Tomb of Annihilation Is Here - What Do You Think?

Today's the day - WotC's latest Dungeons & Dragons adventure, Tomb of Annihilation, is out! Head on down to your friendly (or unfriendly) local (or not so local) gaming (or comic) store and pick up your copy. Alternatively, if you use a virtual table top, it's available for Fantasy Grounds and Roll20.

 

[ddaley]

I am in a similar boat. My players are fairly new and one turned 10 recently... If I were playing with experienced players, I probably wouldn't go too easy on them. For this group, when they arrive in Chult, I think I'll let the characters know that their armor isn't suited for this environment and that they'll need to pick up armor that was made locally. That will get them motivated to go shopping and explore the city.

I am not using the heavy armor penalty. I am running it for a group of mostly new players (kids). But if I was using it I would make sure that the players knew about them ahead of time so they could create appropriate characters.

 

[ddaley]

So, Chult has padded armor that is magically not thick, hot, prone to retaining sweat, and being infested with bugs? Weren't we trying to create a sense of verisimilitude, here?

I haven't thought about this in detail yet, but maybe not all armor types will be available in "Chultian" versions. I don't think anyone in my group is wearing padded... who wears padded anyways?

 

[Jester David]

Sure, but it would be lazy to not take individual types of armor into consideration and instead use armor types as a basis. I mean, why should ring mail be treated like plate armor rather than the more similar leather or studded leather (brigandine), why should chain mail (which was used in even the jungled regions of India) be considered worse in the jungle than half plate (which includes chain mail)?

Sure. But that's easy enough to leave for the DM to decide. We don't need a chart of penalties based on every armour...

So, Chult has padded armor that is magically not thick, hot, prone to retaining sweat, and being infested with bugs? Weren't we trying to create a sense of verisimilitude, here?

First, in seventeen years of d20 I don't think I've ever seen anyone wear padded.So that's a moot point.

Second... what's your point? That all armour should have the same penalty? That because the limit doesn't apply perfectly there shouldn't be any limit at all?

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

First, in seventeen years of d20 I don't think I've ever seen anyone wear padded.

Which is grossly disappointing given that padded is probably meant to be a gambeson and it's proven that it's one of the most popular and effective armours throughout history.

 

[Azzy]

Sure. But that's easy enough to leave for the DM to decide. We don't need a chart of penalties based on every armour...

Who's asking for that?

First, in seventeen years of d20 I don't think I've ever seen anyone wear padded.So that's a moot point.

Which is a sad thing.

Second... what's your point? That all armour should have the same penalty? That because the limit doesn't apply perfectly there shouldn't be any limit at all?

My point, and I thought that it was fairly clear, is that using armor type as the basis for which armors should be more troubling in a hot jungle is lazy, isn't realistic, and should be avoided in lieu of just creating a list of which armors cause problems based on a bit of logic and common sense.

 

[Jester David]

My point, and I thought that it was fairly clear, is that using armor type as the basis for which armors should be more troubling in a hot jungle is lazy, isn't realistic, and should be avoided in lieu of just creating a list of which armors cause problems based on a bit of logic and common sense.

That's great in theory.

What happens when they add more armours to the game?
Since they wrote that rule in the PHB, we've seem one new type of armour in official products and many more in 3PP.

 

[Azzy]

That's great in theory.

What happens when they add more armours to the game?
Since they wrote that rule in the PHB, we've seem one new type of armour in official products and many more in 3PP.

Let the DM that proposed the initial houserule to deal with it and move on? It's not like it takes a lot of brainpower from said DM to decide which armor goes into "bad in the jungle" stack.

 

[Jester David]

Let the DM that proposed the initial houserule to deal with it and move on? It's not like it takes a lot of brainpower from said DM to decide which armor goes into "bad in the jungle" stack.

Which is what they have with the loose guideline of "metal armour". A baseline DMs can modify as needed. A foundation to house rule.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

It's not like it takes a lot of brainpower from said DM to decide which armor goes into "bad in the jungle" stack.

All of them would be bad in a jungle. Well, depending on what the hell "leather" and "studded leather" armours actually are since they don't really exist in history. If they were a cuir bouilli then it would be super uncomfortable, and if it was a buff coat, again, very hot and stifling in a jungle environment. Or if they were some type of lamellar they'd still probably be uncomfortable. Only if it were the stupid TV trope of soft leather with useless studs on it would it be remotely acceptable, even if it couldn't possibly provide any actual protection in reality.

Wait, sorry, what was your point again?

 

[Azzy]

All of them would be bad in a jungle. Well, depending on what the hell "leather" and "studded leather" armours actually are since they don't really exist in history. If they were a cuir bouilli then it would be super uncomfortable, and if it was a buff coat, again, very hot and stifling in a jungle environment. Or if they were some type of lamellar they'd still probably be uncomfortable. Only if it were the stupid TV trope of soft leather with useless studs on it would it be remotely acceptable, even if it couldn't possibly provide any actual protection in reality.

Wait, sorry, what was your point again?

If you were following the conversation, some people are proposing additional penalties for wearing heavy armor in the jungle in an attempt to add a level of "realism". My point is that, since the categorization of armors into light/medium/heavy is a bit arbitrary and haphazard, it would make more sense to categorize which armors are likely to be most troubling based on common sense (instead of using the haphazard armor types) if one really wished for a degree of "realism".

As for leather, it has a history of being described as cuir boulli (buff coats post date the medieval period, so are likely not represented in D&D by default). Studded leather, the way it was initially described when it first appeared in D&D (1e) seems like it was supposed to represent brigandine (though when 2e was released, it listed brigandine separately).