Is armor over-rated?

[sophontteks]

I was reading discussions on Str vs. Dex paladins. The main arguement being that STR can use full armor which gives +1 Ac over dex. but I read about the armor and there are some other problems that seem to be tucked under the rug. The biggest of which is donning times.

So, it takes 1 minute to put on leather. Thats 10 rounds. It takes 10 minutes to put on heavy armor- 100 rounds.
We don't sleep in armor, so any time there's an encounter at night those players could be fighting with only 10 AC. And the problem is that these encounters are not rare and we are talking about a huge penalty. Other such situations include swimming, travelling in heavy heat, encounters in social situations (balls and such), escaping from a prison, having your armor stolen while you were sleeping.

How do people get around this? I mean IRL even the heaviest plate doesn't slow down the wearer much, and it renders them nearly invulnerable. Is it really worth all the work just for a single AC assuming you even have the armor on?

[Matrix_Walker]

If your build has a 20 DEX in its future, then armor is likely more trouble than it's worth.

In a magic heavy game with a plethora of magic items, the best magic armors do tend to be the heavier ones, and if this is the case, armor proficiency and use can really pay off.

[Darkbru]

If you’re honestly concerned about it you could dip to Sorcerer for one level, assuming you have 13 CHA, and pick Draconic so you get base 13 AC plus your DEX modifier. Worst case is you’d probably have 12 AC in plain clothes if you dump DEX. If you have a 10 DEX then you get the 13

[Solusek]

How do people get around this? I mean IRL even the heaviest plate doesn't slow down the wearer much, and it renders them nearly invulnerable. Is it really worth all the work just for a single AC assuming you even have the armor on?

I haven't liked how D&D does armor pretty much ever. I get the fantasy of the quick nimble sword fighter, and it's great that they are viable, but IRL full plate armor was absolutely dominating in battle. It was a really really huge deal. I feel like the advantages that a fully armored knight would have in battle is mechanically lacking in this edition of the game. It ends up being like a 1-2 AC better than a dextrous combatant in light armor. Come on. Even just mundane non-magic full plate should be something special and a big deal for the characters that can use it.

Armor was incredibly effective in the real pre-firearms world. I wish that was better represented mechanically.

[trctelles]

By RAW and RAI, there is no penalty for sleeping in armor, so you can sleep in heavy armor. I know it makes sense to don and doff it, but you don't HAVE to.
I'm AFB, but I think there are more magic heavy armors than medium.
DEX is considered the OP stat of 5e, so even if you use heavy armor you shouldn't dump it.

If you get attacked at night and have no armor on, it won't matter if it would take 10 or 100 rounds to don it, it's not worth to do it.

If you don't dump DEX, you should have a 12 or 14 in it, so you'll have 11 or 12 AC without armor (if you don't have a race that give you natural armor). It sucks, but you shouldn't be fighting with no armor that much that you would think "damn, I wish a was a DEX X class instead of a STR one so I could fight better with no armor''

STR builds use bigger die weapons, can use GWM and PAM and fight better with no weapons than a DEX guy (again, if your race doesn't give you natural weapon).
I think these kinds of situation won't happen that much to make you chose one build over the other.

[Tanarii]

I haven't liked how D&D does armor pretty much ever.
Armor used to the the only decent way to get AC in Classic and AD&D.

[MaxWilson]

Armor was incredibly effective in the real pre-firearms world. I wish that was better represented mechanically.

If you let Heavy Armor Master be taken multiple times and stack with itself, that would do it.

Incidentally, the fact that Str makes you better at grappling/shoving/proning is a huge deal for tanks, especially once you've got extra attacks.

[Pex]

To each his own. It is nice and fun that many classes can get by with non-heavy or no armor. Hooray for them. For those who use heavy armor, that is their fun. They will have the highest AC, and that is significant in 5E. Dexterity is great but that does not make Strength suck. Initiative is not always important for a character. Heavy armor means DX can be another dump stat option. As for saving throws, nothing is perfect but you'll be taking damage anyway. It is why you have the hitpoints.

[strangebloke]

Str builds get:
Higher AC at all levels, particularly if you get lots of money early on.

You can safely leave your str at 16 for an entire campaign and still have better AC than your Dex-based friend. (Useful if you're focusing on your abilities as caster.)

Much bettter weapon damage in melee

Access to certain builds and feats like Pam, gwm, better support for sentinel, etc.

Str-based skills that can be used offensively (athletics)

Ability to multiclass in and out of classes that require strength.

Depending on what you're doing, Dex might be better, but it's hardly a given.

[sophontteks]

I haven't liked how D&D does armor pretty much ever. I get the fantasy of the quick nimble sword fighter, and it's great that they are viable, but IRL full plate armor was absolutely dominating in battle. It was a really really huge deal. I feel like the advantages that a fully armored knight would have in battle is mechanically lacking in this edition of the game. It ends up being like a 1-2 AC better than a dextrous combatant in light armor. Come on. Even just mundane non-magic full plate should be something special and a big deal for the characters that can use it.

Armor was incredibly effective in the real pre-firearms world. I wish that was better represented mechanically.
I know right?
Especially medium armor where its like "Oh my god this chain shirt is soooo heavy I can barely move." I would expect the ability to wear medium armor to be straight up better then light in most situations. But then again, even light armor like padded armor is incredibly effective. It turns out cutting through dozens of layers of thick cloth is incredibly difficult to do.

Sadly, I don't know a good way around it. The best I could do as a DM is to give all players the armor master feats automatically, which I think just brings armor where it should be.

I don't think I can really allow players to sleep in armor while gaining the benefits of a full rest, but its good to know that they would do that in RAW. If players are given the mastery feats for free, then perhaps I could be stricter on when armor would be worn without unfairly picking on strength builds.

[sophontteks]

To each his own. It is nice and fun that many classes can get by with non-heavy or no armor. Hooray for them. For those who use heavy armor, that is their fun. They will have the highest AC, and that is significant in A.C. Dexterity is great but that does not make Strength suck. Initiative is not always important for a character. Heavy armor means DX can be another dump stat option. As for saving throws, nothing is perfect but you'll be taking damage anyway. It is why you have the hitpoints.
They only have the highest AC if they are wearing the armor. The problem is there are a pretty large number of situations where realistically a player would not be wearing the armor. If I enforce those situations I fear that it does make strength kind of suck. I feel like I'm stuck between hamming up the realism by assuming that the player lives in their armor or treating the strength player unfairly since they could often be in encounters where they may be stuck with no armor AC at all.

[Saggo]

By RAW and RAI, there is no penalty for sleeping in armor, so you can sleep in heavy armor. I know it makes sense to don and doff it, but you don't HAVE to.

Xanathar's introduced the rule that sleeping in medium and heavy armor only gives a quarter it dice and doesn't reduce exhaustion levels. Even then, it doesn't actively hurt you to long rest in it.

[LudicSavant]

The difference in cost between full plate and half-plate is greater than the cost of some +1 AC magic items.

[Solusek]

I know right?
I don't think I can really allow players to sleep in armor while gaining the benefits of a full rest, but its good to know that they would do that in RAW. If players are given the mastery feats for free, then perhaps I could be stricter on when armor would be worn without unfairly picking on strength builds.

Xanathar's pg. 77 has some rules for sleeping in armor. You recover less of your hit dice pool when sleeping in medium/heavy armor, and don't recover ranks of exhaustion. It's small but at least a bit of a penalty.

[Solusek]

I know right?
Sadly, I don't know a good way around it. The best I could do as a DM is to give all players the armor master feats automatically, which I think just brings armor where it should be.


This is a really good idea! I'm not running any games right now, but if I were I would probably do something like this to make armor more appealing.

[MaxWilson]

They only have the highest AC if they are wearing the armor. The problem is there are a pretty large number of situations where realistically a player would not be wearing the armor.

As well as (realistically) mages not having Mage Armor up (or Foresight if you're playing at that level), buffs like Aid/Death Ward not cast, Guidance not being constantly recast, etc.

There is no "adventuring day." Even when the PCs are on wartime footing, there's a portion of the day in which PCs are being proactive and are pressing ahead, ready for danger, and there's a portion of the day when they're on the defensive to rest and recharge. Monsters and other characters can interact with them during either portion of the day, and/or on days when they're not on wartime footing.

Monks are a lot of fun in a setting with a full 24-hour day because monks are always ready for anything, even when they're bathing.

[Tanarii]

There's also that system seems to assume outside of Rangers, Rogues, Monks and some Fighters, no PC is going to go higher than Dex 14, as a general rule. Basically, the three Dex-based skirmishes/scout classes.


They only have the highest AC if they are wearing the armor. The problem is there are a pretty large number of situations where realistically a player would not be wearing the armor. If I enforce those situations I fear that it does make strength kind of suck. I feel like I'm stuck between hamming up the realism by assuming that the player lives in their armor or treating the strength player unfairly since they could often be in encounters where they may be stuck with no armor AC at all.If you're playing that kind of game, you need to rebalance armor vs non-armor.

[sophontteks]

If you're playing that kind of game, you need to rebalance armor vs non-armor.
So the norm is for DMs to assume the PCs are always in armor. That pretty much answers my original question.


As well as (realistically) mages not having Mage Armor up (or Foresight if you're playing at that level), buffs like Aid/Death Ward not cast, Guidance not being constantly recast, etc.

There is no "adventuring day." Even when the PCs are on wartime footing, there's a portion of the day in which PCs are being proactive and are pressing ahead, ready for danger, and there's a portion of the day when they're on the defensive to rest and recharge. Monsters and other characters can interact with them during either portion of the day, and/or on days when they're not on wartime footing.

Monks are a lot of fun in a setting with a full 24-hour day because monks are always ready for anything, even when they're bathing.

Yeah, the campaign I'm running has the PCs on the run with minimal equipment. Its going to be a while until they reach a place where they can actually attain real equipment. I don't want to create spoilers by saying what campaign it is, but it is an official campaign. I'm supposed to, as a DM, really hammer down on the survival aspect of the game, so things like the fatigue of wearing armor should play a part.

Fortunately none of the party members are STR-based. Its just that it got me thinking how such a character would manage. And yes, the monk is loving life. He's a new player and I helped him create a character he would have fun roleplaying. The monk is perfect for such a setting. He and the druid have been carrying the team thus far.

[Tanarii]

So the norm is for DMs to assume the PCs are always in armor. That pretty much answers my original question.
The norm for the system is to only focus on wilderness and dungeon adventuring. PCs tend to wear armor when adventuring, especially in those environments.

There will be exceptions, either entirely (often: sailor campaigns or heavy urban campaigns, especially urban intrigue) or specifically (usually night time attacks).

[ZorroGames]

Players’ characters wear armor when they can. In some podunk village where they are mercenaries/professional adventurers why would they not wear armor? It is built in advertising and mechanically reliable.

The value of armor is dependent on the setting specific situations where it is or is not of value. Dungeons, yes. Night ambushes, only if you are on guard. Social campaigns requiring play without armor, not as much. Wilderness travel (so devalued in many games) generally useful. Yada-yada-yada.

[Naanomi]

One of the benefits of playing a Dwarf is that full plate armor is totally appropriate dress attire for social situations

[MeeposFire]

I haven't liked how D&D does armor pretty much ever. I get the fantasy of the quick nimble sword fighter, and it's great that they are viable, but IRL full plate armor was absolutely dominating in battle. It was a really really huge deal. I feel like the advantages that a fully armored knight would have in battle is mechanically lacking in this edition of the game. It ends up being like a 1-2 AC better than a dextrous combatant in light armor. Come on. Even just mundane non-magic full plate should be something special and a big deal for the characters that can use it.

Armor was incredibly effective in the real pre-firearms world. I wish that was better represented mechanically.

Actually pre-3e heavier armor was straight up better than other armor. Back then armor did not restrict your dex mod to AC so if you had an 18 dex which gave +4 AC a full plate fighter with that and a shield would have an AC of -4 with non-magical equipment (equal to 24 AC 3e to today which in the older versions of D&D was very nice AC especially since there is no magic equipment yet). That same dex character using studded leather and a shield would only have AC2 (AC18 today) which is nowhere near as good.

[Sigreid]

So there is an easy house rule that would do a lot of what you're looking at. You could, in addition to the AC have armor provide damage reduction based on the AC bonus of the armor, without any magical bonuses or shield being taken into account. For example, leather armor would reduce damage by 1. Full plate would reduce damage by 8. Armor mastery would add 3 to the DR. It would make armor a really big deal at the cost of drawing out fights.

Edit: This would also make higher damage weapons a much bigger deal.

[sophontteks]

One of the benefits of playing a Dwarf is that full plate armor is totally appropriate dress attire for social situations
:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Thanks everyone for your input by the way. Some interesting perspectives here.

[MaxWilson]

The norm for the system is to only focus on wilderness and dungeon adventuring. PCs tend to wear armor when adventuring, especially in those environments.

You realize that's tautological? In Gygaxian terminology, "wilderness adventuring" is any adventuring outside the dungeoneering game structure (fixed locations, obvious gradations of difficulty, doors that require strength checks to open, etc.). Urban adventures are "wilderness adventures." Wilderness + dungeon adventuring = everything.

5E class design attempts to balance class for the dungeoneering scenario and basically ignores wilderness adventures. Nevertheless it's totally fair game for DMs to run scenarios in aristocratic ballrooms and bathhouses and outhouses. The spotlight balance may shift a little bit, relative to dungeoneering, but that's okay since dungeoneering will still happen.

[Willie the Duck]

So the norm is for DMs to assume the PCs are always in armor. That pretty much answers my original question.

Not really. But it does assume that players are most likely to experience combat when they are prepared for it (even if surprised in the moment, they usually know at the start of the day whether it is a risky day).

Look, there is no way around the fact that the discrepancy between lightly-encumbered-and-nimble character and the heavily-armored character is lessened in 5e than both earlier editions and with real life. Strength has a number of benefits that haven't been stated here yet--

To max out your AC, a Str build needs a 15, while a Dex build needs a 20
Starting AC (with limited funds and pre-advanced attributes) tend to favor strength based/heavy armor
Strength based melee opens the door to GWM, and PAM, which are considered (rightly so) very powerful combat boosts for melee martials
Grappling/pushing/shield bashing is also a great melee tactic, also facilitated by strength

--but at the end of the day, there are lots of ways to get high AC without heavy armor. This, along with the greater frequency of Dex vs. Str saves, and benefits such as stealth, initiative, and the like cause significant consternation among those who would like inter-attribute parity. Overall, the pseudo-consensus is that heavy armor is great for 1) martials who are going to invest in melee boosting feats, 2) paladins who maybe won't but will want to multiclass (making Dexadin too expensive an investment), 3) characters like the stereotypical dwarven cleric who could probably wield either mace or cantrips and not care one way or the other, but don't want to have to spend their ASIs on Dex. Is it the balance I would like? No, certainly not for featless and rolled stats games, where there are no PAM or GWM (or Shield Master), and a 18-20 starting Dex is possible. Is it such that Strength builds are disfavorable? Not really, just a single niche.

As to game assumptions vs. real life, there are a huge number of things that PCs do in D&D which are ridiculously unrealistic. Wandering adventurers wandering the land (somehow surviving on the stuff in their backpacks), and wandering into the (amazingly expensive to construct) dungeons in search of treasure is inherently unrealistic. Something has to give, because a truly realistic medieval game, with the only unrealistic conceit being the existence of magic and monsters, would still be too challenging and lethal for the adventuring lifestyle to exist.


Armor was incredibly effective in the real pre-firearms world. I wish that was better represented mechanically.

That would be fun for a while, but if we're going for realism, don't forget that that era of combat very much did become 'guys in plate slaughtered the peasant constripts with near impunity until he got pushed over and either captured and ransomed, or else got a dagger through the eye,' which doesn't sound like the greatest of fun.

[Naanomi]

Ideas about realism and historical strength in heavy armor only go so far, in that testing heavy armor VS mobility against giants and dragons is challenging to really get a grasp on, to say the least

[sophontteks]

Thanks again. Good points on strengths..uhhh...stengths.

I don't mind the fantasy. I just wish they gave armor something that made the person wearing Armor functionally different then going into battle nude. I guess I feel the same about many of the weapons as well.

[Blood of Gaea]

The best I could do as a DM is to give all players the armor master feats automatically, which I think just brings armor where it should be.
Huh, I'm going to need to give that some thought, but I like that idea at first glance.

[Naanomi]

Huh, I'm going to need to give that some thought, but I like that idea at first glance.
Makes monks, who already invest a lot of ASIs into their AC, feel a little sad I think

[sophontteks]

Huh, I'm going to need to give that some thought, but I like that idea at first glance.
The heavy armor mastery may need thought. The medium one though, the worst thing I can possibly see is that some people will actually use medium once in a while.

[Ganymede]

By RAW and RAI, there is no penalty for sleeping in armor, so you can

Exactly. It is like how, by RAW and RAI, PCs can't get drunk because there is no penalty for drinking alcohol in the rules.

Edit: Sorry, my mistake. We're both way wrong; this is the realm of DM adjudication, not the realm of RAW or RAI.

[ZorroGames]

One of the benefits of playing a Dwarf is that full plate armor is totally appropriate dress attire for social situations

Got me on that one. :smallbiggrin:

:smallwink:

[ZorroGames]

Makes monks, who already invest a lot of ASIs into their AC, feel a little sad I think

Might nerf things like Mountain Dwarf Monks into oblivion.

:smalleek:

[Blood of Gaea]

Might nerf things like Mountain Dwarf Monks into oblivion.

:smalleek:
I definitely wouldn't give proficiency, just the other benefit they give. Mountain Dwarves would be a bit stronger if anything.

[Eric Diaz]

Well, when I wrote some house rules for Dark Sun I suggested giving some classes unarmored defense instead of armor proficiency. Or maybe both.

Come to think of it, giving +1/+2/+3 AC bonus if you're proficient in light/medium/heavy armor that you aren't using might be fair if you're running the type of adventure where PCs often have to fight without armor.

For example, if you have heavy armor prof but are using no armor, +3 AC.

If you're using medium armor, add +1 AC on top of that.

And probably give +1 AC to heavy armor to balance Dex fighters a bit....

I don't know, I find that this is doable but not that easy. Maybe add Strength 17 heavy armors and Str 13/15 medium armor.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I was reading discussions on Str vs. Dex paladins. The main arguement being that STR can use full armor which gives +1 Ac over dex. but I read about the armor and there are some other problems that seem to be tucked under the rug. The biggest of which is donning times.

So, it takes 1 minute to put on leather. Thats 10 rounds. It takes 10 minutes to put on heavy armor- 100 rounds.
We don't sleep in armor, so any time there's an encounter at night those players could be fighting with only 10 AC. And the problem is that these encounters are not rare and we are talking about a huge penalty. Other such situations include swimming, travelling in heavy heat, encounters in social situations (balls and such), escaping from a prison, having your armor stolen while you were sleeping.

How do people get around this? I mean IRL even the heaviest plate doesn't slow down the wearer much, and it renders them nearly invulnerable. Is it really worth all the work just for a single AC assuming you even have the armor on?

My group makes use of Leomund's Tiny Hut when taking Long Rests in unsafe areas; I'd recommend someone in the party acquire this spell as soon as possible, preferably a ritual caster. If the party needs to don armor before leaving the Tiny Hut, they'll know it, and they'll have time to do it.

Another note on donning armor: it only takes one action to don a shield, so if donning times are important in your campaign, it might be worth going sword and board rather than great weapon or dual wielding.

[DanyBallon]

Just a rough idea...
in order to boost armor usefulness, what if medium armor gives a 1 damage reduction vs B/S/P, heavy armor 3 damage reduction vs B/S/P and allow the heavy armor master feat to extend the damage reduction to every type of physical damage (by physical damage I consider; fire, cold, acid, force... but maybe it’s too fidely and should apply to all damage instead)?

Light armor wouldn't get any benefice as they are quite fast to don, and allow for max dex modifier.

If you don't think that 1 or 3 damage reduction is good enough, make heavy 5 damage reduction (and possibly vs all physical type of damage with HAM), and make medium be related to their max dex modifier, si if someone take medium armor mastery, then the damage reduction will increase from 2 to 3.

It's not a perfect solution, you still get screwed if caught without armor, but I think it can make wearing armor a bit more appealing, while keeping things quite simple.

What do you think?

[strangebloke]

Huh, I'm going to need to give that some thought, but I like that idea at first glance.

Maybe I'm crazy, but... Doesn't this completely torch how AC works?

The whole point of medium armor is that it's the best option for classes that aren't primarily Dex or Str based, right? Clerics, hexblades, and martial bards all favor medium armor for at least part of their career. Sorcerers and wizards do not have proficiency, but if they did they would all get a large boost to their AC, removing one of the big reasons that tanks are tanks and Squishies are Squishies.

At the very least you'd need to have a long, hard look at rebalancing every feature that grants AC. Monk AC, barbarian AC, mountain dwarf proficiency, hexblade proficiency, etc etc.

In other words, like every other sweeping change I've seen proposed, it's a fix to a nonexistent problem that creates several very real ones.

[Eric Diaz]

Just a rough idea...
in order to boost armor usefulness, what if medium armor gives a 1 damage reduction vs B/S/P, heavy armor 3 damage reduction vs B/S/P and allow the heavy armor master feat to extend the damage reduction to every type of physical damage?

Light armor wouldn't get any benefice as they are quite fast to don, and allow for max dex modifier.

If you don't think that 1 or 3 damage reduction is good enough, make heavy 5 damage reduction (and possibly vs all physical type of damage with HAM), and make medium be related to their max dex modifier, si if someone take medium armor mastery, then the damage reduction will increase from 2 to 3.

It's not a perfect solution, you still get screwed if caught without armor, but I think it can make wearing armor a bit more appealing, while keeping things quite simple.

What do you think?

I like the idea. I think I might do 1/2/3 against all physical damage, although I dislike adding another (little) layer of math to every damage roll.

[DanyBallon]

I like the idea. I think I might do 1/2/3 against all physical damage, although I dislike adding another (little) layer of math to every damage roll.

I considered the tought as well, but like you I came to the conclusion that I don’t like adding too much math on damage roll. Limiting the damage reduction to medium and heavy armor was a small step toward less number crunching, while trying to keep the houserule as simple as possible.

[Naanomi]

So what is the plan for Lizardman, Tortles, Dragonborn with the fear... Mage Armor... Monks, Barbarians...

[Dr. Cliché]

I haven't liked how D&D does armor pretty much ever. I get the fantasy of the quick nimble sword fighter, and it's great that they are viable, but IRL full plate armor was absolutely dominating in battle. It was a really really huge deal. I feel like the advantages that a fully armored knight would have in battle is mechanically lacking in this edition of the game. It ends up being like a 1-2 AC better than a dextrous combatant in light armor. Come on. Even just mundane non-magic full plate should be something special and a big deal for the characters that can use it.

Armor was incredibly effective in the real pre-firearms world. I wish that was better represented mechanically.

The other aspect is that armour always behaves the same, regardless of what weapon is being used against it.

In reality, swinging a sword at someone in full-plate is basically worthless. You'd need to use either half-swording or else hold the sword by the blade and hit him with the handle (and using either of these should probably cause a reduction in damage and/or a penalty to hit).

Piercing weapons might penetrate it, though even if they do their impact will almost certainly be blunted significantly. And in the case of darts or throwing daggers... no. Just no.

Bludgeoning weapons vary considerably. Stuff like maces and axes are actually the most effective weapons - as their impacts can pierce or deform the armour and/or fracture bones and such within it. On the other hand you have stuff like quarterstaffs, which lack the weight to really threaten someone wearing full-plate.

Now, I appreciate that there's going to be a level of abstraction, so most of this wont be possible.

However, I do find the whole AC thing to be strange in general. I would think that only dex would contribute to AC (since armour doesn't make you harder to hit), with armour reducing any physical damage you take by a set amount. Heavier armours have an increased reduction. Same would apply to natural armour, insofar as it still exists.

You could also give some weapons (maces, axes, maybe some bows) an armour-piercing value, which is subtracted from the target's armour before damage.

So, let's say Full-Plate had DR10. All physical damage to the wearer would be reduced by 10 (potentially preventing it entirely). If a mace had an armour-piercing value of 5, then the Full-Plate's DR would be reduced by 5, and thus it would only count as having DR5 against the mace.

Hopefully you get the idea.

I don't know if this system would be better, but one advantage would be that it would give you a way to help rarely-used weapons, without making them stronger outright (e.g. a mace could be worse than a longsword against unarmoured or lightly-armoured targets, but better against more heavily armoured ones).

[DanyBallon]

The other aspect is that armour always behaves the same, regardless of what weapon is being used against it.

In reality, swinging a sword at someone in full-plate is basically worthless. You'd need to use either half-swording or else hold the sword by the blade and hit him with the handle (and using either of these should probably cause a reduction in damage and/or a penalty to hit).

Piercing weapons might penetrate it, though even if they do their impact will almost certainly be blunted significantly. And in the case of darts or throwing daggers... no. Just no.

Bludgeoning weapons vary considerably. Stuff like maces and axes are actually the most effective weapons - as their impacts can pierce or deform the armour and/or fracture bones and such within it. On the other hand you have stuff like quarterstaffs, which lack the weight to really threaten someone wearing full-plate.

Now, I appreciate that there's going to be a level of abstraction, so most of this wont be possible.

However, I do find the whole AC thing to be strange in general. I would think that only dex would contribute to AC (since armour doesn't make you harder to hit), with armour reducing any physical damage you take by a set amount. Heavier armours have an increased reduction. Same would apply to natural armour, insofar as it still exists.

You could also give some weapons (maces, axes, maybe some bows) an armour-piercing value, which is subtracted from the target's armour before damage.

So, let's say Full-Plate had DR10. All physical damage to the wearer would be reduced by 10 (potentially preventing it entirely). If a mace had an armour-piercing value of 5, then the Full-Plate's DR would be reduced by 5, and thus it would only count as having DR5 against the mace.

Hopefully you get the idea.

I don't know if this system would be better, but one advantage would be that it would give you a way to help rarely-used weapons, without making them stronger outright (e.g. a mace could be worse than a longsword against unarmoured or lightly-armoured targets, but better against more heavily armoured ones).

This system might be better to emulate how armor works, but it add much complexity to the 5e system. In 2e, armor gave you resistance vs some kind of damage, this one of the reason we still have Bludgeonning, Piercing and Slashing descriptors for weapons, while it doesn't really matter anymore in 5e. So for sake of simplicity, you could go as far as saying that some armors have resistance vs certain types of physical damage (magical or not, it's up to you) or go the other way and say that armors have vulnerability vs one type (and/or a group of weapon) i.e. Full plate could be vulnerable to Bludgeonning weapons and Axes

Going the resistance route gives a perk for the armors, vs high dex/no armor builds, while vulnerabilities push forward the usefulness of some weapons.
You could also combine both resistance and vulnerabilities, but again, we move away from 5e simplicity. :smallsmile:

[ZorroGames]

The other aspect is that armour always behaves the same, regardless of what weapon is being used against it.

In reality, swinging a sword at someone in full-plate is basically worthless. You'd need to use either half-swording or else hold the sword by the blade and hit him with the handle (and using either of these should probably cause a reduction in damage and/or a penalty to hit).

Piercing weapons might penetrate it, though even if they do their impact will almost certainly be blunted significantly. And in the case of darts or throwing daggers... no. Just no.

Bludgeoning weapons vary considerably. Stuff like maces and axes are actually the most effective weapons - as their impacts can pierce or deform the armour and/or fracture bones and such within it. On the other hand you have stuff like quarterstaffs, which lack the weight to really threaten someone wearing full-plate.

Now, I appreciate that there's going to be a level of abstraction, so most of this wont be possible.

However, I do find the whole AC thing to be strange in general. I would think that only dex would contribute to AC (since armour doesn't make you harder to hit), with armour reducing any physical damage you take by a set amount. Heavier armours have an increased reduction. Same would apply to natural armour, insofar as it still exists.

You could also give some weapons (maces, axes, maybe some bows) an armour-piercing value, which is subtracted from the target's armour before damage.

So, let's say Full-Plate had DR10. All physical damage to the wearer would be reduced by 10 (potentially preventing it entirely). If a mace had an armour-piercing value of 5, then the Full-Plate's DR would be reduced by 5, and thus it would only count as having DR5 against the mace.

Hopefully you get the idea.

I don't know if this system would be better, but one advantage would be that it would give you a way to help rarely-used weapons, without making them stronger outright (e.g. a mace could be worse than a longsword against unarmoured or lightly-armoured targets, but better against more heavily armoured ones).

Doc, played games like that, so, no.

A light version of that (also including speed of weapons) was in AD&D/1st. Everyone locally tried it (club was very large) and after most realized how complicated (complex not bad, complicated bad) it made combat it essentially was ignored by most DMs.

D&D is a game, not a computer simulation where that level of behind the scene computation works best,


The original Chainmail by TSR had a quick man to man version with some of that. People quickly found the best answers to each armor and each warband started looking like another.

[ZorroGames]

For the quasi-realist, quadi-simulationist members among us:

If Armor is over-rated in D&D why did every culture strive to have “better” armor for the core troops and leaders. Why did the invention of early, semi-effective gunpowder weapons and the reintroduction of the pike in Europe cause those who wore armor to make the armor lighter and yet more effective protection?

Answer - because it overall is better protection to have the best armor you can afford. When armies grew in size, kingdoms and cities started footing the bill for levies, and the changing realities of warfare it was simple economics in part hat said a breastplate and leather was more reasonable for the front ranks of a pike formation than full plate.

Gunpowder weapons that could apply ballistic shock to a significant degree to heavily armored troops (plus scare the **** out of horses and men) accelerated the trend to diminsh armor.

[Naanomi]

I would argue that the prevelance of lightning spotting dragons may also reduce the efficacy and utility of armor in ways similar to gunpowder

[Tanarii]

Well, when I wrote some house rules for Dark Sun I suggested giving some classes unarmored defense instead of armor proficiency. Or maybe both.
That seems like the wrong way to go about it in Darksun. A better approach would be to give classes that are proficient in Heavy Armor a significant bonus to Light Armors, and Medium Armors a decent bonus to them. Because the "skill" those classes have is taking advantage of armor, not fighting without it.

[LudicSavant]

I would argue that the prevelance of lightning spotting dragons may also reduce the efficacy and utility of armor in ways similar to gunpowder

So, armor throughout history is designed in response to weapons that people need to protect against.

If people want to protect against lightning dragons, they may just start making and wearing Faraday Cage Mail.

[Pex]

The other aspect is that armour always behaves the same, regardless of what weapon is being used against it.

In reality, swinging a sword at someone in full-plate is basically worthless. You'd need to use either half-swording or else hold the sword by the blade and hit him with the handle (and using either of these should probably cause a reduction in damage and/or a penalty to hit).

Piercing weapons might penetrate it, though even if they do their impact will almost certainly be blunted significantly. And in the case of darts or throwing daggers... no. Just no.

Bludgeoning weapons vary considerably. Stuff like maces and axes are actually the most effective weapons - as their impacts can pierce or deform the armour and/or fracture bones and such within it. On the other hand you have stuff like quarterstaffs, which lack the weight to really threaten someone wearing full-plate.

Now, I appreciate that there's going to be a level of abstraction, so most of this wont be possible.

However, I do find the whole AC thing to be strange in general. I would think that only dex would contribute to AC (since armour doesn't make you harder to hit), with armour reducing any physical damage you take by a set amount. Heavier armours have an increased reduction. Same would apply to natural armour, insofar as it still exists.

You could also give some weapons (maces, axes, maybe some bows) an armour-piercing value, which is subtracted from the target's armour before damage.

So, let's say Full-Plate had DR10. All physical damage to the wearer would be reduced by 10 (potentially preventing it entirely). If a mace had an armour-piercing value of 5, then the Full-Plate's DR would be reduced by 5, and thus it would only count as having DR5 against the mace.

Hopefully you get the idea.

I don't know if this system would be better, but one advantage would be that it would give you a way to help rarely-used weapons, without making them stronger outright (e.g. a mace could be worse than a longsword against unarmoured or lightly-armoured targets, but better against more heavily armoured ones).

This is not a new thought to D&D. 2E had this with a table comparing weapons and armor, giving bonuses and penalties to rolls depending on which weapon attacks which armor. 3E Unearthed Arcana provided an alternative system with armor giving DR, not AC, and AC is calculated differently. I suppose the systems had their fans, as you might have been one, but I find they add unnecessary complexity. It's too much game mechanics ("fiddly bits") for very little gain if there's a gain at all. Wanting realism can go too far the game play is affected. You're playing the numbers instead of the game.

[The Jack]

Just to get it out there; Early guns were stopped by armour quite handily. Guns of the 1500's and 1600's were beaten by armour, it just happened that guns were a lot cheaper in many ways than armour, which would get heavier and more expensive to beat bigger callibers.

In modern times, soldiers wear metal plates to protect their torso, and at best they can stop rather impressive armour piercing rounds from rifles, but they only go over the back/torso, it would be too heavy to protect the head/arms/legs from rifles, and speed and visibility is more important in modern war. A modern helmet'll protect you against some nasty pistol rounds, but that's world's apart from a rifle shot.

Modern soldiers could be encased in advanced plate armour using modern materials or servos for weight, with diamond visors and so on... but it'd just be prohibitively expensive.

Onto my opinion on armour:
Armour is too weak, but the game's balanced around armour being weak. Heavy armour isn't justifiably stronger than medium armour. Dex is the god stat nobody dumps, so unless you're doing character creation by rolling in order, most characters can have that 14 dex that'll max out their ability to use medium armour, and dex is a powerful stat that'll mean the only reason not to is if you're a strength focused character.

Full plate is only 1 AC higher than studded leather/Half plate, and equal to half plate with the armour mastery feat. Heavy armour mastery feat's a mess.


Medium
Hide- 12
Padded cloth. 12
Chain shirt- 13
Scale - 14
Breastplate- 14
Half plate- 15

Heavy
Full Mail- 16
Splint- 17
Combined plate 18 (Half plate with mail protecting the joints)
Complete plate 19 (Entirely covered with plate)

Or, maybe, heavy armour should still get the dex bonus. It's not that heavy.

I think mithral/adamantine are underwhelming. Mithril should allow a +1 from dex. Adamantine should be at least +1.

[djreynolds]

We allow plate armor to be broken down into half plate and breast plate, this way players who are out adventuring can decide which set of armor is better.

Sometimes downgrading to from plate armor to breast plate is better for long marches or attempting to sneak past the dragon

[JNAProductions]

Except max AC in Full Plate requires 1500 GP and either be a Dwarf, 15 Strength, or eat a movement penalty.

Max AC in Studded Leather/Mage Armor requires 20 Dex. So for, say, a Cleric, Heavy Armor is a lot better.

[The Jack]

Except max AC in Full Plate requires 1500 GP and either be a Dwarf, 15 Strength, or eat a movement penalty.

Max AC in Studded Leather/Mage Armor requires 20 Dex. So for, say, a Cleric, Heavy Armor is a lot better.

A cleric could take 16 dex and the medium armour mastery feat. They would be better off than someone with plate (initiative, saving throws, gold...) provided they didn't want to be a two-handed weapon user or really needed certain things from ASI's, they'd just be better off with dex.

[JNAProductions]

A cleric could take 16 dex and the medium armour mastery feat. They would be better off than someone with plate (initiative, saving throws, gold...) provided they didn't want to be a two-handed weapon user or really needed certain things from ASI's, they'd just be better off with dex.

So they need to either be a race with a Dex bonus, or spend two out of five ASIs, as opposed to just starting with a 15 in Strength (no stat bonus needed, any race available) or be a Dwarf (which, in the case of Hill, make excellent Clerics), all for the same AC?

I will agree, a good Dex gives you higher initiative, which is... I guess a minor benefit? Clerics don't usually need to go first-they can do very well going last or so, to monitor and help the party, although admittedly, a first-round Bless can be nice. Still, if you're worried about Init, grab Alert. That's either the same investment (1 ASI) or LESS investment (1 ASI as compared to 2 ASIs, to get Dex to 16 and MAM) for a bigger bonus.

Similar with saves. Dex saves are nice to have, but not essential.

Compare, for instance, a level 8 Cleric. One is Medium Armor, the other Heavy.

Medium
Wood Elf
Str-8
Dex-16
Con-14
Int-10
Wis-16
Cha-10

HP: 59
AC: 18
Init: +3
Dex Saves: +3
Takes MAM and +2 Wis.

Heavy
Hill Dwarf
Str-8
Dex-8
Con-16
Int-14
Wis-16
Cha-12

HP: 75
AC: 18
Init: -1 or +4
Dex Saves: -1 or +2 (soon to be +3, at next level)
Takes either Alert, if you're worried about initiative; or Resilient (Dex), if you're worried about Dex saves; and also +2 Wis.

Note how the Heavy Armor Cleric has more than a fourth again the HP of the Medium Armor Cleric, and has better mental stats, which is nice to have. The difference in HP means you probably don't need to worry about Dex saves, since those just do damage, usually, meaning you can easily take Alert, giving you BETTER initiative than the Medium Armor Cleric.

Yes, it does cost a little more gold. But what else are you spending it on?

[Tanarii]

This is not a new thought to D&D. 2E had this with a table comparing weapons and armor, giving bonuses and penalties to rolls depending on which weapon attacks which armor. I was about to go on about how they didn't, but specific weapons gave bonuses (like footmans flair vs plate or Mace vs chain) when I realized ... almost all my memories of the 2e combat rules for are Combat & Tactics. :smallamused: It pretty much replaced 2e combat in every game I played after '95, because it was such a vast all around improvement, and even more so for martial characters. And of course it was the cornerstone for 3e combat five years later.

[strangebloke]

.Dex is the god stat nobody dumps, so unless you're doing character creation by rolling in order, most characters can have that 14 dex that'll max out their ability to use medium armour, and dex is a powerful stat that'll mean the only reason not to is if you're a strength focused character.
.

I mean... I've dumped Dex. If you don't need it for AC or attack, all it's good for is skills (which someone else can handle) saves (Dex saves are relatively unimportant next to wisdom and Constitution saves) and initiative (which is nice but not crazy for most classes.)

If you've got plate armor proficiency, strength is at least of comparable value.

[Tanarii]

I mean... I've dumped Dex. If you don't need it for AC or attack, all it's good for is skills (which someone else can handle) saves (Dex saves are relatively unimportant next to wisdom and Constitution saves) and initiative (which is nice but not crazy for most classes.)

If you've got plate armor, strength is at least of comparable value.
I was going to say the exact same thing, but I looked more closely at what was being said. Not that even HA wearers won't dump Dex, but rather that everyone else will have at least a Dex 14.

I disagree with that. But generally non-HA wearers don't put an 8 in Dex, and tend to go with at least a 12. So close enough. (Edit: that's with standard array.)

[Naanomi]

I’ve put an 8 in DEX in point buy, rarely as a fighter (but sometimes if I want to be ‘smart’ or charismatic); sometimes as a Cleric; but often as a Paladin... a half-Elf point buy Paladin at 16/8/16/8/10/16 is fairly viable

But very rarely less than 14 otherwise (occasionally 12 for *very* MAD characters maybe?)

[Pex]

A cleric could take 16 dex and the medium armour mastery feat. They would be better off than someone with plate (initiative, saving throws, gold...) provided they didn't want to be a two-handed weapon user or really needed certain things from ASI's, they'd just be better off with dex.

Raises hand.

If I get to wear heavy armor I'm dumping DX no problem. I won't make it 8, but I'm fine with 10. I'll take ST and gives me room to go 16 CO if I want, but I'll settle for 14 CO and bump another stat I need for my class like CH if a paladin. If I'm wearing medium armor, and I will have a shield, I stop at 14 DX. It's all I need. I'm not going to spend a feat just to get +1 AC. I don't give a Hoover about stealth unless and until a specific character cares about it. As for initiative, what's that? For saving throws, if I don't have evasion it doesn't matter. Ok, it matters a little but I accept it as a character weakness. I get over it. I'll only ever think about going 16 DX if I'm playing a character who doesn't wear armor and/or it's important to class abilities.

[Sigreid]

However, I do find the whole AC thing to be strange in general. I would think that only dex would contribute to AC (since armour doesn't make you harder to hit), with armour reducing any physical damage you take by a set amount. Heavier armours have an increased reduction. Same would apply to natural armour, insofar as it still exists.



Actually, as technology developed they did start figuring out how to shape and angle the outer plating to make it more difficult to land a solid blow. It's always been better to redirect than block if you have the option.

[MeeposFire]

Actually, as technology developed they did start figuring out how to shape and angle the outer plating to make it more difficult to land a solid blow. It's always been better to redirect than block if you have the option.

Also since HP was very much designed to be very broad in application they were not 100% actual physical damage and this meant that one can see hits and misses narratively as many things. In this case a miss may not mean the attack physically missed the target but rather the armor absorbed the hit and inflicted no damage physical or otherwise. The AC system is designed to show that off with armor. A "miss" due to a failed attack roll versus AC does not have to be an actual miss but can also be an attack that hits the armor but does not noticeable effect on the target due to the toughness of the armor.

[Fire Tarrasque]

From what I see, this thread has been ignoring the crucial factor of heavy armor mastery. It may not seem like much, but especially at low levels, -3 piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning damage is helpful. I've seen level twelve characters been saved from unconsciousness many times, sometimes several in a single fight.

[Thunderbird]

One of the benefits of playing a Dwarf is that full plate armor is totally appropriate dress attire for social situations

I request permission to use this as my signature. :smalltongue:

[sophontteks]

From what I see, this thread has been ignoring the crucial factor of heavy armor mastery. It may not seem like much, but especially at low levels, -3 piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning damage is helpful. I've seen level twelve characters been saved from unconsciousness many times, sometimes several in a single fight.
Yeah, its good stuff. But man are feats expensive.

I've decided to give this and the medium armor mastery feat for free given that this more adequately represents how useful armor is.

And on the flip side armor isn't something my players can just assume they have on them. So armor profeciencies really mean something, but they can dump dex at their own risk.

Its not really adding to my homework as DM and its really easy for me to balance with encounters. Personally, I like not being caught with my pants down.