Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CCamfield" data-source="post: 1306521" data-attributes="member: 8123">Yes, well, players don't tend to be stupid.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  If the armor ratings weren't set up in such a way as to define three or four armours as the best, money permitting, things might be different.A small additional factor related to leather armour - proficiency and armour check penalty.  We currently have a lizardman in our party who has yet to get a class level.  As such he doesn't know how to use any armour properly; leather is the best he can wear without taking penalties to his attacks and so on - well I guess masterwork studded would be best.  However, if you were a lord who actually equipped your peasant levies or just some hastily gathered recruits, who still count as commoners, leather would probably be what they'd get.Finally, two things- it is important to provide armour types for everyone, including NPCs of all types- the definite scale of armour types which are better than others does or at least can provide opportunities to upgrade your equipment, which can be satisfying.  If each of the armour types in the three categories were basically equivalent, that wouldn't be there. On the other hand, if that was the case, the difference in costs were higher, or if there were different associated costs (I don't know, what if breastplates and full plate had a higher armour check penalty?) then "lesser" armours would be used more.</blockquote>

Verification