D&D General Armour class and essentialism

[payn]

If "fluff it" is the answer than every class should have identical stats. I dont think it is myself.

 

[Voadam]

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.

That's a lot bigger stretch than visualizing that a leather outfit is leather armor or that Warduke is wearing plate mail.

Different people are going to be comfortable with different levels of abstraction and connection for what they are comfortable with in their visualization.

Some are fine with the party of heavy armor fighter, leather clad rogue, plate and shield cleric, and wizard all being described as blouse wearing pirates, some of whom are slowed in movement and terrible at stealth and very vulnerable to heat metal.

Some will object to Warduke's plate armor type being linked with his image.

Some are fine with Warduke armor but not blouse mail.

None of the three are wrong, there are reasonable reasons to take any of those preference positions.

 

[James Gasik]

I have mixed feelings about Warduke's armor. It really doesn't work on a practical level. But he looks awesome!

 

[Remathilis]

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.

So my point is your picking one element of a larger issue. This isn't just about the monk's AC, it's about the interplay of class (representing certain cultural archetypes) and ability score essentialism. You're arguing that the monk's cultural element of the archetype reinforces certain essentialist elements of the culture in general (IE if all monks are Asian and all monks are wise, all Asians are wise, or if A=B and A=C, then B=C). I'm saying that the problem isn't just B=C, it's that A=B and A=C in the first place. So the best way to fix this is to break the link between class and specific cultures and to break the link between classes and specific ability scores. That is two sacred cows that would need to go, but it is better than half-measures.

 

[Steampunkette]

If "fluff it" is the answer than every class should have identical stats. I dont think it is myself.

This is called an argument to ridiculousness. It's a type of logical fallacy, and you should avoid it going forward.

It's also a specific form of strawman argument.

I am not suggesting we get rid of mechanical differences between classes. The mechanical differences remain. It's only the description that changes. Mechanics for Balance, Fluff for what it looks like.

As to what people are comfortable fluffing: That's gonna be entirely on them. If you're imagining a world where Dragons and Magic are real, but suspending game mechanic descriptions from storytelling is your issue that's a weird line to draw but it's yours to draw.

Fluffing and Refluffing are both incredibly powerful tools to use at the table. Especially for DMs who are forced, or choose, to improvise. Take The Mountain, for example.

The Mountain: Shael in the Scorpion Lands, Kronth among the Neasc, the Grisians call him Choq, while the Ipu and Annam know him as Uqweq. The Mountain is an uncaring god. He lives in his mountain alone, forging great and terrible things, then either discarding them or destroying them to use the materials anew in his next design. There is no great love or joy in him, no deep hatred or violence. He would have to care to feel in such a way. Prayers to him often go ignored.

He is described as a massive bearded man in most cultures, with hair as white as snow. His skin is either deep brown or black, and his eyes burn like embers. He has four arms that are used to hold metal and pound it as well, or perform multiple tasks at once. He wears armor, and wields weapons, in the rare event that he is forced to battle.

Combat Stats: Tarrasque. Just rename the different attacks to weapons. Claws are Axe and Sword, Horns is a Spear, Tail is a Flail. His Bite and Swallow remain unchanged. The Reflective Carapace is Mirror-Armor.

"The Tarrasque Mountain brings down its his mighty claws sword dealing 4d12+10 piercing slashing damage after it he rolled with a +19 to hit."

You don't need to tell your players that Warduke is wearing plate armor when you show them that image. Just let them try to hit his AC and see whether they manage it or not. Y'know?

And if they loot the body, just call it "Warduke's Armor" and offer no further explanation as to why it is as protective as plate armor. It just is.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

So my point is your picking one element of a larger issue. This isn't just about the monk's AC, it's about the interplay of class (representing certain cultural archetypes) and ability score essentialism. You're arguing that the monk's cultural element of the archetype reinforces certain essentialist elements of the culture in general (IE if all monks are Asian and all monks are wise, all Asians are wise, or if A=B and A=C, then B=C). I'm saying that the problem isn't just B=C, it's that A=B and A=C in the first place. So the best way to fix this is to break the link between class and specific cultures and to break the link between classes and specific ability scores. That is two sacred cows that would need to go, but it is better than half-measures.

 

[Quartz]

Another approach is to grant an attribute-independent, level dependent bonus.

Yes. I allow the PC Fighter to use their Proficiency Bonus instead of their Dex bonus. So a PC in leather armour and no shield has an AC between 14 and 18. You might allow the Barbarian to use the PB instead of their Con bonus - but not both Dex and Con.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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. Those outfits wouldn't protect either of them from anything while adventuring. Not to mention the -chafing-.

I see what you're saying, but I treat art as strictly secondary (at best) to gameplay. If you're getting the benefits and penalties of plate, you're wearing plate. A blouse that did the same would be a magic item (albeit a neat one), and count as such.

 

[payn]

This is called an argument to ridiculousness. It's a type of logical fallacy, and you should avoid it going forward.

I'll take that under advisement if I actually think about doing that sometime.

It's also a specific form of strawman argument.
I am not suggesting we get rid of mechanical differences between classes. The mechanical differences remain. It's only the description that changes. Mechanics for Balance, Fluff for what it looks like.

As to what people are comfortable fluffing: That's gonna be entirely on them. If you're imagining a world where Dragons and Magic are real, but suspending game mechanic descriptions from storytelling is your issue that's a weird line to draw but it's yours to draw.

Fluffing and Refluffing are both incredibly powerful tools to use at the table. Especially for DMs who are forced, or choose, to improvise. Take The Mountain, for example.



"The Tarrasque Mountain brings down its his mighty claws sword dealing 4d12+10 piercing slashing damage after it he rolled with a +19 to hit."

You don't need to tell your players that Warduke is wearing plate armor when you show them that image. Just let them try to hit his AC and see whether they manage it or not. Y'know?

And if they loot the body, just call it "Warduke's Armor" and offer no further explanation as to why it is as protective as plate armor. It just is.

Actually, its not intended as a strawman at all. I was in a game this was allowed and everyone started wanting to take the best option and refluff as something else. One person wanted to use great sword stats, but say they were wielding a dagger... Which is why we dont allow it anymore.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is called an argument to ridiculousness. It's a type of logical fallacy, and you should avoid it going forward.

It's also a specific form of strawman argument.

I am not suggesting we get rid of mechanical differences between classes. The mechanical differences remain. It's only the description that changes. Mechanics for Balance, Fluff for what it looks like.

As to what people are comfortable fluffing: That's gonna be entirely on them. If you're imagining a world where Dragons and Magic are real, but suspending game mechanic descriptions from storytelling is your issue that's a weird line to draw but it's yours to draw.

Fluffing and Refluffing are both incredibly powerful tools to use at the table. Especially for DMs who are forced, or choose, to improvise. Take The Mountain, for example.



"The Tarrasque Mountain brings down its his mighty claws sword dealing 4d12+10 piercing slashing damage after it he rolled with a +19 to hit."

You don't need to tell your players that Warduke is wearing plate armor when you show them that image. Just let them try to hit his AC and see whether they manage it or not. Y'know?

And if they loot the body, just call it "Warduke's Armor" and offer no further explanation as to why it is as protective as plate armor. It just is.

There are a lot of people who draw that line, and they have said on many occasions that there is a difference between blatant fantasy (like dragons and magic) and consensual pretending that the plate armor you're wearing is actually a pirate shirt. It's not that weird a line to draw.