PDA

View Full Version : The Decline of Armor in D&D



Kyutaru
2019-05-24, 06:29 AM
Armor has been a staple in D&D since the beginning, a critical element of fantasy where knights and rogues alike can do battle. It has changed tremendously over the years, simplifying over and over again till it holds little variation. It has been normalized to the point of almost not mattering.

In 5th edition, the simplest form, the difference between medium Half-Plate and heavy Plate is a single AC point when equipped by a character with sufficient Dexterity (an easily acquired 15). The heavier armor requires greater proficiency, twice the cost, longer don/doff time, and weighs more but for many that +1 AC is worth the trouble.

In 3rd edition it was slightly more complex with varying Dexterity caps that promoted different armor types being valuable for different characters, to the point that going completely unarmored was actually the most superior choice. Full Plate existed as the penultimate heavy armor and it was truly only worthwhile for someone dumping Dexterity, especially with the severe penalties associated with wearing it. Players focused on builds that ignored armor entirely in an edition where Finesse weapons meant you could double dip on the benefits of single stat stacking and multi-classing for low hanging fruit could net you ridiculous AC benefits from unarmored defense features. Armor was, effectively, useless.

But in 2nd edition... things were quite different. Armor had a personality all its own with rules that supported its uniqueness and strengthened the importance of selection, especially when it came to non-magical armor. Full plate, for example, was not merely "better plate". It had to be customized specifically to the wearer by an armorsmith which prevented randomly looted suits of it from being usable. But this hassle was worthwhile if you made use of the Weapon Type vs Armor table, which dictated that it was 4 points better against Slashing weapons and 3 points better against Piercing ones. The best armor in the game could potentially be even better! This even added a layer to weapon selection since in general Slashing weapons were terribly inaccurate against most armors, Piercing weapons were rather neutral or slightly bad, and Bludgeoning treated them as they actually were. When looking at the damage and speed differences of these weapon types it becomes clear that this was with purpose and balance in mind. Suddenly Slashing becomes ideal against monsters while Bludgeoning becomes excellent against armored humanoids, with Piercing straggling the middle for archers and rogues and animals everywhere.

Going back to 1st edition adds a second layer to this. Instead of damage types, all weapons had their own specific armor modifiers based on how effective they were. Additionally, armor was weaker against men and better against monsters, boasting completely different roll requirements depending on who was attacking it. Now there's this matrix forming of damage dealt, enemy type, armor modifiers, enemy size, attack speed, and proficiency that affects which weapon might work best for your character. All because of how they interact with armor.

There was only one difference between a Rapier and Shortsword in 3rd edition because they were both one-handed finessable 1d6 piercing weapons -- the crit range for the Rapier was superior in exchange for it being a slightly harder weapon to have proficiency for. Yet the 2nd edition version of the Shortsword had piercing/slashing, making it a viable pick due to (you guessed it) armor.

Where do you think they should have stopped? How detailed does the combat of the game need to be? Massive tables add depth but slow the game. Concise uniform rules and normalized totals speed calculations up but eliminate the very identity of these choices.

MrSandman
2019-05-24, 06:50 AM
In my opinion, it should stop where you have two or three armour categories. For a game set in something similar to the European middle ages, you could do: unarmoured, gambeson and mail. If it's set in the late middle ages or renaissance, you could do: unarmoured, mail and plate.

Anything more complicated than that tends to create a lot of unnecessary detail and miss the point of how armour actually works.

Mordaedil
2019-05-24, 06:59 AM
That 2nd edition rule was entirely optional I am afraid, much like the unarmed combat section. Most people just played it straight AC.

Aotrs Commander
2019-05-24, 07:05 AM
But in 2nd edition... things were quite different. Armor had a personality all its own with rules that supported its uniqueness and strengthened the importance of selection, especially when it came to non-magical armor. Full plate, for example, was not merely "better plate". It had to be customized specifically to the wearer by an armorsmith which prevented randomly looted suits of it from being usable.

Which I suspect, most people simply ignored (we certainly always did) and is a ridiculously simply piece of fluff to add system independantly if you really wanted it.

(Though I have to then say why plate but not all other armour, because in reality leather armour made for Gandalf won't fit Gimli or Legolas and it won't even likely fit Aragorn, actually...)


But this hassle was worthwhile if you made use of the Weapon Type vs Armor table, which dictated that it was 4 points better against Slashing weapons and 3 points better against Piercing ones. The best armor in the game could potentially be even better! This even added a layer to weapon selection since in general Slashing weapons were terribly inaccurate against most armors, Piercing weapons were rather neutral or slightly bad, and Bludgeoning treated them as they actually were. When looking at the damage and speed differences of these weapon types it becomes clear that this was with purpose and balance in mind. Suddenly Slashing becomes ideal against monsters while Bludgeoning becomes excellent against armored humanoids, with Piercing straggling the middle for archers and rogues and animals everywhere.

It instead says to me "anything that is not a bludgeoning weapon is actually an inferior choice" since against half your opposition, it doesn't work as well. Unless bludeoning weapons got penalties to attacking monsters?

I did not, to be honest, pay even the slightest bit of attention to those optional rules; having great big table for Thac0 was tedious enough without having to add a load of modifiers for weapons attacking armour classes. It is not remotely worth the hassle, in my opinion. I didn't even want to apply those modifers to Rolemaster for their varient weapons, where they already have a huge varienty of attack tables for weapons already - because it was far too much like a pain in the arse. (And if I was going for a system with some serious attempt at realism, AD&D would NOT be the one of the two I would pick*)



(Also worth noting that in the real world, the main reason everyone didn't have full plate was because they coudn't afford it. Dividing armour into types is, well, principally a construction of fantasy RPGs and D&D in particular.)




Where do you think they should have stopped? How detailed does the combat of the game need to be? Massive tables add depth but slow the game. Concise uniform rules and normalized totals speed calculations up but eliminate the very identity of these choices.

The short answer is "there is no good solution." You can make it hugely complex and ultimately largely pointless (since you are likely the only one at the table that really cares, most players don't give a frack, beyond any extra hassle said mechanics impose on them) or you can make it simple and unobtrusive and live with the fact that there are going to be sharp differentiations and most of your armour is going to be redundant.

Pillars of Eternity attempted really hard to do away with the problem that there are only really three armour types in D&D (four if you count unarmoured), but introducing a granularity scale meant that, actually, basically, they reduced it to "use either the heaviest armour or no armour unless you really want some special ability froma specific piece of kit in the middle."

PoE2 did a little better in making them different, but only by basically making it back to three types of armour, and the difference between them only the differences between what damage reduction, essentially, you get between different attack damage (so like those optional rules mentioned earlier); which is fine in a computer game where I don't have to do any of the messing around. Which is, honestly, to the point that it might as well be flavour unless you wanted to work out which damage type you most often come up against and its relative penetration across the coruse of an entire RPG.

Rolemaster has twenty different types of armour if five different categories, but again, the difference was really "either AT 1 or 5 (no penalties) or the highest in the category you'd currently developed skill to maneuver in at the minimum penalty."



*Rolemaster DOES have rules for fitting armour and they were not limited to plate. These rules have ALSO been ignored as entirely as those in AD&D in the past thirty years. Heck, in 3.x we only pay attention as far as size categories for weapons and armour.

Morty
2019-05-24, 07:20 AM
I'm not seeing any more complexity in 2E D&D treatment of armor. I see a lot of fiddly details that try to be realistic, but not complexity or granularity. D&D combat is primitive and there's no amount of modifiers that are going to change it.

Grod_The_Giant
2019-05-24, 07:40 AM
It stopped because D&D has spent the last couple decades evolving away from its roots as a medieval wargame, and towards being a broader fantasy adventure system. There's only so much complexity you can fit in a game, and repeated editions of D&D have chose to focus that on the characters rather than their equipment.

If you want more simulationist combat, I suggest checking out Riddle of Steel-- it's a (modern) game designed by historical martial arts pros to capture the feel of actual sword-and-shield fighting, and by all accounts is quite good.

If you want to see what happens if you keep adding realistic modeling to a game until someone forcibly drags you away from your keyboard, on the other hand, look at Phoenix Command, a RPG combat simulation designed by gun nuts, and full of nightmares like this:
https://projects.inklesspen.com/fatal-and-friends/images/bedac871bdae51b60b489349cf25551676a571f3e43dd65cb4 b53a425fe8dc6e.png

Cikomyr
2019-05-24, 07:58 AM
Armors are not the ones who took it the hardest. Polearms did.

Ever looked at the comparative pole arm chart? (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/comics/irreg0543.jpg)

Vogie
2019-05-24, 08:06 AM
I wouldn't say it's the decline of armor as a category - but it is the decline of specific armor. In 5e there aren't specific modifiers outside of whether it decreases speed or causes disadvantage stealth checks... in RAW.

However, you have the flexibility to create armor that does fit into those niche categories.

Splint armor that reduces slashing damage taken?
A shield that gives +1 AC against melee attacks but +3 AC against ranged attacks?
Arrowbane Ring Mail that increases AC vs Piercing damage?
If you want to give your players the niche armor, give them niche armor.

Aotrs Commander
2019-05-24, 08:14 AM
If you want to see what happens if you keep adding realistic modeling to a game until someone forcibly drags you away from your keyboard, on the other hand, look at Phoenix Command, a RPG combat simulation designed by gun nuts, and full of nightmares like this:
https://projects.inklesspen.com/fatal-and-friends/images/bedac871bdae51b60b489349cf25551676a571f3e43dd65cb4 b53a425fe8dc6e.png

My eeeeeeyeglows...

Ye gods, I can't even begin to process how that would work and I'm a pretty good rules-smith...

This reminds me of another pertinent point.

Something my Dad ran across while talking to a chap about realistic wargames; the chap had developed a tank shooting system which was essentially like that, but had completely bollocks movement speeds which had no bearing on reality.

A simulation is oinly as accurate as its weakest link.

No amount of armour modifiers is going to make D&D combat more realistic as long as it inherently abstracts everything else. Even Rolemaster's insane second-by-second round sequence optional rule in one of the companions wouldn't give a very realistic combat (I genuinely wonder if anyone, even the writers, actually used that in a real game - though it would be more credible than... The above...)

Morty
2019-05-24, 08:19 AM
It stopped because D&D has spent the last couple decades evolving away from its roots as a medieval wargame, and towards being a broader fantasy adventure system. There's only so much complexity you can fit in a game, and repeated editions of D&D have chose to focus that on the characters rather than their equipment.

And in all honesty, 5E's armor and weapon tables are still more complex than they have any reason to be.


If you want more simulationist combat, I suggest checking out Riddle of Steel-- it's a (modern) game designed by historical martial arts pros to capture the feel of actual sword-and-shield fighting, and by all accounts is quite good.


You can also check out Song of Swords, RoS's spiritual successor with cleaned-up mechanics and designers who aren't actively offended by the notion of magic not dominating non-magic by default.

Grod_The_Giant
2019-05-24, 08:39 AM
And in all honesty, 5E's armor and weapon tables are still more complex than they have any reason to be.
Armor could definitely be reduced to Light/Medium/Heavy. I'd actually like a bit more detail on the weapons-- or at least have categories like Axe/Sword/Polearm with slightly more distinct differences...

(To the Homebrew forum!)

NichG
2019-05-24, 09:59 AM
If there are ever two choices where you can calculate ahead of time which is optimal, merge them. For variables you can't control (what kind of enemy are we fighting today, what weapons do they use), take statistical averages. Repeat and see what survives.

To put it another way, if at the end of the day the tradeoffs can entirely be reduced to an estimated rate of sustaining damage and only that, then there should only be a single choice. If the tradeoffs involve other factors (cost, weight, movement speed) then there's room for roughly one additional distinct category per relevant factor before things get samey. Irrelevant factors (enchantment price far exceeds base item cost, weight is trivially manageable for characters who most need armor because melee is strength-based) don't count. Also abilities that fill the gap make categories irrelevant (Mage Armor).

I'd say there's roughly space for three - gear that sacrifices defense to enhance active ability (assassin's getup, enchanted robes - give skill bonuses or things like immediate action potion/poison access, but permits no armor bonus to AC), gear that sacrifices active ability for defense (full plate, modeled as a strength, dexterity, and movement penalty but grants significant DR and AC), and compromise gear with no specific benefits or drawbacks.

In something where weather is important (extreme heat or cold), you could have an extra category based on different rates of exhaustion.

Morty
2019-05-24, 10:01 AM
Armor could definitely be reduced to Light/Medium/Heavy. I'd actually like a bit more detail on the weapons-- or at least have categories like Axe/Sword/Polearm with slightly more distinct differences...

(To the Homebrew forum!)

I am sceptical if 5E has enough granularity to create such detail. D&D never really has, but 5E removed what little it did have (like crit range).

Grod_The_Giant
2019-05-24, 10:31 AM
I am sceptical if 5E has enough granularity to create such detail. D&D never really has, but 5E removed what little it did have (like crit range).
I dunno, I could see something like


Weapon Group
Property
Light Weapon (Damage)
One-Handed Weapon (Damage)
Two-Handed Weapon (Damage)


Axes
None: Axes are balanced weapons
Handaxe (1d6)
Battleaxe (1d8)
Greataxe (1d12)


Clubs
Brutal: Clubs have a -1 penalty to attack rolls
Mace (2d4)
Warhammer (2d6)
Maul (2d8)


Spears
Reach: Spears can be used to attack targets 5ft away
Dart (1d4)
Glaive (1d6)
Pike (1d10)


Swords, Piercing
Finesse: Use Dex to attack
Dagger (1d4)
Shortsword (1d6)
Estoc (1d10)


Swords, Slashing
Accurate: Swords gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls
Kukri (1d4)
Longsword (1d6)
Greatsword (1d10)


Flails
Tangling: Grant Advantage on Shove attempts to knock a foe prone
Fighting Chain (1d4)
Whip (1d6)
Morningstar (1d10)

Max_Killjoy
2019-05-24, 11:16 AM
Regardless of how armor itself is statted out in D&D, there's always that underlying core oddness of trying to combine "how hard is this character to hit" with "how hard is it for a hit to hurt this character" into a single thing, and having that thing be entirely passive (as in attacker rolls, compares to static value, hits for effect or does not hit for effect).

The Glyphstone
2019-05-24, 11:49 AM
I dunno, I could see something like


Weapon Group
Property
Light Weapon (Damage)
One-Handed Weapon (Damage)
Two-Handed Weapon (Damage)


Axes
None: Axes are balanced weapons
Handaxe (1d6)
Battleaxe (1d8)
Greataxe (1d12)


Clubs
Brutal: Clubs have a -1 penalty to attack rolls
Mace (2d4)
Warhammer (2d6)
Maul (2d8)


Spears
Reach: Spears can be used to attack targets 5ft away
Dart (1d4)
Glaive (1d6)
Pike (1d10)


Swords, Piercing
Finesse: Use Dex to attack
Dagger (1d4)
Shortsword (1d6)
Estoc (1d10)


Swords, Slashing
Accurate: Swords gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls
Kukri (1d4)
Longsword (1d6)
Greatsword (1d10)


Flails
Tangling: Grant Advantage on Shove attempts to knock a foe prone
Fighting Chain (1d4)
Whip (1d6)
Morningstar (1d10)



Why is a Morningstar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_star_(weapon)) considered a two-handed flail-type weapon? Not disputing the conceptual idea of weapon-types, just questioning that specific choice.

NRSASD
2019-05-24, 12:07 PM
I'm nibbling away at making a slightly more complex armor/weapon system, where the heavier armors provide categorically better protection than light armor but are easier to hit. Things like resistance to specific damage types or maybe even damage mitigation (like the heavy armor master feat).

This gives me the chance to make weapons have more meaning, as currently there is no difference between a battleaxe and a longsword. But the overarching goal is to keep things simple. We'll see if that manifests the way I hope it does.

awa
2019-05-24, 12:10 PM
Why is a Morningstar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_star_(weapon)) considered a two-handed flail-type weapon? Not disputing the conceptual idea of weapon-types, just questioning that specific choice.



for some weird reason a lot of games (mostly computer) confuse spiked flails with morning stars


I run a fairly complex system where armor is variable DR, but also converts some of the excess damage into subdual. They also make it harder to get critical hit.

Armor use is limited by your combined str+con mod the logic being while a common solider just needs to wear their armor to the battle field a pc needs to be able to swim a river or climb mountains in their armor and thus needs to be able to wear it like a second skin.


Weapons like axes have the Armor piercing trait reducing the effectiveness of armor

weapons like clubs have the impact trait which deals bonus subdual damage that is harder to block with armor

weapons like daggers have keen that makes it easier to get critical hits (which grant a large amount of armor penetration)

Their is a lot more to it but that is the relevant part.

This system would not work with a straight port to say 3rd edition where feats like power attack would break it.

Willie the Duck
2019-05-24, 12:18 PM
Get this quick aside out of the way:

It instead says to me "anything that is not a bludgeoning weapon is actually an inferior choice" since against half your opposition, it doesn't work as well. Unless bludeoning weapons got penalties to attacking monsters?
Although later parts of 2e added some better bludgeoning options (and some printings had morningstars dance around between B and P), the primary penalty for bludgeoning weapons was that they did significantly less damage. A longsword, for instance did 1d8 vs small and medium opponents and 2d6 vs large and larger opponents. For a Warhammer, those numbers were 1d4+1 and 1d4.

Anyways, to the meat of the discussion:

Where do you think they should have stopped? How detailed does the combat of the game need to be? Massive tables add depth but slow the game. Concise uniform rules and normalized totals speed calculations up but eliminate the very identity of these choices.

I did not, to be honest, pay even the slightest bit of attention to those optional rules; having great big table for Thac0 was tedious enough without having to add a load of modifiers for weapons attacking armour classes.

I'm not seeing any more complexity in 2E D&D treatment of armor. I see a lot of fiddly details that try to be realistic, but not complexity or granularity. D&D combat is primitive and there's no amount of modifiers that are going to change it.

It stopped because D&D has spent the last couple decades evolving away from its roots as a medieval wargame, and towards being a broader fantasy adventure system.

Something my Dad ran across while talking to a chap about realistic wargames; the chap had developed a tank shooting system which was essentially like that, but had completely bollocks movement speeds which had no bearing on reality.
A simulation is oinly as accurate as its weakest link.

I think oD&D did what made sense -- it was still a derivative or a fantasy subsection or a wargame (where deciding to equip your troops with pikes vs swords and shield vs axes and shields vs lances and horses was one of the primary tactical choices one could make), and therefore it made sense that these choices should play a part in this new game. It wasn't strictly necessary when playing this odd dungeon-crawling variant, and the supply lines and switching out troops were gone, but there quickly became this logic that the PCs would have a bunch of retainers and hirelings, so you could still carry around different arms and armors depending on situation (plus all weapons did 1d6 damage, so I can see the desire for some level of variation). However, as it became clear that a lot of what you would fight would be monsters (not enemies in armor), plus once a major goal (other than gold/xp) was to find that magical weapon +1 (2, 3, eventually +5 holy avenger or somesuch) and the similar armor and shield, a whole lot of the reason for wanting that variation and decision making (are you really going to switch out of your plate+2 to put on chainmail +1 simply because you think you might run up against opponents armed with weapons that do worse vs chain?) dried up.

So at that point you end up with a whole lot of complexity desperately seeking purpose. As others have pointed out, realism is not a good candidate, given the other weaker links in the realism chain for D&D. B/X-BECMI and 2e if you ignore the S/P/B optional rules is fairly good -- heavier/more expensive armor is generally better if you can afford the expense/encumbrance with caveats. Those caveats being that unarmored is for mages; leather and studded are for thieves/rangers (with each individual making different choices on unarmored, leather, or studded depending on how important their thief skill %s were to them); leather and hide are for druids; chainmail is for elves to give fighter-mages a special variety of; and everything else is for non-ranger warriors and clerics. That at least gives a fairly reasonable reason for most of the armors to exist.

3e did change all that. OP's position that armor was a horrible option or only for Dex-dumping seems a little overboard. Plenty a decent character had a 16 Dex and mithril plate at high levels to achieve their front-line prowess. However, the overall movement away from 'as heavy as your purse/carrying capacity/class features will allow' was something of a spanner in the works. I get the 'why' (so people could play swashbucklers alongside knights), but the implementation had some hangups.

Overall, I think the answer to 'they should have stopped' probably would have been right after the LBB introduction of oD&D. Once they figured out how people were playing the game, they should have seen that the weapon vs. armor table was not a huge part of most people's games, and dropped the complexity-in-search-of-purpose like a bad habit... or figured out a specific system to replace it with an emphasis on having a specific "why" to the complexity.

Beleriphon
2019-05-24, 12:27 PM
I like Star Wars Saga Edition's take on armour. It adds to Reflext and Fortitude scores BUT without investing heavily in armour use a character cannot add their dexterity or unarmoured defenses to Reflex while wearing armour. So an unarmoured character usually had a better Reflex score, but much worse Fortitude, never mind the other benefits stuff like a sealed space suit provides outside of a Star Destroyer. Sure a character could achieve astronomically high Relfex scores by investing in wearing armour, but that means specifically building for that with the talents, feats, and what not.

I have no issue with the way armour works in D&D, specifically 5E. I like that there are some goofy options, and some good options. It sets up a series of choices, sure players are going to pick the best option hey possibly can for the costs they can afford in game, but that's not unusual. A lot of the other options are genuinely there for NPCs builds. If you look at some of the monsters they have armour in their stat block, and its not always the best option.

Keltest
2019-05-24, 12:40 PM
I liked the way Pillars of Eternity handled armor: it was just straight up damage reduction, but heavier armor gave you a bigger delay between turns/lowered your initiative depending on which rule set you were using. Wearing plate armor made you nearly invulnerable to anything not specifically designed to fight it, but you would always act last in turn based, or have really slow action speeds in real time. Meanwhile the wizard in the backline wearing just a robe could get off two or three spells in the time it would take you to get one attack done while wearing full plate, or could lead every round with a strong CC or damage spell with their good initiative.

pendell
2019-05-24, 12:48 PM
How much of those details become important once magic becomes involved? It's been joked about in the strip, but a +12 leather bikini is going to be superior to plate. In a world where magic items> non-magical, then the non-magical details aren't really important, since you're going to discard them just as soon as you can loot something better from a creature with the appropriate treasure type.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

HouseRules
2019-05-24, 12:49 PM
I dunno, I could see something like


Weapon Group
Property
Light Weapon (Damage)
One-Handed Weapon (Damage)
Two-Handed Weapon (Damage)


Axes
None: Axes are balanced weapons
Handaxe (1d6)
Battleaxe (1d8)
Greataxe (1d12)


Clubs
Brutal: Clubs have a -1 penalty to attack rolls
Mace (2d4)
Warhammer (2d6)
Maul (2d8)


Spears
Reach: Spears can be used to attack targets 5ft away
Dart (1d4)
Glaive (1d6)
Pike (1d10)


Swords, Piercing
Finesse: Use Dex to attack
Dagger (1d4)
Shortsword (1d6)
Estoc (1d10)


Swords, Slashing
Accurate: Swords gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls
Kukri (1d4)
Longsword (1d6)
Greatsword (1d10)


Flails
Tangling: Grant Advantage on Shove attempts to knock a foe prone
Fighting Chain (1d4)
Whip (1d6)
Morningstar (1d10)



Swords is more called Blades.

There's an emphasis on piercing, called daggers, and include the polearm version, called spears.

There's a balance on piercing and slashing, called straight swords, and include the polearm version, called staffsword.

There's an emphasis on slashing and it's usually one-edged, called knife, and include the polearm version, called glaive. Japanese have Naginata.
Long Knives are longer than many short swords.

Grod_The_Giant
2019-05-24, 12:50 PM
Why is a Morningstar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_star_(weapon)) considered a two-handed flail-type weapon? Not disputing the conceptual idea of weapon-types, just questioning that specific choice.
Mostly because I didn't want to reuse the term "flail" and couldn't come up with anything else quickly. (I'm imagining something like the Witch King was using in Return of the King). Might be better to have a separate "unique" category for things like nets, flails, and lances, though, come to think.

The Glyphstone
2019-05-24, 01:20 PM
Mostly because I didn't want to reuse the term "flail" and couldn't come up with anything else quickly. (I'm imagining something like the Witch King was using in Return of the King). Might be better to have a separate "unique" category for things like nets, flails, and lances, though, come to think.

"Snares" could work for stuff like nets and flails. Though an 'other' category is probably good for the weird stuff.

Tvtyrant
2019-05-24, 02:55 PM
Armor could definitely be reduced to Light/Medium/Heavy. I'd actually like a bit more detail on the weapons-- or at least have categories like Axe/Sword/Polearm with slightly more distinct differences...

(To the Homebrew forum!)

I felt like 4E did this really well, with different accuracy bonuses and feat trees for the different weapon types. It is also the most combat oriented of the editions though.

Great Dragon
2019-05-24, 03:17 PM
@Grod: the weapon chart is nice.
I'm not sure if it would really help much in my current games, though.

Like some of the other members here, I also ignored the Weapon vs Armor rules for AD&D 1&2.

5e D&D Armor is a little annoying.
Reference (
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?587734-Turning-the-Hexblade-quot-Patron-quot-into-modular-powers)



PCs with High AC are able to take on CRs around Three times their level! (Like a Level One PC with AC 18-19 can easily take on most CR 3 Monsters.)


I just got done running "CR 1" Hobgoblins against a Level Two party. With the Hobgoblins having AC 18, they were a very hard fight for the Party!

I felt that base (CR 1) Hobgoblins should have AC 14, Veteran Hobgoblins AC 16 (CR 3), and Captain Hobgoblins AC 18. (CR 5)

Especially since monsters aren't really supposed to easily match PCs: just have different or interesting Abilities.

And, I felt that not every Hobgoblin would have access to Chain Mail (with shield).

Now, Armor Cost keeps all the classes to Scale Mail (50 gp. AC 14 +2 Dex +2 shield = 18) at best, until around 3rd level.

Studded Leather is 45 gold. (AC 12 +2 shield + [5] Dex = 19 max).

At 750 gp for Half-Plate (AC 15 + 2 Dex and +2 shield = 19), even the Fighter and Paladin are not really scary with Splint Mail (AC 17 +2 shield = 19) for 200 gp.

Plate (AC 18 +2 shield = 20) costing 1,500 gp means that this is normally not available until about 5th level.


*****
Now, as always, the biggest part is optimization at Character Creation.

Anyone with 20 Dex (Halflings, Elves, and Goblins) doesn't need Heavy Armor, since they can get an AC 19 with just Studded Leather and shield. (55 gp) From 1st level!

But, starting out with access to Medium Armor means that even with a 14 Dex, they can still rock out with that same AC 19 as soon as they get 760 gp. (About 3rd level?)

True, Heavy Armor plus shield can get AC 20:
But, it's not like there's an Assembly Line Factory cranking Plate Armor out!

But, 5e is still waaay better then 3.x!
3.x: you could stack your +5 Full Plate (13), +5 tower shield (+9), +5 Dex (mithril plus nimbleness), +5 Amulet of Natural Armor, and +5 Ring of Protection; +1 for Dodge Feat = AC 38. At about 17th level.

Where the only Monsters that are really able to hit that on a regular basis are things like Great Wyrm Dragons, Storm Giants (Mountain Giants? and maybe Cloud Giants?) and the Tarrasque.

True, another 20th Level Warrior type with 30 Str and a +5 weapon could still hit that with a roll of 3+ on their first attack, 8+ roll with their second attack, 13+ roll with their third attack, and 18+ roll with their fourth attack.

But then we're getting into PvP territory, there.

Grod_The_Giant
2019-05-24, 03:35 PM
Where the only Monsters that are really able to hit that on a regular basis are things like Great Wyrm Dragons, Storm Giants (Mountain Giants? and maybe Cloud Giants?) and the Tarrasque.
Uh, looking at CR 17 monsters...

An Aboleth Mage can't hit you with its tentacles, but that doesn't matter because it's a 10th level Wizard.
An Old Brass Dragon hits you on a 3+.
A Mature Adult Bronze Dragon hits you on a 4+.
A Marilith needs to roll a 13 to hit you, but it's also rolling 6 times.
A Formian Queen can't make physical attacks, but can cast 8th level spells, so, you know, good luck.
A Frost Giant Jarl needs an 8 to hit you with its first attack and a 13 with your second, which is just about fair.
A Very Old White Dragon hits you on a 3+.

The Tarrasque has a +57 to hit.

awa
2019-05-24, 03:40 PM
Uh, looking at CR 17 monsters...

An Aboleth Mage can't hit you with its tentacles, but that doesn't matter because it's a 10th level Wizard.
An Old Brass Dragon hits you on a 3+.
A Mature Adult Bronze Dragon hits you on a 4+.
A Marilith needs to roll a 13 to hit you, but it's also rolling 6 times.
A Formian Queen can't make physical attacks, but can cast 8th level spells, so, you know, good luck.
A Frost Giant Jarl needs an 8 to hit you with its first attack and a 13 with your second, which is just about fair.
A Very Old White Dragon hits you on a 3+.

The Tarrasque has a +57 to hit.

actually the maralith also has a tail attack and at will magic weapon so it needs a 12 with 7 attacks so its even less fair.

That said a lot of these monster are assumed to be using power attack so this at least weakens that, on the other hand you spent a lot of resources getting your ac that high. Of course as in all things 3.5 being a caster allows you to have a vastly higher ac far more easily if that is your thing.

edit I love how (I assume) we both immediately looked up the srd on the CR17 monsters

edit 2 Ac is useful in the early game but its hard to keep it up in the late game and increasingly ineffective as the spells get more and more powerful

Great Dragon
2019-05-24, 03:46 PM
Thanks, Grod and awa!!

I lost all my 3.x books while moving, I'm stuck on my phone and not able to access PDFs, and no more room for downloads.
(And I can't post and read the SRD at the same time)

The ones I listed were what I could dredge up from memory.

I had forgotten that the Tarrasque had a +57 to hit!!! (And four attacks? Claw x2, Bite, and Tail?)

I was not listing Spellcasters for attacking the Super Armored PC, since I considered that to be separate.

@Beleriphon:
My GM tried SW Saga, but ended up going with Revised Core for ease of play.

We do like that SW Core Armor grants DR.

noob
2019-05-24, 04:30 PM
@Grod: the weapon chart is nice.
I'm not sure if it would really help much in my current games, though.

Like some of the other members here, I also ignored the Weapon vs Armor rules for AD&D 1&2.

5e D&D Armor is a little annoying.
Reference (
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?587734-Turning-the-Hexblade-quot-Patron-quot-into-modular-powers)



But, 5e is still waaay better then 3.x!
3.x: you could stack your +5 Full Plate (13), +5 tower shield (+9), +5 Dex (mithril plus nimbleness), +5 Amulet of Natural Armor, and +5 Ring of Protection; +1 for Dodge Feat = AC 38. At about 17th level.

Where the only Monsters that are really able to hit that on a regular basis are things like Great Wyrm Dragons, Storm Giants (Mountain Giants? and maybe Cloud Giants?) and the Tarrasque.

True, another 20th Level Warrior type with 30 Str and a +5 weapon could still hit that with a roll of 3+ on their first attack, 8+ roll with their second attack, 13+ roll with their third attack, and 18+ roll with their fourth attack.

But then we're getting into PvP territory, there.

let us look at the outsiders.
balor at 35 ac and +33 to attack rolls.
pit fiends at 40 ac and +30 to attack rolls.
solars at 35 ac and +35 to attack rolls.

many creatures including spellcasting creatures have insane ac and attack rolls at high level.
do not forget that at high optimisation you face higher level monsters often.

Aotrs Commander
2019-05-24, 04:38 PM
True, another 20th Level Warrior type with 30 Str and a +5 weapon could still hit that with a roll of 3+ on their first attack, 8+ roll with their second attack, 13+ roll with their third attack, and 18+ roll with their fourth attack.

But then we're getting into PvP territory, there.

What? No, you're just using classed NPCs.

I ran a game at Epic and the vast majority of what the PCs fought was classed enemies. (Hitting +37 attack bonus was sufficiently common that I actually remembered it.)

(3.5 Monsters tend to be poorly optimised and hopelessly outclassed when you have a high-power group and even more so when they have an over-abundance of gear (thanks converted AD&D modules!) Something I did to 3.Aotrs recent has been to basically swipe PF's monster stats and back-convert, since they at least are better.)

I've had PCs get ACs close to 50 by the time they hit 17 (and are invisible and flying...), so merely 38 is kind of nothing by comparison...



On the flip side, one PC once broke Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth 3.5 basically in half by basically just having level-appropriate armour and shield. Though that, I have always said, was not a fault on the PC's AC but the fact that converted module was FRACKNG AWFUL (I in fact hold the point that she DID break it with level-appropriate gear up as one of the main reasons it was so awful. I mean, it didn't matter, since the presense of a Shadow Sun Ninja in the same party as a Dread Necromancer broke it completely in half the other way (hey, look, infinite out of combat healing) and when the final boss was a Complete Warrior Samurai and even the DM is bored running it...)

Great Dragon
2019-05-24, 05:18 PM
I'm still looking for the highest AC a 3.x spell gave.


What? No, you're just using classed NPCs.
Well, unless I had confirmed "premade" BBEG/Villains already in place, a lot of the "Experienced" players cried foul when I pulled a Classed NPC out.

And I've had to deal with PvP so much in the past, that I strongly discourage it now.


(3.5 Monsters tend to be poorly optimised and hopelessly outclassed when you have a high-power group and even more so when they have an over-abundance of gear (thanks converted AD&D modules!) Something I did to 3.Aotrs recent has been to basically swipe PF's monster stats and back-convert, since they at least are better.)
If I ever find another 3.x group, I'll keep the "back-convert PF monsters" in mind. Thanks.


I've had PCs get ACs close to 50 by the time they hit 17 (and are invisible and flying...), so merely 38 is kind of nothing by comparison…

In 3.x Epic levels: +10 armor, +10 shield, +10 natural +10 deflection, +10 Dex, and +10 Luck? AC = 72.

Not counting the DM allowing Divine, Insight, and Circumstance bonuses. Around AC 100?


On the flip side, one PC once broke Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth 3.5 (snip) the final boss was a Complete Warrior Samurai and even the DM is bored running it...)
Dread Necromancer can be fun to play.

In my old 3x games, no one ever took any of the classes/prestiges out of the Tome of Battle.
Which is a shame, since they looked cool.

I was unimpressed by Incarnum.


*****
Back on track....
In 5e even with magical Items:
+3 Plate Armor, +3 Shield, +1 Ring/Cloak of Protection and +1 Defense style = 28.
*****
Now as for armor vs weapon charts, I feel that most people won't really care enough to use them, especially for 5e D&D.

Aotrs Commander
2019-05-24, 06:18 PM
Well, unless I had confirmed "premade" BBEG/Villains already in place, a lot of the "Experienced" players cried foul when I pulled a Classed NPC out.

And I've had to deal with PvP so much in the past, that I strongly discourage it now.

That's... ridiculous. Offensively ridiculous. I cannot comprehend how ridiculous. Do you not fight humans, like ALL THE TIME?

You tell 'em to go bunnies, mate - if you don't have classed NPCs, they don't have classed PCs either (because they don't get to be the only people in the world with class levels) and they can spend the entire game as base humanoid monster type with no class features. Actually, no, scratch that, just get better players, those are/were terrible players.

I mean, frack, any source book from Paizo is full to the brim of characters with class levels just in the world. Ye gods. I cannot even.




In 3.x Epic levels: +10 armor, +10 shield, +10 natural +10 deflection, +10 Dex, and +10 Luck? AC = 72.

Okay, I actually had to do a bit of digging.

1) Couldn't find anything in the ELH that gave you the option for anything to have a luck bonus to AC. (Wasn't going to go throught the MiC.)

2) Just counting armour, shield, deflection and natural armour, that is the bulk of entire wealth-by-level alottment (six million) for a 33rd level character (and means you wouldn't have basically much else or it would all be well sub-epic). Whcih is really damn high.

Level 33 actually makes it hard to find any monsters, since the majority of them in the ELH are sub-30 but:

Living Vault (CR 33) has a +99 attack bonus.

Genius Loci (CR 30) has a +64 attack bonus

Primal elementsal (CR 35) are around +80

Xixecals (CR 36) are +93

(Epic is also notoriously poorly balanced at the best of times for dozens of other reasons. Basically, the epic rules almosy have to be more of a guideline that the DM has to futz with.)



In the case of my up-to-epic campaign (which just reached into the bottom level of post-twenty) the DM said "no, no, you are not having any epic gear. You take your regular +10 (+5 and +5 stuff) and you like it, you have far too much crap already, you can't buy it in Sigil, sod off."

Also, by the time the PCs can (and are allowed to...) have that kind of gear, so will the NPCs. (And even in that one party, the massive price hike for Epic gear would have meant they couldn't have afforded it in practise, but I wasn't going to let them even think they were allowed the option.)

Grod_The_Giant
2019-05-24, 06:23 PM
Level 33 actually makes it hard to find any monsters, since the majority of them in the ELH are sub-30 but:
You can always break out the Immortal's Handbook Bestiary... :smalltongue:

Aotrs Commander
2019-05-24, 06:29 PM
You can always break out the Immortal's Handbook Bestiary... :smalltongue:

I can't, for the very simple reason I don't own it.



(As I am stupid enough to have said I will be runnign Return of the Runelords as a direct sequel (i.e., with the same PCs) as Rise of the Runelords, I'll be doing everything by hand anyway,)

Kyutaru
2019-05-24, 08:35 PM
I felt like 4E did this really well, with different accuracy bonuses and feat trees for the different weapon types. It is also the most combat oriented of the editions though.
Yes one thing I accredit to 4E is what a fabulous job they did with the weapon and armor balance. I hate having options of any kind that feel utterly useless and outclassed by another of equal merit.


But, 5e is still waaay better then 3.x!
3.x: you could stack your +5 Full Plate (13), +5 tower shield (+9), +5 Dex (mithril plus nimbleness), +5 Amulet of Natural Armor, and +5 Ring of Protection; +1 for Dodge Feat = AC 38. At about 17th level.
Oh, you can go way beyond that. Unarmored with Monk bonuses would let you stack more than the full plate. Then there's Expertise for another +5, Defending weapon for another +5, another +4 if you're a Dwarf against giants, another +4 for a Dwarven Defender's Defensive Stance, another +4 AC for being a Good character casting Glorious Raiment, and I'm sure there's more. Stacking class dips on a naked Ranger gets you over 100 AC easily.


But most of these things just further exemplify why Armor itself means so very little in the game because every bonus that isn't armor is contributing more than the armor is.

Grod_The_Giant
2019-05-24, 09:05 PM
Oh, you can go way beyond that.
I mean, this is 3.5 we're talking about; whatever number you're talking about, you can go way beyond that. Putting aside infinite and arbitrarily high values, the World Record thread (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=11680.0) says the record is 302 using this build (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=10240486&postcount=27), but I saw posts saying the author later got it up to 362.

lefty2shoes
2019-05-24, 11:20 PM
I don't know. I feel like getting tied up in the mechanics takes a lot out the game. A fun game for me is one where I can feel my character in the world, making an impact on the people around him and making a difference. Personally, I'm fine with the simplified armor rules. As a DM, I might limit the armor in a region to make the differences more pronounced. Perhaps it's a fashion this or a cultural thing, but maybe armor in this town consists of leather for hunters and woodsmen, chainmail for mercenaries and caravan guards and plate for city guardsman and nobles. I don't know. I'll always lean towards the RP enhancing decisions.

Great Dragon
2019-05-24, 11:27 PM
That's... ridiculous. Offensively ridiculous. I cannot comprehend how ridiculous. Do you not fight humans, like ALL THE TIME?
Heh. Actually, I've kinda always had Sentient Humanoids having access to Weapons and Armor.

Full Plate was rare: mostly Hobgoblins (Bastard Swords plus Heavy Shield) and Duergar (Battleaxes and Heavy Shield) and even then only Sargents had Half Plate and the Captains had access to Full Plate.

Drow mostly went with either Chain Shirt (still light in 3.x) or their version of Elven Chainmail (the one that stopped being "cool" in daylight) for their commanders. Sometimes with shields.


You tell 'em to go bunnies, mate - if you don't have classed NPCs, they don't have classed PCs either (because they don't get to be the only people in the world with class levels) and they can spend the entire game as base humanoid monster type with no class features. Actually, no, scratch that, just get better players, those are/were terrible players.

I mean, frack, any source book from Paizo is full to the brim of characters with class levels just in the world. Ye gods. I cannot even.

Yeah, they did seem to think that they were Super Special, and the only Classed people in the entire world. Didn't even have a single PC in the group with a Mentor/Teacher in their Backstory.

That's ok, the Group in question broke up (see PvP comment) about 15 years ago.

But, they did cause me to tend to run a Living World. Where some of the things they caused in the game World are still in effect.


Okay, I actually had to do a bit of digging.

1) Couldn't find anything in the ELH that gave you the option for anything to have a luck bonus to AC. (Wasn't going to go throught the MiC.)
I'm not sure anymore if that was Homebrew, or not.

I do recall that the Paragon Template (+18 Level Adjustment) gave a Luck bonus of +20 to Hit and AC - and saves(?).


2) Just counting armour, shield, deflection and natural armour, that is the bulk of entire wealth-by-level alottment (six million) for a 33rd level character (and means you wouldn't have basically much else or it would all be well sub-epic). Which is really damn high.

Well, since the particular group in question became "Dragonslayers" (Paladin and Mage) and "Hordestealers" (Rogue) - I forget what PrC the Cleric had - with a tendency to hunt down (mostly) Chromatic Dragons, find out where it was and which kind - and Age - it was: to know the Breath Weapon and Abilities and Vulnerabilities, so that they always had the best possible Protections and most effective damages.

So, killing the Dragon (in it's Lair) was super easy for them, and obtaining no less than 10 Hordes (I eventually caught at least two of them with MMs) meant that the WbL was shot to H***!!!
######
Now, in my games, IO (the Dragon creator deity) gifted ALL Dragons with the ability to shapeshift once a day. Metallics still get three a day.

(If I get some time, I'll convert the Draconomicon and Dragon Magic into 5e)

So, are you sure your Porter is really a Nice "Person"?

(One of the first Magic Items that all Dragons will seek out is the Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location and constantly wear it!!!!


Level 33 actually makes it hard to find any monsters, since the majority of them in the ELH are sub-30 but:

Living Vault (CR 33) has a +99 attack bonus.

Genius Loci (CR 30) has a +64 attack bonus

Primal Elementals (CR 35) are around +80

Xixecals (CR 36) are +93

Ah, the memories….


(Epic is also notoriously poorly balanced at the best of times for dozens of other reasons. Basically, the epic rules almosy have to be more of a guideline that the DM has to futz with.)

Oh, yeah. Epic was super unbalanced.
One of the reasons I rarely ran it, since I didn't have the time to redo the system.


Also, by the time the PCs can (and are allowed to...) have that kind of gear, so will the NPCs. (And even in that one party, the massive price hike for Epic gear would have meant they couldn't have afforded it in practise, but I wasn't going to let them even think they were allowed the option.)

For some reason, those Players never did get the fact that "powerful" (Spellcasters) and "important" (Kings, Nobles; and all other classes) NPCs have access to awesome gear, usually before they do.

***
The good news is that I now have lots of New Players, so most of those shinagines won't be a problem.

oxybe
2019-05-25, 07:31 AM
Complexity for it's own sake is just as annoying to me as simplicity for it's own sake.

D&D combat is less about the specifics and more about the action. You only have a few rounds until things start getting tedious, so make them count and make them awesome. Fiddling with conditional armour modifiers is largely a tedious thing.

For armour in a D&D type game, I'm more of a Gamma World mindset, specifically the version built off of 4th ed. It's a neat game that condenses a lot of the 4e experience down to 10 levels and tosses in a bunch of science fantasy into the mix. I once played a T-Rex with cool shades, a wife beater under a leather jacket and a chainsaw. He was awesome and went out like a boss overcharging a broken plasma rifle he found and nearly one-shotting a motorcycle gang pig mutant leader after jumping out a window like cool dude.

He got unceremoniously gunned down by the entire gang and killed the next round mind you, but he (physically) left his mark on that antagonist who had to slink away to tend their wounds. Plasma burn is nasty.

You have 3 armours in the game: Unarmoured, Light armour, Heavy armour. Well, 4 if your also add shields as "armour". The specifics? Eh... make that up yourself the light armour could be something like a gambison or a shirt of chainmail or whatever. Heavy armour could be full plate or some homemade monstrosity made by welding all your mom's pots and pans into a suit. Light armour was basically AC 13 + Dex/Int & Shield, Heavy was AC17+Shield. A shield was a flat +2 to your AC. Unarmoured is AC10+Dex/Int.

And that's it. That's the Gamma World armour rules.

Weapons were similarly vague but slightly more complex. You had a few rough categories: unarmed, one-handed, two-handed, thrown and projectile, and these were split between light and heavy, light having a +3 accuracy Vs heavy's +2 but lighter weapons suffered a smaller damage dice. Light weapons used Dex/Int to attack while Heavy used Str/Con for accuracy and damage.

The game didn't really make much difference between any two given 2-handed heavy weapons: one could be a Final Fantasy-esque greatsword while the other a Stop sign still attached to it's pole but both would use the same stats. The difference between a thrown weapon and a projectile is like comparing a tomahawk to a crossbow, the latter requires specific ammunition to be used be it arrows, bolts, bullets, etc... while the former was really just anything you could find and chuck at someone. Unarmed light & heavy was basically your jab VS strait/haymaker and followed the same basic rules and principals of trading accuracy for damage.

I'm sure we could find a way to use something to add modifiers akin to Rule of Cool's Legend or FFG's Genesys' hardness points for further specialization of both weapons and armour, but I'm a fan of keeping the baseline deceptively simple and building complexity from there.

Does the game benefit from the added complexity of 12 slightly different armour values, or should we be looking at diversifying armour in a different way then just which side of the d20 is invariably going to be needed to whack your character.

Kyutaru
2019-05-25, 09:24 AM
Oxy, you describe a pretty okay system where the values at least are distinct enough to matter. It's similar to how Fallout or Wasteland might treat armor fairly basically but with enough distinction that it matters. Heavier armor = more weight = stronger characters. It's sad that D&D has medium vs heavy being so close in the newest editions to the point that it's hardly worth the feat to buy heavy armor proficiency for the extra point. They made it an entire armor category equivalent to the 3.5 Dodge feat.

Kyrell1978
2019-05-25, 09:28 AM
3.x: you could stack your +5 Full Plate (13), +5 tower shield (+9), +5 Dex (mithril plus nimbleness), +5 Amulet of Natural Armor, and +5 Ring of Protection; +1 for Dodge Feat = AC 38. At about 17th level.

Where the only Monsters that are really able to hit that on a regular basis are things like Great Wyrm Dragons, Storm Giants (Mountain Giants? and maybe Cloud Giants?) and the Tarrasque.
.

It could get worse than that with as little as the ultimate equipment guide being allowed. +5 Dragon Hide (15), +5 Tower Shield (9), Dex (5 with Nimble), Amulet of Natural Armor (5), Ring of Pro (5), Mithral Mail Tabard (No armor check penalty because mithral can be worn over armor and the armor bonus stacks 2), Nightleather (can be worn under armor and the armor bonus stacks 2). a couple of feats armor specialization (1), Shield specialization (1).

So there's a 50. I was able to cheese another couple of points on a few characters as well but I don't recall exactly how. Luck bonus hijinks I think.

CharonsHelper
2019-05-25, 09:41 AM
I like Star Wars Saga Edition's take on armour. It adds to Reflext and Fortitude scores BUT without investing heavily in armour use a character cannot add their dexterity or unarmoured defenses to Reflex while wearing armour. So an unarmoured character usually had a better Reflex score, but much worse Fortitude, never mind the other benefits stuff like a sealed space suit provides outside of a Star Destroyer. Sure a character could achieve astronomically high Relfex scores by investing in wearing armour, but that means specifically building for that with the talents, feats, and what not.

Actually - they could add their DEX to their Reflex defense when wearing armor without any investment (though like 3.x - armors had max DEX bonuses). It was that they couldn't add their LEVEL to their Reflex (normally added to all defenses) without Talent investment.

It had an interesting vibe, so that for the first few levels wearing armor was just better than going unarmored, but as you leveled up it got so that you were better off going unarmored unless you spent the Talents - which actually fits the vibe of the movies where the mooks all wear armor but the MCs don't generally bother.

Great Dragon
2019-05-25, 09:54 AM
@Kyrell1978:
I remember (but not which book) there were some Exotic Armors that gave like +12 and +15 which could then have the +5 bonus added.

So, with what you added: AC 55?

Not counting Insight and Circumstance (psionic) bonuses.

Kyrell1978
2019-05-25, 10:20 AM
@Kyrell1978:
I remember (but not which book) there were some Exotic Armors that gave like +12 and +15 which could then have the +5 bonus added.

So, with what you added: AC 55?

Not counting Insight and Circumstance (psionic) bonuses.

Something like that for sure. I never did get to the spell stacking 362 or anything but we were pretty much forced to break AC a little if we wanted to live by our main DM at the time. Everything had a plus 30-40 to hit and did in the hundreds of damage and had in the 1,000s of hp. It was fun but more like final fantasy than d and d.

Great Dragon
2019-05-25, 10:55 AM
All attempts at googlefu failed to find 3.x spells over 1st level that gave AC.

I seem to recall "Phantasmal Armor" giving +8 AC and having a Large Warrior Image over the caster, but can't find any reference to it.

Bracers of Armor +8 Combined with "Encompassing Shield" spell was an AC 22 plus Dex. Add Amulet of +5 Natural, and +5 Ring of Protection = AC 32 + dex

Get Psionic Items of Insight and Circumstance for AC 42. (52 with +10 Dex)

So, pretty close to being equal AC to Warriors of equal level.

The mage making as many of those items themselves as possible saved money, but slowed their exp gained.

Monks were just as bad:
+8 Bracers, +5 Amulet, +5 Ring, +10 Dex, +10 Wis = 48 + Insight and Circumstance = AC 58
*******
5e mages are maxed out at AC 23.
Bracers of Armor are one point less, but save a Spell Slot.

gkathellar
2019-05-25, 11:06 AM
3.X mage defenses in general aren't about AC, they're about stacking asymmetric defenses like miss chances, mirror image, etc. That and just not allowing opponents to attack.

However, the gold standards for easy spellcaster AC are Greater Luminous Armor (from BoED) and Improved Mage Armor (from Unapproachable East). Then you take Abjurant Champion levels if it's something you really care a lot about.

Great Dragon
2019-05-25, 11:40 AM
3.X mage defenses in general aren't about AC, they're about stacking asymmetric defenses like miss chances, mirror image, etc. That and just not allowing opponents to attack

Things like Blur, Displacement, Mirror Image, and Invisibility aren't as cool at high level.
Where (Blindsight/Blindsense?) True Sight simply ignored these.

Those spells are effective against Mooks, though.

All the Charm/Hold Spells were save or suck.

Most of the Power Words were decent.

noob
2019-05-25, 05:38 PM
Things like Blur, Displacement, Mirror Image, and Invisibility aren't as cool at high level.
Where (Blindsight/Blindsense?) True Sight simply ignored these.

Those spells are effective against Mooks, though.

All the Charm/Hold Spells were save or suck.

Most of the Power Words were decent.

blindsense does not ignore concealement and nothing helps against blink
Also true sight does not ignore defenses as simple as fog cloud so you can use fog cloud + mirror image and so truesight does not allows to spot illusions and blindsight does not clearly allows to differentiate mirror images from the real one since it fools vision and hearing and that blindsight can come from the use of sound and it is impossible to know what is the real source of blindsight.
so something as simple as fog cloud + blink + mirror image would defeat your complete combination of spotting effects.

noob
2019-05-25, 05:48 PM
Armor has been a staple in D&D since the beginning, a critical element of fantasy where knights and rogues alike can do battle. It has changed tremendously over the years, simplifying over and over again till it holds little variation. It has been normalized to the point of almost not mattering.

In 5th edition, the simplest form, the difference between medium Half-Plate and heavy Plate is a single AC point when equipped by a character with sufficient Dexterity (an easily acquired 15). The heavier armor requires greater proficiency, twice the cost, longer don/doff time, and weighs more but for many that +1 AC is worth the trouble.

In 3rd edition it was slightly more complex with varying Dexterity caps that promoted different armor types being valuable for different characters, to the point that going completely unarmored was actually the most superior choice. Full Plate existed as the penultimate heavy armor and it was truly only worthwhile for someone dumping Dexterity, especially with the severe penalties associated with wearing it. Players focused on builds that ignored armor entirely in an edition where Finesse weapons meant you could double dip on the benefits of single stat stacking and multi-classing for low hanging fruit could net you ridiculous AC benefits from unarmored defense features. Armor was, effectively, useless.

But in 2nd edition... things were quite different. Armor had a personality all its own with rules that supported its uniqueness and strengthened the importance of selection, especially when it came to non-magical armor. Full plate, for example, was not merely "better plate". It had to be customized specifically to the wearer by an armorsmith which prevented randomly looted suits of it from being usable. But this hassle was worthwhile if you made use of the Weapon Type vs Armor table, which dictated that it was 4 points better against Slashing weapons and 3 points better against Piercing ones. The best armor in the game could potentially be even better! This even added a layer to weapon selection since in general Slashing weapons were terribly inaccurate against most armors, Piercing weapons were rather neutral or slightly bad, and Bludgeoning treated them as they actually were. When looking at the damage and speed differences of these weapon types it becomes clear that this was with purpose and balance in mind. Suddenly Slashing becomes ideal against monsters while Bludgeoning becomes excellent against armored humanoids, with Piercing straggling the middle for archers and rogues and animals everywhere.

Going back to 1st edition adds a second layer to this. Instead of damage types, all weapons had their own specific armor modifiers based on how effective they were. Additionally, armor was weaker against men and better against monsters, boasting completely different roll requirements depending on who was attacking it. Now there's this matrix forming of damage dealt, enemy type, armor modifiers, enemy size, attack speed, and proficiency that affects which weapon might work best for your character. All because of how they interact with armor.

There was only one difference between a Rapier and Shortsword in 3rd edition because they were both one-handed finessable 1d6 piercing weapons -- the crit range for the Rapier was superior in exchange for it being a slightly harder weapon to have proficiency for. Yet the 2nd edition version of the Shortsword had piercing/slashing, making it a viable pick due to (you guessed it) armor.

Where do you think they should have stopped? How detailed does the combat of the game need to be? Massive tables add depth but slow the game. Concise uniform rules and normalized totals speed calculations up but eliminate the very identity of these choices.
Actually the rules about fitting full plates are still here in dnd 3.5(and you can even pay a smith for a refit I believe)
It is just that there is a text written in magic items about how magic items autofit to the wearer which negate the inconvenient on the full plates you loot and want to wear.

Telok
2019-05-25, 07:07 PM
The past decade or 15 years have seen a continual trend towards simplifying the D&D game. The majority of the simplification tends to come in the form of removing options and diversity. Armor and weapons are just one of the places in the game where it's more obvious.

Having learned on the edition where the style and weight of weapons and armor meant something, I do find the current edition where everyone has nearly the same ac, attack, and damage, to be rather dull and bland.

Grod_The_Giant
2019-05-25, 08:02 PM
Returning to the topic at hand, how's something like this look for adding a bit more meaningful variety to armor?




Light Armor: AC 12+Dex
Medium Armor: AC 14+Dex (Max 2)
Heavy Armor: AC 17


Scaled: Reduce piercing damage by 2
Studded Leather
Lamellar
Scale Mail


Woven: Reduce slashing damage by 2
Gambeson
Hauberk
Chainmail


Plated: Reduce bludgeoning damage by 2
Brigandine
Splint Mail
Plated Armor

Morty
2019-05-25, 08:11 PM
The past decade or 15 years have seen a continual trend towards simplifying the D&D game. The majority of the simplification tends to come in the form of removing options and diversity. Armor and weapons are just one of the places in the game where it's more obvious.

Having learned on the edition where the style and weight of weapons and armor meant something, I do find the current edition where everyone has nearly the same ac, attack, and damage, to be rather dull and bland.

The only edition of D&D where there were actual options or diversity in terms of weapons and armor is 4E, and even there it's sketchy. 5E simplifies many things, but with mundane gear all it really does is strip away some of the illusion of choice... and even then, it leaves a lot of it. All those options were never really there.


Returning to the topic at hand, how's something like this look for adding a bit more meaningful variety to armor?




Light Armor: AC 12+Dex
Medium Armor: AC 14+Dex (Max 2)
Heavy Armor: AC 17


Scaled: Reduce piercing damage by 2
Studded Leather
Lamellar
Scale Mail


Woven: Reduce slashing damage by 2
Gambeson
Hauberk
Chainmail


Plated: Reduce bludgeoning damage by 2
Brigandine
Splint Mail
Plated Armor



Subtracting 2 from one damage type sounds like something players are going to forget about frequently. In general, I don't think damage types are a good way to differentiate gear. At least with weapons players can equip different ones if they know what they're facing. Armor can't be swapped out readily.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-05-25, 08:24 PM
The only edition of D&D where there were actual options or diversity in terms of weapons and armor is 4E, and even there it's sketchy. 5E simplifies many things, but with mundane gear all it really does is strip away some of the illusion of choice... and even then, it leaves a lot of it. All those options were never really there.

Subtracting 2 from one damage type sounds like something players are going to forget about frequently. In general, I don't think damage types are a good way to differentiate gear. At least with weapons players can equip different ones if they know what they're facing. Armor can't be swapped out readily.

Agreed on both counts. Some amount of illusion is needed, if for no other reason than to satisfy sacred bovines, but much of what was was simply crunch for the sake of crunch. And not even useful or realistic crunch at that. Which, in my eyes, is worse. If you're going to do it wrong, then at least do so knowingly and intentionally (in order to serve other goals like simplicity or thematicity).

I wrote a sub-class for 5e that attempts to bring some of the weapon feats from 4e into the game, but :shrug:

Max_Killjoy
2019-05-25, 08:33 PM
If I were re-working armor for D&D, the first thing I'd do would be to eliminate the nonsense armors ("studded" leather) and the idea that armor is this nice neat linear progression from leather to full plate.

Kyutaru
2019-05-25, 08:44 PM
Returning to the topic at hand, how's something like this look for adding a bit more meaningful variety to armor?




Light Armor: AC 12+Dex
Medium Armor: AC 14+Dex (Max 2)
Heavy Armor: AC 17


Scaled: Reduce piercing damage by 2
Studded Leather
Lamellar
Scale Mail


Woven: Reduce slashing damage by 2
Gambeson
Hauberk
Chainmail


Plated: Reduce bludgeoning damage by 2
Brigandine
Splint Mail
Plated Armor


It's a decent attempt at diversity that can be made to scale with magic armor bonuses (+3 = 5) but it doesn't solve the diversity issue between armor categories. The guy in heavy armor hasn't felt like an actual tank since 2nd edition where he reduced a fair percentage of the incoming damage. Sad part is I'm sure they did this just to eliminate the people who multi-class just for armor proficiency to be able to use the "best" defense so who knows if it's even fixable.

https://heroichollywood.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Avengers-Age-of-Ultron-Halloween-Marvel-Studios-MCU.jpg
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/marvelcinematicuniverse/images/6/66/Iron_Legion.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140920054952

Grod_The_Giant
2019-05-25, 09:37 PM
It's a decent attempt at diversity that can be made to scale with magic armor bonuses (+3 = 5) but it doesn't solve the diversity issue between armor categories. The guy in heavy armor hasn't felt like an actual tank since 2nd edition where he reduced a fair percentage of the incoming damage. Sad part is I'm sure they did this just to eliminate the people who multi-class just for armor proficiency to be able to use the "best" defense so who knows if it's even fixable.
Mmm...yeah. D&D already tries to model that sort of resilience with hit point, so I'm not sure... Hmm. No wait, I've got an idea. What if

We set everyone's base AC to 10+Dex
We crunch the numbers to see how much damage would, on average, be prevented by raising that number to 12 (for light armor), 14 (for medium), 16 (for heavy), and 18 (for full plate) at a given level.
We convert that to a simpler progression
Instead of boosting AC, we have armor grant temporary hit points based on the above value.

So, like, (pulling numbers 100% out of my ass), light armor would give you 1 temporary HP/level, medium armor would give 2/level, heavy armor 3/level, and plate 4/level. That gives us a somewhat more "realistic" system, where heavier armor lets you tank by having attacks bounce right off you.

Great Dragon
2019-05-26, 12:17 AM
So, like, (pulling numbers 100% out of my ass), light armor would give you 1 temporary HP/level, medium armor would give 2/level, heavy armor 3/level, and plate 4/level. That gives us a somewhat more "realistic" system, where heavier armor lets you tank by having attacks bounce right off you.

This would work >but< 5e is too easily exploited.

It's the same problem I have with scaling Cantrips.
Where the V-Human noncaster with a "damage" Cantrip from Magic Initiate is just as powerful with it as the "master of magic" at 20th level.

Only by basing your idea on "warrior level" could this remain in the Martial's favor.

Like, a 10th level Ranger could rock +20 tHP in their medium armor. And a 10th level Fighter could pown with +40 tHP in full plate.

But, the 10th level Soradin could not get that same +40 tHP, being limited to +4 tHP times Paladin level.

IDK, as mentioned, a lot of people prefer to keep things simple. I suppose that the 3.x "variant armor" rules could be used: AC bonus = DR.

But stacking both AC and DR is….. questionable.

Tanarii
2019-05-26, 12:21 AM
In 5th edition, the simplest form, the difference between medium Half-Plate and heavy Plate is a single AC point when equipped by a character with sufficient Dexterity (an easily acquired 15). The heavier armor requires greater proficiency, twice the cost, longer don/doff time, and weighs more but for many that +1 AC is worth the trouble.
On often overlooked thing in these 5e medium (and sometimes light) armor comparisons is that Dex 14+ is not easily acquired. It requires a specific race, or one of your top two starting attributes using standard array, or investment of ASIs.

Aotrs Commander
2019-05-26, 07:07 AM
Again, there is zero point in trying to create a complex, realistic system for armour when D&D in inherently unrealistic everywhere else.

If you want something more "real," switch to Rolemaster. (But I'm sure other people can suggest something else, as well.)

No, seriously - the attack tables and critical tables have all the granularity you ever to differentiate each armour type, and it handles injuries more realistically. (Hell, RM, even HAS rules for you to convert Arms Law for use with AD&D and 3.0 as of RM Classic! You practically only have to multiply by 5!)

Of course, a) the players still basically don't care because they will want the highest Armour Type they can have regardless and b) Rolemaster has other issues (such as open-ended rolls making it the most random system I've played and you can forget about trying to have meaningful boss fights).

Futzing around with the AC numbers won't give you realism or whatever in D&D, because you're slapping it on a system that just isn't to start with AND you're only looking at part of the same system instead of completely revising the whole system. Only as accurate as its weakest point, remember?



In doing that table, you have basically reduced it to three armour types; light, medium and heavy. Trust me, no-one cares to any degree which one has two points of DR verses something (especially since it becomes a massive pain for everyone) - who could ever predict what damage type you're most likely to come across in a given campaign? - so the choice of which of the three flavours? ARBITARY. Just like, as I said earlier, in Deadfire. It's essentially "I'll have a coke," "we've only got Pepsi" *shrug* "same difference." (And worse, it's "arbitary" coming along with "tedious thing everyone at the table has to remember.") Sure, one or two people might care, but for most people, it's no odds. (I literally could not tell you the difference between the aforementioned in a taste test.)

As a wide coder once said, for every problem there is a solution that is both simple and wrong. You can't half-arse it with a table like that that you came up in, I would like to bet, under an hour tops. If you want to actually do something meaningful, it's going to take hours of careful work revising the entire combat system. Otherwise, you're Doing A Paradox and having a really complicated pretend battle system for your Grand Strategy Game which still basically just boils down to "have more numbers" because abstraction to "roll dice at each other" can't ever be more meaningful that that. If you really want to make armour different, you have go back right to the start, forget the dice rolls and the number and first decide EXACTLY you want do HAPPEN. (Not just "I want to make armour different" but actually "okay, thing A hits thing B with a sword, what do I want the answer to be" before you even LOOK at the game mechanics. It is, as they say, as sigificantly major a product as me tossing out the entire bestiary or changing the magic system to be mana-point spontaneous instead of Vancian.



The other point, and I can't stress this enough, is that there is no point doing any if at all if it gets in the way of your players, who I can bet really don't care about it. Now, I'll be the last person to say "don't fiddle with rules, the players don't care much" because I have practically written my own editions of both D&D and RM at this point - but adding complexity for the sake of it, minor varity to you can lie to yourself and say "well, there is a mechanical difference" is one of those things that isn't worth it. You're essentially slowing the game down - and you are, because now you have to remember to take the damage off for each damage type every time, which means one more round of "what armour are you wearing" on top of "what AC are you?" - for the tiny glow of satisfaction at the mistaken belief you've made armour different. (How many players do have? I have 7-8 character parties and two-hour weekly sessions so adding another level of faff would have an appreciable effect, especially when the dwarf barbarian already has seven attacks poer round...)

Great Dragon
2019-05-26, 08:04 AM
On often overlooked thing in these 5e medium (and sometimes light) armor comparisons is that Dex 14+ is not easily acquired. It requires a specific race, or one of your top two starting attributes using standard array, or investment of ASIs.

IMX a lot of ("optimizers") people will only play AL or S.A./P.B. as a last resort.

(I have noticed that if the DM wants more Classes being chosen, and less Multiclassing (without banning) while having the game be "fair" (everyone gets the same numbers at start, and only player choice is different) using P.B. can be effective.
But even here, S.A. is avoided.)

While rolling (depending on method) usually gives averages around 14, even the illusion of being able to score an 18, or at least two 16s is preferred.

Also, remember that while Plate is the highest AC without a shield - straight AC comparisons aren't usually what "optimizers" are looking at.

What they are seeing is:

"Wow! I got an 18! Now I can go (Halfing, Elf, or Goblin) Bard/Warlock/Rogue, and still have AC 17!" (Draconic Sorcerer for AC 18 +5 Shield = 23 - but that's the best it'll ever be, without "Stat Increase" {Dex} books.)

Or:
"Ok, I still got a 15: I can go Cleric/Druid/Ranger and still have AC 19."

And:
"Dang! I got an 11<. I suppose I can just dump Dex and go War Cleric*/Paladin in Plate..." for AC 20.
(* Any Domain that gives Heavy Armor)

While a 16-17 Dex can be either (1) or (2).
But, usually go to the Wizard. (After Int, and Con are ok)

This may not even be a conscious process.

But, where you see only a 1 point difference (without Defense Style) they see that gap between Dex Modifiers for armor and what Class/es they are "stuck" playing.


*****
Now, Don't get me wrong, here.
I'm not saying every "optimizer" does that.

And I'm loving that since D&D (5e especially) has gone more "RP" style (play your Character's concept), more players are choosing their Race, Class, and even Background before they roll for stats (or buy). Lots of DMs (both on YouTube, and at the FLGS) are encouraging New Players to think this way.

Morty
2019-05-26, 03:14 PM
Mmm...yeah. D&D already tries to model that sort of resilience with hit point, so I'm not sure... Hmm. No wait, I've got an idea. What if

We set everyone's base AC to 10+Dex
We crunch the numbers to see how much damage would, on average, be prevented by raising that number to 12 (for light armor), 14 (for medium), 16 (for heavy), and 18 (for full plate) at a given level.
We convert that to a simpler progression
Instead of boosting AC, we have armor grant temporary hit points based on the above value.

So, like, (pulling numbers 100% out of my ass), light armor would give you 1 temporary HP/level, medium armor would give 2/level, heavy armor 3/level, and plate 4/level. That gives us a somewhat more "realistic" system, where heavier armor lets you tank by having attacks bounce right off you.

Interesting idea, but it runs into a weird situation where, once the temporary hit points run out, a suit of plate is the same as a leather jacket.

Grod_The_Giant
2019-05-26, 03:41 PM
Interesting idea, but it runs into a weird situation where, once the temporary hit points run out, a suit of plate is the same as a leather jacket.
Maybe a per-round thing? That way it would at least remain a factor throughout the encounter, though it would also be more fiddly... or maybe let the heavier armors still provide a small AC boost? Say half the current bonus as flat AC, and half converted into temporary HP? Sort of like the old armor-as-DR variant from 3.5...

Tvtyrant
2019-05-26, 05:09 PM
Maybe a per-round thing? That way it would at least remain a factor throughout the encounter, though it would also be more fiddly... or maybe let the heavier armors still provide a small AC boost? Say half the current bonus as flat AC, and half converted into temporary HP? Sort of like the old armor-as-DR variant from 3.5...

I think that route of the problem is that HP doesn't work very well, so AC doesn't as well.

If you had wound tables and armor did nothing to prevent getting hit, but reduced the severity of the wound by a threshhold it would be more realistic. Unarmored would be very hard to hit, light armor almost the same and reduces wound severity by 1, medium by two, heavy makes you easy to hit but reduces severity by three on a d4. A man in a suit of plate isn't dodging glancing blows, they just don't matter anymore.

Kyutaru
2019-05-26, 06:33 PM
Okay rather than reinvent the wheel, what RPG do you find had the best defense system and what was it about that system that made it optimal? Like personally I find the Battletech universe to be fairly accommodating of the variety of weapons and armor with thoughtful consideration for where you store your ammo and how much weight you bring to battle.

Grod_The_Giant
2019-05-26, 08:29 PM
Okay rather than reinvent the wheel, what RPG do you find had the best defense system and what was it about that system that made it optimal? Like personally I find the Battletech universe to be fairly accommodating of the variety of weapons and armor with thoughtful consideration for where you store your ammo and how much weight you bring to battle.
I think my favorite is Exalted 3e's system-- you make normal attacks to steal initiative from foes, and you expend your initiative to power decisive strikes that actually damage people. It takes the usual sort of plot armor/wound track combo and really helps integrate it into the world better, while adding tactical depth at the same time.

Morty
2019-05-27, 06:29 AM
I think my favorite is Exalted 3e's system-- you make normal attacks to steal initiative from foes, and you expend your initiative to power decisive strikes that actually damage people. It takes the usual sort of plot armor/wound track combo and really helps integrate it into the world better, while adding tactical depth at the same time.

I agree, but translating it to D&D would be tricky. In terms of armor, which is what this thread is about, it and natural soak reduce potential damage, rather than damage already dealt. This doesn't really work in the d20 framework. Not without a proper overhaul... which, to be fair, is entirely warranted. But also a massive amount of work and risk.

Grod_The_Giant
2019-05-27, 07:35 AM
I agree, but translating it to D&D would be tricky. In terms of armor, which is what this thread is about, it and natural soak reduce potential damage, rather than damage already dealt. This doesn't really work in the d20 framework. Not without a proper overhaul... which, to be fair, is entirely warranted. But also a massive amount of work and risk.
... see, while the rational side of my brain agrees with you, the tweaky rules-slut side is just taking that as a challenge. :smalltongue:

gkathellar
2019-05-27, 08:22 AM
I think there's something to say for the simplicity of how NWoD handles it: attack and damage are one roll, and (most) defenses reduce the number of dice you have on that roll. By not making things complicated, it avoids a lot of stupid little questions about whether X or Y or Z moving parts make sense.

It's not a perfect system, but it's easy to learn, easy to use, and relatively easy to tack powers and weird junk onto.

Morty
2019-05-27, 08:26 AM
... see, while the rational side of my brain agrees with you, the tweaky rules-slut side is just taking that as a challenge. :smalltongue:

The two immediate possibilities are lowering your effective damage die or forcing you to roll damage at a disadvantage, but I have no idea how that'd be decided or work in practice.


I think there's something to say for the simplicity of how NWoD handles it: attack and damage are one roll, and (most) defenses reduce the number of dice you have on that roll. By not making things complicated, it avoids a lot of stupid little questions about whether X or Y or Z moving parts make sense.

It's not a perfect system, but it's easy to learn, easy to use, and relatively easy to tack powers and weird junk onto.

The second edition of nWoD, also known as Chronicles of Darkness, goes with the likewise traditional armor reducing damage dealt, not penalizing the attack roll. 1E nWoD had the traditional Storyteller problem with offence outpacing defence; CofD alleviates that. But it leans even more on combat being quick and brutal, particularly for mortals, and not necessarily to the death.

Tanarii
2019-05-27, 08:48 AM
IMX a lot of ("optimizers") people will only play AL or S.A./P.B. as a last resort.I find a lot of people like to play AL, but I'm in a major city and run my (not AL) campaign out of three game stores that are near college campuses. They unsurprisingly get a lot of official play business, and that distorts my view of how common it is. :smallamused: I agree the majority of games have to be home games, unless wotc is bs-I got us on sales, and yeah rolling is probably really popular in home games.

But that just means you generally have to use one of your top three stats, on average, not top two. However I agree if you roll high (which can easily happen) you're good for a medium armor class.

5e medium armor characters are very MAD. They typically want Str, Con, and one casting Stat as high as possible, along with a Dex as close to 14 as possible.



*****
Now, Don't get me wrong, here.
I'm not saying every "optimizer" does that.

And I'm loving that since D&D (5e especially) has gone more "RP" style (play your Character's concept), more players are choosing their Race, Class, and even Background before they roll for stats (or buy). Lots of DMs (both on YouTube, and at the FLGS) are encouraging New Players to think this way.If you're rolling for stats first before choosing your class, you're not following the PHB process for character creation. That's fine and dandy and no judgement on that, especially because I doubt the designers intended the order to be strictly followed, but certainly will affect a lot of things when it comes to expected values of various numbers in the game.

MoiMagnus
2019-05-27, 09:12 AM
Where do you think they should have stopped? How detailed does the combat of the game need to be? Massive tables add depth but slow the game. Concise uniform rules and normalized totals speed calculations up but eliminate the very identity of these choices.

Maybe that's just my playstyle, but I fail to see how there is any depth/idendity in having complex armor systems. (Note: one big exception at the end)

Well, I see how you could have slightly more depth than 5e, but not that much.

For me, when you look at weapons/armors, there is two things that create depth/identity:
1) Properties that change the way you use the weapon, and not just the bonus to hit or the damages: reach weapons vs non-reach, melee vs distance, light armor vs heavy armor. Most of them are present in 5e.
2) Aesthetics: how the weapons/armor looks, how it defines your character combat style, ... This is mostly unaffected by the rules, it just depends on the weapon variety.

A bonus against slashing damages? Why should I care? I have absolutely not control over what weapon kinds my enemies will use, and I will not change armor at the middle of a fight to adapt. So for me, +3 against slashing weapons is statistically equivalent to +1 against every weapons (or whatever is the good ratio in your campaign).

Exception:

In a game where it is assumed you are switching armors and weapons to adapt to your opponents (Take Fire Emblem weapon triangle, for example, where you essentially change of weapon every turn. Take Pokemon where on top of being able to change Pokemon, your pokemon has attacks of multiple kind all accessibles), I see the point of adding complexity to the rules in order to add depth. As you know have this additional "minigame" of weakness and strength.

However, D&D usually follows the stereotype of a hero with a unique magical armor and a unique magical weapon.
In fact, I rarely see PCs with more than one weapon unless the system has rules for breaking weapons. Even though having a backup ranged weapon as a melee fighter would be realistic, that's not what I see in my games.
So I don't really see the point of having any additional complexity.

EDIT: And if there was any complexity, I would rather push this complexity into feats or classes. For example, having a Fighter subclass "weapon master" which grant different bonuses for each weapons. So that the character archetype "I have a lot of different weapons" actually have bonuses for doing so.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-05-27, 09:23 AM
However, D&D usually follows the stereotype of a hero with a unique magical armor and a unique magical weapon.
In fact, I rarely see PCs with more than one weapon unless the system has rules for breaking weapons. Even though having a backup ranged weapon as a melee fighter would be realistic, that's not what I see in my games.
So I don't really see the point of having any additional complexity.

EDIT: And if there was any complexity, I would rather push this complexity into feats or classes. For example, having a Fighter subclass "weapon master" which grant different bonuses for each weapons. So that the character archetype "I have a lot of different weapons" actually have bonuses for doing so.

I completely agree with this. Especially the edit. Leverage the class system (with feats as a backup)--don't force the complexity on everyone by putting it into the base system.

I even made a weapon-master fighter subclass for 5e--http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?588393-Weapon-master-A-fighter-archetype. Is it perfect? No. Does it bring added depth? Maybe. :smallwink:

Max_Killjoy
2019-05-27, 10:14 AM
I think there's something to say for the simplicity of how NWoD handles it: attack and damage are one roll, and (most) defenses reduce the number of dice you have on that roll. By not making things complicated, it avoids a lot of stupid little questions about whether X or Y or Z moving parts make sense.

It's not a perfect system, but it's easy to learn, easy to use, and relatively easy to tack powers and weird junk onto.

Whereas I see that as making characters mechanically bland and stripping away any differentiation between avoiding hits, resisting damage, etc... and it also makes the target an utterly passive actor in the resolution process.

(See also, reasons why I don't care for D&D's attack resolution mechanic.)

And it doesn't avoid any questions, really.




However, D&D usually follows the stereotype of a hero with a unique magical armor and a unique magical weapon.
In fact, I rarely see PCs with more than one weapon unless the system has rules for breaking weapons. Even though having a backup ranged weapon as a melee fighter would be realistic, that's not what I see in my games.
So I don't really see the point of having any additional complexity.


I always have backup weapons and multiple options on my PCs, regardless of system. The sword-wielder always has a ranged weapon, and a couple of daggers or knives hidden away, and if a game is silly enough to have monsters only vulnerable to blunt weapons, they carry one of those, too.




EDIT: And if there was any complexity, I would rather push this complexity into feats or classes. For example, having a Fighter subclass "weapon master" which grant different bonuses for each weapons. So that the character archetype "I have a lot of different weapons" actually have bonuses for doing so.


This sort of thing has never made sense to me.

Why lock basic facts of combat away behind classes or feats?

Anyone who really learns how to fight with a sword will learn how to parry and bind with it, and yet there are systems that treat parries and binds and such as oh-so-special class-based maneuvers... it's ridiculous.

Grod_The_Giant
2019-05-27, 10:23 AM
The two immediate possibilities are lowering your effective damage die or forcing you to roll damage at a disadvantage, but I have no idea how that'd be decided or work in practice.
Alright, I think I've got something (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?588922-5e-Variant-Armor-as-Damage-Reduction&p=23935760#post23935760).

Great Dragon
2019-05-27, 10:41 AM
I find a lot of people like to play AL, but I'm in a major city and run my (not AL) campaign out of three game stores that are near college campuses. They unsurprisingly get a lot of official play business, and that distorts my view of how common it is. :smallamused: I agree the majority of games have to be home games, unless wotc is bs-I got us on sales, and yeah rolling is probably really popular in home games.

I'm in Portland, OR.

There is an AL game running at the same time my DM runs his non-AL "Homebrew" game. While more new arrivals choose his game, the AL game has more dedicated players.

I have a full "Homebrew" game at the same store on most Saturday afternoons.

While I allow Point Buy (especially for those that want to pre-make their PC at home) most choose to Roll.


But that just means you generally have to use one of your top three stats, on average, not top two. However I agree if you roll high (which can easily happen) you're good for a medium armor class.

5e medium armor characters are very MAD. They typically want Str, Con, and one casting Stat as high as possible, along with a Dex as close to 14 as possible.
D&D tends to be either SAD or very MAD, almost regardless of Edition.


If you're rolling for stats first before choosing your class, you're not following the PHB process for character creation. That's fine and dandy and no judgement on that, especially because I doubt the designers intended the order to be strictly followed, but certainly will affect a lot of things when it comes to expected values of various numbers in the game.
Yep. I have noticed a difference in Characters that were "Concept" and "Rolled". While I encourage the PHB method, I don't force it.


Alright, I think I've got something.

That looks very interesting.
Makes me wish I had a Playtesting Group.

MoiMagnus
2019-05-27, 11:22 AM
This sort of thing has never made sense to me.

Why lock basic facts of combat away behind classes or feats?

Anyone who really learns how to fight with a sword will learn how to parry and bind with it, and yet there are systems that treat parries and binds and such as oh-so-special class-based maneuvers... it's ridiculous.

In game design, you want complexity to be either:
1) Central to your system: it is the main reason why anybody who play this RPG use this RPG system, so getting rid of this complexity would be stupid.
2) Something that as few peoples as possible need to understand and learn. Hence putting them in class features and feats.

In this particular case of weapons effects, a lot of peoples just want "a weapon". In the real world, those peoples would be poor fighter because they don't care about the particularity of the weapon they use and they use, and don't practice any combat style other than swinging the weapon barely in the direction of the enemy. (Though, chances are that in the real world, they would care a little more).
However, in a RPG, especially one where the combat system is already far from being realist (hit or miss armor, hit points, ...), you don't want to penalize those peoples. Similarly to the "Common" language, you assume that everyone is by default using an unspecified "Common" combat style that does not vary a lot depending on weapons and compensate most of their strength and weaknesses. So that peoples who don't care can mostly ignore what weapon they use and how they use it.
And then, you may want to add some options to unlock for peoples who care and actually want to personalize the combat style or be given bonuses depending on their weapons.

Something I will agree with you is the lack of originality of maneuvers. I usually assume that your character is in "autopilot" when fighting and that you (the player) do not chose when he (the character) parry or attack, and that the maneuver "parry" is more "supernatural speed to manage to make a parade" (hence the limitation per encounter).

Max_Killjoy
2019-05-27, 12:01 PM
In game design, you want complexity to be either:
1) Central to your system: it is the main reason why anybody who play this RPG use this RPG system, so getting rid of this complexity would be stupid.
2) Something that as few peoples as possible need to understand and learn. Hence putting them in class features and feats.

In this particular case of weapons effects, a lot of peoples just want "a weapon". In the real world, those peoples would be poor fighter because they don't care about the particularity of the weapon they use and they use, and don't practice any combat style other than swinging the weapon barely in the direction of the enemy. (Though, chances are that in the real world, they would care a little more).
However, in a RPG, especially one where the combat system is already far from being realist (hit or miss armor, hit points, ...), you don't want to penalize those peoples. Similarly to the "Common" language, you assume that everyone is by default using an unspecified "Common" combat style that does not vary a lot depending on weapons and compensate most of their strength and weaknesses. So that peoples who don't care can mostly ignore what weapon they use and how they use it.
And then, you may want to add some options to unlock for peoples who care and actually want to personalize the combat style or be given bonuses depending on their weapons.

Something I will agree with you is the lack of originality of maneuvers. I usually assume that your character is in "autopilot" when fighting and that you (the player) do not chose when he (the character) parry or attack, and that the maneuver "parry" is more "supernatural speed to manage to make a parade" (hence the limitation per encounter).

In terms of complexity, your either-or formulation doesn't really match up with what I'm looking for.

I don't want complexity, and I don't want simplicity, either one, for just their own sakes.

I want exactly as much complexity as it takes to accomplish what I want the system to do, and that's it, regardless of how much complexity individual players want.

But I'm not going to simplify for the sake of simplicity, either. I see too many systems that think simplicity is a virtue in and of itself.

Kyutaru
2019-05-27, 12:12 PM
For me, when you look at weapons/armors, there is two things that create depth/identity:
1) Properties that change the way you use the weapon, and not just the bonus to hit or the damages: reach weapons vs non-reach, melee vs distance, light armor vs heavy armor. Most of them are present in 5e.
2) Aesthetics: how the weapons/armor looks, how it defines your character combat style, ... This is mostly unaffected by the rules, it just depends on the weapon variety.
While I don't think aesthetics matters to the theater of the mind and could easily class entire categories of weapons so people can pick whatever they want from them, the properties you describe are precisely the sort armor is lacking. Currently the only reason to take Heavy armor over Light or No Armor other than tanking your dex stat is for the purposes of losing your dex bonus. This can happen any time you are held, grappled, paralyzed, or just caught by surprise and flat-flooted. The heavy armor guy is more likely to survive since his AC is largely not dependent on his ability to dodge. But the light armor guy is eating attacks because he is effectively standing still and squishy.

Grod's newest attempt at AC as dodge vs Armor as mitigation is an attempt at giving properties to light vs heavy armor similar to this but more consistently. The older one with slashing bonuses added a layer of selection to be had should you know in advance the sort of enemies you'd be facing (and with magic/scouting/clues that's relatively easy in D&D). As for weapon variety, it's less pronounced in 5th edition where everyone uses a Greatsword, Polearm, or Crossbow due to feat availability but in older D&D like 3.5 you had players sporting a slew of weapons in their backpack to be swapped between with various metal compositions to beat different DRs or alignment types or elemental exploitation or even just a good old Vorpal one for higher level trash mobs. The kitchen sink approach to sword-fighting was what made Fighters able to dominate combat while also hurting their ability to keep up with wizards in Wealth By Level if you held previously found weapons against them. Armor swaps were rarer but you still had people equipping negative protection suits before knowingly facing vampires.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-05-27, 02:44 PM
One other big thing to consider is NPCs. If you increase the "crunchy-ness" of armor, you end up slowing down the DM's turn (because now he has to track all of that for everyone, friend and foe. If you consolidate armors too much (to just a heavy/medium/light, say), then you're making the poorly-equipped guards (now in chainmail) identical to the knight (in full plate) and the orcs (currently wearing hide) equal to the well-armored priest (in half-plate).

Not only this, but armor (in D&D terms, and everything talked about here) is passive. It's just a number that doesn't really change anything. Even if you have to look up a table for damage reduction or whatever, it's still just a number you write down, not a choice you make.

Instead, what about giving those who focus on specific armors (ie a fighter or a paladin for the heavy armors, a rogue or a ranged fighter for light armor, and a cleric or a melee ranger for medium armor) active abilities they can use when wearing different types of armor? These would be thematic, rather than realistic abilities.

Spit-balled examples:
Roll with it (leather): As a reaction when someone makes an Opportunity Attack against you and hits, you can roll with the blow to reduce the damage taken. Make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. For every point that you beat the attack roll result, you reduce the damage taken by one point.

Deflect the Blast (shield): As a reaction when you are hit by an area effect that allows a Dexterity saving throw to reduce the damage while wielding a shield, you can attempt to deflect the blow, protecting those behind you. Make a Strength check with proficiency against the Dexterity saving throw DC of the effect. On a success, all creatures on a 5'-wide line directly behind you take no damage if they pass their Dexterity saving throw, or half damage if they fail.

Bjarkmundur
2019-05-28, 04:51 PM
In my opinion, it should stop where you have two or three armour categories. For a game set in something similar to the European middle ages, you could do: unarmoured, gambeson and mail. If it's set in the late middle ages or renaissance, you could do: unarmoured, mail and plate.

Anything more complicated than that tends to create a lot of unnecessary detail and miss the point of how armour actually works.

Well, the gambeson was effectively "resistance to bludgeoning", mail "resistance to slashing" and plate "resistance to piercing", and were most often worn one on top of the other, based on the situation and wealth of the wearer.

Man_Over_Game
2019-05-28, 06:22 PM
Well, the gambeson was effectively "resistance to bludgeoning", mail "resistance to slashing" and plate "resistance to piercing", and were most often worn one on top of the other, based on the situation and wealth of the wearer.

That does give an interesting idea, making it so that your class lets you have a weight class that determines how much armor you can wear. Wizards can only wear lighter armors (like chain), but a Paladin can wear multiple layers (wearing chain and plate).

Make it so that each armor type has a weight:

Chain: 1
Gambeson: 2
Plate: 3

And that they can be summed up together, and that different classes have a weight limit.

Wizards: 1 (limited to Chain)
Ranger: 3 (so can combine Chain + Gambeson, or just wear Plate)
Paladin: 4 (so can combine Plate + Chain, or Gambeson + Chain)

Keltest
2019-05-28, 10:32 PM
That does give an interesting idea, making it so that your class lets you have a weight class that determines how much armor you can wear. Wizards can only wear lighter armors (like chain), but a Paladin can wear multiple layers (wearing chain and plate).

Make it so that each armor type has a weight:

Chain: 1
Gambeson: 2
Plate: 3

And that they can be summed up together, and that different classes have a weight limit.

Wizards: 1 (limited to Chain)
Ranger: 3 (so can combine Chain + Gambeson, or just wear Plate)
Paladin: 4 (so can combine Plate + Chain, or Gambeson + Chain)

Wearing chain without a gambeson is really bizarre. The gambeson is the base layer of armor, you cant really effectively wear any other armor without it or something like it, because otherwise getting smacked in the chest with a sword will still break your ribs even through chain, and possibly plate as well. The metal parts may keep you from springing any holes, but the gambeson is what keeps your insides in the right spots.

This is, for the record, why Frodo getting speared by the troll in Moria and walking away without a scratch in the movies is silly. In the books it was only an orc that got him, and it still broke his ribs.

Great Dragon
2019-05-28, 11:14 PM
This is, for the record, why Frodo getting speared by the troll in Moria and walking away without a scratch in the movies is silly. In the books it was only an orc that got him, and it still broke his ribs.

I could not stop laughing at that scene in the movie.

While I'm not an armor expert, I knew that without padding under the chain that hit would HURT.

Plus, I still remembered what you said was in the Book, even after years of not having read that.

But, I suppose that's what Rule of Cool plus Plot Armor looks like.

MrSandman
2019-05-29, 01:41 AM
Well, the gambeson was effectively "resistance to bludgeoning", mail "resistance to slashing" and plate "resistance to piercing", and were most often worn one on top of the other, based on the situation and wealth of the wearer.

Glossing over the fact that both mail and plate offered very good protection against both piercing and cutting (and therefore I can't see why you feel the need to categorise the one as "resistant to slashing" and the other as "resistant to piercing"), so?
The point is that gameson<mail<plate
(Mail and plate assume a gambeson underneath. Plate assumes mail to cover joints. So every kind of armour benefits from the protection offered by lower levels of armour where it needs to) and I see no need to complicate armour any further.

Willie the Duck
2019-05-29, 09:32 AM
That and gambeson you intend to wear in isolation is undoubtedly different in many ways to gambeson you wear under other armor.
Still, it is a good thing to point out how this stuff was layered, and a lot of the stuff in between mail and plate (including brigandine and potentially cuir bouilli (https://www.quora.com/Did-leather-armor-ever-exist)) was at times worn over gambeson and mail.

I know that GURPS 3e treated mail and the padding as distinct items, and gave different damage resistance for each for different damage types. In general, since no one seemed to use mail without the padding, it didn't seem to add anything (although the different DRs versus slashing and piercing is a big part of that system, so that part worked as intended).