Minimum of +1 obviously.
Not obvious to me. I'd round down to +0. That would mean that tiny sized padded armor is ineffective.
Minimum of +1 obviously.
I'd go with this as well.
|
Mathematically, you always round .5's up to the next whole number. Versimilitude-wise, people in the game world would never craft armour that appears to provide no protection at all.
However, the usual policy on rounding down does conflict with this I admit.
Just house rule it as a +1, this just comes down to a judgement call.
|
Meh, seeing as how you're talking about defense provided, I think there's an argument to be made that fine padded armor isn't actually thick enough to provide an armor bonus.
If this came up in my game... I'd probably smack the player who was running a *fine* character.
If it was for an npc, or a group of npcs, then I'd probably move up to the next armor type, and make it masterwork.
*giggles*
masterwork doll-sized armor :D
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
There should always be a mininum, and if the armour provides no protection, nobody would ever craft or wear it.
But wouldn't that just make Tiny Leather obsolete instead? Both would be at +1 Armor, but with Padded being lighter, cheaper, and less cumbersome (higher max dex, lower spell failure).
Mathematically, you always round .5's up to the next whole number. Versimilitude-wise, people in the game world would never craft armour that appears to provide no protection at all.
However, the usual policy on rounding down does conflict with this I admit.
Just house rule it as a +1, this just comes down to a judgement call.
+1 armor bonus for fine padded armor seems a bit much, it will prolly be thinner than your common outfit, I'd just round it down. I'd prolly give a +1 armor bonus if the midget was also using a buckler though.
This makes using reduce person offensively a bit more interesting, halflings in full plate armor and shields will actually lose 2 to 4 AC and lose their natural reach and deal less damage.. still +2 to hit if it is a dex based or ranged though.
Meh, seeing as how you're talking about defense provided, I think there's an argument to be made that fine padded armor isn't actually thick enough to provide an armor bonus.
If this came up in my game... I'd probably smack the player who was running a *fine* character.
If it was for an npc, or a group of npcs, then I'd probably move up to the next armor type, and make it masterwork.
*giggles*
masterwork doll-sized armor :D
suddenly bards with animate object as a spell makes sense to me, the puppet master ^^ oO I am going to create my next villain for the party, being owned by Toy Soldiers will be a new low for my players.. if I start writing my adventure now I might be ready for next year's Superstar contest xD
|
|
What situation could this possibly come up in where it would in any way matter?
Are you running an all pixie campaign and one of your players was complaining about being allergic to leather or something? Does it chafe their butterfly wings? Or have your players been messing around with that damn Rod of Wonder again? Is this another case of Pseudodragon Familiar Calvary?
At my table it rounds down like all the other numbers in the game, even if someone from Paizo comes in and says +1 is the minimum. Your wearing like a washcloth.
Your incredibly useless fine padded armor does nothing but limit your dexterity bonus to your armor class unless your adding enchantments to it. It still counts as armor so it can still be +5 heavy fortification padded armor of slickness, which is way more important then the +1 AC bonus that it normally provides to actual character in real game situations.
The +8 size bonus you get from being Fine sized more then covers the difference in terms of armor class.
The game breaks down in such situations I guess. It's beyond its usual scope, and things become weird: Really small armour provides less protection, but really big armour doesn't provide more protection.
It's a side effect of the relatively small scope of numbers the game works with: The usual random number generator goes from 1 to 20, modifiers are normally granted in increments of one, and so on. Everything else would be hard to do with dice. If we dealt in hundreds instead of ones, it would be easier to do halves, or even tenths.
What situation could this possibly come up in where it would in any way matter?
Are you running an all pixie campaign and one of your players was complaining about being allergic to leather or something? Does it chafe their butterfly wings? Or have your players been messing around with that damn Rod of Wonder again? Is this another case of Pseudodragon Familiar Calvary?
At my table it rounds down like all the other numbers in the game, even if someone from Paizo comes in and says +1 is the minimum. Your wearing like a washcloth.
Your incredibly useless fine padded armor does nothing but limit your dexterity bonus to your armor class unless your adding enchantments to it. It still counts as armor so it can still be +5 heavy fortification padded armor of slickness, which is way more important then the +1 AC bonus that it normally provides to actual character in real game situations.
The +8 size bonus you get from being Fine sized more then covers the difference in terms of armor class.
might as well enchant normal clothes with armor properties instead.
What situation could this possibly come up in where it would in any way matter?
Armor for your familiar, for instance.
I'd say minimum +0. It's a shirt that can be enchanted as armor.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Technically, only armor bonuses are halved, not shield bonuses. So tiny and smaller characters still get full benefit from a shield.
Yes, technically that is the case (since the table only states "Divide armor bonus by 2")
However, considering the text instructs you to apply the modifiers from that table to both Armor and Shields, it's arguable that the intent was for shield bonuses to be halved as well. Personally, that's how I'd rule in this situation.
Armor and shields for unusually big creatures, unusually little creatures, and nonhumanoid creatures (such as horses) have different costs and weights from those given on Table: Armor and Shields. Refer to the appropriate line on Table: Armor for Unusual Creatures and apply the multipliers to cost and weight for the armor type in question.[/url]
You always round down in 3.5; rounding down in Pathfinder seems a safe assumption.
For some reason I have a mental image of an owl familiar in full plate barding.
Does it look anything like this? :)
|
For some reason I have a mental image of an owl familiar in full plate barding.Does it look anything like this? :)
NYAAAARGH !
Technically, only armor bonuses are halved, not shield bonuses. So tiny and smaller characters still get full benefit from a shield.
Yes, technically that is the case (since the table only states "Divide armor bonus by 2")
However, considering the text instructs you to apply the modifiers from that table to both Armor and Shields, it's arguable that the intent was for shield bonuses to be halved as well. Personally, that's how I'd rule in this situation.
Armor and shields for unusually big creatures, unusually little creatures, and nonhumanoid creatures (such as horses) have different costs and weights from those given on Table: Armor and Shields. Refer to the appropriate line on Table: Armor for Unusual Creatures and apply the multipliers to cost and weight for the armor type in question.[/url]If it helps at all, in 3.0e shields gave an armor bonus. It's possible that bit hadn't been updated correctly since 3.5e.
Honestly, this is the first time I've heard of Tiny or smaller armor, so it quite possible it has literally never come up for the designers of this game.
Armor for your familiar, for instance.Padded barding for your familiar? Really?
I put padded barding on a (Diminutive) psicrystal once. And I put armor spikes on the barding.
Don't judge me. ;-)