D&D 5E Shield Saltiness

[Argyle King]

Does the DM make the party wizard keep track of what time of day they cast mage armor? It only lasts 8 hours, after all.

My group does

 

[Stormonu]

I wonder if the realism people refuse to let PCs use found armor, without penalties. It would be horribly unrealistic.

Oddly enough, as lax as I tend to be about a good many things, this is actually something that comes up from time to time in my game. Typical human isn't going to fit comfortably in a dwarf's armor, for example.

In the current Rime game I'm in, my goliath hexblade passed on upgrading to hide armor because it'd been worn by some flea-bitten gnolls, and I figured it wouldn't fit.

 

[Oofta]

Oddly enough, as lax as I tend to be about a good many things, this is actually something that comes up from time to time in my game. Typical human isn't going to fit comfortably in a dwarf's armor, for example.

In the current Rime game I'm in, my goliath hexblade passed on upgrading to hide armor because it'd been worn by some flea-bitten gnolls, and I figured it wouldn't fit.

Same here. Magic armor still resized, normal stuff does not.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Same here. Magic armor still resized, normal stuff does not.

Which itself is kind of crazy, no? The +5% protection seems like trivial magic compared to the enchantment that causes the stuff resize itself to the wearer. Heck, you could add +5% just through fine craftsmanship and good materials. Seems like if you're using powerful enough magic to create resizing armor, making it twice as protective as normal armor (AC 26) would be an afterthought.

Of course, we handwave that away ("...because magic...") in order to make the game fun to play, rather than bog things down in realistic but annoying details.

I just find it weird that we are willing to accept pretty much any illogicality if magic is involved as long as it contributes to fun play, but if the rulebook doesn't explicitly say "magic" all of the sudden we're arguing about the weight distribution of 14th century armor.

 

[Oofta]

Which itself is kind of crazy, no? The +5% protection seems like trivial magic compared to the enchantment that causes the stuff resize itself to the wearer. Heck, you could add +5% just through fine craftsmanship and good materials. Seems like if you're using powerful enough magic to create resizing armor, making it twice as protective as normal armor (AC 26) would be an afterthought.

Of course, we handwave that away ("...because magic...") in order to make the game fun to play, rather than bog things down in realistic but annoying details.

I just find it weird that we are willing to accept pretty much any illogicality if magic is involved as long as it contributes to fun play, but if the rulebook doesn't explicitly say "magic" all of the sudden we're arguing about the weight distribution of 14th century armor.

Yeah, it's an old school concept. Come to think of it, it's also one I haven't ever used in 5E. I'm pretty stingy with magic in my current campaigns and it's more likely to be a reward granted by an NPC to enchant existing armor or create the suit custom.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I wonder if the realism people refuse to let PCs use found armor, without penalties. It would be horribly unrealistic.

Yep. For more complex types of armour such as plate taking the found suit to an armourer to be refitted is a normal procedure.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yep. For more complex types of armour such as plate taking the found suit to an armourer to be refitted is a normal procedure.

If that is challenging/interesting for some reason I could see doing that. ("The only smith with that knowledge is found in <place name>, but he only works for the king.").

But if it's just a matter of hiking back to town and paying the fee I wouldn't bother. Personally.

 

[Ancalagon]

Which itself is kind of crazy, no? The +5% protection seems like trivial magic compared to the enchantment that causes the stuff resize itself to the wearer. Heck, you could add +5% just through fine craftsmanship and good materials. Seems like if you're using powerful enough magic to create resizing armor, making it twice as protective as normal armor (AC 26) would be an afterthought.

Of course, we handwave that away ("...because magic...") in order to make the game fun to play, rather than bog things down in realistic but annoying details.

I just find it weird that we are willing to accept pretty much any illogicality if magic is involved as long as it contributes to fun play, but if the rulebook doesn't explicitly say "magic" all of the sudden we're arguing about the weight distribution of 14th century armor.

If you think about it...

It fits the 5e rules! In old games, +1 weapons were "as good" as +1 armor. Heck in 3e/PF, +1 weapons were more expensive than +1 armor! However, in 5e while a +1 weapon is uncommon, +1 armor is rare. For game balance reason, it's because too much armor is bad for the game (no sense of danger, drags out fights by focusing on defence) so there is a bias now towards weapon vs armor...

.... and if you consider that they "resize", maybe that's why!

I think that there is some common magical armor in Tasha that has the power of being put on very quickly, which is relevant to this discussion I think