Time to add new Armors to the table.

[Minigiant]

Flavorwise, there is an unlimited number of armor types.

Mechanically, magic armor diversifies rewards.

Flavorwise sure.

Mechanically.. if the new treasure isn't noticeably better or have a worthwhile tradeoff >50% of players will not care about the new armor you throw in the treasure and will sell or hand it down to henchmen.

This wasn't a problem in older editions as you 4-6 levels of +X to hand out.

But in 5e, giving out +2 armor can really screw up battles.
A Fighter with +2 armor can get to 23 AC easy and make 75% of attacks against him miss.

This means you only have a +1 and +0 range to work with. But 5e's armor don't get top end options to light or heavy armor.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

except that shifts from subjective build choices with tradeoffs to one optimal option within pointbuy costs & even less room for the GM to use for treasure.

What is the value of this 'room for treasure' point you keep bringing up?

 

[Minigiant]

So, with my suggestion the exact type of armour would be up the DM's imagination, so there would be boundless treasure options.

Say the DM is getting treasure out of the DM's Guide or D&D Beyond and they want there to be some interesting armour. They go with Armour of the Mariner, and decide on AC 16 as the base (so, heavy armour, etc.). Then they tell the player what it looks like - maybe Merfolk forged it from Dragon Turtle shell, for example.

My point is that all that matters about armour are its attributes (AC, type, str/dex limitations, cost). Specifying the exact type of the armour doesn't need to be in the rules and leaving it up to the players/DMs increases choice and options while getting rid of irrelevant debates, like whether chain is more limiting than scale and so on. Those are table-level discussions that don't need to be worked into the rules.

That''s my point of why simplistic armor wont work.

Once the fighter get +1 plate, your plate armor of the fish or scale armor of lightning resistance is going in the bag of hold to be sold to the next rich NPC willing to buy.

But If you added banded, the fighter has the choice of losing 1 AC for the ability to make stealth checks. So when they find a banded armor +1 they are excited because they actually use this armor.

 

[Yaarel]

Flavorwise sure.

Mechanically.. if the new treasure isn't noticeably better or have a worthwhile tradeoff >50% of players will not care about the new armor you throw in the treasure and will sell or hand it down to henchmen.

This wasn't a problem in older editions as you 4-6 levels of +X to hand out.

But in 5e, giving out +2 armor can really screw up battles.
A Fighter with +2 armor can get to 23 AC easy and make 75% of attacks against him miss.

This means you only have a +1 and +0 range to work with. But 5e's armor don't get top end options to light or heavy armor.

Conversely, if the player loves their chain armor and its flavor, it kinda sucks if they are forced to give it up because the "better" armor isnt chain.



If AC=Strength+Dexterity

Then there is such thing as Chain (prereq +3 Strength) and Chain (prereq +5 Strength).

So, if the player likes Chain, it is possible to find a better version of it. It is even possible to upgrade the armor by modifying it or adding other armoring with it.

If the player wants Banded (namely Lorica Segmentata) then both +3 to +4 are possible.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm definitely on board with adding more armor. I'd like to see more adders to armor as well, like we see with weapons. I'd like a buckler in there too.

 

[Bill Zebub]

• Heavy Wool Sweater (prereq +1 Strength)

How about a puffy jacket stuffed with down from a baby roc?

 

[tetrasodium]

What is the value of this 'room for treasure' point you keep bringing up?

You know... standard GM stuff. Your question highlights a failing of 5e's DMG since there's no good reference material to point to there. Back in past editions there was much more effort devoted to aiding & supporting the GM with rules advice & guidance

Up until 5e it was accepted and even spelled out explicitly in more than one edition that awarding players with treasure to make them more powerful was an important part of keeping players interested as a GM. 4e made the mistake of taking that role out of the GM's control & giving it to the players but 5e makes the mistake of removing it entirely with bounded accuracy & a no feats no magic items assumption for the math. The GM is still expected to award treasure, it's just either game disrupting or worth less than chucky cheese prize tickets.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

You know... standard GM stuff. Your question highlights a failing of 5e's DMG since there's no good reference material to point to there. Back in past editions there was much more effort devoted to aiding & supporting the GM with rules advice & guidance

Up until 5e it was accepted and even spelled out explicitly in more than one edition that awarding players with treasure to make them more powerful was an important part of keeping players interested as a GM. 4e made the mistake of taking that role out of the GM's control & giving it to the players but 5e makes the mistake of removing it entirely with bounded accuracy & a no feats no magic items assumption for the math. The GM is still expected to award treasure, it's just either game disrupting or worth less than chucky cheese prize tickets.

I see what you're saying. I'm not sure how picking on granularity of armour benefits aids that. I guess it does in a sense, but there are other ways to address that issue. Simplifying armour does have some benefits. Complexifying armour, though it does satisfy your point, adds... complexity. Not sure the trade off is worth it.

Interesting point though...

 

[aco175]

The GM is still expected to award treasure, it's just either game disrupting or worth less than chucky cheese prize tickets.

How dare you, look at this kid, he must be able to get several sticks of Bazooka gum, a slimly guy that walks down glass, and a potion of climbing- talk about treasure.

 

[tetrasodium]

I see what you're saying. I'm not sure how picking on granularity of armour benefits aids that. I guess it does in a sense, but there are other ways to address that issue. Simplifying armour does have some benefits. Complexifying armour, though it does satisfy your point, adds... complexity. Not sure the trade off is worth it.

Interesting point though...

When armor had more dials than a single objective total AC=X alongside "does bob plan to use stealth" there were more dials a gm could manipulate. Simplifications reduce the already overly narrow set of options players might find potentially exciting available for the gm to choose from. Granularity expands the options

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

double post

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

When armor had more dials than a single objective total AC=X alongside "does bob plan to use stealth" there were more dials a gm could manipulate. Simplifications reduce the already overly narrow set of options players might find potentially exciting available for the gm to choose from. Granularity expands the options

Yup. Like I said earlier, I've already understood your point and I am buying what you're selling. Do you understand what I'm asking you though? Is adding complexity to armour the particular hill you're willing to die on in order to achieve that goal (of granularity expanding options)? Because there are other ways of achieving the benefits of this granularity you're talking about.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yup. Like I said earlier, I've already understood your point and I am buying what you're selling. Do you understand what I'm asking you though? Is adding complexity to armour the particular hill you're willing to die on in order to achieve that goal (of granularity expanding options)? Because there are other ways of achieving the benefits of this granularity you're talking about.

"Other Ways" i.e. Push PCs past bounded accuracy & deal with the resulting fallout one way or another when monsters can't keep up and your the GM you homebrew a solution other than giving out objectively better & better equipment like more resistances on the best AC armor the player already has. 6e needs to do a better job with fitting a core subsystem like armor within the player expectations & GM needs of a game called d&d.

 

[mellored]

I don't see the benefit of adding a big chart just so you can spend more gold for +1 AC.

If that's all you want, just have
Masterwork, +1 AC, 1000 gold.
Supremework, +2 AC, 10,000 gold.

But personally I would just get rid of "armors", and make it class based.

Wizard/Sorcerer/Barbarian: 15 AC
Rouge/ Ranger: 16 AC
Cleric/Artificer: 16 AC, disadvantage on stealth
Fighter/Paladin: 17 AC, disadvantage on stealth

Fighting style: don't take disadvantage on stealth.

Magic armor has class requirements.

 

[Yaarel]

Similar to the ways that weapons have "properties", armor can too.

So far, the armor properties simplify as the following conditions:
• Slowed ( ← Heavy) ( ≈ half speed)
• Encumbered ( ← untrained) ( ≈ disadvantage on all Physical Ability Checks)
• Noisy ( ≈ moving ends Hidden condition)

Hypothetically, even a light but bulky Padded (Gambeson) armor would cause the Encumbered condition if failing to meet its Strength prereq.

Perhaps there can be other conditions as well. Chain might be "Resistant (Slash)", and Padded might be "Resistant (Bludgeon)". At least high quality versions of these armors might have these beneficial properties.

All armor must remain within bounded accuracy, so there is less room for AC granularity. But higher quality armors that are more expensive can have better properties and lack impeding conditions.

 

[Yaarel]

If

AC = Strength + Dexterity

Then

There are more meaningful choices regarding whether to invest in Strength or not.



For example.

• Padded armor would have a prerequisite of +1 Strength for armor training, thus grants +1 AC.
• Chain armor (shortsleeve shirt, tunic) would have a prereq of +3 Strength thus grant +3 AC.

Higher Strength characters can wear better armors more effectively. Those that meet the prereq can add the Dex bonus on top of the armor.

Lower Strength characters can still wear armor, but cannot gain training, thus cannot benefit from the Dexterity dodge bonus to AC.



Meanwhile

With regard to treasure, specific armors can feature different properties. For example, some forms of Plate Suit incur the Slowed condition, but the highest quality specimens dont. Elven Chain whether Torso or Suit lacks the Noisy condition and allows for Stealth. And so on, with different properties for different specimens of armor types.

 

[mellored]

AC = Strength + Dexterity

That really kills Clerics and Artificers.

 

[Yaarel]

That really kills Clerics and Artificers.

Why?

When AC=Strength+Dexterity

Clerics and Artificers benefit from both Strength and MAGIC to enhance AC.

Meanwhile the unarmored Dexterity Cleric "in robes" is a viable character concept.

If a warrior Cleric wants to invest in both Strength and Dexterity, that is viable too.

 

[mellored]

Why?

When AC=Strength+Dexterity

Clerics and Artificers benefit from both Strength and MAGIC to enhance AC.

Meanwhile the unarmored Dexterity Cleric "in robes" is a viable character concept.

If a warrior Cleric wants to invest in both Strength and Dexterity, that is viable too.

What about my wis / cha cleric or int/wis artificer?
Or are you suggesting they get +wis/int to AC as well?

 

[Yaarel]

What about my wis / cha cleric or int/wis artificer?
Or are you suggesting they get +wis/int to AC as well?

Like Wizard typically. These non-gish mage concepts rely more heavily on spellcasting and other magic to defend oneself, as well as relying on a Warrior ally to stay between oneself and the hostiles.

Maybe when the Shield of Faith spell targets Self, it requires no Concentration.

Plus both Cleric and Artificer can use shields, which exchanges a free offhand for an AC bonus.