Armor shouldn't subtract from MA

[hcobb]

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.

[Anthony]

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

[Chris Rice]

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.

[TippetsTX]

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.

[Steve Plambeck]

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!

[hcobb]

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

[MikMod]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

...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?

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.

[David Bofinger]

Encumbrance is made of many factors:

1. Weight
2. Unbalancing (this is why a suit of armour in a backpack is in some ways harder to carry around than one you wear)
3. Interference with movement of limbs
4. Interference with breathing
5. Interference with vision
6. Everything else

Any system of encumbrance is going to be a dodgy mix of these elements. TFT perhaps puts more emphasis on 3 than is realistic. It might be nice to pretend that RAW's approach is a brilliant design decision, but in fact it's driven by Melee's lack of a concept of weight.

I don't know the best way to do this, but one idea would be to fold some of them into one property and call it encumbrance. Every object has it, and some have several values: a sword strapped to your pack has a different encumbrance to one carried at your belt.

But if you wanted to defend the idea that some DX penalty is ST-independent then 5 above is a good reason why.