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.
Video game analogies may not apply to pen and paper RPGs and you above case in my game would draw a response from the law and just because the party has something does not mean they can sell it or sell it for a lot of gp.
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.
Armor does change based on what weapons were prevalent, upkeep, materials and lack of, ease of use, social factors (king likes armor A vs armor B so the Kingdome gets armor A) and environmental conditions.
So in general yes but knowing why there were often a greater number of armors and then a lesser number is very important.
I have played in a game in the past where the GM limited starting armor by region, social class and background but this requires a lot of detail that your game may not have or want.
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.
I think the light / medium / heavy categories are inventions of later versions of the game and not attributable to Gygax. He stated the weight as 20 lbs which is pretty close to the actual weight of the brigandine on display here: https://philamuseum.org/collection/object/71388.
I consider it part of the DM's job to set the technological level for arms and armour in their setting. Otherwise why would anyone ever choose anything less than force fields and laser guns. Just because the books list anachronistic options doesn't mean they must allow their players carte blanche.
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.
I think the light / medium / heavy categories are inventions of later versions of the game and not attributable to Gygax. He stated the weight as 20 lbs which is pretty close to the actual weight of the brigandine on display here: https://philamuseum.org/collection/object/71388.
The hard categories were an invention of 3rd Edition because that edition added the ability to learn armor proficiency via feats instead of just by your character class. Studded leather in D&D was always considered a "light" armor that could be worn by thieves/rogues without compromising their sneaking ability. Yes, it weighed 20 lbs but carrying capacity in the game was generous enough that that didn't matter.
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.
I consider it part of the DM's job to set the technological level for arms and armour in their setting. Otherwise why would anyone ever choose anything less than force fields and laser guns. Just because the books list anachronistic options doesn't mean they must allow their players carte blanche.
This makes sense, but is 1000% not the assumption I think most people make about the equipment tables in the PHB. Especially arms and armor.
Note: I am not opposed to an optional rule in which they have only 3 armor types and reduce weapons to 1H small, 1H med, 1H large and 2H. It is just I would not want to play with them.
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.
I think the light / medium / heavy categories are inventions of later versions of the game and not attributable to Gygax. He stated the weight as 20 lbs which is pretty close to the actual weight of the brigandine on display here: https://philamuseum.org/collection/object/71388.
The hard categories were an invention of 3rd Edition because that edition added the ability to learn armor proficiency via feats instead of just by your character class. Studded leather in D&D was always considered a "light" armor that could be worn by thieves/rogues without compromising their sneaking ability. Yes, it weighed 20 lbs but carrying capacity in the game was generous enough that that didn't matter.
My point about being misplaced was more about protective value than weight. Plates of steel riveted to a leather backing is banded/splint armor (AC 17) even if you assume the plates are significantly lighter, thinner and less protective than “true” splint so the weight is around 20 lbs that places you in medium armor with (probably) an AC OF 14 or 15. It does not fit as a light armor. The problem then is that there is nothing at AC 12 if you get rid of studded leather. However, if you make the change to stop calling it padded and call it (appropriately) a gambeson and admit that it IS the padding worn under everything else so regular leather (cour bouli) worn over a gambeson is AC 12 not 11 and hide is super thick leather that also has an AC of 12 and should be in the light armor category as well.if you then went by listed weights and included a light (20 lb) brigandine and a heavy (40 lb) brigandine you would get: Light Armor: Full dexterity on stealth checks 1) Gambeson ( padded) AC 11 2) Hide AC 12 3) Cour Bouli (leather) AC 12 Medium Armors: +2 Dex bonus max on stealth checks 4) Chain shirt AC 13 5) Breastplate AC 14 6) Light Brigandine AC 15 Heavy Armors: disadvantage on stealth checks 7) Scale AC 14 8) Chainmail AC 15 9) Heavy Brigandine AC 16 10) Banded/Splint AC17 11) Half Plate AC 17 12) Plate armor AC18
Light armors are actually light < 20 lbs, medium armors are actually medium <30 lbs and heavy armors are actually heavy 40+ lbs. as well, the medium armors could actually be camouflaged with the outer layers of the brigandine or light cloth “shirts” over the chain/breastplate as rangers would need.
It's funny, cause ... I consider real world armor to be the least interesting or informative thing related to armors in game worlds. I've played in games with bloodstone armor, crystal armor, bone armor, dragonscale armor, or even force fields, power armor, flak armor, terminator armor. Why would I concern myself with then the word 'mail' came into use, or whether reinforced hardened leather could be called studded or not?
It's no different from weapons. Is a long pole with an axe blade, a spear point and a hook called a ranseur or a fauchard? Likely neither, I have no clue about polearms (or armors), but you can call it either if you like - called in Uncle Andrew, for all I care. I'm in the camp of 'claives look cool, let's have more of those' - and if we call them something else, that's still fine, so long as they look the same. And a glaive is just a fancy longspear, anyways.
It's like ... I'm curious, you don't want my spiked leather mail in your game. Ok. How about a spiked chain then? Or like, the very concept of dual wielding (which I admit did happen, but then it really wasn't ever a thing, really)? Ressurrections, fireballs and dragons are all fine, but thou shalt not call thy armor mail! For lightning shall strike thee, and thou shalt be dragged screaming and kicking off to hell and tossed bodily into a flaming pit filled with spiked plate *armor*! And they ye shalt remain until thee are well and truly sorry!
Sorry, got carried away. Point being, I'm fine with studded leather and plate mail. I'll even allow spiked chains and dual wielding.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Note: I am not opposed to an optional rule in which they have only 3 armor types and reduce weapons to 1H small, 1H med, 1H large and 2H. It is just I would not want to play with them.
Thats pretty much dropping it bACK down to a tabletop wargame.
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?"
There is evidence that spiked armour (though rare) was historically used in the context of tournament fighting to make grappling more difficult. And it is still in use today on dog collars (aka wolf collar) to protect sheep dog necks from the bite of predators.
There does appear to be a tendency to regard historically documented warfare as all there is and anything else dismissed as fantasy nonsense. But in fantasy worlds we have access to magic and more exotic materials. To imagine that fantasy armourers would not take advantage of whatever was available to them is itself immersion breaking.
I would suggest that it's not the weight that makes plate impractical for rogues, but the noise and inflexibility. Brigandine is better in both those regards.
The relative protection afforded by the different types of armour is more dependent on the weapon being used than anything else.
Note: I am not opposed to an optional rule in which they have only 3 armor types and reduce weapons to 1H small, 1H med, 1H large and 2H. It is just I would not want to play with them.
Thats pretty much dropping it bACK down to a tabletop wargame.
I know people who play D&D like a TT game with some RP elements but it is mainly a TT battle game. And I know people who are more into realism and others who are better described as actors.
Having said that I generally do not like such simplicity in games as often it involves a lot of GM/Storyteller/Judge ruling.
I'd prefer armour to be named as they would be historically. Replacing studded leather with brigandine? Great.
I don't think simplifying armour right down is a great way to have the game. I think having multiple types with distinguished characteristics so each type is meaningfully useful rather than being strictly inferior to another type would be best. For example, for each grouping have a cheaper starting armour, a more protective one, a more stealthy one and a lighter one. Obviously, there would be more tweaking (a stealthy heavy armour may not be stealthy per se, so much as a smaller penalty, etc).
We could have a wider and meaningful selection if gold didn't scale up so fast. After the first few levels, gold becomes so liberal that any cost distinction between different armours become meaningless (or you'd have to make the differences so large that armours effectively become linked to levels - L9 and you can't afford it, L10 and you can buy it if you empty your wallet, L11 and you don't even need to think about it kind of thing). I'm not sure that's particularly easy to fix though, since all the prices would need to be overhauled.
As long as we have a spectrum of AC ratings provided by different armors, I'm good with having unique names for each of them. And I'm also fine with categorizing them into light, medium, and heavy armor.
I used to argue that wearing a helm should grant a slight crit mitigation and a penalty to perception, but since it's likely that monsters having the ability to crit is likely going away that's no longer an option.
Baldur's Gate on PC had helmets negate critical hits. The end result was that character classes who couldn't wear armor like wizards and thieves felt like they were being penalized rather than classes that could wear armor felt like they were getting a bonus.
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.
Baldur's Gate on PC had helmets negate critical hits. The end result was that character classes who couldn't wear armor like wizards and thieves felt like they were being penalized rather than classes that could wear armor felt like they were getting a bonus.
Interesting bit of psychology, right? I assume you would occasionally find helmets as random loot, which would continually run salt in the wound.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well, cloth and leather did exist, but it either wasn't armor or it wasn't light.
Video game analogies may not apply to pen and paper RPGs and you above case in my game would draw a response from the law and just because the party has something does not mean they can sell it or sell it for a lot of gp.
Armor does change based on what weapons were prevalent, upkeep, materials and lack of, ease of use, social factors (king likes armor A vs armor B so the Kingdome gets armor A) and environmental conditions.
So in general yes but knowing why there were often a greater number of armors and then a lesser number is very important.
I have played in a game in the past where the GM limited starting armor by region, social class and background but this requires a lot of detail that your game may not have or want.
I think the light / medium / heavy categories are inventions of later versions of the game and not attributable to Gygax. He stated the weight as 20 lbs which is pretty close to the actual weight of the brigandine on display here: https://philamuseum.org/collection/object/71388.
I consider it part of the DM's job to set the technological level for arms and armour in their setting. Otherwise why would anyone ever choose anything less than force fields and laser guns. Just because the books list anachronistic options doesn't mean they must allow their players carte blanche.
The hard categories were an invention of 3rd Edition because that edition added the ability to learn armor proficiency via feats instead of just by your character class. Studded leather in D&D was always considered a "light" armor that could be worn by thieves/rogues without compromising their sneaking ability. Yes, it weighed 20 lbs but carrying capacity in the game was generous enough that that didn't matter.
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.
This makes sense, but is 1000% not the assumption I think most people make about the equipment tables in the PHB. Especially arms and armor.
Note: I am not opposed to an optional rule in which they have only 3 armor types and reduce weapons to 1H small, 1H med, 1H large and 2H. It is just I would not want to play with them.
My point about being misplaced was more about protective value than weight. Plates of steel riveted to a leather backing is banded/splint armor (AC 17) even if you assume the plates are significantly lighter, thinner and less protective than “true” splint so the weight is around 20 lbs that places you in medium armor with (probably) an AC OF 14 or 15. It does not fit as a light armor. The problem then is that there is nothing at AC 12 if you get rid of studded leather. However, if you make the change to stop calling it padded and call it (appropriately) a gambeson and admit that it IS the padding worn under everything else so regular leather (cour bouli) worn over a gambeson is AC 12 not 11 and hide is super thick leather that also has an AC of 12 and should be in the light armor category as well.if you then went by listed weights and included a light (20 lb) brigandine and a heavy (40 lb) brigandine you would get:
Light Armor: Full dexterity on stealth checks
1) Gambeson ( padded) AC 11
2) Hide AC 12
3) Cour Bouli (leather) AC 12
Medium Armors: +2 Dex bonus max on stealth checks
4) Chain shirt AC 13
5) Breastplate AC 14
6) Light Brigandine AC 15
Heavy Armors: disadvantage on stealth checks
7) Scale AC 14
8) Chainmail AC 15
9) Heavy Brigandine AC 16
10) Banded/Splint AC17
11) Half Plate AC 17
12) Plate armor AC18
Light armors are actually light < 20 lbs, medium armors are actually medium <30 lbs and heavy armors are actually heavy 40+ lbs. as well, the medium armors could actually be camouflaged with the outer layers of the brigandine or light cloth “shirts” over the chain/breastplate as rangers would need.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
It's funny, cause ... I consider real world armor to be the least interesting or informative thing related to armors in game worlds. I've played in games with bloodstone armor, crystal armor, bone armor, dragonscale armor, or even force fields, power armor, flak armor, terminator armor. Why would I concern myself with then the word 'mail' came into use, or whether reinforced hardened leather could be called studded or not?
It's no different from weapons. Is a long pole with an axe blade, a spear point and a hook called a ranseur or a fauchard? Likely neither, I have no clue about polearms (or armors), but you can call it either if you like - called in Uncle Andrew, for all I care. I'm in the camp of 'claives look cool, let's have more of those' - and if we call them something else, that's still fine, so long as they look the same. And a glaive is just a fancy longspear, anyways.
It's like ... I'm curious, you don't want my spiked leather mail in your game. Ok. How about a spiked chain then? Or like, the very concept of dual wielding (which I admit did happen, but then it really wasn't ever a thing, really)? Ressurrections, fireballs and dragons are all fine, but thou shalt not call thy armor mail! For lightning shall strike thee, and thou shalt be dragged screaming and kicking off to hell and tossed bodily into a flaming pit filled with spiked plate *armor*! And they ye shalt remain until thee are well and truly sorry!
Sorry, got carried away. Point being, I'm fine with studded leather and plate mail. I'll even allow spiked chains and dual wielding.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Thats pretty much dropping it bACK down to a tabletop wargame.
"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
There is evidence that spiked armour (though rare) was historically used in the context of tournament fighting to make grappling more difficult. And it is still in use today on dog collars (aka wolf collar) to protect sheep dog necks from the bite of predators.
There does appear to be a tendency to regard historically documented warfare as all there is and anything else dismissed as fantasy nonsense. But in fantasy worlds we have access to magic and more exotic materials. To imagine that fantasy armourers would not take advantage of whatever was available to them is itself immersion breaking.
I would suggest that it's not the weight that makes plate impractical for rogues, but the noise and inflexibility. Brigandine is better in both those regards.
The relative protection afforded by the different types of armour is more dependent on the weapon being used than anything else.
Rondel dagger vs armour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iU3q23jGX0
Arrow vs brigandine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCf-CnjbWcg
I know people who play D&D like a TT game with some RP elements but it is mainly a TT battle game. And I know people who are more into realism and others who are better described as actors.
Having said that I generally do not like such simplicity in games as often it involves a lot of GM/Storyteller/Judge ruling.
I'd prefer armour to be named as they would be historically. Replacing studded leather with brigandine? Great.
I don't think simplifying armour right down is a great way to have the game. I think having multiple types with distinguished characteristics so each type is meaningfully useful rather than being strictly inferior to another type would be best. For example, for each grouping have a cheaper starting armour, a more protective one, a more stealthy one and a lighter one. Obviously, there would be more tweaking (a stealthy heavy armour may not be stealthy per se, so much as a smaller penalty, etc).
We could have a wider and meaningful selection if gold didn't scale up so fast. After the first few levels, gold becomes so liberal that any cost distinction between different armours become meaningless (or you'd have to make the differences so large that armours effectively become linked to levels - L9 and you can't afford it, L10 and you can buy it if you empty your wallet, L11 and you don't even need to think about it kind of thing). I'm not sure that's particularly easy to fix though, since all the prices would need to be overhauled.
Want to play D&D? Try the following resources first (each section withing vertical bars is a clickable link to find the resource).
|The free Basic Rules.|
|Some free short adventures| and |some more here too.| |Here is a series of encounters, some of which link together form a mini-adventure|.
You've played a few games and now want to buy materials? |Here's my guide on what to buy next|.
As long as we have a spectrum of AC ratings provided by different armors, I'm good with having unique names for each of them. And I'm also fine with categorizing them into light, medium, and heavy armor.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I am sure 3pp would love light, med and heavy armor is the base rules so they could publish and sell material vs WotC.
I used to argue that wearing a helm should grant a slight crit mitigation and a penalty to perception, but since it's likely that monsters having the ability to crit is likely going away that's no longer an option.
Cry HAVOC! and let slip the mustelids of war...
Baldur's Gate on PC had helmets negate critical hits. The end result was that character classes who couldn't wear armor like wizards and thieves felt like they were being penalized rather than classes that could wear armor felt like they were getting a bonus.
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.
Interesting bit of psychology, right? I assume you would occasionally find helmets as random loot, which would continually run salt in the wound.