Armor Rules, Picts Drool

S'mon

Mongoose
Since a golf-ball would do non-lethal damage (1hp?) normally, I'd have no trouble making that 0 after DR.

I agree a flat 1hp damage rule is problematic. Something like 1hp per 5 full hp of pre-DR damage would be better.

Re the barbarian DR, presumably following regular d20 rules it doesn't stack with other DR. I don't think it can logically be finessable, either - actually, frankly barbarian DR never made any sense to me in 3e, it's taking the concept of 'hardness' a little too far IMO... ;)

edit: I see on King Conan's stats they have his barbarian DR stack with his regular armour DR... so presumably it's finessable, crushable etc as per normal Conan rules.
 

Hyena

Mongoose
S'mon said:
Since a golf-ball would do non-lethal damage (1hp?) normally, I'd have no trouble making that 0 after DR.

I agree a flat 1hp damage rule is problematic. Something like 1hp per 5 full hp of pre-DR damage would be better.

Re the barbarian DR, presumably following regular d20 rules it doesn't stack with other DR. I don't think it can logically be finessable, either - actually, frankly barbarian DR never made any sense to me in 3e, it's taking the concept of 'hardness' a little too far IMO... ;)

edit: I see on King Conan's stats they have his barbarian DR stack with his regular armour DR... so presumably it's finessable, crushable etc as per normal Conan rules.

That would depend of whose golf ball it is naturally. I wouldn't dare to call Tiger Wood's non lethal, at close range at least. That would be the same for all weapons : while I probably wouldn't grant minimum damage on a heavy armoured target to pict hunting bows, Bossonian longbows are another story.

BTW count me in too 'not too happy to see Barbarian DV in Conan' crowd...
 

OggSmash

Mongoose
Keep in mind there is a real life practical example of armor (modern armor) against an attack. The guys who robbed the Bank in LA a few years back ('94 I think) had class IV armor, the rough approximation to plate armor in todays time, sans helmet. They walked around as if they were milling about their living rooms the entire time they were being pelted by 9mm and .40 cal handgun rounds. There was NO visual effect, not even a stagger.

I think that yes, a full suit of plate armor DOES make you nigh invunerable to picts beating you with stone axes. Subdual damage is a nice way to keep PCs a little worried, but a man who has been a warrior his entire life and experienced many a hard melee is not going to even be bothered by what amounts to a love tap so long as he has his armor.

As for the arrows, well there are reasons that there are certain bows that are more feared by armored soldiers. I rule that a Helmet provides NO DR vs a missle attack and for Plate armor the 10 is the DR this means in a large arrow volley some will inflict a measure of damage and occasionally there will be a crit (assuming Bossonian and stygian bows). With a crew of strong elite archers (str 18) and armed with str added Bossonian longbows, they can and will make very short work of an armored foe.

Remember the Bill, dagger of mercy and strategies to put armored knights on their backs asap developed for a very good reason, the reason being that an armored knight was a nigh unstoppable killing machine unless you blacked the sky with high powered arrows to wear a column down or you laid him on his back and stuck something sharp in his neck or face.
 

S'mon

Mongoose
OggSmash said:
Keep in mind there is a real life practical example of armor (modern armor) against an attack. The guys who robbed the Bank in LA a few years back ('94 I think) had class IV armor, the rough approximation to plate armor in todays time, sans helmet. They walked around as if they were milling about their living rooms the entire time they were being pelted by 9mm and .40 cal handgun rounds. There was NO visual effect, not even a stagger.

This is quite a good argument against low-mass, low-momentum bullet impacts doing a minimum damage (at least to targets in modern body armour!) - in fact it again argues for a rule something like min 1hp impact damage per 5 hp pre-DR damage. In my modern ruleset I have 9mm doing 1d6 dmg and .45ACP on 1d6+1 so that would work out about right - AIR those guys were actually killed by small-arms fire BTW, although one shot himself at the same moment he received a lethal wound.
A more apposite example would be the tales of medieval crusader knights walking around with a dozen or more Saracen arrows sticking out of their armour - which would have been chainmail over padding I believe, not plate.
 

jcw8705

Mongoose
While the rule does in fact clearly state penalties cannot reduce damage below 1, DR & Armor are not penalties to the damage roll. Penalties would be a low Strength modifier, a profane/sacred penalty, a curse effect that provides a penalty of some sort or another, or circumstance penalties.

Once you have determined the final damage, you compare it to the target's Damage Reduction and go from there. This comparison can result in damage equal to 0, but not less than 0 (i.e. no healing of the target because you didn't penetrate the armor).

As far as making home-brew rules to change this, thats everyone's perogative. Personally though, I'd rather not add in more rules (keep it simple is my creed). So the PC's come through a few encounters unscathed, nothing stops enemies from utilizing the same equipment, tactics, feats, etc. to even or even tilt the field of battle in their favor.

Thanks,
John
 

sanseveria

Mongoose
I agree with you said John. There's more than one way to skin a cat, or in this case, open a can of tuna... Adding more rules is not always the best wisest approach.

SS
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Anonymous said:
In times like this, I really whish I'd know more about history. I mean, apart from the fact Agincourt was more about complacency, indiscipline, tactical cluelessness and the world-shattering stupidity of fighting a courageous and skilled ennemy on his own terms than about the power of the British longbow, I don't know much about the details of the fight. I mean : how did this knights died ? Were they actually killed at long range by the bows ? Were they trampled by their friends ? Were they dispatched at point blank while trying to cross the British field fortifications ? Were they killed in detail by men-at-arms protecting the bowmen after their horses were downed ? I don't know, but there are many possibilities.

Apparently, the one thing that made most difference at Agincourt was the mud. French knights were trying to stand up in slippery mud and simply could not do it with all that plate armour on.

In game terms, they were having to make Balance checks every time they stood up from prone, and their armour check penalty was just terrible...
 

sanseveria

Mongoose
Your on the right track. It wasn't so much the slipperyness or the actual weight of the armor that prevented the French Knights from standing up. It was simply the suction of the mud. There was a documentry on TV last weekend where they tried to explain what happened. I beleive they said the suction made the knight feel 7 times heavier.

SS

PS: They also showed that the British longbows were ineffective against the French Knights armors.
 

S'mon

Mongoose
sanseveria said:
PS: They also showed that the British longbows were ineffective against the French Knights armors.

I was a bit sceptical about that. They were using 2mm steel plate, more like joust armour than regular battle armour.
 
Top