I've moved this to a new thread from the thread on toughness lest I be accused of Topic hijacking:

Irmo wrote: That, on the other hand, would make toughness dependent at least partially on awareness of the attack, which would again be a bit incompatible with the 'beast armor' type.

I initially had problems with TO during the first discussion a while back, but was sold with the explanation that was given there. Without going back to find it, do to a lack of time, I believe it went someting like this: you can't think of TO taking away or reducing damage that is done, like AV's do (he would have cut off you arm with that swing if it wasn't for your mail, long-sleeve shirt). It is more like, that swing probably would have killed a lesser warrior, but he was too good to allow that kind of blow to do that much damage. This is why I never entered into the fray of the latest TO discussion.

After saying all of that (and getting further behind here at work), I'm intrigued by your proposal on this "soak" idea, even if it means I'd have to rewrite my layered armour house rules to accomidate it.

Thanks,

Hey Tony,

I did mention that I was not interested in debating the whole TO issue here. Truthfully, I'm ambivalent on the subject. I posted this with the idea that we'd assume for the sake of the disscussion that we wanted to solve the "problem" such as it might exist. So your points on that subject make sense; they're just not what I was looking for.

Anyhow, as you've obviously given some substantial thought to the whole idea of armor, I would be interested to see just what you have to say about the idea.

First we'd need to look at what TNs would go with what armor. I'm thinking something like this in general terms:

Unarmored 9
Leather 7
Chain 5
Plate 3

The big problem with this is that it's not often going to produce enough results to save you. This is because, like TO, ST also produces "automatic successes". (This balancing act is the main reason that I remain ambivalent).

There are two things that could be done with that. Either have a "damage roll" (I can hear people going off on me already), or have one roll that goes with one against the other somehow.

The problem with the latter is that most methods would involve TO subtracting from ST+MOS again. Can someone think of a way to do this efficiently that doesn't put us back to the same problem?

I actually like the damage roll idea personally. It would eliminate the whole "grazing dragon wound" controversy. So you'd just roll the ST+MOS vs a TN based on...the weapon? Or 5 just for kicks?

Anyhow, subtract the TO roll from the damage roll to get actual damage.

A lot of extra steps, but it would solve a lot of niggling questions.

That said, this would make armor crucial to surviving battle. Which I think is fairly realistic, but might not be cinematic enough. Basically unarmored rapier duels would become quite lethal.

Any other ideas on how to handle some of these things?

Mike

It's not so much a damage roll that you're talking about, at least that's the way I under stand you. The number of successes still determines the base damage. Your roll would merely determine how much of your ST would be added to it, much like how much of your TO would be subtracted from your opponent's damage roll.

The TN could be some how determined by the weight/length of the weapon. Better yet, looking at the DR's of the weapons in the back of the book, how would it look to you if the base TN was 6 and you subtract the bonus to ST (if any) from that?

Example: if a character with a ST of 6 were using a bastard sword with two hands, he would role 6 dice with a TN of 5 to see how much to adjust the damage of the attack. If that same character were using his sword in one hand, he'd have a TN of 6. Another character with a ST of 4 and swinging (not thrusting) his rapier, would throw 4 dice with a TN of 9 (6 - (-3) = 9). I don't see anything worse than a -3 (TN 9) or better than a +4 (TN 2).

As far as your AV's go, the numbers you have there look all right to me, I would only add a little more detail on the different types of armour available, like a coat of plates, scale, and wax hardened leather. It might take me some time, but I'll try to put something together using as much of my house rules as possible (and simplifying them a lot more). I could possibly see a suit of mail with attached plates worn over a quilt giving a TN of 2, but the penalty to the wearer's CP should be higher than a well fitted suit of articulated plate, which is what I believe you are referring to by the term "Plate" in your post.

Finally, I believe we probably will hear at least a few howls of dismay, but luckily we're not politicians. Its our game, we bought it, and if people don't like our ideas - oh well I guess. We're just trying to make it all make sense to us, and that's all anyone can do.

Wow, that all sounds pretty good to me.

As for the armor, yeah, it'd have to be worked out better as to what was what TN.

The one potential problem that I do see is that a low TO person isn't very protected by heavy armor. With a one TO the most any armor can reduce damage for them is by one.

Hmm. Going with a base weapon damage, then the comparable TO roll would simply be to add TO to the base armor rating. Hmm. It might be cool to have armor with two ratings; one for base damage stoppage, and the other for toughness support. Could do a lot with that.

Any other holes anyone?

Mike

P.S. On the other end of the spectrum, there's the "dragon slayer" blow that this all makes possible. That is, if the dragon rolls badly enough on his TO roll (he'll have to have an AV TN now), then he can be killed by even the smallest of blows. Unlikely, but now possible.

honestly, it sounds pointlessly complicated and uneeded.

TO isn't one specific thing like ppl are trying to make it. It's a combination of factors including...

1 - Natural armor
2 - Instinctively knowing how to take a hit
3 - Muscle tone (i.e. a bodybuilder that focuses on huge weights but few reps may be enormously strong, but his muscle mass may just be huge, without the toning a gymnast or fighter will have. This WILL effect his ability to take a hit... as well as things like endurance.)

And saying that the high TO guy is getting free successes in your defense isn't really accurate... at least no more than saying that having a really high strength gives you free successes on your offense.

I think the main thing is that if you alter the way TO is applied, then you should alter ST in the same way.

How about if the attacker rolls ST dice against a TN derived from the opponents armour, while the defender rolls TO dice against a TN derived from the attacking weapons' DR?
Like so:

Guy A has an arming sword and a ST of 5
Guy B has a TO of 4 and a leather jacket

Guy A hits Guy B in the chest with a MOS of two dice.
Guy A rolls 5 ST dice against a TN of 6 + 2. 6 is the base, plus the leather AV. He gets one success.
Guy B rolls 4 TO dice against a TN of 6 + 1. 6 is the base, plus the arming sword's DR bonus. He gets two successess.
So, Guy A's 1 success plus his MoS of 2 minus 2 TO dice equals a level 1 wound.

Pretty fast, and both ST and TO are changed in the same way. The biggest problem with this version that I can see would be that it can be confusing when the amount of dice depend on you, while the TN depends on the opponent, as the current Buying Initiative rules have shown us...

I think you may be onto something, Mike. I like the idea of a soak roll. It addresses the problem of having a TO of 8 or higher, without breaking the system in any appreciable way that i can currently determine.

However, instead of using an armor TN or a weapon TN, use the total damage caused as a TN for the soak roll. '

E.g. a guy hits my guy for 7 damage: i have 5 TO and am unarmored. I roll 5 dice to try to reduce the damage with a TN of 7. I could reduce it by 1 or 2, or even 3, but chances are, my leg is going to come off anyway, which is quite realistic. If someone whacks you with a sword, you're not going to be happy.

Armor could reduce damage either before or after the soak roll. If armor reduces damage before, then it would adjust the Soak roll required to absorb the remaining damage.

Using the example above, if i'm wearing chain, the TN is adjusted to 4, making it more likely that i'm going to withstand the blow.

If after, then high damage would require large soak TNs initially, but then eliminate some of the remaining damage automatically, mitigating some of the penalties that might otherwise caue problems for acceptance of this idea.

Again, using the example above, i use the TN of 7, but then reduce remaining damage by 4 (if i'm wearing chain).

I'm not sure which would be more appropriate at the moment. I'll leave that up to those who are more adept at game design than I am. Another issue would be the botching of a soak roll. Perhaps ignoring botches on a Soak roll would be appropriate.

The advantage of this system is it is easy to keep track of and requires no additional rules other than the addition of the soak roll. For example, the suggested idea of armor value ws weapon type is more record keeping than i would care to handle as a player. There's enough to keep track of as is for variable armor type by location (area IV is notorious for this).

I'm at school right now, so i can't really get into hard core number crunching at the moment, but i feel that this is a good solution that addresses the problem in a simplistic way, while maintaining the exceptional toughness of dragons, for example. Though it is still technically possible to kill one with a single blow, it could be explained with a lucky blow or something that the Seneschal can come up with that seems appropriate (the dragon got stabbed in the brain somehow).

Mayhem1979 wrote: honestly, it sounds pointlessly complicated and uneeded.

And saying that the high TO guy is getting free successes in your defense isn't really accurate... at least no more than saying that having a really high strength gives you free successes on your offense.

Mokkurkalfe wrote: How about if the attacker rolls ST dice against a TN derived from the opponents armour, while the defender rolls TO dice against a TN derived from the attacking weapons' DR?

Note that this is the third post in a row. Trying to keep up with the good ideas.

arxhon wrote: I think you may be onto something, Mike. I like the idea of a soak roll. It addresses the problem of having a TO of 8 or higher, without breaking the system in any appreciable way that i can currently determine.

However, instead of using an armor TN or a weapon TN, use the total damage caused as a TN for the soak roll.

Well, it took me three reads to see if I got it right...
As I said, the trickiest problem would be to get your head around that part.
It might be simpler if you raised the DR's and AV's with 6 and rolled against that only. Really the same thing, but maybe easier to remember.

Actually there have been a couple of games that do this as a normal part of resolution. The one that comes to mind is Alyria, where you roll against one of your opponents traits of your choice.

It's a little weird, but I'd use it. :-)

Mike

I think I like Joakim's way the best too. Going down in numbers for better AV's was to much like the AD&D from high school.
=-)

Mokkurkalfe wrote: Well, it took me three reads to see if I got it right...
As I said, the trickiest problem would be to get your head around that part.
It might be simpler if you raised the DR's and AV's with 6 and rolled against that only. Really the same thing, but maybe easier to remember.

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

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...

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

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

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.

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

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?

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

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?

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

Mike

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.

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

Mike

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.