Replacing the Armour Skills penalty

[Deleriad]

Like most people I've never really been happy with the ASP but have never found a replacement idea I really liked. However, I'm think of going back to using ENC instead. A simple version is:

Loaded: carrying more ENC than your STR.
Overloaded: carrying more ENC than STR +CON.

Loaded: Move *3/4, SR -2, Skills -20%
Overloaded: Move * 1/2, SR - 4, Skills -40%

Skills affected are the same as per the Armour Skill Penalty.

Related to this:
Remove the bypass armour precise attack. Too painful.
Add:
On a critical success attack the attacker can choose to apply maximum damage or to roll normal damage and ignore one source of armour (e.g. magical, worn, natural, parry armour points etc).

Opinions anyone? (I'll make it into a poll)

 

[RosenMcStern]

Neat penalties like those given in BRP would be better: leather -5%, mail -10%, plate -20%, etc. And the penalty should not apply to weapon skill, just Dodge and Athletics or the like (maybe magic if you like).

WRT replacing armor-bypassing precise attacks, I think the easiest way is to subtract the die roll from total armor, including magic, for criticals.

 

[Deleriad]

WRT replacing armor-bypassing precise attacks, I think the easiest way is to subtract the die roll from total armor, including magic, for criticals.

It took me a while to see what you were saying here but I like it. Basically you're saying that if you roll a critical you can ignore a number of points of armour equal to your actual die roll. This gives a scaling effect to skills because the greater your critical chance, the more amour, on average, you ignore. Would you still do maximum damage or would this effect replace maximum damage? If the latter, then what would you do with unarmoured opponents?

A possible alternative would be: option 2) if you critical you roll normally but do an amount of extra damage equal to the actual dice roll.

The two work quite differently though in that option 2 is more powerful. Option 1 basically caps the amount of extra damage by the opponent's armour but needs an exception for unarmoured opponents. Option 2 has no such cap which makes is very nasty against lightly armoured opponents. Therefore option 1 would obviate the need for an armour skill penalty because armour is relatively weakened, while option 2 probably calls for some sort of ASP because more armour is always better against criticals.

I like the basic idea though; it also works much better in MRQ with criticals at 1/10 than with other BRP games where criticals and specials are 1/20 and 1/5. What I particularly like is that the effect of the critical increases with skill rather than with weapon type.

 

[RosenMcStern]

The maximum damage effect is still valid. This rule (which I actually found on this forum two years ago) is also in Stupor Mundi as a variant rule. It could be applied even to unarmored opponents as you stated, but then it would mean that a critical can more than double the basic damage a weapon does: ahalfling with 100% stick does 16 points of damage on a roll of 10 if you use option 2), whereas he does only 6 but ignores armor if you use option 1.

 

[Deleriad]

The maximum damage effect is still valid. This rule (which I actually found on this forum two years ago) is also in Stupor Mundi as a variant rule. It could be applied even to unarmored opponents as you stated, but then it would mean that a critical can more than double the basic damage a weapon does: a halfling with 100% stick does 16 points of damage on a roll of 10 if you use option 2), whereas he does only 6 but ignores armor if you use option 1.

Not sure I would be comfortable with "armour piercing" and maximum damage at the same time. Part of the reason for that is that I believe that specialist 2H weapons in MRQ are somewhat overpowered. E.g. someone with a greatsword and 80% skill could end up do 16 damage plus ignoring up to 8 points of armour.

If you defined a critical as normal rolled damage plus X amount of armour piercing then extra effect of the critical is based on skill rather than weapon size. I think that is as it should be.

Finally, if 1/10 of the successful attacks launched against you can ignore some or all of your armour then there probably is no need for any kind of armour skill penalty.

Of course you could end up with someone rolling 01 then rolling minimum weapon damage which would be very disappointing. Hmm. Maybe I'll try maximum plus armour piercing first and see how it works. I'm currently doing criticals causing double damage but it is too much for 2h weapons.

 

[Newtus]

For OpenQuest (which is me creating one big huge house ruled version of MRQ ) I completely removed Armour Penalty and rely on ENC giving a penalty if the character is of Overloaded (i.e. ENC>STR+SIZ) and a penalty of -25% to all physical skill tests and halving movement rate. A character can not carry more than (STR+SIZ)*2.

Bear in mind I was lookng to really cut down the rule to the bare minimum.

 

[Deleriad]

For OpenQuest (which is me creating one big huge house ruled version of MRQ ) I completely removed Armour Penalty and rely on ENC giving a penalty if the character is of Overloaded (i.e. ENC>STR+SIZ) and a penalty of -25% to all physical skill tests and halving movement rate. A character can not carry more than STR+SIZ.

Bear in mind I was lookng to really cut down the rule to the bare minimum.

I had had something like this in mind, albeit with a bit more granularity. For now I might try RosenMcStern's suggestion of armour piercing criticals and keep "bypass armour" precise attacks so that armour is good but not the be-all and end-all.

 

[RosenMcStern]

For OpenQuest (which is me creating one big huge house ruled version of MRQ ) I completely removed Armour Penalty and rely on ENC giving a penalty if the character is of Overloaded (i.e. ENC>STR+SIZ) and a penalty of -25% to all physical skill tests and halving movement rate. A character can not carry more than STR+SIZ.

This is simple to express, but not to actually play Newt. Basing penalty on what you are carrying and not on what you are wearing has unpleasant consequences: characters start carrying sacks and dropping them to go down to non-overloaded status. The fixed penalty is a good idea instead, as it is easier to apply.

 

[Halfbat]

I tend to use half armour penalty for combat skills and spellcasting, but full penalty for the skills listed involving DEX (like Dodge). It helps the choice become a mix.

But I also dislike the "bypass armour"-for-40% special offer (excepting as a choice on a critical, for example). That's partly what the variable/die-based damage is for, anyway.

------------------
And I think your example has a missed character or too, Newt.

[ENC penalty] if overloaded (i.e. ENC>STR+SIZ) [...but...] A character can not carry more than STR+SIZ.

I think that should be a "character cannot carry more than 2*(STR+SIZ)", iirc.

 

[Deleriad]

But I also dislike the "bypass armour"-for-40% special offer (excepting as a choice on a critical, for example). That's partly what the variable/die-based damage is for, anyway.

I dislike it because of its interaction with the amour penalty. Without the penalty it becomes more sensible because, when you think about it what it says is "skill is better than armour." Basically, if you are 40% better than opponent you can reliably make their armour a moot point. The caveat here is that opposed rolls make skill differences even more important so sacrificing 40% is an even bigger deal than it looks. E.g. 140% vs 100% results in, usually, a win 82% of the time while 100 vs 100 results in a win 50% of the time.

In unopposed combat, bypassing armour works every time you make you roll i.e. 95% of the time regardless of whether your skill is 100% or 140%. In opposed combat the bypass armour effect only works if you win the combat which means that only 50% of your attacks will bypass armour - that's a significant fall off from a skill of 140%.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

. Basing penalty on what you are carrying and not on what you are wearing has unpleasant consequences: characters start carrying sacks and dropping them to go down to non-overloaded status.

Isn't this realistic? If you want to carry so much stuff that you are overloaded and will take a penalty in combat, then you want to be able to quickly discard sufficient load to enable you to operate at optimal efficiency.
There are, of course, downsides - if you are forced to withdraw, you may not have time to pick up your gear first, or if you chase a fleeing enemy, you may return to find your gear has been ransacked in your absence...

 

[DigitalMage]

I haven't played MRQ yet other than a session at Mongoose Hall a couple of year's back, however I would probably use the Armour Penalty as it is, but make Exquisite Armour with two levels of Nimbleness be the more accepted "minimum" quality level for large and heavy armour. This would mean a Chainmail shirt would drop from a -20% penalty to only a - 12% penalty, and if the item was of Marvellous quality with a third level of Nimbleness the penalty would only be -8%.

 

[Denalor]

I wouldn't really say I like it, but that I use it. It's really awfully awkward to move (and thus fight) in heavy armour. Agreed, the 42% penalty for the Plate Armour is indeed shocking as it really shatters the idea of powerful knight astride a charger... because they simply won't be able to stay in the saddle.
I do like the comment of DigitalMage, though, and will certainly consider it.

 

[soltakss]

I'd say that a knight on a charger would not be subject to the armour penalty as he is being supported by the charger. When he gets off, he is subject to the penalty.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I'd say that a knight on a charger would not be subject to the armour penalty as he is being supported by the charger. When he gets off, he is subject to the penalty.

Actually, although his movement is enhanced and his fatigue builds slower, the armour would still restrict his flexibility and reach - assuming use of a swung weapon of course. Also if wearing a helmet, the mass redistribution makes it more difficult to retain balance and reduces perception too. All of which would all reduce his weapon skill.

 

[Lakritsploppen]

I only use armour penalty for fatigue and swimming, climbing.
Or if someone tries to fast change direcction in combat..

 

[Halfbat]

I haven't played MRQ yet other than a session at Mongoose Hall a couple of year's back.

Didn't realise this was still the case. Do let me know when you're down this way and I'll see if I can rustle up an MRQ game or run a few encounters, with full penalty or with half penalty.

 

[DigitalMage]

I haven't played MRQ yet other than a session at Mongoose Hall a couple of year's back.

Didn't realise this was still the case. Do let me know when you're down this way and I'll see if I can rustle up an MRQ game or run a few encounters, with full penalty or with half penalty.

Thanks! I am writing a con scenario myself o hopefully run at some time. I am used to having to GM the games I want to play

 

[Jbb]

The vast majority of armors don't hinder combat per se, if trained. Armors are made for one purpose only: combat. Even antique and medieval armor makers were not morons, if it hinder combat, it's not an armor.

However, everything else is a bitch in an heavy armor, and sometimes even in light armors. Acrobatics? Forget it. Perception? Good luck. Long term endurance? Good bye. And so on.

Dodge is kinda a special case. It's mostly combat yes, but it's not the main source of defense. Parry is (with a shield, mostly, which are *extremely* effective). A dodge attempt is more difficult then a parry, slower, and less effective. With a parry, you can riposte with some efficiency.

So no, I don't apply penalties to strict combat maneuvers. However I tend to increase the non combat penalties, and to be *absolutely* strict about long term armor wearing. You wear a chainmail on a boat, and slip on a banana and fall overboard? You're dead, I don't care for what kind of über heroe you were... if you were dumb enough to put a chainmail near water, you got it coming. And so on with sleeping on armor, heavy armor wearing 15h a day, and all the other PC stupid habits.

On the other hand, MRQ armors tend to be somewhat weak. In an heavy full chainmail or full plate, you're practically immune to sword attacks for example (well, you're supposed to be). So I also tend to increase their armor value, and allow special cases (like the pike which go through a plate like knife in a tender steak, or war axes which can dismantle a full plate to parts if there's enough time).

Of course, exceptions exists. The late ultra heavy French cavalry had fullplates incredibly heavy and thick designed to resist English longbows salvo and spear counter charges. You fall to the ground in one of these, you don't get up on your own. Let alone dodge while on your feet. But these are exceptions.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

The vast majority of armors don't hinder combat per se, if trained. Armors are made for one purpose only: combat. Even antique and medieval armor makers were not morons, if it hinder combat, it's not an armor.

Although I agree with most of your post, I must comment on your initial premise. I am a man who does a lot of medieval combat, and I own several suits of armour, all of which were made to measure, and fit me like a glove. From personal experience, I have to say armour does hinder combat ability, even when trained.

Don't get me wrong, in my full steel I still have a great deal of flexibility... but the increased mass distributed along my limbs slows my movements, and no matter how close the fit, I still lose some mobility and reach.

After years of fighting I no longer notice the effects when wearing armour, but when I am teaching combat out of armour I am capable of performing slightly quicker and more complex attacks. Its a small difference, but it is there. In fact, when I fight competitively (rather than for shows), I'll always wear my lighter, more flexible, leather and steel harness, instead of the full steel. I simply don't need the added protection the full harness grants me, and in the lighter suit I can ward incoming attacks easier.

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?