D&D 5E Traditional or Historial Arms and Armor

[Sunseeker]

Historical accuracy is for products attempting to replicate history.

Since replicating human history is not the design of D&D, merely one of it's many uses, historical replication should not be a primary design goal.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Since replicating human history is not the design of D&D

Some of those 2nd Ed Historical Reference books were, but, yeah, in general D&D is not about historical accuracy, but you can implement it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Let's forget about spiked chains.

Seconded. Or nthed.

They are fine as Dragonlance Gnome/Kender comic relief, but can easily be re-fluffed from a real weapon if someone really wants them.

Can we foget about Kender too please?

Of course, armour isn't really going to help you when getting smacked upside the head with a Buick.

Depends. If it's good enough armour it will hold together. You'll be sent flying, sure. But you'll be protected from sharp edges, from whiplash, and from most things except being rattled around like a pea in a can as you go flying or driven into the ground like a tent peg.

And on the OP, I'd prefer armour types to be real things rather than made up. THere are enough types of armour out there after all.

 

[Steely_Dan]

1) Can we foget about Kender too please?


2) Depends. If it's good enough armour it will hold together. You'll be sent flying, sure. But you'll be protected from sharp edges, from whiplash, and from most things except being rattled around like a pea in a can as you go flying or driven into the ground like a tent peg.

1) Never!


2) Total, but the armour can exacerbate the damage, metal plates gouging into your clavicle, etc.

 

[Gadget]

I don't have a strong preference for realistic armour vs. more fantastic stuff, as long as we aren’t going too far out on the fantastic branch. I've always felt that D&D, for much of its history, has been a little bit too granular in the armour department. Just like we don't really need the plethora of pole arms that Gygax was enamoured with in First Edition (though they undoubtedly existed in history in one form or another) I don't think it adds much to a game where after the first level or two you just find the right type of armour for your character type (light vs heavier) and upgrade with master work /magic for the rest of your career. In fact, I'm kind of disappointed they are bringing back the medium armour category. I mean, there is only so many meaningful mechanical designations for armour, after that you can flavor it how you wish--ultra historical or out there fantasy (leather treated with Ryan Seacrest's hair gel + 10 AC).

Now as for weapons, I'm all for getting rid of Spiked Chains & Dearth Maul double-swords. Or the my-new-greatsword-is-better-than-your-greatsword flavour of the month that seemed to be going on for a while.

 

[Neonchameleon]

2) Total, but the armour can exacerbate the damage, metal plates gouging into your clavicle, etc.

If case-hardened steel gouges into your clavicle despite the presence of decent paudrons then one of two things is happening. Either you would have been eviscerated by the blow or you're facing armour piercing attacks that would have punched a small hole in you and gone out the other side.

And I take it you mean never forget Kender as in the "Never Again!" sense?

 

[Klaus]

I think the armor table should be cleaned up and condensed. Armor from different periods of time is fine, but the table got filled with some pretty redundant types just to fill out the AC 10 to 0 progression. Banded Mail, Splint Mail and Plate should all be the same armor (the metal parts covering the chainmail joints is just shaped differently), for instance. Same with Studded Leather and Ring Mail.

 

[Izumi]

Izumi, why am I losing hp for wearing heavier armors? Or am I misreading something?

It's a single and temporary reduction in your character's overall hp total that lasts only as long as he/she wears the armor on their person. It represents the fortitude and endurance necessary to mimic the effect of wearing and fighting in these armors for long periods of time.

I think he's giving armor damage reduction, which has long been advocated by people who want more believable armor. My only criticism of that list is that the damage reduction doesn't scale with character level like damage and hit points do.

Armor both prevents you from being struck, and reduces the damage of strikes to some extent. Therefore, I think the random damage die already takes damage reduction into consideration by it's spread. Static (non-magically granted) damage bonuses are kinda irritating to me by consequence.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I'm happy to see some out-dated armours in the table if they support world-building (past eras and cheaper types for mass production). The armour table should not just be about the PCs but also tell a tale.

I've heard it mentioned but I would like to see a more granular hierarchy of armours in the absence of assumed +1 to +5 magic versions. If my PC starts with a suit of chain, I'd quite like to upgrade with greaves & bracers etc before eventually wearing a suit of plate.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Armor both prevents you from being struck, and reduces the damage of strikes to some extent. Therefore, I think the random damage die already takes damage reduction into consideration by it's spread. Static (non-magically granted) damage bonuses are kinda irritating to me by consequence.

I could see that if different armors changed which die was rolled for damage or if an unarmored target always took maximum damage. But I don't think that's what random damage was meant to reflect.

If we were going to model this, I would suggest something akin to the Fighter's parry maneuver, but somehow modified by the target's hit dice.