Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jandor1 05-31-05, 03:12 PM	Okay. I don't know if this has been proposed, so here goes. I've been pondering for a while the way D&D handles your Armor Class. It doesn't really have anything to do with your actual skill as a warrior. For example, in practically every story, manga, anime, cartoon, war movie, whatever, people DON'T walk around in all kinds of heavy, magic armor. most characters seem to walk around with NO armor at all, and yet are able to kick all kinds of :censored: on a regular basis. so i propose this: THE DEFENSIVE RATING SYSTEM (based on a number of sources, including, i believe, the star wars thingy) your AC is now a defense rating. you calculate it like this: 10 + BaB + Dex + Natural Armor + Deflection + size modifier + Misc - Armor Check Penalty thats' the big one. normally, you only subtract AC penalty for non-proficiancy; here, you do regardless. non-proficient subtract double. So what this means is that if you want, you can get away with not wearing armor, and still have a good (or really, better) defensive rating. but what of armor you say? well i got that covered. instead of aiding your AC, armor will now provide DR. it provides damage reduction equal to x/-, where x = its' armor bonus. max dex STILL APPLIES. for example: a chain shirt provides DR 4/-, and a max Dex bounus of +4, and a reduction to your defensive rating of -2 (it's armor check penalty is -2). Shields work like this: instead of a bonus to your defensive rating, or a DR bonus, they provide a miss chance. it's called a block chance, stacks with other miss chances, but doesn't negate Sneak Attack or anything like that. teh block chance is equal to 5% per point of shield bonus. so, a large shield provides a 10% block chance per attack. in addition, attacks that are blocked have a risk of damaging the shield. any attack blocked by your block chance deals half damage to your shield, reduced by hardness as usual. so there is little risk of damaging your shield, but it adds a level of realism that is missing. Sunder attacks work normally. finally, enhancement bonuses add to the DR and block chance respectivly, at a rate of 1/- for each point of enhancement bonus for armor, and + 5% block chance for each piont of enhancement bonus for your shield.
Jandor1 05-31-05, 03:21 PM	okay, time for an example. lets say we have George. George is a first level human paladin. he likes to smite things. george has the following stats (32 point buy): 16 12 14 11 12 13 he wears scale mail, and carries a heavy steel shield. his defensive rating is: 10 + 1 (bab) + 1 (dex) - 4 (armor check penalty for scale mail) - 2 (armor check penalty for shield) = 6 pretty bad, right? but here's the catch: he has DR 4/- and a 10% miss chance. so each ranged or melee attack against him subtracts 4 points from it's damage, and has a 10% chance of being blocked. Lets look at george at 10th level: we'll say george got himself some gloves of dex +2, +2 full plate, a +2 heavy mithril sheild, an amulet of natural armor +1, and a ring of protection +1. his defensive rating NOW is: 10 + 10 (BaB) + 2 (dex) + 1 (NA) + 1 (deflection) - 6 (full plate) = 18 he has DR 10/- from the full plate, and a 20% block chance from the shield.
Jandor1 05-31-05, 03:28 PM	new example time! now we have Jin. Jin is a samurai. (and yes, I stole the name from Samurai Shamploo. sue me) he's a first level human samurai with these stats (32 point buy): 14 16 14 13 12 9 his defensive rating is: 10 + 1 (bab) + 3 (dex) = 14 he has no armor, and no shield, so he has no DR and no block chance. pretty bad, right? thats what you get for not wearing armor :P however... lets say he acutally survives, and gets really powerful. so now he's a 10th level samurai with these stats: 14 18 14 13 12 9 and these items: gloves of dex +2, ring of protection +2, amulet of natural armor +2, and a dusty rose ioun stone. his defensive rating is this: 10 + 10 (bab) + 5 (dex) + 2 (NA) + 2 (deflection) + 1 (insight) = 28 not to shabby for someone who doesn't wear armor. Oh, and a side note: teh spell Mage Armor, as well as bracers of armor, provide a DR as normal armor does. the spell Shield adds a 20% block chance in addition to its normal magic missile benifits, instead of a +4 sheild bonus to AC. so what do you guys think?
crazysamaritan 05-31-05, 03:30 PM	WAYY too much DR! Only kill them if you use magic now. Remember that this would apply to monsters, too.
Jandor1 05-31-05, 03:37 PM	yeah, but remember, NA doesn't affect DR, so monsters will still be killable. and i was worried about the DR too, but the thing is, your Defense while wearing armor will be low, so you're easier to hit. i figure this way would keep you alive. however, i can see that that might be a little broken. what do you propose?
Vahenir 05-31-05, 04:06 PM	I've been pondering for a while the way D&D handles your Armor Class. It doesn't really have anything to do with your actual skill as a warrior. For example, in practically every story, manga, anime, cartoon, war movie, whatever, people DON'T walk around in all kinds of heavy, magic armor. most characters seem to walk around with NO armor at all, and yet are able to kick all kinds of :censored: on a regular basis. Practically every story, manga, anime, cartoon, and war movie? HA! Look, just because you watch a few anime cartoons does not mean that it's indicitive of every single piece of media on the planet. You want to know why those characters can survive without any armour? Pay attention because this is important: Huge Dex and Strength scores. You're talking about characters that dodge every attack, jump 40 feet straight into the air, and wield weapons twice as big as themselves. These are not 'standard 1st level characters.' They're epic with epic scores. (I thought about explaining that epic = stupid, but I won't). It's as simple as that. There's nothing wrong with a crap-Dex character being useless without some form of protection. That's how it SHOULD be. I've yet to think of a Medieval -WAR- movie that features people NOT wearing armour. You know why? Armour will save your life if you're not an uber Anime character. If you want to engage in the kind of play where Armour is virtually obsolete.. fine. Start your game at level 18 or 20, or better, and use a really hefty Point Buy for stat generation. Simple as that. I solved your problem without having to tweak a single aspect of the game.
Inigo Carmine 05-31-05, 04:18 PM	First off, there are plenty of fantasy sources where characters do wear armor. 1) Lord of the rings - Both Aragorn and Boromir look to be wearing some form of light armor, probably leather, maybe even studded leeather. Don't even try and tell me gimli's not in armor. Frodo's wearing a mithril chain shirt, and at the end of return of the king (and I think even at helm's deep) Aragorn is wearing some form of mail. Then there's all the rohirrim and the gondorians, not to mention the goblins and orcs. 2) Record of Lodoss War (the anime). Many a character are rarely seen without their armor. (i highly recomend this by the way, just make sure you get the OAV and not the "chronicals of the heroic knight" one). There's plenty more. It's realistic. Medieval knights wore armor in battle for a reason: it helps. A LOT. It does, however, suck for travelling. Using the lord of the rings example, the only people in the Fellowship (besides the dwarf) that wore armor were all in light armor. Aragorn and the rangers were wanderers to begin with, and Boromir travelled halfway across the mortal lands to get to Rivendell. When it came to big battles without a lot of travelling, or for those who never wandered too far from home to begin with, the combatants were usually in armor. ============= That being said... While I agree D&Ds lack of defense bonus for unarmored characters is a detriment, I don't like your new armor system for D&D at all. While it ultimately depends on what kind of weapon is going up against what kind of armor... In general, medieval armor is better served as giving an AC boost than DR Most medieval type armor is meant to deflect attacks that don't come in at the right angle, but does little to stop a well aimed shot. ie a higher attack roll is needed to hurt the wearer. A miss doesn't mean you whiffed, it just means it was an ineffectual clang off the armor. To do it exactly right, you'd need the good old charts from previous editions where armor had certain ratings against certain weapons, but I HATE HATE HATE having to play a game like that. ====== I'm a big fan of the star wars system (recently started playing it), but armor in that game is made the way it is for 2 reasons: 1) They purposely made it almost worthless to PCs, because none of the protagonists in the movies ever wore any (barring the death star sequence from ep IV, but that was for disguise). 2) Star wars focuses more on ranged combat (barring lightsabers). Something like a modern day kevlar vest is all about damage reduction/absorbtion and not deflection. Also, a laser bolt fired from a blaster is something I'd imagine that continues in a completely straight line until its done expending its energy, so deflection isn't an option.
Nephlite 05-31-05, 04:29 PM	Okay. I don't know if this has been proposed, so here goes. I've been pondering for a while the way D&D handles your Armor Class. It doesn't really have anything to do with your actual skill as a warrior. For example, in practically every story, manga, anime, cartoon, war movie, whatever, people DON'T walk around in all kinds of heavy, magic armor. most characters seem to walk around with NO armor at all, and yet are able to kick all kinds of :censored: on a regular basis. so i propose this: THE DEFENSIVE RATING SYSTEM (based on a number of sources, including, i believe, the star wars thingy) your AC is now a defense rating. you calculate it like this: 10 + BaB + Dex + Natural Armor + Deflection + size modifier + Misc - Armor Check Penalty thats' the big one. normally, you only subtract AC penalty for non-proficiancy; here, you do regardless. non-proficient subtract double. So what this means is that if you want, you can get away with not wearing armor, and still have a good (or really, better) defensive rating. but what of armor you say? well i got that covered. instead of aiding your AC, armor will now provide DR. it provides damage reduction equal to x/-, where x = its' armor bonus. max dex STILL APPLIES. for example: a chain shirt provides DR 4/-, and a max Dex bounus of +4, and a reduction to your defensive rating of -2 (it's armor check penalty is -2). Shields work like this: instead of a bonus to your defensive rating, or a DR bonus, they provide a miss chance. it's called a block chance, stacks with other miss chances, but doesn't negate Sneak Attack or anything like that. teh block chance is equal to 5% per point of shield bonus. so, a large shield provides a 10% block chance per attack. in addition, attacks that are blocked have a risk of damaging the shield. any attack blocked by your block chance deals half damage to your shield, reduced by hardness as usual. so there is little risk of damaging your shield, but it adds a level of realism that is missing. Sunder attacks work normally. finally, enhancement bonuses add to the DR and block chance respectivly, at a rate of 1/- for each point of enhancement bonus for armor, and + 5% block chance for each piont of enhancement bonus for your shield. Problem is monsters like dragons: in your system their Armor class would skyrocket. 10 + BaB + Dex + Natural Armor + Deflection + size modifier + Misc - Armor Check Penalty Let me use a black dragon around young age so hd 10 Base +10, Ac 19 (+9 natural), touch 10, flat-footed 19 10 + 10 + 0 + 9+ Deflection + size 0+ - 0 check= 29 in your system.
Vahenir 05-31-05, 04:37 PM	Just since Lord of the Rings was mentioned - to expound upon that: As was said, the characters that didn't wear armour - didn't wear armour because they were travelling very rigourously. It should also be noted, however, that they AVOIDED most battles at this time. Most of the real fights didn't happen until much later. They never fought a troll, they ran away from it. They didn't fight hundreds of Orcs and Uruk-Hai.. they ran away. Frodo was, indeed, wearing some of the best armour on Middle-earth. Aragorn put on a mail shirt before the defense of Helm's Deep, and continued wearing it until toward the end of the story. I believe he's mentioned as having a full suit of mail at the battle before the Black Gate, as well. Gimli did, indeed, wear mail and possibly a coat of plates. Merry and Pippin are completely ineffectual and don't really ever fight until they, ALSO, are wearing mail - as they become warriors of Rohan and Gondor respectively. Boromir never wears armour.. and guess what - he dies. The Rangers of the North are mentioned to be wearing mail, if I recall correctly. Gondorians wear mail, including those that come from other provinces, like Imrahil. All the 'evil people' wear armour, except for the Haradrim.. because they're from a desert.. armour would kill them via heat exhaustion before they ever got near Gondor. The Rohirrim are -all- explicitly mentioned as wearing mail. Yeah.. pretty much everyone in Middle-earth wore armour.. usually mail. Even the uber-Elves wore mail. Fingolfin - the greatest Elf in the HISTORY of Middle-earth, who fought MORGOTH in single-combat, wore armour. Anyway..
Jandor1 05-31-05, 05:06 PM	yeah, nephlite, that hadn't occured to me. this will jack up a monsters AC a lot, which will cause problems, especially with low level characters and high HP monsters. but most of the issue will come from Natural armor scores, which for things like dragons are HUGE. hrm. i'm not really sure how to deal with that; adding it as more DR would probably be even nastier. any ideas? you konw, this might work far better as something, ironically, a middle earth style setting, where only uber characters like legolas or gandalf can take on the really big guys, and everyone else is are humanoids. if you do a setting that's much more NPC based rather than dungeon crawl or monster based, this might be better; i think it would be more even that way. does anyone think this is a good IDEA? like, trying to make it so your skill with a blade or mace has more of an impact on how hard it is to hit you? I dunno; i just like the idea that a sufficiently powerful character can run around without bulky armor and not die all over the place. any other comments? suggestions are always welcome; heck, if you have a totally different system or can point me to one i'd be grateful.
weasel fierce 05-31-05, 05:07 PM	If you want anime-style sort of gameplay, just give every character the same AC bonus you get from plate mail, without wearing it. This only applies to heroes (and does not stack with wearing actual armour, which is purely to look cool). Grunts and goons must wear armour to get the bonus. As regards the topic, body armour was used by everyone who could afford it. I think thats an indication.
Vahenir 05-31-05, 06:11 PM	does anyone think this is a good IDEA? like, trying to make it so your skill with a blade or mace has more of an impact on how hard it is to hit you? No. Because it's not skill with a weapon that saves you, it's skill at self-defense, which is mostly dodging based. Real warriors don't trade blows, they move out of the way of blows and strike when it's proper to do so. With that said, I understand what you're trying to do - but your implementation just doesn't make sense, or work. I'm currently designing a new RPG System (just to see if I can) and my design will have a Defense skill - which basically replaces Armour Class. And three different defense types (Blocking, Parrying, and Dodge - where Dodge will be the one that benefits from the Defense skill). It's working out really well. I've combined AC bonus and DR for armour - all armour grants DR, and some also grants a bonus to your Dodge Defense - representing that even if you are hit, that doesn't mean it did any damage.
LordHell 05-31-05, 07:34 PM	This depends what you want. In reality though, armour was extremely helpful in all but the most extreme weather conditions (desert, etc). The D&D AC system represents this well to a point. My only gripe with it is the +2 bonus for AP weapons and ammunition is far to little. There are instances where wearing no armour is advantagous. Going up against a bunch of longbowmen for example, you'd be much better served by being mobile in reality. In most melee combat however this simply isn't the case, and the D&D system works. If you want to base all your judgement on movies, take a look at Gladiator. The heavily armoured Roman infantry pussed the lightly armoured barbarians in melee. Im sure those Barbarians were extremely competent warriors too.
weasel fierce 05-31-05, 07:37 PM	The longbow issue does depend. Recent research have shown that longbows tended to work against cavalry, mainly through injuring the horse, rather than penetrating the armour. Arrows that could smash plate certainly existed, but whether they were commonly available, as well as the loss of velocity in typical battlefield firing, seems a little more in doubt.
LordHell 05-31-05, 07:42 PM	The longbow issue does depend. Recent research have shown that longbows tended to work against cavalry, mainly through injuring the horse, rather than penetrating the armour. Arrows that could smash plate certainly existed, but whether they were commonly available, as well as the loss of velocity in typical battlefield firing, seems a little more in doubt. Mainly because the horse is a larger target and doesn't carry a shield. There is evidence in historical writings that the Longbow penetrated armour with ease. And Longbows arn't the only example, crossbows were much more lethal, having a flat deflection angle. Do crossbows in D&D even get a +2 bonus?
weasel fierce 05-31-05, 07:45 PM	yeah, but to have enough velocity, you need to fire relatively straight, and at short range. Volley fire arches up, for range, with the result that the arrows will not be nearly as effective penetrators on their way down. Not that being pelted with arrows from the above, wouldnt sting, of course. It was quite evidently effective for handling the issue, when enough archers were employed, and when terrain permitted it.
LordHell 05-31-05, 07:49 PM	yeah, but to have enough velocity, you need to fire relatively straight, and at short range. Volley fire arches up, for range, with the result that the arrows will not be nearly as effective penetrators on their way down. Not that being pelted with arrows from the above, wouldnt sting, of course. It was quite evidently effective for handling the issue, when enough archers were employed, and when terrain permitted it. D&D mechanics already accomodate for the range issue. There is no doubt however through numerous historical evidence that wearing heavy armour (shields aside) is an extremely poor defence vs heavy archers (crossbowmen, Longbowmen, etc) And again, crossbows - while short ranged and have a slow reloading time, do not suffer from these problems due to their flat projectory path. D&D really has nothing to encompass for this (apart from a pathetic +2 AP bonus, which I dont think even applies to crossbows). It's equally effective shooting someone wearing heavy armour with darts in D&D than it is a heavy crossbow (which was specifically designed for this purpose). The only time it was really effective wearing heavier armours was in the classic times, when most western bows at this time wern't powerful enough and crossbows didn't exist. Hence the popularity within the Roman army of the Pila.* *This again is another example of how armour was beneficial and why the original poster is way off the mark. Why did the Romans invest in throwing Pilums to render the enemies shields useless, if armour isn't all that?
weasel fierce 05-31-05, 07:52 PM	I quite agree with your assertion. Just raising the point that having a bow does not automatically make you a knight killer ;) The rules issue though, is that D&D assumes that hitting and penetrating armour is the same thing. Thus, someone who shoots well, with a poor weapon (sling) is as effective against plate mail as someone who shoots poorly, with a strong weapon (heavy crossbow) The best representation is generally to let armour reduce damage, instead of raising your "hard to hit" factor.
LordHell 05-31-05, 07:55 PM	I understand that D&D mechanics are about damaging your opponent and thus penetrating their armour, but my assertion is that it should be way easier to damage someone wearing armour with a crossbow than with other weapons. Of course, this starts to get complicated, eventually leading to armour penetration tables, which is a road better left untrodden :) I can live without ;)
Vahenir 05-31-05, 08:32 PM	1) You would not be served better unarmoured against a group of longbowmen. Removing your armour -increases- the chances of death, because you're NOT much more mobile without it as you are with it. And with it, at least you have the CHANCE of deflecting a blow. 2) Injury to a horse had nothing to do with shields. A knight in plate armour more often than not wasn't carrying a shield - it would be redundant. 3) Crossbows and bows of all sorts were not the 'Knight killers' many people with only a vague knowledge of history make them out to be. The entire concept that a crossbow should get a bonus to damage an armoured warrior is ludicrous. First of all - arrows don't penetrate armour better than bare skin. Sorry to tell you. An armoured opponent should have a higher chance of avoiding death by arrows than an unarmoured opponent. Further, all weapons killed. Period. The concept that 'arrows killed better' is ludicrous. I can name a myriad weapons that could go right through plate armour. Axes, hammers, pole-axes, some spears, estocs, even some specially-shaped daggers, falchions... I suppose ALL of these weapons should have a bonus against armoured opponents? No - the crossbow was not responsible for the decline of armour. Nor was the longbow. Nor was the gonne. The decline of armour was, partly, due to multiple factors at once: Crossbows, longbows, gonnes, poleaxes, estocs - it was the evolution of warfare that rendered armour less and less useful - not one uber Knight-killer. 4) Arrows do not -easily- penetrate armour. Could they? Absolutely. There's ample proof of that. But 30 knights dying in a volley that literally blankets the sky is hardly evidence that arrows were more deadly than anything else. In modern tests - arrows only penetrate SOME kinds of armour, and only from a certain distance. Beyond that, or against stronger, or better-shaped armour, the arrow just glanced off. So unless you assume all D&D plate is boxy and low-quality, it's silly to think the plate armour isn't granting him a huge chance of staying alive. A mounted knight had more to fear from a well-wielded estoc or mace than he did from bowmen. The bowmen are just less discriminating - and come in greater numbers. It was the -amount- of arrows that knights didn't like, not the concept that they were at a huge amount of risk from arrow-death, insofar as saying they were more afraid to die by arrow than by sword or mace.
LordHell 05-31-05, 09:32 PM	I was going to reply point by point, but then I realised you're completely ignoring the overall intent and context of my post - a very common occurance online. I can't really be bothered getting into an irrelevant argument with someone who ignores context.
weasel fierce 05-31-05, 10:28 PM	I think it is relevant, as it poses the question "SHOULD these weapons get a bonus ?" Of note, in AD&D1, if you use the weapon vs AC chart, crossbows do gtet a small hit bonus against guys in plate mail
WhiteHarness 05-31-05, 10:50 PM	I have to jump in here. LordHell, I think you have a somewhat inflated opinion of the effectiveness of bows and crossbows on the medieval battlefield. The most commonly cited reason for longbows being armour-piercers are the three English battlefield victories at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt during the Hundred Years War. Remember that the French ultimately *won* the HYW, and their heavy cavalry played an important role in that victory. It was intelligent application of the longbow, taking advantage of the terrain, and having hours to prepare defensive field fortification in advance that won those three famous English victories; they weren't the result of nuclear armour-piercing arrows. For every historical citation of the longbows hyped armour-piercing ability, I can produce evidence to the contrary; armour stopped arrows all the time. For example, at the battle of Patay in 1429, those vaunted English archers were mowed down by the French heavy cav because they hadn't had time to erect their usual screen of pointy stakes in the ground, etc. Where was the longbow's supposedly superior armour-piercing capability then? How about this roughly contemporary account of the battle of Browershaven wherein we read: "...English discipline apparently impressed and possibly dismayed the Dutch. For the English advanced marching in step, ignored a brief salvo fired at them by a cannoneer from Dordrecht, and then suddenly emitted a frightening yell and a fanfare of trumpets and bugles. Holding their fire till the armies were well within range, the Dutch 'shot simultaneoiusly at the English with over a thousand crossbows. But these did about as much harm as a shower of rotten apples:' they returned fire with their deadly longbows and drove the Dutch back in disorder - However, arrows could make no impression on Philip and his heavily armed knigthts, who now arrived on the scene...." Then there was the battle of Flodden in 1513, which was probably the only battle in history during which the Scots were well-armoured, having imported a great quantity of protective gear from the Continent. In all contemporary chronicles we hear the same thing: The archers could co no harm to the armoured men. We also read about a particular Scottish Earl(?) who for some reason climbed a ship's mast during the horrible rout of the Scots that followed this battle. The only vulnerable place the English archer who slew him could find to do him injury was the armpit, where his plate armour did not cover him. Note also that after Agincourt, there are no more victories that even the most pig-headed Toxophile would try to credit to the longbow alone. Remember that during the English Wars of the Roses, which began just a generation or so later featured longbowmen on both sides of any given battle, and whenever a man of rank (who would invariably be clad in the best-quality full plate) is killed or injured by an arrow, the chroniclers always note that the man was struck when he raised his visoro to breathe or take a drink. Plate armour stopped arrows, probably far more often than arrows defeated it. There's a reason that anyone who could afford full plate wanted it: it represented the highest degree of protection from physical threats on the battlefield that man has enjoyed before or since.
Vahenir 05-31-05, 11:04 PM	So in other words "you're right, I'm wrong, but instead of admitting that - I'd rather just pretend you're the bad guy?" I was correcting mistakes you made in your post. If you're upset by that.. well hey - tough. I'm not going to apologize for your mistakes.
WaterRabbit 05-31-05, 11:34 PM	I would like to point out that on a recent episode of 'Battlefield Detectives' on the History channel, they tested longbows vs. the plate used by the French nobility at Agincourt (1415). They found that at even point blank range -- about 30 feet the arrows used by the English have no probability of penetration -- that's right zero. Very few knights at Agincourt were killed by arrows. Now horses, that's a different story. However, most of the knights were killed by the English archers. For the French knights plate was both a benefit and a detriment. One of the things they tested was how difficult it would have been to march around in with metal covering the lower leg and foot in mud on the battlefield. Trying to withdraw one's foot from the mud creates a partial vacuum and increases the force necessary to extract the foot. The archers were predominately wearing cloth footwear which made it much easier for them to move around. The assertion that the longbow penetrated armor with ease does not hold up to the testing that was done. Their testing was also at the worst possible deflection for the armor, 90 degrees. There seems to be quite a bit of misinformation floating about these boards about armor -- especially plate. The GURPS system does a reasonable job of modeling how actual armor works. Vahenir mentioned he was designing his own system. Well, the basics of his system are already in GURPS. Armor provides two bonuses (at least that worn by humans, tanks gain a third). First, the material and thickness stop attacks from penetrating and spreads the kinetic energy of the attack across a larger area. Second, the material and how it is shaped can deflect an attack. The third benefit is harder to achieve with people and that is slope which increases the effective thickness of the armor. Plate armor is fitted to the person wearing it. A person in plate can do quite a few athletic things such as handstands and cartwheels. However, I doubt anyone has done this in combat and lived to talk about it. ;) Getting up from a fall takes a little more effort than an unarmored person, but it is not a major trial either. Plate armor has three important drawbacks that most people tend to ignore. The first is mass: Adding another 65 lbs. or so of metal and padding makes it difficult to move quickly. You don't see people sprinting the 220 or 440 meter dash in plate. It is also hard to turn quickly and maneuver quickly compared to an unarmored person. Most of the fights I have seen between a lightly armored combatant against a heavily armored one involve the lightly armored one ‘dancing’ around trying to find an opening and trying not to get hit in return. The second disadvantage is heat. With all of the padding and metal it is difficult to sweat away body heat. At SCA tournaments I have seen people go down with heat exhaustion and stroke. After wearing a full helm for an hour or more, most fighters have a 'heat burn' which looks very much like sunburn. Fighting in a hot, humid environment would be very uncomfortable. The third problem is more a function of a full helm than plate per se. When wearing a full helm the senses of hearing, vision, and smell are impaired. It becomes more difficult to locate the position of sounds. One’s peripheral vision is affected and narrower. Instead of 180 degrees, it is more like 120 degrees. Also the vertical extremes of vision are affected. Generally one has to move one's head or torso to see the ground and objects at eye level. Fighters in plate have to move more carefully or risk stumbling -- something I have seen many times. Another thing people tend to forget is that a fully armored person is a weapon. An unarmored person does not want to get within striking distance of an armored knight -- forget hand strikes and light weapons as they will be ineffectual. Pole arms are a better weapon of choice against a knight.
Vahenir 06-01-05, 12:37 AM	Even Agincourt is kind of a weak example of the longbow's superiority. It was used.. yes. It did some damage, yes. But it's also well known that the battle was won on the edge of a sword. There was -hours- of brutal hand-to-hand combat after the archers had already disengaged. Longbowmen contributed to the win, but did not -ensure- the win. There seems to be quite a bit of misinformation floating about these boards about armor -- especially plate. The GURPS system does a reasonable job of modeling how actual armor works. Vahenir mentioned he was designing his own system. Well, the basics of his system are already in GURPS. Good eye! I took the concept from GURPS - though I changed it up and the implementation will be different as befits a somewhat different system. I like to think of my system as d20 meets GURPS meets CODA. About what WaterRabbit was saying: I have, in fact, seen people sprint in plate armour (three-quarter plate). Me, I'm not much for plate. I've worn it.. it's uncomfortable but tolerable - and pretty easy to move in. I'm a mail person, myself. But I've also seen guys in plate move -very- quickly right off the mark - moving quickly in plate isn't the issue. Plate does -not- severely impair movement, reflexes, or general quickness. The -actual- problem is something else touched upon by WR. Heat. Your armour smells because you've been sweating in it, you're hot, you're uncomfortable.. that takes its toll. Someone in plate will weary much faster. .but survive much longer under proper conditions. But in a really hot climate.. you're quite screwed.
Sinaz 06-01-05, 04:55 PM	Back to Jandor's original topic... I wanted to share how I handle AC. I hate that AC is a fixed number. That an attacker just rolls against it, and it's as if you brace yourself and close your eyes, taking the same defensive posture each time. So, figure this: I read in the PHB (I think) that the Base of 10 is the equivelent of taking ten in favor of your defense. Well, I take that away from the player. I make them roll per defense. Then during combat it's the attacker's Base Attack, modifiers, plus his d20 vs. the player's AC (minus the base 10) plus his d20. So I tell my players to generate two AC's: Flat-footed Base(10) + Natural + Armor (no Dex bonus) Active Base d20 + Natural + Dex Mod + Armor With this system, we have a good time because we roll head to head per attack. We've incorporated Crits for defense. Critical Success earns the defender an attack of oppurtunity with a +2 bonus to grapple (simply because we like dirty fighting in our compaigns). Critical Miss is like tripping yourself. Your defense is so off balance that whether your opponent critical misses or not, you're falling to the floor. If a creature / player gets a critical miss versus a critical threat, it negates the need for the attacker to make the critical hit-- it just happens. Once the players got used to the system, combat went just as fast as before, but was much more interesting and exciting. I should note that using this system has led to some spectacular fist-a-cuffs. We've had players crit success on defense, attempt to grapple, the opponent crits his defense vs. the grapple, stab at the player who crits defense again... (we've given lighter armor a crit range like weapons for defense). We get these mental images of Jackie Chan fights whee in one round, a lightning series of attacks, parrys, grapples and such have occurred in a six second span. Very very cool.
Vahenir 06-01-05, 05:11 PM	I thought about the defense roll option. But in the end, I decided I don't like it. You have a 40% chance of ending up with a LOWER AC than normal. Definitely not fun since BAB and all that is based on the idea that a person's base AC is 10 and goes up from there. If you drop your base AC to 2.. you're in for a world of hurt. I'd rather have the 10 than risk having a 4.
Sinaz 06-01-05, 05:19 PM	I thought about the defense roll option. But in the end, I decided I don't like it. You have a 40% chance of ending up with a LOWER AC than normal. Definitely not fun since BAB and all that is based on the idea that a person's base AC is 10 and goes up from there. If you drop your base AC to 2.. you're in for a world of hurt. I'd rather have the 10 than risk having a 4. yeah but you have a 40% chance of ending up with a higher AC too. It balanced out really nice. We all agreed it felt more organic, and the crits made things really interesting.
Vahenir 06-01-05, 05:43 PM	Bad math. It's actually a 45% chance (rounded to, at least). On a 1d20... each number has a 5% chance. So getting a 10 is 5%.. getting lower or higher is a 45% chance. Really.. I just don't like those odds. Almost -half- the time, you're going to end up with a lower AC. Half of that time, it's going to be 5 or less. I don't think that's a worthwhile chance to take for the 45% chance of roller higher (and only a 22.5 chance of rolling more than 15). In any event, I just don't like even having a chance of a 1 for my base defense. So I never used it. Just personal preference, that's all. But I also use expanded rules for critical hits. With the (very minute) possibility of death with any connecting hit - you don't want to do anything that would possibly LOWER your defenses by a significant amount.
Sinaz 06-01-05, 05:51 PM	Bad math. It's actually a 45% chance (rounded to, at least). On a 1d20... each number has a 5% chance. So getting a 10 is 5%.. getting lower or higher is a 45% chance. :rolleyes: whatever the math is, your opponent still has to beat it and mixes the odds even more. I'm playing devil's advocate here - you play AC anyway you want. My point is that it works and our game group really enjoyed it. So it's worth a try for someone looking for a change.
Vahenir 06-01-05, 06:32 PM	I think you took that the wrong way. I was just correcting my math so no one would chime in with "Well.. actually.." It had no real bearing on the conversation - I just wanted to fix the error. Like I said before, it's just personal preference. I simply don't like the odds of ending up with a base AC of 1.
Sinaz 06-01-05, 07:03 PM	I think you took that the wrong way. I was just correcting my math so no one would chime in with "Well.. actually.." It had no real bearing on the conversation - I just wanted to fix the error. Like I said before, it's just personal preference. I simply don't like the odds of ending up with a base AC of 1. Right on... and just to reiterate... You really can't end up with an AC of 1 if you're wearing armor and/or have a Dex bonus. Worst case is like 2+your bonuses... because a 1 is a critical miss, so poo on your character for being a clutz :P
Vahenir 06-01-05, 07:16 PM	I meant a 'base AC' of 1. Rather than a base AC of 10. It's still disconcerting. And I also have a hard time following the concept of a 15th level fighter being 'clutzy' in combat. Of course, you could make feats to increase his average roll.. but then he has to waste precious feats to fix his gimp due to a houserule. No offense to your using it. If it works for you, that's great. But the odds just don't please me. Besides, like I already said, I use expanded critical hit rules. A lower AC is a -really- bad thing. Because that 'clutz' will almost certainly end up dead, even given the small odds of a superior crit. (I use the Torn Asunder rules for Critical Hits.)
Sinaz 06-01-05, 07:27 PM	I respect that... I've never gone with super crits. But to each thier own.
HiQKid 06-01-05, 08:01 PM	A few ideas that I feel would reduce the power of this somewhat, while making it work better: First, don't give the character the DR, make it virtual DR (VDR), as the armor takes the damage rather then the character. This is really just semantical, but for affects that vary depending on the targets DR for example, it's important. Subtract VDR from damage first, then other DR. Second, don't make it VDR */-. Make it */X. X is some value, generally 1 or two types of damage, depending on the shape and style of the armor. Third, as the armor is taking the damage itself, it should only be able to take a certain amount of damage. Keep track of the damage. When total damage taken by the armor equals 1/4 armors HP + armors hardness, reduce the VDR to 3/4. When total damage taken by the armor equals 1/2 armors HP + armors hardness, reduce the VDR to 1/2. When total damage taken by the armor equals 3/4 armors HP + armors hardness, reduce the VDR to 1/4. When total damage taken by the armor equals armors HP + armors hardness, the armor breaks.
Jandor1 06-03-05, 09:39 PM	HiQKid, i really like that idea. i was thinkiing about having certain armor add a DR vs somethign. for example, chain vs bludgioning, or plate vs piercing (based on the above arguments, i guess that makes sense, as arrows are piercing :rolleyes: ), adamantine armor vs adamantine, etc. i also thought about the armor damage rules, but figured that might be too much of a complication. I also like the defense roll idea; it would also make the players more engaged at each stage of combat, which is always a good thing. Oh, and yes. I said some stupid things in my initial post. I was thinking of Manga like Samurai Deeper Kyo, which has as much realism in it as a Salvador Dali painting. I also just wanted to see how we could mess with teh system and try somethign new. keep the ideas flowing, but keep it civil people.