# Armor & Coins - please, No.



## Azgulor (Mar 7, 2008)

Apologies if this was covered in another thread and I missed it.

I found the following on another forum.  It's supposedly a screen shot of a section on 4e preview on armor and coinage.   I can't verify that it is, but if it is - color me very unimpressed.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/benimoto/2307597095/sizes/o/

Medium armor - gone.  Simpler isn't always better.  This one's a minor issue, though.

All armor takes 5 minutes to put on.  - So leather armor isn't any easier to put on that a chainmail suit, or plate mail?  Simpler isn't always better.  This one seems like simplicity for simplicity's sake.  (And don't start with the "you can house rule it" stuff.)

Masterwork only as magic armor - unnecessary change.

Starleather, spiritmail, godplate - I'm not really digging these.  For all the weak accusations of 4e being video-gamey, these names definitely make me think of a video game.

But the prizewiiner = ASTRAL DIAMONDS! - WTF?  Are you kidding me?  I can see it now, perfectly cut diamonds scattered throughout the Astral Plane.  How do you mine the Astral Plane, exactly?  

To each their own, I guess, but I'm underwhelmed by these changes.


----------



## DreamChaser (Mar 7, 2008)

Have you not paid attention to the design concept for the planes in 4e? Gone is the endless reach of empty space that only 9th level spells could get you to. The Astral Sea is full of places that could be reached by other planar denizens and intrepid miners to do a little mining.

DC


----------



## Puggins (Mar 7, 2008)

That's odd... you're most annoyed by the addition that makes the most sense to me.  Who says Astral Diamonds have to be mined?  And even if they do, we've got tons of precedent for floating chunks of rock in the Astral- just think about all those dead gods whose flesh begins to crystallize as they float for eons on end.  The Githyanki had to get their wealth from somewhere, right?

The uniform donning time is silly, but not that big a deal, I suppose.  The names of the special armor are somewhat groan-inducing.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

Hmm. I can't think of any situation where the PCs were counting minutes to don armor.

If they were attacked while sleeping/not wearing armor (at a party, for example), they fought without it.

If they had time to prep, they put it on easily.

The different armor don times WERE realistic, but they also NEVER showed up in play, at least in my experience. Given that very few combats last even ten rounds, a character who spends a minute putting on armor might as well not show up. The only thing that tended to matter was putting on/taking off *shields*, whether to aboid the skill penalty or switch to a two handed weapon.

Eliminating medium armor? Not so sure. It might be because classes either wear light armor for mobility or heavy armor for protection, and 'medium armor' is only used by 1st level fighters who can't afford full plate.

Non-masterwork normal armor? Now, this is problematic. It means there's no gradation between 'normal' and 'magic' armor, and that's both unrealistic and unfun.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Mar 7, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> But the prizewiiner = ASTRAL DIAMONDS! - WTF?  Are you kidding me?  I can see it now, perfectly cut diamonds scattered throughout the Astral Plane.  How do you mine the Astral Plane, exactly?




the Astral Plane is now the Astral Sea where float the Astral Dominion.... so probably astral diamonds come from some abandonated Astral Isle/dominion

btw you call this weird? do you know how you get Ioun stones in the original Vance books?


----------



## lukeduff (Mar 7, 2008)

It says all armors take *at least* 5 minutes to put on. Their point is that you aren't going to be donning armor during combat. It doesn't say plate and leather take the same amount of time to put on.


----------



## Saishu_Heiki (Mar 7, 2008)

Medium armor simply was not used enough to warrant inclusion in 4e (at least, that is the way all my games have played out). As for the donning time, it was another table in the PHB that almost never got used.

The heroic, paragon, and epic armors don't bother me, but then again I got used to elven chain, raptoran armor, armor made of leaves... starleather and godplate really don't bother me any more than those.

The astral diamonds are a bit odd, but the best explanation I have heard is that they are almost uniform in size by nature (like pearls), and then cut. Their scarcity makes them worth 10000 gp, they should not be lying around the plains like discarded copper. Of course, I plan to use adamantine coins in their place (to keep the "ad" abbreviation).


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 7, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> just think about all those dead gods whose flesh begins to crystallize as they float for eons on end.




Astral diamonds - the tears of dead gods. Astral rubies; their blood. Yeah, I'm using that.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Astral diamonds - the tears of dead gods. Astral rubies; their blood. Yeah, I'm using that.



 Astral pearls, their

No, let's not go there.


----------



## Emirikol (Mar 7, 2008)

I see dragon scale mail is worn by dragonborne.  That's like human-skin-leather being worn by humans.

I noticed that the CONAN MMO coming up has variants for it's armor types:
Better cloth
Better leather
Better metal chain
Better metal plate

I like that idea.  If it's non-magical all the better.  We gotta get back to some "not-so-magic-crutch" for themes 

jh


----------



## hafrogman (Mar 7, 2008)

Maybe I'm misreading it, but it doesn't seem to say anything about masterwork itself, but rather that certain armors are always masterwork.  Starweave and spiritmail and suchforth being the new equivalent of special materials, which (as in 3.X) are always masterwork.


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 7, 2008)

The different materials armors are made from are corny and completely uninspired (not to mention horribly repetitive). What happened to good old-fashioned mithril and adamantite?


----------



## Woas (Mar 7, 2008)

What is medium armor anyways, ya know?

What upsets me... why does WotC have this fetish with 'lightning bolt' shape shields? Can't a feller just get a blue circular shield with a red yellow cross on it? Sheesh!

And intelligence to your AC? Whaaa? Are people dodging swords with their mind now?


----------



## Azgulor (Mar 7, 2008)

Actually, it was the idea that everything falls into the mundane, cooler, roxxor categories that bothered me most.

I need Starleather armor!  Oh, throw those regular diamonds away, only astral diamonds are worth anything.

Plus, the idea that astral diamonds are universal enough to be used as currency...bleh.

The armor donning times have been used in my games, on more than one occassion.  Specific example - The PC's fortress is attacked in the dead of night.  Can the defenders hold long enough for the PCs to don their armor or do they need to rush to the ramparts.  I had a PC who favored plate armor quickly don a chain shirt so he could get to the fight sooner.

As I said, to each their own, but I and my group tend to prefer our fantasy to be less over-the-top or less cartoonish, however you wish to describe it.

When I mentioned these little gems to my gaming group some of the comments I got back included:
Do they come in different colors?  
If I find the gold Astral Diamond do I get an extra life, I mean healing surge?
I would've thought those armors were cool...when I was 12.
Is that astral diamond or asstral diamond?

Sorry, sarcasm is the currency of the realm at times at our gaming table.  If you love these ideas, more power to you.  I didn't.


----------



## ChaosShard (Mar 7, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> Apologies if this was covered in another thread and I missed it.
> 
> I found the following on another forum.  It's supposedly a screen shot of a section on 4e preview on armor and coinage.   I can't verify that it is, but if it is - color me very unimpressed.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/benimoto/2307597095/sizes/o/
> ...




Lack of medium armor isn't a huge deal. My group almost never uses medium armor except for mithril breastplate because it's technically light. I'm not crazy about the change but it doesn't really bug me, either.



			
				Azgulor said:
			
		

> All armor takes 5 minutes to put on.  - So leather armor isn't any easier to put on that a chainmail suit, or plate mail?  Simpler isn't always better.  This one seems like simplicity for simplicity's sake.  (And don't start with the "you can house rule it" stuff.)




It says all armors take *at least* 5 minutes to don. That doesn't mean that you'll see plate getting put back to the 15 minute time, but it doesn't mean that they're all the same.



			
				Azgulor said:
			
		

> Masterwork only as magic armor - unnecessary change.




Agreed, although this meshes wit the new design philosophy. I rather enjoy leaving MW gear in treasure piles for level 1-5 groups, so I'm not too crazy about this either.



			
				Azgulor said:
			
		

> Starleather, spiritmail, godplate - I'm not really digging these.  For all the weak accusations of 4e being video-gamey, these names definitely make me think of a video game.




The descriptions read as though these are akin to the special material types of 3.X. The names are OK, but not great. Also, the godplate was something forged by Moradin and copied by the dwarves, so players would likely find warplate, instead. Still, I don't see a big problem with them, but I'm not in love, either.



			
				Azgulor said:
			
		

> But the prizewiiner = ASTRAL DIAMONDS! - WTF?  Are you kidding me?  I can see it now, perfectly cut diamonds scattered throughout the Astral Plane.  How do you mine the Astral Plane, exactly?
> 
> To each their own, I guess, but I'm underwhelmed by these changes.




Well, the Astral Sea art from W&M shows Astral Domains (god-islands) floating about. I suppose (and I'm probably wrong again) that there are some free-floating islands/motes of matter that one could mine. Of course, the diamonds would have to be cut, unless they form like natual crystals, as a lump of gold has to be minted into a coin shape to be actual currency (not that it doesn't have inherent value, but being hard currency is a legal distinction).


----------



## Azgulor (Mar 7, 2008)

Woas said:
			
		

> What is medium armor anyways, ya know?
> 
> What upsets me... why does WotC have this fetish with 'lightning bolt' shape shields? Can't a feller just get a blue circular shield with a red yellow cross on it? Sheesh!
> 
> And intelligence to your AC? Whaaa? Are people dodging swords with their mind now?




Ah yes, the Int bonus to AC.  Forgot about that little nugget.  I'm guessing the classes are structured so that it's rare to have a character that lacks both an INT bonus and a DEX bonus.  Whether it's to "keep the math in line" or to avoid the "unfun" that comes from missing out on a bonus, this one's a stinker also.


----------



## Saitou (Mar 7, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> I need Starleather armor!  Oh, throw those regular diamonds away, only astral diamonds are worth anything.
> 
> Plus, the idea that astral diamonds are universal enough to be used as currency...bleh.



Diamonds are a gem, and as such vary in price.

Astral diamonds are specifically mentioned as used in the other realms concerning high-cost transactions. I doubt anyone on the Material Plane will even know what an Astral diamond is, much less be willing to pay 10k golds for it.

Also, I don't really think of Astral diamonds as diamonds per se (ie: carbon). But don't let me stop you from vehemently hating 4E for no reason!


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 7, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> Sorry, sarcasm is the currency of the realm at times at our gaming table.



You should demand a refund.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 7, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> Plus, the idea that astral diamonds are universal enough to be used as currency...bleh.



You're manufacturing problems.  It clearly says that astral diamonds are used:

1: Beyond the natural realms, in places like the City of Brass and Sigil.

2: For transactions involving a staggering amount of wealth.  One astral diamond prices at 10,000 gp.

I don't like this sort of, in my opinion, over the top fantasy either.  But that's a big part of why I don't run my game in the City of Brass.

Rules for underwater combat don't force you to run a game set in Atlantis, and rules for the Astral Sea don't force you to run a plane-hopping game.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Astral diamonds make perfect sense, people. See, when your character is limited to 100,000 gp at a time on their person, and another 1 million gp in storage in town, you need some sort of alternate currency for really large trades.

What?


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 7, 2008)

Medium armor... thats the mithril full plate category right? Cus I sure as hell cant remember anyone in my game ever being dumb enough to actually don the rest of that stuff past level 2. 

I'm glad for fantasy armor. You know... because there are these things called dwarves and elves that have been making it for far longer than it was made on earth, so you'd expect some kind of difference in what was available compared to midieval europe.

And people complain about the lack of verisimilitude... sheesh.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 7, 2008)

I like the astral diamonds. Its a good way account for large amounts of currency. I'm surprised that none of you mentioned the change in the gold-platinum exchange rate. Now its 100 gp to 1 pp. I like that change too.

As far as armor goes, medium armor was worthless in 3e. All the drawbacks of heavy but few of the benefits. Beyond 1st level no PCs wore medium armor in 3e. Like the Dodge feat, it was an example of the designers building bad choices into the system to promote "system mastery". A ridiculously stupid idea that I'm glad is gone.

And I like the Int or Dex bonus to armor. It keeps Dex from being the uber stat it was in 3e.


----------



## RandomCitizenX (Mar 7, 2008)

I gotta say, I like the alternate material armors. Always have and always will it seems. Gives some variety and that is always good.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 7, 2008)

The special armor names suck horribly.  Other than that, this all looks pretty good to me.

Yeah, the 5 minutes thing isn't entirely realistic, but how often is that actually going to come up?  Why waste player cognitive space on it?  The important point is that you can't don armor in the middle of combat.

As for medium armor--good riddance.  Except where mithral versions and 1st-level characters were concerned, medium armor was just wasted space in 3E, and I don't see the point in trying to fix it.  Just let the light and heavy armors kill it and take its stuff.


----------



## Gryffyn (Mar 7, 2008)

Yeah, I have to admit I rolled my eyes several times here.  Leaving that aside, I see a few interesting things:

* "Masterwork" doesn't seem to mean what it meant in 3e.
* The value of a platinum piece is changing yet again this edition.  Has it ever stayed the same from one edition to the next?
* Only six types of mundane armor listed.  Probably the shortest list ever.  As a kid, I learned a lot about medieval arms from the AD&D Players Handbook.  Bit of a shame they've shortened the list so much, but from a strict game point of view, I understand it.
* I'm glad to see the remark about cattle being a common form of portable currency.  Accurate and immersive -- more stuff like this, please.


----------



## Azgulor (Mar 7, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> You should demand a refund.




Why, because you didn't say it?


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 7, 2008)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> I see dragon scale mail is worn by dragonborne.  That's like human-skin-leather being worn by humans.




Not really. Its sort of like if apes wore human armor. 

Technically dragonskin armor is always a bit creepy. D&D dragons are a sentient race, so its about up there with an elf skin jerkin or a cloak made of ripped off fairy wings.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 7, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> Ah yes, the Int bonus to AC.  Forgot about that little nugget.  I'm guessing the classes are structured so that it's rare to have a character that lacks both an INT bonus and a DEX bonus.  Whether it's to "keep the math in line" or to avoid the "unfun" that comes from missing out on a bonus, this one's a stinker also.




Yeah, those two possibilities are definitely the only two possible.


----------



## EATherrian (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Astral pearls, their
> 
> No, let's not go there.




maybe their vitreous, to de-gutterfy it. 

Astral Onyx is their bile.  I actually like this idea.


----------



## RandomCitizenX (Mar 7, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Not really. Its sort of like if apes wore human armor.
> 
> Technically dragonskin armor is always a bit creepy. D&D dragons are a sentient race, so its about up there with an elf skin jerkin or a cloak made of ripped off fairy wings.




Or feeding elf bacon to another PC..... what? It was a Ravenloft game!


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 7, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> I'm glad for fantasy armor. You know... because there are these things called dwarves and elves that have been making it for far longer than it was made on earth, so you'd expect some kind of difference in what was available compared to midieval europe.
> 
> And people complain about the lack of verisimilitude... sheesh.




Spot on, mate.


----------



## Saishu_Heiki (Mar 7, 2008)

So we have:

Astral Diamond - tears of the gods

Astral Ruby - blood of the gods

Astral Onyx - bile of the gods

Any takers of sapphire, amethyst, lapus lazuli, or amber?


----------



## Mr Jack (Mar 7, 2008)

Woas said:
			
		

> What is medium armor anyways, ya know?




I'm quite pleased to see medium armour gone; it never had a comfrtable niche anyhow.



> And intelligence to your AC? Whaaa? Are people dodging swords with their mind now?




Makes sense to me; quick wits rather than quick hands. Judging your opponents attack pattern; thinking through your defense; not doing anything stupid.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Mar 7, 2008)

Since it looks like they got ride of Armor Check Penalty for 4E, there's no mechanical benefit to having the old 3E version of "masterwork" in the game. So the term has been given a new meaning, related to magical armor. Doesn't mean that ridiculously expensive and well-made mundane armor doesn't exist, it just a cosmetic thing now, not a game benefit.

Hey, in Guild Wars, I've spent tens of thousands of gold on prestige armor that's identical mechanically to regular armor (that was for you, Hong  )

I agree there's no real benefit to having specific suit-up times for different armors. Complex isn't always better.

Medium armor was always a weird category - for low level characters it was simply the best armor they could afford, higher level it was the armor you had made of special materials to move it into Light category anyway.

Astral diamonds. Hmmm... I guess the designers are using them as a way to reinforce the idea that the planes aren't that far away for capable adventurers. And at 10kgp apiece, they're still the currency of kings, great heroes, and powerful extra-planar beings. Not neccessarily "universal".


----------



## Azgulor (Mar 7, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Medium armor... thats the mithril full plate category right? Cus I sure as hell cant remember anyone in my game ever being dumb enough to actually don the rest of that stuff past level 2.
> 
> I'm glad for fantasy armor. You know... because there are these things called dwarves and elves that have been making it for far longer than it was made on earth, so you'd expect some kind of difference in what was available compared to midieval europe.
> 
> And people complain about the lack of verisimilitude... sheesh.




Well, I'll let the "dumb enough" comment pass.  I've seen medium armors as often as light and heavy armors.  They also didn't get rid of medium armors, just seem to classify them as heavy.

As to fantasy armor, that's fine.  But whereas 3.x was more of a toolkit, 4e appears to be shaping up to be less of one with a more ingrained setting.  When I see Ebony and Glass (magical substances) in Elder Scrolls game, I accept it as part of the setting.  It's just a little harder to swallow in a core rulebook.  That's probably MY issue, since 4e is built with Epic-level play in mind as part of the core.  Plane-jumping adventures and such are assumed under 4e.  As I said, to each their own.

The names are still dorky, though.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Mar 7, 2008)

Saishu_Heiki said:
			
		

> Any takers of sapphire, amethyst, lapus lazuli, or amber?



Well, Astral Amber's easy, since real amber has a biological basis. However, "Tree Sap of the Gods" may not have the most epic ring to it...


----------



## Mallus (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Astral pearls, their
> 
> No, let's not go there.



"The Pearl Necklace of the Gods" is so going to be the treasure in next week's adventure. The PC's have bargained with the Demon Lord of Sexual Euphemisms for a tour of the Graveyard of the Elder Gods, so it's perfectly (in)appropriate.

Thanks!


----------



## johan_seraphim (Mar 7, 2008)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> I see dragon scale mail is worn by dragonborne.  That's like human-skin-leather being worn by humans.
> 
> I noticed that the CONAN MMO coming up has variants for it's armor types:
> Better cloth
> ...





I totally agree, we need to get away from mindset of "I Need Magical Armor, etc. to survive"


----------



## Azgulor (Mar 7, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Yeah, those two possibilities are definitely the only two possible.




So whenever you speculate you list every conceivable possibility in every post?  Wow, you must have some serious free time on your hands.

Thanks for the troll, though.  Have a cookie.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 7, 2008)

Saitou said:
			
		

> But don't let me stop you from vehemently hating 4E for no reason!



Your post was fine until you got to the insult. Discuss the topic, please, without personal jabs.

Azgulor, that particularly goes for you as well. I don't care whether you love 4e or hate it, but you'll be respectful to the other posters if you want to post on EN World. 

Everyone else, please remember: just because you disagree with someone, you don't need to come across as a jerk. Thank you to everyone who works hard not to make disagreements personal. It's very much appreciated.


----------



## delericho (Mar 7, 2008)

Saishu_Heiki said:
			
		

> Medium armor simply was not used enough to warrant inclusion in 4e (at least, that is the way all my games have played out).




By the same token, they should remove all heavy armours except full plate, because I _never_ saw those used. Likewise bucklers, tower shields, and padded armour.

I did see elven chain, breastplates and (less commonly) hide armour fairly often.


----------



## Pale Jackal (Mar 7, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> The special armor names suck horribly.  Other than that, this all looks pretty good to me.
> 
> Yeah, the 5 minutes thing isn't entirely realistic, but how often is that actually going to come up?  Why waste player cognitive space on it?  The important point is that you can't don armor in the middle of combat.
> 
> As for medium armor--good riddance.  Except where mithral versions and 1st-level characters were concerned, medium armor was just wasted space in 3E, and I don't see the point in trying to fix it.  Just let the light and heavy armors kill it and take its stuff.




What he said.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 7, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> By the same token, they should remove all heavy armours except full plate, because I _never_ saw those used. Likewise bucklers, tower shields, and padded armour.



You're misunderstanding.  Its not that the "armors which were medium" were removed.  The category "medium armor" was removed.  The category "medium armor" was something to be tolerated because you couldn't afford better, or avoided through the use of Mithril.

What does seem to have been removed are the partial armors.  "Breastplate" and "Chain Shirt."  Plus a little consolidation seems to have taken place on certain other armors.


----------



## Saishu_Heiki (Mar 7, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> By the same token, they should remove all heavy armours except full plate, because I _never_ saw those used. Likewise bucklers, tower shields, and padded armour.
> 
> I did see elven chain, breastplates and (less commonly) hide armour fairly often.




Fair enough. Your players used different armors than any of mine. I have run games literally from coast to coast (due to being in the Army), and I always saw medium armor jettisoned after 1st or 2nd level. It was an unnecessary addition for the people that I played with, they would not have missed it if I houseruled it out.

I do agree, though that half-plate was used even less.


----------



## Steely Dan (Mar 7, 2008)

So, it looks like copper pieces are still in…joy.


----------



## RandomCitizenX (Mar 7, 2008)

Saishu_Heiki said:
			
		

> Fair enough. Your players used different armors than any of mine. I have run games literally from coast to coast (due to being in the Army), and I always saw medium armor jettisoned after 1st or 2nd level. It was an unnecessary addition for the people that I played with, they would not have missed it if I houseruled it out.
> 
> I do agree, though that half-plate was used even less.




From personal experience medium armor was usually only a stop gap until heavy armor could be afforded.


----------



## delericho (Mar 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> You're misunderstanding.  Its not that the "armors which were medium" were removed.  The category "medium armor" was removed.  The category "medium armor" was something to be tolerated because you couldn't afford better, or avoided through the use of Mithril.




Actually, since they've dropped to only six armour types (cloth, leather, hide, chain, scale, plate), they have removed almost all of the armours I cited.

As for the Medium category, I found it very useful. It created a mid-way point between the lightly-armoured Rogues and the heavily-armoured Fighters - a mid-way point that was ideal for Barbarians and Druids.

The only problem I had with Medium armours took for form of Mithral Full Plate, which was one of the factors rendering the Barbarian overpowered (alongside the Animated shield and two-handed Power Attack).


----------



## Mr Jack (Mar 7, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Since it looks like they got ride of Armor Check Penalty for 4E, there's no mechanical benefit to having the old 3E version of "masterwork" in the game




Where are you getting the notion that Armour Check Penalty is gone from? I can't see anything to support that; and the sample characters for DDXP certainly look like they've had armour check penalties applied to some of their skills.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Mar 7, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Technically dragonskin armor is always a bit creepy. D&D dragons are a sentient race, so its about up there with an elf skin jerkin or a cloak made of ripped off fairy wings.




I don't have problems with it for two reasons.

First, dragons can and do eat people in myth and in game.  I have no issue returning the favor and using their useful bits, especially since they're not anthropomorphic.

Second, it has been stated numerous times that dragons shed scales.  As such, it's a simple* matter to gather the scales and use those in armor construction.

* - For varying values of simple, from "strip off the carcass" to "pay the dragon for his castoff scales".

Brad


----------



## delericho (Mar 7, 2008)

Mr Jack said:
			
		

> Where are you getting the notion that Armour Check Penalty is gone from? I can't see anything to support that; and the sample characters for DDXP certainly look like they've had armour check penalties applied to some of their skills.




The sidebar in the sample pages makes reference to a "Check Penalty", so I would have thought it was still there.


----------



## hafrogman (Mar 7, 2008)

Saishu_Heiki said:
			
		

> Any takers of sapphire, amethyst, lapus lazuli, or amber?





			
				Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Well, Astral Amber's easy, since real amber has a biological basis. However, "Tree Sap of the Gods" may not have the most epic ring to it...



How about "Earwax of the Gods"?


----------



## delericho (Mar 7, 2008)

Saishu_Heiki said:
			
		

> Fair enough. Your players used different armors than any of mine.




Indeed. I should note that I don't have a big problem with the loss of medium armour. I like it, but I'm not going to be heartbroken at its loss.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Mar 7, 2008)

Saishu_Heiki said:
			
		

> So we have:
> 
> Astral Diamond - tears of the gods
> 
> ...




Astral amber could be the hardened resin of the nature gods?


----------



## Stormtower (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Astral pearls, their
> 
> No, let's not go there.




Dude, you went there.


----------



## Puggins (Mar 7, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Well, Astral Amber's easy, since real amber has a biological basis. However, "Tree Sap of the Gods" may not have the most epic ring to it...




Easy change- the floating bodies of dead gods have become firmament in the Astral Sea, infusing the flora and fauna that call these islands home with fleeting remnants of once-vast divine power.  The tress and bushes that take root here exude sap far different that one finds on other soil....


----------



## bganon (Mar 7, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Since it looks like they got ride of Armor Check Penalty for 4E, there's no mechanical benefit to having the old 3E version of "masterwork" in the game. So the term has been given a new meaning, related to magical armor. Doesn't mean that ridiculously expensive and well-made mundane armor doesn't exist, it just a cosmetic thing now, not a game benefit.




Armor Check Penalty does seem to still exist in some form.  If you look at the preview characters, the Dwarf Fighter seems to have -2 to Athletics, Acrobatics, and Stealth.  The Human Cleric has -1 to those skills.  The Halfling Paladin gets -4 to Athletics and Stealth, -2 to Acrobatics.  I'm guessing chain gives -1, scale gives -2, and plate gives -4 (but the halfling has +2 Acrobatics as a racial bonus).


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 7, 2008)

Stormtower said:
			
		

> Dude, you went there.




I'm sure he meant pearls taken from the minds of the gods.

You know.

Where their wisdom was.



--

So.  Who wants to band together with some astral kobolds and go god mining?


----------



## Satori5000 (Mar 7, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Not really. Its sort of like if apes wore human armor.
> 
> Technically dragonskin armor is always a bit creepy. D&D dragons are a sentient race, so its about up there with an elf skin jerkin or a cloak made of ripped off fairy wings.





Yes, I agree with the creepy factor.  In the description of the armor though, it specifically says "Wyrmscale is made using ancient techniques the dragonborn invented to MIMIC the strength of overlapping dragon scales".  No where in that does it say it actually requires real dragon scales.


----------



## ShinRyuuBR (Mar 7, 2008)

Dragonborn do NOT wear dragonskin armor. They wear WYRMSCALE armor, which is a masterwork scale armor that IMITATES dragon scales. Its a simple matter of style. Dragonborn are expected to imitate true dragons at every opportunity. This is one of them.

Edit: GAH! Satori trampled me over!


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm glad to see Astral Diamonds, because I don't even want to think about how many gold coins I would have to carry to buy godplate armor at the Mor-Mart.

Seriously, nothing I see here bothers me at all.

Though I am now wondering if Elderberries are berries scoured with elemental forces, and if they are, does that make them really, really clean?


----------



## Grymar (Mar 7, 2008)

What bothers me most in this is cosmetic...the names.  How many compound pointless words can they make up per page?  It seems to me that the old standards of mithril and adamantine have been removed because they aren't copywriteable.  WotC has to replace anything that doesn't fall under their IP with something they can hold on to and restrict via the new game license.  

Feyweave
Starweave
Feyleather
Starleather
Darkhide
Elderhide
Forgemail
Spiritmail
Wyrmscale
Godplate
Warplate


----------



## EATherrian (Mar 7, 2008)

Saishu_Heiki said:
			
		

> So we have:
> 
> Astral Diamond - tears of the gods
> 
> ...




Astral Jade could be the blood of the Vulcan Gods.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

Ambergris of the Gods.  Very abundant after the annual deity gala.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Mar 7, 2008)

Mr Jack said:
			
		

> Where are you getting the notion that Armour Check Penalty is gone from? I can't see anything to support that; and the sample characters for DDXP certainly look like they've had armour check penalties applied to some of their skills.



Guess I'm misremembering. But anyway, they apparently wanted to do away with the "fiddly-bit" of (mundane) masterwork armor reducing the check penalty.


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Mar 7, 2008)

On the up-side, though... I have to say that those armors look good. They are more realistic than I spected for this edition... the only thing that looks horrible is the heavy shield (and to a lesser degree, WotC's obsession with armor asymmetry).


----------



## Saitou (Mar 7, 2008)

Sir Sebastian Hardin said:
			
		

> (and to a lesser degree, WotC's obsession with armor asymmetry).



Shield arm, mate. Has to be flexible and doesn't necessarily need to be as protected.

On a related note, all this jewelry of the Gods babbling has definitely instilled in me a desire to send my PCs stripmining deities' backsides.


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Mar 7, 2008)

Saitou said:
			
		

> Shield arm, mate. Has to be flexible and doesn't necessarily need to be as protected.




Oh. Really? Then it is all good... everything but the flashy-naming.... It's getting really, really, REALLY anoying.

And old.


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 7, 2008)

The scoop has interesting bits indeed! I am fine with almost all of these things, or at least I can live with them:

- different ability bonuses to AC: cannot comment yet, sounds very odd but OTOH it could be an attempt at reducing the importance of Dex, which is the best stat in 3ed

- new penalties for lack of armor proficiency: while I'd have done a bigger penalty than -2, this isn't anyway better or worse than 3e, so it's ok for me

- Light/Medium armor: I don't think that going from 3 to 2 is a significant simplification, but it doesn't bother me; I'm a bit disappointed instead by the fact that there are only 6 basic armors... maybe that's just me but I always wished there were many more armors than the 12 basic ones of 3ed (not as many as basic weapons, but maybe half of that number would be great)

- donning times: in my own XP, these rules are among those we NEVER EVER needed to use... the 4e rules are better than 3e in this case because they set a minimum (5 min) and then basically let the DM decide for variants [this is NOT the kind of verisimilitude I want in a RPG]

- masterwork armors: I'd like masterwork stuff (special materials or special crafting methods) to be more present in the game than before, so I'm in favor of these additions; the names aren't that terrible for me, perhaps the only nitpick is that they seem a bit monothematic with the astral plane

So, the only thing I dislike seriously is the astral diamonds. Not because I don't want something like that to exist in our world, but because putting them among the *default currency* sounds (to me!) truly lame.... it's evidently just an attempt at scaling up the currency for high-level heroes. That tells me that once again D&D cannot work without assuming that everything works by money even among the stars and the gods


----------



## Gryffyn (Mar 7, 2008)

Saitou said:
			
		

> Shield arm, mate. Has to be flexible and doesn't necessarily need to be as protected.




That sounds good, but it doesn't explain why over the course of centuries of human history, shields were invariably symmetrical.  The main reason they were was because in real combat, shields were not really expected to survive more than one battle.  The shield was the main barrier between you and your opponent's weapon, and as such it took a heavy beating.  Since they needed replacing often, it wasn't worth the extra trouble to make them asymmetrical.

Another good reason is balance.  An asymmetrical shield is much harder to balance properly.  Unbalanced shields are harder to use, and therefore less effective.

I have to wonder if the shield drawings in this case owe more to the "cool factor" than anything else.  In a fantasy context, magical shields can doubtlessly be whatever shape and color with no worries.  Normal ones should be more normal, I think.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Mar 7, 2008)

Grymar said:
			
		

> What bothers me most in this is cosmetic...the names.  How many compound pointless words can they make up per page?  It seems to me that the old standards of mithril and adamantine have been removed because they aren't copywriteable.  WotC has to replace anything that doesn't fall under their IP with something they can hold on to and restrict via the new game license.
> 
> Feyweave
> Starweave
> ...



The OGL let the D&D genie out of the bottle.  No amount of new trademarks will put it back in.  WotC seems to be hoping that future generations of players will consider dragonborn, godplate, etc. to be an essential part of D&D- trademarks that WotC will own.  I think the reality is that even *if* they become an "essential" part of D&D, third parties will always find a roundabout way of including them.  Just as D&D once included hobbits by calling them "halflings".


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 7, 2008)

RandomCitizenX said:
			
		

> Or feeding elf bacon to another PC..... what? It was a Ravenloft game!





Bah, elf bacon tastes like turkey bacon. Now dwarf bacon... fatty goodness abounds!


----------



## EATherrian (Mar 7, 2008)

Grymar said:
			
		

> What bothers me most in this is cosmetic...the names.  How many compound pointless words can they make up per page?  It seems to me that the old standards of mithril and adamantine have been removed because they aren't copywriteable.  WotC has to replace anything that doesn't fall under their IP with something they can hold on to and restrict via the new game license.
> 
> Feyweave
> Starweave
> ...




I'm sorry, but these names are AWFUL.  I mean it that way too.  They are so bad they require capitalization.  I'm sure this is going to really stop the MMORPG comparisons, since these sound like a direct port.  Oh well, more things I need to change.


----------



## Belphanior (Mar 7, 2008)

Grymar said:
			
		

> Feyweave
> Starweave
> Feyleather
> Starleather
> ...




I like some of those names. Feyweave sounds evocative, I like the notion of 400 senile pixies working at a loom for centuries underneath their mad king's willow-hall, to produce a silken toga of unsurpassed fineness yet highly resistant to staining and tears. Godplate sounds awesome too. It's what you deck out the fighter with when you're going hunting the princes of hell and boot them in the teeth.

Starleather... not so much. And Forgemail sounds like a subscription to an indie rpg newsletter.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Mar 7, 2008)

Grymar said:
			
		

> What bothers me most in this is cosmetic...the names.  How many compound pointless words can they make up per page?  It seems to me that the old standards of mithril and adamantine have been removed because they aren't copywriteable.  WotC has to replace anything that doesn't fall under their IP with something they can hold on to and restrict via the new game license.
> 
> Feyweave
> Starweave
> ...




yeah, its kindof sad and pathetic if thats the case. It also hurts classic fantasy in my opinon and adds to d&disms in a very bad way. 

That said i think that armor types are not going to be granted by classes with just light or heavy armor but i think many of the classes will get cloth armor or chain shirt or etc....

That would make alot more sense and prevent everyone from going for the plate armor or hide armor. I dont think that light armor will have dex/int cap ether.


----------



## Saitou (Mar 7, 2008)

Gryffyn said:
			
		

> stuff about shields



I was talking about the actual _armours_, not the shields.


----------



## Belphanior (Mar 7, 2008)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> I dont think that light armor will have dex/int cap ether.




Well yeah, it literally says so on that page... Read the lower part of the utmost left paragraph.

Light armor: Int or Dex modifier
Heavy armor: no modifier at all


----------



## rkanodia (Mar 7, 2008)

Grymar said:
			
		

> Warplate



Obviously, the armor of choice for a Warforged Warlord.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Mar 7, 2008)

Eh, the names arent really all that bad compared to the alternate materials we've seen in previous editions.   Is Wyrmscale and Godarmor really that much worse then Darkleaf, Bronzewood, Starmetal, or my favorite, Ysgardian Heartweave?  

Heck, would you have accepted Mithril and Admantine if they just made them up now?


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 7, 2008)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> yeah, its kindof sad and pathetic if thats the case. It also hurts classic fantasy in my opinon and adds to d&disms in a very bad way.



Keep your game in Heroic Tier and I don't think you'll ever have to worry about Feyweave or Starweave.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 7, 2008)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> I see dragon scale mail is worn by dragonborne.  That's like human-skin-leather being worn by humans.



Woah. Badass.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Astral pearls, their
> 
> No, let's not go there.



I would, but I don't have enough spunk.

By which I mean courage, obviously.


----------



## skraig (Mar 7, 2008)

*Armor types*

Medium armor has had good showings in the games I have been in and games I have run. The restriction that you cannot run in Heavy armor always came up. (only triple speed)  Fighters in full plate tended to get left behind and eaten.  The breastplate in particular has been used a lot.  
That said the top choice for armor was always the chain shirt. Fighters, rogues rangers, even clerics and occasionally wizards. (mithril chain shirts)

I suspect that there are two reasons for so few armors in the PHB. The first being that they are sufficient and that there is a LOT they need to get into that book. Especially now that magic items are in the PHB along with summoned and companion creatures. The second reason is that there is a lot of room for things like new armors (studded leather, banded mail, splint mail,  half plate, breastplate, chain shirt) in the PHBII. 

I know that putting things like that in the PHBII will cause a lot of people to be angry, but it really is a good idea.  WotC needs to get everything that makes a Great game in the PHB, DMG and MM.  12 armors is more than you need for that. The left out armors are like the left out classes. Perfect for adding new options later.


The new coin exchange rates are fine. 

Like I said in a different post. I got to play 4th ed ad D&DXP and it was a lot of fun. Give it a chance when it gets published!


----------



## Lab_Monkey (Mar 7, 2008)

I'll definitely miss studded leather, chain shirt, and breastplate armors.  IME these all saw lots of use in game. 

I'll also miss buckler shields if they are no longer in.  Virtually every rogue, ranger, wizard or sorcerer I DMed for used a masterwork buckler.  

Things like the tower shield and half-plate will be less missed.  However, I did like the verisimilitude that these options added to the game.

Oh well.  This and the tripping limitations are the first thing I haven't liked about 4e.


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 7, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> All armor takes 5 minutes to put on.  - So leather armor isn't any easier to put on that a chainmail suit, or plate mail?




It does not say that read it again. All armour takes *at least* 5 minutes to put on. Plate mail takes longer than leather, just neither is a combat activity so the exact time isn't relevant, or worth noting.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 7, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> So whenever you speculate you list every conceivable possibility in every post?  Wow, you must have some serious free time on your hands.
> 
> Thanks for the troll, though.  Have a cookie.




Sorry, wife doesn't allow me cookies. I have been fed too much, it appears.

Regarding every conceivable possibility: Of course I don't, but I do try not to leave out the most obvious ones, especially when I am calling the work of professionals crap.

Cheers.


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Mar 7, 2008)

I'll miss Breastplates too. a lot. I've always enoyed playing roman-type warriors. I'll miss tower shields too. Good bye to my evil phalanx NPCs.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Mar 7, 2008)

Grymar said:
			
		

> What bothers me most in this is cosmetic...the names.  How many compound pointless words can they make up per page?  It seems to me that the old standards of mithril and adamantine have been removed because they aren't copywriteable.  WotC has to replace anything that doesn't fall under their IP with something they can hold on to and restrict via the new game license.
> 
> Feyweave
> Starweave
> ...




Agreed. These names are incredibly stupid.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Mar 7, 2008)

Astral Cubic Zirconium= Vizine of the Gods.


----------



## Saitou (Mar 7, 2008)

ppaladin123 said:
			
		

> Astral Cubic Zirconium= Vizine of the Gods.



Cubic zirconium is actually rarer than diamonds! I am not making this up.


----------



## MaelStorm (Mar 7, 2008)

Belphanior said:
			
		

> I like some of those names. Feyweave sounds evocative, I like the notion of 400 senile pixies working at a loom for centuries underneath their mad king's willow-hall, to produce a silken toga of unsurpassed fineness yet highly resistant to staining and tears. Godplate sounds awesome too. It's what you deck out the fighter with when you're going hunting the princes of hell and boot them in the teeth.
> 
> Starleather... not so much. And Forgemail sounds like a subscription to an indie rpg newsletter.



I agree completely with you. And exotic material with name has an added background benefit than just a generic concept. Starleather will have another name IMC. Forgemail is OK with me though.


----------



## HukdUnFonx (Mar 7, 2008)

*No max dex*

I'm a little surprised nobody's commented yet on what I think is the coolest thing on this page, and probably the reason there's no Medium category: no max dex anymore!  It looks like the difference between Light and Heavy armors is simply that wearing the former allows a dex/int bonus to AC, while the latter doesn't.  I think this is a FANTASTIC simplification to the 3.5 system, and I'm glad to see that rule cut.


----------



## Just Another User (Mar 7, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> But the prizewiiner = ASTRAL DIAMONDS! - WTF?  Are you kidding me?  I can see it now, perfectly cut diamonds scattered throughout the Astral Plane.  How do you mine the Astral Plane, exactly?
> 
> To each their own, I guess, but I'm underwhelmed by these changes.




And now we know what you need for the raise dead ritual and similiar.


----------



## atom crash (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm a bit concerned that adventurers are going to be accumulating so much cash that we need to add something like astral diamonds to the rules. What is so expensive that they'll be buying? It wouldn't be added if it didn't fill some specific need (or perceived need).

In 3E, adventurers accumulated gobs of wealth in order to afford the most expensive magic items. I was hoping that 4E would be moving away from that.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Mar 7, 2008)

atom crash said:
			
		

> I'm a bit concerned that adventurers are going to be accumulating so much cash that we need to add something like astral diamonds to the rules. What is so expensive that they'll be buying? It wouldn't be added if it didn't fill some specific need (or perceived need).
> 
> In 3E, adventurers accumulated gobs of wealth in order to afford the most expensive magic items. I was hoping that 4E would be moving away from that.




The rules now go to epic levels in the core books.

A 25th level character can probably expect to have items/wealth over a million GPs.

Greyhawk City merchants might never see an Astral Diamond, much less use them on a regular basis.

You can't expect the same of the City of Brass or Sigil however.


----------



## Just Another User (Mar 7, 2008)

Mr Jack said:
			
		

> Makes sense to me; quick wits rather than quick hands. Judging your opponents attack pattern; thinking through your defense; not doing anything stupid.




Yeah,  Einstein was great at dodging. Nobody could lay an hand on him into a fight

(yeah, it could have been Hawking, but I have still some good taste)


----------



## snarfoogle (Mar 7, 2008)

WoasW said:
			
		

> And intelligence to your AC? Whaaa? Are people dodging swords with their mind now?




Some people think they can outsmart me. Maybe. I've yet to see one that can outsmart BULLET!


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Mar 7, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Yeah,  Einstein was great at dodging. Nobody could lay an hand on him into a fight
> 
> (yeah, it could have been Hawking, but I have still some good taste)




Einstein wasn't an adventurer; he and Hawking would be NPCs.  4e NPCs don't necessarily follow the rules adventurers do, nor gain the same benefits.


----------



## Imp (Mar 7, 2008)

I don't know that I would use a lot of the schmancy armor types, which seem to have been designed for the wild & crazy epic plane-hopping stage of the game, but this is the sort of thing you can fairly easily change for your own game, so it doesn't upset me or anything.

Maybe I'm just not that particular about armor systems – I thought 3e's armor system was more or less fine and same with this info.


----------



## Just Another User (Mar 7, 2008)

Grymar said:
			
		

> What bothers me most in this is cosmetic...the names.  How many compound pointless words can they make up per page?  It seems to me that the old standards of mithril and adamantine have been removed because they aren't copywriteable.  WotC has to replace anything that doesn't fall under their IP with something they can hold on to and restrict via the new game license.




this.

I think that most of the fluff changes have in part to do with that, for example the old elves, halflings, etc are under the SRD, that is still and presumebly will be public,and everyone can use them.
But the new elves, dwarves, etc will be under the new license and are WotC IP

The same apply to the planes, and other things
Everybody can do a book about the elemental plane of fire, only wotc or people that follow WotC game license, can do a book on the feywild.
At least for what I know of the licenses.


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 7, 2008)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> Obviously, the armor of choice for a Warforged Warlord.




Warforged Warlord in Warplate with a Warhammer on a Warhorse... all of it illustrated by Wayne Reynolds (aka "WAR")


----------



## nutluck (Mar 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Hmm. I can't think of any situation where the PCs were counting minutes to don armor.
> 
> If they were attacked while sleeping/not wearing armor (at a party, for example), they fought without it.
> 
> ...




I have had it happen many times as a GM or as a player. As been stated if the PC's are in a place that is being attacked but are not the specific targets themselves. Then they have to debat. Take time to put on armor and maybe innocents die or take a risk and rush into combat with out armor and maybe get cut down to fast to be able to stop the attack.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Mar 7, 2008)

atom crash said:
			
		

> In 3E, adventurers accumulated gobs of wealth in order to afford the most expensive magic items. I was hoping that 4E would be moving away from that.




And previously, they accumulated cash and had nothing useful, in-game, to spend it on.  I distinctly recall the AD&D2 PHB or DMG (one, I forget which) recommending castles and land grants as useful money sponges because they'd obviously generate far less in revenue than they cost to upkeep (...how everyone else in a castle afforded it was deliberately left unclear...).

Presumably money'll still be useful in some way, at least in commerce (buying ships, land, magic items, ale, hookers, etc).

Certainly, having super-high-value-gems makes large transactions simpler.  Remember, gold pieces are heavy, at 50/pound.  That means a 2000 gp +1 longsword is worth as much as 40 pounds of gold, which is a really big pain in the rear end to move around.

(I just had this image of a magic item mart combined with a bank, that allowed financial transactions without the hassle of renting out carts and donkeys to move bricks of gold around...think like how the major auto manufacturers have their banks associated with them...)

Brad


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Mar 7, 2008)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Warforged Warlord in Warplate with a Warhammer on a Warhorse... all of it illustrated by Wayne Reynolds (aka "WAR")



Don't forget he dipped a level in Warlock for a Star pact....


And that he like's Andy Warhol's art


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Mar 7, 2008)

Belphanior said:
			
		

> Well yeah, it literally says so on that page... Read the lower part of the utmost left paragraph.
> 
> Light armor: Int or Dex modifier
> Heavy armor: no modifier at all




lol


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 7, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I would, but I don't have enough spunk.
> 
> By which I mean courage, obviously.




Come, come!  Enough of this innuendo!


----------



## HarbingerX (Mar 7, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> And previously, they accumulated cash and had nothing useful, in-game, to spend it on.  I distinctly recall the AD&D2 PHB or DMG (one, I forget which) recommending castles and land grants as useful money sponges because they'd obviously generate far less in revenue than they cost to upkeep (...how everyone else in a castle afforded it was deliberately left unclear...).




That was one thing I really missed in 3e. In BD&D, 1st (and I guess 2nd), once certain classes reached the class' 'named' level (around 10th) they started to attract followers - whether they liked it or not. So inevitably they started becoming a power center of their own and became involved in politics of 'the realm'. A whole new range of play opened at this point in the character development. 3e seemed to very heavily discourage hirelings/henchmen (you had to use one of your feats) and instead focused the game on the individual instead of the campaign setting. While I doubt we'll see those rules re-appear, I think I'll house rule them back in.


----------



## Pbartender (Mar 7, 2008)

Woas said:
			
		

> What upsets me... why does WotC have this fetish with 'lightning bolt' shape shields? Can't a feller just get a blue circular shield with a red yellow cross on it? Sheesh!




That and asymmetrical clothing and armor.  Guh.  "I just bought a full suit of plate armor...  It protects everything except my left elbow.  Good thing I've got my lightning-shaped shield to cover that up."  Blecch. :\


----------



## jaer (Mar 7, 2008)

Mr Jack said:
			
		

> Makes sense to me; quick wits rather than quick hands. Judging your opponents attack pattern; thinking through your defense; not doing anything stupid.)





I don't see it as having anything to do with judging attacks and thinking through defense.  It has everything to do with reaction time and mental chronometry.

In order to reaction to anything, there is a mental aspect to it.  Recognizing a threat, identifying stimuli.  This is subconcious, and in D&D terms, I can understand how such a purely mental act would be given unto Intelligence.  It shows speed of thought.  Think of this as the immediate "fight or fligh" response in the mind...or in the case of combat, "dodge or block."  Your brain controls the impulse.

To react physically to something, you need physical movement, obviously.  Raising the shield, jumping out of the way, what have you.  This movement cannot happen before a mental process has occured and the brain has stimulated the muscles into action, or rather, into reaction to the interrepted stimuli.  This movement is represented by Dexterity.

Therefore, total reaction time = mental reaction + physical reaction.

Initative, Reflex saves, and Armor Class make sense being dictated by either Intelligence or Dex, and in fact, would make greater sense to have them be adjusted by both.  Someone who is exceedingly nimble and graceful might not react quickly to stimuli because of slow mental reaction, even though once the brain processes, he can physically move very quickly.

So a high int wizard can be as good at dodging a fireball or sword strike as a high dex rogue, but not because he quickly calculated the trajetory and knew how to get out of the way.  His sharper mind reacted to the threat of the attack even before the rogue did, so he was moving to dodge the attack before the rogue does.  The rogue, once he starts to react, physically moves faster.  But the time the fireball explodes, they have "caught up" to each other and safely ducked out of the way, the wizard because he moved a second or so before the rogue, and the rogue because he moved with greater speed.


----------



## Khuxan (Mar 7, 2008)

By my calculations there is the equivalent of 50,000 astral diamonds in Fort Knox. The amount of gold represented by an astral diamond is not a huge amount in today's money: $2,800,000 US. It's reasonable that adventurers would be millionaires and, in a world without cheques or banks, would find a portable way of carrying wealth.

(My maths may be way off  - I was using a computer calculator and got distracted sometimes)


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 7, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> I don't see it as having anything to do with judging attacks and thinking through defense.  I has everything to do with reaction tmioe and mental chronometry.




I really like this reasoning.


----------



## Aage (Mar 7, 2008)

I would much rather see wisdom modify reflex, and intelligence could be kept for will saves... Wisdom represents perception, intuition, instict; intelligence on the other hand is rational thinking, which to me has nothing to do with reflex...


----------



## jaer (Mar 7, 2008)

Aage said:
			
		

> I would much rather see wisdom modify reflex, and intelligence could be kept for will saves... Wisdom represents perception, intuition, instict; intelligence on the other hand is rational thinking, which to me has nothing to do with reflex...




Perhaps.  Instict and perception do play a part in it, true, but I always felt Wisdom was more gut feeling, while the speed of reaction would be in the speed at which synaps fire in the brain.

Intelligence, as used as an attribute in D&D, covers a whole lot of ground.  To me it is both book smarts (how much you actually know) and quickness of thought (how quickly your brain works to process information).

While wisdom does cover gut instinct, and one could make an arguement for it (or a feat that did use wisdom instead of int or a class ability like that of the 3e monk) so that your character reacts to gut instinct rather than reacting to a recognized pattern, I have never thought of wisdom covering the mental aspects of quick-witt and mental processing time.  But that is just me.


----------



## Mercule (Mar 7, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> Medium armor - gone.  Simpler isn't always better.  This one's a minor issue, though.




Makes sense, to me.  Hide is still in.  They've just made the categories "stuff that lets you dodge" and "stuff that doesn't".



> All armor takes 5 minutes to put on.  - So leather armor isn't any easier to put on that a chainmail suit, or plate mail?  Simpler isn't always better.  This one seems like simplicity for simplicity's sake.  (And don't start with the "you can house rule it" stuff.)



At least 5 minutes.  In other words, "all armor take a non-trivial amount of time to don."  Again, makes sense to me.  It's a martial ritual.   



> Masterwork only as magic armor - unnecessary change.



This one does bug me.  I like the idea of some armor that is just plain made better.  Maybe there's something on another page that fits that bill or gives us better information.  If not, I agree with your concern.



> Starleather, spiritmail, godplate - I'm not really digging these.  For all the weak accusations of 4e being video-gamey, these names definitely make me think of a video game.



I actually kinda like having various "common magic" armors.  It's a fantasy world, and there's a bunch of flavor in having low grade, higher-availability magic armor.  It makes a fine distinction between the +1/+2 armors that every town guard captain seems to have and the more rare and custom armors.

I hope they do something similar for weapons.  It'd be great to have the availability of +1/+2 weapons, but grant some room for Excalibur, too.



> But the prizewiiner = ASTRAL DIAMONDS! - WTF?  Are you kidding me?  I can see it now, perfectly cut diamonds scattered throughout the Astral Plane.  How do you mine the Astral Plane, exactly?



Although I'm unlikely to ever need or use them, they make total sense for both a fantasy setting and for inclusion in a PHB that handles characters up to the potency of deicide and who have powers that activate "once per day, when you die."

I don't think astral diamonds are going to be considered common -- the blurb pretty much states as much.  I think they're going to be extremely rare.  They probably aren't supposed to be diamonds in any real sense, either, just shiny crystals from the astral.  I really like the idea of currency that has absolutely no real-world basis.



> To each their own, I guess, but I'm underwhelmed by these changes.



I consider myself to be a pretty big fan of low-magic and gritty games, but I view most of these as being positives.

Heck, some of your issues don't even seem to have a flavor-related root.  There wasn't even armor categorization before 3e.  I don't see how re-doing some simple meta-game labels can really be a travesty or a testament to bad design.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 7, 2008)

Nevermind, I just forgot how to use the internet for a moment.


----------



## Azgulor (Mar 7, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> I don't see it as having anything to do with judging attacks and thinking through defense.  It has everything to do with reaction time and mental chronometry.
> 
> In order to reaction to anything, there is a mental aspect to it.  Recognizing a threat, identifying stimuli.  This is subconcious, and in D&D terms, I can understand how such a purely mental act would be given unto Intelligence.  It shows speed of thought.  Think of this as the immediate "fight or fligh" response in the mind...or in the case of combat, "dodge or block."  Your brain controls the impulse.
> 
> ...




I don't buy it.

I mean, if this were true, why isn't Wil E. Coyote on par with the Roadrunner?   

He is a supra-genius after all.

Seriously, though flight-or-flight is instinct not reasoning/IQ.  Speed-of-thought doesn't translate to "started moving first".

You want to talk about INT providing some type of tactics bonus, I have less of an issue.  Combat Expertise didn't both me.  As a feat, it reflected special training and I liked it.  But a flat, you're smart so you're harder to hit...strikes me as a bonus for balance sake.  As I said earlier up, either to make the math work or to eliminate the "unfunness" of missing out on a bonus.  (Making the math "smoother" and eliminating "unfun" aspects of the game have both been cited as design goals for 4e.)


----------



## Lizard (Mar 7, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> You want to talk about INT providing some type of tactics bonus, I have less of an issue.  Combat Expertise didn't both me.  As a feat, it reflected special training and I liked it.  But a flat, you're smart so you're harder to hit...strikes me as a bonus for balance sake.




One of the 4e design goals was to 'eliminate unnecessary parallelism', but here it is, none the less...


----------



## delericho (Mar 7, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Yeah,  Einstein was great at dodging. Nobody could lay an hand on him into a fight




What's more, his reflexes actually sharpened as he grew older!


----------



## delericho (Mar 7, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> Therefore, total reaction time = mental reaction + physical reaction.




The problem is, the rules don't reflect that. If they did, you should either add the _lower_ of the two modifiers, or just add both of them.

Instead, it would appear that a character needs to think about what he needs to do, or he needs to move, but he doesn't need to do both.

This is an... odd rule. I might even say bizarre.


----------



## Campbell (Mar 7, 2008)

> Yeah, Einstein was great at dodging. Nobody could lay an hand on him into a fight




Not at all. Einstein has never learned how to apply his mental agility to avoiding sharp sticks or moving out of the way of a fireball. This example only makes sense if we constrain ourselves to applying tools that are meant to model adventurers (trained combatants) to folks who have never received any sort of combat training.

Einstein Level 0 Dude
Medium natural humanoid XP 175
*Initiative* -1 *Senses* Perception +2
HP 8; Bloodied 4
AC 8, Fortitude 6, Reflex 8, Will 12
Speed 6
m Nerd Slap (standard; at-will)
-4 vs. AC; 1d4 -3 damage 
*Alignment* Unaligned  *Languages* English, German
*Skills* Science +19
Str 6 (-2) Dex 8 (-1) Wis 14 (+2)
Con 6 (-2) Int 28 (+9) Cha 6 (-2)
*Equipment:* Pocket Protector


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

If you've ever seen a World's Strongest Man competition, it's apparent that while all the competitors are what we would call 'strong', they each have areas in which they are exceptional.  Likewise those people who are strong willed aren't necessarily intuitive.  For practical reasons, games consolidate a lot of the features into a few stats.  While Einstein was what we'd call genius, I don't know that he was intelligent in all the ways human intellect is expressed.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> This is an... odd rule. I might even say bizarre.




No more bizarre than getting smarter, more perceptive, and more likable as you move into the age categories that, in real life, are usually defined by senility and reduction of cognitive functions.

Good thing D&D has never been about realism, eh?


----------



## delericho (Mar 8, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> No more bizarre than getting smarter, more perceptive, and more likable as you move into the age categories that, in real life, are usually defined by senility and reduction of cognitive functions.




True. In any 'ideal' version of the game, the system should probably not bother detailing aging effects (since it affects everyone at different rates, and could certainly affect different races at different rates, and since it's almost certainly unlikely to matter in 99.99% of campaigns), or should certainly not bother with 'balanced' aging effects.

However, I'm not convinced that one can effectively defend bad rule X by pointing out that rule Y is just as bad. To me, that suggests what one should really do is fix rule Y instead.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 8, 2008)

I like that there are only two armor categories in 4E. It's either heavy, or it isn't. Makes sense to me.

I never liked how 3E really only really had three armors, total: mithril chain shirt, mithril breastplate, and mithril full plate. Everyone pretty much just used the best armor for each category. Sure, Druids wore Hide, but that's the exception. 

These new rules at least give some variety.

The armor-donning time is a bit of a surprise. I understand that the goal is to not allow swapping armor in the middle of combat. I guess it's true that D&D considers armor to be more than just a breastplate, jerkin, or hauberk: it also includes boots, greaves, cuisses, tassets, spaulders, helm, gloves, bracers, elbow and knee cops, and gorget. 

Truth be told, it takes a lot of time to get into all that gear. I know; I've done it. *Can* you speed-don your armor? Sure, I guess it could be done. Do the Players Handbook rules need to address it, and bog down with rules for "hasty" armor, or half-armor, and so on? Nah. 

I think the armor don rule, like the rule for cover and a few other rules, is best understood in the context of the complete ruleset. By which I mean the DMG, which we haven't seen. Mike Mearls has mentioned on a few occassions that the DMG is actually useful this time 'round, and gives specific guidance on adjudicating these edge cases, like if a player wants his character to take a couple rounds to throw on just his hauberk and helm and rush out to the fight without all his other protective gear. 

In other words, I get the impression that the 4E PHB contains all the rules, but not all the exceptions. And that the 4E DMG empowers DMs more, and maybe advocates and more clearly communicates the utility of conditional modifiers.


----------



## pukunui (Mar 8, 2008)

My turn:

1) *Medium armor category.* Meh. Don't really care that it's gone. It was a distinction that wasn't all that important to me. Besides, things like the breastplate and other "medium" armors will probably make an appearance in the _Tome of Treasures_, considering that it's meant to be more like the _Arms and Equipment Guide_, with lots of mundane stuff as well as new magic items, than the _Magic Item Compendium_.

2) *Funny names for armors*. Meh again. Yeah, some of them are stupid and repetitive but they're just names. Names can be changed. Besides, we know adamantine is still in the game because there's now an adamantine dragon. I wouldn't be surprised if mithril is still there as well.

3) *Adding Int to AC*. I'm fine with this. I think it has to do with being intelligent enough to anticipate an opponent's actions and thus be better able to avoid them. Don't forget the 3.5 swashbuckler got this.

4) *Masterwork armor*. This one kind of makes me go "huh?!" but I think I understand the concept so I can live with it.

5) *Astral diamonds*. Whatever. Probably won't come into play for some time. They're meant to be for the "high rollers" of the planes, which the PCs won't encounter until they're practically high rollers themselves. I can also see some potential in it ... let's say a diamond somehow found its way onto the material plane. Anyone who knows what it is would be _very_ interested in it, so if the PCs got their hands on it, they'd end up having to fight to hang on to it (especially if they let it be known that they had it -- it would be like going around waving wads of $100 bills in the air or something). Better yet, the PCs don't know what it is, but other people do, and they really want it, so the PCs keep getting attacked but they don't know why ...

6) *Armor donning time*. As others have pointed out, it says "at least" 5 minutes. I have no issue with this. It's only ever come up in my 3.5 game once, when the party's fighter spent an entire combat putting on his armor (at one point he even used his magic boots to teleport onto the pointed roof of the farmhouse they were in but failed his balance check and fell off, all the while still trying to put his armor on). I don't think he had much fun that night; however, the other players take great pleasure in making sure he never forgets it ...


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 8, 2008)

I like Astral Diamonds. It makes sense to me that extraplanar beings would use something other than coins for currency. It also makes high level wealth more portable, reducing the need to have bags of holding just to carry your 10 tons of coins around.

I like that they removed medium armor. It was always the bastard child category. The only time I ever saw medium armor in play was mithral, which was treated as light. Everyone either wore light/mithral armor, or dove in the deep end and went for full plate.

I don't really like the 3 "tiers" of armor. It feels very diablo2-ish to me. Now that I'm level 11, I need star something armor? Ridiculous. I suspect they did this because of the enormous advantage light armor has over heavy armor, being able to apply ability scores. Since ability scores scale at 1/2 levels, the AC of light armor will exceed heavy armor very quickly. I think a much easier solution would have been to apply +1/2 level to AC when wearing heavy armor as well.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 8, 2008)

pukunui said:
			
		

> 3) *Adding Int to AC*. I'm fine with this. I think it has to do with being intelligent enough to anticipate an opponent's actions and thus be better able to avoid them. Don't forget the 3.5 swashbuckler got this.




What's 3rd edition got to do with it?

The 3.5 swashbuckler didn't get an INT bonus to AC, by the way.  It was an INT bonus to damage.


----------



## pukunui (Mar 8, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> What's 3rd edition got to do with it?



I had been attempting to point out that it was not a new thing, but as you say, it wasn't a bonus to AC but rather to damage. I'm sure there's _something_ in 3.5 that grants an INT bonus to AC, but I will happily accept being proven wrong on this account.

I still say that an INT bonus to AC can work just fine on the basis that it's all about anticipating people's actions. I think the ability to anticipate something is more an intellectual thing than an instinctual one. Again, feel free to prove me wrong.


----------



## Kordeth (Mar 8, 2008)

pukunui said:
			
		

> I had been attempting to point out that it was not a new thing, but as you say, it wasn't a bonus to AC but rather to damage. I'm sure there's _something_ in 3.5 that grants an INT bonus to AC, but I will happily accept being proven wrong on this account.
> 
> I still say that an INT bonus to AC can work just fine on the basis that it's all about anticipating people's actions. I think the ability to anticipate something is more an intellectual thing than an instinctual one. Again, feel free to prove me wrong.




It was the pre-swashbuckler swashbuckler, the duelist PrC, who got his Int bonus added to AC.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 8, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> It was the pre-swashbuckler swashbuckler, the duelist PrC, who got his Int bonus added to AC.




Ahh, I knew that the mechanic sounded familiar, but when I double checked CW I didn't see any such listing under swashbuckler.  The duelist!  Now I know where it comes from. 

In any case, I don't have any problems with INT adding to AC.  I can see how a quick mind might help one anticipate blows and such.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 8, 2008)

pukunui said:
			
		

> I had been attempting to point out that it was not a new thing, but as you say, it wasn't a bonus to AC but rather to damage. I'm sure there's _something_ in 3.5 that grants an INT bonus to AC, but I will happily accept being proven wrong on this account.




Bladesinger, Duelist, and a bunch of others. See this thread: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=320889

As for 4E and Int-to-AC: I can see Dex and Int, together, form "reflexes". You take the highest bonus from or the other score, and that's what your particular character relies on more. You're either quick-witted and sharp-minded, or you're agile and nimble. Either way, you've got good reflexes and you're hard to hit.

Works for me!


----------



## pukunui (Mar 8, 2008)

I knew it was somewhere! Thanks guys.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 8, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Yeah,  Einstein was great at dodging. Nobody could lay an hand on him into a fight
> 
> (yeah, it could have been Hawking, but I have still some good taste)



[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			









[/sblock]
Historical evidence.


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Mar 8, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Historical evidence.




That is awesome.  Source?


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Mar 8, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Historical evidence.



Cite your sources or you get an F.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 8, 2008)

That is totally fantastic.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Mar 8, 2008)

Merlin the Tuna said:
			
		

> Cite your sources or you get an F.




Yes.  Cite, please.  So we might investigate.

Brad


----------



## DandD (Mar 8, 2008)

Oh gosh... Einstein is fighting ninjas...

What's next? Marie Curie battling amazon from Mars?

Siegmund Freud versus minotaur spartans?

Totally awesome!


----------



## Kordeth (Mar 8, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Yes.  Cite, please.  So we might investigate.
> 
> Brad




A bit of Google-fu tells me it's from a comic book anthology called Ninja Tales.

http://www.boom-studios.com/node/666


----------



## Kordeth (Mar 8, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Oh gosh... Einstein is fighting ninjas...
> 
> What's next? Marie Curie battling amazon from Mars?
> 
> ...




Would you settle for Teddy Roosevelt and the ghost of Thomas Edison fighting Nazis on Mars? What if I told you it was in the future and they got there by stealing H.G. Wells' Time Machine?

http://www.amazon.com/Tales-Bully-Pulpit-Benito-Cereno/dp/1582403937


----------



## Eldorian (Mar 8, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Oh gosh... Einstein is fighting ninjas...
> 
> What's next? Marie Curie battling amazon from Mars?
> 
> ...




You're not getting it.  None of those are as cool as ninjas, and none of those people are as important as Einstein.  You need to fight pirates, or zombies, and you need to pick world bending people, like Darwin or Copernicus.

I like Copernicus fighting pirates, or Darwin fighting zombies.


----------



## Stoat (Mar 8, 2008)

I gotta put Freud on the same level as Einstein, world-changing historical figure wise.

So: Sigmund Freud vs. the Pirates!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 8, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> I never liked how 3E really only really had three armors, total: mithril chain shirt, mithril breastplate, and mithril full plate. Everyone pretty much just used the best armor for each category. Sure, Druids wore Hide, but that's the exception.




Here's a novel thought: Don't give every player at the table everything he wants.


----------



## Eldorian (Mar 8, 2008)

Stoat said:
			
		

> I gotta put Freud on the same level as Einstein, world-changing historical figure wise.





If you honestly believe that, it makes me sad.  Einstein revolutionized how we view reality.  No doubts about it.  Space and time linked with mass?  That's Einstein.  I think most psychologists, even ones who think Freud had something to say and wasn't full of crap (which many believed then and now), will say that Einstein contributed more to humanity than Freud.

Enough hijack.  Einstein is almost worshiped by scientists for a reason.


----------



## DandD (Mar 8, 2008)

And what if they simply buy the armor they want with their money?


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 8, 2008)

*Raises Hand*
I worship Einstein, and the Wright Brothers, Darwin, Oppenheimer, Hawkings, Magellan, Kant, the nameless Indian mathmatician who invented 0, vonBraun.  I even have a little shrine with pictures.  
*What it's not that strange, I've seen shrines to the Wright Brothers on aircraft carriers so I know I'm not alone.*
Back to the actual topic, I think they may have reduced the armors a bit too far and will be forced to add more back in with subsequent books.  Removing masterwork is also probably not so great an idea given the purpose it served.


----------



## wgreen (Mar 8, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Removing masterwork is also probably not so great an idea given the purpose it served.



The purpose it served was to be expensive and reduce armor check penalties by one.  No big deal.  You can still put fancy armor in treasure piles and say it's worth more than usual.

-Will


----------



## Lizard (Mar 8, 2008)

Since NPC in 4e don't "really" wear armor -- they just have an AC appropriate to their level and role -- you can just describe the town guard as wearing studded leather or the local mercenaries as breastplate wearing roman-type dudes, and not bother with making sure they have on "real" armor.

This just falls into the category of "Who asked for this?". I really want to see WOTC's marketing surveys some time, just to see how many people said "There's too many kinds of armor" or "halflings are too short!"

(Lizard says, this was probably done to simplify the DDI virtual tabletop-- fewer armor types==fewer different models...)


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Mar 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> "halflings are too short!"




People have been saying that consistently since 3E.  They shrunk their height by a foot, and got rid of the "chunkiness" (In limb proportion) and it made them ridiculous.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Mar 8, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Here's a novel thought: Don't give every player at the table everything he wants.




Here's a novel thought: it's not the job of the DM to fix bad game design. If the PHB has a lot of armor types that no one would choose to use after level 4, that's the designer wasting space in the core rules.


----------



## hong (Mar 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Since NPC in 4e don't "really" wear armor -- they just have an AC appropriate to their level and role -- you can just describe the town guard as wearing studded leather or the local mercenaries as breastplate wearing roman-type dudes, and not bother with making sure they have on "real" armor.
> 
> This just falls into the category of "Who asked for this?". I really want to see WOTC's marketing surveys some time, just to see how many people said "There's too many kinds of armor" or "halflings are too short!"




I do recall quite a few people saying there's too many kinds of armour, or at least not enough meaningful differentiation between armour types. But adding more meaningful differentiation sets us on the road to 1E-style AC bonus vs damage type, which no sane person wants.


----------



## Campbell (Mar 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Since NPC in 4e don't "really" wear armor -- they just have an AC appropriate to their level and role -- you can just describe the town guard as wearing studded leather or the local mercenaries as breastplate wearing roman-type dudes, and not bother with making sure they have on "real" armor.
> 
> This just falls into the category of "Who asked for this?". I really want to see WOTC's marketing surveys some time, just to see how many people said "There's too many kinds of armor" or "halflings are too short!"
> 
> (Lizard says, this was probably done to simplify the DDI virtual tabletop-- fewer armor types==fewer different models...)




I don't believe the design rationale for fewer armor types comes down to either user complaints or the virtual tabletop. If I had to guess I would assume they sat down and looked at the spread of AC values they were expecting and designed the armor types with that spread in mind.


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Mar 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> ...sets us on the road to 1E-style AC bonus vs damage type, which no sane person wants.




If liking that is insane, then call me crazy, 'cause I adored that old weapon vs. armour type modifier table.


----------



## Gort (Mar 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I do recall quite a few people saying there's too many kinds of armour, or at least not enough meaningful differentiation between armour types. But adding more meaningful differentiation sets us on the road to 1E-style AC bonus vs damage type, which no sane person wants.



My problem wasn't that there were too many types of armour, it was that there were too few types of armour you ever saw anyone wear. Everyone just seemed to gravitate to the one armour that gave most AC without restricting their class powers, which always seemed to be mithril chain shirts, mithril platemail, or mithril breastplates. Everything else was just inferior.

If 4E actually makes the different armour types relevant to the game (as in, there are advantages and disadvantages that actually matter enough to make people not just go for whetever gives the most AC) then it will effectively have MORE types of armour than 3E.



			
				ArmoredSaint said:
			
		

> If liking that is insane, then call me crazy, 'cause I adored that old weapon vs. armour type modifier table.



I kinda liked the table, but I realise it'd be a giant pain to actually implement in-game - three different ACs instead of one. It'd be fine for a computer RPG, though, but it would further the "golfbag of weapons" problem, as people would have a sword for animals and a hammer for armoured guys.


----------



## wingsandsword (Mar 8, 2008)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Here's a novel thought: it's not the job of the DM to fix bad game design. If the PHB has a lot of armor types that no one would choose to use after level 4, that's the designer wasting space in the core rules.



Here's another thought, there are many items in the rules that are generally only used in a narrow level band.  Many armor types are significantly less used than others, but that doesn't mean they don't exist in the game world, and thus they should be in the rules.

What about 9th level spells that are only used at the very highest levels of the game.  What about Great Wyrm dragons that are generally only useful to 19th or 20th level parties (at best) within the core rules?  They are only really useful in a narrow level band, and there are probably more 1st and 2nd level parties played that might use studded leather or half-plate because it's the best they can afford for the time than there are that fight a Great Wyrm Blue Dragon. 

Why should only the most "optimum" choices be presented?  Not everything in D&D needs to be there just because it's the "best" choice.  If in a fantasy world armors exist even though they are not the very best armors because they are are easier or cheaper to make, then they should be in there.  Then again, that's my simulationist thinking going on, and D&D 4e is pretty openly made from a gamist perspective.


----------



## hong (Mar 8, 2008)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> that doesn't mean they don't exist in the game world,




This bit 



> and thus they should be in the rules.




does not necessarily imply this bit.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Mar 8, 2008)

ArmoredSaint said:
			
		

> If liking that is insane, then call me crazy, 'cause I adored that old weapon vs. armour type modifier table.



Did you actually ever *use* it?

I used the (much-simplified) 2e version for a while, and even that got to be too much of a headache. Glad it's gone.


----------



## Orius (Mar 8, 2008)

My thoughts:

No medium armor: honestly, this doesn't really seem to matter.  Most of the time D&D characters tend to go for the same types of armor anyway, regardless of edition; the fighters and clerics get chainmail when they first start out and spring for plate when they can afford it, the thief...err I mean rogue wears leather, and the wizard gets no armor.  This spread hasa leather, chain and plate, so yup, there's all the armor a party'll ever need.    

Int bonus to AC: At first I was confused by this, but it hit me by page 3 or 4.

One word: wizards.  

Think about it.  Wizards never wear armor (ok unless they take a feat for it in 3.x, but why waste a feat on armor?).  Consequently, they're AC 10 (plus Dex bonus) unless they have a _bracers of defense/armor_, _+x ring of protection_, _robe of the archmagi_, or some other *magic item*.  By giving an Int bonus to AC, the wizard who probably has at least a 16 Int, doesn't need to dump the second or third (after Con) stat into Dex to boost his pathetic AC.  It seems to fit what I know of 4e's design philosophies.  I'm not sure if I actually like it, but I'd be willing to bet it's in there first and foremost to help wizard AC.  That's why it's not Wisdom, clerics got the plate armor.

The special names are definitely bad. Are they there for copyrightable IP?  Perhaps.  You know what?  I don't give a damn what WotC calls them, I'll use my own high-level special armors.  

Platinum pieces: huh they went up again?  I've never ever used pp in my games.  I didn't even use electrum pre-3e.  Electrum got converted to silver and platinum to gold.  Even funnier, I never even noticed 3e pp was = 10 gp while I was still playing it.  I converted all the pp I rolled up as 1 pp = 5 gp.   Looks like I shortchanged my PCs a bit.  

Astral diamonds: doesn't bother me.  A currency for really high-end transactions in Sigil or the City of Brass actually makes sense.


----------



## Imp (Mar 8, 2008)

ArmoredSaint said:
			
		

> If liking that is insane, then call me crazy, 'cause I adored that old weapon vs. armour type modifier table.



You did just make me remember the old types-of-insanity table from the back of the old DMG or somewhere.


----------



## hong (Mar 8, 2008)

Orius said:
			
		

> Int bonus to AC: At first I was confused by this, but it hit me by page 3 or 4.
> 
> One word: wizards.
> 
> Think about it.  Wizards never wear armor (ok unless they take a feat for it in 3.x, but why waste a feat on armor?).  Consequently, they're AC 10 (plus Dex bonus) unless they have a _bracers of defense/armor_, _+x ring of protection_, _robe of the archmagi_, or some other *magic item*.  By giving an Int bonus to AC, the wizard who probably has at least a 16 Int, doesn't need to dump the second or third (after Con) stat into Dex to boost his pathetic AC.  It seems to fit what I know of 4e's design philosophies.  I'm not sure if I actually like it, but I'd be willing to bet it's in there first and foremost to help wizard AC.  That's why it's not Wisdom, clerics got the plate armor.




That's what I said before! Not that anyone cares, because noone listens to meeeee


----------



## UnsocialEntity (Mar 8, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> To react physically to something, you need physical movement, obviously.  Raising the shield, jumping out of the way, what have you.  This movement cannot happen before a mental process has occured and the brain has stimulated the muscles into action, or rather, into reaction to the interrepted stimuli.  This movement is represented by Dexterity.
> 
> Therefore, total reaction time = mental reaction + physical reaction.




Fighters train to develop reflex reactions during a fight, which means the synapse is occuring in the spinal cord instead of passing through the brain to get your muscles moving. Just thought it was worth mentioning that a trained fighter won't need mental reaction time for a lot of what he does, unless something really unexpected happened that he hasn't trained for.

More of a clarification than an argument, what you say is pretty accurate otherwise.


----------



## Orius (Mar 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> That's what I said before! Not that anyone cares, because noone listens to meeeee




Was it in this thread?  I didn't see it anywhere.  And I went back and looked.  

I usually read what hong writes because it's usually good for a laugh.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 8, 2008)

Gort said:
			
		

> I kinda liked the table, but I realise it'd be a giant pain to actually implement in-game - three different ACs instead of one.



You mean 10 different attack bonuses.  Every weapon had a modifer to hit depending on AC of the target (2-10).


----------



## delericho (Mar 8, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> You mean 10 different attack bonuses.  Every weapon had a modifer to hit depending on AC of the target (2-10).




I suspect you're talking about different editions. In 1st Edition, there was a modifier per weapon per AC. In 2nd Edition, this was simplified to a modifier per weapon type per armour.

In OD&D, I don't believe anything like this existed. I know it didn't in BD&D, and it was eliminated in 3e. Personally, although I like the principle behind the modifiers, I always found the implementation too complex to bother with.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> That's what I said before! Not that anyone cares, because noone listens to meeeee




Did you guys hear anything? Ah well, maybe it was a horse or something....


----------



## Ten (Mar 8, 2008)

I think it should be mentioned that these new armor types could EASILY be considered categories instead of specifics.  Cloth armor includes clothing and robes as well as padded armor.  You want studded leather?  Wow, what do you know, your leather armor has studs on it!  Chain shirt?  That sounds like half a suit of chainmail that lets you dodge!  Etc. Etc. Et al.

I don't know why, but it really gets my goat when people feel that the rule books stifle their creativity by taking out things they wanted or adding in things they didn't.  Your creativity is lessened precisely how much you let it be, and not a drop more.  I can understand how sick and tired it is hearing "you can houserule it" but it is always true.

The core books are all about what's under the hood at the end of the day, they always have been and they always will.  They have just been so kind to offer all these (Sometimes neat, sometimes dorky) faceplates to make the inner workings more or less invisible and so you can have fun without thinking too hard.  Don't like the default colors or patterns?  Switch them out for your own as it doesn't affect a thing except cater it to your tastes.  I think 3.5e was fairly modular on the whole, although it often took quite a bit of time to work those things out.  I think 4e is shaping up to be even better for houserulings, as everything fits together MUCH more nicely.  Don't like godplate?  Call it Adamantine Fullplate.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 8, 2008)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> If you honestly believe that, it makes me sad.  Einstein revolutionized how we view reality.  No doubts about it.  Space and time linked with mass?  That's Einstein.  I think most psychologists, even ones who think Freud had something to say and wasn't full of crap (which many believed then and now), will say that Einstein contributed more to humanity than Freud.



Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein: all natural scientists.

If anyone who is not a scientist is allowed to be on the list of revolutionary intellectual figures, than Freud ought to be. Whatever the truth of his psychological theorising, his impact on the self-conception of contemporary European and American human beings is utterly profound.

Whether or not he could take on pirates and win is another matter.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 8, 2008)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Here's a novel thought: it's not the job of the DM to fix bad game design. If the PHB has a lot of armor types that no one would choose to use after level 4, that's the designer wasting space in the core rules.




The problem is, you can apply that same design criteria to spells (very much so), feats, weapons, classes, etc. That's not good design, either. 

If the problem with the design is that there are no meaningful choices, the correct response is not to reduce the number of choices, it is to make more of the choices more meaningful.

If, after millions and millions of player/character iterations-- and believe me, that kind of design "crucible" will expose imperfections very quickly-- if we allow natural selection to drive the game, the game is just not going to be very interesting. 

So, goodbye medium armor! Goodbye Murlynd's Spoon! Goodbye gnome, monk, the Endurance feat, and on and on.


----------



## Gort (Mar 8, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> You mean 10 different attack bonuses.  Every weapon had a modifer to hit depending on AC of the target (2-10).



That sounds truly awful.


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 8, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> if we allow natural selection to drive the game, the game is just not going to be very interesting.




I don't think that it's possible for me to disagree with you more.

I can't imagine a system that doesn't benefit from a double shot of Darwinism.


EDIT - Ok fine, ASIDE from the ruling class of an anti-darwinian theocracy.


----------



## 3catcircus (Mar 8, 2008)

If 3.x had problems due to many armors not being worth the cost (in money, AC, and Dex), the answer is simple.  House-rule it such that the armors become worth something.  Then we don't need this silliness of 4e armor.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I do recall quite a few people saying there's too many kinds of armour, or at least not enough meaningful differentiation between armour types. But adding more meaningful differentiation sets us on the road to 1E-style AC bonus vs damage type, which no sane person wants.




I am clearly insane.  All of my homebrew designs use DR/damage type for armor mechanics. I think Hero, with it's PD/ED, is too simplistic. 

I've been thinking about 4e. It's probably a better game for the way I *actually play* than 3x, but it's lot less fun for the "solo play" of tinkering and designing. Fortunately, T5 will be here any month now...


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 8, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> Starleather, spiritmail, godplate - I'm not really digging these.  For all the weak accusations of 4e being video-gamey, these names definitely make me think of a video game.
> 
> But the prizewiiner = ASTRAL DIAMONDS! - WTF?  Are you kidding me?  I can see it now, perfectly cut diamonds scattered throughout the Astral Plane.  How do you mine the Astral Plane, exactly?




It makes me think of... MIDNIGHT SUNSTONE BAZOOKA!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 8, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> I don't think that it's possible for me to disagree with you more.
> 
> I can't imagine a system that doesn't benefit from a double shot of Darwinism.




It depends.

The natural end result of d20 is/was True20. It doesn't get much simpler than 3 classes: Expert, Warrior, Adept, etc.

You could further standardize the game so that you only ever use a d20-- eliminate all other dice.

And etc.

But in the larger sense, I agree that _some_ amount of design Darwinism is a good thing. There are certainly some 4e simplifications that I agree with. In fact I don't particularly have an issue with these changes to armor.

But to suggest that the game could/should be reduced to mithril chain shirt and mithril plate-- because that's all players ever seemed to wear, given 3e's investiture of power in the players' hands-- is a bit silly.

I could go on to predict that 4e will go through exactly the same stages of player-driven Darwinism. 

In the context of this thread, for example, why have copper or silver pieces at all? PCs don't use them past 1st level-- _*if at all.*_


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 8, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> But to suggest that the game could/should be reduced to mithril chain shirt and mithril plate-- because that's all players ever seemed to wear, given 3e's investiture of power in the players' hands-- is a bit silly.



Did someone suggest that?  I thought that the push was that if something is not used, or if instead one thing is always used, then the problems need to be singled out and rethought.




> In the context of this thread, for example, why have copper or silver pieces at all?[/i][/b]



One of my favorite things about 4E is that so many of the changes I'm seeing are cleaner and shinier versions of the houserules I've been piecing together for the past decade.

Amidst the set of encumbrance rules my group now uses, coins and gems are each converted to their own decimal'd values, completely ignoring individual units beyond "coins or gems" and relegating them to clean sums in abstract little pouches.

Why have copper or silver pieces at all?  I don't know.  What are those new fancy units of currency all the astral plane jetsetters are using?


----------



## Shroomy (Mar 8, 2008)

Copper, Silver, and Astral Diamonds exist solely to make the D&D economy (such that it is) "work."


----------



## SCMrks (Mar 8, 2008)

I can see Int to AC in that a warrior learns how to fight by studying fighting techniques and martial arts styles. So when he notices his opponent using a certain set up he realizes a specific follow up strike is coming and has his block up in anticipation. And you also learn from your mistakes and experience in past fights.

I think there is a reason for having just a few choices of armor in the PHB to get started with. At the designer's presentation at D&DXP, WotC explained that they have a magic items book coming out for 4th edition soon. They do not want it to be a DM's only book so they are making it a combination Magic Items Compedium and Arms and Equipment Guide so players will have a use for it too. So if you want studded leather, breastplate, or chain shirt you may have another book to buy.


----------



## wingsandsword (Mar 8, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> One of my favorite things about 4E is that so many of the changes I'm seeing are cleaner and shinier versions of the houserules I've been piecing together for the past decade.




When 3e was announced, I was initially very wary, and for the first few months I was definitely anti-3e because I was so afraid WotC would mess everything up.

However, it became clear over time that 3e had a lot in common with the huge body of house-rules my game used.  It was similar enough that if you went back today and played AD&D 2e with the body of house rules we used before the announcement of 3e then you'd think it was an attempt to retrofit AD&D with 3e rules.   To us, 3e felt like the natural, logical progression of the game.  3.5 felt like the results of 3e being exposed to the crucible of mass-market use, with things like front-loaded rangers and ambiguously worded cleric domain abilities going out, with a few changes we didn't care for (Pokemounts ect.)

With 4e, it doesn't feel that way.  The house-rules and variants we used (nowhere near as many as with 2e, as we are generally much happier with 3.5 than we were with 2e, but there were still some) weren't going in that direction.  The big rules changes, and underlying philosophy changes are a radical shift in direction from the style of play we've been drifting towards since 2000.  Adopting 4e wouldn't be to us like taking the next logical step in D&D, it would be like throwing out the gradual progression in design and play style that our group has had since long before I joined for a strange new game that is divergent in style and flavor.


----------



## Ladnor_burry (Mar 8, 2008)

I didn't read the entire thread, but more pictures are available via folder browsing getting you here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/benimoto

Spells, monsters, etc.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 8, 2008)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> If 3.x had problems due to many armors not being worth the cost (in money, AC, and Dex), the answer is simple.  House-rule it such that the armors become worth something.  Then we don't need this silliness of 4e armor.




Thing is, that's actually very hard to do.

How do you balance armor:

1) By cost? Players will always spend their money to get the best protection they can afford. Eventually they will all get their plate mail once they have the money. Or else plate will be too expensive, and no one will get it. This balance can explain why npcs wouldn't have heavy armor though, and it certainly explains how you don't get a 1000 man army all in plate mail.

2) By adding penalties? Fighter types in 3e quickly learned that AC is a lot more important in most cases than the armor check penalty on a balance check, or a bit of speed. So either you make those balance checks really important, screwing the fighter who no longer can take advantage of that heavy armor he wants, or limiting the checks....in which cases more armor is still better.

3) By requiring training. This seems to be 4e's way to do it. The reason this didn't work in 3e is that multiclassing made it very easy to put up all the armor proficiencies you needed. Further, mithral usually meant that the proficiencies were not even required. In 4e, it doesn't look like multiclassing will get you armor profs, and I think mithral is gone.

That means that plate mail is ALWAYS wanted, but only obtained by the special few that take the feats or have the profs to wear it.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 8, 2008)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> When 3e was announced, I was initially very wary, and for the first few months I was definitely anti-3e because I was so afraid WotC would mess everything up.
> 
> However, it became clear over time that 3e had a lot in common with the huge body of house-rules my game used.  It was similar enough that if you went back today and played AD&D 2e with the body of house rules we used before the announcement of 3e then you'd think it was an attempt to retrofit AD&D with 3e rules.   To us, 3e felt like the natural, logical progression of the game.  3.5 felt like the results of 3e being exposed to the crucible of mass-market use, with things like front-loaded rangers and ambiguously worded cleric domain abilities going out, with a few changes we didn't care for (Pokemounts ect.)
> 
> With 4e, it doesn't feel that way.  The house-rules and variants we used (nowhere near as many as with 2e, as we are generally much happier with 3.5 than we were with 2e, but there were still some) weren't going in that direction.  The big rules changes, and underlying philosophy changes are a radical shift in direction from the style of play we've been drifting towards since 2000.  Adopting 4e wouldn't be to us like taking the next logical step in D&D, it would be like throwing out the gradual progression in design and play style that our group has had since long before I joined for a strange new game that is divergent in style and flavor.




However, looks like we should all learn from your example. You thought 3e would be horrible, and it turned out to work well for you. Now you think 4e looks horrible....guess you should do the same thing and see if it still works for you


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 8, 2008)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> However, it became clear over time that 3e had a lot in common with the huge body of house-rules my game used.



That's funny.  It's probably because I was juggling between so many different groups when I first got to college, but by and large I had given up on AD&D in the early 90s because every group I was in contact with had such a confusing catalogue of "these make D&D more realistic" house rules.

It wasn't till 3rd ed came out, where they managed to start blending the combat and rp elements together and make both aspects an actual game instead of a laundry list of rules, that I fell back in love with the game.


----------



## Peter LaCara (Mar 8, 2008)

There must be something wrong with me, because I find things like Astral Diamonds and Godplate to be _awesome_.

Also, for those of you mourning the loss of masterwork armors, we've seen that a suit of +1 platemail with a pretty decent special ability is a 3rd level item. Is there any reason that you couldn't call a +X suit of armor with no extra abilities non-magical, and the enhancement bonus comes from superior craftsmanship? The same could be done with +X otherwise mundane weapons.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 8, 2008)

Peter LaCara said:
			
		

> There must be something wrong with me, because I find things like Astral Diamonds and Godplate to be _awesome_.



So it was you who filled out all those customer feedback cards in the back of the rulebooks and them to WotC? 

Personally, I have no trouble with it, but neither am I enthralled by it. I think this is things I need to see in the game.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Mar 8, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein: all natural scientists.
> 
> If anyone who is not a scientist is allowed to be on the list of revolutionary intellectual figures, than Freud ought to be. Whatever the truth of his psychological theorising, his impact on the self-conception of contemporary European and American human beings is utterly profound.
> 
> Whether or not he could take on pirates and win is another matter.




There are other social scientists who have made larger contributions to the world... 

For instance, I'd like to see a comic about Voltaire buckling his swash against the pawns of evil aristocrats and clergy...     

And the image of Karl Marx swinging a huge warhammer at the head of an army of Morlocks is... interesting to say the least.   

----

Now, back into topic, I only disliked the goofy names of the special armors... It simply invites mockery: "+5 Godplate of the Whale"

I would probably ignore those in my game, though... or rename them or something... its no big deal.

The "Int or Dex to AC with light armors" is a winner though... that should shut the mouths of those who claim that Int does nothing in 4ed.

And the addition of "astral diamonds" or whatever as casino chips for V.I.P's in Sigil and whatnot makes sense... In my game I once thought of gnomish banks issuing _letres-of-credit_ to nobles and high level adventurers, as a way to avoid "carts full of gold and gems" for PC's on the move...


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 8, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> In order to reaction to anything, there is a mental aspect to it.  Recognizing a threat, identifying stimuli.  This is subconcious, and in D&D terms, I can understand how such a purely mental act would be given unto Intelligence.  It shows speed of thought.  Think of this as the immediate "fight or fligh" response in the mind...or in the case of combat, "dodge or block."  Your brain controls the impulse.




In intelligence testing, processing speed invariably loads a lot less on general intelligence than other factors. There are reasons to question whether thinking quickly is precisely what you would call intelligence; although intelligence can help you think quickly, simply being quick does not seem to make you intelligent.



> To react physically to something, you need physical movement, obviously.  Raising the shield, jumping out of the way, what have you.  This movement cannot happen before a mental process has occured and the brain has stimulated the muscles into action, or rather, into reaction to the interrepted stimuli.  This movement is represented by Dexterity.




You mean Strength. Jumping, melee weapon use, climbing and so forth are covered by Strength. 

Dexterity seems to encompass manual dexterity as well as resilience to fight or flight stress.

Professional boxers rarely have super high IQs, and they are about as fast as they come.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 8, 2008)

Amphimir Míriel said:
			
		

> There are other social scientists who have made larger contributions to the world...
> 
> For instance, I'd like to see a comic about Voltaire buckling his swash against the pawns of evil aristocrats and clergy...
> 
> And the image of Karl Marx swinging a huge warhammer at the head of an army of Morlocks is... interesting to say the least.



In terms of influence I'd rank Freud well above Voltaire.

I wasn't going to mention Marx because of the no-politics rule - but I think he would have to be ranked the most influential non-natural-scientest intellectual of the modern era (and perhaps of all time, but at least St Paul and Mohammed could contest that claim).

------------------------------------

On topic: presumably if the stat/no stat distinction between Light and Heavy armours is going to work there has to be a reasonable gap in AC (+3 Hide, +6 Chain), which means no room for intermediate AC-value armours.


----------



## warlockwannabe (Mar 8, 2008)

*ouch*



			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Warforged Warlord in Warplate with a Warhammer on a Warhorse... all of it illustrated by Wayne Reynolds (aka "WAR")




Poor horse....can warforged actually ride horses?


----------



## ff6shadow (Mar 8, 2008)

I wouldn't see why not.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 8, 2008)

warlockwannabe said:
			
		

> Poor horse....can warforged actually ride horses?




War(forged)horses?


----------



## warlockwannabe (Mar 9, 2008)

Campbell said:
			
		

> Not at all. Einstein has never learned how to apply his mental agility to avoiding sharp sticks or moving out of the way of a fireball. This example only makes sense if we constrain ourselves to applying tools that are meant to model adventurers (trained combatants) to folks who have never received any sort of combat training.
> 
> Einstein Level 0 Dude
> Medium natural humanoid XP 175
> ...




You should add Craft:Nuke


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 9, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I wasn't going to mention Marx because of the no-politics rule - but I think he would have to be ranked the most influential non-natural-scientest intellectual of the modern era (and perhaps of all time, but at least St Paul and Mohammed could contest that claim).



Harpo Marx was NOT an intellectual of this, or any era.


----------



## Marshall (Mar 9, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> Harpo Marx was NOT an intellectual of this, or any era.



 You just dont know how to recognize genius....


----------



## warlockwannabe (Mar 9, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> War(forged)horses?




Talk about your armored calvary!


----------



## WyzardWhately (Mar 9, 2008)

warlockwannabe said:
			
		

> You should add Craft:Nuke




Craft skills are apparently insufficiently fun.  He actually gets a nuclear bomb he can use as a daily power.  

I kid.


----------



## warlockwannabe (Mar 9, 2008)

Sir Sebastian Hardin said:
			
		

> Don't forget he dipped a level in Warlock for a Star pact....
> 
> 
> And that he like's Andy Warhol's art




So let's just go all out here. 
Why not a Warforged Warlock and Warlord in Warplate with Warhorses wistfully winding thru the willows, whining windedly while wishing for wars?

Try saying that the times fast while drunk!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 9, 2008)

WyzardWhately said:
			
		

> Craft skills are apparently insufficiently fun.  He actually gets a nuclear bomb he can use as a daily power.
> 
> I kid.



I thought this was a special ritual. I doubt that Einstein could create a new nuke each day.


----------



## epochrpg (Mar 9, 2008)

I think my main issue here is w/ the coins being the same size AND weight.  50 gold coins weighs the same as 50 copper or silver coins?  Silly.   I guess the gold coins are much thinner...


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 9, 2008)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> I think my main issue here is w/ the coins being the same size AND weight.  50 gold coins weighs the same as 50 copper or silver coins?  Silly.   I guess the gold coins are much thinner...




My issue is that time and space and distance got whacked by the abstract stick, but we're still keeping track of encumbrance by concrete weights.

Maybe everything has been converted to something like:

50 coins = 1
light weapons = 1
non-light weapons = 5
light armor = 10
heavy armor = 20


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 9, 2008)

warlockwannabe said:
			
		

> willows




Warwillows.


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 9, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Warwillows.







?


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 9, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> ?




Willowborn.

Or maybe the new 4e dryad.


----------



## Orius (Mar 10, 2008)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> I think my main issue here is w/ the coins being the same size AND weight.  50 gold coins weighs the same as 50 copper or silver coins?  Silly.   I guess the gold coins are much thinner...




Amusing.  This rule (50 coins=1 lb.) has been the same since at LEAST 2e, maybe it even goes back to 1e.  Heck, the little sidebar on coins is very similar to the same text in the 3.0 PHB and the original 2e PHB.

Sorry, but having 50 coins = 1 lb. is good enough for me.  Seperate weights for cp, sp, gp, and pp based on the atomic densities of Cu, Ag, Au, and Pt is a bit too complicated for my taste.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Mar 10, 2008)

It was 10 coins = 1 lb. in 1e, which is pretty ridiculous, but whatever.

I really, really wish 4e had gone with abstract encumbrance rules.


----------



## A'koss (Mar 10, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> It was 10 coins = 1 lb. in 1e, which is pretty ridiculous, but whatever.



What's ridiculous about it? Personally I like the meatier, 1.6 oz coins which is why I'm going back to the old standard for my 4e Greyhawk game...


----------



## Dinkeldog (Mar 10, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Warwillows.




Harry Potter had to go up against the Whomping Willow--I suppose a Warwillow could be related.


----------



## The_Fan (Mar 10, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> ?



 You win the internet.


----------



## Orius (Mar 10, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> It was 10 coins = 1 lb. in 1e, which is pretty ridiculous, but whatever.
> 
> I really, really wish 4e had gone with abstract encumbrance rules.




Hmm, I think that was the same as the Basic rules.

If people want a simpler system of encumbrance, just take a page from the 2e Skills and Powers book, and only count the character's armor and weapon against encumbrance.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 10, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Here's a novel thought: Don't give every player at the table everything he wants.




Easy there, Wulf. I'm talking RPGA games, where such DM fiat simply doesn't exist. If you've got the gold, and you've got the (commonly available) access, then you've got the armor.

Point being, 3E was mostly boiled down to just those three. That's no good. Variety--meaningful variety--is better. 

With the improvements over level within each armor proficiency, you get more meaningful variety. 

For example: in 3E you had light, medium, heavy armor proficiency. There is definitely a "best" armor in each proficiency, so the choice within each proficiency isn't much of a choice at all. In 4E you've got proficiency for each armor type, and the Light/Heavy split is a separate issue from proficiency. So if you're proficient in leather, that's great! Wear leather. Choose that leather to be soft buckskin, hard cuir bouilli, studded, whatever you want. In all cases it's Light armor, so you get to add your dex or int bonus.

Again, compare to 3E, where anyone and everyone with only Light armor proficiency is pretty much going to buy a mithril chain shirt or a mithril breastplate--those choices are just too mechanically superior to ignore. This results in a homogeneous (and visually uninteresting) party when mustering at the local con.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 10, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Easy there, Wulf. I'm talking RPGA games, where such DM fiat simply doesn't exist. If you've got the gold, and you've got the (commonly available) access, then you've got the armor.




Fair enough. I honestly hadn't even given RPGA a moment's thought.

Balancing the game to account for the peculiarities of RPGA play is an odd choice, even for WoTC. It falls somewhere between "impossible" and "irrelevant."

Of course, balancing the game for MMO play is a bigger concern, and many RPGA needs no doubt can piggy-back onto those changes. 

(Yes, I said MMO-- nobody freak out. There's nothing wrong with wanting to see D&D as a successful electronic brand.)



> Point being, 3E was mostly boiled down to just those three. That's no good. Variety--meaningful variety--is better.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> Again, compare to 3E, where anyone and everyone with only Light armor proficiency is pretty much going to buy a mithril chain shirt or a mithril breastplate--those choices are just too mechanically superior to ignore. This results in a homogeneous (and visually uninteresting) party when mustering at the local con.




Very good points. But again, having correctly identified the problem as "No meaningful choice" and still not convinced the answer is to throw away the meaningless choices, versus giving them some meaning.


----------



## heirodule (Mar 10, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> But adding more meaningful differentiation sets us on the road to 1E-style AC bonus vs damage type, which no sane person wants.




I do! I do!


----------



## IanB (Mar 10, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Very good points. But again, having correctly identified the problem as "No meaningful choice" and still not convinced the answer is to throw away the meaningless choices, versus giving them some meaning.




But that's not what has happened here. Several of the "meaningless" choices are still in the rules; you can wear chain and scale and hide armor in 4e. All that has happened is a bit of streamlining.


----------



## Orius (Mar 11, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Of course, balancing the game for MMO play is a bigger concern, and many RPGA needs no doubt can piggy-back onto those changes.
> 
> (Yes, I said MMO-- nobody freak out. There's nothing wrong with wanting to see D&D as a successful electronic brand.)




There's no real problem with that.  One big source of revenue from the D&D property is electronic gaming.  When done well, D&D games become very popular (the Gold Box games, Black Isle's Infinity Engine Games, NWN, etc.)  One problem has always been translating the rules into a video game in a way that worked well, and not every game did this.  If the designers have set up the rules in a way that makes them easier to port into an electronic game, then there's nothing wrong with that, especially if the game ends up selling more units than the rules themselves (which isn't inconceivable).


----------



## delericho (Mar 11, 2008)

Orius said:
			
		

> Hmm, I think that was the same as the Basic rules.




In the Basic rules, encumberance was counted in 'coins'. There may have been a note to the effect that "10 coins = 1 pound", but I don't remember one. That said, I no longer have access to my Basic set, and it was a long time ago that I last read it.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Mar 11, 2008)

Basic D&D measured encumbrance in "coins", with 1 coin being a measure of weight and handling at the same time. For a weight comparison, 1 coin was set to be 1/10th of a pound. For example, Plate had an encumbrance of, if I remember correctly, 600 coins.


----------



## green slime (Mar 11, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> Starleather, spiritmail, godplate
> 
> Astral Diamonds!




Cool! Great stuff! Just what I need! Finally some ideas I can get behind.

Shame I won't be investing heavily in 4e, regardless....

I'll play, but I won't get in DM-mode.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Mar 11, 2008)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Basic D&D measured encumbrance in "coins", with 1 coin being a measure of weight and handling at the same time. For a weight comparison, 1 coin was set to be 1/10th of a pound. For example, Plate had an encumbrance of, if I remember correctly, 600 coins.



Yeah, Basic D&D and 1e AD&D used the same coin/lb conversion rate.

A'koss: I just think that 1.6 oz coins are ridiculous. That's a LOT of gold, silver, or what have you, and models neither a historical coin nor a sufficiently granular measurement unit to be worthwhile.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 11, 2008)

IanB said:
			
		

> But that's not what has happened here. Several of the "meaningless" choices are still in the rules; you can wear chain and scale and hide armor in 4e. All that has happened is a bit of streamlining.




A bit too much in my opinion, that's all.

I think there's an interesting niche for medium armor (simulationist thinking here) that isn't being adequately addressed by the mechanics (gamist thinking here).

I almost wonder if in fact we'll see medium armor in some form come back to the game at the same time we get barbarians and druids, half-orcs and other "savage" races.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 11, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> A bit too much in my opinion, that's all.
> 
> I think there's an interesting niche for medium armor (simulationist thinking here) that isn't being adequately addressed by the mechanics (gamist thinking here).




Can you elaborate? You're a designer, and I enjoyed your story hour; I'm interested in what you've got in mind.

Quick couple of points:

1. Medium armor is in 4E (simulationist thinking). Hide is in, and so is chainmail.
2. I don't see a mechanics gap (gamist thinking) that needs to be filled by an entire new category of armor. Light armor gives a small AC bump and lets you use your Dex bonus, while heavy armor gives a big AC bump and doesn't let you use your Dex bonus. Is there a need for anything else? What would medium armor _do_?


----------



## Lizard (Mar 11, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Is there a need for anything else? What would medium armor _do_?




Give a moderate bump and let you use half your dex bonus.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 11, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Give a moderate bump and let you use half your dex bonus.




You beat me to it.  

EDIT: I always thought it was nice that there was an optimal configuration of armor+DEX that provided equal AC no matter what route you went.

Without actually crunching the numbers at all, I'd like to push out the heavy armor (and attendant check penalties) at about the same pace that the light armor guys are pushing up their DEX. 

Ideally, everybody starts at about 4-6 points of armor/DEX and everybody reaches the ideal, optimal limit at about the same time (9, 10 points, maybe as high as 15 a la AU/AE).

In a normal 3e campaign that would have economic implications-- you can't simply make plate mail "fit" a 9th level PCs budget. 

But in a points of light setting, it's much more workable: 

You simply _can't find_ plate armor in the Two Rivers, but you might find chainmail in Whitebridge and full plate Caemlyn.

DM Fiat is great. Bring it on, 4e.


----------



## IanB (Mar 11, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> A bit too much in my opinion, that's all.
> 
> I think there's an interesting niche for medium armor (simulationist thinking here) that isn't being adequately addressed by the mechanics (gamist thinking here).
> 
> I almost wonder if in fact we'll see medium armor in some form come back to the game at the same time we get barbarians and druids, half-orcs and other "savage" races.




But that's just the thing - "medium" armor IS in the game. It just doesn't exist as a mechanical category, which are arbitrary breakdowns anyway.

If what you're looking for is a reason to wear chainmail over plate, well, for all we know it exists, and we can't see it until we see class proficiencies or what is actually on that next page in the PHB. But a reason must exist, or there wouldn't be any reason for the higher level variants of anything but plate.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 11, 2008)

IanB said:
			
		

> But that's just the thing - "medium" armor IS in the game. It just doesn't exist as a mechanical category, which are arbitrary breakdowns anyway.



You're using the same words for different meanings.  What were medium armors in 3e are in 4e, which isn't the same thing as saying that there's a place for a medium armor category in 4e.



			
				IanB said:
			
		

> If what you're looking for is a reason to wear chainmail over plate, well, for all we know it exists, and we can't see it until we see class proficiencies or what is actually on that next page in the PHB. But a reason must exist, or there wouldn't be any reason for the higher level variants of anything but plate.



Maybe there's a reason, maybe there isn't.  Maybe the designers think there is, but players will find out otherwise, as they did in 3e with mithril armor.  There is no "must."

Going by what we've seen so far, I'm guessing that each class is proficient with only certain specific varities of armor.  Basically, each armor is its own category, instead of dividing them up into light, medium, etc.  Rogues are proficient with leather but not with cloth, for example, although perhaps you need no proficiency for cloth.


----------



## hong (Mar 11, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> You're using the same words for different meanings.  What were medium armors in 3e are in 4e, which isn't the same thing as saying that there's a place for a medium armor category in 4e.




Well, that's the point. Who cares about the "medium armor category"? If I can get my chain mail, I'm happy.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Mar 11, 2008)

In the early editions of D&D, there really was never any reason to wear chain instead of plate.  A 1st level fighter or cleric might wear chain simply because they couldn't affort plate.  After 2nd level, chain was forgotten about... until the PC wanted an army.  The cost of plate made it much more cost effective to equip troops with chain.  As long as plate is expensive compared to chain, there will be a niche for chain mail- even if the PCs aren't the ones wearing it.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 12, 2008)

WheresMyD20 said:
			
		

> In the early editions of D&D, there really was never any reason to wear chain instead of plate.  A 1st level fighter or cleric might wear chain simply because they couldn't affort plate.  After 2nd level, chain was forgotten about... until the PC wanted an army.  The cost of plate made it much more cost effective to equip troops with chain.  As long as plate is expensive compared to chain, there will be a niche for chain mail- even if the PCs aren't the ones wearing it.



That's the kind of talk that gets one called a simulationist, around here...


----------



## Khuxan (Mar 12, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> That's the kind of talk that gets one called a simulationist, around here...




The game still has chainmail and it still has plate, and I'll bet you chainmail is still cheaper than plate.

So what's the problem?


----------



## Spatula (Mar 12, 2008)

The problem is I should have bolded 4/5 of the quote I was replying to, but I didn't think that would be necessary, really.  The idea of including rules for stuff that is largely ignored by the PCs is a quaint one, these days.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 12, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> The problem is I should have bolded 4/5 of the quote I was replying to, but I didn't think that would be necessary, really.  The idea of including rules for stuff that is largely ignored by the PCs is a quaint one, these days.




This reminds me of companies where they fire the bottom 20%, every quarter. Pretty soon, there's no one left.

"90% of the players ignore rule X. Let's get rid of it."
"Of the rules which remain, 90% ignore rule y. Let's get rid of it."
Etc...

Pretty soon, no more rules. This might appeal to some. Not me. I'd rather have a lot of options, as I find it easier to ignore rules than add them in a fair, balanced, and consistent fashion.


----------



## hong (Mar 12, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> The problem is I should have bolded 4/5 of the quote I was replying to, but I didn't think that would be necessary, really.  The idea of including rules for stuff that is largely ignored by the PCs is a quaint one, these days.



 How very Cartesian.


----------



## hong (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> This reminds me of companies where they fire the bottom 20%, every quarter. Pretty soon, there's no one left.
> 
> "90% of the players ignore rule X. Let's get rid of it."
> "Of the rules which remain, 90% ignore rule y. Let's get rid of it."
> ...




You can tell when there's nothing to worry about, because people start making thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments.


----------



## Khuxan (Mar 12, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> The problem is I should have bolded 4/5 of the quote I was replying to, but I didn't think that would be necessary, really.  The idea of including rules for stuff that is largely ignored by the PCs is a quaint one, these days.




But you can still do what WheresMyD20 talked about in 4E. It's just now chainmail isn't largely ignored by the PCs. Everyone wins.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 12, 2008)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> But you can still do what WheresMyD20 talked about in 4E. It's just now chainmail isn't largely ignored by the PCs. Everyone wins.



Let's be honest here, we don't actually whether real world players will use chain, since it's exactly the same as plate, but with -2 AC. Maybe it has cool useful powers, maybe it's just not worth the feat(s) for a Cleric to get Plate, but as it looks, Full Plate is just better, so it's quite possible nothing has changed.


----------



## Khuxan (Mar 12, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Let's be honest here, we don't actually whether real world players will use chain, since it's exactly the same as plate, but with -2 AC. Maybe it has cool useful powers, *maybe it's just not worth the feat(s) for a Cleric to get Plate*, but as it looks, Full Plate is just better, so it's quite possible nothing has changed.




Aye, there's the rub. There's a cost for chain that didn't exist in earlier editions. So something has changed.


----------



## Maltrok (Mar 12, 2008)

Me personally, I'm not buying 4e until they bring back Ring and Splint mail!
[/tongue in cheek]

In reality, I always thought "the great wheel" syndrome took over after the list grew beyond None, Shield, Leather, Chain and Plate mail. Chain shirt? Plate Armor versus Plate Mail vs Full Plate, etc. I'll give ya Scale mail looks cool. But Hide? Buckler versus Small Shield, Large Shield, Tower Shield. And people wonder why it's hard to get new people into D&D.

Personally, I'm a fan of KISS:
None = Casters, Leather = Strikers, Chain = Controllers, Plate = Tanks
Call them or draw them as you like, but a reduction in complexity for complexity's (or simulationism's) sake seems like a good move to me.


----------



## Khuxan (Mar 12, 2008)

Maltrok said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm a fan of KISS:
> None = Casters, Leather = Strikers, Chain = Controllers, Plate = Tanks
> Call them or draw them as you like, but a reduction in complexity for complexity's (or simulationism's) sake seems like a good move to me.




I like having one armor per AC bonus, or thereabouts. It means armor proficiency can be easily balanced. Plus, why would would wizards (controllers) wear heavier armor than rogues (strikers)?

I believe they've gotten rid of bucklers and tower shields (I could be mistaken) so that'd be a step in the right direction.


----------



## The Sword 88 (Mar 12, 2008)

Getting rid of bucklers and towershields is a bad thing, not a good thing.

Bucklers were great for a light fighter who used two weapon fighting and took improved buckler defense and a tower shield was nice if the party tank just wanted to tank and not worry so much about doing damage.  A MW buckler was perfect for the tumbling sneak attacking rogue since it gave him a bit more AC with no real drawback since it had a check penalty of 0.  I liked having those options in the game.

I dont see how removing them keeps things simple enough to offset an actual loss in useful things.

As for the loss of medium armor, I really wont miss it, I only used it until I could afford full plate anyways.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 12, 2008)

Maltrok said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm a fan of KISS:
> None = Casters, Leather = Strikers, Chain = Controllers, Plate = Tanks
> Call them or draw them as you like, but a reduction in complexity for complexity's (or simulationism's) sake seems like a good move to me.




I think I agree with you here, for the most part. But it remains to be seen whether or not your choices in 4e have been reduced all the way down to two: Light or Heavy.

It's boring (most obviously) for the simulationists, but coming at it (as I usually do) from a gamist perspective, I'm bored with just two categories.

It's a given that players are going to push their AC as high as possible as soon as possible, but using that as an argument for reductionism you might as well just start all players at AC20 and hand-wave _all_ of the fluffy, simulationist details-- leather and buckler and DEX is indistinguishable from the lumbering tank in plate and heavy shield. By 3rd or 4th level, all characters/armors are indistinguishable except for how many magical bonuses they've managed to accumulate.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Mar 12, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> The problem is I should have bolded 4/5 of the quote I was replying to, but I didn't think that would be necessary, really.  The idea of including rules for stuff that is largely ignored by the PCs is a quaint one, these days.



I think I may not have stated my point very well.  Chain mail won't be ignored by the PCs if they want to equip and field an army.  Even if they don't, there's a good reason why NPC soldiers would wear chain instead of plate.  There's a niche for chain in the game.  It's the low-cost alternative to plate.  Just because PCs might not have a reason to wear chain mail armor doesn't mean that it should just be tossed out of the game.


----------



## Maltrok (Mar 12, 2008)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> I like having one armor per AC bonus, or thereabouts. It means armor proficiency can be easily balanced. Plus, why would would wizards (controllers) wear heavier armor than rogues (strikers)?
> 
> I believe they've gotten rid of bucklers and tower shields (I could be mistaken) so that'd be a step in the right direction.




Sorry, I didn't mean controllers, obviously. What I mean is heavy, medium, light, none categories to fit the front line, support, ranged and casters categories.

Generally, people get the best armor they are allowed to/can afford to get. You won't see many fighters past their first adventure failing to don plate the second they get back to the big city (unless they are two weapon fighters or the like in which case they'll take whatever the best armor they can get and not compromise their attacks).

Having a different armor per AC is excessive because people don't tailor to a particular AC; imagine having a player say, I could be at AC 12, but I'm going to stick with these furs and shield instead, even though it keeps me at AC 6. Yeah, people dedicated to keeping their player fully in character no matter the cost might do this, but that's a relatively small portion of players (well, that I've ever played with). 

Also, with ACs able to go to whatever they like now, it's clearly not practical to have one per AC anymore. Granted back in the 1e days there were 9 or so achievable ACs from non-magical means and they filled out the wheel and had a different armor combo for basically all of them. How many people used Padded, Studded Leather, Ring or Splint mail, though? Magic-Users wore nothing, Thieves wore Leather, and everyone else wore Plate as soon as they could.  So, in effect there were two armors that people chose to wear (unless you houseruled chain onto some classes, etc.). 2e basically didn't change this at all but added Full Plate, which those who could started wearing. I can't speak for 3/3.5 with any expertise, so I won't.

Though there could be a very large number of different armors, the reality is there are only about 3-4 types that people use. I say, better to have the system support the reality than fill the wheel.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Mar 12, 2008)

To me, Light and Heavy armour kind of makes more sense than having Medium as well. Astral diamonds seem fine too. They're just a measure of exchange, not necessarily "froooom the AAAAAASSSSTRAAAAAL PLAAAYYYYNEEE! in the sense of being mined there, or springing into being perfectly cut. I can certainly seem them being a Sigilian measure of exchange.

However, Godplate? Spiritmail? Starweave? Starleather?

GUYS.

DUDES.

WTH...

These are professional game designers and these are HONESTLY the best names they could come up with? Uh, I'm pretty sure ENworld or RPG.net could have given you some better ones if you'd just asked. Those names are EASILY worthy of that "board of bad names" that they have up at WotC. No doubt they will be on it, as of Fifth Edition.

I also think it's hilariously "Diablo 2"-ish that you clearly go from Chainmail to Forgemail to Spiritmail (and so on) as you go from Heroic to Paragon to Nightmare or whatever it's called. I mean, jeez, that's pretty lame. I like the idea of having "better" armour types, but making them, like, a necessity and linked to the "tiers"? Eugh.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 12, 2008)

WheresMyD20 said:
			
		

> Just because PCs might not have a reason to wear chain mail armor doesn't mean that it should just be tossed out of the game.



I agree, but such thinking has been derided as being overly simulationist when expressed in this forum.  If the PCs aren't using it, and the NPCs don't actually wear armor (monster defense values are based on level & role, not equipment), then why have rules for it, or so the argument goes.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Mar 12, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> I agree, but such thinking has been derided as being overly simulationist when expressed in this forum.  If the PCs aren't using it, and the NPCs don't actually wear armor (monster defense values are based on level & role, not equipment), then why have rules for it, or so the argument goes.



I see what you're saying.  I don't want to get into the simulationist vs. gamist debate, but I will say that D&D has traditionally been a "big tent" game system that supports lots of different styles of play.  I hope that, going forward, it stays that way.


----------



## Andor (Mar 12, 2008)

From an art direction standpoint... What's with the wrap around armours? As far as I know no armour in history ever descended from the 'bathrobe' school of design.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 12, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> However, Godplate? Spiritmail? Starweave? Starleather?
> 
> GUYS.
> 
> ...




And Feywild, Shadowfell, Golden Wyvern, etc.

Common Word + Common Word = Product Identity.

I guess. 

Their random name generator must nearly be on fire by now. Smoke pouring out of the machine.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 12, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Their random name generator must nearly be on fire by now. Smoke pouring out of the machine.



They should get a Crothian.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 12, 2008)

D&D has a long and distinguished history of crap names, often in the form of lame anagrams, just completely unimaginative (Cloakers look like cloaks? BRILLIANT!), or of the dreaded "two words mated" style (owlbear, nightshade, arrowhawk), not the mention the relatively boring "two words put together" (shadow mastiff, shield guardian, rust monster, assassin vine). And that isn't even touching on the wholly ridiculous flumph, or duckbunny, or skum. I consider things like Feywild and Forgemail to be improvements over that.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Mar 12, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Their random name generator must nearly be on fire by now. Smoke pouring out of the machine.




Seriously. They should have noticed it had a problem when two of their armour types started with the same word.



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> I consider things like Feywild and Forgemail to be improvements over that.




Those are, but Starleather? Godplate? Those are right up there with Duckbunny, imho.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 12, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Those are, but Starleather? Godplate?




Zero problem.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 12, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> And Feywild, Shadowfell, Golden Wyvern, etc.
> 
> Common Word + Common Word = Product Identity.
> 
> ...



With product identity you mean "A name for yet another thing that needed a name to identify and remember"? Or do you mean that just because you put two common words together, they have something that's worth to be protected by copyright or trademark or whatever else? Because I suspect you might need more than a name to get that...


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 12, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Zero problem.



Agreed. Standard fantasy stuff here---no better, no worse.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 12, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Agreed. Standard fantasy stuff here---no better, no worse.




It's certainly head-and-shoulders above making an anagram of your own name. That makes me want to eat puppies.


----------



## Lackhand (Mar 12, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> With product identity you mean "A name for yet another thing that needed a name to identify and remember"? Or do you mean that just because you put two common words together, they have something that's worth to be protected by copyright or trademark or whatever else? Because I suspect you might need more than a name to get that...



IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you don't, really. I mean, sure, it helps. But having a unique term (Godplate) and publishing it does let you defend it later. Or at least, have a leg to stand on when you try to defend it, whether or not you win the actual case.

That said, while I think the names aren't always that great, none of them offend my sensibilities, and some of them please.
I like the fact that it isn't enough for an armor to be Adamantium; it needs to be Dwarven Warplate, lending both more of an air of uniquity to the item (this is quite subjective) and making it harder to get (you need both the raw material _and_ someone with the wit to make the damn stuff, meaning that adamantium doors are no longer millions of gold pieces waiting to happen. Score!).

(Though I actually like _some_ nameagrams. Not all that rearranges is foul.)


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Mar 12, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> It's certainly head-and-shoulders above making an anagram of your own name. That makes me want to eat puppies.




But not as good as stealing from Jack Vance! Though "Phandal's Excellent Prismatic Spray" was cut to just "Prismatic Spray."

The wordword nomenclature wouldn't be as irritating to me if they didn't do it so often.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 12, 2008)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> The wordword nomenclature wouldn't be as irritating to me if they didn't do it so often.



Give it 20 or so years. Then it'll be enshrined as unassailable tradition.


----------

