All of them have the same AC (since the AC of heavy plate is not counting Dex), but they will have different Dex saves and ability to balance on a rope.
Ok that's what I was trying to figure out; the negative Dex mod doesn't affect AC.
So...this leads me to this question; wouldn't it just be less confusing to apply the penalty to the Dexterity score while the armor is worn? Seems like it would be weird to have a 14 Dexterity with no modifier — might be confusing upon a glance at the character sheet, whereas if the score was adjusted to 12 instead or whatever it would read easier and make more sense.
I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.
Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.
This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).
The Basic boxed set contains:
Quick Start Rules A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms. Player's Handbook (Softcover, 125 pages) Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level. Dungeon Master's Guide (Softcover, 125 pages) Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.
Monster Manual (Softcover, 100 pages) Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D.
Introductory Adventure (Keep on the Borderlands) An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.
Also includes:
Character Sheets Reference Sheets Set of Dice
ExpertSet
A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:
Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.) Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.) Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)
Expansions
These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.)
Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book) Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book) Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book) The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on DamageShow
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points
In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...
What are hit points? The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.
So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then? It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.
But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target? Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.
Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact? Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.
If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent? Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.
Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack? It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.
What about poison and other types of non-combat damage? Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.
If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages? Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.
What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points? If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.
Why are monsters killed immediately and not players? Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.
What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage? If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).
Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded? See below.
Damage and Dying
Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.
Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly.
Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.
Unharmed: 1 hp or more Wounded: 0 hp or less Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level) Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)
Wounded When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.
Incapacitated Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).
If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.
If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.
Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.
Dead Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.
Ah, well then that makes sense. When I run our next D&D:Next game, I'll throw some in and see how they do!
That would be awesome =D
Regarding the AB modifier. The idea here was to make the choice between mobility and damage-dealing capacity versus hp and survivability interesting also for those that could wear any armor.
For instance I would want to create a incentative for a fighter going with a Slayer fighting style to pick medium armor rather than heavy armor (without it being a totally obvious choice).
The scene from the anime Berserk where Gutts (slayer fighter with a greatsword in medium armor) fights that fat platemail guy (Pazu? Big guy in heavy plate wielding an axe) was kind of an inspiration for that part =P
I admit I added the Heavy Plate in order to have an armor type that most players would opt to not use as the 'ultimate armor'. The -2 dex mod, -2 AB is quite harsh, and they are intended to be borderline too much to accept (just to get out of the more armor = better armor thinking)
Ah, well then that makes sense. When I run our next D&D:Next game, I'll throw some in and see how they do!
That would be awesome =D
Regarding the AB modifier. The idea here was to make the choice between mobility and damage-dealing capacity versus hp and survivability interesting also for those that could wear any armor.
For instance I would want to create a incentative for a fighter going with a Slayer fighting style to pick medium armor rather than heavy armor (without it being a totally obvious choice).
The scene from the anime Berserk where Gutts (slayer fighter with a greatsword in medium armor) fights that fat platemail guy (Pazu? Big guy in heavy plate wielding an axe) was kind of an inspiration for that part =P
I admit I added the Heavy Plate in order to have an armor type that most players would opt to not use as the 'ultimate armor'. The -2 dex mod, -2 AB is quite harsh, and they are intended to be borderline too much to accept (just to get out of the more armor = better armor thinking)
I understand, and from a realistic POV it does seem to make sense. Your mobility, flexability, and strength get sapped pretty quickly wearing so much armor so I can see the penalty being accurate to a degree. But still, a -2 is pretty harsh on top of Sight disability, Dex penalty, mobility penalty. I might just make it a flat -1 AB across the board.
So...this leads me to this question; wouldn't it just be less confusing to apply the penalty to the Dexterity score while the armor is worn?
I considered it.. but that means that there will be round off wierdness.. a -1 to Dex score penalty affects characters with a 14 and 15 dex differently.
I guess as long as the penalty is 2*n that wont be a problem but, I dunno, is it really less confusing with a -2 Dex score penalty than a -1 Dex mod penalty?
I admit I added the Heavy Plate in order to have an armor type that most players would opt to not use as the 'ultimate armor'. The -2 dex mod, -2 AB is quite harsh, and they are intended to be borderline too much to accept (just to get out of the more armor = better armor thinking)
I understand, and from a realistic POV it does seem to make sense. Your mobility, flexability, and strength get sapped pretty quickly wearing so much armor so I can see the penalty being accurate to a degree. But still, a -2 is pretty harsh on top of Sight disability, Dex penalty, mobility penalty. I might just make it a flat -1 AB across the board.
Yea, as long as one goes only up to the ordinary Plate that is exactly what you get. I think for most characters the ordniary Plate is way superior to the Heavy Plate.
The Heavy Plate is just for those characters that are hellbent on having the heaviest possible armor regardless of the consequences. The +1 Fortified bonus over Plate almost certainly does not outweigh an extra -1 AB and the rest of the penalties.
(Heavy plate can be fun on enemy NPCs though.. the spot penalty for instance. A ogre in heavy plate guarding a door. Basically unkillable but he cant see much or hit anything.).
I considered it.. but that means that there will be round off wierdness.. a -1 to Dex score penalty affects characters with a 14 and 15 dex differently.
It would provide a more subtle variance between heavy armors. For example, a -1 Dexterity score reduction would only affect characters on the "cusp" of their Dex ability modifier (i.e., 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, etc.), giving the mid-point ability scores (i.e., 11, 13, 15, 17, etc.) more significance in a system that largely fails to differentiate them.
Because when, if ever, does a score of 13 get to prove its worth over a 12? Very rarely.
I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.
Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.
This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).
The Basic boxed set contains:
Quick Start Rules A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms. Player's Handbook (Softcover, 125 pages) Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level. Dungeon Master's Guide (Softcover, 125 pages) Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.
Monster Manual (Softcover, 100 pages) Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D.
Introductory Adventure (Keep on the Borderlands) An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.
Also includes:
Character Sheets Reference Sheets Set of Dice
ExpertSet
A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:
Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.) Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.) Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)
Expansions
These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.)
Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book) Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book) Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book) The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on DamageShow
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points
In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...
What are hit points? The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.
So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then? It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.
But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target? Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.
Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact? Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.
If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent? Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.
Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack? It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.
What about poison and other types of non-combat damage? Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.
If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages? Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.
What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points? If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.
Why are monsters killed immediately and not players? Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.
What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage? If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).
Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded? See below.
Damage and Dying
Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.
Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly.
Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.
Unharmed: 1 hp or more Wounded: 0 hp or less Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level) Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)
Wounded When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.
Incapacitated Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).
If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.
If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.
Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.
Dead Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.
I have been tinkering with the armors a bit. I really disliked the armor list in the playtest for a number of reasons, these foremost being:
* Armors are simply on a scale from better to worse. * Gold seem to be the balancing factor (which is odd for a game that does not assume that players have a certain wealth per level) * There seems to be no incentative beyond roleplaying to pick a 'worse' type of armor. * Every character seems to be assumed to be using the highest armor type in the list that can be obtained in the armor category they are able to wear. * It can be assumed that as soon as players can afford it, 'lesser' armors become completely obsolete and players will be wearing the 3 top tier ones. * The current armor list implies that there is some kind of level scaling on armors (by gold?) and thus goes against bounded acurracy.
So, I wanted to redesign the armor list in order to reduce these negative points and at the same time introduce some points that I feel to be important, namely:
* I want armor choice to be a choice. It should affect a players playstyle, character, class, ability scores and intended combat role. * I would also want to open up the possibility to make the almost as boring weapon list more interesting by including some points of interaction between the armos and the weapons, such as making some weapons more effective against some armors. * Different armors should be good for different types of encounters.
Ideally.. I would want to have an armor list constructed in such a way that if a Rogue, a Wizard, a Ranger, an agile Greatsword Slayer Fighter and a Defender Fighter would all be granted all armor proficiencies, they would STILL choose thematically correct gear, given the choice to pick anything.
With this in mind I started to think about how armors could be differentiated.
Roughly I went with this thesis:
Light armors are for non-combatants and those that focus on agility. They should permit full movement but overall be the worst kind of armor. Nothing should break in the game if every single class was allowed to use light armor, right from the bat or through a feat.
Heavy armors should really be distinctively heavy. They are for people who wants to be able to withstand massive punishment and walk away unhurt. They should not be the go to choice for anyone who wants to be mobile or evade anything. That warriors in fiction discard their helmets and breastplate when going up in a duel is because they value the extra mobility over the extra protection, that should be a valid and interesting choice.
Medium armors were the most used through history. This not only bacause they were cheaper than heavy armor, but also because they were often a good all-round choice. Medium armors find the top balance point between protection and mobility.
Based on this I gave heavy armors a Fortified attribute, granting extra HP for a high CON bonus, resetting with a short rest. The AC of heavy armors were set to medium, allowing medium armors to get the highest pure AC levels.
The intent was that heavy armors and medium armors should represent the choice between sturdiness and being hard to hit. Also, I gave an attack penalty to heavy armors in an attempt to also create a choice situation between good offence and good defence.
This is really just a draft.. some ideas I had.. I am not at all sure about the Dex Penalty and the Fortified mechanic...
I have significant reservations about armors mixing defensive bonuses and damage reduction. The way Fortified works (essentially like a type of THP) sounds like a great way to make minor damage just not matter. OTOH the amount of defense probably won't scale with higher levels.
I admit I added the Heavy Plate in order to have an armor type that most players would opt to not use as the 'ultimate armor'. The -2 dex mod, -2 AB is quite harsh, and they are intended to be borderline too much to accept (just to get out of the more armor = better armor thinking)
Doesn't this go against your intent in making this revised armor chart in the first place. You have essentially made an armor that no one would choose, based on opinion of heavy armors. It might as well not be on the list.
I Assume you are aware that a trained night was quite modile and agile in full plate. They could even leap onto their horses. Not that you need to base your armor on reality, but I don't understand the major penalties.
Is your intent with the table to ignore the historical fact that some armours really ARE just better than others, and that the only reason some armours even exist at all is so that line troops and militia can be outfitted cheaply?
I would encourage him to do so. D&D never restricted armor based on historial usage. My only concern with this system is that it seems complicated to run. Also, you're giving away disadvnatage willy-nilly and I don't think it's a good idea to make disadvantage part of the default state. (dis)advantage should be situational, not default.
Eh, yes, but if you think about the original '4 armor system' (none, leather, chain, plate) of OD&D it was both reasonably historical and at the same time each of the armors had some real uses. None kinda has to exist (and wizards used it, but that might not be a restriction in 5e if we're lucky). That BASICALLY gave us a light, medium, and heavy armor. The increased mobility of leather was worth the AC trade off for an archer/skirmisher type character, and chain was a useful intermediate with higher mobility than plate, much cheaper cost, and lighter weight. Admittedly people tended to go to plate if they could wear it eventually, but it often required a good long time and a suite of +1 chain beat out non-magical plate any old day.
Seems like to me the result was a fairly happy medium between some degree of authenticity and each type being useful. Nowadays I'd expect you'd add in some increased skill check penalties for plate and you're in pretty good shape, some people will probably stick to chain, especially if its an easier armor to enchant.
Of course in the interests of being able to reflavor things these could be renamed light, medium, and heavy armor. There's just very little IMHO that really justifies bothering to differentiate more than that. I seriously doubt that scale armor was substantially different than mail in actual utility for instance, or that the various types of leather armor were much different. Any such that had enough metal attached to it to make a real difference would again probably be insignificantly different from mail functionally.
There are 2 huge advantages to the '4 types' system. It narrows the AC difference between PCs, which allows for more of the range to be used for other purposes (magic, dex, feats, whatever). This is a small range to start with in a bounded accuracy system. The other advantage is we're simply removed of the burden of trying to dream up some mechanical distinction between chain and banded armor that exists purely for gamist reasons and will almost inevitably tip in favor of one or the other anyway, meaning we won't see both types in actual play, so all we ended up doing was narrowing the available flavor characters can use.
So, I say give leather AC 11, chain AC 13, and plate AC 15, and leave it at that. Chain can reduce movement by 5" and have a check penalty of -1. Plate can have a movement reduction of 10" and a check penalty of -2. That REALLY should about do it. Dirt simple and it will undoubtedly work.
I admit I added the Heavy Plate in order to have an armor type that most players would opt to not use as the 'ultimate armor'. The -2 dex mod, -2 AB is quite harsh, and they are intended to be borderline too much to accept (just to get out of the more armor = better armor thinking)
Doesn't this go against your intent in making this revised armor chart in the first place. You have essentially made an armor that no one would choose, based on opinion of heavy armors. It might as well not be on the list.
Not really, I intend to try to balance it so it lies just on the far end. It should be interesting only for a minority, just because it is on the far end.
I Assume you are aware that a trained night was quite modile and agile in full plate. They could even leap onto their horses. Not that you need to base your armor on reality, but I don't understand the major penalties.
Yea, although the knights trained very hard to achieve that (which probably meant very high dex, con and str scores). The typical knightly armor is the Plate armor in this list however, not the Heavy Plate. A character with a 16 Dex (not an unlikely stat for a well trained knight), would have a +2 dex mod in Plate, that is enough to do the things the medieval knights did (standing on their hands, rolling, jumping on horses etc)
The Heavy Plate armor is inteded to be similar to some of the ridiculously heavy late medieval armors or some massive fantasy-world armor.
That everyone seems to assume that the Heavy Plate is the equivalent of classical Plate armor just shows the problem (that most are looking at an armor list expecting to find the typical Plate at the bottom as the go-to choice for every highly armored fighter). That is why I added an even heavier armor as a far end.
