STR to AC

[Laserlight]

Let's say the setting is tropical / pirates, somewhere that full plate is not appropriate, but I still want STR based characters to have the option of a high AC.

Option A) My first thought is that they could get tattoos or an amulet which provides the AC of armor at the same price. It's wouldn't have a STR requirement or Stealth penalty, but how necessary are those?

Option B) And then I said to myself, what if we just give each player the option of applying STR to AC instead of DEX? Would that break anything?

Myself replied "You should probably run that by the Playground", so here we are.

[Lombra]

It should be fine, I'd fluff it as taking the hit and shrugging it off, which makes me think of a different implementation:

What if characters get extra HD and extra HP the higher their STR is? Like STR mod times more HD which do add up to the maximum HP of the character.

This way you get tougher but unevasive PCs vs agile but fragile PCs

But replacing dex with str in the AC calculation wouldn't be a bad choice. Barbarians do become quite scary.

[Rerem115]

Depends on how you want to balance between realism and game balance. If you want pure game balance, sure, just go with the amulet. Magic tats and voodoo trinkets are well within the sphere of Caribbean swashbuckling anyway. The downside of this, besides the stealth, is that it implies a fairly high-magic environment, since armor is pretty essential for humanoids.

On the other hand, if you want something a bit more complicated but a little more realistic, just give everyone either the Barbarian or the Monk's Unarmored Defence; either you're tough enough to shrug off hits, or you're experienced enough to know how to get out of the way. Alternatively, you could have something like adding your Strength/Proficiency bonus to your AC for a round as a reaction, as you use your massive thews to clobber away incoming blows. I'm leaning more towards the first option, since that doesn't doesn't step on the toes of Defensive Duelist and make Barbarians instant AC gods, but it's your call.

*EDIT* Or, go with the tats and trinkets AND one of the second options while making the tats significantly harder to come by; that way, you can give out high AC to any special persons of interest, while still giving everybody else options.

[CharonsHelper]

1. Both are a bit OP (especially option #2) and will make STR builds considerably better than they currently are.

2. It seems easier to simply say that there is an enchantment to keep armor cool for a relatively low cost and be done.

[Theodoxus]

I've added feats that let you calculate AC based on 10+mental stat+Dex. I could see using Str instead of Dex; but I'd still keep the mental stat - instead of being bendy, you're stoic.

[Lombra]

It has to be said though that armor stats are just armor stats, the stats of full plate are not exclusive to a suite of finely crafted interlocked metal plates.

You could have wooden/stone/scale/carapace armors with the same stats of current armors.

Chitin plate is cool and kinda popular.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It has to be said though that armor stats are just armor stats, the stats of full plate are not exclusive to a suite of finely crafted interlocked metal plates.

You could have wooden/stone/scale/carapace armors with the same stats of current armors.

Chitin plate is cool and kinda popular.
This is true-- you could write a new armor list where "a boiled leather breastplate" gives you a flat 16 AC and "a shirt of mail and a helmet"18 AC.

Otherwise, you could probably give everyone Barbarian unarmed AC and be okay.

[MaxWilson]

Let's say the setting is tropical / pirates, somewhere that full plate is not appropriate, but I still want STR based characters to have the option of a high AC.

Option A) My first thought is that they could get tattoos or an amulet which provides the AC of armor at the same price. It's wouldn't have a STR requirement or Stealth penalty, but how necessary are those?

Option B) And then I said to myself, what if we just give each player the option of applying STR to AC instead of DEX? Would that break anything?

It would break my suspension of disbelief as a player. "I just put on this Girdle of Storm Giant Strength and so now I'm really hard to hit!" What.

I could somewhat get behind merging Strength and Constitution so that Strength makes you harder to kill (more HP), but that it makes you harder to hit with poisoned arrows and touch spells etc. is just not credible.

[Boci]

It would break my suspension of disbelief as a player. "I just put on this Girdle of Storm Giant Strength and so now I'm really hard to hit!" What.

You're harder to damage, not hard to hit. Your muscles swell, and that protect you. Its natural AC, the kind monsters often have.

[Mikal]

You're harder to damage, not hard to hit. Your muscles swell, and that protect you. Its natural AC, the kind monsters often have.

If you want to be harder to damage while being "stronger", that's called being a Barbarian.

[Boci]

If you want to be harder to damage while being "stronger", that's called being a Barbarian.

Barbarians add con, not strength. Though yes, barbarian was a noted option, but trying to make the other classes valid choices in an armour light setting isn't a bad idea.

[Contrast]

Option A) My first thought is that they could get tattoos or an amulet which provides the AC of armor at the same price. It's wouldn't have a STR requirement or Stealth penalty, but how necessary are those?

Are you planning on restricting access to these tattoos/amulets by armour prof? Otherwise you're going to end up with a lot of wizards picking up that stuff as well.

[MaxWilson]

You're harder to damage, not hard to hit. Your muscles swell, and that protect you. Its natural AC, the kind monsters often have.

I feel like I already addressed this. More HP, not higher AC. Harder to kill.

Swelled muscles shouldn't protect you from being hit with poisoned arrows or with a Plane Shift spell, and by the rules as written they don't. This rule would break that, IMO unnecessarily.

Note that natural AC is something completely different, and typically comes from a thick, leathery hide or similar that functions similarly to armor (can be damaged without impairing the creature). For instance, Ogres do not have natural AC 14; they have AC 11 due to Hide Armor + Dex -1. That's because they don't have tough hides like a T-Rex does (AC 13). Natural armor is not a function of muscle.

[krugaan]

Somewhat non-sequitur, but I thought it was always odd that your AC doesn't go up with level, or at least proficiency.

After all, the more experienced you are the better you should be at avoiding hits, no? After all, proficient saves go up with level, why not AC too?

[Boci]

Somewhat non-sequitur, but I thought it was always odd that your AC doesn't go up with level, or at least proficiency.

After all, the more experienced you are the better you should be at avoiding hits, no? After all, proficient saves go up with level, why not AC too?

My guess would be it was one of the less popular aspects of 4th edition, so they dropped it. I recall some people saying adding the levelling bonus to attack rolls and AC was the same as adding it to neither, but I don't know how common opinion actually was.


Natural armor is not a function of muscle.

As a general rule sure, but can you really not wrap your head around a magical item letting a muscle bound warrior turning a blade with their sweet abs?

[MaxWilson]

Somewhat non-sequitur, but I thought it was always odd that your AC doesn't go up with level, or at least proficiency.

After all, the more experienced you are the better you should be at avoiding hits, no? After all, proficient saves go up with level, why not AC too?

It depends on what you focus on as you level up.

If you want your AC to go up with level, boost Dex and/or learn the Defensive Duelist feat. Voila! AC bonus that scales with level and is easy to visualize/explain: you get better at parrying the one attack per round that you can parry with your reaction.

If you're a fighter, you also get better at disarming enemies (DMG Disarm) because you have a higher proficiency bonus and more attacks. And there's nothing stopping you from attempting to hinder enemies in other ways: ask your DM if you can dedicate some of your extra attacks to parrying or hindering enemies instead of damaging or disarming them. (E.g. attack roll vs. attack roll contest to negate their attacks.) The PHB specifically notes that you can attempt actions other than the standard PHB actions, by working with your DM.

[rbstr]

I think that you should be able to use strength for medium armor calculations. If they want plate-level AC they can take medium armor master.

[CharonsHelper]

My guess would be it was one of the less popular aspects of 4th edition, so they dropped it. I recall some people saying adding the levelling bonus to attack rolls and AC was the same as adding it to neither, but I don't know how common opinion actually was.

It wasn't a good fit in 4e, but it would probably actually work better in 5e. That's because in 4e the system was designed so that virtually all foes would be proportional to your level, so if you and your foes are all level 12 and get +6 to attack/defence it's not doing anything.

In 5e where your foes aren't always within a level or two it actually would make a difference, especially since 5e isn't as obsessed with making every class get the same bonuses, so there would be diversity within the party as to how much AC bonus you got.

But - I can see why they left it out as well, instead having class abilities, magic armor, and spells boost AC as you level.

[Willie the Duck]

1. Both are a bit OP (especially option #2) and will make STR builds considerably better than they currently are.

Can you explain how? We already have a (roundabout) way of adding strength to one's AC, it's called armor (str 13 gets you AC16, str 15 gets you AC 17-18 depending on level and how much gp the DM hands out). That's not practical in this scenario for setting and verisimilitude reasons, but not for power reasons.

From a power standpoint, this looks like the status quo where Dex gets attacking readily at ranged and better dex save and initiative and how ranged combat fighting style synergizes better with SS than GWM does with GWF, while strength build gets PAM/GWM/Sentinel goodness and synergizes with barbarian rage and runs into trouble when you want multiple attacks at ranged and all you have are javelins and each has their pros and cons but it all roughly equals out.

[Boci]

It wasn't a good fit in 4e, but it would probably actually work better in 5e. That's because in 4e the system was designed so that virtually all foes would be proportional to your level, so if you and your foes are all level 12 and get +6 to attack/defence it's not doing anything.

In 5e where your foes aren't always within a level or two it actually would make a difference, especially since 5e isn't as obsessed with making every class get the same bonuses, so there would be diversity within the party as to how much AC bonus you got.

That might be the reason too. Adding proficiency to AC makes mooks less threatening, which was the opposite of what 5e was trying for with its bonded accuracy.

[CharonsHelper]

Can you explain how? We already have a (roundabout) way of adding strength to one's AC, it's called armor (str 13 gets you AC16, str 15 gets you AC 17-18 depending on level and how much gp the DM hands out). That's not practical in this scenario for setting and verisimilitude reasons, but not for power reasons.

From a power standpoint, this looks like the status quo where Dex gets attacking readily at ranged and better dex save and initiative and how ranged combat fighting style synergizes better with SS than GWM does with GWF, while strength build gets PAM/GWM/Sentinel goodness and synergizes with barbarian rage and runs into trouble when you want multiple attacks at ranged and all you have are javelins and each has their pros and cons but it all roughly equals out.

Because even if it gives you the same AC (and there would likely be ways to game the system by dipping into another class or some such) as armor, it removes the drawbacks to Stealth etc. for no commensurate disadvantage.

[krugaan]

My guess would be it was one of the less popular aspects of 4th edition, so they dropped it. I recall some people saying adding the levelling bonus to attack rolls and AC was the same as adding it to neither, but I don't know how common opinion actually was.

Ah, didn't play 4E, makes sense, I guess?

Might have been simpler for designers (what with bounded accuracy and all), but I think it makes low level creatures more dangerous than they should be.


It depends on what you focus on as you level up.

If you want your AC to go up with level, boost Dex and/or learn the Defensive Duelist feat. Voila! AC bonus that scales with level and is easy to visualize/explain: you get better at parrying the one attack per round that you can parry with your reaction.

I suppose, although that doesn't particularly work for people in plate. It's easy enough to fluff it, but I still think it's strange that proficiency doesn't include not getting hit.

[Willie the Duck]

Because even if it gives you the same AC (and there would likely be ways to game the system by dipping into another class or some such) as armor, it removes the drawbacks to Stealth etc. for no commensurate disadvantage.

I guess that is genuinely a character option that was previously unavailable. In my mind, however, it isn't really that OP or abusable or whatnot. If they have the dexterity to make good use of stealth skills, but were contemplating using heavy armor were it not for it being this particular setting, they would be the fabled high-strength, high-dexterity fighter/paladin/Cleric/Etc. that I've heard of but never seen (and I've never heard anyone suggest was overpowered). Honestly, I would love to find additional ways to promote someone playing a switch-hitter who picks up bow or greatsword or pike or two shortswords based upon what the DM throws their way. That sounds amazing in a game full of SS/Bow-specialists and PAM/halberd specialists, etc.

[MaxWilson]

I suppose, although that doesn't particularly work for people in plate. It's easy enough to fluff it, but I still think it's strange that proficiency doesn't include not getting hit.

Defensive Duelist works just fine with plate, and so does Disarm (DMG maneuver), and so would the hypothetical Hinder (or Parry) maneuver that I suggested asking your DM about where you sacrifice Extra Attacks to hinder enemy attacks, instead of to disarm or grapple/prone them.

[Tetrasodium]

It should be fine, I'd fluff it as taking the hit and shrugging it off, which makes me think of a different implementation:

What if characters get extra HD and extra HP the higher their STR is? Like STR mod times more HD which do add up to the maximum HP of the character.

This way you get tougher but unevasive PCs vs agile but fragile PCs

But replacing dex with str in the AC calculation wouldn't be a bad choice. Barbarians do become quite scary.

I like this idea & have been thinking about something like it for my next game. Currently I'm doing "roll, but if you get lower than the average listed (ie d6=4, d8=5, d10=6, d12=7) take the average instead". I like the variety, but I'm tired of just how badly optimized dex+con & charisma+dex+con overshadows similarly optimized MAD strength builds.
I'm thinking of everyone takes the average for their class each level, but at 1, 4, 8, 12, 16, & 19 you get a number of extra rolled hitdice based on your strength mod. I'm just not sure what they should be or how many. I don't want to go too high on the number of hit dice, but also don't want to have too many. Possibly even base them off the con mod without really knowing what size or how many :(.

[Laserlight]

Are you planning on restricting access to these tattoos/amulets by armour prof?

Yes. It'd be purely a refluff of armor, except for "no STR requirement" (although I suppose that could be added) and "no Stealth penalty". If someone feels that Stealth penalty is major enough that it has to be included, tell me now.

For those who are worried about double dipping, note that I'm specifying STR ***OR*** DEX, not ever both.

[MaxWilson]

Yes. It'd be purely a refluff of armor, except for "no STR requirement" (although I suppose that could be added) and "no Stealth penalty". If someone feels that Stealth penalty is major enough that it has to be included, tell me now.

It depends on how you run stealth rules, but in general I'd say yes, stealth is important so stealth penalties are very relevant.

You could make the more powerful tattoos glow brightly or something, interfering with stealth visually instead of aurally.

[Naanomi]

As an only tangentially related aside, many sailors in real life still wore heavy armor if they could afford it (on the assumption that you would drown either way if you went overboard)

[Pex]

If the idea is no one is wearing armor, ST for AC instead of DX doesn't fully fix the problem. Strength based PCs will function, but everyone's AC is still garbage unless a class feature gives them a bonus. A fighter only having 15 AC will not work, and that is achieved at 6th level the earliest using Point Buy. At first level they'd only have 13 AC at best.

Two options: 1) They add ST to AC in addition to DX at the cost of MAD. 2) They add Proficiency to AC in addition.

If everyone can do this, barbarians get high AC quickly with the first option. Paladins are toast due to being too MAD. They'd need ST, DX, CO, and CH. With the second option all classes that get a bonus to AC get a high AC quickly. The idea would be not to give Proficiency to AC to those classes, but then the fact that bonus AC is a class feature loses value.

Somewhere you'd have to lump it with an option and its side effects, even if you go by your original thought of only adding ST to AC instead of DX.

[Beelzebubba]

I would personally find a way to maintain the rules and re-fluff armor to work.

That said, I come firmly down on the side of 'gamist' compared to 'simulationist'. I don't want to spend the time it would take to make good rules on building rules; I would rather write adventures.

So, I'd tell each of the heavily-armored players to come up with a cool idea on how their heavy armor works while keeping them cool, then incorporate that into the world building. I figure I'd get some really interesting ideas out of it and I wouldn't have to work as hard.

[Droodicus]

I'd re fluff mine to be like the cool mauri islander tattoos that cover most of the body. Then stealth disadvantage is my ginormous mauri body not being suited for sneaking

[Dr. Cliché]

Adding strength to AC seems really weird to me.

Regarding the tattoos, one thing that occurs to me is that they would seem to be outright better than armour (as you never have to remove them before you sleep, they can't be stolen etc.).

What if the tattoos instead allowed the user to cast Mage Armour (or some variation thereof) once per day? Obviously you could have more expensive tattoos that allow stronger versions of mage armour, but this way you've got a time limitation so it's not just outright better than regular armour.

[Pex]

Adding strength to AC seems really weird to me.

Regarding the tattoos, one thing that occurs to me is that they would seem to be outright better than armour (as you never have to remove them before you sleep, they can't be stolen etc.).

What if the tattoos instead allowed the user to cast Mage Armour (or some variation thereof) once per day? Obviously you could have more expensive tattoos that allow stronger versions of mage armour, but this way you've got a time limitation so it's not just outright better than regular armour.

Since the game won't have any armor at all that it would be better than armor wouldn't matter. No one with disadvantage on stealth and full AC in case of attack at night trying to sleep are hardly game destroying unplayable circumstances.

[Dr. Cliché]

Since the game won't have any armor at all that it would be better than armor wouldn't matter.

That's not what the OP said.

Not having full plate is not the same as not having any (mundane) armour at all.

[nickl_2000]

Adding strength to AC seems really weird to me.

Regarding the tattoos, one thing that occurs to me is that they would seem to be outright better than armour (as you never have to remove them before you sleep, they can't be stolen etc.).

What if the tattoos instead allowed the user to cast Mage Armour (or some variation thereof) once per day? Obviously you could have more expensive tattoos that allow stronger versions of mage armour, but this way you've got a time limitation so it's not just outright better than regular armour.

You could also make it something that they need to apply each morning when they get up. Depending on the armor type (light, medium, heavy), it takes a longer or shorter time to apply the tattoo (heavy armor requires you to cover your entire body where as light is just some of your body).

[Willie the Duck]

As an only tangentially related aside, many sailors in real life still wore heavy armor if they could afford it (on the assumption that you would drown either way if you went overboard)

I think that's a case of reality being harsher than the game, but the game being such because if it were as harsh as reality, people would never do the heroic things you want them doing (jumping short chasms, swinging on ropes from one sailing ship to another, etc.). At least without heavy armor, they have a chance to survive XYZ, so the guys without heavy armor will try XYZ, while in reality naval combat would have been staid, boring, practical, etc.

[Laserlight]

Adding strength to AC seems really weird to me.

Granted, but a barbarian adding CON to AC is equally weird. Likewise AC making you harder to hit, instead of subtracting damage. And if I kept going on "Ways in which D&D makes no sense", we'd have a wall of text, but STAT to AC at least has precedent in the rules. :-\

[MrStabby]

I would be a little cautious with this.

I think that the setting may favour strength anyway. Potentially lots of swinging on ropes, lots of swimming and lots of ships to push people off. Athletics is going to be a really useful skill to have. Jump is based on strength and leaping from rigging or decks might be common.

You might want to see how much strength can be used for in skills in your setting.

[Naanomi]

Strength to AC... I'm not sure how to make it 'make sense' the way I can with other stats...

Dexterity is dodging, so inherently works for me to avoid getting hit

Constitution (for barbarians) is just another measure of how darn tough they are. Some blows literally don't hurt me at all even when they land solidly

Wisdom (for monks) is more dodging, just intuitive additions to existing dexterity because of enlightened blah blah blah (and heightened battlefield awareness)

Intelligence (for Bladesong) is also dodging, but more of a 'hyper-analytical Sherlock-Holmes style combat trance' dodging

Strength is... ? I don't see how it organically adds to Armor Class. Charisma, without explicit magic involved, also seems a bit dicey to me

[ciarannihill]

I had been fiddling around with variations of "active defense" -- basically replacing AC with a Saving Throw, for a super homebrew RPG system, I had the idea of allowing characters multiple types of defense and for Strength they could attempt to swing their weapon and "clash" with the opponent's strike -- trying to overpower the enemy's attack with their own. It was a nifty little thing that gave players more ability to roleplay the defensive side of the battle as well as the offensive side, but it made battles a bit longer than 5E does.


Point of the above is that there might be a way to use the same fluff to justify a feat, class feature or other effect to allow Strength to be used defensively against physical attacks at least. I would totally love to fluff a Barbarian into a defensive beast simply on the merits of having strength capable of fending off mighty blows from mighty beats.

Just my 2 copper, albeit a slightly tangential 2 copper.

[GlenSmash!]

Would Barbarians, also get the opportunity to add strength to AC, or just those with Heavy armor proficiency?

[BloodOgre]

Who says full plate isn't appropriate? :smallsmile:

As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Why not let PCs and non-PC humanoid bad guys be the fragile flesh bags that they (we) are? There are plenty of ways to boost AC (class features, magic items, DEX ASI, feats, etc) without using armor... or just wear the armor. Conquistadors walked around in a breast plate or half plate, wore goofy looking half-moon brimmed helmets and carried shields all while spreading disease and pestilence through the jungles of Central America and wiping out the Aztecs and countless other indigenous populations. It's OK for PCs to take a hit, that's why they have hit points. It lets them know they could die and maybe should be cautious sometimes.

Now, if you have a magic heavy world where you can just get a tatoo for the same cost as the armor, NO ONE will EVER wear armor, a helmet or carry a shield, in fact, armor probably hasn't even been invented because magic does such a good job. Babies of nobles are probably tattooed right out of the womb. But then EVERYONE that the PCs might get into a scuffle with probably has an AC22 tattoo, and even low-level wizards would be practically invincible. OTOH if magic is rare, like in Faerun, then the tatoos should be just as rare and expensive as the other magic items that already exist. Why not just let them be flesh bags until they can find a ring of protection, gauntlets of defense, or gloves of missile snaring, etc? Or they can wear armor that they are proficient with and drink lots of water until they are higher level and can procure such magic items? 5E is about trade-offs to make the playing field somewhat level.

I really didn't mean for that to sound like a rant. And I apologize if it did. My point is that there really isn't anything wrong with the existing rules in regards to the setting that has been proposed. If the PCs don't want to wear armor, then that is their problem. But, if you do want to go with the magic tattoo route (or some other means of magic protection) you need to make it a LOT MORE expensive than the armor options, at least in my opinion.

Or is your point that they don't have a source of metal for the armor? In which case, leather armor is appropriate and bone or wood can be used for splint mail. Plate mail could be crafted from giant tortoise shells.

[Telwar]

Strength to AC... I'm not sure how to make it 'make sense' the way I can with other stats...

...

Strength is... ? I don't see how it organically adds to Armor Class. Charisma, without explicit magic involved, also seems a bit dicey to me

Parrying. Actively defending with a weapon to make attacks miss.

So, you can have this version of Unarmored Defense read:

"While you are not wearing armor, and while you have a weapon with which you are proficient in hand, your Armor Class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Strength modifier. You can use a shield and still gain this benefit."


But how does a sword block a spell that targets AC? Defensive Duelist only specifies melee attacks."

You tag the spell enough to make it go past, and obviously if it hits it hits. It's not like we're tracking weapon HP or sundering, and it's not like the barbarian is flexing his pecs to make the firebolt miss. Or maybe he/she/it is?

The point is to make it so you can have unarmored characters running around without having them all have levels in monk or barbarian, and without having them all have to use rapiers.

[Eric Diaz]

Wouldn't break anything. Maybe require a feat.

But unarmored defense would be a better fit, IMO.

[Laserlight]

Who says full plate isn't appropriate?

I do. In the original post. It's rather the premise of the post, in fact, which is why "don't change anything from RAW" isn't really a solution for this setting. :smallsmile:

[CharonsHelper]

I do. In the original post. It's rather the premise of the post, in fact, which is why "don't change anything from RAW" isn't really a solution for this setting. :smallsmile:

Or it is - and STR will just be sub-par. With your solution DEX will be sub-par.

[Nikarus]

RAW swimming in armor gives no penalty. And even if you want to add it I'll just mention. I'm wildly out of shape, but I can tread water while wearing ~60lbs of diving gear, without flippers pretty easily. Course a diving tank does displace a lot of water with it's large volume... but what's stopping your character from trying to do the same?

This has come up in 1 of my campaigns before, so I'll lay out how my players built their solution to the problem.

Remember if your game world is such that traveling over water is "the norm". One can assume that if armor is around, it's evolved over time to be more effective in the given environment. (Same with spells. Have had more than a few arguments with people doing pirate settings over "purify food and drink" being able to treat salt water. RAW it can't. But if my character is a paladin who's lived the majority of their adult life aboard a ship... one might think they'd have tailored their spells to be a touch more appropriate to the situation they find themselves within.)

And in even the lower tech worlds of DND, there's not much stopping the player from making a "life preserver" by getting a bunch of watertight leather bladders, and stuffing them with sponge or some other light material. Then strapping those to themselves to try and offset the weight of armor while in the water.

There's even a lot of parts of existing armor that this might be almost a "natural" evolution of. A shield in DND weighs 6 lbs. A shield in your world might weigh a few pounds more. But the back might be covered in "floaties" so someone could use it as a flotation device. The padding worn under most armors might be treated in such a manner that it's watertight and its bulk displaces at least part of it and the armor's weight.

Breastplate>halfplate>fullplate, if you've ever examined real specimens, right under the breast (and often around the back too) there's an airgap. It doesn't fight tight to the wearer for several reasons. Well, stuff that with a few floaties too. Easy 10-15lbs of displacement that before would have filled with water and done nothing for you.

As for corrosion. Well most characters don't wear their metal armor all the time (at least I hope not) It's really not that hard to put on and take off (and pirates being spotted on the horizon in the age of sale is often quite a while before they get close to your ship). Most of the armor can be stored and protected from corrosion with a bit of oil. Course any trips into the water might require the owner to spend a half hour or so maintaining it that night... but even then, their suit of full plate isn't going to dissolve away in a day after going in the drink. It's only long periods of time without maintenance that would be a problem.



In the end. My group, we just use the armor as is. We could RP it all the time... but it's just another part of the daily maintenance aboard ship that usually goes unmentioned outside of me setting up scenes/encounters.

[Boci]

RAW swimming in armor gives no penalty. And even if you want to add it I'll just mention. I'm wildly out of shape, but I can tread water while wearing ~60lbs of diving gear, without flippers pretty easily.

Treading water doesn't sound like the kind of thing you'd need an ability check to do. Swimming in rough water, or beating a shark back to the ship however seem like the kind of thing heavy metal armour would make significantly harder.

[Psikerlord]

I can see it as a custom feat, which someone already proposed. You pay the feat price, you get the benefit. Personally I have a hard time imagining Str applying to AC realistically speaking, but yeah some kind of stoic/endurance/stronger parries/wearing extra heavy & protective armour due to your muscles/con related bleed over effect.

[Nikarus]

Treading water doesn't sound like the kind of thing you'd need an ability check to do. Swimming in rough water, or beating a shark back to the ship however seem like the kind of thing heavy metal armour would make significantly harder.

Did you not read anything I said about players arguing modifications to the armor to make it suited tot he environment?

[ericgrau]

Simplest safest answer is a magic item for armor stats with similar proficiency pre-reqs. Or to make normal armor wearable. Str in place of dex to AC might work ok, but can't ruin much with something that's close to the original.

[Nifft]

Heavy armor clearly has giant pauldrons made from magically strong elemental ice.

This ice floats in water, and helps keep the wearer cool.

In arctic climates, substitute giant pauldrons made from magically strong elemental magma.