D&D General Huge Equipment Lists: Good, Bad, or Ugly?

[Oofta]

More seriously, that would be a good secondary option for magic armour - that it's been enchanted so as to be comfortable enough to sleep in.

In 5E there's cast-off armor, basically you speak a command and it's like Iron Man armor that takes a single action to put on.

 

[jmartkdr2]

More seriously, that would be a good secondary option for magic armour - that it's been enchanted so as to be comfortable enough to sleep in.

I do really do this - adding magic makes handwaving annoying bits much more palatable.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

When it comes to sleeping in armor, there are those who want to emulate read-only fiction:

"He stood up and cast open his long black cloak, and behold! he was clad in mail beneath, and girt with a long sword, great-hilted in a sheath of black and silver. ‘Thus have I walked, and thus now for many years have I slept,’ he said, ‘lest with age the body should grow soft and timid.’"
- Lord of the Rings, with 'he' being Denethor.

But armor is just an instance of a more general problem: Balancing options between "good enough that everyone takes it" and "bad enough that no one bothers with it." In the case of armor, this becomes "loads up on as much armor as the PC can afford and their class allows," and "avoids all but the lightest armor - and maybe even that." Not to mention "everyone lusts for the 'special' armor that has reduced penalties for its level of protection (cough mithral shirt cough)"

One possible solution (in the case of armor, at least) is an improved armor proficiency system of some sort.

 

[Oofta]

When it comes to sleeping in armor, there are those who want to emulate read-only fiction:

"He stood up and cast open his long black cloak, and behold! he was clad in mail beneath, and girt with a long sword, great-hilted in a sheath of black and silver. ‘Thus have I walked, and thus now for many years have I slept,’ he said, ‘lest with age the body should grow soft and timid.’"
- Lord of the Rings, with 'he' being Denethor.

But armor is just an instance of a more general problem: Balancing options between "good enough that everyone takes it" and "bad enough that no one bothers with it." In the case of armor, this becomes "loads up on as much armor as the PC can afford and their class allows," and "avoids all but the lightest armor - and maybe even that." Not to mention "everyone lusts for the 'special' armor that has reduced penalties for its level of protection (cough mithral shirt cough)"

One possible solution (in the case of armor, at least) is an improved armor proficiency system of some sort.

If plate armor was significantly better than other options I might agree that not being able to sleep in was a good counterbalance but it's not. Unless you're going for a specific style of play such as polearm master, if you build a dex based fighter instead of strength based fighter you only suffer a 5-10% penalty to AC while also have other significant benefits.

Back when "sleeping in armor bad" the a standard rule, my fighter just carried around an extra set of lighter armor (IIRC it was mithral medium armor which qualified as light) to wear as PJs. It was silly.

 

[CreamCloud0]

other than just bumping the AC of all heavy armours by 1, i think i'd directly incorporate heavy armour master's 3 damage resistance to BSP (though i'd have it include magical BSP) to all heavy armour, if the HAM feat still exists i'd alter it to now cover all incoming energy damage types.

and i'd add another heavy armour between ring and chain mail that doesn't have disadvantage on stealth (matching medium's best stealthy armour-breastplate at 16 AC), i get that 'heavy armour being noisy is traditional' but it's a choice of trade offs for the player: have three less AC than the best armour available and not suck at all your stealth checks or tank up and be the noisy clanking living fortress.

 

[GobHag]

Just make everyone considered to always be in armour.

 

[Steampunkette]

On the one hand... yes. I agree that a longer equipment list covers a lot more options.

But on the other hand... I'd rather have some pricing guidelines and a loose structure that can be easily filled in within the narrative.

Something like adventuring gear being like:

Wooden object: 1cp
Metal object: 1sp
Composite object: 1gp
Special material object: 1gp

Combat effectiveness: x3
Designed for multiple purposes: x3
Easily hidden: x2
Requires more than 1 round to use: x0.5
Requires more than 3 rounds to set up: x0.2
Sized up for larger creatures: x2
Sized down for smaller creatures: x1.5
Easily Broken: x1.5
Masterwork (adds +1 to rolls involving the item): Multiply total by 7.

And then just figure out what the object is worth. Crowbar? Metal, Multiple Purposes, Easily Hidden. 5sp.

"But you can hit someone with a crowbar!" Yes, but as an improvised weapon, so it doesn't get the combat effectiveness increase.

Meanwhile Alchemist's Fire would be Special Material, Combat Effectiveness, Easily Hidden, Easily Broken. 6.5gp.

You want a Crowbar that grants a +1 to athletics checks to open stuff with it? 35sp.

Does it perfectly capture the D&D equipment chart? No. But it's good enough for a rule of thumb when someone's looking for something that isn't listed in the book. And you could always add in more multipliers for values as you go.

"But what if it's high tech?" change everything to "Credits" and develop more multipliers for things like range of communication networks or whatever.

 

[Merlecory]

On the one hand... yes. I agree that a longer equipment list covers a lot more options.

But on the other hand... I'd rather have some pricing guidelines and a loose structure that can be easily filled in within the narrative.

Something like adventuring gear being like:

Wooden object: 1cp
Metal object: 1sp
Composite object: 1gp
Special material object: 1gp

Combat effectiveness: x3
Designed for multiple purposes: x3
Easily hidden: x2
Requires more than 1 round to use: x0.5
Requires more than 3 rounds to set up: x0.2
Sized up for larger creatures: x2
Sized down for smaller creatures: x1.5
Easily Broken: x1.5
Masterwork (adds +1 to rolls involving the item): Multiply total by 7.

And then just figure out what the object is worth. Crowbar? Metal, Multiple Purposes, Easily Hidden. 5sp.

"But you can hit someone with a crowbar!" Yes, but as an improvised weapon, so it doesn't get the combat effectiveness increase.

Meanwhile Alchemist's Fire would be Special Material, Combat Effectiveness, Easily Hidden, Easily Broken. 6.5gp.

You want a Crowbar that grants a +1 to athletics checks to open stuff with it? 35sp.

Does it perfectly capture the D&D equipment chart? No. But it's good enough for a rule of thumb when someone's looking for something that isn't listed in the book. And you could always add in more multipliers for values as you go.

"But what if it's high tech?" change everything to "Credits" and develop more multipliers for things like range of communication networks or whatever.

Why does easily broken increase price? Aren't most objects made to not break very easily?

For armor, I would almost prefer lowering the AC of light, and case by case AC or Dex mod on Medium. I am mildly concerned about raising Heavy armor, because that could make lower CR monsters almost never hit them. That would makie the timing that a party can get heavy armor much more serious.
The problem with lower light armour AC is that 2/3 are already 11+Dex. Anyone have a suggestion for what else light aror could do? Maybe padded reduceds incomign BPS by 1 point?

 

[Steampunkette]

Why does easily broken increase price? Aren't most objects made to not break very easily?

Because Glass and delicate Clockwork tend to be more expensive. So do Crystal Balls and other things that incorporate gemstones or crystals that can easily fracture along specific lines if force is applied at just the wrong angle.

Mostly because it's really easy to accidentally break it while making it and have to throw away lots of work and start over... but you still have to get paid for that work, so the price of the final product goes up higher to counterbalance that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

On the one hand... yes. I agree that a longer equipment list covers a lot more options.

But on the other hand... I'd rather have some pricing guidelines and a loose structure that can be easily filled in within the narrative.

Something like adventuring gear being like:

Wooden object: 1cp
Metal object: 1sp
Composite object: 1gp
Special material object: 1gp

Combat effectiveness: x3
Designed for multiple purposes: x3
Easily hidden: x2
Requires more than 1 round to use: x0.5
Requires more than 3 rounds to set up: x0.2
Sized up for larger creatures: x2
Sized down for smaller creatures: x1.5
Easily Broken: x1.5
Masterwork (adds +1 to rolls involving the item): Multiply total by 7.

And then just figure out what the object is worth. Crowbar? Metal, Multiple Purposes, Easily Hidden. 5sp.

"But you can hit someone with a crowbar!" Yes, but as an improvised weapon, so it doesn't get the combat effectiveness increase.

Meanwhile Alchemist's Fire would be Special Material, Combat Effectiveness, Easily Hidden, Easily Broken. 6.5gp.

You want a Crowbar that grants a +1 to athletics checks to open stuff with it? 35sp.

Does it perfectly capture the D&D equipment chart? No. But it's good enough for a rule of thumb when someone's looking for something that isn't listed in the book. And you could always add in more multipliers for values as you go.

"But what if it's high tech?" change everything to "Credits" and develop more multipliers for things like range of communication networks or whatever.

I want big lists with detailed descriptions and effects(or at least as detailed as necessary to accomplish their in-setting effect). I love how Level Up has played into this.