forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

I'd make it a checkbox, not a number. Either an item is damaged or not. And I wouldn't make the repairs yet another undertaking that consumes Fellowship Phases, as it's likely to occur frequently. Any time they have necessary facilities (a smithy for armor, perhaps just woods for a bow) they get to make a Craft roll to fix it.

Glorelendil wrote:I'd make it a checkbox, not a number. Either an item is damaged or not.

Yes but what would be the malus then?

Glorelendil wrote:And I wouldn't make the repairs yet another undertaking that consumes Fellowship Phases, as it's likely to occur frequently. Any time they have necessary facilities (a smithy for armor, perhaps just woods for a bow) they get to make a Craft roll to fix it.

Actually, I was concerned that this wouldn't happen at all! In fact, Protection rolls are rare, and pnly Eye results on these rolls would result in a damaged armor! Considering that you also get at least one item repaired/substituted for free each Fellowship Phase (see the rules above), the Repair Items Undertaking would be very far from frequent.

Michebugio wrote:That's practically identical,

... except when it isn't!

Michebugio wrote: a bit more straightforward regarding the repair phase, and more penalizing for players (three times as penalizing as mine, to be precise).

I read your rule "cumulative penalty of -1 to Protection tests until it is repaired" as applying a penalty each time an EYE is rolled so if someone rolled an EYE four times then their armour would be reduced by 4D. Is it only ever a 1D penalty no matter how many times an EYE is rolled?

Michebugio wrote:But how do you treat the wealth of characters then? What if a rich dwarf simply wants to buy a new set of armour after he broke the old one? Do you think that the part of rules regarding the Standard of Living and repair/substitution of items could work for you too?

I don't see a need for it. If a rich character just wants to buy a new suit then let them, but I don't feel the need to start restricting how much a character can repair an item based on their Standard of Living. That's a level of detail I wouldn't want in my game.

Michebugio wrote:

Glorelendil wrote:

Glorelendil wrote:And I wouldn't make the repairs yet another undertaking that consumes Fellowship Phases, as it's likely to occur frequently. Any time they have necessary facilities (a smithy for armor, perhaps just woods for a bow) they get to make a Craft roll to fix it.

Actually, I was concerned that this wouldn't happen at all! In fact, Protection rolls are rare, and pnly Eye results on these rolls would result in a damaged armor! Considering that you also get at least one item repaired/substituted for free each Fellowship Phase (see the rules above), the Repair Items Undertaking would be very far from frequent.

That's my experience; hardly happens at all. It's also why I didn't put that much effort into my house rule and made it fairly straightforward.

Glorelendil wrote:I'd make it a checkbox, not a number.

That was a deliberate choice for me with regard to making heavier armour more of an attractive proposition to wear - eg, a 5D suit, even with reduced to 2D would still have decent effectiveness whereas a 3D shirt would offer no protection at all under the same circumstances.

Huh. I guess I have been thinking about how this rule would have worked in the games I'm in and my reaction was "God we would have spent every FP repairing..."

Rich H wrote:I read your rule "cumulative penalty of -1 to Protection tests until it is repaired" as applying a penalty each time an EYE is rolled so if someone rolled an EYE four times then their armour would be reduced by 4D. Is it only ever a 1D penalty no matter how many times an EYE is rolled?

A "cumulative -1 penalty" is a -1 to the final roll, not a -1D. So with a Mail shirt you would roll 3D-1, not 2D.

"Cumulative" means that every time you roll an Eye on Protection rolls, the penalty stacks: so in the example, you would get to 3D-2, 3D-3, etc. until you repair the armour.

That's why I said that your rule, albeit SIMILAR (not identical, I was aware of that before), is more penalizing for characters. I did not intend it as a criticism: maybe it's my rule that is too light and would never represent an instance for players.

Rich H wrote:I don't see a need for it. If a rich character just wants to buy a new suit then let them, but I don't feel the need to start restricting how much a character can repair an item based on their Standard of Living. That's a level of detail I wouldn't want in my game.

Yep, but you need it if you introduce a mechanism of item degradation. Otherwise who wants to waste an Undertaking when he can simply buy a new item for free?

Glorelendil wrote:Huh. I guess I have been thinking about how this rule would have worked in the games I'm in and my reaction was "God we would have spent every FP repairing..."

... I did play with the idea of all repairs occurring automatically during a Year End FP and only needing an Undertaking if someone wanted to make a repair during a FP taking place at non-year end.

Michebugio wrote:A "cumulative -1 penalty" is a -1 to the final roll, not a -1D. So with a Mail shirt you would roll 3D-1, not 2D.

"Cumulative" means that every time you roll an Eye on Protection rolls, the penalty stacks: so in the example, you would get to 3D-2, 3D-3, etc. until you repair the armour.

That's why I said that your rule, albeit SIMILAR (not identical, I was aware of that before), is more penalizing for characters. I did not intend it as a criticism: maybe it's my rule that is too light and would never represent an instance for players.

Right, understand now. I was just reading it as 1D, rather than just a -1, which is why I was confused.

Michebugio wrote:

Rich H wrote:I don't see a need for it. If a rich character just wants to buy a new suit then let them, but I don't feel the need to start restricting how much a character can repair an item based on their Standard of Living. That's a level of detail I wouldn't want in my game.

Yep, but you need it if you introduce a mechanism of item degradation. Otherwise who wants to waste an Undertaking when he can simply buy a new item for free?

That's a fair point - item availability would be the first thing to spring to mind; suits of armour can't just be picked off a shelf at your local shop. Also, RPing it, characters get attached to their personal armour whether they are imbued with Qualities/Rewards or not. I wouldn't expect any of my players to just purchase a new suit for that reason alone.

Glorelendil wrote:Huh. I guess I have been thinking about how this rule would have worked in the games I'm in and my reaction was "God we would have spent every FP repairing..."

Hardly so. Even if you are a Woodman with 0 points in Craft and who never spends a Fellowship Phase home, you can live with a -1 to your Protection rolls or Injury rating without worrying too much.

Of course, with some points in Craft, you wouldn't have the problem at all. And personally I like looking after my equipment, as a player.

When I first saw the Artificer of Eregion Virtue in Rivendell, for example, I loved it. Finally a rule for rightfully upgrading your equipment thanks to your skills, rather than to your merits.