D&D General [History] How heavy armors and long swords were used in the 15th century

[R_J_K75]

We had weapon speeds, weapons more effective against different types of armor, weapons more effective against larger opponents and so on long ago.

It was a cool idea that we ignored after trying it. I mean, it's great occasionally but what armor do monsters have? Does a heavily armored monster like a bullette count? Weapon speed didn't really change all that much after a round or so and damage vs size was just kind of finicky.

Which of course was just my experience. Easy enough to add some of that stuff back in. There's always going to be a balance between simplification and realistic.

Used sparingly at key points in a meaningful battle it could add some good tension and drama. Perhaps it wouldnt be accounted for in a general toe to toe slug fest but might in a called shot or a death blow when it really counts.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Used sparingly at key points in a meaningful battle it could add some good tension and drama.

The DM would need very good judgement, or a very well-developed and clearly-written system (I'd favour the latter!) to make this work reliably over the course of campaign, and not end up seeming like they were penalizing certain characters out of the blue, or worse consistently penalizing a specific character who had a weapon the DM could see problems with (even if other characters could have issues, but the DM just tended not to think of them). Perhaps a system where points were spent to invoke such opportunities/difficulties?

It's also worth noting that this would likely harm non-magic melee characters more than it helped them, and non-magic ranged after that, whereas spellcasters wouldn't be inconvenienced in the least, and so I'm leery of such things, given D&D DMs and writers, even in 5th, have an unfortunate tendency to make up systems to hamper non-magic-users without considering the broader impact of such things.

 

[Oofta]

Used sparingly at key points in a meaningful battle it could add some good tension and drama. Perhaps it wouldnt be accounted for in a general toe to toe slug fest but might in a called shot or a death blow when it really counts.

Maybe? Possibly? We just never found a good balance. In my opinion it would be difficult to come up with a good system.

Then there's magic. Against some opponents something like ice knife may have little to no effect on someone in plate armor. After all it's piercing damage, the shards of ice should just bounce off for the most part.

The list goes on. I understand the desire but the devil is in the details.

 

[R_J_K75]

Maybe? Possibly? We just never found a good balance. In my opinion it would be difficult to come up with a good system.

Then there's magic. Against some opponents something like ice knife may have little to no effect on someone in plate armor. After all it's piercing damage after all, the shards of ice should just bounce off for the most part.

The list goes on. I understand the desire but the devil is in the details.

I think you're probably right and that is the reason its no longer in the core game.

 

[Helldritch]

We were implementing the weapon vs armor at the time of 1ed and it could be a pain in the ass at times. A player had to copy down his weapon bonuses and penalties on a sheet but if he changed weapon in the course of the adventure, he had to copy it too. Some players could have 3 or 4 different weapons and not all players had their own PHB.

Damage vs large was quite a good idea IMHO. It would explain the use of some weapon over others.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, I have seen several such videos online. That is why not having DEX mod for heavy armor is dumb IMO.

It's limitation of the d20 and the way we do attack rolls.

If a commoner with 10 str and a pitchfork is supposed to be able to hit without a crit and naked AC is 10, then you only have 9 points of deviation to work with.

Basically Full plate + Dex can't be higher than 19.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's limitation of the d20 and the way we do attack rolls.

If a commoner with 10 str and a pitchfork is supposed to be able to hit without a crit and naked AC is 10, then you only have 9 points of deviation to work with.

Basically Full plate + Dex can't be higher than 19.

A commoner has +2 to hit, so can hit an AC 22. Plate + Shield + 2 for DEX is 22. Our rule allows up to +2 for DEX to go to AC even with heavy armors (but you need a DEX 18+, not likely with heavy armor PCs).

So, you can still have DEX apply to AC and be within the bounds of the limitations of the d20.

 

[Helldritch]

Nice house rule. It does have some merits. It encourages fighter types to have a better dex and you must see strength base martial artist based on strength having a good dex now. It must be a nice change from the constant: 15, 8, 14, 10, 11, 13....

 

[Fenris-77]

5e characters don't need encouragement to have better DEX. Like, at all. I'd be trying to encourage better anything else really. STR especially.

 

[Helldritch]

Just because DEX is so good right now. I know of a DM that applies DEX to Hit and AC only. Strength is for Hit and Damage. So a high dex character can hit as well but won't do as much damage. His logic in that is that usually, DEX base characters are often archer and with a bow, the magic of the bow and the amunitions stacks. So +1 bow with +2 arrows gives you +3. He still have some elemental damage munitions in his games (which have a lot of magic items by the way.). It is homebrew yes, but it works quite well for them. And it does not give the DEX omnipresent state we see in 5ed.

Ho and initiative is related to your passive perception score (half of it if I remember).