# Awfully Alarmed About Armour



## ArmoredSaint (Jun 6, 2012)

So with the confirmation in a recent Rule-of-Three article that humans will receive some pretty hefty bonuses to starting ability scores, I have become convinced that low-level Rogues, etc. with an 18 Dexterity will be fairly common.

This means that even low-level Dex-based characters will be able to achieve the same Armor Class as a Fighter in plate armour (i.e. 17) by spending only a measly 25gp to purchase studded leather.  

Since the Fighter will almost certainly not have plate available to him in the beginning, this means that that Rogue's AC will very easily be much greater than that of a low-level Fighter.  Even a Dex 14 Rogue will have an AC equal to that of the starting Fighter in chainmail.

_This is unsatisfactory._

The Legends & Lore Fighter Design Goals article led me to believe that the Fighter would have a "high AC" (which is promised in the same paragraph in which it is noted that the Fighter would have access to the heaviest armour, leading me to believe that heavy armour would afford the best AC).  I don't consider the mail-clad beginning Fighter's AC to be very high, especially when this is easily eclipsed by the Rogue for minimal effort.

Many--heck, maybe most--players have issues that will "make-or-break" this new edition of the game for them; well, this is mine.  I want to see heavy armour represented as being _effective._  I feel that it got shortchanged in the past two editions; it was all too easy and _disgustingly_ common for characters in little to no armour to have ACs that surpassed those of the heavy armour-wearers.  

If heavy armour doesn't work as I feel that it should, I will not feel that my favorite fantasy archetype of the Knight in Shining Armour is adequately supported.  I don't want to be forced to play a lightly-armoured Swashbuckler-type in order to be effective and have a high expectation of survival.

Please, WotC, do something about the armour.  I don't even care what it is--I'll shut up and be happy with a +1 AC boost to all heavy armour, or with it granting a modest amount of DR, or even a well-developed feat tree/chain to do both or either of those things that is open only to classes that use heavy armour.


----------



## jadrax (Jun 6, 2012)

The armour (and weapon) rules are apparently just place holders at this time, hopefully we will get some better ones soon.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Jun 6, 2012)

Don't be alarmed. This is the first round of the playtest, and it's not meant to test the character creation rules.

I agree with your premise: heavy armor should offer better protection than light armor. With a high Dexterity, characters with light armor should be able to achieve AC that is "good enough," but certainly not exceed or even match heavy armor users.

There should be some reason to wear light armor, though. I want Str fighters to wear plate and Dex fighters to wear leather. A 5' movement penalty is not going to make this happen. What would?


Heavy armor requires high Str
Heavy armor imposes penalty on Dex-based attack rolls and checks
Heavy armor imposes penalty on Con-based checks/saves
I actually wouldn't mind if all of those were true. It would mean that heavy armor provides the best protection, but still isn't always the best option (don't wear full plate if you're crossing the desert, etc.).


----------



## Abstruse (Jun 7, 2012)

The designers have flat-out said that armor isn't working right as written and that they're working on balancing it better.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Jun 7, 2012)

Abstruse said:


> The designers have flat-out said that armor isn't working right as written and that they're working on balancing it better.



Can you give me a link to your source?


----------



## Abstruse (Jun 7, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> Can you give me a link to your source?



It was in the Q&A chat last week...and I'm having a hell of a time finding the archive. Best I can do is give you a quote and a third-party transcript.



> 11:59
> 
> Comment From Rheim
> I have a question about Armor balance. From the playtesting guide, it  seems that there isn’t a good balance between Light/Medium and Heavy  Armors. Are there revised rules coming out on this? Right now there  seems little advantage to wearing say, Heavy Armor versus Medium Armor.
> ...



Reference is here.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 7, 2012)

The first WTF threads coming out of the play test were all about the imbalance of armor. I get the feeling everyone, including WOTC, are fully aware of the minor whoops there.

High confidence this is a beta only problem.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Jun 7, 2012)

I just want to jump in to say that I love the idea of starting low and buying better armor over the first few levels. I'd like to see weapons and other gear potentially work that way. Let the first couple upgrades be mundane before throwing magic into the mix. It would make a good default, with increased magic as a solid option.


----------



## Abstruse (Jun 7, 2012)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> I just want to jump in to say that I love the idea of starting low and buying better armor over the first few levels. I'd like to see weapons and other gear potentially work that way. Let the first couple upgrades be mundane before throwing magic into the mix. It would make a good default, with increased magic as a solid option.



If you check the link I posted above, they talked about weapons in the Q&A as well. Can't remember off the top of my head, but they did say pretty much what you did. Also, they're really trying to pull away from the idea that magic weapons are "required" as you level. 

So no more "I'm 7th level and I haven't gotten my +2 weapon yet!" whining. A magic weapon's a powerful thing and since to-hit numbers and AC aren't going to scale nearly as much, that's going to be a flat +5% chance to hit for every +1 on the weapon. So that's a pretty big deal, even later on in the game.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 7, 2012)

I'd like that too. I have an iron sword. I have a steel sword. I have a masterwork steel sword.

Chain armor, scale, plate.

Random gadgets, thieves' tools, master kit.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 7, 2012)

I really hope they keep with the trend they used with the wight where to overcome its resistance you need a magic weapon or some other specialty weapon.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 7, 2012)

Weapons, armor, monsters are all placeholders for works-in-process.  It is known.


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Jun 7, 2012)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> I just want to jump in to say that I love the idea of starting low and buying better armor over the first few levels. I'd like to see weapons and other gear potentially work that way. Let the first couple upgrades be mundane before throwing magic into the mix. It would make a good default, with increased magic as a solid option.



I also love this.

Incidentally, I want to go on record as saying that I really do like most everything else about the rules as presented in the playtest--it's only heavy armour that I have a serious issue with.

I ran the adventure for a diverse group of friends last week.  I plan to write up a report, and then have each of them register and share their own thoughts.  FWIW, I prefer 1E, while my players almost universally prefer 3E/Pathfinder.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 7, 2012)

Abstruse said:


> It was in the Q&A chat last week...and I'm having a hell of a time finding the archive. Best I can do is give you a quote and a third-party transcript.
> 
> 
> Reference is here.




You don't even have to go that far. It's right here!

http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/3...ons-answered-mike-mearls-jeremy-crawford.html


----------



## Abstruse (Jun 7, 2012)

Morrus said:


> You don't even have to go that far. It's right here!
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/3...ons-answered-mike-mearls-jeremy-crawford.html



I was trying to find the transcript on the WotC website. Sometimes I fear when I try to dig around on there that I'm going to stumble across a minotaur...


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jun 7, 2012)

This is one area where I feel strongly that D&D *should* resemble reality, in that wearing armor in combat is always preferable to not wearing armor in combat. The only people who should ever willingly go into combat without armor are people who cannot wear armor at all, or people who need to go without armor when they're not in combat.

And, quite frankly, the solution to this problem is as realistic as it is simple: *stop penalizing characters' Armor Class for wearing armor*. This is an artifact brought over from Rolemaster, in which the penalty to DB was more than offset by the protective benefits of the armor; it has absolutely no place in a game like D&D which makes no distinction between 'hit' and 'hurt'. In a game like D&D, it is neither balanced nor realistic.

Even if you have a Dexterity of 20, your Armor Class should be better in heavy armor than it is in light armor. Thus, if you absolutely *must* penalize Dexterity for wearing heavy armor, the amount of penalty-- for any near-human level of Dexterity-- must be smaller than the amount of difference between the AC granted by the best 'normal' light armor and the worst 'normal' heavy armor.

Let's go with 20 Dexterity, since that's our assumed PC maximum. That's +5 to AC. Now, assuming-- for the sake of argument-- that a man in heavy armor shouldn't be able to get *any* benefit from his Dexterity... that means that a full suit of chainmail needs to be at least five points better than a simple chain shirt. That doesn't make sense to me, I don't think it makes sense to anyone else, and it makes chainmail too damned good for people with no Dexterity bonus.

On the other hand, if Light Armor is no penalty, and Heavy Armor restricts the bonus to half your Dexterity bonus... then the minimum difference only has to be 2 points. Which makes a little more sense, with a chain shirt being only half of a full suit of chainmail and probably being made of lighter chain. 

Then, the only way to have a better Armor Class fighting in light armor versus the equivalent heavy armor is to have *superhuman* Dexterity-- at least 22-- in which case, it actually might, possibly, make a little sense.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Jun 7, 2012)

Totally (I'll also add "people who can't afford armor" to your exemptions). But there should be _some _reason why certain characters would choose to not wear heavy armor. AD&D just said magic-users can't wear armor, thieves can't wear better than leather, etc. That's not exactly an elegant solution, but I guess it works.

But can we then not have rangers wearing leather? I guess not, and I guess that makes sense--you want to fight, you get some good armor. Conan wearing armor when he could afford it, etc.


----------



## Abstruse (Jun 7, 2012)

The issue is less with no armor vs. heavy armor, it's with the frequency with which characters end up with 18s or 20s in the last few editions of the game. In 4e, if you played a rogue, ranger, assassin, and a few other classes, you were going to have a 20 Dex. In Pathfinder, you're frequently going to see 18-20 in Dex for those classes.

In 3rd and earlier editions when attributes were more frequently assigned by dice rolls, 18s were far more rare and 20s unheard of (if not impossible, depending on race). Having a 16-18 in Dexterity was pretty good for a rogue in 3rd, and 14-16 pretty good in 1st/2nd. The armor modifiers in 1st/2nd for high Dexterity were also lower, I think just getting you a +1 at 13, +2 at 16, and +3 and 18.

I don't think we really need to blame the armor for this one, but the inflation of the attributes.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 7, 2012)

Abstruse said:


> So no more "I'm 7th level and I haven't gotten my +2 weapon yet!" whining. A magic weapon's a powerful thing and since to-hit numbers and AC aren't going to scale nearly as much, that's going to be a flat +5% chance to hit for every +1 on the weapon. So that's a pretty big deal, even later on in the game.




It's even _more _needed if it makes you hit that much better.


----------



## Abstruse (Jun 7, 2012)

Fenes said:


> It's even _more _needed if it makes you hit that much better.



More desired, not more needed. In 4e and some respects 3.x, it was assumed that players would upgrade their armor and weapons at specific thresholds and monster difficulty was determined specifically with that in mind. In 4e, that expectation was that you'd get an entirely new set of gear every 6 levels minimum so that at 6th you'd have a +1 weapon or implement, +1 armor, and a +1 amulet/necklace for your non-armor defenses. If you didn't have that equipment, you were behind the expected curve and every encounter was going to be far more difficult than it should be. In 3rd, there wasn't really much of a requirement except "get a magic weapon", but 3.5 there was a sort of resource rush to get weapons of various types and enchantments so you could get around damage reduction. This carried over to Pathfinder.

In Next, though, you don't actually "need" a magic weapon. At least not until you come across a monster that has damage reduction and the wizard/cleric can't kill it with spells alone. Beyond that, there's no actual need for one in order to stay up to date. It's great to have one and I expect a lot of arguments to break out when one pops up, but they're not to be expected like they were in 4e.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Jun 7, 2012)

I've just realized something--armor proficiency is determined by class, and, looking at the theme system, it's unlikely there'll be any armor proficiency feats. This actually works perfectly--heavy armor can be way better than light armor, it's just that most people can't wear heavy armor.

Then the fighter can be cool because he wears the best armor, because the best armor is *actually the best armor.*


----------



## Aluvial (Jun 7, 2012)

Viktyr Korimir said:


> This is one area where I feel strongly that D&D *should* resemble reality, in that wearing armor in combat is always preferable to not wearing armor in combat. The only people who should ever willingly go into combat without armor are people who cannot wear armor at all, or people who need to go without armor when they're not in combat.
> 
> Even if you have a Dexterity of 20, your Armor Class should be better in heavy armor than it is in light armor. Thus, if you absolutely *must* penalize Dexterity for wearing heavy armor, the amount of penalty-- for any near-human level of Dexterity-- must be smaller than the amount of difference between the AC granted by the best 'normal' light armor and the worst 'normal' heavy armor.
> 
> ...



Can you give what you are thinking about in a chart?  I'm having trouble understanding what AC heavy armors would have.

Aluvial


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jun 7, 2012)

Abstruse said:


> In 3rd and earlier editions when attributes were more frequently assigned by dice rolls, 18s were far more rare and 20s unheard of (if not impossible, depending on race). Having a 16-18 in Dexterity was pretty good for a rogue in 3rd, and 14-16 pretty good in 1st/2nd. The armor modifiers in 1st/2nd for high Dexterity were also lower, I think just getting you a +1 at 13, +2 at 16, and +3 and 18.




Don't recall Classic off-hand, but in AD&D, the AC adjustment for an 18 DEX was -4 (the equivalent of +4 today)-- assuming that each point less than 18 was one point less, that meant your first AC bonus kicked in at 15.

But in AD&D, heavy armor also didn't stop you from getting your Dexterity bonus to AC. If you had 18 DEX, you got a -4 to AC in your birthday suit (AC6) and the same -4 to AC in platemail (AC-2).

The problem really isn't stat inflation. The problem is the misconception so many people have about the degree to which heavy armor limits your movement in combat. You may not be able to run as fast or jump as far as you could in a track suit-- which is already well reflected in the rules-- but it certainly doesn't keep you from putting either your shield or your blade in the path of an oncoming attack, and the heavy armor gives you *more* options for ways to block attacks with your superior reflexes and agility.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 7, 2012)

Abstruse said:


> In Next, though, you don't actually "need" a magic weapon. At least not until you come across a monster that has damage reduction and the wizard/cleric can't kill it with spells alone. Beyond that, there's no actual need for one in order to stay up to date. It's great to have one and I expect a lot of arguments to break out when one pops up, but they're not to be expected like they were in 4e.




Playing a character that hits 5% worse is not ok.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jun 7, 2012)

Aluvial said:


> Can you give what you are thinking about in a chart?  I'm having trouble understanding what AC heavy armors would have.




Sure. I'm eliminating medium armor for the simple reason that, with heavy armor being 1/2 DEX, there's no conceptual space between light and heavy.

Light Natural Armor:
Soft Leather: 12 + DEX

Light Metal Armor:
Brigandine: 13 + DEX
Hauberk: 14 + DEX

Heavy Natural Armor:
Lamellar: 15 + 1/2 DEX

Heavy Metal Armor:
Full Maille: 16 + 1/2 DEX
Field plate: 17 + 1/2 DEX
Jousting plate: 18 + 1/2 DEX

Thus, if your Dexterity is less than 18, your AC is always better in Full Maille than in a simple Hauberk--  you break even at DEX 18 because 14 + 4 and 16 + 2 both equal 18, and at DEX 20 you have a 1 point advantage in light armor.

You would need a Dexterity of 26 (+8) for a Hauberk to break even with Jousting Plate, at AC 22, and a Dexterity of 42 (+16) for fighting naked to break even with Jousting Plate at AC 26.

Compare that to the current rules, in which a character with a 20 DEX-- which is supposedly within the extreme range of Human capability-- gains no benefit whatsoever from wearing standard chainmail.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 7, 2012)

Fenes said:


> Playing a character that hits 5% worse is not ok.



Hmmh...

only if hitting is REALLY needed to have some effects other than doing damage.

If you hit 5% less with an at-will. No problem. If you miss all your encounter or dailies: ouch.

Also, if you gain real bonuses to hit, and don´t have to keep up with the curve, there is a point where you hit well enough to perform ok.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 7, 2012)

Viktyr Korimir said:


> Sure. I'm eliminating medium armor for the simple reason that, with heavy armor being 1/2 DEX, there's no conceptual space between light and heavy.
> 
> Light Natural Armor:
> Soft Leather: 12 + DEX
> ...



I guess these values are a bit too good for heavy armors. I wuld add in medium armors. Then I would lower all those armor values for your heavy armor by one point and add in heavy armor that is one point better than your given values:

Organic armor:
leather: AC 12+dex
hide: AC 14+1/2 dex (better than leather with dex 14)
Lamellar: AC 16

Metal armor:
Brigandine: AC 13+dex
chain shirt: AC 14+dex

Scale armor: AC 15+1/2dex
Breast plate: AC 16+1/2 dex

Field plate: AC 17
Full plate: AC 18
Jousting plate AC 19

This way, with a shield, you could go up to AC 21, which seems appropriate

Medium armor and light armor will allow for AC 20 with high dexterity. But medium armor is the armor of choice for people with 12-16 dexterity, that don´t want to be encoumbered.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 7, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Hmmh...
> 
> only if hitting is REALLY needed to have some effects other than doing damage.
> 
> ...




As far as I understand the DDN concept, you don't get "real bonuses" to to-hit. Any real bonus will be much more valuable then. And the higher you need to roll, the more important it is. If without it you only hit on a 17 and with it you hit on a 16, then it means your average damage per round just got up 25%.


----------



## Drowbane (Jun 7, 2012)

Armor does not make you harder to hit, if anything it slows you down and makes you easier to hit. What it does do is absorb some of the impact of a blow and/or turn a direct hit into a glancing blow.

With the focus on flat math I believe that armor should provide some minor Defense boost and some amount of DR based on how heavy your armor is. Or perhaps by armor type vs weapon type (Chainmail is nigh useless vs bludgeoning and piercing, but makes slashing weapons less useful, etc).

Shields could be a straight up % to deflect a blow, and maybe keep its piddly AC boost it has traditionally had. Makes you harder to hit, and can even turn a "hit" into a miss on %. example: Buckler 5% + 1% per level (cap 25% at level 20), Medium Shield 10%, Tower Shield 30%... whatever, those numbers are merely illustrative at this point. The point is that when it comes to shields... size matters. 

This % to miss worked fine for spells such as Blur and Displacement for years, and would bring shields up to the usefulness they should be. To build on this, perhaps if/when you successfully block outright your shield takes the dmg (1/2 what you would have? 1/4? full? other?).

edit: in AD&D armor class did not improve nearly as much as in later editions, and back then you could wear Full Plate and you still got your full Dex mod to AC.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 7, 2012)

Fenes said:


> As far as I understand the DDN concept, you don't get "real bonuses" to to-hit. Any real bonus will be much more valuable then. And the higher you need to roll, the more important it is. If without it you only hit on a 17 and with it you hit on a 16, then it means your average damage per round just got up 25%.



I know how to calculate dpr...

but if you only hit on a 17 anyway, you can´t really call it dpr...

Character classes, that should contribute well should probably hit more than 50% of the time. And there the effective dpr does not go up a lot.
On the other hand, if you try to apply a stunning effect that is wasted if you miss, missing 5% more often can be a real pain...

And it was actually said, that you get bonuses to to hit. And any bonus you get is a real bonus. Explicitely in one of the recent articles. A fighter most surely gets class based bonuses to to-hit. But it is not expected in the math. Which means, a class like the wizard will still be able to hit and defend himself in combat later on. But a fighter will hit most monsters quite often. Which will be taken into account in his personal advancement table and calcualted in the fighter´s expeted dpr per level.

If you look at the numbers you will notice, that the default assumtion seems to be hitting at 55%:

Leather armor with no bonus and proficient weapon with no bonus cancel each other out. So you are at a point, where hitting 5% more often is nice, but not gamebreaking if you hit 5% less often.
In the worst case you attack with a +2 bonus against AC 16. Which should not happen, if you are expecting to be in combat once in a while.

So mor realistic is attacking with a +5 bonus against AC 16. In the worst case. Here another +1 bonus would be about 10% increase in dpr. Which is noticeable, but not gamebreakingly so.

So if this should be another: if you don´t put a 20 into your main stat or you are screwed argument, you are wrong.


----------



## Drowbane (Jun 7, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Damage reduction against piercing, slashing or bludgeoning seems quite interesting.




3e lightly touched upon this, but only for certain monsters - not for armor.

In 2e (and maybe 1e?) there was an optional Armor Type vs Weapon Type table. Slashing weapons beat leather, bludgeoning beat chain, piercing beat plate... or something like that. Back in the day we only tried using this once or twice and dropped it as overly complex... so I can't really say as to how useful it was.

It might work nicely as DR.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 7, 2012)

It comes down to those without magic weapons not being up to par. That's not a good idea if you want players to care less about magic weapons.


----------



## slobo777 (Jun 7, 2012)

Drowbane said:


> 3e lightly touched upon this, but only for certain monsters - not for armor.
> 
> In 2e (and maybe 1e?) there was an optional Armor Type vs Weapon Type table. Slashing weapons beat leather, bludgeoning beat chain, piercing beat plate... or something like that. Back in the day we only tried using this once or twice and dropped it as overly complex... so I can't really say as to how useful it was.
> 
> It might work nicely as DR.




I remember that table well, and used it briefly. The main issue it had is that it compared manufactured weapons versus manufactured armour, so in a monster-bash made little difference. 

Rolemaster took this concept to extremes, and you had a table of all armour types with combat results for a certain score, for each indivisual weapon type (including sub-categories of tiny, small, medium, large etc bites and claws!) There were books and books of them . . .

I really like the idea though that it *matters* what sub-type of armour is worn, and that it's a choice of strengths and weaknesses when comparing e.g. leather with a chain shirt. If there's just one simple "best" for each of light armour and heavy armour, with progression and throwing away of old kit, then I think we lose a little richness from the game. I'd really like armour choice to be as much fun as weapon choice for the classes that use it.

Edit: Actually an "arms and armour" supplement with feats by weapon type and armour type, fighting style etc, sounds a lot like a player-side module with e.g. the simplified character in "heavy" armour fighting alongside another character where the player cares that it's scale armour, and has a special ability versus slashing attacks (for a feat cost, or in return for some reasonable known defect of scale armour).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 7, 2012)

Drowbane said:


> 3e lightly touched upon this, but only for certain monsters - not for armor.
> 
> In 2e (and maybe 1e?) there was an optional Armor Type vs Weapon Type table. Slashing weapons beat leather, bludgeoning beat chain, piercing beat plate... or something like that. Back in the day we only tried using this once or twice and dropped it as overly complex... so I can't really say as to how useful it was.
> 
> It might work nicely as DR.



I know about that table, but adding and subtracting from AC was a bit annoying.

Instead adding damage reduction vs certain types would be a simpler mechanic.

So light armor could give DR vs no type, medium vs one and heavy armor vs two types.


----------



## erleni (Jun 7, 2012)

I'm not against DR but we should see how it works with monster's damage at higher levels.
DR 2 is a big difference if a monster deals 1d4 damage but if it deals 3d10+8 then it's another matter.


----------



## The Red King (Jun 7, 2012)

True, keep in mind that this is still a work in progress.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 7, 2012)

I would leave the armor as is, give the med armors all dr of 1 or 2 vs any attacks targeting AC

Then do the same with heavy armor but make it 3-5 pts

Make magic + armor add both AC and dr


----------



## KidSnide (Jun 7, 2012)

Viktyr Korimir said:


> Sure. I'm eliminating medium armor for the simple reason that, with heavy armor being 1/2 DEX, there's no conceptual space between light and heavy.




I agree with your overall analysis, but disagree with this particular point.  Medium armor doesn't have to work differently than heavy armor.  The conceptual space for medium armor is "like heavy armor, but not as good."  The purpose of medium armor is to create classes (like the cleric) that need better protection than can be found in light armor, while still providing classes (like the fighter) that have even better protection.

                                         -   -   -

I would also like to see all armor types have a "prestige" form of mundane armor that is (a) better than the other armor of that weight class and (b) sufficiently more expensive that it's not available to most 1st or 2nd level characters.  This usually exists as "full plate" for heavy armor, but light and medium armor should also have "elven chain" and "mithral breastplate / dragon scale" to allow those characters to likewise strive for better equipment.

There may also be room for "tradeoff" armor that provides marginally better protection but with some kind of detriment.  Platemail sometimes fills this function for heavy armor (e.g. by providing no dex bonus).  I'm not sure what an appropriate penalty would be for light armor.

And, of course, each armor weight class should include "crap" armor that is for use by the impoverished, technologically under-advanced or otherwise underequipped.  PCs aren't expected to use this armor (except for characters starting as peasants or after suffering a serious financial misfortune), but it's important to have in the world so players can recognize under-equipped NPCs (like many humanoid monsters) when they see them.  It also lets DMs equip their NPCs realistically without providing a ton of valuable armor and weapons for PCs to loot.

-KS


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jun 7, 2012)

KidSnide said:


> I agree with your overall analysis, but disagree with this particular point.  Medium armor doesn't have to work differently than heavy armor.  The conceptual space for medium armor is "like heavy armor, but not as good."  The purpose of medium armor is to create classes (like the cleric) that need better protection than can be found in light armor, while still providing classes (like the fighter) that have even better protection.




Deliberately sub-optimal armors for people who don't have Heavy Armor proficiency or good Dexterity? Yeah, I guess I can see that-- as long as you're willing to accept it as red-headed stepchild armor that nobody wears if they have a choice. Or if Fighters/Paladins can choose (as a class feature, at mid-level) whether to be able to treat Medium Armor as Light or to gain additional bonuses from Heavy Armor. 

My main point of concern is ensuring that there are compelling mechanical reasons for the existence of each armor type-- including "it's cheap", "this is the best I'm allowed to wear", and "I get special bonuses from it".

So fighting naked is for Wizards (who can't do better) and Monks (who get special bonuses). Light Armor is for characters who need freedom of movement, even at the expense of better protection. Medium Armor is for people who can treat it like Light or who can't wear Heavy. And Heavy Armor is just the best protection available for anyone that isn't a Half-Djinn Githzerai.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Jun 7, 2012)

Fenes said:


> It comes down to those without magic weapons not being up to par. That's not a good idea if you want players to care less about magic weapons.




Being "up to par" is determined by how "par" is set.

The way 4e set "par" magic items with bonuses of +1 per 5 levels were necessary in order to meet it. If the PCs did not have those magic items (or the equivalent bonuses from another source) they were not "up to par."

5e is supposedly setting par at a point were characters do not need magic items to be "up to par." Having magic items will be an advantage and not a necessity. In theory you could run a game with totally mundane equipment and the characters would be fully effective.


----------



## Abstruse (Jun 7, 2012)

I've got to say I hate armor as DR in D&D. I play Shadowrun which has a somewhat similar take on armor, but it fits with Shadowrun's mechanics. In D&D, it just adds extra bookkeeping and screws around with HP, damage, and other parts of game balance. It really, really bugs me even though I know logically that it reflects reality more closely. Same thing with a soldier in heavy plate armor bouncing around dodging attacks. It's realistic and historically accurate, but it really messes with the feel of the game IMO.

Personally, I'd like to see both of those as optional modules in an advanced combat book. It is the sort of thing that should be available for the players who like it. But it shouldn't be the core mechanic because that's not how the game works damnit! Now get off my lawn you whippersnappers!


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jun 7, 2012)

ArmoredSaint said:


> So with the confirmation in a recent Rule-of-Three article that humans will receive some pretty hefty bonuses to starting ability scores, I have become convinced that low-level Rogues, etc. with an 18 Dexterity will be fairly common.
> 
> This means that even low-level Dex-based characters will be able to achieve the same Armor Class as a Fighter in plate armour (i.e. 17) by spending only a measly 25gp to purchase studded leather.
> 
> ...




I have to disagree.  I don't want the fighter to have the best AC - I want the fighter to be the guy who can take the most punishment.  The Rogue can have a great AC but just a FEW hits should have him either running for the cleric or unconcious in a puddle of his own blood.  Those same hits should be trivial to the fighter - mere flesh wounds or a mild bruise and him still standing saying - 'Is that all you got?'.  Defense inflation isn't the way for me - I would much rather see the fighter with two, even three times the HPs as a Rogue or Wizard but have only middling defenses.  Armour is not the be all end all of defense - speed and mobility count for way more in combat (in terms of being hit that is)


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 7, 2012)

On the "difference between armor being better AC means you need more gold". My experience is that this is not a good approach. The thing is you dont really have that much trouble getting the gold together. Then you get it, and by level X you have Dragon plate. So everyone who is a heavy armor wearer wears dragon plate. Then what? There is only really 3 armor types in the entire game : the best light, the best medium, the best heavy.

I just find this a really boring result. I would much prefer that armors have reasons to wear them and reasons not to wear them. That each type of armor you came up with could stand on its own merits and not be defined by its (irrelevant) cost.

On the armor grants DR bit. I looked ar DR on armor as a houserule in D&D past. I always dismissed it as I had trouble balancing it in as, generally, damage didnt scale enough to justify it as putting it in quickly became the path to high tolerance. Always looked good when I started, but by the time I had finished the calculations I always ended up throwing it out before it hit the table. The thing that is interesting here is the promise that damage will scale. How much by? Enough to balance in DR? There is potential for another armor defining facet to be introduced here.


----------



## KidSnide (Jun 8, 2012)

BobTheNob said:


> On the "difference between armor being better AC means you need more gold". My experience is that this is not a good approach. The thing is you dont really have that much trouble getting the gold together. Then you get it, and by level X you have Dragon plate. So everyone who is a heavy armor wearer wears dragon plate. Then what? There is only really 3 armor types in the entire game : the best light, the best medium, the best heavy.




That has been my experience in every version of D&D I've ever played.  Unless you want to make armor a lot more complicated than it is, there are only so may "best" choices.  Once the PCs get enough resources to get whatever choice is best for that character, the variety of party armor will reduce to those choices.  After that, everyone wants magic armor.

I don't think anyone has suggested a plausible alternative to that dynamic.  In 4e, PCs effectively started with their best armor (unless they took feats to get a better type later on).  I'd just like to see some options that are expensive enough that it takes a few levels to get there.  That allows DMs to postpone giving out magic items until after the PCs have acquired the best mundane items.

-KS


----------



## Thalain (Jun 8, 2012)

I believe DR is the best way to actually model heavy armor. In terms of "avoiding to get hit for any damage" a nimble but little armored user is equivalent to one who has heavy armor but no speed. However, a hit against a lightly armored person just hurts more than one that barely penetrates the joint of a heavy suit.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jun 8, 2012)

Thalain said:


> I believe DR is the best way to actually model heavy armor. In terms of "avoiding to get hit for any damage" a nimble but little armored user is equivalent to one who has heavy armor but no speed. However, a hit against a lightly armored person just hurts more than one that barely penetrates the joint of a heavy suit.




Rolemaster does this really, really well. D&D, not so much.


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Jun 8, 2012)

Holy Bovine said:


> I don't want the fighter to have the best AC - I want the fighter to be the guy who can take the most punishment.



And _I_ think that the Fighter having the best AC _is_ the best way to enable him to be able to take the most punishment without resorting to hit-point bloat.


----------



## Melhaic (Jun 8, 2012)

Heavy armor should grant DR: light armor allows you to be agile, avoiding blows. Heavy armor soaks it. Simple, and intuitive as well as distinguishing each clearly (more than simple bonuses would in my opinion).


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jun 8, 2012)

Melhaic said:


> Heavy armor should grant DR: light armor allows you to be agile, avoiding blows. Heavy armor soaks it. Simple, and intuitive as well as distinguishing each clearly (more than simple bonuses would in my opinion).




D&D doesn't account for degree of precision in a strike for damage. Armor as DR effectively makes you immune to minor threats-- which is bad-- and is barely helpful against major threats. If you're trading AC for DR, you're losing.


----------



## Melhaic (Jun 8, 2012)

I'm not saying AC should be traded for DR; rather DR should be in addition to a high AC (at least higher than light armor: i.e. a high dex rogue should approach a heavily armored fighter in AC, but the tank gets DR as well))


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 8, 2012)

Viktyr Korimir said:


> D&D doesn't account for degree of precision in a strike for damage. Armor as DR effectively makes you immune to minor threats-- which is bad-- and is barely helpful against major threats. If you're trading AC for DR, you're losing.




Thats if the DR was a flat amount. If the DR was a proportion of damage inflicted (say 1 point for every 10, rounded down. Or maybe good old 2e style 10% physical resistance), it works a little better.

The other issue with DR is one the additional effects associated with the hit. If, for instance, a ghoul hits you you have to make a save to avoid paralyses. AC is definitely a better option in this scenario as it reduce the chance you get paralyzed (i.e. you dont get hit as often, so you have to make the save less often = AC helps resist the paralysis effect).

These are all things I have gone through in the past when I have tried to implement DR from armor. For D&D, it aint easy.


----------



## Gorgoroth (Jun 8, 2012)

*I'd love to see DR in heavy armor*

please please please Wotc let's make this the edition that gets heavy armor right. Not in an optional module, but a simple, easy, quick, rule that is balanced and fun. I agree 100% with the other posters here saying there should be mechanical advantages to each armor up the line, not just financial ones to consider. I actually quite dislike not being able to wear plate at all unless trained. If the suit fits, wear it! 

One EASY way to balance heavy armor vs light, is to make it give -1 or (-2 untrained) to all attacks. You are treated as "clumsy". Then, as you progress as a fighter or with a heavy armor theme, you can overcome it. Has no one here ever played Pathfinder with Armor Training 1/2/3/etc for their fighters? Your max dex penalty in heavy armors goes away eventually.

One way to do DR is to just add HP to your guy when he wears armor. It's simple, effective, much easier to balance. This armor grants you +20 HP to your max when you wear it. Or whatever it is. It keeps combat quick, simulates DR without the extra math, and is way more granular. You still take that 1hp damage but it counts less. Granularity is good. Then your magic dragon plate can give you +50hp instead of the usual +20 for regular plate...opens up a wealth of more possibilities for magic armor. 

I'd actually be OK with light armor+high dex users having close to the AC as heavy armor, if DR or extra HP as DR system were used as well. It would allow a ghoul touch to be avoided/resisted just as easily.



Fighters should get two themes, that they can use for offense or defense-oriented themes, rangers can pick two from weapon styles or rogue styles or druid styles. A defense-oriented fighter could pick the heavy armor training to either allow more of his dex bonus in heavy armor, mitigate the -1 attack penalty I just proposed. You are a tank...you're slow..at first. Later on you become a master and just as nimble as in your birthday suit. After many years....

The best way to balance plate IMO is to make it uber defense / ac / dr/+hp AND give it a penalty to hit. Maybe plate gives -2 to hit, which, as we know in this edition, means a lot. If a wizard takes a plate-wearing theme...and eventually gets a light-magicky plate armor and has high enough level in his theme...he should be able to cast wearing magic plate just as a fighter should be able to jump and climb in it, i.e. quite well. Magical plate should be, well...magical.


----------



## YRUSirius (Jun 8, 2012)

Why all that 'complex' stuff like adding DR, extra HP, -1 attacks etc on heavy armor?

Why not just bump the AC by +1 or +2?

I don't get it.

-YRUSirius


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Jun 8, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Why not just bump the AC by +1 or +2?



I'm with you.  

I still think this is by far the best fix.  I believe that the supposedly delicately-balanced math can survive a +/-5-10% bump.

Note that those monsters in the Bestiary who are described in plate armour seem to be enjoying an 18 base AC (instead of the 17 AC the "How to Play" booklet shows) from it...


----------



## dervish (Jun 8, 2012)

Make heavy armor grant constitution to AC. Remove constitution from all hit point calculations to keep it balanced. Simple fix, and it makes it possible to play a low con character and not feel terrible about it.


----------



## Derren (Jun 8, 2012)

Gorgoroth said:


> please please please Wotc let's make this the edition that gets heavy armor right.




Problem is that "right" heavy armor would simply be the best armor around and everyone would try to get it unless he has a very specific reason not to wear it.

But D&D (sadly) still seems to be all about balance so it doesn't want a single, best, armor.


----------



## B.T. (Jun 8, 2012)

Fenes said:


> It comes down to those without magic weapons not being up to par. That's not a good idea if you want players to care less about magic weapons.



I want players to care about magic items quite a bit.  I want them to be rare, powerful, and coveted.  What I don't want is a character to need one to hit reliably.


----------



## Izumi (Jun 8, 2012)

What gives you all the impression a man in heavy armor is more difficult to strike or more difficult to dodge? Neither is actually true. With room to maneuver, an unarmored man of experience can easily escape a man in full plate or keep him at bay until he grows tired. The problem arises when he tries to KILL the Knight with urgency and/or he has a lot of friends. A plate-armored man is not so slow one can easily get to a vital opening. There are ways and methods to do so, however. (Talhoffer's 87th Recto 1459 shows a good tactic.) 

The answer to this problem isn't giving the fighter better AC than extremely nimble men. It's to inflate the fighter's hit points as a reflection of his superior skill to beat foes with the armor's advantages, and ability to endure the armor's disadvantages. They are taken in combination for the system, not individually, and what's more the higher AC of Full Plate comes from the Chainmail war game which rightly groups men in ranks. Unable to use their mobility on the field gives the foes of heavily armored men a decisive disadvantage. Other thoughts to consider are how many D&D battles are one on one? Shouldn't AC be divided by the  amount of surrounding attackers to honestly reflect reality better? Can they come out with a good compromise that will suit us simulationists, and the Lancelot in historically wrong armor-ists?


----------



## YRUSirius (Jun 8, 2012)

Too complex. Just too complex. Keep it dead simple. This is D&D.

-YRUSirius


----------



## Derren (Jun 8, 2012)

Izumi said:


> What gives you all the impression a man in heavy armor is more difficult to strike or more difficult to dodge? Neither is actually true. With room to maneuver, an unarmored man of experience can easily escape a man in full plate or keep him at bay until he grows tired.




Nonsense. A unarmored person is at a disadvantage when fighting someone in full plate unless he is running away. If those two are actually fighting there is hardly any advantage the unarmored man has over the armored on. Armor allows for better defense (obviosuly as harming him is very hard, especially when his opponent has no armor piercing weapon) and better offense as the armored combatant can act more aggressively as his armor protects him from many blows which are not carefully aimed, blows which would disable a unarmored opponent.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 8, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Too complex. Just too complex. Keep it dead simple. This is D&D.
> 
> -YRUSirius




How complex is take x less damage if the attack targets AC?

Where x is equal to armor number+ magic enhancement


----------



## YRUSirius (Jun 8, 2012)

It's too complex. It adds a whole another layer of complexity that isn't really needed.

Always do the mother test: "Would your mother find this too complex in actual play, would she understand it? Would she need it to enjoy the game?"

-YRUSirius


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 8, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> It's too complex. It adds a whole another layer of complexity that isn't really needed.
> 
> Always do the mother test: "Would your mother find this too complex in actual play, would she understand it? Would she need it to enjoy the game?"
> 
> -YRUSirius




Um I asked my mom thought that was way less complex then choosing a race and class


----------



## YRUSirius (Jun 8, 2012)

Yeah, for sure.

"So, wait, what is magic enhancement again? Why do I get magic enhancement on this AC number but not on this DR number? And why does only the heavy armor get this DR number, why not light armor too? Shields? Are there spells to increase this DR number?"

"Wait, why does this goblin only take 4 damage? Oh, heavy armor I forgot..."

etc. etc. etc.



Instead: "Hey, cool, heavy armor gives me this AC number, I'll note it down right here."



-YRUSirius


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 8, 2012)

So how do we make heavy AND light armors both useful and diffrent?


----------



## Derren (Jun 8, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> So how do we make heavy AND light armors both useful and diffrent?




Why should light armor be as useful as heavy armor?
It has the advantage of one being faster and it can be worn on more occacions. Isn't that enough? Heavy armor is for protection. Light armor is for when you can't wear heavy armor.


----------



## jadrax (Jun 8, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Always do the mother test: "Would your mother find this too complex in actual play, would she understand it? Would she need it to enjoy the game?"




This seems a very bad idea, as my mother's favourite systems are GURPs and Rolemaster.


----------



## Abstruse (Jun 8, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> How complex is take x less damage if the attack targets AC?
> 
> Where x is equal to armor number+ magic enhancement



Because damage reduction rules have never really been presented that cleanly, especially when there are exceptions (silver, cold iron, +1 enhancement, etc.) 

It also really screws around with game balance. Look at the Stirges from the Next playtest. They're supposed to be nothing more than an irritating swarm that does a tiny bit of damage...until they latch onto you and start draining away. Adding DR to armor negates that sort of monster. Or ones that do a small amount of damage but poison you for lots of damage. If they can't do that 1 point on a hit, they don't get to do the 1d6 damage every round until you make a Constitution save or get an antitoxin. Then you get into arguments with the player stating that their armor covers everything and the DM who wants the monster to be worth the XP reward states that there's going to be gaps in the armor somewhere and the player saying "nuh-uh!" and so on and so forth.

Armor made out of specific harder materials getting DR like adamantine, that's a different story. But that's also a pretty nice reward akin to a magic item and can be controlled more easily than just any heavy armor granting DR.

For the record, I'm going to state my bias on this one...I've got a soft spot for stirges as enemies since I live in Southeast Texas and get to deal regularly with mosquitoes that come pretty damn close to them in size and ferocity.


----------



## YRUSirius (Jun 8, 2012)

jadrax said:


> This seems a very bad idea, as my mother's favourite systems are GURPs and Rolemaster.




Hehe.

Does "archetypical" mother work better for you? I doubt that all the mothers of the world who just play monopoly with their kids would play rolemaster as their RPG of choice. 

-YRUSirius


----------



## ianleblanc (Jun 8, 2012)

I’m late to the party, I though I’d poke at a few ideas and see if they get more creative juices flowing.
 


Drowbane said:


> Shields could be a straight up % to deflect a blow, and maybe keep its piddly AC boost it has traditionally had. Makes you harder to hit, and can even turn a "hit" into a miss on %. example: Buckler 5% + 1% per level (cap 25% at level 20), Medium Shield 10%, Tower Shield 30%... whatever, those numbers are merely illustrative at this point. The point is that when it comes to shields... size matters.




  I think having a second percentile role gets rather complicated and gamy. Also it neglects the fact that blocking with a shield can still be rather painful (certainty bruising and winding the user and even potentially breaking ones arm). This would neglect HP being (at least partly) an abstraction philosophy that the designers have adopted.

 


UngeheuerLich said:


> I know about that table, but adding and subtracting from AC was a bit annoying.
> 
> Instead adding damage reduction vs certain types would be a simpler mechanic.
> 
> So light armor could give DR vs no type, medium vs one and heavy armor vs two types.




  I totally get where you are coming from (having lived it as well), but I think that calculating DR on every hit is much longer than adding AC once at the beginning of the fight.

  Players are fighting orcs with spears, ok everyone with piercing resistance gets +2 AC for the duration of the fights.

OR

Players are fighting orcs with spears, every hit against players with piercing resistance requires an additional subtraction (This calculation is also much easier to forget).

 Also, making the DR scale with damage is night impossible. But with flat math, armor resistance in the form of +AC is much more feasible.However I very much like the idea of each kind of armor providing 0, 1 or 2 types of resistance. I just think that that resistance should be expressed as + to AC instead.

 


Melhaic said:


> I'm not saying AC should be traded for DR; rather DR should be in addition to a high AC (at least higher than light armor: i.e. a high dex rogue should approach a heavily armored fighter in AC, but the tank gets DR as well))




The problems with DR (as much as I agree that it is intuitive), is that:
 -       It doesn’t scale well with damage.
 -       Doesn't account for very precise but low damage attacks.
 -       It requires significantly more additional calculations, which make it very gamey and prone to forgetting.
 

 


BobTheNob said:


> On the "difference between armor being better AC means you need more gold". My experience is that this is not a good approach. The thing is you dont really have that much trouble getting the gold together. Then you get it, and by level X you have Dragon plate. So everyone who is a heavy armor wearer wears dragon plate. Then what? There is only really 3 armor types in the entire game : the best light, the best medium, the best heavy.
> 
> I just find this a really boring result. I would much prefer that armors have reasons to wear them and reasons not to wear them. That each type of armor you came up with could stand on its own merits and not be defined by its (irrelevant) cost.




 Definitely agree that this is a problem!
 
Possible solutions:
 - Different armors offer different resistances (all heavy armors would resist 2 types of weapons, but it would be 2 different types depending on the armor.)
 - Different armors affect different skills (chain mail -5 to sneak, scale mail -5 to athletics, plate -10 to swim, etc).
 - Different armors break or are repaired differently
 
I really like the idea of having armors and weapons occasionally break. When a mob rolls a critical hit, there be a flat 10% chance that the players armor or weapon breaks. (broken armors could lose half of their AC bonus or something)
 Might not be worth having this happen to mobs, as it could get long and distracting, but on PC’s it could justify the whole having to keep back up weapons and having to purchase new armors, with the best maybe not always available or affordable. Would also open up interesting skills like weapon/armor smith.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jun 8, 2012)

Viktyr Korimir said:


> Heavy Metal Armor:
> Full Maille: 16 + 1/2 DEX
> Field plate: 17 + 1/2 DEX
> Jousting plate: 18 + 1/2 DEX



Actually, Heavy Metal armor has a long and storied tradition of providing minimal coverage. Evidence below.


----------



## Njall (Jun 8, 2012)

I'm fine with heavy armor not providing the absolute highest AC, as long as it's still on par with the highest AC achievable in light/medium armor. 
After all, plate armor was conceived to fight human opponents wielding human sized weapons; I doubt that when facing something the size of a grizzly, wielding a bigass axe, it would be as effective: just dodging the hell outta the way might prove more useful than hoping your armor can absorb and disperse the force of the blow, and dodging is easier when you don't have a frickin' greathelm blocking half your field of view.

However, if wearing heavy armor is supposed to be a class feature, then it should be better than light and medium armor; I don't know, maybe  let it grant a bonus to damage due to the fact that you're wearing 15 kg of steel, or a bonus to str and con saving throws because you're encased in steel. Whatever, just give heavy armor users something to make it worthy of the name of "class feature".  
AC 7? Doesn't cut it, IMHO. Not even close.


----------



## Gorgoroth (Jun 8, 2012)

*.*



YRUSirius said:


> Too complex. Just too complex. Keep it dead simple. This is D&D.
> 
> -YRUSirius




Exactly. Add +20 to the fighter's maximum HP when he dons the armor

simple enough for you?

I would also give a -1 to hit with the plate, because let's face it, you ARE more clumsy with it on. -2 if wearing the armor untrained. Since +ses and -ses are very hard to come by in this edition, it would be a huge disadvantage for low-str people to wear plate if not trained properly, and not only that even with training, should be trading a bit of offense potential for defense. I'd rather be able to kill an enemy 5% slower than 5 enemies get to kill me 20% faster.

EDIT : wait, not really sure that'd work with healing..sigh

Maybe a simple DR mechanic would be best. I'd trade -1 to hit per DR, mitigated by 1 for training, 2 for training + expertise (theme bonus at a certain level). so a guy in splint mail, with DR 2, training in medium armor and with the fighter theme for heavy armor fighting, would have no penalty...but a full plate with DR 5 would be insanely slow. Magic would reduce the penalty by 1 per +, so a fighter, at say, level 5 or so, with "Armor training 1", would have like -2 to hit. He'd have to be maybe 9th level to fight in full plate +1 with no to-hit penalty.

I'm comfortable with some kobold NEVER being able to hurt me with his dagger, after I spent 1500gp and a month waiting for my iron man suit. the little buggers would have to get their ogre friend to come give me a few whacks, or push me into a pit or a pool of acid. Bad, bad little doggies


----------



## Derren (Jun 8, 2012)

Gorgoroth said:


> Exactly. Add +20 to the fighter's maximum HP when he dons the armor
> 
> simple enough for you?
> 
> ...




And what happens when a fighter with 19HP takes off the armor? Or when a fighter who has only lost 15 HP takes off his armor. How much of "his" HP has he lost? And at which rate does armor HP heal?

Also, who says that you are more clumsy in armor? Thats a (common) misconception (as would be that you are very slow in heavy armor)
[sblock]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4]How to Mount a Horse in Armor and Other Chivalric Problems - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S_Q3CGqZmg&feature=related]Gladiatoria : Part 1/6 : Swordfight in Armour : Hammaborg - YouTube[/ame]
[/sblock]

PS: A dagger was still considered a dangerous weapon for someone in plate armor, especially when swarmed. More so than a sword.


----------



## YRUSirius (Jun 8, 2012)

Nope, still too complex.

Nothing beats the simplicity of adjusting values instead of introducing new kind of values that behave in a different kind of way than the already established values.

-YRUSirius


----------



## B.T. (Jun 8, 2012)

Gorgoroth said:


> Exactly. Add +20 to the fighter's maximum HP when he dons the armor
> 
> simple enough for you?
> 
> ...



And this is simpler than giving the fighter an additional +1 to AC?


----------



## slobo777 (Jun 8, 2012)

I expect that:

1) AC bonuses for light/heavy will vary from the playtest original values.

2) We will see differences between light and heavy armour appear in themes and backgrounds, with text like "Whilst you are wearing heavy armour, then [benefit]". Light armoured character will get benefits that are in line with being agile. Heavy armoured characters will get benefits that bring to mind resilience.

3) There *may* be an arms and armour module which goes more in depth, and creates more interesting differences between the types (or even individual pieces) of armour.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 8, 2012)

TarionzCousin said:


> Actually, Heavy Metal armor has a long and storied tradition of providing minimal coverage. Evidence below.









Taarna can wear whatever she wants and is still a badass, because, ya know...

Talk about a Paladin.


----------



## Gorgoroth (Jun 8, 2012)

*I would love that*

But I don't see how you can balance the game properly with new armor systems tacked on in optional modules.

I get what you guys are saying...keep things simple. But things should be as simple as they possibly can, but NO SIMPLER. If heavy armor gets just +ses to AC over what the current playtest values are...that's fine. But then light armor wearers will start complaining that they get hit too often, or that the fighters get hit too seldom, or whatever...

I just agree with the OP that the days of Dex is a god stat should be over.


----------



## Derren (Jun 8, 2012)

Gorgoroth said:


> But then light armor wearers will start complaining that they get hit too often




Working as intended.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 8, 2012)

Derren said:


> Working as intended.




Yes, like Conan or Aragorn wearing certain armour types, depending on the task at hand, should all be viable.

Also, naked Beowulf?


----------



## Derren (Jun 8, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Yes, like Conan or Aragorn wearing certain armour types, depending on the task at hand, should all be viable.
> 
> Also, naked Beowulf?




Conan wore the heaviest armor he could find, including full plate when he was king. Aragon wore leather armor because he wanted to be stealthy which is a fair tradeoff. And while I have not read it I am pretty sure nowhere in the Beowulf saga he is described as being naked.

And before you come with 300, hoplites were actually very heavily armored.


----------



## Votan (Jun 8, 2012)

My general preference is to see reasonable armor decisions modeled in the game mechanics.  Armor is something that D&D has always had trouble with and, unless fantastical is the only playstyle, something that I would like to see done well.  The closest to "well done" I can think of in the D&D family is Saga edition where armor became less useful as you leveled unless you were a soldier.  That modeled the Star Wars universe where armor was an unsual choice among heros but common among minions (like Stormtroopers).  

But if one wants to model combat accurately, probably the biggest problem is how little shields and helms contribute.  One can find a lot of light armored soldiers -- Vikings or Hoplites (for example).  But it is rare indeed to find infantry (pre-full plate) who were not using shields (maybe peasant levies?).  And a shield makes the head into one of the better targets . . .  Even the Norman knight had a kite shield, metal helm (with nasal) and then lighter body armor.  

So who did not wear armor?  Ships crew (sun, heat, slippery decks).  Deep desert fighters (heat).  Gladiators and duelists (stylized combat).  But none of these groups was ever delighted to run into armored opponents.


----------



## Skyscraper (Jun 8, 2012)

I hope for damage reduction with heavy armor, and perhaps some with medium armor also.

As a second point, I'd probably limit the DR to weapon attacks only, but of course that would increase the power of spellcasters, so it would have to be taken into account when designing classes.


----------



## Derren (Jun 8, 2012)

Good point (except for the Hoplites. While equipment was not standartized they often wore bronze breastplates which was at that time heavy armor).

I know of only one nation which did not use shields and that were the japanese (because peseants used spears and samurai were also archers). But if there is one thing D&D portrays even worse than heavy armor then it is shields.


----------



## Votan (Jun 8, 2012)

Derren said:


> Conan wore the heaviest armor he could find, including full plate when he was king. Aragon wore leather armor because he wanted to be stealthy which is a fair tradeoff. And while I have not read it I am pretty sure nowhere in the Beowulf saga he is described as being naked.
> 
> And before you come with 300, hoplites were actually very heavily armored.




I think that this might have been when he swims into the lair of Grendel's mother.  A long distance, under-sea swim is likely to be another case of a trade-off.  

Conan varied his armor based on what he was doing but I agree -- he seemed to wear armor whenever it made sense.  Fighting on the pictish border was dangerous enough without it.  And he was modeled on the Celts who really were lightly armored (although a quick scan shows a lot of shields which helps a great deal).  

But ask the celts what they thought about the Romans.

Aragorn I put into a different group.  For most of the Lord of the Rings he was travelling.  Light armor is a great trade-off for less sweltering on a trip.  I have worn armor myself and never seen a serious mobility penalty but I have seen a massive heat exhaustion factor.  If you want to travel long distances then trade-offs make sense.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 8, 2012)

Derren said:


> Conan wore the heaviest armor he could find, including full plate when he was king. Aragon wore leather armor because he wanted to be stealthy which is a fair tradeoff. And while I have not read it I am pretty sure nowhere in the Beowulf saga he is described as being naked.
> 
> And before you come with 300, hoplites were actually very heavily armored.





Oh, man, you're preaching to the converted, way more on your side then you seem to realise.


----------



## 4th ed lurker (Jun 8, 2012)

I prefer the idea of armour reducing damage but not in the traditional DR sense of subtracting from the damage taken. That method means that you are impervious to mild attacks but doesn't help against a giant's club. 

The best suggestion I have seen is for heavy armour to grant disadvantage to damage rolls against the wearer. I can't find the post or author who submitted this (it was in one of the first play test posts) but I think it is an excellent idea. Low damage attacks would still hurt you in full plate so one can not ignore a goblin's d6 but it would help against a minotaur's 3d6+6. It would introduce quite a few additional rolls though coloured dice would minimise the time this added. This method would scale automatically with the feared HP bloat by level and be relevant for a character's entire career. So even if the rogue had the same AC as a fighter, the fighter would still be taking less damage on average per attack and as has been said, armour doesn't prevent hits, it absorbs damage. Do you think this is a viable option?


----------



## YRUSirius (Jun 8, 2012)

Again: Why not just AC +1/+2?

-YRUSirius


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 8, 2012)

to give an additional benefit over high dexterity without making high dex characters unviable.

But on the other hand: i would hate DR on enemy creatures. So maybe some kind of temp hp. Could help the poor kobolds.


----------



## YRUSirius (Jun 9, 2012)

But do high Dex characters really need the same AC? They'll have a higher Dex which is a very good saving throw. And they'll have +5 feet speed in comparison to characters in heavy armor and might not have disadvantage on checks to hide and move silently. There needs to be a trade off for those things. 1 AC point difference seems pretty balanced to me.

-YRUSirius


----------



## Derren (Jun 9, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> to give an additional benefit over high dexterity without making high dex characters unviable.




Why would it make high dex characters unviable when characters who do not wear armor are disadvantaged when standing on the frontline?

Normally, classes who wear light armor are not the ones who are supposed to stand toe to toe with the enemy (rogues, archers, wizards). And why should high dex characters not also wear the best armor they can when they expect heavy combat? Just because someone wears full plate it doesn't mean that dexterity doesn't also help avoiding blows.


----------



## Votan (Jun 9, 2012)

Derren said:


> Why would it make high dex characters unviable when characters who do not wear armor are disadvantaged when standing on the frontline?
> 
> Normally, classes who wear light armor are not the ones who are supposed to stand toe to toe with the enemy (rogues, archers, wizards). And why should high dex characters not also wear the best armor they can when they expect heavy combat? Just because someone wears full plate it doesn't mean that dexterity doesn't also help avoiding blows.




Exactly.  In actual battle, everyone wears the best armor that they can find unless they need the mobility.  Either for range of motion (archers) or long periods of fast movement (skirmishers).  

Light fighters should be viable, but it would be odd if they were vastly more effective than heavy fighters.


----------



## Derren (Jun 9, 2012)

Votan said:


> Light fighters should be viable, but it would be odd if they were vastly more effective than heavy fighters.




To clarify, they should be viable in their own role (skirmisher, etc.) but not in the role of a "traditional" front line fighter.


----------



## YRUSirius (Jun 9, 2012)

Yeah, that's why they have +5 feet speed, better dex saving throws, better hiding capabilities etc.

-YRUSirius


----------



## Njall (Jun 9, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Yeah, that's why they have +5 feet speed, *better dex saving throws*, better hiding capabilities etc.
> 
> -YRUSirius




This is a function of higher dexterity, it's got nothing to do with light armor.
It's like saying that, since you're wearing heavy armor, and you're free to put your 18 elsewhere, say constitution, heavy armor provides a bonus to con saving throws and hit points.


----------



## YRUSirius (Jun 9, 2012)

And?

These are balancing factors you need to account for.

-YRUSirius


----------



## Votan (Jun 9, 2012)

This seemed on topic:

HEMA Alliance Forum • View topic - Quarterstaff and the Armoured Man.


----------



## Njall (Jun 9, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> And?
> 
> These are balancing factors you need to account for.
> 
> -YRUSirius




If they are, then heavy armor dude ( no need for high dex, same AC+More HP+higher con based saving throws ) has the upper hand anyway in terms of staying power, even if their AC is even.


----------



## YRUSirius (Jun 9, 2012)

Cool, then we might not even need DR, +temp hp, etc.

-YRUSirius


----------



## Njall (Jun 9, 2012)

Votan said:


> This seemed on topic:
> 
> HEMA Alliance Forum • View topic - Quarterstaff and the Armoured Man.




Can we avoid dragging realism into this argument, please? 
D&D isn't a pvp game, so there's no point comparing a rapierist and a fully armored, knight style guy, because ideally they're not going to face each other: they're going to face goblins, orcs and hobgoblins, against whom heavy armor fares just fine, and they're also going to face hill giants, dragons, gnolls, titans and a ton other creatures that are just so big that they can just snap your neck  or trample you regardless of how much steel you're wearing, monsters that an actual heavy armored dude never faced irl. 
So, while realism works fine as a benchmark if we consider a fight between human sized combatants, I really doubt that it's applicable wholesale to your average D&D campaign. Also, I'm pretty sure the guy whose post you linked never faced a dex 18 ( or dex 20 ) rapierist, so we'll never know who has the better AC irl


----------



## Gorgoroth (Jun 9, 2012)

Derren said:


> But if there is one thing D&D portrays even worse than heavy armor then it is shields.




Good point, there was another thread about shields...but no sensible armor system should be designed without shields in mind, and certainly not tacked on as an afterthought.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 9, 2012)

I only see one reasonable solution.

-O


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 9, 2012)

Should we bring back shields to only apply to a certain amount of enemies you are engaged with?

Or a reactive move?


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 9, 2012)

Njall said:


> Can we avoid dragging realism into this argument, please?
> D&D isn't a pvp game, so there's no point comparing a rapierist and a fully armored, knight style guy, because ideally they're not going to face each other: they're going to face goblins, orcs and hobgoblins, against whom heavy armor fares just fine, and they're also going to face hill giants, dragons, gnolls, titans and a ton other creatures that are just so big that they can just snap your neck  or trample you regardless of how much steel you're wearing, monsters that an actual heavy armored dude never faced irl.
> So, while realism works fine as a benchmark if we consider a fight between human sized combatants, I really doubt that it's applicable wholesale to your average D&D campaign. Also, I'm pretty sure the guy whose post you linked never faced a dex 18 ( or dex 20 ) rapierist, so we'll never know who has the better AC irl






What kind of equipment do Drow, Hobgoblins, and other evil humanoids use?


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 9, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> What kind of equipment do Drow, Hobgoblins, and other evil humanoids use?




Well the Drow "used" to make armour and weapons that were influenced by background/radiant energy that made their armours and weapons magical; when exposed to daylight, started to weaken, and destroy.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 9, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Well the Drow "used" to make armour and weapons that were influenced by background/radiant energy that made their armours and weapons magical; when exposed to daylight, started to weaken, and destroy.





...and evil humans?


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 9, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> ...and evil humans?




...do _The Evil That Men Do_...

Great film.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 9, 2012)

Beowulf swam across the North Sea in full mail, which he explicitly credits with preserving his life from the bites of a hundred poisonous sea serpents dogging him most of the way.

At that moment in history, mail (chainmail) was the best armor even a king could buy.

There is no reason to surmise Beowulf ever purposefully chose to wear any lesser armor into battle.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 9, 2012)

Njall said:


> Also, I'm pretty sure the guy whose post you linked never faced a dex 18 ( or dex 20 ) rapierist, so we'll never know who has the better AC irl




IRL, the Dex 18 guy in heavy armor, of course.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 9, 2012)

*If we care about realism...*

There is no fundamental reason that shields should have a number of opponents limit and Dex not have the same.

There is a practical limit on how many potential attackers you can keep you eye on, somewhere in the ballpark of 2 or less.  To everyone else, you are flatfooted, and need to bank on luck and armor.

That is a big reason that armor was so valued.  Even if you were the rare specialized and seasoned combatant with the exotic tricks to adequately handle a better equipped man in a fair mano-a-mano fight, in messier combats there were going to be people chucking javelins at you from where you were not looking.  Is AC 10 really such a great idea?


----------



## Njall (Jun 9, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> ...and evil humans?




Not sure I see your point. Evil humans, drow and so forth are NPCs. Since monsters in DDN don't seem to use the same creation rules PCs use, they get whatever AC is right for them while wearing whatever armor the setting considers appropriate for them. Creating a functional, balanced armor table's got nothing to do with NPCs, as only PCs will end up using it, and NPCs will use it as a benchmark at best.


----------



## Njall (Jun 9, 2012)

Ridley's Cohort said:


> IRL, the Dex 18 guy in heavy armor, of course.




Not sure I agree. IRL, the guy in heavy armor has to keep up with its weight for the entire length of the fight. In some fights, against certain ( a large chunk of, actually ) opponents, that may prove a definite disadvantage.
AC in D&D represents your average defensive capabilities against a pretty wide range of enemies. Sure, in a duel the guy in plate's AC is better. Against some other threat, when  wearing 15+ kg of metal is not as useful as it tires you out and limits your FoV to boot, I'm not so sure he's got the better AC. 
Since ( thankfully ) the game doesn't differentiate between "AC vs large" and "AC vs medium", "guy in heavy armor is harder to damage in a duel than unarmored guy" does not translate directly into "he's got the better AC ( over the course of the adventure, against a variety of foes )" in game terms.


----------



## Derren (Jun 9, 2012)

Njall said:


> Not sure I agree. IRL, the guy in heavy armor has to keep up with its weight for the entire length of combat. In some fights, against certain ( a large chunk of, actually ) opponents, that may prove a definite disadvantage.




You have a very skewed view of armor. A soldier today carries much more weight than someone in full plate which is also not distributed as well as the armor. And they do not drop from exhaustion after half an hour of battle.

If you want to go for defense there is no way around heavy armor. Someone with high dexterity but no armor will still have a big disadvantage to someone with well made full plate. Especially when the one in armor is also dexterous. You only wear no/light armor when you can't afford heavy one or when a other value is more important than protection (speed, stealth, ease of travel, etc.)

My proposal:
High dex light armor no shield = no dex heavy armor no shield < High dex heavy armor no shield = High dex light armor with shield = No dex heavy armor with shield < High Dex heavy armor with shield.


----------



## Njall (Jun 9, 2012)

Derren said:


> You have a very skewed view of armor. A soldier today carries much more weight than someone in full plate which is also not distributed as well as the armor. And they do not drop from exhaustion after half an hour of battle.
> 
> If you want to go for defense there is no way around heavy armor. Someone with high dexterity but no armor will still have a big disadvantage to someone with well made full plate. Especially when the one in armor is also dexterous. You only wear no/light armor when you can't afford heavy one or when a other value is more important than protection (speed, stealth, ease of travel, etc.)
> 
> ...





Modern soldiers don't drop from exahustion, but they're not fighting in melee all the time either. Also, I've never claimed that they'd "drop from exhaustion". I merely said that carrying around 20+ kg of steel will tire you out and slow you down eventually, and this, in turn, will make dodging and parrying ( as well as attacking ) more difficult over an extended period of time. Usually, it doesn't matter, because if you're fighting someone that can't get through your armor you can just not care and keep hacking; when a single blow can snap your neck, or send you flying, though, being slower can ( and will ) make a difference.  
I agree that heavy armored combatants should have the advantage against human sized, armed opponents in a duel. However, that's not the only thing AC simulates in game terms. 
How good does wearing plate armor do you against something the size of a gorilla? An elephant? A dragon? You're trying to apply real life experience to a game that assumes fictional, but very realistic threats, the kind of threat that a trained, armored combatant never faced. 
Did big game hunters ever wear heavy armor? Because half the fights, in D&D, are closer to a fight with a rampaging mammoth rather than your average duel, and AC needs to keep that into account.


----------



## Derren (Jun 9, 2012)

Njall said:


> How good does wearing plate armor do you against something the size of a gorilla? An elephant? A dragon? You're trying to apply real life experience to a game that assumes fictional, but very realistic threats, the kind of threat that a trained, armored combatant never faced.
> Did big game hunters ever wear heavy armor? Because half the fights, in D&D, are closer to a fight with a rampaging mammoth rather than your average duel, and AC needs to keep that into account.




Yes, armor was sometimes worn when hunting boars. Now imagine they would hunt something more dangerous. And don't forget that the downside of heavy armor in a hunt is the noise. When your prey doesn't flee from you armor becomes even more viable.
Arms and Armor in Renaissance Europe | Thematic Essay | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Against an gorilla? Saves you from its bite and claws. Heavy armor can save you from being impaled by an elephant and the claws of a dragon would also have a bit of trouble to penetrate heavy armor. At least more trouble than killing an unarmored person. Also, plate mail would protect you from glancing hits by its fire breath.


----------



## Njall (Jun 9, 2012)

Derren said:


> Yes, armor was sometimes worn when hunting boars. Now imagine they would hunt something more dangerous. And don't forget that the downside of heavy armor in a hunt is the noise. When your prey doesn't flee from you armor becomes even more viable.
> Arms and Armor in Renaissance Europe | Thematic Essay | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art
> 
> Against an gorilla? Not so much. Heavy armor can save you from being impaled by an elephant and the claws of a dragon would also have a bit of trouble to penetrate heavy armor. At least more trouble than killing an unarmored person. Also, plate mail would protect you from glancing hits by its fire breath.




A boar weights about 90 kg, I'd say it's a human sized threat.
A bear can reach 800 kg, IIRC. 
An elephant, up to 5000 kg ( according to wiki, the largest elephant ever weighted like 10000 kgs).
A piercing blow from something with that mass will just pierce through your armor, and if it doesn't, it will send you flying. Wearing steel might protect you from a glancing blow at best, but it will make dodging blows and moving around way more difficult, and, again, wearing a helmet, especially a closed one, does limit your FoV quite a bit. That's expecially significant when you're facing a large opponent, because they can (and will ) attack you from the side way more easily, and a single blow can end the fight outright.


----------



## Derren (Jun 9, 2012)

Njall said:


> An elephant, up to 5000 kg ( according to wiki, the largest elephant ever weighted like 10000 kgs).
> A blow from something with that mass will just pierce through your armor, and if it doesn't, it will send you flying.




No. A elephant weights a lot, but it can't use all that power to attack you unless it tramples you and then armor would be useless. But when hit by its trunk or tusk armor will protect you while the unarmored guy will be impaled.
Also, the FoV in armor wasn't that limited as you seemed to believe.

You constantly forget or ignore that heavy armor was used in warfare for centuries. That means that the art of crafting armor was very sophisticated and that armor simply worked on the battle field which includes giving you are good enough FoV to participate in combat, duel or mass and didn't tire you out so much that you were unable to fight after a short while.

And comparing a hunt with a fight with a dragon is silly. People didn't wear armor in a hunt often because they required stealth and because the prey was not that dangerous (but could still kill if you had bad luck). A fight against a dragon on the other hand would not be a hunt but war which means the full equipment would be used.


----------



## Njall (Jun 9, 2012)

Derren said:


> No. A elephant weights a lot, but it can't use all that power to attack you unless it tramples you and then armor would be useless. But when hit by its trunk or tusk armor will protect you while the unarmored guy will be impaled.
> Also, the FoV in armor wasn't that limited as you seemed to believe.




Even if he doesn't use all 5000 kgs, he'll still send you flying. Besides, we're not talking elephants here, we're talking intelligent, sometimes armed opponents as big as elephants. If people didn't bother wearing heavy armor against elephants, that can't use all of their mass, I doubt it would be much use against something that can.

And yeah, a helmet severly impairs your FoV. Do try sparring with a helmet up. Wearing a boxing helmet, for example, is a significant disadvantage in terms of FoV, and, while I've never sparred with a plate helmet up, I'm quite confident that this  restricts your FoV way more than this.
Usually, that's not a problem because the protection it offers offsets the risks, but against something that's big enough to one-shot you anyway? Not so much.


----------



## Derren (Jun 9, 2012)

Njall said:


> Even if he doesn't use all 5000 kgs, he'll still send you flying. Besides, we're not talking elephants here, we're talking intelligent, sometimes armed opponents as big as elephants. If people didn't bother wearing heavy armor against elephants, that can't use all of their mass, I doubt it would be much use against something that can.




People didn't bother to wear armor when hunting elephants????

Which people do you exactly mean? The neandertals who hunter mamooths or the 19th century colonials with fire arms? You know that there was a distinctive lack of elephants in europe during the medieval age. And So far I have found no account of how people in India hunted elephants. But this picture shows them using shields when hunting Rhinos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RhinoHuntBabur.jpg
But I have no idea what armor they used in India at that time.

So an elephant sends you flying. Guess who survives better. The one in armor which absorbes a lot of the blow and protects him from debris when he lands or the naked guy.
You really should watch the videos I posted in the spoiler on page 5.

About the FoV I rather trust the guys who did wear such helmet when they say that they have a good FoV.


----------



## Njall (Jun 9, 2012)

Derren said:


> People didn't bother to wear armor when hunting elephants????
> 
> Which people do you exactly mean? The neandertals who hunter mamooths or the 19th century colonials with fire arms? You know that there was a distinctive lack of elephants in europe during the medieval age.




I meant "no one". Armor was never used or conceived to hunt them. If it made hunting big stuff reasonably less dangerous, rest assured it would have been conceived and used.



> So an elephant sends you flying. Guess who survives better. The one in armor which absorbes a lot of the blow and protects him from debris when he lands or the naked guy.
> You really should watch the videos I posted in the spoiler on page 5.



Dude, there's no "surviving better", there's "surviving" and there's "dying". 
A guy in heavy armor that's sent flying survives maybe a couple of seconds more than the light armored dude, because he'll probably get trampled before he can ever get up, if he can even get up, since he'll probably have at least a couple broken bones. Conversely, light armor dude can probably keep dodging and moving around longer, because, yeah, 20+kgs of steel *do* tire you out quickly in an open field melee, and even a slight reduction in speed might mean you're toast in an actual fight.



> About the FoV I rather trust the guys who did wear such helmet when they say that they have a good FoV.




...having a "good" FoV means little in this context.
Does it provide a "good" field of vision compared to less refined helmets, and even less cumbersome ones? Sure. Compared to "not wearing a helmet at all"? Not a chance.
However, when you're fighting something that can attack you easily from the side, like a large opponent, and when each blow can kill you regardless of how much steel you're wearing, you don't want a "good" FoV, you want the best possible FoV, because it'll keep you alive longer, and wearing headgear is probably a bad idea, because a direct blow will still snap your neck.


----------



## Derren (Jun 9, 2012)

Njall said:


> I meant "no one". Armor was never used or conceived to hunt them. If it made hunting big stuff reasonably less dangerous, rest assured it would have been conceived and used.




Source? Because I have found no sources describing medieval elephant hunts and the equipment used. But they did use shields for hunting rhinos.







> Dude, there's no "surviving better", there's "surviving" and there's "dying".
> A guy in heavy armor that's sent flying survives maybe a couple of seconds more than the light armored dude, because he'll probably get trampled before he can ever get up, if he can even get up, since he'll probably have at least a couple broken bones. Conversely, light armor dude can probably keep dodging and moving around longer, because, yeah, 20+kgs of steel *do* tire you out quickly in an open field melee, and even a slight reduction in speed might mean you're toast in an actual fight.




Wrong. Good luck dodging an elephant trunk swinging at you especially that the dexterity advantage of light armor is not so big than what you seem to believe. You forget that animals behave much more offensively in combat as they have no concept of parrying. And when hit by the trunk "and sent flying" the guy in heavy armor has a much higher chance of survival as the armor absorbs force (less broken bones) and he is also protected from being impaled/wounded by stones and other debris when he lands. And despite what hollywood tells you, heavy armor was flexible and light enough so that you can easily stand up while wearing it.







> ...having a "good" FoV means little in this context. I'm sure it's got a great FoV, for an helmet. Does it provide a "good" field of vision compared to less refined helmets? Sure. Compared to "not wearing a helmet at all"? Not a chance.
> When you're fighting something that can attack you easily from the side, like a large opponent, and when each blow can kill you regardless of how much steel you're wearing, you don't want a "good" FoV, you want the best possible FoV, because it'll keep you alive longer.




That each blow kills from a larger opponent is simply wrong. That only applies to bludgoning weapons. But slashing weapons have quite a lot of trouble to penetrate armor, even when the enemy is bigger. Heavy armor also protects you from many glancing hits which kill/disable an unarmored combatant.


----------



## jadrax (Jun 9, 2012)

Njall said:


> I meant "no one". Armor was never used or conceived to hunt them. If it made hunting big stuff reasonably less dangerous, rest assured it would have been conceived and used.




Is there actually any evidence that pre-firearms, people hunting elephant's did not use the best armour their society had available?


----------



## Njall (Jun 9, 2012)

Managed to hit "quote" rather than "edit". Sigh.


----------



## Njall (Jun 9, 2012)

Derren said:


> Source? Because I have found no sources describing medieval elephant hunts and the equipment used. But they did use shields for hunting rhinos.




Sadly, after half an hour of googling, the only thing I found was this siberian bear-hunting armor which, while being mostly leather, was probably conceived to make you an unappealing target rather than protecting you, so yeah, not much in the way of actual damage absorption here, I doubt it helps my case ( or yours, for that matter  ).



> Wrong. Good luck dodging an elephant trunk swinging at you. You forget that anyimals behave much more offensively in combat as they have no concept of parrying. And when hit by the trunk "and sent flying" the guy in heavy armor has a much higher chance of survival as the armor absorbs force (less broken bones) and he is also protected from being impaled/wounded by stones and other debris when he lands. And despite what hollywood tells you, heavy armor was flexible and light enough so that you can easily stand up while wearing it.




Dude, good luck standing in melee with an elephant at all. Fight an elephant alone, in melee, D&D style, and you're probably dead, regardless of what you're wearing and how well you're trained; all in all, this is just a fun thought exercise, because whether you're wearing heavy armor, light armor or a flashy pajama the result doesn't change.
Still, while I doubt anyone ever engaged in elephant trunk dodging contests, or even bothered training to fight ( rather than hunt ) an elephant, I bet that if they did, they'd have a higher chance of success at dodging a couple of blows (and a higher mortality, but not everyone's got dex 18  ) if they could run away freely rather than crippling their FoV *and* wearing steel. 



> That each blow kills from a larger opponent is simply wrong. That only applies to bludgoning weapons. But slashing weapons have quite a lot of trouble to penetrate armor, even when the enemy is bigger. Heavy armor also protects you from many glancing hits which kill/disable an unarmored combatant.




A blow from a giant sized longsword to the side of your head, wielded by an opponent weighting 1000+ kg, will snap your neck just fine, it doesn't need to penetrate your armor. It will also wipe out your guard, in case you're bothering to keep it up.
If it hits your torso, or an arm? You'd probably survive, if you're lucky, with some broken ribs or a broken arm. But it's probably still game over.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 9, 2012)

wow, 9 pages for armor rules that were only place holders.  I can only imagine how many pages the thread on the actual rules will be once they come out.  99 maybe?


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 9, 2012)

Njall said:


> Not sure I see your point. Evil humans, drow and so forth are NPCs. Since monsters in DDN don't seem to use the same creation rules PCs use, they get whatever AC is right for them while wearing whatever armor the setting considers appropriate for them. Creating a functional, balanced armor table's got nothing to do with NPCs, as only PCs will end up using it, and NPCs will use it as a benchmark at best.





...interparty conflict?


Personally, while I support the idea that NPCs and monster need not be written out in the same was as PCs, feel as though PCs and everything else should have more consistency in how they interact with the game world.  That was one of the issues I had with 4th Edition.  I applauded the ease of prep; part of that coming from monsters having small stat blocks not written in the same format of PCs (which I also applauded), but I didn't like it when the disparity between PC numbers and the numbers behind everything else caused -at times- vast disparity in how the two sides interacted with the numbers and mechanics the game worlds were built upon.  Most notably it lead to the MM1 math in which the monsters were laughable in comparison to the PCs, but that was not the only issue.  There were also oddities such as most monsters having virtually no chance of ever breaking out of dimensional shackles; some big and strong monsters struggling to break shoddy doors and walls, and etc.

The rules need not be the same for the rules to interact in a more consistent manner.


----------



## Votan (Jun 9, 2012)

jadrax said:


> Is there actually any evidence that pre-firearms, people hunting elephant's did not use the best armour their society had available?




I suspect that the trick is few animals directly prey on humans.  So, most of the time, you can kill them at a distance with ranged weapons (bow, spear).  Even in battle, the skirmishers and the archers wore light armor and their role is a lot closer to that of hunters.  

I would be delighted with an elegant set of rules that actually accomplished two things:

1) Made adventurers prefer light armor

2) Made sane people want heavy armor in close quarters fighting

The would recapture the idea of putting on tough armor for battle and would still have adventures eschew it during their adventures.  Consider Bilbo and the Dwarves in the Hobbit.  They spent most of the book traveling and wear traveling clothes and cloaks.  But at the end, when they expect to face a human/elf army (and later a goblin army) they end up on the heaviest and best armor they can find,  Their cousins from the iron hills, expecting a fight, are in chain.  

I think that would be a good point of compromise, too.  

But making heavy armor so weak . . .  

And the armor rules may be placeholders but that is one area I would have liked to see a lot more work.  There are some great ideas out there like "Shields shall be splintered" that might improve things a lot and it is a known weak spot of D&D.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 9, 2012)

Keeping it simple as possible, if I were to do anything (and that's still an "if"), I'd do this:

Light armor - as normal
Medium armor - better AC than light, very minor movement penalties
Heavy armor - AC like medium, slighlty more movement penalties, some very limited DR (see below)
Shields - have their own hit points which you can use when appropriate (loosely determined)
The DR for heavy armor would be more erratic than usual DR ideas.  Would probably go with something like an ability to subtract a die roll from critical hits (or maybe any time max damage is done, if that's what criticals do).  A guy in plate is still getting tired, bashed around, and so forth, but when that ogre would have impaled him with the spear, he gets to knock the damage down some.  What I don't want is this coming up all the time.  

The shield thing is to easily model the shields always wearing out, but not make it a constant thing.  You still get that +N to AC for deflecting blows.  But when something is bearing down on you hard from the front, you can throw your shield in its way to absorb some of the damage, too.

As a more unified, alternate version of the above, give every armor, including shields, a check to turn criticals into normal hits.  (That is, the player rolls some kind of check using the equipment to do this.)  Heavier armor gets a better mod to this check than lighter armor.  Each time an armor does this, it takes "damage" by losing one of this modifier.  When the mod hits zero, the armor is broken.  Shields aren't different mechanically in this, but in practice will get used more often and first, because they are generally cheaper.

There.  Nothing changes about AC until the armor is finally "broken".  Nothing to track on normal hits, rather only on criticals.  Getting whacked at a lot means more chances for criticals, which makes heavier armor a better choice when you know that is about to happen.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 9, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Keeping it simple as possible, if I were to do anything (and that's still an "if"), I'd do this:
> 
> Light armor - as normal
> Medium armor - better AC than light, very minor movement penalties
> ...




If we're going to add more dice rolling to armor and defenses, I'd prefer to just get rid of AC completely and go with active defenses (i.e. parry, dodge, and block.)  Dexterity would make dodging easier, shields would be used to block, and actual armor would have DR which absorbs damage.  Light armor would be less cumbersome and thus not hinder dodging as much as heavy armor; on the other hand, heavy armor would absorb more actual damage.  That's not to say getting hit wouldn't still hurt; I've worn armor, and it most certainly does still hurt and bruise you, but that's highly preferable to the far worse effects of a weapon striking my flesh & bone body.

However, I'm aware that many people would decry that as "not being D&D."


----------



## jadrax (Jun 9, 2012)

NewJeffCT said:


> wow, 9 pages for armor rules that were only place holders.  I can only imagine how many pages the thread on the actual rules will be once they come out.  99 maybe?




Half a page, tops.

But there will be a 99 page thread on the place holder rules for Smoke Sticks at the same time.


----------



## B.T. (Jun 9, 2012)

Hey, guys? I'm pretty sure that the least important thing about D&D armor is simulating man vs. elephant scenarios.  If I were to put money on anything, it would be an elephant having a Strength score high enough to render any armor useless.


----------



## jadrax (Jun 9, 2012)

B.T. said:


> Hey, guys? I'm pretty sure that the least important thing about D&D armor is simulating man vs. elephant scenarios.  If I were to put money on anything, it would be an elephant having a Strength score high enough to render any armor useless.




If this edition does not finally deliver realistic mano-a-jumbo combat, D&D is dead to me.


----------



## Derren (Jun 9, 2012)

B.T. said:


> Hey, guys? I'm pretty sure that the least important thing about D&D armor is simulating man vs. elephant scenarios.




You are right. I mean, how often does it happen that the PCs fight against huge or garganutan monstrosities?


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 9, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> If we're going to add more dice rolling to armor and defenses, I'd prefer to just get rid of AC completely and go with active defenses (i.e. parry, dodge, and block.) Dexterity would make dodging easier, shields would be used to block, and actual armor would have DR which absorbs damage. Light armor would be less cumbersome and thus not hinder dodging as much as heavy armor; on the other hand, heavy armor would absorb more actual damage. That's not to say getting hit wouldn't still hurt; I've worn armor, and it most certainly does still hurt and bruise you, but that's highly preferable to the far worse effects of a weapon striking my flesh & bone body.
> 
> However, I'm aware that many people would decry that as "not being D&D."




No way I'd advocate something like that for every attack. That's why the extra rolls would be only when someone got hit with a critical. 

If you think about it, that covers a lot of damage for relatively little extra complication. Who wants to roll every time to turn the goblins 3.5 average damage into maybe 2.7 average damager (or whatever the math works out to be)? Getting dinged down a few points at a time is the point of having AC and hit points in the first place. 

Criticals are already sitting a bit uncomfortably outside of normal AC and hit point methods anyway. We have them, because people like them. So a bit of back and forth isn't so bad on those. And whereas I don't much care for a "confirmation" roll by the guy doing the crit, the idea does appeal of, "Hey, the orc critted you, max damage," goes kind of well with, "Hey, I rolled and blocked him with my shield, I only take normal damage instead."


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 9, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> No way I'd advocate something like that for every attack. That's why the extra rolls would be only when someone got hit with a critical.
> 
> If you think about it, that covers a lot of damage for relatively little extra complication. Who wants to roll every time to turn the goblins 3.5 average damage into maybe 2.7 average damager (or whatever the math works out to be)? Getting dinged down a few points at a time is the point of having AC and hit points in the first place.
> 
> Criticals are already sitting a bit uncomfortably outside of normal AC and hit point methods anyway. We have them, because people like them. So a bit of back and forth isn't so bad on those. And whereas I don't much care for a "confirmation" roll by the guy doing the crit, the idea does appeal of, "Hey, the orc critted you, max damage," goes kind of well with, "Hey, I rolled and blocked him with my shield, I only take normal damage instead."





I don't expect my idea to be popular among the more general D&D crowd.  However, I'd prefer combat to be more dynamic and allow the defender to be involved instead of just standing there.

Active defenses also removes most of the need for things like immediate actions.  

I dunno...  AC is one of those areas where I'm fine with it while only playing D&D.  Then I take a break from D&D for a while and see how other games do it.  When I come back, it rubs me the wrong way.  It's not something I see as a huge issue; it mostly starts to bug me when I start looking at how weapons and armor work in D&D.


----------



## Gorgoroth (Jun 9, 2012)

*...*

in keeping with the KISS philosophy, heavy armor could negate crits, period. Regular damage only in plate.

This would be in line with the dwarf being immune to poison, be extremely simple, fast, effective against those big blows, scale effortlessly with monster damage die, etc etc etc

It's the most elegant way to make plate the ultimate armor, and would also mimick reality quite well. It's slow to kill someone in plate, taking a lot of hits to wear them down. And forget about chopping their head off in one fell swoop, you'll have to pin them down and take their helmet off for that (helpless condition could negate crit immunity)

Let's say splint mail gives two AC less than plate, but costs 1/20th of the price. So you get 10% more protection from plate, vs 20x the cost. Sounds like a bad deal, right? But when you say, buy this 1500gp shiny armor and you are now immune to critical hits, period...now THAT's something to get the people drooling over that lamborghini armor of yours.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 10, 2012)

Gorgoroth said:


> in keeping with the KISS philosophy, heavy armor could negate crits, period. Regular damage only in plate.
> 
> This would be in line with the dwarf being immune to poison, be extremely simple, fast, effective against those big blows, scale effortlessly with monster damage die, etc etc etc
> 
> ...




I'd say that would sound reasonable for some cases, but not all.  Certain weapons were invented with the idea and purpose of puncturing armor.  I realize that is far beyond the granularity level of D&D, but I mention it because I feel there is some justification for plate not simply making you completely immune to crits.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 11, 2012)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> I just want to jump in to say that I love the idea of starting low and buying better armor over the first few levels.



Problem with that is then humanoid's armor becomes unintended treasure. If a fighter can't afford plate armor really soon into the first or second adventure, then humanoid foes who should have heavier armors wind up walking around in way too many GPs.  IMNSHO 60GP plate mail is superior to 700gp plate mail; sure 700GP platemail takes an extra adventure to afford, but it also swells adventure profits for LEVELS afterward.







Johnny3D3D said:


> I dunno...  AC is one of those areas where I'm fine with it while only playing D&D.  Then I take a break from D&D for a while and see how other games do it.  When I come back, it rubs me the wrong way.  It's not something I see as a huge issue; it mostly starts to bug me when I start looking at how weapons and armor work in D&D.



My group's host feels the same way.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Jun 11, 2012)

frankthedm said:


> Problem with that is then humanoid's armor becomes unintended treasure. If a fighter can't afford plate armor really soon into the first or second adventure, then humanoid foes who should have heavier armors wind up walking around in way too many GPs.  IMNSHO 60GP plate mail is superior to 700gp plate mail; sure 700GP platemail takes an extra adventure to afford, but it also swells adventure profits for LEVELS afterward.My group's host feels the same way.




You have a good point, but what it really means is that an NPC in plate mail isn't a first or second level monster. Also, plate mail has to be custom fitted, which is expensive.

Basically, if high quality mundane gear is valuable, it means it's also fairly rare, just like magic items.


----------



## Votan (Jun 11, 2012)

I am beginning to think that the whole problem is the Armor restrictions to dexterity to armor class.  At some point in 3E there was a decision made to make shields and armor less effective.  They did this by capping the dexterity bonus to armor class (for armor) and limiting the number of opponents that can be affected by a shield.  This did two things.  One, it complicated combat for not really a whole lot of reward.  Two, it strengthened every class that does not use armor for defense.  

But, at the same time they removed scaling from attributes like dexterity and constitution.  In 1E/2E, the AC defense due to high dexterity stopped increasing aftyer 18 (at -4) until 21 (-5) and 24 (-6) with 25 being an absolute cap on a score.  

This made dexterity (which could increase to very high values even in regular play -- 15 base + 5 levels + 5 tome + 6 item +2 race= 33 being perfectly possible) a better defense than armor.  

But this was a bad solution to the problem.  First, it overcomplicated things (when simple was better).  Second, most of the extreme AC issues were caused by +5 shields stacking with +5 armor.  Remove that and a lot of the issues vanish as well.  

So I think the thing that I am the most reactive to are the unnecessary dexterity caps on armor.  Most of the issues would naturally vanish if you removed that (not easy to defend) construct.  Even the low AC values in the playtest would work fine.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jun 11, 2012)

Votan said:


> So I think the thing that I am the most reactive to are the unnecessary dexterity caps on armor.  Most of the issues would naturally vanish if you removed that (not easy to defend) construct.  Even the low AC values in the playtest would work fine.




Trust me, if I thought for one second that I could successfully argue that the appropriate AC penalty for wearing armor was *zero*, that's would I would be doing.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 11, 2012)

What about if (and Im just spitballing this one) we allowed that heavy armor used Str in place of Dex. Then heavy armor is a modest increase better than light.

That way your Fighter Heavy+Str gets a higher AC than your rogue Light+Dex, but in both cases its linked to stat (which Im fond of, since toHit is linked to stat)


----------



## Campbell (Jun 11, 2012)

Really all you need to do is let Dexterity mod apply to armor, but require a Strength score prerequisite for wearing heavier armor. As an added bonus this would help justify medium armors. It's useful for high dexterity characters who invest in strength over constitution (skalds and finesse fighters) and high strength mobile skirmishers (say hello ranger and barbarian) who invest in dexterity. Of course there might be issues with fighters who manage to pull off 18s in both strength and dexterity, but I'm of the opinion that you balance for the typical not the extreme.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Jun 11, 2012)

BobTheNob said:


> What about if (and Im just spitballing this one) we allowed that heavy armor used Str in place of Dex. Then heavy armor is a modest increase better than light.
> 
> That way your Fighter Heavy+Str gets a higher AC than your rogue Light+Dex, but in both cases its linked to stat (which Im fond of, since toHit is linked to stat)




That tends to cause mono-stat min/maxing.

If heavy armor makes strength an uber-stat it ends up causing problems in the long run.


----------



## Votan (Jun 11, 2012)

Campbell said:


> Really all you need to do is let Dexterity mod apply to armor, but require a Strength score prerequisite for wearing heavier armor. As an added bonus this would help justify medium armors. It's useful for high dexterity characters who invest in strength over constitution (skalds and finesse fighters) and high strength mobile skirmishers (say hello ranger and barbarian) who invest in dexterity. Of course there might be issues with fighters who manage to pull off 18s in both strength and dexterity, but I'm of the opinion that you balance for the typical not the extreme.




I think that this would work.  The extremes might be problematic but they have been problems in every edition.  Die rolling systems like 4d6 (drop lowest) are extremely unlikely to give two 18's, and even then it would be a major investment to put them in strength and dexterity (and major investments should have some rewards).


----------



## Campbell (Jun 12, 2012)

Votan said:


> I think that this would work.  The extremes might be problematic but they have been problems in every edition.  Die rolling systems like 4d6 (drop lowest) are extremely unlikely to give two 18's, and even then it would be a major investment to put them in strength and dexterity (and major investments should have some rewards).




The other bonus to this schema is that it would remove one of my personal verisimilitude bugaboos - Clerics with an average strength wearing medium/heavy armor effectively.


----------



## Derren (Jun 12, 2012)

Campbell said:


> The other bonus to this schema is that it would remove one of my personal verisimilitude bugaboos - Clerics with an average strength wearing medium/heavy armor effectively.




Except that heavy armor is actually pretty light.


----------



## B.T. (Jun 12, 2012)

According to my Wikipedia knowings, a suit of plate armor weighed around forty-five pounds.  I would suggest that encumbrance rules handle the issue Strength required to wear armor.  Adding Strength to AC is almost completely dissociated and thus a terrible rule.


----------



## Gorgoroth (Jun 12, 2012)

*I agree*

str bonus to ac is a terrible idea. 

I think plate should give a -2 to hit, even WITH training and the appropriate strength. Try boxing a few rounds in your shorts, then try the same wearing a winter ski suit. 45 pounds, even perfectly distributed around your body, in the midst of life-threatening combat (or even sports combat), would cause you to drain stamina like crazy. Maybe with years of training...but the same guy not wearing armor should hit more often. (but get killed faster too, in trade). 

Fighters or those with a certain theme could offset that penalty.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 12, 2012)

Gorgoroth said:


> str bonus to ac is a terrible idea.
> 
> I think plate should give a -2 to hit, even WITH training and the appropriate strength. Try boxing a few rounds in your shorts, then try the same wearing a winter ski suit. 45 pounds, even perfectly distributed around your body, in the midst of life-threatening combat (or even sports combat), would cause you to drain stamina like crazy. Maybe with years of training...but the same guy not wearing armor should hit more often. (but get killed faster too, in trade).
> 
> Fighters or those with a certain theme could offset that penalty.




I'd agree that being encumbered would cause more fatigue.  I highly disagree that wearing 45 pounds of armor would cause such a penalty to the ability to fight.  Granted, I've never worn plate armor.  However, I have worn body armor in combat.  While the type of armor I've worn is a lot different than that of a knight, I'd like to believe I have some amount of insight.  

Beyond that, I don't like the idea of heavily armored D&D characters needing to take a feat to be effective with a piece of equipment they already know how to use.  To me, that's starting to edge into 'feat tax' territory.  Such a feat or theme becomes too much of a no-brainer choice; even with flatter math.

If we're shooting for more realism and granularity, I would agree that using a shield would give a penalty to hit without proper training.  D&D as a system would need to be a lot more detailed overall for that to fit in with the rest of the game though.  Otherwise, I feel it still edges into feat tax territory.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 13, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Beyond that, I don't like the idea of heavily armored D&D characters needing to take a feat to be effective with a piece of equipment they already know how to use.  To me, that's starting to edge into 'feat tax' territory.  Such a feat or theme becomes too much of a no-brainer choice; even with flatter math.
> 
> If we're shooting for more realism and granularity, I would agree that using a shield would give a penalty to hit without proper training.  D&D as a system would need to be a lot more detailed overall for that to fit in with the rest of the game though.  Otherwise, I feel it still edges into feat tax territory.




In 3e using a shield did give a penalty to hit without proper training.

Let's keep in mind that in 3e, heavily armored character already had 4 feats to wear their use their armor and shield properly.  Then they created additional feats on top of that to get an odd +1 here or there so that it would be possible to not fall behind.  So a high level tank that actually went with the defensive route could have 6 (or more!) feats invested.

In comparison, the Rogue had 1 feat (Light Armor Proficiency).


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 13, 2012)

Votan said:


> But this was a bad solution to the problem.  First, it overcomplicated things (when simple was better).  Second, most of the extreme AC issues were caused by +5 shields stacking with +5 armor.  Remove that and a lot of the issues vanish as well.




I think you put your finger on an important piece on the problem.

There was a concern that in a simple "AC = armor + shield + dex" throwing a very good magical shield in could potentially blow the curve.  (I am not agreeing with this sentiment, but I have seen this argued.)

OTOH, there is a resistance to having shields be anything but brain dead simple.

What non-AC version of a shield would satisfy those who want simple?

My thought was that light armors are simply too good.  If the best light armor you can acquire is a +2 to AC, then there is room for the value of mail or plate or shield shine through. 

A light chain shirt that is almost as good as full mail is an absurdity that only exists in fantasy literature.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 13, 2012)

Ridley's Cohort said:


> In 3e using a shield did give a penalty to hit without proper training.
> 
> Let's keep in mind that in 3e, heavily armored character already had 4 feats to wear their use their armor and shield properly.  Then they created additional feats on top of that to get an odd +1 here or there so that it would be possible to not fall behind.  So a high level tank that actually went with the defensive route could have 6 (or more!) feats invested.
> 
> In comparison, the Rogue had 1 feat (Light Armor Proficiency).




True, but I took the post I was commenting as meaning you'd need more feats on top of that.  As in a fighter (who is already proficient with heavy armor) would then need to take another feat on top of proficiency so as to not have a penalty.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jun 13, 2012)

Yeah, but if we're being realistic, a large steel shield is also worth a Hell of a lot more than a +2 bonus to AC-- give me a choice between any body armor lighter than a full suit of six-in-one chain or carrying a shield in my skivvies, and I'm taking the shield.

Unless it's a gunfight. I just hope that the gun rules-- whenever and however they should occur-- aren't as messed up as they have been in certain recent offshoots.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 13, 2012)

If any armor as DR rules exist, then they have to scale at higher levels. Because damage scales, if DR doesn't scale with it, then the DR eventually becomes useless.

But then you get in the situation where the 20th level fighter in the chain shirt has DR 20 where as the 1st level guy puts on the same chain shirt and gets DR 1, which could be unnerving to some.

Honestly, I like the one stop shop of AC bonus and prefer it over any DR system.

That said, I do like the idea of crit immunity/resistance being roped in with heavier armor, that has some merit.


----------



## Votan (Jun 13, 2012)

Viktyr Korimir said:


> Yeah, but if we're being realistic, a large steel shield is also worth a Hell of a lot more than a +2 bonus to AC-- give me a choice between any body armor lighter than a full suit of six-in-one chain or carrying a shield in my skivvies, and I'm taking the shield.
> 
> Unless it's a gunfight. I just hope that the gun rules-- whenever and however they should occur-- aren't as messed up as they have been in certain recent offshoots.




No to mention just how helpful a helmet is an an actual fight.  Notice that even the 20th century (think WW1 and WW2), the helmet was the one piece of armor that persisted through all of the technological advances.


----------



## Derren (Jun 13, 2012)

Viktyr Korimir said:


> Yeah, but if we're being realistic, a large steel shield is also worth a Hell of a lot more than a +2 bonus to AC-- give me a choice between any body armor lighter than a full suit of six-in-one chain or carrying a shield in my skivvies, and I'm taking the shield.




Well, if we are being realistic, no one would use steel (or iron) shields. Wood and leather only.
But yes, shields are much more useful than D&D portrays them. There is a reason why every culture on the planet used shields (except 2 I know off. The Japanese and Native Americans. And I am not so sure about the latter one).


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jun 14, 2012)

The Sioux used shields-- stretched hide over wooden frame. They weren't bulletproof by any means, but bullets were known to deflect off of them fairly regularly.


----------



## jadrax (Jun 14, 2012)

Derren said:


> There is a reason why every culture on the planet used shields (except 2 I know off. The Japanese and Native Americans. And I am not so sure about the latter one).




Samurai did not use hand held shields*, but did use something equivalent to a Pavise (known as a 'tate') when facing archers, which was discarded when then enemy closed.

Some other Japanese troops did use hand held shields (known as the 'te-date'), normally based on Chinese or Korean designs. These where particularly in common use by the Japanese equivalent of naval troops.

The issue is, Samurai culture totally came to dominate Japan's history, so you only commonly get images of that, thus relegating any shield using troops to the dustbin of history.


*well after the 5th century AD anyway, there are some images of Samurai shield use pre-dating that. Apparently there are some nice colour plates in Tony Bryant's 'Early Samurai 200-1500 AD'


----------



## Votan (Jun 14, 2012)

Yes, I suspect it is too much to hope that the final armor rules will be great, but it would be fantastic if shields could become a viable option again.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 16, 2012)

Votan said:


> Yes, I suspect it is too much to hope that the final armor rules will be great, but it would be fantastic if shields could become a viable option again.




To me 4e made it happen. +2 to ac and dex saves, no magical scaling of the bonus. Thought it worked great


----------



## drothgery (Jun 16, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> To me 4e made it happen. +2 to ac and dex saves, no magical scaling of the bonus. Thought it worked great



That, and no 2-for-1 power attack and 1.5x strength bonus to make two-handed weapons awesome or extra attacks to make dual-wielding awesome (for the most part; many ranger powers and some others gave extra attacks).


----------



## GX.Sigma (Jun 16, 2012)

Mike Mearls commented on the armor thing yesterday:

mikemearls comments on AMA: Mike Mearls, head of D&D Research and Design at WotC
mikemearls comments on AMA: Mike Mearls, head of D&D Research and Design at WotC


> We're completely  re-working armor. We're bulking up heavy armor, giving medium armor a  better definition, and slightly pulling back on light armor.
> Heavy armor allows no Dex bonus but has a high base value. Heavy armor always gives disad on attempts to be stealthy.
> Medium armor has +2 Dex max or no Dex allowed. It sits below heavy  armor. Classes like the ranger and barbarian are proficient with it.  Some medium armors give disad on checks to hide or move silently.  Basically, if you play a ranger or barbarian, you can either junk Dex  and take a "heavier" medium armor or take a lighter one that lets you be  stealthy.
> Light armor allows full Dex and has no stealth drawbacks.



In answer to my question of why not allow heavy armor the Dex bonus:







> The key is to strike a  balance between low Dex characters and high Dex ones. One of the tricks  to class design is to allow players to feel like they can ignore a stat  if they want to focus on the class's strengths. It's a little irritating  if a fighter needs high Str, Con, and Dex, or if the high Dex light  armor guy has a better AC than the fighter.



So basically, a heavily armored fighter will have better AC than a high Dex light armor guy, and medium armors have various combinations of Dex bonus cap and stealth disadvantage.


----------



## Derren (Jun 16, 2012)

Wait, when it is "irritating" when the high dex guy in light armor has more AC than the heavy armor guy, why are they not allowing Dex in heavy armor so that they at least reduce the divide instead of making it bigger by capping dex in heavy armor?


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Jun 16, 2012)

Derren said:


> Wait, when it is "irritating" when the high dex guy in light armor has more AC than the heavy armor guy...?



Well, _for me_, it's irritating _every_ time that happens.


----------



## Gorgoroth (Jun 16, 2012)

*thanks!*



GX.Sigma said:


> The key is to strike a balance between low Dex characters and high Dex ones. One of the tricks to class design is to allow players to feel like they can ignore a stat if they want to focus on the class's strengths. It's a little irritating if a fighter needs high Str, Con, and Dex, or if the high Dex light armor guy has a better AC than the fighter.




This is great news. I mean, I like there to be medium armor in the game, because that way your dex bonus, if you're a ranger or a barbarian who would actually *want* to be able to hit something with an arrow sometimes, the chance to benefit from that stat and still have decent AC. I'm fine with grabbing an extra feat to use plate armor when I become the King, and sit on my throne.

The one downside to their solution is that if you happen to have a high dex, and use plate armor, you can't benefit from it at all. Which means the same guy in light armor or plate, while he may have a bit better AC in plate over light armor + his high dex, will not be any better off than some slow fat guy in plate who can't dodge a slow-moving train to save his life.

But that's the price we pay I guess for a compromise. It would be nice to have an "agile plate" enchantment for this case though. No Disadvantage on dex checks, and maybe a max 1 dex bonus to AC added on. That would be pretty sweet while keeping AC inflation down.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 17, 2012)

Gorgoroth said:


> The one downside to their solution is that if you happen to have a high dex, and use plate armor, you can't benefit from it at all. Which means the same guy in light armor or plate, while he may have a bit better AC in plate over light armor + his high dex, will not be any better off than some slow fat guy in plate who can't dodge a slow-moving train to save his life.




I would argue that is a side effect of overmodeling Dex -- these peculiarities are bandaids to keep the problem under control, not the underlying problem.


----------



## dammitbiscuit (Jun 17, 2012)

Gorgoroth said:


> It would be nice to have an "agile plate" enchantment for this case though. No Disadvantage on dex checks, and maybe a max 1 dex bonus to AC added on. That would be pretty sweet while keeping AC inflation down.



The problem is that each additional point of AC you add is more powerful than the previous. Therefore, giving people with the best AC possible a way to raise their AC 1 point higher yet means that such characters should do everything in their power to get it.

If an orc hits you on 11-20, 1 point of AC reduces incoming damage by 10%.
If an orc hits you on 17-20, 1 point of AC reduces incoming damage by 25%.

Long story short, with your proposal, ALL heavy armor wearers who know what they're doing will have a 12 dex, no exceptions.


----------



## Votan (Jun 17, 2012)

dammitbiscuit said:


> The problem is that each additional point of AC you add is more powerful than the previous. Therefore, giving people with the best AC possible a way to raise their AC 1 point higher yet means that such characters should do everything in their power to get it.
> 
> If an orc hits you on 11-20, 1 point of AC reduces incoming damage by 10%.
> If an orc hits you on 17-20, 1 point of AC reduces incoming damage by 25%.
> ...




How is this different than all heavy armor wearers having a 10 dex when you cannot stack dex with armor at all?  Or an 8 if penalties are also eliminated?  

This is not a big issue if the range of dex bonus is small (like AD&D where god-like dex was six points).  But in 3E, it is quite possible to get +10 dexterity armor class increases, which make the light armor fighter often end up with the higher dexterity.  

So I guess the real issue will be how the math ends up scaling in the long run, and that we do not have any solid information on yet.


----------



## Trance-Zg (Jun 17, 2012)

Best thing I have read is they are thinking of removing medium armor.

It was always sub-par as a unwanted bastard child of light and heavy armors.


----------



## Bran Mak Morn (Jun 17, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> Mike Mearls commented on the armor thing yesterday:
> 
> mikemearls comments on AMA: Mike Mearls, head of D&D Research and Design at WotC
> mikemearls comments on AMA: Mike Mearls, head of D&D Research and Design at WotC
> In answer to my question of why not allow heavy armor the Dex bonus:So basically, a heavily armored fighter will have better AC than a high Dex light armor guy, and medium armors have various combinations of Dex bonus cap and stealth disadvantage.




I kinda like this


----------



## ardisian (Jun 19, 2012)

*Armor Revision*

I was playing with this idea for armors

Light Armor
Leather      AC 12 + dex mod
Studded     AC 13 + dex mod
Chain Shirt  AC 14 + dex mod

Medium Armor
Ring          AC 15 + 1/2 Dex mod
Scale        AC 16 + 1/2 Dex mod
Chainmail   AC 17 + 1/2 Dex Mod

Heavy Armor
Splint       AC 17
Banded    AC 18
Plate      AC 19

With this setup, at dex 20 all armors would have the same AC, but at lower dex medium and heavy armors are better in various degrees

It also keeps the max AC with shields at around 21.  Still reasonable to hit for most - but not too easy.


----------



## dammitbiscuit (Jun 19, 2012)

ardisian said:


> I was playing with this idea for armors
> 
> Light Armor
> Leather      AC 12 + dex mod
> ...




These are pretty solid, workable numbers, relative to each other. It's a system with good parity.

I do wonder, though, if you need to shave 1 point off across the board. Otherwise, a 16ish AC is going to be normal for most players at first level, which feels a little on the high side. Some monsters only have a +1 attack bonus.

11 ac from leather armor might annoy people, though, so it could be simpler to just give all monsters/NPCs +1 to attack. Or rename/refluff things, because as has been mentioned several times in D&D's history, adding metal studs to your leather armor does NOTHING. So the first tier of light armor could be robe, jerkin, or jacket, middle could be actual leather armor, and high would then be layering a chain shirt on.


----------



## ardisian (Jun 19, 2012)

So something like this
Light Armor
Padded/Cloth  AC 11 + dex mod
Leather   AC 12 + dex mod
Chain Shirt  AC 13 + dex mod

Medium Armor
Ring AC 14 + 1/2 dex mod
Scale AC 15 + 1/2 dex mod
Chainmail AC 16 + 1/2 dex mod

Heavy
Splint AC 16
Banded AC 17
Plate AC 18

It could work - maybe some adjustments on which armors to include (maybe remove ring and replace with something else, etc)


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Jun 19, 2012)

Bran Mak Morn said:


> I kinda like this




Here's the full quote:



> We're completely re-working armor. We're bulking up heavy armor, giving medium armor a better definition, and slightly pulling back on light armor.
> Heavy armor allows no Dex bonus but has a high base value. Heavy armor always gives disad on attempts to be stealthy.
> 
> Medium armor has +2 Dex max or no Dex allowed. It sits below heavy armor. Classes like the ranger and barbarian are proficient with it. Some medium armors give disad on checks to hide or move silently. Basically, if you play a ranger or barbarian, you can either junk Dex and take a "heavier" medium armor or take a lighter one that lets you be stealthy.
> ...




So it sounds like medium armor will be split into two types: heavy-medium that is mechanically the same as heavy armor, or light-medium that has unique mechanics (+2 max dex bonus, no stealth drawbacks). And the reason for this is so that you can design a barbarian or ranger who doesn't need dex, but also doesn't get to wear full plate without a feat/theme.

Obviously this will depend on what the AC numbers they come up with are, but Ardisian's numbers could work.

The only remaining problem is that unlike in 3e, there is now no mechanical reason to ever wear e.g. leather armor or splint mail after your first level (when you've probably got enough cash to buy nonmagical chain shirt or plate).


----------



## GX.Sigma (Jun 19, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> The only remaining problem is that unlike in 3e, there is now no mechanical reason to ever wear e.g. leather armor or splint mail after your first level (when you've probably got enough cash to buy nonmagical chain shirt or plate).



I do not see that as a problem.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Jun 19, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> I do not see that as a problem.




Meh, I kind of wish they'd bump chain shirt up to medium so rogues would be encouraged to stick in iconic leather armor.


----------



## ardisian (Jun 19, 2012)

I could have sworn that had been the case in some older edition - I may be thinking of chain mail and elven chain mail - wasn't elven chain mail considered light armor, while chainmail was medium?


----------



## dammitbiscuit (Jun 19, 2012)

Yep, 3e gave people new shinies: Giant In the Playground Games


----------



## Skyscraper (Jun 19, 2012)

I would like to see heavy armor give damage reduction against specific types of attacks (probably at least melee attacks, maybe others - this would need to be tweaked for game balance). Of course, simplicity would need to be balanced here too.


----------



## Gorgoroth (Jun 20, 2012)

*for me*

I'd be satisfied with this type of spread, comparing values of rogue guy with 20 dex vs plate guy with no dex

Light:
Leather / Studded leather (same thing! i.e. get rid of studded leather, make the studs have a combat usage, like damage when you get grappled) : 11 + dex = 16
Hide Armor/Chain Shirt = 12 + dex = 17

Medium :
Chainmail : 14 +(2 dex) = 16 
Elven Chain (considered magical, no +1 needed) : 14 + dex = 19
Breastplate : 15 + (2 dex) = 17
Splint : 16 (no dex)

Heavy :
Scalemail : 17
Plate : 18
Mithril/Adamantine/Dwarven Plate : 19
Full Plate (get rid of field plate) -- extremely rare, costs 20k gp even for mundane : 19
Mithril/Adamantine/Dwarven Fullplate : 20

_*note : Elven chain is still medium to my mind, for feats, but allows full dex. (so, AC 19 with 20 dex). Its equivalent value would be that of full plate +1, or maybe adamantium full plate or something, so for the same price you are still 1 AC ahead in heavy armor (fullplate +1 = AC 20). You can see how everyone would still want to own some elven chain...you can RP that the feat cost to use it is to maintain its sheen or it loses its magic. There would be no such thing as "elven chain +1", to me that's redundant. I'd rather "mithril plate" = AC 19 (like plate +1), or mithril fullplate = AC 20. Something like that. Forget the +1s on magic armor...it robs it of flavor in the flat math system. A +1 sword should not be in an arms race vs the +ses on magic armor. magic weapons should help you hit more, and not get into an arms race with the armor stuff, beyond a certain point. We all know how boring long combats can be with attrition where nobody can hit the other guy._

The idea is, unless you have 18+ dex, you will always be better of AC-wise wearing medium armor. If you have a 15 dex or less, you WANT to be in medium armor, at least. But you may avoid spending a feat for heavy armor until you find or can afford some plate. But that's if you don't mind clanking around the dungeon and falling out of your sky cell when the light armored guy trips you into the pit (go Bronn!)

And plate is ALWAYS better for defense than any regular guy could hope to achieve, no matter how fast he is, in light armor, unless he's magically super-fast. This is the balance for three feats, and disadvantage, and the costs, and myriad other ways plate armor can get you killed. (drowing, falling off ledges, breaking the rope bridge and falling into lava pits, whatever)

Full plate should remain an option which is extremely, EXTREMELY expensive. Let's differentiate thick hide armor and chain shirt not by their AC, but by other things such as heat to wear, which would make you prefer one type or the other depending on the clime of the local environs or the season.

Plate must always grant better AC than any (mundane) light armor or medium armor, even with 20 dexterity. 

This is not that hard to do, if you combine / get rid of crappy options that nobody used anyway. Scalemail would be popular as a starting heavy armor until you can afford plate, around level 4 or so. Full plate should maybe come around level 8, if there is such a thing as expected wealth per level.

It's only natural if you have three feats to use armor, those armors should have a little breathing room to get better as you can afford more. I *like* finding magic armor, because regular mundane plate armor is so d@mn expensive. If they get rid of expected wealth, but balance the actual cost of plate, with a DM recommendation to dole out enough GP around the party to make its purchase take a while (i.e. not at first level...). 

The only guy who should be in plate armor at first level is the paladin. Not because he's rich, but because it's his schtick...his order fashions one for him, it's a status symbol and represents his class. A fighter would be typically in chainmail or splintmail or even scalemail, depending on his Dex, at level 1. If he wants plate, he's gonna have to pay the price. Whether he pays the gold price or the iron price, it's up to the Fates to decide which...


----------

