D&D General Armour class and essentialism
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
Remathilis
Legend
RELEASE THE MUMMIES!!!
payn
Legend
Crufty old school? I guess I see it as entirely tactical at expense of strategy new school.
CreamCloud0
Adventurer
I think it’d be good if the light armours had the dex bonus uncapped representing a better chance to dodge, perhaps with the very light armours some classes (bard rogue ranger, maybe fighter too) getting inherent advantage to AC checks while wearing those lightest armours to represent their talent in dodging (other classes require a feat for advantage), whereas the heavy armours have two AC values, a lower one that functions regularly as it currently does and a second higher AC that alows you to take half damage, indicating a lesser capacity to dodge completely but a higher rate of the armour protecting from receiving serious injuries.
Medium armour functions as it currently does, with a capped dex bonus, it has a higher AC than the lower AC range of a comparable heavy armour but not reaching as high as the half damage AC threshold
Medium armour functions as it currently does, with a capped dex bonus, it has a higher AC than the lower AC range of a comparable heavy armour but not reaching as high as the half damage AC threshold
Last edited:
I hope you didn't take that as a comment about the games you play, it was simply an example of how preferences can differ. I have a soft spot for older games with odd subsystems and are rough around the edges, with interesting things they allow for if you dig into them- your Rolemasters and GURPS and TORG's, if you will.
payn
Legend
I didnt, I was just trying to be cute while also sayin it how I see it with modern design.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I believe 5e monks are the way they are because it’s the way 3.5e monks worked. Not sure about Barbarians.
5e subclasses have some of that mojo, but not as much.
Tasha's "alternative class features" can be leveraged, especially if you make them packages. Basically, you could have bolt-on subclasses that replace some subset of abilities in the main class.
Tasha's has ones that tweak one series of abilities; there is nothing stopping someone from having a package replaces some other subset of abilities.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I think the real issue here is the racialization of the Monk class. Archetypes, in and of themselves, aren’t essentialist. But, when the nimble martial artist with mystical powers archetype is East-Asian coded, that’s not a great look.
One idea you could go with if you wanted to create a true dichotomy.
Unarmored Fighters have high AC....against a single opponent. Using all of their skill, speed, and cunning, they are able to nimbly dodge out of the way.
Armored fighters are good against a group. Against multiple targets, you can't realistically keep track and dodge them all, and so that is why armor is so important.
This is a bit more realistic as well. The idea that dex helps you dodge is fine and all, but the idea that it lets you dodge 8 people are once is a bit nuts. Armor on the other hand is always working for you.
Unarmored Fighters have high AC....against a single opponent. Using all of their skill, speed, and cunning, they are able to nimbly dodge out of the way.
Armored fighters are good against a group. Against multiple targets, you can't realistically keep track and dodge them all, and so that is why armor is so important.
This is a bit more realistic as well. The idea that dex helps you dodge is fine and all, but the idea that it lets you dodge 8 people are once is a bit nuts. Armor on the other hand is always working for you.
I'm pointing to a particular sort of essentialism - precise labels can get a bit contentious, but let's call it racial and/or cultural essentialism.
EDIT: @Charlaquin has made the same point not far upthread.
Last edited:
The point of the OP is that there are ways of implementing such an exception that don't rely upon the reinforcement of stereotypes.
Yes, but my point was those tend to weaken the value of armor in the process, leading to other issues.
Why? You can give a 5e Monk an unarmoured defence bonus that is mathematically and balance-wise on a par with the current WIS bonus, without having that affect the value of armour.
I don't know the maths of 5e, expected stat distributions and advancement, and the like, well enough to posit with any confidence what that bonus should be - perhaps +2 at 1st level and +1 per tier gained?
But designers experienced with the 5e maths could do this fairly easily, the same as they did for the 4e Barbarian.
Sure, but that doesn't change the stereotype, you still have to play a monk (or barb) to be good without armor.
Bill Zebub
Hero
(wrong thread)
In 4e there was an advanced armor that gave you something like 5 temporary hit points at the start of each encounter. Maybe if armor worked like that, giving you a larger pool of "hit points" that could be repaired, it wouldn't be trivial to have it, but it wouldn't be completely necessary either if classes without the ability to use armor had higher Hit Dice?
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Counter Thesis: It's class based essentialism, which ironically is the whole point of having a class based game. The only question is the degree of variation the system supports (and even more constraining, the degree of variation players feel comfortable with).
That said, I think they err in tying stats to too many combat related things. Class instead of stat should be the primary driver for most combat related bonuses (and if you look back to older D&D versions it really was). BAB increased 1 per level for Fighters. Now we start at about +5 and scale to +11. Older versions also had save bonuses increase much faster than now and even your bad save scaled some. 3e D&D gave greater weight to attributes in the name of greater simulationism. To a large degree that's where we've been ever since (even for most of 4e with secondary riders based on attributes for many powers and abilities).
That said, I think they err in tying stats to too many combat related things. Class instead of stat should be the primary driver for most combat related bonuses (and if you look back to older D&D versions it really was). BAB increased 1 per level for Fighters. Now we start at about +5 and scale to +11. Older versions also had save bonuses increase much faster than now and even your bad save scaled some. 3e D&D gave greater weight to attributes in the name of greater simulationism. To a large degree that's where we've been ever since (even for most of 4e with secondary riders based on attributes for many powers and abilities).
Last edited:
I mostly agree with two and a half exceptions in AD&D where the benefits of stats were insane. One is a corner case and doesn't affect combat much- Dexterity for Thieves. The benefits for the higher Dex scores could equal having a free level (or more). An argument could be made for the increase to AC as well, but it was unlikely a heavy armor user would also have really high Dexterity (though if they did, it's entirely possible to build a starting character in 2e with an AC of 0).*
And of course, exceptional Strength for the Warrior classes. The scaling got out of control quickly.
Most characters didn't get ability scores this high, but if they did, it really warped things around them- the difference between a Fighter with 17 Strength and one with 18/50 was definitely noticeable, and if someone actually got to the 18/90-00 range, it was like being multiple levels higher, and many early monsters died in a single attack (of which the Fighter could have as much as 5/2 with Two-Weapon Fighting).
Constitution being the last, though again, for Warriors. An extra 9-18 hit points doesn't sound incredible by today's standards, but you could be looking at a 33% increase to your hit points by level 9 (assuming dead average rolls and maximum hit points at level 1).
*18 Dex, Warrior with Swashbuckler Kit, leather armor, and 2 weapon proficiency slots in Single Weapon Style from the Complete Fighter's Handbook.
And of course, exceptional Strength for the Warrior classes. The scaling got out of control quickly.
Most characters didn't get ability scores this high, but if they did, it really warped things around them- the difference between a Fighter with 17 Strength and one with 18/50 was definitely noticeable, and if someone actually got to the 18/90-00 range, it was like being multiple levels higher, and many early monsters died in a single attack (of which the Fighter could have as much as 5/2 with Two-Weapon Fighting).
Constitution being the last, though again, for Warriors. An extra 9-18 hit points doesn't sound incredible by today's standards, but you could be looking at a 33% increase to your hit points by level 9 (assuming dead average rolls and maximum hit points at level 1).
*18 Dex, Warrior with Swashbuckler Kit, leather armor, and 2 weapon proficiency slots in Single Weapon Style from the Complete Fighter's Handbook.
Or, or... hear me out here...
Fluff it.
Yeah, your character has plate armor on their character sheet and in your chosen artwork is wearing an open white blouse with puffy sleeves and a little red vest because he's a pirate. Mechanically you gain the benefits and penalties of Plate Armor. For RP purposes it's Blouse o'Clock.
You don't have to create a separate mechanic, here, if you're just willing to acknowledge that not every aspect of the system as presented needs to be presented in the game world. You don't have your fighter tell your cleric he's down 13 hit points and only needs a Cure Light Wounds in character. No. Instead he says "I'm alright. The goblin grazed me with the spear and I was bruised by that nasty fall, but you shouldn't expend your greater powers on me!"
Why is armor any different?
And it isn't -new-, either.
You think Goldmoon was getting the armor bonus of leather from this loose suede blouse with a cut so low Elvira was checking her out? Heck no! For leather armor to be strong enough to stop any harm more severe than bacon grease spit it's got to be boiled and hardened into shaped plates. That outfit wouldn't protect her from anything while adventuring. Not to mention the -chafing-.
Fluff it.
Yeah, your character has plate armor on their character sheet and in your chosen artwork is wearing an open white blouse with puffy sleeves and a little red vest because he's a pirate. Mechanically you gain the benefits and penalties of Plate Armor. For RP purposes it's Blouse o'Clock.
You don't have to create a separate mechanic, here, if you're just willing to acknowledge that not every aspect of the system as presented needs to be presented in the game world. You don't have your fighter tell your cleric he's down 13 hit points and only needs a Cure Light Wounds in character. No. Instead he says "I'm alright. The goblin grazed me with the spear and I was bruised by that nasty fall, but you shouldn't expend your greater powers on me!"
Why is armor any different?
And it isn't -new-, either.
You think Goldmoon was getting the armor bonus of leather from this loose suede blouse with a cut so low Elvira was checking her out? Heck no! For leather armor to be strong enough to stop any harm more severe than bacon grease spit it's got to be boiled and hardened into shaped plates. That outfit wouldn't protect her from anything while adventuring. Not to mention the -chafing-.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
