D&D 5E Equipment and likely ability scores

[I'm A Banana]

I think the basic problem is the widespread idea that lightly armored, nimble characters ought to have an AC comparable to heavily-armored characters.

I disagree with this, very strongly.

That, and the widespread idea that heavily armored, plodding characters should be heavily penalized for the "weight" of their equipment.

Heavy Armor = Disadvantage on Dex rolls = good enough for me.

But either way, I think we're in accord: Dex doesn't need to be the uberstat, and armor should be better at protecting you than "dodging" is.

 

[ferratus]

That, and the widespread idea that heavily armored, plodding characters should be heavily penalized for the "weight" of their equipment.

Heavy Armor = Disadvantage on Dex rolls = good enough for me.

Really? I have the opposite problem. I feel people aren't penalized enough for weight, and too penalized for Dexterity. A nimble person wearing armour is still more nimble than a non-nimble person wearing armour. The idea that Dex shouldn't play a role in wearing plate is very silly to me, and thus hate 3e/4e era "caps" on dexterity so that heavily armoured characters use it as their dump stat.

If we are going to make dex penalties part of the equation, gothic plate should have less of a dex penalty or cap than chainmail, where all the weight is on your shoulders and isn't articulated as well to your body movements.

Speed penalties and skill penalties are the way to go. Archers can, after all, outrun heavy infantry, and find it a lot easier to swim across the river. Weight penalties would also encourage heavily armoured characters to get back up on a horse where they belong.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Really? I have the opposite problem.

For me, the reason is a bit multifaceted. First, I don't give a whole lot of points for historical accuracy. Second, in a world with magic and dwarves and the like, I've got no problems assuming some amazing, lightweight metallurgy, even for "heavy" armor that is very protective. Third, given that ability scores of "normal people" range in a pretty narrow band (8-12ish), I don't consider what a normal knight would be able to do in heavy armor to be very comparable to what my heroic STR 15 fighter can do, let alone what my STR 18 or STR 20 fighter can do. Fourth, I value a playable archetype, and so I'd like a heavily armored character to be a playable archetype without losing their central schtick just because they've come to a river. No other character gets "penalized" for one of their most iconic abilities.

It's not necessarily very realistic, I confess. But the more penalties and awkwardness and cost you slap on heavy armor, the more likely you are to never really see it in play, since it isn't conducive to doing the things that adventurers have to do. Heavy armor historically was a team effort involving dozens of people turning a human being (on a horse) into a can o' man. That doesn't make for fun gameplay, so I'm not really interested in emulating that.

I totally get that others might be working with a different set of expectations, though, so my argument might not be very persuasive if what you want is accuracy.

 

[Mattachine]

One big problem I see: shields aren't good enough.

Another problem: light weapons are too good compared to heavy ones.


Having a shield should be a serious benefit, not merely +1 to AC.

 

[ferratus]

It's not necessarily very realistic, I confess. But the more penalties and awkwardness and cost you slap on heavy armor, the more likely you are to never really see it in play, since it isn't conducive to doing the things that adventurers have to do. Heavy armor historically was a team effort involving dozens of people turning a human being (on a horse) into a can o' man. That doesn't make for fun gameplay, so I'm not really interested in emulating that.

I'm not really all that concerned if PC's are walking with lighter armour when exploring, and only put on the plate in a battlefield situation, or storming a known fixed position.

Adventurers using armour and weapon when appropriate is just part of gameplay for me. Plus, it is nice to have flexibility enough for the same fighter to pull off his armour and become sneaky when the party needs to be sneaky. So I think of it as being less about penalizing the fighter for losing his armour as rewarding him for being flexible. The key to that is not overspecializing with a bazillion feats so that he is only good at wearing heavy armour and doing heavy armour things.

The main reason I'm fairly down on feats in general, in fact.

 

[Ferrous]

Just noticed that the Fighters in the playtest packet are in essence Bill and Bob!

Bill is a dwarf but if you convert him to human then he is exactly the same. Wierdly they decided to give Bob a 14 str and use a longsword, if he picks up a shortsword he gets a bonus +2 to hit and +1 average damage and would not have had to waste the 14 in str...maybe he wants to swim nearly as well as the chain clad dwarf?

 

[DogBackward]

Bob comes across a stuck door in the dungeon... and has to turn around and go home. Bob can't carry home the bag of 10 gold he just found, because it's too heavy. Bob gets flung about the battlefield constantly, because he fails every single Strength save against forced movement.

I will admit that Dexterity can be used for many things, but it's kind of silly to suggest that there's no penalty for low Strength, high Dexterity characters.

Personally, my Fighter has a Strength and Dexterity of 16. In addition to being a great overall combatant (he can use any weapon out there with the same skill), he's also got a backup-stat if he's ever suffering a disease or poison that applies disadvantage to an attack stat.

 

[Derren]

So true, sadly nothing will change because WotC still goes for "balanced tactical combat" instead of mediveal sandbox with magic. This means that all fighting styles have to be equal to each other. So light armor + dex = heavy armor is here to stay. That high Dex has so many other Advantages doesn't matter much to WotC because it only affects out of combat stuff which is not as important or only affects you when you play the wrong role (fighter with a ranged weapon? U r doing it wrong says WotC)

Also in the current pop culture, shining knights in armor are out. Swashbucklers like Aragon and Jack Sparrow are the current cool guys so WotC will certainly not make them weaker as those lumbering armored guys (because pop culture says that plate armor weights 80+ kilos and knight could hardly move or climb on a horse.)

Thats also one reason of why shields are so weak. Which pop culture cool guy uses a shield? Shields are for sissy red shirts who are too afraid to be cool as are helmets.

 

[Ferrous]

So in effect Bill has traded:
+1 AC
+1 damage per blow that hits
+5 to Str checks like opening a locked door or being knocked down
*60lbs of extra carying capacity

-5 Initiative
-5 to 8 different skills
-5 movement
-5 to dex checks and saves against many damaging spells
Disadvantage on Stealth
Donning armour rules 10 rather 1 minute
Worse missile fire
Can’t use 2 specialities very well.
Armour costs more

*Bob has a carrying capacity of 90lbs - 30lbs of gear (leather armour, shield, short sword, longbow, 4lbs extra crap) or 60lbs . More than enough to carry 10gp.

*Bill can carry 180lbs - 60lbs of gear (Chainmail, shield, longsword, 2 throwing axes) or 120lbs.

Also though the strength 9 Fighter is a superior option, the poor old cleric has to use Strength so perhaps they can open a locked door and carry any more than 60lbs of gold per character, that the party manage to get?

I am feeling that people are arguing from a position of what they want it to be rather than what the rules say. To be explicit. I like 5e. I want it to be great. I want the high strength heavy fighter to be a viable option. I like swashbucklers too. I think it would be better if swashbucklers were a bit less good in a fight to balance out all the other advantages they are getting.