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

[Waterbizkit]

Would it be "fun" if I implemented a rule that anyone not wearing heavy armor that gets hit with a crit potentially suffers an enduring wound or is permanently maimed? It might be more realistic after all.

As always the caveat: do what you want in your games, this is just my opinion, blah, blah, blah.

It might be fun for some people if you implemented a rule like that. That's kind of the whole point of the thread, to a degree, optional rules that might emphasize a particular facet someone finds interesting. No one here is claiming their way is the way to play. Just a way. At least that's the impression I've gotten so far. You, however, seem quite happy to denigrate the opinions of others while throwing yours around as if it counts for more.

And not for nothing, but throwing the caveat in there at the end followed by "blah, blah, blah" smacks a lot more of just trying to cover your ass than actually having any respect for how other people may want to play the game. I really don't understand your insistence on pushing back against others discussing optional rules that they may use in their games. All the emphasis there really points to it being something that won't impact you.

If your concern is that the AP might say something about it officially, I'd mind of get that, but so that that hasn't seemed to be the case... not to me anyway. If I've misinterpreted where you're coming from on this, well, that's entirely on me and I concede the argument. In fact, I sort of do anyway. Prolonged and potentially heated debates with internet folk aren't really my thing. So I'll agree to disagree on whatever it is here we disagree about and leave it at that, no skin off my nose.

The AP drops in the next few days too if I'm remembering correctly, so we'll all see soon enough if it officially penalizes heavy armor soon enough, at which point it's still mostly meaningless except to the poor sods stuck playing nothing but AL games I guess.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But why is it only ever the heavy armor wearer that pays the penalty for the sake of "realism"?
.

It goes back to what I said earlier. Whenever there is a break from realism, there is an explicit specific rule that tells us exactly how that break works. In the case of barbarians and monks having a high unarmored AC that isn't "realistic", we have a specific rule to point to: the class feature that describes it. Not every class gets that feature, so the vast majority of people not wearing armor very much suffer when attacked. It's only a class feature of a few (so it's not really punishing every heavy armor wearer just because a couple people in no armor can still have a high AC).

When there isn't a specific rule that overrides realism, most of us generally use real life anecdotes to handle them. Since there is no specific rule that says people wearing heavy armor can ignore environmental factors, it is assumed they would have an impact. If you think people wearing heavy armor are being penalized for that (personally I don't because that's the drawback of wearing heavy armor), then create a class feature or feat or whatever that allows the PC to ignore those things.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm just asking, cause in my view, it would be cool if there was a reason to not fight in full plate

There are already several: disadvantage on stealth, having a high DEX, having a low STR, not being proficient...
...not being able to buy it 'cause it's damned expensive.

or at least spend 50 gold on a potion or so.

You could bring back Cat's Grace...


It seems to me that heavy medieval armor feels off to some of us for the setting in question. What about having setting-specific alternatives that are more acceptable?

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't have a problem with barbarians. I also don't see a need to add extra penalties to heavy armor.

But why is it only ever the heavy armor wearer that pays the penalty for the sake of "realism"?

If we're modifying rules so that heavy armor is more "realistic" then why not add rules for not wearing armor being more realistic? I think it might make sense that if someone without armor does get hit the wounds they suffer would be more devastating and crippling. A lot of damage if wearing armor would be concussive bruising (which can, of course, kill) while if you don't dextrously dodge out of the way of that sword swing while in your skivvies you're liable to get your arm chopped off.

Would it be "fun" if I implemented a rule that anyone not wearing heavy armor that gets hit with a crit potentially suffers an enduring wound or is permanently maimed? It might be more realistic after all.

As always the caveat: do what you want in your games, this is just my opinion, blah, blah, blah.

You are certainly welcome to start a thread on that.

This thread, however, is about wearing heavy armor in jungle conditions.

And so my only reply will be:

Do you think ToA will offer a rule restricting (heavy) armor for that campaign, Oofta?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Oofta]

It might be fun for some people if you implemented a rule like that. That's kind of the whole point of the thread, to a degree, optional rules that might emphasize a particular facet someone finds interesting. No one here is claiming their way is the way to play. Just a way. At least that's the impression I've gotten so far. You, however, seem quite happy to denigrate the opinions of others while throwing yours around as if it counts for more.

And not for nothing, but throwing the caveat in there at the end followed by "blah, blah, blah" smacks a lot more of just trying to cover your ass than actually having any respect for how other people may want to play the game. I really don't understand your insistence on pushing back against others discussing optional rules that they may use in their games. All the emphasis there really points to it being something that won't impact you.

If your concern is that the AP might say something about it officially, I'd mind of get that, but so that that hasn't seemed to be the case... not to me anyway. If I've misinterpreted where you're coming from on this, well, that's entirely on me and I concede the argument. In fact, I sort of do anyway. Prolonged and potentially heated debates with internet folk aren't really my thing. So I'll agree to disagree on whatever it is here we disagree about and leave it at that, no skin off my nose.

The AP drops in the next few days too if I'm remembering correctly, so we'll all see soon enough if it officially penalizes heavy armor soon enough, at which point it's still mostly meaningless except to the poor sods stuck playing nothing but AL games I guess.

This is a discussion on a topic that comes up on a regular basis which basically boils down to "should we add rules that penalize people wearing heavy armor in situation ______".

What I don't understand, what I am trying to discuss is that I never see a thread "should we add rules that penalize people who don't wear armor in situation ______".

I gave an example that people wearing no armor would be more likely to suffer debilitating wounds. I could add more, like someone wearing heavy armor should probably take less damage from falling. Or have resistance to things like fireball since a flash of flame would not significantly heat the metal (versus exposed flesh). The list could go on and on.

D&D isn't particularly realistic, which is fine. It just bugs me that people want to pile on yet more reasons to play a dex based character justified by "it's realistic". Like it matters.

As far as "blah, blah, blah" ... I'm a sarcastic SOB sometimes. But seriously? I get tired of trying to tip toe and write legalize on some of these threads. I'm not attacking anyone. I didn't call anyone Hitler or an idiot for disagreeing with me. My opinion is free, and worth what you paid for it just like everyone else's on this site.

We have different opinions on whether implementing a new rule like this would add value to the game. I don't think it would. Yet when I explain why my opinion differs from other people, when I try to elicit a reason why "realism" only applies to heavy armor I get "you aren't the boss of my game".

Give me justification as to why people wearing heavy armor have to pay penalties while dex based characters never have to do so and we can discuss. Adding more penalties to heavy armor wearers is just kicking someone while they're down. Which bring up a related question: should people who use unarmed strike against a heavily armored opponent take damage?

If I started a thread along the lines of "what penalties can we add to dex based characters", do you really think all the responses would be positive?

P.S. I don't think people who enjoy AL games are "poor sods". I enjoyed AL play, and even though I've been away from it for a while I may join back up soon-ish. Just saying that if you're accusing other people of being insulting for a sarcastic comment not aimed at anyone in particular you might want to be careful how many stones you throw.

 

[Oofta]

Do you think ToA will offer a rule restricting (heavy) armor for that campaign, Oofta?

I hope they do not and if I run the mod I will ignore it.

 

[shoak1]

Of course, the rule in the DMG is designed so that it never comes into effect, unless you want it to.

First off, as mentioned, 100 F is a very high threshold. Second, the "if you don't have water" clause. What adventure party will not have water - and still take a jungle/desert trek?

The few parties where the DM wants heat exhaustion to be a thing, are what.

But that's not what I'm talking about here.

I'm asking if ToA will offer a rule/optional/variant that changes the game in general, for everybody, as in noticably nerfing the (heavy) armor strategy, while not nerfing the unarmored strategy in the same way?

Then, I'm sure the merchant princes of Chult will sell potions of Endure Elements or whatever, and that's fine so your paladins can still run around in full plate, but at least there's a nod to jungle conditions.​

You might ask yourself "why even add this rule if nothing changes in the end?"

Because I'm not here to hate a specific subset of character builds, such as strength fighters and paladins and war priests!

I'm only here to discuss whether 5th edition is the first edition in a long time where options might be offered even though they might not be in the best interests of balance.

Many DMs will not want to houserule such a rule. Unless it's on a page in a WotC book you can point to, many DMs will not bother with any "you're just shafting us" discussions.

Having an official rule (even if optional) would help immensely in bringing the jungles of Chult to life!

Capn !!! Now come on, we are in 5e - we don't need fancy "rules" to give us "balance" or "realism" - I mean, gosh, those are all "relative" and "subjective" terms at each table anyway silly! Remember 5e gives us BigEmpowered DM and he's all we need

"There are no flaws in the rules only flaws in your imagination." - some 5e designer when asked why his ruleset is so randomly incomplete and imbalanced

 

[Sacrosanct]

I hope they do not and if I run the mod I will ignore it.

I don't think they will. Do they usually add additional rules in the campaigns? And they already have a rule as to how to handle it in the DMG. A rule, that according to my poll from a couple days ago, almost no one actually uses

 

[Sacrosanct]

Capn !!! Now come on, we are in 5e - we don't need fancy "rules" to give us "balance" or "realism" - I mean, gosh, those are all "relative" and "subjective" terms at each table anyway silly! Remember 5e gives us BigEmpowered DM and he's all we need

"There are no flaws in the rules only flaws in your imagination."

Sarcasm falls extremely flat when the most important metric (popularity and sales) pretty much proves exactly what your sarcastic response is directed at as actually true.

 

[shoak1]

Sarcasm falls extremely flat when the most important metric (popularity and sales) pretty much proves exactly what your sarcastic response is directed at as actually true.

LOL you mean the stats that prove D and D 5e has finally arrived at the same sales figures 1e had 30 years ago? The stats that prove D and D has failed to evolve with the times and still only appeals to a small niche market, many of which are the same aging peeps from 1e? Sure, take a victory lap, 4e's attempt to reach out to the wider gaming audience has been soundly defeated - huzzah!