Armour and Encumberance query

[Dunheved]

Can anyone enlighten me as how the values for the encumberance of each of the armour types was decided? And how it was compared to, say, the encumberance of weapons?

I mean is it just based on a average weight, or what?


ALSO big thumbs up for the efforts and reponse of Cubicle 7 (Nick & Dom) to pre-purchasers of Revised TOR in the UK. You are the very pinnacle of customer service: greatly appreciated and v generous decision. My customer loyalty skill gains another rank (and remains favoured).

[Stormcrow]

I'd guess they were eyeballed.

[Hermes Serpent]

I think they added two to each next level of armour and probably didn't compare the weapon encumbrance to anything but other weapons or bits of kit. As Stormcrow says it was probably eyeballed and adjusted in playtest so that the armour had a neat progression and I doubt there was any mathematical analysis involved.

[Glorelendil]

Stats were probably assigned first to meet game design principles, and then colorful names attached. Not the other way around. I wouldn't advise trying to reverse-engineer and rationalize the encumbrance values...that way lies madness.

[Dunheved]

Many thanks.

I was just curious. When I carry a rucksack with say, 15 - 20 kg in it, I go a lot further, for a lot longer, than if I try and carry the same amount in my hands. I'd go for a full day walk with enough kit to rescue any of the students walking with me and teach navigation etc: but taking a carrier bag of stuff (normally much lighter) soon becomes a real drag - especially if I'm hauled around even one more shop with the wife.

I know (as Elf correctly warns - that way lies madness ) there's been a lot of posts on armour & its effectiveness but it still feels that the balance is too much against a hero taking mail armour. I'm considering a reduction in the encumberance of armour by 25% [to 3/ 6 /9 /12; rather than 4 /8 /12 /16].

I haven't looked hard enough to see if variations such as coifs, vambraces or greaves have made their way into a post yet. I was considering allowing them as extra protection with a bonus like an iron cap +1 or +2.

[Glorelendil]

I haven't looked hard enough to see if variations such as coifs, vambraces or greaves have made their way into a post yet. I was considering allowing them as extra protection with a bonus like an iron cap +1 or +2.

I allowed a player to refluff his iron cap as bracers. Same protection, same encumbrance, different name.

But I'd balk at allowing a player to have both.

but it still feels that the balance is too much against a hero taking mail armour

As for that, I agree...but that's intentional. I think for two reasons:
1) In both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings almost nobody wears armor. Gimli has his coat of mail (and guess what? Erebor Dwarves have a cultural blessing that makes encumbrance less of a problem) and Bilbo/Frodo have the mithril coat.
2) TOR is as much a game of journeying as it is fighting. Trudging across Mirkwood with metal armor should be a nuisance.

For myself, I'm fine with a game that makes metal armor..."inconvenient".

[Dunheved]

1) In both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings almost nobody wears armor. Gimli has his coat of mail (and guess what? Erebor Dwarves have a cultural blessing that makes encumbrance less of a problem) and Bilbo/Frodo have the mithril coat.
2) TOR is as much a game of journeying as it is fighting. Trudging across Mirkwood with metal armor should be a nuisance.

For myself, I'm fine with a game that makes metal armor..."inconvenient".

Good points, they make me think again and harder. I like "inconvenient" and I certainly don't want to distort the shape of the game play!
Thanks.