I hate armor

[Storm Raven]

Allow me to point something out: armor is very helpful. Yes, people don't want to wear armor in the heat, or while mountain climbing and so on, but it is protective. There's a reason why soldiers wore lots of armor throughout history, although (of course) they always had to make a choice between mobility and comfort and protection.

But wanting to be protected and not wear armor seems to me to be somewhat like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. (Yes, there are magical options that allow for protection without armor, but that's because it isn't magic). But to argue that the game should have some sort of mechanism to allow one to dispose of armor simply because it is inconvenient, while retaining all the protections seems like an argument to abolish armor as an effective tool.

No matter what hollywood shows, armorered warriors in the pre-gunpowder age had a huge advantage over those who did not. The game should, absent the effects of magic, reflect that.

 

[Morrus]

Allow me to point something out: armor is very helpful. Yes, people don't want to wear armor in the heat, or while mountain climbing and so on, but it is protective. There's a reason why soldiers wore lots of armor throughout history, although (of course) they always had to make a choice between mobility and comfort and protection.

But wanting to be protected and not wear armor seems to me to be somewhat like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. (Yes, there are magical options that allow for protection without armor, but that's because it isn't magic). But to argue that the game should have some sort of mechanism to allow one to dispose of armor simply because it is inconvenient, while retaining all the protections seems like an argument to abolish armor as an effective tool.

No matter what hollywood shows, armorered warriors in the pre-gunpowder age had a huge advantage over those who did not. The game should, absent the effects of magic, reflect that.

Well, it's a fantasy game, not a realism simulator. Jedi don't need armour; neither does Drizzt or Buffy or River Tam or Steven Seagal, or a thousand other fictional fantasy and sci-fi combatants. The "dodging" fantasy archetype is a strong one, and folks want to be able to play that archetype, just like others want to play wizards (which also aren't real).

Amour is important in the real world, yes. In a fantasy world, we have super-ninja types to whom it is not an advantage.

 

[ExploderWizard]

One thing about AC and armor that needs to be mentioned is that it is not the only protection available to the fighter. The biggest defense of the fighter is Hit points. Sure those 3 scrubs might run out and score a "hit" against a superhero in a linen shirt but that superhero will be hitting the scubs even more often armored or not. The high hit points of fighters allow them to outlast lesser foes.

 

[Freakohollik]

Have your fighters take 2 levels of monk. You gain your wisdom bonus to AC, improved grapple, +3 to saves, evasion, combat reflexes, and unarmed strike. It is one of the best dips in 3.5e. The wis bonus to AC also stacks with magic that provides an AC bonus. Ask your wizard buddy to cast mage armor on you or save your gp for bracers of armor.

If you don't like that, reflavoring as Morrus suggests is the other good option.

 

[jdrakeh]

Well, I should clarify. I don't hate armor, I hate the fact that my character is totally dependent on it.

So you hate that combat without armor is deadly? For me that seems like an application of observed phenomena, not a fault of the rules. I mean, as a general rule, combat without armor is deadly (in real life).

In addition, the over-reliance on armor encourages all sorts of nonsensical behavior, IMO. The idea of trudging through the wilderness, scaling mountains and creeping through forests in plate mail is silly, yet nothing can be done for it. Being burdened with 60 pounds of metal on a hot summer day makes no sense, but there is little choice; if you get ambushed, you're dead.

This, I'm a little more sympathetic to. As a DM, I impose high DCs for trying to hike several miles on foot, over difficult terrain, in plate mail. Indeed, this is what adjustable DCs are for (remember, the DCs in the PHB are examples only). Having actually worn plate mail and climbed mountains, I would deem any attempt to climb mountains while wearing plate mail to be impossible.

In my own games, the constabularies of large cities do not allow travelers to freely carry weapons or armor within, instead requiring that such items be checked at the gates. Only weapons that you can hide may be carried, and those have to be smuggled in (immediately making you a criminal). This tends to curb the use of lethal weaponry in large cities. There are exceptions, of course, and bribes can be paid — but these are exceptions.

Small towns can't enforce such a ban on weapons, of course, but in the place of such formal law, small communities have a shared distrust of outsiders that serves the same purpose. If somebody starts a fight with you in a small town and you kill the scum to defend your own life, you'll still be the one swinging from the gallows in the morning because that's how small town justice works. And just try fighting off a whole town.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

In my own games, the constabularies of large cities do not allow travelers to freely carry weapons or armor within, instead requiring that such items be checked at the gates. Only weapons that you can hide may be carried, and those have to be smuggled in (immediately making you a criminal). This tends to curb the use of lethal weaponry in large cities. There are exceptions, of course, and bribes can be paid — but these are exceptions.

Small towns can't enforce such a ban on weapons, of course, but in the place of such formal law, small communities have a shared distrust of outsiders that serves the same purpose. If somebody starts a fight with you in a small town and you kill the scum to defend your own life, you'll still be the one swinging from the gallows in the morning because that's how small town justice works. And just try fighting off a whole town.

What about knives? What do people eat with? And, much more importantly, what about the mage who knows Fireball? Do they make him check his brain at the gates? As for fighting off the whole town, if they're gonna string you up for defending yourself, destroying them is not an evil act. Did I mention Fireball?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What about knives? What do people eat with? And, much more importantly, what about the mage who knows Fireball? Do they make him check his brain at the gates? As for fighting off the whole town, if they're gonna string you up for defending yourself, destroying them is not an evil act. Did I mention Fireball?

Knives would be permissible- pretty much as they were under the RW peacebonding laws that inspired this- as would be similar tool/weapons...up to a certain size.

As for spells, a city that has peacebond laws would have analogs for spells. Perhaps anyone who casts a harmful spell that originates or terminates within city boundaries- without permission of law, of course- has committed a capital crime. Permission would be evidenced by an official Writ (akin to a gun license) or some kind of badge (you're a city official with authority).

In such a city, casters without a Writ or badge would be forced to wear a special armband or tabard while in the city...

Or perhaps they make certain you take an alchemical substance that dulls your arcane potential.

 

[Andor]

I think the objection is to the image of Joe Fighter kicking back in the tavern in full plate because if he takes it off kobold ninjas will leap out of his beer and attack him. This is a valid complaint.

There are several solutions.

1) Multiclass into something that can dodge or get AC by some other means, like swordsage or psiwarrior.

2) Exterminate all ninjas. Impossible for fighters due to poor spot skills.

3) Wear lighter armour in town. My Heavy AC characters usually have a set of light armour for use when they are not expecting trouble, but don't feel ninja proof. In fact in an online game my heavy armour knight is from a swampy area and only wears studded leather unless he actually knows he's going to be fighting, and expects it to be somewhere with nice solid ground.

 

[Storm Raven]

Well, it's a fantasy game, not a realism simulator. Jedi don't need armour;

Jedi have magic. Did you not note my "absent the effects of magic" comment?

neither does Drizzt

Drizzt has magic.

or Buffy or River Tam

No, they don't. They also have Joss Weedon supergirl plot immunity. And their abilities and fighting styles would be best represented in D&D with the monk class.

or Steven Seagal

Steven Seagal doesn't get hurt in his movies because Steven Seagal usually choreographs the combat in them, and Seagal is of the opinion that he is personally the most awesome fighting man ever. He'd also be best represnted by the monk class.

or a thousand other fictional fantasy and sci-fi combatants. The "dodging" fantasy archetype is a strong one, and folks want to be able to play that archetype, just like others want to play wizards (which also aren't real).

And you can play that in D&D. You need to play something like a monk to do that. But armor is very useful for protecting people in reality (much more useful than the game makes it actually), and the game should reflect that. Whining that your character is better protected using armor than he is when he is not seems to me to be like whining that swords hurt you when they hit you.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Well, it's a fantasy game, not a realism simulator. Jedi don't need armour; neither does Drizzt or Buffy or River Tam or Steven Seagal, or a thousand other fictional fantasy and sci-fi combatants. The "dodging" fantasy archetype is a strong one, and folks want to be able to play that archetype, just like others want to play wizards (which also aren't real).

Amour is important in the real world, yes. In a fantasy world, we have super-ninja types to whom it is not an advantage.

So make that archetype represented by the scout. Strongly encouraged to not wear heavy armor (by the proficiencies) and to move around a lot (by skirmish) which ties in to the major real-world reason for any combatant not wearing heavy armor (it in general tends to reduce your mobility, though perhaps not as much as commonly assumed). This does *not* mean that no armor is always just as good as having armor. It gives the lightly-armored combatant a particular in-game advantage based on their real-life advantage. If there isn't room to move, that advantage mostly disappears, as it should.

As I see it, the game takes its influences from medieval history (in which armor is essential), ancient myth (in which it matters somewhat) and more modern fantasy (in which it matters less). Frankly, I'm fond of game rules which pay at least some respect to history with regard to the non-magical aspects. I'm not fond of games which entirely throw history and realism to the wayside in favor of "this looks cool in the movies." One of my favorite things about D&D is that, because of the dice, it is *not* cliched in the way that movies are and can be much cooler; Redshirt #2 can get the killing shot on the BBEG.

My preference for a certain type of realism is why I also dislike a large level-based AC bonus. A trained warrior, no matter how skilled, should be capable of being overwhelmed if caught unprepared and surrounded by armed opponents. Having a high-level fighter's avoidance of harm represented by HP allows the "wearing down" in that situation, whereas having it represented by both HP and level-based AC bonus can make him nearly impervious. I do like the Deflect mechanic from the Master Set, which allows a master swordsman to parry a few attacks per round, but not an unlimited number.