The Gaming Den

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1111078665[/unixtime]]
That would be fine, but you are suggesting a rule in which Light Armor is providing mobility and protection, and Heavy Armor isn't doing a damned thing. Since Heavy Armor costs more than Light Armor, both in terms of money and character abilities, that's completely unacceptable.

It's providing protection while moving, which is basically under the mobility catagory. Light armored characters can come and go about the battlefield easily while heavily armored characters are more stationary.

AC in this case is a function of your mobility not your protection, since it applies only to attacks you provoke while trying to move. There's a lot more to mobility than pure movement speed. Tactical mobility is all about coming and going at will, and that should be something lightly armored people are good at.

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1111089782[/unixtime]]
Tactical mobility is all about coming and going at will, and that should be something lightly armored people are good at.

Fine, but "good at" doesn't mean "exclusively able to do so", however, since that is the stance you seem to be espousing.

And that stance is fairly objectionable.

clikml at [unixtime wrote:1111093530[/unixtime]]
Fine, but "good at" doesn't mean "exclusively able to do so", however, since that is the stance you seem to be espousing.

And that stance is fairly objectionable.

Well lets remember that by default, heavy armor characters are better at moving, since their ACs are better. So without tumble, heavy armored characters are effectively more tactically mobile on a battlefield.

If you have a skill like tumble, clearly I think the goal of it is to give lightly armored characters an edge, and that's what I'm guessing the design goal was for it, given the classes that get it and the armor restrictions. And that's cool. But you don't want to go turning that skill around and now making it better for heavy armored characters to tumble, because now you need something else to benefit lightly armored characters, otherwise heavy armored characters are better at combat mobility than they are.

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1111175971[/unixtime]]because now you need something else to benefit lightly armored characters, otherwise heavy armored characters are better at combat mobility than they are.

You seem to be missing the whole point.

Lightly armored character do not need a goddamned thing. Heavily armored character *pay* for the privilegde of being able to use heavy armor, and consequently, wearing heavier armor has to be better than wearing lighter armor. Otherwise the characters that get heavy armor are paying for *nothing*.

Neeek at [unixtime wrote:1111187167[/unixtime]]
Lightly armored character do not need a goddamned thing. Heavily armored character *pay* for the privilegde of being able to use heavy armor, and consequently, wearing heavier armor has to be better than wearing lighter armor. Otherwise the characters that get heavy armor are paying for *nothing*.

Not really. Heavy armor is something you get from taking 1 level of cleric or fighter, or whatever. You're not paying anything character ability wise.

About all you're losing is a little movement speed, which may or may not happen depending on if you're mounted. If you're in heavy armor and on a horse, you lose nothing by wearing it. You haven't paid a thing.

Even on the ground, losing a little movement is pretty much a nil cost compared to the AC you're getting.

The game is in no means threatened with being overrun by people who don't wear armor. No fighter is going to say "I'm not going to wear armor because I'd rather have that extra 10' of movement rather than the AC."

Consider what were to happen if you removed the monk limitation on wearing no armor to get their AC bonuses. Do you think any monk would walk around unarmored?

To wear no armor you need punishments for doing so, such as ASF or no tumbling or the loss of bonuses such as for the monk. In any case, it's necessary to have armor cost you to lose some of these lightly armored bonuses, otherwise you wouldn't have any lightly armored characters.

People don't walk around unarmored because they want to, they tend to walk around unarmored because the game has to force them to. For all things there must be a trade. Nobody should be able to have it all. And this change is a step in the wrong direction. The game needs more distinct style tradeoffs, not less.

I don't see any reason to hose lightly armored characters by giving away their abilities. Last I checked, duelists and monks didn't dominate the game.

RC wrote:
Not really. Heavy armor is something you get from taking 1 level of cleric or fighter, or whatever. You're not paying anything character ability wise.

About all you're losing is a little movement speed, which may or may not happen depending on if you're mounted. If you're in heavy armor and on a horse, you lose nothing by wearing it. You haven't paid a thing.

Even on the ground, losing a little movement is pretty much a nil cost compared to the AC you're getting.

Spoink? So you are saying that monetary cost is meaningless. Buffing time is meaningless, class-based bonus feats are meaningless, and losing movement is meaningless...

And that by ignoring all of those costs you can "clearly" see that wearing heavy armor is free, and therefore has to be balanced all by itself with light armor.

---

Sorry, no. I'm just not feeling it. After you've spent character abilities, money, buffing time, and sacrificed land movement rate, you'd sure as hell have something to show for it. You are, after all, talking about something which is in absolute terms more expensive than any other buffing spell in the game. It better be good. Damned good, in fact.

If wearing heavy armor was somehow zero sum then it would suck my ass.

-Username17

Wow.

Did I seriously just watch RC disregard all of the very-real costs taken to hit the field in heavy armor...and then say there were no costs?

I'm calling shenanigans!

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1111194520[/unixtime]]
Spoink? So you are saying that monetary cost is meaningless. Buffing time is meaningless, class-based bonus feats are meaningless, and losing movement is meaningless...

Monetary cost? Oh you mean that little extra investment that totally means nothing past 3rd level. Yeah that's pretty meaningless. Small linear costs mean pretty much nothing. The cost difference between a +5 chain shirt and +5 full plate are basically nil.

Buffing time? you mean to put on the armor? Light armor really isn't much different there from heavy. 5 rounds to don light armor pretty much makes it a nonfactor just as much as heavy.

The feat cost isn't even significant because it isn't a feat you can use to take something else. If you could as a fighter choose to take heavy armor prof or something else, then yes, it would be a cost. But that isn't the case. Everyone who wants armor pretty much gets it. The only people who don't use heavy armor are the ones who have special disadvantages tacked on, like big armor check penalties to rogue stealth skills or arcane spell failure to wizard spells. Otherwise wizards and rogues would be in full plate too.

Lost movement is a real cost, but not all that significant compared to getting extra AC, not to mention there are plenty of ways to make up for the lost movement, like being mounted for instance.

Heavy armor isn't "zero sum" as you put it. It has better AC than light armor, and I wouldn't think of changing that. But it shouldn't have it all either.

You can line up a lot of minor disadvantages and try to create an argument by pure quantity, but for the most part the "costs" of heavy armor are either very minor or easily got around.

We don't need to give more incentives for people to wear heavy armor, the incentives are already very much there. And if we wanted for whatever reason to give more incentive, then the incentive should be having it grant more AC, not allowing people to be full plate acrobats and monks.

When duelists and monks start dominating your game Frank, then you can talk about how heavy armor is so underpowered. But until then, I don't see a big rush for people to go unarmored unless they're forced, such as by arcane spell failure. You've said yourself that the monk sucked on many occasions and the same about the duelist. So if lightly armored people suck, why the hell are you screwing them by giving away all their archetype unique abilities? Why would you want to make the problem worse?

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1111203680[/unixtime]]
Monetary cost? Oh you mean that little extra investment that totally means nothing past 3rd level. Yeah that's pretty meaningless. Small linear costs mean pretty much nothing. The cost difference between a +5 chain shirt and +5 full plate are basically nil.

The difference in AC between a +5 chain shirt(+13) and +5 full plate(+14) are also basically nil. What's your point?

Lost movement is a real cost, but not all that significant compared to getting extra AC, not to mention there are plenty of ways to make up for the lost movement, like being mounted for instance.

Heavy armor isn't "zero sum" as you put it. It has better AC than light armor, and I wouldn't think of changing that. But it shouldn't have it all either.

It doesn't have it all. It barely has anything. In exchange for 1 real point of AC, you lose movement, have a worse touch AC, pay more, use a class feature and have a larger encumberance. Oh, and you can't use tumble at all. Great trade off.

Lightly armored characters suck?
I'll need to rework my archers, druids and wizards then. Dammit!

News flash, duelists and monks don't suck because of their armor needs, they suck because they are Fighters with the impotence of MAD, and lowered BAB and HD for additional insult.

Requiring an extra feat (or a level in cleric or fighter, which apparently is no cost, even to a wizard, by RC-logic), losing movement, greater encumberance, longer dressing/undressing time, greater armor check penalties, greater armor spell failure, greater cost, lower maximum dexterity bonus to AC and thus worse touch AC... all for a piddly amount of 1 or 2 more AC. And allowing tumble even with the armor checks is "HAVING IT ALL"?!

I want to explain to you how insane your ideas are, RC, but I'm having trouble finding a starting point where reality and your views coincide. Please help?


As an idea to kind of bridge the incomprehensible gap in perspectives, what do folks think of simply creating another skill dubbed "Combat Movement," and allowing it to mimic tumble for the purposes of avoiding AOOs and have no armor restrictions for it. Or would mere access to another class feature which requires further investment, be another instance of heavy armor "having it all"?

clikml at [unixtime wrote:1111215300[/unixtime]]Lightly armored characters suck?
I'll need to rework my archers, druids and wizards then. Dammit!

Druids can wear dragonscale full plate, and pretty much all of them do, especially with the wild enchantment. Wizards obviously can't wear armor because of ASF, but they would if they could. The penalty of ASF, which is a severe one is all that keeps wizards from wearing heavy armor.

Requiring an extra feat (or a level in cleric or fighter, which apparently is no cost, even to a wizard, by RC-logic), losing movement, greater encumberance, longer dressing/undressing time, greater armor check penalties, greater armor spell failure, greater cost, lower maximum dexterity bonus to AC and thus worse touch AC... all for a piddly amount of 1 or 2 more AC.

This assumes you have a huge dex to start with. If you have heavy armor you don't need dex, that's the point. Sure, you're about even with a chain shirt if you've got 18 dex. But not everyone has 18 dex, nor wants to point buy to get it. And by the time you've got enough to afford dex bonus items, you're also going to have mithral armor, which pumps the max dex bonus up by two. So now the full plate character only needs 16 dex (whcih is a +6 dex item from 10) and the chain shirt character needs 22. Now, one of them is paying points for a base dex of 16 and one of them isn't. And the lightly armored guy is still 1 point behind. Not to mention behind in attack and damage due to lost strength or down in hp due to lost con.

That whole "they're equal" argument is laughable. It works only if you blatantly ignore the fact that you need another ability score as a lightly armored character. Where as heavily armored guys can just walk around with 10-12 dex and not care.

Getting "Equal" AC as a lightly armored is a huge cost, much more real than any of these minor "greater encumbrance and a little more breakfast time to put on the armor" disadvantages. Every point of dex you have is one point of strength or con that you don't have. So even though your AC may be nearly equal, the heavy armor guy has you beat on strength or con, or charisma if he's a paladin.

So I'm not sure where this weird idea comes from that having 18 dex is standard for all characters at low levels and then trying to sell it as part of an argument for why heavy armor sucks.

All your disadvantages for heavy armor pale in comparison to the light armor disadvantage that you need 18 dex to be only 1 point of AC behind. Either your campaigns are filled with characters made off huge point buys with multiple high stats, or you just aren't fully grasping how big a cost buying an 18 is in point buy.

And allowing tumble even with the armor checks is "HAVING IT ALL"?!

Pretty much at high levels yes. Tumble is a static DC. If you changed it to a DC Of 11+opponent's attack bonus or something similar, then you could make a case for how the AC penalty hurts you. But for a static DC of 15, eventually heavy armor characters will be as good at it as lightly armored ones. And when that happens, lightly armored characters are getting hosed.

As an idea to kind of bridge the incomprehensible gap in perspectives, what do folks think of simply creating another skill dubbed "Combat Movement," and allowing it to mimic tumble for the purposes of avoiding AOOs and have no armor restrictions for it. Or would mere access to another class feature which requires further investment, be another instance of heavy armor "having it all"?

I don't think it's a good idea. Heavy armor should have a lack of combat movement as a disadvantage, and that should stay that way. If you want to give heavy armor a class feature or feat, then it should be increasing it's AC, or gaining DR or energy resistances. Heavy armor is about being a tank. You sit there and you take blows, and you're good at taking blows without getting hurt. Moving about the battlefield at will is something that lightly armored people should be doing. That's the power of monks and rogues.

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1111257258[/unixtime]]
So I'm not sure where this weird idea comes from that having 18 dex is standard for all characters at low levels and then trying to sell it as part of an argument for why heavy armor sucks.

Me neither, since I never said it.

you just aren't fully grasping how big a cost buying an 18 is in point buy.

Sure I am, the cost is 16,000 gp and an item slot.
(assuming you aren't an elf or halfing or other dex beefing race)

That's starting with a 14 dex in point buy, which is *cheep*, and then a +4 gloves of dexterity.

So the light armor guy trails in 3 points in AC for a couple of the early levels (2-4, not 1, since nobody has full plate then), and close the gap by +1 again a couple times more in the next few levels to be behind +1 AC by around level 9-10.

The difference in AC is not grand. Especially when people at those levels would rather polymorph for better AC anyway. A level 20 fighter who relies on his armor is going to get hit from dawn til dusk, because everything can nail that AC without even trying. God forbid they have some recompense like being able to invest in an ability to move without getting hit even more.

And when that happens, lightly armored characters are getting hosed.

Hosed... by what? That people with heavy armor invested much more into armor usage and get a tiny advantage (+1 to +3 AC) along with a truckload of disadvantages minus one, rather than a tiny advantage along with a truckload of disadvantages? Are rogues "hosed" by fighters on the issue of weapon selection, because fighters can use bigger weapons than rogues for the mere cost of using both hands and martial weapons feats? Of course not. There are investments, and then there are payoffs.

You are hand waving every single real investment that a heavy armor user makes, and saying it's negligible. Until you see that there are real and sometimes costs, I can't see how this argument proceed.

clikml at [unixtime wrote:1111270383[/unixtime]]
Sure I am, the cost is 16,000 gp and an item slot.
(assuming you aren't an elf or halfing or other dex beefing race)

That's starting with a 14 dex in point buy, which is *cheep*, and then a +4 gloves of dexterity.

And the heavy armored guy can get mithril armor and gloves of dex at high levels as well.

Also, consider that that 16,000 which is supposedly cheap, is enough to buy a +4 enchantment for the plate armor. So even at lower levels, the heavy armor still wins out.

The difference in AC is not grand. Especially when people at those levels would rather polymorph for better AC anyway.

Well polymorphing just screws everything up. Even thus with polymorph if you consider most fighters are going into giant shapes, giants tend to have poor starting dex, making them great users of full plate armor. If you turn into something that can't wear armor at all, well then it's a moot point. But the fact still remains that if you could put on full plate you pretty much always would.

But polymorph is a broken mechanic anyway and a much larger concern than any part of this topic, so until it's been fixed, I don't even want to bother discussing it. Stat replacement based on the monster manual doesn't work and it never will.

Hosed... by what? That people with heavy armor invested much more into armor usage and get a tiny advantage (+1 to +3 AC) along with a truckload of disadvantages minus one, rather than a tiny advantage along with a truckload of disadvantages? Are rogues "hosed" by fighters on the issue of weapon selection, because fighters can use bigger weapons than rogues for the mere cost of using both hands and martial weapons feats? Of course not. There are investments, and then there are payoffs.

Right, there are investments and there are payoffs. The payoff for heavy armor is having better AC, not having to invest in dex, and being able to get other ability scores bigger in return.

Basically what makes a class good is the unique stuff it can do that others can't do. Right now the only reasons not to wear heavy armor are:
-You need high dex for some other reason (rogue skills).
-You get hit with major penalties if you do, like ASF or ACP.
-You lose potent class features like monk AC bonus.

Have you noticed that everything keeping you in check is a penalty? Wear armor and you lose your dex. Wear armor and you lose your wisdom bonus to AC, wear armor and you can't tumble or can't cast spells. And this is because heavy armor is inherently better. It is controlled by a series of penalties.

You are hand waving every single real investment that a heavy armor user makes, and saying it's negligible. Until you see that there are real and sometimes costs, I can't see how this argument proceed.

There are only a few real investments:
-Armor check penalty (rogue only)
-Movement reduction (only if not mounted)

Besides those, the rest is largely illusory.

It takes 5 rounds to hastily don leather armor, which nobody is going to do in battle anyway, so the whole prep time argument falls flat on its face as a valid limitation.

The dex limitation is simply solved by not spending points on dex and spending them elsewhere. So sure, your dex sucks, but now you've got better strength and con. If anything this is a disadvantage to the lightly armored guy since he must buy dex to compete, and therefore is behind in some other ability score.

As for the armor proficiency cost, anyone who would want to wear it already has it. Rogues don't want to wear it because of armor check penalty. Wizards don't because of ASF. Monks don't wear it cause it hoses them badly. About the only one who may have to "pay" to wear heavy armor is a druid, who is not immediately proficient wtih heavy dragonscale armors. But honestly I could care less about hosing the poor druid who happens to be crazy overpowered anyway. Clerics, paladins and fighters can all wear heavy armor. And any warrior build can easily accomodate a single level of fighter to wear it. It's customary to dip 2 fighter levels anyway. So the cost of being proficient in heavy armor is a joke.

The movement reduction just isn't that big. If spells like fly didn't exist and you were regularly expected to make climb checks, then I might think that heavy armor was more of a hindrance. But it's just not. In a high magic fantasy setting, being a little slow moving is almost meaningless.

RC wrote:And the heavy armored guy can get mithril armor and gloves of dex at high levels as well.

A) No he can't. Mithral heavy armour is in fact medium armour. The second he puts it on he ceases to be heavy armour guy and becomes medium armour guy with a smaller background of investment in tumble ranks.

B) Mithral is rather cheap. It need not be very high level.

C) Mithral + Celestial = light armour guy with basically only one of the multiple added costs (gp), and all the benefits in AC. Heck, even the arcane spell failure is mostly gone, as if thats a giant issue.

Indeed, the existence of Celestial Mithril Full Plate is not something that can be brought up to show how awesome Heavy Armor is over Light Armor. Quite the opposite, since it is Light Armor and has all the advantages of Heavy Armor.

RC, you just completely killed any hope of an argument you had - by bringing up the fact that you can "have it all" with Mithril, you've just shown how truly fvcked Heavy Armor users are - you don't even need Heavy Armor Proficiency to get the advantages of Full Plate at high levels...

RC wrote:Right, there are investments and there are payoffs. The payoff for heavy armor is having better AC,

OK, exactly. If people invest in Heavy Armor, they should get a better AC. But they don't. Light Armor gives the same AC at high levels, and worse there are effects like Tumble which are essentially additional AC that are available only to Light Armor characters.

Heavy Armor people don't get anything at high levels - and that's asstastic.

-Username17

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1111350761[/unixtime]]Indeed, the existence of Celestial Mithril Full Plate is not something that can be brought up to show how awesome Heavy Armor is over Light Armor. Quite the opposite, since it is Light Armor and has all the advantages of Heavy Armor.

Well, for one celestial mithril full plate is a custom item. It doesn't exist in any D&D book. In the book it's simply chainmail. And there's also nothing saying that it can also be mithral. By strict reading of the DMG, celestial chain is "silver or gold" and if you take that to mean metallic types, then it cannot also be mithral.

But regardless, there is no such thing as celestial full plate to my knowledge anyway. Celestial isn't a material type or a standard armor enchantment, it's a special unique armor, and it happens to be chainmail. And as far as DMs allowing it into their games, I would say they shouldn't, for the exact reasons you mentioned. It kicks guys in heavy armor in the balls. So yes, I'd be against this new magical item.

As for base mithral. I consider medium armor and heavy armor to be almost the same thing, since both cut down on movement. Heavy armor is slightly worse because you can't run as fast, but not by much. So I think I can call mithral full plate effectively "heavy" armor since it still slows people down. It literally isn't heavy armor, I know, but it might as well be.

Well, for one celestial mithril full plate is a custom item. It doesn't exist in any D&D book. In the book it's simply chainmail. And there's also nothing saying that it can also be mithral. By strict reading of the DMG, celestial chain is "silver or gold" and if you take that to mean metallic types, then it cannot also be mithral.

Frank has been over this before. Albeit I'm not sure if that has changed in 3.5. Although he didn't respond specifically to the silver/gold thing there.

I think Frank has written so many posts that he doesn't actually have to write them anymore. He can just search for an old post of his on the same topic and copy/paste it.

Modesitt at [unixtime wrote:1111357088[/unixtime]]
I think Frank has written so many posts that he doesn't actually have to write them anymore. He can just search for an old post of his on the same topic and copy/paste it.

I'm sure. And I've read most of them. I really don't buy into the whole concept. And while custserv definitely says you can do it, I don't really trust them very much.

Really, there's nothing in the DMG to support being able to do that kind of reverse engineering. IMO "Celestial" wasn't made a true armor property for a reason. It's because they wanted it just on chainmail.

It's one of those things that just plain isn't clear in the core rules, and one can easily rule either way on it. For balance reasons, I think it's a good idea that you don't allow celestial armor of other types, and certainly don't allow mithral to combine with celestial armor. But I don't think it is particularly meaningful in a balance debate because the practice itself is so questionable. There's no evidence to say you can't do it, and nothing to say you can do it beyond the word of some people at WotC who have said really stupid stuff without thinking about it before.

Celestial full plate amounts to a custom magic item, which is entirely within the DM's discretion to allow.

It's one of those things that just plain isn't clear in the core rules, and one can easily rule either way on it. For balance reasons, I think it's a good idea that you don't allow celestial armor of other types, and certainly don't allow mithral to combine with celestial armor. But I don't think it is particularly meaningful in a balance debate because the practice itself is so questionable. There's no evidence to say you can't do it, and nothing to say you can do it beyond the word of some people at WotC who have said really stupid stuff without thinking about it before.

3.5E explicitly states that you can add additional magical item properties to a pre-existing magical item. That's one edge.

Also, if you cast dispel magic on a piece of magical equipment, it becomes non-magic for a few rounds. You cast polymorph any object to change it into whatever you want, and when the dispel magic spell wears off it gets all of its properties back.

Guest (Unregistered) at [unixtime wrote:1111364727[/unixtime]]
3.5E explicitly states that you can add additional magical item properties to a pre-existing magical item. That's one edge.

That's true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you can put every property on every item. Vorpal for instance can't be put on bludgeoning weapons.

Also, if you cast dispel magic on a piece of magical equipment, it becomes non-magic for a few rounds. You cast polymorph any object to change it into whatever you want, and when the dispel magic spell wears off it gets all of its properties back.

Again, assuming your item is a legal recipient for the enchantment, otherwise whatever happens isn't really known and is basically up to the DM to decide. If you polymorphed your full plate into a ring, you probably wouldn't get any armor bonus out of it since it's no longer legally "armor". Though what happens exactly is totally up to the DM.

And that's the thing with celestial plate. It's not illegal, but it's not legal either. It's whatever your DM says it is.

Again, assuming your item is a legal recipient for the enchantment, otherwise whatever happens isn't really known and is basically up to the DM to decide. If you polymorphed your full plate into a ring, you probably wouldn't get any armor bonus out of it since it's no longer legally "armor". Though what happens exactly is totally up to the DM.

Maybe, but why bother?

The idea that magical item enhancements can still apply to different items creates no contradiction in the rules at all. It doesn't even give any good loopholes.

For example, if you have a +5 breastplaste, dispel magic it and then polymorph it into a ring, you gain a +5 armor enhancement bonus to NOTHING, so it's like casting magic vestment in all respects. None of the special abilities will even apply, since all of the special abilities are like 'A suit of armor or a shield with this property'.

The only people who can even vaguely exploit this rule are duelists monks, who can gain a significant shield bonus out of this in 3.5E when they're not supposed to. But they used to have one in 3.0E anyway and it didn't unbalance them, so who gives a crap? And, of course, the mithril celestial fullplate people.

Guest (Unregistered) at [unixtime wrote:1111371400[/unixtime]]
The only people who can even vaguely exploit this rule are duelists monks, who can gain a significant shield bonus out of this in 3.5E when they're not supposed to. But they used to have one in 3.0E anyway and it didn't unbalance them, so who gives a crap? And, of course, the mithril celestial fullplate people.

Yeah, the mithral celestial fullplate people. Sounds like a good enough reason to me to ban it.

Besides PaO is the most poorly written spell in the game. Anything you can or can't do with it is pretty much another matter of pure DM adjudication.

And I don't really see how "this is really uber broke if your DM lets you get away with it" has anything to do with balance arguments. Next we'll be talking about using wish to get the ring of divinely quickened wishes. And you can also wish for +1000000 heavy armor. But you know what? It doesn't mean a damn thing.

If we want to talk about rules balance, we have to talk about well established rules, not cheesy crap some DMs might allow that's a rules grey area.

And bringing up mithral celestial full plate is pretty much indication to me that the "heavy armor suxxorz" crowd doesn't really have much.

Yeah, if you allow heavy armor to become light armor through some obscure ill defined loophole, then sure, heavy armor does suck. But in that case you are the one who made it suck and you only have yourself to blame. Gee, you're giving out all of heavy armors advantages to lightly armored people at virtually no cost and whattya know, an imbalance? Who'd of guessed?

Don't complain about how you have trouble walking after you just shot yourself in the foot.

How about just not allowing that problem in the first place, then you wouldn't need other houserules to cover the imbalances you created. No mithral celestial fullplate. Problem solved.

The family of celestial armours other than chainmail is NOT cheesey crap that some DMs might allow.

Its the standard rules. 3.x is very proud of its whole "you can damn well make any magic item" type rules and the ability to apply enchantments from the specific items to any similar item is a key part of that.

The pretense by WOTC being that therefore these "specific" items aren't just "cheesey" legacy magic items that don't fit within the larger modular do it yourself magic item system, they are an integral customizable part of that.

Its core rules, and its not even an infinite power loop, you can hardly pretend it just isn't going to happen.

Regardless, celestial, mithral, and good lord in various WOTC supplements I suspect even more options, are all mechanics that if not out right deliver heavy armour benefits without costs (which they do) then repeadedly bring the gap betweeen the benefits of heavy armour and the cheapness of light armour closer. Because even if there is NO way to make heavy armour light (which there IS at least one in the core alone) by making medium armour light and heavy armour medium, which even you don't dispute, the heavy armour "bulge" supposedly justifying crippling tumble penalties shrinks to an all the more insignificant advantage (or in actual fact totally vanishes).

Besides PaO is the most poorly written spell in the game. Anything you can or can't do with it is pretty much another matter of pure DM adjudication.

I just used it because it was a quick way to explain the conceit of changing one item into another.

There are already various effects in the game that allow you to change one nonmagical item into another. I don't see how an effect that would let you change a piece of armor into a sword could even be remotely unbalanced.

And I don't really see how "this is really uber broke if your DM lets you get away with it" has anything to do with balance arguments. Next we'll be talking about using wish to get the ring of divinely quickened wishes. And you can also wish for +1000000 heavy armor. But you know what? It doesn't mean a damn thing.

If we want to talk about rules balance, we have to talk about well established rules, not cheesy crap some DMs might allow that's a rules grey area.

But this isn't cheesy stupid crap. The modular magical item thing is actually one of the more solid and internally consistent sets of the rules. It's still STUPID regarding slots and how bonuses stack, but it does not actually rend the game asunder.

The worst effect in the game that can happen when you abuse the modular magical item creation system is that monks and duelists get a fraction of their old shield bonuses back and fighters end up with 3 more points of AC. Big deal. The real actual cheese comes from importing effects from the magic system (already broken, so big surprise) and when people introduce stupid custom items like the thought bottle.

Yeah, if you allow heavy armor to become light armor through some obscure ill defined loophole, then sure, heavy armor does suck. But in that case you are the one who made it suck and you only have yourself to blame. Gee, you're giving out all of heavy armors advantages to lightly armored people at virtually no cost and whattya know, an imbalance? Who'd of guessed?

But it IS dumb. Most of the heavy armor disadvantages actually come at the medium armor level, which the game gleefully expects you to exploit as soon as possible with mithril. Since you've already broken the chassis of 'trade mobility and movement for a bulge on AC' by having the bulge on AC, you're just actually getting more bang for your buck. Spending more money to get an additional AC bonus (and I'll also remind you than in 3.5E, you can buy a +2 sacred bonus to AC item for 10,000 gold pieces) is just a logical extension of that.

How about just not allowing that problem in the first place, then you wouldn't need other houserules to cover the imbalances you created. No mithral celestial fullplate. Problem solved.

Celestial mithral fullplate just gets the brunt of the blame because it requires a fairly understandable but unobvious chain of logic. But 'heavy armor' wearers were already getting kicked in the crotch. The game WANTS them to get kicked in the crotch. A large amount of WotC-published NPCs have mithral medium armor.

Of course, a lot of DMs throw a hissy fit because they don't want to listen to an explanation of how the game works unless you can grunt out a one-phrase answer. Apparently if you offer a two or three sentence explanation for why something works or isn't balanced, the player must be pulling a munchkin trick.

PhoneLobster at [unixtime wrote:1111372860[/unixtime]]
Regardless, celestial, mithral, and good lord in various WOTC supplements I suspect even more options, are all mechanics that if not out right deliver heavy armour benefits without costs (which they do) then repeadedly bring the gap betweeen the benefits of heavy armour and the cheapness of light armour closer. Because even if there is NO way to make heavy armour light (which there IS at least one in the core alone) by making medium armour light and heavy armour medium, which even you don't dispute, the heavy armour "bulge" supposedly justifying crippling tumble penalties shrinks to an all the more insignificant advantage (or in actual fact totally vanishes).

Eh, medium armor seriously blows. It's a +1 to AC over light, that's it. Medium becoming light seriously isn't a big deal, because medium isn't much better. If you can show how a mithral breastplate in any way invalidates the advantages of heavy armor in a way a chain shirt can't, then by all means do so.

Heavy is 3 points better than medium. Medium is a single 1 point over light. Heavy becoming medium doesn't make much difference etiher because penalty wise, heavy and medium armor are very close. All you lose is a little running speed (big deal). I dont' see anyone crying over it, especially considering if your mounted you could care less.

I don't dispute that medium can become light and heavy can become medium, but that doesn't really make a big difference, and claiming anything contrary to that is pure exaggeration. And that's all your case is. Exaggeration.

Exaggeration of heavy armor penalties, exaggeration of heavy armor preparation time, and the great cost of taking 1 level of cleric/fighter/paladin. Of course, when you actually do the math, these exaggerations are completely unfounded. And when that fails, bring up a broken custom magical item and say, "well if the DM is dumb enough to allow this, then heavy armor really does suck! See!"

If your case is totally contingent on the existence of a custom magic item then you truly have no case.