A question of Armor

[Combat_Kyle]

All right, this is something I have been struggling with. In the PHB bith the ranger and the barbarian are listed as prefering light armorm but the barbarian list is much shorter and more restrictive. I was wondering why? When looking at the weight and encumberance I would think that a barbarian should be able to wear the same types of armor as the ranger. Why noot just say that a barbarian or ranger can wear any armor that weighs 35lbs or less. Thoughts? Also can characters that can only wear light armors (ranger, barbarian, rogue, assasin) wear elven chain, since it is so light?

Here are the list

Ranger list:

Breatplate, steel

Breastplat, bronze

chainmail hauberk

chain shirt

cuir bouille

greek ensemble

leather

leather coat

padded

ring mail

scale mail

studded leather

Barbarian list:

chain shirt

vuir bouille

laminar leather

leather

leather coat

padded

ring mail

studded leather
_________________
CK the CK
"My goddess touched me at an early age."

-Grikis Valmorgen, Paladin

The beginnings of my homebrew campaign world and info for my play by chat game:
http://kbdekker.googlepages.com/home

[serleran]

Elven chain is generally a chain shirt, which appears on both the ranger and barbarian list. Assassins and rogues can wear any armor, but I would rule that elven chain does not interfere with their abilities, due to the magical nature of the item.

As for the barbarian and ranger armor discrepancy... I imagine the more restrictive armor list is due to the barbarian's higher HD, and more defensive abilities. It could also be that the new armors were not added to the barbarian list, because of an oversight.

Needless to say, I am still very shocked neither can use hide armor; I believe this (I hope it is, anyway) to be errata.

[Combat_Kyle]

A barbarian can wear hide, I just left it off the list.
_________________
CK the CK
"My goddess touched me at an early age."

-Grikis Valmorgen, Paladin

The beginnings of my homebrew campaign world and info for my play by chat game:
http://kbdekker.googlepages.com/home

[miller6]

I see two ways to look at the barbarian armor issue, both with the same outcome.

The first way to look at it is as a question of the metal working and armor making techniques available to a tribal community. Typical Barbarians live in uncivilized regions and as such are unlikely to have anything better than hide or similar armor. Sure, they may have rune magic, but there are still some trade offs for living in the boondocks, and quality armor is one of them. If I'm correct, they don't fold metals, and that alone brings into question how much metal-working skills they could possibly have.

The second way to look at it would be in terms of more advanced barbarians such as the mongols who were actually ahead of their time since they had gunpowder (despite the fact that their armor was still poorer quality than that of the Romans). Most likely, they didn't wear heavy metal armor because they didn't want to be so restricted in their movement. In short, Barbarians don't WANT to be walking tin cans.
They'd rather be more like tigers - powerful and quick.

Oh, and a final possibility to consider that just occurred to me is that particular tribes may find dishonor in wearing heavy armor, as if it's a sign of cowardice.

Sound about right?

Brian Miller

Brian Miller

[Treebore]

Those are good suggestions. I'll have to remember those if I ev4er need to flesh out a group of Barbarians.

[Nelzie]

miller6 wrote:
I see two ways to look at the barbarian armor issue, both with the same outcome.

The first way to look at it is as a question of the metal working and armor making techniques available to a tribal community. Typical Barbarians live in uncivilized regions and as such are unlikely to have anything better than hide or similar armor. Sure, they may have rune magic, but there are still some trade offs for living in the boondocks, and quality armor is one of them. If I'm correct, they don't fold metals, and that alone brings into question how much metal-working skills they could possibly have.

The second way to look at it would be in terms of more advanced barbarians such as the mongols who were actually ahead of their time since they had gunpowder (despite the fact that their armor was still poorer quality than that of the Romans). Most likely, they didn't wear heavy metal armor because they didn't want to be so restricted in their movement. In short, Barbarians don't WANT to be walking tin cans.
They'd rather be more like tigers - powerful and quick.

Oh, and a final possibility to consider that just occurred to me is that particular tribes may find dishonor in wearing heavy armor, as if it's a sign of cowardice.

Sound about right?

Brian Miller

I know for a fact that there were American Indian tribes that did mine copper and used that for a variety things, even smelting the copper and pouring it into forms to make the goods they used. Things like Axe heads, arrow heads among other goods.

I do not believe it would be unreasonable for a fantasy world barbarian tribe to be crafting armor using "advanced" metalurogical techniques. Sure, they might not have a hundred warriors wearing full plate armor, because they wouldn't be barbarians anymore. The question then remains, where do they get the steel to craft all of their greatswords, gigantic two-handed battleaxes and other weapons for that matter?

They have to do some kind of mining/gathering of materials and have to have some kind of ability to turn that into finished products.

Barbarian doesn't necesarily mean "stone age", it just means "uncivilized" to the group that considers themselves to be the "civilized" group. These people can have large cities filled with craftsmen all ruled under a fairly chaotic system of law.

Like the Mongols were looked upon as Barbarians. Yet they had a spy network that let them know what was going on in the English Court. They had an advanced communications network using a "Pony Express" and mirror communication for sending messages across mountaintops. They had some advanced medical techniques, like removing arrows and caring for the wound. They just had "uncouth" appearances.

I do agree though, they likely don't want to be walking tin cans. They probably wouldn't create chainmail, as that just takes to damn long. Yet, they might make a few plates of steel/iron and work those into an armor that would be akin to a chest plate, even then only a few warriors would possibly wear that.

[miller6]

Quote:
I know for a fact that there were American Indian tribes that did mine copper and used that for a variety things, even smelting the copper and pouring it into forms to make the goods they used. Things like Axe heads, arrow heads among other goods.

Many of the tribes that were good at working metal developed that skill because they were artistic and non-warlike peoples. Hence, you still wouldn't find hardly any metal armor. Did the Aztec's wear metal armor? Not much, I'd think...and they were warlike with metal crafting skills. The chestplate concept still works though, if I remember correctly.

Quote:
Barbarian doesn't necesarily mean "stone age", it just means "uncivilized" to the group that considers themselves to be the "civilized" group. These people can have large cities filled with craftsmen all ruled under a fairly chaotic system of law.

Describing barbarians in terms of lawlessness probably only applies if you're referring to the laws of the civilized group since each barbaric tribe had one type of law or another. As the indians would attest, one culture should not be defined in terms of another culture.

It seems there's as many discrepencies defining what the term "Barbarian" means as there were for "Swashbucklers" in the other discussion. In the end, I guess it all depends on what you consider to be a barbarian. For many gamers, I'm sure the term "Conan" comes to mind simply due to his notariety and portrayal by some guy named Arnold.
"Da promise I was kingdomed." (Conan)

Brian Miller

[Combat_Kyle]

Here is my take: note cross posted on DF

I understand the tecnology concerns and all, but once a barbarian starts adventuring he will be exposed to a wider world and new technology. That being siad if he runs into a lightweight armor (A steel breastplate, 30 lbs 2 EV worn) I think a barbarian would be able to adopt this new technology and use it without affecting his abilities. The one caveat I would install as a CK would be that a barbarian player could not start with this armor but must be exposed to it and have some instruction (say a week) on the proper use of it. After this the barbarian should be able to use the new light armor just as if it were on his weapon list.
_________________
CK the CK
"My goddess touched me at an early age."

-Grikis Valmorgen, Paladin

The beginnings of my homebrew campaign world and info for my play by chat game:
http://kbdekker.googlepages.com/home

[miller6]

Sounds reasonable, but I still can't see them actually wanting to use it. Such an adaptable barbarian is voluntarily being assimilated into the new culture...to become a normal fighter. I guess you could say that a barbarian who adapts too much is like a paladin who worships too little.

But that's just my take on it, otherwise, inevitably you might ultimately end up with barbarian cyborgs. lol.

Brian Miller

[johns]

When it comes to barbarians, I always ask myself - WWCD - What Would Conan Do?

Seriously, when you're dealing with archetypes, common sense sometimes takes a backseat to realism. Barbarians in C&C can wear any form of armor they want, of course - so can wizards. They just can't use all of their special abilities in it. But, hey, play it like you think it should be played.

[Arazmus]

4 year anniversary of no posts on this topic.

And I often ask myself WWCD? It makes a mess at work sometimes but the results are decidedly unique.
_________________
I'll tell you what I do like though: a killer, a dyed-in-the-wool killer. Cold blooded, clean, methodical and thorough. ~Zorg