Heavy armor too efficient?

[Yamo]

STR is cheap in HERO and armor is light.

What's stopping all the characters in my fantasy campaign from buying a 20 STR and full plate armor? It weighs in at maybe 40 kg, just 10% of their total weight allowance and not enough to impose any DCV/DEX Roll/movement penalties or long term END loss. Being equipment, it doesn't even cost points. And the high STR also has the crazily-efficient effect of boosing PD, REC, STUN, Leaping and damage.

On the other hand, trying to build a lightly armed/armored swashbuckling type involves a high DEX (much more expensive than STR) and lots of extra DCV and Combat Luck, which do cost points (a lot in some cases, to get similar benefits as plate mail)). And even then you're probably dead the first time you take a solid hit, unlike your plated pals. Perhaps they'll mourn your inefficient character creation skills at your funeral. :(

So why shouldn't everybody just be a tank, from the fighter to the wizard? The option seems just too powerful and cheap. From a purely metagame point-of-view, you'd almost be foolish not to, it seems. That's bad, in my experience.

Thoughts.

[sbarron]

You're right, Yamo. From a purely meta-gaming stand point, it does make sense to make characters utilizing this weakness in the rules to make the "best" (i.e. most powerful) characters. But the same could be said for any other genre that has a weakness like this. Supers also has very cheap strength and powers like 1d6 RKA, AE, AF(10), Penetrating attacks. The GMs job is to deal with things like this, too.

We've had these discussion a dozen times on the boards. There is no simple answer. Here are some of the most common:

1) Make heavy armors prohibatively expensive.

2) Make heavy armor not available.

3) Increase the weight of armor, increase the penalties, use 4th Ed penalty system, decrease the weight before penalties, include all equipment in weight calcs

4) Make Find Weakness more common/cheaper, make AP attacks more common/cheaper

5) Make wearing heavy armor such a pain in the ass that PCs shy away from it (rusting, develop sores, get rashes, sink like stone in water, etc.)

6) Make Heavy armor a status symbol in your campaign, only nobles/royalty can wear it

7) One I'm personally considering, make Str cost 2 pts

I'm sure someone else will have additional ideas.

Here is a thread I had a while ago that had a similar premise. http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3002

[Herolover]

First, let me say I agree with you, but only up to a point.

You point out that STR is cheap and point to DEX. I don’t want to get into a STR is to cheap argument, but I think you are greatly overlooking the value of DEX. So you spend 13 points on STR, yes you get a lot, but I guarantee you are buying some DEX or you should. If I buy just 21 points of DEX (I don’t need much STR more than 10) I have now increased my chances to hit, chances to be missed, how quickly I go and how many times I can act.

Anyhoo…as I said I am not going to get into the STR is to cheap argument. However, for strong characters I have noticed that heavy armor (DEF wise at least) really doesn’t encumber a person to much. Now, my question is why do you think it SHOULD encumber people?

It has been proven, many times, that heavy full suits of plate armor did NOT overly greatly encumber the wearer. This is for normal people of about 8-13 STR.

Using the Hero system a suit of 40kg will put a in the -2 DCV/DEX, -1” movement, and cost 1 END per turn. I don’t think this is to greatly out of line with reality.

Now look at your character with the 18-20 STR. First let me point out that the character has the strength of a Grizzly bear. I don’t know of many people that are that strong. In fact, I know of no one that is that strong. The character you point out should be able to wear heavy armor and move around okay.

Now what is to keep all your players pumping all their points in STR? Nothing. What is to keep your players from pumping all their points in DEX? What is to keep all your players from making up all magic-users? I think the problem you are pointing out is a problem with roleplaying not with STR being to cheap or heavy armors being to light.

If you are worried about it, you can:
a) Make a house rule saying only one player can have a STR above 15.
b) Make a house rule saying that Metal armors automatically give a -1 DCV/DEX (or higher) penalty in addition to the penalty from encumberance.

[Yamo]

Now what is to keep all your players pumping all their points in STR? Nothing. What is to keep your players from pumping all their points in DEX? What is to keep all your players from making up all magic-users? I think the problem you are pointing out is a problem with roleplaying not with STR being to cheap or heavy armors being to light.

I don't much care for this argument. It's not quite fair to imply that players are just twinking because they don't want to get uttery screwed by the system.

Character concept is important, yes, but it's unfair to ask players who don't come to the table with a character concept of "armored tank" to take such an rules effectiveness hit versus those that do.

The problem is that the system has a built-in roadblock that hinders certain character concepts in fantasy games. All the players want is to be treated fairly by said system (i.e. for their 150-point unarmored swashbucker to be as "good", generally-speaking, as their buddy's 150-point armored knight). That doesn't seem unreasonable to me and I wouldn't cast aspersion on their roleplaying ability for it.

[Herolover]

Here is my point.

Using the same rules the I haven't seen anything that proves the 150 armored knight IS more effective in combat than the 150 point swashbucker in light armor.

Sure the guy in heavy armor isn't going to get hurt by many blows, but I am going to be hitting him a lot while he will be missing me.

[Yamo]

Here is my point.

Using the same rules the I haven't seen anything that proves the 150 armored knight IS more effective in combat than the 150 point swashbucker in light armor.

Sure the guy in heavy armor isn't going to get hurt by many blows, but I am going to be hitting him a lot while he will be missing me.

And here's mine: Not necessarily.

The STR needed to wear the armor with no penalty is so cheap that the knight can still afford to be 90%+ as effective as the swashbucker with respect to DEX and CSLs and still have all the extra PD, REC, STUN, Leaping and damage. Oh, and 8 more rDEF. :rolleyes:


How about you make up the armor knight and I make up the "swashbucker."

See, here's the problem: All I would need to do is take the stats for the swashbucker you make up, ditch a point or two of DEX to raise STR up to 18 or 20, add tankmail and the result is a strictly better character. Exactly the same except as follows:

Downsides:

CV maybe one lower before CSLs, if that.

Upsides:

More PD.
More REC.
More STUN.
More Leaping.
More damage.
More lifting/throwing ability.
8 more rDef.

I know which warrior I'm putting my money on in a brawl, all other things being equal. So character with high STR and tankmail is still not balanced versus same character without.

[Herolover]

How about you make up the armor knight and I make up the "swashbucker."

Guidelines
*Standard character rules and limits from FRED page 15.
*Both characters have Normal Character Maxima.
*To keep the characters from being complete combat monsters we must put (I say) 50 points into "non-combat" skills.
*Limit of 20 points spend on Combat skill levels.

[Herolover]

If the Knight can spend his points on DEX to get the same benefit as the swashbucker, can't the swashbuckler spend his points on STR to get the same benefit as the Knight?

[AnotherSkip]

Erm actually if you Read FH you will note that Steve mentions that so long as the characters retain all of the penalties of Def 8 (or whatever) they can have it as leathor (or whatever)


Personally Im planning on making a Def 8 silk veils wearing jazzit(1 pip killing, Autofirex2, Str 8, S length) weilding character......

then again im weird

[Yamo]

Erm actually if you Read FH you will note that Steve mentions that so long as the characters retain all of the penalties of Def 8 (or whatever) they can have it as leathor (or whatever)

Not sure what you mean, as I don't have the book yet. Can you explain this statement further?


If the Knight can spend his points on DEX to get the same benefit as the swashbucker, can't the swashbuckler spend his points on STR to get the same benefit as the Knight?

Yes, but then he's chugging around in tankmail and not really much of a swashbuckler anymore. That's the problem. Characters with the same point totals have no reason not to wear heavy armor, no matter what the source material says simply because they'll be vastly superior to their counterparts that don't. You have Gandalf in plate mail, Frodo in plate mail, Legolas in plate mail. Everybody and their mother in full plate armor because it's just stupid not to be. Blah.

[Herolover]

Knight has 20 STR, DEX 10
Swashbuckler has 20 DEX, 10 STR.
Both have speed 3.


Knight has spent 20 points.
He gets +2 PD, +2 REC, and +5 STUN. Using normal sword he will do 2d6K and have 8PD armor.
He must roll 7 or less to hit swashbuckler.
The Swashbuckler has spent 30 points.
Will always go first in every phase.
Will do 1d6K with sword.
He must roll a 15 or less to hit the knight.

Now if the knight spends his 10 points left, to bring him even with the swashbuckler, on +5 with sword. He still has less of a chance to hit the swashbuckler than the swashbuckler has to hit him. Given average rolls the Knight will go down to STUN damage, though the swashbuckler will be seriously hurt.

What I want to know is where did the Knight get his heavy armor? Plate was very expensive. If you give the Knight that kind of advantage what are you giving the swashbuckler to even it out? If the Knight has the money to buy Plate then the swashbuckler has enough money to buy a “fine or masterwork” sword and is probably doing even more damage than the base 1d6.

[Yamo]

Plate was very expensive.

Historically, yes. At the moment, though, we're running a D&D-style campaign where it's both cheap and plentiful.

I've thought that perhaps magic items are the answer. If the swashbucker finds a magic ring that gives him 6 PD/6 ED armor, he's a little more balanced DEF-wise with the knight.

Of course, then the knight will probably just go "Hey, I want me a magic ring, too!" and run to the nearest wizard. Then I have a 14 rDEF knight on my hands. :)

Hard to do something like that without the other players wanting access to the same hardware.

[Herolover]

Originally posted by Yamo
Yes, but then he's chugging around in tankmail and not really much of a swashbuckler anymore. That's the problem. Characters with the same point totals have no reason not to wear heavy armor, no matter what the source material says simply because they'll be vastly superior to their counterparts that don't. You have Gandalf in plate mail, Frodo in plate mail, Legolas in plate mail. Everybody and their mother in full plate armor because it's just stupid not to be. Blah.

This is like complaining that the M1A1 Abrams Tank is too good of a weapon. Yes it is. Yes, if everyone could afford it then everyone would have it.

Why doesn't everyone have an Abrams Tank? Same reason everyone didn't walk around in Plate mail. Laws and Plate was EXPENSIVE.

Lets us your own standard. The "Swashbucker, you say can't buy up to a 20 STR because "then he isn't a swashbucker." Why do you think the Knight in armor should be allowed to buy DEX?

This is a chacter choice thing and RP thing not a rule thing.

[Herolover]

duplicate post.

[Yamo]

Lets us your own standard. The "Swashbucker, you say can't buy up to a 20 STR because "then he isn't a swashbucker." Why do you think the Knight in armor should be allowed to buy DEX?

The STR doesn't strain the character concept to the breaking point. The heavy armor does. And if you have decent STR, there's no reason not to wear the armor because you'll be flat-out better than an otherwise identical character that doesn't with no associated point cost for such superiority. That's the problem.

[Herolover]

Originally posted by Herolover
Knight has 20 STR, DEX 10
Swashbuckler has 20 DEX, 10 STR.
Both have speed 3.


Knight has spent 20 points.
He gets +2 PD, +2 REC, and +5 STUN. Using normal sword he will do 2d6K and have 8PD armor.
He must roll 7 or less to hit swashbuckler.
The Swashbuckler has spent 30 points.
Will always go first in every phase.
Will do 1d6K with sword.
He must roll a 15 or less to hit the knight.

Okay then my swashbucker spends 10 points on STR. I know have all the same advantages as you. I go first every time and I am hiting you a lot more than you are hitting me.

What can you spend 10 points on to even the score? Another +5 with Sword. (That's +10 with sword and you have spend 20 points.)

You have yet to answer my question. Since you are giving your knight expensive rare plate armor what are you giving my swashbuckler that is even in value?

[Yamo]

You have yet to answer my question. Since you are giving your knight expensive rare plate armor what are you giving my swashbuckler that is even in value?

No, I'm afraid that it's you who is not paying attention. As stated, heavy armor is neither expensive nor rare in the setting.

[Herolover]

Originally posted by Yamo
Historically, yes. At the moment, though, we're running a D&D-style campaign where it's both cheap and plentiful.

I've thought that perhaps magic items are the answer. If the swashbucker finds a magic ring that gives him 6 PD/6 ED armor, he's a little more balanced DEF-wise with the knight.

Of course, then the knight will probably just go "Hey, I want me a magic ring, too!" and run to the nearest wizard. Then I have a 14 rDEF knight on my hands. :)

Hard to do something like that without the other players wanting access to the same hardware.

You have fallen prey to the D&D is the way fantasy works trap. It is one reason why I dislke D&D. (Which I really don't dislike that much, it is just different, but it has ruined fantasy.)

You have skewed things in favor of the armor, it might be difficult getting back. This is not the fault of the HERO system and neither is it your fault. It is just a different way to play.

The reason D&D gets away with it is because the generailze so much that the intricacies are lost and D&D makes no difference in being not hit and being hit, but armor stopping the damage.

[Yamo]

You have fallen prey to the D&D is the way fantasy works trap.

Perhaps. But what the players want, the players get, or I play alone. ;)


This is not the fault of the HERO system and neither is it your fault.

I still believe that heavy armor as written in the HERO system rules is still too effective overall for Heroic fantasy, however.

[Herolover]

Let me point out to that even in D&D the plate wearing knight with high STR will be better off than the D&D high DEX swashbucker. The 18 STR/12DEX Knight can have a +9 to AC with plate where the most the 18 DEX swashbucker can get is about a +7 AC.

[Herolover]

Originally posted by Yamo
Perhaps. But what the players want, the players get, or I play alone. ;)
I still believe that heavy armor as written in the HERO system rules is still too effective overall for Heroic fantasy, however.


Boy do I understand that first statement. Just be glad they want to play something other than Champions.

As for your second statement than it is a problem with most Fantasy systems and in fact reality. Plate armor IS very effective.

How to fix your problem...let me think.

[Yamo]

Let me point out to that even in D&D the plate wearing knight with high STR will be better off than the D&D high DEX swashbucker. The 18 STR/12DEX Knight can have a +9 to AC with plate where the most the 18 DEX swashbucker can get is about a +7 AC.

Fundamentally, you're correct. A common flaw between the systems is still a flaw, though.

All I'm trying to do is balance the two character concepts in fights, but one having access to mega high DEF that costs no points is a huge hurdle.

[Herolover]

Originally posted by Yamo
Fundamentally, you're correct. A common flaw between the systems is still a flaw, though.

Why is it a flaw? If a system says guns kill people and guns are rare, but in your setting you make guns common and notice that to many people are dying that does not make the fact that guns kill people a flaw.

It is the same thing as if you said, "In my setting bazookas are common" and then complained that no one wore armor. The setting has given the high STR character an advantage buy making armor so cheap.

You wouldn't say BODY is to expensive if characters had to buy extra BODY because a setting increased the killing damage of all weapons by fourfold would you?

This is not a system flaw. This is a setting flaw.

[Herolover]

There really is now way, within the rules, to make the non-armor wearing character equivalent to the cheap heavy armor wearing character. You have artificially given the armor wearing character 8 DEF for free. Now, how to fix it.

1) If possible change the setting. Maybe something happens and metal becomes rare? Of course, with you characters now running around in metal armor they have become rich. However, a player and his money are quicker to separate then a fool and his money.
2) Begin making it so that heavy armors (DEF 6+) have an automatic -2 DCV.
3) Allow swashbucklers to purchase combat maneuvers against opponents in heavy armor.

Basically, by making Plate cheap, you have given the Knight an advantage. To correct the problem you must either take it away or give the “swashbuckler” an advantage that the knight cannot take. Perhaps a new weapon is invented that is deadly, but requires so great manual dexterity that a person in armor can’t weld it?

[hybris]

If I was a warlord in a setting where heavy armor was both very effective and rather cheap, I'd equip as many of my warriors with it as I could afford.
But I'd also look for ways to defeat heavy armor - especially if my usual tactics made the use of heavy armor impractical. (Maybe I'm a Mongol-style ruler who doesn't have the resources or technological know-how to get sufficient numbers of heavy armor, and who also wouldn't really want to since his entire army consists of light horse archers.)

That is, if something is both powerful and plentiful, everybody will try to use it.
But there will also be an arms race to develop something to defeat it - whether to gain an edge over the competition or because of bare necessity (i.e., if you can't use this cool thing yourself). And people will try to develop not only gear, but also fighting techniques that are effective against it.

So... If heavy armor is so plentiful in your world, maybe armor piercing weapons should be common, too. And many experienced combatants might know Find Weakness.
(Note the added benefit that neither of these tactics will significantly harm swashbuckler characters. Much the opposite, even. If they have access to such things, the gap between them and the "tanks" will shrink.)

[The_Saint]

If you really got a problem with heavy armor,then use following approach:
Instead of calculating encumbrance based on Str,simply take a penalty of -1DCV/Dex per 2 or 3 Def.Someone in Plate would thus have about -3/-4 DCV.

Someone has to train in heavy armor to wear it.Use Weapons Element:Armor to reflect that.

In my own FH-Campaign I don't use any of these options and I have an Half-Elven Swashbuckler and Dwarven Warrior in my group.The Swashbuckler uses his high DCV and Spd to avoid being hit and the dwarf totally relies on his armor and it works.

[Toadmaster]

I think the problem is you are looking at armor from too much of a gaming / rules angle, yes a prepared fighter in plate in a stand up fight has the advantage. Regardless of cost there are many other ways heavy armor restricts the wearer.

Its hot, put that 8 DEF fighter in the desert with the 20 dex cloth armor wearing fencer, role play the heat.

It blocks vision (just a little slit to look out of) and hearing (small holes over the ears at best), put the party in close confines with bad things initiating attacks with move bys / move throughs to knock them down. That DEX guy will probably save the day walking point and by being the only one on his feet. This might also cause the characters to remove their helmets, nice DEF 0 head shots are now palitable to the enemy. Its also hard to communicate in a heavy helmet, make the players roll PER to understand each other in all but the best conditions. " Look out for the A) Trap, B) Cliff, C) Red Dragon by A) the rock, B) the Ogre C) your foot"

It sinks, put the party on a boat, there is a reason sailors don't wear metal armor.

Use electrical attacks, make sure to give a bonus against matal armor (perhaps AoE 1 hex vs metal but standard attack vs non conductive armor such as leather, this gives Mr. Dex a double advantage).

Heavy armor takes time to put on and usually requires assistance. Ambush the party while they are resting or sleeping, The Dexter will not be at much of a disadvantage since his primary means of defense is not getting hit.

Don't let the players wear heavy armor on long journeys, it is uncomfortable and only meant to be worn before entering combat, Excalibur aside it is not evening wear.


I'm sure you can come up with other ways to limit heavy armor, limiting armor in this way is no more GM abuse than telling players they can have assault rifles but the cops will put them in jail if caught, otherwise why don't all characters in modern games carry M16's.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Herolover
Knight has 20 STR, DEX 10
Swashbuckler has 20 DEX, 10 STR.
Both have speed 3.


Knight has spent 20 points.
He gets +2 PD, +2 REC, and +5 STUN. Using normal sword he will do 2d6K and have 8PD armor.
He must roll 7 or less to hit swashbuckler.
The Swashbuckler has spent 30 points.
Will always go first in every phase.
Will do 1d6K with sword.
He must roll a 15 or less to hit the knight.

You forgot to give the heavy fighter a large shield. Feel free to give the swashbuckler a small shield, which is all he can carry.

Even without the shields this example only proves that the swashbuckler hasn't got a chance. Sure, he hits the knight 90% of the time, but he inflicts damage only 25% of the time through the PD and rPD. And none of that damage is BODY damage, which is going to matter in the next combat.

The problem Hero has always had regarding light vs. heavy fighters is that swashbuckling costs points while plate costs only money. I'm not saying that that should change, but it shows that the armor needs to be inherently balanced by itself, so that in the game, a PC should be only slightly more combat effective with armor than without. This is utterly unrealistic from a historical standpoint but it is the only way to maintain balance between light and heavy PC fighters.

Previous versions of FH accomplished this with an encumbrance penalty for armor, so that a character effectively traded DCV for rPD and was almost forced to use a large shield just to have some chance of avoiding blows. FREd eliminated that balance by taking away the encumbrance penalty, and now the same loadout gives the heavy fighter 8rPD and a net +3 DCV, making him nigh invulnerable.

The only other balancing factor against armor is critical hits, which greatly penalize targets whose DCV falls too low. But again, changes in FREd have pretty much given heavy fighters a free +3 DCV, so even crits are unlikely to help.

[Vondy]

I think we have an incorrect historical assumption: that there were swashbucklers fighting armored knights. As well as an incorrect practical assumption: that the weapons and techniques used by swashbucklers were intended to deal with walking tanks.

The rapier, epee, sabre and their associated fighting styles were developed as a direct result of the obsolescence of heavy armor and the dissapearance of the armored knight from the battlefield. Heavy swords capable of denting or penetrating heavy armor were no longer necessary so the sword evolved into a lighter, faster weapon for unarmored fighters, because the fighters were no longer wearing the armor.

Take a rapier and ram it into a suit of maxamillian plate, or give it a full bloody-minded slash, and tell me what happens.

It is true, the saracens used a small shield, but they also used a heavier bladed weapon (scimitar) and were primarily concerned with lighter metal armor, like chain. Not plate armor, which would have been a death-dealer for its wearer in the desert.

I know gamers want to play "the concept they prefer" and they should, but they should also realize, that means they will sacrafice combat effectiveness if their "preferred concept" isn't in line with the expectations and common usage of military equipment of the day. I may want to play a traditional samurai with a top-knot and a katana, but if its a world war I game I'm picking up a rifle.


So, the game makes it [nearly] impossible to play a swashbuckler effectively when confronted in single combat by an armored knight?

Sounds about right to me.

[Yamo]

So, the game makes it [nearly] impossible to play a swashbuckler effectively when confronted in single combat by an armored knight?

Sounds about right to me.

Here's a thought: HERO is not a history lesson. HERO is a fantasy game. There were no dragons in medieval Europe, either.

In a non-historical, non-realism-driven fantasy game, it's a perfectly reasonable goal to want to have the Three Musketeers and the Knights of the Round Table running around in the same setting and to want to have them be matches for each other in a swordfight.

Historical assumptions, correct or otherwise, are uniformly irrelevent.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Yamo
Here's a thought: HERO is not a history lesson. HERO is a fantasy game. There were no dragons in medieval Europe, either.

In a non-historical, non-realism-driven fantasy game, it's a perfectly reasonable goal to want to have the Three Musketeers and the Knights of the Round Table running around in the same setting and to want to have them be matches for each other in a swordfight.

Historical assumptions, correct or otherwise, are uniformly irrelevent.

Not perfectly reasonable. That was my point.

If you want to run a game where there is no weapons and armor continuity, meaning there is no cohesive logic behind the military technology in use, then go ahead, but don't expect the system to inherently make those assumptions for you.

I'm not saying it has to be historical. I'm saying, if we look at history as a general guide, different periods developed different weapons to do different jobs and to overcome different defenses. If you have all of those weapons on the field then some are going to be better than others because of their inherent properties and design.

I don't care if it matches earth history, but I do care if it matches simple physics. A rapier that isn't magical isn't an effective weapon to use against full plate. End of discussion. You can pretend it is if you want, but when you undercut the basic understanding of the laws of nature as the players know them you undercut the suspension of disbelief for anyone who relies on those assumptions to make decisions as well.

Pretend away, but don't complain that realistic weapon and armor dynamics in HERO (as written) doesn't allow you to do what you want. Just change it.

[Yamo]

Pretend away, but don't complain that realistic weapon and armor dynamics in HERO (as written) doesn't allow you to do what you want. Just change it.

a) The weapon and armor dynamics in HERO are not even remotely "realistic." They're simply unrealistic in a different way than I'd prefer.

b) Lightning bolt spells are against the laws of physics and nature, too. However, they don't harm the fantasy genre in the minds of most players. And if people shooting magic lightning out of their hands doesn't make you skip a beat, weapon anachronisms shouldn't even be a blip on your radar.

c) We're talking about a D&D-style high fantasy campaign where martial artist monks bust through plate mail with their bare hands! If they can box a knight to death, who's going to notice if another guy can do one in with a rapier?

d) Do you accept castles and other fortifications in fantasy games, where magic would render them nothing more than massively-expensive futile deathtraps?

[Old Man]

Originally posted by D-Man
Pretend away, but don't complain that realistic weapon and armor dynamics in HERO (as written) doesn't allow you to do what you want. Just change it.

But why should we have to change it? This is Hero, the system that is supposed to permit any kind of cinematic campaign. As written Hero simply does not permit parity between light and heavy PC fighters. There isn't even an optional encumbrance rule that might help to alleviate the problem. Of all games Hero is the one that I should expect not to have to rewrite.

I agree with you that in Real Life an armored warrior has an overwhelming advantage aginst one who does not. But unlike you I am not interested in simulating Real Life. I am interested in simulating Movie Life, where armor makes warriors slower and clumsier, giving light fighters the opportunity to achieve nearly equal combat effectiveness with their armored comrades.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by Yamo
Here's a thought: HERO is not a history lesson. HERO is a fantasy game. There were no dragons in medieval Europe, either.

In a non-historical, non-realism-driven fantasy game, it's a perfectly reasonable goal to want to have the Three Musketeers and the Knights of the Round Table running around in the same setting and to want to have them be matches for each other in a swordfight.

Historical assumptions, correct or otherwise, are uniformly irrelevent.

I don't mean this to be insulting, but if your players are that insistant that Fantasy Hero be just like D&D, you would probably be better off playing D&D. Ignoring the realities of armor and weapons doesn't work, comparing the use of historical context with magic is similarly intentionally dense, a lightning bolt is a lightning bolt, the physics works, it is just the manor that it is delivered (from a spell caster instead of a cloud formation), if that is too much disbelief then I can't imagine how there is an interest in playing a fantasy RPG, reality would be lets find enough to eat without getting oppressed by a cranky noble, not much fun for me.

This discussion is quickly becoming as silly as some of the comics vs reality discussions I've seen. If the armor is such a problem for you and you don't want to change to D&D perhaps you should charge points for everything so the heavily armored fighter costs the same as the swashbuckler.
HERO was not written to be D&D, with a lot of work that is possible but why?

[Yamo]

If the armor is such a problem for you and you don't want to change to D&D perhaps you should charge points for everything so the heavily armored fighter costs the same as the swashbuckler.
HERO was not written to be D&D, with a lot of work that is possible but why?

D&D isn't the only form of extremely romantic high-fantasy where weapons and armor don't always interact "realistically."

Most fantasy anime would be another example.


a lightning bolt is a lightning bolt, the physics works

How so? Last time I checked, most fantasy lightning spells didn't fry the wizard slinging them and tended to go where they were told rather than grounding out immediately at the nearest appropriate conductive surface.

[sbarron]

Here is another idea. How about making all armor a special effect of Combat Luck? Everyone has to pay points for their combat luck, and any armor they wear is just the in-game representation of it. No penalties, no bonuses, everyone gets whqat they paid for. I would think that it would make the fencer a match for the heavy tank.

By the way, this bickering is pointless. This is a legitimate request, even if only to try and win over D&Ders.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Toadmaster
This discussion is quickly becoming as silly as some of the comics vs reality discussions I've seen. If the armor is such a problem for you and you don't want to change to D&D perhaps you should charge points for everything so the heavily armored fighter costs the same as the swashbuckler.

Since when did light fighters work in D&D? Admittedly I haven't played D&D for decades but the last time I checked it didn't have penalties for armor either.

Nor do I see why this discussion is silly. As of FREd, unarmored fighters stand absolutely no chance against armored ones. This may be 'realistic' but surely you can see how it would bother players who prefer the lightly armored warriors that are everywhere in fantasy fiction.

[Beetle]

Originally posted by Yamo
In a non-historical, non-realism-driven fantasy game, it's a perfectly reasonable goal to want to have the Three Musketeers and the Knights of the Round Table running around in the same setting and to want to have them be matches for each other in a swordfight.
If that's what you want, then give the musketeers some muskets. That's what made the armor obselete.

Seriously, D-Man is right on this. Complaining that swashbuckling weapons won't damage a warrior in plate mail is like complaining that a guy with a flintlock musket won't hurt a sherman tank. That's because it's not what it was designed for. I'm sorry if your players don't want "history lessons" in their game, but putting 17th century weapons or characters in a high fantasy game (where plate mail is common) makes almost as little sense as using heat seeking missiles.

[Yamo]

I'm sorry if your players don't want "history lessons" in their game, but putting 17th century weapons or characters in a high fantasy game (where plate mail is common) makes almost as little sense as using heat seeking missiles.

Nevertheless, it's common in many fantasy game settings, which don't consider the situation in those terms at all. How to represent that in HERO without favoring any character concepts over any others is the issue.

P.S. Dragons don't make sense, either. Flying with those wings? Aerodynamically impossible poppycock! ;)

[hybris]

Originally posted by Old Man
Since when did light fighters work in D&D? Admittedly I haven't played D&D for decades but the last time I checked it didn't have penalties for armor either.It now does: :)

It takes time to put on armor.

Armor makes you slower. (There are now three "classes" of armor: Light, Medium, and Heavy. Medium armor reduces your Speed and Heavy armor also makes it impossible to run.)
Hm. By the way, I'm pretty sure that heavy armor reduced your speed even in some earlier editions of the game...

The heavier and bulkier the armor, the less you can depend on your reflexes for protection. (Every armor has a Maximum Dex statistic. This is the maximum bonus Dex can give you to AC when wearing that kind of armor - no matter how much your actual Dex score would give you when unarmored.)

Armor encumbers you in other ways. (E.g., penalties on certain skills. Heavier armor types generally give you higher penalties.)

Arcane spells (e.g., spells cast by a wizard) have a certain failure % chance depending on armor type.


An unarmored combatant avoids these problems; a lightly-armored one, most of them.
Well-made ("masterwork") armor has a slightly lower penalty to skills. And armor made of special materials (e.g., "mithral") often has even less disadvantages.

Anyway, some examples:

Chain shirt: AC Bonus +4; Maximum Dex Bonus +4; Armor Check Penalty -2; Arcane Spell Failure 20%; Speed 30' (assuming you're a human, elf, orc, etc.)

Chain mail: AC Bonus +5; Maximum Dex Bonus +2; Armor Check Penalty -5; Arcane Spell Failure 30%; Speed 20'

Full plate: AC Bonus +8; Maximum Dex Bonus +1; Armor Check Penalty -6; Arcane Spell Failure 35%; Speed 20' (and can't run)

So a character with an 18 Dex (+4 bonus to AC) might prefer the chain shirt; a character with a 13 Dex (+1 bonus) might want a heavier armor. Might.

There's more to D&D 3.0/3.5's AC system, of course - this is only a summary of the most important stuff.
Now, one more consideration of note for the "light fighters vs. tanks" debate: Armor doesn't help against "touch attacks" (i.e., attacks that only need to, well, touch you to be effective) and your Dex bonus doesn't help in certain circumstances (e.g., when you're surprised).

So... Yes, there are now some distinct downsides to being a tank in D&D. Still, heavy armor is hard to beat when it comes down to sheer protection value - the only question is if you're willing to pay the price.

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by Yamo
Historically, yes. At the moment, though, we're running a D&D-style campaign where it's both cheap and plentiful.


Two words: Rust monsters.

[Yamo]

Two words: Rust monsters.

They're a little goofy, but it could work.

Now the Heat Metal spell. That was always a nasty anti-tank trick from the D&D canon. ;)

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by Yamo
In a non-historical, non-realism-driven fantasy game, it's a perfectly reasonable goal to want to have the Three Musketeers and the Knights of the Round Table running around in the same setting and to want to have them be matches for each other in a swordfight.Well, not necessarily. (Or at least, not exactly.) :)

I agree with you in theory. It's certainly possible to have a world setting where there are advantages and drawbacks both to wearing heavy armor and to being a swashbuckler-type. And it's certainly possible to have those advantages and drawbacks apply in such a way as to give the heavily armored character an edge in some situations, and the swashbuckler an edge in others.

Where I think it breaks down is the idea that the two can be/should be balanced against each other directly. For example, two Champions characters might both be reasonable and balanced characters. But does this mean that one of them can't be able to defeat the other a great majority of the time? Not at all. One might have just the right combination of powers to totally hose the other. That doesn't mean they're not both reasonable and balanced. Reasonable and balanced means that they fare about equally well against a typical range of adversaries... not against any one particular adversary.

Similarly here, I can easily envision a setting where there are plenty of valid reasons to choose a knight or to choose a swashbuckler, and dozens of scenarios and adversaries where one or the other might be better suited, depending on the circumstance. But that doesn't mean they have to be an equal match for each other.

IMO, the idea that a knight and a swashbuckler are equally useful and combat-worthy archetypes doesn't mean that rapiers have to work well against plate armor. :)

Or to use another analogy... We say that all men (all people) are created equal. But of course, this is not literally true. Some are taller, some are stronger, some are smarter, etc. They're not literally equal. What we really mean is, they're equally valuable or equally important.

Likewise, a knight and a swashbuckler don't have to be literally equal (an even match for each other in a fight) in order to be equally valuable or equally important characters... or even equally valuable warriors. The knight's equipment gives him an edge when he meets the swashbuckler on the field in battle, but when the battle takes place in the taproom, suddenly the tables are turned. (So to speak. ;) )

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by Old Man
Nor do I see why this discussion is silly. As of FREd, unarmored fighters stand absolutely no chance against armored ones. This may be 'realistic' but surely you can see how it would bother players who prefer the lightly armored warriors that are everywhere in fantasy fiction.

Maybe I'm reading this differantly, but what I'm seeing is an intentional disregard for the disadvantages of heavy armor. Realistically heavy armor is heavy, hot, expensive, causes poor perception, sinks, conducts electricity and heat / cold well, takes a lot of time and requires assistance to put on, requires a big horse to carry it, historically was not used when light weapons were used and may be limited by law to higher social classes.
So all the practical reasons people did not wear armor is apparently not acceptable to Yamo's players, yet heavy armor is the problem, of course heavy armor is unbalanced if you throw out all the things that make it balanced. Thats why I say its silly, if I am reading this wrong I apologize.

As far as light fighters being ineffective, I have played many since the first ed FH came out, played lots in 4th ed, I don't have the new FH yet but unless there have been drastic changes I don't see the problem, that is assuming heavy armor is treated as heavy armor (with all the problems associated), I played several characters with heavy armor as well and they typically met more gruesome ends than the light weights.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
The knight's equipment gives him an edge when he meets the swashbuckler on the field in battle, but when the battle takes place in the taproom, suddenly the tables are turned. (So to speak. ;) )

Tables are turned. Heh heh heh.

While it is true the full plate won't slow the warrior down by itself, I didn't notice anyone mentioning that just about anything added onto this will give it the first level of Encumberance.

As to "this is Hero, I shouldn't have to change it": This is true up to a point. However, you don't have to change the rules, you just have to change the equipment, to me one of the beauties of the system. Any genre convention can be supported by simply changing a few specifics. If you want the Full Plate to slow the warrior down, just add a Side Effect: -3 DCV/Dex Rolls While Worn, worth -1/2 (which doesn't really matter since you're not paying points for it, but nevermind), for example.

Anyway, perhaps it's true that the Tank will slaughter the Swashbuckler, all else being equal. This is because according to what you're telling me, the Tank is ending up built on quite a few more points than the Swashbuckler: the Armor, the Heavy Weapons vs. lighter weapons, and so on. The obvious solution: build the Swash on the same number of points.

Don't look at me that way, I'm not talking about giving him more points just because of concept. I'm talking about allowing equipment (from here on defined as "items you don't pay points for") that is appropriate for the Swashbuckler, just as the Plate Mail is appropriate for your Tank. Blinding powder. Heavy cloaks that can increase DCV (or even blind the opponent when swirled just right). Have extremely well-made rapiers with AP on them. Handy swing lines.

In short, as long as they have the same access to archetype appropriate free equipment, they should easily be able to hold their own.

I do hope no one is thinking, "What's to stop the Tank from getting those?" But if they are: "The same thing that stops the Swashbuckler from buying Plate Mail: concept."

[Monolith]

I think Derek has hit the nail right on the head. The game is not always about balancing two aspects, and neither is D&D. The classic concept of D&D is that the fighters keep the mage alive through levels 1-8 and then the mage keeps the fighters alive from 9-20. :)

The character concept is what should be important. Robin Hood is not stronger than Little John. Little John is not more agile than Robin Hood. It is the diversity of the characters which makes them interesting. In a game you need to accept that some concepts are more powerful than others (even in D&D). Who wants to play a game with 5 Robin Hoods, or 5 Little Johns? I know I would not. I want to play a game with Robin, and Little John, and Will Scarlett, and Maid Marion, and Friar Tuck. Each of those characters brings something to the gaming enviroment. And they do not have to be equally as tough. It is called a role-playing game after all.

And there are ways to add greater character diversity while giving additional power. Perhaps the Swashbuckler Package Deal includes some Martial Arts maneuvers (Dodge, Defensive Strike, block) and the Knight Package Deal does not. 10-12 points of Martial Arts can go a long way to making a Swashbuckler as powerful as a Knight. The Swashbuckler might also be allowed to have the two-weapon fighting abilities, allowing for 2 attacks per Phase, whereas the Knight only get 1, or must do a standard Sweep. The balance between the various Package Deals should not always be in pure raw power.

[Nevenall]

Originally posted by Yamo
Here's a thought: HERO is not a history lesson. HERO is a fantasy game. There were no dragons in medieval Europe, either.


Actually, HERO is more like a set of generic rules a GM can use to create his own roleplaying game.
The thing that, I personally, have always loved about Hero system is that it doesn't sacrifice your character concepts on the altar of game balance like every other system I have ever played.
Hero places the burden of balancing a game on the shoulders of the GM who runs it, which is where it belongs, because every group and every game is different, and you just can't write rules to balance everything in every situation and when you try to you lose more fun then it is worth. IMHO.

That all said, I have seen some people give armor a Dex penalty, or a maximum Dex when wearing it, so with a full suit of chain you have a -3 Dex, or you are limited to a Dex of 15. Maybe a full suit of plate is -5, or -7 Dex, or the most Dex you can use while wearing it is 12.
If you really want to penalize armor, have it affect the wearer's speed. Say you can’t act faster then a speed of 3 in Full plate.
Something that you might also consider is doubling or tripling the listed weights of armor and saying that it represents the encumbrance of the armor, rather then it's actual weight.
Something I might consider myself is having armor reduce the wear’s Dexterity but only for initiative. Then your armor plated tank character will be tough to injure, but will tend to get hit first.
Ultimately though, you will have to balance armor for yourself.

[Alibear]

Yamo, have you thought about basing encumberance on casual Strength instead of on normal strength? I mean, people historically did not take a trip down to the tavern or to the next town in 8PD armour.

(edit) After re.-reading this I thought that I needed to clarify.

Casual Strength is what you can carry and lift without thinking about it, which is perhaps, what a D&D fighter going around nearly all the time in his armour represents. We do not see real world soldiers wearing armour when not at war for lots of reasons already highlighted in this post.

Fighter-lad with 20 Str now has 10 str for the purposes of casual everyday-wear-armour. The armour that he wears "all the time". He could augment that when going to war and take the appropriate penalties inherent in heavy armour and having ten str instead of 20. Is that more clear?

Otherwise, you, as a GM, have to impose some of the problems of walking around 24-7 in full battle armour.

[Alibear]

double post.

[Markdoc]

My two bits on this:

1. Make Str cost 2 points per. That will reduce somewhat the number of tankmonsters (it won't eliminate them tho' - I speak from experience)

2. Consider a change to the encumbrance rules. There is a recent thread here on precisely this topic.

The penalties levied should not be so severe as to make heavy armour unattarctive - not only will the players hate it, but it would be kind of stupid: in real life (as much as that matters) a heavily armoured knight was often considered worth 3-5 lightly-armoured foes even if they were experienced fighters.

cheers, Mark

[tesuji]

IIRC, in HERo5, there is a mention of giving armor a separate DCv penalty on top of or in place of encumbrance. It was mentioned, i think, in the encumbrance rules. It seemed to recognize that the new weight based rules would not cover well the notion of the heavier armors.

As an additional element, any GEAR that causes balance problems might ought to be accounted for in CP. It may be that the problem is the armor being off the chart so to speak.

When comparing the plate armor guy and the swashbuckler guy we see the swashbuckler basing his defense on CV and speeed and combat skills... all of which are paid for in cp, while the tank is basing his on armor which is bought off the table. So, given the armor is basically an EXTRA i would expect it to cause imbalances unless its advantages were offset by its disadvantages to make it a net zero sum.

However, much equipment is not zero sum... swords are not zero sum, neither are bows, neither is armor.

So, one approach might well be to raise starting points to allow armor and weapons and such to be purchased as gear on the cp scale.

[berry04]

If part of the problem is that heavy armored characters get something for free, why not charge them points?

Buy it as armor with a Limitation of say, Only up to the value of the Real Armor worn (-1). This can represent real skill (Armor Familiarity) or just be simply a means to balance the advantages of heavy armor in play.

Thus a character inclined to wear Heavy Armor (PD 8) must spend 12 points while a character who primarily wears light armor (PD 2) would pay 3 points.

If you allow characters to purchase one or more levels of Combat Luck, this may encourage fewer tanks running around in your fantasy games.

[sbarron]

Having just picked up FH last night (Hurray!), I'd like to note that there is more than a full page of text with ideas dedicated exclusively to dealing with this problem (as presented by Yamo). I just skimmed through that section last night, but it seems like we have covered most the ideas presented there during this discussion. Maybe having it in an "official" book will make it more palatable to those hesitant to tweak the rules.

Personally, I think there are plenty of simple fixes available to GMs that will allow light fighters to go head to head with tanks as effectively as they do in the fantasy genre.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by AnotherSkip
Steve mentions that so long as the characters retain all of the penalties of Def 8 (or whatever) they can have it as leathor (or whatever)

Originally posted by Yamo
Not sure what you mean, as I don't have the book yet. Can you explain this statement further?It means that if you want to have 8 DEF armor, and you're willing to accept the normal penalties of 8 DEF armor, you can call the special effect of the armor Plate, Leather, Ring Mail, Gossamer Butterfly Wings, whatever suits your fancy. :)

[McCoid]

Also another thing to consider regarding Full plate mail is that it had to be made to measure and thus took a long time to make, months to a year usually. So generally you can`t get "off the peg" plate mail but with the likes of chain mail which is flexible you can usually get it off the peg so to speak. The time scale involved in creating the plate mail is what usually limited it`s availability plus it was usually only made by very skilled armourers which was a factor in increasing it`s price. While it`s being made the recepient has to be on hand to allow the armourer to size it to him.

[Dauntless]

I think the problem here isn't realism per se, but consistency. If you say that rapiers in your world can hack through plate mail, then you shouldn't have problems with Swashbucklers vs. Knights. The thing is you are butting heads with reality vs. fantasy and saying that the Hero system doesn't allow for this by claiming that all cost-efficient players should buy plate and forego being other character types. By saying that high fantasy campaigns allow for this type of thing (plate mail being cheap and easy to come by), then what's to stop you from having rapiers that can pierce platemail? After all, it's not realistic for everyone to have platemail, so why not have rapiers that can pierce plate?

Since you seem reluctant to bring the real world limitations of plate mail into account, then you should abandon other realistic effects too. Give swashbucklers very effective Buckler shields or dueling weapons. Also, if you allow martial arts moves in this campaign setting, have martial attacks like joint locks that completely bypass armor (and can still be killing attacks...this is EXACTLY why aiki jiu-jitsu was developed, to break bones and necks so that unarmed fighters had a chance of taking out armored samurai...even platemail is useless against neck cranks, and many other joint locks).

I agree with Herolover's initial comments. The trouble here is that although you say that armor doesn't cost character points...just money...really, money is just another form of character points in Heroic campaigns. I mean for a Star Hero campaign, why not give everyone Powered Armor and anti-matter rifles? It's the same difference. Just because you're not paying for it with character points doesn't necessarily mean the system is out of whack. The Hero system makes money a thing that has to be controlled by the GM more, but the "cost" of things should still be a good rule of thumb. If Plate mail is common (which is unrealistic), then make fine quality estocs which were stabbing swords specifically designed to pierce armor during the 12-13th century widely available (and you could simulate this by giving the sword an AP or even a penetrating advantage...a 2 1/2d6 AP attack is going to make even plate mail folks think twice)). Moreover, I would make Plate armor have an activation roll of about a 14-, maybe 15- to cover for the gaps in the armor (particularly at the armpits, the neck, back of the knee and the groin).

To be honest, if your players insist on getting what they want or not play...don't play. I got fed up with players like that that I used to have, and they'd practically throw temper tantrums when they didn't get what they wanted. It shows a lack of maturity and a sign of power gamers as opposed to roleplayers. It was like back in the day when every D&D character and their brother seemed to have a +5 vorpal sword swimming somewhere in their Bag of Holding.

Plate armor isn't "free". And if your players insist it's so, don't hesistate to give their enemies Bec De Corbin's, or Heavy Crossbows. In my campaigns, characters have to earn their money (unless they bought the perk) and even then I'm very careful about it. Give enemies a +5 CSL with a military pick (10pts...and that goes a long way to removing that +8 OCV for head atttacks), or Find Weakness 12- only vs. PlateMail (since plate is common, I'd give this maybe a -1/2 limitation for only 10pts), or give them a special enchanted pick with a CSL+4 that they can use to increase DC or OCV (again, only 10pts). And technically, since this is "equipment" they don't have to pay points for it.

[Mr. Negative]

Although these have been covered to a certain extent by others on this post, I would like to really emphasize two key arguments against changing the rules to "balance" the swashbuckler against the knight.


Given that you are comparing a knight who can spend a smaller portion of his character points on needed Attributes (mostly strength) vs. a swashbuckler who has to spend many more points on Dexterity:

First, you complain that since the armor is "free" (doesn't cost any character points) therefore it makes the knight character concept more combat effective than the swashbuckler. This is true. It also means that the character who takes a longbow is more effective than the one who doesn't have a missile weapon. It means the one with a weapon is more effective than the one without a weapon. The one with a rope and grapnel is more effective (at pit exiting) than the one without a rope and grapnel. Equipment is supposed to make a character more effective. That's why it is lugged around. You could, if you chose, make all your character buy their weapons and armor as in a Champions campaign if it is really important to you that characters whose "concept" is more spartanly equipped be equally effective to the character who chooses to have more equipment.

Second, you are ONLY comparing the effectiveness in COMBAT of the swashbuckler and the Knight. There are two important sub-points here:

First is that the swashbuckler's expenditures of points are useful in many other situations rather than straight damage dealing. He has higher DEX rolls for skill usage, and ability checks. The fighter has spent less points, but Strength is less useful in other situations.

Second is that it is the GM's responsibility to make sure that characters who are not as effective in combat are given other opportunities to shine. It is no more fair to complain that the swashbuckler isn't as effective in combat as the Knight than it would be to complain that the wizard, or the thief, isn't as effective in combat as the knight. Perhaps the player of the swashbuckler CONCEIVED of his character being just as dangerous in close combat as the knight, but again, who is to say that the guy who designed the lockpicking thief didn't CONCEIVE of his character as being just as deadly in combat as the knight (my dextrous fingers allow me to thrust the pick into his eye!). Regardless of player "conception", at some point actual DESIGN of the character must be considered. If you are going to have a game where big heavy weapons wielded by strong men do lots of damage, and big heavy armor protects you from lots of damage, then strong men wielding big heavy weapons and wearing big heavy armor are going to win the damage dealt vs. damage sustained ratio game. If you abandon that idea, then aren't you just changing the "conception bias" from the armored knight to the unarmored swashbuckler? What about the player who felt that being strong, wielding a huge sword, and wearing heavy armor should make his character relatively effective in a fight?

[Pattern Ghost]

Who ever said equipment was free?

That seems to be one of the major complaints. You can simply make equipment cost character points. 0 pts gets you some clothes, a crappy weapon, no armor. 5 pts gets you light armor and a decent weapon, plus a secondary weapon. 10 pts gets you medium armor, a couple of decent weapons, and a hoss. 15 pts gets you tankarmor and whatever "normal" equipment you can justify. Or some permutation. BESM has an attribute called Personal Gear. Each level of PG gets you 1 Major item and 3 Minor items, and there's a list of what common items fall into each category. You can steal that idea, and adapt it to your game, too. Dark Champions (4th ed.) had a method for costing out equipment allowed as well.

There are plenty of ways to make the gear cost points.

The other solution is to use the Real Armor limitation and impose all of the drawbacks already mentioned. Balance things out by putting the group in situations where the swashbuckler shines.

[Markdoc]

>>>>Also another thing to consider regarding Full plate mail is that it had to be made to measure and thus took a long time to make, months to a year usually<<<<

Rubbish. Medieval Europe was full of armouries churning out mix and match plate armour (munition plate) and the output of the larger ones was literally thousands of suits a year.

Fitted armour is better, no doubt, but also takes a few weeks, not months and certainly not a year. Many nobles had suits of plate made for their male children from the age of 5 onwards - it'd be pretty damn pointless if you had to wait a year after the fitting: it wouldn't fit anymore.

In this vein, Wade Breen made an articulated suit of plate for his kid as halloween costume, using only traditional tools, in a few weeks - and he's a hobbyist, not a full time professional with assistants.

Professional armourers, using much the same tools as their medieval forbears exist today - they would go out of business if they sold one suit of armour a year...

I could go on, but you get the point. File this one under "armour myths" along with "only nobles wore plate armour" and "fallen knights could not get up because of the weight of their armour".

cheers, Mark

[AnotherSkip]

I hate falling for the mythos again...


part of the suspension of disbelief..

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost
Who ever said equipment was free?


The book did: Heroic games you usually don't pay for things in. There's really nothing wrong with that as long as either everyone has access to all equipment (Knights and Swashbucklers can wear heavy plate if they like) or if everyone has access to character-appropriate equipment.

However, I'm almost certainly taking your statement too literally :) Besides which, the easiest way to obtain balance if you want to restrict characters to "archetype appropriate equipment" is to make everyone pay for everything.



That seems to be one of the major complaints. You can simply make equipment cost character points. 0 pts gets you some clothes, a crappy weapon, no armor. 5 pts gets you light armor and a decent weapon, plus a secondary weapon.
etc.


That sounds like it could be a modification of Wealth. That works, or you just make them pay for the Armor and weapons normally: really, even the Full Plate with OIF, Real, Normal Weight and so on is not that expensive.

[Pattern Ghost]

Right. What I'm saying is: Make them pay through the nose for the good stuff. The characters don't buy the equipment as powers, but the GM is responsible for setting up the economy. The money to buy the equipment has to come from somewhere.

Now, I'm the kind of GM who'd say, take whatever seems appropriate to the character, end of story. OTOH, I wouldn't mix periods to the degree that DND style fantasy does. If someone wants to balance archetypes, they can assign a character point value to the gear.

[Old Man]

A couple of suggestions that were made in earlier posts/threads: One suggested using casual STR limits to calculate encumbrance - which makes a lot of sense. Another was to classify armor into Light, Medium, and Heavy types. Light Armor has no penalties, Medium Armor is -1 to DCV and Physical Skill Rolls, Heavy Armor is -2 to DCV and Physical Skill Rolls. In addition to these, you have normal encumbrance penalties.

You can also state that DEF only stacks to a certain limit no matter the source. So instead of the DEF 8 tank with Ring of DEF 4 Protection with a total of 12, you have a DEF 8 tank with a ring that adds nothing. I would recommend a limit of 5. Meaning if you want it higher than 5 it has to come from a single source.

On another subject, Steven Brust's world of Dragaera has examples of plate armor and rapier fighters facing against each other. The balancing factors were skill, speed, and in some cases, magic.

[Nemmie]

In the end it is up to the GM to balance the game and make it fun for all players, knights and swashbucklers alike. This does not even require any changing of the rules as the officialy stand. Armour may cost 0 CP, and it may be terribly effective in combat, but you can always let the enemy run away from the armoured knight, or make him trip and fall in the river or something; the swashbuckler would be able to swim to safety, the knight would have to be fished out (quickly). Or you can make a mixed group of opponents: some light types andsome heavy types so the knight would have to go after the heavy types and the swashbuckler after the light types.
You can just leave the rules alone and any theoretical imbalance among characters, after all, you are the GM and control the whole universe: balance the game by tweaking opponents and events.

[Yog Sothoth]

Here are other ideas I have been poping with in my head, which might contributed to the thread.

Also, like using casual STR, which I also think is a great idea (Shadowpup brought it up many times), the total weight carried could be split in different parts. Calculate the encumbrance penalties for armor, then add to that the encumbrance penalties for weight carried in a backpack, then add the encumbrance for the weight of weapons as another part, etc.

Could add up all those - 1 or somethings, or decide that the total encumbrance penalty from all that equal the same level on the FRed encumbrance table. It would in general increase the penalties.

I never tested none of this personnally.

Or as a last resort, since it is FH, I though of using pounds instead of kg when reading the table. I don't know what the result of that would be like. I just though of it now.

Very interesting thread.