"That spear would have skewered a wild boar!" : Should Heavy armor negate crits?

[F700]

I totally agree. I am of the opinion that heavy armor should be "just better" than light armor. I just don't think adding an easily-missed rule that only comes up 5% of the time is a good solution.

Here's my favorite solution: don't have heavy armor negate your Dex bonus to AC. It's elegant, realistic (plate armor isn't actually that constricting), and actually removes complexity.

It's hard to say if there's really even a problem with armor yet. WotC has already come out and stated that the armor table in the playtest packet is filler, isn't what they'll be going with, and is undergoing change.

As far as adding "Eliminates Crits" to heavy armor goes, would you consider "Increases chance to Crit by 5%" a balanced addition to any weapon? I don't think I would. 5% less likely or 5% more likely to either keep or lose hp on either side of the combat is too significant to just toss in on a mundane piece of gear that everyone can have.

 

[Gorgoroth]

...

As far as adding "Eliminates Crits" to heavy armor goes, would you consider "Increases chance to Crit by 5%" a balanced addition to any weapon? I don't think I would. 5% less likely or 5% more likely to either keep or lose hp on either side of the combat is too significant to just toss in on a mundane piece of gear that everyone can have.

hmmm. I had a jagged double-ax for my paragon 4e guy, and loved it. I like increased crit range...but then again I did earn it. I played that guy two nearly two years to get it, it's a level 13 item. I don't think crit immunity for 50gp would be balanced at level 1 in 4e either. I think 1500gp, a month or two to make it custom fitted, and all the penalties that go along with it, would make it more realistic. I do favor realism, and don't think level 1 characters should get it. Unless perhaps as part of a class feature, such paladin-hood or being a cavalier. Being a knightly class should grant is as part of your background station. But that would have SERIOUS in-game ramifications. I actually think 50gp for plate was an absolute...sellout. Come to think of it, I will never pick up another 4e game again.

Looking back on it...the economy was atrociously unbalanced and broken in that game.

I eventually had to re-spec him away from wearing heavy armor to hide and pumping dex. Why ? because by level 16 he'd have the same...exact...AC, be faster, less penalties, and could fly too. Whoops, plate sucked in 4e, let's not joke around here or mince words here. Can you tell I hate those rules with a passion by the end? I couldn't beat the light-armor benefits, so I joined'em.

Most of the powergamer defense builds in 4e were not wearing plate + shield. That's bad design. I do like keeping it simple...but if the AC difference is any less than 3 or 4 between a super fast guy wearing plate and not wearing plate is not balanced. I don't know what the exact number is...but what I'm saying is...if they can make chainmail strictly better than leather for the same user, and scale strictly better than that, and so on...while keeping the guy in plate still hittable and have a working game engine at the end, then kudos to them.

 

[the Jester]

Poll fail.

There is no answer for, "No. Just no."

No buts, no "not good enoughs," none of that- just no. Heavy armor should not negate crits.

 

[Abstruse]

Poll fail.

There is no answer for, "No. Just no."

No buts, no "not good enoughs," none of that- just no. Heavy armor should not negate crits.

"Because I say so" isn't a discussion. If you don't like it, say why you don't like it. Just saying "Nonono" doesn't help anyone.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, but /something/ has to be done to keep heavy armor and high DEX balanced. 3.x tried, with DEX-to-AC limits, it didn't work, it just made a certain armor /and/ a certain DEX (achievable through build choices, items or spells) optimal. 4e tried, by giving DEX/INT bonuses only with light armor, and adding all kinds of kludges: other stat bonuses for classes without INT/DEX or heavy armor, 'masterwork' armors, feat taxes, etc. It worked, mostly, but it was ugly.

5e either needs to (a) find a better solution or (b) call the inherent problems with DEX bonus to AC and armor use a 'feature' that 'captures the classic feel of D&D.'

 

[Gorgoroth]

...



You don't have to rub it in, Jester, the polls are in, it's fine.

It's just the more I think about my old AD&D group with fullplate wearing paladins, and how they'd walk around and never take any damage except for crits, eventually the DM rolling a huge # of rolls just to check for 20s. Kind sucks.

The only viable solution in here I've seen that keeps heavy armor strictly better than light armor, is keeping the Dex bonus up, but that means having 25 AC. Can the game handle that?

Or are you one who thinks Heavy armor should be numerically worse than light armor. When you factor in all the rules of the game, even with plate getting 1/2 dex, that means it'll be around +1 or +2 AC over the studded leather guy.

1500gp, -2 to all physical skills, perception, weight, swimming, climbing sneaking, moving around...for +1 or +2 max over a studded leather guy, and that's IF you have an 18 dex and wear plate at the same time. There's a good chance you could end up with lower AC than the light armored guy.

If that happens to this game, I'm done. For all the smart-alecky comments to the contrary, I hope they can fix it because I'm not alone thinking the AC / armor system needs fixing.

 

[Abstruse]

If that happens to this game, I'm done. For all the smart-alecky comments to the contrary, I hope they can fix it because I'm not alone thinking the AC / armor system needs fixing.

Armor's going back to the drawing board. They said so in the Q&A about a week and a half ago.

 

[the Jester]

"Because I say so" isn't a discussion. If you don't like it, say why you don't like it. Just saying "Nonono" doesn't help anyone.

It's just my opinion on the question; there was no good answer for me to vote with. (I've seen a lot of polls that do this lately; they try to put words in your mouth instead of leaving a simple yes/no option.) If the question had been, "Is heavy armor underpowered in the playtest/4e/whatever specific edition", I'd have answered differently- post 2e, it is indeed underpowered. But that's not the question.

Wouldn't it suck to be a pc and crit the BBEG only to not get a crit because he's in plate mail? (Plate-and-mail if you want to be pedantic about it. )

You don't have to rub it in, Jester, the polls are in, it's fine.

I posted before reading the thread or looking at the poll results; apologies if I came across too strong.

It's just the more I think about my old AD&D group with fullplate wearing paladins, and how they'd walk around and never take any damage except for crits, eventually the DM rolling a huge # of rolls just to check for 20s. Kind sucks.

The only viable solution in here I've seen that keeps heavy armor strictly better than light armor, is keeping the Dex bonus up, but that means having 25 AC. Can the game handle that?

Or are you one who thinks Heavy armor should be numerically worse than light armor. When you factor in all the rules of the game, even with plate getting 1/2 dex, that means it'll be around +1 or +2 AC over the studded leather guy.

Okay, speaking to the actual issue that you seem to be addressing- the heavy armor issue- here are a couple of my thoughts.

-Keep dex bonus to AC with heavy armor. Lightly armored creatures should generally have lower ACs than heavily armored creatures; it kind of weirds me out in 3e and later when the rogue has a better AC than the fighter. IMHO the difference is that light armor should favor other types of playstyle and pc other than the front-line guy. (The lightly armored front-line guy should, IMHO, be straight-up less capable than the heavy tank when it comes to avoiding damage via high AC. I'm okay with other methods of light armor defense to compensate, but they should be different.) Even with this, I don't necessarily see a max potential AC of 25 as game-breaking.

-As an adjunct to this, I want the elimination of expected wealth by level so that armor's cost matters beyond first level. Also, I favor 4e's "natural 20 that would miss is a hit but not a crit rule.

-As I stated, I don't favor anything that stops the pcs from having a spectacular bacon-saved-from-the-fire moment by critting a bad guy just because he's wearing heavy armor. I favor effects that increase the number of crits in a game, not decrease them, and am a huge fan of "colorful" critical hits (you know, "Blood in eyes" or "limb hacked off" or what have you). (Then again, I also prefer a fairly lethal game.)

-We can eliminate the current penalties for heavy armor and just replace them with a speed penalty and a note that the dm should consider handing out disadvantage for the armor in appropriate circumstances.

 

[El Mahdi]

I voted: Yes, but...

It was for: Yes, but no qualifiers. I like the idea of Heavy Armor negating Crits.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

As far as adding "Eliminates Crits" to heavy armor goes, would you consider "Increases chance to Crit by 5%" a balanced addition to any weapon? I don't think I would. 5% less likely or 5% more likely to either keep or lose hp on either side of the combat is too significant to just toss in on a mundane piece of gear that everyone can have.

3e have magical weapon improvements and feats that did that. The Crit system worked quite well, although some people just did not care for Confirmation roll.