D&D (2024) Armor, simplified for 5.5E:

[rules.mechanic]

Some higher ACs could be balanced with a penalty to d20 Tests. With the new exhaustion UA, you could gain 2 temporary levels of exhaustion while wearing some heavy armours and 1 while wearing some medium armours? Might make more of a genuine choice and the heaviest armour would be less appealing to non front-line characters.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Just because you can't see it doesn't men it doesn't exist.

If you want different between armors within the current 5e system, see my Armor threads on the subject.

If you are going to depart form 5e rules, then I'd go with armor material.

Plate gives you +3 AC but a harsh movement and skill penalty
Splint/Banded gives you +2 AC but a harsh movement penalty
Ring/Chain gives you +2 AC but a harsh skill penalty
Padded/Weave gives you +1 AC but a light skill penalty
Leather/Hide gives you no AC bonus but no penalty

Additional variants make each armor type have different resistances.

 

[DEFCON 1]

To make something like armor or weapon choice "interesting" means doing it for one of two things-- either mechanically, which means coming up with some sort of mini-game within combat where these choices affect how they interest with other choices (the rock-paper-scissors thing I mentioned above)... or narratively, where the choice is meaningful to the player because they enjoy the visualization and narration of using said weapon or armor/shield during combats. The same way one describes and cares about the physical features of their character.

For the latter... just going with broad categories is fine because the player would just narrate what their PC was using / wearing and the generic mechanical expression would not get in the way. For the former... someone would need to build a much more in-depth system of interactions between all the various pieces. The game already has a few... Reach allows for more attacking distance, the damage types and damage resistances allow for this-vs-that bonuses and penalties, the Finesse property allows for the use of a different stat to attack that matches the stat connected to defense allowing for a character to double-up, and so forth.

But how far into the weeds do people really want to go? How complex or intricate do people really want D&D combat to be? This isn't The Riddle of Steel RPG... the combat isn't meant to be this intense dance of mechanical interplay that replicates true combat as closely as possible... it's generic fantasy violence. And with PCs already getting a bunch of additional mechanical heft from their class features... adding more heft purely in the armors and weapons themselves just might end up getting in the way and cluttering what is meant to be a fast and easy interaction.

And I suspect most people are on this wavelength... where they don't expect or indeed want combat in D&D to be this intricately-designed tactical combat sim that takes armors and metals and weapons and shapes and speeds and guards all into account while also layering on the mechanical functions of the class structure. It's too much for a game like D&D. D&D is a foundational game, so going too far into the weeds just gets in the way. And thus they leave it to other companies to produce the tactical combat sims of games like The Riddle of Steel and direct players who want that depth in those directions.

 

[mellored]

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.

You can have all those choices and more if you attached AC directly to the class.

War Paladin: 18 AC, 1d12 damage, disadvantage on stealth

Protection Paladin: 20 AC, 1d8 damage, disadvantage on stealth.

Peace Paladin: 16 AC, 1d4 damage, can cast sanctuary at will.

Dragon Paladin: 17 AC, 1d10 damage, 1d6 damage in a cone. resistance to your dragons element.

Blood Paladin: 15 AC, 1d8 damage. Gain THP equal to the damage dealt.

Fighter: you can swap between these as a bonus activity.
Range: 16 AC, 1d8, +2 hit.
Offense: 17 AC, 2d6 damage
Tank: 20 AC, 1d8 to hit
Skirmish: 18 AC, 1d8 to hit, you can move 5' after attacking and not provoke.

 

[tetrasodium]

You can have all those choices and more if you attached AC directly to the class.

War Paladin: 18 AC, 1d12 damage, disadvantage on stealth

Protection Paladin: 20 AC, 1d8 damage, disadvantage on stealth.

Peace Paladin: 16 AC, 1d4 damage, can cast sanctuary at will.

Dragon Paladin: 17 AC, 1d10 damage, resistance to your dragons element.

Blood Paladin: 15 AC, 1d8 damage. Gain THP equal to the damage dealt.

Fighter: you can swap between these as a bonus activity.
Range: 16 AC, 1d8, +2 hit.
Offense: 17 AC, 2d6 damage
Tank: 20 AC, 1d8 to hit
Skirmish: 18 AC, 1d8 to hit, you can move 5' after attacking and not provoke.

Not while allowing the gm to make use of those dials when generating magic items to award. The simplification you are pushing does have a cost & that cost hits longer lived campaigns pretty significantly by tuning to the desires of the most hands off one shot.

 

[mellored]

Not while allowing the gm to make use of those dials when generating magic items to award. The simplification you are pushing does have a cost & that cost hits longer lived campaigns pretty significantly by tuning to the desires of the most hands off one shot.

Nothing i wrote prevent the GM from handing out +1 AC as a reward.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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"

Oh I would love for it to be interesting, and in some games it is.

But if N choices are uninteresting, what would make N + X of the same kinds of choices more interesting?

 

[tetrasodium]

Nothing i wrote prevent the GM from handing out +1 AC as a reward.

It explicitly does prevent the gm from handing out plus one ac attached to some other set of tradeoffs though because those tradeoffs are no longer attached to armor under your one shot tailored proposal.

 

[mellored]

It explicitly does prevent the gm from handing out plus one ac attached to some other set of tradeoffs though because those tradeoffs are no longer attached to armor under your one shot tailored proposal.

How so?

Necro trap armor: +1AC
Cursed: not immediately apparent, you take double damage from necrotic. If you die, your corpse becomes a minion for the litch.

Or did you mean something else?

 

[Minigiant]

Oh I would love for it to be interesting, and in some games it is.

But if N choices are uninteresting, what would make N + X of the same kinds of choices more interesting?

That point is that in 5e, N=1. There isn't a any choices. So N+X is automatically more interesting.