D&D 5E Traditional or Historial Arms and Armor

[S'mon]

Either historically accurate, or very abstracted - light/medium/heavy armour would be fine.

4e dropping of studded leather, bandmail and splintmail was initially disconcerting, but I now quite appreciate that it omitted these do-not-actually-exist armours. When I run 1e etc I have to go into some convoluted contortions to make bandmail or studded leather into something resembling historical brigandine, lamellar etc.

Edit: What I really want varies by setting. In my Yggsburgh game I want historically accurate armours. For my Wilderlands Swords & Sorcery Meets Sword & Planet game I want "Battle Harness".

 

[Yora]

I wouldn't miss studded leather armor and splint armor. And I really prefer not to have spiked chains and anvils on a stick, and have fighting scythes with the blade in the correct position on the correct type of pole.

 

[Mattachine]

I'm just waiting for someone to chime in with, "I own my own set of realistic, reproduction-quality full plate armour, AND I am able to do cartwheels and backflips while wearing it."

How about this one: "Even simple leather armor is FAR more difficult to move around in than plain clothes. Why aren't there armor penalties for wearing leather?"


D&D armor isn't realistic, and never has been. Why start now?

 

[Bluenose]

I'd be happier if they published a list of armour types, un-named, with their relevant game statistics. And then in the descriptions, suggested types of real-world armour that these might represent. So the lightest armour might be described as "a leather jack, thick furs, mesoamerican cotton armour, chinese paper armour, small breastplates covering only part of the chest or other armour that only covers part of the body, and similar armours." Apart from anything else this would be more relevant for campaigns that don't operate as "medieval Europe with magic".

 

[TerraDave]

I think its a false choice: its not like they will come up with a list that is more historically accurate. They will (have?) come up with the armor equivalent of spiked chains.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Stick with traditions.

D&D isn't a historical simulation; there are other games for that. D&D is designed to simulate D&D.

They will (have?) come up with the armor equivalent of spiked chains.

Drow spidersilk chainmail bikini.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I lean moderately to the historic side. Were it me, I'd remove the non-sensible items, such as studded leather and spiked chains, and provide description of the economic and technological factors behind particular types of arms and armor.

I think I'd have a fairly traditional baseline list, but I might separate out some pieces into antiquated and advanced categories as an aid to campaign building.

 

[timASW]

I dont need much in the way of historical accuracy but I would like them to have several lists of different item types.

One European style armors and weapons names
one asian style armors and weapons
one "primitive" style lighter armors and weapons.

They dont all need radically different stats but I would like lists to be able to quickly draw from for different cultures or monster types at a glance.

 

[Grydan]

I think its a false choice: its not like they will come up with a list that is more historically accurate. They will (have?) come up with the armor equivalent of spiked chains.

Spiked-chain mail.

Make sure you don't put it on inside out.

 

[Ichneumon]

D&D traditions are the safest bet. If they try aiming at historical accuracy, any perceived inaccuracies or anachronisms will be blood in the water.