Talk:Leather Shoulder Guard (5e Equipment)

So with this and leather belt, everyone (except wizards and monks) gets +2 AC? Marasmusine (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2015 (MDT)

No, only PC who have Unguarded Defense can use these armor both at the same time. Azernath (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2015 (MDT)

What is "unguarded defense"? The text says "AC bonus given by this armor stacks with the Unarmored Defense" so I suppose you mean "unarmored defense". But it doesn't say it's exclusive to Unarmored Defense. Even so, there's no decision wherever to have them or not. They're so cheap that if you're a barbarian you just buy them for +2 AC, which is not how that class is balanced. Marasmusine (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2015 (MDT)

Sorry about the mistake, but I think a got a solution. If we say it is only limited to those who have Unarmored Defense, and you can only use one armor at a time. So in that case the Barbarian get only +1 AC at best, and we can say for him to have two armors of that type he must have a certain feat. I had all that thought through before I started talking to you , but I thought best that I pass it through you first before anything. Azernath (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2015 (MDT)

There should be some kind of decision as to if you should wear this or not. For example, with the great helm I made for the gladiator, it is a Heavy Armor, and you don't get the bonus if you're already wearing heavy armor (in other words, it mitigates a fighter's decision not to wear heavy armor). With your manica, it's just a straight +1 AC. It also seems a bit strange that it only works if you have unarmored defense, why not just say "it grants you +1 AC if you are not wearing any armor"?

Limiting this to one armor at a time is a bit artificial, since you could reasonably wear both the arm piece and the belt piece. But these are like bits of leather armor, so the AC shouldn't be equal to or greater than leather armor.

I wonder if there's a way of doing a "partial" or "fractional" AC? Marasmusine (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2015 (MDT)

A manica was originally a Roman armor innovation worn in tandem with lorica segmentata, and made from lamellar plate, not leather or chain. Technically, the manica is heavy armor, it is unusually heavy due to all the extra overlapping material. They were not popular because they were expensive and only protected against some cuts; their flexibility turned all lateral blows into broken limbs, rather than deflected attacks the way later plate armor would do. Simply not being hit was considered the better choice over the compared expense and minor gain. Also, I was always under the impression that D&D treated all armor as a single exclusive item which behaves like a full-body suit preventing any other armor from being worn, with allowance only for clothing and magical accessories. The armor is a mechanical abstraction. At least, that's the way every DM I've ever met runs it. (Not to say I think it should be that way- I've gotten into screaming matches with DMs because of that obnoxious ruling.) Kydo (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2015 (MDT)

I've changed it to heavy armor, and you get the AC bonus if you're wearing no or light armor. I think it's reasonable that this stacks with the great helm for +2 AC for fighters/paladins who choose not to wear a full suit of heavy armor. Marasmusine (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2015 (MDT)

What about the "unarmored defense" for the barbarian, will it stack with it or just give you +1 AC? Azernath (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2015 (MDT)

It does need rewording a bit to let it work with that, but I want to do it in a way that doesn't mention specific class features (since there might be other classes with similar features with different names). It will probably also need to be Medium armor so that barbarians are proficient with it, but we need to be careful with the way these things stack up. Marasmusine (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2015 (MDT)

(Ninja'd by Marasmusine! Thanks to the "specific beats general" rule, you must mention a character feature in order to build an exclusion for it.) Technically, under current phrasing, no. Simply by being armor, it does not qualify. Also, Barbarians aren't the only class with the unarmored defense feature. I think the idea behind "unarmored defense" is to maintain a certain sort of image. The barbarian and monk are iconic for going into battles essentially naked, (And, by my recollection, in AD&D2e, actually naked) as far as everyone else is concerned, but coming out unscathed. The idea is that their personal evasive skill or simple terrifying presence and rage is enough to prevent being injured, and that armor would impede them from doing so in some way. In other words, wearing armor would actually impede them- and in 5th edition, the justification is practical and reasonable, everyone gets the same penalties for wearing armor they aren't proficient with. It only breaks down when you play a race which has armor proficiencies, (Like a Dwarf Monk) but certain abilities stop working if they use it, such as unarmored defense. It's not a HUGE loss in my opinion, as armor with proficiencies vs. unarmored defense balance out pretty well, but it is kind of a ham-fisted mechanical quirk. If armor is made which can be compatible with the unarmored defense feature, you are essentially giving the character something which puts them above the normal AC range for their level. The only balanced ways I can think of to do this are:

1. Make the armor do something other than AC, such as protection from sneak attacks or something.
2. Make the armor give conditional AC, such as a small AC bonus to slashing attacks but an AC penalty to bludgeoning attacks.
3. Make armor which behaves like passive equipment rather than defensive protection, like ninja-style wall climbing hooks.
4. Put a maximum limit for total AC with the armor equipped- this could allow a monk or barbarian who has placed their abilities atypically to survive better, essentially validating more character builds.

Kydo (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2015 (MDT)

I added a "partial armor" clause the page while you were writing that. The wording was quite hard, but what do you think? Marasmusine (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2015 (MDT)

Hmm... What about a variant rule for an armor tag like the armor functions(Armor Functions (5e Variant Rule)) one? That would allow it to be applied to any number of partial armor components. Simply slap the "partial armor" brand on all the bits and pieces, and away you go! Kydo (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2015 (MDT)

Yeah, once I'm happy with the wording I'll move it to a variant rule page (and template it so it can be transcluded). Maybe limit a character to two partial armours (or +2 AC, which is where medium armors begin) Marasmusine (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2015 (MDT)

I like the sound of that. It adds a little bit of technical finnicky stuff, more options for character builds, and doesn't become totally unstable. Something to play with. Still not sure about unarmored defense compatibility, but at least the partial armors thing sounds fun! Kydo (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2015 (MDT)

WIP Partial Armor variant rule. Kydo (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2015 (MDT)

In general I agree with your point, I hoped that adding "Stealth Disadvantage" balances the +1 AC that a naked barbarian would get. Marasmusine (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2015 (MDT)

I'm not sure why monks and barbarians would need compatible armor anyways. It's possible to make characters with AC equal to heavy armors at first level, (My first attempt, an elven monk, has 15 AC at 0 XP, right between ring and chain, and using that character I managed to solo-run the entire adventurer's league Tyrany of Dragons expeditions wearing nothing more than the clothes on my back.) and heavy armors are expensive enough that anyone else would need to be about level 2-3 before they could get any! In other words, monks and barbarians can start at higher AC than most other characters in the absence of DM generosity, and they can do it with no strength prerequisite, stealth penalty, or encumbrance. It's already kinda broken! Kydo (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2015 (MDT)

The description still bothers me a lot. This appears to describe a pauldron, not a manica. And even then, pauldrons were plate mail. There is no evidence for leather shoulder armor actually existing at all. I get that D&D is a fantasy work, but I find the naming of this page very annoying because it specifies an extant piece of armor from history. --Kydo (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2016 (MDT)

Wait, what the hell?! IT JUST SAID MANICA 5 SECONDS AGO! WHAT?? --Kydo (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2016 (MDT)