|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Aug 15, 2017 17:15:39 GMT -6
So one would naturally think that the higher level your dude is, the better armor they can afford and/or wear.
I'm thinking the opposite way though: Levels 1-3, "waste" gold on the best armor money can buy (plate mail, shield, etc.). Levels 4-7, maybe just "heavy armor" is good enough (chain mail, all that). Finally, if your dude is level 8+, why bother with armor at all, unless it's "light" (leather, etc.)?
My reasoning? You can't get hit at low levels or your dude's as good as dead! But the higher their level, the more Hit Dice they have (the better they can survive the hits). Also means better speed, buoyancy, stealth and HELLO, LOOT CAPACITY?
Not to mention the plethora of magical protection higher level characters can come across!
This line of thought leads to lower level characters being rightly paranoid with the heaviest armor gold can buy, but Heroes (and especially Superheroes) running into adventure practically nekkid (John Carter anyone?), and running back out with more treasure and "Conanesque" panache!
Been wondering what other thoughts on this may be...
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Aug 15, 2017 17:59:02 GMT -6
First a point of disagreement: higher level attacks for which armor is a benefit will do more hit point damage to you than similar lower level attacks, so armor class and therefore armor is useful at any level. Higher levels subject you to more non-hit-point attacks and attacks which require saves rather than armor class, but AC still matters.
Now agreement: Magic items that lower AC change the game considerably. But so do other defensive magic items.
Lighter armor at low levels is perfectly acceptable even for fighting men. Especially in a party or game without a thief. Move faster, sneak around better. Get the drop on guys. Make yourself into the designated bowman.
|
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Aug 15, 2017 18:59:39 GMT -6
I think what you are talking about is a play philosophy, not really an intention due to the design. I believe armor is more heavily valued by early D&D in general than other games ("Dodge" defense doesn't increase, but is part of actively defending.) Also that non-magical armor is more important at low levels, if only because fewer options exist for worn defenses.
Heavier, higher AC armors are priced for value, a treasure amount where purchasing them is not really feasible until a couple-three levels in. IOW, to buy players need a lot of treasure accumulation from play. I don't deny some melee favoring fighters will want to sell out for plate mail ASAP though. But it's still a strategic move, not always the best option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Aug 15, 2017 19:35:20 GMT -6
You're both right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 10:56:34 GMT -6
Been wondering what other thoughts on this may be... The math of armor disagrees with your line of thinking. For example, a +1 is much more valuable percentage wise then a +1 on leather. So stacking heavy armor on top of magical bonuses is the way to go (up until you can only be hit on a 20). As to stealth and carrying capacity, higher level characters have plenty of tools to mitigate this concern and, to make matters worse, magical armor doesn't weigh as much so, again, high level characters are doubly rewarded for having magical heavy armor. The only way to solve the problem is to redo the match of the to-hit tables. |
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Aug 16, 2017 11:01:40 GMT -6
It is definitely gaming philosophy that I'm talking about, not original intent. Kind of a "shower thought" on how to work with the archetypal loincloth-clad barbarian while not seeing Conan get cut down by kobolds. Also: I'm thinking this with just the original rules, not the variable weapon damage and hit dice variants found in the Greyhawk supplement.
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 16, 2017 14:45:55 GMT -6
My barely related take:
The best thing about the LBBs is their abstraction, especially in combat. So, I just use class-based AC nowadays. M-Us begin the game with an AC of 9. Fighters and Clerics begin the game with an AC of 2 (I read this as the default assumption, anyhow). Now, just mentally translate "Armor Class" into "chance to be it." Wanna make Conan? He has AC 2 because he's a nimble ballerina. Wanna make Aragorn? He has AC 2 because he's wrapped in steel. The whole point is that level 1 M-Us get hit at least 55% of the time, and the others get hit at least 20% of the time; it doesn't matter why. And yes, this applies to shields (or lack thereof) as well. Are you AC 2 instead of 3 because you have a shield or because your two-hander looks awsome? Just pick whichever works for you.
That's the only balance implied as I see it. Rationalize what the numbers are meant to represent anyway you want. As long as it fits the implied campaign setting, then nothing will break. Easy! And remember, these numbers will improve for all classes, magically, as they explore dungeons, of course.
My 2 coppers.
Somewhat minor aside: I tend to read that leather and chain armor-types are really only for monsters and outfitting armies, anyway. To me, it reads like PCs are either "armored" or "not armored" (assumed to have the best armor available). Even the magic item list just says "armor." The class descriptions also just say "armor". Unless you have house-rules for sneaking, hiding, and stunts and such based on specific armor types, then it won't really matter much.
Going on a stealth mission? By all means wear some leathers, a loincloth, or a ninja costume, but you shouldn't be stand-up fighting anyway (it is an actual STEALTH mission, right?) AC in this case assumes you are being, well, stealthy!
What about encumbrance? Well, even fully armored and with common delving supplies, you can still easily hall out 2000 coins at 1st level. 3000 is the max and most fighters and clerics are rolled up with about 1000 coins worth of encumbrance with an average starting money roll. That's enough to potentially level up. After that, most your XP will come from gems/jewelry/fighting and, not to mention, bags of holding! This makes encumbrance (and thus movement rates and XP for gold) essentially less important. If you use a grid or minis and want to rigorously track movement, encumbrance, and XP from gold for some reason, then just say M-Us have MV of 12" and the others a MV of 6" due to armor (or 9" if magic armor). But again, combat rounds are a minute long and abstract, so this level of detail isn't really necessary unless you just personally enjoy it.
This is an annoyingly long way of saying that I don't worry too much about movement rates, encumbrance, XP for gold, or armor types. Magic, better treasure, retainers, and class phenotypes will take care of all that in no time!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 17:01:54 GMT -6
It is definitely gaming philosophy that I'm talking about, not original intent. Kind of a "shower thought" on how to work with the archetypal loincloth-clad barbarian while not seeing Conan get cut down by kobolds. Also: I'm thinking this with just the original rules, not the variable weapon damage and hit dice variants found in the Greyhawk supplement. I understand what you're saying but one of the things I learned from running Runequest back in the day is that when intent and mechanics collide, mechanics always wins. Making armorless characters viable is one of the primary goals I had when reworking the OD&D hit system. That and genre mixing for genres that don't use armor. The best thing about the LBBs is their abstraction, especially in combat. So, I just use class-based AC nowadays. M-Us begin the game with an AC of 9. Fighters and Clerics begin the game with an AC of 2 (I read this as the default assumption, anyhow). Now, just mentally translate "Armor Class" into "chance to be it." Wanna make Conan? He has AC 2 because he's a nimble ballerina. Wanna make Aragorn? He has AC 2 because he's wrapped in steel. The whole point is that level 1 M-Us get hit at least 55% of the time, and the others get hit at least 20% of the time; it doesn't matter why. And yes, this applies to shields (or lack thereof) as well. Are you AC 2 instead of 3 because you have a shield or because your two-hander looks awsome? Just pick whichever works for you. Instead of class-based AC, why not just adjust hit points accordingly and give monsters one "hit" number. If a character is hit 50% of the time, he gets normal hit points. If he's hit 25% of the time, double his hit points etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Aug 16, 2017 17:41:58 GMT -6
Armor is encumbering. Not just for speed but for falling in water or deep mud. Metal armor is subject to magnetism. It can be heated by a Druid or mundane source. It clanks when you try to sneak and glints when you try to hide.
Helmets protect you from things falling from above. You can use them to bail water or carry a lot of small objects.
A man with a shield packs his own shade and eye protection. A shield can be wedged in a door, a trap, or the mouth of a dragon.
And just try holding a sword, shield, and ten-foot pole while moving through the underworld!
All of this to say that there are both mechanical and common sense reasons for armor being represented by armor.
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 16, 2017 18:16:55 GMT -6
Instead of class-based AC, why not just adjust hit points accordingly and give monsters one "hit" number. If a character is hit 50% of the time, he gets normal hit points. If he's hit 25% of the time, double his hit points etc. I'm not entirely sure I follow. Maybe an example? But real quick as I'm brainstorming, one of the main tenets of D&D's combat system is static AC and dynamic HPs (and likewise static damage and dynamic "chance to hit" to properly balance)*. Flipping that would would make for exceedingly swingy combat, IMO. The designers nailed it the first time. It also makes sense to me now that Vol.1 would allow for an ability score bonus "to hit" and HPs. A likewise bonus to AC or damage would be redundant (double-dipping) and again more swingy. That's really cool and I can't believe I just now realized this. Neat!
*Otherwise, you end up with an MMO like WoW, Diablo, or even 4E where combat is identical at every level among like combatants and the world "scales" around you. Works for number-crunching computers but would be a drag at the table. Two things improve traditionally: "Chance to hit" and HPs. That's really all you need. Improving in all four areas at the same rate makes all combat the same and rather pointless, TBH. May as well just save the time and never improve if you are always fighting someone of the same ability and just walk through minions like they are grass. The LBBs do the best at countering this issue compared to other editions, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 16, 2017 18:28:02 GMT -6
All of this to say that there are both mechanical and common sense reasons for armor being represented by armor. Exactly. It enhances realism. I've never really enjoyed unrealistic Conan-types for this reason. Historically, armor is critically important until firearms came along. However, the OP wanted a world where unarmored heroics exists (it is fantasy, after all). They can both exist in the same game. All that's needed is a little creative justification. The mechanics support both styles just fine as long as fighters and clerics and harder to hit than M-Us and all but the toughest monsters.  |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 16, 2017 22:27:36 GMT -6
FWIW, REH's Conan did wear armor...
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 16, 2017 23:00:31 GMT -6
FWIW, REH's Conan did wear armor... Very true. He was also a king and led armies from day one. Arnold sure did a number on the character's legacy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2017 7:58:05 GMT -6
FWIW, REH's Conan did wear armor... You had to be that guy .... If you wish, replace Conan with:  From what I've seen, the unarmored (or lightly armored) fighting man is much more common in fiction, especially movies, than the armored one. Maybe video games favor armored heroes but that's due mainly to how they, and RPGs in general, greatly underscore just how uncomfortable it is to wear armor for long periods of time. |
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Aug 21, 2017 12:22:36 GMT -6
That! And having plenty of HP to soak up what hits you DO take help too.
Regarding Conan: He rarely wore armor unless of course he was planning to fight big time. Then, I've seen him mostly go for hauberks, but even plate mail here and there as king or commander!
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 21, 2017 12:41:22 GMT -6
Conan is what you strive for at the end of your character's career. Domain management, leading armies, large pool of hit points, and having a Fighting Capability high enough to go out in battle with little to no protection. Conan is not a good model for a 1st level Fighter. Pulp characters are usually at the top of their game, not just starting to learn the ropes. In other words, Conan is an endgame goal, not a character you roll up. OD&D is better suited to starting out as a poor adventurer or soldier, not a fantasy hero (yet!) |
|
