Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Armor Restrictions: Is this rule necessary?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Armor Restrictions: Is this rule necessary?

    Armor already has a minimum strength requirement in SWADE, which will guide most players into which characters choose which kinds of armor. If someone wants to play a Battle Mage of some kind, they can invest the character resources into building a high-strength character with Arcane abilities. Do we really need to bring the arbitrary Armor Restrictions over from Pathfinder?

    This is another example of something I was hoping not to see, it imposes Pathfinder style class restrictions on general game mechanics instead of letting us decide how we want to interpret those classes. Why would the Rogue have limitations on stealth that the Fighter doesn't have?

    (This goes for Armor Interference and Armor Restriction) - EDIT

    (Alternatively, does the game still need a Strength Minimum on armor if we have Armor Interference and Armor Restrictions as class-specific rules?) -Edit
    Last edited by Shadowchasers; 04-07-2021, 12:02 AM.

  • #2
    We talked about this on Design Corner last week: we initially linked it to Minimum Strength, but it A) is too easy a mechanic to get around to be as useful a balance as we needed and B) made folks have to pay attention to an ancillary system that a lot of the community plays little attention to normally.

    Categories and simple restrictions and simpler and faster, which makes it worth it.
    Last edited by Donald Schepis; 04-07-2021, 12:33 AM. Reason: Accidentally hit reply before I was done.

    Comment


    • Shadowchasers
      Shadowchasers commented
      Editing a comment
      So should we just disregard the Str Min penalties in favor of these, then? Do they stack?

    • Donald Schepis
      Donald Schepis commented
      Editing a comment
      Shadowchasers They stack, but most folks won't need to worry about Min. Strength past character creation.

    • BattleBear
      BattleBear commented
      Editing a comment
      The thiing is that y'all are sometime saying that the intent is to change rules to feel more like PF, but sometimes not. I know that this is not something the community deals with, but this is a specialized version of the game so I dont have a problem with adding an armour check penalty, perhaps -2 to certain skills in medium armour and -4 in heavy.

      On a slightly different point, In Pathfiner if you wear heavy or medium armour you are penalized to these skills. It is seperate from class. A rogue's restriction is not about the skills, it is about losing things like sneak attack and special class features in heavier armour. The fact that a fighter can wear heavy armour means they are not ever going to be as effective as skills rogues in light armour will he because even with the same number of ranks in a skill, the armour is the problem. In this you can have plate mail fighters effectively as good at stalthing around as rogues, and is not is leeping with the feel of PF. Ths is part of d20 design to make the classes really feel a niche.

      When playing PF and the fighter needs to sneak everyone cringes. That is missing here.
      Last edited by BattleBear; 04-08-2021, 09:07 PM.

  • #3
    Donald Schepis could you also perhaps reply to why only the Rogue gets penalized with Stealth with medium and heavy armor while a Paladin and Fighter dont?
    wouldn´t it be far better to penalize the Stealthskill with medium or heavy armor? As it is now, this doesn´t maky any sense at all.

    / cheers mate

    Comment


    • Mogge
      Mogge commented
      Editing a comment
      Donald Schepis, that still dont make sense in my opinion. A full plate or chainmail will allways be clunky and noisy, there are no way someone who is more used to wear one can remove those effects. It make as much sense as being able to swim with a heavy armor.
      There are also no way of saying that rogues are not being penalized since they are obviously that. In a situation where the rogue for instance would choose to wear a scalemail and the paladin has a full plate, the paladin is far superior with stealth.
      Or look at it in this way, a rogue in light armor is no better at stealth than a fighter with a full plate and large shield!

      Really strange if you ask me and a big letdown to be frank.

    • Donald Schepis
      Donald Schepis commented
      Editing a comment
      Let's be clear here: you're basically arguing that we should introduce penalties for wearing heavier armor. That's not a class-based change; that's adding rules we don't include in the game by default.

      It doesn't make the game faster or more fun to have armor penalties to stealth and athletics, and it's not a big issue for folks using SWADE. So we probably won't add it in here.

    • Mogge
      Mogge commented
      Editing a comment
      Donald, but each new setting do have its own settingrules. I dont see the problem of adding a penalty to medium and heavy armor. Really, none what so ever.
      I have hundreds of pdf-files (allways goes physical) in peginc accountsetting. All setting have a few rules that is sometimes contrary to pure SWADE setting.
      Cant see how its suddenlty not something that is to be considered.

      If you wanna capture the feeling of Pathfinder on how it is to wear medium and heavy armor then that is something good in my opinion.

  • #4
    It might work better if, instead of penalties, certain characters got a *bonus* for using skills when they are proficient with the armor they're using. For example, a Rogue could get a bonus to Stealth when using lighter armor. The spot penalties you've currently got seem to motivate with the stick instead of the carrot.

    Comment


    • #5
      Donald Schepis ,
      I was going to sleep, but needed to post this as well.
      Because the Paladin and Fighter are "proficient" in the use of their Armor.

      We don't apply a penalty across the board to stealth for heavier armors like Pathfinder does. But we do have the Restriction as a mechanism for penalties for not being trained in that armor usage. Agility is just the best attribute & linked skills for that.

      Instead of reading that and thinking, "Rogues get penalized on stealth for heavy armor," think "lacking armor proficiency penalizes agility."

      Edit: It might help to think that if we put Armor Restriction on everyone, the fighter and paladin would have "None" since they can use all armors.
      Have you really discussed the implications of this?
      That would mean that most Rogues would do well to multiclass into either Paladin or Fighter and all of sudden the Rogues would be able to sneak around like a ninja with full plate and large shield with no penalties. To top it off, they also got the +1D6 in damage. That doesn´t feel especially Pathfinder-y to be honest.

      Wouldn´t it be better to maybe give a new quality to medium and heavy armor (and perhaps shields) like:
      Limiting (-2/-4): Medium and heavy armor as well as medium and large shields are inherently clumsy and noisy thus giving a penalty to Stealth and Athletics which involves dexterious actions as well as swimming.

      Best regards.

      Comment


      • Ixat
        Ixat commented
        Editing a comment
        Agree with Donald here. If multi-classing to Wizard or Sorcerer, you inherently are restricted with the armor penalty from the greater/worse of restrictions. That is how I understand the mechanics of 3.x. The same would hold true here. Using the example of a fighter/rogue, you could make use of the Martial Flexibility edge but the armor usage should be limited to the Rogue's in order to use his edge, Sneak Attack, effectively. Now you could use it inefficiently in heavy armor if you want - the penalty is there in the Rogue's class if you lumber around in Plate trying to Sneak Attack.

        Now about being stealthy in plate for the would-be Paladins & Fighters that need to do so in a pinch and haven't multi-classed, I think it's more Game Master's province to make those calls as needed, based on common sense and working with the players. Increase difficulty if they go in with heavy armor; give bonuses to Notice roll. If it comes up . . . if it doesn't just roll with it and have a good night around the table.

      • Mogge
        Mogge commented
        Editing a comment
        But Donald Schepis. The Fighter can wear *all* armor and since you said that the Fighter and Paladins dont get the penalties to Agility and agility related skills is because they are proficient in the medium and heavy armor. Then the rogue who multiclass into fighter should be considered to be proficient in the same armor thus negating the negative modifier to Agility and their skills.

      • chibikami
        chibikami commented
        Editing a comment
        @Mogge
        except the fighter isn't proficient per se, he's just not marked as deficient in his stat block

        and to amend my previous error, a fighter taking spellcasting would actually still be penalized as a wiz or sorc would, it's built into the Arcane Background edge, just kind of easily missable--it references the sorcerer class's page for the rule instead of declaring it on the spot

    • #6
      The thing that strikes me is that Adventure Edition already has rules to handle all of this through Comprehensive Modifiers. Trying to swim in heavy armor? Roll Athletics at -4. Trying to sneak around in rusty mail? Stealth at -2. Any penalty (or bonus!) the GM feels is appropriate can be added with absolutely no issues.

      From my perspective, by explicitly making these penalties part of the Class Edges, the game is effectively turning into a Class-based system. If I want my rogue to be proficient in wearing plate, I need to multiclass, with all the baggage that brings. That's a big turn-off for me.

      Comment


      • Shadowchasers
        Shadowchasers commented
        Editing a comment
        I agree.

        One thing of note: without an Armor Restriction, there is no "downside" to a Rogue (no hindrance to balance their ability being stronger than the SWADE version of the Assassin ability). It feels like the Armor Restriction becomes half the point of the class edge. Without that restriction, there's nothing defining about the Rogue class edge at the first level. The design on these class edges varies so wildly in how much each 'package deal' brings to the party, it really showcases how the PF classes don't integrate seamlessly with the concept of Savage Worlds.

      • Mogge
        Mogge commented
        Editing a comment
        Yeah, for now it seems they are trying to hide the very fact that Savage Pathfinder is a class-based system with these edges but as you say Deskepticon it is indeed turning into that.
        Then why not embrace it, redo it to something similar to RIFTS Framworks, I still think that would be far more fitting.

    • #7
      You already have the Armor Interference trait on the Mage, Bard, Druid, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard. That's fine, but it affects each class differently. Wearing armor you are not trained in should apply all the penalties listed for those classes (so Agility and Agility-based skills, Spellcasting rolls, and for Druids specifically, Faith rolls). There should then be Edges that characters can take to become trained in the next category of armor, expanding the amount of armor they can wear without penalties. So, a Mage for example, already can wear light armor. With a single edge he should be able to increase his limit to medium armor. With another Edge, he could wear heavy armor without any penalties. A Wizard would need to first buy light armor proficiency before advancing to medium and heavy, so 3 edges in all.

      This ability to advance the armor proficiency is in Pathfinder with feats/edges, so it seems strange that there is no way to do it here (or did I miss it somewhere?) A Wizard deciding to spend 3 edges to be able to cast in plate armor is not really my idea of well-spent edges, but it could still be an option. Would buying off the Armor Interference Limitation in 3 stages be a legal option?

      Comment


      • ellipses
        ellipses commented
        Editing a comment
        Well, that’s part of the language that needs cleaning up. It refers to something called “Arcane Interference,” but nothing in the game is actually called Arcane Interference, it’s all called Armor Restriction. And if you’re going to introduce an edge that loosens up Armor Restrictions, it should probably be a Combat Edge, not a Power Edge, since there’s no obvious reason to restrict the edge only to casters.

      • Donald Schepis
        Donald Schepis commented
        Editing a comment
        ellipses That's a typo; it should be Armor Interference. The version that applies to Arcane Backgrounds in Armor Interference, so the Edge modifies that. You can only take it once. Martial classes do not gain a benefit from the Edge because they have Armor Restriction.

      • Samurai007
        Samurai007 commented
        Editing a comment
        Thank Ellipses, that's the kind of thing I was looking for. But I feel that wearing armor you are untrained in should apply all the various penalties, and the edge should remove them all with the training, not just the arcane penalty. So a Wizard would normally face both the Agility penalty and the spellcasting penalty in armor he's untrained in. If your Rogue want's to be stealthy in medium armor, that's the edge for them to get, even though he doesn't normally face a casting penalty, unless he becomes an Arcane Trickster (as you said, the edge name is wrong.) I would call it Armor Training or Armor Proficiency.

    • #8
      I just flat-out disagree with the notion that the PF classes are not translating to SWADE and all the other nonsense about how this can't work. It's working fine, and the feedback process is working fine. We got Wizards and Sorcerers straightened out just fine, and everything else is coming together very nicely.

      With that said, I do agree that the notion that a rogue wearing leather armor with a d10 in stealth being no more stealthy than a fighter wearing full plate who also has a d10 in stealth is a little... Odd. Deskepticon Hit the nail on the head with how to deal with This situation at the table, but if you're like me, then you like having a consistent rule baked into the system that sort of defines this situation.

      The suggestion I am going to make is not a serious one, because I am not looking at armor encumbrance rules right now and am surely going to mess up the baseline, but here goes... What about the idea that light, medium, and heavy armors (not cloth) impose a flat penalty to stealth equal to their armor bonus. The rogue's proficiency with light armor effectively removes this penalty. While that seems like a benefit for the class rather than a hindrance that armor restriction is meant to be, it effectively means that to be a stealthy rogue you are just limited to light armor only. Like I said, not a serious suggestion, but just an example of a way of looking at the problem that might feel more consistent.
      Last edited by Leatherneck556; 04-08-2021, 01:19 AM.

      Comment


      • #9
        Although in my opinion this could be simulated with the strength attribute. If you don't have the minimum requirement, you apply a penalty to agility rolls for each step missing from your die. A rogue with d6 who wants to wear mesh would have (A change like this would make the encumbrance edge better) The penalty for stealth with plate armor may be incorporated as an equipment note.

        I don't even see how all this is a problem, far from it. But it doesn't matter so much to me that I oppose any change

        i dont know what they are doing with the class edges differs from deadlands or rift that cause to much ... disguise?
        Last edited by enmel; 04-08-2021, 02:53 AM.

        Comment


        • #10
          I agree in parts with this thread.
          1. I think the observation that the restrictions could be reworded as positives is a good one: Give each armor category a baked in penalty to agility skills and spellcasting and remove that penaltie for certain armor categories based on class. (Yeah, Fighters and Paladins have it easier with heavy armor, even stealthing... it's just part of their pros)
          2. Add edges to improve the armor penalties to each.
          This would result in a much simpler, more streamlined rule that is less based on class and can be countered with edges if the player wants to. It also makes every classes armor proficiency read as a positive ("hey, you can overcome this penalty!") instead of a negative ("hey, you gain this penalty, unless..."). I also think it better resembles how Pathfinder did it itself, but in a simpler, more streamlined way (because there is no difference between the penalty to spellcasting and other skills).

          You cannot prevent every strange situation (like the fighter beeing better in stealth with heavy armor than a rogue with medium armor) without getting hyper specific, but this would make stuff simpler.

          And you COULD tie this to the min str. I also find it strange to have arule in the system where the designers fully expect it to be ignored after character creation... that's not how I would handle it... especially not for armor (more likely for weapons, because it's easier to forget for me for some reason...).

          Comment


          • enmel
            enmel commented
            Editing a comment
            Agree

        • #11
          Originally posted by eXaminator View Post

          You cannot prevent every strange situation (like the fighter beeing better in stealth with heavy armor than a rogue with medium armor) without getting hyper specific, but this would make stuff simpler.
          Instituting standard penalties and having class armor proficiency overcome those penalties might be more elegant, but to my eyes, if you're not going to fix the inconsistency where a fighter wearing full plate is just as stealthy as a rogue wearing leather (assuming they have the same stealth skill), then what's the point in changing it? The system is pretty simple as it is (take a -4 penalty to X thing if you're wearing the wrong armor). The weird inconsistencies like the heavy armor fighter vs. light armor rogue stealth situation is the real problem, not the idea that armor proficiency is overcomplicated.

          Note: I'm not saying I have no problem with reworking armor proficiencies to make them more streamlined, but I really don't care how they do it if the weird inconsistencies are going to remain.

          And you COULD tie this to the min str. I also find it strange to have arule in the system where the designers fully expect it to be ignored after character creation... that's not how I would handle it... especially not for armor (more likely for weapons, because it's easier to forget for me for some reason...).
          I don't so much think the designers expect players to ignore min strength by default, so much as they have come to realize that in practice, most people just ignore those sorts of rules. I don't personally, nor do I ignore encumbrance for load in more "tactical" games. It might be crunchy, but realizing you can't carry an infinite amount of stuff is part of the fun to me.

          Originally posted by Shadowchasers View Post
          Do we really need to bring the arbitrary Armor Restrictions over from Pathfinder?
          Yes.

          Comment


          • Samurai007
            Samurai007 commented
            Editing a comment
            Ok Leatherneck, let's see if there is any way to fix your issue. What do you think of this method?: Armor naturally gives a penalty to Agility and Agility-based skills equal to the Armor bonus. So if you are wearing Leather (+2 Armor bonus), then it also inflicts a -2 to Agility. Training removes 2 points of penalties. So if the Rogue is wearing Leather and is Trained, he has no Agility penalty at all. If the Fighter is in Plate (+4 Armor bonus), he'd normally take a -4 on Agility, but he is Trained in it, so the penalty is reduced by 2 points to just a -2 (the same as an untrained person wearing leathers).

            I think this is both an easy system to use (Armor's bonus to defense is also the penalty to skills without training), and the edge is more balanced (typically an Edge removes 2 points worth of penalties, as you can see often in the book). This would mean that even a Fighter trained in wearing Plate is no longer as able to do agile tests as a trained Rogue wearing leathers.

            Just like in Pathfinder, being Trained in armor doesn't completely remove all effects/penalties from wearing it, and you often need to choose if you want more protection from attacks or less penalties to your skills. I'm currently playing in a Pathfinder campaign and my character is a light-armor wearer who uses a Greataxe in combat, but also has a lot of rogue-like skills (Sneaking, Hiding, etc). So the constant question is "how much armor can I afford to wear and still use my skills to help the party when needed?" Right now, I'm wearing Studded Leather and have taken extra traits with feats to reduce the penalty to 0, but if I need to go any higher in AC, there will start to be penalties.
            Last edited by Samurai007; 04-08-2021, 06:58 PM.

          • Leatherneck556
            Leatherneck556 commented
            Editing a comment
            Sure. That's a logical and Savage way of handling it. I already proposed essentially that same scheme above, and I elaborate on the situation/propose another alternative below.

            Eta: After a closer re-read, I don't think this would work. Now penalties are being imposed on fighting and shooting which can never be completely gotten rid of and which are overly harsh. The main thing I was referring to about it being logical and Savage was the idea that armor bonus = armor check penalty.
            Last edited by Leatherneck556; 04-09-2021, 02:04 PM.

          • Deskepticon
            Deskepticon commented
            Editing a comment
            The weird inconsistencies like the heavy armor fighter vs. light armor rogue stealth situation is the real problem, not the idea that armor proficiency is overcomplicated.
            That's not an inconsistency. Savage Worlds has never made that distinction because it always allowed GMs to make common sense rulings on such things. All the Armor Restriction rule does is make it a hard & fast rule. Nothing is stopping a GM from telling the fighter that his clanky armor imposes a -2 Stealth.

            The issue I have with it is that it turns the game into a de facto class system. In other words, if it's possible to ignore Agility penalties by being proficient in wearing armor, why is it impossible for a "rogue" to be proficient in heavier armors? Rather than allow players to create interesting, unique, and varied characters, it stamps them into a mould and penalizes them if they dare to deviate from it.
            Not fun.

            Samurai007
            Armor naturally gives a penalty to Agility and Agility-based skills equal to the Armor bonus.
            ... If the Fighter is in Plate (+4 Armor bonus), he'd normally take a -4 on Agility, but he is Trained in it, so the penalty is reduced by 2 points to just a -2
            So your solution is to give fighters a -2 on all Fighting rolls?

        • #12
          I think the better approach would be to add Stealth penalties to heavier armor. Metal scraping on metal isn’t very stealthy, neither are metal ring links swinging back and forth!

          I think though why they didn’t is because the armor is split up between body parts. So how would plate body with leather pants affect stealth? Granted you’d look ridiculous but you can do it.

          Maybe the solution is to have armor sold in sets instead of pieces (which is typical in other systems) and apply the Stealth penalty.

          Comment


          • #13
            Originally posted by Leatherneck556 View Post
            The weird inconsistencies like the heavy armor fighter vs. light armor rogue stealth situation is the real problem, not the idea that armor proficiency is overcomplicated.
            I'll have to disagree.

            Two characters with the same stealth die are basically equally good at stealth. But one of both characters is generally better in handling heavy armor and thus can offset the penalty. But for that advantage, the character either took a couple of edges (which I'd like to see, as I outlined above), or got some other "negatives" as part of their class (expecting that classes are similar in their calculations to ancestries in some way). So while it might not fit the way you imagine things, it would probably make sense on the "balancing" approach.

            I DO think that someone who is very good at stealth AND used to wearing heavy armor all day ist still able to move reasonably silently. Enough so, that I would be willing to forfeit this layer of additional negatives.

            You could of course, as a GM, always add on to that rule, that the armor proficiency does nothing for stealth (or that it only removes half of the penalty for each armor category). But I wouldn't put that into the core rules, because this would definetely add an additional layer of complexety to keep in mind all the time.

            Comment


            • Leatherneck556
              Leatherneck556 commented
              Editing a comment
              But... Heavy metal armor IS less stealthy. And a fighter in full plate with Stealth d10 taking a -4 penalty to stealth is still stealthier than that same Fighter having a d4 in stealth. Granted, a Fighter with d10 Strength and d6 stealth who is used to heavy armor should probably do better at stealth than a Rogue in heavy armor with a d10 stealth and d6 Strength. As you say, the fighter is used to heavy armor and the rogue isn't, and that should count for something, but the stealth specialist in the lighter armor should pretty much always outstealth the combat specialist in heavy armor, even if that guy is trained in stealth.

              I get that we're talking about a game and not real life here, but let me provide some real-world context since it has been stated that one of Shane's big design principles is that game mechanics generally correlate to real life: I regularly wear light, medium, and heavy armor for my job. I also do things that could be equated to Stealth and Athletics rolls at work. I certainly meet the minimum strength and proficiency requirements for my armor, and the fact is that I do way better at my Stealth and Athletics rolls when I'm in lighter armor than heavier armor. And this is with cordura and kevlar, not maille and steel plate!

              I think we are both thinking in the same spirit, but with different approaches on how to handle it. You're suggesting that armor proficiency edges exist that negate penalties and anybody can take them. I'm suggesting that upping a skill is the main way to overcome the penalty, though the penalty is going to remain in some form, even if you're proficient.

            • eXaminator
              eXaminator commented
              Editing a comment
              I think where I disagree is: If you have a "combat specialist" with a d10 in stealth... then he is ALSO a stealth specialist! One that IS used to heavy armor (while the Rogue is a stealth specialist who is NOT used to heavy armor, thus he would be worse with the same armor). Everyone who has a high stealth skill is a stealth specialist, no matter the "class", because "class" has no real influence on your skills, unlike in Pathfinder. So I would argue that - as written - stealth is not the defining characteristic of a Rogue (but what they can do WHILE stealthy is), and being a good fighter is not the defining characteristic of the Fighter (but being more flexible in combat or good with armor is).

              If find it more important for a game to be fun than to be realistic. And always getting a penalty to everything usually is not fun, neither is tracking multiple different penalties to different skills for different reasons.

              That's why I stand by my suggestion. I can totally see a character with heavy armor (which does NOT have to be made of metal btw! A magical wooden armor or dragon hide etc. could also be heavy but much less prone to making noise) be just as stealthy as someone without, even though that might not be particular realistic. But that's just a kind of realism SW does omit often or leaves to the GM. That's why SWADE does not have a long list of modifiers for each skill (unlike Pathfinder tends to have).

          • #14
            Once again, I agree and disagree. Limitations on armor is setting-specific to Pathfinder. If Wizards suddenly run around in plate, it wouldn't be Pathfinder anymore. In addition, armor limitations function as built-in Hindrances for Class Edges, so they can be a little bit more powerful.

            The thing that I don't like is that armor limitations are inconsistent: Some classes have Armor Restriction, some have Armor Interference. So why does a Barbarian get penalties to all Agility-based rolls but a Druid does not? That does not make a lot of sense to me. There should be only one variant of this feature that does all.

            Comment


            • #15
              So I think a couple things aren't being discussed here which is causing some of us to talk past others:
              1. Pathfinder is a setting, but it is also a rules system. The rules reinforce the setting. Ex: in the setting, arcane casters can't throw around spells in armor, therefore the rules say the heavier the armor the greater the chance of spell failure.
              2. In Pathfinder, armor comes in sets (as Jiggadias pointed out above) and also features extra stats for Arcane Spell Failure chance, armor penalties to stealth/Athletics/etc. In standard SWADE, this is pretty much only handled through min Strength. Want your AB Magic caster to wear a full tactical kevlar vest with level IV rifle plates? Fine. Those are edges/attribute increases that you can't spend elsewhere.
              Part of the challenge with SWPF is that they are emulating PF which is both rules AND setting. Classes are part of PF, and I think the class edges do a great job of emulating that without absolutely forcing you into it (though it does de facto make you pick a class edge). But it's still savage. Preparing spells is part of PF, but the reaction of GOD NO PLEASE DON'T MAKE US PREP SPELLS means that PEG won't go that way. So it's standard SWADE magic with setting rules like "Wizards get more spells", and "Clerics are limited to a certain spell selection in keeping with domains".

              Same with armor. To reinforce the idea that certain classes typically wear certain armors, they are baking it into class edges rather than into the armor itself. I think that approach works perfectly well when the class has the "Armor Interference" hindrance (Bards, Druids, Sorcerers, Wizards), but it produces serious inconsistencies with the classes that merely have "Armor Restriction".

              Armor interference effects Spellcasting or Faith because of in-setting reasons, and it should remain as-is. A PF1e Wizard who takes heavy armor proficiency still has a steep spell failure rate.

              Armor Restriction is more real-world/logic based. It stands to reason that a Fighter/Rogue wouldn't face a -4 penalty to agility or Agility-linked skills because the Fighter half of them is proficient with armor. It ALSO stands to reason that either way, that Fighter/Rogue is going to be overall stealthier in lighter armor. But the problem is, there is no "Armor Check Penalty" stat in SWADE that applies all the time.

              My suggestion is that there should be. Maybe you make it -2 for Medium and -4 for Heavy (applying to all Stealth and Athletics checks made to climb or swim). In that case, make rogues proficient with light armor instead of restricted to it. Lacking armor proficiency means that the armor penalty is applied to Agility and all linked skills instead of just Stealth and Athletics. In that case, you should probably also have Armor Proficiency edges like eXaminator wants. But the -4 penalty to Spellcasting/Faith should always be there, and the best it should ever get is one step better with the Arcane Armor edge because even Fighter-Mages in PF1E couldn't run around in full plate and heavy shield without some kind of spell failure chance.
              ​​​​
              Last edited by Leatherneck556; 04-08-2021, 06:53 PM.

              Comment


              • Tumola
                Tumola commented
                Editing a comment
                Your proficiency suggestion does not work either. It would mean once you have a class that is proficient with heavy armor, all your other classes are proficient with it as well, e.g. Fighter/Rogue or Fighter/Barbarian or even worse: Fighter/Monk.

                You have to make it a "Hindrance" instead of an "Edge", so that you are always limited to the most severe one no matter the class combos.
                Last edited by Tumola; 04-08-2021, 07:12 PM.

              • Samurai007
                Samurai007 commented
                Editing a comment
                I agree, you can't run around in Pathfinder in full plate and have no penalties of any kind. That's true of both spell failure for casters and a rogue trying to be stealthy. So matching the penalty to the armor type instead of a flat -4 makes the most sense. Your suggestion above of -2 for Medium and -4 for Heavy is a good one, and then an Edge can reduce that by 2 points (meaning you could wear Medium with no penalty or Heavy with only a -2).

              • Leatherneck556
                Leatherneck556 commented
                Editing a comment
                Tumola That's a good point and super easy to fix.
                Keep the same armor penalties to Stealth and Athletics (Climb/Jump/Swim) already suggested (-2 Medium and -4 Heavy for example).

                Nothing reduces these penalties except maybe armor being made out of mithral, etc. So therefore, there is no need for Armor Proficiency edges, just use normal SWADE min Str to represent armor proficiency. A D10 str fighter wearing full plate is still stealthier than a d6 Str rogue wearing full plate because of the baseline Min Str penalty, which stacks on the normal -4.

                Rogues: If I recall correctly, Fighter/Rogues in PF1E can both wear heavy armor AND sneak attack. So no need to change anything there. Just delete Armor Restriction. The min str req, stealth and Athletics penalties inherent to heavy armor should be enough to dissuade Rogues who want to be good rogues from walking around in heavier armor. If a Fighter wants to spend an edge multi-classing into Rogue to get sneak attack and then run around in full Plate getting a bonus d6 damage against vulnerable targets, them let him do it. If that's too unbalanced, then apply the rule I am about to suggest for Monks and Barbarians below (completely lock rogues out of sneak attacking when wearing medium or heavy armor).

                Barbarians: Barbarians can't rage and don't benefit from increased pace when wearing heavy armor.

                Monks: Monks can't use Stunning Fist or Mystic Powers when wearing Light, Medium, or Heavy armor. They still benefit from the Unarmed Strike ability.

                The penalties to Bards, Druids, Sorcs, and Wizards are to gimp the main thing they are based around (casting powers). Just gimp the main things that the Barbarian and Monk do if they wear armor vice giving them a flat -4 on all Agility and linked Skill rolls, cause that leads to some pretty weird inconsistencies.
            Working...
            X