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