A counter to complex armour rules

[Hermes Serpent]

As the Professor based his cultures on Anglo-Saxon models in some cases it's worth taking a look at the historical record to work out what they are likely to have worn and fought with. To do this I checked out not only Wikipedia but some other sites - various A-S Living History and weapon sites. Here's a precis/summation of my research (ten minutes with Google).

Spears were carried by men of every class, and were a favoured weapon for their length which typically varied from 1.5-2.5 meters. Spears were typically wielded using an over-arm technique, which allowed the wielder to thrust or throw without changing grip on the shaft. Those with spears typically targeted the faces (specifically the eyes) and upper chests of their opponents (this statement makes the famous helmets with face plates obvious).

The two most common forms of spears were the thrusting spear and the winged spear. The thrusting spear had a broad leaf or diamond shaped head with a central ridge for strength.The winged spear had two projections on the base of the blade that could be used to hook an opponent's sword, spear, or shield. After hooking onto the opponent's weapon, the wielder of the winged spear could disarm their opponent or redirect their attack.

The majority of Anglo Saxon axes were small hand axes. One of the more popular small hand axes was the bearded axe. This axe was two-handed and was inherited from earlier Danish Vikings.

Though swords could be used to breach an enemy's armor, they were primarily used to break bones and destroy internal organs. Anglo Saxons avoided combat where swords intercepted other swords in what we view modernly as a standard sword fight because it had the potential of dulling the blade or snapping the blade all together.

Surviving helmets are of the late Roman type, constructed of four or more segments, and often having cheek-guards and mail aventails.

The main defensive item of the Anglo-Saxon warrior was the shield. The Anglo-Saxon shield was of the centre-grip type, and consisted of a round wooden board, often covered with leather or heavy cloth, with an iron boss in the centre. Often the grip was reinforced by an iron strip, which sometimes extended across the back of the shield to reinforce it. A few shields were bound at the rim with bronze, but most would have had a leather rim stitched on.

The most wealthy warriors may also have worn a mailshirt or byrnie, which at this time was probably not much larger than a modern T-shirt, and certainly nowhere near as large as the later split hauberks. The mail shirt was probably worn over a leather jerkin or padded undergarment to prevent the mail links being forced into the body (the padded undergarment possibly did not make an appearance until the time of the Viking raids of the ninth century, when weapons seem generally to have got larger and heavier). It is possible that some of the less well off warriors may have worn leather helmets and jerkins for protection, although there is no direct evidence for this.

So based on this admittedly not particularly well researched selection of data we can say that the weapons used by the cultures Tolkien used as a model for many of his protagonists fought without armour using spears and some axes plus a shield with the most wealthy having a mail shirt and helm to supplement the basics.

The Beornings with the choice of (Axes) and Great spear match this model, as do the Woodmen with their use of a bow modelling the occasional bows/arrowheads found as grave goods in the UK and on the Continent. The Bardings, being a much wealthier culture, substitute (Swords) for the cheap and cheerful axes but retain the spear as a secondary weapon.

I'll run some examples of these warriors through Elfcrusher's simulator to see how things match up. But it's my thinking that the rules push only Dwarves towards heavier armour with their cultural benefit regarding Endurance and everyone else need not consider such exotic protection.

[Rich H]

I'll run some examples of these warriors through Elfcrusher's simulator to see how things match up. But it's my thinking that the rules push only Dwarves towards heavier armour with their cultural benefit regarding Endurance and everyone else need not consider such exotic protection.

That's was a conclusion I drew very early on when I started playing and I assumed that it was a deliberate design conceit of Francesco's game design. It's also supported by many of the Cultural Reward and Virtues within the RAW - these are often tied to specific weapons or armour types.

[Hermes Serpent]

Following up on Rich's post I did a review of the Cultural Rewards and Virtues.

Cultural Virtues and Rewards (maximum of Five Virtues and Three named Rewards)
Bardings (7 of 8 are weapons)
Primary Weapon Skills (Swords), Great Bow
Fierce Shot - Great Bow
King's Men - Sword, Long Sword, Spear and Great Bow
Swordmaster - Sword or Long sword
Dalish Longbow (Great bow)
Spear of King Bladorthin (Spear)

Beornings (3 of 8 are weapons or armour)
Primary Weapon Skills (Axes), Great Spear
Giant-slaying Spear (great Spear)
Splitting Axe (Axe or Great axe)
Noble Armour (leather armour)

Dwarves (2 of 8 are weapons or armour)
Primary Weapon Skills (Axes), Mattock
Axe of the Azanulbizar (great axe)
Dwarf-wrought Hauberk (mail armour)

Elves (5 of 8 are weapons of armour)
Primary Weapon Skills (Spears), Bow
Deadly Archery - Bow
Wood-elf Magic - Stinging Arrow
Bitter Spear (Spear)
Spearman’s Shield (buckler)
Woodland Bow (Bow)

Hobbits (4 of 8 are weapons or armour)
Primary Weapon Skills Short Sword, Bow
Fair Shot - Any missile weapon
Bow of the North Downs (Bow)
King’s Blade (Short sword)
Lucky Armour (any armour)

Woodmen (3 of 8 are weapons or armour)
Primary Weapon Skills (Bows), Long-hafted Axe
Bearded Axe (Long-hafted axe)
Feathered Armour (any armour)
Shepherds-bow (Bow or Great bow)

While Bardings seem to be steered towards a large variety of weapons they have no armour options. Beornings - Spears and Axes with leather armour, Dwarves - Axes and mail armour, Elves - Spear and bow with a stress on Bow plus the option of a buckler. Hobbits get Short sword, bow and any armour but their slightly lower Endurance (two or more points lower than most other options) mitigates against loading up with more than a Cunningly made mail shirt). Finally Woodmen - bows and axes with a choice of armour, still with around 28 Endurance they won't be picking up more than a mail shirt if that.

All this analysis leaves me with the thought that running sims with high values of armour protection (>3d) for anyone except a Dwarf is unproductive especially at lower levels of Wisdom or Valour where the hero cannot have acquired any Masteries or Qualities. And we have to remember that while gaining those Masteries or Qualities the hero is stuck with higher levels of fatigue due to the extra weight.

Dwarves, Hobbits and Woodmen are the only cultures to gain any benefit from mail Armour Rewards and Beornings only for Leather armour. This leaves us with mail armour only likely for Dwarves and Woodmen plus possibly Bardings and Hobbits due to their higher level of wealth enabling them to commission same from Dwarvish smiths or to inherit a mail shirt although a Hobbit's lower Endurance mitigates against loading themselves down with a mail shirt. Unless for Role playing reasons a Barding probably shouldn't consider loading themselves with mail especially if they intend doing any boating.

[Corvo]

(...) Unless for Role playing reasons a Barding probably shouldn't consider loading themselves with mail especially if they intend doing any boating.

Can you explain to me the bolded part?
Barding are depicted with mail more than once in the manuals, and Francesco too described them as "knightly" in one of the game podcast. I think there are roleplaying reasons ideed for "loading" them with mail: are you saying that the rules don't support this? I'm pretty sure this isn't what you are meaning

[Rocmistro]

I'm also having a hard time with that bolded part. Bar dings seem best suited after dwarves, to wear mail shirts. I think what the article tells us, and indeed, what history repeatedly tells us, is that armor was EXPENSIVE. And if you want to properly balance it's use in gameplay, you should make it cost a lot. That should be one of its primary obstacles.

I understand the propensity for adventurers to get rich early on sort of makes this point moot (although TOR implements "wealth" better than other systems) but it still can be controlled by gm/LM in any system.

If you want to get "realistic" I can assure you of this: your shield and even the weapon you carry is far more encumbering than your armor. As long as it fits right, armor is not too bad. A great shield is horrendously encumbering, by far the worst piece of your equipment. It's big, awkward and heavy. They should probably also offer more to parry though. I would also offer the suggestion that the parry bonus from shield might be a rolled too.

Anyway that's me just spitballing, not proposing any actual rules changes.

[Hermes Serpent]

Running some combats in Elfcrusher's sim system I found that the four points of Encumbrance difference between a 1D leather shirt and 2D corselet can make a 6% difference in the win rate for a hero, all other variables excluded. Higher values of Protection drop the win rate due to loss of Endurance is what I believe rather than the advent of two Wounds to the Hero.

So we have a balance between reducing the 'free' Endurance available to take damage from being struck before being Weary and increasing the Protection preventing Wounds. As a hero can take two Wounds the increased Protection compared to the loss of available Endurance may be an extremely difficult balancing act that could have been designed in to the system but equally likely the progression of armour by 1D steps makes it look unlike a design decision based on mathematics and more like a 'feel right' decision.

I ran a quick not too accurate sim using Anydice.com to get the following results:

Code: Select all

Injury	1D	2D	3D	4D	5D
12	    37	66	88	97	99
14	    21	50	76	92	98
16	     8	33	62	84	95
18	     1	19	46	72	89
20	     0	16	30	57	80

Note that the highest enemy weapon Injury rating I could see on a quick check was an Orc axe at 16 and many enemy weapons are Injury rating 12 which is why 2D armour seems to be acceptable in terms of Encumbrance vs Protection and higher levels aren't so effective.

[Hermes Serpent]

(...) Unless for Role playing reasons a Barding probably shouldn't consider loading themselves with mail especially if they intend doing any boating.

Can you explain to me the bolded part?
Barding are depicted with mail more than once in the manuals, and Francesco too described them as "knightly" in one of the game podcast. I think there are roleplaying reasons ideed for "loading" them with mail: are you saying that the rules don't support this? I'm pretty sure this isn't what you are meaning

I'm saying that the benefits accruing to a Barding for increased Wisdom and Valour don't support any special armour benefits unlike some other cultures. King's Man gives them a 'knightly' sort of benefit with weapons but anyone can get mail armour. If it's a sensible option rather than a RP concept option is down to the player. A Barding can get 10 Heart max. making Endurance 32 and taking about 20 points of Encumbrance with a mail shirt and weapons is about the best he can get leaving him with very low numbers for Body and Wits. If he goes with the more sensible 8 Heart he has about 10 points of damage he can take before he's weary which is what many people suggest as the minimum sort of gap you should aim for. So any more than 3D armour is not really an option for a Barding leaving Dwarves as the heavy armour kings.

The artists draw/paint what they are asked for and Jon's a great Art Director but he'll ask for what the author's suggest and we have no definite answer regarding the author's intent regarding equipment/armour and weapons other than how the rules work.

[Hermes Serpent]

I'm also having a hard time with that blooded part. I think what the article tells us, and indeed, what history repeatedly tells us, is that armor was EXPENSIVE. And if you want to properly balance it's use in gameplay, you should make it cost a lot.

I understand the propensity for adventurers to get rich early on sort of makes this point moot (although TOR implements "wealth" better than other systems) but it still can be controlled by gm/LM.

If you want to get "realistic" I can assure you of this: your shield and even the weapon you carry is far more encumbering than your armor. As long as it fits right, armor is not too bad. A great shield is horrendously encumbering, by far the worst piece of your equipment. It's big, awkward and heavy. They should probably also offer more to parry though. I would also offer the suggestion that the parry bonus from shield might be a rolled too.

Anyway that's me just spitballing, not proposing any actual rules changes.

I was surprised that given the relative levels of wealth specifically listed in the rules there was not a mechanism for restricting armour by relative wealth compared to the penalties for taking out of culture weapons. Limiting starting equipment/weapons and effectiveness by culture-specific weapon specialities but choosing not to limit armour may have been something that dropped out during play-testing.

Providing a starting option (like Wisdom orValour at value 2 getting a benefit) for armour, inherited or otherwise, could have made it more clear as to which cultures should be thinking of the heavier armour and which should not outside of role play.

Still one could always acquire a mail shirt from one's grandfather's barrow I suppose [evil grin].

[Glorelendil]

And if you want to properly balance it's use in gameplay, you should make it cost a lot. That should be one of its primary obstacles.

This I disagree with, only because it makes armor choice an uninteresting decision once you have the money.

Sorry if I keep flogging an extremely dead horse, but I believe there should be interesting trade-offs to character choices. If the goal is to make the game fun then the utility of armor should vary both with character build and circumstance, and always have trade-offs. There should never be a "best" or "worst" armor, except situationally (e.g. while swimming).

If the gating factor of the best armor is cost, then the character who accumulates the money but doesn't want to wear armor for role-playing reasons is faced with a bad choice.

As an aside, I find all the discussions about armor mechanics and statistics inherently interesting. However, I probably won't adopt *any* house rules in my own game, even though I think there's a problem with RAW. But maybe some of these ideas will find their way into a 2nd Edition.

[Rich H]

But maybe some of these ideas will find their way into a 2nd Edition.

I think the chances of getting a second edition are nigh on zero. We're getting a revised edition and that will likely suffice for the time TOR is a game line.