159 replies to this topic

[Caedwyr]

I think the argument for reduced dex in various armors, is not so much their weight, but it is also the bulkiness and inflexibility. The armor gets in the player's way, in addition to the added weight.


As to special armor, one thing I can see done with regards to the weight/bulkiness issue, is to make the Ankheg plate mail have much lower dex penalties, while keeping the bonuses of plate mail, due to its lightness. You'd still have the penalties due to it's bulkiness and inflexibliity, but some of the penalties would be gone due to the lower weight.

[Thorium Dragon]

I think additional ac bonus vs misslie weapons in the case of heavy armor is more realistic than damage resistance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but IMO there is no way an arrow could penetrate thick iron. And the way archers deal with heavily armoured enemies is to aim on weaker spots, such as maybe your neck, and things like that. Sorry I've seen such only in movies

Actually, real-world archers armed with longbows were tremendously effective against heavily-armored knights.

This played a role in making the heavier (and very expensive) armors obsolete in favor of the lighter, reinforced chain mail that was popular during the Crusades.

How this could be interpreted into the game is a matter of opinion.

[Littiz]

We'd need to debate what that "effective" means.
Surely, they *did* grant protection against arrows. A not fully "straight" shot could be deviated by a metal plate, resulting in little or no damage.
But... arrows could be fired from long distance, and in high numbers, and in the end you could be easily killed from distance anyway. This might have made heavy armors somehow less appealing overall (with weight, bulkiness and all), but it doesn't necessarily mean that they should get, in game, a penalty against missiles. I'm not sure they should get the additional bonus either, though.

I think in the end I'd keep the current AC modifiers. They aren't too heavy and - as it has been said already - the game is based on a system where each level of armor is basically better than the previous ones. We're going to rebalance this with other kinds of effects, but I wouldn't mess too much with the relative effectiveness of the various kinds of armours.

[T.G.Maestro]

As to special armor, one thing I can see done with regards to the weight/bulkiness issue, is to make the Ankheg plate mail have much lower dex penalties, while keeping the bonuses of plate mail, due to its lightness.

We've already addressed this on the first page IIRC, and it will definitely be in. I intend to have a few additional exceptions too, namely the Dragon scale armors and possibly a few other special set of armors as well.

[T.G.Maestro]

Thieving Skill penalties should be 0% for leather(in PnP D&D leather is thought to be standard

Thanks for pointing this out, corrected.

[T.G.Maestro]

List of special armors (possible exceptions from the basic rules of this modified Armor System, each having a few uniqe values):
NOTE: these are only from the non-modded list, mod armors will be added too.

Mithral Field Plate +2 (better damage resistances)
Mithral Chain Mail +4 (better damage resistances)
Bruennor's Mithral Field Plate (better damage resistances)
Drow Adamantite Chain (better damage resistances, reduced movement and DEX penalty)
Drow Full Plate (better damage resistances, reduced movement and DEX penalty)
White Dragon Scale (better damage resistances, reduced DEX penalty)
Shadow Dragon Scale (better damage resistances, reduced DEX penalty)
Red Dragon Scale (better damage resistances, reduced DEX penalty)
Blue Dragon Plate (better damage resistance, reduced DEX penalty)
Ankheg Plate Mail (reduced DEX and movement penalty)
Missile Attraction (decreased missile resistance)
Shuruppak's Plate (decreased movement penalty)
Human Flesh Armor (better damage resistances)

Of course, I'm still open to suggestions - if you think I forgot something important, feel free to post your suggestion!

Edited by T.G.Maestro, 05 June 2005 - 10:36 PM.

[Chevalier]

Maybe Modder could submit their special armours? If they want to be part of this.

[T.G.Maestro]

Um.. actually, they WILL be part of this...

[T.G.Maestro]

Now, if no one has any additional comments/suggestion, it is time to start coding all this.

[Caedwyr]

You forgot the human flesh armor.

[T.G.Maestro]

You forgot the human flesh armor.

Good point, but since +5 Leather Armors are already free of penalties in this system, the only thing I could change would be to boost the damage resistances somewhat (an extra 5-10% to all wouldn't hurt ).

[Thorium Dragon]

We'd need to debate what that "effective" means.

Entire companies of heavily armored troops would often be wiped out by archer forces. This point in history is when heavy armors became obsolete.

Surely, they *did* grant protection against arrows. A not fully "straight" shot could be deviated by a metal plate, resulting in little or no damage.

Not quite true. Odd as it may sound, heavy armor provided very little protection against arrows. The high velocity of the metal arrowheads could (and did) penetrate the heaviest armor with more ease than you might expect.

While heavy armor provided wonderful protection in hand-to-hand combat for the wearer, against arrows it became a massive liabiliy.

Again, that's just the real-world history. How this should apply to the D&D rules is as open for interpretation as anything else.

[Delight]

What is your knowledge of Medieval and Renaissance armor?
Do you have any proof to back up your statements?
What kind of armor do you mean by 'heavy armor'?

[Caedwyr]

During the 100 year war between England and France, the English gained a technological advantage, largely due to a social fad. For a time in England, it was normal for everyone to use a longbow frequently, and as they grew up. This produced a large number of people able to pull very large bows that were capable of penetrating the top of the line plate armor of the time. There was one battle in particular in which the English archers devastated the French Heavy cavalry due to the technological advantage of their longbows which were able to penetrate the armor, fire at a rapid rate, fire further than crossbows, and able to be strung quickly (it rained during the set up of the battle, and the english archers could unstring their bows/carry a spare bowstring so the string didn't become damp). Bernard Cornwell has written a couple of historical novels set in this time period focusing on the archers. You can also look at some history text for the time period that focus on the technology of warfare.

Another example. Arbelests found mostly in Central America, and in the Mexico region were capable of penetrating the heavy plate armor of the Conquistidors. For this reason, among others, superior technology was not the reason the Aztecs fell to the Spanish.

Essentially in all these cases, think of why plate armor is not useful against bullets. Basically it is too brittle and is meant to deflect or block a blow rather than absorb the impact. Plate armor thick enough to stop the armor piercing arrows of the time would be too bulky to move around effectively as a warrior, and would get it's user killed in a different way.

Edited by Caedwyr, 08 June 2005 - 07:19 PM.

[Littiz]

We'd need to debate what that "effective" means.

Entire companies of heavily armored troops would often be wiped out by archer forces. This point in history is when heavy armors became obsolete.

Surely, they *did* grant protection against arrows. A not fully "straight" shot could be deviated by a metal plate, resulting in little or no damage.

Not quite true. Odd as it may sound, heavy armor provided very little protection against arrows. The high velocity of the metal arrowheads could (and did) penetrate the heaviest armor with more ease than you might expect.

While heavy armor provided wonderful protection in hand-to-hand combat for the wearer, against arrows it became a massive liabiliy.

Piercing weapons concentrate the stress in one single and tiny point, so the material's frame has lesser resources to resist, compared to the case when it's hit by a sword or something. And I confirm that even an arrow must be hit straight... more the inclination, less the chances to penetrate.
But this is all accepted.
The point is that little protection is still more than lesser or no protection: if you had those armies wearing nothing, they would have been wiped out by arrows even faster. What is the protection against piercing weapons granted by human skin?

Try BG1 or BG2 with a party of archers, and you'll see you'll wipe out enemies before they even get to you: and this is not because you are reducing the enemies' AC against arrows, but because of the higher firing rate and of the distance you can kill enemies.
So, the point is not that armors grant physically much less protection, it's that with arrows in the equation armors stop being the most *efficient* answer (avoiding the storm of arrows - somehow - is preferable).
So, this all to say that we need not modify the AC values or the current -existing-penalties (if not slightly), since this phenomenon is already represented by the way bows and arrows affect the game. My opinion, at least

Edited by Littiz, 08 June 2005 - 10:40 PM.

[Thorium Dragon]

What is your knowledge of Medieval and Renaissance armor?
Do you have any proof to back up your statements?

I saw a special on the Discovery Channel about it. Caedwyr summed it up very well.

What is the protection against piercing weapons granted by human skin?

This is where shields come in. If you've seen Bravehart you remember that the unarmored Scottish army overcame an English arrow volley with very few casualties by simply getting behind their shields.

Also the Roman soldiers would use their shields in a tight configuration with each other to protect against thrown spears (again with virtually no armor).

In a nutshell, armor is the historical defense against hand-to-hand combat and shields the defense against missile attacks.

[Delight]

What is your knowledge of Medieval and Renaissance armor?
Do you have any proof to back up your statements?

I saw a special on the Discovery Channel about it. Caedwyr summed it up very well.

Well, I've seen at least two documents on Discovery Channel (one about bows and one about the battle of Agincourt) that feature experiments that have proved that arrow with an iron bodkin fired from a longbow was unable to penetrate steel plates (btw... plate armor was usually made of steel, not iron.).
In both instances the bodkin crumbled and failed to punch through the plate.
I also read an article about longbow that stated that arrow fired from a longbow was able to punch through plate armor but only at range lesser than 20 yards.

Main advantage of archers was ability to kill horses under knights.
Unhorsed knight poses much less danger than a horsed one.
As for arrows penetrating plate armor...
http://netsword.com/...TML/001353.html
http://www.aginc.net/battle/
http://www.arador.co...topic=3034&st=0

Edited by Delight, 09 June 2005 - 06:21 AM.

[Bluenose]

List of special armors (possible exceptions from the basic rules of this modified Armor System, each having a few uniqe values):
NOTE: these are only from the non-modded list, mod armors will be added too.

Mithral Field Plate +2 (better damage resistances)
Mithral Chain Mail +4 (better damage resistances)
Bruennor's Mithral Field Plate (better damage resistances)

I'd suggest for all mithral armours that rather than better damage resistance you reduce the dexterity penalty associated with them. My understanding is that mithral is supposed to be lighter than normal armour, while retaining the same strength. Certainly that's the way it works in 3rd edition and it reflects the 2nd edition/BG standard permitting F/M and Thieves to use mithril chain.

Drow Adamantite Chain (better damage resistances, reduced movement and DEX penalty)
Drow Full Plate (better damage resistances, reduced movement and DEX penalty)

And for these while I'd increase the damage resistance I don't think reduing the DEC penalty is justified. They remain heavy, just very strong.

White Dragon Scale (better damage resistances, reduced DEX penalty)
Shadow Dragon Scale (better damage resistances, reduced DEX penalty)
Red Dragon Scale (better damage resistances, reduced DEX penalty)
Blue Dragon Plate (better damage resistance, reduced DEX penalty)
Ankheg Plate Mail (reduced DEX and movement penalty)
Missile Attraction (decreased missile resistance)
Shuruppak's Plate (decreased movement penalty)
Human Flesh Armor (better damage resistances)

Of course, I'm still open to suggestions - if you think I forgot something important, feel free to post your suggestion!

The Jester's Chain? Does that have any unusual features or is it standard enchanted chain.

[the bigg]

I'd suggest for all mithral armours that rather than better damage resistance you reduce the dexterity penalty associated with them. My understanding is that mithral is supposed to be lighter than normal armour, while retaining the same strength. Certainly that's the way it works in 3rd edition and it reflects the 2nd edition/BG standard permitting F/M and Thieves to use mithril chain.

according to Tolkien lore, they also offer better protection

And for these while I'd increase the damage resistance I don't think reduing the DEC penalty is justified. They remain heavy, just very strong.

Well, they are light and the chain one allows to cast spells, so...

The Jester's Chain? Does that have any unusual features or is it standard enchanted chain.

It's a standard chain +4.

[Littiz]

Sorry guys, but this is getting a bit grotescue.
What's exactly the point of these arguments with armors and arrows?
Please be specific.
Are you saying that one should be LESS protected against missiles than when he's wearing NO armor?
If this is your point, we're not going to agree I fear.
Base AC is 10, if you put on an armor, AC value is going lo lower no matter what.
To be clearer, it won't raise to AC 12 against missiles, because that's a nonsense.
Less effective protection is a different concept than negative protection...

If you want armors to be less effective against missiles than they are against other kind of weapons, it is already represented by some specific penalties (which we can slightly adjust) and, more generally (and more correctly, because it is independant from the armor), it is represented by all the THAC0 bonuses and higher firing rates that missile weapons get for various reasons.


What I'd agree to do though, is to increase the level of missile defence provided by shields. That would make sense, imho.