Armor & Coins - please, No.

[IanB]

A bit too much in my opinion, that's all.

I think there's an interesting niche for medium armor (simulationist thinking here) that isn't being adequately addressed by the mechanics (gamist thinking here).

I almost wonder if in fact we'll see medium armor in some form come back to the game at the same time we get barbarians and druids, half-orcs and other "savage" races.

But that's just the thing - "medium" armor IS in the game. It just doesn't exist as a mechanical category, which are arbitrary breakdowns anyway.

If what you're looking for is a reason to wear chainmail over plate, well, for all we know it exists, and we can't see it until we see class proficiencies or what is actually on that next page in the PHB. But a reason must exist, or there wouldn't be any reason for the higher level variants of anything but plate.

 

[Spatula]

But that's just the thing - "medium" armor IS in the game. It just doesn't exist as a mechanical category, which are arbitrary breakdowns anyway.

You're using the same words for different meanings. What were medium armors in 3e are in 4e, which isn't the same thing as saying that there's a place for a medium armor category in 4e.

If what you're looking for is a reason to wear chainmail over plate, well, for all we know it exists, and we can't see it until we see class proficiencies or what is actually on that next page in the PHB. But a reason must exist, or there wouldn't be any reason for the higher level variants of anything but plate.

Maybe there's a reason, maybe there isn't. Maybe the designers think there is, but players will find out otherwise, as they did in 3e with mithril armor. There is no "must."

Going by what we've seen so far, I'm guessing that each class is proficient with only certain specific varities of armor. Basically, each armor is its own category, instead of dividing them up into light, medium, etc. Rogues are proficient with leather but not with cloth, for example, although perhaps you need no proficiency for cloth.

 

[hong]

You're using the same words for different meanings. What were medium armors in 3e are in 4e, which isn't the same thing as saying that there's a place for a medium armor category in 4e.

Well, that's the point. Who cares about the "medium armor category"? If I can get my chain mail, I'm happy.

 

[WheresMyD20]

In the early editions of D&D, there really was never any reason to wear chain instead of plate. A 1st level fighter or cleric might wear chain simply because they couldn't affort plate. After 2nd level, chain was forgotten about... until the PC wanted an army. The cost of plate made it much more cost effective to equip troops with chain. As long as plate is expensive compared to chain, there will be a niche for chain mail- even if the PCs aren't the ones wearing it.

 

[Spatula]

In the early editions of D&D, there really was never any reason to wear chain instead of plate. A 1st level fighter or cleric might wear chain simply because they couldn't affort plate. After 2nd level, chain was forgotten about... until the PC wanted an army. The cost of plate made it much more cost effective to equip troops with chain. As long as plate is expensive compared to chain, there will be a niche for chain mail- even if the PCs aren't the ones wearing it.

That's the kind of talk that gets one called a simulationist, around here...

 

[Khuxan]

That's the kind of talk that gets one called a simulationist, around here...

The game still has chainmail and it still has plate, and I'll bet you chainmail is still cheaper than plate.

So what's the problem?

 

[Spatula]

The problem is I should have bolded 4/5 of the quote I was replying to, but I didn't think that would be necessary, really. The idea of including rules for stuff that is largely ignored by the PCs is a quaint one, these days.

 

[Lizard]

The problem is I should have bolded 4/5 of the quote I was replying to, but I didn't think that would be necessary, really. The idea of including rules for stuff that is largely ignored by the PCs is a quaint one, these days.

This reminds me of companies where they fire the bottom 20%, every quarter. Pretty soon, there's no one left.

"90% of the players ignore rule X. Let's get rid of it."
"Of the rules which remain, 90% ignore rule y. Let's get rid of it."
Etc...

Pretty soon, no more rules. This might appeal to some. Not me. I'd rather have a lot of options, as I find it easier to ignore rules than add them in a fair, balanced, and consistent fashion.

 

[hong]

The problem is I should have bolded 4/5 of the quote I was replying to, but I didn't think that would be necessary, really. The idea of including rules for stuff that is largely ignored by the PCs is a quaint one, these days.

How very Cartesian.

 

[hong]

This reminds me of companies where they fire the bottom 20%, every quarter. Pretty soon, there's no one left.

"90% of the players ignore rule X. Let's get rid of it."
"Of the rules which remain, 90% ignore rule y. Let's get rid of it."
Etc...

Pretty soon, no more rules.

You can tell when there's nothing to worry about, because people start making thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments.