Why does leather armor have to have +2 penalties on it?
Xezmeraude
Member Posts: 91
Thank you for closing the last posting topic of this. I am reopening it to make sure people stay on topic and not acuse me of agressioness as it wasnt me who was being agressive. It was those who thought this is an arguement and not a debation. So if you are cominghere to post that this is an arguemnet and flame and troll and cause a commotion. Turn around now and stay out of this. Already posts from Iansounet, Moomintroll, Lorfean and Winnick will be taken to a admin to delte their posts. Keep this on discussion to the topic and leave it at that. If you cant abide by the forums rules and get along and respect other peopels opinions about the game. Then there is something wrong with you with socializing with people. Now Lets not get into a discussion about this. The discussion of debate is about.....
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.
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.
Post edited by Bhryaen on
0
Comments
Naked - AC 10. You have no protection whatsoever.
Leather armor - AC 8, +2 against missiles, +2 against piercing attacks.
-> This means that while the cuir bouilli gives a weak protection against slashing and blunt attacks (being a thick enough layer to stop or weaken some minor attacks, it is not thick enough to provide any protection against a piercing attack, wether it's an arrow or a spear.
This means that a leather armor is AC 8 against slashing and blunt attacks, but AC 10 against piercing attacks as it is simply not thick enough to stop a pointy weapon. I don't see the problem.