Rurik said:
Indeed. And, more importantly, when you actually try it in play, it works. . .
First Impressions.
- Thread starter Cowboy
- Start date
Indeed. And, more importantly, when you actually try it in play, it works. . .
CharlieMonster said:
This was handled by people who have actually fought in the armour listed in the book. In a more heroic/D&D setting, we may reduce the armour penalties. However, in the gritty/realistic settings, they will stay.
msprange said:
Hmmm... In "real" armor of those types? Or the knockoff stuff that folks in the SCA might cobble up and call "armor"? I know people first hand who both build and fight in actual authentically designed replica plate and chain type armors (the kind that runs you 2-5k if you know someone in the business). The guy I know also makes armor for jousting (real jousting mind you, and he's got the missing teeth and broken bones to prove it). This is stuff actually designed to be struck by large heavy metal objects, not foam rubber fakes. The penalties applied are way out of line with the real impact on skill from wearing armor.
If you were going for gritty/realistic, why not apply negatives to skill/perception for wearing a helmet? That alone accounts for 90% of any minuses one gets for wearing armor. The actual encumberance of the armor itself is negligible in terms of skill effects. Apparently, your development team consisted of the only people on the planet who've fought in such gear that think it's that much of a hinderance...
Gnarsh said:
Well, I tell you what. You come round our offices in full plate - if you can beat the guys in question while they wear their armour, we'll concede the point
RosenMcStern
Mongoose
Well, the problem here is not whether armor should give you some sort of penalty (it should!), but rather how much penalty. The current system has the apparent advantage of an easy-to-calculate penalty: 1% per AP per location.
But this is just apparent. The penalties are too high, everybody (but Matthew) agree on this. Reducing them for armor, while increasing them for helmets for the above reasons, would be both realistic and more fun in game. You just have to drop the 1 per AP per location rule and use assigned "per piece" values.
The only disadvantage would be the player cannot easily calculate the penalty himself. Ok, but what use is the GM then, if he cannot make up his favorite armors and present them to players?
And what use is the armor section in arms & equipment if all armor attributes are derived from APs? :wink:
But this is just apparent. The penalties are too high, everybody (but Matthew) agree on this. Reducing them for armor, while increasing them for helmets for the above reasons, would be both realistic and more fun in game. You just have to drop the 1 per AP per location rule and use assigned "per piece" values.
The only disadvantage would be the player cannot easily calculate the penalty himself. Ok, but what use is the GM then, if he cannot make up his favorite armors and present them to players?
And what use is the armor section in arms & equipment if all armor attributes are derived from APs? :wink:
Re Armour Penalties:
I have no particular objection to armour penalties in isolation. The extra protection you get is certainly worth the penalty, for a skilled combattant.
The real problem is what happens when you factor in precise attacks, and also the availability of magical protection that gives no penalty. When you look at the consequences of those three factors together, wearing heavy armour becomes a mug's game.
Characters in MRQ should carry around full suits of plate mail and lends them to their enemies for free. Please, go on, have a full suit. Be my guest. Suffer the -42% penalty to both you're attack and parry abilities, while I only suffer -40% on my attack to igonre the armour, and parry at full chance. I also get to ignore any magic protection you may have, but mine is in full effect. To ignore that you have to take another -40% penalty to you're attach chance!
It's the consequences of these different rules working together that is causing the problem. However if you feel that these effects are realistic and intentional, then that's another debate.
msprange said:
I have no particular objection to armour penalties in isolation. The extra protection you get is certainly worth the penalty, for a skilled combattant.
The real problem is what happens when you factor in precise attacks, and also the availability of magical protection that gives no penalty. When you look at the consequences of those three factors together, wearing heavy armour becomes a mug's game.
Characters in MRQ should carry around full suits of plate mail and lends them to their enemies for free. Please, go on, have a full suit. Be my guest. Suffer the -42% penalty to both you're attack and parry abilities, while I only suffer -40% on my attack to igonre the armour, and parry at full chance. I also get to ignore any magic protection you may have, but mine is in full effect. To ignore that you have to take another -40% penalty to you're attach chance!
It's the consequences of these different rules working together that is causing the problem. However if you feel that these effects are realistic and intentional, then that's another debate.
msprange said:
When you say 'actually fought', I'm assuming you don't mean actually engaged in combat with the aim of not getting actually killed by an opponent or actually killing opponents.
I've actually fought in various armours. But when I say 'fought', I mean in re-enactments and LARPs. The range of armours I've worn goes from padded cloth to supposedly realistic chain and plate. The principle problem I had was not articulation (which is what the modifiers as presented represent), but the sheer weight of the bloody stuff. Badly-made and ill-fitting armour DOES restrict articulation. But well-made and well-fitting armour is still bloody heavy, and that's where the penalties lay.
Unless penalties for wearing well-made and well-fitting armour are tied to STR and endurance they are not all that gritty and realistic after all. And I'm guessing any society that relies on armour would try to make it fit as well as they possibly can.
The penalties as presented are flat-rate. This would work if there was a 'STR equates to skill' mechanic, but there isn't beyond initial skill generation - in day-to-day play it equates to damage. The Fatigue system should be taking care of this on its own.
There are also game issues here. How gritty and realistic can a system be before so much has to calculated that it reduces play to - to borrow a video game term - a couple of jerky frames per second? Despite my argument above, I'm not about to introduce rules in my games for how well armour fits, but ENC sure still adds up. We don't use the armour penalties in our games.
Not even for characters trying to swim in plate. They just drown.
- Q
msprange said:Well, I tell you what. You come round our offices in full plate - if you can beat the guys in question while they wear their armour, we'll concede the point
LOL! Brilliant! C'mon guys, anyone with access to full plate, let's make this a date. I'd love to see it.
The point for me tho', is not that armour IS a hinderance. It is. It's the nature of that hinderance and how it should be calculated that I question.
- Q
Quire said:
All I will say is that they have learned to never, ever ask for a raise. . .
Absolutely. Most "normal" humans (and creatures by the looks of things) on 3D6 are going to be 10-11 or 9-12. Someone who's fast, agile and quick (high Dex) _is_ difficult to face - allowing an extra CA seems very reasonable though whether than translates into automatic extra movement I'm not sure.Nagisawa said:
It's almost as if we need two mechanics: the automatic extra attack from CAs for the raw ability of just being quick AND the older one of allowing a very skilled attacker to split his attack into a smaller chunk, thus gaining additional melee-only CAs, perhaps even allowing additional attacks against the same opponent.
...Though a 150% attacker with DEX 19 would get 5 attacks against an opponent (4 at 100%, say, plus an additional attack at 50%).
Anyone know what Legendary heroes have to say on this?
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
Using 3D6 (drop lowest) +6 for size was pretty dumb.
I use the standard 2D6+6 for humans, instead. Tempted to do the same for INT, or alternatively just make it 4D6, drop, instead
As far as actions, just give everyone 2 actions, and make it a legendary skill to take more than that
I use the standard 2D6+6 for humans, instead. Tempted to do the same for INT, or alternatively just make it 4D6, drop, instead
As far as actions, just give everyone 2 actions, and make it a legendary skill to take more than that
msprange said:Gnarsh said:
Well, I tell you what. You come round our offices in full plate - if you can beat the guys in question while they wear their armour, we'll concede the point
Lol. I personally did not do much fighting. However, the group of guys I knew very very well did and this is the armor and weapons they wore. They fought in full plate with full contact at full speed.
If your guys play with a points-hit system, or any other standard system used by most re-enactment type groups, odds are they aren't using armor designed for fighting in, but armor designed to look neato. Which (if you read the site I linked) is why the armor seems to heavy and such a hinderance. The vast majority of "ren" armor and weapons are total and utter junk, sold by shysters who know that most of the people using them don't really know the difference.
Read the site. Learn what real armor is like when it's made properly.
