Fixing the weights of Armor in D&D (and other misconceptions)

1st time post.

Can't spot guidelines around prohibition of laying hands on the dead and performing a resurrection, so here we go.

Many thanks to @Brooklyn_Red_Leg , you filled a gap that occurred to me as well - explains why I ended up here.

I've returned to D&D after a ~45 year break (long story) and am parsing details of a party as DM to do a sense check on encumbrance. This point seems to not have rated much of a mention in the discussion above that questions the sense of your reality check within the context of gameplay.

I think the reality is very worthwhile so that characters aren't unnecessarily slown down and limited by weight. I very much appreciate the voice of reason and knowledge you share. Saved me the hassle of researching out the various combinations you shared back at post #1 .. Bravo!

For those who doubt your reasoning, there are plenty of re-enactors out there on youtube who provide some real world validation of your summary, from what I can discern. The doubters should let there keyboard assist them with some research.

I've taken a view that physical size of the wearer should be taken into account as well. The weight of a suit of armour for a halfling shouldn't be the same as that of a human, as an example. I've just cooked up my own set of weight reduction factors to address, working on the basis that a human rates at a factor of 1.

The other modifier that I've applied is to assume that magic armour is fabricate from high strength/resilience materials compared with their standard equivalent. Back in the real world, liken it to alloy steel and steel treatments that improve hardness, ductility and tensile strength that permit thinner wall material to do the same job. So, personally, I think it's fair to apply a small weight discount to give credit to the arcane nature of magic armour.

Since 1e I’ve realized that the way to treat all “ weights” in the game is think of them not as actual weights but as a measure of encumberance and wieldng ability. That 18lb pike probably actually weighs under 10 lbs but is unwieldy because of its length and the inertia and torques created by that length. Similarly the armours aren’t actual weights but measures of how that weight affects the body’s movements. The plate armor may weight 70+ Lbs but because that weight is balanced and shared between hips, shoulders etc its encumbrance is only 50-60 lbs. I used to go on extended camping trips with an 80# backpack and trying to one arm it was a good way to get a wrenched shoulder. But once on and supported by the belly band as well as shoulder straps  it wasn’t a major problem.

The inaccurate weights were one reason i started ignoring encumbrance. 
Did for a while in the 90's have an alternate list of gear that was made from lighter materials but still razor sharp ETC that were highly prized and worth 3 times the gold as loot, but people got sick of the different lists, so we just had lighter stuff and then we dropped encumbrance for player nescecities and only had it for loot.

then we stopped caring about that.  If WoTC wants people to start playing with weights more, they will have to revisit it for sure. 

Quote from Vince_Snetterton >>

Quote from Stormknight >>

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.

 No.  YOU feel this way, and I'm sure there are others but there is always 1st and 2nd edition that had speed factors, weapon vs. armor adjustments, the nomenclature of polearms...lots of things that bring a more "realistic" flavor to the game.  I think that a much greater number of players would be put off by the excessive detail that the game has tried to limit.  Differing bonuses and penalties?  Advantage/Disadvantage instead.  Spell components?  Focus items.  15 swords with slightly differing stats?  One small, one medium and one large sword, flavor them as you will.

I for one don't want the game to be about details, I want it to be about FUN.

Weight carried via arms is different then weight carried in a back pack  or for armor the distribution of the weight.   Get a 50 pound bag of sand/flour/cement/etc. and put it in a back pack, it feels lighter than 50poiunbds, carry that same bag in your arms and it will feel heavier then 50 pounds after a while.  Armor distributed weight so that it was not as heavy feeling.

As for total weight in a back pack.  Before 1800s (an arbitrary time point) most people walked everywhere.  People had some sort of back pack and carried stuff in that.  They would actually be able to walk several miles.  In fact those back packs would carry a lot of weight.  The peasants including women and children would probably carry enough weight that was closer to their body total weight then less.  People were naturally more fit.  Years ago in the military we where routinely carrying 120 - 170 lb backs packs plus belts with pouches and items in our hands.  We would walk for miles as well like those peasants of old, sleep under the stars and keep moving the next day.  Probably a persons weight might even be less then the total weight they carried.  It was done.

Basically, weight and encumbrance rules are going to feel unrealistic no matter what.  You may feel one way about the rules based on your own bias.  Are you very fit or 100% out of shape or in between? 

To me medium armor a weapon/shield combo and 150 pounds of gear (including a few other weapons) is not outrageous weight wise, probably even normal.  For other people they would feel 100 lbs in total weight would lead to exhaustion.  It is all ones personal bias.

Now carrying around a 10 foot pole, that to me is outrageous :)

Quote from ArmorStorm >>

Quote from Vince_Snetterton >>

Quote from Stormknight >>

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.

 No.  YOU feel this way, and I'm sure there are others but there is always 1st and 2nd edition that had speed factors, weapon vs. armor adjustments, the nomenclature of polearms...lots of things that bring a more "realistic" flavor to the game.  I think that a much greater number of players would be put off by the excessive detail that the game has tried to limit.  Differing bonuses and penalties?  Advantage/Disadvantage instead.  Spell components?  Focus items.  15 swords with slightly differing stats?  One small, one medium and one large sword, flavor them as you will.

I for one don't want the game to be about details, I want it to be about FUN.

 As Keith Baker points out in several of his Eberron books a decent medieval crossbowman could fire maybe two shots a minute on a good day, in D&D you’re firing one every six seconds and possibly twice every six seconds depending on feats. He argues  theres no level of reality at all in the base rules so anyone trying to impose one is looking at the wrong system and really we should be accepting that all equipment in the game has some degree of magic involved otherwise it wouldn’t work the way the mechanics do

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

Modern special forces carry between 50 pounds for a short mission to 100 and up to 150 for a long term mission.

But packs also.have quick release clasps to drop that weight quickly for a fight.

Is that from a book or actual weighing?   Just curious what is your definition of modern?  I doubt we would have been in the recommended book on weights.  Most of that weight was batteries and multiple radios to be able to communicate.  We needed separate radios to talk to everyone as they were all on different ones VHF, FM, and few others as well and another piece of equipment that the some twenty somethings (from a TT war game site) had books said was only vehicle mounted.  This was before GPS.

The point is a majority of people today don't have a good concept of what can be carried.

Hi, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish. I have been playing and DMing since the beginning in the 70's. Armor or AC as never taken away with fun and adventure. So why does this reality matter. How would you run your game? Also as you can imagine, most of my players have quite a bit of magic to help with AC. Thanks for sharing.

Quote from Darkhunter1980 >>

Hi, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish. I have been playing and DMing since the beginning in the 70's. Armor or AC as never taken away with fun and adventure. So why does this reality matter. How would you run your game? Also as you can imagine, most of my players have quite a bit of magic to help with AC. Thanks for sharing.

I mean if you have never had a DM try to screw you over because of equipment weight, or stop the session for an hour to make your table do book keeping to make sure your gear is within carrying capacity, or just straight up off your character because 'he weighed too much in his gear, he falls through the floor" or that kind of thing then it isn't much of an issue.
But like.... i have been in all those cases. Even had stuff like "you need to carry all this out to the army in one go. But you are all too weak to do it." and other such ways weight has messed with players because a DM got mean.

There is also just the 'this doesn't make sense' part of it. In 5E a quarterstaff is said to weigh 4 pounds, but the staff I made from oak a few years back was like a pound and a half. We have these things in real life and they are given weights that aren't reflective of things we can just grab and check. That bothers some people, so i can see why this conversation comes up, even when i just ignore it.

I make encumbrance a session 0 topic. I don't want to do it as a player, but if my players find that kind of micromanagement fun, then so be it.

I’m having fun reading a lot of this discussion- if you’re not using encumbrance then what do the weights matter? If you are using encumbrance  given how screwy strength values are why are you worried about equally screwy weight and encumbrance values?

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

Quote from Wi1dBi11 >>

I’m having fun reading a lot of this discussion- if you’re not using encumbrance then what do the weights matter? If you are using encumbrance  given how screwy strength values are why are you worried about equally screwy weight and encumbrance values?

 

On the other hand, if it doesnt matter, why resist changing the rule?

Because changing something is more work than not. If it doesn't matter, then spending time, energy, and capital on changing it doesn't make sense. If you want to homebrew more "realistic" encumbrance and weights because you think that time and energy is worth it, then no one is stopping you; I use some slightly modified rules in the game I mentioned, myself. But the game runs fine with what we have, so WotC spending resources to update it now is not something we should expect.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

"Because changing something is more work than not. If it doesn't matter, then spending time, energy, and capital on changing it doesn't make sense"

And yet, it costs nothing to put it on the wish list of things to change.

 I wouldn't disagree with that, but I didn't get the impression that expectations would be appropriately tempered. As I said before, WotC are the ones that would be weighing the benefits of changing the rules/entries vs. the gain for the average player and I wouldn't hold my breath.

Alternatively, setting up a homebrew and getting lots of attention on it to the point that it becomes quite popular is probably more likely to result in a rules change on the next iteration. They did it with potions, and I think a few other things with 5.24e.

I meant more of a homebrew set of rules/changes, rather than an actual homebrew thing you would put on DnDBeyond, but if that's possible... that works, too.

Honestly, weight is nowhere near the largest problem with D&D armor, and if you're going to try to be realistic, you're rapidly going to wind up with a game that's not D&D. Just a few miscellaneous problems:

• There is no such thing as studded leather armor (you might have decorative studs on leather, but it's not part of the protection scheme). It appears to be a misunderstanding of brigandine armor (which does look studded -- but the armor is actually metal plates between layers of leather or cloth, and the 'studs' are rivets that hold the metal plates in position. It's basically a type of scale).
• There is no such thing as 'ring' armor (it appears to be just an artistic convention for showing chain).
• There is no such thing as 'splint' body armor (you do get some armors consisting of metal strips, such as lorica segmentata, but the strips on the torso were horizontal. The actual illustration in the PHB appears to be lamellar armor, which isn't strips at all).
• The whole concept of light vs medium vs heavy armor, where medium and heavy limit your ability to dodge, is mostly nonsense. If you have the strength to carry it, you can dodge in full plate. While we're at it, leather is bad armor, it's actually quite heavy relative to its protective value.
• Armor doesn't really make you harder to hit; it makes you harder to hurt. This means its actual protectiveness depends heavily on the attack it's trying to stop.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

 

• There is no such thing as 'splint' body armor (you do get some armors consisting of metal strips, such as lorica segmentata, but the strips on the torso were horizontal. The actual illustration in the PHB appears to be lamellar armor, which isn't strips at all).

 I am fairly certain that lorica segmentata is what used to be called banded armor from earlier editions. Also at a guess I would say splint is similar to samurai armor or more of a description of specific pieces of armor rather than a whole suit.

Quote from Wysperra >>

 I am fairly certain that lorica segmentata is what used to be called banded armor from earlier editions. Also at a guess I would say splint is similar to samurai armor or more of a description of specific pieces of armor rather than a whole suit.

Splint is probably a misinterpretation of ancient artistic conventions. Samurai armor is generally lamellar.

To be honest, a reasonable list only needs three armor types: non-metallic (leather, etc), flexible metal (brigandine, lamellar, mail, scale), and rigid metal (plate), with a separate modifier for coverage (any type of armor can cover body or limbs, and mix and match is possible).

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

I always liked the armor that had many, many layers of silk under it, so it an arrow pierced your armor, the silk wrapped around the head and made it a tad easier to pull the arrow out. I think it was japanese maybe.

The rules for that would be crazy though.

"Armor doesn't really make you harder to hit; it makes you harder to hurt. This means its actual protectiveness depends heavily on the attack it's trying to stop."

AC, tohit bonus, hit points are all gross simplifications attempting to gamify things. I think the reality is, pretty much one arrow or one bullet will kill most people.  But that leads to brutal games and a lot of turnover, which isnt very fun

 Japan did have forms of silk armor.  They not only made arrows significantly easier to pull out, they could also drastically reduce how deep the arrow would penetrate.  Japan also had armor made out of layered paper.

Also, AD&D had modifiers for different types of attacks (slashing, bludgeoning, piercing, or missile) vs different armor types.  It sucked and slowed the game down.

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

I always liked the armor that had many, many layers of silk under it, so it an arrow pierced your armor, the silk wrapped around the head and made it a tad easier to pull the arrow out. I think it was japanese maybe.

The rules for that would be crazy though.

"Armor doesn't really make you harder to hit; it makes you harder to hurt. This means its actual protectiveness depends heavily on the attack it's trying to stop."

AC, tohit bonus, hit points are all gross simplifications attempting to gamify things. I think the reality is, pretty much one arrow or one bullet will kill most people.  But that leads to brutal games and a lot of turnover, which isnt very fun

 Japan did have forms of silk armor.  They not only made arrows significantly easier to pull out, they could also drastically reduce how deep the arrow would penetrate.  Japan also had armor made out of layered paper.

Also, AD&D had modifiers for different types of attacks (slashing, bludgeoning, piercing, or missile) vs different armor types.  It sucked and slowed the game down.

Eh, back then we were more used to doing the math ourselves instead of relying on calculators or computers (we barely had those, lol)