Better CP penalties for armor and helmets

[Poleaxe]

I was thinking (and I know this has been discussed before, even by me...) of revising the CP penalties for armor to be less restrictive, and possibly more realistic.  And also, mainly to reflect why people would where the protective gear.  As it stands in the book, a character is noticeably crippled by wearing full harness and full helm, to the point where a player would seriously consider not wearing them!  I feel this is not realistic, because with money and manpower wore full harness and helm in battle.

Revisions:

Armor
Make the CP penalty for full plate/harness the same as chain mail, -2.  From my research, full harness was no more restrictive than a full mail suit.  In fact, because harness was tailored for the user, you might rule it less restrictive!  Also, wearers of either suit could perform surprising agile feats.  The key here is make it more exhaustive to wear (fatigue faster) and make the user sink like a stone if they swim!  Since it wasn't made for running either, movement penalties are appropriate (and probably would stay the same).  Make it 3 CP's if you're wearing plate and chain, as they did during the 1350's, the early stage of plate.  Maybe 3 CP for the more advanced forms of plate, gothic, maximillian.  Don't know too much about these, though.

Helmets
I can't see any reason why a chain mail coif would give any CP penalty.  Reduced perception for hearing situations, sure.  But basically your face was exposed, so why the CP penalty?  For anything less than the coif, also no CP penalty.  Additional fatigue if necessary, due to overheating.  Maybe separate the overheat/fatigue factors for armor and helmet (actually a great idea since the headgear traps TONS of heat...) to get one sum for calculating fatigue instead of the one-size-fits-all of "you fatigue in the half the time with heavy armor" – whatever the exact rule is.

Full helms... Okay you need a penalty here.  I still think –2 CP is too much though.  –1CP, but the perception penalties should be higher.  Maybe rather than just reduce your perception pool, it reduces perception based TN's. or both.  –1 Perception, and for every –1 perception you would have assigned, raise the TN by 1.  It wouldn't be unreasonable to give a full helm wearer a –1 perception and a 2 or 3 rasing of perception based TN's, especially vision based.  In any case, anyone wearing a full helm is more easily evaded.  Defenders lower all evastion TN's by 1.  That would seem to capture perception advantages that an opponent has over a full helmet wearer better...

Of course raising your visor would make it closer to the chainmail coif, but heavier...


Also, fatigue.  Shouldn't it be equal parts STR and END?  After all, strong guys can lug around heavier equipment for longer periods of time.  STR+END/2 to determine your fatigue threshold.

Any thoughts?

[toli]

I think the current CPs (as least in 2nd printing) are fine for plate armor.  If I remember they are 3 CP for plate, 2CP for a full helm and 1CP for pot helm.  That gives a 5CP penalty for full harness.  If you buy higher quality armor and helmet you can drop it down to 3 CP total.   Not a bad deal for 6 armor points.

[Lance D. Allen]

Jake has stated that he would probably revise the armor penalties downward, but has never given a set amount, to my knowledge.

One thing, though.. A full helm can indeed give a heavy CP penalty, and it is due to perception.

Case in point: I used to wear a loaner helm, a pig-faced bascinet set up for live steel, rather than the SCA's rattan. As such, I had extremely limited visibility. At optimal distance, I could see about a yard of my opponent, from the top of their head to their chest. I was severely handicapped by being unable to see my opponent's weapon unless it was at shoulder level or so. For helms which offer this sort of visibility, a -2 CP is generous That said, not all full helms obscure vision the same.

[Caz]

Yeah, it's been discussed to death, and generally egreed upon that the penalties in the book are too high.  But everyone's got different opinions on the subject.  Here's mine if you care to take a look.
There were so many designs of different parts of armour, all the mods are taken on a case by case basis unless you want to generalize and not go into detail.    I don't believe, from my experience, that armour slows you down.  It just wears you out that much faster if you keep up the speed.  And I know shields don't slow you down.

Armour House Rules

                                    CP mod                   Other mod
Gauntlets                        -0 to -1
Breastplate/ciurass          -0 to -1
Helm/Helmet                   -0 to -1                    -0 to -2 Per
Overly large shields (pavise etc.) -1+             -1 move
Sabotons                        -0 to -2                     -0 to -2 move
Complete plate arms        -0 to -1 pair
Complete plate legs         -0 to -1 pair
Gussets                           -0 to -1 w/armour

Complete Armour- minimum -1 cp, -1 move, plate, mail, or any combination.

Some penalties can be up to doubled for Joost and munition armour.

Additional cp and move penalties can apply temporarily if char. isn't used to the piece.


Above stats are for custom or decent fitting plate armour, or other armour of proper fit.

Attacking Armour

This can be done in one of 2 ways (other than directly attacking the armour)

Bypass the AV:  You can aim for the openings to bypass the AV, or at least hit a softer spot.  This is done by attacking the appropriate area and then hitting the opening with the D6 roll.

Normal:  Assume the openings are attacked. The subtraction of AV from the hit is an abstraction of the difficulty of striking the opening and the AV of the padding/gusset.

[Caz]

As for helms with narrow sights giving heavy CP penalties, I really don't go for that.  Anyone who's not used to it, or is using a helm not specifically made for them, unfailingly complains about that.  
   It's all a matter of proper fit and suspension.  Granted you see less through narrow sights, but you don't miss anything you'd need to see if you train in them.  You may have to move your head an inch to keep his weapon in sight, but that hardly limits your ability.  It's all a matter of getting used to it.  One common problem inexperienced people have with using narrow sights, is they suspend the helm too far from their eyes, further limiting their visibility, especially with loaner or munition gear.
   But hey, even if you don't see so well, it'd seem worth it when people are accurately thrusting sharp metal objects into your face hehe

[Valamir]

I'd seriously hesitate before revising the armor CP penalties down by any measureable amount.

First off the concept that "people wore armor, so we know it was useful, yet the CP penalties make it so much less useful that people might not wear it in battle" is flawed logic.  Armor was worn on the battle field, because battles are chaotic.  One minute your standing alone, the next there are three guys tacking swings at you, a knight on horse doing a drive by, and you just got smacked by your friend's wild swing.

You can't possibly, even with a full non-armor-penalized CP pool hope to protect yourself against all that chaos.  So you where armor, both to protect you from the blows you see coming, as well as those you don't.

In this environment armor, even with the current CP penalty is worth its weight in penalties.  


So what about in a one on one duel.  Is armor worth it then...

Possibly not, and I'd argue that's entirely realistic.  The trade off between armor protection and CP penalty at that point comes down to a matter of personal fighting style preference (I personally prefer the flexibility of a big CP pool) and where ones stats lie (too low of a reflex and you can't afford to pay the penalty, too low Toughness and you can't afford not to).

So yes, some fighters in a one on one situation would be better off ditching the plate.  But like I said, I think that's a good thing.  Its certainly more fun and swashbuckly to not have to deal with with players wanting to wear full plate all of the time.

[Poleaxe]

Actually the above argument really only shows me one thing....

That DEFENDING is difficult in full harness and helm, not ATTACKING.  That's really my problem, if you penalize a player as listed in the book on his defense CP, fine.  But I can't see the same size CP penalty affecting how a fully armored knight attacks.  As long as you see or can extrapolate the important body parts of your opponent, why would you suffer such a high  CP penalty on attack?  It's not like you're trying to avoid his weapons as you attack (though you'll want to avoid his shield...)

And I think the other points about different helmets is certainly worth considering.  The training issue (slits close to the eyes) is a key point.

Actually, well trained fighters don't need to see all their opponent's body anyway.  Shoulder movement can give away everything, it can even telegraph lower body movement.  I am reasonably well trained in this area, but a little rusty.  If you focus and remember how to use your eyes, you can completely dominate an opponent without directly seeing half or more of his body.

-Alan

[Caz]

Yes, if you know where one part of him is, you know where the rest will be.  You may not be able to see him from the waist down, but you still know where his legs are.  It's just a matter of training.
   I'd say armour was definitely to your advantage in duels.  Apparently anyone who could afford it, in one on one, be it trial or duel, often wore even more armour than they would in open war.  It was not too common for someone to wear their entire harness in battle, but in a one on one situation or tourney, they apparently did.  
   My house mods for armour are based not just on that stuff, but on my personal experience.  I've been fortunate enough to have trained in a variety of armour, tailored to me as well as not.   It's just not that hard to use if you train for it and it fits.

[Jake Norwood]

There is a lot of evidence that face-plates were removed when hand-to-hand combat started in earnest. Even a simple fencing mask nowadays cuts a hell of a lot more than 1 CP out of my combat pool.

Jake

[Caz]

True on the visors.  From what I've seen they were primarily used in joost and to advance under arrow shot.
   Hehe, that's rough man.  I've noticed visors and narrow sights give people far more of an annoying psychological hinderance than a physical one.  I'm better fighting without one, but I'm used to it and they just don't bother me.  It something you have to train with to be effective with, but I wouldn't say it took more than 1CP.

[Lance D. Allen]

Mm. I'll concede that it was probably as much psychological as anything else. I didn't know where my opponent's weapon was, so I felt like I couldn't hit him without either being parried unexpectedly, or struck unexpectedly.

That and it was bloody annoying when I went for a strike, and POP! up comes his sword in a thrust to the face. Very little shoulder movement required for that one. I'm much better off now. The only time I get thrusts to the face is spearmen in melee who get me from an off-angle, or when I'm tunnel-visioning (a bad habit that I'm usually pretty good about) on someone else.

[bergh]

i think the modifers are ok, i would just like the Perception modifers to be bigger, but then again i do not have any professional oppinion about it.

The only thing i have to say about armour in TROS is the price list in the book, armours are ALL to cheap i think. its the lowest classes who not have to money to buy a full chain and a sword.
But its easyly solved hehe, just lower the starting money for the players, or give armour a price raise.

But i was thinking, how many people would have a Full plate (or full chain) in the middel Ages=? and who would have it?

[toli]

But i was thinking, how many people would have a Full plate (or full chain) in the middel Ages=? and who would have it?

Most nobility who were military minded would fight as heavy cavalry, ie soemthing along the lines of full plate.  It would be of varying quality and completeness of course.  Professional mercenaries would likely have close to full armor as well if they were cavalry.  Leaders like Charles the Bold had requirements for what different soldiers were to own in terms of armor.  Your average peasant would probably not have much of anything.  Rich merchants in cities and towns might be reasonably equipped in areas like Italy where the commune system was strong (although mercenaries were very important too).