Brian Stanfield

Armor familiarities make a kind of sense, but they're harder to enforce (what's the penalty for not having the point in plate armor?).  You really can't eliminate all the penalties entirely if you want a remotely realistic campaign.  If you want a goofy Anime setting where the characters are using surfboards for swords, then no penalties need apply at all.
 
Maybe half the effect if you have armor familiarity: -2 perception rolls and 2 END per turn becomes 1 each?

It might make more sense to have the character buy "armor familiarity" the way they already buy weapon familiarities.  You could build on this to have levels with armor, for those characters that are so used to wearing it that it does become second nature. 

I doubt that this is what you are looking for, but you can make it part of your economy.  
 
I ran a game where metal was scarce. Additionally, blacksmith/weapon-smith/armor-smith were mainly for the nobles or upper merchants.  Metal weapons were 10x to 50x the cost.  Most people used quarterstaff or various sized clubs.  Daggers were for getting through armor.  Armor was mainly leather types. Studded leather if you were well off.  Metal armor was at least 100x the cost.  Due to the amount of metal needed for armor, most invested in metal weapons.  I do not have my notes, so some of the info will be off, but you get the idea. 
 
If metal is not scarce in your world, how about making refined metals scarce.  You can have low, good, excellent qualities for anything metal.  Not sure if that would help your situation though....
 
For me....  As mentioned above, I would just use the encumbrance rules.  That can be pretty harsh. Minuses to DCV, Dex rolls, and movement along with extra endurance per turn.  Although, it adds to the book keeping.

I like the idea that the an "18" could be ruled this way (depending on the gun, as Hyper-Man indicated). I personally wouldn't over use it, or plan for it, as much as it is GM ruling in the heat of the moment that just fits the scene. I'd also argue that most of such movie scenes are with an unexperienced shooter (either doesn't really know how to shoot a gun, or has never done so in live combat, etc.). If the PC's concept is a well trained, combat experienced shooter, this seems an unlikely ruling.
 
Also, with the "Luck" or "Unluck" ruling... I certainly wouldn't bring "Luck" (as a power) into it.  Do you make a player roll a luck roll every time they attack? If a character has Luck, do they get a luck roll every time they are attacked? I certainly wouldn't recommend playing that way.  As for "Unluck" that is one I'd recommend never having a player take, but if they did, defined as manifesting in a certain way "Police tend to think I'm the bad guy all the time" or something. Also, would you really have a PC roll unluck every time they pulled their gun, just in case? I'd personally find this use of Luck/Unluck as time consuming and very un-fun.
 
Ultimately, that is my question... why is this scenario "Crap! I left the safety on!" important? Is it something you've seen in movies and just wish would come up in a game once in a while? Are you playing a hyper-realistic game of low level, generally unskilled/inexperienced PCs where this might happen? (Say early days Walking Dead type campaign?) Is this really a mechanics question, or more of a "When would it make sense to rule this way as a GM?"  Personally, I'd go with the latter. As a GM, it would just be in the back of my mind, and when the right moment comes up, depending on the scene and dice and the flow of the game... go for it.
 
ex: Current heroic game I'm running... well trained, almost "special" level PCs in basically the real world. (Think X-Files meets Jason Bourne) I could easily see a scene where a character gets in close to an enemy, pulls the opponent,s pistol from their holster and tries to shoot him with it. Dice roll goes badly.  Say he needed a 13- to hit... I'd go with the flow... rolled a 14, 15, or 16, I'd say "You bring the gun up, but the guard twists, knocking your hand just enough to the side that the bullet punches the wall next to him."   If the roll was a 17 or especially an 18... then maybe, "You bring the gun up and "CLICK."   Safety is on."   (Again, I'd do this because the scene felt right, the dice pushed it that way AND I would know that the players would find it as fun as I would.)
 
Here is a scenario where I definitely would NOT rule that way. Same PC, sneaks up on a guard, pulls his silenced pistol and puts it to the back of the guys head. As GM in such a scenario, I tend to say, "Ok, just don't roll an 18" and usually don't even have the player roll damage. But say, "Oh crap... 18!" is what happens.  Then I would not even consider making it a "you left the safety on" because that wouldn't be fun, that would be making the PC incompetent, and the player feel bad. In this case, a simple "Unbelievably, your gun jams. You have half a second to consider the incredibly low odds of that happening, as the guard turns around in surprise and a fight is on!"
 
It is my feeling that it is a GM's job to take every die roll and action and weave it into a descriptive moment as part of a descriptive scene, to bring the action alive. It is never just "you hit, you miss, you fumble" etc. Every fight should play out in such a way that looking back on it, there is a very visual (mentally visual) replay, like remembering a great action scene in a movie. Gun with safety left on is just one possible cool description of how the scene and die rolls and player actions might be described.

Yeah lowering run speed slightly makes sense for heavy armor.  Its not going to have a big effect on you, but your flexibility and movement will be slightly hindered.

What is difficult to simulate in a game that happens in real life is annoyance.  It doesn't take a lot to make an expert and skilled person annoyed at something.  Put tape over the top of someone's fingers and ask them to type.  Its not much but its annoying as heck.  Discomfort and annoyance are sort of intangibles that are hard to really impose in a game.  Minor penalties, reminders of what its like, really all you can do.  No, you can't feel how soft that maiden's hair is, you're wearing a gauntlet.  Plus her hair caught in a joint and now she's mad at you for yanking it.  No, you can't sit in that chair in full plate.  Its extra weight is causing the floor to creak ominously when you walk, too.  You had to turn sideways to get through that door with those shoulderpads, and the helm's big crest bashed on the doorjam.

I've done a fair bit of weapons fighting and training (20+ years in various asian martial arts, including Kendo/Kenjitsu). I've worn what would be equivalent to light (stiff leather) armor in kendo, but that was limited to the torso and the helmet. I also wear leather for my costume at the local renfair, and even in temperatures of ~100F, it's not that bad compared to just wearing appropriate attire anyway.
 
I think Christopher Taylor's ideas are probably the best for characters/adventures that are mostly situated in or around a city. A warrior might only put on his full plate when going into an actual battle (Think of the different armor that Faramir wears in the Lord of the Rings for when he's 'scouting', and when he lead the charge to Osgiliath). Even heavy armor isn't really much more exhausting than medium or light armor.
 
The things I would maybe impose is a max run speed. Even this is somewhat artificial, though. The other things encumbering a typical adventurer are running with a sword in a sheath, the backpack, cloak, etc. (Running with a sheathed sword can be pretty comical actually, and it's very encumbering in terms of slowing one down.)
 
 
 
 

I just saw two documentaries that are really changing my mind on these issues of armor and weapon interactions!
 
Reclaiming the Blade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hLMExBQAbk
Back to the Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmTi-NGQNh8
 
Just FYI.
 

Well there are several things you can do with armor.  First, its really uncomfortable and awkward to do anything in but fight (even fight, but the tradeoff is worth it).  Second, unless you leave off the helm it reduces visibility (and hearing), sometimes severely.  Also, its very odd,  Its like showing up to the tavern in full riot cop gear or wearing an NFL uniform with the pads.  People will react poorly to you and expect trouble because of how you're dressed.
 
So penalties to skills, social interaction, fear, attention from authorites, being rejected from going places, penalties to perception rolls, and even trouble getting into areas and bumping into people, knocking things over, etc are all reasonable to be expected.

Are you already using the encumbrance and endurance rules?  A suit of full plate weighs 40 kg, add a large shield for an additional 7 kg, plus a few more for all the other stuff the characters are carrying and you are easily over 50 kg.  Unless you characters all have 18 STR this meanst they are taking -2 to their DCV/DEX rolls, as well as -2m of movement and paying 1 END per turn.  This also means they lose 1 LTE per turn. 
 
If this is for heroic characters they pay 1 END for every 5 STR instead of 1 per 10.  If you use the LTE rules this means the high STR character with a good SPD runs out of END very quickly.  A character with an 18 STR and a 4 SPD uses 16 END per turn in just STR alone.  If they are moving or doing other things that require END they can easily push this to 20+ END per turn. Unless they have over a 10 REC this means they lose 2 LTE per turn. 
 
Most combat focused characters have decent STR and above average SPD.  Figure a character with an 18 STR and 3 SPD.  They spend at least 12 END per turn when going full out in combat.  That means they only last a few min. before they are exhausted.  Out of combat they will probably need to reduce their SPD or they will be out of END all the time.  Dropping down to a 2 SPD they can avoid exhausting themselves so quickly, but now are moving a lot slower.  Most people don’t consider this, or ignore it.  If you really want to keep amour in check this is one of the best ways. 

from previous discussions, I have heard that increased END cost for standard actions is a fairly sound idea.

I'm not sure if you've gotten the answer you're looking for yet, but when I ordered the book and pdf I got the full color 6e hardcover.

Now LIVE on Kickstarter! Create your Champions character in less than one minute using this versatile deck of 54 cards. Pick one Characteristics card, one Complications card, and three to ten Abilities cards to make your point-averaged superhero! Then upload the card numbers to the Hero Designer software to print your character sheets. Electronic files will be made available through Bits & Mortar for retail store customers. 

I have it and a few others, and they're so old they're falling apart. They were all cheesy little books that look like they were produced on a typewriter and run on a mimeograph, but the material is so wonderful, and I didn't really care how it looked in the '80s. I should look at the new edition and see if it's any easier to read. 

Funny thing is, I've had that book for over 30 years and forgot all about how useful it is. It actually does what Doc was suggesting with modifications to the armor rather than the weapons. 

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....

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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...

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...
 
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
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
 

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

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

https://www.theonion.com/nra-says-mass-shootings-just-the-unfortunate-price-of-p-1819580360

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