forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Well, there's several philosophies with armor in tabletop.

In D&D 3.5, armor (improbably) makes you dodge better by raising your armor class.
Only Adamant Armor actually reduces the number of damage you take per hit (which is what you'd think it'd do.)

In LOTR, however, armor is absolutely useless (and in fact detrimental) unless the enemy rolls his edge rating (which is often an eye.) As such, armor is more akin to Car Insurance. It's useless almost every time you drive, and detrimental to your bank account, but woe to you if you don't have it when you need it.

Elfcrusher wrote:

Corvo wrote:

Elfcrusher wrote:Do Adversaries get these bonuses (when applicable) also?

I added several house rules to my sim, including the one that reduces incoming damage by the value of armor, but I just realized I'm only giving the Hero the benefit. That doesn't seem fair to me...

At my table they both have the same benefits.
A favored armour roll is a +1 to armor protection (an Orc Guardian got -3 to incoming damage, for ex), as is an helm.

Are you giving helms armor reduction value equal to their bonus? That would seem imbalanced to me. I just left them out of the sim completely: seems to me that if you get whacked in the head and the helm prevents a wound, which would be represented by your protection roll being greater than the TN by an amount equal to or less than the helm's bonus, then the helm is doing it's job.

If the helm is also providing reduction does that mean every blow hits you in the head? If so, then how is your armor providing reduction also? (I guess you could say it's being averaged over many blows.)

In any event, saying that a helm (+4) offers the same absorption value as a Coat of Mail (4d) seems...off.

Ther is a misunderstanding.

An Orc Guard got armour 2d (2 die favoured): in my game its damage reduction is -3 (like a 3d chainmail).
A great helm give a further -1 to damage reduction. So an hero with 3d chain mail + great helm got -4 damage reduction.

I haven't yet decided if giving the same bonus to the light helm

Angelalex242 wrote:A Helm should likely add 1 to damage reduction.

A +4 to protection is the same as having +1D on the protection roll that always rolls a 4. Since the average of a d6 is 3.5, the helm is slightly better then a leather shirt.

So it provides the same damage reduction al leather shirt does...1.

This is exactly my thinking

Elfcrusher wrote:To me, the mechancis & math represent you using up your ability to keep dodging and parrying and deflecting, until you just can't keep it up and you take a direct hit. Hopefully, at that point, your armor lets you take a bruise instead of a bad wound. That is, if you roll protection successfully your armor "absorbed" the blow. But your luck is still wearing thin...

I totally agree with Elfcrusher, at least as a rationale.

To make a comparison with a boxing match: you can parry and dodge with minimal effort (Parry score), and that is a matter of good positioning and footwork (in TOR: Wits); then you parry a potentially powerful blow or you roll with it, and that takes you some effort (Endurance score) that is not unlimited; finally you can be unlucky enough to take a haymaker that can potentially open a wound on your forehead, and for that (AND ONLY FOR THAT) you'll thank your protective headgear (= your Armor). Which, by the way, is all sweaty and uncomfortable (Encumbrance).

Your headgear doesn't help you parrying blows, nor it can absorb a hit like a good parry with your gloves. It simply avoid wounds. Now this is my rationale.

BUT, from a game balance point of view... well, heavy armor is undeniably flawed, without any kind of home-rule on it. Elfcrusher's sim gives proof to that, so the debate is still on.

What about a house rule that Rich H proposed? It seemed quite simple and nice to me...

If an EYE is rolled as a protection test then the number of dice of the armour is reduced by 1D to simulate some damage occurring to it. Also means that the heavier armour types have more of a 'buffer' for this occurring more, to address earlier posts that anything above a chain shirt isn't optimal.

The way armour works in combat isn't changed (heavier ones having a use ONLY when hit for an injury), but they become more useful for long battles or even against larger number of foes. Even if the Weariness state is always a trade-off.

We might have to house rule also something to repair the armour (the Craft skill might become handy here).

Thanks everybody for the feedback, very much appreciated!


But all of a sudden, I was mindblowed by an idea.


You all know this scene: who, of your players, wouldn't act like Boromir in the face of death? Instead, in TOR, if their Endurance drops to zero, they pass out. If they get WOUNDED, they pass out. If they get WOUNDED again and their Endurance drop to zero, they die on the spot.

Not very heroic... for they are the HEROES!

So consider this home-rule:


EXHAUSTED: When a character's Endurance drops to zero, the character doesn't pass out. Instead, he has a new condition: he is considered EXHAUSTED.
An EXHAUSTED character is FATIGUED (if he wasn't before) and his Parry drops to zero; he also loses any shield bonus. In any check (included attack checks) except Protection checks, all scores of the feat dices count as zero, except the six (Tengwar), that still counts as a six (and also counts as a great or extraordinary success, where it matters). The character can still spend Hope points with the usual effects.
Any successful attack check against the EXHAUSTED character is considered a Penetrating Strike that doesn't deal Endurance damage, and it requires a Protection check.
If the character gets WOUNDED 2 times, or if he was already WOUNDED and it gets wounded again, then he drops and is dying, as usual.
A character who gets EXHAUSTED can choose to drop helpless to the ground instead of fighting (if he is cowardly or smart enough, he can also play dead).

Some notes: this may also work very well into making Armors MORE IMPORTANT than ever, since an EXHAUSTED character without armor (or with light armor) is at great risk if he continues to fight, while a character with heavy armor can potentially last very long in this condition, still giving a (heroic) contribution. Heavy armor is then an a great advantage, albeit this advantage manifests only when the character is facing death.


Damn, I can't wait another day to playtest it...


Any opinions?

Isn't that scene entirely movie based. Doesn't Boromir just get shot lots in the books and then die? Plus, the rules state that you must be Wounded AND reduced to zero Endurance at once. I see no reason a character could not be Wounded again and again and still have the Endurance to keep fighting. I also don't recall seeing anywhere that characters pass out when Wounded... do you have a reference? Cause if so I've been running it all wrong and need to fix things

It's also in the book, I can confirm that... and in the animated movie too! (which I LOVE, by the way

Boromir's death, animated movie

I'm not sure you got my rule, though: the character CAN'T be WOUNDED at will, he still can be wounded one time: if he gets wounded again, then he's dying (as in the standard rules).

The characters pass out when they reach 0 Endurance OR they get WOUNDED 2 times, that's it.

The rule just changes they way Endurance is handled: when you reach 0, essentially you can choose to continue fighting with minimal efficiency, and at the risk of bein injured (or killed) way more easily.

Falenthal wrote:What about a house rule that Rich H proposed? It seemed quite simple and nice to me...

If an EYE is rolled as a protection test then the number of dice of the armour is reduced by 1D to simulate some damage occurring to it. Also means that the heavier armour types have more of a 'buffer' for this occurring more, to address earlier posts that anything above a chain shirt isn't optimal.

The way armour works in combat isn't changed (heavier ones having a use ONLY when hit for an injury), but they become more useful for long battles or even against larger number of foes. Even if the Weariness state is always a trade-off.

We might have to house rule also something to repair the armour (the Craft skill might become handy here).

This works really well for me and addresses the issue that heavier armour is sub-optimal; it doesn't completely change the RAW either like many of these houserules are proposing so it's something that can be easily added to existing campaigns.

I'm sure someone has already suggested this. If your goal is to reduce endurance loss, why not assign armour ratings which, like shield modifiers, are applied to your Combat TN when you are being attacked. As you are slightly harder to hit due to the TN increase, your endurance loss will be at a slower rate.

Leathers +0
Mail Shirt +1
Mail Coat +2
Mail Hauberk +3

In Forward, if your Parry is 5 and you are wearing a mail shirt, your opponent now needs a 12 (6+5+1) instead of an 11. Doesn't seem like much of an increase but I've seen plenty of rolls failed by 1 point.