forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Rocmistro wrote:Right. Well as much as I agree with the basic assessment of armor = bad based on the model, does it ever take into account reward qualities affecting?
...
Hence while the theory makes sense to me, I'm not sure if the problem is really relevant for long-term play, given the choices that players are likely to make with their rewards.

I said earlier that there are design conceits that Francesco has undoubtedly coded into the system - eg, I think that there's a strong pointed that only Dwarves should really wear mail hauberk. This is another potential one as well. We may argue over how many to spend on it but there's no doubting the RAW is there to address such elements.

Rocmistro wrote:Right. Well as much as I agree with the basic assessment of armor = bad based on the model, does it ever take into account reward qualities affecting?

For example, a player with 5 rewards, let's say he spends 3 to trick out his weapon. He has 2 left.
If you take a mithril shirt and pump 2 cunning makes into it, lowering the encumbrance to 8...you now have 3d armor at 8 encumbrance. Call me silly but that kinda seems like a sweet spot.

Hence while the theory makes sense to me, I'm not sure if the problem is really relevant for long-term play, given the choices that players are likely to make with their rewards.

Sorry Rocmistro but I disagree.

Preamble: the most powerful PCs in the game will reach a grand total of 5 rewards. No more. Most PCs will never reach such heights. You are speaking of -6 fatigue, 3 rewards. It's a huge investment.

But I think the point is that armour is already perfect as is... unless you compare it to going naked.
An armour with 3 reward is great. Unless you compare it to taking these rewards elsewhere.
Armour is gimped compared to going naked, with or without rewards.
The problem is that armour is supposed to be useful.

My comments were not meant to suggest that armor is perfect or even that it does not inherently have a design flaw. Let me be clear that I believe it does. I guess I'm in the middle ground between Rich's position (and respectfully, Rich, I do see the wisdom and merit in your opinions and comments) and the "Fix Armor!" camp. (But leaning heavily towards the "Fix Armor!" camp)

My post was simply meant to suggest that in our collective analysis, we cannot altogether disregard the opportunity for Qualities to make armor better. Sure, it might not happen that players select those rewards, but there is also a good chance it might. The point is that players have some say in whether or not those rewards/qualities suit them, and I believe that these nuances are what Rich refers to when he points out that Elfcrusher's model of analysis (whatever his data widget is) is not necessarily the end-all be-all of the argument.

I will also point out that powerful characters, in addition to having rewards, will also tend to have high weapon skill, which greatly reduces the penalty for being weary, and weary is the only real downside to armor.

I just ran a Barding with Long Sword (Keen, Grievous), skill 6 (Favoured) against 4 Orc Guards. Naked he won 50% of the time, with Mail Shirt he won 78% of the time, and with Mail Hauberk he won 80% of the time. Weary don't mean much when you're rolling six dice and spending Hope.


(Then I moved from Defensive to Open and the win rate halved. That's really the bigger issue to solve.)

I still think armor is funky, and my favorite solutions are (surprise! mine!) to tie armor penalties to travel, and/or to create an armor skill. (But because of the above logic, in a sense weapon skill is armor skill.) So...especially when you factor in Francesco's potential narrative bias that Rich suggests...maybe it's not a really an issue.

But it sure is fun to theorycraft.

@Rocmistro

Hope my last post don't resulted too aggressive. Re-reading it I got some second thought. If it's the case, I beg your pardon, really. It wasn't meant to be.
When I first write a post, usually it results really long. English is a language far more concise than my native own, so I'm used to going back and cutting it shorter... yet doing so sometimes it results, well, blunt

Nope, not all. Believe me I understand, I make the same mistake, often.

Especially since I'm at work (shhh...don't tell anyone) and many times my responses are rushed and hurried and a little more stream of consciousness than I would otherwise like.

In fact I think I may have rubbed Rich H and Jon Hodgson the wrong way as a result of this: so if you guys are reading this please accept my olive branch for the same reasons.

I've been looking at this, and at the convolutions a flat damage reduction entails, and have decided that, if I have a group that wants armor to reduce endurance loss, I'll use "Roll the protection test whether wounded or not - reduce damage taken by 1 for succeeding, and by another 1 for each tengwar (whether successful or or not)."

Anything more than that seems too much.

aramis wrote:I've been looking at this, and at the convolutions a flat damage reduction entails, and have decided that, if I have a group that wants armor to reduce endurance loss, I'll use "Roll the protection test whether wounded or not - reduce damage taken by 1 for succeeding, and by another 1 for each tengwar (whether successful or or not)."

Anything more than that seems too much.

I'll add this to the simulator, which at the moment is in little pieces scattered across my desk as I try to improve the UI. So it may be a while.

aramis wrote:I've been looking at this, and at the convolutions a flat damage reduction entails, and have decided that, if I have a group that wants armor to reduce endurance loss, I'll use "Roll the protection test whether wounded or not - reduce damage taken by 1 for succeeding, and by another 1 for each tengwar (whether successful or or not)."

Anything more than that seems too much.

It's another worthy idea.
Isn't the great helm penalized? No thengwar and a lot of encumbrance.

My weapon's damage is houseruled, but if I was to apply the damage RAW, I would feel inclined to try damage reduction -1 (leather armours) -2 (3 and 4d chain) -3 (5d chain)*... So my ideal range isn't much bigger than the one you proposed.

*more or less Rocmistro's proposal at page 2 of this thread, by the way

Corvo wrote:

aramis wrote:I've been looking at this, and at the convolutions a flat damage reduction entails, and have decided that, if I have a group that wants armor to reduce endurance loss, I'll use "Roll the protection test whether wounded or not - reduce damage taken by 1 for succeeding, and by another 1 for each tengwar (whether successful or or not)."

Anything more than that seems too much.

It's another worthy idea.
Isn't the great helm penalized? No thengwar and a lot of encumbrance.

My weapon's damage is houseruled, but if I was to apply the damage RAW, I would feel inclined to try damage reduction -1 (leather armours) -2 (3 and 4d chain) -3 (5d chain)*... So my ideal range isn't much bigger than the one you proposed.

*more or less Rocmistro's proposal at page 2 of this thread, by the way

Yep, it is... but it's a guaranteed 4 points on the test against wounds.