Armour house rule

[zedturtle]

I can't say I'm in favor of more bookkeeping either, but absorbing one blow, once per adventure, followed by even less useful armor, doesn't seem like something I'd use unless it were the last fight before a Fellowship phase. And even then, if I have to use the phase repairing...?

What just occurred to me is that armor could get damaged, as per zed's rules, anytime you roll a sauron on a protection test. Of course, that rule by itself would make armor even worse than it is, but I like the idea that sometimes your armor gets damaged.

Well, I'm thinking now that it would just be the positive effect (i.e. the once a phase DR) without any negatives (i.e. drop the penalties re: damaged armour). Repairing the armour would happen in fellow phases but does not have to be elected as your character's primary action... it's just a background thing that happens.

I'd prefer to keep player agency... i.e. the player gets to pick when the armour is damaged, not the dice. But I understand the impulse, I just think it would create a different feel for the game.

[Rocmistro]

Rocmistro, I was under the impression I was discussing my houserules, but your persuade roll is already changing my opinion... )

Joking aside, there had been some threads already about the armour. I opened this thread to illustrate the solution I adopted, a solution that is just part of a more extensive set of changes (I refrained from derailing other threads).

Are you sure that you can change just one piece of the rules and...( a) solve your stated problem (b) don't mess with the other rules (c) don't mess with the perceived game balance?

Point "C" isn't so trifle, there are already people here that raised questions like "what about the toughest dwarf of M-e?" Or "what about hobbits and woodmen?".

We agree there is a problem with armour. Elfcrusher's simulations showed us that it's more a liability than an asset.
I'm not sure that this problem can be solved without addressing other matters. Like Defensive stance being the only worthy stance once you reach 3d skill.

...

By the way, of your options the one I prefer is n.1. It mess with rules symmetry, and that's a shame. I was thinking about going this way: "3 leather armours, with 2-3-4 d6 protection; and 3 chain armour, with 2-3-4 d6 protection AND 1-2-3 damage reduction (number of dices/2)"
Thoughts about this one?

Indeed! And YOUR houserule is where I would have preferred to keep it; ie, damage reduction / mitigation and a change to travel fatigue. I think heavy armor can be fixed with those 2 dynamics, it's just a question of tweaking the numbers correctly. Now it's gone into a discussion of high-book-keeping armor damage/broken, etc, which, I don't know, just really isn't for me and doesn't feel very Tolkieny.

I *do* feel, to answer your other question, that if heavy armor is broken, then it can be fixed in a vaccuum without addressing the rest of the game. There are other things in the game that also need to be fixed, sure, but I don't see the wisdom in tackling those in a thread about armor damage reduction. For example the point about defensive stance is a good one, but I don't think it needs to be interwoven with a thread concerning the value of heavy armor.

As far as heavy armor and the hobbit/woodsman; they shouldn't be wearing heavy armor anyway. Really I daresay only Bardings and Dwarves want heavy armor. Beornings almost want to be wounded, Woodies, Elves and Hobbits don't have the endurance for it, and I don't think our tweaks to heavy armor via damage reduction would change that. But it's already compensated for in their higher wits scores (which is how they avoid damage).

[Glorelendil]

I'd prefer to keep player agency... i.e. the player gets to pick when the armour is damaged, not the dice. But I understand the impulse, I just think it would create a different feel for the game.

I'm with you on that. I just can't figure out how to simultaneously get both the right feel and the right math. You've offered the approach the has the best feel, in my opinion.

[Fatpob]

Armour, Fatigue and the combat in general seem to be a problem for many (me included), however some of the house-rules don't stack.

Giving Armour DR ultimately will allow MinMax Munchkins to stomp round in the heaviest armour undeterred of the encumbrance - after all all hits will be trivialised.
Increasing damage to allow DR seems to be counter-productive, suggesting the solution is flawed from the off.

Furthermore adding DR to both parties would assuredly make combat a longer affair and (I appreciate not massively so) with more maths than necessary without that much difference.

I understand that armour feels worthless - but it is there to save your life when you get walloped by that sauron rolled piercing arrow.

The best solution is to examine the encumbrance of the armour, which is very high, and examine how this can be amended. I suggested armour cost 0 encumbrance to wear and you paid encumbrance when rolling for physical activities (viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1179&start=120) such as travel, combat and movement etc.

The Rule of having Armour as a skill is also a reasonable house rule, and makes sense, without the need for mass alterations.

In relation to mashing a mountain troll - should this really be a "simple" feat? Just because D&D allows you to swathe through a troll room in minutes it does not mean we should trivialise the TOR Mountain Troll. There needs to be danger and certainly injury of some kind to the party - which would not be the case if everyone stromped about with 5-6 DR.

[Michebugio]

At this point, we have a plurality of proposals with their intrinsic pros and cons, so I guess it's now just a matter of personal preferences and rule tweaking.

But I would like to ask one last question, hoping to catch the attention of a dev or somebody closely related to one: why the armor Encumbrance has been set to those values? Are they multiples of 4 for a reason? I guess they come from extensive playtesting, but still those values seem quite high for all the mail types, and we all can see how they can penalize a character wearing one. So why those values? Has it been already stated somewhere?

Besides, has anybody played, say, reducing armor Encumbrance to multiples of 3? Since every Protection dice rolled has an average result of 3.5, that drops to 2.5 when Weary, we can safely state that each dice has an average output of 3.
So maybe it would make sense to reduce Encumbrance to 3 (instead of 4) for each Protection dice, applying the simple equation 1 point Encumbrance = 1 average bonus point to Protection tests' results. For the same logic, iron and leather caps would become Encumbrance 1, and Helm Encumbrance 4. But this is just an example of simple Encumbrance refinement (since heavy armor disadvantage is all about this).

I would really like to hear how this - the simplest tweak about armor house ruling - performs in game.

[Corvo]

Indeed! And YOUR houserule is where I would have preferred to keep it; ie, damage reduction / mitigation and a change to travel fatigue. I think heavy armor can be fixed with those 2 dynamics, it's just a question of tweaking the numbers correctly. Now it's gone into a discussion of high-book-keeping armor damage/broken, etc, which, I don't know, just really isn't for me and doesn't feel very Tolkieny.

I agree: I'm not keen on armour damage rules.
Since we agree on the "damage reduction / mitigation and a change to travel fatigue", what do you tink of my last proposal?
3 leather armours, with 2-3-4 d6 protection; and 3 chain armour, with 2-3-4 d6 protection AND 1-2-3 damage reduction
It makes sense to you? How would you assign Travel TN# malus?

I *do* feel, to answer your other question, that if heavy armor is broken, then it can be fixed in a vaccuum without addressing the rest of the game. There are other things in the game that also need to be fixed, sure, but I don't see the wisdom in tackling those in a thread about armor damage reduction. For example the point about defensive stance is a good one, but I don't think it needs to be interwoven with a thread concerning the value of heavy armor.
(...)

Ok, for discussion's sake let us put the others issue aside

[Corvo]

Hi Fatpob, I'll try my best to answer your points.

Armour, Fatigue and the combat in general seem to be a problem for many (me included), however some of the house-rules don't stack.

Giving Armour DR ultimately will allow MinMax Munchkins to stomp round in the heaviest armour undeterred of the encumbrance - after all all hits will be trivialised.
Increasing damage to allow DR seems to be counter-productive, suggesting the solution is flawed from the off.

Hi Fatpob, I'll try my best to answer your points.
Well, I playtested it for almost an year and found it pretty functional.
But I understand that my houserules are A LOT, and not for everyone taste.

Furthermore adding DR to both parties would assuredly make combat a longer affair and (I appreciate not massively so) with more maths than necessary without that much difference.

Well, that's not a problem since I raised damage.
Note that the issue we are trying to solve is the relative efficency of armourless and armoured fighters, that now are way off.

I understand that armour feels worthless - but it is there to save your life when you get walloped by that sauron rolled piercing arrow.

I used to have your same opinion. Elfcrusher's simulator proved me wrong: armour (all armours) lowers your chance of winning a fight

The best solution is to examine the encumbrance of the armour, which is very high, and examine how this can be amended. I suggested armour cost 0 encumbrance to wear and you paid encumbrance when rolling for physical activities (viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1179&start=120) such as travel, combat and movement etc.

The Rule of having Armour as a skill is also a reasonable house rule, and makes sense, without the need for mass alterations.

Interesting. Have you playtested it?
I got the impression that it makes heavy armour trivially easy to wear, but maybe I missed something.

In relation to mashing a mountain troll - should this really be a "simple" feat? Just because D&D allows you to swathe through a troll room in minutes it does not mean we should trivialise the TOR Mountain Troll. There needs to be danger and certainly injury of some kind to the party - which would not be the case if everyone stromped about with 5-6 DR.

Sorry, that I don't understand. Have you tried it? My players feel that hill trolls are terrible enough

[Stormcrow]

I'm not going to propose a rule or commenting on a proposal, but I wanted to put in my two cents about what happens when you get hit by a weapon.

You always take an Endurance loss. If the hit is not a Piercing Blow, then the damage is caused by A BIG HONKIN' WEIGHT SMASHING INTO YOU. Or the pain and stress of being shot in the shoulder by an arrow, or by being burned, or by being crushed. In all cases you're hurt or exhausted or distracted, and this affects your ability to function. Trust me, if you get smashed in the chest with an axe and your mail stops the blow, it's still gonna hurt a great deal and impair you.

If the hit is a Piercing Blow, then that big honkin' weight ALSO manages to get past your defenses and poke through your skin. Endurance loss is superficial; Piercing Blows are life-threatening. This is where a major organ is damaged, or you lose a lot of blood.

Endurance loss IS injury, among other things, but it's non-life-threatening injury.

[tomfish]

Hello,

In the many potential house rules about armour, one has maybe not yet been discussed, linked to rolling 6s in protection tests.

In any other test, something really good will happen when you roll 6s, but in the case of protection tests, there is only one result : "defender avoids wound". Here maybe could lie an opportunity, since heavy armour has more chance of rolling 6s (about 50% with 4D).

So here's a try at a simple house rule for protection rolls (to be playtested soon), statistically increasing the value of heavy armour :

- When rolling Superior Success on a protection test, the piercing blow is blocked a particularly thick piece of armour : the endurance loss inflicted by the blow is reduced by half, rounded up.

- When rolling an Extraordinary Success on a protection test, the piercing blow goes through the small space right between the armour and the body, and yields no damage.

I realize that by doing this, piercing blows bring opportunities for less damage than non piercing blows, and this could be seen as a bit unrealistic, you could maybe level it by saying that the attacker could be given the choice to attempt piercing or not (keep the attack "flat") before the protection roll.
Of course, should appliy also to Enemies.

What do you think ? I don't know if it could truly raise the benefit of armour, but it seems quite simple.


Tom

[Glorelendil]

Endurance loss IS injury, among other things, but it's non-life-threatening injury.

Including an injury that heals immediately after a battle? What sort of injury is that?

If all endurance loss = injury I think Francesco would have called it "health" not endurance.