• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Shield Saltiness

Oofta

Legend
There is at least one scene in Two Towers with Gimli putting on chain armour, so it stands to reason that on occasion he takes it off too.

Hes also not wearing full plate. I’m sure some armour is easier to live with than others... plus he definitely stinks... hence Legolas turning his nose up.
Chain is heavy armor in D&D. In addition plate armor is supposed to be more comfortable to wear than chain.

There was also the scene where everybody is sitting around drinking and he's wearing armor; the scene you're talking about IIRC (I'd have to go back and re-watch) he's putting on an extra layer of protection. But I've never said PCs never take their armor off, just that they wear it most of the time.

My point is that it's quite common in fiction for people to be running around with armor and weapons like The Mandalorian.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
This is false. Armor is rarely all that heavy if you aren't exerting yourself much, and are in good shape. Only badly made armor feels heavy enough to be annoying. It certainly isn't cumbersome, chafing, or annoying to wear, unless it literally doesn't fit you or is poorly made.
It is most certainly cumbersome. It's not nearly as cumbersome as a lot of people used to think (before the SCA and modern Armored Combat Sports and historian YouTubers and such debunked misconceptions about it being enormously heavy and unwieldy), but no one wears armor all day long unless they've got a good reason (and yes, sometimes that good reason is a hobby; but hobbyists do it on special occasions, not all day every day).

Now, the biggest factor in this whole argument is probably just the DM and players being on the same page, and not inadvertently getting into an unfun adversarial dynamic.

Players should understand that in civilized areas that the same town guards who enforce weapons and armor limitations on them are enforcing them on random thugs and other common threats in towns and cities. Encounters in those areas will be different, but PCs shouldn't feel inherently screwed by not being equipped the same as they are in a dungeon.

The tricky bit here is how modern D&D has enabled non-armored PCs with big Dex bonuses and so forth, which minimizes the disparity in AC between heavy armored and light armored characters to mechanically better support light-armored, swashbuckling character concepts, but this has the unintended secondary effect of ironically making them BETTER in a fight in a social circumstance where armor is inappropriate than the front-line fighters whose characters are built to use heavy armor.

As folks have complained in this thread, it feels sometimes like shield-wielders get screwed by the action economy, since they need to spend an Action to ready their shield.

This stuff also happens with encounters in the middle of the night when PCs are resting, of course. Heavy-armored fighters and shield wielders suffer a greater disparity between their regular combat capabilities and their "surprised in the middle of the night" abilities.

As a DM, you have to think about what you're trying to achieve and work with and communicate with your players. Bear in mind that a lot of fights SHOULD have some forewarning, and that naturally readying your shield is going to be the first thing shield users do in their round of warning. And let them know that in town their opponents will usually be similarly impaired in terms of arms and armor, so they don't feel so put upon.

Also consider mechanically incentivizing Strength-based combat characters in some way, if you're finding that all your players are opting for Dex-based characters and you don't like what the game looks like when they do. Whether that be by just using the Variant Encumbrance rules (I do), or by working in a few house rules. E.g., maybe give heavy armor free Damage Reduction like the Heavy Armor Mastery feat, so the plate-armored guys feel like extra badasses when kitted up, compensating for them being more vulnerable than the Dex fighters when dressed down in town.
 
Last edited:


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
It is most certainly cumbersome. It's not nearly as cumbersome as a lot of people used to think (before the SCA and modern Armored Combat Sports and historian YouTubers and such debunked misconceptions about it being enormously heavy and unwieldy), but no one wears armor all day long unless they've got a good reason.

Yeah. However heavy it is, or isn't, it is not comfortable or ideal for, say, sitting and eating lunch. Or doing maintenance on your kit. Or grooming your horse. Or pretty much anything other than trying to knock the crap out of someone else.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Tell the Paladin player when he suspects trouble to whip out his shield.

Literally in all of the above encounters there was a telegraphed encounter.

So, there are two problems with this:

1) Don't count on the description of the encounter to be exactly what the player thought was going on.

2) Even if the paladin player had the same conception of what's going on - if I am walking around with a shield out all the time, my appearance to others is slightly more aggressive than a normal person's, but it isn't targeted at anyone or any particular interaction. However, if we are in the middle of something, and I "whip out" my shield, I am taking a specific action that directly telegraphs that I expect violence here and now - it is an active escalation.

It is not unreasonable for the player to not want to take that escalating action.
 


MGibster

Legend
Let's also not forget that worrying about "realism" when we are all stuck with the tropes of D&D is also ridiculous.
Before we had the internet and knew what tropes were, I called the little oddities in the game D&Disms. These were just little things about the rules or the setting that didn't make any sense outside the context of D&D. I've just come to accept these little D&Disms as part of the game.
 

Undrave

Legend
Naturally. She could be a succubus! In D&D, anything that wants to sleep with you has a 99% chance of planning on killing you.
Especially if you have low CHA :p but also if you have high CHA...

Hey, I hear some maidens are into that.
Well, that's how she met you after all.
It worked for Uther Pendragon in Excalibur...
Didn't Pendragon asked Merlin for a potion to look like another guy and have sex with that guy's wife?

The tricky bit here is how modern D&D has enabled non-armored PCs with big Dex bonuses and so forth, which minimizes the disparity in AC between heavy armored and light armored characters to mechanically better support light-armored, swashbuckling character concepts, but this has the unintended secondary effect of ironically making them BETTER in a fight in a social circumstance where armor is inappropriate than the front-line fighters whose characters are built to use heavy armor.

As folks have complained in this thread, it feels sometimes like shield-wielders get screwed by the action economy, since they need to spend an Action to ready their shield.

This stuff also happens with encounters in the middle of the night when PCs are resting, of course. Heavy-armored fighters and shield wielders suffer a greater disparity between their regular combat capabilities and their "surprised in the middle of the night" abilities.

As a DM, you have to think about what you're trying to achieve and work with and communicate with your players. Bear in mind that a lot of fights SHOULD have some forewarning, and that naturally readying your shield is going to be the first thing shield users do in their round of warning. And let them know that in town their opponents will usually be similarly impaired in terms of arms and armor, so they don't feel so put upon.

Also consider mechanically incentivizing Strength-based combat characters in some way, if you're finding that all your players are opting for Dex-based characters and you don't like what the game looks like when they do. Whether that be by just using the Variant Encumbrance rules (I do), or by working in a few house rules. E.g., maybe give heavy armor free Damage Reduction like the Heavy Armor Mastery feat, so the plate-armored guys feel like extra badasses when kitted up, compensating for them being more vulnerable than the Dex fighters when dressed down in town.

Yup, this. It often feels like Sword and Board characters pay a LOT for that +2 AC and it's not super well supported (Protection is the worst Fighting Style, for exemple).

Maybe to incentivize STR combat in social situation you could improve the grappling rules? Like, if you're grappling someone, or being grappled by someone, you get a new AC calculation you can use (so it's not a bonus that stacks) because it's harder to hit a specific target when they're entangled with someone else?
 

Oofta

Legend
Yup, this. It often feels like Sword and Board characters pay a LOT for that +2 AC and it's not super well supported (Protection is the worst Fighting Style, for exemple).

Maybe to incentivize STR combat in social situation you could improve the grappling rules? Like, if you're grappling someone, or being grappled by someone, you get a new AC calculation you can use (so it's not a bonus that stacks) because it's harder to hit a specific target when they're entangled with someone else?
Shield Master helps the sword and board PCs unless you follow sage advice and nerf it into pointlessness. Which I don't.

Grappling is one of those areas I've been tempted to rewrite (most of my house rules are minimal) because it's basically never used outside of a handful of edge cases.

I'd even be okay with being able to use the creature you're grappling as cover as a reaction - if the attack would have hit you without the cover it hits the grappled creature instead. I dunno, need to think about it.
 

Dausuul

Legend
It is absolutely true that armor--even well fitted--is not pleasant to wear for long periods. You get hot and sweaty and stinky, and you're carrying 30-40 pounds of extra weight, which gets tiring no matter how well distributed it is. You wouldn't do it in a safe area and it kind of blows my mind that anyone would argue otherwise.

BUT.

There is some massive bad faith involved in a DM using this to justify forcing PCs into combat without their gear on the regular. Because if the PCs are forced into combat, then by definition they are NOT IN A SAFE AREA! If it happens more than once or twice in places that are supposedly safe, the PCs are entirely justified in going about their daily lives armed to the teeth, and refusing to take their armor off until they are inside the security of a Leomund's tiny hut in an isolated area with alarm spells cast around the perimeter, and maybe not even then.

It isn't paranoia if they really are out to get you. I haven't played Curse of Strahd, but it sounds like "they're out to get you" accurately describes all of Barovia.

As for social consequences... well, that's going to depend on the society, but again, if the society is one where lethal combat erupts on a regular basis, the inhabitants are not going to do the Sunnydale thing where they just go about their lives and ignore their friends and neighbors getting slaughtered. If the attacks are from monsters rather than other humans, a heavily armed (demi)human PC may well be seen as a reassuring presence, like walking down a dark street in a dangerous part of town and seeing a cop on patrol.

DMs don't get to have it both ways. If the world is dangerous enough that you are always in peril of your life, both PCs and NPCs can and should react appropriately. And if the world is not that dangerous, then why does the issue even come up?
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top