D&D 5e armor: a very simple fix

(A quick note: Tiago Rolim, an OSR designer, is ill and needs our help. Please check this out. And you get a lot of cool-looking games for US$10. I don't know Tiago or anyone involved in this bundle, just want to help).

Continued from last post.

This drives me crazy:

I think we could come up with something better and simpler:

Armor types have no names anymore. Instead, you get to describe your own armor by choosing from the table above and fitting it into of the three categories below. As I've said  before, "Let the players choose how they present their armor, as long as it makes sense. Chain mail with breast plate and no helmet? Cool! Shoulder pads to protect you in your right arm, big scary helmet, and bare chest? Nice!"

Notice that now heavy armor is always heavier than medium armor, and both always heavier than light armor. What a crazy idea, right?

Here is what armor types mean:

Light Armor: Made from supple and thin materials (usually leather or cloth), and maybe a few pieces of metal (just a helmet and or maybe protection for the right arm, etc.), light armor favors agile adventurers since it offers some protection without sacrificing mobility. If you wear light armor, you add your Dexterity modifier to the base number from your armor type to determine your Armor Class.

Medium Armor: Medium armor offers more protection than light armor, but it also impairs movement more. It is made with metal rings, scales or even plates (like a breastplate), but doesn't cover the entire body, although you will often use leather and cloth as padding or to protect exposed joints, etc. If you wear medium armor, you add your Dexterity modifier, to a maximum of +2, to the base number from your armor type to determine your Armor Class.

Heavy Armor: Of all the armor categories, heavy armor offers the best protection. These suits of armor cover the entire body in metal (of varying quality) and are designed to stop a wide range of attacks. Includes a helmet, gorget, or both. Only proficient warriors can manage their weight and bulk. Heavy armor doesn’t let you add your Dexterity modifier to your Armor Class, unless the  modifier is negative.

What about stealth? Here is what I've got.

Some types of armor are noisy, usually due to heavy or low-quality material/craftsmanship. A creature has disadvantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks while wearing noisy armor. You can find noisy, low quality light and medium armor for half the usual price. Alternatively, you can find good medium armor with additional pieces or layers that increases its AC by one, but also makes the armor noisy and doubles weight and price. Heavy armor is always noisy.

Notice that we have more options than the original system, and the whole thing makes sense. We could go even further and just say light armor weights 10 pounds, medium 20 (or 40 if noisy), and heavy, 50 or 60 regardless of AC. 

You could add a line about druids and how you can find nonmetal armor up to AC 12... but I'd go one step further and add bone, stone, etc., to give them even more options. But that's another subject.

Personalyzed armor

One more attempt at "fixing" armor; a bit different from encumbrance armor, but the basis is the same. Hope I am not repeating some old post...

The goals:
* Armor should be suited to your character. Stronger characters can carry more armor.
* No arbitrary class restrictions ("wizards cannot wear armor", etc.).
* As your level rises, so does your AC.
* Armor should follow a simple formula rather than an arbitrary list not-quite-historical armor types.

Here what I can up with.

Light, medium and heavy armor are three different categories (light/medium/heavy), but with no fixed AC. One person's light armor is another person's heavy armor, etc. You can also be unarmored.

You can also have No/Light/Medium/Heavy encumbrance, but with no exact correspondence. For example, you can have light armor but be heavily encumbered (specially if your carrying lots of backpacks etc.)

Rounding: there is no need to round any numbers; it your strength is 15, half of it is 7.5, so 7 is smaller than 7.5, and 8 is larger, etc.

Unarmored
AC is 10 plus Dexterity modifier.

Light armor
Anything that weights less than your one fourth of your Strength. The AC bonus is equal to the weight. You still get your Dexterity modifier.

Medium armor
Anything that weights less than your one third of your Strength. The AC bonus is equal to the weight. You still get your Dexterity modifier, but it is reduced by one third.

Heavy armor
Anything that weights less than your one half of your Strength. The AC bonus is equal to the weight. You still get your Dexterity modifier, but it is reduced by half.

Encumbrance: None/Light/Medium/heavy
* None: If your current encumbrance is smaller than one third your Strength. You get a +1 bonus to AC,  sneaking around, acrobatics, etc.
* Light: If your current encumbrance is smaller than half your Strength. You have a harder time casting spells. You might get an AC bonus if you're a monk, etc.
* Medium: If your current encumbrance is smaller or equal to your Strength. You have a harder time casting spells, sneaking around, etc.
* Heavy: If your current encumbrance is larger than your Strength. You have an even harder time casting spells, sneaking around, etc., and your speed is reduced.

In short:

		Weight (= AC bonus)	Dex modifier
	No armor	0	100%
	Light Armor	smaller than Str/4	100%
	Medium Armor	smaller than Str/3	66%
	Heavy Armor	smaller than Str/2	50%
		Weight	Special
	No encumbrance	smaller than Str/3	+1 AC bonus
	Light encumbrance	smaller than Str/2	affects spells
	Medium encumbrance	smaller than Str	also affects Dex
	Heavy encumbrance	larger than Str	also affects Speed

The result

The results are pleasing, but not ideal. Take a look at this chart; it uses the rules above and assumes that "no amor" gives you a +1 bonus to AC (which is only true if you're unencumbered):

There are some problems. Medium armor is often useless if you have high Dexterity, for example. A simples fix would be allowing your full dexterity bonus to medium armor:

Anyway, it's a matter of fine tuning. And there is LOTS of fine tuning to do. For example, under this system you have good reasons to avoid wearing the heaviest armor you can.

But maybe even HAVING light/medium/heavy armor is one step too far. Encumbrance alone might be enough. Once again, this might be too complex for the types of game I play, but I cannot help playing with the mechanics of the game. But maybe I can come up with a mechanic that is even simpler. Let's see...

How thick is your armor (5e D&D)?

Here is something I've found out: 

If your Dexterity is greater than your Armor Class, you are wearing "lighter" armor. If your Dexterity is smaller than your Armor Class, you are wearing "heavier" armor.

Sounds quite obvious, but it took me a while. 

Now, here is an explanation, and why this is useful.

I have often considered playing around with armor in my 5e D&D games. For example, having certain weapons work better against certain types of armor, and so on.

It is not easy to do, however. AC 15 can mean that someone is really agile, or that he or she is wearing chain armor. Likewise, when a monster has AC 15 (natural armor) it could be anything - from the tiny stirge (AC 14) to the large troll (AC 15).

Certainly the troll's skin is thicker than the stirge's?

Having a specific type of armor (leather armor, plate armor) indicated is a bit better, although you'd have to create specific rules for each kind of armor (there are twelve, plus shield), or memorize in which categories each armor fits (light/medium/heavy) or reverse-engineer the monster's AC to find out how heavy the armor is*. 

* Notice that someone with Dex 18 might have AC 16 using light, medium or heavy armor - although in this case you might assume the armor to be light. Curiously enough, one of the main downsides of heavy armor (and some kinds of medium armor) is giving you disadvantage to stealth - but, again, you'd have to memorize them to to know if a monster has disadvantage.

But if we use the formula indicated above, things get a lot easier. Now it is obvious that the stirge's natural armor is lighter than the troll's, and the Tarrasque's carapaces in a lot heavier than both. 

With this formula, we can create easy house rules, such as "slashing weapons deal more damage on a critical hit against light armor". This is just a start.

It doesn't solve all our problems - there are still a few outliers, and some instances where Dexterity is equal to AC (but not enough to create a "medium armor" category by itself), oozes might be a problem, etc. But it is simple and efficient... which is all I need right now.

Images: copyright Wizards of the Coast AFAICT.

OSR piecemal armor

The subject came up on the Gaming Ballistic blog. Douglas has written several interesting books on combat, including Dragon Heresy (I contributed a page) and Dungeon Grappling (my review). 

I like the idea of piecemeal armor, I've written some post on the subject myself - and a complete treatment for 5e games in 5e Manual of Arms: Armor & Shields (also here and here). If you want more ideas on 5e armor, check this one out. I don't remember writing anything like this for OSR games, however.

I really like Stella's idea... it suits my minimalist instincts well. See (from the OSE SRD):

The pattern is obvious (2/4/6, 20/40/60, 200/400/...well, 500) except for plate mail being a bit lighter than we might expect. Let's make it a bit heavier and voilá: you don't even need a table anymore.

Armor is also too cheap in B/X when compared to weapons (and garlic, but that's another story). Multiply the cost by 10, and now weight = cost in gold.

Let's say any armor lighter than 400 (AC 14) is considered light armor. So you can wear leather with a heavy helmet, or you can add greaves, or run around naked with helmet and shield... 

How much each part weights? Again, because of my minimalist tastes, I'm tempted to divide it evenly. Maybe in four parts (legs, arms, torso and head), maybe five (shoulders).

Let me paste a bit from Armor & Shields:

In the first chapter, and throughout this book, we play fast and loose with “realism”. There are a few reasons for that.

First, this is a game of dragons and flying wizards, and we don’t usually let realism get in the way of our fun until the suspension of disbelief becomes annoying (if it does, feel free to ignore any of the options present here). The usual rules are not particularly realistic, either. It is highly debatable, for example, if leather armor is particularly efficient (when compared to padded armor)...

Second, even if we were trying to make things more realistic, we would have to recognize that there is no way to say, for example, that every breastplate weights (or costs) the same.

Real armor can vary immensely in weight, size, composition, etc. There are layers (a breastplate with chain armor, with padding underneath), materials (linen, iron, leather, horn, stone), quality (hardened iron, leather from different monsters, etc.), symmetry (gladiator armor could be asymmetrical) and craftsmanship (butted mail versus riveted mail, etc.) to consider. Some of these topics are discussed on chapter IV.

The issue is further complicated because, even in the original rules, some types or armor are just smaller parts of others, while some include greaves, many layers, or are completely fictional. As the nomenclature is all over [...]

To make things a lot simpler, you could just ignore the names of the armor and judge it by weight and AC. Let the players choose if they are wearing a helmet, shoulder pads, leather or chain to protect the joints, etc.

Now the table is neatly organized in order of AC and weight.

Light Armor: Made from supple and thin materials, such as linen, leather, etc. Alternatively, fight bare-chested with an iron helmet and greaves, or heavy winter clothing.

Medium Armor: made of hardier materials, mostly metal – in plates, scales, strips in varying sizes or metal rings (interlocking or sewn into leather), and a layer of padding underneath. Alternatively, a breastplate with greaves, braces, etc., but some exposed gaps (joints, etc.).

Heavy Armor: covers the entire body in thick metal, mostly in large plates, plus padding. It includes a helmet, gorget, or both.

Within these guidelines, you can call your armor padded, gambeson, leather, hide, scale, chain, ring, brigandine, breastplate, lorica segmentata, mirror armor, just helmet and braces, dark clothing and a cape, or anything of the sort. We used the terms “gambeson” and “brigandine” in chapter I to fill existing gaps, not to include any realistic versions of these types of armor. You might as well say you are wearing a “long, thick gambeson” for medium armor, for example.

The materials you can use to build armor are described on chapter IV.

It makes me think... is there enough interest for a "Manual of arms" book for OSR games? Certainly there is much to add and a little to  "fix" in the original game (for example, I don't think "slow" weapons need to suffer that much). 

As you've noticed, I like to keep things simple. So, maybe 20-30 pages, adding minimum crunch but lots of options. Like Old School Feats.

Well, maybe that's the subject for another post. But if you like the idea, let me know!

Encumbrance armor! For 5e et al. D&D

The concept is really simple.

The main downside of armor is encumbrance; it slows you don't, makes you tired, etc. However, it is extremely useful in combat.

Now, nobody likes dealing with encumbrance. Okay, some people do, but it seems enough people dislike the concept since 5e added an alternative to encumbrance when describing armor: minimum strength of 13 or 15.

Which, curiously enough, seem be be pulled out of thin air, having no relation to the armor's weight:

Heavy Armor
Ring Mail	30 gp	14	—	Disadvantage	40 lb.
Chain Mail	75 gp	16	Str 13	Disadvantage	55 lb.
Splint	200 gp	17	Str 15	Disadvantage	60 lb.
Plate	1,500 gp	18	Str 15	Disadvantage	65 lb.

Also like the weapon's list, most of the armor list seems to be useless once you have a bit of coin to spare.

The ideal armor list would be concise, simple, but with enough nuance to provided cahrachters a lot of variation... not an easy thing to do.

But we will!

Here is the deal: you have as many SLOTS of encumbrance as your Strength score. Each  slot is about 8 pounds, but this isn't meant to be exact.

Let us start with Strength 12 as our example.

You can add as much armor as you want... keeping a limit of +8 AC, like in 5e.

Let's try adding +4 AC:

You can still add your Dex bonus to AC, but for that you have to leave EMPTY SLOTS; one for each +1. Other slots can be filled with gold, water, weapons, etc. Probably two slots for heavy weapons, one slot for two light weapons (don't get me started on the meaning of the "light" and "heavy" properties).

Of course, you can combine the two:

And a shield! The shield is +2 AC as usual.

Of course, this is a bit prone to abuse and must be fine tuned.

One would think that in most circumstances PCs would have little space for abuse, since everybody will be carrying other stuff anyway.

Maybe a strong barbarian could carry lots of armor... but armor is of very limited utility to barbarians anyway. Other classes do not benefit from having BOTH dexterity and strength.

And with that, we get rid of the whole armor table, and replace it with this:

Light Armor: +1.
Medium Armor +2 to +4.
Heavy armor: +5 to +7.

Cost is the AC bonus, squared, times 10 gp. So, 10, 40, 90, 160, 250, etc.

Clumsy armor halves the cost (disadvantage to stealth). Any armor with AC 15 or more must be clumsy.

Fancy armor allows you to add +1 to AC to the maximum but quadruples the cost (i.e., AC 15 medium armor costs 500 gp; start with 250 gp, multiplied by four to 1000 gp, but halve that cost because it is clumsy). So you can have +2 light amor, or +8 heavy armor (640, divided by two, times four... 1280 gp).

Nonmetal armor is limited to AC +2.

Now that you got the idea, you can play around with it. Let anyone that has less than half their slots filled get an automatic +1 to AC, for example, or take a -1 AC penalty if you are carrying more weight than your slots would allow. Maybe require empty slots for AC bonuses from Wisdom or Constitution, forcing the monk to travel light (which is probably too harsh) and avoiding abuse from the barbarian. And so on.

Minor update here.

D&D 5e: new types of armor

I have been finally writing the follow up to my 5e Manual of Arms: Weapons; the name is 5e Manual of Arms: Armor and shields.

It's been a bit of a headache. Armor is a lot more complex (and maybe less interesting) than melee weapons. The weight varies immensely, and the types of armor 5e uses have only a vague resemblance to reality (I've heard many people say that "leather armor" is not a thing, and that padded armor should be a lot better, "chain mail" is redundant, etc.). 

Real armor can vary in weight, size, etc. It is also used in many combinations – a breastplate with chain armor, with padding underneath, and so on. There are also cultural differences; think of samurai, gladiators (with asymmetric armor), armor made of exotic materials, etc. 

The issue is further complicated because, even in the original rules, some types or armor are just smaller parts of others, while some include greaves, gauntlets, protection for the legs, layers, etc.  

Helmets? Not mentioned in 5e. I guess it is not an important piece of armor...

To make things a lot simpler, you could just ignore the names of the armor and judge them by price, weight and AC. Let the players choose how they present their armor, as long as it makes sense. Chain mail with breast plate and no helmet? Cool! Shoulder pads to protect you in your right arm, big scary helmet, and bare chest? Nice! 

So, I'm adding this is an alternate system. Build your own armor, never mind the name. Also, an encumbrance system that is both easier and more sensible.

(I already wrote about this here)

But I feel I should at least fill the gaps that 5e leaves for people who don't want a new system. For now, I've got a few shields, but only two types of armor (I don't think we need more than that): 

Gambeson (Light)
A long, padded jacket with a skirt. In this context, a heavier (maybe thicker or longer) type of padded armor. 
AC 12 + Dex modifier Str — Disadvantage to stealth 15 lb. 20 gp

Brigandine (Heavy)
Small steel plates riveted inside a jacket of cloth. The arms and legs are covered with similar protection, or chain. Overall, lighter than chain mail but heavier and more expensive than ring mail. 
AC 15 Str 11 (?) Disadvantage 45 lb. 60 gp 

Not great. I think brigandine should be lighter (i.e., medium armor) and more expensive, but there is no niche there to fill. And brigandine sounds simialr to the way splint mail is described, so...

I'd like to add a Jack of plates as medium armor... but again, no niche (unless I give it stealth disadvantage, which sounds bad).

Any ideas? I'd be happy to hear them.

Anyway, if you want a detailed treatment on weapons, you can also check the Dragon Heresy Introductory Set. I wrote a very small section of it (about half a page, similar to that link, above), and although I haven't talked much to Douglas since the demise of Google+, I know he only creates good stuff AFAICT. Here is another example.

Dragon Heresy has new types of armor, shields, weapons, and a completely novel combat system. Douglas know his stuff - he makes actual shields! If you like to add more detail to your D&D combat, it is worth checking out.

Weapon versus armor - from AD&D to B/X

As you might know, I'm into B/X (using my own clone, and also frequently using modules from other basic systems), but I have been reading lots of AD&D lately.

In the last few days, I've been looking at the weapon versus armor table in AD&D. 

Now, according to Delta's blog, the weapon versus armor table in AD&D contains mathematical/revision errors. It is a simple "lost in translation" mistake. I've heard some good arguments saying that there is no error (i.e., the revision was done on purpose). But I think he makes a good point. Go read it and decide for yourself.

In any case, I also think there's cool stuff to learn from both chainmail and AD&D. And this is what matters to me. 

[BTW, Delta - one of the best old school D&D bloggers out there IMO - has done all the hard work putting this stuff on a sheet. I'm only playing with the numbers, and literally adding some color. Any mistakes you find below are probably mine, however - please let me know in the comments].

In chainmail, to hit someone in plate and shield (AC 2 in AD&D) with a dagger, you'd need to roll 12 using 2d6, for example. A 2h-sword would only require 7.  I added and "average" column to compare the overall effectiveness of each weapon.

Notice that green/blue means good (chances of hitting), red means bad. The spear is a "bad" weapon against armor on average.

If you calculate the chances of hitting with 2d6, you'll find that rolling 12 happens about 3% of the time - while rolling 7 or more happens about 60% of the time. 

This means the 2h-sword is TWENTY TIMES better than the dagger against plate and shield - but if your target is unarmored, they are nearly identical! 

Likewise, the mace is about FIVE TIMES better than a regular sword against AC 2, but the sword is a bit better against unarmored foes.

Notice that all weapons deal the same damage in Chainmail.

Now, let's check the Greyhawk table. It might contain a "translation error", but this doesn't matter for our purposes. There is no perfect way to convert from Chainmail to D&D, for various reasons. What we are doing here is looking at certain tendencies and making generalizations (e.g., "maces are good at defeating heavy armor, daggers are terrible for that unless the target is prone").

These tables show that:

- Almost all weapons are good against unarmored and bad against plate and shield; i.e., armor is even more important than AC would indicate (on average, there is a 10-point spread between AC 9 and AC 2).

- On the other hand, most modifiers are positive, which means you're hitting more often against anything but plate. 

-  The biggest difference is against low ACs. In practice (because THAC0 and statistics), this means choosing the right weapon could double or triple your damage against heavy armor, but barely matters  (damage output raised by less than 20%) against unarmored foes.

- Heavy and unbalanced weapons are good against heavy armor, and just better overall.

As you can see this solves a number of issues with B/X weapons, for example. The sword stops being simply the best weapon (1d8 damage), and faces some difficulty against heavy armor. The spear is in a similar situation (long, good against charges, but bad against armor). Big weapons, such as the lance and 2H sword get a well-deserved boost. The hand axe is no longer simply cheaper and better than the mace.

In addition, it makes wearing armor more relevant. This is also a much deserved boost to plate armor, which is heavy and restrictive. Plate gives you great protection against a sword or dagger, maybe making you invulnerable (unless you're prone - see below!).  

While this is much simpler and a bit more sensible than the AD&D table, it is still a bit fiddly for my tastes. Of course to see the whole picture, we'd have to consider speed factor and space required - which is much worse. And we'd also need to consider variable weapon damage, a popular rule in B/X and basically every version of D&D.

But maybe we can extrapolate some cool ideas from here? 

Let's see... 

The easiest way of simplifying this is just giving a bonus to hit to certain weapons (from 0 to +2 ti avoid negatives). Instead of calculating it, we should judge on a case by case basis.

Or we could get more detailed.

Light, balanced weapons (dagger, hand axe, spear, short sword, club) have a hard time against heavy armor. Let's say, -1 to hit against chainmail (AC 5[14]) or better (but see "daggers and penalties", below).

[Wouldn't it be nice if these lighter weapons gave you a small bonus when backstabbing? Now, the thief can still backstab with a heavy weapon, it is just not optimal. And Chainmail also gives pointy weapons a bonus against prone targets in armor. Neat!].

Heavy/unbalanced weapons (two-handed, with the "slow" tag) are more likely to cause damage: +1 regardless of armor.

I used to ignore the "slow" tag, but maybe give it a -1 to initiative puts things back in the right place.

Everything else is unchanged. I'm not particular fond of "small bonus against medium armor" that some weapons get, and I don't quite agree with some of the conclusions (e.g., why is a 2H sword so much better than a lance against armored opponents?).

This is a radical simplification, that brings me back to an old idea of having a few weapon traits: brutal/unbalanced, fast/balanced, and everything else.

Now, I have so many small problems with D&D weapons that if I were to recreate the list (again) I'd probably start from scratch (or from 5e - at least the weights make sense). But it is fun to see that the original system makes a lot more sense once you actually take the time to understand it - which includes understanding what AD&D got wrong.

Come to think of it, rewriting the entire thing is doable. Not sure if it is worth the effort. Let me know in the comments.

---

Notes.

The 1e table

While using the 1e table fixes some B/X weapon problems, it creates issues of its own. A 2H-sword is better against AC 8 than AC 10 (i.e., the unarmored target is more protected!). Same happens occasionally for shields (i.e., having a shield HURTS YOU against a mace).

This is - assuming you're only using a few armor types. Because if you're using all the armor types available, the table becomes impractical, as "AC 5" means different things (sometimes you'll have AC 5 with a shield, sometimes without) - but should ALWAYS protect you more than AC 6, for example.

Still, it is a good place to start.

The 2e table

I feel I should mention the 2e table, which is simpler and more manageable, but still not ideal to me. 

Maybe there's some merit to the idea of separating damage types, but I think we would still have to consider weight/balance to differentiate spears from picks/warhammers, and axes from swords. Maybe add chop (axe) and thrust or impale (spear)?

Looking at this from the armor side - rather than the weapon side - also simplifies things a bit.

Daggers and penalties

I'm a bit unsure of giving any penalties at all. Daggers are already weaker than most weapons because they do 1d4 damage. And, while a dagger should indeed be ten times less effective against plate in a battlefield, players want to use daggers and look cool. 

The sword, on the other hand, gets 1d8 damage. But it is an iconic weapon that I wouldn't like nerfing.

Penalties in general are just bad - they will discourage you from picking a weapon, and could even make hitting an enemy impossible. Players will not care for them in my occasionally "forget" them.

Maybe giving a boost to weaker weapons (such as the mace) is enough.

The "armor bonus" trait

B/X ranged weapons have three ranges: short (+1 to hit), medium (0), and long (-1 to hit). OSE uses this notation: "Missile (5’–10’ / 11’–20’ / 21’–30’)"

Could we do the same with armor for some weapons? E.g. Dagger, "Armor bonus (9/7/5)", meaning +1 against AC 8 and 9, and -1 against AC 5 or better. Seems easy enough if we add it only to a few weapons, but too fiddly if applied across the board. 

I prefer one of the generalizations suggested above.

Monsters and high-level play

One problem of giving weapon bonuses against heavy armor is that powerful monsters will have good armor very often. Should high level heroes ALWAYS carry heavy weapons, since they are expected to face tough monsters?

This problem is not as big as it seems. High level PCs will hit a lot more often against heavy armor anyway, making the difference less relevant. In old school D&D, there are still powerful monsters with not-that-great AC. And finally, one important aspect of making things balanced, I think, is not only throwing powerful monsters at the PCs, but letting them eventually face hordes of minions - which is fun and genre appropriate. 

Still, if you're fighting a dragon, you'd better bring a big sword!

Critical hits

I still think Critical Hits are the best way to deal with these differences. You can just ignore all little details until you roll a natural 20, and then your mace smashes the enemy, despite being worse than the sword most of the time. And everyone loves crits!

I feel Critical Hits are on of those ideas that Gygax didn't include in AD&D because it was too fiddly or "realistic", but in reality could make the game a bit SIMPLER. 

But let's leave that to another post. I think I could balance all weapons using only critical hits. (We don't need to make them perfectly balance, but we should find at least ONE USE for each weapon). AND maybe I can make speed factor easy. Wouldn't this be cool?

Minimalist OSR + Manual of Arms

All these ideas are being progressively incorporated in my minimalist OSR game, which you can get for free here. All feedback is welcome!

I'm also considering adapting my Manual of Arms books to OSR rules - including weapon versus armor. Let's see how this goes.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/old-school-weapons-are-terrible-armor.html

https://trekhead.livejournal.com/93653.html

http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-big-mistake-in-weapon-vs-armor.html

Piecemeal armor

This is going into my next PDF (Manual of Arms: Armor and Shields). It is still unfished, but I think I can publish the PDF in the next few days.

I like the idea of piecemeal armor, but since I'm abstracting the whole thing (as you've seen here), I don't need to deal with specific bits and pieces. The notion of creating your own armor from bits and pieces is interesting. Adding strange materials and the hides of supernatural creatures is even better.

Here is what I've got so far.

Art by dleoblack - source.

Piecemeal armor (and crafting)

Piecemeal armor is built from diverse bits and pieces. Each part might have a different quality, weight, and material. Some are improvised and asymmetrical. This is suboptimal and only common in post-apocalyptic worlds where you cannot find a blacksmith to make coherent armor.

The rules in chapter II are abstract enough to cover these kinds of armor. The only exception is that you do not usually buy this type of armor, but build it over a long time, as you find useful pieces.

As an optional rule, every time you find armor with equal or higher cost than yours (that you cannot simply steal for some reason) or other useful parts, you can make a check with the relevant tools (leatherworker’s, smith’s, etc.) to see if you can upgrade your armor by one step (changing AC, weight and price accordingly). The difficulty is equal to the armor’s current AC.

This can take a while. A quick rule of thumb is adding the result of your check (in gp) each day to the value of armor until it reaches the value of the desired armor type. If you want to upgrade a weapon from a 30 gp value to 50 gp, for example, you need to roll 20 or more. Three failures usually mean you ruined the material. Armor made this way has little resale value.

---

EDIT: The book is now available! Check it out here.

SCALING ARMOR for 5e D&D

The latest post might have been a bit confusing.

This is easier, I hope. Well, if you want a different idea - even simpler - then let me draw that for you.

If you want crunch... read on!

First, get rid of 5e's armor tables.

Source.

Now you have this:

- A number of encumbrance slots equal to your Strength. If you fill HALF of these, you're half-encumbered. Fill all, and you're encumbered. Less than half means you're unencumbered.
- Armor takes a variable number of encumbrance slots (1 slot for AC 11, 2 slots for AC 12, 5 slots for AC 15, etc).
- Light armor is AC 12, medium 13-15, and heavy 16-18.
- Cost is 10 gp times AC bonus, squared. AC 14 costs 160 gp, for example, and AC 18, 640 GP (yes, it is cheaper, but you need Str 18 to make the most of it). You can get cheap armor for one quarter of the price, but you suffer a -1 penalty to AC.
- AC 15 or higher gives you disadvantage in stealth.
- Dexterity gives you a variable bonus to AC.
- Armor proficiency works as usual.

The bonus is:

* Start with column A.
* If you're using armor, and your armor's AC is greater than your Str, move one column to the right.
* If you're half-encumbered (i.e., half of your encumbrance slots are filled), move one column to the right. If you're encumbered, move two columns to the right instead, and speed drops by 10ft.
* If you're using medium amor, move one column to the right. If you're using heavy amor, move two columns to the right instead.

(The table below is the "smoother" version from last post; remember, column C is the ability modifier you're used to. Notice that there is no column "F"; if you move one column to the right of E, you cannot get a bonus from Dex, but you can still get a penalty).

Dex	A	B	C	D	E
8	-1	-1	-1	-1	-1
9	-1	-1	-1	-1	-1
10	0	0	0	0	0
11	1	1	0	0	0
12	1	1	1	1	1
13	2	2	1	1	1
14	3	2	2	2	1
15	3	3	2	2	1
16	4	4	3	2	2
17	5	4	3	3	2
18	6	5	4	3	2
19	6	5	4	4	3
20	7	6	5	4	3

Some examples:

Unfettered build (AC 17):
No armor, Str 8, Dex 20, unencumbered - use column A, get AC 17. With only 8 encumbrance slots, this PC must travel light at all times to keep the high AC. Light armor would raise your AC to 18; if you're carrying a shield and weapon too, you'd lose the unencumbered status, but raise AC to 20.

Traditional thief (AC 19):
Light armor (AC 12), Str 12, Dex 20, unencumbered - use column A, get AC 19.

Brutish rogue (AC 17):
Medium armor (AC 14), Str 14, Dex 16 - use column C, get AC 17. If you manage to stay unencumbered - not an easy thing to do - your AC is 18.

Heavy and fast (AC 20):

Heavy armor (AC 18), Str 18, Dex 14 - use column D, and you get AC 20. Notice that with 18 encumbrance slots, and 8 of those being filled by armor, is practically impossible for this build to be unencumbered. What this build can do is use a shield - and get to AC 22!

But... I don't like these ABCDE tables!

You can have a similar result by just giving +1 AC to anyone who is unencumbered, provided their DEX is 10 or higher, and -1 to anyone whose strength is smaller than their armor's AC.

What's the point?

As always, we want to give people good reasons to have BOTH Str and Dex. Notice that most of these builds require both, which is suboptimal by RAW, but they get a small AC boost in this system. In practice, PCs will rarely be unencumbered.

Side effects may include:

* Duels! In duels, BOTH sides are more likely to be unencumbered, which makes the fight lasts for a bit longer... perfect!

* Giving a reason to have odd ability scores.

* Making encumbrance more meaningful.

* Making each point of Str/Dex count.

* Making each armor unique (you might be better off with AC 13 than 14, for example, but it all depends on your stats). You might have different sets of armor for dueling, exploring, traveling, etc.

Adverse effects:

* Dex becomes even more useful.

* Barbarians/monks might need fine tuning. Paladins in plate may suffer a little if they have Str 16 or less and low Dex.

* ACs might become higher all around - although the difference is seldom greater than +1 or +2.

Weapon speed, size and force: simplifying AD&D

"Forget weapon speed factors. I must have been under the influence of a hex when I included them in the bloody rules." - attributed to Gary Gygax.

If you've been reading this blog for a while, you might know I'm a bit obsessed with this stuff.

So, I was taking YES another look at AD&D weapons... and, again, I'm torn.

On one hand, I love the idea of certain weapons being awesome when dealing with heavy armor, or large opponents, or tight spaces... OTOH I think the tables as written are almost unsalvageable.

Take the two handed sword, for example.

* It makes attacking someone in leather armor easier to hit than someone who is unarmored. 

* It ignores your shield if you are unarmored, but NOT if you are in leather armor.

* It weights 250 coins. The awl pike (length: 18’+) weights 80 coins.

There is nothing here I want to use. But it also has a few interesting aspects I like:

* It is a decent weapon against MOST  types of armor and shields.

* It is a great weapon against large opponents.

AD&D doesn't tell you this, but it shows this is true with many tables and more than a dozen digits. Here is a radical simplification that would still give me everything I want from 2H-sword:

- The 2H-sword has +2 to hit against any armor, and double damage dice (2d10) against large opponents.

Now, instead of analyzing several tables, the player can choose this weapon for clear reasons. 

We could extrapolate this further; maybe ALL swords deal double damage against large foes, and ALL two-handed weapons get +2 to hit (thus balancing the loss of a shield).

In order to create these extrapolations/generalizations, I compiled this table (right click to open in a new tab):

The columns are:

- Weights.

- Damage (minimum plus maximum, so "1-4" becomes 5).

- Speed factor (the lower/red, the faster).

- Attack (the sum of all attack bonuses, from AC 9 to AC 2), meaning the weapon hits more often.

- Armor spread (which is the AC 2 bonus minus the AC 9 bonus), meaning the weapon is particularly bad against heavy armor if the number is low/red. Ignore this last column for now.

The colors help us visualize some patterns. 

There is a clear tendency of lighter weapons being faster, but weaker against armor and dealing lower damage. 

When there is a visible shift in color, we can notice outliers. For example:

- The awl pike is much slower than other weapons of a similar weight, while the lance (heavy warhorse) is significantly faster.

- The bastard sword is very good against large opponents, even in its weight class.

- The short sword is fast for its weight class; in fact, all swords are kinda fast for their weights.

- Some weapons (2H sword, heavy lance, flail, morningstar) hit more often, while others (sticks, fauchard, guisarme) have a harder time hitting ("attack" column).

- The "bec de corbin" and "axe, battle" are both bad against large opponents.

Now, the last column deserves further explanation. 

A positive/green number means the weapon gets to partially ignore armor, while a negative/red number means the weapon is particularly weak against heavier armor.

This column has a bit less correlation to "weight class". But there are some rules that seem easy to generalize:

- Picks, flails, maces and heavy lances/2h-swords are good against heavy armor.

- Axes, daggers and swords are bad against heavy armor.

- Sticks/staves are terrible against heavy armor.

So... I still don't know what to make of this. I guess my desire is to make a series of small affirmations that could be easier understood and applied ("picks, flails and 2h-swords get +2 against armor", etc.).

An earlier effort resulted in this, which was good but still not quite what I'm looking for.

My next guess is that we could play with the idea of "combat maneuvers" or "special attacks", with some weapons being better doing a "ignore armor" maneuvers, others with a "fast attack", etc.

Another idea is making clear certain weapons are better against giants, other against undead, oozes, etc.

But I'll leave that to another day. This exercise was interesting but a bit frustrating; it almost seems like any effort to streamline this stuff is in vain, and we'd be better off consulting tables.

Encumbrance armor - minor update

As I mentioned in my post about "encumbrance armor", the idea, as written, is a bit prone to abuse.

To avoid all PCs to walking around in heavy armor, 5e limits the three heaviest kinds of armor to PCs that have minimum strength of 13 or 15.

Heavy Armor
Ring Mail	30 gp	14	—	Disadvantage	40 lb.
Chain Mail	75 gp	16	Str 13	Disadvantage	55 lb.
Splint	200 gp	17	Str 15	Disadvantage	60 lb.
Plate	1,500 gp	18	Str 15	Disadvantage	65 lb.

There is no rhyme or reason to these numbers, apparently. A Str 12/13/14/15 would make a lot more sense and work perfectly well for gaming reasons.

But why not make Strength requirements for ALL kinds of armor? This is an idea I've got from Dragon Heresy. But I prefer formulas to tables. So:

The maximum number of slots you can fill with armor (including shields) is equal to half your Strength score (rounded up); otherwise, the armor reduces your speed by (at least) 10 feet.

Crisis averted!

This works quite well. For starters, to wear the equivalent of plate armor (AC 18), you'd need... Str 15!

This also bars anyone with Str less than 9 to have AC 15 armor, although light armor (and most kinds of medium armor) is still available for (almost) everybody that has proficiency in it.

You also require a bit extra Strength for using shields, which makes sense IMO, although you could always stick to the original rules and say shields have no Str requirements.

You don't have to apply this rule to monsters - maybe armor is lighter for them because of their dimensions - although it seems to work well enough as written.