Mechanical advantages to using light and medium weapons

[Leadfeathermcc]

I am going to be running a city based campaign. Thematically I am looking at the Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar from the Fafhrd & Gray Mouser series, and George R.R. Martin's Sanctuary from the Theive's World series.

I have gotten agreement from my players to run the campaign using 3.5 and the E6 (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=206323&page=1&pp=30) alternate rules.

I would like to encourage my players to not automatically go for the great sword and full plate. As a group we have tended to go toward what is mechanically best even if it breaks vermisilitude. The paladin that summons his mount inside the dungeon, the dwarf who never takes off his full plate, even in when eating in the inn. So I am looking for mechanical advantages for other weapons, that I can point out to the players when they are making their characters.

The advantages and disadvantages of Heavy armor, with its penalties to skill checks is easy to point out, but weapons I find harder. Besides concealment and use in a grapple are there any other mechanical advantages to using smaller weapons?

What about using a great sword in a 5 foot wide hallway? Mechanically in 3.5 there are no penalties, so it can be used as easily as a dagger correct? Even using the squeezing through rules on page 29 of the DMG both the great sword and the dagger take the same penalties for being used in a small space.

[Keld Denar]

What about using a great sword in a 5 foot wide hallway? Mechanically in 3.5 there are no penalties, so it can be used as easily as a dagger correct? Even using the squeezing through rules on page 29 of the DMG both the great sword and the dagger take the same penalties for being used in a small space.

2nd Ed had weapon speeds. Basically, it was a number added to your initiative that represented the unwieldliness of larger weapons. That was back when a high init was bad.

You could do something similar. All 2handed weapons give a -4 penalty to initiative roll. 1handed weapons give a +0, and light weapons gives a +4 bonus to initiative rolls. Adjust the numbers to your taste.

[TheLogman]

You can wield a light weapon in your off-hand, and you can hide light weapons on your person with a Slight of Hand check.

[Dode]

Oh, and you can stab enemies with a light weapon while in a grapple.
So a dagger is usable in close quarters while a greatsword would be useless

[Fhaolan]

The restricted space idea is a good one, I think. Although you *can* use a halberd or a greatsword in a small corridor, it does restrict the maneuvers you can use making the weapon clumsier.

Another idea is a social disadvantage. Walking around in full armor with lots of visible weapons in a city is a big no-no usually.

For one, most people only put that kind of stuff on if they're looking for trouble. And everyone else doesn't want to be involved in that trouble. So, when your full-plate, greatsword weilding fighter-type walks down a street, he's going to see people running away, all the windows and doors slam shut and be bolted, etc. All those people are expecting some other violent person or creature to show up right then and there for a fight to start. Otherwise, why is the fighter-type armored up? These are people used to wandering mercenaries and adventurers, and they're not stupid. They *know* what's going to happen next.

City watch people get really weirded out by people wearing more weaponry than they do. If it's not illegal, then they are definately going to be watching the adventurers very closely. They may even have someone assigned to follow them everywhere when they've geared up. Which means every time there's an adventure opportunity, a competent City Watch will be immediately there to make sure it doesn't happan. That's what the City Watch are *for*.

[Leadfeathermcc]

2nd Ed had weapon speeds. Basically, it was a number added to your initiative that represented the unwieldliness of larger weapons. That was back when a high init was bad.

You could do something similar. All 2handed weapons give a -4 penalty to initiative roll. 1handed weapons give a +0, and light weapons gives a +4 bonus to initiative rolls. Adjust the numbers to your taste.

I like this idea quite a bit. I would probably modify it to be light weapons give a +4, one-handed weapons give a +2 to init. It is easier to sell positives to my group than negatives ;)


The restricted space idea is a good one, I think. Although you *can* use a halberd or a greatsword in a small corridor, it does restrict the maneuvers you can use making the weapon clumsier.


Perhaps a circumstance penalty, a -2 or -4. I wonder if this is too much when combined with the initiative modifier. My goal is to add just enough rules to encourage the feel I want without bogging down the game. No more than a page of alternate rules.


Another idea is a social disadvantage.
Yes I am very comfortable with this idea and had intended to impliment it as the game progresses. Just like in real life, you do not wear blue jeans to a black tie affair, or you do not wear a suit and tie to a country and western bar without attracting attention and changes to the way people react to you.

[Azerian Kelimon]

To do things in a simple way, you can mod the reason that makes 2HF attractive:


Power Attack. It's the reason to play a 2HF. If I were you, I'd make 1 hander give you 1.5 points of damage per BAB point lost, lights give you 1 point per BAB point to balance out, and 2 handers gives you their common 2:1 damage/BAB ratio. This SHOULD make the lighter weapons more attractive. Heck, it could even make Two weapon fighting with 2 1 handers attractive again, if you make the second one hander have a 1:1 ratio, since by then you're beating the greatsword in power at the cost of a big hit in AB.

[daggaz]

I would shy away from the idea that your weapon somehow influences your init, for the simple reason that you may or may not choose to use your weapon that round, or in one or any of the rounds thereafter.

[Leadfeathermcc]

I would shy away from the idea that your weapon somehow influences your init, for the simple reason that you may or may not choose to use your weapon that round, or in one or any of the rounds thereafter.

I had not thought of that, perhaps the power attack as suggested by Azerian is the way to go.

[Matthew]

Azerian Kelimon is right, it's Power Attack that screws everything up. I would recommend switching back to the 3.0 version of Two Weapon Fighting and Power Attack, but with the slight alteration that Two Handed Strength Damage Bonus also applies to the Attack Bonus. That way you take the onus off the Damage and make it 'more regularly hitting'.

Previous Discussion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60660)

[tsuyoshikentsu]

It should also be mentioned that, out of the four best weapons in the game, only two of them are two-handed. One of them, the gnome quckblade, is only on that list because it breaks iaijutsu wide open... but the morningstar is well-deserving of its title simply because (and especially at E6 levels) it deals both of the two most common types of typed damage reduction.

Skeletons, for example, have DR 5/Bludgeoning, and zombies have DR 5/Slashing and Piercing. Morningstars can hit them both.

Personally, I think you're going overboard; if anything, I'd go with the PA fix. Between that and wearing a shield, 1H and L weapons have plenty of advantages.

[Oeryn]

I would shy away from the idea that your weapon somehow influences your init, for the simple reason that you may or may not choose to use your weapon that round, or in one or any of the rounds thereafter.

The initiative bonus/penalty only counted when you were using that weapon. If you used a different one, the bonus/penalty changed.

It should also be noted that you rolled a new initiative every round, in 2E, so it was less of a big deal. You could still do it within 3.5, just adding a different modifier to your initiative (If you roll an 18, then switching from your greataxe to your dagger bumps your initiative from a 14 to a 22 the next round).

[Craig1f]

In a campaign I'm in, I'm an Eldritch Disciple (Warlock Cleric, though I just pretend to be a cleric of 2 levels lower than the rest of the party) walking around with Mithral Fullplate in Calimport, which is the desert. Not only does this make my character more tired, but I stand out like a sore thumb.

Do the same thing for weapons. Consider anyone who carries a Greatsword or Axe "barbaric". Have a few NPC's crack jokes about how they're "compensating for something." You could also increase the bonus provided by shields, change them to deflection bonuses (since I'd argue that something hitting your shield shouldn't count as a touch attack). Also, point out that one-handed weapons can be wielded as two-handed weapons. So a long sword can be used as a d8 greatsword. You're really only changing d12 to d8. If they choose to wield the longsword in two hands, they can still power attack for 2:1.

You could also limit the availability of greatswords and greataxes. Have them lose their weapons, so they have to get new ones. Have them get sundered, etc. Or provide weapons with inherent bonuses for them to get. For example, there was a katana in my current campaign, masterwork-nonmagical, but made from an amazing metal that gave an inherent +2 bonus.

[kme]

Or you can make simple change such as giving -1 to attack with 1-handed and -2 with 2-handed weapons. Since you are playing E6 and players will have weaker equipment that may just balance things out.

[Tyger]

A perhaps over the top suggestion is the one that one of our DMs uses. Shields, as arguably one of the best ways to prevent getting hurt in "real" melee combat, get double their normal AC bonus.

Yes, a Tower Shield give +8 to AC.

It makes for some insane high ACs, but it does really make people think long and hard about whether or not to forgoe the shield.

But, that slightly over the top suggestion aside, the social stigma, as has been suggested, is probably your best bet. Especially if your group takes RP seriously. You mentioned that mechanics tend to trump, but if its actually made a pretty big issue...

[Oeryn]

Do the same thing for weapons. Consider anyone who carries a Greatsword or Axe "barbaric". Have a few NPC's crack jokes about how they're "compensating for something."

Not a bad fix, but you should definitely point it out beforehand. Don't let your group focus on building a character around a huge weapon, then make it hard or embarrassing to use it in-game. Make sure the players know the kind of "cultural bias" they're gonna be seeing.


You could also increase the bonus provided by shields, change them to deflection bonuses (since I'd argue that something hitting your shield shouldn't count as a touch attack).

Slightly off topic, but I totally agree.


You could also limit the availability of greatswords and greataxes. Have them lose their weapons, so they have to get new ones. Have them get sundered, etc.

This, I'm not so keen on. Giving them in-game reasons to do something is one thing. But takin' away options until they do what you want is a recipe for disaster, in my opinion.

[Wolfwood2]

For Lankhmar(-esque), I don't see what the problem is with players using two-handed weapons. Fafhrd used one all the time! He had a greatsword and Grey Mouser used the two-weapon fighting. They're the template upon which D&D fighting styles are based.

Plate Armor will be a disadvantage if you play up the acrobatics and physical challenges. Fafhrd and Grey Mouser were always having to run, jump, tumble, and climb. Make sure your adventures call for such (and tell players they will) and you'll have a lot less of folks tanking up.

Also, you may want to say that plate armor is simply unavailable. Perhaps armorsmithing hasn't reached the technical sophistication necessary to produce it. If Banded Mail is the best armor available at any price, it will look less appealing.

[Rad]

As well as addressing Power Attack (I'm for the 3.0 version) I'd suggest to ban the animated shield enchantment. This way if you want a shield (and all the good enchantments on it) you need a 1HW.

[Riffington]

I gotta support the "just buff shields" argument (though I wouldn't double the Tower Shield, that's too far).

Initiative is too complicated - and besides, it should be a bonus rather than a penalty for 2handed weapons if you were going to do that... the extra few inches of reach and the second hand help.

But in general, I tend to find people use a variety of different weapons. What weapons do you wish players were using in your campaigns that they just don't?

[Subotei]

The restricted space idea is a good one, I think. Although you *can* use a halberd or a greatsword in a small corridor, it does restrict the maneuvers you can use making the weapon clumsier.

Another idea is a social disadvantage. Walking around in full armor with lots of visible weapons in a city is a big no-no usually.

For one, most people only put that kind of stuff on if they're looking for trouble. And everyone else doesn't want to be involved in that trouble. So, when your full-plate, greatsword weilding fighter-type walks down a street, he's going to see people running away, all the windows and doors slam shut and be bolted, etc. All those people are expecting some other violent person or creature to show up right then and there for a fight to start. Otherwise, why is the fighter-type armored up? These are people used to wandering mercenaries and adventurers, and they're not stupid. They *know* what's going to happen next.

City watch people get really weirded out by people wearing more weaponry than they do. If it's not illegal, then they are definately going to be watching the adventurers very closely. They may even have someone assigned to follow them everywhere when they've geared up. Which means every time there's an adventure opportunity, a competent City Watch will be immediately there to make sure it doesn't happan. That's what the City Watch are *for*.

I'm with Fhaolan on this - restricted space is not unusual - I've walked allyways in my home town which are barely 3 feet wide. Not an unusual gap as most passage way builders don't think "Hey - I'm gonna need to wield a greatsword in here" when they're building a cut-through. Also try using a pole arm in a dog-legging narrow alley. Its not like the adventuruers can't use those weapons, just that their foes will try to extract every advantage...

Also on the watch issue - it wasn't unusual in medieval times for towns to bar passage or shelter to heavily armed groups (even their fellow countrymen) for fear of what might occur if they got within the walls - play
this angle to the maximum if they insist on clanking around in full plate.

[Leadfeathermcc]

Thanks for all the responses.


For Lankhmar(-esque), I don't see what the problem is with players using two-handed weapons. Fafhrd used one all the time! He had a greatsword and Grey Mouser used the two-weapon fighting. They're the template upon which D&D fighting styles are based.

I don't have a problem with using two-handed weapons when appropriate. The issues come when a player does not adapt their two-handed schtick to the rp circumstance because it is mechanically better to ignore circumstance. So what I am looking for are some mechanical ideas to encorage the players to put down the huge sword and pick up an easily hidden weapon.

And there have been some good suggestions in this thread.

I like the initiative idea but will probably not do it because it is another thing to remember during combat.

I like the power attack idea but my players strangely never use PA so I do not think it will encourage diversity.

I do like the idea of making shield a deflective bonus and possibly increasing the AC they grant. This coupled with a removal of platemail, might encourage the feel I want without being heavy-handed.

Thanks again for the ideas everyone.

[Kompera]

[re: assigning large weapons Init penalties]I like this idea quite a bit. I would probably modify it to be light weapons give a +4, one-handed weapons give a +2 to init. It is easier to sell positives to my group than negatives ;)I'd stick with the penalty. Or the Mage with the dagger is going to essentially have the Improved Initiative Feat even though it's not at all the finger wigglers whose behavior you are looking to provide an incentive to modify.

[Corlis]

To simulate the initiative penalties for big weapons, you could rule that drawing a light weapon is always a free action, even if you don't have Quickdraw. If you do have QD, you can draw it as an immediate action, so long as you aren't flatfooted.

[Dausuul]

Yes I am very comfortable with this idea and had intended to impliment it as the game progresses. Just like in real life, you do not wear blue jeans to a black tie affair, or you do not wear a suit and tie to a country and western bar without attracting attention and changes to the way people react to you.

It's a bit more than that. Walking down the streets of a medieval city in full plate, toting a greatsword, is like walking down the streets of a modern city in riot gear, toting an assault rifle and extra ammo. It screams, "I AM A DANGEROUS PERSON LOOKING FOR TROUBLE." City constables take a real dim view of that kind of thing.

After your players get hauled off to the dungeons, have all their gear confiscated (best to do this at low level so they don't actually lose all that much), and take fifty lashes apiece, they'll start to consider being a little more circumspect. Even if they're tough enough to escape the watchmen, they'll get tired of having to run every time they catch a glimpse of the local law.

You could also say that members of the upper class, or their retinues, are allowed to carry, say, rapiers or shortswords. The watch are less worried about those weapons, because they're much less effective at breaching armor than a greatsword or a battle-axe, and it's traditional for gentlemen of breeding to go armed... although best not to be too casual about it, since being armed means you can be challenged to a duel. If you really want to keep a low profile, stick to daggers.

Explain all this to your players before the game starts, though, so they can build accordingly. If somebody's built a tank whose effectiveness relies on his plate armor and his gargantuan sword, that person is not going to be a happy camper if he has to leave his gear at the inn all the time. Strongly encourage people to play swashbucklers, swordsages, rogues, rangers, and so forth rather than the classic "heavy tank" fighter.

[Matthew]

Very period and location dependent that sort of thing. Social position and the local political climate would also contribute. Certainly, there are places and periods where that would apply, but generally speaking, the more lawless the locale, the more heavily armed the visitors and local population.

[Mojo_Rat]

I was not aware George RR Martin was associated with Sanctuary or thieves world. I know Robert Asprin did the Editing for the books which are admitedly great source material.

as far as the weapons and armour go if you emphasize the social ramefecations of the heavier armor and put in athletic challenges where the speed reduction or skill penalties are an issue the armour shouldn't be a problem.

Really unless every pc you have always has a 12 dex and 18 strength theres nor eason for everyone of them to go with these weapons and armour.

[Dausuul]

I'm not too sure about the authenticity of that statement. As I understand, professional fighting men of the medieval period were quite skilled at unarmed combat and grappling, and carried long knives or daggers. The idea being that you could pin an opponent, find a joint, and slip the dagger in. Given this knowledge, I don't think any professional guardsman would not be worried about a short sword.

Less worried. You can get through armor with a dagger, but only if you can get in real close. The fellow with a greatsword can do it at somewhat greater range, since his blade is longer even if he has to half-sword it; and a battle-axe or morning star is of course made for armor-cracking. Presumably the armored fellow is not just standing still while you run up to him, so the further away you can launch your attack from, the better chance you have of nailing him before he nails you.

Although, to be honest, I suspect the armor would worry people a lot more than the sword. An unarmored warrior with a greatsword can still be stuck with a spear or filled full of arrows, without too much difficulty; but a warrior in full plate is a whole different ball game. (There is debate over whether a longbow could penetrate full plate; even if it's possible, though, it certainly is not easy, and if the arrow does get through it's a lot less likely to score a kill. And the city watch is unlikely to have a contingent of English longbowmen handy.)

[Leadfeathermcc]

I was not aware George RR Martin was associated with Sanctuary or thieves world. I know Robert Asprin did the Editing for the books which are admitedly great source material.

Yeah, for some reason I was thinking about "A Game of Thrones" when I posted that, and after making sure I spelled Lankhmar correctly I failed to fact check the second part of the sentence. Apologies to Robert Asprin.

[Total_Viking_Power]

Alleys: How about Full Attacks with two-handed slashing (and maybe bludgeoning) weapons being impossible in cramped conditions, DM's discretion after a guideline known to the players?
Conditions could include alleys 5ft. wide or less, narrow staircases, rooms with low ceilings, throngs of people you don't want to hit ect.
Wouldn't be important in the lower levels, but maybe enough to make them think twice before making a meat-grinder build.

Flavor and roleplaying are my favorite ways to encourage behavior, and IME the most effective. You are the one who knows your players, tho,

[Jack Zander]

There's a debate on whether or not a longbow can pierce full plate? It's historical. The longbow made knights out of date because they were so effective at piercing their armor, and all they were were a bunch of quickly trained commoners.

[Matthew]

There's a debate on whether or not a longbow can pierce full plate? It's historical. The longbow made knights out of date because they were so effective at piercing their armor, and all they were were a bunch of quickly trained commoners.

Oh yeah? Cite your sources. Anyway, it's not whether it can, but under what conditions and with what degree of reliability. Many weapons are effective against plate. Regardless, the Long Bow Man did not 'make Knights out of date', nor could one be trained quickly; mastering the Long Bow was a skill developed over a lifetime.

[deadseashoals]

There's a debate on whether or not a longbow can pierce full plate? It's historical. The longbow made knights out of date because they were so effective at piercing their armor, and all they were were a bunch of quickly trained commoners.

You're thinking of the crossbow.

There are some rules about fighting in restricted spaces where low ceilings and such impose attack penalties, and in the most extreme circumstances, make non-thrusting two-handed weapons impossible to use. I forget what it's from, but kobolds are involved somehow... races of the dragon?

Other than that... There are valid reasons to use light and one handed weapons. Especially light weapons - weapon finesse and two-weapon fighting. One-handed weapons are a bit more of a specialty item, which is a shame, considering how common the longsword is in literature. Maybe you could give players a reason to keep an open hand? Or just buff shields and remove animated shields to compensate.

[Aquillion]

I don't have a problem with using two-handed weapons when appropriate. The issues come when a player does not adapt their two-handed schtick to the rp circumstance because it is mechanically better to ignore circumstance. So what I am looking for are some mechanical ideas to encorage the players to put down the huge sword and pick up an easily hidden weapon.Honestly, I would focus on that last part. Yes, you could mechanically tweak things to make one-handed weapons better... but then you're reducing the choice between 'big, strong weapon' and 'small, sneaky one'. In general, a full-sized sword held two-handed is going to hit harder and be easier to manage than a smaller one held in one hand, to the point where, when fighting in an open area, the smaller one-handed weapon would put you at an overwhelming disadvantage. I don't think you want to issue with these weapons by making them all mechanically identical if you can possibly avoid it.

Some ideas:

First, most real-world cities throughout history have had laws about what weapons you could carry in public (or at all). The length of a blade is often an important part of the law; swords above a certain length could be subject to fines or confiscation (although the players could bribe or intimidate their way out of many of these problems.) Make sure the players know about this when making their characters.

Assigning circumstance penalties for large weapons in enclosed areas is also a good idea. It's something that is perfectly legitimate for the DM to do even by RAW, so you don't even need a houserule... but, again, if you're going to do it a lot you might want to warn your players in advance.

You can also just drop a lot of light and medium magic weapons, and make larger ones harder to find. Maybe people enchant concealable weapons so they can sneak useful weaponry around more easily or something; they might feel that they don't really need to enchant a huge greatsword, whereas hiding a keen vorpal humanbane dagger of speed in their sleeve lets them carry much more effective weaponry than anyone would expect from glancing at them.


One-handed weapons are a bit more of a specialty item, which is a shame, considering how common the longsword is in literature. Maybe you could give players a reason to keep an open hand? Or just buff shields and remove animated shields to compensate.Well... in theory, if Gish builds were more popular, the fact that you need one hand free for somatic components would be important. Except that, of course, you generally can't attack and cast in the same turn anyway, and it's easy to free up your hand just for turns when you cast.

Maybe there could be a PRC that can attack and cast in the same turn by one of various ways, but would have to keep one hand free for somatic components, would have to use a somatic component for any spell they cast in their special method even if not normally required (and couldn't remove it by any means), and would have to have had their hand free at the beginning of the turn to do it at all?

[Nyarlethotep]

whereas it's true that mastering the longbow took a lifetime, the battle of Agincourt proved without a doubt that longbows made a mockery of plate armour.

[Talic]

I am going to be running a city based campaign. Thematically I am looking at the Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar from the Fafhrd & Gray Mouser series, and George R.R. Martin's Sanctuary from the Theive's World series.

I have gotten agreement from my players to run the campaign using 3.5 and the E6 (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=206323&page=1&pp=30) alternate rules.

I would like to encourage my players to not automatically go for the great sword and full plate. As a group we have tended to go toward what is mechanically best even if it breaks vermisilitude. The paladin that summons his mount inside the dungeon, the dwarf who never takes off his full plate, even in when eating in the inn. So I am looking for mechanical advantages for other weapons, that I can point out to the players when they are making their characters.

The advantages and disadvantages of Heavy armor, with its penalties to skill checks is easy to point out, but weapons I find harder. Besides concealment and use in a grapple are there any other mechanical advantages to using smaller weapons?

What about using a great sword in a 5 foot wide hallway? Mechanically in 3.5 there are no penalties, so it can be used as easily as a dagger correct? Even using the squeezing through rules on page 29 of the DMG both the great sword and the dagger take the same penalties for being used in a small space.

It's quite easy to make rulings up front that in constricted spaces, large weapons cannot be effectively unsheathed. Imagine pulling a greatsword (5 feet long, easily) from a back mount and get the business end pointed the right way in a passage that's 2.5 feet tall and 2.5 feet wide. Absolutely impossible to turn the sword, which means that they're stuck hilt bashing the giant rats. Even then, they're using the weapon in a fashion that it wasn't designed for, so tack on an additional -4 penalty, in addition to the constricted space penalty.

Consider placing a good portion of the campaign in a place where weapons are prohibited to be displayed or carried. Nearly impossible for a greatsword, quite achievable for a heavy pick or shortsword.

On a side note, the plate is usually not the best choice for character optimization, as the AC system tends to break down at high levels. AC is good for levels 1-7, after that, the critters tend to have such insane attack bonuses that all AC can do is hopefully prevent extreme power attacks and hits 3 and 4 from landing. Light Armor and a tactical feat or two from Complete Warrior can accomplish the same, and give nearly equal AC, if you have a decent Dex.

[Roderick_BR]

Ok, you want rules to make smaller gear sound attractive to your players. Here's some ideas:

1) Armor Maximum Dexterity applies on initiative rolls (but not ranged attacks, skills are affected as normal, with the skill check penalty).
2) Wielding a light weapon gives no penalties, a one-handed gives a -2, and a two-handed gives a -4. Avoid giving a bonus, or wizards will carry daggers in one hand to gain an initiative bonus.
3) Power attack allows you to gain +1 damage bonus for every -2 to attack rolls when attacking with a light weapon, instead of no bonus at all.
4) Carrying visible armor and weapons (specially any metal armor, or two-handed weapon) attracts bad attention. You get -2 on social checks when wearing medium armor, -4 for heavy armor, and -2 when wielding one-handed weapons (that can be concealed), and -4 with two-handed weapons (that most of the time can't be concealed). Half of that penalty is a bonus for Spot and Gather Information checks for anyone looking for the character ("The guy with the huge plate mail and the great axe? He's right there").
5) New feat: Unarmored Defense [General] You can add your Int OR Wis bonus to your AC. You can't add more than 3+your character level. Armor's Maximum Dexterity applies to it as well. If you already have a similar bonus (like Monk levels, a monk belt, or Swordsage levels, you can choose which bonus you'll use (they don't stack), and add a +1 to it.) After level 6, you can get this feat again. Each time you get this feat after the first time, you just add a +1 to the AC bonus.

Hmmm. I like this E6 thing. I might use it with my group when we start our house-ruled campaign.

[Neon Knight]

whereas it's true that mastering the longbow took a lifetime, the battle of Agincourt proved without a doubt that longbows made a mockery of plate armour.

There is a massive debate about Agincourt. Some believe that the longbow was the deciding factor, and others believe poor French leadership/tactics and bad terrain decided the battle.

Some believe the longbow at Agincourt punctured plate armor. Others believe the longbow man's primary contribution was enticing the French cavalry to charge and engaging mud entrapped French knights.

You'll soon find there is hardly a thing in history about which there isn't some debate.

EDIT: From the real Weapons and Armor Thread:



Unfortunately, for whatever reason, people have a popular image of the French at Agincourt as the stereotypical "Knight in Shining Armor" - meaning cap a pie plate (whether alwhite armor or not is beside the point). This is not the case. As of 1415, plate armor had not developed to this point yet, nor would it for perhaps another 40 years.

Again, we look at primary sources - the armor itself. The very, very most state-of-the art armor found in 1415 might be what could be considered early full plate. The head was protected by a bascinet (often visored) with a maille aventail attached to protect the neck. Besegews still protected the gap between arm and torso, and the large pauldrons so beloved at Renaissance Festivals are nowhere to be seen. At best, small spaulders protect the shoulders. Arm defenses still seem to be a mix between gutter and cannon styles, with the cannon more often protecting the lower arm. The roundels that formerly protected the elbows have been replaced by articulated couters and fan plates (though the interior of the elbow is unprotected but for maille). Leg defenses as well are gutter designs, through articulated sabatons seem more advanced and popular. It is, however, in the vital region of the chest that armor fails the French. From what can be seen from sources (citations follow), the chainmaille hauberk is still worn, and over it sits either a coat of plates (brigandine) or a very, very small globular breastplate (Cherbourg armor, which appeared about 1395 and probably would have formed the vast majority of the armor worn by the French at Agincourt) that leaves the upper chest and abdomen completely exposed but for the hauberk. Finally, mitten-style gauntlets are quite common by this point.

So, yeah.

EDIT EDIT: Just go here. Swordguy says is better than I can quote it. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18302&page=87)