New GM/How do I balance Armor?

[Guest Green Giant]

I have recently started running a fantasy HERO campaign and have run into an irritaion regarding heavily armored charcters.

I have mixed party of two light fighting elves, a hobbit thief, and a heavily armored knight. How do I balance encounters so that it is challenging combat for the knight while not completely slaughtering the characters without massive amounts of armor. The 6-8 def of resistant armor make almost all arrows and typical melee weapons bounce off of the knight. I am utilizing dex based skill penalties and other mundane difficulties with donning armor, but it takes pretty threatening creatures to put the fear in the player. Do you just have to get through the armor with big stun damage or use some form of AP. The campaign is roughly the same as the old fantasy genre books with all powers coming either from racial packages or spells.

-Thanks

[Old Man]

If it makes you feel any better, you have a pretty common problem. Pre-5th ed, DCV penalties for armor were not dependent on STR, so your 7 DEF tank would have been at -3 DCV regardless (and then made up for it with a large shield, but I digress). If you don't have a penalty like this in play, consider making one.

 

Otherwise, you could turn up the frequency of pick-wielding bad guys, like you suggest. It'll be pretty obvious discrimination, though, unless you run some kind of killing-the-evil-dwarves story arc.

 

A more general solution is to confront the party with inaccurate but high-damage bad guys. Assuming your light fighters have a significantly higher DCV than the tank, try to calibrate bad guy OCV such that they hit elves on 7- while the tank is hit on 11-. If the baddies are doing about 2d6K, they'll inflict few crippling wounds but plenty of stun on the tank. If the tank's using a shield, start counting shield damage, if not armor damage. (They don't last long.) This does run some risk of one-shotting one of your light guys, but overall it ought to balance a bit better.

 

To take this to an extreme, confront the party with really big, high-damage critters, one or two at a time. If a giant swings for 4d6K it matters little how much armor you wear. Yet if the party outnumbers the giant, they can wolfpack it--everyone reserves, giant picks a target, target dodges, everyone else gets a swing, lather, rinse, repeat.

 

Another idea is to take the group into an environment where tankmail is a liability. There's a good page or two in 5th about why you don't wear full plate in the desert.

 

Finally, make sure that the tank is _always_ the one who gets mind controlled.

[Ternaugh]

Try a rogue with a stiletto. You have a nasty AP attack (by targeting the joints in the armor), coupled with the stealth needed to get up close.

 

Or, for a change of pace, get that fighter out of the armor--drop him in water, heat it up, chill it, use lightning, lock up the joints, have little itchy bugs attack (NND, of course). Hit it with a Potion of Rusting. Require the party to be stealthy to get by a nasty encounter.

 

Or, present him with a foe as heavily armored as he is, and let them bash it out. For the others, let them take care of lesser opponents, or those with ranged weapons. Or let him fight a few mounted knights.

 

Trip him.To that end, try this:

 

Quarterstaff Combat Package

This package is often employed by city guards and others who wish merely to restrain or subdue.

Prod/strike (Strike 5 pts.)

Swing (Offensive Strike 5 pts.)

Knockdown (Legsweep 3 pts.)

Parry (Martial Block 4 pts.)

Disarm (Martial Disarm 4 pts.)

Total: 21 points

 

Skills:

WF: Quarterstaff

Breakfall

 

 

Just a few ideas...

 

JoeG

[LordGhee]

Dear Green Gaint,

 

Just zen it. Now this dose not seem like any help but in a D and D game you would have a group that was mixed and would not blink. In the ten FH games I have run in and the 6 or so I have been in I learned that there are different styles of play. I used all the mod and encumbreance rules. I have played tanks, a plate armoured Dwarf to a MA ( The army of the Tree) and each party had different armour classes. If deeeerent armour is avb. then that is what will happen.

What I also learn is the cultrue behind armour, if you are in someone elses land then the wearing of armour is consider an act of war or at least a breach of the peace. One needs a writ or to be part of a caravan gaurd ect. If the armour dude needs a challenge then have three peasent surround him and start pelting him with dirt dodging, then when blind tackal him down! Armour is worn because it is protection.

Hope this helps

Lord Ghee

 

[Spyritwind]

There are probably a few ways of looking at this. Depending on the armor encumberance rules you're using your knight could suffer from a lower DCV and there fore get hit more often. The rules from Fred really don't do justice to game balance issue in regards to heroic level characters wearing armor. If the knight were suffereing at least a -3 DCV that might help to balance issues.

 

In theory, the elves and halfling would, or at least could have higher DCV's than the knight and not get hit as often. Since the Hero system is primary based on stun and not getting knocked out the knight may still take stun damage even if no body is taken. I do realize though that a natural pd of eight with full plate on is still difficult from a normal grunt with only a 1D6, or 1D6+1 attack to do any stun damage.

 

Other non combat things to consider is things like not being able to sneak well, climb ropes, swim, etc.

 

Assuming the knight in the armor is definately the, or at least one of the 'fighters' of the group then they should be good at ... er ... fighting. If the other characters are not primarly fighter types then they shouldn't be expected to measure up the tank of the party in combat. Those characters should of course have other abilities to contribute to the parties adventuring success.

 

That to say that not all the characters should balance out in terms of combat. If there is multiple fighter types in the group and the tank is over whelming comparred to the other one then just make certain the armor is limiting the DCV of the fighter. The lightly armored fighter will still probably be at a disadvantage, but hopefully not too much.

 

Lower DVC, End at the end of every turn and even a loss of running movement can be impossed for medium and heavy armors. The lighter armored fighter maintains agility, mobility, potential sneakiness, etc.

 

You could also gear some of your encounters so that there is one nastier thing with some underlings. The 'weaker' characters could handle the weaker things while the tank of the party could handle to tougher monster, or whatever. This is not plausable all the time, but after awhile the knight will probably just go for the big thing realizing he/she is the one that needs to tackle it. If the tank and the party doesn't realize this at first they should adjust quickly to survive. For example:

 

You could toss out eight goblins lead by a great orc. The tank of the group should probably be the one to postition him/her self to lock horns with the great orc while the others polish up the goblins.

 

Just some thoughts. Hope they help.

[Markdoc]

Like most Fantasy GMs, I have had this problem. And like already suggested, i have thrown out the FREd encumbrance table.

 

I levy the following penalties for armour - light, -1, medium, -2 and heavy, -3. This aplies to PER rolls, DEX-type rolls (climbing walls, juggling, etc) you need to decide what falls into these categories - for me it's DEF 1-3, 4-5 and 6+, modified by how much coverage you have.

 

This rewards the lightly armoured fighters by making them a wee bit harder to hit and is justified not so much by weight as the fact that armour overheats you, restricts your movement and your vision, and is just plain noisy. Sure i've seen armoured guys do rolls and backflips, but I have never seen an armoured guy do it as easily as an unarmored guy.

 

Secondly - and more importantly - I restrict the situations where people can wear armour. If you want to visit the important official, or the secretive mage, no way are you going to get inside their castles wearing obvious armour.

 

Likewise, in many societies, riding cross country in full armour was like declaration that you were looking for a fight. If necessary inflict armour-all-the-time players with crippling sores and skin diseases. These were real problems that afflicted medieval soldiers when they were compelled to wear armour for long periods.

 

That doesn't mean the characters can't HAVE heavy armour. My players used it for battles, dungeon-bashing and midnight assaults. It's just that a lot of the time, they carried it in armour boxes. Which, funnily enough, is what medieval warriors used to do a lot of the time.

 

The bonus was, when the players broke out the heavy armour, they felt really boss - since it made them much tougher than they normally were.

 

cheers, Mark

[Yamo]

If your players' enemies are smart, they're going to employ armor piercing weapons and lots of called shots at unarmored areas when facing foes in heavy plate. Think about it.

 

And what about attacks that armor won't protect against? Strongdar the Bold's trusty platemail is going to provide no protection against mind control, mental attacks, NND poison gas attacks, and such. Hell, it might well make a bolt of lighting hurt more!

[Talon]

I have exhaustion and encumbrance rules at http://www.shalott.com/hero (seems to be down at the moment) that help somewhat. However, IMO a heavy armor character is going to be better in combat than a light armor character, all other things being equal. After all, who is better in combat, a cop or a cop with Kevlar on? In my games, I try to emphasize the skill penalties and END usage (via optional rules).

[Monolith]

I do not play a lot of fantasy games, but personally I do not worry about armor encumberance at all. While encumberance is realistic, it is seldom realistic within the genre. Fantasy characaters from books are never bothered by wearing heavier armors. Conan does not become less combat efficient in Chain over Leather. Aragorn does not become exhausted by wearing battle-armor over simple ranger armor. Ultimately, unless the character in the story is a thief, armor is never even a factor in fantasy literature; and in many cases it is not even a factor then.

 

As my sig file says, to me the game should be played to emulate the genre, not the reality of the enviroment.

[Stephen_H-G]

If you use the encumbrance rules it kinda balances out. They give penalties to DCV when wearing armor.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Monolith

As my sig file says, to me the game should be played to emulate the genre, not the reality of the enviroment.

 

That's what we're trying to do. Genre emulation requires the possibility of lightly armored characters who are very difficult to hit. If there are no penalties for wearing armor, then there is no advantage to not wearing armor, and every player will dress their characters in full plate--even the mage. Legolas never wore heavy armor throughout all three books.

 

Having no armor penalties would do the opposite of what you intend--it would make things more realistic at the expense of genre emulation. In Real Life, a warrior in a good suit of plate isn't slowed by it much, certainly not enough to make him a lumbering target. Otherwise no one would have bothered.

[Yamo]

every player will dress their characters in full plate--even the mage. Legolas never wore heavy armor throughout all three books.

 

Combat Luck?

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Old Man

If there are no penalties for wearing armor, then there is no advantage to not wearing armor, and every player will dress their characters in full plate--even the mage.

My answer here would be, so what? If a mage wants to wear full plate, then he should be allowed to wear it. To me it is just that simple.

 

One of the problems I have always found with Fantasy Hero is that everyone who tries to play it always ends up emulating D&D: Mages do not wear armor, priests use blunt weapons, ect. To me, once you start to do that you have failed the HERO System. If your purpose is to emulate D&D-style fantasy, then just play D&D, IMO.

 

When I play Fantasy Hero I want to be Elric (accomplished mage who wears armor and uses a sword). I do not want to play a mage who must wear robes and use a dagger or staff.

 

Legolas never wore heavy armor throughout all three books.

To me this is more of a social issue than game issue. Elves, unless going into a major battle, wear light armor. Not because it is less encumbering, but because "elven chain" makes less noise when they are stalking through the woods. It is part of their society like wearing a turbin is in some human societies.

 

I just do not like restrictions on a HERO System game. I want to be able to play characters like those I read about. I want to play Lancelot (stronger of arm) who fights Tristin (stronger of wind) all day long while wearing full armor. I want to play Achilles who has resistant skin from being dunked into the Styx. I want to play Elric wearing battle armor and shooting off lightning bolts. I want to emulate the heroes of the fiction I have read. Utimately I think that is what we all want.

 

Perhaps if you are really hung up on the concept of people wearing different armor types, instead of having a Enc modifier, just give the various types of armor a STR Minimum. That way if someone wants to wear chain, they must have a 13 STR. It does not matter what "class" the character is, they must just have the 13 STR to be able to wear the armor. That way you do not get 8 STR frail mages wearing full plate.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Monolith

I just do not like restrictions on a HERO System game. I want to be able to play characters like those I read about.

 

So do I. I want to be able to play lightly armored, fast characters and still be competitive with my plate-wearing companions. I want to play Legolas, who slaughters dozens of orcs without wearing so much as chainmail. I want to play Robin Hood. I want to play the Gray Mouser. I want to play Rhialto and Cugel and Merlin. I want to play all of these without feeling that I'm being stupid by not cladding them all in steel. I want there to be some reason why heroes might not want to spend most of their adventures encased in plate.

 

You say you don't want restrictions on a HERO campaign, but what you're really doing is penalizing players who don't want to run armored characters. That sounds like a restriction to me.

[Talon]

I have found that a combination of charging more END for encumbered characters to move and applying CV penaties as END decreases is a great way to balance heavy and light armor characters. If the light armor people can move around a lot, they will quickly gain the upper hand as the heavy armor people become tired.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Monolith

My answer here would be, so what? If a mage wants to wear full plate, then he should be allowed to wear it. To me it is just that simple.

 

I think you're missing the point by a little bit. Some GMs have problems presenting a challenge to groups of characters that have differing levels of protection. Frankly I don't care if my mages wear full plate. The problem is giving the plate wearing mage a good fight while not wiping out his non-armored buddies.

 

A thought just occured to me, let the monster/orc/whatever push it's STR when fighting the armored guy - it knows that it will take a harder swing to hurt him (unless the monster is unintelligent). Can you push STR in FH?

 

Regarding your point, if there are no penalties to wearing armor then most players will do it because it would be foolish not to, however, the player that wanted to play a light/no armor type of character would be screwed.

[Yamo]

So do I. I want to be able to play lightly armored, fast characters and still be competitive with my plate-wearing companions. I want to play Legolas, who slaughters dozens of orcs without wearing so much as chainmail. I want to play Robin Hood. I want to play the Gray Mouser. I want to play Rhialto and Cugel and Merlin.

 

For the last time: Combat Luck, Combat Luck, Combat Luck!

[Vondy]

Is the tanks combat values just as high as the lightly armored fairies, or is it lower because he put more points into strength and con than they did?

 

If they're harder to hit than he is I don't see an imbalance, and really, even then there isn't one. Who said elves don't wear plate or chain? Maybe they carve them out of "ironwood" or "witchwood" or something.

 

If they choose to go about without armor that's their choice. So the question is how do you balance it so they don't get killed?

 

Option 1:

 

Don't do anything. Let them run about without armor and reap the rewards and consquences. On the one hand they're major attack fodder. On the other hand they won't sink when knocked into the river, or clank when stealthing about.

 

Option 2:

 

Penalize the character with the armor. There's a problem with this: he spent just as many points as his fellows did, but used his money for armor instead of other things (a choice the players must make). If you increase the penalties (beyond those in the book) you're penalizing the player for spending his cash on armor, or picking a more traditional walking tank design.

 

Option 3:

 

Creative Game Mastering. That's right, have the big monster focus on the tank and pay less attention to the lightly armored chaps. Not entirely fair, but it avoids penalizing someone for their spending habits. This could also be translated into: forcing situations where ARMOR is a must (heavy weapons combat), and then forcing other situations where ARMOR is a musn't (commando tactics, social situation, etc).

 

This will force all of the players to meet in the middle. The faries will realize they may need to invest in some armor (chain at least) for situations where they know combat is going to come, and make the tank invest in some finesse (point wise) to stay alive when the armor is off.

 

I'd go with #1, but #3 is also an option. I really don't like #2.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Old Man

I want to play all of these without feeling that I'm being stupid by not cladding them all in steel. I want there to be some reason why heroes might not want to spend most of their adventures encased in plate.

What you are describing has nothing to do with armor weight. What you are describing is altered combat; it is a specific style and it is very simple to do. You use these things called Combat Maneuvers. Instead of allowing the orc to hit you (and hoping your armor will absorb the damage) you do these maneuvers called Block, Shield Block, Dodge, Dive For Cover, Roll With The Blow, ect. You do not need armor if you can do any of those maneuvers well.

 

When you build a warrior and put him in full plate because you know he will hardly ever take body, you are playing a specific style of game. When you build a warrior and give him the Fencing Package, you are playing a different style of warrior. Too many people buy armor and play the "hit me, I will survive the blow game" instead of playing the "your sword cannot hit me" game. Literature follows the second style of play, D&D games follow the first.

 

IMO, Legolas does not get hit because he is not wearing armor. Legolas does not get hit because he is fighting like a fencer, and using combat maneuvers to avoid getting hit.

[Guest Green Giant]

Thankyou all for all the well thought input.

I guess I am having problems with making the heavily armored character such a key player when it comes down to most climactic combat encounters.

 

"Fear not little friends, I will handle the dragon again, you may play with the goblins and large insects."

 

I suppose the survivability of armored characters is realistic, but I was wanting to aim for a more adventurous experience. I had a similar problem with Fantasy GURPS, were everyone who did not buy the armor or STR could not compete. The fantasy I am thinking of is one where lightly or unarmored charcters can fight side by side with the pounding knights. Not on equal footing but having a closer match in combat efectiveness. I am looking for that one little rules tweak to bring the armor down a notch so I don't have to make transparently lopsided encounters. Something that won't introduce blantant narrative elements simply to cause problems for armored charcters.

-Green

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Shadowpup

I think you're missing the point by a little bit. Some GMs have problems presenting a challenge to groups of characters that have differing levels of protection. Frankly I don't care if my mages wear full plate. The problem is giving the plate wearing mage a good fight while not wiping out his non-armored buddies.

I was not address the point at all. I was address the subsequent encumberance issues.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Green Giant

Thankyou all for all the well thought input.

I guess I am having problems with making the heavily armored character such a key player when it comes down to most climactic combat encounters.

As the GM you have the ultimate control. You get to determine when the character is hit, how hard the character is hit, where the character is hit, etc. A simple Broadsword can do 9 BODY. So tell the player he took and 8 BODY shot to the stomach. The 32 STUN will have a decent chance of Stunning the character, and at the very least it will do no BODY damage but will knock him down to less than half total STUN.

 

You can also "sniper" the character by having the lesser enemies hit unarmored areas. Let him take a couple of hand or knee shots. 1/2 BODY shots on non-armored locations are a very good way to widdle a tank down. As the GM, your side of the events do not have to be random. As long as you are fair and do not try to "punish" the character for taking heavy there is no problem with you making this go the way you want.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Monolith

What you are describing has nothing to do with armor weight. What you are describing is altered combat; it is a specific style and it is very simple to do. You use these things called Combat Maneuvers. Instead of allowing the orc to hit you (and hoping your armor will absorb the damage) you do these maneuvers called Block, Shield Block, Dodge, Dive For Cover, Roll With The Blow, ect. You do not need armor if you can do any of those maneuvers well.

 

But wearing armor doesn't preclude you from doing any of this. Here, I'll ask a specific question: why would a player choose to play a lightly armored character in your campaign, knowing that he could dress that character in 8 DEF head to toe for no penalty?

 

When you build a warrior and put him in full plate because you know he will hardly ever take body, you are playing a specific style of game. When you build a warrior and give him the Fencing Package, you are playing a different style of warrior. Too many people buy armor and play the "hit me, I will survive the blow game" instead of playing the "your sword cannot hit me" game. Literature follows the second style of play, D&D games follow the first.

 

Again, armor has nothing to do with what weapon maneuvers you can use.

 

IMO, Legolas does not get hit because he is not wearing armor. Legolas does not get hit because he is fighting like a fencer, and using combat maneuvers to avoid getting hit.

 

So explain to me why Legolas never wears heavy armor. Plate doesn't prevent him from blocking and dodging. In the Monolith Campaign, where there is no penalty whatsoever for wearing tankmail, why not wear it as insurance in case he rolls an 18 for a block? Why does the Monolith Campaign hand out this free bonus to tanks, leaving the light fighters to spend all their phases blocking and dodging while the tanks get all the kills? Because that's exactly the problem Green Giant is having.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Green Giant

The fantasy I am thinking of is one where lightly or unarmored charcters can fight side by side with the pounding knights. Not on equal footing but having a closer match in combat efectiveness. I am looking for that one little rules tweak to bring the armor down a notch so I don't have to make transparently lopsided encounters. Something that won't introduce blantant narrative elements simply to cause problems for armored charcters.

-Green

 

You need to introduce an armor penalty, if you don't have one already. Here's the chart out of 1st ed FH, which is more lenient than the 4th ed chart, but I haven't got the 4th ed chart with me right now:

 

Weight (kg)/DCV and DEX roll penalty/END cost per turn

0-4.8 -- -0 0

4.9-6.4 -- -1 1

6.5-9.5 -- -1 2

9.6-12.5 -- -2 3

12.6-19 -- -2 4

19.1-25 -- -3 5

25.1-37 -- -3 6

37.1-50 -- -4 7

>50 -- -4 8

 

Note that it is not dependent on STR.

 

Your tank player will scream if you try to impose this, of course. You may have to bite the bullet and explain to him that his character is just so much tougher than the others that it's not fair to the other players. I can't think of a gentler way to put it.

[Greenstar]

There are also metagame ways to restrict the armor that several epople have touched on. I'm just cranking up a FH game, and to try and avoid these same problems I'm looking at doing the following:

 

1. Armor is expensive. Particularly the heavy stuff. REALLY expensive.

 

2. Armor makes a statement, and that statement is "Let's fight!" It's not going to be worn casually at all (save perhaps DEF 1 stuff like leather or furs in cold weather)

 

3. Armor takes END to fight in. Still working out the details, as I'll use sectional armor, but it'll be along the lines of the 4th ed. table

 

4. Armor takes even MORE END in hot weather. And it slows your running, leaping, etc. Plus long-term wear will give you injuries, rashes, and make you smell bad.

 

5. Armor can be damaged, and must be fixed. Still working out the details to balance easy of play with game effects.

 

6. Helmets, in particular, will reduce PER rolls, sometimes a lot (depending on the type of helmet worn).

 

Now, all this will restrict the tank somewhat. But really - knights were armored like that for a reason - it gave them a huge edge in combat. They could just wade through the groundlings and not worry too much about getting hurt. That's why knights tended to fight each other, as the commoners were "beneath them". But when it had it's drawbacks, they were big ones (the mud at Agincourt, for example).