Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bifford 01-27-06, 01:13 PM	In D&D, the more protection a piece of armor provides (barring magic), the lower the maximum allowed dexterity score is. This isn't quite realistic. Plate mail armor, when properly made and fitted, allows good maneuvarability provided you're strong enough to carry the weight. Perhaps instead of a max Dex score there should be a minimum Strength score instead. If you're Strength is lower than it, you take a penalty to your Dex modifier (say, -1 for every point of deficit). What do you people think?
Snicker 01-27-06, 02:02 PM	Probably more realistic. Then again, with D&D's super-heavy swords, I don't know how much effort was put into the physics of D&D battle anyway.
cre100382 01-27-06, 02:19 PM	I think that a minimum strength score would be a good idea, but I also think that the maximum dexterity bonus seems to show how well you can avoid blows all day long. Say a sword is slashed at you, you would do what you can to ensure it hits the strong point of the armor, if it hits you at all. The maximum dexterity bonus shows that with the wieght you can only move so quickly to avoid a blow with all that metal strapped to you.
BW0222 01-27-06, 02:48 PM	>In D&D, the more protection a piece of armor provides (barring magic), the >lower the maximum allowed dexterity score is. This isn't quite realistic. Sorry, it is realistic. It mirrors reality. >Plate mail armor, when properly made and fitted, allows good >maneuvarability provided you're strong enough to carry the weight. Wrong. A knight in armor is going to loose any dodge ball game, karate match, or tag game you can imagine. It honestly doesn't matter if you take the strongest person on the planet and put them in 1500s platemail, they just can't weave their bodies, jump, shuffle quickly, crouch, feint, etc. effectively as the same person in plain clothes. They don't have the same range of 'tactical' vision and they can't assume the same positions, twist their bodies, or quickly re-position themselves. Certain movements and positions are simply impossible to perform in certain armors. Heavy armor obviously reduces ones ability to dodge or else someone in armour wouldn't have any problems in a dodge ball game. The fact is they do, and in the D&D rules... the rules simulate the same problems. >Perhaps instead of a max Dex score there should be a minimum Strength >score instead. If you're Strength is lower than it, you take a penalty to your >Dex modifier (say, -1 for every point of deficit). Strength is already factored in via encumberance. With 60lbs of platemail, 15lbs shield, a 5lbs weapon, and 10lbs of gear, you effectively need a 10 strength, just to move. Movement, running, and maximum dex is also linked directly to your strength -- since even with a 15 strength that gear would easily limit you dex to +3. However, that isn't the issue with your ability to dodge items in armor. Certain armors -- regardless of your strength -- just don't allow the freedom of movement to preform acts which a non-armored person can. Put an Olympic gymnast in plastic plate mail and they'd still loose a dodge ball game. >What do you people think? RAW works fine.
Alvoros Darkleaf 01-27-06, 05:26 PM	I'm siding with the rules as they are...in fact..the rules for platemail are far too lenient with regards to reality. IRL - many heavily armored horse/foot fighters died in combat simply because they fell down....and could not get up without the help of one or two others. The unarmored opponent simply walked up, stuck a long dagger in through an unarmored joint or hole, and killed the knight where he lied. Alvo
Silverthumb128 01-27-06, 05:31 PM	I think magic supercedes physics in every way imaginable. I vote that realism shouldn't always be of the utmost importance in fantasy. Now, as to what the OP says about the armor being more restricting, I believe I've seen somewhere, possibly 3rd party book, where you can buy a suit of armor that is crafted to your physique. While I have no idea what the cost is, I'd say double the masterwork cost in order to grant a +1 MDB and to lower the ACP by one. Might that be more reasonable? Because its my understanding that, yes, armor can be made to be less constricting without being weaker, but most armor isn't built with a specific character in mind. For example, the armor you find in a dungeon won't fit the Fighter perfectly. Makes sense?
Good Agnostic 01-27-06, 05:32 PM	Raw.
TaarvasIII 01-27-06, 08:18 PM	The gentleman(or woman) who refered to the "turtle" syndrome did leave out one important aspect,the man was more than likely exhausted,not unable to move.I have watched men in 14th century full plate do front rolls.Wasn't necesarrily pretty,but you were surprisingly mobile. What armor score represents is not that it is harder to hit you,but harder to hurt you.The weapon has a much harder time getting to the soft pink flesh underneath the steel. Just my two-pence.
RaspK FOG 01-27-06, 11:30 PM	Not to mention most epople still fail to graspe the fact that armour has two (2) inhibiting attributes that affect all characters: Maximum Dexterity Bonus (to AC; abbreviated as MDB for short) and Armour Check Penalty (likewise, ACP). Thus, do not confuse skills (karate, dodge ball) with AC (combat).
BW0222 01-28-06, 12:19 AM	RaspK FOG, >Thus, do not confuse skills (karate, dodge ball) with AC (combat). I'm not. Dodge ball is the ultimate example of using only your dexterity (dodge bonuses) to not be hit. I'm not taking about one's ability to throw the ball or catch it, just one's ability to avoid being hit when they are the defender. If you throw 100 balls at someone in platemail and the same person in shorts, the person is obviously going to be hit a lot less when not in the platemail. Thus, platemail obviously reduces any dodge bonuses which one has when wearing it. Dodging a ball is not an example of a skill check. It is the perfect real-world example of a ranged touch attack. AC 10 + dex bonus. Person in platemail obviously has less + dex bonus. A person in plate can't fully use the dexterity to avoid a simple ball and this is exactly what the rules are simulating.
RaspK FOG 01-28-06, 12:40 AM	RaspK FOG, >Thus, do not confuse skills (karate, dodge ball) with AC (combat). I'm not. Dodge ball is the ultimate example of using only your dexterity (dodge bonuses) to not be hit. I'm not taking about one's ability to throw the ball or catch it, just one's ability to avoid being hit when they are the defender. If you throw 100 balls at someone in platemail and the same person in shorts, the person is obviously going to be hit a lot less when not in the platemail. Thus, platemail obviously reduces any dodge bonuses which one has when wearing it. Dodging a ball is not an example of a skill check. It is the perfect real-world example of a ranged touch attack. AC 10 + dex bonus. Person in platemail obviously has less + dex bonus. A person in plate can't fully use the dexterity to avoid a simple ball and this is exactly what the rules are simulating. Is any tag game the same, though? In any case, I'll really have to retract my earlier statement just for stake of courtesy, but a suit of plate armour did not limit one's agility that much ever. ;) Considering how the PHB depicts a 750-pound-some-heavy warhammer in Arnie Swekel's drawing of most weapons, that's a pretty close call! :D
Mirtek 01-28-06, 09:21 AM	IRL - many heavily armored horse/foot fighters died in combat simply because they fell down....and could not get up without the help of one or two others. The unarmored opponent simply walked up, stuck a long dagger in through an unarmored joint or hole, and killed the knight where he lied. Actually that is totally untrue. Armor, as worn in combat, not special suits worn only for jousting and parades, were made with two concerns: protection and agility. A knight in full armor was incredibly mobile -> that is "incredible" as opposed to what most modern people would assume such an armored person being capable of. A armored knight could get up from being prone, mount his horse without help and could even climb ladders during a siege. Yes, fighters died after being knocked from their horses before they could get up. But that wasn't because of their armor. It was because if you just catched a blow powerfull enough to throw you from your horse, and suffered the impact of hiting the ground after being knocked from your horse, you just won't get up immediately, not even if you were unarmored. So two points: 1) Yes, armored knights were indeed agile in their armors 2) However they were still less agile than an unarmored person. No matter how well the armor is made, they will always make you a little less agile. The question is not not "Should there be a max dex mod or not", the only question could be "Is the max dex mod allowed too low for the higher armors"
WhiteHarness 01-28-06, 09:31 AM	I'm siding with the rules as they are...in fact..the rules for platemail are far too lenient with regards to reality. IRL - many heavily armored horse/foot fighters died in combat simply because they fell down....and could not get up without the help of one or two others. The unarmored opponent simply walked up, stuck a long dagger in through an unarmored joint or hole, and killed the knight where he lied. Alvo Ah. Another graduate of the school of outdated Victorian-era scholarship, I see. I think D&D's representation of armour and dexterity is just fine. What I *don't* like is that they don't seem to believe that armour will keep you alive. D&D rules make it entirely too easy to injure people in full plate. Nonmagical full plate should be better than it is in the rules.
zelf_gale 01-28-06, 10:26 AM	I hope they don't change up the heavy armors too much. In a low power game, an enemy in full plate can be disaster with RAW. Modify the MDB up a few points and everyone will be rolling for 20's even with spells, assists, and flanks.
Oliver D'Argent 01-28-06, 11:24 AM	I say it's fine the way it is. I own a suit of full plate, made to fit me, and even untrained to wear it I can sit, lie down and get back up again with little difficulty. It does, however, restrict my range of motion.
Tyler Do'Urden 01-28-06, 11:34 AM	Game balance precedes realism. Deal with it.
Subedei 01-28-06, 01:36 PM	Not to mention it's a heck of a lot of weight. Even 30 lbs for full maille is going to significantly slow you down. Who's going to win in a sprint? Someone wearing no armor or someone wearing any significant amount of armor? I think in this case 2/3 movement is pretty lenient. There's a reason dueling armor tended to be much lighter - Those head to toe plate suits are mainly a reaction to missile weapons and the chaos of facing opponents in every direction you wont necessarily be able to react to. Outside the battlefield it's really not necessary. I also don't believe decreased mobility and speed is nearly as great a disadvantage in hand to hand combat as some people seem to think. Very little motion is actually needed to manipulate a weapon and avoiding it is far more an issue of checking it with your own. Any evasive movement is relatively small and conservative. What armor DOES greatly limit is your mobility. Decreased running speed and increased fatigue are a problem heavily armored troops have dealt with since the beginning of time, and one frequently taken advantage of by lightly armored ones. This isn't to say armor isn't a good thing - the lighter armors were generally so unrestrictive they were almost like clothes. Heavier armors have their place in war and fill it quite well. If that wasn't the case they wouldn't have been used as light armor is almost always vastly less expensive. Full and half plate is definitally not something you'd wear every day for guard duty or for a trip to the local ancient ruins of danger - they're strictly battlefield tools IMO but that's something we choose to overlook in gaming and I really don't have a problem with it.
Subedei 01-28-06, 01:41 PM	In response to game balance vs realism: reality tends to be exceptionally balanced - I don't see any conflict. The only problem is when the rules for the sake of keeping things simple fail to reflect reality. In this case we may need to make minor adjustments but generally this is just not an issue. I think the goal of any roleplaying game is to balance being an accurate simulation of reality and keeping things quick enough to be playable.
Kursk 01-28-06, 07:35 PM	Ah. Another graduate of the school of outdated Victorian-era scholarship, I see. I think D&D's representation of armour and dexterity is just fine. What I *don't* like is that they don't seem to believe that armour will keep you alive. D&D rules make it entirely too easy to injure people in full plate. Nonmagical full plate should be better than it is in the rules. I agree with the injury part. I made a level of armour that better reflects Full plate. Much higher AC although very EXPENSIVE. I do have a Fighter only feat that allows no dex penalty for this armour type. Gives a nod to the pure fighters single minded pursuit.
Vrellum 01-28-06, 09:57 PM	Someone mentioned hitting people with a ball in a game of dodge ball. The thing is, I bet you could really whack a person hard with the ball and if they were in full plate armor, I doubt it would hurt. Therefore, they haven't been hit (in the DnD sense).
jaelis 01-28-06, 10:16 PM	Someone mentioned hitting people with a ball in a game of dodge ball. The thing is, I bet you could really whack a person hard with the ball and if they were in full plate armor, I doubt it would hurt. Therefore, they haven't been hit (in the DnD sense). Well, that's what the +8 armor bonus is for. I'm not sure, however, that the correct question has been asked about the dodge ball analogy. That is: if a person of average dexterity were playing dodge ball in full plate, would he get hit significantly more often than a person of exceptional dexterity wearing full plate? I don't know the answer, but it seems to me that this is what the Max Dex limit represents.
Arkenthras 01-28-06, 10:53 PM	Someone mentioned hitting people with a ball in a game of dodge ball. The thing is, I bet you could really whack a person hard with the ball and if they were in full plate armor, I doubt it would hurt. Therefore, they haven't been hit (in the DnD sense). They have been hit, but with a touch attack. A touch attack deals no damage from making contact, and the point was to illustrate that it's harder to dodge in full plate than it is if you're wearing normal clothes. Something that I propose in place of a Max Dex bonus, is a Max Dex penalty. By this, I mean that at most, the armor will take off a certain value from your Dex bonus (reducing your Dex bonus to no less than 0), since some people are obviously much more agile than others and can manuever incredibly well, even given restricted movement. If your character is strong enough to wear all his gear, including full plate, without being medium encumbered, then why should he not be able to dodge really well with it if he's incredibly agile? In addition to carrying a light load, you could impose a further restriction, where the person has to only be carrying a "very light" load which could be 1/2 or 3/4 that person's light load carrying capacity, since someone who is almost carrying a medium load is obviously going to be near the restriction of the max Dex bonus of +3. Real plate armor (not decorative or jousting armor) was meant to allow you to be mobile and agile, and therefore I think the restricted movement should only decrease the amount you can do in the armor by a set margin, not completely restrict everyone to the same limits. If the previous idea isn't good enough, you could possibly make a feat called Armor Focus (for a specific armor) which would allow you to increase the Dex bonus by 1 or 2 points and reduce the Armor Check Penalty by 1 or 2 points (to a minimum of -1 if there is an ACP < 0 on the armor). It's prereqs could be the same as Weapon Focus. The explanation could be that the character has better than general training with the armor, and therefore can make better use of it than someone who just is proficient in all light, medium, or heavy armors. Fighters could get Armor Specialization(specific armor), which could reduce the damage you take by a certain amount, or further increase the AC of the armor. If you choose for it to be damage reduction (say to counter act weapon specialization's damage), the explanation could be that the fighter is trained to take hits in such a way that the armor protects the wearer from damage (like trying to hit through a thicker section of the armor, or getting hit at an angle so the blow is just glancing instead of fatal) while wearing the armor, and therefore decreases the amount of damage he/she takes from hits. If that's not good enough, you could make it require a reflex save or something of the like in order to see if the fighter was able to take the hit the right way. If Armor Specialization further increases AC, then you could say that the character specializes in this armor. Unlike someone who is merely proficient (if there were such a thing as armor school, people who are merely proficient would have a "C" in using armor), this character excels in the ability to avoid taking damaging blows by fighting in a manner that compliments the armor's specific characteristics. Maybe the increase in AC could be +1 for light armor, +2 for medium, and +3 for heavy for the normal weight class of the armor (therefore mithral full plate would still get the +3 bonus, even though it is considered medium armor). If you wanted a game that was more realistic than D&D in terms of armor, then I would suggest that each time you get hit, your armor should get damaged. Each time you are damaged through full plate, think of what that actually means. That means someone has either hit an exposed body part, cut through the metal and that means you have the cut metal from your plate armor sticking into the wound that was just made (if it was an attack from a slashing or piercing weapon), or there is a dent in your armor that is sticking into your body in a most uncomfortable fashion (due to a bludgeoning weapon being able to hit you through your armor). Of course, a game where your armor is damaged would effectively reduce the ability of your armor to defend yourself, unless you get it repaired. The higher the quality the piece of armor, the more expensive it will be to repair it, and the harder it will be to find someone with the proper materials and skill to repair your armor. How do you like that for realism? There's another option I've thought of, called damage reduction. If you took this into account, the AC system would have to be almost entirely reworked, and I don't think you really want to do that. I'm not talking about adamantine damage reduction in a suit of armor, I'm talking about % of damage reduced. There are systems that incorporate this, so instead of armor allowing you to effectively avoid damage, it reduces the amount you take from each blow instead. In some games, the best types of armor can provide up to around 80% damage reduction, which is pretty damn good. A duel between two characters in full plate can literally last half an hour or more (with nothing else happening) with just delivering blows one after another. So in the end, D&D's method is probably one of the best for making things as simple and fast as possible, even if it doesn't fit your tastes exactly. Edit: changed my first idea to incorporate a new load capacity (extra light)
Vahenir 01-29-06, 12:36 AM	On Topic: Anything you do to 'fix' armour is invariably going to unbalance the game. That is something you need to be aware of right from the start. D&D makes armour a lot crappier than it is in real life presumably for a reason. That reason being that if armour were as good as it is in real life, there'd really be almost no reason not to wear it. The whole thing about 3.5 is options over limitations or railroaded decisions. If plate armour is strictly better than everything else.. that's not an option - it's a railroaded decision. That said, I actually support 'unbalanced' realistic rules. If you want to go that route, I would suggest lowering check penalties and speed penalties of armour, and introduce an Armour Optimization feat to allow those penalties to be further reduced by the wearer. No other changes would really be necessary, if done correctly. Off Topic: I'm goin' myth bustin'. 1.) Armour does not severely restrict mobility, range of movement, or speed. Out of all the types of armour available, only plate armour even restricts range of movement A LITTLE, and not in any way that would really affect one's ability to perform in battle. Armour was designed to be functional in combat. Thinking that it would actually impede a warrior is borderline criminally stupid. 2.) The belief that armoured men died from falling down is idiotic. It stems from a MISINTERPRETATION of the events of certain battles where heavily armoured knights were injured and them trampled by their own forces - suffocating in mud and dirt. The armour didn't do anything to cause this. There are just as many accounts of light infantry suffering the same fate in a pitched battle. 3.) Armour does not restrict your response time or ability to avoid injury. Armour would be kind of useless if it helped your enemy land a blow, since armour is primarily designed to deflect a blow, not absorb its full impact. Anyone who thinks that an armoured knight couldn't dodge blows -almost- as well as a naked man has either never worn armour, or has worn really crappy armour that was ill-fitted. Bottom line: A person with incredible coordination and speed (Dex ~18) will still move much much faster and more precisely in armour than a person, naked, with only above-average coordination and speed (Dex ~14). And this still solely refers to heavy armour. In reality there is virtually no difference whatsoever between a naked man and a man in a mail corselet, in terms of speed and mobility. There's a reason dueling armor tended to be much lighter - Those head to toe plate suits are mainly a reaction to missile weapons and the chaos of facing opponents in every direction you wont necessarily be able to react to. Outside the battlefield it's really not necessary. That's not true. The reason duelling didn't typically involve armour is because duelling was a civilian past-time/defense, done in the streets or sanctioned areas. You don't typically walk around in plate armour. Not to mention that many duels were to the first blow or draw of blood. Trying to do either to a man in plate assures that someone just might have to die. To be frank, the entire 'culture' surrounding duelling was vastly different from that of warfare. Comparing the two is like comparing rapiers and lances -- totally different items for totally different purposes and situations. I also don't believe decreased mobility and speed is nearly as great a disadvantage in hand to hand combat as some people seem to think. Very little motion is actually needed to manipulate a weapon and avoiding it is far more an issue of checking it with your own. Any evasive movement is relatively small and conservative. Most forms of armoured combat include a great number of agile maneuvers and require a very good range of motion. You do not, typically, 'check' their weapon with your own. A good fencer ("to fence" meaning "to fight") consistently avoids a blow, making sure to move constantly. This standing in the same general spot and swinging your sword into your opponent's is fantasy cinema at its finest. Real fencing requires almost constant movement, fast and precise. Game balance precedes realism. Deal with it. Don't be smug. Game balance precedes realism only so long as the DM and players agree that it does. Once they all agree that they want an unbalanced, realistic game - then realism trumps balance. I've played in both kinds of games and they can both be great fun. Don't presume to tell other people that there's only one way to set up their games and that they need to just deal with it. If you throw 100 balls at someone in platemail and the same person in shorts, the person is obviously going to be hit a lot less when not in the platemail. Thus, platemail obviously reduces any dodge bonuses which one has when wearing it. So.. you throw 100 balls at a person in shorts, and 100 balls at a person in non-existant armour that you just made up? There is no such thing as platemail. It doesn't exist. The term is ludicrous and false. Now, if you're talking about plate armour, then I would agree. If you throw 100 balls at both individuals with equal conditioning and 'speed' - the guy in plate is more LIKELY to get hit with more balls than the guy in shorts. But this is not an accurate simulation of anything except what happens when you're faced with an opponent hurling 100 balls at you. In other words: your analogy is silly and has nothing to do with the dodging capabilities of a man in plate in an actual battle. Because, let's not forget, if you throw 100 balls at two people, they're both likely to get hit with more than half of them. they just can't weave their bodies, jump, shuffle quickly, crouch, feint, etc. effectively as the same person in plain clothes. Can't weave their bodies? What? Jump? I've never had a problem jumping in armour. And I know guys that aren't even in superb condition that can vault onto a horse's back in their armour. Shuffle quickly? Ridiculous. I can shuffle as quickly in my harness as any football player I know. Crouch? I can crouch just fine. Feint? That's just stupid. Of course an armoured man can feint. If he couldn't, he wouldn't be a very effective fighter, now would he? Bottom line: armour is not nearly as restrictive or 'heavy' as most uneducated people like to believe. Too many movies, not enough books and practical experience, I say. Certain movements and positions are simply impossible to perform in certain armors. It isn't yoga, it's combat. The types of movements and positions you can't use in armour are the kind you wouldn't want to do in real combat. Again, you're watching too many Wuxia kung fu flicks. That's not how real combat looks.
JulesCARV 01-29-06, 01:26 AM	I think that full plate allowing a +1 dexterity bonus is fine. Most people you know don't have a +1 dexterity bonus (that's above average), so most (sufficiently strong) people wearing D&D full plate would be just as dextrous as before. People with a dexterity of 14 -- which is remarkably, if not extraordinarily, agile -- are the least agile people to be a single bit less dextrous in full plate than in plainclothes. That said, while I think full plate is fine in terms of its penalties, the RELATIVE penalties of, say, full plate and chainmail are screwed up. Chainmail was heavier and more mobility-constricting than full plate. That is a valid matter of concern, though one might err on the side of "chuck realism: balance is needed."
Vahenir 01-29-06, 01:37 AM	That said, while I think full plate is fine in terms of its penalties, the RELATIVE penalties of, say, full plate and chainmail are screwed up. Chainmail was heavier and more mobility-constricting than full plate. That is a valid matter of concern, though one might err on the side of "chuck realism: balance is needed." I disagree. Mail will tire you out faster because the weight all hangs on the shoulders, while plate's weight is spread across the body. But range of movement/mobility in mail is better by a small margin. I think that full plate allowing a +1 dexterity bonus is fine. Most people you know don't have a +1 dexterity bonus (that's above average), so most (sufficiently strong) people wearing D&D full plate would be just as dextrous as before. People with a dexterity of 14 -- which is remarkably, if not extraordinarily, agile -- are the least agile people to be a single bit less dextrous in full plate than in plainclothes. So the person with super-human dexterity should be relegated to 'normal' in plate armour? I disagree. Someone with that kind of ability would maintain it even in armour. They might not maintain ALL of it, but they'll maintain MOST of it.
kraegor 01-29-06, 01:41 AM	Ok, what you guys have to picture is... Me, you, the average joe? We all got 10-12 dexterity. The people that have 18 dex in the world are the gymnasts, olympic divers, field and track specialists etc. THEY are the ones that have +4 bonuses. Let me see Mary Lou Retton or Greg Loughanis hop into a suit of Full Plate Mail and still do thier routine properly. It aint happening. They can bend over backwards, which is like what having a dexterity of 18 will do for you. Can you do that? You have to think, yes, **OUR** range of motion is a little limited in the suit, but not by much more than what we already are. For someone that can put thier legs behind thier ears, yes, it is WAY more limiting for them. See the point?
JulesCARV 01-29-06, 02:16 AM	Let's say that normal people, as opposed to PCs, are generated with a straight 3d6 roll. If that's so, then only 16.2% of people are any less dextrous in full plate than in plainclothes (ACPs aside, though they are relevant for things like cartwheels, climbing ladders, and the like, and maybe that's what's too high). And even then, their LOWERED dexterity is still better than average. A dextrous person in full plate is still probably better than we are at dodging dodgeballs (unless you're a fairly good dodger).
Vahenir 01-29-06, 02:19 AM	Me, you, the average joe? We all got 10-12 dexterity. Who knows. How many of us are really "average" in all of our stats (suffice to say). I bet a college ballplayer has at least a 14 Dex. I've seen my own father do things that would require a 14 Strength, at least, in D&D terms. Of course, this is all immaterial, but still. . . What about the brutally trained martial artists - yes, even the Western Martial Artists. Are they somehow less talented and capable in their 'stats' than a gymnist? I think not. Let me see Mary Lou Retton or Greg Loughanis hop into a suit of Full Plate Mail and still do thier routine properly. That's a ridiculous example. Of course two GYMNISTS can't wear full plate (there is no such thing as "plate mail!") and do their routines. Because full plate is not designed for that. That's like saying that a Gauntlet should impose a -10 ACP and have a Max Dex of +1 simply because Leonardo da Vinci could not have painted the Mona Lisa while wearing one. The question at hand is: Could Terry Bradshaw dodge a tackle while wearing full plate better than YOU could while wearing full plate? The answer is a resounding YES. Hence, Max Dex is too confining because it fails to consider the wearer's actual ability. They can bend over backwards, which is like what having a dexterity of 18 will do for you. True enough, a man in plate cannot bend over backwards. But a Dex of 18 is also a +4 bonus to your AC. Are you saying that a person in plate is 3 points of AC less capable of moving out of the way of a sword or axe, simply because he can't bend over backwards? Or maybe you're not talking about Max Dex... maybe you're saying that a career soldier with an 18 Strength wearing plate armour is only as capable of jumping over a large puddle as, say, you. I'd say that's pretty absurd. For someone that can put thier legs behind thier ears, yes, it is WAY more limiting for them. For someone capable of putting their legs behind their ears - many forms of regular CLOTHING would be incredibly limiting. So now all clothing should impose a +1 Max Dex and -6 ACP?
Vrellum 01-29-06, 07:05 AM	Well, that's what the +8 armor bonus is for. I'm not sure, however, that the correct question has been asked about the dodge ball analogy. That is: if a person of average dexterity were playing dodge ball in full plate, would he get hit significantly more often than a person of exceptional dexterity wearing full plate? I don't know the answer, but it seems to me that this is what the Max Dex limit represents. Actually the point I was trying to make (and wasn't very clear about) is dodge ball is, in DnD terms, a ranged touch attack. So against things that only have to touch a person to hurt him, armor is a big liability. However, if the attack can be deflected, without harm to the defender, then armor becomes very useful. A dexterious person in armor (for example, plate) would still benefit from their increased quickness/coordination because they could use that quickness to twist their body/move slightly and instead of a solid hit or a hit to an exposed part of the body, the attack would glance off the armor. The quicker a person is, the more benefit they would gain from the armor. Thus there isn't a need for a dex cap to normal AC.
Vrellum 01-29-06, 07:38 AM	Let's say that normal people, as opposed to PCs, are generated with a straight 3d6 roll. If that's so, then only 16.2% of people are any less dextrous in full plate than in plainclothes (ACPs aside, though they are relevant for things like cartwheels, climbing ladders, and the like, and maybe that's what's too high). And even then, their LOWERED dexterity is still better than average. A dextrous person in full plate is still probably better than we are at dodging dodgeballs (unless you're a fairly good dodger). Also, something that hasn't been mentioned is in DnD there are magical means of increasing Dex (also dex can be raised every four levels). Thus a lot more than 16.2% of the population of adventurers in a DnD world (whether they are pcs or npcs) are going to have a 14 or higher dex.
Ogiwan 01-29-06, 10:17 AM	Hm. Reading this, i have to bring my study of military history into play: The Full Plate armor type created specifically for battle is nowhere near as restrictive as people think it is. As people who have worn it have attested, they have done feats of agility that contradict the "too heavy to do anything" school of thought. Also, there are medieval manuscripts and paintings that show knights doing cartwheels and the like in full armor. Now, for the people who have worn full plate: how does it compare, restrictionwise, to football pads?
Bifford 01-29-06, 02:38 PM	From Wikipedia's article on plate armor: "While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 45 pounds if well made of tempered steel. The weight was so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle. That it was necessary to lift a fully armed knight onto his horse with the help of pulleys is a myth originating in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, and has no historical base. Even knights in enormously heavy jousting armour were not winched onto their horses. This type of "sporting" armour was meant only for ceremonial lancing matches and the design had to be extremely thick to prevent severe accidents, such as the one causing the death of King Henry II of France."
Subedei 01-29-06, 04:58 PM	I wasn't refering to rapier/smallsword dueling but knightly dueling in full armor with poleaxe and whatnot. Armor really did seem to be lighter than the battlefield grade which makes a great deal of sense - there are so many spots on the body covered by most full plate that just aren't likely to be hit in a one on one confrontation free of projectiles (considering even the throwing of javalin and sword were usually restricted). Open helms also seem to have been significantly more popular in games than they were on the battlefield. I think it's pretty undeniable that one can move faster without armor. Being 40-60 lbs heavier means more energy is required to accelerate the body, assuming the same amount of strength is applied you'll accelerate slower. My point is that it doesn't really matter and is certainly outweighted by the added protection. I'm not refering to blade on blade clashing, I'm refering to checking, dynamic redirection as portrayed in numerous period manuals. Right behind a small step back or off center in popularity as a means of dealing with your opponents attacks. I think this is a matter of wording. I could say a long sword is slow and clumsy and I'm sure you'd find that incorrect and offensive. But a longsword is slow and clumsy compared to a dagger! That doesn't stop them from outclassing a dagger in nearly any situation one might find himself in. I think it's a very similar situation with the whole full plate armor vs no/lighter armor thing. I agree with you that simply in terms of realism the dex cap doesn't make much sense, that was my point. You definitally can't do backflips or kip ups as well in 45 lbs of armor. I was saying this doesn't matter as all that's required is really a rather small movement of the weapon or step out of the way - not some huge feat of dexterity. It seems to be dexterity is meant to represent reflexes and coordination more than anything else. In fencing it's not so important how quickly you move to avoid or intercept, but how quickly you react mentally - something armor cannot restrict.
Waterhammer 01-29-06, 08:44 PM	Game balance precedes realism. Deal with it. Are we so certain that the the armor rules are balanced? Lets have a look at splint armor(lamellar if you prefer)if the character has a Dex of 12 or higher, this armor, under the RAW, is useless. You call that ballanced. Hmmm? Seems to me, that the current rules favor the barbarian to excess.
Kursk 01-29-06, 09:31 PM	Are we so certain that the the armor rules are balanced? Lets have a look at splint armor(lamellar if you prefer)if the character has a Dex of 12 or higher, this armor, under the RAW, is useless. You call that ballanced. Hmmm? Seems to me, that the current rules favor the barbarian to excess. This is one reason why I created a Fighter only feat re: dex penalty elimination.
dragonman407 01-29-06, 10:03 PM	Here's my two cp: :twocents: I think the RAW is fine balance-wise, but why is there a maximum dexterity bonus? With the RAW, an elf with 20 dexterity wearing full plate would get hit just as much as a human with 12 dexterity wearing full plate. Why not make it a dexterity bonus penalty instead of a maximum? I think that the elf should be able to dodge at least a little better than the human.
Waterhammer 01-29-06, 11:58 PM	Here's my two cp: :twocents: I think the RAW is fine balance-wise, but why is there a maximum dexterity bonus? With the RAW, an elf with 20 dexterity wearing full plate would get hit just as much as a human with 12 dexterity wearing full plate. Why not make it a dexterity bonus penalty instead of a maximum? I think that the elf should be able to dodge at least a little better than the human. I'm actuallly with the RAW on this. A dexterity penalty would kill those poor sods with low dex. The low Dex penalties are bad enough as is. At least with the current RAW a low Dex character can salvage a bit of survivability by wearing armor.
Bifford 01-30-06, 04:38 AM	That's why I'm talking about bringing Strength into play. Yes, full plate will slow you down, but if you're very, very strong the slowdown will be negligible.
kintire 01-30-06, 10:33 AM	kraegor: The people that have 18 dex in the world are the gymnasts, olympic divers, field and track specialists etc. THEY are the ones that have +4 bonuses. Let me see Mary Lou Retton or Greg Loughanis hop into a suit of Full Plate Mail and still do thier routine properly. It aint happening. They can bend over backwards, which is like what having a dexterity of 18 will do for you. Can you do that? You are confusing dexterity maximums with armour check penalties. Yes, gymnastics should be subject to an armour check penalty, but that doesn't say anything about the dex bonus. Dex isn't just flexibility.
dragonman407 02-01-06, 12:37 AM	It aint happening. They can bend over backwards, which is like what having a dexterity of 18 will do for you. Can you do that? Why yes, yes I can. :D