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

[CapnZapp]

Ok, so they need 2 gallons of clean water per person/per day. Medium/Heavy/people in winter coats have disadvantage. But there is another disadvantage, stealth. Wearing certain armor means you won't be making a lot of stealth checks, little chance of avoiding random encounters while doing the hex crawl. I think that is enough of a disadvantage.

But that's no different from anywhere else?!

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

My paladin player has just splurged on a brand new full plate and I know this player is completely unawares of any repercussions of that choice.

Yet I want to explain why NOONE ELSE will be wearing heavy armor.

Describe how the heat and humidity hits them like a warm slap in the face as they teleport. How they all start sweating immediately in clothes designed for a temperate environment, and how the Paladin's gambeson and clothes become soaked and heavy from his own sweat.

Mention how people in positions where you would expect heavy armour such as guards or knights are stripped down to tunics and tabards.

My solution will probably be along the lines of what would a magic item granting the benefits of the d20 Endure Elements spell cost? (Or what would a case of EE scrolls cost?)

This is exactly the kind of items I imagine would be in high demand in the ToA situation.

Check the section on the merchant princes and markets. ISTR 1st and 2nd- level scrolls and potions are for sale by one of the princes.

 

[CapnZapp]

Describe how the heat and humidity hits them like a warm slap in the face as they teleport. How they all start sweating immediately in clothes designed for a temperate environment, and how the Paladin's gambeson and clothes become soaked and heavy from his own sweat.

Mention how people in positions where you would expect heavy armour such as guards or knights are stripped down to tunics and tabards.

Perhaps we misunderstand each other. Unless there's a mechanical drawback for keeping the armor, on, it will stay on. And if there is, players will want to know how to get rid of it, so the armor can stay on.

Furthermore, players expect NPCs to think the same way. Therefore, just reducing it to atmosphere and color doesn't cut it. There needs to be a mechanical reason why NPCs don't use armor while PCs do.

The most straightforward solution is to make the magic needed to keep using armor difficult enough to keep it out of reach of everyone but the most dedicated characters, such as the player characters. Difficult meaning either "expensive" or "dangerous" or simply high enough level, which it all boils down to.

Check the section on the merchant princes and markets. ISTR 1st and 2nd- level scrolls and potions are for sale by one of the princes.

I will have to do that.

Though if they're anything like the DMG's prices I'm not holding my breath. Usually, they're much too high for consumables (like scrolls), but in this particular case, I expect the price to be too low - if Endure Elements would remain a 1st level spell, that would make a Common scroll, costing (as a consumable) half of 50-100 gp.

In contrast, Sane Magic Prices (a document I trust much more) puts the price of a 1st level spell scroll at 60 gp.

This may sound rather similar, but as soon as we leave level 1, all similarities end.

Anyway, so a case of thirty Endure Elements scrolls would be roughly 50x30=1500 gp. That's per month, and I'm led to believe Chult expeditions last longer than that?

Is this about right? Is this what ToA ends up at? Is this what you would consider useful and appropriate?

 

[CapnZapp]

Assuming wearing heavy armor hassle-free costs you 1500 gp a month, what would be a good price for a permanent item in your opinion?

Do note most item calculation methods would end up with a very small figure. Here we are really assuming the full value of casting Endure Elements each and every day.

Sane puts the Wand of Magic Missiles (a fellow 1st level spell) at 8000 gp, but that includes the utility of using up several charges at once.

Still, perhaps 8000 gp is a good starting base price for a Wand of Endure Elements. It really is more than what a single character needs, but as soon as more than one hero pitches in the prices quickly drops (on average, up to 4,5 characters can share one wand safely, which means only 1778 gp a pop. Seeing that everyone involved will have had 1500 gp to buy full plate at one time, this is not an unreasonable ask)

I like the idea that the "volume discount" is only available for an item that isn't that useful for a single person. The world doesn't revolve around the single hero, after all

If the party do contain only one full plater, it's still not unreasonable to put the "savings" offer at slightly over five times the ongoing cost.

Now I mean that anything much less than that and it becomes a no-brainer. Now at least the choice remains a meaningful and difficult one - should I go for 1500 gp per month? Perhaps the entire campaign will fit into the 150 days it takes me to operate at a loss compared to the permanent option. Or should I splurge on 8000 gp? Perhaps I can recoup my costs somewhat if I can find a travelling companion...

Not to mention how many groups that will feature two heavy platers...

 

[Oofta]

Which all goes back to: D&D isn't particularly realistic. Why penalize one type of build over another? Wearing leather armor would probably be just as hot as plate (or nearly so). You still have an impermeable layer covering much if not most of your body. Until you get acclimated, the humidity is so high that sweating doesn't particularly cool you off because it stops evaporating ... it just makes you more miserable.

In addition, most people overestimate the heat of the jungle. Average daytime temperature in the Amazon is in the 80s.

 

[guachi]

What would the effect of using the prestidigitation cantrip to cool your armor down be? The cantrip allows you to cool 1 cubic foot of nonliving matter. And there's no way a suit of metal armor is 1 cubic foot or even close to it.

Keep your plate armor at a constant 50 degrees! Since metal absorbs heat really well, it should keep you fairly cool and you (or a friend) can cast it at will if you start to get hot. Fifty not cool enough? Make it 40 or 30. Imagine putting on a refrigerated metal helmet when it's hot? The worst part would be all the condensation, but you wouldn't be hot at least.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Which all goes back to: D&D isn't particularly realistic. Why penalize one type of build over another? Wearing leather armor would probably be just as hot as plate (or nearly so). You still have an impermeable layer covering much if not most of your body. Until you get acclimated, the humidity is so high that sweating doesn't particularly cool you off because it stops evaporating ... it just makes you more miserable.

In addition, most people overestimate the heat of the jungle. Average daytime temperature in the Amazon is in the 80s.

Metal absorbs the heat of the sun way more than leather does. Also, the book states Chult is in the mid 90s (so hotter than the Amazon). With humidity, the heat index is way over 100.

But to address your overall point, again, just because certain aspects of D&D is not realistic, does not mean you should throw out all other aspects of realism. Any time realism is overridden in D&D, there is a specific rule for it as to how and why it does override realism. Without a specific rule to override realism, the expectation is that gaming tables will use realism to mitigate everything else. It's why no matter what gaming table you go to, people will handle gravity the same way, and basic laws of physics, and everything else that isn't specifically covered by a rule.

As far as certain players being punished, so what? Welcome to adventuring in dangerous environments. Who says that all players have to be exempt from environmental influences based on their own choices, just because said choice may give them a disadvantage? Monsters are not the only challenge PCs face in D&D. Ignoring the other challenges neuters the game, and then you have people complain how the game isn't challenging enough. Well, no duh. "Well, I know you're in plate mail and carrying all this gear, and the boat you're in just sunk, but don't worry. You won't sink like a rock because it's important that you don't suffer more ill effects over the monk over there who is naked. We're gonna throw out realism because heaven forbid your choices matter." If you want to play like that, more power to you. But I don't think that's the assumed style of play in most tables.

 

[Oofta]

Metal absorbs the heat of the sun way more than leather does.

Which is why you should wear a white or light colored tabard over your armor. Like the crusaders did. The crusaders of course wore chain mail because it was the style of armor they wore, but chain is still heavy armor.

Also, the book states Chult is in the mid 90s (so hotter than the Amazon). With humidity, the heat index is way over 100.

'
The heat index is going to affect everyone. High in the mid 90s and 99% humidity is going to be brutal for everyone that gets dehydrated or overexerts themselves. Good thing most combats are over in a minute or two.

But I like the idea @guachi had ... just refrigerate the armor every 10-15 minutes and you should be fine. Wearing metal armor could actually be beneficial if you have someone who can chill it.

But to address your overall point, again, just because certain aspects of D&D is not realistic, does not mean you should throw out all other aspects of realism. Any time realism is overridden in D&D, there is a specific rule for it as to how and why it does override realism. Without a specific rule to override realism, the expectation is that gaming tables will use realism to mitigate everything else. It's why no matter what gaming table you go to, people will handle gravity the same way, and basic laws of physics, and everything else that isn't specifically covered by a rule.

As far as certain players being punished, so what? Welcome to adventuring in dangerous environments. Who says that all players have to be exempt from environmental influences based on their own choices, just because said choice may give them a disadvantage? Monsters are not the only challenge PCs face in D&D. Ignoring the other challenges neuters the game, and then you have people complain how the game isn't challenging enough. Well, no duh. "Well, I know you're in plate mail and carrying all this gear, and the boat you're in just sunk, but don't worry. You won't sink like a rock because it's important that you don't suffer more ill effects over the monk over there who is naked. We're gonna throw out realism because heaven forbid your choices matter." If you want to play like that, more power to you. But I don't think that's the assumed style of play in most tables.

The problem that I have is that so-called realism only seems to apply to people who wear heavy armor.

Want more realism? Great. Implement rules that also punish people who don't wear armor in a realistic fashion.

D&D is a game, not a reality simulator, so balance is important. If we were attempting a reality simulator, dex based melee types would be few and far between.

Historically armor was the primary thing that kept you from being chopped to bits or skewered by arrows on the battlefield.

Mythbusters did an episode that showed that even a trained martial artist could not dodge/deflect arrows, even when they knew where they were coming from. Want realism? Limit AC bonus from dex to a +1 or +2.

 

[Mirtek]

Any time realism is overridden in D&D, there is a specific rule for it as to how and why it does override realism.

Like the specific rule stating you're fine with 2 galons of water?

As far as certain players being punished, so what? Welcome to adventuring in dangerous environments. Who says that all players have to be exempt from environmental influences based on their own choices, just because said choice may give them a disadvantage? Monsters are not the only challenge PCs face in D&D. Ignoring the other challenges neuters the game, and then you have people complain how the game isn't challenging enough. Well, no duh. "Well, I know you're in plate mail and carrying all this gear, and the boat you're in just sunk, but don't worry. You won't sink like a rock because it's important that you don't suffer more ill effects over the monk over there who is naked. We're gonna throw out realism because heaven forbid your choices matter." If you want to play like that, more power to you. But I don't think that's the assumed style of play in most tables.

So we're back to ditching the AC rules for monks and barbarians then? Because why should they have extra rules that make them exempt from the consequences based on their own choices?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Which is why you should wear a white or light colored tabard over your armor. Like the crusaders did. The crusaders of course wore chain mail because it was the style of armor they wore, but chain is still heavy armor.

Yeah, and they got screwed by that choice, as mentioned earlier in this thread. I called out two specific examples where wearing heavy metal armor and lack of water was disastrous for the crusaders.

'
The heat index is going to affect everyone. High in the mid 90s and 99% humidity is going to be brutal for everyone that gets dehydrated or overexerts themselves. Good thing most combats are over in a minute or two.

It's a lot more brutal for people wearing heavy clothing or armor. That's why people in hot climates don't do it. And have you ever been in combat (or something similar like a boxing match or martial arts bout)? 1 minute is a LONG time; more than enough to drain you. Especially if you're doing it while wearing heavy armor in a jungle compared to someone who is not.

The problem that I have is that so-called realism only seems to apply to people who wear heavy armor.

And heavy clothing. Which has been mentioned more than once, that you keep ignoring. And the argument of realism affects more than just armor. It's that in this particular example, it's armor in hot climates. But the basis of arguments for realism apply to everything, not just people in heavy armor. What we're arguing for applies to numerous scenarios. Hot climates. Cold climates. Desert, forest, jungle, underwater, swamp, dungeon, whatever. I.e., unless there's a specific rule to override realism, realism should apply. That's what the game assumes, that you'll be referencing how things work in real life unless there's a specific rule that overrides that. Sometimes that may punish the guy in heavy armor. Sometimes it may benefit them. That's part of the game, to prepare for the environment in which you are going to have the adventure. If you metagame reasons to come up with ways to make those choices not matter, then what's the point of the environment? If every choice is treated the same, then all environments feel the same and bleh. What's the difference between adventuring in the jungle as opposed to a northern European field, if it makes no difference? Play that way if you want, but I find that incredibly boring. If the environment doesn't matter, then you might as well just be playing arena combat and be done with it.

Like the specific rule stating you're fine with 2 galons of water?

Yeah, and?

So we're back to ditching the AC rules for monks and barbarians then? Because why should they have extra rules that make them [/FONT][/COLOR]exempt from the consequences based on their own choices?

When have I ever argued that. Each class has a feature that is superhuman. In the case of barbarians and monks, they have a class feature that gives them fantastical ways to avoid getting hit/taking damage. There is a specific rule for that. In what way is that me advocating ditching those rules? I'm not ditching any rule. Those class features aren't extra rules. Every class has features that are fantastical. Those are just theirs.