Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4936069" data-attributes="member: 4937">No need.  I've seen it.  Sure, armor is very useful.  The question is, "If you are going to go out into the rugged wilderness, hike across trackless wastes, delve deep into caves, sail across the ocean on sailing ships, explore the frigid arctic and the burning deserts, and fight on treacherous terrain, do the benefits of heavy armor compared to say medium armor outweight the drawbacks?"  The intuitive answer to that question is, "No.", and the rules of the game and the historical record would tend to back you up.  Full suits of armor were generally employed only when you could carry them on a pack horse and don them before battle.  In a set peice battle or combat on flat ground, the added protection is invaluable.  But explorers and adventurers generally adopted a lighter suit of armor.Now, if you want to have a game wear the fact that a character is wearing armor is essentially invisible, where one never has to think about the fact you are wearing armor, where it simply gives the character a number on the page and optionally a mental image of the character, then that's fine with me.  That's one style of play, and its certainly the going style of play encouraged by most recent game systems.  But optionally, you can make the fact that the character wears armor impinge on the game reality on a regular basis, and that impinging on the game reality will end up creating pack animals and armor bearers and suits of plate mail that are safely put away in saddle bags when the fight starts and alot of other things many people may find inconvenient, and if you feel that way, then that's fine.  I'll just keep playing the way I have for 20 years because I'm just that sort of curmudgeon.</blockquote>

Verification