The problem with Heavy Armor in 2e.

[The_Lightbringer]

This is my first time posting feedback for anything major, so I apologize if it's not the best.

I'll readily admit that my playtest experience right now has mostly been a little bit of experimental 'one on one' with a friend, facing off against various creatures in the bestiary, rather than a standard adventure.

That being said, there's a huge glaring problem with Heavy Armor in 2e.

The Armor Check Penalty has always been a nuisance in 1e. However, it was manageable in the sense that it applied to skills most martials didn't bother with, namely acrobatics, stealth, climb, and swim, to name a few.

With the changes to skills and the introduction to the new degrees of success, the Armor Check Penalty transform from a nuisance to a downright dealbreaker for heavy armor.

Take for example the Athletics skill, one of the main signature skills for Fighters and Paladins, the classes that use Heavy Armor the most. Athletics not only covers climbing, swimming, and jumping, but also most of the major combat maneuvers.

Combat maneuvers are not only nigh impossible to pull off in heavy armor, they're increasingly likely to end with the one performing them to either go flat-footed or fall prone. In the same vein, the degrees of failure get worse with Climb, Jump, and Swim checks, since there is the overwhelming chance that a critical failure on any of those checks will lead to an unfair character death.

Armor Check penalties had their time, but it's time for them to either be changed (maybe it should only apply to Stealth and Thievery checks), or done away with entirely.

Edit: Blundered on the combat maneuvers, chalk that one up for the formatting.

[Secret Wizard]

Armor Check Penalty does not apply to combat maneuvers, as they have the Attack tag.

Quote:

You take this untyped penalty to Strength-, Dexterity-, and Constitution-based skill checks, except for those that have the attack trait. Armor that is better than standard quality has a lower check penalty, as described on page 190.

Shove, Grapple, Break Open, Trip and Disarm all have the attack trait.

[kaid]

Note that in the armor equipment section it says this.

You take this untyped penalty to Strength-, Dexterity-,
and Constitution-based skill checks, except for those
that have the attack trait.

Most if not all of the combat maneuvers are listed with the attack trait so for most combat manuver type feats are unaffected by armor penalties.

[The_Lightbringer]

I've edited my opening post to reflect my miss of the 'attack' trait in the combat maneuvers section.

[Cantriped]

Quality and Material eliminate the check penalties for all but the heaviest armor (which end up with an ACP of -1 if made from Mithril)

[Secret Wizard]

If this is solely about ACP, I think it's had it's time too.

The problem with heavy armor is:

ACP feels like it prevents you from being good at what you should be good at, in the case of a Fighter, doing heavy STR things and resisting through CON-based effects.

Clumsy and Noisy are not particularly well-designed. Noisy seems annoying to keep track of, and Clumsy is not really a penalty – it's actually less harmful than Noisy in a lot of situations.

[The_Lightbringer]

Cantriped wrote:

Quality and Material eliminate the check penalties for all but the heaviest armor (which end up with an ACP of -1 if made from Mithril)

Except for people, yet alone Adventurers, don't suddenly 'get better' at wearing armor because the quality of armor is better. They get better at wearing armor because they get used to wearing it, ergo why, another idea I had, involved ACP being reduced by proficiency, personally.

Secret Wizard wrote:

ACP feels like it prevents you from being good at what you should be good at

This is honestly the huge thing for me. Athletics is one of the fighter and Paladin's signature skills explicitly because they're supposed to be big strong heroes. ACP makes them about as effective as a wizard untrained in Athletics.

[Mudfoot]

If ACP is to be retained, it needs to
1) be reduced by the wearer's training in that armour
2) not apply to all Str/Con/Dex skills

The movement penalty is likewise very harsh, and should either be reduced outright or by the wearer's training (like a PF1e fighter).

And if ACP and the movement penalty are to be retained at all, they need to be compensated for by improving the armour's armour class. That's what it's for, for heaven's sake.

[The_Lightbringer]

I entirely agree! It blows my mind that ACP wasn't the first thing to be considered when it came to proficiency.

To avoid mentioning 'that edition that will not be named', Wizard's sorted it out by just having Heavy Armor have a detrimental penalty to stealth, and a STR requirement to move full speed.

That later bit would be so useful here. Nobody else in the game outside of the Barbarian has the STR levels of a Fighter or Paladin that uses Heavy Armor. Give the heavy stuff a minimum STR to wear and reduce the speed penalty. Only going 15 feet an action sucks, especially without sudden charge.

[Skystarlit1]

The_Lightbringer wrote:

I entirely agree! It blows my mind that ACP wasn't the first thing to be considered when it came to proficiency.

To avoid mentioning 'that edition that will not be named', Wizard's sorted it out by just having Heavy Armor have a detrimental penalty to stealth, and a STR requirement to move full speed.

That later bit would be so useful here. Nobody else in the game outside of the Barbarian has the STR levels of a Fighter or Paladin that uses Heavy Armor. Give the heavy stuff a minimum STR to wear and reduce the speed penalty. Only going 15 feet an action sucks, especially without sudden charge.

Your taking a page from 5th ed I see.

It does work though.

The speed penalty is also boggling in my opinion. To have a fully armored human walking at 15ft... Yeah

[Bardarok]

Heavy armor does present a problem. My players just made characters and the rogue with light armor and high dex has better defenses than the Paladin (equal AC but better TAC). And the paladin is slower and has a big ACP to skills. Paladin decided to forgo a shield for a two handed weapon but the rogue isn't using a shield either.

If heavy armor keeps all of thees penalties then it should actually be worth it, MAX dex +armor bonus is designed to be a constant 7 I think that should be 7 for unarmored and light armor but 8 for medium and heavy armor. That might make the armor penalties worth it.

[Bob of Westgate]

I think ACP makes sense. You are wearing pounds of metal on your body for hours at a time. It is heavy, no matter how you distribute the weight, and it limits mobility. However I do think that as your training in armor improves, it should reduce your ACP.

[Unicore]

I think the major point of heavy armor penalties is that paladins and Fighters do get ways to over come most of it, eventually, but it looks bad at lower levels. Also remember that no one gets better than trained in Light Armor or Medium armor except the fighter and the Paladin, and even for them, their proficiency bonuses are higher for Heavy Armor. At higher levels, paladins and Fighters have to have pretty high Dex stats to make light armor better than heavy. The fighter might have the dex, but the paladin probably won't. Legendary in Heavy is an extra +3 over trained.

[The_Lightbringer]

Unicore wrote:

I think ACP makes sense. You are wearing pounds of metal on your body for hours at a time. It is heavy, no matter how you distribute the weight, and it limits mobility. However I do think that as your training in armor improves, it should reduce your ACP.

The oft-repeated trope of Knights needing life alert does not need to exist in Pathfinder anymore. There are numerous examples online of people moving around in armor and performing quite a few feats that most normal people wouldn't have even been able to do.

Armor already comes with a speed penalty, that's penalty enough.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

I am slightly worried how good high dex characters are at low levels, but I am looking forward to seeing how the higher quality levels of armor will help.

[Doktor Weasel]

The speed penalties seem more of an issue to me than ACP. Also I'm thinking that perhaps the math should be changed away from all armors having an AC + Max dex = 7. This really makes it so they heavier armors are only good for people with the dexterity of a stump, or some way of reducing those penalties. Perhaps have a different AC + Max DEX total for each type of armor. Perhaps 6 for light, 7 for medium and 8 for heavy. Or some other combination like 7, 8, 9. That way, heavier armor is actually better, even with dex. Especially the way that most dex focused characters will have an 18 at level one, it's not like getting enough dex up to take advantage of the higher max dex is all that hard.

[Secret Wizard]

Doktor Weasel wrote:

The speed penalties seem more of an issue to me than ACP. Also I'm thinking that perhaps the math should be changed away from all armors having an AC + Max dex = 7. This really makes it so they heavier armors are only good for people with the dexterity of a stump, or some way of reducing those penalties. Perhaps have a different AC + Max DEX total for each type of armor. Perhaps 6 for light, 7 for medium and 8 for heavy. Or some other combination like 7, 8, 9. That way, heavier armor is actually better, even with dex. Especially the way that most dex focused characters will have an 18 at level one, it's not like getting enough dex up to take advantage of the higher max dex is all that hard.

I think this is a very PF1 way to think about this.

What AC 7 for all armor types accomplishes is this:

1. It makes DEX vs. STR relevant. Having 12 DEX means you have as much AC as having 18 DEX, but having less DEX means you have more STR, which means you can use better weapons. It balances itself.

2. It makes Light/Medium armor users not feel extremely fragile in combat.

3. It makes PROFICIENCY more important than armor type, so a Wizard getting Heavy Armor Proficiency is not a big deal because they don't have access to better proficiencies. However, having proficiency in Heavy Armor is still good for the Wizard, because they get to turn 12 DEX into AC 7, so there's still a benefit for anyone who gets Heavy Armor.

4. As a Monk enthusiast, this one is important for me – AC7 keeps unarmored characters from being too far behind armored characters. If your unarmored character needs to race towards AC9 to stand with the frontliners with only a +4 bonus from stats, it can feel pretty hectic.

Now, what are the issues with AC 7?

1. Early levels, when you have to take large ACP penalties feel pretty crummy.

2. Speed penalties are too big in a game with limited movement and no way to maintain engagement (i.e. not everyone will have access to AoO and Step is still an option).

3. There's no incentive for high DEX high STR characters to use heavy armor early on until they get class features that encourage them to do it.

4. There's no incentive to use Full Plate over Splint Mail, because 14 DEX is easy to get and Splint Mail has less Bulk and ACP. (Clumsy is a non-penalty, you can safely ignore it with 14 DEX, it does even less than Noisy.)

Personally, I like the AC7 system and I think the benefits outweight the issues. Perhaps they could make it so heavy armor is more attractive early on than medium armor – for example, giving heavy armor another bonus like a small damage resistance, or even do away with Speed penalties or ACP altogether. They surely need to add options for Fighters/Paladins who don't want to use heavy armor.

But I don't think the numbers NEED to be changed.

[CBAnaesthesia]

Bob of Westgate wrote:

I think ACP makes sense. You are wearing pounds of metal on your body for hours at a time. It is heavy, no matter how you distribute the weight, and it limits mobility. However I do think that as your training in armor improves, it should reduce your ACP.

It doesn't make sense, armor was quite easy to move around in if you were trained in it, which proficiency represents. That video even explicitly states that "armored soldiers had to be able to move fast enough to catch unarmored opponents," so there goes the idea of only being able to move 2/3 as fast.

Now a penalty to Stealth and/or Swimming, I can get on board with, and maybe Reflex saves too, but that's about all that would be "realistic" (especially since Strength doesn't reduce ACP/movement penalty).

Secret Wizard wrote:

snip

I agree with you on what the benefits and issues of the AC7 system are, but I don't think they are balanced at all when you account for movement penalties and ACP. The only real downside of taking Dex over Str is that you lose +Str to damage, but that matters less as you get more weapon dice, whereas Dex gives you the same +to-hit, ranged options, Reflex saves, and AC without movement penalties, ACP, and for less cost, and for less Bulk (so you still don't need to worry about Str as much if you go for light armor).

If you're concerned about Monks' AC, that's legitimate from what I've read, but they should probably just get +Wis modifier to AC back, or some other bonus to Unarmored AC.
If heavy armor is going to keep ACP, movement penalties, higher cost, and having Plate count as a higher enchantment level, then it should be meaningfully better in at least some way compared to light armor. As it stands, it's not.

The_Lightbringer wrote:

Armor already comes with a speed penalty, that's penalty enough.

I think even that is too much, unless you can mitigate it with your Str score. As it stands, basically any character that wants to use heavy armor wants to be an Elf or Half-Elf and take Fleet just to keep up with the rest of the party, while they only get the same AC as the light-armor folks.

[Cantriped]

The Grey Maidens allow anybody* to become Legendary in Shields, and (a specific suit of) Heavy Armor (that encourages a 10 DEX). Even Wizards can meet the prerequisites by 8th level if they try. Eventually I imagine Archetypes will be where we look to obtain unusual legendary proficiencies for characters. However exclusive access to legenday proficiency is a temporary benefit of heavy armor. Eventually they'll release a way of obtaining legendary medium or light armor proficiency too.
*Subject to GM fiat.

To be fair, a heavily armored character can avoid all of the actual penalties if properly built and equipped. That isn't the problem for me.
For example being a Cavalier, Ranger, Druid, or Paladin so that you can use your mount's speed instead of your own (which will be better than yours even in Heavy Barding) nicely avoids that speed penalty.
The Clumsy trait only matters if you've overinvested in Dex. And Noisy can be avoided if it matters (for a heavy-fighter it should never matter)
ACPs eventually disappear, or fall to the point where they no longer affect anything a heavy-fighter should care about significantly. This is comperable to how a Lightly armored character has to keep raising their Dex during their career to 'fill-out' the benefits of their chosen armor type.

The real problem with medium and heavy armor is that they sacrifice maximum TAC for lowered optimum stats. The heaviest armors lose 3 potential TAC, their expected dex mod falls by up to 6, but their expected Str mod only rises by up to 3 (from an increased Bulk needed to carry it). Which looks fine as a balance in theory...
Except that in play it means that a heavily armored creature takes up to 15% more hits and crits from touch attacks (in addition to whichever of the other penalties they've failed to avoid) compared to an equally optimized lightly armored creature. The heavily armored character gains nothing back in terms of their defenses. Instead such a character likely has a higher mental stat to compensate for their lower Dex, since every warrior is likely to end up with at least an 18 Con and as high a Str and Dex as they want eventually; given ability score system and the way stats improve.
Medium and Heavy Armor needs (IMO) to either grant more AC to compensate for lost TAC, or else armor should provide appropriate Resistances (which heavier armor can grant more of than lighter armor) to better balance armor types relative to one-another

[CBAnaesthesia]

Cantriped wrote:

The Grey Maidens allow anybody* to become Legendary in Shields, and (a specific suit of) Heavy Armor (that encourages a 10 DEX). Even Wizards can meet the prerequisites by 8th level if they try. Eventually I imagine Archetypes will be where we look to obtain unusual legendary proficiencies for characters.

Right, but Archetypes also have flavor and lore to them that might not fit my character. Like, if I'm a Michael Carpenter-type Paladin, I'm not going to want to be a Grey Maiden, but I'm going to have to suffer the unrealistic move penalties and ACP?

Cantriped wrote:

To be fair, a heavily armored character can avoid all of the actual penalties if properly built and equipped. That isn't the problem for me.

For example being a Cavalier, Ranger, Druid, or Paladin so that you can use your mount's speed instead of your own (which will be better than yours even in Heavy Barding) nicely avoids that speed penalty.
The Clumsy trait only matters if you've overinvested in Dex. And Noisy can be avoided if it matters (for a heavy-fighter it should never matter)

No, a mounted character can avoid the movement penalties of heavy armor. That's quite different. The Noisy and Clumsy traits are fine in my book, though.

Cantriped wrote:

ACPs eventually disappear, or fall to the point where they no longer affect anything a heavy-fighter should care about significantly. This is comperable to how a Lightly armored character has to keep raising their Dex during their career to 'fill-out' the benefits of their chosen armor type.

-4 or -5 to every check, and -10 movement to get +1 or +2 AC compared to a Dex armor user is not a good tradeoff. You might not even get that extra +1 or +2 AC, if you start with a 10 Dex, because now even Plate armor has a Dex bonus to it.

I agree with you about the other problems with heavy armor, but I don't agree that the movement penalties or ACP are balanced as-is. Again, just watch videos of people doing things in armor like posted earlier in this thread - it doesn't turn you into a big clumsy statue, it allowed for great mobility. There was a reason it was so good on a battlefield.

[Ediwir]

The greatest issue is that you’re going to increase Dex anyways (you get 4 boosts every 5 levels, if you don’t have at least +3 dex by lv10 what are you increasing?), and that the only advantage of heavy armour doesn’t come from the item but from a class feature.

If somehow you get proficiency in hevay armour (general feats, multiclassing, or whatnot), you gain only penalties. Period. Because the item is bad. And more expensive.

[Unicore]

Ediwir wrote:

The greatest issue is that you’re going to increase Dex anyways (you get 4 boosts every 5 levels, if you don’t have at least +3 dex by lv10 what are you increasing?), and that the only advantage of heavy armour doesn’t come from the item but from a class feature.

If somehow you get proficiency in hevay armour (general feats, multiclassing, or whatnot), you gain only penalties. Period. Because the item is bad. And more expensive.

Which is why fighters probably will stick to medium armor if they have the 16-18 dex at higher levels.

Personally, I like what they have done with armor. Every Armor has its place and value beyond what you can afford.

[CBAnaesthesia]

Unicore wrote:

Ediwir wrote:

The greatest issue is that you’re going to increase Dex anyways (you get 4 boosts every 5 levels, if you don’t have at least +3 dex by lv10 what are you increasing?), and that the only advantage of heavy armour doesn’t come from the item but from a class feature.

If somehow you get proficiency in hevay armour (general feats, multiclassing, or whatnot), you gain only penalties. Period. Because the item is bad. And more expensive.

Which is why fighters probably will stick to medium armor if they have the 16-18 dex at higher levels.

Personally, I like what they have done with armor. Every Armor has its place and value beyond what you can afford.

Really? If heavy armor sucks at low levels due to the penalties (which it does), and "fighters will probably stick to medium armor if they have 16-18 Dex at higher levels," then what is the "place and value" of heavy armor?

[Damanta]

Fighters don't get expertise and mastery in medium armor, they get it in heavy armor.
Paladins get expertise, mastery and legendary in heavy armor.

Them going for medium armor really presses the issue with heavy armors not being what they should be.

[Shadrayl of the Mountain]

While I can see how the numbers work out ok-ish due to Fighters and Paladins having their highest proficiency apply to heavy armor, it still hurts my heart to read that chart. It's aesthetically just painful for armor to be basically a penalty when proficiency isn't considered. The problem is - there isn't actually a huge proficiency benefit for armor IRL. You get accustomed to it, and there's a physical training aspect, but really armor is REALLY, REALLY good. I don't expect to see anything realistic really, but aesthetically I want to see a bit of specialness to heavy armor for the game to feel right to me.

[Cantriped]

CBAnaesthesia wrote:

-4 or -5 to every check, and -10 movement to get +1 or +2 AC compared to a Dex armor user is not a good tradeoff. You might not even get that extra +1 or +2 AC, if you start with a 10 Dex, because now even Plate armor has a Dex bonus to it.

I agree with you about the other problems with heavy armor, but I don't agree that the movement penalties or ACP are balanced as-is. Again, just watch videos of people doing things in armor like...

Quality and Material reduce ACPs by 3-4 by the time any lightly armored character is capping out their Dexterity. Subtracting 5% from a check (or 1 foot off your already superhuman long-jump) isn't that bad a penalty for being covered head-to-toe in rigid protection. Also Grey Maiden Plate (the only kind a 'Maiden is proficient with, and thus the only kind of heavy armor non-paladins will ever wear during the playtest) is just like Full-Plate, except provides TAC +3, and has a Dex Cap of +0.

Also were those videos of people wearing some 'plate armor' or people in an actual full suit of gothic era plate armour. Because the latter can barely be stood up in if one fell over, and required a crane to mount their warhorse.

[Shadrayl of the Mountain]

Cantriped wrote:

CBAnaesthesia wrote:

-4 or -5 to every check, and -10 movement to get +1 or +2 AC compared to a Dex armor user is not a good tradeoff. You might not even get that extra +1 or +2 AC, if you start with a 10 Dex, because now even Plate armor has a Dex bonus to it.

I agree with you about the other problems with heavy armor, but I don't agree that the movement penalties or ACP are balanced as-is. Again, just watch videos of people doing things in armor like...

Quality and Material reduce ACPs by 3-4 by the time any lightly armored character is capping out their Dexterity. Subtracting 5% from a check (or 1 foot off your already superhuman long-jump) isn't that bad a penalty for being covered head-to-toe in rigid protection. Also Grey Maiden Plate (the only kind a 'Maiden is proficient with, and thus the only kind of heavy armor non-paladins will ever wear during the playtest) is just like Full-Plate, except provides TAC +3, and has a Dex Cap of +0.

Also were those videos of people wearing some 'plate armor' or people in an actual full suit of gothic era plate armour. Because the latter can barely be stood up in if one fell over, and required a crane to mount their warhorse.

a couple points

1) the fact that there's no significant benefit to full armor is an issue when it comes to the penalties

2) There were links posted with the videos in question, showing literally the best modern armor reproductions in existence - and yes, they show full plate harnesses. (People can cartwheel in full plate, even)

3) You clearly know Smurf-all about armor

[Ultimatecalibur]

Cantriped wrote:

Also were those videos of people wearing some 'plate armor' or people in an actual full suit of gothic era plate armour. Because the latter can barely be stood up in if one fell over, and required a crane to mount their warhorse.

That is one of the most annoying armor myths that just won't die. The idea of a knight in armor needed to hoisted by a crane get onto their horse originated as a joke in a Victorian era (1906) play called When Knights Were Bold.

[CBAnaesthesia]

Cantriped wrote:

Also were those videos of people wearing some 'plate armor' or people in an actual full suit of gothic era plate armour. Because the latter can barely be stood up in if one fell over, and required a crane to mount their warhorse.

Absolute nonsense, and as mentioned the "crane to mount a warhorse" originated with a joke. IF it was so terrible, how did it dominate late-medieval battlefields? Check out these videos:

Bodyweight exercises/aerobics in plate armor
A reenactment of the historical training of Boucicault: working out, gymnastics, climbing, etc. in full plate
An obstacle course competition, where a knight in full plate is slower than a firefighter in full gear, but faster than a modern-day soldier in full gear

Cantriped wrote:

Quality and Material reduce ACPs by 3-4 by the time any lightly armored character is capping out their Dexterity.

So you end up having the same AC as the Dex guy, while still having to deal with the -2 or so ACP and movement penalty (which does NOT get reduced by the time the light armored character is capping their Dex)? Sounds like a pretty terrible deal for the heavy armor character, since they've had to deal with a worse ACP their whole career. I mean, -4 ACP basically puts you at 10 Str (on par with the light armor character) and 2 to 6 Dex (obviously worse than the light armor character) as far as skills go. +1 AC to start, and +0 AC at the end of your career, hardly balances that.

Cantriped wrote:

Subtracting 5% from a check (or 1 foot off your already superhuman long-jump) isn't that bad a penalty for being covered head-to-toe in rigid protection.

Yeah but the thing is, that "head-to-toe rigid protection" does not offer any better protection, mechanically speaking, than light armor, and even with Legendary proficiency, still has more penalties than light armor (which would not even give you that -5%, and no move penalties).

Cantriped wrote:

Also Grey Maiden Plate (the only kind a 'Maiden is proficient with, and thus the only kind of heavy armor non-paladins will ever wear during the playtest) is just like Full-Plate, except provides TAC +3, and has a Dex Cap of +0.

The fact that Grey Maiden Plate is "the only kind of heavy armor non-paladins will ever wear" illustrates how bad heavy armor is in general, don't you think? And again, the Grey Maiden Archetype comes pre-packaged with a bunch of lore and backstory you might not want for your character. You shouldn't have to tie yourself to a specific backstory (and shouldn't have to identify as female, either, since that's in the lore of the Grey Maiden archetype) just to have a decent heavy armor character. And even then you have to deal with the -10ft movement penalty (which, as illustrated in the videos above, especially the obstacle course, is excessive and unrealistic. You would hardly call a modern-day soldier "barely able to move," or excessively encumbered).

[CoeusFreeze]

This is on top of the issue that heavy armor is weaker than it was in previous editions even when compared to the new lighter armors.

In P1, the total bonus that somebody could get from the max dex and armor bonus for each category of armor (excluding special materials and bonuses) went like this:
Light Armor: +8
Medium Armor: +9
Heavy Armor: +10

In P2, the bonuses are like this
Light Armor: +7
Medium Armor: +7
Heavy Armor: +7

If you want to nerf armor, I'm fine with that. But at least give us a reason to spec into heavier armor when dexterity has such a low opportunity cost.

[Archimedes Mavranos]

Secret Wizard wrote:

Doktor Weasel wrote:

The speed penalties seem more of an issue to me than ACP. Also I'm thinking that perhaps the math should be changed away from all armors having an AC + Max dex = 7. This really makes it so they heavier armors are only good for people with the dexterity of a stump, or some way of reducing those penalties. Perhaps have a different AC + Max DEX total for each type of armor. Perhaps 6 for light, 7 for medium and 8 for heavy. Or some other combination like 7, 8, 9. That way, heavier armor is actually better, even with dex. Especially the way that most dex focused characters will have an 18 at level one, it's not like getting enough dex up to take advantage of the higher max dex is all that hard.

I think this is a very PF1 way to think about this.

What AC 7 for all armor types accomplishes is this:

1. It makes DEX vs. STR relevant. Having 12 DEX means you have as much AC as having 18 DEX, but having less DEX means you have more STR, which means you can use better weapons. It balances itself.

2. It makes Light/Medium armor users not feel extremely fragile in combat.

3. It makes PROFICIENCY more important than armor type, so a Wizard getting Heavy Armor Proficiency is not a big deal because they don't have access to better proficiencies. However, having proficiency in Heavy Armor is still good for the Wizard, because they get to turn 12 DEX into AC 7, so there's still a benefit for anyone who gets Heavy Armor.

4. As a Monk enthusiast, this one is important for me – AC7 keeps unarmored characters from being too far behind armored characters. If your unarmored character needs to race towards AC9 to stand with the frontliners with only a +4 bonus from stats, it can feel pretty hectic.

Now, what are the issues with AC 7?

1. Early levels, when you have to take large ACP penalties feel pretty crummy.

2. Speed penalties are too big in a game with limited movement and no way to maintain engagement (i.e. not everyone will have access to AoO and Step is...

One of the improvements to PF2E is the traits and critical specializations that make weapons unique.

It would be great to see that applied to armor. Currently armor lacks the same special feeling in a positive way.

So what's the goal?

The fantasy:
If I wear heavy armor I have more protection, but I'm slower.
Light armor provides less protection, but makes me faster.
Medium armor is a balance of the two.

Current reality:
-Due to balance reasons, all armor effectively caps out at 7 AC, 7 TAC. This is fine and good for the rules, but in order to achieve the "heavy armor provides more protection" we need to find another way to fulfill that fantasy.
-Heavy armor is not much better than medium armor, and has some severe penalties.
-The loads of penalties to heavy armor (armor check penalty, low dex cap, noisy, clumsy) are more visible than the benefits (low Dexterity investment).
-The mechanical trade-off that heavy armor provides good TAC while requiring a lower Dexterity investment isn't really a fun decision.
-Medium and heavy armor can be Fortified which helps set them apart from light armor, but not until higher levels.

Proposed solutions:
Lean into the same idea/fantasy used in weapons to make armor feel unique in a good way.
-Medium plate armor gains resistance slashing 1
-Heavy plate armor gains resistance slashing 2
-Medium chain armor gains resistance piercing 1
-Heavy chain armor gains resistance piercing 2
-Maybe some medium armor has resistance bludgeoning 1?
-All chain armor gains the noisy trait.
-All heavy armor gains clumsy (otherwise it almost never makes sense to go full plate).
-Other options:
--Heavy armor provides a +1 item bonus to Fortitude saves. This helps make them special at low level, but at high level is replaced by enhancement runs and fortification.
--Heavy armor makes you resistant to movement affects (like Shove or maybe Trip).
--Heavy armor provides a bonus to Shove actions.

[Damanta]

With the way damage scaling works and monster to hit scaling works resistance 1 and 2 don't weigh up to the drawbacks you get from heavy armor.

Furthermore the combat math assumes that the dedicated tank gets hit 45% of the time by a monster of CR equal to party level before buffs/debuffs on that monsters first attack.

Heavy armor needs a +1 AC boost, fullplate needs to lose clumsy and halfplate needs to gain clumsy.

[Vali Nepjarson]

This really shouldn't be that difficult. Speed reduction for armor is absurd and doesn't reflect the reality of armor at all. ACP works okay, but heavy armor needs some sort of other advantage to compensate for that. Perhaps an advantage when resisting combat maneuvers, since trying to grapple or shove a guy in full plate is going to be a lot harder.

Light armor should have a lower potential AC but a higher potential TAC.

Medium armor should be balanced between the two

Heavy armor should have higher potential AC but lower potential TAC.

Also, there should be a couple other special material types that specifically work for light armor. Since leather can't be orichalcum or mythril, it needs something else it can be. Perhaps dragon-skin leather or some sort of leather treated with a magical oil of some sort.

[Unicore]

Vali Nepjarson wrote:

Light armor should have a lower potential AC but a higher potential TAC.

Medium armor should be balanced between the two

Heavy armor should have higher potential AC but lower potential TAC.

This already is the case, just not at 1st level because if it is true at first level, with how tight the math is, there is no room for the numbers to grow with level.

Accomplishing this is why heavy armor becomes valuable for tanking characters as they gain levels. A paladin in Heavy Armor will have the highest AC in the Game, but their touch AC is not going to be that great. They will be good against physical attacks, and more susceptible to spells, although still dominant on making saves (just a little less so).

Edit: Actually it is true at level 1. No one starts with Dex mods high enough to cap out AC at +7 in Light armor.

[Vali Nepjarson]

Unicore wrote:

Vali Nepjarson wrote:

Light armor should have a lower potential AC but a higher potential TAC.

Medium armor should be balanced between the two

Heavy armor should have higher potential AC but lower potential TAC.

This already is the case, just not at 1st level because if it is true at first level, with how tight the math is, there is no room for the numbers to grow with level.

Accomplishing this is why heavy armor becomes valuable for tanking characters as they gain levels. A paladin in Heavy Armor will have the highest AC in the Game, but their touch AC is not going to be that great. They will be good against physical attacks, and more susceptible to spells, although still dominant on making saves (just a little less so).

Edit: Actually it is true at level 1. No one starts with Dex mods high enough to cap out AC at +7 in Light armor.

But this is because of the features of being a Paladin, not because of the Armor itself. If Paladins were also Legendary in Light and Medium armor, then potential AC would be the same. +10 total, +7 from the armor and +3 from legendary proficiency.

As it stands, the highest potential AC is with Heavy Armor due to circumstances of what the classes have, when it should be because of the armor itself. Especially since that will go right out the window the moment Paizo includes a class with Legendary Light Armor proficiency.

And least, that's how I feel.

[Damanta]

Actually, the highest possible AC is Crane Stance monk with 24 dex (at level 20 obviously) and the level 20 bracers of armor.
They will have 47 AC (and TAC) and can use a reaction to go to 48 for a single attack with Crane Flutter (Note, Crane flutter gives a +2 circumstance, but since Crane Stance already provides a +1 circumstance bonus it overwrites this).
A board paladin or grey maiden will have 45 AC (and 41 TAC) without shield raised, 47 AC (43 TAC) with shield raised.

[Gaterie]

ACP should be reduced by Str bonus. So a -4 ACP should be reduced to 0 with a Str of 18. Strong characters should be strong.

Move penalties have no purpose and should be removed.

Heavier armor could increase the crit DC: with medium armor an attack is a crit only if the roll is AC+11, with heavy armor it requires a roll of AC+12. Not sure this would do anything if they reduce the stats of the monsters. And maybe it would be too complicated to have 4 AC values ("AC 20, TAC 17, crit AC 32, crit TAC 27 or 29 I dunno?"). Anyway, if the monsters' damages stay as swingy as they are now, heavy armors could be a way to reduce the swingyness; in term of "verisimilitude", add some fluff like "heavy armors don't significantly reduce the amount of hit you suffer - some blow are deflected, but your dodges are less efficient - , but they reduce significantly the amount of *deadly* blows" and call it a day.

[Aiken Frost]

Armor should be more consistent with real world history!

Quote:

Screeeeee, muh fantasy! Real armor is stupid and boring, I want amazing fantastical armor with spikes all over, studs in my leathers and shoulder plates bigger than barrels of manure! AND BOOBPLATES, DON'T FORGET THE BOOBPLATES!!!

Heavy armor should be better!

Quote:

Screeeeee, muh realism! You are a steel croissant, there is no way you could even move without being dragged around by a crane exactly like in real Dark Ages!

Sigh. Sometimes I wonder why people don't just petition Paizo to remove martial classes completely from the system.

[The Systems Agnostic]

Aiken Frost wrote:

Armor should be more consistent with real world history!

Quote:

Screeeeee, muh fantasy! Real armor is stupid and boring, I want amazing fantastical armor with spikes all over, studs in my leathers and shoulder plates bigger than barrels of manure! AND BOOBPLATES, DON'T FORGET THE BOOBPLATES!!!

Heavy armor should be better!

Quote:

Screeeeee, muh realism! You are a steel croissant, there is no way you could even move without being dragged around by a crane exactly like in real Dark Ages!

Sigh. Sometimes I wonder why people don't just petition Paizo to remove martial classes completely from the system.

I loled. I can admit it.

[Damanta]

Meh, just remove the entire medium armor category.

Have 1 type of light armor, 1 type of heavy.
Light armor: 6 AC, 7 TAC
Heavy armor: 7 AC, 6 TAC, -5 ft speed

Completely removes dex from the equation making that one less thing that keys off it, and now heavy armor actually has a benefit as most attacks with weapons are made against AC and not TAC.

Edit: added benefits:
Dwarfs now are no longer slowed by heavy armor, and classes that get master in heavy armor reduce their speed penalty as well.

Looks like a win-win to me.

[CBAnaesthesia]

Gaterie wrote:

ACP should be reduced by Str bonus. So a -4 ACP should be reduced to 0 with a Str of 18. Strong characters should be strong.

Move penalties have no purpose and should be removed.

Heavier armor could increase the crit DC: with medium armor an attack is a crit only if the roll is AC+11, with heavy armor it requires a roll of AC+12. Not sure this would do anything if they reduce the stats of the monsters. And maybe it would be too complicated to have 4 AC values ("AC 20, TAC 17, crit AC 32, crit TAC 27 or 29 I dunno?"). Anyway, if the monsters' damages stay as swingy as they are now, heavy armors could be a way to reduce the swingyness; in term of "verisimilitude", add some fluff like "heavy armors don't significantly reduce the amount of hit you suffer - some blow are deflected, but your dodges are less efficient - , but they reduce significantly the amount of *deadly* blows" and call it a day.

This is a fantastic solution and would basically solve all of my issues with heavy armor at the moment. It's logical from both a realism and a game balance perspective.

You could even keep in move penalties for characters with Str <15 or something and I'd be OK with that, if the rest of this was implemented.