|
I've been following a couple of discussions about how to make medium armor more attractive and one of the ideas was to get rid of the speed penalties for medium armor. But as I read the section on max speeds due to heavy and medium loads (Table 8-5, p125), it occurred to me, why not simplify things and just drop the speeds based on armor and go strictly with speeds based encumbrance? Heavy armor = more encumbrance = lower speeds anyway. But if you're strong enough to carry a lot of weight and can still move quickly in heavy armor, good for you!
Any merit to the idea?
|
I personally think that this is a great idea, ive backed this idea in the past (Armor check is truly nasty enough, and even that may be too much) the rules are redundant and counterproductive. one point of armor is not worth a slower speed and more penalized skill checks.
as for dwarves, they should get a bonus to their STR for the purposes of figuring encumbrance +2 or +4 should suffice.
I've been following a couple of discussions about how to make medium armor more attractive and one of the ideas was to get rid of the speed penalties for medium armor. But as I read the section on max speeds due to heavy and medium loads (Table 8-5, p125), it occurred to me, why not simplify things and just drop the speeds based on armor and go strictly with speeds based encumbrance? Heavy armor = more encumbrance = lower speeds anyway. But if you're strong enough to carry a lot of weight and can still move quickly in heavy armor, good for you!
Any merit to the idea?
Too me it is not only a problem of encumbrance, but also flexibility. You can't just move alike. That's what the stats describe actually.
|
|
Too me it is not only a problem of encumbrance, but also flexibility. You can't just move alike. That's what the stats describe actually.
That's what Armor Check Penalties to various skill checks are for. You're right, of course, that in real life armor cuts down of flexibility of movement. I just think this might be a case of an unnecessarily complicated system. Heavier armor is already accounted for under encumbrance rules and armor check penalties; tagging it again with movement penalties doesn't seem to add much to game play.
I have been asking for this as well. ACP and max dex really makes armor less attractive than a bracor of armor which have nether.
If I am playing a dextrus character I just get a bond leaf wrap armor and bracors and leave it at that.
I'd be fine with this. I think I might still have heavier armor slow down overland movement, but in combat you can just move your movement. That by itself would help the poor fighter move around the board better.
|
I think this is a good idea - I've never liked such a huge impact on movement because of armour. Although, if you check out one of the playtest feats, there is a way to overcome it - you can keep taking the feat and gain 5' of movement each time you take it. I'd still rather see the movement penalty based on armour category removed and simply deal with the weight of geat as encumbrance (as the OP noted). It's already a drastic abstraction, so why not go one step further and provide a reason for people to use medium armour.
|
|
What about just going with medium and heavy armor reducing speed by 5' and then add in the encumbrance effects (if any) that may come up from weight which would only reduce them to the current levels and not stack with the -5' for armor heavier than light. I hope that was clear, I have a lil' Captain in me and I'm not sure if my post is eloquent enough to convey my point.
|
|
What about just going with medium and heavy armor reducing speed by 5' and then add in the encumbrance effects (if any) that may come up from weight which would only reduce them to the current levels and not stack with the -5' for armor heavier than light. I hope that was clear, I have a lil' Captain in me and I'm not sure if my post is eloquent enough to convey my point.
Heheh... don't drink and post. ;)
Is there a reason you'd like to keep some movement penalties for wearing the heavier armour that isn't based entirely on the weight of it? Yes, to eliminate the movement based on encumbrance (ie. bulkiness, rather than weight) is more accurate... but hey, we don't reduce the effectiveness of chain mail when getting hit with a hammer or an arrow... so there is a certain level of abstraction already that moves it well away from simulationist.
It's also a step toward making the melee classes a little more mobile on the battlefield - which is probably a good thing.
...you can keep taking the feat and gain 5' of movement each time you take it.
I'd hate to have to see the fighter player burn several feats just to be able to move around. I'd rather it be one feat at most, or, more preferably, just eliminate the movement penalties from armor altogether.
|
|
What about just going with medium and heavy armor reducing speed by 5' and then add in the encumbrance effects (if any) that may come up from weight which would only reduce them to the current levels and not stack with the -5' for armor heavier than light. I hope that was clear, I have a lil' Captain in me and I'm not sure if my post is eloquent enough to convey my point.Heheh... don't drink and post. ;)
Is there a reason you'd like to keep some movement penalties for wearing the heavier armour that isn't based entirely on the weight of it? Yes, to eliminate the movement based on encumbrance (ie. bulkiness, rather than weight) is more accurate... but hey, we don't reduce the effectiveness of chain mail when getting hit with a hammer or an arrow... so there is a certain level of abstraction already that moves it well away from simulationist.
It's also a step toward making the melee classes a little more mobile on the battlefield - which is probably a good thing.
Better now.
I think that there should be some payment for the extra protection. I think 10' of movement for medium and heavy armor is too much though. I also like the idea of keeping the 3X maximum run speed for heavy armor.I just can't envision a big musclebound dude running around in full-plate with no speed penalty at all because he is strong who can then remove the movement restricting metal skin and still run at exactly the same speed. I mean this dude can run a marathon in plate and turn in the exact same time as he would in running shorts and sneakers? I just can't see that.
Unfortunately with my idea I still don't see many people using medium armors(although it isn't such a big penalty) but I think the heavy armors would become much more viable.
I seem to agree and disagree. I do see an ajustment to the dex lose and movement loss in heavy armor as a good thing, but they should still make the class have to chose from armor or combat mode. The knight in shining armor on horse would be slilly not to take the biggest , heavest armor his squires could drop on him and his horse, but that does not mean the footman would be at a disadvantage in the same armor. But that would not go for the swordman or duelest that need that mobilly for there combat style.
The dex loss would seem a good start, but i do not think not haveing a drop in movement would also be unrealistic. Yes footman A would be saved time and time again from Axeman A, with heavy armor, but he would not be moveing to quick across the battle field, and not for very long. The possable responds it to make an endurice roll for long rounds of movement, and that would even mean combat. Str is used alot for carrying heavy things.. which i agree, but when you can carry it , how long.To combat the dex or movement loss, roll endurance, and then Footman A can run to Axeman B in the turn or two.
This is only me thinking out loud, becase then your movement would not be stoped, but more realistic. So yes you can run or move better, or use that rolling feat, but you will not beable to do it forever.
|
|
Knights spent 7 years as squires learning how to move in heavy armor, they had to learn to climb over walls in full plate, and not let the armor weigh them down. To me that is what Armor Proficiency: Heavy is about.
Armor shouldn't cause move penalties just because it's armor. Unless of course you're not proficient in the armor. Then massive penalties should set in, a chain hauberk rests all the weight directly on the shoulders, so if you're not used to it, it will slow you down, and most likely fatigue quickly.
|
|
i appreciate the hands-on commentary, but it sorta obscures the issue. we cant ask real world spellcasters if it takes 6seconds to conjure a fire spirit or a minute. we should make choices based on what best for the game. if the mechanics are such that chainshirt is the only armor to wear, then the mechanics are WRONG. heavy armor proficiency should not be some sort of dirty trick, played on folks who like the visual, only to have it be their coffin (or at minimum, keeping them sluggish and out of the thick of combat, boooooooring)
if im encumbered, then penalize my movement. If the armor is sorta clunky, then give me Armor penalties to certain physical actions (hopefully not as severe as the ones currently listed)
I seem to agree, the loss to someone who trained to us the armor, is almost as bad as someone just putting it on for giggles. This as been talked about again and again. On another posting, that talked about overpower mages, but to be fair, they just evolved, and make use of the low level running away, which is half the battle. Most fighter/melee classes can't meet the large jumps magic classes gain in highter levels. To no use heavy armor is silly for these classes, but to say they have a max movement is also meaning they can't keep up to Mr always running magic man.
So i think there should be ajustmeants for armor as with the melee classes in total. Yes i know should not be part of the topic, but just talking about armor, we need to talk about who uses it the most.
Thinking about that, we should start a post about the melee classes.....
How bout just adding a feat that lets you remove the penalty to speed from armor?
something like MOBILITY TRAINING: Req's 16 str: Eliminate all movement penalties associated with armor. Does not remove armor check penalties or lowered speed due to encumbrance.
idk it sounds decent to me, but I came up with it in about 30 seconds so yeah...
Move penalties to armor is just easier. Instead of keeping a running tab on your encumberance (5lbs may make a difference in combat there) we just have broad categories of speed our characters fall into and then we have an idea of what encumberance limit we might want. DMs arent as picky about checking your encumberance when they already know your moving due to armor. And it effects npcs as well which means when my spellcaster runs out of spells the bad guys that survived might not catch me.
Move penalties to armor is just easier. Instead of keeping a running tab on your encumberance (5lbs may make a difference in combat there) we just have broad categories of speed our characters fall into and then we have an idea of what encumberance limit we might want. DMs arent as picky about checking your encumberance when they already know your moving due to armor. And it effects npcs as well which means when my spellcaster runs out of spells the bad guys that survived might not catch me.
The thing is we should be keeping track of our encumbrance any way, so in actuality this makes things simpler.
I think this should be a sidebar variant.
I play with Armor as Encumbrance only (which works well with separate helmets), but I can see why some people might wish to stay with the old system. Since this is a simple and popular variant, it would make an excellent sidebar.
I'd also like to see an abstract encumbrance rule similar to the ones mentioned elsewhere in this forum.
Armor even if you have enough strength hamper your movements, your vision, many things are more complicated with an armor. I think the reduction is just fine as it is.
Armor even if you have enough strength hamper your movements, your vision, many things are more complicated with an armor. I think the reduction is just fine as it is.
OK, that is fine, however the following would NEED to be done!
25ft movement for medium armor.
A dex minus, for having a dex score above max dex limit.
Something alone the lines of this.
Wearing light and medium armor you receive a -1 (or something) to your bonus AC to obtain a higher dex bonus above the armor's normal limit.
Wearing medium armor you receive a -2 (or something) to your bonus AC to obtain a higher dex bonus above the armor's normal limit.
Wearing heavy armor you receive a -3 (or something) to your bonus AC to obtain a higher dex bonus above the armor's normal limit.
So a barbarian wearing a breastplate with a dex of 18 would still get only +3 AC from dex. While a barbarian with a stunning dex of 22 through a +6 item would get a AC bonus of +4
If you are not proficient with the armor you can not increase your bonus from dex above the limit.
The only other option I can think of instead of this would to have each armor grant some stacking DR inherently, same as the shield feats.
|
|
i also have to say, now that im thinking about it, that max dex bonus is kinda retarded. so you have a god of athletics and lets say he has a 50 Dexterity (+20 Dex to ac), unarmored he has a base ac of 30, if he puts on PADDED ARMOR his ac is 19.........is padded armor so restrictive that he looses 11 points of AC?
idea:heavier armors apply a penalty to your DEX for the purposes of ac and skills.
Move penalties to armor is just easier. Instead of keeping a running tab on your encumberance (5lbs may make a difference in combat there) we just have broad categories of speed our characters fall into and then we have an idea of what encumberance limit we might want. DMs arent as picky about checking your encumberance when they already know your moving due to armor. And it effects npcs as well which means when my spellcaster runs out of spells the bad guys that survived might not catch me.The thing is we should be keeping track of our encumbrance any way, so in actuality this makes things simpler.
But it doesnt really. If I'm in heavy armor I'm only worried about one kind of encumberance. The heavy one. All the rest I dont need to watch because it wont speed me up. And medium armor the same, because you wont slow down until your in the heavy encumberance.
i also have to say, now that im thinking about it, that max dex bonus is kinda retarded. so you have a god of athletics and lets say he has a 50 Dexterity (+20 Dex to ac), unarmored he has a base ac of 30, if he puts on PADDED ARMOR his ac is 19.........is padded armor so restrictive that he looses 11 points of AC?
idea:heavier armors apply a penalty to your DEX for the purposes of ac and skills.
Apparently. But a 50 in Dex? Your worried about the armor encumberance rules because somewhere some god of athletics with s 50 dex is bummed out because he doesnt get a bonus from padded armor? Get serious.
|
|
it was not about the feeling of the god, it was to point out the ludicrous nature of MAX DEX BONUS. no matter how nimble you are, breastplate is going to take you to a 16 dex. you didnt have such rules in 2nd ed, you could be high dex in fullplate, (making heavy armors the bomb)
the numbers just make it look stupid, it should be a detriment not a cap
it was not about the feeling of the god, it was to point out the ludicrous nature of MAX DEX BONUS. no matter how nimble you are, breastplate is going to take you to a 16 dex. you didnt have such rules in 2nd ed, you could be high dex in fullplate, (making heavy armors the bomb)
the numbers just make it look stupid, it should be a detriment not a cap
Heavy armor SHOULD be the bomb as its a 3rd tier feat on the tree....
That is a thought.
|
it was not about the feeling of the god, it was to point out the ludicrous nature of MAX DEX BONUS. no matter how nimble you are, breastplate is going to take you to a 16 dex. you didnt have such rules in 2nd ed, you could be high dex in fullplate, (making heavy armors the bomb)
the numbers just make it look stupid, it should be a detriment not a cap
Heavy armor SHOULD be the bomb as its a 3rd tier feat on the tree....
That is a thought.
I don't think armor penalties should be completely nerfed, but I do think they could be adjusted to not double-ding players.
1. Speed
For characters proficient in the armor their max speed should be based upon their encumbrance only. This leaves Druids, Clerics, Bards and Rogues most penalized for heavy armor, and lets Fighters, Barbs, Pallys and (some) rangers fast. I think that is how it should be, the warriors are trained for WAR, the rest of them are just trying not to get hurt.
Characters not proficient in an armor type should be dinged, 1 movement category per missing proficiency. So you are proficient in medium waring heavy, your 30 is now 20. proficient in light wearing heavy, your 30 is now 15. No armor prof wearing heavy, your 30 is 10. (15,10,5 for base 20 movers.)
2. Dex penalty, armor restricts your agility, but a hard cap is silly. Replace max dex with a dex penalty, make that penalty the same as the armor check penalty. and say it maxes out at +0.
So Joe fighter, with Dex 15 wearing Hide Armor, would have AC 14 (armor 3, Dex (15-3 =12 = +1)) If he were wearing Full Plate, he would have AC 18 (Armor +8, Dex (15-6 = 9 = -1 but we max the penalty at 0)
If Joe had Dex 9, he would still have a -1, we are just saying the armor won't contribute negatively, just hinder positive contribution.
So our god of athleticism now has AC 31, as padded armor has an armor check penalty of 0.
3. Armor check penalty affects skills as it does today, in addition to its new duties.
4. As for Arcane Failure, I'm all for an algorithm like 5 + |check penalty *5 |.
Makes the whole light armor category better and the rest on par, so you can just leave it as is.
I think if everything were based upon armor check penalty it allows for that to be improved by magical enchantment (is it +1 bonus is 1 better improvement?) So then your +5 plate now has only a -2 penalty to skills and ex, and a 15% failure chance.
no matter how nimble you are, breastplate is going to take you to a 16 dex. you didnt have such rules in 2nd ed, you could be high dex in fullplate, (making heavy armors the bomb)
Dude!
That's because it largely didnt matter what your Dex was in 2ed! You needed a 16 to get any bonus at all and 19 or more just to get +3 or higher. 0.o(in 2ed you rolled 3d6, so getting a 16 or higher was fairly rare)
So Joe fighter, with Dex 15 wearing Hide Armor, would have AC 14 (armor 3, Dex (15-3 =12 = +1)) If he were wearing Full Plate, he would have AC 18 (Armor +8, Dex (15-6 = 9 = -1 but we max the penalty at 0)
So you want to get rid of the armor max dex penalty and replace it with something even bigger. Joe had better AC under the present system! 0.o
|
|
So Joe fighter, with Dex 15 wearing Hide Armor, would have AC 14 (armor 3, Dex (15-3 =12 = +1)) If he were wearing Full Plate, he would have AC 18 (Armor +8, Dex (15-6 = 9 = -1 but we max the penalty at 0)So you want to get rid of the armor max dex penalty and replace it with something even bigger. Joe had better AC under the present system! 0.o
At level 1 Joe will have a problem
But at level 20, when Joe now has a Dex of 24 (+1 on a level increase, +6 from equipment (especially with that new item that is a belt with +2/+4/+6 to all physical stats.) Joe is also wearing Plate +5, So its armor check penalty -1. So his Dex by my system is 23, +6, and his armor bonus is +13, for a total AC of 29. Not the 24 that the current system allows since his dex is maxed at +1 armor bonus from dex.
So yes, for starting characters, starting armor is weaker, but its impact on you isn't hard capped so there is progression as you get better armor. It also reduces the armor system to one key number the check penalty, from which all penalties are derived.
So Joe fighter, with Dex 15 wearing Hide Armor, would have AC 14 (armor 3, Dex (15-3 =12 = +1)) If he were wearing Full Plate, he would have AC 18 (Armor +8, Dex (15-6 = 9 = -1 but we max the penalty at 0)So you want to get rid of the armor max dex penalty and replace it with something even bigger. Joe had better AC under the present system! 0.oAt level 1 Joe will have a problem
But at level 20, when Joe now has a Dex of 24 (+1 on a level increase, +6 from equipment (especially with that new item that is a belt with +2/+4/+6 to all physical stats.) Joe is also wearing Plate +5, So its armor check penalty -1. So his Dex by my system is 23, +6, and his armor bonus is +13, for a total AC of 29. Not the 24 that the current system allows since his dex is maxed at +1 armor bonus from dex.
So yes, for starting characters, starting armor is weaker, but its impact on you isn't hard capped so there is progression as you get better armor. It also reduces the armor system to one key number the check penalty, from which all penalties are derived.
Sounds good in theory but it is unbalancing the Dex stat (which could be argued is unbalanced already) wherein with weapon finesse it becomes the end all be all warrior stat.
|
How bout just adding a feat that lets you remove the penalty to speed from armor?
something like MOBILITY TRAINING: Req's 16 str: Eliminate all movement penalties associated with armor. Does not remove armor check penalties or lowered speed due to encumbrance.
idk it sounds decent to me, but I came up with it in about 30 seconds so yeah...
Gods no; please not another feat.
First, I agree wholeheartedly that movement penalty should go the way of the dinosaur for armor worn - unless it puts a person into an encumbered category.
Too often, heavily armored is not the hardest to hit AND has too many other associated penalties for having worn it.
If it's going to be a mechanic that is going to affect combat, it should affect it without need of a feat. Otherwise, once again, the Paladin - a paragon example of heavy armor wield is screwed because he is one of only two character classes that don't get bonus feats as they advance; while the fighter continues to go to bank with all their feats, AND their armor training ability that already leaves other melee combatants in the dust. (For the record I dont mind the fighter being at the head of that - but I don't see the need for exacerbating that discrepancy).
Wearing Fullplate and carrying a big shield should be a BOON, not a bone of contention. The Armor Check Penalty and Max Dex is enough of a deterrent (the latter especially since fighters now will be allowed to increase their Max Dex Allowed w/ Armor Training).
In the Curse of Crimson Throne game Im playing a human paladin and my wife is playing a halfling rogue.
I am 9th level, have Full Plate and a Tower Shield - each with +1 enhancement. I have Amulet Nat Armor +1 and Ring of Prot +1. I have a 26 AC, and that's about as protected as a person can get - I look like a Sherman Tank
She has a 22 DEX, Leather Armor +2 (she could afford the extra enhancement since I have two items of +1 each with masterwork quality and the cost of full plate), she has a ring and amulet the same as I and a +1 size mod, and the Dodge Feat. She has more combat feats than I do too since as a rogue she spent two of her talents on Weapon Focus, and Weapon Finesse. Hell she has a higher attack bonus (thanks to those two feats, and no -2 to hit for tower shield), and does more damage thanks to her sneak attacks that work on everything now..
She has a 24 AC - only two points less than me. we have the same movement, her skills are signifantly; she can jump better, climb better, swim, balance etc all better, I have a -14 Armor check penalty! She has 0! Touch AC? mines an 11, hers is a 19!!! 8 points better! Guess who the wizards attack with their ranged touch spells...... :-)
So what's the point of heavy armor I ask?
Thus, remove the movement penalty so that wearing armor isn't as bad as it has been.
Robert
Gods no; please not another feat.
First, I agree wholeheartedly that movement penalty should go the way of the dinosaur for armor worn - unless it puts a person into an encumbered category.
Too often, heavily armored is not the hardest to hit AND has too many other associated penalties for having worn it.
If it's going to be a mechanic that is going to affect combat, it should affect it without need of a feat. Otherwise, once again, the Paladin - a paragon example of heavy armor wield is screwed because he is one of only two character classes that don't get bonus feats as they advance; while the fighter continues to go to bank with all their feats, AND their armor training ability that already leaves other melee combatants in the dust. (For the record I dont mind the fighter being at the head of that - but I don't see the need for exacerbating that discrepancy).
Wearing Fullplate and carrying a big shield should be a BOON, not a bone of contention. The Armor Check Penalty and Max Dex is enough of a deterrent (the latter especially since fighters now will be allowed to increase their Max Dex Allowed w/ Armor Training).
In the Curse of Crimson Throne game Im playing a human paladin and my wife is playing a halfling rogue.
I am 9th level, have Full Plate and a Tower Shield - each with +1 enhancement. I have Amulet Nat Armor +1 and Ring of Prot +1. I have a 26 AC, and that's about as protected as a person can get - I look like a Sherman Tank
She has a 22 DEX, Leather Armor +2 (she could afford the extra enhancement since I have two items of +1 each with masterwork quality and the cost of full plate), she has a ring and amulet the same as I and a +1 size mod, and the Dodge Feat. She has more combat feats than I do too since as a rogue she spent two of her talents on Weapon Focus, and Weapon Finesse. Hell she has a higher attack bonus (thanks to those two feats, and no -2 to hit for tower shield), and does more damage thanks to her sneak attacks that work on everything now..
She has a 24 AC - only two points less than me. we have the same movement, her skills are signifantly; she can jump better, climb better, swim, balance etc all better, I have a -14 Armor check penalty! She has 0! Touch AC? mines an 11, hers is a 19!!! 8 points better! Guess who the wizards attack with their ranged touch spells...... :-)
So what's the point of heavy armor I ask?
Thus, remove the movement penalty so that wearing armor isn't as bad as it has been.
Robert
I think you hit the nail on the head Robert, and yes the fighters do get to play the feat shuff game to try and comeup with something playable in like 5 more levels when they need to kill devils and demons. I think we have all seen how armor with melee classes is a big drain on skills and combat latter in levels then running around with nothing.
The speed drop is a little much for the amount of ac gain
the dex max for the best kit
Fighters and Paladins fall into the same catagory as have heavy armord, sharp thing swingers.
they get no class skills or skill points to make up the gap
and that would not help that the skills are also in the - becase of wearing battleship armor that is make of breadsticks for that +5 to ac
i know not the topic, but how can the dead techs be less off then a cloth wearing old man that can make fire or lighting 5 times aday before he needs nap becase he has a hat and gloves that is +5 armor, and he magic pipe shoots laser beams
give the armor real pluses and real losses so it can be used
like who uses half plate when full plate gives better cover and you get a dex
or who would want to used ring mail, if the bracers of armor do not drop you 10 feet a turn of movement.
it is about time to get some changes to armor
|
|
Sounds good in theory but it is unbalancing the Dex stat (which could be argued is unbalanced already) wherein with weapon finesse it becomes the end all be all warrior stat.
I wrote my post half cocked, and on the fly, but the more I think about it the more I like it. Don't forget encumbrance is still looming with its penalties, so a warrior wanting to wear 50 lbs of armor can't be weak. Maybe increase the dex penalty if you are encumbered, and don't forget to stack penalties for Armor + Shield.
Dex is already an uncapped font of AC, the idea is to allow some benefit returned as armor is so ridiculously restrictive. I'm not saying what I have here is perfect, but I'm warming up to it as a good starting point.
So it appears to be (almost) unanimous that the game would benefit a great deal by getting rid of armor penalties to movement. I hope this gets into the final rules somehow.
So it appears to be (almost) unanimous that the game would benefit a great deal by getting rid of armor penalties to movement. I hope this gets into the final rules somehow.
Yeah, I hope so too.
a couple alternatives tossed in the arena to consider kicking around...
medium armour halves dex bonus to AC and heavy armour quarters it
or set encumbrance penalties for light, medium, and heavy armours
which modify Dex bonus to AC and Con checks vs exhaustion etc
-
speed reductions only apply to the first move action taken in a round
meaning, it takes a double move to get up to full-speed
maybe make heavy armour take three consecutive move actions to do so
-
maybe replace numerical speed reductions with throttled move speeds
in medium armour, may only move at half-speed
in heavy armour, may only move at quarter-speed
maybe scale speed throttle as if "building up steam"
for the second consecutive move action taken,
medium armoured may move at full-speed and heavy armoured at half-speed
for the third consecutive move action taken, heavy armoured may move at full-speed.
for a fun factor, maybe only require one move action be taken per round in consecutive rounds.
that way, can still attack or whatever, while "building up the steam" to charge, run, or whatnot
throttled speeds would need a major rewrite though
due to the wording of several references spread out all over the book
fighter class features for armour training is an obvious example
-
maybe a set penalty to initiative for armour types instead,
that only applies to the first round of a combat, excluding the suprise round