*RANT* Leather Armor Bothers me

[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 (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)