Possible TO "Solution"

[Mike Holmes]

Edited to note here that great minds apparently think alike.

I was thinking about Joachim's system, and I'd lower the base TN from 6. This does several things. It makes the unarmored man more vulnerable (while still giving a chance), and it means that damage levels will tend to look more like what they did previously. Also, it allows for more range in AVs and Damage bonuses before you reach the dreaded TN 10. :-)

So would a base TN of 3 make sense for "Unarmored"?

Mike

[Mokkurkalfe]

You two seemed to have found out the same thing. I agree with what you are saying, and besides, the base TN was just grabbed from the air anyway. :-)

Tony's base numbers seem to get nice a nice range. Now I suppose you have to playtest this thing.
You know, this tread should have come a week earlier. Now it missed the my pretty gaming-intensive Easter holiday, and I'm rotting in school again...

[Durgil]

So would a base TN of 3 make sense for "Unarmored"?

I think so.  3 is damn easy to make, but not automatic and your are still leaving room for a distinction between failing and botching the roll.  Man, what could a sick minded Seneschal think of doing to a player who botches...

"your character did cause a little bit of damage, but accidentally dropped their weapon on contact, or your armour saved your character from taking more damage, but the hit broke one of the straps keeping your rerebrace on so that is no flapping around.  Since that's your weapon arm, we'll just reduce you CP by one and if that arm gets hit again, we'll have to make a roll to determine if that plate protects you. >:-)

As far as a base protection for armour, how about it be based on whether the armour is malleable or rigid.  Let's say 1 point for leather or mail and 3 points for wax treated/boiled leather or plates.

[Mike Holmes]

Cool ideas, Tony.

Maybe I will have to playtest this. I've been considering starting a new game with some players who've been dormant for a while....

Mike

[redcrow]

Sounds similar to melee combat in Shadowrun where the Body attribute is used to soak damage.  The TN to soak is based on the weapons power and the weapons power is reduced by armor rating.

[Lance D. Allen]

I've been considering starting a new game with some players who've been dormant for a while....

I've been dormant! Pick me, pick me!!

::sighs:: Though I doubt anyone's willing to net-game on my schedule.

[Durgil]

The more I think about this, the more I'm starting to see how little a character's armour has to do with their opponent's ST, and how little a character's TO has to do with the DR of the weapon being used against them.  I believe historically that a physically strong person would want to take full advantage of their strength by using the largest weapon they could use effectively.

Therefore, it's my belief that the damage added to a hit by a character's ST should be determine by the DR of the weapon that they're using.  Also, I feel that the protection worn or used by a character greatly affects how much of their TO score protects them in battle.  This last relationship having to do with TO and either theirown AV or their opponents's DR  could go either way with the type of logic that I'm using, but the ST and the DR relationship, I feel, is too strong, and I don't want to see a weapon's DR to be used too muck.

What do you all think?

[Mike Holmes]

So we'd be back to subtracting from a base TN of 8? Or somesuch? I may be confused. Could you do the example thing again?

Mike

[Durgil]

Let me see, I think it goes like this:

Player A has a bastard sword that he's using two-handed with a ST of 6.
Player B is wearing mail and has a TO of 7.

A hits B with a margin of success of 3.  A then rolls 6 dice with a TN of 5 (6 - 1) and rolls 4 successes.  B rolls 7 dice with a TN of 5 (9 - 4) and rolls 2 successes.  A does a total of 9 damage with the swing, but B's number of successes (2) reduces the overall damage to 7, plus mails a flexable fabric, that automatically reduces 1 point of damage.  Therefore B receives 6 points of damage.  Ouch, That's gonna leave a mark!

What do you think?

[Mike Holmes]

Yeah, it's too bad that it can't remain additional instead of subtractive, but it's sensible.

Mike

[Durgil]

The heat is starting to get a little high for the people in the other TO thread who are suggesting tweeks to the TO rules.  If you'd feel more comfortable taking this house rules discusion to PM, I wouldn't be opposed to it.

[Mike Holmes]

Big deal. My thread here. If you want to go private, be my guest. But either way is fine with me.

Mike

[Durgil]

With everything going on in my life, which I mentioned in the PM's, I wasn't able to do squat this weekend on this little project.  I did, however, had an idea while mowing the grass that I want to run passed you.

With regards to the TO roll, what if the TN was based on the size?  A man sized creature would a TN of 6 or 7, bigger creatures would have a lower number, and smaller creatures would have a larger number.  In this way, size would now play a much more important role with how much damage a creature or character could withstand, the TN would almost never change for a person (unless they were shrunk or made bigger through sorcery), and there wouldn't be any need of TO limits by on a character.