armour penalties and how I came to like them

[weasel_fierce]

So someone else mentioned that weapons are weaker and damage bonuses are lower in MRQ compared to earlier versions. This makes armour (which is largely the same as before) a better deal overall. With 5 armour points, a normal war sword has a 3 in 8 chance of inflicting an injury, and a minor one at that.

In view of that, Ive come to feel that the armour penalty is a good thing, as it helps balance things out, and making the use of armour an actual choice and consideration.

Now, whether the penalty is too high or shouldnt be applied to certain rolls, thats another question, but I think having a penalty does make for a more interesting game situation.

 

[Rurik]

I've always liked them, I just think they are over the top. Halving them seems a fair balance.

 

[weasel_fierce]

That was my thinking as well. Possibly keep the penalty as written for swimming and similar things.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Persuading players to not wear armour all the times is a Good Thing. Armour should be worn by professional soldiers and before major battles, whereas adventurers tend to use it every time they expect trouble, i.e. always. It is just the way MRQ handles it that I do not like.

The only functioning point in RQ3 Fatigue was that it provided a threshold past which having encumbrance, that was mainly Armour in RQ3, impaired all skills. Only strong adventurers could wear metal armour without penalties.

Following this reasoning, I would go with an "Ignore penalties if ENC is withing your STR, full penalty if it is over" rather than halving the penalty. Quite frankly, knowing that your leather shirt only gives you -2% instead of -3% is still annoying: any self-respecting adventurer should be able to fight in soft leather!

 

[zozotroll]

Players always expect to get eaten because every time they take their armor off, the GM goes gotcha! and dumps two allosaurs into the camp.