What’s the point of Leather Armor?

[Myth27]

Studded leather is just better with no disadvantages except for 3 pounds and 35 gp that is nothing. Am I missing something?

[alchahest]

In low-loot or low metal (like dark sun) campaigns, also as a starting point for first level characters that don't have better (yet).

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Also, perhaps you don't want your NPC opponents to have armor class as high as Studded Leather.

[Unoriginal]

Studded leather is just better with no disadvantages except for 3 pounds and 35 gp that is nothing. Am I missing something?

Not everyone can afford paying 35 more gold pieces.

[The Shadowdove]

I had to reward +1 leather armor at an Adventure's League event the other week. Cardstock certificate and all.

It's a magical item and all, sure, but the guy who received it already had studded leather armor.

Inevitably it'll just turn into an item he'll trade for like rarity at some other event, at least it's good for that much.

[Unoriginal]

I had to reward +1 leather armor at an Adventure's League event the other week. Cardstock certificate and all.

It's a magical item and all, sure, but the guy who received it already had studded leather armor.

Inevitably it'll just turn into an item he'll trade for like rarity at some other event, at least it's good for that much.

Sounds like a minor gizmo that could be made memorable.

[rbstr]

In my current game my Paladin is wearing a +3 chain shirt since none of the party could use medium armor and it's clearly her best option for a while. Sometimes weird stuff happens on the loot table.

(Lucky me she's got +1 dex so it was a kind of an upgrade over some splint she found. No stealth disadvantage! Even at level 8 we've got nowhere near the cash to buy her plate anyway...)

[The Shadowdove]

Sounds like a minor gizmo that could be made memorable.
Yes and no. In AL the person with the least magical items gets dibs on the reward item at the end, if they want it.
So you want to trade items that aren't good for your character for others of same rarity that you actually benefit from.
Even +1 armor usually has a cool description or minor property, like dim glow, elven engravings, or acclimation/to hot/cold climates.

[Tanarii]

45gp for Studded Leather is pretty expensive when you're 1st level, or a non-leveled NPC.

It's even more expensive when you're equipping a hundred troops (or more). Although in the latter case it's usually worth shelling out the extra 5gp each for Chain Shirts (for scouts) or Scalemail (for line infantry). But it's still tempting to cut your armoring costs by 1/5 by just going with Leather or Hide. I mean, if you can hire one merc for 70 gp for 5 days with Studded Leather & Longsword, or three mercs for 5 days with a 2gp bonus for each with Leather & Spear for the same price, which is the better choice?

[Morty]

It's something you wear for a session or two, before you get something better, or something particularly poor NPCs wear.

[War_lord]

Because NPCs need to wear gear too.

[Longman]

A lot of players imagine that leather is somewhat concealable or inconspicuous. I don't know if that's true historically but seems to be true in the DandD world hive-mind.

Studded leather = you look tooled up. Maybe the town guards will pay more attention to you?

In terms of actual mechanical advantage of leather over studded, I can't see one. You start with leather and work your way up.

[Kane0]

Because some people refuse to accept 'Studded Leather' as a real thing, even in a fantasy game.

Those people are rare, but I can confirm they exist.

[Temperjoke]

It's a low-costing starter point for players that allows for a balance of basic protection without giving them too much starting gold or starting value (depending on whether you go with the starting gold or item options at character creation).

[War_lord]

A lot of players imagine that leather is somewhat concealable or inconspicuous. I don't know if that's true historically but seems to be true in the DandD world hive-mind.

Studded leather = you look tooled up. Maybe the town guards will pay more attention to you?

In terms of actual mechanical advantage of leather over studded, I can't see one. You start with leather and work your way up.

Well, the thing is, historically "Leather armour" meant hardened and shaped plates of leather. Not the flexible stuff that modern people think of and that's used in fantasy leather armor. "Studded" Leather is a total fabrication (pardon the pun) and is actually a misidentification of a brigandine (which was a jacket with metal plates riveted in as a liner). Historically the most common form of armour for the common soldier before the invention of mass fabricated plate was a thick padded jacket and a metal helmet. Jacket provided cheap protection, and if you did manage to salvage something better, it went over a jacket anyway.

[alchahest]

^^ yep. Gambesons were essentially what used to be called "padded armor" in D&D, and were surprisingly good at resisting all manner of cuts, just due to the layers. having a harder or denser surface over them (Such as hardened leather, or metal, or linen and resin) increased the resistance to cuts and piercing and especially to blugeoning - a hard surface helped spread the force of the impact out over a larger area.

[Naanomi]

Outside of Europe there are a few examples of more classic ‘softer’ leather (and Hide) Armor, even a small handful of Mongolian armors that could perhaps pass for ‘studded leather’ but still fairly uncommon comparatively.

[War_lord]

And in the interest of total fairness it should be pointed out that the prevalence and types of leather armour used is a somewhat controversial topic, because the archeology is hindered by the fact that leather rots and pictorial evidence is limited because the art style of the time makes it hard to tell what materials the artist was trying to depict.

[Longman]

Well, the thing is, historically "Leather armour" meant hardened and shaped plates of leather. Not the flexible stuff that modern people think of and that's used in fantasy leather armor. "Studded" Leather is a total fabrication (pardon the pun) and is actually a misidentification of a brigandine (which was a jacket with metal plates riveted in as a liner). Historically the most common form of armour for the common soldier before the invention of mass fabricated plate was a thick padded jacket and a metal helmet. Jacket provided cheap protection, and if you did manage to salvage something better, it went over a jacket anyway.

I know it's unrealistic, but if people want to imagine that they are sneaking about in antique biker jackets or some kind of bad-ass leather pirate shirt, I'm OK with it. :smallsmile:

In a homebrew Australian-themed game I once ruled that each +1 for AC could be described by the player in any way they chose but that stealth and weight penalties still kicked in once you got to certain levels, no matter what the items were described as. One guy said his +1 AC bonus was because of his lucky cigarette case. Another character had a +2 Ned Kelly helmet.

[alchahest]

That's fantastic!

[Naanomi]

I know it's unrealistic, but if people want to imagine that they are sneaking about in antique biker jackets or some kind of bad-ass leather pirate shirt, I'm OK with it. :smallsmile:.
I usually treat leather armor as a buffcoat worm without any overarmor (which was done historically on occasion), and could look not far off from that

[Tanarii]

In a homebrew Australian-themed game I once ruled that each +1 for AC could be described by the player in any way they chose but that stealth and weight penalties still kicked in once you got to certain levels, no matter what the items were described as. One guy said his +1 AC bonus was because of his lucky cigarette case. Another character had a +2 Ned Kelly helmet.
A Dex bonus on a wizard can easily be described as magically deflecting the blow.

[Coidzor]

I had to reward +1 leather armor at an Adventure's League event the other week. Cardstock certificate and all.

It's a magical item and all, sure, but the guy who received it already had studded leather armor.

Inevitably it'll just turn into an item he'll trade for like rarity at some other event, at least it's good for that much.

I mean, unless he has to find a peer who is willing to trade for it, in which case his only option would be someone with a Dexterity-based Druid, I suppose.

[Talyn]

I usually treat leather armor as a buffcoat worm without any overarmor (which was done historically on occasion), and could look not far off from that

I do the same - if someone is wearing "leather armor," they are generally wearing a buff coat. If someone wants something a little heavier (i.e. something that has the Studded Leather statistics), I generally describe it as a buff coat reinforced with a helmet and arm guards, or possibly an arming doublet.

[Tanarii]

Wouldn't a buff coat be Padded Armor? At least, for armory that give disadvantage to Dex. I guess a Breastplate or Chain Shirt can't be over that.

[Naanomi]

Wouldn't a buff coat be Padded Armor? At least, for armory that give disadvantage to Dex. I guess a Breastplate or Chain Shirt can't be over that.
If a breastplate that is probably worn over a buffcoat doesn’t give a stealth disadvantage, the buffcoat alone shouldn’t... padded is gambeson and the like

[LudicSavant]

Am I missing something?

No, you are not missing something. 5e's weapons and armor are notoriously poorly balanced. In some cases there is even a piece of equipment that is inferior in quite literally every way to another on the same page.

It's even more annoying given that, by all rights, Padded Armor should be a much more attractive choice. I am given to understand that gambesons were super prevalent and very effective IRL.

[Tanarii]

If a breastplate that is probably worn over a buffcoat doesn’t give a stealth disadvantage, the buffcoat alone shouldn’t... padded is gambeson and the like
Ah okay the problem is I was thinking of a buff coat and gambeson as the same thing. I blame a lack of education. Kids these days. Etc.


No. 5e's weapons and armor are notoriously poorly balanced. In some cases there is even a piece of equipment that is inferior in quite literally every way to another on the same page.
It is balanced. It provides better protection for more money.

What I want to know is why anyone except a PC, or extremely rare and special NPC with Dex 16+, would ever wear Studded Leather. Hide is cheaper, weighs the same less,and provides the same protection. And it's more stylish to boot.

[LudicSavant]

It is balanced. It provides better protection for more money.
That's not how balance works. When two things are balanced in game design, a player can rationally feel the indecision between two choices for mechanical reasons.

Moreover, as mentioned, there are quite literally weapons that are inferior in literally every way to others on the same page, including in gp cost. The idea that that's balanced is as indefensible as it gets.

[Naanomi]

I mean... excepting stuff you wear for exceptional reasons (being poor, having bad stats, stuff with fancy enchantments, and/or Druidism); there are only four types of armor at all right? Studded Leather, Breastplate, Half-Plate, Full Plate?

[GreyBlack]

You're a level 10 Fighter who is tasked with outfitting an army of 100 commoners. Are you going to spend 3500 gp on their armor or 1000 gp and give them better weapons?

[Naanomi]

You're a level 10 Fighter who is tasked with outfitting an army of 100 commoners. Are you going to spend 3500 gp on their armor or 1000 gp and give them better weapons?
Depends on what they are fighting, and my alignment...

[rbstr]

That's not how balance works. When two things are balanced in game design, a player can rationally feel the indecision between two choices for mechanical reasons.

Cost can absolutely be a balance point. You could have 15 ac for a $1 or 16 AC for $10. Is one point of AC worth $9 per soldier when you're building an army?

Certainly the progression of chain mail -> splint -> plate on heavy armor characters is designed as balance. It holds down their AC a bit until they level up and accumulate some more wealth.

[LudicSavant]

Cost can absolutely be a balance point. Didn't say otherwise, so I don't know what you're on about. :smallconfused:

Edit: To clarify, I am most certainly not suggesting that cost can't be a balance point. I am saying that making a weaker option have a lower cost (be it in gp or any other resource) does not automatically make that option balanced with a more expensive option. The cost/benefit ratio must be, well, balanced in order for two options to be balanced in the typical game designer's sense of the word. And as many others have already pointed out, this is not the case with all of 5e's weapons and armor.

[War_lord]

That's not how balance works. When two things are balanced in game design, a player can rationally feel the indecision between two choices for mechanical reasons.

Moreover, as mentioned, there are quite literally weapons that are inferior in literally every way to others on the same page, including in gp cost. The idea that that's balanced is as indefensible as it gets.

Balance doesn't have to mean that every option is equally valid.


It's even more annoying given that, by all rights, Padded Armor should be a much more attractive choice. I am given to understand that gambesons were super prevalent and very effective IRL.

You're way too late to fix this, 43 years too late. In the minds of decades of gamers and writers, padded armour is trash and leather is where it's at. Combination of D&D and what people think of when they hear "linen" vs "leather". Plus there's the visual aspect, leather looks cool, gambeson looks like a potato sack.

[LudicSavant]

You're way too late to fix this, 43 years too late. In the minds of decades of gamers and writers, padded armour is trash and leather is where it's at.

It is never too late, and there are plenty of examples of entrenched silliness like this being overturned after decades of stereotypes.

It's perhaps noteworthy that some major gaming franchises *have* been averting this 40-year-old trend lately, and their cloth armor looks badass.

[Tanarii]

That's not how balance works. When two things are balanced in game design, a player can rationally feel the indecision between two choices for mechanical reasons.Cost and weight are part of the mechanical factor. Cost rapidly become irrelevant to PCs, but it's still part of the balancing factor. Leather Armor is balanced for level 1 characters to be able to easily afford it.

And balance isn't some holy grail. Sometimes things don't have to be balanced. Sometimes things that are less effective cost more. Or are just plain less effective.


Moreover, as mentioned, there are quite literally weapons that are inferior in literally every way to others on the same page, including in gp cost. The idea that that's balanced is as indefensible as it gets.Wasnt trying to defend that every item on the tables were balanced. Just Leather Armor and Studded Leather, that cost is a mitigating factor.

[War_lord]

It is never too late, and there are plenty of examples of entrenched silliness like this being overturned after decades of stereotypes.

It's perhaps noteworthy that some major gaming franchises *have* been averting this 40-year-old trend lately, and their cloth armor looks badass.

I love the Witcher 3 for averting the trend, but if you google "Witcher 3 ugly armour" there's pages and pages of complaining.

[Kane0]

My super elegant solution is along the lines of light armor = one layer, medium armor = two layers, hevay armor = three layers. Add in low and high quality of each type and you have 6 armor types you can flavor however you like.

[GreyBlack]

Depends on what they are fighting, and my alignment...

Fair. My point was more that large scale engagements might necessitate a cheaper armor for a low to mid level adventurer army.

[LudicSavant]

I love the Witcher 3 for averting the trend, but if you google "Witcher 3 ugly armour" there's pages and pages of complaining.

I haven't actually played Witcher 3 yet, so I wouldn't know (It's on my lengthy to-do list, though...). But just goes to demonstrate my point that it's not just one popular franchise doing it lately. It also occurs to me if I type "any game" "ugly outfits" I will find people complaining about ugly outfits (https://www.google.com/search?q=skyrim+ugly+armor&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) (because that's just how the internet works), so I just did a more neutrally-termed google search for it (just "witcher armor" and "witcher cloth armor" and similar things) and mostly found results like this: http://www.pcgamer.com/the-witcher-3-has-the-best-armor-in-video-games/.

It's not really hard to find examples of good looking cloth armor. For example:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/f1/82/c6/f182c6eebd2ddded9d232ee4042b103f--medieval-fantasy-armour.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3c/4c/ca/3c4ccac913ffa4a24ff1bf217e59809e.jpg
https://24framesps.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/horriblesubs-maria-the-virgin-witch-05-720p-mkv_snapshot_20-02_2015-02-15_11-27-12.jpg

[GreyBlack]

Cost and weight are part of the mechanical factor. Cost rapidly become irrelevant to PCs, but it's still part of the balancing factor. Leather Armor is balanced for level 1 characters to be able to easily afford it.

And balance isn't some holy grail. Sometimes things don't have to be balanced. Sometimes things that are less effective cost more. Or are just plain less effective.

Wasnt trying to defend that every item on the tables were balanced. Just Leather Armor and Studded Leather, that cost is a mitigating factor.

Just to continue on this point. A +5 longsword is just statistically better than a regular longsword. However, that +5 sword will cost you significantly more in terms of time investment, money, and access than the regular longsword will. The +5 sword is balanced by the lack of access to it and the cost associated with obtaining one.

[Arkhios]

Aaand the OP has all but vanished from the thread. Until proved otherwise, I'm inclined to believe this might have been an attempt to troll the community...

[Unoriginal]

It's not really hard to find examples of good looking cloth armor. For example:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/f1/82/c6/f182c6eebd2ddded9d232ee4042b103f--medieval-fantasy-armour.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3c/4c/ca/3c4ccac913ffa4a24ff1bf217e59809e.jpg
https://24framesps.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/horriblesubs-maria-the-virgin-witch-05-720p-mkv_snapshot_20-02_2015-02-15_11-27-12.jpg

Those aren't gambesons or any kind of "cloth armor". Those are just normal clothes with a metal helmet.


Gambesons are pretty nice, but if you want to go historical, the gambeson will make you look like a slightly martial pillow.

[JellyPooga]

Those aren't gambesons or any kind of "cloth armor". Those are just normal clothes with a metal helmet.


Gambesons are pretty nice, but if you want to go historical, the gambeson will make you look like a slightly martial pillow.

I suddenly feel a compulsion to play a male character that wears padded armour, called Michelle En.

[LudicSavant]

Those aren't gambesons or any kind of "cloth armor". Those are just normal clothes with a metal helmet.


Gambesons are pretty nice, but if you want to go historical, the gambeson will make you look like a slightly martial pillow.

The one in the third picture in particular is based off what they wore in the Hundred Years War, complete with jack chains. And your commentary on this sort of thing is just plain misleading. In real life, cloth armor was highly prevalent and came in many varieties. If you assume that just because you saw one particularly floofy piece of cloth armor that they all look like that, you are mistaken. https://www.google.com/search?q=gambeson&client=firefox-b-ab&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib1eW37cLXAhUDQSYKHf0gDF8Q_AUICygC&biw=1853&bih=709#imgrc=rcxR8gqoRnyx6M:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Kolder%2C_ca._1660-1670.jpg/220px-Kolder%2C_ca._1660-1670.jpg
This is the picture of a gambeson given on wikipedia. Note that it does not look like a pillow. (EDIT: This seems as though it may have been mislabeled on wikipedia, and may in fact be a kolder. So here's a different picture (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ODS7ksbBRuE/maxresdefault.jpg))

Also, since you mention "normal clothes" it's worth mentioning that gambesons were often designed to look like normal clothes.

This guy is depicted wearing a gambeson:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Edward_Fiennes_de_Clinton%2C_Earl_of_Lincoln.jpg/220px-Edward_Fiennes_de_Clinton%2C_Earl_of_Lincoln.jpg

Also worth noting is that gambesons were frequently worn under other, metal armor. If it was actually making everyone who wore it look like a "slightly martial pillow" then people in mail would look like pillows too.

[Unoriginal]

This is just plain inaccurate. The one in the third picture in particular is based straight off what they wore in the Hundred Years War. https://www.google.com/search?q=gambeson&client=firefox-b-ab&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib1eW37cLXAhUDQSYKHf0gDF8Q_AUICygC&biw=1853&bih=709#imgrc=rcxR8gqoRnyx6M:

In real life, cloth armor was highly prevalent and came in many varieties. If you assume that just because you saw one particularly thick piece of cloth armor that they all look like that, you are sorely mistaken.

I'm not sure what that new pic is supposed to prove. As for the "they didn't all look like that" argument, sure, but the point of padded armor... is to be padded. I've read enough on the question to know how they work, and to absorb weapon blows and diminish arrow lethality, the gambeson *needed* to be thick, or at least to be padded in a manner that gave it a distinctive thick appearance, in order to be efficient.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Kolder%2C_ca._1660-1670.jpg/220px-Kolder%2C_ca._1660-1670.jpg
This is a gambeson. Note that it does not look like a pillow.

No, this is not a gambeson. It's a Kolder (the pic is even called that), a protective vest made of leather from the 15th century, which was distinct from the gambeson. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolder_(vest).

But I thank you for finding an historical exemple of supple leather armor.

[Chugger]

DnD is not a reality or history emulator. Nice to know all that stuff, but this is a game.

You get leather to start cuz you're broke and so were the people who helped you get started. You go murder-hobo a bit - er sorry, adventure a bit and _earn_ more gold and upgrade at lvl 2 or 3. It gives you an easy early level goal to hit - the upgrade from leather to studded leather. That's really all there is to this (and I don't mean to sound condescending - but realize if read a certain way I could easily sound it - but I don't mean that - if we were arguing this face to face over a couple of beers you'd know this - but we're stuck on the Internet instead).

[Unoriginal]

Also, for those who doubt the historicity of non-rigid leather armor, there is also the Buff Coat:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Kyller_-_Livrustkammaren_-_30083.tif/lossy-page1-220px-Kyller_-_Livrustkammaren_-_30083.tif.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/John_Pettie_Puritan_Roundhead.jpg/200px-John_Pettie_Puritan_Roundhead.jpg


It seems most exemples of that kind of armor are from the late Middle Age or Renaissance onward, though.

[LudicSavant]

No, this is not a gambeson. It's a Kolder (the pic is even called that), a protective vest made of leather from the 15th century, which was distinct from the gambeson. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolder_(vest).

The english site lists it as a gambeson. Perhaps it is mislabeled. That's frustrating if so.

[Unoriginal]

The english site lists it as a gambeson. Perhaps it is mislabeled.

It is. Look at the file's URL: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Kolder%2C_ca._1660-1670.jpg/220px-Kolder%2C_ca._1660-1670.jpg

[LudicSavant]

It is. Look at the file's URL: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Kolder%2C_ca._1660-1670.jpg/220px-Kolder%2C_ca._1660-1670.jpg

Frustrating. That's what I get for only taking a quick look.

However, I can assure you that you don't need extreme thickness in order for it to provide protection. Here's a video of someone testing a gambeson against arrows. Note that it's not all that thick. It's like a finger's width.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CULmGfvYlso

[Unoriginal]

Frustrating. That's what I get for only taking a quick look.

However, I can assure you that you don't need extreme thickness in order for it to provide protection. Here's a video of someone testing a gambeson against arrows. Note that it's not all that thick. It's like a finger's width.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CULmGfvYlso

I'm not saying that the gambeson is ridiculously thick but think about it in context. Imagine a sweater whose cloth is one finger wide (though I would say the one in the video is more one hand thick, but eh no reason to split hair). Heck, just put your fingers around your arm and imagine wearing something that thick, on top of regular clothes.

This guy has a good video on the subject of gambeson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODS7ksbBRuE

Also, concerning what you said about chainmail before: yes, people who wore mail looked way more pillow-y that the movies give the impression. At least in the Middle Age, where it was customary to wear a gambeson underneath. I think the Celts and Romans generally just had normal clothes underneath.

[LudicSavant]

This guy has a good video on the subject of gambeson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODS7ksbBRuE I've seen that one before and agree that it's a good video on the subject, but that doesn't look like a slightly martial pillow to me. :smallconfused:

Edit: BTW, if you like Shad, you probably are also familiar with Skallagrim, and may like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tFOJFyTl1U

[Unoriginal]

I've seen that one before and agree that it's a good video on the subject, but that doesn't look like a slightly martial pillow to me. :smallconfused:

Really? Well, I suppose it wasn't the most objective scientific description.


Edit: BTW, if you like Shad, you probably are also familiar with Skallagrim, and may like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tFOJFyTl1U

See, this is what I'm talking about.

Look at 1:29 of the video, and compare the gambeson Skallagrim is wearing and the look gives him with the one the anime character is wearing and the look it gives him.

[LudicSavant]

Look at 1:29 of the video, and compare the gambeson Skallagrim is wearing and the look gives him with the one the anime character is wearing and the look it gives him.

I'm not noticing a big difference, and apparently neither is Skall. I think you're taking a nitpick and blowing it up to "that's just normal clothes and doesn't look at all like a gambeson."

[Cybren]

It's just a bad description. You described it bad. It looks like a gamebson, and not a pillow

[Spiritchaser]

Because some people refuse to accept 'Studded Leather' as a real thing, even in a fantasy game.

Those people are rare, but I can confirm they exist.

It wasn’t a real thing

But neither were dragons so why not?

[JackPhoenix]

Depends on what they are fighting, and my alignment...

Thing is, if you spend the extra money you spare by not giving them studded leather, they STILL may have better AC, because you can buy shields instead. Especially if you ignore leather and give them padded, because hirelings generally don't need to sneak anyway. If they have medium proficiency, hide + shield means less than half the price of studded leather for twice the AC bonus.

[Naanomi]

It wasn’t a real thing
Eh... there are some non-European armors that are basically studded leather, especially Mongolian armor; like this sort of thing:
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/88/d5/d5/88d5d5a0bcc6a1e463b6e3247791b485--knight-armor-historical-costume.jpg(yes, I know this is a replica etc etc...)

[Unoriginal]

Eh... there are some non-European armors that are basically studded leather, especially Mongolian armor; like this sort of thing:
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/88/d5/d5/88d5d5a0bcc6a1e463b6e3247791b485--knight-armor-historical-costume.jpg(yes, I know this is a replica etc etc...)

This is more a brigandine.

Thing with studded leather is that it's supposed to be leather with studs bolted to it. A true brigandine, or armor like the one in your pic, are *metal plates* fixed to a leather support.

[Naanomi]

This is more a brigandine.

Thing with studded leather is that it's supposed to be leather with studs bolted to it. A true brigandine, or armor like the one in your pic, are *metal plates* fixed to a leather support.
Maybe. Still, when looking for good examples of leather armor (and its related cousins), looking outside of Europe... especially into north China, Mongolia, Siberia, and Korea... is a good place to start

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly, D&D probably has more armour types that it needs. Light Armour is a question about whether you can afford that additional point or not, and so we might as well fold padded, leather, and studded leather into one armour set.

Light Armour: while historically most light armour would have been layers of cloth, such as the Gambison, the category also covers armour made from hardened plates of leather. It provides an AC equal to 12+your Dexterity modifier.

Medium armour is slightly harder, but if we assume that we're more worried about everything being an attractive option we have two things to worry about: that medium armour is not significantly ahead of light armour in the early game, but not significantly behind in the late game. Assuming we keep the dex to AC cap at two this means we want an AC base of about thirteen in the early game (to have equal AC to Dex builds), but fourteen in the late game (to be just behind Dex builds). However we have another way to balance it, disadvantage on Stealth checks. Therefore I propose the following.

Medium Armour: the most common forms of medium armour are mail and scale armour. It is heavier than light armour and therefore more difficult to be agile in over long periods, while also making more noise. Medium armour gives an AC of 14+your Dexterity modifier (minimum 2), and imposes disadvantage on Stealth checks.

Heavy Armour is now simple, we want to be at least equal to Medium armour but have both be attractive options. Well what if we set the AC at the cap for medium armour? This means each armour is suited for different characters, light for those with Dexterity as a primary stat, Medium for those with Dexterity as a secodary stat, and heavy for those who dump Dexterity.

Heavy Armour: heavy armour includes both gothic plate and splint mail, and is the heaviest and most tiring armour to wear. It provides an AC of 16 and gives disadvantage on Stealth checks.

Now if we really care about realism we'd probably drop the caps to Dex bonus and apply a different disadvantage to heavy and maybe medium armour (a level of exhuastion every constitution modifier hours you wear it?), but this works as a simple system to keep everybody's AC about level (16, 18 if using a shield).

This is the system I'm using in my 'basic fifth' game, where armour can be fluffed as you like as long as it fits into one of the three categories.


You're a level 10 Fighter who is tasked with outfitting an army of 100 commoners. Are you going to spend 3500 gp on their armor or 1000 gp and give them better weapons?

Assuming I'll be spending all that money anyway? The armour, better armour means the soldier is more likely to survive wounds, which not only means they're fighting for longer but also means I have to pay less money to grieving families. A wounded or dead soldier is one that not only isn't fighting, it's one that costs money.

In all honesty? My characters would equip them with with at least a gambeson, spear, and shield, and then prioritise better armour over better weapons (except for potentially also giving them a dagger).

Lets assume I was actually doing it in a game, every commoner comes with a dagger and no armour. My budget is 3500gp.

Shields are literally the best value AC in the equipment section. +2AC without limiting Dexterity bonuses (as good as studded leather) with no disadvantage on stealth checks. My first thousand gp goes on getting everybody a shield, so they now have AC12 and 1d4 damage.

Next they'll want some better weaponry. Some of them might be trained with something, but it's much easier to command the unit if everybody has the same primary weapon. So martial weapons are probably out, most won't know how to use them. Besides, giving everybody a spear is a mere 100gp, for a total of 1100gp so far. If we want them to be versatile we'll give them slings as a ranged weapon, most of them likely haven't learnt to use a bow, a sling and enough bullets for several battles is not even another gp per commoner, but we'll call it that for 1200gp.

Now we can start adding more stuff. We can spend 500gp on giving them each a suit of padded armour, totalling us at 1700gp. we have 1600gp left in the bank. We can either give them stuff like mess kits or the like, or we can give each their choice of Hide armour if proficient (to go from 13AC to 14AC) or a battleaxe. We don't have the money to go for anything more expensive, but as you can see by dropping from battleaxes as standard to spears as standard we've freed up the possibility of Hide armour and shields, which makes our peasants much more survivable (and likely more able to hit, proficiency in spears should be relatively common).

[War_lord]

I can't see why you'd assume they don't know how to use the shortbow, it was a hunting weapon much like the sling.

[rbstr]

Your "simple" method is a disaster mechanically - It pretty much just amounts to a nerf of heavy armor in later stages of the game if you fix to to 16 forever. You didn't actually change anything else of consequence. Clearly the game needs to make strength even less desirable.

[Anonymouswizard]

Your "simple" method is a disaster mechanically - It pretty much just amounts to a nerf of heavy armor in later stages of the game if you fix to to 16 forever. You didn't actually change anything else of consequence. Clearly the game needs to make strength even less desirable.

First off, I was working under the assumption Feats weren't in play (as I admitted, this is primarily designed for a nonstandard game). It's working under a system that misses several traits (no finesse weapons, for example, which are really what kills strength), but mathematically it does give heavy armour the same purpose as in standard D&D.

In short, I'm assuming that everybody with 16+ in Dexterity will want light armour by the end of the game, or want it for stealthing. Mathematically it's the best armour if you have 20 Dexterity.

For everybody else, those with 14+ Dexterity are better off in medium armour, while those with 13 or less are best off with heavy armour. Heavy armour isn't worse, as long as medium armour master isn't around it peaks at the same value as medium armour.

Now of course most melee characters will want higher initiative as well, which means there's a distinct possibility that medium armour will be more popular. To me this is fine, we just get paladins in mail rather than paladins in plate, but if it really bothers you add a feat which allows heavy armour users to increase their AC by a point or two. But heavy armour still has a purpose, it's for those who don't have a high enough dexterity to make best use of lighter armours.

The goal was to make each choice of armour a viable option, and it does that by pegging 16 as the cap for armour AC (although light armour breaks this rule I really don't want to drop it to 11+Dex just because of that). The ideal choice of armour will be determined by character build, but at least we no longer have a case of 'use until the next step comes along'.

EDIT: okay, I'll admit that at later levels some characters are two AC points behind, but that was part of what made medium armour worthless in the first place. Here if you're using heavy armour you'll probably compensate with an extra few points in a stat that isn't dexterity.


(With regards to the company outfitting, honestly? I picked the sling because I wanted to keep to simple weapons, with the idea that if somebody doesn't know how to use it they can be trained relatively easily. If I was doing it for real I'd have made a dedicated unit of archers with shortbows instead of equipping everybody equally.)

[Unoriginal]

Why do you want AC to be so low, though? Melee PCs will be torn to shred at high level.

[JackPhoenix]

So, not only does heavy armor end up worse than light armor after 8th level (no feat means that's when Dex character gets Dex 20), not to mention other penalties, best AC will be achieved by casters because Mage Armor gives 13 + Dex. Yeah... great solution for non-existing problem.

[rbstr]

Mechanically you've just done these things:
Made medium armor and light armor better at low levels by making Half-Plate and Studded Leather's benefits immediately accessible.
Heavily nerfed heavy armor at high levels.

The most common effects you're getting here is a buff to dex martials and medium armor casters (also barbarians) at low level, reduced the AC of two-hander martial classes by 2 at medium/high levels, and made Longsword+Shield a trap option vs. Rapier+Shield.

[Naanomi]

Also a significant relative buff for anyone getting AC up in other ways... Barbarians, monks, lizardman, tortles, etc

[KorvinStarmast]

In my jaded PoV, they keep leather armor around in part so that various artists can outdo themselves in trying to present to the gaming audience an attractive lady dressed in leather (https://derpicdn.net/img/2016/4/11/1129668/full.png).

[GlenSmash!]

In my jaded PoV, they keep leather armor around in part so that various artists can outdo themselves in trying to present to the gaming audience an attractive lady dressed in leather (https://derpicdn.net/img/2016/4/11/1129668/full.png).

It is getting increasingly harder to justify Chainmail bikini's after all.

[GlenSmash!]

This is more a brigandine.

I have accepted that for my games "Studded leather" is brigandine.

[Anonymouswizard]

So, not only does heavy armor end up worse than light armor after 8th level (no feat means that's when Dex character gets Dex 20), not to mention other penalties, best AC will be achieved by casters because Mage Armor gives 13 + Dex. Yeah... great solution for non-existing problem.

Yeah, okay, I've not finished the fine tuning. But this is for a hack, I removed the MA spell.

Honestly, if it's such a problem heavy armour can be pumped up to 18AC.


Also a significant relative buff for anyone getting AC up in other ways... Barbarians, monks, lizardman, tortles, etc

Short answer, they weren't considered because they're not in the hack. To balance yeah you have to remove medium armour as a choice option again or bump it up to 16+dex(max 2).


Mechanically you've just done these things:
Made medium armor and light armor better at low levels by making Half-Plate and Studded Leather's benefits immediately accessible.
Heavily nerfed heavy armor at high levels.

The most common effects you're getting here is a buff to dex martials and medium armor casters (also barbarians) at low level, reduced the AC of two-hander martial classes by 2 at medium/high levels, and made Longsword+Shield a trap option vs. Rapier+Shield.

As I said, this isn't meant to be 100% standalone (it's in a hack that doesn't allow finesse weapons), the difference between longsword+shield and rapier+shield should be damage type. Therefore when slotted into 5e there are side effects.

If you're really that worried then use different numbers, say peg all armor types at the bottom of the 5e category or at the top. Or completely change the system to what you want to use. My point was that 5e has so much useless suits of armour and an incentive to use only the best ion your category that we might as well drop to three. Could event let characters add their proficiency bonus to AC and then have Light, Medium, and Heavy armour add +1, +2, and +3 respectively (maybe Medium gives disadvantage to stealth, heavy also cause exhaustion).


An Injudicial armour pieces system would also be interesting, but I'm not going to make it.

[JackPhoenix]

So, basically, you aren't playing 5e anymore.

[Morty]

As I usually say, the people in this thread have already put more thought into the issue than the designers of the actual equipment section. The more you look at it, the more obviously it was thrown together to mostly look like what players are used to. You could have three lines for each armour category, or even class-based AC, and it'd work out to the same thing. Low-quality armour for NPCs can be dealt with using modifiers if it becomes relevant (and I doubt most players question the AC of the low-level mooks they encounter anyway).

[ShikomeKidoMi]

I have accepted that for my games "Studded leather" is brigandine.

That's been my attitude as well. Especially since Brigandine doesn't have an entry on the table.

[JackPhoenix]

That's been my attitude as well. Especially since Brigandine doesn't have an entry on the table.

Ring mail is closer than studded leather. Brigandine isn't light armor by any measurement. Scale mail, maybe, for the lightest types, splint for heavier examples or coat of plates.

[rbstr]

You have to pretty deliberately read the Armor Table in an obtuse way in order to not understand the design intent. All this Brigandine/Leather/Studded Leather stuff is basically irrelevant to how the table is constructed. Call it whatever you want: There are categories depending on your proficiency and stats and you start with something you can buy an upgrade later.

Light Armor:
****y NPC/tight budget option
Starter Option
Upgrade Option

Medium Armor:
****ty NPC/tight budget option
Two Starter Options, one for stealth one for more protection
Two Upgrade Options, one for stealth one for more protection.

Heavy Armor:
****ty NPC/tight budget option
Starter
Upgrade 1
Upgrade 2

[Crusher]

Studded leather is just better with no disadvantages except for 3 pounds and 35 gp that is nothing. Am I missing something?

As it happens, just on Monday I was DMing a session in which the party finally made it into the "dungeon" half of "Secret of the Slavers' Stockade" adapted for 5e. Thanks to some great RPing and even better Persuasion/Deception rolls, the party managed to talk their way through about half of the fortress pretending to be slave buyers.

There's a trap in the first tunnel section of the downstairs that revolves around a gigantic magnet, and as fate would have it, the party's RP success finally broke down and that's where they fought the three red headed wereboar brothers. They knew the magnet was there (they were too stupid to know what it actually was, but they knew what it did), wore hide armor and had absolutely no metal on them at all.

If the party hadn't found out about that trap in advance (via great RPing) it could have been a TPK. The brothers kept trying to shove the metal-wearing members of the party down the hall and into the magnet, which (had they rolled better) could still have turned the tide of the fight.

Sometimes, the difference between leather (or hide) armor and studded leather makes a huge difference.

[Unoriginal]

Makes me kinda sad to see all those people talk about "useless" armors.

I mean, yes, some of them aren't the best, but there is more than optimization in this damn game.

I would love to see PCs getting a leather armor from an old ranger, whose family has been convinced it's made of dragon hide for generations because of its scaly aspect, only it's actually enchanted crocodile skin. Or to have a dwarf prince wear hide armor made from the animal he killed during his rite of passage to adulthood. Or to have a Paladin wearing ring mail because she had to sell most of her equipment for one reason or another and it's all she could afford.

[Cybren]

Makes me kinda sad to see all those people talk about "useless" armors.

I mean, yes, some of them aren't the best, but there is more than optimization in this damn game.

I would love to see PCs getting a leather armor from an old ranger, whose family has been convinced it's made of dragon hide for generations because of its scaly aspect, only it's actually enchanted crocodile skin. Or to have a dwarf prince wear hide armor made from the animal he killed during his rite of passage to adulthood. Or to have a Paladin wearing ring mail because she had to sell most of her equipment for one reason or another and it's all she could afford.
The problem with that is that the way games communicate to players is via mechanics, rules, and systems, and the way it communicates "you should use this instead of that" is with better numbers. You would need some mechanical reason for the player to choose the worse armor their whole career otherwise that feels bad

[Unoriginal]

The problem with that is that the way games communicate to players is via mechanics, rules, and systems, and the way it communicates "you should use this instead of that" is with better numbers. You would need some mechanical reason for the player to choose the worse armor their whole career otherwise that feels bad

That's not my point. Of course players will choose the better option, I'm not blaming them (people will generally choose the option that appears to have the most benefits, after all). I'm just saying that there is more to the game than just "it's the best equipment", and that those less-than-ideal armors have their place in the world too.

I mean, a dagger's not an impressive weapon, but would you rather have a rapier or a +1 dagger that you had to fight a fire-breathing gnoll to get your hand on?

[Cybren]

That's not my point. Of course players will choose the better option, I'm not blaming them (people will generally choose the option that appears to have the most benefits, after all). I'm just saying that there is more to the game than just "it's the best equipment", and that those less-than-ideal armors have their place in the world too.

I mean, a dagger's not an impressive weapon, but would you rather have a rapier or a +1 dagger that you had to fight a fire-breathing gnoll to get your hand on?

A +1 dagger is better than a rapier.

[Tanarii]

A +1 dagger is better than a rapier.
And Leather +1 is better than Studder Leather. Same AC, weight is lower.

And very much better for Druids, since it they can actually use it.

[Cybren]

And Leather +1 is better than Studder Leather. Same AC, weight is lower.

And very much better for Druids, since it they can actually use it.

True, but those are better because they're better. If you want players to use worse things for story reasons, that's fine, but they won't like doing it, because even to players uninterested in optimization, the game is communicating to them that that is wrong. It feels bad.

[Anonymouswizard]

So, basically, you aren't playing 5e anymore.

Kind of (and not playing, between groups ATM). It's an attempt to take 5e and strip it down to what's needed, then build it back up for a lower magic game. Most classes are getting the axe, Fighters and Rogues stay as they are, Wizards get a handful of changes, the Barbarian gets a refluff, and a lot of equipment gets compressed together. The core is 5e and the spells are 5e (but spells lists are being reshuffled), but the trappings are changed.

5e's weapon and especial armour lists annoyed me. We have several types of armour that exist for PCs to use until they get enough go for the next steep, so the PCs are obviously expected to increase their AC at some point. Why not just hand out the AC boat directly and move down to a smaller list that offers real choice? There's quite a few weapons that are 'X, but damage type Y', why not just have weapon templates players slap a damage type and description onto? Cutting out the 'use X until you can upgrade' leaves you with real choice, and players can now take a 1d10 Reach iron shod quarterstaff.

But now I'm thinking of how to balance my armor system in vanilla 5e. Heavy armour definitely needs a buff, so do I just make it AC18?

[rbstr]

I don't think you want low level PC's to rock ac20 that easily. I'd maybe make it level up by one AC at like level 4 and 8.

I'll fully admit that I don't like how armor works all that much either. My thing is the way it inhibits being, like, a strength-based ranger or something.
I don't really want them in heavy armor, really, but maybe make medium armor take strength or dex.

[Kane0]

Light Armor (Leather, Padded, Hide): AC 13 + Dex
Medium Armor (Chain, Scale, Brigandine, Lamellar): AC 15 + Dex (Max 3), Min STR 13
Heavy Armor (Splint, Plate): AC 17 + Dex (max 1), Min STR 15, Disadvantage on stealth
Shield: +2 AC

Too simple?

[Naanomi]

Light Armor (Leather, Padded, Hide): AC 13 + Dex
Medium Armor (Chain, Scale, Brigandine, Lamellar): AC 15 + Dex (Max 3), Min STR 13
Heavy Armor (Splint, Plate): AC 17 + Dex (max 1), Min STR 15, Disadvantage on stealth
Shield: +2 AC
So strength based characters need to invest at least 12 in DEX to be competitive?

[Unoriginal]

So strength based characters need to invest at least 12 in DEX to be competitive?

And still be worse.

[Kane0]

Everyone gets 18 AC, how much Str and Dex you invest may mean 1-2 points of difference, allows characters to start with less than best AC and improve.

[Cybren]

Everyone gets 18 AC, how much Str and Dex you invest may mean 1-2 points of difference, allows characters to start with less than best AC and improve.

That's not necessarily a design goal everyone likes or wants, though. I don't really like the idea of an item treadmill.

[Kane0]

I meant with ASIs.

[rbstr]

You're still disadvantaging strength characters since they have to spend points off their attack score while dex characters do not. This makes dex-as-god-stat worse. Not better.

[Kane0]

Is a 12 in Dex on a Str character (or any sort) really that rare? I can't say i've come across it at my table. With point buy you can afford 15, 14, 14, 12, 8, 8 before racials, and theres the standard array 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 and rolling.

[Naanomi]

Is a 12 in Dex on a Str character (or any sort) really that rare? I can't say i've come across it at my table.
It is on say... a paladin who needs STR, CON, and CHA to operate... and more to the point it is not equivalent, since said DEX character (who can get the same AC, and doesn’t have a stealth disadvantage) could easily get away with 3 STR without much difficulty

[Tanarii]

Is a 12 in Dex on a Str character (or any sort) really that rare? I can't say i've come across it at my table. With point buy you can afford 15, 14, 14, 12, 8, 8 before racials, and theres the standard array 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 and rolling.
A HA str character? Absolutely. Dex 8 is the 'standard' dump stat I see for non-Dex Fighters, for HA Clerics, or for Paladins. Classically referred to as 'Cleric speed' at my tables (which must have come from the Internet), although now it's only all Paladins that always seem to dump Dex. HA wearers that don't dump Dex almost always put a Dex 10 there.

Anecdotal of course, but I draw my anecdotes from playing AL several times a week before I started my campaign, and a huge number of (all single class, no feat) PCs in my open table campaign.

Regardless of common-ness, the entire point of HA is it removes the need for Dex entirely and let's you go Str only. You don't want to remove that.

Unless you're going to do something else to balance out Dex characters? Maybe go old school for that: Add firing into melee randomness. Require a feat to attack with Finesse weapons.

[MeeposFire]

All these ideas to try to "simplify" armors just seem to make the game worse. In a similar vein I am still surprised that something like leather armor is drawing any attention at all.

Seriously just call studded leather high quality leather, leather made with advanced techniques, or masterwork for you 3e fans and call it a day. We can make this work without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The numbers are fine just use some names that make you happy and that will be much easier than trying to refigure out the AC system.

[opaopajr]

Leather Armor is "the poor man's solution" until they become wealthier. That's it! :smalltongue: Doesn't need much else because wealth rates are table dependent. Thus the wealth difference for other better armors makes for aspirational goals.

Now as for myself tinkering with the equipment list, I think that's a great place for houserule creativity. However I caution people to take it easy at first. Here, I'll give an example I am chewing on myself:

I want to reword Padded Armor into giving a flat AC 11 with Stealth Disadv.

Now it does something different from its neighbors! It also opens interesting choices for low DEX PCs. You no longer have to chase heavy armor. Even Mage Armor suffers from negative DEX mod, wheeas this rework of Padded would not.

Is it strong? No, hardly. But it fills a currently vacant niche. And that's interesting. It also doesn't rewrite how armor works or grossly outclass other options. Could it be improved? Perhaps, and that's worth exploring!

It steps lightly on the game chassis, all by removing a little clause, "+DEX." :smallcool: Go ahead, you try!

[Anonymouswizard]

I don't think you want low level PC's to rock ac20 that easily. I'd maybe make it level up by one AC at like level 4 and 8.

I'll fully admit that I don't like how armor works all that much either. My thing is the way it inhibits being, like, a strength-based ranger or something.
I don't really want them in heavy armor, really, but maybe make medium armor take strength or dex.

Eh fair, as I'm working from the Basic Rules instead of the PhB classes-wise at the moment I'm not overly concerned about strength-based rangers or the like. I do like the ideal of a scaling AC bonus, maybe have Light start at 10+Dex or 11+Dex, then give everyone +1AC at levels 4 and 8? Breaks down with monks and barbarians though.

5e's armour system could use a lot of work, and my system isn't the be-all and end-all of improved armour system. To me it's another symptom of 5e providing 'choice, but only if it suits our views'.


All these ideas to try to "simplify" armors just seem to make the game worse. In a similar vein I am still surprised that something like leather armor is drawing any attention at all.

Your opinion. Some of us don't want to have to go through the treasure grind and gold piece accounting just for our players to have the armour they want. Honestly, if you leave out the need to upgrade you start being able to give out rewards that earn't treasure at those levels, like ranks in an organisation, or a noble title, or land, or the prince's hand in marriage (you won't believe how hard it is to convince noblemen that he's a good pick).


Seriously just call studded leather high quality leather, leather made with advanced techniques, or masterwork for you 3e fans and call it a day. We can make this work without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The numbers are fine just use some names that make you happy and that will be much easier than trying to refigure out the AC system.

Well yeah, we can, but the argument is 'why the heck should leather even exist when it's role is to be discarded after one adventure'.

[GreyBlack]

Assuming I'll be spending all that money anyway? The armour, better armour means the soldier is more likely to survive wounds, which not only means they're fighting for longer but also means I have to pay less money to grieving families. A wounded or dead soldier is one that not only isn't fighting, it's one that costs money.

In all honesty? My characters would equip them with with at least a gambeson, spear, and shield, and then prioritise better armour over better weapons (except for potentially also giving them a dagger).

Lets assume I was actually doing it in a game, every commoner comes with a dagger and no armour. My budget is 3500gp.

Shields are literally the best value AC in the equipment section. +2AC without limiting Dexterity bonuses (as good as studded leather) with no disadvantage on stealth checks. My first thousand gp goes on getting everybody a shield, so they now have AC12 and 1d4 damage.

Next they'll want some better weaponry. Some of them might be trained with something, but it's much easier to command the unit if everybody has the same primary weapon. So martial weapons are probably out, most won't know how to use them. Besides, giving everybody a spear is a mere 100gp, for a total of 1100gp so far. If we want them to be versatile we'll give them slings as a ranged weapon, most of them likely haven't learnt to use a bow, a sling and enough bullets for several battles is not even another gp per commoner, but we'll call it that for 1200gp.

Now we can start adding more stuff. We can spend 500gp on giving them each a suit of padded armour, totalling us at 1700gp. we have 1600gp left in the bank. We can either give them stuff like mess kits or the like, or we can give each their choice of Hide armour if proficient (to go from 13AC to 14AC) or a battleaxe. We don't have the money to go for anything more expensive, but as you can see by dropping from battleaxes as standard to spears as standard we've freed up the possibility of Hide armour and shields, which makes our peasants much more survivable (and likely more able to hit, proficiency in spears should be relatively common).

Yeah, sorry, I need to respond here. So the average level 10 adventurer has ~750gp total according to WBL. Outfitting an army of 100 people is going to involve some more hardcore economics than this. Especially considering that at least some of your money is going towards your own gear.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah, sorry, I need to respond here. So the average level 10 adventurer has ~750gp total according to WBL. Outfitting an army of 100 people is going to involve some more hardcore economics than this. Especially considering that at least some of your money is going towards your own gear.

I took your gp value and went from there, I didn't say I'm a tenth level adventurer and have to outfit a company of commoners, so I have 3500gp', I said 'alright, let's assume I'm a tenth level adventurer and have 3500gp to outfit a compay of commoners', two different situations (maybe the local lord gave me a budget? I don't know).