| Author |
 Topic  |
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
 Posted - 06 Jan 2012 : 00:01:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
As I recall, the 1E kensai couldn't wear armor or use a shield, but one of the benefits of the class was that his armor increased with his levels. I think the 2E kit did much the same thing.
I think you're right. And wasn't the kensai/mage an "ideal dual class" in the old Baldur's Gate 2 SoA-ToB game? The benefits of both classes in synchrony were apparently amazing (for 2E generally also, IIRC... same math, yes?).
'Twas Yoshimo, as I recall. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
 |
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2012 : 01:27:41
|
| Ah, I can promise you that analyzing Conan has never excited me that much, Lady Shadowflame. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2012 : 04:17:37
|
there were a few scenes........
As for 2E Kensi, at least they got something equivalent to armor that kept it comparative to other classes, not sacrificing a necessity for flavor and all that. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2012 : 04:53:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
there were a few scenes........
As for 2E Kensi, at least they got something equivalent to armor that kept it comparative to other classes, not sacrificing a necessity for flavor and all that.
I briefly played a kensai, and with him, I certainly didn't think of armor as a necessity. I was playing the class for the flavor.
I played a minotaur in 2E, as well. Very much a front-line fighter, happily wading in with his bastard sword in motion. He didn't wear armor, either. With him, it was because he initially couldn't afford armor that was more than a point or two above his natural AC! And I again did not feel that armor was a necessity.
Armor, dodging, parrying, it all has the same end result -- soft fleshy person with a weapon doesn't get hit by an opposing weapon. Not getting hit is the necessity -- how that is accomplished is irrelevant. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2012 : 05:04:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I briefly played a kensai, and with him, I certainly didn't think of armor as a necessity. I was playing the class for the flavor.
I played a minotaur in 2E, as well. Very much a front-line fighter, happily wading in with his bastard sword in motion. He didn't wear armor, either. With him, it was because he initially couldn't afford armor that was more than a point or two above his natural AC! And I again did not feel that armor was a necessity.
Armor, dodging, parrying, it all has the same end result -- soft fleshy person with a weapon doesn't get hit by an opposing weapon. Not getting hit is the necessity -- how that is accomplished is irrelevant.
Which is why it's important for rules to help adhere to these typs of styles. When I was looking at choosing some different Homeland aspects of my Berserker, I really thought about going with the Desert theme, because he was un-armored (just wore billowing clothes) and had BETTER AC than my Temperate Forest Berserker with Hide armor, heh. The main point is, rules mechanics shouldn't crap in player's cheerois just because a theme or concept is different from the norm. Basically I feel players shouldn't be penalized for flavor. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2012 : 05:14:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
As for 2E Kensi, at least they got something equivalent to armor that kept it comparative to other classes, not sacrificing a necessity for flavor and all that.
I've never had the chance to play a Kensai, but I have always been keen on the concept.
Not sure whether I'd multiclass, though, as I'm satisfied with what I've read about the class -- since it keeps the "flavour" largely intact, as you say. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2012 : 00:17:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
Besides Conan ran around in a loin cloth and bracers...
I've seen several references to this in this thread. This is emphathically not true.
In the Robert E. Howard books, Conan runs around, at all times, wearing as much armour as he can get. The times he is all but naked are those times when he has been wounded, looted and left for dead or is in the process of escaping some vile slaver or captor.
In the majority of the stories, he is wearing good mail or scale, as a mercenary, or nice plate harness as the King of Aquilonia.
Realistically, wearing armour in battle is simply better than not wearing armour. The reason there are lots of stories and real incidents about people who fought without armour is that not every violent encounter is a set-piece battle.
People who fight without armour are known as civilians and they might be fighting duels, brawls or even a deadly knife-fight for leadership of a street gang. But at any time after the Stone Age, soldiers wore armour, as much as they could get away with. That was, in fact, how you could tell the difference between soldiers and the rest. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Thauranil
Master of Realmslore
India
1591 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2012 : 07:52:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Shadowflame
Oh, pish, who needs armour?
The mightiest warriors just strip down, flex their muscles, and a barricade forms out of women and men swooning at the sight!
Wulgar should have tried out this technique. But i guess he was worried about an arrow in the back from Cattie Brie.  |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2012 : 16:24:01
|
I had created a DMPC in 3e that got benefits from INT and WIS as well as DEX - he was almost impossible to hit by people around his level. That kind of simulates the Kensai/Mage thing (he was just starting the wizard class).
I'd still prefer a system wherein armor only reduced damage, not made it harder to hit. A guy wearing 100 lbs is not going to be able to dodge very well, and the rules do not take that into account at all. I figure its really a wash - whatever small benefit you get from weapons 'skidding' off the armor (from indirect blows) you would lose from the inability to dodge effectively.
This should be the real difference between 'finesse' classes and power-hitters: Finesse fighters (Swashbuckler, Monk, etc) rarely get hit, but when they do it's BAD, but 'walking tanks' should get hit all the time, but barely take any damage. D&D just doesn't reflect this very well.
And as I've said in another thread, the damage done should be reflected by the 'to hit' roll - not only would this simulate 'accuracy', but it would also REDUCE the amount of die rolling!
And maybe some of those weapon-specific Crit tables from Arms Law - those were Da Bomb.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 03 Feb 2012 16:25:12 |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2012 : 16:26:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Shadowflame
Oh, pish, who needs armour?
The mightiest warriors just strip down, flex their muscles, and a barricade forms out of women and men swooning at the sight!
You've read Robert Jordan's Conan books, huh? 
But an par with something akin to Conan, he doesn't wear much (if any) armor and he does well in fights. I think this goes to show that he battles creatures much less than himself.
ABSOLUTELY!
Especially in the Roy Thomas Comics, when Conan meets his match he often wins by using the environment. I picture Conan as like a 15th level guy used to fighting the level 3 warrior guardsmen.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2012 : 16:37:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I had created a DMPC in 3e that got benefits from INT and WIS as well as DEX - he was almost impossible to hit by people around his level. That kind of simulates the Kensai/Mage thing (he was just starting the wizard class).
I started D&D in 2e, back when heavy armors (read full-plates) were not only very good, but also an important event in the life of any fighter I played. In 3rd ed, with dex and movement penalty, I never once had a fighter-type character who used anything heavier than a mithril breastplate.
Also, there is so many cool PrC that forbids you to use heavy armor (you can but lose all class abilities), there is very few builds that would need these heavy armors. And I'm not even a min-maxer. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Fighters that dont wear armor
