Is armor over-rated?

[sophontteks]

I was reading discussions on Str vs. Dex paladins. The main arguement being that STR can use full armor which gives +1 Ac over dex. but I read about the armor and there are some other problems that seem to be tucked under the rug. The biggest of which is donning times.

So, it takes 1 minute to put on leather. Thats 10 rounds. It takes 10 minutes to put on heavy armor- 100 rounds.
We don't sleep in armor, so any time there's an encounter at night those players could be fighting with only 10 AC. And the problem is that these encounters are not rare and we are talking about a huge penalty. Other such situations include swimming, travelling in heavy heat, encounters in social situations (balls and such), escaping from a prison, having your armor stolen while you were sleeping.

How do people get around this? I mean IRL even the heaviest plate doesn't slow down the wearer much, and it renders them nearly invulnerable. Is it really worth all the work just for a single AC assuming you even have the armor on?

[Matrix_Walker]

If your build has a 20 DEX in its future, then armor is likely more trouble than it's worth.

In a magic heavy game with a plethora of magic items, the best magic armors do tend to be the heavier ones, and if this is the case, armor proficiency and use can really pay off.

[Darkbru]

If you’re honestly concerned about it you could dip to Sorcerer for one level, assuming you have 13 CHA, and pick Draconic so you get base 13 AC plus your DEX modifier. Worst case is you’d probably have 12 AC in plain clothes if you dump DEX. If you have a 10 DEX then you get the 13

[Solusek]

How do people get around this? I mean IRL even the heaviest plate doesn't slow down the wearer much, and it renders them nearly invulnerable. Is it really worth all the work just for a single AC assuming you even have the armor on?

I haven't liked how D&D does armor pretty much ever. I get the fantasy of the quick nimble sword fighter, and it's great that they are viable, but IRL full plate armor was absolutely dominating in battle. It was a really really huge deal. I feel like the advantages that a fully armored knight would have in battle is mechanically lacking in this edition of the game. It ends up being like a 1-2 AC better than a dextrous combatant in light armor. Come on. Even just mundane non-magic full plate should be something special and a big deal for the characters that can use it.

Armor was incredibly effective in the real pre-firearms world. I wish that was better represented mechanically.

[trctelles]

By RAW and RAI, there is no penalty for sleeping in armor, so you can sleep in heavy armor. I know it makes sense to don and doff it, but you don't HAVE to.
I'm AFB, but I think there are more magic heavy armors than medium.
DEX is considered the OP stat of 5e, so even if you use heavy armor you shouldn't dump it.

If you get attacked at night and have no armor on, it won't matter if it would take 10 or 100 rounds to don it, it's not worth to do it.

If you don't dump DEX, you should have a 12 or 14 in it, so you'll have 11 or 12 AC without armor (if you don't have a race that give you natural armor). It sucks, but you shouldn't be fighting with no armor that much that you would think "damn, I wish a was a DEX X class instead of a STR one so I could fight better with no armor''

STR builds use bigger die weapons, can use GWM and PAM and fight better with no weapons than a DEX guy (again, if your race doesn't give you natural weapon).
I think these kinds of situation won't happen that much to make you chose one build over the other.

[Tanarii]

I haven't liked how D&D does armor pretty much ever.

Armor used to the the only decent way to get AC in Classic and AD&D.

[MaxWilson]

Armor was incredibly effective in the real pre-firearms world. I wish that was better represented mechanically.

If you let Heavy Armor Master be taken multiple times and stack with itself, that would do it.

Incidentally, the fact that Str makes you better at grappling/shoving/proning is a huge deal for tanks, especially once you've got extra attacks.

[Pex]

To each his own. It is nice and fun that many classes can get by with non-heavy or no armor. Hooray for them. For those who use heavy armor, that is their fun. They will have the highest AC, and that is significant in 5E. Dexterity is great but that does not make Strength suck. Initiative is not always important for a character. Heavy armor means DX can be another dump stat option. As for saving throws, nothing is perfect but you'll be taking damage anyway. It is why you have the hitpoints.

[strangebloke]

Str builds get:
Higher AC at all levels, particularly if you get lots of money early on.

You can safely leave your str at 16 for an entire campaign and still have better AC than your Dex-based friend. (Useful if you're focusing on your abilities as caster.)

Much bettter weapon damage in melee

Access to certain builds and feats like Pam, gwm, better support for sentinel, etc.

Str-based skills that can be used offensively (athletics)

Ability to multiclass in and out of classes that require strength.

Depending on what you're doing, Dex might be better, but it's hardly a given.

[sophontteks]

I haven't liked how D&D does armor pretty much ever. I get the fantasy of the quick nimble sword fighter, and it's great that they are viable, but IRL full plate armor was absolutely dominating in battle. It was a really really huge deal. I feel like the advantages that a fully armored knight would have in battle is mechanically lacking in this edition of the game. It ends up being like a 1-2 AC better than a dextrous combatant in light armor. Come on. Even just mundane non-magic full plate should be something special and a big deal for the characters that can use it.

Armor was incredibly effective in the real pre-firearms world. I wish that was better represented mechanically.

I know right?
Especially medium armor where its like "Oh my god this chain shirt is soooo heavy I can barely move." I would expect the ability to wear medium armor to be straight up better then light in most situations. But then again, even light armor like padded armor is incredibly effective. It turns out cutting through dozens of layers of thick cloth is incredibly difficult to do.

Sadly, I don't know a good way around it. The best I could do as a DM is to give all players the armor master feats automatically, which I think just brings armor where it should be.

I don't think I can really allow players to sleep in armor while gaining the benefits of a full rest, but its good to know that they would do that in RAW. If players are given the mastery feats for free, then perhaps I could be stricter on when armor would be worn without unfairly picking on strength builds.

[sophontteks]

To each his own. It is nice and fun that many classes can get by with non-heavy or no armor. Hooray for them. For those who use heavy armor, that is their fun. They will have the highest AC, and that is significant in A.C. Dexterity is great but that does not make Strength suck. Initiative is not always important for a character. Heavy armor means DX can be another dump stat option. As for saving throws, nothing is perfect but you'll be taking damage anyway. It is why you have the hitpoints.

They only have the highest AC if they are wearing the armor. The problem is there are a pretty large number of situations where realistically a player would not be wearing the armor. If I enforce those situations I fear that it does make strength kind of suck. I feel like I'm stuck between hamming up the realism by assuming that the player lives in their armor or treating the strength player unfairly since they could often be in encounters where they may be stuck with no armor AC at all.

[Saggo]

By RAW and RAI, there is no penalty for sleeping in armor, so you can sleep in heavy armor. I know it makes sense to don and doff it, but you don't HAVE to.

Xanathar's introduced the rule that sleeping in medium and heavy armor only gives a quarter it dice and doesn't reduce exhaustion levels. Even then, it doesn't actively hurt you to long rest in it.

[LudicSavant]

The difference in cost between full plate and half-plate is greater than the cost of some +1 AC magic items.

[Solusek]

I know right?
I don't think I can really allow players to sleep in armor while gaining the benefits of a full rest, but its good to know that they would do that in RAW. If players are given the mastery feats for free, then perhaps I could be stricter on when armor would be worn without unfairly picking on strength builds.

Xanathar's pg. 77 has some rules for sleeping in armor. You recover less of your hit dice pool when sleeping in medium/heavy armor, and don't recover ranks of exhaustion. It's small but at least a bit of a penalty.

[Solusek]

I know right?
Sadly, I don't know a good way around it. The best I could do as a DM is to give all players the armor master feats automatically, which I think just brings armor where it should be.

This is a really good idea! I'm not running any games right now, but if I were I would probably do something like this to make armor more appealing.

[MaxWilson]

They only have the highest AC if they are wearing the armor. The problem is there are a pretty large number of situations where realistically a player would not be wearing the armor.

As well as (realistically) mages not having Mage Armor up (or Foresight if you're playing at that level), buffs like Aid/Death Ward not cast, Guidance not being constantly recast, etc.

There is no "adventuring day." Even when the PCs are on wartime footing, there's a portion of the day in which PCs are being proactive and are pressing ahead, ready for danger, and there's a portion of the day when they're on the defensive to rest and recharge. Monsters and other characters can interact with them during either portion of the day, and/or on days when they're not on wartime footing.

Monks are a lot of fun in a setting with a full 24-hour day because monks are always ready for anything, even when they're bathing.

[Tanarii]

There's also that system seems to assume outside of Rangers, Rogues, Monks and some Fighters, no PC is going to go higher than Dex 14, as a general rule. Basically, the three Dex-based skirmishes/scout classes.

They only have the highest AC if they are wearing the armor. The problem is there are a pretty large number of situations where realistically a player would not be wearing the armor. If I enforce those situations I fear that it does make strength kind of suck. I feel like I'm stuck between hamming up the realism by assuming that the player lives in their armor or treating the strength player unfairly since they could often be in encounters where they may be stuck with no armor AC at all.

If you're playing that kind of game, you need to rebalance armor vs non-armor.

[sophontteks]

If you're playing that kind of game, you need to rebalance armor vs non-armor.

So the norm is for DMs to assume the PCs are always in armor. That pretty much answers my original question.

As well as (realistically) mages not having Mage Armor up (or Foresight if you're playing at that level), buffs like Aid/Death Ward not cast, Guidance not being constantly recast, etc.

There is no "adventuring day." Even when the PCs are on wartime footing, there's a portion of the day in which PCs are being proactive and are pressing ahead, ready for danger, and there's a portion of the day when they're on the defensive to rest and recharge. Monsters and other characters can interact with them during either portion of the day, and/or on days when they're not on wartime footing.

Monks are a lot of fun in a setting with a full 24-hour day because monks are always ready for anything, even when they're bathing.

Yeah, the campaign I'm running has the PCs on the run with minimal equipment. Its going to be a while until they reach a place where they can actually attain real equipment. I don't want to create spoilers by saying what campaign it is, but it is an official campaign. I'm supposed to, as a DM, really hammer down on the survival aspect of the game, so things like the fatigue of wearing armor should play a part.

Fortunately none of the party members are STR-based. Its just that it got me thinking how such a character would manage. And yes, the monk is loving life. He's a new player and I helped him create a character he would have fun roleplaying. The monk is perfect for such a setting. He and the druid have been carrying the team thus far.

[Tanarii]

So the norm is for DMs to assume the PCs are always in armor. That pretty much answers my original question.

The norm for the system is to only focus on wilderness and dungeon adventuring. PCs tend to wear armor when adventuring, especially in those environments.

There will be exceptions, either entirely (often: sailor campaigns or heavy urban campaigns, especially urban intrigue) or specifically (usually night time attacks).

[ZorroGames]

Players’ characters wear armor when they can. In some podunk village where they are mercenaries/professional adventurers why would they not wear armor? It is built in advertising and mechanically reliable.

The value of armor is dependent on the setting specific situations where it is or is not of value. Dungeons, yes. Night ambushes, only if you are on guard. Social campaigns requiring play without armor, not as much. Wilderness travel (so devalued in many games) generally useful. Yada-yada-yada.

[Naanomi]

One of the benefits of playing a Dwarf is that full plate armor is totally appropriate dress attire for social situations

[MeeposFire]

I haven't liked how D&D does armor pretty much ever. I get the fantasy of the quick nimble sword fighter, and it's great that they are viable, but IRL full plate armor was absolutely dominating in battle. It was a really really huge deal. I feel like the advantages that a fully armored knight would have in battle is mechanically lacking in this edition of the game. It ends up being like a 1-2 AC better than a dextrous combatant in light armor. Come on. Even just mundane non-magic full plate should be something special and a big deal for the characters that can use it.

Armor was incredibly effective in the real pre-firearms world. I wish that was better represented mechanically.

Actually pre-3e heavier armor was straight up better than other armor. Back then armor did not restrict your dex mod to AC so if you had an 18 dex which gave +4 AC a full plate fighter with that and a shield would have an AC of -4 with non-magical equipment (equal to 24 AC 3e to today which in the older versions of D&D was very nice AC especially since there is no magic equipment yet). That same dex character using studded leather and a shield would only have AC2 (AC18 today) which is nowhere near as good.

[Sigreid]

So there is an easy house rule that would do a lot of what you're looking at. You could, in addition to the AC have armor provide damage reduction based on the AC bonus of the armor, without any magical bonuses or shield being taken into account. For example, leather armor would reduce damage by 1. Full plate would reduce damage by 8. Armor mastery would add 3 to the DR. It would make armor a really big deal at the cost of drawing out fights.

Edit: This would also make higher damage weapons a much bigger deal.

[sophontteks]

One of the benefits of playing a Dwarf is that full plate armor is totally appropriate dress attire for social situations

Thanks everyone for your input by the way. Some interesting perspectives here.

[MaxWilson]

The norm for the system is to only focus on wilderness and dungeon adventuring. PCs tend to wear armor when adventuring, especially in those environments.

You realize that's tautological? In Gygaxian terminology, "wilderness adventuring" is any adventuring outside the dungeoneering game structure (fixed locations, obvious gradations of difficulty, doors that require strength checks to open, etc.). Urban adventures are "wilderness adventures." Wilderness + dungeon adventuring = everything.

5E class design attempts to balance class for the dungeoneering scenario and basically ignores wilderness adventures. Nevertheless it's totally fair game for DMs to run scenarios in aristocratic ballrooms and bathhouses and outhouses. The spotlight balance may shift a little bit, relative to dungeoneering, but that's okay since dungeoneering will still happen.

[Willie the Duck]

So the norm is for DMs to assume the PCs are always in armor. That pretty much answers my original question.

Not really. But it does assume that players are most likely to experience combat when they are prepared for it (even if surprised in the moment, they usually know at the start of the day whether it is a risky day).

Look, there is no way around the fact that the discrepancy between lightly-encumbered-and-nimble character and the heavily-armored character is lessened in 5e than both earlier editions and with real life. Strength has a number of benefits that haven't been stated here yet--

• To max out your AC, a Str build needs a 15, while a Dex build needs a 20
• Starting AC (with limited funds and pre-advanced attributes) tend to favor strength based/heavy armor
• Strength based melee opens the door to GWM, and PAM, which are considered (rightly so) very powerful combat boosts for melee martials
• Grappling/pushing/shield bashing is also a great melee tactic, also facilitated by strength

--but at the end of the day, there are lots of ways to get high AC without heavy armor. This, along with the greater frequency of Dex vs. Str saves, and benefits such as stealth, initiative, and the like cause significant consternation among those who would like inter-attribute parity. Overall, the pseudo-consensus is that heavy armor is great for 1) martials who are going to invest in melee boosting feats, 2) paladins who maybe won't but will want to multiclass (making Dexadin too expensive an investment), 3) characters like the stereotypical dwarven cleric who could probably wield either mace or cantrips and not care one way or the other, but don't want to have to spend their ASIs on Dex. Is it the balance I would like? No, certainly not for featless and rolled stats games, where there are no PAM or GWM (or Shield Master), and a 18-20 starting Dex is possible. Is it such that Strength builds are disfavorable? Not really, just a single niche.

As to game assumptions vs. real life, there are a huge number of things that PCs do in D&D which are ridiculously unrealistic. Wandering adventurers wandering the land (somehow surviving on the stuff in their backpacks), and wandering into the (amazingly expensive to construct) dungeons in search of treasure is inherently unrealistic. Something has to give, because a truly realistic medieval game, with the only unrealistic conceit being the existence of magic and monsters, would still be too challenging and lethal for the adventuring lifestyle to exist.

Armor was incredibly effective in the real pre-firearms world. I wish that was better represented mechanically.

That would be fun for a while, but if we're going for realism, don't forget that that era of combat very much did become 'guys in plate slaughtered the peasant constripts with near impunity until he got pushed over and either captured and ransomed, or else got a dagger through the eye,' which doesn't sound like the greatest of fun.

[Naanomi]

Ideas about realism and historical strength in heavy armor only go so far, in that testing heavy armor VS mobility against giants and dragons is challenging to really get a grasp on, to say the least

[sophontteks]

Thanks again. Good points on strengths..uhhh...stengths.

I don't mind the fantasy. I just wish they gave armor something that made the person wearing Armor functionally different then going into battle nude. I guess I feel the same about many of the weapons as well.

[Blood of Gaea]

The best I could do as a DM is to give all players the armor master feats automatically, which I think just brings armor where it should be.

Huh, I'm going to need to give that some thought, but I like that idea at first glance.

[Naanomi]

Huh, I'm going to need to give that some thought, but I like that idea at first glance.

Makes monks, who already invest a lot of ASIs into their AC, feel a little sad I think