Hello everyone.
Well, some of you might already my Generic Weapons Rules (if not, you're welcome to check it out and leave comments), and it somehow came naturally that I would at least try the same for armor.
I must admit, the armor list isn't NEARLY as cluttered and over the top as the weapons list, but I still had the feeling that their isn't really a fair use of all the armor (you'll either go chain mail, breastplate or full plate, as soon as possible).
Therefore I present my first take on GENERIC ARMOR.
I welcome any critic (even if you say I am wrong with my initial assumption), but please remain constructive and explain your thoughts.
(Should be a no-brainer, but trolls are everywhere, sad but true...)
Otherwise have a nice day.
No one? Anyone?
Nooo! Where's my lovely chain shirt! D:
Nooo! Where's my lovely chain shirt! D:
And my Full Plate! T^T
Ok, some suggestions and remarks :
1) you simply apply mithral, adamantine or other qualities and afterwards fluff the armor like you want, within reason ?
2) Heavy armor got worse and with that fighters, paladins, cavaliers and magi got worse.
3) I'd start with armor 1, dex 8, ACP 1, SF 5%
Working down to armor 9, dex 0, ACP 9, SF 45%
This creates a direct link between max dex, ACP and SF which makes sense.
4) I'd scrap the medium shield and make :
(buckler) Shield bonus 1, ACP 1, SF 5%
(light) Shield bonus 2, ACP 2, SF 10%
(heavy) Shield bonus 3, ACP 3, SF 15%
5) If you remove tower shields have fighters apply their armor training to shields and armor separately, so typically a 7th lvl fighter with a MW shield does not suffer any penalty while wielding a heavy shield.
6) I'd consider adding an enhancement that decreases ACP by an amount equal to the enhancement bonus.
7) increase ACP by 2, SF by 10% and decrease max dex by 2 for non-proficient wearers.
|
It's a good effort, but I'm not seeing the need for flatter armor mechanics just because players tend to eventually grab the mechanically strong ones.
I get your beef with that, but this seems more like a job for simple reskinning. I don't think any reasonable DM is going to lay down the hammer of justice if a player wants to call his breastplate a hauberk in a home game. PF doesn't account for how different armor styles hold up vs different damage types, which is a bit lame, but that makes it pretty easy to reskin as needed.
@ Red Mage:
Sure, refluffing is no big deal, but how would you handle things like a druid's restriction? No metal armor. Okay, so I say the breastplate is aqually a wood/leather armor?
My problem is that about 1/2 or maybe even 3/4 of the armor list isn't even used, because MECHANICALLY chain shirt/breastplate/full plate are simply superior. (especially Chain shirt was too good for LIGHT armor!)
So THAT's what I am trying to address.
With my armor list, the choice is simple. Since ALL armors sum up AC+DEX = 9, you'll go for that kind of armor that EXACTLY MATCHES your DEX.
Simply going for a bigger kind is no good anymore, since you would get a higher ACP (and ASF, but that's probably of no real interest).
Except you prefer higher "flat-footed AC" over "Touch AC".
Since all armor is now without an actual name (only simple/reinforced/fortified light/medium/heavy armor) you actually CAN describe it as you like.
--------------
@ Annoying Orange:
Thank you very much for the feedback, I try to reply to all:
1) See reply above.
2) Actually it depends on which armor to compare from the old list to the new. If you compare full plate with fortified heavy, you might be right, but if you compare with half plate, it actually got better.
And as I said, I didn't like that "the last" armor of each type (L/M/H), are simply TOO good compared to any other of that type.
So if those would get slightly worse, it's okay for me.
AND we only talk about what? +1 DEX, -1/-2 ACP, +5% ASF. That's not big a deal.
3) I thought about that too, but this would make heavier armor even worse. ACP 0 - (-8) better mirrors the old list.
4) I will further refine the shields. I will probably aim for one type of shield for each type of armor (L/M/H). Since buckler and tower shield have special rules, I will have to take a closer look in order to not lose anything here.
5) Actually, it would make perfect sense that wielding a shield is ALWAYS hindersome. Getting used to armor (which is distributed over the whole body), I can see, but a shield on one arm, that's always going to get in the way.
But I will think about that.
6) Why? Because heavy armor now has a slightly higher ACP? Is ACP REALLY that big a deal for characters? But sure, why not.
7) I like that idea and might add something like that to the new list. Thanks.
How would you feel about removing the speed restrictions from armor and only take eventual encumbrance into account?
What I mean: Armor in its own does not reduce your movement speed nor your running multiplier, but if you wear enough equipment (armor + anything else) to become medium or heavy encumbered, your speed is reduced as usual.
Would this make medium and heavy armor too good?
|
|
@ Red Mage:
Sure, refluffing is no big deal, but how would you handle things like a druid's restriction? No metal armor. Okay, so I say the breastplate is aqually a wood/leather armor?My problem is that about 1/2 or maybe even 3/4 of the armor list isn't even used, because MECHANICALLY chain shirt/breastplate/full plate are simply superior. (especially Chain shirt was too good for LIGHT armor!)
So THAT's what I am trying to address.
With my armor list, the choice is simple. Since ALL armors sum up AC+DEX = 9, you'll go for that kind of armor that EXACTLY MATCHES your DEX.
Simply going for a bigger kind is no good anymore, since you would get a higher ACP (and ASF, but that's probably of no real interest).
Except you prefer higher "flat-footed AC" over "Touch AC".Since all armor is now without an actual name (only simple/reinforced/fortified light/medium/heavy armor) you actually CAN describe it as you like.
In the case of a druid trying to wear mechanically prohibited armor, I would just handle it by reskinning dragonhide for that particular piece. He could pay double to make armor made of some sort of alchemically treated hardwood and call it a day. But that's a corner case, and I was more referring to reskinning within reason.
I disagree about chain shirts being too good and I'm really not sure why +4 is over the top, especially considering the fact that it's a much-needed asset for characters who want to move fast and might not want to dip for armor training/fast movement or something like that.
I'm also not sure how well this achieves your goal of allowing for variation in armor choices. Light armor users are going to choose fortified 90% of the time. It clearly offers the best blend of armor bonus and dexterity bonus to AC.
Really I'm mostly opposed to the idea that all armor/dex configurations need add up to +9. Why shouldn't there be a "last armor" for each category? Part of the fun of advancing at low levels is finally grabbing the best mundane armor you can get. Seeing your numbers go up is a good thing.
Oh, I still had 3.5 armor bonuses in mind!
But PF added +1 to all medium & heavy AC-bonuses.
Good thing. Good thing.
Okay, so chain shirt isn't that über anymore.
And light armor probably wasn't that big a problem than medium or heavy. But with ACP/ASF in mind, I can see both simple and reinforced still in use.
Really I'm mostly opposed to the idea that all armor/dex configurations need add up to +9. Why shouldn't there be a "last armor" for each category? Part of the fun of advancing at low levels is finally grabbing the best mundane armor you can get. Seeing your numbers go up is a good thing.
Well, then I guess the both of us simply won't agree on this whole idea at all and I'd say, thanks for the input and good bye.
How would you feel about removing the speed restrictions from armor and only take eventual encumbrance into account?
What I mean: Armor in its own does not reduce your movement speed nor your running multiplier, but if you wear enough equipment (armor + anything else) to become medium or heavy encumbered, your speed is reduced as usual.
Would this make medium and heavy armor too good?
Personally I love this idea. Historically this really was the biggest problem anyway. Sooner or later you get used to the armor and its restrictions, but would always be limited by its over all weight. Unfortunately i feel the encumbrance system in D20 is just too cumbersome to really use and most groups simply ignore it.
In my campaign I adopted a 1 - 10 weight system with each category pushing higher on the table, adding a shield also pushed it higher. 1 -4 = dodge / ref bonus, 4 - 6 neutral, and 7 - 10 = dodge /ref penalty. At neutral = -5 mv, can still charge (basically a minor penalty, but not really impairing). At 7+ no charge and move at -10 and basically considered encumbered. Top tier armor (full plate and Tower Shield) add +1 over heavy. Tower shield = Ref bonus vs AOE spells like fireball however. Special materials may modify the weight of the item as per normal and thus making such effects MUCH more attractive than they might otherwise be. This system basically takes into effect the real reason that full plate with a tower shield was NOT a common choice historically speaking, even among those that could afford it. This crap is HEAVY and a real pain to lug around. Typically the only groups that were armored this heavily were the cavalry knights because then your horse did the heavy labor of lugging you around.
As for the idea of just using generic / weigh class based armor, i like it. Makes the system much more user friendly.
And i do agree with your assessment that Armor = 9. At least on paper. Personally i maxed armor at +20 in my campaign for PC's which takes into account enchantments, etc. This isn't a mechanic i shared with the PC's but rather just the acid test i measured their progression against.
I just looked through the carry capacity list and it just bothers me.
Although the DIRECT mechanical influence of STRENGTH (it's modifier), is increasing linearly (+1 per 2 points of STR), the carrying capacity is increasing (rather) exponentially.
I can see that this was done in order to be able to give creatures such as giants a high carry capacity WITHOUT a tremendous Strength score (and as such a big attack bonus), but I think this is rather poorly implemented.
Maybe bigger size modifiers for both combat and carrying combined with a linear carry capacity table would work better...
Example:
Large: -2 attack & AC, x5 carrying (STR around 20-25)
Huge: -4 attack/AC, x10 carrying (STR around 30-35)
...
I'm also thinkin' about removing the tower shield proficiency and instead, link the "shield proficiency feat" with "armor proficiency".
Meaning:
If you have "shield proficiency" and "light armor proficiency", you can use light shields/bucklers.
If you also have "medium armor prof." you can also use medium shields,
and with "heavy armor prof." you can also use heavy shields/tower shields.
Thoughts?
P.S: Am still pondering about how or whether to reinvent shields.
(Already added helmets)
This probably doesn't interest anyone anymore, but... *shrugs* ...
--------------------
Version 1.3:
- Changed the naming of armor from "Regular, Reinforced, Fortified" to "Flexible, Regular, Reinforced"
- Slightly improved the ACP of medium and heavy armor
- Changed/improved the tower shield (now called heavy shield)
- Added several description texts for armor, helmets and shields
- Added revised versions for feats of the "Shield Proficiency tree"
(now with STR based two-weapon fighting)
--------------------
Your constructive comments are - as always - very much appreciated.
Since we're going generic...
Why keep the buckler as a separate entity? Doesn't light/medium/heavy ought to be enough for specific?
Wow! Feedback! °__°
Hi Laurefindel, and thanks for that.
I think dropping the buckler would produce a roughly equal outcry than the changes I made for Chain Shirt, Breastplate and Fullplate.
But those are at least still there, sort of.
The buckler DOES have a special mechanic and purpose and I simply thought it's worth keeping.
I don't like all those mithril buckler mages, but that's another topic. ;)
I like the chart overall. Mechanically its similar to a revised armor chart I wrote a few years ago, except I kept the old armor names. The chief component here I see is that there can actually be a reason to take medium armor, instead of it just being you wear before you can afford full plate.
I don't see the need for 4 shields. In gaming with my own group for the last ten years I have seen a buckler used once, and a tower shield never.
Helmets offer too easy a boost to boost to AC, and the penalty to perception is too small. If I were to have a crack at your table, I would take away the AC increase, give regular armors a -2 to perception and reinforced armor a -4. Or you could just do away with the entire affair. I do like the the visual of an adventurer removing his helmet to listen at a door in a dungeon though.
I think dropping the buckler would produce a roughly equal outcry than the changes I made for Chain Shirt, Breastplate and Fullplate.
It probably will, but my point is that you did change the Chain Shirt, Breastplate and Fullplate, so no one should accuse you of not being consistent by doing without the buckler :P
Besides, you tempered with shield bonuses to AC already, so even mechanically, your moving away from RaW.
I suggest something along the line of:
Medium shield is the baseline for shield. Round, heater-shaped or weird-fantasy shape, grant shield bonus to AC, a small ACP and that's it. User can hold (but not use) item in hand. Can be used to shield bash as 1-handed weapon.
Light shield uses mechanics of the buckler: Less shield bonus to AC but can be use with ranged weapons, two-handed weapons and TWF with small penalty. Can be used to shield bash as light weapon.
Heavy shield is your Norman kite shield, Greek oval shield, Danish large round shield, Celtic figure-8 shield, Roman rectangular shield etc. Bigger bonus to AC, significant ACP, option to take cover as full-round action.
The rest is fluff and aesthetics.
Wow! They keep coming back! :)
@ Ciaran:
Shields, that's because old shields sucked big time. They now actually do some good, though Laurefindel might have a point about the buckler/light shield.
Helmets: You probably missed, that helmets only give an AC bonus against Critical hits. They don't give a "normal" armor bonus.
@ Laurefindel:
Okay, if I would merge the light shield and the buckler, how about AC bonuses? +1, +2, +3 | +2, +3, +4 | +1, +2, +4 ... ???
-------------------------------
Quick Questions:
- Is the text about helmet-2-armor limitation comprehensible?
- The Perception penalty for helmets was -1, -3, -5 but I thought that too much.
-------------------------------
As always: Thank you for all your comments.
Okay, if I would merge the light shield and the buckler, how about AC bonuses? +1, +2, +3 | +2, +3, +4 | +1, +2, +4 ... ???
I would say +1, +2, +3, but your call really. Heavy shield can grant cover, which becomes +4 AC and +2 Reflex save instead of shield bonus to AC.
Personally, I feel that the 'take cover' option isn't very enticing if the shield already grant +4 bonus to AC. Besides, you lose enhancement bonus when using cover.
On the other hand, +4 shield bonus to AC means no recalculation...
'findel
Quick Questions:
- Is the text about helmet-2-armor limitation comprehensible?
- The Perception penalty for helmets was -1, -3, -5 but I thought that too much.
I'm a strong believer of KISS (keep it stupid simple). I'd say add bonus against critical confirmation, forget about armour category clause. I don't think it's game-breaking and it allows for staples barbarians in fur loincloth with medium horned helmets, and 12th century knight in chainmail and heavy helmets.
Give penalty on checks equal to bonus. Penalty to all skills and attack rolls if not proficient. The penalty to Perception checks is too small realistically speaking, but it's simple, easy to implement and to remember.
'findel
Version 1.4 (big thanks to 'findel and Ciaran !):
HELMETS
- Removed helmet-2-armor limitation
- added a sentence to clarify AC bonus only against critical confirmation
SHIELDS
- Merged Buckler and light shield (AC +1)
- Medium shield hand can be used to carry items but not weapons (AC +2)
- Heavy shield unchanged (AC +4, for simple calculation)
- added table line for full-metal shields (were already in the text)
------------------------------
QUESTIONS / THOUGHTS:
- Did you guys realize, that I removed the -2 attack penalty from the heavy/tower shield?
Should I lower the AC bonus to +3 because of that?
- I am inclined to change/simplify the ARMOR SPIKES. Anyone any experience with those?
How about a simple automatic damage when grappling or something?
Maybe some penalty to acrobatics?
QUESTIONS / THOUGHTS:
- Did you guys realize, that I removed the -2 attack penalty from the heavy/tower shield?
Should I lower the AC bonus to +3 because of that?
At +4 AC and no penalty on attack rolls for heavy shield, it makes me wonder why anyone would ever use a medium shield...
I must say I'm partial to a clean +1, +2, +3 progression and no messy penalty, but even then it makes the medium shield unattractive despite its use with Shield Fighting.
Speaking of which, I might be pertinent to state that Shield Fighting cannot be used with heavy shields; the way its worded at the moment, you could argue that a heavy shield "counts as a simple two‐handed melee weapon to determine its base damage stats" only.
Yeah. Funny. After posting V1.3 I reread your comments and thought about going to +1,+2,+3 too.
But what about ACP? I'd say -1,-2,-4 ? or maybe even -1, -3, -5.
I will probably add a Shield Bash penalty to the heavy shield.
I am thinking of a simple "Always take the heavy shield's ACP to all shield bash attacks".
This way, the medium shield is the best "Shield bash shield", maybe except when you can affort a mithril heavy shield (still a -1/-2 to attack though)
Yeah, I'll probably gonna do that.
-----------------------------------
So what about shield ACP?
a) -1, -2, -4
b) -1, -3, -5
c) something else
But what about ACP? I'd say -1,-2,-4 ? or maybe even -1, -3, -5.
I'd go with -1, -3, -5. Nice and linear, but I be obsessive... One way or another, a -2 difference between med and heavy is nothing to sneeze at, creating a niche for medium shield.
I will probably add a Shield Bash penalty to the heavy shield.
I am thinking of a simple "Always take the heavy shield's ACP to all shield bash attacks".
If heavy shield is considered a two-handed weapon, then it can't be used in combination with TWF (or Shield Fighting in your case). You can shield bash, but that's your attack. Still, 2-H weapons can get pretty damageable with Power Attack and all... It would be counter-intuitive to have the heavy shield a better weapon than a sword, so the penalty might be necessary.
Alternatively, you could consider the heavy shield as an improvised weapon, incurring non-proficiency penalty.
I guess I'll go with -1, -3, -5 then. I like linear or at least logical progressions too. ;)
I probably have to clarify that, though considered a 2-H weapon to determine it's damage stats, the heavy shield is still counted as a one-handed weapon, it simply does more damage.
So no power attack bonus, no 1.5 STR bonus, and you can use it for TWF/SF.
I am thinking about changing the GWR wording from light, one-handed, two-handed into Light, Medium, Heavy - adding a line that heavy melee weapons are almost always two-handed except maybe lances and shields.
Maybe I'll add a whole new paragraph for shields... We'll see...
But thanks again for your continous input.
----------------
One question, though:
What would you prefer for heavy shield bash:
- an unchanged -2 attack penalty
- an attack penalty equal to the shields ACP