Armor Redone [Final Draft v1.1]

[seasong]

I would agree but Dex is too powerful. An archer doesn't have to rely on str, neither does a rogue, or a dex-based fighter.

Don't forget that armor's impact on DEX is ONLY on the AC aspect. A high-DEX fighter can wear heavy armor, as long as the movement rate isn't a strong requirement.

Right now, in 3.0e, any of those characters get too much mileage out of Dex (imo).

Most of the mileage they get, is not reduced by heavy armor.

Also, their movement is a severe disadvantage in combat. If you roll 2d6x10 to determine the distance of the encounter (then roll spot checks to see if either gets a surprise round, re-rerolling 2d6x10 if neither side notices) the encounter will frequently be 50+ feet away. Which means the tank is going to have to make a double move or draw a ranged weapon to start fighting. The dex-based character is either an archer or rog/ftr and can practically charge ahead.

This is an argument method called stacking the deck . If you roll 2d6x10 to determine your encounter distances, I would not play a melee fighter in your campaign. Unless he was a monk. And maybe not then. You do realize that there is only an 8% chance of a melee fight, right?

I would build a heavy armor archer. That +1 AC, at range, can really mean something. And there's no reason for me to have a higher strength than the minimum to carry the armor easily, so I can have the same 18 DEX that the light armor fighter has - remember, the Max DEX doesn't apply to anything but the AC bonus. The only disadvantage to this method is when they move up close to you... and here, weapon finesse to the rescue!

The only reason to use a lighter armor is because it's cheaper to buy and against enemies with touch powers. If your GM regularly stacks the deck with touch-attack enemies, then of course my analysis would change - but that's a campaign specific trend, since the rules make touch powers something you have to work to get. And it's just another good reason to be an archer.

With an AC almost that of the heavy fighter, with a comprable attack bonus, with a better initiative score, with a higher movement, the only lack they really have is damage (which is only slightly lower than a sword+board fighter).

1d8+4 vs 1d8+1 is about 50% more damage. You don't find that significant? I mean, I'd go archer anyway, which makes it a moot point, but I think that's decently significant.

 

[Technik4]

2d6x10 is what we always used to determine encounter distance for outdoor encounters. I can't find the rule now (always have problems finding things in dmg...) but we didn't come up with it ourselves. In an outdoor setting (especially forests) movement is huge. I would personally never play an archer with heavy armor (not even mithril heavy).

Even in a dungeon heavy armor can be a factor, I remember one of the rooms in the freeport modules had a trap room where you roll balance checks to keep your footing, after 5 rounds the whole floor tilts down to some chopping blades. Needless to say, the cleric in full plate was pretty screwed as soon as it happened (failed balance check). The Armor Check Penalty can be a big factor.

The problem isn't that heavy armor reduces the power of dex, the problem is that there becomes no reason to use heavy armor. The breadth of light armor is from 1-4. Medium armor caps at 5! (only 1 higher than the best light armor) and heavy armor at 8. The real issue is how medium armor takes a penalty to movement for at most 1 AC. Light and Heavy armor have good AC progressions, but medium wallows at slightly higher AC than light armor.

The heavy armor progression is better, but I believe full plate should be +10 by itself. However, mechanically I also like every armor for each category improving by 1 (as it does for the light category already).

While 1d6+1 (rapier) vs 1d8+4 (longsword) is significant (also note the threat difference), but I believe that mobility, armor check penalty (which is much more severe for heavy armor), weight, and cost are also significant, and when added up make light armor too favorable.

Technik

 

[seasong]

To clarify (and modify) my position:

1. Heavy armor is balanced against light armor. I still stand by this .
2. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem with it.

The problem, I think, comes into the price. Heavy armor is more expensive, and you should get something better for that, not roughly equal. Your 3rd level fighter example was a good one, and the reason why is because the chain shirt guy could afford a +1 and the full plate guy couldn't... at which point, the cost of the full plate made it less good.

Anyway, the more I look at it, the more it needs something to improve it relative to light armor. So consider this a retraction, and now I'm ready to start discussing the house rules themselves (sorry ):

Light armors

The Max DEX here gets ridiculous. Also, the final maximum for the AC drops as the price rises. A DEX range of +7, +6, +5, +4 would keep the maximum AC even, while still not mattering to anyone but a 16th level elf archer.

Medium armors

Here, the maximum AC goes up; the max DEX also remains more stable, which I can only see as a good thing. There's no reason to yank the rug out from the breastplate, though - I'd leave it at Max DEX +3.

Heavy armors

The DR 1/- is interesting. I like it!

Full plate, at 4x the price of banded, only provides a +1 advantage. Half plate provides no advantage at all, by your own description. Leaving the Max DEX at +2 would have a better effect, as would leaving it as you have it, but increasing the DR to 2/-.

In an outdoor setting (especially forests) movement is huge. I would personally never play an archer with heavy armor (not even mithril heavy).

You would also personally never play a melee fighter with heavy armor, if I've heard you right . And I would agree an archer in heavy armor is normally best for a teamwork party... but he can really rack up kills in such a situation.

 

[Wolf72]

(wolf has link to his armor rules in 2nd post)

I used DR 1/- [heavy armors] ... it was very quick and simple, very easy to implement.

I gave full plate DR 2/- and used the DR 1/- for field plate (cheaper) ... for nostalgia's sake.

 

[mmu1]

The problem, I think, comes into the price. Heavy armor is more expensive, and you should get something better for that, not roughly equal. Your 3rd level fighter example was a good one, and the reason why is because the chain shirt guy could afford a +1 and the full plate guy couldn't... at which point, the cost of the full plate made it less good.

And you do get "something better for it" - you get +8 AC instead of +4 AC. That's been the problem with this write-up from the very beginning - treating the other +4 AC someone in a Chain Shirt might get from 18 Dex as if it was a freebie of some kind, an afterthought.

Full Plate lets you spend 1500 gold to have a better AC than Chain Shirt Guy gets for putting an 18 into Dex - and while there are penalties associated with it, the huge advantage Full Plate Guy will end up with in either damage dealt or Hit Points and Fort. saves more than makes up for the loss of movement and the hazards associated with situations requiring the use of Balance or Swim. (assuming you play in a traditional D&D game - if your campaign takes place on the high seas, or something, that's a different story)

Also, the extra cost of Full Plate currently only makes a difference at very low levels - once you're past 3rd or 4th, the "lead" Chain Shirt Guy developed by being able to get +1 armor a level earlier dissappears completely.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

The only reason to use a lighter armor is because it's cheaper to buy and against enemies with touch powers.

...plus armor skill check penalties, Arcane Spell Failure (which nobody ever chances, but, logically, there's probably little reason not to wear light armor if you're a multiclass spellcaster, particularly if you're primarily buffing or the like), and movement penalties.

 

[Technik4]

mmu1:

I think I understand where you are coming from, so lets try this. Using point buy you pick your ability scores, assuming equal Con between 2 front-line-based characters (melee) the real difference will show up in Str and Dex. There are the high str ftr/barbs then there are the high dex ftr/rogs. There are also regular straight fighters that can play either role, as well as regular barbs going for str and regular rangers going for dex.

So, one concentrates on Str, thus enabling heavy armor. One concentrates on dex, which implies lower damage, finesse, possible duelist, etc. We are talking melee characters here, so Attack Rolls between both characters should be equal if the finesse character spends a feat on Weapon Finesse (the same feat will probably be Power Attack for the str-based).

However we are talking armor class not damage output, its just important to note that there is an inherent damage advantage by the high str character. The melee finesse's inherent advantage lies in a higher touch AC (if in armor with a good max dex), a higher initiative bonus, and a better reflex save.

Now we come to armors. As seasong pointed out, a dex-based character can wear heavy armor, but more than likely is willing to spend the money on mithril armor and due to mithril costs, probably medium armor (thus retaining 30 ft movement). The str based fighter knows he has little dex, and will therefore get the best armor he can afford (best meaning highest AC). This will end up costing the str-based fighter more in the early levels, but will stabilize to be almost meaningless at high levels.

The problem lies with the str fighter. He doesn't get enough bang for his buck on the AC front. He still retains the large damage advantage, but that is more a function of his strength being high (which was a result of him putting a lower score in Dex in the first place).

If d&d went on with improving armors up to the +10 full plate range, then yes your estimation would be one I would agree with. But it doesn't [Non-Epic]. Most armors dont get more than a +5 enhancement bonus, and that only at the highest levels. This means that the base AC is very important, and if the chain shirt user can get the first 2 of those bonuses more early than the full plate user, thats a large advantage.

Making the assumption that the Chain Shirt wearer has an 18 dex has only been made with an equal assumption that the Full Plate wearer has an 18 str and will be doing more damage. The problem is that the chain shirt wearer can get a higher AC, especially if the full plate wearer has a 2-h weapon.

Seasong:

Glad to see I've turned you to the dis-satisfied side Anyway, yes max dex bonuses are part of the problem. My analysis started with the premise that I would "nerf" as few armors as possible, thus generally allowing everyone to play with what they already have, possibly gaining bonuses (for med + heavy armors).

As far as altering the Max Dex bonuses, your alterations on light armors will have little effect, as Chain Shirt is really the big offender of being "too good". I considered knocking it down to +3 AC (same as studded leather), and have made changes reflecting this in the above system.

This way full plate maxes at +10, which is a couple points better than it is now (instead of 4, which is excessive).

Again, mostly the system is the same as 3.0e, with a few alterations to improve later armors (esp Chainmail).

Technik

 

[Centaur]

I like the idea of introducing some sort of DR for the heavier armors. It is a quick and easy fix to make them more effective than they currently are.

Another thing to consider is changing the MAX DEX stat to be a DEX PENELTY. This way, even if the character has a realy stupid dexterity score, he may get some of it while wearing the heavy armor. Of course this penalizes people with decent dexterity scores wearing medium or light armors. It's a trade off but worth looking at.

 

[mmu1]

I still think you're underestimating the disadvantages associated with playing a high-Dex / low-Str (or Con) character, and basically giving the heavy-armor crowd an early Christmas gift, but your current AC progression is better designed (with more reasons to take the various armors) and a lot more balanced than the initial draft... It might be the fix your game will benefit from, but I don't think it's really what 3E in general requires.

Incidentally, I really like the change to shield ACs - not having enough reasons to go with sword-and-board instead of two-handed weapons, and the general uselesness of small shields (compared to much lighter bucklers) are both things that could use a fix.

 

[the Jester]

Hmm, interesting.

I haven't had a problem with armor and AC (and my campaign has characters as high-level as 19th in it, one of whom has been 3e and one of whom has been 2e to 3e). In the main group of pcs, the best two ACs go to the heavy armor-wearing dudes (ACs are 31 and 28), but the tricksy folks can magic it up to much better than that (sometimes low 40's) for short periods. The two highest-level pcs are tricksy ones, so it's not simply who's highest-level (& richest) that has determined AC.

I have, however, reflected that shields need a tiny boost. I've considered what you propose for shield bonuses before, but I'm trying hard to be conservative with house rules in 3e. Especially with the revision coming out- I guess I'm curious to see what was broken enough to warrant fixing, and I'm hoping they'll catch all the little things I'd never noticed but that look obvious in retrospect.

Your system is interesting; I don't think it would break anything in standard dnd, and I think it would be great for a low-magic system- in fact, if you don't mind I might 'borrow' it for a forthcoming plane travel game I've got coming up (low magic environment- eek!)