Armor & Coins - please, No.

Wolfspider · Mar 9, 2008

Nytmare said:
?

Willowborn.

Or maybe the new 4e dryad.

Orius · Mar 10, 2008

epochrpg said:
I think my main issue here is w/ the coins being the same size AND weight. 50 gold coins weighs the same as 50 copper or silver coins? Silly. I guess the gold coins are much thinner...

Amusing. This rule (50 coins=1 lb.) has been the same since at LEAST 2e, maybe it even goes back to 1e. Heck, the little sidebar on coins is very similar to the same text in the 3.0 PHB and the original 2e PHB.

Sorry, but having 50 coins = 1 lb. is good enough for me. Seperate weights for cp, sp, gp, and pp based on the atomic densities of Cu, Ag, Au, and Pt is a bit too complicated for my taste.

ruleslawyer · Mar 10, 2008

It was 10 coins = 1 lb. in 1e, which is pretty ridiculous, but whatever.

I really, really wish 4e had gone with abstract encumbrance rules.

A'koss · Mar 10, 2008

ruleslawyer said:
It was 10 coins = 1 lb. in 1e, which is pretty ridiculous, but whatever.

What's ridiculous about it? Personally I like the meatier, 1.6 oz coins which is why I'm going back to the old standard for my 4e Greyhawk game...

Dinkeldog · Mar 10, 2008

Wolfspider said:
Warwillows.

Harry Potter had to go up against the Whomping Willow--I suppose a Warwillow could be related.

The_Fan · Mar 10, 2008

Nytmare said:
?

You win the internet.

Orius · Mar 10, 2008

ruleslawyer said:
It was 10 coins = 1 lb. in 1e, which is pretty ridiculous, but whatever.

I really, really wish 4e had gone with abstract encumbrance rules.

Hmm, I think that was the same as the Basic rules.

If people want a simpler system of encumbrance, just take a page from the 2e Skills and Powers book, and only count the character's armor and weapon against encumbrance.

Zaruthustran · Mar 10, 2008

Wulf Ratbane said:
Here's a novel thought: Don't give every player at the table everything he wants.

Easy there, Wulf. I'm talking RPGA games, where such DM fiat simply doesn't exist. If you've got the gold, and you've got the (commonly available) access, then you've got the armor.

Point being, 3E was mostly boiled down to just those three. That's no good. Variety--meaningful variety--is better.

With the improvements over level within each armor proficiency, you get more meaningful variety.

For example: in 3E you had light, medium, heavy armor proficiency. There is definitely a "best" armor in each proficiency, so the choice within each proficiency isn't much of a choice at all. In 4E you've got proficiency for each armor type, and the Light/Heavy split is a separate issue from proficiency. So if you're proficient in leather, that's great! Wear leather. Choose that leather to be soft buckskin, hard cuir bouilli, studded, whatever you want. In all cases it's Light armor, so you get to add your dex or int bonus.

Again, compare to 3E, where anyone and everyone with only Light armor proficiency is pretty much going to buy a mithril chain shirt or a mithril breastplate--those choices are just too mechanically superior to ignore. This results in a homogeneous (and visually uninteresting) party when mustering at the local con.

Wulf Ratbane · Mar 10, 2008

Zaruthustran said:
Easy there, Wulf. I'm talking RPGA games, where such DM fiat simply doesn't exist. If you've got the gold, and you've got the (commonly available) access, then you've got the armor.

Fair enough. I honestly hadn't even given RPGA a moment's thought.

Balancing the game to account for the peculiarities of RPGA play is an odd choice, even for WoTC. It falls somewhere between "impossible" and "irrelevant."

Of course, balancing the game for MMO play is a bigger concern, and many RPGA needs no doubt can piggy-back onto those changes.

(Yes, I said MMO-- nobody freak out. There's nothing wrong with wanting to see D&D as a successful electronic brand.)

Point being, 3E was mostly boiled down to just those three. That's no good. Variety--meaningful variety--is better.

(snip)

Again, compare to 3E, where anyone and everyone with only Light armor proficiency is pretty much going to buy a mithril chain shirt or a mithril breastplate--those choices are just too mechanically superior to ignore. This results in a homogeneous (and visually uninteresting) party when mustering at the local con.

Very good points. But again, having correctly identified the problem as "No meaningful choice" and still not convinced the answer is to throw away the meaningless choices, versus giving them some meaning.