*RANT* Leather Armor Bothers me

[nickl_2000]

<RANT>
Leather armor, it really, really ticks me off. The only point to leather armor is to have it until you 45 GP to get studded leather armor (2 sessions is you are unlucky). Then it's completely an utterly pointless. Yet, the DMG and random treasure tables continue to have +1 leather armor (and hide, and chain shirts) in them. Why the heck would anyone in the world of D&D spend the time an money to make magical armor that is just as effective as mundane armor?

I normally love the simplicity of 5e, but I really, really hate the armor tables. I hate that there isn't additional Dex bonuses on lower AC armor or some other reason why you would use it.

</RANT>

Alright, I feel a little better now. Continue on.

[Boci]

From a world building perspective maybe tribal cultures that don't have access to metal but can enchant stuff could produce +1 leather. Druid maybe too, but both cases are kinda niche. Overall I agree, the existence of enchanted leather is a little puzzling.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Funny enough, I'm of the opposite opinion. Studded leather armor really bugs me.

Mainly because it's a fiction of the genre, rather than any (valid) mechanical reasoning.

[nickl_2000]

Funny enough, I'm of the opposite opinion. Studded leather armor really bugs me.

Mainly because it's a fiction of the genre, rather than any (valid) mechanical reasoning.

That's fair. Ff they didn't have Studded Leather, then I wouldn't have this complaint about regular leather :smallbiggrin:

[stoutstien]

<RANT>
Leather armor, it really, really ticks me off. The only point to leather armor is to have it until you 45 GP to get studded leather armor (2 sessions is you are unlucky). Then it's completely an utterly pointless. Yet, the DMG and random treasure tables continue to have +1 leather armor (and hide, and chain shirts) in them. Why the heck would anyone in the world of D&D spend the time an money to make magical armor that is just as effective as mundane armor?

I normally love the simplicity of 5e, but I really, really hate the armor tables. I hate that there isn't additional Dex bonuses on lower AC armor or some other reason why you would use it.

</RANT>

Alright, I feel a little better now. Continue on.

Part of the flaw of NPCs using the same equipment tables as PCs *sort of*.

It does make sense from a world building angle. If you had to equip a large force the difference of cost would be apparent.

[Naanomi]

There might be underlying enchantment constraints, a bunch of good quality drakeskin can be enchanted pretty easy, but unless you have thaumicite on hand for the studs you are going to have to pay a ton for that studded leather upgrade.

The removal of 3.5/4e's 'magic mart' assumptions make it easier to justify this kind of thing for me

[Boci]

There might be underlying enchantment constraints, a bunch of good quality drakeskin can be enchanted pretty easy, but unless you have thaumicite on hand for the studs you are going to have to pay a ton for that studded leather upgrade.

The removal of 3.5/4e's 'magic mart' assumptions make it easier to justify this kind of thing for me

I think the problem is +1 leather is mechanically identical to mundane studded leather, and surely however cheaply you can enchant leather armour, its not going to cost less than 45 gold.

Unless you're saying +2 leather armour might be easier than +1 studded?

[nickl_2000]

There might be underlying enchantment constraints, a bunch of good quality drakeskin can be enchanted pretty easy, but unless you have thaumicite on hand for the studs you are going to have to pay a ton for that studded leather upgrade.

The removal of 3.5/4e's 'magic mart' assumptions make it easier to justify this kind of thing for me

Funny, the removal of magic marts has the opposite effect. Magic items aren't something that is easy to make, nor are they common. It feels off that someone would spend the time and money on something extremely rare that just replicates something that could be bought from the nearest small city.

[stoutstien]

I think the problem is +1 leather is mechanically identical to mundane studded leather, and surely however cheaply you can enchant leather armour, its not going to cost less than 45 gold.

Unless you're saying +2 leather armour might be easier than +1 studded?

Depends on the level of technology/magic the crafter has access to or the environment it's designed to be in.

[Burley]

I've always thought of leather armor as something inconspicuous, while studded leather is something only a fight-prone person would wear. A rogue may look like trouble in studded armor, or a traveler in regular leather. Or, a Bard could wear leather armor under her disguise, but the studded leather would look like she has a dozen nipples pokin' out all over her body.

Also, it was previously mentioned that some classes don't use metal, but there are also spells and effects that mess with metal, like Heat Metal or rust monsters. Studded Leather is on the menu for them.


If it's really a thorn in your side, though, you could go back to the 3.5 idea of equipment: Items need to be masterwork to enchant them. Maybe leather doesn't hold enchantments, so, the studs are the actual enchanted bits.

[Boci]

Depends on the level of technology/magic the crafter has access to or the environment it's designed to be in.

Yeah I mentioned that in my first post, what about tribal societies in D&D that don't have access to metal, which seems pretty niche, most civilisations have access to metal. And the +2/+1 thing also seems unlikely, but sure nothing stopping a DM from saying no its easier to make +2 leather.

[GeoffWatson]

Most of the armour types throughout the history of D&D have been useless.
In 1st and 2nd edition the only reasons to use anything less than Plate was price and Thief skills.

I suggest giving Leather Armour the stats of Studded Leather, and removing studded leather completely. It isn't historical, just a misunderstanding of brigandine armour.

[Boci]

Most of the armour types throughout the history of D&D have been useless.
In 1st and 2nd edition the only reasons to use anything less than Plate was price and Thief skills.

I suggest giving Leather Armour the stats of Studded Leather, and removing studded leather completely. It isn't historical, just a misunderstanding of brigandine armour.

Why not just rename studded leather to brigandine armour? Or would brigandine armour be medium?

[nickl_2000]

I've always thought of leather armor as something inconspicuous, while studded leather is something only a fight-prone person would wear. A rogue may look like trouble in studded armor, or a traveler in regular leather. Or, a Bard could wear leather armor under her disguise, but the studded leather would look like she has a dozen nipples pokin' out all over her body.

Also, it was previously mentioned that some classes don't use metal, but there are also spells and effects that mess with metal, like Heat Metal or rust monsters. Studded Leather is on the menu for them.


If it's really a thorn in your side, though, you could go back to the 3.5 idea of equipment: Items need to be masterwork to enchant them. Maybe leather doesn't hold enchantments, so, the studs are the actual enchanted bits.

That's an interesting take on it. I could see that being used in a campaign successfully to make it seem worthwhile. The nice thing with this is that is gives a mechanical reason for leather armor to exist and be used.

[Hytheter]

<RANT>Yet, the DMG and random treasure tables continue to have +1 leather armor (and hide, and chain shirts) in them. Why the heck would anyone in the world of D&D spend the time an money to make magical armor that is just as effective as mundane armor?

Oh man, tell me about it. My group uses the Xanathar's downtime rules for buying magic items, and they work well enough but it pisses me off when we roll on the tables and they spit out crap like this.

[Sigreid]

Geography can also work here. An area that doesn't have ready access to large amounts of metal may consider it a waste of resources to make studded leather.

Side note, studded leather in D&D may have its origin in a misunderstanding of brigandine or a Winsor coat of plates. Both have metal plates riveted to the inside of a leather breastplate. Both are really effective protection, though not as long term durable as an all metal armor would be.

[JackPhoenix]

Why not just rename studded leather to brigandine armour? Or would brigandine armour be medium?

Out of D&D armor list, a brigandine is pretty much scale mail with the scales covered by cloth (yes, I'm aware there are differences in the shape and distribution of the metal bits, it's just the closest equivalent)

[GeoffWatson]

Why not just rename studded leather to brigandine armour? Or would brigandine armour be medium?

Brigandine is made of layers of cloth or leather with metal plates between them, with the rivets that hold the plates in place visible from the outside.
Scale or Splint would be the closest D&D armour.

[loki_ragnarock]

Don't magic armors resize to fit the person wearing them?

Or did I dream that?

[KorvinStarmast]

I suggest giving Leather Armour the stats of Studded Leather, and removing studded leather completely. That would be the KISS principle at work, would uncomplicate things, and I think it's what they should have done in the first place.

Geography can also work here. An area that doesn't have ready access to large amounts of metal may consider it a waste of resources to make studded leather. Unless they use bones or hard shells instead ...

Side note, studded leather in D&D may have its origin in a misunderstanding of brigandine or a Winsor coat of plates. Both have metal plates riveted to the inside of a leather breastplate. Both are really effective protection, though not as long term durable as an all metal armor would be. Likely, as were some of the voulge-guisarme-forks. :smallbiggrin:


Don't magic armors resize to fit the person wearing them?
Mostly yes, in this edition.

[Sigreid]

That would be the KISS principle at work, would uncomplicate things, and I think it's what they should have done in the first place.
Unless they use bones or hard shells instead ...
Likely, as were some of the voulge-guisarme-forks. :smallbiggrin:

Mostly yes, in this edition.

Bones and hard shell, unless we're talking about monster aren't a substitute for metal. Though some lamination techniques can come closer than you'd think.

On the resizing, that's been a thing since at least 1e. Not sure about the very first printing of basic D&D or 4e.

edit: as an aside, cloth armor made by gluing layers of cloth together like the armor used by Alexander the Great has also been shown in testing to be way, way more effective than I'd have thought.

[Valmark]

Leather armor is lighter (barely), less costly and doesn't use metal which can be varying degrees of usefulness.

A leather armor +1 would be a straight upgrade to a studded leather armor given those advantages and the fact that it's magical (which may or may not influence things)- except in a situation where magic is turned off or somehow detrimental.

[KorvinStarmast]

Bones and hard shell, unless we're talking about monster aren't a substitute for metal. Though some lamination techniques can come closer than you'd think. That's probably what I had in mind, and the whole "boiled leather" armor of the Roman Legions. I also recall clenh' hide from Empire of the Petal Throne but that's getting OT for 5e.

[quote] On the resizing, that's been a thing since at least 1e. Not sure about the very first printing of basic D&D or 4e. I do not remember Original having magic armor resize. My first look through didn't show that this morning.

[Boci]

Leather armor is lighter (barely), less costly and doesn't use metal which can be varying degrees of usefulness.

A leather armor +1 would be a straight upgrade to a studded leather armor given those advantages and the fact that it's magical (which may or may not influence things)- except in a situation where magic is turned off or somehow detrimental.

But its a magical item, its (presumably) not free coming in either coin or opportunity cost. A magical item that is basically a 45 gold item, only it weighs slightly less and doesn't use metal seems like a pretty luckluster find next to a +1 shield or +1 weapon. Or even a +0 weapon.

[Sigreid]

That's probably what I had in mind, and the whole "boiled leather" armor of the Roman Legions. I also recall clenh' hide from Empire of the Petal Throne but that's getting OT for 5e. [quote]
I do not remember Original having magic armor resize. My first look through didn't show that this morning.

I'll admit it's been a long time since I've read the 1E DMG, but I'm pretty sure it's in there. It's possible I could be wrong, but at the least we always played it that way.

[Kuulvheysoon]

It resizes within the same size category, iirc, not between size categories.

[Imbalance]

Funny, the removal of magic marts has the opposite effect. Magic items aren't something that is easy to make, nor are they common. It feels off that someone would spend the time and money on something extremely rare that just replicates something that could be bought from the nearest small city.

Practice, practice, practice. Why risk failing an enchantment on your expensive armor until you know can't get it wrong? Buy a dozen Gnome-sized leather vests, improve them as time and money allows, trade the good ones to giants, give the cursed ones to your enemies, profit.

[loki_ragnarock]

But its a magical item, its (presumably) not free coming in either coin or opportunity cost. A magical item that is basically a 45 gold item, only it weighs slightly less and doesn't use metal seems like a pretty luckluster find next to a +1 shield or +1 weapon. Or even a +0 weapon.

If you insist that armor must be appropriately sized for the character - which ain't a stretch, as armor doesn't - then if you create magical leather armor it will protect you, you daughter, your granddaughter, your great-granddaughter, or whatever follower or retainer your matriarchal family picks up over the next 200 years. Your scion picks up a tribe of halfling or goliath followers in the future? No worries, mate; because of your long term thinking, the armor has already happened.

Short term thinking isn't Elvish thinking. Non-magical armor? That's going to decay or rust eventually, even if you do the constant maintenance required to keep it from doing so. Making it magical not only means it won't decay or rust eventually, but saves you countless gallons of oil in maintenance. Magic armor is green armor.

[Morty]

Most of the armour types throughout the history of D&D have been useless.
In 1st and 2nd edition the only reasons to use anything less than Plate was price and Thief skills.

I suggest giving Leather Armour the stats of Studded Leather, and removing studded leather completely. It isn't historical, just a misunderstanding of brigandine armour.

Or better yet, just use the mechanics whatever armor is best for your characters' attributes and wealth (plate armor is expensive enough that it might actually not be affordable for a few levels, unlike most non-magical gear) and describe it however you will. D&D armor, as you said, has always been tables for the sake of tables, with only a handful of choices having any real reason to exist.

[Boci]

If you insist that armor must be appropriately sized for the character - which ain't a stretch, as armor doesn't - then if you create magical leather armor it will protect you, you daughter, your granddaughter, your great-granddaughter, or whatever follower or retainer your matriarchal family picks up over the next 200 years. Your scion picks up a tribe of halfling or goliath followers in the future? No worries, mate; because of your long term thinking, the armor has already happened.

Short term thinking isn't Elvish thinking. Non-magical armor? That's going to decay or rust eventually, even if you do the constant maintenance required to keep it from doing so. Making it magical not only means it won't decay or rust eventually, but saves you countless gallons of oil in maintenance. Magic armor is green armor.

Studded leather armour is 45 gold. Are you contingency planning for your children's children still having a magical item in their possession, but not 45 gold?

I'm not saying these are irrelevant issues, but they are niche, and as mentioned by Hytheter, it is causing real issues for players when a precious opportunity for a magical item is wasted on +1 leather.

[Sigreid]

Studded leather armour is 45 gold. Are you contingency planning for your children's children still having a magical item in their possession, but not 45 gold?

I'm not saying these are irrelevant issues, but they are niche, and as mentioned by Hytheter, it is causing real issues for players when a precious opportunity for a magical item is wasted on +1 leather.

This is going meta, but I could totally see a fighter having their suit of full plate armor for their adventuring day, and a set of magical armor as what they wear around town and/or as pajamas in the field as a little insurance that doesn't mess with their ability to be comfortable, seem not that threatening, allow them to sleep.

[Valmark]

But its a magical item, its (presumably) not free coming in either coin or opportunity cost. A magical item that is basically a 45 gold item, only it weighs slightly less and doesn't use metal seems like a pretty luckluster find next to a +1 shield or +1 weapon. Or even a +0 weapon.

Assuming you would have found and used something better, maybe. But you do need to assume that- you might have found nothing in it's place.

And even in a group that uses random loots all they'd need is to go 'this is utterly useless, we'll reroll' if that's an issue. Or have a way to recycle useless stuff.

[Boci]

This is going meta, but I could totally see a fighter having their suit of full plate armor for their adventuring day, and a set of magical armor as what they wear around town and/or as pajamas in the field as a little insurance that doesn't mess with their ability to be comfortable, seem not that threatening, allow them to sleep.

I don't think that's meta, it makes sense. But again, it niche. There are situations in which +1 leather makes sense, but they are few and far between.


Assuming you would have found and used something better, maybe. But you do need to assume that- you might have found nothing in it's place.

I don't think that's true. A luckluster magical item is luckluster, regardless of the alternatives.


And even in a group that uses random loots all they'd need is to go 'this is utterly useless, we'll reroll' if that's an issue. Or have a way to recycle useless stuff.

If you have to reroll an item whenever it comes up, that doesn't speak well for the item.

[Segev]

I was going to suggest that maybe leather armor is one rarity lower as a magic item than studded leather armor, and bring up that Minor Properties are free on magic items, as a reason why +1 Guardian Leather Armor, for example, might be a good Common item. Of course, that's still no better than Guardian Studded Leather - also a Common item - by itself.

But I actually like the suggestion about changing the Light Armors more. The initial suggestion was to remove studded leather and just give leather its mechanics. I'd like to refine this a bit further:

Padded Armor: 11+Dexterity Modifier AC (no Disadvantage on stealth); Can be designed to pass as particularly heavy clothing, such as winter wear or very elaborate courtly wear, though this increases the price significantly to at LEAST match the kind of clothing being mimicked.

Leather Armor: 12+Dexterity Modifier AC. Double-price versions may be designed to be worn under clothing. Various monster skins and hides can be used to make magical versions of this armor; some particularly fitting properties may not take magic item crafting rules to make, just making the leather out of the material will do.

Studded Leather Vest: +1 to your AC if you are wearing no armor, light armor, or hide armor. Not possible to design it to be hidden except as part of hide armor. Takes only an action to don or doff if worn with light armor or no armor.


This setup makes Studded Leather + Hide Armor slightly more expensive than a chain shirt, but otherwise equivalent. Might add some additional text about hide armor being unsubtle, but potentially excused as particularly bulky formal-wear, or not even considered "armor" amongst certain cultures, particularly those that value pelts as signs of wealth or prowess.

[AvatarVecna]

Once played a video game based on 3.5 mechanics. In this particular campaign, at one point you fight a duergar slaver, and he drops a set of +6 padded armor. First off, nobody uses padded armor basically ever. Second of all, anybody who can use +6 padded can also use +3 mithril chain shirt, which is as good if not better in literally every way, including price. Speaking of price...third of all, armor giving +6 enhancement is epic armor, and so costs10 times as much as (for example) +5 ghost touch armor.

My best guess for why this sin against good taste exists is that the duergar in question used a genie wish for "epic armor", and +6 padded was the lamest armor the genie could think of that was still technically epic.

TL;DR Some inexplicably lame items in the world only exist because people are *******s to each other.

[Luccan]

Simplifying the math in 5e did not do the armor system any favors. At least before you stacked on all your "get rid of penalty" buffs in 3.5, there was a real choice between a piece of armor and the next highest in the category since you'd be taking variable penalties. Now the only real choice is if you're Medium Armor character do you take +1 AC and Disadvantage in stealth or make normal stealth checks with a slightly lower AC. Everyone else is just waiting to buy their top tier armor set.

I mean, technically there's the amount of time to put on/take off armor*, but there's no RAW penalty for wearing armor 24/7 and the designers support sleeping in Plate. I'm sure there are tables that require players remove at least heavy armor for sleep, but I've literally never seen anyone run with that assumption and I always seem to forget when I'm running.


*EDIT: Forget that anyway, I forgot in 5e it's by category (light, medium, heavy) not armor type. Since most people stick to one category of armor and kinda build around that, it's still a case of waiting for the best AC boost in your category.


Once played a video game based on 3.5 mechanics. In this particular campaign, at one point you fight a duergar slaver, and he drops a set of +6 padded armor. First off, nobody uses padded armor basically ever. Second of all, anybody who can use +6 padded can also use +3 mithril chain shirt, which is as good if not better in literally every way, including price. Speaking of price...third of all, armor giving +6 enhancement is epic armor, and so costs10 times as much as (for example) +5 ghost touch armor.

My best guess for why this sin against good taste exists is that the duergar in question used a genie wish for "epic armor", and +6 padded was the lamest armor the genie could think of that was still technically epic.

TL;DR Some inexplicably lame items in the world only exist because people are *******s to each other.

Technically, Padded provided the smallest ASF chance of all armor in 3.5 and 0 other penalties for people not proficient, so you could've thrown it on a Wizard or Sorcerer. Or a Druid, if Mithril counts as metal. But I don't know how close that game was following 3.5 armor rules.

[JackPhoenix]

Once played a video game based on 3.5 mechanics. In this particular campaign, at one point you fight a duergar slaver, and he drops a set of +6 padded armor. First off, nobody uses padded armor basically ever. Second of all, anybody who can use +6 padded can also use +3 mithril chain shirt, which is as good if not better in literally every way, including price. Speaking of price...third of all, armor giving +6 enhancement is epic armor, and so costs10 times as much as (for example) +5 ghost touch armor.

Half ASF chance compared to the chain shirt and +2 better max Dex bonus.


TL;DR Some inexplicably lame items in the world only exist because people are *******s to each other.

Don't underestimate rich people. Studded leather? Pfff, that's for dirty peasants, *I* can afford to have leather armor enchanted just to show off I've got enough money to not need to be efficient.


I mean, technically there's the amount of time to put on/take off armor*, but there's no RAW penalty for wearing armor 24/7 and the designers support sleeping in Plate. I'm sure there are tables that require players remove at least heavy armor for sleep, but I've literally never seen anyone run with that assumption and I always seem to forget when I'm running.

XGtE:
"Sleeping in light armor has no adverse effect on the wearer, but sleeping in medium or heavy armor makes it difficult to recover fully during a long rest. When you finish a long rest during which you slept in medium or heavy armor, you regain only one quarter of your spent Hit Dice (minimum of one die). If you have any levels of exhaustion, the rest doesn't reduce your exhaustion level."

[Luccan]

Half ASF chance compared to the chain shirt and +2 better max Dex bonus.



Don't underestimate rich people. Studded leather? Pfff, that's for dirty peasants, *I* can afford to have leather armor enchanted just to show off I've got enough money to not need to be efficient.



XGtE:
"Sleeping in light armor has no adverse effect on the wearer, but sleeping in medium or heavy armor makes it difficult to recover fully during a long rest. When you finish a long rest during which you slept in medium or heavy armor, you regain only one quarter of your spent Hit Dice (minimum of one die). If you have any levels of exhaustion, the rest doesn't reduce your exhaustion level."

That's an optional rule, right? I mean, I forgot it existed and I'm at least glad they tried, but I can't say I've seen that rule used anywhere either.

[DarknessEternal]

Funny enough, I'm of the opposite opinion. Studded leather armor really bugs me.

Mainly because it's a fiction of the genre, rather than any (valid) mechanical reasoning.

So is leather armor. If it existed at all, which is still under debate, it was never widely used.

[AvatarVecna]

Half ASF chance compared to the chain shirt and +2 better max Dex bonus.

That's fair, actually. It's 5% less likely to block spells if you're a spellcaster who can't cast in armor, and it's "only" max 6 dex vs padded's max 8. To be fair though, we're still talking about the difference between spending 360155 gp and spending 10100. There's a lot of nonsense that can be done with 350k, including spending a tiny bit more to catch up in those two stats it's slightly worse in.

(I guess if we're getting really granular, the mithril chain shirt weights 12.5 lbs, compared to the padded armor's 10 lbs...that's...something that could theoretically matter?)


Don't underestimate rich people. Studded leather? Pfff, that's for dirty peasants, *I* can afford to have leather armor enchanted just to show off I've got enough money to not need to be efficient.

Also viable to a degree. Presuming that it's a setting where magic items can be purchased with gold (which 5e generally isn't by default, but can be with the right variant rules), it might be more expensive to have magic leather instead of equally-good less-magical studded leather, making it a bit of a status symbol.

[Valmark]

By the way, what about padded armor? I'd imagine that'd be a worst offender.


I don't think that's true. A luckluster magical item is luckluster, regardless of the alternatives.

If you have to reroll an item whenever it comes up, that doesn't speak well for the item.

You said that it looks luckluster due to the other options, though.

The fact that you could reroll something doesn't mean you have to reroll it whenever it comes up, unless somehow it's useless in a 100% of the situations. Not even a scroll of True Strike would be quite that bad- and True Strike can even actively hinder you.

To be clear: I'm not saying that leather armor+1 (and leather armor in general) is good, I'm saying that it does have specific advantages over it's more defensive version.

[Boci]

You said that it looks luckluster due to the other options, though.

Yes, other non magical options. So if a player doesn't know studded leather exist, sure +1 leather looks like a neat upgrade. But if they are aware of this basic information then +1 leather seems lackluster not as a magical item, but as a very, very mild upgrade to a 45 gold mundane item.

[loki_ragnarock]

Studded leather armour is 45 gold. Are you contingency planning for your children's children still having a magical item in their possession, but not 45 gold?


If studded leather hadn't been invented during the the time of the great-great grandmother... yes.

I'd assume that most ageless magic armors would fall into the "now why the heck didn't they just do what we do now, instead" category. Ageless is old, and old is not modern.

[Segev]

Another way to play with armor types being made more attractive would be to give various classes perks with particular kinds of armor.

What if barbarians could use Unarmored Defense while wearing Hide armor (but no other kind), or Druids had a spell that specifically only worked on Hide armor?

[Boci]

If studded leather hadn't been invented during the the time of the great-great grandmother... yes.

Technically no, you wouldn't be concsiously planning for your children's children having a amgical item but not 45 gold, if you weren't aware it even existed, you were just making the best light armour available at the time.

But sure, another niche scenario. I'm not saying these don't exist, I highlighted on in my very first supply ages back, but they are niche.

[Dark.Revenant]

+1 Leather exists because it's a Rare magic item, while +1 Studded Leather is effectively Very Rare due to the higher tier of magic item table you'd need to roll on in order to find it. One implication is that Studded Leather was invented later, so there are fewer pieces of +1 Studded Leather hanging around.

More practically, DMs are encouraged to give minor traits to magic items, so your +1 Leather might also have the aforementioned Guardian property for a +2 bonus to initiative. Now your armor is both lighter and more durable than studded leather, and you're more likely to go first.

[Naanomi]

Funny, the removal of magic marts has the opposite effect. Magic items aren't something that is easy to make, nor are they common. It feels off that someone would spend the time and money on something extremely rare that just replicates something that could be bought from the nearest small city.
If you can buy magic studded leather at the corner store for a market stable price, there is no reason to ever make magic leather

When giant eelskin can be made into +1 leather armor without a lot of effort, but can't be made into magic studded leather without a ton of deep-conch shells that are hard to collect... When the village hunters down a giant eel, you make a set of magic leather armor

[Willie the Duck]

Simplifying the math in 5e did not do the armor system any favors. At least before you stacked on all your "get rid of penalty" buffs in 3.5, there was a real choice between a piece of armor and the next highest in the category since you'd be taking variable penalties. Now the only real choice is if you're Medium Armor character do you take +1 AC and Disadvantage in stealth or make normal stealth checks with a slightly lower AC. Everyone else is just waiting to buy their top tier armor set.
...
Technically, Padded provided the smallest ASF chance of all armor in 3.5 and 0 other penalties for people not proficient, so you could've thrown it on a Wizard or Sorcerer. Or a Druid, if Mithril counts as metal. But I don't know how close that game was following 3.5 armor rules.
Well that's the thing -- aside from druids, gishes that didn't have ASF mitigation/ignoring as part of their builds, or some corner cases like rogues preferring leather or studded to chain shirt until mithril becomes affordable, 3e also had pretty much three optimal-choice armor types to which most characters would gravitate (and also had the non-optimal magic versions show up in randomly rolled treasure tables). Pretty much all editions have both bad magic items in the form of +4 padded or the like (in AD&D I think there was a silver lining of save bonuses and the armor counting towards max carry but not current encumbrance state, IIRC) and bad mundane armor only meant for when you can't afford better/equipping humanoid opponents where you didn't want the PCs to be able to sell their equipment for much. I always thought of the +3 ringmail or whatever as the same as the heavy-and-bulky objects of art -- it is just fungible goods with the added challenge of getting them to town and sold in a way that is less convenient than pure coinage.


So is leather armor. If it existed at all, which is still under debate, it was never widely used.
There's some pretty strong artistic and grave-sculptured knights evidence indicating that cuir boilli was used for a while in an armor transitional period -- as a final layer in composite armor over chain and gambeson (making 'leather armor' at the top of the medium armor scale at least).

[DwarfFighter]

Leather armour is great for NPCs that are supposed to behave like real people and care about the cost (hey, armour needs to be replaced some time) and weight (comfort is a consideration players happily ignore). If you want leather armour to have meaning, consider using variant encumbrance.

The exact numerical defense benefit to studded over leather is known by the players and DM, not the characters they are running. AC 11 vs 12 is meaningless in game, people know studded armour is heavier and sturdier, that's it.

[Sigreid]

There's also the possibility the magic leather wasn't enchanted, but imprinted with magic in some other way. No one made it, it just got that way some how.

[Boci]

The exact numerical defense benefit to studded over leather is known by the players and DM, not the characters they are running. AC 11 vs 12 is meaningless in game, people know studded armour is heavier and sturdier, that's it.

And "sturdier" is how in game people under what higher AC is. Because if you're arguing they can't tell the difference between 11 and 12, then it follows they can't tell the difference between 12 and 13, or 13 and 14, and then things starts to get weird.


More practically, DMs are encouraged to give minor traits to magic items, so your +1 Leather might also have the aforementioned Guardian property for a +2 bonus to initiative. Now your armor is both lighter and more durable than studded leather, and you're more likely to go first.

That's a good solution. Something more relevant with a more obvious practical application than weighing slightly less or not having any metal parts. Glamoured works for this too.

[Hytheter]

If you can buy magic studded leather at the corner store for a market stable price, there is no reason to ever make magic leather

When giant eelskin can be made into +1 leather armor without a lot of effort, but can't be made into magic studded leather without a ton of deep-conch shells that are hard to collect... When the village hunters down a giant eel, you make a set of magic leather armor

The problem being discussed is that +1 leather is only as useful as regular non-magic studded leather.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I don't often give away +1 leather armor, but when I do it's always with a mind to the material that it's made out of.

Most recent set was made out of the hide of a giant electric eel, and also granted resistance to electricity damage.

[nickl_2000]

More practically, DMs are encouraged to give minor traits to magic items, so your +1 Leather might also have the aforementioned Guardian property for a +2 bonus to initiative. Now your armor is both lighter and more durable than studded leather, and you're more likely to go first.

This I will agree strongly with, giving a magic item more flavor that has a less significant impact on the game, but it cool. That makes you want to use the magical leather.



I don't often give away +1 leather armor, but when I do it's always with a mind to the material that it's made out of.

Most recent set was made out of the hide of a giant electric eel, and also granted resistance to electricity damage.


Same case here. You aren't giving out +1 Leather armor. You are giving out Armor of Resistance (Electrical) that happens to be +1 leather. Even if you have +1 Studded there is a case to argue that getting resistance to electrical damage is worth the -1 to AC

[Naanomi]

The problem being discussed is that +1 leather is only as useful as regular non-magic studded leather.
So if you have a bunch of giant eelskin laying around you just toss it in the trash?

EDIT another potential explanation is to look at MMO crafting... +1 leather armor is silly, but boy do you sometimes make a lot of it when you are trying to make armor of water-breathing and keep biffing the rolls

[nickl_2000]

So if you have a bunch of giant eelskin laying around you just toss it in the trash?

you can do more with leather than just armor. This makes sense in worldbuilding, in the same way that outfitting an army makes sense to give regular leather. As for a PC, well they would just sell the giant eelskin, or possibly toss it in the trash since it isn't as useful.

[Boci]

So if you have a bunch of giant eelskin laying around you just toss it in the trash?

+1 leather armour is rare. Now I'm sure interpretations vary, but to me "rare" doesn't sound like "its made of giant eel skin", which strikes me as uncommon at best. I would assume it would take a lot more effort to make it +1 leather to keep it in line with its default rarity.

[Naanomi]

+1 leather armour is rare. Now I'm sure interpretations vary, but to me "rare" doesn't sound like "its made of giant eel skin", which strikes me as uncommon at best. I would assume it would take a lot more effort to make it +1 leather to keep it in line with its default rarity.
I was thinking more like 'intact giant purple eelskin is like 90% of the process, sure the shaman has to rub it down with herbs and chant and stuff but the core material is already right here!'

[Sigreid]

Really, the basic premise of the OP applies pretty broadly. Unless it's chainmail of the Effrete or whatever, why would you bother to enchant anything but the top armor in the category? I mean, +2 chain would be more expensive than plate armor and no better for example.

[Boci]

I was thinking more like 'intact giant purple eelskin is like 90% of the process, sure the shaman has to rub it down with herbs and chant and stuff but the core material is already right here!'

Again, that sounds "uncommon" at best, to me at least.

I guess it depends on how rare giant purple eels are, but still I would expect more.

[Hytheter]

So if you have a bunch of giant eelskin laying around you just toss it in the trash?

If the process to convert it to armour costs more than 45gp, absolutely. And if it was that cheap, it wouldn't be a rare item worth thousands of gold.

[Naanomi]

Yeah looking only at PC use and market value, there are only a handful that anyone would ever bother enchanting... Studded leather, breastplate, half plate, ring, chain, and plate (and leather/hide depending on GM reading of how hard non-metal alternatives are to come by for druids)

Just like how there are several weapons you'd never enchant


If the process to convert it to armour costs more than 45gp, absolutely. And if it was that cheap, it wouldn't be a rare item worth thousands of gold.
Well than what if it was? What if the hunters only pull up a giant purple eel intact every 10,000 years, but it rots away quickly unless enchanted. Except for some decorative stuff, the only use is to enchant magic leather armor; and virtually all of the cost of the end product is because of how rare is he eelskin is to begin with.

Then of course the shaman enchant it; maybe trying to make armor of swimming but the process is tricky and doesn't usually work. You sell or trade away most of it, for the status and novelty more than the protective value but it isn't shabby in war either. (Plus it resizes and resists corrosion and all the other basic magic item stuff as a bonus). And thus +1 leather disseminates into treasure chests and onto monster backs around the world.

[Valmark]

Yes, other non magical options. So if a player doesn't know studded leather exist, sure +1 leather looks like a neat upgrade. But if they are aware of this basic information then +1 leather seems lackluster not as a magical item, but as a very, very mild upgrade to a 45 gold mundane item.
You called out +1 equipment, but whatever.

Really, the basic premise of the OP applies pretty broadly. Unless it's chainmail of the Effrete or whatever, why would you bother to enchant anything but the top armor in the category? I mean, +2 chain would be more expensive than plate armor and no better for example.
This. Light armor specifically, I have way more problems with justifying padded armor- the advantages over leather are smaller then the advantages over studded and it has an added disadvantage.

[Boci]

You called out +1 equipment, but whatever.

An item can have multiple things wrong with it. And being lackluster compared to other magical items and a common mundane item is a good example of this.


Except for some decorative stuff, the only use is to enchant magic leather armor; and virtually all of the cost of the end product is because of how rare is he eelskin is to begin with.

But unless the village cannot make studded leather, using the eel skin for decoration seems equally valid. You're putting a lot of effort into justify the existence of +1 leather armour with not insignificant world building requirements, when you could just make +1 armour more exciting by giving it a secondary minor ability, as other posters have pointed out.

[JackPhoenix]

This. Light armor specifically, I have way more problems with justifying padded armor- the advantages over leather are smaller then the advantages over studded and it has an added disadvantage.

Padded armor looks cooler. That's an undisputable fact.

[nickl_2000]

Well than what if it was? What if the hunters only pull up a giant purple eel intact every 10,000 years, but it rots away quickly unless enchanted. Except for some decorative stuff, the only use is to enchant magic leather armor; and virtually all of the cost of the end product is because of how rare is he eelskin is to begin with.

Then of course the shaman enchant it; maybe trying to make armor of swimming but the process is tricky and doesn't usually work. You sell or trade away most of it, for the status and novelty more than the protective value but it isn't shabby in war either. (Plus it resizes and resists corrosion and all the other basic magic item stuff as a bonus). And thus +1 leather disseminates into treasure chests and onto monster backs around the world.

That's a lot of ifs... That being said, its a magical world so why not. This does absolutely give in world reasons for it to exist, although in a situation where only one is pulled up every 10,000 years and not all armor is successfully made it sounds like it would be a special ceremonial garb where there would be very few copies. However, this is something that differentiates it from a mundane plate, the story behind it.

[Naanomi]

But unless the village cannot make studded leather, using the eel skin for decoration seems equally valid.
Functionally they are... Decorative armor


not all armor is successfully made
Sorry, I meant the shamans are trying to make 'leather armor of swim speed and breath underwater', but if they fail it still ends up as leather armor +1

[Boci]

Functionally they are... Decorative armor

So, a hunter gathering tribal society is producing a decorative ceremonial armour every 10k years?

[Naanomi]

So, a hunter gathering tribal society is producing a decorative ceremonial armour every 10k years?
The 10k year time frame is probably too long, but sure why not, magic armor doesn't fall apart over time after all. They make a dozen suits from the kill, if they have lost any they gift their chieftain and top hunters a set, and use the rest as supremely valuable trade goods with their close allies.

[Boci]

The 10k year time frame is probably too long, but sure why not, magic armor doesn't fall apart over time after all. They make a dozen suits from the kill, if they have lost any they gift their chieftain and top hunters a set, and use the rest as supremely valuable trade goods with their close allies.

That's still less than 1 suit every 800 years. I know D&D worlds tend to be stasis locked, but you don't have t lean into that aspect so hard.

Really though I just don't see what the point is, or how this will add to the game, other than letting the DM say "Um actually" when the player bitch about finding +1 leather and how pointless crafting such a thing would be. It seems more interesting and fun to just give the +1 leather some secondary ability, like the swim one you mentioned but had the shaman fail to achieve.

[Amechra]

Honestly, I think you could cut the armor table down to seven entries (eight if you really wanted to keep Hide around) without losing anything. Those entries being:


Studded Leather (light)
Scale Mail (medium)
Breastplate (medium)
Half-Plate (medium)
Chain Mail (heavy)
Splint (heavy)
Plate (heavy)


Then you have a clear hierarchy:

Light armor users purely upgrade their AC through improving their dexterity. Even if your dexterity isn't great, wearing Studded Leather is better than wearing nothing.
Medium armor users partially upgrade their AC through improving their dexterity (and taking the Medium Armor Master feat), and partially upgrade it through buying better armor. They also get the option of using shields, which are Very Good.
Heavy armor users purely upgrade their AC through buying better armor. They also can use shields, and don't have to care about dexterity in the slightest.

If you did this, I'd also revise the Medium Armor Master feat to be a flat +1 AC and no disadvantage on stealth while wearing medium armor (with maybe a +1 to Str or Dex if that still feels too weak).

/rant

[Tanarii]

Just because some murderhobo adventurers don't have to worry about money shouldn't mean it's not a balancing factor.

The difference in cost between leather and studded leather is going to mean a lot when you're equipping a couple of thousand troops.

[Naanomi]

That's still less than 1 suit every 800 years. I know D&D worlds tend to be stasis locked, but you don't have t lean into that aspect so hard.

Really though I just don't see what the point is, or how this will add to the game, other than letting the DM say "Um actually" when the player bitch about finding +1 leather and how pointless crafting such a thing would be. It seems more interesting and fun to just give the +1 leather some secondary ability, like the swim one you mentioned but had the shaman fail to achieve.
The 10k years was arbitrary. Make or 100 years, 50 years, whatever.

I can't think of anyone a player has 'bitched about loot' (though I rarely randomize such things at my table)... But the efficacy here kinds of depends on my goals. If I want to model a rational tribal economy, probably this fails. If I want to put rational backstory to the leather armor +1 in a stash (probably the only in the campaign, magic items are not rolled that often) then I think this does a fine job

[Sorinth]

Put me in the camp that would rather they remove studded leather making regular leather the default light armour.

As to why non-optimal weapons and armor, the simplest explanation is areas of heavy magic. If the weapon/armour sits in a dragon's hoard for a couple centuries the simple closeness to the dragon imbues the item with magic, similarly an area flooded with wild magic surges will over time imbue items left there with magic.

[Boci]

The 10k years was arbitrary. Make or 100 years, 50 years, whatever.

I can't think of anyone a player has 'bitched about loot' (though I rarely randomize such things at my table)... But the efficacy here kinds of depends on my goals. If I want to model a rational tribal economy, probably this fails. If I want to put rational backstory to the leather armor +1 in a stash (probably the only in the campaign, magic items are not rolled that often) then I think this does a fine job

But if you want to give that much of a backstory to a suit of magical armour, wouldn't you want players to keep it because they found it cool and fun? Maybe some players are interested in glorified studded mail, but I feel adding some extra ability, even a minor one like something that helps with swimming, or electric resistance 1/short rest if the eel happened to be electric, would greatly broaden the item's appeal.

[Naanomi]

But if you want to give that much of a backstory to a suit of magical armour, wouldn't you want players to keep it because they found it cool and fun? Maybe some players are interested in glorified studded mail, but I feel adding some extra ability, even a minor one like something that helps with swimming, or electric resistance 1/short rest if the eel happened to be electric, would greatly broaden the item's appeal.
I think of the place in the setting for every magic item (barring sometimes scrolls and potions), doesn't everyone do that?

[Boci]

I think of the place in the setting for every magic item (barring sometimes scrolls and potions), doesn't everyone do that?

But presumably not every magical item is that interesting. I assume sometimes a +1 warhammer is "This was commissioned for a noble's son, he fought with it and was buried with it", which is a perfectly functional backstory for a magic weapon, but not as interesting as "this +1 leather armour comes from a tribe that hunted very rare giant purple eels every 100 years, meticulously skinned them and then had the shaman enchant them trying to capture the eel's swimming power". And if I came up with a backstory like that for an item, which I do sometimes, I would want it to be mechanically interesting enough to catch the player's attention not, "Huh, so this is basically studded leather. Well we can always sell it". vs. "huh, so studded leather, but it also gives (insert minor bonus ability). I guess I'll wear it"

[Amechra]

The difference in cost between leather and studded leather is going to mean a lot when you're equipping a couple of thousand troops.

Eh, if you're a pre-modern culture that's actually planning on having a professional military, you can afford to give them the good stuff. If you aren't, just delegate the whole "find equipment for your soldiers" thing to the people who swore fealty to you. Yeah, sure, that's probably going to result in a lot of peasant soldiers being dragged to war with a spear, a helmet, and maybe a shield, but you're the one who wanted the cheap option.

[Boci]

Eh, if you're a pre-modern culture that's actually planning on having a professional military, you can afford to give them the good stuff. If you aren't, just delegate the whole "find equipment for your soldiers" thing to the people who swore fealty to you. Yeah, sure, that's probably going to result in a lot of peasant soldiers being dragged to war with a spear, a helmet, and maybe a shield, but you're the one who wanted the cheap option.

Padded armour is 5 gold, so even peasant would likely have it if they've been given spears and shields. Sure, maybe it should be moved to the DMG, but I can see an argument for keeping them in the game.

[Naanomi]

Eh, if you're a pre-modern culture that's actually planning on having a professional military, you can afford to give them the good stuff. If you aren't, just delegate the whole "find equipment for your soldiers" thing to the people who swore fealty to you. Yeah, sure, that's probably going to result in a lot of peasant soldiers being dragged to war with a spear, a helmet, and maybe a shield, but you're the one who wanted the cheap option.
Which is why every Greek soldier had a breastplate and full greaves and... Oh wait...

[Tanarii]

Eh, if you're a pre-modern culture that's actually planning on having a professional military, you can afford to give them the good stuff. If you aren't, just delegate the whole "find equipment for your soldiers" thing to the people who swore fealty to you. Yeah, sure, that's probably going to result in a lot of peasant soldiers being dragged to war with a spear, a helmet, and maybe a shield, but you're the one who wanted the cheap option.
If you've got the bodies, you can equip 4.5x the troops in Leather as Studded leather. That probably means something like a 15% reduction in losses to all your troops, instead of a 20% reduction in losses to less than 1/5 of them.

Of course, hide cost only 2x leather for the same benefit as Studded, since most of your troops probably won't have +3 Dex. And Ring Mail is only 3x, and provided better protection to anyone without a +1 Dex. Basically, studded leather probably never gets seen in use outside of adventurers.

As far as enchanting goes ... adventurers are the ones that can afford to pay for such things. So it's a good argument that you probably shouldn't see it enchanted that much.

[Catullus64]

The circumstance described by the OP, where ostensibly more valuable magical Leather is of equal quality to the much cheaper Studded Leather, seems like just another reason why generic +X weapons and armor should be a thing of the past. This is coming from someone who deeply does not miss the Enhancement Bonus/Armor Check Penalty meta of 3rd Edition, of which this problem seems like a vestigial remnant.

I also share many people's aesthetic complaints about prevalence of Leather & Studded Leather Armor in the game, but aesthetic complaints are also easier to fix by simply appealing to the DM; I've never had a DM so intolerant that they said "no, you're not allowed to describe your Studded Leather as something more historically plausible, you have to describe it like what's in the book."

[Naanomi]

The circumstance described by the OP, where ostensibly more valuable magical Leather is of equal quality to the much cheaper Studded Leather, seems like just another reason why generic +X weapons and armor should be a thing of the past. This is coming from someone who deeply does not miss the Enhancement Bonus/Armor Check Penalty meta of 3rd Edition, of which this problem seems like a vestigial remnant
While I agree in practice and rarely use 'plain' magic items much; there are a *lot* of fictional and mythological weapons that are basically 'um, a sword but like... Better...'

[Amechra]

Which is why every Greek soldier had a breastplate and full greaves and... Oh wait...

You're probably thinking of hoplites, who were all (comparatively) rich people.

[BRC]

The circumstance described by the OP, where ostensibly more valuable magical Leather is of equal quality to the much cheaper Studded Leather, seems like just another reason why generic +X weapons and armor should be a thing of the past. This is coming from someone who deeply does not miss the Enhancement Bonus/Armor Check Penalty meta of 3rd Edition, of which this problem seems like a vestigial remnant.

I also share many people's aesthetic complaints about prevalence of Leather & Studded Leather Armor in the game, but aesthetic complaints are also easier to fix by simply appealing to the DM; I've never had a DM so intolerant that they said "no, you're not allowed to describe your Studded Leather as something more historically plausible, you have to describe it like what's in the book."

Agreed here.

I'm generally of the opinion that what's more important for the various armor types is some sense of "How hard is this to acquire" than a literal description.

Like, for Leather vs Studded Leather, I'd say that Studded Leather is "Any light armor that is somewhat tricky to make or acquire" while Leather armor is "Light armor that is easy to acquire".

"Studded Leather" can be "Leather made from rare, especially tough hides" or "Especially well crafted leather armor" or "Cloth armor woven from specially treated giant spider silk". The Important thing is that it's easy to move in, provides decent protection, and costs about 45 gold pieces.

Plain +1 magic leather armor, with the exception of somebody who pulls out the old "Druids can't wear any metal" thing...is kind of a waste of a spot on the magic item table, unless it's coming with some other cool effect, and the +1 is just there to make it AC equal to studded leather, but aesthetically just plain leather.

Which seems like a waste of game text to me, vs saying "This is Studded Leather Armor with the following effect".

[Catullus64]

While I agree in practice and rarely use 'plain' magic items much; there are a *lot* of fictional and mythological weapons that are basically 'um, a sword but like... Better...'

But even the "like a sword, but better" mythical weapons did stuff like cleaving through three men at a time, piercing through solid steel, or, in some cases, being metaphysically deadly, such that they are incapable of striking someone without killing them. Hardly the stuff of a 5-15% increase in the probability of landing a slightly-more-than-normal blow.

[Dark.Revenant]

To be fair, from the perspective of an average Joe with a +1 ability modifier and proficiency, something like a +1 longsword is mechanically about 25–30% deadlier than its mundane counterpart. That's not nothing. But yes, I do agree that plain +X bonuses are boring and should be replaced or augmented with more interesting traits.

[Clistenes]

Why not just rename studded leather to brigandine armour? Or would brigandine armour be medium?

Brigandine should be similar to Breastplate. Scale Armour is as good as Breastplate, just noisier... and Brigandine is basically Scale Armour between two layers of cloth or leather, so probably less noisy than Scale Armour...

You could also made Brigandine similar to Chain Shirt, if it lacks sleeves and skirt (unlike the Scale Armour).

As for Leather Armour, Scale Mail and Ring Mail... there shouldn't be magical versions of these. They should be restricted to poor people who can't afford Studded Leather, Breastplates or Half Plates.

Studded Leather Armour isn't historical, but you can claim that it's Leather Armour with some scales or plates protecting key places, just like the greek linothorax was made of linen as main material, but it had bronze plates and scales as reinforcement... or you could just call it Linothorax and be done with it...

Ring Mail didn't exist either, but I guess you could call it Lamellar Armour. Historical lamellar armour wasn't inferior to Chain Mail (hauberk), but since most historical lamellar lacked protection for arms and legs, I guess that could explain why it offers less protection than Chain Mail.

EDIT: Some time ago I made an armour table replacing the armour names with other more historically correct ones:


I don't like the stats of armor we are given in the Player Handbook, and I thought of replacing it with something more similar to historical armor.

What I have thought is this:



Armor (all include a helmet)
Cost
Armor Class
Strength
Stealth
Weight


Light Armor







Light Gambeson (usually worn under mail)
Linothorax without metal reinforcement.
Leather Coleto (a buffalo leather cuirass used by Spanish arquabusiers)
Buff Coat (similar to those used by Cromwell’s New Model Army)

10 gp
11+Dex modifier


8 lb.




Padded Jack (layers of linen faced with heavy canvas of flexible leather)
Chinese Paper and Cloth Armor

15 gp
12+Dex modifier

Disadvantage (making it thick enough to resist axes blows and sword slashes also makes it harder to sneak around uninhindered).
10 lb.




Buffalo or Elkskin-faced Padded Jack with metal reinforcement in key areas (vambraces, greaves, gorget or aventail)
Boiled Leather Cuirass combined with Padding (CuChulainn’s armor)
Boiled Leather Lamellar combined with Padding (mongolian armor)
Linothorax with metal scales and plates.

45 gp
12+Dex modifier


13 lb.




Medium Armor (all include padding)









Chain Shirt
Brigandine (without sleeves or leggins)
50 gp
13+Dex modifier (max 2)


20 lb.




Scale Mail
50 gp
14+Dex modifier (max 2)

Disadvantage
45 lb.




Breastplate
Banded Plate (classic Roman Legionnaire armor)
100 gp
14+Dex modifier (max 2)


20 lb.




Half Plate
750 gp
15+Dex modifier (max 2)

Disadvantage
40 lb.




Heavy Armor (all include padding)









Chain Mail (Hauberk)
75 gp
15
Str 13
Disadvantage
55 lb.




Brigandine (with chainmail sleeves and leggins)
125 gp
16
Str 13
Disadvantage
55 lb.




Cataphract Armor
Brigandine (with plate or splint arms and legs protection)
Steel Lamellar (with plate or splint arms and legs protection)
400 gp
17
Str 15
Disadvantage
60 lb.




Plate
1500 gp
18
Str 15
Disadvantage
65 lb.




Shield









Shield
10 gp
+2


6 lb.

[Kane0]

I have to laugh, I replaced the entire weapons & armor tables with:

Armor:
Light (cheap): AC 11 + Dex (max 5) eg. cloth
Light (quality): AC 13 + Dex (max 5) eg. lamellar
Medium (cheap): AC 13 + Dex (max 3) eg. scale
Medium (quality): AC 15 + Dex (max 3) eg. chain
Heavy (cheap): AC 15 + Dex (max 1), Requires Str 13 eg. splint
Heavy (quality): AC 17 + Dex (max 1) Requires Str 15 eg. plate

Small shield: +1 AC, interaction to don/doff, requires light armor proficiency
Big shield: +2 AC, action to don/doff, requires medium armor proficiency

Simple Weapons:
Dagger: 1d4 Light, Finesse, Thrown (20' / 60')
Bludgeon: 1d6 Light, Finesse
Thrown: 1d6 Light, Thrown (40' / 120')
Staff: 1d6 Versatile
Spear: 1d6 Reach
Sling: 1d6 Ranged, Ammunition (80' / 320')

Martial Weapons:
Axe/Flail/Hammer/Pick: 1d8 Versatile
Polearm: 1d10 Reach, Two Handed
Sword: 1d6 Finesse, Light, Versatile
Zweihander: 1d12 or 2d6 Two Handed
Bow: 1d8 Ranged, Ammunition (120' / 480'), Two Handed
Crossbow: 1d10 Ranged, Ammunition (100' / 400'), Loading, Two Handed

Note: Thrown weapons can be drawn freely like ammunition.

[zlefin]

I wonder when they decided to make +1 always cost the same amount no matter what was enchanted. I know 3.5 had it that way as well; but I don't remember for editions before that. In videogames that aren't directly adapted from a system, they tend to just tweak the cost so most things are reasonable (my vague memories of bards tale).

Is the clarity/simplicity of a +1 always costing the same amount worth the effect of it limiting which items are worth enchanting?

[False God]

5E would have done a lot better to only have 3 types of armor.

Light +2
Medium +4
Heavy +6
(yes, no +8 or should I say, base 18 armors).

Specific types of armor could instead come with special effects, maybe damage reduction, maybe crit resistance, I dunno.

99% of how armor is set up as a subsystem is simply copy-pasta from 3E, and it did not translate well.

[Kuulvheysoon]

5E would have done a lot better to only have 3 types of armor.

Light +2
Medium +4
Heavy +6
(yes, no +8 or should I say, base 18 armors).

Specific types of armor could instead come with special effects, maybe damage reduction, maybe crit resistance, I dunno.

99% of how armor is set up as a subsystem is simply copy-pasta from 3E, and it did not translate well.

Honestly, I'd stick with the 18 AC for Heavy. As it stands, your system lets Dexterity builds have a higher AC (12+ 5 Dex = 17, higher than the set 16 for Heavy) and Medium matches Heavy (14 + 2 Dex), and that doesn't sit well with me. Why'd you settle on +6, if you don't mind me asking?

[Dark.Revenant]

I wonder when they decided to make +1 always cost the same amount no matter what was enchanted. I know 3.5 had it that way as well; but I don't remember for editions before that. In videogames that aren't directly adapted from a system, they tend to just tweak the cost so most things are reasonable (my vague memories of bards tale).

Is the clarity/simplicity of a +1 always costing the same amount worth the effect of it limiting which items are worth enchanting?

I can't speak for cost, but as for difficulty of finding items:

+1 Leather Armor, +1 Chain Shirt, +1 Scale Mail, and +1 Chain Mail are all found in the same random magic items table as the other Rare items. However, +1 Studded Leather Armor, +1 Breastplate, +1 Half Plate Armor, +1 Splint Armor, and +1 Plate Armor are all missing; they only appear on the higher-tier tables. +1 Padded Armor, +1 Hide Armor, and +1 Ring Mail are missing as well, but they don't appear on any of the tables, whatsoever.

For example, +1 Plate Armor is effectively a Legendary magic item, in terms of where its "treasure budget" goes. +3 Chain Mail, which offers the same AC, is also on that table.

[Sorinth]

5E would have done a lot better to only have 3 types of armor.

Light +2
Medium +4
Heavy +6
(yes, no +8 or should I say, base 18 armors).

Specific types of armor could instead come with special effects, maybe damage reduction, maybe crit resistance, I dunno.

99% of how armor is set up as a subsystem is simply copy-pasta from 3E, and it did not translate well.

Although I'd personally enjoy a game that had a more complex armour system I think it's hard to argue that keeping it simple wasn't the right choice for 5e.

My only issue with the mechanics behind the armour is that there should be a bit bigger gap between Light, Medium, Heavy. Because 1 AC just isn't enough.

[Naanomi]

Magic ring and chain mail makes sense to me, all it takes is one king's son with 13 strength for enchanted chainmail to be commissioned

[Second Wind]

Magic ring and chain mail makes sense to me, all it takes is one king's son with 13 strength for enchanted chainmail to be commissioned
Good point on the chain mail. It's the highest AC available without penalty, if you've got 13-14 STR and no bonus to DEX.

Ring Mail is still worse than Half Plate or Breastplate, though, unless you have a large DEX penalty.

[Tanarii]

I imagine Leather +1 is made for or enchanted by Druids.
I'd expect to see Hide +1 for the same reason.

[Catullus64]

I actually realized that I benefitted from this kind of thing once; when I was running a game with a pretty strict ancient/dark ages technology level. No armor is heavier than Chainmail, but I realized I could just give out +1 and +2 Chainmail at the same price/at the same level as Splint and Plate.

[Lord Torath]

I wonder when they decided to make +1 always cost the same amount no matter what was enchanted. I know 3.5 had it that way as well; but I don't remember for editions before that. In videogames that aren't directly adapted from a system, they tend to just tweak the cost so most things are reasonable (my vague memories of bards tale).It's always been about the same cost. In 1e/2e, it cost a wizard an adventure or two to acquire rare ingredients, then a couple of spells and a point of Constitution (no, you don't get it back), regardless of whether you're making a club+1 or a Holy Avenger Longsword+5.

It cost priests the same stuff except for the point of Constitution. Instead of casting the Constitution-draining Permanence spell, they just had to pray for a long time at their altar.

Given that it costs 1 point of Constitution whether you're making a dagger+1 or a Sword of Dancing+4, it's shocking how many of the former you find.

I think something that would really make Leather+1 better than Studded Leather would be if that +1 also applied to your saving throws.

[loki_ragnarock]

I have to laugh, I replaced the entire weapons & armor tables with:

Armor:
Light (cheap): AC 11 + Dex (max 5) eg. cloth
Light (quality): AC 13 + Dex (max 5) eg. lamellar
Medium (cheap): AC 13 + Dex (max 3) eg. scale
Medium (quality): AC 15 + Dex (max 3) eg. chain
Heavy (cheap): AC 15 + Dex (max 1), Requires Str 13 eg. splint
Heavy (quality): AC 17 + Dex (max 1) Requires Str 15 eg. plate

Small shield: +1 AC, interaction to don/doff, requires light armor proficiency
Big shield: +2 AC, action to don/doff, requires medium armor proficiency


I was gonna say something similar, reading through. Beaten to the simplification punch.

I'd nix the dex bonus for heavy armor and just knock the base AC up by one point; it already has a strength investment, why also require a dex investment to max out? I'd also not put a cap on light armor, but you've given them shields for free so that's probably fine. Heck, add in "Tower Shield" that requires heavy armor proficiency and I'd not even worry much about tweaking heavy armor at all.

I'd divide medium armor into AC 14 - no disadvantage on stealth and AC 15 disadvantage on stealth. That way it'd be firmly better than light armor in most cases, a rival to heavy armor in others, and an exception to cheap/'spensive dynamic entirely.

But that's all nitpicking. The basic idea is sound and good vibrations.


For the weapons, that's still too complicated for my truest tastes. The model I'd use is probably the one implemented in Gamma World 4e; if you're using a light weapon, it does this much damage and can have these properties. If you're using a a heavy weapon, it does this much and can have these properties. Call it whatever you want. The Masamune or a yakuza park bench makes no difference; the heavy weapon does x damage and can have these properties.
Put larger die and more favorable properties behind martial proficiency, and go to town. Maybe knock improvised weapon damage down by one step (not your signature park bench, of course; that's on your character sheet!) if you're looking for something more granular.

[Naanomi]

It's always been about the same cost. In 1e/2e, it cost a wizard an adventure or two to acquire rare ingredients, then a couple of spells and a point of Constitution (no, you don't get it back), regardless of whether you're making a club+1 or a Holy Avenger Longsword+5.

It cost priests the same stuff except for the point of Constitution. Instead of casting the Constitution-draining Permanence spell, they just had to pray for a long time at their altar.

Given that it costs 1 point of Constitution whether you're making a dagger+1 or a Sword of Dancing+4, it's shocking how many of the former you find.

I think something that would really make Leather+1 better than Studded Leather would be if that +1 also applied to your saving throws.
I assume 90% of enchanted items were made for free by Specialty Priests of Hephaestus over the generations in 1e

[Hytheter]

Honestly, I think you could cut the armor table down to seven entries (eight if you really wanted to keep Hide around) without losing anything. Those entries being:


Studded Leather (light)
Scale Mail (medium)
Breastplate (medium)
Half-Plate (medium)
Chain Mail (heavy)
Splint (heavy)
Plate (heavy)



I'd almost be tempted to take it a step further and cut down the list to literally just Light, Medium and Heavy.

edit: clearly I should have finished reading the thread before posting


I have to laugh, I replaced the entire weapons & armor tables with:

Armor:
Light (cheap): AC 11 + Dex (max 5) eg. cloth
Light (quality): AC 13 + Dex (max 5) eg. lamellar
Medium (cheap): AC 13 + Dex (max 3) eg. scale
Medium (quality): AC 15 + Dex (max 3) eg. chain
Heavy (cheap): AC 15 + Dex (max 1), Requires Str 13 eg. splint
Heavy (quality): AC 17 + Dex (max 1) Requires Str 15 eg. plate

Small shield: +1 AC, interaction to don/doff, requires light armor proficiency
Big shield: +2 AC, action to don/doff, requires medium armor proficiency




5E would have done a lot better to only have 3 types of armor.

Light +2
Medium +4
Heavy +6
(yes, no +8 or should I say, base 18 armors).

Specific types of armor could instead come with special effects, maybe damage reduction, maybe crit resistance, I dunno.


Divisions by cheap and quality? Sold. Not on board with False God's numbers but I like the idea of differentiating by special effect.

I like Kane's weapon table, too.

[Sigreid]

I assume 90% of enchanted items were made for free by Specialty Priests of Hephaestus over the generations in 1e

1e didn't have ASIs, but there were actually lots of ways to raise attributes. Ranging from wishes to magical springs you drink from.

[Willie the Duck]

I wonder when they decided to make +1 always cost the same amount no matter what was enchanted. I know 3.5 had it that way as well; but I don't remember for editions before that. In videogames that aren't directly adapted from a system, they tend to just tweak the cost so most things are reasonable (my vague memories of bards tale).

Is the clarity/simplicity of a +1 always costing the same amount worth the effect of it limiting which items are worth enchanting?

Overall I think the 3e mentality of a formula for everything, in general, was a fine shorthand that certainly wasn't the most unbalancing thing within the edition, but it certainly ignored actual nuance in the system. A (1st level caster level) wand of Shield or Cure Light Wounds was a lot more useful than a wand of another 1st level spell where the 1st level caster level had a greater effect (duration 1 round/level, or the like), yet had the same value. Same with +1 scale mail or the like.

As for previous editions, 2nd edition didn't (IIRC) have GP value for magic items, but AD&D1E did. Here are the armors. Note that the value is explicitly the PC-selling sale price (PC purchasing of magic items is a strictly DM-discretion)

Chain Mail + 1 (3,500)
Chain Mail +2 (7,500)
Chain Mail +3 (12,500)
Leather Armor + 1 (2,000)
Plate Mail + 1 (5,000)
Plate Mail +2 (10,500)
Plate Mail +3 (15,500)
Plate Mail +4 (20,500)
Plate Mail +5 (27,500)
Plate Mail of Etherealness (30,000)
Plate Mail of Vulnerability (cursed) (1,500)
Ring Mail + 1 (2,500)
Scale Mail + 1 (3,000)
Scale Mail +2 (6,750)
Splint Mail + 1 (4,000)
Splint Mail + 2 (8,500)
Splint Mail +3 (14,500)
Splint Mail +4 (19,000)
Studded Leather + 1 (2,500)
Shield + 1 (2,500)
Shield +2 (5,000)
Shield +3 (8,000)
Shield +4 (12,000)
Shield +5 (17,500)
Shield, large, + 1, +4 vs. missiles (4,000)
Shield -1, missile attractor (cursed) (750)


I assume 90% of enchanted items were made for free by Specialty Priests of Hephaestus over the generations in 1e
I'm not sure if it saw print, or was just a 'common knowledge,' but among the people who started before I did (in '83) there was apparently an agreement that making magic items was easier in the past, possibly before the cataclysm that happened in the past for most of the early game settings. So that answer to the question of 'why would anyone sacrifice a constitution point to make this +1 splint mail?' was likely, 'they didn't have to.'


1e didn't have ASIs, but there were actually lots of ways to raise attributes. Ranging from wishes to magical springs you drink from.
This too.

[Keltest]

Ive seen some fairly convincing arguments that people would wear leather armor while riding on horseback or even just casually traveling through the woods for similar reasons as to why motorcyclists wear leather. From my understanding putting studs in that would reduce the usefulness in protecting you if you, say, fell off a horse onto a road at speed.

So theres your market for enchanted leather armor without studs.

[CapnWildefyr]

Ive seen some fairly convincing arguments that people would wear leather armor while riding on horseback or even just casually traveling through the woods for similar reasons as to why motorcyclists wear leather. From my understanding putting studs in that would reduce the usefulness in protecting you if you, say, fell off a horse onto a road at speed.

So theres your market for enchanted leather armor without studs.

I wasn't a medieval armor major in college but another thing is that I gather metal armor cannot be comfortable on journeys. Wear it for days on end like we do in DnD, you can't tell me you wouldn't get sores and blisters and etc, no matter how well-made the armor is. You're going to smell like rust, sweat, and worse. Sure, you wear it, but if you can wear a lesser something when the threat is less, why not? Desert fighters don't wear plate for a good reason.

Now, in DnD, that all gets basically ignored. Freezing? Sweltering? We hand-wave it away because frankly it's not interesting except in passing description. But my fighters tend to have multiple armors if they can bring them along. A chain shirt, leather jerkin, and that full plate. Extra helmet maybe.

Oh, yeah. Rust monsters. And swimming. Not always an issue but swimming in 30+ lbs of metal should not be easy or even necessarily possible.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And swimming. Not always an issue but swimming in 30+ lbs of metal should not be easy or even necessarily possible.

Not so much, actually. The big problem would be the soaked gambeson/padding. There are videos all around of people swimming in modern reconstructions of chain and plate without significant issue. But those didn't have the padding.

[Boci]

Not so much, actually. The big problem would be the soaked gambeson/padding. There are videos all around of people swimming in modern reconstructions of chain and plate without significant issue. But those didn't have the padding.

Define "without significant issue"? Because a strength-based fighter with proficiency in athletics can generally hit a DC: 10 check for swimming "without significant issue" even if they have disadvantage on the check.

[Morty]

5E would have done a lot better to only have 3 types of armor.

Light +2
Medium +4
Heavy +6
(yes, no +8 or should I say, base 18 armors).

Specific types of armor could instead come with special effects, maybe damage reduction, maybe crit resistance, I dunno.

99% of how armor is set up as a subsystem is simply copy-pasta from 3E, and it did not translate well.

It's not like 3E wasn't full of redundant and useless weapons and armor either. In the end, yeah, boiling it down to three entries probably would work best.

[Sigreid]

Not so much, actually. The big problem would be the soaked gambeson/padding. There are videos all around of people swimming in modern reconstructions of chain and plate without significant issue. But those didn't have the padding.

Well, when I qualified as a life guard decades ago one of the tests was swimming with a 10 pound rock so, I don't think it would be easy, but would be doable for a short time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Define "without significant issue"? Because a strength-based fighter with proficiency in athletics can generally hit a DC: 10 check for swimming "without significant issue" even if they have disadvantage on the check.

I was looking at the real world--by default, swimming in normal water (ie not exceptionally fast or rough) isn't a check at all, regardless of what you're wearing. Heroic people are heroic, after all. And 5e is not a simulator.

[Tanarii]

Now, in DnD, that all gets basically ignored. Freezing? Sweltering? We hand-wave it away because frankly it's not interesting except in passing description.
Personally I find it interesting. But not very heroic. Nor particularly fair when they've beefed up low armor plus high Dex or med armor plus moderately high Dex to almost be on par.

Just like when casting and ranged attacks are relatively easy and safe to use against close proximity targets (to you or each other) you shouldn't overly burden melee weapons ... when armor doesn't provide the significant advantage that it should, it shouldn't give major drawbacks to use.

[Boci]

I was looking at the real world--by default, swimming in normal water (ie not exceptionally fast or rough) isn't a check at all, regardless of what you're wearing. Heroic people are heroic, after all. And 5e is not a simulator.

Every RPG is a simulator to a degree and 5e is no different, that's why there is a minimum strength requirement for heavy armour without being slowed and some forms give you disadvantage on stealth.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Every RPG is a simulator to a degree and 5e is no different, that's why there is a minimum strength requirement for heavy armour without being slowed and some forms give you disadvantage on stealth.

Not going to go into this, but I disagree that those are attempts at simulating reality rather than encouraging particular fantasy archetypes and scenarios.

[Boci]

Not going to go into this, but I disagree that those are attempts at simulating reality rather than encouraging particular fantasy archetypes and scenarios.

Eh, sounds like splitting hairs to me. Fantasy archetypes can often be based on realism, because you can't have everything being magical. Small creatures didn't wield great swords sized for humans in fantasy because it would have been unrealistic and distracting if they did. This happened enough times to become an archetype.

[CapnWildefyr]

Personally I find it interesting. But not very heroic. Nor particularly fair when they've beefed up low armor plus high Dex or med armor plus moderately high Dex to almost be on par.

Just like when casting and ranged attacks are relatively easy and safe to use against close proximity targets (to you or each other) you shouldn't overly burden melee weapons ... when armor doesn't provide the significant advantage that it should, it shouldn't give major drawbacks to use.

I vaguely recall in 2e, you used to get bonuses for armor in certain situations, and penalties. For example, penalties for heavy metal armor in deserts and arctic tundra, bonuses for certain types of saves or was it damage reduction? Some of the bonuses could help keep heavy armor ahead of high dex + low armor. And it had rules for piecemeal armor so you could theoretically mix and match, but I never found it applicable for my characters.

[Boci]

I vaguely recall in 2e, you used to get bonuses for armor in certain situations, and penalties. For example, penalties for heavy metal armor in deserts and arctic tundra, bonuses for certain types of saves or was it damage reduction? Some of the bonuses could help keep heavy armor ahead of high dex + low armor. And it had rules for piecemeal armor so you could theoretically mix and match, but I never found it applicable for my characters.

I'm running a desert game currently, and I have a house rule for armour in the setting:

**Armour:** It is hot in the desert, few people bother wearing heavier armours. Light and medium armour costs the same, but heavy armour is often imported and in short supply, costing an extra 50%.
Worth noting is the effect armour has on you in a hot climate. When trekking or otherwise toiling for extended periods under the sun, a DC: 10 constitution save is required to avoid gaining a level of exhaustion, and their frequency is determined by the clothing worn:
No armour – save every 8 hours
Light armour – save every 6 hours
Medium, not metal – save every 4 hours
Medium, metal – save every 2 hours
Heavy armour – save every hour, disadvantage on save

[Luccan]

I'm running a desert game currently, and I have a house rule for armour in the setting:

**Armour:** It is hot in the desert, few people bother wearing heavier armours. Light and medium armour costs the same, but heavy armour is often imported and in short supply, costing an extra 50%.
Worth noting is the effect armour has on you in a hot climate. When trekking or otherwise toiling for extended periods under the sun, a DC: 10 constitution save is required to avoid gaining a level of exhaustion, and their frequency is determined by the clothing worn:
No armour – save every 8 hours
Light armour – save every 6 hours
Medium, not metal – save every 4 hours
Medium, metal – save every 2 hours
Heavy armour – save every hour, disadvantage on save

So, no one wears heavy armor? That seems like a really easy death spiral waiting to happen

[deljzc]

So, no one wears heavy armor? That seems like a really easy death spiral waiting to happen

Well, arguably, any wilderness adventure or travel encounter should take into account what wearing full armor for the entire day really means. Same thing for encounters during a rest.

I've homebrewed my own armor and weapon charts as well. Tried to make it more comparable to history and eliminated some of the odd things I just didn't like.

I kind of like cheap vs. expensive idea, but that adds a big layer into balance issues. Especially vs. +1 armors.

I mean, you could argue +1 armors are just well crafted and exceptionally made suits of armor that are maybe just enchanted to resist wear or magically made to "fit" better without tailored adjustment.

[Boci]

So, no one wears heavy armor? That seems like a really easy death spiral waiting to happen

The players knew about these houserules and so made character that would need medium or heavy armour, dex based martial and casters. But heavy armour would have been fine so far, a lot of the game has taken place next to the desert in the cities or on the Savanah, where con saves aren't needed, and when they are in the actual desert making those saves there isn't much fighting because, well, desert. So yeah, a character could have totally showed up rocking heavy armour and would have been feeling a bit miserable at some points in a session when they were trekking in the desert, but not in ways that would have actually mattered, baring a single fight so far, out of...like 12+ sessions.

[Luccan]

Well, arguably, any wilderness adventure or travel encounter should take into account what wearing full armor for the entire day really means. Same thing for encounters during a rest.

I've homebrewed my own armor and weapon charts as well. Tried to make it more comparable to history and eliminated some of the odd things I just didn't like.


I think Tanarii made a good point that there's nothing inherently better about Heavy Armor this edition. So if you make it harder to use, you're kinda just punishing your Str-build PCs. Which is fine if your group is fine with it, but so far it seems like people are suggesting making things harder just for Str-focused PCs.

Edit: and to be fair, I don't know how you balance that out. Giving penalties for Heavy Armor seems more logical and easier than for light armor, it's just that the math for the edition makes them roughly equal armor choices and already favors Dexterity.

[Naanomi]

If I had a campaign that started talking about heat penalties in session 0, I'd be looking at fire resistant races immediately

[Boci]

If I had a campaign that started talking about heat penalties in session 0, I'd be looking at fire resistant races immediately

Which would have given you advantage on the con saves, and would have been allowed. None one of my players opted for that, going human and half-elf instead, (though one of them accidentallied there way into fire resistance after a few sessions).

I had a tiefling NPC accompany them into their desert trek. They wore very little on the first day, but ended up borrowing a travels cloak after that because the sand was annoying.


I think Tanarii made a good point that there's nothing inherently better about Heavy Armor this edition. So if you make it harder to use, you're kinda just punishing your Str-build PCs. Which is fine if your group is fine with it, but so far it seems like people are suggesting making things harder just for Str-focused PCs.

Edit: and to be fair, I don't know how you balance that out. Giving penalties for Heavy Armor seems more logical and easier than for light armor, it's just that the math for the edition makes them roughly equal armor choices and already favors Dexterity.

Its can also be about aethetic more than punishing heavy armour. My players literally chose to play in the desert setting from like 5 options, knowing the houserules for wearing armour there.

[Naanomi]

Which would have given you advantage on the con saves, and would have been allowed. None one of my players opted for that, going human and half-elf instead, (though one of them accidentallied there way into fire resistance after a few sessions).
Only advantage? Base rules are that fire/cold resistance give immunity to associated temperature hazards

[Boci]

Only advantage? Base rules are that fire/cold resistance give immunity to associated temperature hazards

Yeah just advantage. As I said, it hasn't been a major issue for the players who largely don't have fire resistance, and even someone using heavy armour would have likely been fine.

[Segev]

Might be too much given the delicacy of bounded accuracy, but what if the Defense fighting style gave +1 when wearing armor, or +2 when wearing heavy armor?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Might be too much given the delicacy of bounded accuracy, but what if the Defense fighting style gave +1 when wearing armor, or +2 when wearing heavy armor?

If you're tweaking things to fix the things your earlier fix broke...maybe the earlier fix is the issue and should be revisited?

And that goes for the original design as well--if heavy armor doesn't give enough to be competitive, the fix should happen at that level. Not stuffed into class features for a couple classes.

[Boci]

If you're tweaking things to fix the things your earlier fix broke...maybe the earlier fix is the issue and should be revisited?

That for game system design, not house rules for a single campaign. Like my desert game. Is it bad if your houserules make players never want to wear heavy armour? Probably. Is it bad if your houserules for a single campaign set in and around a desert make your players not want to use heavy armour? No.


And that goes for the original design as well--if heavy armor doesn't give enough to be competitive, the fix should happen at that level. Not stuffed into class features for a couple classes.

I dunno, most classes who want heavy armour will get a fighting style. Who wears heavy armour and doesn't get a fighting style? Clerics? Yeah, I think'll limp on unbuffed somehow. So yeah, if you're going to buff heavy army, there's certainly something to be said for doing so in a manner that doesn't benefit clerics.

[Keltest]

That for game system design, not house rules for a single campaign. Like my desert game. Is it bad if your houserules make players never want to wear heavy armour? Probably. Is it bad if your houserules for a single campaign set in and around a desert make your players not want to use heavy armour? No.

I mean, i still think it is kind of. Youve basically outlawed non-dex builds with that rule. Thats kind of not great. And it isnt even especially simulationist, since people fought in the desert in chain mail all the time. It sucked, but they did it, and didnt die.

[Boci]

I mean, i still think it is kind of. Youve basically outlawed non-dex builds with that rule. Thats kind of not great. And it isnt even especially simulationist, since people fought in the desert in chain mail all the time. It sucked, but they did it, and didnt die.

Not really. As I mentioned, any of the players could have been wearing heavy armour in the game so far, they chose not to. There would have been 1 noteworthy fight where they might have had some exhaustion to deal with, in 12+ sessions. And even then I'm not 100% sure, because they did have some general warning that the enemy was in the area.

Also, barbarians. That's a fairly notable exception to "no strength builds", even if you are dedicated to avoid the heavy armour penalties.

[Segev]

If you're tweaking things to fix the things your earlier fix broke...maybe the earlier fix is the issue and should be revisited?

And that goes for the original design as well--if heavy armor doesn't give enough to be competitive, the fix should happen at that level. Not stuffed into class features for a couple classes.

That proposal was in mind of existing RAW, not of any "fixes" I or others might have suggested prior.

To generalize it to heavy armor, you'd instead make heavy armor have 1 more AC than it currently does. How badly would that break things?

[PhoenixPhyre]

That proposal was in mind of existing RAW, not of any "fixes" I or others might have suggested prior.

To generalize it to heavy armor, you'd instead make heavy armor have 1 more AC than it currently does. How badly would that break things?

IMO? Not substantially at all, by itself. Breakage happens when people are able to stack things like +X armor, +X shields, etc.

[Dark.Revenant]

I can see how plate armor can be extremely detrimental to your health in a sun-blazed desert. But chain mail? There are gaps. You can sweat through the chain. Chain mail with padding and coverings specifically made for desert-wear would not be anywhere near as bad as what we think of as full plate. And I'd think a fairly common enchantment would be temperature control—perhaps as an Uncommon item you can acquire Plate Armor of Adaptation?

[Boci]

I can see how plate armor can be extremely detrimental to your health in a sun-blazed desert. But chain mail? There are gaps. You can sweat through the chain. Chain mail with padding and coverings specifically made for desert-wear would not be anywhere near as bad as what we think of as full plate. And I'd think a fairly common enchantment would be temperature control—perhaps as an Uncommon item you can acquire Plate Armor of Adaptation?

Sure, I could make it even more complicated, but I was already referencing 5 separate categories between unarmoured and splitting medium armour into metal and non-metal. Sure you can argue realistically chainmail should be better than than a breastplate, but I went for a simpler route.

As for magic to deal with the heat, that is certainly an options, the players so far haven't bothered, because its been such a non-issue for them so far, Though you'd probably have better luck finding a magical item not tied to an foreign armour design for dealing with the heat. Practical issues aside, the native cultures just didn't make heavy armour.

[Naanomi]

I might give dwarves a bonus to environmental armor effects. If they can wear it comfortably at 8 STR, a little sweat isn't going to be that much of a barrier

[Boci]

I might give dwarves a bonus to environmental armor effects. If they can wear it comfortably at 8 STR, a little sweat isn't going to be that much of a barrier

That would be fair. I don't have any dwarf players, and the NPC dwarves stay out of the desert mostly, so it hasn't been an issue so far. I'd probably allow dwarves to make saving throws as if they were wearing armour one category lighter on the chart.

[False God]

Honestly, I'd stick with the 18 AC for Heavy. As it stands, your system lets Dexterity builds have a higher AC (12+ 5 Dex = 17, higher than the set 16 for Heavy) and Medium matches Heavy (14 + 2 Dex), and that doesn't sit well with me. Why'd you settle on +6, if you don't mind me asking?

2+2 is 4, 4+2 is 6. I suppose there could be 4 tiers, but then I didn't have a name for it on the fly and I didn't feel like being Starbucks.
Light +2
Medium +4
Heavy +6
Venti +8

I did the same with shields.
Light +1 (bucklers and whatnot)
Medium +2 (the standard)
Heavy +3 (tower and such)

I also like the 10 +X system over the "reset your base" system.

Mind you this is all just napkin math, I haven't implemented this anywhere.


Although I'd personally enjoy a game that had a more complex armour system I think it's hard to argue that keeping it simple wasn't the right choice for 5e.

My only issue with the mechanics behind the armour is that there should be a bit bigger gap between Light, Medium, Heavy. Because 1 AC just isn't enough.

I wouldn't mind more granular armor if it brought something interesting to the game. A sliding scale of +1 to +8 armor is rather boring.

[JackPhoenix]

I dunno, most classes who want heavy armour will get a fighting style. Who wears heavy armour and doesn't get a fighting style? Clerics? Yeah, I think'll limp on unbuffed somehow. So yeah, if you're going to buff heavy army, there's certainly something to be said for doing so in a manner that doesn't benefit clerics.

And now they NEED specific fighting style to work at the same level of competence as before the "fix", instead of being able to pick an area where they want improvement.


I mean, i still think it is kind of. Youve basically outlawed non-dex builds with that rule. Thats kind of not great. And it isnt even especially simulationist, since people fought in the desert in chain mail all the time. It sucked, but they did it, and didnt die.

Sure. Fought. Not ran around in it all day long. You cand on armor before you go to battle, and take it off again afterwards, and not have to deal with penalties at all. Being ambushed sucks, but that's fine... it is supposed to suck.

[Keltest]

I wouldn't mind more granular armor if it brought something interesting to the game. A sliding scale of +1 to +8 armor is rather boring.

I find it useful to make cultural distinctions with. Some place with poor forging techniques or poor quality steel might use scale armor over a breastplate or chain shirt just because of the available materials they have to work with, and a traveler might prefer chainmail over full plate armor due to it being substantially easier to maintain in the field, when you spend weeks or months away from a proper smithy.

[Boci]

And now they NEED specific fighting style to work at the same level of competence as before the "fix", instead of being able to pick an area where they want improvement.

Not necessarily. This is house rules, you're not limited. You can say "Any character with a fighting style gains +1 AC when wearing heavy armour, this stacks with Defence".

This is of course assuming you even need to buff heavy armour, which I don't believe you do. But if you've found lacking in your games, worth considering to tie it to fighting style, or some other amrtial only feature, unless you feel certain cleric builds could likewise use the boost.

[MaxWilson]

Honestly, I think you could cut the armor table down to seven entries (eight if you really wanted to keep Hide around) without losing anything. Those entries being:


Studded Leather (light)
Scale Mail (medium)
Breastplate (medium)
Half-Plate (medium)
Chain Mail (heavy)
Splint (heavy)
Plate (heavy)


Then you have a clear hierarchy:

Light armor users purely upgrade their AC through improving their dexterity. Even if your dexterity isn't great, wearing Studded Leather is better than wearing nothing.
Medium armor users partially upgrade their AC through improving their dexterity (and taking the Medium Armor Master feat), and partially upgrade it through buying better armor. They also get the option of using shields, which are Very Good.
Heavy armor users purely upgrade their AC through buying better armor. They also can use shields, and don't have to care about dexterity in the slightest.

If you did this, I'd also revise the Medium Armor Master feat to be a flat +1 AC and no disadvantage on stealth while wearing medium armor (with maybe a +1 to Str or Dex if that still feels too weak).

/rant

I haven't read the whole thread so maybe somebody else already said this, but you should keep Ring Mail because for Str 8 Dex 8 characters it's better than Scale Mail (AC 14 vs 13) and faster than Chain Mail (30' vs 20').

To a certain extent BTW I can see Leather Armor +2 being justified in the basis that it's "twice as effective" as regular leather armor at stopping weapons. But it depends on whether NPCs have an easy way to objectively evaluate the actual effectiveness of different armors against each other. AC 11 and AC 12 are both terrible after all, and not easy to experimentally distinguish...

[DwarfFighter]

You can sweat through the chain.
I can't even.

[Keltest]

I can't even.

Its not entirely wrong. With just chainmail, your legs are going to be relatively free, which will in fact allow you to sweat freely there. The "skirt" part of your hauberk will be moderately protective. With half or full plate, you have plates strapped to your legs as well, which means your pants will be A: tighter and B: a bit more padded, and you wont be sweating as effectively. Its the difference between wearing tight and loose clothing in the summer.

[False God]

I find it useful to make cultural distinctions with. Some place with poor forging techniques or poor quality steel might use scale armor over a breastplate or chain shirt just because of the available materials they have to work with, and a traveler might prefer chainmail over full plate armor due to it being substantially easier to maintain in the field, when you spend weeks or months away from a proper smithy.

But that's still boring.

The Blue Guys make Blue Metal Armor which is only +7, 'cause their metal sucks, but their Blue Leather Armor is great so it's +3.
The Red Guys make Red Metal armor which is pretty normal so it's +8. Their Red Leather Armor is kinda bad tho so it's only +1.

All you've effectively done is say "Red Plate" is just normal plate and "Blue Leather" is really studded leather.

If you want to add interesting effects regarding armor maintenance (something I never want to actually be involved in) add that to the armor. Talk about how the Blue Ore is high in sulfur, so it's vulnerable to cold and rusts easier meaning it needs to be cared for more often. Talk about how the Red Leather is easier to maintain because it's made from small animals, because larger ones are not common in Red Lands.

THAT is interesting. Not +1 vs -1.

[Luccan]

Honestly, I think you could cut the armor table down to seven entries (eight if you really wanted to keep Hide around) without losing anything. Those entries being:


Studded Leather (light)
Scale Mail (medium)
Breastplate (medium)
Half-Plate (medium)
Chain Mail (heavy)
Splint (heavy)
Plate (heavy)


Then you have a clear hierarchy:

Light armor users purely upgrade their AC through improving their dexterity. Even if your dexterity isn't great, wearing Studded Leather is better than wearing nothing.
Medium armor users partially upgrade their AC through improving their dexterity (and taking the Medium Armor Master feat), and partially upgrade it through buying better armor. They also get the option of using shields, which are Very Good.
Heavy armor users purely upgrade their AC through buying better armor. They also can use shields, and don't have to care about dexterity in the slightest.

If you did this, I'd also revise the Medium Armor Master feat to be a flat +1 AC and no disadvantage on stealth while wearing medium armor (with maybe a +1 to Str or Dex if that still feels too weak).

/rant

Wait a minute, what about the Battlerager? Spiked armor is their whole subclass!

[Keltest]

But that's still boring.

The Blue Guys make Blue Metal Armor which is only +7, 'cause their metal sucks, but their Blue Leather Armor is great so it's +3.
The Red Guys make Red Metal armor which is pretty normal so it's +8. Their Red Leather Armor is kinda bad tho so it's only +1.

All you've effectively done is say "Red Plate" is just normal plate and "Blue Leather" is really studded leather.

If you want to add interesting effects regarding armor maintenance (something I never want to actually be involved in) add that to the armor. Talk about how the Blue Ore is high in sulfur, so it's vulnerable to cold and rusts easier meaning it needs to be cared for more often. Talk about how the Red Leather is easier to maintain because it's made from small animals, because larger ones are not common in Red Lands.

THAT is interesting. Not +1 vs -1.

Why shouldnt available materials and skill affect the quality of armor made?

[Boci]

But that's still boring.

The Blue Guys make Blue Metal Armor which is only +7, 'cause their metal sucks, but their Blue Leather Armor is great so it's +3.
The Red Guys make Red Metal armor which is pretty normal so it's +8. Their Red Leather Armor is kinda bad tho so it's only +1.

All you've effectively done is say "Red Plate" is just normal plate and "Blue Leather" is really studded leather.

If you want to add interesting effects regarding armor maintenance (something I never want to actually be involved in) add that to the armor. Talk about how the Blue Ore is high in sulfur, so it's vulnerable to cold and rusts easier meaning it needs to be cared for more often. Talk about how the Red Leather is easier to maintain because it's made from small animals, because larger ones are not common in Red Lands.

THAT is interesting. Not +1 vs -1.

I find them both equally interesting, in that they're basically footnote to explain the warrior / fighting culture.

In Keltest's example, the Blue Guys would likely have a more dex based fighting force, and be famous for very strong armour (studded leather is usually +2, their leather is +3). The Red Guys meanwhile would likely have barbarians who fight without armour, and then possible skip light armour and go straight to the metal stuff, medium and heavy.

In your second example, its much the same, only the cause changes as the raw material viable whilst not strictly superior and inferior in performance, lend themselves to better or worse maintenance. This is unlikely to matter to the PCs, who are presumably buying a "premium armour maintenance kit" and calling it a day, unless you insist on grittier details for their equipment.

[Keltest]

... I think you guys have misunderstood me. They dont make better scale mail, they just make scale mail. They use it because they cant make chainmail or full plate, not because their scale armor is equal to it.

[Boci]

... I think you guys have misunderstood me. They dont make better scale mail, they just make scale mail. They use it because they cant make chainmail or full plate, not because their scale armor is equal to it.

Possibly, I was going off False God's take of

The Blue Guys make Blue Metal Armor which is only +7, 'cause their metal sucks, but their Blue Leather Armor is great so it's +3.
The Red Guys make Red Metal armor which is pretty normal so it's +8. Their Red Leather Armor is kinda bad tho so it's only +1.

If that was wrong my analysis of yours would have been too.

[Keltest]

Possibly, I was going off False God's take of

The Blue Guys make Blue Metal Armor which is only +7, 'cause their metal sucks, but their Blue Leather Armor is great so it's +3.
The Red Guys make Red Metal armor which is pretty normal so it's +8. Their Red Leather Armor is kinda bad tho so it's only +1.

If that was wrong my analysis of yours would have been too.

Yeah.

So another example would be a nomadic group of some kind. Since they move around, they have little in the way of metalworking. They make their own leather and hide armors, and thats what they use. The exceptionally wealthy might use a chain shirt or chainmail, since they can trade for that and keep it in good shape even with minimal smithing infrastructure. If theyre preparing to go to war, their soldiers might wear ring mail, since you can cannibilize a suit of chainmail to make a lot more ringmail than the one suit, and it offers protection equivalent to a fairly fast warrior in hide armor. Studded leather would be almost unheard of, since they cant make the rivets themselves and it isnt advantageous enough to really prioritize over, say, a chain shirt.

[Myth27]

<RANT>
Leather armor, it really, really ticks me off. The only point to leather armor is to have it until you 45 GP to get studded leather armor (2 sessions is you are unlucky). Then it's completely an utterly pointless. Yet, the DMG and random treasure tables continue to have +1 leather armor (and hide, and chain shirts) in them. Why the heck would anyone in the world of D&D spend the time an money to make magical armor that is just as effective as mundane armor?

I normally love the simplicity of 5e, but I really, really hate the armor tables. I hate that there isn't additional Dex bonuses on lower AC armor or some other reason why you would use it.

</RANT>

Alright, I feel a little better now. Continue on.

I totally agree

[YoungestGruff]

Are the studs metal? If so, Heat Metal exists quite cheaply, I guess.

[False God]

Yeah.

So another example would be a nomadic group of some kind. Since they move around, they have little in the way of metalworking. They make their own leather and hide armors, and thats what they use. The exceptionally wealthy might use a chain shirt or chainmail, since they can trade for that and keep it in good shape even with minimal smithing infrastructure. If theyre preparing to go to war, their soldiers might wear ring mail, since you can cannibilize a suit of chainmail to make a lot more ringmail than the one suit, and it offers protection equivalent to a fairly fast warrior in hide armor. Studded leather would be almost unheard of, since they cant make the rivets themselves and it isnt advantageous enough to really prioritize over, say, a chain shirt.

How is "you can buy some stuff here and not other stuff there" something that needs to be built into the rules?

This is all neat worldbuilding and all, but it doesn't serve a generalized game like D&D.

That was sorta the point of my more generalized system above, to create a very general system that would allow people to fluff the creativity, rather than inserting a bunch of unnecessarily granular crunch in a system that is intended to be simple and streamlined.

You could still stick "odd numbered" armors in between my napkin-numbers, but the point of what I was writing there was to get rid of "ring mail" and "scale mail" and "plate" and everything that they imply from the real world. You have "light armor" which covers a range of armors, a variety of styles and designs that could come from any number of cultures. It doesn't carry a specific look or style or method of crafting. Whatever it looks like, whatever its made of, all of that is up to the player.

If a specific setting needs to carry a specific look or specific armor details, the splat book for that setting can contain all that info.

[Keltest]

How is "you can buy some stuff here and not other stuff there" something that needs to be built into the rules?

This is all neat worldbuilding and all, but it doesn't serve a generalized game like D&D.

That was sorta the point of my more generalized system above, to create a very general system that would allow people to fluff the creativity, rather than inserting a bunch of unnecessarily granular crunch in a system that is intended to be simple and streamlined.

You could still stick "odd numbered" armors in between my napkin-numbers, but the point of what I was writing there was to get rid of "ring mail" and "scale mail" and "plate" and everything that they imply from the real world. You have "light armor" which covers a range of armors, a variety of styles and designs that could come from any number of cultures. It doesn't carry a specific look or style or method of crafting. Whatever it looks like, whatever its made of, all of that is up to the player.

If a specific setting needs to carry a specific look or specific armor details, the splat book for that setting can contain all that info.

Ok, but thats boring. Less isnt always more, to say nothing of the benefits of not having to repeat all this information across the different setting books every time. Is there some reason NOT to have stats for ring mail or hide armor in the PHB?

[False God]

Ok, but thats boring. Less isnt always more, to say nothing of the benefits of not having to repeat all this information across the different setting books every time. Is there some reason NOT to have stats for ring mail or hide armor in the PHB?

Because they're terrible representations of actual armor. There shouldn't be stats for any specific form of armor. Not leather, not plate, not chain main, none of them.

D&D doesn't really have the systems to accurately represent armor. So it shouldn't try.

[Keltest]

Because they're terrible representations of actual armor. There shouldn't be stats for any specific form of armor. Not leather, not plate, not chain main, none of them.

D&D doesn't really have the systems to accurately represent armor. So it shouldn't try.

Sounds to me like youre letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[KorvinStarmast]

Given that it costs 1 point of Constitution whether you're making a dagger+1 or a Sword of Dancing+4, it's shocking how many of the former you find.
IIRC, you could wish that point back if CON was below 16 and wishes (in rings and such) seemed to be more frequently found ...

[Corsair14]

I skipped most of this thread.
Knock some facts out of the way first
1. Leather armor as far as we know never actually existed or widely existed. Contrary to popular belief leather was extremely valuable to a medieval level society since they lack many of the flexible materials we have today and there were thousands of uses for it other than armor.
2. In D&D it is not this soft supple leather that the show Vikings had, as cool as it looked. In D&D it is hardened plates of leather that should clack together when moving about.
3. Studded Leather Never existed at all. Someone(probably Gary) saw Brigandine and probably thought it was studded leather. Brigandine was extremely good armor and was worn even in the late middle ages both for looks and protection.
4. The ultimate reason we have leather and studded leather(not sure if banded is in 5e) is because Gary Gygax needed to fill out lines on his armor tables so he made them up. For some reason we have kept this silliness going now for 6+ editions

The actual progression of armor should be:
shield no armor< padded armor< padded armor + shield< chain< splinted< Scale(lamellar)< Brigandine< plate< gothic plate.

Depending on what technology era you play in should really determine the armor worn by guards and general people. Roman Empire-Crusades era chain will be the normal soldier level armor with scale popping up here and there. Scale is better armor than chain but its also less flexible and more expensive to make which is why chain is the armor of the day and is the armor everything else is built on. Most militias and town guards unless well funded will likely simply wear padded. Shields and helms are assumed to be standard as well as spears.

Post Crusade era you still see chain commonly worn. its an integral part of armor until the end of classic armor in the 1700s, but as the years go on plates in the form of brigandine and later actual plates become the norm as conscript armies become a thing of the past and professionals take over the field.

Also the reason leather as an armor in game. In prior editions many classes/kits had restrictions to armor types and materials(my current 2e D&D game has a ranger who because of her kit cannot wear anything heavier than leather). Armor was also enchanted not just with +1 or 2, but also abilities. Plus like I said earlier, Gary made it up to fill out a table and never went back to fix it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Plus like I said earlier, Gary made it up to fill out a table and never went back to fix it. Aye. Likewise with guisarme-fouchard-forks.
But you gotta admit, the studded leather armor has a certain biker chic look to it. The covers on the Thieves World short story anthologies/shared universe stories (Robert Lynn Asprin overseeing) are a fine case in point.

Armor class came to D&D from, I think, the Don't Give Up The Ship naval combat game that Arneson and Gygax collaborated on.

Been reading some RL history stuff on the Crusades (Asbridge is quite good). That chain mail and shield was quite an advantage.

[Morty]

Plus like I said earlier, Gary made it up to fill out a table and never went back to fix it.

"Someone came up with it and no one fixed it afterwards" is at least a half of D&D's history, really. Especially since eventually those things no one fixed become tradition no one dares touch.

[Tanarii]

I skipped most of this thread.
Knock some facts out of the way first
1. Leather armor as far as we know never actually existed or widely existed. Contrary to popular belief leather was extremely valuable to a medieval level society since they lack many of the flexible materials we have today and there were thousands of uses for it other than armor.
2. In D&D it is not this soft supple leather that the show Vikings had, as cool as it looked. In D&D it is hardened plates of leather that should clack together when moving about.
1. A breastplate is called a cuirass. That's a word derived from cuir bouilli, or boiled leather. So at least at some point, it had to have been a real world armor long enough and common enough for the primary chest plate to be named after it.
2. D&D armor is traditionally soft and supple. 5e specifically has a boiled breastplate and shoulders, with everything else is soft and supple, per the PHB. I don't know that should be enough to cause any 'clacking' when moving, more 'creaking' and 'squeaking'. OTOH I'm not sure it would be significantly better than padded armor for being quiet. It's like RPG designers never worn or been around someone wearing 'soft and supple' leather (aka jackets or pants) before. It's NOT quiet. Definitely a sacred cow.

[Segev]

Definitely a sacred cow.

So THAT's where they get the materials for sacred leather armor! :smallcool:

[Boci]

Aye. Likewise with guisarme-fouchard-forks.
But you gotta admit, the studded leather armor has a certain biker chic look to it. The covers on the Thieves World short story anthologies/shared universe stories (Robert Lynn Asprin overseeing) are a fine case in point.

Sure, and you can argue that, however historically inaccurate or at least disputed, leather armour is now a fantasy staple now because of D&D, so may as well keep. Leather armour and studded leather armour may be overkill however.

[Naanomi]

The actual progression of armor should be:
shield no armor< padded armor< padded armor + shield< chain< splinted< Scale(lamellar)< Brigandine< plate< gothic plate.
We can find examples of others... Hide and breastplate probably, as well as a few others probably... If we look outside of European medieval traditions

[Keltest]

1. A breastplate is called a cuirass. That's a word derived from cuir bouilli, or boiled leather. So at least at some point, it had to have been a real world armor long enough and common enough for the primary chest plate to be named after it.
2. D&D armor is traditionally soft and supple. 5e specifically has a boiled breastplate and shoulders, with everything else is soft and supple, per the PHB. I don't know that should be enough to cause any 'clacking' when moving, more 'creaking' and 'squeaking'. OTOH I'm not sure it would be significantly better than padded armor for being quiet. It's like RPG designers never worn or been around someone wearing 'soft and supple' leather (aka jackets or pants) before. It's NOT quiet. Definitely a sacred cow.

Its specifically a new occurrence in 5th edition for padded armor to be bad at sneaking too, which is odd. I cant imagine what they were thinking when they made it that way except that they really didnt want anybody to be using padded armor.

[Segev]

Its specifically a new occurrence in 5th edition for padded armor to be bad at sneaking too, which is odd. I cant imagine what they were thinking when they made it that way except that they really didnt want anybody to be using padded armor.

They were likely thinking, "We have a pattern, here: AC X with Stealth Disadvantage, AC X without, AC X+1 with Stealth Disadvantage, AC X+1 without..." and with Padded as the lowest-tier armor, it got to be the lowest AC and have the disadvantage.

Not arguing in favor of this decision, mind. Just stating what I'm pretty sure the thinking was.

[Morty]

Its specifically a new occurrence in 5th edition for padded armor to be bad at sneaking too, which is odd. I cant imagine what they were thinking when they made it that way except that they really didnt want anybody to be using padded armor.

My guess is that not a lot of thinking actually went into it. Or into the weapon/armor tables in general.

[Willie the Duck]

I skipped most of this thread.
Knock some facts out of the way first
<snip>
Also the reason leather as an armor in game. In prior editions many classes/kits had restrictions to armor types and materials(my current 2e D&D game has a ranger who because of her kit cannot wear anything heavier than leather). Armor was also enchanted not just with +1 or 2, but also abilities. Plus like I said earlier, Gary made it up to fill out a table and never went back to fix it.


1. A breastplate is called a cuirass. That's a word derived from cuir bouilli, or boiled leather. So at least at some point, it had to have been a real world armor long enough and common enough for the primary chest plate to be named after it.


We really don't need to re-do this here. Out in the general roleplay forum, there has been not one, but 29 threads (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?619741-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armour-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXIX) (28 of which ran to the accepted thread limit) dedicated to historical accuracy in medieval and renaissance arms and armor. I don't follow this forums version of this regularly, but I'm sure the historicity of leather armor in general or studded leather in particular has been rehashed at least 50 times in those 29 threads (plus that katanas aren't all that and a bag of chips, that a longsword doesn't mean what previous editions of D&D have had it modelling, and whether watching all of Scholagladatoria's video means you know what you you're talking about).


2. D&D armor is traditionally soft and supple. 5e specifically has a boiled breastplate and shoulders, with everything else is soft and supple, per the PHB. I don't know that should be enough to cause any 'clacking' when moving, more 'creaking' and 'squeaking'. OTOH I'm not sure it would be significantly better than padded armor for being quiet. It's like RPG designers never worn or been around someone wearing 'soft and supple' leather (aka jackets or pants) before. It's NOT quiet. Definitely a sacred cow.
I generally assume that the designers are just like people here as far as what they know. This knowledge is just too ubiquitous for the average dedicated D&D fan (which I hope is the pool from which the designers were drawn) would somehow not know. I think they just don't care. Historical accuracy, or realism in general, are both things that one could have as a primary game design goal, but it's not clear that it is one that actually moves product.

I do think that this is one of those cases where they erred on the side of 'make this the most D&Diest of D&D's that ever D&D'ed' mentality. They resurrected some AD&D-isms what with studded leather being the go-to light armor instead of a chain shirt like 3e, re-introduced ring mail (for which I don't think anyone was clamoring), and left out any new special magical armor materials introduced post 2000 (they had mithril with elven chain, and adamantine among the drow).

[deljzc]

Leather Armor, in a variety of forms, certainly did exist and was used extensively in history.

I agree that when we think of northern European, Middle Ages (1300-1500), leather armor was not used much.

But when you get to warmer climates, particularly around the Mediterranean, leather was used far more than cloth gambesons. The Roman legions primarily used leather scale armor for hundreds of years as it was extremely effective in hot weather climates.

In truth, D&D fails to discuss or include WHY certain armors are used. In history, availability, climate and your opponents main weapons of choice dictated what armor you choose to build. There is a reason heavy plate and heavy cloth armors did not evolve in most of the tropical world (from the Mediterranean to the Middle East and into South Asia, China and Japan).

If you want to add a bit of realism into your game, you have to penalize likely "better armor for the money" like heavy hides and gambeson/chain/plate combination in hot temperatures. It would be highly likely that tropical areas of your world would be using leather armor (either curiasses or scales) much more often.

[False God]

Sounds to me like youre letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Hardly, the system in D&D isn't even good. As you were so quick to demonstrate. It doesn't deal with material type, material quality, creator quality, cultural needs and use demands.

By saying Blue Leather is +3 instead of the usual +2, you haven't actually changed anything, you've just moved numbers around. Most people are going to look at it and go "I have +3 armor" and not give two hoots about the fact that it's Blue if you do nothing other than adjust the numbers.

So I just skip the middle-man and call it "+X armor". If it needs to be made of something the story and the setting can determine that. In lieu of an absolutely necessary explanation for it's material makeup, the player can treat however they feel like.

The system works as is, sure, but working doesn't mean working well or being effective at its job. Armor "types" are anchors that keep D&D weighed down in "We want to pretend this is real, viable medieval lore." while the rest of the game moves further away from attempting to emulate one specific culture's pre-industrial history. Weighing the system down further with attempts at simulating "real armor" and "real conditions" and "real materials" is contrary to the direction of the rest of the game which is angling for simplicity and non-granularity.

Further, fixing the system in the direction I'm suggesting is easy and creates a repetitious synergy. 4 types of armor(light>medium>heavy>venti). 4 types of weapons (light, med, versatile, 2-handed; covers ranged as well)). You don't need to remember if this game means banded or chain when it says mail. You don't need to wonder what the difference between leather and hide is (leather is made of hide folks!).

Fixing the system in your direction means adding lots of little fiddly bits, materials, quality, maintenance, source. Lots of little fiddly bits that are going to be completely ignored by the majority of current players. Lots of little fiddly bits that will be situation and setting and campaign specific. Which is completely fine as additive splat.

My simplified system? Can completely include yours. That's the beauty of what I'm proposing. It's flexible, it's versatile, it's inclusive. A splat book, a setting book, your homebrew can expand it, include middle numbers, say a +2 refers to something specific, say there are +3s and +5s. But the reverse is much more difficult.

And the reverse is something that has been dragging D&D down for years. Some things need to GO. Not because they are bad, but because they are holding the game back. 5E is an awkward, stilted step towards a cleaner, more streamlined system. They're clearly trying to satisfy modern game design desires for smooth, clear gameplay, but they're bogged down by people who get hung up on what the definition of "is" is.

Sorry, bit ranty there, but D&D needs to decide what it is. Is it a verbose crunch-driven splat-filled vehicle for people to have technical debates over what type of armor "plate" really is (see posts directly preceding this one)? Or is it a streamlined low-crunch system for people to run a variety of games without the system defining what history, culture, and fantasy their clothes come from?

[KorvinStarmast]

{nice post} I for one liked the reduction in the number of weapon types for this edition. Your proposal on armor speaks to me - no, it sings to me. :smallsmile:

[Boci]

Armor "types" are anchors that keep D&D weighed down in "We want to pretend this is real, viable medieval lore."

I think you might be seriously overestimating how much the average D&D player knows about real life armour. And if you don't know much, then you don't know D&D is wrong and the armour table totally is viable medieval lore, for the purpose of the game you play with your friends once every week.

[JackPhoenix]

Its specifically a new occurrence in 5th edition for padded armor to be bad at sneaking too, which is odd. I cant imagine what they were thinking when they made it that way except that they really didnt want anybody to be using padded armor.

I'd say the (aside the mechanical reason Segev mentioned) argument would be bulkiness instead of the noise, which is still...eh. Not entirely wrong, if you're using it as your main source of armor instead of an underlayer under somethinb better. Still, padded armor is a good pick to cheaply equip mass conscripts that can't wear anything better and won't be sneaking anyway. Though I wonder if there's any NPC stat block with padded armor....

[Witty Username]

Put me in the Light, Medium, Heavy camp. That is enough for armors to be distinctive.

If you want to go the other way though, you can leverage weight and encumbrance. Increase the weight of studded leather, and use variant encumbrance rules. The goal would be to force tradeoffs between protection and carry capacity, and magical armor becomes valuable for additional protection and reducing weight demands.

[False God]

I for one liked the reduction in the number of weapon types for this edition. Your proposal on armor speaks to me - no, it sings to me. :smallsmile:

I enjoy setting specific weapons, but the fact that many of them were dumped under the heading of "exotic" in older editions and barred behind feat trees to access was always disappointing to me. I always wanted to see much more party diversity than "a bunch of dirty europeans". And I always figured, if the game didn't attempt to emulate a specific weapon (poorly) then I could have that. But with 3.5 it was just too much work to undo, and worse remove from player mindsets.

Here's my napkin system in "detail".
Armor:
+2 Light (no max dex)
+4 Medium (+4 max dex)
+6 Medium-heavy (+2 max dex)
+8 Heavy (no dex)
**Personally, I think armors should have strength requirements, but it's not that big a deal to me.

Shields:
+1 Small
+2 Medium
+3 Large
+4 Heavy
**Sure, if you want to haul around a 4x8 piece of iron, why not! Plus it keeps with armor table in set of 4. Maybe needs a strength requirement. Worth testing either way.

Weapons:
Small: 1d6
Medium: 1d8
Versatile: 1d8 1h, 1d10 2h
Heavy: 1d12 (2d6 is neat for a higher base, but the d12 is one of my favorite dice!)
Weapon damage type: Piercing, Bludgeoning, Slashing
**Honestly is this really necessary anymore? I can hit the enemy with the flat of my sword for bludgeoning. I thrust with it for piercing, and I can slash with it for well...slashing.
***There's also an issue of reach weapons here. Could be in any size though. EX: Whip for small, spiked chain for medium, spear for versatile and glavie for heavy. Not sure quite how to work that in other than just allowing a character to declare their weapon is a reach weapon. There don't appear to be any penalties like "cannot fight up close" with reach in 5E, so I'm really not sure it's a necessary weapon quality. Perhaps "reach" could just be something a player could do as part of their attack, regardless of weapon, for say a -2. I dunno, napkins.

Ranged: Same damage size but with ranges!
Sm: 30ft
Med: 60ft
Versatile: 60ft 1h, 90ft 2h
Heavy: 120ft
**There's an issue of "you need two hands to wield a bow or load a weapon" but that again, napkins.

[Carlobrand]

A bunch of things bother me, but there's really nothing for it at this point. For one thing, "padded" armor is actually more effective than the game would suggest. But, they wanted an AC progression and a simple system where armor made you harder to hit, as opposed to trying to figure out how much damage it would stop without inadvertently rendering a dagger utterly useless or making the game a tedious math exercise. So, I live with it.

As for "studded leather", that really bugs me. It doesn't exist, or - more correctly - it's actually brigandine: the studs hold little metal plates in place under the leather cover. However, that would be more akin to splint, and it would weigh a lot more than "studded leather". But, this was pre-internet, they were drawing from some pretty old historical sourcebooks that held a lot of inaccuracies, and "studded leather" had already gotten into the RPG mainstream through several previous games by other publishers, so they went with that.

I don't know why, but that one just strikes me like nails across the chalkboard. I replaced it in my game with leather lamellar, which was a kind of lamellar made from leather that had been used in the Far East and had the advantage of being overlapping pieces of leather, therefore arguably providing more protection than regular leather armor without bringing metal into the equation. Imperfect solution - leather lamellar would still weigh more - but it eased my heebie-jeebies. Entirely a personal thing.

As for +1 leather, I just graduate it up to +1 "studded leather" (or leather lamellar in my case) since, you're right, it's rather pointless otherwise.

[Naanomi]

I mean... if we are clamoring for 'accuracy'... Everyone who can afford it should be wearing plate on the battlefield. The idea that there were 'fast' fighters favoring cheaper armor for mobility is basically just genre convention

[CapnWildefyr]

I think you might be seriously overestimating how much the average D&D player knows about real life armour. And if you don't know much, then you don't know D&D is wrong and the armour table totally is viable medieval lore, for the purpose of the game you play with your friends once every week.

This is a good point. Adding on:
(1) DnD = fantasy. There are plenty of illustrations of fantasy characters wearing armor that would get you killed or maimed. Take shoulder spikes, for instance. Not only do they make it easy for an axe to hit solid shoulder since it can't glance away, DnD armorers don't have TIG welders - what would a big hammer hit do to that spike? My guess -- drive it through my shoulder. There was a reason real combat armor was generally smooth. HOWEVER, this is DnD, so who cares if the armor is effective in real life, what matters is does a player think their character looks good in it, and what's the AC? We don't need too much detail. But, see point (2) below...
(2) Many players have no clue what a given set of armor is or looks like, without a description or picture. "Light" or "heavy" means nothing, it's just a stat. And edition to edition it all changes.
(3) Who decides what's light or medium or heavy, without descriptions? I say it's light, you say it's medium, who decides?

Whether an armor type existed "for real" is less important than whether or not it can fill a niche for the game.

[Amechra]

I mean... if we are clamoring for 'accuracy'... Everyone who can afford it should be wearing plate on the battlefield. The idea that there were 'fast' fighters favoring cheaper armor for mobility is basically just genre convention

Pretty much. And it's not like properly-made armor is actually something you need to be "proficient" in, either — that is, as far as I'm aware, more of a concession to game balance than anything else.

I kinda wish that 5e had gone with a model where "armor proficiency" was more about opening up additional defensive options, rather than just giving you access to a (theoretically) higher AC. Like how Medium Armor Proficiency tends to also let you use shields (poor Mountain Dwarves).

[Tanarii]

We really don't need to re-do this here. Out in the general roleplay forum, there has been not one, but 29 threads (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?619741-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armour-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXIX) (28 of which ran to the accepted thread limit) dedicated to historical accuracy in medieval and renaissance arms and armor.Fair enough. I'm not an armor expert. I'd just heard for years that "real" leather armor was actually cuir bolli. So the claim that it just never existed at all surprised me, and was not backed up by what I found online. I'm not really interested in diving into the finer points.

What did interest me is that 5e Leather armor is effectively cuir bolli breastplate. I've read that description a bunch of times and it never clicked.


I generally assume that the designers are just like people here as far as what they know.


They resurrected some AD&D-isms what with studded leather being the go-to light armor instead of a chain shirt like 3e, re-introduced ring mail (for which I don't think anyone was clamoring), and left out any new special magical armor materials introduced post 2000 (they had mithril with elven chain, and adamantine among the drow)Yeah, I'm guessing they were doing a genre convention, or more specifically a D&D genre convention. Although that does want to make me go back and look at leather armor (and padded armor) penalties, including and especially to Thief skills, through the editions.

I just find it hilarious that anyone would think wearing leather would impact stealth significantly less than metal. It's very loud. Especially pants. It feels like you could hear someone wearing it half a block away. (Probably not more than 60ft really, but that's how it feels.) Also thinking about it, I'm not sure buckskin is similarly loud, so maybe it's the way it's treated?

[Carlobrand]

...I just find it hilarious that anyone would think wearing leather would impact stealth significantly less than metal. It's very loud. Especially pants. It feels like you could hear someone wearing it half a block away. (Probably not more than 60ft really, but that's how it feels.) Also thinking about it, I'm not sure buckskin is similarly loud, so maybe it's the way it's treated?

It's not that kind of leather. Cuir bouilli is stiff. You make a shell that ends up looking like a metal carapace but, of course, not made of metal. Good protection: like a metal carapace, it doesn't hug the skin but floats a bit off of the body, and it's stiff, so a hit has to overcome that stiffness or move the entire carapace an inch or so until it impacts you. (Also effective is 32 ounce leather, which I loved but it was a bitch to work with and I only ever found it once, and that 30 years ago. It was about a half inch thick and probably usable only for shoe heels - and my armor. Took quite a bit of the bite off a hit, but that was with rattan swords, not edged weapons or iron maceheads.) Anyway, cuir bouilli: limb defenses are greaves and forearm guards of the same material, they strap directly onto the limb but there are no joints so your joints are vulnerable (unless you're in a re-enactment group - our rules required some sort of joint protection, so we integrate metal joints at the elbows and knees). No joints means no sound of those articulated metal joints moving. Not noisy at all provided you hold your arms out a bit so you don't accidentally scrape your forearm guards against your carapace. Best to ignore that "softer and more flexible materials" bit, I think.

[Tanarii]

It's not that kind of leather. Cuir bouilli is stiff. You make a shell that ends up looking like a metal carapace but, of course, not made of metal. The chest piece is. But the rest is made of softer and more flexible materials. And that's what I'm talking about. I don't know anything about cuir bouilli leather personally, other than it existed.

Edit: although it occurs to me the PHB doesn't say softer and more flexible "leather". It could be a stiff leather chest piece and shoulders, with quilted cloth on the arms and legs. But since padded has disadvantage, I'd expect that too as well.

[Keltest]

Pretty much. And it's not like properly-made armor is actually something you need to be "proficient" in, either — that is, as far as I'm aware, more of a concession to game balance than anything else.

I kinda wish that 5e had gone with a model where "armor proficiency" was more about opening up additional defensive options, rather than just giving you access to a (theoretically) higher AC. Like how Medium Armor Proficiency tends to also let you use shields (poor Mountain Dwarves).

From my understanding, wearing armor took no special training, but actually taking blows on the armor such that you were protected by it was a matter of some skill. If somebody comes up and wallops you with a greatsword, just because you arent cut in half doesnt mean youre inherently fine.

[Mjolnirbear]

Literally anyone can wear armour. It says so in the PHB.

But if you're not trained you can't move effectively (disadvantage str/Dex saves/checks/attacks) and can't cast spells.

Which is interesting. A blade lock or artificer battlesmith can wear armour they're not proficient in, attack as needed without penalty, and save their spell slots for non-battle-time. An artificer can expend spell slots on the companion. An alchemist could expend spell slots on elixirs and Artillerist on cannons. A paladin/battlesmith could Smite using int to attack. A hexadin could do the same. Anyone could pick up Shillelagh and fight with Wisdom. You'd die like hell to a Fireball, but it doesn't necessarily shut down every build to wear armour you're not trained in.

Historically training in armour in my understanding is how to use it to turn blows and convert direct hits into glancung blows if you can't block or parry in time.

[Hytheter]

I mean... if we are clamoring for 'accuracy'... Everyone who can afford it should be wearing plate on the battlefield. The idea that there were 'fast' fighters favoring cheaper armor for mobility is basically just genre convention

To be fair adventurers aren't just soldiers on battlefields. A rogue might opt for plate after all if he was marching in formation but as an adventurer he's got to consider things like climbing around on rooftops or hiding in tight places.

[DwarfFighter]

We really don't need to re-do this here. Out in the general roleplay forum, there has been not one, but 29 threads (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?619741-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armour-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXIX) (28 of which ran to the accepted thread limit) dedicated to historical accuracy in medieval and renaissance arms and armor.
People are clearly posting when they should instead be reading! The excellent posts are already written, and they should be content to keep any comments to themselves and refrain from thread necromancy. After all, if there is any value in their opinions they should have posted it in the thread six years ago when it was active. They didn't, but instead of doing the right thing and shutting up THEY START NEW THREADS!

Seriously tho. The fact that there is more than one thread on the topic just demonstrates that there is an actual need more of them: People can't get enough of armour talk!

If there is a post on those threads that is so well written as to close the debate forever, and so short people will care to read it, please provide a link to it. Then we can have the mods sticky it to the front page and swing the banhamner on anyone that dare again start a new armour thread.

[Morty]

I think you might be seriously overestimating how much the average D&D player knows about real life armour. And if you don't know much, then you don't know D&D is wrong and the armour table totally is viable medieval lore, for the purpose of the game you play with your friends once every week.

This, on the other hand, underestimates the degree to which people demand realism despite not knowing what it actually is. See also: people claiming two-handed weapons were heavy and ponderous.

[Boci]

This, on the other hand, underestimates the degree to which people demand realism despite not knowing what it actually is. See also: people claiming two-handed weapons were heavy and ponderous.

Does it though? Sure, some people believe that, but even then, don't mistake people passing on trivia they're heard and believed in for a demand for realism in a game. Obviously personal experiences can differ, but I have heard that fact brought up during a food break a few times, but in my years of D&D I have only ever seen 1 attempt of a DM to houserule it, and even that may have been more about balance since it was 3.5 where two-handed weapons were generally regarded to be superior to sword and board.

[Peelee]

<RANT>
Leather armor, it really, really ticks me off. The only point to leather armor is to have it until you 45 GP to get studded leather armor (2 sessions is you are unlucky). Then it's completely an utterly pointless.

Other people don't play like you do, is the simple answer. In my group, three characters (including mine) are currently wearing leather armor, and last night was our first session at level 5, from starting at level 1. Nobody has felt the need to absolutely max out their armor. I've just recently out out feelers for glamoured studded leather, and even that only because I couldn't find glamoured leather as a standard magic item and I want to be even more inconspicuous about wearing my armor. And even then, it's far from guaranteed I'll be able to find any. I would be perfectly content running leather armor for the rest of the campaign. I studied my two friends feel similarly.

This, on the other hand, underestimates the degree to which people demand realism despite not knowing what it actually is. See also: people claiming two-handed weapons were heavy and ponderous.
This actually came up last night! Well, not the realism aspect, but looking at the weapon tables. In the base 5e at least, every two-handed melee weapon is heavy, and every heavy melee weapon is two-handed. With the exception of crossbows and bows, they go hand in hand.

[Naanomi]

To be fair adventurers aren't just soldiers on battlefields. A rogue might opt for plate after all if he was marching in formation but as an adventurer he's got to consider things like climbing around on rooftops or hiding in tight places.
Historically people engaged in those activities would just... Not wear armor

[Peelee]

Historically people engaged in those activities would just... Not wear armor

Historically dragons were far less dangerous.

[Boci]

Historically dragons were far less dangerous.

That's still an argument for fullplate.

[Keltest]

Historically people engaged in those activities would just... Not wear armor

Depends on what you consider to be armor. I made the comparison to biker leathers earlier, and i stand by that. I dont know that anybody would consider that armor in any conventional sense, but its protective gear designed to fit a specific circumstance, and i would say that second story work that may result in slipping and falling, or woodsman work that may result in being slashed by plants and thorns (some of which may cause reactions, especially in D&D land) both benefit from wearing some basic protections that stop every incidental Bad Thing from doing really unpleasant things to your structural integrity.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Depends on what you consider to be armor. I made the comparison to biker leathers earlier, and i stand by that. I dont know that anybody would consider that armor in any conventional sense, but its protective gear designed to fit a specific circumstance, and i would say that second story work that may result in slipping and falling, or woodsman work that may result in being slashed by plants and thorns (some of which may cause reactions, especially in D&D land) both benefit from wearing some basic protections that stop every incidental Bad Thing from doing really unpleasant things to your structural integrity.

Or even slicing up your hands and skin. PPE is basically modern armor, and people wear it frequently on the job. And appropriate PPE depends on the threat model. Since D&D flora and fauna are best modeled by "Australia, except worse", I think some PPE is advised.

[PhantomSoul]

"Australia, except worse"

This is how we know it's fantasy eh!

[Naanomi]

Or even slicing up your hands and skin. PPE is basically modern armor, and people wear it frequently on the job. And appropriate PPE depends on the threat model. Since D&D flora and fauna are best modeled by "Australia, except worse", I think some PPE is advised.
Sure, but I am not confident that the kinds of things that would give an AC bonus in any significant capacity are the kinds of things one wears to protect from other hazards. Biker Leathers may incidentally provide some protection in a knife fight; but I wouldn't count on blacksmith leathers to do the same, nor the kind of heavy jacket I'd wear when cutting thorn bushes. Climbers wear good boots and gloves but then... spandex or weather protection depending on where you are climbing... neither of which are giving me AC I'm guessing.

For what it is worth, I have worked jobs where I wear armor and even have used a shield a few times on the job

[Hytheter]

Historically people engaged in those activities would just... Not wear armor

They might if there was a chance that when they climbed onto the rooftops they'd had to fight a gargoyle up there. My point is that adventurers have competing needs they need to consider when armouring themselves.

Adventurers do not have a historically accurate lifestyle.

[Keltest]

Sure, but I am not confident that the kinds of things that would give an AC bonus in any significant capacity are the kinds of things one wears to protect from other hazards. Biker Leathers may incidentally provide some protection in a knife fight; but I wouldn't count on blacksmith leathers to do the same, nor the kind of heavy jacket I'd wear when cutting thorn bushes. Climbers wear good boots and gloves but then... spandex or weather protection depending on where you are climbing... neither of which are giving me AC I'm guessing.

For what it is worth, I have worked jobs where I wear armor and even have used a shield a few times on the job

Ok, but PCs arent wearing leather armor for blacksmithing, or gardening. They might be doing it while climbing, but thats because they would do so with the expectation that they may be in a knife fight or running through a forest or something later before they have the opportunity to change.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ok, but PCs arent wearing leather armor for blacksmithing, or gardening. They might be doing it while climbing, but thats because they would do so with the expectation that they may be in a knife fight or running through a forest or something later before they have the opportunity to change.

Exactly. Defensive measures depend on threat model. And the threat model faced by adventurers is very unlike those faced by modern or even pre-modern people. Or armies/militaries. Which means that the measures taken will change.

It's not responsive to say "X didn't exist on earth." Because D&D worlds are not Earth. Different history, different threats, different sociology, different physics, chemistry, and material science (different types of leather, metals, techniques, etc). You can't decide based on what happened in real history. You have to do the work to decide what makes sense for that setting, based on its history and reality. Or, take the easy way and don't worry about it so much.

[Keltest]

Frankly, the biggest modification to the armor system i would make is to remove the cap to dex AC bonus on medium and heavy armor. Full plate doesnt slow you down enough that you cant dodge anything, and i think its kind of silly that a dex rogue can come within a couple points of AC of a fighter in full plate armor that cost like 100 times as much. Let dex fighters wear full plate too.

[Luccan]

Frankly, the biggest modification to the armor system i would make is to remove the cap to dex AC bonus on medium and heavy armor. Full plate doesnt slow you down enough that you cant dodge anything, and i think its kind of silly that a dex rogue can come within a couple points of AC of a fighter in full plate armor that cost like 100 times as much. Let dex fighters wear full plate too.

Soft-capping AC helps prevent MAD and keeps the system math within expectations

[Naanomi]

Exactly. Defensive measures depend on threat model. And the threat model faced by adventurers is very unlike those faced by modern or even pre-modern people. Or armies/militaries. Which means that the measures taken will change.
I can buy that, but then I would expect some 'adventuring armor' that fit those needs, and that every adventurer who could afford it would wear... Not the mishmash variety we see, but something rather standardized (and, I suspect, not equivalent to anything designed for earth battlefields, dueling, or any other job)...

Or perhaps highly specialized 'dragon hunting armor', 'cave spelunking with small dangerous humanoids armor', etc. But again, something that everyone hunting dragons would wear, not one guy in heavy dragon hunting armor and two others in light dragon hunting armor

[Morty]

Frankly, the biggest modification to the armor system i would make is to remove the cap to dex AC bonus on medium and heavy armor. Full plate doesnt slow you down enough that you cant dodge anything, and i think its kind of silly that a dex rogue can come within a couple points of AC of a fighter in full plate armor that cost like 100 times as much. Let dex fighters wear full plate too.

How is it beneficial to reduce variety in character equipment?

[Keltest]

Soft-capping AC helps prevent MAD and keeps the system math within expectations

I understand that there are probably logical reasons for it, i think its just a stupid design decision. Let people with amazing dex and str and con be tougher than somebody with just two of them.

[Naanomi]

I understand that there are probably logical reasons for it, i think its just a stupid design decision. Let people with amazing dex and str and con be tougher than somebody with just two of them.
'all tanks are high dex dwarves' doesn't really follow genre conventions

[Keltest]

'all tanks are high dex dwarves' doesn't really follow genre conventions

"Dwarves are the best tanks" does though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

'all tanks are high dex dwarves' doesn't really follow genre conventions

Genre convention: the Nimble Guy wears armor mostly made out of softer, non-metallic stuff.
Genre convention: the woods-wise archer doesn't wear confining rigid armor.
Genre convention: the Strong Guy doesn't wear armor and tanks with his muscles. The Noble Warrior/Knight in Shining Armor needs...shining armor.

The best way to think about D&D armor is not from any sense of realism. It's from genre expectations and fictional aesthetics. In fact, that's the best way to think about D&D as a whole (in 5e at least). There's no attempt at "historicity" or "realism" or "simulation of real world". There's "feeling like D&D", "feeling fantastic" and "having the look-and-feel that everyone expects." Any degree of reflection of history or logic or anything like that is second-order at best.


I can buy that, but then I would expect some 'adventuring armor' that fit those needs, and that every adventurer who could afford it would wear... Not the mishmash variety we see, but something rather standardized (and, I suspect, not equivalent to anything designed for earth battlefields, dueling, or any other job)...

Or perhaps highly specialized 'dragon hunting armor', 'cave spelunking with small dangerous humanoids armor', etc. But again, something that everyone hunting dragons would wear, not one guy in heavy dragon hunting armor and two others in light dragon hunting armor

The threat model isn't the same for all adventurers, either. Because you have "I'm mostly going to try to stay unnoticed and stab this dude in the back" and "I walk up and challenge them to a fair fight and stand there and beat on each other" as different adventuring styles. And those have different trade-offs. It's hard to be sneaky and hide in the shadows when you're wearing bulky, clanky metal all over the place. So those people trade protection for mobility and quiet. Light infantry is different from heavy infantry, and those differences are much smaller than the differences between a rogue's fighting needs and a (traditional) paladin's.A rogue needs something where they can go from sneaking through a cave unseen to fighting a dragon without changing. A heavy-armor type doesn't. Different needs, different acceptable tradeoffs.

Not only that, there isn't an expectation of "standardization". Adventurers don't go down to their local Adventurers R Us store and pick out off-the-rack armor from the big-name brands. I'd say that most of it is either a) custom ordered or b) a mishmash of things they had. A leather breastplate plus supple gloves and a good pair of boots. A breastplate, worn over regular trousers and boots. The whole "types of armor" thing is a game convention designed to evoke a particular image and simplify life, while still "looking like D&D". Tradeoffs all around.

Remember, in D&D all the differences are exaggerated. You have people who, by less than half-way through their career, are as nimble as humanoids can get, while their buddies are as strong as humanoids can get. You also have something driven heavily by aesthetic and genre. Compounding that, you have materials (even "mundane" ones) that don't exist on Earth. And threats that don't exist on earth.

-----------
As for leather vs studded leather, you might as well just say that studded leather is "masterwork leather", justifying the non-magical +1. Or "X leather", where X is some fantastical beast. And as for enchantments, I don't see 5e's crafting as enchanting an existing piece. It's more "crafting something that is magical" or "object becomes magical because it's soaked in environmental magic (such as in a dragon's hoard)." So it may very well be that +1 leather armor is something that happens naturally, rather than being some intentional calculated decision. Especially since magic vs non-magic armor doesn't have the same meaning as magic vs non-magic weapons do--that "+1" leather may be leather from a different animal. Or the result of some alchemical or fey-related treatment. Etc.

5e does not have the idea from previous editions that magical items are all the result of some wizard somewhere casting spells at items. Or even a clear-cut meaning to what it means to be truly magical for fictional purposes (while it does for the purposes of mechanically adjudicating those spells that particularly care about magical vs non-magical effects).

[Tanarii]

5e does not have the idea from previous editions that magical items are all the result of some wizard somewhere casting spells at items.
Post Xanathar's downtime, this is explicit. You can have Leather +1 created by anyone with Leatherworker's Tools, the appropriate exotic material, and a formula to craft it. The part that keeps magic items rare or even something primarily historical artifacts typically dug out of ruins is primarily the formula part, with secondary being access and ability to obtain the exotic material.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Post Xanathar's downtime, this is explicit. You can have Leather +1 created by anyone with Leatherworker's Tools, the appropriate exotic material, and a formula to craft it. The part that keeps magic items rare or even something primarily historical artifacts typically dug out of ruins is primarily the formula part, with secondary being access and ability to obtain the exotic material.

Right. So the formula/component for making +1 Leather might be relatively easy (still not easy, but not as insane as others), so all those people looking for the extra social credit of having magic (light) armor might use that as their conspicuous consumption. Sure, it's not better than regular studded, but it's way cooler and shows you've got money. Which explains the majority of human consumption patterns--they're rarely driven primarily by optimality concerns.

[Naanomi]

Right. So the formula/component for making +1 Leather might be relatively easy (still not easy, but not as insane as others), so all those people looking for the extra social credit of having magic (light) armor might use that as their conspicuous consumption. Sure, it's not better than regular studded, but it's way cooler and shows you've got money. Which explains the majority of human consumption patterns--they're rarely driven primarily by optimality concerns.
And resizing, lack of maintenance needs, and other fringe benefits of just being a magic item are not exactly worthless (even if adventurers tend to ignore such things)

[Segev]

I understand that there are probably logical reasons for it, i think its just a stupid design decision. Let people with amazing dex and str and con be tougher than somebody with just two of them.

You can, but you have to have Unarmored Defense or the like. A very high Dex and Con on a Barbarian with a shield can get you an AC of 22 without any magic.

[Carlobrand]

...Edit: although it occurs to me the PHB doesn't say softer and more flexible "leather". It could be a stiff leather chest piece and shoulders, with quilted cloth on the arms and legs. But since padded has disadvantage, I'd expect that too as well.

Yeah, that bit always gave me a headache too. I'm not sure what it is about a gambeson that makes them think it's noisy. Maybe they think you're making swishy noises as the padded arms rub against the padded body, but I suspect it had more to do with them wanting to draw an arbitrary line between padded and leather so people would pay the extra coin for the latter. But then, the game gives you starter equipment; the only people buying padded are really, really down on their luck.

I'd still suggest you ignore that "softer and more flexible" bit. One may want to avoid the noise of articulated metal joints, and that maybe is a good spot for the "softer and more flexible materials", but getting a forearm broken because they covered a nonmoving part of the limb in something flexible sounds counterproductive to me. They'd want something rigid covering the forearm and shin, and likely at least the outside of the upper arm and thigh. Sort of a hockey armor arrangement. Maybe attach it to something "softer and more flexible" so they can slip into the sleeves and trews and not have to worry about straps for every rigid piece.

[Morty]

Something to keep in mind that D&D weapons and armor represent D&D weapons and armor and nothing else, at this point. They're obviously not realistic, but they also don't offer fun or varied options. Or emulate any particular genre or style of fictional combat. Or even keep things simple and clean. They just look the way they do because people expect it. And could be boiled down to 1/3 their current length while retaining the same amount of options, as has been shown here.

[Clistenes]

Yeah, that bit always gave me a headache too. I'm not sure what it is about a gambeson that makes them think it's noisy. Maybe they think you're making swishy noises as the padded arms rub against the padded body, but I suspect it had more to do with them wanting to draw an arbitrary line between padded and leather so people would pay the extra coin for the latter. But then, the game gives you starter equipment; the only people buying padded are really, really down on their luck.

The gambeson probably isn't noisy, but you are walking around wearing a mattress cut in the shape of a coat (30 layers of linen)... I think that could make you clumsier... your body and limbs have become wider, so you could unintentionally graze stuff around you when you are trying to sneak around...

But yes, the real reason probably is to make the gambeson worse than leather...

[Willie the Duck]

People are clearly posting when they should instead be reading! The excellent posts are already written, and they should be content to keep any comments to themselves and refrain from thread necromancy. After all, if there is any value in their opinions they should have posted it in the thread six years ago when it was active. They didn't, but instead of doing the right thing and shutting up THEY START NEW THREADS!

Seriously tho. The fact that there is more than one thread on the topic just demonstrates that there is an actual need more of them: People can't get enough of armour talk!

If there is a post on those threads that is so well written as to close the debate forever, and so short people will care to read it, please provide a link to it. Then we can have the mods sticky it to the front page and swing the banhamner on anyone that dare again start a new armour thread.

I said we don't need to, not that anyone wasn't allowed to do so, nor that people should be banned for doing so. If you wish to engage with points I actually make, I will respond, but I have no interest in engaging with, or even dignifying this kind of behavior.

I will acknowledge, I was being a little preemptively dismissive of the discussion. It seems that every time this general topic comes up on boards like this, people jump in to drop factoids to prove that they know the thing, and perhaps I was clenching in anticipation of that behavior pattern repeating itself. I will keep an open mind that new facets to this discussion may present themselves here (but I am still not the straw opposition you present).


Fair enough. I'm not an armor expert. I'd just heard for years that "real" leather armor was actually cuir bolli. So the claim that it just never existed at all surprised me, and was not backed up by what I found online. I'm not really interested in diving into the finer points.
What did interest me is that 5e Leather armor is effectively cuir bolli breastplate. I've read that description a bunch of times and it never clicked.
I think sometimes 'rare' slides into 'never' in the discussion. Cuir bolli certainly wasn't a major and common armor across time and locations in the way that plate, mail, and gambesons were.


Yeah, I'm guessing they were doing a genre convention, or more specifically a D&D genre convention. Although that does want to make me go back and look at leather armor (and padded armor) penalties, including and especially to Thief skills, through the editions.

I just find it hilarious that anyone would think wearing leather would impact stealth significantly less than metal. It's very loud. Especially pants. It feels like you could hear someone wearing it half a block away. (Probably not more than 60ft really, but that's how it feels.) Also thinking about it, I'm not sure buckskin is similarly loud, so maybe it's the way it's treated?
I think I know what you mean about buckskin and some other fine-ish leather (say, shoe leather) not seeming as loud as leather jackets/pants. Of course, exactly how loud metal armor should be should probably also be very situational. All those videos of people doing jumping jacks and summersaults in plate are kinda right -- there's lots of ways you can still be spry and nimble in even the heaviest armor, so it likely depends on many incidental factors (of which creaking leather or clinking metal would only be a subset). Depending on how one thinks of stealthing, I'd think that one of the biggest factors in keeping hidden is how much your helmet inhibits your vision and keeps you from noticing the branch you are about to step on or the door frame you're about to hit your head upon.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think I know what you mean about buckskin and some other fine-ish leather (say, show leather) not seeming as loud as leather jackets/pants. Of course, exactly how loud metal armor should be should probably also be very situational. All those videos of people doing jumping jacks and summersaults in plate are kinda right -- there's lots of ways you can still be spry and nimble in even the heaviest armor, so it likely depends on many incidental factors (of which creaking leather or clinking metal would only be a subset). Depending on how one thinks of stealthing, I'd think that one of the biggest factors in keeping hidden is how much your helmet inhibits your vision and keeps you from noticing the branch you are about to step on or the door frame you're about to hit your head upon.

And sheer bulk makes a big difference--wearing a large pack (even if it's not super heavy and is quiet itself) makes it hard to move through any kind of dense terrain quietly and easily. The pieces sticking out bump on things or catch on twigs, etc. So a gambeson, which is bulky (note: in fiction, even if not as much in real life) and which inhibits free flexible movement (because it's stiff and heavy) is going to inhibit stealth more than a fitted suit of buckskin or other soft leather. Just watch a toddler trying to walk around in his snow suit (the kind where the arms are basically out at 90 degrees because the padding means they can't be compressed much more). Same effect, lesser degree.

[Clistenes]

Fair enough. I'm not an armor expert. I'd just heard for years that "real" leather armor was actually cuir bolli. So the claim that it just never existed at all surprised me, and was not backed up by what I found online. I'm not really interested in diving into the finer points.

What did interest me is that 5e Leather armor is effectively cuir bolli breastplate. I've read that description a bunch of times and it never clicked.

Padded jacks and buff coats weren't made of boiled leather, and they were more common in Europe than boiled leather breastplates and lamellar armor.

About rogues, you would think that it would be easier to disguise a buff coat as a coat than trying to hide a boiled leather breastplate or lamellar, so I think it should be better for sneaky types...


I think sometimes 'rare' slides into 'never' in the discussion. Cuir bolli certainly wasn't a major and common armor across time and locations in the way that plate, mail, and gambesons were.

It seems it was way more common in some cultures and time periods. It seems it was fairly common in Mongolia and Tibet, and the Ulster Cycle portrays even noble warriors wearing rigid boiled leather breastplates over padded armor rather than metal armor.

Going back to Studded Leather armor... what about japanese Kikko Katabira armor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kikko_(Japanese_armour)#/media/File:Kikko_jacket.JPG)? Do you think it is a close enough concept?

[KorvinStarmast]

Or, take the easy way and don't worry about it so much. While generally good advice, overthinking is a part of what a lot of us bring to participation at GiTP. (Me included, as I get into the brain lock of not being able to pick a spell).

Any degree of reflection of history or logic or anything like that is second-order at best. Verisimilitude is the best one can hope for, but the degree of that will vary with how the fictional world/setting seats itself into a given person's brain.

Right. So the formula/component for making +1 Leather might be relatively easy (still not easy, but not as insane as others), so all those people looking for the extra social credit of having magic (light) armor might use that as their conspicuous consumption. Sure, it's not better than regular studded, but it's way cooler and shows you've got money. Which explains the majority of human consumption patterns--they're rarely driven primarily by optimality concerns. heh, there's a grain of truth in that "people do odd stuff for odd reasons" line of thinking.

And resizing, lack of maintenance needs, and other fringe benefits of just being a magic item are not exactly worthless (even if adventurers tend to ignore such things) Yeah; maintenance on things like chainmail involved a lot of rust prevention or removal measures.

[Carlobrand]

The gambeson probably isn't noisy, but you are walking around wearing a mattress cut in the shape of a coat (30 layers of linen)... I think that could make you clumsier... your body and limbs have become wider, so you could unintentionally graze stuff around you when you are trying to sneak around...

But yes, the real reason probably is to make the gambeson worse than leather...

YES! Clumsier! I get that, which is why I'd expect something like a dex bonus cap on it rather than a stealth disadvantage. Although, to be honest, they're not much worse than one of those thick winter coats in that regard - which I wouldn't try to do cartwheels in, but that's mostly because I don't know how to do cartwheels.

[Willie the Duck]

And sheer bulk makes a big difference--wearing a large pack (even if it's not super heavy and is quiet itself) makes it hard to move through any kind of dense terrain quietly and easily. The pieces sticking out bump on things or catch on twigs, etc. So a gambeson, which is bulky (note: in fiction, even if not as much in real life) and which inhibits free flexible movement (because it's stiff and heavy) is going to inhibit stealth more than a fitted suit of buckskin or other soft leather. Just watch a toddler trying to walk around in his snow suit (the kind where the arms are basically out at 90 degrees because the padding means they can't be compressed much more). Same effect, lesser degree.

I think that's the problem -- joe normal in street clothes or ninja pajamas is going to be (skill-adjusted) stealthier than Stompy McBeefwall in lots of armor, carrying lots of stuff, and while it does matter if the stuff is a backpack or armor (and of what type) or carrying pole weapons and longbows through unmanaged forests or whatever else, the relationship is not simple.


About rogues, you would think that it would be easier to disguise a buff coat as a coat than trying to hide a boiled leather breastplate or lamellar, so I think it should be better for sneaky types...
Buff coats are bulky, so it would be an interesting but doable challenge. Boiled leather would be harder (pretty much the same as a breastplate--encasing the whole thing in other clothing and trying to explain away why said clothing looked like a hard-form breastplate.

There is a cousin of brigandine called Jack of Plate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_of_plate) which might work as well. It looks like an highly/over-stitched regular piece of clothing. The pictures in the wikipedia article look like the full-metal breastplates of the time (angled jut at the belly), but so did the fashionwear of the time (and thus if you want to bring it back a few centuries, you could undoubtedly model it on the clothes of other eras as well.


Going back to Studded Leather armor... what about japanese Kikko Katabira armor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kikko_(Japanese_armour)#/media/File:Kikko_jacket.JPG)? Do you think it is a close enough concept?

Ooh man, that's strangely close to the fictional conception of studded leather. Do you know how well it worked against pointed attacks (spears, etc.)? It looks like the points would just skitter off the metal plates and into the gaps (in this case filled by chain linkage instead of soft leather).


While generally good advice, overthinking is a part of what a lot of us bring to participation at GiTP. (Me included, as I get into the brain lock of not being able to pick a spell).
Verisimilitude is the best one can hope for, but the degree of that will vary with how the fictional world/setting seats itself into a given person's brain.
Very much the truth.


Yeah; maintenance on things like chainmail involved a lot of rust prevention or removal measures.


This is a reason that trekking without a campfire might be a rough choice, despite what the campfire might attract -- it really helps to be able to dry out cloth (particularly those kept close to armor or used to dry off armor).
Also:
'Sir Adams, why does your squire keep that tray and bucket of sand in his cart?'
'Why Sir Betrtam, he finds that when he dredges my mail through it to scour it for rust, it leaves less unsightly residue than if he used grit or dirt.':smallbiggrin:

[Clistenes]

Ooh man, that's strangely close to the fictional conception of studded leather. Do you know how well it worked against pointed attacks (spears, etc.)? It looks like the points would just skitter off the metal plates and into the gaps (in this case filled by chain linkage instead of soft leather).

No idea, but it is a real kind of armor that was in use for quite some time, so I think it was effective... I guess its main use probably was as defense against slashing weapons. It seems like it could be of some use against arrows too... if the plates cover like 60 % of the armor, that's a 60 % chance the arrow will hit there and bounce or lose momentum...

[Naanomi]

From memory of my kids' kendo classes a long time ago, most armor like that had a thick silk undercoat that was supposed to help against arrows and the like; and layered armor was very common in armor from that part of the world

[Witty Username]

Tangent:
What armors could one reasonablly swim in?
I am remembering a bit of Fantasy book where a character was explaining why they were wearing a chain shirt instead of traditional plate armor. The character responded that they could get it off more easily if they fell in a river.

[Naanomi]

Tangent:
What armors could one reasonablly swim in?
I am remembering a bit of Fantasy book where a character was explaining why they were wearing a chain shirt instead of traditional plate armor. The character responded that they could get it off more easily if they fell in a river.
It is hard to say, the ability to swim (even for sailors and the like) was fairly rare in Europe until very recently. I've read that armor or not, anyone who fell into large bodies of water (or off a ship) were just assumed to be dead basically

[JackPhoenix]

Tangent:
What armors could one reasonablly swim in?
I am remembering a bit of Fantasy book where a character was explaining why they were wearing a chain shirt instead of traditional plate armor. The character responded that they could get it off more easily if they fell in a river.

Wooden armor or woven wicker armor, while neither was common in Europe, both seen plenty of use in Asia. The main problem with most armor is the padding you wear underneath. Once that gets soaked with water, you're screwed.

Naaomi also has a point about the swimming ability of the historical people.

[Peelee]

It is hard to say, the ability to swim (even for sailors and the like) was fairly rare in Europe until very recently.
I would be surprised if anyone who lived in coastal areas or had water-related jobs (ie sailor or fisherman) couldn't swim. Given the amount of large population centers not near coastal areas, sure, there were probably a lot of Europeans who couldn't swim, but that was most likely more related to a lack of access or desire than anything else - for example, IIRC, few people would want to swim in the Thames until well after the 19th century.

[Keltest]

I would be surprised if anyone who lived in coastal areas or had water-related jobs (ie sailor or fisherman) couldn't swim. Given the amount of large population centers not near coastal areas, sure, there were probably a lot of Europeans who couldn't swim, but that was most likely more related to a lack of access or desire than anything else - for example, IIRC, few people would want to swim in the Thames until well after the 19th century.

Im not entirely certain i would want to swim in that river today either. Im not a horrible swimmer, but also, i can only imagine how much absolute garbage is in that particular body of water by now.

[Tanarii]

Tangent:
What armors could one reasonablly swim in?
I am remembering a bit of Fantasy book where a character was explaining why they were wearing a chain shirt instead of traditional plate armor. The character responded that they could get it off more easily if they fell in a river.Ulath.


I would be surprised if anyone who lived in coastal areas or had water-related jobs (ie sailor or fisherman) couldn't swim. Given the amount of large population centers not near coastal areas, sure, there were probably a lot of Europeans who couldn't swim, but that was most likely more related to a lack of access or desire than anything else - for example, IIRC, few people would want to swim in the Thames until well after the 19th century.This probably comes from large numbers of sailors in the age of Sail (reputedly) not being able to swim.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ulath.

I see someone else has read The Elenium.

[Hytheter]

Im not entirely certain i would want to swim in that river today either. Im not a horrible swimmer, but also, i can only imagine how much absolute garbage is in that particular body of water by now.

My thoughts exactly. Though if you think too hard about the matter you might find yourself never swimming in any body of water ever again.

[Amechra]

I think that it's important to consider that sailors and fishermen generally don't end up in the water while they're out doing their thing. If they do, either they're in a situation where someone can quickly fish them out of the water (so they can make do with just thrashing around), or the water is rough enough that knowing how to swim isn't something that's really going to help them.

But yeah. Swimming is one of those skills, much like literacy, where we assume that they have to be easy or common because we were taught how to do them as children.

[Trafalgar]

I think people shouldn't assume that because an 18th century English sailor couldn't swim that means a 15th century German Farmer could not. I think swimming proficiency may be something happens with necessity.

For example, I have talked to Samoans that claim that their grandparents would swim from the island of Aunu'u to Tutuila and back every day as part of their commute for work. That's a distance of over a mile with a current to fight. But today very few Samoans could do that swim because we have boats with outboards.

[Clistenes]

Tangent:
What armors could one reasonablly swim in?
I am remembering a bit of Fantasy book where a character was explaining why they were wearing a chain shirt instead of traditional plate armor. The character responded that they could get it off more easily if they fell in a river.

I'm pretty sure a full hauberk would be too slow to remove... a sleeveless chain shirt may be faster to remove, but a a breastplate would be even faster if you prepare it in advance for quick removal.


I think that it's important to consider that sailors and fishermen generally don't end up in the water while they're out doing their thing. If they do, either they're in a situation where someone can quickly fish them out of the water (so they can make do with just thrashing around), or the water is rough enough that knowing how to swim isn't something that's really going to help them.

You have to take into account that most of the fishing used to be done with very small boats close to the shore. Deep sea fishing with big ships was only a small percentage of the craft...

It is easier to fall from a small boat or for the boat to flip, and under these circunstances you have good chances to get back on the boat or to reach the shore if you are a good swimmer...

[Willie the Duck]

Regarding swimming:
I think swimming skill was probably pretty varied by time, place, and context (as mentioned, getting washed overboard of an age of sail ocean-going vessel probably was a death sentence regardless of swimming skill most of the time). The one thing I'll add is that I suspect (assuming my experience of a middle-aged white American is semi-representative) we all heard that Europeans from back in the day didn't know how to swim in some grade school era studies of witch trials and the like, and I at least should recognize that that really doesn't tell me about any other time period except the age of sail/colonial era (and even then probably discounts all the close-to-shore small-boat fishermen who absolutely might have been able to swim then).

Regarding getting armor off when you fell in the water:
Anything you laced on would probably be a challenge, although you could pre-prepare them in a way that would make it easier. Pulling a mail shirt over your head would be easier, but still not doable easily (I think pulling off a regular wool sweater over your head while swimming and in duress is probably harder than my minds eye says it is). What about something like Roman Centurian or Greek Hoplite armor? The breastplates are relatively modular (a few straps easy to cut if you pre-tie them that way), the greaves kinda pull-off if you can spare a second of not moving that leg and an arm, and you have a great big wooden shield (with a bunch of stuff added to the mere wood, to be sure) to at least help you get your head above water initially.

[Naanomi]

In Europe and most asian art and literature we don't see a lot of depictions of people swimming. We have a few ancient Greek era people mentioned swimming, but often in the context of it being a unique skill they possessed worthy of mention. Chinese scholars commented on how crazy dangerous the spear fishing in southeast Asia was, even though they were mostly just wading.

However, swimming instruction was mandated in Japan as early as the first century BCE; and it was a part of Late Greek and Roman military training at various points in time, and there were deep swimming pools in the houses of Indian Royals.

It is thought that (somewhat justified, somewhat superstitious) concerns about the water spreading disease were common in medieval Europe that limited swimming across all strata, and we don't have a lot of evidence of what we would think of as modern swimming techniques until the early 1400s

So anyways, yes lots of variety through region and history, but swimming skill (like literacy mentioned above) shouldn't be assumed

[Clistenes]

Regarding getting armor off when you fell in the water:
Anything you laced on would probably be a challenge, although you could pre-prepare them in a way that would make it easier. Pulling a mail shirt over your head would be easier, but still not doable (I think pulling off a regular wool sweater over your head while swimming and in duress is probably harder than my minds eye says it is). What about something like Roman Centurian or Greek Hoplite armor? The breastplates are relatively modular (a few straps easy to cut if you pre-tie them that way), the greaves kinda pull-off if you can spare a second of not moving that leg and an arm, and you have a great big wooden shield (with a bunch of stuff added to the mere wood, to be sure) to at least help you get your head above water initially.

I have read a mention of soldiers aboard Modern Age galleys using breastplates that were strapped with an easy to remove hook, just in case they fell from the ship, but I haven't found a contemporary source, so I am not sure how accurate that is...


It is thought that (somewhat justified, somewhat superstitious) concerns about the water spreading disease were common in medieval Europe that limited swimming across all strata, and we don't have a lot of evidence of what we would think of as modern swimming techniques until the early 1400s.

The belief that water provoked disease was a Late Middle Ages and Renaissance thing; before that, those who could afford it did take baths in baths, pools and the sea. That belief probably was {scrubbed} to get rid of bathhouses, which often were undercover brothels (https://historyofyesterday.com/how-medieval-public-baths-turned-into-public-brothels-406feee6212c), on top of being places where people saw each other naked (also, some people claim that given the unsanitary condition in these bathhouses, going there was more hazardous to your health that not bathing at all, so there was some truth in the claims that going to the baths was bad for your health... they just misidentified the cause, and blamed the bath itself instead of the filth and germs floating in it...).


https://i0.wp.com/boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/bath-4.png?fit=481%2C594&ssl=1
https://codigocba.com/uploads/images/image_750x_6056ba331403c.jpg

[Naanomi]

That was a Late Middle Ages thing, and it probably was {scrub the post, scrub the quote} to get rid of bathhouses, which often were undercover brothels, on top of being places where people saw each other naked (also, some people claim that given the unsanitary condition in these bathhouses, going there was more hazardous to your health that not bathing at all, so there was some truth in the claims that going to the baths was bad four your health... they just misidentified the cause, and blamed the bath itself instead of the filth and germs floating in it...).
Seperated from the bathing thing there was a lot of superstition around rivers lakes and the ocean as well; you see talk about children staying away from them because pagans would trick them into baptism there or the like as well. Frankly given the parasites and other pathogens one can get from water, and the overall quality or health in the era, it wasn't completely unjustified even in fresh water to be concerned about exposure

[Hytheter]

https://i0.wp.com/boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/bath-4.png?fit=481%2C594&ssl=1
https://codigocba.com/uploads/images/image_750x_6056ba331403c.jpg

It never would have occured to me that you might have someone playing music in a bath house.

[Carlobrand]

I'm pretty sure a full hauberk would be too slow to remove... a sleeveless chain shirt may be faster to remove, but a a breastplate would be even faster if you prepare it in advance for quick removal. ...

I suspect much has to do with circumstance and the ability to remain calm in a crisis. If you're on the deck of Mary Rose when it capsizes and find yourself with no more than half a breath and sinking like a rock, being calm enough to unbuckle your belt and slip out of your mail while going down and then making it back to the surface would be an extraordinary feat. Even your unbuckled breastplate is going to be a challenge, because that first thought is not likely to be, "OK, let's get this thing off." It's likely to be, "What the hell just happened?" You'll sink for a couple or three precious seconds before you remember to try to get the armor off. You can get the thing off, fight your way to the surface, and still drown because that first desperate breath of air happens to take in some water and leave you choking and coughing and struggling for air while fighting in a panic to keep your head above water.

[Tanarii]

I'm pretty sure a full hauberk would be too slow to remove... a sleeveless chain shirt may be faster to remove, but a a breastplate would be even faster if you prepare it in advance for quick removal.
The comparison in question in the book was being made to a seriously heavy full plate kit, which would have been prepared for not coming loose in battle.

But I always thought it was kind of funny too. Chainmail doesn't strike me as something easy to remove, let alone while trying not to drown. OTOH the character in question was also very strong, so wearing something half as heavy (or whatever) may have been light enough to swim effectively. But also with the character in question, you can never be sure if anything he tells you is serious or a totally deadpan joke.

[Glorthindel]

But I always thought it was kind of funny too. Chainmail doesn't strike me as something easy to remove, let alone while trying not to drown.

I used to do quite a bit of LARPing, and I can attest, at the end of the day, when your muscles are aching, a chain shirt is enough of a pita to get off when you are doing it on solid ground on your own (I joke I used to have to almost do a handstand while shaking myself vigorously to get the damn thing off, and god forbid you do it in too much of a rush and snag your hair in the chain links...). And that was without half the extra kit someone wearing the armour 'seriously' would have getting in the way.

[Clistenes]

It never would have occured to me that you might have someone playing music in a bath house.

As I wrote, undercover brothels...

[Barebarian]

<RANT>
Leather armor, it really, really ticks me off. The only point to leather armor is to have it until you 45 GP to get studded leather armor (2 sessions is you are unlucky). Then it's completely an utterly pointless. Yet, the DMG and random treasure tables continue to have +1 leather armor (and hide, and chain shirts) in them. Why the heck would anyone in the world of D&D spend the time an money to make magical armor that is just as effective as mundane armor?

I normally love the simplicity of 5e, but I really, really hate the armor tables. I hate that there isn't additional Dex bonuses on lower AC armor or some other reason why you would use it.

</RANT>

Alright, I feel a little better now. Continue on.

A studded bodice or bikini would look weird :smallwink: Jokes aside, I guess it's there for aesthetic purposes? Not everyone wants to wear studded armor, maybe they don't want to look as dangerous as metal does?


As I wrote, undercover brothels...

Don't forget harems! :smallbiggrin:

[Eric Diaz]

<RANT>
Leather armor, it really, really ticks me off. The only point to leather armor is to have it until you 45 GP to get studded leather armor (2 sessions is you are unlucky). Then it's completely an utterly pointless. Yet, the DMG and random treasure tables continue to have +1 leather armor (and hide, and chain shirts) in them. Why the heck would anyone in the world of D&D spend the time an money to make magical armor that is just as effective as mundane armor?

I normally love the simplicity of 5e, but I really, really hate the armor tables. I hate that there isn't additional Dex bonuses on lower AC armor or some other reason why you would use it.

</RANT>

Alright, I feel a little better now. Continue on.

Well, I dislike 5e armor too, and I have written a few blog posts (and a PDF) trying to fix it; however, at least there are SOME reasons for bad armor to exist, since they are lighter, cheaper, etc.

If you use variant encumbrance rules, you could even say that 3 pounds is a significant different to a commoner who has to travel around and can carry no more than 50, at least in some circumstances.

Weapons like the mace, OTOH, have no reason to exist at all, since it is equal or worse to the quarterstaff in EVERY aspect. Why would a wizard would EVER want to enchant a mace (since the wziard himself is surely proficient with staves!) is harder to explain than armor IMO...

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/03/d-5e-new-types-off-armor.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/04/d-5e-armor-very-simple-fix.html

[JackPhoenix]

Weapons like the mace, OTOH, have no reason to exist at all, since it is equal or worse to the quarterstaff in EVERY aspect. Why would a wizard would EVER want to enchant a mace (since the wziard himself is surely proficient with staves!) is harder to explain than armor IMO...

Because one-handed quarterstaff looks stupid, and a mace can pass for a royal scepter.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Because one-handed quarterstaff looks stupid, and a mace can pass for a royal scepter.

And a mace and a shield is a classic[1] cleric weapon. A one-handed quarterstaff in that context + shield isn't nearly as well attested. Sure, in martial arts it's common (or at least not uncommon), but as a "priestly" weapon?

[1] classic for D&D, plus a few of the original "clerics can't use bladed weapons" sources.

[Tvtyrant]

Just call it "common armor" and drop the price a bit? It's what commoners wear into battle and covers a wide variety of different cloth, leather jerkins, ladded suits. Etc.

[Carlobrand]

... A one-handed quarterstaff in that context + shield isn't nearly as well attested. Sure, in martial arts it's common (or at least not uncommon), but as a "priestly" weapon? ...

How in the nation of tar do you use a quarterstaff one-handed? I know two ways to use a quarterstaff, both two-handed: hold it at the center so you can strike with either end - which presumably means you could use it as if it were two weapons for two-weapon fighting, but I don't recall a rule on that - or hold it at one end and use it like a two-handed sword for a more powerful hit. What is the martial arts way that lets you use one with one hand?

[Keltest]

How in the nation of tar do you use a quarterstaff one-handed? I know two ways to use a quarterstaff, both two-handed: hold it at the center so you can strike with either end - which presumably means you could use it as if it were two weapons for two-weapon fighting, but I don't recall a rule on that - or hold it at one end and use it like a two-handed sword for a more powerful hit. What is the martial arts way that lets you use one with one hand?

Use it like a blunt spear.

[Corey]

Use it like a blunt spear.

See also the 1:45 mark of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DagVAmbBC38

But I get the impression those guys think of it mainly as a 2-handed weapon, with 1 hand releasing the weapon for strikes in particular circumstances.