# Armor, simplified for 5.5E:



## Horwath (Sep 21, 2022)

Instead of having 15 or so armor across 3 categories, let's have only 3 armor types.
Flavor can be what every, more expensive ones can have some minor game effect outside AC bonuses.

Base AC:
10+proficiency bonus

Light armor(leather/hide): min STR 10, +2 AC
Medium armor(scale/chain): min STR 13, +4 AC, disadvantage on Stealth
Heavy armor(plate): min STR 15, +6 AC, disadvantage on Stealth, -5ft move speed

magic armors can only have +1 to AC, no more. And any armor with +1 AC MUST require attunement.


Armor related feats:

*Light armor mastery: *requires light armor proficiency, 10 STR
+1 str, dex or con.
While wearing no armor or light armor, your speed is increased by 10ft, or by 5ft in medium and heavy armors if your are proficient with them.

*Medium armor mastery: *requires medium armor proficiency, 13 STR
+1 AC in light or medium armors.
removes Stealth penalty for armors that you are proficient.

*Heavy armor mastery: *requires heavy armor proficiency, 15 STR
+1 str, dex or con
gain damage reduction vs. bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage equal to your proficiency bonus.
reduce DR by one for medium armor, reduce DR by 2 for light armor. Increase DR by 1 if using a shield.
remove speed penalty for heavy armor.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 21, 2022)

As written right now, Dex would do nothing for AC.

Medium armor mastery only removes a penalty. It should give an advantage as well (like a bonus vs ranged attacks, since you have the optimal combination of mobility and armor).


----------



## Horwath (Sep 21, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> As written right now, Dex would do nothing for AC.




that's the idea.



fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Medium armor mastery only removes a penalty. It should give an advantage as well (like a bonus vs ranged attacks, since you have the optimal combination of mobility and armor).



it gives +1 AC to light and medium armors.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 21, 2022)

Horwath said:


> that's the idea.




Okay. You removed Dex warriors as an archetype. Curious.



Horwath said:


> it gives +1 AC to light and medium armors.




Ah, missed that, assumed the +1 was to a stat like the others.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 21, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Okay. You removed Dex warriors as an archetype. Curious.



You can still go for dex if you want to be best ranged attacker, supported by weaker melee finesse weapons.

and OFC skills and initiative.


----------



## SakanaSensei (Sep 21, 2022)

I can see the draw of weakening Dex, it really is a powerhouse of a stat.


----------



## aco175 (Sep 21, 2022)

I cannot see people not going for a system that does not include Dex.  The base 10+ Prof instead of Dex might be a change too far.  Is it how much you have trained (Prof) using the armor or how quick you can dodge, duck, dive, dash, and dodge (Dex) that matters more.  Depends on one's perspective.  Monks would be screwed with this system unless a class ability kept Dex for them.

I like the more simple +2, +4, +6 system for light, med, heavy armor.


----------



## Knight_Marshal (Sep 21, 2022)

If you want to make armor actually be armor, then it needs damage reduction.


----------



## Composer99 (Sep 21, 2022)

Knight_Marshal said:


> If you want to make armor actually be armor, then it needs damage reduction.



AC causing attacks to miss *is* damage reduction. It might not be abstracted in a way you care for, but that's what it is.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 21, 2022)

Knight_Marshal said:


> If you want to make armor actually be armor, then it needs damage reduction.



heavy armor mastery feat comes into that.

for base armor is simply too complicated for D&D.

yes it can be done, but then you need 3 types of armor vs 3 types of damage.
it is simply too much combinations that slows down the game.

it's great in PC games where AI calculates that for you instantly.


----------



## Knight_Marshal (Sep 21, 2022)

Yes but plate mail does not make you harder to hit. It makes you easier to hit among other things.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 21, 2022)

Knight_Marshal said:


> Yes but plate mail does not make you harder to hit. It makes you easier to hit among other things.



it's harder to hit you directly on the flesh.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 21, 2022)

What is the reason to nerf armor? Trying to reduce fighter-types even more?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 21, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> What is the reason to nerf armor? Trying to reduce fighter-types even more?




Especially rogues.


----------



## Baron Opal II (Sep 21, 2022)

How do shields fit in?

I could see Dex bonus apply if going wholly without armor. A strong DEX would still have utility, and could emphasize the nimble, quiet skirmisher.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 21, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> What is the reason to nerf armor? Trying to reduce fighter-types even more?



if the number are little off they can be adjusted.

Light: +3
medium: +5
heavy: +7

that way light armor starts at 15, medium at 17 and heavy at 19.

but, I would put that heavy armor starts at 200GP so you cannot start with heavy armor normally
shield is normal +2


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 21, 2022)

I think this is a terrible idea.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 21, 2022)

I think it's easier to just remove Dex-to-dmg to scale the stat back a bit.


----------



## Azzy (Sep 21, 2022)

While this is an interesting discussion of a potential house rule, what does this have to do with the playtest and why is it in the playtest subforum?


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 21, 2022)

Horwath said:


> if the number are little off they can be adjusted.
> 
> Light: +3
> medium: +5
> ...



Again, what is the REASON to nerf armor, given it hits the non-casters the hardest. Who is complaining about PC armor classes being too high due to armor?


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 21, 2022)

Azzy said:


> While this is an interesting discussion of a potential house rule, what does this have to do with the playtest and why is it in the playtest subforum?



omg I didn't even notice what is it doing here


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 21, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> omg I didn't even notice what is it doing here



He's advocating for this change to take place in 5.5 I assume?


----------



## Horwath (Sep 21, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> I think it's easier to just remove Dex-to-dmg to scale the stat back a bit.



no thanks, I had enough of 1d8+0 bow damage.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 21, 2022)

Horwath said:


> You can still go for dex if you want to be best ranged attacker, supported by weaker melee finesse weapons.
> 
> and OFC skills and initiative.



Can you show us on the doll where the Rogue sneak-attacked you?


----------



## gorice (Sep 21, 2022)

I think its a good idea to condense the armours, since they were fairly redundant and the flavour was kind of weird anyway. I would probably keep a gold-plated and/or cumbersome version in each category (e.g. heavy plate) to give people something to work towards, but w/e.

OTOH, once you start talking about DR and removing DEX bonuses from AC, I think you'd be better off just having armour only give DR, and something like 'evasion' (the old AC) be dex bonus + proficiency or something.

It's far too sensible a change to actually happen, but we can dream.


----------



## tetrasodium (Sep 22, 2022)

As a gm I despise the armor types in 5e.  In the simplifications 5e made to the d20 core it built off wotc stripped away all of the mechanical hooks that allowed two armors of the same light/medium/heavy class with a different AC to be subjectively desirable.  Now it's just "what gives more AC" and literally nothing beyond that to influence selection

edit:  Someone could say "well what about disadvantage on stealth?" but no that's not something that's going to influence people who might wear that class of armor.  People considering on if a bit of armor gives stealth disadvantage are going to sit back not moving & send someone with an actual stealthy dex built PC off ahead to be stealthy if it might actually matter


----------



## Eubani (Sep 22, 2022)

Oversimplifying the armor table has reduced the design space and created the illusion of choice. Simplifying further would only exacerbate things.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 22, 2022)

Eubani said:


> Oversimplifying the armor table has reduced the design space and created the illusion of choice. Simplifying further would only exacerbate things.



This.  Level Up's more detailed armor system is much more my speed.  This is the opposite of what I would want.


----------



## gorice (Sep 22, 2022)

I guess I'd rather have no choice than the illusion of choice. But, a little more depth would be nice.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 22, 2022)

gorice said:


> I guess I'd rather have no choice than the illusion of choice. But, a little more depth would be nice.



in 5E there is no real choice

you have studded leather for light.

you aim for halfplate with medium or if your REALLY aim for stealth it will be breastplate, but that will be aimed towards mithral halfplate.

and you have full-plate for heavy. or if you're lucky mithral or adamantium version of it.


same as in 3.5e;
there was 3 basic armors only: chainshirt, breastplate, full-plate.


----------



## gorice (Sep 22, 2022)

Horwath said:


> in 5E there is no real choice
> 
> you have studded leather for light.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't say 'no choice' exactly, since the better options are expensive, and some characters, like melee rangers, might want both protection and stealth, but I take your point.


----------



## Gorck (Sep 22, 2022)

gorice said:


> I wouldn't say 'no choice' exactly, since the better options are expensive, and some characters, like melee rangers, might want both protection and stealth, but I take your point.



And some groups play with the encumbrance rules as well.  You might want that heavier armor, but you might not have the Strength to endure wearing it (outside of the listed Strength requirements for the last 3 armors on the table).


----------



## tetrasodium (Sep 22, 2022)

Gorck said:


> And* some groups play with the encumbrance rules as well*.  You might want that heavier armor, but you might not have the Strength to endure wearing it (outside of the listed Strength requirements for the last 3 armors on the table).



Really & truly the 5e encumbrance rules are designed to ensure that they never have an impact on a PC & the system is made with a built in "_*My*_ PC PC rejects _your_ rules change" player choice veto option called "powerful build" if the gm puts in place rules that might make encumbrance matter.


----------



## tetrasodium (Sep 22, 2022)

Horwath said:


> in 5E there is no real choice
> 
> you have studded leather for light.
> 
> ...



With acp & asf the others were for various forms of gish in 3.5.  Since it wasn't uncommon for a pc to get asf reduction from a combination of feats with a big drop & levels in a PrC that gave smaller per level reductions those other forms of armor did get used  by some builds


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 22, 2022)

If there are eight abilities:

Strength/Constitution
Dexterity/Athletics
Intelligence/Perception
Charisma/Wisdom

Then Athletics handles all mobility checks and gets the "dodging" AC bonus (not Dexterity).

This makes all of the ability scores roughly equally useful.


----------



## Bladesinger (Sep 22, 2022)

Honestly, if I was going to 'simplify' armor, it would just be to flavor text. Thus -

Light Armor - 12+Dex, 15 G.P.
Medium Armor - 14+Dex (max +2), Disadvantage on Stealth, STR 13 min., 50 G.P.
Heavy Armor - 17 AC, Disadvantage on Stealth, STR 15 min., 400 G.P.

This way you stay within bounded accuracy, and you can just describe what type of armor you are wearing to fit you charactor's flavor. Maybe even add Plate back in at its 'normal' stats for that super-heavy choice if you want it.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 23, 2022)

Bladesinger said:


> Honestly, if I was going to 'simplify' armor, it would just be to flavor text. Thus -
> 
> Light Armor - 12+Dex, 15 G.P.
> Medium Armor - 14+Dex (max +2), Disadvantage on Stealth, STR 13 min., 50 G.P.
> ...



I would totally go for this. Fighters can start with medium armor.

Now to do the same for weapons…


----------



## Lojaan (Sep 23, 2022)

Bladesinger said:


> Honestly, if I was going to 'simplify' armor, it would just be to flavor text. Thus -
> 
> Light Armor - 12+Dex, 15 G.P.
> Medium Armor - 14+Dex (max +2), Disadvantage on Stealth, STR 13 min., 50 G.P.
> ...



Love it


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 23, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> Love it



As with the parallel thread on scimitars, I don’t need the rules, and especially equipment lists, to tell me what to imagine. My imagination is bigger than any possible such list.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 23, 2022)

Horwath said:


> in 5E there is no real choice
> 
> you have studded leather for light.
> 
> ...



It's taken me to level 7 to be able to afford half-plate and full plate would have taken likely another level.


----------



## Bladesinger (Sep 27, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I would totally go for this. Fighters can start with medium armor.
> 
> Now to do the same for weapons…



Weapons might be a little more difficult......let me see what I can do.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 6, 2022)

I'd rather have more choices than less choices.


----------



## mellored (Nov 7, 2022)

IMO:

Wizard/Sorcerer: 15 AC
Rouge/Ranger/Barbarian/Monk: 16 AC
Cleric/Artificer: 16 AC, disadvantage on stealth
Fighter/Paladin: 17 AC, disadvantage on stealth

Now you're somewhat more free to put stats where you like.  Like if you want to make a Str based Monk, or Cha based rogue.  Or clumsy wizard.

Bonus points if we can get attack rolls this way too.

I.e. to hit is +5
Str can still be used for damage, it for spells prepared, but you can make a 20 Cha barbarian now.


----------



## mellored (Nov 7, 2022)

Li Shenron said:


> I'd rather have more choices than less choices.



"Pick the highest AC" is not a meaningful choice.


----------



## Eubani (Nov 7, 2022)

mellored said:


> "Pick the highest AC" is not a meaningful choice.



Aside from Disadvantage on Stealth what more is there to affect armor choice then highest AC? This is the consequences of oversimplification.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 7, 2022)

Eubani said:


> Aside from Disadvantage on Stealth what more is there to affect armor choice then highest AC? This is the consequences of oversimplification.



Just from past editions alone...

An armor based value for a Flat reductions to a number of skills... like so and here's a 4e version
A penalty based on the particular kind of armor that causes spellcasters to possibly flub a spell like so 
A reduction to or cap on movement speed like so
elemental boons & banes like so
or to physical types like so

possible penalties to saves like so.
I know that I'm probably missing some historical ones & wouldn't be surprised if there were a few splatbook specific ones... Then there's anything new like the pf2 cloth/leather/chain/composite/plate properties


----------



## mellored (Nov 7, 2022)

Eubani said:


> Aside from Disadvantage on Stealth what more is there to affect armor choice then highest AC? This is the consequences of oversimplification.



What choices do you have making it more complicated?
Can I chose an 8 Dex front line Cleric, or a Con/Cha Rogue?

Tables, charts, stat calculations, and you're always picking the biggest number.  Why not just skip a few steps and get the same number?

Choising a fighting style is a choice. 
Choosing a sub-class is a choice.
Choosing spells is a choice.
Choosing artificer infusion is a choice.

Choosing AC isn't.  There is no meaningful trade off.  Just take the highest.

Unless you want to have armor that gives +to dex saves instead of AC.  Or something along those lines.


----------



## Lojaan (Nov 7, 2022)

mellored said:


> What choices do you have making it more complicated?
> Can I chose an 8 Dex front line Cleric, or a Con/Cha Rogue?
> 
> Tables, charts, stat calculations, and you're always picking the biggest number.  Why not just skip a few steps and get the same number?
> ...



Agreed. This is the TTRPG paradox where more options can mean _less_ choice.

It doesn't matter how many types of armor there is (or how many weapon types, spells etc...) if one is clearly the best then there is only one choice. And if there is only one choice, then there is no choice at all.

Currently there are three "options"; light, medium and heavy, but none of these are really a choice. They are determined at character creation when you choose your class. 

A lot of the time when people talk about options and choice with things like weapons and armor, what they really want is another way to measure character advancement.


----------



## mellored (Nov 7, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> Currently there are three "options"; light, medium and heavy, but none of these are really a choice. *They are determined at character creation when you choose your class.*



Exactly.  So why not skip the middle man?

Just have the class give you your AC directly.  Same as it does your hit dice.


Lojaan said:


> A lot of the time when people talk about options and choice with things like weapons and armor, what they really want is another way to measure character advancement.



Advancement can still happen.  +1 armor and weapons can still be a thing.  Along with _actual_ choices, like getting fire resist armor instead.


----------



## Lojaan (Nov 7, 2022)

mellored said:


> Exactly.  So why not skip the middle man?
> 
> Just have the class give you your AC directly.  Same as it does your hit dice.
> 
> Advancement can still happen.  +1 armor and weapons can still be a thing.  Along with _actual_ choices, like getting fire resist armor instead.



Works for me. Just allow the class to start with the appropriate armor and you are good to go.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 7, 2022)

For armor and weapon choice to really matter... you would need to expand out the rules and bonuses/penalties for all of them... creating a whole mini-game of rock-paper-scissors type of things for how the weapons and armors and combat maneuvers/defense interact with each other.  That's how things used to be in many ways-- in AD&D there was the whole  "Weapons Vs Armor Types" chart... wherein certain types of weapons had bonuses/penalties against certain types of armors.  One armor might give you a point less in AC versus slashing weapons, but 2 points of AC bonus versus bludgeoning.  And thus (for those that used those rules)... it was all about figuring out what types of attacks or armors you would be facing off against and finding the right "counter" to them to be most effective.  It was a mini-game within the game that some players could focus on if they wanted-- just like Weapon Speed Factors could be used to up the complexity of combat.

But let's be honest... those rules were of a different time-- when D&D was still a direct offset of the "miniatures wargame" of old.  But few players nowadays care about getting that far into the weeds involving combat rules as folks did back then.  And for those that _would_ still like to lean in that direction... that's exactly what games like Level Up is for.  But baseline D&D has made the combat board game less labor-intensive and any attempts to go backwards just really aren't going to cut it I don't suspect.

Could you turn the Armor table into just three armors, light, medium, and heavy (since the best of each category is what players ultimately strive for)?  Sure.  But does having other armors on the chart really affect anything?  No, not at all.  The only thing it does is make the narrative of armor different, wherein we don't ever see different "names" of armors, because those names are assigned to lower types.  You won't see many players saying they are sporting "Scale Mail" armor, because players move past it on the chart pretty quickly.  Which means your only option then is to "refluff" your armor (or weapons too for that matter) to let you wear the "type" of armor you want, even though the mechanics are of a different type.  Same way to avoid all the Rapiers in the game is to allow players to re-fluff the 1d8 Martial Finesse weapon from "Rapier" to something else.  They get the best mechanics they are allowed to have... while the "type" of weapon can be something different just for interest sake.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 7, 2022)

Is armor too complicated as it is now? I'm not sure how this improves the game. Removing choices just to simplify things is not in and of itself an improvement.


----------



## Lojaan (Nov 7, 2022)

the Jester said:


> Is armor too complicated as it is now? I'm not sure how this improves the game. Removing choices just to simplify things is not in and of itself an improvement.



Removing options = adding choice


----------



## the Jester (Nov 8, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> Removing options = adding choice



I really don't agree with that.


----------



## mellored (Nov 8, 2022)

the Jester said:


> I really don't agree with that.



It really depends on what is being removed.

If you have the option of +1 AC, +1 to hit, or +5 to both then you only really have 1 choice.
Removing the last option would increase the choices to 2.


----------



## Clint_L (Nov 8, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> For armor and weapon choice to really matter... you would need to expand out the rules and bonuses/penalties for all of them... creating a whole mini-game of rock-paper-scissors type of things for how the weapons and armors and combat maneuvers/defense interact with each other.  That's how things used to be in many ways-- in AD&D there was the whole  "Weapons Vs Armor Types" chart... wherein certain types of weapons had bonuses/penalties against certain types of armors.  One armor might give you a point less in AC versus slashing weapons, but 2 points of AC bonus versus bludgeoning.  And thus (for those that used those rules)... it was all about figuring out what types of attacks or armors you would be facing off against and finding the right "counter" to them to be most effective.  It was a mini-game within the game that some players could focus on if they wanted-- just like Weapon Speed Factors could be used to up the complexity of combat.



I never knew anyone who used those rules. In practice, you had this incredibly detailed table that was basically ignored and everyone chose from the six or so best weapons. That kind of complexity is fun for a tiny minority of players and actively detracts from the game for most, so they just skip it.

My main issue with the current system is that it reduces player choice because there are clear winners and losers in the weapons sweepstakes, so (similarly to AD&D but less extreme) most of the options are wasted. And a few of them weapon properties (reach!) seem to exist only for exploits that actively undermine story immersion.

I guess it's just me, but I don't find weapon or armour choice a particularly interesting aspect of gameplay. I think the basic elements are necessary for class balance reasons, but for the sake of the narrative I generally ignore most of the weapon rules. For example, I had one character who wants to use a scimitar plus shield so it would match her miniature, but use the the long sword stats and I said "yup." I think the whole weapons table in the PHB could be reduced to about 8 homogenized categories and leave all the flavour up the players.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Nov 8, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> I guess it's just me, but I don't find weapon or armour choice a particularly interesting aspect of gameplay. I think the basic elements are necessary for class balance reasons, but for the sake of the narrative I generally ignore most of the weapon rules. For example, I had one character who wants to use a scimitar plus shield so it would match her miniature, but use the the long sword stats and I said "yup." I think the whole weapons table in the PHB could be reduced to about 8 homogenized categories and leave all the flavour up the players.




No, it's not just you.  I completely agree.  Weapon/armor choice are just not an interesting part of the game for me.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 8, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> My main issue with the current system is that it reduces player choice because there are clear winners and losers in the weapons sweepstakes, so (similarly to AD&D but less extreme) most of the options are wasted. And a few of them weapon properties (reach!) seem to exist only for exploits that actively undermine story immersion.
> 
> I guess it's just me, but I don't find weapon or armour choice a particularly interesting aspect of gameplay. I think the basic elements are necessary for class balance reasons, but for the sake of the narrative I generally ignore most of the weapon rules. For example, I had one character who wants to use a scimitar plus shield so it would match her miniature, but use the the long sword stats and I said "yup." I think the whole weapons table in the PHB could be reduced to about 8 homogenized categories and leave all the flavour up the players.





Bill Zebub said:


> No, it's not just you. I completely agree. Weapon/armor choice are just not an interesting part of the game for me.



The part i never get is why when people say "X and Y are not interesting", many go to "remove aspects of X and Y" insted of "make X and Y interesting"


----------



## mellored (Nov 8, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> The part i never get is why when people say "X and Y are not interesting", many go to "remove aspects of X and Y" insted of "make X and Y interesting"



How would you make chain vs plate interesting?

Honestly I don't see a way of making leather vs plate interesting either.

Just give Paladins and fighters +AC and call it a day.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 8, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> No, it's not just you.  I completely agree.  Weapon/armor choice are just not an interesting part of the game for me.






Clint_L said:


> I never knew anyone who used those rules. In practice, you had this incredibly detailed table that was basically ignored and everyone chose from the six or so best weapons. That kind of complexity is fun for a tiny minority of players and actively detracts from the game for most, so they just skip it.
> 
> My main issue with the current system is that it reduces player choice because there are clear winners and losers in the weapons sweepstakes, so (similarly to AD&D but less extreme) most of the options are wasted. And a few of them weapon properties (reach!) seem to exist only for exploits that actively undermine story immersion.
> 
> I guess it's just me, but I don't find weapon or armour choice a particularly interesting aspect of gameplay. I think the basic elements are necessary for class balance reasons, but for the sake of the narrative I generally ignore most of the weapon rules. For example, I had one character who wants to use a scimitar plus shield so it would match her miniature, but use the the long sword stats and I said "yup." I think the whole weapons table in the PHB could be reduced to about 8 homogenized categories and leave all the flavour up the players.



If some people completely agree in that they don't find undead or beasts or fiends "an interesting part of the game" should wotc design 6e to omit those creatures too?  What if they don't find fighters or wizards or clerics "a particularly interesting aspect of gameplay"?  At what point is chasing simplicity go too far?


mellored said:


> How would you make chain vs plate interesting?
> 
> Honestly I don't see a way of making leather vs plate interesting either.
> 
> Just give Paladins and fighters +AC and call it a day.



It's not hard when you move from focusing exclusively on the "I don't like it, nobody can & it can't be done" end of the pool & start looking at things that worked in past editions.  Plate reduces speed & penalties to certain skills but gives high ac.  Chain with some dex gives moderate to good AC  but a minor penalty to some or all of the same skills   Leather plus (lots) of dex gives  low to moderate AC but few if any penalties to skills.  Any of them can have some chance of causing spells to fail when cast while wearing it that is inversely proportional to the AC it gives while various classes & subclasses like EK & AT might give small cumulative reductions to that chance at regular intervals to avoid being an agonizing repelling EB type dip feature for what are otherwise pure casters.  Specific armors could even give a reduction or increase in specific damage types taken like some of the 4e armors did.... Of course doing that well depends in some degree on admitting that relying on (dis)advantage as the first last & only option is an application of maslow's hammer that fails to provide the precision & finesse needed for many areas of design*.

* There are quite a few of them already, these would fit right in.


----------



## rules.mechanic (Nov 8, 2022)

Some higher ACs could be balanced with a penalty to d20 Tests. With the new exhaustion UA, you could gain 2 temporary levels of exhaustion while wearing some heavy armours and 1 while wearing some medium armours? Might make more of a genuine choice and the heaviest armour would be less appealing to non front-line characters.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 8, 2022)

mellored said:


> How would you make chain vs plate interesting?
> 
> Honestly I don't see a way of making leather vs plate interesting either.
> 
> Just give Paladins and fighters +AC and call it a day.



Just because you can't see it doesn't men it doesn't exist.

If you want different between armors within the current 5e system, see my Armor threads on the subject.

If you are going to depart form 5e rules, then I'd go with armor material.

Plate gives you +3 AC but a harsh movement and skill penalty
Splint/Banded gives you +2 AC but a harsh movement penalty
Ring/Chain gives you +2 AC but a harsh skill penalty
Padded/Weave gives you +1 AC but a light skill penalty
Leather/Hide gives you no AC bonus but no penalty

Additional variants make each armor type have different resistances.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 8, 2022)

To make something like armor or weapon choice "interesting" means doing it for one of two things-- either mechanically, which means coming up with some sort of mini-game within combat where these choices affect how they interest with other choices (the rock-paper-scissors thing I mentioned above)... or narratively, where the choice is meaningful to the player because they enjoy the visualization and narration of using said weapon or armor/shield during combats.  The same way one describes and cares about the physical features of their character.

For the latter... just going with broad categories is fine because the player would just narrate what their PC was using / wearing and the generic mechanical expression would not get in the way.  For the former... someone would need to build a much more in-depth system of interactions between all the various pieces.  The game already has a few... Reach allows for more attacking distance, the damage types and damage resistances allow for this-vs-that bonuses and penalties, the Finesse property allows for the use of a different stat to attack that matches the stat connected to defense allowing for a character to double-up, and so forth.

But how far into the weeds do people really want to go?  How complex or intricate do people really want D&D combat to be?  This isn't _The Riddle of Steel_ RPG... the combat isn't meant to be this intense dance of mechanical interplay that replicates true combat as closely as possible... it's generic fantasy violence.  And with PCs already getting a bunch of additional mechanical heft from their class features... adding more heft purely in the armors and weapons themselves just might end up getting in the way and cluttering what is meant to be a fast and easy interaction.

And I suspect most people are on this wavelength... where they don't expect or indeed want combat in D&D to be this intricately-designed tactical combat sim that takes armors and metals and weapons and shapes and speeds and guards all into account while also layering on the mechanical functions of the class structure.  It's too much for a game like D&D.  D&D is a foundational game, so going too far into the weeds just gets in the way.  And thus they leave it to other companies to produce the tactical combat sims of games like _The Riddle of Steel_ and direct players who want that depth in those directions.


----------



## mellored (Nov 8, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> It's not hard when you move from focusing exclusively on the "I don't like it, nobody can & it can't be done" end of the pool & start looking at things that worked in past editions.  Plate reduces speed & penalties to certain skills but gives high ac.  Chain with some dex gives moderate to good AC  but a minor penalty to some or all of the same skills   Leather plus (lots) of dex gives  low to moderate AC but few if any penalties to skills.  Any of them can have some chance of causing spells to fail when cast while wearing it that is inversely proportional to the AC it gives while various classes & subclasses like EK & AT might give small cumulative reductions to that chance at regular intervals to avoid being an agonizing repelling EB type dip feature for what are otherwise pure casters.  Specific armors could even give a reduction or increase in specific damage types taken like some of the 4e armors did.... Of course doing that well depends in some degree on admitting that relying on (dis)advantage as the first last & only option is an application of maslow's hammer that fails to provide the precision & finesse needed for many areas of design*.
> 
> * There are quite a few of them already, these would fit right in.



You can have all those choices and more if you attached AC directly to the class.

War Paladin: 18 AC, 1d12 damage, disadvantage on stealth

Protection Paladin: 20 AC, 1d8 damage, disadvantage on stealth.

Peace Paladin: 16 AC, 1d4 damage, can cast sanctuary at will.

Dragon Paladin: 17 AC, 1d10 damage, 1d6 damage in a cone. resistance to your dragons element.  

Blood Paladin: 15 AC, 1d8 damage.  Gain THP equal to the damage dealt.

Fighter:  you can swap between these as a bonus activity.
Range: 16 AC, 1d8, +2 hit.
Offense: 17 AC, 2d6 damage
Tank: 20 AC, 1d8 to hit
Skirmish: 18 AC, 1d8 to hit, you can move 5' after attacking and not provoke.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 8, 2022)

mellored said:


> You can have all those choices and more if you attached AC directly to the class.
> 
> War Paladin: 18 AC, 1d12 damage, disadvantage on stealth
> 
> ...



Not while allowing the gm to make use of those dials when generating magic items to award. The simplification you are pushing does have a cost & that cost hits longer lived campaigns pretty significantly by tuning to the desires of the most hands off one shot.


----------



## mellored (Nov 8, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Not while allowing the gm to make use of those dials when generating magic items to award. The simplification you are pushing does have a cost & that cost hits longer lived campaigns pretty significantly by tuning to the desires of the most hands off one shot.



Nothing i wrote prevent the GM from handing out +1 AC as a reward.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Nov 8, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> The part i never get is why when people say "X and Y are not interesting", many go to "remove aspects of X and Y" insted of "make X and Y interesting"




Oh I would love for it to be interesting, and in some games it is. 

But if N choices are uninteresting, what would make N + X _of the same kinds of choices _more interesting?


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 8, 2022)

mellored said:


> Nothing i wrote prevent the GM from handing out +1 AC as a reward.



It explicitly does prevent the gm from handing out plus one ac attached to some other set of tradeoffs though because those tradeoffs are no longer attached to armor under your one shot tailored proposal.


----------



## mellored (Nov 8, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> It explicitly does prevent the gm from handing out plus one ac attached to some other set of tradeoffs though because those tradeoffs are no longer attached to armor under your one shot tailored proposal.



How so?

Necro trap armor: +1AC
Cursed: not immediately apparent, you take double damage from necrotic.  If you die, your corpse becomes a minion for the litch.

Or did you mean something else?


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 8, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Oh I would love for it to be interesting, and in some games it is.
> 
> But if N choices are uninteresting, what would make N + X _of the same kinds of choices _more interesting?



That point is that in 5e, N=1. *There isn't a any choices*. So N+X is automatically more interesting.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 8, 2022)

mellored said:


> It really depends on what is being removed.
> 
> If you have the option of +1 AC, +1 to hit, or +5 to both then you only really have 1 choice.
> Removing the last option would increase the choices to 2.



Does any armor in the game give you +5 to both? No. Let's not use examples that don't exist, please. They are useless in a discussion.


----------



## mellored (Nov 8, 2022)

the Jester said:


> Does any armor in the game give you +5 to both? No. Let's not use examples that don't exist, please. They are useless in a discussion.



An 8 Str, 8 dex fighter who gets belt of giant strength and plate.

Ok, so that is 2 items.  But still +5 to each.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 10, 2022)

mellored said:


> An 8 Str, 8 dex fighter who gets belt of giant strength and plate.
> 
> Ok, so that is 2 items.  But still +5 to each.



One of those things is not armor, and it's the one that gives you the bonus no actual type of armor gives you... not to mention that it's a magic item, and this thread is supposedly about armor types.


----------

