Jarred Stone
2014-05-01, 03:55 AM
> This enhanced form of padded armor has internal layers specifically designed to trap arrows, bolts, darts, shuriken, thrown daggers, and other small ranged piercing weapons. When these kinds of weapons strike you, they tend to become snagged in these layers and fail to harm you.
> Benefit: You gain DR 3/— against attacks of this kind (small piercing weapons). The special layers of the armor have no effect on other kinds of weapons.
I am DMing a steampunk campaign on Pathfinder, where guns are everywhere.
> B-but guns are broken in Pathfinder!
Since they ignore armor at point-blank shot and people are dumping constitution (because getting more skill points is far important for the style of the campaign), combats are pretty more lethal and even a scrub with luck could **** you really hard.
Of course, in order to support the arquetype of "walking iron mountain" a little, I house-ruled you get RD 1/2/3 against ranged attacks if you are wearing light/medium/heavy armor. But, now, one of my players showed me this kind of armor in >pic related. It only cost 100 gold pieces and can be weared under other armor.
Isn't it a little OP for just 100 gold coins? You could ditch with it most of the damage low levels would deal to you. A medium pistol (1d8) would have a 37,5 % of not dealing **** to the enemy. And let's not talk about small races and their 1d6 pistols.
Before, with the house-rule, when a full-plate juggernaut showed in the scene, it had its dramatic pace, since it was an enemy the players would surely have problems dealing with him. But, if I replace the house-rule with this armor, I don't find any reason why people wouldn't wear it as his first armor of choice. Making people to return to swords and katanas because +1 AC is easier to deal than RD 3/-.
Has someone introduced this armor in their games? Are my worries legitimate or just plain stupid? Should I switch the house-rule with this armor?
> Benefit: You gain DR 3/— against attacks of this kind (small piercing weapons). The special layers of the armor have no effect on other kinds of weapons.
I am DMing a steampunk campaign on Pathfinder, where guns are everywhere.
> B-but guns are broken in Pathfinder!
Since they ignore armor at point-blank shot and people are dumping constitution (because getting more skill points is far important for the style of the campaign), combats are pretty more lethal and even a scrub with luck could **** you really hard.
Of course, in order to support the arquetype of "walking iron mountain" a little, I house-ruled you get RD 1/2/3 against ranged attacks if you are wearing light/medium/heavy armor. But, now, one of my players showed me this kind of armor in >pic related. It only cost 100 gold pieces and can be weared under other armor.
Isn't it a little OP for just 100 gold coins? You could ditch with it most of the damage low levels would deal to you. A medium pistol (1d8) would have a 37,5 % of not dealing **** to the enemy. And let's not talk about small races and their 1d6 pistols.
Before, with the house-rule, when a full-plate juggernaut showed in the scene, it had its dramatic pace, since it was an enemy the players would surely have problems dealing with him. But, if I replace the house-rule with this armor, I don't find any reason why people wouldn't wear it as his first armor of choice. Making people to return to swords and katanas because +1 AC is easier to deal than RD 3/-.
Has someone introduced this armor in their games? Are my worries legitimate or just plain stupid? Should I switch the house-rule with this armor?