Honestly, the conversation that is ongoing here and evident in past threads about historical weaponry and armor is for me another decent reason not to add the variety and "realistic" terms and weights to the game. We base a lot of our knowledge of this on historical record (where it exists), biography, and art. Those records are nowhere near exhaustive or complete, and there is a huge variety of weights, styles, materials, etc even within a single type of armor, or a single type of weapon (not to mention the culturally specific iterations). I've yet to see any thread where agreement can be found about what the "longsword" of the game actually is, let alone how much it should actually weigh (and in fact, the most basic research indicates that weights varied, especially for anything that was custom made or fitted). No one-size-fits-all table is ever going to be completely accurate, because it is impossible to be in the first place, so the bigger question becomes, does what they printed work with overall game balance. I would say it does.
Also regarding terminology: Calling leather armor a "Leather Lamellar Corslet" might be a more accurate name, but it is by far less easy to say and explain to someone unfamiliar with the term that that means some form of "leather armor". Likewise with Byrnies, Hauburgeons, Gambesons, and Brigandines (none of which I, a layperson, knew what they were or had even heard of prior to looking them up as part of this thread). It is absolutely fine for a game made for mass appeal to simplify and rely on tropes and abstractions rather than require a college degree in medieval weaponry and armor to even understand what you are playing with.
Leather is cool, studded leather is edgy. Let the mobility combatants look good while dashing around the battle space. Adverse olfactory outcomes of working up a sweat encased in leather isn't RAW so not only is leather cool, it's RAI cool even when it gets funky.
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.
Disagree 100%. This is a fantasy game, not a reality game. We are going to allow 1000s of different kinds of monsters, dozens of player races and classes, spells that alter reality and deny the laws of physics, yet quibble over the names and weights of armor? Yeah, it is ridiculous to see someone walking around carrying 12 daggers, 3 swords, and a mace, but in the end, this is for fun...
I will say that totally tossing out named armor types and just having cheap/standard/expensive armors of each type with what exactly they're made out of being a DM decision and the game provides some suggestions is appealing.
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.
Disagree 100%. This is a fantasy game, not a reality game. We are going to allow 1000s of different kinds of monsters, dozens of player races and classes, spells that alter reality and deny the laws of physics, yet quibble over the names and weights of armor? Yeah, it is ridiculous to see someone walking around carrying 12 daggers, 3 swords, and a mace, but in the end, this is for fun...
When engaged in collaborative imaginative play the boundary between "suspension of disbelief" and "realistic verisimilitude" is pretty porous. The only thing I find ridiculous in this discussion is that presenters of options for a degree of realistic verisimilitude and those who prefer disregarding such in their suspension of disbelief for the good of the game being played have to be so needlessly antagonistic. Again the table presented was interesting and thought provoking stuff for some, I don't think the rhetorical frame work could have been done better. I'm glad to see some have taken the high road and addressed the substantive game possibilities, but I really think everyone should be pretty secure in that anything written on this board isn't really a threat to the way you play. So some can keep flush inventories, others may want "what you pack" to be a real tactical consideration. These are called play styles, I'd actually encourage groups to play in the style you're not accustomed to, you never know what gear it may turn to enrich the way you play in your preferred mode. I mean "jock world" has known the benefits of cross training for at least three or four decades, I think nerd space should be a little tolerant in our refuges too. Then we just all work on constructive communications skills, including how to respond constructively when thoughts are presented in an antagonistic manner. The oppositional/antagonistic modes which have manifestoes in off topic corners here and probably/evidently on ENWorld just don't work. There's this thing called verbal judo that's way more conducive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To be fair, I'm not really arguing the 'superiority' of historical accuracy in armor presentation for our game of pretend elves, flying fire lizards, and brain-sucking squid monsters. There is none. I'm mostly just annoyed at how little what you're wearing, carrying, or using matters in most games of D&D.
You mention that some tables want What You Pack(C) to be a real tactical consideration. I can attest to this: my table has been jonesing badly for real inventory control tools in DDB for quite a long time, and were I ever to run a long campaign again I would not only insist on variant encumbrance and coin weight, I would be creating loadout rules for item accessibility and possibly even new base item types people can acquire to interact with this system.
I can hear people's eyeballs doing burnouts in their sockets right now - "goddamnit Yurei, that shit just slows the game down! it's minutiae, it's not adventuring, it just isn't fun! Do you also track rations and water and sleep and pooping and all that other crappy Sims junk, too?!"
Yes, Random Internet Angryboi. Yes I would track much of that stuff. Because only when those things are problems in the first place do solutions for those problems become exciting. Bags of Holding are completely pointless in a game where everybody in the party can lug around four hundred pounds of whatever they feel like in their Magic Video Game Inventory, items and spells that provide nourishment aren't cool in a game where nobody ever eats, and projectile weapon users only dominate fights when they shoot magic lasers instead of expendable ammunition.
For some tables? What you choose to carry with you is an important decision. What's worth keeping on your person says something about you, and preparing for adventure by acquiring the correct equipment is a big part of successfully adventuring in the first place. It's a chance to demonstrate a different type of expertise, and to show one's cleverness by anticipating the needs of the venture to come. It irritates me greatly that the typical D&D table basically forgets that every piece of equipment that isn't armor, weapons, thieves' tools, or magic gear exists and just writes all that junk off as 'boring minutiae'. Though I suppose that does come with the dopamine shot that happens when a clever artificer or rogue uses mundane equipment in interesting ways to solve problems that everybody else expects to handle with magic.
If nobody ever bothers with tracking equipment or making use of it - or punishing players that don't have the right piece of kit - how is anyone ever supposed to get the satisfaction of having exactly the right tool for the job?
To be fair, I'm not really arguing the 'superiority' of historical accuracy in armor presentation for our game of pretend elves, flying fire lizards, and brain-sucking squid monsters. There is none. I'm mostly just annoyed at how little what you're wearing, carrying, or using matters in most games of D&D.
You mention that some tables want What You Pack(C) to be a real tactical consideration. I can attest to this: my table has been jonesing badly for real inventory control tools in DDB for quite a long time, and were I ever to run a long campaign again I would not only insist on variant encumbrance and coin weight, I would be creating loadout rules for item accessibility and possibly even new base item types people can acquire to interact with this system.
I think equipment choice and management could matter a great deal, given attention --- at Tier One play. But somewhere between levels 3 and 6 or so, spells and class features basically trump equipment choice, and you have enough gold to buy whatever mundane stuff you need, anyway. That feels more like a problem with Tiers of Play, or leveling in general, than with the specifics of equipment.
Adding more choice and/or more crunch to equipment could be pretty cool, but it would need massive power creep to compete with magic items and class features and all the rest. (Or I guess they could make equipment effects entirely scale with proficiency bonus...)
What no roman armour? What books are you using in your research? I have used Stone's Glossary of Arms and Armour. And then there is Edward Oakshotte. I have fought in armour. Made Armour. Help dish out armour. I learned way back in 2E is not worry about how realistic the armour is. Nothing is stopping you from requiring your players to list the weights and what they are carrying. But will this add in any more enjoyment to the table? When I did it, it just slowed down the game.
[REDACTED] The Armor List in the PHB has 13 lines of equipment. Mine has 12. Do the math.
Don't forget to add in a column for how well maintained your armour is. Quote from the green tent at a Border Raids, "Hello Bob. Hello Steve. Hello Jasper (me)" Jasper, "My Lady how did you know who was walking behind your tent?" Green Tent, 'From the sounds of your knee cops" Truth my right one was quiet but my left one was loud."
Also Never do jumping jacks in a Mail Hauberk with out a cup. Ask me how I know.
D&D has always been a cauldron of different cultures, armour eras, and bad fantasy movies. I generally just eyeball weights unless there is a trap with a weight limit.
Mundane equipment isn't used to fight monsters, it's used to solve problems. Sure, a high-level spellcaster can often burn spells to solve problems, but then they've burned a spell. And not every spell-based solution to a problem is a great one.
A character in a previous campaign at our table once drew the attention of a zombie horde onto an enemy bandit camp by having his familiar (an owl, because of course), carry his Bell in that direction and get the zombies to follow the noise. Cost zero spell slots, and operated across a distance further than any other spell he had.
A character of mine once disarmed a poison gas trap by shoving a couple of ball bearings into its vent pipes. To say nothing of the number of times a ball bearing is used to sound for depth in a poorly-lit cave, or hit with a Light spell and thrown somewhere as a marker, beacon, or a means of investigating said poorly-light caves.
There isn't a single spell in the game that replicates the magnifying effect of a spyglass.
You could cast a sixth-level Find the Path...or carry a compass (Navigator's Tools include a compass, unsure why the base item isn't available) and use basic orienteering to find your path, instead.
Mundane gear provides options. Mundane gear is also disposable in a way magic items are not, and it can offer a broad array of quiet, effective solutions to mundane problems that do not require the glitz and flash of a spell. Sure, you can burn a seventh-level spell slot casting Fly on the party to get them up (or down) a cliff...or you could use rope, climbing gear, and Athletics instead. Perhaps only kill a third-level slot for a single Fly to set the rope and aid physically weak party members.
Some games don't care about all that. Some games do.
Mundane equipment isn't used to fight monsters, it's used to solve problems. Sure, a high-level spellcaster can often burn spells to solve problems, but then they've burned a spell. And not every spell-based solution to a problem is a great one.
<snip>
Mundane gear provides options. Mundane gear is also disposable in a way magic items are not, and it can offer a broad array of quiet, effective solutions to mundane problems that do not require the glitz and flash of a spell. Sure, you can burn a seventh-level spell slot casting Fly on the party to get them up (or down) a cliff...or you could use rope, climbing gear, and Athletics instead. Perhaps only kill a third-level slot for a single Fly to set the rope and aid physically weak party members.
Look, I'm not disagreeing on the usefulness of mundane equipment. It can do stuff. Upthread, you seem to be focusing on wanting more strategic choice in what equipment you carry...that only matters a little at lower levels (especially with all the prepackaged starting equipment), and is almost entirely irrelevant once you and the the party can afford all the rope, caltrops, and studded leather you can use. In terms of spells, much equipment is trumped by cantrips and/or 1st level spells. Those only get cheaper the more you level.
And besides, we're talking about armor minutiae, which ends up being all-combat-most-the-time. No-one appears to be in a tizzy about the cost and weight of ball bearings ;)
Mundane equipment isn't used to fight monsters, it's used to solve problems. Sure, a high-level spellcaster can often burn spells to solve problems, but then they've burned a spell. And not every spell-based solution to a problem is a great one.
A character in a previous campaign at our table once drew the attention of a zombie horde onto an enemy bandit camp by having his familiar (an owl, because of course), carry his Bell in that direction and get the zombies to follow the noise. Cost zero spell slots, and operated across a distance further than any other spell he had.
A character of mine once disarmed a poison gas trap by shoving a couple of ball bearings into its vent pipes. To say nothing of the number of times a ball bearing is used to sound for depth in a poorly-lit cave, or hit with a Light spell and thrown somewhere as a marker, beacon, or a means of investigating said poorly-light caves.
There isn't a single spell in the game that replicates the magnifying effect of a spyglass.
You could cast a sixth-level Find the Path...or carry a compass (Navigator's Tools include a compass, unsure why the base item isn't available) and use basic orienteering to find your path, instead.
Mundane gear provides options. Mundane gear is also disposable in a way magic items are not, and it can offer a broad array of quiet, effective solutions to mundane problems that do not require the glitz and flash of a spell. Sure, you can burn a seventh-level spell slot casting Fly on the party to get them up (or down) a cliff...or you could use rope, climbing gear, and Athletics instead. Perhaps only kill a third-level slot for a single Fly to set the rope and aid physically weak party members.
Some games don't care about all that. Some games do.
Great - so play that way if you want, and as long as you and the party are having fun, good on you. But why are you so hell-bent that everyone must do this? I asked my players if they wanted to worry about the weight/encumbrance and got a resounding "NO!" because they want to get into the fantasy side of it. We all have a blast. They have done some cool things with mundane equipment as well and used some objects in creative ways, and I rewarded them for that.
Mundane equipment isn't used to fight monsters, it's used to solve problems. Sure, a high-level spellcaster can often burn spells to solve problems, but then they've burned a spell. And not every spell-based solution to a problem is a great one.
A character in a previous campaign at our table once drew the attention of a zombie horde onto an enemy bandit camp by having his familiar (an owl, because of course), carry his Bell in that direction and get the zombies to follow the noise. Cost zero spell slots, and operated across a distance further than any other spell he had.
A character of mine once disarmed a poison gas trap by shoving a couple of ball bearings into its vent pipes. To say nothing of the number of times a ball bearing is used to sound for depth in a poorly-lit cave, or hit with a Light spell and thrown somewhere as a marker, beacon, or a means of investigating said poorly-light caves.
There isn't a single spell in the game that replicates the magnifying effect of a spyglass.
You could cast a sixth-level Find the Path...or carry a compass (Navigator's Tools include a compass, unsure why the base item isn't available) and use basic orienteering to find your path, instead.
Mundane gear provides options. Mundane gear is also disposable in a way magic items are not, and it can offer a broad array of quiet, effective solutions to mundane problems that do not require the glitz and flash of a spell. Sure, you can burn a seventh-level spell slot casting Fly on the party to get them up (or down) a cliff...or you could use rope, climbing gear, and Athletics instead. Perhaps only kill a third-level slot for a single Fly to set the rope and aid physically weak party members.
Some games don't care about all that. Some games do.
Great - so play that way if you want, and as long as you and the party are having fun, good on you. But why are you so hell-bent that everyone must do this? I asked my players if they wanted to worry about the weight/encumbrance and got a resounding "NO!" because they want to get into the fantasy side of it. We all have a blast. They have done some cool things with mundane equipment as well and used some objects in creative ways, and I rewarded them for that.
I don't think Yurei's hell-bent on everyone playing the same way. What they're saying is that the notion that it would take massive power creep for mundane items to remain useful compared to magical ones and spells beyond early levels isn't necessarily true. No more, no less, do with that what you want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Wait... why is the weight the thing that bugs you? Why not the fact that armour isn't layered? Or that several sub-par armours are so effective (I'm looking at you chainmail). Or that second layer armour is considered heavy armour (still looking at you chainmail).
Why not include rules about how shields and spears interract with other shields and spears?
Why are all of the weapons so needlessly heavy?
Or that Roman steel is better than Viking age iron... or how viking age iron is inferior to middle age pattern steel, which is still inferior to Teutor steel? Heck, the Viking Age didn't do plate because their metal couldn't support itself, but if you went to a blacksmith, you'd get Viking Age stuff up and through the Georgian era because blacksmiths don't do steel! And if they do, they specifically do "bits" of steel (I'm looking at you, fancy ax head and hammers).
:slams head on desk:
I swear to Christ, I get it from both ends on this board. First its the "Keep it simple!" and then its the "Why not have more complexity?" I kept it simple because ITS 5E AND GOD FORBID YOU MAKE ANYTHING REMOTELY CRUNCHY OR YOU WILL BE BURNED AT THE STAKE!
I didn't tackle weapons or the economy in D&D because THOSE ARE SEPARATE ISSUES!
And Roman steel was by far and away NOT better steel than Viking age steel. There are examples of Viking Age swords that are crucible steel not so different from modern steel (some Ulfberht and Ingelrii are that good).
Wait... why is the weight the thing that bugs you? Why not the fact that armour isn't layered? Or that several sub-par armours are so effective (I'm looking at you chainmail). Or that second layer armour is considered heavy armour (still looking at you chainmail).
Why not include rules about how shields and spears interract with other shields and spears?
Why are all of the weapons so needlessly heavy?
Or that Roman steel is better than Viking age iron... or how viking age iron is inferior to middle age pattern steel, which is still inferior to Teutor steel? Heck, the Viking Age didn't do plate because their metal couldn't support itself, but if you went to a blacksmith, you'd get Viking Age stuff up and through the Georgian era because blacksmiths don't do steel! And if they do, they specifically do "bits" of steel (I'm looking at you, fancy ax head and hammers).
I didn't tackle weapons or the economy in D&D because THOSE ARE SEPARATE ISSUES!
Fixing the weights of Armor in D&D (and other misconceptions)
It's at least not their fault to assume you were objecting to them.
Wait... why is the weight the thing that bugs you? Why not the fact that armour isn't layered? Or that several sub-par armours are so effective (I'm looking at you chainmail). Or that second layer armour is considered heavy armour (still looking at you chainmail).
Why not include rules about how shields and spears interract with other shields and spears?
Why are all of the weapons so needlessly heavy?
Or that Roman steel is better than Viking age iron... or how viking age iron is inferior to middle age pattern steel, which is still inferior to Teutor steel? Heck, the Viking Age didn't do plate because their metal couldn't support itself, but if you went to a blacksmith, you'd get Viking Age stuff up and through the Georgian era because blacksmiths don't do steel! And if they do, they specifically do "bits" of steel (I'm looking at you, fancy ax head and hammers).
:slams head on desk:
I swear to Christ, I get it from both ends on this board. First its the "Keep it simple!" and then its the "Why not have more complexity?" I kept it simple because ITS 5E AND GOD FORBID YOU MAKE ANYTHING REMOTELY CRUNCHY OR YOU WILL BE BURNED AT THE STAKE!
I didn't tackle weapons or the economy in D&D because THOSE ARE SEPARATE ISSUES!
And Roman steel was by far and away NOT better steel than Viking age steel. There are examples of Viking Age swords that are crucible steel not so different from modern steel (some Ulfberht and Ingelrii are that good).
To quote Drake, from the Nickelodean classic 'Drake and Josh': "Whoa. Just take it easy, man"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I think people are forgetting that the Encumbrance rules for armor have to do with more than just the weight. Like so many things in D&D there is a level of abstraction. The "weight" of a suit of armor isn't just the reading you would get if you stuck the stuff on a scale. It has to do with the general bulk the the armor as well. How well it balances, how hard it is to walk in, how much your movement is hindered by the joints, how much it encumbers you. Perhaps even how much noise the stuff makes when you move in it.
Like a lot of people, I've never worn armor. All I know about the stuff is what I read in fantasy books or see in fantasy movies. I know perfectly well those aren't accurate. If the DM wants to give my character a shirt made of Mithril Links that is as light as a feather and hard as dragon scales, that's good enough for me. I'm not going to worry about how I wear enough padding under that shirt to keep the spear the Cave Troll stabs me from doing more than knocking the wind out of me. Maybe making a hole in the thin cloth shirt I'm wearing over the mail.
The names don't matter much to me. I don't know what the stuff looked like in the real world anyway. Nor do I care. I'm having enough trouble figuring out what it looks like when a giant hits me with a club the size of a redwood tree.
All of those factors are part of what's being accounted for by proficiency with the armor, Geann. Proficiency with a grade of armor indicates the training, instruction, and experience required to wear it in a way that doesn't (unduly) interfere with your own activities.. The weight of armor is there to signify its raw bulk and mass, nothing more. It is overtuned, but so are the weights of half of everything in D&D, and characters in D&D (under standard encumbrance, anyways) can operate without any strain under loads heavy enough to seriously encumber even an Olympic weightlifter.
For some folks it's a huge breach of suspension of disbelief. For other folks it's a total nonfactor. That's why variant encumbrance exists in the first place - as a half-assed acknowledgement that some tables find logistics to be a fascinating part of the adventure rather than an annoying detractant from it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Honestly, the conversation that is ongoing here and evident in past threads about historical weaponry and armor is for me another decent reason not to add the variety and "realistic" terms and weights to the game. We base a lot of our knowledge of this on historical record (where it exists), biography, and art. Those records are nowhere near exhaustive or complete, and there is a huge variety of weights, styles, materials, etc even within a single type of armor, or a single type of weapon (not to mention the culturally specific iterations). I've yet to see any thread where agreement can be found about what the "longsword" of the game actually is, let alone how much it should actually weigh (and in fact, the most basic research indicates that weights varied, especially for anything that was custom made or fitted). No one-size-fits-all table is ever going to be completely accurate, because it is impossible to be in the first place, so the bigger question becomes, does what they printed work with overall game balance. I would say it does.
Also regarding terminology: Calling leather armor a "Leather Lamellar Corslet" might be a more accurate name, but it is by far less easy to say and explain to someone unfamiliar with the term that that means some form of "leather armor". Likewise with Byrnies, Hauburgeons, Gambesons, and Brigandines (none of which I, a layperson, knew what they were or had even heard of prior to looking them up as part of this thread). It is absolutely fine for a game made for mass appeal to simplify and rely on tropes and abstractions rather than require a college degree in medieval weaponry and armor to even understand what you are playing with.
Leather is cool, studded leather is edgy. Let the mobility combatants look good while dashing around the battle space. Adverse olfactory outcomes of working up a sweat encased in leather isn't RAW so not only is leather cool, it's RAI cool even when it gets funky.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Disagree 100%. This is a fantasy game, not a reality game. We are going to allow 1000s of different kinds of monsters, dozens of player races and classes, spells that alter reality and deny the laws of physics, yet quibble over the names and weights of armor? Yeah, it is ridiculous to see someone walking around carrying 12 daggers, 3 swords, and a mace, but in the end, this is for fun...
I will say that totally tossing out named armor types and just having cheap/standard/expensive armors of each type with what exactly they're made out of being a DM decision and the game provides some suggestions is appealing.
I'm to old for this formal armor stuff, I'll just use the armor as is in the PHB this was a good read though.
When engaged in collaborative imaginative play the boundary between "suspension of disbelief" and "realistic verisimilitude" is pretty porous. The only thing I find ridiculous in this discussion is that presenters of options for a degree of realistic verisimilitude and those who prefer disregarding such in their suspension of disbelief for the good of the game being played have to be so needlessly antagonistic. Again the table presented was interesting and thought provoking stuff for some, I don't think the rhetorical frame work could have been done better. I'm glad to see some have taken the high road and addressed the substantive game possibilities, but I really think everyone should be pretty secure in that anything written on this board isn't really a threat to the way you play. So some can keep flush inventories, others may want "what you pack" to be a real tactical consideration. These are called play styles, I'd actually encourage groups to play in the style you're not accustomed to, you never know what gear it may turn to enrich the way you play in your preferred mode. I mean "jock world" has known the benefits of cross training for at least three or four decades, I think nerd space should be a little tolerant in our refuges too. Then we just all work on constructive communications skills, including how to respond constructively when thoughts are presented in an antagonistic manner. The oppositional/antagonistic modes which have manifestoes in off topic corners here and probably/evidently on ENWorld just don't work. There's this thing called verbal judo that's way more conducive.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
A good point, Midnight.
To be fair, I'm not really arguing the 'superiority' of historical accuracy in armor presentation for our game of pretend elves, flying fire lizards, and brain-sucking squid monsters. There is none. I'm mostly just annoyed at how little what you're wearing, carrying, or using matters in most games of D&D.
You mention that some tables want What You Pack(C) to be a real tactical consideration. I can attest to this: my table has been jonesing badly for real inventory control tools in DDB for quite a long time, and were I ever to run a long campaign again I would not only insist on variant encumbrance and coin weight, I would be creating loadout rules for item accessibility and possibly even new base item types people can acquire to interact with this system.
I can hear people's eyeballs doing burnouts in their sockets right now - "goddamnit Yurei, that shit just slows the game down! it's minutiae, it's not adventuring, it just isn't fun! Do you also track rations and water and sleep and pooping and all that other crappy Sims junk, too?!"
Yes, Random Internet Angryboi. Yes I would track much of that stuff. Because only when those things are problems in the first place do solutions for those problems become exciting. Bags of Holding are completely pointless in a game where everybody in the party can lug around four hundred pounds of whatever they feel like in their Magic Video Game Inventory, items and spells that provide nourishment aren't cool in a game where nobody ever eats, and projectile weapon users only dominate fights when they shoot magic lasers instead of expendable ammunition.
For some tables? What you choose to carry with you is an important decision. What's worth keeping on your person says something about you, and preparing for adventure by acquiring the correct equipment is a big part of successfully adventuring in the first place. It's a chance to demonstrate a different type of expertise, and to show one's cleverness by anticipating the needs of the venture to come. It irritates me greatly that the typical D&D table basically forgets that every piece of equipment that isn't armor, weapons, thieves' tools, or magic gear exists and just writes all that junk off as 'boring minutiae'. Though I suppose that does come with the dopamine shot that happens when a clever artificer or rogue uses mundane equipment in interesting ways to solve problems that everybody else expects to handle with magic.
If nobody ever bothers with tracking equipment or making use of it - or punishing players that don't have the right piece of kit - how is anyone ever supposed to get the satisfaction of having exactly the right tool for the job?
Please do not contact or message me.
I think equipment choice and management could matter a great deal, given attention --- at Tier One play. But somewhere between levels 3 and 6 or so, spells and class features basically trump equipment choice, and you have enough gold to buy whatever mundane stuff you need, anyway. That feels more like a problem with Tiers of Play, or leveling in general, than with the specifics of equipment.
Adding more choice and/or more crunch to equipment could be pretty cool, but it would need massive power creep to compete with magic items and class features and all the rest. (Or I guess they could make equipment effects entirely scale with proficiency bonus...)
Don't forget to add in a column for how well maintained your armour is. Quote from the green tent at a Border Raids, "Hello Bob. Hello Steve. Hello Jasper (me)" Jasper, "My Lady how did you know who was walking behind your tent?" Green Tent, 'From the sounds of your knee cops" Truth my right one was quiet but my left one was loud."
Also Never do jumping jacks in a Mail Hauberk with out a cup. Ask me how I know.
D&D has always been a cauldron of different cultures, armour eras, and bad fantasy movies. I generally just eyeball weights unless there is a trap with a weight limit.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
Why?
Mundane equipment isn't used to fight monsters, it's used to solve problems. Sure, a high-level spellcaster can often burn spells to solve problems, but then they've burned a spell. And not every spell-based solution to a problem is a great one.
A character in a previous campaign at our table once drew the attention of a zombie horde onto an enemy bandit camp by having his familiar (an owl, because of course), carry his Bell in that direction and get the zombies to follow the noise. Cost zero spell slots, and operated across a distance further than any other spell he had.
A character of mine once disarmed a poison gas trap by shoving a couple of ball bearings into its vent pipes. To say nothing of the number of times a ball bearing is used to sound for depth in a poorly-lit cave, or hit with a Light spell and thrown somewhere as a marker, beacon, or a means of investigating said poorly-light caves.
There isn't a single spell in the game that replicates the magnifying effect of a spyglass.
You could cast a sixth-level Find the Path...or carry a compass (Navigator's Tools include a compass, unsure why the base item isn't available) and use basic orienteering to find your path, instead.
Mundane gear provides options. Mundane gear is also disposable in a way magic items are not, and it can offer a broad array of quiet, effective solutions to mundane problems that do not require the glitz and flash of a spell. Sure, you can burn a seventh-level spell slot casting Fly on the party to get them up (or down) a cliff...or you could use rope, climbing gear, and Athletics instead. Perhaps only kill a third-level slot for a single Fly to set the rope and aid physically weak party members.
Some games don't care about all that. Some games do.
Please do not contact or message me.
Look, I'm not disagreeing on the usefulness of mundane equipment. It can do stuff. Upthread, you seem to be focusing on wanting more strategic choice in what equipment you carry...that only matters a little at lower levels (especially with all the prepackaged starting equipment), and is almost entirely irrelevant once you and the the party can afford all the rope, caltrops, and studded leather you can use. In terms of spells, much equipment is trumped by cantrips and/or 1st level spells. Those only get cheaper the more you level.
And besides, we're talking about armor minutiae, which ends up being all-combat-most-the-time. No-one appears to be in a tizzy about the cost and weight of ball bearings ;)
Great - so play that way if you want, and as long as you and the party are having fun, good on you. But why are you so hell-bent that everyone must do this? I asked my players if they wanted to worry about the weight/encumbrance and got a resounding "NO!" because they want to get into the fantasy side of it. We all have a blast. They have done some cool things with mundane equipment as well and used some objects in creative ways, and I rewarded them for that.
I don't think Yurei's hell-bent on everyone playing the same way. What they're saying is that the notion that it would take massive power creep for mundane items to remain useful compared to magical ones and spells beyond early levels isn't necessarily true. No more, no less, do with that what you want.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
:slams head on desk:
I swear to Christ, I get it from both ends on this board. First its the "Keep it simple!" and then its the "Why not have more complexity?" I kept it simple because ITS 5E AND GOD FORBID YOU MAKE ANYTHING REMOTELY CRUNCHY OR YOU WILL BE BURNED AT THE STAKE!
I didn't tackle weapons or the economy in D&D because THOSE ARE SEPARATE ISSUES!
And Roman steel was by far and away NOT better steel than Viking age steel. There are examples of Viking Age swords that are crucible steel not so different from modern steel (some Ulfberht and Ingelrii are that good).
Fixing the weights of Armor in D&D (and other misconceptions)
It's at least not their fault to assume you were objecting to them.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
I feel like this is an apt summary of what you're doing, causing yourself unnecessary pain for no good reason.
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!
To quote Drake, from the Nickelodean classic 'Drake and Josh': "Whoa. Just take it easy, man"
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Then maybe they should have bothered to read the paragraphs of text I wrote where I addressed OTHER MISCONCEPTIONS......
I think people are forgetting that the Encumbrance rules for armor have to do with more than just the weight. Like so many things in D&D there is a level of abstraction. The "weight" of a suit of armor isn't just the reading you would get if you stuck the stuff on a scale. It has to do with the general bulk the the armor as well. How well it balances, how hard it is to walk in, how much your movement is hindered by the joints, how much it encumbers you. Perhaps even how much noise the stuff makes when you move in it.
Like a lot of people, I've never worn armor. All I know about the stuff is what I read in fantasy books or see in fantasy movies. I know perfectly well those aren't accurate. If the DM wants to give my character a shirt made of Mithril Links that is as light as a feather and hard as dragon scales, that's good enough for me. I'm not going to worry about how I wear enough padding under that shirt to keep the spear the Cave Troll stabs me from doing more than knocking the wind out of me. Maybe making a hole in the thin cloth shirt I'm wearing over the mail.
The names don't matter much to me. I don't know what the stuff looked like in the real world anyway. Nor do I care. I'm having enough trouble figuring out what it looks like when a giant hits me with a club the size of a redwood tree.
<Insert clever signature here>
All of those factors are part of what's being accounted for by proficiency with the armor, Geann. Proficiency with a grade of armor indicates the training, instruction, and experience required to wear it in a way that doesn't (unduly) interfere with your own activities.. The weight of armor is there to signify its raw bulk and mass, nothing more. It is overtuned, but so are the weights of half of everything in D&D, and characters in D&D (under standard encumbrance, anyways) can operate without any strain under loads heavy enough to seriously encumber even an Olympic weightlifter.
For some folks it's a huge breach of suspension of disbelief. For other folks it's a total nonfactor. That's why variant encumbrance exists in the first place - as a half-assed acknowledgement that some tables find logistics to be a fascinating part of the adventure rather than an annoying detractant from it.
Please do not contact or message me.