Okay, so, here is my thinking.
Armors were made to be mobile and resistant. They were crafted in a way to better distribute its weight around your body.
Despite what Hollywood tell us, I don't think armor got too much in the way of a warrior's mobility. At least, not anymore than any other heavy load.
So why does armor cause extra penalties if carrying an equally heavy (or even heavier) backpack does not? The heavy backpack would put off your gravity center, however, it doesn't hurt your Acrobatics skill checks at all, while even a masterwork armor does.
Except for Stealth, I see no reason for armor to cause any penalty other than that caused by encumbrance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heavy armors were made to protect, not to be mobile. The horse was there for mobility.
Further, encumbrance by weight does give a penalty to skills. Check out the table right below this one.
I know encumbrance give a penalty to skills. My point is, why does armor have an EXTRA penalty?
Except for Stealth, most armor skill penalties could just be handled by the encumbrace rules alone. Not need for further difficulting melee characters' lives.
Also, not every armored warrior fought on top of a horse.
Actually just about all the armor check penalties are nonsense, especially the swiming ones. I actually went to a historical armor presentation and asked a bunch of questions about it to the presenter, and he was telling me the only real issue was extended periods of exertion were an issue, most historical armors were very maneuverable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the armor restricts movement. Even the fighter with the highest strength in the world will have difficulty jumping over a 10' ravine in full plate.
Have you ever worn any armor? Even simple chainmail restricts you.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I suspect that the primary concern is game balance/faithfulness to tropes. Armor check penalties create an incentive for skill based characters (bard, rogue, ranger, etc) to stick to the lighter armors (well, that and the fact that they'd need a feat to wear heavier armor).
It might also be an additional cost to wearing armor, but wearing armor has enough other costs/restrictions (slower movement, heavy weight if you're tracking enc.), that I find it unlikely another one is needed to balance it. I suspect you could ditch them without warping the game, though it will make a dip into fighter/pallie to gain armor proficiencies more appealing to the classes noted above.
Realism is by far the least important element of the stats. If you don't think they reflect reality, or you want to revise them to more accurately reflect your view of reality, it's your game, go for it.
Actually, I haven't worn armor, but I've more than once seen people do it.
In fact, I've seen people performing cartwheels while wearing armor. And chances are, they were not trained warriors.
I'd rather remove all ACP's, except Stealth.
I don't have a problem with armor being penalized. I have a problem with it being penalized twice for the same thing.
How unbalancing would it be to remove those ACPs? It's not like people are always saying "Hey, the fighter is too powerful! He suffers no ACP!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, While I haven't worn armor, I've more than once seen people do it.
In fact, I've seen people performing cartwheels while wearing armor. And chances are, they were not trained warriors.
I'd rather remove all ACP's, except Stealth.
I don't have a problem with armor being penalized. I have a problem with it being penalized twice for the same thing.
How unbalancing would it be to remove those ACPs? It's not like people are always saying ("hey, the fighter is too powerful! He suffers no ACP!"
I throw them out in my games except for the stealth one, and it doesn't cause an issue at all. Martial classes are penalized enough, and armor doesn't have much going for it as is, so it doesn't change too much.
I throw them out in my games except for the stealth one, and it doesn't cause an issue at all. Martial classes are penalized enough, and armor doesn't have much going for it as is, so it doesn't change too much.
Yeah, that what I was considering doing in my game.
The fighter could complain about "losing" one of his class features, but I've buffed the class in ways than more than compensate for this.
Yeah, that what I was considering doing in my game.
The fighter could complain about "losing" one of his class features, but I've buffed the class in ways than more than compensate for this.
Make him get bonuses to the skills in armor. I mean, you've got dragons, is it that immersion breaking if the fighter is actually more able in armor?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Real Armor (not modern armor made for show) is not mobile. Its heavy and cubmersome as crap. Often knight's needed cranes and otther apparatus' to get on their horses. A step ladder at the very least.
Make him get bonuses to the skills in armor. I mean, you've got dragons, is it that immersion breaking if the fighter is actually more able in armor?Yeah, that what I was considering doing in my game.
The fighter could complain about "losing" one of his class features, but I've buffed the class in ways than more than compensate for this.
Doesn't armor training mitigate the ACP? Isn't that the point of the fighter class?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Real Armor (not modern armor made for show) is not mobile. Its heavy and cubmersome as crap. Often knight's needed cranes and otther apparatus' to get on their horses. A step ladder at the very least.
That's jousting armor or bulletproof armor. Not armor commonly used in combat.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
As mentioned, I don't think it'd be a great tragedy to remove the non-Stealth APC's, and keeping them for Stealth mitigates the usefulness for bards/rogues/rangers to dip into fighter/take a heavier armor proficiency. Sounds like it works in Ibrahm's campaign, and as far as I know, the world hasn't ended because he did it.
I love how both examples of restrictive armor have been met with "Well, all armors except that one."
That's because they're exceptions, not the norm.
You should base rules off the norm, not the exception.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The worst penalty is for mounted folks... ACP against your ride check when you are supposed to be heavy cavalry is painful.
Doesn't armor training mitigate the ACP? Isn't that the point of the fighter class?
I don't think that is the whole point of the class.
Armor training will still increase max. Dex modifier, so it's not useless.
And as I said, I've buffed the fighter in many ways that more than compensate for this "loss" of class feature. Including having more skill ranks/level and a better class skills list.
The change itself is a buff! Like fighter suffered no ACPs at all from level one. Only "problem" is that his friends gain the same benefit.
Doesn't armor training mitigate the ACP? Isn't that the point of the fighter class?
If you read what I do, it gives skill bonuses instead, and still lowers the stealth acp. It's not overpowered, and it's not all that hard to believe when you've got people who's bodies are harder then steel.
Im a fan of getting rid of most acp... i dont think i could be convinced to drop stealth and swim though.
The swimming thing as been disproved over and over again. The only time it's an issue is when you're swimming for extended periods of time.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm no expert, but in my limited experience I have worn chainmail and also full plate. I'm not a particularly weak fellow, and I have to say, those check penalties feel about right to me. My move speed was reduced by about half in the plate, and I sure as shite couldn't swim in either. I respect that, with experience, you could grow accustomed to this to some extent, relearn those skills, etc. This is well-enough represented by armor training for my concerns.
Something else to consider - it's not even strictly that armored folks are terrible at these things. It's that unarmored folks are that much better at them. Which is a bloody given.
Real Armor (not modern armor made for show) is not mobile. Its heavy and cubmersome as crap. Often knight's needed cranes and otther apparatus' to get on their horses. A step ladder at the very least.That's jousting armor or bulletproof armor. Not armor commonly used in combat.
Admitedly I'm not an armor expert, but the "armor is heavy" seems pretty obvious. Then again Game mechanics don't always follow real life.
Admitedly I'm not an armor expert, but the "armor is heavy" seems pretty obvious. Then again Game mechanics don't always follow real life.
It's heavy, but it's easy to move around in. And if you're trained in it's use (armor proficiency) you have the endurance to fight in it as normal. The shortcomings of it's weight don't really come into play until hours of combat.
Anyway, things that are "obvious" are very often wrong. Especially in things someone doesn't know much about.
Try hopping a fence or climbign a ladder wearing body armor and boots. You wont feel unencumbered or agile in the least. Even if youve done it a lot, and I have, its still a massive b***H to do.
It's not difficult with boots on. And try doing the same thing as having a bag on your back wearing the same amount as the hypothetical armor. The armor should only get the penalties from weight, not some strange penalty for just "being armor".
No - it is more difficult to hop that fence with the weight on my feet than it is with the weight on my back. Heck, I carry twice the weight of my boots in my bookbag and I still drag my feet sometimes when I hop waist-high fences. Let alone castle walls.
|
Try hopping a fence or climbign a ladder wearing body armor and boots. You wont feel unencumbered or agile in the least. Even if youve done it a lot, and I have, its still a massive b***H to do.It's not difficult with boots on. And try doing the same thing as having a bag on your back wearing the same amount as the hypothetical armor. The armor should only get the penalties from weight, not some strange penalty for just "being armor".
I'm not even sure what you're saying in the 2nd sentence, but:
1- Even if its "magical fantasy armor" its going to be as restrictive as modern body armor, weight aside. If its form fitting like chain, it'd still be like wearing multiple sets of heavy clothing.
2- I HAVE climbed ladders, jumped fences, climbed hills, etc with body armor that weighed nothing and an 80lb pack. With or w/o the pack it sucked and I wasnt at 100%.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also do the people doing these things have skill ranks in them offsetting some of the penalty like they climb a lot or swim.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Admitedly I'm not an armor expert, but the "armor is heavy" seems pretty obvious. Then again Game mechanics don't always follow real life.
It's heavy, but it's easy to move around in. And if you're trained in it's use (armor proficiency) you have the endurance to fight in it as normal. The shortcomings of it's weight don't really come into play until hours of combat.
Anyway, things that are "obvious" are very often wrong. Especially in things someone doesn't know much about.
So you're going to going to make a snide comment after I admited lack of expertise while completely ignoring the "fantasy isnt real life" part?
Charming.
If you're the expert you claim to be then why are you bothering to question others? It would seem that many are still under the "its heavy and cumbersome" assumption despite your expert claim to the contrary. Make whatever house rule you want and move on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
do you see people running hurdles in combat boots, or are they in the lightest possible shoes science can make? a few ounces in all the wrong places makes all the difference
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Pathfinder three things go into avoiding armor check penalties and there is one fallacy of something that goes into avoiding armor check penalties.
1) Skill Ranks: As an example: show me how a person who tumbles in armor proficiently has not practiced this skill to overcome the penalty of the armor.
2) Armor Training: Again, show me how a person who uses armor regularly does not use this.
3) Masterwork armor: Anyone wearing armor that is better fitted will benefit from this.
Basically, you start with a newbie armor wearer and the ACP will become apparent (as some people have indicated). With lots of practice (represented by 1 and 2) your skills get better.
And now: the fallacy:
Armor Proficiency: Despite how it is read there is no real difference between having armor proficiency and not having it when it applies to skill checks. Pretty much all skill checks that involve movement are dexterity or strength based and are already on the ACP list. There are a few that could be added but they are not common and certainly not important (Craft, Perform and Profession come to mind).
Thus, ACP works fine. The stats may or may not be incorrect (for example, fitted plate mail could be better than breastplate as some have stated) but the concept is sound.
- Gauss
... And as the rules say:
It is true that you are taking the worse dex mod and ACP from each category independently but the penalties do not stack.Encumbrance by Weight: If you want to determine whether your character's gear is heavy enough to slow him down more than his armor already does, total the weight of all the character's items, including armor, weapons, and gear. Compare this total to the character's Strength on Table: Carrying Capacity. Depending on the character's carrying capacity, he or she may be carrying a light, medium, or heavy load. Like armor, a character's load affects his maximum Dexterity bonus to AC, carries a check penalty (which works like an armor check penalty), reduces the character's speed, and affects how fast the character can run, as shown on Table: Encumbrance Effects. A medium or heavy load counts as medium or heavy armor for the purpose of abilities or skills that are restricted by armor. Carrying a light load does not encumber a character.
If your character is wearing armor, use the worse figure (from armor or from load) for each category. Do not stack the penalties.
What KonLesh bolded.
do you see people running hurdles in combat boots, or are they in the lightest possible shoes science can make? a few ounces in all the wrong places makes all the difference
The question is, what is "all the difference"? Because it's probably not the difference between success and failure at getting over the hurdle.
Pro runners wear super-light shoes because shaving a single second off their time (or even a fraction of one) can mean changing where they finish. But there is no question they're going to get to the end of the race, no matter what they're wearing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so, here is my thinking.
Armors were made to be mobile and resistant. They were crafted in a way to better distribute its weight around your body.
Despite what Hollywood tell us, I don't think armor got too much in the way of a warrior's mobility. At least, not anymore than any other heavy load.
So why does armor cause extra penalties if carrying an equally heavy (or even heavier) backpack does not? The heavy backpack would put off your gravity center, however, it doesn't hurt your Acrobatics skill checks at all, while even a masterwork armor does.
Except for Stealth, I see no reason for armor to cause any penalty other than that caused by encumbrance.
Go wear some armor in real life and you won't ask this question again. Actual armor is made to be as flexible as POSSIBLE while still protecting you. Wear even a chain shirt for an afternoon and you will see how heavy, hot and limiting it can be and chain shirts are about as good as you get in the mobility department.
A breastplate is not a shirt. It does not fold when you fold, bend when you bend or flex when you flex. The penalties are fair. Even light for certain armors. When you try to bend at the waist the steel plate jams you in the neck at the top and at the waist at the bottom because metal does not flex. Which is why it keeps you alive in a combat.
I have worn actual armor. It does indeed affect your balance, speed, mobility, ability to move quietly, your fine hand/arm movement, flexibility and more.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well it's been a long time since I've worn armor (25+ years ago), but I've worn chain-mail, mixed chain and plate, plate armor all while a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism. I've even swung a rattan sword and wielded a shield in all those armors.
All were restrictive in some way, some worse than others. All lessened my mobility and my dexterity to a degree - like trying to tie shoe laces with heavy gloves on.
The least heavy of the armors still weighed about 120 pounds spread across the body, but still more than 3/4 of my own actual weight.
In my experience there is no swim skill when wearing armor, only a "sink" skill... even if you can touch the bottom and keep your head above water, it's terribly affecting any kind of mobility. You can barely walk in neck deep water, let alone trying to swim.
I only had about a year of training with combat in armor, so not expert like a true armored combatant. I found armor to be restricting to mobility and dexterity. I'm sure articulated full plate might be more mobile than the others, but I've never worn such armor to know better.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simple exercise. Go play racket ball. Half way through put on shoulder pads, shin guards, knee pads, elbow pads and those wrist thingys that keep you from "s" curving your forearms while rollerblading. As you and your friends laugh your butts off at how much slower and imbobile you are think wow all this gear is lightwieght plastic and foam and only covers a few points on the body. Then please come back and tells about your experience preferably with pictures.
Eh... This thread really got lively while I was away.
Okay. I see many of you have made good points.
But for whoever has some experience in armor, tell me, is it really that much harder to Tumble in armor than while wearing a equally heavy backpack?
The way I see it, the backpack would be a lot more cumbersome. It throws your gravity center completely off. While armor is (supposedly) made to distribute its weight in the best way possible.
And even if armor is more restraining, isn't that already represented by max Dexterity modifier and limited mobility? While punish the character in 3 different ways? Limited mobility + limited dex are bad enough, do we really need ACPs?
Also, shouldn't someone who spends most of its day in armor (basically, any chracter with armor proficiency), maybe even sleeping in it, thanks to the Endurance feat not get used to whatever limits the armor imposes?
KonLesh
Your're right about the penalties not stacking. What I meant was that a character with 300000 Strength still suffers from ACP.
@Gnomezrule
You know, if I someday play racket ball again, armor or not, I'm sure many of my friends will be there with their cameras to record the disaster.
All you'd have to do is look for it in Youtube. I'd even post it here myself.
The Max dex modifier does not impact skills in any way, shape, or form. The ONLY thing it impacts is Armor Class. It doesn't even appear to affect CMD (although perhaps it should).
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so, here is my thinking.
Armors were made to be mobile and resistant. They were crafted in a way to better distribute its weight around your body.
Despite what Hollywood tell us, I don't think armor got too much in the way of a warrior's mobility. At least, not anymore than any other heavy load.
So why does armor cause extra penalties if carrying an equally heavy (or even heavier) backpack does not? The heavy backpack would put off your gravity center, however, it doesn't hurt your Acrobatics skill checks at all, while even a masterwork armor does.
Except for Stealth, I see no reason for armor to cause any penalty other than that caused by encumbrance.
I'm a fencer, used to sparring in a heavy helmet and a little bit of padding or a kevlar plastron. I went to a re-enactment club, put on some chainmail, a big hauberk and tried to move around. I thought "this is b@##*#*s, my footwork is really messed up now." That chain would give me some good defence against slashing, but I'd have to get used to it, adapt, and it would still slow me down compared to just wearing a helmet and very light padding. So yeah, I support armour check penalties (I also love the melee classes over the spellcasters).
In fact, when I checked the rules some months back, I was furious that they don't stack. This was brought up in a game, when an elf wizard in full-plate which he wasn't proficient with, swam out to a boat and climbed aboard. Utter b$~&##@s. The max he got was from the plate, he was also heavily encumbered. In my mind, and in my games, armour stacks with shields, stacks with any heavy penalties. The rules though, don't want to punish quite so much, making it up to the max limit but not stacking all the penalties. From what I read, there was no added penalty for taking a tower shield and heavy armour, because the highest is taken, not the combined amount.
The penalties for wearing armor are absolutely ridiculous and just one more way that the designers of 3.0 D&D went out of their way-- completely, unjustifiably out of their way-- to screw over Fighters in the name of unrealistic 'realism'.
If heavy armor were really as cumbersome as the rules depict it to be, real-life warriors throughout human history would have never worn it.
The reduced moevement rate and inability to run? Make perfect sense. The penalties to Stealth and Swim checks? Just about right. The penalty to Acrobatics, Climb, Escape Artist, and Sleight of Hand? Need to be halved. The penalties to Disable Device and Ride should be eliminated entirely.
And the 'maximum Dexterity bonus to AC' needs to have its head severed, stuffed with garlic, and buried separately from its body-- which would be buried at a crossroads with a stake through its heart-- in a location clearly marked 'THIS IS NOT A PLACE OF HONOR' in every language spoken by Man and angels with burning swords standing guard to prevent foolhardy grave robbers and game designers from ever even thinking about trying to dig up such an inexcusably stupid mechanic ever again. It is the very worst kind of fool-headed idiotic unrealistic 'realism' to have ever blighted a fundamentally and deliberately mythic roleplaying game in the history of roleplaying games.
The worst part of it is, in the game from which this ill-conceived abomination of a rule was derived, it actually worked. That game was actually detailed enough and realistic enough that even with mobility penalties, armor was useful enough that wearing the heaviest armor you could afford and were trained in was an absolute no-brainer for anyone who didn't have to walk around naked for spellcasting purposes.
But that game was Rolemaster, and rules that work in Rolemaster have absolutely no place whatsoever in a game as abstract and mythic as Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simple exercise. Go play racket ball. Half way through put on shoulder pads, shin guards, knee pads, elbow pads and those wrist thingys that keep you from "s" curving your forearms while rollerblading. As you and your friends laugh your butts off at how much slower and imbobile you are think wow all this gear is lightwieght plastic and foam and only covers a few points on the body. Then please come back and tells about your experience preferably with pictures.
This is one of the best examples I can think of, or different yet: think about a football player or hockey player (goalie in particular). Even modern, form fitting, flexable 'armor' (ie: padding) is still restrictive. Folks that are used to it can do amazing things, yes, but that same athlete with out the padding on will do even more amazing things.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The penalties for wearing armor are absolutely ridiculous and just one more way that the designers of 3.0 D&D went out of their way-- completely, unjustifiably out of their way-- to screw over Fighters in the name of unrealistic 'realism'.
If heavy armor were really as cumbersome as the rules depict it to be, real-life warriors throughout human history would have never worn it.
The reduced moevement rate and inability to run? Make perfect sense. The penalties to Stealth and Swim checks? Just about right. The penalty to Acrobatics, Climb, Escape Artist, and Sleight of Hand? Need to be halved. The penalties to Disable Device and Ride should be eliminated entirely.
And the 'maximum Dexterity bonus to AC' needs to have its head severed, stuffed with garlic, and buried separately from its body-- which would be buried at a crossroads with a stake through its heart-- in a location clearly marked 'THIS IS NOT A PLACE OF HONOR' in every language spoken by Man and angels with burning swords standing guard to prevent foolhardy grave robbers and game designers from ever even thinking about trying to dig up such an inexcusably stupid mechanic ever again. It is the very worst kind of fool-headed idiotic unrealistic 'realism' to have ever blighted a fundamentally and deliberately mythic roleplaying game in the history of roleplaying games.
The worst part of it is, in the game from which this ill-conceived abomination of a rule was derived, it actually worked. That game was actually detailed enough and realistic enough that even with mobility penalties, armor was useful enough that wearing the heaviest armor you could afford and were trained in was an absolute no-brainer for anyone who didn't have to walk around naked for spellcasting purposes.
But that game was Rolemaster, and rules that work in Rolemaster have absolutely no place whatsoever in a game as abstract and mythic as Pathfinder.
How do you really feel?
This post would have been better if you mentioned that you typed it while wearing steel guantlets.