New Armor Types

[Obryn]

http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20110819

So, 4e is getting Exotic Armors ... and they're kinda underwhelming, I'm sad to say.

They cost a feat, and generally have a prerequisite of an armor type, unlike Superior Weapon Proficiency.

The two properties are kinda mediocre. There's one that basically gives you a pool of temp HPs at the start of a fight which equals out to somewhere around Toughness or lower... You're better off with Toughness, though, for the bonuses to surges and max HP.

There's another property - confusingly called Tough - which lets you negate the first crit vs. AC that hits you. I think this is arguably as good as Stoneroot Endurance, and I'd probably prefer it to Stoneroot, but I wouldn't line up for either feat.

The only real winner here, IMO, is Full Plate, which has both the Tough property and an improvement to the armor check penalty.

Two possible errors, already, which is discouraging if this is the print copy. Banded Mail notes in the flavor text that it shouldn't have a speed penalty, but does anyway. And Ringmail is a Light armor, which looks like it might improve in AC at higher enhancement bonuses at the same rate as chain. Which would be ... wow, insane at higher levels.

-O

 

[Obryn]

...any way to merge this with the thread that ninja'd me?

-O

 

[Dice4Hire]

I hope some classes get these for free as I do not see any that are worth taking a feat to get.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I also thought it would be nice, if the armor feats had the same feat requirements as the corresponding armor... (instead of maybe studded leather, which should have leather armor as requirement...)

When I saw the feats at the main page i was also a lot les enthusiastic...

 

[Dire Bare]

I like that we're bringing back some classic armor types. And I'm not underwhelmed with the armors themselves. But I also don't like the feat requirements. But remember, you don't need the feats to wear the armor, but to be proficient with it (help me if I'm wrong, I don't have my books with me). I also think that "Tough" and "Durable" seem conceptually redundant.

 

[corwyn77]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (New Armor)
And Ringmail is a Light armor, which looks like it might improve in AC at higher enhancement bonuses at the same rate as chain. Which would be ... wow, insane at higher levels.

-O

I don't see that - the base armour (chain) just refers to what enchantments it can take. I imagine the Light/Heavy designation will determine AC progression.

 

[corwyn77]

I like that we're bringing back some classic armor types. And I'm not underwhelmed with the armors themselves. But I also don't like the feat requirements. But remember, you don't need the feats to wear the armor, but to be proficient with it (help me if I'm wrong, I don't have my books with me). I also think that "Tough" and "Durable" seem conceptually redundant.

Maybe, but then it carries a -2 on all attacks, definitely not worth it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There really wasn't much design space left for superior armor. Not only are there enough armors, but there are all those 'masterwork' types finagled here and there. With no need for new armor, and no place to put them, why do it?

Oh, well, the same reason they've done anything the past year: desperate apeals to nostalgia.

Bringing back splint, in particular, is just absurd. It was always a bad armor, and it's exceptionally a-historical, even by D&D's paltry standards. Just silly to resurect, especially as a somehow superior armor. Weird, the lenths they're going to for nostalgia. Especially as /no one/ who actually remembers getting stuck with 'splint mail' is going to be nostalgic for it!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Two possible errors, already, which...onus goes (and goes up), it's just like Hide.

 

[Mummolus]

Yet another perfect opportunity to introduce lamellar to D&D is missed.

It's not like it was historically used by half of the armor-wearing world, or anything.