I have been making daily Will saves to keep from changing any rules in the PHB and play it strickly as written. After all, there were thousands of hours of playtesting involved, I could at least try it before tinkering with it.
My biggest area of weakness is in the area of armor classes for the different armors. Much as I love the chain shirt, I am in the camp that heavier armors are getting the short end of the stick.
So, to hopefully eliminate all the index cards I have floating around with the New & Improved armor classes written on them, and since none of the descriptions in the PHB say that the armors already include one, I have decided to write up stats for a Full Helm.
FULL HELM [requires Heavy Armor Proficiency]
+1 AC (-1 armor check penalty) 15gp 5lbs.
-5 to all INT, WIS, & CHA based skill checks except Knowledge checks and Initimidate checks.(In fact, a masterwork Full Helm could add +2 to Intimidate checks).
Requires a Move action to put on or remove Full Helm. Characters with a BAB+1 or higher can combine this action with a regular move.
The skill checks penalties are high because I want the characters to only wear these when battle is imminent, and carrying them in hand or on the saddle the rest of the time.
I would appreciate any criticism and suggestions or things I've forgotten.
I will agree with you that the heavy armors generally get the short end of the stick. In fact I think there are really 4 options for armor (5 if you count none), Mithril Shirt, Mithril Breastplate, Mithril Fullplate and Adamantine Full Plate. Which one is best for any particualr character depends on the dex of the character.
Now having said that, I fail to see how your proposed change actually helps the heavy armors anymore than the light armors. As written, what is stopping me from wearing a full helm with my mithril shirt?
Sure, I may not have the armor proficiency (But that is easy to get with a level in fighter, which is now even MORE attractive for the rogues), but I can simply make it out of mithril, which reduces the armor check penalty to 0, meaning anyone, even wizards can wear it without penalty.
I think you are wanting this to only be worn with heavy armors? If that is the case, instead of making it a separate item, simply say that all heavy armors include it as standard. If you want you can increase the cost and weight of them proportionally, but I don't think they really need it.
I would still generally avoid heavy armour in general, but this does make Mithril Full Plate very attractive. +9 AC +1 Dex Bonus is very good.
Thanks for the thoughts and comments. IMC mithril is not something that can be bought, so I was hoping the -1 attack penalty would discourage rogues, rangers, etc. from using them. Do you think -2 armor penalty is too high?
You are completely correct that the Full Helm as written doesn't prevent my fighters, paladins, clerics from wearing them with the chain shirt, so I will have to keep thinking on this.
Hows bout: wearing a Full Helm lowers your encumbrance level to the next lower level?
*shameless bump*
The problem isn't with armors, but with the encumberance rules, and how D & D ties walking speed with a type of armor.
Encumberance is something that has bothered me, both as a GM and a player, for some time now. The encumberance system is just completely off. It doesn’t even mimic fantasy well. I don’t like how a movement rate / encumberance is tied specifically to a suit of armor. A suit of Full Plate armor is about 65 lbs on average. That weight is evenly distributed across your entire body with straps & buckles, etc. That’s heavy, sure, but *it’s made to be used in combat,* and fitted for its wearer. Now let’s apply that suit of armor to our heroic 3.5 Ed Fighter with that 18 Str and we have a little common sense problem. According to the rules, a light load for our hero, let’s call him Joe, is 100 lbs. Impressive. Joe is an incredibly strong human being (or dwarf, or whatever). And yet, in his plate armor, Joe’s base movement rate is 20, and his run is just x3 that. At first glance, that looks fine. But what happens when Joe is unarmored, but picks up his armor (in a large sack or something) and carries it over his back? Well, the answer is, according to 3.5 ed rules, is that Joe has no movement restrictions whatsoever. He can walk 30′ as a standard move action, and can run x4 that. That's stunningly counter-intuitive.
So I’ve come up with the following house rules
1) Ignore the Speed Rules listed under Table 7-6: Armor & Shields on page 123 of the PHB (3.5, naturally).
2) Use Table 9-2: Carrying Loads for ALL ENCUMBERANCE instead. Just add up the weights and you’re done.
3) Neither a MEDIUM LOAD *nor* a MEDIUM SUIT of ARMOR lowers your BASE MOVEMENT RATE!
4) INSTEAD, either a MEDIUM LOAD *or* a MEDIUM SUIT of ARMOR lowers your MAXIMUM RUN MOVEMENT to x3!! Unless you’re a dwarf, then you can still RUN with a heavy pack.
5) The rules for HEAVY LOADS or ARMORS remain unchanged. (You suffer both penalties - i.e. your move is 20, and your sprint is limited to just 3x that, or 60 in this case.)
Why 3, 4 & 5? Because carrying a *fairly* heavy weight, like I often did when I was a FedEx Courier, doesn’t slow down the rate you can walk at, only how long you can carry said weight. What you can’t do while carrying, say 45 lbs, is RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN!! Wearing a suit of chainmail isn’t going to affect how fast *you can walk!* But, what it does affect is how fast you can run!
My .02. ;^)
Yes, this would be another way to do it. It seems pretty simple, and takes care of one of the strikes against heavier armors. (I know more than a few characters who total weight carried would equal light encumbrance if it wasn't for the armor's automatic level.)
What's your ruling for class feats that are dependent on certain encumbrance levels? (Ranger's combat styles, Barbarian's fast movement, etc.)
My only concern about this and the reason for trying to create a full helm is that I'm trying to avoid house rules or re-writing RAW.
|
....in his plate armor, Joe’s base movement rate is 20, and his run is just x3 that. At first glance, that looks fine. But what happens when Joe is unarmored, but picks up his armor (in a large sack or something) and carries it over his back? Well, the answer is, according to 3.5 ed rules, is that Joe has no movement restrictions whatsoever. He can walk 30′ as a standard move action, and can run x4 that. That's stunningly counter-intuitive.
The movement rules relating to armor are based not on weight alone, but restrictiveness of the armor. Walking in full plate would be much more difficult than just carrying it, or wearing leather armor. Plus, I would worry that granting a 30' movement weight to every strong fighter type in full plate may be a touch unbalancing. Why play a ranger or barbarian in leather when the fully clad fighter with an AC in the 20s can catch you on the battlefield anytime he/ she would like.
I like the full helm ideas so far...maybe a penalty to spot or listen checks would be in order.
One pre-emptive move. I know some armorsmith will post that there is plenty of perfectly fitted armor that is hardly restrictive...maybe there is, but only masterwork or above should be considered that perfectly built.
Thanks Magnus,
I've increased the cost to equal a heavy steel shield, this is what I have so far.
FULL HELM [requires Heavy Armor Proficiency]
20gp 5lb
A Full Helm lowers wearer's encumbrance to next lower level [light becomes medium, medium becomes heavy, heavy remains the same.]
+1 AC [stacks with armor]
-1 armor check penalty
-5 to all INT, WIS, and CHA based skill checks except Knowledge & Intimidate checks.
Requires a Move action to put on or remove the helm. Characters with a BAB +1 or higher can combine this action with a regular move.
Masterwork Full Helm: -0 armor check penalty, adds a +2 bonus on Intimidate checks.
Contributor
|
[The movement rules relating to armor are based not on weight alone, but restrictiveness of the armor. Walking in full plate would be much more difficult than just carrying it, or wearing leather armor.
As a person who has made, carried, worn and fought in armour, that is flat out wrong. Carrying a suit of armour (any suit of armour) is way more cumbersome than wearing a suit of armour. I can walk just as quickly in full armour as naked. I cannot run as fast for as long in full armour as I can without, but longer and faster than if I was carrying it in a backpack or sack. In well-fitted armour I can do almost all of the same movements as not. 'Munitions grade' armour occasionally hampers my movement a little in some ways, but I've never worn a suit of armour that prevented any movements I need to walk, run or fight. No one would wear armour they couldn't move in. The only historical armour that seriously impeded normal activities was jousting armour, which was in fact highly specialized sports equipment.
I think the armour check penalties are pretty reasonable, and the movement reduction works for me from a balance and perceived realism point of view. I wish the max dex numbers made it more of a choice as to which armour was better, rather than just the heaviest armour that doesn't interfere with your dexterity.
But frankly, I think the armour rules are totally unrealistic anyways. They work well enough for playability and balance, so I live with it.
That said, i never made the connection that carrying heavy armour doesn't always impede you as much as wearing it. That's just plain bogus!
What's your ruling for class feats that are dependent on certain encumbrance levels? (Ranger's combat styles, Barbarian's fast movement, etc.)
No changes. *Those abilities* simply require a less restrictive range of mobility that only comes with lighter armors.
I have to disagree with you there, Magnus. What Scribe & Doug said.
Plus, I would worry that granting a 30' movement weight to every strong fighter type in full plate may be a touch unbalancing. Why play a ranger or barbarian in leather when the fully clad fighter with an AC in the 20s can catch you on the battlefield anytime he/ she would like.
Well, from experience, it's turned out to be not that big a deal. Frankly, it makes combat go quicker, as all 2nd & 3rd row types don't have to wait for the fighters & clerics (etc) to enter the fray before they dare (for fear of getting chopped down). Additionally, most PC's in heavy armor will be limited to x3 movement, so those rangers & barbarians can *still* escape if they need to. Moreover, one doesn't play a barbarian nor a ranger to have a greater movement rate than a fighter (well . . . at least a ranger doesn't). It's all their other capabilites that people generally play. Furthermore, lots of people use feats (be they house or from other systems) that allow a PC's base movement rate to increase by +10. Include spells such as Longstrider, and my encumberance house rule isn't that massive an advantage, and it removes that counter-intuitive, gygaxian bias against plate armor that's persisted for more than 30 years.
Encumberance rules in 3E has annoyed the crap out me since I had a PC remove his plate armor & carried so his character could move 30' (and run at x4, mind you). It's just NOT easier to carry 60 lbs. of plate armor than it is to wear it (the weight of the breastplate, helm & hip armor falls nicely on the hips; armor on the arms & legs straps to their respetive parts - it's not that bad). I don't expect "reality" or anything of the sort, but I do demand a *little* intuitive consistency (and in my humble opinion it's such a simple fix).
But, do as you will, my geek-brother! Every DM's got his own mods! It's *always* been that way, and it *always* will be!
;^D
- FM
If your playing with a number of splat books there are feats that will allow you to make the heaviest armours even better. My experience with making NPCs has been that its possible to get a few more points of AC out of the heaviest armours. Also the armours are better balanced in something like a 25 point buy campaign where great dex is not that common and hence heavy armour is generally better then light armour.
