Awfully Alarmed About Armour

[Steely_Dan]

Working as intended.

Yes, like Conan or Aragorn wearing certain armour types, depending on the task at hand, should all be viable.

Also, naked Beowulf?

 

[Derren]

Yes, like Conan or Aragorn wearing certain armour types, depending on the task at hand, should all be viable.

Also, naked Beowulf?

Conan wore the heaviest armor he could find, including full plate when he was king. Aragon wore leather armor because he wanted to be stealthy which is a fair tradeoff. And while I have not read it I am pretty sure nowhere in the Beowulf saga he is described as being naked.

And before you come with 300, hoplites were actually very heavily armored.

 

[Votan]

My general preference is to see reasonable armor decisions modeled in the game mechanics. Armor is something that D&D has always had trouble with and, unless fantastical is the only playstyle, something that I would like to see done well. The closest to "well done" I can think of in the D&D family is Saga edition where armor became less useful as you leveled unless you were a soldier. That modeled the Star Wars universe where armor was an unsual choice among heros but common among minions (like Stormtroopers).

But if one wants to model combat accurately, probably the biggest problem is how little shields and helms contribute. One can find a lot of light armored soldiers -- Vikings or Hoplites (for example). But it is rare indeed to find infantry (pre-full plate) who were not using shields (maybe peasant levies?). And a shield makes the head into one of the better targets . . . Even the Norman knight had a kite shield, metal helm (with nasal) and then lighter body armor.

So who did not wear armor? Ships crew (sun, heat, slippery decks). Deep desert fighters (heat). Gladiators and duelists (stylized combat). But none of these groups was ever delighted to run into armored opponents.

 

[Skyscraper]

I hope for damage reduction with heavy armor, and perhaps some with medium armor also.

As a second point, I'd probably limit the DR to weapon attacks only, but of course that would increase the power of spellcasters, so it would have to be taken into account when designing classes.

 

[Derren]

Good point (except for the Hoplites. While equipment was not standartized they often wore bronze breastplates which was at that time heavy armor).

I know of only one nation which did not use shields and that were the japanese (because peseants used spears and samurai were also archers). But if there is one thing D&D portrays even worse than heavy armor then it is shields.

 

[Votan]

Conan wore the heaviest armor he could find, including full plate when he was king. Aragon wore leather armor because he wanted to be stealthy which is a fair tradeoff. And while I have not read it I am pretty sure nowhere in the Beowulf saga he is described as being naked.

And before you come with 300, hoplites were actually very heavily armored.

I think that this might have been when he swims into the lair of Grendel's mother. A long distance, under-sea swim is likely to be another case of a trade-off.

Conan varied his armor based on what he was doing but I agree -- he seemed to wear armor whenever it made sense. Fighting on the pictish border was dangerous enough without it. And he was modeled on the Celts who really were lightly armored (although a quick scan shows a lot of shields which helps a great deal).

But ask the celts what they thought about the Romans.

Aragorn I put into a different group. For most of the Lord of the Rings he was travelling. Light armor is a great trade-off for less sweltering on a trip. I have worn armor myself and never seen a serious mobility penalty but I have seen a massive heat exhaustion factor. If you want to travel long distances then trade-offs make sense.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Conan wore the heaviest armor he could find, including full plate when he was king. Aragon wore leather armor because he wanted to be stealthy which is a fair tradeoff. And while I have not read it I am pretty sure nowhere in the Beowulf saga he is described as being naked.

And before you come with 300, hoplites were actually very heavily armored.

Oh, man, you're preaching to the converted, way more on your side then you seem to realise.

 

[4th ed lurker]

I prefer the idea of armour reducing damage but not in the traditional DR sense of subtracting from the damage taken. That method means that you are impervious to mild attacks but doesn't help against a giant's club.

The best suggestion I have seen is for heavy armour to grant disadvantage to damage rolls against the wearer. I can't find the post or author who submitted this (it was in one of the first play test posts) but I think it is an excellent idea. Low damage attacks would still hurt you in full plate so one can not ignore a goblin's d6 but it would help against a minotaur's 3d6+6. It would introduce quite a few additional rolls though coloured dice would minimise the time this added. This method would scale automatically with the feared HP bloat by level and be relevant for a character's entire career. So even if the rogue had the same AC as a fighter, the fighter would still be taking less damage on average per attack and as has been said, armour doesn't prevent hits, it absorbs damage. Do you think this is a viable option?

 

[YRUSirius]

Again: Why not just AC +1/+2?

-YRUSirius

 

[UngeheuerLich]

to give an additional benefit over high dexterity without making high dex characters unviable.

But on the other hand: i would hate DR on enemy creatures. So maybe some kind of temp hp. Could help the poor kobolds.