Armour skill penalty

[halorix]

Just wondering if it isn't better to use ENC as a skill penalty rather than total AP.
Consider a character carrying only his sword and wearing his custom fitted Plate armour (ENC 14); skill penalty -42%.
His unarmored servant (STR 16, SIZ 14) carrying a full backpack and say six weapons for a total of 30 ENC; skill penalty 0%.

 

[gamesmeister]

To my mind the AP penalty represents learning to fight in armour, rather than just being weighed down. I take the point about it being custom fitted, but it's a reasonable abstraction that the heavier the armour, the harder it is to learn how to move and swing a weapon effectively.

I wasn't sure at first, but I've come to the conclusion I like the AP penalty.

 

[RMS]

Several of us have discussed using the armor penalty only for fatigue checks and skills were armor really does have an affect, like swimming (and perception for helms). Personally, I'd ignore the penalty for everything else. It's an added complication and in fact does an extremely poor job of showing how armor works in real life.

 

[gamesmeister]

Several of us have discussed using the armor penalty only for fatigue checks and skills were armor really does have an affect, like swimming (and perception for helms). Personally, I'd ignore the penalty for everything else. It's an added complication and in fact does an extremely poor job of showing how armor works in real life.

And yet it must be easier to move and fight wearing no armour than it is while wearing full plate, regardless of how well fitting it is.

Like I say, as an abstraction, it works well enough IMO.

 

[Arkat]

I agree, having penalties applied to combat sounds like it could work. It also adds a new dynamic where players will have to balance out having the best armor they can carry to being the most effective with thier weapons or somewhere in between.

 

[halorix]

So if two guys with 80% skill in best weapon (no rookies IMO) were dishing it out, one unarmored and the other wearing a full plate, the unarmored one would have all the advantages:
* better chance of defending
*with precise attack (-40% attack) he can totally ignore the armour of his hapless foe.
:shock:

 

[atgxtg]

So if two guys with 80% skill in best weapon (no rookies IMO) were dishing it out, one unarmored and the other wearing a full plate, the unarmored one would have all the advantages:
* better chance of defending
*with precise attack (-40% attack) he can totally ignore the armour of his hapless foe.
:shock:

Exactly. If you throw in magic, a protection spell is cheaper than plate and dsoesn't have any skill penalty.


Abstraction or not, a 42% penalty for wearing armor is excessive.

I'm for applying it to the fatigue rolls.

 

[RMS]

And yet it must be easier to move and fight wearing no armour than it is while wearing full plate, regardless of how well fitting it is.

Actually, it's not, or at least not at any level measurable in an RPG. If you wanted to drop someone's skills by 5% for plate armor, I wouldn't argue. That's a little bit exaggerated, but would be close enough for an RPG. 42% is ridiculous.

Yes, a character is much better off without armor and a spell now than with armor. In fact, if two characters have equal skills right now, one armored in plate and the other completely unarmored, the one without armor actually has an advanage (assuming no magic). The reduction in skill for the guy with plate is higher than the reduction in skill for the other to ignore the first guy's armor.

 

[Arkat]

Your looking at maximum armor only. In mucking about with the character gen rules I made a Barbarian Merc and a Noble Soldier. The Noble, gratis of his huge payroll, had only a 20% less attack roll and yet had a Kite Shield to the Barbarian's Buckler and was head to toe in 4-5pt armor to the Barbarians Leather Hauberk.

Noble: 85% - 20 for armor = 65%
Barbarian: 85% - 40 for precise attack = 45%

End result: Barbarian gets his butt kicked.

Remember precise attacks can still be parried! Part of the system is finding the balance in armor penalty - weapon skill for each pc at thier respective stage of development. STARTING characters will not be stomping around in Full Plate! Veteran Runelords, sure thing but by that point taking 40% of your 150% attack is worth it.

 

[RMS]

Remember precise attacks can still be parried! Part of the system is finding the balance in armor penalty - weapon skill for each pc at thier respective stage of development. STARTING characters will not be stomping around in Full Plate! Veteran Runelords, sure thing but by that point taking 40% of your 150% attack is worth it.

I'm sorry but this just sounds like rationalization for a poor design. I chalk this up with the halving rule as something that was just poorly thought out. Outside of halving, I can deal with most of the system, but the weapon and armor tables look they took them from the wrong monkey's typewriter.

 

[simonh]

Remember precise attacks can still be parried!

One thing you failed to note int he comparrison is that the armour penalty applies to parries as well as attacks, so your parries are at a penalty too.

Still, in this case you're right. The barbarian doesn't have much of a chance.


[/quote]Part of the system is finding the balance in armor penalty - weapon skill for each pc at thier respective stage of development. STARTING characters will not be stomping around in Full Plate! Veteran Runelords, sure thing but by that point taking 40% of your 150% attack is worth it.[/quote]

But that's the whole point! At this skill level, an opponent doing a precise attack to ignore all your armour is a no-brainer.

If they both have magical armour protection as well, it suddenly looks very bad indeed for the armoured guy. His magic protection is useless because he's being precise attacked. But to precise attack back, he's got to sacrifice another 40% off his attack chance, down to only a 68% attack.

Once you go up above about 120% in combat skill, and expect to face similarly skilled opponents, armour becomes a huge liability. It only becomes viable again when your skill is about 180%, and you can afford the armour and precise attack penalties combined, but then it's only any use against cannon fodder opponents because anyone that's a real threat will be precise attacking anyway.

You're right that the rules work fine for starting characters, but as they stand armour is worse than useless for more capable characters.


Simon Hibbs

 

[atgxtg]

Remember precise attacks can still be parried! Part of the system is finding the balance in armor penalty - weapon skill for each pc at thier respective stage of development. STARTING characters will not be stomping around in Full Plate! Veteran Runelords, sure thing but by that point taking 40% of your 150% attack is worth it.

I'm sorry but this just sounds like rationalization for a poor design. I chalk this up with the halving rule as something that was just poorly thought out. Outside of halving, I can deal with most of the system, but the weapon and armor tables look they took them from the wrong monkey's typewriter.

I agree with you. There is no way plate is going to give someone a 40% penalty to anything-except perhaps swimming or perception. Armor just is not that restrictive. If it were people would not wear it.

As far as Arkat's example goes, it is a flawed test, as the shields were not the same. In MRQ the Kite shield is practically the only weapon that is capable of absorbing all the damage from most weapons. THat sort of makes the armor worn inconsequential. With an 85% parry with the kit shield, no damage gets through, whille 85% with a bucker only stops 5 points. Give them both kite shields or both buckers. If we are testing the armor vs non armor idea, then weapons & shields should be identical. As should characteristics.

 

[Hoitsu]

As a result to that armor penalty problem, i and few others in here have tried halved penalties. when rules suggest that 1AP=1% penalty, we house ruled 1AP=0,5% panalty rounded up. Of course rules dont allow to use leather under other armor and still get the armor value of it, not it dont raise the penalty either. We resulted a new way. you can use leather, or heavyleather (only when being a horsesoldier) under mail, or full plate. and ofcourse you can wear mail hauberk and some plate parts to get more armor but that pretty much restricts you in the saddle. But for all of these armor points you get the same rule applies. 1AP=0,5% penalty rounded up. sowearing a full plate gives you 21% penalty. using leather under it gives you 3,5% rounded up more. so it would be 25%. Still a penalty but not so harsh. Other house rule would be that u get the full penalty from the lower layers of armor. For example 21% from the plate and 7% from the leather under it. Deside yourself.

 

[GoingDown]

I might just use halved penalties rounded down, nothing more. This is sooo simple.

 

[RosenMcStern]

The ENC value appears flawed, too. According to the sources I have at hand, historical plate armors did weigh up to 25 kgs. And having the weight double when you go from 20 to 21 in SIZ is an oversimplification, too.

IMO the best idea is to use the old RQ3 values for both ENC and skill penalty rather than the MRQ ones, of course with the new AP values. A -25% for a person wearing a full plate suit is both easily handled and realistic. RQ3 values were extremely realistic when it came to armor weight, it was just that the fatigue rules were unusable.

Or better create a table with armor skill penalties not necessarily connected to APs, which leaves room for differentiation between "cheap" armor and quality armor. Maybe the current values are for armor crafted by unskilled artisans?

Last but not least, limiting the ENC value to integer numbers (no fractions) is certainly more friendly to math-haters, but rather unrealistic in a system where assembling armor piece-by-piece is almost mandatory by the rules. I think the average Joe-the-RQ-player can afford to perform additions with one decimal digit when he is designing his character's armor and then switch to a friendly, rounded value for the totals when he is playing.

 

[sorkhan]

Deducting some malus for wearing armors seems allright to me. According to my experience with japanese fencing (kendo) as well as medieval fencing, it is much more difficult to keep a good posture for quick actions and reactions in armor than without. It is also difficult or nearly impossible to apply certain techniques in armor, because it hinders you - like swinging a sword through the wrist and wearing platemail gloves.

Armor is useful, especially in battles where do don't see all blows, arrows, etc. coming :!:

But I have a problem with the armor malus as well when using it on horseback. So our RQ-group decided to half it in this case

 

[Enpeze]

-42 for a plated knight is obviously too much. It counts for riding too. So to have a chance to be somewhat competent on a horse while wearing armor, the knight has to be a trick rider with skills of 90% or more. (to get a medium chance of 48% on stressful riding situations)

What this means? This means that armored knights with a standard riding skill of 50% or 60% will fall from horseback more often than not in the future. Funny

 

[gamesmeister]

But that's the whole point! At this skill level, an opponent doing a precise attack to ignore all your armour is a no-brainer.

If they both have magical armour protection as well, it suddenly looks very bad indeed for the armoured guy. His magic protection is useless because he's being precise attacked. But to precise attack back, he's got to sacrifice another 40% off his attack chance, down to only a 68% attack.

Once you go up above about 120% in combat skill, and expect to face similarly skilled opponents, armour becomes a huge liability. It only becomes viable again when your skill is about 180%, and you can afford the armour and precise attack penalties combined, but then it's only any use against cannon fodder opponents because anyone that's a real threat will be precise attacking anyway.

You're right that the rules work fine for starting characters, but as they stand armour is worse than useless for more capable characters.


Simon Hibbs

Hmm, I see your point, it is very harsh. I'll have to take another look, see what alternatives I can come up with

Gerry

 

[simonh]

What this means? This means that armored knights with a standard riding skill of 50% or 60% will fall from horseback more often than not in the future. Funny

Yes, there's a difference between accepting that armour does restrict movement somewhat, and then looking at the actual practical effects of the rules on character abilities, which are a bit excessive. It's not untill you work out what the effects mean in a range of situations that you can make a ballanced assessment.

Simon Hibbs

 

[Rurik]

Just had a thought. What if add another penalty to precise attacks. I am thinking of you need to spend one CA aiming for the precise attack (similar to waiting until the final SR in RQ 2/3). So you spend your first action preparing the precise attack, second action roll the attack. Only characters with 4 CA's would ever get to make 2 precise attacks in a round. Characters with one CA wouldn't be able to make them. The bonus CA for an offhand weapon could not bu used to for the aiming action either.