Deadliest Warrior is a fun show that would pit two warriors against each other in a gladiator style combat, such a Spartan vs Ninja, or Knight vs Pirate. One of the episodes they did was Joan of Arc vs William the Conqueror, and one of the things they tested for that episode was the flexibility and movement of armor.
Granted, this show is by no means the definitive test that ends all tests, but it's still something that's interesting and should be kept in mind.
Deadliest Warrior: Plate vs Chianmail starts at around 28:35 if the link doesn't work. In this episode, we also see realistic speeds of crossbows if I remember correctly.
Would an archer in full plate be at a speed and accuracy disadvantage compared to a an archer in street clothes? The answer pretty much has to be yes, doesn't it?No, it doesn't. It can be, but it doesn't have to be.Yes it does. While knights being helpless turtles is a ridiculous exaggeration, there's a very good reason that runners, gymnasts and fencers try to shed every last ounce they can. No matter how well balanced or crafted, 40 pounds of steel is going to slow you down quite a bit.
40 lbs strapped to your limbs like armor is vastly different from 40 lbs on your back or in your hands. Like TOZ says, you get used to wearing that kind of weight if you do it everyday and train in it. When my brother was in the Marine Corps I think that is about what he carried every day and it never slowed him down.
I would be more worried about the heat than the weight.
EDIT: Hell, I've heard full chainmail is worse than plate since it hangs on you instead of being strapped to your limbs and body.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the rules already cover the restrictive and slowing nature of armor.
A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dexterity - and Strength -based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.
If you think this penalty isn't enough and want to add more, knock yourself out. Me, I'm fine with the rule as-is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot train away the laws of biology or physics. Moving more mass is always going to take more out of you, especially if that weight is at an extremity. The saying for hikers is that a pound on your feet is like 10 pounds on your back.
Sure, if you're in the military you can certainly be slowed a lot less after you're used to the weight, but take it off and you'll go even faster.
Mind you, I'm fine with the abstraction of armor NOT actually doing this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry when was the last time you saw a normal human take a quick dip in a pool of lava and come out alive?
Your physics have no place here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot train away the laws of biology or physics.Which laws? The real world laws or the game world ones we write ourselves?
The disparity between the two is part of the subject of this thread. (the internal silliness being the other half)
At 16th level, a Sohei, and only a Sohei, can theoretically hit 9 attacks in six seconds (10 with Ki). Which is still not as much as that. More like 5/6 that speed. Zen Archers max out at 7 (8 with Ki), everyone else at 6.
10?
- 7 from Flurry- 1 with Ki
- 1 with Rapid Shot
Where's your 10th attack?
Honestly, the rules already cover the restrictive and slowing nature of armor.
A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dexterity - and Strength -based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.If you think this penalty isn't enough and want to add more, knock yourself out. Me, I'm fine with the rule as-is.
Have to agree on this point. The rules cover armor being heavy and restricting just fine, and also cover the fact that with the proper training you mitigate (but not completely remove) the restrictions. The only way to completely remove the negative effects of heavy armor is through magical effects/materials, or superhuman levels of training (High level Fighter).
At 16th level, a Sohei, and only a Sohei, can theoretically hit 9 attacks in six seconds (10 with Ki). Which is still not as much as that. More like 5/6 that speed. Zen Archers max out at 7 (8 with Ki), everyone else at 6.10?
- 7 from Flurry
- 1 with Ki
- 1 with Rapid ShotWhere's your 10th attack?
manyshot
Rapid shot and Manyshot actually stack
you can get an 11th from haste
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry when was the last time you saw a normal human take a quick dip in a pool of lava and come out alive?
Your physics have no place here.
20d6 damage will kill any normal human in Pathfinder. High-level PCs are abnormal.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Jaggar Museum, in Volcanoes National Park, on the Big Island of Hawai'i, has (the remains of) a heat-resistant suit worn by man who was engulfed higher than the knee in molten lava.
He survived, and even managed to keep his legs.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
20d6 damage will kill any normal human in Pathfinder. High-level PCs are abnormal.I'm sorry when was the last time you saw a normal human take a quick dip in a pool of lava and come out alive?
Your physics have no place here.
And high level PCs are the only ones who can fire 6 arrows a round in Full Plate too so...
The disparity between the two is part of the subject of this thread. (the internal silliness being the other half)You cannot train away the laws of biology or physics.Which laws? The real world laws or the game world ones we write ourselves?
I actually disagree; while you may take the "absurd" part of the title to mean 'where the game rules clash with reality', I take it to mean 'where the game rules impinge on the game's fun'; as long as the game requires a degree of suspension of disbelief for the dozens of fantasy races and monsters and people capable of warping reality with an utterance, I'm ok with extending that suspension of disbelief to whether someone can adequately fire an arrow, while clad in full plate, so long as everyone is still having fun.
In fact, if the game clung too heavily to reality, I'd probably consider those rules "absurd" because you're talking about a high fantasy game, where even your mundane mortal heroes are greater than your average human.
|
At 16th level, a Sohei, and only a Sohei, can theoretically hit 9 attacks in six seconds (10 with Ki). Which is still not as much as that. More like 5/6 that speed. Zen Archers max out at 7 (8 with Ki), everyone else at 6.10?
- 7 from Flurry
- 1 with Ki
- 1 with Rapid ShotWhere's your 10th attack?
manyshot
Rapid shot and Manyshot actually stack
you can get an 11th from haste
This. I left out magic because, y'know, I was comparing them to real-world speeds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No matter how well balanced or crafted, 40 pounds of steel is going to slow you down quite a bit.Not if you've been training for it.
Protective gear usually is a handicap at pretty much everything you do, except for not-bleeding. Can't speak about modern military, but I know that Hockey players are better/faster/stronger without all their equipment. Off course they wouldn't last one good check...
I know for sure I'm better at everything I do without my suppostedly top-of-line harness when working in heights, but I guess I'll be thankful for all those lost minutes worth of lost efficiency when I do fall and live to tell the tale.
But beyond the penalties it already gives, I doubt that making armours even more restrictive would add anything to the game.
Why? Who does that help?The fact that a guy in full armor can fire a bow with all of the speed and accuracy of some one in light or no armor.
New home rule for the next game I GM. some form of penalty to shooting bows while wearing medium or heavy armor.
Justify the existence of crossbowmen?
Justify the existence of crossbowmen?Why? Who does that help?The fact that a guy in full armor can fire a bow with all of the speed and accuracy of some one in light or no armor.
New home rule for the next game I GM. some form of penalty to shooting bows while wearing medium or heavy armor.
I doubt it. It's not like you really need a ton of AC as an archer anyway.
You cannot train away the laws of biology or physics. Moving more mass is always going to take more out of you, especially if that weight is at an extremity. The saying for hikers is that a pound on your feet is like 10 pounds on your back.
I explain it this way ... who says the armor in the game world is like ours? Typically, a game world has been using the same type of weapons and armor for thousands of years, far longer than we did in the real world. It's perfectly logical to me that, if they weren't advancing their technology, they'd perfect and improve on what they have. Thus, game world armor would be better than historical counterparts.
If your world has prevalent enough magic that craftsmen are capable of using magic to assist their crafting, it makes even more sense.
Doesn't boiling water deal fire damage? Last I checked, fire spells used underwater creates steam bubbles, which is still fire damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt it. It's not like you really need a ton of AC as an archer anyway.Justify the existence of crossbowmen?Why? Who does that help?The fact that a guy in full armor can fire a bow with all of the speed and accuracy of some one in light or no armor.
New home rule for the next game I GM. some form of penalty to shooting bows while wearing medium or heavy armor.
True, which means it wouldn't hurt archers much then. Regardless of who it wouldn't hurt, the question remains: "who would it help?"
Versimilitude to real-life experience perhaps, or to closer simulation of historical combat... I agree that it wouldn't add much to the game.
(but I still think it would give something to the crossbow, which atm is just an inferior choice)
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't boiling water deal fire damage? Last I checked, fire spells used underwater creates steam bubbles, which is still fire damage.Unfortunately, no. What the PRD/Core rulebook say is this:
Boiling water deals 1d6 points of scalding damage, unless the character is fully immersed, in which case it deals 10d6 points of damage per round of exposure.
Emphasis mine.
Should that say fire? Probably. Will 99% of people just use fire, even in PFS? Yes. Are the remaining 1% being twits? Probably.
But that's the topic of the thread: rules you ignore or change because you don't like them or they're clearly wrong.
(but I still think it would give something to the crossbow, which atm is just an inferior choice)
Restricting the Snap Shot feat line to crossbows and guns could help reduce the supremacy of bows in your game.
(but I still think it would give something to the crossbow, which atm is just an inferior choice)Restricting the Snap Shot feat line to crossbows and guns could help reduce the supremacy of bows in your game.
Unfortunately for the "mental image" stand poitn, snap shot for crossbows make relly few sense.
For crossbows I would really like a rule for one big hit instead of volleyes of arrows.
(but I still think it would give something to the crossbow, which atm is just an inferior choice)Restricting the Snap Shot feat line to crossbows and guns could help reduce the supremacy of bows in your game.Unfortunately for the "mental image" stand poitn, snap shot for crossbows make relly few sense.
For crossbows I would really like a rule for one big hit instead of volleyes of arrows.
Perhaps something like the Gunslinger's Dead Shot deed converted into a feat?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps something like the Gunslinger's Dead Shot deed converted into a feat?(but I still think it would give something to the crossbow, which atm is just an inferior choice)Restricting the Snap Shot feat line to crossbows and guns could help reduce the supremacy of bows in your game.Unfortunately for the "mental image" stand poitn, snap shot for crossbows make relly few sense.
For crossbows I would really like a rule for one big hit instead of volleyes of arrows.
Not sure, just something that make them diferent from longbow. As now crossbows are just bad bows, I would like a separete mechanics so they are wothwhile while diferent.
EDIT: Actually, not a feat. Just the mechanic of the weapon. In real life Crossbow shoot more slower than bows but in real life crossbows penetreate armor much better and the diference between 1d8 and 1d10 is not significative, speciallytaking into account str to damage.
Unfortunately for the "mental image" stand poitn, snap shot for crossbows make relly few sense.
How so? My idea was a crossbow or gun is loaded and only requires a trigger-pull. A bow requires a draw, which while fast is not as fast as pulling a trigger.
How so? My idea was a crossbow or gun is loaded and only requires a trigger-pull. A bow requires a draw, which while fast is not as fast as pulling a trigger.
Unfortunately for the "mental image" stand poitn, snap shot for crossbows make relly few sense.
That is assuming the crossbow is unloaded (in that case it make a lot of sense). What about improved snap shot and combat rreflexes for 3 AoO?
I doubt it. It's not like you really need a ton of AC as an archer anyway.Justify the existence of crossbowmen?Why? Who does that help?The fact that a guy in full armor can fire a bow with all of the speed and accuracy of some one in light or no armor.
New home rule for the next game I GM. some form of penalty to shooting bows while wearing medium or heavy armor.
True, which means it wouldn't hurt archers much then. Regardless of who it wouldn't hurt, the question remains: "who would it help?"
Versimilitude to real-life experience perhaps, or to closer simulation of historical combat... I agree that it wouldn't add much to the game.
(but I still think it would give something to the crossbow, which atm is just an inferior choice)
amazed to see the thread hijacked by my little comment.
for me its simply a balance issue. I like to see trade offs. focused archers get to do huge amounts of damage due to the benefit of pretty much always getting a full attack without regards to positioning. the trade off should be that when they get caught in melee they are in greater danger of getting hurt.
Melee has to work much harder to full attack but they get to benefit from more defences.
its really just a pet peeve. bassed on my personal idea of balance.
for me its simply a balance issue. I like to see trade offs. focused archers get to do huge amounts of damage due to the benefit of pretty much always getting a full attack without regards to positioning. the trade off should be that when they get caught in melee they are in greater danger of getting hurt.
But, Typical archers wears light or medium armor due to max dex cap. Only fighter (or people wth the absurd mithral celestial palte) can wear a heavy armor and add a lot of dex to it.
Or even a modern military bullet-resistant vest. You'll understand.12 years active duty.
I actually find my SCA armor to be easier to move around in than my old army ballistic body armor ever was.
My SCA armor is probably about the equivalent of Half-Plate. It's metal on the chest, back, thighs, shins and shoulders with the rest being reinforced leather.
I couldn't sword fight in my ballistic armor, but that isn't what it's made for, so no big deal.
My SCA armor I can do cartwheels in.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The size category rules, in general, are completely borked.
My SCA armor I can do cartwheels in.
Heh. Doubtless true, but would you trust it to keep you whole in a live steel fight? Good enough against rattan and two inches of progressive give is one thing...good enough against an angry husband swinging a mace at you after an "oops" at a cloven-fruit revel...that's another thing. ;)
What about improved snap shot and combat rreflexes for 3 AoO?
Works if you have Rapid Reload. Otherwise no.
The size category rules, in general, are completely borked.
I COMPLETELY AGREE!!!!!!!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My SCA armor I can do cartwheels in.Heh. Doubtless true, but would you trust it to keep you whole in a live steel fight? Good enough against rattan and two inches of progressive give is one thing...good enough against an angry husband swinging a mace at you after an "oops" at a cloven-fruit revel...that's another thing. ;)
I do SCA because where i live there's no ARMA organization. My armor *has* been used in live steel practice. Its the real deal, with patches, scrapes and dents to prove it.
I'm a fight choreographer for film and stage. Knowing how all this works, what is realistic and what isn't, is very necessary to my trade.
I do SCA because where i live there's no ARMA organization. My armor *has* been used in live steel practice. Its the real deal, with patches, scrapes and dents to prove it.
I'm not questioning the quality of your equipment or the skill with which you use it, I promise. I'm just wondering if you would you trust it to keep you alive in full speed really-trying-to-kill-each-other combat?
We both know there's a difference between live steel practice, choreographed fights, and a real-deal battle. If there weren't, we wouldn't need safety checks and combat rules, we'd just go at it and rely on the gear to keep us in one piece.
^ Note that if your answer is "Yes, absolutely" then I really want the name of your armorer. Seriously. Shoot me a PM.
Again, I have to ask the question of relevance; I fail to see how the question of whether real armor would impinge significantly on fighting matters in a game defined by high fantasy tropes, a big one of which is the Full plate clad Knight. I mean, the ACP already exists, to explain how wearing armor impinges on physical skills. Isn't that enough for verisimilitude?
Again, I have to ask the question of relevance; I fail to see how the question of whether real armor would impinge significantly on fighting matters in a game defined by high fantasy tropes, a big one of which is the Full plate clad Knight. I mean, the ACP already exists, to explain how wearing armor impinges on physical skills. Isn't that enough for verisimilitude?
Sure, works for me. Some people find it absurd though, so they houserule a solution that makes more sense to them. If they do, they don't need to justify why they find it absurd, any more than we need to change their minds.
I'm not trying to prove a point here and make anyone see it one way or another. I'm just asking someone with relevant experience a question. Full stop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weapons provide no defensive benefit: its just as easy to hit an unarmed man as one that can parry.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Antagonize. A tabletop RPG with a live GM does not need an aggro mechanic. A monster should not be so scary that widows and orphans run towards it with intent to kill. The diplomacy half of teh feat should be the entire feat.
Concur'd, for that and many other reasons. The Intimidate portion has been permabanned from our games ever since it debuted.
Antagonize. A tabletop RPG with a live GM does not need an aggro mechanic. A monster should not be so scary that widows and orphans run towards it with intent to kill. The diplomacy half of teh feat should be the entire feat.Concur'd, for that and many other reasons. The Intimidate portion has been permabanned from our games ever since it debuted.
Honestly, I'm not sure of it's goal, but it reads like someone saw the 4th edition marking mechanic, and thought "Well, for all the edition's faults, that seems like a good mechanic" but failed to understand the underlying design decisions behind it. If I had to guess, I'd say the intimidate version was a later add-on, after the designers found the Diplomacy version underwhelming. The issue being, in 4e, the -2 is designed around ACs which aren't too far from one another, which is not true in pathfinder. As such, even with the -2 penalty, the enemy still has a better chance to hit the wizard or the rogue than the fighter, and there's nothing else which would dissuade a smart enemy from attacking them instead (such as provoking an AoO by doing so). Someone, I'm sure, decided boosting the penalty would be too much, so instead, they added the Intimidate option, which brings all the problems previously noted.
Meanwhile, the diplomacy half still sucks and the Intimidate half is banned at most tables, so it ended up being a wasted feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do SCA because where i live there's no ARMA organization. My armor *has* been used in live steel practice. Its the real deal, with patches, scrapes and dents to prove it.I'm not questioning the quality of your equipment or the skill with which you use it, I promise. I'm just wondering if you would you trust it to keep you alive in full speed really-trying-to-kill-each-other combat?
We both know there's a difference between live steel practice, choreographed fights, and a real-deal battle. If there weren't, we wouldn't need safety checks and combat rules, we'd just go at it and rely on the gear to keep us in one piece.
Armor is good, but really what protects you in a fight is skill. I'm pretty good at what I do (by no means great, but good). In my experience, armor's primary function is to allow you to take risks, and to save you if you get blindsided. Armor is great for mass combat where you can't ever see in all directions at once and sometimes people just come out of nowhere and clobber you. In a one-on-one fight, I actually prefer to be much more lightly armored. I want forearm and shin protection, a helmet and a chest piece, and that's about it. The reason is because of footwork.
My own armor I would trust to get me through a real fight, but only because I have pretty good trust in my own skill to get me through a real fight. The armor is just an added bonus. It's not going to save me from a clean thrust or a solid hit from a mass weapon, but it will definitely deflect and cushion most hits and let me ride them in to close for my own counter.
To my knowledge most armor is like that to some degree or another. [uel=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwUALmpmPOw]This clip[/url] is the best example of how armor actually works that I've ever seen in cinema. You'll notice that he moves well in it, gets up with almost no additional effort, and actively uses it against his opponent.
I'd call what he's wearing Half Plate in game terms.
|
|
Antagonize. A tabletop RPG with a live GM does not need an aggro mechanic. A monster should not be so scary that widows and orphans run towards it with intent to kill. The diplomacy half of teh feat should be the entire feat.Concur'd, for that and many other reasons. The Intimidate portion has been permabanned from our games ever since it debuted.Honestly, I'm not sure of it's goal, but it reads like someone saw the 4th edition marking mechanic, and thought "Well, for all the edition's faults, that seems like a good mechanic" but failed to understand the underlying design decisions behind it. If I had to guess, I'd say the intimidate version was a later add-on, after the designers found the Diplomacy version underwhelming. The issue being, in 4e, the -2 is designed around ACs which aren't too far from one another, which is not true in pathfinder. As such, even with the -2 penalty, the enemy still has a better chance to hit the wizard or the rogue than the fighter, and there's nothing else which would dissuade a smart enemy from attacking them instead (such as provoking an AoO by doing so). Someone, I'm sure, decided boosting the penalty would be too much, so instead, they added the Intimidate option, which brings all the problems previously noted.
Meanwhile, the diplomacy half still sucks and the Intimidate half is banned at most tables, so it ended up being a wasted feat.
Yeah, I actually appreciate the intent behind the Diplomacy portion, and the core idea is something I think could be built upon.
But the Intimidate portion...it takes the game to a place I don't want to go.
Antagonize. A tabletop RPG with a live GM does not need an aggro mechanic. A monster should not be so scary that widows and orphans run towards it with intent to kill. The diplomacy half of teh feat should be the entire feat.Concur'd, for that and many other reasons. The Intimidate portion has been permabanned from our games ever since it debuted.Honestly, I'm not sure of it's goal, but it reads like someone saw the 4th edition marking mechanic, and thought "Well, for all the edition's faults, that seems like a good mechanic" but failed to understand the underlying design decisions behind it. If I had to guess, I'd say the intimidate version was a later add-on, after the designers found the Diplomacy version underwhelming. The issue being, in 4e, the -2 is designed around ACs which aren't too far from one another, which is not true in pathfinder. As such, even with the -2 penalty, the enemy still has a better chance to hit the wizard or the rogue than the fighter, and there's nothing else which would dissuade a smart enemy from attacking them instead (such as provoking an AoO by doing so). Someone, I'm sure, decided boosting the penalty would be too much, so instead, they added the Intimidate option, which brings all the problems previously noted.
Meanwhile, the diplomacy half still sucks and the Intimidate half is banned at most tables, so it ended up being a wasted feat.
Yeah, I actually appreciate the intent behind the Diplomacy portion, and the core idea is something I think could be built upon.
But the Intimidate portion...it takes the game to a place I don't want to go.
Back when I allowed it, I tended to house-rule it that it doesn't work on noncombatants, since... no, I'm the DM and I say no. But even without that, it still has problems.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it absurd that the heavy plate armors are more encumbering than the medium chain armors. It's annoyingly unrealistic. They're a bit heavier, but much better supported. Plate is like a backpack, chain like a sack slung over your shoulder. You can comfortably carry much more in the backpack.
As for noisiness, I think clinking chain and clanking plate isn't that far off each other. It's probably easier to muffle plate actually.
I understand the game balance consideration - medium armor needs to be useful too. But that's the problem you get when you mix armors from different historical periods - some of these were just advanced technology compared to each other.
Really, the balancing mechanic ought to be that heavy armor is just really really expensive. But that doesn't work because WBL provides for even more expensive magic items than that.
I'm unhappy but don't have a good solution handy.