Replacing the Armour Skills penalty

[Deleriad]

So armour does restrict the wearer to some degree. But those who use such protection, practice in it regularly to minimise its effect. The question is, how do you model that using MRQ?

Exactly, especially since what we're talking about it is a game, not a simulation. The problems with the ASP seems to be extensive. One is that people don't believe in general that armour can be that hindering. Another is that players seem to want to be able to use armour without being hindered by it. The third is that with precise attacks to bypass armour, armour seems if anything to be more of a hindrance than a help. Yet another is that although the system is fairly simple to eyeball it implies that the more locations a character has, the more armour hinders then. A Fachan is less hindered by plate armour than a Scorpion Man for example. Finally, the penalty is pervasive (affects nearly every roll you are likely to make in combat) and awkward - having to deduct 17% from everything is a right pain. It is probably the only penalty in RQ which isn't a multiple of 5 or 10.

I very much doubt that a smooth, simple, playable, balanced and convincing system for representing the downside of armour exists in a RQ context. My response is then to simply bury it inside a generic ENC penalty and accept that there will be break points which can be exploited by mini-maxers.

In the last session, after chatting with players, I dropped ASP altogether and went with an ENC system.
Loaded = ENC > STR. While loaded, -10% to all relevant skills, -1 SR and MOV reduced by 1/4.
Overloaded (ENC >STR+SIZ), -20%, -2SR and MOV reduced by 1/2. I may also reduce the number of reactions by 1 and increase the activity level of all exertions by 1 as well.

Basically this tends to mean you can wear up to about 3APs without penalty. As a say, it's not exactly granular but I tend to prefer systems that have simple descriptions.

 

[RosenMcStern]

The current system for evaluating and applying APS is neither simple (-17% is a nightmare to use) nor really realistic (armors that are heavier but less resistant should provide a bigger penalty, but in the rules they provide a smaller one).

Deleriad's suggestion is interesting but requires a dynamic calculation that must be redone each time a character drops something. I would rather assign a flat penalty (-5% to -15%) to each armor piece, described in the armor stats, rather than use an algorythm to evaluate the penalty dynamically.

 

[Rurik]

I have played with both the full armor penalty and just halving it. I agree with the fact that the full penalty is way to excessive BUT will also add that I use the item quality rules frequently. A master craftsman can produce Greater or Exquisite items pretty easily, and a couple of levels of Nimble on armor goes a long way in making armr much more appealing.

So the base armour (and weapon stats) are for essentially poorer quality items. Anyone who has the money will have much nicer equipment. A rich noble's eqipment will be at least marvelous.

Also, using any sort of opposed roll combat makes the -40% to bypass armor much less appealing. And again

 

[Deleriad]

Also, using any sort of opposed roll combat makes the -40% to bypass armor much less appealing.

But also makes the ASP (or any armour/enc related penalty) far nastier - especially in conjunction with downgrading so parries become all or nothing.

That said, without total Hit Points, armour is actually more useful than older versions of RQ because minor injuries don't, essentially, accumulate any more. It takes an awful long time to kill someone in full plate with a bastard sword in MRQ.

The odd thing is that when you break it down into numbers, the armour penalty looks pretty reasonable but when looked at on the surface it looks horrible and most RQers (plus probably a majority of FRPers) tend to think that armour is basically a free lunch.

 

[Inspector Zero]

Unlike Pete I don't spend my leisure time dressing up as a knight so my comments are based on game-play rather than trying to create realism.

It strikes me that the armour penalty RAW altho' different and perhaps a bit eye-watering to veterans of previous editions of RQ actually work pretty well. It gives the players a nice dilemma which should be shaped by their character type/preference/background; to be lightly armoured and without penalty or to trade skill for protection.

The harsh penalty for armour with a high AP helps to prevent armour just becoming a character sheet upgrade. I see no reason to halve the penalty.

Suddenly the Protection spell has never seemed so vital...

 

[Denalor]

Loaded = ENC > STR. While loaded, -10% to all relevant skills, -1 SR and MOV reduced by 1/4.
Overloaded (ENC >STR+SIZ), -20%, -2SR and MOV reduced by 1/2. I may also reduce the number of reactions by 1 and increase the activity level of all exertions by 1 as well.

Let me see.
We have this char walking around in full plate suit (ENC12), a bastard sowrd (ENC2), a kite shield (ENC3) and a Longspear (ENC2). That's a total ENC17. Most likely above his STR.
He even packs a hefty backpack (total ENC10).
He is obviously a fighter type, so he propbably has STR15 and SIZ13.
Wow, that guy only has -10% to the relevant skills. If he drops his backpack he can load a couple more weapons (some ranged weapon might be useful).
Hmm, really not a great penalty, huh ?
Am I missing somehting ? Perhaps some other equipment which has a lot of ENC ?

 

[RosenMcStern]

It gives the players a nice dilemma which should be shaped by their character type/preference/background; to be lightly armoured and without penalty or to trade skill for protection.

The problem is that this never happens with the RAW: if you have armour, you have a penalty. A leather jerkin is -4%, awkward and futile. And the total unrealism of the man in plate losing to the unarmored man because he is -42% to everything while his opponent is -40% to attack only to bypass his armor, has been discussed many times. So yes, there is a reason to halve or reduce the penalty.

@Rurik, I agree that by introducing fine quality items the whole things is rebalanced, but the point here is to achieve a good degree of realism with the basic rules.

 

[Inspector Zero]

The problem is that this never happens with the RAW: if you have armour, you have a penalty

Perhaps I should have said; the more armour you have the worse the penalty. This seems logical.

-40% to attack only to bypass his armor,

But I think this is largely acknowledged to be a very unbalanced rule (not allowed in my games). When I talked about the RAW working pretty well on Armour Penalty I was thinking of the basic logic of big, stiff leather and metal wrapped around your body being a bit of a hindrance. At the same time the RAW relating to bypass armour is shocking and incompatible. This is MRQ after all.

A leather jerkin is -4%, awkward and futile

I still don't see the case for halving the penalty. Firstly, it seems a little arbitrary - why not a quarter or a fifth? Secondly, the jerkin in your example would still have an awkward and futile penalty - but is 4% really that much worse than 2% (yes, I know its twice as bad but the affect on skills is marginal).

 

[RosenMcStern]

But I think this is largely acknowledged to be a very unbalanced rule (not allowed in my games). At the same time the RAW relating to bypass armour is shocking and incompatible. This is MRQ after all.

You cannot take the bypass armor rule away. Doing it makes some enemies like dragons or warriors in enhanced armor+protection simply invincible. The old RQ did not have this one because you bypassed armour on a critical, but if this is no longer the case the bypass armour rule is a must in a high-powered game.

Of course the rule as written now can be abused to gain an unrealistic advantage versus an armoured foe.

A leather jerkin is -4%, awkward and futile

I still don't see the case for halving the penalty.

And in fact I am not advocating halving it, just saying that light armour (where light might be a matter of being light per se, or a matter of being light if compared to your strength) should not give any penalty at all. If your re-read Pete Nash's post, he stated he usually performs the best in light armor, not in no armor.

Hmmmm, I am developing a heretic thought, already presented in other thread. Armour hinders movements, does not make you less precise.

And if Armour penalty applied to actions and not to skill?

No armour -> as many CAs as your DEX+bonuses allows
Light armour -> max 3 CAs
Medium armour -> max 2 CAs
Heavy armour -> max 1 CA

Note that in this way only nimble guys get an advantage from not wearing armour at all.

 

[Rurik]

@Rurik, I agree that by introducing fine quality items the whole things is rebalanced, but the point here is to achieve a good degree of realism with the basic rules.

Well the item quality rules are in the SRD and Deluxe rules, so they are pretty basic. It is not like they in an optional book such as the GM Handbook and Mongoose no longer publishes the Core and Companion seperately.

You cannot take the bypass armor rule away. Doing it makes some enemies like dragons or warriors in enhanced armor+protection simply invincible. The old RQ did not have this one because you bypassed armour on a critical, but if this is no longer the case the bypass armour rule is a must in a high-powered game.

I agree wholeheartedly. Also, the penalty can be increased to -80% for high quality armor as well.

A leather jerkin is -4%, awkward and futile

But that is in the end a very light penalty. And it can be eliminated with high quality leather...

I still don't see the case for halving the penalty.

Because it is a simple way decreasing the penalty that many percieve to be excessive. Many agree there should be some penalty, but that the RAW has too much of one. More on this at the end of my post.

No armour -> as many CAs as your DEX+bonuses allows
Light armour -> max 3 CAs
Medium armour -> max 2 CAs
Heavy armour -> max 1 CA

Note that in this way only nimble guys get an advantage from not wearing armour at all.

I'd say that is perhaps a harsher penalty than -42% for Heavy Armor. You could be on to something though, maybe a penalty to Dex or a MAx Dex. But this is a pain in a locational system where one does not have to wear a full suit of armor. 1 Action would be enough of a penalty to make me never wear heavy armor. Chain (presumably medium?) would be king - 5 AP with 2 CA vs. 6 AP with 1 CA. Which brings me to my main point...

Historically, given they could afford it, the fighting class took the better armor. Cost was the prohibitive factor. When going into battle you took the best armor you could afford. While I believe there should be penalties for wearing armor, they should never be so great as to make the penalty outweigh the benefit. Which is the current situation for many with the RAW.

 

[RosenMcStern]

No armour -> as many CAs as your DEX+bonuses allows
Light armour -> max 3 CAs
Medium armour -> max 2 CAs
Heavy armour -> max 1 CA

Note that in this way only nimble guys get an advantage from not wearing armour at all.

I'd say that is perhaps a harsher penalty than -42% for Heavy Armor. You could be on to something though, maybe a penalty to Dex or a MAx Dex. But this is a pain in a locational system where one does not have to wear a full suit of armor. 1 Action would be enough of a penalty to make me never wear heavy armor. Chain (presumably medium?) would be king - 5 AP with 2 CA vs. 6 AP with 1 CA.

The point is that I did not state what is heavy armor. It could very well be tied to your STR+SIZ rather than to the actual armour piece(s).

Historically, given they could afford it, the fighting class took the better armor. Cost was the prohibitive factor. When going into battle you took the best armor you could afford. While I believe there should be penalties for wearing armor, they should never be so great as to make the penalty outweigh the benefit. Which is the current situation for many with the RAW.

Amen. This is the the main concern: the rules make players make decisions that historical characters would never make.

 

[Deleriad]

Historically, given they could afford it, the fighting class took the better armor. Cost was the prohibitive factor. When going into battle you took the best armor you could afford. While I believe there should be penalties for wearing armor, they should never be so great as to make the penalty outweigh the benefit. Which is the current situation for many with the RAW.

I suppose there are three things to say about this. On one hand it is probably true in the most general sense. On the other hand, role playing games really aren't capable of simulating what happened in real combat. On the gripping hand, a role-playing game is a game and you wouldn't 'balance' a game mechanic through cost.

That's why my current approach is to make the penalty for armour wearing much smaller and only have it kick in once a person is significantly encumbered.

It seems to me that the essence of a "good" armour penalty is that it feels convincing in most circumstances, is easy to apply and seems to fit in with the system in general.

 

[cjs65]

I'm about to start my first game (I was going to do RQ but have decided on Hawkmoon instead) and I'll be trying out a 2 level penalty. Some skills will have only 1/2 the listed penalty (craft, mechanisms, riding, throwing and weapons) and the others will have the full penalty.

 

[Rurik]

Historically, given they could afford it, the fighting class took the better armor. Cost was the prohibitive factor. When going into battle you took the best armor you could afford. While I believe there should be penalties for wearing armor, they should never be so great as to make the penalty outweigh the benefit. Which is the current situation for many with the RAW.

I suppose there are three things to say about this. On one hand it is probably true in the most general sense. On the other hand, role playing games really aren't capable of simulating what happened in real combat. On the gripping hand, a role-playing game is a game and you wouldn't 'balance' a game mechanic through cost.

With regards to cost I'd say being able to buy better equipment with the loot gained from adventuring has been a major means of rewarding characters in RPG's since the dawn of RPG's. It may not appeal to the higher nature of our being, but better gear costing more has been tried and true model throughout history in both the real world and gaming.

My point though wasn't really to use cost as a limiting factor to armor - though it was historically. The point was if cost was not an issue a soldier/warrior generally always took the best armor available. The MRQ armor penalties make many people consider NOT taking chain or plate even if they could. I can see a system that discourages a spellcaster or thief type to go with lighter armor, but a not a front line melee fighter. The fact that the penalty for full plate exceeds the penalty for bypassing armor has convinced many that armor is worthless.

That's why my current approach is to make the penalty for armour wearing much smaller and only have it kick in once a person is significantly encumbered.

It seems to me that the essence of a "good" armour penalty is that it feels convincing in most circumstances, is easy to apply and seems to fit in with the system in general.

In the end I think we are in agreement. There is a need for an armor penalty, but the RAW don't work well. I currently halve armor penalty because it is very simple and seems to work. I played RQ3 happily for years with ENC and Fatigue. What I like about MRQ is the simplicity, so I go for a simple approach.

Though this all has me thinking about another possible rule. Use the Armor Penalty as in the RAW, but reduce it by a characters STR, or maybe STR+CON. I'll have to play around with this thought.

 

[zozotroll]

My current players wouold not wear any armor, no matter what, the penalty was just to great. So, in different games I have tried both 1/2 penalty, and AP/10- to SR. Both work OK, but I think I like -SR better.

I have not waddled around in heavy chain for some years, but dont remeber it being that inhibitinhg. To work on balance, I used to go rollerskating in it, with an extra shirt over the top. Nobody ever even noticed. The first time I just had the shirt on top, not one underneath. Bad bad idea.

 

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

Based on an old post I utilise an 'Armour Use' skill. For each 1% the character has in the skill he or she negates 1% of the Armour Penalty. The full armour penalty remains for Athletics checks for Swimming or Jumping or for Fatigue tests and some uses of Acrobatics. Characters without the skill default to DEX.

It's a bit rough and ready but it seems to work OK for us at the moment.

Regards

Edward

 

[Inspector Zero]

You cannot take the bypass armor rule away. Doing it makes some enemies like dragons or warriors in enhanced armor+protection simply invincible.

I've never played a high enough level game to have had the good(?) fortune to come across a dragon so I could have this wrong but why should there be a game mechanic (the bypass rule) that means armour can be negated? Maybe Dragon hide is just too thick for a broadsword, however skillfully wielded, to be penetrated? If the beast/enemy has a vulnerable spot (e.g. Smaug/Achilles) then it's an aimed blow we're talking about.

Doing away with the bypass rule doesn't make these kinds of enemies invincible but it might encourage some other tactics - like a sufficiently powerful Drown or Smother spell.