Armor

[Steve Jackson]

Starting a new thread for the discussion of an armor talent (my experience and my thoughts about game balance lead me to object, but I will listen) and a specific question:

Should armor DX penalties and hits taken be modified slightly into a straight line?

Leather -2 DX, -2 hits (unchanged)
Chainmail -3 DX, -3 hits (unchanged)
Half plate -4 DX, -4 hits (DX penalty reduced)
Plate -5 DX, -5 hits (DX penalty reduced)

Fine plate remains unchanged, at -4 DX and -6 hits, as a useful cheat for the very strong and rich (e.g., the Black Knight).

The idea was also raised "what about minimum ST for plate?" I understand the question, but that kills off the characters who took moderate ST and went all out for DX specifically to be turtles in plate. My observations of RL turtles-in-plate is that they did not have to be hugely strong . . . but in Texas heat they had to be in good condition!

[Chris Rice]

Funny, those figures you quoted are the way we always played as they seemed logical in terms of the system. I always assumed the RAW were a typo ��

I also toyed with min ST for armour and have used it in extended campaigns but I wouldn't want it in the basic game. Maybe as an optional/Advanced rule.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Starting a new thread for the discussion of an armor talent (my experience and my thoughts about game balance lead me to object, but I will listen) and a specific question:

Should armor DX penalties and hits taken be modified slightly into a straight line?
...

Fine plate remains unchanged, at -4 DX and -6 hits, as a useful cheat for the very strong and rich (e.g., the Black Knight).
...

Hi Steve, everyone.
I like the new, more logical, DX penalties for armour. It would be nice if there were more types of fine armor than just fine plate.

***
As I wrote before I do not like the armor talents. In the SCA, I've heard fighters getting together to practice sword work. To practice foot work. To practice archery work. But I've seen anyone getting together to practice 'armour work'.

In my campaign the time it takes to get into armour is equal to the hits it stops in minutes. (So Leather takes 2 minutes to get into.) I do not pretend that this is realistic, but it is easy to remember and good enough for a rule that almost never comes up.

I think a realistic armour talent would allow you to:
-- Put on armour a bit faster.
-- Maintain your armour more efficiently.
-- Be able to judge the quality of armour that you are looking over. (Like Assess Value, but only for armour.)

But in the new TFT, I would be VERY leery about talents that give you attribute bonuses. (People pay a one time cost, and thereafter gain an attribute bonus forever.)

I mean in the new TFT, anyone who takes a bow is going to pick up Missile Weapons, it is a no brainer. In the old TFT, at least there was a cost. (Do I want to spend that memory on Missile Weapons, or buy Thief skills? Is being a thief or an archer what I am about?)

Warm regards, Rick.

[ecz]

if I understand the question my opinion is that no minum ST should be requested for plate armor. Even a young halfling can wear a full plate if he finds an armourer able to create this item. He could have only ST 6 or 7, but also the plate weight is in proportion with the owner so no special penalty is necessary. The ordinary DX penalty - like in the old TFT or as per revised costs - looks fair in any case.

Instead I would give a BONUS for high ST Characters wearing armor starting at ST 16 :

ST 16 cloth no DX penalty
ST 17-18 as above, plus large shield no DX penalty; leather -1 DX, tower shield -1DX;
ST 19-20 cloth, leather and large shield no DX penalty; chainmail -2DX; tower Shield -1DX
ST 21+ as above, plus no DX penalty for shields; Chainmail -1 DX; all plates have DX penalty reduced by one.

In my games I also introduced damage for shields and armor, repair costs, and fatigue after combat in heavy armor, but this is not the thread to discuss about this topic.

[tomc]

I like the reduced penalties. My group seldom took plate, due to the DX penalty.

It also makes plate more useful in light of the attribute caps.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by ecz

... Instead I would give a BONUS for high ST Characters wearing armor starting at ST 16 :
...

Hi ecz, everyone.
I totally agree. The "Advantages of Great ST" on page 8 of ItL, was filled with magic numbers, and did not seem very logical to me. Hopefully in the new TFT, this section can be expanded and made more logical. (It has to be reworked, the ST it talks about are impossible in the new TFT.)

Warm regards, Rick.

[Wayne]

Leather -2 DX, -2 hits (unchanged)
Chainmail -3 DX, -3 hits (unchanged)
Half plate -4 DX, -4 hits (DX penalty reduced)
Plate -5 DX, -5 hits (DX penalty reduced)

That all looks good, but it got me thinking, why not allow fine everything?

Fine armour:
-1 DX penalty, +1 extra hits stopped, x10 cost based on underlying armour type.

Fine Cloth no DX penalty, -2 hits, cost $500
Fine Leather -1 DX, -3 hits, cost $1,000
Fine Chainmail -2 DX, -4 hits, cost $2,000
Fine Half plate -3 DX, -5 hits, cost $3,000
Fine Plate -4 DX, -6 hits, cost $5,000

Potentially you decrease the MA penalty as well.

[John Brinegar]

I too am not in favor of armor talents, for exactly the reasons that others have already given. On the game mechanics side, as Steve observed, every fighter will take the talent, which results in a functional +1 to DX for all fighters. On the simulation side, as many SCA members have observed, the armor talent doesn't correspond to actual experience; it's just not that hard to learn to use armor. I do like the proposed changes to DX penalties, because they should remove some of the impetus for an armor talent while still preserving the game mechanic of a tradeoff between protection and chance to hit.

[larsdangly]

Yes, please rationalize the relationship between armor protection and DX penalty, so the partial and full plate options don't stand out as 'bad deals'.

As for granting special exceptions to reduce DX penalties further, there are a couple of precedents to consider:

'Classic edition' ITL reduces penalties for reaching certain thresholds in ST. I think that is a fine idea, but should be rationalized into some sort of simple formula rather than a list of special exceptions.

ITL also provides several talents that effectively let you trade talent slots for bonuses to damage, protection or DX rolls for specific tasks. In that context, an armor talent that reduces the DX and/or MA penalty is sensible. And it can be rationalized as 'conditioning' just like the Running talent already is.

Finally, weapons have ST requirements. And they are really more like game constraints than simulations of real life - the reality is that stronger people can be more effective with many hand weapons, but you don't have to be that powerful to use most of them proficiently. So, the quite high ST you need to have to wield a bastard sword is more a game thing that a RL thing. This leads me to think a ST requirement for armor isn't such a bad thing, so long as you didn't make it very high. My house rules do this, and use the prerequisite ST as the basis for calculating the ST at which your DX penalty is reduced.

[Anthony]

As far as min ST for armor, realistic armor has different weight for different size people; someone who is big and really strong may not be better off than someone who is small and only moderately strong. While TFT has no specific index for ST to weight ratio, it's plausible to think that DX is involved, so if you increase ST without increasing DX, it's because you bulked up, and if you increase DX without increasing ST, you cut weight without losing muscle.