armor rule question

[Durgil]

I think you're looking at the overal odds with a system that does not determine hit location.  In TRoS, armour only protects the part or parts of the body that it covers.  Also in TRoS, an attacker declairs what general body zone they are swinging or stabbing at and if a "hit" is landed, then you roll to determine exactly what you hit.

If you say as the attacker, that you are swinging at zone VII and hit, then you roll a 4; the swing lands on the elbow.  If your opponent is wearing a metal elbow cop, than that will help lessen the amount of damage from that blow, but wearing a helmet isn't going to lessen the damage delivered by a swing to the elbow just like wearing an elbow cop won't help you when you get hit in the head.

[Valamir]

Dan, I think you are thinking of two different things.  
You have a vision of combat where blows are oportunistic, strike whereever you see an opening with combat being a little wild and unpredictable.  As a result blows could land all over.  Some might hit your legs, some might hit your head, some might hit an arm.  Therefor every little piece of armor you have increases your survivability slightly because some portion of all the attacks aimed at you will wind up on the arm...so adding armor to the arm is incrementally helpful.

This situation is fairly accurate...in a melee.  If you're in a regiment of soldiers, the front lines have collided and now the units are intermixed with enemies and friends on all sides and blows being swung wildly and rapidly (including from friends by accident), then you have a situation like you describe above, and then partial armor can be incrementally helpful.  Perhaps we'll see some rules to this regard in TFOB.

But man on man and small skirmishes don't work this way.  You don't simply swing wherever an opportunity presents itself and hope its an unarmored place.  You aim specifically for the part of the enemy you intend to hit.  You'd like to hit the enemy in a very nasty location like the head (even low wounds are nasty to the head).  However, if he's wearing a helmet, you simply don't do that.  You aim instead to the torso, or the arms, or somewhere else.

Because your attacks are much more deliberate and less confused melee, partial armor becomes much less useful.  Now to some extent you can't hit exactly where you want every time, and that's where the 1d6 roll comes in.  In this case you may randomly hit an area that's armored, while some other area is not.  And that's where Accuracy comes in.  Characters with Accuracy can manipulate the d6 roll thereby increasing the chances of hitting precisely where he wants.

Take Jake, for instance.  If he wants to hit you in the thigh, he'll hit you in the thigh.  Period.  If you have armor everywhere on your body except the thigh...sucks to be you.  You're carrying around alot of weight for nothing, because Jake can pretty much hit you in the thigh whenever he wants...unless you protect yourself and avoid his blow...which is what rolling defense dice are about.

[DanW]

Thanks for the replies everybody,

It seems to boil down to this-
Wearing only a helmet (or other limited armor combos) does nothing for you in dueling combat with skilled opponents.

This is the premise that I find hard to except.

Jake, you have the closest to real experience and you claim this is true.
No one else seems to have a problem with it (although toli can see my point).

Yet, I'm still having trouble accepting it.

And going to back to option 2 in reasons to create a game mechanic- it doesn't make things more interesting for me.

Any other suggestions in addition or elaboration of  tolis  to change the rules a bit?

Dan

[tralese]

I understand the point you are trying to make DanW, however I think I would have to side with Jake on that argument.  I took some fencing classes, and in my experience you usually try to parry the blow the person is sending at you regardless of where he is performing his attack.  Now wearing armor may limit the opponent's options for attacks, but there are many ways for an opponent to approach on an attack.  Add to that the fact that it is impossible for a roleplaying game to completely represent reality, although as stated earlier some people would wear partial armor for incidental protection rather than for protection during a duel.

[Mike Holmes]

Wearing only a helmet (or other limited armor combos) does nothing for you in dueling combat with skilled opponents.

This is the premise that I find hard to except.

Have you ever seen someone just wearing a helmet that wasn't just practicing?

If you have, then you're probably thinking of modern combat. Why do soldiers in modern armies wear helmets? Missile weapons. Helmets are designed to do one of the following things:

A) stopping missile weapons

B) provide safety in practice (where it's an unintentional hit that's dangerous)

C) part of a larger suit of armor.


Nobody ever does wear just a helmet in duels or melee combat for exactly the reasons you state. As Jake points out, they'll either have some breastplate, or a shield. More on that below.

The counter maneuver, as it happens, does result in a random area being attacked. So, in fact, there would actually be a small advantage to wearing only a helmet in melee. Just not enough to make up for the perception problems for a larger helmet.

Now, wearing a breastplate and helmet combo still leaves places open, yes. But those open places are not nearly as leathal. One of the uses of armor is not just to prevent injury, but to prevent death. Now, you say, why worry about preventing death when an injured soldier is no good anyhow (and is usually killable easily; this is usually the case in TROS)? Because soldiers in armor, knowing that they have a better ability to survive combat will be more willing to fight. Armor in mass combat is all about morale. In a duel it's about confidence that you have the advantage over your foe. And you do. If you want to play out a combat where I have a helmet and breastplate against an unarmored guy with the same stats, bring it on.

OK, so what about gladiators who wore armor on their arms, legs and heads, but not the chest? Well, it was a sign of bravery for a gladiator to refrain from wearing chest armor as it happens. And arm armor is very useful, as attacking the arms, you will note, is worth an additional die. Making them tempting targets otherwise.

Does that quell your fears? Really, it all makes sense.

Yes, to be really accurate, there should be odd cases where the attacker's attack hits something other than the intended target. This does happen. But it's rare enough to be negligible, and when it does happen it's usually minor (the force of the blow inteded to go elsewhere). If you want a rule for this say that if the attacker and defender tie, roll a Counter random location, and then deliver a zero success blow there. That'll keep them using helmets in practice.

Mike

[DanW]

Many refer to historical encounters and/or real combat.

Let me ask a game question-

If you find your character without weapons or armor and about to face his/her nemesis, and the only thing you can scrounge up is a sword, helmet, and leg armor.

Do you take only the sword? Or weigh the pros & cons of wearing some armor.  

This is where I think the armor rules makes the game less interesting. Because there is no reason to get anything but the sword.

Or another scenario-
You find a magic helmet. Do you wear it? Only if you have chest armor too.

Not that fun to me. And assumed only realistic if you're fighting another skilled opponent.
Seems limiting to me.

But before I piss people off. Let me add I think this game is a breath of fresh air. I've been avoiding RPG for years because of the prevalance of D&D. Which I don't like.
TROS provides a welcome alternative.

Dan

[DanW]

Mike,

You point out some intersting game mechanics I was not aware of.
Perhaps there is some advantage to limited armor.

Dan

[Mike Holmes]

You find a magic helmet. Do you wear it? Only if you have chest armor too.

It all depends on what the helmet does in terms of magic. If it protects my whole body with 4 points of armor, sure. If it only makes my head impervious? Is there a Perception penalty? If not, why not wear it? Might look cool. And protect me if I fall down (yet another reason to wear a helmet in a fight).

OTOH, most people looking at a guy only wearing a big helmet would laugh, and ask where the rest of the suit was (which might have it's own advantages).

Mike

[Durgil]

If you find your character without weapons or armor and about to face his/her nemesis, and the only thing you can scrounge up is a sword, helmet, and leg armor.

Do you take only the sword? Or weigh the pros & cons of wearing some armor.  

This is where I think the armor rules makes the game less interesting. Because there is no reason to get anything but the sword.

Or another scenario-
You find a magic helmet. Do you wear it? Only if you have chest armor too.

I'm starting to wonder if I'm missing something - of course you pick up the helmet and leg armour.  That way if you get hit in the legs or head, you won't be injured as bad, but that isn't going to help a whole lot if you take a swing to the chest or arms.  Why should it?  If you are looking for a system that is going to give a character an overall armor class rating simply because you're wearing a helmet, this one might not be your cup of tea.

[Mike Holmes]

He's pointing out, Tony, that it might not make tactical sense. Since the opponent can fairly easily avoid the armor, it won't likely prevent the character from losing, and the GM might assess penalties on the CP.

OTOH, Jake has pointed out that the CP penalties aren't really realistic either. That is, there ought to be no penalty for the leg armor in the example, and the helmet all depends on what it covers.

I mean imagine a knight's jousting helmet on an otherwise unarmored person. Ludicrous. There'd be no point.

Mike

[DanW]

ike,

"I mean imagine a knight's jousting helmet on an otherwise unarmored person. Ludicrous. There'd be no point. "

It would look ludicrous. And it probably would bring on too many penalties in the way of perception to be an advantage. But not all helmets are knights helmets.

Look everyone,
 
I don't think it makes much sense to say in reality limited armor is always useless for skilled opponents. This seems to be easily refuted with common sense examples.

For instance:
2 very skilled & equal opponents face off. One with sword & helmet (opponent 1) and the other only with a sword(opponent 2). They go around a few times with feints & dodges and then opponent 1 thinks he sees an opening and lunges. But misses and exposes his head. Well, with the helmet on he has less to worry about. If this happened to opponent 2, he would be dead.

So, either you have to claim the above scenario is impossible or the system  
does not model  minor advantages of limited armor.

Dan

[Durgil]

He's pointing out, Tony, that it might not make tactical sense. Since the opponent can fairly easily avoid the armor, it won't likely prevent the character from losing, and the GM might assess penalties on the CP.

Nor should it, but there are plenty of examples of people in our own modern time who wear essentially just a helmet.  Soldiers have already been pointed out, but there are also construction workers.  I've seen pictures of 12th and 13th century archers that look like that's all they are wearing in the way of protection.  It all depends on what type of mobility you need to have and what type of advisary you plan to be up against.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what Dan is asking.  To me, it sounded like he's saying that there should be some type of overall protection rating for a character wearing a single piece of armour, such as just a helmet.

[toli]

of course you pick up the helmet and leg armour.  That way if you get hit in the legs or head, you won't be injured as bad, but that isn't going to help a whole lot if you take a swing to the chest or arms.  Why should it?

I think the reasoning is this:

If you know you don't have to defend your head, you can better defend other areas.  In part this is true because your opponent has more limited choices.  It may also be true because your stance is different such that other areas are more easy to defend.  

I can see the reasoning behind this idea, although perhaps just a helmet in a one on one isn't enough to really give an advantage.  I used to wrestle in high school.  Once and a while the coach would have use practice upper body take downs.  It was full on wrestling except that you could only do upper body take downs, no leg stuff.  It was certainly harder to do a move when 1/2 of your possibilities were eliminated.

NT

[Durgil]

2 very skilled & equal opponents face off. One with sword & helmet (opponent 1) and the other only with a sword(opponent 2). They go around a few times with feints & dodges and then opponent 1 thinks he sees an opening and lunges. But misses and exposes his head. Well, with the helmet on he has less to worry about. If this happened to opponent 2, he would be dead.

So, either you have to claim the above scenario is impossible or the system  
does not model  minor advantages of limited armor.

It is modelled in that the guy who is wearing a helmet gets some or all of the damage reduced due to wearing a helmet, when he gets hit in the head, and the guy not wearing a helmet won't get any damage reduction.

[Mike Holmes]

To me, it sounded like he's saying that there should be some type of overall protection rating for a character wearing a single piece of armour, such as just a helmet.

No, what he's saying is that sometimes, even when you wear a helmet, and nothing else, your head gets hit. Which never happens in TROS. Well, almost never (counters).

I mean, he's not dumb, and suggesting that a helmet somehow protects your torso.

Mike