Skip to content

armor

IchthyicIchthyic Member Posts: 89
Just gonna put this out there... for basically any DnD 2nd edition game ever made, you're better off using the NON magical version of most armors, and supplementing the AC with a ring/cloak/necklace of protection instead.

unless it's a unique armor with special abilities, your basic armor is going to outperform enchanted armor because it lets you add magical items that boost both armor class and saves and/or other things.

example from this game:

regular, nonmagical full plate mail with a ring of protection +2 is superior to full plate mail +2.

why?

magical armor by default does not add to your save values in 2nd edition, only AC.

so with regular full plate mail and an item of protection, you end up at the same AC, but now with 2 better saving throws across the board. Or, I could add a ring of greater resistance for the same AC, but now with 25% crushing resistance and +3 spell saves, etc.

the saving throws will become more and more important as the game progresses (doesn't even matter WHICH game were talking about; it's the same with IWD, or BG for example).


the only negative is that often (but not always) enchanted armor weighs less (like, is your fighter going to notice?).

another bonus is that you don't have to spend tens of thousands to get yourself a +2 set of magical armor.

spend a tenth of the cost on a regular suit instead.

Comments

  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    I can't remember exactly, but aren't the PnP rules a lot less restrictive on armor + ring issues?

    I never really understood why those were exclusive to begin with.
  • WowoWowo Member Posts: 2,064
    I think this only really holds true for BG1. In IWD and Bg2 there are some sets of armor that are stronger than the ring+armor combo.
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,387
    In PnP Magic armor does have a few more advantages; and weight and flexibility can be big issues. The pluses on magic armor do occasionally add to saves too (against damage causing spells). And in any game using equipment damage/breakage rules magic may be particularly useful.
    But I think the biggest thing is just that in most PNP games I've played it's not that you CAN'T wear a magic ring with your magic armor, it's that only the best bonus applies. That can make a pretty big difference. I'm not sure if the IE implementation is a programming limitation or a different interpretation, but it's definitely not how I've usually played.

    As it stands now, I definitely use non-magic armor later into the game than I would expect to. But that's fine. The DM made a ruling (Bioware) and now we players get to figure out its impact...
  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    Worth noting that ring slots can be pretty useful. Sometimes you want to wear two rings that are worth more to you than +2 AC. In general, though, I'm inclined to agree that non-magical armor + ring of protection is usually ideal for front-liners. I'm not really sure that's a problem, honestly.
  • JurisJuris Member Posts: 113
    Yup, that's why Ankeg and Umber Hulk plate are so awesome (they're non-magical). There's also a non-magical polar worm armor in IWD. In order to be worth it magic armor has to give you something more than a + to AC. I think atcDave was right about how it was the best bonus in 2nd Ed - but the devs probably couldn't implement that correctly.
    Ichthyic said:

    Just gonna put this out there... for basically any DnD 2nd edition game ever made, you're better off using the NON magical version of most armors, and supplementing the AC with a ring/cloak/necklace of protection instead.

    unless it's a unique armor with special abilities, your basic armor is going to outperform enchanted armor because it lets you add magical items that boost both armor class and saves and/or other things.


  • IchthyicIchthyic Member Posts: 89
    DJKajuru said:

    On the other hand, leather armor +1 has a dark color and your thief looks cooler on it.

    you actually have a good point aesthetics are important. :)

    OTOH, you can customize your character to be wearing dark armor at any time, with nearly any armor, which is a cool feature of this game.

  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,300
    I'd like to state that, by saying "it's better to wear a normal version and a magic ring or amulet" , you are also saying that magic is mundane and banal in Forgotten Realms. Perhaps such items should be rarer, then?

    No offense intended for IWD, though. Its magical items , being randomized and limited as they are, are already interesting.
  • IchthyicIchthyic Member Posts: 89
    edited March 2015
    DJKajuru said:

    I'd like to state that, by saying "it's better to wear a normal version and a magic ring or amulet" , you are also saying that magic is mundane and banal in Forgotten Realms.

    um. no. please don't put words in my mouth.

    what I'm saying is that given the rules about how AC bonus items will not stack, it makes more sense to get your bonus AC from sources other than armor, which typically doesn't provide extra bonuses, while rings, necklaces and cloaks typically do.

    it's got nothing to do with rarity, as things like rings or cloaks of protection are supposed to be fairly common, and indeed they are in this game; enough available for a party of six to each have an item that gives armor class bonus and resists or save bonuses.

    that said, the only time to ignore this is when you have unique armor that DOES add something other that just a bonus to AC, and those are already very very rare in Icewind Dale; there only being a handful worth considering.



  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    In a PnP game magic items, especially rings, are much rarer. If you are fortunate to find a ring of protection you give it to your mage.
  • DemonicDemonic Member Posts: 75
    Heh, you should see our group.

    "What? You want that ring? Screw you, I found it, I keep it."
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited March 2015
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • GrumGrum Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,100
    That sounds like an interesting mod subtledoctor. However, how would it work with dwarven defenders?

    25% DR from the class
    50% DR from fullplate
    50% DR from defensive stance
    15% DR from the great shield...

    A dwarven defender could quite easily have a 90% DR before dropping defensive stance. Does it really matter if his dexterity goes down the tank under that setup? You could quite easily walk him in front of any enemy in the game, put him on auto attack, and come back after enjoying a sandwitch.
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,387
    @subtledoctor that's too funny. Back years ago, it was so common in any game with my regular group for us all to have our own campaigns going. So virtually every dispute would degrade into "well in MY game..." Sorts of challenges. Naturally everyone was always convinced their own ideas, their own interpretations were always the right way. Much time was wasted with such stupid bickering!
    But more and more I just don't care. Everyone has different interpretations. As long as they're all applied equally it's all good.
  • WowoWowo Member Posts: 2,064
    Grum said:

    That sounds like an interesting mod subtledoctor. However, how would it work with dwarven defenders?

    25% DR from the class
    50% DR from fullplate
    50% DR from defensive stance
    15% DR from the great shield...

    A dwarven defender could quite easily have a 90% DR before dropping defensive stance. Does it really matter if his dexterity goes down the tank under that setup? You could quite easily walk him in front of any enemy in the game, put him on auto attack, and come back after enjoying a sandwitch.

    He stated that defensive stance gives an AC bonus instead of a DR bonus.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    I never used Full Plate and Packing Steel, but I always did read the readme and think "That seems so much more rewarding..."
  • IchthyicIchthyic Member Posts: 89
    edited March 2015

    DJKajuru said:

    I'd like to state that, by saying "it's better to wear a normal version and a magic ring or amulet" , you are also saying that magic is mundane and banal in Forgotten Realms.



    All armor has the same base AC setting (7) and has Damage Resistance ranging from 0% (leather) to 50% (full plate), and has a DEX penalty ranging from 0 (leather) to -5 (full plate). Each level of enchantment drops the AC by 2 (so *all* +1 armor is base AC 5), and DR abilities like Hardiness and Def. Stance give AC bonuses instead of more DR.

    Now there's an *actual* difference between leather +3 vs. studded +2 vs non-magical chain. Now there's a difference between magical armor vs. regular armor plus a protection item. Now you can build a quick, nimble warrior with low AC or a lumbering, heavily-played tank with high DR.

    It's a really interesting and refreshing way to play the game. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be compatible with IWDEE... (yet!)

    I've always liked playing by similar rules myself. IIRC, I modded BG2 to use those exact rules you put (or close enough; i tended to change the specific resistances based on the type of armor to vary between how much piercing/slashing/crushing damage they resisted)!

    they make a lot of sense to me. someone wearing leather should be more nimble; slightly quicker, but take more damage on a hit, than someone wearing full plate armor.

    I even recall trying to mod fatigue values such that wearing full plate made you get tired quicker, but that was more hassle than it was worth.

    this time, I wanted to see how the enhanced edition changed up anything, so played it straight up.

    ...but yeah, I still prefer the idea of armor resisting damage (and I do note that they introduce a lot of damage resistance items in IWD).
  • IchthyicIchthyic Member Posts: 89
    "He stated that defensive stance gives an AC bonus instead of a DR bonus. "

    yeah, not only that, but I also recall modding it so that critical hits would penetrate damage resistance.



  • DemonicDemonic Member Posts: 75
    @Ichthyic Well, but to be honest, if you want armours to have damage reduction, than you have a little problem with plate and full plate. Thiese armours were nearly impenetrable by the weapons of their era, therefore the resistance against slashing and piercing should be 100% or nearly 100%, only crushing would work a little (maybe about 50%).
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited March 2015
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • DemonicDemonic Member Posts: 75
    @subtledoctor Well, you're of course right, I'm just little touchy when it comes to armour :)
  • IchthyicIchthyic Member Posts: 89
    Demonic said:

    @Ichthyic Well, but to be honest, if you want armours to have damage reduction, than you have a little problem with plate and full plate. Thiese armours were nearly impenetrable by the weapons of their era, therefore the resistance against slashing and piercing should be 100% or nearly 100%, only crushing would work a little (maybe about 50%).

    right. I think I even made note of that. but even with those armors, they had their weakpoints. dagger through the faceplate, longbow arrow at just the right spot, etc.

    hence, critical hits.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • IchthyicIchthyic Member Posts: 89
    sounds good.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
Sign In or Register to comment.