forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Yepesnopes wrote:I like the idea a lot. I have the feeling it may need some tweaking, for example, even a 1d or 2d armour is adding +1 and +2 to the travel TN respectively, which I find a lot, but it is just a feeling. The general idea is good.

I think the catch is that you need to fail more travel rolls to to be as much fatigued as in the RAW.

Example: Woodman with Long-Hafted Axe, Bow, Shield and 2d armour.
By the RAW, encumbrance 15, fatigue +2/+3 per failed travel roll.
By houserule, encumbrance 9, fatigue +4/+5 per failed travel roll.

The houserule gives -6 encumbrance, but a +2 to every failed travel roll.
I think the travel roll need to be more more difficult to justify that -6 encumbrance.

I'm well aware that the characters will need to fail more fatigue tests for this to work. That's why the TN of Travel rolls is also raised by the Encumberance of armour. Did you miss that part when reading the initial post, or do you just think this isn't enough of a penalty? Because the consensus at the moment seems to be that the TN modifier needs to be reduced slightly.

In any case, I haven't set out to balance this with the original rules- my intention is to provide a workable alternative that makes wearing the heaviest armour viable for battles less than three day's march away whilst still punishing people who wear it to trek across the middle of the Wilderlands.

Tantavalist wrote:I'm well aware that the characters will need to fail more fatigue tests for this to work. That's why the TN of Travel rolls is also raised by the Encumberance of armour. Did you miss that part when reading the initial post, or do you just think this isn't enough of a penalty? Because the consensus at the moment seems to be that the TN modifier needs to be reduced slightly.
(...)

Excuse me Tantalivist, are you referring to me?
I was just answering to Yepesnopes, and explaining why you choose to adopt that penalty that he (not me) was dubious about. As I already wrote, I'm sold on this houserule

Whoops... Sorry!

I think I'm going to stick to my PC for replies on message boards. Using my smartphone seems to incline me toward skimming the last post only and then dashing off a reply...

You just should have an idea of what to do with the Hardy Trait.
If autosucceed in all Travel tests is allowed, then a character with Hardy can have a 5D armour with 4 times less encumbrance AND avoid the risk of failing the Travel tests.

Tantavalist wrote:Whoops... Sorry!

I think I'm going to stick to my PC for replies on message boards. Using my smartphone seems to incline me toward skimming the last post only and then dashing off a reply...

No problem, Tantavalist
And it should be said that my writing isn't always clear

One rule we adapted for our group (actually two rules I borrowed from this board) was that we reduced the Encumbrance from armor (and only armor, not shields, helms, or weapons) by half. Then we added in that you get your armor's encumbrance back in Endurance after a short rest, in addition to the normal short rest recovery.

The effect is that the RAW are not as drastically altered as you've done (only the Encumbrance levels in the Beorning and Ranger Cultural Virtues need to be reduced--from 14 to 10, I figure).

Now, armor protects you from wounds, still makes you weary, but you recover from those bumps and bruises faster than an unarmored person--because it wasn't necessarily bruises or injuries, it was just fatigue.

Corvo wrote:I think the catch is that you need to fail more travel rolls to to be as much fatigued as in the RAW.

Example: Woodman with Long-Hafted Axe, Bow, Shield and 2d armour.
By the RAW, encumbrance 15, fatigue +2/+3 per failed travel roll.
By houserule, encumbrance 9, fatigue +4/+5 per failed travel roll.

The houserule gives -6 encumbrance, but a +2 to every failed travel roll.
I think the travel roll need to be more more difficult to justify that -6 encumbrance.

Yep, I got that, and I find it one of the best propositions regarding armour house rules I have read so far in these forums. Nevertheless, I cannot give a better opinion on it since, sadly, I don't play enough the game. To start with I am not even sure if armours need to be house ruled, but if they would need to be, this I find a nice approach.
If anyone is implementing them, I will be eager to read about the testing and if players like it or not.

While I like the ideas behind the rule, I still fail to see why the Encumbrance of the armors must be lowered AND the Encumbrace of Travelling Gear must be raised. In fact, with these rule, a chainmail encumbers as much as a Great Spear or a Battle Axe.

If the problem with armors is that they don't make heroes fail Travel rolls more often (representing that travelling with armor is more difficult), why not just raise the TNs by a certain amount, depending on the Protection of the armor?
If the TN is raised, the hero will fail his rolls more often than his comrades, adding the 2 or 3 points to Fatigue more often, also.
And then his higher Fatigue Threshold due to his high armor Encumbrance, will take care of the rest.

My proposal is adding (Protection Dice -1 or -2) to the TN of every Travel roll. The high Encumbrance of armor would be kept as is.

Falenthal wrote:While I like the ideas behind the rule, I still fail to see why the Encumbrance of the armors must be lowered AND the Encumbrace of Travelling Gear must be raised. In fact, with these rule, a chainmail encumbers as much as a Great Spear or a Battle Axe.

If the problem with armors is that they don't make heroes fail Travel rolls more often (representing that travelling with armor is more difficult), why not just raise the TNs by a certain amount, depending on the Protection of the armor?
If the TN is raised, the hero will fail his rolls more often than his comrades, adding the 2 or 3 points to Fatigue more often, also.
And then his higher Fatigue Threshold due to his high armor Encumbrance, will take care of the rest.

My proposal is adding (Protection Dice -1 or -2) to the TN of every Travel roll. The high Encumbrance of armor would be kept as is.

The goal is to have armour be less punishing for short trips and end up in the same place for long trips.