|
Personaly i finished Age of Worms with this AC :
10 base
+13 armor bonus (+5 full plate)
+5 unamed bonus (+5 defending armor spikes)
+7 shield bonus (+5 heavy steel shield)
+5 unamed bonus (+5 defending shield spikes)
+6 natural armor bonus (alter self in troglodyte)
+5 enhancement bonus to natural armor (+5 amulet of natural armor)
+1 dex
+5 deflection bonus (ring of protection +5)
+1 dodge bonus
---
58 ACAnd i was hit nearly every round. At high levels, to have a high AC is not a way to become invulnerable, it's just a way to reduce the number of time you'll be hit, and be sure that monsters will hit you.
To have 40 in AC at level 5 is making you invulnerable, to have it at 20 is normal and you'll take a lot of hits.
Couple of questions with this...
Since you are only really allowed one free action a round and it takes a free action each round to activate each of the defending properties (One for the shield and one for the armor), how are you activating both properties and doing anything else?
Since you are already technically wielding two weapons, what are you attacking your enemies with?
How are you doing the alter self spell? Are you a wizard? Technically, it should not be available in potion form since it is a "personal" spell. If you are a wizard, that is quite a Spell Failure to overcome.
Lastly, the DM was probably increasing the to hit potential of a number of the creatures if you were hit every round. A Pit Fiend from the Monster Manual has a to hit of +30. A Balor has a to hit of +33. Each of these are CR 20. A Wyrm Black Dragon has a to hit of +42. Even the Black Dragon would only hit around 25% of the time with its primary attack.
Where does it say you only get one free action per round? I didn't think there was a strict limit enforced.
I agree with the alter self; how are you getting this effect? Make sure you aren't mimicking Elan from OotS.
What was Dragotha's attack bonus again? And the final BBEG's (not to give away too many secrets :) )? And what about all the other custom built monsters and such just for AoW, who were often just an EL or so higher than the party should be at that point? I can definitely see someone getting hit a lot at the end of AoW (unfortunately, I can't check that assertion since I don't have the magazines with me now).
But, I also hadn't considered that if spikes can be enchanted on the armor, they can be enchanted on the shield, too, which makes a huge difference. Nevertheless, I probably wouldn't disallow the combo, just because of the extreme cost involved, which I view as a balancing factor.
Wrap you brain around this; a ranger in light armor; chainmail can take an alternate level and gain the same wisdom bonus to ac that monks get, wear a shield, get a good dex bonus as the chain's penalty is pretty small; depending on stats of course, a character like this with a couple feats and without any magic or buffs can easily be into the high twenties or low thirties in AC by 15th level; add any buffs or magic and it goes even farther up and have still very little penalty at all. A warrior can get what, like 8 or so from heavy armor; use almost no dex; more penalty and a bit more armor from a heavy sheild and with the same stats and a couple feats get a low to moderate 20's AC while having large penalties; this sort of thing is not well thought out. I could make many light fighters that have ac's that far exceed a heavy fighter given the same level and same stats; try it yourself and you will see what I mean; try something moderate like 10th or 15th level or so and see what you get; try a few examples and you will probably come to the conclusion that heavy armor is useless in the game with the current rules.
Once we can all see the problem; I would like some ideas on how to fix the AC system in the game.
Chainmail is medium. Don't most of the ranger's special abilities go away in medium? At any rate, it's not light armor and thus doesn't benefit your argument. I'm guessing you meant chain shirt?
Aubrey is right: Wisdom bonuses to AC go away when any armor is worn. This is meant to give unarmored combatants a maneagable AC, not accentuate another armor "style."
And anyay, that's a dextrous ranger we're talking about. To borrow a phrase, wrap your head around this: Not everyone has a high Dexterity. If you do, great, wear light armor. If you don't, your best shot is with heavy. As has been said before, if you always play dextrous characters, you won't find yourself iron-clad very often. If you use a character generation method that allows for higher average stats, then more fighters have a high score to plug into Dexterity and will opt for lighter armors.
Not everyone does this.
We're not all going to "see the problem," because for many of us, there isn't one.
EDIT- But, if you really want a new mechanic to make heavier armors look more appealing, try this.
Light armors incur a penalty to AC vs. critical confirmation rolls. They're great to help you dodge a blow, but once it's landed, the armor isn't too much of a boon.
Medium armors make no such adjustment.
Heavy armors give a bonus to AC vs. critical confirmation rolls. The thick material is good at absorbing the impact of the weapon, and can thus reduce the damage of an already landed blow.
EDIT 2- Did I mention already that the movement penalty isn't quite as bad as it might first appear? If you can get a mount, like most heavily armored people did historically, the speed reduction dissappears and leaves you with pure AC bonus goodness. Even in a dungeon that's too small to accomodate a mount, however, most enemies are still within range of a good charge maneuver, which still allows you to get around the battlefield with decent speed. In the relatively rare case that they are too far away, well, that's the price you pay for heavy armor, and I can deal with it, as can most player's I've met.
My current character has his highest stats in Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity (tied with Intelligence), and his lowest in Wisdom and Charisma.
The whole point of the character is a knight/soldier/bodyguard, relatively smart, and basically a tank. I get a +1 bonus because of my dexterity, which I wanted to have mainly because it aids my initiative bonus. I have a mighty composite shortbow, so it helps me with that, but the only purpose for the shortbow is to get off probably one shot at a distance before I drop it when the bad guys get within "charging" range. I briefly had half-plate armor, which eliminated my dex bonus, but yet it was still worth it AC wise, and now that I have full plate, it doesn't really matter.
I guess my point is, if your concept for your fighter is to be a front line tank, how the heck can you afford to put exceptionally high scores into dexterity? And if you are envisioning a duelist-type, a two-weapon fighter, or a mobile archer style character, heavy armor really doesn't fit the profile anyway.
|
|
Where does it say you only get one free action per round? I didn't think there was a strict limit enforced.
I may have been confused with Swift/Immediate actions (which are also considered "free" actions but are limited to one a round). Although, according to the SRD -- "there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn". And to me, activating a magic item is much closer to "A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action". Especially since the DMG came out before the whole swift action/immediate action/free action differentiation -- but that would be my interpretation and not RAW.
Wrap you brain around this; a ranger in light armor; chainmail can take an alternate level and gain the same wisdom bonus to ac that monks get, wear a shield, get a good dex bonus as the chain's penalty is pretty small; depending on stats of course, a character like this with a couple feats and without any magic or buffs can easily be into the high twenties or low thirties in AC by 15th level; add any buffs or magic and it goes even farther up and have still very little penalty at all. A warrior can get what, like 8 or so from heavy armor; use almost no dex; more penalty and a bit more armor from a heavy sheild and with the same stats and a couple feats get a low to moderate 20's AC while having large penalties; this sort of thing is not well thought out. I could make many light fighters that have ac's that far exceed a heavy fighter given the same level and same stats; try it yourself and you will see what I mean; try something moderate like 10th or 15th level or so and see what you get; try a few examples and you will probably come to the conclusion that heavy armor is useless in the game with the current rules.
Once we can all see the problem; I would like some ideas on how to fix the AC system in the game.
Chainmail is medium. Don't most of the ranger's special abilities go away in medium? At any rate, it's not light armor and thus doesn't benefit your argument. I'm guessing you meant chain shirt?
Aubrey is right: Wisdom bonuses to AC go away when any armor is worn. This is meant to give unarmored combatants a maneagable AC, not accentuate another armor "style."
And anyay, that's a dextrous ranger we're talking about. To borrow a phrase, wrap your head around this: Not everyone has a high Dexterity. If you do, great, wear light armor. If you don't, your best shot is with heavy. As has been said before, if you always play dextrous characters, you won't find yourself iron-clad very often. If you use a character generation method that allows for higher average...
read the rule again; chainmail shirt is light armor; ranger can use wisdom bonus and wear armor taking the substitution level and getting Armor of the senses. Anyone with armor can get the spikes so that is non sequitor; I am discounting magic to keep the discussion on armor and feats not buffs of magic. A freind and I have worked out a few models and 58 ac is nothing really; and books keep coming out with more and more classes and feats; this keeps getting more crazy. And wow 18 attacks; who needs armor if you can just kill the guy outright. Just look through your books and see what you can make for a light armored person; really; try it, I think you will be amazed; consider for a moment your touch ac and its not even close.
You said chain mail the first time, which, as far as the rules are concerned, is different than a chain shirt. But, I understood what you meant.
And again, that's GREAT for a high Dexterity character.
NOT EVERYONE HAS A HIGH DEXTERITY.
Many, if not most, fighters get a high Strength and Constitution. They then only have a +1 modifier or so for their Dexterity score, if that good, in which case, heavy armor is better for them.
High Dexterity characters also tend to use smaller weapons, since their stats support the Two-Weapon Fighting path and ranged options. However, a lumbering brute in full plate is also good with a nice greatsword, replacing finesse and number of attacks with sheer damage.
And, given the example above, greatswords are probably statistically inferior to two-weapon fighting, but I don't see anyone complaining about them.
It's certainly not wrong, but many people would call what you are doing "min/maxing." If that's the game you run and all your PCs have the Dexterity to benefit from light armor, that's just dandy, good for you/them, don't worry about heavy armor since no one's ever going to use it, and that's fine.
However, many people aren't out to min/max their characters, or even if they are, don't necessarily build them towards a high AC, but perhaps some other structure in which heavy armor serves as a fairly cheap way to help boost their AC.
I don't mean this to pick on anyone, but it always gets me when I read something along the lines of:
"The rules are really broken because you can get 12 attacks per round at +350, and all you have to do is take substitution levels in halfling, elf, and dwarven racial class books, which you can do if you play a Mongrelman and take the (You count as any race) feat from Complete Everything, and take Ftr3/Mnk2/Rng2/Rog2/Hexblade1/Samurai3/Knight2/Duskblade2. I can't beleive WOTC didn't catch that you can make a character like this in playtesting, but in the meantime, I won't point out to my DM that I'm going to make this completely outlandish character, and there is no way in hell I could come up with a good reason IN A ROLEPLAYING GAME that this character should exist."
And, given the example above, greatswords are probably statistically inferior to two-weapon fighting, but I don't see anyone complaining about them.
Actually, it's been a long time since I was out there, but I floated through the WoTC boards for a time, and one of the "Ten Commandments" of the Character Optimization boards (where the real min-maxing takes place) went something along the lines of "Avoid Two Weapon Fighting unless you have an 'extra damage' special ability such as Sneak Attack."
Since you add 1.5 times your strength modifier to damage with a two handed weapon, you'll do exactly as much damage with a greatsword as you will with two shortswords, assuming that you hit with both shortswords every time you would have hit with the one greatsword and have equivalent strength. Figure in the -2 (at best) penalty for two weapon fighting, the fact that there's no fourth offhand attack before level 21, the complications of trying to keep Dexterity and Strength high for two weapon fighting and the inability to apply Power Attack to light weapons (where, by contrast, a greatsword wielder only has to keep his strength up, and you get double the benefits of Power Attack with a two handed weapon), and the feat slots that you lose to get those extra offhand attacks... from a purely mechanic perspective, the only core classes that have any business taking the Two Weapon Fighting chain are the Rogue and the Ranger... and even they don't have an answer to the problem of weapon cost -- buying two decent weapons will leave them woefully underpowered elsewhere.
... all of which is only tangentially related to anything in this thread. My apologies.
The defending enhancement on armor spikes is the quintessential "cheese". It is a loophole that looks quite attractive for players who want maximum plusses to their AC. I myself would never allow it.
HURRAY FOR VENDLE!
I might even rule 0 spiked armor - frikkin pathetic.
The defending enhancement on armor spikes is the quintessential "cheese". It is a loophole that looks quite attractive for players who want maximum plusses to their AC. I myself would never allow it.
HURRAY FOR VENDLE!
I might even rule 0 spiked armor - frikkin pathetic.
the way i used to play a defending weapon was that it moved to defend you, a feat that would be technically impossible with armour spikes as they are fixed, you could of course rule that they add a deflection bonus which would negate the ring. this would IMHO be up to the individual DM to rule on... i personally would not allow defending armour spikes. nor would i allow the alter self and amulet of natural armour to stack
Kendrik
|
read the rule again; chainmail shirt is light armor; ranger can use wisdom bonus and wear armor taking the substitution level and getting Armor of the senses. Anyone with armor can get the spikes so that is non sequitor; I am discounting magic to keep the discussion on armor and feats not buffs of magic. A freind and I have worked out a few models and 58 ac is nothing really; and books keep coming out with more and more classes and feats; this keeps getting more crazy. And wow 18 attacks; who needs armor if you can just kill the guy outright. Just look through your books and see what you can make for a light armored person; really; try it, I think you will be amazed; consider for a moment your touch ac and its not even close.
With substitution levels, you lose something to get the benefit - i.e. it is a SUBSTITUTION. What does the ranger lose by taking this option? And what book is it in? Does it mean only one race gets this benefit, since substitution levels seem to be mainly in the race-specific books. Also, a ranger has low hp compared with a fighter - he needs a high AC. This doesn't seem terribly unbalanced to me so far.
And anyway - game balance isn't about just good AC v bad AC. There are broader issues which make the issue less clear cut around offensive power v defensive ability, combat effectiveness v roleplaying effectiveness and so on. So you have an AC of 103 - can your character interact effectively with others, can he hit the side of a barn at three paces and then actually do some damage? You can specialise in getting a huge AC but what are the impacts on the rest of the character build?
The same goes for touch AC. A heavily armoured fighter will probably be a sitting duck for touch attacks - but he also will probably have lots and lots of hp and almost anything requiring a save (like an undead touch atack) affects Fortitude. So it balances (sort of).
I just don't see the problem: how much this matters depends on player and DM preferences. That is probably the key issue here, not significant problems with the rules over armour.
PS Saern - love that idea of armour weight v impact of criticals. Neat and simple. No idea how it would play, but seems intuitive.
|
|
The defending enhancement on armor spikes is the quintessential "cheese". It is a loophole that looks quite attractive for players who want maximum plusses to their AC. I myself would never allow it.
HURRAY FOR VENDLE!
I might even rule 0 spiked armor - frikkin pathetic.
Defending armour spikes don't bother me - I don't think they are unbalanced mechanically so I can't really see a reason for preventing them. Would they work like that in real life? Who cares, it is a game of fantasy. But if they seem wrong to you, who am I to disagree? It is your game, after all.
What I would not allow would be defending armour spikes and a defending weapon (or two defending weapons, for a total AC bonus of up to +10). You only get one bite of the "defending" cherry, as far as I am concerned.
so far a druid/master of shapes i made up with medium armor ironwood breastplate has by far the highest ac in the game; nobody else is even close, granted that is magic armor but no magic pluses to ac. Anyone else try a few examples? The ranger is pretty high also comparatively and the arcane monk type guy is way up their also, but includes spells. The warrior lags way way behind. Am going to have to find out if the monk variant/master of shapes has a higher ac. Been just giving all characters the same stats to be fair; am starting to wonder what characters in the game have the best ac. It is not what I thought they would be buy heavy armor is so far the big loser; but a friend just told me about some elf champion of an elf god that gets to wear plate and adventually gets no penalies from it and can jump around wild like. the monk type characters with dodge bonuses by far have the highest touch ac's whereas a warrior there just really really bites.
Dwarves can take a hmm class i think; that allows them to use their con in place of their dex for ac if their con his higher but doesnt say anything about if the armor penalty applies to con bonus to ac or not.
kinda figured that when I said light armor chain you would know I meant the shirt; am sorry I wasnt more clear.
If you need a reference by book for almost all classes and feats and skills and such; check out the crystal keep website; that one is pretty good and is pretty well indexed by content and gives you what book to look in for stuff and page number.
|
|
What was Dragotha's attack bonus again? And the final BBEG's (not to give away too many secrets :) )?
Dragotha -- +35 to hit
Kyuss -- +37 to hitLashona -- +39 to hit.
Lashona would need a 19 or 20 to hit. All the others (including Kyuss) would need natural 20s. Again, if the bad guys were hitting every round, the DM modified things.
Twilight property is an obscure enhancement found in Explorer's Handbook (Eberron). It has a +1 modifier. Just to double-check -- The armor now has a cost of 108,000 gp before the masterworked armor and spikes and the mithril properties. The shield has the same. We are now easily at 220,000 gp for the armor and shield only (by my quick calculations). Adding on the amulet and ring and you have now used up half your equipment allotment for AC defense only.
I still feel that if you are already using the defending properties of two different weapons each round, you can't really use any other weapons. I suppose that you could attack with the armored spikes on the armor and the spikes on the shield, but the enhancment bonus has now gone to your AC making your ability to hit much more difficult.
I haven't really looked at the spellsword class, so I don't really have much to comment on that aspect at this point (and probably won't at this point because it really doesn't matter).
Here is the point -- if the rest of the people in the group are running around with 58 AC (or close) then it really doesn't matter that much. The DM simply makes the bad guys so that their to hit is higher than normal (and there are many ways to do that). The problem really comes in when the fighter has a 58 AC and the cleric has a 42 AC. The cleric is now getting hit with most of the attacks(60-70% of the time with Dragotha) and the fighter is getting hit nearly never (5% of the time).
If the DM in your group played and created characters and creatures as you appear to do, your party would die every session because I would find it hard to believe that your to hit is 48 or better (of course, given the AC scenario above maybe I wouldn't be that surprised).
Is it within the rules? If so, only marginally.
Is it balanced? It doesn't feel like it.
Is it within the spirit of the game? I don't think so.
Would I allow it? Not as it is presented above -- but luckily, I don't play with a group that wants (or needs) this kind of scenario.
(When a god -- as written -- can only hit you on a natural 20, it feels broken.)
the way i used to play a defending weapon was that it moved to defend you, a feat that would be technically impossible with armour spikes as they are fixed, you could of course rule that they add a deflection bonus which would negate the ring.
As I've noted higher up in the thread, I would rule that you actually needed to use the defending item to claim the bonus, meaning either taking an attack with the spikes (and therefore suffering the two-weapon fighting penalties) or using the Total Defense action.
I respectfully disagree with both of your interpretations - there's nothing stated in the RAW to back it. Of course, as DM you can rule as you will, but that has little bearing here.
nor would i allow the alter self and amulet of natural armour to stack
Per the RAW, you would be incorrect. The Amulet of Natural Armour gives an Enhancement bonus to natural armour. The Alter self gives said natural armour. Therefore, per the RAW, they stack. Note that the spell Barkskin likewise stacks with the troglodye, but not with the Amulet of Natural Armour.
Personaly i finished Age of Worms with this AC :
10 base
+13 armor bonus (+5 full plate)
+5 unamed bonus (+5 defending armor spikes)
+7 shield bonus (+5 heavy steel shield)
+5 unamed bonus (+5 defending shield spikes)
+6 natural armor bonus (alter self in troglodyte)
+5 enhancement bonus to natural armor (+5 amulet of natural armor)
+1 dex
+5 deflection bonus (ring of protection +5)
+1 dodge bonus
---
58 AC
That +1 Dodge bonus only applies against one opponent in the round (assuming it's from the Dodge feat). I'd also question your ability to get Alter Self, although it certainly looks possible.
Unnamed bonuses from identical sources don't stack. So, you can't claim the bonuses from two Defending weapons at once. Also, bear in mind that you have to use a Defending weapon to gain the benefit - enjoy those two-weapon fighting penalties.
You missed out on two further way to boost your AC, though: the Combat Expertise feat allows a further +5, and if you boosted your Dex to 16 and used Mithral full plate you would gain a further +2.
Anyway, it's irrelevant - as noted by others, if the BBEGs were regularly hitting that AC, the DM was changing things drastically in their favour - probably in response to your monstrous power-gaming. (I mean that last in jest, of course.)
|
|
You missed out on two further way to boost your AC, though: the Combat Expertise feat allows a further +5, and if you boosted your Dex to 16 and used Mithral full plate you would gain a further +2.
There is also the ioun stone that gives a +1 insight bonus to AC. Since we are power-gaming anyway, it should be possible to create an ioun stone that gives a +5 insight bonus to AC at a cost of 125,000 gp (by my quick calculations).
I don't mean this to pick on anyone, but it always gets me when I read something along the lines of:
"The rules are really broken because you can get 12 attacks per round at +350, and all you have to do is take substitution levels in halfling, elf, and dwarven racial class books, which you can do if you play a Mongrelman and take the (You count as any race) feat from Complete Everything, and take Ftr3/Mnk2/Rng2/Rog2/Hexblade1/Samurai3/Knight2/Duskblade2. I can't beleive WOTC didn't catch that you can make a character like this in playtesting, but in the meantime, I won't point out to my DM that I'm going to make this completely outlandish character, and there is no way in hell I could come up with a good reason IN A ROLEPLAYING GAME that this character should exist."
I didn't say the Elf Scout/Dervish/Tempest was broken, just scary and sick. 30th level characters *should* be scary and sick.
That's probably the best point made here so far about the usefulness of heavier armor. If you're surprised or lose initiative, your high DEX character is going to hurt. The point of everything is that there is (nor should there be) no catch-all tactic to defend against EVERY situation.
|
|
I explained why i think heavy armor is far from useless. I showed an example of high AC with a heavy armor and explained how it works (even if you're not agree about defending bonus, it's still a 48 AC).
I still wait for someone proving heavy armor is useless instead of just saying it.
Yes, you have.
While I may disagree with your interpretation of the rules as you have them presented, I do feel that you have adequately demonstrated the place and usefulness of heavier armor. And noting the difference between touch AC and flat-footed AC has been a good thought as well.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
But, if you really want a new mechanic to make heavier armors look more appealing, try this.
Light armors incur a penalty to AC vs. critical confirmation rolls. They're great to help you dodge a blow, but once it's landed, the armor isn't too much of a boon.
Medium armors make no such adjustment.
Heavy armors give a bonus to AC vs. critical confirmation rolls. The thick material is good at absorbing the impact of the weapon, and can thus reduce the damage of an already landed blow.
Glad to see I'm not the only one who does this, Saern. Light armor takes -2 and heavy grants +2. Not a huge difference, but enough to matter sometimes. I also allow metal helmets to award +1 to confirmation AC (a throwback to 2nd Ed).
Unnamed bonuses from identical sources don't stack. So, you can't claim the bonuses from two Defending weapons at once. Also, bear in mind that you have to use a Defending weapon to gain the benefit - enjoy those two-weapon fighting penalties.
DMG pg. 224
Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the (weapon's) enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others.
Just as dodge bonuses stack with other dodge bonuses, defending weapon bonuses stack with other defending weapon bonuses. Because you are effectively taking a penalty on your attacks to gain a bonus to your AC, it's less unbalancing than a feat that allows you to shield bash and retain the shield's bonus to AC (Improved Shield Bash).
DMG pg. 224
Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the (weapon's) enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others.
Just as dodge bonuses stack with other dodge bonuses, defending weapon bonuses stack with other defending weapon bonuses.
I disagree. Just as two dodge bonuses _from the same source_ don't stack, and two unnamed bonuses _from the same source_ (which is effectively what this is) don't stack, these bonuses should not stack - they come from the same source.
The reason I consider allowing them to stack unbalancing is that at the high levels where this could be a factor, stacking the bonuses can shift a character's AC from nigh-on-invulnerable to (effectively) invulnerable.
The alternative opens the door for a Marilith to be armed with six defending weapons, and assign all the bonuses to AC. I can guarantee that if a DM did that, the players would cry foul, and rightly so. (What's more, if the interpretation that you can always apply the defending property of your armour spikes, without actually taking an attack with said spikes, is also correct then the Marilith could go that - for a potential AC bonus of +30 from the weapons alone AND make use of her at will telekinesis and blade barrier abilities, and summon in fellow demons as she sees fit. Now, do you really think that that is the intention of the rules?)
DMG pg. 224
Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the (weapon's) enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others.
Just as dodge bonuses stack with other dodge bonuses, defending weapon bonuses stack with other defending weapon bonuses. Because you are effectively taking a penalty on your attacks to gain a bonus to your AC, it's less unbalancing than a feat that allows you to shield bash and retain the shield's bonus to AC (Improved Shield Bash).
Please disregard my previous post on this topic. I was thiking about Circumstance bonuses, rather than unnamed bonuses. Therefore, I was wrong.
Glad to see I'm not the only one who does this, Saern. Light armor takes -2 and heavy grants +2. Not a huge difference, but enough to matter sometimes. I also allow metal helmets to award +1 to confirmation AC (a throwback to 2nd Ed).But, if you really want a new mechanic to make heavier armors look more appealing, try this.
Light armors incur a penalty to AC vs. critical confirmation rolls. They're great to help you dodge a blow, but once it's landed, the armor isn't too much of a boon.
Medium armors make no such adjustment.
Heavy armors give a bonus to AC vs. critical confirmation rolls. The thick material is good at absorbing the impact of the weapon, and can thus reduce the damage of an already landed blow.
Whats the penalty for fighting in no armor?
and does natural armor or any other bonuses impact this rule?
The question about natural armor is a good one; do the rules imply that a dragon with a natural armor way beyond that of heavy armor would give a +2 to crit confirmation; this doesnt sound reasonable.
I am also thinking that no matter what your ac is; most melee types of the same level can probably hit that ac at least 25% of the time though I havent grunted through the numbers yet.
I have found that a great many of classes that wear light armor also have feats or class conditions that you cannot in most circumstances catch them flat footed and often cannot be back attacked or flanked or whatever.
doesnt sound like anyone but myself is working through various character models for armor and armor class so might be this thread is pointless to try to figure it out; was hoping for some new insight or models of heavy armor I had not yet considered, but looks like I will just have to grunt through the facts and figures of AC in the 3.5 mostly by myself :(
Hmm. Good point. Change in thinking!
Fighting unarmored or possessing a natural armor bonus of +5 or less incurs no modification to critical confirmation AC. Light armor provides a +1 bonus, medium a +2, and heavy a +3. Natural armor of +6 or higher grants a flat +1, for simplicity's sake.
I suggested it just for conversation's sake. I wouldn't use that system because of the trouble of remembering all the modifiers.
Valegrim, I think you've made a valid point. If you have the stats for it, and have an eye to make your AC as good as possible, and all books and materials are allowed, light armor has some noticeable advantages. However, heavy armor remains very useful for many, many other situations. I wouldn't recommend puzzling over it too much, unless, of course, you really enjoy it.
|
I don't mind the way armor works.
But that may be because I think quick lightly armored heroes are much cooler/versitile/interesting/and dangerous.
Medival knights were pretty BA but even they were screwed if they got knocked of their horse. And if they were fighting on foot they did well, until the serfs pulled crossbow which the knights did not have the mobility to avoid. So heavy armor feels great to me as far as flavor goes.
I think heavy armor is a good option mechanically so long as you can counter the obvious mobility problem typically by having a good horse and a better backup plan. Me, I'd wait for the mithral full plate.
Of course, in watching a show on the history channel, the notion of being "screwed" is pretty off kilter. In the show, historians and reenacters demonstrated how people trained in the use of plate mail remained quite agile in combat.
DMG pg. 224
Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the (weapon's) enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others.
Just as dodge bonuses stack with other dodge bonuses, defending weapon bonuses stack with other defending weapon bonuses.
I disagree. Just as two dodge bonuses _from the same source_ don't stack, and two unnamed bonuses _from the same source_ (which is effectively what this is) don't stack, these bonuses should not stack - they come from the same source.
The reason I consider allowing them to stack unbalancing is that at the high levels where this could be a factor, stacking the bonuses can shift a character's AC from nigh-on-invulnerable to (effectively) invulnerable.
The alternative opens the door for a Marilith to be armed with six defending weapons, and assign all the bonuses to AC. I can guarantee that if a DM did that, the players would cry foul, and rightly so. (What's more, if the interpretation that you can always apply the defending property of your armour spikes, without actually taking an attack with said spikes, is also correct then the Marilith could go that - for a potential AC bonus of +30 from the weapons alone AND make use of her at will telekinesis and blade barrier abilities, and summon in fellow demons as she sees fit. Now, do you really think that that is the intention of the rules?)
An excellent point. I have yet to reach this point in my campaign, but even at 11th lvl the cleric in my group has attained a near impossible to hit AC of 33. Just FYI, the PC is using a mithral breast plate and two weapon defense, while fighting defensively.
Good lord, allowing extra bonuses to stack seems like a nightmare to me.
Heavy armour is important because not everyone can afford high dexterity. Full plate can grant you nine AC from armor plus max dex, whereas breastplate (the best medium armour) and chain shirt (the best light armour) give you only eight.
Essentially, the best two armours in the game are chain shirt and full plate. Full plate with twelve Dexterity will give you one more AC than chain shirt does on 18 Dexterity; chain shirt however has no speed penalty.
Basically, if you're anything above Light armour you might as well go for full plate. If you're wearing light, you may as well go for chain shirt, and if you have 26 Dexterity or more you should wear Celestial Armour. Only if you really care about Armour Check penalties or find something special in treasure should you bother to wear any other armours.
The defending enhancement on armor spikes is the quintessential "cheese". It is a loophole that looks quite attractive for players who want maximum plusses to their AC. I myself would never allow it.
Good call. IMO. There are some major cheese factories out there.
ok; I have a bud who just started a new game last night; I rolled up a human ranger (UA variant no ranger weapon feats gets wild shape); my bud runs a fairly religious game so I took the feats sacred vow and vow of poverty; my toon has a 16 dex and a 16 wisdom; so at first level he has a 17 AC wearing no armor; when I level I will take a level of monk; my AC will then be 20 or 21 wearing only rags. I think it would be pretty hard for a second level heavy armor guy to match this; also my guy runs a +10" movement and has a buttload of skills. Will keep you posted on how this experiment turns out; but I think this guys AC is going to be pretty high by the teens.
I took the feats sacred vow and vow of poverty
Don't get us started on Vow of Poverty again; there must be more threads about how broken it is than there are posts by Pett and Logue dissing each other!
Again, kudos for your research. However, that build, particularly with Vow of Poverty, has some pretty hefty drawbacks, no?
It very well may be that if you are hell-bent to get your AC as high as possible, the costs be damned, light wieght, high Dex guys are the way to go.
However, again, not everyone is going for that option. In fact, of all the possible builds (meaning any combination of race, feeats, classes, skills, equipment, etc.) out there, of which there must be billions, super concentration on AC is only a small fraction. For a huge number of the other builds, heavy armor remains ideal, because it gets AC high enough for most people's purposes without nearly the cost.
Even when playing side by side with a high Dex AC freak, you're likely to have other people who, pursuing different character concepts, take heavy armor for that very reason.
So again, while heavy armor may not statistically be the optimal choice when taking AC to the extremes, it is the optimal choice for people more in the realm of "normal" play experience.
AC20 isn't all that. Yes, it's in rags, but with the balance that you can't own anything but rags. A fighter can hit AC21 with full plate and a large shield. Naturally, it's a lot better for monks who can't wear armour anyway, and the same with shapechanged druids.
Something else to consider with armour. If it's made of mithral, darkleaf or a few other special materials it actually improves the max dex bonus that can be applied so it can work well with a moderate dex character in game to boost ac but not cause problems in other areas. However light armours can work as well. Live long and prosper. \\//.
Director of Narrative
|
ok; I have a bud who just started a new game last night; I rolled up a human ranger (UA variant no ranger weapon feats gets wild shape); my bud runs a fairly religious game so I took the feats sacred vow and vow of poverty; my toon has a 16 dex and a 16 wisdom; so at first level he has a 17 AC wearing no armor; when I level I will take a level of monk; my AC will then be 20 or 21 wearing only rags. I think it would be pretty hard for a second level heavy armor guy to match this; also my guy runs a +10" movement and has a buttload of skills. Will keep you posted on how this experiment turns out; but I think this guys AC is going to be pretty high by the teens.
Your character's AC will be sufficiently high at later levels. I ran that route a couple of years ago with a rogue/monk with the vow of poverty thingy. The DM hated me. I hated me.
currently, everyone in the group is light or no armor and mine is not the highest value; am wondering how we will all stack up 10 levels from now; it is interesting that nobody took the heavy armor route; just shows how it doesnt hold much allure. Are stats were rolled 4d6 reroll ones; take best 3, place in any order for characteristics, this averages higher than normal stats; but not much higher.
Again, kudos for your research. However, that build, particularly with Vow of Poverty, has some pretty hefty drawbacks, no?
Basically not really with a Monk or Druid - your not allowed to own magic items but by and large these two classes can get by without magic items in any case. Furthermore the benefits gained are obscene.
Somewhere around here is a thread were some one actually broke the benefits down by comparing them to equivalent magic items and its simply outrageous. The value of the benefits for Vow of Poverty are insane. I'll see if I can find the link. I seriously doubt anyone that has seen a Druid or Monk with Vow of Poverty in a game would allow them in a second time. Its the twinky feat of twinky feats. It does have one huge disadvantage however in that its nearly impossible to get the class to use anything at range.
Here is a link to the thread that covers the GP equivilent values for Vow of Poverty. VoP thread