Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BlackbeardsDelight 06-02-06, 08:04 AM	I have seen a couple of builds listing Full plate at AC 12 on a large creature. This lead me to believe, that AC increases for an item with size kind of like with weapons. But I haven't been able to find a list or reference to that anywhere in the corebooks.... Am I completely off or is it in any of the books? Please help :)
runestar 06-02-06, 08:58 AM	The base AC provided by armour remains the same regardless of its size. This means that a collossal full plate will provide the same ac bonus as a small full plate. This is because the armour covers the same proportion of the body whether it is large or small - hence the armour bonus remains constant around the board. Think about it: A large full plate will cover the same percentage of the body of an ogre compared to that of a halfling wearing a small full plate. For further proof, look up the various entries of the monsters in the MM which wear armour. Their armour values are consistent with those in the PHB, even as they vary in size. Either those builds are way off or they are using some feat or feature that you missed. :)
BlackbeardsDelight 06-02-06, 09:49 AM	Could be some obscure metal it's made of, off course :) But either way it makes sense. It would make sense if the armour was better due to the thicker plates used. But thanks for the answer :)
myusernameis 06-02-06, 10:05 AM	Sure thicker plates, but bigger armor on a bigger creature = bigger gaps.
tarkin 06-02-06, 10:19 AM	They could be using something strange like MOUNTAIN PLATE, instead of Full Plate.
runestar 06-02-06, 12:22 PM	Or maybe it was just fullplate+4... ;)
BlackbeardsDelight 06-02-06, 12:30 PM	Well, they mention it in the cheater of Mystra build, when the AC is calculated: Full plate (12) non-magical. Been boggled by that for a while :) http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=248239 *edit* Never mind :) It's Full plate with Magical Vestment on it :D So 8+4 at lvl 14.
JulesCARV 06-02-06, 12:34 PM	No, but I've contemplated a house rule that for every increase in size, armor has its armor bonus increased by 1 and its maximum dexterity bonus reduced by 1. Thus, large full plate would provide a +9 armor bonus to AC, but have a 0 maximum dexterity bonus to AC, and small full plate would provide a +7 armor bonus to AC, and have a +2 maximum dexterity bonus to AC.
mvincent 06-02-06, 03:06 PM	It would make sense if the armour was better due to the thicker plates used.Note that armor on larger creatures is not necessarily thicker. Armor weights only double with each size increase... if they were proportionally thicker (i.e. doubled in all dimensions), the armor weight would instead increase by x8 with each size increase (and would likely be too heavy to wear).
tarkin 06-02-06, 04:57 PM	I examined the Cheater of Mystra build Please note that it presumes you are casting the spell Magic Vestament, twice, and making it extended. Twice means once on his shield, another time on his armor. Magic Vestament, at the level his character is, will provide a +4 bonus. His AC lists is "without magical equiptment" It is NOT without magic spells, just without magical equiptment. He got the +12 to AC by combining the +8 for Full Plate and +4 from his first Magic Vestament spell. Yes, he wrote it down wierdly, but he did not get any special armor, just standard Full Plate made +4 by the spell he mentioned above.
digoraccoon 06-03-06, 02:10 PM	Note that armor on larger creatures is not necessarily thicker. Armor weights only double with each size increase... if they were proportionally thicker (i.e. doubled in all dimensions), the armor weight would instead increase by x8 with each size increase (and would likely be too heavy to wear). Much like the first uses of the "Two Ton Tunic" from Xiao Lin Showdown. :) Sure it gives you AC+20, but you couldn't move!
shift244 06-05-06, 01:13 AM	Note that armor on larger creatures is not necessarily thicker. Armor weights only double with each size increase... if they were proportionally thicker (i.e. doubled in all dimensions), the armor weight would instead increase by x8 with each size increase (and would likely be too heavy to wear).So you're saying the armor gets larger but the thickness remains the same? Then what's the point? A "thick" metal sheet to medium sized creature might as well be paper "thin" for collosal sized creatures. That the weight is only doubled does not make a good argument. A creature of a of larger sizes often have less surface area relative to mass as compared to a smaller creature. An armor covers surface area. But all these is going off topic is is beside the point. The listed numbers are for reference only and form a guide for the DM and players. It's not a 100% emulation of what is.
Kresalak 06-05-06, 01:23 AM	This is the problem with very large things-volume increases by the cube of the increase, while SA increases by the square. Also, mass increases by the cube, while strength (not D&D strength) increases by the square, which is how ants can lift things much heavier than themselves, but a human sized ant would collapse under it's own body weight. Giants and stuff already don't work by physics and logic, so don't bother questioning the reality of their equiptment.
mvincent 06-05-06, 12:00 PM	So you're saying the armor gets larger but the thickness remains the same? Then what's the point? A "thick" metal sheet to medium sized creature might as well be paper "thin" for collosal sized creatures.How do you figure? It's not a 100% emulation of what is.Likely correct, but I think you missed my point.
ShinAkuma2 06-05-06, 12:56 PM	How do you figure? Agreed...Whether that full-plate is on a halfling, an elf, or a storm giant, it's going to be too thick for me to simply punch through.
mvincent 06-05-06, 01:28 PM	Agreed...Whether that full-plate is on a halfling, an elf, or a storm giant, it's going to be too thick for me to simply punch through.Well, many mass weapons (maces, picks, etc.) actually were intended to punch through plate. Also, the pictures of armor provided in the PHB seem to give some fairly complete coverage, implying that armor is just going to get penetrated occasionally in general. D&D abstracts this (rather than trying to model it exactly), but still thicker plate could conceivably provide better protection.
ShinAkuma2 06-05-06, 02:06 PM	Well, many mass weapons (maces, picks, etc.) actually were intended to punch through plate. Also, the pictures of armor provided in the PHB seem to give some fairly complete coverage, implying that armor is just going to get penetrated occasionally in general. D&D abstracts this (rather than trying to model it exactly), but still thicker plate could conceivably provide better protection. Note I said, "too thick for me to punch through." Me. Not my pick. Me, punching. Through chain or hide, I could hit hard enough to cause some damage. Not metal plates.
mvincent 06-05-06, 02:30 PM	Note I said, "too thick for me to punch through." Me.Ah. I did not realize that you were actually talking about yourself, especially in reference to attacking halflings, elves and storm giants.
Vahenir 06-05-06, 02:45 PM	Giants and stuff already don't work by physics and logic, so don't bother questioning the reality of their equiptment. So true. There was a discussion sometime back where it was mathematically proven that a greatsword sized to a giant would either not be physically possible, or would be a metal club and not a sword. That's just how it is. This is where suspension of disbelief comes in. So you're saying the armor gets larger but the thickness remains the same? Then what's the point? The point is to cover one's body with metal. However, the thickness does not have to be the same, it just does not increase -significantly-. Most 'thick' plate armour prior to the 'armour of proof' was only about 2-3mm thick. That's it. We can increase that for a giant to 5mm, if you want - it isn't adding significantly more protection, especially not in the abstract AC system where a SHIELD only provides 1 point of AC. An extra 2-3mm of steel is functionally nothing in that abstract. I'll also point out that where it concerns plate armour AC should much more be considered a function of coverage than of thickness, because even 'normal size' plate armour is going to be highly invulnerable to most forms of direct attack. Even the infamous armour-crunchers like picks and maces had significant trouble with plate. That's why armoured combat from that period was largely about piercing blows to unprotected areas like the inside of joints. It doesn't matter how thick your armour is - generally your attacker will not be trying to hit it. And if they are trying to hit it - chances are they're using a weapon where the difference between 2mm of steel and 4mm of steel is irrelevant. Still, the most telling point here is that the difference between normal plate and an extra few millimeters of plate simply is not enough to warrant a bonus to AC, as I point out above.
GhostStepper 06-05-06, 02:56 PM	Note I said, "too thick for me to punch through." Me. Not my pick. Me, punching. Through chain or hide, I could hit hard enough to cause some damage. Not metal plates. But your Shin Akuma. You could just throw a hadoken (or go-hado more precisely). ;)
ShinAkuma2 06-05-06, 05:42 PM	But your Shin Akuma. You could just throw a hadoken (or go-hado more precisely). ;) Ok, it says ShinAkuma2, but I'm more like Dan. ^_^ I can see it now... Gadoken 1/round, Ranged Touch Attack, max range of 5ft. 1d6 damage per 2 levels
GhostStepper 06-05-06, 06:33 PM	Ok, it says ShinAkuma2, but I'm more like Dan. ^_^ I can see it now... Gadoken 1/round, Ranged Touch Attack, max range of 5ft. 1d6 damage per 2 levels Dont even get me started. I have a whole Street Fighter d20 system worked out.
shift244 06-06-06, 10:37 PM	So true, Vahenir. But the basis is that a relatively 'thin' metal sheet would not make the armor structurally sound within itself.. a medium creature will still have trouble getting through it, but the collosal creature would bend it easily just by sitting down; and it means its weakened. But then, so far as "it doesn't have to be realistic" goes.. that's quite moot. I agree with you.
mvincent 06-07-06, 12:25 PM	a relatively 'thin' metal sheet would not make the armor structurally sound within itself.. a medium creature will still have trouble getting through it, but the collosal creature would bend it easily just by sitting downIf my players asked about this, I would probably explain it with something like: the armor doesn't completely cover the colossal creature, but is designed to be reinforced in some places and absent in others to allow movement without damaging the armor (much like a horse's barding). It would be similar to us making tin armor to ward off pixy attacks... I'm certain a decent armorer could find a way to make it work, but that's for him to worry about, not us. If the players ask why armorers don't make larger armors thick all over for added protection, I would tell them that it would weight too much for the creature to wear (and this statement is actually supported by the game mechanics). Not that it matters since in D&D even chainmail bikinis are considered full armor.