forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

With so little input from the actual authors we have no way of knowing whether they see all these threads about armour "problems" as an issue and indeed whether they might have been testing alternatives with groups that do not engage in these discussion possibly due to NDA's.

Rich H wrote: (...)
Those are my thoughts too and it's why I said earlier that I'm cautious/suspicious of some of the conclusions being drawn in this thread and usage of the simulator as it's very much biased to 1 vs 1 combat and not combat between multiple agents, both on the side of the PCs and the adversaries. There are massive swathes of in-game encounters and variables that are not being included and considered within the simulator and discussions around it.

Yet we know that a problem already exists in these situation.
1 vs 1 with swords* and axes**. 2 vs 1 with axes. 3 vs 1 with axes (and 3 against one is maximum melee ratio RAW, if I remember correctly). In these all too common situations armour lowers your chance of winning.

Unless we prove Elfcrusher's simulator being wrong, this is our data. I tried to find significative errors in the simulator, and failed

Yepesnope's rule (lowering edge by 1 for all weapons) solve this "artefact" of the rules. And the other one too, axes being flat-out the worst weapon.

Let's add another consideration: "keen" is an already allowed reward in the game. No one complained about it being devastating to the game.
So I'm asking: what other hidden snags can we find in Yepesnope's rule?
I tried a lot, and found nothing.

*shorthand for any weapon with Edge 10
**shorthand for any weapon with Edge 12

PS: wherever this discussion will go, thank you for taking your time to write on this thread

Hermes Serpent wrote:With so little input from the actual authors we have no way of knowing whether they see all these threads about armour "problems" as an issue and indeed whether they might have been testing alternatives with groups that do not engage in these discussion possibly due to NDA's.

Yeah, no way to know. I'm just trying to build up some public awareness about the whole affair . And maybe pointing at an easily implemented solution (Yepesnope's rule, not my own far too cumbersome houserule). Call me a civil servant

Clearly, if the men in black (the Nazguls) come around looking for some "Corrrvo, Hiiitaly"... well, I'll take a long long vacation

Corvo wrote: Yepesnope's rule is the only one different about this. Because it's not a new rule, just an adjustment on the existing ones. I think that -so far- it's the only solution to the armour problem that can gain wide acceptance.

I tried it a lot. The results are very good.
Yepesnopes rule can solve the problem without changing the rules. Let's try it.[/i]

The rule is indexed at page 10 (100th post).
I copy-pasted it at page 11.
I posted test results at page 13 and 14.

I have to say that I also find Yepesnopes rule the best one IMHO if it works. From what I understand from your report, Corvo, the different armors get more or less even (or at least there's not a huge difference) AND heavy armor becomes more important in long battles. It would suit my idea of how armor should work really fine.

For now, I'm going to use it, but just to be sure: Does the -1 to Edge also apply to enemies weapons?

And a sidequestion: has anyone noticed if this modifier also solves or improves the problem with axes being the worst weapons in every condition. If the Edge is lowered, but the Injury is not touched, maybe the axe becomes a little better. Just an idea.

Along with Rich H's addition of lowering the Protection Rate of armors by -1D everytime a Protection Roll is failed AND an Eye is rolled, I would have enough mods for the armor rules to satisfy me.

Corvo wrote: Yepesnope's rule (lowering edge by 1 for all weapons) solve this "artefact" of the rules. And the other one too, axes being flat-out the worst weapon.

Ooops! Sorry for my last post, I didn't see this one which already answers my question.
Thanks!
And thanks Yepesnopes!

Falenthal wrote:

Corvo wrote: Yepesnope's rule is the only one different about this. Because it's not a new rule, just an adjustment on the existing ones. I think that -so far- it's the only solution to the armour problem that can gain wide acceptance.

I tried it a lot. The results are very good.
Yepesnopes rule can solve the problem without changing the rules. Let's try it.[/i]

The rule is indexed at page 10 (100th post).
I copy-pasted it at page 11.
I posted test results at page 13 and 14.

I have to say that I also find Yepesnopes rule the best one IMHO if it works.

Please, try it . I really want to discover if there are hidden snags. So far, I was unable to find any.

Falenthal wrote: From what I understand from your report, Corvo, the different armors get more or less even (or at least there's not a huge difference) AND heavy armor becomes more important in long battles. It would suit my idea of how armor should work really fine.

From my tests, with "Edge -1" it becomes really difficult to find a unique best solution to all dangers of the battlefield. Now making a choice is difficult. On one hand you have to balance your own endurance (till now, naked=better). Then, opponent matters. Against axes, it's best to go unarmored, against spears you have to be armored, etc.
What emerged is that the longer the battle the more useful is the armour.

Falenthal wrote: For now, I'm going to use it, but just to be sure: Does the -1 to Edge also apply to enemies weapons?

Yes. -1 Edge to all, Heroes and Enemies. Otherwise the armour problem remains unsolved.

Falenthal wrote: And a sidequestion: has anyone noticed if this modifier also solves or improves the problem with axes being the worst weapons in every condition. If the Edge is lowered, but the Injury is not touched, maybe the axe becomes a little better. Just an idea.

Yes. We already discovered when we tried to add keen to axes in the thread about the King's Blade. Now even enemies axes got this bonus
Edit: you already found out!

Falenthal wrote: Along with Rich H's addition of lowering the Protection Rate of armors by -1D everytime a Protection Roll is failed AND an Eye is rolled, I would have enough mods for the armor rules to satisfy me.

That I haven't tried.

Corvo wrote:2-about enemies having low endurance... so what's the problem with lowering the Edge? Please, believe me, I'm not being snappy or aggressive about it: I really don't understand your point

No worries, I should have given you a longer and more thorough explanation. The main cause of NPC elimination is Endurance loss. By reducing the Edge rating of all weapons by 1, this will change but not in a significant manner (Endurance loss will remain the most common reason why low-powered creatures are taken out of combat). By decreasing the Edge score of all weapons player characters are more prone to wounds, especially when they are facing a larger number of opponents. I know that this is the intended effect and that heroes can thereby be "encouraged" (if not forced) to wear heavier armour. At the same time, one can also say that the suggested house rule penalises them, as the effect is more beneficial to the enemy who - once again - usually outnumbers them and, hence, gets to roll the Feat die more often. I hope that my reasoning makes more sense now. PS I'm not saying that Yepnopes' suggestion is necessarily bad. It's simple and may actually work quite well. At the moment, I just not sure...

Thank you Mogul, for your answer and for taking up my challenge "what do you think of Yepe's idea?"
After all, there are *lots* of houserules here, and frankly I have no opinions about a lot of them

mogul76 wrote: I know that this is the intended effect and that heroes can thereby be "encouraged" (if not forced) to wear heavier armour.

If I understood correctly, this is the idea of this whole thread, as it has been proved by Elfcrusher simulator (at least in 1 vs 1 combats) that armours per RAW are very detrimental for the PC survivability. That means that the rules per RAW encourage PCs not to wear armour.

A priori I see such a change not that detrimental for PCs (who can always choose to wear armour and who need two wounds to be defeated) as compared to NPCs with medium to high endurance, since they still die with one wound (besides Trolls and such big things).

Said that, if I have the possibility I will play test the "Yepesnopes house rule", the problem is I am not the GM of my group in TOR, so the choice is not only mine

Cheers,
Yepes

I’ll “resurrect” this topic for a while since another mechanic came into my mind, and I’ll test it tonight.

The house rule is the following:

When a fighter wearing an armor (but not a cap or a helm) is hit in combat, he may reduce the Endurance points lost by an amount equal to the Protection rating of the armor, and increases his Fatigue score by the same amount. He can do so up until his Fatigue score is equal to his maximum Endurance score.

The increased Fatigue is shaken off at the end of combat, regardless of its amount, given proper resting time (usually half an hour; see Recovery, Adventurer’s Book page 144).

Also, a hero is made only temporarily weary through the loss of Endurance: a weary adventurer whose Endurance score is higher than his Fatigue rating after recovery at the end of combat, may now uncheck the Weary label on his character sheet.

This way, damage is not reduced during combat, and it doesn’t make you Weary later: it’s simply converted (in part or as a whole, proportionally to the quality of your armor) to an increased Fatigue, thus easier to recover from.
The rule is simple enough, it’s incremental and doesn’t involve more rolling or more book-keeping.

What do you think?

EDIT: actually, damage IS reduced this way, I didn't realize it in the first time! Converting to Fatigue some of the damage means you lose less Endurance, so you have a greater "buffer" before dropping unconscious. BUT you get Weary as soon as in the RAW. Interesting.