What is the point of medium and heavy armor?

[JaronK]

In the end, if you wanted to make an archer that doesn't deal with skirmish or sneak attack damage (to allow being mounted and avoid having to come to close range all the time) and doesn't use spells (since those often end up overwhelming your archer role anyway) you wouldn't want to go pure Fighter, but you'd still want a bunch to get the really tasty archery feats quick (Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Woodland Archery, etc).  You'd need a few other classes... something with spot (Ranger 2 is obvious) and probably something with knowledge skills so you don't need to take Educated to get Knowledge Devotion (Factotum, perhaps?).  A Crusader dip for Martial Stance is a good plan (when you shoot that many arrows, it adds up) and maybe White Raven Tactics, and Warblade isn't too shabby either (Dancing Mongoose?).   If you get a mount (Paladin?) wild plains outrider can be quite nice too, at least as a one or two level dip, and Halfling Outrider's solid too.  You might as well be small, as being mounted and going everywhere requires a medium or smaller mount.

The end result is an archer who is effective at both close and long range, and who can pour on very significant damage while having a few good utility tricks as well.  That's a downright solid build.  It's not a Wizard, but it's solid.

JaronK

[zugschef]

topic...

i think that armors could give protection against energy attacks. if i was caught in a fireball, an acid shower, a cone of cold, etc. i'd rather wear fullplate than a chain shirt.
of course, some might argue that lightning attacks should harm you more in this case, ok. make it even more complex und give penalties, too, though i personally wouldn't... there is so much unrealistic stuff in dnd, that this won't make a difference. it would just complicate things and again nerf armor.

further, i think letting medium and heavy armor increase touch ac with a small portion of their ac bonus would help, too, along with fortification (why on earth is fortification a magical effect? why do they think full plate armor was invented in the first place?).

right off my head i suggest:

armor	| touch	| resistance	| fortification
-------	| -----------	| -----------	| --------------
light	| -	| ac bonus/2	| -
medium	| ac bonus/2	| ac bonus	| %=ac bonus
heavy	| ac bonus/2	| ac bonus	| %=ac bonus*2

i'd say for these adjustments, special materials, such as mithral, count as an armor type reduction, too. thus, if you wear a mithral breast plate, you won't get any touch ac bonus and no fortification.

i hope this really makes as much sense, as it does to me right now, and that this is no total brain fart.

[Bloody Initiate]

of course, some might argue that lightning attacks should harm you more in this case, ok. make it even more complex und give penalties, too, though i personally wouldn't... there is so much unrealistic stuff in dnd, that this won't make a difference. it would just complicate things and again nerf armor.

Actually some electrical attacks already gain a bonus vs. metal armor. Shocking Grasp is +3 against anything with metal armor. For a level 3+ Duskblade this can translate to 3 more points into Power Attack, resulting in either +3 to attack (Extremely handy at lower levels) or +6 to damage (More useful at higher levels) against enemies with enough metal to give you the bonus.

[Bortasz]

Hmmm my Proposal.

Light Armour No change.

Medium Armour Half of AC is DR
Breastplate give 5 ac and 2 DR
That Damage Reduction stack witch every other reduction. So 20 lvl in Barbarian in Breastplate have DR 2(armour)+5(Class Skill) = total 7 Damage Reduction
Adamantine breastplate have DR 4
Medium Armour have also 25% Fortification witch stack witch Magic enchantment
So Breastplate +1 witch Average Fortification have 100% Chance of neutralize Sneak attack.

Heavy Armour has DR equal to full AC
so Full Plate have AC of 8 and DR 8
20lvl barbarian in Mitril Full plate have DR 5(Class skill) +8(Armour)= Total 13 DR
Adamant Full Plate have DR 11
Heavy Armour have also 75% of Fortification witch stack witch Magic enchantment
(I prefer 50% but Magic have only 25% for +1 prize and 75% for +3 prize. If it is possible for 50% Fortification for +2 prize than Heavy Armour should have 50%)
So Full Plate +1 witch weak Fortification have 100% Chance of neutralize Sneak attack.

In terms of money.

Chain Shirt +1 of Strong Fortification 36 000 and can only have +4 prize more Magic

Full Plate +1 of weak Fortification 5 500 and can have +8 prize Magic (When the Heavy Armour give 75% and magic 25%)
Full Plate +1 of +2 prize Fortification 10 500 and can have +7 prize of magic...  (when the heavy Armour give 50% and magic 50%)

In responding for Question What is the point of medium and heavy armor?:
For Battles and War and Battles.
The Full plate was not create for Adventure's but for Knight ho will fight in War. In the Middle of the Battle their is no room for dodge or reflex. The bigger the battle is then less room for manoeuvre you have.
And think about it. If you fighting against army of Peasants and you don't have magic what is better. Chain Shirt witch give little protection(leave Head, legs, arm without protection) or Full Plate witch, in reality, give you invulnerability against slash weapons? Only thrust have chance to penetrate a XVw. full plate Armour. So slash weapon don't hurt you, in the worst case you will have a bruise. Bludgeoning weapons have effect but lower because under metal you have amortisation. The best weapon are Piercing.
The Warhammer have, in my opinion, better approach to Armour then D&D. but that is non Mechanical/philosopher  argument.

[Sunic_Flames]

So, are you idiots done failing about the fucked up mount rules yet?

No.

Yes, you are.

[Bauglir]

It's true, the thread had moved on until you posted. Hilariously, though, that means your post should say "Yes, you were." because in all likelihood it's invalidated itself.

[zugschef]

So Breastplate +1 witch Average Fortification have 100% Chance of neutralize Sneak attack.

as i've already written in this thread, i don't like damage reduction for certain reasons, but nevermind... about the fortification: i've always had the feeling that 100% fortification is kind of borked. this renders a certain type of character utterly useless... maybe one should allow a level check to see if the effect works or not.

[Bortasz]

I think that protection against Sneak attack and Critical heat combine witch DR give a big bonus to the Medium and Heavy Armour. especial inn lover and Medium lvl.

But if you really want increase usefulness of Medium and Heavy Armour. Allow Tumble in them. Of course witch Penalty.

If you have one slow down Like Medium armour (from 30 feet to 20 feet) you have penalty -5 to tumble

If you have two slowest down like heavy Armour (from 30 feet to 20 feet and cannot run) penalty is -10.

Add to this DR and Fortification and heavier armour i think are very good. Even in higher lvl.

You can have 100% protection against critics and Sneak attack and have more others magic power on your armour then witch Light armour. Of course penalty to Tumble hurt. But if you are high lvl i think you have free skill points.

[Bloody Initiate]

So Breastplate +1 witch Average Fortification have 100% Chance of neutralize Sneak attack.

as i've already written in this thread, i don't like damage reduction for certain reasons, but nevermind... about the fortification: i've always had the feeling that 100% fortification is kind of borked. this renders a certain type of character utterly useless... maybe one should allow a level check to see if the effect works or not.

...except being immune to a character in your party is not that same as making them useless.

While you occasionally fight enemies with class levels, don't forget that most of the time the people with class levels are on your team, and dangerous precision damage is almost exclusive to characters with class levels. There are several monsters that deal precision damage, but they're not nearly as common as PCs using precision and their precision damage is usually negigible.

Therefore 100% fortification is a good thing for PCs, because immunities almost always are for PCs.

Just because someone's stupid arena fight is less fair with 100% fortification doesn't mean you should nerf an already-crippled character type. Rogues shouldn't be going up against fortified enemies anyway, because believe it or not precision weapons really AREN'T good at phasing anyone in platemail.

[bearsarebrown]

100% fortification is a requirement for PCs who want to gain more then 6 levels without being instagibbed by monster's critical hits. Screw precision damage.

[Lycanthromancer]

100% fornication

That's what I saw when I read your post.

You can tell where my mind is today...

[JaronK]

The thing is, the PCs will certainly be fighting other humanoids in armor.  And it would be horrific to make Rogues even more useless in such situations.  You'll have to uncouple precision damage from crits if you do this... though I feel like this is defeating the very purpose of critical hits.

JaronK

[Sunic_Flames]

Only if the many "No, you can SA anyways" methods are removed.

[JaronK]

Which ones exist for dealing with fortification?  The best I know of is an ACF that gives you half sneak attack when it normally wouldn't work at all, but that's hardly impressive.

JaronK

[Bloody Initiate]

Too bad they slapped that "doesn't harm undead, constructs, or objects" bit on Brilliant Energy. It would be a fine way to ignore fortification in that case (And without those disadvantages it would almost be worth the cost).

It doesn't even make sense that it can't hurt undead, in every other case of "light"-based attacks undead take MORE damage not less.

[Lycanthromancer]

Too bad they slapped that "doesn't harm undead, constructs, or objects" bit on Brilliant Energy. It would be a fine way to ignore fortification in that case (And without those disadvantages it would almost be worth the cost).

It doesn't even make sense that it can't hurt undead, in every other case of "light"-based attacks undead take MORE damage not less.

Get yourself a ghost-touch weapon. It ignores corporeal armor that isn't [force] or abjuration-based.

[Bloody Initiate]

Too bad they slapped that "doesn't harm undead, constructs, or objects" bit on Brilliant Energy. It would be a fine way to ignore fortification in that case (And without those disadvantages it would almost be worth the cost).

It doesn't even make sense that it can't hurt undead, in every other case of "light"-based attacks undead take MORE damage not less.

Get yourself a ghost-touch weapon. It ignores corporeal armor that isn't [force] or abjuration-based.

Really? I didn't know that.

More WotC fail. A +1 quality that's better in almost every way than a +4 quality, but not because it does a different thing that is superior, but because it does the same exact thing infinitely better (Except overcome Ghost Touch Armor).

In that case, I have no idea why a rogue would bitch about 100% fortification plate. It's a non-issue. If a +5 armor enhancement can be ignored by a +1 weapon enhancement, it hammers home just how fucked the fighter is

I also notice that the Ghost Touch armor enhancement is +3. WTF? Another system I play makes shit that defends always cheaper than shit that attacks, and D&D makes defenses much more expensive. The other system has the problem of too many cheap defenses to overcome, this one has the problem of making defense damn near impossible to optimize.

Why the hell can't the clowns who designed these games figure out that attacker and defender should invest the same amount, and whether the attack overcomes the defense should be a matter of "didn't think of that" or "that's not my shtick" rather than just being fucked?

Ugh, I like getting better at games but it always means you inevitably get a giant whiff of their putrid failings.

[Lycanthromancer]

Too bad they slapped that "doesn't harm undead, constructs, or objects" bit on Brilliant Energy. It would be a fine way to ignore fortification in that case (And without those disadvantages it would almost be worth the cost).

It doesn't even make sense that it can't hurt undead, in every other case of "light"-based attacks undead take MORE damage not less.

Get yourself a ghost-touch weapon. It ignores corporeal armor that isn't [force] or abjuration-based.

Really? I didn't know that.

More WotC fail. A +1 quality that's better in every way than a +4 quality, but not because it does a different thing that is superior, but because it does the same thing infinitely better.

It's treated as corporeal or incorporeal, whichever is more beneficial at any given time. Thus, it ignores corporeal armor. Definite fail.

[JaronK]

Get yourself a ghost-touch weapon. It ignores corporeal armor that isn't [force] or abjuration-based.

I'm not sure that's what this means.  In context:

Ghost Touch: A ghost touch weapon deals damage normally against incorporeal creatures, regardless of its bonus. (An incorporeal creature’s 50% chance to avoid damage does not apply to attacks with ghost touch weapons.) The weapon can be picked up and moved by an incorporeal creature at any time. A manifesting ghost can wield the weapon against corporeal foes. Essentially, a ghost touch weapon counts as either corporeal or incorporeal at any given time, whichever is more beneficial to the wielder.

It's talking about what it's able to hit, not what it's able to bypass.  Also, even if it could go incorporeal to bypass the armor that wouldn't stop the armor enchantment (fortification), it would just ignore the AC.

JaronK

[BeholderSlayer]

I've got to agree with JaronK on this one. The description says the weapon counts as: "either corporeal or incorporeal at any given time." In order to both be able to hit a corporeal target, and ignore its corporeal armor, the weapon would have to be both incorporeal and corporeal at the same time. It is rather explicit (since "either....or...." makes "and" impossible) that the weapon cannot be both at the same time, thus the statement that ghost touch weapons ignore corporeal armor is false by RAW.

You don't even really have to consider the context. That's exactly what is written even if you only quote that one sentence, or phrase.

Since being completely unable to hit a target with a weapon is less beneficial (it's not a benefit at all, in fact) than having to overcome its corporeal armor, the weapon is corporeal and must deal with that armor bonus.