Just to let you all know right up front, if you don't want an extra dice roll or two in combat when a hit is determined, then save yourself some time by not reading this post.

If you are still interested, I just got what I think is a brilliant idea that I just had to share with someone. Basically, when an attacker has more successes, go ahead at that point and just figure out the total amount of damage done. That damage total then becomes the Target Number that you are rolling for. The type of protection covering the determined location determines the number of dice thrown. Different types of armour could have penalties or bonuses against certain types of attacks, like mail could have a -1 to slashing attacks and a +2 to bludgeoning attacks; quilt could be +2 to cutting attacks and -2 to bludgeoning attacks.

Any 1 rolled, even with a success, means that that armour in that location is damaged, and loses a dice. One success with no 1's rolled means that the integrity of the armour is intact, and that whatever damage is done would be of the blunt force type.

I haven't yet gone through the numbers yet, but in the case of your typical warrior with mail over quilt, the mail is likely to prevent a blade or point from penetrating, but not that good at deflecting the force of the blow. The quilt, on the other hand, is exceptionally good at absorbing some of the energy of the blow, as long as the edge or point of the attack is nullified.

This was just a brainstorm in the middle of the night after writing two 5 page papers for college, so please be kind.

I don't like it. It doesn't make sense. The armour, being static, should offer a consistent amount of protection. The damage is the variable.

Workable, possibly realistic, but in the end, I don't think the added value is worth the added effort, Tony..

But that's my own personal call, and it may enhance the game for those who want these sorts of rules. I have similar rules in my own fantasy game, but they're integrated into the system rather than being an attempt to rework it.

I go by the realistic house rule that if metal armour is struck, after subtracting the AV as usual, whatever damage spills over is bludgeoning. This realistically simulates attacking armour. Any time it's significantly beaten on or pierced, I make the characters get it repaired or replaced.
It's also GM discretion. I somtimes allow a strong thrust to pierce the armour, depending, and a gorem whacking you with a battle axe just might cut.
Simple, realistic and easy, no new numbers or dice.

I understand people's apprehension with these rules, but I assert that armour is anything but static. It shifts and moves with the wearer during combat, and there are areas that are weaker than others. Even in the case of fully articulated plate, the plates in areas around joints are thinner than the the plate used to make the breast plate. Complicated? sure, at least more so than the current system, but it sure does make a big step towards realism in combat with regards to the affect of wearing armour - IMO, of course.

Happy Gaming!

Durgil wrote: That damage total then becomes the Target Number that you are rolling for. The type of protection covering the determined location determines the number of dice thrown.

BirdMan wrote: This sounds a LOT like The Burning Wheel. Which isn't to say it's a bad idea, or that you shouldn't pursue the idea. However, if you don't have a copy of that game... run out and order it.

Durgil wrote: I understand people's apprehension with these rules, but I assert that armour is anything but static. It shifts and moves with the wearer during combat, and there are areas that are weaker than others. Even in the case of fully articulated plate, the plates in areas around joints are thinner than the the plate used to make the breast plate. Complicated? sure, at least more so than the current system, but it sure does make a big step towards realism in combat with regards to the affect of wearing armour - IMO, of course.

"It shifts and moves with the wearer during combat"
How does that change its physical composition?

"and there are areas that are weaker than others. "
Give those areas a lower AV.

"the plates in areas around joints are thinner than the the plate used to make the breast plate. "
They also overlap, negating the thinness, are a tiny target that wouldn't really be a target, and were usually protected by the cop unless fully flexed.

Another note, even if you still disgree with static AV for some reason, the weapons in TROS reflect your changes to the armour. Many of them have modifiers vs AV, shock penalties, etc.

I'm not sure I even get the system. Are you saying that on a hit of 5 damage, against AV 4 that the defender rolls 4 dice to get 5 or better, and those dice that make that roll negate damage altogether? Those that don't, convert to blunt?

If I have that right, then this makes high damage even worse than before. Because not only does it do damage that automatically penetrates, but the rest of the damage will likely cause blunt Trauma. Does the blunt wound get treated as a second wound?

I think I must have something wrong. What am I missing?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I'm not sure I even get the system. Are you saying that on a hit of 5 damage, against AV 4 that the defender rolls 4 dice to get 5 or better, and those dice that make that roll negate damage altogether? Those that don't, convert to blunt?

I really like the idea of some kind of integrity roll that could change cutting and piercing damage into bludgeoning damage. Possible damage to the armour would be an extra bonus. Which gives us *another* parameter to toy with when dealing with extra fine armor, namely integrity and durability. If you can cook up some simple way of doing this, it'd be great!

Thanks, Joakim.
I think that I need to make it so that flexible, metal armour (i.e. mail) converts the edge or point of the weapon fairly often, but doesn't reduce the force of the attack very much on its own. We all think that it's just common sense for someone to wear leather or quilt under their mail, but I'm trying to make the rules reflect that reality. Besides that, if a character spends all of their money on a mail shirt and then can only afford to buy a leather tunic to wear under it, as apposed to the quilt jacket, I want to see the difference in play. Otherwise, if there is no difference in the rules, the little munchkins will always go the cheap way out. Metal plates, like mail should also easily convert all but the most serious blows to a blunt force, but should also reduce the overall force more greatly as well. Leather should act similarly but less effective than mail. Metal reinforcements to the leather should increase its effectiveness. I also think that heavy and light clothing should be accounted for as well, but with very limited success. Finally, just because an armour does its job and protects its wearer, doesn't mean that it should be then free and clear of any damage. This too I need to keep in mind when coming up with the numbers. I've got to go do some play testing with this for a while, but I'll keep updating here with any new results that I come up with.

Well, that sounds fairly simple.

Give leather and quilt a Bludgeoning AV of 2 and 3, respectively. Both have a cutting/piercing AV of 1.
Mail have an AV of 1, plus it can roll to turn cutting/piercing into bludgeoning. Same for plate, but with an AV of 2-3, and a better chance of turning away blades n' points.

(Of course, the actual numbers probably need some tweaking)

The number of dice I assign to a material's dice pool represents the absolute maximum force that I think it can prevent. The TN is determined by the total damge calculated by the attacker before the TO reduction. Metal armour such as plate or mail should need very few successes before edge/puncture damage is converted to bludgeoning. Quilt, and leather to a lesser extent, will have bonus dice added to their dice pools versus bludgeoning attacks. This way these types will be combined effectively.