Encouraging Light/no Armor

[Azlan]

By 2nd or 3rd level, player characters can easily afford masterwork studded leather or chain shirt, so the armor check penalty for those two armors become -0 and -1, respectively. This makes those two armors very popular among barbarians, bards, rangers, and rogues. If you're a halfling with a Dex 20, you go with the studded leather; otherwise, if you're have a Dex 18 or less, you go with the chain shirt. It's a no-brainer.

And what about clerics, fighters, and paladins - i.e. the heavy armor wearers? Well, by 2nd or 3rd level, they can probably afford full plate armor, so unless they have a Dex 14 or higher, they go with that. If they have a Dex 14 to 17, they go with masterwork breastplate. This, too, is a no-brainer.

And what about choosing between a mythril chain shirt and elven chainmail? "Let's see: Elven chainmail gives +5 AC, +4 max Dex bonus, -2 armor check Penalty, and costs $4150. A mythril chain shirt gives +4 AC, +6 max Dex bonus, no armor check penalty, and costs $1100. Well, hey! The choice is obvious, eh... ?" No elven hero would choose elven chainmail over a mythril shirt, so I wonder why elves even bother to make the former.

Sigh. I wish they'd address this issue in 3.5, which has been a glaring one among me and my players from the very dawn of 3rd Edition. But I doubt they will.

 

[Wolf72]

mutated OA feats

Armor Feats: each of these feats requires a specific armor feat to use properly (light, medium, heavy,
sheild). The feat chain only applies towards one type of armor (single types: chainmail, chainshirt, or half-plate are are examples) and must apply towards the same type of armor.

 Focused Armor (general, fighter) [by Wolf72]
You excel in the use of a particular armor or shield.
Prerequisite: appropriate armor feat (light, medium, heavy, shield)

Benefits: Choose one specific type of armor, you get -1 ACP and +1 max dex bonus. Shields only benefit from the –1 ACP.


 Armor Specialist (general, fighter) [by Wolf 72]
Your superior skill with armor allows you to use it more effectively.
Prerequisites: +3 BAB, Focused Armor

Benefit: With the specific type of armor you are focused you gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC (it stacks with other dodge stuff). You lose this bonus any time you would lose a normal dodge bonus.

Special: You do not need the Focused Armor feat if you want to specialize with a shield (buckler, small, large).

 Armored Mobility (general, fighter) [by Wolf72]
You are an expert at moving in heavier armors.
Prerequisites: +2 BAB, Focused Armor

Benefit: Armor counts as one category less for you (minimum of light). This allows you to move faster with medium armor (or use a ranger’s special abilities), or use the full run ability in heavy armor.

Special: This feat does not stack with any other ability that lessens the weight or encumbrance of armor, specifically mithral (a suit of mithral half-plate will not count as light armor).

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Something I've considered is a few feats:

Medium Armor Specialization (Fighter, General)

The character is adept at using Medium armor to its most protective effect.

Prerequisite: Medium Armor proficiency.
Benefits: When wearing Medium armor, the character receives a +2 Dodge bonus to his AC. Dodge bonuses stack with other Dodge bonuses, and are lost any time the character would lose his Dexterity bonus.

Heavy Armor Specialization (Fighter, General)

The character is adept at using Heavy armor to its most protective effect.

Prerequisite: Heavy Armor proficiency.
Benefits: When wearing Heavy armor, the character receives a +3 Dodge bonus to his AC. Dodge bonuses stack with other Dodge bonuses, and are lost any time the character would lose his Dexterity bonus.


(I envision this as a character being trained to shift slightly so that blows glance off along the plates of his armor -- hence it being a dodge bonus.)

 

[Vanguard]

Thanks for all the responses, they're very useful.

It's very interesting that you guys see light armor as being too good already whereas I've been seeing it as the other way around. I'm planning a FR game that will mostly take place in cities and amongst polite society. Since going to a noble soiree in full plate would be frowned upon (to put it lightly) I was trying to give the players something in return for taking away the option of wearing heavy armor (Ok, fine, they still have the option to try to wear their adamantine spiked full plate to the prince's dinner party, but it's really not that great of an option).

So you've all made it appearant that heavier armors are already mostly inferior to lighter armors, so no encouragement is necessary. However, this emphesizes my second problem: That attack bonus way outstrips armor class at mid and high levels. In my mind, two expert combattants should have at least as much trouble hitting each other as two novice combattants would have.

A warrior in training should be learning to defend himself as well as learning to attack. Therefore, it seems to me that the game mechanics should reflect that. Take two fighters at approximately lvl 15. Remove all magic items and any armor. Give each fighter a sword (or other weapon of choice). If the two fight, then we will be seeing many more hits than misses.

I simply don't see this as a realistic outcome.

Do any of you disagree with my analysis? Why?
If you agree, which of the strategies from my first post would be the best way to remedy the problem? Or is there some other way that I didn't think of?

 

[Spatzimaus]

So you've all made it appearant that heavier armors are already mostly inferior to lighter armors, so no encouragement is necessary. However, this emphesizes my second problem: That attack bonus way outstrips armor class at mid and high levels. In my mind, two expert combattants should have at least as much trouble hitting each other as two novice combattants would have.

BAB, in theory. corresponds to a normal, balanced attack style. Two expert combatants using this style SHOULD hit each other far more often than two novices, under normal conditions; after all, it's not like you can dodge that much better as an expert but you're far better at aiming.

However, the result is still the same:
> The experts are far less likely to take a critical amount of damage in one strike (i.e., they have more HP, so what would be a mortal blow to a newbie is just a flesh wound).
> They are also more capable of fighting defensively. A novice won't use Expertise or Fighting Defensively if they still intend to hit their opponent. So, the expert can sacrifice part of that attack bonus to improve his AC. If you view these swordsmen as dodging and weaving all the time (the only way defense would improve with level, nonmagically), then they should be using these options.
> They can also use part of that extra attack bonus to do more damaging blows (Power Attack). This helps offset the higher HP thing I mentioned above.

It may not make that much sense, but it's balanced pretty well. At high level, the tanks can hit pretty much anything, the only question is whether they can do enough damage to matter. That's part of why every tank I've ever seen takes Power Attack.

Thanks to magic, the AC of a high-level guy is far above that of a low-level one. In a zero-magic campaign, a guy in plate mail will stay at AC 18-20 for his entire career, but in a high-magic campaign it'll be Plate Armor +5 with a Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, etc. piled on. So, the AC of a fighter-type WILL scale well with level. The AC of a Wizard, on the other hand, won't.

d20 Modern uses a Defense bonus based on class levels, which you might want to consider for a low-magic setting.

 

[LostSoul]

You could strictly enforce Balance checks.

 

[Vanguard]

BAB, in theory. corresponds to a normal, balanced attack style. Two expert combatants using this style SHOULD hit each other far more often than two novices, under normal conditions; after all, it's not like you can dodge that much better as an expert but you're far better at aiming.

I disagree. I don't see how dodging has a limit to effectiveness but swinging a weapon does not. Furthermore, a D&D combat round is an abstraction of a series of maneuvers. These maneuvers include blocks and parries, which are a means by which an experienced fighter can avoid being hit.

Also, I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say that more hits than misses is a "balanced" combat style. Could you clarify please?

However, the result is still the same:
> The experts are far less likely to take a critical amount of damage in one strike (i.e., they have more HP, so what would be a mortal blow to a newbie is just a flesh wound).
> They are also more capable of fighting defensively. A novice won't use Expertise or Fighting Defensively if they still intend to hit their opponent. So, the expert can sacrifice part of that attack bonus to improve his AC. If you view these swordsmen as dodging and weaving all the time (the only way defense would improve with level, nonmagically), then they should be using these options.
> They can also use part of that extra attack bonus to do more damaging blows (Power Attack). This helps offset the higher HP thing I mentioned above.

I think what you're trying to say in this section is that ABs are higher than AC because you can trade them off to do other things.

This is true, but trading from AB to AC is too restricted under the normal rules. One of the options from my first post was to relax the restrictions. This is a good idea, but I feel like it should be used in addition to something the SW/WoT DB.

It may not make that much sense, but it's balanced pretty well. At high level, the tanks can hit pretty much anything, the only question is whether they can do enough damage to matter. That's part of why every tank I've ever seen takes Power Attack.

I can't argue with that. The current system is balanced reasonably well from a game sense, but seems strange when thought about logically. What I'm hoping to do is come up with a system with as good of balance, but which makes more sense.

Thanks to magic, the AC of a high-level guy is far above that of a low-level one. In a zero-magic campaign, a guy in plate mail will stay at AC 18-20 for his entire career, but in a high-magic campaign it'll be Plate Armor +5 with a Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, etc. piled on. So, the AC of a fighter-type WILL scale well with level. The AC of a Wizard, on the other hand, won't.

So a fighter must spend more of his treasure on AC to attempt to remain competitive with the AB of his peers than other classes?

Is the fact that the fighter must spend so much of his money on AC one of the balancing factors of the class?

d20 Modern uses a Defense bonus based on class levels, which you might want to consider for a low-magic setting.

Do you know if the d20 modern style Defense Bonus is different than the SW or WoT Defense Bonus?

 

[Technik4]

I remember a little something like this when the FRCS came out. People looked at the nemeses, Drizzt and Artemis and said "How could they possibly duel to a stand-still?". Both have very high attack bonuses, compared to their ACs.

1 explanation I heard and liked (I remember it to this day, after all) is that in a straight-up duel with no outside influence these 2 would both be using every defensive advantage possible. This means maxing their expertise, and fighting defensively. Some rounds if the opponent has a large advantage like just disarming you, or gaining some higher ground, forgoe all attacks for a full on defense until you recover that advantage.

Duels are very rare in d&d as it is usually gang-fighting. 4 heroes against 1 evil bad guy, 4 heroes against a mob of orcs and goblins, 4 heroes against 4 bad guys, in most scenarios both sides should be concentrating on 1 person (focus fire in Warcraft 3) although PCs usually do this, most DMs don't.

Technik