Armor up!
 

What sorts of house-rules do folks have around armor? New armor types perhaps, or talents to mitigate penalties?

For my table, I've been working on a new framework for armor w/ expanded options, ST requirements and revised stats. One of the drivers was my previously shared change to shields (see https://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=170198), but my players and I also took issue w/ the way MA was a fixed value based on one's choice of armor and the lack of more nuanced interactions w/ the ST attribute.

Light
ST 5 - CLOTH
Stops 1 hit / -1 DX / $100 (1 week)
ST 6 - LEATHER
Stops 2 hits / -2 DX / $200 (2 weeks)
ST 7 - LAMINAR
Stops 3 hits / -3 DX / $300 (3 weeks)

Medium
ST 8 - REINFORCED LEATHER
Stops 4 hits / -2 DX / -1 MA / $450 (3 weeks)
ST 9 - CHAIN
Stops 5 hits / -3 DX / -1 MA / $600 (4 weeks)
ST 10 - SCALE
Stops 6 hits / -4 DX / -1 MA / $750 (5 weeks)

Heavy
ST 11 - BRIGANDINE
Stops 7 hits / -3 DX / -2 MA / $1000 (4 weeks)
ST 12 - HALF-PLATE
Stops 8 hits / -4 DX / -2 MA / $1500 (6 weeks)
ST 13 - FULL PLATE*
Stops 9 hits / -5 DX / -2 MA / $2500 (10 weeks)

*Full Plate that is specifically designed for use by mounted warriors is known as Cavalry Plate. The cost is slightly higher ($3000) and attacks or actions from horseback use a lower DX penalty (-4) if the wearer has the EXPERT HORSEMANSHIP talent.

Notes:
The MA penalties are based on the lower scale that I use (i.e. Base MA = 1/2 RAW MA). Thus, those penalties would be doubled if applied to RAW.

All armors in my game are custom-made and fitted, hence the jump in base costs and the listed number of weeks in parentheses to complete.

DX and MA penalties may be reduced by talents or high ST. Decrease the DX penalty by 1 if ST exceeds the ST requirement by 3 points. MA is reduced by 1 for every 5 ST over the required amount. Like weapons, a figure may attempt to wear armor above their ST, but the penalties are increased (still working out the exact details of this).

Instead of reducing DX or MA penalties directly, *fine* quality armor will reduce minimum ST requirement by one (this is a new idea I'm testing for *fine* weapons as well).

The ST requirements above are based on 1-hex figure, but I also have these armors scaled from half-hex to 3-hex size figures.

Re: Armor up!
 

I realized my shield rules have evolved a bit since the thread mentioned above.

ST 6 - BUCKLER / VAMBRACES
-1 DX to be hit* (-0 DX penalty)
ST 8 - SMALL SHIELD
-1/-2 DX (-1 DX)
ST 10 - LARGE SHIELD
-2/-4 DX (-2 DX)
ST 12 - TOWER SHIELD
-3/-6 DX (-3 DX)

*In melee only... no protection vs. thrown or missile weapon attacks.

The first number is enforced on the shield-holder's opponent in melee while the second is applied to incoming thrown or missile attacks. The penalty in parentheses is applied to the shield-holder.

As with armor, the character may reduce their DX penalty by ONE for every 3 points of ST over the minimum required.

Re: Armor up!
 

Let's see if we can drum up some discussion here.

So while we're on the topic of armor, what do folks think about requiring a talent for wearing armor? I think most would agree that running around in heavy armor and fighting effectively requires training. And TFT already requires a talent for wielding a shield (though I find the RAW version of that talent a bit too strict).

To that end, I'm playtesting the following...

IQ 9 - ARMOR TRAINING (1)
A character can't simply put on a suit of armor and expect to fight or maneuver effectively. Armor may be worn without training, of course, but if the character expects to use armor regularly, the investment is worthwhile. This talent covers the basics of donning, wearing and maintaining all types of armor. Without this talent donning armor takes twice as long and, while wearing armor, performing most non-combat physical actions (climbing, swimming, horseback riding, etc.) adds a die to any task roll. Finally, armor worn by an 'untalented' figure will enforce an additional -1 DX penalty in combat.

(In my framework this is a 'Novice' tier, Basic talent costing 1 IQ at character creation or 250 XP afterwards)

Re: Armor up!
 

I like Toughness as the armor talent because it requires ST and memory points that wizards will find hard to spare.
Warriors already have access to Toughness and it gives them the chance to start with armor and then layer on as they add ST and DX.

Re: Armor up!
 

I think IQ 9 is too high. It will limit some common fantasy themes, like dumb brutal masses of troops with armor.

Also...this is mostly just wearing a cumbersome suit and getting used to it. you dont need much intellect, you just need to keep at it.

If the "taking care of armor" part of the trait is removed there is no reason not to allow this trait for lower IQ's.

Re: Armor up!
 

Except the talent's description kinda undercuts that premise. Better to replace TOUGHNESS with a more generic name (DEFENSIVE TRAINING) and remove the ST requirement. That latter dependency now shifts to the armor itself as described in my first post.

And the addition of my proposed talent doesn't change the stackability between armor and talent-based damage reduction. It does create a new barrier for wizards who want to wear armor effectively which I like.

Re: Armor up!
 

In my own game, I have removed most IQ prerequisites for talents so this isn't a concern, but for a RAW game I would have no objection to making this an IQ 8 talent... even with the basic maintenance aspect (I actually assume that feature for all base weapon talents too).

Re: Armor up!
 

I dislike TFT's link between how heavy armour is and its material. See https://forums.sjgames.com/showpost....6&postcount=43

Re: Armor up!
 

That's kind of natural. A gambeson that offered plate levels of protection would be too thick to walk around in, while paper thin plate would be too fragile. Chain is about the only scalable armor material, within limits.


But for fantasy materials see:
Hexagram 4

• Not by Iron Alone: Material usage in Arms by Howard Kistler........p 22

Re: Armor up!
 

Armour scaled by coverage, not thickness. People would preferentially armour those places which were:

• easiest to protect (not e.g. joints and armpits),
• most likely to cause death if injured (e.g. torso, head)
• most likely to be hit (e.g. lower weapon arm)
• least protected by shields (e.g. shins)
• least inconvenient (e.g. torso, not e.g. limbs)

Compare a lorica segmentata &c with Renaissance plate: the most important places are covered in each case and the thickness of metal probably isn't that different but the Roman misses out on protection for his arms and lower thighs, and his face is a lot more open.

It's not perfect either but I think modelling the armour spectrum in terms of coverage is more accurate than doing it in terms of material.

Re: Armor up!
 

Unless you are looking for a much more detailed model (and ruleset), I think it's nearly impossible to separate armor type from material from coverage at TFT's level of abstraction. My framework is a step in the right direction (I hope), but it still relies on certain FRPG tropes.

And just because I call something CLOTH or LEATHER doesn't mean that's the only material used to create armors on those particular 'rungs' of the ladder. TFT has already established that a BROADSWORD can refer to many other bladed weapons, after all.

Re: Armor up!
 

For example Melee, page 23: "his Roman armor counts as chainmail."

Re: Armor up!
 

On my table, that would be covered by LAMINAR (aka. 'banded' armor) or REINFORCED LEATHER, but you've got the right idea.

I'm not married to those terms, BTW. They just seemed to be the most commonly understood for the level of protection they are intended to represent.

Re: Armor up!
 

In principle you're right, a name is just a name. But people will use the name to settle questions like "Does the armour contain iron?" and "Can the armour be folded up to fit in a backpack?" so in practice it tends to bleed over.

Reality is that as technology improves both the coverage and the materials technology gets better. The Roman armour-making skills just weren't good enough to cover everything the way the Renaissance did.

Re: Armor up!
 

I've considered armor talents and other modifications, but generally tend to minimize house rules that affect the talent list or equipment.

However, one thing I've considered is:

"Partial Armor. You may suits of armor that leave a significant portion uncovered. Partial armor is half weight, cost, and DX penalty. It protects fully, but an attacker can opt to ignore it by so stating and taking a -2 to DX.

It doesn't protect against Fire hexes or Blast and protects only half as well (round down) against gunpowder explosives (figuring this is a mix of frag and blast) It provides its full armor protection).

Re: Armor up!
 

Whataboutism making the to-hit roll by four points more than needed or such?

Re: Armor up!
 

Sure, that can work as well -- although that adds a mechanic not really done that often in the core Legacy rules, even if it is hinted at a few times. The point of this change is something that is fairly minimal.

I actually haven't run a full-fledged campaign under LEGACY rules yet, just individual adventures or short sessions. If I were to run a long campaign, I would change the TFT rules a lot more radically to suit my personal tastes, including adopting some of your own variant suggestions. I would also:

* Halve all MA to fix both "run off the map" issues (and improve realism, but that's secondary).
* Add a defense roll at (DX/2)+3 (penalized if attacked from side, rear, or prone). (I started doing this in my GURPS fantasy games in 1987 and eventually - around 2003 -- got it built into the GURPS 4e core rules...)
* Add over a dozen spells I've devised for my own campaign.
* Replace the LEGACY xp system, also removing the ability to buy talents/skills/etc. separately with XP, but granting IQ-based talents/spells/languages equal to (IQ-5) x 2, with extras gained at that ratio when IQ is improved.
All were things I successfully used in games run between 1983 and 1995 when I was ran a bunch of variant TFT, and still have lots of material for.

Re: Armor up!
 

We'd love to see some of those. Feel free to post under this other thread...

Show me the magic!
https://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=161151

Re: Armor up!
 

Adding a post from another thread...

Another rule that I have introduced in my game that uses the expanded armor list and framework from my intro post is called 'Finding the Soft Spot'. A figure may make a targeted attack against an armored opponent w/ the goal of hitting them someplace where the armor provides less protection. This vulnerability is harder to find or access in heavier armors so the penalty is specific to each category of armor... -3 DX when attempting this kind of strike against foes in LIGHT armor, -6 DX vs. MEDIUM armor and -9 vs. HEAVY armor. A successful strike will bypass half (rounded down) of the armor's protection. I also have talents which improve these odds.

Re: Armor up!
 

I have a somewhat similar "Called shot to a chink in the armor" house rule, where the attacker can take a -1 Dx penalty for each point of armor bypassed, with a requirement that the called shot also be to a location, so that that penalty applies too. Thus a "called shot to the eyeslits" to bypass the 6 pt armor of a helm is a net -12 Dx: -6 Dx for the called shot to the head, plus -6 Dx to bypass the armor. (But if the attacker does hit, the attack does double damage and the targets armor doesn't stop any of that.)

My minimum called-shot-to-a-location penalty is -2 Dx for a called shot to the torso. So a called shot that bypasses chainmail or the equivalent has a net -5 Dx penalty minimum, with a successful hit bypassing the 3 points of armor but not having any special damage-doubling or limb-crippling effect.

I don't have any talents to specifically reduce called-shot penalties, but I do allow stacking of talents to increase adjDx with a given weapon to what others might call ridiculous levels. They work for me and my players however, so I've taken a few levels in a "don't care what others think" talent. ;)

Re: Armor up!
 

I have one called DEADEYE... it reduces Aimed Shot penalties by half (rounded down).

Re: Armor up!
 

You have a problem with people running away too much? In my experience fights lock in place and nobody gets to run. If they do run off the map, and get chased, then we have out of combat movement to handle it.

Bit surprised at this. MA 10 is eight feet per second, how slow does realism require?

Re: Armor up!
 

I've toyed with, "If the game doesn't allow using this optional rule for an unskilled character then you can use it if you have this talent, and if the game does allow it for an unskilled character then this talent halves the modifiers."

Re: Armor up!
 

Issues:

• It's a fixed cost but the benefit is much greater for heavy armour. So using this system partial light armour is generally better than ordinary light armour, whereas partial heavy armour is worse.
• There are rounding issues with halving penalties.
• I think if you don't have armour on your legs then the first thing that gets better is probably the MA penalty so it's a bit strange it's the same.

In more detail:

• Partial leather is probably better than leather: instead of 2 hits stopped for -2 DX we get 2 hits stopped or -2 enemy DX for -1 DX. Probably it's better than cloth as well though the MA is an issue.
• Maybe partial cloth is awesome, depending on how the halving rounds, I suspect not.
• Partial half-plate ... that's a weird name... would be -2 DX (rarely, 4 hits stopped, but most opponents will bypass it) for -2 DX which meh I probably wouldn't.
• Partial improved plate is -2 enemy DX (very rarely, 6 hits stopped) for -2 DX, which sucks compared with 6 hits stopped for -4 DX.

Alternatives:

• I would suggest an enemy DX penalty proportional to the protection of the armour, but equal would be too effective and with anything less rounding would mess you up.
• Maybe armour should allow tradeoff of DX vs MA.

That could be an issue in some campaigns but for most I still think partial leather sounds kind of sweet.

Re: Armor up!
 

Usain Bolt sprints outside of combat at 42 hexes per turn. What would you say his MA is?

Re: Armor up!
 

Arguably 50, if you pick the two seconds of the race where he's running fastest.

Normal human 10, Running +2, Expert Running +2, +2 Special talent like all Olympic sprinters, +1 special talent because he's Usain bolt, something for not having a sword in his hand and good shoes and all that, bonus for intensive training just before Olympics... I don't know, low 20s?

Anyone else got thoughts?

Re: Armor up!
 

Rather than this light medium heavy business, have you considered just -2 DX per point of protection?

Re: Armor up!
 

No because I cap modifiers at +/-10 and your formula would put my 'Find the Soft Spot' roll at -18 vs full plate (see my original post). I suppose I could lower it to -1 DX per point, but that runs into a different issue IMO, namely that I don't believe even lesser armors should be trivial to bypass. -3 DX is the lowest penalty that feels appropriate for something like this and even then, it's not something an untrained fighter can attempt.

Plus the groupings are already baked into my framework so it just seemed reasonable to hang this on them too.

Re: Armor up!
 

Sorry David, I overlooked this post of yours from last year. I can relate to so much of this!

Me neither and I really don't intend to. I dislike too many of the changes. Plus I began writing my own rules-set from scratch decades ago while continuing to play in what's now a defunct but long-running CLASSIC campaign. I've no desire to resume play until I've finished my own rules after all these years, rules that deviate too far from TFT to even call it that anymore. Although some of the differences were play-tested between 1980 and 1998 within the CLASSIC campaign I was in, a nearly identical period as your own variant tests.

This is the part I've hemmed and hawed over the most for decades. It was only this year I finally ripped up my other approaches to settle on skill points determined by the formula (IQx2) - 6, which only differs from yours by 1 point. Dang, that's close. The same formula will apply when IQ increases, meaning 2 more skill points for each 1 point IQ increase. My XP costs to do that are more gentle than TFT. And no purchasing skills, languages, or spells with XP, that being perhaps the least favorite of the LEGACY changes I wish to avoid.

Wending back at least slightly towards the subject of this thread, an active defense roll was almost the first house rule my group added to our campaign around 1980. The defender simply rolled 3 vs adjDX to parry/block the entire incoming attack from their front hexes, using up their action for the turn to do so. This was entirely satisfactory for 20 years of heavy play time. I've dabbled with more "sophisticated" ways of doing it for a couple years, but anything else uncomfortably adds too many rules and extra dice rolls. After long deliberation I've decided to revert my system to this old, well-tested house rule and just keep play fast and simple in this regard. I have expert and master skills that allow for partially bypassing armour, without any resort to aimed shots.