Bladesinger
Explorer
Weapons might be a little more difficult......let me see what I can do.
Armor, simplified for 5.5E:
- Thread starter Horwath
- Start date
Li Shenron
Legend
I'd rather have more choices than less choices.
mellored
Hero
IMO:
Wizard/Sorcerer: 15 AC
Rouge/Ranger/Barbarian/Monk: 16 AC
Cleric/Artificer: 16 AC, disadvantage on stealth
Fighter/Paladin: 17 AC, disadvantage on stealth
Now you're somewhat more free to put stats where you like. Like if you want to make a Str based Monk, or Cha based rogue. Or clumsy wizard.
Bonus points if we can get attack rolls this way too.
I.e. to hit is +5
Str can still be used for damage, it for spells prepared, but you can make a 20 Cha barbarian now.
Wizard/Sorcerer: 15 AC
Rouge/Ranger/Barbarian/Monk: 16 AC
Cleric/Artificer: 16 AC, disadvantage on stealth
Fighter/Paladin: 17 AC, disadvantage on stealth
Now you're somewhat more free to put stats where you like. Like if you want to make a Str based Monk, or Cha based rogue. Or clumsy wizard.
Bonus points if we can get attack rolls this way too.
I.e. to hit is +5
Str can still be used for damage, it for spells prepared, but you can make a 20 Cha barbarian now.
Last edited:
mellored
Hero
"Pick the highest AC" is not a meaningful choice.
Aside from Disadvantage on Stealth what more is there to affect armor choice then highest AC? This is the consequences of oversimplification.
Just from past editions alone...
- An armor based value for a Flat reductions to a number of skills... like so and here's a 4e version
- A penalty based on the particular kind of armor that causes spellcasters to possibly flub a spell like so
- A reduction to or cap on movement speed like so
- elemental boons & banes like so
- or to physical types like so
- possible penalties to saves like so.
mellored
Hero
What choices do you have making it more complicated?
Can I chose an 8 Dex front line Cleric, or a Con/Cha Rogue?
Tables, charts, stat calculations, and you're always picking the biggest number. Why not just skip a few steps and get the same number?
Choising a fighting style is a choice.
Choosing a sub-class is a choice.
Choosing spells is a choice.
Choosing artificer infusion is a choice.
Choosing AC isn't. There is no meaningful trade off. Just take the highest.
Unless you want to have armor that gives +to dex saves instead of AC. Or something along those lines.
Agreed. This is the TTRPG paradox where more options can mean less choice.
It doesn't matter how many types of armor there is (or how many weapon types, spells etc...) if one is clearly the best then there is only one choice. And if there is only one choice, then there is no choice at all.
Currently there are three "options"; light, medium and heavy, but none of these are really a choice. They are determined at character creation when you choose your class.
A lot of the time when people talk about options and choice with things like weapons and armor, what they really want is another way to measure character advancement.
mellored
Hero
Exactly. So why not skip the middle man?
Just have the class give you your AC directly. Same as it does your hit dice.
Advancement can still happen. +1 armor and weapons can still be a thing. Along with actual choices, like getting fire resist armor instead.
Works for me. Just allow the class to start with the appropriate armor and you are good to go.
For armor and weapon choice to really matter... you would need to expand out the rules and bonuses/penalties for all of them... creating a whole mini-game of rock-paper-scissors type of things for how the weapons and armors and combat maneuvers/defense interact with each other. That's how things used to be in many ways-- in AD&D there was the whole "Weapons Vs Armor Types" chart... wherein certain types of weapons had bonuses/penalties against certain types of armors. One armor might give you a point less in AC versus slashing weapons, but 2 points of AC bonus versus bludgeoning. And thus (for those that used those rules)... it was all about figuring out what types of attacks or armors you would be facing off against and finding the right "counter" to them to be most effective. It was a mini-game within the game that some players could focus on if they wanted-- just like Weapon Speed Factors could be used to up the complexity of combat.
But let's be honest... those rules were of a different time-- when D&D was still a direct offset of the "miniatures wargame" of old. But few players nowadays care about getting that far into the weeds involving combat rules as folks did back then. And for those that would still like to lean in that direction... that's exactly what games like Level Up is for. But baseline D&D has made the combat board game less labor-intensive and any attempts to go backwards just really aren't going to cut it I don't suspect.
Could you turn the Armor table into just three armors, light, medium, and heavy (since the best of each category is what players ultimately strive for)? Sure. But does having other armors on the chart really affect anything? No, not at all. The only thing it does is make the narrative of armor different, wherein we don't ever see different "names" of armors, because those names are assigned to lower types. You won't see many players saying they are sporting "Scale Mail" armor, because players move past it on the chart pretty quickly. Which means your only option then is to "refluff" your armor (or weapons too for that matter) to let you wear the "type" of armor you want, even though the mechanics are of a different type. Same way to avoid all the Rapiers in the game is to allow players to re-fluff the 1d8 Martial Finesse weapon from "Rapier" to something else. They get the best mechanics they are allowed to have... while the "type" of weapon can be something different just for interest sake.
But let's be honest... those rules were of a different time-- when D&D was still a direct offset of the "miniatures wargame" of old. But few players nowadays care about getting that far into the weeds involving combat rules as folks did back then. And for those that would still like to lean in that direction... that's exactly what games like Level Up is for. But baseline D&D has made the combat board game less labor-intensive and any attempts to go backwards just really aren't going to cut it I don't suspect.
Could you turn the Armor table into just three armors, light, medium, and heavy (since the best of each category is what players ultimately strive for)? Sure. But does having other armors on the chart really affect anything? No, not at all. The only thing it does is make the narrative of armor different, wherein we don't ever see different "names" of armors, because those names are assigned to lower types. You won't see many players saying they are sporting "Scale Mail" armor, because players move past it on the chart pretty quickly. Which means your only option then is to "refluff" your armor (or weapons too for that matter) to let you wear the "type" of armor you want, even though the mechanics are of a different type. Same way to avoid all the Rapiers in the game is to allow players to re-fluff the 1d8 Martial Finesse weapon from "Rapier" to something else. They get the best mechanics they are allowed to have... while the "type" of weapon can be something different just for interest sake.
the Jester
Legend
Is armor too complicated as it is now? I'm not sure how this improves the game. Removing choices just to simplify things is not in and of itself an improvement.
Removing options = adding choice
the Jester
Legend
I really don't agree with that.
mellored
Hero
It really depends on what is being removed.
If you have the option of +1 AC, +1 to hit, or +5 to both then you only really have 1 choice.
Removing the last option would increase the choices to 2.
Clint_L
Hero
I never knew anyone who used those rules. In practice, you had this incredibly detailed table that was basically ignored and everyone chose from the six or so best weapons. That kind of complexity is fun for a tiny minority of players and actively detracts from the game for most, so they just skip it.
My main issue with the current system is that it reduces player choice because there are clear winners and losers in the weapons sweepstakes, so (similarly to AD&D but less extreme) most of the options are wasted. And a few of them weapon properties (reach!) seem to exist only for exploits that actively undermine story immersion.
I guess it's just me, but I don't find weapon or armour choice a particularly interesting aspect of gameplay. I think the basic elements are necessary for class balance reasons, but for the sake of the narrative I generally ignore most of the weapon rules. For example, I had one character who wants to use a scimitar plus shield so it would match her miniature, but use the the long sword stats and I said "yup." I think the whole weapons table in the PHB could be reduced to about 8 homogenized categories and leave all the flavour up the players.
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
No, it's not just you. I completely agree. Weapon/armor choice are just not an interesting part of the game for me.
The part i never get is why when people say "X and Y are not interesting", many go to "remove aspects of X and Y" insted of "make X and Y interesting"
mellored
Hero
How would you make chain vs plate interesting?
Honestly I don't see a way of making leather vs plate interesting either.
Just give Paladins and fighters +AC and call it a day.
If some people completely agree in that they don't find undead or beasts or fiends "an interesting part of the game" should wotc design 6e to omit those creatures too? What if they don't find fighters or wizards or clerics "a particularly interesting aspect of gameplay"? At what point is chasing simplicity go too far?
It's not hard when you move from focusing exclusively on the "I don't like it, nobody can & it can't be done" end of the pool & start looking at things that worked in past editions. Plate reduces speed & penalties to certain skills but gives high ac. Chain with some dex gives moderate to good AC but a minor penalty to some or all of the same skills Leather plus (lots) of dex gives low to moderate AC but few if any penalties to skills. Any of them can have some chance of causing spells to fail when cast while wearing it that is inversely proportional to the AC it gives while various classes & subclasses like EK & AT might give small cumulative reductions to that chance at regular intervals to avoid being an agonizing repelling EB type dip feature for what are otherwise pure casters. Specific armors could even give a reduction or increase in specific damage types taken like some of the 4e armors did.... Of course doing that well depends in some degree on admitting that relying on (dis)advantage as the first last & only option is an application of maslow's hammer that fails to provide the precision & finesse needed for many areas of design*.
* There are quite a few of them already, these would fit right in.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
