In a game named Dungeons and Dragons, there probably ought to be dragon scale armour, even though it doesn't exist. You should imagine that the armour smiths of your fantasy worlds make use of all the materials available to them. Like much in D&D, what is available is, in the end, in the hands of the DM.
All of the non fantasy medieval armour types originally listed in AD&D came from a particular historical source and it's clear from this note from the 1e DMG that studded leather was simply AD&D's name for armour made of leather with small metal plates embedded in it:
Note: If you are unfamiliar with medieval armor types, you might find Charles ffoulkes’ ARMOUR AND WEAPONS (Oxford 1909) a short and useful text. The armor types I have selected are fitted into a game system. Here is what they subsume: LEATHER ARMOR is cuir bouli, consisting of coat, leggings, boots, and gauntlets. STUDDED LEATHER adds protective plates set in the leather and an extra layer of protection at shoulder area. RING MAIL is leather armor sewn with closely set iron rings. SCALE MAIL is a suit of leather armor set with small overlapping iron plates. CHAIN MAIL needs no explanation. BANDED MAIL is horizontal strips of articulated armor plates worn over a suit of chain mail. SPLINT MAIL is a coat of vertical plates of armor sandwiched within the layers of the garment and worn over chain. PLATE MAIL is a set of pieces of plate (shoulder, breast, back, elbow, groin/hips, legs) worn over chain mail. Plate armor is a late development and is not considered, i.e. the full suit of solid plate used c. 1500 is not an armor type used, but the reader should be aware that this form of protection was lighter and more mobile than plate mail! It is also two or three times more costly
In a game named Dungeons and Dragons, there probably ought to be dragon scale armour, even though it doesn't exist. You should imagine that the armour smiths of your fantasy worlds make use of all the materials available to them. Like much in D&D, what is available is, in the end, in the hands of the DM.
All of the non fantasy medieval armour types originally listed in AD&D came from a particular historical source and it's clear from this note from the 1e DMG that studded leather was simply AD&D's name for armour made of leather with small metal plates embedded in it:
Note: If you are unfamiliar with medieval armor types, you might find Charles ffoulkes’ ARMOUR AND WEAPONS (Oxford 1909) a short and useful text. The armor types I have selected are fitted into a game system. Here is what they subsume: LEATHER ARMOR is cuir bouli, consisting of coat, leggings, boots, and gauntlets. STUDDED LEATHER adds protective plates set in the leather and an extra layer of protection at shoulder area. RING MAIL is leather armor sewn with closely set iron rings. SCALE MAIL is a suit of leather armor set with small overlapping iron plates. CHAIN MAIL needs no explanation. BANDED MAIL is horizontal strips of articulated armor plates worn over a suit of chain mail. SPLINT MAIL is a coat of vertical plates of armor sandwiched within the layers of the garment and worn over chain. PLATE MAIL is a set of pieces of plate (shoulder, breast, back, elbow, groin/hips, legs) worn over chain mail. Plate armor is a late development and is not considered, i.e. the full suit of solid plate used c. 1500 is not an armor type used, but the reader should be aware that this form of protection was lighter and more mobile than plate mail! It is also two or three times more costly
I would rather see an incentive to wear a ^^%%$$##@! helmet implemented, +1 to AC/-1 to perception would not be unreasonable.
I do find it interesting that helms do exist in 5e... there are various magical items that take the form of helms. But mechanically they're just considered a part of a suit of armor, and the magical helms could just as easily be treated as a headband and function more or less the same.
IMHO, this has been an issue since AD&D and a +1 to AC in 5e is a big deal do to the math of the system. But if the AC's were adjusted downward then in general I do not see an issue with it.
One issue maybe that people may want different AC bonuses based on different types of head protection. ie leather, hard leather, steel helm, full helm (just to keep the idea simple)
It's only important if you have hit location rules and D&D doesn't have any as part of the main rule set.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
In a game named Dungeons and Dragons, there probably ought to be dragon scale armour, even though it doesn't exist. You should imagine that the armour smiths of your fantasy worlds make use of all the materials available to them. Like much in D&D, what is available is, in the end, in the hands of the DM.
All of the non fantasy medieval armour types originally listed in AD&D came from a particular historical source and it's clear from this note from the 1e DMG that studded leather was simply AD&D's name for armour made of leather with small metal plates embedded in it:
Note: If you are unfamiliar with medieval armor types, you might find Charles ffoulkes’ ARMOUR AND WEAPONS (Oxford 1909) a short and useful text. The armor types I have selected are fitted into a game system. Here is what they subsume: LEATHER ARMOR is cuir bouli, consisting of coat, leggings, boots, and gauntlets. STUDDED LEATHER adds protective plates set in the leather and an extra layer of protection at shoulder area. RING MAIL is leather armor sewn with closely set iron rings. SCALE MAIL is a suit of leather armor set with small overlapping iron plates. CHAIN MAIL needs no explanation. BANDED MAIL is horizontal strips of articulated armor plates worn over a suit of chain mail. SPLINT MAIL is a coat of vertical plates of armor sandwiched within the layers of the garment and worn over chain. PLATE MAIL is a set of pieces of plate (shoulder, breast, back, elbow, groin/hips, legs) worn over chain mail. Plate armor is a late development and is not considered, i.e. the full suit of solid plate used c. 1500 is not an armor type used, but the reader should be aware that this form of protection was lighter and more mobile than plate mail! It is also two or three times more costly
In 5e platemail no longer exists and it is actually articulated plate armor that exists. Further studded leather is misplaced as that description is brigandine armor which is essentially the same as banded/splint armor and so should be heavy armor not a light armor. Finally all armors beyond padded actually have a set of padded armor under them to cushion blows with the outer armor intended to stop cuts and thrusts and other blows. As I stated earlier the real problem is that we are trying to lump some 7000+ years of evolution of weapons and armor into a single time period - which really only works in a fantasy setting ( which we luckily have) where we can ignore much of the reality of that evolution and of the weapons and armor mixing and matching across times and cultures as we see fit. For the game we need some sorts of mundane armors to cover the range from AC11 to AC18 plus the shield’s +2 to get to AC20. As well as allowing some armors to be fairly stealthy while others are not and some to be heavier than others thus requiring a greater strength to wear.
I would rather see an incentive to wear a ^^%%$$##@! helmet implemented, +1 to AC/-1 to perception would not be unreasonable.
I do find it interesting that helms do exist in 5e... there are various magical items that take the form of helms. But mechanically they're just considered a part of a suit of armor, and the magical helms could just as easily be treated as a headband and function more or less the same.
IMHO, this has been an issue since AD&D and a +1 to AC in 5e is a big deal do to the math of the system. But if the AC's were adjusted downward then in general I do not see an issue with it.
One issue maybe that people may want different AC bonuses based on different types of head protection. ie leather, hard leather, steel helm, full helm (just to keep the idea simple)
It's only important if you have hit location rules and D&D doesn't have any as part of the main rule set.
Not necessarily as often armor descriptions list what the armor covers and what it does not, for example leather shirt or leather armor that covers the chest area and upper arms. If there is enough room is the system you can have many types of meaningful armor. But not every system is designed for this.
I would note that the other reason to do away with named armor types in favor of light, medium, and heavy, is that the exact same type of armor can be made in quite varying weights, so the armor type doesn't actually tell you how protective it is. Armors will vary in price, weight, bulk, and other factors for any given level of protection, but you should be able to reach fairly high levels of protection with just about any metal armors (leather and cloth are fairly severely limited by bulk).
Completely dropping names from armor would be boring and generic, and 5E has already swung the pendulum further in the generic vs specific direction than I enjoy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Completely dropping names from armor would be boring and generic, and 5E has already swung the pendulum further in the generic vs specific direction than I enjoy.
I get the feeling it would be something like Light Armor (leather, or cloth padding), Medium Armor(scale, chain shirt, or breatplate) So the players have an example of what the armor is like and can choose the look they want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Completely dropping names from armor would be boring and generic, and 5E has already swung the pendulum further in the generic vs specific direction than I enjoy.
I don't mind having names on armor. I just don't think it should be particularly tied to stats, because that way you wind up with armor that no-one uses.
Completely dropping names from armor would be boring and generic, and 5E has already swung the pendulum further in the generic vs specific direction than I enjoy.
I don't mind having names on armor. I just don't think it should be particularly tied to stats, because that way you wind up with armor that no-one uses.
That is a fairly cinematic approach, ie everyone who is noble can wear field plate or all clerics of god X wear blessed armor of the holly eye (heavy field like plate with large shoulder guards and spikes).
Things should have meaning and not be simply setting pieces or props on a stage.
Note: You can always have illusions to fool people senses and make it seem they are wearing something they are not.
Completely dropping names from armor would be boring and generic, and 5E has already swung the pendulum further in the generic vs specific direction than I enjoy.
I don't mind having names on armor. I just don't think it should be particularly tied to stats, because that way you wind up with armor that no-one uses.
But the garbage armors are used, just by NPCs rather than PCs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Completely dropping names from armor would be boring and generic, and 5E has already swung the pendulum further in the generic vs specific direction than I enjoy.
I don't mind having names on armor. I just don't think it should be particularly tied to stats, because that way you wind up with armor that no-one uses.
But the garbage armors are used, just by NPCs rather than PCs.
That's not a big deal. Give them better armor, or add some trait like "crappy armor - this guy's armor sucks and gets -1 to AC (included in its AC)" if it's important to maintain it for some reason. You could alternatively add a rule for all monsters that says, "unless otherwise noted, monster armor sucks and gets -1 to AC (included in their stats)."
I assume the point here is to keep PCs from easily acquiring the best armor?
The point is in many cases verisimilitude, and to avoid the Skyrim Bandit Problem wherein your basic mooks robbing people on the roads for pocket money are wearing a king's ransom in high-end martial armor and wielding a king's armory in high-end martial weapons.
Completely dropping names from armor would be boring and generic, and 5E has already swung the pendulum further in the generic vs specific direction than I enjoy.
I don't mind having names on armor. I just don't think it should be particularly tied to stats, because that way you wind up with armor that no-one uses.
But the garbage armors are used, just by NPCs rather than PCs.
That's not a big deal. Give them better armor, or add some trait like "crappy armor - this guy's armor sucks and gets -1 to AC (included in its AC)" if it's important to maintain it for some reason. You could alternatively add a rule for all monsters that says, "unless otherwise noted, monster armor sucks and gets -1 to AC (included in their stats)."
I assume the point here is to keep PCs from easily acquiring the best armor?
No, it's that it's boring if everyone automatically starts with the best non-magical armor available. When I play an armor-wearing character, I look forward to trying to upgrade my armor and I know I'm not the only one. And we don't need "this monster has inferior armor and gets -1 AC" because that's exactly the same as say "Splint Armor AC 17" just with extra words.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Ah, okay. Well then, we can just have "medium armor - cheap" and "medium armor - good," choose one. Leave it to players to ceaselessly debate which historical armors fall into which categories, instead of codifying it in the rules.
This would have the knock-on benefit of alerting DMs when they're using a monster that's essentially carrying treasure. Heavily Armored Man would have "AC 20 (good heavy armor, shield)." Nice!
What is the benefit of any of this? What does it improve? All it is doing is changing the name of some armours to satisfy the demands of a minority of players that want historical real word accuracy in a fantasy fiction game where dragons and demon princes walk the earth. Do you guys not see the insane irony of it?The GAME has been deliberately simplified to allow children whose ages are in single digits to play without the need for calculators or adult supervision to do all the maths.
That is a fairly cinematic approach, ie everyone who is noble can wear field plate or all clerics of god X wear blessed armor of the holly eye (heavy field like plate with large shoulder guards and spikes).
The reality is, at any given time in history the number of armor types in active use was fairly small, because armor types would get replaced by other types that were strictly superior, and most of what drove the use of additional armor types was specialized uses. In a late era where plate exist, actual battlefield armor types would be breastplate, half plate, and full plate. Leather and cloth exist as padding and might be worn for protection in unusual situations, light mail or brigandine as concealable armor that wouldn't be worn on the battlefield, hide, scale, splint, and heavy mail nonexistent.
That is a fairly cinematic approach, ie everyone who is noble can wear field plate or all clerics of god X wear blessed armor of the holly eye (heavy field like plate with large shoulder guards and spikes).
The reality is, at any given time in history the number of armor types in active use was fairly small, because armor types would get replaced by other types that were strictly superior, and most of what drove the use of additional armor types was specialized uses. In a late era where plate exist, actual battlefield armor types would be breastplate, half plate, and full plate. Leather and cloth exist as padding and might be worn for protection in unusual situations, light mail or brigandine as concealable armor that wouldn't be worn on the battlefield, hide, scale, splint, and heavy mail nonexistent.
Chain mail and plate armor overlapped in their usage in Europe for a considerable length of time. In fact, from about 1000 CE to 1200 CE, breast plates fell out of favor compared to chain mail in Europe and it wasn't until the middle of the 13th Century when plate armor began making a comeback in popularity, where it was typically worn in sets that combined plate and chain together. And on top of that, other types of armor were used in other parts of the world, including North Africa, the Middle East, India, Southeast Asia, China, and Japan.
Put it this way: historically, "light armor" didn't exist. You did not dress in leather if you could afford metal, no matter how nimble you were. Not if you expected that armor to see use. If you made your living on the battlefield rather than being a conscript, you bought the best, sturdiest armor you could afford. "Light armor" was a gambeson and a pot helmet, and indicated you were a poorly equipped, poorly trained conscript unlikely to pose any real threat.
But, since we need light armor in D&D? We're gonna have to get a little fantastical with it.
In a game named Dungeons and Dragons, there probably ought to be dragon scale armour, even though it doesn't exist. You should imagine that the armour smiths of your fantasy worlds make use of all the materials available to them. Like much in D&D, what is available is, in the end, in the hands of the DM.
All of the non fantasy medieval armour types originally listed in AD&D came from a particular historical source and it's clear from this note from the 1e DMG that studded leather was simply AD&D's name for armour made of leather with small metal plates embedded in it:
You mean like this dragon scale armor?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/5380-dragon-scale-mail
It's only important if you have hit location rules and D&D doesn't have any as part of the main rule set.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
In 5e platemail no longer exists and it is actually articulated plate armor that exists. Further studded leather is misplaced as that description is brigandine armor which is essentially the same as banded/splint armor and so should be heavy armor not a light armor. Finally all armors beyond padded actually have a set of padded armor under them to cushion blows with the outer armor intended to stop cuts and thrusts and other blows. As I stated earlier the real problem is that we are trying to lump some 7000+ years of evolution of weapons and armor into a single time period - which really only works in a fantasy setting ( which we luckily have) where we can ignore much of the reality of that evolution and of the weapons and armor mixing and matching across times and cultures as we see fit. For the game we need some sorts of mundane armors to cover the range from AC11 to AC18 plus the shield’s +2 to get to AC20. As well as allowing some armors to be fairly stealthy while others are not and some to be heavier than others thus requiring a greater strength to wear.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Not necessarily as often armor descriptions list what the armor covers and what it does not, for example leather shirt or leather armor that covers the chest area and upper arms. If there is enough room is the system you can have many types of meaningful armor. But not every system is designed for this.
I would note that the other reason to do away with named armor types in favor of light, medium, and heavy, is that the exact same type of armor can be made in quite varying weights, so the armor type doesn't actually tell you how protective it is. Armors will vary in price, weight, bulk, and other factors for any given level of protection, but you should be able to reach fairly high levels of protection with just about any metal armors (leather and cloth are fairly severely limited by bulk).
Completely dropping names from armor would be boring and generic, and 5E has already swung the pendulum further in the generic vs specific direction than I enjoy.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I get the feeling it would be something like Light Armor (leather, or cloth padding), Medium Armor(scale, chain shirt, or breatplate) So the players have an example of what the armor is like and can choose the look they want.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I don't mind having names on armor. I just don't think it should be particularly tied to stats, because that way you wind up with armor that no-one uses.
That is a fairly cinematic approach, ie everyone who is noble can wear field plate or all clerics of god X wear blessed armor of the holly eye (heavy field like plate with large shoulder guards and spikes).
Things should have meaning and not be simply setting pieces or props on a stage.
Note: You can always have illusions to fool people senses and make it seem they are wearing something they are not.
But the garbage armors are used, just by NPCs rather than PCs.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That's not a big deal. Give them better armor, or add some trait like "crappy armor - this guy's armor sucks and gets -1 to AC (included in its AC)" if it's important to maintain it for some reason. You could alternatively add a rule for all monsters that says, "unless otherwise noted, monster armor sucks and gets -1 to AC (included in their stats)."
I assume the point here is to keep PCs from easily acquiring the best armor?
The point is in many cases verisimilitude, and to avoid the Skyrim Bandit Problem wherein your basic mooks robbing people on the roads for pocket money are wearing a king's ransom in high-end martial armor and wielding a king's armory in high-end martial weapons.
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
No, it's that it's boring if everyone automatically starts with the best non-magical armor available. When I play an armor-wearing character, I look forward to trying to upgrade my armor and I know I'm not the only one. And we don't need "this monster has inferior armor and gets -1 AC" because that's exactly the same as say "Splint Armor AC 17" just with extra words.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Ah, okay. Well then, we can just have "medium armor - cheap" and "medium armor - good," choose one. Leave it to players to ceaselessly debate which historical armors fall into which categories, instead of codifying it in the rules.
This would have the knock-on benefit of alerting DMs when they're using a monster that's essentially carrying treasure. Heavily Armored Man would have "AC 20 (good heavy armor, shield)." Nice!
What is the benefit of any of this? What does it improve? All it is doing is changing the name of some armours to satisfy the demands of a minority of players that want historical real word accuracy in a fantasy fiction game where dragons and demon princes walk the earth. Do you guys not see the insane irony of it?The GAME has been deliberately simplified to allow children whose ages are in single digits to play without the need for calculators or adult supervision to do all the maths.
The reality is, at any given time in history the number of armor types in active use was fairly small, because armor types would get replaced by other types that were strictly superior, and most of what drove the use of additional armor types was specialized uses. In a late era where plate exist, actual battlefield armor types would be breastplate, half plate, and full plate. Leather and cloth exist as padding and might be worn for protection in unusual situations, light mail or brigandine as concealable armor that wouldn't be worn on the battlefield, hide, scale, splint, and heavy mail nonexistent.
Chain mail and plate armor overlapped in their usage in Europe for a considerable length of time. In fact, from about 1000 CE to 1200 CE, breast plates fell out of favor compared to chain mail in Europe and it wasn't until the middle of the 13th Century when plate armor began making a comeback in popularity, where it was typically worn in sets that combined plate and chain together. And on top of that, other types of armor were used in other parts of the world, including North Africa, the Middle East, India, Southeast Asia, China, and Japan.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Chain and half-plate overlapped. Full plate in D&D is referring to articulated plate of the 15th and 16th centuries.
Put it this way: historically, "light armor" didn't exist. You did not dress in leather if you could afford metal, no matter how nimble you were. Not if you expected that armor to see use. If you made your living on the battlefield rather than being a conscript, you bought the best, sturdiest armor you could afford. "Light armor" was a gambeson and a pot helmet, and indicated you were a poorly equipped, poorly trained conscript unlikely to pose any real threat.
But, since we need light armor in D&D? We're gonna have to get a little fantastical with it.
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!