Weapon Types vs. Armor Types

[Brian Stanfield]

This isn't so much a specific question as it is a request for feedback on how people have tried to introduce some granularity into armor and weapon selection. I know many of you have more experience with actual medieval weaponry and can offer some great insight.

 

Fantasy Hero 6e offers some ideas on how to offer variety to weapons in a fantasy setting. On p. 205 it says:

• Bashing damage weapons: weapon automatically has +1 STUN Multiplier (or an additional +1) if the wielder succeeds with a STR (or DEX) Roll when he attacks; leather and plate armors only provide half PD against Bashing weapons
• Slashing damage weapons: weapon gains +1 DC (which counts as base damage) against targets with no Resistant Defense (or when it hits a Hit Location with no Resistant Defense) if the wielder succeeds with a STR (or DEX) Roll when he attacks; leather armors only provide half PD against Slashing weapons
• Piercing damage weapons: weapon is automatically Armor Piercing if the wielder succeeds with a STR (or DEX) Roll when he attacks (if weapon is already Armor Piercing, it becomes double AP); chainmail and like armors only provide half PD against Piercing weapons

I like the ideas presented here, but I'm wondering how much variation is possible or even desirable when considering weapon types versus armor types. 

 

For example, I was always a "sword first" kind of fantasy player. This was D&D conditioning. Daggers and short swords were a stupid waste of time, and polearms were ridiculously awkward. What good was a mace, anyway? Long sword all the way, unless I was strong enough for a two-handed sword. And then all my weapon proficiencies went into that one single weapon. I went into this in a Weapon Speed discussion already. That was thoroughly beaten to death, but with lots of great insight. I'm hoping to get something like that here.

 

I'm looking at this now with the idea that all those different weapons have different purposes. A sword isn't always the right option. Is your foe covered head to toe in plate mail? Clanging away with a sword will only get the sword broken. This is where a mace comes in handy, for instance. Or perhaps an axe, which can focus more chopping power against armor. Or a dagger for getting into the little gaps. Or armor piercing crossbow bolts. There are countless examples, each showing how what I used to think of as "stupid" weapon choices may actually be more reasonable. 

 

I'd like to promote more creative weapon specialization in my players, without it simply being an aesthetic/fetishistic choice based on what looks cool. I'm cool with looking cool, but I'd also like to have some incentive for selection of different weapons. 

 

For example, the older I get the more handy I realize an axe can be. It's a great tool in a lot of ways, and a pretty darn effective weapon too. Now I'd be more liable to grab an axe than a sword, and I'm actually trained in sword IRL. I suppose a sword can be used to break down doors or fell trees, but the axe is designed to do exactly those things. So by extension, what is it most effective against as a weapon?

 

This then raises all kinds of new questions. Are there more than the 3 damage categories listed above that would be useful without overlapping too much? Is "chopping" different from "slashing"? Is there something a sword is better at than an axe? Is some armor more or less vulnerable to a mace? 

 

The converse question, then, is what armor types pair against what damage types? Which armors are more or less vulnerable to each type of damage? Is there really a difference between getting hit fully by an axe versus a sword (I mean really, not just in terms of dice rolled)?

 

Do any of you have some ideas about armor types versus weapon types that have worked, or have you found the 3 categories listed above from Fantasy Hero 6e to be sufficient? I'm curious of your experience and insight.

[LoneWolf]

I think this is a gross oversimplification of weapons.  The problems are that many weapons can actually be used to deal other types of damage besides their primary damage.  Most swords for example have both a point and an edge.  Polearms often incorporate multiple methods of damage.   For example a halberd in reality can deal any of the three types of damage.  It has both an edge and a spike.  You can even use the haft of the weapon like as a staff for bashing damage.

 

For the most part any advantage from a weapon should be built into the weapon.  I do not yet have access to the 6th edition Fantasy Hero, but in 5th edition many of the weapons listed have advantages already built in. 

 

All armor has padding under it especially plate.  What the armor really does is to distribute the force of the blow over a wider area and allow the padding to absorb the force of the blow.  Without the padding the armor will not do the job it is supposed to.  A person I knew made a helmet for the SCA but used substandard padding.  One shot to the head knocked him out.  The hit was not even that hard or fast. After the more experience members saw what he was using for padding they told him not to use that and to get thicker more absorbent padding.  Once he did that it worked much better and he was not in danger.

[Old Man]

I've always wanted to implement something similar, but never got around to trying to stat it out.  LoneWolf is right in that many weapons have multiple damage modes; the solution to that is to stat out each damage mode and let the player choose which one he wants to use.  Then you have to turn around and figure out the DEF for each type of armor against each type of damage.  It will be hard to keep this from getting unwieldy, but it can probably be done.

 

Personally I'd limit damage types as much as possible.  Slashing, piercing, and bashing damage covers all physical weapons I can think of; variations can be defined using armor piercing and/or reduced pen. 

[Doc Democracy]

You know, when I read this my thoughts very quickly went to the fact that players are very result oriented.  I think that the way to get variety in the weapons that players choose is not to give different weapons different abilities (such as armour piercing) but instead to give armour different limited abilities.

 

So, padding provides defence against smashing weapons but only half that against slashing and a quarter against piercing ones, plate provides 50% BODY damage reduction versus slashing weapons and 75% against piercing ones.

 

If you get all detailed about the armour layered on people then PCs will spread their weapon abilities or will match up with opponents based on how they think the armour weapon match-ups will play out.

 

Doc

[Brian Stanfield]

Old Man, I was thinking the same thing about how unwieldy it would become with all the multiple damage types. The FH6e text actually suggests such a situation where an axe with a spike on the back could take on all 3 types. Regardless, I'm still wondering if "chop" is something that would be significantly different from "slash" to merit a new damage class. Each weapon could have more than one type, but perhaps one "primary" mode of damage.

 

Doc, I like where you're at here. Perhaps it makes more sense to limit the armor rather than the weapons. I'm not sure if it saves any time in the big picture because sectional armor requires just as much paperwork as weapons with multiple damage types. But I like the idea that it will spread around the combatants so they may (or must) be more selective about who they fight.

 

I guess my next question is: how do the different weapons actually pair up with different armor types? I could make stuff up, but is there a good resource that would be historically accurate?

[Doc Democracy]

I am quite big on weapon familiarities.  If you decide your weapons can be used in the three classic ways, slash, pierce and bludgeon then I think that there should be something there to reflect what the hero knows.

 

When you learn a weapon then you should note how you learned it.  WF: Sword (slash)

 

If you try to use it to bludgeon someone then you use it as if it were unfamiliar.  You should then, in game, seek out someone that can train you in the art of using your sword that way and can write on the sheet WF: Sword (slash, bludgeon).  I would not charge any additional character points but I would tell players when they purchase a weapon familiarity that they get one for free but the others are acquired in game.  

 

I don't have a great knowledge of how things might match up - my reference to begin with might be Harnmaster because they did go into a lot of detail on these points.

 

Doc

[LoneWolf]

How do you deal with the fact that different weapons within a group often use different damage types?  Does that mean that someone who picked up Blades (slashing) does not know how to use a stiletto?  What about someone who picks up common melee?  If I pay the points for a skill I should be able to use the skill for what it says. 

 

How do I pick up something during the game that does not cost points? Does it mean I simply have to do it once?  If I am an expert with the sword and spent my life training with it should I not realize that the sword has a point and I can stab someone with it?  A character that spent points for weapon familiarity, martial arts, and skill levels should be able to use the weapon in any way he wants. 

 

Most weapons are more similar to each other even if they use different damage types.  Some weapons are designed with a particular purpose in mind, but for the most part they already have combat advantages.  Stilettos for example are armor piercing not because they are a piercing weapon, but because they are designed to punch through armor.  Some hammers may be balanced to hit harder (+1 stun multiple), but that does not mean my staff has the same effect. 

 

These types of adjustments should be handled on a weapon by weapon basis, not using overly broad house rules. 

[Brian Stanfield]

36 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

These types of adjustments should be handled on a weapon by weapon basis, not using overly broad house rules. 

 

Maybe I wasn't very clear when I said that I was interested in exactly what you are saying: a weapon by weapon basis and not vague house rules. I'm looking for some actual hard data, which I know some folks who venture the forums have. 

 

As to your other concerns, those are part of why I'm asking in the first place. There is a certain amount of common sense to using a sword. But a sword expert in a Claymore would not have the same expertise in a xiphos. I'm proposing that it is even more overly broad to suggest that all slashing weapons are the same, and am looking for some granularity. I'm also suggesting that expertise in a weapon may be limited to a certain fighting style, or against a certain kind of opponent/armor arrangement. 

 

Again, this isn't a final judgment on my part. Fantasy Hero 6e has some interesting suggestions on how to work these things out, and suggests ways for a single weapon to provide multiple damage types. I'm simply asking for some suggestions. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

While this kind of thing basically appeals to me on a realism level, its also massively complicated, so if you're going to do it, expect lots of delays and checking charts and rules.

 

AD&D, for instance, had modifiers to hit based on armor vs different weapon types.  Nobody used them.

 

I do like the concept of different defenses for different kinds of attacks (abrasion, blunt trauma, piercing, slashing, etc) but while Hero does some of that, its really an extra complication few players are remotely interested in.

[zslane]

The chop damage type suggests that maybe we also need a grind damage type. After all, once characters graduate from axes to chainsaws, chop and slice just won't do...

[Doc Democracy]

5 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

How do you deal with the fact that different weapons within a group often use different damage types?  Does that mean that someone who picked up Blades (slashing) does not know how to use a stiletto?  What about someone who picks up common melee?  If I pay the points for a skill I should be able to use the skill for what it says. 

 

How do I pick up something during the game that does not cost points? Does it mean I simply have to do it once?  If I am an expert with the sword and spent my life training with it should I not realize that the sword has a point and I can stab someone with it?  A character that spent points for weapon familiarity, martial arts, and skill levels should be able to use the weapon in any way he wants. 

 

Most weapons are more similar to each other even if they use different damage types.  Some weapons are designed with a particular purpose in mind, but for the most part they already have combat advantages.  Stilettos for example are armor piercing not because they are a piercing weapon, but because they are designed to punch through armor.  Some hammers may be balanced to hit harder (+1 stun multiple), but that does not mean my staff has the same effect. 

 

These types of adjustments should be handled on a weapon by weapon basis, not using overly broad house rules. 

 

Well.  I might not allow someone to pick up blades (slashing) as a 1pt familiarity.  If I am going to run a game where detail is important then that will be reflected in how points are spent. I would allow swords (slashing).  If the person having that familiarity then picked up a rapier, he would be able to use it, though be unfamiliar (thought I might allow him to use his levels etc to reflect that he has limited familiarity, it is a sword, just not one that works like he is used to).

 

It would be an in-game matter for him to go and find someone able to teach him the fine details of using a point over using an edge.  No points spent, just a little bit of a hindrance until he gets the training in.  Hasn't cost character points and should be a good excuse to expand contacts or keep in touch with them.

 

As for getting what you pay for, you would, you would get the same for 1pt in this game than in other games but you would have to think about how the character acquired the various aspects of that skill.

 

There is nothing in what I proposed that would stop you also providing advantages to weapons...but so many people do things on a weapon by weapon basis, just thought I would suggest that some variety might be achieved by varying what armour can do against varieties of weapons.

 

Doc

[LoneWolf]

This is a very bad idea because you are taking away something the player actually paid points for and are artificially limiting the character.  As a GM I would never do this to my players.  And as a player I would strenuously object if my GM did this.  As long as the player paid for ability he should be able to use it the ways the rules permit.

 

 This also prevents certain concepts and fighting styles.  Many martial arts have both a slash and a thrust.  The thrust is obviously using the point of the blade and would be doing piercing damage.  The slash is just as obviously doing slashing damage. My character bought weapon familiarity with common melee, and a martial art with blades with the maneuvers mention above. Under your rules my starting character is unable to use one of the maneuvers he actually paid points for.  He also cannot effectively use many weapons he paid points for.  Since my weapon familiarity is with slashing that would mean I cannot use maces, hammers, clubs, fist-loads, spears, and many polearms. 

 

You are also placing artificial limitation on my characters background.  If I spent the last decade training under a master swordsman it is entirely reasonable that he would have taught me how to use the weapons to the fullest extent.  It makes absolutely no sense that after spending decade training under the world’s greatest swordsman I need to run over to some local drunken teacher to teach me how to thrust with a with my sword. 

 

I can understand what you are trying to do, but you are needlessly complicating things.  Let your players use what they bought and allow them to have full control over their background. 

 

Many of the weapons in fantasy hero already have some advantages.  For example hammers typically have a +1 stun multiple.  Stilettos are already armor piercing.  A better way to make different weapons more appealing is to modify the weapon stats on a case by case.  If you look over the weapon tables you will probably find that for the most part much of this has already been done.  If you want to have more variation, create a couple unique weapons for your game and gives them an advantage.  Be careful not to go too far or you will create a weapon that become better than any other weapon and that is all the players will use. 

[Cancer]

Historically important also was group tactics; the close order phalanx of spearmen was more than just a few dozen individuals with heavy armor and spears.  It's difficult to see how to get this sort of thing to happen in a system where individuals take actions in turns.  But it was essential in its era for success and survival; and it took work to achieve it, since without training and discipline you have people interfering with each other, not an effective armored mass with spearpoints focussed on the front.

[Doc Democracy]

9 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

This is a very bad idea because you are taking away something the player actually paid points for and are artificially limiting the character.  As a GM I would never do this to my players.  And as a player I would strenuously object if my GM did this.  As long as the player paid for ability he should be able to use it the ways the rules permit.

 

 

Quote

I can understand what you are trying to do, but you are needlessly complicating things.  Let your players use what they bought and allow them to have full control over their background. 

 

Lonewolf, I see where you are coming from but you are suggesting that people that want this kind of detail in their gaming are having BadWrongFun and they should be using your judgement as to what is the right way to play their game.  Brian is exploring options here, looking for different ways of playing the game and seeing whether he (and his group) might enjoy trying something different.  I guess you have never played Chivalry and Sorcery or Bushido - the level of detail in there far exceeds anything suggested here and both games have their fans...

 

Quote

 This also prevents certain concepts and fighting styles.  Many martial arts have both a slash and a thrust.  The thrust is obviously using the point of the blade and would be doing piercing damage.  The slash is just as obviously doing slashing damage. My character bought weapon familiarity with common melee, and a martial art with blades with the maneuvers mention above. Under your rules my starting character is unable to use one of the maneuvers he actually paid points for.  He also cannot effectively use many weapons he paid points for.  Since my weapon familiarity is with slashing that would mean I cannot use maces, hammers, clubs, fist-loads, spears, and many polearms. 

 

I would contest your claim that breaking things down prevents anything at all. I would say that you are assuming a lot from the very few words I have expounded here.  So, your player bought WF with common melee weapons.  I would ask, at that point to think about the base style of those weapons and apply that (lots of bureaucracy, not my style but one of my friends would LOVE this).  When you then spend points on a martial art, you are (by default) indicating that someone has trained you in that and you would be able to apply whatever style to the familiarity that you wanted.  I think I was at pains to say that I did not want to increase the costs on familiarities but to give them more traction in-game.  Spending points gives the player control of aspects.

 

Quote

You are also placing artificial limitation on my characters background.  If I spent the last decade training under a master swordsman it is entirely reasonable that he would have taught me how to use the weapons to the fullest extent.  It makes absolutely no sense that after spending decade training under the world’s greatest swordsman I need to run over to some local drunken teacher to teach me how to thrust with a with my sword. 

 

I would also contest whether I am placing artifical limitations on your character's background.  Every GM is going to have thought about their campaign and how they want it to work. some limit everyman skills, some change them, some add to them.  This is no different.  If your concept is that you have trained under a master swordsman for a decade, then I am sure you would have that conversation with the GM.  I do not understand why you want to paint this idea in the wort possible context...and drag up false dichotomies to support the context.  If I had, as GM, led you to a local drunk teacher to train you with the sword then I would have done so because I was hoping to use him in some current or future plot arch.

 

Quote

Many of the weapons in fantasy hero already have some advantages.  For example hammers typically have a +1 stun multiple.  Stilettos are already armor piercing.  A better way to make different weapons more appealing is to modify the weapon stats on a case by case.  If you look over the weapon tables you will probably find that for the most part much of this has already been done.  If you want to have more variation, create a couple unique weapons for your game and gives them an advantage.  Be careful not to go too far or you will create a weapon that become better than any other weapon and that is all the players will use. 

 

Again, it looks as though I need to apologise for my BadWrongFun.  :-)  Really, the fun of HERO is that there are many ways to similar positions, there is no need to use that list from Fantasy HERO if I dont want to.  i might be making work for myself, but I might enjoy that and it might make my next Fantasy HERO game significantly different from my last one...

 

Think about it, change can be fun!  :-)

 

Doc

 

[Brian Stanfield]

In all reality, all the weapons are built from the powers, so I could have each character build his or her own weapon(s) through the powers, and then give them the "real weapon" disadvantage. On a weapon-by-weapon basis, this would be the best possible solution. That way you could define your own weapon's damage type and the ways in which it could be used. This could be a lot of fun!

 

However, I love charts! My own personal preference. When I look at a weapons chart such as in FH6e, I look at the variation and wonder if there is a way to give them even more variation. This is again a personal preference. HERO System is designed to accommodate personal preference, and maybe it's important to re-emphasize that each GM will build his own game differently. There is no one "official" way to do Fantasy Hero. I'm simply exploring some more ways to look at it.

 

As far as realism goes in the game, I'm exploring some more ways to analyze the interaction between weapons and armor. I would point out, as far as realism goes, a weapon familiarity with all melee weapons is fairly ludicrous in terms of "realism." One can't, in the real world, be an expert of all weapons available. I'm more inclined to limit martial arts styles to single weapons to represent this. If you want to use a second weapon with a martial arts style, then you would have to pay for it. As far as the "you get what you pay for" concept goes, it seems fairly abusive to pay a few points that then encompass all possible weapons in a group. Again, this is just my own preference, and my ground rules would reflect this in my own campaign.

 

That being said, LoneWolf, I agree with your observation about a sword being versatile and a sword master having many options at hand. I'm not trying to limit that, and I don't want to take away the versatility of the weapon. This is of course discussed in FH6e, but I want to go beyond that discussion. In those terms, stabbing with a sword is not the same as piercing. It is still considered slashing, and so isn't limited to any sort of maneuver. Regardless, Fantasy Hero isn't so granular that it isolates each maneuver, paired with a weapon type, versus armor. I'm not trying to isolate individual maneuvers, which seems pretty tedious. A haymaker with a sword could be many different things. 

 

A battle axe is given as an example in the book. It's primary use is to chop (slash, in their definition). Perhaps the axe has a spike on the opposite side of the blade. The spike may be considered piercing damage, but it isn't the primary mode of damage. Perhaps it gets a penalty for being more awkward because it's the backside of the weapon. There are other ways to account for this, and I'm curious about how it could be done. Someone trained in the use of a battle axe would understand its basic principles. But if used in a non-standard way, with different kinds of damage, I'm inclined to consider it a different kind of weapon familiarity. I would consider adding a 1 point familiarity to that single weapon type to make its application more versatile, much like Doc suggests. If there is a martial art style with the weapon, I'd require another maneuver in the style to account for a non-standard way of using it.

 

Now, what does this do to things like a bash with the butt-end of a sword? Or prodding with the tip of the sword? How about slapping with the flat of the blade? I don't know. I haven't figured that out yet, hence this post. More ideas would be welcome. 

[LoneWolf]

It is the right of any GM to do what they want with their campaign.  But often a GM will get an idea that he thinks is a good idea, but it turns out to be a bad one.  I have done this myself on occasions.  If this is something that Brian’s players will enjoy than by all means there is nothing wrong with it.  My concern is that while Brian may find the idea fun, his players may not.

 

The limitations of the forms are that often people cannot fully explain their ideas at first and other may not fully understand what the other person is saying.  This just means it takes a little longer for the discussion to be played out. 

 

It is not that uncommon for a warrior to be trained in the use of many weapons. They may not be experts with all the weapons, but they understand how to use them.  This is what familiarity with common <group> represents. If I have familiarity with a weapon I should be able to use it fully without penalty.  For example if I have familiarity with halberd I should be able to use both the blade and the spike. 

 

There used to be an optional combat maneuver that allowed you to convert killing damage to normal damage.  I don’t have access to all my books right now so I cannot look it up.  This is what you would do to use the flat of the blade. 

 

For weapons like the axe with the spike I would consider them to be custom weapons.  They would still be considered part of their original group for purpose of familiarity, but would allow the wielder more option in combat.  It may take a little practice to learn how to use it properly, but I should not require seeking out someone to train you.  A day or two practicing with the weapon to learn it balance would be about all you need.

 

I strongly disagree with some the ideas about the weapons vs armor type.  The book states that plate armor is not as effective vs bashing damage.  Plate armor is designed to spread the kinetic energy of the hit over a wider area.  This allows the padding under the plate to absorb the energy so it never reaches the target.  It also suggest that piercing damage be made armor piercing.  The arrows used for hunting do not penetrate armor very well at all.  They used a different kind of arrow when they were going against armor to allow it to penetrate the armor.  In game terms the hunting arrows may have even been considered reduced penetration.

 

By treating all weapons using a similar type as being the same it seems to make the situation worse.

[Doc Democracy]

Don't you  see that looking at armour potentially expands options rather than closing them down.

 

You are concerned that by treating all weapons using a similar type of damage as being the same seems to make the situation worse.  Yet you are not concerned that treating all armour using a similar type of defence might not also make the situation worse??

 

If you are saying that this makes things more complex and bureaucratic, then you have a clear point for Brian to consider.  If you are saying that there is a need to ensure players are on the same page as you are changing the base assumptions of purchasing familiarities, then you have a clear point for Brian to consider.

 

What you appear to be saying is that this is wrong and should not be considered because it is impossible to make it add to a fun experience (for anyone!).  :-)

 

Given that Brian is keen to see more diversity in the choices his players make, do you have any thoughts for doing that beyond the classic tinkering with damage types that we have already seen in Fantasy HERO. Or some tinkering that we might never have seen before??

 

Doc

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Historically important also was group tactics; the close order phalanx of spearmen was more than just a few dozen individuals with heavy armor and spears.  It's difficult to see how to get this sort of thing to happen in a system where individuals take actions in turns. 

 

Shield wall and shared tactics are actually discussed in Fantasy Hero.  Its not too tough to do, actually.  You share coverage from shields and gain a bonus because of working as a team.  Just about every soldier is going to have the same speed, and you can reduce your speed to match others.  If you're too slow, you won't make it to the shield wall at all.  Really fast, capable guys end up being leaders or reduce speed then when the wall breaks up to go after stragglers etc when the enemy breaks, go into full action.

[zslane]

7 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I do not understand why you want to paint this idea in the wort possible context...and drag up false dichotomies to support the context.

 

Because this is the Internet, and it is often difficult to be argumentative and contrarian without making false assumptions, oversimplifying someone's point, misrepresenting someone's point, propping up straw men, and otherwise arguing against something nobody is arguing for just to have something to say. 

[Brian Stanfield]

And here I thought this was going to be a fun conversation.  

[drunkonduty]

I did try to incorporate this sort of thing in the Fantasy Hero Basic PDF I did up for my home game.

 

For example I defined things like maces as being Armour Piercing against non-rigid armours.

For weapon speed I gave some weapons a Dex penalty/bonus for initiative purposes.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Possibly the easiest option if you really want to do this is to assign it to the armor, not the weapon.  That is, have the armor defend poorly against certain kinds of attacks rather than giving each weapon a specific sort of attack.  I assign armor different PD and ED, and different resistant and non-resistant defenses, because that's a one-time calculation, you write it down with the character's normal defenses and you're good to go.

 

Its true that with crushing attacks, armor like chain isn't as good as armor that is mostly padding.  And there are odd effects like how plate can cave in from a crushing attack and stay that way, causing continual damage.  But I think that's getting a little too detailed and to me more work than its worth.  Hero combat can be a bit slow to begin with, without adding in Phoenix Command-style layers of calculations, tables, and extra rolls.

[Brian Stanfield]

That's really funny Chris, because my mind went to Phoenix Command as well, and I had a horrible experience with that!

 

But the idea of crushing plate mail, as you say, or piercing chain mail, is partly what got my mind going. Do you see any difference between a sword chopping or stabbing against plate? As LoneWolf and you both say, it may be unnecessary bookkeeping, and may even be unfairly applied. But I'm just brainstorming at this point and am hoping for some ideas I hadn't considered. 

 

Im starting to lean toward players using the powers rules to design their own weapons, with very clearly defined damage types, advantages, and disadvantages. The weapons table in FH6e is built this way anyway, so I may let them figure out their own granularity. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

The difference in how attacks affect armor is dependent on the type of attack and where it hits, not just the weapon and the armor.  Stabbing weapons can do really well against hard surfaces... or deflect to the side.  At some point in combat rules you have to just say "here there be dragons" and let it be abstract beyond that point.

[Doc Democracy]

My friend used to criticise Space Opera (Fantasy Games Unlimted) for its detail.

 

Player: I kick in the door

 

GM:  OK, first let’s calculate the friction coefficient between your boot and the door....