tehnikpaul

I also think that the old +1 +12 system was ridiculous. why not learn from historical sources the way armor was separated? For example a tanned Animal Hide is actually an exceptional protection and leather armor is nothing more than processed animal hides, but the difference is that one is socially acceptable and one isn't in the right circumstances. What I'm trying to say is that the difference between pure metal armor can be reduced to social valences. Such as the fact that an etched, golden lions decorated armor (such as the one's displayed at the Royal Armory next door) was a suit fit for a king and unlikely to have been worn on a battleground, but it would have been highly impressive in a march. But a battle hardened party should have armor that looks worn, can be upgraded with newer bits, can be repaired, has blood stains and weapon/burn/acid marks. It all should add to a intimidate out of battle/ fear effect within battle. New armor should look new (give charisma effects), etc, but make the player either look rich or as a total novice on the field of battle. Inscriptions, marks and sigils added to the armor, should be the ones to enhance it. A suit of armor was a dear friend and a costly investment. It had the same importance like suits have nowadays, but on a field of life and death. After sorting the real damage, you can add as much happy magic stuff to it as you want. But I like warriors and I insist on stuff that shows wear, unlike the crap loot I see all the time.