Low armor campaigns, why "compensate"?

[Tatsukun]

I think there is one more angle people are missing here; class balance. If the mage can hit the dragon every time, even with his low BAB / STR, the fighter is even MORE useless in comparison.

That is a good enough reason to me. Fighters in D&D start cool but are quickly outmatched by magic using classes (like Cleric or Druid). If you negate the usefulness of the fighters BAB, she's even more up the proverbial creek.

-Tatsu

 

[Piratecat]

Time to calm down, folks. Dogbrain, remember what I said last time you got frustrated when someone disagreed with you? This isn't r.g.f.d; you can have a discussion without being aggressive and trying to attack someone. Next time you get angry here, please just walk away from the keyboard, because this isn't the place to lose your temper.

That goes for everyone, of course. Please stay polite if you're going to hang out here.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

As I understand it, historical rapier duelling employed the edge of the rapier as well as the point. Consequently, I can see how a chain shirt might help against the rapier. If it denied a foe one of his attack strategies, it would be worth having even if the other strategies were still available. Modern soldiers wore helmets and body armor even when they weren't at all likely to stop a bullet because they would stop shrapnel and even that much was very useful.

Actually a chain shirt would not be all that terribly effective against a thrusting rapier or a mace. Chain armor was designed primarily designed to protect against a cutting weapon such as a broadsword or an axe. The protection it offered against thrusting and mass bludgeoning weapons was minimal. I have crafted chain armor pieces of different qualities, and it would take an incredibly tight and dense weave to provide GOOD protection against a rapier or spear.

 

[Aaron2]

Modern soldiers wore helmets and body armor even when they weren't at all likely to stop a bullet because they would stop shrapnel and even that much was very useful.

I guess, even against guns it would be better to be wearing some sort of armor that to go completely naked. Even if it would only stop extreme range hits, ricochets, or shell fragments. Players are notoriously cautious and will do anything (such as sleeping in armor) to improve the survivability of their character. The best thing to discourage armor use (if that's what you want) is to play up the reasons armor gradually faded away. Here's a list of reasons I can think of ...

1) Its hard to breath in a closed helmet.
2) Full armor builds up heat rapidly.
3) If you fall in mud or water it might be difficult to stand back up again. Same if you are being grappled or pinned down with pole arms.
4) Full armor slows movement which increased the amount of time it takes before you can close range with guns or crossbows. This lead to legless half armor which was popular with infantry.

Pike formations led to the gradual dismounting of heavy cavalry where these problems went from being inconveniences to huge problems. You would still see some sorts of armor on cavalry until the 1800s.

#3 is taken care of with armor check penalties and #4 with movement decreases. For #1 and #2, I was thinking of making a limit such as 1 round per point of Con that you can fully exert yourself, such as being in combat or running, before being fatigued*. Thus the agile fighter can wear down the armored knight, possibly turning the tide.


Aaron

*The 8 hour recovery time is probably too harsh.

 

[S'mon]

The swashbuckling pirates game I play in works perfectly with no armour - one thing that helps a lot though is _all the PCs are Rogues_ - so 'balance' issues are no longer a problem. FWIW, in this no-armour game the Rogue PCs seem quite 'well-balanced' against the Warrior-class NPCs... that probably says more about the weakness of the Rogue class than anything else, though.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Why is there so often an idea that one must "compensate" for a low-armor campaign by inventing AC substitutes? Why not make it plain to the players that it's going to be DANGEROUS to get into fights? That's what I've done, and it's worked rather well.

Did it affect the way players built their characters? My guess is that they'd 'compensate' for the lack of armour in other ways. I'd expect to see a lot of high dex, light armour characters get made? Perhaps a few unusual tactics - mages casting mage armour on the fighters, for example?

I'm expecting to see these in my next game. It's going to be Dark Sun and armour check penalties apply to the heat exhaustion checks characters make during the hotter parts of the day. Metal armours are basically unusable during daytime combat, and also cost a kingdoms ransom to buy, cost X100 over a 'normal' game!

Rambling on, I guess another way to limit the heaviest armours is to have a sea based campaign. double armour penalty to swim checks could get messy. Also make those all important balance, climb and jumps more likely to land you in the sea!