09-20-2019, 09:13 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pacheco, California
|
Armor shouldn't subtract from MA
Just apply the actual weights of armor and consult the encumbrance table.
Chainmail: 25 kg or 55 pounds. Plate: 50 kg or 110 pounds. And so on. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14204717 it is much more 'expensive' to carry the load as a suit of armour than it is to carry the load in a backpack.
__________________
-HJC |
09-21-2019, 12:51 AM | #3 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
|
Re: Armor shouldn't subtract from MA
To my mind, DX adjustment for armour is a key feature of the game. The encumbrance table however, is not and I've never used it.
|
09-21-2019, 01:48 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: North Texas
|
Re: Armor shouldn't subtract from MA
I get what you are saying... MA penalties should be a function of overall encumbrance, not the armor itself. I agree in theory, but to Chris' point, many tables may ignore the encumbrance rules.
TBH, my issue w/ armor MA is that it is humanoid-centric and is a fixed value rather than a deduction.
__________________
“No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.” -Vladimir Taltos |
09-25-2019, 01:18 AM | #5 |
Join Date: Jun 2019
|
Re: Armor shouldn't subtract from MA
Also, there's compatibility with Melee and Wizard to think about. There is no weight encumbrance in those games.
Keeping track of weight carried takes bookkeeping. Excluding armor weight is one less thing to worry about. And do we really want to start "sizing" armor (by the ST of the wearer?) and assigning weights to those sizes so the -DX adjustments net out to what they are already? It would become a nightmare!
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." |
09-25-2019, 12:53 PM | #7 | |
Join Date: May 2019
|
Re: Armor shouldn't subtract from MA
Quote:
I've always taken ST as a function of mass/weight. But armour weight would only expand as a flat surface covering. In other words, take a monster twice the height of a standard human (10ST) and he would have 2x2x2, or 8 times the volume/mass, I.e. 80 ST. However, the armour worn would only have to cover 2x2 or 4 times the area. For the same thickness of armour. Meaning that bigger creatures will be able to carry armour more easily, or they could carry THICKER armour for the same penalties. So sure, the 80 ST monster could wear chain and get -3 DX, but it would be monster chainmail taking 6 hits! Or he could wear 3pt chain and hardly notice carrying it. |
|
09-25-2019, 01:20 PM | #8 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pacheco, California
|
Re: Armor shouldn't subtract from MA
Critter, body weight, fine plate weight, percentage
Halfling, 90 pounds, 38.5 pounds, 43% Human, 150 pounds, 55 pounds, 37% Reptile Lady, 300 pounds, 71.5 pounds, 24% War Horse, 1000 pounds, 137.5 pounds, 14% Giant, 2000 pounds, 220 pounds, 11%
__________________
-HJC |
09-25-2019, 03:35 PM | #9 | |
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: North Texas
|
Re: Armor shouldn't subtract from MA
Quote:
And I would expect a Reptile-man (or woman) to be at least twice that, probably more with the tail.
__________________
“No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.” -Vladimir Taltos |
|
09-25-2019, 03:47 PM | #10 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Armor shouldn't subtract from MA
Why? Sure, a beanpole who's 6'2" and 150 lb might have issues, but someone who's 5'4" and 150 lb is plenty solidly built.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|