Why are IWD2 armors "junk"?

Remove all ads!

From the POV of a PC/NPC, enchanting armors of those types would be stupid. But it does give *you* more options for various combinations of ACP, weight, and max dex bonus. You can adjust the picture and name, of course.

 

JT, thanks for the reply.

I'm not sure why you'd say that enchanting splint or banded armors gives the modder "more options for various combinations of ACP, weight, and max dex bonus". Other than weight and base AC, those other stats essentially mirror the values of half-plate and full plate.

I guess that it seems to me that the only real difference between splint/banded and half/full plate is the tradeoff between cost and armor bonus.

I should state that I've never seen any D&D manual that describes how to properly assign a cost to enchanted items. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, only that I've never looked for it nor seen it.

And I state that because I have to wonder which would be more expensive, a +1 set of full plate or a +3 set of banded that ends up with the same AC bonus as the +1 full plate. I'm thinking that the +3 banded would be more expensive because I'm thinking that the costs of enchantment are increasingly expensive as the level of enchantment rises and that that rate of increase is more geometric than constant. Therefore, if +3 banded cost much more than an almost statistically equivalent +1 full plate, there seems even much less reason for any magical armorer to want to put the time and effort into inferior splint and banded armors.

And it seems as if about the only time when a PC might want to purchase a set of banded or splint over half or full plate, is when a PC is pretty much a low-level newbie and simply cannot afford the more expensive unenchanted half or full plate armors.


It almost seems a shame that the designers of D&D didn't adjust the various lesser armor stats for splint and banded to make them a viable option for characters who are looking to wear heavy armor.

 

Well Crucis you may be speaking in relation to IWD2 but in standard 3rd edition banded, splint, halfplate, and fullplate have very different stats. Here are the actual stats from the PHB Splint-cost 200gp, ac+6, max dex +0, check penalty-7, ASF40%. Banded Mail-cost 250, +6, +1, -6, 35%. So while the difference is not great it is still enough to justify the two armors. I dont know if the engine will allow you to make the armors this way but those are their actual stats.

If you want to see the actual base market price for an item go here http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#tableArmorandShields
It is the SRD and it tell you anything you ever wanted (and then some) of 3.5 dnd. With this you should be able to creat many types of armor without too much trouble.

 

Yoshimo, I wasn't saying that Banded and Splint were similar. I was saying that Banded and Full Plate were too similar and that Splint and Half-plate were too similar.

Here are the numbers straight from the 3.5PHB.

Splint Mail
AC Bonus: +6
MDB: +0
ACP: -7
ASP: 40%
Wt: 45

Banded Mail
AC Bonus: +6
MDB: +1
ACP: -6
ASP: 30%
Wt: 35


Half-Plate
AC Bonus: +7
MDB: +0
ACP: -7
ASP: 40%
Wt: 50

Full Plate
AC Bonus: +8
MDB: +1
ACP: -6
ASP: 30%
Wt: 50

When you compare Splint to Half-Plate and Banded to Full Plate, these stats are all quite similar.


However, thank you VERY MUCH for that link. All very interesting and very useful stuff.

 

oops sorry I thought that perhaps you were under a false impression on the armors. In NWN while there were many armor types there were only a few different stats such as hide=studded leather which is simply not true in the case of actual DND. I am glad that you found the SRD helpful though.

Also what if for a new armor instead of having high ac you gave good dr instead? Now you have a choice of getting hit more often but for less damage. Maby it is just me but I love DR when ever I can get it.

 

Yoshimo, DR is a good thing. I've started created a few Adamantine and Mithral, using the details I've come across at other sites.

A question about DR. There's no universal Damage Reduction (or Resistance) opcode in the IWD2 IE engine, but there are seperate ones for slashing, piercing, blunt, and missiles, as well as for various elemental damage types.

My question... If I were to include 3/- DR vs slashing, piercing, and blunt, would that also provide the 3/- DR against piercing missiles (arrows, etc.) and blunt missiles (i.e. bullets, th.hammers), or do I have to also include the DR vs missiles as well? At the moment, I've included the DR vs missiles, but fear that I might end up effectively providing double the resistance, which isn't my intent.

 

Hey all, It's not my intention to post every single one of my new armors, but I thought that I'd post a couple of my latest ones, just to keep up interest in this topic and get some feedback.

Please note that Breastplates fall in between Chainmail and Hide in their MDB and ACP stats. I cloned Repulsor from chain in this instance. Other breastplates, I've used Hide as my template.

Repulsor is not meant to be a stealthy armor in any way. It is a bold armor meant to be worn by bold adventurers.


and ...

Frostguard was designed from the start to be primarily a rangers' armor, although druids can wear it as well. I intentionally decided to avoid making it an armor of stealth, since it's too easy and tempting to make any leather armor stealthy, since many wearers of leather armor are concerned with stealthiness. I focused Frostguard on being more of Mielikki-blessed armor for rangers and druids living in the frozen northlands.


That's it for now.

 

Great ideas so far, crucis. I'm looking forward to seeing more of your mod items!

 

Thanks for the kudos, Acrux.

Do you have any thoughts on the question I asked about damage resistance in my post prior to the one with the 2 new armors?

"If I were to include 3/- DR vs slashing, piercing, and blunt, would that also provide the 3/- DR against piercing missiles (arrows, etc.) and blunt missiles (i.e. bullets, th.hammers), or do I have to also include the DR vs missiles as well?"


EDIT: BTW, I'm considering converting Frostguard to being Studded Leather. It has occured to me that I don't have any ideas for Studded armor in the hopper, so to speak, and also that not all that many rangers or druids are likely to top out a MDB of +5. And converting it to Studded would help add some diversity to the armors I've created. Thoughts?

 

Hi.
I have never paid any attention to dmg resistance, but as my understanding goes, normal DR will not affect any dmg coming from missile weapons, which is why DR vs Missile is there. But maybe a testing is in order...
Your idea sounds good to me(leather armor or studded leather armor, both are good as long as it doesn't suddenly become full plate mail!)
I am waiting for the mods' release...

 

I'm not sure if this was directed precisely towards me or not, but, I think that Lionheart is correct on this - the missle DR and blunt/piercing DR will not stack. Although, I am saying this without the benefit of looking at the files, so that statement could be wrong.

I don't think it is, though.

 

Has anyone ever noticed that Tower Shields in IWD2 don't seem to fit the 3.5ed rules for tower shields in the PHB?

That is, IWD2 base TS stats are +2 AC, +1 AC vs missiles. OTOH, 3.5ed PHB TS stats are +4 AC and no AC bonus for missiles.

 

Crucis, IWD2 was based on 3.0, not 3.5. I suggest sticking to the 3.0 SRD. http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html

Furthermore, a key concept here is "based on" -- many things in IWD2 are contrary to 3.0 rules. Some of them are due to limitations of the infinity engine. Others were brought in from 2.0 even though they probably shouldn't have been (example: Chromatic Orb). A few are because the game designers apparently didn't understand the 3.0 rules, or simply thought they could improve on them.

Anyway, in 3.0 a true tower shield did not give an AC bonus, but "cover", which was very powerful. I don't think IWD2 even attempts to model this.

EDIT: Please note that the 3.5 tower shield has a max dex bonus of +2. Can IWD2 handle MDB on shields? I doubt it.

EDIT: After all that, I agree that the game needs better shields. But you can get that while sticking with 3.0 IWD2 rules simply by putting in shields with +4 and +5 enchantments, and extra magic abilities. Make a shield with perm Pro:Arrows spell, or something.

[ February 13, 2007, 00:14: Message edited by: JT2 ]

 

JT2, shields in IWD2 don't have MDB's. That said, the enormously high ACP would seem to mitigate against any high DEX characters wanting to use a tower shield, since the ACP will really hurt any of their DEX based skills.

And as I recall, if you use a tower shield, you also are supposed to incur a -2 AB penalty.

From reading the definition of "cover" in the 3.5ed manual, it appears that it is the equivalent of +4 AC, which also happens to the the AC bonus of a tower shield. Surprise, surprise.

So exactly why shouldn't tower shields get a base +4 AC? You haven't exactly given a good reason why this shouldn't be so.


There's no doubt that some good shields would be a good thing. Something I intend to work on.

 

From the ****3.0**** SRD:

Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as the wielder. Basically, it is a portable wall meant to provide cover. It can provide up to total cover, depending on how far a character comes out from behind it. A tower shield, however, does not provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on a character by targeting the shield...


and

Cover provides a bonus to a combatant's AC. The more cover a combatant has, the bigger the bonus.

Degree of Cover AC Cover Reflex
Cover Bonus Save Bonus
--------- -------- ------------

1/4 +2 +1
1/2 +4 +2
3/4 +7 +3
9/10 +10 +4*
Total - -

The implication is that total cover = immunity to attacks, just like standing behind a brick wall.

 

That may all be true, JT, but it sounds like a pain in the butt to implement. And impossible to be implemented thru mere modding. It sounds more pragmatic to just give tower shields a good, fair AC and be done with it.