The Forge Archives

Hi,

I'm new to TROS and a little confused about the armor rules.

It seems to me that armor provides no protection unless you're covered head to foot.
Because the opponent can strike a non armored area without penalty.

In other words- there is no differenct between a hemlet and sword and just a sword.

If I understand the rules correctly this looks kinda wonky.

Can anyone clear this up for me?

Thanks

Well DanW,
attacking the head does incure a small negative of 1 die for melee and 2 die for missile attacks.
The other thing to take into consideration is the following.  Once you hit, you still have to roll a D6, and depending on that roll you may end up hitting the persons helmet, even though you were really gowing for the face.  For thrust attacks at the head, if you don't roll a 1 or 2 on the D6 it'll hit the helmet.  As for the blunt attacks, only a 2, 3, and 4 will allow you to avoid hitting the armored portion of the head.

Remember that you are the Seneschal, and that means that you can change those odds if you feel like it.  You could only allow a 1 on a d6 to hit the unarmored portion of the head.

Don't forget it will be a lot harder to KILL some one wearing a helmet and breastplate than some one who isn't.  You might hit them in the arms a lot and get them over time, but one good blow to the head and you're out...NT

But tralese, no one would go for the head area if they can strike the equally vital and unarmored chest.

Therefore no benefit to wearing a helmet.

Right?

And toli, that's the way I read the rules too. But in your example you have BOTH the head and chest armored.

I'm trying to figure out why there doesn't appear to be any benefit to wearing just one piece.

Especially the helmet... If there is a penalty for striking the head area then it would be doubly stupid to try it if the chest is unarmored.

Or am I crazy?

Let me put it this way-

Imagine my character finds the ultimate armor from the gods that imparts no penalty for wearing and makes you invulnerable, butwithout the breastplate.

It seems to me this provides little to no advantage over wearing no armor.

Why? Because an opponent would have to be either blind or insane to strike at any area besides the chest.

If this is true, then the armor rules are wonky.

No, they're just not "game-y."

Think about it. You see a guy covered with plate everywhere but his head. Where are you going to attack? His head.

First, remember that any blow aimed at the head could land on the armor in this example (FREX: I strike at zone IV, downward diagonal. If I roll a 1-3 then I've got him, but hitting 4-6 will land on his armor, if he's wearing shoulder-stuff and a gorget/neck protection).

Second, use the optional rule on p. 239 with extreme prejudice.

If the guy has a shield than most attacks at his torso are protected by the shield-as-armor rules on p. 85.

Armor works, but only where you're wearing it. That's the way it was.

Jake

Sorry, I don't have the full version of the game yet- just the quickstart.

gamey?

No, what I meant was that it didn't seem to satisfy option 1 below.
Option 2 would be gamey.

It seems to me there are basically two reason to have a game mechanic-
1. to simulate the reality that the game takes place in (in TROS case that would be real or near real HTH combat with pre gun powder arms)

2. to create a mechanic that makes game play interesting (levels & classes in D&D)

I think the armor system makes things less interesting because it limits the players possible armor combinations i.e. just wearing a helmet and leg armor would be stupid. So option 2 is out.

As for option 1, I feel that it is highly unrealistic to say that I don't have a better chance of surviving with helmet and leg armor than without. Therefore option 1 is out for me too.

I guess you say otherwise. Hmmm, I think I'll have to see some evidence.
Because that is very counterintuitive to me.

As a thought experiment- imagine that you (Jake the real person) are about to go into a real TROS type combat. I give you the choice of breastplate & sword or just a sword. Which would you choose?

You know, after rereading your post, I may just have misunderstanding about the way combat & armor works.

Perhaps a good example of combat in limited armor?

Dan

"Think about it. You see a guy covered with plate everywhere but his head. Where are you going to attack? His head. ".

I don't know that this is relevant to my point. Of course you are going to TRY to strike the unarmored areas.

The question is - can you?

Doesn't a person covered with some armor have less an area to protect? Ttherefore has a clear advantage over some one without armor?

Again, all this may be moot. I might have some fundamental misunderstanding of the armor rules.

Dan

Wait a minute. Lets get something straight.

If someone wants to wear partial armor, and his survivability doesnt improve, you think thats unrealistic because why? I may not be understanding what you are saying.

If I'm fighting someone who isnt wearing armor in his chest... or head... or whatever, and I'm trying to kill him, I'm going to aim for that unarmored part and, if he doesnt parry my blows, I'm going to get it. That IS realistic, and I'm not sure why you find it otherwise.

Now sectional armor DOES help some on regions... if you are partially armored in each of all of the regions (say, wearing a helm that has an open face), you can maybe hit those vulnerable patches. Sectional armor also helps a lot against missile weapons far better; but in melee combat, you have much finer control of your blows, and you are naturally going to aim where it hurts; you dont aim for the armored parts when there are unarmored parts available, and its not going to happen often that you accidentally hit an armored part that is in a completely different region than where you are aiming.

Because wearing helmet and sword gives you some penalties, whereas no armor and sword you have no penalties.

If I want to be the cool swashbuckling, swinging on chandeleers, tumbling around the battlefield, I wear as little to no armor as possible.

If I want to be the tank, but able to see my attackers, I bulk up on armor, but wear no helmet.

I just want to be as protected as possible, but care not about sight or hitting people, I wear every piece of armor my body can handle.

They go for a realistic type of combat in this game.  If you wear a helmet and leg armor, than you have a protected head and leg's.  That's it, so it's tough to get an insta kill or do good damage on the head, and it's tough to do damage to the leg's.  Chest is wide open, unless you ahve a sheild.  So there IS an advantage to that armore combination, but i don't find it that great. lose the leg armor and wear a breast plate.  

Just my half a cent

Quote from: DanW"Think about it. You see a guy covered with plate everywhere but his head. Where are you going to attack? His head. ".

I don't know that this is relevant to my point. Of course you are going to TRY to strike the unarmored areas.

The question is - can you?

Doesn't a person covered with some armor have less an area to protect? Ttherefore has a clear advantage over some one without armor?

Again, all this may be moot. I might have some fundamental misunderstanding of the armor rules.

Dan

Here's the thing. Armor provides significant protection over certain body parts, right? You declare defense after the guy declares attack location and number of dice, right? So if he's attacking an area with some armor, forget defense and just hit him. Toast.

If he's attacking your unarmored area suck it up and defend.

And always be aware that he could feint.

As for the leg-and-head armor only, I'm not aware of any historical fighters that would do that. If people were armored like that (some phalanxes and the like, perhaps) they would have shields that would protect the torso.

The thing is that a trained fighter really can tell you what he's going to hit before the fight starts, and while he may have to jockey around a little longer to get it sometimes, most of the time he just hits it. For example, I often fence with no padding but wearing a mask. Using steel swords one must be careful not to hit the opponent to hard. OTOH if you strike him in the mask (with a cut, not a thrust) then you can be a little less paranoid about hurting him. So guess what...I always go for the mask. It's the same idea as what we're saying, but in reverse.

In actual historical duels on the street in Italy men would wear thin chainmail under their shirts. Why? Because if their enemies knew they were protected there they'd attack somewhere else. But since their enemies didn't know, they'd try to stab the torso, fail, and die.

In historical judical duels either a full suit of armor was used, or a breastplate or chain shirt, "pot" helm, and gloves. This meant that most judical duels were ended by a blow to the arms. I haven't read of someone strking to the armored parts of the body during such duels, because attacking there would be pointless until your opponent would be on the ground.

The only place you do see historical accounts of guys wearing more mis-matched armor would be some of the later rennaisance soldiers. In the crush of battle, where randomly falling blows from even your buddies is a possibility, every little scrap of armor seems to mean more.

Does that explain the logic behind what TROS does with armor?

Jake

"If someone wants to wear partial armor, and his survivability doesnt improve, you think thats unrealistic "

Hmm, we may be getting to my confusion. Because this is exactly what I am saying.

If I understand correctly, you claim that in real life partial armor does not improve your chances of surviving. And this is what the game models.

Therefore, its realistic.

I claim its axiomatic that, all else being equal, your chances of survival increases with some armor.

Let me put it this way-

If I were to fight my clone and I have a sword and helmet (no Elmer Fudd jokes please).

And my clone opponent only has a sword- then I have a better chance of winning than my clone does.

This is not true?

Very hard to except. I'm afraid I'll have to be convinced.

Or perhaps I might have a better chance of surviving but its very minor. And the system does not bother to model that...?

Dan

I can't remember the optional rule to which Jake referred.  However, I do think Dan does have a reasonable point in general.  

I would bet that wearing a helmet or wearing a helmet and breast plate would make my arm harder to hit.  Becasue I would not have to defend my head or my head and chest to the same degree, I could put more effort into the defense of my unarmored areas.   A guy wearing full plate and no helmet will probably be pretty concerned about his head.  

One mechanic to simulate this might be to allow a PC to take a CP penalty on parries to some zones in order to gain CP bonuses to attacks from other zones.

Jake,

"Here's the thing. Armor provides significant protection over certain body parts, right? You declare defense after the guy declares attack location and number of dice, right? So if he's attacking an area with some armor, forget defense and just hit him. Toast."

This would never happen if I only wore a helmet. Right? I
I mean no one would go for my protected head when they could go for my unprotected and equally vital chest.

Therefore wearing a helmet provides no advatage.

"Does that explain the logic behind what TROS does with armor?"

Maybe, so you're saying that TROS models skilled duelist and not mass combat or crazed fighters flaying away.

And for a skilled duelsist, wearing only a helmet provides no protection.

Am I getting it?

Dan