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.

Re: Armor shouldn't subtract from MA
 

If you're worried about realism, armor shouldn't affect DX either. Armor rules in tft are about game balance.

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.

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.

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!

Re: Armor shouldn't subtract from MA
 

There's no point carrying a lance on a horse with barding.

Re: Armor shouldn't subtract from MA
 

They wouldn't be the same though, would they?

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.

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%

Re: Armor shouldn't subtract from MA
 

I'm sorry, but I can't image any 150 lbs 'lightweight' walking around in fine plate. The character needs a bit more meat on them...say 180 to 220 lbs.

And I would expect a Reptile-man (or woman) to be at least twice that, probably more with the tail.

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.