|
1 year ago ::
Jan 27, 2012 - 7:53AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2007
|
I would like to see the notion that Plate armor is the heaviest armor in a campaign, regardless of what it looks like. So, for example, if you are setting your game in the following: Ancient Rome – Legionary armor (Lorica Segmentata) with the additional greaves and vambraces for fighting Dacians. Dark ages – Maille hauberk (knee and wrist length) with maille trews. Chinese Martial Arts movies – ad hoc metal armor for forearms, knees, shins, and a breastplate.
Musket&Pike period -- metal breastplate, greaves, and partial arms (half-plate)
Neolithic -- really thick bear skin
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 27, 2012 - 12:52PM
#2
|
|
|
You can already do that. You can describe what your character's armor and weapons look like, however you want.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 27, 2012 - 1:22PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2007
|
You can already do that. You can describe what your character's armor and weapons look like, however you want.
You can, but nobody does. I'd like to see a paragraph or two about it in the core rules.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 27, 2012 - 1:29PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
You can already do that. You can describe what your character's armor and weapons look like, however you want.
This is one of many things we can already do that I would like to see more official published advice on, so that more people understand it really does work.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 27, 2012 - 1:34PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
You can already do that. You can describe what your character's armor and weapons look like, however you want.
This is one of many things we can already do that I would like to see more official published advice on, so that more people understand it really does work.
so a table in the DMG/ world builders handbook.
would have the armor categories on one axis ( light,medium, heavy,extra heavy (plate))
and on the other axis geograpical areas / time periods.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 27, 2012 - 2:14PM
#6
|
|
|
I would agree that 5e needs a larger chunk of pagespace devoted to reflavoring. Hopefully the fluff and mechanics will remain separate enough for that to be feasible.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 27, 2012 - 9:55PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jul 13, 2011
|
I'm normally inclined to disagree about the separation of fluff and mechanics, but armor is arbitrary enough that it's easily reflavoured into whatever.
I agree that they need more pagespace devoted to drawings of swords and armor and stuff like in old books, and then just label what the armors count as
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 27, 2012 - 10:18PM
#8
|
|
|
I'm normally inclined to disagree about the separation of fluff and mechanics, but armor is arbitrary enough that it's easily reflavoured into whatever.
I agree that they need more pagespace devoted to drawings of swords and armor and stuff like in old books, and then just label what the armors count as
Who are you agreeing with on that? I sure don't agree with it, except maybe in the case of rare or made-up weaponry like the Mordenkrad. And of course, you can refluff that, too. I would question how many people in the world, D&D players or not, need a picture of an axe or sword to know what one looks like.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 28, 2012 - 1:05AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jul 13, 2011
|
I'm normally inclined to disagree about the separation of fluff and mechanics, but armor is arbitrary enough that it's easily reflavoured into whatever.
I agree that they need more pagespace devoted to drawings of swords and armor and stuff like in old books, and then just label what the armors count as
Who are you agreeing with on that? I sure don't agree with it, except maybe in the case of rare or made-up weaponry like the Mordenkrad. And of course, you can refluff that, too. I would question how many people in the world, D&D players or not, need a picture of an axe or sword to know what one looks like.
Well if he wants a bunch of "period" armors, it'd be nice to have a drawing of what it looks like so you can kinda see how it's heavy and what it is and whatever.
Everything should get at least one drawing of it. They should draw cool orc weapons on their own right in their monster manual entry, maybe my guy would want one if I knew what they looked like. I can't go deciding for the whole table what an orc sword looks like so that my guy can want one, but the book can.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 28, 2012 - 1:30PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
I personally don't like this idea.
In a medieval setting a fighter with a plate mail should have a big advantage against a normally clothed opponent.
In a neolithic setting a fighter with a bear skin should not have a big advantage against a normally clothed opponent.
DISCLAIMER: I never played 4ed, so I may misunderstand some of the rules.
|
|
|
