Topic: Animal AT penalties...

[GoblynByte]

I know that some of the armor types are more or less reserved for animal hides, but I was wondering if the min/max MM penalties on the armor chart apply to the animals that "wear" them.  If they do, are these penalties already factored into their stats in Creatures and Treasures?

I thought I knew the answer to this but then I noticed that the DBs of some of the races, wearing "normal" armor as characters do, seem a little high.  Are "creatures" like dwarves, listed with armor already factored in or do you have to modify their DBs with the type of armor you think they would have?  Is this different for creatures with "natural" armor?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

No, animals and creatures are never penalized for their "skins".

Also, please remember that it was the original designers of RM who determined the DB values for all of the animals and creatures not the current ICE. 

As for races in C&T, The AT says what armor they are wearing. For example, the AT (DB) for a Dwarf in C&T is 16 (35s). That would say that the typical Dwarf (non PC) is wearing Chain Armor (AT 16), and that he has a DB of 35 which includes the use of a shield (the 's' in the DB section).

The original designers often worked in a small fudge factor as well, so that may also be part of the DB of a given race/animal/creature.

But, on the whole, I would treat the entries in C&T as already having all penalties and bonuses factored in -- unless you decide to give them some magical treasure, in which case you ought to just add those bonuses/abilities to the whole.

[GoblynByte]

No, animals and creatures are never penalized for their "skins".

Cool.

As for races in C&T, The AT says what armor they are wearing. For example, the AT (DB) for a Dwarf in C&T is 16 (35s). That would say that the typical Dwarf (non PC) is wearing Chain Armor (AT 16), and that he has a DB of 35 which includes the use of a shield (the 's' in the DB section).

Oh...I thought the DB didn't include a shield.  This is from RM2 AL (I don't have the RMC pdf...and I'm at work...), but if memory serves its the same thing in RMC AL: "This defensive bonus does not include any shield bonus, but certain creatures may be capable of using a shield or the equivalent of a shiled.  If a shield is normally used, an "s" is included in parentheses."  I took this to mean that the shieled bonus isn't included (even if there is the "s" notation) but with the "s" notation they can use one (and it needs to be added if they do).  Maybe I was reading that wrong.  Perhaps your way would make DBs more like those of PCs.

But, on the whole, I would treat the entries in C&T as already having all penalties and bonuses factored in -- unless you decide to give them some magical treasure, in which case you ought to just add those bonuses/abilities to the whole.

Excellent.  Thank you.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

If the 's' is there, then consider the bonus to include a shield's bonus as well.

[GoblynByte]

If the 's' is there, then consider the bonus to include a shield's bonus as well.

Wow.  DBs are still really high in C&T.  Do you think they did that on purpose?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Wow.  DBs are still really high in C&T.  Do you think they did that on purpose?

Have no idea why the original designers did what they did. 

[GoblynByte]

I wonder if they were operating on the assumption that, while beasties won't conciously defend themselves (i.e. devote OB to DB), they will have some instinctive movement or natural postures that equate to an automatic, and constant, transfer of OB to DB.  Of course, that would only work out logically if the OBs were lower than what might be expected.

[Marc R]

Kinda makes sense, animals are also shaped differently, not so much easy pickings for attack location.

Like a Dog's "soft spots" are all underneath it and hard to get at.

You could consider that part of the DB also, a relative level of defense based on body form and posture vs a human form.