PDA

View Full Version : (3.5) Armor vs Weapon Types



J.Gellert
2009-06-22, 03:41 AM
A topic in Roleplaying made me remember an old 2nd edition AD&D rule that I had converted to 3.5.

It goes like this: The following table lists the modifiers that are applied to a character's or creature's AC when wearing a specific type of armor. Each modifier applies against attacks by one type of weapon. If a weapon has two damage types then you use the lower applicable modifier.

These modifiers are only used for characters and creatures that wear armor and are not taken into consideration for creatures with natural armor or any other bonus to AC, such as deflection.

http://firkraag.files.wordpress.com/2006/09/table-armor-vs-weapon-types-2.jpg?w=426&h=300

(They are written on the character sheet and on stat blocks after AC and before Touch/Flatfooted AC).

Rainbownaga
2009-06-22, 05:52 AM
A topic in Roleplaying made me remember an old 2nd edition AD&D rule that I had converted to 3.5.

It goes like this: The following table lists the modifiers that are applied to a character's or creature's AC when wearing a specific type of armor. Each modifier applies against attacks by one type of weapon. If a weapon has two damage types then you use the lower applicable modifier.

These modifiers are only used for characters and creatures that wear armor and are not taken into consideration for creatures with natural armor or any other bonus to AC, such as deflection.

http://firkraag.files.wordpress.com/2006/09/table-armor-vs-weapon-types-2.jpg?w=426&h=300

(They are written on the character sheet and on stat blocks after AC and before Touch/Flatfooted AC).

It definitely nerfs slashing weapons, and makes bite attacks (all three damage types) particularly effective. I wonder how that would impact the game.

J.Gellert
2009-06-22, 06:19 AM
Impact on the game... For one, I am thinking it should be aimed at low-magic campaigns - factoring these modifiers with +5 armors, and a +5 amulet of natural armor/ring of protection wouldn't be worth it.

Most monsters don't wear armor, and the vast majority of "monster-designated" humanoids (orcs, gnolls, hobgoblins) don't wear full plate so I expect swords/axes to still be the weapons of choice on account of their damage output and critical modifiers.

But I haven't had a chance to playtest this so it's all theory for now.

Ashtagon
2009-06-22, 06:48 AM
I'm wondering if this couldn't be simplified somewhat.

1) The average value of modifiers for a given armour should be zero, or darn close to it. Every heavy armour you have listed has significant positive modifiers and no negatives. This straight-away gives a boost to armour generally.

2) instead of listing each armour individually, list armours by material type or construction technique. My usual classification is: Cloth, Leather, Metal, and Metal Mesh. Modifiers can then be based on this classification.

Frog Dragon
2009-06-22, 06:50 AM
Ummm. I don't see the sense in having negative modifiers against some attacks when wearing armor. Sure the plate doesn't really protect against that hammer, but are you seriously saying that you'd be better off against that hammer wearing no armor?

Bwah scrap that. Your modifiers are apparently applied on top of the standard armor bonuses and none of those result in negatives.

J.Gellert
2009-06-22, 07:51 AM
I'm wondering if this couldn't be simplified somewhat.

1) The average value of modifiers for a given armour should be zero, or darn close to it. Every heavy armour you have listed has significant positive modifiers and no negatives. This straight-away gives a boost to armour generally.

2) instead of listing each armour individually, list armours by material type or construction technique. My usual classification is: Cloth, Leather, Metal, and Metal Mesh. Modifiers can then be based on this classification.

It's a good thing if it boosts armor generally, since it's for low-magic campaigns.

Listing them by material would be another way to do it, but this gives 4 material types - and 12 types of armor isn't too many to make for a "cleanly" presented list.


Ummm. I don't see the sense in having negative modifiers against some attacks when wearing armor. Sure the plate doesn't really protect against that hammer, but are you seriously saying that you'd be better off against that hammer wearing no armor?

Bwah scrap that. Your modifiers are apparently applied on top of the standard armor bonuses and none of those result in negatives.

Yes, they are supposed to be applied on top, and I did take that in consideration - the lightest leather armor just happens to give no protection against pierce weapons, which I think does make sense.