Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nemesis74 08-28-05, 04:09 PM	My question is this. if someone wants to make a character with peices of armor cover certain places but not the entire body, Does this count as weraing the total armor. example. a player creates a fighter and wants the fighter to have the shoulder plate, on the left arm, the same as full plate armor and studded leather covering his right leg. Is this considerd the same as having studded leather and full plate armor? or like my character that wears studded leather on his left shoulder and arm but chain shirt cover the rest of his torso, does this count as both studded leather and chain shirt? also cna someone wear leather garments with out it counting as leather armor?
dedicated 08-28-05, 04:17 PM	My question is this. if someone wants to make a character with peices of armor cover certain places but not the entire body, Does this count as weraing the total armor. example. a player creates a fighter and wants the fighter to have the shoulder plate, on the left arm, the same as full plate armor and studded leather covering his right leg. Is this considerd the same as having studded leather and full plate armor? or like my character that wears studded leather on his left shoulder and arm but chain shirt cover the rest of his torso, does this count as both studded leather and chain shirt? also cna someone wear leather garments with out it counting as leather armor? :twitch :twitch: :twitch: :twitch: :twitch: :twitch: :twitch: : :twitch: um, you can't gain the armor class bonus for wearing two armors at once
Dantano 08-28-05, 04:25 PM	I take it that this is more of a flavor than use thing. In that case I'd say just use whatever is covering most of his body. Like your chain shirt w/studded leather arm. Just use it like its chain shirt armor
masterofmayhem 08-28-05, 04:43 PM	My question is this. if someone wants to make a character with peices of armor cover certain places but not the entire body, Does this count as weraing the total armor. example. a player creates a fighter and wants the fighter to have the shoulder plate, on the left arm, the same as full plate armor and studded leather covering his right leg. Is this considerd the same as having studded leather and full plate armor? or like my character that wears studded leather on his left shoulder and arm but chain shirt cover the rest of his torso, does this count as both studded leather and chain shirt? also cna someone wear leather garments with out it counting as leather armor? As long as these pieces of armor that give full plate AC (+8) also make the wearer suffer fullplate penalties (ACP, low max dex, reduced run and movement speed, etc), then all it is is flavor, and that's cool with most DMs (although not technically allowed by the rules. I'll point out, though, that wearing a shoulder plate and leather on one leg is hardly enough armor to really do anything.
SamualT Barronsword 08-28-05, 05:11 PM	My question is this. if someone wants to make a character with peices of armor cover certain places but not the entire body, Does this count as weraing the total armor. I don't know of any official rules covering this, but I would say wearing peices of a set of armor would not count as wearing the full set of armor. Personally I think I would look at whatever armor type was providing the bulk of the protection and set that as the armor type being worn. example. a player creates a fighter and wants the fighter to have the shoulder plate, on the left arm, the same as full plate armor and studded leather covering his right leg. Is this considerd the same as having studded leather and full plate armor? Well, since this would leave 80% of the body without any type of armor protecting it at all, I would say this combination is the same as wearing no armor, despite its being the latest rage in local fashion circles. or like my character that wears studded leather on his left shoulder and arm but chain shirt cover the rest of his torso, does this count as both studded leather and chain shirt? I wouldn't count it as such. Since it is mostly chain shirt I would say you are, for all intents and purposes, wearing chain shirt armor. also cna someone wear leather garments with out it counting as leather armor? Yes.
masterofmayhem 08-28-05, 07:10 PM	I don't know of any official rules covering this, but I would say wearing peices of a set of armor would not count as wearing the full set of armor. Personally I think I would look at whatever armor type was providing the bulk of the protection and set that as the armor type being worn. Ooh, that reminds me, there were rules for this in one of those magazines, Dungeon, or Dragon, or something like that. The magazine had stats for Warduke, who was on the cover, and it detailed something called "Ceremonial Armor" (I think) that was basically pieces of armor instead of the full thing.
Nemesis74 08-28-05, 07:27 PM	okay let me explain my character a little better. his backgorund is that he was a samurai but left his caln making him a ronin thus a simple fighter he follows the fighter templet. i orginally had him wearnig an outfit simular to "sub zero" from "MK2" you know with the blue leather kamishimo hanging between his legs sorta thing. so i made that studded leather and had him with studded leather on his left arm (since he uses a long bow) and leather on his lower legs(shins) and i counted that as studded leather armor, but since it was specailly designed i had to later give it to hi=m by buying it masterwork. took me 3 levels to do that. Seeing how i am the DM, i didnt want to seem like i was making specail rules for myself. so i just gave him regular studded leather armor and keep that in my backpack. so now i got players wanting to give there characters armor like on "god of war" and i tried to tell them that it wouldnt count since it isnt covering much. and I got a player running a wizard wanting him to were full leather outfit and i didnt know whether that would be leather armor or not.
Wyrmrider 08-28-05, 07:28 PM	The 2nd ed. Complete book of Fighters had rules for piecemeal armor. I don't have the book anymore, but if you can find it you can probably adapt a system of rules instead of making a single ruling.
Vahenir 08-28-05, 07:37 PM	Technically. .there are no rules of 'appearance.' Your armour can look like whatever you want it to. The only rule is that if you are gaining the AC bonus, you also have to accept that armour's Max Dex, Check Penalty, etc etc. And you cannot combine armours. You can -visually- combine them, but in concerns to the rules, you are wearing one or the other, not both.
masterofmayhem 08-28-05, 07:38 PM	okay let me explain my character a little better. his backgorund is that he was a samurai but left his caln making him a ronin thus a simple fighter he follows the fighter templet. i orginally had him wearnig an outfit simular to "sub zero" from "MK2" you know with the blue leather kamishimo hanging between his legs sorta thing. so i made that studded leather and had him with studded leather on his left arm (since he uses a long bow) and leather on his lower legs(shins) and i counted that as studded leather armor, but since it was specailly designed i had to later give it to hi=m by buying it masterwork. took me 3 levels to do that. Seeing how i am the DM, i didnt want to seem like i was making specail rules for myself. so i just gave him regular studded leather armor and keep that in my backpack. so now i got players wanting to give there characters armor like on "god of war" and i tried to tell them that it wouldnt count since it isnt covering much. and I got a player running a wizard wanting him to were full leather outfit and i didnt know whether that would be leather armor or not. Well, I can try to help with rules, here. Rule 1: Don't run a DMPC. Players will always think they are being treated specially, and it is hard to not do that if you actually have a DMPC, and not just an NPC. OK, little pun aside, there, here is what I would do for the situation. Any player can make any sort of armor combination they want (full plate shoulder pads, chainmail-covered torso, bare left arm, right arm covered in furs, whatever), as long as he uses the stats for any one set of armor (preferably the most similar to his "armor," or at least the one that covers the most). And by stats, I mean, all of the stats. AC bonus, weight/size category, proficiency, armor check penalty, arcane spell failure, everything. Now, this will make people whine about how their single full plate arm covering should not entail a big armor check penalty, but, hey, they get the bonus of the armor, so they darn well better be getting the penalties. I would personally allow near anything like this (in reason) because it all represents flavor, and I support and appreciate players trying to make their characters flavorful and cool. But when it gets to the "I want more power! I want a full plate greave that gives me 8 AC with no check penalty!", then heads roll. Down stairs. While still attached to the rest of the body. :schemes: Good luck with your campaign, though, with whatever you try. :)
FlameLover 08-28-05, 08:19 PM	Now i'm going to propose a system that might be broken or useless but it's a starting point atleast. Ok you work out AC with percentages. You'll have to round, so when you do round it normally (like .4 is 0 and .5 is 1). OK, so here are the percentages: Torso: 40% Legs: 20% (10% for upper and lower each) Arms: 20% (10% for upper and lower each) Head: 15% Hands (Plus wrist etc.): 5% So when piecing armor together for each part of the body work out the percent. Like Full-plate torso would be 40%, so AC8 would become AC3 and leather(AC2) would become AC1. MaxDex is trickier so I would say that you just use the lowest. If you're wearing full-plate legs and leather everything else for example I would rule that your MaxDex would be only 1. If that's to penalizing (which it kinda is) then again work out percentages for each piece of armor and ADD them to MaxDex (since decreasing would be obviosuly wrong). OK for Armor check penalty again either just use the worst or work out the percentages, your choice (I'd do the percentages for 'accuracy' but having mis-matched armor should be penalized) Ok so for arcane spell failure, either choose the worst or work out percentages. For speed use worst out of the torso, legs and arms. Hands and your head won't affect speed much if atall so just pick the worst out of the main parts. For total weight, again percentage. OK so now add all of the percentages together for it, and you should have your details. It's messy and probably abusable but it's a decent start. For things like proficency, again, just use the heaviest type (Or make them have proficiency with every type used). So since that's so complex here is an example: Torso (Chainmail): AC2 - MaxDex3 - ACP-2 - Spd20ft - 16lb. Legs (Studded Leather): AC1 - MaxDex7 - ACP-0 - Spd30ft - 8lb. Arms (Leather): AC1 - MaxDex8 - ACP-0 - Spd30ft - 6lb. So he'd have AC4, MaxDex3 or 6(averaged), ACP 2 or 1(averaged), Spd20ft - 30lb. So try that, and if you find it's producing armors better than the top one used just say and it'll need to be tweaked. But once you add in magical armor... things get decidedly tricky. I would rule you would only gain magic from the torso section, and all the others would function non-magically (rationale being that there just isn't enough of it to work)
Nemesis74 08-29-05, 04:13 PM	well, this is more help then i expected. i can get ahold of the 2nd complete fighter, matter of fact someone brought me one last week, but i forgot to grab it before i left. as far as my DMPC, no one yet has had a problem. what i do is simple the PC does nothing unless he has too. he will attack with other PCs in the party, he doesnt help them out with any problem solving, obviously. depending on how many people we have in the group, I will roll a die to see who gets attacked, and i get hit alot. also we have 3 DMs all together in our group of eleven players so we change off alot. most times my PC isnot present if we have enough without him. and flamelover, i like you idea, a little more math then i like but difinately doable.
SamualT Barronsword 08-29-05, 04:16 PM	Technically. .there are no rules of 'appearance.' In your campaign, maybe, but it seems to me the "Armor Descriptions" section in the PHB and in other publications where different types of armor are described, are, in fact, the rules which described the appearance of the various types of armor described. In other words, by the RAW, a leather belt is not a substitute for a suit of leather armor, although individual DM's may rule otherwise.
Vahenir 08-29-05, 04:45 PM	In your campaign, maybe, but it seems to me the "Armor Descriptions" section in the PHB and in other publications where different types of armor are described, are, in fact, the rules which described the appearance of the various types of armor described. In other words, by the RAW, a leather belt is not a substitute for a suit of leather armor, although individual DM's may rule otherwise. Flavour text is not a rule, it's fluff. It means nothing. The armour descriptions were just WotC's (poor) attempt at retaining -some- of the flavour text and descriptiveness we all loved about 2nd Edition. They failed miserably, of course, but they tried. Regardless, there's no rule, for example, that says you have to wear the helm that comes with your chain shirt or your AC is lowered. There's no rule that you have to wear the spaulders on your full plate... etc. Flavour text is flavour text. By your logic, I -have- to have questing knights in any game that uses the Core rules because the Fighter is described, among other things, as a "questing knight." Let's try to keep flavour and descriptive text and the actual rules separate, as is proper.
Tony Vargas 08-29-05, 04:54 PM	It's mainly a cosmetic issue. Just pick a standard type of armor that seems about right, mechanically, and use those stats. Describe the armor how you like. The only thing you want to watch out for is someone trying to 'disguise' what they're wearing that way - the function of the 'armor' should be obvious to observers. For instance, a wizard could wear leather clothes that don't count as armor, and look a bit like the description of leather armor, and a rogue could wear a set of studded leather that looks more like an exotic entertainer's costume. No one looking at the wizard will think "he can't be a wizard: he's in armor" because his get-up obviously isn't armor, and, conversely, no one will be lulled into thinking the rogue isn't combat-ready, because his stuff obviously is. If you want to pull something like that, you want the Glamoured enchantment.
Nemesis74 08-29-05, 05:30 PM	Vahenir is right we cant confuse flavor text with actual rules. that is what i did before starting this post, players were wanting to have one type of armor with a element of a different type like leather armor with the arm from a full plate, it is still leather armor. but you cant say that the PHB tells you what armor looks like, is that is the case then explain why the scale mail on the human fighter and the dwarven fighter are different in appearence. or the leather armor of a rogue to the leather armor of the warlock. I made the same mistakes and that is what started this post.
SamualT Barronsword 08-29-05, 06:12 PM	Flavour text is not a rule, it's fluff. It means nothing. The armour descriptions were just WotC's (poor) attempt at retaining -some- of the flavour text and descriptiveness we all loved about 2nd Edition. They failed miserably, of course, but they tried. So in your opinion all the text the item equipment section is just flavor text? A suit of full plate can look like a metal hat band? A greatclub can look like a broomstick? A tower shield can look like a belt buckle? 50 ft. of hemp rope can look like a piece of string. So your players never ask what the enemy troops are wearing, they wouldn't use different tactics against a group of men in plate armor with shields and longswords as opposed to a group of men wearing shiny robes with a steel ring on one hand and weilding kitchen forks in the other? Regardless, there's no rule, for example, that says you have to wear the helm that comes with your chain shirt or your AC is lowered. There's no rule that you have to wear the spaulders on your full plate... etc. Right, but there is also no rull that says the DM has to accomodate someone who says he's only wearing a single peice of his plate armor, and expects to get the same AC bonus as if he were wearing the whole thing. Flavour text is flavour text. By your logic, I -have- to have questing knights in any game that uses the Core rules because the Fighter is described, among other things, as a "questing knight." No, the core rules says fighters can be questing knights, they do not say they have to be questing knights, or that anywhere there are fighters there must be some who are questing knights. If that its what the PHB actually said, then that would be a "actual rule", but it isn't. Let's try to keep flavour and descriptive text and the actual rules separate, as is proper. Well, I didn't realize the chapter on equipment items and thier descriptions were just flavor text. I thought they were part of the actual rules, my bad. I suppose that means racial descriptions and monster discriptions are also just "flavor text" left in to remind us of the good old 2E days when such things mattered. So if someone tells a DM they want to play a Minotaur fighter but wants thier fighter to look like a 6' 6" blond haired blue eyed human, the DM should ignore what it says in the Monster Manual about Minotaurs having bull heads and horns and stuff as being just irrelevant flavor text.
SamualT Barronsword 08-29-05, 06:34 PM	but you cant say that the PHB tells you what armor looks like, is that is the case then explain why the scale mail on the human fighter and the dwarven fighter are different in appearence. or the leather armor of a rogue to the leather armor of the warlock. Well if you can't go by what the PHB describes, how do you know the dwarf fighter and the human fighter are wearing scale mail? Maybe they are wearing padded armor? Maybe they are wearing plate armor? Maybe they are not wearing any armor at all, they just have on bulky overcoats. Who's to know? Look, I'm not saying all armor of a given type looks identical to all other armor of that type, but all armor of a given type must have enough similarities with other armors of that type, to count as that type of armor. The descriptions in the PHB give a general overview of what makes one type of armor as opposed to another type. Nothing in the descriptions rules out varients in make, style or construction, but a suit of chainmail has certain similarities in make and construction which it holds in common with all other suits of chainmail. It must be made of metal or something strong as metal, it must cover a certain precentage of the body, it must be constructed of interlocking metal links, if it doesn't it isn't chainmail armor. Those commonalities are what the PHB describe and in my opinion, deciding the descriptions are actually irrelevant flavor text is not correct. Otherwise how does anyone have a common frame of reference when sitting in a game. IMO you can't have a fantasy game where several different people are trying to imagine and share the same imaginary game world, if there is no common understanding of what suit of chainmail looks like and what a person wearing a suit of chainmail looks like etc.
Vahenir 08-29-05, 06:52 PM	So in your opinion all the text the item equipment section is just flavor text? A suit of full plate can look like a metal hat band? A greatclub can look like a broomstick? A tower shield can look like a belt buckle? 50 ft. of hemp rope can look like a piece of string. Yep. Though I think those examples are a bit extreme -- that's about the jist of it. Things look like what everyone agrees they look like (or that the stats being used can be attributed to the item/person using them). So your players never ask what the enemy troops are wearing, they wouldn't use different tactics against a group of men in plate armor with shields and longswords as opposed to a group of men wearing shiny robes with a steel ring on one hand and weilding kitchen forks in the other? My players don't need to ask -- I'm quite good with description. But the point is that tactics in D&D is a contradiction in terms. The descriptions may change by how I describe the opponents (and how the PCs describe themselves) but the mechanics of D&D essentially boil down to "hit, miss, hit." The fact that you're aiming for the unprotected portion of the guy in mail is irrelevant to the rules - it's flavour. Of course, I would still never use full plate stats for a large belt buckle. But we're not talking about me. We're talking about the RAW. If we're talking about ME -- any player that says to me "I want to wear leather straps across my chest like He-Man, but use full plate stats" would get slapped across the face. But that's personal taste, not a rules issue. Right, but there is also no rull that says the DM has to accomodate someone who says he's only wearing a single peice of his plate armor, and expects to get the same AC bonus as if he were wearing the whole thing. There's no rule that says a DM has to accomodate a player who wants to use a longsword even if its statistically inferior for his character build, either. There's no rule saying a DM has to do anything for his players, really. But take special note that there's no rule against 'variant visualizations.' So long as you're taking the movement penalty, encumberance, check penalty, max Dex, and donning time of full plate, and paying for it, there's no reason you can't get the AC bonus - no matter how you visualize the armour. No, the core rules says fighters can be questing knights, they do not say they have to be questing knights, or that anywhere there are fighters there must be some who are questing knights. If that its what the PHB actually said, then that would be a "actual rule", but it isn't. Think of it this way.. "The Questing Knight, the conquering overlord, the king's champion, the elite foot soldier, the hardened mercenary, and the bandit king" are all Fighters, according to the PH. That means, by the logic you're using, I can't have a Ranger bandit king. Because 'bandit kings are fighters.' And there's no way you can twist out of it - that's exactly what you're saying. If you take flavour text as a RULING, then bandit kings are all fighters. Paladins can't be questing knights (unless the Paladin entry specifically allows it), and god forbid I want a Rogue as a King's Champion -- that's not allowed either. We must abide by the exact statements of flavour text to guide what we can and cannot do in our games. Well, I didn't realize the chapter on equipment items and thier descriptions were just flavor text. I thought they were part of the actual rules, my bad. Sarcasm so soon? You should at least wait until we actually start arguing and stuff before you resort to such pettiness. Regardless, flavour text is not a ruling. If you don't believe me - e-mail WotC game support and ask them yourself. I suppose that means racial descriptions and monster discriptions are also just "flavor text" left in to remind us of the good old 2E days when such things mattered. Good old 2E days? Meh. 2E kind of sucked. But they had better weapons and armour descriptions, and generally were more 'flavour-intensive' -- which was a good thing. And you're right, to an extent, they are just flavour text. There's no rule that says Minotaurs have to have reddish brown fur. They can have bright green fur, if you want. They do have to have horns (or something akin to horns) because that is required by the rules (gore attack). So if someone tells a DM they want to play a Minotaur fighter but wants thier fighter to look like a 6' 6" blond haired blue eyed human, the DM should ignore what it says in the Monster Manual about Minotaurs having bull heads and horns and stuff as being just irrelevant flavor text. Not quite. The player needs to explain how he makes a gore attack. If he can do that without anything manufactured, and without horns - well then.. okay. But as long as the -rules- are being fully supported, it doesn't matter if you go by the flavour text or not. That's the point of flavour text -- it's nice, and adds.. egads.. flavour!.. to the book, but it's totally irrelevant if you choose for it to be. Sure, you can say the same thing of the rules, as well. But the rules are -intended- to be used. The flavour is intended to be flavour - that's all. I've yet to meet the DM that refuses to make Elves 6' tall on average because he doesn't want to 'houserule his game.' Hell, if you were correct - I'd be able to use a falchion in one hand. After all, a real falchion is a one-hand chopping sword, not a two-hand scimitar. But the flavour text is not a rule, it's flavour, and that includes names. I never knew that renaming the falchion a 'great scimitar' was a houserule.
Vahenir 08-29-05, 06:58 PM	IMO you can't have a fantasy game where several different people are trying to imagine and share the same imaginary game world, if there is no common understanding of what suit of chainmail looks like and what a person wearing a suit of chainmail looks like etc. They wouldn't have to. Any idiot can look up what a suit of mail looks like. Most thinking adults (and most children as well) can agree on what a suit of mail looks like, generally (not counting variances in length or style). The point is that +5 AC, +2 Max Dex, -5 ACP, ASF 30%, 40 lbs., Speed Reduced to 20 ft. (M), all costing 150 GP does not even have to be mail. "Chainmail" (a misnomer, I might add) is just a name. It's just flavour. Just like you don't have to call your Fighter a "Fighter" in the game, you don't have to call your armour "chainmail" in the game just because you use chainmail stats. And if you don't have to call it that, it doesn't have to look like a hauberk of interlocked iron rings. No one would have to be confused about "well what does mail look like if everyone has a different visual of it?!" because only the guy actually wearing mail would call it 'chainmail.' The guy wearing the Edward Scissorhands outfit mgiht call his 'Demon Leather' or the guy wearing the quasi-Roman outfit might call his Lorica Squamata. But they're all using 'chainmail' stats, if that's what they want to use.
Draco Strang 08-29-05, 10:05 PM	This argument is really getting kind of silly. SamualT, you're taking Vahenir's explanations (all pretty damn sound, might I add) and turning them into gross hyperboles. Look at the illustrations in the PHB. Alahandra, Regdar and Tordek are all wearing some form of scale mail. Yes, they're all different, but all are undeniably scale mail. There's room for variations in flavor descriptions. Your armor/weapon/magic item can look however you damn well please, so long as it's vaguely realistic.
Vahenir 08-30-05, 01:05 PM	Your armor/weapon/magic item can look however you damn well please, so long as it's vaguely realistic. Or not at all realistic, if that's your playstyle (though I know it's not mine or Draco's).
Nemesis74 08-30-05, 04:28 PM	perosnally i agree with alot of this, but i also agree that is a player wants to only where a single piece of plate armor and is willing to take all the benefits and penalties then i will allow it. after all it is said that all players are considered to be blocking the attack(AC) so who is to say that a PC wearing a single arm from a full plate suit isnt using that arm to block the attack? the whole point of this post was to simple ask if a player wants to have peices of different armor, which is that stats does he take. may honest opinion this is a fantasy RPG, check you reality at the door.
Gray stranger 08-30-05, 06:45 PM	Well, in my campaigns this has never come up, but I have the following opinion: You can wear full plate, as long as it is an armor, someone wearing full plate without shoulder pauldrons, instead having naked shoulders for the coolness factor ( ;) ) I however won't allow, 'I'm wearing full plate but I look like a hot chick in a metal bikini' a metal bikini is HALF-PLATE darnit! ;) Gray
Orayn, Elvish Blademaster 08-30-05, 06:55 PM	Bits and pieces of armor that are missing or replaced with other types are merely a cosmetic issue. If you encounter something like full plate only on the arms, I'd simply give it stats akin to a shield, or much lighter armor.
Draco Strang 08-30-05, 07:20 PM	perosnally i agree with alot of this, but i also agree that is a player wants to only where a single piece of plate armor and is willing to take all the benefits and penalties then i will allow it. after all it is said that all players are considered to be blocking the attack(AC) so who is to say that a PC wearing a single arm from a full plate suit isnt using that arm to block the attack? the whole point of this post was to simple ask if a player wants to have peices of different armor, which is that stats does he take. may honest opinion this is a fantasy RPG, check you reality at the door. Yes, but be sure to remember your dictionary.
Sinaz 08-30-05, 09:21 PM	Watch for a new thread from me in the UA boards later this week, or after labor day week. I'm working on a system that allows you to build your armor from scratch using mostly historical armor technology and technique, but with D&D accessibility. I've converted D&D armor into "kits" in my system for those people who don't care about the style aspect, and just want the armor (so purists can play along side houserulers.) In the end, building your armor piecemeal will give you roughly the same armor class bonuses and penalties as the current RAW, but cost will largely be in flux and make it more expensive to customize your suit. Plus, hopefully, downloadable portrait tracing images so you can draw out your suit of armor! ...coming soon...