forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Well, if we're going to add damage reduction* then I think having more downsides to armor is needed. A travel penalty is mandatory, I think, but extending it to athletics and stealth (and other skills, situationally) is a good idea.

*Every time damage reduction comes up I think: Endurance loss is not actually 'damage' so damage reduction doesn't really make sense. The only physical damage in the game is Wounds, and armor already protects against that.

@looping:
I use the armour's malus to tn...
-On fatigue rolls, alway: basically they are Travel rolls and sometimes Athletics (as the forced march in Kinstrife).
-On other athletics rolls I judge case by case, 'cause armours were made to keep freedom of movement... yet all that weight wasn't without consequences (think about climbing, let alone swimming).
-About stealth I'm on the fence.
On one hand chain armour was far more confortable to wear than we usually expect, while leather armour was fairly creaking.
On the other hand "realism" is secondary to playstyle, to me: my actual group is 4 barding "knights", all decked in chainmail. They are already unsubtle enough as they are, if I penalize stealth I limit their gaming possibility (ie, I want them to use stealth sometimes!).
If I got a different fellowship probably I would give the malus to stealth as you suggested, to encourage diversity in the group.

Sorry for longish rambling

Elfcrusher wrote:Well, if we're going to add damage reduction* then I think having more downsides to armor is needed. A travel penalty is mandatory, I think, but extending it to athletics and stealth (and other skills, situationally) is a good idea.

*Every time damage reduction comes up I think: Endurance loss is not actually 'damage' so damage reduction doesn't really make sense. The only physical damage in the game is Wounds, and armor already protects against that.

The endurance damage is called "damage", so I think "damage reduction" is fairly appropriate

I must admit that I've never been comfortable with this (already quite widespread) house rule. Lacking any cost component (everything is basically for free at character creation), the game developers proposed an armor system that doesn't provide a clear advantage to a player, except a higher chance to avoid a bad condition (wounded) at the price of getting sooner to a much less severe condition (weary).

That said, everything that makes armored characters definitely superior to unarmored ones should be avoided, except if it adds other drawbacks. Adding a cost is a nice one and I think that I will adopt it

Regarding the rule: I completely agree with Elfcrusher saying

Elfcrusher wrote:*Every time damage reduction comes up I think: Endurance loss is not actually 'damage' so damage reduction doesn't really make sense. The only physical damage in the game is Wounds, and armor already protects against that.

Moreover, I find odd that an armor, whose drawback is increased Encumbrance (thus less "free" Endurance before getting Weary), could also grant a mean to fool its own Encumbrance, reducing Endurance loss and how fast you get Weary. It's like saying "You want this sandwich? It costs 10 dollars but for every chew you get a discount of 1 dollar" (= Encumbrance 20? yeah, but you get a discount of 5 points of Endurance loss every hit).

An armor should make you Weary sooner, always. The point is that it should be also at least equal to wearing no armor in terms of combat effectiveness, which is not, looking at Elfcrusher's simulator.

Michebugio, the word "weary" is pretty misleading. the point is that, in this game, punching someone is "making him weary".
You did (or are doing) boxe, I surmise, so you know that taking punches in the face *can* be described as "wearing", yet it's a peculiar way of telling the story.
In TOR endurance points are stamina, but somehow hit points too. So we need a compromise.

Corvo wrote:Michebugio, the word "weary" is pretty misleading. the point is that, in this game, punching someone is "making him weary".
You did (or are doing) boxe, I surmise, so you know that taking punches in the face *can* be described as "wearing", yet it's a peculiar way of telling the story.
In TOR endurance points are stamina, but somehow hit points too. So we need a compromise.

I don't think they are "hit points". Heroes have exactly two hit points, and you lose one per wound.

"Damage" can have many meanings: think "damaged his reputation" or "damaged the currency" or "damaged my finances". So the fact that Endurance loss is called "damage" does not make it physical damage.

All the other terminology and rules in the game points to damage not being physical unless it results in a wound. Healing is the big one: if damage were physical it wouldn't heal immediately after a fight, or through use of Inspire.

Damage Reduction may be a useful way to make heavier armor better, but it doesn't make sense with the rest of the rules. Q.E.F.D.

I am not in favour of the reduction damage house rules. I like more the ones proposed by (can not recall the name) where after a battle a PC recovers extra endurance = 2xProtection dice of the armour, in a similar way as the helm does if you remove it.

In any case, I understand people want to make armours more relevant during combat. Why not just then reduce ALL weapons (PC and NPC) pierce value by 1?

Cheers,
Yepes

Corvo wrote:Michebugio, the word "weary" is pretty misleading. the point is that, in this game, punching someone is "making him weary".
You did (or are doing) boxe, I surmise, so you know that taking punches in the face *can* be described as "wearing", yet it's a peculiar way of telling the story.

Yes, definitely. Most punches in a match are just glancing blows, and even a good, clear strike may not bring you down straight, instead leaving you breathless or stunned, but still on your feet. In this sense the blows you take are "wearing" you out, not actually wounding you (though one can say that punches DO have the potential to hurt you badly and also fatally, but it's a very rare instance when you're trained to take one - and when gloves and protection gear come into play).

But fists and swords are very different stuff. A sword actually hitting you *cuts* you, so maybe you'll agree that a sword hit in this game system can't be represented as an actual *hit*, but more like a near miss. Or a very bad blow with the flat of the blade, which is either made on purpose or a rare instance for a trained swordsman.
Only when wearing an armor a sword hit may be considered a real hit, although one that couldn't penetrate the layer of protection.

In any case, like Elfcrusher I tend to consider Endurance as simply a measure of your ability to resist fatigue, which can be recovered pretty quickly and even in the middle of a fight, with enough confidence and breath control and stuff like that. So this is the conclusion I share with Elfcrusher:

Elfcrusher wrote:Damage Reduction may be a useful way to make heavier armor better, but it doesn't make sense with the rest of the rules. Q.E.F.D.

I was using my house rule of improving post-combat recovery proportionally to an armor Protection dices (it's the rule Yepesnopes is referring to), but in time even that made armors a bit too good in my game so I dropped it.

So now I'm simply ruling that a character is only temporarily WEARY when his Endurance drops under his Fatigue score: if, during combat or after it, he recovers enough Endurance to get back over the Fatigue score, he is no more WEARY - the RAW state instead that he would require a prolonged rest.

In another topic I also explored the possibility to expose players to more wounds (Extraordinary Success on attack roll = Piercing Strike, but doesn't deal more Damage), but I'm still playtesting that.

@Elfcrusher, again I think we are splitting hairs about terminology. Pleas, bear with me as I try to explain my position (lenghty, sorry)

To cite myself: “...taking punches in the face *can* be described as "wearing", yet it's a peculiar way of telling the story. In TOR endurance points are stamina, but somehow hit points too. So we need a compromise”. Note my use of “somehow” and “compromise”

You wrote “All the other terminology and rules in the game points to damage not being physical unless it results in a wound”, and you bring good arguments to prove it. Yet I got something to point to the contrary:

The fearsome Mountain Troll, the ballista fodder. His only attack is Crush: damage 9, Edge 12, Injury 12. His wounding power is less than a goblin's jagged knife (12/14). And all trolls are pretty wimp once we come to wounding.

We know that the Mountain Troll is the most “damaging” one. Just the troll is going to smash you to a pulp with his Horrible Strength, while the Goblin need to get lucky with that knife to scrape a win.

In TOR there are 2 ways to win a fight: the simple grinding way (Endurance) and the swift blade-stroke to a vital organ. I like this system, so much that it's the first time in 15 years that I come back to recording endurance/hit points (normally I use Warhammer's critical hits without any wounds. Any hit beyond Toughness value is a critical).
What I'm trying to say is that there are differences between Endurance and Wounds, but they aren't two different worlds: they are two paths to the same place (I hope this makes some sense). Endurance is the way that imply weariness, while wounds imply longer healing times.

Another way to show my point (and to disprove too, once we come to Trolls ):
The main ways to kill a Hero are: 1- coup the grace once he's unconscious (by Endurance or Wound loss, it's the same). 2-wound him AND cancel his Endurance in the same blow. Wounds alone cannot kill a hero, nor Endurance: you need both.
On the other hand normal enemies are considered dead once they got 1 wound or zero endurance.
Wounds or Endurance are the same here.
And then... we got Trolls, where Wounds are REALLY the only physical damage. What can I say? 2 out of three is fairly good, and no theory is perfect
Joking aside, we are talking about gaming tools, not medicine, so I think we need some compromise.

Michebugio wrote:

Corvo wrote:Michebugio, the word "weary" is pretty misleading. the point is that, in this game, punching someone is "making him weary".
You did (or are doing) boxe, I surmise, so you know that taking punches in the face *can* be described as "wearing", yet it's a peculiar way of telling the story.

Yes, definitely. Most punches in a match are just glancing blows, and even a good, clear strike may not bring you down straight, instead leaving you breathless or stunned, but still on your feet. In this sense the blows you take are "wearing" you out, not actually wounding you (though one can say that punches DO have the potential to hurt you badly and also fatally, but it's a very rare instance when you're trained to take one - and when gloves and protection gear come into play).
(...)

Hi Michebugio, let me say that I agree with you here.
In my text you cited I was trying to explain more or less what you are saying here. Punches in the face are surely "wearing", but it's only part of the story. A strong blow can knock you out, or wound you. Even kill, as we know.
Yet in TOR punches cannot inflict wounds. Just Endurance.
Let the comparison goes further: if you receive a 2-handed axe blow, 11 times of 12 it will not wound you, just nick your Endurance.
What I was trying to say is that Endurance isn't only weariness or endurance. It's a gaming abstraction. For a more thorough exlanation, see my previous post (sorry, I know that it's a long text )