D&D 5E Armor in Next

[Mengu]

I don't want any +X attack or +X defense, in the magic item department store. If it's there, then the game assumes you will gave it. Any claim that the game doesn't assume you will have magic items, when there is a sword that will give you a +3 attack bonus or armor that will give you +3 AC, is a delusion.

Why not just say: A sunder rock mace might give you a +2 bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls, deal triple damage to inanimate objects, and allow you to smash a tunnel through natural rock once or twice per day.

The +X bonus is a mathematical component to the game, that affects a very large portion of your and your enemy's d20 rolls. I just don't see how the game would "work the same" with or without a +3 bonus to attack or to defense.

 

[GX.Sigma]

What I said had nothing to do with light vs. heavy armor, but rather the effectiveness of armors within those categories compared to each other (leather compared to a chain shirt, as far as light armor goes, or chainmail compared to plate, in the case of heavy armor). The overall effectiveness of light vs. heavy armor is an entirely separate issue.

I'm not talking about the "light armor" and "heavy armor" groups either. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the terms "lighter" and "heavier." I'm saying that plate armor should provide better protection than mail. A chain shirt should provide better protection than leather. There should be reasons to use "worse" armor, but "better" armor should be better at protecting you.

 

[dkyle]

In my experience, PCs tend to be able to afford any type of mundane gear they want by 2nd or 3rd level at the latest. Maybe they'll adjust the assumed rate of wealth gain in this edition, but it's still worth pointing out.

What I think they're going for in DnD Next is very different than mundane armor in previous editions. I think they intend to spread the cost range across many levels of expected wealth. To make upgrading your armor type something you do as you level, over the full course of leveling. Basically, they're making "mundane" special. It's not just "magic" that makes an armor good. It's the type of armor as well.

Look at the cost increments of Heavy armor in the playtest. Each tier is 3 to 10 times more expensive than the previous tier. This is a lot like 4E, where each "plus" costs five times more than the previous. You're not buying +5 armor at level 3, in 4E. One big mistake in the playtest is that the light and medium armors are too cheap, and thus it's easy to skip right to the second or third tier armors. The costs really should be more similar across the armor categories.

Really, the playtest array is like having just 3 kinds of armor, but each is available with 4 different tiers of quality.

Magic armor also becomes an issue. Why would anyone ever bother making magical chainmail when plate armor is just flat out better? Since all permanent items are assumed to be rare and precious now, I can't see anyone "wasting" an enchantment on anything but the best type of armor of its category, and to me, that's a problem. D&D's history is full of examples of magically enchanted leather, chainmail, etc.

Well, given what I think they're going for, you make magical chainmail because plate is 15 times more expensive, and you won't be able to afford it until much later. Like why you might make a +1 armor instead of +2, in 3.5.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I'm not talking about the "light armor" and "heavy armor" groups either. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the terms "lighter" and "heavier." I'm saying that plate armor should provide better protection than mail. A chain shirt should provide better protection than leather. There should be reasons to use "worse" armor, but "better" armor should be better at protecting you.

Sure, plate should have a higher AC bonus than chainmail. All I'm saying is that it should come at a cost, and not just a monetary cost, but in the form of penalties that balance out its greater protection, such as higher armor check penalties, a lower maximum Dex bonus, and so on.

 

[Falling Icicle]

What I think they're going for in DnD Next is very different than mundane armor in previous editions. I think they intend to spread the cost range across many levels of expected wealth. To make upgrading your armor type something you do as you level, over the full course of leveling. Basically, they're making "mundane" special. It's not just "magic" that makes an armor good. It's the type of armor as well.

Look at the cost increments of Heavy armor in the playtest. Each tier is 3 to 10 times more expensive than the previous tier. This is a lot like 4E, where each "plus" costs five times more than the previous. You're not buying +5 armor at level 3, in 4E. One big mistake in the playtest is that the light and medium armors are too cheap, and thus it's easy to skip right to the second or third tier armors. The costs really should be more similar across the armor categories.

Really, the playtest array is like having just 3 kinds of armor, but each is available with 4 different tiers of quality.

I understand what they're trying to do, I just don't think it's a good idea. The availability of money is something that will vary wildly from one campaign and setting to the next, and IMO makes for a poor balancing mechanism.

Well, given what I think they're going for, you make magical chainmail because plate is 15 times more expensive, and you won't be able to afford it until much later. Like why you might make a +1 armor instead of +2, in 3.5.

They've said that all permanent magic items in Next will be effectively "priceless." Given that kind of rarity and value, I can't see anyone ever wasting an enchantment on anything but the very best types of armor.

 

[Harlock]

I understand what they're trying to do, I just don't think it's a good idea. The availability of money is something that will vary wildly from one campaign and setting to the next, and IMO makes for a poor balancing mechanism.

Well, obviously they have to have a default or baseline for the setting. What DMs do to jack up their own campaign is their business. A lot of standard things can be a poor balancing mechanism if someone screws with it. B/X D&D was balanced around what would be considered fairly low stats these days. You could certainly really ruin balance in that edition by using a high value point buy, for instance.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Sure, plate should have a higher AC bonus than chainmail. All I'm saying is that it should come at a cost, and not just a monetary cost, but in the form of penalties that balance out its greater protection, such as higher armor check penalties, a lower maximum Dex bonus, and so on.

Sure. A quick skimming of Wikipedia reveals a few things:

Plate Armor

• Does not significantly impair agility
• Virtually invulnerable to slashing weapons, weak to certain blunt and piercing weapons
• Prohibitively expensive to common warriors

Mail Armor

• Less protective than plate
• More easily produced
• Most expensive of the three types of armor commonly used by soldiers (mail, brigandine, and padded)
• Effectiveness depends on many factors, including linkage type, weave density, ring thickness
• Good protection against all medieval-era weapons
• Some types could be broken by strong slashes or pierces
• Even attacks that didn't pierce the armor could still cause blunt force trauma due to the armor's flexibility

A lot of those seem too fiddly for the core rules, and I think the most important aspects (plate armor is more expensive and more protective) are already in there.

 

[Szatany]

There is a good, mechanical reason to prefer one form of armor over another. The cost. Cost should be a balancing factor.

NO! No more assumed wealth per level dogma.

 

[PinkRose]

Why can't different armour offer different advantages, just like different weapons do?

Right now people can choose to wield a Halberd, or Dagger, or Rapier all for different reasons. Qualities are different; off-hand, reach, finesse, slashing, etc.

Why don't we add stuff to Armour so people choose AC based on some qualities? Damage Resistance, Dex Bonus, AC Bonus, Speed, intimidation bonus, charisma bonus, etc.

 

[MarkB]

Well, given what I think they're going for, you make magical chainmail because plate is 15 times more expensive, and you won't be able to afford it until much later. Like why you might make a +1 armor instead of +2, in 3.5.

Another approach they could take is not to use +X armour enhancements at all, but represent better armour protections purely in terms of armour type. Magical effects upon armour would provide various defense-related effects, but not straight numerical bonuses to AC.