Tank Wars

[sbarron]

I've been thinking about trying to acheive more balance and realism for heavily armored vs. lightly armored characters lately. I really never thought that encumberance quite did enough to discourage characters from encasing themselves in heavy armor and wading into combat with little fear of getting hurt. I had high hopes for Combat luck as well, but because it costs points, and the heavy armor guy can take it too, I'm not sure that does it for me either.

Having played D&D3 recently, I have to admit that it does an excellent job of balancing between light and heavy armor. So to take a que from them (accepting pariah status here), I'm think about the following armor rules, in addition to END costs for encumberance:

In this system, a character can only utilize his DEX up to the level allowed by his armor type. For this example, assume a standard game with NCM:

Resistant DEF 8-9, Very Heavy Armor - Character wearing this armor can only utilize his Dex up to a 12, regarless of how high it actually is.

Resistant DEF 6-7, Heavy Armor - Character wearing this armor can only utilize his Dex up to a 14, regarless of how high it actually is.

Resistant DEF 4-5, Medium Armor - Character wearing this armor can only utilize his Dex up to a 17, regarless of how high it actually is.

Resistant DEF 2-3, Light Armor - Character wearing this armor can only utilize his Dex up to an 18, regarless of how high it actually is.

Resistant DEF 0-1, Light Armor - Character wearing this armor has no restrictions on his Dex.

This system hits the high Dex character wearing heavy armor where it hurts, in the OCV/DCV column. I'm not sure whether I would have this effect Spd as well, as that might be over-kill. There may be real problems with this I don't see, but on the surface I think it addresses some of my concerns. Anyway, let me know what you think.

[Talon]

Definitely wouldn't have it affect SPD, too abusive.

Does this affect who goes first in the Phase as well?

[sbarron]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare
Definitely wouldn't have it affect SPD, too abusive.

Does this affect who goes first in the Phase as well?

I was thinking that it would affect everything having to do with Dex, including who went first.

Why do you think having it affect Spd would be abusive? Not that I neccessarily disagree, but what abuses do you forsee?

[Talon]

Excuse me, abusive was the wrong word. I meant "harsh". Firstly, since SPD rounds down, any restriction on DEX will probably result in a 1 point SPD drop. Losing SPD is just too critical...especially for all the SPD 2 goons who will now be SPD 1 in armor. :)

Secondly, it doesn't make sense to me. Certainly your attacks might be less accurate, but less often?

[Chris Goodwin]

Yeah, it is pretty harsh.

I'd say the real way to get guys out of armor is to quit using killing attacks against them. Start hitting them with gas NND attacks and the like. Or just start hitting them with bigger killing attacks.

[sbarron]

It would be kind of harsh, and an even larger step away from how Hero combat usually works. But there is no reason people couldn't build their characters, NPCs included, to take these rule changes into account. Additionally, if your average castle guard has a 13 dex, he will only be penalized if he wears the very heaviest armor. But then so would everyone else who is wearing the heaviest armor.

Effective characters would chose not to buy Dex above the level of the armor they will typically wear. Characters that planned to wear heavy armor (knights, heavy cav, etc.), could buy skill levels, lightning reflexes, etc., to make up for the lower dex. High Dex characters would have already spent more of their points in Dex, and would then only be hurting themselves buy putting on the heavier armors.

Only natural Dex based things (CV, DEX Roll, etc) will be affected by the armor. Skills, talents, and powers wouldn't be affected.

This is completely a work in progress. So any imput is appreciated.

[jtelson]

Players envisioning highly trained fighters could do things like +1 Speed only to negate armor penalties to simulate a high level of training. Since everyone would be aware of the penalties from to start - It's not going to catch anyone off guard.

[Chris Goodwin]

In most of the games I've ever ran, a restriction like that on armor would turn everyone into mages who knew just one spell -- an Armor spell.

I'm not trying to be snide, rude, or offensive here, honest. But.... why not make people pay points for their armor?

[Talon]

Originally posted by archer
In most of the games I've ever ran, a restriction like that on armor would turn everyone into mages who knew just one spell -- an Armor spell.

Heh, if there weren't restrictions on magic I'd do that every game just because FF/Armor is so cheap. :)

Few more comments.

From a "realism" perspective, restricting DEX like that seems unrealistic. Since I found that wearing armor doesn't restrict your movement so much as tire you out faster, I instituted exhaustion rules, so that people wearing armor are going to get tired (and thus suffer CV penalties) quicker.

From a game balance perspective, it seems that players will just build around the rule: put their DEX at 15 or so, pop on the medium-heavy armor, and buy lots of levels with the points saved on DEX. They'll still be heavily-armored, high CV characters.

[Chris Goodwin]

Also, the question should be asked: how are these characters getting 8-9 DEF armor? I mean, you're the GM, right? Are they telling you "I've got 8 DEF armor, nyah nyah!" or are they saying "Since I'm Wealthy, I'm going to spend some of my money and buy myself some decent armor." Remember, in the real world, armored knights had to be wealthy to afford the heavy armor and the horse that could carry it. (And they rode horses because, in some cases, all that armor made them too heavy to move. Want a balancing factor? Make heavy armor reduce their movement.)

Also remember, D&D provided rust monsters to deal with armored tanks. :)

[sbarron]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare
From a game balance perspective, it seems that players will just build around the rule: put their DEX at 15 or so, pop on the medium-heavy armor, and buy lots of levels with the points saved on DEX. They'll still be heavily-armored, high CV characters.

I'm not so worried about game balance as I am player balance. I would like for lightly armored characters and heavily armored characters to meet on more even footing in combat. I realize this isn't realistic. It is a convention of the fantasy genre that I would like to incorporate into my game, though. The character with light or no armor using spd and quickness to battle the lumbering, heavily armored character. I don't think that this is very well reflected with the armor rules, so I am looking for ways to simulate it.

They are going to be heavily armored and have a high CV, regardless of what I do. They will also be lightly armored and have a high CV, be a small child with a high CV, and be a large frog with a high CV. That's the nature of the beast. :)

[Heroman]

I would not cap DEX, though, that is not realistic. I would instead impose a DEX penalty, at most. A Dex 20 person in Heavy Armor will still be better than a DEX 14. Combine it with a Str Min (maybe using the penalties weapons have). The only time I have imposed a DEX cap was with sci-fi power armor because it's gears could not go higher.
As to SPD lowering, I would not lower SPD and instead go with how Encumbrance works (DCV and DEX rolls). At *most* I would change DCV to just CV since the armor is all over you it could affect your accuracy.
In addition, make armor REALLY heavy. The normal encumberance rules will take care of the rest, including reduced movement. The fact is, a very strong warrior with high dex will still be a very stong warrior with high dex even in alot of armor. They payed the points after all. Oh, you could also add in armor familiarities.
With DEX reductions, the key will be the cost to balance out the cost of PSLs/CSLs (so tanks can regain OCV) vs the benefits of the armor. Quite frankly, a tank will more likely get knocked out from Stun loss (yeah killing 'multipe stun before defenses') . The points the tank uses up to regain levels can be spent by foopie saber wielding guys building CVs or buying martial maneuvers.

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by sbarron
I'm not so worried about game balance as I am player balance. I would like for lightly armored characters and heavily armored characters to meet on more even footing in combat. I realize this isn't realistic. It is a convention of the fantasy genre that I would like to incorporate into my game, though. The character with light or no armor using spd and quickness to battle the lumbering, heavily armored character. I don't think that this is very well reflected with the armor rules, so I am looking for ways to simulate it.


Okay. Give your lightly armored guys Find Weakness and/or Armor Piercing weapons. Let them stick their light rapiers through holes in the armor that Mr. Tank didn't know were there. Give your lightly armored guys martial art forms that can be used with swords. Give your lightly armored characters gas NND attacks. In short, cheat like a mad dog. :)

[Captain Obvious]

I can honestly say I've never had too much problem with super heavy armor. 95% of all characters in all my Hero games have preferred lighter armor for some reason.

The fact that I like "roguish" games, in the vein of Leiber or the young Conan stories helps. It's hard to sneak with all that crap. I also like seafaring sorts of stories, and no one wants to be the guy who fell to the bottom of the ocean because he missed a DEX roll....

[Arthur]

This seems to be a perfect case to argue the merits of being "realistic". Too much realism can ruin a game, but in this case, insufficient reality is more damaging.

The fact is, with all else being equal, heavy armor is by far the most important factor in a low-tech fight. For an excellent example of this, with discussion, read the second book in the _Cross-Time Engineer_ paperback series (_The High-Tech Knight_). Conrad Stargard, a 20th century engineer stuck in the 1230's, finds himself slated for a fight against a champion who outclasses him in every skill-based factor. So he builds a set of Maximilian plate two hundred years ahead of schedule ("in combat, high-tech means 'higher than your opponent'"). His opponent was in chainmail, was a much better fighter, and lost.

Historically, why did anybody NOT wear heavy armor? Enforce the following:

1. It is EXPENSIVE. A knight would often have the vast majority of his wealth tied up in his horse, armor, and sword. The horse and the armor would take up the most of it. Wealth Perks.

2. It was limited to a certain class. Only nobility could legally wear it in many places. Status Perks.

3. It is HEAVY. It wears you out quickly (high END cost) and slows your movement considerably (much less Running). It didn't, however, significantly impair DEX. A penalty of a few points is reasonable, though. DCV would also be strongly impacted.

4. It is VERY hot and DOES NOT BREATHE. There is a very good reason that plate armor appeared in Europe. Europe is as far north as Canada. Many quite well settled lands were not too far from the Arctic Circle. When it's -10 degrees Celsius, that plate armor would actually be welcome. Try that in sub-Saharan Africa and you will be Mr. Heatstroke REAL quick. Increased END cost (drastically) based on weather.


The way for a lightly-armored fighter to beat a tank is the same way a small guy beats a big guy in a fight: wear him down.

[Killer Shrike]

I used to impose a -1 penalty to all DEX rolls and Initiative for every 2 DEF from equipment based armor (ie, real equipment paid for in money not points) and applied no penalty for armor bought with character points (magic items or custom material). I didnt impose CV penalties however.

[Markdoc]

I vote with the negatives here. I agree that this is not "realistic" - but I see you your point that you want the loincloth and bronze thews crowd in with the fluted steel plate crowd.

Realism ain't everything.

Trouble is, I can't see it working. The guys who want to tanks will just build low dex, high levels characters and STILL beat the pants off the guy in the leopard skin loincloth. When you are wielding 6-8 DC attacks 8 DEF and a good PD is going to count, regardless.

But it seems to me that by trying to enforce one genre convention, you are warping things too far. All "knightly" characters will end up low DEX. High DEX characters will shun armour even when it is appropriate (Conan didn't stick to a loincloth when he led Aquilonia into battle...)

I do put some DEX penalties on chracters wearing armour, but I simply think this is too harsh. The answer to tanks is to make sure the armour comes *off* a fair amount of the time - and that's mostly campaign/scenario driven.

cheers, Mark

[Talon]

I saw a house rule once that let characters bypass a target's armor by taking an OCV penalty; the exact penalty varied from -2 to -8 depending on the amount of armor the target was wearing. I played the lightly-armored knife-thrower and found it a great way to achieve the effect you are looking for: I could easily take a -2 to -4 to drop the goons wearing breastplates, and still had a shot against the major baddies in full plate.

And oh yeah: Emphasize Stealth. :)

[AnotherSkip]

frankly, based upon my own experiences wearing armor go for more frequent dex checks than for lighter armored characters.
Simply doubling the number of dex checks and skill rolls only for those in armor is a great way to keep high statted people in armor less penalised than low statted people but still cause problems for them over loincloth man.

typical situations would be a dex check for accelerating 4" or more per hex(failure = trip)SFX you get out of your fighting stance andf the armor gets in the way.

Etc.. the position is that you are wearing something that is still alien to you. Most of the time it won't matter but ni the hazards of combat it will.

[Yamo]

I would simply make all the characters in the campaign that wanted to purchase Combat Luck do it with a -0 Limitation: Not In Armor.

That would seem to balance tanks and non-tanks pretty well, IMHO.

[Chris Goodwin]

Y'know, sbarron, per FREd p. 250, encumbrance causes not just an END expenditure per turn, but penalties to DCV and DEX roll. Are you finding those penalties to not be harsh enough?

[Old Man]

They're not harsh enough because in FRED encumbrance penalties are based on the STR of the character. Which might be realistic, but it blows game balance out of the water for FH. A tank can be expected to be STR 18-20, and at that level a full suit of 8 DEF tankmail causes no penalty.

[Chris Goodwin]

The full set is no penalty for 20 STR; at 18 it's at the 10-24% line, which is -1 to DEX rolls and DCV. (Btw, I like the name "tankmail". :) )

Some options:

Go with it. A STR 20 guy shouldn't be bothered by carrying a mere 40 kilograms

Make your tanks account for everything they're carrying; that should mean at least a -1 penalty for even the STR 20 guys (or do all tanks go around without so much as underwear?)

Make STR 2 points per point (ha ha, only serious)

Make the encumbrance tables a bit harsher.

Use the encumbrance tables from first edition Fantasy Hero

I think the basic concept of encumbrance is sound, and probably doesn't need that much modification.

[Alibear]

I try to remember that the people with stats above 15 are very rare indeed, not every fighter type should have 20 str IMHO.

More should have 13-15 I think.

[Markdoc]

>>>I try to remember that the people with stats above 15 are very rare indeed, not every fighter type should have 20 str IMHO.<<<

I agree with you, but at 1 point per point of STR, you can expect virtually everyone to have STR18-20, fighter or no. Only players who are so dedicated to concept as to voluntarily disadvantage their character will do it.

Chris makes a good point though, which I had not thought of - I switched to 2 points per point of STR long ago and maybe that is why I have never had much problem with Tankers, despite years of running FH games.

cheers, Mark

[Alibear]

Well I am running a game on Saturday and decided I wanted to keep the PC's manageable so I designed the characters myself and gave 25+25 to spend.

Alchemist 10 str
Pick pocket 10 str
mercenary str 13
Blacksmith str 16
Duellist 13 str
Elven Archer 10 str with +6 str only to use bows (-2)

I will want a bloody explanation as to why anybody wants to get stronger. Lets face it weight training was for circus strongmen not for normals.

[sbarron]

Originally posted by archer
Y'know, sbarron, per FREd p. 250, encumbrance causes not just an END expenditure per turn, but penalties to DCV and DEX roll. Are you finding those penalties to not be harsh enough?

What Old Man said. Plus having a large shield will negate any DCV minuses that a PC, and all tanks have shields. I guess for me, I have already seen that END per turn, DCV and Dex roll minuses are not enough to discourage heavy tanks. That's why I thought going one step further, just having limits on dex, might be enough. Maybe minuses would be more palitable to everyone?

As it stands now, generally the only reason a character would play a lightly armored fighter is because he likes the conept, classic ranger, barbarian, etc. If a player was primarily concerned about being the best in combat, they build a tank. I was hoping to fix that with a simple rules tweak, and not have to resort to a lot of GM imposed restrictions on character creation and development.

[Arthur]

Originally posted by Markdoc


I agree with you, but at 1 point per point of STR, you can expect virtually everyone to have STR18-20, fighter or no. Only players who are so dedicated to concept as to voluntarily disadvantage their character will do it.

Chris makes a good point though, which I had not thought of - I switched to 2 points per point of STR long ago and maybe that is why I have never had

The STR cost debate goes back to the days of Red October. I concur that STR is too cheap, especially in Heroic games, but have balked at doubling the cost. I fear it will go too far the other way.

Have you considered/Did you ever try a cost of x1.5? Do you also modify the cost in Superheroic games? If so, do you find that Bricks go from common to nonexistent?

The main point that I recall is that STR at 1 point was not balanced well against other Powers, but it was balanced against Power Frameworks. Old-style FH did not allow Frameworks, which exacerbated the STR problem.

I personally designed many wizard-concept FH characters with low STR. However, I almost always went with STR 13 - even I balked at giving up that much.

[Chris Goodwin]

Wow. Most of my wizards were in the 5-10 range. I may have had five characters out of perhaps 20 that had STR over 10. I seldom played warrior types, but did have one or two. In the games I played in, I don't think I ever saw characters of more than 13 STR who weren't warrior types.

I always thought, why spend points on STR when I wasn't really using them? I never had a reason for my wizards to get into hand-to-hand combat, and most of my characters were wizards.

I have to ask: if a character is not going to get into hand-to-hand combat, why would they buy their STR to 18-20? GMs can say no to characters who buy that much STR in violation of their concepts. Or, if too many people are buying STR just for the figured characteristics, double the cost.

Anyway, enough with the STR issue. Back to the armor issue. Make the characters justify their armor. Require them to have bought 5-10 points worth of the Wealth perk before they can just go out and buy it (a character with 20 STR and 20 DEX has already spent 40 points on his combat stats, with whatever he's spending on Wealth on top of that).

Or they have to have scraped and saved their coppers and silvers to afford it, and where are they saving it? (We're saving for armor -- no drinking and wenching!) Secure banks are uncommon in most medieval-type fantasy settings, and the ones that are secure are going to build their security into the cost of doing business with them. Rooms at the inn are notoriously insecure, and if they're carrying it with them, remember, hard currency is heavy and visible, and people carrying easily portable wealth tend to be targets for pickpockets or smash-n-grabs.

Speaking of thieves, do these tanks wear their armor to bed? Expensive armor may be a pain to move, but the operative word is expensive; anything that costs a lot can be sold for a lot.

And armor that heavy is going to make you sweat, and if you bathe once a week if you're lucky, sweat is going to make interesting things grow where they shouldn't.

How long does it take to build that 8 DEF monstrosity? Probably several months; the armourer probably has customers ahead of you. Perhaps the local government has bought up all of the local armourers' production capacity for the next several months, perhaps anticipating a war. And remember, those guys don't just keep suits of 8 DEF armor just hanging around so people can buy them off the rack; they have to eat, and if they're not selling armor they're not eating, so they don't have showrooms. (There might be something hanging around that someone ordered but didn't pay for; odds are it won't fit, and you can increase the encumbrance of armor that doesn't fit, or throw in other difficulties (it chafes, or maybe binds your movement, thus reducing both your OCV and DCV anyway).

At any rate, if you're letting beginning characters start with 8 DEF tankmail, and not putting them through hoops to get it, then yeah, I can see why you're seeing problems. (Thanks again, Old Man!)

[Old Man]

You could also impose DCV/Dex Skill penalties for armor by type.

Light Armor - no penalty
Medium Armor -1 DCV/Dex Skill Rolls
Heavy Armor -2 DCV/Dex Skill Rolls
or some such in addition to the penalties for encumbrance.

So tank man (STR 20) might wear heavy armor (40kg) and be at -1 for encumbrance and -2 for heavy armor. He can use a shield to offset these penalties but that would prevent him from using any two handed weapon. Doesn't even take into account the other junk he might be carrying.

[Old Man]

I'd be inclined to do something like this to just turn up the encumbrance penalties for armor. Heavy armor needs to impose a -3 DCV/DEX penalty on a STR 20 tank just to approach balance with light fighters. It really ought to be more, because a -3 penalty is easily made up with a large shield.

(Aside: the inability to use two-handed weapons is not much of a penalty. Given the choice between an additional DC or +3 DCV, my tank would pick the +3 DCV every time.)

I'm thinking there's two ways to get around this. One is to go back to the enc table from 4th ed FH, where encumbrance penalties were the same regardless of STR. The second is to have a STR-based enc table like 5th ed., but more strict, and increase the cost of STR to 2. A third which I am not really considering is to hook armor weight to BODY and STR of the wearer; this way a halfling cuirass weighs less than an ogre breastplate. This would be very complex to implement, however.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Old Man

I'm thinking there's two ways to get around this. One is to go back to the enc table from 4th ed FH, where encumbrance penalties were the same regardless of STR. The second is to have a STR-based enc table like 5th ed., but more strict, and increase the cost of STR to 2. A third which I am not really considering is to hook armor weight to BODY and STR of the wearer; this way a halfling cuirass weighs less than an ogre breastplate. This would be very complex to implement, however. [/B]

Good idea but like you said complex. I tried to figure it out in my head but it started to hurt. Best to keep it simple unless you really want the mental exercise. Start with 10 BODY 10 STR, 8 DEF, 40 kilos.

Don't even think about sectional armor yet.

[Old Man]

I think that was part of the reason that the old enc penalties for armor were dissociated from STR. The stronger warrior may be able to lift more, but he's usually larger, so his armor has to weigh more. It was simpler to handwave it all and use a straight def-to-penalty relationship.

[Captain Obvious]

Expense is another good limiter. The old Mythus game had a pretty good money system and price list built in. I like the money conversions because gold is rare enough that when you try to bribe someone with a gold piece, most everyone except the highest classes will be tempted (unlike some systems where you need 10 pounds of gold just to buy a meal).

More to the point, though, a suit of full plate armor runs in the neighborhood of 55,000 bronze pieces (or 55 gold pieces), and is more than most people make in a year. By comparison, some more reasonable armors (game balance wise) are a lot cheaper. Chain mail is about 10,000 bronze pieces and leather runs 750 bronze pieces, which puts them well within the financial constraints of the lower and middle classes. Unless you give out king's ransoms every adventure, tanks wouldn't be a problem under a system like this....

[LordGhee]

Some notes on Armour.

In the Museum Replicas Limited catalog on my desk is this Information.

Chain Mail shirt, which covers from the elbows to top of thigh (33” long).

Regular chain 23 lbs.

Their hero mail (small links) 33lbs - this seems to be like most real chain as the spanish chain form 1500's in the UTEP Museum.

Flattened steel. 45 1/2 lbs this is a lot like double mail.

A buddy of mine got the reg chain and it looked great but neither of else would consider it for a fight alone. Maybe over a leather gambeson.

Leather Brigandine (with small steel plates) also know as a coat of plates. 6lbs
My experience with real leather (this one is a light suede) is that it weight in more than the chain. Most leather amour is like a good motorcycle jacket. Coat of plates one with metal plates added. This style of Armour is generally one of the heaviest.

German Gothic Cuirass and Tassets 17 lbs. 18 gauge steel – again this is light. But historically plate was lighter than equal amount of later chain.

Roman Lorcia Segmentata- banded plate first century AD. 17lbs, again I think this is light but I have seen one of these suits and the weather took a baseball bat swing with little effect.

Chain was really popular from when the Celts invented it around 300bc until plate got spread around after 1450. The Romans decide to adopt chain for the average legionaries with the leaders (wealthy) using plate in the Greek style. The barbarians added chain pants, gloves and sleeves. Double mail started showing up around 1200ad.

Chain is really flexable the best type to move in. Plate is hard to bend in.

Solders in Iraqi where 60 lbs so how they moved is how people in Armour move.

Note – in a lifeguard class I took in collage the very pretty instructor offer to do any thing any one wanted if they could swim across the eight-lane pool wearing a 25lb weight vest. A lineman with the UTEP football team tried it. His weight 250 so he had the best mass to vest ratio --- gulg glug. I had to pull him up. When the rest of the team found out about this many tried, many almost died.:)

Notes from the wars of the ancient Greeks by Victor Davis Hanson.

1 Drachma = one daily wage in 5th century BC.
The cost of a war horse 500-6000 DRS.
The cost of a Hoplite panoply 100 to 300 DRS
The cost of a Slave 500 DRs.
So the cost of Hoplite Armour and weapons is like the cost of a car.

Lord Ghee

[Old Man]

Originally posted by LordGhee
Some notes on Armour.


Chain is really flexable the best type to move in. Plate is hard to bend in.

So perhaps the encumbrance penatly for armor should be based less on the mass, and more on the type...



Note – in a lifeguard class I took in collage the very pretty instructor offer to do any thing any one wanted if they could swim across the eight-lane pool wearing a 25lb weight vest. A lineman with the UTEP football team tried it. His weight 250 so he had the best mass to vest ratio --- gulg glug. I had to pull him up. When the rest of the team found out about this many tried, many almost died.:)

I would have expected a very fat person to have been able to pull that off. There were a couple of people in my scuba class, back in the day, who required 20lbs of belt to stay down. They hated me, since I sank with no weight belt; the instructor made me wear a belt with 3 lbs. on it anyway since part of the training was how to ditch all your gear and head for the surface.

I am fatter now, I can float in salt water, if I try real hard.

[Pattern Ghost]

Chain is actually more difficult to move in than plate. Simple reason: Chain was worn with significant padding beneath it, and plate was jointed.

Here are some ways to mess with the armored types if you're going for a mixed armor types environment:

1. Require familiarities of increasing point values for different levels of armor. If the character doesn't have the appropriate armor familiarity, impose a big CV penalty, and limit movement, especially leaping. Armor requires training to use to full effect. Even as far back as Roman times, you'll find records explicitly outlining mobility training such as vaulting, etc., for armored troops.

2. Impose double the penalties listed for heat environmental penalties for anyone wearing chain or plate armor.

3. Double END cost for STR use when in chain or plate armor.

4. Require a certain level of Wealth to own any metal armor. Say, 3 or 5 pts for chain, and 5 or 10 pts for plate. Don't just give the stuff away.

5. Impose big PER penalties to those wearing helmets. Hit those not wearing helmets in the head frequently. =)

None of these bring the great STR debate into it, b/c you're not using the Encumberance rules to mess with the armored types.

[Pattern Ghost]

Oh, and arm your NPCs with weapons that can generate 3d6 to 4d6 damage when they add their STR, their CSLs and their MA to them. Not all of them, just the leaders or tougher brawlers, to give your tanks a tough time every now and then.

Make impact weapons like maces, flails, and hammers killing attacks with increased stun multipliers, at least +2. That will ring their bells from time to time without being instantly fatal.

[Pattern Ghost]

http://www.varmouries.com/

Lots of armor pics here, by period.

[LordGhee]

Hee are some old post reposted (with out permission) that are good commits on this thread from the old boards. go to the old boards there are some good stuff on them.

SusanoMember posted 07-27-2001 08:21 AM quote: Originally posted by Ghostnight:As a side note modern research has disproved many of the myths concerning heavy armors(such as full plate) such as how restrictive it was, how encumbering it turned out to be and how difficult it was to don quickly. There are some who theorize that it took nearly an hour more because of ceremony than because of difficulty. When I fought in the SCA and wore armor, I could be fully armored in about 15 minutes. This is what I dressed in:sweat pants, athletic cup, gambison (padded jacket), biker's boots, gorget (neck armor made from steel plates riveted to leather), steel leg armor (cuisses [thighs], polyens [knees], lower leg was exposed), single leather greave (shin armor) on shield [leading] leg), leather vambrace and rebrace (arm harness) soaked in wax (i.e. cour-boulli) with an articulated steel elbow, plastic breastplate and backplate (covered in suede leather), and a steel bascinet (helmet). Oh, and a shield. This was about 15 minutes of buckling. I could put all of it on myself, and required no help to take any of it off (a major concern). If the breastplate was steel, I would have been fully protected in the manner of most 14th-15th C men-at-arms. Note -all this gear weighed about 40 pounds, but I could easily do a handstand if I wanted to.




PatternGhostMember posted 08-06-2001 03:05 AM quote: Originally posted by Phil Fleischmann:He was not badly hurt, but there was no way he was getting back up again without help or without removing his armor. "This is why," said the demo guy, "plate armor was often nothing more than a metal coffin." On the field of battle, if you've fallen and you can't get up, an enemy can pretty much dispatch you at his leisure. Then the demo guy was wrong. Full plate weighed in at anywhere from 45-60 lbs. Weight that's evenly distributed. I ran around most of my military career with more than that much weight strapped on me, most of it on my back, and I had no problems whatsoever with mobility. There's a common misconception about the weight of armor used in actual combat. Heavier suits were used for jousts, to minimize the risk of injury. Nobody's stupid enough to put on something that's going to get them killed in a real fight if they happen to trip. In fact, there are many cases of knights documented as vaulting on to horseback from a flat-footed position. Period arms manuals describe rigorous excercise routines that mirror a lot of concepts that are still considered "new" to a lot of modern strength atheltes. An extra 45-60 lbs. of well-made armor isn't that much of an impediment. Also, if it was impossible to get up when in armor, there wouldn't have been extensive grappling systems in said manuals, because wrestling is an activity you'd want to avoid at all costs. Many historical knights were notorious for their wrestling skills. In game terms, I'd penalize for long term END loss, and for PER rolls, but not for DCV or movement. DEX/DCV penalties are a DnD holdover balancing tactic which aren't needed. (Except, of course, if you're talking about fine manipulation stuff.) If you want a tank, you buy a strong guy with good CON/END and put him in armor. If you want a zippy guy who can dance around him, buy up in DEX and wear light armor so you don't tire out. Strong guy in armor with a sword and shield versus quick guy in light armor with sword and shield: Depending on relative skill, the faster guy will have the advantage b/c he won't tire and slow down. Eventually, he'll get past the armor. Links: Valentine Armouries: Makers of historically accurate armor.The Historical Armed Combat Association: Info on historical Western Martial Arts, including scans of actual period manuals of defence [This message has been edited by PatternGhost (edited 08-06-2001).] [This message has been edited by PatternGhost (edited 08-06-2001).] [This message has been edited by PatternGhost (edited 08-06-2001).]


Markdocunregistered posted 08-07-2001 06:55 AM Let's clear out the misconceptions here. Plate and mail (more accurately called transitional plate) started popping up in the late 1200's with more and more plate pieces being added as time went on. You could go back to the early/mid 1200's if you want to include the "coats of plate" which were common in period illustrations from Germany and Northen Italy. This kind of armour was very hot and heavy - up to 60-70 lbs - since it was typically full chain mail over heavy padded (or possibly leather) armour, with coats of plates or plate pieces on top of that. The sort or armour that SCA people wear is typically a mish-mash of styles most closely resembling that worn through the 1300's and early 1400's (think 100 years war). This is what is most accurately considered transitional plate, as the various individual pieces of plate started to be linked together using hinges, sliding rivets and buckles. Weight actually decreased slightly (down into the 40-50 pound range) as the associated undergarments lost a lot of weight - heavy chain mail suits were replaced with lighter chain, incomplete mail, or even dispensed with entirely in favour of padded gambesons, with chain just covering the armpit and groin. Bear in mind, SCA armour is typically lighter than real armour of this period, since a major preoccupation at the time was the protection of the "holes" in the plate" and so knights typically wore chain beneath their plate and often heavier padding beneath the chain than is the case in the SCA. Of course, their opponents were armed with sharpened pieces of steel, not wood and they were intent on killing one another! In the late 1400's and early 1500's we come into the era of full plate (white harness, full harness, etc). This is the era of the condotteri and the English Wars of the Roses, which might be what Mike was thinking of when he referred to the English civil war. This era saw the introduction of firearms, and suits of plate that were fully articulated, with all the various sections being rivetted, buckled or hinged. As a result the chain armour was finally dispensed with and the armour actually lightened in weight, but improved in protection as metallurgy improved. That meant the bits most likely to be hit (the breastplate, front of the helm, foreams and shins) were increased in thickness, but offset by reductions in thickness in less vulnerable spots. Armours from these periods may go as low as 35 pounds. Last of all, jousting armour - this is something quite different. Even in the early days, specialised jouting armour started to appear but by the time jousting was big and had assumed the form we recognise today, with knights in plate armour and two courses seperated by a fence, the armour used for jousting had nothing in common with battle armour except that it was made of metal. Often the rider's lance arm was fixed in place, with only very limited movement, the helmet was incredibly heavy and usually bolted to the chest so that it could not turn or bend, and the front of the armour covered with extra plates bolted on, sometimes over an inch thick. The whole point was to turn jousting into a spectator sport, with little risk to the participants - it had nothing to do with fighting. This is the kind of armour that if you fell over in, you could not get back up and suits could weigh up to 120 pounds. Finally rememebr that through this whole period there was nothing resembling a "standard" suit of armour. Even munition armours which were mass "produced" were still turned out one at a time, by hand and could be be put together differently, so weight and protection varied wildly. Also, all of this really only applies to the knights of Middle Germany, France, England and Northern Italy. In other places armour development folowed a quite different route. And let's not have any of this "fall down, can't get up" stuff. It did actually happen sometimes, but was usually the result of heat prostration (which still fells modern soldiers wearing bullet-proof vests and helmets) - not the weight of the armour. cheers,Mark

Susano, patterghost and Mark thanks for the post.
Lord Ghee

[Mancer]

I have found that the Encumberance rules in FrED work pretty good when calculated from a characters Casual STR instead of their full STR. But, nothing can substitute for GM control; I work closely with players during character creation to tightly control their stat ranges in accordance with their concept (no 18 STR thieves or mages for example). I've been lucky in that my players accept the need for balance, and the fact that each character should be allowed to shine in his/her chosen field.

anyway, good luck

Mancer

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Mancer
I have found that the Encumberance rules in FrED work pretty good when calculated from a characters Casual STR instead of their full STR.

I had not thought of that. I'll have to see how that works out. It sounds like a pretty elegant solution to the 5th ed encumbrance problem.


But, nothing can substitute for GM control; I work closely with players during character creation to tightly control their stat ranges in accordance with their concept (no 18 STR thieves or mages for example).

I see no conceptual reason why a thief or mage could not be 18 str. As others have said on these boards, GM control is no excuse for maintaining a flaw in the rules.

[Old Man]

The casual STR thing is a good idea. Especially considering the definition. Your average Joe wearing leather armor, sword, spear, and light gear would be at -2 DCV/Dex Rolls

Your STR 18 guy wearing plate, sword, spear and light gear would be at -3 DCV/Dex Rolls and be -2" movement.

Not too shabby but the "light" fighters would almost be required to have STR 15.

The encumbrance system as a whole could be used to limit Combat Luck. Instead of -DCV/Dex Rolls, it could be -DCV/Dex Rolls/Combat Luck. Meaning that at the -1 level you would only have 2PD/2ED from Combat Luck.

[PhilFleischmann]

Something else that I'm surprised no one has mentioned (although I guess I shouldn't be, considering the pervasive deendee influence): there's a big difference between adventurers and soldiers. If you're riding (or marching) into battle, you put on your armor first. If you're travelling from point A to point B, you're probably dressed more comfortably. If the road between points A and B passes through the deep, dark, dangerous dale, you'll probably be wearing some armor, but you won't be a tank.

I like what was said before about the social/political privelege of wearing armor. In most cases it simply isn't done unless you're looking for a fight. You don't wear armor for a night of carousing at the local tavern, a hunting/fishing trip, to deliver a message, etc.

You want to hurt the big combat guys? Try an ambush along the way. Orcs are not going to stand there and wait for you to put on your armor.

Here's another radical idea: reduce the amount of defense you get from armor. Have top-of-the-line plate armor give you, say, only 5 DEF, with lesser armors proportionately less.

Close your eyes and imagine two fully armored guys swinging swords at each other. Shouldn't they be hurt at least a little when they get hit? If 1d6 K should hurt a full armor target a little, then that armor cannot be over 6 DEF in game terms. No armor has ever offered 100% protection.

A weirder idea is to define armor as Damage Reduction, that way, they're always taking some damage.

I usually impose a Running penalty equal to the DCV penalty, which no amount of STR can negate.

I'd suggest that instead of increasing the cost of STR, try increasing the cost of DEF (PD, ED, Armor, FF, etc.)

Just some random thoughts on the subject.

[Mancer]

I see no conceptual reason why a thief or mage could not be 18 str. As others have said on these boards, GM control is no excuse for maintaining a flaw in the rules.

I agree, and if one of my players came forward with an interesting idea for an 18 STR mage I wouldn't exclude it out of hand. That being said, in my games their NEEDS to be a reason beyond "because I want an 18 STR" or god forbid, "because I'll do more dmg" for characters to have stats in the upper range of what I allow (typically 18-20 is about as strong, smart, dexterous,etc a character is gonna get without magic or a really good reason). But that's just me.

MANCER