Armor & Coins - please, No.

[Orius]

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

Was it in this thread? I didn't see it anywhere. And I went back and looked.

I usually read what hong writes because it's usually good for a laugh.

 

[Spatula]

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.

You mean 10 different attack bonuses. Every weapon had a modifer to hit depending on AC of the target (2-10).

 

[delericho]

You mean 10 different attack bonuses. Every weapon had a modifer to hit depending on AC of the target (2-10).

I suspect you're talking about different editions. In 1st Edition, there was a modifier per weapon per AC. In 2nd Edition, this was simplified to a modifier per weapon type per armour.

In OD&D, I don't believe anything like this existed. I know it didn't in BD&D, and it was eliminated in 3e. Personally, although I like the principle behind the modifiers, I always found the implementation too complex to bother with.

 

[Jack99]

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

Did you guys hear anything? Ah well, maybe it was a horse or something....

 

[Ten]

I think it should be mentioned that these new armor types could EASILY be considered categories instead of specifics. Cloth armor includes clothing and robes as well as padded armor. You want studded leather? Wow, what do you know, your leather armor has studs on it! Chain shirt? That sounds like half a suit of chainmail that lets you dodge! Etc. Etc. Et al.

I don't know why, but it really gets my goat when people feel that the rule books stifle their creativity by taking out things they wanted or adding in things they didn't. Your creativity is lessened precisely how much you let it be, and not a drop more. I can understand how sick and tired it is hearing "you can houserule it" but it is always true.

The core books are all about what's under the hood at the end of the day, they always have been and they always will. They have just been so kind to offer all these (Sometimes neat, sometimes dorky) faceplates to make the inner workings more or less invisible and so you can have fun without thinking too hard. Don't like the default colors or patterns? Switch them out for your own as it doesn't affect a thing except cater it to your tastes. I think 3.5e was fairly modular on the whole, although it often took quite a bit of time to work those things out. I think 4e is shaping up to be even better for houserulings, as everything fits together MUCH more nicely. Don't like godplate? Call it Adamantine Fullplate.

 

[pemerton]

If you honestly believe that, it makes me sad. Einstein revolutionized how we view reality. No doubts about it. Space and time linked with mass? That's Einstein. I think most psychologists, even ones who think Freud had something to say and wasn't full of crap (which many believed then and now), will say that Einstein contributed more to humanity than Freud.

Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein: all natural scientists.

If anyone who is not a scientist is allowed to be on the list of revolutionary intellectual figures, than Freud ought to be. Whatever the truth of his psychological theorising, his impact on the self-conception of contemporary European and American human beings is utterly profound.

Whether or not he could take on pirates and win is another matter.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

The problem is, you can apply that same design criteria to spells (very much so), feats, weapons, classes, etc. That's not good design, either.

If the problem with the design is that there are no meaningful choices, the correct response is not to reduce the number of choices, it is to make more of the choices more meaningful.

If, after millions and millions of player/character iterations-- and believe me, that kind of design "crucible" will expose imperfections very quickly-- if we allow natural selection to drive the game, the game is just not going to be very interesting.

So, goodbye medium armor! Goodbye Murlynd's Spoon! Goodbye gnome, monk, the Endurance feat, and on and on.

 

[Gort]

You mean 10 different attack bonuses. Every weapon had a modifer to hit depending on AC of the target (2-10).

That sounds truly awful.

 

[Nytmare]

if we allow natural selection to drive the game, the game is just not going to be very interesting.

I don't think that it's possible for me to disagree with you more.

I can't imagine a system that doesn't benefit from a double shot of Darwinism.


EDIT - Ok fine, ASIDE from the ruling class of an anti-darwinian theocracy.

 

[3catcircus]

If 3.x had problems due to many armors not being worth the cost (in money, AC, and Dex), the answer is simple. House-rule it such that the armors become worth something. Then we don't need this silliness of 4e armor.