Armour Issues [Archive] - Wizards Community

Armour Issues [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Stormbrand
04-26-07, 11:42 PM Historically, a Norman Knight, with maille (chain) was finely protected. Very very rarely was one a casualty in the field.

Medieval folk used leather jerkins for protection on the field, and they made a difference.

Straw gambesons and water-hardened leather were considered good protection, espescially when combined. In fact, they made a huge difference as to who did or did not survive. Something which would not be reflected in +1 or +2 AC. Even +3 is very minor considering the effects of armour on the battlefield.

In D&D, most fighters and clerics of 3rd level and up seem to wear plate armour - which, by the way, is horribly uncomfortable - and the effect of it seems fairly little, as if it is the standard rather than good protection.

My issues are that armour seems ineffective, and plate armour is far too common.

Your views? Suggestions? House rules to fix the situation?
Pirce
04-26-07, 11:56 PM I will agree that armor doesn't scale nearly enough compared to attack. Which is why I'm having to be very creative with the items I'm thinking up for my defensive character, who doesn't wear armor and neither does he use a shield.
tyrecian
04-27-07, 12:03 AM well... yes you are right. If you are having trouble with plate armor being really common, then dont give access to it. Make your vendors have a price cap on armors, and make the characters who want plate have to wait to have it tailored and then crafted for them.

a month isnt unreasonable, and down payments are to be expected.

The discomfort is coverred in the penalties for sleeping in armor, use those penalties. As a DM, when the night comes upon my PCs, their tanks are usually on watch in their plate, but sleep in chain shirts. Fatigue is a pain in the arse, but if the enemy is somewhat intelligent (8) then they will track and night attack.

The armor check penalty is a ***** on heavy armors. Use and incorporate spells that force them. Sleet Storm is an excellent AoE that both blinds and forces DC 10 balance checks to move in. This means 1/2 move (10' for heavy armored) and then they must make a DC 10 balace or not move at all, failure by more than 5 is fall prone. One of the PCs in my campaign (radiant servant of Pelor) is always on his arse during combat within a sleet storm, effectively taking him out of the combat... imagine that, the healer is blind and immobile... you can imagine how nasty that can become. (eventually he might figure out to use Freedom of Movement, but i love watching him try to roll that balance check over and over and just get ****** off at me).

Swimming is another example, make the weight an obstacle in dungeons and such. If a character is wearing plate, then make a narrow ledge require a balance, or simply have it break (pit fall trap) when X amount of weight is on it. A fighter, or Cleric, in plate mail trying to swim and being attacked is dead in 3 rounds usually, since its hard as hell to swim and make the checks while being attacked, and drowning is a really TOUGH and almost instantaneous way to go (swimming is 2x AC penalty). Climb checks to get out are also nasty.

Those are the methods i use to make sure that everyoen isnt in plate. Generally the main tank and the cleric run around in plate mail in my campaigns. There is a secondary fighter that wears heavy armors, but not plate usually. I also rarely give out magical plate mail, mainly because i like the flavor of other armors... meaning that if they want to use that plate, get ready to give up magical armors.

"Something which would not be reflected in +1 or +2 AC. Even +3 is very minor considering the effects of armour on the battlefield."

To this i diasagree. A 16 and a 19 are VERY different ACs, and can easily mean the difference between life and death at low levels. A pouncing animal will tear into a low ac character, that is what makes monks so difficult to play, being they are glass canons at low levels.

And yes finally i must make my last argument, while heavy armor was uncommon and difficult to use and very expensive and much better than leather, still in D&D there are crazy ass magical beasts and demons and such that never existed in our history... meaning that there are more armors distributed in that world.

"Historically, a Norman Knight, with maille (chain) was finely protected. Very very rarely was one a casualty in the field."

well how often were they up against breath weapons, gaze attacks, magic missiles, etc. A 7th level warrior in plate mail, riding into a typical battlefield scenario with 1st level warriors as combatants, in leather, will rarely be a casualty either.

I can almost garauntee you (i am from US) that is we had, even today, at least one crazy archmage necromancer in each state making undead and demanding things from the companies, there would be hand me down armors of quality that would probably be better than that of the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Vharuck
04-27-07, 12:03 AM D&D's system is more for people who want the classic fantasy characters, and often classic fantasy fighters wear tons and tons of metal armor.

If you want realistic data, go right ahead. Good luck doing that and I'm sure you'll enjoy doing it. However, I'm just pointing out why the system was made as is.
Nathreet
04-27-07, 12:22 AM AC: You underestimate the value of AC. 1 point of AC often reduces hits taken by 10%. +3 does even more.

Full Plate: Check out the armor check penalty. Now look at the skills that it applies to. Now put PCs in situations where they need those skills. Second, look how expensive it is. No common soldier could afford it. Only a heroic PC could afford it, which is actually typical of medieval times.

AC scaling by level: It's a myth that AB grows faster. With standard wealth you can average a point of AC gained every single level, and it's far from a bad idea to spend the money to do so. That's just from equipment. Prestige classes, etc. might add more.

AC boosters: armor enhancements, shield enhancements, ring of protection, dusty rose prism ioun stone. Get a variety, not just 1-2. An amulet of natural armor would allow an even faster AC progression than what I said, though I plan on giving my fighter an amulet of health.

monk AC boosters: add on ring of force shield, bracers of armor, wis boosters, dex boosters, monk's belt. Monks usually get screwed in terms of AC, but characters with a very high dex and wis can actually get a higher AC than an armored character.
SkyOdin
04-27-07, 12:24 AM Historically, a Norman Knight, with maille (chain) was finely protected. Very very rarely was one a casualty in the field.
...
My issues are that armour seems ineffective, and plate armour is far too common.

I don't think that plate armor is too common. First off, plate armor and chain mail armor did not really exist side-by-side. Plate armor evolved out of and replaced earlier chain armor. Chain armor was at its height in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries. Plate armor came to dominate the battlefield in later centuries. So, during the 11th century, every knight wore chain armor, while in the 15th century, every knight wore plate armor. D&D seems to most heavily emulate the 15th century, so it is perfectly reasonable for plate armor to be available. In any case, plate armor in D&D is hideously expensive for armor. The only reason it is common among PCs is that they are not only the cream of the crop as far as warriors go, they are generally stinking rich.

As far as how protective the armor is, that is an interesting question. Full plate armor gives +8 bonus to AC, so a typical plate-mail wearing knight has an AC of 19 without magical augmentation. His AC is 20 with a buckler or light shield, which was more typical than a heavy shield in the late middle ages. That means that a level 1 warrior with no strength modifier has to roll a natural twenty to hit an armored opponent. That translates into a lot of survivability. Of course, many opponents are going to be higher level with higher strength scores, so the value of that armor goes down significantly.

Of course, there were casualties in medieval battles. Casualties could always become heavy, no matter what armor people were wearing, if the battle became fierce. So I don't think armor should make people invincible.
Droma
04-27-07, 12:31 AM I cast fireball.

D&D is not meant to be historically accurate. Its meant to be fantasy. Learn to accept that and have fun.
Novacat
04-27-07, 12:32 AM While as a player, I haven't yet gotten around to making a highly defensive character, I've created one or two such NPCs as a DM. A high AC is relatively easy to get, even at low levels.

In the game I'm running, the group's cleric has an AC of 25 (+2 Full Plate, +2 Heavy Steel Shield, +1 Dex), and if she hadn't sprung for the Amulet of Retributive Healing (Magic Item Compendium), she would also have a Ring of Protection or even an Amulet of Natural Armor. Don't talk to me about it being hard to build up AC.

And don't get me started on Good Incarnates and their crazy defensive abilities.
Nathreet
04-27-07, 12:43 AM The cleric should have reduced the shield to +1 and bought a +1 ring of protection. 1000 gp saved. That's why it's always best to spread out your AC items.
Novacat
04-27-07, 12:51 AM The cleric should have reduced the shield to +1 and bought a +1 ring of protection. 1000 gp saved. That's why it's always best to spread out your AC items.
I think she was hoping to save both her ring slots for any rings the party finds.
Watchman
04-27-07, 06:53 AM One thing I always earnestly loathed about the D&D system is the way a character's defensive abilities in particular are primarily a function of Monty Hauling enough suitable items.

Bleah.
Forged_Fury
04-27-07, 07:40 AM Historically <snip>
Starting any thread on these boards with this word is always great fun.

-FF
draconic_swine
04-27-07, 11:00 AM I allow my players to switch the flavour of armours around if they want it, within certain limits. If, for example, you wanted your character to wear one of the lighter armours for the flavour but wanted more protection, I'd let you use the stats of one of the heavier armours that provide a few more points of AC. So a person wanting to wear a suit of studded leather but who gets the protection of chainmail is fine, whereas someone who wants to wear padded armour but gets the protection of full plate isn't.

As long as you take all the drawbacks associated with one of the more protective armours (i.e., armour check penalty, maximum Dexterity bonus, speed, etc.), then it really doesn't matter what type of armour you envision yourself wearing. Wizards created a system with 12 different types of armour that are balanced with one another, and then tacked on some flavour as to what type of armour it is. If you keep the mechanics the same, I'm more than happy to swap out the flavour. I do the same thing for weapons.
tarkin
04-27-07, 11:27 AM Historically, a Knight in Maille was finely protected against grunt weapons (knives, daggers, slashing sword). He did not do very well at ALL against a knight with a Mace/Morning star. Nor did he do well against a good Longbow man or crossbow man.

Leather did well enough against knives, daggers, slashing swords, but not very well at all against a piercing weapon, and again, not well against a Mace/Morning Star

Platemail offered good protectiong against everything, but even then a longbow arrow or a crossbow bolt at close range penetrated it, and enough blows witha mace/Morning star would kill the man inside.

Platemail (once created) always and probably always will be the finest armor a man could purchase.

The reason armies did not outfit their soldiers with it was the cost.

PC's get so much cash, it does not matter to them.
Watchman
04-27-07, 02:06 PM He did not do very well at ALL against a knight with a Mace/Morning star....and again, not well against a Mace/Morning StarWell, duh. Heavy maces were one of the most universal "antitank" weapons capable of taking down even fully armoured clibanarii and plate-clad men-at-arms with relative ease, and just about the only single-handed weapons capable of it.

That mail - which had some blunt-trauma issues to begin with - and light nonmetallic armours did not stand up to them very well cannot really be counted as much of a demerit for those kinds of armours. Pretty much nothing did anyway, after all.

Nor did he do well against a good Longbow man or crossbow man.Debatable. Good mail resisted arrows from even composite bows well enough to have been a very common and popular armour in post-Antiquity Middle East and Eastern Europe, although the addition of a shield to stop said arrows before they even got to testing the armour was heartily recommended. Crossbows only began to develop the sort of power to noticeably exceed that of good bows after the introduction of horn-composite staves, but then the rising draw weights also brought their own problems for reloading the things.

Platemail (once created) always and probably always will be the finest armor a man could purchase.

The reason armies did not outfit their soldiers with it was the cost."Platemail" is rather a misnomer, just so you know. Anyway I'm assuming you're talking about high-end full articulated harnesses, as lower-grade "munition" plate was certainly used by and issued to common soldiery en masse once the manufacturing processes allowed. What was regarded as the standard outfit of a fully equipped pikeman in the early 1600s for example was nothing short of a three-quarter plate harness... That was later ditched as largely redunant and too heavy and restrictive, in other words, not cost-effective, in favour of just a cuirass and helmet.
Stormbrand
04-27-07, 10:29 PM The armor check penalty is a ***** on heavy armors. Use and incorporate spells that force them. Sleet Storm is an excellent AoE that both blinds and forces DC 10 balance checks to move in. This means 1/2 move (10' for heavy armored) and then they must make a DC 10 balace or not move at all, failure by more than 5 is fall prone. One of the PCs in my campaign (radiant servant of Pelor) is always on his arse during combat within a sleet storm, effectively taking him out of the combat... imagine that, the healer is blind and immobile... you can imagine how nasty that can become. (eventually he might figure out to use Freedom of Movement, but i love watching him try to roll that balance check over and over and just get ****** off at me).

-----------------------------------

"Something which would not be reflected in +1 or +2 AC. Even +3 is very minor considering the effects of armour on the battlefield."

To this i diasagree. A 16 and a 19 are VERY different ACs, and can easily mean the difference between life and death at low levels. A pouncing animal will tear into a low ac character, that is what makes monks so difficult to play, being they are glass canons at low levels.

And yes finally i must make my last argument, while heavy armor was uncommon and difficult to use and very expensive and much better than leather, still in D&D there are crazy ass magical beasts and demons and such that never existed in our history... meaning that there are more armors distributed in that world.

I love your suggestion regarding sleet storm. Most heavily armoured classes seldom put points in Balance so that would be really effective.

At very low levels, yes - a few AC points make a difference. As levels rise, plate seems to be 'standard' so that maille becomes 'poor' protection rather than the original 'good' protection.

AC: You underestimate the value of AC. 1 point of AC often reduces hits taken by 10%. +3 does even more.

----------------------------

AC scaling by level: It's a myth that AB grows faster. With standard wealth you can average a point of AC gained every single level, and it's far from a bad idea to spend the money to do so. That's just from equipment. Prestige classes, etc. might add more.

AB grows at 1 every level (for combat classes) without equipment. That is not counting class features, feats, ability score raises etc. So you can spend your resources matching the free/automatic BAB improvement of a fighter, while anything he spends on improving his combat skill will put him ahead of you in the arms race. - Heavy focus on defence matches average front-line attack.

One example was a 7th level fighter as a Norman Knight. Well, I would have made the 'standard' slightly lower but we can go with that. Attack bonus would be +12/+7, (+7 Base, +3 STR, +1 Weapon Focus, +1 Masterwork weapon) against an AC of 18 (+5 chainmaille, +2 heavy shield, +1 DEX). Attack is at a heavy advantage, even when including the shield.

The effect I am after is for a maille armoured soldier to feel 'well-protected' against decent foes rather than 'poorly protected' as is standard in D&D.

I don't think that plate armor is too common. First off, plate armor and chain mail armor did not really exist side-by-side. Plate armor evolved out of and replaced earlier chain armor. Chain armor was at its height in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries. Plate armor came to dominate the battlefield in later centuries. So, during the 11th century, every knight wore chain armor, while in the 15th century, every knight wore plate armor. D&D seems to most heavily emulate the 15th century, so it is perfectly reasonable for plate armor to be available. In any case, plate armor in D&D is hideously expensive for armor. The only reason it is common among PCs is that they are not only the cream of the crop as far as warriors go, they are generally stinking rich.

As far as how protective the armor is, that is an interesting question. Full plate armor gives +8 bonus to AC, so a typical plate-mail wearing knight has an AC of 19 without magical augmentation. His AC is 20 with a buckler or light shield, which was more typical than a heavy shield in the late middle ages. That means that a level 1 warrior with no strength modifier has to roll a natural twenty to hit an armored opponent. That translates into a lot of survivability. Of course, many opponents are going to be higher level with higher strength scores, so the value of that armor goes down significantly.

Of course, there were casualties in medieval battles. Casualties could always become heavy, no matter what armor people were wearing, if the battle became fierce. So I don't think armor should make people invincible.

Early harness included maille, just as a side note. The example of the level 1 warrior with no strength bonus is more an example of a poor fighter than good armour. My guess is a semi-professional soldier would be Warrior 2, STR 14, WF in weapon of choice (+5 to hit) - a 1 in 4 chance of hitting said knight.

Now a knight could have full plate (+8), heavy shield (+2), Mounted (+1 elevation), DEX (+1) for 22. Solid, but only against weak foes.

Historically, a Knight in Maille was finely protected against grunt weapons (knives, daggers, slashing sword). He did not do very well at ALL against a knight with a Mace/Morning star. Nor did he do well against a good Longbow man or crossbow man.

Leather did well enough against knives, daggers, slashing swords, but not very well at all against a piercing weapon, and again, not well against a Mace/Morning Star

Platemail offered good protectiong against everything, but even then a longbow arrow or a crossbow bolt at close range penetrated it, and enough blows witha mace/Morning star would kill the man inside.

Platemail (once created) always and probably always will be the finest armor a man could purchase.

The reason armies did not outfit their soldiers with it was the cost.

PC's get so much cash, it does not matter to them.

This is perhaps in favour of armour = DR or the D20 Conan weapon/armour system.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Stormbrand 04-26-07, 11:42 PM	Historically, a Norman Knight, with maille (chain) was finely protected. Very very rarely was one a casualty in the field. Medieval folk used leather jerkins for protection on the field, and they made a difference. Straw gambesons and water-hardened leather were considered good protection, espescially when combined. In fact, they made a huge difference as to who did or did not survive. Something which would not be reflected in +1 or +2 AC. Even +3 is very minor considering the effects of armour on the battlefield. In D&D, most fighters and clerics of 3rd level and up seem to wear plate armour - which, by the way, is horribly uncomfortable - and the effect of it seems fairly little, as if it is the standard rather than good protection. My issues are that armour seems ineffective, and plate armour is far too common. Your views? Suggestions? House rules to fix the situation?
Pirce 04-26-07, 11:56 PM	I will agree that armor doesn't scale nearly enough compared to attack. Which is why I'm having to be very creative with the items I'm thinking up for my defensive character, who doesn't wear armor and neither does he use a shield.
tyrecian 04-27-07, 12:03 AM	well... yes you are right. If you are having trouble with plate armor being really common, then dont give access to it. Make your vendors have a price cap on armors, and make the characters who want plate have to wait to have it tailored and then crafted for them. a month isnt unreasonable, and down payments are to be expected. The discomfort is coverred in the penalties for sleeping in armor, use those penalties. As a DM, when the night comes upon my PCs, their tanks are usually on watch in their plate, but sleep in chain shirts. Fatigue is a pain in the arse, but if the enemy is somewhat intelligent (8) then they will track and night attack. The armor check penalty is a *** on heavy armors. Use and incorporate spells that force them. Sleet Storm is an excellent AoE that both blinds and forces DC 10 balance checks to move in. This means 1/2 move (10' for heavy armored) and then they must make a DC 10 balace or not move at all, failure by more than 5 is fall prone. One of the PCs in my campaign (radiant servant of Pelor) is always on his arse during combat within a sleet storm, effectively taking him out of the combat... imagine that, the healer is blind and immobile... you can imagine how nasty that can become. (eventually he might figure out to use Freedom of Movement, but i love watching him try to roll that balance check over and over and just get **** off at me). Swimming is another example, make the weight an obstacle in dungeons and such. If a character is wearing plate, then make a narrow ledge require a balance, or simply have it break (pit fall trap) when X amount of weight is on it. A fighter, or Cleric, in plate mail trying to swim and being attacked is dead in 3 rounds usually, since its hard as hell to swim and make the checks while being attacked, and drowning is a really TOUGH and almost instantaneous way to go (swimming is 2x AC penalty). Climb checks to get out are also nasty. Those are the methods i use to make sure that everyoen isnt in plate. Generally the main tank and the cleric run around in plate mail in my campaigns. There is a secondary fighter that wears heavy armors, but not plate usually. I also rarely give out magical plate mail, mainly because i like the flavor of other armors... meaning that if they want to use that plate, get ready to give up magical armors. "Something which would not be reflected in +1 or +2 AC. Even +3 is very minor considering the effects of armour on the battlefield." To this i diasagree. A 16 and a 19 are VERY different ACs, and can easily mean the difference between life and death at low levels. A pouncing animal will tear into a low ac character, that is what makes monks so difficult to play, being they are glass canons at low levels. And yes finally i must make my last argument, while heavy armor was uncommon and difficult to use and very expensive and much better than leather, still in D&D there are crazy ass magical beasts and demons and such that never existed in our history... meaning that there are more armors distributed in that world. "Historically, a Norman Knight, with maille (chain) was finely protected. Very very rarely was one a casualty in the field." well how often were they up against breath weapons, gaze attacks, magic missiles, etc. A 7th level warrior in plate mail, riding into a typical battlefield scenario with 1st level warriors as combatants, in leather, will rarely be a casualty either. I can almost garauntee you (i am from US) that is we had, even today, at least one crazy archmage necromancer in each state making undead and demanding things from the companies, there would be hand me down armors of quality that would probably be better than that of the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Vharuck 04-27-07, 12:03 AM	D&D's system is more for people who want the classic fantasy characters, and often classic fantasy fighters wear tons and tons of metal armor. If you want realistic data, go right ahead. Good luck doing that and I'm sure you'll enjoy doing it. However, I'm just pointing out why the system was made as is.
Nathreet 04-27-07, 12:22 AM	AC: You underestimate the value of AC. 1 point of AC often reduces hits taken by 10%. +3 does even more. Full Plate: Check out the armor check penalty. Now look at the skills that it applies to. Now put PCs in situations where they need those skills. Second, look how expensive it is. No common soldier could afford it. Only a heroic PC could afford it, which is actually typical of medieval times. AC scaling by level: It's a myth that AB grows faster. With standard wealth you can average a point of AC gained every single level, and it's far from a bad idea to spend the money to do so. That's just from equipment. Prestige classes, etc. might add more. AC boosters: armor enhancements, shield enhancements, ring of protection, dusty rose prism ioun stone. Get a variety, not just 1-2. An amulet of natural armor would allow an even faster AC progression than what I said, though I plan on giving my fighter an amulet of health. monk AC boosters: add on ring of force shield, bracers of armor, wis boosters, dex boosters, monk's belt. Monks usually get screwed in terms of AC, but characters with a very high dex and wis can actually get a higher AC than an armored character.
SkyOdin 04-27-07, 12:24 AM	Historically, a Norman Knight, with maille (chain) was finely protected. Very very rarely was one a casualty in the field. ... My issues are that armour seems ineffective, and plate armour is far too common. I don't think that plate armor is too common. First off, plate armor and chain mail armor did not really exist side-by-side. Plate armor evolved out of and replaced earlier chain armor. Chain armor was at its height in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries. Plate armor came to dominate the battlefield in later centuries. So, during the 11th century, every knight wore chain armor, while in the 15th century, every knight wore plate armor. D&D seems to most heavily emulate the 15th century, so it is perfectly reasonable for plate armor to be available. In any case, plate armor in D&D is hideously expensive for armor. The only reason it is common among PCs is that they are not only the cream of the crop as far as warriors go, they are generally stinking rich. As far as how protective the armor is, that is an interesting question. Full plate armor gives +8 bonus to AC, so a typical plate-mail wearing knight has an AC of 19 without magical augmentation. His AC is 20 with a buckler or light shield, which was more typical than a heavy shield in the late middle ages. That means that a level 1 warrior with no strength modifier has to roll a natural twenty to hit an armored opponent. That translates into a lot of survivability. Of course, many opponents are going to be higher level with higher strength scores, so the value of that armor goes down significantly. Of course, there were casualties in medieval battles. Casualties could always become heavy, no matter what armor people were wearing, if the battle became fierce. So I don't think armor should make people invincible.
Droma 04-27-07, 12:31 AM	I cast fireball. D&D is not meant to be historically accurate. Its meant to be fantasy. Learn to accept that and have fun.
Novacat 04-27-07, 12:32 AM	While as a player, I haven't yet gotten around to making a highly defensive character, I've created one or two such NPCs as a DM. A high AC is relatively easy to get, even at low levels. In the game I'm running, the group's cleric has an AC of 25 (+2 Full Plate, +2 Heavy Steel Shield, +1 Dex), and if she hadn't sprung for the Amulet of Retributive Healing (Magic Item Compendium), she would also have a Ring of Protection or even an Amulet of Natural Armor. Don't talk to me about it being hard to build up AC. And don't get me started on Good Incarnates and their crazy defensive abilities.
Nathreet 04-27-07, 12:43 AM	The cleric should have reduced the shield to +1 and bought a +1 ring of protection. 1000 gp saved. That's why it's always best to spread out your AC items.
Novacat 04-27-07, 12:51 AM	The cleric should have reduced the shield to +1 and bought a +1 ring of protection. 1000 gp saved. That's why it's always best to spread out your AC items. I think she was hoping to save both her ring slots for any rings the party finds.
Watchman 04-27-07, 06:53 AM	One thing I always earnestly loathed about the D&D system is the way a character's defensive abilities in particular are primarily a function of Monty Hauling enough suitable items. Bleah.
Forged_Fury 04-27-07, 07:40 AM	Historically <snip> Starting any thread on these boards with this word is always great fun. -FF
draconic_swine 04-27-07, 11:00 AM	I allow my players to switch the flavour of armours around if they want it, within certain limits. If, for example, you wanted your character to wear one of the lighter armours for the flavour but wanted more protection, I'd let you use the stats of one of the heavier armours that provide a few more points of AC. So a person wanting to wear a suit of studded leather but who gets the protection of chainmail is fine, whereas someone who wants to wear padded armour but gets the protection of full plate isn't. As long as you take all the drawbacks associated with one of the more protective armours (i.e., armour check penalty, maximum Dexterity bonus, speed, etc.), then it really doesn't matter what type of armour you envision yourself wearing. Wizards created a system with 12 different types of armour that are balanced with one another, and then tacked on some flavour as to what type of armour it is. If you keep the mechanics the same, I'm more than happy to swap out the flavour. I do the same thing for weapons.
tarkin 04-27-07, 11:27 AM	Historically, a Knight in Maille was finely protected against grunt weapons (knives, daggers, slashing sword). He did not do very well at ALL against a knight with a Mace/Morning star. Nor did he do well against a good Longbow man or crossbow man. Leather did well enough against knives, daggers, slashing swords, but not very well at all against a piercing weapon, and again, not well against a Mace/Morning Star Platemail offered good protectiong against everything, but even then a longbow arrow or a crossbow bolt at close range penetrated it, and enough blows witha mace/Morning star would kill the man inside. Platemail (once created) always and probably always will be the finest armor a man could purchase. The reason armies did not outfit their soldiers with it was the cost. PC's get so much cash, it does not matter to them.
Watchman 04-27-07, 02:06 PM	He did not do very well at ALL against a knight with a Mace/Morning star....and again, not well against a Mace/Morning StarWell, duh. Heavy maces were one of the most universal "antitank" weapons capable of taking down even fully armoured clibanarii and plate-clad men-at-arms with relative ease, and just about the only single-handed weapons capable of it. That mail - which had some blunt-trauma issues to begin with - and light nonmetallic armours did not stand up to them very well cannot really be counted as much of a demerit for those kinds of armours. Pretty much nothing did anyway, after all. Nor did he do well against a good Longbow man or crossbow man.Debatable. Good mail resisted arrows from even composite bows well enough to have been a very common and popular armour in post-Antiquity Middle East and Eastern Europe, although the addition of a shield to stop said arrows before they even got to testing the armour was heartily recommended. Crossbows only began to develop the sort of power to noticeably exceed that of good bows after the introduction of horn-composite staves, but then the rising draw weights also brought their own problems for reloading the things. Platemail (once created) always and probably always will be the finest armor a man could purchase. The reason armies did not outfit their soldiers with it was the cost."Platemail" is rather a misnomer, just so you know. Anyway I'm assuming you're talking about high-end full articulated harnesses, as lower-grade "munition" plate was certainly used by and issued to common soldiery en masse once the manufacturing processes allowed. What was regarded as the standard outfit of a fully equipped pikeman in the early 1600s for example was nothing short of a three-quarter plate harness... That was later ditched as largely redunant and too heavy and restrictive, in other words, not cost-effective, in favour of just a cuirass and helmet.
Stormbrand 04-27-07, 10:29 PM	The armor check penalty is a *** on heavy armors. Use and incorporate spells that force them. Sleet Storm is an excellent AoE that both blinds and forces DC 10 balance checks to move in. This means 1/2 move (10' for heavy armored) and then they must make a DC 10 balace or not move at all, failure by more than 5 is fall prone. One of the PCs in my campaign (radiant servant of Pelor) is always on his arse during combat within a sleet storm, effectively taking him out of the combat... imagine that, the healer is blind and immobile... you can imagine how nasty that can become. (eventually he might figure out to use Freedom of Movement, but i love watching him try to roll that balance check over and over and just get **** off at me). ----------------------------------- "Something which would not be reflected in +1 or +2 AC. Even +3 is very minor considering the effects of armour on the battlefield." To this i diasagree. A 16 and a 19 are VERY different ACs, and can easily mean the difference between life and death at low levels. A pouncing animal will tear into a low ac character, that is what makes monks so difficult to play, being they are glass canons at low levels. And yes finally i must make my last argument, while heavy armor was uncommon and difficult to use and very expensive and much better than leather, still in D&D there are crazy ass magical beasts and demons and such that never existed in our history... meaning that there are more armors distributed in that world. I love your suggestion regarding sleet storm. Most heavily armoured classes seldom put points in Balance so that would be really effective. At very low levels, yes - a few AC points make a difference. As levels rise, plate seems to be 'standard' so that maille becomes 'poor' protection rather than the original 'good' protection. AC: You underestimate the value of AC. 1 point of AC often reduces hits taken by 10%. +3 does even more. ---------------------------- AC scaling by level: It's a myth that AB grows faster. With standard wealth you can average a point of AC gained every single level, and it's far from a bad idea to spend the money to do so. That's just from equipment. Prestige classes, etc. might add more. AB grows at 1 every level (for combat classes) without equipment. That is not counting class features, feats, ability score raises etc. So you can spend your resources matching the free/automatic BAB improvement of a fighter, while anything he spends on improving his combat skill will put him ahead of you in the arms race. - Heavy focus on defence matches average front-line attack. One example was a 7th level fighter as a Norman Knight. Well, I would have made the 'standard' slightly lower but we can go with that. Attack bonus would be +12/+7, (+7 Base, +3 STR, +1 Weapon Focus, +1 Masterwork weapon) against an AC of 18 (+5 chainmaille, +2 heavy shield, +1 DEX). Attack is at a heavy advantage, even when including the shield. The effect I am after is for a maille armoured soldier to feel 'well-protected' against decent foes rather than 'poorly protected' as is standard in D&D. I don't think that plate armor is too common. First off, plate armor and chain mail armor did not really exist side-by-side. Plate armor evolved out of and replaced earlier chain armor. Chain armor was at its height in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries. Plate armor came to dominate the battlefield in later centuries. So, during the 11th century, every knight wore chain armor, while in the 15th century, every knight wore plate armor. D&D seems to most heavily emulate the 15th century, so it is perfectly reasonable for plate armor to be available. In any case, plate armor in D&D is hideously expensive for armor. The only reason it is common among PCs is that they are not only the cream of the crop as far as warriors go, they are generally stinking rich. As far as how protective the armor is, that is an interesting question. Full plate armor gives +8 bonus to AC, so a typical plate-mail wearing knight has an AC of 19 without magical augmentation. His AC is 20 with a buckler or light shield, which was more typical than a heavy shield in the late middle ages. That means that a level 1 warrior with no strength modifier has to roll a natural twenty to hit an armored opponent. That translates into a lot of survivability. Of course, many opponents are going to be higher level with higher strength scores, so the value of that armor goes down significantly. Of course, there were casualties in medieval battles. Casualties could always become heavy, no matter what armor people were wearing, if the battle became fierce. So I don't think armor should make people invincible. Early harness included maille, just as a side note. The example of the level 1 warrior with no strength bonus is more an example of a poor fighter than good armour. My guess is a semi-professional soldier would be Warrior 2, STR 14, WF in weapon of choice (+5 to hit) - a 1 in 4 chance of hitting said knight. Now a knight could have full plate (+8), heavy shield (+2), Mounted (+1 elevation), DEX (+1) for 22. Solid, but only against weak foes. Historically, a Knight in Maille was finely protected against grunt weapons (knives, daggers, slashing sword). He did not do very well at ALL against a knight with a Mace/Morning star. Nor did he do well against a good Longbow man or crossbow man. Leather did well enough against knives, daggers, slashing swords, but not very well at all against a piercing weapon, and again, not well against a Mace/Morning Star Platemail offered good protectiong against everything, but even then a longbow arrow or a crossbow bolt at close range penetrated it, and enough blows witha mace/Morning star would kill the man inside. Platemail (once created) always and probably always will be the finest armor a man could purchase. The reason armies did not outfit their soldiers with it was the cost. PC's get so much cash, it does not matter to them. This is perhaps in favour of armour = DR or the D20 Conan weapon/armour system.