PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Why is Half-Plate Armor so lousy?



Brauron
2008-10-23, 05:55 PM
So, in building a Knight today, I was looking at armor...why is Half-Plate so lousy? +7 AC, no dex bonus, -7 armor check penalty. Ouch.

Does it exist solely to provide Heavy Armor to people who can't afford full plate?

Zeful
2008-10-23, 05:56 PM
Yes. RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

UglyPanda
2008-10-23, 06:00 PM
Split Mail, Scale Mail, and Chainmail also exist for the purposes of cheapness. I personally think that the designers just wanted to cover all their bases for variety knowing full well that only one of each weight category would be useful for non-Druids.

Neon Knight
2008-10-23, 06:02 PM
Bloody rules mastery design philosophy...

Fax Celestis
2008-10-23, 06:15 PM
Bloody rules mastery design philosophy...

That's not rules mastery design philosophy. That's a failure on the parts of the designers to realize what the implications of the different effects of each armor were before finalizing it.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-23, 06:27 PM
That's not rules mastery design philosophy. That's a failure on the parts of the designers to realize what the implications of the different effects of each armor were before finalizing it.

No, a few designers have said they made certain things suck so otherwise would be better. This was to teach players and reward them for learning the better options.

Even one Pathfinder guy did: remember that Thread I made in before (you may have missed it when I quoted the guy from Paizo).

Tadanori Oyama
2008-10-23, 06:28 PM
I never really thought about it. I doesn't make much sense realistically, half-plate should be less binding than full-plate. I've never had anybody in any group ever wear the stuff.

Now I want to just to try it...

Fax Celestis
2008-10-23, 06:54 PM
No, a few designers have said they made certain things suck so otherwise would be better. This was to teach players and reward them for learning the better options.

Even one Pathfinder guy did: remember that Thread I made in before (you may have missed it when I quoted the guy from Paizo).

This is not that situation. Half-plate is obviously worse than full-plate just from looking at it. "Game Master Design Philosophy" involves making things that look like good ideas but aren't--the Quick Draw feat is a prime example of this.

Kizara
2008-10-23, 06:57 PM
Its not "rules mastery" design philosophy, its simulationist. While certinally more detail could be added, further simulating the difference in armor; under the current abstraction, it does the best it can.

Currently, I am playing a character who is a Baron of a small county. Trust me, equiping your heavy calvary with banded mail instead of full plate makes a huuuuge difference.

Heavy Calvary (ftr)
H Warhorse (8,000), MW Lance (6,200), Banded Mail (5,000), Banded Mail Barding (20,000), H Steel Shield (400), Longsword (300), Light Xbow (700)
Feats: Mounted Combat, Ride-by-Attack, Wpn Focus (lance). Spirited Charge (lvl 2), Trample (lvl 3), Wpn Spec Lance (lvl 4).
Total Cost of Unit: 40,600

Super Heavy Calvary (ftr 2)
H Warhorse (8,000), MW Lance (6,200), Full Plate (30,000), Full Plate Barding (120,000), H Steel Shield (400), MW Longsword (6,300), Battleaxe (200), Heavy Xbow (1,000)
Feats: Mounted Combat, Ride-by-Attack, Wpn Focus (lance), Spirited Charge. Trample (lvl 3), Wpn Spec Lance (lvl 4).
Total Cost of Unit: 172,100

Cuddly
2008-10-23, 07:04 PM
"Game Master Design Philosophy" involves making things that look like good ideas but aren't--the Quick Draw feat is a prime example of this.

Quick Draw is actually pretty good inside of core, and essential for any throwing character.

Or a DM that plays by the rules.

Swordguy
2008-10-23, 07:05 PM
I never really thought about it. I doesn't make much sense realistically, half-plate should be less binding than full-plate. I've never had anybody in any group ever wear the stuff.

Now I want to just to try it...

Wrong, actually. Half-plate emphasizes the use of chainmail in the joints, as opposed to the fitted and well-articulated goodness of full plate. Chainmail hangs from the shoulders and waist (if there's a belt), while fullplate is distributed across the whole body. Chainmail also has a distressing tendency to bunch up in the joints, which is probably where there armor check penalty is coming from. Finally, real, riveted chainmail tends actually heavier, by lbs per square inch covered, than plate armor. A trained wearer can turn cartwheels and somersaults in full plate, as well as vault onto a horse, do handstands, and even chinups. Some of these are a lot harder with chain instead of articulated joints (especially the chinups).

Historically, full plate as described is close to high gothic armor (http://www.ageofarmour.com/sigismundnew.html) (approx 1575-1600) and half-plate as described is close to transitional plate (http://www.ageofarmour.com/instock/breastplate.html) (approx 1375-1400).

EDIT: Now that I think about it, the transitional plate pic there is a bad example - it's actually closer to a D&D "Breastplate". I'll try to find a better pic. Don't change the overall point, though - it's just not a representative pic.

Part of the issue is that the ACP is a single number, when it really ought to be a different number for each type of thing (running, swimming, balancing, climbing) that it should effect.



This is not that situation. Half-plate is obviously worse than full-plate just from looking at it.

It's supposed to be worse - a holdover, I suspect, from when D&D tried to model actual weapons and armor in their rules, and then add fantasy trappings on top of them. Transitional armor is flat-out worse than full-plate in real life, so it stands to reason that, when trying to model said armors like TSR originally did, half-plate would be flat-out worse than full plate.

In essence, it's a holdover from when D&D was more "simulational" rather than trying to be a balanced game.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-23, 07:18 PM
Quick Draw is actually pretty good inside of core, and essential for any throwing character.

Or a DM that plays by the rules.

For a thrower, sure. For anyone else, it's crap, especially considering this:


If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.

kjones
2008-10-23, 07:20 PM
The real problem is that there exist "best" choices for armor, to the extent that you would be daft to wear anything else.

Light Armor: If you care about ACP, Leather until you can afford MW Studded Leather. Otherwise, Chain Shirt.

Medium Armor: Breastplate.

Heavy Armor: Full plate.

There. Twelve types of armor in core, and only four of them worth having. The only reason not to go with one of these four is price, which ceases to be an issue after 3rd level or so.

Why did they do this? It's simply shoddy game design. If I am a fighter or a cleric, I have one choice for armor. If I am a rogue, I have one choice for armor. If I am a barbarian, I have one choice for armor (well, I could stick with light armor, I suppose). This is, to say the least, lame.

EDIT:


If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.


What if you want to make a full attack? Though what you're doing in melee without a weapon drawn, I can't imagine...

Fax Celestis
2008-10-23, 07:25 PM
What if you want to make a full attack? Though what you're doing in melee without a weapon drawn, I can't imagine...

If you're in melee and don't have a weapon, you've either been ambushed and have bigger problems or are damned fool.

arguskos
2008-10-23, 07:28 PM
If you're in melee and don't have a weapon, you've either been ambushed and have bigger problems or are a monk.
Fixed that for you. :smallwink:

-argus

Fax Celestis
2008-10-23, 07:30 PM
Fixed that for you. :smallwink:

-argus

"Damned fool" covers "monk", I think. :smalltongue:

kjones
2008-10-23, 07:30 PM
If you're in melee and don't have a weapon, you've either been ambushed and have bigger problems or are damned fool.

The fighter in my group liked to switch weapons pretty frequently (he was going for an exotic-weapons-master type character). Quick draw helped.

But yeah, most of the time it's not particularly useful. One could rule that you can't draw a weapon during a charge, since the rule says "as part of a normal move", so if you're the sort of person who goes around with their weapons not drawn, and starts off their battles by charging, it could be useful.

Cuddly
2008-10-23, 07:33 PM
It still takes time to get your bow out, right?


The fighter in my group liked to switch weapons pretty frequently (he was going for an exotic-weapons-master type character). Quick draw helped.

Played with a few fighters like that. They'd switch from bow to THF as the enemy closed, then sword&board if things got hairy. At the lower levels we usually play at, it worked fairly well, esp. for conserving the HPs.

arguskos
2008-10-23, 07:35 PM
"Damned fool" covers "monk", I think. :smalltongue:
Truth, this is. *wanders off into a corner to make bad jokes and not bother the fine people giving comments*

-argus

Jayabalard
2008-10-23, 07:50 PM
No, a few designers have said they made certain things suck so otherwise would be better. This was to teach players and reward them for learning the better options.As far as I'm aware, threre is ONE designer that's said that, and I'm more than a little skeptical about the claim.

Besides, the claim was specific to 3e, and quite a bit of the armor rules are carry over from earlier editions.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-23, 08:03 PM
It still takes time to get your bow out, right?

It's a free action if you have a +1 or greater BAB and move at the same time, or a move action otherwise. Why bother, especially when retrieving ammunition is a free action (including shuriken)?

kjones
2008-10-23, 08:10 PM
It's a free action if you have a +1 or greater BAB and move at the same time, or a move action otherwise. Why bother, especially when retrieving ammunition is a free action (including shuriken)?

I think what he's getting at is the difference between:

Without Quick Draw:
Draw bow (and move, or not, it doesn't matter) as a move action, make standard-action attack; and

With Quick Draw:
Draw bow as a free action, make a full-round attack.

Ironically, it might seem that Quick Draw would be the feat for a fastest-gun-in-the-West type character, but really you'd want Improved Initiative for that.

Grynning
2008-10-23, 08:13 PM
A little off topic, but I was looking through the site Swordguy linked and saw this. (http://www.ageofarmour.com/instock/heroic-armour.html) This is more what I think of when I think of full-plate in D&D, and it is damned cool regardless.

Cuddly
2008-10-23, 08:13 PM
It's a free action if you have a +1 or greater BAB and move at the same time, or a move action otherwise. Why bother, especially when retrieving ammunition is a free action (including shuriken)?

Because Quick Draw has more utility than EWP: Shuriken?

Fax Celestis
2008-10-23, 08:16 PM
Because Quick Draw has more utility than EWP: Shuriken?

Well, sure. But shuriken suck anyway. The point I was trying to make is this: if you are in a situation where you need Quick Draw, you either aren't prepared (which is just being stupid), you're a thrower (which is understandable), or you've been ambushed (which means you'll need to reposition to get yourself out of it anyway instead of standing your ground like a dolt).

Thurbane
2008-10-23, 08:17 PM
The real problem is that there exist "best" choices for armor, to the extent that you would be daft to wear anything else.
Indeed - outside of special requirements (i.e. Druid) and occasionally special materials, no one in our D&D games ever uses anything other than Chain Shirt or Full Plate. Why bother with medium armor at all? For a whole extra +1 to AC, you can drop your speed by a third. :smalleek:

Grynning
2008-10-23, 08:20 PM
Why bother with medium armor at all? For a whole extra +1 to AC, you can drop your speed by a third. :smalleek:

That's what Mithril breastplates are for.

Cuddly
2008-10-23, 08:29 PM
(which means you'll need to reposition to get yourself out of it anyway instead of standing your ground like a dolt).

Or a warblade, paladin, fighter, TWF ranger, barbarian, crusader, knight, duskblade, CoDzilla, or any other tanky type that stands their ground (like a dolt).

Or you are making the ambush. Diplomacy failing? Quick draw lets you get the weapon out and into someone in the surprise round. Otherwise you're left holding your... oh never mind.

I feel like quick draw is a good feat outside of dungeons, such as urban environments. Though I wouldn't pick it up unless I was going to be throwing things or switching from bow to sword a lot (maybe solo play?), since I don't play core only games.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-23, 08:32 PM
To me, it's a feat that transfers a limited free action (ie: only during movement) into a universal free action (ie: whenever I feel like), and that's not really worth a feat in my opinion, especially when I could be taking things like Power Attack or Combat Expertise or Rapid Shot.

Yahzi
2008-10-23, 08:35 PM
Full Plate Barding (120,000)
Are those horses made out of pure gold?

They're heavy warhorses. They cost 8,000 gp. You're spending 120,000 gp to protect a 8,000 gp asset? Why not just buy each knight 3 horses, and let them switch out when they get hurt?

You could be buying your knights magic weapons, wings of flying, or wands of fireballs for that kind of cash. Instead you're buying barding.

Remember the part about how sometimes the rules are designed to teach people what not to do? You might want to review that... :smallbiggrin:

kjones
2008-10-23, 08:43 PM
Are those horses made out of pure gold?

They're heavy warhorses. They cost 8,000 gp. You're spending 120,000 gp to protect a 8,000 gp asset? Why not just buy each knight 3 horses, and let them switch out when they get hurt?

You could be buying your knights magic weapons, wings of flying, or wands of fireballs for that kind of cash. Instead you're buying barding.

Remember the part about how sometimes the rules are designed to teach people what not to do? You might want to review that... :smallbiggrin:

You obviously haven't been keeping up with the "equipping-the-army" saga... he's playing in a low-magic world, so buying that stuff isn't an option. Though this is now completely off-topic, except insamuch as armor sucks for horses as well as humans.

Swordguy
2008-10-23, 08:55 PM
Indeed - outside of special requirements (i.e. Druid) and occasionally special materials, no one in our D&D games ever uses anything other than Chain Shirt or Full Plate. Why bother with medium armor at all? For a whole extra +1 to AC, you can drop your speed by a third. :smalleek:

Because, again, D&D was originally supposed to be "Western Medieval Europe plus Magic", and those armors actually existed - and were quantitatively worse than full-plate? The names of the armors and their descriptions existed essentially unchanged from 1e to 3.5. That says to me that they're essentially holdovers from the earlier manner of gaming, where stuff wasn't supposed to be "balanced". To be clear, from having worn, for real, both types of armor in full-contact combat, full-plate is just better than, say, an equivalent covering of Chainmail. It's lighter, allows easier movement, requires less less maintenance, and resists damage better. It's not "balanced" with Chain. That's how technological advances work.

Further, different levels of armors give the DM the option to limit technological development in their campaigns. Does no one remember all the historical settings in 2e? If you're playing in a Viking Campaign, then the best armor you have generally available is going to be Chainmail. If you're playing in a Rome-inspired campaign, then you'd have chain and scale as your best armors. It doesn't matter that full-plate is better, because it's not available.

Likewise, characters can absolutely be in a situation in which the best armor available to them is "sub-optimal". Even if you can buy full plate, you can't just go buy it off the rack. PHB (p 124) says each suit must be custom-fitted to the wearer by a master armorsmith. There's no rule about how long that takes - and it shouldn't be less than a couple of weeks, generally speaking. What do you wear in the meantime?

Now, once you've left simulationism completely, as WotC has with 4e, then the name of the armor doesn't matter so much. Or all those darned niggling little logistical details that limit people's ability to make optimal characters and be as good as possible all the time.

Jayabalard
2008-10-23, 09:31 PM
There. Twelve types of armor in core, and only four of them worth having. The only reason not to go with one of these four is price, which ceases to be an issue after 3rd level or so.

Why did they do this? It's simply shoddy game design. If I am a fighter or a cleric, I have one choice for armor. If I am a rogue, I have one choice for armor. If I am a barbarian, I have one choice for armor (well, I could stick with light armor, I suppose). This is, to say the least, lame.It's not bad game design at all. Those were real types of armor, and they've been around in the game since 1e at least. They reflect the fact that armor isn't balanced; some types are just flatly better than others. They represent technological advances (armor X is better than Y in every way), or differences in the difficulty of manufacture (Armor X is easier to make, so it has drawbacks compared to armor Y), and so on.

Besides, it doesn't matter that Armor X is better than Y if your culture doesn't know how to make X, or even if Bob the smith who lives in the town near you doesn't know how to make it. You'll buy armor Y and like it.


"Damned fool" covers "monk", I think. :smalltongue:No, they're probably more of a blessed non-fool, at least from a fluff perspective.

zaei
2008-10-23, 09:43 PM
Its not "rules mastery" design philosophy, its simulationist. While certinally more detail could be added, further simulating the difference in armor; under the current abstraction, it does the best it can.

Currently, I am playing a character who is a Baron of a small county. Trust me, equiping your heavy calvary with banded mail instead of full plate makes a huuuuge difference.

Heavy Calvary (ftr)
H Warhorse (8,000), MW Lance (6,200), Banded Mail (5,000), Banded Mail Barding (20,000), H Steel Shield (400), Longsword (300), Light Xbow (700)
Feats: Mounted Combat, Ride-by-Attack, Wpn Focus (lance). Spirited Charge (lvl 2), Trample (lvl 3), Wpn Spec Lance (lvl 4).
Total Cost of Unit: 40,600

Super Heavy Calvary (ftr 2)
H Warhorse (8,000), MW Lance (6,200), Full Plate (30,000), Full Plate Barding (120,000), H Steel Shield (400), MW Longsword (6,300), Battleaxe (200), Heavy Xbow (1,000)
Feats: Mounted Combat, Ride-by-Attack, Wpn Focus (lance), Spirited Charge. Trample (lvl 3), Wpn Spec Lance (lvl 4).
Total Cost of Unit: 172,100

What do you call this silver/copper alloy you use for currency?

Krrth
2008-10-23, 09:45 PM
If I remember correctly, and I may not as my books are in storage, in the older editions full plate was expensive. Rare, too. The later editions seems to have blurred the line between armors a bit.

Brauron
2008-10-23, 09:53 PM
Thank you all for your imput -- especially Sword Guy. I ended up statting up the Knight with a breast plate, and I'll be showing that picture of "Transitional Plate" to the DM to explain what my Knight's armor looks like.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-23, 10:24 PM
What do you call this silver/copper alloy you use for currency?

It's gold-silver, and called Electrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrum). It only has trace amounts of copper. It's also the most awesome currency ever - I once had a LE kingdom that used it as a kind of fiat money; the official exchange rate was 1 gp = 1 ep, and the government only paid out in ep. Interestingly enough, all payments to the government had to be paid in gp :smallamused:

zaei
2008-10-23, 10:58 PM
It's gold-silver, and called Electrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrum). It only has trace amounts of copper. It's also the most awesome currency ever - I once had a LE kingdom that used it as a kind of fiat money; the official exchange rate was 1 gp = 1 ep, and the government only paid out in ep. Interestingly enough, all payments to the government had to be paid in gp :smallamused:

Yeah, I know about electrum (which is awesome). The exchange rates are off, though, from what Kizara posted (Full Plate in EP would be 3000, not 30000). To get that rate, you need something silver/copper =]

Deepblue706
2008-10-23, 11:37 PM
To me, it's a feat that transfers a limited free action (ie: only during movement) into a universal free action (ie: whenever I feel like), and that's not really worth a feat in my opinion, especially when I could be taking things like Power Attack or Combat Expertise or Rapid Shot.

It's certainly not for everyone - but I wouldn't underestimate its useage for someone who gets bonus feats (ie a Fighter or Warblade, or even a Ranger, who gets Combat Style).

If you're in an open environment, and above level 4, any Fighter, etc, should probably be riding a war-trained mount (they're not very expensive). If you have a war-trained mount, you should also have a lance - they're hella good on a mount charge. After your charge, you'll probably have enemies surrounding you, and using a lance without support of charging isn't the best of options. So, you make your ride check to dismount as a free action, drop your lance as a free action, Quick draw your keen falchion as a free action, and then go to town with a full-attack on the idiots who decided swarming you was a good idea.

Quick draw is also good if you suddenly encounter a monster who can only really be harmed by Silver or Cold Iron - but your primary weapon just isn't of that type (perhaps adamantine, since it's totally badass).

Quick draw is also good if you use both ranged and melee attacks, depending on which happens to be more advantageous at the time.

Quick draw is also good if you feel like charging on round 1, but just don't always have a weapon ready - maybe you're not in a dungeon and don't feel like brandishing a sword at all times. I don't think it's exactly courtly behavior.

Thusly, a well-played Fighter can benefit from Quick Draw.

Fighters also rarely benefit from Combat Expertise. The only time it's actually something they should ever consider taking is if they're A) grabbing what feats exemplify their character concept or B) going for a ridiculous trip-build. Otherwise, I think it's rather pointless.

Power Attack and Rapid Shot, however, I agree take priority.

Edit: Anyway, Half-Plate sucks because it's not Full Plate. Also, the lack of the ability to apply any dex bonus makes me think the weight is not evenly distributed among all body parts (as full plate is).

Basically, there are only four armors. Leather, Chain Shirt, Breastplate and Full Plate. Everything in-between is for poor adventurers who just grab the closest thing because they can't afford the better version.

Keld Denar
2008-10-24, 01:00 AM
No, if you are a mid-high level fighter, and you are switching out to a bow, you are doing something wrong. You should be chillin next to your caster, waiting for a Dim Door, Benign Transposition, or some other mobility spell with your primary weapon in your hands. With DR, and unless you are a dedicated archer, you aren't gonna contribute anything worth a damn, so best not to waste any actions. Worst case, the monsters come to you, and you can take a 5' step and full attack, and you don't have to wait to draw your weapon. Almost nothing good can come from you taking a couple of worthless pot shots and being out of position when the required time comes.

Seriously, I was in a Living Greyhawk game with 2 wizards and 2 melee, and like, a druid focusing on casting. One of the wizards would open with a CC, and the other would dim door the 2 fighters in, who were delaying until after the wizard and would immediately come out of delay and full attack the poor critter in front of us. That wizard did more damage with his Dim Door than he would have with any other spell, simply because he ENABLED the glass cannons and meat shields to do their job more efficiently.

Thats what a good GOD wizard (ala Treantmonk20) does, and what his BSFs should be smart enough to follow with.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-10-24, 01:06 AM
In a setting where your fighter can count on having a Wizard comrade handy, that's fine, but you know a lot of us prefer low-magic games where 99% of warriors can't count on magical support in any given situation.

Keld Denar
2008-10-24, 01:27 AM
Who is this "a lot of us" that you speak of? Did you do a survey? Or a poll? I seem to remember a poll on this site, a thread about perfered party makeup, and just about EVERYONE on that thread mentioned some form of iconic party, with some kind of arcane caster being involved.

Your research is where?

Irreverent Fool
2008-10-24, 06:21 AM
snip

Quit being snippy.

On the topic of armor:
As a DM, I frequently use the lesser armors for NPCs or monsters my players must face. They provide enough armor that I don't have to fudge to get them to be hard enough to hit, and are have the wonderful ratio of heaviness-to-resale value that prevents them from simply piling it up and hauling it to the nearest mercenary camp.

I would like to see a return to the simulationist days, as that's what drew me into the game. I miss "all those darned niggling little logistical details that limit people's ability to make optimal characters and be as good as possible all the time" as Swordguy puts it.

Jayabalard
2008-10-24, 06:42 AM
Who is this "a lot of us" that you speak of? Did you do a survey? Or a poll? I seem to remember a poll on this site, a thread about perfered party makeup, and just about EVERYONE on that thread mentioned some form of iconic party, with some kind of arcane caster being involved.

Your research is where?"a lot of us" doesn't imply that they're the majority... so the fact that her, his friends, and several people on this board have expressed a preference for that style game is sufficient research to show that "alot of us" like low magic settings.

Really, it's more than a bit absurd to start getting all snooty and telling people "ur doin it wrong" while making the assuming that everyone plays the same style game that you do.

Matthew
2008-10-24, 08:19 AM
I think there is a case to be made for Half Plate as a "Timmy Card", since Monte Cook specifies the AD&D Long Sword as an example of the same sort of thing in his discussion of the design considerations for D20/3e.

That said, I think Half Plate was just a bad design choice. Not because it is inferior to Full Plate, but because the ease with which characters can increase their dexterity attribute and the drawbacks of decreased movement simply were not taken fully into account (or were just ignored).

The simplest approach to armour I can think of is:

{table=head]
Armour[br]Bonus|
Dexterity[br]Limit|
Armour[br]Check|
Armour[br]Type|
Run[br]Multiplier|
Armour[br]Cost|

+1|
+9|
−1|
Light|
x4|
10|

+2|
+8|
−2|
Light|
x4|
20|

+3|
+7|
−3|
Light|
x4|
40|

+4|
+6|
−4|
Medium|
x3|
80|

+5|
+5|
−5|
Medium|
x3|
160|

+6|
+4|
−6|
Medium|
x3|
320|

+7|
+3|
−7|
Heavy|
x2|
640|

+8|
+2|
−8|
Heavy|
x2|
1,280|

+9|
+1|
−9|
Heavy|
x2|
2,560|[/table]

That this approach was not adopted, suggests to me that other design considerations were in play [e.g. Simulationism, Timmy Card, etecetra].

Kesnit
2008-10-24, 09:23 AM
Indeed - outside of special requirements (i.e. Druid) and occasionally special materials, no one in our D&D games ever uses anything other than Chain Shirt or Full Plate. Why bother with medium armor at all? For a whole extra +1 to AC, you can drop your speed by a third. :smalleek:


Not everyone wants to play a min-maxed character. I once played a melee-lock (Warlock with a 2 level splash in BG). No ranged invocations, and she lived by Hideous Blow. Mithral full plate (Battle Caster feat), Mithral heavy shield, warhammer. Her DEX was low, so I couldn't get the full benefit of the Mithral full plate, but it still gave higher AC than a Chain Shirt.

Also, Chain shirt has a huge disadvantage - High DEX characters. My LVL 5 Kender Rogue has a 19 DEX and uses Weapon Finesse. 1 moire point of DEX and he's better off switching to Studded Leather, then Leather, then Padded.

kjones
2008-10-24, 10:11 AM
Swordguy, I hear where you're coming from, and I basically agree. The problem is that most of the time, in 3rd edition, those restrictions on getting the "best armor available" simply don't apply.

I hadn't thought of the "low-tech world" scenario, and that's legitimate. But cost and availability can only serve as limiting factors for so long. And if you're deliberately preventing front-liners from getting their hands on full plate - well, then you're just crippling melee combatants even more than usual.

The medium/heavy armor distinction does make sense, however, when you think of it in terms of weapon proficiencies. Several front-line classes (Barbarians, Warblades) do not have heavy armor proficiency, so you're left with the choice between a chain shirt or a breastplate, which is better than nothing.

Jayabalard, I think the issue here is that you're leaning towards the Simulationist side of GNS, whereas I'm leaning more towards Gamist. So to me, not being "balanced" implies bad game design - if you're not given meaningful choices, that's bad game design, and I argue that there do not exist many meaningful choices when choosing armor.

2nd edition had those lovely "Armor vs. Weapon Type" tables that I'd love to bring back. They did complicate things a bit, but they did lead to more of the kind of decisions I'm talking about. Chain mail was better than brigandine - unless you were getting hit with a bludgeoning weapon, which makes sense when you think about it. I'm not sure how one could implement this nowadays, and I'm not sure you could do it well, but it at least makes the different armor types more meaningfully distinct.

EDIT: Kesnit, I think you just proved his point - the only types of armor you were considering were Full Plate and Chain Shirt.

Ulzgoroth
2008-10-24, 10:36 AM
I don't think it's legitimate to call the existence of obviously sub-par options a design failure from any but the most absolutely monomaniacal gamist perspective. There are (rarely and briefly) legitimate reasons for the PCs to use non-optimal armor types. There very frequently are setting or financial reasons for NPCs to use non-optimal armor, and their often lower attributes sometimes make 'non-optimal' armor just as good as the pricier option. Chainmail, scale mail, and banded armor are all very viable solutions in some cases...and even padded and hide can be practical when poor peasant types are trying to outfit themselves.

If every single character in your game has WBL for level 5 or so and unfettered access to good crafters, then sure, the extra armors may be a wasted page for you...but even then they don't in any way interfere with gamist balance priorities. They're just some material you don't bother to use.

Kesnit
2008-10-24, 11:09 AM
EDIT: Kesnit, I think you just proved his point - the only types of armor you were considering were Full Plate and Chain Shirt.

My post addressed 2 different points.

1) "What is the purpose of medium armor?" Some melee classes can't wear heavy, so medium is the best there is.

2) "Chain shirt is the only light armor anyone should wear." Not if a character has high DEX.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-24, 11:11 AM
1) "What is the purpose of medium armor?" Some melee classes can't wear heavy, so medium is the best there is.

Mithril Full Plate = Medium Armor. No dice.

Ulzgoroth
2008-10-24, 11:22 AM
2) "Chain shirt is the only light armor anyone should wear." Not if a character has high DEX.
High dex and modest budget, that is. Mithril Chain Shirt is better than any other core light armor no matter what your dex modifier is. Except the Mithril Breast Plate for the less-nimble types.

Lord Herman
2008-10-24, 11:23 AM
Mithril Full Plate = Medium Armor. No dice.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, mithril only makes armour count as one category lighter for determining movement speed. It doesn't actually make a full plate medium armour.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-24, 11:32 AM
Unless I'm very much mistaken, mithril only makes armour count as one category lighter for determining movement speed. It doesn't actually make a full plate medium armour.

Nope. DMG and Magic Item Compendruim have examples to contrary.

Lord Herman
2008-10-24, 11:36 AM
Really? And you're sure it wasn't errata'd later? I could have sworn my leather-bound DMG said it's only for movement speed. Then again, it's been a while since I've played 3.5, so I could be mistaken.

Kesnit
2008-10-24, 11:48 AM
Mithril Full Plate = Medium Armor. No dice.

That was exactly my point. Medium armor exists because some melee classes can't wear heavy.


High dex and modest budget, that is. Mithril Chain Shirt is better than any other core light armor no matter what your dex modifier is.


Mithral...maximum Dexterity bonus is increased by 2

Mithral Chain Shirt has a maximum DEX mod of +6, or DEX 23. Easily reached mid-levels by a DEX-focused character.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-24, 12:10 PM
Really? And you're sure it wasn't errata'd later? I could have sworn my leather-bound DMG said it's only for movement speed. Then again, it's been a while since I've played 3.5, so I could be mistaken.

Nope. Counts for proficiency, feats, et al. too.

monty
2008-10-24, 12:17 PM
Mithral Chain Shirt has a maximum DEX mod of +6, or DEX 23. Easily reached mid-levels by a DEX-focused character.

Only padded is better at +8. And a chain shirt has an AC bonus of +4, while padded is +1, so at best, you're getting -1 by switching to padded.

Kesnit
2008-10-24, 12:30 PM
Only padded is better at +8. And a chain shirt has an AC bonus of +4, while padded is +1, so at best, you're getting -1 by switching to padded.

Until your DEX reaches 24, at which point Padded becomes your best option.

I am not saying Chain Shirts are useless. All I am saying is (to go back to my initial comment) is light armors other than chain shirts are useful, depending on the build.

Wulfram
2008-10-24, 12:36 PM
Half-Plate's not that bad. It is at least considerably cheaper than Full.

It's better than hide, scale, chain and splint, which all have straightforwardly superior armour for small amounts of cash more.

NWN's system is better, even if it makes some armours only cosmetically different

TheThan
2008-10-24, 12:46 PM
I agree with Fax, it’s the failure of the game designers to realize the implications of their decisions. It doesn’t matter if they didn’t change anything; the fact remains that out of the 12 armors presented in core, 9 of them are nearly worthless.

If they had realized that most of the armor is not worth taking for anyone, (whether they’re a role player or a roll player) then they would have either made each one more viable to buy or cut the list down to three types.

Light armor : (chain shirt)
+4 ac, max dex 4, armor check: -2, arcane failure 20%, speed 30 medum, 20 small
Medium armor (brestplate)
+5 ac, max dex +3, armor check –4, acane failure 25%, speed 20 medium, 15 small
Heavy armor: (full plate)
+8 ac, max dex +1, armor check –6, acane failure 35%, speed 20 medium, 15 small


and for the mithral question I present the srd:



Mithral
Mithral is a very rare silvery, glistening metal that is lighter than iron but just as hard. When worked like steel, it becomes a wonderful material from which to create armor and is occasionally used for other items as well. Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light. Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonus is increased by 2, and armor check penalties are lessened by 3 (to a minimum of 0).

An item made from mithral weighs half as much as the same item made from other metals. In the case of weapons, this lighter weight does not change a weapon’s size category or the ease with which it can be wielded (whether it is light, one-handed, or two-handed). Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral. (A longsword can be a mithral weapon, while a scythe cannot be.)

Weapons or armors fashioned from mithral are always masterwork items as well; the masterwork cost is included in the prices given below.

Mithral has 30 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 15.

monty
2008-10-24, 12:53 PM
Until your DEX reaches 24, at which point Padded becomes your best option.

No. At 22 Dex, you have 6+4 with a chain shirt for a total of 10, and 6+1 with padded for a total of 7. At 24 Dex, you have 6+4 with a chain shirt for a total of 10, and 7+1 with padded for a total of 8. At 26 Dex, you have 6+4 for 10, and 8+1 for 9. At 28 Dex, you have 6+4 for 10, and 8+1 for 9. Padded never wins.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-24, 12:55 PM
No. At 22 Dex, you have 6+4 with a chain shirt for a total of 10, and 6+1 with padded for a total of 7. At 24 Dex, you have 6+4 with a chain shirt for a total of 10, and 7+1 with padded for a total of 8. At 26 Dex, you have 6+4 for 10, and 8+1 for 9. At 28 Dex, you have 6+4 for 10, and 8+1 for 9. Padded never wins.

And remember, with a chain shirt, you get to keep more AC when you're Flat-Footed.

Glyphic
2008-10-24, 12:59 PM
When possible, why not just get the Mage/ Force domain cleric to cast Mage armor on you? Best of both worlds, and it helps verus incorpreal attacks!

Kesnit
2008-10-24, 01:03 PM
No. At 22 Dex, you have 6+4 with a chain shirt for a total of 10, and 6+1 with padded for a total of 7. At 24 Dex, you have 6+4 with a chain shirt for a total of 10, and 7+1 with padded for a total of 8. At 26 Dex, you have 6+4 for 10, and 8+1 for 9. At 28 Dex, you have 6+4 for 10, and 8+1 for 9. Padded never wins.

If you are only talking about AC. I'm not. Weapon Finesse and Reflex saves both rely on DEX. Artificially limiting DEX mod (by wearing mithral chain shirt) also limits attacks and Reflex. Limiting Reflex can also lead to damage since it limits the capability of (Improved) Evasion.

Glyphic
2008-10-24, 01:05 PM
Maximum Dex Bonus

This number is the maximum Dexterity bonus to AC that this type of armor allows. Heavier armors limit mobility, reducing the wearer’s ability to dodge blows. This restriction doesn’t affect any other Dexterity-related abilities.
Italics are mine, from the SRD.

monty
2008-10-24, 01:08 PM
Pretty sure it only matters for AC. Besides, it seems that's what the discussion is about, anyway.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-24, 01:11 PM
Italics are mine, from the SRD.

Beat me to it.

Kesnit
2008-10-24, 01:17 PM
Italics are mine, from the SRD.

Heh... Learn something new every day. (Off to reconfigure my Rogue.)


Besides, it seems that's what the discussion is about, anyway.

The topic started out about AC, but grew into just about everything relating to armor.

Ulzgoroth
2008-10-24, 03:25 PM
It is true that padded is superior if you're willing to take a hit to normal and flat-footed AC in favor of touch AC, at 24-27 dex. Then at 28, it loses out to not wearing armor at all...

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-24, 03:30 PM
It is true that padded is superior if you're willing to take a hit to normal and flat-footed AC in favor of touch AC, at 24-27 dex. Then at 28, it loses out to not wearing armor at all...If you have 28 Dex, Uncanny Dodge is required, no matter what sort of contortions you have to do to get it.

Keld Denar
2008-10-24, 03:34 PM
If you have 28 Dex, Uncanny Dodge is required, no matter what sort of contortions you have to do to get it.

Where can I meet her?

Fax Celestis
2008-10-24, 03:36 PM
Where can I meet her?

I hear Uncanny Dodge is working at The Orc's Head these days.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-24, 03:36 PM
Where can I meet her?Barbarian 2, where else? Remember to bring protection, she can go wild. It's fun, but it leaves you tired and vulnerable. :smallwink:

Starbuck_II
2008-10-24, 04:19 PM
Barbarian 2, where else? Remember to bring protection, she can go wild. It's fun, but it leaves you tired and vulnerable. :smallwink:

Nah, Scout 2, She gives Free (from being flatfoot) and heads of with giving Barbarian Flatfoot benefits (aren't denied dex to AC).

Scout 2 is awesome: not a copy paste either. Partial Foresight benefit (never surprised or flatfoot).

nony2000
2008-10-24, 04:28 PM
I didn't see what you peaple are talking about but Il answer the first question.
I play in a game as level 1 and gain almost no xp or gold. So If in such case you want a heavy armor you would buy something like that.

Or if you plan to use leadership to make an army then you would want cheap armors because your going to need a lot of them, and halfplate can be cheap and effective.

monty
2008-10-24, 04:36 PM
Or if you plan to use leadership to make an army then you would want cheap armors because your going to need a lot of them, and halfplate can be cheap and effective.

Why would you waste money protecting your pawns soldiers when you could just buy hire more pawns soldiers?

Swordguy
2008-10-24, 04:41 PM
Why would you waste money protecting your pawns soldiers when you could just buy hire more pawns soldiers?

...

Because you care about human (or dwarven, or elven, or whatever) life? :smallannoyed:

snoopy13a
2008-10-24, 04:44 PM
Clearly, Half-Plate is for low-level fighter/paladin/cleric types with 10-11 Dex or less who can afford the 600 gold for it but not the 1500 gold for Full-Plate.

Swordguy
2008-10-24, 04:51 PM
Clearly, Half-Plate is for low-level fighter/paladin/cleric types with 10-11 Dex or less who can afford the 600 gold for it but not the 1500 gold for Full-Plate.

Or, y'know, it exists because it actually existed and D&D was a simulation before it was a "balanced" game?


...


I don't get why this is so hard to get. D&D moved from simulationist to gamist between 2e and 3e, and this is pretty clearly a holdover from that which has been, I'll note, corrected in 4e. We already know that WotC was using the gaming paradigm of 2e to design 3e - this is just another example of it. It's not complicated, and looking at it via a modern gamist perspective and crying that it's not balanced in hindsight is just as dumb as condemning a guy for being racist in 1860. It may be "wrong" now, but it was right in the culture at the time.

Things change over time, while decisions are made in the moment.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 04:53 PM
Or, y'know, it exists because it actually existed and D&D was a simulation before it was a "balanced" game?


hmhmhmhm
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thank you. I needed a very good laugh today, and hadn't gotten it yet.

Deepblue706
2008-10-24, 05:38 PM
hmhmhmhm
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thank you. I needed a very good laugh today, and hadn't gotten it yet.

What's so funny?

If you're making a mockery of the comment, I think you may have misinterpretted what he actually said.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 05:40 PM
What's so funny?

If you're making a mockery of the comment, I think you may have misinterpretted what he actually said.

It would be pretty hard to misinterpret, unless this is British Humour. He's claiming DnD was simulationist, as opposed to Gamist. At best, you could claim that DnD was attempting to be simulationist /while/ it was gamist, but to claim it was simulationist to the exclusion of, or at the expense of, gamism? Or indeed, that it valued simulationism more then gamism? Dungeons and Dragons? Really? That's hilarious.

Deepblue706
2008-10-24, 05:58 PM
It would be pretty hard to misinterpret, unless this is British Humour. He's claiming DnD was simulationist, as opposed to Gamist. At best, you could claim that DnD was attempting to be simulationist /while/ it was gamist, but to claim it was simulationist to the exclusion of, or at the expense of, gamism? Or indeed, that it valued simulationism more then gamism? Dungeons and Dragons? Really? That's hilarious.

Yeah, like I thought...

I'll...I'll let Swordguy refute this.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 06:01 PM
Yeah, like I thought...

I'll...I'll let Swordguy refute this.

Refute the designers obvious intentions? Good luck.

Swordguy
2008-10-24, 06:13 PM
Yeah, like I thought...

I'll...I'll let Swordguy refute this.

I don't feel like taking the time to type it out, honestly, to convince somebody who doesn't want to be convinced - who has already made up his mind and refuses to let his superior judgment be clouded by minor details like "facts".

The writing of Chaimmail, OD&D, 1st and 2e material all containing large swaths of rules to more accurately represent (or, "simulate") the real-life performance of weapons and armor (without regard for game balance) eloquently make my point for me.

As does my ability to physically pick up the phone and call a designer/editor, and ask him what they were thinking. Like I've done in the past, and posted the results to these forums. There's no guessing their "obvious intentions" when I can ask them what the intentions were first-hand.

It's not my mission in life to correct everyone on the internet who's wrong. Just most of them. :smalltongue:

Cybren
2008-10-24, 06:15 PM
It would be pretty hard to misinterpret, unless this is British Humour. He's claiming DnD was simulationist, as opposed to Gamist. At best, you could claim that DnD was attempting to be simulationist /while/ it was gamist, but to claim it was simulationist to the exclusion of, or at the expense of, gamism? Or indeed, that it valued simulationism more then gamism? Dungeons and Dragons? Really? That's hilarious.

D&D predated GNS theory.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 06:22 PM
D&D predated GNS theory.

A true statement.

I question why you did not tell this to the person who brought it up first. Also, leanings remain, regardless of knowledge of theory.


The writing of Chaimmail, OD&D, 1st and 2e material all containing large swaths of rules to more accurately represent (or, "simulate") the real-life performance of weapons and armor (without regard for game balance) eloquently make my point for me.
Ah, you're not referring to the entire game, but rather how it treats armaments? That would actually be reasonable, yes. I thought you meant "The game as a whole", where a quick look at any world they designed to accord with those rules doesn't have a world that follows logically from the game's setup ;)

Fax Celestis
2008-10-24, 06:22 PM
D&D predated GNS theory.

Arguably, D&D caused it.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 06:27 PM
Arguably, D&D caused it.

Probably, but you'll never get what's his name to admit it. The only system the guy seems to have a higher contempt for then DnD is WoD, and that's a little bit like smelling slightly less vile then a garbage dump.

Thurbane
2008-10-24, 07:14 PM
I think there is a case to be made for Half Plate as a "Timmy Card", since Monte Cook specifies the AD&D Long Sword as an example of the same sort of thing in his discussion of the design considerations for D20/3e.

That said, I think Half Plate was just a bad design choice. Not because it is inferior to Full Plate, but because the ease with which characters can increase their dexterity attribute and the drawbacks of decreased movement simply were not taken fully into account (or were just ignored).

The simplest approach to armour I can think of is:

{table=head]
Armour<br>Bonus|
Dexterity<br>Limit|
Armour<br>Check|
Armour<br>Type|
Run<br>Multiplier|
Armour<br>Cost|

+1|
+9|
−1|
Light|
x4|
10|

+2|
+8|
−2|
Light|
x4|
20|

+3|
+7|
−3|
Light|
x4|
40|

+4|
+6|
−4|
Medium|
x3|
80|

+5|
+5|
−5|
Medium|
x3|
160|

+6|
+4|
−6|
Medium|
x3|
320|

+7|
+3|
−7|
Heavy|
x2|
640|

+8|
+2|
−8|
Heavy|
x2|
1,280|

+9|
+1|
−9|
Heavy|
x2|
2,560|[/table]

That this approach was not adopted, suggests to me that other design considerations were in play [e.g. Simulationism, Timmy Card, etecetra].
I like that table a lot. :smallsmile:

Tam_OConnor
2008-10-24, 07:20 PM
So, random thought on the costs of equipping knights in banded mail as opposed to full plate: instead of being in a silver-copper coinage (can we simulate that with bronze coinage?), they were for 20 man units. Just a thought.

Matthew
2008-10-24, 07:39 PM
I think there is a case to be made for Half Plate as a "Timmy Card", since Monte Cook specifies the AD&D Long Sword as an example of the same sort of thing in his discussion of the design considerations for D20/3e.

That said, I think Half Plate was just a bad design choice. Not because it is inferior to Full Plate, but because the ease with which characters can increase their dexterity attribute and the drawbacks of decreased movement simply were not taken fully into account (or were just ignored).

The simplest approach to armour I can think of is:

{table=head]
Armour[br]Bonus|
Dexterity[br]Limit|
Armour[br]Check|
Armour[br]Type|
Run[br]Multiplier|
Armour[br]Cost|

+1|
+9|
−1|
Light|
x4|
10|

+2|
+8|
−2|
Light|
x4|
20|

+3|
+7|
−3|
Light|
x4|
40|

+4|
+6|
−4|
Medium|
x3|
80|

+5|
+5|
−5|
Medium|
x3|
160|

+6|
+4|
−6|
Medium|
x3|
320|

+7|
+3|
−7|
Heavy|
x2|
640|

+8|
+2|
−8|
Heavy|
x2|
1,280|

+9|
+1|
−9|
Heavy|
x2|
2,560|[/table]

That this approach was not adopted, suggests to me that other design considerations were in play [e.g. Simulationism, Timmy Card, etecetra].



I like that table a lot. :smallsmile:

Ta muchly. By the way, the reason the "<br>" appears in your quotation is because the forum automatically converts "[br]" to "<br>" whenever it is reposted. I keep meaning to bring that up in the appropriate forum. better go and do that now.

Obviously, the running speed reduction and armour check penalties have to be balanced against something, but I'm not sure what. In AD&D they were balanced because there were no dexterity caps for armour. Touch AC makes it even more beneficial to wear light armour with high dexterity, with Flatfooted AC being the only counterbalance that springs to mind. One variation I use is for Medium Armour to have DR 1/- and Heavy Armour DR 2/-, but I don't think it makes enough of a difference on the whole. Still, it's better balanced than the default D20/3e setup, in my opinion.

Yahzi
2008-10-24, 07:49 PM
he's playing in a low-magic world, so buying that stuff isn't an option.
It still doesn't work; spending 2/3 of your knight's equipment budget to protect 1/20 of his assets is just bad strategy.

zaei
2008-10-24, 09:31 PM
So, random thought on the costs of equipping knights in banded mail as opposed to full plate: instead of being in a silver-copper coinage (can we simulate that with bronze coinage?), they were for 20 man units. Just a thought.

Or mount and knight are TWENTY TIMES NORMAL SIZE!

Wulfram
2008-10-25, 06:36 AM
Obviously, the running speed reduction and armour check penalties have to be balanced against something, but I'm not sure what.

Not having to invest heavily in Dexterity to have a good AC? The main point of heavy armour is to allow you to do more damage, because you've put all your points in Str

Your table's pretty nifty, but I'd reduce the dexterity limits by 1 or 2, the check penalties by 2, and the price of +6 armour by something. The dexterity limits need to be lower if they're to be meaningful before high levels, low level rogues should have options which don't mess up their skills and you should be able to start out with heavy armour.

kjones
2008-10-25, 08:53 AM
...D&D moved from simulationist to gamist between 2e and 3e...

I don't disagree, but remember that GNS is a continuum, not... whatever the opposite of a continuum is. A game can have both gamist and simulationist elements.

But I absolutely agree that 2nd edition was more simulationist than 3rd edition, and that stuff like this is nothing more than a holdover.

But nobody else liked AC vs. Weapon Type from 2nd edition? Shame, that was one of the things I missed the most.

Thane of Fife
2008-10-25, 08:56 AM
But nobody else liked AC vs. Weapon Type from 2nd edition? Shame, that was one of the things I missed the most.

That table is the only thing which has ever made me dislike THAC0 - I could never figure out what the modifiers were supposed to be applied to.

Matthew
2008-10-25, 01:16 PM
Not having to invest heavily in Dexterity to have a good AC? The main point of heavy armour is to allow you to do more damage, because you've put all your points in Str

At low level this might be true for specialised characters, but by the time a character is in the mid to high level range, he only needs a dexterity of 18 (+4) to make medium armour better value than heavy armour, with regard to touch attacks, movement and armour check penalty. That said, the proposed above minimises much of that (since movement penalties are only with regard to running speed), and campaign economics will also have a significant impact.



Your table's pretty nifty, but I'd reduce the dexterity limits by 1 or 2, the check penalties by 2, and the price of +6 armour by something. The dexterity limits need to be lower if they're to be meaningful before high levels, low level rogues should have options which don't mess up their skills and you should be able to start out with heavy armour.

I think I disagree with just about all of that, but that's hardly surprising since I made the table with those issues in mind [i.e. I don't think starting characters should generally have access to heavy armour, I don't think dexterity caps should be meaningful beyond limiting the combined score possible to +10, and the penalties to rogue skills seem entirely appropriate to me].

All preferential, though, I am sure; I could certainly see knocking a few points off the armour check penalties to accord better with the D20/3e defaults. :smallwink:



But I absolutely agree that 2nd edition was more simulationist than 3rd edition, and that stuff like this is nothing more than a holdover.

Unlikely, I think. In second edition there were no dexterity caps, so the limitation on half plate was newly invented.



But nobody else liked AC vs. Weapon Type from 2nd edition? Shame, that was one of the things I missed the most.



That table is the only thing which has ever made me dislike THAC0 - I could never figure out what the modifiers were supposed to be applied to.

The first edition weapon versus armour modifiers adjust the die roll to hit (+1 is good for the attacker, −1 is bad for the attacker), the second edition versions work in reverse and are added to THAC0 (+1 is bad for the attacker and good for the defender, −1 is good for the attacker and bad for the defender).

Personally, I am not a huge fan of weapon versus armour adjustments.

Jayabalard
2008-10-25, 11:13 PM
It still doesn't work; spending 2/3 of your knight's equipment budget to protect 1/20 of his assets is just bad strategy.not necessarily; your main problem is that he's not just protecting 1/20th of his assets... he's also indirectly protecting himself. The only time the mount is in danger is the same time where it would be VERY bad for him to lose the mount, so that armor is also protecting himself. So that 2/3 of his budget is protecting 3/3 of his ass there, as well as most of his assets.

Deepblue706
2008-10-25, 11:15 PM
But nobody else liked AC vs. Weapon Type from 2nd edition? Shame, that was one of the things I missed the most.

I personally like the concept very much. With what very little I know about armor, it still strikes me as wrong that any weapon can be used against plate effectively, when paired with a high attack bonus (say a slashing weapon like a scimitar, or even some rather pathetic weaponry, like a bloody quarterstaff). Chainmail doesn't seem like it should protect too well against any non-slashing weapon (save things like a Greatsword, which should also be kinda blunt as well as slashing...not even considering morhau but taking into account how it doesn't exactly have too sharp an edge).

Jack Zander
2008-10-25, 11:54 PM
Armor should have a flat AC bonus, and then a DR bonus against certain types of attacks. This will make piercing and bludgeoning weapons more popular since most all armor protects against slashing pretty well. Also makes heavy armor a better option and solves matt's beefs.

kjones
2008-10-26, 12:28 PM
Armor should have a flat AC bonus, and then a DR bonus against certain types of attacks. This will make piercing and bludgeoning weapons more popular since most all armor protects against slashing pretty well. Also makes heavy armor a better option and solves matt's beefs.

A mixture of "AC as defense bonus" and "AC as DR"... that could be interesting. Armor in Spycraft d20 kind of worked like this, although it generally helped your DR more than your AC, a la bulletproof vests.

Heliomance
2008-10-27, 07:32 AM
I personally like the concept very much. With what very little I know about armor, it still strikes me as wrong that any weapon can be used against plate effectively, when paired with a high attack bonus (say a slashing weapon like a scimitar, or even some rather pathetic weaponry, like a bloody quarterstaff). Chainmail doesn't seem like it should protect too well against any non-slashing weapon (save things like a Greatsword, which should also be kinda blunt as well as slashing...not even considering morhau but taking into account how it doesn't exactly have too sharp an edge).

A quarterstaff's not that pathetic. It's a very solid lump of wood. It's also very maneuverable. In the hands of someone that knows how to use it, it could probably beat someone in full plate quite easily. It would be hard to kill them, admittedly, but you could have them staggered and stumbling from the onslaught, maybe knock them down. See this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J-wLyFVArA&feature=related) video - admittedly the opponent isn't armoured, but even in armour would you want that coming at your face?

Starbuck_II
2008-10-27, 07:41 AM
I personally like the concept very much. With what very little I know about armor, it still strikes me as wrong that any weapon can be used against plate effectively, when paired with a high attack bonus (say a slashing weapon like a scimitar, or even some rather pathetic weaponry, like a bloody quarterstaff). Chainmail doesn't seem like it should protect too well against any non-slashing weapon (save things like a Greatsword, which should also be kinda blunt as well as slashing...not even considering morhau but taking into account how it doesn't exactly have too sharp an edge).

Plate was bad versus blunt weapons like Quarterstaff.
I'll grant you slashing though.

Swordguy
2008-10-27, 08:54 AM
A quarterstaff's not that pathetic. It's a very solid lump of wood. It's also very maneuverable. In the hands of someone that knows how to use it, it could probably beat someone in full plate quite easily. It would be hard to kill them, admittedly, but you could have them staggered and stumbling from the onslaught, maybe knock them down. See this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J-wLyFVArA&feature=related) video - admittedly the opponent isn't armoured, but even in armour would you want that coming at your face?

I dunno - look at the SCA. They've got rattan weapons and full-strength head hits are legal - yet I've never heard of a concussion from a head hit in that group. IIRC there's about 3 broken noses from face thrusts a year at Pennsic (about 20,000 fighters there for a week). That's pretty decent evidence that purely wooden (ok - cane) weapons aren't doing a lot of good against even poorly made and padded armor.

Jack Zander
2008-10-27, 09:12 AM
The quarterstaff is a defensive weapon. It was not used to make a flurry of strikes with boths ends, nor did it deal much damage (especially against armored opponents) but it was very useful for parrying blows and unbalancing or stunning your opponent.