D&D 5E Padded armor vs Gambesson - did the game get it right?

[Ancalagon]

Hello

I see the need, game design wise, to have a "cheap crappy armor". And padded armor fulfills that "in-game" role just right.

However... does it make sense? There are two "kinds" of padded armor. One is the "under layer" word under chain mail and such to prevent chaffing and provide additional protection. I can see that giving you a bit of protection - as would someone wearing 3 shirts and a jeans jacket (ie improvised armor). So for this, a +1 bonus to AC seems reasonable.

(although I can't fathom why there would be a stealth disadvantage. It seems it's just there to make leather armor "better").

The other kind was meant to be worn by itself, and was quite thick, made of 18 (sometimes up to 30) layers and were able of stopping an arrow. I've worn some myself in my sword-handling days and I don't think the stats in the game reflect the reality of this armor at all. Of course it's not as good as plate mail or some such, but it's quite protective, not too heavy and fairly quiet to boot. The main disadvantage would be oveheating in summer (fighting in this stuff at +30 Celsius is a pain).

So to me, the gambeson should be some kind of reasonably effective medium armor. Am I the only one who feels like this?

 

[EdL]

The answer to your question is "No". However, one must accept/realize that D&D has never gotten armor right, so you'd need to replace the whole system to 'fix' it.

 

[Beleriphon]

I think the biggest problem is that the game actually has the padded armour being a gambseson, despite the fact that a proper gambesson would be better than cheap leathers. Honestly, if I wanted to add a gambesson I'd replace hide with it, since it amounts to the same thing compared to leather. The other option is to think of a gambesson as the equivalent to a heavy leather biker jacket.

 

[GX.Sigma]

[armor in D&D]
... does it make sense?

Not even a little.