D&D (2024) Time to add new Armors to the table.

[Clint_L]

I would like to see chain allow for more Dex than scale does.

This is the kind of debate that my suggestion would get rid of. If you want to have chain that allows for more dex than scale, just purchase AC 12 and call it chain. Maybe it's a lighter version of chain, or partial chain, or damaged chain, or whatever your imagination wants it to be.

 

[Yora]

If any changes are made to the armor tables, the first thing is to finally get rid of the travesty that is studded leather.

There is no such thing as studded leather armor, never has been, and never could be. The idea does not offer any meaningful protection.

 

[Yaarel]

As almost always, I want to less complexity in the rules, not more (aside from optional rules).

So while I think that your ideas for adding resistance to armour types (which already exists through enchantments, though) might be a cool optional rule, all I think we need for armour types is a list of the ACs, attributes, and cost, along with a list of some options that might typically fall into the AC, and then let players and DMs use their imaginations. Is your AC 16 coming from chainmail or from some weird combination of scavenged chitin plates and rubber bands? Who cares?!

I think the same for weapons - do we really need separate entries for things like "long sword" and "battle-axe"? Just have an entry for "1 handed slashing weapon" and let players fill in the rest.

The armors can simplify.

I feel there are meaningful differences between the bladelengths of swords.
Up to 1 foot: dagger
1 to 2 feet: shortsword (gladius, seax, wakizashi, machete, etc)
2 to 3 feet: sword (viking, knightly, katana, etc)
3 to 4 feet: longsword (claymore, bastard, etc)
4 feet and up: greatsword (zweihaander, fantasy giant buster swords, etc)

 

[Minigiant]

As almost always, I want to less complexity in the rules, not more (aside from optional rules).

So while I think that your ideas for adding resistance to armour types (which already exists through enchantments, though) might be a cool optional rule, all I think we need for armour types is a list of the ACs, attributes, and cost, along with a list of some options that might typically fall into the AC, and then let players and DMs use their imaginations. Is your AC 16 coming from chainmail or from some weird combination of scavenged chitin plates and rubber bands? Who cares?!

I think the same for weapons - do we really need separate entries for things like "long sword" and "battle-axe"? Just have an entry for "1 handed slashing weapon" and let players fill in the rest.

The flaw with Simplicity is that it offers too little to put in treasure.

The problem with D&D treasure is that a DM has few options of armor or weapons to entice players without busting bounded accuracy.


Once your fighter buys plate armor, nothing but plate armor +X or plater armor of X resistance would ever excite them.

But with plate armor of fire resistance, finding banded armor of cold resistance.offers a new option without hurting BA.

As a DM who had 2 PCs with 22AC, it can get rough.

 

[Yaarel]

Along the lines of armor simplification, something like:

EXAMPLE	TORSO ONLY	FULL SUIT
Padded / Leather	+1 (max +5 Dex)	+2 (max +4 Dex)
Chain	+3 (max +3 Dex)	+5 (max +1 Dex)
Scale / Plate	+4 (max +2 Dex)	+6 (no Dex)

 

[tetrasodium]

Along the lines of armor simplification, something like:

EXAMPLE	TORSO ONLY	FULL SUIT
Padded / Leather	+1 (max +5 Dex)	+2 (max +4 Dex)
Chain	+3 (max +3 Dex)	+5 (max +1 Dex)
Scale / Plate	+4 (max +2 Dex)	+6 (no Dex)

Some of those need a strength requirement

 

[Minigiant]

Along the lines of armor simplification, something like:

EXAMPLE	TORSO ONLY	FULL SUIT
Padded / Leather	+1 (max +5 Dex)	+2 (max +4 Dex)
Chain	+3 (max +3 Dex)	+5 (max +1 Dex)
Scale / Plate	+4 (max +2 Dex)	+6 (no Dex)

That doesn't solve the problem of PCs having too few options for armor rewards.

 

[Yaarel]

That doesn't solve the problem of PCs having too few options for armor rewards.

Flavorwise, there is an unlimited number of armor types.

Mechanically, magic armor diversifies rewards.

 

[Clint_L]

The flaw with Simplicity is that it offers too little to put in treasure.

The problem with D&D treasure is that a DM has few options of armor or weapons to entice players without busting bounded accuracy.


Once your fighter buys plate armor, nothing but plate armor +X or plater armor of X resistance would ever excite them.

But with plate armor of fire resistance, finding banded armor of cold resistance.offers a new option without hurting BA.

As a DM who had 2 PCs with 22AC, it can get rough.

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.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

Not really. Your suggestion tries to replicate 3.x's subjectivity in armor choice without expanding the designspace beyond a single point of "does the wearer use stealth: (yes/no)" to recover the mechanical reasons why 3.x had subjectivity in armor & weapons