Armour skill penalty
- Thread starter halorix
- Start date
RMS said:atgxtg said:
Pansie!Do you come from a EE background? (I don't know of anyone else who refers to imaginary numbers as j rather than i.)
Test, troubleshoot and repair technician. Probably exaplians a lot about the way I think and look at rpgs, too.
Man I used to hate j equations. I can do firearm ballistics, artillery trajectories, rocket thust calaulations, vehicle acceletation, and others. But not J equations!
atgxtg said:
I'm sure it does affect how you look at rpgs. All of us are affected by our backgrounds whenever we look at something new. (Not a particularly insightful concept, huh!)
I never had much issue with the whole imaginary numbers deal, but then I wouldn't have gone into the type theoretical work I do if they gave me problems! The difficult thing for me, at times, is keeping track of what they really mean. In EE it's not too bad since it just represents phase angles, but some other areas it gets pretty out there.
kustenjaeger
Mongoose
Greetings
Although we are getting a bit sidetracked here onto precise attacks I think there's merit in the simpler ideas. We watched a 15th century re-enactment last weekend and discussed with them the difficulties of moving and operating in the various types of armour. Their overriding concern was heat buildup through the padding, dehydration and longer term fatigue.
Interestingly one of them said the fatigue induced by different weapons was very noticeable with the poleaxe being the most intensive.
Although you can't get a precise analogue to 'real life' or even to 'believable fantasy' I found this conversation an indication that we should be looking at fatigue not an overall reduction in capability.
The 'reenactment' also indicated that many combats were ended not with armour strikes but with blows at very close quarters through armpit, back of legs etc. Getting to close quarters didn't seem to be all that hard in loose individual combat (but they weren't actually killing/crippling each other of course).
I'll experiment over the weekend with different effects. I quite like the lose a CA for a bypass armour strike OR having bypass knock off 1/2 AP. Precise attacks to bypass armour not allowed with ranged weapons over 10m at most. However I'm also leaning to having a crit provide an option of bypass or do full damage.
Regards
Although we are getting a bit sidetracked here onto precise attacks I think there's merit in the simpler ideas. We watched a 15th century re-enactment last weekend and discussed with them the difficulties of moving and operating in the various types of armour. Their overriding concern was heat buildup through the padding, dehydration and longer term fatigue.
Interestingly one of them said the fatigue induced by different weapons was very noticeable with the poleaxe being the most intensive.
Although you can't get a precise analogue to 'real life' or even to 'believable fantasy' I found this conversation an indication that we should be looking at fatigue not an overall reduction in capability.
The 'reenactment' also indicated that many combats were ended not with armour strikes but with blows at very close quarters through armpit, back of legs etc. Getting to close quarters didn't seem to be all that hard in loose individual combat (but they weren't actually killing/crippling each other of course).
I'll experiment over the weekend with different effects. I quite like the lose a CA for a bypass armour strike OR having bypass knock off 1/2 AP. Precise attacks to bypass armour not allowed with ranged weapons over 10m at most. However I'm also leaning to having a crit provide an option of bypass or do full damage.
Regards
come on, previous versions had special attacks, double damage that would do so much damage that no armor can stop that. And there criticals did enormous damage with armor not protecting at all. That was more deadly than NRQ. Now you will have the chance to parry or dodge the precise attack and still if you dont weapons do just max damage. Most of MRQ´s weapons dont always do enough damage to even do Major wound to a person with average SIZ and CON. So why it is so bad to have such a ability? I think it is good that you even sometimes can do bad wounds with those precise attacks, it is not in any way too powerful.
Re: 'Previous versions of RQ' remark. In RQ3 impaling weapons could roll double damage (Weapon damage only!) on a (1/5 of ability). You had to state this in advance for weapons which could also be swung, and many chose not to impale for fear of losing their weapon. You could still parry this - this is not any kind of clever innovation by MRQ that balances their game. Weapons not infrequently got stuck in shields. In RQ3 it needed a critical hit (At 1/20th ability!) to ignore armour and max out damage and parrying could still save you from this! All the previous system did was make it, convincingly, possible to injure an armoured opponent.
Yes it was (sorry 'is' I suspect a lot of us are still going to be using it or something similar) a dangerous combat system but there was nothing as ridiculous as ignoring armour completely for a -40% penalty. Quite apart from the game system comparisons what sane individual is going to run around fighting for his or her very life in an ultra expensive suit that reduces their chance to hit by 42% and can be completely ignored by their opponent at -40%!? This is a dreadful simulation of any realistic situation. Player in your game with any savvy are going to go around wasting heavily armoured opponents and selling the junk on to those fools who are mysteriously willing and able to pay through the nose for it...
Yes it was (sorry 'is' I suspect a lot of us are still going to be using it or something similar) a dangerous combat system but there was nothing as ridiculous as ignoring armour completely for a -40% penalty. Quite apart from the game system comparisons what sane individual is going to run around fighting for his or her very life in an ultra expensive suit that reduces their chance to hit by 42% and can be completely ignored by their opponent at -40%!? This is a dreadful simulation of any realistic situation. Player in your game with any savvy are going to go around wasting heavily armoured opponents and selling the junk on to those fools who are mysteriously willing and able to pay through the nose for it...
Seems to me that all of you guys are forgetting one thing. IT CAN BE PARRIES OR DODGED!!! It is not automatically hit. Parrying is so easy because you need only normal success to get aomething in the way and almost every parrying weapon or shield is cabable of stopping the damage completely. At least diminishing it to no more than a scratch. And besides, characters in MRQ can take 2 points more damage to hit location comparing to RQ3 and RQ2, so with only maxed weapon damage it is not even that much. I would understand your consern if the weapon could do double damage on a critical hit.
Of course you can use "half of the skill" instead of that -40%.
Of course you can use "half of the skill" instead of that -40%.
kustenjaeger
Mongoose
Greetings
Of course until PCs reach high skill levels if they meet fully armoured men at arms with high skills the players are still going to be toast.
There is a good argument for some form of precise shot and some reduction in the capabilities of fully armoured individuals. Most people do think that the current approach is likely to create play imbalance and disadvantage armour. At the end of the day this is a fantasy game - it is not a simulation, albeit we may be able to suspend disbelief more easily with certain approaches than with others.
Regards
Richard said:
Of course until PCs reach high skill levels if they meet fully armoured men at arms with high skills the players are still going to be toast.
There is a good argument for some form of precise shot and some reduction in the capabilities of fully armoured individuals. Most people do think that the current approach is likely to create play imbalance and disadvantage armour. At the end of the day this is a fantasy game - it is not a simulation, albeit we may be able to suspend disbelief more easily with certain approaches than with others.
Regards
Deleriad
Mongoose
I find two major, somewhat related issues, at stake here.
One is: what is the appropriate penalty for wearing armour that feels intuitive, feels like it reasonably simulates reality, is balanced in game terms and meets the criteria of MGF "maximum game fun".
The other is: is the game rule that allows you to take -40% to your skill in order to ignore armor a good game rule.
Armor penalty. I must admit that any percentile modifier that is not a multiple of 5 or 10 is undesirable especially if it is applied to every single dice roll in combat. By the time you've had to add up 68% +/- various other modifiers and then a 24% negative for wearing armour you've had to do too much complex math. My personal preference is is for amour to be tied into the fatigue rules. I could see two modifiers though:
In general I think the game could be more creative in use of penalties. E.g. I don't like being able to specifically aim for a location but you could say:
Aim high/low or aim left/right. to do so you spend a Combat Action "aiming" and attack on your next CA this round. If successful you can roll d20 as normal but if rolling high add 10 to results of less than 10 and vice versa if rolling to aim low.
Or you could aim for a specific location but only if you spend 2 CA's 'aiming' i.e. you can't do it unless you have at least 3 CAs in the round.
Other 'skills' might be: spend a CA feinting (i.e. not making an attack) so that your opponent is -10% to his next reaction against you this turn.
Spend a CA delaying so that when your opponent attacks you make a simultaneous attack preventing either of you from reacting to the attack. Classic technique for the person who trusts his armour.
Basically, I think the game needs to reduce the number of penalties for special combat maneuvers that are +/- modifiers. I've run a lot of RQ in my life and find that as players get more experienced they tend to do things that need more modifiers and the game slows down just a little too much.
One is: what is the appropriate penalty for wearing armour that feels intuitive, feels like it reasonably simulates reality, is balanced in game terms and meets the criteria of MGF "maximum game fun".
The other is: is the game rule that allows you to take -40% to your skill in order to ignore armor a good game rule.
Armor penalty. I must admit that any percentile modifier that is not a multiple of 5 or 10 is undesirable especially if it is applied to every single dice roll in combat. By the time you've had to add up 68% +/- various other modifiers and then a 24% negative for wearing armour you've had to do too much complex math. My personal preference is is for amour to be tied into the fatigue rules. I could see two modifiers though:
- Helms that restrict vision might give -5 or -10% to combat skills
Wearing unfamiliar armour might be -5% per location until you've had a chance to get used to it. i.e. if a PC picks up a big magical breastplate and puts it on then maybe he should have a -5% modifier to represent not being used to the awkwardness of it.
In general I think the game could be more creative in use of penalties. E.g. I don't like being able to specifically aim for a location but you could say:
Aim high/low or aim left/right. to do so you spend a Combat Action "aiming" and attack on your next CA this round. If successful you can roll d20 as normal but if rolling high add 10 to results of less than 10 and vice versa if rolling to aim low.
Or you could aim for a specific location but only if you spend 2 CA's 'aiming' i.e. you can't do it unless you have at least 3 CAs in the round.
Other 'skills' might be: spend a CA feinting (i.e. not making an attack) so that your opponent is -10% to his next reaction against you this turn.
Spend a CA delaying so that when your opponent attacks you make a simultaneous attack preventing either of you from reacting to the attack. Classic technique for the person who trusts his armour.
Basically, I think the game needs to reduce the number of penalties for special combat maneuvers that are +/- modifiers. I've run a lot of RQ in my life and find that as players get more experienced they tend to do things that need more modifiers and the game slows down just a little too much.
I am not forgetting that a precise hit can be parried or dodged! I always assumed that it could...that was always the case in RQ3 anyway (see above). But that has nothing to do with how the armour works has it?
'It is a fantasy game not a simulation' ?? It is both. I want a plausible setting and system which allows players to enjoy convincing fantasy adventures. If the 'not a simulation therefore the rules don't have to make sense or be justified' arguement is something you truly believe why bother with them at all? Free form role playing is a perfectly valid way to enjoy your games. I've tried it and had great fun. But when I'm using a rule system I prefer one that works.
I am also well aware of RQ3's flaws; overcomplicated fatigue, character improvement and sorcery rules among them. The reason for helping sort the MRQ glitches is because I really want this system to succeed. It may or may not convince me to switch but the scenarios and background will be broadly compatible for all RQ systems. Whatsmore in 2 decades of intense RQ I've never actually used Glorantha as a setting and think Mongoose's 2nd Age stuff sounds great!
'It is a fantasy game not a simulation' ?? It is both. I want a plausible setting and system which allows players to enjoy convincing fantasy adventures. If the 'not a simulation therefore the rules don't have to make sense or be justified' arguement is something you truly believe why bother with them at all? Free form role playing is a perfectly valid way to enjoy your games. I've tried it and had great fun. But when I'm using a rule system I prefer one that works.
I am also well aware of RQ3's flaws; overcomplicated fatigue, character improvement and sorcery rules among them. The reason for helping sort the MRQ glitches is because I really want this system to succeed. It may or may not convince me to switch but the scenarios and background will be broadly compatible for all RQ systems. Whatsmore in 2 decades of intense RQ I've never actually used Glorantha as a setting and think Mongoose's 2nd Age stuff sounds great!
Yup, Deleriad your thinking's pretty sound. Playability is pretty crucial and combat can get bogged down, RQ3's ENC and FAT rules could get over fiddly especially for newbies. In the end we're all going to have our own take on armour etc suited to our game preferences. It did worry me that the 'glitches', for want of a better term, meant many of us are going to be using different versions of the system. But maybe that's a good thing. We can use the background and scenarios and do it our own way. MRQ > DIYRQ?
Deleriad
Mongoose
I must admit that I'm an unabashed tinkerer; no matter how good the system, I want to modify it. That said, there are enough quirks in MRQ that make it seem like one more phase of playtesting might have been good. It has lots of really good ideas and lots of signs of deep thinking; I would never have thought of removing general HPs but it's a great idea.Richard said:
I do suspect that we'll see MRQ 2nd edition fairly quickly if the game takes off.
Hoitsu said:
Not true. Most weapons only parry about 2-4 points of damage from a hit. Likewise a dodge usally only means taking minmimunm damage. With a bladesharp or bludgeopn 3 spell, that means a precise attack will blow right through the parrring weapon, or do a mimimum of 5 points of damage, through armor against a successful dodge!
THat is without counting in a damage bonus, or for two handed weapon damage. Most of the two handed weapons have high damage minimums, making them very good for taking down those who successfully dodge.
THe only ways to be able to stop a hit completely either requires non-bypassed armor, or a big shield.
Then you get 5 points through and get 5 points damage, so what? it is not that big of amount of damage that you really need to be conserned with. And IMO the dodge is flawed cos you get that minimum damage. With those armor penalties and that minimum damage even when getting a same success rate than the attacker no-one is stupid enough to use dodge. I dropped of the minimum damage part totally. Maybe that is the reason i am not conserned about that precise attack thing. And besides, it works both ways, opponents can use it too. Bad thing is that for example guy in 5 point armor is invulnerable when fighting trollkins, only way a trollkin can damage that guy is to make those precise attacks. I use halved skill for those precise attacks and i dont think that any player in my games will get weapon skill over 120%. I just dont like Powergames. Thats why precise attack works for me.
Hoitsu said:
Well, houseruling out the minimum damage for dodge does make a big difference. Also, 5 points of damage is a big amount. It can take a head or limb to 0 HP when combined with a precise attack. Bread the head to 0 HP and the someone could pass out, bring an arm to 0 HP and somone might be in big trouble. No shield arm means time to take a beating.
THe fact that it works both ways does nothing to mitigate a bad idea. For instance, "Yeah, so they can nuke New York, but that works both ways." doesn't do much to improve the situation.
I'm all for half skilled for previse attacks-that is very much in line with RQ2 and RQ3, and something that I suggested myself. Othwerwise the precise attack sort of becomes a standard for the Rune LEvel crowd (and why wear iron armor in MRQ? 50% greater AP that will be ignored on a precise attack but 50% more skill penalty for the Rune Lord.
A
Archer
Guest
I do not think that the rules makes sense (AP penalty), since as soon as you have the experience of how to use, move, and fight in armor, you are going to have the upper hand against an unarmored opponent.
This is especially true for plate armor that bears its own weight very well.
My solution;
Armor Use
Advanced Skill
Description: A character trained in Armor Use has learned how to maintain and put on armor properly, as well as move and fight while wearing it.
General Effect: For each % the character has in this skill he negates 1 point of overall armor penalty, except on Athletics skill checks made to swim or jump, and Fatigue tests to avoid becoming fatigued.
Repair: The skill also covers the most basic maintenance and repair of armor. The character can patch up and mend armor, but not as well as a character with the Craft (Armor) skill could. Any repairs done with the Armor Use skill restores any lost AP/HP on the piece of armor, but it also imposes a special penalty due to the lack of quality work; -1% per repaired AP/HP when using the piece of armor, until it has properly been repaired by character with the Craft (Armor) skill.
This is especially true for plate armor that bears its own weight very well.
My solution;
Armor Use
Advanced Skill
Description: A character trained in Armor Use has learned how to maintain and put on armor properly, as well as move and fight while wearing it.
General Effect: For each % the character has in this skill he negates 1 point of overall armor penalty, except on Athletics skill checks made to swim or jump, and Fatigue tests to avoid becoming fatigued.
Repair: The skill also covers the most basic maintenance and repair of armor. The character can patch up and mend armor, but not as well as a character with the Craft (Armor) skill could. Any repairs done with the Armor Use skill restores any lost AP/HP on the piece of armor, but it also imposes a special penalty due to the lack of quality work; -1% per repaired AP/HP when using the piece of armor, until it has properly been repaired by character with the Craft (Armor) skill.
