Discussions on ARMOR (AND SHIELDS) REDESIGN

[Eric Diaz]

I am writing a PDF (a follow-up to Manual of Arms:Weapons) containing both a couple of new types of (non-magical) armor (below) and also a complete redesign of the existing system.

Here is what I've got so far:

---

Gambeson (Light)
A long, padded jacket with a skirt. In this context, a heavier (maybe thicker or longer) type of padded armor.
AC 12 + Dex modifier Str — Disadvantage to stealth 15 lb. 20 gp

Brigandine (Heavy)
Small steel plates riveted inside a jacket of cloth. The arms and legs are covered with similar protection, or chain. Overall, lighter than chain mail but heavier and more expensive than ring mail.
AC 15 Str 11 (?) Disadvantage 45 lb. 60 gp

---

I think brigandine should be lighter (i.e., medium armor) and more expensive, but there is no niche there to fill. And brigandine sounds similar to the way splint mail is described, so...

I'd like to add a Jack of plates as medium armor... but again, no niche (unless I give it stealth disadvantage, which sounds bad).

I am wondering if there are already discussions on the subject around here so I can see what other people have done. Shields, too, but I think I'm keeping a minimum of additions - just a buckler, a pavis, maybe a "tower shield" or something.

(I'm happy to discuss it here, too, but I'm guessing this has been done many times before, so I'm asking for links. Existing products are fine too).

[Greywander]

Padded armor is a gambeson, and studded leather is a butchered interpretation of a brigandine. I could understand if you were going to remove these and add a proper gambeson and brigandine to the game, but adding these on top doesn't really make much sense to me.

What you could do is completely rebuild the armor list from scratch. The existing armor list mostly covers the things you'd need, but lets see if perhaps we can clean things up. You might also makes some tweaks to e.g. armor that only adds a limited amount of your DEX mod to AC, instead of only having three types (full DEX bonus, max +2, and no DEX bonus).

I tried writing up a system that involved layering armor, so you had a slot for clothing, a slot for padded armor, a slot for mail, and a slot for plate. Brigandine is plate, a gambeson is padded, an arming doublet fills both padded and mail slots, but gives a bonus when worn with full plate (as if you were wearing a full gambeson and chain mail, but with a fraction of the weight and cost). Maybe it's worth revisiting that idea and seeing if we can make it work, but at the time it turned into kind of a mess.

For shields, in the system I mentioned just above, I had centergrip and strap-on shields. Centergrip shields can be donned and doffed as an item interaction (like drawing or sheathing a weapon), while strap-on shields require a full action to don or doff but allow for simple item interactions with that hand. Special shields include the pavise, a heavier shield that can be planted in the ground to create cover, and the buckler, a light shield that can be carried easily on your person (not sure what this means mechanically). Both these special shields are centergrip; for regular shields the centergrip could be a round shield while the strap-on might be a kite shield.

[Eric Diaz]

Yeah, I'm not happy with the gambeson/brigandine names either, but those were the first two that came to mind to fill the two gaps in the list (AC 12 disad light armor, AC 15 heavy armor).

I also considered lorica segmentata (maybe a better option for AC 15).

AC 11 is feels low for gambeson anyway, and 15 lb. long, padded armor doesn't seem unreasonable.

But I completely agree that rewriting the entire system would be better, Which I also plan to do... at least mention helmets, since it's an important part of armor IMO.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Rytter_fra_Bagirmi.jpg

[Greywander]

Maybe it would make sense to make a system organized around the three different layers (padded, mail, and plate) and then make up an armor for each layer for each armor level, e.g. the brigandine is light plate, the breastplate is medium plate, and full plate is heavy plate. Not sure what "heavy padding" would look like. Light mail might be something like an arming doublet, essentially a gambeson with patches of mail sewn into it, designed for wearing under full plate armor where the mail patches cover the joints in the plates.

For helmets, I kind of like armor being abstracted enough that you can choose to wear a helmet or not purely on aesthetics. We're used to seeing the heroes run around with their faces uncovered, while the people wearing helmets are the nameless extras (after all, why hire a famous actor to play a role in a movie if you're just going to cover their face up with a helmet?). While it makes practical sense to wear a helmet, pop culture has trained us to think that heroes don't wear helmets.

[Eric Diaz]

That's a very good idea. Use padded for light armor, ADD chain/plate for medium armor, and ALL for heavy armor.

About using helmets, I agree too. I want players to wear what they want, and be done with it.

"To make things a lot simpler, you could just ignore the names of the armor and judge them by price, weight and AC. Let the players choose how they present their armor, as long as it makes sense. Chain mail with breast plate and no helmet? Cool! Shoulder pads to protect you in your right arm, big scary helmet, and bare chest? Nice! "

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/03/d-5e-new-types-off-armor.html

[Breccia]

Before I get too far into it, I'll say that I also like Shadiversity. Problem is, he's going for realism, not simplicity.

Every DM has to decide where on the sliding scale they want their game to be. The base rules are about as simple as it gets. The more you add, the more bookkeeping you require, and depending on who you play with might turn players off. My fix? Letting the players pick. Players who choose to follow more rules, get bonuses from doing so. Players who want to hit the ground running aren't penalized, they just don't get the full benefits of someone who spends that extra hour/week setting things up. As ssomeone who's tried both forcing everyone to have extra rules that come with extra benefits, and someone who the very next campaign made them optional, I can at least tell you that players prefered having the choice as opposed to not.

Shadiversity's take on actual real armor and weapons do not fil the basic simple D&D rules. Period. And he's been over that plenty of times. He's been clear that the gambeson will do better against blades than an 11AC calls for. But he's also directly linked (HARDEE HAR HAR) videos of heavy crossbows shooting through steel chain mail up to the feathers. He's talked about basically every armor from padded/gambeson to full plate, exposing the strengths and weaknesses of each, none of which seem to apply to a basic "your AC is this number against everything" situation.

And I'm not sure I'm buying that hte gambeson he wears, if it was made of period-accurate material, would be the 8 pounds of padded, or that an 18 Dex character would get the full benefit of their stat while wearing something so large. (I'm saying, I don't think that's padded, and even if I did, I don't think it's light armor)

So I'm glad you proposed them as different armor types, because it's a lead-in to my list of suggestions.

A) Do exactly what you did, make new armor types, and make more. Add custom weapons and more armor. Make them regional. "Oh, the Coast of Cul Caleigh makes the highest thread counts in all the lands. While most places make padded armor out of burlap sacks and wads of old rags, their gambeson is cosidered so good that soldiers wear it on the battlefield without any leather or mail!" Works great if you have regional skills, feats or backgrounds to give players either easy access to their regional items, or proficiency.

Subsection: I've seen more than one group swap the places of "barbarian furs" hide armor and padded armor. Seriously, Google Image Search barbarian. Are they wearing medium armor? Do druid next. Are they? You could always make "light fur armor" to replace padded and keep hide where it is.

** In case the rest of this post isn't clear, I think most players might be the happiest with Option A.

B) Give each armor type (light, medium, heavy) a bonus to AC against one attack type (piercing, slashing, bludgeoning) and a penalty to another. Have those benefits shared by monster types (i.e. dragonkin and heavy share the same effects, light armor and beasts share the same effects, something like that)

C) Go at it the other way, give the bonus/penalty to attack rolls to the weapon category. Bludgeons get a bonus against heavy armor but a penalty against light, since their transfer of force/energy to the target doesn't require them to penetrate but to hit squarely. Piercing weapons do better against light/medium but suffer against heavy since sticking an arrow head one inch through steel plate won't kill the victim. Claws rip through light, bite attacks crush medium, etc.

This option is particularly handy for weapons with multiple damage types, including those you choose to give multiple damge types. Warhammers have spikes on the back. Halbers have spikes on the front. Some one-handed blades can stab or cut.

D) and E) are as B) and C) by by specific armor or weapon, not type. A pick and a dagger might both be piercing, but one will drive through steel plate and the other has to bypass it. Fflails get +2 to attack rolls vs. shields. And, yes, gambesons should stop light blade hits better than rabbit fur.

You could easily take Options B through E and make them require proficiency (to be fair, when's the last time anyone here used a weapon/armor in which they weren't proficient?) or stronger requirements. A feat? Only if the extra rules are bonuses only. But I can see them going to specific classes. Fighter gets them all, rogue/ranger get a few, etc.

Options B through E would benefit better-prepared characters and clever players. I don't have a problem with that. Just be advised of the time sink in exploring the options (making the entire party eat 90 minutes before each quest is too much) and cap the bonuses at something reasonable. Giving axes +2 to attack rolls against medium armor isn't that bad. Giving them +4 against light/medium/beasts is probably too far.
-----------
A final note about padded armor: it's designed to suck. That said, for comparison, I happen to have a men's leather jacket, pair of jeans, pair of snow-shovelin' gloves, pair of hiking boots. and a bathroom scale. The above-listed items weighed about six pounds, and there was no "helmet". Padded armor is 8 pounds. And I'm calling "nope" on my leather jacket or jeans stopping a machete swing by someone over the age of eight actually trying to kill me. (If anything, the boots have the best AC of the lot). Now maybe some players/DMs don't think padded (or other) armor comes standard with gauntlets/gloves, helmets, or boots. I disagree, and even if I didn't, I'd just open up the "called shot" rules and every bowman in the game would aim for the foot or face. But even if you're one of those, D&D padded armor would be two leather jackets and two pairs of jeans. That...might slow a machete down, I'll admit, but I wouldn't count on it to save my life. And I don't see it doing much against dog bites or sledgehammers.

So if you're making "better padded armor" I say go for it. It's intended to be garbage, and better materials and/or construction can only improve the result. Just don't stop there. Make other interesting stuff too. Have visitors from far-away lands being in tower shields, crocodile-leather tortoise-shell-plated "hide armor", compound/Welsh bows, or those pre-15th-century inca sling bullets wrapped in cotton and pitch and set on freaking fire. If you introduce it a bit at a time, you won't overwhelm everyone with choices, and it'll be easier to make the obvious benefits come with restrictions (training needed to use well).

Good luck!

[Eric Diaz]

Thanks, lots of good ideas here!

I'm planning to write the book with about 4 chapters: small modifications; a complete overhaul (with piecemeal armor), an encumbrance system (I find normal encumbrance too lenient and variant encumbrance too harsh), and a series of ideas on armor (helmets, armor materials, armor vs. types of damage, etc.).

I'm probably not diving into setting at this point, but I'm certainly adding armor made of magical beasts, bones, etc.

Truth is, it is the system that drives me crazy:

https://img.mewe.com/api/v2/photo/I6TloizNinyjer9iOIyODqV9-vzRaIQ3nymqXyv6uq1gZdz9oJn1U9Bb5Do/1600x1600/img?static={static}

EDIT: but I'm rewriting it!

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Hv6fpND-NlU/YGYRdgRgVhI/AAAAAAAADXg/yoy_Vp5RAX4dtCEOPrGgtnPXk6lf0cN0ACLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/new%2Barmor.png

[Greywander]

For a layered armor system, I think my problem was that I wanted to add the AC bonus of each layer together. This created an awkward situation where either your total AC was way too high or else I had to drastically cut down on the AC for each piece of armor. My solution at the time was to still add each layer together, but add a -1 penalty per layer. Basically by combining several layers each individual layer becomes slightly less effective while all layers together ends up being stronger than any single layer. However, I think I may have been going about this the wrong way.

What I'm thinking now is for a layered system to let you pick one layer to use for your AC calculation (similar to having more than one type of natural armor or Unarmored Defense, just pick one to use and ignore the rest), and then you get +1 AC for each extra layer. This would then push you toward getting one really nice piece of armor to use for your AC calculation and then filling the other layers with the lightest and cheapest armor you can get. Which actually makes sense. A gambeson designed to be worn under armor was thinner than one designed to be worn as stand-alone armor.

For such a system, it might be necessary to resign ourselves to having AC 20 when fully armored, rather than AC 18. This is because the lowest AC we can have on an armor is 11, and our DEX mod can give as high as +5 (16 total) and if the other two layers are filled we get another +2 (18 total). Since we probably want a light armor with AC 12, this puts the max AC for a DEX build at 19, rather than 17 like we'd expect. Bug? Or feature? Not really sure.

For padded armor, we can have a thin gambeson (or aketon) (AC 11), a thick gambeson (AC 12), and the arming doublet (also AC 12). The arming doublet has patches of mail sewn into it, and counts as filling both padded and mail slots, but only while wearing plate. The arming doublet is cheaper and lighter than having padding and mail separately, but also a more complex garment and thus not really that cheap. All are light armor. Hide (AC 12, max +3 from DEX) can be the medium armor version of padded armor.

For mail, we can have a haubergeon for light armor (AC 13, max +4 from DEX) and the hauberk for medium (AC 14, max +2 from DEX). The old doc for my previous attempt at layered armor also has splinted mail, which, like the arming doublet, fills two armor slots, mail and plate. Not sure splinted mail as such makes sense for this system, but maybe.

For plate, we have a brigandine for light armor (AC 14, max +3 from DEX), a breastplate for medium armor (AC 15, max +2 from DEX), and full plate for heavy (AC 18). Plate armor is generally the most expensive.

And yes, you could end up with a weird case such as a DEX fighter wearing full plate and a gambeson, using the gambeson for their AC calculation and thus adding their full DEX bonus to AC. In such a case there wouldn't really be a point in wearing the full plate rather than a brigandine, but it's something that you could do if you wanted to.

I'm also considering adding some kind of damage reduction system to armor, similar to Heavy Armor Master. Perhaps padded armor reduces bludgeoning and piercing damage slightly, mail reduces slashing damage moderately, and plate reduces piercing and slashing damage greatly. This might correspond with buffing the damage on slashing weapons, making them more effective against unarmored targets, but less effective against heavily armored targets. With enough AC and damage reduction, shields become less important, so a knight in full plate is likely to ditch the shield in favor of a polearm. Certain polearms are designed to penetrate plate, and thus have a weapon property that allows them to ignore the damage reduction effect of armor. We can then bring back the heater shield as a special type of shield that only gives +1 AC but negates the armor penetration effect unless they beat your AC by, say, 5 or more.

Anyway, I'm just kind of thinking out loud here, putting my thoughts into words, so I don't have it ironed out yet. I've been playing with an idea for a big overhaul of 5e, and one of the things I'd be doing is reducing the overall HP you get (you start with more at 1st level, but end up with less later on). Having reduced HP without changing the damage could get tricky, so giving damage reduction via armor seems like it could help on that front. I'll need to think about this some more.

[Eric Diaz]

I think a layering system is doable, and the -1 per layer is a good start. You could avoid having issues with Dex by ruling the heavier armor penalty applies. The problem is, if you consider layering, and body parts - even asymmetric gladiator armor - you get a level of complexity I'm not entirely comfortable with. I'm thinking of going the opposite way: making the entire thing abstract.

So, using the table above, we could have this:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Hv6fpND-NlU/YGYRdgRgVhI/AAAAAAAADXg/yoy_Vp5RAX4dtCEOPrGgtnPXk6lf0cN0ACLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/new%2Barmor.png

Light Armor: Made from supple and thin materials (usually leather or cloth), and maybe a few pieces of metal (just a helmet and or maybe protection for the right arm, etc.), light armor favors agile adventurers since it offers some protection without sacrificing mobility. If you wear light armor, you add your Dexterity modifier to the base number from your armor type to determine your Armor Class.

Medium Armor: Medium armor offers more protection than light armor, but it also impairs movement more. It is made with metal rings, scales or even plates (like a breastplate), but doesn't cover the entire body, although you will often use leather and cloth as padding or to protect exposed joints, etc. If you wear medium armor, you add your Dexterity modifier, to a maximum of +2, to the base number from your armor type to determine your Armor Class.

Heavy Armor: Of all the armor categories, heavy armor offers the best protection. These suits of armor cover the entire body in metal (of varying quality) and are designed to stop a wide range of attacks. Includes a helmet, gorget, or both. Only proficient warriors can manage their weight and bulk. Heavy armor doesn’t let you add your Dexterity modifier to your Armor Class, unless the modifier is negative.

What about stealth?

Some types of armor are noisy, usually due to heavy or low-quality material/craftsmanship. A creature has disadvantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks while wearing noisy armor. You can find noisy, low quality light and medium armor for half the usual price. Alternatively, you can find good medium armor with additional pieces or layers that increases its AC by one, but also makes the armor noisy and doubles weight and price. Heavy armor is always noisy.

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/04/d-5e-armor-very-simple-fix.html

(Notice that we have more options than the original system, and the whole thing makes sense. We could go even further and just say light armor weights 10 pounds, medium 20 (or 40 if noisy), and heavy, 50 or 60 regardless of AC, but maybe people would object to so much simplification).

[Eric Diaz]

SHIELDS


While we're at it, I wrote 4 shields. These are mostly for fun, not necessarily realistic. I just think bucklers, cloaks, an massive shields look cool. I know I'm streching it a bit with the tower shield, bu they seem balacned to me. what do you think?




Buckler

A buckler is a small shield gripped with the fist. As we’ve said in Manual of Arms: Weapons, it works better as a (simple melee) weapon than a new shield, for several reasons.



If you do not have that book, here are the stats:



Buckler. Damage 1 bludgeoning, 2 lb., 5 gp, with the finesse, light, and special (“When you take the Attack action and attack with a light or finesse melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to defend yourself with a buckler that you’re holding in the other hand. This grants you a +1 bonus to AC until the beginning of your next turn.”) properties.



However, if you prefer a defensive-only version, just use it a lighter, +1 AC shield. Notice that the buckler should not count as a shield for the purposes of existing fighting styles, feats, etc. In addition, I would allow anyone with light armor proficiency to wield one, regardless of shield proficiency.







Cloak

The term “cloak and dagger” comes from a 15th century fighting method, in which a cloak (or cape) wrapped around the hand and arm is used as a shield. I added it here because I think it looks cool. Feel free to ignore this option in games (or circumstances) where defending with your cloak feels ridiculous.



Like the buckler, it should not be counted as a shield that you can use with other feats or fighting styles, and anyone with light armor proficiency should be able to use it.







Pavise

A tall (three to four feet), heavy shield, traditionally used by crossbowmen. It contains a spike (or other mechanism) that allows you to “plant” it in the ground as an action, so you can treat it as half cover (or three quarters cover, while crouching) instead of a shield. Alternatively, one can hold it next to an ally, as an action, providing cover for both.



It can also be used as an ordinary shield, but it requires Str 13 to do so.







Tower shield

This massive shield is nearly as tall as an adult. It can be used for cover, like the pavise.



Optional rule: Carrying this enormous shield is likely to cause you disadvantage in stealth even if you’re not wielding it.[/QUOTE]

[Martin Greywolf]

Gambesons

Padded armor is gambeson, and you all are picturing a gambeson wrong.

A gambeson, when worn as a standalone armor, is made of 15-30 layers of fabric, often further reinforced with wine, salt or other methods. It will stop a machete cold in its tracks, but it will be much less resistant to thrusts, of sword, spear or arrow. This has been tested, again and again, with actual reproductions.

It gets confused by people without in depth knowledge with arming jacket, which is worn under plate armor only.

https://cdn.webshopapp.com/shops/32318/files/254980130/epic-armoury-medieval-belt-gambeson-black.jpg

https://burgschneider.eu/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/960x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/r/a/rabenfurth-gambeson-le-1_3.jpg

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zVRbPqv8SA4/VrimQYBF0fI/AAAAAAAAAyQ/ydEg5EohKS0/s1600/Horsehair%2BGamberson.jpg

Gloves as part of armor

In case of lighter armors, they aren't included. Gambesons sometimes have mittens, but that is a little unusual to see, and we have numerous depictions of people using plate armor without leather or plate gloves. Pre-kigh medieval, gloves were used only very rarely.

This is mostly because of tougher hands - go find someone who does physical labor for a living - probably someone in construction these days - and you will notice their palms are a lot more leathery. With hands like that, splinters are less of a concern, and if you get hit in the hand, a padded mitten will not save you. A mail mitten with padding might, though.

The high representation of gloves you see is a reenactorism, albeit a necessary one - we'd rather not get splinters every weekend.

Armor layers

Abandon hope. Not all mail was worn over a padded coat, not all plate is worn over mail and padding, lamellar is sometimes worn without any other layer and sometimes with padding AND mail. It's too much of a complex topic to compress elegantly.

The best armor systems I've seen in tabletop usually divide all armor into a few distinct general types, usually 2-4, and give every group numbers. It does't matter if you have a transitional Italian plate or tosei-gusoku, they are both heavy armor and have the same numbers.

Helmets

They aren't mentioned because you'd have to be mentally unwell to not have a helmet. Even if you have no armor at all, your first purchase should be a helmet - hell, there are some improvised rope helmets that were sometimes made because having them was infinitely better than not having them.

In a TTRPG, you are iether ignoring reality to have unhelmeted characters, or you aren't and it's implied that helmets are always on.

Shields

That's... not what a pavaise is. We'll get to that.

Generally, there are only two questions that matter with shields, everything else is details: is it large enough to cover me from missiles and can I use it actively rather than just holding it out there.

Thus you have bucklers in no and yes category, Roman and kite shields in yes and no, heather and viking round shields in sort of and sort of.

Then there is a type of shield that is not really a shield but rather a deployable piece of wall, you can't carry it and fight effectively, but it can be deployed with a stake - frnakly, these should use rules for cover, not for shields.

Pavaise

It's not a functional designation, it's a type of shield that is defined by how it is constructed - an elongated rectangle with one of the shorter sides sometimes shorter, and with a raised reinforced middle ridge. Thus you have:

https://mailmaker.tripod.com/armor/freydal_116.jpg

https://mailmaker.tripod.com/armor/max-triumph-pavices.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f5/f2/49/f5f249002349d2eb710e88e58c7d13b9.png

The deployable type was, to my knowledge, never worn on back to serve as a defensive mechanism a la Medieval Total War, it was usually carried by a dedicated pavaise bearer and deployed. In was sometimes carried on the back - but that was when you had no dedicated bearer, and you'd once again deploy it before use.

[Eric Diaz]

Gambesons

Padded armor is gambeson, and you all are picturing a gambeson wrong.

A gambeson, when worn as a standalone armor, is made of 15-30 layers of fabric, often further reinforced with wine, salt or other methods. It will stop a machete cold in its tracks, but it will be much less resistant to thrusts, of sword, spear or arrow. This has been tested, again and again, with actual reproductions.

It gets confused by people without in depth knowledge with arming jacket, which is worn under plate armor only.

https://cdn.webshopapp.com/shops/32318/files/254980130/epic-armoury-medieval-belt-gambeson-black.jpg

https://burgschneider.eu/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/960x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/r/a/rabenfurth-gambeson-le-1_3.jpg

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zVRbPqv8SA4/VrimQYBF0fI/AAAAAAAAAyQ/ydEg5EohKS0/s1600/Horsehair%2BGamberson.jpg

Gloves as part of armor

In case of lighter armors, they aren't included. Gambesons sometimes have mittens, but that is a little unusual to see, and we have numerous depictions of people using plate armor without leather or plate gloves. Pre-kigh medieval, gloves were used only very rarely.

This is mostly because of tougher hands - go find someone who does physical labor for a living - probably someone in construction these days - and you will notice their palms are a lot more leathery. With hands like that, splinters are less of a concern, and if you get hit in the hand, a padded mitten will not save you. A mail mitten with padding might, though.

The high representation of gloves you see is a reenactorism, albeit a necessary one - we'd rather not get splinters every weekend.

Armor layers

Abandon hope. Not all mail was worn over a padded coat, not all plate is worn over mail and padding, lamellar is sometimes worn without any other layer and sometimes with padding AND mail. It's too much of a complex topic to compress elegantly.

The best armor systems I've seen in tabletop usually divide all armor into a few distinct general types, usually 2-4, and give every group numbers. It does't matter if you have a transitional Italian plate or tosei-gusoku, they are both heavy armor and have the same numbers.

Helmets

They aren't mentioned because you'd have to be mentally unwell to not have a helmet. Even if you have no armor at all, your first purchase should be a helmet - hell, there are some improvised rope helmets that were sometimes made because having them was infinitely better than not having them.

In a TTRPG, you are iether ignoring reality to have unhelmeted characters, or you aren't and it's implied that helmets are always on.

Shields

That's... not what a pavaise is. We'll get to that.

Generally, there are only two questions that matter with shields, everything else is details: is it large enough to cover me from missiles and can I use it actively rather than just holding it out there.

Thus you have bucklers in no and yes category, Roman and kite shields in yes and no, heather and viking round shields in sort of and sort of.

Then there is a type of shield that is not really a shield but rather a deployable piece of wall, you can't carry it and fight effectively, but it can be deployed with a stake - frnakly, these should use rules for cover, not for shields.

Pavaise

It's not a functional designation, it's a type of shield that is defined by how it is constructed - an elongated rectangle with one of the shorter sides sometimes shorter, and with a raised reinforced middle ridge. Thus you have:

https://mailmaker.tripod.com/armor/freydal_116.jpg

https://mailmaker.tripod.com/armor/max-triumph-pavices.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f5/f2/49/f5f249002349d2eb710e88e58c7d13b9.png

The deployable type was, to my knowledge, never worn on back to serve as a defensive mechanism a la Medieval Total War, it was usually carried by a dedicated pavaise bearer and deployed. In was sometimes carried on the back - but that was when you had no dedicated bearer, and you'd once again deploy it before use.

Thank you, this is incredibly helpful!

I am not sure whether you disagree with something I said on the post before yours... other than that I should call it a "deployable pavise" instead of a pavise.

It seems we agree on having two types of gambeson (thin and thick) and using a pavise as cover instead of a shield. I know it shouldn't be used as an actual shield, but maybe strong warrior in a fantasy world could do it?

Consider that these are people who can fight with 10 pound mauls and shoot 18 lb. crossbows.

[Martin Greywolf]

I am not sure whether you disagree with something I said on the post before yours... other than that I should call it a "deployable pavise" instead of a pavise.

It should be called deployable shield, you do see some that are not pavaises.

https://manuscriptminiatures.com/image/12901/1000

https://manuscriptminiatures.com/image/21037/1000


Thank you, this is incredibly helpful!It seems we agree on having two types of gambeson (thin and thick)

Not really. You either have a gambeson that is useful as an armor, or you have it as an arming jack that goes under plate armor and should under no circumstances be used as armor because it doesn't protect you. There is a reference in Fiore's Flower of battle where he talks about going into a duel that is thought of as unarmored fighting and describes his equipment as "mere arming doublet and thin leather gloves" - so a seasoned mercenary commander in 1400 Italy considered arming doublet as being basically naked.

More than anyone else I was careful around other Masters of Arms and their students. And some of these Masters who were envious of me challenged me to fight with sharp edged and pointed swords wearing only a padded jacket [zuparello da armare == arming doublet], and without any other armor except for a pair of leather gloves; and this happened because I refused to practice with them or teach them anything of my art.

And I was obliged to fight five times in this way. And five times, for my honor, I had to fight in unfamiliar places without relatives and without friends to support me, not trusting anyone but God, my art, myself, and my sword [no mention of "my arms", i.e. of armor]. And by the grace of God, I acquitted myself honorably and without injury to myself.

I tell my students who have to fight at the barrier [complicated thing, gist is that it is armored fighting] that fighting at the barrier is significantly less dangerous than fighting with live swords wearing only padded jackets, because when you fight with sharp swords, if you fail to cover one single strike you will likely die [this especially implies arming doublet == unarmored fighting].

Well, I guess it will keep you warm in cold weather, but that's about it.


Consider that these are people who can fight with 10 pound mauls and shoot 18 lb. crossbows.

18 lbs ~= 9 kg isn't that ludircous for a hand portable crossbow, but it is on the high end. These are usually siege crossbows, with slow RoF but capability of ingoring normal shields, and they can get really, really big. Account for spanning mechanism, which is usually a windlass and can clok in at 1-2 kg and you can get to 9 easy.

https://manuscriptminiatures.com/image/12181/1000

https://i.servimg.com/u/f46/14/66/56/18/giiiii10.jpg


and using a pavise as cover instead of a shield. I know it shouldn't be used as an actual shield, but maybe strong warrior in a fantasy world could do it? Consider that these are people who can fight with 10 pound mauls and shoot 18 lb. crossbows.

You run into mechanics problem pretty badly. Every shield in existence grants you cover, if we understand cover as real world term, no exceptions. Even a buckler makes you slightly harder to hit with a bow. Some shields, those that can't be used actively, only function by granting you that cover, others can be used for active parries or to check your opponent's sword arm, or even for fancy stuff like disarms.

Problem is, how do you translate that into d20 mechanics, where your two tools are AC and cover?

Guessing at a design intent, DnD cover is supposed to be something that doesn't move easily, i.e. to get cover, you must remain in a certain square - that is its disadvantage and that is why it's okay for it to stack with your AC. Therefore, any shield that you can physically carry should only grant you AC and not cover, and anthing you put down shouldn't grant you AC and only grant cover. (we're, uh, just quitely ignoring that one of cover's effects is increasing your AC)

Then you get to questions of degree. Buckler shouldn't really get you AC against missiles, it does make it harder to hit you, but not enough where that would translate into 5% worse odds - do you model that? A large shield covers more of you, and you could be infintely granular with this, but once you hit large kite/Roman shield sizes, you are practically impossible to hit from the front with ranged weapons, how do you model that, especially since DnD doesn't take character orientation into account? If you can make bonus actions to buff AC with a buckler, you really should be able to do that with a larger shield that can be used actively (e.g. viking round, heather), and you should be able to punch with them as well (look at a random HMB YouTube video to see why).

There are just so, so many things you can do and so many subtleties you very easily run into the trap of giving a given thing a special ability to make it able to do a cool thing and then realizing that half of existing equipment should also be able to do that cool thing.

And using shields for providing cover is... not really a thing. You have deployables, and you can absolutely duck behind your shield line and kneel to not be shot at, it's something I do pretty much every time I'm in a battle line as a spearman - but that is less of a using a particularly large shield in friend's hands for cover and more of a using your friend for cover because he has a shield and is therefore the designated tank.

[Thane of Fife]

This is a little alternative armor system I made up for B/X D&D, but I'm going to throw it out because it's a bit different from what you're thinking, and maybe it'll help you approach it from a different angle.

There are two premises here, based on my own understanding of medieval armor:

1) The material doesn't matter much. The purpose of armor is to block the blow, so as much material as is necessary will be layered to achieve that. This would require more layering from lighter materials; therefore, leather or padded armor is assumed to be at least as heavy and encumbering as metal armor.

2) Thus, the difference between light and heavy armor is in coverage, not strength. A heavily armored person might have their whole body covered, whereas a lightly armored person might be wearing only a helmet or jack.


Thus, the premise here is that there are four pieces of armor, and up to three may be employed, each granting 1/3 of the total bonus. The pieces are:

Helmet: This is probably a steel cap or helmet, or something similar. In addition to the AC bonus, this offers improved chances of surviving when struck down (in B/X, I said you could be reduced slightly negative before dying; in 5e, maybe you get a small bonus to death saves).

Torso Armor: This is armor that covers the trunk - chest, guts, and maybe pelvis and upper extremities. Examples would be a breastplate, brigandine jacket, mail shirt or hauberk, gambeson, and so forth.

Limb Armor: This is armor that covers your arms and legs. I think this would almost always be metal armor. In B/X, I said this reduces speed by 25%.

Shield: This is a large shield, like a kite shield, a Viking shield, or a Roman shield. I also had this piece reduce speed by 25%, but it can be quickly thrown away or dropped to remove that penalty.

So, a fully armored character would have three of those four equipped (probably a helmet, torso armor, and either limb armor or a shield). A lightly armored character might have just a helmet.

I haven't mentioned cost, but I would make the helmet the cheapest and the torso armor the most expensive.

When picking armor, pretty much everyone will go for the helmet first. Ideally, this is followed up by torso armor (though you might skip directly to a shield or limb armor if you can't afford that). And if you have the torso armor, you then have to decide if you want the penalty associated with the limb armor / shield, and, if you do, if you would rather take the shield (which occupies a hand but can be dropped) or the limb armor (which you're stuck with, but which leaves both hands free).

I'm not as familiar with 5e, but I think you could do something similar with each piece of armor increasing your category (none, light, medium, heavy) by one level, and perhaps having the limb armor / shield impose disadvantage on stealth checks instead of a speed penalty.

One could of course develop something like this farther, say by adding levels of helmet or torso coverage, size of shield, and so forth.