Super Simple Armor

[Li Shenron]

From a purely mechanical perspective, how does this look?

[table="width: 700"]
[tr]
[td]Armor[/td]
[td]Armor Class (AC)[/td]
[td]Strength[/td]
[td]Stealth[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Light Armor[/td]
[td]12 + Dex modifier (max 4)[/td]
[td]--[/td]
[td]--[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Medium Armor[/td]
[td]15 + Dex modifier (max 2)[/td]
[td]Str 13[/td]
[td]--[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Heavy Armor[/td]
[td]18[/td]
[td]Str 15[/td]
[td]Disadvantage[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Shield[/td]
[td]+2[/td]
[td]--[/td]
[td]--[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Seeking thoughts on numbers, mechanics, balance, crunch, etc.



Design goal: A rich reductiveness.

It's ok, but why not just pick one PHB armor from each category, and say that everything else is not available on the market?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm amenable to something binary like masterwork that offers a cost differentiator making more expensive armors more attractive in terms of their benefit. What might that look like? +1 or +2 AC for masterwork? Do the base numbers shift?

You could do +1 AC for 1000gp across the board, but that's a slippery slope toward complexity. That alone would double the amount of armors available.

It was just a point of interest, I guess, that fighters traditionally looked forward to one day affording plate. The most consistent solution would probably be to go the 4E route for this, and just say that plate armor is a well-established technology that doesn't cost much more than other forms of heavy armor. I think 4E had plate armor at 50gp, but that was also the edition where you could re-skin anything into anything else.

The reason to wear plate instead of (heavy) chain would be a personal preference, because you wouldn't have to move around as much in order to get the same protection out of it, or possibly out of tradition to a time when only nobles could afford plate (if you want that to be a part of your setting history). Or if you did want it as a status symbol, you could really go all-out on little artistic details in the plate, in ways which wouldn't be possible with chain (e.g. you find a suit of ornamental plate armor, which protects as well as any other heavy armor, but is also worth 5000gp as an art piece).

 

[Blue]

From a purely mechanical perspective, how does this look?

[table="width: 700"]
[tr]
[td]Armor[/td]
[td]Armor Class (AC)[/td]
[td]Strength[/td]
[td]Stealth[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Light Armor[/td]
[td]12 + Dex modifier (max 4)[/td]
[td]--[/td]
[td]--[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Medium Armor[/td]
[td]15 + Dex modifier (max 2)[/td]
[td]Str 13[/td]
[td]--[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Heavy Armor[/td]
[td]18[/td]
[td]Str 15[/td]
[td]Disadvantage[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Shield[/td]
[td]+2[/td]
[td]--[/td]
[td]--[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Seeking thoughts on numbers, mechanics, balance, crunch, etc.



Design goal: A rich reductiveness.

I think it would work balance-wise.

Something I don't know if you intended, but is a big feature for me, is that if you replace the equipment section with this it gives a lot more flexibility in describing the appropriate armor for your character without the potential to mechanically penalize yourself.

Your street rat could be wearing leather jacket and chaps, your barbarian is wearing thick furry wolf skins, boiled hide bracers and greaves. Both are "light armor".

 

[aco175]

I can see simplifying it to having Basic armors at AC 12, 14, 16 and have a masterwork type for +1 more AC and maybe heavy having a 2nd masterwork type for +2. You can give them names you want, but mechanically they all work the same. So now, my thief in light armor (AC12) can be wearing leather or hide or an armored cloak. I can get masterwork leather for AC13 or I can call it studded, or inlaid, or chain shirt if I want. Same with the heavier armors. You now can price them differently for masterwork. I may also be ok with starting the base AC at 11, 13, 15 but this may make Dex more important of a stat.

After a while I can see where gaming groups just start naming the masterwork types the same and we de-facto end up back to the start with each group slightly differen in names.

 

[akr71]

^ I like this solution [MENTION=27385]aco175[/MENTION]

It offers simplicity & customization at the same time.

 

[mrpopstar]

I've thought about doing this my entire D&D life but have never had the guts. As a player it always annoys me when I SHOULD take an armor mathematically that doesn't match the aesthetic I am going for haha.

I'm the same! Definitely interests me to just fold them all together and open up descriptive design space.

I like it.

But I would add that light armor is 13+dex(max 4)

as for price:

light armor 50gp

medium 200gp

heavy 1000gp

In my proposal max base AC with +5 Dex is 15, light armor nets a max base AC of 16, medium 17 and heavy 18. If we make light armor 13 + Dex (max 4) then light armor nets a max base of AC 17. I would like medium armor to be a meaningful differentiator for those who focus on Strength.

It's ok, but why not just pick one PHB armor from each category, and say that everything else is not available on the market?

I'm looking to offer more creative freedom instead of looking to minimize options.

You could do +1 AC for 1000gp across the board, but that's a slippery slope toward complexity. That alone would double the amount of armors available.

It was just a point of interest, I guess, that fighters traditionally looked forward to one day affording plate. The most consistent solution would probably be to go the 4E route for this, and just say that plate armor is a well-established technology that doesn't cost much more than other forms of heavy armor. I think 4E had plate armor at 50gp, but that was also the edition where you could re-skin anything into anything else.

The reason to wear plate instead of (heavy) chain would be a personal preference, because you wouldn't have to move around as much in order to get the same protection out of it, or possibly out of tradition to a time when only nobles could afford plate (if you want that to be a part of your setting history). Or if you did want it as a status symbol, you could really go all-out on little artistic details in the plate, in ways which wouldn't be possible with chain (e.g. you find a suit of ornamental plate armor, which protects as well as any other heavy armor, but is also worth 5000gp as an art piece).

I never realized, until this conversation, how little I emphasize the glory of plate in my narrative conscience. LOL

I like all heavy armors being equal as far as utility. Simplicity wins the day for me. The difference between splint and plate is purely cultural and aesthetic. — I do, however, acknowledge that cost is important for at least some measure of growth. I'm comfortable pricing heavy armor such that 1st level characters aren't wearing it out the gate.

I think it would work balance-wise.

Something I don't know if you intended, but is a big feature for me, is that if you replace the equipment section with this it gives a lot more flexibility in describing the appropriate armor for your character without the potential to mechanically penalize yourself.

Your street rat could be wearing leather jacket and chaps, your barbarian is wearing thick furry wolf skins, boiled hide bracers and greaves. Both are "light armor".

I'm very keen on the idea of being able to have creatures lightly, moderately, or heavily armored in their choice of material (hide, mail, plate, etc). Aesthetic is narratively important, not mechanically important (to me, anyway)!

I can see simplifying it to having Basic armors at AC 12, 14, 16 and have a masterwork type for +1 more AC and maybe heavy having a 2nd masterwork type for +2. You can give them names you want, but mechanically they all work the same. So now, my thief in light armor (AC12) can be wearing leather or hide or an armored cloak. I can get masterwork leather for AC13 or I can call it studded, or inlaid, or chain shirt if I want. Same with the heavier armors. You now can price them differently for masterwork. I may also be ok with starting the base AC at 11, 13, 15 but this may make Dex more important of a stat.

After a while I can see where gaming groups just start naming the masterwork types the same and we de-facto end up back to the start with each group slightly differen in names.

I'm definitely looking to put a tiny cap on Dexterity in this arena. Medium and heavy armors are for strong types. What I like about the current numbers is that rangers can wear medium armor and still contribute to stealthing around.

 

[mrpopstar]

Updated design goals in my first post to highlight my intents.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm comfortable pricing heavy armor such that 1st level characters aren't wearing it out the gate.

That seems a bit extreme. Heavy armor is incredibly vital to certain character concepts. Denying all heavy armor to a level 1 character means that those characters would never last long enough to acquire heavy armor. You can't be a tank with an AC of 14 (including shield).

It would make Dexterity significantly more important than it already is. It would basically become the new Constitution, where everyone needs it at least above average, or else you will die.

 

[Satyrn]

It's practical for PCs, because PCs tend to have above-average stats, and anyone with Strength less than 13 is intentionally dumping it.

I'm not sure if it makes sense for the rest of the world, unless you want basic training for a town guard to include getting their Strength to 13 (which seems reasonable enough to me). At that point, it would serve well as a differentiator between trained soldiers and simple peasants.

Also, not meeting the Strength requirement doesn't actually prevent the town guard from wearing the armor. They just move slower in it. This'll help the players pick out the donut eaters from the fitness freaks - or let criminals pick the location of their crimes based on how quickly the beat cops can move.

 

[Satyrn]

Oh, that reminds me. The OP ought to note that a dwarf's speed isn't reduced by wearing medium armor, the way it isn't for heavy armor.