I don't understand where the whole contrarian "oh studded leather armor? Psh, GARBAGE!" came from. Isn't it obvious to everywhere that those studs aren't there for their own sake, that they merely cap off some fastening implement to keep plates in place?
Wasn't this always obvious? That was obvious to me even as a kid.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
myarmoury.com
twitter.com
>Wasn't this always obvious?
Not to the people who originally implemented studded leather. According to the 5e rules it's just a leather coat with studs on it.
People are usually complaining when the studded armor looks like this.
Veeky Forums is full of reddit as well, you know.
What I dont get is why, in FIFTH BLOODY EDITION, they still have a retarded armour table! now with not only studded leather but also RINGMAIL!
You want the plates to overlap, otherwise you end up with a tonne of gaps (see that shit the northerners wear in GoT). And when people talk about "studded armour" it's usually just fucking leather; that's the niche it fills in RPG either way.
Why the fuck is any sort of cloth armor STILL mechanically represented as +1 to AC "padded armor", barely better than being naked, and substantially worse than leather armor?
A proper gambeson could tank hits from ENGLISH LONGBOWS for fuck's sake, it was harder than leather and cheaper too. Gambeson was by far the most common light armor in Europe, even among professional soldiers.
It's been five fucking editions of this bullshit, I think the "medieval weapons and armor don't work that way" grognards are a larger and louder audience than the "Gygax and Arneson made no mistakes" grognards by now.
I love this and I don't care if it's wrong.
Because every system in every D&D game is a literal afterthought when compared to making a spell list?
I mean, spells take up like half the fucking book every time.
in 2e padded armor was basically just heavy clothing
subsequent editions were just like "padded armor had +1 in 2e, no reason to change that I guess"