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).
Why do you assume all D&D is based in this time period? My homebrew setting has steampunk elements and is somewhat comparable to the 1800's, someone else's might be Roman Empire Era based, another might be 2200's Star Trek type (the DMG has options for that too, FYI), and some might be a hodgepodge of different eras or eschew references to real history all-together.
Literally nothing is lost by accurately representing the weapons of the time period (13th-16th Century AD).
The relative simplicity of the D&D rules is one of the things that has led to it being so popular. Combat is relatively quick and easy to manage. Adding further rules on top of that detracts from one of the greatest strengths of the game.
Attempting to accurately model/represent historical real world weapons and armor is what led to tables like the one below in AD&D!
"Ok, so you're attacking the orc. He's in chain armor, which is AC 5 and you have Battle Axe, so you're at an additional -1 to your attack."
On armor weights - as someone else pointed out, the breastplate that fits a 5 ft. tall elf (or a 3ft. tall halfling even) is going to be very different in weight to the breastplate that fits a 7 ft tall goliath. There's always another step in logically determining specifics, but it rarely makes the game more fun to play for most people.
Given some pretty hefty negatives for pushing historical accuracy, I am still not seeing any positive argument for doing so, other than personal preference - and that's fine, play how you wish, with any homebrew you like - but I do not think it is reasonable to expect the official rules of the game to be something that this version of D&D was never designed to be.
It's also worth noting that there are many other TTRPG out there, some of which do accurately modelled small-scale tactical battles very well, if that's what you're after.
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.
I actually think it could be good to go even more "blunt" with armor. Like, maybe just 4-5 different types, similar to how there is only 1 shield...
A lot of the "realism" problems with D&D armor aren't with detail; they are with, historically, bad research. Some crappy victorian researcher decided that "ring mail" was a thing, so now we have to have rules that create a difference between that and "chainmail." Ironically, many of those issues could be dealt with by consolidation of armor types, not expansion.
Literally nothing is lost by accurately representing the weapons of the time period (13th-16th Century AD).
The relative simplicity of the D&D rules is one of the things that has led to it being so popular. Combat is relatively quick and easy to manage. Adding further rules on top of that detracts from one of the greatest strengths of the game.
Attempting to accurately model/represent historical real world weapons and armor is what led to tables like the one below in AD&D!
"Ok, so you're attacking the orc. He's in chain armor, which is AC 5 and you have Battle Axe, so you're at an additional -1 to your attack."
On armor weights - as someone else pointed out, the breastplate that fits a 5 ft. tall elf (or a 3ft. tall halfling even) is going to be very different in weight to the breastplate that fits a 7 ft tall goliath. There's always another step in logically determining specifics, but it rarely makes the game more fun to play for most people.
Given some pretty hefty negatives for pushing historical accuracy, I am still not seeing any positive argument for doing so, other than personal preference - and that's fine, play how you wish, with any homebrew you like - but I do not think it is reasonable to expect the official rules of the game to be something that this version of D&D was never designed to be.
It's also worth noting that there are many other TTRPG out there, some of which do accurately modelled small-scale tactical battles very well, if that's what you're after.
I already took steps in my game, long ago to deal with how badly D&D handles weight, encumbrance etc. These House Rules are presented in every session 0, hard and soft copies are readily available.
10 pounds carrying capacity = per Str point, not 15.
If Medium size is baseline, and carrying capacity is doubled for Large (as per the books), then it is halved for small, and halved again for Tiny.
My Str 8 Halfling Rogue, who is 3'3", and weighs 40 pounds, can still carry his body weight aka 40 pounds. That is still ridiculous, but far better than the 120 with the existing rules. Armour, shields, anything with a appreciable weight (but not weapons) for a Small creature is halved in weight (should be more like one-quarter, but half seems to work), one quarter for Tiny, double for large.
Those changes take up a grand total of 2 more lines of type than the existing text, and are dead easy to understand. WOTC could implement those changes in a heartbeat, and no one could complain "but math is hard."
'Realism' may not be the best goal. Historical simulationists absolutely have no business playing D&D if 'Historical Simulation' is their primary goal. That's a bit like saying you can totally learn absolutely accurate Greek history by playing God of War.
That said...armor is boring. Weapons are mostly boring. There is almost nothing a player can do to tailor their loadout. There is exactly ONE 'ideal' endgame armor for light armor users and heavy armor users both - studded leather for light and plate for heavy. Medium armor has exactly two endgoal states - breastplate if you care about stealth, half-plate if you don't. There is absolutely zero reason whatsoever to use any other type of armor for any reason period beyond those four save simple lack of access.
Weapons, similarly, are super boring. A huge complaint I have with the weapons in D&D is that a longsword forged by the kingdom's greatest smith, from metal harvested from the king's best mine and purified for an entire year before being forged with every trick this master smith knew for making a most superior sword...it's literally the exact same weapon as some village horseshoer's apprentice making his very first stab at creating a sword, out of metal salvaged from the village midwife's third cauldron she decided she didn't need anymore. The best sword in the entire kingdom, fit for the hand of the king's greatest champion, is completely and utterly identical in every last single respect to the stableboy dabbler's barely-even-forged potmetal poking stick.
That. Is. Bullshit. And no, "just make the one magic!" isn't the answer, especially since DMs absolutely detest magic items most of the time and go as far out of their way as they can to avoid giving them out.
A martial character's weapons and armor are as important to that character as a spellcaster's spells are. But the martial character gets to make effectively zero interesting decisions about their character in their weapons and armor. They pick whatever the Tic-Tac-Toe math of AC says the only viable option is for their armor, and they pick whether they want a d8/d10 Versatile weapon or a d10-only Heavy weapon they can use with a combat cheddar feat. It's obnoxious and annoying, since it gives the strong message that the game expects players of martial characters to be too stupid, lazy, or uninvested in the game to wrap their heads around a gear system that lets them make any real decisions with their play.
There's so many ways one could fix that issue...but sadly, every time someone tries, they get "BUT 5e IS SIMPLE!" thrown in their face and told to eat dirt and die. So frustrating...
Histrionics aside, Yurei, how would you propose changing the system to make the game better? As I said above, armor (and weapon) mechanics are blunt by design, so how do you insert complexity of additional weapons, of craft and material quality, etc without 1) breaking the balance of the game, 2) having 10 types of duplicate long sword type weapons, or 3) raising the barriers to play? Remember that the point of 5e is accessibility of play. Simple is more accessible than complex, and the more hurdles you place in the way of new players, the fewer people play, and eventually the hobby dies (for historical examples, see 4e)
complexity has to be justified, it has to actually make the game better, or it has no value to the game as a whole. For those who want complex, homebrew is the option.
There's so many ways one could fix that issue...but sadly, every time someone tries, they get "BUT 5e IS SIMPLE!" thrown in their face and told to eat dirt and die. So frustrating...
If you move to Europe, Yurei, throw me a message. Plenty of nonmagical +1 mastercrafted weapons here (at my table anyway, can't speak for the entirety of the Old Continent), as well as -1 not-too-shabby-for-a-first-attempt amateur pigstickers. Not every DM is the same.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There's so many ways one could fix that issue...but sadly, every time someone tries, they get "BUT 5e IS SIMPLE!" thrown in their face and told to eat dirt and die. So frustrating...
If you move to Europe, Yurei, throw me a message. Plenty of nonmagical +1 mastercrafted weapons here (at my table anyway, can't speak for the entirety of the Old Continent), as well as -1 not-too-shabby-for-a-first-attempt amateur pigstickers. Not every DM is the same.
I like this house rule, may I steal for use in the states?
for the record, I’m not against complexity. I just see the value in keeping the baseline rules as simple as possible and leaving the complex stuff to DMs and homebrew
There's so many ways one could fix that issue...but sadly, every time someone tries, they get "BUT 5e IS SIMPLE!" thrown in their face and told to eat dirt and die. So frustrating...
If you move to Europe, Yurei, throw me a message. Plenty of nonmagical +1 mastercrafted weapons here (at my table anyway, can't speak for the entirety of the Old Continent), as well as -1 not-too-shabby-for-a-first-attempt amateur pigstickers. Not every DM is the same.
I like this house rule, may I steal for use in the states?
for the record, I’m not against complexity. I just see the value in keeping the baseline rules as simple as possible and leaving the complex stuff to DMs and homebrew
I'll be stuffing my face with pizza for the next 15 mins, I suppose if something were to be copied from my personal archive in that interval of lessened vigilance I'll just have to hope it was done by someone with pure intentions and try to move on with my life.
Homebrew is a fine place for rules that might not be of much use to many groups. I wouldn't mind a sourcebook with additional optional rules for this kind of minor flavour adjustments though, but with WotC's current slow release rate maybe something leaning more towards crunch would be better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Histrionics aside, Yurei, how would you propose changing the system to make the game better? As I said above, armor (and weapon) mechanics are blunt by design, so how do you insert complexity of additional weapons, of craft and material quality, etc without 1) breaking the balance of the game, 2) having 10 types of duplicate long sword type weapons, or 3) raising the barriers to play? Remember that the point of 5e is accessibility of play. Simple is more accessible than complex, and the more hurdles you place in the way of new players, the fewer people play, and eventually the hobby dies (for historical examples, see 4e)
complexity has to be justified, it has to actually make the game better, or it has no value to the game as a whole. For those who want complex, homebrew is the option.
While I totally agree that no game needs 10 types of long sword, and we can assume that "long sword" represents an entire class of weapons that do what a long sword does, there is still nothing wrong with more complexity in the game. If people can't do simple math, they should not be playing this game. They should not be playing any number of other games that require simple math.
If someone can present me with a 2 page backstory about how their char was involved in a tragic/ heroic event that defined them, they can spend 10 minutes understanding some simple numbers about weight, armour, and weapons.They do whatever calculation is required, and then add to their char sheet for easy reference.
I DM for someone who is autistic. They have made huge leaps in social skills from playing the game the last few years, but they do have trouble with math. Everyone at our table understands this is and very patient with this person. Do not dare presume to tell me that my player shouldn't be playing the game.
Adding additional complexity that raises the barrier to play for no reason other than to be more complex should be discouraged. Leave that stuff to the DM for those tables that want it.
Please note that discrimination is against others is not tolerated on these forums - it is not acceptable to tell others that they may not play D&D because they lack skills in maths.
I wish it were so easy. Sadly, the issue on this specific website is that DDB's character sheet is absolutely ******* terrible at accounting for this stuff. It is currently impossible to attach a simple +1 bonus to attack to a weapon with A.) making it "magical" and B.) increasing its damage bonus, as well. You can edit the action on the character sheet to account for certain types of modifiers (but not all, as my miserably failed attempt to reflect my Steel Defender's actual Force-Empowered Rend on my artificer's sheet shows), but at that point the item is not really transferrable - your specific action has the bonus, but if you give the sword to someone else they have to remember to modify their action or the bonus disappears. It's maddening. There are a plethora of homebrew fixes I've gotten halfway through building and had to abandon simply because I can't implement it properly on the sheet here.
As for 'making the game better', Icon? I see no reason why rules overlays that give players who're ready, willing, able, even desperate for more meat on the bones makes everything worse. Pillars of Eternity: Deadfire may be a PC game (if a fan-goddamn-tastic one), but it pulled this off beautifully with a weapon system that's not significantly more complex than 5e's, but with infinitely more diversity and personality in one's choices.
Namely: Weapons in Deadfire usually did the better of two damage types, with enemies all bearing different resistances. A warhammer did the best of bludgeoning or piercing, depending on which option the target was more resistant to. Because, y'know...warhammers mostly all came with a sharply pointed backspike, and it wasn't there for decoration. Swords switched between Slash and Pierce except for thrusting blades like rapiers or stilettos, which did solely piercing. A weapon with no reasonable secondary mode of attack did only a single damage type but was usually slightly better at that type than others.
And secondly, all weapons in Deadfire have a modal toggle option that allows them to do something unique at the expense of some base stat or other. Handaxes could be used for Interrupting Blows, which imposed an accuracy debuff on enemies at the cost of damage as the character used the axe to hook and disrupt their target's stance. Swords could Half-Sword, increasing accuracy at the cost of defense. Hunting bows had Rapid Fire, allowing faster refire rate at the cost of sharply reduced accuracy.
Obviously the nature of each modal would have to be drastically different in a 5e game where attack time is not relevant, but it wouldn't be difficult to give each weapon a Special Move that you could do with that weapon, and perhaps a feat to improve that special move. At that point deciding which weapons you wanted to specialize in, and which were worth carrying, would instantly be a choice again. Two-Weapon Fighting would stop being a noob trap because you could fill each fist with a different weapon and make use of two Special Abilities simultaneously, shields are still super ultra mega desirable because AC, and big two-handed suckers could have stronger damage-focused specials to let someone really lean into that Weapon of War mentality.
Armor could provide different resistances and forms of protection (and frankly, mundane resistances should be a much bigger part of the game than they are) depending on type. Platemail might be the best overall protection, but what if that brigandine lets you add a point of your Dex modifier because it's lighter and more flexible in exchange for being less protective, instead of 'Splint Mail' (i.e. brigandine) just being straight-up worse in all conceivable ways than plate and used only as a poor man's intermediary? What if chain-type armor offered resistance to slashing attacks while plate-type armor offered resistance to piercing? Or the inverse, depending on how you want to run it?
What if you had to actually make meaningful decisions about what was best for your character, instead of saying "Oh, well, plate armor is the only heavy armor worth wearing, and all the d8/d10 Versatile weapons are identical and same with the d10 Heavy weapons, so I'll use whichever one has the most magic or fits the bullshit feat I played variant human to take at level 1."
And for tables where all of that sounds like a bunch of boggarty twerky powergamer nonsense? Simply don't use the rules. Say "we're not bothering with Expanded Martial Combat in this game" and use the same shit-ass rules where every single longsword in the entire world is exactly and completely identical in every last possible respect to every other longsword, and where gnomish platemail armor weighs more than the gnome wearing it does.
I know people like to say that any degree of added complexity will Destroy 5e Forever and that "its greatest strength is its accessibility!" But, first of all? No, 5e's greatest strength is not its accessibility. Its greatest strength is fifty years of brand recognition and a gadzooking heap of Hasbro money. Other games are vastly more accessible than 5e, but they never gain market share because they don't have the D&D name.
And secondly? This lack of meaningful decisions, the absolute shallowness and complete lack of any sort of real engagement points within the Martial Gear system of D&D, actively makes the game worse for some players. I'm not sure why we're not allowed to try and fix it, ne?
Please note that discrimination is against others is not tolerated on these forums - it is not acceptable to tell others that they may not play D&D because they lack skills in maths.
This is ableism and is not acceptable.
Huh? You know how many games out there list on the box a recommended age, because the designers recognize the game is too complex for younger people?
As someone who looked into this for a paper (albeit years ago): half the time those recommended ages are deliberately set a few years higher than they should be, for marketing reasons. Same reason Seventeen magazine is titled Seventeen though it's targeted at girls aged 12 and older. Second, a lot of the time those age recommendations wouldn't even be on there at all if not for liability reasons (choking hazards etc) and the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act requiring it. Lastly, those recommendations are there to indicate who the game will appeal to more than to indicate who should be able to play it: if it says the game is recommended for 7-12 year olds for instance, it's pretty clear turning 13 will not mean you are no longer able to play it.
All that aside, there's no age recommendation on the PHB or DMG. There is on the starter set, but that's because of the second point above. In the '80s the age recommendation for D&D was 10+, and that was based on the nature of the content. In short, your argument holds no water.
I wish it were so easy. Sadly, the issue on this specific website is that DDB's character sheet is absolutely ****ing terrible at accounting for this stuff.
I like DDB for the things it does well. Homebrew and houserules are, with all due respect to the devs here, not among the things it does well. That's understandable to an extent, it's not easy coding for stuff that by definition you don't know anything about, but it can be frustrating. I do wish there was an actual tutorial or more of an explanation of how things work, reverse engineering through trial and error is tedious. I don't really hold this against D&D in general or this edition in particular though - homebrew and houseruling is still very easy, it's just not something that lends itself to these tools.
I wish it were so easy. Sadly, the issue on this specific website is that DDB's character sheet is absolutely ****ing terrible at accounting for this stuff. It is currently impossible to attach a simple +1 bonus to attack to a weapon with A.) making it "magical" and B.) increasing its damage bonus, as well. You can edit the action on the character sheet to account for certain types of modifiers (but not all, as my miserably failed attempt to reflect my Steel Defender's actual Force-Empowered Rend on my artificer's sheet shows), but at that point the item is not really transferrable - your specific action has the bonus, but if you give the sword to someone else they have to remember to modify their action or the bonus disappears. It's maddening. There are a plethora of homebrew fixes I've gotten halfway through building and had to abandon simply because I can't implement it properly on the sheet here.
Thats a D&DBeyond issue, not a 5e issue.
As for 'making the game better', Icon? I see no reason why rules overlays that give players who're ready, willing, able, even desperate for more meat on the bones makes everything worse. Pillars of Eternity: Deadfire may be a PC game (if a fan-goddamn-tastic one), but it pulled this off beautifully with a weapon system that's not significantly more complex than 5e's, but with infinitely more diversity and personality in one's choices.
Namely: Weapons in Deadfire usually did the better of two damage types, with enemies all bearing different resistances. A warhammer did the best of bludgeoning or piercing, depending on which option the target was more resistant to. Because, y'know...warhammers mostly all came with a sharply pointed backspike, and it wasn't there for decoration. Swords switched between Slash and Pierce except for thrusting blades like rapiers or stilettos, which did solely piercing. A weapon with no reasonable secondary mode of attack did only a single damage type but was usually slightly better at that type than others.
And secondly, all weapons in Deadfire have a modal toggle option that allows them to do something unique at the expense of some base stat or other. Handaxes could be used for Interrupting Blows, which imposed an accuracy debuff on enemies at the cost of damage as the character used the axe to hook and disrupt their target's stance. Swords could Half-Sword, increasing accuracy at the cost of defense. Hunting bows had Rapid Fire, allowing faster refire rate at the cost of sharply reduced accuracy.
Obviously the nature of each modal would have to be drastically different in a 5e game where attack time is not relevant, but it wouldn't be difficult to give each weapon a Special Move that you could do with that weapon, and perhaps a feat to improve that special move. At that point deciding which weapons you wanted to specialize in, and which were worth carrying, would instantly be a choice again. Two-Weapon Fighting would stop being a noob trap because you could fill each fist with a different weapon and make use of two Special Abilities simultaneously, shields are still super ultra mega desirable because AC, and big two-handed suckers could have stronger damage-focused specials to let someone really lean into that Weapon of War mentality.
Armor could provide different resistances and forms of protection (and frankly, mundane resistances should be a much bigger part of the game than they are) depending on type. Platemail might be the best overall protection, but what if that brigandine lets you add a point of your Dex modifier because it's lighter and more flexible in exchange for being less protective, instead of 'Splint Mail' (i.e. brigandine) just being straight-up worse in all conceivable ways than plate and used only as a poor man's intermediary? What if chain-type armor offered resistance to slashing attacks while plate-type armor offered resistance to piercing? Or the inverse, depending on how you want to run it?
What if you had to actually make meaningful decisions about what was best for your character, instead of saying "Oh, well, plate armor is the only heavy armor worth wearing, and all the d8/d10 Versatile weapons are identical and same with the d10 Heavy weapons, so I'll use whichever one has the most magic or fits the bullshit feat I played variant human to take at level 1."
And for tables where all of that sounds like a bunch of boggarty twerky powergamer nonsense? Simply don't use the rules. Say "we're not bothering with Expanded Martial Combat in this game" and use the same shit-ass rules where every single longsword in the entire world is exactly and completely identical in every last possible respect to every other longsword, and where gnomish platemail armor weighs more than the gnome wearing it does.
My only response to all of this is that if that is what you want in your 5e games, go for it! Homebrew that stuff! Make the most complicated martial rules you can! If it makes you happy and your table has fun with it, then that's Good D&D. But recognize that only a small percentage of folks actually want that stuff; most want simple rules they can jump in and use, and a different minority would have definite trouble working through all those rules. The game is made to appeal to a wide swath of people, and the core rules have to reflect that. Otherwise, the barriers to entry rise and the hobby eventually dies.
I know people like to say that any degree of added complexity will Destroy 5e Forever and that "its greatest strength is its accessibility!" But, first of all? No, 5e's greatest strength is not its accessibility. Its greatest strength is fifty years of brand recognition and a gadzooking heap of Hasbro money. Other games are vastly more accessible than 5e, but they never gain market share because they don't have the D&D name.
You are confusing the strength of the 5e brand with that of the 5e system. the marketing and branding of 5e has nothing to do with the system. That's like saying that Legend of Zelda games are popular because of 50 years of brand recognition and a gadzooking heap of Nintendo money. Does it help sell the game? sure. Does it dictate the mechanics of the game itself and how one approaches it? No. Would people play legend of zelda games if they were mechanically terrible? probably not (or at least, in nowhere near the numbers).
In short, it is a definite strength of the 5e system that it is simple and easy to grasp for a large swath of potential players. Branding and Marketing might help the system succeed, but they don't dictate the strengths of the system itself.
And secondly? This lack of meaningful decisions, the absolute shallowness and complete lack of any sort of real engagement points within the Martial Gear system of D&D, actively makes the game worse for some players. I'm not sure why we're not allowed to try and fix it, ne?
You are, right now even...it's called homebrew, and eventually (possibly) some sort of "advanced" ruleset or 5.5e. If this is how they would choose to implement greater martial complexity, that is fine. Just don't clutter up the basic ruleset for those who don't need it, want it, or would have trouble with a more complex version.
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?
I have to ask, in all honesty, is it possible for ANY OF YOU that took umbrage with what I wrote to not argue using either a strawman or dishonestly? Where the f*** did I say I wanted full realism?
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?
I have to ask, in all honesty, is it possible for ANY OF YOU that took umbrage with what I wrote to not argue using either a strawman or dishonestly? Where the f*** did I say I wanted full realism?
It's - and I fully appreciate this seems to have gotten lost in context - not so much about full realism or not as it as about high realism over game concerns or vice versa.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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).
Why do you assume all D&D is based in this time period? My homebrew setting has steampunk elements and is somewhat comparable to the 1800's, someone else's might be Roman Empire Era based, another might be 2200's Star Trek type (the DMG has options for that too, FYI), and some might be a hodgepodge of different eras or eschew references to real history all-together.
:sigh:
Because that is the time period, technologically speaking, of the default setting Forgotten Realms. Its also the time period, technologically, of ALL D&D settings (past and present) outside of the 2E Historical Reference books (and Dark Sun). That is the time period Plate existed alongside Mail, as well as Arming Swords (erroneously called Longswords), War Bows (aka Long Bows), Crossbows, Rapiers and a crapload of other weapons in the game. I kept it simple because "5E is simple". I could have easily made a very expansive list of armors covering multiple time periods and cultures. I DIDN'T BECAUSE THE DAMN PLAYERS HANDBOOK DOESN'T!
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?
I have to ask, in all honesty, is it possible for ANY OF YOU that took umbrage with what I wrote to not argue using either a strawman or dishonestly? Where the f*** did I say I wanted full realism?
First off, cool your jets. There's no need for this kind of anger in a discussion about the fantasy weights and terminology of armor in a game. 2) how was I dishonest or using a strawman? I was clearly stating my opinion regarding both the difficulty in implementing meaningful options outside the current provided list, given that the mechanics are just not complicated enough to support them.
We assumed you wanted more realism, because you were (vehemently) arguing for "realistic" weights and "realistic" terminology. We are pointing out the difficulties as such in implementing those changes, which include the fact that the entire encumbrance system trends towards allowing more weight than is feasible, and the overall system is balanced by having armor and weapons weigh more than perhaps they actually would. That evolved into a larger discussion regarding the implementation of additional "realistic" options in D&D, and the overall difficulties of doing so inside the game mechanics
Regarding terminology, whether or not "chainmail" is a thing, when you say "chainmail" the vast majority of fantasy inclined people will have the same image in their minds. It is a common point of reference, even if it is not accurate, and it is perfectly valid for that reference to be used. I had no idea what a "gambeson" is until I looked it up just now, but I did recognize the visual of "padded" armor. When building a game to be accessible to a wide swath of people, using "common" points of reference is a valid technique.
And my counterpoint question is still valid: What is the benefit of using "correct" weights and names in the 5e system, other than catering to your tastes?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why do you assume all D&D is based in this time period? My homebrew setting has steampunk elements and is somewhat comparable to the 1800's, someone else's might be Roman Empire Era based, another might be 2200's Star Trek type (the DMG has options for that too, FYI), and some might be a hodgepodge of different eras or eschew references to real history all-together.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersThe relative simplicity of the D&D rules is one of the things that has led to it being so popular. Combat is relatively quick and easy to manage. Adding further rules on top of that detracts from one of the greatest strengths of the game.
Attempting to accurately model/represent historical real world weapons and armor is what led to tables like the one below in AD&D!
"Ok, so you're attacking the orc. He's in chain armor, which is AC 5 and you have Battle Axe, so you're at an additional -1 to your attack."
On armor weights - as someone else pointed out, the breastplate that fits a 5 ft. tall elf (or a 3ft. tall halfling even) is going to be very different in weight to the breastplate that fits a 7 ft tall goliath. There's always another step in logically determining specifics, but it rarely makes the game more fun to play for most people.
Given some pretty hefty negatives for pushing historical accuracy, I am still not seeing any positive argument for doing so, other than personal preference - and that's fine, play how you wish, with any homebrew you like - but I do not think it is reasonable to expect the official rules of the game to be something that this version of D&D was never designed to be.
It's also worth noting that there are many other TTRPG out there, some of which do accurately modelled small-scale tactical battles very well, if that's what you're after.
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!"🔊
My favorite punny summation of 5e's combat system is that it's drawn in broad strokes.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I actually think it could be good to go even more "blunt" with armor. Like, maybe just 4-5 different types, similar to how there is only 1 shield...
A lot of the "realism" problems with D&D armor aren't with detail; they are with, historically, bad research. Some crappy victorian researcher decided that "ring mail" was a thing, so now we have to have rules that create a difference between that and "chainmail." Ironically, many of those issues could be dealt with by consolidation of armor types, not expansion.
I already took steps in my game, long ago to deal with how badly D&D handles weight, encumbrance etc. These House Rules are presented in every session 0, hard and soft copies are readily available.
10 pounds carrying capacity = per Str point, not 15.
If Medium size is baseline, and carrying capacity is doubled for Large (as per the books), then it is halved for small, and halved again for Tiny.
My Str 8 Halfling Rogue, who is 3'3", and weighs 40 pounds, can still carry his body weight aka 40 pounds. That is still ridiculous, but far better than the 120 with the existing rules. Armour, shields, anything with a appreciable weight (but not weapons) for a Small creature is halved in weight (should be more like one-quarter, but half seems to work), one quarter for Tiny, double for large.
Those changes take up a grand total of 2 more lines of type than the existing text, and are dead easy to understand. WOTC could implement those changes in a heartbeat, and no one could complain "but math is hard."
'Realism' may not be the best goal. Historical simulationists absolutely have no business playing D&D if 'Historical Simulation' is their primary goal. That's a bit like saying you can totally learn absolutely accurate Greek history by playing God of War.
That said...armor is boring. Weapons are mostly boring. There is almost nothing a player can do to tailor their loadout. There is exactly ONE 'ideal' endgame armor for light armor users and heavy armor users both - studded leather for light and plate for heavy. Medium armor has exactly two endgoal states - breastplate if you care about stealth, half-plate if you don't. There is absolutely zero reason whatsoever to use any other type of armor for any reason period beyond those four save simple lack of access.
Weapons, similarly, are super boring. A huge complaint I have with the weapons in D&D is that a longsword forged by the kingdom's greatest smith, from metal harvested from the king's best mine and purified for an entire year before being forged with every trick this master smith knew for making a most superior sword...it's literally the exact same weapon as some village horseshoer's apprentice making his very first stab at creating a sword, out of metal salvaged from the village midwife's third cauldron she decided she didn't need anymore. The best sword in the entire kingdom, fit for the hand of the king's greatest champion, is completely and utterly identical in every last single respect to the stableboy dabbler's barely-even-forged potmetal poking stick.
That. Is. Bullshit. And no, "just make the one magic!" isn't the answer, especially since DMs absolutely detest magic items most of the time and go as far out of their way as they can to avoid giving them out.
A martial character's weapons and armor are as important to that character as a spellcaster's spells are. But the martial character gets to make effectively zero interesting decisions about their character in their weapons and armor. They pick whatever the Tic-Tac-Toe math of AC says the only viable option is for their armor, and they pick whether they want a d8/d10 Versatile weapon or a d10-only Heavy weapon they can use with a combat cheddar feat. It's obnoxious and annoying, since it gives the strong message that the game expects players of martial characters to be too stupid, lazy, or uninvested in the game to wrap their heads around a gear system that lets them make any real decisions with their play.
There's so many ways one could fix that issue...but sadly, every time someone tries, they get "BUT 5e IS SIMPLE!" thrown in their face and told to eat dirt and die. So frustrating...
Please do not contact or message me.
Histrionics aside, Yurei, how would you propose changing the system to make the game better? As I said above, armor (and weapon) mechanics are blunt by design, so how do you insert complexity of additional weapons, of craft and material quality, etc without 1) breaking the balance of the game, 2) having 10 types of duplicate long sword type weapons, or 3) raising the barriers to play? Remember that the point of 5e is accessibility of play. Simple is more accessible than complex, and the more hurdles you place in the way of new players, the fewer people play, and eventually the hobby dies (for historical examples, see 4e)
complexity has to be justified, it has to actually make the game better, or it has no value to the game as a whole. For those who want complex, homebrew is the option.
If you move to Europe, Yurei, throw me a message. Plenty of nonmagical +1 mastercrafted weapons here (at my table anyway, can't speak for the entirety of the Old Continent), as well as -1 not-too-shabby-for-a-first-attempt amateur pigstickers. Not every DM is the same.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I like this house rule, may I steal for use in the states?
for the record, I’m not against complexity. I just see the value in keeping the baseline rules as simple as possible and leaving the complex stuff to DMs and homebrew
I'll be stuffing my face with pizza for the next 15 mins, I suppose if something were to be copied from my personal archive in that interval of lessened vigilance I'll just have to hope it was done by someone with pure intentions and try to move on with my life.
Homebrew is a fine place for rules that might not be of much use to many groups. I wouldn't mind a sourcebook with additional optional rules for this kind of minor flavour adjustments though, but with WotC's current slow release rate maybe something leaning more towards crunch would be better.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I DM for someone who is autistic. They have made huge leaps in social skills from playing the game the last few years, but they do have trouble with math. Everyone at our table understands this is and very patient with this person. Do not dare presume to tell me that my player shouldn't be playing the game.
Adding additional complexity that raises the barrier to play for no reason other than to be more complex should be discouraged. Leave that stuff to the DM for those tables that want it.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersPlease note that discrimination is against others is not tolerated on these forums - it is not acceptable to tell others that they may not play D&D because they lack skills in maths.
This is ableism and is not acceptable.
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!"🔊
I wish it were so easy. Sadly, the issue on this specific website is that DDB's character sheet is absolutely ******* terrible at accounting for this stuff. It is currently impossible to attach a simple +1 bonus to attack to a weapon with A.) making it "magical" and B.) increasing its damage bonus, as well. You can edit the action on the character sheet to account for certain types of modifiers (but not all, as my miserably failed attempt to reflect my Steel Defender's actual Force-Empowered Rend on my artificer's sheet shows), but at that point the item is not really transferrable - your specific action has the bonus, but if you give the sword to someone else they have to remember to modify their action or the bonus disappears. It's maddening. There are a plethora of homebrew fixes I've gotten halfway through building and had to abandon simply because I can't implement it properly on the sheet here.
As for 'making the game better', Icon? I see no reason why rules overlays that give players who're ready, willing, able, even desperate for more meat on the bones makes everything worse. Pillars of Eternity: Deadfire may be a PC game (if a fan-goddamn-tastic one), but it pulled this off beautifully with a weapon system that's not significantly more complex than 5e's, but with infinitely more diversity and personality in one's choices.
Namely: Weapons in Deadfire usually did the better of two damage types, with enemies all bearing different resistances. A warhammer did the best of bludgeoning or piercing, depending on which option the target was more resistant to. Because, y'know...warhammers mostly all came with a sharply pointed backspike, and it wasn't there for decoration. Swords switched between Slash and Pierce except for thrusting blades like rapiers or stilettos, which did solely piercing. A weapon with no reasonable secondary mode of attack did only a single damage type but was usually slightly better at that type than others.
And secondly, all weapons in Deadfire have a modal toggle option that allows them to do something unique at the expense of some base stat or other. Handaxes could be used for Interrupting Blows, which imposed an accuracy debuff on enemies at the cost of damage as the character used the axe to hook and disrupt their target's stance. Swords could Half-Sword, increasing accuracy at the cost of defense. Hunting bows had Rapid Fire, allowing faster refire rate at the cost of sharply reduced accuracy.
Obviously the nature of each modal would have to be drastically different in a 5e game where attack time is not relevant, but it wouldn't be difficult to give each weapon a Special Move that you could do with that weapon, and perhaps a feat to improve that special move. At that point deciding which weapons you wanted to specialize in, and which were worth carrying, would instantly be a choice again. Two-Weapon Fighting would stop being a noob trap because you could fill each fist with a different weapon and make use of two Special Abilities simultaneously, shields are still super ultra mega desirable because AC, and big two-handed suckers could have stronger damage-focused specials to let someone really lean into that Weapon of War mentality.
Armor could provide different resistances and forms of protection (and frankly, mundane resistances should be a much bigger part of the game than they are) depending on type. Platemail might be the best overall protection, but what if that brigandine lets you add a point of your Dex modifier because it's lighter and more flexible in exchange for being less protective, instead of 'Splint Mail' (i.e. brigandine) just being straight-up worse in all conceivable ways than plate and used only as a poor man's intermediary? What if chain-type armor offered resistance to slashing attacks while plate-type armor offered resistance to piercing? Or the inverse, depending on how you want to run it?
What if you had to actually make meaningful decisions about what was best for your character, instead of saying "Oh, well, plate armor is the only heavy armor worth wearing, and all the d8/d10 Versatile weapons are identical and same with the d10 Heavy weapons, so I'll use whichever one has the most magic or fits the bullshit feat I played variant human to take at level 1."
And for tables where all of that sounds like a bunch of boggarty twerky powergamer nonsense? Simply don't use the rules. Say "we're not bothering with Expanded Martial Combat in this game" and use the same shit-ass rules where every single longsword in the entire world is exactly and completely identical in every last possible respect to every other longsword, and where gnomish platemail armor weighs more than the gnome wearing it does.
I know people like to say that any degree of added complexity will Destroy 5e Forever and that "its greatest strength is its accessibility!" But, first of all? No, 5e's greatest strength is not its accessibility. Its greatest strength is fifty years of brand recognition and a gadzooking heap of Hasbro money. Other games are vastly more accessible than 5e, but they never gain market share because they don't have the D&D name.
And secondly? This lack of meaningful decisions, the absolute shallowness and complete lack of any sort of real engagement points within the Martial Gear system of D&D, actively makes the game worse for some players. I'm not sure why we're not allowed to try and fix it, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
As someone who looked into this for a paper (albeit years ago): half the time those recommended ages are deliberately set a few years higher than they should be, for marketing reasons. Same reason Seventeen magazine is titled Seventeen though it's targeted at girls aged 12 and older. Second, a lot of the time those age recommendations wouldn't even be on there at all if not for liability reasons (choking hazards etc) and the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act requiring it. Lastly, those recommendations are there to indicate who the game will appeal to more than to indicate who should be able to play it: if it says the game is recommended for 7-12 year olds for instance, it's pretty clear turning 13 will not mean you are no longer able to play it.
All that aside, there's no age recommendation on the PHB or DMG. There is on the starter set, but that's because of the second point above. In the '80s the age recommendation for D&D was 10+, and that was based on the nature of the content. In short, your argument holds no water.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I like DDB for the things it does well. Homebrew and houserules are, with all due respect to the devs here, not among the things it does well. That's understandable to an extent, it's not easy coding for stuff that by definition you don't know anything about, but it can be frustrating. I do wish there was an actual tutorial or more of an explanation of how things work, reverse engineering through trial and error is tedious. I don't really hold this against D&D in general or this edition in particular though - homebrew and houseruling is still very easy, it's just not something that lends itself to these tools.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Thats a D&DBeyond issue, not a 5e issue.
My only response to all of this is that if that is what you want in your 5e games, go for it! Homebrew that stuff! Make the most complicated martial rules you can! If it makes you happy and your table has fun with it, then that's Good D&D. But recognize that only a small percentage of folks actually want that stuff; most want simple rules they can jump in and use, and a different minority would have definite trouble working through all those rules. The game is made to appeal to a wide swath of people, and the core rules have to reflect that. Otherwise, the barriers to entry rise and the hobby eventually dies.
You are confusing the strength of the 5e brand with that of the 5e system. the marketing and branding of 5e has nothing to do with the system. That's like saying that Legend of Zelda games are popular because of 50 years of brand recognition and a gadzooking heap of Nintendo money. Does it help sell the game? sure. Does it dictate the mechanics of the game itself and how one approaches it? No. Would people play legend of zelda games if they were mechanically terrible? probably not (or at least, in nowhere near the numbers).
In short, it is a definite strength of the 5e system that it is simple and easy to grasp for a large swath of potential players. Branding and Marketing might help the system succeed, but they don't dictate the strengths of the system itself.
You are, right now even...it's called homebrew, and eventually (possibly) some sort of "advanced" ruleset or 5.5e. If this is how they would choose to implement greater martial complexity, that is fine. Just don't clutter up the basic ruleset for those who don't need it, want it, or would have trouble with a more complex version.
I have to ask, in all honesty, is it possible for ANY OF YOU that took umbrage with what I wrote to not argue using either a strawman or dishonestly? Where the f*** did I say I wanted full realism?
It's - and I fully appreciate this seems to have gotten lost in context - not so much about full realism or not as it as about high realism over game concerns or vice versa.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
:sigh:
Because that is the time period, technologically speaking, of the default setting Forgotten Realms. Its also the time period, technologically, of ALL D&D settings (past and present) outside of the 2E Historical Reference books (and Dark Sun). That is the time period Plate existed alongside Mail, as well as Arming Swords (erroneously called Longswords), War Bows (aka Long Bows), Crossbows, Rapiers and a crapload of other weapons in the game. I kept it simple because "5E is simple". I could have easily made a very expansive list of armors covering multiple time periods and cultures. I DIDN'T BECAUSE THE DAMN PLAYERS HANDBOOK DOESN'T!
First off, cool your jets. There's no need for this kind of anger in a discussion about the fantasy weights and terminology of armor in a game. 2) how was I dishonest or using a strawman? I was clearly stating my opinion regarding both the difficulty in implementing meaningful options outside the current provided list, given that the mechanics are just not complicated enough to support them.
We assumed you wanted more realism, because you were (vehemently) arguing for "realistic" weights and "realistic" terminology. We are pointing out the difficulties as such in implementing those changes, which include the fact that the entire encumbrance system trends towards allowing more weight than is feasible, and the overall system is balanced by having armor and weapons weigh more than perhaps they actually would. That evolved into a larger discussion regarding the implementation of additional "realistic" options in D&D, and the overall difficulties of doing so inside the game mechanics
Regarding terminology, whether or not "chainmail" is a thing, when you say "chainmail" the vast majority of fantasy inclined people will have the same image in their minds. It is a common point of reference, even if it is not accurate, and it is perfectly valid for that reference to be used. I had no idea what a "gambeson" is until I looked it up just now, but I did recognize the visual of "padded" armor. When building a game to be accessible to a wide swath of people, using "common" points of reference is a valid technique.
And my counterpoint question is still valid: What is the benefit of using "correct" weights and names in the 5e system, other than catering to your tastes?