How does fatigue work?

[Hermes Serpent]

Francesco posted about this in the old forum in response to an answer by Osric.

QUOTE (Osric @ Aug 28 2011, 04:13 PM)
Protection isn't just armour, as you can spend Hope to add your Body attribute bonus to the Protection roll.
I'd usually(?) interpret this as using the agility component of your Body for a 'semi-dodge': not moving enough to avoid the blow, but enough to take it on -- or deflect it off -- a properly-armoured portion of your body, or keeping any chinks in your armour out of harm's way.

Protection rolls ARE affected by weariness, exactly for the reasons listed by Osric.

Francesco

[Aashdallar]

I believe Weary is applied here too.

So, what's the point then?
Has any dev talked about that? Does anyone know if rules such as this are going to be revised?
(I'm new to the forum.)

Meanwhile, a house rule seems to be necessary there, sadly. I don't mind house rules that accomodate particular or personal tastes. But having to fix the game in order to play... doesn't feel right.

[Aashdallar]

Francesco posted about this in the old forum in response to an answer by Osric.

QUOTE (Osric @ Aug 28 2011, 04:13 PM)
Protection isn't just armour, as you can spend Hope to add your Body attribute bonus to the Protection roll.
I'd usually(?) interpret this as using the agility component of your Body for a 'semi-dodge': not moving enough to avoid the blow, but enough to take it on -- or deflect it off -- a properly-armoured portion of your body, or keeping any chinks in your armour out of harm's way.

Protection rolls ARE affected by weariness, exactly for the reasons listed by Osric.

Francesco

Oh... ok... It just makes armour so bad...
Anyhow...

[Angelalex242]

In fact, that's the real point of the Dwarven reward Axe of Az. It applies weary to the enemy protection test BEFORE They roll one (and they'll be rolling one, because Axe of Az only goes off on a G Rune.) Quite the overkill reward, that one.

[Michebugio]

Protection rolls ARE affected by weariness, exactly for the reasons listed by Osric.

Am I the only one to see nonsense here?

First nonsense: if WEARY is applied to protection rolls too, that means that heavier armor gets you WEARY faster... so it becomes less effective faster. This is pretty much opposite to the common sense (a couple of blows and your hauberk is now half-effective as before, while a leather corselet would be lighter and at the same time twice as durable!) and enormously underrates heavy armors (as if they weren't already underrated before).

Second nonsense: Protection IS armor. Otherwise it wouldn't be a fixed value depending just on the armor you wear: we would have something like "Armor skill" instead. In my opinion, the feat dices granted by armor is the sheer protection, since it's a fixed number of dices; while "the agility component of your Body for a 'semi-dodge'" is just when you spend Hope to add your Body bonus to a Protection roll.
In other words: in normal circumstances, your armor does all the job (bonus feat dices to Protection rolls). When you concentrate (spending Hope), you also "roll with the blow" adding the Body component.

Third nonsense: Protection IS armor, round 2. Because, simply put, then we wouldn't have an Endurance value. Which is the only game factor that accounts for your capability to endure non-lethal blows that wear you out.

Fourth nonsense: if WEARY affects Protection rolls, the very same logic should lead also to penalties to Parry, but there aren't Parry penalties due to weariness in the RAW.
Furthermore, I see much more sense in a penalty to Parry INSTEAD of weariness affecting Protection rolls, and that is how I would handle it in my games.


Remember: LM work is 20% rule knowledge, and 80% COMMON SENSE.

[Hermes Serpent]

@Michebugio, based on your posts above and those in other threads it almost seems like you'd be happier writing your own game without any reference to C7's game as you've pushed so many negative cases and optional rules it would seem you aren't even on the same page as many of the other TOR players on the forum.

[Woodclaw]

Protection rolls ARE affected by weariness, exactly for the reasons listed by Osric.

Am I the only one to see nonsense here?

First nonsense: if WEARY is applied to protection rolls too, that means that heavier armor gets you WEARY faster... so it becomes less effective faster. This is pretty much opposite to the common sense (a couple of blows and your hauberk is now half-effective as before, while a leather corselet would be lighter and at the same time twice as durable!) and enormously underrates heavy armors (as if they weren't already underrated before).

Second nonsense: Protection IS armor. Otherwise it wouldn't be a fixed value depending just on the armor you wear: we would have something like "Armor skill" instead. In my opinion, the feat dices granted by armor is the sheer protection, since it's a fixed number of dices; while "the agility component of your Body for a 'semi-dodge'" is just when you spend Hope to add your Body bonus to a Protection roll.
In other words: in normal circumstances, your armor does all the job (bonus feat dices to Protection rolls). When you concentrate (spending Hope), you also "roll with the blow" adding the Body component.

Third nonsense: Protection IS armor, round 2. Because, simply put, then we wouldn't have an Endurance value. Which is the only game factor that accounts for your capability to endure non-lethal blows that wear you out.

Fourth nonsense: if WEARY affects Protection rolls, the very same logic should lead also to penalties to Parry, but there aren't Parry penalties due to weariness in the RAW.
Furthermore, I see much more sense in a penalty to Parry INSTEAD of weariness affecting Protection rolls, and that is how I would handle it in my games.


Remember: LM work is 20% rule knowledge, and 80% COMMON SENSE.

While I agree on most counts I would put forward a little counter-argument. While heavier armor makes you weary faster it also provide more dices of protection. Weary is a condition that became less noticeable the more dices you have. I'm not good with statistics, but the chance of rolling a 0 on a single dice when Weary is 50%. Hence the probabilities of a 0 should be roughly like this:

• 1 Dice: 50%
• 2 Dices: 25%
• 3 Dices: 12,5%
• 4 Dices: 6,25%
• 5 Dices: 3,13%

Which means that, in theory at least wearing more armor should provide some kind of advantage when Weary.

[Yusei]

While heavier armor makes you weary faster it also provide more dices of protection. Weary is a condition that became less noticeable the more dices you have.

You're correct. I did a quick simulation (I know there are tools, but it was quicker to write it myself) of the chances of success, and the difference between the weary and normal status:

Code: Select all

With 1 dice
 TN 12, normal: 28.7  weary: 24.6  diff: 85.78
 TN 14, normal: 16.3  weary: 16.3  diff: 100.00
 TN 16, normal: 9.8  weary: 9.8  diff: 100.00
 TN 18, normal: 8.1  weary: 8.1  diff: 100.00
 TN 20, normal: 8.5  weary: 8.5  diff: 100.00
With 2 dice
 TN 12, normal: 58.3  weary: 44.0  diff: 75.54
 TN 14, normal: 42.2  weary: 31.3  diff: 74.03
 TN 16, normal: 28.4  weary: 21.1  diff: 74.27
 TN 18, normal: 16.1  weary: 14.4  diff: 89.09
 TN 20, normal: 10.4  weary: 10.4  diff: 100.00
With 3 dice
 TN 12, normal: 83.3  weary: 61.1  diff: 73.42
 TN 14, normal: 70.4  weary: 47.9  diff: 68.06
 TN 16, normal: 54.4  weary: 36.1  diff: 66.49
 TN 18, normal: 38.8  weary: 26.6  diff: 68.71
 TN 20, normal: 25.9  weary: 18.1  diff: 69.63
With 4 dice
 TN 12, normal: 95.1  weary: 73.3  diff: 77.08
 TN 14, normal: 88.4  weary: 62.8  diff: 71.02
 TN 16, normal: 77.8  weary: 49.7  diff: 63.96
 TN 18, normal: 65.5  weary: 41.0  diff: 62.55
 TN 20, normal: 50.8  weary: 29.3  diff: 57.64

It shows that, for example against a Wound TN of 14, a 3d armour while weary will protect you as well as a 2d armour while not weary. A 4d armour always protects you better than a 2d armour, even while weary.

On the other hand, of course, being Weary has other disadvantages.

[Michebugio]

based on your posts above and those in other threads it almost seems like you'd be happier writing your own game without any reference to C7's game as you've pushed so many negative cases and optional rules it would seem you aren't even on the same page as many of the other TOR players on the forum

Oh no, we’re at this now.

Simply speaking, it’s the contrary. I love TOR. Otherwise, a) I wouldn’t use the game system at all, b) I wouldn’t care or try to improve areas that I (and other players, as we can read in some topics) believe to be weak, and c) I wouldn’t even bother to share my considerations in this forum.

I truly believe that the game is great: I’ve never held in my hands such a deeply Middle-earth-ish game as TOR and the books are wonderfully crafted, definitely an invaluable addition to my library. The system is solid and very well designed too.

But my personal view is (and that goes for TOR as well as for the countless other RPGs I’ve played) that the RAW are always there to be modified at your discretion, to better suit your game style or just to better represent your personal taste. The game is yours, the story is yours and if something is missing, not covered by the rules or simply doesn’t fit with your ideas, you create or change it.

That doesn’t mean I would prefer another game system, and I’m not even saying that everybody should change the rules. But if I have an idea, I share it; if I believe that something needs to be improved, I motivate it. If my home rules benefit not only my game, but the games of others, I’m happy. I use myself some home rules from other members of this forums that perform just greatly.

This is one of those cases that IMHO needs improvement: nobody in my Company would use a mail hauberk out of simple convenience, as for the RAW it’s definitely a poor choice, for a lot of reasons already discussed here and in many other topics. As a LM I could just shrug and leave all as it is, the players will just make the choices they like the most, or deem more effective. Or I can make the mail hauberk a viable choice by tweaking the rules a bit. I just prefer the second option.


EDIT: some miscalculation in the second part of my post.

[mogul76]

I still strongly believe that the issues mentioned in the above posts can be solved through the introduction of a new Mastery, thereby ensuring, that no further adaptations to the RAW regarding Armour/Encumbrance/Fatigue are necessary.

Armour-seasoned

You have become accustomed to moving and fighting in armour.

Reduce the Encumbrance rating of any armour you are wearing by its number of Protection dice.

This Mastery may only be picked once.

The following proposal:

- takes the factor experience into account i.e. only player characters who have picked this Virtue will benefit from the Encumbrance reduction, which seems logic to me, as in medieval times only knights and veteran warriors were seasoned enough to effectively fight in heavy armour

- has a scalable impact on the game: The Encumbrance reduction essentially takes effect when a companion is clad in heavy armour; if a character is only wearing light armour the Encumbrance decrease is not that significant

- omits helms and other headgear, since these only provide a Protection bonus and do not offer any additional Protection dice: When I wrote this Virtue I did not want it to have a too strong impact on the game

- gives heavier armour types a purpose i.e. a reason to exist in the game and to be available to player characters

I have not read a lot of opinions on the proposal but would be grateful to hear what you think. Cheers.

PS I do not mind that the rules for being Weary also apply to Protection rolls: Although (possibly) not very "realistic", this reflects the spirit of the game.