News:

Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

Armour Mechanism

Started by kaikatsu, January 11, 2005, 01:14:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

kaikatsu

Hello all,

I am looking for ideas regarding an armour mechanic.  This is the system as it stands so far.

* The "to hit" roll is similar to d20, except with a greater focus on accuracy and not on strength.  Currently it only works to overcome the defender's dodge/parry.

* Damage is defined by thresholds and wound boxes.  A typical human might have 5/10/15/20 for light, medium, serious, and mortal wounds.  Scoring a 12 for damage would cause a medium wound (which might become deadly later due to infection) but rolling a 20 could potentially cause lethal kills.  Damage is abstracted to include both the power of the attack, and the accuracy, and skill in a weapon can boost damage.

* Rapiers tend to be defined by more randomized rolls.  A rapier might be 1d20+4 whereas the same character would use a longsword at 2d10+4.  The rapier is more likely to gain that one, lethal hit -- even if he is also more likely to score hits that are decidedly light.

(On that last point, if someone feels that it's untrue, examples of WHY it is untrue would be appreciated.  I do not have a significant amount of experience with weapons, so modeling the difference between a rapier and a battleaxe is not my forte.  That being said, one reason I LIKE said model is it allows me to apply xDR -- a mechanism which removes one die of damage.  A stone gargoyle would laugh at a 1d20 rapier, but find a 2d10 longsword a threat, and a 3d6 warhammer would work particularly well.  All of this is secondary to the main point, however.)

The difficulty I am having regards establishing a mechanism for armour -- a shell of armour -- not that is related to internal hardness.  Such armour may not be evenly distributed, and it may be made up of different components -- like a breastplate with arms and legs of chain, and no helmet.

In addition, the system needs to handle situations where armour is not effective vs certain attacks, i.e. chain does not work particularly well vs arrows.

Defence vs a single type is NOT sufficent on it's own -- plate, as far as I know, protects MUCH better against rapiers than it does against longbow arrows, however in terms of damage done I don't believe  there is that significant a difference.  Again, if I've made mistakes in these assumptions I am open to correction.

I'd like to do this in as few steps as possible -- without too many messy tables, however it can be assumed that some look up is required.  One thing I do NOT want to have to deal with is hit location -- I'd rather abstract a medium wound to a medium wound.  Determining hit location becomes extremely tricky in terms of the direction of the attack, as well as called shots, and I would rather avoid it entirely.

Any thoughts?

Dangerboy

Are your weapons grouped in to 'classes' (fencing weapons, long swords, pole arms, ...)? If so you can have xDR's on your armor groups. For Example, you can say that chain mail has an xDR vs. long swords, axes, but not against rapiers or arrows. Is this how it currently works?

GaryTP

Quote from: kaikatsuHello all,

I am looking for ideas regarding an armour mechanic.  This is the system as it stands so far.

* The "to hit" roll is similar to d20, except with a greater focus on accuracy and not on strength.  Currently it only works to overcome the defender's dodge/parry.

* Damage is defined by thresholds and wound boxes.  A typical human might have 5/10/15/20 for light, medium, serious, and mortal wounds.  Scoring a 12 for damage would cause a medium wound (which might become deadly later due to infection) but rolling a 20 could potentially cause lethal kills.  Damage is abstracted to include both the power of the attack, and the accuracy, and skill in a weapon can boost damage.

I'd like to do this in as few steps as possible -- without too many messy tables, however it can be assumed that some look up is required.  One thing I do NOT want to have to deal with is hit location -- I'd rather abstract a medium wound to a medium wound.  Determining hit location becomes extremely tricky in terms of the direction of the attack, as well as called shots, and I would rather avoid it entirely.

Any thoughts?

Hi,

First, your system, as is, is quite deadly. If that's what you're shooting for then okay.

Second, you could have all armor convert points to damage, on an X to Y ratio.

Quick Example. Table could be expanded as you see fit.

Plate          3:1 For every 4 points done, 1 gets through
Chain         3:2 For every 3 points done, 2 gets through
Leather      2:1 For every 2 points done, 1 gets through
Unarmored 1:1 For every 1 point done, 1 gets through

So a player wearing platemail, hit by 15 points of damage, would only take 3 points of damage (round down), resulting in a light wound. The same player would ignore anything that did 2 or less points of damage to him. Plink. Just a quick idea.

Gary

Vaxalon

I'll assume you have a good reason to be shooting for such a high level of detail.

Armor acts in three ways to protect its wearer.

First, it deflects.  Blows that would otherwise strike solidly glance off.  This is more true for armors that are composed of sheets of material (cuir bouilli, scale, breastplate, great helm, plate) than for those that are not (mail, ring, studded leather)

Second, it deforms.  Blows expend energy in changing the shape of the armor.  Flexible armors (mail, leather) deform easily, without absorbing much energy, but also return to their original shape easily.  Rigid armors (cuir bouilli, plate) absorb more energy in deforming, but don't return to their original shape.

Third, it diffuses the force, spreading it over a larger area. This converts impaling and cutting damage to blunt trauma, which is much more survivable.   Flexible armors do this reliably, but not to a large extent.  Rigid armors are very good at this, until they break.  After the weapon has broken through, they don't diffuse much of the force at all.
"In our game the other night, Joshua's character came in as an improvised thing, but he was crap so he only contributed a d4!"
                                     --Vincent Baker

kaikatsu

I'm quite aware the system is deadly.  There are other metagame systems in place to negate hits, but this is the rough approximation of a Star Wars character who has no vitality.  No matter how much endurance a tank has, there is a practical limit of damage after which he will not be able to soak any more.

Having armour soak fractions of damage does not address issues like multilayered armour.  An adamantine breastplate should not provide the same TYPE of protection as a full suit of platemail.  Versus a weak barrage of attacks the full plate offers superior protection due to larger coverage, but if the enemy is using an armour penetrating warhammer, the plate may easily be rendered ineffective, though the breastplate offers good opportunities to save.

Of course I may have to abstract that out, as I do not want to deal with locations.  However dealing with mixed/matched suits of armour does get, for the most part, somewhat messy.

kaikatsu

Sorry Dangerboy, missed your post.  To answer, the weapons CAN be roughly grouped in classes.  However I am a little worried about using xDR for merely armour.  Chain mail does NOT protect the face (as a general rule) and xDR could reduce a weapon to doing zero damage, all the time, every time.  This is not what I want.

Somewhat off topic have a slightly related question.  Does anyone here know the comparitive damage between a longbow and a rapier?  That is, do longbow shots offer significantly higher lethality on an unarmoured target?  My primary reason is that I am assuming that rapiers and other pointed weapons are not particularly good at penetrating plate on a thrust, yet offer good lethality vs people.  Arrows ARE good at penetrating plate (though not spectacular, they are better than rapiers) yet they fall into the same general damage type as a rapier.  Is it right to up the damage values of the arrow as a response, or am I better in determining some kind of special armour piercing damage?

Vaxalon

How much damage a weapon does depends on three things; targeting, energy, and striking surface.

The striking surface of an arrow is about the same as a rapier.

Targeting is a factor; someone who is being shot by a longbow from a long way off is less likely to be hit in a vital spot than someone who is striking with a rapier from point-blank range, though if the target is efficiently defending himself, this may not be the case.

As far as energy is concerned, however, there's a huge difference.  An arrow can easily penetrate deeply into the body, even after piercing armor; this is because the longbow stores up energy that the bowman puts into it by drawing on it; most of this energy is transferred to the target.  The fencer has less time and travel to put energy into the rapier.  The rapier masses a little more than the arrow, but this doesn't enter into it.  That being said, a rapier thrust against an unarmored target is more than powerful enough to be lethal; the extra energy that an arrow has would mostly be useful for penetrating armor.

I hope that you can see that if you want your combat system to be "realistic" there are many, many different variables you will need to consider, and that as a result your system is likely to become quite complex.  Are you prepared to create a highly complicated set of rules for this?
"In our game the other night, Joshua's character came in as an improvised thing, but he was crap so he only contributed a d4!"
                                     --Vincent Baker

xenopulse

Kaikatsu,

Vaxalon makes some excellent points. It is commonly thought in RPGs that anything with greater force automatically does incrementally more "damage." That's not necessarily true. For example, a .357 caliber gun has been proven to have more "stopping power" (plainly put, chance of stopping a guy who's charging at you) than a .44 caliber gun. The .44 "overpenetrates" - its greater power lets it go through the body more swiftly and without transfering as much kinetic energy into it, which results in less tearing damage, less of a push against the charging body, and more likelihood of the bullet coming back out (with wasted energy). Also, small caliber rounds deform, bounce off bones, and stick around to be a nasty pain to remove.

So, Vaxalon is right in that the main issue of penetration (with a piercing weapon) is whether the weapon can get through your armor (and ribs, maybe) to get deep enough to damage internal organs, major blood vessels, etc. Anything beyond that, with a piercing weapon, is usually wasted. Also, if your arrow happens to have barbs, those will pose another lethal risk when trying to get the arrow out, so there are additional factors coming up.

Blunt weapons have less ability to reach those vital points, as their force is spread out and does not directly penetrate (usually), but more kinetic energy is directly transferred to the target, resulting in trauma, knockdowns, and fractures. That doesn't mean these weapons are always less effective; there's quite a difference between a rapier stabbing at your face and a club smashing your skull (besides the fact that the club will have an easier time connecting).

Heavy edged weapons (swords, axes) are the best of both worlds. They can cut and cause bleeding and reach internal spots, and if there's chainmail in the way, the force can still be strong enough to cause fractures and sink the mail into your flesh. But as you point out, against a platemail opponent, you'll want a lot of force focused on a small point. Axes don't work so badly there, actually, but a warhammer is naturally superior in penetrating armor (I've seen a few live demonstrations of that).

So, taking all that into account, without messy tables or hit locations, is going to be a challenge.

Now that I think of it... someone should classify wounds completely differently for a change. Instead of just sorting them by severity, they should be classified by depth of penetration and then how much they damage there. That means that rapier and arrow reach the same "level" on an unarmored opponent, but not an armored one. Similarly, a blunt strike against an unarmored target will reach the bones, whereas padding may spread out the kinetic force over the surface.

Hmm. Maybe I'll work on that idea when I find some time.

Valamir

First, if you're trying to add some authenticity to your system, I think you'll want to spend some time reading some actual texts on historical weaponry and searching the web for some of the actual studies that have been done (not the marketing blurbs on weapon maker sites either).  Certain assumptions you're making aren't really all that accurate and it would be a shame to put a lot of effort into creating a detailed system that doesn't really give any better results than D&D armor class.  

First you need to understand that armor and weapons were engaged in an arms race for millenia.  There's never been a situation in history where the old 2nd edition D&D weapon list is accurate.  That many different types of weapons and different types of armor simply did not co-exist side by side...ever.  The enemy had a weapon.  Armor was designed to protect from that weapon.  The enemy comes up with a new weapon designed to take advantage of weakness in that armor.  The armor is redesigned to account for the new weapon...and so on...in a process highly linked to metallurgy (both being limited by and being a driving force of) over the course of generations.

So there is no simple continuum where you can put every sort of armor ever designed on an armor list and every single weapon ever designed on a weapon list and then come up with a rules set that will give historical results...its an a-historical situation to begin with.  

For instance, you repeated a couple of times that "arrows are good against plate".  That statement by itself just isn't true.  There are as many different kinds of bows designed throughout history as there were different kinds of swords.  Most of them had trouble penetrating a hide and wood shield let alone metal plate.  There are also many different kinds of "plate mail".  You have to get pretty late in the middle ages before you see plate mail of the sort featured in "Excalibur".  The age of the plated knight was extremely short and largely had more to do with the tournament circuit than the battle field.  There are examples of the English Longbow penetrating armor, but there are also plenty more examples of platemail stopping bullets.  Vax is quite right when he points out that one of the biggest things armor did was deflect a blow.  Even if an arrow had the capability to penetrate a plate of steel (which modern tests suggest isn't very likely once decent quality steel was invented) armor was designed to be sloped, angular, and have glancing surfaces.  The most likely result of being hit with an arrow (or a lance for that matter) was that it would simply be deflected.  Shoot a thousand arrows in the air 3 times a minute for 10 minutes and maybe a few of them will hit just right and "penetrate the plate" but give one guy a bow and have him take aim, and the platemail guy will laugh at him while running him over.  

The point here is that you have to consider the fashion in which weapons were meant to be used.  A 16 foot pike is a very different animal if you're talking about 1 man defending himself vs 1000 men in close order formation.


At any rate all of the above is simply to lead into my real point which is this:

What purpose do you see these rules serving in your game?  What is their value added?  How will this issue play out in your game and why?

The reason I ask is simply this.  If your answer to the above is because you value realism, historical accuracy, and a sense of "getting it right" then I think you're not going to have much luck accomplishing that quickly and easily and without a scholars understanding of the actual issues (some of which I highlighted above).  

On the other hand, if the goal is to provide an interesting system in which making the "right" choice of weapon to wield and the "right" choice of armor to wear is the mark of a skillful player (because its fun to evaluate all of the pros and cons and tradeoffs)...then you have an entirely different situation.  You have one where it is vastly more important for the mechanics of the system to "work" from an entertainment, strategic options, and math perspective than it is for them to be "realistic".

Many many many crappy weapons and armor systems have evolved because the designers confounded those two goals.  If your goal is the second (and I suspect it probably is) then put aside any notions you have of how a rapier stacks up to an arrow vs plate.  Why?  Because chances are you're wrong anyway, and more importantly it doesn't matter.  What matters is that the system be fun, playable, internally consistant and offer players the ability to make interesting choices.  In the end it doesn't matter whether the weapon is a rapier or a barglemarsh as long as the system works and players can flex their skill at mastering the rules.

In other words.  Don't hinder the mechanical effectiveness of your system by worrying about "real weapons" unless historical authenticity is your primary goal...in which case you have a long way to go.  

Doing a "kinda sorta historical" thing based on your current thoughts isn't better than nothing.  Its worse.  You'll piss off all of the actual scholars who know more than you.  You'll piss off all of the non scholars who also have "kinda sorta historical" ideas that happen to be different from yours, and you'll piss off the people who just wanted a cool system because you'll have broken your system in order to match your "kinda sorta historical" perceptions.  The only people who will like what you come up with are those who have the exact same "kinda sorta" perceptions as you.  They'll love it.  But for everyone else it will be a waste of time.

So either go full bore 100% authentic (lots of research and ugliness) or go full bore 100% cool game mechanic.  But don't try to mix cool game mechanic with "kinda sorta" authentic.  That's been done a million times already and they all suck.

Vaxalon

Thanks Ralph.  Very eloquently stated.

I was trying to get him to realize that on his own, but you put it well and I think you really nailed it.
"In our game the other night, Joshua's character came in as an improvised thing, but he was crap so he only contributed a d4!"
                                     --Vincent Baker

ffilz

One little point I might add to Ralph's excellent statement is that of course you actually do want a little "kinda sorta" authenticity, but a small enough amount that everyone realizes it's just color (for example, calling weapon A a sword and weapon B is a "very kinda sorta" level of realism, calling the sword a falchion is a step better, and may be ok in some cases [for example in Cold Iron weapons are sized for different strengths, and rather than call weapon A a STR 16 2-Handed Sword I call it a falchion, but the arrangement of weapon names in the weapon list should quickly convince someone that all they are is color and not an actual attempt to model a real world weapon that might have been called a falchion]).

Of course also realize that no mater what level of "realism" you choose, someone will engage you in debate about how wrong you are...

So what you need to do when designing the system is decide what results you want, and then develop a system that produces those results.

In Cold Iron there exist some mechanics (so of which are my additions) that address some of the things you've been talking about. I'd be happy to share them with you if you think they would be of interest, but consider Ralph's post first and decide for yourself what your goal is.

Frank
Frank Filz

Dangerboy

Quote from: kaikatsuSorry Dangerboy, missed your post.  To answer, the weapons CAN be roughly grouped in classes.  However I am a little worried about using xDR for merely armour.  Chain mail does NOT protect the face (as a general rule) and xDR could reduce a weapon to doing zero damage, all the time, every time.  This is not what I want.

I thought you were trying to avoid hit locations anyway, so chain mail not protecting the head shouldn't matter. Also, in your example, Gargoyles reduce rapiers to zero damage every time, so why should armor function differently? That aside, how about a mesh of the two beliefs?

Assuming from your first post that you roll a d20 vs. some TN and keeping with my suggestion about armor:
What if beating the TN by a certain amount negated some of the xDR? This would support your theme that accuracy is more important than strength.

Keeping with my first suggestion, this would mean that 1DR chainmail would normally stop your 1d10 dagger, but not your 1d20 rapier. However, what if you had a rule that the attacker could ignore the 1DR if his attack roll was 5 points higher than the defense roll? This would indicate that the attacker has managed to strike a part of the body that isn't protected by chainmail - like the face, as you suggested earlier - or managed to bypass the armor in some way - like underneath it somehow.

If you don't like the five points rule, then you could make it whatever number you wanted. Alternatively, you could set it to some high number, like 10, and if you have wepaon skills, then the skill number could lower the number, meaning a person with dagger 3 need to roll seven points better than the defender to ignore chainmail's 1DR, but a person with dagger 6 only needs to beat the TN by 4. If not that, then maybe set it to a number (like 5) and have a 'feat' that lowers the number (to 3).

Would this work for you?

As for every thing everyone else has said, I'm not a battle historian so I've nothing to say.

FzGhouL

In my RPG I differentiate between Pain and Damage. A pinch to your skin can hurt alot more than a stab to the chest immediately, but its obvious over time what will be a more deciding factor. You may want to include that in your format.

Maybe you should have a chart for Blunt, Piercing, Slicing, Stabbing, etc classed weapons instead of just the names. That way you can have an armor thats like Piercing specialzed, etc etc. Thats a bit tiresome when you have to draw out the tables though.

Maybe you should actually have multiple roles to decide different factors. My RPG, Speed and Sprit, is pretty tactic intensive, so, per attack there is anywhere from 2 sets of rolls, to 7 sets of rolls (Each set pretty much has more than one die). With alot of non random factors involved to alter those effects more. (An ugly by product is a nasty accuracy calculation that ends up being a 42x94 square table. Luckily, I made the sysem due able purely in my head (or my players if they've mastered the game) and in game play we can pretty much spew the results without checking the huge ass table).


All the ideas are really interesting, and It'd be awesome after you've come up with a complete way if you posted us your rules (In this area of the game atleast) because, you know, a good system can help make other systems better.

I'll post more after reading more/being more inspired.

btrc

A lot of good comments here, and I'll add one that hopefully qualifies. Your main damage roll represents the deadliness of the weapon, generally to an unarmored person, the 1d20+4 being more lethal in general than a 2d10+4, given your current system.

How about simply saying the "NdX" part of damage is automatically stopped by armor, -unless the "+Y" part- exceeds the armor.

For instance, a 1d10+6 weapon would penetrate a 5 point armor, and do 1d10+1 damage, while a 1d20+4 weapon would completely bounce off that same armor. This gives you the "ouchy" part of the damage, without directly linking it to the penetrating ability of the weapon or its size.

Greg Porter
BTRC guy

kaikatsu

I got a LOT of responses... and a lot of them were really good.  Thanks to everyone that took the time to share.

First of all, to answer a few ideas, in no particular order.

The arrow vs plate I was talking about dealt with a fairly heavy draw weight on a longbow.  I've seen (at least on PBS) longbow arrows punch right through milled steel of good quality, as well as breastplates, albiet from fairly close ranges.  I'm also aware that plate does not slow a man down as much as one might think -- the major problem being cost.  (Spiraling economics is always a problem in RPGs, but that's another issue.)

On an aside note, I did the mathematics for the kenetic energy and momentum of an arrow in flight, from a 100 kg draw longbow over a .8 meter draw, assuming 50% efficent transfer of stored potential energy to the arrow.  (If anyone can correct me on any of this math, feel free.)  The kenetic energy AND momentum of the blow surpassed that of a rapier thrust, so I'm now certain that arrows should, on average, penetrate better given identical hit locations.

To be honest, I'm aiming for something CLOSER to the "cool mechanic" than total historical accuracy.  I know there are a LOT of weapons out there, and that you'd never see them all at once, and that a historical game would be able to narrow down the armour system a LOT.

Truth be told, the olde world mechanics was a bit of a red herring.  I'm doing this for a sci fi RPG.  However since I'm a fan of reasonable universality in a game system, AND because there's more hard data on the dynamics of 4-in-1 chain armour than, say, carbon nanotubes -- I'm toying with the base mechanics of old armour first.

And preferably do it with minimum kludge.

By the way, BTRC, that idea is an excellent one for full body armour and I was thinking about it a lot!  It works well in many cases, however it doesn't handle partial armour well.  A breastplate should not negate ALL of the damage dealt to it, since I am not dealing with locational damage.  I'd rather link the ability to defeat armour to a random variable, esp given when armour is not homogenius.

Anyway, even if I can't get total realism, there needs to be some degree of stopping a "wait, that makes no sense".  In DnD my primary annoyance was that an arrow did not have better effectiveness against chain.  The upgrade from chain to scale should have been, in my opinion, a bit more dramatic vs penetrating weapons.  

I was thinking about this idea in my algorithms class, and the notion of the difference between the depth of the penetration and the severity of the wounding got the wheels turning.  Here is what I am thinking of running with so far.

* The to-hit roll is just that.  To hit.  A touch attack pretty much.  The mechanics here are mostly settled, so I'll leave them be.

* There are two rolls.  One is for "damage" -- the other is for number of wounds.  In effect, one deals with severity of penetration, one deals with area of effect.

* The damage needs to, as before, surpass certain thresholds.  For the sake of argument, I'll work with 5/10/15/20 as light, medium, serious, and critical.  (As opposed to the name lethal, which implies an instant kill.)  Stacking rules of wounds work as before.  Stuns may fill the damage boxes in a manner similar to wounds.

* The "damage" roll defines the "quality" of the damage, not just the force.  That is to say WHERE the attack hits is just as important as how hard.  Skill does bonus damage to some extent.  A breastplate lowers damage by virtue of the fact that attacks that do NOT hit the breastplate will often be hitting limbs, which are (for the most part) not quite as severe as a hole in the lung.

* Armour reduces the damage roll, albiet not the number of wounds.  In this respect, the arrow might not be superior to the axe -- in that it has great penetration power, allowing it to score a serious wound more likely, however it will get one wound or so.  On the other hand a hunting arrow might have less damage, but score more wounds.  That is, one serious vs two mediums.

* Long term lethality is made more effective by wounds of a more serious caliber.  "saving throw vs infection" so to speak vs serious wounds is much higher than it is for medium, even if multiple rolls need tobe made for the mediums.  On the other hand "stopping power" -- that is putting the other person out of the fight, is based on number of wounds only, not their severity.

* The end result of the above is that two rapier fighters can impale one another a few times, with potentially moral blows, and still keep on fighting.  While it is POSSIBLE for the new holes in their body to cause them to drop/pass out, it is not as likely as a heavy mace slammed across the chest.  Even though the mace may not create wounds as deep (it can, due to broken ribs, but it might not) it will definitely have a MUCH higher shock value -- six medium wounds can add up and put someone out of commission even more effectively than one critical one.

* The addition of armour changes the dynamics of damage dramatically.  Armour acts as reduction vs the damage, not the number of wounds, which means that clubs have a much harder time getting through plate than arrows do.  Arrows from 100 kilogram draw longbows (a very high number I realize) do a more damage than rapiers on unarmoured targets, but are MUCH more effective on armoured ones!

* Armour needs to be typed.  Defence vs blunt definitely needs a different type than defence vs piercing.  Only way to handle chain as best I can tell.  And terrible defence vs ballistic, should such a situation come up, SHOULD convince people not to take their plate mail vs modern firearms.

* Lasty, some common sense limiters need to be applied for the defence modifier.  A steel breastplate is good, but without helmet and/or limb armour, an adamantine breastplate will only be marginally better.  There reaches a point where protecting other areas of the body is far superior than hardening the armour on one point.  Likewise, adamantine gauntlets but no torso armour shouldn't provide a significant bonus.  (To throw out some theoretical numbers, the difference between a steel breastplate and adamantine breastplate should be +4 vs +5, but FULL steel and FULL adamantine plate should be +8 vs +16.)

* The typing of damage reduction should help limit cross-period sillyness.  In the event of some insane player, the steel plate defence vs ballistic ammo should be low enough to convince people it's a very bad idea, never minding the high power overall of a shotgun slug.

* "stone gargoyle" style damage reduction is accomplished by reducing the number of wounds (as well as damage quality).  This means that hammer, dealing 4-5 medium wounds a hit, is suddenly very valuable, whereas that rapier, dealing 1-2 wounds a hit, is suddenly not so hot.  Incidently, humans get to soak the first wound of stun damage.  (Needless to say, unarmed strikes usually deal more than that.)

* The major problem comes from situations where the damage reduction is so high as to make scoring even a light wound difficult.  For this I think I will let players arbitrarily decide the attack is a stunning blow.  In this case the quailty of the wound is typed as if there were no armour (vs the normal 5/10/15/20) but it is considered stun damage.  Again, in this case a mace is MUCH better for jarring someone inside their armour than a rapier is.

This rule set will require a NUMBER of tweaks to support it.  For one -- precalculated armour systems "This is a normal suit of full plate" -- will be a must for the less mathematically inclined that use the system.  However players that want to try mixing that elven chain with that dwarven steel and thow on a cold iron helmet to boot should be able to go nuts and arrive at a figure that's not TOO rediculous.

The system IS fast.  One roll to hit, two damage rolls that happen similtaniously, and a declaration of the kind of blow.  I expect a certian degree of metagaming with this rule, a player who realizes the blow would bounce due to DR will naturally declare it a stun hit instead.  That is fine.  Stun hits are not particularly effective, but if you want to wail on someone in full plate until they go down, at least you have the feel of being able to do SOMETHING.

As an aside, for those noticing the lethality of the system, that is in part why I am so willing to allow for a bit more detail.  As a general rule two or three hits will end the fight.  After seeing the to-hit and damage, though, players can put metagame factors can come into play -- hero points/action points/whatever you like to allow a player to say "Well that WOULD have hit me.... but it didn't."  This lowers actual lethality by retroactively causing a lot of misses, which is closer to what heroic games SHOULD be like.  Just for those who were wondering if I intended players to get killed that fast...

As best I can tell, it handles the difference between the stopping power of hollow point, and the effectiveness of AP rounds rather nicely as well.  (Or the modern equivilant.)

If anyone can see some breaks in my logic, or blatent HOLES in the reasoning, by all means, post it up.  I realize this isn't perfectly realistic -- I don't expect perfect realism.  For one, even from the papers I've read of actual research, there is very little consensus on how effective certain armour was.  I also don't want to get too detailed.  "Within a certain approximation of reality" is fine, provided nothing happens that makes a player pause and go "wait... what the hell?"

If you can see any of those "what the hell" moments in what I've posted, please, pop up a reply.  I'd be very interested in hearing what you have to say.  Thank you for the comments so far, it's given a good deal to work with.