Awfully Alarmed About Armour

[Drowbane]

Damage reduction against piercing, slashing or bludgeoning seems quite interesting.

3e lightly touched upon this, but only for certain monsters - not for armor.

In 2e (and maybe 1e?) there was an optional Armor Type vs Weapon Type table. Slashing weapons beat leather, bludgeoning beat chain, piercing beat plate... or something like that. Back in the day we only tried using this once or twice and dropped it as overly complex... so I can't really say as to how useful it was.

It might work nicely as DR.

 

[Fenes]

It comes down to those without magic weapons not being up to par. That's not a good idea if you want players to care less about magic weapons.

 

[slobo777]

3e lightly touched upon this, but only for certain monsters - not for armor.

In 2e (and maybe 1e?) there was an optional Armor Type vs Weapon Type table. Slashing weapons beat leather, bludgeoning beat chain, piercing beat plate... or something like that. Back in the day we only tried using this once or twice and dropped it as overly complex... so I can't really say as to how useful it was.

It might work nicely as DR.

I remember that table well, and used it briefly. The main issue it had is that it compared manufactured weapons versus manufactured armour, so in a monster-bash made little difference.

Rolemaster took this concept to extremes, and you had a table of all armour types with combat results for a certain score, for each indivisual weapon type (including sub-categories of tiny, small, medium, large etc bites and claws!) There were books and books of them . . .

I really like the idea though that it *matters* what sub-type of armour is worn, and that it's a choice of strengths and weaknesses when comparing e.g. leather with a chain shirt. If there's just one simple "best" for each of light armour and heavy armour, with progression and throwing away of old kit, then I think we lose a little richness from the game. I'd really like armour choice to be as much fun as weapon choice for the classes that use it.

Edit: Actually an "arms and armour" supplement with feats by weapon type and armour type, fighting style etc, sounds a lot like a player-side module with e.g. the simplified character in "heavy" armour fighting alongside another character where the player cares that it's scale armour, and has a special ability versus slashing attacks (for a feat cost, or in return for some reasonable known defect of scale armour).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

3e lightly touched upon this, but only for certain monsters - not for armor.

In 2e (and maybe 1e?) there was an optional Armor Type vs Weapon Type table. Slashing weapons beat leather, bludgeoning beat chain, piercing beat plate... or something like that. Back in the day we only tried using this once or twice and dropped it as overly complex... so I can't really say as to how useful it was.

It might work nicely as DR.

I know about that table, but adding and subtracting from AC was a bit annoying.

Instead adding damage reduction vs certain types would be a simpler mechanic.

So light armor could give DR vs no type, medium vs one and heavy armor vs two types.

 

[erleni]

I'm not against DR but we should see how it works with monster's damage at higher levels.
DR 2 is a big difference if a monster deals 1d4 damage but if it deals 3d10+8 then it's another matter.

 

[The Red King]

True, keep in mind that this is still a work in progress.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would leave the armor as is, give the med armors all dr of 1 or 2 vs any attacks targeting AC

Then do the same with heavy armor but make it 3-5 pts

Make magic + armor add both AC and dr

 

[KidSnide]

Sure. I'm eliminating medium armor for the simple reason that, with heavy armor being 1/2 DEX, there's no conceptual space between light and heavy.

I agree with your overall analysis, but disagree with this particular point. Medium armor doesn't have to work differently than heavy armor. The conceptual space for medium armor is "like heavy armor, but not as good." The purpose of medium armor is to create classes (like the cleric) that need better protection than can be found in light armor, while still providing classes (like the fighter) that have even better protection.

- - -

I would also like to see all armor types have a "prestige" form of mundane armor that is (a) better than the other armor of that weight class and (b) sufficiently more expensive that it's not available to most 1st or 2nd level characters. This usually exists as "full plate" for heavy armor, but light and medium armor should also have "elven chain" and "mithral breastplate / dragon scale" to allow those characters to likewise strive for better equipment.

There may also be room for "tradeoff" armor that provides marginally better protection but with some kind of detriment. Platemail sometimes fills this function for heavy armor (e.g. by providing no dex bonus). I'm not sure what an appropriate penalty would be for light armor.

And, of course, each armor weight class should include "crap" armor that is for use by the impoverished, technologically under-advanced or otherwise underequipped. PCs aren't expected to use this armor (except for characters starting as peasants or after suffering a serious financial misfortune), but it's important to have in the world so players can recognize under-equipped NPCs (like many humanoid monsters) when they see them. It also lets DMs equip their NPCs realistically without providing a ton of valuable armor and weapons for PCs to loot.

-KS

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I agree with your overall analysis, but disagree with this particular point. Medium armor doesn't have to work differently than heavy armor. The conceptual space for medium armor is "like heavy armor, but not as good." The purpose of medium armor is to create classes (like the cleric) that need better protection than can be found in light armor, while still providing classes (like the fighter) that have even better protection.

Deliberately sub-optimal armors for people who don't have Heavy Armor proficiency or good Dexterity? Yeah, I guess I can see that-- as long as you're willing to accept it as red-headed stepchild armor that nobody wears if they have a choice. Or if Fighters/Paladins can choose (as a class feature, at mid-level) whether to be able to treat Medium Armor as Light or to gain additional bonuses from Heavy Armor.

My main point of concern is ensuring that there are compelling mechanical reasons for the existence of each armor type-- including "it's cheap", "this is the best I'm allowed to wear", and "I get special bonuses from it".

So fighting naked is for Wizards (who can't do better) and Monks (who get special bonuses). Light Armor is for characters who need freedom of movement, even at the expense of better protection. Medium Armor is for people who can treat it like Light or who can't wear Heavy. And Heavy Armor is just the best protection available for anyone that isn't a Half-Djinn Githzerai.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

It comes down to those without magic weapons not being up to par. That's not a good idea if you want players to care less about magic weapons.

Being "up to par" is determined by how "par" is set.

The way 4e set "par" magic items with bonuses of +1 per 5 levels were necessary in order to meet it. If the PCs did not have those magic items (or the equivalent bonuses from another source) they were not "up to par."

5e is supposedly setting par at a point were characters do not need magic items to be "up to par." Having magic items will be an advantage and not a necessity. In theory you could run a game with totally mundane equipment and the characters would be fully effective.