend that armor weighs hundreds of pounds, that you cannot even get on a horse without help while wearing it, but to then forget how hot it is to wear.

This thread's about armor: real-life factors, and whether we should consider them in games.

Drawbacks to real-life armor:

Cost - the game conveys this well.
Fit - D&D has never required players to, upon acquiring another's armor, take it to a blacksmith to have it fitted. This is very important IRL.
Sight - Any idea how hard it is to see through a visor? Very.
Heat - The only reason plate armor developed the way it did in Europe is because of how cold it is there. Try wearing armor in 100 degree weather, and you may perish.
Encumbrance - deep water, swamps, and many other sorts of terrain would pose a major hazard for anyone wearing plate.
AC vs Damage Reduction - real life armor doesn't make you harder to hit. However, full plate does make you almost 100% immune to sword slashes, spear pokes, arrows, and similar. Maces, flails, and the pommels of longswords are still mostly effective (call it damage resistance). Daggers, ironically, are one of the best anti-armor weapons, since you can get them into the gaps quite well.

All that said, I don't believe most of these things ought to be considered in D&D. The simple reason why is because the gap between spell-casters and martials is wide enough already at late levels. Consider that mage armor + a good DEX score results in the same AC as plate, combined with better initiative than a typical plate-wearer. Consider that, while armor realistically has gaps, this wouldn't apply to things like barkskin or stoneskin. Magical armor would be better than actual armor.

I believe that, if D&D armor was realistic, no one would ever play strength-based fighters, rangers, paladins, etc. Almost everyone would be a dexer, warlocks with their Armor of Shadows invocation would be overplayed, and barbarians would be the only strong-men running around.

That said, it is kind of fun to threaten players with drowning if they try to swim in armor. Not very nice, just fun.

[Formless Entity]

Ah, armor. How misunderstood it is. How convenient it is in fantasy settings to just write it down, not worry about it, and pretend it's always on with no drawbacks. How common it is for folks in Hollywood to pretend that armor weighs hundreds of pounds, that you cannot even get on a horse without help while wearing it, but to then forget how hot it is to wear.

This thread's about armor: real-life factors, and whether we should consider them in games.

Drawbacks to real-life armor:

Cost - the game conveys this well.
Fit - D&D has never required players to, upon acquiring another's armor, take it to a blacksmith to have it fitted. This is very important IRL.
Sight - Any idea how hard it is to see through a visor? Very.
Heat - The only reason plate armor developed the way it did in Europe is because of how cold it is there. Try wearing armor in 100 degree weather, and you may perish.
Encumbrance - deep water, swamps, and many other sorts of terrain would pose a major hazard for anyone wearing plate.
AC vs Damage Reduction - real life armor doesn't make you harder to hit. However, full plate does make you almost 100% immune to sword slashes, spear pokes, arrows, and similar. Maces, flails, and the pommels of longswords are still mostly effective (call it damage resistance). Daggers, ironically, are one of the best anti-armor weapons, since you can get them into the gaps quite well.

All that said, I don't believe most of these things ought to be considered in D&D. The simple reason why is because the gap between spell-casters and martials is wide enough already at late levels. Consider that mage armor + a good DEX score results in the same AC as plate, combined with better initiative than a typical plate-wearer. Consider that, while armor realistically has gaps, this wouldn't apply to things like barkskin or stoneskin. Magical armor would be better than actual armor.

I believe that, if D&D armor was realistic, no one would ever play strength-based fighters, rangers, paladins, etc. Almost everyone would be a dexer, warlocks with their Armor of Shadows invocation would be overplayed, and barbarians would be the only strong-men running around.

That said, it is kind of fun to threaten players with drowning if they try to swim in armor. Not very nice, just fun.

While being worn armor weight tends to distribute it's weight rather easily in most cases (at least with European and Japanese armor).

But in any case I can understand the rest of your points.

Most forms of heavy armor would not be practical for adventurers to be wearing all of the time.

However I would say that it would be practical if you worn light armor or no armor out of combat and when you got ready to enter a place where you knew you would probably get into a fight you would "suit up" so to speak.

I have made a form of Pathfinder with more realistic combat and such if you are interested in a solo campaign with it.

EDIT: Armor is not made to be comfortable as it was not made to be worn for long periods of time, the reason why plate was not developed in countries like japan was a lack of high quality steel in their landscape. Other cultures simply never focused on armor and did not developed that far with it as a result.

[Thrudd]

The way D&D works, armor is an abstraction. Not just to help fighters compete with magic users, but because combat in general is so abstract. I'm not saying the system does it exactly as I would in all the details, but I'm ok with armor making it harder to "hit". Because the way I see it, a "hit" in D&D is not necessarily a hit, because taking "damage" doesn't actually hurt you until you get to 0 HP. So losing HP is actually being worn down by fatigue, cuts and bruises, and near misses pressing your luck. When an attack misses because you have armor, it means you don't get dinged at all and you didn't need to work as hard to avoid getting hit (thus not getting as fatigued). An arrow attack that hits you, but doesn't do enough damage to drop you to zero, maybe means the character dove to the side and then got up again (fatiguing with armor on), or it scraped your cheek, or hit you square in the face, but bounced off your helmet's nose guard (that kind of luck won't last).

[Laserlight]

Ah, armor. How misunderstood it is. How convenient it is in fantasy settings to just write it down, not worry about it, and pretend it's always on with no drawbacks. How common it is for folks in Hollywood to pretend that armor weighs hundreds of pounds, that you cannot even get on a horse without help while wearing it, but to then forget how hot it is to wear.

This thread's about armor: real-life factors, and whether we should consider them in games.


It's even harder to see through-a-visor-and-around-a-shield. Think you couldn't lose track of a 260lb guy who's quite literally right in front of you? You can. You really ought to have to make a Perception roll to see anything that's not in your front 60° arc, and 60° is probably too generous.

On the other hand, pretty much everyone who could, used a shield, up until pike-and-shot times. I think shields ought to give more than +2 AC.

And armor shouldn't make you harder to hit--maybe a little, with curved plates deflecting blows, but mostly it ought to just covert Killing damage to Stun damage.

[Formless Entity]

It's even harder to see through-a-visor-and-around-a-shield. Think you couldn't lose track of a 260lb guy who's quite literally right in front of you? You can. You really ought to have to make a Perception roll to see anything that's not in your front 60° arc, and 60° is probably too generous.

On the other hand, pretty much everyone who could, used a shield, up until pike-and-shot times. I think shields ought to give more than +2 AC.

And armor shouldn't make you harder to hit--maybe a little, with curved plates deflecting blows, but mostly it ought to just covert Killing damage to Stun damage.

Not all forms of armor had visors for that reason, also keep in mind that most knights would pull their visors up when on foot.

Also things like plate armor where extremely effective against slashing damage I would dare say they where pretty much impervious to it in fact. because of that swordsman would have to compensate with half-swording and pommel strikes or simply carry a dagger or mace with them to deal with armored opponents.

In the days of armor that advanced, swords where basically for duels and to strike down other unarmored foes.

[Madbox]

In regards to AC, a DM can fluff it a bit to actually make some sort of sense. A failed attack with a sword, for instance, could be said to narrowly miss the monk as she dodges, bounce off of the paladin's plate armor, or be badly made and the flat side of the blade slaps ineffectively against the ranger's leather armor. It might still hurt, but not actually do any real harm. This takes care of the absurdity of "You miss the Goliath in full chain 5 feet away from you."

That being said, it is odd that there is no mechanic for armor reducing damage. I understand the whole "D&D came from wargames" deal and why AC worked the way it did in earlier editions, but it seems like something that would have changed by now.

[Easy_Lee]

Ir occurs to me that one way around all of this is to imagine all D&D armor, even plate, as being only partial armoring. It wouldn't impede swimming as much, would indeed deflect attacks (even from a mace) passably well, and wouldn't prevent the wearer from being harmed by weapons. Maybe Roman-style armor is the most advanced the world of D&D ever got, the books and some art notwithstanding.

[Naanomi]

Making armor more realistic also probably means looking at the proficiency system. I mean... no one wore leather armor because it was 'easier' to wear, they wore it because they didn't have access to anything better (because of cost or technology). While any armor takes some practice to get used to, plate isn't inherently 'more challenging' to use than something lighter in a training sense.

[Formless Entity]

Ir occurs to me that one way around all of this is to imagine all D&D armor, even plate, as being only partial armoring. It wouldn't impede swimming as much, would indeed deflect attacks (even from a mace) passably well, and wouldn't prevent the wearer from being harmed by weapons. Maybe Roman-style armor is the most advanced the world of D&D ever got, the books and some art notwithstanding.

You might wish to fudge that in your campaign, however keep in mind that the names of the armor themselves would be horribly incorrect if that where the case.

And no, that sort of armor would not deflect attacks from a mace. They would soften them somewhat but they would still definitely leave a mark and deal damage in anything more than a glancing blow.

Source: HEMA Practitioner for 9 years.

[Formless Entity]

Making armor more realistic also probably means looking at the proficiency system. I mean... no one wore leather armor because it was 'easier' to wear, they wore it because they didn't have access to anything better (because of cost or technology). While any armor takes some practice to get used to, plate isn't inherently 'more challenging' to use than something lighter in a training sense.

Leather armor was not really used historically speaking.

[Formless Entity]

In regards to AC, a DM can fluff it a bit to actually make some sort of sense. A failed attack with a sword, for instance, could be said to narrowly miss the monk as she dodges, bounce off of the paladin's plate armor, or be badly made and the flat side of the blade slaps ineffectively against the ranger's leather armor. It might still hurt, but not actually do any real harm. This takes care of the absurdity of "You miss the Goliath in full chain 5 feet away from you."

That being said, it is odd that there is no mechanic for armor reducing damage. I understand the whole "D&D came from wargames" deal and why AC worked the way it did in earlier editions, but it seems like something that would have changed by now.

That is what I tend to do in my games.

[Laserlight]

In regards to AC, a DM can fluff it a bit to actually make some sort of sense.

"The Rule 0 Fallacy (“this rule isn’t broken because I can fix it”) is a poor defense of any game."
--The Alexandrian

[Naanomi]

Leather armor was not really used historically speaking.
Not like 'leather jacket' armor no, but various forms of boiled leather (and hide) armor had field use in various parts of the world

[Formless Entity]

"The Rule 0 Fallacy (“this rule isn’t broken because I can fix it”) is a poor defense of any game."
--The Alexandrian

While that quote does seem to have some truth to it.

I must point out that you just made a logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority.

[Formless Entity]

Not like 'leather jacket' armor no, but various forms of boiled leather (and hide) armor had field use in various parts of the world

The very scarce examples to be found like the Cuir Noulli where actually used as underarmor for metal armors.

There are no historical sources that suggest they where used on their own in field work.

If you would like to say otherwise then you are making the positive claim and need to show evidence for such use.

[Naanomi]

It is true that if you are only looking at post-Rome Europe there are not many examples of primarily leather armor, excepting Mongolian armor was scaled leather in the period when they were active in Europe; although there is some evidence that Rome continued the Greek tradition of using leather armor instead of iron/bronze when serving on naval vessels.

China, Siam, and most of Indochina (excepting Korea) used boiled or Lacquered leather with bronze helmets and breastplates through most of the Shang, Zhou, and Warring States periods; often with thick silk under-armor which was thought to help against arrows and help contain bleeding (by period historians, not by modern ones). They sometimes had wood components as well

Portions of Africa used forms of thick uncured hide armor well into the modern era (some Zulu troops used hide shields, leggings, and loose 'robes')

Many Native American tribes, particularly those in the Pacific North West, were still wearing thick 'trench-coats' of untreated leather as armor when Lois and Clark expeditions were going on. Some artwork from South-America are interpreted to represent similar practices.

In the early 17th century, hide 'buffcoats' saw a resurgence, and remained in use at least as late for Darwin to have one on his famous voyage.

If I can count mythological resources, Cuchulainn had his armor made 'from the hides of seven yearling oxen'

[Formless Entity]

It is true that if you are only looking at post-Rome Europe there are not many examples of primarily leather armor, excepting Mongolian armor was scaled leather in the period when they were active in Europe; although there is some evidence that Rome continued the Greek tradition of using leather armor instead of iron/bronze when serving on naval vessels.

China, Siam, and most of Indochina (excepting Korea) used boiled or Lacquered leather with bronze helmets and breastplates through most of the Shang, Zhou, and Warring States periods; often with thick silk under-armor which was thought to help against arrows and help contain bleeding (by period historians, not by modern ones). They sometimes had wood components as well

Portions of Africa used forms of thick uncured hide armor well into the modern era (some Zulu troops used hide shields, leggings, and loose 'robes')

Many Native American tribes, particularly those in the Pacific North West, were still wearing thick 'trench-coats' of untreated leather as armor when Lois and Clark expeditions were going on. Some artwork from South-America are interpreted to represent similar practices.

In the early 17th century, hide 'buffcoats' saw a resurgence, and remained in use at least as late for Darwin to have one on his famous voyage.

If I can count mythological resources, Cuchulainn had his armor made 'from the hides of seven yearling oxen'

Your claims of the Greeks and Mongolians again showed leather being used under metal like I said DOES happen.

As for the other claims, even if they are correct you need to look at the purpose behind them, it seems to me these where made to protect from non-human animals and/or the elements rather than weaponry. That is of course assuming your claims of these incidences are factual.

[Naanomi]

I'm not going to track down exhaustive individual references at the moment but...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminar_armour#/media/File:%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D 0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%8C.jpg is a picture of Siberean armor that is thought to be much like Mongolian armor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buff_coat#/media/File:Kyller_-_Livrustkammaren_-_30083.tif is a Buffcoat in the style traditionally worn under armor, but specifically called out as to be worn to protect from dueling pistols

http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/58287-zulu-had-metalworking-so-why-didn-t-their-soldiers-use-metal-armor-shields.html is a forum discussion about why Zulu warriors used leather when they had access to metal (IE: it was hot and they had lots of leather)

http://www.native-languages.org/images/armor1.jpg shows a Tlingit man in leather armor with reed loose breastplate, mostly intended to stop arrows. Would have sometimes been combined with a carved wooden helmet.

One thing that is interesting about use of leather armor outside of Europe: Asia, Africa, North America... all sources of much thicker leather than Europe. Buffalo in North America, Rhino and Elephant in both African and classic Asia.

Also remember, in terms of non-illustrated examples of leather armor; that Leather (especially *untreated* leather) would leave very few examples compared to metal armor just because it decomposes.

EDIT: Bonus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultanate_of_Bagirmi#/media/File:Rytter_fra_Bagirmi.jpg is a neat picture of Padded Armor worn by North-African Muslims fairly late historically

http://www.comitatus.net/pdfs/LEATHERARMOUR.pdf here is something written on leather armor; though I do notice some inaccuracies already on a quick run-through

[Madbox]

"The Rule 0 Fallacy (“this rule isn’t broken because I can fix it”) is a poor defense of any game."
--The Alexandrian

"Your Armor Class represents how well your character avoids being wounded in battle."
-5e Players Handbook, page 14

This is the only fluff given as to what AC is. Everything else is an explanation of what affects AC.

So, more of a "There's no fluff, and the DM can make some if he feels like it," than a "There is a broken rule."

Also, who is this Alexandrian?

[Zombimode]

Fit - D&D has never required players to, upon acquiring another's armor, take it to a blacksmith to have it fitted. This is very important IRL.

Actually, in 2e it was required to have the various kinds of plate armor to be fitted to the wearer.
I don't know how many DMs have enforced that rule, but it was there.


Heat - The only reason plate armor developed the way it did in Europe is because of how cold it is there. Try wearing armor in 100 degree weather, and you may perish.

Hm, southern Europe is not exactly a cold climate and it didn't stop people from donning as much armor as they could. You can also find several kinds of rather heavy armor in many part of the middle east.

[JackPhoenix]

Combat system in D&D is an abstraction... always has been. Some eiditions tried to be more realistic (AD&D's AC modifiers against certain damage types and weapon bonuses against certain armor come to mind), some go for simplicity (4e, 5e). I suppose it's possible to create combat system complex enough to simulate reality of combat, but the closer to the real thing, the more complex and clunky it would be. "Perfectly realistic" (outside being impossible) system would be unplayable, there are just too many factors to consider. Look at how many video games have realistic combat mechanics...and those have computer to take care of all the calculations.


Also, who is this Alexandrian?

http://thealexandrian.net/ blog about RPGs, GMing, mostly focused on older (2e and 3.x) editions

[FaradayCage]

it seems to me these where made to protect from non-human animals

I think those do exist in most D&D campaigns.

[Madbox]

http://thealexandrian.net/[/url] blog about RPGs, GMing, mostly focused on older (2e and 3.x) editions

Oh god, my eyes! So much clutter! It looks like a late 90s website at best. I hope that's just because I'm on a phone.

[pwykersotz]

Oh god, my eyes! So much clutter! It looks like a late 90s website at best. I hope that's just because I'm on a phone.

Haha, yeah, there are two sidebars that are a bit tacky, but it's much better on the desktop. It's a seriously good blog though.

[Logosloki]

Armour should also have hit points. Either as a total or distributed into sections of armour (I doubt half-plate will have HP on arms that aren't there). This represents that armour is damaged by taking the frequents dints, dents, rips, tears and other such issues due to the life of an adventurer. This means that armour will have to be taken in to be repaired, used for scrap or discarded as functionally useless. AC could be used as some kind of hardness dc to calculate when a blow would remove hit points and how much.

AC would then need to be split into categories such as Flatfoot (no dodge bonus since you are surprised), Touch (no armour, shield bonus or natural armour as the attack bypasses solid defenses) Dodge (doesn't apply to flatfoot but does to touch), Deflection (magical or supernatural effects that have varying ways of dealing with blows without it actually connecting, useful as it is added to touch AC), Armour, Natural Armour (changes would base armour value but is ignored when you don armour, might change this to stacks with armour though as even if something bypasses your normal armour your natural armour might take the blow) and Shield bonus (for carrying a shield or using a shield like spell like shield). Heavy armour would suppress dex modifiers as even though you can perform some impressive feats of athleticism in fullplate you are going to leverage the fact that you can actually take the blow (otherwise you might as well just run around with your hands trailing behind you like the rogues and monks do)

An example would be a 14 dex fighter in full plate, carrying a shield for some reason (not sure why anyone would ever carry fullplate and a shield but we'll roll with it). Their Flatfoot would be 20 AC, touch 10 AC (heavy armour suppresses dex modifiers so you can't get it), Armour 20 AC (Fullplate + Shield). If poor Dexia was out of her suit but still donned that shield she would have Flatfoot 14 AC (10 +2 Dex and +2 shield bonus), Touch 12 (10 +2 Dex) and Armour 14 (10 +2 dex +2 shield bonus).

Also, much like everything in 5th, there is a variant sidebox in the armour section of the book for playing with armour that has to be refitted. You could take that further and make it so that armour has to be better tailored.

[pwykersotz]

Armour should also have hit points. Either as a total or distributed into sections of armour (I doubt half-plate will have HP on arms that aren't there). This represents that armour is damaged by taking the frequents dints, dents, rips, tears and other such issues due to the life of an adventurer. This means that armour will have to be taken in to be repaired, used for scrap or discarded as functionally useless. AC could be used as some kind of hardness dc to calculate when a blow would remove hit points and how much.

AC would then need to be split into categories such as Flatfoot (no dodge bonus since you are surprised), Touch (no armour, shield bonus or natural armour as the attack bypasses solid defenses) Dodge (doesn't apply to flatfoot but does to touch), Deflection (magical or supernatural effects that have varying ways of dealing with blows without it actually connecting, useful as it is added to touch AC), Armour, Natural Armour (changes would base armour value but is ignored when you don armour, might change this to stacks with armour though as even if something bypasses your normal armour your natural armour might take the blow) and Shield bonus (for carrying a shield or using a shield like spell like shield). Heavy armour would suppress dex modifiers as even though you can perform some impressive feats of athleticism in fullplate you are going to leverage the fact that you can actually take the blow (otherwise you might as well just run around with your hands trailing behind you like the rogues and monks do)

An example would be a 14 dex fighter in full plate, carrying a shield for some reason (not sure why anyone would ever carry fullplate and a shield but we'll roll with it). Their Flatfoot would be 20 AC, touch 10 AC (heavy armour suppresses dex modifiers so you can't get it), Armour 20 AC (Fullplate + Shield). If poor Dexia was out of her suit but still donned that shield she would have Flatfoot 14 AC (10 +2 Dex and +2 shield bonus), Touch 12 (10 +2 Dex) and Armour 14 (10 +2 dex +2 shield bonus).

Also, much like everything in 5th, there is a variant sidebox in the armour section of the book for playing with armour that has to be refitted. You could take that further and make it so that armour has to be better tailored.

*shudder* Touch AC... :smallyuk:

I like the Dungeon World take on it, myself. A little less immersive, but covers a lot of the same ground. Armor is DR, and there's a Fighter move that lets you negate an attack by reducing your AC by 1 permanently, the armor being destroyed if it hits 0.

[Slipperychicken]

I prefer how pendragon does armor as simple damage reduction that applies to everything.

As for swimming and moving: If you care about modeling that sort of thing, then just use the encumbrance variant. Your PC's speed will drop 10 feet from light encumbrance, and that will be problematic when something costs double movement. Take your base speed of 30, subtract 10 from encumbrance, divide by 2 because of difficult terrain, and your armored warrior is only getting 10 feet of movement, or 20 if he hustles through.

Heat Problems: DMG page 110. under the "wilderness survival" section. Saves to resist exhaustion in extreme heat (100 degrees and up) are made at disadvantage in medium or heavy armor. Please try to look for rules before ridiculing their nonexistence.


mage armor + a good DEX score results in the same AC as plate,

You see a lot of Dex 20 wizards?

[Easy_Lee]

You see a lot of Dex 20 wizards?

More warlocks than wizards, but high Dex scores on casters actually used to be common in some previous editions.

[Slipperychicken]

More warlocks than wizards, but high Dex scores on casters actually used to be common in some previous editions.

I was just checking, because on characters who can cast mage armor in 5th edition, I have rarely seen a dex over 14.

[R.Shackleford]

I've been playing with making AC actually abstract and more about fluff/role-playing.

Your base AC is about how well you use ALL of your ability scores, armor, and whatever else to protect yourself. Some classes are trained to fight and defend more than others due to their choice to learn other stuff.

Armor Class

Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, and Paladins
AC: 14 + Prof + Shield + Misc

Bard, Cleric, Rogue, and Ranger
AC: 12 + Prof + Shield + Misc

Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizards
AC: 10 + Prof + Shield + Misc

You only gain shield bonus of you are proficient with the shield.

Misc is any random thing like cover or magic that gives you a bonus to AC. Some class features need to be changed up but typically they work well. Monk Wis to AC, Barbarian Con to AC, Dragon Sorcerer (+3) to AC all can work in the setup.

As a player you determine what your armor, if any, looks like. The DM can have some say it on this but generally it doesn't matter as your AC is class based.

A Barbarian wearing no armor would still have an 18 + Shield + Misc. That 18 comes from a combination of training, toughness, and luck.

A character can say they have mage armor up at all time or have been blessed by a deity. The possibilities are endless.

****
If you want a mechanical difference I would head back to 2e and work with the armor versus damage ttables.

Plate Armor: Resist slashing damage

Mystic Protection: Cleric of Pelor has small bands of fire whisking around them. The fire grants resistance to cold damage.

But I think that's going a bit too fiddly.

[Pope Scarface]

Armor is actually more realistic when it makes it harder to hit. A miss doesn't mean you hit air, it means you failed to land an effective hit, and it is much harder to do that against a heavily armored target.

If Armor as DR were the baseline on behalf of realism, the DR would have to be really high for armor like plate, and you'd have to have a mechanic to represent a called shot to bypass the armor, because realistically that is what a trained fighter is trying to do every time they attack someone in armor. Of course, based on that, we may as well go right back to armor making it harder to hit as the default.

If you want there to be an option to just try to bash through the armor instead of going around it, make that the exception, not the default (if your goal is to make armor more realistic).

Here are a few ideas for that which fit within the 5E paradigm:

As an attack, you strike at your foe's center of mass, paying no heed to their armor or shield.

Part 1: Modify Attack Roll

A: You gain advantage on your attack roll.
B: Your attack becomes a dexterity saving throw. DC = 8 + prof + stat mod.

Part 2: Modify Damage

A: You deal half damage.
B: You subtract your target's AC -10 from your damage.

[Thrudd]

Armor is actually more realistic when it makes it harder to hit. A miss doesn't mean you hit air, it means you failed to land an effective hit, and it is much harder to do that against a heavily armored target.

If Armor as DR were the baseline on behalf of realism, the DR would have to be really high for armor like plate, and you'd have to have a mechanic to represent a called shot to bypass the armor, because realistically that is what a trained fighter is trying to do every time they attack someone in armor. Of course, based on that, we may as well go right back to armor making it harder to hit as the default.

If you want there to be an option to just try to bash through the armor instead of going around it, make that the exception, not the default (if your goal is to make armor more realistic).

Here are a few ideas for that which fit within the 5E paradigm:

As an attack, you strike at your foe's center of mass, paying no heed to their armor or shield.

Part 1: Modify Attack Roll

A: You gain advantage on your attack roll.
B: Your attack becomes a dexterity saving throw. DC = 8 + prof + stat mod.

Part 2: Modify Damage

A: You deal half damage.
B: You subtract your target's AC -10 from your damage.

The other way is what was done in 1e, the weapon vs armor table. Specific weapons can get bonuses or penalties to hit specific types of armor. So a hammer or mace might get a bonus to hit plate armor, for instance. It can slow things down if you don't have the table memorized, in 1e most people ignored it, but it isn't any slower than adding extra steps.

[Easy_Lee]

The other way is what was done in 1e, the weapon vs armor table. Specific weapons can get bonuses or penalties to hit specific types of armor. So a hammer or mace might get a bonus to hit plate armor, for instance. It can slow things down if you don't have the table memorized, in 1e most people ignored it, but it isn't any slower than adding extra steps.

Trouble is that consistent application of that sort of thing can be tricky to implement, and ultimately leads to PCs turning themselves into walking armories.

Besides, if we're trying to be realistic, we have to consider things like reach. A rapier doesn't inflict worse wounds than a dagger IRL, but the reach is much better so you'd be more likely to hit with it. Daggers actually work quite well on plate armor because you can get them through gaps, though you'd want to immobilize or knock down the victim first.

Maces don't give much a f* about armor, but getting hit with one without armor is probably not as bad, in general, as getting struck with a sword. And of course the reach is worse. Shields are basically unnecessary when armor gets good enough, and you want to use both hands to swing a heavier and longer weapon.

Meanwhile, that guy over there with full plate and a poleax is ready for just about anything, other than a long, drawn-out chase. Or a swamp.

It gets complicated real fast. If I can ask for one thing from DMs, just be consistent.

[Dimers]

As a player you determine what your armor, if any, looks like. The DM can have some say it on this but generally it doesn't matter as your AC is class based.

That's how 13th Age handles it, more or less. Each class gives the character's AC if they're in light armor or heavy armor. And class also determines whether you can benefit from a shield and how badly your attack rolls are penalized in heavy armor.

[Thrudd]

Trouble is that consistent application of that sort of thing can be tricky to implement, and ultimately leads to PCs turning themselves into walking armories.

Besides, if we're trying to be realistic, we have to consider things like reach. A rapier doesn't inflict worse wounds than a dagger IRL, but the reach is much better so you'd be more likely to hit with it. Daggers actually work quite well on plate armor because you can get them through gaps, though you'd want to immobilize or knock down the victim first.

Maces don't give much a f* about armor, but getting hit with one without armor is probably not as bad, in general, as getting struck with a sword. And of course the reach is worse. Shields are basically unnecessary when armor gets good enough, and you want to use both hands to swing a heavier and longer weapon.

Meanwhile, that guy over there with full plate and a poleax is ready for just about anything, other than a long, drawn-out chase. Or a swamp.

It gets complicated real fast. If I can ask for one thing from DMs, just be consistent.

Yes, trying to model realistic combat details gets complex and cumbersome fast. That's why I'm ok with keeping it all abstract. An attack roll represents a period of time where the characters are fighting, not a single specific movement: some feinting and parrying and shield and armor clashes are assumed during that time, regardless of the result of the roll. If a hit is scored, the attacker did whatever they needed to do with whatever weapon they have to get through/around the armor and get advantage over the defender.

[ClintACK]

You can quickly get bogged down with this. I can remember, in an earlier edition, fighters having to carry a half a dozen weapons for all different circumstances.

A fighter's first round of combat might be: Ah, I see the bandits are wearing chain mail, so I drop my bow, hurl a throwing hammer, then pull out my mace while charging to melee range. (Because chain mail doesn't resist bludgeoning damage.)


Needing to have a blunt, piercing, and slashing option for ranged and for melee made things complicated very quickly.

In the same system, I remember lots of encounters that started at longer range -- so there would be archers exchanging blows, then a round with thrown javelins or axes while the front-line fighters charged in, and then finally the first round of melee combat.

Fighters usually had many more weapons than wizards had spells. It was a bit strange.

But then, the thief (not "rogue" back then) would have twine and pebbles and flour and sticks and caltrops and marbles and on and on filling up the equipment section of his character sheet, too.

Very different game back then.

[Gurifu]

You could make plate give an inherent shield bonus when wielding a single weapon;
Group all light armor as "light armor" andgive it studded leather stats;
And ask your players how they want to transport their heavy gear when they're traveling, and if they want to wear part of their armor and have it count as "light armor".

D&D mechanics are inherently unrealistic and there is no way around that. The most you can do with rulings, roleplay, and house rules is try to promote the emergence of a verisimilous narrative over the course of the game. Trying to make the actual mechanics comport with reality on more than a superficial level is a long road to nowhere.

[TripleD]

http://www.native-languages.org/images/armor1.jpg shows a Tlingit man in leather armor with reed loose breastplate, mostly intended to stop arrows. Would have sometimes been combined with a carved wooden helmet.


Those are wood rods, not reeds. Tlingit and Haida "rod-and-slat" armor is more wood armor than leather. There's a leather, highly decorated "overcoat", and underneath is a sheet of elk leather, but it's the wooden blocks that are taking most of the impact. It's not too different from how leather was used in combination with metal in other parts of the world.

Here's a modern recreation. (https://qmackie.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/armor_tlingit_joseph_16.jpg?w=500)

[R.Shackleford]

That's how 13th Age handles it, more or less. Each class gives the character's AC if they're in light armor or heavy armor. And class also determines whether you can benefit from a shield and how badly your attack rolls are penalized in heavy armor.

I really wish 6e is essentially 13th Age and 5e combined... Which would be hilarious since 13th Age is 3e and 4e combined.

[LordVonDerp]

It's even harder to see through-a-visor-and-around-a-shield. Think you couldn't lose track of a 260lb guy who's quite literally right in front of you? You can. You really ought to have to make a Perception roll to see anything that's not in your front 60° arc, and 60° is probably too generous.


Why are you wearing a visor if you're already in melee? They had quick release pins on them for a reason.

[R.Shackleford]

Why are you wearing a visor if you're already in melee? They had quick release pins on them for a reason.

Personally in the age of magic one would think the inside of your helmet would look something like the inside of Iron Man's.

Not all settings but this is how I imagine the Judges from FF XII to work.

[RickAllison]

Personally in the age of magic one would think the inside of your helmet would look something like the inside of Iron Man's.

Not all settings but this is how I imagine the Judges from FF XII to work.

My wizard is a magitech, Artificer-style man. This would be perfect!!! Thanks for the wonderful idea :smallbiggrin:

[Pex]

Many people forget that the G in RPG stands for "Game". Not about Stormwind but that people get so caught up in the gameworld story they forget it's a game, figuratively speaking. The physics, math, science, how things work have to be so precise based on the real world they get caught up in the minutiae and become frustrated or resentful on how the game rules aren't accurately reflecting those things to their satisfaction. A player in my Pathfinder group is like this, firmly in the fighters shouldn't get nice things camp and loathes the lack of facing.

Armor in D&D is just an abstraction. It's the gameworld means to determine the math behind how easy or hard it is to hit your opponent, the game part of the RPG. That is all it needs to be. Realism and complexity can go too far to take away the fun of playing the game. They have their place and purpose, but too much of it bogs down the game. The fiddly bits is what some people aren't liking of 3E/Pathfinder and why they like 5E. I don't mind the fiddly bits of Pathfinder so its complexity isn't too much for me, but I can appreciate why it is for those whom it is as is another player in my Pathfinder group who keeps getting flustered by the various +1s and +2s he's forgetting.

[Naanomi]

Those are wood rods, not reeds. Tlingit and Haida "rod-and-slat" armor is more wood armor than leather. There's a leather, highly decorated "overcoat", and underneath is a sheet of elk leather, but it's the wooden blocks that are taking most of the impact. It's not too different from how leather was used in combination with metal in other parts of the world.

Here's a modern recreation. (https://qmackie.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/armor_tlingit_joseph_16.jpg?w=500)

You are correct... One of the northwest tribes used bound reeds as armor (Kwakiutl?) but I can't find any pics online at the moment. Good catch, sorry for the misattribution

[Formless Entity]

I'm not going to track down exhaustive individual references at the moment but...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminar_armour#/media/File:%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D 0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%8C.jpg is a picture of Siberean armor that is thought to be much like Mongolian armor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buff_coat#/media/File:Kyller_-_Livrustkammaren_-_30083.tif is a Buffcoat in the style traditionally worn under armor, but specifically called out as to be worn to protect from dueling pistols

http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/58287-zulu-had-metalworking-so-why-didn-t-their-soldiers-use-metal-armor-shields.html is a forum discussion about why Zulu warriors used leather when they had access to metal (IE: it was hot and they had lots of leather)

http://www.native-languages.org/images/armor1.jpg shows a Tlingit man in leather armor with reed loose breastplate, mostly intended to stop arrows. Would have sometimes been combined with a carved wooden helmet.

One thing that is interesting about use of leather armor outside of Europe: Asia, Africa, North America... all sources of much thicker leather than Europe. Buffalo in North America, Rhino and Elephant in both African and classic Asia.

Also remember, in terms of non-illustrated examples of leather armor; that Leather (especially *untreated* leather) would leave very few examples compared to metal armor just because it decomposes.

EDIT: Bonus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultanate_of_Bagirmi#/media/File:Rytter_fra_Bagirmi.jpg is a neat picture of Padded Armor worn by North-African Muslims fairly late historically

http://www.comitatus.net/pdfs/LEATHERARMOUR.pdf here is something written on leather armor; though I do notice some inaccuracies already on a quick run-through

If the first was used as armor it would more than likely be against animals and the elements, however keep in mind that that is not even leather it is hide.

The second adds nothing to the conversations as I have stated several times that leather was worn underneath metal armors and other more protective materials.

For the third a forum discussion is not historical evidence in any way.

As for the fourth as I have stated several, several times. LEATHER ARMOR WAS WORN UNDER MORE PROTECTIVE MATERIALS you are not adding anything to the conversation by bringing up more examples of this.

For the fifth, padded =/= leather so it does not count even if I assume it to be historical.

For the sixth, that does not constitute historical evidence.


Now if you have any evidence for treated leather being issued and used by warriors on the field of battle without any other more protective materials used over it.

Then you can present that. Otherwise please do us both a favor and stop grasping at straws.

[Formless Entity]

Why are you wearing a visor if you're already in melee? They had quick release pins on them for a reason.

Precisely.

[Formless Entity]

You can quickly get bogged down with this. I can remember, in an earlier edition, fighters having to carry a half a dozen weapons for all different circumstances.

A fighter's first round of combat might be: Ah, I see the bandits are wearing chain mail, so I drop my bow, hurl a throwing hammer, then pull out my mace while charging to melee range. (Because chain mail doesn't resist bludgeoning damage.)


Needing to have a blunt, piercing, and slashing option for ranged and for melee made things complicated very quickly.

In the same system, I remember lots of encounters that started at longer range -- so there would be archers exchanging blows, then a round with thrown javelins or axes while the front-line fighters charged in, and then finally the first round of melee combat.

Fighters usually had many more weapons than wizards had spells. It was a bit strange.

But then, the thief (not "rogue" back then) would have twine and pebbles and flour and sticks and caltrops and marbles and on and on filling up the equipment section of his character sheet, too.

Very different game back then.

Realistically speaking it makes sense to carry a weapon of every damage type.

Most of my combat characters do.

Even if it something like a Greatsword, Dagger, and Light Mace.

Zombies and Skeletons could be annoying without the right weapons.

[Formless Entity]

I think those do exist in most D&D campaigns.

Yes it does.

But he was saying leathers was used by warriors on the field of battle historically.

[Formless Entity]

I've been playing with making AC actually abstract and more about fluff/role-playing.

Your base AC is about how well you use ALL of your ability scores, armor, and whatever else to protect yourself. Some classes are trained to fight and defend more than others due to their choice to learn other stuff.

Armor Class

Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, and Paladins
AC: 14 + Prof + Shield + Misc

Bard, Cleric, Rogue, and Ranger
AC: 12 + Prof + Shield + Misc

Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizards
AC: 10 + Prof + Shield + Misc

You only gain shield bonus of you are proficient with the shield.

Misc is any random thing like cover or magic that gives you a bonus to AC. Some class features need to be changed up but typically they work well. Monk Wis to AC, Barbarian Con to AC, Dragon Sorcerer (+3) to AC all can work in the setup.

As a player you determine what your armor, if any, looks like. The DM can have some say it on this but generally it doesn't matter as your AC is class based.

A Barbarian wearing no armor would still have an 18 + Shield + Misc. That 18 comes from a combination of training, toughness, and luck.

A character can say they have mage armor up at all time or have been blessed by a deity. The possibilities are endless.

****
If you want a mechanical difference I would head back to 2e and work with the armor versus damage ttables.

Plate Armor: Resist slashing damage

Mystic Protection: Cleric of Pelor has small bands of fire whisking around them. The fire grants resistance to cold damage.

But I think that's going a bit too fiddly.

Personally I would say the druid needs to be moved up one tier.

[R.Shackleford]

My wizard is a magitech, Artificer-style man. This would be perfect!!! Thanks for the wonderful idea :smallbiggrin:

You're welcome.

All adventurers/top military combat types would have a magi-tech helmet (if they are the type to use armor).

It would combine Arcane Eye with the Helmet.

The helmet counts as the "eye" for the spell but can see out to 100' (trading mobility for range).

However 1/long rest you may cast arcane eye as the spell.

Whatever the "eye" sees is projected into the helmet.


Edit

@ Formless Enity... There is an edit button, double posting is a no no here, figured I would help you out (funny enough pointing out rules may also be a no no... Bit I'm just trying to be helpful)

Also, the druid is a caster first and foremost. Yeah they turn into animals and I could see them being boosted by one tier when they are in melee animal form... But their base form is very glass caster ish.

[Gurifu]

Armor in D&D is just an abstraction. It's the gameworld means to determine the math behind how easy or hard it is to hit your opponent, the game part of the RPG. That is all it needs to be. Realism and complexity can go too far to take away the fun of playing the game. They have their place and purpose, but too much of it bogs down the game. The fiddly bits is what some people aren't liking of 3E/Pathfinder and why they like 5E. I don't mind the fiddly bits of Pathfinder so its complexity isn't too much for me, but I can appreciate why it is for those whom it is as is another player in my Pathfinder group who keeps getting flustered by the various +1s and +2s he's forgetting.

I agree with this, but I think that it's always good to try, where possible, to make rules, rullings , and suggestions to promote behaviors that make sense. Often, this can be done without any increase in complexity, or with a very small increase that doesn't involve any bookkeeping or decision-making on the play level.

[Formless Entity]

You're welcome.

All adventurers/top military combat types would have a magi-tech helmet (if they are the type to use armor).

It would combine Arcane Eye with the Helmet.

The helmet counts as the "eye" for the spell but can see out to 100' (trading mobility for range).

However 1/long rest you may cast arcane eye as the spell.

Whatever the "eye" sees is projected into the helmet.


Edit

@ Formless Enity... There is an edit button, double posting is a no no here, figured I would help you out (funny enough pointing out rules may also be a no no... Bit I'm just trying to be helpful)

Also, the druid is a caster first and foremost. Yeah they turn into animals and I could see them being boosted by one tier when they are in melee animal form... But their base form is very glass caster ish.

Sorry I was not aware of the rules against double posting.

Also I would disagree as they are able to use medium armor, shields, martial weapons, some buff spells, some healing spells, can change into animals as well as their other spells.

The druid in my experience is a class that can be a better fighter than a cleric in most situations.

[R.Shackleford]

Sorry I was not aware of the rules against double posting.

Also I would disagree as they are able to use medium armor, shields, martial weapons, some buff spells, some healing spells, can change into animals as well as their other spells.

The druid in my experience is a class that can be a better fighter than a cleric in most situations.

They are able to use Non-Metal medium armors and shields. The only PHB medium armor that you can obtain outside of DM whim is Hide armor. Mage Armor does better than that.

The only time the druid becomes a better fighter than the cleric would have to be level 2 (if Moon Druid maybe) and 18 (onion). The cleric is an absolute beast without needing to reshape themselves.

As a caster the druid has Heat Metal, but that isn't making them a better fighter but a better caster.

The druid is a caster first and foremost.

[SLIMEPRIEST]

AC abstraction is nessecary to make combat functional.

For me, real break with realism comes from lack of encumbrance. My group plays Lotfp as well as 5e and in that game only fighters who are expected to close with serious physical threats wear armor at all. Everyone else typically wears buff coats and helms (magic users wear dresses). This is because the brutal encumbrance rules start to really slow you down after you are carrying more than 14 items and chain, shield each count as 5 items (plate counts as 10!).

This seems more like what you would realistically wear to go looting in an underground maze. Also, how silly do you think a character looks sitting in a tavern, drinking ale, wearing platemail?

[R.Shackleford]

AC abstraction is nessecary to make combat functional.

For me, real break with realism comes from lack of encumbrance. My group plays Lotfp as well as 5e and in that game only fighters who are expected to close with serious physical threats wear armor at all. Everyone else typically wears buff coats and helms (magic users wear dresses). This is because the brutal encumbrance rules start to really slow you down after you are carrying more than 14 items and chain, shield each count as 5 items (plate counts as 10!).

This seems more like what you would realistically wear to go looting in an underground maze. Also, how silly do you think a character looks sitting in a tavern, drinking ale, wearing platemail?

The issue is that encumbrance to a normal human is an issue but to people with 16 - 20 strengths? Not so much.

It also adds fiddly elements when you get over zelous with encumbrance rules.

Personally I keep a mule with my character for his stuff and typically have a family back home that I keep excess stuff with so I stay within my own ideology of the game... But I won't push that into another player when there are sooo many other issues with the game breaking realism... Of you don't like encumberance how do you handle gargantuan dragons flying without the aid of magic?

D&D isn't a simulation game and we really don't want it to be.

[Slipperychicken]

Also, how silly do you think a character looks sitting in a tavern, drinking ale, wearing platemail?

He looks a lot better than the guy who's lying six feet under, wearing a breastplate.


Also, for the encumbrance, that's why you need to keep at least one pack animal, and protect it like it's your baby. Or at the absolute least get some kind of wheelbarrow or shopping cart so you can drag the goodies around yourself. You're looting a whole underground complex, not going shopping for an hour.

[Naanomi]

I apologize, I didn't realize this was a scholarly article that needed strict citation. MLA I assume? I look forward to reading the articles on helmet visor practices.:smallwink:

For an example of leather armor used in real combat, the most documented example is probably the ge jia and wei jia armor used extensively during the Zhao dynasty (along with Zia jia, paper armor that I have no idea how to classify in DnD system armor) with *and without* additional bronze or iron componants. For source lets just go with Wikipedia and if you disagree still you can feel free to edit the page with corrections? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_armour

[SLIMEPRIEST]

The issue is that encumbrance to a normal human is an issue but to people with 16 - 20 strengths? Not so much.

It also adds fiddly elements when you get over zelous with encumbrance rules.

Personally I keep a mule with my character for his stuff and typically have a family back home that I keep excess stuff with so I stay within my own ideology of the game... But I won't push that into another player when there are sooo many other issues with the game breaking realism... Of you don't like encumberance how do you handle gargantuan dragons flying without the aid of magic?

D&D isn't a simulation game and we really don't want it to be.


He looks a lot better than the guy who's lying six feet under, wearing a breastplate.


Also, for the encumbrance, that's why you need to keep at least one pack animal, and protect it like it's your baby. Or at the absolute least get some kind of wheelbarrow or shopping cart so you can drag the goodies around yourself. You're looting a whole underground complex, not going shopping for an hour.

I totally agree (especially about pack animals). Im not interested in simulation. Ive never thought about the mecanics of dragon flight. I like it when my companions wear plate, i stand behind them. Its just the only things that have ever ruffled me about armor and realism are encumbrance issues and characters relating to "regular folk"

[Formless Entity]

They are able to use Non-Metal medium armors and shields. The only PHB medium armor that you can obtain outside of DM whim is Hide armor. Mage Armor does better than that.

The only time the druid becomes a better fighter than the cleric would have to be level 2 (if Moon Druid maybe) and 18 (onion). The cleric is an absolute beast without needing to reshape themselves.

As a caster the druid has Heat Metal, but that isn't making them a better fighter but a better caster.

The druid is a caster first and foremost.

My experiences will have to disagree.

However I would say that by your logic a cleric is also a caster first and foremost.

[Formless Entity]

I apologize, I didn't realize this was a scholarly article that needed strict citation. MLA I assume? I look forward to reading the articles on helmet visor practices.:smallwink:

For an example of leather armor used in real combat, the most documented example is probably the ge jia and wei jia armor used extensively during the Zhao dynasty (along with Zia jia, paper armor that I have no idea how to classify in DnD system armor) with *and without* additional bronze or iron componants. For source lets just go with Wikipedia and if you disagree still you can feel free to edit the page with corrections? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_armour

I do not accept wikipieda as a source.

If there is a valid source they quote you can follow their citations and then bring up the article,

[Formless Entity]

I apologize, I didn't realize this was a scholarly article that needed strict citation. MLA I assume? I look forward to reading the articles on helmet visor practices.:smallwink:

For an example of leather armor used in real combat, the most documented example is probably the ge jia and wei jia armor used extensively during the Zhao dynasty (along with Zia jia, paper armor that I have no idea how to classify in DnD system armor) with *and without* additional bronze or iron componants. For source lets just go with Wikipedia and if you disagree still you can feel free to edit the page with corrections? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_armour

Also I am simply saying if you do not know something then it is best not to make claims about it.

[Bohandas]

You might wish to fudge that in your campaign, however keep in mind that the names of the armor themselves would be horribly incorrect if that where the case.

The names are kind of anachronistic anyway. IIRC They didn't start applying the -mail/-maille suffix to anything other than chainmail until all of them had already fallen out of use.

[Knaight]

I believe that, if D&D armor was realistic, no one would ever play strength-based fighters, rangers, paladins, etc. Almost everyone would be a dexer, warlocks with their Armor of Shadows invocation would be overplayed, and barbarians would be the only strong-men running around.

If it were realistic, armor would be a substantially better defense than just being fairly quick. There's a reason that people tended to load up on armor if they had the means to, and while the exact balance point on how much armor was too much even if you had the means for arbitrary amounts varied, it was generally well into heavy armor territory. Yes, armor could always be made thicker, infantry armor frequently had lighter leg armor than cavalry armor on purpose, there are extensive tradeoffs in helmets between vision and face protection, etc. People still tended to want a helmet that covered everything but the face, some sort of torso and upper leg protection, and a decent amount of padding for all of that at minimum, even in extremely hot climates. Adventurers are going to skew a bit lighter than professional soldiers with means to some extent, inasmuch as things like routine climbing, swimming, etc. all favor packing light, but from an actual in combat protection perspective, realism is to have armor provide a big benefit.

[snowblizz]

The second adds nothing to the conversations as I have stated several times that leather was worn underneath metal armors and other more protective materials.

That specific piece was used as the sole armour of the king of Sweden Gustavus Adolphus. Incidentally he was killed wearing it. He could not wear more armour.
However many wore only buffcoats, e.g. harqebusiers in their latter days in the midst of the 30YW, for similar reasons to the unfortunate king. Metal armour was heavy and not everyone needed the absolute top armour combination.

During the ECW standard equipment for cavalry would become the buffcoat, with or without breast and backplates. But the latter was an optional extra.

Fact is buffcoats were very expensive, more so than "normal" armour. Several times the cost of a normal troopers armour (which at this point had declined in quality though compared to the heyday of metal armour). And it's not an undergarmnet for proper armour. It's proper armour in of itself and was used as such by many categories of troops that preferred a lighter yet functional armour option. For even superior protection you would add the breast and backplate that was becoming very heavy to cope with firearms technology.

By your logic chainmail isn't real armour either because plate could and would be worn over it (though not always, exactly like buffcoats). Nor were the padded jacks that for many medieaval soldiers was their only form of armour after helmets and shields. Man were they stupid for wearing that uselessly since they didn't have any plate armours like their social betters ontop of it!

[bulbaquil]

5e is not as simulationist as even certain previous editions of D&D were, and treats certain aspects of the game - including armor - with equal or greater abstraction than those editions or other more simulationist games do. For example, facing doesn't exist; effectively, every character's "field of view" is 360 degrees no matter what armor they're wearing. If you wanted to simulate the reduced field of view, you would have to reintroduce some sort of facing mechanic, which in turn would slow down combat, etc.

[Formless Entity]

The names are kind of anachronistic anyway. IIRC They didn't start applying the -mail/-maille suffix to anything other than chainmail until all of them had already fallen out of use.

True.

During its prime chainmail was just called mail.

[Formless Entity]

That specific piece was used as the sole armour of the king of Sweden Gustavus Adolphus. Incidentally he was killed wearing it. He could not wear more armour.
However many wore only buffcoats, e.g. harqebusiers in their latter days in the midst of the 30YW, for similar reasons to the unfortunate king. Metal armour was heavy and not everyone needed the absolute top armour combination.

During the ECW standard equipment for cavalry would become the buffcoat, with or without breast and backplates. But the latter was an optional extra.

Fact is buffcoats were very expensive, more so than "normal" armour. Several times the cost of a normal troopers armour (which at this point had declined in quality though compared to the heyday of metal armour). And it's not an undergarmnet for proper armour. It's proper armour in of itself and was used as such by many categories of troops that preferred a lighter yet functional armour option. For even superior protection you would add the breast and backplate that was becoming very heavy to cope with firearms technology.

By your logic chainmail isn't real armour either because plate could and would be worn over it (though not always, exactly like buffcoats). Nor were the padded jacks that for many medieaval soldiers was their only form of armour after helmets and shields. Man were they stupid for wearing that uselessly since they didn't have any plate armours like their social betters ontop of it!

Seeing as you have not worn much armor let me tell you this.

When armor is worn the weight is very well distributed on most metal armors, mail and hides would put more weight on you then they would.

[Knaight]

5e is not as simulationist as even certain previous editions of D&D were, and treats certain aspects of the game - including armor - with equal or greater abstraction than those editions or other more simulationist games do. For example, facing doesn't exist; effectively, every character's "field of view" is 360 degrees no matter what armor they're wearing. If you wanted to simulate the reduced field of view, you would have to reintroduce some sort of facing mechanic, which in turn would slow down combat, etc.

Adding facing would undercut the simulation more than help it. The rounds are 6 seconds, that's more than enough time to turn around repeatedly. On top of that, just adding facing creates situations like open melee fights turning into each person moving behind the other then stabbing them in the back in turn, despite how easy it should be for the person in the middle to just rotate.

[R.Shackleford]

Adding facing would undercut the simulation more than help it. The rounds are 6 seconds, that's more than enough time to turn around repeatedly. On top of that, just adding facing creates situations like open melee fights turning into each person moving behind the other then stabbing them in the back in turn, despite how easy it should be for the person in the middle to just rotate.

I'll invent this new way of fighting, the front-stab tm. No one will expect it!

[pwykersotz]

I'll invent this new way of fighting, the front-stab tm. No one will expect it!

Okay, that made me choke on my drink. :smallbiggrin:

[R.Shackleford]

Okay, that made me choke on my drink. :smallbiggrin:

Best compliment I could get!

Just wait till you see me dual wield my knife and pocket sand.

Those dragons ain't gonna know what hit them.

[Bohandas]

Making armor more realistic also probably means looking at the proficiency system. I mean... no one wore leather armor because it was 'easier' to wear, they wore it because they didn't have access to anything better (because of cost or technology). While any armor takes some practice to get used to, plate isn't inherently 'more challenging' to use than something lighter in a training sense.

This statement raises the question of whether riot armor or a bomb-squad suit will deflect more damage

[Coidzor]

Realism? Well, plate would have its weight count less for encumbrance and would have a better max dex than historically afforded to it in any editions of D&D that I've encountered.

[snowblizz]

Seeing as you have not worn much armor let me tell you this.

When armor is worn the weight is very well distributed on most metal armors, mail and hides would put more weight on you then they would.
That's beside the point however. Whether I have worn arour or not has no bearing to what the documented sources have to say about the issue.

Which was that leather on it is own has been used as a primary type of armour. Just as mail has and "padded" amour (textiel armour is a real thing too, and not just a fancy type of underpants). All three conveniently can also be combined with e.g. plate armour of various types for some excellent protection.

But your AC bonus to sidestepping being wrong is quite impressive!

[JackPhoenix]

I would take padded gambeson over what D&D calls leather armor (or studded leather armor, for that matter) any time.

[Lombra]

Here's my 2cents on AC in this game: it represents the likeliness that the character gets hit by something, examples:
No armor on: AC= 10+DEX
If the attack roll is less than 10, the opponent misses the target because he didn't even reach the spot that ho would want to hit.
If the 9<attack roll<10+DEX, the opponent reaches where he wants to hit, but the character dodges the attack.

If the character is wearing an armor or using a shield, same events happen, but if the attacker rolls higher than 10+DEX, the character can't dodge the attack, and the hit is received by the armor, unless the roll to hit is higher or equal than the total AC of the character.

The fact that the amount of DEX that you can add to the AC depends on the type of armor represents how much the armor impedes your movement: in full-plate you don't get DEX to AC beause you can't be agile while wearing it, but it's very hard to hit who wears it, because most hits will be deflected by the armor.

[DanyBallon]

Something that could make armor relatively more realistic while keeping the simplicity of 5e, is to scrap Heavy armor mastery and give light armor a 1 dmg reduction, medium and heavy armor would have respectively 2 and 3 points damage reduction. Mage armor and similar spell wouldn't get any damage reduction.

Also, one could apply resistance vs weapon type as it was in 2e. It's still not perfect, but would give a sense of realism.

Lastly, DM should enforce encumbrance rules, chance of drowning, donning and removing armor, and fitting armors in games where they want a more realistic feel. In other games these can slow down a bit gameplay.

[Regulas]

The main thing to note about leather armour is that when you have the selection between iron armour and leather it's not very likely you would intentionally pick leather. Notably leather isn't necessarily any cheaper then crude iron, prior to ranching cows were not hyper abundant and somewhat costly, in contrast Iron's most important quality for history? It's relative abundance compared to other easily accessible metals. Bronze is stronger then raw soft iron, iron originally saw use because you could get way more of it, before they figured how to make stronger iron variants.


If a rogue wants to wear stealthy light armour? He'd wear a [padded chainmail shirt] or a [small breastplate] or [Jack-o-plates]. Light, stealthy and providing far superior protection. Not to mention there's nothing more absurd then an assassin identifiably dressing like some kind of rogue/assassin.

I've often thought of reforming weapons or armour, but alas the entire CR balance depends on what exists. At best you could just replace armors with the correct types of armour, as the difference between light and heavy is mostly about coverage not material or style. Chain shirt is light, Chain hauberk is medium, Chain every surface of your body with overlapping mail is heavy.

Gambison was used a lot even by itself but Gambison is definitely NOT light armour. Real gambison is very thick and stiff and bulky and it would be terrible to wear compared just a lone breastplate.




Complete side note Buffcoats likely became popular due to the gun to sword trend. As guns reduced armour lances saw less (tell that to the Winged hussars ha) use and swords became more popular. Leather is terrible against spears and thrusts like arrows, but fantastic versus cuts. So it's likely that buffcoats became popular because in that era the only kind of attack you'd commonly take that armour could withstand was sword cuts.

[Naanomi]

Except of course when it is cheaper; when good iron isn't available and is mostly being used for weapons and chariot parts (Zhong dynasty China), almost completely unavailable (Pre-Columbian native tribes in the Pacific Northwest), or leather is uncommonly abundant (Mongols who travel with and base their lifestyle around large herds of leather producing animals).

As we've seen though, if we are going to really differentiate armor qualities by materials we also need to examine other materials used... Wood, bone, paper, various cloth (the aforementioned gambeson, silk armor)... Leaving alone various fantasy materials like dragon scale and the like

[Bohandas]

That's beside the point however. Whether I have worn arour or not has no bearing to what the documented sources have to say about the issue.

Which was that leather on it is own has been used as a primary type of armour. Just as mail has and "padded" amour (textiel armour is a real thing too, and not just a fancy type of underpants). All three conveniently can also be combined with e.g. plate armour of various types for some excellent protection.

Possibly also shellacked paper (http://mythbusters.wikia.com/wiki/Paper_Armor_Myth)

[Regulas]

Except of course when it is cheaper; when good iron isn't available and is mostly being used for weapons and chariot parts (Zhong dynasty China), almost completely unavailable (Pre-Columbian native tribes in the Pacific Northwest), or leather is uncommonly abundant (Mongols who travel with and base their lifestyle around large herds of leather producing animals).

As we've seen though, if we are going to really differentiate armor qualities by materials we also need to examine other materials used... Wood, bone, paper, various cloth (the aforementioned gambeson, silk armor)... Leaving alone various fantasy materials like dragon scale and the like


The point is that non-iron based armour (save for stronger fantasy materials, and specifically gambison) is an oddity and exception within most D&D universes, as they are all steel era places. It does make sense for Druids and possibly Barbarians and really a single generic entry for "Crude armor: Medium, 1AC, disadvantage on stealth" would suffice to represent it.



Also interesting note: Proper gambison is a thing unto itself, Gambison typically wasn't just "Padding" but rather actual thick canvas layers quilted and stuffed, resulting in a bulky rigid yet very effective protections. It was still primarily an undergarment but was a lot stiffer and thicker and stronger then usually imagined.

[Naanomi]

Excepting Darksun of course, and probably portions of Oriental Adventures

Interestingly in looking for stuff about leather armor I see a lot of references to leather horse armor... An attempt to revamp armor will also have to look at barding as well

[Knaight]

Realism? Well, plate would have its weight count less for encumbrance and would have a better max dex than historically afforded to it in any editions of D&D that I've encountered.

The other option would be to have dexterity worth less. Speed is definitely valuable, but it's worth vastly less than having the right reflexes because of experience, and Proficiency isn't added to AC. Still, the max dex restrictions in general are odd, as is the deliberate design of lightly armored classes having just as good AC. Then there's how weapons no longer help with AC, and unarmed people are just as hard to hit, which is also bizarre.

[Thrudd]

The other option would be to have dexterity worth less. Speed is definitely valuable, but it's worth vastly less than having the right reflexes because of experience, and Proficiency isn't added to AC. Still, the max dex restrictions in general are odd, as is the deliberate design of lightly armored classes having just as good AC. Then there's how weapons no longer help with AC, and unarmed people are just as hard to hit, which is also bizarre.

A more realistic abstraction of melee combat would be combatants both roll their fighting skill, and the higher result has advantage that round and a possible hit. Damage is rolled, and armor gives you a saving throw to resist the damage either in part or in full, the difficulty of the saving throw being determined by how much and what type of armor is worn.

Alternative: fighting rolls compared as above. Subtract the losing roll from the winning roll. That number is compared to a static numeric armor value, a hit is scored and damage rolled if it is exceeded. If the armor value us not exceeded, armor takes the hit.

[Formless Entity]

That's beside the point however. Whether I have worn arour or not has no bearing to what the documented sources have to say about the issue.

Which was that leather on it is own has been used as a primary type of armour. Just as mail has and "padded" amour (textiel armour is a real thing too, and not just a fancy type of underpants). All three conveniently can also be combined with e.g. plate armour of various types for some excellent protection.

But your AC bonus to sidestepping being wrong is quite impressive!

Show me evidence of this "leather armor" being used in the battlefield then.

[Formless Entity]

The main thing to note about leather armour is that when you have the selection between iron armour and leather it's not very likely you would intentionally pick leather. Notably leather isn't necessarily any cheaper then crude iron, prior to ranching cows were not hyper abundant and somewhat costly, in contrast Iron's most important quality for history? It's relative abundance compared to other easily accessible metals. Bronze is stronger then raw soft iron, iron originally saw use because you could get way more of it, before they figured how to make stronger iron variants.


If a rogue wants to wear stealthy light armour? He'd wear a [padded chainmail shirt] or a [small breastplate] or [Jack-o-plates]. Light, stealthy and providing far superior protection. Not to mention there's nothing more absurd then an assassin identifiably dressing like some kind of rogue/assassin.

I've often thought of reforming weapons or armour, but alas the entire CR balance depends on what exists. At best you could just replace armors with the correct types of armour, as the difference between light and heavy is mostly about coverage not material or style. Chain shirt is light, Chain hauberk is medium, Chain every surface of your body with overlapping mail is heavy.

Gambison was used a lot even by itself but Gambison is definitely NOT light armour. Real gambison is very thick and stiff and bulky and it would be terrible to wear compared just a lone breastplate.




Complete side note Buffcoats likely became popular due to the gun to sword trend. As guns reduced armour lances saw less (tell that to the Winged hussars ha) use and swords became more popular. Leather is terrible against spears and thrusts like arrows, but fantastic versus cuts. So it's likely that buffcoats became popular because in that era the only kind of attack you'd commonly take that armour could withstand was sword cuts.

Buffcoats where used but it was past the medieval ages.

[Easy_Lee]

Show me evidence of this "leather armor" being used in the battlefield then.

We know brigandine armor was used, which is probably the inspiration for "studded leather." From Wikipedia:

"A brigandine is a form of body armour from the Middle Ages. It is a cloth garment, generally canvas or leather, lined with small oblong steel plates riveted to the fabric."

Sometimes, these plates were on the inside, or between layers of leather, giving the appearance of "studded leather." Such armor would be quite a bit better than plain padded leather, as in boiled leather over a gambeson.

[Coidzor]

Oh, OP, Fit is addressed, in both 3.5 and 5e. Probably 3.0, too.

It's one of the fiddly rules that's ignored more often, though, I think.


Buffcoats where used but it was past the medieval ages.

Gothic Full Plate is also early modern, so that's a bit of a wash, ultimately, when it comes to the milieu of D&D.

[smcmike]

Buffcoats where used but it was past the medieval ages.

This is the first time you've indicated that the inquiry should be limited to the medieval period.

[Regulas]

Buffcoats where used but it was past the medieval ages.

Yes........... and the sky is blue... not sure how that has any bearing to anything I said at the least, even if you consider them to be irrelevant, as I was explaining why they were used and nothing else.

[Formless Entity]

We know brigandine armor was used, which is probably the inspiration for "studded leather." From Wikipedia:

"A brigandine is a form of body armour from the Middle Ages. It is a cloth garment, generally canvas or leather, lined with small oblong steel plates riveted to the fabric."

Sometimes, these plates were on the inside, or between layers of leather, giving the appearance of "studded leather." Such armor would be quite a bit better than plain padded leather, as in boiled leather over a gambeson.

For the last time.

I know there are metal-leather armor hybrids.

I am asking about pure leather armor which was claimed to be used in the battlefield during the medieval period. Do you have any evidence of that?

[Formless Entity]

This is the first time you've indicated that the inquiry should be limited to the medieval period.

I assumed we are talking about medieval, or maybe early renaissance armor at the latest, because of the technological era most D&D games take place in.

[Easy_Lee]

For the last time.

I know there are metal-leather armor hybrids.

I am asking about pure leather armor which was claimed to be used in the battlefield during the medieval period. Do you have any evidence of that?

Regarding pure leather, others have brought up non European cultures. The Native Americans certainly wore buckskin, Buffalo hide, and similar, which obviously would function as armor.

That said, revolutionary idea here: I don't think leather was usually called armor. Whether it acted that way or not, I suspect a hide cap or jerkin would simply be called clothing. And an soldier who couldn't afford chain, or couldn't get chain, might wear a nice leather coat, wolf or bear pelt, etc. They just wouldn't call it armor.

There is some basis for this. We know, for example, that heavy plate armor was not common in the middle east due to the heat. However, silk wrapping, turbans, and other clothing items have been used as makeshift armor, without calling them as such. Some Indian tulwar (sword) forms include attacks for knocking off the opponent's turban before striking the foe's opposed head.

So there you go. Padded leather is somewhat practical as armor, if not as good as chain or plate. It was widely available. It may not have been called armor. And due to the nature of leather, pieces of leather "armor" would have deteriorated by now. So we'll never be sure.

[Carlobrand]

I assumed we are talking about medieval, or maybe early renaissance armor at the latest, because of the technological era most D&D games take place in.

Why? Admittedly, D&D tends to run more or less Medieval/Renaissance, but as a fantasy game it has to cover a lot of ground in terms of culture and technology, everything from cultures capable of Gothic plate to cultures improvising with whatever happens to be at hand. I don't think kobolds or goblins will necessarily be functioning at a medieval norm, for example - or rather I seldom see them portrayed as such. I agree that players will typically have access to Medieval or Renaissance level armor but, in tribal societies in the hinterlands, metal armor of any sort might well be limited to high status members, so the players will be encountering opponents in armor fashioned from leather, bone, and/or other available materials. That being the case, it seems fair for the discussion to include the armor alternatives adopted by cultures outside of Medieval Europe.

[Regulas]

Why? Admittedly, D&D tends to run more or less Medieval/Renaissance, but as a fantasy game it has to cover a lot of ground in terms of culture and technology, everything from cultures capable of Gothic plate to cultures improvising with whatever happens to be at hand. I don't think kobolds or goblins will necessarily be functioning at a medieval norm, for example - or rather I seldom see them portrayed as such. I agree that players will typically have access to Medieval or Renaissance level armor but, in tribal societies in the hinterlands, metal armor of any sort might well be limited to high status members, so the players will be encountering opponents in armor fashioned from leather, bone, and/or other available materials. That being the case, it seems fair for the discussion to include the armor alternatives adopted by cultures outside of Medieval Europe.


Even in many tribal areas metal armour is often far far more widespread then you might think, as noted Iron's main quality is it's vast abundance and extreme cheapness, consider how every peasant and his brother have iron farming tools, and even the stereotypical small isolated village has a blacksmith (remember armour can be made from simple iron rather then specifically steel). The Mongols didn't wear a lot of metal armour because they had small horses that couldn't take the added weight while still being as readily mobile, since their style of war heavily relied on mobility.

Heck the Romans themselves got a lot of their metal weapons and techniques from random barbarian cultures like the gauls.


In general I find that while you could make detailed rules if you really wanted to, for general armour rules for D&D there isn't really a need to consider much beyond medieval armour types. Of course there's still a lot to consider due to how poorly the armour is represented, albiet I think mostly re-classifying AC values with the correct armour types is all that's really needed.




Also as a side note to whoever keeps saying it. Plate not being used in other regions was not due to heat, rather making large plates was just not refined until very late so it never got as widespread before guns made it obsolete. The middle east commonly used cataphracts for millennia. That is cavalry decked out in full chainmail covered in lamaller steel plates all overtop of gambison and otherwise, roasting alive volumes of armour commonly used in desert regions. Europe is one of the more unique regions to have not had significant cavalry forces prior to the rise of the knight class

[Carlobrand]

...

Fit - D&D has never required players to, upon acquiring another's armor, take it to a blacksmith to have it fitted. This is very important IRL.
...



Are we specifically discussing full plate? Munitions-grade armor, stuff intended for large numbers of troops, is generically fitted. Of course, the magic stuff isn't gonna be munitions grade, but the ordinary armor shouldn't present complications. The old 2E distinguished between AC 3 "plate mail" (which as described is more like some of the plate armors used by the Byzantine and Mughal empires and would now be best approximated by AC17 Splint, I think) and AC2/1 field/full plate (which in this game appears to be what they're discussing when they mention plate armor).


...

Heat - The only reason plate armor developed the way it did in Europe is because of how cold it is there. Try wearing armor in 100 degree weather, and you may perish.

...

Mediterranean Europe is not noted for its cold weather. It might possibly have inherited its Medieval armor customs from the colder north out of necessity, but the folk did seem to manage in it. Also, the crusaders going into the Levant did indeed wear that armor into combat. I suspect their combat effectiveness was impaired, but I lack hard data.


...

AC vs Damage Reduction - real life armor doesn't make you harder to hit. However, full plate does make you almost 100% immune to sword slashes, spear pokes, arrows, and similar. Maces, flails, and the pommels of longswords are still mostly effective (call it damage resistance). Daggers, ironically, are one of the best anti-armor weapons, since you can get them into the gaps quite well.

...

Actually, plate armor does make you a bit harder to hit. The smooth metal surface has a lower frictional coefficient than, say, leather over metal (e.g. a brigandine or coat-of-plates), so you're a bit more likely to glance off and not get the full power of your follow-through.

Daggers aren't actually all that effective unless you're lucky or can get the opponent pinned. Medieval fights between armored knights relied on something 5E doesn't presently have a mechanic for: you battered your opponent until you knocked him senseless or to the ground, then you fell on him and threatened him with aforementioned dagger, or else you kept pounding - with him on the ground, there's no energy lost moving the man instead of caving the armor. Fights between knights were ended by concussions, broken limbs, or finding yourself on your back with your enemy threatening a lethal strike.

[Carlobrand]

Even in many tribal areas metal armour is often far far more widespread then you might think, as noted Iron's main quality is it's vast abundance and extreme cheapness, ...

Iron is indeed abundant in most areas. Whether or not it's cheap or effective depends on your technology and economy. Early iron production relied on a bloom furnace which did not raise the ore to temperatures high enough to liquefy iron. You heated the ore then took the resulting spongy bloom out and pounded it to get the crap out (which is a terribly nontechnical way to say it - I'm sure someone with actual ironworking experience can describe it better). The resulting iron was not of the quality we take for granted in the modern era.

Roman records document their Northern opponents having trouble with swords that bent and twisted when they hit hard surfaces - the Northern ironworkers were faced with producing either that or sword blades that were hard but brittle. Working it into something better took a lot of work and for that reason tended to be reserved to those who had the wealth or influence to command that level of quality. Mail existed among the Northern tribes, but it is found infrequently, suggesting that it too tended to be reserved to the higher-status members. The Roman trade economy made room for people who specialized in producing and working metals in quantities sufficient to outfit their armies and meet their other metal needs. Their Northern opponents, for whatever reason, did not have economies producing metals on that scale.

[Clistenes]

For the last time.

I know there are metal-leather armor hybrids.

I am asking about pure leather armor which was claimed to be used in the battlefield during the medieval period. Do you have any evidence of that?

Well, it's not from the medieval period, but Cromwell's New Model Army's soliders used leather armor. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buff_coat)

They used boiled leather lamellar armor in Asia. (http://thewanderingscot.com/photos/2011%20East%20Asia/Mongolia/)

And etymologically speaking, "cuirass" comes from Late Latin coriacea vestis "garment of leather," from Latin corium "leather, hide". (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cuirass)


Medieval Gambesons which weren't designed to be used under metal armor, but as the main protection, used to be faced with leather or canvas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambeson).

So, leather alone? Yes, at least in other time periods... During the Middle Ages? Yes, but combined with cloth padding.

By the way, I recommend Armour & Weapons of Charles John Ffoulkes. It shows how medievalists made up studded leather armour and ringmail armor from conjetures over old medieval art.

[R.Shackleford]

Daggers aren't actually all that effective unless you're lucky or can get the opponent pinned. Medieval fights between armored knights relied on something 5E doesn't presently have a mechanic for: you battered your opponent until you knocked him senseless or to the ground, then you fell on him and threatened him with aforementioned dagger, or else you kept pounding - with him on the ground, there's no energy lost moving the man instead of caving the armor. Fights between knights were ended by concussions, broken limbs, or finding yourself on your back with your enemy threatening a lethal strike.

Except where I striked out this happens in every edition of D&D. The striked out part doesn't happen because players don't want to give their enemies a chance to get up.

[Draco4472]

Ah, armor. How misunderstood it is. How convenient it is in fantasy settings to just write it down, not worry about it, and pretend it's always on with no drawbacks. How common it is for folks in Hollywood to pretend that armor weighs hundreds of pounds, that you cannot even get on a horse without help while wearing it, but to then forget how hot it is to wear.

This thread's about armor: real-life factors, and whether we should consider them in games.

Drawbacks to real-life armor:

Cost - the game conveys this well.
Fit - D&D has never required players to, upon acquiring another's armor, take it to a blacksmith to have it fitted. This is very important IRL.
Sight - Any idea how hard it is to see through a visor? Very.
Heat - The only reason plate armor developed the way it did in Europe is because of how cold it is there. Try wearing armor in 100 degree weather, and you may perish.
Encumbrance - deep water, swamps, and many other sorts of terrain would pose a major hazard for anyone wearing plate.
AC vs Damage Reduction - real life armor doesn't make you harder to hit. However, full plate does make you almost 100% immune to sword slashes, spear pokes, arrows, and similar. Maces, flails, and the pommels of longswords are still mostly effective (call it damage resistance). Daggers, ironically, are one of the best anti-armor weapons, since you can get them into the gaps quite well.

All that said, I don't believe most of these things ought to be considered in D&D. The simple reason why is because the gap between spell-casters and martials is wide enough already at late levels. Consider that mage armor + a good DEX score results in the same AC as plate, combined with better initiative than a typical plate-wearer. Consider that, while armor realistically has gaps, this wouldn't apply to things like barkskin or stoneskin. Magical armor would be better than actual armor.

I believe that, if D&D armor was realistic, no one would ever play strength-based fighters, rangers, paladins, etc. Almost everyone would be a dexer, warlocks with their Armor of Shadows invocation would be overplayed, and barbarians would be the only strong-men running around.

That said, it is kind of fun to threaten players with drowning if they try to swim in armor. Not very nice, just fun.

I believe the AC bonus of heavy armor conveys not making you harder to hit, but rather, reducing the damage of an attack to the point where it's not really doing any significant damage to the wearing. Light armor however reflects the ability to dodge and have some protection from impact while medium armor acts as a bit of both.

And yes, player's should not be able to swim in chainmail or platemail without a ridiculous strength score (25-30 or higher) or some manner of magic.

[Easy_Lee]

I believe the AC bonus of heavy armor conveys not making you harder to hit, but rather, reducing the damage of an attack to the point where it's not really doing any significant damage to the wearing. Light armor however reflects the ability to dodge and have some protection from impact while medium armor acts as a bit of both.

And yes, player's should not be able to swim in chainmail or platemail without a ridiculous strength score (25-30 or higher) or some manner of magic.

I do understand the AC argument, it's just odd that they've done away with touch-AC. I understand why they did, but it makes the system feel a bit odd. Also, fun fact: with defensive duelist, you can deflect fire bolts and similar spells with your weapon. It's a funny edition.

For heavy plate, I agree about swimming. Chain, depending on the thickness, is not so bad. I'd be more worried about the padding. Historically, you wouldn't wear chain right up against your skin. For one, it's cold an abrasive. For two, metal against your skin won't protect you much since it's going to transfer all of the blunt force directly into your body. That's resistance to non-bludgeoning at best, in game terms. If you've ever noticed how in historical paintings, knights with mail hoods sometimes look like their heads are oversized and oddly shaped, that's why. Everything was padded.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/0a/28/9a/0a289ab613df7428f822da3bfefcb0aa.jpg

[smcmike]

I do understand the AC argument, it's just odd that they've done away with touch-AC. I understand why they did, but it makes the system feel a bit odd. Also, fun fact: with defensive duelist, you can deflect fire bolts and similar spells with your weapon. It's a funny edition.

I actually don't see anything wrong with that. Magic is magic, but that doesn't mean it can't be blocked. Touch AC makes some sense for some spells, but it never really made sense for all the rays in 3.5. Why wouldn't armor and a shield offer more protection against a frost bolt than, say, nudity?

[Carlobrand]

Except where I striked out this happens in every edition of D&D. ...

Ah, I realize my mistake: I was referring to a mechanic in which said battering was the only means to subdue the opponent, plate armor otherwise absorbing damage to prevent lethal injury. D&D presents you with armor that makes it difficult to land a blow while the blow itself does the same level of damage irrespective of armor, with the result that you could find your opponent killing you while you try to subdue him - a decided disincentive to any subdual attempt. Real-world armor's ability to absorb and distribute the energy of a blow creates a different paradigm, turning a knight vs. knight duel into something more similar to a boxing match, which is something the D&D AC mechanic can't simulate except by deliberate choice of both combatants. I apologize for stating it so poorly.


... The striked out part doesn't happen because players don't want to give their enemies a chance to get up.

They would if the culture had a tradition of generous ransoms for the subdued knights - and of course if said knights had a tradition of honorably and consistently surrendering under such circumstances. It's ultimately a risk-benefit analysis. Dangle the right incentive, convince them that their prize will play the game, and the players will cooperate, but if you use it as an opportunity for trickery then you'll get a predictable result.

[BurgerBeast]

While that quote does seem to have some truth to it.

I must point out that you just made a logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority.

No, he did not. Man, you're really getting this entirely wrong all of the time. It would be an appeal to authority if he said "The Alexandrian is correct on this because he is the Alexandrian."

But that's not what he said. He simply quoted the Alexandrian.

Quoting someone is not an appeal to authority. It's called citing your source in an effort to preserve academic integrity by not plagiarizing another person's idea and falsely representing it as your own.

Stop presenting yourself as having a qualification in philosophy at the same time as you get its most fundamental concepts entirely wrong.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Leather by itself as armor would be viable, but that also depends upon what we are calling leather. Tanned leather wouldn't make a very good armor. However certain part of certain animals (bulls, buffalo, elephants, etc...) could be used to make efficient armor using certain techniques (like boiling and lacquering). At the very least, they would prevent errant strikes and minor blows from connecting and causing more serious injury, which is the point of armor in the first place.

There are few surviving examples of leather armor, as leather is an organic material and is susceptible to rot. Leather would also have had limited lifespan, as major damage to a leather armor piece, would lessen its effectiveness. Thus the concept of lamellar used in Asia, or the inclusion of metal rivets or plates in Europe. Cloth was also used, and the quality, amount and skill required to make an effective cloth armor would make it expensive as well... suffering from the same issues as leather, rot, damage repair, and dare I say cleanliness of the garment (burns, sweat, blood, etc).

Metal is very effective at turning away strikes, can easily be cleaned/maintained by oiling it, and repaired just as strongly as new (albeit maybe a bit worse looking) via a decent smith. It was also a huge status symbol,due to it's cost. Cloth would require many hours of work with a lot of high quality material. Leather work was by comparison much less labor intensive than metal or cloth. Although still expensive.

The fact has been noted that leather armor without metal reinforcement is rare, but is not the opposite true as well... is there any metal armor that doesn't rely on cloth or leather as part of the armor? There is nothing wrong with using a better suited material to deflect a blow and the more susceptible material to absorb the blow. Just because this became the standard, doesn't mean that leather armor wasn't used or even common. Hides are in effect a leather armor, they may be raw hides, or hide with the fur still on it, and as such may be poorer than boiled leather that is treated with oil, wax, and laquer, but it still functions as some protection from blows.

[Doug Lampert]

I believe the AC bonus of heavy armor conveys not making you harder to hit, but rather, reducing the damage of an attack to the point where it's not really doing any significant damage to the wearing. Light armor however reflects the ability to dodge and have some protection from impact while medium armor acts as a bit of both.

And yes, player's should not be able to swim in chainmail or platemail without a ridiculous strength score (25-30 or higher) or some manner of magic.

Given that real people can, do, and did really swim in real plate armor, and I doubt they had 25+ strength or magic, I think you are very wrong about swimming in armor.

[pwykersotz]

Given that real people can, do, and did really swim in real plate armor, and I doubt they had 25+ strength or magic, I think you are very wrong about swimming in armor.

A friend of mine dons plate armor three times a week and fights in it. I just asked him and he says it would be almost impossible to swim in plate armor. (Yes, yes, guy at the gym fallacy and all that.) So can you source the whole "swimming in plate" thing? I mean, sure, you might barely survive if the shore isn't too far away and your desperation is pumping you full of adrenaline, but that's more like limping through the water than swimming.

[Formless Entity]

Regarding pure leather, others have brought up non European cultures. The Native Americans certainly wore buckskin, Buffalo hide, and similar, which obviously would function as armor.

That said, revolutionary idea here: I don't think leather was usually called armor. Whether it acted that way or not, I suspect a hide cap or jerkin would simply be called clothing. And an soldier who couldn't afford chain, or couldn't get chain, might wear a nice leather coat, wolf or bear pelt, etc. They just wouldn't call it armor.

There is some basis for this. We know, for example, that heavy plate armor was not common in the middle east due to the heat. However, silk wrapping, turbans, and other clothing items have been used as makeshift armor, without calling them as such. Some Indian tulwar (sword) forms include attacks for knocking off the opponent's turban before striking the foe's opposed head.

So there you go. Padded leather is somewhat practical as armor, if not as good as chain or plate. It was widely available. It may not have been called armor. And due to the nature of leather, pieces of leather "armor" would have deteriorated by now. So we'll never be sure.

Padded armor =/= leather armor.

Can you show examples of native americans using leather armor on the battlefield?

Because my studies of at least the native americans in my area seems to indicate they did not use them for battle.

[Formless Entity]

Well, it's not from the medieval period, but Cromwell's New Model Army's soliders used leather armor. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buff_coat)

They used boiled leather lamellar armor in Asia. (http://thewanderingscot.com/photos/2011%20East%20Asia/Mongolia/)

And etymologically speaking, "cuirass" comes from Late Latin coriacea vestis "garment of leather," from Latin corium "leather, hide". (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cuirass)


Medieval Gambesons which weren't designed to be used under metal armor, but as the main protection, used to be faced with leather or canvas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambeson).

So, leather alone? Yes, at least in other time periods... During the Middle Ages? Yes, but combined with cloth padding.

By the way, I recommend Armour & Weapons of Charles John Ffoulkes. It shows how medievalists made up studded leather armour and ringmail armor from conjetures over old medieval art.

Gambesons are padded armor not leather.

Your link to the boiled leather armor in asia was no good.

Curiass does because armor was typically worn over it.

[Formless Entity]

Given that real people can, do, and did really swim in real plate armor, and I doubt they had 25+ strength or magic, I think you are very wrong about swimming in armor.

Even if you could (which you probably could not), you would more than likely damage the leather and cloth worn under the plates.

For the record I wear plate a lot, but I have not tried to swim in it.

[Formless Entity]

Leather by itself as armor would be viable, but that also depends upon what we are calling leather. Tanned leather wouldn't make a very good armor. However certain part of certain animals (bulls, buffalo, elephants, etc...) could be used to make efficient armor using certain techniques (like boiling and lacquering). At the very least, they would prevent errant strikes and minor blows from connecting and causing more serious injury, which is the point of armor in the first place.

There are few surviving examples of leather armor, as leather is an organic material and is susceptible to rot. Leather would also have had limited lifespan, as major damage to a leather armor piece, would lessen its effectiveness. Thus the concept of lamellar used in Asia, or the inclusion of metal rivets or plates in Europe. Cloth was also used, and the quality, amount and skill required to make an effective cloth armor would make it expensive as well... suffering from the same issues as leather, rot, damage repair, and dare I say cleanliness of the garment (burns, sweat, blood, etc).

Metal is very effective at turning away strikes, can easily be cleaned/maintained by oiling it, and repaired just as strongly as new (albeit maybe a bit worse looking) via a decent smith. It was also a huge status symbol,due to it's cost. Cloth would require many hours of work with a lot of high quality material. Leather work was by comparison much less labor intensive than metal or cloth. Although still expensive.

The fact has been noted that leather armor without metal reinforcement is rare, but is not the opposite true as well... is there any metal armor that doesn't rely on cloth or leather as part of the armor? There is nothing wrong with using a better suited material to deflect a blow and the more susceptible material to absorb the blow. Just because this became the standard, doesn't mean that leather armor wasn't used or even common. Hides are in effect a leather armor, they may be raw hides, or hide with the fur still on it, and as such may be poorer than boiled leather that is treated with oil, wax, and laquer, but it still functions as some protection from blows.

Strange as we have historical exmaples and accounts of plenty soley cloth based armors but not leathers.

Now with high quality leather and cerrtian techniques it COULD be viable, however I am saying that during the period it was not used that way.

Even if it was in central Asia or the Americas like is claimed by some people. The vast majority of settings are set in a European based game and in 5e we do not even have Asian weapons unless the overlap with European ones.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Strange as we have historical exmaples and accounts of plenty soley cloth based armors but not leathers.

Now with high quality leather and cerrtian techniques it COULD be viable, however I am saying that during the period it was not used that way.

Even if it was in central Asia or the Americas like is claimed by some people. The vast majority of settings are set in a European based game and in 5e we do not even have Asian weapons unless the overlap with European ones.

I don't claim to be an expert, but given that from the 5th century onward the use of mail (the rings, or scales) made from some from of metal (bronze, iron, later steel) was the dominant armor type. Prior to the 5th century, celtic and teutonic peoples used leather as primary armor. At the same time, peoples like the Romans were wearing bronze breastplates. It wasn't until relatively later (mid 13th-14th century) that the coat of plates was used. During the transitional time period... plates were added to the mail to better protect the most vulnerable areas. It wasn't until the late part of the 15th century that you would see a traditional gothic plate armor that we see in museums was used.

Given that both cultures were warrior cultures and their practices were to either bury the dead with all the thing they would need in their afterlife, or to be cremated with all their accoutrements, not to mention that this was 1600 years ago... I don't see many examples surviving. Our examples of relatively later arms and armor are still scant and they are 600 years old.

[Clistenes]

Well, it's not from the medieval period, but Cromwell's New Model Army's soliders used leather armor. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buff_coat)

They used boiled leather lamellar armor in Asia. (http://thewanderingscot.com/photos/2011%20East%20Asia/Mongolia/)

And etymologically speaking, "cuirass" comes from Late Latin coriacea vestis "garment of leather," from Latin corium "leather, hide". (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cuirass)


Medieval Gambesons which weren't designed to be used under metal armor, but as the main protection, used to be faced with leather or canvas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambeson).

So, leather alone? Yes, at least in other time periods... During the Middle Ages? Yes, but combined with cloth padding.

By the way, I recommend Armour & Weapons of Charles John Ffoulkes. It shows how medievalists made up studded leather armour and ringmail armor from conjetures over old medieval art.


Gambesons are padded armor not leather.

Read what I said: Medieval gambesons which weren't designed to be used under metal armor, but as the main protection, used to be faced with leather or canvas. That means an outer layer of thick leather or canvas over the padded armor, in order to make it harder to cut and puncture.



Your link to the boiled leather armor in asia was no good.

Look at it again. There are pictures of some historical artifacts, among those a mongolian leather armor. That is a real historical armor from a dig, so that kind of armor definitely existed.

Here, another example or real Asian leather armor from a dig. (http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/26565)

And here, Roman Era leather armor (http://lw.lsa.umich.edu/kelsey/ConAntiq/leatherarmor.html)

And more Roman Era leather armor. (https://www.pinterest.com/pin/7881368071919671/?from_navigate=true) This is the same one, I think. (https://es.pinterest.com/pin/456271005970489674/?from_navigate=true)

Tibetan leather armor. (https://blog.the-saleroom.com/sold-at-auction/tibetan-armour-1960s-fashionistas/)

And more Tibetan leather armor. (http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/arms-armor/a-rare-hardened-leather-lamellar-coat-tibet-or-5675203-details.aspx)

Korean leather armor. (http://kyb0417.blogspot.com.es/2012/01/korean-leather-armour-artifacts.html)

More Korean leather armor. (http://kyb0417.blogspot.com.es/2012/01/artifactkorean-helmets-of-16th-centy.html)

Taiwanese rattan and leather armor (https://www.pinterest.com/pin/466122630160377091/?from_navigate=true)

European leather armor in the British Museum. (http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?assetId=283920&objectId=47551&partId=1)

Literary mentions and artistic representations of medieval leather armor. (https://books.google.es/books?id=hoLKAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT621&lpg=PT621&dq=Chaucer+Sir+Thopas+++Iambeaux&source=bl&ots=9zlWDQ6YQM&sig=Ibb9Nw2OgKpIpSyYqDyIOt6DYXc&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1xrSts6jNAhUJXRoKHTyLC44Q6AEIRDAE#v=on epage&q=Chaucer%20Sir%20Thopas%20%20%20Iambeaux&f=false)


And here, you have leather barding for a horse. (http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/684253?sortBy=Relevance&amp;what=Armor%7cLeather&amp;ft=*&amp; pg=1&amp;rpp=20&amp;pos=6)



Curiass does because armor was typically worn over it.

I dunno, it sounds weird... breastplates would be called "leather garment" because people would use leather under it? It sounds unplausible, and I have never read anything like that. I think is more likely that the name was inspired on armor similar to leather jerkins or buff coats used by ancient peoples (Germanics and others).

[Easy_Lee]

Again, I'm not even arguing that people who wore leather for protection necessarily called it armor. It might have made sense to make a distinction between metal armor and non metal clothing, padding, etc. I'm just saying that it works, to an extent, and was widely available.

And, as discussed, brigandine was probably the more common type of leather "armor," anyway, being leather with steel (or wood, or bone, or ceramic, etc.) plates riveted or sewn to it. We have something like this now in the form of Kevlar vests with slots for thick plates to go over the most vital areas.

[Formless Entity]

I don't claim to be an expert, but given that from the 5th century onward the use of mail (the rings, or scales) made from some from of metal (bronze, iron, later steel) was the dominant armor type. Prior to the 5th century, celtic and teutonic peoples used leather as primary armor. At the same time, peoples like the Romans were wearing bronze breastplates. It wasn't until relatively later (mid 13th-14th century) that the coat of plates was used. During the transitional time period... plates were added to the mail to better protect the most vulnerable areas. It wasn't until the late part of the 15th century that you would see a traditional gothic plate armor that we see in museums was used.

Given that both cultures were warrior cultures and their practices were to either bury the dead with all the thing they would need in their afterlife, or to be cremated with all their accoutrements, not to mention that this was 1600 years ago... I don't see many examples surviving. Our examples of relatively later arms and armor are still scant and they are 600 years old.

They used hides. Not cured leather.

[Formless Entity]

Read what I said: Medieval gambesons which weren't designed to be used under metal armor, but as the main protection, used to be faced with leather or canvas. That means an outer layer of thick leather or canvas over the padded armor, in order to make it harder to cut and puncture.




Look at it again. There are pictures of some historical artifacts, among those a mongolian leather armor. That is a real historical armor from a dig, so that kind of armor definitely existed.

Here, another example or real Asian leather armor from a dig. (http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/26565)

And here, Roman Era leather armor (http://lw.lsa.umich.edu/kelsey/ConAntiq/leatherarmor.html)

And more Roman Era leather armor. (https://www.pinterest.com/pin/7881368071919671/?from_navigate=true) This is the same one, I think. (https://es.pinterest.com/pin/456271005970489674/?from_navigate=true)

Tibetan leather armor. (https://blog.the-saleroom.com/sold-at-auction/tibetan-armour-1960s-fashionistas/)

And more Tibetan leather armor. (http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/arms-armor/a-rare-hardened-leather-lamellar-coat-tibet-or-5675203-details.aspx)

Korean leather armor. (http://kyb0417.blogspot.com.es/2012/01/korean-leather-armour-artifacts.html)

More Korean leather armor. (http://kyb0417.blogspot.com.es/2012/01/artifactkorean-helmets-of-16th-centy.html)

Taiwanese rattan and leather armor (https://www.pinterest.com/pin/466122630160377091/?from_navigate=true)

European leather armor in the British Museum. (http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?assetId=283920&objectId=47551&partId=1)

Literary mentions and artistic representations of medieval leather armor. (https://books.google.es/books?id=hoLKAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT621&lpg=PT621&dq=Chaucer+Sir+Thopas+++Iambeaux&source=bl&ots=9zlWDQ6YQM&sig=Ibb9Nw2OgKpIpSyYqDyIOt6DYXc&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1xrSts6jNAhUJXRoKHTyLC44Q6AEIRDAE#v=on epage&q=Chaucer%20Sir%20Thopas%20%20%20Iambeaux&f=false)


And here, you have leather barding for a horse. (http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/684253?sortBy=Relevance&amp;what=Armor%7cLeather&amp;ft=*&amp; pg=1&amp;rpp=20&amp;pos=6)




I dunno, it sounds weird... breastplates would be called "leather garment" because people would use leather under it? It sounds unplausible, and I have never read anything like that. I think is more likely that the name was inspired on armor similar to leather jerkins or buff coats used by ancient peoples (Germanics and others).

1) Seeing as this was stated on that site to be the only know pure leather armor from the era it is more reasonable to say this armor was rather unique in that facet and was not standard and deployed in battle.

2) This leather armor more than likely was worn under the metal armor.

3) Pininterest is not a valid source.

4) That leather armor could easily be fabricated. The article itself does not even give a date for it.

5) and 6) Both of those are recreations of what someone believed Korean leather armor to be like. Even if they where correct, it is again more likely it was worn under more protective armor.

7) Pininterest is not a valid source.

8) Where? I do not see any on that link, all I see is very vague un-labeled pictures of what seems to be pieces of metal armor.

9) That link does not lead to the book.

10) I never said that leather barding was not a thing.

[Formless Entity]

Again, I'm not even arguing that people who wore leather for protection necessarily called it armor. It might have made sense to make a distinction between metal armor and non metal clothing, padding, etc. I'm just saying that it works, to an extent, and was widely available.

And, as discussed, brigandine was probably the more common type of leather "armor," anyway, being leather with steel (or wood, or bone, or ceramic, etc.) plates riveted or sewn to it. We have something like this now in the form of Kevlar vests with slots for thick plates to go over the most vital areas.

I am saying there is no evidence that they every used leather as standard protection on the battlefield leading up to the early renaissance era. Especially in Europe.

[Carlobrand]

...Even if it was in central Asia or the Americas like is claimed by some people. The vast majority of settings are set in a European based game and in 5e we do not even have Asian weapons unless the overlap with European ones.

As near as I can tell, you're the only one trying to confine the discussion to Medieval/Renaissance Europe. Inasmuch as the game can explore and has explored other settings, it remains useful to explore other technologies and cultures. I for one am fascinated by the Moro and their use of bone in armor. That kind of thing can add a bit of flavor when you run a party up against, say, hobgoblins.

[Easy_Lee]

I am saying there is no evidence that they every used leather as standard protection on the battlefield leading up to the early renaissance era. Especially in Europe.

You keep saying battlefield and Europe. I don't care to hear only about armor used for armies, and I don't care only to hear about Europe, either. People wore hides, cured leather, hardened leather, and all manner of leather at various points in time. That sort of attire, whether we call it clothing or armor, has proven effective enough against some weapons, at least until it's destroyed. That's enough for me, personally.

[Clistenes]

I am saying there is no evidence that they every used leather as standard protection on the battlefield leading up to the early renaissance era. Especially in Europe.

There is plenty evidence of the use of leather lamellar armor in Asia, look at the links I posted, they are all real historical artifacts.

As for Europe, leather was extensivelly used during the pike and shot era in the form of buff coats or leather jerkins.

During the European Middle Ages leather usually wasn't used alone, but as an outer layer for a gambeson or brigandine. Now, if a soldier is wearing an aketon with an outer layer of leather and several inner layers of linen, does it count as leather armor, or as padded armor?

When I read "leather armor" I think of "buff coat", when I read "padded armor" I think or a linothorax, an aztec ichcahuipilli or an european aketon, and when I read "studded armor" I think of a gambeson with an outer layer of thick leather and studs keeping the leather and linen together (which is what the imagen that inspired the studded leather probably tried to portray).

[Formless Entity]

You keep saying battlefield and Europe. I don't care to hear only about armor used for armies, and I don't care only to hear about Europe, either. People wore hides, cured leather, hardened leather, and all manner of leather at various points in time. That sort of attire, whether we call it clothing or armor, has proven effective enough against some weapons, at least until it's destroyed. That's enough for me, personally.

If it was effective it would have been used on the battlefield.

Can you show me evidance of leather armor used alone in any battle scenario before the introduction of firearms?

[Clistenes]

Here, another example or real Asian leather armor from a dig. (http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/26565)
1) Seeing as this was stated on that site to be the only know pure leather armor from the era it is more reasonable to say this armor was rather unique in that facet and was not standard and deployed in battle.

That is the only surviving Scythian leather armor because leather rots, and that armor is from ancient times (8th–3rd century B.C.).

Look at how that armor looks. It is obviously technically advanced, not an one time thing.




And here, Roman Era leather armor (http://lw.lsa.umich.edu/kelsey/ConAntiq/leatherarmor.html)
2) This leather armor more than likely was worn under the metal armor.

Uh... nope. That's leather scale armor. Scale armor was never used under metal armor.




And more Roman Era leather armor. (https://www.pinterest.com/pin/7881368071919671/?from_navigate=true) This is the same one, I think. (https://es.pinterest.com/pin/456271005970489674/?from_navigate=true)
3) Pininterest is not a valid source.

Do you like it better? (http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/78681)




Tibetan leather armor. (https://blog.the-saleroom.com/sold-at-auction/tibetan-armour-1960s-fashionistas/)
And more Tibetan leather armor. (http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/arms-armor/a-rare-hardened-leather-lamellar-coat-tibet-or-5675203-details.aspx)
4) That leather armor could easily be fabricated. The article itself does not even give a date for it.

"A comparable armour in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, has been ascribed a date somewhere between 1440 and 1660." (https://blog.the-saleroom.com/sold-at-auction/tibetan-armour-1960s-fashionistas/)

As for the other one, "A RARE HARDENED-LEATHER LAMELLAR COAT TIBET OR NORTH WEST CHINA, 19TH CENTURY" (http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/arms-armor/a-rare-hardened-leather-lamellar-coat-tibet-or-5675203-details.aspx)

If you think it's fake, then Christie's would be conning its buyers, and I somewhat doubt it. It has quite a reputation.




Korean leather armor. (http://kyb0417.blogspot.com.es/2012/01/korean-leather-armour-artifacts.html)
More Korean leather armor. (http://kyb0417.blogspot.com.es/2012/01/artifactkorean-helmets-of-16th-centy.html)
5) and 6) Both of those are recreations of what someone believed Korean leather armor to be like. Even if they where correct, it is again more likely it was worn under more protective armor.

What part of "discovered in a tomb" is so difficult to understand? (http://kyb0417.blogspot.com.es/2012/01/korean-leather-armour-artifacts.html)

And again scale armour was never used under metal armor.




Taiwanese rattan and leather armor (https://www.pinterest.com/pin/466122630160377091/?from_navigate=true)
7) Pininterest is not a valid source.

Do you like it better? That armor was part of an art sale, it's from the XIX century. (http://www.sftribal.com/new-gallery/asian-art/erik-farrow-armour-taiwan/)




European leather armor in the British Museum. (http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?assetId=283920&objectId=47551&partId=1)
8) Where? I do not see any on that link, all I see is very vague un-labeled pictures of what seems to be pieces of metal armor.

Well, the British Museum says that is medieval leather armor, and I trust them.




Literary mentions and artistic representations of medieval leather armor. (https://books.google.es/books?id=hoLKAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT621&lpg=PT621&dq=Chaucer+Sir+Thopas+++Iambeaux&source=bl&ots=9zlWDQ6YQM&sig=Ibb9Nw2OgKpIpSyYqDyIOt6DYXc&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1xrSts6jNAhUJXRoKHTyLC44Q6AEIRDAE#v=on epage&q=Chaucer%20Sir%20Thopas%20%20%20Iambeaux&f=false)
9) That link does not lead to the book.

Of course it does, check your browser.

Really, at this point I think I could dig a corpse clad in leather armor, take it to you, and you would still deny that leather armor ever existed. Those are acheological pieces from museums's collections, one is from an ancient art sale. If you can't accept that evidence, nothing short of a time machine will convince you.

[Carlobrand]

1) Seeing as this was stated on that site to be the only know pure leather armor from the era it is more reasonable to say this armor was rather unique in that facet and was not standard and deployed in battle. ...

Unsupported assumption. We know organic material decays more quickly than metal. It is possible that this armor is the only known example because it is unique. It is also possible that it is the only known example because other examples have decayed over time. We would need additional information - say, archaeological information from individuals buried under circumstances in which they would remain in armor, for example those lost in a mudslide or similar disaster.


2) This leather armor more than likely was worn under the metal armor. ...

Unsupported assumption.


3) Pininterest is not a valid source. ...

You have requested evidence. Respondent has provided evidence. You have discounted the evidence without explanation. There is to my knowledge no rule or criterion on this forum regarding what constitutes a valid source. Image in question cites as reference the French Excavations at Dura-Europos, 1928 to 1937. There are sources documenting those excavations, but they are available for sale only. Much of the Dura Europa material is in the Yale University Art Gallery; it may be possible to request information from them.


4) That leather armor could easily be fabricated. The article itself does not even give a date for it. ...

Unsupported and unwarranted assumption. The outfit is being presented as "Early armour from Eastern Tibet" and is described as comparable to armor in the Metropolitan Museum dated to 1440 and 1660. Do you have evidence that this sale is fraudulent? Assuming it is, do you have evidence that the "comparable armor" in the Metropolitan Museum does not exist?


5) and 6) Both of those are recreations of what someone believed Korean leather armor to be like. Even if they where correct, it is again more likely it was worn under more protective armor. ...

To clarify, they are reproductions based on archaeological finds. That gives them a bit more credibility since there are physical remains which form the basis of the reproducer's conjectures. And, again, unsupported assumption - though I admit to some curiosity as to what value you think a leather lamellar would have under a more protective armor.

[Easy_Lee]

If it was effective it would have been used on the battlefield.

Can you show me evidance of leather armor used alone in any battle scenario before the introduction of firearms?

Frankly, I don't need to. Others have talked of lamellar, which we do have evidence of. But no one would use it if they had better. Unlike in d&d, we don't get a Dex bonus to AC in real life, so you wear the best you got. And if we're talking about pre-chain, I don't know if European records go back that far.

We know now, from tests, that plain leather can function similar to a gambeson. And we have names for leather armor, such as lamellar which was sometimes made from rawhide. These things are good enough.

Or do you doubt that getting hit with a sword while naked is worse than being struck through a thick leather coat or cuirass? Perhaps you should test for us and post results. Use pig carcasses, obviously.

[Formless Entity]

That is the only surviving Scythian leather armor because leather rots, and that armor is from ancient times (8th–3rd century B.C.).

Look at how that armor looks. It is obviously technically advanced, not an one time thing.



Uh... nope. That's leather scale armor. Scale armor was never used under metal armor.



Do you like it better? (http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/78681)



"A comparable armour in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, has been ascribed a date somewhere between 1440 and 1660." (https://blog.the-saleroom.com/sold-at-auction/tibetan-armour-1960s-fashionistas/)

As for the other one, "A RARE HARDENED-LEATHER LAMELLAR COAT TIBET OR NORTH WEST CHINA, 19TH CENTURY" (http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/arms-armor/a-rare-hardened-leather-lamellar-coat-tibet-or-5675203-details.aspx)

If you think it's fake, then Christie's would be conning its buyers, and I somewhat doubt it. It has quite a reputation.



What part of "discovered in a tomb" is so difficult to understand? (http://kyb0417.blogspot.com.es/2012/01/korean-leather-armour-artifacts.html)

And again scale armour was never used under metal armor.



Do you like it better? That armor was part of an art sale, it's from the XIX century. (http://www.sftribal.com/new-gallery/asian-art/erik-farrow-armour-taiwan/)



Well, the British Museum says that is medieval leather armor, and I trust them.



Of course it does, check your browser.

Really, at this point I think I could dig a corpse clad in leather armor, take it to you, and you would still deny that leather armor ever existed. Those are acheological pieces from museums's collections, one is from an ancient art sale. If you can't accept that evidence, nothing short of a time machine will convince you.

You have not proven these sources valid.

Do you think that leather armor detriotes only if it is not attached to metal or something?

Because we have pleanty of examples of leather-metal armor.

Also combat wise it is impractical, unless it was very thick and bulky it is not going to stop a spear thrust, a sword thrust, a sword slash, a mace hit, a dagger thrust, a pommel smash, or anything of the sort.

[Formless Entity]

Frankly, I don't need to. Others have talked of lamellar, which we do have evidence of. But no one would use it if they had better. Unlike in d&d, we don't get a Dex bonus to AC in real life, so you wear the best you got. And if we're talking about pre-chain, I don't know if European records go back that far.

We know now, from tests, that plain leather can function similar to a gambeson. And we have names for leather armor, such as lamellar which was sometimes made from rawhide. These things are good enough.

Or do you doubt that getting hit with a sword while naked is worse than being struck through a thick leather coat or cuirass? Perhaps you should test for us and post results. Use pig carcasses, obviously.

I am saying that rawhide armor =/= leather armor.

[Formless Entity]

Unsupported assumption. We know organic material decays more quickly than metal. It is possible that this armor is the only known example because it is unique. It is also possible that it is the only known example because other examples have decayed over time.

That is in incorrect assumption because we have lots of examples of leather-metal armor.

[Formless Entity]

Frankly, I don't need to.

If you make a positive claim you must provide evidence to back it up.

[smcmike]

That is in incorrect assumption because we have lots of examples of leather-metal armor.

In the spirit of your every post so far, prove it. "If you make a positive claim you must provide evidence to back it up."

[Naanomi]

FE, you seem to have a wealth of knowledge on the subject compared to other posters. Since we are appealing to your authority compared to our (admittedly cursory) sourcing, care to share a bit about your background and education in ancient armor crafting and use?

[Easy_Lee]

If you make a positive claim you must provide evidence to back it up.

Which claim did I make that I need to back up with evidence? I said people probably wore leather as clothing, that it's been proven to offer similar protection to a gambeson. I mentioned how we know people have worn leather throughout history, and that it's widely accessible. Both of these things are easily provable. I then questioned whether people who wore leather would have called it armor, or simply clothing, regardless of the situation in which it was worn.

And you demanded I show you proof of its use on a battlefield. You ignored everything in my post. Everything. And then made a demand having nothing to do with it.

Here are some facts for you:

I don't care what you think about battlefield armor.
We know leather lamellar was used in Asia and the middle east, as well as parts of Europe. Here's a scholarly paper (http://detyre.tripod.com/Articles/lamellar1.html) on it, if you really want one. Scroll down to "Practical Applications to Persona in the Current Middle Ages."
Leather offers better protection than bare skin or thin cloth. This is common knowledge; no citation needed.

As far as real-life considerations, leather lamellar would have been easier to make and easier to come by than mail in certain places at certain times, such as Feudal Japan. It's also unlikely to have survived, since it's leather.

But it's feasible enough for a tabletop. That's my incontestable point. I'm confident that there is no argument you, or anyone else, can bring to bear as to why lamellar armor is infeasible in D&D. Should you wear leather when you have mail and plate available? No. But you certainly can.

[krugaan]

Which claim did I make that I need to back up with evidence? I said people probably wore leather as clothing, that it's been proven to offer similar protection to a gambeson. I mentioned how we know people have worn leather throughout history, and that it's widely accessible. Both of these things are easily provable. I then questioned whether people who wore leather would have called it armor, or simply clothing, regardless of the situation in which it was worn.

And you demanded I show you proof of its use on a battlefield. You ignored everything in my post. Everything. And then made a demand having nothing to do with it.

Here are some facts for you:

I don't care what you think about battlefield armor.
We know leather lamellar was used in Asia and the middle east, as well as parts of Europe. Here's a scholarly paper (http://detyre.tripod.com/Articles/lamellar1.html) on it, if you really want one. Scroll down to "Practical Applications to Persona in the Current Middle Ages."
Leather offers better protection than bare skin or thin cloth. This is common knowledge; no citation needed.

As far as real-life considerations, leather lamellar would have been easier to make and easier to come by than mail in certain places at certain times, such as Feudal Japan. It's also unlikely to have survived, since it's leather.

But it's feasible enough for a tabletop. That's my incontestable point. I'm confident that there is no argument you, or anyone else, can bring to bear as to why lamellar armor is infeasible in D&D. Should you wear leather when you have mail and plate available? No. But you certainly can.

I can't even imagine what sort of proof would be sufficient ... photographic, probably.

Cultures without metalworking technology used leather, hardened it, and fashioned armor from it, be it in scales, bands, or plates. Probably because without metalworking technology, you can't make metal weapons ...

They probably made armor out of wood, I'm just guessing. And it was probably effective against the weapons of the same technological advancement.

[Coidzor]

I believe the AC bonus of heavy armor conveys not making you harder to hit, but rather, reducing the damage of an attack to the point where it's not really doing any significant damage to the wearing. Light armor however reflects the ability to dodge and have some protection from impact while medium armor acts as a bit of both.

And yes, player's should not be able to swim in chainmail or platemail without a ridiculous strength score (25-30 or higher) or some manner of magic.

Even if you accept the myth that plate armor is super restrictive and makes a man as weighed down as Link wearing the Iron Boots in Ocarina of Time or Twilight Princess, you don't need to be deific strength to perform superhuman feats of strength.

[pwykersotz]

Even if you accept the myth that plate armor is super restrictive and makes a man as weighed down as Link wearing the Iron Boots in Ocarina of Time or Twilight Princess, you don't need to be deific strength to perform superhuman feats of strength.

This is a good point. Plate armor is crazy to swim in, 35 pounds of dead weight (about the lightest it comes) counteracting your buoyancy is hell to swim against. There's a reason you should kick off your shoes if you find yourself drowning. But I would have no problem letting high strength party members swim in it. I'd probably have them make a STR check (DC15) to see if their swim speed is slowed unless they're 16 Strength or higher, and then let that check ride until they're out of the water. For me that strikes the right balance between heroic and realistic.

[RickAllison]

Given that real people can, do, and did really swim in real plate armor, and I doubt they had 25+ strength or magic, I think you are very wrong about swimming in armor.


A friend of mine dons plate armor three times a week and fights in it. I just asked him and he says it would be almost impossible to swim in plate armor. (Yes, yes, guy at the gym fallacy and all that.) So can you source the whole "swimming in plate" thing? I mean, sure, you might barely survive if the shore isn't too far away and your desperation is pumping you full of adrenaline, but that's more like limping through the water than swimming.


Even if you could (which you probably could not), you would more than likely damage the leather and cloth worn under the plates.

For the record I wear plate a lot, but I have not tried to swim in it.

Let's look at the system with the variant encumbrance rule (that is supposed to be more realistic). Someone with 16 Str (the Knight has that) does not suffer the reduction to speed from the armor and has encumbrance values of 80/160/240. If he only has 15 pounds of other equipment, A knight can thus swim at half his normal speed, 15'. However, he is likely to have more than just 15 pounds of gear with his armor, even with just his shield and weapons. That puts him at only 10' for swim speed, but he probably doesn't worry too much about hitting 160 pounds.

However, Knights are above-average. So let's reduce that Str down to 14. Encumbrance is now at 70/140/210 and he is basically swimming at 5'. What is worse is that the 140 pound capacity becomes deadly, as that is the point where he has no movement left and can't swim. Added onto this is that the DM is justified in ruling that your porous clothing weighs more as you remain in water. So a knight with less than extraordinary strength could very well be reduced to 0 movement, and so drown.

[Formless Entity]

Which claim did I make that I need to back up with evidence? I said people probably wore leather as clothing, that it's been proven to offer similar protection to a gambeson. I mentioned how we know people have worn leather throughout history, and that it's widely accessible. Both of these things are easily provable. I then questioned whether people who wore leather would have called it armor, or simply clothing, regardless of the situation in which it was worn.

And you demanded I show you proof of its use on a battlefield. You ignored everything in my post. Everything. And then made a demand having nothing to do with it.

Here are some facts for you:

I don't care what you think about battlefield armor.
We know leather lamellar was used in Asia and the middle east, as well as parts of Europe. Here's a scholarly paper (http://detyre.tripod.com/Articles/lamellar1.html) on it, if you really want one. Scroll down to "Practical Applications to Persona in the Current Middle Ages."
Leather offers better protection than bare skin or thin cloth. This is common knowledge; no citation needed.

As far as real-life considerations, leather lamellar would have been easier to make and easier to come by than mail in certain places at certain times, such as Feudal Japan. It's also unlikely to have survived, since it's leather.

But it's feasible enough for a tabletop. That's my incontestable point. I'm confident that there is no argument you, or anyone else, can bring to bear as to why lamellar armor is infeasible in D&D. Should you wear leather when you have mail and plate available? No. But you certainly can.

Ill read the paper when I have more time.

As for your third point.

I am saying it is impractical because rawhide has better protection when worn alone.

[Formless Entity]

FE, you seem to have a wealth of knowledge on the subject compared to other posters. Since we are appealing to your authority compared to our (admittedly cursory) sourcing, care to share a bit about your background and education in ancient armor crafting and use?

If you must know, I am a HEMA practitioner and have studied historical manuals. I also happen to be a very big history buff.

[Formless Entity]

In the spirit of your every post so far, prove it. "If you make a positive claim you must provide evidence to back it up."

We, as in the thread, have posted lots of examples of metal-leather armor.

Please look back through it.

[Carlobrand]

If you make a positive claim you must provide evidence to back it up.

Evidence has been provided. You have discounted it - in one case by claiming without evidence that it was fraudulent, in a couple of cases by claiming without evidence that it served as an undergarment of some sort. Others have accepted the evidence provided. As near as I can tell, we're going in circles. And, that's pretty much what happens in archaeology unless something truly definitive lands in our laps: people disagree.

It is clear that leather can be worked into a serviceable armor - as a skilled leatherworker, I've crafted such myself. It is equally clear that other materials are more effective: metal is superior, and classical cultures often resorted to a linen quilt because it was reasonably effective and easily repaired/replaced when damaged, therefore ideal for masses of troops facing the weapons of the time. Leather is not so easily repaired, which may be why we tend to see leather lamellars rather than armor integrating large pieces of heavier leather. (I managed to score this big piece of thick leather once, thick enough to make heels from. Made a marvelous cuirass for myself, very effective, but it would not have been repairable had I actually been facing edged weapons - not and provide the same degree of protection after the repair.) Tribal cultures whose economies did not produce large quantities of metals or cloth may have resorted to leather simply because it was available and most people knew how to work it - it doesn't show up once there's adequate industry and trade going on.

[Madbox]

Sorry for interrupting the holy war :smallwink: but...

Does anyone else find it hilarious that zombies have lower AC than the ACs listed for stationary objects in the DMG? Does the zombie actively swerve into oncoming attacks?

[lperkins2]

Sorry for interrupting the holy war :smallwink: but...

Does anyone else find it hilarious that zombies have lower AC than the ACs listed for stationary objects in the DMG? Does the zombie actively swerve into oncoming attacks?

Wait, I've been working under the assumption of stationary objects having an AC in the 0-5 range depending on size... Is the book value 10?

As for dealing with heavy armour... The problem with pretty much every version of D&D is that it assumes heavy armour is very restrictive. Yeah, it cuts into your range of motion a bit, and if it's ill fitted or you're not strong enough it can seriously hamper your movement, but if it is well fitted and you're in good shape, it's actually not bad to move in. It's very tiring though. A variant 3.5 campaign a friend of mine ran let you still take your full dex bonus to AC in heavy armour, but you had to make a fortitude save every round (DC=number of rounds you've been fighting in the heavy armour) or start suffering penalties. It worked reasonably well for letting the martials keep up with the spellcasters.

I think the best variant I've seen has armour give DR, in 5e terms it would be the rated AC - 10. Your AC is then 10+dex. Spells either give a bonus to DR or a bonus to AC. I've not tested it extensively in 5e, but it seemed to work okay in the test session I ran, and it does fix the edge cases which are absurd in stock 5e.

[Clistenes]

You have not proven these sources valid.

Do you think that leather armor detriotes only if it is not attached to metal or something?

Because we have pleanty of examples of leather-metal armor.

Also combat wise it is impractical, unless it was very thick and bulky it is not going to stop a spear thrust, a sword thrust, a sword slash, a mace hit, a dagger thrust, a pommel smash, or anything of the sort.

Okay. If archeological artifacts from museums aren't proof enough for you, I don't know what could be a valid source. You know what? You must prove that those aren't valid sources, that those pieces of armor are fake.

And the reason there are more leather and metal armor pieces left is because the metal parts survive, and the leather parts can be replaced. And anyways, you haven't proved that there are more surviving metal and leather pieces and armor left than leather alone. You prove it. Give us sources.


If you must know, I am a HEMA practitioner and have studied historical manuals. I also happen to be a very big history buff.

So the British Museum and New York Metropolitan Museum and Yale University Art Gallery aren't valid sources, but we must take your word because you are "a history buff" who has read a few magazines?

You are making claims without giving proof or sources or anything, and when confronted with arguments that contradict your opinions, you cover your eyes and refuse to look at them. You are basically saying "this is true because I say so, and whoever contradicts me is wrong because I am always right".

[Madbox]

The DMG has a list of ACs for objects, and hit points based on size and how fragile/sturdy they are. It's also in the SRD. RAW, a sheet of paper would have an AC of 11, and 2 (1d4) hp as a tiny sized, fragile object.

[Brother Oni]

With regard to the people arguing about actual historical examples, may I make two comments:

This isn't r/askhistorians; if you're demanding and only accepting properly cited references then I would recommend asking your question there instead.
We do have a more specialised thread on this board (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?480058-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XX) for asking these questions that may get more suitable answers (although I see a couple infrequent posters from there already).

[JackPhoenix]

Sorry for interrupting the holy war :smallwink: but...

Does anyone else find it hilarious that zombies have lower AC than the ACs listed for stationary objects in the DMG? Does the zombie actively swerve into oncoming attacks?

AC isn't only the ability to avoid attacks, but to withstand blows without taking substantial damage. Object AC is based on toughness/hardness, zombies are mobile, but still just as soft (if not softer) than normal human(oid) flesh. And given the speed, coordination and self-presevation instincts of an average zombie, I wouldn't be surprised if they just stumbled into enemy attacks.

[Naanomi]

One struggle with AC is that one of the biggest componants of avoiding getting hit in combat... Armor or not.... Is combat training/experience.

While I don't think it is reasonable mechanically to add proficiency bonus to AC (without a larger system overhaul) but it probably makes more sense under a 'realism' label than Dexterity Bonus does

[Knaight]

One struggle with AC is that one of the biggest componants of avoiding getting hit in combat... Armor or not.... Is combat training/experience.

You can drop the "one of" there. The single biggest factor is training and experience, by far. Someone of average strength, speed, reach, etc. who is highly skilled will demolish an unskilled person who is simultaneously very strong, very fast, has an impressive reach, etc.

[Easy_Lee]

You can drop the "one of" there. The single biggest factor is training and experience, by far. Someone of average strength, speed, reach, etc. who is highly skilled will demolish an unskilled person who is simultaneously very strong, very fast, has an impressive reach, etc.

Depends on relative skill level, as speed and physical fitness play a very large role in combat. That's why people stop boxing by their forties, usually, in spite of how much more experienced they are by then.

[Naanomi]

And I don't want to rule out equipment... An amateur with full riot gear dueling a cracks shot in his skivvies isn't a fight I'd easily call despite the experience difference

[lperkins2]

The DMG has a list of ACs for objects, and hit points based on size and how fragile/sturdy they are. It's also in the SRD. RAW, a sheet of paper would have an AC of 11, and 2 (1d4) hp as a tiny sized, fragile object.

Ouch, that's absurdly high. That means the average commoner has around a 50% chance to make contact with a sheet of paper on a desk in front of them, and no chance to destroy it within 6 seconds...

[Coidzor]

Sorry for interrupting the holy war :smallwink: but...

Does anyone else find it hilarious that zombies have lower AC than the ACs listed for stationary objects in the DMG? Does the zombie actively swerve into oncoming attacks?

Well, more lurch, but I'd say it would fit for... several variants of zombie. Not so much from what I recall of how 5e handles zombieism, though.


Ouch, that's absurdly high. That means the average commoner has around a 50% chance to make contact with a sheet of paper on a desk in front of them, and no chance to destroy it within 6 seconds...

Well, you're not rolling to attack when you pick it up and then tear it apart.

If that commoner is in a fight and trying to stab a document to a desk so it can't just be casually taken without destroying it or something, then some chance of error comes into play.