I like Pathfinder without Armor Check Penalty and here's why.
From the PRD:
Armor Check Penalty: Any armor heavier than leather, as well as any shield, applies an armor check penalty to all Dexterity- and Strength-based skill checks. A character's encumbrance may also incur an armor check penalty.
Armor check penalty is a big problem in Pathfinder. It affects a number of critical skills:
From the PRD:
Armor Check Penalty: Any armor heavier than leather, as well as any shield, applies an armor check penalty to all Dexterity- and Strength-based skill checks. A character's encumbrance may also incur an armor check penalty.
Armor check penalty is a big problem in Pathfinder. It affects a number of critical skills:
- Acrobatics
- Climb
- Disable Device
- Escape Artist
- Fly
- Sleight of Hand
- Stealth
- Swim
Clearly some of these seem relevantly affected, but what about disable device? I can't move lockpicks because I am wearing armor? That seems odd. If I were to include ACP, which I currently don't foresee, I think I would limit it to affecting only Acrobatics, Escape Artist, Sleight of Hand, and Swim. These seem reasonable... more reasonable than the full list. Unfortunately, my experience with ACP is that is leads to unnecessarily ridiculous scenarios:
Hmmm... I need to climb this wall. Let me take off my armor, climb to the top and then put it back on. Oh, wait. I need to pick this lock -- let me take off my armor?
I do understand the intent. It must be harder to move in armor. Unfortunately for most class this represents a second penalty accomplishing the same general thing. Rogues are only proficient with light armor. The intent of this is to prevent rogues (and similar classes) from trying to sneak around in chainmail or full plate. Unfortunately, the rogue has the option of taking medium and then heavy armor proficiency (or getting it through multi-classing) and then still trying to use their buffed up stealth skill in chainmail. Yes, technically this can happen per the rules in my game, but to date, it just hasn't happened in my games. And so what if it does? One can't pad their chainmail with cloth so it doesn't jingle? One can't adjust their armor so they can climb and move efficiently? With all of the new types of armor in the PRD, assuming that armor can be lighter and easier to move in seems reasonable, and, more importantly, FUN.
One of the balance issues that comes out of ignoring ACP is that the fighter class is a bit nerfed. Fighters get armor training that allows them to avoid ACP. This is a problem, but is easily solved with archetypes, which allow the fighter's armor training to be replaced with other more useful abilities.
Above all, ignoring armor check penalty makes the game more fun for the players. Recently one of my players and I were in a Pathfinder game together where the GM enforced ACP. I played a ranger that was filling in as the groups rogue, since we only had 3 players. I felt really trapped at the lower levels. The GM was throwing encounters sized for a full party of 4 (one of which should be a healer which we didn't have) and I wore a breastplate to keep my AC at a non-dying level. However, anytime I wanted to start sneaking around, I had to drop my armor and take the chance of getting pounded. Having my armor wouldn't disrupt the game anymore than some of the items or min-maxing that other players were doing (keen katana -- ouch!). It would have, however, avoided the ridiculousness of me running around without armor. And, trust me, nobody wants half naked PCs wandering around no matter how stealthy they are.
I think it's all open to interpretation. Many armors, especially the plate varieties, include gauntlets and heavy padded gloves. Having a shield strapped to your arm is a no-brainer, of course it changes your ability to pick a lock.
ReplyDeleteI think it really comes down to the spirit of the game. If it's something your players prefer than just run with it. We tend to run a stricter game at our table but that's how our players like it.
Of course the natural evolution is to ask "If armor can be fashioned in a way that doesn't hinder movement and ACP is ignored, can wizards and sorcerers wear armor without the chance of spell failure?"
Looking at it more closely, I guess my group typically doesn't end up using their skills during combat. Outside of combat, ACP is easily defeated by taking the armor off. In combat, however, it does make a difference, similar to the arcane spell failure you mentioned.
ReplyDeleteYou've got me thinking about skill use during combat now. It sounds like a good challenge I should design in to this next dungeon I'm working on.
To be honest I'm glad to find another PF blogger out there. We are few and far between in the OSR dominated blogging community.
DeleteBut enough back-patting!
Skill use during combat is awesome! There are obvious routes like "deactivate the crushing ceiling trap while your party fights the skeletons" but careful arrangement of the environment can lead to a more organic and satisfying experience.
We had a game where there was a giant spider fighting a player inside an open arena pit. The group's rogue jumped onto the spider, stabbed it (for sneak attack of course) and held on for dear life, hoping to sneak attack again the next round.
Acrobatics check/attack roll/climb check.
Many people will groan about the skills system being unwieldy but I think it offers a level of consistent yet still versatile functionality that many other games lack.