Is armor too important?

[Trodax]

(Sorry, this will be the last of these polls I start. I promise. )

So I think that armor in Conan is slightly too important. In many of the stories Conan runs around in nothing but a loincloth, but being without armor for a warrior in the game can often lead to a world of hurt. And I'm not just talking about heavy armor, either; having just a leather jerkin (DR 4) can really make a world of a difference. What gave me this opinion was when my players (whose characters were without armor) started to desperately pull armor off of dead foes. It just didn't feel like something that would happen in the Conan stories.

As an aside, this actually goes hand in hand with the fact that I think two-handed weapons are too powerful; it makes it too important what stuff you have. Conan should be about just grabbing the nearest weapon and not worrying too much (and the rules should reinforce this).

And I should add that I'm not advocating any extreme changes, but perhaps DR's lowered with a point here or there would give me the result I want. Anyway, I was just curious to see if I'm the only one with this opinion.

 

[Halfbat]

I'm not sure this can be taken on it's own, that is without any reference to weapon damage (particularly 2-handed weapons). I like the armour rules - that is, that armour reduces damage rather than making you harder to hit, but I, too, have PCs wandering about in as much armour as they can get - just in case they run into someone with a two-handed weapon.

 

[Kemper Boyd]

The downsides of armor are better roleplayed than expressed through game mechanics. The Westermark borderer, dressed only in buckskins and moccasines, will survive much longer on the Pictish frontier than the Poitainian knights who wear plate mail.

I don't think armor is too important, after all, it gives you a realistic edge in combat against unarmored opponents. But outside of combat, or combat in the wrong sort of environment, wearing armor can be more dangerous than going without.

 

[Majestic7]

I think armor is just fine as it is. I wouldn't use Conan as an example of a typical player character either - just by looking at his stats, he is much better than any player character of the same level. Only tweak I can think of is making heavily armored characters somehow easier to hit. Hmm, how about dropping MaxDex and instead making heavy armors give Dex Penalty, thus making it harder to dodge eventually?

 

[jadrax]

Playing a pirate, I wear a padded Jerkin and a helmet, and I don't really see any reason to wear more.

 

[Netherek]

I can't really throw in a vote here. I think armour works correctly for the most part. If any thing, I think maybe giving an unarmoured a bonus to defensive fighting/total defense, might want to include light armour as well (not without serious testing though).

I could see a +2 to defensive tactics. Other than that, I think it is fine as is.

 

[Strom]

Armor sure is nice to have in combat. In the REH stories Conan wears armor when he can - from when he was youth fighting Vanir or as a King defending his crown. To me this implies Conan knew the value of armor and utilized it when he could. Like in many of the stories though, circumstances dictate how available armor and helms are and there's nothing stopping the GM from creating similar or exact circumstances for the PC's. The penalties for sleeping in armor make for a perfect The Phoenix on the Sword scenario. 8)

I like the armor rules in the game as is.

 

[Foxworthy]

I've gone around with out armor quite a bit in the game but usually I stuck to a mail shirt. Anything heavier and you attract way to much attention.

 

[Daz]

I think that having a hundred pounds of armor not hurt your parry defense AT ALL is a bit of a problem. It can't help your parrying ability to lug around all that steel.

 

[Netherek]

Daz, the same logic should then apply to attack as well...

 

[Netherek]

Daz, the same logic should then apply to attack as well...

 

[Daz]

Daz, the same logic should then apply to attack as well...

What a good idea. I think I'll steal it.

 

[argo]

I voted that armor is "fine as is" because I think its affect on combat; that is DR, Max Dex, affects on DV and speed etc. are fine as is.

However I would like to see some thought given to how miserable armor makes your life outside of combat. How hot and heavy and uncomfortable it is, how it chafes and becomes smelly and sweaty. The basic rules ignore these sorts of effects because they aren't "heroic" (which is true) but I think in a Conan game that sort of thing makes sense.

Maybe tie a mechanic into the Fatigue rules. Wear heavy armor X number of hours and take Fatigue penalties. IOW give the players a mechanical reason not to put on armor unless they fear an immenient battle.

Later.

 

[argo]

Daz, the same logic should then apply to attack as well...

What a good idea. I think I'll steal it.

So wearing armor makes you less effective in combat? :?

It already works that way BTW. If you aren't proficient with the armor worn you take the ACP as a penalty to attack. The armor proficiency feats are meant to represent you having learned to compensate for that sort of thing. Skilled warriors who know their way around their armor shouldn't loose combat effectivness for wearing it. Otherwise you never would have seen full plate in the real world.

 

[Krushnak]

armour works fine as is and yes conan wanders around alot in nothing but a loin cloth but will always take armour when he can and when its suitable to wear it.

in one of my sessions when the characters had to make a brief forray into the pictish wilderness they went in armoured with chain shirts, steel caps and a light load of gear for their respective strengths. the heat and humidity however quickly turned that light load into a medium and then a heavy as they became fatigued. the characters quickly learned how hampering this was when they started getting harassed by picts who could run rings around them.

not everything can and should be covered under game mechanics. the rules given for armour are good as they stand and allow for the GM to emphasise certain aspects as they are warrented.

 

[Trodax]

Thanks for the input folks!

I mentioned in some other thread that something that could be nice would be a feat or two that gave you some sort of bonus when unarmored, to give a little boost to the guy in the loincloth. Sort of like Light-Footed or the Southern Islander racial ability.

Other than that I like the ideas of restricting the use of armor without actually weakening it's DR; lowered max Dex, fatigue, a "You stink!"-mechanic ( ) etc.

 

[Daz]

Daz, the same logic should then apply to attack as well...

What a good idea. I think I'll steal it.

So wearing armor makes you less effective in combat? :?

It already works that way BTW. If you aren't proficient with the armor worn you take the ACP as a penalty to attack. The armor proficiency feats are meant to represent you having learned to compensate for that sort of thing. Skilled warriors who know their way around their armor shouldn't loose combat effectivness for wearing it. Otherwise you never would have seen full plate in the real world.

Well it really depends on how much of a penalty heavy armor gives you. For my Viking campaign I'm giving people a -1 to hit per three points of non-shield armor check penalty. So armor (especially light armor) is still useful but it comes at a cost.

Maybe not appropriate for Hyboria, but I think it's a good way to keep Vikings in relativley light armor.

 

[slaughterj]

Having at least light armor is too important. Without it, you take a lot of damage from Hunting Bows and miscellaneous smaller weapons, that would otherwise add up too quickly. The big factor is the limited amount of healing in the game, so PCs have to circumvent that, and the ways to do that are to either (1) not get hit or (2) have some armor to reduce the damage taken. While PCs will endeavor to not get hit (e.g., sneaking in places rather than full-frontal assaults, if possible), once combat does actually begin, it is hard to not get hit *some*, and if you are taking full damage from weak weapons like Hunting Bows, especially in an early encounter in an adventure, you will be really hurting when the later tougher encounters happen.

 

[Krushnak]

daz i think the most appropiate way to keep vikings from having access to too much metal armour is to restrict its availability. keep leather and padded still really quite cheap to make but up the price on all metal armour. this should mean that the players either have to get their grubby little hands on a hell of alot of loot and keep it until they reach a good trading town. or loot the armour straight off the back of some other rich warrior which should be pretty hard to do seeing as he should be a relatively competent warrior and surrounded by competent warrior friends/followers.

 

[Netherek]

Having at least light armor is too important. Without it, you take a lot of damage from Hunting Bows and miscellaneous smaller weapons, that would otherwise add up too quickly. The big factor is the limited amount of healing in the game, so PCs have to circumvent that, and the ways to do that are to either (1) not get hit or (2) have some armor to reduce the damage taken. While PCs will endeavor to not get hit (e.g., sneaking in places rather than full-frontal assaults, if possible), once combat does actually begin, it is hard to not get hit *some*, and if you are taking full damage from weak weapons like Hunting Bows, especially in an early encounter in an adventure, you will be really hurting when the later tougher encounters happen.

One can take the run feat thereby retaining the ability to dodge and rapidly close the gap on archers by relying on dodge, shield, and the +2 run bonus.

Though, is wearing at least some armour more effective than none? Most certainly, and it should be. Conan wore armour every time he could when it was appropriate, though this didn't always work in practice as it might have to be ditched or other recourse causing one to be without it.