forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Another reason the heaviest armor may not be as bad as the combat calculator suggests is that the calculator assumes you're going to stick to a particular stance. A more realistic way to fight would be to have some heavy fighters start in the forward stance and some in defensive stance. When the forward group becomes weary, the two groups switch stances. The weary group is protected, even if they may not score as many blows, while the new forward group is fresh.

If you are in close quarters and can keep the enemy from flanking you, these reserves can be kept in rearward stance, in which there is no chance of them losing endurance while the first forward group fights.

Except that tactic is only practical in mass combat, and isn't the least bit relevant to PCs 99 percent of the time.

In personal, Fellowship size combat, the optimal armor is 2d+4, followed by the runner up of 3D.

Glorelendil wrote:Let us also remember that in "Arthurian" England men fought in shield walls with mail and linden shields. The whole knight in shining armor riding around with a lance is pure anachronism.

Ahem, I think you may mean Arthurian Britain. The English were on the other side.

Apologies for being picky but I'm Welsh so the subject of Arthur is dear to my heart.

The reality is that mail was and is tiring to wear - trust me I've done it. You'd be mad to go tramping around Wilderland in a full hauberk, unless perhaps you were mounted. Even then the novelty would soon wear off.

At Stamford Bridge the Army of Hardrada was caught cold because they hadn't donned their mail. Puts pay to the D & D notion of sleeping in your armour.

The point is that you don your mail for a battle. At other times more practical attire is called for.

Angelalex242 wrote: In personal, Fellowship size combat, the optimal armor is 2d+4, followed by the runner up of 3D.

In TOR there is no such thing as "optimal" for all characters and all circumstances.

But if that's what you personally have decided on as a balance between fatigue and protection that makes you happy, it sounds like a fine choice.

Well, optimal according to your simulator, anyway. You have to really be reaching to find a situation where some other combo is better.

Or be playing a race that wants lower fatigue for their virtues, like Beorning or Dunedain.

Or be playing a dwarf, who typically gets away with a bit more armor. I haven't run the simulator enough on dwarves to decide what they consider optimal. Probably'll turn out to be 3d+4 or 4D.

Angelalex242 wrote:Except that tactic is only practical in mass combat, and isn't the least bit relevant to PCs 99 percent of the time.

Why not? Say you have four members of your fellowship, and you encounter two trolls, or six orcs, or what have you. Two start in forward stance and two stay in defensive stance. When the two forward lose endurance and become weary, they go to defensive stance and the other two go to forward stance.

You don't even need the full fellowship to be decked out in mail hauberks for this to make sense.

Note: if your referee coddles you and doesn't let you die, then heavy armor doesn't make sense. You may as well flaunt your plot immunity and have greater offensive capability. But if you're really risking your life in a fight, protecting yourself with better armor still makes sense, especially for dwarves.

I'm confused. How do you convince the bad guys to switch targets when you change stances?

You don't. You suddenly become harder to hit if you go forward to defensive (and vice versa). Or, if you go to rearward, they generally CAN'T hit you.

Except the advantage of PCs is typically 'action economy.' They swarm a single big target to take it down. Anything that prevents a PC from attacking, even if it prevents them from being attacked in turn violates the law of action economy, which is 'hit it as hard and as often as possible.'

Stormcrow wrote:You don't. You suddenly become harder to hit if you go forward to defensive (and vice versa). Or, if you go to rearward, they generally CAN'T hit you.

Thanks, I understand the mechanics.

Could you explain what your strategy about having two forward and two in defensive, then switching, accomplishes?