Okay, there is no other way to put this lightly: the armor weights in D&D 5E are atrociously wrong. Not only that, 5E kept the same bad research for armor that D&D has been infamous for the last (nearly) 50 years now. This SHOULD HAVE been addressed a long time ago by the writers, but for whatever reason they continue to not do so. And I, quite frankly, don't wanna hear that weaksauce argument that "This is how its always been" or "This is fantasy, not reality". Newsflash, the "this is fantasy" argument is a non-sequitor as D&D has ALWAYS been a Medieval Warfare simulator since it was first published. Yes, it has dragons, unicorns and all that stuff, but the combat is 100% straight up based on Medieval Warfare. And "this is how its always been" is equally as much a non-sequitor because, if that were true, then WotC would be publishing nothing but OD&D and/or AD&D 1E instead of 5E. If they're willing to retcon/change a boatload of things for "reasons", then they can dang well change this cause this actually has more of an impact on the game than story and/or lore.
Some of the writers can be forgiven for this, but the simple fact is that the weight's listed for many things are just out and out WRONG. The heaviest mail hauberk found to date came in at about 30lbs (lord knows how much of that is rust). Most mail shirts (byrnies) weighed 20lbs at most. Mail sure as drek didn't weigh 55lbs nor could a warrior fight very long wearing such heavy armor. Also, STOP CALLING IT CHAIN MAIL! All Mail is made from chained rings. It comes from the Old French word Maille, which comes from the Medieval Latin word Macula, meaning Mesh. Calling it Chain-Mail (let alone Scale Mail) is not only wrong, its redundant (or categorically stupid in the case of Scale Mail, since Scale armor is not a type of mail). Also, the technology level of D&D assumes 13th-15th Century Europe/Western Asia (if you want to use east Asian and Japanese medieval armor, you're going to have to really adapt things cause there is a world of difference and its not just cultural, but also environmental. Metal armor does incredibly poorly in overly humid environments). Having Classical and Early Medieval armors like Scale and Banded is just confusing things.
There are no such armors as either Studded Leather (they were looking at Brigandine and assuming the rivets holding in the lames were studs) nor Ring Mail (the Bayeux Tapestry wasn't a hyper-accurate depiction of the arms/armor of the Norman Conquest and the "tennis-nets" were as close an approximation of mail as they had at the time). No blacksmith is going to take a shirt of leather and tie over-size rings to it since it would be ruined after one battle. They would, instead, pound the rings into lames to make coat-of-plates (aka Brigandine).
There is literally no reason for Padded to impose Disadvantage on Stealth. If anything, it would be Leather Lamellar (since its made from hardened leather/rawhide) as moving would be somewhat difficult, and the lacings would strain against the lames every time you acted.
While I personally think Medium Armor should allow for adding +3 Dex and Heavy Armor +2 Dex to your AC, I won't push the issue. But the fact is the armor doesn't weigh what the Devs think and its a heck of a lot more flexible than what people generally expect.
Armor Armor Class Weight Notes - Light Soft Leather Jerkin AC 11 2lbs Leather Lamellar Corslet AC 12 9lbs Disadvantage on Stealth Gambeson (Padded) AC 12 9lbs - Medium Arming Doublet* AC 13 12lbs Mail Byrnie (Shirt) AC 14 20lbs Disadvantage on Stealth Mail Haubergeon (Small Hauberk) AC 15 25lbs Disadvantage on Stealth Brigandine** AC 16 9lbs - Heavy Mail Hauberk AC 16 30lbs Disadvantage on Stealth Breastplate AC 17 20lbs Disadvantage on Stealth Plate*** AC 18 50lbs Disadvantage on Stealth
Buckler +1 2lbs (It makes sense to have a small shield that can be strapped to the forearm) Shield +2 8lbs
* - Arming Doublets are a type of Gambeson with Mail attached to it (called voiders) that protected limbs and part of the chest (and sometimes the throat). They were mostly worn underneath a Breastplate (to protect the vulnerable portions of the body). This would actually be the most second most common type of armor worn by Town Guards, the first being regular Gambeson, as well as many mercenaries who cannot afford better armor yet. I didn't add the disadvantage on stealth, but that is really up to the DM.
** - Brigandine is assumed to be the equivalent of Metal Lamellar, often erroneously called Splint Mail (such as the Byzantine Kataphractoi and Varyangian Guard wore, which combined a mail hauberk with metal lamellar corslet) as well as the Coat-of-Plates (which is the earliest form of what became known as Plate armor). Brigandine, due to its light weight and the fact the freedom of movement it affords should classify it as a Medium Armor.
*** - Plate armor that weighs over 60lbs would be Jousting Armor, which isn't used in battle.
I'm not going to get into the economics of D&D and how godawful it is at this time. Needless to say, it needs severe overhauling as well.
Edit: A Mail Hauberk distributes the weight rather evenly. Plate armor does so even better because it is fitted to the wearer (otherwise, it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg to buy). Heavy Armors should probably not require above Strength 13 to use.
It is one area which is lacking, the weapon and armour lists are very brief considering what a central part of the game they are. Just glancing at the PHB the armour table is only a third of one page (12 choices), while weapons table fills 1 page (37 options). There are no helmets and only one kind of shield. No variance due to material used or quality. I'd love to see that expanded as part of future books. Perhaps optional rules where armour gives different levels of protection verse various damage types.
I'm less worried about what they call the armour, I always just thought of it as standard vocabulary in the Forgotten Realms which doesn't match our world. It's more inspired by real world armour than trying to be historically accurate. I'm sure there's homebrew lists that can be used to make it close to real world terms and values.
Whilst the original D&D grew from wargaming, the current game is a long way from any sort of medieval warfare simulator.
Perhaps a better thing is to ask why you feel that the game should be more accurately based on what we now believe about armor and weapons from across the last two thousand years or so?
What would the benefit be? Why would D&D be a better game for it?
It's a game, not necessarily a simulation. I've seen almost every kind of armor used in 5E, because there are a number of factors taken into account by the devs so all of them have a place. Some more than others, sure - hide is only ever relevant because of druids not liking metal armor, it seems - but making everything potentially useful is more important than verisimilitude. There is absolutely no reason not to go for your version of brigandine unless you make its cost prohibitive for the first few levels, for instance, and even then that wouldn't make for a great progression in quality. Compare that to the official progression of medium armors, that's much more balanced. Game considerations over historical ones.
Considering a breastplate suitable for a slender elf and one fitted for a beefy goliath weigh the same for game purposes, it's pretty clear weights have to be taken with a grain of salt anyway. Plus, cataphract - armored heavy cavalry - armor could weigh up to 90 lbs at the extreme. It's good that such a weight was never an option, but that illustrates the wide range of weights that could've been picked.
Whilst the original D&D grew from wargaming, the current game is a long way from any sort of medieval warfare simulator.
Perhaps a better thing is to ask why you feel that the game should be more accurately based on what we now believe about armor and weapons from across the last two thousand years or so?
What would the benefit be? Why would D&D be a better game for it?
Yes, the game should adhere as close to reality as it can. Of course monsters and magic are not "real", but there is no reason that the armour, weapons, encumbrance, movement, damage due to falling, etc.....all the mundane stuff, should be not be as precise as possible.
It would be a better game. People would actually to have to pay attention to detail, and "I am carrying 5000 coins in my jacket" nonsense would be done away with. And yes, the game is about details. If a person playing a Wizard can spend all kinds of time looking over spells in various source books, a fighter can just as easily research the weight of all the stuff he is carrying.
Yes, the game should adhere as close to reality as it can. Of course monsters and magic are not "real", but there is no reason that the armour, weapons, encumbrance, movement, damage due to falling, etc.....all the mundane stuff, should be not be as precise as possible.
Humbug. Of course there is - because it's a game. There's no point in adding a list of hundreds of armour pieces and the way they can be combined to the game. It wouldn't serve any meaningful purpose, because people would figure out the dozen and a half best combos and never look at anything else. It's the same reason there aren't twoscore different longsword stats in the game. It'd be page filler the overwhelming majority of players would have no use for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yes, the game should adhere as close to reality as it can. Of course monsters and magic are not "real", but there is no reason that the armour, weapons, encumbrance, movement, damage due to falling, etc.....all the mundane stuff, should be not be as precise as possible.
Humbug. Of course there is - because it's a game. There's no point in adding a list of hundreds of armour pieces and the way they can be combined to the game. It wouldn't serve any meaningful purpose, because people would figure out the dozen and a half best combos and never look at anything else. It's the same reason there aren't twoscore different longsword stats in the game. It'd be page filler the overwhelming majority of players would have no use for.
I never said we need anything more than a single "long sword", and the list provided by Brooklyn for armour is almost the same length as the list in the PHB.
Yes, the game should adhere as close to reality as it can. Of course monsters and magic are not "real", but there is no reason that the armour, weapons, encumbrance, movement, damage due to falling, etc.....all the mundane stuff, should be not be as precise as possible.
It would be a better game.
Disagree. I think this would be to the detriment of the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yes, the game should adhere as close to reality as it can. Of course monsters and magic are not "real", but there is no reason that the armour, weapons, encumbrance, movement, damage due to falling, etc.....all the mundane stuff, should be not be as precise as possible.
It would be a better game.
Disagree. I think this would be to the detriment of the game.
How? There are rules for all of the mundane stuff already. The rules simply have to be tweaked to more accurately align with "the physics of the D&D world".
I think you're correct that most of the armor weights are off, though I recall (this debate has happened in many fantasy-ish RPGs, for decades) that some of the weights are based on historical pieces combined with the weight of the gambeson that was often/always worn underneath. Kinda like how many sword weights include the weight of the scabbard and baldric, etc. Also, realistically, wearing armor makes you more tired more quickly (especially plate, in which you can overheat), and rarely if ever penalizes "dexterity."
Should armor and weapons include rules for rust and wear? Should plate require regular application of grease (animal grease, which will smell rancid by the end of the first battle)?
I do think it would be nice to have more realistic armor sets --- as noted, things like "ringmail" and "studded leather" are completely fictional and senseless. (However, note that D&D has always also had a completely unrealistic view of bucklers, so I wouldn't bring them back, at least in any form resembling how D&D has handled them in the past.)
I think that D&D's sense of realism, especially when it comes to equipment, encumberance, scaling, strength, etc. is so hodge-podge (or plain wrong) that armor weights are just another spot on a leopard. "Realism in D&D" isn't worth the stress.
Yes, the game should adhere as close to reality as it can. Of course monsters and magic are not "real", but there is no reason that the armour, weapons, encumbrance, movement, damage due to falling, etc.....all the mundane stuff, should be not be as precise as possible.
Humbug. Of course there is - because it's a game. There's no point in adding a list of hundreds of armour pieces and the way they can be combined to the game. It wouldn't serve any meaningful purpose, because people would figure out the dozen and a half best combos and never look at anything else. It's the same reason there aren't twoscore different longsword stats in the game. It'd be page filler the overwhelming majority of players would have no use for.
I never said we need anything more than a single "long sword", and the list provided by Brooklyn for armour is almost the same length as the list in the PHB.
If you want the game to "adhere as close to reality as it can", it needs a whole lot more. If you say it doesn't need that much more but it does need more, well, that's another argument entirely and where the line should be drawn would obviously be a matter of opinion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Don't forget size, I mean if you want realism then a 5'10" tall 18 stone human would need more material for their armour than a 6'2" 10 stone elf. Not to mention a halfling, or my 2'6" goblin paladin. You could probably use the off cuts from the elf armour to make my goblin's.....
Whilst the original D&D grew from wargaming, the current game is a long way from any sort of medieval warfare simulator.
It most certainly still is a medieval warfare simulator. We don't run around fighting with swords, spears or axes in the modern world because our technology has advanced to the point their obsolete compared to firearms. Yes, it has magic/fantasy elements in it, but I still have my character with my sword that sticks you with the pointy end.
Perhaps a better thing is to ask why you feel that the game should be more accurately based on what we now believe about armor and weapons from across the last two thousand years or so? What would the benefit be? Why would D&D be a better game for it?
Literally nothing is lost by accurately representing the weapons of the time period (13th-16th Century AD).
Whilst the original D&D grew from wargaming, the current game is a long way from any sort of medieval warfare simulator.
It most certainly still is a medieval warfare simulator. We don't run around fighting with swords, spears or axes in the modern world because our technology has advanced to the point their obsolete compared to firearms. Yes, it has magic/fantasy elements in it, but I still have my character with my sword that sticks you with the pointy end.
Perhaps a better thing is to ask why you feel that the game should be more accurately based on what we now believe about armor and weapons from across the last two thousand years or so? What would the benefit be? Why would D&D be a better game for it?
Literally nothing is lost by accurately representing the weapons of the time period (13th-16th Century AD).
Yes, and my character can cast fireball. It really isn't a simulation. Medieval warfare is not four people fighting a few creatures in a dungeon.
Literally nothing is lost by accurately representing the weapons of the time period (13th-16th Century AD).
That's a pretty narrow stretch of history to use (the Norman Conquest you referenced yourself happened two centuries prior and the Hellenistic period Theros was inspired by ended a millenium before even that), but that's an aside. Yes, something is lost - making a relatively wide variety of equipment relevant in the game means putting the game first. On the other hand, what is lost if a bit of terminology and a few weights are off?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think if the simulation side of the game is really important to you, feel free to use whatever homebrew adjustments you want to make.
The default design is there to provide meaningful choices about how to protect yourself. That means each armor has pros and cons and may be a good choice for an adventurer at a given level. I do not take the names seriously, but rather see them as nebulous groups of armor that convey certain benefits.
Ultimately, I agree with pang that if D&D went full simulation, there would be about 2 "right answers" as to what armor you should wear regardless of anything else (if not just "Brigandine for everyone"). That doesn't make for an interesting game. And when we say "game" in this context, we're not talking about the overall play experience - we mean the set of rules that first and foremost concern providing the player with meaningful choices within mechanical systems.
The priorities of the game side of D&D often conflict with the priorities of the simulation side, and the armor list is a classic example of a compromise between the two. In their struggle to make 5e appeal to the broadest audience possible, I think the armor list is a compromise right down the middle of game vs. simulation, and what's probably about where it should be. As I said before, I totally support those who prefer to homebrew something that better fits their playstyles. Just keep in mind there is a significant chunk of the playerbase (myself included) who honestly couldn't care less about historical accuracy in their fantasy roleplaying game. 5e is trying to cater to all of us, and it's a tough line to walk.
Yes, and my character can castfireball. It really isn't a simulation. Medieval warfare is not four people fighting a few creatures in a dungeon.
Look up the term non-sequitor as you seem to be unfamiliar with it.....
Okay, different argument. Weights shouldn't be realistic unless carrying capacity is as well. CC is definitely not realistic, so the whole weight system isn't accurate.
Please explain why the game would be better, or even different, if the changes you want were made. If you want full realism, then yes, armor would probably be lighter, but you also would be able to carry much less. Hauling 200 pounds of gear on your person and being combat effective is not realistic either, so if you really want to reduce armor weights, you should also reduce carrying capacities or add an encumbrance stat as well.
But other questions arise too: Why add 30 different kinds of armors when mechanically they won't be any different from the existing options? 5e has always allowed you to "call" a weapon or armor something else, so long as you use the base stat, requirements, values, and weights of an existing type. The entire catalog of armor has basically 10 different mechanical options associated with it (11-18 base AC, STR requirement Y/N, DEX boost Y/N/P, Stealth Disadvantage Y/N, so how do 20 something additional options provide a meaningful difference, especially when you have hard upper and lower limits on the effectiveness of armor (if less than 10+DEX, its useless, and more than 18-19 exceeds the built-in balance)? and why would someone choose anything other than an optimal setup (there are already "popular" and "unpopular" choices within the existing range, so why would additional options do anything other than exacerbate the issue?)
Regarding shields, I think a lot of people would love some additional options, but functionally, the shield is mechanically built around providing a built-in "1/2 cover" to it's wielder. Going higher than +2AC again breaks the "natural" limit the designers built the game around, and going lower is only providing a "lesser" option that would require some other kind of boost if it were to be considered "viable" by most players.
TLDR version: The game mechanics as written are a very "blunt" mechanic by design for both ease of use and game balance. Trying to add complexity to the system and keep the balance either only creates "duplicate" options, or creates less viable ones, or makes the system less accessible, and "flavor" options have always been a part of the game with DM approval. Unless you can prove otherwise of course, I think the current setup is about the best it can be for the type of game 5e wants to be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Okay, there is no other way to put this lightly: the armor weights in D&D 5E are atrociously wrong. Not only that, 5E kept the same bad research for armor that D&D has been infamous for the last (nearly) 50 years now. This SHOULD HAVE been addressed a long time ago by the writers, but for whatever reason they continue to not do so. And I, quite frankly, don't wanna hear that weaksauce argument that "This is how its always been" or "This is fantasy, not reality". Newsflash, the "this is fantasy" argument is a non-sequitor as D&D has ALWAYS been a Medieval Warfare simulator since it was first published. Yes, it has dragons, unicorns and all that stuff, but the combat is 100% straight up based on Medieval Warfare. And "this is how its always been" is equally as much a non-sequitor because, if that were true, then WotC would be publishing nothing but OD&D and/or AD&D 1E instead of 5E. If they're willing to retcon/change a boatload of things for "reasons", then they can dang well change this cause this actually has more of an impact on the game than story and/or lore.
Some of the writers can be forgiven for this, but the simple fact is that the weight's listed for many things are just out and out WRONG. The heaviest mail hauberk found to date came in at about 30lbs (lord knows how much of that is rust). Most mail shirts (byrnies) weighed 20lbs at most. Mail sure as drek didn't weigh 55lbs nor could a warrior fight very long wearing such heavy armor. Also, STOP CALLING IT CHAIN MAIL! All Mail is made from chained rings. It comes from the Old French word Maille, which comes from the Medieval Latin word Macula, meaning Mesh. Calling it Chain-Mail (let alone Scale Mail) is not only wrong, its redundant (or categorically stupid in the case of Scale Mail, since Scale armor is not a type of mail). Also, the technology level of D&D assumes 13th-15th Century Europe/Western Asia (if you want to use east Asian and Japanese medieval armor, you're going to have to really adapt things cause there is a world of difference and its not just cultural, but also environmental. Metal armor does incredibly poorly in overly humid environments). Having Classical and Early Medieval armors like Scale and Banded is just confusing things.
There are no such armors as either Studded Leather (they were looking at Brigandine and assuming the rivets holding in the lames were studs) nor Ring Mail (the Bayeux Tapestry wasn't a hyper-accurate depiction of the arms/armor of the Norman Conquest and the "tennis-nets" were as close an approximation of mail as they had at the time). No blacksmith is going to take a shirt of leather and tie over-size rings to it since it would be ruined after one battle. They would, instead, pound the rings into lames to make coat-of-plates (aka Brigandine).
There is literally no reason for Padded to impose Disadvantage on Stealth. If anything, it would be Leather Lamellar (since its made from hardened leather/rawhide) as moving would be somewhat difficult, and the lacings would strain against the lames every time you acted.
While I personally think Medium Armor should allow for adding +3 Dex and Heavy Armor +2 Dex to your AC, I won't push the issue. But the fact is the armor doesn't weigh what the Devs think and its a heck of a lot more flexible than what people generally expect.
Armor Armor Class Weight Notes
- Light
Soft Leather Jerkin AC 11 2lbs
Leather Lamellar Corslet AC 12 9lbs Disadvantage on Stealth
Gambeson (Padded) AC 12 9lbs
- Medium
Arming Doublet* AC 13 12lbs
Mail Byrnie (Shirt) AC 14 20lbs Disadvantage on Stealth
Mail Haubergeon (Small Hauberk) AC 15 25lbs Disadvantage on Stealth
Brigandine** AC 16 9lbs
- Heavy
Mail Hauberk AC 16 30lbs Disadvantage on Stealth
Breastplate AC 17 20lbs Disadvantage on Stealth
Plate*** AC 18 50lbs Disadvantage on Stealth
Buckler +1 2lbs (It makes sense to have a small shield that can be strapped to the forearm)
Shield +2 8lbs
* - Arming Doublets are a type of Gambeson with Mail attached to it (called voiders) that protected limbs and part of the chest (and sometimes the throat). They were mostly worn underneath a Breastplate (to protect the vulnerable portions of the body). This would actually be the most second most common type of armor worn by Town Guards, the first being regular Gambeson, as well as many mercenaries who cannot afford better armor yet. I didn't add the disadvantage on stealth, but that is really up to the DM.
** - Brigandine is assumed to be the equivalent of Metal Lamellar, often erroneously called Splint Mail (such as the Byzantine Kataphractoi and Varyangian Guard wore, which combined a mail hauberk with metal lamellar corslet) as well as the Coat-of-Plates (which is the earliest form of what became known as Plate armor). Brigandine, due to its light weight and the fact the freedom of movement it affords should classify it as a Medium Armor.
*** - Plate armor that weighs over 60lbs would be Jousting Armor, which isn't used in battle.
I'm not going to get into the economics of D&D and how godawful it is at this time. Needless to say, it needs severe overhauling as well.
Edit: A Mail Hauberk distributes the weight rather evenly. Plate armor does so even better because it is fitted to the wearer (otherwise, it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg to buy). Heavy Armors should probably not require above Strength 13 to use.
Thanks for the history lesson. I enjoyed it. I think you're fighting a losing battle, and it's just a game.
I personally don't care whether it's accurate, but if you somehow made them change their mind, then I'm all for it.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
It is one area which is lacking, the weapon and armour lists are very brief considering what a central part of the game they are. Just glancing at the PHB the armour table is only a third of one page (12 choices), while weapons table fills 1 page (37 options). There are no helmets and only one kind of shield. No variance due to material used or quality. I'd love to see that expanded as part of future books. Perhaps optional rules where armour gives different levels of protection verse various damage types.
I'm less worried about what they call the armour, I always just thought of it as standard vocabulary in the Forgotten Realms which doesn't match our world. It's more inspired by real world armour than trying to be historically accurate. I'm sure there's homebrew lists that can be used to make it close to real world terms and values.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersWhilst the original D&D grew from wargaming, the current game is a long way from any sort of medieval warfare simulator.
Perhaps a better thing is to ask why you feel that the game should be more accurately based on what we now believe about armor and weapons from across the last two thousand years or so?
What would the benefit be? Why would D&D be a better game for it?
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
It's a game, not necessarily a simulation. I've seen almost every kind of armor used in 5E, because there are a number of factors taken into account by the devs so all of them have a place. Some more than others, sure - hide is only ever relevant because of druids not liking metal armor, it seems - but making everything potentially useful is more important than verisimilitude. There is absolutely no reason not to go for your version of brigandine unless you make its cost prohibitive for the first few levels, for instance, and even then that wouldn't make for a great progression in quality. Compare that to the official progression of medium armors, that's much more balanced. Game considerations over historical ones.
Considering a breastplate suitable for a slender elf and one fitted for a beefy goliath weigh the same for game purposes, it's pretty clear weights have to be taken with a grain of salt anyway. Plus, cataphract - armored heavy cavalry - armor could weigh up to 90 lbs at the extreme. It's good that such a weight was never an option, but that illustrates the wide range of weights that could've been picked.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yes, the game should adhere as close to reality as it can. Of course monsters and magic are not "real", but there is no reason that the armour, weapons, encumbrance, movement, damage due to falling, etc.....all the mundane stuff, should be not be as precise as possible.
It would be a better game. People would actually to have to pay attention to detail, and "I am carrying 5000 coins in my jacket" nonsense would be done away with. And yes, the game is about details. If a person playing a Wizard can spend all kinds of time looking over spells in various source books, a fighter can just as easily research the weight of all the stuff he is carrying.
Humbug. Of course there is - because it's a game. There's no point in adding a list of hundreds of armour pieces and the way they can be combined to the game. It wouldn't serve any meaningful purpose, because people would figure out the dozen and a half best combos and never look at anything else. It's the same reason there aren't twoscore different longsword stats in the game. It'd be page filler the overwhelming majority of players would have no use for.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I never said we need anything more than a single "long sword", and the list provided by Brooklyn for armour is almost the same length as the list in the PHB.
Disagree. I think this would be to the detriment of the game.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
How? There are rules for all of the mundane stuff already. The rules simply have to be tweaked to more accurately align with "the physics of the D&D world".
I think you're correct that most of the armor weights are off, though I recall (this debate has happened in many fantasy-ish RPGs, for decades) that some of the weights are based on historical pieces combined with the weight of the gambeson that was often/always worn underneath. Kinda like how many sword weights include the weight of the scabbard and baldric, etc. Also, realistically, wearing armor makes you more tired more quickly (especially plate, in which you can overheat), and rarely if ever penalizes "dexterity."
Should armor and weapons include rules for rust and wear? Should plate require regular application of grease (animal grease, which will smell rancid by the end of the first battle)?
I do think it would be nice to have more realistic armor sets --- as noted, things like "ringmail" and "studded leather" are completely fictional and senseless. (However, note that D&D has always also had a completely unrealistic view of bucklers, so I wouldn't bring them back, at least in any form resembling how D&D has handled them in the past.)
I think that D&D's sense of realism, especially when it comes to equipment, encumberance, scaling, strength, etc. is so hodge-podge (or plain wrong) that armor weights are just another spot on a leopard. "Realism in D&D" isn't worth the stress.
Buckler +1 2lbs (It makes sense to have a small shield that can be strapped to the forearm)
You did all that research, and still went with Bucklers being strapped to the forearm instead of held in the Fist?! Shame! (j/k)
If you want the game to "adhere as close to reality as it can", it needs a whole lot more. If you say it doesn't need that much more but it does need more, well, that's another argument entirely and where the line should be drawn would obviously be a matter of opinion.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Don't forget size, I mean if you want realism then a 5'10" tall 18 stone human would need more material for their armour than a 6'2" 10 stone elf. Not to mention a halfling, or my 2'6" goblin paladin. You could probably use the off cuts from the elf armour to make my goblin's.....
It most certainly still is a medieval warfare simulator. We don't run around fighting with swords, spears or axes in the modern world because our technology has advanced to the point their obsolete compared to firearms. Yes, it has magic/fantasy elements in it, but I still have my character with my sword that sticks you with the pointy end.
Literally nothing is lost by accurately representing the weapons of the time period (13th-16th Century AD).
Yes, and my character can cast fireball. It really isn't a simulation. Medieval warfare is not four people fighting a few creatures in a dungeon.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
That's a pretty narrow stretch of history to use (the Norman Conquest you referenced yourself happened two centuries prior and the Hellenistic period Theros was inspired by ended a millenium before even that), but that's an aside. Yes, something is lost - making a relatively wide variety of equipment relevant in the game means putting the game first. On the other hand, what is lost if a bit of terminology and a few weights are off?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think if the simulation side of the game is really important to you, feel free to use whatever homebrew adjustments you want to make.
The default design is there to provide meaningful choices about how to protect yourself. That means each armor has pros and cons and may be a good choice for an adventurer at a given level. I do not take the names seriously, but rather see them as nebulous groups of armor that convey certain benefits.
Ultimately, I agree with pang that if D&D went full simulation, there would be about 2 "right answers" as to what armor you should wear regardless of anything else (if not just "Brigandine for everyone"). That doesn't make for an interesting game. And when we say "game" in this context, we're not talking about the overall play experience - we mean the set of rules that first and foremost concern providing the player with meaningful choices within mechanical systems.
The priorities of the game side of D&D often conflict with the priorities of the simulation side, and the armor list is a classic example of a compromise between the two. In their struggle to make 5e appeal to the broadest audience possible, I think the armor list is a compromise right down the middle of game vs. simulation, and what's probably about where it should be. As I said before, I totally support those who prefer to homebrew something that better fits their playstyles. Just keep in mind there is a significant chunk of the playerbase (myself included) who honestly couldn't care less about historical accuracy in their fantasy roleplaying game. 5e is trying to cater to all of us, and it's a tough line to walk.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Okay, different argument. Weights shouldn't be realistic unless carrying capacity is as well. CC is definitely not realistic, so the whole weight system isn't accurate.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
Please explain why the game would be better, or even different, if the changes you want were made. If you want full realism, then yes, armor would probably be lighter, but you also would be able to carry much less. Hauling 200 pounds of gear on your person and being combat effective is not realistic either, so if you really want to reduce armor weights, you should also reduce carrying capacities or add an encumbrance stat as well.
But other questions arise too: Why add 30 different kinds of armors when mechanically they won't be any different from the existing options? 5e has always allowed you to "call" a weapon or armor something else, so long as you use the base stat, requirements, values, and weights of an existing type. The entire catalog of armor has basically 10 different mechanical options associated with it (11-18 base AC, STR requirement Y/N, DEX boost Y/N/P, Stealth Disadvantage Y/N, so how do 20 something additional options provide a meaningful difference, especially when you have hard upper and lower limits on the effectiveness of armor (if less than 10+DEX, its useless, and more than 18-19 exceeds the built-in balance)? and why would someone choose anything other than an optimal setup (there are already "popular" and "unpopular" choices within the existing range, so why would additional options do anything other than exacerbate the issue?)
Regarding shields, I think a lot of people would love some additional options, but functionally, the shield is mechanically built around providing a built-in "1/2 cover" to it's wielder. Going higher than +2AC again breaks the "natural" limit the designers built the game around, and going lower is only providing a "lesser" option that would require some other kind of boost if it were to be considered "viable" by most players.
TLDR version: The game mechanics as written are a very "blunt" mechanic by design for both ease of use and game balance. Trying to add complexity to the system and keep the balance either only creates "duplicate" options, or creates less viable ones, or makes the system less accessible, and "flavor" options have always been a part of the game with DM approval. Unless you can prove otherwise of course, I think the current setup is about the best it can be for the type of game 5e wants to be.