Limitation idea – Only in Light Armor

[JamesG]

I’ve been thinking about a Limitation that light fighters, thieves, etc. could take on some of their abilities, to reflect the fact they can not perform those tasks as well if wearing heavy armor. The type of abilities I’m talking about include (but are no means limited to) Two Weapon Fighting, DCV combat levels, Clinging (special effect: advanced climbing skill), etc. Of course, no character would be required to take the limitation on any of these abilities. It is only intended for those whose particular technique is hindered by restrictive armor.

 

I originally considered using these values (version A):

No Armor at all: -1

Armor of DEF 2 or less: -3/4

Armor of DEF 4 or less: -1/2

Armor of DEF 6 or less: -1/4

 

I wasn’t sure if these values were too high, and came up with two ways to scale it back:

 

Version B

No Armor at all: -3/4

Armor of DEF 2 or less: -1/2

Armor of DEF 4 or less: -1/4

 

Version C

No Armor at all: -3/4

Armor of DEF 3 or less: -1/2

Armor of DEF 6 or less: -1/4

 

Mechanically, the way it would work is pretty simple. As long as the user is wearing armor with a DEF rating equal or less than specified, his limited ability functions normally. For each point of DEF over, he suffers a –2 penalty to any skill rolls associated with the limited ability and/or a –1 to OCV and DCV. For instance, a PC with “Armor of DEF 4 or less†on his Two Weapon Fighting would be at –2 OCV and –2 DCV if he utilized the ability wearing DEF 6 Chain Mail. A player can choose not to use an ability at any time. Consider a PC with “Armor of DEF 4 or less†on his +2 DCV levels. Wearing DEF 5 armor, he’d be at –1 OCV and +1 DCV, if he chooses to use the 2 DCV levels. Wearing DEF 6 armor, the –2 DCV penalty totally counteracts the skill levels, so the player would never have a reason to want to use them. Note that all these penalties are cumulative with any encumbrance penalties.

 

Magical Armor should be considered to be the DEF of its base type, for the purposes of this limitation. As long as heavier armors are at least as frequently magical as lighter armors, this should not present a balance issue. The player who thinks he’s “cheating the system†by wearing a DEF 6 suit of magical Brigandine (which only “counts†as DEF 4 for the purpose of this limitation) may reconsider when he realizes the knight is wearing a DEF 10 suit of magical heavy plate.

 

For sectional armor, the Average DEF should be used to determine if the armor incurs any penalties due to this limitation.

 

What do you all think? Would you allow the limitation on your game, and if so what version (A, B or C)? If you would not allow it, why not? Thanks in advance for anyone who takes the time to answer.

[RadeFox]

I like the idea, very much. Might have to redo some issues with my wardancer.

 

You know, I just discovered, the hero designer wont let you put limitations or adantages on Martial Arts. I wonder why this is. The limitation, as above, Not in Heavy Armor, seems a very sound limitation for a martial artist/monk type to be able to use in a setting where armor use is common, like most fantasy games. Anyone have ideas on this?

[Markdoc]

Knowing nothing of the internal workings of Heromaker, I can only speculate.

 

But Martial arts (as long as you don't buy too many maneuvers) are already pretty cheap for what you get. In previous discussions with the Hero guys, putting limitations on martial maneuvers was discussed and the general conclusion was that in general it was bad idea.

 

So maybe that is why.

 

As to the original suggestion, I would go for B. If the "light armour" limitation is to mean anything it has to be a limitation: giving a limitation on DEF6 means that Chainmail is "light armour" and those saved points can be used to buy combat luck giving you DEF 10 "lightly-armoured" rogues.

 

Ugh.

 

Instead of this approach, I prefer to enforce a DCV/skill roll/PER penalty on armor across the board.*

 

That makes it advantageous for all characters to occasionally doff their metal skins ("Whaddaya mean, i take a penalty to my high society roll, just because I haven't taken my plate armour off for 6 days?")

 

cheers, Mark

 

 

 

 

*There are always people who bleat that armour isn't really "that" encumbering. Having both worn armour and done lots of activities (rock climbing, etc) where you carry extra weight it is pretty clear to me that it does not take much to throw your balance off - even when the weight is distributed the way armour is (sorta).

[AnotherSkip]

Originally posted by Markdoc

 

*There are always people who bleat that armour isn't really "that" encumbering. Having both worn armour and done lots of activities (rock climbing, etc) where you carry extra weight it is pretty clear to me that it does not take much to throw your balance off - even when the weight is distributed the way armour is (sorta).

 

Being one of those Bleaters...

Yeah I agree there should be a penalty for wearing armor, how much is the question. I laugh in the face of people who insist that you would automatically drown in chainmail. What do you think a "shark proof" suit is made out of? Nagahide?

 

 

I dont have a problem with _a_ line, the main problem like with every thing else in any system not based totally upon realism is _where_ the line is to be drawn.

[Vondy]

I think there should be a penalty for wearing armor applied to many skills.

 

I don't think there should be a limitation applied to reduce the price of skills for it.

 

GM applied limitation: delicate skill in armor -4.

[slikmar]

I have to say am against the idea of giving bonus points for not wearing armor. Instead I like the offset idea of penalties for wearing Armor. Possible Example:

Armor Value/4 round up (1-4 = 1, 5-8 = 2) ocv/dcv penalty

Delicate/Stealth/acrobatic based skills = Armor value /2 round in favor of char as a penalty to roll

Normal Movement = armor value /3 round in favor of character in subtration from inches of movement.

 

Just my 2 cents worth, but in a fantasy game especially, heavier armors can be game breakers (consider most attacks by weapon appear to be in the 4-6 damage class, how much difference is being able to wear a 6 or 8 point armor in addition to your 3-4 pd for taking damage, especially body.

[Markdoc]

>>> Yeah I agree there should be a penalty for wearing armor, how much is the question. I laugh in the face of people who insist that you would automatically drown in chainmail. What do you think a "shark proof" suit is made out of? Nagahide?<<<<

 

Well, if you don't take the chainmail off, or you stay in the water very long, you WILL sink: that's why you wear a bouyancy compensator if you are wearing a shark suit. Still - it was possible for a strong man to stay afloat in chain for a short period of time, just as it was true that most mailed knights who fell into deep water immediately sank and drowned (probably in part because they were weak swimmers to start with).

 

 

>>I dont have a problem with _a_ line, the main problem like with every thing else in any system not based totally upon realism is _where_ the line is to be drawn.<<<

 

Agreed. Since even what a -3 to your skill roll constitutes is open to debate, I think exactly where to draw that line will always be an issue of debate.

 

Also, setting a general rule is by definition going to be pretty loose. To take DEX-based skills as an example, realistically, plate armour would not inhibit your Riding skill too much, it would severely reduce your climbing ability, where the ability to twist around or bend your torso and limbs is often important, and it would essentially prevent you using contortionist at all.

 

But I have no patience to try to generate a list of all skills and match them with all armours to assign "reasonable penalties" in each case. So I go for a general rule. -1 for light armour, -2 to medium and -3 for heavy - in which these categories are defined partly by weight but also partly by bulk (Lamellar being generally lighter, but less flexible than mail, for example).

 

I have stuck with this simplistic approach because it serves the function I want: a -2 or -3 is severe enough that it makes my players consider exactly how much armour they want for a given task. But at the same time, -3 is not so severe that they they choose to wear light armour when they are expecting a good fight - they always want the heaviest they can get. I also allow characters to buy levels to offset armour penalties, so if they are prepared to train lots (ie: spend xp.s) then they can ameliorate the problem.

 

Works for me :-)

 

cheers, Mark

[JamesG]

Markdoc, slikmar,

 

Are the penalty systems you propose, based on the "type" or DEF of the armor, in addition to the existing encumbrance penalties, or a replacement for them?

 

PS - Of my original suggestions, I'm leaning towards Version B, with an increase in the penalties for wearing heavier armor, or scrappng the idea entirely.

[slikmar]

In my case, would have to say a replacement system, dont know enough about the encumbrance rules, and not wishing to force my players into more math tracking then i have to. I was basing my numbers off of the Armor values given in Fred (forget which page) Sidebar on fantasy armors, seemed to be an easy formula to use. Following is the final numbers I am going with. Also note that i will be basing magical armors on the basic armor type (i.e. Magical Chain even if higher then 5 armor will still be based on the 5 armor numbers for penalties).

ARMOR PENALTIES

A. OCV/DCV = ARMOR VALUE DIVIDED BY 3 ROUND DOWN (0-2 = 0, 3-5 = -1, 6-8 = -2, ETC)

B. DEXTERITY BASED SKILLS = ARMOR VALUE DIVIDED BY 2 ROUND UP – 1 (0-2 = 0, 3-4 = -1, 5-6 = -2, ETC)

C. MOVEMENT PENALTY = ARMOR VALUE DIVIDED BY 3 ROUND DOWN (SEE EXAMPLE A.) IN MINUSES TO INCHES.

I will probably not allow skill levels to offset armor penalties as i dont believe these are devastatingly high values, though of course, skill with a weapon will in some ways offset it.

[Markdoc]

Sorry, I should have specified: these are minimum values.

 

In general, the new encumbrance table is thought to be a bit easy on players - most of whom have high STR. There has been discussion on the boards here of a variety of alternate systems.

 

This may well be the result of claims that the 4th Ed. table was too severe :-)

 

My approach is to use the standard encumbrance tables, but assign the penalties I gave for armour (-1/-2/-3) as minimums. That's because armour, being worn, encumbers you less than carrying the same weight in a backpack, but it hinders your perception and flexibility and it induces fatigue (overheating) which also reduces your chances at most skills.

 

So....I take the weight of armour into account when figuring encumbrance, but the penalty can never be LESS than that assigned for the armour unless the character buys levels to offset the penalties. Only to offset armour penalties, I rate at -1. Since the smallest level you can limit is 5 points, this means in practice 2.5 points per level. 5 point levels can be used for a group of skills, so you could use a 5 point level to (for example)prevent penalties on magical skills such as casting, detection, etc. In general, though people just buy it to offset the penalty on DCV.

 

Nobody has ever asked, but I would allow, for example, people to buy an 8 point level for larger groups of skills (eg: only to offset combat penalties, -1) or a 10 point level to offset all penalties for amour (to justify this the character would have to practically live in armour, but that's another issue...)

 

the rationale behind this is that players can buy positive levels in skills, PER, DCV, etc which would effectively negate the penalties anyway. "Only in armour" is a valid limitationin my game, so why not?

 

How this works in practice: a STR 20 fighter in plate (using the standard encumbrance rules) would be at -1.

 

Using my house rule he is at -3. However, since that -3 reflects bulk, noise made while moving and lack of flexibility, as much as weight, he can carry a crapload of stuff without any further penalty, until what he is carrying (armour + stuff) pushes him into the -4 category.

 

In contrast, a really puny guy might be at -4 right off the bat in plate armour. In that case he gets the -4, with worse to come as he loads up on more gear :-).

 

Short version: I use the standard encumbrance table, but assign a minimum penalty. I like this system: it's simple, and has been extensively (3 different groups, about 12 players and more than 6 years of playing time) playtested.

 

cheers, Mark

[slikmar]

Hmmm Markdoc,

I may have to go and reread the new encumbrance rules for FrED. I think i like your idea of doing it somewhat and may modify my system to use my formulas as minimums like you do.