Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Why full plate wearers will not sink in water in PFO.


Pathfinder Online

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

If you're not interested in expanding your explanation, fine by me, but in our discourse so far you've managed to explain to me your point of view sufficiently enough to alter my perspective. I wasn't hoping to challenge you into persuasion, I was just asking if you could clarify.

Nihimon wrote:
Gruffling wrote:
No expectation should exist to simply air-walk a chasm without being some specialized jumper or air-mage.
I'll end by stating, just as plainly: No expectation should exist to simply swim across a river while encumbered unless you have some kind of buoyancy aid.

and here we get to a nugget... those of us in the "pro plate-swimming" crowd can more easily handwave it as "someone is really strong/capable/awesome in plate" vs needing to inject a niche of realism into a fantasy realm.

As an anecdote, in a not to distant game I ran, I had a few encounters in a river, right on the edge of a waterfall. There was some failed rolls, and some flailing almost over the edge, and a lot of dice to do this that or the other to save the PCs in danger. In the end, I had tried to build a more simulationist approach, harkening back to 1st/2nd edition style free form DM challenges, and some of my players digged it as a challenge, but most kind rolled their eyes a little and voiced an "ugh" at the event. Some of my players liked the challenge for its actiony adventure Indiana Jones style, but most were more interested in more dramatic challenges than something as mundane as crossing a river. Different strokes for different folks.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

The default adult human can't swim. Some people can stay afloat in calm water, or even move quickly in calm water. While related to swimming, those abilities do not constitue swimming.

Have tiers of the swim skill or ability. Make characters learn to swim, and let them learn to swim in clothing, or in armor.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Decius +1


Nihimon wrote:
Actually, I would really like it if everyone generally chose to find a ford or a bridge rather than just jumping in the water and swimming across. I'd like there to be a bit of a challenge to cross a river. I'd also like there to be a bit of a challenge to crossing a desert.

One of the blogs did mention difficult terrain will slow your movement speed. Being snared could be a big deal.

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Have tiers of the swim skill or ability. Make characters learn to swim, and let them learn to swim in clothing, or in armor.

Hold on... EQ flashback...

Whew. For a moment there I thought I was afk in a pool overnight.

This would work, and makes sense.

Goblin Squad Member

Well, there goes my hope of making a living as a ferryman, I mean who would need me, just pocket your mount(s), de-summon your companion/pets, throw on your plate and swim across the raging river. It is is not like a game would punish someone for stupid behaviours...and hence, I guess they are no longer stupid behaviours.

You know, there were real world solutions that could be implemented in game (like ferrys, which btw, might be someone's choice of fun you are removing by removing these needs and challenges). Asmodeus forbid a game require someone to overcome non-combat challenges.

Goblin Squad Member

@Forencith, who was it recently who said something about every inconvenience in a game is an opportunity for someone else to have fun providing a service?

Goblin Squad Member

@Gruffling,

The idea is to make wilderness exploration as exciting/interesting and hazardous a part of the game as combat is. That doesn't mean that simply going out and gathering resources in your back yard...or getting from well known point A to well known point B should present those kind of hazards to people not equiped for it.

We're talking about "going off the map". The equivalent of in the 1500-1600's organizing an expedition to the heart of the Amazon, or the Congo or crossing the Sahara or climbing Mt Everest.

Why should monsters & humanoids be the only hazards a player faces in a situation like that. That just makes everything about combat and everything else boring... but that need not be the case. Wilderness exploration can be full of interesting and exciting hazards for the players to face and overcome... sandstorms, rockslides, blizzards, quick-sand, raging rivers to cross, tall mountain ranges to climb.

How much more exciting and interesting a game-play dynamic is it if in the course of exploring the wilderness the player encounters a raging river that they must find a way to cross. Under my scenerio, the player must use skill, proper equipment and planning to get across...and if they fail then they get might get swept down river and maybe suffer 6d6 damage (possibly enough to even kill them) from drowning and being dashed against rocks in the rapids. Under your scenerio...no rolls, no skill, no planning, no risk....they just cross at 50% slower speed <yawn>.

See the difference there?

It seems to me your arguement is geared around the idea of minimizing whats involved in one aspect of play because it doesn't match up with your personal preferences. The same arguement could be put forward by a person who liked exploring but didn't like combat. Why should they face any hazard from hostile creatures/humanoids when exploring...it should maybe just slow them down 50% while they are out exploring...but no risk of death/defeat.

As far as I'm concerned...the key to this agreement is not whether someone sinks in plate. It's whether other types of hazards and challenges exist in the game aside from combat....and not giving those aspects of play short shift.

Plate and water hazards is just a single example of one type of poor gear choice for one type of environmental hazard. I'm not arguing something as simple as encounter raging river that you have to cross...the guy in plate automaticaly fails and dies...the guy in leather automaticaly succeeds. I'm arguing that the raging river should be a game-play challange for the player to overcome...one that involves skill and planning... heavy armor just puts the player at a significant penalty to his skill rolls to overcome that challenge as it is a really poor gear choice (probably the worst possible) for THAT PARTICULAR challange....just as it's a really good gear choice that provides benefits for OTHER types of challenges that exist in the game (like encountering an Ogre with a big club).

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:

If you're not interested in expanding your explanation, fine by me, but in our discourse so far you've managed to explain to me your point of view sufficiently enough to alter my perspective. I wasn't hoping to challenge you into persuasion, I was just asking if you could clarify.

Nihimon wrote:
Gruffling wrote:
No expectation should exist to simply air-walk a chasm without being some specialized jumper or air-mage.
I'll end by stating, just as plainly: No expectation should exist to simply swim across a river while encumbered unless you have some kind of buoyancy aid.

and here we get to a nugget... those of us in the "pro plate-swimming" crowd can more easily handwave it as "someone is really strong/capable/awesome in plate" vs needing to inject a niche of realism into a fantasy realm.

As an anecdote, in a not to distant game I ran, I had a few encounters in a river, right on the edge of a waterfall. There was some failed rolls, and some flailing almost over the edge, and a lot of dice to do this that or the other to save the PCs in danger. In the end, I had tried to build a more simulationist approach, harkening back to 1st/2nd edition style free form DM challenges, and some of my players digged it as a challenge, but most kind rolled their eyes a little and voiced an "ugh" at the event. Some of my players liked the challenge for its actiony adventure Indiana Jones style, but most were more interested in more dramatic challenges than something as mundane as crossing a river. Different strokes for different folks.

Yeah and some players will hate PFO the first time they get attacked by some-one without having to click "Accept Duel" first...or hate it if they don't see a ton of NPC's scattered around the map with big yellow question marks floating over thier heads.

Point is, not all games have to be the same...appeal to EXACTLY the same audience tastes...and present exactly the same types of gameplay.

PFO with it's design has a great opportunity to appeal to EXPLORER type players. Players who have pretty much been given minimal attention (at best) in 99% of the MMO's out there. One way to do that is to introduce different types of game-play challenges to present to those players. Dangerous obsticals that must be crossed/overcome or circumvented, puzzles to solve, etc.

By not presenting those sorts of things, you essentialy SHAFT players that are interested in EXPLORING by minimizing the aspect of play that they are interested in.

EXPLORER types aren't justed interested in "ooh...pretty sight...let me take a picutre".... they are interested in what was involved in GETTING THERE to see that site. Navigational hazards present a type of challange that is actualy interesting to many EXPLORER types.

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:
If you're not interested in expanding your explanation, fine by me, but in our discourse so far you've managed to explain to me your point of view sufficiently enough to alter my perspective. I wasn't hoping to challenge you into persuasion, I was just asking if you could clarify.

I'm just trying to avoid saying the same thing over and over. I felt like my chasm analogy was the best chance I had of explaining my position to anyone else. If you understood that analogy, and still genuinely don't understand why I want the game not to allow people to swim around in full plate as effectively as if they're naked, then I doubt I'll ever be able to explain it.

For the record, I was on my High School's swim team back in the day, and we even went to state my junior year. I understand why swimmers shave their legs to reduce drag. I understand how difficult it is to swim to safety even in street clothes. Perhaps its my own love of water, and swimming, that makes me want the game I play to treat it with the respect it deserves.

Goblin Squad Member

Well now, with broader explanations comes better understanding. Grumpy and Nihimon i thank you for the extra time to bring my perspective into the shift.

Perhaps I confused some of the various directions the different posters had into one, as is sometimes the tendency when reading forums. Now that we've parsed out the differences, we can more easily see the similarities. Might come as a shock, but I agree with quite a bit of what you've posted re: Exploration as a challenge. Perhaps my view is from more of a "gamist" perspective. I also think there is merit to reducing the challenge in exploration to a less severe band of penalty for failure than perhaps what you've described. Personally, I would find the type of hardcore exploration to be kinda fun, but contrary to assumption, I don't always suggest things from my own perspective.

I really was simply presenting the viewpoint on a narrow focus of Plate vs Swimming. Some in the thread have stated a severe view that it just shouldn't happen, because in the real world we can all agree its pretty unlikely to resolve itself as anything other than a trip to the hospital. I stand more on the side of heroic abstractions. I'd love to see difficult terrain challenges, swimming a dangerous river having just the right sort of penalty for failure, Cold effects at high altitude, landslides to a certain extent as long as those challenges have significant, but not overwhelming penalties for failure. Part of my view is that if these things can't be accounted for in some mechanical way, that can be avoided or accommodated by an "average" player, it will result in lots of frustrations by the "average" player. I also believe that movement should have as reliable a set of consequences as possible, as that's the key point of interaction between player and game. A player that is removed from control of his character too much is a person playing a different game before too long.

Example real world scenario: Landslide occurs above you, you die. no warning, no chance to avoid, no passing go, no 200gp. How can the danger of such severe environmental challenges be toned down to accommodate the feel of a dangerous environ, as you want, vs my sense that the average player will find that level of challenge completely unfair. I guess that's for the developers to pinpoint the exactness.

Rhetorical questions aside, I hope I've presented my views more accurately. I ask questions not from a sarcastic or demeaning point of view, but from a lack of understanding through this imperfect medium. If at the end of the day at game launch, we still sit across the table from each other, but the table is very narrow, I'm happy with that. If we sit on the same side, all the better.

Goblin Squad Member

@Gruffling, there's a world of difference between asking for over-encumbered characters to sink in water, and asking for random, no-warning avalanches to kill players.

The former involves the player's choice to enter the water.

Gruffling wrote:
A player that is removed from control of his character too much is a person playing a different game before too long.

Having an over-encumbered character sink to the bottom of a river no more removes control than having a character fall to the bottom of a chasm. The character is still choosing to either jump into the river, or jump into the chasm.

You have introduced "landslides" as if that's remotely similar to what we've been discussing. It's entirely different for the very reasons you point out: it removes the player's control of their character.

So, let's forget about landslides and other situations completely outside the player's control. Let's focus on actions that the player knowingly engages in.

To me, the following are all entirely consistent:
1. Player chooses to jump off a cliff, character dies at the bottom.
2. Player chooses to jump into lava, character burns to death.
3. Player chooses to jump into a large body of water wearing plate mail, character drowns.

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:
Example real world scenario: Landslide occurs above you, you die. no warning, no chance to avoid, no passing go, no 200gp. How can the danger of such severe environmental challenges be toned down to accommodate the feel of a dangerous environ, as you want, vs my sense that the average player will find that level of challenge completely unfair. I guess that's for the developers to pinpoint the exactness.

That scenario actually reminds me of a spot in Oblivion, on one of the planes. Passing over a causeway, you might hear a slight rumble, then a whole bunch of boulders tumble down the mountainside above your character. If the big ones hit him, yeah, he could die.

How is it toned down? Actually, I think, by making such hazards part of the environment. If a player sees such a rockfall once in 100 hours he's less prepared than if he sees rockfalls and quicksand and whatnot a couple of times in a few hours of exploring. Clues like a few boulders at the bottom of a slope or pith helmets resting atop sand give warning. And yes, there should (usually) be incremental clues before a trap is fully sprung. The plate wearing swimmer should have the option of turning back when he's belly deep.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Gruffling wrote:
Example real world scenario: Landslide occurs above you, you die. no warning, no chance to avoid, no passing go, no 200gp. How can the danger of such severe environmental challenges be toned down to accommodate the feel of a dangerous environ, as you want, vs my sense that the average player will find that level of challenge completely unfair. I guess that's for the developers to pinpoint the exactness.

That scenario actually reminds me of a spot in Oblivion, on one of the planes. Passing over a causeway, you might hear a slight rumble, then a whole bunch of boulders tumble down the mountainside above your character. If the big ones hit him, yeah, he could die.

How is it toned down? Actually, I think, by making such hazards part of the environment. If a player sees such a rockfall once in 100 hours he's less prepared than if he sees rockfalls and quicksand and whatnot a couple of times in a few hours of exploring. Clues like a few boulders at the bottom of a slope or pith helmets resting atop sand give warning. And yes, there should (usually) be incremental clues before a trap is fully sprung. The plate wearing swimmer should have the option of turning back when he's belly deep.

Heh, excellent job of proving why I was wrong to suggest we ignore the landslides example :)

Goblin Squad Member

I was using landslides as an extreme example regarding overall environmental challenges.

As it regards to your 3 case examples:

I'd say the distance of fall should be significantly "more heroic" than the 15 - 20 feet it requires to kill a regular person.

I'd say if insta-death lava, then you should in fact start taking significant damage well before you get within 20 feet of it. Otherwise, my gamist view says you should take rapid and catastrophic damage that might allow survival.

I'd say that if someone is trained in the use of plate, skilled in swimming, and is strong in the key stat associated with swimming, than it should be a success.

All three of my views are also supported by the level of Heroic deed we might typically see in the tabletop game. The mechanics of PFO might differ dramatically from Pathfinder, but I would hope its players can engage in significant heroics that are several levels of above human capacity. If we're playing a game with dragons, we should be as capable at enduring the rigors of the wild as we are at defeating mythical beasts. I just tend to be as far on the side of abstraction for the challenges of the wild, as I am for the challenges of fighting Ogres/Dragons/Goblins.

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:
I'd say if insta-death lava, then you should in fact start taking significant damage well before you get within 20 feet of it. Otherwise, my gamist view says you should take rapid and catastrophic damage that might allow survival.

I think that's right for most hazards. If the hazard can kill with damage over time, it *usually* should cause some damage just getting close to it. If a hazard can kill you through exhaustion (like swimming four miles through cold choppy water, with no load), then you need some endurance pool that starts depleting early.

While people will sometimes catch visual or audible clues, they'll usually notice when they see a health/stamina/whatever reserve start drawing down.

Goblin Squad Member

lava related anecdote: I once had the opportunity to photograph flowing lava in Hawaii. It was a very small amount, say maybe 1.5 cubic feet (or less) of red at any one time, and it was so amazingly hot, I could not actually approach closer than about 15 feet. After taking my as close as i could get shots and ending the life of that camera, i had the indications of flash burns on my face for weeks.

Super not-heroic, but an interesting window into such a hazard.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Radiant heat is an awe-inspiring effect. To think that we can feel heat from the sun, 93 million miles away... But yeah, you certainly knew that lava was a hazard, well before it was life threatening.

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:

Well now, with broader explanations comes better understanding. Grumpy and Nihimon i thank you for the extra time to bring my perspective into the shift.

Perhaps I confused some of the various directions the different posters had into one, as is sometimes the tendency when reading forums. Now that we've parsed out the differences, we can more easily see the similarities. Might come as a shock, but I agree with quite a bit of what you've posted re: Exploration as a challenge. Perhaps my view is from more of a "gamist" perspective. I also think there is merit to reducing the challenge in exploration to a less severe band of penalty for failure than perhaps what you've described. Personally, I would find the type of hardcore exploration to be kinda fun, but contrary to assumption, I don't always suggest things from my own perspective.

I really was simply presenting the viewpoint on a narrow focus of Plate vs Swimming. Some in the thread have stated a severe view that it just shouldn't happen, because in the real world we can all agree its pretty unlikely to resolve itself as anything other than a trip to the hospital. I stand more on the side of heroic abstractions. I'd love to see difficult terrain challenges, swimming a dangerous river having just the right sort of penalty for failure, Cold effects at high altitude, landslides to a certain extent as long as those challenges have significant, but not overwhelming penalties for failure. Part of my view is that if these things can't be accounted for in some mechanical way, that can be avoided or accommodated by an "average" player, it will result in lots of frustrations by the "average" player. I also believe that movement should have as reliable a set of consequences as possible, as that's the key point of interaction between player and game. A player that is removed from control of his character too much is a person playing a different game before too long.

Example real world scenario: Landslide occurs above you, you die. no warning, no chance to avoid,...

I expect it could work just as PvP risk is likely to be handled in PFO. There are "high-sec" and "Low-Sec" areas and a sliding range of scale in between. Same could be done for environmental style hazards...some areas have little/no risk involved in them...others moderate....others significant. A player just tailers where he goes based upon the level of risk he enjoys.

Simple solution...don't like environmental risks....stick to the "Plains of the Orc Hordes".... stay away from "The Mountains of Freezing Death." Problem solved.

Goblin Squad Member

@Gruffling, I totally agree that our characters should be Heroic, and have Heroic abilities.

It's just that we differ on where we draw the line between Heroic and Ridiculous. I imagine we'd both call it Ridiculous to have characters easily able to jump a 100 yard chasm. I just happen to view swimming in plate mail as Ridiculous rather than Heroic.

Goblin Squad Member

Grumpy do a certain extent I totally agree, although I would like to see a slightly irregular definition between high and null as the parlance goes. In space distance makes sense, but on the ground terrain doesn't mesh well with radial difficulty. Kinda immersion straining there.

At this point i think we're in favor of the same things, in different levels of severity.

Goblin Squad Member

I just want to point out that I really don't think anyone here was simplifying platewearers + water = instadeath. What we are suggesting is that extreme encumbrance should exacerbation already existing environmental effects. Walking on the road with 100% encumbrance should reduce movement to near if not zero. Walking through a swamp or marsh with 60% encumbrance should reduce movement to near if not zero. However, all of these are based off your encumbrance, which is in turn based on your attributes (and possibly additional feats). If you are strong enough to carry two horses, you should be able to carry one horse (50% encumbrance) across a swamp. You should also get benefits from having a respective skill. Knowledge (swamp) is a demonstration that you know the wiser places to walk, suggesting maybe another x% allowance on your movement while encumbered.

The water/swimming should be treated similarly.

Of course, I also think various types of armour should cause skill deficits/limitation. No matter how strong you are, your full range of movement will be different in plate versus cloth, or even no armour. It is difficult to do the front crawl when your armour reticulations don't allow you to raise your arms over your head.

So, on average here is what I hope we see:

Penalty to base movement on difficult terrain
Bonus to movement on difficult terrain due to relevant skills
Limitation to dexterity bonus (and relevant skills) due to armour
Limitation on skill bonus due to armour

Together, these bonuses, penalties, and limitations should keep an average STR/DEX resident of Golarion from successfully swimming in plate.

As for being Heroic, Ryan stated way back when that one of the reasons low and high level persons would be able to fight side-by-side is because PFO will not be like other MMOs where everyone is the hero who saves the world. In PFO, we are all simply residents of Golarion, and being a hero can be accomplished, but it requires the performance of heroic deeds. If I am a crafter/merchant, then I am probably not also a hero battling to save the world. My goals are my bottom line. This defeats your premise that we are all heros and therefore worthy of heroic consideration in respect to the environment. In PFO, you are only a hero if you actually make your self be through your actions and choices...but we are all residents of Golarion, unfortunately that means we are at risk from those things which threaten the residents of Golarion.

Goblin Squad Member

We share some similar opinions in this first portion.

Forencith wrote:
As for being Heroic, Ryan stated way back when that one of the reasons low and high level persons would be able to fight side-by-side is because PFO will not be like other MMOs where everyone is the hero who saves the world. In PFO, we are all simply residents of Golarion, and being a hero can be accomplished, but it requires the performance of heroic deeds. If I am a crafter/merchant, then I am probably not also a hero battling to save the world. My goals are my bottom line. This defeats your premise that we are all heros and therefore worthy of heroic consideration in respect to the environment. In PFO, you are only a hero if you actually make your self be through your actions and choices...but we are all residents of Golarion, unfortunately that means we are at risk from those things which threaten the residents of Golarion.

My premise is that we are all playing a game based on abstractions and that the severity (meaning penalties for failure) of environmental challenges shouldn't be close to as severe as they are in the real world. Wether or not there are amazing crafters and merchants capable of rapid wealth acquisition doesn't really impact my premise. If anything, we're basically both saying if you want to do something, you prepare for it (with skills/training/equipment), and go do it with success.

Yes, we are all portraying residents of Golarion, but by that very simple premise, you have to accommodate greater than human options and capacities. You might be the best merchant in the game, but that doesn't change the context of dragons and magic. As a merchant you might sink like a stone while wearing a night shift, but that has nothing to do with a Paladin crossing a river.

What it does bring up is that this is clearly going to be a game with a broadly accessible set of gameplay experiences. One shouldn't really trump the other.

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:

My premise is that we are all playing a game based on abstractions and that the severity (meaning penalties for failure) of environmental challenges shouldn't be close to as severe as they are in the real world. Wether or not there are amazing crafters and merchants capable of rapid wealth acquisition doesn't really impact my premise. If anything, we're basically both saying if you want to do something, you prepare for it (with skills/training/equipment), and go do it with success.

Yes, we are all portraying residents of Golarion, but by that very simple premise, you have to accommodate greater than human options and capacities. You might be the best merchant in the game, but that doesn't change the context of dragons and magic. As a merchant you might sink like a stone while wearing a night shift, but that has nothing to do with a Paladin crossing a river.

What it does bring up is that this is clearly going to be a game with a broadly accessible set of gameplay experiences. One shouldn't really trump the other.

I suppose I don't see how any of this follows. The fact that we are all residents of Golarion defines the human options and capacities. We are all, PCs and NPCs, subsets of the residents, so I am not sure why we should allot for a greater one.

I also do not see how it follows that the challenges should not be as severe or serious. While I agree there is necessarily a lesser amount of complications and challenges simply due to the relative lack of complexity versus the real; this to me suggests care should be taken to insure those that are in game, should be on par. This will help the players feel as if they are immersed in a more real world. Lessening the severity of the already abstracted challenges has no effect but lowering the significance of the environment. This is contrary to what I would like to enjoy.

And yes, I think extreme differences between any two characters should be possible, but they should all stay within the above decided subset of residence of Golarion.

I hope Golarion feels as if it is a real world. The effects of magic and dragons are not an issue at all because they two are bound by rules. Why do dragons have large wings? Odd that physics would demand such from magical creatures, yet no equivalent effects from carrying two much mass in water (or displacing too little water, however you want to look at it) from us mundane humans.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Generaly, I believe Goblinworks statement was that we were playing at loosely what Pathfinder would term "Heroic" level of playing. Meaning that we are extremely skilled and competent individuals...but not "superhuman" in our abilities. Absent magic, we won't/shouldn't be able to accomplish anything beyond what an Olympic athlete can.... and magic of course, has it's own set of limitations.

For me that translates to something like...yeah you might be able to play (at the highest level) "Boromir" where you take down 2 dozen orcs alone before finaly succumbing to multiple arrow wounds....but your not "Beowulf" having races across the north sea while wearing a full hauberk....or "Roland" where you cut both a rider and his horse in half with a single blow of your sword. YMMV.


I remember reading something a long time ago to help put ability scores in real world terms. It said that a normal person has all 10s and with practice and whatnot could eventually get them up. But NPCs were not heroic characters and therefore wouldn't ever have high stats. They went on to put some of the stats in perspective with real world examples. The only one I remember is that the people who perform for Circ du Soleil would have a Dex of 12, with the very best possibly hitting 13. The rest of the examples were similar to that.

So with that in mind, I have no problem that a fighter with a Str of 16 could swim in full plate.

Goblinworks Founder

Plate Armor of Water Walking problem solved.. thanks magic armor crafters :)

The misconception of Plate being overly heavy and encumbering stems from poor recreated armor, wearing armor tailored from someone else. Unfit historians trying it out for the first time, and from novels and fantasy games quoting it as awkward and heavy. In truth there is little you can do unarmoured that you can't do whilst armoured, the difference is in armour you will be a little slower, a little more restricted and tire a little quicker.

Fighting in water while armored was taught in Japan it's known as Suiei-jutsu.

Now for ninja talk.

okay done with ninja talk.

Goblin Squad Member

It still seems wrong to me, but I think I'm going to acknowledge defeat on this one.

From a BBC article from 2007:

Quote:
Swimming has been around for thousands of years. In 400 BC Egyptians and Romans leisurely dived off cliffs and in the 14th Century, medieval knights mastered swimming in armour!

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

It still seems wrong to me, but I think I'm going to acknowledge defeat on this one.

From a BBC article from 2007:

Quote:
Swimming has been around for thousands of years. In 400 BC Egyptians and Romans leisurely dived off cliffs and in the 14th Century, medieval knights mastered swimming in armour!

LOL... Nihimon, trust me...a news source or newspaper, including the BBC printing something does NOT make it a historical fact.... they get history wrong more often then they get it right...especialy when it's tangential to the subject being written upon.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Protestations of ignorant news reporters to the contrary. Medieval knights did NOT swim in armor...in fact most of them didn't swim period.

The truth about armor is that it WAS heavy and encumbering and did restrict movement to a degree....just not as absurdly much (outside of specialized suits only worn in jousting and often locked into place)as some people claim.

The degree to which armor did so would vary greatly depending upon the period/technology/region, style and quality of construction and purpose for which the armor was designed.

It's pretty much impossible to even describe what would be typical due to the degree of varience...but the picture that most people have of a European Knight in Armor (remember that Japanese armor is COMPLETELY different in it's charactaristics as it was constructed primarly out of laminated WOOD, not metal)...would involve a heavly padded gimbeson (that alone would be very difficult to tread water in due to it's ability to soak up water) worn underneath something like 50 lbs of mail and plate...that was latched, riveted or strapped into place.

There are documented historical accounts of

.... knights selling thier armor (and much of the arms) on one side of a mountain range and buying replacements on the other side to make the crossing bearable.

..... drowning in as little as 6 inches of water.

...... expiring en mass of heat stroke when operating in the Holy Lands.

I can point to battle after battle, where the historical accounts detail the kind of carnage inflicted upon an enemy force that was forced into a water hazard. The War of the Roses is replete with accounts of streams that became dammed with drowned soldiers trying in vain to escape a route.

The Battle of Morgarten was decided mostly due to the fact that the Swiss trapped the invading army composed primarly of Austrian Knights up against a swamp...where they were unable to function effectively.

It was commonly accepted that Armored Fighting Men on Cogs or Barqs then went overboard or who's ship went down were simply lost.

Heck...look at the difficulty the French had in the fameous Battle of Agincourt....where there wasn't even a water hazard...just a muddy slope.

These things are not the work of some SCA recreationist trying to "prove" how awesome armor is.... these are documented 1st hand historical accounts of individuals who were actualy present during such incidents.

So Nihimon, don't be disheartened. The simple fact is...heavy armor is really, really good for some things....however as far as navigating water hazards go...heavy armor = REALY, REALLY BAD (as in near certain death bad). Heck just rough ground and uncertain footing was difficult on heavy armor. There is a reason why lightly armored skirmish troops did well against heavy troops when engaging in such situations...when they routienely got trounced by the same troops fighting in line of battle on good open ground.

Someone wants to argue that it's fantasy and historical facts don't need to enter in...that's fine....but anyone that is trying to make factual arguements doesn't have a (greaved) historical leg to stand on if they are trying to downplay the disadvantage that heavly armored warriors faced in water or difficult terrain.

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks for the pep talk, Mel :)

Goblin Squad Member

GunnerX169 wrote:
Personally I don't need to be able to swim anyway if it takes to many development resources away from the rest of the game.

Have you looked at the map? There is no way they can fully imagine the world they are trying to present to us WITHOUT swimming. There are lakes, islands, rivers, and oceans all over the place. Do you want it to be "You fall of the boat/bridge. You instantly die." If not we need swimming. I personally think we would be missing out on a lot if we did not allow diving as well.

I'm torn on heavy armor wearers swimming. It's entirely unrealistic but it will really limit any heavy armor wearing class out on the water if it isn't allowed. I just don't want to see mining underwater in full-plate and still moving the same speed after you finish like in WoW. There should be SOME sort of weight limitation even if falling into the water in full-plate won't make you sink to the bottom like a rock.

Perhaps there could be some kind of magical item you could use to negate armor penalties while swimming but pack weight would still effect you.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

I'm torn on heavy armor wearers swimming. It's entirely unrealistic but it will really limit any heavy armor wearing class out on the water if it isn't allowed. I just don't want to see mining underwater in full-plate and still moving the same speed after you finish like in WoW. There should be SOME sort of weight limitation even if falling into the water in full-plate won't make you sink to the bottom like a rock.

Perhaps there could be some kind of magical item you could use to negate armor penalties while swimming but pack weight would still effect you.

To me this limitation helps create balance. Any character will hopefully be able to wear any armour, so there has to be reasons to want to wear lighter stuff. In this case, the incentive is the small chance you will fall in water (and avoiding other movement impairments) due to having minimal armour versus the greater full time defence you get in heavier stuff. Let we the players decide which is more important based on our view of our respective character(s). It may also be that different times require different gear, then it becomes a matter of weighing being prepared with the risk of loosing everything we are not wearing.

Goblin Squad Member

adding to Forencith; if some areas along the rivers have really difficult terrain for the plate wearers, then it might be difficult to patrol those areas. That might not please the nearby settlement, but it's a benefit to the outlaws who prefer less patrols near their hideouts. So the tactical considerations of such terrain (plate is risky near deep water) might end up having strategic implications (lots of outlaws in those swampy areas). I see this just making the world more varied and interesting.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
To me this limitation helps create balance. Any character will hopefully be able to wear any armour, so there has to be reasons to want to wear lighter stuff. In this case, the incentive is the small chance you will fall in water (and avoiding other movement impairments) due to having minimal armour versus the greater full time defence you get in heavier stuff. Let we the players decide which is more important based on our view of our respective character(s). It may also be that different times require different gear, then it becomes a matter of weighing being prepared with the risk of loosing everything we are not wearing.

Certain classes almost always wear certain armors because of thinks like sneak penalties, arcane penalties, etc. You almost always see your paladins, clerics, and fighters in heavy armor while your monks, sorcerers, druids, etc. are sporting something much lighters.

I agree that having swim penalties associated with armor is good. And agree having heavily armored characters sink like a rock is realistic, but I think in-game heavy armored characters should have a BIT more functionality in water.

I want to play a ranger or cleric. I KNOW I am going to be using boats a lot if they are included in-game. If I know that if I properly armor my cleric they will sink to the bottom and die if their feet ever leave the ship... ranger will be the obvious choice. If I know as a cleric I can probably make it back to the ship but I won't be doing any long distance swimming or diving... then I have a real decision.

I just don't want my class decision entirely dictated by the fact I want to be out on the water. And when I post my company recruitment topic, I think you might see why even though I plan for my company to have a strong naval presence a cleric or paladin make more sense for me than a ranger RP-wise.

With so many lakes, rivers, and oceans on the map we have been shown, it will give classes like druids and rangers too huge of an advantage over clerics and fighters if a single knock-back on the deck of a boat can mean insta-death.

Goblin Squad Member

But why can't a paladin or cleric wear leather, or any armour at all? Or a non-sneaking rogue wear plate? I have been playing PnP games for 25 years, since "The Fantasy Trip"...and I have played every combination of class I can think of, but have never worn anything heavier than leather.

Anecdotal explanation: My first DM (my Dad) demanded it take a minimum of 15 minutes and 2 people put put on plate, and at least 5 minutes to properly seat a set of mail. He also insured we carried our gear, however we saw fit. Oh,...and he gave us severe penalties for wearing metal armour all the time. He would randomly break pieces as well if he thought we wore it too much. To me, that was entirely too much work. Battles would be won or lost before the armour could be put on...and the effort of caring for it necessitated a squire.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:

But why can't a paladin or cleric wear leather, or any armour at all? Or a non-sneaking rogue wear plate? I have been playing PnP games for 25 years, since "The Fantasy Trip"...and I have played every combination of class I can think of, but have never worn anything heavier than leather.

Anecdotal explanation: My first DM (my Dad) demanded it take a minimum of 15 minutes and 2 people put put on plate, and at least 5 minutes to properly seat a set of mail. He also insured we carried our gear, however we saw fit. Oh,...and he gave us severe penalties for wearing metal armour all the time. He would randomly break pieces as well if he thought we wore it too much. To me, that was entirely too much work. Battles would be won or lost before the armour could be put on...and the effort of caring for it necessitated a squire.

Hey a squire would make a pretty neat henchman...

The deal is though. On the deck of a boat the AC buff is worth the penalties of the armor for classes that can wear it. Other classes have abilities that make up for this. For instance a druid can't wear any metal armor. A druid also can take the form of a bear or some other powerful creature of nature if they are forced into melee combat.

Or monks would be the perfect class to give as an example, they get huge buffs for wearing and fighting with pretty-much nothing but robes and their bare hands. A cleric or paladin in leather are way under-powered against a druid or monk.

The fact that you can lose stuff in your inventory but not if it is equipped suggests we are going to be fully geared most of the time, unless we have gone back to our house and dressed up all nice for a party or something.

So heavy armor classes that are out on the water all the time and use lighter armor as a result will be underpowered. Heavy armor classes that just want to take the ferry across the river are not going to want to de-gear for fear of losing all their stuff.

1. So that leaves only two real options in my head. You should not insta-drown, but rather only have about one minute to grab a hold of something or get back to land/the ship.

2. Every class needs abilities that will keep them on par with classes like druids and monks if they wear light armor.

I think the first is easier, but I would be satisfied with the 2nd.

Goblin Squad Member

Or you can just admit full plate wearers place is on the battlefield. If you spend all your time training for those battlefield situations, you will be less prepared in those situations...on the other hand, those character types who do not wear heavy armour should not be able to hang with you one-on-one on the battlefield. It makes this a paper, scissors, rock situation.

Oh, and I would definitely be satisfied with your option 1...not so much 2 though. I never meant to sound as if I was asking for instant death to plate wearers. I actually hope for a stamina bar and swimming skill... swimming encumbered, uses more stamina and limits benefits from swimming skills, likewise, all armours limit your swimming skill benefits to varying degrees, swimming with zero stamina really limits your bonus from swimming skill (like to zero). As for your option 2, it is a slippery slope to make all characters have equal abilities in all things. Why can't my bard have abilities to take out your fighter in melee combat? Or, better yet, why can't my wizard take out your fighter in melee? To me that is what is being asked for when a heavy armour wearers asks to have equal opportunities in an obvious light/no armour domain.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
Oh, and I would definitely be satisfied with your option 1...not so much 2 though. I never meant to sound as if I was asking for instant death to plate wearers. I actually hope for a stamina bar and swimming skill... swimming encumbered, uses more stamina and limits benefits from swimming skills, likewise, all armours limit your swimming skill benefits to varying degrees, swimming with zero stamina really limits your bonus from swimming skill (like to zero).

We are already in agreement then. I think as a light armor class with high swimming skill you should be able to get a lot of use out of the swimming skill, and as a heavy armor class the swimming skill should be more used for prolonging how long you can keep floating before you plunge to the bottom.

I have no problems with heavy penalties for plate armor in the ocean. I just don't want it to be "Urg the barbarian causes you to stumble backwards. You fall off the deck. You hit the water. You sink directly to the bottom where you sit stranded until you drown."

I'm fine with the penalty that if I fall off the ship I'm going to die unless I can get back to the ship or someone throws me something to grab on to within a minute. Likewise I am fine with the fact that if the ship sinks I'll be looking for a piece of debris to cling to while our ranger swims back to shore and our druid turns into a shark.

But if you made heavy armor entirely realistic, there would be no place for certain classes on a boat. With the reduced penalty I can still swim back to the boat and rejoin the battle if the ship is moving slowly enough.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
We are already in agreement then.

Well...

Andius wrote:
I have no problems with heavy penalties for plate armor in the ocean. I just don't want it to be "Urg the barbarian causes you to stumble backwards. You fall off the deck. You hit the water. You sink directly to the bottom where you sit stranded until you drown."

Most of the PnP gamers I know are little more than combat munchkins. Most do not bother "wasting" points in things such as ride, swim, climb, or even a profession. I agreed that swim skill would increase your chances of surviving. If PFO players make their characters munchkin-like, combat only...without skill in swim they should sink just as you suggested.

Andius wrote:
I'm fine with the penalty that if I fall off the ship I'm going to die unless I can get back to the ship or someone throws me something to grab on to within a minute. Likewise I am fine with the fact that if the ship sinks I'll be looking for a piece of debris to cling to while our ranger swims back to shore and our druid turns into a shark.

Okay.

Andius wrote:
But if you made heavy armor entirely realistic, there would be no place for certain classes on a boat.

Once again I do not agree with your attempt to pigeon hole classes. As a paladin or cleric, if I know I will be on a boat for most of the day, I will leave my plate at home and wear something more practical. If you/whomever cannot get over these preconceived notions, then for what its worth, I agree, those who play characters of those classes that cannot improvise and adapt should probably stay away from water.

Sorry for being contrary...I will go away now and let my betters debate the topic.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
Andius wrote:
But if you made heavy armor entirely realistic, there would be no place for certain classes on a boat.
Once again I do not agree with your attempt to pigeon hole classes. As a paladin or cleric, if I know I will be on a boat for most of the day, I will leave my plate at home and wear something more practical. If you/whomever cannot get over these preconceived notions, then for what its worth, I agree, those who play characters of those classes that cannot improvise and adapt should probably stay away from water.

What if you are planning to run a company based on the idea of promoting good and protecting the innocent. The prize project of your company is true neutral academy dedicated to creating a solid knowledge base for this game, and teaching newbs the intricacies of it.

That academy is planned to be put on an island to cut if off from most random raiders, and your company is going to be primarily focused upon building a navy to ferry newbs and researchers back and forth, and protect it as thoroughly as possible. So you will be on the sea likely more than 50% of your time in-game that isn't spent crafting.

Knowing that is what you are planning to do, if the armor penalties for falling in the water are too harsh, why would you ever go with a heavy armor class even if you know that a cleric or paladin most the make sense for you RP-wise, as opposed to starting as a druid or a ranger?

Not that that scenario would EVER happen or that this theoretical scenario is indeed not theoretical but I just described what I plan to do in this game.

Goblin Squad Member

I would say I agree...I agree, not many knights in medieval navys. Why would there be? Likewise, even if you had a knight that could swim, falling into the water would entail all your effort to stay afloat, the no armour rogue(s) would be swimming around coup de gracing on all the floundering armour wearers.

Why not come up with new tactics such as having spellcaster(s) that specialize in protecting the entirety of the boat from missile weapons? Then the need for armour is gone and your no armour swimmers can fight in the water if the need arises.

And, because you can be both a paladin, cleric, or fighter and wear no armour if you so choose...and in some circumstances (like travelling over water, or swimming) it is probably more logical.

But, this is a fantasy world and there will probably be other solutions such as rings of swimming or helmets of water breathing...I think a culture developed on the water would outfit their guards in manners that would give them the edge in local conditions. Or, you could get the same benefits by going armourless and wearing defensive rings (like blur or deflection).

And then I would ask you if you have seen The Seventh Veil. Seems to be lots of overlap in purpose and intent. We may not agree on how water and armor should or should not mix, but that does not mean we cannot agree upon other things. Besides, the choice of how to build the game is entirely up to Goblinworks, all we can do is make suggestions they may or may not take (be hopeful, I think I am normally on the may not take end).

Shadow Lodge

Samurai used to train to swim in armour, according to this book at least. Just my 2 coppers :-)

Goblin Squad Member

Agreed, but samurai armour was woven reeds, leather and laminated wood. I could see armour wearers using armour like this at reduced defence to minimize the risk of water, at least when they intent to be on boats. Just one of many solutions to an environmental challenge.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:
Forencith wrote:

But why can't a paladin or cleric wear leather, or any armour at all? Or a non-sneaking rogue wear plate? I have been playing PnP games for 25 years, since "The Fantasy Trip"...and I have played every combination of class I can think of, but have never worn anything heavier than leather.

Anecdotal explanation: My first DM (my Dad) demanded it take a minimum of 15 minutes and 2 people put put on plate, and at least 5 minutes to properly seat a set of mail. He also insured we carried our gear, however we saw fit. Oh,...and he gave us severe penalties for wearing metal armour all the time. He would randomly break pieces as well if he thought we wore it too much. To me, that was entirely too much work. Battles would be won or lost before the armour could be put on...and the effort of caring for it necessitated a squire.

Hey a squire would make a pretty neat henchman...

The deal is though. On the deck of a boat the AC buff is worth the penalties of the armor for classes that can wear it. Other classes have abilities that make up for this. For instance a druid can't wear any metal armor. A druid also can take the form of a bear or some other powerful creature of nature if they are forced into melee combat.

Or monks would be the perfect class to give as an example, they get huge buffs for wearing and fighting with pretty-much nothing but robes and their bare hands. A cleric or paladin in leather are way under-powered against a druid or monk.

The fact that you can lose stuff in your inventory but not if it is equipped suggests we are going to be fully geared most of the time, unless we have gone back to our house and dressed up all nice for a party or something.

So heavy armor classes that are out on the water all the time and use lighter armor as a result will be underpowered. Heavy armor classes that just want to take the ferry across the river are not going to want to de-gear for fear of losing all their stuff.

1. So that leaves only two real options in my head. You...

I wouldn't worry too much about specifics of class balance at this point as PFO won't be using Pathfinder mechanics, just the setting. Thus any assumptions about how things work for a given calss in the PnP rulset won't neccesarly hold true for PFO.

It may be that a fighter wearing no armor is every bit as good at melee as a monk wearing no armor, if they decide to train that way. We simply don't know yet.

Each class will likely have advantages and disadvantages dependant upon the specific situation. It's quite possible that characters within an individual class will be much more varied in PFO then they are in the pen and paper ruleset.

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / Why full plate wearers will not sink in water in PFO. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.