You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Armour skill penalties for Arms & Equipment Guide
- Thread starter Poi
- Start date
Howdy,
...Yeah, I am just not buying such a steep combat skill penalty for wearing armour. Obviously wearing armour should affect Strike Rank and fatigue/ENC, but such a drastic effect on fighting skill does not make sense (I know we hashed this out in the other thread on the board).
Ken
...Yeah, I am just not buying such a steep combat skill penalty for wearing armour. Obviously wearing armour should affect Strike Rank and fatigue/ENC, but such a drastic effect on fighting skill does not make sense (I know we hashed this out in the other thread on the board).
Ken
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
we use it as is, but only for things like climbing,stealth and swimming
I could see a penalty for using Bows wearing armor. If you have ever shot a bow, even sleeves like those of a sweat shirt hinder you a bit. For melee weapons I could see a penalty, but since dex is only 1/2 the formula for close combat weapon skill I think the penalty should be 1/2.
Something like a crossbow makes no sense to have a skill penalty, except maybe with full plate. I keep the full penalty for archery (archers were historically lightly armored, for ease of bow use and to be able to scamper if infantry/cavalry got too close), and 1/2 it for close combat weapons. I dump it for crossbows. But that's just me.
Something like a crossbow makes no sense to have a skill penalty, except maybe with full plate. I keep the full penalty for archery (archers were historically lightly armored, for ease of bow use and to be able to scamper if infantry/cavalry got too close), and 1/2 it for close combat weapons. I dump it for crossbows. But that's just me.
This is an old argument that keeps popping up. I still say apply the armor penalty to the Fatigue rolls rather than the weapon skill rolls. It is simplier, more accurate, and more sensible. Even so, there are some things that don't match up. Plate is usally less encumbering than scale or mail. IT is not just the weight or the armor, but how that weight is distributed and how much the armor restricts mobility.
It might make more sense just to gve a flat penalty or -5% or 10% to someone wearing vambraces or greaves and otherwise just treat the armor as ENC.
But that's just my 2 cents.
It might make more sense just to gve a flat penalty or -5% or 10% to someone wearing vambraces or greaves and otherwise just treat the armor as ENC.
But that's just my 2 cents.
I like the penalty because that way there is always a penalty to offset the bonus to wearing armour. Think of two fighters side by side. One wearing simple leather armour and one wearing nothing(we can give him a loin cloth for modests sake). No matter how little, there should be an offset to the bonus the leather wearing fighter gets to compensate for his added protection.
The rule may not be perfectly balanced but I think it is a strong mechanic so far. I haven't played with high level armours yet but I like the idea of a warrior in plate mail not being nearly as affective as one in leather.
Pat
The rule may not be perfectly balanced but I think it is a strong mechanic so far. I haven't played with high level armours yet but I like the idea of a warrior in plate mail not being nearly as affective as one in leather.
Pat
duncan_disorderly
Mongoose
Patadin said:I like the idea of a warrior in plate mail not being nearly as affective as one in leather.
Pat
Which is why, obviously, in the real world, elite troops always wore leather rather than plate mail...
Mmm...yeah, I also think the skill penalty (-1 per AP) is a tad too steep. Makes no sense either.
We were considering just halving this value.
But my suggestion is to use the armour's ENC as a skill penalty. ENC, as all old-timer RQers know, reflects not just how much an item weighs, but how awkward it is as well. Makes more sense.
Of course, as others have already suggested, if armour is worn correctly then it shouldn't hinder the wearer unduly anyway. Still, this is a GAME, and as such there has to be a mechanic for penalising those in heavy armour and giving those who wish to play lightly-armoured thiefly characters an opportunity to survive. Yes, it's contrived and abstract, but that's the nature of any game that requires rules.
Anyway.
My suggestion (intent) is to use ENC as the skill penalty.
We were considering just halving this value.
But my suggestion is to use the armour's ENC as a skill penalty. ENC, as all old-timer RQers know, reflects not just how much an item weighs, but how awkward it is as well. Makes more sense.
Of course, as others have already suggested, if armour is worn correctly then it shouldn't hinder the wearer unduly anyway. Still, this is a GAME, and as such there has to be a mechanic for penalising those in heavy armour and giving those who wish to play lightly-armoured thiefly characters an opportunity to survive. Yes, it's contrived and abstract, but that's the nature of any game that requires rules.
Anyway.
My suggestion (intent) is to use ENC as the skill penalty.
Mmm...yeah, I also think the skill penalty (-1 per AP) is a tad too steep. Makes no sense either.
We were considering just halving this value.
But my suggestion is to use the armour's ENC as a skill penalty. ENC, as all old-timer RQers know, reflects not just how much an item weighs, but how awkward it is as well. Makes more sense.
Of course, as others have already suggested, if armour is worn correctly then it shouldn't hinder the wearer unduly anyway. Still, this is a GAME, and as such there has to be a mechanic for penalising those in heavy armour and giving those who wish to play lightly-armoured thiefly characters an opportunity to survive. Yes, it's contrived and abstract, but that's the nature of any game that requires rules.
Anyway.
My suggestion (intent) is to use ENC as the skill penalty.
We were considering just halving this value.
But my suggestion is to use the armour's ENC as a skill penalty. ENC, as all old-timer RQers know, reflects not just how much an item weighs, but how awkward it is as well. Makes more sense.
Of course, as others have already suggested, if armour is worn correctly then it shouldn't hinder the wearer unduly anyway. Still, this is a GAME, and as such there has to be a mechanic for penalising those in heavy armour and giving those who wish to play lightly-armoured thiefly characters an opportunity to survive. Yes, it's contrived and abstract, but that's the nature of any game that requires rules.
Anyway.
My suggestion (intent) is to use ENC as the skill penalty.
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
Using the encumbrance is a great idea
CthulhuFnord
Mongoose
weasel_fierce said:Using the encumbrance is a great idea
It's more or less what assumed when I first read the bit on armor penalties.
Cleombrotus
Mongoose
Sorry to be pedantic, but my only issue with using ENC as the Armour Penalty is that it doesn't seem to create enough of a difference between light and heavy armoured characters. I want the character who goes light to have more of a benefit over their heavier counterpart than 7 or 8 percent, so I'll be sticking with AP's cut in half...
RosenMcStern
Mongoose
Using ENC as the skill penalty is more realistic than the RAW, but it has issues, too. For instance, why should your poor troll fella with his heavy lead armor be less effective than a Malkioni in iron plate?
In my Fantasy Earth book, I have suggested a possible alternative that is midway between the "ENC as skill penalty" and the basic rule for Overloading. If you are carrying less than your STR, there is no penalty, and the penalty increases gradually when your ENC goes up, until an enhanced Overload penalty is applied.
In my Fantasy Earth book, I have suggested a possible alternative that is midway between the "ENC as skill penalty" and the basic rule for Overloading. If you are carrying less than your STR, there is no penalty, and the penalty increases gradually when your ENC goes up, until an enhanced Overload penalty is applied.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 855
