forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Yeah, I don't think making leather armor useless for knockback means they won't be worn; they'd still be just as useful as they are now, which (depending on type of opponent) can be pretty useful, without much downside.

Elfcrusher wrote:Yeah, I don't think making leather armor useless for knockback means they won't be worn; they'd still be just as useful as they are now, which (depending on type of opponent) can be pretty useful, without much downside.

@Elfcrusher, Michebugio,

I think you are missing my point (or maybe I'm missing something? )... Michebugio's rule don't resolve the initial issue: armour lower your odds of winning the combat. It's a death trap.
Michebugio's fellowship don't realized it, but we know the numbers.

Corvo wrote:I think you are missing my point (or maybe I'm missing something? )... Michebugio's rule don't resolve the initial issue: armour lower your odds of winning the combat. It's a death trap.

I got your point Maybe we need a help from Elfcrusher's mighty simulator at this point... but in my yard, a Knockback that halves Endurance loss 60% of the time (for 5D) while still letting you act on your next turn, and that turns equal to a "standard Knockback" on another 36% of the time and to a failure on the remaining 4% of the time is a nice advantage - if not a big one.

This may open the game to new tactics, also. Heavily armored characters may choose to roll their Knockback earlier in the fight, rather than when things are going bad. Maybe Dwarves with a Hauberk will roll for Knockback on every hit, still acting on their next turn 2 times out of 3, and becoming formidable tanks while the archers on the back will deal the real damage.

As you say, maybe in the end it will be just a gut feeling. But we opened new options to players, and heavy armor now at least "feel" quite tasty. All of this keeping in mind that Knockback was, and still is, just an option for the players: at worst, we just left things as they were before

Corvo wrote:

Elfcrusher wrote:Yeah, I don't think making leather armor useless for knockback means they won't be worn; they'd still be just as useful as they are now, which (depending on type of opponent) can be pretty useful, without much downside.

@Elfcrusher, Michebugio,

I think you are missing my point (or maybe I'm missing something? )... Michebugio's rule don't resolve the initial issue: armour lower your odds of winning the combat. It's a death trap.
Michebugio's fellowship don't realized it, but we know the numbers.

This is why I was saying to leave Knocback as it is and just add the armour protection option. By including Athletics in the equation, a fighter with Atletics 5 and no armour is better than a fighter with Atletics 5 and a 5d armour. Ae are again where we started.

Michebugio wrote:(...)
As you say, maybe in the end it will be just a gut feeling. But we opened new options to players, and heavy armor now at least "feel" quite tasty. All of this keeping in mind that Knockback was, and still is, just an option for the players: at worst, we just left things as they were before

Ok, let us put the matter aside then.
You got an house-rule that you like, I'm not here to change your table's rules (I'm not without sin: my own houserules are pretty extensive )

But can I ask you what do you think of my other question?
I'll quote it here for convenience:

(...) 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.

Yepesnopes wrote:By including Athletics in the equation, a fighter with Atletics 5 and no armour is better than a fighter with Atletics 5 and a 5d armour. Ae are again where we started.

You're right, numbers are numbers. But my take is: ok, he got his Athletics to 5 and now, naked, he is equal to a Hauberk-clad warrior at avoiding damage.

Well, maybe he earned it. A truly nimble, highly trained warrior with quicksilver reflexes maybe IS, indeed, as efficient as a heavily armored one. He had to forgo some training, though: skills that his armored counter-part may have invested somewhere more productive.

But I understand that you still may not be happy with that: well, let's just tweak the rule a bit more!


Option 1: when you roll for Knockback, if you use Athletics you can act freely on your next turn only on a Extraordinary Success, rather than both on a Great or Extraordinary Success.

Option 2: when you roll for Knockback, if you use Athletics and fail, on a Sauron roll you also get a fumble.

Option 3: when you roll for Knockback, if you use Athletics you fail also on a Basic success. On a Great Success you halve the damage but lose your next action; on a Extraordinary Success, you keep your next turn.

Option 4: mash together and at pleasure Option 1, 2 and 3


EDIT: sorry Corvo, missed your post! I'll answer a bit in a hurry:

Corvo wrote: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 it should be more-or-less equally effective only for game balance purposes. But this is not true in reality: in fact, I'm firmly convinced that, to use your own words,

Corvo wrote:being armoured in pre-modern combat is more effective "per se" than being unarmoured

This has to be true, otherwise nobody would have bothered to build so many (and so well-crafted) armors in the ages. Still, there may be exceptions: a frontal fight will definitely favour an armored soldier, but we agree on the fact that a guerrilla in a rough environment is a deathtrap for a metal-clad warrior. And there were some Italian schools of swordsmanship that valued mobility over resilience, which were quite effective against late Renaissance plate-armored knights. But, on average, it's a matter of fact that better protection = better chances to win.

Corvo wrote:If we can agree on the existence of these two schools of thought maybe we can sort some guideline about the armour's problem.

We do agree it's just that I find difficult to balance a combat advantage with an out-of-combat advantage: there are no guidelines, it's highly situational (it's heavily dependant on what will happen in the campaign) and maybe it has even a greater "gut-component" than other rules, since how can we say, number-wise, how much does a higher Fatigue penalty counteracts a combat advantage like damage reduction? We simply can't: it will remain a feeling somehow, that will fit perfectly your Arthurian campaign (oh, how I love Boorman's Excalibur, by the way!), but not someone else's. Hence, my effort to find a suitable solution for everyone

Michebugio wrote:

Yepesnopes wrote:By including Athletics in the equation, a fighter with Atletics 5 and no armour is better than a fighter with Atletics 5 and a 5d armour. Ae are again where we started.

You're right, numbers are numbers. But my take is: ok, he got his Athletics to 5 and now, naked, he is equal to a Hauberk-clad warrior at avoiding damage.

Unless, of course, he gets hit with a Pierce. Then he's up the proverbial creek with no paddle. Which is what makes armor still "better", and thus makes the athletics rule not OP.

We still need to find a solution that is both balanced and simple. Zedturtle, we need you!

Elfcrusher wrote:We still need to find a solution that is both balanced and simple.

You're a tough customer, aren't you? I'm sweating with all these rules, here..!

Michebugio wrote:

Corvo wrote:If we can agree on the existence of these two schools of thought maybe we can sort some guideline about the armour's problem.

We do agree it's just that I find difficult to balance a combat advantage with an out-of-combat advantage: there are no guidelines, it's highly situational (it's heavily dependant on what will happen in the campaign) and maybe it has even a greater "gut-component" than other rules, since how can we say, number-wise, how much does a higher Fatigue penalty counteracts a combat advantage like damage reduction? We simply can't: it will remain a feeling somehow, that will fit perfectly your Arthurian campaign (oh, how I love Boorman's Excalibur, by the way!), but not someone else's. Hence, my effort to find a suitable solution for everyone

Thank you Michebugio, for taking your time and read all these posts: it's a lot indeed

That said, I'm glad we can trace our differences to these "school of thought": indeed, in most of my games I strive for niche protection, ie having rules to accomodate both the swashbuckler and the armored dwarf.
But here I'm doing the opposite, exactly for the reason you extolled: that Arthurian feel of armour clad knights wading in the mud, Boorman's Excalibur just with mail instead of plate

Now, if someone can propose a rule that walk the fine line between these school of thought, we can build him an Argonath

PS:
Just for completeness sake, I edited the first post a third time, to add my rules about Parry being a skill (so that being an armoured knight in the mud impairs your defense). So my house rules are more or less complete.
If someone can find the energy to read them, feel free to give me his opinion

Guys, before we continue, let me write an appreciation post for everyone who contributed to this topic!

First of all, thanks to Corvo, the sleepless, rightful owner of the topic, for addressing the issue of armor in TOR. He reminded us one thing: armor needs some kind of damage (i.e. Endurance loss) reduction, crowds of players have been demanding that and we LMs, somehow, must give it to them! You can find his Damage Reduction house-rule HERE.

Thanks to Rocmistro, who, with Platonian eloquence - I dare say -, once and for all stated that Endurance loss is a form of injury, and as such it SHOULD be mitigated by armor.

Thanks to zedturtle for his Ablative Armor house rule, HERE. It needs some tweaking imho, but it is still a great path worth to be kept into account.

Thanks to Elfcrusher for his omni-present support and contribution. Man, you're like the rum in a Daiquiri: you don't feel it that much when you drink, but if there isn't, it's just cold piss.

Thanks to tomfish for addressing the issue in a nice and simple way, being also the main inspiration for my own rule. I'll call his proposal Enhanced Protection Test house rule, and you can find it HERE.

Thanks to Woodclaw for refining my own original house rule, making it far better (HERE is that version). We'll call it Alternate Knockback house-rule, version 1. Since Knockback is the only way, rule-wise, to reduce incoming Endurance loss, it makes sense to let the armor work in its context.

Thanks also to Yepesnopes for his nice suggestion of reducing all weapon Edge by 1 (HERE, quoted by Corvo), to make Wounds matter more (thus increasing the importance of armor).

Finally, for all those who missed the last parts of the discussion, HERE is my Alternate Knockback house-rule, version 2. It's also the latest and the one I'll playtest further in my next session.

Thank you all, guys: this is a wonderful forum!

Sorry for the interruption: let's get back to the discussion