Armor antics [Archive] - Wizards Community

Armor antics [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Endarrion
02-26-08, 10:52 PM So, in a different thread, an opinion was expressed to the effect that heavy armor is not supported properly in 3.5.

I agree, but disagree as well. Here's my thinking.

Heavy armor blows, but it always blew, right from the beginning. The only difference now is that (with ToB especially) WotC is putting out more support for lightly armored characters than heavily armored characters because light armor is plain better (not counting any exotic armors such as those in RoS).

Reduced movement sucks. Period. Whether you're a little guy or a big guy wearing big armor (gods forbid you're a combination of the two...) you eventually feel the pain of reduced movement when the rest of your friends sprint out of the dragon's cave forgetting that your puny 20ft movement + x3 run speed = dead adventurer.

One point to remember considering heavy armor and a character's reluctance to wear it is the fact that they're adventurers. If you're wading into a full-scale war, sure, throw on that plate and heft that shield. But if you're crawling through a cavern complex, jumping over chasms, crossing narrow bridges, and climbing cliffs that heavy armor blows hardcore.

And remember D&D's ill-fated attempt at making sense of armor and the effects of different weapons on different armor? I do. It sucked. You had to remember a different effect for each weapon against the armor you wore. Sure it made sense, but boy was it cumbersome. 3.5 took away the cumbersome part, but the dumbing-down lost some things in translation.

Hopefully, in 4th ed. they'll fix these problems (they've promised to fix weapons by making each a viable choice, so armor should be taken care of too).

And as for that heavy armor, you'd be surprised who wears it best.

Barbarians, for instance. Throw that bad boy in some adamantium full plate and watch the fireworks. Sure his speed drops, which sucks, but all that DR plus a high AC and CON? Hells yeah. Just try bringing him down (with anything other than an effect that requires a will save, that is). And you wouldn't normally think of barbarians as benefiting from heavy armor (or at least I didn't, until now).

The truth is, with everything that is required of an adventurer, heavy armor is just impractical at best.

Thoughts?
dman11235
02-26-08, 11:45 PM There are a bunch of feats (I believe mostly in RoS) that increase effectiveness in armor. Stuff like increasing armor bonus, lowering check penalty. Same with shields. But you are right for the most part. Heavy armor does have its place in the clerics and fighters of the lot, but I can build a monk based character with a much higher AC and a lot more maneuverability. It's more of a preference thing really though.
Arminel
02-27-08, 12:41 AM One of my friends might play a Knight simply due to Armor Mastery (Medium) and Armor Mastery (Heavy). She loves playing tank but hates the speed penalties.
JasonOrlandoHawk
02-27-08, 01:08 AM I'll admit, I'm one of the people who gripes a lot about the ill-treatment of heavy armor.

I don't mind the lightly-armored monk or duelist, but when I can easily achieve a higher AC going that route than with heavy armor, it bugs me. When I was enrolled in Martial Arts, my instructor spent a lot of time drilling the idea of "personal space" into our heads. He demonstrated, quite effectively, that it's very, very hard to learn to dodge, and that's it's a lot easier to keep your distance in the first place.

The little time that I've gotten to duel with mock shields (what would've been considered light shields by D&D standards), I became insanely hard to hit, without really trying very hard. Combine that with the idea that, in medieval times, a lot of "foot stabbing" occurred.

I just have a hard time accepting that lightly armored characters are harder to hit (in terms of AC) than someone in Full Plate with a Tower Shield.

Of course, you have the movement issues associated with Heavy Armor. Years ago (before I started playing D&D), I saw a show about Knights vs. Archers in history. They tackled the story that an archer would knock a knight off a horse, and the knight wouldn't be able to get off the ground because how heavy the armor was, allowing the archer to simply stroll over and slit their throats.

The historian, a man who looked to be about 60, had a simple response: He donned plate armor (probably was full plate, but my memory is fuzzy, so it could have been the equivalent of breastplate or half-plate) and did a tuck-and-roll before returning to his feet. In other words, he tumbled in plate.

How I wish I could find that show, but it has been lost to the pre-geek eras of my life.

So, anyways, after much ado about nothing, I really feel that the overall problem isn't so much what lightly armored characters can accomplish (especially for a fantasy world), but rather that Heavy Armor just doesn't have the rules-options to keep up.
Endarrion
02-27-08, 07:51 AM Heavy Armor just doesn't have the rules-options to keep up.

This is quite true.

However, I still see the problem with heavy armor as more of a conceptual one than a mechanics one. I love the idea of shining knights decked out in full plate, but it just seems so impractical in an adventuring situation. I have to believe that, if a real person was adventuring in a D&D world, they'd leave their heavy armor at home and wear something more flexible, something more suited to the rigors of an adventuring life. Besides, taking 5 minutes (or whatever) to don heavy armor after being ambushed in the middle of the night is pretty impractical as well.

What I think really gets the shaft is shields. Its so much better to wield a two-handed weapon, or even dual-wield, than it is to sword and board. A DM in a campaign I'll be playing in is trying to mitigate this by doubling the armor bonus of shields (except bucklers and tower shields, I believe).
Shadowhowler
02-27-08, 09:33 AM Good points all around.

I agree with the sentiment that adventurers are better suited by lighter armour. It's just a matter of practicality. For all out battle... heavy armour should be best. However, Adventuers are not engaged in all out battle 24/7... they travel (a lot) they cross threw thick forest and hills and swamps and caves and so on... they are required to perfrom a whole host of tasks on a daily basis.

The Heavy armour is best for Knights and gaurds... dedicated armies whos sole purpass is standered warfare. Adventurers are better served by getting the best protection that still availes themselves of mobility and in many cases, stealth.

I like the idea behind the optional rules in UA for Armour as DR. I think Heavy Armours would be better served by a rule like this.
PowerslaveLC
03-04-08, 12:43 AM I have to agree with almost everything I've read here, heavy armor gets the shaft. I play as a Dwarf Paladin that is the literal tank in our party. With combat reflexes (or is it combat expertise) I can pump my AC through the roof. At level 5, 31 AC is awesome but man try and get over that five foot pit with an armor check of 14-17 and your asking for trouble. The problem lies I think with the check penalties, yeah as some one who basically hikes all day long heavy armor is not the brightest idea and it makes some sense to have the penalties. But heavy armor has its place I think. What does everyone else think about those check penalties?
mvincent
03-04-08, 01:36 PM as for that heavy armor, you'd be surprised who wears it best.

Barbarians, for instance. Throw that bad boy in some adamantium full plate and watch the fireworks. Note that Barbarians are not proficient with heavy armor. Also, the DR from adamantium will not stack with the Barbarian class DR.
Endarrion
03-05-08, 10:24 PM Note that Barbarians are not proficient with heavy armor.

I knew that, but proficiency can come from other places.

Also, the DR from adamantium will not stack with the Barbarian class DR.

This, I did not know, however. I thought that as long as the DR was from different sources that it would be fine.

And as far as armor check penalties, they can be pretty ridiculous. I especially like the movement based penalties to jump checks. 20ft speed = -6 on jump checks. That seems a little harsh in my view.
mvincent
03-06-08, 01:48 AM I thought that as long as the DR was from different sources that it would be fine.From the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#damageReduction):
"If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack."
runestar
03-06-08, 06:49 AM Heavy armour generally lets me dump dex in favour of boosting str and con. That isn't good enough for you?:P

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Endarrion 02-26-08, 10:52 PM	So, in a different thread, an opinion was expressed to the effect that heavy armor is not supported properly in 3.5. I agree, but disagree as well. Here's my thinking. Heavy armor blows, but it always blew, right from the beginning. The only difference now is that (with ToB especially) WotC is putting out more support for lightly armored characters than heavily armored characters because light armor is plain better (not counting any exotic armors such as those in RoS). Reduced movement sucks. Period. Whether you're a little guy or a big guy wearing big armor (gods forbid you're a combination of the two...) you eventually feel the pain of reduced movement when the rest of your friends sprint out of the dragon's cave forgetting that your puny 20ft movement + x3 run speed = dead adventurer. One point to remember considering heavy armor and a character's reluctance to wear it is the fact that they're adventurers. If you're wading into a full-scale war, sure, throw on that plate and heft that shield. But if you're crawling through a cavern complex, jumping over chasms, crossing narrow bridges, and climbing cliffs that heavy armor blows hardcore. And remember D&D's ill-fated attempt at making sense of armor and the effects of different weapons on different armor? I do. It sucked. You had to remember a different effect for each weapon against the armor you wore. Sure it made sense, but boy was it cumbersome. 3.5 took away the cumbersome part, but the dumbing-down lost some things in translation. Hopefully, in 4th ed. they'll fix these problems (they've promised to fix weapons by making each a viable choice, so armor should be taken care of too). And as for that heavy armor, you'd be surprised who wears it best. Barbarians, for instance. Throw that bad boy in some adamantium full plate and watch the fireworks. Sure his speed drops, which sucks, but all that DR plus a high AC and CON? Hells yeah. Just try bringing him down (with anything other than an effect that requires a will save, that is). And you wouldn't normally think of barbarians as benefiting from heavy armor (or at least I didn't, until now). The truth is, with everything that is required of an adventurer, heavy armor is just impractical at best. Thoughts?
dman11235 02-26-08, 11:45 PM	There are a bunch of feats (I believe mostly in RoS) that increase effectiveness in armor. Stuff like increasing armor bonus, lowering check penalty. Same with shields. But you are right for the most part. Heavy armor does have its place in the clerics and fighters of the lot, but I can build a monk based character with a much higher AC and a lot more maneuverability. It's more of a preference thing really though.
Arminel 02-27-08, 12:41 AM	One of my friends might play a Knight simply due to Armor Mastery (Medium) and Armor Mastery (Heavy). She loves playing tank but hates the speed penalties.
JasonOrlandoHawk 02-27-08, 01:08 AM	I'll admit, I'm one of the people who gripes a lot about the ill-treatment of heavy armor. I don't mind the lightly-armored monk or duelist, but when I can easily achieve a higher AC going that route than with heavy armor, it bugs me. When I was enrolled in Martial Arts, my instructor spent a lot of time drilling the idea of "personal space" into our heads. He demonstrated, quite effectively, that it's very, very hard to learn to dodge, and that's it's a lot easier to keep your distance in the first place. The little time that I've gotten to duel with mock shields (what would've been considered light shields by D&D standards), I became insanely hard to hit, without really trying very hard. Combine that with the idea that, in medieval times, a lot of "foot stabbing" occurred. I just have a hard time accepting that lightly armored characters are harder to hit (in terms of AC) than someone in Full Plate with a Tower Shield. Of course, you have the movement issues associated with Heavy Armor. Years ago (before I started playing D&D), I saw a show about Knights vs. Archers in history. They tackled the story that an archer would knock a knight off a horse, and the knight wouldn't be able to get off the ground because how heavy the armor was, allowing the archer to simply stroll over and slit their throats. The historian, a man who looked to be about 60, had a simple response: He donned plate armor (probably was full plate, but my memory is fuzzy, so it could have been the equivalent of breastplate or half-plate) and did a tuck-and-roll before returning to his feet. In other words, he tumbled in plate. How I wish I could find that show, but it has been lost to the pre-geek eras of my life. So, anyways, after much ado about nothing, I really feel that the overall problem isn't so much what lightly armored characters can accomplish (especially for a fantasy world), but rather that Heavy Armor just doesn't have the rules-options to keep up.
Endarrion 02-27-08, 07:51 AM	Heavy Armor just doesn't have the rules-options to keep up. This is quite true. However, I still see the problem with heavy armor as more of a conceptual one than a mechanics one. I love the idea of shining knights decked out in full plate, but it just seems so impractical in an adventuring situation. I have to believe that, if a real person was adventuring in a D&D world, they'd leave their heavy armor at home and wear something more flexible, something more suited to the rigors of an adventuring life. Besides, taking 5 minutes (or whatever) to don heavy armor after being ambushed in the middle of the night is pretty impractical as well. What I think really gets the shaft is shields. Its so much better to wield a two-handed weapon, or even dual-wield, than it is to sword and board. A DM in a campaign I'll be playing in is trying to mitigate this by doubling the armor bonus of shields (except bucklers and tower shields, I believe).
Shadowhowler 02-27-08, 09:33 AM	Good points all around. I agree with the sentiment that adventurers are better suited by lighter armour. It's just a matter of practicality. For all out battle... heavy armour should be best. However, Adventuers are not engaged in all out battle 24/7... they travel (a lot) they cross threw thick forest and hills and swamps and caves and so on... they are required to perfrom a whole host of tasks on a daily basis. The Heavy armour is best for Knights and gaurds... dedicated armies whos sole purpass is standered warfare. Adventurers are better served by getting the best protection that still availes themselves of mobility and in many cases, stealth. I like the idea behind the optional rules in UA for Armour as DR. I think Heavy Armours would be better served by a rule like this.
PowerslaveLC 03-04-08, 12:43 AM	I have to agree with almost everything I've read here, heavy armor gets the shaft. I play as a Dwarf Paladin that is the literal tank in our party. With combat reflexes (or is it combat expertise) I can pump my AC through the roof. At level 5, 31 AC is awesome but man try and get over that five foot pit with an armor check of 14-17 and your asking for trouble. The problem lies I think with the check penalties, yeah as some one who basically hikes all day long heavy armor is not the brightest idea and it makes some sense to have the penalties. But heavy armor has its place I think. What does everyone else think about those check penalties?
mvincent 03-04-08, 01:36 PM	as for that heavy armor, you'd be surprised who wears it best. Barbarians, for instance. Throw that bad boy in some adamantium full plate and watch the fireworks. Note that Barbarians are not proficient with heavy armor. Also, the DR from adamantium will not stack with the Barbarian class DR.
Endarrion 03-05-08, 10:24 PM	Note that Barbarians are not proficient with heavy armor. I knew that, but proficiency can come from other places. Also, the DR from adamantium will not stack with the Barbarian class DR. This, I did not know, however. I thought that as long as the DR was from different sources that it would be fine. And as far as armor check penalties, they can be pretty ridiculous. I especially like the movement based penalties to jump checks. 20ft speed = -6 on jump checks. That seems a little harsh in my view.
mvincent 03-06-08, 01:48 AM	I thought that as long as the DR was from different sources that it would be fine.From the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#damageReduction): "If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack."
runestar 03-06-08, 06:49 AM	Heavy armour generally lets me dump dex in favour of boosting str and con. That isn't good enough for you?:P