Armour Mechanism

[kaikatsu]

<quote>Since you don't have hit locations or location specific effects, in combat there is no difference between a guy with a breastplate and nothing else, and a guy with his arms, legs and head armored, with his chest unprotected. You simply have a certain fraction of his body protected, and the numbers give the total armor value.</quote>

In this case I am forced to disagree.  Armour which protects vital areas should provide better defence.  Even though I do not have hit LOCATIONS, the ability to hit a vital spot does increase damage.  Heavy armour on the chest forces a blow to either go through, or to redirect to non vital areas.  Heavy armour on the arms might allow for the occasional plink vs what could have been a light wound, but since most -deadly- blows are targeting the center of mass, it's going to be largely ineffective.

The major weakness I can see in the approach is the rule that there is a bonus for the weakest material armour.  Since anything other than full body armour has some exposed zones, in theory there should be some +0 bonus somewhere.  At least that's how I'm seeing it.

So far, I think I'd rather have the bonuses come from the material values itself, but be modified by location, coverage, and limited by what other areas are protected.  It means more steps, overall, but I ran some numbers on it and it turned out ok...

I'll definitely think about your idea though.  I may yet see something in it I can't see now.

One thing is for certain, I'm going to provide a nice big table of pre-existing armour layouts.  99% of armour usage will follow those lines ANYWAY.

[Autocrat]

Just chipping in....... (bound to upset some - so ....)

OK, combat is really unruly, chaotic and likely to be highly confusing.... unless you are duelling with very calm and skilled opponents!  if it' sjust two guys swiping at each other with you know what weapons come to hand... then it's different!

Armour makes a large difference for many reasons- yet was generally there to protect against wild attacks.  If there is an opponening, and the right attack.... no armour will save you!

Location is important - whether armoured or not - I'm not likely to die due to being stabbed/smashed/shot/lashed in the foot - UNLESS it hits a vital nerve core or severs important blood vessels - in which I'm stuffed!

The type of armou Vs. type of weapon is a considerable factor - ignoring cultural differences - most arms and armour where generated to out do each other!  Just look at modern firearms and armour - kevlar stop high velocity projectiles - sucks against a knife!  make sense?


So, depending upon the level of realism / speed / accuracy / enjoyment.... you need to consider the following things and decide whether they are included, and at what priority!

* Attack/defence ratings
* Damage levels
* Negating/Absorbing/Permitting damage
* Strengths & weakness Vs. Attack types (Solid, plated, linked vs. pointy, blunt etc.)
* Accuracy of attacks (glancing, solid, perfect attacks)
* Locations of hits
* Level of detail (Location of armour, compisite form, location of parts, affects against different types of attack, movement, flexibility etc.)


For fun, freedom and saying bugger it to most.... you could have a sinmple attack roll that dictates whether you hit or not, if so, the difference between what was needed and what was rolled dictactes the location.  Compare against armour, depending on the score tto the damage absorbed, ( if used), and depending on the locations listed to the values of damage to set location.  The location and the implement used dictactates the severity of the damage....

EG>

ATTACK - Rolls a 14
DEFENDER - Has a score of 10
= + 4
This means the resulting attack has struck a leg (LEFT).
The armour is studded leather, thus offers a small amount of protect, so it soaks 1 damage.
The Attack was made with a Hammer, and results in 4 damage, less the 1 = 3.  3 damage on the upper leg results in a fracture (where as on the lower it would have caused a break!


MAKE SENSE?

Have fun!

(Oh, and those that disagree - that is my OPINION!  Nothing more or less!)

[btrc]

In this case I am forced to disagree. Armour which protects vital areas should provide better defence. Even though I do not have hit LOCATIONS, the ability to hit a vital spot does increase damage. Heavy armour on the chest forces a blow to either go through, or to redirect to non vital areas. Heavy armour on the arms might allow for the occasional plink vs what could have been a light wound, but since most -deadly- blows are targeting the center of mass, it's going to be largely ineffective.

I'm afraid you're missing what I'm saying, and to some extent what -you're- saying. To wit:

My quote:

If it were my design, I would slant those numbers so that for a given material and percentage of area covered, the torso had a higher armor value than anywhere else, since it is a center of mass aim point and more hits will likely strike there as a matter of statistics.

And to your point, if -you- have -no- location-specific effects, then -by definition- all locations are equal in terms of how damage hurts someone. All that armor does is adjust the probability of that damage occuring. If you are unarmored and I swing for 1d10 damage, I can do no more than 10 points. Doesn't matter whether I stab you in the toe or the eyeball, the only way to judge its "vitalness" is to -infer- it from my roll (a roll of 1 is the toe, a roll of 10 is the eyeball).

I agree that you should wear better armor on vital locations, but the fact that it is a vital location should not make a given type of -armor- better.

The fact that a location is more likely to be hit -should- affect the stastical chance of protection to beyond its mere percentage area, however.

In terms of final effect, the end user is unlikely to notice any difference between the two approaches or rationales (likelihood of hit vs. vitalness), so maybe I'm just being contrary about it...;)

This did bring up a secondary concern. Does a person's skill affect either armor or chance to be hit in your system? That is, if I'm god's gift to swordsmen and I've got impervium bracers for a relatively low armor value, is my armor value increased because I am good enough to block your blows with them? I am offsetting the small chance of a -random- hit with the ability to -deliberately- put the best protection in the way of a blow. A more likely case will be the ability to put a shield in the way of a blow.

Greg Porter
BTRC

[Valamir]

Another option is to reverse the paradigm.  Most combat system assign a random range for the weapon and a fixed protection for the armor.  That leads to all kinds of extra rules to deal with hit location and partial armor since what fixed protection you get depends on where you hit.

However, why not the reverse.  Assign the weapon a fixed damage and randomize the armor.  You still have the random range of damage that was desired, and now you have the ability to do away with hit locations entirely.  If the armor "save" rolled well then the blow was obviously to a well armored location.  If it rolled poorly than the blow was to a less armored location.  You can then reflect coverage by rolling more dice and keeping the best roll.  

For instance, determine how much damage will kill an average person.  Say 10 points is a mortal wound.  Fine.  Define a successful hit roll, not as "did my weapon connect with the target, yes or no" but rather "did I land a killing blow, yes or no".  That way, each and every successful hit will kill the opponent (10 points of damage).

Then assign each weapon a lethality rating in the form of "lose X damage for every point missed by on the to-hit roll".  For a weapon you want to be particularly deadly, perhaps you lose 1 point of damage for every 2 points you miss by.  Say you needed an 18 to score a killing blow but only rolled a 14.  You missed by 4 points so your blow loses 2 damage.  Its a "failure" because you didn't kill in one blow.  That lesser blow, however, still does 8 damage.

Some weapons will be less lethal.  Its certainly possible to kill a person with a single stab with a knife.  But you have to hit just the right spot with just the right timing...much more difficult.  So the lethality of the knife might be to lose 2 damage for every point missed by.  Using the above numbers, rolling an 18 means you actually did it.  You killed the guy in one stab with your knife.  However, if you only roll a 14 you missed by 4 points so your blow loses 8 damage and your down to a fairly weak 2 point hit.

Now you apply the effects of armor.  Start with a select number of Hit locations.  12 is often a good number (head, right torso, left torso, abdomen, right and left arm, right and left hand/lower arm, right and left leg, right and left foot/lower leg).  For me, I'd probably cut that down to 6 (head, torso, 2 arms, 2 legs) but whatever.  You have however many distinct locations you like.

Each type of armor gets assigned a die type.  Plate mail might get a d12, Chain a d10, light chain a d8 and so on down to d4 (or even d2s if you like).  One could limit the armor to d6s or better and use d4s and d2s for natural human toughness if desired.  Then simply roll 1 die of the appropriate type for each armored location (which is why I'd cut the locations down to a manageable number), and keep the highest result.

A person wearing only a d12 breast plate would get to roll a d12 against against the weapon damage.  For the first weapon, a roll of 8-12 would completely block the blow.  Anything less doesn't.  Having more locations covered makes it more likely that one of the dice will roll high enough to stop the attack.

Of course you fiddle with the numbers until it gives fun results in play and then just assign weapons and armor to the appropriate ratios and die sizes to make it work.


Point being, there are about a billion ways to skin the weapon / armor / injury cat.

The most important thing, however, is to determine what sort of OUTPUT you want the system to give you, and then design the system specifically to yield that output.  Don't design a system that "seems to make sense" and then accept whatever output it gives. And don't make the mistake of thinking you have to account for every possible piece of data that could ever be output from reality.

Alls you need is an internally consistent system that gives you the results you want.

For example:  In Savage Worlds there are only 3 forms of output that Shane wanted:  Dead, Shaken, or No Effect.  That's all the Savage Worlds damage system delivers for most characters.  Whether the blow hit armor and penetrated, or hit an armored location, or whatever doesn't matter. Skip to the good stuff.  Is the enemy down, hesitating, or still coming.  That's all that mattered to the game so that's all the system was designed to deliver.

So figure out what Output you absolutely need to have and design a system that does that and that alone.

[btrc]

The most important thing, however, is to determine what sort of OUTPUT you want the system to give you, and then design the system specifically to yield that output.

Alls you need is an internally consistent system that gives you the results you want.

Exactly! I'm not trying to say "I'm right" (even though I get that way sometimes, sorry), I'm just pointing out alternatives and options that hopefully help you work out exactly the way -you- want -your- system to get "output A" from "input B".

And if I've done that, then I should shut the hell up and get back to lurking.

Greg Porter
BTRC

[kaikatsu]

I am getting the impression some of the things I have said seem to be contradictory.  I might need to revisit them.  So, here we go...

As I have generally stated, but perhaps understated, I find hit location determined -in- combat is kludgy.  There are a lot of reasons I don't like hit locations.  These are including, but not limited to the fact that partial cover can screw up the tables, that called shots need a default hit zone, and that there needs to be a seperate def value for each and every form of armour.  I have used them before -- and I don't like them.

That being said, armour DEPENDS on where it is placed on the body.  Armour that covers vital areas is fundamentally BETTER than armour that does not cover vital areas.  This is why people wear kevlar -vests-, as opposed to kevlar leggings.  Not only is the chest a big target, but it is a place where, if one gets shot, the odds of the effects being lethal are much -- MUCH higher.

Also, DO consider that part of the damage roll is the accuracy of the hit.  Damage goes up not only because of more force, but because of more skill.

Therefore, the value of the damage reduction should depend on BOTH the material hardness vs damage type, and the material location.  Even though the hit location is abstractified -- even though the GM can call out hit locations off the top of his head as -flavour text-, wearing a chest plate and helmet is the logical way to start armouring one's self.

To touch on some quotes...

"If there is an opening and the right attack," armour can indeed still save.  Armour lowers the possibility of GETTING the right attack, at least when the armour is able to defeat the weapon.  While -- generally -- armour will not make one invulnerable, it is worthwhile to note that M1 tanks could -regularly- defeat Iraqi HEAT rounds with effectively no damage.  These are direct hits!  Likewise, for a certain value of damage/strength, plate mail will regularly defeat it.  Sometimes there's a fairly random chance of the shot bouncing/breaking up, sometimes not.  Sometimes penetration is almost guaranteed.  But the "opening and right attack" assumes, first and formost, the right WEAPON.  Full plate, reasonable mobility, and a not-particularly-well-armed opponent turns a man into a tank on the battlefield.

Autocrat, you make good points, dealing with elements like firearms and kevlar for example, but as I had noted this is handled with the use of typed damage.

Regarding your concept that an attack roll lists hit location -- how would that allow an attacker to favour blows to the right side vs the left?  As soon as you have armour which is stronger on one side than another, and you start naming hit locations, the player will want to -- and rightfully so -- focus on the unarmoured locations!  A system that allows both a player focus, AND allows randomization, is going to be kludgy.  If you can proove me wrong, I'd be interested to see it!  I'd gladly eat my words for an elegant system that would let me do that.  However, as I've yet to see something that accomplishes that goal, I've opted for a system that determines the RESULTS first -- and allows the GM to fill in flavour text along the way.

The result oriented system MEANS that it is logical to not name off hit locations -- where the blow was that hit you is flavour text as far as I am concerned, as long as the effect (Instantly lethal?  Dropped?  Potential long term lethalty) is the same.

On the other hand a result orented system still, STILL, needs to take into account the rough effect of armour, and armour which is asymetrically laid out so as not to protect the vital areas is not going to be effective.

To answer your secondary question re: skill, Greg, yes!  Being skilled, and wearing great gauntlets, means good chances to active parry!  Same with shields.  The more "stuff" you have in the way, the better chance you have to negate an incoming attack.

On the other hand being skilled doesn't do much to make you "use chest armour more effectively," armour is MOST effective when it NEVER gets hit.  It's more like insurance.

Anyway, Greg, I definitely agree that a wider SPREAD of armour is better.  However there needs to be -- I suppose the word would be synergy -- with having a full set of armour as opposed to an asymetric layout.

Valamir, I spent a good ling time thinking about reversing the paradigm.  There are advantages to an armour save -- lots of them really -- and you mentioned most that I can think of.  That being said, I find that when it comes to the ability to deal out damage, weapons tend to determine the randomness.  A wide burst of 00 shot should, for the most part, deal a fairly consistant level of damage.  An AP round could be potentially very lethal, passing through a vital point, or very not, causing a flesh wound.

In short, the randomness of the damage really SHOULD be determined at the weapon level.  Reversing the mechanism isn't bad, but I'm not so keen on it.

Anyway, Greg, you've tossed out a lot of good ideas, but I find what I have is working so far.  What I'm more interested now in is finding a flaw WITH the idea I have.  Logical inconsitances, if you can find them.  As it stands I have it down to...

Pre Game Calc: Work out generic armour reduction value vs each type of common damage.  Add this into the thresholds for damage.  This will require a lot of referencing, and take a while -- on the other hand the GM won't need to

In Game Attack: Roll a to-hit roll, a single addition.  If successful, roll both damage (small number addition) and wound numbers (small number, probably single die roll.  Declare damage.)

Assuming the enemy takes the blow, he only needs to do a comparison to determine the wound type, and then mark off the number of wounds taken.  This is a relatively "simple" form of math, there is no subtraction from damage reduction (that's factored into the thresholds) nor does one need to do anything too complex with wound numbers.  And that's the end of the attack.

Post Combat: Now check the wounds to see the long term effect.  This WILL take a while, as there might be a number of tables.  But again, this is downtime kludge, as opposed to midcombat kludge.

It's not TOO kludgy, a little slower than d20, but due to heightened lethality that's acceptable.  I tested it, it works... the real question is can I find a "breaking case" -- a situation where some example produces contradictory results...

At this point, that's more important to me than alternating the mechanism entirely based on what seems like a good idea, or what is more effective.

Having narrowed the field down a bit, any questions/breakers?

[btrc]

Having narrowed the field down a bit, any questions/breakers?

Well, from what you've described, the most obvious breaker is a "because I said so" one. If there is a -really- good armor material in the game (say impervium), someone -will- find a way to give themselves 100% body coverage with the stuff.

Or, find a way to increase their Strength to where they can carry twice the thickness of something a little less effective than impervium, with the same end effect.

It seems that at some point, you have to arbitrarily limit the maximum armor value, regardless of the material or its thickness or how well it covers the person. If so, it becomes a "because I said so" rule.

Within a fantasy world, where seamless armor with no weak spots is unlikely, not a problem. But what about for a more modern or SF world? If I climb into my armored spacesuit, am I going to be 100% invulnerable to certain classes of weapons (I should be).

You may have it covered already. But you -did- ask for questions...;)

Greg Porter
BTRC

[kaikatsu]

That's an excellent point.  Needless to say, the MAXIMUM material strength will be defined by tables.  No one is going to be able to give themselves +20 impervium armour unless there's a weapon out there that scales more or less effective damage.

The deal with stacking armour thicker and thicker needs to be addressed.  I plan on using a logarithmic approach to armour -- doubling the mass of the armour won't nearly double the protection.

That being said, gamebreaking items might exist in a fantasy realm.  A mythril shirt could certanly offer superb defence against attacks, if it existed, but handing one a mythril shirt would not be near as scary as handing, say, the full plate version of same.

In the end though, that's a ballance issues of the WORLD.  Just because the mechanism CAN model near impervious armour doesn't mean the GM is obligated to make those options available to players!

On an aside -- the armoured space suit bit is handled a TOUCH differently.  For the sci fi universe I'm toying with -- the combat armour is considered a seperate entity, that absorbs a GOODLY amount damage before letting it through.  You'd be impervious to small arms fire, naturally.  However, in the event such a weapon existed, the universe would naturally have the heavy beam cannons / rail guns to punch it wide open, most likely mounted on a similar suit of armour.

The simplest form of game balance is ensuring that the enemy gets the same weapons the players do.  Most of the settings I create are, indeed, based on that assumption.

[Autocrat]

hmmm... to make a quick and simple answer.... modify the attack roll for location?  Have a simple table that lists the results?

basically, most things in games are flavour!  No real difference between having a roll result table or a list of damage and locations.  depends on priority!

What your suggesting seems fine... I suppose it's a matter of prefence.... but so long as it is sensible. (not logical - thats optional! LOL), then theres no problem!

[kaikatsu]

Generally hit locations are anything BUT quick and simple.  Any time there is an in-game effect for hitting certain locations, people WILL aim for those locations.  And that leads to a whole host of questions...

* Does a shot that "missed" the head hit the body?  It COULD, are there rules for it?
* Do hands get the DEX bonus to defence when a person is moving their hands, but is otherwise still.
* Is it possible to place one body part in front of another (leading with the left side, for example) to make other parts harder to hit?

And this doesn't even take into account partial cover...

End result, I've just not had a lot of luck with sectional damage, so I generally prefer to abstract it out as flavour -- even if the armour itself needs to take body placement into account.

[phookadude]

I had  idea for an armor system that relates directly to how the damage system was explained in the first place.

Since it seems you want all your weapons to be deadly with the highest rolls, you can make armor stop specific results, or dice pips. Turning those pip results into 0s on all the dice rolled.

Light armor might only stop results of 3 or 4 on the damage dice. Think of leather armor vs a 1d20 weapon, allmost no effect against say a longbow arrow. But against a 3d6 mace or 4d4 club it would be quite effective.

Chainmail might stop damage results of 7 to 12, cutting the middle damage potential out of the 1d20 arrow and severly effecting the 2d10 sword but being totally innefective against the 3d6 mace.

Heavy plate armor might stop results from 3 to 15, making the wearer immune to all but the most powerfull attacks, and those few lucky little blows that leak.

With this system you could tailor the weapons and armor into quite an elegant balance, without requireing more rolls.

[kaikatsu]

That's a very interesting idea.  I like it, for a LOT of reasons, however I'll have to spend some more time contemplating the idea to see if I can find any flaws with it...

For purposes of stopping power I still need a roll for number of wounds, but it does provide an interesting way to develop a weapon that can be rendered ineffective vs armour MOST, but not ALL, of the time.

It conflicts with a few other ideas I had unfortunately -- but it's worth mulling over.  Let me get back to you on that one.

[phookadude]

I allready noticed a hole that my sleep-deprived brain didn't catch last night.

Probably can't make it a range of numbers that armor stops because that negates the best results of many weapons. Stopping range 7-12 vs a 2d10 sword would effectively make rolls of 7-10 ineffective when they should be the most effective.

Rather than make the armor stopping ranges chunky like 7-9 and 11-12 I would make an overall rule that if you max out on your damage dice then it gets through even if the number falls in the stopping range of the armor. So if you rolled a 6 and a 10 on the 2d10's you'd get a result of 16 rather than 6.

You could further tailor the weapons by making thier "auto effect range" differnt. Like a short sword might be 2d10 with 10s allways effective and a longsword 2d10 with 9s and 10s effective.

This system would really need allot of tweeking to make it work. But it I think the results might be worth it.

[btrc]

Kaikatsu,
I just got a contract to do some work for Albedo (Sanguine Productions), and it totally slipped my mental gears that its system may have some brainstorming ideas for you. Damage in Albedo is X+Y, with an additional Penetration die, which in Albedo's case is always d20. And, you can in some circumstances get more than one Penetration die. For instance, if a target is helpless, you get +1d20 Penetration. You always get the base damage (X), and for each roll of the Penetration die that exceeds armor, you get the extra value (Y).

Example: I have an 8+7 weapon and am shooting at a helpless target whose armor has a Deflection of 10. I roll 2d20 and get 11 and 13, so I get the base damage (X) and 2 penetrations (Y).

I thought it was kind of clunky at first. It reminds me of your original post, whose system I thought was over complex. But, Albedo does a good job and it has certain useful aspects. For instance, explosions get 5d20, and lose d20 with range, so you get a natural dropoff. Critical hits get an extra d20, and so on.

Albedo uses a system that allows for no effect from taking damage, based on your Body stat, so nothing ever "bounces" off armor, which I don't like, but the concept has legs. Especially since you are using different polyhedral types, you can give a lethal but low penetration weapon (rapier) a low Penetration die type and a high Y value, while a longsword might have average values.

Greg Porter
BTRC

[Uccisore]

I have a question: Is this game going to involve firearms combat? You use the example of kevlar leggings, and as far as firearms go, that's the case.  Most hits land in center body mass in firearms combat.
    But look at melee combat. If you attack someone with a knife, I'll guarentee you'll hit them in the hands and arms at least a couple of times before you get in on a vital area.  In a knife fight, having protected hands and forearms would give you a huge advantage, above and beyond deflecting the occaisonal inconsequential wound. Most hits in melee combat with lethal weapons do not land center body mass, if both people care to defend themselves.  I would go so far as to say that someone with hand/arm protection is better off than someone with a breastplate in a knife fight. At the very least, one is not obviously and decidedly better than the other.      

   If partial armor is going to be a big factor in your game, you may want to have it give a bonus to some defensive skill that indicates the characters ability to deflect a blow, in addition to or even instead of subtracting from damage directly.