Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Leibel 01-10-05, 11:40 PM	I was thinking of making other types of armor beyond shield, armor and helmet. Things like belts, boots and gloves like they have in Diablo II. I don't see the AC bonus being that great maybe +3 at most for the most expensive. Or would that push AC up to high for PC's.
Silimaure 01-10-05, 11:45 PM	The armor bonus listed for different armors take into account different parts of the armor protecting your body, such as fullplate's gauntlet's protecting your arms and wrists. Unless the glove is enchanted, I wouldn't see why it would make sense to provide a mundane ac bonus
taltamir 01-10-05, 11:47 PM	if they take all those things into account, how come you dont loose it when you replace them with another item for that slot... for example, when you replace that nice pair of steel gauntlets with a pair of enchanted leather gloves...
Vahenir 01-11-05, 03:17 AM	Because D&D's armour system is horrendously simplistic. That's just how it is. I wouldn't be opposed, myself, to other forms of armour. But according to the PH, a gauntlet doesn't provide an AC bonus by itself (it's just a weapon if worn alone). So it would have to be better than a gauntlet, and even then I can't see more than a +2 armour bonus from things like steel girdles. And of course, it wouldn't stack with other armour.
Leibel 01-11-05, 10:07 AM	And what is wrong w/ the DnD armor system. Beyond the whole no modifier vs peircing/slashing/bludgeoning weapons thing. Oh wait that is one thing wrong w/the system.
Vahenir 01-11-05, 11:23 AM	Personally, I only slightly modify the current armour system, I don't have that big of a problem with it. But it -IS- incredibly simplistic. It doesn't handle the truth of armour well at all. It doesn't take into account that certain weapons are better at damaging certain armour types. It doesn't acknowledge that some armour types were just BETTER than others. I mean, they still go under the tired belief that armour is hard to move in. Personally, I'm against the idea that armour should handle each damage type separately. The -only- way anything like that would work is if armour handled each -WEAPON- individually. A military pick (piercing) will punch through plate armour. A rapier (piercing) will never punch through plate armour. A bastard sword (slashing) usually can cleave apart mail. A scimitar (slashing) usually cannot. So therein lies the ultimate, fatal error of trying to deal with armour vs. weapons through damage types. It's meant to add realism, but only continues to make combat vague and unrealistic. Oh well. I've heard Rolemaster has an interesting armour system, but I've never read it.
Leibel 01-11-05, 06:36 PM	I do it would be realistic to add modifiers for armor "X" vs peircing/slashing/bludgeoning weapons. And the armor being as heavy as it is - medieval knights could swim(albeit not w/ease), do cartwheels in full plate armor because it had to be functional in battle. It would be to much to call for a 4th redo of DnD for armor alone but if WOTC does a 4th ed armor should be dealt with. On topic - I'm guessing no to extra armor things like boots, belts and gloves.
Lilith's Dark Shadow 01-11-05, 07:11 PM	i wouldn't throw in belts and gloves and the like unless your going to distinguish between the different pieces of the "main" armor and where it covers and such along with fancy hit location mechanics. Now i may be the type of DM who has no problem with lots of odd stuff, but that simply slows stuff down a little more than i like. Also, it's really easy to implement an armor effectiveness versus a particular damage type if you use armor as DR and invent some new damage types (like i have piercing and piercing +, which ignores some armor).
taltamir 01-12-05, 04:58 AM	well yes, the current system is simplistic.... Which is why he wants to make a more complex one. How in the world does the fact that its currently simplified act as a reason for him NOT to make it more complex in the name of whatever it is he is trying to accomplish?
Vahenir 01-12-05, 05:02 AM	I don't think anyone ever made that assertion. But good luck to the person that makes armour as complex as piece-by-piece rules. I've tried it.. it doesn't work out too well. Because armour would have to stack if you want the complexity of greaves and girdles. And then you need to make rules for -what- armour can stack, and how many times... etc etc. Plus you need to come up with reasonable armour values that would allow stacking the armour without overpowering a character who chooses to wear the equivalent of full plate.
taltamir 01-12-05, 05:08 AM	and you need to actually KNOW that stuff in real life or make a horrible mess of things, except that, if you know that stuff you will tend to make it realistic, and that will completely unbalance the game (which is not in the least bit based on reality)
Vahenir 01-12-05, 06:24 AM	Correct.. when I tried to make armour stackable and altogether more realistic... it was just a ... like you said - a mess. I based everything on my own experiences and studies (which is fairly extensive) so you ended up with some armour choices being really crappy.. and some being just... amazing. I tried many things.. one was just to overall change all the stats, which turned out like I mentioned above. The other was to make armour customizable by making armour bonuses stack. So instead of wearing half-plate, you'd wear mail and a cuirass, vambraces, greaves.. etc. Full plate ended up being something like +23 AC. And that was with many armour pieces only granting + .05 AC.