D&D 5E [ToA] Heat & Heavy (armor)

[Waterbizkit]

As I posted above, there are already rules for this in the DMG. If it's at or above 100 degrees F, then you make your save every hour if you don't have ample water.

Oh yeah, I get that. I saw your earlier post. What I meant was whether or not the AP will give us an idea of just how hot it actually is in a Chultan jungle. For example, even with a whopping 90% relative humidity the air temperature needs to be 85 degrees before the heat index breaks 100 degrees. Some cursory research seems to indicate that it actually rarely breaks 100 degrees in the jungle, even when factoring in the humidity. Average annual temps seem to be in the 80's with humidity between 77-88%.

So like I said, I'm curious what the book will say, if it gives any guidelines at all. Will the AP leave it to the DM to say it might be over 100 degrees? Will the book just say "Hey man, it's really hot in the jungle. If you wear medium or heavy armor get ready to make some con saves!" Paraphrasing of course. Or maybe it says nothing and it's up to the DM to figure it all out.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Oh yeah, I get that. I saw your earlier post. What I meant was whether or not the AP will give us an idea of just how hot it actually is in a Chultan jungle. For example, even with a whopping 90% relative humidity the air temperature needs to be 85 degrees before the heat index breaks 100 degrees. Some cursory research seems to indicate that it actually rarely breaks 100 degrees in the jungle, even when factoring in the humidity. Average annual temps seem to be in the 80's with humidity between 77-88%.

So like I said, I'm curious what the book will say, if it gives any guidelines at all. Will the AP leave it to the DM to say it might be over 100 degrees? Will the book just say "Hey man, it's really hot in the jungle. If you wear medium or heavy armor get ready to make some con saves!" Paraphrasing of course. Or maybe it says nothing and it's up to the DM to figure it all out.

Got me. Borneo is supposed to be in the 90s all next week. So with heat index, I'd say it's probably safe to say if during the summer, heat would be a factor. Especially inland from the coast of Chult or wherever this takes place at

 

[CapnZapp]

Of course, the rule in the DMG is designed so that it never comes into effect, unless you want it to.

First off, as mentioned, 100 F is a very high threshold. Second, the "if you don't have water" clause. What adventure party will not have water - and still take a jungle/desert trek?

The few parties where the DM wants heat exhaustion to be a thing, are what.

But that's not what I'm talking about here.

I'm asking if ToA will offer a rule/optional/variant that changes the game in general, for everybody, as in noticably nerfing the (heavy) armor strategy, while not nerfing the unarmored strategy in the same way?

Then, I'm sure the merchant princes of Chult will sell potions of Endure Elements or whatever, and that's fine so your paladins can still run around in full plate, but at least there's a nod to jungle conditions.​

You might ask yourself "why even add this rule if nothing changes in the end?"

Because I'm not here to hate a specific subset of character builds, such as strength fighters and paladins and war priests!

I'm only here to discuss whether 5th edition is the first edition in a long time where options might be offered even though they might not be in the best interests of balance.

Many DMs will not want to houserule such a rule. Unless it's on a page in a WotC book you can point to, many DMs will not bother with any "you're just shafting us" discussions.

Having an official rule (even if optional) would help immensely in bringing the jungles of Chult to life!

 

[Mirtek]

Because I'm not here to hate a specific subset of character builds, such as strength fighters and paladins and war priests!

But you're asking WotC to add a rule that does exactly that.

If such rules should be added for sake of "realism", then all rules that allow lightly armored classes to perform as well as heavily armored classes should be scrapped for sake of "realism".

Otherwise heavy armor just has it's "realistic" downsides, but none of it's "realistic" advantages. People wore armor for centuries because it worked and not having armor was a damn big disadvantage in a battle. So goodbye monks and barbarian unarmored AC bonuses and rogues in leather almost matching fighters in plate armor.

If you want to give heavy armor it's disadvantages, you can't deny it's advantage at the same time.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Of course, the rule in the DMG is designed so that it never comes into effect, unless you want it to.

First off, as mentioned, 100 F is a very high threshold. Second, the "if you don't have water" clause. What adventure party will not have water - and still take a jungle/desert trek?

100 F is not a high threshold. We just had an entire week above 100 (and an entire month straight of above 90, with index about 100), and it's supposed to be over 100 this next week here in Oregon. OREGON! In September! Arizona is always above 100 from late spring to early fall pretty much every day. Arizona, Nevada, California, etc all have reached over 100 just today. Jungles, in September as of right now, are in the upper 80s and 90s, and with humidity, the heat index is well over 100.

So no, it's not a high threshold. It's pretty much guaranteed in deserts and jungles during the warm seasons.

Also, did you read the part where you need 3 gallons a day? That's a lot of water. 24 pounds of water per person per day.

So again, no. This won't happen only "where the DM wants heat exhaustion to be a thing." It should happen any time the DM follows the already existing rules when the PCs are in an area that reaches those temperatures during the summer. Which, as I noted, is not just desert or jungle. They'd be applicable for pretty much the whole summer even here in the pacific northwest.

 

[Sacrosanct]

On a side note, why are you so hell bent in making sure that people who wear medium, heavy armor, or heavy clothing don't get nerfed unless everyone else does too? Don't like it? Don't go on an adventure in the freaking jungle. I mean, come on, you're asking to completely throw out a living campaign world for arbitrary metagaming purposes. The environment of D&D is a huge part of the game, and always has been. It absolutely should impact some characters more than others depending on what environment it is, and what the character are equipped with.

*Edit* It's like swimming in armor, and why PCs don't try doing it, and why most smart PCs don't wear heavy armor on a boat or ship if they are expecting battle. You're gonna sink. And before anyone starts that whole debate up again, we already had it right here. And Umbran was nice enough in that thread to have a video of someone trying it with spectacular failed results.

The environment matters. And before someone says, "But PCs can kill dragons, so they should be able to ignore rules of wearing armor" (coincidentally a comment CapnZapp makes in that thread), I will note that because the game gives specific rules to handle things fantastically (like casting spells or taking/dealing a lot of damage), those rules do not override every other aspect of realism. Fantastical rules in the game always override only a very defined and specific aspect of realism as part of their description, and we require realism to level the playing field of all gaming groups. I.e., we all use realism as the baseline on how we play the game unless a rule or mechanic specifically overrides that expectation. It would be like telling the DM, "My fighter can kill a dragon, so why should I be affected by mundane things like eating, or sleeping, and I should be able to run up walls, water sheds off me like a duck, and etc etc"

 

[Dax Doomslayer]

I think that some people like that gritty realism in their games. That's fine if that's their thing. It does add an element to play where people need to account for what's in their inventory and what they need to survive. I can see the merits in that (probably from me playing post apocalyptic type video games - lol). If it's Capn's thing, that's fine. I don't think it hurts to potentially add a couple of paragraphs to address those that would like that. That said, for me I just don't want to give those who want a strength based build any more hurdles to climb. Like I said earlier, that will promote the light armor; rapier wielding dexterity builds that seem to proliferate the game (from my experience anyway). That's my two coppers - if it's even worth that !!

 

[Mirtek]

Don't like it? Don't go on an adventure in the freaking jungle.

Don't want to be hurt and wounded? Don't go into battle wearing a pyjama or maybe even less.

Yet we allow Monks & Barbarians to do exactly that by giving them an arbitrary AC bonus ability that allows them to keep up with those sensible people wearing armor (and rogues in studded leather are not far behind either after maxing out Dex).

If armor should suck in those conditions when it does in RL, then not having armor too should suck in those conditions when it does in RL.

 

[Oofta]

Don't want to be hurt and wounded? Don't go into battle wearing a pyjama or maybe even less.

Yet we allow Monks & Barbarians to do exactly that by giving them an arbitrary AC bonus ability that allows them to keep up with those sensible people wearing armor (and rogues in studded leather are not far behind either after maxing out Dex).

If armor should suck in those conditions when it does in RL, then not having armor too should suck in those conditions when it does in RL.

Amen.

I think this is the issue I've always had with the "heavy armor sucks" argument, just never thought to put it that way.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Don't want to be hurt and wounded? Don't go into battle wearing a pyjama or maybe even less.

Yet we allow Monks & Barbarians to do exactly that by giving them an arbitrary AC bonus ability that allows them to keep up with those sensible people wearing armor (and rogues in studded leather are not far behind either after maxing out Dex).

If armor should suck in those conditions when it does in RL, then not having armor too should suck in those conditions when it does in RL.

That goes back to the specific rules/mechanics that are an exception. There is an explicit mechanical rule that directly addresses that (the unarmored combat feature). Just like any other specific rule that overrides realism. The difference is that the specific rules of exceptions we have in a fantasy game do not mean every part of realism is ignored, only those expressly called out in that rule. That's why those specific rules that override realism are specific.

Saying we should ignore other unrelated aspects of realism because there's rule here or there that override realism is a fundamentally flawed argument. Not only is it a horrible slipperly slope, but it directly conflicts with the design of how fantastical abilities are designed (very clearly and explicitly telling us exactly how the rules of a specific reality are overridden as opposed to be vague generalities).