# Time to add new Armors to the table.



## Minigiant (Nov 6, 2022)

Personally, I think One D&D presents an opportunity to add more decision treasure in treasure accumulation and ways to spend gold.

Time to Add more armors to the top end of the table of the armor types?

Light ArmorArmor ClassStrengthStealthPadded11 + Dex modifier-DisadvantageLeather11 + Dex modifier--Studded Leather12 + Dex modifier--Piecemeal13 + Dex modifierSTR 15-Gambeson13 + Dex modifierSTR 13Disadvantage

This gives light armor users 3 options to upgrade to and allows DMs more variety of armors to reward as treasure. Piecemeal armor would be plate armor covering the chest and shoulder only. Gambeson is thicker but less flexible cloth.


Medium ArmorACStrengthStealthHide12 + Dex modifier (max 2)Chain Shirt13 + Dex modifier (max 2)Scale Mail14 + Dex modifier (max 2)DisadvantageBreastplate14 + Dex modifier (max 2)Half Plate15 + Dex modifier (max 2)DisadvantageBrigandine15 + Dex modifier (max 2)STR 15-

Again 3 choices in top armor. Medium armor was already fine.


Heavy ArmorACStrengthStealthRing mail14-DisadvantageChain Mail16STR 13DisadvantageHeavy Hide16STR 13-Splint17STR 15DisadvantageBanded17STR 15Plate18STR 15Disadvantage

Good old stupid banded armor allows for another option for heavy armor users. Heavy plate allows the rich STR user to remain on top as the high AC. Heavy armor is the toughest as you want to keep Plate as top. Add in banded for heavy armor users who want to be stealthy


Highest AC in armor before featsLightMediumHeavy16Leather, PaddedBreastplateChainmail, Heavy Hide17Studded LeatherBrigandine, Half PlateBanded, Splint18Gambeson, PiecemealPlate

As for the second part. what if armor of resistance dragon scale mail were craftable and your could switch the damage type buy collecting dragon scales and having a master smith work on the armor. 5000gp for the scales and 2000gp for the smith's work.

Resistance is something that your can add to armor without breaking bounded accuracy much. Possibly adding additional resistances to armors would be okay as well. An adventure with dragons or demons could yield adding fire or cold resistance to all the armor users on the downtime and see gold well spent. All while not warping the main combat flow.

What do you think?


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 6, 2022)

I view:

Padded = Gambeson
Scale = Brigandine


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 6, 2022)

Padded and leather are mechanically identical. And a gambeson is padded armour already.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 6, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I view:
> 
> Padded = Gambeson
> Scale = Brigandine



Gambeson is padded armour, but scale armour and brigandine are both historical and distinct, if that's what you're referring to. It's things like studded leather and ring mail that are ahistorical.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 6, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I view:
> 
> Padded = Gambeson
> Scale = Brigandine






Fifth Element said:


> Padded and leather are mechanically identical. And a gambeson is padded armour already.



D&D Armor would be better it cloth armor was split in 2. Plus Gambeson is better that just +1 AC. Gambeson would be thicker tightly packed padded armor.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 6, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> Gambeson is padded armour, but scale armour and brigandine are both historical and distinct, if that's what you're referring to. It's things like studded leather and ring mail that are ahistorical.




"Scale" includes any small metal pieces (platelets, strips, etcetera) that are secured together by chain links, rivets, cords, or sewn:

• Brigandine
• Fish scale squamata
• Banded segmentata
• Tiled lamellar

For arm guards and leg guards, also scale includes:

• Banded manica (Roman armor for one arm)
• Splint (long metal strips secured along limbs)


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 6, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> D&D Armor would be better it cloth armor was split in 2. Plus Gambeson is better that just +1 AC. Gambeson would be thicker tightly packed padded armor.



Bounded accuracy in 5e prevents the resolution to nuance between armor values.

Padded armor (of any fabric whether wool, fur, hair, or leather) +1 AC
Leather armor (specifically hardened leather scale or breastplate) +1 AC
Full plate armor suit +8 AC

There is not much space in between.

Even chain torso armor is only +3 AC, and a full chain suit is only +6 AC.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 6, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Personally, I think One D&D presents an opportunity to add more decision treasure in treasure accumulation and ways to spend gold.
> 
> Time to Add more armors to the top end of the table of the armor types?
> 
> ...



The max dex should vary from armor to armor where max dex applies.  Otherwise you just wind up with the same situation where some armors are used while others are only used by new PCs till they can replace them


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 6, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> The max dex should vary from armor to armor where max dex applies.  Otherwise you just wind up with the same situation where some armors are used while others are only used by new PCs till they can replace them



I would like to see chain allow for more Dex than scale does.


----------



## Clint_L (Nov 6, 2022)

As almost always, I want to _less_ complexity in the rules, not _more_ (aside from optional rules).

So while I think that your ideas for adding resistance to armour types (which already exists through enchantments, though) might be a cool optional rule, all I think we need for armour types is a list of the ACs, attributes, and cost, along with a list of some options that might typically fall into the AC, and then let players and DMs use their imaginations. Is your AC 16 coming from chainmail or from some weird combination of scavenged chitin plates and rubber bands? Who cares?!

I think the same for weapons - do we really need separate entries for things like "long sword" and "battle-axe"? Just have an entry for "1 handed slashing weapon" and let players fill in the rest.


----------



## Clint_L (Nov 6, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I would like to see chain allow for more Dex than scale does.



This is the kind of debate that my suggestion would get rid of. If you want to have chain that allows for more dex than scale, just purchase AC 12 and call it chain. Maybe it's a lighter version of chain, or partial chain, or damaged chain, or whatever your imagination wants it to be.


----------



## Yora (Nov 6, 2022)

If any changes are made to the armor tables, the first thing is to finally get rid of the travesty that is studded leather.

There is no such thing as studded leather armor, never has been, and never could be. The idea does not offer any meaningful protection.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 6, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> As almost always, I want to _less_ complexity in the rules, not _more_ (aside from optional rules).
> 
> So while I think that your ideas for adding resistance to armour types (which already exists through enchantments, though) might be a cool optional rule, all I think we need for armour types is a list of the ACs, attributes, and cost, along with a list of some options that might typically fall into the AC, and then let players and DMs use their imaginations. Is your AC 16 coming from chainmail or from some weird combination of scavenged chitin plates and rubber bands? Who cares?!
> 
> I think the same for weapons - do we really need separate entries for things like "long sword" and "battle-axe"? Just have an entry for "1 handed slashing weapon" and let players fill in the rest.



The armors can simplify.

I feel there are meaningful differences between the bladelengths of swords.
Up to 1 foot: dagger
1 to 2 feet: shortsword (gladius, seax, wakizashi, machete, etc)
2 to 3 feet: sword (viking, knightly, katana, etc)
3 to 4 feet: longsword (claymore, bastard, etc)
4 feet and up: greatsword (zweihaander, fantasy giant buster swords, etc)


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 6, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> As almost always, I want to _less_ complexity in the rules, not _more_ (aside from optional rules).
> 
> So while I think that your ideas for adding resistance to armour types (which already exists through enchantments, though) might be a cool optional rule, all I think we need for armour types is a list of the ACs, attributes, and cost, along with a list of some options that might typically fall into the AC, and then let players and DMs use their imaginations. Is your AC 16 coming from chainmail or from some weird combination of scavenged chitin plates and rubber bands? Who cares?!
> 
> I think the same for weapons - do we really need separate entries for things like "long sword" and "battle-axe"? Just have an entry for "1 handed slashing weapon" and let players fill in the rest.



The flaw with Simplicity is that it offers too little to put in treasure. 

The problem with D&D treasure is that a DM has few options of armor or weapons to entice players without busting bounded accuracy.


 Once your fighter buys plate armor, nothing but plate armor +X or plater armor of X resistance would ever excite them.

But with plate armor of fire resistance, finding banded armor of cold resistance.offers a new option without hurting BA.

As a DM who had 2 PCs with 22AC, it can get rough.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 6, 2022)

Along the lines of armor simplification, something like:


EXAMPLETORSO ONLYFULL SUITPadded / Leather+1 (max +5 Dex)+2 (max +4 Dex)Chain+3 (max +3 Dex)+5 (max +1 Dex)Scale / Plate+4 (max +2 Dex)+6 (no Dex)


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 6, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Along the lines of armor simplification, something like:
> 
> 
> EXAMPLETORSO ONLYFULL SUITPadded / Leather+1 (max +5 Dex)+2 (max +4 Dex)Chain+3 (max +3 Dex)+5 (max +1 Dex)Scale / Plate+4 (max +2 Dex)+6 (no Dex)



Some of those need a strength requirement


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 6, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Along the lines of armor simplification, something like:
> 
> 
> EXAMPLETORSO ONLYFULL SUITPadded / Leather+1 (max +5 Dex)+2 (max +4 Dex)Chain+3 (max +3 Dex)+5 (max +1 Dex)Scale / Plate+4 (max +2 Dex)+6 (no Dex)



That doesn't solve the problem of PCs having too few options for armor rewards.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 6, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> That doesn't solve the problem of PCs having too few options for armor rewards.



Flavorwise, there is an unlimited number of armor types.

Mechanically, magic armor diversifies rewards.


----------



## Clint_L (Nov 6, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> The flaw with Simplicity is that it offers too little to put in treasure.
> 
> The problem with D&D treasure is that a DM has few options of armor or weapons to entice players without busting bounded accuracy.
> 
> ...



So, with my suggestion the exact type of armour would be up the DM's imagination, so there would be boundless treasure options.

Say the DM is getting treasure out of the DM's Guide or D&D Beyond and they want there to be some interesting armour. They go with Armour of the Mariner, and decide on AC 16 as the base (so, heavy armour, etc.). Then they tell the player what it looks like - maybe Merfolk forged it from Dragon Turtle shell, for example.

My point is that all that matters about armour are its attributes (AC, type, str/dex limitations, cost). Specifying the exact type of the armour doesn't need to be in the rules and leaving it up to the players/DMs increases choice and options while getting rid of irrelevant debates, like whether chain is more limiting than scale and so on. Those are table-level discussions that don't need to be worked into the rules.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 6, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> So, with my suggestion the exact type of armour would be up the DM's imagination, so there would be boundless treasure options.
> 
> Say the DM is getting treasure out of the DM's Guide or D&D Beyond and they want there to be some interesting armour. They go with Armour of the Mariner, and decide on AC 16 as the base (so, heavy armour, etc.). Then they tell the player what it looks like - maybe Merfolk forged it from Dragon Turtle shell, for example.



Not really.  Your suggestion tries to replicate 3.x's subjectivity in armor choice without expanding the designspace beyond a single point of "does the wearer use stealth: (yes/no)" to recover the mechanical reasons why 3.x had subjectivity in armor & weapons


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 6, 2022)

What if:

*AC = 10 + Strength + Dexterity*

A character with both +5 Strength and +5 Dexterity can with the appropriate armor attain 20 AC.

For example. A Chain armor that grants +3 AC, likewise has a +3 Strength prereq to wear it comfortably for long periods of time. A Chain armor that grants +5 AC, likewise has a +5 Strength prereq.

If a character is strong enough to wear the armor comfortably, they are also strong enough to apply their body agility effectively to dodge.


----------



## Clint_L (Nov 6, 2022)

I don't think I'm explaining myself well. Looking at the OP, all I am saying is to get rid of the first column.


----------



## Azzy (Nov 6, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> Gambeson is padded armour, but scale armour and brigandine are both historical and distinct, if that's what you're referring to. It's things like studded leather and ring mail that are ahistorical.



I believe, from the description in the 1e DMG, that studded leather was supposed to represent brigandine.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 6, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> "Scale" includes any small metal pieces (platelets, strips, etcetera) that are secured together by chain links, rivets, cords, or sewn:



Brigandine (and the very similar jack of plate) are distinct enough from Eurasian style scale (which is how scale is described typically) for D&D purposes to be sure.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 6, 2022)

Azzy said:


> I believe, from the description in the 1e DMG, that studded leather was supposed to represent brigandine.



It's often said to be based on a misunderstanding of bringandine, which does have "studs" on the outside - because they attach the metal plates on the inside.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 6, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> Brigandine (and the very similar jack of plate) are distinct enough from Eurasian style scale (which is how scale is described typically) for D&D purposes to be sure.



There is no difference with regard to D&D mechanics.

The "fish scale armor" holds the platelets together with string. The "brigandine armor" holds the platelets together by riveting them between sheets of fabric. The jack of plate holds them together by sewing them.

The platelets are the part that is meaningful for AC. The fabrics and strings are the way to keep the platelets together.


----------



## Azzy (Nov 6, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> The armors can simplify.
> 
> I feel there are meaningful differences between the bladelengths of swords.
> Up to 1 foot: dagger
> ...



Katana should be in the longsword category. Perhaps you're think of the wakisashi.


----------



## Azzy (Nov 6, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> It's often said to be based on a misunderstanding of bringandine, which does have "studs" on the outside - because they attach the metal plates on the inside.



Precisely.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 6, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> D&D Armor would be better it cloth armor was split in 2.



My point was that your table has padded and leather being identical mechanically. So adding gambeson, when that's just padded, makes little sense when you could just assign the gambeson mechanics to padded instead, for example. Rather than having two mechanically identical armours on the list.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 6, 2022)

Azzy said:


> Katana should be in the longsword category. Perhaps you're think of the wakisashi.



Katana is fine where it is. Perhaps you're thinking of the tachi.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 6, 2022)

Azzy said:


> Katana should be in the longsword category. Perhaps you're think of the wakisashi.



The knightly sword and the katana are agile, even finesse. The katana is designed to be versatile, but the knightly is designed for one hand only. Something like:

Dagger 1d4, pierce, finesse, light, throw, simple
Shortsword 1d6 slash/pierce, finesse, light, simple
Sword 1d8 slash/pierce, finesse, versatile 1d10, martial
Longsword 1d10 (!) slash, versatile 1d12, martial
Greatsword 1d12 slash, twohanded, reach, martial


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 6, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> The platelets are the part that is meaningful for AC. The fabrics and strings are the way to keep the platelets together.



The intent of OP is to create more gradation in armour types. Differentiating between scale and brigandine is one way of doing so.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 6, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> The intent of OP is to create more gradation in armour types. Differentiating between scale and brigandine is one way of doing so.



My view is, bounded accuracy makes finer gradations for armor moot.


----------



## aco175 (Nov 6, 2022)

The OP talks about piecemail where you need a STR 15 and then describes it as half plate.  I'm not understanding the difference.  I would like to see a few more armors in the book.  Would having a speed reduction if not proficient work instead of a STR requirement.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 6, 2022)

Where

AC = 10 + Strength + Dexterity

The armor grants an AC armor bonus that is equal to its Strength prereq.

If a character meets the prereq, then the character can "train" to be able to add the Dexterity on top of it. If the character fails to meet the prereq, the armor bonus applies, but the Dexterity bonus becomes void.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 6, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> What if:
> 
> *AC = 10 + Strength + Dexterity*
> 
> ...



You are very significantly missing the reasons why some armors need strength requirements.  Dex is a more valuable attribute than strength  & when a dex build can completely dump strength at no opportunity cost for the same or better ac as a strength build or non-dumped str dex build it widens the value gap between the two attributes.  On top of that by having the same results for every type it just returns to a bunch of trash options with no subjective reasons for a player to ever consider.


Yaarel said:


> My view is, bounded accuracy makes finer gradations for armor moot.



It makes them _more_ important because the GM needs room to work within BA rather than the current state of 5e where GMs are forced out of BA's range by Players:"it's not better than $type+N, how much can we sell it for?">player:"I have YYY gold, can I find armor that's better than $type+N in _this_ town?"


----------



## Bill Zebub (Nov 6, 2022)

I kinda liked the thread that suggested three kinds of armor: light, medium, heavy.  Fluff however you want.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 6, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> You are very significantly missing the reasons why some armors need strength requirements.



The fiddly complication is unnecessary. It merits simplification.

The heavier the metal, or the bulkier the fabric, the higher the Strength prereq to wear it comfortably. It relates to encumbrance.



tetrasodium said:


> Dex is a more valuable attribute than strength  & when a dex build can completely dump strength at no opportunity cost for the same or better ac as a strength build





If AC=Strength+Dexterity, then one cannot dump Dexterity. Likewise, one cannot dump Strength. To invest in both is a benefit.

To be clear. A character with +3 Strength and +5 Dexterity will be able to wear a Chain Tunic for +3 AC and add +5 Dexterity, totaling an AC 18.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 6, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> The fiddly complication is unnecessary. It merits simplification.
> 
> The heavier the metal, or the bulkier the fabric, the higher the Strength prereq to wear it comfortably. It relates to encumbrance.
> 
> ...



except that shifts from subjective build choices with tradeoffs to one optimal option within pointbuy costs & even less room for the GM to use for treasure.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 6, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> except that shifts from subjective build choices with tradeoffs to one optimal option within pointbuy costs & even less room for the GM to use for treasure.



The DM has many kinds of armor to offer for treasure.

• Chain shirt (prereq +3 Strength)
• Chain suit (helmet, longsleeves, with leggings or longcoat) (prereq +5 Strength)

• Heavy Wool Sweater (prereq +1 Strength)
• Reinforced Gambeson (prereq +2 Strength)

• Breastplate (prereq +4 Strength)
• Chain over Gambeson (prereq +4 Strength)

And so on.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 6, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Flavorwise, there is an unlimited number of armor types.
> 
> Mechanically, magic armor diversifies rewards.



Flavorwise sure.

Mechanically.. if the new treasure isn't noticeably better or have a worthwhile tradeoff *>50% of players will not care about the new armor you throw in the treasure and will sell or hand it down to henchmen.*

This wasn't a problem in older editions as you 4-6 levels of +X to hand out.

But in 5e, giving out +2 armor can really screw up battles.
A Fighter with +2 armor can get to 23 AC easy and make 75% of attacks against him miss.

This means you only have a +1 and +0 range to work with. But 5e's armor don't get top end options to light or heavy armor.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Nov 6, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> except that shifts from subjective build choices with tradeoffs to one optimal option within pointbuy costs & even less room for the GM to use for treasure.



What is the value of this 'room for treasure' point you keep bringing up?


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 6, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> So, with my suggestion the exact type of armour would be up the DM's imagination, so there would be boundless treasure options.
> 
> Say the DM is getting treasure out of the DM's Guide or D&D Beyond and they want there to be some interesting armour. They go with Armour of the Mariner, and decide on AC 16 as the base (so, heavy armour, etc.). Then they tell the player what it looks like - maybe Merfolk forged it from Dragon Turtle shell, for example.
> 
> My point is that all that matters about armour are its attributes (AC, type, str/dex limitations, cost). Specifying the exact type of the armour doesn't need to be in the rules and leaving it up to the players/DMs increases choice and options while getting rid of irrelevant debates, like whether chain is more limiting than scale and so on. Those are table-level discussions that don't need to be worked into the rules.




That''s my point of why simplistic armor wont work.

Once the fighter get +1 plate, your plate armor of the fish or scale armor of lightning resistance is going in the bag of hold to be sold to the next rich NPC willing to buy.

But If you added banded, the fighter has the choice of losing 1 AC for the ability to make stealth checks. So when they find a banded armor +1 they are excited because they actually _use_ this armor.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 6, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Flavorwise sure.
> 
> Mechanically.. if the new treasure isn't noticeably better or have a worthwhile tradeoff *>50% of players will not care about the new armor you throw in the treasure and will sell or hand it down to henchmen.*
> 
> ...



Conversely, if the player loves their chain armor and its flavor, it kinda sucks if they are forced to give it up because the "better" armor isnt chain.



If AC=Strength+Dexterity

Then there is such thing as Chain (prereq +3 Strength) and Chain (prereq +5 Strength).

So, if the player likes Chain, it is possible to find a better version of it. It is even possible to upgrade the armor by modifying it or adding other armoring with it.

If the player wants Banded (namely Lorica Segmentata) then both +3 to +4 are possible.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 6, 2022)

I'm definitely on board with adding more armor. I'd like to see more adders to armor as well, like we see with weapons. I'd like a buckler in there too.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Nov 6, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> • Heavy Wool Sweater (prereq +1 Strength)




How about a puffy jacket stuffed with down from a baby roc?


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 6, 2022)

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> What is the value of this 'room for treasure' point you keep bringing up?



You know... *standard GM stuff*.  Your question highlights a failing of 5e's DMG since there's no good reference material to point to there.  Back in past editions there was much more effort devoted to aiding & supporting the GM with rules advice & guidance 

Up until 5e it was accepted and even spelled out explicitly in more than one edition that awarding players with treasure to make them more powerful was an important part of keeping players interested as a GM.  4e made the mistake of taking that role out of the GM's control & giving it to the players but 5e makes the mistake of removing it entirely with bounded accuracy & a no feats no magic items assumption for the math.  The GM is still expected to award treasure, it's just either game disrupting or worth less than chucky cheese prize tickets.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Nov 6, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> You know... *standard GM stuff*.  Your question highlights a failing of 5e's DMG since there's no good reference material to point to there.  Back in past editions there was much more effort devoted to aiding & supporting the GM with rules advice & guidance
> 
> Up until 5e it was accepted and even spelled out explicitly in more than one edition that awarding players with treasure to make them more powerful was an important part of keeping players interested as a GM.  4e made the mistake of taking that role out of the GM's control & giving it to the players but 5e makes the mistake of removing it entirely with bounded accuracy & a no feats no magic items assumption for the math.  The GM is still expected to award treasure, it's just either game disrupting or worth less than chucky cheese prize tickets.



I see what you're saying. I'm not sure how picking on granularity of armour benefits aids that. I guess it does in a sense, but there are other ways to address that issue. Simplifying armour does have some benefits. Complexifying armour, though it does satisfy your point, adds... complexity. Not sure the trade off is worth it.

Interesting point though...


----------



## aco175 (Nov 6, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> The GM is still expected to award treasure, it's just either game disrupting or worth less than chucky cheese prize tickets.



How dare you, look at this kid, he must be able to get several sticks of Bazooka gum, a slimly guy that walks down glass, and a potion of climbing- talk about treasure.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 6, 2022)

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> I see what you're saying. I'm not sure how picking on granularity of armour benefits aids that. I guess it does in a sense, but there are other ways to address that issue. Simplifying armour does have some benefits. Complexifying armour, though it does satisfy your point, adds... complexity. Not sure the trade off is worth it.
> 
> Interesting point though...



When armor had more dials than a single objective total AC=X  alongside "does bob plan to use stealth" there were more dials a gm could manipulate.  Simplifications reduce the already overly narrow set of options players might find potentially exciting  available for the gm to choose from.  Granularity expands the options


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Nov 7, 2022)

double post


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Nov 7, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> When armor had more dials than a single objective total AC=X  alongside "does bob plan to use stealth" there were more dials a gm could manipulate.  Simplifications reduce the already overly narrow set of options players might find potentially exciting  available for the gm to choose from.  Granularity expands the options



Yup. Like I said earlier, I've already understood your point and I am buying what you're selling. Do you understand what I'm asking you though? Is adding complexity to armour the particular hill you're willing to die on in order to achieve that goal (of granularity expanding options)? Because there are other ways of achieving the benefits of this granularity you're talking about.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 7, 2022)

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> Yup. Like I said earlier, I've already understood your point and I am buying what you're selling. Do you understand what I'm asking you though? Is adding complexity to armour the particular hill you're willing to die on in order to achieve that goal (of granularity expanding options)? Because there are *other ways* of achieving the benefits of this granularity you're talking about.



"Other Ways"  i.e. Push PCs past bounded accuracy & deal with the resulting fallout one way or another when monsters can't keep up and your the GM you homebrew a solution other than giving out objectively better & better equipment  like more resistances on the best AC armor the player already has.  6e needs to do a better job with fitting a core subsystem like armor within the player expectations & GM needs of a game called d&d.


----------



## mellored (Nov 7, 2022)

I don't see the benefit of adding a big chart just so you can spend more gold for +1 AC.

If that's all you want, just have 
Masterwork, +1 AC, 1000 gold.
Supremework, +2 AC, 10,000 gold.

But personally I would just get rid of "armors", and make it class based.

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

Fighting style: don't take disadvantage on stealth.

Magic armor has class requirements.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 7, 2022)

Similar to the ways that weapons have "properties", armor can too.

So far, the armor properties simplify as the following conditions:
• Slowed ( ← Heavy) ( ≈ half speed)
• Encumbered ( ← untrained) ( ≈ disadvantage on all Physical Ability Checks)
• Noisy ( ≈ moving ends Hidden condition)

Hypothetically, even a light but bulky Padded (Gambeson) armor would cause the Encumbered condition if failing to meet its Strength prereq.

Perhaps there can be other conditions as well. Chain might be "Resistant (Slash)", and Padded might be "Resistant (Bludgeon)". At least high quality versions of these armors might have these beneficial properties.

All armor must remain within bounded accuracy, so there is less room for AC granularity. But higher quality armors that are more expensive can have better properties and lack impeding conditions.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 7, 2022)

If

AC = Strength + Dexterity

Then

There are more meaningful choices regarding whether to invest in Strength or not.



For example.

• Padded armor would have a prerequisite of +1 Strength for armor training, thus grants +1 AC.
• Chain armor (shortsleeve shirt, tunic) would have a prereq of +3 Strength thus grant +3 AC.

Higher Strength characters can wear better armors more effectively. Those that meet the prereq can add the Dex bonus on top of the armor.

Lower Strength characters can still wear armor, but cannot gain training, thus cannot benefit from the Dexterity dodge bonus to AC.



Meanwhile

With regard to treasure, specific armors can feature different properties. For example, some forms of Plate Suit incur the Slowed condition, but the highest quality specimens dont. Elven Chain whether Torso or Suit lacks the Noisy condition and allows for Stealth. And so on, with different properties for different specimens of armor types.


----------



## mellored (Nov 7, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> AC = Strength + Dexterity



That really kills Clerics and Artificers.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 7, 2022)

mellored said:


> That really kills Clerics and Artificers.



Why?

When AC=Strength+Dexterity

Clerics and Artificers benefit from both Strength and MAGIC to enhance AC.

Meanwhile the unarmored Dexterity Cleric "in robes" is a viable character concept.

If a warrior Cleric wants to invest in both Strength and Dexterity, that is viable too.


----------



## mellored (Nov 7, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Why?
> 
> When AC=Strength+Dexterity
> 
> ...



What about my wis / cha cleric or int/wis artificer?
Or are you suggesting they get +wis/int to AC as well?


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 7, 2022)

mellored said:


> What about my wis / cha cleric or int/wis artificer?
> Or are you suggesting they get +wis/int to AC as well?



Like Wizard typically. These non-gish mage concepts rely more heavily on spellcasting and other magic to defend oneself, as well as relying on a Warrior ally to stay between oneself and the hostiles.

Maybe when the Shield of Faith spell targets Self, it requires no Concentration.

Plus both Cleric and Artificer can use shields, which exchanges a free offhand for an AC bonus.


----------



## mellored (Nov 7, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Like Wizard typically. These non-gish mage concepts rely more heavily on spellcasting and other magic to defend oneself, as well as relying on a Warrior ally to stay between oneself and the hostiles.
> 
> Maybe when the Shield of Faith spell targets Self, it requires no Concentration.
> 
> Plus both Cleric and Artificer can use shields, which exchanges a free offhand for an AC bonus.



So everyone gets scaling mage armor or bark skin?

I mean, that kind of works.  But you'll still end up with every fighter maxing Str right away.  And it will be even harder to have any monk with any points into Cha.

It's hard enough for anyone to take the skilled feat as is.  And your making it even harder.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 7, 2022)

mellored said:


> So everyone gets scaling mage armor or bark skin?



Fighters can benefit from spells like Mage Armor too. I feel strongly Mage Armor plus a Cantrip should be a Fighting Style. It is meant for Eldritch Knights to feel magical at level 1, but other Fighter character concepts might want to choose this Fighting Style too.

(Note, in the UA, Bark Skin grants temporary hit points instead of AC.)

Note, the spells _Mage Armor_ and _Shield_ are effectively force constructs, and _Shield of Faith_ is more like an aspect of fate that is scrying across timelines to navigate "lucky" opportunities in the form of a bonus to AC.

Each of these distinctive magical concepts might come imply other magical effects.

There are other defensive concepts too. For example, in Norse sagas the "helmet of dread" is actually a nickname for a magical technique, where one makes oneself mentally fill a target with fear in a way that makes oneself more difficult to be hit: a kind of Frightened bonus to AC.

The _Sanctuary_ spell is a similar kind of defensive mental Enchantment.

And so on.





mellored said:


> I mean, that kind of works.  But you'll still end up with every fighter maxing Str right away.



I have no problem with the Fighter class encouraging investment in the Strength ability!

At the same time, it is also viable for a Fighter to max Dexterity right away, rely on finesse and archery, and Stealth.



mellored said:


> And it will be even harder to have any monk with any points into Cha.



The Monk effectively has:

AC = Wisdom + Dexterity

This wouldnt really change any when typically AC=Strength+Dexterity.

The Barbarian has AC=Constitution+Dexterity.

Since these characters would have to invest in three abilities (Strength, Dexterity, and Wisdom/Constitution), it seems feasible to allow them to wear armor if they want, effectively reaching upto AC 25 near epic levels. It needs more scrutiny, but in principle seems balanced.



mellored said:


> It's hard enough for anyone to take the skilled feat as is.  And your making it even harder.



The Skilled feat is a worthless feat.

Really, a half-feat (!) should grant four (!) Skill Proficiencies.

However, those feats that grant Skill Expertise are worth the feat (as long as it is for one of the more useful skills).


----------



## mellored (Nov 7, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I have no problem with the Fighter class encouraging investment in the Strength ability!



It's a lot more than "encourage" when you get +1 to hit, damage, *and* AC.

It's basically mandatory at that point.

Barbarians actually have a nice choice at the moment since their abilities are Str based, and defense is Con/Dex.  But your way means it's Str, with no tradeoffs.  Just always Str.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 7, 2022)

mellored said:


> It's a lot more than "encourage" when you get +1 to hit, damage, *and* AC.
> 
> It's basically mandatory at that point.
> 
> Barbarians actually have a nice choice at the moment since their abilities are Str based, and defense is Con/Dex.  But your way means it's Str, with no tradeoffs.  Just always Str.



Dexterity benefits from finesse that does respectable damage, superior ranged weapons, and the more useful Dexterity skills. Plus Initiative.

Indeed, if AC=Strength+Dexterity, it will be the first time Strength has ever become competitive with the uber-stat Dexterity!

Note, a high Strength character still needs to find a suitable armor that can benefit from Strength. But the Dexterity bonus is an innate ability to "dodge".


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 7, 2022)

Some may recall, I prefer eight abilities rather than six.

• Strength and Constitution
• Dexterity and Athletics
• Intelligence and Perception
• Charisma and Wisdom

In this context, Strength is the go-to for heavy armor and heavy weaponry concepts. Strength (and maybe Constitution too) is a prereq for Size, meaning very high Strength can represent Large size with reach.

Athletics is the go-to for all swashbuckling mobility and athletic agility stunts, including the dodge bonus to AC.

Dexterity remains with finesse, ranged weapons, Stealth and Slight of Hand.

Perception includes the Initiative bonus.


----------



## mellored (Nov 7, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Dexterity benefits from finesse that does respectable damage, superior ranged weapons, and the more useful Dexterity skills. Plus Initiative.
> 
> Indeed, if AC=Strength+Dexterity, it will be the first time Strength has ever become competitive with the uber-stat Dexterity!
> 
> Note, a high Strength character still needs to find a suitable armor that can benefit from Strength. But the Dexterity bonus is an innate ability to "dodge".



You're still making it so no one will take a feat and reducing the number of characters.
Not to mention inflating AC.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 7, 2022)

When

AC = Strength (armor) + Dexterity (dodge)



mellored said:


> You're still making it so no one will take a feat and reducing the number of characters.



Only character concepts that specialize in being unhittable, will reach the highest ACs. Even then, they will be tolerably near the upper limits of bounded accuracy. Investing for Strength armor and Dexterity dodge, is a viable option, but there are other good options for character concepts to take.



mellored said:


> Not to mention inflating AC.



Actually, AC deflates − until the very highest levels when these superhuman ability scores come online.

Most of the experience of D&D will be normal AC within normal bounds.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 7, 2022)

In my view for ability scores:

12 = average
14 = exceptional
16 = rare
18 = peak possibility of human
20 = superhuman


----------



## Lojaan (Nov 7, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Personally, I think One D&D presents an opportunity to add more decision treasure in treasure accumulation and ways to spend gold.
> 
> Time to Add more armors to the top end of the table of the armor types?
> 
> ...




If what you want is armor as reward then best to ignore the types altogether and go for magical armor alternatives, like enchantments and special materials and the like. Basic equipment as reward is not very, well, rewarding.

For actual types you only need poor/ok/superior quality for each weight category, and a subcategory of 'superior' which is 'special'. You don't need a different "type" for each. Then go to town on the fluff/special materials/enchantments etc...

You want flameproof armor? Sure you can have gambeson armor (light) made from the wool of the flame sheep of Tarterous, scale mail (medium) carved from the legendary light-but-no-heaty stones from cool mountain, or plate (heavy) wrought in the iceforges of the shadowfell. Or you could skin a (sentient) red dragon and make light/medium or heavy armor out of it depending on your preference (you monster).

None of this requires seven types of heavy armor, and it avoids the pitfall of magical versions of crap armor (oooh +1 ringmail). 

If you are going for a low magic world then this approach works even better. You make one type of armor for each weight level, fluff them however best suits your world, and then replace magical "+x armor" with superior mundane versions. For example, make normal chainmail the default for heavy armor, +1 heavy armor could be superior chain, splint or brigidine, and plate could be the equivalent of +2 or +3 heavy armor. You also make the price and availability of these superior armors the same as their magical versions - so in this example splint mail would be the equivalent (in terms of price and availability) of +1 plate.

Anyway that is how I would do it.


----------



## mellored (Nov 7, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Only character concepts that specialize in being unhittable, will reach the highest ACs.



There is no "specialize" if Str adds to both damage and AC.

You don't get a choice between offense and defense.  Your taking +2 and nothing else.


Yaarel said:


> Actually, AC deflates



Yes, that is intended.  It gets easier to come back from the dead and lots of other things at higher levels.  So you get hit a bit more to compensate.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 7, 2022)

mellored said:


> There is no "specialize" if Str adds to both damage and AC.
> 
> You don't get a choice between offense and defense.  Your taking +2 and nothing else.



Compare the tropes of the 5-Guy Band

• Strong Guy (Strength-Constitution)
• Rebel Guy (Dexterity-Athletics)
• Smart Guy (Intelligence-Perception)
• Heart Guy (Charisma-Wisdom)
• Jock Guy (generalist)

Strength is intentionally the go-to ability to build the Strong Guy character type, that is the big one-person-army brute. It includes both heavy weapons and heavy armor.

D&D has never done swashbuckling athletic stunts well. For example, it is absurd to separate jumping from falling, climbing from balancing, and so on. Where Athletics is a separate ability to all these things, it is the go-to ability for the agile daredevil Rebel Guy character concept.

Dexterity is very much offense − including finesse and two-weapon damage, but most importantly sniping safely from a distance.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 7, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> If what you want is armor as reward then best to ignore the types altogether and go for magical armor alternatives, like enchantments and special materials and the like. Basic equipment as reward is not very, well, rewarding.
> 
> For actual types you only need poor/ok/superior quality for each weight category, and a subcategory of 'superior' which is 'special'. You don't need a different "type" for each. Then go to town on the fluff/special materials/enchantments etc...
> 
> ...



You are completely missing my point.

In traditional D&D a strength warrior goes:
Half plate to Plate to Plate +1 to Plate +2 to
Plate +3 to Plate +4 to Plate +5

5e does
Half plate Ringmail to Plate to Plate +1/Splint+2 to Plate +2/Splint+3 to
Plate +3 to Plate +4 to Plate +5

Because armor is worn for AC. Flavor magical bonus _almost_ never trumped AC increases. Only major always on always useful magic bonuses like stealth and speeds might trump AC. 5e armors have these tied to armors directly.

So my idea was to have players choose between:

+1 AC & Stealth penalty
+1 AC & Speed penalty
No penalty


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 7, 2022)

mellored said:


> You don't get a choice between offense and defense.



An other approach might be, to key the armor training prereq off of Constitution rather than Strength.

It isnt so much that the armor is super-heavy, it isnt. It is that armor is uncomfortable and fatiguing to wear over time.

Then Strength gains the offensive attack and damage bonus, while Constitution gains the defensive armor bonus.

For example, Chain (training prereq +3 Constitution) grants +3 AC.

(Likewise Dexterity gains the offensive attack bonuses, while a separate Athletics gains the defensive dodge bonus.)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 7, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I would like to see chain allow for more Dex than scale does.





Clint_L said:


> As almost always, I want to _less_ complexity in the rules, not _more_ (aside from optional rules).



man these two ideas both appeal to me and I am SOOO conflicted. 

I hate that we have good, better, best armor, and I really would prefer more choices that matter. But yeah it makes it hard to remember.


----------



## Blue (Nov 7, 2022)

I'm the other way.  The idea of giving out mundane mid-level armor of a type is pretty narrow of a time it's worthwhile, and magical armors that give +X that mechanically duplicate better mundane armor is really never a big deal.  So having more levels of variation seems a complete waste.

So I'd rather not have inferior types of each armor that have a narrow band of play where they are useful and mechanical differentiation doesn't add a lot.  I'd rather just have light, medium, and heavy armor, and the players can define details of what it looks like within the class to fit their character theme - for this character has layers of rough boiled hides covered by a lion skin, and this one has a chainmail shirt.  And mechanically they are just "medium armor" with the medium armor AC.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Nov 7, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> "Other Ways"  i.e. Push PCs past bounded accuracy & deal with the resulting fallout one way or another when monsters can't keep up and your the GM you homebrew a solution other than giving out objectively better & better equipment  like more resistances on the best AC armor the player already has.  6e needs to do a better job with fitting a core subsystem like armor within the player expectations & GM needs of a game called d&d.



What I'm saying is that the dials don't need to be on the armour.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 7, 2022)

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> What I'm saying is that the dials don't need to be on the armour.



You don't seem to actually be saying anything other than improvements are needed because they could be done through "other" ways a RealGM would be able to solve.  Moving them somewhere else isn't impossible but there where how  & what impact the design considerations.  Without the where how & what there's no way to discuss them.


----------



## Charlaquin (Nov 7, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Up until 5e it was accepted and even spelled out explicitly in more than one edition that awarding players with treasure to make them more powerful was an important part of keeping players interested as a GM.  4e made the mistake of taking that role out of the GM's control & giving it to the players



No it didn’t. It made the perfectly reasonable suggestion that players be able to request that the DM include specific magic items they wanted in the adventure. Something players have always done, and DMs have always had the power to agree to or not, and still had that power in 4e.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 8, 2022)

When

AC = Constitution (Armor) + Dexterity (Dodge)

The Armor has effectively five gradations (rather than three), with prereqs ranging from +1 to +5.

(I remain undecided if the prereq should be Constitution or Strength. Normally, Strength relates to Encumbrance. However, there are reasons for Constitution. Even the heaviest armors are less than 70 pounds, and even a Strength 8 character can carry 120 pounds without Encumbrance. The difficulty comes from the Armor being fatiguing and constraining to wear. Hence, Constitution can make sense to overcome the difficulty of Armor, and Constitution is generally defensive making this Ability a convenient go-to for combat defense.)

There are "typical" examples of Armor for each gradation, but the player and DM can agree on an other appropriate flavor for the Armor of the character concept. If the armor is atypical, there needs to be a narrative explanation for how the character acquired it, whether gift, purchase, or find.

If one meets the prereq, one can additionally add the Dexterity Dodge bonus to the AC.



*Prereq: +1 Constitution*
• Helmet (metal)
• Padded (fabrics including leather)
• Leather (hard boiled leather)

*Prereq: +2 Constitution*
• Leather Suit
• Padded Suit ("hide")
• Padded and Helmet
• Leather and Helmet

*Prereq: +3 Constitution*
• Chain
• Leather Suit and Helmet
• Padded Suit and Helmet

*Prereq: +4 Constitution*
• Scale (brigandine, squamata, lamellar, segmentata, etcetera)
• Breastplate
• Chain Suit
• Chain and Helmet

*Prereq: +5 Constitution*
• Scale Suit
• Plate Suit ("half plate")
• Scale and Helmet
• Plate and Helmet
• Chain Suit and Helmet

*Prereq: +6 Constitution*
• Scale Suit and Helmet
• Plate Suit and Helmet

*Prereq: +7 Constitution*
• Renaissance Full Plate Suit


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Nov 8, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> You don't seem to actually be saying anything other than improvements are needed because they could be done through "other" ways a RealGM would be able to solve.  Moving them somewhere else isn't impossible but there where how  & what impact the design considerations.  Without the where how & what there's no way to discuss them.



I'm just saying these proposed armour modifications add more complexity than they do benefits. So I'm suggesting that, yes, there are other areas where this granularity could be added without forcing granularity onto armour which (IMO) takes away more than it adds.


----------



## Gorck (Nov 8, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> (I remain undecided if the prereq should be Constitution or Strength. Normally, Strength relates to Encumbrance. However, there are reasons for Constitution. Even the heaviest armors are less than 70 pounds, and even a Strength 8 character can carry 120 pounds without Encumbrance. The difficulty comes from the Armor being fatiguing and constraining to wear. Hence, Constitution can make sense to overcome the difficulty of Armor, and Constitution is generally defensive making this Ability a convenient go-to for combat defense.)



The way I see it, Strength would be for lifting a heavy object while Constitution would be for continuing to lift a heavy object over a prolonged period of time.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Nov 8, 2022)

Gorck said:


> The way I see it, Strength would be for lifting a heavy object while Constitution would be for continuing to lift a heavy object over a prolonged period of time.



To me, both of those activities are directly tied to Strength.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 8, 2022)

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> I'm just saying these proposed armour modifications add more complexity than they do benefits. So I'm suggesting that, yes, there are other areas where this granularity could be added without forcing granularity onto armour which (IMO) takes away more than it adds.



I fail to see how adding +1 AC with a penalty or -1 AC with removal of a penalty has more flaws over benefits that scrapping the armor system and formally giving each type of character a single optimal option.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Nov 8, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> I fail to see how adding +1 AC with a penalty or -1 AC with removal of a penalty has more flaws over benefits that scrapping the armor system and formally giving each type of character a single optimal option.



It's not a bad system. It's just information overload. Finicky for the sake of being finicky. The granularity that system applies is best spent elsewhere IMO.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 8, 2022)

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> It's not a bad system. It's just information overload. Finicky for the sake of being finicky. The granularity that system applies is best spent elsewhere IMO.



*No, it is bad*. That's the issue.

The 5e armor system doesn't do what it is designed to: to allow be the Skelton to a equipment based reward system.

Simplifying it doesn't solve the problem that bounded accuracy caused.

5es armor system is designed for a game where the assumption is that to are rewarded with an ex on expected stream of every increased +X items. But 5e the game system doesn't assume that nor is built for that. So rather than vertical improvement, 5es armor has to be horizontal.

But by nature vertical is more exciting and easier to use than horizontal. So for One D&D armor to match the systems design goal, it more or less _*requires*_ granularity in the base armor system or granularity in the magic armor system or both or assume horizontal increments of power.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Nov 9, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> *No, it is bad*. That's the issue.



I was talking about your system!   


Minigiant said:


> 5es armor system is designed for a game where the assumption is that to are rewarded with an ex on expected stream of every increased +X items. But 5e the game system doesn't assume that nor is built for that. So rather than vertical improvement, 5es armor has to be horizontal.



Because there isn't a built in mechanism to increase AC for armour users as opponent to hit modifiers increase? Maybe. But how does making a more granular system address that?


Minigiant said:


> But by nature vertical is more exciting and easier to use than horizontal. So for One D&D armor to match the systems design goal, it more or less _*requires*_ granularity in the base armor system or granularity in the magic armor system or both or assume horizontal increments of power.



Not seeing the correlation. What am I missing? The resistance according to material type idea is what you're referring to I guess? Yeah, I'll buy that. That's a great idea honestly.

Overall, I do like your idea. I would personally enjoy this level of detail! I just think it would be information overload to the player base at large.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 9, 2022)

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> Because there isn't a built in mechanism to increase AC for armour users as opponent to hit modifiers increase? Maybe. But how does making a more granular system address that?



Because you are missing the whole point of my suggestion and cause for the suggestion.



Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> Not seeing the correlation. What am I missing? The resistance according to material type idea is what you're referring to I guess? Yeah, I'll buy that. That's a great idea honestly.
> 
> Overall, I do like your idea. I would personally enjoy this level of detail! I just think it would be information overload to the player base at large.



Because the player base isn't stupid.
And again,it is top end design.

There are 2 main criticism for 5e. One of them is that it is so attuned to making it easy to learn than once you do learn it you notice how little there is and how many holes there are.  AKA it'sgo for noobs, meh for vets. Vets have to homebrew and houserule to hell out of it to keep fun.

Well if you are not supposed to start with plate and studded leather, well keep the start armor easy but make the end game armor a bit more complex so people who learn the game can have fun with it.

So Joe Newbie only has to worry about Ringmail at level 1. 
John Veteran at level 6 has to ponder between Banded mail of Fire Resistance, Plate of Cold Resistance, or Splint of the Storm.


----------



## mellored (Nov 9, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Well if you are not supposed to start with plate and studded leather, well keep the start armor easy but make the end game armor a bit more complex so people who learn the game can have fun with it.



I agree.  Higher levels could use more options, at least for most of the classes.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 9, 2022)

This is a reformating of an earlier post.



You can choose one Armor Type for each Body Slot. If the total AC from all your Armor equals your Constitution or less, you can also add your Dexterity (Dodge) to your AC.

*Torso Armor Types*
+1 AC Padded (fabrics, such as wool sweater layers, gambeson, linen cuirass linothorax, leather jacket, or secured fur cloak)
+1 AC Leather (hard boiled leather forming a fish scale tunic or a solid breastplate cuirass)
+2 AC Wood (lamellar cuirass of tough tiles, such as of wood or bone)
+3 AC Chain (metal shortsleeve chain tunic)
+4 AC Scale (metal squamata tunic or cuirass of brigandine, jack-of-plate, banded segmentata, or tiled lamellar)
+4 AC Plate (metal solid cuirass, breastplate)

*Limb Armor Types*
+1 AC Padded (longsleeves of Padded robe down below knees)
+1 AC Leather (armguards and legguards of hard boiled leather)
+1 AC Wood (lamellar guards hanging from each shoulder to shield upper arms, and from waist to shield upper legs)
+1 AC Scale (metal banded manica protecting the offhand arm only)
+1 AC Plate (shin guard greeves extending upward above knees)
+2 AC Chain (longsleeves of Chain, and either a robe-like hauberk extending below knees, or adding pants-like chausses)
+2 AC Scale (metal long splints forming armguards and legguards)
+3 AC Plate (renaissance full plate cuirass and fully encasing limbs in metal and guarding joints)

*Head Armor Type*
+1 AC Helmet (metal helmet, possibly adding mask, cheek guards, visor, chain neckguard aventail or hood of chain shirt)



Each of these Armor Types can come with Armor Properties, such as Noisy or variant armors such as Elven Chain that lacks Noisy.


----------



## mellored (Nov 9, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> This is a reformating of an earlier post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why would anyone pick anything but the highest number?


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 9, 2022)

mellored said:


> Why would anyone pick anything but the highest number?



Because the best armor is the one that matches the investments in Constitution and Dexterity.


----------



## mellored (Nov 9, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Because the best armor is the one that matches the investments in Constitution and Dexterity.



And how does the big chart help?


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 9, 2022)

mellored said:


> And how does the big chart help?



Concrete examples of diverse choices for armor.


----------



## mellored (Nov 9, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Concrete examples of diverse choices for armor.



How many options are there for a 14 Dex, 14 Con character?


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 9, 2022)

mellored said:


> How many options are there for a 14 Dex, 14 Con character?



The +2 Constitution can wear:

• Padded (+1) and Helmet (+1)
• Leather (+1) and Helmet (+1)
• Padded Suit (+2)
• Leather Suit (+2)
• Wood (+2)

And add the +2 Dexterity Dodge bonus to it, totaling 14 AC. Using the offhand for an additional shield would total 16 AC.


----------



## mellored (Nov 9, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> The +2 Constitution can wear:
> 
> • Padded (+1) and Helmet (+1)
> • Leather (+1) and Helmet (+1)
> ...



So you have 5 ways describing 14AC?

Not sure you need a big chart for that.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 9, 2022)

mellored said:


> So you have 5 ways describing 14AC?
> 
> Not sure you need a big chart for that.



Its for the sake of flavor.

Also, each way might have different Armor Properties.


----------



## mellored (Nov 9, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Its for the sake of flavor.
> 
> Also, each way might have different Armor Properties.



I'm not sure you need a big chart for flavor.  Just let anyone describe their character however they like.

As for properties... I haven't really seen any that fit.


----------



## Branduil (Nov 11, 2022)

The armor table needs a lot of work, but I would also say the same goes for shields. There's a huge variety of tactics possible with the numerous different kinds of shields in history, the classic heater shield was used very different from the Greek aspis, which were again different from the Viking round shields. It would be great if we could more variety than "Choose a +1 or +2 shield" and each shield had properties that enabled different styles of fighting.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 11, 2022)

Branduil said:


> The armor table needs a lot of work, but I would also say the same goes for shields. There's a huge variety of tactics possible with the numerous different kinds of shields in history, the classic heater shield was used very different from the Greek aspis, which were again different from the Viking round shields. It would be great if we could more variety than "Choose a +1 or +2 shield" and each shield had properties that enabled different styles of fighting.



Generally speaking, the shield types also correspond to Light, Medium, and Heavy.

*Light *shields include, buckler, Scottish targe, viking shield, and some cavalry light shields.

*Medium *shields include the "normal" round shields (such as Roman clipeus, Greek aspis), as well as heater and even kite.

*Heavy *shields include the long shields (such as Roman legionaire scuta), famous for battlefield shield formations, as well as modern anti-riot shields. In D&D mechanics, the Heavy shields actually grant Cover.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 11, 2022)

Maybe the body armor bonus keys off of Constitution, but the shield bonus keys off of Strength.


----------



## mellored (Nov 11, 2022)

Branduil said:


> It would be great if we could more variety than "Choose a +1 or +2 shield" and each shield had properties that enabled different styles of fighting.



Got any suggestions?


----------



## Gorck (Nov 11, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> In D&D mechanics, the Heavy shields actually grant Cover.



well, half cover grants a +2 to AC and DEX saves, so the latter could be what separates them from Medium shields.

Light = +1 AC (could be made of wood for Druids)
Medium = +2 AC
Heavy = +2 AC and DEX saves


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 11, 2022)

Gorck said:


> well, half cover grants a +2 to AC and DEX saves, so the latter could be what separates them from Medium shields.
> 
> Light = +1 AC (could be made of wood for Druids)
> Medium = +2 AC
> Heavy = +2 AC and DEX saves



This is pretty solid. The Medium shield is moreorless what the typical D&D shield is now, except that it should be Medium, and should interfere with gymnastic Dexterity Dodge bonus.

The Heavy shield can be +2 AC (especially because of bounded accuracy), but the user can definitely hide behind it versus dragon breath and so on, for that archetypal image.

But the Light viking shield is weird. It is basically a buckler, and the user employs its central metal boss to "punch" attacks out of the way. At the same time, it looks like a normal round shield, but its wood beyond the boss is surprisingly thin and flimsy. It is well made but designed for sudden precise reactions. To shield against an arrow the user must see the arrow coming and hold the shield at an angle to deflect it. Where the buckler is a Simple shield that grants +1 AC, the viking shield is something like a Martial shield that grants +2 AC but requires more extensive training. There might also be other properties or prereqs for the viking shield.


----------



## Branduil (Nov 11, 2022)

mellored said:


> Got any suggestions?



I would like the designers to take a look at some of perks shields get in Pathfinder 2e first. Now, I wouldn't copy the "Raise Shield to get AC bonus" thing, because the action economy and math is different in 5e, but shield block would be nice. There could also be other bonuses and reactions depending on the type; the aspis, for example, could grant a bonus to spear attacks. The Roman shield could grant cover like Yaarel suggested. The Viking shield could grant a bonus to shield bash, and maybe some kind of disarm maneuver when used with an axe. The buckler could count as a light weapon and be used for TWF with quick shield bashes. 

Another iconic fantasy image that D&D has done poorly is using the shield to block elemental attacks. Like, a knight blocking the firebreath of a dragon with a shield is as iconic as it gets... and it's completely impossible in D&D. So I think using a reaction to block damage from spells which target Reflex saves makes a ton of sense. The larger shields could also have some kind of ability to block projectiles.


----------



## mellored (Nov 11, 2022)

Branduil said:


> There could also be other bonuses and reactions depending on the type; the aspis, for example, could grant a bonus to spear attacks. The Roman shield could grant cover like Yaarel suggested. The Viking shield could grant a bonus to shield bash, and maybe some kind of disarm maneuver when used with an axe. The buckler could count as a light weapon and be used for TWF with quick shield bashes.



IMO, Those sound more like fighting styles than shields.

Except maybe the buckler. Which could give +1AC and be a 1d4 weapon.  Which could be a nice trade-off.


----------

