Usa Forum - {kjd-mod} On Armor

Keith Davies

12/29/2007 9:37:00 AM

Hadsil <forumite@netzero.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 12:45 pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> I've considered having varying levels of each type of enchantment,
>> limited by the armor. Light armor tops out at light fortification (or
>> fire resistance 5, or ...), while heavy armor can go as far as heavy
>> fortification or fire resistance 20. That sort of thing.
>>
>> Keith
>
> I like this. (Bias: I like using heavy armor.) Trying to be
> unbiased: this makes heavy armor an attractive option again, given you
> keep the speed penalty, armor check penalty, and max Dex bonus, your
> intent.
>
> As for me back in bias (and gamist) mode, the only thing I really hate
> about RAW heavy armor is the speed penalty. The lowered max Dex bonus
> just means DX is a dump stat. My reflex save will suck anyway, and I
> don't need to go first in initiative every combat. As for skills,
> I'll tend not to have so many skill points anyway so it won't matter
> for the skills the armor check penalty applies. I'll suck at them no
> matter what. It's the speed penalty that screws me over. I'm saved
> by playing a cleric since I can cast spells in the meantime when
> closing in. I only really need no speed penalty to make me happy
> about heavy armor, but I'll take your alternative. :)

Thing is, this only applies when you start getting to higher levels of
enchantment. If you can only afford +1 worth of enchantment, it doesn't
matter how limited your armor's enchantment capacity is.

What I currently have in mind:

.. remove MaxDex limitation on proficient armor (but you may be taking a
penalty from load)
.. remove ACP from proficient armor (but you may be taking a penalty from
load)
. ACP might always apply to Swim checks
.. remove move penalties on proficient armor (but may still be limited by
load)
.. ASF applies to arcane and divine casting ('Armored Spellcaster' feat
removes ASF with armor you're proficient with -- bards presumably have
light armor proficiency, shield proficiency, and Armored Spellcaster)
.. enhancement bonuses are gone (ACs will probably stay sane)
.. where armor qualities have multiple degrees, heavier is capable of
carrying higher degrees than lighter

I'm considering having armor provide some level (not high) of energy
resistance in general, but haven't decided yet.

The above assumes that armor proficiency isn't as cheap as in RSRD. You
get a certain number of feats at first level to buy up these things,
based on class, but after that you're on your own. If you want a wizard
you presumably start with a 'casting' class in order to get more magical
feats. You can take Armored Spellcaster but you're not proficient with
armor yet. Conversely, you take a combat-oriented type and buy up lots
of armor proficiency and Armored Spellcaster, but your spellcasting is
relatively limited. If you want to be a spellcasting tank it'll cost.

In order to rack up the higher ACs using armor and Dex (say, 22 or
better) you'd need full plate, proficiency, Dex 18, and enough Str that
you're only carrying a light load (13 if you're carrying nothing else).
A large shield (wood, 10#) gives you +2 more (Str 15 needed). You could
use a battleaxe or longsword and still be okay with Str 15 (barely).

You can still get other bonuses to AC (hmm... what if dodge bonuses are
limited/denied when wearing nonproficient armor?) but I think removing
enhancement bonuses here will help balance things -- and increase the
importance of the character over the gear.

Dwarves would likely have to change... though the simplest thing might
be to give them armor proficiency as racial feats (any dwarf can always
take armor proficiency with a racial feat), and strength is likely one
of their racial ability scores (one they can buy up as they go).

Anyway, still hashing this out in my mind.

Hmm. Just checked my wiki, found
http://wiki.kjd-imc.org/Armor_F...
http://wiki.kjd-imc.org/Armor_Fortifica...
http://wiki.kjd-imc.org/Enchanted_Arms...

I'm sure I've posted to RGFD about armor before, though.

Keith
--
Keith Davies "History is made by stupid people
keith.davies@kjdavies.org "Clever people wouldn't even try
keith.davies@gmail.com "If you want a place in the history books
http://www.kjd... "Then do something dumb before you die."
-- The Arrogant Worms

32 Answers

Hadsil

12/30/2007

On Dec 29, 4:36 am, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> Hadsil <forum...@netzero.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 12:45 pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>
> >> I've considered having varying levels of each type of enchantment,
> >> limited by the armor. Light armor tops out at light fortification (or
> >> fire resistance 5, or ...), while heavy armor can go as far as heavy
> >> fortification or fire resistance 20. That sort of thing.
>
> >> Keith
>
> > I like this. (Bias: I like using heavy armor.) Trying to be
> > unbiased: this makes heavy armor an attractive option again, given you
> > keep the speed penalty, armor check penalty, and max Dex bonus, your
> > intent.
>
> > As for me back in bias (and gamist) mode, the only thing I really hate
> > about RAW heavy armor is the speed penalty. The lowered max Dex bonus
> > just means DX is a dump stat. My reflex save will suck anyway, and I
> > don't need to go first in initiative every combat. As for skills,
> > I'll tend not to have so many skill points anyway so it won't matter
> > for the skills the armor check penalty applies. I'll suck at them no
> > matter what. It's the speed penalty that screws me over. I'm saved
> > by playing a cleric since I can cast spells in the meantime when
> > closing in. I only really need no speed penalty to make me happy
> > about heavy armor, but I'll take your alternative. :)
>
> Thing is, this only applies when you start getting to higher levels of
> enchantment. If you can only afford +1 worth of enchantment, it doesn't
> matter how limited your armor's enchantment capacity is.
>
> What I currently have in mind:
>
> . remove MaxDex limitation on proficient armor (but you may be taking a
> penalty from load)
> . remove ACP from proficient armor (but you may be taking a penalty from
> load)
> . ACP might always apply to Swim checks
> . remove move penalties on proficient armor (but may still be limited by
> load)
> . ASF applies to arcane and divine casting ('Armored Spellcaster' feat
> removes ASF with armor you're proficient with -- bards presumably have
> light armor proficiency, shield proficiency, and Armored Spellcaster)
> . enhancement bonuses are gone (ACs will probably stay sane)
> . where armor qualities have multiple degrees, heavier is capable of
> carrying higher degrees than lighter
>
> I'm considering having armor provide some level (not high) of energy
> resistance in general, but haven't decided yet.
>
> The above assumes that armor proficiency isn't as cheap as in RSRD. You
> get a certain number of feats at first level to buy up these things,
> based on class, but after that you're on your own. If you want a wizard
> you presumably start with a 'casting' class in order to get more magical
> feats. You can take Armored Spellcaster but you're not proficient with
> armor yet. Conversely, you take a combat-oriented type and buy up lots
> of armor proficiency and Armored Spellcaster, but your spellcasting is
> relatively limited. If you want to be a spellcasting tank it'll cost.
>
> In order to rack up the higher ACs using armor and Dex (say, 22 or
> better) you'd need full plate, proficiency, Dex 18, and enough Str that
> you're only carrying a light load (13 if you're carrying nothing else).
> A large shield (wood, 10#) gives you +2 more (Str 15 needed). You could
> use a battleaxe or longsword and still be okay with Str 15 (barely).
>
> You can still get other bonuses to AC (hmm... what if dodge bonuses are
> limited/denied when wearing nonproficient armor?) but I think removing
> enhancement bonuses here will help balance things -- and increase the
> importance of the character over the gear.
>
> Dwarves would likely have to change... though the simplest thing might
> be to give them armor proficiency as racial feats (any dwarf can always
> take armor proficiency with a racial feat), and strength is likely one
> of their racial ability scores (one they can buy up as they go).
>
> Anyway, still hashing this out in my mind.
>
> Hmm. Just checked my wiki, foundhttp://wiki.kjd-imc.org/Armor_Focus_Featshttp://wiki.kjd-imc.org/Armor_Fortification_Featshttp://wiki.kjd-imc.org/Enchanted_Arms...
>
> I'm sure I've posted to RGFD about armor before, though.
>
> Keith
> --
> Keith Davies "History is made by stupid people
> keith.dav...@kjdavies.org "Clever people wouldn't even try
> keith.dav...@gmail.com "If you want a place in the history bookshttp://www.kjdavies.... "Then do something dumb before you die."
> -- The Arrogant Worms- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Are you allowing character level to increase AC somehow, even if at
different rates based on class? By RAW total attack bonuses overwhelm
AC as the levels increase. Having AC 25 is almost meaningless when
your opponent has a total attack modifier of +20. (Hyperbole example,
can't give actual level this could occur.) Do you instead also limit
how one can increase his total attack modifier? You don't want
characters to be unhittable but neither should they be unmissable. I
guess ideally, given two equivalent opponents, they should have a hit/
miss ratio of 50%. Allow for buff spells and other magics to tilt the
odds.

Gerald Katz

Keith Davies

12/30/2007 3:30:00 AM

Hadsil <forumite@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> Are you allowing character level to increase AC somehow, even if at
> different rates based on class? By RAW total attack bonuses overwhelm
> AC as the levels increase. Having AC 25 is almost meaningless when
> your opponent has a total attack modifier of +20. (Hyperbole example,
> can't give actual level this could occur.) Do you instead also limit
> how one can increase his total attack modifier? You don't want
> characters to be unhittable but neither should they be unmissable. I
> guess ideally, given two equivalent opponents, they should have a hit/
> miss ratio of 50%. Allow for buff spells and other magics to tilt the
> odds.

I may allow a class defense bonus. I had't really considered that yet.
My first reaction, now that you've reminded me, is that it may be a good
idea.

You can still get deflection, dodge, and natural bonuses. I'm only
planning, at this point, to remove enhancement bonuses. This applies to
weapons as well though, so that part should stay roughly in step. Not
quite, since the armor bonus goes up a little faster than weapon bonus
(due to expense, and the ability to get more of them -- +3 armor and +3
shield is a total of +6, for 18k... the same as would be paid for a +3
weapon, RAW).

I'm not sure about buff spells. I'm more likely to allow them than buff
*items*, but they are enhancements. I haven't decided yet.

Hmm. I'm thinking about how it might work if ability score buffs like
this required manifestation of some sort, or if they were something of a
'side effect' of another augmentation.

Discussing this in IM, we considered how having some form of shapechange
being relatively common in the setting could color things. It'd likely
only show up in more capable individuals (read: adventurers) than the
normal populace (who aren't powerful enough to do this themselves). I
don't know that I'd have it, but it might be worth exploring.

Keith
--
Keith Davies "History is made by stupid people
keith.davies@kjdavies.org "Clever people wouldn't even try
keith.davies@gmail.com "If you want a place in the history books
http://www.kjd... "Then do something dumb before you die."
-- The Arrogant Worms

Darin McBride

12/31/2007 4:13:00 AM

Hadsil wrote:

> Having AC 25 is almost meaningless when
> your opponent has a total attack modifier of +20. (Hyperbole example,
> can't give actual level this could occur.)

Level

BAB: +12
STR: +6 (18 with +4 item) (Can be dex with weapon finesse)
Weapon focus: +1
Weapon itself: +1

Level 12 seems reasonable to have an attack modifier of +20 (and +15 and
+10 - which still makes hitting AC 25 not a rare occurrence). That's
ignoring buff spells (bard songs, cleric buffing). There's not much reason
to have better than +1 in the weapon itself, so I didn't go crazy with
that - instead, I'm assuming the weapon has something like flaming or shock
or something so that it hurts more.

Our level 10 rogue has +17... so a 12th level fighter-type seems entirely
reasonable to get +20.

Nevermind giants with their huge strength bonuses. A cloud giant, for
example, at CR11, has +22 to hit. A fire giant, at CR10, has +20.

Keith Davies

12/31/2007 4:55:00 AM

Darin McBride <dmcbride@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote:
> Hadsil wrote:
>
>> Having AC 25 is almost meaningless when your opponent has a total
>> attack modifier of +20. (Hyperbole example, can't give actual level
>> this could occur.)
>
> Level
>
> BAB: +12
> STR: +6 (18 with +4 item) (Can be dex with weapon finesse)
> Weapon focus: +1
> Weapon itself: +1
>
> Level 12 seems reasonable to have an attack modifier of +20 (and +15
> and +10 - which still makes hitting AC 25 not a rare occurrence).
> That's ignoring buff spells (bard songs, cleric buffing). There's not
> much reason to have better than +1 in the weapon itself, so I didn't
> go crazy with that - instead, I'm assuming the weapon has something
> like flaming or shock or something so that it hurts more.

Can't have cleric buffing and strength item -- both enhancements and
don't stack. OTOH, half-orc Bbn12, raging, can have Str28 (18 base, +2
level, +2 race, +6 Rage) without using any items at all.

Hmm. Since I don't plan to have enhancement bonuses, this suggests
they're likely to end up the *strongest* of all the options, at least
some of the time. I like that.

So, +12 BAB, +9 Str, for +21 total. Before enhancement bonuses, weapon
focus, or any of that other fun stuff.

> Our level 10 rogue has +17... so a 12th level fighter-type seems
> entirely reasonable to get +20.
>
> Nevermind giants with their huge strength bonuses. A cloud giant, for
> example, at CR11, has +22 to hit. A fire giant, at CR10, has +20.

Giants are a little strange anyway, though, because of their insane
strength scores.

Keith
--
Keith Davies "History is made by stupid people
keith.davies@kjdavies.org "Clever people wouldn't even try
keith.davies@gmail.com "If you want a place in the history books
http://www.kjd... "Then do something dumb before you die."
-- The Arrogant Worms

Keith Davies

12/31/2007 4:57:00 AM

Hadsil <forumite@netzero.com> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 4:36 am, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>
>> What I currently have in mind:
>>
>> . remove MaxDex limitation on proficient armor (but you may be taking a
>> penalty from load)
>> . remove ACP from proficient armor (but you may be taking a penalty from
>> load)
>> . ACP might always apply to Swim checks

I've reconsidered this. ACP always applies per RSRD. If you're not
proficient with your armor it applies to more things.

>> . remove move penalties on proficient armor (but may still be limited by
>> load)

Keeping this. It's silly that armor is less encumbering when you carry
it on your back than when you wear it.

Keith
--
Keith Davies "History is made by stupid people
keith.davies@kjdavies.org "Clever people wouldn't even try
keith.davies@gmail.com "If you want a place in the history books
http://www.kjd... "Then do something dumb before you die."
-- The Arrogant Worms

Darin McBride

12/31/2007 2:53:00 PM

Keith Davies wrote:

> Can't have cleric buffing and strength item -- both enhancements and
> don't stack.

Why not?

I'm not talking about Bull's Strength, here. I'm talking Prayer, Bless
(which doesn't stack with Bard's music), and other spells that affect
hitting directly, not indirectly through strength (or dex if weapon finesse
or ranged).

Your group obviously needs more imagination. If you're not buffing with
prayer, you should be. :-)

Keith Davies

12/31/2007 3:19:00 PM

Darin McBride <dmcbride@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>
>> Can't have cleric buffing and strength item -- both enhancements and
>> don't stack.
>
> Why not?
>
> I'm not talking about Bull's Strength, here. I'm talking Prayer,
> Bless (which doesn't stack with Bard's music), and other spells that
> affect hitting directly, not indirectly through strength (or dex if
> weapon finesse or ranged).
>
> Your group obviously needs more imagination. If you're not buffing
> with prayer, you should be. :-)

Sorry, I misunderstood you then. IIRC you mentioned strength a couple
of times, then 'clerical buff' -- which I took to mean 'clerical buff to
strength', which wouldn't stack.

bless, prayer, etc. giving an attack bonus, of course that would stack.

Keith
--
Keith Davies "History is made by stupid people
keith.davies@kjdavies.org "Clever people wouldn't even try
keith.davies@gmail.com "If you want a place in the history books
http://www.kjd... "Then do something dumb before you die."
-- The Arrogant Worms

DougL

12/31/2007 5:28:00 PM

On Dec 30, 10:12 pm, Darin McBride
<dmcbr...@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote:

>There's not much reason
> to have better than +1 in the weapon itself, so I didn't go crazy with
> that - instead, I'm assuming the weapon has something like flaming or shock
> or something so that it hurts more.

Greatsword +3, Power Improved Crit (normal by level 12) power attack
for 2.

You hit at +1 for the weapon and do an average of 7.2 extra damage
compared to a flat +1 weapon. And if you ever need to you can drop the
power attack and hit at +2 more (which will often be a good idea on a
full attack).

Greatsword +1, Flaming, Frost.

You hit at +1 for the weapon and do an average of 7 extra damage
compared to a flat +1 weapon. But you loose damage to elemental
resistances or immunities which are quite common by that level.

One of these things is better than the other. And it isn't the weapon
with flaming and shock. The weapon with flaming and shock is ONLY
advantaged if someone is casting GMW on it to increase the bonus ot +3
allowing it to match the +3 greatsword in other ways while still doing
extra damage. Thus you should typically be fighting with a +3 or
better main melee weapon by level 12, either due to GMW or simply
paying for the enhancement.

DougL

Darin McBride

12/31/2007 6:32:00 PM

DougL wrote:

> Greatsword +3, Power Improved Crit (normal by level 12) power attack
> for 2.
>
> You hit at +1 for the weapon and do an average of 7.2 extra damage
> compared to a flat +1 weapon. And if you ever need to you can drop the
> power attack and hit at +2 more (which will often be a good idea on a
> full attack).

Interesting... would you mind showing more of your work in getting to these
numbers? I'd like to follow along, and I'm missing something here.
Perhaps it's the "Power Improved Crit" feat. I can find Improved Crit in
the PHB, but not "Power Improved Crit" - perhaps that's a typo, perhaps
it's in a book I don't have. If it's not a typo, then there'd be some
numbers I'm unaware of that would help here.

From what I see, using your greatsword example (10% crit to start with),
improved crit makes 20% crit. +4 damage 80% of the time (+2 from weapon,
+2 from power attack), and +8 damage 20% of the time (double damage from
crit, assuming you confirm 100% of the time, which is somewhat optimistic)
gets you to +4.6 damage on average (actually lower because not all threats
will convert). This doesn't make up for the +7 average from the
flaming/frost. So I must be missing something.

> You hit at +1 for the weapon and do an average of 7 extra damage
> compared to a flat +1 weapon. But you loose damage to elemental
> resistances or immunities which are quite common by that level.

Note that DR is common by then, too, and the frost/fire bypasses the DR. DR
combined with elemental resistance/immunity is not quite so common, so you
should be able to continually do damage, even if it's a bit less than if it
were optimised for the current creature (which will be worse for other
creatures). And especially a flaming/frost weapon - not a lot of creatures
have resistance to both, with those having immunity to one often ending up
with vulnerability to the other.

Hadsil

12/31/2007 7:56:00 PM

On Dec 30, 11:57 pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> Hadsil <forum...@netzero.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 4:36 am, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>
> >> What I currently have in mind:
>
> >> . remove MaxDex limitation on proficient armor (but you may be taking a
> >> penalty from load)
> >> . remove ACP from proficient armor (but you may be taking a penalty from
> >> load)
> >> . ACP might always apply to Swim checks
>
> I've reconsidered this. ACP always applies per RSRD. If you're not
> proficient with your armor it applies to more things.
>
> >> . remove move penalties on proficient armor (but may still be limited by
> >> load)
>
> Keeping this. It's silly that armor is less encumbering when you carry
> it on your back than when you wear it.
>
> Keith
> --
> Keith Davies "History is made by stupid people
> keith.dav...@kjdavies.org "Clever people wouldn't even try
> keith.dav...@gmail.com "If you want a place in the history bookshttp://www.kjdavies.... "Then do something dumb before you die."
> -- The Arrogant Worms

Redistribution? There's a difference between all the weight being on
your back and spreading it around your body wearing it.

Gerald Katz

rec.games.frp.dnd

{kjd-mod} On Armor

Keith Davies

Hadsil

Keith Davies

Darin McBride

Keith Davies

Keith Davies

Darin McBride

Keith Davies

DougL

Darin McBride

Hadsil

x Login to ForumsZone