Armor

[smathis]

I brought this up to Joseph already. But I'd really like to see the Armor Bonuses dropped in favor of a straight AC for each type of armor.

Here's my suggestion...

I prefer Armor to just set a base AC. So Plate Mail gives a character a 22 AC. Agility modifiers don't enter into it. I can see something like Leather Armor giving a base 12 AC that can be modified by Agility. But I don't see why the heavier armors do. Something like this:

Padded** AC 11
Leather* AC 12
Studded leather AC 13
Hide* AC 13
Scale mail AC 15
Chainmail AC 17
Banded mail AC 19
Half-plate AC 21
Full plate AC 23

* - Armor Class rating can be modified up or down by Agility bonus.
** - Armor Class rating can only be modified up by Agility bonus.

Basically, someone with Chainmail has an AC of 17. That's it. Agility doesn't enter into it. Only a couple of Armor types allow the Agility modifier to still modify AC.

The straight AC would benefit those who have awful Agility scores. While those who had high Agility scores would receive less of a benefit. A PC with an 18 AGL and Leather Armor, for example, would get an AC of 15. Same as a guy who had an Agility of 8 and Scale Mail.

What do other feedbackers think?

[jmucchiello]

Poor agility should always hurt you.

[QuentinTheTroll]

A clod in leather shouldn't be as difficult to hit as Gamely Nimbletoes. It just wouldn't make sense during play.

[smathis]

Poor agility should always hurt you.

I agree on one hand and I don't on the other.

On one hand, if AC represents getting bonked with a weapon, yeah... sure... poor Agility will (and should) affect that. On the other hand, if AC represents the capacity for weapons to get through armor to do damage, then, no, I don't think Agility should affect that at all.

Steel is steel.

Almost everyone in plate mail waddles around like a penguin with an AGL of 4. Yet they are nigh invulnerable to weapons that aren't designed specifically to impact Plate Mail.

So, on one hand, yeah. But AC is more than just the ability to get out of the way.

[jmucchiello]

No, everyone does not waddle around in plate armor like a penguin if they have been training for many years to wear the armor. I'm sure someone train since birth to be a knight in armor becomes quite agile in it or dies the first time they encounter someone with more agility. After all, in the real world, if your agility is reduced to 4, you probably can't hit an unarmored man standing in front of you because he dodge any clumsy swing of your sword without raising a sweat. You get off balance once and hit kicks onto your backside at which point stabbing you through your precious armor's joints should be child's play.

[talmor]

Personally, I'd like to see the power of the armor decreased, and the power of shields increased. I'd like to encourage the players to go with "sword and board" style, even if they have a solid agility.

[reverenddak]

Personally, I'd like to see the power of the armor decreased, and the power of shields increased. I'd like to encourage the players to go with "sword and board" style, even if they have a solid agility.

I agree that shields are under-rated!

Sword, board and BEER!!!

[jmucchiello]

If you increase shields too much more folks will pick Dwarf over Warrior because they get a free Shield Bash attack each round.

[talmor]

If you increase shields too much more folks will pick Dwarf over Warrior because they get a free Shield Bash attack each round.

I'd rather risk that (or drop that ability from dwarves or add it to warriors or something) than have a bunch of people running around with 2 weapons.

[jmucchiello]

Did you read the two weapon rules? The only sane folks wielding two weapons will be halflings since they are treated as 16 agility on the two weapon chart. Who is going to have the 18 agility needed to have better than a d16 with either weapon?

[talmor]

Did you read the two weapon rules? The only sane folks wielding two weapons will be halflings since they are treated as 16 agility on the two weapon chart. Who is going to have the 18 agility needed to have better than a d16 with either weapon?

Well, that's the problem...at least, for me, which means it may or may not be a real problem.

Basically, I want rules that allow, but discourage, two-weapon fighting. I want the min/maxers to take the "classic" fighting styles ("yes, I rolled all 18's for all my attributes, but I think I'm better off going sword and sheild...or maybe just one sword"), with dual wielding being a role playing/situationaly thing.

Secondly...why do halflings get dual wielding? I thoughts hobbits were all about rocks and slings and the like. Is it just a balancing thing? Or has Belkar finally taken over?

[smathis]

No, everyone does not waddle around in plate armor like a penguin if they have been training for many years to wear the armor. I'm sure someone train since birth to be a knight in armor becomes quite agile in it or dies the first time they encounter someone with more agility. After all, in the real world, if your agility is reduced to 4, you probably can't hit an unarmored man standing in front of you because he dodge any clumsy swing of your sword without raising a sweat. You get off balance once and hit kicks onto your backside at which point stabbing you through your precious armor's joints should be child's play.

But someone with an 18 AGL doesn't represent someone who has been trained in the use of armor since birth. It just represents someone who's more naturally Agile than most everyone else.

With the rules as written, I could have a Wizard with 18 AGL in Plate Mail. His AC would be 21. I could have a Fighter whose AGL is 8. He would have a 17 in AC.

How does that reflect training?

And people in Plate Mail were exceptionally less Agile than, well, anyone without it. Plate Mail's advantage was that it was hard to slash or puncture with most weapons. Most people who fought in plate mail did so on horseback fully because it was nearly impossible to charge in or to move at much more than a steady walk.

You're free to disagree with me. But as it stands, Armor seems odd to me at this point.

[mshensley]

Secondly...why do halflings get dual wielding? I thoughts hobbits were all about rocks and slings and the like. Is it just a balancing thing? Or has Belkar finally taken over?

Yeah, I find that a bit odd too (even though I love Belkar). Going purely by appendix N, they should be good with slings and thrown weapons. I don't remember any hobbits using two weapons.

[mshensley]

Personally, I'd like to see the power of the armor decreased, and the power of shields increased. I'd like to encourage the players to go with "sword and board" style, even if they have a solid agility.

I am surprised that shields didn't get some special rule. Maybe something like if you use a shield, you can use your bonus die to add to your ac instead of using it to attack with.

[reverenddak]

I am surprised that shields didn't get some special rule. Maybe something like if you use a shield, you can use your bonus die to add to your ac instead of using it to attack with.

Using the dual-wielding chart as an example, I would find "shield fighting" really cool, at least as an option.

[Hamakto]

But someone with an 18 AGL doesn't represent someone who has been trained in the use of armor since birth. It just represents someone who's more naturally Agile than most everyone else.

With the rules as written, I could have a Wizard with 18 AGL in Plate Mail. His AC would be 21. I could have a Fighter whose AGL is 8. He would have a 17 in AC.

How does that reflect training?

And people in Plate Mail were exceptionally less Agile than, well, anyone without it. Plate Mail's advantage was that it was hard to slash or puncture with most weapons. Most people who fought in plate mail did so on horseback fully because it was nearly impossible to charge in or to move at much more than a steady walk.

You're free to disagree with me. But as it stands, Armor seems odd to me at this point.

You know I would never disagree with your. *grin*

But... in DCC RPG (and other d20 OGL type games), the training, etc... come in additional HPs that the warrior has.

The armor is a static number. Steel is Steel.

AGL provides an innate ability to dodge attacks. Not related to Skill.

Skill is part of what makes up HP's.

Look at it this way. A 1st level Warrior with 8 hps and a Wizard with 3.

The both get hit by a Long Sword for five damage. The Wizard keels over. The Warrior's training allows him to take a far less serious wound.

Side Note: In 3e DnD, higher armor types have a maximum DEX (AGL) bonus allowed to simulate the turtle effect. That would be easy to add to DCC RPG, but I do not think it would be totally necessary as ability score bonuses are going to be far less than in earlier editions. Anyone with an 18 AGL is probably going to be a thief and not wearing plate.

(As a side point, I do like the idea that some other game systems have where STR does bonus damage, and AGL provides bonus to hit)

[Dreamslinger]

And people in Plate Mail were exceptionally less Agile than, well, anyone without it. Plate Mail's advantage was that it was hard to slash or puncture with most weapons. Most people who fought in plate mail did so on horseback fully because it was nearly impossible to charge in or to move at much more than a steady walk.

You're free to disagree with me. But as it stands, Armor seems odd to me at this point.

Only plate armor built specifically for jousting tournaments was overly encumbering.

While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds) if well made of tempered steel. This is less than the weight of modern combat gear of an infantry soldier (usually 25 to 35 kg), and the weight is more evenly distributed. The weight was so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle. It is possible for a fit and trained man in armour to run after and catch an unarmoured archer, as witnessed in re-enactment combat. The notion that it was necessary to lift a fully armed knight onto his horse with the help of pulleys is a myth originating in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. (And, in fact, the mere existence of plate armour during King Arthur's era is a myth as well: 6th-century knights would have worn mail instead.) Even knights in enormously heavy jousting armour were not winched onto their horses. This type of "sporting" armour was meant only for ceremonial lancing matches and its design was deliberately made extremely thick to protect the wearer from severe accidents, such as the one which caused the death of King Henry II of France.

[Ogrepuppy]

I'm sure someone train since birth to be a knight in armor

None of the 0-level professions are "knight".

You start out as a commoner. Where do those years of training come in?

So, in the DCC RPG, since you start play as a commoner it'd be understandable if you waddled like a penguin.

And if they float like a duck they're a witch....common sense.

[smathis]

You know I would never disagree with your. *grin*

But... in DCC RPG (and other d20 OGL type games), the training, etc... come in additional HPs that the warrior has.

The armor is a static number. Steel is Steel.

Those are good points, Andy.

This isn't a huge issue for me. But it's one of the few things that's bugging me. I don't want to blow it out of proportion. I liked the way LotFP did away with AC bonuses and just said... if you're unarmored you get 12, in Leather you get 14, in Chain you get 16, in Scale you get 18 in Plate you get 20. And you only get a DEX bonus if you're unarmored or in Leather.

I felt it made unarmored a really good option for the Dex guys. A guy with a Dex of 16 and Leather armor had an AC as good as Chain Mail. But guys who had really bad Dex could suck it up and just invest in better armor to keep from getting hit.

It was a nice trade-off. But oh well.

Something that's easy to houserule if most people here are happy with Armor RAW.

[smathis]

And if they float like a duck they're a witch....common sense.

Lol.

We all know witches are all descendents of Durulz.

[Hamakto]

You know I would never disagree with your. *grin*

But... in DCC RPG (and other d20 OGL type games), the training, etc... come in additional HPs that the warrior has.

The armor is a static number. Steel is Steel.

Those are good points, Andy.

This isn't a huge issue for me. But it's one of the few things that's bugging me. I don't want to blow it out of proportion. I liked the way LotFP did away with AC bonuses and just said... if you're unarmored you get 12, in Leather you get 14, in Chain you get 16, in Scale you get 18 in Plate you get 20. And you only get a DEX bonus if you're unarmored or in Leather.

I felt it made unarmored a really good option for the Dex guys. A guy with a Dex of 16 and Leather armor had an AC as good as Chain Mail. But guys who had really bad Dex could suck it up and just invest in better armor to keep from getting hit.

It was a nice trade-off. But oh well.

Something that's easy to houserule if most people here are happy with Armor RAW.

For those who want a more lively discussion on the merits of armor and DR, there are some very long threads back in the DCC history. I am a fan of adding DR and having AC being a descending number. (i.e. the heavier the armor, the easier to hit someone). But I could not garner enough support for that radical of a chance to the d20 mechanic. I was trying to come up with something where it is worthwhile to play that 'Conan' type character who did not wear a bunch of armor.

[jmucchiello]

Given the plethora of charts, I'd like to see armor class become a letter and give each class a chart for hitting AC:A and AC:G. Dragons could be Armor Class: Z and ogres AC: M. Whatever. Make up enough proper charts and then just assign ACs to the monsters as desired. The number don't even have to be linear on the charts.

[geordie racer]

I liked the way LotFP did away with AC bonuses and just said... if you're unarmored you get 12, in Leather you get 14, in Chain you get 16, in Scale you get 18 in Plate you get 20. And you only get a DEX bonus if you're unarmored or in Leather.

I felt it made unarmored a really good option for the Dex guys. A guy with a Dex of 16 and Leather armor had an AC as good as Chain Mail. But guys who had really bad Dex could suck it up and just invest in better armor to keep from getting hit.

Precisely, I like the LotFP method too.

[stacktrace]

Let me add another voice to the opinion of increasing the effectiveness of shields somehow.

Of course, it is a slippery balance, make them too good and two handed weapons also need something added to make them a viable option. And also the fact that carrying a shield allows an additional method of boosting AC magically as magic shields are found.

Despite that, shields were much more viable than the system currently reflects. Even allowing a shield bearer that chooses to make a defensive MDoA (or Fight Defensively/Full Defense from d20) gain an additional +1 or +2 AC bonus would be good, or even increasing the MDoA effect or die by 1 step for defensive attacks.


Also love Armor as DR but reduces AC, but sadly do not see that happening.

The addition of tying the fumble die to armor worn is a great mechanic that I was happy to see.

[kataskicana]

I don't expect dual wielding to be an issue. I think many people might have forgotten the 'quality' of characters rolled on 3d6. The odds of getting a 16 agility are darn low... too asleep to do the math but I'm guessing its 1 in 200 characters.

Those characters will all start with 1 to 7 HPs...statistically closer to 2 than 5. If that guy survives to see a second weapon... not going to begrudge him kickin butt.

Historically tho.. shields should be the single largest component of AC. In an one on one fight a large shield is definitely better than anything but full platemail if you had to choose. (watch some Deadliest Warrior on Spike for examples of what shields and armor are worth... very little short of nuclear weapons can affect a Spartan warrior!)