Variable Armor Points

[badcat]

Actually, Jason, I was just trying to answer the questions Triff posed without regard to distractions. I don't have a 'one true way' attitude, just a preference...and I am attempting to share a positive viewpoint about something. That's all. Variable points work as well as better than anything else I have seen, and are a viable option. And I am happy that you included both fixed and variable armor in the new book.

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

At the risk of sounding like a thread policeman (which I'm not), is this argument going anywhere other than one of these two positions?

1. I prefer variable armor protection because it suits my style of play more

vs.

2. I prefer fixed armor protection because it suits my style of play more

The core book uses "generic fixed" armor as the default, and presents variable as an optional system. Everyone wins!

Me, I am having fun with math, contrasting my own experiences with a medieval combat group, historical research, and other game systems with this. This sort of discussion, for me, forces me to examine my own experience and biases and prejudices. It also causes me to have to examine a game system, possibly from angles and PoV that I had not considered previously.

Joseph Paul

[Lord Twig]

Can we get some examples of what kind of dice is rolled for armor using the variable system?

In RQ3 soft leather was 1, stiff leather 2, ringmail 4, chain 7 and plate 8. What would the same (or equivalent) armors be in the variable system?

[badcat]

In the early EC games, leather 1D6-1
half plate 1D8-1
full plate 1D10-1
w/helm 1D10+2

In Elric!/Stormbringer 5, leather 1D6-1
w/helm 1D6
...similar to above, until you get to Melnibonean
armor, half plate 1D8+4, and I think Meln. full plate
was something like 1D10+8,

just to give you an idea.

[Lord Twig]

So average protection would be:

leather 1D6-1 = 2.5
half plate 1D8-1 = 3.5
full plate 1D10-1 = 4.5
w/helm 1D10+2 = 7.5

So leather is a bit stronger and plate a bit weaker.

Then, what the heck!?
Melnibonean half plate 1D8+4 = 8.5
Melnibonean full plate 1D10+8 = 13.5

With +4 and +8, doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of rolling?

Anyway, I am in the fixed armor camp.

The variable damage covers angle of attack and Specials and Criticals would be hitting weak points or unarmored areas. Armor is designed to minimize weak points and gaps. Sure there is going to be some, but armor is designed to minimize those as much as possible.

How effective is a dagger vs. full plate anyway? There is no way you are going to shove a dagger through a metal plate. You are either going to have to jab at the seams (Special), or you are going to stab through a gap (Critical).

I find it interesting that the example was made that "even the sorriest specimen of goblinhood can skewer the big knight in plate armor" when talking about variable armor. We have played with fixed armor for years and the number of times that some lowly bandit or militia (or trollkin or zombie or feral broo, etc.) has taken out a location of even our most heavily armored warrior is frightening. Specials and Criticals are not to be discounted.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by badcat

In the early EC games, leather 1D6-1
half plate 1D8-1
full plate 1D10-1
w/helm 1D10+2

In Elric!/Stormbringer 5, leather 1D6-1
w/helm 1D6
...similar to above, until you get to Melnibonean
armor, half plate 1D8+4, and I think Meln. full plate
was something like 1D10+8,

just to give you an idea.

I suspect that its not a coincidence that most of the low-end possible results are on armors that may have either very lightly armored or unarmored areas.

[badcat]

Lord Twig. The d8+4 etc. was Melnibonean armor, only...and from Elric!, a different ruleset. Added in my list for comparison only, and yes they do sort of defeat the random roll...that was part of Melnibonean superiority in warfare. They make real good armor. The rules that go along with the first set of armor values are the original Stormbringer and are a 10% critical that doubles damage dealt by the weapon; half total hit points are a major wound that yields a possible crippling effect. And no armor roll on a critical (which part I never used, as it tends to result in instant kills on criticals). The net effect being about the same as special/critical with solid armor value and hits by location. The main difference is that 10% critical/variable armor/major wound level is considerably easier and faster to run with a fraction of the book keeping. I'm OK with either one playing, but I much prefer the variable armor system when GMing. And it does help level the playing field for weaker npcs, it makes them more of a threat. Or so I have found running many games with both systems. It's MY preferred way.

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I suspect that its not a coincidence that most of the low-end possible results are on armors that may have either very lightly armored or unarmored areas.

I can see that applying to the half-plate since it implies that half of it is missing but I see no reason for that to apply to leather armor just because it is leather. Vambraces, rerebraces, cuises and schinbalds were all made from leather at one time as well as scale and lamellar armors for the body. You could be in leather from head to foot.

How would you rate an Age of Mail knight that had an homogenous armor of mail in all locations? None of it is any lighter than the others and there basicly aren't any areas that are unarmored. Would this end up like the Melnibonean armors with a huge plus?

[RMS]

What the heck are you typing with here?! I haven't seen so many html tags in a post around here before...

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

When you write “armor is full of strong and weak points” you are implying that the two exist in equal abundance. This is simply not true. If for every strong spot there was a weak spot the armor would be only 50% effective. Just looking at the coverage of a hauberk will show that it covers much more than half of the body with a consistent armor.

I imply no such thing. However, there is no doubt that armor varies in strength from spot-to-spot (basic physics there) and that it only covers a portion of the body throughout most of history. You give some examples, but those are very late examples of armor. There's 3000 years of hard armors that precede those that don't cover the complete body. As late as the Norman invasion of England, there are significant portions of the body not protected by heavy armor.

The random rolls severely overstate the risk to the wearer in a fashion that I am at a loss to explain. What I see is that with every blow from my opponent he is getting a random chance to by pass the great bulk of my armor.

That's the way it works. You go after the hoplite across from you with "full plate" on (the heaviest armor offered in RQ and most fantasy versions of BRP) and there is an open face, no armor on the joints, hands, backs of limbs, etc. There's plenty of locations to get hit with no armor and plenty with good armor. Now, I would agree that the variable roll isn't the most "realistic" way of handling this, but it's close enough without adding a bunch of extra rules. (Though if you like that sort of thing, something like the Harnmaster combat system with very detailed hit location rules would be easy to add onto BRP.) Ironically, the D&D take on armor making someone harder to "hit" (read: damage) is probably more realistic than absorbing damage in most cases. Throughout most of history, the heavy armors on the field are proof against the best weapons on the field, so you tend to either bounce off the armor (not having an effective hit) or hit a joint and do full damage.

This flies in the face of the hard experience of veterans that found armor hard enough to get through that they had to A) invent new weapons to do so and B) developed systems of combat that allowed them to close with an opponent, throw him to the ground and then look for weak spots in the armor while he was immobilized.

IMO, I never, ever think of RQ/BRP and late medieval at the same time. The two don't go together, so heavy armor should have significant open spots. Also, what you are describing is a very, very limited time period compared to the hundreds of years of armor that preceded it, so I'd consider it an outlier that should be the exception rather than used to form the rule.

I disagree based on what the comparitive cost is. The armor was a major investment, we seem to agree on that, and was often priced at a significant fraction of the warriors annual worth. Men-at-Arms and Knights are professionals and today the most analogous purchase for a modern professional is a house (or a sports car if they are in a mid life crisis and looking for a trophy wife!). Compared to many modern professionals’ salaries there are many houses whose cost is a significant portion of the (pre-tax) base salary. So for instance $100,000/annum salary and a $75,000 house gives some idea of the worth of the harness to a warrior.

Once again, you seem to have a limited era to which you're referencing. Consider that every single male Roman citizen had to provide their own armor when they went on campaign during the time of the Republic. This was something every middle income person could afford, in addition to supporting a family, business, etc.

First I would be interested in seeing how MRQs system works and how it falters. Can you supply details? Secondly I do see how to do so by merely assigning a penalty to attempts to hit a chink in the armor. Thirdly the argument that the system hasn’t done this before merely reinforces my belief that perhaps Chaosium should have been looking to update the system rather than just republish it.

It's a straight -40% to skill to bypass armor. It breaks down quickly at higher levels, but the real break in the system is that armor in MRQ causes extreme negative skill modifiers. Someone with a complete suit of plate armor has a -42% to all physical skills (including melee weapon skills!). So if two identical twins (same skills, stats, etc.) get into a fight, one with full plate and one naked, the naked one can take the 40% penalty and always bypass armor on the armored one and have an overall advantage during the fight.

Just what do you see as so variable in the armor? In BRP damage is already tied to skill in that you have to first make the roll to have any effect and then BRP does give bonus damage to particularly good skill rolls i.e. specials and criticals. The damage roll is a better place to subsume any question of the attackers ability to place a weapon effectively on target not the armor. Again such a mechanic lowers the utility of armor to far less than what it was historically. Warriors knew that their harness was trustworthy and that the possibility of a wound arriving through some deficit was remote. Vegetius comments to the infantry are to allow the armor to take the blow and press your attack. There are many examples of armors being praised as proof against all but the most vigourous attacks. Did people get wounded through chinks in the armor? Yes but not nearly so frequently as this misplaced mechanic suggests and generally by action of the attacker. Such actions are better modeled with the current ‘bypasses armor’ ability of the critical or by a deliberate targeting mechanic IMO.

See above. Your statements seem to agree with me. Armor is proof against most weapons of the time, but you have to take the hit to your armor, not to the spots that aren't armored. Some of this is because you seem to only be considering the very late medieval, while I'm looking across the expanse of history from the early Bronze Age to the late medieval, and admittedly have a strong attration for the ancient world over the medieval.

Also, it sounds like your worst issue is with the specific implementation rather than random armor in general. I'm only supporting the concept of random armor. FWIW, I've played far more RQ2/3 than anything else and have never bothered with random armor in it.

[soltakss]

Does anyone use random armour with hit locations?

In our game, when the PCs put on a dollop of Protection, they are very hard to hurt. Random armour might be the answer to this. I doubt if they'd agree though.