Armor & Coins - please, No.

[Campbell]

Since NPC in 4e don't "really" wear armor -- they just have an AC appropriate to their level and role -- you can just describe the town guard as wearing studded leather or the local mercenaries as breastplate wearing roman-type dudes, and not bother with making sure they have on "real" armor.

This just falls into the category of "Who asked for this?". I really want to see WOTC's marketing surveys some time, just to see how many people said "There's too many kinds of armor" or "halflings are too short!"

(Lizard says, this was probably done to simplify the DDI virtual tabletop-- fewer armor types==fewer different models...)

I don't believe the design rationale for fewer armor types comes down to either user complaints or the virtual tabletop. If I had to guess I would assume they sat down and looked at the spread of AC values they were expecting and designed the armor types with that spread in mind.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

...sets us on the road to 1E-style AC bonus vs damage type, which no sane person wants.

If liking that is insane, then call me crazy, 'cause I adored that old weapon vs. armour type modifier table.

 

[Gort]

I do recall quite a few people saying there's too many kinds of armour, or at least not enough meaningful differentiation between armour types. But adding more meaningful differentiation sets us on the road to 1E-style AC bonus vs damage type, which no sane person wants.

My problem wasn't that there were too many types of armour, it was that there were too few types of armour you ever saw anyone wear. Everyone just seemed to gravitate to the one armour that gave most AC without restricting their class powers, which always seemed to be mithril chain shirts, mithril platemail, or mithril breastplates. Everything else was just inferior.

If 4E actually makes the different armour types relevant to the game (as in, there are advantages and disadvantages that actually matter enough to make people not just go for whetever gives the most AC) then it will effectively have MORE types of armour than 3E.

If liking that is insane, then call me crazy, 'cause I adored that old weapon vs. armour type modifier table.

I kinda liked the table, but I realise it'd be a giant pain to actually implement in-game - three different ACs instead of one. It'd be fine for a computer RPG, though, but it would further the "golfbag of weapons" problem, as people would have a sword for animals and a hammer for armoured guys.

 

[wingsandsword]

Here's a novel thought: it's not the job of the DM to fix bad game design. If the PHB has a lot of armor types that no one would choose to use after level 4, that's the designer wasting space in the core rules.

Here's another thought, there are many items in the rules that are generally only used in a narrow level band. Many armor types are significantly less used than others, but that doesn't mean they don't exist in the game world, and thus they should be in the rules.

What about 9th level spells that are only used at the very highest levels of the game. What about Great Wyrm dragons that are generally only useful to 19th or 20th level parties (at best) within the core rules? They are only really useful in a narrow level band, and there are probably more 1st and 2nd level parties played that might use studded leather or half-plate because it's the best they can afford for the time than there are that fight a Great Wyrm Blue Dragon.

Why should only the most "optimum" choices be presented? Not everything in D&D needs to be there just because it's the "best" choice. If in a fantasy world armors exist even though they are not the very best armors because they are are easier or cheaper to make, then they should be in there. Then again, that's my simulationist thinking going on, and D&D 4e is pretty openly made from a gamist perspective.

 

[hong]

that doesn't mean they don't exist in the game world,

This bit

and thus they should be in the rules.

does not necessarily imply this bit.

 

[ruleslawyer]

If liking that is insane, then call me crazy, 'cause I adored that old weapon vs. armour type modifier table.

Did you actually ever *use* it?

I used the (much-simplified) 2e version for a while, and even that got to be too much of a headache. Glad it's gone.

 

[Orius]

My thoughts:

No medium armor: honestly, this doesn't really seem to matter. Most of the time D&D characters tend to go for the same types of armor anyway, regardless of edition; the fighters and clerics get chainmail when they first start out and spring for plate when they can afford it, the thief...err I mean rogue wears leather, and the wizard gets no armor. This spread hasa leather, chain and plate, so yup, there's all the armor a party'll ever need.

Int bonus to AC: At first I was confused by this, but it hit me by page 3 or 4.

One word: wizards.

Think about it. Wizards never wear armor (ok unless they take a feat for it in 3.x, but why waste a feat on armor?). Consequently, they're AC 10 (plus Dex bonus) unless they have a bracers of defense/armor, +x ring of protection, robe of the archmagi, or some other magic item. By giving an Int bonus to AC, the wizard who probably has at least a 16 Int, doesn't need to dump the second or third (after Con) stat into Dex to boost his pathetic AC. It seems to fit what I know of 4e's design philosophies. I'm not sure if I actually like it, but I'd be willing to bet it's in there first and foremost to help wizard AC. That's why it's not Wisdom, clerics got the plate armor.

The special names are definitely bad. Are they there for copyrightable IP? Perhaps. You know what? I don't give a damn what WotC calls them, I'll use my own high-level special armors.

Platinum pieces: huh they went up again? I've never ever used pp in my games. I didn't even use electrum pre-3e. Electrum got converted to silver and platinum to gold. Even funnier, I never even noticed 3e pp was = 10 gp while I was still playing it. I converted all the pp I rolled up as 1 pp = 5 gp. Looks like I shortchanged my PCs a bit.

Astral diamonds: doesn't bother me. A currency for really high-end transactions in Sigil or the City of Brass actually makes sense.

 

[Imp]

If liking that is insane, then call me crazy, 'cause I adored that old weapon vs. armour type modifier table.

You did just make me remember the old types-of-insanity table from the back of the old DMG or somewhere.

 

[hong]

Int bonus to AC: At first I was confused by this, but it hit me by page 3 or 4.

One word: wizards.

Think about it. Wizards never wear armor (ok unless they take a feat for it in 3.x, but why waste a feat on armor?). Consequently, they're AC 10 (plus Dex bonus) unless they have a bracers of defense/armor, +x ring of protection, robe of the archmagi, or some other magic item. By giving an Int bonus to AC, the wizard who probably has at least a 16 Int, doesn't need to dump the second or third (after Con) stat into Dex to boost his pathetic AC. It seems to fit what I know of 4e's design philosophies. I'm not sure if I actually like it, but I'd be willing to bet it's in there first and foremost to help wizard AC. That's why it's not Wisdom, clerics got the plate armor.

That's what I said before! Not that anyone cares, because noone listens to meeeee

 

[UnsocialEntity]

To react physically to something, you need physical movement, obviously. Raising the shield, jumping out of the way, what have you. This movement cannot happen before a mental process has occured and the brain has stimulated the muscles into action, or rather, into reaction to the interrepted stimuli. This movement is represented by Dexterity.

Therefore, total reaction time = mental reaction + physical reaction.

Fighters train to develop reflex reactions during a fight, which means the synapse is occuring in the spinal cord instead of passing through the brain to get your muscles moving. Just thought it was worth mentioning that a trained fighter won't need mental reaction time for a lot of what he does, unless something really unexpected happened that he hasn't trained for.

More of a clarification than an argument, what you say is pretty accurate otherwise.