D&D 5E [ToA] Heat & Heavy (armor)

[CapnZapp]

Stop derailing the thread [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION].

If you don't like the premise, argue that elsewhere!

This thread is about rules discouraging the use of plate armor in Tomb of Annihilation, or, to be exact: discussing good ways of imposing a "environs tax" on it without either of two things:
a) actually forcing the builds that depend on armor to go without, that is, making the penalties so harsh or unavoidable it turns the builds unviable
b) having penalties be trivially circumvented so canny parties can play as if the penalty wasn't even there.

It's a tricky balance, and your thoughts on how to make it happen are appreciated.

However. As long as all you want to discuss is how to make it not happen, you're effectively threadcrapping, and I urge you to start a new thread.

Please don't respond - just post on topic, which isn't "why heavy armor should not be penalized".

 

[CapnZapp]

Here's my evaluation of the Tomb of Annihilation mechanisms.

Trackfinding. Making a navigation check per day is fine. In fact, it's the point of a hex crawl. I am not sure I like how the DM makes the roll, though. I would have wanted to emphasize the boardgame "reveal the tile" aspect and shift the action to the players.

Grade B

Heat and water. Sorry, but the dehydration rule is a lot of words that amount to... diddley squat. Bring along a single caster of Create Food and Water (or Purify Food and Drink), and suddenly there are no Con saves anymore. Pathetic. All the rule does is focus on exactly how much water the party has, which is incredibly boring (much like counting beans, arrows and such).

Also, even if we changed the mechanism to actually impact a reasonable party, there would still be all those bloody checks! For an adventure stretching over many months, that's literally hundreds of rolls. All just to say "okay so Bob has two levels of Exhaustion, we stop travelling until he's fit again". It's incredibly fiddly.

A much streamlined version that I could stand behind would read something like this:
"A character wearing heavy armor or clothing operates at a minimum of one level of exhaustion. As long as the character wears heavy armor or clothing, this last level of exhaustion cannot be removed, even with Greater Restoration magic".

See the difference?

Not only is this version much faster and less fiddly, it also shuts down mucking about with equipment. It makes things much simpler. Lose the heavy armor or go find a magical cure (such as a magic item that gives you Endure Elements). No water management necessary or useful.

Grade (original) D
My version A

Disease.

Let me cut to the chase - nobody thinks it fun to make multiple disease checks that are just 5 points of Lay on Hands away from being cured. When you ask a player to make a check, better make it important.

Mad Monkey Fever: as an obstacle or encounter, much like patches of Green Slime or whatever, this is fine.

Shivering Sickness: since you can simply coat yourself in the sludge that makes you immune, a very minor setting detail. Okay. Otherwise, this is just Filth Fever all over again.

Throat leeches. Sigh.

As a continent-spanning disease, that actually impacts Dungeon & Dragon heroes, there's very little here to be excited about.

I'm inclined to just describe this happening to the poor and downtrodden and leave it at that, instead of forcing a Cure Disease tax on the spellcasters.

Grade C

Instead I think I'll focus on the really interesting "disease" that actually impacts the heroes - the wasting disease that can't be cured except by being an adventurer!

But that's a topic for another post...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Want more realism? Great. Implement rules that also punish people who don't wear armor in a realistic fashion.

You could kill two birds with one stone, that way. Hps are also unrealistic, afterall: some sort of serious-wound rule could address that. Your chance of taking a serious wound could be reduced if you wear at least medium armor, and the severity of the wound could be reduced if you wear heavy armor, for instance.

Historically armor was the primary thing that kept you from being chopped to bits or skewered by arrows on the battlefield.

It was a also a status symbol, it represented wealth/power/accomplishment, which at the time, could be regarded as indicators of destiny or divine right. A full suit of armor made you fearsome on the battlefield not just because you were harder to hurt.

So we're back to ditching the AC rules for monks and barbarians then? Because why should they have extra rules that make them [/FONT][/COLOR]exempt from the consequences based on their own choices?

sounds fair

 

[Mirtek]

When have I ever argued that. Each class has a feature that is superhuman. In the case of barbarians and monks, they have a class feature that gives them fantastical ways to avoid getting hit/taking damage. There is a specific rule for that. In what way is that me advocating ditching those rules? I'm not ditching any rule. Those class features aren't extra rules. Every class has features that are fantastical. Those are just theirs.

And one specific rule that applies to any class is that everybody with 2 gallons of water can ignore heat in heavy armor and clothing. You don't even need to be a specific class, as this superhuman trait is shared by all D&D characters. Yet somehow this one specific rule should be dismissed, but none of the others.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And one specific rule that applies to any class is that everybody with 2 gallons of water can ignore heat in heavy armor and clothing. You don't even need to be a specific class, as this superhuman trait is shared by all D&D characters. Yet somehow this one specific rule should be dismissed, but none of the others.

Where did I say that rule should be dismissed?

 

[Tony Vargas]

a) actually forcing the builds that depend on armor to go without, that is, making the penalties so harsh or unavoidable it turns the builds unviable
b) having penalties be trivially circumvented so canny parties can play as if the penalty wasn't even there.

It's a tricky balance

That is tricky. Magic does tend to trivialize lots of little things - if you can create water, your party's not going to get dehydrated. You have a bag of holding, your low STR doesn't much limit how much gear you can carry. That's just D&D.

Make it problematic enough that minor magic can't just hand-wave it away, and you fall of the other edge.

For instance:

"A character wearing heavy armor or clothing operates at a minimum of one level of exhaustion. As long as the character wears heavy armor or clothing, this last level of exhaustion cannot be removed, even with Greater Restoration magic".

Slips over to the 'just don't play a character that needs heavy armor' side.

Frankly, the existing super-fiddly water-counting rule also sounds like it'd just be easier to save the knight in shining armor or the mountain dwarf for a different campaign.

Jungle campaign, play Tarzan, not Galahad.

 

[guachi]

Stop derailing the thread [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION].

If you don't like the premise, argue that elsewhere!

This thread is about rules discouraging the use of plate armor in Tomb of Annihilation, or, to be exact: discussing good ways of imposing a "environs tax" on it without either of two things:
a) actually forcing the builds that depend on armor to go without, that is, making the penalties so harsh or unavoidable it turns the builds unviable
b) having penalties be trivially circumvented so canny parties can play as if the penalty wasn't even there.

It's a tricky balance, and your thoughts on how to make it happen are appreciated.

However. As long as all you want to discuss is how to make it not happen, you're effectively threadcrapping, and I urge you to start a new thread.

Please don't respond - just post on topic, which isn't "why heavy armor should not be penalized".

You can "make it happen" by ignoring any ways for a party to overcome the impediment. I mean, aren't players *supposed* to engage the challenges you provide? What's the point of b)? You don't want the PCs to be smart and overcome your challenges, just tell them that nothing they think of will work. And then have fun finding new players as your canny players will be smart enough to walk from your table and overcome the challenge of the DM.

If you want more realistic rules I ask (nay, demand) you come up with realistic rules about what would happen if I refrigerated my armor with a cantrip. I think it'd work fabulously. Metal is such a good conductor of heat (or cold) you'd probably be in great shape!

 

[Oofta]

You can "make it happen" by ignoring any ways for a party to overcome the impediment. I mean, aren't players *supposed* to engage the challenges you provide? What's the point of b)? You don't want the PCs to be smart and overcome your challenges, just tell them that nothing they think of will work. And then have fun finding new players as your canny players will be smart enough to walk from your table and overcome the challenge of the DM.

If you want more realistic rules I ask (nay, demand) you come up with realistic rules about what would happen if I refrigerated my armor with a cantrip. I think it'd work fabulously. Metal is such a good conductor of heat (or cold) you'd probably be in great shape!

Just to be clear: prestidigitation has the option You chill, warm, or flavor up to 1 cubic foot of nonliving material for 1 hour. I'm quoting it because I didn't realize it lasted a full hour.

There is no logical reason it would not work. In theory you might have to sleep without your armor, but jungles can actually be downright chilly at night (50s at night are not uncommon at night in many jungles). I've backpacked/camped in the Amazon and we had to have sleeping bags.

Of course this does nothing to punish people wearing heavy armor, it makes it far too easy to circumvent so it probably isn't acceptable.

 

[CapnZapp]

That is tricky. Magic does tend to trivialize lots of little things - if you can create water, your party's not going to get dehydrated. You have a bag of holding, your low STR doesn't much limit how much gear you can carry. That's just D&D.

Make it problematic enough that minor magic can't just hand-wave it away, and you fall of the other edge.

For instance:
Slips over to the 'just don't play a character that needs heavy armor' side.

Frankly, the existing super-fiddly water-counting rule also sounds like it'd just be easier to save the knight in shining armor or the mountain dwarf for a different campaign.

Jungle campaign, play Tarzan, not Galahad.

Not sure what your actual suggestion is here. You yourself agree the ToA water rule is super-fiddly.

Who wants super-fiddly rules?

I'm at least trying to create a rule that is the opposite of a rule that is fiddly yet easily circumvented. That sounds like the worst kind of rule: first you set up complicated book-keeping... then every competent party ignores it?

In contrast, I want rules that aren't fiddly, yet not trivially dismissed either so the rule actually has an impact.

But, and this is important, that impact can still be avoided, at least by adventurers motivated enough. Not trivially so, but by actual adventuring.

In this particular case, the choice is between ditching heavy armor (which pretty much is a no-no for low-DEX martial builds) and ponying up some serious cash. Or researching rumors about hidden treasures that purports to protecting you from the elements. Which in the end amounts to the same thing - whether you enter the jungle to loot the item, or loot treasures that provide the cash you need to buy the item, is after all just a detail.

I fully understand that being denied heavy armor is a dealbreaker for certain builds. But I fully expect any party with a heavy armor user to make the effort to keep that character in the party. Saying "play Tarzan, not Galahad" sounds incredibly dismissive. Of course I as the DM will offer an out. It just won't be the trivial out suggested by the book. Instead it will be the goal of perhaps their first jungle expedition: "if you do this for me/get this for me, I can help Sir Galahad with his heat problem..."

Adventurers (and merchant princes) have that kind of mojo, low-lives in the gutter do not.

To me, that's just D&D

 

[CapnZapp]

You can "make it happen" by ignoring any ways for a party to overcome the impediment. I mean, aren't players *supposed* to engage the challenges you provide? What's the point of b)? You don't want the PCs to be smart and overcome your challenges, just tell them that nothing they think of will work. And then have fun finding new players as your canny players will be smart enough to walk from your table and overcome the challenge of the DM.

If you want more realistic rules I ask (nay, demand) you come up with realistic rules about what would happen if I refrigerated my armor with a cantrip. I think it'd work fabulously. Metal is such a good conductor of heat (or cold) you'd probably be in great shape!

I'm thinking you and I have very different outlooks.

I'm not interested in realistic rules one bit. D&D is a game, and I want it to be a challenging game.

Being told you need to drink 2 gallons a day is not a challenging task for my players, so I'm not interested in spending time on it. In fact, we're not interested in any inventory-keeping, so keeping track of how much water is collected is bundled together with counting ammunition: we ignore it, preferring to spend our time on more exciting gameplay

However, being told that Merchant Prince Y has a magic amulet that lets the wearer endure the elements, and that he's willing to trade it for the fabled Crocodile Statue of Boogabooga*, sounds like a challenge and an adventure!

Most importantly, it tells the players that yes, I am aware the heat rules are oppressive to low-DEX martials, and that I at least offer an out, though not a trivial one.

You might have to give up one of your attunement slots, for one thing. I'm thinking costs that affect the game, not just atmosphere and background.