5.0.x Cumulative Mods & Fixes (CMF) Bug Reports and Discussion Thread

Re: 5.0.1 mods and fixes bug reports

Yea! I'm going to run out & get Plate barding for all of my dragons, now!

If I hit something hard enough to cause damage exclusive of the protection offered by the armor, then the less hard material underneath is exposed to the damage caused by that attack as well; or should be. It's almost like they get a second chance at protection, which is unfair. In the old school, a bugbear wearing plate would only have an ac equal to plate mail; their natural ac was less than this, and plate only gave them some extra protection . If you could roll well enough to hit, then damage was done...cause it would have hit them anyway. Plate gave human types something like +7 to ac; and would only give + 2 to bugbears. Adding a bonus for "natural ac" gives them unfair added protection, and might make them invulnerable to certain attacks. A character attacking Gaear's foe from the example above needs to have to have a bonus of 6 and still roll a 20. The armor doesn't get harder or better because a bugbear is the creature wearing it. Otherwise, Iron Golems could put on plate mail & be "better protected". I believe Zeb's right & this is a flaw in the system.

 

Re: 5.0.1 mods and fixes bug reports

Thanks Spike, that's how I was thinking as well. Maybe it's because I come from playing Rolemaster, but the idea of gaining the benefits of two 'suits' of armour is somewhat silly. Just as an example, plate armour was worn over padded armour (the same goes for chainmail and soft leather). Technically, a character could argue that he can wear his enchanted padded armour under his enchanted plate and have the benefits stack. Most GMs would give the idea short shrift.

 

Re: 5.0.1 mods and fixes bug reports

Ah, but he would get the short shrift because he was trying to stack multiples of the same type - two "armor" AC bonuses and two "enhancement" bonuses. Stacking "natural" AC bonus with "armor" AC bonus is totally different. Unless you want to argue that you have to have your plate armor enhanced to +9 before the enhancement overpowers the armor's armor value and actually makes it work better...

Hmmm..... maybe this topic should be moved to it's own thread somewhere before it derails the bug reports?

 

Re: 5.0.1 mods and fixes bug reports

Now you get 'rulesy' when all ai were trying to do were to point out the logical fallacy...

It's exactly the same principle but for some reason 3.5 doesn't consider 'natural armour' to be a second suit of armour. That's a problem which makes no sense to me when it can easily be resolved by counting natural armour as an AC bonus. Best armour (of any type) is what you have to pierce, otherwise why can't a player argue he'd like the same treatment for the free AC you're dealing out to your plate wearing dragons

Not sure what your last sentence means, but I don't intend to argue anything about D&D rules other than that at times they are daft and I prefer rolemaster eace:

 

Re: 5.0.1 mods and fixes bug reports

In AD&D a monster had either a natural AC or could wear armor and get the AC from armor like Spike said. Both were ACs and neither were bonuses. Thus, they did not stack.

The new rules [from reading kalshanes various posts], I believe, refer to natural AC as a bonus [is not an AC] and the idea is natural armor as a bonus does enhance armor worn by a monster because it is a bonus. The difficulty [or frustration] for players is that humans and demi-humans have a natural armor bonus of zero unlike bugbears [in our example] that have a natural armor bonus of +3.

Myself, I prefer the old school idea. However, we are supposed to be using the new rules. *sigh*

 

Re: 5.0.1 mods and fixes bug reports

Sorry Zeb and Spike. I still don't get it. What you are saying seems to be implying that just because a bugbear dons armor, his skin becomes just as easy to penetrate as a human's. That just doesn't make sense to me.

The way I see it is that AC bonus of a suit of armor isn't solely attributed to the hardness of the material it's made of. It's attributed to the way in which the suit distributes the energy of impact as well. An attack that penetrates the armor still has some of its energy dissipated by the armor. The energy that remains would still have to be able to penetrate the toughness of whatever lies beneath the suit of armor in order to "hit".

Of course, this discussion lies along the same lines of how can you do slashing damage to someone wearing full plate.

 

Re: 5.0.1 mods and fixes bug reports

you slash their groin of course

 

Re: 5.0.1 mods and fixes bug reports

Look, once you go down this road, you inevitably have to get to the ridiculousness of hit points, armor class, and saving throws in general. This is the way that the game system works, is all.

If it helps you any, you could think of it as the difference between swinging on someone who's wearing chain armor over leather versus someone wearing chain armor over a gambeson. Naturally, the leather-backed chain does a better job at stopping damage. Ultimately, though, you can't always make logical comparisons because frankly D&D's system is not really a logical simulation of "realistic" combat. It's an abstraction carried over from the days of tactical miniatures.

 

Re: 5.0.1 mods and fixes bug reports

The logical fallacy of a system where you use a magical flaming sword and spells to kill a dragon?

I guess I just feel that this is TOEE, and TOEE is a great game because it is the best CRPG ever designed off the D&D rules, so you're kinda stuck with the D&D rules, Zeb. Its not rolemaster.

 

Re: 5.0.1 mods and fixes bug reports

Im not really up on 3rd ed rules as im a 2.5 ed player but i believe that natural AC and any suit of armor a creature wears should stack. i know in many of the modules i ran that the creatures would have thier AC listed as modified from natural due to a type of armor. i would also enjoy seeing the armor be better against certain types of weapons than others as Allyx brought up. it was that way in 2.5 im not sure about 3.5 , but thats a reason bugbears like morningstars, they work well against chainmail. im still in this frame of mind all my warriors carry at least 2 different types of weapons, usally 1 slashing and one blunt just to cover the bases.

 

Re: 5.0.1 mods and fixes bug reports

I kind of realise that this is D&D Erkper but 3.5 is a strange system. The logical fallacy lies not in not "oh but you can kill dragons so obviously this isn't real life" but that the natural armour AC bonus somehow represents some kind of mystical bonus to a creatures AC which somehow gives them a double AC bonus whereas a player who improves the armour underlying the outer armour does not receive a dual bonus (a kind of false dilemma). The bonus won't be changed because a couple of people think that 3.5 verges on the crazy side from time to time, so don't worry.

Ted - what would be the AC of your tortoise in plate? What level would be required to hit it with any certainty?

Blue - sure I can buy that argument, it's why people wore padded armour and soft leather under plate and chain. So why doesn't it stack for players who add better armour underneath? Of course the answer is that D&D realises that the system quickly becomes broken once players start doing this but somehow the absorption power of a critter's hide is different.

 

Re: 5.0.1 mods and fixes bug reports

The idea is bugbears literally have a "thick hide" (is a +3 bonus) and that humans/demi-humans only have a "thin skin" (is a +0 bonus). Both stack on armor that is equipped.

 

Re: 5.0.1 mods and fixes bug reports

Speaking of bugbears, where did the those 152hp GreaterTemple things come from. Hell, a HillGiant only has 144hp. The bugs don't have the to hit and damage power, but a 152hp seems like a awful lot for a bugbear. The leaders with the backplate armour are a 163HP. I'm just curious as to how bugbears got to be that powerful.