Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Simplifying Armour Class?

As all my imaginary readers know, I have simplified the Armour Classes down to 5: None, Leather, Studded, Chain, and Plate.  In my constant struggle to simplify, I'm wondering if I should cut out the Studded class.  Does Studded really bring anything meaningful to the table when I've abstracted as far as I have?  I must admit that I find myself in great difficulty, when playing with the Combat Table, coming up with a differecne between modifers against leather and modifers against Studded.



  1. If you're going to go that route, I see no reason to keep studded.

  2. I plan to use three "classes" light, medium, heavy + no armor. What fits into those classes is kind of up to players. Leather would normally be light but if player says their leather is esp hard and reinforced with the ribcage of a bear and they want it to be "medium", so be it.

    Abstraction, good for rules. Leave fluff out of em.

  3. That's exactly what Leather, Chain, and Plate would be. Another reason for my thought was that when I put my AC's onto the Light-Medium-Heavy scale, Studded seemed (once agin) kind of out of place.

    I'm feeling pretty good about this decision.

  4. I've never used more than Light, Medium and Heavy armour in any of my games. My most recent one has gone down to Light and Heavy and I feel like that gives me as much as I need. Of course, as with so many things, it comes down to personal taste.