The Importance of Armor

[MrZJunior]

I would like to run a game in a tropical setting based off a region where armor was rarely used. How badly would the game be broken if it's use were restricted?

[Findulidas]

I would like to run a game in a tropical setting based off a region where armor was rarely used. How badly would the game be broken if it's use were restricted?

I assume the strength based classes/builds would suffer since it would increase the damage they take by quite a lot. The higher the AC the more one reduction would mean.

[Lombra]

I would like to run a game in a tropical setting based off a region where armor was rarely used. How badly would the game be broken if it's use were restricted?

It's not that bad, if you want to restrict the metal armors there still are plenty of good medium armors or heavy leather armors that can be used. Medium armors would become more used and dexterity would become more useful, but in my experience AC isn't very important. Saves and critical hits are the most dangerous things anyways. The characters that would be harmed are strength based fighters and clerics, but any fighter can get at least 14 dex to be efficient with medium armor and clerics have spells to stay alive.

[Findulidas]

It's not that bad, if you want to restrict the metal armors there still are plenty of good medium armors or heavy leather armors that can be used. Medium armors would become more used and dexterity would become more useful, but in my experience AC isn't very important. Saves and critical hits are the most dangerous things anyways. The characters that would be harmed are strength based fighters and clerics, but any fighter can get at least 14 dex to be efficient with medium armor and clerics have spells to stay alive.

What abolut paladins? You think they have enough spells to protect themselves as well?

[fbelanger]

I would like to run a game in a tropical setting based off a region where armor was rarely used. How badly would the game be broken if it's use were restricted?

You remove proficient in heavy armor and add a feature
Your ac can be 10 + con + str modifier.
For medium armor the unarmored agility of the babarian can be used.

[Khrysaes]

You remove proficient in heavy armor and add a feature
Your ac can be 10 + con + str modifier.
For medium armor the unarmored agility of the babarian can be used.

This would probably make barbarians start out with at least one level of Fighter. This is much better than their unarmored defense.

[Lombra]

What abolut paladins? You think they have enough spells to protect themselves as well?

Totally forgot about that class, I was feeling that I messed something. My bad. They do have shield of faith and can still wear medium armor, plus they have a daily healing pool. It's not that bad really, the DM will have to take lower AC in consideration regardless during the creation of encounters, but that means one or two less mooks, not an entire combat overhaul.

[Steampunkette]

The most important thing to realize is that Armor itself is an abstraction. The term "Plate Armor" could be removed and literally anything slotted into it's place.

You could have Conquistador style breastplates, bracers, and shin-guards be functionally equivalent to Plate Mail in a fiefdom campaign while a particularly thick linen shirt gives a base AC of 12+dex. You don't need to get rid of heavy armor as a mechanical category in order to have a tropical game.

That said. If you -do- decide to get rid of heavy armor, consider giving strength based characters a class-based AC buff that increases as they level up (Effectively giving them access to "Plate Armor" through armor-training methods. Just make sure it eats Dex Mod as it goes.

One of the things I'd been considering doing for Dark Sun as a game setting was applying that scaling buff to fighters through an Armor Training benefit they'd gain as they leveled up, with heavy armor completely taken out of the game. It would quickly scale from +1 at level 1 (Only when wearing medium armor) to a +3 by level 6. When it hit 2 and 3, the max dex bonus of the armor was reduced by 1.

[Sigreid]

It's right there in the book the suggestion of replacing fighter's heavy weapon proficiency with barbarian unarmored defense.

Also, any of the player races that have resistance to fire are by RAW immune to the penalties of over heating from weather so there's that.

[Steampunkette]

That's not -super- helpful, though, since it still relies on Dexterity. (Con+Dex)

Though ... giving them the ability to use Con to AC instead of Dex instantly fixes the problem, as the strongest medium armor (Breastplate) would be 16+Con(max 2) or 18, which is the same as plate.

[Findulidas]

Totally forgot about that class, I was feeling that I messed something. My bad. They do have shield of faith and can still wear medium armor, plus they have a daily healing pool. It's not that bad really, the DM will have to take lower AC in consideration regardless during the creation of encounters, but that means one or two less mooks, not an entire combat overhaul.

Im not so sure. I mean being forced to pick AC spells seems bad. On the early levels it will certainly hurt I think.

[nickl_2000]

The most important thing to realize is that Armor itself is an abstraction. The term "Plate Armor" could be removed and literally anything slotted into it's place.

You could have Conquistador style breastplates, bracers, and shin-guards be functionally equivalent to Plate Mail in a fiefdom campaign while a particularly thick linen shirt gives a base AC of 12+dex. You don't need to get rid of heavy armor as a mechanical category in order to have a tropical game.

That said. If you -do- decide to get rid of heavy armor, consider giving strength based characters a class-based AC buff that increases as they level up (Effectively giving them access to "Plate Armor" through armor-training methods. Just make sure it eats Dex Mod as it goes.

One of the things I'd been considering doing for Dark Sun as a game setting was applying that scaling buff to fighters through an Armor Training benefit they'd gain as they leveled up, with heavy armor completely taken out of the game. It would quickly scale from +1 at level 1 (Only when wearing medium armor) to a +3 by level 6. When it hit 2 and 3, the max dex bonus of the armor was reduced by 1.

I'm with this solution. Instead of having heavy metal armor have things that would be lighter, and more airy but common in a hotter world. Maybe you are making a set of plate from crab chitten (sp is awful, sorry). Alternately keep the same categories and just re-skin them. Heavy Armor is armor that allows less movement and therefore gives less of a dex bonus. This way you still give the players the flexibility to play how they like and it still makes sense in your world.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Just watch your difficulty level. Your players are likely to take more damage than usual, so especially be cautious of high damage, high accuracy monsters. If 'rare' doesn't mean 'non-existent', you can use even basic armor as the big treasure for a lot of dungeons/quest rewards/what have you.

You're unlikely to have non-dex fighters or paladins without a working substitute. You could view this as an intended consequence, as their existence probably isn't necessary. Who in the world would spend time studying armor usage in a world with limited to no armor? Talk to your players about it, let them know how rare armor is going to be and how this is likely to gimp such characters if they choose them. Suggest changing to dex or going barbarian.

[Thrasher92]

I would consider just adding the character proficiency bonus to their armor class if they aren't wearing armor. It would scale with them and probably wouldn't be too game breaking.

[solidork]

You could just make this a completely aesthetic thing. Pick the heaviest armor you think is reasonable for the setting, give that the stats of full plate and then scale everything down accordingly. It won't make perfect sense, but if you're not really that interested in exploring the system/setting implications of heavy armor not being a thing, you can totally do that.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Dissenting opinion: as long as the players know beforehand that heavy armour will be a problem, you don't need to buff fighters, paladins and clerics.

My reasoning is this: it will reinforce the theme of a tropical/jungle-based campaign if paladins disappear and fighters are mostly dexterous. It also works like a buff to the ranger - which is good, because rangers should be more prominent in a tropical game. Their whole suite of skills is more valuable in hostile environments, and it'd be nice to see a party with two or even three rangers just for something a bit different.

I think it's fun to upset the normal paradigm occasionally. Nothin' wrong with that.

[coredump]

I would consider balancing it the other way.

Give Str based attacks a boost on damage. Maybe double the str bonus modifier against all non metal armor.

This way the str fighter has lower AC but does more damage.
Plus if you do suffer through using metal armor, you get a boost.

[Lombra]

Im not so sure. I mean being forced to pick AC spells seems bad. On the early levels it will certainly hurt I think.

Well it does have a negative impact, it will involve more thinking in positioning because advantage and disadvantage play a bigger role, (I have always seen shield of faith prepared on a paladin anyways).

What Steampunkette said is right: armors are abstractions and do depend on the setting, so there's nothing wrong in refluffing a breastplate as two coconut shell halves on the chest.

[Findulidas]

Dissenting opinion: as long as the players know beforehand that heavy armour will be a problem, you don't need to buff fighters, paladins and clerics.

My reasoning is this: it will reinforce the theme of a tropical/jungle-based campaign if paladins disappear and fighters are mostly dexterous. It also works like a buff to the ranger - which is good, because rangers should be more prominent in a tropical game. Their whole suite of skills is more valuable in hostile environments, and it'd be nice to see a party with two or even three rangers just for something a bit different.

I think it's fun to upset the normal paradigm occasionally. Nothin' wrong with that.

I might buy this. As long as they know the terms before they create the characters maybe its not so bad?

[Sirdar]

That's not -super- helpful, though, since it still relies on Dexterity. (Con+Dex)

Though ... giving them the ability to use Con to AC instead of Dex instantly fixes the problem, as the strongest medium armor (Breastplate) would be 16+Con(max 2) or 18, which is the same as plate.

This would work just fine. Most players go for a Con score of 14 (+2) or higher from start. Medium Armor then becomes a good substitute for Heavy Armor for all strength based characters (except the odd ones with weak constitution). If you feel that max AC should be higher just allow +3 instead of +2 from Con to Medium Armor.

[nickl_2000]

I might buy this. As long as they know the terms before they create the characters maybe its not so bad?

It limits the players options, which usually isn't good thing. That being said, as a player I'd accept the limitation if I knew beforehand and could adjust my play style for it.

As a DM you will likely have to adjust your adventure knowing that there will not be many strength based characters though. If you put that limitation on the PCs, and then immediately have a lot of situations where PCs need to make strength checks for skills or combat DCs it would be very annoying.

[Lombra]

Barbarians and monks would really shine, and that's a good thing, the argument of Ninja_Prawn is exactly why I said that it wouldn't be a big deal but his communication skills outclassed my poor ones :biggrin:

[Steampunkette]

This would work just fine. Most players go for a Con score of 14 (+2) or higher from start. Medium Armor then becomes a good substitute for Heavy Armor for all strength based characters (except the odd ones with weak constitution). If you feel that max AC should be higher just allow +3 instead of +2 from Con to Medium Armor.

Could make it an option?> Either Dex or Con to AC for characters with heavy armor proficiency in settings that don't allow for heavy armors.

Medium Armor Mastery already covers the extra +1 stat mod to AC, though.

[Sir cryosin]

That's not -super- helpful, though, since it still relies on Dexterity. (Con+Dex)

Though ... giving them the ability to use Con to AC instead of Dex instantly fixes the problem, as the strongest medium armor (Breastplate) would be 16+Con(max 2) or 18, which is the same as plate.

Umm last I check the strongest medium armor is half plate with15+Dex (max 2)=17 we're a brestplate is 14+Dex( max 2)= 16.

[JellyPooga]

Dissenting opinion: as long as the players know beforehand that heavy armour will be a problem, you don't need to buff fighters, paladins and clerics.

My reasoning is this: it will reinforce the theme of a tropical/jungle-based campaign if paladins disappear and fighters are mostly dexterous. It also works like a buff to the ranger - which is good, because rangers should be more prominent in a tropical game. Their whole suite of skills is more valuable in hostile environments, and it'd be nice to see a party with two or even three rangers just for something a bit different.

I think it's fun to upset the normal paradigm occasionally. Nothin' wrong with that.

This really sums it up. In a game where magic is illegal, players will have to consider carefully before playing a spellslinger. In a game where two-handed swords don't exist, the player thay wants to ise one has to reconsider. In a low-tech jungle game where playe armour isn't a thing or carries heavy exhaustion related penaltied, the playe-armoured Paladin needs to keep it in mind when designing his character.

You don't need to rebalance anything; you just need to tell your players the deal before play begins.

[MrZJunior]

Just watch your difficulty level. Your players are likely to take more damage than usual, so especially be cautious of high damage, high accuracy monsters. If 'rare' doesn't mean 'non-existent', you can use even basic armor as the big treasure for a lot of dungeons/quest rewards/what have you.



This is what I was planning on going with, I'm glad to see that the general consensus is that no armor wouldn't completely break the game.

I'm basing the setting on South East Asia so it would make sense for Chinese or Indian style armor to show up occasionally.

I should probably also encourage the use of shields.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm not sure why we all immediately jumped to "no heavy armor," since it sounds like the idea is no armor period. While no heavy armor is fine without straining the game, no armor at all is likely to strain things. My suggestion would be to universally change base AC to be, oh, 12+Dex if your best is normally Light Armor, 13 or 14+Dex if your best is normally Medium, and 14 ir 15+Dex if you have heavy armor proficiency. Treat actual armor like a magic item that actively boosts AC-- a rare, non-guaranteed item that puts you above the usual curve.

[StorytellerHero]

If you remove armor from the setting altogether, then that turns off a significant part of character class' abilities.

You'd have to replace the deactivated armor proficiencies with an AC boosting equivalent that's equal to what was lost if you want to maintain game balance.

If it's just the materials used for armors that you want to remove though, then you can keep things as is while maintaining consistency of setting.

For a tropical setting, the carapaces of crustaceans and shellfish, as well as the scales of large fish could be used for medium and heavy armors. The feathers of birds could be used for light armors. You can make leather from pig skin and lizard skin. Whale and dolphin hide could also be useful for armor crafting.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I'm not sure why we all immediately jumped to "no heavy armor,"

I guess most people got a Mesoamerican vibe from the tropical, armour-restricted setting, and jumped to 'no metal armour,' which sort of implies 'no heavy armour' because it's easy to imagine jaguar hide armour, pangolin scale mail, ironwood breastplates, etc. If you get creative, you could even have a mantle of couatl feathers to represent magical half-plate or something. Heavy armour is harder to imagine without metal.

[D.U.P.A.]

The most important thing to realize is that Armor itself is an abstraction. The term "Plate Armor" could be removed and literally anything slotted into it's place.

You could have Conquistador style breastplates, bracers, and shin-guards be functionally equivalent to Plate Mail in a fiefdom campaign while a particularly thick linen shirt gives a base AC of 12+dex. You don't need to get rid of heavy armor as a mechanical category in order to have a tropical game.

That said. If you -do- decide to get rid of heavy armor, consider giving strength based characters a class-based AC buff that increases as they level up (Effectively giving them access to "Plate Armor" through armor-training methods. Just make sure it eats Dex Mod as it goes.

One of the things I'd been considering doing for Dark Sun as a game setting was applying that scaling buff to fighters through an Armor Training benefit they'd gain as they leveled up, with heavy armor completely taken out of the game. It would quickly scale from +1 at level 1 (Only when wearing medium armor) to a +3 by level 6. When it hit 2 and 3, the max dex bonus of the armor was reduced by 1.

In Dark sun heavy armor is made from bones and carapaces. Think chitin armor from Morrowind.

[Honest Tiefling]

I guess most people got a Mesoamerican vibe from the tropical, armour-restricted setting, and jumped to 'no metal armour,' which sort of implies 'no heavy armour' because it's easy to imagine jaguar hide armour, pangolin scale mail, ironwood breastplates, etc.

Honestly, I thought it was the heat thing, since full plate doesn't always do well in hotter climates. I thought many just assumed chitin armor would be lighter and easier to use in hotter climates. Through the idea of a heat-resistant race running around in metal armor as opposed to the heroes does admittedly amuse me greatly.

I too will suggest using non-armor wearing classes, but run it by your players first. Maybe they'll find the new approach novel and able to try out concepts that didn't appeal to them previously. Perhaps it'll encourage more stealth based parties or that one player who always plays a fighter to try out a Barbarian. I just suggest plundering the SCAG and maybe some UA to give your party more options.

[Callin]

If you want you can always just abstract it into something TOTALLY different. I mean its still going to be a "Magic" Infused game right? Then why not have say the armors up to the second Lightest, 3rd Medium and 3rd Heaviest be a Charm that they can purchase that gives them that AC and all Drawbacks (Disadvantage on Stealth). You could also make Suboptimal Armor have a 1 AC Lower than their metal counterparts. Then Add in that Metal Armor can cause 1 level of Exhaustion if worn for x amount of time or during whenever you feel like.

I feel that would keep up with the setting style I feel. It would keep people in Armor with Lightest getting the full bang for their buck use.
Light would get the full 12+Dex, Medium would get equiv Scale Mail for 14+Dex (2), and the Heavy would have Chainmail for 16. Shields would get full AC because wooden is fine. So all in all you would have the Starter good ACs that pretty much EVERYONE starts out with that way in their adventuring career and then you can give em Magic or Mundane Upgrades as the campaign progresses and is needed.

[djreynolds]

I would like to run a game in a tropical setting based off a region where armor was rarely used. How badly would the game be broken if it's use were restricted?

Than introduce exhaustion. No one is real life is stomping through the jungle in full plate.

Imagine carrying an M60 in Vietnam, 23lbs or so. Not including ammo, which was spread out among the platoon.

I would have players roll up characters as normal and then dump them in the jungle, they will have to strip down their armor and upon leveling will take more dex for AC, more con for HP, or more strength to kill quicker.

[imanidiot]

I would like to run a game in a tropical setting based off a region where armor was rarely used. How badly would the game be broken if it's use were restricted?

Magic tattoos. Give it a +4 AC bonus that negates your Dex bonus and disadvantages Stealth (it glows or something). Also make it hinder spellcasting unless you're used to it (proficient).

With no armor you have 14 AC (ring mail) hide armor is 16 (chain mail) and if you manage to find an exceptionally rare, highly coveted metal breastplate you have 18 (plate).

[TripleD]

Why are we assuming no metal armor? South-East Asia definitely had full body metal armor:

http://images4.static-bluray.com/reviews/4437_2.jpg

As did India:

https://68.media.tumblr.com/46891835e15e00eb5770254ac3422743/tumblr_o1zn8lFjyJ1tho85xo1_500.jpg

And Sudan:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/17/25/a4/1725a480a79f3dab4ab922e24b23dec3.jpg

Mesoamerica did not have metal armor, in part because they didn't have anything harder than copper to work with.

However you can make "heavy armor" without metal. The Haida wore suits of armor made of wood and leather:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/0e/79/3e/0e793e5ce851a6be0a972757cb327e21.jpg

Granted the Haida were Pacific Northwest, not tropical. But they did raid as far south as California, so it must have been able to handle at least some heat.

[Citan]

The most important thing to realize is that Armor itself is an abstraction. The term "Plate Armor" could be removed and literally anything slotted into it's place.

You could have Conquistador style breastplates, bracers, and shin-guards be functionally equivalent to Plate Mail in a fiefdom campaign while a particularly thick linen shirt gives a base AC of 12+dex. You don't need to get rid of heavy armor as a mechanical category in order to have a tropical game.

That said. If you -do- decide to get rid of heavy armor, consider giving strength based characters a class-based AC buff that increases as they level up (Effectively giving them access to "Plate Armor" through armor-training methods. Just make sure it eats Dex Mod as it goes.

One of the things I'd been considering doing for Dark Sun as a game setting was applying that scaling buff to fighters through an Armor Training benefit they'd gain as they leveled up, with heavy armor completely taken out of the game. It would quickly scale from +1 at level 1 (Only when wearing medium armor) to a +3 by level 6. When it hit 2 and 3, the max dex bonus of the armor was reduced by 1.
This. Just imagine some thematically-fitting pieces of armor which can fill the mechanical role of Heavy Armor. Really nothing more to do, and you are sure not to break anything balance-wise. :)

[Steampunkette]

For my part I wasn't assuming Mesoamerican gameplay. Or Polynesian. Or even low-tech.

The first thing that came to mind with "Tropical Game", for me, was Ships and Sailing and Navy and such. Places where you don't use Plate Armor because you'd sink like a stone. Which is why I initially suggested going from Plate Mail to a Breastplate with the same relative AC bonus through abstract armor.

That said, if it's a -no- armor setting, I would suggest applying static AC modifiers to each class except those classes and subclasses which gain a pre-determined armor value through class abilities.

[Logosloki]

High AC is more of a comfort stat than a need. You could play it by ear first, look at what lovelies you are bringing to the players to meet and greet, and then see if there is an actual need based on your style of campaign for heavy armour. Plate, the highest AC in heavy is only 1 AC more than the highest AC for medium (based on having 14 dex). Plate is also something that most DMs I have seen bring out in the 5-8 level bracket (I prefer 5, unless there is a particular reason for plate to play out earlier).

[TripleD]

Places where you don't use Plate Armor because you'd sink like a stone.

Not true, you can definitely swim in plate armor. Properly made it's only adding about 30-40 pounds distributed evenly over your body. Is a 200 pound person automatically going to sink just because a 170 pound person of the same height can swim?*

We can see people in full armor on ships (and swimming) in contemporary illustrations:


http://myarmoury.com/talk/files/battleofsluys_138.jpg


Modern recreations (https://vimeo.com/13634653) have tested the idea and yes, you can definitely swim in plate.

* Density of fat vs steel means this isn't a fair comparison, but you get the idea

[D.U.P.A.]

The first thing that came to mind with "Tropical Game", for me, was Ships and Sailing and Navy and such. Places where you don't use Plate Armor because you'd sink like a stone. Which is why I initially suggested going from Plate Mail to a Breastplate with the same relative AC bonus through abstract armor.



Not with water walk spell :)

[CaptainSarathai]

The first thing that came to mind with "Tropical Game", for me, was Ships and Sailing and Navy and such. Places where you don't use Plate Armor because you'd sink like a stone. Which is why I initially suggested going from Plate Mail to a Breastplate with the same relative AC bonus through abstract armor.
You're not wearing plate on a ship primarily because by the time of the Age of Sail, gunpowder had made those armors obsolete.
If that's the time-period that you want to play, all the power to you. Just tell the players that. I suggest using "touch AC" for gunpowder weapons anyway, meaning your armor makes no difference, it's just 10+Dex or whatever Unarmored Feature you get.
---

Anyway, as long as the players are told ahead of time that this will be a light-armor campaign, and are willing to accept that and play by that rule of thumb, then there's no problem.

[Steampunkette]

Not true, you can definitely swim in plate armor. Properly made it's only adding about 30-40 pounds distributed evenly over your body. Is a 200 pound person automatically going to sink just because a 170 pound person of the same height can swim?*

We can see people in full armor on ships (and swimming) in contemporary illustrations:


http://myarmoury.com/talk/files/battleofsluys_138.jpg


Modern recreations (https://vimeo.com/13634653) have tested the idea and yes, you can definitely swim in plate.

* Density of fat vs steel means this isn't a fair comparison, but you get the idea

This is somewhat true...

But wearers of full plate were often also wearing underarmors. Usually in the form of a mail armor, specifically designed to provide maximal protection at the joints while avoiding too much reduction of mobility, which would add another 15-20lbs (based on size). Further, wearing plate armor also requires the use of padded clothing to avoid too much pain and chafing from simply wearing it. Usually this was a Gambeson jacket, but there were some more specialized paddings which were body-part specific to provide better comfort. In any case that padding was almost always quilted fabric stuffed with fibrous materials like cotton batting.

The human body in water floats, but add 30-40 (or 40-50) pounds of non-buoyant material and it becomes far harder to do so. Add in the water-weight from the heavy padded clothing worn under the armor when you went into the drink and it's even harder to get -out- of the water.

Here's a video of Michael Bergstrom attempting to swim in Plate Armor. Notice the lack of protection at the clavicle, the left and right sides of his chest, his waist, the back of each leg, the wrist, the inner elbow, and the entirety of his feet.

https://vimeo.com/13634653

The man was about half-dressed and managed to get 10ft or so. As soon as he stopped standing in the water he started to drop, and rapidly. Add in the rest of the armor, including the Helmet and coif, and put him in water where he can't touch the bottom, and he'd drown quickly... A much stronger man who specifically trained to swim in plate armor with all accoutrements might manage the task, for a short time, but he's going to tire with a quickness...

You did make mention of the Battle of Sluys and men swimming in the illustrations, which is accurate. Though the official recounting makes special note of men fleeing the ships, or being flung overboard, before "Drowning under the weight of their armaments" and those lucky few who made it to shore being clubbed to death by the Flemings.

[Gtdead]

It's possible to optimize for light or no armor. It won't be game breaking. You should expect unarmored characters and mage armors.

Newbies may have some problems though.

[furby076]

As a person who scuba dives, i assure you, someone in full plate will drop like a rock. Putting on a 5 mil wetsuit (its so bouyant, even with fins you cant swim down), scuba tank (full of air), 20 lbs of weight, and my bcd (special jacket that holds air). I go down. Take out the wetsuit, and i would go down way faster. Replace the aluminum tanks with say 20 lbs of weight....and welcome to davey joneses locker.

Given that, its very possible for warriors to walk around in full plate in tropical settings. I would require breaks from traveling each hour. The question becomes, why is arkor non existent? Lack of metal (doubt it, or this would apply to weapons), lack of knowledge (ok), or something else.


so if the characters are native born, why would fighters/paladins/clerics have heavy armor proficiency? Since they dont have it, you take away an ability and it should be countered by something. As one player mentioned, dmg recommends giving them barb unarmored defense variant. Alternative is a feat.

[Garresh]

It would need to be replaced with some other mechanic, and it opens up a lot of headaches for you and your players. Just refluff existing mechanics. Make it so that heavy armor is just a form of heavy leather, or bone armor, or some kind of bark armor, or something like that. Refluffing mechanics to fit setting is easier and more reliable than redesigning mechanics entirely.

[TripleD]

*snip*


I bow to your superior knowledge of plate armor. I will amend my statement from "You can swim in Plate Armor" to "You can swim in plate armor if you are in shape and a good swimmer, but if you're more than a few hundred feet from shore you're probably gonna tire out and drown".

Regarding the battle of Sluys though, there is one wrinkle in the official record in that it's not clear how many of the men who drowned actually knew how to swim in the first place. It was a surprisingly uncommon skill until recently, even among people (sailors, fishermen, etc.) who really should have had it.

[lunaticfringe]

Dissenting opinion: as long as the players know beforehand that heavy armour will be a problem, you don't need to buff fighters, paladins and clerics.

My reasoning is this: it will reinforce the theme of a tropical/jungle-based campaign if paladins disappear and fighters are mostly dexterous. It also works like a buff to the ranger - which is good, because rangers should be more prominent in a tropical game. Their whole suite of skills is more valuable in hostile environments, and it'd be nice to see a party with two or even three rangers just for something a bit different.

I think it's fun to upset the normal paradigm occasionally. Nothin' wrong with that.

I agree, Players find a Way.

You'll probably see more Stealth, Hit & Run, Ranged, Control, and use of Cover (shouldn't be hard to find in the jungle). It feels a bit more Tactical imo and definatly benefits from using a grid.

[Steampunkette]

I bow to your superior knowledge of plate armor. I will amend my statement from "You can swim in Plate Armor" to "You can swim in plate armor if you are in shape and a good swimmer, but if you're more than a few hundred feet from shore you're probably gonna tire out and drown".

Regarding the battle of Sluys though, there is one wrinkle in the official record in that it's not clear how many of the men who drowned actually knew how to swim in the first place. It was a surprisingly uncommon skill until recently, even among people (sailors, fishermen, etc.) who really should have had it.

Oh, absolutely! It's -super- hard to get an accurate count of any battle before around 1800 because of the difficulty in recordkeeping and the chaos of the fighting itself.

I'm not even talking specifically about the number of men who knew how to swim, but just how many men were involved in the fighting at -all-. Very few Armies actually had any kind of real "Head Count", and desertion was common and fairly freaking easy.

[MeeposFire]

Personally I would replace the armor with alternatives that had similar stats.

Special leaves from local plants with what would appear to us as magical properties are hard enough to make armor. Maybe some special wood or chittin/bone or other types of materials you like.

[Specter]

Restricting armor is a great power shifter on the game, which makes casters (except clerics) an even better choice. But I think you only need to restrict heavy armor and half-plate.

Leather armor could still be a given, as well as hide. Then there's the breastplate, which only weighs 20 pounds and gives no disadvantage to stealth at all. That should be a decent choice for martials.

[rbstr]

It's actually a very big balance issue. If you simply take away heavy armor you've heavily nerfed strength-using archtypes by forcing them MAD and taking away the 1AC advantage of plate compared to lighter armors. You'd be nuts to want to play a heavy weapon paladin or fighter without something that replaces the function of heavy armor.

If you want to enable those characters without giving them some kind of way to leverage strength to AC you might as well just remove strength from this particular setting and just make all weapons finesse. Then give a +1 AC bonus to characters with heavy armor proficiency.
That's a bit of a nerf to a heavy armor-cleric that doesn't want to pump his attack stat too much but your heavy weapon fighters and paladins would pump dex and end with their usual AC values.

If you don't want those kinds of "heavy" characters, then it's fine to just toss it out, I guess. Just make sure everyone knows before hand and understands that it's a big hit to strength people and they should not chose them

[Vogie]

I think if you were going for a 'realistic' style game, certainly. Tracking weight bearing, fatigue management, heat exhaustion, ammo and ration consumption - these can all be interesting game elements, as long as the party is aware of them going in. Having the plate-wearers operate differently when they're wearing armor vs when they're not (I believe it takes 10 minutes to put on full set of plate armor in the 5e rules) would be a fine if that's a disparity that the players know going in.

You may also get requests from the players to allow versions of the Ring of Arming (from 3.5, Magic item compendium p.122) or Folding Plate (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/MagicArmorDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Folding Plate)(pathfinder) to avoid this.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's right there in the book the suggestion of replacing fighter's heavy weapon proficiency with barbarian unarmored defense. Not a bad idea, but here's an idea you might want to try.

For two Martial Classes only, add Proficiency to armor class. Also, for these two classes, consider adding 1/2 of strength bonus to Armor Class or one half of Con bonus to armor class. That allows you to keep some Strengh Based Builds.
Fighter, Paladin
Not Rogues
Not Rangers

Not Barbarians (barbs already have unarmored defense, but if you want to bump barbarians, go ahead and add proficiency for them as well and watch them become more strong in this setting. Or add proficiency only when the barb rages ...

Allow leather based armors, and selected "breast plate' and "scale" type armor made from non metal. (Medium)


I would consider just adding the character proficiency bonus to their armor class if they aren't wearing armor. It would scale with them and probably wouldn't be too game breaking.
Sort of where I was going with that.

[Sigreid]

Not a bad idea, but here's an idea you might want to try.

For two Martial Classes only, add Proficiency to armor class.
Fighter, Paladin
Not Rogues
Not Rangers
Not Barbarians (barbs already have unarmored defense, but if you want to bump barbarians, go ahead and add proficiency for them as well and watch them become more strong in this setting.

Allow leather based armors, and selected "breast plate' and "scale" type armor made from non metal. (Medium)


Sort of where I was going with that.

If you do that, be sure to specify light and medium armor only. Otherwise you will eventually get someone with Plat + shield + proficiency.

You could also give classes with heavy armor proficiency the Medium Armor Mastery instead to close the gap and show how they are better with armor.

[Knaight]

Not true, you can definitely swim in plate armor. Properly made it's only adding about 30-40 pounds distributed evenly over your body. Is a 200 pound person automatically going to sink just because a 170 pound person of the same height can swim?*
...
* Density of fat vs steel means this isn't a fair comparison, but you get the idea

You're understating the effect a bit here. Water density is 1000 kg/m3, give or take a tiny bit for temperature effects. A human averages 985 kg/m3. That 200 pound person is effectively -3.0 pounds in the water, that 170 pound person is -2.6 pounds (both figures are for complete submersion). Steel meanwhile has a density of 8050 kg/m3; that 40 pound plate armor works out to effectively 35.0 pounds in the water.