Armour house rule

[Michebugio]

So, after yesterday's play-test, I had to made a further refinement for the new Knockback house rule, taking some suggestions from my players. Hopefully this will be the definitive version. For anybody who is interested in it, I made a new description that overlaps the one in the Adventurer's Book, page 160. Underlined parts are the modifications. Here it is:

KNOCKBACK

Fighters soon discover that sometimes it is better to literally ‘roll with the punches,’ and reduce the force of
an attack by stepping back or to the side or by kneeling under the force of a blow – in gaming terms, they learn to let themselves be ‘knocked back’ by their opponent.

Characters may halve the Endurance loss caused by a successful attack (rounding fractions up) by making a roll of Athletics or a Protection Test (but not both). The TN for the roll is equal to 10 plus the Attribute level of the opponent who hit the character.

On a successful roll, the companion halves the Endurance loss, letting himself to be thrown off-balance: he cannot change his stance and will spend his following round recovering his fighting position, unable to take any further action that turn. If an adversary attacks while a hero is recovering from knockback, the attack is resolved normally.

A great or extraordinary success is needed for the hero to keep his balance, acting normally on his next turn.

If the knock back attempt failed, the acting hero couldn’t reduce the Endurance loss and will be unable to change stance or take any action on the following round.

You'll notice that now Knockback is no more automatic, but it's an attempt (like, for example, escape combat) that may fail wasting your next round. Also, no more fumble on a Sauron roll, to mitigate the already dreadful effect of wasting a combat round for nothing.

But you'll notice also that a heavily armored character can pretty much halve the damage on nearly every blow, and keep fighting without needing to recover his balance. The same can be said for characters with high Athletics, who by the way need to spend a great amount of Advancement Points to get on par with a good armor.

Note, finally, that cultures with high Athletics are also cultures that, traditionally, don't wear heavy armors (Elves, Beornings, Woodmen), while cultures with the least scores of Athletics tend to use big armors (Dwarves, Bardings): and that makes a nice rationale using this Knockback house rule, because lightly armored heroes will of course try to compensate with high Athletics.

Overall, I'm pretty satisfied of this rule's performance in game, but I'm eager to hear from you some feedback in case you want to adopt or simply play-test it as well

[Corvo]

(...)

Note, finally, that cultures with high Athletics are also cultures that, traditionally, don't wear heavy armors (Elves, Beornings, Woodmen), while cultures with the least scores of Athletics tend to use big armors (Dwarves, Bardings): and that makes a nice rationale using this Knockback house rule, because lightly armored heroes will of course try to compensate with high Athletics.

Overall, I'm pretty satisfied of this rule's performance in game, but I'm eager to hear from you some feedback in case you want to adopt or simply play-test it as well

Hi Michebugio,

there is a side-effect that was maybe unforeseen by you.
You say that Elves, Beornings and Woodmen usually don't wear heavy armour. But with your rules they are encouraged to wear mail, while they are discouraged from using leather (their athletics overlap with leather armour protection. No reason to wear this, because we know that wearing armour only to stop wounding blow is a death-trap).
With that rule, Dwarves, Bardings and Hobbits are the only ones that can choose leather armour.

[Rocmistro]

I think I would only make it a Protection Test, which is, to a degree, representative of the person's skill in wearing that armor (that's one of the reasons, I think, why you have to roll it instead of having it provide a static value).

But other than that, allowing athletics or protection degrades the value of protection and increases the value of Athletics TREMENDOUSLY. Bad way to go IMHO.

[Yepesnopes]

Why did not you go leave the Knockback rules as they were and just add to them the armour protection option, without the Athletics?

[Corvo]

Hi Michebugio,

I was rethinking about some of your earlier arguments, and I realized something.

Discussing armour, you wrote that an in-combat advantage shouldn't be balanced with an out-of-combat disadvantage.
So a travel-skill disadvantage shouldn't be used to balance damage-reduction advantage.
Here we disagree, and I think we represent two different school-of-thought among players.

You think that being armoured or unarmoured in combat should be more-or-less equally effective: these are two different ways to fight, so to say.
I think that being armoured in pre-modern combat is more effective "per se" than being unarmoured, but that there are other factors that indirectly makes armour less desirable: excessive fatigue accrued during long marches being an example*.

If we can agree on the existence of these two schools of thought maybe we can sort some guideline about the armour's problem. Because Elfcrusher's simulator showed us that armour, by RAW, is broken.


*I remember reading that gladiators helms and armours were far more robust and heavy than legionary ones. It was explained that legionaries had to march a lot in armour, while gladiators had to face just the fight. I read something similar even about late medieval jousting vs field armour.
Even in the novels, Aragorn traveled armourless, but got mail when he faced a field battle.

[Woodclaw]

After doing some indoor (read not at the gaming table) testing, I have to say that I don't like how this version plays.
Adding the Atheltics option might be fine in some games, but it utterly defy the purpose of this rule, since it gives another option making armour even more impractical for certain characters (as Corvo noted).
Also, I'm not too keen on the failure causing the character to both lose the turn and take full damage, that is too punishing in my eyes. I much prefered the first version of the rule with the "Eye" effect.

[Michebugio]

I think I would only make it a Protection Test, which is, to a degree, representative of the person's skill in wearing that armor (that's one of the reasons, I think, why you have to roll it instead of having it provide a static value).

But other than that, allowing athletics or protection degrades the value of protection and increases the value of Athletics TREMENDOUSLY. Bad way to go IMHO.

My players had not the same feel: Athletics is expensive, Armors are not. Some of them had this exact thought: why should you spend experience and/or AP on Athletics, when at the price of Encumbrance you can have both a protection against Endurance AND against Wounds? Also, this may lead to a diversification in your Companies: maybe some of your players would like to play now "swashbuckler-style" combatants, using no armor but greatly relying on their Athletics, especially if their starting value is high already (like Elves).
But it would be far from convenient, for a character with a very low starting value of Athletics, to "pump it up" just to have an "armor without encumbrance" that also doesn't protect him from Wounds. 4 dices of Athletics have Encumbrance 0, yes, but they cost up to 10 experience points (or an equivalent amount of AP): a Coat of mail (4d) is heavy but essentially free, and ALSO protects you from Wounds.

It's a give and take and, of course, it's a house rule, and you may use it how you want: if you feel that in your game it would be more suitable to just use Protection test, Rocmistro, then use it that way and let me know how it worked

And regarding your objection, Woodclaw: feel free to mitigate the effects of a failure, in your game. Maybe you'll want to negate damage reduction on a failure, but the character doesn't lose his next turn doing so. Playtesting, playtesting!

Why did not you go leave the Knockback rules as they were and just add to them the armour protection option, without the Athletics?

Because of playtesting, Yepes. Simply put, I realized that if Knockback is automatic (regardless of a successful or failed Protection roll), my players would have added a Protection roll 99% of the times they used Knockback (true story, they did!). That's not what I wanted: I wanted for them to make a real, not obvious choice. With this rule I made Knockback a bit more interesting, IMHO: more risky (it can fail), but also potentially more rewarding (you don't lose your turn). And I added the Athletics alternative for the same I explained to Rocmistro above


But let me describe two examples from my experience yesterday night so I can give you an idea.

Think about an Elf (Athletics 3): with such an Athletics score, he can replicate a chain shirt (Enc 12) ONLY for the purposes of my alternate “Knockback rolls”. If he wanted to perform better in Knockback, he would need to go at least for a coat of mail (Enc 16), just to roll 1 more dice: too much Encumbrance for such a slight advantage (and Elves have also low Endurance). My elven player made this exact reasoning: after I developed the rule, he decided to drop his chain shirt (3d) and use a leather corselet instead. He is even tempted to go unarmored, at the risk of taking Wounds.

Or think about a Beorning (Athletics 2, favourite). Yes, in his case he may want to skip the use of leather and go for a chain mail, thanks to his higher Endurance. But for what? 1 or 2 more dices for Knockback rolls, and less chances to take a Wound? Beornings almost *want* to be wounded. And that was the reasoning of my other player, the spear-wielding Beorning: he has now a simple leather shirt (1d), just to avoid those itchy stings of lucky Goblin arrows. And maybe, after raising Athletics some more, soon or late he is going unarmored too like his Elven companion.

The two examples above can be also considered an answer to you good point, Corvo

On the other hand, my Barding and the (newly recruited) Dwarf were happier to use their Coat of mail and Hauberk (respectively)... so everybody in my group is happier now, and I think that's a success

EDIT: But again, the Athletics roll may suit my game, but not yours. Feel free to playtest this how you want, especially by just keeping the Protection roll! Any playtest, of one version of the rule or the other, would be greatly appreciated! And if it enhances your games, I would be really happy to hear that

[Glorelendil]

I'd have to run it through the sim, but my gut reaction is to like this idea.

1) A Great Success with 5D will happen about 60% of the time, which means almost half the time you still lose your next attack. That might still be too good; maybe on an Extraordinary Success you don't lose your next turn? (Would be nice to differentiate between Great and Ex somehow.)

2) To make it a bit riskier, maybe make them lose their Parry bonus on a Sauron?

3) Personally I like that characters can choose to focus on athletics instead of armor and get some combat advantage from it. It makes the armor-less character concept more viable. Athletics cost AP, Armor costs Encumbrance. It doesn't devalue armor even further, it just gives another option.

4) What I like most is that it doesn't add a new mechanic that requires more rolling, it just modifies an existing one to create new options.

[Corvo]

(...)

Think about an Elf (Athletics 3): with such an Athletics score, he can replicate a chain shirt (Enc 12) ONLY for the purposes of my alternate “Knockback rolls”. If he wanted to perform better in Knockback, he would need to go at least for a coat of mail (Enc 16), just to roll 1 more dice: too much Encumbrance for such a slight advantage (and Elves have also low Endurance). My elven player made this exact reasoning: after I developed the rule, he decided to drop his chain shirt (3d) and use a leather corselet instead. He is even tempted to go unarmored, at the risk of taking Wounds.

Or think about a Beorning (Athletics 2, favourite). Yes, in his case he may want to skip the use of leather and go for a chain mail, thanks to his higher Endurance. But for what? 1 or 2 more dices for Knockback rolls, and less chances to take a Wound? Beornings almost *want* to be wounded. And that was the reasoning of my other player, the spear-wielding Beorning: he has now a simple leather shirt (1d), just to avoid those itchy stings of lucky Goblin arrows. And maybe, after raising Athletics some more, soon or late he is going unarmored too like his Elven companion.

The two examples above can be also considered an answer to you good point, Corvo
(...)

Well, your players had to follow their gut feeling. Like we all did when we started playing by the rules as written. But I think you and your players are wrong, number-wise. Please, follow my reasoning and check if I'm wrong

We know that by the RAW, the armour is detrimental to PCs (Elf's simulator showed this): this is the reason we are discussing how to have better armour rules.
In your houserule, once your Athletics reach your armour dices, you are playing by the RAW: in other words, your elf and beornings are following their gut feeling taking that armour. But we know that they are lowering their odds in a fight.

I'll go further. Once you reach Athletics 3 probably any armour lowers your odds of winning. As you said 1 or 2 extra dices aren't comparable to 16-20 fatigue points. Especially because, in you houserule, being weary lowers your chances to “roll with the blow” and halve damage.

Overall I think that it's an apparently charming houserule, but it doesn't solve the original issue. Well... unless all my reasoning isn't a sleep-deprivation-induced hallucination!

[Michebugio]

Thanks for the feedback, Elfcrusher and Corvo! To address some of your points:

I'd have to run it through the sim, but my gut reaction is to like this idea.

That would be sexy, but I'm afraid it would also be tricky, since Knockback is an optional and situational maneuver like Hope expenditure... but I'm sure that your programming mojo is strong enough for that

1) A Great Success with 5D will happen about 60% of the time, which means almost half the time you still lose your next attack. That might still be too good; maybe on an Extraordinary Success you don't lose your next turn? (Would be nice to differentiate between Great and Ex somehow.)

2) To make it a bit riskier, maybe make them lose their Parry bonus on a Sauron?

You practically described my "beta version" of the rule Why did I drop the "only on Extraordinary Success" option and the "something bad on a Sauron" option?

Reason 1: because an Extraordinary Success needs at least 2 dices to happen, so it would make poor Leather shirt (1d) useless for a character without any rank in Athletics. My idea was that, theoretically, every armor should have a chance to proc "enhanced Knockback".

Reason 2: I tried to make a symmetry with Escape combat maneuver (in the first version, some posts ago, the symmetry was with Called shot). Escape combat and Knockback are quite similar, since they are both defensive options that characters use when things are going pretty bad, so I thought they also should be similar in terms of effects.

Reason 3: Extraordinary Success happens 40% of the time with 5D, maybe a bit too bad for the best armor in the game, considering that a failure is still possible.

And there's also Reason 4: you won't believe how much my players were afraid of a failure in this test.
Woodclaw had the same fear, some post ago: is it too harsh to take all the damage AND to lose the next turn on a failure? Well, with 5D against TN 14 failure happens 4% of the times, with a 60% to keep fighting normally on the next turn. I would DEFINITELY take the chance, even when I'm unharmed (and that's GOOD, because making Hauberk interesting is EXACTLY what we want)!
But with 3D, failure happens 30% of the time, with 42% chance for a Great or Extraordinary success: hmmm, what would you do? Risk the Knockback, or just take the damage? That's what I call an interesting choice

And finally, as Corvo pointed out, one could say: "yeah, but then leather armor are pretty useless in Knockback! people won't wear them anymore!". Well, that's far from true: my Fellowship is the proof, believe me. Leather armors won't provide a much reliable Knockback resistance, but think about it: they are still light, efficient, low Encumbrance tools to avoid Wounds, and characters with good Athletics can nicely compensate.

In your houserule, once your Athletics reach your armour dices, you are playing by the RAW: in other words, your elf and beornings are following their gut feeling taking that armour. But we know that they are lowering their odds in a fight.

Very true and nicely thought: but all those ranks in Athletics had a cost, in terms of experience and AP. Armor comes for free, its price being Encumbrance, and it's also a Wound insurance. And the character wearing it maybe invested those experience/AP in some other, equally useful Skill (like Battle, or Travel)