Houserule: can no-armour provide a bonus?

[Orich Starkhart]

Would adding a small disadvantage for wearing armor provide what you're looking for?

You could add something of a penalty for medium and heavy armors to dexterity and strength skill checks, echoing the the Check penalty in D&D 4 and the Armor Check Penalty in 3.x (see this page of the d20 SRD) that do not have an analog in the D&D 5 Basic rules, except for the Disadvantage to Stealth checks. Perhaps -1 for the medium armors, -2 to -3 for heavy ones. (the 3.x ACP looks too severe in D&D 5 with its slower proficiency increases)

 

[Quartz]

Whats your point here?

That leather armour already has an inherent superior ability.

 

[Orich Starkhart]

That leather armour already has an inherent superior ability.

being that characters with high dexterity can add all of their AC modifier for dexterity, where for medium armor they add 2 at most, and for heavy armor they add none.

Quartz, I believe Paraxis' point is that Studded Leather has the same "inherent superior ability" while granting one point better AC for a measly 3 lbs additional weight, so there is no reason other than cost, or some reason of flavor, for any character who can wear either type to choose leather over studded leather. Previous versions (3.x/Pathfinder) gave studded leather increased probability of spell failure and increased skill penalties for studded leather over leather. There seem to be no analogous adjustments in D&D 5.

I think there should be strength and dex skill penalties for armor, and that studded leather should have greater penalties than leather, but I see that this proposed difference between leather and studded leather might be hard to justify in the D&D 5 sytem. Separately, I think "Padded Armor" does not deserve to get Disadvantage for stealth (as the Basic rules stipulate), if "Studded Leather Armor" does not also have that Disadvantage. Really, I think compare to Medium and Heavy armor, rather than "Disadvantage", the lighter armors might supply a penalty of -1 or maybe -2. (-1 for Leather and Padded, -2 for Studded Leather)

 

[Quartz]

Leather armour is for those who need to be discreet - studded leather being rather visible.

I too found padded armour rather odd. I would have thought it should provide DR vs bludgeoning - padded armour being what you wear when practising.

 

[was]

Several of the martial classes have that combat style specialization thing. Maybe you could make one for lightly armored combat.

 

[sunrisekid]

My approach to house ruling is "less is more", so I'm not planning to restructure the armour table.

My interest is in providing a minor boost for two specific cases: the Rogue who wants to be better at acrobatics and stealth, and the Barbarian who wants to better at athletics and stealth (and looking like Conan).

A feat might be more appropriate for this sort of thing, something within that Venn diagram between Athletic, Skulker, and those classes who narratively operate that way. An 'unarmoured expert' of some kind (Monks already do this, I suppose, but also have very specific flavour-baggage).

Alternatively, a flat +1 to stealth, acrobatics, and athletics might be appropriate too - feats are expensive and the boon I'm thinking of is not great.

 

[sunrisekid]

As for the leather armour vs studded distinction, I read that more as a low-level equipment barrier and nothing else. Same goes for medium armours - some are simply better than others. Padded armour is just crappy armour that some poor sod would wear who couldn't afford better.