Armour

Firstly...good job! I like the changes so far, so the only things I'm really going to suggest here are mainly semantic.

1) leather: I don't think it should be described as "hard boiled leather" (which is quite tough - and also quite restrictive). I think it should be a soft leather jerkin or a doublet, to be consistent with the low protection but high flexibility thing. Actually, does it really need to be described? I'd be quite happy to just call it "leather armour" and have done with it - that way, we can all visualise it how we want to. Also, I think 11 is too low, it should probably be 12.

2) studded leather: this should be the hardened "cuir boilli" type leather. Either that, or padded armour, because the padded jack or gambeson gave a decent level of protection (and was relatively cheap) but was also quite stiff, because there was a lot of padding. So I think studded leather should probably go, and be replaced with padded or hard/heavy leather.

3) I still maintain that "mithril chain" should be called "mithril mail" - or at least "mithril chainmail". :P

4) banded and splint armour - do we really need both? They are identical! I think they can both go, tbh, and "chainmail" (or heavy mail) can do their job, with "ringmail" being AC 15.

5) not sure if I like the idea of being able to stealth in scale armour without penalty, or not.

6) there should still be two different types of shields (maybe a buckler at +1 and a shield at +2) with the heavier one giving a penalty of some sort.

Other than that, I like what you've done! The costs for the better armour types are significant now, and heavier armours give significantly more protection than light armours, but at the cost of reduced mobility. Cool

eta: one more thing: it does not take 10 minutes to get someone into plate armour - furthermore, people can't do it by themselves because it involves tying buckles and straps in places you can't reach with both hands. So while mail is pretty easy to get into, plate should take a lot longer.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
Interesting fact: Neither studded leather armor, or banded mail actually existed. As you mentioned earlier, banded mail is just another name for splint mail that wasn't actually used in the medieval ages. I think it first appeared in DnD 3.5, don't know where WoTC is getting their information from.

A man proficient with armor is a lot more maneuvarable than this game believes. The myths about men being lifted into horseback by crane because of full plate were absurd. They were used to fight in, and as such could be maneuvered in fairly easily if you were reasonably strong and used to wearing it. Heavier armors should grant at least some dexterity bonus, medium armors max dex should be increased to. Maybe to 4? 
Interesting fact: Neither studded leather armor, or banded mail actually existed. As you mentioned earlier, banded mail is just another name for splint mail that wasn't actually used in the medieval ages.



What? Look at the Wisby armor, and other coat-of-plates armor from that era. It could certainly be described as "banded armor", and is certainly from the medieval period, the battle of Wisby occurred in 1361. 

"Scale Mail" is the one that upsets me. What's it referring to? Lammelar? That's significantly earlier period than the Wisby armor, and was often leather, not metal. If it's referring to Roman lorica squamata, that's way out of the usual D&D period.

"Splinted" existed too - The Varangian Guard (and other of that era) used splinted vambraces and greaves along with lammelar over mail on their bodies. That's the Byzantine era, although most would agree that the 900s are well within the mediaval period, usually defined as the 5th to 15th century.

But none of that matters, since this is a fantasy game with elves and wizards.
Interesting fact: Neither studded leather armor, or banded mail actually existed. As you mentioned earlier, banded mail is just another name for splint mail that wasn't actually used in the medieval ages. I think it first appeared in DnD 3.5, don't know where WoTC is getting their information from.



Well, I'm not sure about studded leather, and I think "banded armour" is supposed to be the Roman legionaires' armour...but yeah, their historical accuracy isn't great. But then, it's a fictional world. "Ringmail" didn't exist either.

A man proficient with armor is a lot more maneuvarable than this game believes. The myths about men being lifted into horseback by crane because of full plate were absurd. They were used to fight in, and as such could be maneuvered in fairly easily if you were reasonably strong and used to wearing it.



This is true. However, they do it like this to make it balanced. If everyone could move and fight freely, run at top speed and sneak around in plate armour, nobody would wear anything else. Also, bear in mind that knights couldn't fight for more than a few minutes with the visor down and the bever up...they'd have to stop and take a breather at some point

Heavier armors should grant at least some dexterity bonus, medium armors max dex should be increased to. Maybe to 4? 



Dunno about 4, because that's the higher end of the scale! Not many people would suffer by that. I'd be happy to let heavy armours have a dex bonus of 1, however, and medium...3 at the most.

End of the day, it's all about balance, effective cost and sacrificing protection for mobility. I am glad, however, that a halfling in leather can't have the same effective AC as a man in full plate anymore.

Also: how about replacing "scale armour" with "rawhide" (with the same effective values), and moving "scale armour" down to join "banded" and "splint", grouping them into the same category of "brigandine"?

Another thought: while I like the idea of exotic materials, I'm not sure, actually, if they should be in the same table. That tends to make people think any village blacksmith has a shed full of dragonscale hauberks! Laughing Why not separate them into a table of exotic armours, which include mithril mail, dragonscale, ankheg chitin, adamantine plate, displacer beast hide, etc?
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
There were many armors that varied only slightly in design that went by different names. For example, Coat of Plates and Jack of Plates, or as you mentioned Lamellar and Scale armor. The difference was scale mail was specifically metal while lamellar was often made of leather (although scale mail technically had a leather backing).

Studded leather didn't exist at all, I don't even understand how it's supposed to be more protective. A couple metal knobs sticking out of your armor isn't going to help you if the blow lands anywhere but the metal knob (and even then that might just make things worse). I believe studded leather armor was first created by some imbecile who misinterpreted brigandine. Still, it's stuck in the fantasy books now for better or worse so I'm just going to have to learn to deal with it.
And any of this is relevant because ... ?

You can describe your armor as looking like whatever you want it to.  Your 'leather armor' can be a fine metal  shirt if you want it to be.  The descriptions are pure non-binding fluff.

Historical accuracy is meaningless to a game that does not take place at any point even resembling real world history.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
And any of this is relevant because ... ?

You can describe your armor as looking like whatever you want it to.  Your 'leather armor' can be a fine metal  shirt if you want it to be.  The descriptions are pure non-binding fluff.



That's why I think such descriptions don't really need to be there. Just say "it's armour made from leather" and let the players decide its appearance and construction. That way, if I want a leather doublet similar to what Faramir was wearing, I can have it, and if someone else wants a hard leather breastplate with Games Workshop style pauldrons, they can have it.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
And any of this is relevant because ... ?

You can describe your armor as looking like whatever you want it to.  Your 'leather armor' can be a fine metal  shirt if you want it to be.  The descriptions are pure non-binding fluff.

Historical accuracy is meaningless to a game that does not take place at any point even resembling real world history.



I wholeheartedly disagree. Then why do we have swords and armor, instead of guns and lasers? Because this whole game was born from a medieval miniatures wargame. I would much rather have MORE historical accuracy than abstract fluff.
"Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back."
I wholeheartedly disagree. Then why do we have swords and armor, instead of guns and lasers? Because this whole game was born from a medieval miniatures wargame. I would much rather have MORE historical accuracy than abstract fluff.

Genre conventions /= historical accuracy

And any of this is relevant because ... ?

You can describe your armor as looking like whatever you want it to.  Your 'leather armor' can be a fine metal  shirt if you want it to be.  The descriptions are pure non-binding fluff.

Historical accuracy is meaningless to a game that does not take place at any point even resembling real world history.



I wholeheartedly disagree. Then why do we have swords and armor, instead of guns and lasers? Because this whole game was born from a medieval miniatures wargame. I would much rather have MORE historical accuracy than abstract fluff.




Cool. Ok. Get rid of magic. We'll instead have charlatans. Get rid of dragons and goblins, they never existed. Get rid of different planes of existance, they never transcended there. The idea of a fantasy RPG is to mix reality with fantasy.
And any of this is relevant because ... ?

You can describe your armor as looking like whatever you want it to.  Your 'leather armor' can be a fine metal  shirt if you want it to be.  The descriptions are pure non-binding fluff.

Historical accuracy is meaningless to a game that does not take place at any point even resembling real world history.



I wholeheartedly disagree. Then why do we have swords and armor, instead of guns and lasers? Because this whole game was born from a medieval miniatures wargame. I would much rather have MORE historical accuracy than abstract fluff.




Cool. Ok. Get rid of magic. We'll instead have charlatans. Get rid of dragons and goblins, they never existed. Get rid of different planes of existance, they never transcended there. The idea of a fantasy RPG is to mix reality with fantasy.



Who said anything about getting rid of magic, dragons, and goblins? The game is based on a medieval style and flavor. Everything else can be added in to make it fantasy, and that's fine, but the base of the game is still medieval and I prefer the fighting mechanics to be more accurate in that way.
"Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back."
Who said anything about getting rid of magic, dragons, and goblins? The game is based on a medieval style and flavor. Everything else can be added in to make it fantasy, and that's fine, but the base of the game is still medieval and I prefer the fighting mechanics to be more accurate in that way.

The thing is, you don't need to be historically accurate to evoke the flavor of a period or setting, you just need to play to people's preconceived notions and existing conventions. See Reality is Unrealistic and Hollywood History.

And any of this is relevant because ... ?

You can describe your armor as looking like whatever you want it to.  Your 'leather armor' can be a fine metal  shirt if you want it to be.  The descriptions are pure non-binding fluff.

Historical accuracy is meaningless to a game that does not take place at any point even resembling real world history.



I wholeheartedly disagree. Then why do we have swords and armor, instead of guns and lasers? Because this whole game was born from a medieval miniatures wargame. I would much rather have MORE historical accuracy than abstract fluff.




Cool. Ok. Get rid of magic. We'll instead have charlatans. Get rid of dragons and goblins, they never existed. Get rid of different planes of existance, they never transcended there. The idea of a fantasy RPG is to mix reality with fantasy.



Who said anything about getting rid of magic, dragons, and goblins? The game is based on a medieval style and flavor. Everything else can be added in to make it fantasy, and that's fine, but the base of the game is still medieval and I prefer the fighting mechanics to be more accurate in that way.



Then create one. DnD has never been historically accurate. This is a different world entirely. This is not our Earth in the past. Who's to say that on a different world that the armor or whatever was created differently or named differently. I don't think a fantasy games has to be totally, historically "Earth" accurate to exist.
I just use the armour tables from the Conan RPG. They're much more accurate. I've completely written off WotC, as they never listen on this point.
From my other thread, here's the fix I suggested to armor (and yes, studded doesn't exist, but it's a fantasy staple so I kept it):

Let's assume Dex 18 for light armor wearers, 14 for medium, and 10 for heavy. There should be three levels of armor in each category: starting, upgraded, and high level. Also, light should be one point worse than medium, which should be one less than heavy. Under that assumption, and assuming a +2 for leather:

Light:
Leather -> +2 = 16
Studded -> +3 = 17
Mithril -> +4 = 18

Medium:
Brigandine -> +5 = 17
Laminar -> +6 = 18
Dragonscale -> +7 = 19

Heavy:
Chain -> +8 = 18
Plate -> +9 = 19
Runestone -> +10 = 20

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/7.jpg)

Brigandine is heavier than mail, so those two should swap places.

But anyway, I don't mind keeping the fantasy staples of studded leather, scale armour and "ringmail", tbh. I've no problem with making up armours, as long as they make logical sense. The only thing I'm really precious about, in this regard, is the proper use of the term "mail". I don't even mind "chainmail", but I really think "chain" is a silly term that needs to go, and that things that aren't "chainmail" shouldn't have the appendage of "mail" attached to them.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
From my other thread, here's the fix I suggested to armor (and yes, studded doesn't exist, but it's a fantasy staple so I kept it):

Let's assume Dex 18 for light armor wearers, 14 for medium, and 10 for heavy. There should be three levels of armor in each category: starting, upgraded, and high level. Also, light should be one point worse than medium, which should be one less than heavy. Under that assumption, and assuming a +2 for leather:

Light:
Leather -> +2 = 16
Studded -> +3 = 17
Mithril -> +4 = 18

Medium:
Brigandine -> +5 = 17
Laminar -> +6 = 18
Dragonscale -> +7 = 19

Heavy:
Chain -> +8 = 18
Plate -> +9 = 19
Runestone -> +10 = 20




The AC numbers for this may be too high considering that monsters don't have enormous to hit bonues.   Most monsters have between -1 and +2 to atttack.   Ogre, Minotaur and Troll also have +4.


      

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

Armor shouldn't be weak because of poor monster design; all that leads to is the irrelevancy of armor at high levels. Give goblins short swords and have kobolds actually use their daggers with Dex like they're supposed to, and now they become much more credible threats.

Kobolds would hit a 16 armor class 35% of the time (due to Mob Tactics).

Goblins would do so 51% of the time attacking from stealth (not unfeasible with their racial bonus).

Hobgoblins hit 57.75% of the time with Disciplined.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/7.jpg)

I just use the armour tables from the Conan RPG. They're much more accurate. I've completely written off WotC, as they never listen on this point.


So how bout them historical fireballs, eh?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Brigandine is heavier than mail, so those two should swap places.


By mail, I mean full mail with hood and leggings, not just the hauberk and cap.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/7.jpg)

Personally, I would love to take this oppertunity to get rid of Studded Leather entirely.  There was never such a thing, and covering your armor with protruding studs is about the worst thing you could do with leather.  Not only does it give swords a place to bite into the leather and cut it, but the constant movement wiggle the studs until they work free of the leather.

What Gygax & Comp. originally saw when they were looking this stuff up was Brigadine armor (which now has it's own entry) where the plates were riveted into the underside of the leather backing instead of on the front.  That gave the appearance of leather with studs in it, but the protection came from the metal plates (or hard boiled leather plates) undernearth.

Change it up to leather armor and hardened leather armor, IMO.
Some criticisms about the current armor table in the 2nd public playtest packet.

1) I still really dislike this notion that you will purchase better armor as you gain levels / wealth. It goes against the core concept of Bounded Accuracy and is akin (in my book) to having +X magic weapons.

2) Having material-specific armors in the base table bothers me. Particularly Displace Beast Hide. I know this is easy enough for me to change to just being Hide, but why bother inlcuding it in the first place? And for that matter, I really don't like the inclusion of Mithril and Dragonscale ... that makes them seem common, like it's the natural progression of a character to acquire those, and I think they should be more rare than that, if they exist at all. Again, a name is a name, but it still bothers me.

3) Banded and Splint are the same thing mechanically, so why bother having them both? If I can just as easily call Displace Beast Hide just Hide, then I could easily call Banded just Splint or whatever I want.

4) I have to agree with the comment about the Conan RPG armor. It's a little cumbersome compared to flat AC bonus, but I like it a little better - just a question of whether or not it would fit the Next system. And I actually think it would since Next is more concerned with HPs as a resource and is trying to tote the Bounded Accuracy thing... so why not make armor DR based? Because it's more complicated...

What's the matter, you dissentious rogues, That rubbing the poor itch of your opinion Make yourselves scabs?
1) I still really dislike this notion that you will purchase better armor as you gain levels / wealth. It goes against the core concept of Bounded Accuracy and is akin (in my book) to having +X magic weapons.


It's tradition, and having a difference of +2 between the starting armor and the high level armor is not that big of a deal.

Or are you saying that first level adventurers should start out with the best armor they will ever use? What would be the point of giving them gold if they don't have anything to spend it on? Or, for that matter, what would be the point of leveling if your character didn't get anything for it? Might as well replace "level" with "number of sword blows that can be taken".

Bounded accuracy is fine, as long as it progresses with level. It doesn't mean that you'll always have a +4 to hit, but rather that you'll always have around a 50% chance to hit. 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/7.jpg)

...so why not make armor DR based? Because it's more complicated... 



I dunno...there are loads of systems out there that do this. D&D has always used the "attack roll vs AC and full damage" mechanic for simplicity, and I think changing it now would be too big a deviation. As an Alternative Combat Rules module maybe, but not as base rules.

That said, I also prefer armour DR systems.

...availability of exotic materials...



I agree there. Putting them in the base table implies you can walk into any village smith and buy a dragonscale hauberk. I personally would move the exotic material armours to a separate table...wait, didn't I say this already?

Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
It's tradition, and having a difference of +2 between the starting armor and the high level armor is not that big of a deal.

Or are you saying that first level adventurers should start out with the best armor they will ever use? What would be the point of giving them gold if they don't have anything to spend it on? Or, for that matter, what would be the point of leveling if your character didn't get anything for it? Might as well replace "level" with "number of sword blows that can be taken".

Bounded accuracy is fine, as long as it progresses with level. It doesn't mean that you'll always have a +4 to hit, but rather that you'll always have around a 50% chance to hit. 



I think that you shouldn't be expected to switch armor type as you gain levels. If I start off with chainmail, why can't I just buy better chainmail (not magical, just better?) instead of having to switch to platemail, as long as we're going to require getting a higher bonus to AC as level improves.

I get what you're saying about bounded accuracy, but that +4 to hit that improves to +6, +8, etc with time is not equipment dependent. I don't like that your AC currently is. If they want AC to improve with level, make it seperate thing that improves with level.

You can spend gold on plenty of things besides items to boost your combat statistics.

What's the matter, you dissentious rogues, That rubbing the poor itch of your opinion Make yourselves scabs?
If they want AC to improve with level, make it seperate thing that improves with level.



I've been saying that they should do that for ages!! Actually 4th edition did do that.

But yeah, I see what you're saying...I've never liked how the only way to improve your AC is by buying better armour either.

Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
A few points:

1) It's hilarious, IMO, that we have to mine mithril and skin displacer beasts and dragons (specifically; other tough-skinned monsters need not apply!) for light and medium armor, but heavy armor-wearers just need a hefty chunk of steel.

2) So, light armor is no longer strictly better than medium armor unless you have Dex 20+.  I kind of like that; it means that medium armor proficiency is actually a feature.  And so is heavy armor proficiency.  Bravo, at a first glance.

3) History: WotC has been beaten over the head with this since they bought TSR.  They know.  But studded leather and banded armor are fantasy staples, and while they never actually existed, they're not ludicrous.  Ring mail, however, should die in a fire; it exists in few medieval fantasy games, including most editions of D&D, and doesn't even make a lot of sense.

4) Identical armor: This is what flavor text is for.  Kill splint, keep banded, mention that splint exists and is mechanically identical in the item description. 

"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday Book  
The Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.

I just use the armour tables from the Conan RPG. They're much more accurate. I've completely written off WotC, as they never listen on this point.



Maybe because they have absolutely no reason to.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Personally, I would love to take this oppertunity to get rid of Studded Leather entirely.  There was never such a thing,



In the real world.

It did exist in Faerun, and Eberron, and Greyhawk and ...well, everywhere but Athas, really.

This sinking in yet?  D&D WORLDS ARE NOT THE REAL WORLD.  STUFF CAN EXIST THERE THAT DIDN'T IN OUR WORLD.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
One thing I've always hated (as a DM and a player) is penalties for wearing armor that PCs are trained and capable enough to wear.   It gets in the way of the game when a burley fighter who is completely proficient in his armor blows stealth rolls all the time.

I propose setting Strength minimums for Medium and Heavy armor so that PCs with training and enough strength do not suffer penalties - perhaps Medium needs 13 strength and Heavy needs 15 strength.

Also, I think Wizards need a better spell that emulates wearing armor (like Mage Armor), especially if they are restricted from wearing armor to cast Arcane spells.


            

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

Interesting fact: Neither studded leather armor, or banded mail actually existed. As you mentioned earlier, banded mail is just another name for splint mail that wasn't actually used in the medieval ages. I think it first appeared in DnD 3.5, don't know where WoTC is getting their information from.


Banded mail has always been a part of D&D. It came from Gygax, or someone he played with.

If you are going to talk about historical armour (and this discussion is not at all relevant to fantsay gaming), could you please stop saying that banded armour never existed.

In the medieval period, you have the coat-of-plates. We have several examples from the Battle Of Wisby and from other places. It fits the definition of banded or splinted armour depending on the design. Here are two pictures:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/UYC6R.gif)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/LLDtX.jpg)

The pauldrons that go with the coat-of-plates were often overlapping bands of metal below a rounded shoulder cop, and some suits had similar coverings for the thigh.

Read this book, it's pretty much everything about medieval banded armour you would ever want to know: www.amazon.com/Armour-Battle-Wisby-Bengt...

From the Roman era (which several D&D cultures emulate), we have the Lorica Segmentata:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/RlbKu.jpg)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorica_segmentata

Also, some cuisses and tassets were of banded construction even though they were part of a suit of plate.

And again, this game has elves and wizards and displacer beast hide armour. It is not set in our world's history. The only thing analogous to our world in D&D is a vaguely medieval-ish setting with a technology level of "horses and carts and castles and swords and bows and no guns whatsoever".
One thing I've always hated (as a DM and a player) is penalties for wearing armor that PCs are trained and capable enough to wear.   It gets in the way of the game when a burley fighter who is completely proficient in his armor blows stealth rolls all the time.

I propose setting Strength minimums for Medium and Heavy armor so that PCs with training and enough strength do not suffer penalties - perhaps Medium needs 13 strength and Heavy needs 15 strength.



Not sure I agree with this. You cannot stealth in plate armour, because the plates clatter against each other when you walk. It is unavoidable. However, I don't think it should affect the walking speed. The running speed, maybe (you can still jog in it but sprinting would be difficult), but you can walk as fast as anyone else while wearing it.

Also, there needs to be some disadvantages to heavy armour. No set of armour should be perfect for all situations, otherwise nobody will wear anything else.

The only thing analogous to our world in D&D is a vaguely medieval-ish setting with a technology level of "horses and carts and castles and swords and bows and no guns whatsoever".



Indeed. Fantasy tends to be a dark-ages style setting, with weapons and armour (but no other technology) from the 15th century. One of the reasons I prefer Warhammer FRP is because they make the whole setting 15th century throughout, including basic firearms.

I don't mind if they include armour that didn't exist, as long as it makes sense. And yeah, I see "banded" armour as similar to brigandine and the like.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
I personally think that the "Medium Armor" catagory should just be eliminated, and just go with "Light" and "Heavy" armors. 

I always found the Medium catagory odd.  Usually their weights are either close or identical to either Light or Heavies.   Also penalties seem odd to or out of place to find a middle ground between Light and Heavy.  

It would be simpler to have Rogue skills and Dex to AC effected only by heavy armors, and  leave  Light fairly free.

Think of it.   Dragon Scale weighs as much as Splint but is Medium not Heavy.   Displacer Beast Hide weighs more then Studded Leather but is Light.   

I suggest moving those medium armors into the Light and Heavy armor catagories.  Let light armors pretty much be free of normal penalties.  Have heavy armor have a little widened gap of advantage in AC, but they give the disadvantage to Stealth, speed, and usable defensive Dex, etc.   

If DR effects become part of Heavy Armor extra advantages, as it seems many have suggested.  That would be a unique benifit of say Mthral Chain.  It could actualy get a DR bonus which normally only a Heavy Armor would be able to get, while being light.
Sign In to post comments