Heavy armor too efficient?

[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.