Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Keenath 09-17-06, 12:00 AM	I posted this originally on Equipment, but somebody suggested that the UA regulars may have more insight. I have a proposed houserule, and I want to see if anyone can find any massive problems with it. I'll explain the house rule, then discuss the logic behind it. House Rule: Flop the effects of wearing Medium and Heavy armors (and carrying medium or heavy loads). Medium armor does not decrease your base speed, but reduce running to x3 (or x4 with the run feat). Heavy armor reduces your base speed as per the charts. Reasoning: As written, Medium armor is the unwanted stepchild of the equipment list. You could *just about* remove it from the game and nobody would notice. The reason is obvious; Medium armor has all the most important penalties of wearing heavy armor and doesn't protect as well. Normally you either want heavy armor or light armor (due to armor check, proficiency, or class ability limitations). Low level warrior or clerical types sometimes use medium armor, but only until they get the cash for "real" armor. Druids sometimes use Hide armor, but, in my experience, they usually end up using Leather instead, because one point of AC isn't worth it. The Barbarian is the only core class that ends up really wanting to use medium armor, because it doesn't interfere with their class features, and even they often dump it in favor of light armor that won't remove their speed advantage. By switching the run and walk penalties around, medium becomes a more attractive option for characters who want something better than a chain shirt, but still value their mobility. Wouldn't that be something -- to see high-level fighters wearing medium armor? With this rule in place, you still wear light armor if you have class abilities that would be inhibited by anything heavier; you still wear light if you're worried about your armor check. But if neither of those are issues and you have the proficiency for it, going to medium is an attractive option.
Xeviat-DM 09-17-06, 12:51 AM	Very interesting ... so interesting that I'm just going to have to think about that for a while. Simple, eligant ... I like (an armor that adds up to 8 AC with a 2 max dex would be appreciated, though).
Keenath 09-17-06, 12:54 AM	Very interesting ... so interesting that I'm just going to have to think about that for a while.Thanks. Let me know what you come up with. Simple, eligant ... I like (an armor that adds up to 8 AC with a 2 max dex would be appreciated, though).Um... what does that have to do? And why those particular numbers? Full plate is already 1 point better than virtually any other armor out there. What does max dex +2 earn you?
Keenath 09-19-06, 01:01 AM	Nobody else? Dang...
Eaglos 09-19-06, 03:11 AM	So, unless your scenario involves lots or running your rule is useless ?! I think you need something more than that. The running penalty can be negated by some sort of magic.
Slapstick 09-19-06, 03:22 AM	Give heavy armor a penalty to initiative and reflex saves like in the good ol' days :) That'll make some sense, and medium armor becomes more attractive. Of course, expect your full-platet warrior to argue that this is unfair. - Slapstick
Keenath 09-19-06, 10:19 AM	Thing is, I'm not sure why Medium armor really NEEDS massive penalties. It's only good for one point of AC over light armor; if anyone's going to bother, it's going to have to be pretty painless.
Xeviat-DM 09-19-06, 09:06 PM	Um... what does that have to do? And why those particular numbers? Full plate is already 1 point better than virtually any other armor out there. What does max dex +2 earn you? A character with a 14 or 15 dex has no optimal armor to wear. A character with a 12 or 13 dex gets the same AC out of wearing full plate (19), but chainmail will put the 14/15 dex character down to AC 17, where a 16 dex character can wear breastplate for AC 18. Every other score can achieve AC 18, even 10/11 Dex (half-plate), but there is no optimal (and affordable) armor for 14/15 Dex (technically there is none for 12/13 Dex either, since banded, or is it splint, nets you AC 17). I'm going to suggest this fix to a few of my more rules savy players, see what their impression is (it will weaken mithril medium armor though).
a_psh 09-19-06, 09:21 PM	Looks like it should work just fine balance-wise. Medium armor is only +1 AC better than light armor (and at the cost of some Dex), so it really doesn't deserve to be the red-headed stepchild here. From a realistic perspective, wearing a lot of stuff on your torso isn't nearly as bad as having weight on your arms and legs (which makes it much more difficult to move and fight effectively). I think a character in a breastplate being able to move normally but not being as good a runner is pretty accurate as far as making mechanics reflect reality is concerned. From a flavor perspective, you should get a few more characters wearing breastplates or mail armor, which is nice if you're shooting for a world where some kind of metal armor is the norm among experienced warriors. So obvious yet so effective. Good rule!
darkwarrior42 09-20-06, 12:41 AM	At the risk of sounding like I'm just trying to start an argument, I would imagine chainmail would be far more difficult to wear than full plate. Full plate weighs 50 pounds, but full plate has its weight distributed across the entire body. Chainmail weighs 40 pounds, but all of that weight is distributed across the shoulders, meaning that it is far more tiring to wear. In midieval times, knights in full plate were actually more nimble and maneuverable than warriors wearing chainmail. It was just so much more expensive and difficult to make and maintain that it wasn't used quite as frequently. Of course, D&D is not particularly realistic anyways. In real life, if you tried to swing a greatsword like a baseball bat you'd be ripped apart 10 different ways before you could finish your swing. Makes for a great game though. As regards the houserule, I think it's a good one. An idea I've been toying around with is taking the max. Dex bonus value of heavy armor and applying it to everything, not just AC, but this might be simpler and easier.
a_psh 09-20-06, 01:09 AM	At the risk of sounding like I'm just trying to start an argument, I would imagine chainmail would be far more difficult to wear than full plate. Full plate weighs 50 pounds, but full plate has its weight distributed across the entire body. Chainmail weighs 40 pounds, but all of that weight is distributed across the shoulders, meaning that it is far more tiring to wear. In midieval times, knights in full plate were actually more nimble and maneuverable than warriors wearing chainmail. It was just so much more expensive and difficult to make and maintain that it wasn't used quite as frequently.To reference my point above, D&D's "chainmail" armor also covers the limbs, which, in addition to the weight indeed being mostly (I'm not sure you can say all) on the shoulders, definitely does make it a pretty heavy thing to run in (this is something I recalled after posting my little spiel). So, yeah, you definitely can't get anything near perfect realism from this stuff. But I think mechanically it's a good rule, and not altogether unjustified. You could also make chain a "heavy" armor with a +6 AC bonus and give scale the old chain stats.
Xeviat-DM 09-20-06, 01:43 AM	Chainmail weighs 40 pounds, but all of that weight is distributed across the shoulders, meaning that it is far more tiring to wear. Except that's why you wear a belt. The belt takes loads of the weight off your shoulders and puts it on your center. I wore a hauberk (chain shirt that extends down to mid thigh, short sleeves) during a convention, and when I wasn't wearing my belt the thing was horrible, but the belt made it very easy to wear. I'd have to ask my recreation buddies which armor slows them down more.
a_psh 09-20-06, 02:42 AM	I'd have to ask my recreation buddies which armor slows them down more.More? I'd guess most definitely plate. Anyway, I realize that this whole conversation is an aside since the OP mostly wanted to know about balance and such, but, going by the armor rules in The Riddle of Steel, which has a combat system endorsed as quasi-realistic (in the sense that it captures the "feel" of Renaissance combat more than in the sense that it, y'know, actually works like full-on reality) by the Association of Renaissance Martial Artists (yup, actually endorsed... weird, huh?), plate on your arms and legs hampers your movement and reflexes more than chain does. I'm sure they were also thinking a bit about game balance when they put this in, too, but it's realistic enough for that system so it'll probably do for D&D.
Eaglos 09-20-06, 07:34 AM	Give heavy armor a penalty to initiative and reflex saves like in the good ol' days :) That seems reasonable.
Keenath 09-20-06, 11:04 AM	To reference my point above, D&D's "chainmail" armor also covers the limbs, which, in addition to the weight indeed being mostly (I'm not sure you can say all) on the shoulders, definitely does make it a pretty heavy thing to run in (this is something I recalled after posting my little spiel). So, yeah, you definitely can't get anything near perfect realism from this stuff. But I think mechanically it's a good rule, and not altogether unjustified. You could also make chain a "heavy" armor with a +6 AC bonus and give scale the old chain stats. I was gonna comment on this, but you covered it -- realistically, maille (aka "chainmail") is going to be pretty hard to move in. On the other hand, it probably should have a lower armor check, because chain is much more flexible than most armor. But like you said -- realism isn't going to be all that possible, and this is more about balance and making all armors useful.
Keenath 09-20-06, 11:07 AM	That seems reasonable. See my previous comment. If you slap big penalties on wearing medium armor, nobody will use it, which defeats the purpose of the exercise.
a_psh 09-20-06, 11:51 AM	That seems reasonable.Light armor is already mechanically better than medium armor for most characters.
Slapstick 09-21-06, 03:33 AM	See my previous comment. If you slap big penalties on wearing medium armor, nobody will use it, which defeats the purpose of the exercise. I proposed penalties on heavy armor, not medium. It was a suggestion to make medium armor even more attractive, and in my opinion, it doesn't seem too unrealistic.
Eaglos 09-21-06, 04:07 AM	@Keenath Yes, the penalties were intended for the HEAVY armour not medium one. @a_psh I never choose armour based on stats and mechanics, I do not try to "win the game". My characters have tastes and preferances. Some like to stick with leather, others with hides. :)
a_psh 09-21-06, 05:02 PM	@a_psh I never choose armour based on stats and mechanics, I do not try to "win the game". My characters have tastes and preferances. Some like to stick with leather, others with hides. :)Don't you agree that it would be nice if you had a lot of choice without some options being clearly mechanically inferior to others, though? To know that whatever you picked, as long as it wasn't exceedingly incongruous like the world's fastest man inside a big tin can, would ultimately work out pretty good for your character?
JulesCARV 09-21-06, 08:06 PM	I like Keenath's houserule. Sounds simple, sensible, and balanced.
Eaglos 09-22-06, 05:45 AM	@a_psh This is our difference :) I do not look at mechanics at all when I am picking up armour or weapons. Eg I want to play a fighter with a maul and a hide armour. Character concept always comes first.:) But I guess that many players would agree with your logic :)
Keenath 09-22-06, 12:53 PM	I do not look at mechanics at all when I am picking up armour or weapons. Eg I want to play a fighter with a maul and a hide armour. Character concept always comes first.:) While I would hope most players do come up with a character concept first, it is not wrong to modify the concept for mechanical power. Your concept would mechanically be better as a barbarian, for example. I don't think it's desirable, or even POSSIBLE, to play the game without looking at mechanical advantage. Is your fighter stupid? Does he refuse to wear a breastplate even though it's clearly better defense than his home-made hide armor? Is he starting in hides because of a bad life, and then will upgrade at the first opportunity? (In that case, I'd have to argue that it is not character concept that made you pick the hides to start with, but back-story; clearly the hides are not integral to your character.) It's not metagaming to be aware that stronger armor is better; it's obvious to a school child that full plate is better defense than skins, so why should a character in the game be ignorant of that fact? Does he turn up his nose at a magical set of hides? What about a magical breastplate? At what point does "character concept" suddenly stop mattering and the mechanically advantageous armor become okay? There's no elite that you're qualified for because you "ignore mechanics". My character can be just as deep as yours, and still be mechanically superior; bragging that you never pay attention to the numbers implies that the alternative is somehow a lesser choice, and that's insulting.
Xeviat-DM 09-22-06, 01:55 PM	There's no elite that you're qualified for because you "ignore mechanics". My character can be just as deep as yours, and still be mechanically superior; bragging that you never pay attention to the numbers implies that the alternative is somehow a lesser choice, and that's insulting. Hear hear. A true warrior may turn down armor (conan often does, because it slows him down), but not if it is going to protect you.
a_psh 09-22-06, 11:46 PM	@a_psh This is our difference :) I do not look at mechanics at all when I am picking up armour or weapons. Eg I want to play a fighter with a maul and a hide armour. Character concept always comes first.:) But I guess that many players would agree with your logic :)I think you're missing the point: It's even easier to be the "roleplaying-first" guy (using these forum's naive but well-established definition of "roleplaying", which kind of stretches a term over a whole bunch of unrelated things) when the player beside you can't turn to you and say "Dude, you made a mechanically poor choice". Rebalancing all the armors such that they're all very close to equal in mechanical utility means you can pick the one that you think is cool and, whatever your choice, you won't suck. You don't even have to think about sucking or not sucking, because you can rest assured that, as long as your character has some semblance of a coherent idea behind it, it'll more-or-less just work. An ideal game mechanic for character-immersive roleplaying is one that doesn't require any kind of powergaming analysis 95% of the time. In other words: there's a big difference between being a mechanics-blind player and playing a game made by mechanics-blind designers. One's fun and immersive. The other is an exercise in pain and futility.
darkwarrior42 09-22-06, 11:52 PM	Hear hear. A true warrior may turn down armor (conan often does, because it slows him down), but not if it is going to protect you. And sentiments such as these are why I think all armors should be mechanically viable (and by all armors, I'm including none.) That doesn't mean that they should be equal, just viable. This is one reason I always kinda liked the armor as DR variant combined with class defense bonus; the idea that armored characters are slower and easier to hit but take less damage appeals to me. And while I do encourage players to think about concept first, I also encourage them to look at the numbers. I'd rather see a party be slightly less stylish, but not get killed by the first group of gnolls they run across. The trick isn't to abandon concept for numbers, but to look for ways to boost your numbers within your concept. In my opinion, if a player has a good idea for a character, the DM should do everything possible to make that character viable within the rules. Anyways, I think I might just be rambling at this point. I like Keenath's house rule, and the rest of my group agrees. We're going to start using it in our next game, so thanks! :D