|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Using thematically unpopular classes could work. The four examples are good.
Using mechanically unpopular classes is asking for trouble. The rogue isn't weird, it's just bad. Same for the monk and to a lesser degree the fighter. It's not just perception: they have real mathematical problems.
The samurai, gunslinger, alchemist, and synthesist are functional and if anything too functional. The rogue and monk aren't really functional. New players especially will suffer with them
Given that shaman seriously turfs your plant and elemental wildshape there's not much reason for a front line shaman to stay a druid past 6.
You don't get any new spells at level 8 so switching now won't cost you much if you're not interested in 5th level spells.
How are wayangs the best blasters, and how do orcs get infinite rage?
Half-orcs that worship Rovagug (ie. that guy that no PC should ever under any circumstances be allowed to worship unless the party is not only all evil but all Rovagug worshippers.) can regain rage rounds when they sunder things. Sunder can be used in place of an attack. Barbarians of level 6 or higher potentially have multiple attacks per round.
Not evil. If you'd been a (non-crippled) paladin you would have been obligated to do pretty much the same thing (substituting smite for rage). Corrupt law is corrupt. I don't see any mention of collateral damage.
And there's a prison scene that isn't character intro (as used in the Wolfenstein or Elder Scrolls franchises). That's a certain sign of a control freak GM.
Inappropriate use of alignment as a bludgeon and imprisoning PCs are two strikes. This isn't baseball. Chuck the GM out and run published campaigns if nobody else in the group is up to homebrewing.
The key difference here is that you need explicit permission to use the car and aren't getting it.
A barbarian doesn't need permission to use barbarian class features.
They're really not. Tolkien's elves have two defining characteristics: They don't age (which allows eg. Thranduil to carry a grudge for longer than humans have known how to work bronze) and they aren't homogeneous. The Noldor are about as similar to the Silvani as the Gupta are to the Sioux. They are the primary recipients of his conlang obsession and therefore culturally fragmented to support linguistic fragmentation in spite of the first defining characteristic.
There are historical dueling shields that are predominantly two handed, but occasionally are depicted used one handed with a sword
Since it can be used one handed it is not a two handed shield (not in the current equipment list) and is therefore a spiked heavy shield.
Others have established that two handing a heavy shield is rules legal. This establishes it is historical and therefore not a paradoxical rules artifact.
There are no grounds left for rejecting it.
Yes you were. I gave "it's annoying" as an example of something that does not constitute justification. You replied by talking about killing to eat. You consider the proper response to someone talking about swatting flies to be to tell them that you think it's okay to kill things to eat. There's no direct connection, which leaves only that you were trying to change the subject.
The only reasonable motive to change the subject from swatting flies to hunting is that you are afraid that expressing your opinion on swatting flies would lead to a loss of respect.
If "it was annoying" is a justification for killing a non-person is "he was annoying tens of millions of people over a span of years" a justification for killing the recording industry executives who keep signing boy bands? Or maybe just ruining their careers by planting evidence of larceny? That way lies madness.
Tolkien races? I'd love to see some Tolkien races. For all the trash talk I see about ripping off Tolkien it's plain that that none of the imitators have read much. The earliest have the excuse that the Silmarillion hadn't been published, but having an excuse for being shallow and clichéd doesn't make them not shallow and clichéd.
Frankly the core races kind of suck. Every race (with the possible exception of dwarves) without a floating bonus or a cheese wheel of variant stat lines has a narrowness of focus that makes them cultural parodies. That leaves humans and half-humans.
Thematically gnomes are a joke, halflings pathetic, and most people run dwarves and elves as parodies. Half-elves and half-orcs are angst magnets. That leaves humans, though non-angsty half-orcs are possible.
In an Alexandrian game setting anyone that pings detect evil is steeped in evil. They're either serving an evil god(dess) or have accumulated enough hit dice that they're no longer just engaged in banal evils.
Well, commoners can ping while still being pretty banal, but anyone else is doing something smite-worthy even if you don't know what. Five hit dice people are leaders or elites. You don't maintain an evil alignment as a leader without doing horrible things and you don't reach elite status without having had the opportunity to participate in war crimes or reject those opportunities and keep an evil alignment. Evil is not nice.
In a setting where used wagon salesmen are randomly rogue 10s detect evil is less discriminatory, but in such a setting why would anyone hire a level 1 adventuring party?
My Wizard could take over Congress by simply replacing each one with a Simulacrum. Much more efficient as I never have to worry about someone questioning me in any way. Plus, I don't have to read the bills that get passed.
How are you going to get over three hundred thousand GP worth of ruby dust without someone suspecting you of being involved in organized crime?
If you don't read the bills by what standard are you and not the lobbyists in charge of anything?
Then there's the issue of everyone losing half their hit dice. The drop to their skills will cause anyone in a marginal district to lose their reelection campaigns.
Subtlety is the name of the game after returning to Earth and wizards are anything but subtle. Seriously, plan Bard involves using actual skills I would legitimately have and Su abilities on members of the press, political pundits, and centrist legislators. Plan Wizard involves murdering hundreds of public figures and replacing them with evil snowmen. If I mess up the process takes an election cycle or two longer. If you mess up your spellbook winds up in an evidence locker and you get hunted down and wind up killed by a sniper team or cruise missile.
The ACG playtest Swashbuckler worked better as a strength based brute than a dex build.
TWF can work well if you start your game at level 10 or 11. Very few people do. It requires a character with large non-strength non-weapon damage bonuses who has no difficulty hitting. That would be paladin derivatives and inquisitors maybe, but even they take a while to get up to speed. Or a ranger with third level spells and all his favored enemy stacked on the same type. Or two weapon rend with its +11 BAB prerequisite and a lot of strength.
In other words it's a trap. Given the feat cost and dex requirement it's a trap even for those classes that can get some benefit from it.
Pathfinder does not support the charming rogue swashbuckler type. Unless something more clever than was seen in the playtest comes to light when the ACG is published it will continue to not do so.
Until that hoped for event either the GM needs to bring in a custom class or the player needs to learn to love the greatsword.
One handed or sword and buckler or TWF styles, apart from any issues with rogues, are a trap.
If you think I am evil for swatting flies and not eating them then I don't think I'm the one with a problem.
Bard. With the multiple skill foci alternate human racial. Orate and Comedy for versatile performance and past that it's diminishing returns so it doesn't much matter what I choose. Oh, and that feat that gives +2/4 to two performances.
Through ridiculously high bluff, diplomacy, and oratory and the mass suggestion performance in political debates I shall get elected to congress and then I will turn the congressional leadership of both parties into my puppets. And I will use press conferences to seize control of the press. And then I will have the constitution amended to secure the permanent ascendancy of my political ideals.
Yeah, high level bards are pretty much designed for taking over republics.
There are classes that might be more fun, but there's no way I'm tying myself to some half bit extraplanar god so all the divine classes are out and every party loves having a bard and having superhuman diplomacy/bluff/orate and mass suggestion to get opinion shapers to listen to reason rather than fish for sound bites not to mention what it will do to congress...
Sorry, I was busy cackling maniacally. Without the assurance of a trip home divine casters are still out of the question, but monk starts to sound really nice. Good running away, good stealth, good saves, a bunch of immunities, a tendency to be ignored by enemies, and hope of that four winds alternate capstone all sound nice.
Properly worn armor is vastly less encumbering than the same weight in a backpack. Effective encumbrance for properly worn (ie. not hastily donned) armor should be cut by at least 50%. That makes encumbrance rules a lot more playable.
Can we not have this argument in a thread about helping someone who is actually having rogue balance problems in an actual game?
Dr. Deth claims to have invented the thief class. Can we, instead of arguing with him about it, agree that he's about as objective about rogues as Thomas Edison was about DC infrastructure and ignore him?
Both are false, but #2 is completely false while #1 is just a dangerous oversimplification.
1) Unjustifiable killing of people is evil. "It was annoying me" is not a justification, yet no paladin has ever fallen for swatting a fly. In this case the victims were people, but you really should be careful of absolute statements when constructing a system of ethics.
2) The barbarian's reason for killing is justified by his culture. Someone who shows signs associated with full casters (armor+holy symbol=cleric more often than it does paladin) is threatening him in the name of a government he does not recognize as legitimate. He does not expect anything resembling his definition of a fair trial. From the barbarian's viewpoint government is organized crime. If you substitute "drawn firearm" for "full caster" there's no sensible self defense doctrine that would not justify lethal force.
There's no way to throw out the cultural definition of legitimacy (ie. that civilized government isn't) without declaring uncivilized peoples evil across the board. You can do that, provided you do so where no first peoples will hear, but it's dishonest to do something that sweeping outside the worldbuilding stage of game development. It also makes a mockery of the law/chaos axis which is intended to cover such conflicts.
In a low magic campaign I'd say arcane strike is higher priority than power attack. Not having a level appropriate magic weapon or stat belt is going to hurt your accuracy enough to make power attack not such a good deal.
And without retraining there is nothing that can be done for this character. You're stuck playing a non-performing bard as a caster because you took an archetype that throws away your combat effectiveness. It's better than nothing, but there's no path forward. You're going to continue losing ground in both combat and casting until you're useless in the former and barely worth a cohort in the latter.
You really desperately need retraining to get out of your archetype. There are official retraining rules in Ultimate Campaign.
Your spell choices are pretty good. For low magic the feats might not be terrible either: low magic means no AC for PCs, but full AC for monsters so trading full attacks is a bad deal. I'd ditch skill focus for arcane strike if it were an option.
There's really no way to get around the lack of inspire courage, though. You need that to hit well and in a low magic game even your martial friends could use the help, much less other semi-martials.
If stats can be tweaked your charisma is excessive, especially with that spell list. You'd do better with more strength instead.
Ethics applied inconsistently are just excuses. It's hard to cram a rational system of ethics into the two axis alignment system, but to call something evil and then just throw up your hands and make paladins an exception is just bad world building. You can do better than that. Just not calling killing evil while running a murderhobo simulator would help enormously.
A couple points:
1) Only legitimate authority is privileged over any other gang of thugs in use of force ethics.
2) The barbarian class is usually used to represent tribal or barbaric cultures. To a tribal culture the only legitimate authority is tradition. To a barbaric culture the only authority is strength or heroism. The paladin and his posse demonstrably lacked that.
Even if morality is judged on an absolute scale the legitimacy of a government is in the eye of the beholder and is the only distinction between a government and a particularly successful mafia.
The question that remains is whether non-evil use of force ethics permit the use of lethal force against people with drawn weapons. Except that there's a paladin involved. Paladins and clerics don't really dress all that differently so the real question is whether it is permissible to use lethal force against a possible full caster who is verbally threatening you. The only reasonable answer to that is "no duh."
The barbarian is acting in accordance with his culture and alignment. Unless his culture is deemed inherently evil he can retain a CN or even TN alignment in the face of such actions. Designating his culture as evil is the sort of thing that should only ever be done at game start or the first time a PC or NPC of such a culture is encountered.
Play a staff wielding fighter, ranger, paladin, barbarian, magus, cleric, or inquisitor. Call yourself a monk.
Quarterstaff isn't great, but outside of crit builds it's not hopeless. Learn to write a class that works at the top of the sheet and monk in the backstory.
Your planning has hit a snag because the archetype is so severely flawed.
The weakness of a caster bard is save DCs. The solution is Dirge of Doom. Magician loses it. That's really all there is to say from that side.
Dweomercraft boosts spell penetration, but that's not a big issue for most of the game. Casters are generally good at avoiding concentration checks and the bonus to spell attack rolls is something you would have been getting from inspire courage on a standard bard.
Spell Suppression requires you to be performing in advance and only stops one spell. You lose Dirge of Doom with its -2 penalty to saves and attack rolls. You cast spells that have lower saves than a wizard would.
Metamagic Mastery lets you use metamagic without increasing casting time. But a bard doesn't have high level slots to metamagic into and doesn't have any spells that strongly benefit from metamagic. Frightening Tune may be going after a less than ideal save for its level, but at least it's situationally useful without expending character resources on something you'd otherwise ignore.
After all these terrible trades you get a few off-list spells and starting at 10th level some wand benefits.
In short, a vanilla bard will probably the role better or a rogue/sorcerer aiming for arcane trickster if you want non-bardic spells.
For race you certainly don't want elf. A caster bard needs that +2 in charisma for the save DC. 6 level casters have a hard enough time keeping up as it is.
They need to be addressed in order. So long as the mechanics are broken, and they are broken, there's nothing to draw in a shy player.
And the real problem is something nobody has touched on at all.
The aid another mechanics don't work. They're supposed to engage multiple players in a task, but because the tiny skill point totals strongly encourage specialization there is generally only one character capable of a given skill anyways.
The game desperately needs cross-skill aid another. Most classes need either more skill points or more skill consolidation. 2+int skill points should have gone the way of 1d4 hit dice even with further skill consolidation.
You can't even use knowledge nobility to advise someone on how to better impersonate a noble.
I definitely do not recommend Oracle. You should never play an oracle unless you intend your curse to dominate your roleplay.
Conversion Inquisitor can be reskinned and work unless UMD was key to your build.
For bard I'd recommend Arcane Duelist. Archaeologist needs lingering performance and has to pay for arcane strike. You don't have enough feats for that early on.
You can easily fill up on nothing but archery feats. Discordant voice makes it in because it's just that good.
human) point blank shot
Wait, you think these guys were Chaotic Neutral?
The tavern was in a lawful evil town. Depending on where you stand on the sliding scale of idealism and cynicism someone who burns down evil towns without suffering angst are good or neutral.
If it helps imagine that it was a town of hobgoblins. Would you really drop a CN character to CE for lighting a fire in a hobgoblin camp?
Nah, kobolds are potentially useful for squeezing through 1'3" holes that an otherwise medium party can't traverse at all and even have darkvision to see in them. The really important thing is the con penalty and you can get that from elves.
I think I've pretty well demonstrated that schroedinger's wizard can do anything, even be a complete waste of space.
Elf evoker (admixture) 20
str 7 dex 8 con 5 int 9 wis 18 cha 18
His favored class goes into extra uses of his first level school power.
With a -3 con mod he starts with 3 HP and his expected level 20 HP is a mere 12.5
His 1 skill point per level goes each into a different profession.
He takes Spell Mastery in every feat slot.
He is the least interesting elf in the world. No, wait, that would be the Drizzt clones. He is the least interesting non-dark elf in the world.
Fighter has no skill set.
Monk has a partial skill set, but stealth and perception do not a scout make. A scout needs to be able to do something. Either understand what he sees so he can give the party useful intel -- which because of the skill requirements is pretty much the domain of the bard -- or he needs to be able to remove obstacles. A monk can say "there are three humanoids about yea tall and they have darkish skin but darkvision doesn't have color," without spending several minutes describing their equipment to the wizard so he can turn it into useful information like "they're orcs and one is a shaman."
If you have a rogue in your party the monk is almost completely redundant. All he's good for is sneaking with the rogue so the rogue has someone to flank with if they get caught and unless they took the stealth synergy teamwork feat he makes getting caught more likely by doing so.
I think paladins should represent a principle. The alignment system really doesn't work. Justice and Liberty make good principles but I'd be open to suggestions. Acting contrary to ones guiding principle would be the only offense.
A paladin of justice would be required to fight (with violence if necessary, he is a martial class after all) bribery, corruption, and inequitable laws.
A paladin of Liberty would be required to incite a holy crusade against any nation that allowed slavery.
Actually, paladin should probably be at least two classes. The current martial paladin and a skilled paladin that is to rogue as paladin is to fighter. That allows a class to support paladins that don't solve every problem with smite.
An antipaladin would adhere to a corrupted principle. For instance a paladin of justice that went antipaladin would become an antipaladin of vengeance. A paladin of liberty would fall to an antipaladin of anarchy.
The paladin cannot be a paragon of morality so long as he's lawful. Extreme CN and LN are indistinguishable from CE and LE respectively.
When living in anarchy it doesn't matter whether you kill for resources or fear or s&!&s and giggles.
And on the other side you have the Auditors and the Modrons. Life is messy. An ordered universe consists of rocks moving in curves. The imposition of order is slavery or genocide.
It might mechanically be a mess, but when I hear "My character is an archaeologist in a fantasy setting", the very first race I think of is Gnome. It might be a mess mechanically, but being odd scientific types is sort of one of their major racial concepts.
It's not just a mess, it's hopeless. Thanks to the critical strength penalty and lack of dex bonus to enable agile weapon or dervish dance or even archery alternatives -- gnomes are only good for sorcerers, casting focused oracles, and summoners. And shamans if you play with ACG beta classes. Maybe with save reducer support a casting focused bard, but the bard list doesn't stand on its own without inspire courage, which the archaeologist lacks.
Unless you're running well above expected point buy it takes a lot of good racials to make up for not having a bonus to your key stat and gnomes don't have that. Con is only a key stat for one orc-only witch archetype. Charisma's a little better, but a bard's key stat is either strength or dexterity depending on if you're going for melee or archery.
Tell that to all the paladins in Cheliax. There are lots. It's even a center for the Iomedean faith.
This is proof only that the setting writers have forgotten the paladin and alignment rules if they ever actually paid attention to them in the first place. Or are rules lawyers to such a ridiculous extent that they can no longer comprehend the concept of a sin of omission.
David knott 242 wrote:
taldanrebel2187 (ie. the OP) wrote:
I think the players just got carried away when we were all drinking :P
Fixed that for you.
Next time you want to play a campaign run it dry. Next time you want to game drunk run a oneshot. I'd suggest We Be Goblins or its sequel or maybe something for the Paranoia RPG.
A paladin would certainly fall for bribery. If the law was corrupt he should have gone in smiting. I cannot understand how paladin orders can exist without being in a state of war with the place without falling en masse.
Get rid of dailies.
Use appropriately tweaked Recharge Magic for prepared casters and Spell Points with the recovery rate reckoned over increments of not more than an hour and preferably less than a half hour. Do the same spread out recovery for all the other daily pools.
With no special 8 hours out of 24 rest cycle long dungeons can be assayed without planning on leaving in the middle.
Also, no traps. Traps lead to slow movement rates. Without traps a party can plan to blitz 2-3 encounters on a single casting of a medium term buff. Unless you're running an explicit time limit all delays longer than their spell durations are the same. If you're using min/level spells 15 minutes of searching for traps is the same as 24 hours in a rope trick followed by 15 minutes of searching for traps as far as the players can see.
The fetchling can't start until level 9 that I can see. That's an improvement on bard or magus, but later than an EK can start.
Note that if you have access to Ultimate Campaign's retraining rules you can retrain earlier feats into new feats you did not meet the prerequisites for when you got them originally. A bard or magus with enough free cash can use retraining to get the whole chain at level 10.
Diego Rossi wrote:
It is not simply a question of visuals. The theme part say that the connection is more complicated.
The theme connection has nothing whatsoever to do with location. It's the relevance of location to teleport that is used as an argument against the scry-teleport combination and the possibility of thematic resonances between eg. a temple of Pharasma and a graveyard do not help that argument.
The threat level drops significantly if you steal the wizard's spellbook and material components pouch. Fighters do not have this problem since they rely mostly on their Full BAB, class features, gear, and feats.
The threat level doesn't drop one iota from taking away a wizard's spell book unless he uses a bonded item. Once the fight starts it's too late to prepare spells. Generally most of his spells come from class features not monetary expenditures unless he's prestige classed.
The component pouch vulnerability can be almost completely negated with one feat. Completely if he doesn't happen to prepare expensive spells.
Of course a spell component pouch is a trivial expense. A level 1 NPC can afford eight out of his gear allowance. To a level 14 NPC a spell component pouch is less relatively precious than a single nonmagical arrow to a level 1 NPC. A wizard BBEG can easily afford to have a spare spell component pouch hanging from a hook on the ceiling into every single 5' square in a reasonably sized inner sanctum.
You can make a synthesist have any flavor you want. It.'s great for simulating superheroes. If I were going to make iron man or venom in pathfinder, synthesist is the way I would go.
He's not talking about a character theme. N. Jolly themes his guides.
There is no aggro in Pathfinder and therefor no tanking. The closest thing to a tank is a battlefield control caster, which the paladin wasn't.
Arcane casters are highly persecuted (like killed) in this setting :-)
The best divine caster for filling arcane roles without spreading Wisconsin's entire dairy production for the decade over your character sheet is the druid. They aren't good at the teleporting games, but for battlefield control they have everything important. If you do make a switch it should probably be monk to druid.
Old Gumphrey wrote:
Why are there so many spells that can kill fun?
Because no one studied game design when first edition was being written and the only people ever to be brave enough to actually fix the horrible legacy spell list were also presumptuous enough to completely erase all variety and poisoned the well for all future official attempts to fix D&D.
Might work. Druids can get a lot of reach to compensate for SD/s immobility. Entry is going to be level 11 going in as a pure druid, which gives you huge animals (15' reach) and large elementals (20' reach with polearm). Shaping Focus you get huge elementals (30' reach with polearm) and huge plants (60' reach on secondary attacks).
A Druid 8 Fighter (unbreakable) 1 entry gets you in 1 level earlier and gets you the same wildshape capability with Shaping Focus. Getting Diehard free is good for not dieing from defensive stance ending, but you lose level 5 druid spells.
Earliest access is Druid 4 Fighter 4, but you only get 15' reach via large animal unless you can convince your GM that you can use a manufactured weapon shaped into a large primate.
Note, regarding elementals with polearms: Slams are not linked to limbs except on Eidolons because (A) elementals do not have fixed forms and (B) zombie snakes have a slam attack. You can therefore use your slams to cover the area inside a polearm's minimum reach.
If you can't retcon the druid level your best move may be to burn it. Turn it into an ex-druid level because losing the ability to use metal armor until wildshape comes online is ruinous and without shaping focus available you're going to take too long to become functional as a martial shaper.
Having basically an NPC level clogging your build is less harmful than trying to fulfill the druid restrictions.
Poisons are a means by which the weak (eg. women) can defend themselves from or avenge themselves upon the strong. They are therefore dishonorable.
It is honorable for a greater lord to pressure a lesser into giving him his daughter as a "wife." It is dishonorable for the girl to end her torment by poisoning her rapist-in-all-but-name "husband."
Honor codes are entirely about keeping the oppressed oppressed. If anything should be evil it is the concept of honor, not the righteous vengeance of the oppressed.
Chris Kenney wrote:
Payment in magic would explain why summoning a hound archon requires a more difficult spell than summoning a horse when the horse has greater mass and volume.
Summon spells act like Astral Projection in reverse. They do not suffer harm because they aren't really present. This is the same reason Protection From Alignment and Spell Resistance effect summoned monsters. They don't effect creatures that are actually present (ie. those that have been called, passed through a permanent gate, plane shifted, or are native to the plane you're fighting them on).
Presumably either individual creatures can refuse summons or are only summoned when dreaming or their are time flow shenanigans or some such that prevent summons from suffering harm by being pulled out of important meetings.
The teleport spell rules contain proof the relative or absolute location of the destination is not necessary to a successful teleport.
CRB p359 wrote:
"False destination" is a place that does not truly exist or if you are teleporting to an otherwise familiar location that no longer exists as such or has been so completely altered as to no longer be familiar to you.
CRB p359 wrote:
Similar Area: You wind up in an area that's visually or thematically similar to the target area. Generally, you appear in the closest similar place within ttange. If no such area exists within the spell's range, the spell simply fails instead.
If you teleport to a familiar location that has been altered you have a 65% chance of winding up in a similar location if one exists. You do not know the location of this similar location.
Suppose you have as a location a very familiar room, the only distinctive features of which are a set of unique tapestries. If the tapestries are removed the room becomes a false destination. If they are set up in the same configuration in another room of approximately the same dimensions it becomes a similar area. If both locations are within teleport range you have a 65% chance of winding up in the room to which the tapestries have been moved and a 0% chance of winding up in the room from which they have been removed. The chance of arriving safely at the location of the tapestries is only 11% lower than the chance of arriving safely in a room viewed once. This gap is smaller than the gap between seen casually and seen once. Considering that similar area rules are intended for locations that are merely similar rather than deliberately arranged by moving furnishings between functionally identical rooms it's plain that relative location has next to no influence on teleport and visual appearance (or appearance to other senses) are if not the sole means of defining a location for Teleport very close thereto.
You really need either DR or threshold armor to handle modern guns.
High velocity guns (read rifles) will go through most armor. Rifles can potentially put a hole in an engine block and cylinder walls are thicker than plate armor and probably tougher per unit thickness as well. Low velocity guns (pistols and shotguns) won't. Small enough pistols can be stopped by a particularly thick game sourcebook so they'll probably be substantially mitigated by almost anything worth calling armor.
Then there's the possibility of specialty armors that stop bullets well, but are weak in some fashion to slashing weapons or high momentum low velocity weapons (like maces). They're more media perception than realism, but the concept exists and your players are likely to buy it. Especially since the realistic alternative is treating every attack as a sunder and tracking damage to armor. Only the most diehard simulationists will blame you for choosing Hollywood bullet proof vests over that headache.