Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shard O'Glase" data-source="post: 445941" data-attributes="member: 1134">And there not be much of a difference in 2nd edition and now means what?I don't care that 2nd ed sucked in this regard as well, it sucked with armor in 2e and 3e still sucks with armor.  Though maybe not quite as much.The thing with history is:Tons of things in d&d are historically inacurate, and I hope they stay that way if it makes it a better game.  I don't want to weaken the game to make the armor more like it was IRL.  I want the game to be fun, and IMO armor rules that increase armor variety increase fun and rules that decrese armor variety decrease fun.  Now for those of you who like to play historically accurate games, war games, pseudo medival games etc. I'm sure having historically accurate armor increases your fun.  But for me it doesn't.If a character sees his character in chain mail I don't want him to wear a breastplate because mechanically chain mail is just a inferior breastplate.  I want them to just wear the cahinmail and not feel stuipid about it.  And if this can be done without completely blowing realism like having leather amror provide the same proteciton as plate, or daggers doing 2d6 then I'm for it.  I don't think it would of broken realism(maybe stretch it a bit) to just have the stats for all medium armors be the same or very close to it.(closer than they are now)</blockquote>