Heavy armor too efficient?

[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, Cliff, C) Red Dragon by A) the rock, 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.

 

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]

D&D 3.0/3.5

 

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