Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009360But... seriously... why not just give him worse armor to make a lower AC?

But I repeat, I'm an armor fetishist.

Sure. I can think of lots of reasons to rationalize a lower AC. Damaged armor and/or low Dex off the top of my head. The important thing is to be consistent so the players could at least know that there is a reason.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1009366If you didn't want opinions, why did you ask for them?

I was going to ask that, but it tends to come up in half the threads Grover starts.

You fucked up and got caught out at it by the player.
If the Orc's armour worn has no actual effect on its armour class why bother having it wear armour at all? You have removed all predictability and consistency from your world. Chainmail is no longer chainmail.

You would have been better off saying, yes the Orc was wearing chainmail, but it was really crappy chainmail. As for a broadsword changing damge factor based on who is swinging it, I call bullshit. A sword is a sword. It shouldn't magically become a 1d8 weapon instead of a 1d6 weapon just because a PC picks it up.  It could do more damage because the PC has better skill or stronger muscles, but that has nothing to do with the sword itself.

I deal with it in my games by saying nothing beyond the Orcs are AC6 and do 1d6 on successful hit. Pick up an Orc's weapon and it will do 1d6 for you too. Put on their armour and you will be AC6. Assuming a D&D type rule set.

In RuneQuest a 3 point breastplate is a 3 point breastplate no matter who is wearing it it stops 3 points of damage.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1009305Yours, but I think you could have explained it better -- the stats don't represent the weapons or armor but the wielder's skill with them.

Agreed.

The better answer would have been that they are using either low quality chainmail or are wearing badly worn chain, or it was sabotaged by a rival, or its actually cursed chain, or whatever explains why its less than standard. Or "This orc has a low DEX.".

Personally I just lean to quality issues good or bad.

Instead of bitchfesting the player should have been wondering WHY this particular suit or this particular orc was less than average.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009328I always thought that was sort of assumed? But point taken.

Depends on the game. Most assume a certain consistency. A few dont.

Most iterations of D&D assume that the gear worn works just the same as the PCs gear. but its effectiveness may be better or worse due to the users stats/ability/whatever.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009352Yeah, a 2 modifier to the AC has removed all consistency from the game. All is lost, all is lost.

Except you stated that you can change anything on a whim to facilitate the story, action, whatever. Literally nothing then is consistent from the players viewpoint.

A sword might do 1d4 today and 1d20 tomorrow and there may be no way to tell or make decisions based on what the PC sees.

When Im DMing and using worn armor or a wearer with better or worse stats then I try to mention that during the encounter. "You notice this guys plate mail is dented and barely holding together." "This thief seems alot brawnier than the ones you've met so far." "This yokel is just wearing chainmail over a shirt? (wheres the rest of it?)" and so on.

And the stuff is still degraded, the same. or better than average when they pull it off the body based on the why of its performance.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1009370You fucked up and got caught out at it by the player.
If the Orc's armour worn has no actual effect on its armour class why bother having it wear armour at all? You have removed all predictability and consistency from your world. Chainmail is no longer chainmail.

4e D&D Gamma World. The name of the item was irrelevant. Its what it does that matters and that at least was consistent. So this mutant is wearing heavy cardboard armor gaining +2 AC and this colony of kittens shaped like a person is wearing light full plate AC +1. The clue is the heavy or light part. Same with weapons. Name is irrelevant.

Replying to the original question, the game I play (GURPS) has rules for different damage and defensive abilities based on opponents' abilities, and it's normal not to know exactly what those are for everyone, so it wouldn't be exceptional at all.

Whether GM modifications to other things seem good or bad to me tends to have to do with how appropriate they seem to me. One GM gave a pirate with bad breath a breath attack, which seemed slightly overdone, but only slightly, and it was funny and colorful so that was fine with me. But when the GM decided to use an "NFL Football Player" template as base physical stats for a bunch of ordinary security guards, that seemed like the GM had a poor sense of proportion and seemed fairly annoying.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009296Who do you guys feel - whose side do you lean on?

I lean on the side that says you are a lousy DM whose encounters lack consistency. I also lean on the side that views your player as a whiny argumentative bitch.

Of course you can run it however you want, but I would agree that the player has a valid point and I'd prefer the consistency that the player is asking for from you.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1009338Yup. In the player's defense, now he has no idea what any armor, or even equipment is capable of. An opponent with plate mail and a battle axe could be as effective as a guy in cloth armor wielding a dagger, or vice versa. A player needs information in order to make decisions and that kind of information is now removed from the game.

Sure, but if players assume that everything works in exactly the same way then they will be surprised when it doesn't. Why should I, as a GM, always give the players an eminently predictable encounter?

I'd just say the chainmail was weak or poorly made, so had a worse AC.

Well ... we can all opine what we'd have done in his shoes, and whether if we did things his way we'd have lied about it or covered it up in some way.  Instead he was honest with his player, and I can't throw bricks at that.

Quote from: jeff37923;1009417I lean on the side that says you are a lousy DM whose encounters lack consistency. I also lean on the side that views your player as a whiny argumentative bitch.

Gotta ask. Why leave a comment like that. Its not constructive or helpful... just argumentative. You that miserable or what?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1009419Of course you can run it however you want, but I would agree that the player has a valid point and I'd prefer the consistency that the player is asking for from you.

I guess Im not seeing the reality in absolute consistency. Sure the rules cover a lot but not every nuance of every situation. A buddy and I own the same gun, but we shoot very differently, in his hands its a much more lethal weapon. Sure, firearms skill (To Hit) has a part in that but if I were to assign the gun a damage dice, his would be higher, no doubt. The chainmail armor, worn by a trained warrior, is far more effective. Its not just lying there on a stool being beaten on by a chunk of steel. I agree with you guys that I could handled it differently but just looking at pictures of ancient armor reinforces my point that even lying on that stool every suit of armor isnt the same, world wide!

Quote from: Ravenswing;1009428Well ... we can all opine what we'd have done in his shoes, and whether if we did things his way we'd have lied about it or covered it up in some way.  Instead he was honest with his player, and I can't throw bricks at that.

Why is everyone assuming I made a mistake? I never said that. The armor class was exactly what I intended it to be. I was well aware of what the RAW indicated chainmail should be rated for, I chose to do otherwise. Is that so vile that it has to be assumed to be a mistake?