*realistic* armor penalties

[Mokkurkalfe]

Jake! (or anybody else qualified to answer)
You've said a few times yourself that the armor penalties in tRoS are a bit to hefty. If I wanted more realistic penalties, what would they be?
My world is a 11th-12th century one(though there are exceptions), so I'm mostly interested in chainmail.

[Mike Holmes]

How about no penalties at all?

People don't make armor that impedes people in combat. To do so is just suicide. And armor can be made that does not impede. So that's how it's made IRL.

I've said this a jillion times. What armor is, is heavy. Watch the encumberance rules, and even moreso fatige. These can be problematic, potentially. The fatigue factor is why people don't wear armor a lot. Wearing armor in combat is about the most draining thing I can imagine (I've worn thirty pounds of kevlar in combat training, it's no fun at all). So as soon as a warrior safely can, he takes his armor off.

The reason that armor penalties exist in games goes back to TFT (Proto GURPS) where these penalties were added for game balance. They are in no way realistic. The problem that one gets if one drops these penalties, then, is that every player with an ounce of Gamism in him will immediately go for the heaviest armor available. Why? Because just like IRL, it is an advanage to wear the heaviest armor available.

Why, then IRL, did people wear leather armor when chainmail was available? Because leather is infinitely cheaper. It is something that anyone can wear and not get fatigued over time. It's something that a commoner can get away with wearing - any commoner wearing chain will be asked what lord he works for as a knight or man-at-arms, and probably detained for questioning if he can't answer (the assumption being that he killed such a person to get the armor).

In other words there are social, cultural, and personal reasons that have nothing to do with combat. But again, most role-players will try to get around this stuff so that they can be more effective where it "counts" as far as they are concerned, that being in combat. So penalties slip into even the most realistic games to make the lesser armors seem like better options. Interestingly, TROS even with the penalties, does make heavier armors substantlively better than lesser ones. But it still mitigates a bit as well. And interesting midle ground.

Also as intresting, D&D is more realistic in its approach in that it does not penalize wearers of heavier armors. But that's because classes are restricted to certain armors, and buying armor is expensive (which functions with the way D&D handles gold as an important empowering metric). IOW, you don't get platemail in D&D until you get enough gold. The better armor is a reward.

The question of whether or not to drop the armor penalties is only answerable by looking at your players styles. Are they really into the "realism" of the setting? Then they will select the appropriate armor. Are they into "winning" or "powergaming"? If so, then keeping the balancing penalties is probably a good idea. It makes te question of armor more of a tactical decision, which is what they enjoy.

Mike

[Mokkurkalfe]

Wohoo! You've confirmed what I've always suspected.
If I go hard enough on the other, more "real" penalties, I think it will do nicely without any penalties.
I'll just use the fatigue rules and perhaps some overheating and skill penalties(e.g. knitting in armored gloves or swimming in plate).
Using money as a limit is something I've always wanted but I have no feel whatsoever when it comes to the tRoS money system. Just how much is much? What is a good reward? How much does it cost to keep yourself alive? Aaargh.

[Jake Norwood]

I'm going to back up Mike, generally, with a few add-ons.

First, the chief problem with armor is weight and fatigue.
Second is visibility--you can't see jack wearing most helmets. I wanted CP loss to reflect this.
Third, it does restrict mobility, just not nearly as much as some folks think. You can cartwheel in the stuff, but it isn't as easy.
Fourth, it's uncomfortable, and if even one piece comes loose then it's very uncomfortable.

For TROS I tried to take these factors into account and average them out into penalties to the CP. Note that the penalties for anything on the torso are minor or non-existant, but when your arms and legs are armored the penalty goes up due to basic leverage and weight/inertia issues. Leg armor impedes all but basic footwork to a small degree, slowing it down if nothing else.

The reason that I say they're too high is that an "average" guy has 8CP (4 Reflex, 4 Proficiency), and many suits therefore cut him down to half. That's too high. OTOH, your average "fighter" or TROS knight has, say, 10-13CP, which makes the penalties stiff but still reasonable. Since "average" fighters probably weren't running around in full plate, the penalties seem workable, if not perfect.

Jake

[svenlein]

why not make the penalty 1/3 of your CP pool?

[Thirsty Viking]

Well there is some debate here on how much effect armor has.  Stonger guys would suffer less effect than weaker guys for wearing plate.  But the truth of the matter is that while well made Full Plate Armor doesn't IMPEDE movement...  (make it impossible to lift a sword)  It does hinder movement (maKe it harder ...  all that weight on your arm) and slower to react (momentum).  If you want to simulate this wear excersize weights on wrists and ankles all day long.....   then do some sort of martial kata.  While it is true that you will adjust to the wieghts over time and they will fatigue you less...   you'll always be quicker without them.  This momentum effect is where i believe most of the CP penalty for full armor,  and movement comes from.   How accurate are they?   good question...   I've never worn a 60 lbs of armor...   I know aht happens when i wear a 60 lb  backpack while hiking in the mountains though.  I know how much my foot speed changes from sneakers to hiking boots.   I don't have a problem accepting Jakes penalties as close enough.  The last thing we need are huge tables of armor penaltied based on user strength and ammount of time armor is worn,  etc...

I've seen film of people in plate doing cartwheels....  I've never seen film of them landing it though....  since they didn't show that...  I assume it went badly.  Again, there is all that momentum they have to deal with...  same reason you don't see many fat gymnasts

[Jake Norwood]

Hinder is a much better word, yes. Not impede, HINDER.

As for cartwheels, I've done it in poorly made stuff and landed, if not gracefully, at least on my feet.

Jake

[Vanguard]

Hmm, right... How do I start?

I actually have worn armour. From chain shirts, to chain hauberks, to chain hauberks and plate breastplates, and scalemail (many years of Live-roleplay and reenactment). Occasionaly braces as well but nothing heavier than that. I've never worn full articulated plate for example (a la Knight-in-armour)

I've worn such for days at a length and done treks across country (week-long adventures where time-in is 24 hours a day - you tend to wear minimal armour at least till bedtime) Not that uncomfortable, strangely.

What wearing armour comes down to is fatigue.  It doesn't really feel that heavy when you're wearing the stuff (although, like roller-skates, once you've taken it off you definitely feel the difference).  But after minutes of intense, strenuous action, you get knackered that much quicker and your muscles easily strain. So regarding fatigue rules, spot on Jake.

And armour DOES impede movement to some degree. It's like the difference betweeen being naked and wearing a stiff leather coat. You're still manouvravble just not quite as much. It takes that much more effort to stretch so far, and your parry can be just that tiny bit more awkward and slower.

And the third factor would be vision restriction. Wearing a helm really screws you up. Even one with an open face buggers up your hearing and restricts peripheral vision. So again, regarding CP rules for armour and helms, I kinda agree with Jake. I see what you mean by saying that they're a little bit too harsh, but not by that much as I see it.

An inexperienced fighter might well lose half his CP (a maximum of four lost successes regarding parries and attacks) so what is the advantage of wearing all that steel?  I'd say that he's gained six! automatic successes in case he should get hit. And because he can rely on the armour he can go for outright attack (That's +2 CP) and putting that many more dice into his attack. A wise defender would put much in defence, leaving both fighers (regardless of outcome) with few dice each for the next exchange (advantage thus remains the same)

So, yeah, regarding armour, I'm happy with the rules. The only problem I see concerns ppl with less than 6CP. This means that in full plate with shield and full helm, they can't even react.

But I'd just say that CP can never go below 1 (or maybe 2 - one for each round) before shock and other modifiers are applied.

Take care

[Vanguard]

Sorry, by IMPEDE I meant HINDER. So yeah, agreed with Jake and Thirsty. Was just elaborating on their points rather than contradicting.

[Thirsty Viking]

As for cartwheels, I've done it in poorly made stuff and landed, if not gracefully, at least on my feet.

Jake

Your right Jake,  Badly is too imprecise....   the film in mid cartwheel looks like any athletic guy doing a cartwheel,  graceful and smooth.   By badly I didn't mean they couldn't land...  just that the landing would have diminished the point they were trying to make.   i.e   not graceful, even if they successfully regained their feet.

[Mokkurkalfe]

Sooo....
Helmet CP loss is for loss of hearing/vision.
I'm still confused about the pot helm CP los however.
Breastplate CP loss is the because it's rigid.
Chain or plate on the arms or legs makes you a little slower and thus hinder movement.

Regarding plates, is it the plates on the joints that are the major problem?
Should greaves give any CP loss?

[Mike Holmes]

Sooo....
Helmet CP loss is for loss of hearing/vision.
I'm still confused about the pot helm CP los however.

Even the modern kevlar that we wear in the military has some if this effect. You can't see up as much for example. OTOH, if you've seen Black Hawk Down, note the bicycle helmet looking thingies that the Delta Force guys wear. They obviously prefer their PER being high to the extra protection.

That said, I agree that a smaller helmet might have no CP loss. Hmmm. Trade that CP for a reduced chance that the helmet protects? We could work out a mechanoc for that.

Breastplate CP loss is the because it's rigid.
Chain or plate on the arms or legs makes you a little slower and thus hinder movement.

Again, these are the "Iffy-est" to me. As our experienced chain wearing friend above attested, it's just added weight. My experience with added weight is that you can go just as fast, or very nearly so. It just takes even more effort to do so. In combat you aren't going to let laziness make you an easier target, or allow it to let the opponent slip away. You will make that armor go full speed. It will just cost you a lot in terms of fatigue.

A breastlpate will not be designed to get in the way. The small amount of extra protection that one would get would not be worth the problems. As Jake said, chest stuff is just weight. The legs can certainly overcome this sort of well distributed and balanced weight. The only thing that might actually hinder would be the weight on the arms and less so on the legs. I'd give it a -1CP at most. Nothing but fatigue for breastplates and chain shirts. Hence the popularity of the breastplate up until about two centuries ago. The French still wore them in the Franco-Prussian war. Sure they were only good for melee at that point. But since they didn't hinder, why not? Especially if you're cavalry, and the weight is being carried by a horse.

Regarding plates, is it the plates on the joints that are the major problem?
Should greaves give any CP loss?

I think that it is the joints that are the worst. Again, however they have a point that weight on the forearms is potentially hindering. Still, arm greaves are not that heavy not being all that thick or long. It's not like wearing weights on your wrists. It's much lighter. Still, call it another CP, maybe. So one for joints, and another for full greaves. I call it CP 2 at the worst.

Note that some armor may not be well designed and thus have worse penalties. I still remember how my kevlar flak jacket had an annoying way of bunching up when you were prone that made a proper shoulder seating for the rifle stock difficult. This sort of stuff is fun. When a suit of armor gets made for a character, have the smith make a design roll. If he doesn't get a lot of successes, have the suit penalize certain maneuvers. Or just declare that this culture's design just does have such penalties. For example, a too broad breatplate might impede lateral movement slightly, making the character's feints more difficult. For him it costs an extra die to initiate a feint. Just make stuff up.

This can be really fun, when the character finds out in battle (I think a lot of players might forget or not have enought time to test a suit properly). It makes that suit unique. And it makes looking for really well designed armor a challenge. Not to mention potentially expensive; I doubt smiths give refunds often unless the error is egregious. "I want my money back I can't thrust in this platmail!"

Plot hooks abound. See that example from that other thread about the wax effigys.

Mike

[Mokkurkalfe]

So it's either CP loss or fatigue then?

EDIT: And perhaps a PER penalty.

[Mike Holmes]

So it's either CP loss or fatigue then?

EDIT: And perhaps a PER penalty.

You know, I'd just put together whatever made sense for your campaign. Imagine their helmets. Do they impede vision? How badly? Assign penalties as you see fit to both PER and CP. Is their chain heavy or light? Well designed or not? What does it cover? Heck, a particular design of doublemail might be so heavy as to have even worse penalties.

In any case, whatever you decide is "correct" for your world. Just say that the armor is described by the stats. As long as you put some rational thought into it, I'm sure it'll come out fine.

We could go on all day about what's "realistic" but in the end, that doesn't matter. It's a game, and what the rules say defines reality in that world. Be internally consistent in your rulings, and no player can object.

Mike

[Thirsty Viking]

[

Breastplate CP loss is the because it's rigid.
Chain or plate on the arms or legs makes you a little slower and thus hinder movement.

Again, these are the "Iffy-est" to me. As our experienced chain wearing friend above attested, it's just added weight. My experience with added weight is that you can go just as fast, or very nearly so. It just takes even more effort to do so. In combat you aren't going to let laziness make you an easier target, or allow it to let the opponent slip away. You will make that armor go full speed. It will just cost you a lot in terms of fatigue.

I agree with you to an extent here, however there are other factors...  to realisticly simulate armor,  you'd need rules for enhanced falling chance on various surfaces,  rulles for solwer acceleration and stopping,  rules for lower extended movement in armor (move rate also gives daily travel distance).

It is much easier to make the guy in plate move a little slower and have 1 number.   A guy handicapped in a 60# backpack can't match the speed and dexterity that he has without it.  his center of gravity is higher, and he has more momentum.  Tromping across a blood soaked battlefield,  increases the peril of falling.  I know i ran slower with a backpack on in the army.   both sprint and distance.  My top speed in the sprint may have been similar  shrug.  but thier was an appreciable difference in my 40 yard dash time.  .4 seconds IIRC..   but then they made us do all sorts of funny things at West Point,   like swiming in fatigues and combat boots  with a (fake) M16.   also jumping in 9 feet of water with same and a 40 or 50 pount fake pack for 30 minutes (obviously we shed the pack).  And yes we were made to run on wet grass,  with and without the packs..  that was even worse results.