Maybe using a percentage penalty would be the solution of this problem?

Ehm.. what do you mean? Be a bit more specific please.

I kept thinking on shields, since my last ideas were not perfect IMO. While the AC bonuses vs. missiles were good, the fact that Large shields should be very hard to handle haven?t been implemented at all. Also, Sim had a good point by saying that large shields should offer at least a bit better overall protection than other, smaller shields ? they cover the entire body when held correctly.
Note that this system still ignores Enchantment Level, and I wish to keep it that way. Only the "large shield" cathegory has some penalties, and that comes mostly from their sizes, not from their weights - and while a greater enchantment makes them lighter, it won't make them smaller and easier to handle.

Here are my latest, and hopefully final suggestions on how shields should be handled by this component:



Bucklers:
AC bonus: 1
Extra AC bonus vs. missiles: 0
Movement penalty: 0
DEX penalty: 0

Small Shields:
AC bonus: 1
Extra AC bonus vs. missiles: 0
Movement penalty: 0
DEX penalty: 0

Medium Shields:
AC bonus: 1
Extra AC bonus vs. missiles: 1
Movement penalty: 0
DEX penalty: 0

Large Shields:
AC bonus: 2
Extra AC bonus vs. missiles: 2
Movement penalty: -10%
DEX penalty: -1


And here are the special cases, a few unique Large Shields:

Shield of the Falling Stars +1, +4 vs. Missiles (SHLD07)
AC bonus: 3
Extra AC bonus vs. missiles: 4
Movement penalty: -10%
DEX penalty: -1

Large Shield +2 (no unique name) (SHLD19)
AC bonus: 4
Extra AC bonus vs. missiles: 2
Movement penalty: -5%
DEX penalty: 0

Fortress Shield +3 (SHLD23)
AC bonus: 5
Extra AC bonus vs. missiles: 7
Movement penalty: 10%
DEX penalty: -1

Large Shield +2 (no unique name) (SHLD30)
AC bonus: 4
Extra AC bonus vs. missiles: 2
Movement penalty: 0
DEX penalty: 0

Darksteel Shield (SHLD 31)
AC bonus: 6
Extra AC bonus vs. missiles: 2
Movement penalty: 5%
DEX penalty: -1

@ Sim: these are basically good suggestions, and I can't say I'm against them, but there are a few complicated points.
First, if we add DEX penalties to armors and shields as well, it might become too much in some cases. For example an unenchanted Full Plate reduces DEX by 6 points, and if the character euips a Tower Shield (with 2 DEX penalty for example), it becomes 8 in total. Now, if our character isn't really high in DEX from start (he has 10 DEX for example), this combination effectively reduces it to 2. This brings up a few problems: first, we will have to include a min. DEX requirement for these modified armors to prevent chunking (when DEX reaches 0). Since these penalties have a considerable chance to reduce DEX below these minimum levels, it can easily result in the armor becoming "unuseable" by that character. Also, another problem with this greatly reduced DEX is that there are some rare occasions in the game where abilities and weapons drain DEX - and it would be most unfortunate if heavily armored fighters would fall after 1-2 hits by these weapons...

As for movement penalty, that wouldn't be that problematic as DEX modifiers - but it would result in a much more significant difference in movement rates than with the modified armors only. I'll try to experiment with it a bit though.

I also agree that Large shields should receive some bonus to base AC as well.

OTOH, we will never be able to make bucklers as useful as they were intended to be, since we cannot allow the character to use any 2-handed weapon while wearing a buckler...


Either way, I'll consider these further.

For future reference, here are my proposed modifications for shields. As for my comment, I can only say that I intended to further emphasize the effect of shields against missile weapons ? larger shields received a bonus to their AC vs. missiles. I haven?t added DEX penalty (though I still consider it as a valid option), because it might become too much together with the penalties from heavier armors. The same goes for movement penalty, I haven?t included that either.

I?m undecided about Thieving Skills and Miscast penalties though ? while they are absolutely reasonable to be added, it would mean we should add such penalties to weapons as well, which is wrong, again. So I haven?t added them yet. Still, something should be done to show how cumbersome the greater shields are, and the higher STR requirement just won?t do. I heavily consider to add a light DEX penalty after all.

Also, one of the main differences between the Armor System and the shield modifications is that while the first get better stats at higher enchantment level, the latter don?t ? a Large Shield will receive the very same Missile AC bonuses at 0 or +5 EL, only it?s main AC bonus will increase.



Anyway, here are the stats:



Buckler: AC: -1,  Missile bonus: 0 (no change)

Small Shield: AC: -1, Missile bonus: 1

Medium Shield: AC: -1, Missile bonus: 2

Large Shield: AC: -1, Missile bonus: 3 (-1 DEX penalty planned)



Special shields:



Shield of the Falling Stars (SHLD07):

AC: -1, Missile bonus: 5



Fortress Shield (SHLD23)

AC: -4, Missile bonus: 8

Right now we're talking just about shields

We'll take care of shields right after armors were coded - we'll add the shield AC modifications to the component along with the base AC modifications for armors.
These will be discussed here before, of course.

Reducing dex to certain percent instead of applying a fixed penalty would stop the armor from chunking its wearer

Hmm. As far as I know, you cannot reduce ability scores by percents, only fixed numbers - though I'll have to check.

Considering the stat range, percentage penalties will make things worse not better.

Yep, that is my problem as well - percentages are far less useful for these effects. Honestly, for the damage reduction part of Armor Revisions, I'd far more use fixed numbers than those percentages. Much more precise and reliable that way.

There is left only some quick fixes and the readme to complete. However, readmes are usually Littiz's doing, and ATM he is saturated with RL work.

The same here - but I fullheartedly hope that once it comes out, you'll enjoy it as much as I will .

I can as well make it so that out of combat your movement speed is at least 10 (bg2's standard), if there is enough protest for this

Well, I suppose it goes without saying that I'd welcome this. I think it would give the best of both worlds (realism and convenience).

As I said before, I don't support this idea - nostly because it never made the game annoying in my playtests (not when compared to the already present "Boots-of-Speed-problem").
Yet, if there will be a serious need for such a modification to the system, I can live with it.

My point is that right now the only working version of the Movement Modifier is on my computer (TGM and Littiz have a beta build, but that specific part doesn't work correctly), so we're more or less doing theoretical debates on how annoying that part may be, without being able to justify our claims

A year ago or so, when I was testing the prototype of this armor system on my computer, the differences in walking speed seemed reasonable, and never annoying. At least not more annoying than the issue with characters at normal and "boots of speed" walking pace, as it was already mentioned above.

Agreed.

As I already posted my opinion about this topic somewhere above, I also think that missile resistances should be re-balanced.
I still say we should modify the base AC modifiers of the various armor types (the specific modifiers vs. different attacks).

What I'd agree to do though, is to increase the level of missile defence provided by shields.

Seconded. I guess we can add shields to Armor Revisions, but only with reduced number of effects. Their AC bonuses should be revised, yes. OTOH. I don't think we should add any DEX, speed or the other modifiers to them, since by that logic, we should add these to weapons as well.

You forgot the human flesh armor.

Good point, but since +5 Leather Armors are already free of penalties in this system, the only thing I could change would be to boost the damage resistances somewhat (an extra 5-10% to all wouldn't hurt ).

First, there are no +6 plate and full plate armors in BG2. Maximum is +3, I think.

Don't forget mod items Feanor.

Second, the movement speed penalty should not rely on the armor's weight rather than the enchantment ?

I agree, but since there are countless exceptions on armor weights in BG2, that is a fairly unreliable factor to base these modifiers on. Enchantments level is simply much more easy to follow (and since it greatly affects weight, it is still a reliable source IMO).

TG, can you explain why an echanted armor must give you a slashing/piercing/blunt/missile resistance besides the better AC ?

Heh, now this goes back to a discussion we had long ago, where we discussed the (possible) meaning of AC. You might as well remember, we even touched this subject in that old discussion about improved Dragons...
Anyway, IMHO, the whole AC system was somehow flawed in D&D. The fact that it means "overall defense" (including agility, armor) and thus it never had an effect on damage resistance always bothered me. While dexterity, speed, combat technics play a great role in AC, with that I agree - but to let your armor determine only weather you are hit or not is plain silly. A warrior marching in a Full Plate will be a much easier target than running around in Leather Armor - yet the current AC system tells the opposite. An armors prime purpose is to DEFLECT blows and negate the damage from them, not to help the wearer avoid blows.
Also, there are numerous examples in pnp and in BG2 too where the game works pretty much the way I interpret it: for example take a look at Dragons. They have a pretty good AC, but on the other hand they have considerable damage resistances at the same time. How is that possible, you may ask? Well, the asnwer is: while their "armor" and combat techniques (movement stances, etc.) play a great role in weather or not an opponent can hit them, their thick hide also soaks up part of the damage inflicted on them.
And the same goes for real armors, wearable by players and other characters.

NOTE:
- Elven Chain added to the list;
- DEX penalties were made a little tougher.

Good points, that is basically why I dropped the idea.

About time we provide something entirely new, instead of component upgrades

Right.

Well, how about penalties to thac0 with the heaviest armours? I'm sure a full plate is enough bulky to make it difficult to aim correctly a melee weapon [damage, instead, shouldn't vary, since the extra weight would compenstate for the clumsiness].

I'm not sure if this is a good idea. The modifications listed above already do a great deal of balancing (and thus nerfing heavy armors in favor of lighter ones), and this additional nerf would make those heavy plates even less useful.
Considerable at least.

Also, maybe as an HLA, you can reduce permanently some penalties (like if you picked the Armour Use Feat).

I don't know how to do such HLA, but you might have a better knowledge on this part anyway.
OTOH, it is quite vital that these penalties remain, unless every character above 20th level would face the old settings.

30% High resistance, TG ? That is for +6 armors. Sorry, TG, but a +6 armor, in my opinion, should be almost impenetrable for arrows.

Lets separate this question.
First, 30% can be most significant if you receive massive damage - the greater the blow that penetrates the armor (AC), the more damage the armor soaks up (Damage Resistance). If we take a devastating blow with 60 points of damage, that ~20 points of damage resistance sounds more than nice.
Second, don't forget that the "impenetrable" +5 armor is often attacked by "penetrating" +3 arrows for example. Also remember, that Full Plates get AC bonuses vs. missile weapons to further show their enhanced defense against projectiles.

Anyway, it seems a little bit strange that the slashing and missile resistance have the same value (not in all cases, but most of them)

Balancing the damage resistance types is another story, and we are fully open towards suggestions. Let me know if you think some of the values sound unrealistic.

I think additional ac bonus vs misslie weapons in the case of heavy armor is more realistic than damage resistance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but IMO there is no way an arrow could penetrate thick iron. And the way archers deal with heavily armoured enemies is to aim on weaker spots, such as maybe your neck, and things like that.

It is possible. If you ever tried to shoot with a professional bow (or simply seen someone else do it), you know that even these normal real-life weapons are capable to penetrate 1-2 cms of iron, if the hit is centered directly at right angles to it. Of course, this is only true for precision bows in RL. In a fantasy setting however, we have magic enchantments. And using the same RL logic, it is indeed possible to penetrate armors with an arrow - of course, it is very hard, and in most cases the arrow will break or simply bounce off the armor's surface (AC!), but on success, it can pierce through the material by losing some of it's impact power (Damage Resistance!).

Wouldn't an easy way to allow rings to stack with magical armor but not each other be to simply remove the flag classifying magical armors as magical? The armor works the same in all other respects whether the armors are flagged that way or not. I imagine this would save a lot of work. Also......most mod armors I've seen aren't actually flagged as magical anyway so you can already use rings of protection with them. Doing this would actually increase the consistency of most mods I've seen!

That would be allowing cheating openly, something that is definitely out of the scope of Refinements. One of the tweak mods already implemented this, but I never used it.
And the fact that mod armors aren't flagged as magical despite their crazy bonuses further shows how far they are from professional work. It is a rather sad tendency, one that I'd avoid to follow at all costs.

I would make the slashing resistance more similar in values with the blunt resistance.

I wouldn't accept this in case of every armor type. There is an important difference between the infilcted damage types of the edged and blunt weapons. While a blade can have a most difficult time to damage a plated armor for example, a mace/morning star can easily penetrate it and damage the wearer. In fact, blunt weapons were always efectively used against armored opponents in RL too.

Thieving Skill penalties should be 0% for leather(in PnP D&D leather is thought to be standard

Thanks for pointing this out, corrected.

I think I'd favour an increase in the bonuses, yes.

Please don't forget that we also plan to alter the base AC modifiers vs. various weapon types somewhat - for example heavy armors will receive bonuses versus ranged weaponry.
Also, another factor that should balance things out is the increasing bonuses with increasing Enchantment Levels. As I see things ATM, a highly enchanted Full Plate can still make your character a tank, no matter those (decreasing!) penalties.

UPDATE: Damage Resistance bonuses for heavy armors slightly increased.

Okay, this looks pretty good to me. The more I think about it, the more fair it seems

I'm glad you see things this way.

I'm not sure the damage % modifiers are actually going to make that much difference in practice. If you take 10 damage and your full plate takes 10% of it, that's not a whole lot a difference. Similarly, if Aerie takes 50 damage and her studded leather takes 5%, she's still (nearly) dead. The key factor is going to remain whether you take any damage at all, which is still determined by AC.

This is worth considering, I admit. The only problem with this is that we can only use %s when it comes to damage resistance. Fixed amounts (as seen in IWD2 for example) are not available in BG2. This way we are stuck with those %-s, and that means a much harder balancing part.

Have you considered simply upping the damage resistance to something far higher and dropping AC bonuses completely? Hence, armour would absorb damage, and AC would represent your ability to dodge. (That's what I tried.) That said, keeping the AC bonuses in does appear to make it better balanced-- I'd just be concerned that you're effectively making heavier armour much weaker than it currently is (potentially a decrease of 4 AC from the dexterity penalty of full plate) without a significant advantage to compensate.

To be honest, making heavy armors weaker than they currently are was one of my goals - or to be more precise, I wished to make it more useful to less dextrous characters, because these won't suffer any additional penalties from wearing them (aside the slight decrease in movement rate), since their DEX score is already low. On the other hand, agile characters with a DEX score of 17+ will benefit much less from these types of armor, just as they should. As a compensation, they'll find once again re-equip all those "useless" Studded Leathers, because most of their skills and ability score bonuses will remain untouched by them.
As for the damage resistance bonus, it is mostly there to compensate for the other losses (and of course to show the impact-reducing aspect of armors). As I said to Feanor a bit before, we are still open towards any balancing discussions, so I guess I can accept a slight increase in the bonuses of heavier armor types.

I don't believe THAC0 penalties should be implemented, because I'd imagine that's already represented sufficiently by the dexterity drop.

Absolutely.

Also, remember to implement minimum dexerity requirements to wear the armours, otherwise characters'll put on full plate mail and chunk because they only have 4 dex.

Heh, this is a good point, really..
Thanks for the note!

Finally, since it's been raised here, I'd be thrilled to see item requirements dropped and balanced properly. It'd be lovely to have AoE's Universal Weapons, my backstab tweaks, the armour revisions, and so on, combined into a well balanced sum which wouldn't have the stupid PnP usability restrictions.

Well, we have basically similar dreams then. We are already discussing the possibilities of a modification that would deal with item restrictions in a proper way - but that is for the future for now.

For the record, here are the basic AC modifiers of the various armor types. I'd be interested in the public opinion, weather we should change any of these bonuses/penalties for this component.

Armor Type

Leather Armor Base AC:8, S:0 P/M:+1, B:0
Studded leather Base AC:7, S:?1 , P/M:?1, B:0
Hide Armor Base AC:6, S:0, P/M:+1, B:0
Chain mail Base AC:5, S:?2, P/M:0, B:2
Banded mail Base AC:4, S:?2 , P/M:0, B:?1
Plate mail Base AC:3, S:?3, P/M:0, B:0
Field plate Base AC:2, S:?3, P/M:?1, B:0
Full Plate Base AC:1, S:?3, P/M:?1, B:0


My basic modifications would be to change the following:

Studded Leather: P/M:0
Hide Armor: B:-1
Plate Mail: P/M:-1
Field Plate: P/M:-2
Full Plate: P/M:-3

As the title suggests, this will be one of the new components for the upcoming v3 of Refinements. This component was planned from the start, and the time has come to put it in shape.

Armor Revisions aims to add a more important role for armors in the game, making them affect much more than your AC. As a summary, wearing different types of armors would affect your resistance vs. various forms of damage (slashing, piercing, blunt, missile), would affect your DEX (effectively reducing the possible bonuses from a higher DEX score while wearing heavier armors), and lastly it would change the movement rate of the character (light armors wouldn't affect it at all, but encumbering plates would reduce it by a fixed percent). Here are the detailed changes, based on armor type and enchantment level:


1.: Damage Reduction (%) based on armor type and Enchantment Level
The values in order: +Enchantment level, Slashing/Piercing/Blunt/Missile resistances
Comments:
While these bonuses aren't that great at first sight, we should note that these are percentual bonuses instead of fixed values. This means that one would benefit the most from heavier armors when fighting opponents with considerably high combat damage. Also, I tried to balance the specific values for the various damage types according to the armors' attributes (a Chain Mail will have additional protection against piercing weapons for example).


Leather Armor
(+0)0/0/0/0 (+1)5/0/0/0 (+2)5/5/0/0 (+3)5/5/5/0 (+4)5/5/5/5 (+5)10/5/5/5 (+6)10/10/5/5

Studded Leather Armor
(+0)5/0/0/0 (+1)5/5/0/0 (+2)5/5/5/0 (+3)5/5/5/5 (+4)10/5/5/5 (+5)10/10/5/5 (+6)10/10/10/5

Hide Armor
(+0)5/5/5/0 (+1)5/5/5/5 (+2)5/5/10/5 (+3)10/5/10/5 (+4)10/10/10/5 (+5)10/10/10/10 (+6)10/10/15/10

Chain Mail
(+0)10/10/0/5 (+1)15/10/0/5 (+2)15/10/0/10 (+3)15/10/5/10 (+4)15/15/5/10 (+5)20/15/5/10 (+6)20/15/5/15

Splint/Banded Mail
(+0)15/10/0/5 (+1)15/10/0/10 (+2)15/10/5/10 (+3)20/10/5/10 (+4)20/10/10/10 (+5)25/10/10/10 (+6)25/15/10/10

Plate Mail Armor
(+0)20/10/5/15 (+1)20/15/5/15 (+2)25/15/5/15 (+3)25/15/5/20 (+4)25/20/5/20 (+5)30/20/5/20 (+6)30/20/5/25

Full Plate Armor
(+0)30/10/5/30 (+1)30/15/5/30 (+2)30/15/5/35 (+3)30/15/5/40 (+4)30/20/5/40 (+5)35/20/5/40 (+6)35/25/5/40

Elven Chain
(+0)10/10/5/5 (+1)15/10/5/5 (+2)15/10/5/10 (+3)15/10/10/10 (+4)15/15/10/10 (+5)20/15/10/10 (+6)20/15/10/15


2.: Dexterity penalties based on armor type and Enchantment Level:
Comments:
This is likely the most important part of this component when it comes to balancing. It follows a basic logical statement: a man in Full Plate won't be as agile and dextrous as in normal clothes. Also, these changes will have an even greater effect when one decides what armor to wear by a certain character. With this addition, characters with naturally high DEX scores will be able to benefit much more from light armors than before, since their natural DEX bonus will remain unchanged. On the other hand, it will make it less likely that an agile elven warrior will wear Full Plates, since he will lose most bonuses from his normal DEX that way.

Leather Armor
(+0)1 (+1)0 (+2)0 (+3)0 (+4)0 (+5)0 (+6)0

Studded Leather Armor
(+0)2 (+1)1 (+2)1 (+3)0 (+4)0 (+5)0 (+6)0

Hide Armor
(+0)2 (+1)1 (+2)1 (+3)0 (+4)0 (+5)0 (+6)0

Chain Mail
(+0)3 (+1)2 (+2)2 (+3)1 (+4)1 (+5)0 (+6)0

Splint/Banded Mail
(+0)4 (+1)3 (+2)3 (+3)2 (+4)2 (+5)1 (+6)1

Plate Mail Armor
(+0)5 (+1)4 (+2)4 (+2)3 (+4)3 (+5)2 (+6)2

Full Plate Armor
(+0)6 (+1)5 (+2)5 (+3)4 (+4)4 (+5)3 (+6)3

Elven Chain
(+0)1 (+1)0 (+2)0 (+3)0 (+4)0 (+5)0 (+6)0


3.: Movement Rate penalties (%) based on armor type and Enchantment Level
Comments:
This one works similar to the DEX modifiers - the heavier that armor is, the slower you'll move. This is logical again. And while the difference won't be great (especially with highly enchanted armors), it will make it sure that a Half-Orc in Full Plate Mail won't catch your thief wearing Leathers... and that can mean a lot in combat!

Leather Armor
(+0)0 (+1)0 (+2)0 (+3)0 (+4)0 (+5)0 (+6)0

Studded Leather Armor
(+0)5 (+1)0 (+2)0 (+3)0 (+4)0 (+5)0 (+6)0

Hide Armor
(+0)10 (+1)5 (+2)5 (+3)0 (+4)0 (+5)0 (+6)0

Chain Mail
(+0)15 (+1)10 (+2)10 (+3)5 (+4)5 (+5)0 (+6)0

Splint/Banded Mail
(+0)20 (+1)15 (+2)15 (+3)10 (+4)10 (+5)5 (+6)5

Plate Mail Armor
(+0)25 (+1)20 (+2)20 (+3)15 (+4)15 (+5)10 (+6)10

Full Plate Armor
(+0)30 (+1)25 (+2)25 (+3)20 (+4)20 (+5)15 (+6)15

Elven Chain
(+0)0 (+1)0 (+2)0 (+3)0 (+4)0 (+5)0 (+6)0


4.: Spell Failure (%) in armor based on armor type and enchantment level
Comments:
This part of the refinements adds a specific miscast penalty to arcane spellcasting. Naturally, this only applies to multi,- and dual-class mages and bards, divine spellcasting remains unchanged. Enchantment level plays an important role here as well, so a highly enchanted set of armor will be less likely to cause a spell failure than it's non-magical counterpart.

Leather Armor
(+0)15 (+1)10 (+2)10 (+3)5 (+4)5 (+5)0 (+6)0

Studded Leather Armor
(+0)20 (+1)15 (+2)15 (+3)10 (+4)10 (+5)5 (+6)5

Hide Armor
(+0)25 (+1)20 (+2)20 (+3)15 (+4)15 (+5)10 (+6)10

Chain Mail
(+0)35 (+1)30 (+2)30 (+3)25 (+4)25 (+5)20 (+6)20

Splint/Banded Mail
(+0)40 (+1)35 (+2)35 (+3)30 (+4)30 (+5)25 (+6)25

Plate Mail Armor
(+0)50 (+1)45 (+2)45 (+3)40 (+4)40 (+5)35 (+6)35

Full Plate Armor
(+0)50 (+1)45 (+2)45 (+3)40 (+4)40 (+5)35 (+6)35

Elven Chain
(+0)0 (+1)0 (+2)0 (+3)0 (+4)0 (+5)0 (+6)0


5.: Thieving Skill penalties (%) based on armor type and enchantment level
The order of skills is: Pick Pockets, Open Locks, Find/Disarm Traps, Move Silently, Hide in Shadows
Comments:
A modification like this was already done in the G3 Tweak Pack, and this part of Armor Revisions works somewhat similar - it makes possible for dual,- and multi-thieves and rangers to use their thieving skills in heavier armors too, but only at significant penalties.

Leather Armor: (+0)0/0/0/0/0 (+1)0/0/0/0/0 (+2)0/0/0/0/0 (+3)0/0/0/0/0 (+4)0/0/0/0/0 (+5)0/0/0/0/0 (+6)0/0/0/0/0

Studded Leather: (+0)15/10/10/10/5 (+1)15/10/10/5/5 (+2)15/5/10/5/5 (+3)15/5/10/5/0 (+4)15/5/5/5/0 (+5)15/5/5/0/0 (+6)10/5/5/0/0

Hide Armor: (+0)25/20/20/20/15 (+1)25/20/20/20/10 (+2)25/20/15/20/10 (+3)25/15/15/20/10 (+4)25/15/15/15/10 (+5)25/15/15/15/5 (+6)25/10/15/15/5

Chain Mail: (+0)35/20/20/40/30 (+1)35/15/20/40/30 (+2)35/15/15/40/30 (+3)35/15/15/35/30 (+4)35/15/15/35/25 (+5)30/15/15/35/25 (+6)30/15/15/30/25

Splint/Banded: (+0)50/20/20/55/40 (+1)50/20/20/50/40 (+2)50/15/20/50/40 (+3)50/15/15/50/40 (+4)45/15/15/50/40 (+5)45/15/15/50/35 (+6)45/15/15/45/35

Plate Mail Armor: (+0)75/45/45/80/70 (+1)70/45/45/80/70 (+2)70/40/45/80/70 (+3)70/40/40/80/70 (+4)70/40/40/80/65 (+5)70/40/40/75/65 (+6)70/40/40/75/60

Full Plate Armor: (+0)95/65/65/95/90 (+1)90/65/65/95/90 (+2)90/60/65/95/90 (+3)90/60/60/95/90 (+4)90/60/60/95/85 (+5)90/60/60/90/85 (+6)90/60/60/90/80

Elven Chain: (+0)10/5/5/0/0 (+1)5/5/5/0/0 (+2)5/0/5/0/0 (+3)5/0/0/0/0 (+4)0/0/0/0/0 (+5)0/0/0/0/0 (+6)0/0/0/0/0