Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BobTheNob" data-source="post: 5938556" data-attributes="member: 82425">On the "difference between armor being better AC means you need more gold". My experience is that this is not a good approach. The thing is you dont really have that much trouble getting the gold together. Then you get it, and by level X you have Dragon plate. So everyone who is a heavy armor wearer wears dragon plate. Then what? There is only really 3 armor types in the entire game : the best light, the best medium, the best heavy.I just find this a really boring result. I would much prefer that armors have reasons to wear them and reasons not to wear them. That each type of armor you came up with could stand on its own merits and not be defined by its (irrelevant) cost.On the armor grants DR bit. I looked ar DR on armor as a houserule in D&D past. I always dismissed it as I had trouble balancing it in as, generally, damage didnt scale enough to justify it as putting it in quickly became the path to high tolerance. Always looked good when I started, but by the time I had finished the calculations I always ended up throwing it out before it hit the table. The thing that is interesting here is the promise that damage will scale. How much by? Enough to balance in DR? There is potential for another armor defining facet to be introduced here.</blockquote>