Armour Dilemma: Am I Wrong Here?

[fusangite]

Thanks, Deadguy. I really appreciate you elevating this discussion and reintroducing some civility. I really appreciate your intervention. The style of play that you describe is one with which I'm familiar; before I returned to D&D, I had spent 4 years running very rules-light games in which there were no rounds, time was fluid, etc. While I found this style gave the players the illusion of boundless free will, I found that it was almost impossible to deviate from the general storyline I'd set up even though they could change specifics thereof. I eventually got tired of that particular narrative balance and decided to return to a heavily codified gaming system for a while.

I returned to heavily codified gaming, in part, because I wanted to work with different players who enjoyed tactics and were alienated from the hyper-intellectual story- and puzzle-focused games I had been running. And also because I wanted to create a different kind of narrative dynamic with the players which, while it appeared on the surface to entail narrower storylines and less power for the players, in fact, delivered a different kind of power to the group in the narrative dynamic.

Last episode, for instance, I really didn't want the duke to die; in a more fluid system, like the one I ran until 2001, the duke would have somehow been able to escape the PCs' unexpected assassination attempt and continued with his plan. But in D&D, the PCs' employment of sound tactics allowed them to kill him an episode ahead of schedule, radically altering the course of events for the city.

Now, I'm not saying one style is better than the other. I've run games both ways; but I find D&D, GURPS, Runequest and other heavily-codified systems very ill-suited to flowing time story-based games. Thus, when I play D&D, it's all about the rules; I choose D&D not because it's the only system out there but because it is one of the few systems with a large enough volume of rules to create the special narrative dynamic I'm after right now. I'm, frankly, surprised that people who are into the story-based, flowing time games would choose D&D over another system friendlier to this kind of play.

Anyway, thanks for your comments; I think both your thoughtfulness and respectful tone are just what this thread needs.

 

[jgbrowning]

Count me in with the group that thinks you didn't do anything wrong, fusangite.

Keeping rule 1 in mind "All must have fun."

1. As a DM is intentionally design encounters that nullify certain party members main powers (and secondary ones) all the time.

2. I have my major villians attack when at their strongest or when the party is at their weakest. I play my villians as I would play my PC. (also, I don't min/max to smackdown, I min/max to the level of which the Players do, so it varies from game to game.)

3. I don't abuse my "metagaming" power. I set up scenarios and plan them based upon the knowledge the bad guys have about the PCs.

4. I don't put up with people yelling at me (for any reason). If you don't like what I'm doing to help you have fun, you can tell me what you'd like changed or what I've done wrong. If you yell, you yell away your right for me to give a *** about your having fun.

joe b.

 

[Marshall]

I play a dwarf. He already has a restricted move, the minor slow down from the armor is a non-issue.

Looking forward to 3.5 aren't you?

Yes, and a 4 point difference in AC can be huge. I can attest to this from personal experience.

Can be, Yes. IME its not enough to justify not being able to move. But if you add in the "DEX monkeys" better AC vs. Touch Attacks/RTA's (ie most of the spells and special attacks you really want armor to stop) are you really gaining an advantage?

The Dex bonus items are far more expensive than magical full plate, and can only give you a +3 to your AC over your normal Dex.

18 Dex
Dex +6 item = 36,000 gp.
Mithril Breastplate = 4,000 gp +
---------------------------------------
Just over 40,000 gp for a +12 AC bonus.

Actually its +10AC since MBP still has only a +5 max DEX. In that case I'd switch down to a MiChainShirt, same AC cheaper. Or start with a lower DEX, or get a cheaper +DEX item or... See Choices

Run speed 120

12 Dex
Full Plate +5 = 26,650 gp
--------------------------------------
26,650 gp for a +14 AC bonus.

Run speed 60

The low dex character has a higher AC, at about half the cost.

Add in the 6K for the Boots of Striding to get your speed back and the cost is roughly equivalent. Except the lite AC guy still has the '+5' to add to his armor and the boot slot to boost his speed and no ACP and...

And if he's using a point based character creation (as my PC did), then he's got points to spend on other stats besides Dex.

And even if you assume Mithril Full Plate (and a 14 Dex), then you get a +15 bonus for 35,000 gp. Still less than the other guy, who hasn't even spent extra money on armor enhancements yet.

The Light Armor Dex Monkey pulls ahead at the higher levels when you have a LOT of money, so that he can have his +5 Mithril Breastplate and +6 Dex item, and a +5 Mithril Buckler or whatever.

Even at lower levels, he's at least staying close. And hes taking fewer hits because he can maneuver enough to avoid them.

But even then, the Heavy Armor guy has spent less money on his AC, giving him more to spend on other items, like his weapons, or rings of Protection, or Cloaks of Resistance.

Chances are hes going to start moving to lighter and lighter armor as his DEX gets higher and his buddies start asking "Where'd the tank go?"

An effective Heavy armor character is built much differently than an effective Light Armor character, but can be just as effective.

In system where you have limited funds and limited stat points, it gives you more options, especially at the low to mid levels where your resources are most limited.

Heavy Armor does have it's drawbacks, but it doesn't uniformly suck. If you build a character who can handle the drawbacks, it's the most cost effective way of raising your AC against normal physical attacks.

I've never seen an effective Heavy Armor character, I have seen a lot of dead PC's in Heavy Armor. Even(Especially) the low magic games I've played, players avoid even medium armor like the plague.

You are right, I did misunderstand. But you do seem to be taking the side of the player who was verbally abusive, and complaining about NPC's who use effective tactics. (Vampires who stage night attacks when it's harder on the players? OMFG!!!)

No, I'm with Numion. The whole scenario happened unrealistically fast.

On top of that, the PCs started at least half-in there armor and the DM chose to use the "From naked to Fully Armored" donning times. Note you can sleep in the Breastplate from a suit of Full Plate and suffer no ill-effect. Note also that it takes no more time to don Full Plate than Breastplate, and as a technicality it takes "no-time" to upgrade from Breastplate to Full Plate as long as you have help.

 

[Caliban]

Looking forward to 3.5 aren't you?

In some ways yes, but not for that reason. My PC's top AC is dropping by 10 points due to that change.

Can be, Yes. IME its not enough to justify not being able to move.

And in my experience it comes up quite often, and is more than enough to justify it.

But if you add in the "DEX monkeys" better AC vs. Touch Attacks/RTA's (ie most of the spells and special attacks you really want armor to stop) are you really gaining an advantage?

In my particular character's case, yes he is. He can get his touch AC into the mid 30's through various means when he needs to. He takes advantage of Heavy Armor's benefits, and spent his extra money non-armor AC increases.

High Dex characters do have an advantage against Touch Spells.

Heave Armor characters tend to have an advantage when it comes to standing toe to toe with those big monsters with the huge attack bonuses and damage bonuses. Taking even a few less hits makes a big difference in staying power.

Actually its +10AC since MBP still has only a +5 max DEX. In that case I'd switch down to a MiChainShirt, same AC cheaper. Or start with a lower DEX, or get a cheaper +DEX item or... See Choices

Which increases the AC gap even further, which supports my position.

Heavy Armor is the most effective way to increase your AC on a budget.

Run speed 120

Run speed 60

So? I never said that heavy armor doesn't have a drawback. It certainly does. If you are going to go that route you need to be willing to accept the drawbacks and spend some of your extra cash on ways to address them.

Although, MY heavy armor PC doesn't usually need to run.

And when he does, he can use Expeditious Retreat or have the party wizard cast Fly on him if you truly need to get out.

Add in the 6K for the Boots of Striding to get your speed back and the cost is roughly equivalent. Except the lite AC guy still has the '+5' to add to his armor and the boot slot to boost his speed and no ACP and...

Bah, I never bought the silly boots. That money is better spent on Boots of Speed, which gives you another +4 AC, and increases your Touch aC. This is money you have because you didn't have to dump it on mithral armor and an expensive Dex item.

Even at lower levels, he's at least staying close. And hes taking fewer hits because he can maneuver enough to avoid them.

No, he's really not staying that close. And because he spent his stat points on a higher dex, the low dex guy probably has either a higher strength or a higher Con, or both.

The only reason he would take fewer hits is if he stays out of the fight. Running is good for that I guess.

Chances are hes going to start moving to lighter and lighter armor as his DEX gets higher and his buddies start asking "Where'd the tank go?"

Exactly why is his Dex getting higher? Eventually he will move to a Mithril version of his armor, but there's really no need to go any further, until you get to the highest levels of the game. When you have access to nearly unlimited magic, Heavy Armor does become more of a drawback. But with enough magic and/or special materials, you can probably remove most of the drawbacks. It's just a question of which is more cost effective when you get to that level.

I've never seen an effective Heavy Armor character, I have seen a lot of dead PC's in Heavy Armor. Even(Especially) the low magic games I've played, players avoid even medium armor like the plague.

Then your friends either don't know what they are doing, or there has been a hostile DM stacking things against them because he doesn't like heavy armor.

My PC is well known for being nearly invulnerable in his +1 Called Full Plate, Boots of Speed, Lg. Shield +2, Ring of Protection +2, Amulet of Natural Armor +1, Dwarven Defender bonus, and Dodge, Mobility, Expertise feats. He also has a level of Wizard so he can cast Shield, True Strike, or Expeditious retreat from a scroll when needed. (A trick that is going away in 3.5. Ah well.)

No, I'm with Numion. The whole scenario happened unrealistically fast.

Something PC's do all the time without preperation. This time it worked against them.

On top of that, the PCs started at least half-in there armor

Exactly where was this stated?

and the DM chose to use the "From naked to Fully Armored" donning times. Note you can sleep in the Breastplate from a suit of Full Plate and suffer no ill-effect.

And exactly where is this stated?

Note also that it takes no more time to don Full Plate than Breastplate, and as a technicality it takes "no-time" to upgrade from Breastplate to Full Plate as long as you have help.

I happen to disagree with that interpretation. Nowhere does it state this, or imply this.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Wow. That was a lot of stuff to read. I don't really have a problem with your situation from a DM standpoint. I especially agree with it when you explained your more rules heavy and tactcially based gameplay.

I think that the armor wearing folk were being a bit unheroic. Not that there is anything wrong with it. However, instead of "You can stop at any time." I would have said: "It'll likely take you the rest of the evening to get your armor on. If you want to stay and put it on, you'll probablly be sitting out the rest of the session." The whole explanation of 'action leading to exclusion' typically moves my more difficult players.

So that far, I'm on your side.

On the duke, however, I do agree it was a little fast. Someone comes in my window, and brings bad news, news I was preparing for, but news nonetheless. My reaction? "F---! Where?"

Likely, there would have been a few more rounds of explanation. Then there may have been a few rounds of the Duke running to pickup various items that might help him, that sort of thing. Arcane power or not, I'd still want my smiting stick with me, along with my AC bracers and such. So, I can see how someone could complain that the Duke came out quick.

The player yelling at you was unnecessarry. On the other hand, I can see why he'd be angry, especially if he felt that he absolutely couldn't function without his armor. It's not so much that you were out to screw him, but that he felt screwed. He over reacted, but I think that there was something to react to. But everyone gets screwed sometimes. In one particular campaign I'm in, I play someone who worked in a mobile ambulance unit. I've got outdoor skills, medical skills, and vehicle skills. When we're in town, not driving, and no one's hurting I get useless. Long enough and I get very frusterated.

So, as far as I'm concerned, the numbers stand about with my opionion. You're mostly (about 70%) right. And I'm glad things are going well after that expierence.

And I'm not sure what to make of the whole "everyone should be having fun" vs "coddling is bad" arguement. They just don't seem to fit together. If I want to play in a game about political intrigue, joining a session of "the expendable heroes go into the meatgrinder" is a bad idea. Likewize, that same game of intrigue would be surprizingly boring if it turns into "you're emperor now. Good job." But I don't see what the argument is. Maybe it's just the heat.

Anyway, story based flowing games vs D&D 3E. Jeez. Where to begin on why I use D&D? It's got a strong set of mechanics, that aside from some weird parts, basically boils down to a D20 roll + skill + bonus vs some value X. What's not to love? Second, and more importantly, I like the strongly class based system. It bootstraps a lot of the weaker role playing people I play with into something workable. The classes also bring up a lot of recognition of types fairly easily. Most everyone in the group has some idea of their role in most situations. Combat is tactical enough to keep me awake (though I have been having some trouble with larger combats) while not being quite the brainteaser that some of the other games I play are.

Hm. I guess it comes down to the fact that, despite my love for story based and character based games, and my players' professed love for them, they're not so able to create story based characters, or play in story based games. So we use something with enough mechanics to keep us all honest, and use the numbers as a set of building blocks.

That, and I havn't found a more story angled system that would work for my groups that we are 3E in. Got any suggestions?

 

[Wayside]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ?

You're the second person to say this. You're the second person to be wrong, at least for me. And I assume what I'm about to say goes for Num too.

I'm not stupid. I'm not foolish. It's not that easy to pull the wool over my eyes.

In short, I'm not easy to manipulate, despite your claims. There is a difference between "Having fun" and "Always getting your way."

You don't have to be stupid or foolish (I don't think you are; from your posts in other threads we have similar taste in many things, therefore I think you're bright and smartish ), and since it's not a game where we're competing, chances are someone could easily use your lenience to their advantage without you feeling like you're being put out. I certainly don't mean by being a whiny bleatchand please can I have a longsword +5, but it's not like I'd worry about taking time to get my armor on before a battle in your campaign, for example.

It's not even that I favor heavy use of rules. My game is so house-ruled (gritty doesn't begin to cover it) and off the cuff (because story comes first) that it barely even resembles d20 (and I think I've mentioned elsewhere we don't even use a d20, we use 5d4, to emphasize the midrange like it oughta be). But what my group's style does emphasize is that the players take responsibility for their own enjoyment. Events unfold before them but they make the hard choices.

Not a one of my guys would think twice about pulling a Sturm at the High Clerist's Tower, you know?

As for the difference between having fun and getting your way, allow me to quote myself from a page ago: "You're right that the point of games is enjoyment. You're wrong though, when you assume enjoyment is the equivalent of always getting your way." Obviously I wouldn't run out buck naked, as a Paladin, and wrassle me some vampires. But I wouldn't spend 4 minutes donning armor while my friends were in danger (which just looks like a big fat action out of alignment to me.. so there go his powers in my game and HA just kidding but that threat got him out the door so whatever works).

 

[Numion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ?

Haha. I'm missing your point like I miss my alcoholic sister from Oklahoma. I know it's a stretch but stick with me.

Whats with the attitude?

I mean, if I had a DM like you it would be simple to manipulate the game in the name of party solidarity and fun and all that.

No you wouldn't. If D&D is about manipulating the game in the name of solidarity and fun to you, I wouldn't DM for you. Why would you even do that? The point of this game is to have fun, why would you undermine that, even if you did have the opportunity to do so?

Well, I dunno bout the lesson bit, but when players make bad choices my first instinct is not necessarily to curtail the difficulty of the odds they face (i.e. compensate them for their horrid decision).

Hey, even we agree on something. Of course the PCs have to pay for their bad decisions. Nowhere I did I contradict that. In fusangites example, however, the players paid the consequences for wanting to dress their armors. they missed all the action and wasted the evening.

I assume that it's quite possible for the vampires to have overrun the whole city, at which point that armor's gonna do you a whole lotta good aint it?

I see nothing wrong with that. Failure to oppose the vampires would have serious negative consequences for the PCs.

I have no idea what that last sentence of yours means.

It means that while fusangite wanted absolution from the general community in this thread (and got it by 70% as he likes to remind) from being wrong, I'm more intrested in how the encounter could've been DMed better. With all players participating. I'm against the idea that the players needed to be taught a lesson instead of the PCs. I was looking to learn a lesson as a DM from this whole thing.

Having said that, the one player who threw a fit actually needs to be taught a lesson on manners.

Err, sorry to confuse your wanting-to-reward-their-lack-of-preparation-by-letting-them-put-their-super-duper-armor-on-in-record-time with making the encounter easier?

Hmm. You didn't bother to read my later suggestions about the armor? After I noticed how important the correct application of rules was to fusangite, I suggested that he actually alter the encounters timetable (which was unnaturally tight anyway) instead of the dressing time for armors. My later suggestions were all without fudging rules one bit. So, apology accepted. You were confused, it seems

 

[jdavis]

great googly moogly, this thread was long. I'll just list a few points here (I always miss the good threads).

1. A cleric without his Platemail going up against undead is nerfed, or weak, or penalized)? That is the silliest thing I have ever heard, They are clerics not fighters, they are built to deal with undead, they are at a level they can turn the vampires. If we were talking about three fighters then I might give a little leeway here but we are talking about 2 clerics and a paladin (with a flying mount for pete's sake). The reliance on the plate armor in this situation is just silly, they have spells, and probably ranged weapons, they can make themselves imune to the negative level loss and the vampires are wizards not fighters to start with. If your cleric refuses to fight undead without his armor because they might punch him for some minor damage then that's just silly. It was stated that they had spells to compensate, it was stated they could of put on lesser armor, it was stated that they knew what was going on, and it was stated that they made a choice based on what all the players knew to not go and help (yes this is metagame knowledge). I think the thing that gets me the most is that they were CLERICS not fighters, they have spells, very potent spells, they are built for dealing with undead, it's one of the things they are good at, armor is inconsequential to this, they had spells to adjust for lack of armor that could of been cast quicker than it took to put the armor on. I'll leave the Paladin out because it was stated that his choice was based on letting somebody else do the fighting this time, so he is completly out of the equation, his enjoyment of the game was there as a player if not as a character. The whole armor arguement is out the window, I'm done with that and to argue that clerics are completly nerfed and useless without Plate Mail is just silly, the whole thing about them not going because they thoght they couldn't win without 80 lbs of armor is just silly, they are CLerics not fighters much of their game power is in their spells and their ability to turn undead (like Vampires).

2. These players are apparently long term players in fusangite's campaign, to argue he should change anything is silly, they should be quite familiar with how he runs his game by now. Numion, mmu1 and Tsyr (and others) had very good points for their games and what they like but it isn't their game it's his game and it apparently has been for a very long time. The players should be used to him by now, they should be used to his rules and style, if they don't like his style they should of left a long time ago. If they thought they couldn't win the encouter without heavy armor then there is a problem with them trusting his encounters not with the description given or anything that I have read from him. (see they are CLERICS above). It was made obvious to them that they would miss the whole encounter if they sat there putting on armor, I believe it was stated that the one player in question here repetedly asked for the donning armor rules to be done away with over and over instead of doing something in the game, it was his choice and 100% his choice to sit there and don Plate Mail and miss the fight, he knew he wouldn't get there in time he knew exactly what he was up against (which by my reading was actually a pretty weak encounter for characters of this level, wizards without powerful spells and vampire spawns). The only thing more fusangite could of done was to directly say, "if you insist on putting on the armor you will not make it in time". He shouldn't have to say this because it's obvious, they shouldn't be worried about negative levels, they are the ones with the spells to take care of that problem, and they shouldn't be worried that the fight was a no win situation because they should of trusted that there long term DM would not do that to them.

3. People are putting their own personal slant and view on this, you can't start from your own game or your own experiences you have to start with the information given. Two character's didn't enjoy this situation (The Paladin is out he made his choice pased on the player wanting to see the others do some front line work not for fear of vampires or negative levels, he is a non-issue based on what was told), one has a history of being a pain in the butt and even whined in this situation for fusangite to change the rules to specifically aid his character, the other admitted he made a wrong decision after the game and they even decided next session they whould be better prepared for this. So what is the problem here? They didn't have fun? How do you know they never have fun in his game? How do you know that they didn't have fun that night, we only have information stating that one player had a hissy fit and stormed out and another admitted he made a bad decision. The game will never be fun 100% of the time for 100% of the people. There will be drop offs for everybody, don't bring your personal feelings or experiences in and overlay them on this because every game is different, these people are (most likely) having fun overall 2 guys had a off night that's all. It's fusangite's game, they should be there because they like how he runs or they should find another game, it seems that he goes out of his way to cater to what everybody likes as is.

4. Yelling and storming out is inappropriate behavior for adults, I don't care if it's a formal diner or watching a football game, that's just childish behavior, if he had tried to talk to you about it like a adult that would be different, but having a fit like a child is not acceptable in any situation for any reason. I don't know the full story but it doesn't sound like there was a two way arguement here just a guy having a tantrum because the rules were not changed on the spot to let his cleric wear plate mail into battle instead of lesser armor and using buff spells.

5. The whole Duke situation, my question was why did somebody need to go get him to start with? He should of been there before the characters got there, he was expecting a attack, he should of heard the same explosion they did and he was just as close if not closer. All this stuff about how long it took to get him is silly, he shouldn't of needed to be gotten in the first place, and even if he did need to be gotten he should of been preparing from the time of the explosion just like the party was. The fact was he had to be brought in because the others were obviously choosing not to come (in metagame the other players were even telling them to come on). You can nitpick all you like on how long it took to get the Duke, but he is correct by the rules there for he can not be faulted for his actions in his own game. To attack him on this because he used the rules correctly and say he is wrong is just not right. He used the rules, it might not be the most realistic thing but he was in 100% rules compliance there for he is not wrong. Stating how you would of done it is fine but saying he is wrong because he used the rules as written is not.

6. Some people seem to be taking this personal and I don't understand that at all. How does it hurt you? Why are you getting in such a huff and attacking him? The venom in several of these post is most disturbing, and it really looks like some of the people on the against side are aruing just for the sake of argueing, I have seen several points carried on way past the point where he clarified them, such as the Paladin choosing not to go for meta reasons and not for fear of the undead, such that everybody was fine with what happened by the next session, one cleric admitted he should of went and agreed with the situation being right, the other guy has a long history (confermed by Teflon Billy on page 2 ) of causing the exact same type of problems previously.

This is so cut and dried a case I just don't get it, they made a choice not to go, the armor was inconsequential because they are clerics prepared spellwise for vampires not fighters relying on mixing head on. They knew exactly what was going on and they should of know the encounter was nowhere near a death trap (the clerics had the least to worry about, they had the spells to protect themselves, they were more prepared without their armor than the characters that went to fight.) If it was fighters then I might give them the benifit of the doubt on the armor reliance but they are clerics with spells prepared and a Paladin with a flying mount, they were better suited for this encounter without the armor that the rogues that went to fight were, and were probably better off without their armor than the wizards/sorcerers too, fighting undead are their specialty and they were the ones with the spells to stop the negative level problems.

 

[S'mon]

I'll put my cards on the table and say that I come from the same line of school of play as Numion et al, so my perspective is coloured thereby. My feeling is that when running such an event I would not start counting off in combat time from the explosion. I'd treat time as far more fluid until I had to deal with combat-related action. As such, I would treat actions such as adjudging the situation and discussing matters with the Duke as taking far more time than a strict 'round-by-round' count would indicate.

While I don't want to criticise fusangite for running the whole encounter evnt round-by-round, if I were DMing it I would probably have done the same as Deadguy - used realistic rather than round-based timekeeping until the PCs were actually in combat ('bullet time'). And most likely I'd have judged it took around 5 minutes to summon the Duke, so both parties would arrive at the tower at the same time to fight the vampires, who would be somewhere in the middle of their plan. Fusangite's approach was perfectly reasonable though, as well as being in closer accord with the rules as written.

 

[Numion]

2. These players are apparently long term players in fusangite's campaign, to argue he should change anything is silly

It would be silly for him not to learn anything from this episode. Something went wrong with his encounter (we can agree on that, no?), and whether it was the players or DMs or anyones fault, why not make something good out of it?

If we all just though that changing something "was just silly" solely because the idea came from outside your group, ENWorld would be pretty useless.