. . . while you're at it. . . Fix heavy armor!

[neceros]

I'm hoping they fix Armor to represent what it is: DR. Doubt they will come to their senses, though.

At any rate I feel that if I have a class that has Heavy Armor or spend the feat to get it it better be worth it, since you HAVE to have the previous two feats to get it. Shouldn't it obviously be better?

 

[delericho]

Heavy armor = full plate.
Medium armor = breastplate.

Anything else, and you're just not trying or you've got some mithril or something.

Yep, that's basically the problem with the armour table as it stands. As for the assertion that heavy armour is useless - it seems to be founded on the notion that it's easy to get a really high Dex. I've seen heavy armour (okay, full plate) used extensively, but then, I've stuck with the standard 4d6-drop-lowest or 25-28 point buy for character generation throughout the life of 3e, which makes a big difference to PC stats.

 

[delericho]

I'm hoping they fix Armor to represent what it is: DR. Doubt they will come to their senses, though.

Armour as DR is one of those rules that seems like a really good idea, but which doesn't work in practice. All it does is make armours even more worthless, and make the Power Attack feat (especially with 2-handed weapons) even more powerful.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Looking at how damage potential scales in comparison to attack bonuses with monsters and NPCs in 3E, it definitely would make armor even less valuable than it is already. Taking off 8 points of a +18 attack bonus is a lot better than taking 8 points off 21 points of average damage, especially when you figure in Power Attack and crits. Hit points are what keep escalating damage at bay, AC bonuses keep damage from actually getting through. If I have 100 hit points, and something dishes out 20 points of damage on average per hit, I'd rather it not HIT that often than it hitting me more often but then making only 12 points of damage.

If you add some kind of level-based Defense bonus into the mix, it might work better, but then you end up with too many hit points on higher levels to keep battles quick. Personally I'd prefer armor convert part of the damage to subdual damage, while classes gain some level-based Defense bonus. I liked the Defense bonus concept in Wheel of Time D20, for example, especially with the Armor Compatibility feats alongside.

 

[Baby Samurai]

I generally see characters wear A) Nothing B) a Chain shirt or C) Full plate.

Yep, in my experience as a DM, armour for players in 3.5 has been reduced to mithril chain shirt, mithril breastplate, and mithril full plate.

I really miss scale…

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Armour as DR is one of those rules that seems like a really good idea, but which doesn't work in practice. All it does is make armours even more worthless, and make the Power Attack feat (especially with 2-handed weapons) even more powerful.

The other extreme is also very common (in other systems): Anyone wearing sufficient armor is almost impossible to hurt.

Warhammer has this problem. Aside from Ulricks Fury, little can seriously hurt a heavily armored warrior. But if anyone is caught without armor (some just because their character concept doesn't really allow them to use heavy armor), he is in serious danger.
This might be "realistic", but such extremes are not really good for the game.

I wonder if it's possible to find a good middle in these extremes?

Maybe armor grants DR and AC - any attack that beats your AC (or your AC +10) ignores DR (or DR then reduces only to nonlethal damage). Small and light weapons might give a bonus to attack, large heavy weapons deal a lot of damage, but might even suffer a penalty to attack.
If you favour balance over realismn, all weapons might actually deal the same amount of damage on average (against the same target), but the "fun" is how you got there...

A minor problem with DR is the additional calculations that are required for it (but that's not really a tough one.)

 

[Anthtriel]

Armour as DR is one of those rules that seems like a really good idea, but which doesn't work in practice. All it does is make armours even more worthless, and make the Power Attack feat (especially with 2-handed weapons) even more powerful.

With 4E supposed emphasis on less, but more powerful attacks, it could actually work if you tie the DR to level. Of course it might be difficult to come up with the correct formula, and there would certainly be balance issues, but perhaps not as many as in 3E.

 

[VirgilCaine]

\Ideally (for me) Armor would function primarily as DR and to a lesser extent modify the AC value. It would be broken down into three factors, piecemeal location, type and category.

Ah, so you want something very much like the way 3e GURPS armor worked, with Passive Defense and DR.

4th Edition GURPS has been out for a while now and they change that in the new edition.
So, no, thank you.

The other extreme is also very common (in other systems): Anyone wearing sufficient armor is almost impossible to hurt.

I'm just saying here, but in GURPS this isn't necessarily true. Enemies will probably try and cripple your much lighter armored legs, feet, arms and hands; disarm you or try and destroy your weapon, move in and put a limb in a Judo lock (which doesn't care about armor/DR) or otherwise start wrestling and try and pin you. Of course, if you're wearing plate in GURPS, you've probably got good ST, but your Wrestling might not be quite up to snuff. Or they could use the Chinks in Armor rule to halve your DR for a penalty to an attack.

This is also leaving aside using ranged weapons, magic, alchemy, psionics, social skills, etc. just like in D&D.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

Out of curiosity were you wearing the padded surcoat and chain mail under the plate that was normally worn with the plate? The quality of the video makes it hard to tell. If you weren't wearing them how do you think that they would have change your experience?

Yes, I am wearing a padded arming doublet and the bits of mail (skirt, voyders/gussets, and standard) that lace on to cover the gaps that the plate can't cover (armpits, groin, etc). Wearing a full set of mail underneath plate was simply not done at this stage in the development of armour. That sort of thing was necessary during the "Transitional period" of the 14th century, when the plate elements did not yet cover the entire body, resulting in what D&D probably means by the terms "half-plate" or "plate-mail." Full plate includes mail only in certain strategic spots which, for reasons of mobility, plate can't be easily made to defend.

This is essentially what is worn underneath full plate:

http://www.mediumaevum.com/josh/DSC03211.JPG

What does the full suit weigh, by chance?

As is noted in the comments below the video on youtube, the whole ensemble weighs 71 pounds, including the padding, mail, and clothing worn beneath the plate. The plate alone weighs right around 60 pounds, which is on the heavy end for a historical field harness, but still within the normal range. Note that it is rather heavier than D&D's standard 50-pound set of full plate. I've always figured that my suit, being extra-heavy and having a double-layered breastplate and all, would be represented in D&D as having the "Reinforced" property described in Dragon Magazine #358.

 

[glass]

Dissenting view - choice of armor, like choice of weapon, should be stylistic. I do not want to play in a game where one equipment choice is the "right" one, and realism be damned on this subject. I have seen characters use heavy armor very effectively,

How is that a dissenting view? That seems to be what everyone is asking for. EDIT: Well, almost everyone.


glass.