Watch these guys run around in Full plate, and you can see the -6 penalty is rarely correct (except for he stealth part, sure).
http://www.openculture.com/2015/05/whats-it-like-to-fight-in-15th-century-a rmor.html
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dr. Deth, no offense but this isn't a rules question.
Flagging for another forum.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, not a rules question. Flagging to be moved.
Second, watching that video there are several things to note.
1) We do not see a comparison between how they do those same actions in and out of armor so we have no idea how much the armor is actually hindering them.
2) Several of those actions (such as the jumping up and kicking feet together) appear quite ungainly in armor.
Assuming that the person performing the maneuvers was proficient in the maneuver it appears to have been much more difficult in armor.
3) We have no idea how much people have practiced in that armor to do those things.
That could be akin to the fighter's class ability Armor Training, the trait Armor Expert, and/or having Masterwork armor.
Alternately, it could be akin to having many ranks in the skill.
4) We did not see them try to scale a wall without a ladder using either a rope or freeclimb (climb skill), walk a thin ledge (acrobatics skill), or swim in a lake/river (swim skill).
So, that video can neither support nor contradict a -6 penalty as it provides insufficient evidence but the person performing those maneuvers certainly did appear to be ungainly.
Actually I think it supports the -6 to an extent. A lot of those manoeuvers looked like they would definitely be a lot easier out of armour. The ACP doesn't say you can't do (x), but it makes it much harder.
No one is exactly claiming that the system is an entirely accurate representation of reality.
Longswords were often used for piercing, and half swording was a technique to hold the sword by the blade (wear gloves, obviously) and use the pommel and guard as a bludgeon. Short swords often had cutting edges. Armors often protected differently against different kinds of attacks, and did not just provide a generic benefit against everything.
We are working with a grandfathered system, which is more heavily influenced by pre 70's films than anything with real life. While it can be nice to adopt this rediscovered information, people originally came to pathfinder because they liked how the 3.5 system worked.
It is not in that much of a need for a major overhaul since it works well enough from a game balance perspective.
One of my houserules to PF is to drop what I consider the ridiculous armor penalties. Some MAY consider it unbalancing that a Person with full plate might be able to add that +5 or more DEX mod to their AC, but at the same time, normally it's going to be Rogues and others and that will have a high DEX and they will need to get a feat to wear that stuff (thus burning a feat that could have been more useful on other things) instead of the fighter or cleric.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't expect a whole lot of reality/historicity from D&D/Pathfinder weapons and armor. Their pretty bad.
You know what never existed historically (as far as we know): studded leather and banded mail.
You know what weapon sucked against most forms of armor (including padded armor): swords.
I don't like it either and I personally have looked at changing the value to something more reasonable but it is what it is.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who has worn plate armor that is both properly strapped and improperly strapped, I can attest to being able to be quite agile in properly strapped plate armor. It is not encumbering to move in, although the weight does make it harder to jump. It doesn't slow your movement and it's quite ease to tumble in.
Improperly strapped armor though, is a nightmare. A loose or tight strapping on a joint will make it almost impossible to move the affected limb, and will cause a movement penalty and a penalty to many skills.
I think the armor penalties of heavy plate are a legacy of a game system that never had anyone actually wear the stuff base the idea on woodcuts of a knight in jousting being lifted via pulley that were made as a joke.
I would say though that some of the helmets would provide penalties. Many of them provided a terrible field of vision in exchange for better protection.
We are working with a grandfathered system, which is more heavily influenced by pre 70's films than anything with real life. While it can be nice to adopt this rediscovered information, people originally came to pathfinder because they liked how the 3.5 system worked.
It is not in that much of a need for a major overhaul since it works well enough from a game balance perspective.
Except that in AD&D the better armor you had- the better. In other words, the penalties for wearing Full Plate didnt outweigh the advantages.
And, what's so Game balancing" about it? Wouldnt making heavy armor better make the martials better?
Don't expect a whole lot of reality/historicity from D&D/Pathfinder weapons and armor. Their pretty bad.
You know what never existed historically (as far as we know): studded leather and banded mail.
Scale mail had also gone out of style about the time of the Romans. It was replaced by brigandine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what never existed historically (as far as we know): studded leather and banded mail.
I always thought DnD banded mail was supposed to be like roman Lorica segmentata. Which was a real thing.
See you at the swimming pool.
Or trying to swim across the river.
Or climbing a rock, tree, anything.
Or hiking for several days in mountains.
Or jumping from a ledge to another.
You'll feel why there's Armour Check Penalty to skills. It's not a stat I enjoy and I feel the use of different armours is non existent in Pathfinder, mostly because of this and Max dex stat, however it probably is very realistic when it comes to many skills.
(Though the video and the recognition that fighting in plate was not as arduous as portrayed I can agree with)
I always thought DnD banded mail was supposed to be like roman Lorica segmentata. Which was a real thing.You know what never existed historically (as far as we know): studded leather and banded mail.
They DO look surprisingly similar...don't they!
See you at the swimming pool.
Or trying to swim across the river.
Or climbing a rock, tree, anything.
Or hiking for several days in mountains.
Or jumping from a ledge to another.
You'll feel why there's Armour Check Penalty to skills. It's not a stat I enjoy and I feel the use of different armours is non existent in Pathfinder, mostly because of this and Max dex stat, however it probably is very realistic when it comes to many skills.
(Though the video and the recognition that fighting in plate was not as arduous as portrayed I can agree with)
Actually, surprisingly...been there...done that...next question.
(well, in truth it wasn't in plate, it was body armor...but similar idea/principle in how it would restrict you doing those things...)
Is this gonna lead back to no swimming in full plate under any circumstances, even str 40 with armor training.
How did you find it, how did it restrict you, if at all, in those endeavours?
Hiking for 3 days with a 10 kilo backpack across mountains is tough, so I am only inclined to believe so much about easy rock hoping in full plate, but I admit I have no direct experience.
You do that and you take away one of the major advantages fighters still have, armor training to reduce these penalties.
Make it a flat plus to AC instead.
We are working with a grandfathered system, which is more heavily influenced by pre 70's films than anything with real life. While it can be nice to adopt this rediscovered information, people originally came to pathfinder because they liked how the 3.5 system worked.
It is not in that much of a need for a major overhaul since it works well enough from a game balance perspective.
Except that in AD&D the better armor you had- the better. In other words, the penalties for wearing Full Plate didnt outweigh the advantages.
And, what's so Game balancing" about it? Wouldnt making heavy armor better make the martials better?
I meant more grandfathered from 3.5, but eh. I am not sure if we should go much into the 'balance' of the early editions....
And the general balance of armor system that was brought over to pf is that higher armor comes with the price of higher ACP and reduced speed, but it meant you do not need to invest as much in dex. Full plate+12 dex worked out to +10 AC, while a regular chain shirt and 18 dex worked out to +8.
There are work arounds of course, but that was the basic set up.
It also supposed that most characters in heavy armor would not work much with dex skills (stealth, disable device) and that the str skills (swim, climb) could be made up for with their higher str bonus than the guy investing heavily in dex. So the ACP would not be as large of an issue for them a lot of the time.
Are these assumptions necessarily true? Not entirely, but they work well enough that the issues are usually speed bumps.
SIDENOTE- I feel that, even if you suppose that armors are not that hard to move in, the ACP to stealth is still fair. Mostly because a large number of plates moving against eachother still causes quite a bit of sound.
How did you find it, how did it restrict you, if at all, in those endeavours?
Hiking for 3 days with a 10 kilo backpack across mountains is tough, so I am only inclined to believe so much about easy rock hoping in full plate, but I admit I have no direct experience.
To tell the truth, I had a pack on as well. It was 15 to 20 Kilos (using that scale) and was FAR more brutal on me than anything else. In fact, the particular outing I am remembering, that pack was KILLER!
Unfortunately, everything I needed for living was in the packs, or I would have ditched them.
If anything, from that experience, I'd say armor is FAR less restrictive than the Packs adventurers probably carry!
