Should different Armor types have more/less hits?

[Airenze]

I was reading the BoW errata post and decided to hold this poll.

[Sir Beak]

I voted maybe

[Kyrax]

Keep It Simple S...

[Mori]

I think that it would only make sense to have more/less hits on different armor types, but it might be somewhat difficult when it came to classifying the type of armor (plate, chain, leather, etc.) and/or deciding what type of armor gets how many hits, etc.

Keeping it simple, leave it the way that it is; but it would make more sense to have different hit values.

[Poeir]

Well, from a realistic standpoint, yes, absolutely. Plate armor is more resistant to blows than leather, and more resistant to most kinds of blows than chain.

But from a pure playability standpoint, it's been tried and found impractical. Counting five discrete zones not from "on/off," but rather from 0, 1, 2 hits is more difficult in battle.

There's not really a safety issue here, since plate, chain, and leather are all permitted either way.

[Mercer]

Face it: from all the boozing that goes on, we're lucky that most of these yahoos can still count to 2. Let's not push our luck...

*waves at all the nice drunkards*

[Mekoot Lob'o]

Face it: from all the boozing that goes on, we're lucky that most of these yahoos can still count to 2. Let's not push our luck...

*waves at all the nice drunkards*

lol

[Ora]

I think this a good time for Uncle Owen or Uncle Kyrax to step in and tell us another story about the ol' days and bring these youngin's up to date!

[Diomedes]

Yes, please Uncle Kyrax, tell us a story!

[Freyson]

Once upon a time in a land far away....... Ok, Avalon about 10 years ago.... there were different rules for different types of armor. A target armored with plate was injured on the 3rd hit, while a target in leather and chain was injured on the second. Red weapons were considered 2 hits and blues were considered 1 hit. Of course leather did nothing to stop thrusts, chain stopped one handed thrusts, and plate was immune to all thrusts. Then even more realism was added so that hardened leather was the same as normal leather but stopped one handed thrusts, while thrust only weapons (dagger, rapier, spear) ignored chain but swung/thrust weapons which were thrust were still stopped by chain. Black weapons (one handed mass weapons like clubs/maces/axes) used one handed did 1 hit, used 2 handed did 2 hits, ignored soft leather and chain one handed or two handed but did normal hits to hard leather and plate. Leather helms protected against rocks, chain coifs against arrows and rocks, plate helms against everything.

A person with a chain torso and upper arms, plate helm and grieves, soft leather bracers, and hardened thighs ended up having to remember way too much. One black or red would kill to the torso, but 3 blacks or 2 reds were needed to take the lower leg. Any stab to the forearm went through while only 2 handed stabs to the thigh. 2 blacks/blues or one red took the thigh, but one red and one blue took the shin. One black to the upper arm took the arm while it took 2 on the forearm. Arrows and javelins did no damage to the head or shins while stabbing through to any other location.

Pretty confusing, very unplayable, and led to many arguments Maybe a simpler idea would be workable somehow. Good luck!

Freyson

p.s. Your turn Uncle Kyrax!

[Poeir]

Maybe something like 8-in-1 chain and plate takes two hits, everything else one. If any area is armored by one-hit armor, all armor takes one hit?

Just an idea, if you want to try it out.

[Ora]

Thanks Uncle Freyson! I love hearin' 'bout the ol' days and how things use to be all confusin' and such! How nice things are when we
KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID!

Maybe something like 8-in-1 chain and plate takes two hits, everything else one. If any area is armored by one-hit armor, all armor takes one hit? Just an idea, if you want to try it out.

Listen and learn something from your elders!


ok. I'm done now.

[Calarn the Black]

Poeir, I appreciate you trying to give me more hits on my 8-in-1, but, as was said in another thread, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Poeir]

Ha ha, no. I just picked the two heaviest metal armors that came to mind. I guess scale might be heavier than 8-in-1, but how often do you see that?

With respect to Kyrax, I'd gathered things had been complex before, but I had no idea it was as bad as Freyson indicated. The original poster seemed to want to have more hits for heavier armor, and that's how I'd approach implementing that, to see if it were feasible or not. Still, on/off is easier to keep track of than, 0, 1, 2, ... n.

[Satanaka]

I think that if your over thirty- it should take 5 good, clean shots to kill the person.

(smile)



S

[Mori]

Given the mentioned complexities, I would think the current system is much better than multiple hit variations for one simple reason: RHINO HIDE-ING.

If someone has to remember all sorts of different hit values in the middle of a battle, then they're sure to end up ignoring a few hits on accident.

I agree with Ora and Kyrax. Keep it simple.

[Barahir Ingem]

Hey, 3 people agree with me!

While I can understand "Keep It Simple for the Stupid" (is that why the Romans stopped playing Darkon? ), and I'm not arguing for a system-wide change, I do think that multiple-armor systems get a bad wrap here. Taken to the extreme it might be as Freyson described. But in practice there is very little mixing of armor classes. The most common would be, say, a maille hauberk with leather bracers, or maybe plate limbs. That's really not that much to keep track of. I can only see it getting complex if you mix classes in a particular strike area.

Just my (alright, maybe not so) humble opinion.

B of E.U.

[Owen]

Hey, 3 people agree with me!

While I can understand "Keep It Simple for the Stupid" (is that why the Romans stopped playing Darkon? ), and I'm not arguing for a system-wide change, I do think that multiple-armor systems get a bad wrap here. Taken to the extreme it might be as Freyson described. But in practice there is very little mixing of armor classes. The most common would be, say, a maille hauberk with leather bracers, or maybe plate limbs. That's really not that much to keep track of. I can only see it getting complex if you mix classes in a particular strike area.

Just my (alright, maybe not so) humble opinion.

B of E.U.

I have fought Darkon once or twice (sarcasum there) and you are right its not hard to keep track of all the time but it can be. The system is fair, to a point. However who is this old Celt to talk I hate the fact that leather even gets counted as armor, ah the old day.....sigh

[Helmishgen]

Have we forgotten about the layers of dust already?

[Barahir Ingem]

I have fought Darkon once or twice.....

Were you around there in '87 or '89?

B of E.U.

[Dmitri]

Even mixing armor types on a single location shouldn't be too much worse than now --right now, part of a location can be armored while part is unarmored. The trick would be to make sure it was clear wether you lost the hit of armor that covered teh whole arm or teh smaller area first. (For example, if I have chainmail arms and plate bracers, and my bracer gets hit, do I lose 1 hit from the whole arm, or does just the second hit to my bracer go away?) I'm not really sure which side of this argument I stand on, but I don't really think that it would be too complicated in practice, although it might be a bear to implement.

[Nor]

I voted no because I think we should just keep it simple... not say leather worth 1 chain 2 and plate 3 as an example. And it would be hard to kill. but its my personal opinion im already having trouble killing people

Rogue Nor

[Brennus Britannicus]

While I have the utmost respect for my fellow old timers here, I have to say I somewhat disagree with the refrain of "if it aint broke, don't fix it". Just because something works, doesn't mean it couldn't be improved. We should certainly offer our valuable experience it such issues, particularly when ideas have already been tried in the past. But innovation and change can be just as important to this game as tradition. The important factor is that any change must be carefully considered.

In light of that, I would ask the advocates of a change to the armor rules just why a change is in fact needed and what benefits such a change would bring to the game. Simply stating that is is more "realistic" isn't good enough and can be trumped by the playability considerations. You should also consider just what effect such a change would have on the play enviornment. Giving plate armor more hits would in theory encourage more plate armor on the field. Is that what you want to see? Would that be an improvement to the game?

Personally I like the armor rules as they are not only because they are simple, but because it more acurately reflects the nature of our game. Our game is about fighting first and foremost, while armor can give you some advantage it is still your skill that counts more than what armor you can afford.

[Kyrax]

Ha ha, no. I just picked the two heaviest metal armors that came to mind. I guess scale might be heavier than 8-in-1, but how often do you see that?

With respect to Kyrax, I'd gathered things had been complex before, but I had no idea it was as bad as Freyson indicated. The original poster seemed to want to have more hits for heavier armor, and that's how I'd approach implementing that, to see if it were feasible or not. Still, on/off is easier to keep track of than, 0, 1, 2, ... n.

Nope, the old days weren't more complex, Dagorhir has been using the same basic armor system for far longer than I've been involved. Owen points out the one change in our time in the game, the lowering of standards to include leather as armor - otherwise the rules are basically unchanged. Freyson was mentioning a local variant rules system, similar to that used in Pentwyvern. Barahir has pointed out that Darkon uses a complex system, as does Amtgard. Overall those other games use more complex systems, so I suppose that more complex armor follows.

While I'm in favor of keeping the armor rules as simple as we can, I agree with Brennus that it is only fair to hear out the advocates of a new rule. He is right to ask that someone advocating a new rule explain why they want to make the change and what the advantages and disadvantages are in terms of: SAFETY, PLAYABILITY, and REALISM. The burden of proof is on those who wish to make a change.

I've got chain and plate, so if you want to make them tougher it sounds good to me. Otherwise, I lean towards Saki's suggestion of five hits for those over thirty, which means I get six hits...

[Barahir Ingem]

For example, if I have chainmail arms and plate bracers, and my bracer gets hit, do I lose 1 hit from the whole arm, or does just the second hit to my bracer go away?

In this senario, the damage would be to the whole arm, not to the particular piece of armor. In effect, your arm takes a fraction of the damage from a blow, the armor absorbing the balance. When the cumulative damage equals 1 hit, you lose the limb. This is where it can get complex, since maille would take 1/3 damage, and the plate would take 1/4 damage. It's important to work out all the possibilities for your particular combination of armors beforehand.

Brennus and Kyrax,
I'm not arguing for a change to the BOW, just a local variant that people might want to try. I don't think there would be a proliferation of plate armor, as it is expensive to buy and difficult to make. You would, however, see a greater diversity of armors on the field. Under the current rules, leather seems to dominate because it is lighter and less cumbersome. Allowing more protection to heavy armors makes for better game balance, in my mind. Of course, we're all biased toward what we started with.

B of E.U.

[Dmitri]

heeeehhhh....well, for one, I missed Uncle Freyson's wonderful story when I was reading through before. And for two, it hadn't occured to me that it was a fractional thing... That just makes my head hurt. If that's how the rule would work, I have got to vote no differentiated armor. But it seems like there has to be a better way to do it?...

[Airenze]

I am enlightened by your description of elder times. I now see why instead of having to do all that math, we now have only to count as high as our already bruised and beaten minds can handle.

Simplicity is so important in this game.

[Brennus Britannicus]

Brennus and Kyrax,
I'm not arguing for a change to the BOW, just a local variant that people might want to try. I don't think there would be a proliferation of plate armor, as it is expensive to buy and difficult to make. You would, however, see a greater diversity of armors on the field. Under the current rules, leather seems to dominate because it is lighter and less cumbersome. Allowing more protection to heavy armors makes for better game balance, in my mind. Of course, we're all biased toward what we started with.

B of E.U.

Now you see, when you put it like this I think we actually get a little closer to the heart of the issue. The problem isn't that metal armor is too weak, it's that leather armor is too strong. Understand that the armor rules were originally written for metal armor only, leather was simply not considered to be armor. In fact in the Aratari there was no leather armor up until a few years ago when we decided to adopt the National/Ragnarok rules.

So I think the rules work fine as is for metal armor, it's leather armor that needs some reconsidering. Now I wouldn't suggest banning leather armor, but I don't believe that it should count the same as metal armor. Now the only way I could come up with to differentiate the armors that wouldn't be an ungodly hassle would be this: Make leather armor effective only against Class 1 weapons.

The effect of this change would be that 1-handed thrusts with Class 3 weapons would go right through leather armor, whereas they would be ignore by metal armor. Since Class 3 weapons either hit or they don't hit, you don't have to worry about counting the number of blows on whichever armor. So if I'm stabbed in my chainmail sleeve, I ignore it. But if I'm stabbed in my leather bracer, I lose the arm.

Such a change would have the effect of making leather armor still useful, but not quite as useful as metal armor--which frankly it shouldn't be.

[Tibriel]

O.K. what Brennus said makes alot of sence but this brings up the question of Mass weapons. i.e. flails, hammers, and maces. Since a blow to the chest of someone whearing metal armor will definatly be more affective with a mace than a sword. They were after all designed for going against people in heavy armor.

So that would give us:

you can stab through leather with class 3 weapons

against armor All mass weapons would do 2 hits of dammage.
If you want to complicat this further you could say that for plate armor one handed mass weapons only do 2 hits of dammage to limbs while 1 to the body where as 2 handed mass weapons would do 2 hits everywhere.

but I don't know, does that sound too complicated?

[Mori]

It's definitely more realistic, but then you're basically creating a new class of weapons. Instead of just counting them as class 1 or class 2, they're now a different class; class 5 or some such.

If you do go along that road, though, you could have them act like class 1 weapons with a one-handed swing, and class 3 weapons with a two-handed swing. But, again, that's getting somewhat complex.

Personally, I like the idea of just reducing the effectiveness of leather. Like Brennus said, just have it count against certain kinds of hits: class 1 weapons, and maybe class 4. Class 2 & 3 weapons just go right through (two-handed swing or no). Or, at least, something like that.

[Brennus Britannicus]

but I don't know, does that sound too complicated?

The short answer: yes. You would effectively be making a new class of weapon. We have enough weapon classes. There just isn't enough of a difference between a class 1 mace and a class 1 sword to warrant such a distinction.

[Tibriel]

I suppose we could think of it as a rock at the end of a stick you just wouldn't be able to hit to the head or throw it.

[Satanaka]

Ixt said: "(For example, if I have chainmail arms and plate bracers, and my bracer gets hit, do I lose 1 hit from the whole arm, or does just the second hit to my bracer go away?) "


The hit to the bracer would then count as a hit to all the armour on the arm. Armour can only take one hit to any one area- even if there are two different types of armour covering that area.

Satanaka

[Dmitri]

Right, but I was thinking about if heavier armor (the plate bracer, in this case) could take more hits than lighter armor. The point I was making was that there would have to be a set way of treating armor of differnt types on the same location, or everyone would end up wasting time arguing.

I rather like the fractional hits method, but it seems like an awful lot to keep track of while fighting (especially if you're a tank, and have two or three people going after you at once). Might be a fun local rule, but ti seems to clearly violate KISS.

[Satanaka]

That and it violates the BOW.


In some realms- they did not count leather as armour.

So- It is simple now and people sem to like it. The larger majority have no problems.

You are right- it would be much harder to keep up with.

Satanaka

[Camber]

People have asked before if they can make siege weapons. They seemed really interested, and wanted a board discussion. As I recall, they were basically told to go make one, try it out in their own realm, and report back. The armor class mod enthusiasts might benefit from trying that same tack on this issue too. Make up a simple and playable alternative set of armor rules, and test it out. Tell us what worked, what didn't. Then we'd have more to base our discussion on.

Someone might say, "but we already know what hasn't worked...Freyson just told us. Listen to your elders." Yes, and for some people, nothing is more convincing than first-person experience.

So I'd love to hear how your experiments go. Maybe to get results faster, you can use imaginary armor for your testing. Here is an idea: you can design a scenario battle where each fighter gets to place 4 pieces of colored tape on his body. One represents a Plate armored area, another represents a Chain armored area, and the last two represent Leather armored areas. Play a few battles with your modified rules set, gather data, tweak your rules, retest, gather more data. Continue to refine your rules set, and bring the results here for everyone to mull over and debate.

In the realm where I fight, we did some experiments with Red Rocks. Erm, one red rock. The result was, we found having a huge poofy red rock on the field is a cheesy way to add some extra enjoyment to the game. Nobody had a huge advantage, after we found the best rules for the weapon (must be thrown with 2 hands; cannot hold other items while holding the red rock). It made a lot of us laugh. We had fun. We talked about it on the board. Anyone else can now try it out if they want to. Will it get the BoW changed? Probably not. But that's okay.

[Poeir]

If I recall correctly, TA's red rock didn't require you not hold anything in your hand, but that you had to throw overhand. I say this because I think I remember throwing it while wearing my tower shield.

[Calarn the Black]

Actually Poeir, we changed the rule slightly last year...you had to throw it two handed, overhand.

[Poeir]

Yeah, that's what I meant, which is why it was nearly impossible to throw while wearing my tower shield.