D&D 5E Medium Armor Fix

[Cap'n Kobold]

On a third look there is definitely more plate than my original overview. Some results seem to have changed as well, but lets take a look as it is:

Its a google search: the priority algorithms are based on search history and other factors and so different people (and even different times) will show different results.

There are 28 fighters there, 2 of which are duplicate (1 on each side), so 26.
13/26 are not plate
13/26 are plate

So 50% on both sides. Definitely different than my original analysis. I would say that is still consistent with my choice of the base class not having plate. Perhaps more archetypes should have it.

Most of the images are the ones I saw, although the order is different. It looks like some of them that I considered wearing half-plate, based on that table you posted, you consider are wearing banded or splint.

But frankly, I do find this an odd method for determining whether or not a particular class should get capabilities.

My problem with heavy amor proficiency isn't fighters, but clerics.

War clerics, i get. Heavy amor proficiency is fine.
But Tempest? Okay, maybe.
Nature and Life? No; just no.

Divine inspiration.
If exhaustive training can't teach you to wear heavy armour, but swearing an oath to the right deity does, it is logical that some clerics can do it as well as Paladins.

 

[Kryx]

It looks like some of them that I considered wearing half-plate, based on that table you posted, you consider are wearing banded or splint.

All the ones I marked as "Not plate" do not fit the definition of plate or half plate as defined on PH 145. The Splint/Banded ones match that description and images of those armor types.

But frankly, I do find this an odd method for determining whether or not a particular class should get capabilities.

The point is to remove subjectivity. I try to inform my opinion on what is "standard" by firstly investigating what others think. Google images seems like the best source for that.

If you don't like that method then feel free to use my Archetype method. I think it's pretty hard to argue Heavy Armor for all archetypes. It only applies to some imo.

 

[Xeviat]

Hi [MENTION=57494]Xeviat[/MENTION], I see your posts often (I lurk on most balance threads) and often agree with them. Thanks for stopping by and providing your thoughts


I really like the 4e classifications. The result is far more realistic for my tastes - Barbarians and Rangers in Hide armor and very little plate. It also provides viable options between +2 dex and no dex builds.

I discussed it with my players and they agree that it fixes the issues we had with the system.

How are you going to handle feats to get higher proficiencies? Like 4E, but maybe bundled with a +1 Str/Dex/Con? Or are you doing the half-feats mod? And how do you handle improving armor? Because Dex builds get scaling AC built into their progression, while those without the higher AC proficiencies don't see their AC grow. Those with the higher proficiencies boost their AC with gold, which can vary wildly by campaign.

 

[schnee]

But frankly, I do find this an odd method for determining whether or not a particular class should get capabilities.

Especially when you factor in chain mail bikinis.

Let's be honest, fantasy artists make stuff that looks cool, not stuff that's practical.

 

[Kryx]

How are you going to handle feats to get higher proficiencies? Like 4E, but maybe bundled with a +1 Str/Dex/Con? Or are you doing the half-feats mod? And how do you handle improving armor? Because Dex builds get scaling AC built into their progression, while those without the higher AC proficiencies don't see their AC grow. Those with the higher proficiencies boost their AC with gold, which can vary wildly by campaign.

Leather and Hide armor scale to 17 if the characters invest in Dex (likely)
Chain classes are intended to only ever get 16. This is classes like Nature Cleric, Light Cleric, Valor Bard, etc. This is intended.
Scale classes are intended to only every get 17. This is classes like Forge Cleric, Fighter.

I use half feats as full feats are far too big for customization imo. I currently have a half feat for a shield and a half feat for armor progression. If you use full feats you could attach other things on to make them full feats (a flaw of feats being that size imo).

Currently worded as:

You gain proficiency with the armor type above your current proficiency: Leather -> Hide -> Chain -> Scale -> Plate.
You can select this feat multiple times.

If a Fighter took this feat (of which they have plenty) they'd get plate armor (+1 AC)
If a Cleric took this feat they'd get Scale or Plate (+1 AC)
If a Bard took this feat they'd get chain (likely +1 AC)
If a Valor Bard took this feat they'd get Scale (+1 AC)
If a Ranger took this feat they could wear Chain (likey unhelpful, but fine for flavor purposes)
If a Rogue took this feat they could wear Hide (likey unhelpful, but fine for flavor purposes)



I considered ditching the cost of better armors ala 4e and 13th age, but decided against it.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

All the ones I marked as "Not plate" do not fit the definition of plate or half plate as defined on PH 145. The Splint/Banded ones match that description and images of those armor types.

Hang on. Are you using the little table you posted, which didn't have entries for Breastplate, Banded, Splint etc, or are you using the 5e armour table and descriptions?

The point is to remove subjectivity. I try to inform my opinion on what is "standard" by firstly investigating what others think. Google images seems like the best source for that.

The issue I'm having with that concept is partly that an artist's depiction of an image that they think they can make a nice picture of isn't an objective measure of what the RAW of a class' capabilities should be. Probably neither is whatever process google uses to decide whether any specific picture gets assigned the keyword: "Fighter".

But mostly that I'm not sure what it adds in class balance, or concept, or realism etc.

If you don't like that method then feel free to use my Archetype method. I think it's pretty hard to argue Heavy Armor for all archetypes. It only applies to some imo.

Do all Paladins gain Plate proficiency, or does it similarly depend on their Oath. Does swearing vengeance to your ancestors grant the ability to strap shaped metal plates to your body, in the same way that promising to uphold beauty to the Fey does?

 

[Kryx]

Hang on. Are you using the little table you posted, which didn't have entries for Breastplate, Banded, Splint etc, or are you using the 5e armour table and descriptions?

Oh come on, don't try to obfuscate the issue. Assuming you're the same Cap'n from before and have just changed your name then you have a good reputation.
I specifically called out the descriptions on page 145 of the player's handbook. Based on your attributions of plate it seems you consider all heavy armors to be a form of plate, but that doesn't reflect the armor that was used nor D&D of all editions which attempts to models those differences. The descriptions are available for you to read on page 145 of the player's handbook and there are many images of those armor types or the armor types they represent via google.

But mostly that I'm not sure what it adds in class balance, or concept, or realism etc.

Then use the archetype method as I mentioned above. You'd be hard pressed to say that all, or even most, fighters should be using plate.

Do all Paladins gain Plate proficiency

Yes. Even ancient depiction have them using plate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin

 

[Satyrn]

You'd be hard pressed to say that all, or even most, fighters should be using plate.

I can say it easily. Although technically what I'm saying is that every fighter should be proficient with it. The only fighters that shouldn't be using plate are the fighters a player chooses not to put in plate.

See, I think the fundamental point of the fighter is to be the master of arms and armor and that no matter which subclass the player picks he ought to be able to outfit his fighter in plate.

 

[Kryx]

no matter which subclass the player picks he ought to be able to outfit his fighter in plate.

And that's your choice to make. I would strongly object to the several cases, most obvious objections:

• Arcane Archer
• Scout
• Sharpshooter

But again that's your choice to make. My responses to Cap'n are refuting the idea that I must allow all fighters to have access to all armor.


I've made my point clear. I'm not here to debate Cap'n about Fighters and plate so I'll let this be my last post on that topic.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Whenever I look at these threads, it always feels to me like the default assumptions are:
1. Disadvantage on stealth checks somehow doesn't matter unless you've maxed your dex and are proficient.
This isn't true. In fact disadvantage probably hurts those people the least, because they succeed even with poor rolls. If you're not great at stealth, you're somewhat at the mercy of the dice... and disadvantage makes them a lot less merciful. Maybe the argument is that people with poor stealth don't even try to stealth? That's never been my experience.

2. Everyone who has a 14+ in dex has an 18+ in dex
Again, people have different priorities, and dex, while a good stat, isn't always one of them.

3. Everyone who has medium and heavy armor proficiency has 15+ strength or can afford to lose 10 feet of movement.
Again, not always true

4. Donning/doffing times of 10/5 minutes don't matter
In a dungeon, sure. In the city, being able to get into or out of armor can actually be useful. Tying back to stealth: it's hard for your full plate fighter to move through a crowd without being spotted.