The armour conundrum (or what classes/kits should be allowed to wear helmets and use shields)

elminster

I could have made this into a poll, but polls are generally fairly limiting and I wanted to focus more on discussion anyways.

When I say "helmet" I'm not talking about Ioun stones or the King Strohm mask (or some other similar quest-related mask that everyone can wear). I'm just talking basic helmets.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since time immortal the question of what "cannot wear armor" means has plagued many a mind.

For the Shapeshifter it means that you cannot wear anything in your armor slot (such as studded or leather armor) but you can still wear a helmet and use a shield (buckler). Other druid kits also limit the armor you can wear to leather (similar to a thief) but you can still wear helmets and use bucklers.

For a mage/sorcerer it means you can wear a robe (including a robe that sets your AC), you cannot wear armor (like leather, studded, etc), and you cannot wear a helmet or use a shield.

For a thief they cannot wear armor greater than studded leather, which apparently includes helmets. But you can still use a shield (all be it in a limited capacity). Same thing for the bard (though they can use chainmail).

For a kensai you can't wear armor (leather, studded leather, plate mail, etc), a shield or a helmet.

Monks can't wear armor (leather, studded leather, etc), a helmet, or a shield.


and so I ask should the descriptions for these classes be changed to reflect what "armor" they are actually prevented to use? Or should classes/kits be changed in some way to create greater consistency here? (feel free to discuss an alternative to these two thoughts as well)

jackjack

I am okay with the restrictions as is, I just feel the descriptions should properly reflect them.

Tarlugn

I would´t change the classes, but rather create new items for them, which would be available right from the start, but on-par the current armor choices for sale. Kensai could wear clothing, like a robe, a hat and mittens, for example.

element

no self respecting bard would wear a helmet even they it could, as it would mess up there hair

i think it would be nice if the descriptions were a little clearer in this respect though

Anduin

Clearer descriptions please.

I would describe per slot.

Kensai cannot equip items to the helmet, armour, bracer or shield slot (for a quick example)

And now I have written it... A Kensai can carry an extra weapon in the shield slot... But so can mages so... Do we need to explain that every character can equip a weapon in the shield slot... A higher up decision me thinks.

Armour is pretty self explanatory anyway... There just is not enough items in the game. How about something like this...

Armour in order of the amount of protection given goes up through robes, leather, studded leather, chain, splint, plate and full plate.

Fighter --> Can wear all types of armour, including full plate. (not true, because non-magical robes do not exist in the game... But in theory they can...)

Ranger --> Can wear all types of armour, including full plate although lose the ability to hide stealthily in armours heavier than studded leather.

Paladin --> Can wear all types of armour, including full plate. (not true, but white robes of puritythat must surely exist are not in the game.)

Cleric --> Can wear all types of armour, including full plate. (not true, but clerical robes that must surely exist are not in the game.)

Barbarian --> Can wear robes, leather, studded leather, chain, splint.

Bard --> Can wear robes, leather, studded leather, chain.

Thief --> Can wear robes, leather, studded leather and other light armours that allow a thief to use his skills.

Druid --> Can wear robes, leather and any other armour made out of natural materials.

Mage --> Can wear robes (and they can!)

Monk --> Can wear robes (but they can't!)

You could also give flavour with the reasons as to why...

Monks need the ability to wave their arms around in a mad fashion... So armour for them is a big no no...

Mages can cast spells like chain lightning... Would you wear a suit of metal if you could do that?

Yep... Clearer descriptors please...

The reason Druids can wear helmets is they will still sit on top of the animals head... even if that head is now the wrong shape and the helmet is swinging loosely by the straps... But surely any armour worn would be shredded... plus the animal would simply drop the shield... It is the failure of the game mechanics that allow you to still have the bonus... Although... Is PnP different in this respect... Because I am not sure...

Quartz

Don't forget that Druids can wear Ankheg Armor. Gahh, what a pain.

elminster

Yea I wasn't going to get into the dragon/animal (ankheg/hide) armors. That is an issue that is more kit restriction/item restriction specific.

I did forgot to include monks though.

elminster

Im assuming some of this comes down to P&P, how things have always been done, or the fact that certain sprites don't show helmets. But personally I can go either way on the issue.

Heindrich

What I wish (and I know it won't happen) is that there was some sort of trade off with heavier armour. Right now it is a no-brainer to wear as heavy armour as you can afford.

It could be movement speed, quicker fatigue, reduced dexterity etc...

For example for my Fighter/Thief based on a Japanese character, I am limiting him to Splint Mail, to represent samurai armour, but that's just a penalty I have accepted for RP purposes when I know he should be wearing plate or full plate (he doesn't have the strength for that) for powergaming effectiveness, when not using stealth abilities.

Tarlugn

Somehow I´ve always portrayed kensai in my mind wearing a kimono (oriental robe made of silk). I don´t know, would it be that hard just to make kensai appearance as mages, and make some special kimono for them.

KidCarnival

I'm fine with the restrictions, but I would also appreciate it if there were non-magical clothing items every class could equip. Let a mage wear a hat or something, monks and kensais robes, things like that. Mages and other casters could also have a walking stick that isn't used for attacks, just to look better than walking around with a sling. I'd put a sling in my belt. It's not like a huge sword (which I also think would be sheathed when just walking around). A visible scroll case for casters, a holy symbol or maybe a banner for knigthy types would also be nice.
I don't like empty slots and characters that are unable to wear anything always seem so... incomplete when walking with a fully equipped party.

Anduin

Quartz said:

Don't forget that Druids can wear Ankheg Armor. Gahh, what a pain.

As per my poor attempt at writing a descriptor...

Druid --> Can wear robes, leather and any other armour made out of natural materials.

jackjack

I wouldn't mind if Bards could wear Mage robes, or other "Arcane" only items.

AstroBryGuy

In PnP, helmets aren't really a separate issue from the armor a character is wearing. A helmet is presumed to included with a suit of armor, if appropriate. Actually, the idea that a suit of full plate armor would NOT include a helmet (as in Baldur's Gate) is kind of absurd.

Also, since helmets don't prevent critical hits in PnP, they don't have much of an affect on the game, unless
you use the Called Shot rules from the C&T splat book. In that case, an un-helmeted opponent's head is a wonderful target.