It's been discussed quite a few times around here the effects of wearing armor in your mobility and agility, and whether D&D's method of seeking a sort of game balance between armored and non-armored (or light/heavy armored) by severily limitting DEX bonuses while using armor.
Despite how you feel about the issue, if you'd like a bit more realism to the matter, or you just don't bother with it and think the DEX limitation works fine mechanically so this suffices for you... I thought it would be nice to share this video for those who are interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q
It's basically a series of tests made by folks at the Middle-Age Museum in Cluny, France, based on medieval illustrations and manuscripts about the usage of armor.
PS: I think it's safe to say from the video that Disadvantage to stealth is definitely a thing.
I fail to see from this video that this person isn't clumsy, slow, and awkward compared to someone without armor. YouTube "Judo" and get a comparison to how fast an unarmed person gets up from being prone. We are talking fractions of a second. YouTube "Paintball" and see how quickly people are moving from kneeling, standing, weaving, bobbing, and dashing around. YouTube "Fencing" or "Kendo" and get a comparision of how fast fencers are moving in order to get out of the way of attacks and how far they move and lunge and pull back five or more feet with no problems. YouTube "Freestyle Running" and see how quickly an unarmed person can get over that ladder.
The fact that an person in platemail can move, stand, climb, etc. isn't in doubt -- unless you are really historically inaccurate. D&D rules don't prevent this. It doesn't rule you have a 0 dexterity or take any penalty.
However, D&D rules do reflect that someone with heavy armor is in fact unable to make basic use of quick movements, balance, and reactions. Wear that armor in a judo tournament, paintball game, fencing or kendo match, or a freestyle running competition... and you obviously loose... because it obviously affects your dexterity.
Very cool!
I'm not overly fond of the armor table (I'm fine with the Dex limitations and effects on Stealth), and have been making a revised armor table. In the course of this I've been doing a bit of looking into historic armors to get a better understanding of the different armor types and such. So, anything like this is greatly appreciated.
They definatly where moving more clumsily.
They definatly where making plenty of noise.
And they definatly protect you from most attacks.
So... i think the rules work out well enough.
Now, if anyone can show me a video of how someone dodges a 30' fireball...
mellored wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Neat video. As a student of medieval European history, I have to admit I'd never seen the illustrations of knights holding the bladed ends of their swords like that before.
As for D&D armors, the only issue that my groups have with 5e's list is the fact that none of the heavier armors seem to have any effect on swimming. I think one of my groups has houseruled in that you have disadvantage on swimming checks while wearing heavy armor.
Wearing armor reduces your dex bonus... being unconcious doesn't. Realism!
pukunui wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Thanks for the video! It certainly debunks the "a warrior in full armour is helpless on his back" myth. That always makes me roll my eyes, since I've seen quite mobile and dextrous fighters do neat things in full plate (like a backflip). I'd agree that full plate should make being stealthy more difficult.
Chameleon-X wrote:
Buncha baseless presumptions and strained stretching to get to a predetermined "theory".
FFSAA wrote:
mellored wrote:
OP, your video actually demonstrates, quite accutely, that armor does impede Dexterity. It's not just the weight, it's the bulk and joints to, and the wearer (having watched teh whole video) was very clumsy, not very fast, nor very mobile, which is what Dexterity represents. Furthermore, this guy was using modern processed steel, which is a lot lighter thant he steel they used back in those days. So, no, I don't agree with you that a person could be anywhere remotely as dextrous as someone not wearing such armor.
Cool vid.
From the start, I liked that 5E ditched the Armor Check Penalty, or whatever it was called (my 3E is a bit fuzzy after so many years), as long as you have a reasonable Strength score to manage the armor you wear. The Disadvantage to stealth is easily explained, in most cases, as the clatter and clinking of that superior armor you wear.
I like this new approach, and I find that the linked video actually shows that 5E has solid rules for this. The rules aren't trying to be a highly granular simulation, and I'm glad for that. Other games exist for those that want historical sims. The very simple armor rules of 5E do a pretty good job, in my opinion, even if I'm not in love with every last detail of the armors listed.
Thanks for the link. 
pukunui wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM7Tn-K2eGI
I think this is the kind of combat that is better suited to analysis. It's pretty much as close as you're going to get to actual medieval combat conditions these days.
mellored wrote:
souldoubt wrote:
pukunui wrote:
thehobb wrote:
A few note, some of which have already been mentioned by other folks here:
- Of course wearing plate (or other armor) will reduce some of your mobility. At the very least there is the weight. However that's different than saying you become a clunky and unbalanced walking mass as is sometimes commonly though and show in medias such as films. D&D 5e also states that with plate armor you have NO BONUS from Dex whatsoever. That's saying armor hinders you SO much that you can be the most agile and expert fighter in the world but in Plate you are absolutely the same as the average guy wearing it.
- The people in this video are common folk making a study, not trained warriors or martial artists. Comparing them to expert martial artists and saying they are less agile because of the armor is a false assumption. The video demonstrates quite well that they retain a very good level of agility, not much less than you'd expect for a regular person. Get a regular guy to do some rolls or climb ladders in a hurry and you'll see it will not be that different.
- "It's not only the weight" someone mentioned, and you're right, only you took the wrong conclusion from that. The very fact that the weight of the armor is more or less evenly distributed throughout the body makes the armor's weight much easier to cope with. You'd probably have more trouble if you were carrying that entire weight on your back or hands.
- A modern soldier's full equipment, cloth, boots, kevlar, weapon, ammo, etc, weighs a lot more than a medieval plate plus a sword. You don't see modern soldiers moving around clumsily and slowly.
- I wouldn't expect armor to have NO impact at all in mobility and agility. That would be an exaggeration. However it seems to me that D&D puts the hindrance of armor on the wrong attribute. A certain penalty to agile movement checks such as tumbling, climbing, swimming makes much more sense than reducing your capacity to defend yourself. Defense is not only about ducking and dodging. In fact most of the defensive moves in armed melee combat are made by parrying, and armor pratically does not restrict this kind of move.
- In 3rd edition too we had Dex penalties to AC, but we also had check penalty for agile skills. I would have made the contrary and left some penalty to those skills and not to AC in this new edition. It makes more sense. I'll probably still do so as I'll make my own house-table for armors as I've always done. It risks messing up with the limits of bounded accuracy, though, so I'll have to be careful there.
- D&D's idea of reducing Dex with armor was made 100% for game balance purposes, with not relation whatsoever to any accuracy in terms of realism. And that's perfectly fine if you don't care at all about any of this stuff or any realism in your game for that matter. No one's saying D&D is bad fun because it's not realistic. There are many other things much less realistic than AC in D&D and the game is still fun. However, saying that D&D's Dex-penalty for armor IS realistic is also a ludicrous affirmation.
1. Cool video, thank you for posting it.
2. Interesting to see that ultimately knights in plate mail probably killed each other most often with a dagger or similar short secondary weapon. Seemed like that was more efficent to get into the helmet than a sword, once you knock someone down.
This video is not as helpful as it looks because these guys haven't been wearing armor their whole lives. Athletic capabilities in armor are greater.
But as many have mentioned it doesn't matter because the game works fine and feels sufficiently balanced. If you want to use some Dexterity wear medium and call it plate.
CriticalBastard wrote:
Timborama wrote:
CriticalBastard wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Fact 1: At the time, custom made plate armor really was the best defense you could possibly have, regardless of its effect on agility and mobility. Anybody who could afford it, wore it. (When they were anticipating fighting, anyway.)
Fact 2: If plate armor's superiority were realistically modeled in D&D, everybody's goal would be to acquire enough gold to buy some for their character. That sounds boring to me.
Fact 3: There were no such thing as wizards, dragons, mind flayers, inter-planar travel, etc in the middle ages, so D&D doesn't actually take place in the middle ages (shocking revelation, I know) so discussions of historical realism are rather pointless.
Having the weight redistributed on all the body isn't an advantage regarding fatigue and mobility.
All your body is heavier. Carrying the same weight in a backpack is far less fatiguing to move around all day long.
D&D being managed on a daily basis, it would need specific rules to simulate the fatigue of carrying these armor around over the course of the day when not on warhorses.
D&D is not about realism, it's about combattant surviving and winning melee with creatures far taller and stronger than elephants. In D&D, any armor offers protection against giant weapons when the little people should be dead as soon as they are hit, or agonizing for a time, the crushed full plate hindering any attempt to mend flesh and bones through magic. Clerics would have to cast the Strip Wounded spell before being able to put their hands anywhere.
And what about about armors not offering protection against fireballs and a lot of other damaging effects ? Do we prefer to be naked to have a chance to dodge a fireball, or to be in a full plate armor and stop breathing ? And what about hit points being the only expression of experience regarding defense (hit points also being the expression, of wounds, morale, fatigue, luck, and so on) ?
The mobility in full plate armors is just another incoherency in a sea of incoherencies, because D&D is full of abstractions and have a lot of tropes and fantasy stereotypes to deliver.
Monsieur_Moustache wrote:
With magic in the game, armor should be able to do pretty much anything. If you have spell like fabricate the cost from concept to production is very reasonable. That means generations of armor concepts can occur within a years time frames. Using modern terms, the cost of research and development are not prohibitive to test new concepts.
Polaris wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Monsieur_Moustache wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
CriticalBastard wrote:
souldoubt wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote: