House Rules for Armor

These house rules for armor are meant to add a little flavor to the armor system without adding much complexity.

I have been using them for my first chronicle, but they have not had extensive playtesting since I have only run 1 combat thus far.



The Rules
First, all all armor now has a coverage attribute depending on what the character is wearing.

Type      Coverage Modifier 
None      1-
Corslet   7-
Hauberk   8-
Helm      +1 bonus
Grieves   +1 bonus


Secondly, Base Protection values are doubled (so chainmail is worth 10 instead of 5)

Procedure:

• When a character is struck by an attack, make a coverage check. Roll 2 dice and compare to the coverage number. If the result is equal to this number or less, the armor protection is subtracted from the damage of the blow, otherwise the blow bypasses armor. Note the characters Armor on your sheet like so:
• ChainMail Hauberk (10/8-)
• ChainMail and Helm (10/9-)
• Helm only (10/3-)

Seems kinda arbitrary to have the determination come down to a simple die roll. Are there ways to modify the roll when determining whether the blow gets through?

Alternatively, to cut down on die rolling, how about using the raw result from the actual attack? Like, if I roll a 4 and a 5 to attack, and add my assorted mods, I get a successful attack. Rather than roll 2d6 again to determine if the hit got through, just compare the armor's CA to my raw die roll of "9". Would that work?

And as a noodge-y side note, it's "greaves" not "grieves." :)

All good points, Ineti. When I saw "greaves" in my notes, I figured I had mispelled it! Rats!

In regards to your first point, I also have house rules on Called Shots. Right now, there is no called shot to bypass armor, but it would be easy to add.

A quick-n-dirty solution is to let the attacker take a penalty on his attack that also applies to the target's coverage. A strike to bypass armor (with a coverage of 8-) could be made at a -5 penalty which in turn reduces the coverage from 8- to 3-.

Inteti -

I think that the problem with using the 2 dice you roled for damage to determine if you hit the covered or the non c0vered portions of the body is that the greater the damage you rolled, the more likly it would be to baypass armour. For example, on a character who has armour coverage of 2-6, everytime he was rolled 11 points of damage (a 6 and a 5) plus whatever modifiers their was, it would ALWAYS go to an unarmoured section of the body. I would want a second roll to be made so that it is possible to roll low damage to unarmoured body parts, to armoured body parts, and high damage to both as well.

I really like the idea of a coverage roll though. There are a few more problems that would have to be address before the system could be used however.

Gavynn

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GavynnAlexander
Inteti -
[snip]
I really like the idea of a coverage roll though. There are a few more problems that would have to be address before the system could be used however.

Gavynn

---

I'd love to hear how it could be improved!

BTW: here are my simple called shot rules:

Called shots:

Called shots are given a -5 penalty and will have one of the following effects:


Location      Effect
Head          x1.5 damage + Stun*
Vitals        x2 damage
Arm           make stamina check vs damage done or  cripled**
              (limb is useless)
Leg           make stamina check vs damage done or  cripled**
              (1/2 move or crawl only if both legs are cripled)

* stun effects as per Core Rules.
** In this sense "crippling" only lasts till the wound is healed unless the GM determines otherwise.

MightyC-

Like I said - I like the idea of the coverage roll, but here is the next logical problem (just something to be worked around though).

The system you came up with is based on wearing armour on different parts of the body (obviously). This makes it so that a character wearing body armor and greaves is better protected than a character just wearing the body armor. This makes great sence. It alaso allows people to know on called shots if the area targeted is covered. I might add vambraces to the list of things you can wear though (more on that later).

BUT - I think the next logical step is to make rules for "piece-meal" armour. I read that the Fields of Battle book will cover that, but likely not the way it would be need for a coverage roll. For instance - If a player is wearing a maille corslet and hardened leather greaves, would he still have the same coverage value as player who is wearing a maille corslet and maille chausses (greaves)? Roughly the same amount of area is COVERED, but the guy wearing the leather greaves is not as well protected. The coverage roll works well is every part of the armour is of the same type (hauberk, maille chasses, maille coif), but not when you start mixing them. The simple thing to do is say that armour tyoes cannot be mixed, but that is not very satisfactory.

Unfortunantly, if you go then next step, instead of a coverage roll, you have a hit location roll. That takes care of knowing what type of armor was hit, but then the player who hits his enemy in the unarmored head is going to ask what advantages he gets for that, as opposed to hitting an unarmoured thigh. You already started that by giving some modifiers to stuff when you hit locations based on when they are hit by called shots. This type of thing could be added to every attack roll. YOu are already rolling dice for coverage, so you are not adding any more rolling by adding a location, but you are adding a chart to refernce with the result. It is no longer a yes or no deal but a this number is this, that number is that type of deal. The downside is that you are adding a location roll, and then a location effect chart to every sword strike, slowing down combat. In your orginal post, you said you wanted to add detail without complexity, which would not be what this is doing.

On the other hand, if your players are not really examining everything and are cool with not asking too many questions, I would think that you could certainly run with the system.

Like I said, I like it, but one of my friends said that I seamed to be more into simulation sometimes than a game, and sometimes that is true. Sometimes I like gritty, detailed, and real, and sometimes I like adventure and fast play.

Later,
Gavynn

Gavynn -
Thanks for the reply.

Quote:

---

BUT - I think the next logical step is to make rules for "piece-meal" armour. I read that the Fields of Battle book will cover that, but likely not the way it would be need for a coverage roll.

---

Yes, I started with ideas for a hit location system then tried to simplify and abstract the core role playing effects from it. I used to play a lot of GURPS and I like that hit location table quite a lot. My first Idea was to use GURPS hit locations and "piece-meal" armor system. However, I felt that it would put too great of an emphasis on combat. I do want to give my players some neat combat mechanics to play with, but I don't want them to start thinking that the game is ABOUT combat. Otherwise we would be playing d20 probably.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, if your players are not really examining everything and are cool with not asking too many questions, I would think that you could certainly run with the system.

---

My players are (by and large) d20 players. I have an older guy who hasn't role-played in 10 or more years and a new guy who has just started playing, so none of them have even seen a "piece-meal" system.

So far the system works to everyone's satisfaction. I let them describe/envision their armor how ever they like and tell them the most important factor about armor is weather or not a given location is covered, so it's ok to assume a uniform coverage number for all covered locations. If some armor locations are weaker than others, then I say that the distinction is lost in the randomness of the damage system. In other words, differences in armor types in different locations is insignificant compared to the value having any armor provides.

Quote:

---

Like I said, I like it, but one of my friends said that I seamed to be more into simulation sometimes than a game, and sometimes that is true. Sometimes I like gritty, detailed, and real, and sometimes I like adventure and fast play.

---

Me too. :)

I'm all for more dice rolling if it will give me more of an accurate account of how my axe swipe will penetrate the armour or glance aside. Even if glancing aside, the advesary will probably take a blunt force blow and at least be partially winded. The axe may not cut through, but will at least bruise the hell outa him.

It would be a logical assumption that the dude in leathers had better be quicker than the dude in mail or plate, because the dude in leathers won't be able to absorb much of any type of blow. However, if he can get the plated / mailed advesary off balance, there is always a seam that is ready to accept a sword tip. Even if wearing mail, I'm still going to be bruised to hell and back by the arrows and spear tips that the mail manages to deflect or absorb - 75 - 150 lb. pull loosed arrow is gonna hurt.

My arm may not get sliced, but I could suffer a fracture if the sword / axe / etc. catches me. Same with my shield arm, if I'm caught unawares or my advesary is stronger than me, my shield could be broken, pushed back into my arm, or a combination leaving my arm crushed and useless.

I like the idea of having different armour parts having different absortion / blocking values and different coverage values. Adds more detail and accuracy to the combat.

We lucked out having 3 black belts and more Medieval and Japanese Tokugawa era historians in our gaming community than we could count to make sure that the combat actually reflected how it would play out. These house rules seem very similar to those that we used.

Could it steal time from the flash & flow? Sure. But, I'm personally willing to sacrifice the flare of glitz and "hero" schlitz for accuracy and detail. Was there anything in LotR other than combat? I'm still trying to find that goofy love story theme, must have not shipped with my omnibus :D.

Quoting Grutos-

"Could it steal time from the flash & flow? Sure. But, I'm personally willing to sacrifice the flare of glitz and "hero" schlitz for accuracy and detail. "

Well, I think that there is more to flash and flow than glitz and "hero" schlitz, as I am sure you do. I agree with you that I don't mind extra dice rolling for realism, but there is another school of thought on that subject. I used to be of the school of thought, and in many ways still am, which I call the simulationist school. I was always adding rules to cover more details and more accuracy as far as srikes and injuries go. I though that this would be more "realistic".

Then I got into buying some other RPG's just to see what type of combat engines they used. Then I discovered another school of thought. I think of it as the "flow of battle" school. Combat is very fluid and fast, as I am sure anyone engaged in any kind of martial art or battle reencatment knows, and fights end pretty quickly. Usually the better swordsman takes the fight in only a few blows, and thus a few seconds. THis school seeks to represent the speed and excitment of combat and achieve that "being in a fight feeling" and they call that realism.

Let me offer two games as examples. GURPS uses a one second combat round. I used to think that this was THE way to go. AD&D used one minute rounds, and I knew that there was more that could be repersented in one minute than a single attack. If you want it too, GURPS offers all kinds of hit location tables, specific armor coverage, critical tables, rules for crippling and severing limbs and all that stuff. Like I said, I used to swear by it (and still like it alot). But, the rounds take far more than the one second they reperesent to play. They justify this by saying real combat only lasts a few seconds anyway and so you can afford to spend the time accuratly simulating the combat. But, by doing this, it does not capture the thrill and rush of fighting.
I feel that GURPS is more simulationist.

Now the second game - Riddle of Steel. It seeks to capture the thrill and rush of combat, its fluidity and and its deadliness. It simulates, if you will, being in a fight better than any other game I have read to date. No, it will not tell you the length of the cut on you arm, or the take into effect many many small factors that say a D100 based system will, but combat is played out fast and you actually feel the danger involved, the danger your character feels, and they think that that makes combat more realistic. One wrong move, one horrendous dice roll, and this combat might be your last. THey think that is justified by asking "Do you want to be stabbed by a knife? Okay, neither does your character." and it makes you think "Is this combat worth my life?" instead of always jumping into comabt with anything everytime. It's combat is fought in real time. (How can you play a pen and paper RPG combat in real time you ask? See their web site www.theriddleofsteel.net It explains it.) It's combat system is the only RPG combat system endorsed by AARMA. It offers the "flash and flow" of combat without the cinamatic or "heroic" connects some people think ruins the "real" feeling of an RPG. I highly recommend anyone at least look into this RPG to see what it offers.

Both claim to be the most realistic. Both may be right. It just depends on what your group calls realism. I'd love to here others opinions on "real combat".

Gavynn