D&D 5E Armor in Next

[Falling Icicle]

In the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Magic Items in D&D Next) an interesting comment was made about armor.

"At this stage, we do assume that characters upgrade from one type of mundane armor to the next. For instance, a fighter might afford chainmail at 1st level. Later on, that fighter can afford banded armor and then plate. Other than armor, the game lacks any other equipment that we expect you to purchase as a strict upgrade. We feel that this is a sensible upgrade path that fits with D&D, but we'll rely on feedback to ensure that any sort of expected upgrade isn't irritating."

In the playtest packet, armor had no armor check penalty, max dex bonus, spell failure, or anything else to distinguish it other than its AC bonus, category (light, medium or heavy) and its cost. This had the result that the armor followed a progression and got strictly better. Plate armor is superior in every way to Banded armor, which is superior in every way to Chainmail.

Now, they have said they are going to be reworking the armor statistics, but the comment in the article above seems to indicate that they are going to continue having armor get progressively better with what you can afford. Once you have enough money to buy banded armor, there will simply be no reason to ever wear chainmail again, and once you can afford plate armor, there will be no reason to wear banded armor. By removing max dex bonuses and armor check penalties and generalizing them by the armor's category, there no longer is any reason to wear anything but the "best" type of armor in each category, so long as you can afford it.

I don't like this. While it makes sense to me that a starting 1st level character might not be able to afford plate armor, I think there should still be good, mechanical reasons to prefer one form of armor over another. There should be a reason why some people prefer to wear leather armor instead of a chain shirt, or chainmail instead of plate, even if they can afford either.

 

[Harlock]

Based upon what was previously stated by Mr. Mearls in his "Ask me anything" piece, I do think there will be some disadvantages to heavier armor. Medium armor is mentioned specifically as having at least a +2 max Dex bonus or no Dex. bonus allowed. That could very well mean that there is some +1 max bonus armor as well. There may yet be some progressive disadvantages, even amongst heavy armors. If not, I'd still need to play it to see how it feels and works.

 

[dkyle]

I don't like this. While it makes sense to me that a starting 1st level character might not be able to afford plate armor, I think there should still be good, mechanical reasons to prefer one form of armor over another. There should be a reason why some people prefer to wear leather armor instead of a chain shirt, or chainmail instead of plate, even if they can afford either.

There is a good, mechanical reason to prefer one form of armor over another. The cost. Cost should be a balancing factor.

I think it's enough to have armor categories that are balanced, price-point-for-price-point, with each other through stuff like AC bonus, DEX bonus, check penalties, and so on. Having progression within each category makes a lot of sense, both for game mechanics (it allows for some form of gear progression that the system math accounts for, which magic items are apparently exempt from), and even for realism. Really, throughout history, armor hasn't been a matter of light vs. heavy, advantages vs. disadvantages for each. People wore plate armor if they could afford it, and only a very foolish person would refuse it if they had a choice.

 

[BobTheNob]

I must admit to having no faith what-so-ever in the approach of progression through armor types by wealth. My experience with the game is that it really isnt that hard to get wealth (unless the DM is being dogmatic about denying it to players) and the wealth level needed is reached quickly and boom, done and done. I just find money to be a poor way of handling character growth.

The other thing is character death. Players notoriously strip dead companions for there gear. So, what about that suit of Plate Mail that now dead character had to save up for? He is stripped of it, someone pays a nominal adjustment cost, and bypasses the expected character growth mechanism.

I far prefer that the larger AC is determined by the willingness of the player to take on penalties. That there are play time costs, meaning that the higher AC is payed for every single day of play, and not just an easily achieved "once off".

(edit : I have by and large agreed with everything I have been hearing about the direction for 5e. This equipment quality by growth of wealth approach is the first thing I have wholesale disagreed with)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I think, if they go through with the "best armor in each category only" plans, that'd put the rules in a slightly odd place for D&D.

After all, in D&D, we expect that someone can take a historically suboptimal weapon choice (e.g., daggers-only) and make it relatively viable over the course of play. It would be strange to not have a parallel structure on the opposite side.

On the other hand, I really had no problem with everyone with Light Armor Prof. seeking out MW / Mithral Chain Shirts / Breastplates in 3.XE, and eventually dumping their Leather Armor.

I think, in reality, the only way to get around that is to do armor profs in a more 4th Ed-way, where the reason your Rogue didn't wear anything heavier than Leather Armor was because he didn't have broad proficiency in all light armors, just selected one.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I don't like this. While it makes sense to me that a starting 1st level character might not be able to afford plate armor, I think there should still be good, mechanical reasons to prefer one form of armor over another. There should be a reason why some people prefer to wear leather armor instead of a chain shirt, or chainmail instead of plate, even if they can afford either.

I disagree. I feel heavier armor should be simply better than lighter armor. The only reasons one wouldn't wear heavy armor in combat are:

1. He can't effectively fight in heavy armor, e.g. due to lack of training (barbarian, ranger, monk, some clerics)
2. He can't effectively use his abilities while wearing heavy armor (rogue, wizard)
3. He is otherwise prevented from using heavy armor (druid)
4. He doesn't have access to heavy armor (low level characters, monsters)

 

[Minigiant]

I don't like Cost as the balancing factor.

I prefer usage as the balancing factor. Armor Strength, Speed, and Mobility.

Light armor is best for High Dexterity characters who favor mobility and speed. 16 Dex or up. Lower need not apply. Light armor is for speed and mobility for those with High Dex only.

Heavy armor is best for Low Dexterity characters who care most about armor strength. Heavy armor is for AC.

Medium armor is a happy medium. Anyone who has 12-l5 Dex who doesn't want to take the speed hit. Or 16+ Dex characters who don't mind the mobility hit. Medium is for AC without the speed penalty.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I have an underlying concern in regards to armor bonuses and the whole bounded accuracy thing. A highly experienced fighter wearing plate should be harder to effectively hit than a proficient fighter wearing plate who again should be harder to hit than a non-proficient commoner wearing plate. Skill should affect how effective the defense is; yet there is little room for this differentiation in a bounded accuracy system.
[If they introduce damage resistance to heavy armor, perhaps the greater skilled the wearer, the better the DR they can get out of the armor?]

Differentiating armor by price is OK by me but only when it is in conjunction with other factors. Highly expensive plate should have minimal penalties where as a more poorly made and designed heavy armor should have more significant penalties with its wearing.

I think 4e got armor right when it looked to differentiate armor by minimum strength and constitution scores. If you don't have a certain strength or constitution, then you are going to be less defensively effective in plate than what you would be in chain. This interaction between the wearer and the armor is very important if you wish to breathe a little more variability, choice and significance into what armor a character could and should wear.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Falling Icicle]

There is a good, mechanical reason to prefer one form of armor over another. The cost. Cost should be a balancing factor.

In my experience, PCs tend to be able to afford any type of mundane gear they want by 2nd or 3rd level at the latest. Maybe they'll adjust the assumed rate of wealth gain in this edition, but it's still worth pointing out.

Magic armor also becomes an issue. Why would anyone ever bother making magical chainmail when plate armor is just flat out better? Since all permanent items are assumed to be rare and precious now, I can't see anyone "wasting" an enchantment on anything but the best type of armor of its category, and to me, that's a problem. D&D's history is full of examples of magically enchanted leather, chainmail, etc.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I disagree. I feel heavier armor should be simply better than lighter armor.

What I said had nothing to do with light vs. heavy armor, but rather the effectiveness of armors within those categories compared to each other (leather compared to a chain shirt, as far as light armor goes, or chainmail compared to plate, in the case of heavy armor). The overall effectiveness of light vs. heavy armor is an entirely separate issue.