Another thing I found to be addressed is penalties on leather armor and bucklers
Xezmeraude
Member Posts: 91
One thing else I found in all the baldurs gate games is why when equipping leather armor should there be a +2 to missile and +2 to piercing attacks when wearing nothing I am not even penalized for it? I dont think there should be any penalties on any armor cept maybe for blunt weapons to have a +1 on chain splint and Plate mail since they can be dented from maces morning stars and flails and that an be damaging on the body. There is absolutely no reason as to why regular leather armor should be penalized when studded leather is not. It just doesnt seem right at all. Its just making you more liable to get hit even more often by such attacks rather than just focus on the armors protection. Yes leather wont protect you from missile and piercing attacks, but thats what AC is for. To determine the armors effectiveness which means there is no reason to penalize it to allow attacks to connect more often. Thats what penalties do. Penalties dont mean attacks shoul have a much better success. Im sure these overlooked issues were not intended to be on the leather armor and should be addressed immediately. In D&D rules. Leather armor never had a penalty for wearing it even in 2nd edition. Nothing should be penalized cept for the metal armors against blunt weapons. Thats the only logical reason when even in physics would a attack do more than its intended. Plus the bulkers shouldnt have the no missile/piercing attack penatly either as though its small its easy to agily defend and hold in place with. They can be aimed right to block shots and attacks if you are cunning enough to focus on attacks coming at you. Also the armor bonuses for shield should increase by +1 for each type of shield as in the mod Item Revisions. Why a large shield protects you like a buckler is beyond me. This is definitely a must add for the game before its release to be checked on and solved so parties arent having a helluva time trying to stay alive inase people wondered why leather clad charatcres were dying so much faster. Thats the reason why. I hope this helps clarify anything from modders and players who had the speculations why attacks were connecting more often with certain armors.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
They're basicly just tiny round shields (8th - 11th century vikings). Punch any blows away instead of blocking them, they weren't meant for missile.
Well, basically (right now I cannot remember the correct numbers, so bare with me)
Facing an opponent with piercing attack:
no armor = your AC is 10
Wearing leather (AC 2)= your AC is 10
Facing an opponent with slashing attack
no armor = you AC is 10
wearing leather (AC 2) = you AC is 8
so basically it states that that from the perspective of an opponent with piercing weapons, leather armor is no protection at all, as your armor does nothing to stop his attack.
so you are not worse of, it's exactly the same.
I'm not understanding your objection.
I wasnt arguing just so you know. Thats what starts flamings and makes people troll on here. You shouldnt have stated I was arguing. There is no arguemnet even being asked for. You should change that and edit that out. I just wanted to explain my opinion the purpose of the penalties. Everything on a forum is just opinions. No ones arguing with anyone as everyones entitled to an opinion.
My opinion is just trying to figure out the purpose of the penalties. If leather armor is going to penalize me on piercing and missile and make it feel I am naked... What be the point of wearing it then right?
With how ward explains exactly how bucklers work. Yes they are small tiny shields easily carried on the belt. But I dont see why it would need a further penalty on the missle and piercing when a very low AC score can just verify how almost useless it is to defend with based on any attack.
Just like what I am getting at with the leather armor. Yes Leather doesnt protect you much at all. But it should offer better protection than wearing nothing at all. I guess what the penalty means is Leather armor is just clothing more or less. I can agree with that. But its just a covering to protect you from sunburn but nothing else. Now that I could agree on the penalties then. But the thing is Studded Leather is no better than leather either as you can stab a sword into a studded leather wearing person inbetween the studs plus arrows too wont always connect on a stud. Thats where I am getting with this. If leather should have the penalties. Then studded should too. Same with chain mail which was actually proven on deadliest warrior chain armor offers no protection from piercing attacks of any form either because linking them with rings anything that goes between the ring will split it open from the force of the pierce. Its only thin straps of weak steel alloy that is easily cut through by any sharp object of piercing force. Yes its more protective than leather. But only to blunt and slashing attacks. Most of the armors arent exactly penalized right then. Thats why splint and plate mailare penalize to blunt weapons because it dents the armor after an attack and it weakens the armor and it hurts you more with the dent pressing on you while you move. I can see what you are trying to say Winnick. Leather is no different than being naked. Its just a shirt you wear. I guess the penalty does fit on it. I can see where you were getting at with it. But I just think AC can explain everything enough about how protective the armor is without any penalties whatsoever.
Maybe they shouldve penalized certain armors more with more logical penalties to reflect just how protective it is in situations like deadliest warrior shows did. Studded is not even slightly any different to leather. The studs are too far apart to really offer any better protection than leather. Its just heavier and more hardened. Chain is just an alternative that started the whole metal armors as history grew. if armors should really offer AC protection. its splint and above then with chain being the lowest of them all. The leathers shouldnt offer anything cept maybe studded in some way. But for fairness.
I guess leather armor should be penalized. I think I understand why it was in the game. Not for just hitting more easier. But to really reflect the logicness of its protection. But adding +2 to a roll to jugde you are going to hit doesnt really explain the penalty enough no matter how you look at it. Its supposed to protect you not make a hit have a more cunning chance to hit.
Anyway, the point here is that, in the AD&D rules that BG uses, leather armor and bucklers are considered insufficient protection against piercing attacks and that's where the penalties come from. No need to change that. You can argue that the way this was handled in the rules is a bit clunky, but that's what the rules are and it's really just a small detail in the grand scheme of things, isn't it?
He shouldve used the word debate. An arguement is not what you said. Thats the definition of debating. An arguemnet is an offensive way to get a word aross. he mustve just didnt know what proper word to use. Usually younger people dont entirely have full vocabulary understatements of what words better suit what situations. I always was relaxed so chill man along with us man. Its just a debation about the rules lol.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argue
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument
Definitions of "Argue": Definitions of "Argument": Bottom line: He used it correctly. It can be interpreted in the way you described as well, but that's not all that word means and I am sure he did use it with the intention of characterizing your post as offensive or negative. Really.
Edit - Also, it is considered taboo in a debate to use personal insults, something you seem set on, somewhat contradictorily .
But then, in your reply to him, you make a big deal out of his use of the word, you tell him off for using it, and you even tell him to change and edit it out, and then in a later post you make the rather baseless assumption that he is a "younger person that doesn't have the full vocabulary understanding of what words better suit certain situations" which, to be honest, could easily be taken as an outright insult. And now you're even calling him stupid... That's not a nice thing to say at all, especially because you are the only one who has a problem with the word "argument".
See, your thread title even says that you believe the penalties on leather armor and bucklers are a thing "to be addressed", which is a strong indication that you are about to make an argument for addressing those rules. Which is exactly what you did. And no one has a problem with that, and no one thinks you're arguing with anyone -- which is a whole other meaning of the word. You are making an argument for a change to the rules... Nothing wrong with that. It's common practice on forums to do so, and isn't that generally the basis for a debate anyway? One person making an argument for something and another giving their reasons against it? That's exactly what he was indicating with his use of the word "argument" -- that you are giving your reasons on why you think this should be addressed. And that's the correct use of the word. There's nothing hostile about it, but you are simply misunderstanding the meaning of the word.
What he meant when he used the word was "you're making an argument for something" which means you're sharing your opinions on the subject with others for the purpose of debate.
Those are two different meanings of the word and both uses are entirely correct in the English language. He didn't do anything wrong -- you simply misunderstood him. Which is fine. I just wanted to clarify his use of the word to you because it seemed to bother you so much.
You misunderstood him, the word "argument" doesn't just mean what you think it means, and the only one who's publicly humiliating himself is you. Your welcome to your thread. Enjoy.
And thanks for comparing me to Sheldon. That was pretty cool.