Hi all-
Just curious if anyone has tried this, or what they think of it...
Rogues have special descriptors discussing what happens if they use non-thief armor. The check penalty is AC-2. But this seems to be very easily generalizable. For example- has anyone used the same rule for rangers, instead of denying them the ability entirely for outlawed armor? Or really, to anyone trying to make some kind of physical attribute check while wearing armor?
To me it's a logical progression, and still stays quite simple and in the spirit of C&C. It's just another simple tool to handle things you know PCs will try at some point.
The more complex issue i have though is whether it should be applied to attack rolls. Keeping in mind that i am seeking a grittier more realistic take on combat, is fighting in heavy armor appreciably more difficult than without? Could the same amor penalty be justfiable?
What's everybody think of all this- the generalized penalty, and the specific penalty to combat?
Thanks for the input!
-Fizz
Generalized armor penalties
Armor, when designed properly, which means fit to the person to wear it, is not as encumbering or immobilizing as many modern people think. Therefore, a general penalty to attacking is uncalled for, for the desired "realism." Hell, think about it... if armor made attacking harder, it wouldn't have to be as protective, because people wouldn't get hurt as often, and a hell of a lot more people would choose to not wear it, rather than the seeming reverse were armor was sought after like treasure (and it was expensive, generally.) The penalty for rogues, in essence, is the "clink clink" of metal and other things that make use of certain abilities difficult; for the ranger, who can already wear heavier armor, donning more makes certain abilities useless... for a number of logical reasons, all of which a CK could ignore if the circumstances are right. For example, blackened plate mail might not force a ranger to lose his conceal ability, but it might still make it difficult to use.
If I were to use a general rule... the penalty on class abilities would be equal to the AC modifier, and it would not affect attack rolls. Wearing armor that one is not trained to wear would invoke a standard halving of the AC granted, but the ability penalty would remain at the full amount.
If I were to use a general rule... the penalty on class abilities would be equal to the AC modifier, and it would not affect attack rolls. Wearing armor that one is not trained to wear would invoke a standard halving of the AC granted, but the ability penalty would remain at the full amount.
serleran wrote:
Armor, when designed properly, which means fit to the person to wear it, is not as encumbering or immobilizing as many modern people think.
Perhaps not. I keep thinking of the scenes from Excalibur, with the heavy clunking knights almost having problems just walking, then clumsily slamming swords into each other.
Quote:
If I were to use a general rule... the penalty on class abilities would be equal to the AC modifier, and it would not affect attack rolls. Wearing armor that one is not trained to wear would invoke a standard halving of the AC granted, but the ability penalty would remain at the full amount.
I think i'll keep mine as AC-2, just to remain consistent with the rogue.
But the question is, what other kinds of checks should it apply to? Any physical action that requires fine precision maybe? But certainly things like jumping, climbing, swimming too. How does one define the line of what's subject to an armor penalty, and what isn't?
-Fizz
Heh, that's the conundrum. A universal penalty that applies to all armors just doesn't cut it. Its just as difficult to pick a pocket with metal full gauntlets as it is with chainmail ones, despite the fact the latter is more flexible... and some armors, especially the segmentata (roman ensembles) are highly maneuverable. And then, there's the whole "but what if no gauntlets are used?"
However, to answer the question... I would simply rule that the penalty applies to any ability that is tied to Dexterity or Strength. That would include saves, by the way... but the armor might give bonuses of its own against specific attack forms, if you wanted to get all complex (think Dangerous Journeys/Mythus.)
However, to answer the question... I would simply rule that the penalty applies to any ability that is tied to Dexterity or Strength. That would include saves, by the way... but the armor might give bonuses of its own against specific attack forms, if you wanted to get all complex (think Dangerous Journeys/Mythus.)
serleran wrote:
However, to answer the question... I would simply rule that the penalty applies to any ability that is tied to Dexterity or Strength. That would include saves, by the way... but the armor might give bonuses of its own against specific attack forms, if you wanted to get all complex (think Dangerous Journeys/Mythus.)
Heh... of course, combat is based on Dexterity and Strength... So why do they avoid the penalties and everything else does not?
The conundrum continues...
-Fizz
serleran wrote:
Because an attack roll is not an ability check (combat is not based on Strength or Dexterity... it is based on level/BtH,) whereas a save/ability use is.
Well, i'm not sure you're making a clear distinction here. An attack roll is a special kind of ability check.
- Some ability checks add your level, others don't. An attack adds a value based on your level.
- An ability check adds your ability modifier, so does an attack.
- An AC is simply a special kind of CC.
The mechanic is almost identical, with just a couple differences in the name.
But the mechanic is not where the conundrum is. It's the physicality of it.
If other actions that rely on Dexterity or Strength are hindered by armor, then why would combat not be? I mean, you can either move your limbs with full degree of motion and speed, or you can't. The armor doesn't know if you're fighting or not.
Thoughts?
-Fizz
I would not apply a penalty to an attack roll for one very simple reason -- to perpuate the "fantasy" that armor is good. Besides, with their EV and application of encumbrance, its likely that Joe Schmoe will be faced with further penalties... this, in my opinion, is enough. I do not want to burden a player, like say, a fighter in field plate, with all these penalties for doing what he's supposed to be doing... those classes that get penalties, like the thief (rogue) and ranger who recieve them from non-archetypal circumstances (thieves don armor primarily as a disguise, for example, and aren't supposed to wear it out into melee on a constant basis) deserve them for "breaking tradition." Its much easier to not penalize them than it is to penalize everyone else... which is one of the, if not the, most important design criterion of C&C: it is easier, and simpler, to add than subtract... this is true both literally, and figuratively, and why it bends to houserules so well, especially the inclusion of them.
-
irda ranger
- Red Cap
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:00 am
Back up a step: What is armor designed for?
Armor isn't something that just one smith came up with in an afternoon. A suit of armor represents generations (centuries or millenia for dwarves and elves) of expertise, practice and refinement at making something that makes a fighter more likely to survive fighting. It will be designed from the ground up to not impeed the types of movements required for fighting. On the other hand, no one designs armor so that it doesn't impede thief skills.
Armor is a tool; and just like any other tool it's good at some stuff while less good at other stuff. There's no reason to have trouble believing that armor would impede picking pockets without impeding swinging a sword or axe. They are very different movements.
A good example is modern sports gear. Hockey padding looks quite cumbersome, but it actually imposes no penalties on my ability to play hockey. It does however, place a significant penalty on my tennis and golf games.
If I were to generalize the rule though, for the Ranger, I would use the Thief's rule, but the penalty would be for AC's higher than whatever the highest AC a Ranger can wear is. I forget that that is off the top of my head, but if a Chain Hauberk is AC +6 I would impose a penalty (like the Thief's) for each point of AC above 6.
I want to stress though that I have no intention of adopting this rule. I think of the Thief's ability to wear armor and use his abilities at a penalty is one of his class abilities that is unique to him. It is not on the Monk, Ranger, Magic-User, Illusionist or Barbarian's list of class abilities to do this; hence, the "normal" rule applies.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia
Armor isn't something that just one smith came up with in an afternoon. A suit of armor represents generations (centuries or millenia for dwarves and elves) of expertise, practice and refinement at making something that makes a fighter more likely to survive fighting. It will be designed from the ground up to not impeed the types of movements required for fighting. On the other hand, no one designs armor so that it doesn't impede thief skills.
Armor is a tool; and just like any other tool it's good at some stuff while less good at other stuff. There's no reason to have trouble believing that armor would impede picking pockets without impeding swinging a sword or axe. They are very different movements.
A good example is modern sports gear. Hockey padding looks quite cumbersome, but it actually imposes no penalties on my ability to play hockey. It does however, place a significant penalty on my tennis and golf games.
If I were to generalize the rule though, for the Ranger, I would use the Thief's rule, but the penalty would be for AC's higher than whatever the highest AC a Ranger can wear is. I forget that that is off the top of my head, but if a Chain Hauberk is AC +6 I would impose a penalty (like the Thief's) for each point of AC above 6.
I want to stress though that I have no intention of adopting this rule. I think of the Thief's ability to wear armor and use his abilities at a penalty is one of his class abilities that is unique to him. It is not on the Monk, Ranger, Magic-User, Illusionist or Barbarian's list of class abilities to do this; hence, the "normal" rule applies.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia
irda ranger wrote:
Armor is a tool; and just like any other tool it's good at some stuff while less good at other stuff. There's no reason to have trouble believing that armor would impede picking pockets without impeding swinging a sword or axe. They are very different movements.
I agree. It is a tool, and serves a purpose, but certainly not every purpose. I'm just trying to decide how i make that decision, or how i find a general rule that will cover most situations.
My current thinking is it applies to all dexterity checks and strength checks involving locomotion. That is- i don't think it should hurt a character's ability to push something over, but it should have an impact if they try to climb or swim.
-Fizz
-
irda ranger
- Red Cap
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:00 am
Fizz wrote:
My current thinking is it applies to all dexterity checks and strength checks involving locomotion. That is- i don't think it should hurt a character's ability to push something over, but it should have an impact if they try to climb or swim.
-Fizz
Again, very different movements. I don't think climbing would be impeded. As for swimming, there are encumbrance rules for that.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia
irda ranger wrote:
Again, very different movements. I don't think climbing would be impeded. As for swimming, there are encumbrance rules for that.
I think climbing would be- you may have to move your arms and legs in rather unnatural positions to be able to get foot and handholds, etc. But mainly i just referred to those to illustrate a `locomotive' check.
Actually, are there rules for swimming anywhere? Seems like encumberance rules would need to be adjusted a bit. I know from experience that just wearing sneakers while swimming makes swimming much much more difficult.
-Fizz