Awfully Alarmed About Armour

[Votan]

I am beginning to think that the whole problem is the Armor restrictions to dexterity to armor class. At some point in 3E there was a decision made to make shields and armor less effective. They did this by capping the dexterity bonus to armor class (for armor) and limiting the number of opponents that can be affected by a shield. This did two things. One, it complicated combat for not really a whole lot of reward. Two, it strengthened every class that does not use armor for defense.

But, at the same time they removed scaling from attributes like dexterity and constitution. In 1E/2E, the AC defense due to high dexterity stopped increasing aftyer 18 (at -4) until 21 (-5) and 24 (-6) with 25 being an absolute cap on a score.

This made dexterity (which could increase to very high values even in regular play -- 15 base + 5 levels + 5 tome + 6 item +2 race= 33 being perfectly possible) a better defense than armor.

But this was a bad solution to the problem. First, it overcomplicated things (when simple was better). Second, most of the extreme AC issues were caused by +5 shields stacking with +5 armor. Remove that and a lot of the issues vanish as well.

So I think the thing that I am the most reactive to are the unnecessary dexterity caps on armor. Most of the issues would naturally vanish if you removed that (not easy to defend) construct. Even the low AC values in the playtest would work fine.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

So I think the thing that I am the most reactive to are the unnecessary dexterity caps on armor. Most of the issues would naturally vanish if you removed that (not easy to defend) construct. Even the low AC values in the playtest would work fine.

Trust me, if I thought for one second that I could successfully argue that the appropriate AC penalty for wearing armor was zero, that's would I would be doing.

 

[BobTheNob]

What about if (and Im just spitballing this one) we allowed that heavy armor used Str in place of Dex. Then heavy armor is a modest increase better than light.

That way your Fighter Heavy+Str gets a higher AC than your rogue Light+Dex, but in both cases its linked to stat (which Im fond of, since toHit is linked to stat)

 

[Campbell]

Really all you need to do is let Dexterity mod apply to armor, but require a Strength score prerequisite for wearing heavier armor. As an added bonus this would help justify medium armors. It's useful for high dexterity characters who invest in strength over constitution (skalds and finesse fighters) and high strength mobile skirmishers (say hello ranger and barbarian) who invest in dexterity. Of course there might be issues with fighters who manage to pull off 18s in both strength and dexterity, but I'm of the opinion that you balance for the typical not the extreme.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

What about if (and Im just spitballing this one) we allowed that heavy armor used Str in place of Dex. Then heavy armor is a modest increase better than light.

That way your Fighter Heavy+Str gets a higher AC than your rogue Light+Dex, but in both cases its linked to stat (which Im fond of, since toHit is linked to stat)

That tends to cause mono-stat min/maxing.

If heavy armor makes strength an uber-stat it ends up causing problems in the long run.

 

[Votan]

Really all you need to do is let Dexterity mod apply to armor, but require a Strength score prerequisite for wearing heavier armor. As an added bonus this would help justify medium armors. It's useful for high dexterity characters who invest in strength over constitution (skalds and finesse fighters) and high strength mobile skirmishers (say hello ranger and barbarian) who invest in dexterity. Of course there might be issues with fighters who manage to pull off 18s in both strength and dexterity, but I'm of the opinion that you balance for the typical not the extreme.

I think that this would work. The extremes might be problematic but they have been problems in every edition. Die rolling systems like 4d6 (drop lowest) are extremely unlikely to give two 18's, and even then it would be a major investment to put them in strength and dexterity (and major investments should have some rewards).

 

[Campbell]

I think that this would work. The extremes might be problematic but they have been problems in every edition. Die rolling systems like 4d6 (drop lowest) are extremely unlikely to give two 18's, and even then it would be a major investment to put them in strength and dexterity (and major investments should have some rewards).

The other bonus to this schema is that it would remove one of my personal verisimilitude bugaboos - Clerics with an average strength wearing medium/heavy armor effectively.

 

[Derren]

The other bonus to this schema is that it would remove one of my personal verisimilitude bugaboos - Clerics with an average strength wearing medium/heavy armor effectively.

Except that heavy armor is actually pretty light.

 

[B.T.]

According to my Wikipedia knowings, a suit of plate armor weighed around forty-five pounds. I would suggest that encumbrance rules handle the issue Strength required to wear armor. Adding Strength to AC is almost completely dissociated and thus a terrible rule.

 

[Gorgoroth]

I agree

str bonus to ac is a terrible idea.

I think plate should give a -2 to hit, even WITH training and the appropriate strength. Try boxing a few rounds in your shorts, then try the same wearing a winter ski suit. 45 pounds, even perfectly distributed around your body, in the midst of life-threatening combat (or even sports combat), would cause you to drain stamina like crazy. Maybe with years of training...but the same guy not wearing armor should hit more often. (but get killed faster too, in trade).

Fighters or those with a certain theme could offset that penalty.