Okay. A few examples.
[spoiler]1. My current character, Grey Elf wizard 5, 18 Dex (+4), Greater Mage Armor (+6), Alter Self (+2-6), Shield (+4), Magic Circle Against Evil (+2) = AC 32 when buffed to the max, with no insvestment in items. Would be 30 in Pathfinder with one more spell. As we play published adventures, non-buffed stats do not seem to matter - the party is almost always supposed to have if not the complete initiative, then the time to buff. He has AC 20 for 5 hours/day anyway - better than you can get out of any armor that is not ridiculously expensive for 5th level. He also can cast GMA on lighly-armored party members, although for now he has more productive uses for a spell slot. And armor-wearers are screwed even worse if the party is attacked during rest.
2. The second way to buff AC, stacking Ability X to AC, does not yet work really well at 5th level (too low for prestige-dipping). Except for Wizdom-based Sworsage 4/Monk 1 - this one goes to have at least AC 20 from Wiz alone. Sure, not optimal offensive build - but the heavy armor-wearers must gimp themselves even more to have AC above 19 at this level, by either using shield (thus failing at offense) or making their expensive fullplate ridiculously expensive by making it out of mythral AND investing in Dex, which does not synergise with their expected role on the battlefield at all. Also, if your AC is not at least 20 at 5th level, and you're a frontliner, you might not bother with it at all.
If we remain within the core, Dex-based characters, like rogues and ranger archers, probably have about Dex 22 at this level, because they actually aren't totally crippled by investing in Dex at the expense of Str. And they can pack mythral chain shirt for AC 20 - that's less expensive than mundane full plate and does not interfere much with their offense (you're sneak attack/favored enemy dependent anyway, so you better off investing in Dex.) And rogues can try to use, say, some of the above-mentioned spells on themselves with UMD -...
with your first example I say, dont allow greater mage armor it is too powerful IMO, mage armor is good enough, dont allow alter self to grant natural armor bonus. This makes the mage with 18 dex expend 2 1st level spells and a third level spell to get AC 24 (against evil). A damn fine AC for 5th level but we are talking about an 18 dex character here so that is OK by me and it costs a fair few spells and shield goes down in 5 minutes anyway.
|
I think one way to balance the issue would be to have armor (mundane or magical) aid with certain types of saves.
Metal helms can give a minor boost against Will save type spells/mental attacks/domination (Gamma World FTW!) and even heavier armors can give bonuses to certain types of Fort and/or Reflex saves.
Remember, a reflex save doesn't just mean the guy could have partially gotten out of the way of the fireball through agility and dives, it could also reflect the reaction of the tank like character setting his shield to the blast and by luck having his plate armor prevent some (1/2) of the damage.
You wouldn't have to change as much stat wise, and armors could be rebalanced with this new variable - and yet it can also give something more in line of defense to fighter types vs arcane or divine spells/effects.
Just my 2 coppers.
If the armor bonus numbers must remain the same, at the very least the 10' movement penalty for medium armor should be removed.
Here is are some little gems from the 1st Ed. Dungeon Master's Guide, page 28, written by Gary Gygax:
Magic Armor:
When magic armor is worn, assume that its properties allow movement at the next higher base rate and that weight is cut by 50%. There is no magical elfin chain mail.
Dexterity Armor Class Bonus
This bonus is in addition to that given by any other forms of protection. The type of armor worn by the character with a dexterity armor class bonus does not adversely affect this bonus, for it is assumed that his or her physical conditioning and training compensate otherwise. (This is particularly applicable with regard to magic armor which is assumed to possess an enchantment which makes it both light and flexible.) The penalty for wearing armor is already subsumed in the defensive bonuses given for it, and if it were further to penalized the character by denying dexterity armor class adjustments, it would be totally invalid.
I'm not saying this should be ported directly into pathfinder, but it does give inspiration for ideas. I particularly like the idea that magical armor is less cumbersome. Perhaps that should wait until the magical items section. Could an ability be added to the magic armor chart as an upgrade? Could a feat be added that lets a warrior add more of his dex bonus to his armor class when wearing medium & heavy armor?
Here is are some little gems from the 1st Ed. Dungeon Master's Guide, page 28, written by Gary Gygax:
Magic Armor:
When magic armor is worn, assume that its properties allow movement at the next higher base rate and that weight is cut by 50%. There is no magical elfin chain mail.Dexterity Armor Class Bonus
This bonus is in addition to that given by any other forms of protection. The type of armor worn by the character with a dexteriy armor class bonus does not adversely affect this bonus, for it is assumed that hid or her physical conditioning and training compensate otherwise. (This is particularly applicable with regard to magic armor which is assumed to possess an enchantment which makes it both light and flexible.) The penalty for wearing armor is already subsumed in the defensive bonuses given for it, and if it were further to penalized the character by denying dexterity armor class adjustments, it would be totally invalid.I'm not saying this should be ported directly into pathfinder, but it does give inspiration for ideas. I particularly like the idea that magical armor is less cumbersome. Perhaps that should wait until the magical items section. Could an ability be added to the magic armor chart as an upgrade? Could a feat be added that lets a warrior add more of his dex bonus to his armor class?
I remember this.
I like that different armors have different max dex. It encourages different armor types and vermisillytudiness (sp?). It is boring if everyone wears the same (hence the chain shirt hate)
In ad&d it just used to be plate mail move 6" banded 9" (and unarmored 12") so magic moved you up one.
The problem is that you need to make more than 2 armor types useful (chain shirt and full plate)
I remember this.
I like that different armors have different max dex. It encourages different armor types and vermisillytudiness (sp?). It is boring if everyone wears the same (hence the chain shirt hate)
In ad&d it just used to be plate mail move 6" banded 9" (and unarmored 12") so magic moved you up one.
The problem is that you need to make more than 2 armor types useful (chain shirt and full plate)
I think you are missing my point. By looking at how things were done in past editions, comparing them with the current ones, we may come up with fresh ideas. I wonder if the designers are trying to retain some of the nostalgia and feel of past editions. I hope they are. In fact, why I'm so interested in Pathfinder is not just that they are trying to preserve 3rd edition, but the history of D&D as we have known it.
With that said, after reading the old 1st ed DMG, maybe it's best to leave mithral and the armor table alone for the most part. The tweaks to mithral as it applies to weapons and proficiency, I like. I really like Jason B's option C... can't remember if it's in this thread or not. Mithral armor is reduced in weight, adds +2 to the max dex, armor check penalty reduced by 3, and arcane spell failure reduced by 10%. The category changes from heavy to medium, and medium to light are eliminated. This certainly cleans up the application of the rules for mithral armor, which I like and is a step toward preserving armor proficiency.
So, how to get medium & heavy armors up to snuff?
3 things come to mind after perusing books of older editions:
1) Enchanting magic armor with desirable properties. In this edition, I see this taking the form of additions to table 15-2: Armor Special Abilities, on p.341. Why can't armor be enchanted to be lighter, more flexible, easier to maneuver in... almost like a second skin? Effectively, I'm recommending adding an ability that eliminates the encumbrance of heavier armors (the movement reduction).
For Example:
Mobility: A suit of armor with this ability feels & weighs like a normal suit when worn, but is surprisingly easy to move in. Medium or heavy armors enchanted with this ability do not slow its wearer down, allowing her to move at her normal speed. Price: +5,000gp
2) Create feats that overcome some of medium and heavy armor's short-comings. These feats could represent those warriors who spent a lifetime of training to endure the burden of heavy armors.
For Example:
Second Skin
You have trained in the use of heavy armors to such an extent, that although they are bulky, and impede movement, you can react to attacks as easily as an unarmored individual.
Prerequisites: BAB +1, Proficiency with light, medium, or heavy armor.
Benefit: When wearing armor of a type with which you are proficient, you may add your full dexterity bonus to your armor class, regardless of the max Dexterity bonus of the armor.
3) Good GM judgment when handing out treasure and handling the purchase of goods. This one takes a lot of practice of course and varies from group to group.
I've been on record previously (during the fighter playtest) as supporting this idea - encumbrance straight up, not worrying about armor categories for movement.
Jason, so have I, which I've also reposted again today (I have no desire to search for when I originally posted this, as it was something like 2 years ago or more . . .
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/design/equipment/armorMediumArmorNeedsRevamping#15
BTW, I am really pleased to see some serious consensus about the armor / encumberance / movement issue.
What's the point of the walking (read: base) movement penalty for medium and heavy armor?
How does it make the game more fun?
How would removing the movement penalty (based solely on armor, not on weight, mind you) unbalance the game?
In the D&D / PRPG system, how do you create a team of heavily armored, honorbound knights as characters, yet still have the required range of other abilities?
Thank you,
- FM
Nuts, the link didn't post right . . .
|
Medium armor might actually see some use by medium characters if it slowed you down 5 feet instead of 10 (perhaps not slowing smalls at all). Right now, the only reasons to use it no matter what you do the chain shirt are cost (it's a cheap way to get 1 more point of AC) and barbarian movement. In practice, you only see medium armor on low-level PCs and NPCs who don't know any better, or in its mithral-version-of-heavy-armor form. Changing the net AC of a chain shirt won't fix that problem - the same people will still dump medium the minute they can afford heavy.
Drop the Movement reduction entirely. Make movement a function of Encumbrance, not armor type.(Dwarves would move normally at medium Encumbrace. I will be doing this with my game anyway. In addition make the medium level a 5 ft penalty; and heavy a 10ft penalty.
Now if you don't deal with encumbrance rules, by all means KEEP the armor move the same and let people carry whatever they want.
Greetings, first post:)
I really like the heavily armoured Classes, but after playing with Cleric and lately Paladin (with PF-updated rules) I am again deeply unmotivated to roll character with heavy armour.
Light armour and DEX combo is just so much more easier:
-Good movement
-Good AC against touches (okay DEX always doesnt work with Flatfooted condition and some other rare cases)
-Cheaper (Mithral Chain Shirt vs Full-Plate)
-Good DEX has inresistable synergy with Swashbuckler-type of fighter (DEX to central skills, Reflex save and with Feat to attack rolls etc.)
-There is still synergy at DEX-based Acrobatics (Old Tumble) to increase the AC with defencive stances.
Why to pick heavy armour for melee character:
-Player wants to make heavy hitting tank (thats what I keep dreaming of)
-Cant spend much ability points to DEX
-Prefers heavy shield/ towershield over mobility
Easy fix:
-No movement penalties based on armour category (maybe old penalty for running in Heavy armour stays)
Technically very easy to do. Clerics, Paladins and Fighters are able to manouver like they should. Movement penalties should still aply from weight penalties (and full-plate is really heavy, too heavy for mediocre STR)
-Add Acrobatics to Fighters skills (we were the Jumpers you know:)
Bad Fix:
-Traits to remove movement penalties with heavier armours, to add some touch AC etc.
I would could see some picking those, if they resist the lure of light armour in first place:/
Really bad fix:
-Add scaling new and old bonuses to different armour types (movement L30, M25 & H20, DR or different Saves). Would just make the system complex.
*charges forward to slay the Post-Eating Monster*
At first I removed the chain shirt from my games since it was more prevalent than any other armors, especially medium armors.
But when I realized it was the sole light metal armor, I reintroduced it lowering its AC bonus to +3. So it's not better than studded leather but it's metal and can be made in adamantine or mithril.
I removed the breastplate as it so far better than any other lower medium armor.
For heavy armors, I raised the price of banded to the price of half plate, since it's too good compared to splint mail, and I'm considering raising the price of full plate maybe around 4000GP, and to be unique to a specific person.
I don't have experienced any other problems with armor like the ones mentioned here, and I think it works mostly as it should (but I like the idea of DR, and might use it soon as a house rule. I hopen like someone pointed out, that it won't be too much hassle to apply DR at each hit).
1. Eliminate it entirely.
<raises hand>
We don't have greaves as stand-alone armor items why should we have just a chain shirt? Why not chain pants? or big-ass boots? I say drop the silly shirt and just have people take chain mail like they did in the old days.
Armors do not need to be 'balanced'. the chainshirt was historically the best armor to be wearing when you were plannign to move around a bit.
In dnd statistics, a chainshirt is not as great as a breastplate for someone who doesn't have the dex to support what the chainmail gives him leeway to.
Chainshirt is and most likely wil lcontinue to be my favorite piece of armor and, now that fighters increase maximum dex bonus on their armors, I can finally see archer specialized fighters wearing chainmail instead of getting rid of it and wearing obnoxious magic items like bracers of defense for their armor needs.
Frack that. chainmail ftw.
Chainshirt is and most likely will continue to be my favorite piece of armor...
Sure, its everyone's favorite. Why wouldn't it be? Its clearly superior to all other roughly equivalent armors.
It's light armor.
It gives a +4 AC bonus.
Its armor check penalty is low and it doesn't slow movement.
What's not to love??
Let's go back over the DnD Editions...
OD&D- Chain Shirt? No.
1E D&D- Chain Shirt? No.
1E/Unearthed Arcana- Chain Shirt? No.
2E- Chain Shirt? No.
2E/Player's Option- Chain Shirt? No.
3E- Chain Shirt? Yep.
And now its the most popular armor if you ask me.
I say get rid of it.
Its called evolution :P
It doesn't make much of a difference, really.
Its a clear boon to chars who have a high dex, sure but, not everyone can afford both high dex and the rest of the stats he needs for his class.
So yes, the chainshirt is great armor for those who have high dex. Its not so great for those who don't, though.
Part of the problem is a character with a high dexterity might as we wear light armor over medium in almost all situations, technically studded leather is a better choice then hide if you have the dex. score of 20 or more.
My solution would be two raise all medium armors ac bonus by two points and raise all heavy armor by four points. That way hide would have the base AC of +5 and splint would have the base of +10.
Ok, so maybe it would seem a little drastic, but it would make heavier armors lot more desirable. For balance sakes add a feat to give an AC bonus to lightly armored fighters, or just make a whole new class for a source book that contains that concept.
Its called evolution :P
It doesn't make much of a difference, really.
Its a clear boon to chars who have a high dex, sure but, not everyone can afford both high dex and the rest of the stats he needs for his class.So yes, the chainshirt is great armor for those who have high dex. Its not so great for those who don't, though.
Let's be honest: If we pulled everything out of 3.x that wasn't present in earlier editions, we'd lose a lot of things. Saying anything further seems to verge on starting a flame war, so I'll simply say I don't think that's a compelling argument.
The chain shirt's prominence is due as much to medium armor being unappealing as it is anything else. When all but three of your classes are limited to light or medium armor, not only by proficiency but by class abilities, of course the chain shirt will be popular. It's a great piece of armor.
Focusing on making other armors more interesting and dynamic will do much more to bring those armors back into the fold than nerfing the chain shirt will. Otherwise, all most classes have for choices in armor is sub-par.
re: OP
give it -1 to AC for piercing weapons
after all, chain shirt (and chain mail) are just a series of connected holes for pointy things
.
re: damage reduction granted by Armor:
I'd go for:
Light DR2/bludgeoning
Medium DR4/-
Heavy DR8/-
with precision damage bypassing the DR
i.e.:
a sneak attack, confirmed and even unconfirmed critical (a threat lets you find the spot and do damage as normal, confirmed = it goes in deep)
and give the chain stuff a DRx/piercing (so the Chain Shirt is DR2/bludgeoning or piercing
makes damage type matter a bit more too
I agree with the OP about how armor should work. The chain shirt (along with the spiked chain) overreaches as a piece of gear.
On the other hand, this type of change is better suited as a house rule, not a canonical change.
I quickly adopt many of the rules suggestions on these boards, but there is a difference between the needs of my campaign and the needs of the Pathfinder RPG. We should be a community of progressive GMs, while the canon should be conservative but supportive of progressive options.
In light of all the invasive surgery that has already taken place, I'm for minimizing cosmetic changes. It's actually easier for me to house rule the old chain shirt on a printed NPC to my liking, than to bust out a conversion guide.
So let's agree that it's silly, but leave it as is.
|
|
1. Eliminate it entirely.<raises hand>
We don't have greaves as stand-alone armor items why should we have just a chain shirt? Why not chain pants? or big-ass boots? I say drop the silly shirt and just have people take chain mail like they did in the old days.
And there's another bit of oddness. D&D *usually* avoids a GURPS style 'piecemeal' armor system. Helms, for instance, have no AC bonus. One can't pull on a Chain Shirt for +4 AC, and then strap on platemail boots for another +1 AC.
2nd Edition's Oriental Adventures, the 3.0 Dastana and now the Pathfinder Armored Kilt are all exceptions to this generalization, and, IMO, *BAD* bad ideas. The core assumptions of armor design for D&D don't play well with the idea of piecemeal armor. I'm all for piecemeal armor, but the armor system would need to be re-tooled from the ground up, and that's something that belongs in a book of options, the Pathfinder version of 'Unearthed Arcana,' not in the core rules.
If someone can wear a Chain Shirt, and then strap on an Armored Kilt (or a Dastana) and have the same AC as a full suit of Chainmail (despite having his arms, lower legs, hands, feel and head unarmored!!), then why the hell did any moron ever invent Chainmail in the first place? Was he bored? Was he forced to perform weeks of totally unecessary finger-cramping work making all those extra chain links as some sort of punishment?
If someone can wear a Breastplate and an Armored Kilt (or Dastana) and have the same +6 armor bonus as Banded or Splint mail (again despite having huge swaths of his body unprotected), then why would those armor types exist?
I like piecemeal armor systems (for GURPS, we had computer programs and charts to determine the most effective cost-to-bonus ratios for piecemeal armor, both mundane and enchanted), but the core rules don't play well with arbitrary items like the Dastana or Armored Kilt.
This stuff (helms with AC, armored sleeves, lorica segmentata, armored kilts, etc.) definitely belongs as an alternative system, in another book than the core rules.
I agree with both Set and toyrobots. Piecmeal armor is a bad idea for D&D unless you plan it out as an alternate system and the chain shirt is a good subject for a "houserule" solution. *shrug* It's not as if Pathfinder is going back to "though shalt not change the rules" like 1st edition AD&D. I think the chain shirt needs to stay for backward compatibility with 3.5, but new partial armor types (like the armored kilt) should be left out of the core Pathfinder rules.
I agree with both Set and toyrobots. Piecmeal armor is a bad idea for D&D unless you plan it out as an alternate system and the chain shirt is a good subject for a "houserule" solution. *shrug* It's not as if Pathfinder is going back to "though shalt not change the rules" like 1st edition AD&D. I think the chain shirt needs to stay for backward compatibility with 3.5, but new partial armor types (like the armored kilt) should be left out of the core Pathfinder rules.
The best move Paizo can make is to trust the players. Some 3.5 rules mandated change, and there are a few more yet, but the solution to most of the remaining "problems" is to add options and flexibility to the system where space allows.
Piecemeal armor is inevitably going to come up at some tables. It's happening in my Beta ROTRL campaign. It didn't break anything, the game still works, and it's even a little more fun. Do we need to rewrite 3.5's armor table? No. It's a house rule. A perfect system would undermine my collection of 3.5 books that form my rules buffet.
It might be ideal if Paizo releases a GM's guide to tackle encounter building, optional rules, and high-level play. Give us the wisdom that goes into writing those great APs, and we will buy it. It would be a great home for all of these alternate approaches that are just a little too out there for the PRPG mission statement.
I will tell you what I am using in my campaign and seems to work pretty well for us.
the medium armor combat-movement does not carry any penalty, so a human fighter can move 30 feet as a move action, just like in heavy armor he can only move 3 times this speed when running instead of 4 times.
this will keep running speed about the same or slightly better, but combat allows for significantly more mobility.
Or you could use 2nd ed rules for AC, and have different armor values for piercing/slashing/bludgeoning. I'm sure you'd see a lot of people prefer breastplates to chainshirts when it came to piercing in that case.
Then again, it would make things more complicated and everyone would start running around with bludgeons once more.
the problem, I think, is in balance. Most armors seem to have been made to give a total AC maximum of +8, combining dex along with armor.
I for one am of the oppinion that medium and heavy armor should give some other benefits aside from AC such as a static DR 1/- for medium and 2/- for heavy, but some would say that's too much, and it would start that sort of discussion so, how about giving all medium armors a +1 ac and all heavy a +2.
Then of course heavy armors would have to have even higher prices to make them more unlikely for 1-3 level characters to wear them since, a lv 1 fighter with a fullplate and shield, and a base 12 dex would start at 23 ac, which would be pretty frustrating.
And there's another bit of oddness. D&D *usually* avoids a GURPS style 'piecemeal' armor system. Helms, for instance, have no AC bonus. One can't pull on a Chain Shirt for +4 AC, and then strap on platemail boots for another +1 AC.
2nd Edition's Oriental Adventures, the 3.0 Dastana and now the Pathfinder Armored Kilt are all exceptions to this generalization, and, IMO, *BAD* bad ideas.
Agreed. Either allow a complete piece-meal system all the way, assigning ac points for boots, helms, greaves, breastplates, shirts, etc, or only use complete sets of armor and gloss over individual pieces. Meaning, if someone wants chainmail they are basically assumed to be wearing all of the pieces that go along with chainmail, including the chainmail hood, the gloves, etc. If someone is wearing platemail you just lump in the helmet and boots. Don't go breaking out individual pieces or you are just asking for odd situations where people start mixing and matching pieces and asking you what their AC is while you just stare blankly back at them silently cursing the game designers.
The core assumptions of armor design for D&D don't play well with the idea of piecemeal armor. I'm all for piecemeal armor, but the armor system would need to be re-tooled from the ground up, and that's something that belongs in a book of options, the Pathfinder version of 'Unearthed Arcana,' not in the core rules.
Agreed again, 100%. I actually love the piecemeal option, but leave it as that, an option in a book of options, but in core, simplify on complete sets of armor.
If someone can wear a Chain Shirt, and then strap on an Armored Kilt (or a Dastana) and have the same AC as a full suit of Chainmail (despite having his arms, lower legs, hands, feel and head unarmored!!), then why the hell did any moron ever invent Chainmail in the first place? Was he bored? Was he forced to perform weeks of totally unnecessary finger-cramping work making all those extra chain links as some sort of punishment?
Dude did I pay you to say exactly what I think? This is gonna start looking suspicious because I think you and I are on EXACTLY the same page on this subject.
I like piecemeal armor systems (for GURPS, we had computer programs and charts to determine the most effective cost-to-bonus ratios for piecemeal armor, both mundane and enchanted), but the core rules don't play well with arbitrary items like the Dastana or Armored Kilt.
Sigh... again, agree, 100%.
but unlike the others kinds of light armor, chain shirt can be made mithril[/QUOTE="Jason Nelson"]You can make studded leather out of mithral because the studs are metal(otherwise druids could wear it).
|
You can make studded leather out of mithral because the studs are metal(otherwise druids could wear it).
But the majority of the armor is made up of leather. The effect is still studded leather, just with mithril instead of steel.
Think of it this way: Leather armor weighs 15 lbs, studded leather armor weighs 20 lbs, and mithril armor weighs 17 & 1/2 lbs. Its not a significant change and therefore the movement benefits from mithril are ruled out.
Of course, this whole thing is up to GM interpretation. :D