Ever wonder why a large fullplate grants as much protection as a small one?
I mean, weapon damage scales up or down, so why not armors and shields? A Huge breastplate is certainly thicker, thus more durable, so...
Ever wonder why a large fullplate grants as much protection as a small one?
I mean, weapon damage scales up or down, so why not armors and shields? A Huge breastplate is certainly thicker, thus more durable, so...
Larger armor also has larger gaps to attack through.
The problem exist with spells, for creatures above huge most AoE spells are really just single target reflex save spells when fighting against things their own size. But on the other end of the spectrum they are WMD scale things that can level city blocks. But it comes to balance for the most part. If bigger armor was better and smaller worse then it would invalidate the size bonuses/penalties for AC and exacerbate them for attacks. Giants would have a huge time hitting each other while pixies would probably abandon armor altogether.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Put on a medium sized woman shirt, then put on a 2x large sized men shirt.
Both are sized for a medium sized creature in Pathfinder terms, but feel and acts very differently. This is why you don't wear some thing not sized for you.
Shields are also weapons and are strapped on not worn. The AC would stay the same no matter what size. Just damage and weapon size would change. Light/1-handed/2-handed. Look up inappropriate sized weapons for more details.
To Fuzzy-Wuzzy, those are price and weight guides, not AC and rule for wearing inappropriate sized armor.
There are no rules for inappropriate sized armor.
Put on a medium sized woman shirt, then put on a 2x large sized men shirt.
Both are sized for a medium sized creature in Pathfinder terms, but feel and acts very differently. This is why you don't wear some thing not sized for you.Shields are also weapons and are strapped on not worn. The AC would stay the same no matter what size. Just damage and weapon size would change. Light/1-handed/2-handed. Look up inappropriate sized weapons for more details.
To Fuzzy-Wuzzy, those are price and weight guides, not AC and rule for wearing inappropriate sized armor.
There are no rules for inappropriate sized armor.
Tiny or smaller*
*Divide armor bonus by 2.There is a note by Tiny or smaller armor.
So there is.
Who wants to jump in tiny full plate the size of your shoe?
Put on a medium sized woman shirt, then put on a 2x large sized men shirt.
Both are sized for a medium sized creature in Pathfinder terms, but feel and acts very differently. This is why you don't wear some thing not sized for you.Shields are also weapons and are strapped on not worn. The AC would stay the same no matter what size. Just damage and weapon size would change. Light/1-handed/2-handed. Look up inappropriate sized weapons for more details.
To Fuzzy-Wuzzy, those are price and weight guides, not AC and rule for wearing inappropriate sized armor.
There are no rules for inappropriate sized armor.
That isn't the question at all. IT isn't about a Medium-sized user wearing a Large-sized suit of armor. The question is why does an ogre (or a titan) receive the same defensive bonus from their appropriate size armor then a human does wearing his appropriate armor. Why is full-plate designed for a colossal creature (presumably being thicker) no more protective than full-plate designed for a human?
Because even if the armor gets thicker, the gaps between plates/links does so as well.
For shields, it isn't as clear. Why does a Medium-sized shield grant the same defensive bonus as a Large-sized shield that is thicker and much larger?
Ultimately, the answer is "because the rules say so".
The real question is how do swords used by medium creatures even do significant damage to colossal creatures anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real question is how do swords used by medium creatures even do significant damage to colossal creatures anyway.
This is something that can be fixed without even changing the ruleset. Just give ever-increasing DR to size categories.
If you decrease the armor by 50% for tiny and smaller, should you increase the armor by 50% for huge and larger?
I'm not asking RAW, because obviously it doesn't address the issue. However, it would make sense. If you are that big, shouldn't your entire barracks worth of Iron armor be more effective? Especially given how large and thick it would need to be to protect you from others your size?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't speak for the design team and developers, but I can think of one reason why weapon damage scales but armor and shield bonuses don't:
HP.
Specifically, as creatures grow in size, they get greater and greater bonuses to Constitution, which then adds on hp. Or for certain creature types, their size goes up, they get more bonus hp. If we added on more armor/shield bonuses (and remember, natural armor bonuses go up too), bigger creatures would become incredible ways to bog down combat. Too hard to hit, too many hp when they do hit: casters would end up having to take over the martials' job of dealing damage. Not that they can't do it and do it well, but it'd be one more issue to contend with on the caster/martial disparity front.
Has anyone ever wore a shirt that was too small or big?
I can not cover my skin and move in a shirt too small.
Wear a shirt too big and it snags on things all the time. Saw it catch on fire once while the guy was wearing it.
Armor must be fitted to the wearer. That's it. Otherwise it would cause endless problems.
Full plate states you must have it individually fitted and gives prices on how to reshape it to you. As long as they are both size.
Why does a Medium-sized shield grant the same defensive bonus as a Large-sized shield that is thicker and much larger?
The amount of their body that is not covered by the shield at any given time is also larger.
Vince, I don't think anyone is proposing wearing inappropriately sized armor. Rather, the question is why a Large creature wearing Large full plate gets the same armor bonus as a Medium creature wearing Medium full plate even though <reasons>.
(If I'm wrong and someone is proposing wearing armor that doesn't fit you, it'd help for them to say so explicitly.)
Oh... Thank you Fuzzy-Wuzzy.
What Matthew Downie is saying is right on track then.
Thickness of metal in armor is for sundering, item HP/AC and the material amount used in armor is proportionate to the size of the user of that armor. Ex) A bigger shirt needs more cloth.
The user of armor does not get more AC for being a larger size because AC is based on how much of the body it covers, not how thick it is. Full plate cover almost everything, that is why it has one of the highest AC. Tower shield too.
The real question is how do swords used by medium creatures even do significant damage to colossal creatures anyway.
Realistically? Well, for realism, take any 3rd level fighter and pit him against any colossal creature and you'll have your "realistic" results.
Why do 20th level fighters do damage to them with normal sized swords? They're heroes who are built around a tradition of heroes killing big monsters. They fiction is designed so that this is possible.
I'd like to buy all the arguments/explanations for larger armor not getting extra bonus, but AFAICT they should all apply to smaller sizes too... and Tiny armor only gives half the bonus. Why?
never mind, I was mistaken
Tiny armor does not give half the bonuses, the table you quoted is for prices and weights... a tiny creature in full plate will have the same AC as a medium one also in full place, given corrections that tiny has an AC bonus and that the tiny creature may have more dexterity than the medium one (yeah, dx bonus in full plate does not go far, but still)
Read the table again. There is a star (*) by "Tiny or smaller" that means, if you read the bottom of the table, that those armors receive half the normal armor bonus.
Tiny armor does not give half the bonuses, the table you quoted is for prices and weights... a tiny creature in full plate will have the same AC as a medium one also in full place, given corrections that tiny has an AC bonus and that the tiny creature may have more dexterity than the medium one (yeah, dx bonus in full plate does not go far, but still)Read the table again. There is a star (*) by "Tiny or smaller" that means, if you read the bottom of the table, that those armors receive half the normal armor bonus.
^This, and my apologies for not referencing the footnote explicitly.
Tiny armor does not give half the bonuses, the table you quoted is for prices and weights... a tiny creature in full plate will have the same AC as a medium one also in full place, given corrections that tiny has an AC bonus and that the tiny creature may have more dexterity than the medium one (yeah, dx bonus in full plate does not go far, but still)
Linked by Fuzzy-Wuzzy and quoted by SorrySleeping in this very thread from the CRB:
Tiny or smaller*
*Divide armor bonus by 2.
There is a note by Tiny or smaller armor.
So yes, at tiny or smaller AC from armour is halved. At a certain point presumably the armour has to be crafted so thin it loses some effectiveness. Not that many usually high dex based tiny creatures will want armour...
I'd like to buy all the arguments/explanations for larger armor not getting extra bonus, but AFAICT they should all apply to smaller sizes too... and Tiny armor only gives half the bonus. Why?
You could say at this point the armor is so thin (tiny platemail would be about half a millimetre thick) it's not going to do much to protect you from a medium-sized barbarian hitting you with a greataxe.
But that argument could equally be applied to huge creatures attacking PCs. So I think the correct answer is "Pathfinder rules are not entirely consistent".
I don't get why a tiny humanoid in full plate would be AC 15 rather than 19... ok, I guess that's 17 counting the size bonus to AC... but I don't get it.
And if a Tiny, armor-wearing creature is subject to enlarge person, or a Small one to reduce person, do you (de)apply the effects of that rule, or what?
Armor and Shield are about how NOT to get hit... they counter Attack Bonus, not damage.
Damage is about how much you get hurt from a hit -- Armor and Shield are no longer relevant at that point.
Creature size is incorporated into the Size Modifier. Larger creatures are easier to hit, but less likely to hit others smaller than themselves. The modifiers for Attack and Armor Class are a wash for the same size creature ... but make it increasingly hard for larger creatures to hit smaller ones. That's where your size differential appears in the rules.
The Armor as DR variant rules are where you would expect to see the size of the Armor maybe make a difference. In core, as Lathiira mentioned, the abstraction known as Hit Points takes care of that. Differing damage for Larger and Smaller weapons reflects that, as well, since Large, Huge, Gargantuan weapons are meant to be used by Large, Huge, and Gargantuan creatures ... and so on.
|
Armor and Shield are about how NOT to get hit... they counter Attack Bonus, not damage.
Damage is about how much you get hurt from a hit -- Armor and Shield are no longer relevant at that point.
Creature size is incorporated into the Size Modifier. Larger creatures are easier to hit, but less likely to hit others smaller than themselves. The modifiers for Attack and Armor Class are a wash for the same size creature ... but make it increasingly hard for larger creatures to hit smaller ones. That's where your size differential appears in the rules.
The Armor as DR variant rules are where you would expect to see the size of the Armor maybe make a difference. In core, as Lathiira mentioned, the abstraction known as Hit Points takes care of that. Differing damage for Larger and Smaller weapons reflects that, as well, since Large, Huge, Gargantuan weapons are meant to be used by Large, Huge, and Gargantuan creatures ... and so on.
Except the armor bonus to AC is about preventing damage. The implication is that the armor prevents the damage due to absorbing the hit. So, no, you're not getting hit (as in the specific mechanical term in Pathfinder), but the assumption is that your armor is being struck and preventing the damage. It stands to reason that sturdier armor would be more resilient (which is why full plate provides more AC than chainmail), so it makes sense that larger sized armor would offer more protection, just as smaller sized armor offers less.
Except the armor bonus to AC is about preventing damage. The implication is that the armor prevents the damage due to absorbing the hit. So, no, you're not getting hit (as in the specific mechanical term in Pathfinder), but the assumption is that your armor is being struck and preventing the damage. It stands to reason that sturdier armor would be more resilient (which is why full plate provides more AC than chainmail), so it makes sense that larger sized armor would offer more protection, just as smaller sized armor offers less.Armor and Shield are about how NOT to get hit... they counter Attack Bonus, not damage.
Damage is about how much you get hurt from a hit -- Armor and Shield are no longer relevant at that point.
Creature size is incorporated into the Size Modifier. Larger creatures are easier to hit, but less likely to hit others smaller than themselves. The modifiers for Attack and Armor Class are a wash for the same size creature ... but make it increasingly hard for larger creatures to hit smaller ones. That's where your size differential appears in the rules.
The Armor as DR variant rules are where you would expect to see the size of the Armor maybe make a difference. In core, as Lathiira mentioned, the abstraction known as Hit Points takes care of that. Differing damage for Larger and Smaller weapons reflects that, as well, since Large, Huge, Gargantuan weapons are meant to be used by Large, Huge, and Gargantuan creatures ... and so on.
I'd more aim for huge and up getting dr from armors cause it's so thick. Good armor's not gonna make you harder to hit when you are in "broadside of a barn" size categories. But once you're in the huge and up family. That plate armors thick enough to give an abrams tank some trouble.
The tiny and smaller halving the ac bonus makes sense since when you are THAT small wearable armor isn't going to make a sizeable difference.
|
|
Good armor's not gonna make you harder to hit when you are in "broadside of a barn" size categories.
Except, in terms of how armor is supposed to work, it should. I think confusion is coming from the difference between a "hit" in mechanical game terms and a "hit" that makes physical contact. If your touch AC is 10 and your armored AC is 16, and someone rolls a 14 on you, it's not a "hit" mechanically, but it represents an attack that made contact with you but was nullified by the armor. Yes, a huge creature shouldn't be harder to actually make contact with, but it makes sense that their armor would nullify more hits.
Except the armor bonus to AC is about preventing damage. The implication is that the armor prevents the damage due to absorbing the hit. So, no, you're not getting hit (as in the specific mechanical term in Pathfinder), but the assumption is that your armor is being struck and preventing the damage. It stands to reason that sturdier armor would be more resilient (which is why full plate provides more AC than chainmail), so it makes sense that larger sized armor would offer more protection, just as smaller sized armor offers less.Armor and Shield are about how NOT to get hit... they counter Attack Bonus, not damage.
Damage is about how much you get hurt from a hit -- Armor and Shield are no longer relevant at that point.
Creature size is incorporated into the Size Modifier. Larger creatures are easier to hit, but less likely to hit others smaller than themselves. The modifiers for Attack and Armor Class are a wash for the same size creature ... but make it increasingly hard for larger creatures to hit smaller ones. That's where your size differential appears in the rules.
The Armor as DR variant rules are where you would expect to see the size of the Armor maybe make a difference. In core, as Lathiira mentioned, the abstraction known as Hit Points takes care of that. Differing damage for Larger and Smaller weapons reflects that, as well, since Large, Huge, Gargantuan weapons are meant to be used by Large, Huge, and Gargantuan creatures ... and so on.
The OP's question was "why don't armor bonuses increase with size the way weapon damage does?". The answer is that Armor Class, Attack Bonus, hit points, and weapon damage are all parts of an abstract system that does not try to mirror "reality" too closely. As soon as you start looking at a fragment of the abstraction (a part of a part, really) and say "but in reality it works like this", you have started to abandon the abstraction.
Within the boundaries of the abstraction, I think my answer stands. If you want to re-write the combat system to inject more "reality", enjoy.. but that's homebrew territory.
|
|
The OP's question was "why don't armor bonuses increase with size the way weapon damage does?". The answer is that Armor Class, Attack Bonus, hit points, and weapon damage are all parts of an abstract system that does not try to mirror "reality" too closely. As soon as you start looking at a fragment of the abstraction (a part of a part, really) and say "but in reality it works like this", you have started to abandon the abstraction.
Which is kinda aside the point. They adjust AC for smaller armor, it only makes sense they'd adjust it for larger armor.
Within the boundaries of the abstraction, I think my answer stands. If you want to re-write the combat system to inject more "reality", enjoy.. but that's homebrew territory.
Given your reasoning, I'd say it doesn't. And I have no interest in reworking anything right now. Just discussing reasoning.
The OP's question was "why don't armor bonuses increase with size the way weapon damage does?". The answer is that Armor Class, Attack Bonus, hit points, and weapon damage are all parts of an abstract system that does not try to mirror "reality" too closely. As soon as you start looking at a fragment of the abstraction (a part of a part, really) and say "but in reality it works like this", you have started to abandon the abstraction.Which is kinda aside the point. They adjust AC for smaller armor, it only makes sense they'd adjust it for larger armor.
I'd appreciate it if you could point me to where to find that rule. I don't recall ever seeing it.