Is heavy armor becoming outdated?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

strayshift wrote:

I do accept an internal incongruence with this.

On one hand I want realism but want to empower non-spell using characters, but on the other

the game mechanics allow them to make any real skills based empowerment irrelevant.

So I am left with nerfing spellcasters...

Again.

Armour should mean protection. Not wearing it is now irrelevant largely.

IF Pathfinder/D&D wants to retain its position it has to meet the demands of its customers.

Some want cheese others want realism.

Good luck traversing that.

I for one don't want cheese, but I do want fantasy, and you cannot do that with realism. An ancient red dragon's breath is so hot as to slag a suit of full plate armor in three seconds. THREE SECONDS. That sort heat that would require it to be hotter than a blast furnace, hotter than lava, hotter than pretty much anything most of us could imagine without getting into things like stars.

Armor is most definitely not largely irrelevant. Armor means a lot. It's the simplest, easiest, and cheapest form of protection available to boost your AC. I myself have by and large a reputation for being a power gamer on these forums and armor is typically a first priority for my characters.

Martial characters in Pathfinder can get ACs in the 50s by 20th level. The catch is that armor is not the ONLY defense. There are other defenses, both mundane and magical that need to be addressed.


Read the first 7 lines not just the last 2.

My perfect game would at every level allow every character to contribute equally against every encounter.

Consider that. That is not going to happen in anybody's game. So...

We are left with probabilities.

And at the moment with the game design we have rules that favours spell-users: saving throws, touch AC, flat footed, the surprised non-spell user will always have a weakness, the spell-user has an 'out' or an advantage.

Do I want to power down magic? Hell yes.

Do I want to give sword wielding thugs something unique? Yes again.

Is Pathfinder heading that way? No.


strayshift wrote:

Some want cheese others want realism.

A realistic full plate should make you totally immune to bites and claws from any regular sized beast (ie: tigers). That's cheesy enough for your realism?


Can I have a modicum of mobility?


gustavo iglesias wrote:
strayshift wrote:

Some want cheese others want realism.

A realistic full plate should make you totally immune to bites and claws from any regular sized beast (ie: tigers). That's cheesy enough for your realism?

I can't speak for real full plate but I have seen some very protective metal armors, attending full contact (HMB) swordfighting tournaments now and then and I'm pretty sure a tiger would just rip those armors apart crushing ribs with his weight.

But you are right that armors could be modelled much more realistic.

One way would be to give all armors some DR IN ADDITION to their AC.
For example the amount given by admantit armors (with the possible exception of cloth armors)


Armors *could* be more realistic, but tge question is if they *should*. Which in my opinion, tge answer is no.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Armors *could* be more realistic, but tge question is if they *should*. Which in my opinion, tge answer is no.

I would ask: Should they be more balanced between drawbacks and benefits? And my Answer would be yes. Now if you work on that balancing you could as well balance it in a realistic way. But you surely could balance it in any other way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbranus wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Armors *could* be more realistic, but tge question is if they *should*. Which in my opinion, tge answer is no.
I would ask: Should they be more balanced between drawbacks and benefits? And my Answer would be yes. Now if you work on that balancing you could as well balance it in a realistic way. But you surely could balance it in any other way.

What I mean is that, in the end, heavy armor is just fluff. If you want to play an archetype based on Conan, you shouldn't be penalized for rearing a loinclth. If you want to play an archetype based on Lancelot, you shouldn't be penalized either. Currently the game penalize both: barechest barbarian isn't viable, and full plate has heavy ACP and lack mobility. The game prioritize mithril breastplate builds, and it shouldn't. Archetypes are just flavor, and you shouldn't be rewarded for playing certaon archetypes over others.


There is a barbarian archetype that gets bonuses for not wearing armor. Standard fighters get reduced penalties while wearing full plate, and the ACP penalties aren't that bad. (You should have enough strength that you can survive in water with a single rank of Swim.)


Considering that the state of the art in shark protective gear is chainmail (for all intents and purposes), I'd say that full plate is very likely to give one all but immunity to a tiger attack. The point being, a tiger isn't going to crack his teeth penetrating metal armor (yes, he could probably do so, but animals tend to avoid biting if it hurts to bite, breaking their teeth is a death sentence in the wild). 1/8th inch steel is enough to keep a tiger from damaging you (it's about what they use for doors on tiger compounds at zoos).


mdt wrote:
Considering that the state of the art in shark protective gear is chainmail (for all intents and purposes), I'd say that full plate is very likely to give one all but immunity to a tiger attack. The point being, a tiger isn't going to crack his teeth penetrating metal armor (yes, he could probably do so, but animals tend to avoid biting if it hurts to bite, breaking their teeth is a death sentence in the wild). 1/8th inch steel is enough to keep a tiger from damaging you (it's about what they use for doors on tiger compounds at zoos).

Actually, a simple padded armor can render a wolf-like creature almost useless, except for trip and CMB/CMD related maneuvers (which ignore armor in the game anyways). But the fact is that a realist full plate armor, which makes you almost immune to claw/teeth from most middle to large sized creatures, is not very well balanced with the leveling system of the game. Being immune to wolves, dire wolves, lions and sharks is just a small part of it: you would be immune to several monstruous creatures too, like displacer beasts, claw/teeth demons, etc. Anything short of a Tyrannosaurus size is bassically pointless, except for combat maneuvers and maybe some non-lethal damage. In games where armor give DR, like old Runequest, weapons like daggers become obsolet, because unless you crit, you can't pierce armor with a dagger.

That might be realist, but is unsuitable for a game that excel in variety and anachronism: we have savage brutes with wooden clubs and javelins (like lizardmen) fighting in the same ground that armored knights with full plate and cuirboulli wearing swashbucklers who fight versus unarmed kung-fu adepts and summoned dogs. "realism" would make most of those obsolete


Matthew Downie wrote:
There is a barbarian archetype that gets bonuses for not wearing armor. Standard fighters get reduced penalties while wearing full plate, and the ACP penalties aren't that bad. (You should have enough strength that you can survive in water with a single rank of Swim.)

With a standard full plate and a heavy metal suit, a guy with DEX +0 and 5 ranks in riding (which is about the maximum for "real world" knights) has -1 to ride. And a roman Princep legionarie has splint mail and tower shield, for -17 to ACP


What about with a Dex of 14, masterwork full plate, ACP reduced by 1 by Armor Training, Ride as a class skill and Skill focus: Ride?

As for the tower shield guy, I think it's reasonable if he's not climbing ropes, leaping across chasms, or tumbling around behind enemies.


Matthew Downie wrote:
What about with a Dex of 14, masterwork full plate, ACP reduced by 1 by Armor Training, Ride as a class skill and Skill focus: Ride?

Do you think each and every guy in Crecy had that?

Quote:
As for the tower shield guy, I think it's reasonable if he's not climbing

or just charging down hills.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
There is a barbarian archetype that gets bonuses for not wearing armor. Standard fighters get reduced penalties while wearing full plate, and the ACP penalties aren't that bad. (You should have enough strength that you can survive in water with a single rank of Swim.)

Have you seen the AC bonuses for that archetype? It's pretty awful.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Armors *could* be more realistic, but tge question is if they *should*. Which in my opinion, tge answer is no.
I would ask: Should they be more balanced between drawbacks and benefits? And my Answer would be yes. Now if you work on that balancing you could as well balance it in a realistic way. But you surely could balance it in any other way.
What I mean is that, in the end, heavy armor is just fluff. If you want to play an archetype based on Conan, you shouldn't be penalized for rearing a loinclth. If you want to play an archetype based on Lancelot, you shouldn't be penalized either. Currently the game penalize both: barechest barbarian isn't viable, and full plate has heavy ACP and lack mobility. The game prioritize mithril breastplate builds, and it shouldn't. Archetypes are just flavor, and you shouldn't be rewarded for playing certaon archetypes over others.

Hear hear!

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Armors *could* be more realistic, but tge question is if they *should*. Which in my opinion, tge answer is no.
I would ask: Should they be more balanced between drawbacks and benefits? And my Answer would be yes. Now if you work on that balancing you could as well balance it in a realistic way. But you surely could balance it in any other way.
What I mean is that, in the end, heavy armor is just fluff. If you want to play an archetype based on Conan, you shouldn't be penalized for rearing a loinclth. If you want to play an archetype based on Lancelot, you shouldn't be penalized either. Currently the game penalize both: barechest barbarian isn't viable, and full plate has heavy ACP and lack mobility. The game prioritize mithril breastplate builds, and it shouldn't. Archetypes are just flavor, and you shouldn't be rewarded for playing certaon archetypes over others.
Hear hear!

I would rather not play a game where character choices don't matter. Conan should be very different from Lancelot. We have this in pathfinder, with the invulnerable barbarian archetype and Cavaliers. Both are great classes that work well. If we need a more evasive barbarian to make Conan then an archetype could be made easily, but i assume the basic barbarian works just fine for that.


I'm not saying those two archetypes should be equal. I'm saying both should be viable, the current barbarian isn't viable if bare-chested, the armor bonus isn't enough for a frontliner.

In DnD 5e playtest, for example, barbarians can add Con to AC, being similar to 3e monks for example. And in 4e heavy armor has -2 ACP and 25' movment. Pit those two in the same game, and you have two archetypes that are different to your standard mithril breastplate/chainshirt guy, but closer in efficiency and viability


GeneticDrift wrote:


I would rather not play a game where character choices don't matter.

That's fine, me neither. Of course, that's not REMOTELY what ANYBODY said, so it really isn't relevant to this conversation.

We're not saying choices don't matter.
We're saying ALL choices should be viable.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:
GeneticDrift wrote:


I would rather not play a game where character choices don't matter.

That's fine, me neither. Of course, that's not REMOTELY what ANYBODY said, so it really isn't relevant to this conversation.

We're not saying choices don't matter.
We're saying ALL choices should be viable.

you can already play a guy who doesn't use armor. with training/magic/or just intense rage, they all work well. So i guess i am just not seeing what choices that are not already viable that would not be broken (hyperbolic example. wis to everything)


GeneticDrift wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
GeneticDrift wrote:


I would rather not play a game where character choices don't matter.

That's fine, me neither. Of course, that's not REMOTELY what ANYBODY said, so it really isn't relevant to this conversation.

We're not saying choices don't matter.
We're saying ALL choices should be viable.

you can already play a guy who doesn't use armor. with training/magic/or just intense rage, they all work well. So i guess i am just not seeing what choices that are not already viable that would not be broken (hyperbolic example. wis to everything)

Can you post me an example of such naked barbarian? I'm interested in auch build for my next barbarian

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
GeneticDrift wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
GeneticDrift wrote:


I would rather not play a game where character choices don't matter.

That's fine, me neither. Of course, that's not REMOTELY what ANYBODY said, so it really isn't relevant to this conversation.

We're not saying choices don't matter.
We're saying ALL choices should be viable.

you can already play a guy who doesn't use armor. with training/magic/or just intense rage, they all work well. So i guess i am just not seeing what choices that are not already viable that would not be broken (hyperbolic example. wis to everything)
Can you post me an example of such naked barbarian? I'm interested in auch build for my next barbarian

My wife played one in Carrion Crown. Although i did make sure she had armor - it was completely ineffective. DR and a great Con score was all she really needed.

barbarian archetype:

Invulnerable Rager
Some barbarians learn to take whatever comes their way, shrugging off mortal wounds with ease. These barbarians invite their enemies to attack them, and use pain to fuel their rage.

An invulnerable rager has the following class features.

Invulnerability (Ex)

At 2nd level, the invulnerable rager gains DR/— equal to half her barbarian level. This damage reduction is doubled against nonlethal damage.

This ability replaces uncanny dodge, improved uncanny dodge, and damage reduction.

Extreme Endurance (Ex)

At 3rd level, the invulnerable rager is inured to either hot or cold climate effects (choose one) as if using endure elements. In addition, the barbarian gains 1 point of fire or cold resistance for every three levels beyond 3rd.

This ability replaces trap sense.

Rage Powers: The following rage powers complement the invulnerable rager archetype: come and get me, guarded life, increased damage reduction*, inspire ferocity, reckless abandon, and renewed vigor*.

edit:

feats and stuff of character:

heavy armor prof (was a waste)
Extra rage power(bonus DR)
extra rage power (bonus DR)
furious focus
power attack raging vitality

Race: Dwarf
stats while raging @level 11
24 str
10 dex
32 con
7 int
13 wis
5 chr
AC 20
214 hit points
+1 adamantine great axe +16/11/6 (1d12+20 +2d6 vs undead)
adaptive longbow +1

defensive items:
mithral fullplate +2 (14500 wasted lol)
Belt of mighty constitution +4
Cloak of displacement, minor
Ioun stone (dusty rose prism)
potion of CLW
potion of lesser restoration x2
wand of CLW


I don't think running around with AC 12 or AC 25 is the same. I've seen barbarians with low AC (in the 20s), but that-s not the same than wearing loincloth. Those 6-7 extra AC from the magical breastplate matter. A lot. Specially at low levels.

EDIT: gah, didn't see your edit before I answered. Will check it now

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
I don't think running around with AC 12 or AC 25 is the same. I've seen barbarians with low AC (in the 20s), but that-s not the same than wearing loincloth. Those 6-7 extra AC from the magical breastplate matter. A lot. Specially at low levels.

its not scientific, but every attack vs AC hit that character. the HP and DR mattered the AC did not.

for low levels, well she was a replacement for her previous character so came in around level 9. i suppose her tactics for low levels might have been to smash face until all is dead, since being a barbarian kinda auto kills most things; and to not charge in first which is easy for an init of +0.


How did she got AC 20?

I don't see this character surviving the first 3 levels in a loincloth, with AC 10 (8 while raging) with just DR 1. Am I missing something?

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:

How did she got AC 20?

I don't see this character surviving the first 3 levels in a loincloth, with AC 10 (8 while raging) with just DR 1. Am I missing something?

sorry, i left out the useless armor - its been added. see above for details on low levels. but its just hypothetical as she came in t 9.

edit: oh, if you think the barb cant survive at low levels then idk how the casters would fare. i agree it is an unnecessary weakness, but is the type of thing barbarian might do, to prove he is tough.

edit: are you psychic? :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GeneticDrift wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
I don't think running around with AC 12 or AC 25 is the same. I've seen barbarians with low AC (in the 20s), but that-s not the same than wearing loincloth. Those 6-7 extra AC from the magical breastplate matter. A lot. Specially at low levels.
its not scientific, but every attack vs AC hit that character. the HP and DR mattered the AC did not.

Last Char I killed as a GM was a wizard with a gazillion HP for a wizard and several defensive spells (mirror image, displacement, etc) with an encounter against lower CR erinyes, using low attack bows with rapid shot. His "AC doesn't matter" didn't work, while having just AC 20 make a huge difference when 9 erinyes shoot agaist you with 14/14/9 attacks. It is not the same than doing the same against AC13 or so.

Low level is specially worrysome


spectrevk wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
There is a barbarian archetype that gets bonuses for not wearing armor. Standard fighters get reduced penalties while wearing full plate, and the ACP penalties aren't that bad. (You should have enough strength that you can survive in water with a single rank of Swim.)
Have you seen the AC bonuses for that archetype? It's pretty awful.

Pretty sure only monk really has great AC while naked, relative to people who do wear armor anyway. The savage barbarian gets less AC from being naked than he would wearing actual armor. Even with mage armor, he has to wait until 7th level to have as much AC as someone in a non magical breastplate. Since its part natural armor, it may not stack with other bonuses you already have(including beast totem). He also still takes a penalty for raging...

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Can you post me an example of such naked barbarian? I'm interested in auch build for my next barbarian

I remember seeing someone once post that their barbarian didn't need that much armor because they were protected from great DR and used Come and get me to do extra damage so they dropped their AC entirely. Improved Stalwart + Combat expertise. Of course, I'd rather just reskin my breastplate into a chainmail bikini than actually go naked.


GeneticDrift wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

How did she got AC 20?

I don't see this character surviving the first 3 levels in a loincloth, with AC 10 (8 while raging) with just DR 1. Am I missing something?

sorry, i left out the useless armor - its been added. see above for details on low levels. but its just hypothetical as she came in t 9.

edit: oh, if you think the barb cant survive at low levels then idk how the casters would fare. i agree it is an unnecessary weakness, but is the type of thing barbarian might do, to prove he is tough.

edit: are you psychic? :)

The naked wizard has something like AC 20 with Dex 14, mage armor and shield, and cast spells from range and shoots his xbow, or just Vanish, Obscuring Mist or Silent Image to cover himself vs arrows, ddependingon the build. The barbarian in the example has AC8 and goes toe-to-toe in the frontline. It is not even close


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
What about with a Dex of 14, masterwork full plate, ACP reduced by 1 by Armor Training, Ride as a class skill and Skill focus: Ride?
Do you think each and every guy in Crecy had that?

I dunno. I think those guys were real people rather than RPG characters. But if I were trying to represent them as level 5 Fighters, those would be perfectly reasonable abilities to give them. If you're in the heavy cavalry, it seems reasonable to take a feat to be good at riding.

Or I could make them less optimized, in which case they might all fail their ride checks to avoid getting caught in mud and then get wiped out by (overpowered) archers, after those (underpowered) crossbow specialists got wiped out due to lack of tower shields.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Yeah, but mirror images don't work against erinyes, who all have true seeing.

Kindly look at the barbarian. Two alternate rage powers are increasing natural armor and increasing dodge bonus in combat

Combine with bracers of armor or mage armor, rings of prot, amulets of nat armor, jingasa of fortunate blahblah, and dex raises, and a naked barbarian can have an extremely high AC wearing no armor at all, and all with incredible DR if they so choose to have it.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

Yeah, but mirror images don't work against erinyes, who all have true seeing.

Kindly look at the barbarian. Two alternate rage powers are increasing natural armor and increasing dodge bonus in combat

Combine with bracers of armor or mage armor, rings of prot, amulets of nat armor, jingasa of fortunate blahblah, and dex raises, and a naked barbarian can have an extremely high AC wearing no armor at all, and all with incredible DR if they so choose to have it.

==Aelryinth

you can't have most those at level 3, and you wont survive to see level 4.

That said, I think it IS possible to pull it (urban barbarian, dex based, use shield...). I don't think it is ppssible with the built shown in this thread. AC 20 is much more relevant than AC 8, that barbarian without his full plate would take a ton of damage.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

If the mage with a d6 hd, lower Con and no armor can survive to 4th, so can the armorless barb. It gets easier with a friendly mage armor, of course, but it's hardly unworkable.

And is there any reason they can't use a shield?

Plus, let it be said...people wear armor for a REASON. Making no armor better then armor makes no sense at all.

Trivia: You know the SOlar wears full plate armor? And not even CELESTIAL plate armor, and only gets a +1 Dex bonus to AC???

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
And is there any reason they can't use a shield?

I don't know about you, but if I plan to go shirtless I don't plan to ruin that by bringing a shield.


Regarding DR and Defense: In one system, Armor actually makes you a little easier to hit, but gives you straight DR. Pretty much a straight one for one - DR 9 plate is -9 AC for off-the-shelf gear.

However, each +1 improves both by 1, and they're easier to get; +1 gear is good quality, easily obtained and only costing double. Cruddy town guards probably won't have it, but anyone who takes a bit of pride in their work or depends on it to not-die will probably be fully decked out in it. Real masterwork's +2, and DR 2 AC-2 leather at +4 would be DR 6 AC+2.

The DR helps protect against crit effects as well.

It can be slightly reduced by one or two from really good penetrating weapons, but overall it's only straight magical damage that bypasses it

Needless to say you wear as heavy an armor as your coinpurse, proficiency and class abilities will allow, and you might even consider going over on occasion.


You know, I seem to recall Conan wearing really heavy armor on occasion. Most of the time, yeah, he went around without. But - if I recall the movies, anyway - there was once or twice he put on a full plate or something similar.

I also think that I recall Conan being more like a Barbarian with a couple levels of Rogue than pure Barbarian. Though my memory could be playing tricks on me.

Now He-Man: that dude never wore anything. Unless you bought the toys. Also, he was kind of empowered by super-essence from Castle Grayskull, making him most definitively not first level (during those times). And he used his head clearly while having super strength. So, not really a Barbarian-like guy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Conan is a multiclass fighter/rogue in the books. He leans more barbarian in the movies. He is a cultural barbarian not a D&D class one.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

If the mage with a d6 hd, lower Con and no armor can survive to 4th, so can the armorless barb. It gets easier with a friendly mage armor, of course, but it's hardly unworkable.

==Aelryinth

To be fair, most of those wizards and sorcerers who survive to 4th do so by not making a career of putting themselves on the front line of melee. And even when playing smart they can put themselves at risk. I was gming a group in the last part of if the Ice series in PFS when the wizard in the party takes the initiative of trying to Sleep the end boss and her entourage. Unfortunately for him, his act of spellcasting triggered her readied action which was to hurl her flaming axe using her Hand of the Acolyte power at the first spell being cast, putting him down in one strike. (Fortunately the cleric in the group got him quickly back up so he was actually able to contribute meaningfully to the combat. What also helped his survival, was that he had a 12 con.)

Wizards who survive to the mid levels do so with a combination of luck, cooperation with a team, and minimizing the number of times they put themselves in direct fire.


Expostfacto wrote:
Conan is a multiclass fighter/rogue in the books. He leans more barbarian in the movies. He is a cultural barbarian not a D&D class one.

Cool. This is more along the lines of what I remember. Man, it's been too long.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Conan wore as much armor as he could reasonable get a hold of in the novels. The image of the loincloth brute mostly comes from cross media exaggerations. Some of the early Conan artwork depicted iconic scenes, such as one where he was stripped naked and tossed into a snake pit. Hence loincloth for decency. Such illustrations were multiplied into near constant near-nakedness once translated into comics and movies. It looked cool and barbaric, and such an image has been a fantasy trope for a long time. In reality, "primitive" cultures still used as much effective armor as their technology could afford to produce. Fur and leather protection goes back to paleolithic hunter-gatherer societies, and were important in hunting and possibly war.

One of the big problems with heavier armors is that it needs to be balanced for use at early levels. Considering how armor works in D&D, I feel this leads to the mistake of how equipment and level wealth was balanced when updating previous edition standards. So rather than focusing on a tax for heavy armor, we have small taxes and heavier mobility disadvantages. In history, anything more than moderate mobility disadvantages made an armor ineffective. Hence armor fell out of favor as cheap firearms meant only the heaviest awkward armors could reasonably withstand direct fire. In a way, Pathfinder is experiencing much of the same. Even though the taxes (proficiency and cost) of heavier armors is rather small, the benefit is not worthwhile for the disadvantages for many character builds. If there was a material as effective at making heavy armor less penalizing as mithril is with medium armors, heavy armor would make a big comeback. At the point the biggest hold back then becomes the synergy problems.

Personally, while I love D&D games, I vastly prefer systems that pit skill vs skill and equipment vs equipment when it comes to combat. In d20 Systems that would mean Armor Class is mostly determined by skill and usually referred to something like Defense, with armor and weapons being in conflict through a Damage Reduction type system.

Scarab Sages

JiCi wrote:

My major concern isn't about AC or speed... but the rest. You're heavier to climb, to crawl, to swim, to run (sometimes), to sneak, etc...

This is what I've understood when seeing builds: players want to be mobile and unburdened.

After a few levels, fighters won't be impeded. Armor Training means even a mid-level fighter has little reason not to wear full plate.

Scarab Sages

MrSin wrote:


Pretty sure only monk really has great AC while naked, relative to people who do wear armor anyway.

Monks and Kensai


Aelryinth wrote:

If the mage with a d6 hd, lower Con and no armor can survive to 4th, so can the armorless barb. It gets easier with a friendly mage armor, of course, but it's hardly unworkable.

And is there any reason they can't use a shield?

Plus, let it be said...people wear armor for a REASON. Making no armor better then armor makes no sense at all.

Trivia: You know the SOlar wears full plate armor? And not even CELESTIAL plate armor, and only gets a +1 Dex bonus to AC???

==Aelryinth

once again, the mage is playing at range.

Plus if you read again my post, I'm advocting to both the possibility to play naked and an improvement to full plates, unlike the current enviroment where mithril breastplat tend to be the king of armors


MrSin wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
And is there any reason they can't use a shield?
I don't know about you, but if I plan to go shirtless I don't plan to ruin that by bringing a shield.

Unless I have a red cloak, a spear and a greek helm.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Mobility builds usually involve the need for a lot of feats and magic items to compensate the 8 AC that you get for one set of full plate. . .


Artanthos wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Pretty sure only monk really has great AC while naked, relative to people who do wear armor anyway.
Monks and Kensai

Kensai tend to have worse AC than if they were armor in the first place though, unless you have mage armor on you, but that's not in class.

gustavo iglesias wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
And is there any reason they can't use a shield?
I don't know about you, but if I plan to go shirtless I don't plan to ruin that by bringing a shield.
Unless I have a red cloak, a spear and a greek helm.

Is Frank Miller your GM?


MrSin wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Pretty sure only monk really has great AC while naked, relative to people who do wear armor anyway.
Monks and Kensai

Kensai tend to have worse AC than if they were armor in the first place though, unless you have mage armor on you, but that's not in class.

Nope, Kensai can wear Darkleaf Leather armor with impunity. It has 0 ACP/SF%, and costs much less than bracers of armor.


Gherrick wrote:
Nope, Kensai can wear Darkleaf Leather armor with impunity. It has 0 ACP/SF%, and costs much less than bracers of armor.

In which case your not naked...


MrSin wrote:
Gherrick wrote:
Nope, Kensai can wear Darkleaf Leather armor with impunity. It has 0 ACP/SF%, and costs much less than bracers of armor.
In which case your not naked...

Yes, but my reply was to the comment about Kensai, "Kensai tend to have worse AC than if they were [in] armor".


Gherrick wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Gherrick wrote:
Nope, Kensai can wear Darkleaf Leather armor with impunity. It has 0 ACP/SF%, and costs much less than bracers of armor.
In which case your not naked...
Yes, but my reply was to the comment about Kensai, "Kensai tend to have worse AC than if they were [in] armor".

and... That's armor your wearing. Your wearing it to be better than if you were naked.

101 to 150 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is heavy armor becoming outdated? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.