|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 8:11PM
#31
|
|
|
Is your intent with the table to ignore the historical fact that some armours really ARE just better than others, and that the only reason some armours even exist at all is so that line troops and militia can be outfitted cheaply?
I would encourage him to do so. D&D never restricted armor based on historial usage. My only concern with this system is that it seems complicated to run. Also, you're giving away disadvnatage willy-nilly and I don't think it's a good idea to make disadvantage part of the default state. (dis)advantage should be situational, not default.
I really didnt want to grant disadvantage here if it could be avoided.. but it seems that the current 5E system seems to hate plus and minus modifiers so I saw no way out..
I would rather grant skill modifiers than advantage/disadvantage.
If it looks willy-nilly it is because it is, much of it is just taken out of thin air.. but it is version one =P
This is what I mean though, D&D has just multiplied armor types for no interesting reason. Half of them are not even historically meaningful at all, and most of them are realistically not worth differentiating. Instead lets have a SIMPLER game where simplicity can be had easily.
Now, I can still see having a distinction in the equipment list, like 'light armor' can include a few variations like hides, bigandine, and chain shirt. Hide can keep you warm, brigandine can be a little cheaper, and a chain shirt maybe weighs slightly less (relative to leather, the basic light armor). Its not much, but it allows PCs to use what they want and not worry about it, and maybe once in a great while the difference matters in a small way. Then you can layer on magical, masterwork, and cultural differentiation where and when you want.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 8:27PM
#32
|
|
|
Instead lets have a SIMPLER game where simplicity can be had easily.
As I said in the OP, I would want to see a number of interesting armor choices. This is an attempt to make multiple choices interesting, as well as giving some unique character to medium and heavy armor.
The intention is not to simplify.
While the system should not be complicated for no reason, I personally can accept to go a couple of steps towards a less simple system if it would lead to a more interesting system.
I have quie a lot of ideas for masterworks and magic.. Ill put some in the next version of the armor list.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 8:43PM
#33
|
|
|
Instead lets have a SIMPLER game where simplicity can be had easily.
As I said in the OP, I would want to see a number of interesting armor choices. This is an attempt to make multiple choices interesting, as well as giving some unique character to medium and heavy armor.
The intention is not to simplify.
While the system should not be complicated for no reason, I personally can accept to go a couple of steps towards a less simple system if it would lead to a more interesting system.
I have quie a lot of ideas for masterworks and magic.. Ill put some in the next version of the armor list.
I tend to think that 'less is more' more often than not. In any case this isn't the thread to debate that  .
In terms of your system... It seems unlikely that Lamellar armor would ever be worth taking over say Chain, which overs a considerably better AC no penalties and only a very marginal dex penatly. I mean you MIGHT choose Lamellar over chain if your CON is high enough, but in that case wouldn't you go on up to banded or plate? There is a VERY narrow niche there, you'd have to have both a high dex AND a high con for it to be worth using.
Likewise Scalemail seems almost surely superior to any of the heavy armors, unless again you have a really substantial CON, and even then the plate penalties make me think I'd be VERY unlikely to choose plate over scale. The extra point of AC (and quite likely several points) seems well worth a point or two of Fortified. Especially considering damage isn't the only consequence of being hit in a lot of cases.
In the reverse direction Hide armor seems vastly superior to either of the leather armors, but hands down better than studded. Same AC, 2 points of fortification, and no penalty. I know which one I would pick if I had any choice at all.
Anyway, thx, you got me thinking about armor again, and not while looking at that brain draining DDN armor table, which just stuns me...
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 8:58PM
#34
|
|
|
Yea, I agree with most of your criticisms here, the list definitely needs some tweaking.
Perhaps medium armors should lose the Fortified attribute alltogether so that can be a distinctively heavy armor thing.
Still I kind of liked the thing with mediums as a blend of light and heavy properties.
Some cases like hide being slightly superior to the leathers are ok because it requires a higher tier of armor proficiency to use.
Heavy armors are intended to be differently valued depending on CON score, so that's all well.. but the treshold point should not be too high.
If a simpler system is desired without lots of choices in each category, I still think that it would be more interesting to give medium and heavy different flavours. The list could be simplified to:
No Armor: 10 + Dex mod AC
Light: 12 + Dex mod AC (no penalties)
Medium: 15 + Dex mod AC (max 3 dex mod, perhaps a stealth penalty)
Heavy: 15 AC, Fortified Con mod + 2 (-1 penalty to Dex mod, max 2 Dex mod, penalties to movement and stealth)
Although I would rather have multiple armor types in each category.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 9:37PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
I like how light armor is about not being hit, how heavy armor is about not caring that you are hit, and how medium armor takes each to less of an extreme and should usually be better overall.
So, the different armors all fall at a different point along the spectrucm between all evasion and all absorption. The major new idea with this proposal is that absorption is covered as a form of temporary hit points, so let's stick with that, but simplify it a bit to smooth gameplay. What if, instead of saying that armor forms a barrier between the weapon and flesh which has its own set of HP to track, what if we just say that armor is (mostly) unbreakable but serves as a damping mechanism by which reduces the impact of all attacks.
Now, here's the tricky party. Instead of going the DR route, which introduces a bunch of math into the middle of combat, let's say that the reduced damage from each attack is represented by increasing the HP of the target. Furthermore, instead of the traditional (Palladium) approach of having flat HP from the armor, let's use the idea here where the armor gives you the effect of X more HP per level. (This does introduce a couple of specific issues related to healing and donning/removing armor, but let's not get into that right now.)
The best part is that this gives us a convenient point of comparison: Dex mod increases AC, just like armor does, so we can have Fortification increase HP in the exact same manner as Con. We already know that 1 point of Dex mod = 1 point Con mod.
So, here's my revised list:
Leather: Fortified +2, AC = 13 + Dex mod (no max)
Studded: Fortified +1, AC = 14 + Dex mod (no max)
Hide: Fortified +4, AC = 13 + Dex mod (max 4)
Brigandine: Fortified +3, AC = 14 + Dex mod (max 4)
Chain: Fortified +5, AC = 14 + Dex mod (max 2)
Scale: Fortified +6, AC = 14 + Dex mod (max 1)
Lamellar: Fortified +7, AC = 13
Banded: Fortified +8, AC = 12
Plate: Fortified +9, AC = 11
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 2:24AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2012
|
My 4E house rule on armor has changed armor into damage reduction. This house rule has made my armor a very interesting choice in game. So much so that I might never move over to 5E until I can find a replacement for this rule.
The rule ties into 4E defenses so it might never be able to move over.
Basically Light armor Provides low damage reduction and heavy armor applies high damage reduction and a penalty to your reflex defense of -2, medium armor -1. Without AC as a defense Reflex replaces it for all intents and purposes so Reflex is the go to defense to dodge all sword swings and arrows. My players like heavy armor if going into a big battle against lots of combatants. More attacks mean there armor absorbs more damage. but they have learned heavy armor is a poor choice against Giants who swing once and do alot of damage. That extra 10% chance to avoid the giants swing means alot more than the damage reduction. This system has really captured the feel of armor as a means of mobility versus protection, with a very simple rule. But of course this ties into how 4E works defenses something 5E will not have. Unless 5E actually would consider implementing some more 4E type combat stats.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 5:40AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2009
|
In your system, do the dex penalties affect dex based attack rolls? Also, with lamellar, is the max dex before or after the dex penalty? After, right? So in lamellar, the max AC would be 16 with dex 18?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 6:40AM
#38
|
|
|
@Saelorn
I think it would partly defeat the purpose of the Fortified attribute to give it to all armors, since its main point is to give heavy armors a special niche. I also like that CON score ties into the armor choice, thus making the choice be about more than just optimizing AC and Dex.
@Scetchmonkey
The main drawbacks of DR is that includes an additional computational step into every combat round and that is is harder to scale with level with the current linear HP/level. Scaling DR would also bring into play something akin to the AC-hit window in non-bounded accuracy. If DR is to be equally relevant at lvl 5 (where HP pools are 5 times larger) as lvl 1, then the lvl 1 creature will have a very hard time to damage the lvl 5 at all.
With the Armor HP path heavy armors will be extremely good in short fights and low damage opponents but probably worse than medium armor in prolonged fights and high damage opponents. The worst case for a plate wearer would be to be swarmed by a multitude of skirmishers that slowly tire him out by chipping off the Armor HP and then leaving him defenseless.
So, both approaches creates armors that are more and less effective in different situations.
@Lokiron
Yes, dex penalties and limits affect everything where a Dex penalty applies. (I am also advocating that Wis or Dex can be used for ranged weapons, just like its Dex and Str for finesse weapons, but thats a bit off topic)
Yes, the maximum is after the modification, so yes, Lamellar reaches 16 AC with 18 Dex, which is it's special niche.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 7:00AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2009
|
So with lamellar, 18 dex, and 12 con you are down 2 AC and 2 hit (if your attack is dex based; most likely at 18 dex) plus some skil disadvantage compared to scalemail. This means you need to have 18 dex and at least 14 con to get SOMETHING better (fort.) than scale and you're still down 2 AC, 2 hit, and disadvantage.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 7:20AM
#40
|
|
|
Yes, they are not particularily well balanced yet.. this is more like a rough sketch.
There are several armors that need some changes. Maybe Lamellar should drop the AB penalty.
|
|
|
