|
Post by Necropraxis on Apr 29, 2012 16:02:19 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jan 26, 2014 10:49:12 GMT -6
Playing with the "Shields will be splintered" rule, I dislike shields also giving fighting men a better armor class. I'd replace every use of the word "shield" on this table with "helmet". Target:Armor Class Description2 Plate & Helmet 3 Plate 4 Chain & Helmet 5 Chain 6 Leather & Helmet 7 Leather 8 Helmet Only 9 You're a Wizard This does two things. A. Using a Two-handed Sword or Polearm will not lower your Armor Class. This solves the problem of big weapons needing to be balanced out by adding more damage to compensate for their lower armor class. All weapons can do d6 again. Phew. Maybe we can still get some interesting rule for them to be the equivilant of shields will be splintered. Something minor and situational.
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Jan 26, 2014 16:25:23 GMT -6
...Using a Two-handed Sword or Polearm will not lower your Armor Class. This solves the problem of big weapons needing to be balanced out by adding more damage to compensate for their lower armor class. All weapons can do d6 again. Phew. Maybe we can still get some interesting rule for them to be the equivilant of shields will be splintered. Something minor and situational... Arguably, the shields shall be splintered rule is almost as beneficial, if not more beneficial, than the standard +1 bonus to armor class. I suppose it depends at least partly on how easy it is, given whatever encumbrance rules you're using, to carry additional shields. So, conversely, NOT carrying a shield would still be a meaningful detriment that would need to be balanced by some substantial advantage for two-handed weapons. I think your overall idea is excellent. It's simple and elegant, and so "obvious" that I'm surprised I've never seen it suggested before. The only quibble would be that from the standpoint of combat "realism" one would think that shields would have SOME advantage beyond the, if you will, auto-destruct option. But it's hard to see how to do this without getting too fussy. For Zylarthen, I decreed that all natural attack rolls of 7 would be automatic hits UNLESS the target were wearing a helmet (and if the 7 would have been a hit anyway, then the hit would do double damage). And IF you're wearing a helmet, there's a small chance that it will break. This in effect gives the helmet the same +1 bonus as shields. You could do the same thing with your chart but flip it for shields. I'm semi-satisfied with it. It's at least slightly fussy but perhaps not critically so. And of course it makes Magic-Users (and perhaps Thieves) even more vulnerable. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. As for the no armor option, it always struck me as funny the way half of all the art in Dragon Magazine depicted underdressed warriors, and yet of course no one ever looked like that except NPC's-Berserkers and such. Even Thieves had Emma Peel like leather bodysuits (or so I imagined Leather Armor as a 14-year old). And of course Magic-Users needed robes with lots of pockets for their daggers, darts and spell components (or so I thought as a 14-year old). For what's it's worth, I think that's more a feature of the aesthetic of fantasy art, or how we think of fantasy characters than anything else. It's easier to relate to people-woman AND men-if you can see or imagine their faces, or at least their bodies, as opposed to them just being walking tanks. But has been noticed by others, even Conan himself wore armor in the stories more than people remember, and I think there is at least one passage in the Howard books where Conan says that to NOT wear armor if you have it, is suicidal. But of course you don't usually see that on the pulp or paperback covers.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jan 26, 2014 18:14:12 GMT -6
it's hard to see how to do this without getting too fussy. You're spot on. The real question, is how to cover the different tools of combat in way that's elegant, simple, and fun. I'd say that a visceral kick and some player choice are also important, so they aren't just adding +1 to every die roll. ShieldsI see as more of a ward against getting stuck full of arrows than a boon in melee combat. I'd think a 30 pound weight strapped to your arm might be a bit of a hindrance. But obviously people used them, so they must have been useful. "Shields will be splintered" is just too fun not to use. HelmetsHelmet rules tend to be perhaps the worst offenders, as far as dumb rules go, in that they add all types of extra die rolls and needless complexity with very little actual effect. If you need a paragraph to get your rule across, and it doubles the time it takes to run a combat, its probably not a good rule. I think replacing shields with helmets on the AC chart is a unintrusive way to give helmets some meaning, and also keep shields somewhat balanced. Two-Handed Swords and PolearmsYou're right that, in many ways, shields will be splintered is more powerful an effect for shields to have than a simple +1 AC bonus. There needs to be a Two-handed weapon rule to complement it. I'm still unsure as to what that rule is though, as every two-handed weapon rule I've ever seen sucks. Doing slightly more damage is just really boring. Tables with percentage rolls where you knock someone out or break their armor are a step in the right direction, but are way to complex to actually use in game. Something with the dynamic feel of shields will be splintered would be nicer, like: "On a roll of six damage, you cut the monster in half". Obviously that's not the solution, but its in the right spirit of what the fix needs to be. The idea of relating to people through seeing their bodies is really insightful. I'm pretty sure that rule was a joke, but I like the idea of Frazetta style fighting men. It ads a lot to see that the hero or villan is human, not a robot suit of shiny plate armor.
|
|
|
Post by Lorgalis on Jan 26, 2014 19:25:06 GMT -6
Not sure what weapon damage method s being used but if 1d6
On a 4 = save or knock down On a 5 = crushed -1 to attacks this combat On a 6 exploding damage and instant knockdown. Roll a 6 roll again add the damage keep rolling 6s keep adding damage.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jan 26, 2014 20:04:15 GMT -6
Too many things to remember.
I do like exploding 6's and I think they are the best solution I've seen for two handed weapons, but I'm not sold on those extra die rolls.
Right now its my provisional substitute until some brilliant solution eventually comes out.
What I like about it is that it adds some uncertainty to how much damage you can do. There's something like a 16% chance of doing 2d6, a 3% chance of doing 3d6, and a .5% chance of doing 4d6. And its easy to resolve.
What I don't like is that it involves no player choice. Doing slightly more damage isn't super fun for the player, especially if the player isn't rolling or viewing the damage die. Something like the exact inverse of the shields will be splintered rule - opt to sacrifice your two-handed sword to get a hit - would involve more player choice. But that's not necessarily exiting and doesn't really make sense. Again, if I had to come up with criteria they would be A. Player choice B. Fun and exiting. Like the difference between a spell that does damage and a spell that turns someone into a thousand colorful bubbles. C. Makes a noticeable difference ie. Doesn't just add a +1 bonus to something. D. Despite C, cannot break the game. it doen't have to be balanced, just be a one time thing, like shields will be splintered. E. Simple and easy. One sentence under 20 words.
I'm sure someone will eventually think something up and we'll all be kicking ourselves for not thinking of it ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Lorgalis on Jan 27, 2014 12:37:53 GMT -6
Take two.
Player calls a range of 2 on the roll. Like 1to 2, 3 to 4 if damage is in that range = knockdown No save or maybe with a addition -x to attack, or a bleed Player calls a range of 3 on the roll. Like 1-3, 2-4, 3-5 if damage falls in that range = knockdown with save
Player gets to call it - player agency and see if it works - simple resolution
Possible addition
Maybe 5-6 is exploding die after a knockdown or other preliminary consequence. Maybe too much.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jan 27, 2014 16:59:29 GMT -6
Not to beat a dead horse on a hijacked thread, but how about:
"Dave Arneson's "chop till they drop" rule: whenever you kill a monster, you can make another attack" for two handed weapons?
I don't know how to align that properly with multiple attacks per level, but it lends itself to a nice "oh, its goblins? Give me my battle axe".
Maybe with a sword and shield fighting men don't get their multiple attacks against normal men types, but with a two handed weapon they do. It seems a reasonable tradeoff to shields will be splintered. And its too cool to have a fighting man leaving a bloody path of orcs behind him as he hacks through them with his two-handed sword.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 22:17:53 GMT -6
If anybody really gives a crap about the way Dave and Gary actually played it, all armor except plate had head covering of equivalent type included, and protective helmets of any kind were not subject to being broken. That provision only applied to such things as the 'Helm of Telepathy' to make it a difficult choice to wear it all the time.
|
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251
|
Post by 18 Spears on Jan 28, 2014 0:05:24 GMT -6
If anybody really gives a crap about the way Dave and Gary actually played it, all armor except plate had head covering of equivalent type included, and protective helmets of any kind were not subject to being broken. That provision only applied to such things as the 'Helm of Telepathy' to make it a difficult choice to wear it all the time. not me i'll run my game any dam ned way I want
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2014 0:28:04 GMT -6
not me i'll run my game any dam ned way I want My, aren't WE fierce.
|
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251
|
Post by 18 Spears on Jan 28, 2014 0:54:01 GMT -6
not me i'll run my game any dam ned way I want My, aren't WE fierce. No. Just my own person. I don't change to suit anyone. Feel free to hit "page down" if you don't like my posts but if this is the way you really feel you've got a lot of room to talk.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Jan 28, 2014 1:05:13 GMT -6
I wonder if the helmet entry in the equipment list was there not for purchasing a helmet in addition to armor, but to replace a helmet that may have been damaged or lost (e.g. rust monster, slime or ooze falling on your head, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jan 28, 2014 12:28:42 GMT -6
That stills leaves the question: "What will happen if you do not replace your helmet that has been damaged or lost ? "
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jan 28, 2014 14:03:52 GMT -6
That stills leaves the question: "What will happen if you do not replace your helmet that has been damaged or lost ? " Maybe a set of armor is useless without a helmet. That's a good incentive to bring a backup.
|
|
Torreny
Level 4 Theurgist
Is this thing on?
Posts: 171
|
Post by Torreny on Feb 19, 2014 23:09:55 GMT -6
That stills leaves the question: "What will happen if you do not replace your helmet that has been damaged or lost ? " The next green ooze falling on your head doesnt need to find his can opener, that brick from the ceiling is doing damage instead of stunning you 1 or 3 turns, etc.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 20, 2014 13:29:54 GMT -6
Playing with the "Shields will be splintered" rule, I dislike shields also giving fighting men a better armor class. I'd replace every use of the word "shield" on this table with "helmet". Target:Armor Class Description2 Plate & Helmet 3 Plate 4 Chain & Helmet 5 Chain 6 Leather & Helmet 7 Leather 8 Helmet Only 9 You're a Wizard This does two things. A. Using a Two-handed Sword or Polearm will not lower your Armor Class. This solves the problem of big weapons needing to be balanced out by adding more damage to compensate for their lower armor class. All weapons can do d6 again. Phew. .... Bugger me that's billiant. I love it. Osteoachaeologically speaking, the head is a primary target. ShieldsI see as more of a ward against getting stuck full of arrows than a boon in melee combat. I'd think a 30 pound weight strapped to your arm might be a bit of a hindrance. But obviously people used them, so they must have been useful. "Shields will be splintered" is just too fun not to use...... Well, the real problem is that folks of this day and age simply don't understand what a "shield" is - a misperception exacerbated by SCA and Larp boffer fighting styles. One handed Shields are not and never were miniature hand held walls. Shields are great big weapons used to pummel, smack, bang and bash your opponent while obscuring yourself (cover). They also work to deflect/parry attacks if used properly, but certainly will NOT stop a direct frontal hit with any amount of effort put behind it. You can puncture a shield with a dagger, let alone what a battle axe will do. Yes they will sometimes stop arrows from full penetration, and sometimes not. (Hurstwic has some information posted on this topic I believe) Now, I'm a big fan of the second weapon = extra attack + 1/2 damage rule, and allow shields to count as a second weapon. Reading these posts though has reminded me of this from M&T page 7: "If the shield's bonus is greater than that of the armor there is a one third chance that the blow will be caught by the shield...." That principle of a shield blocking a blow 1/3rd of the time has me musing a new rule to apply in conjunction with redbaron's idea of the +1 bonus for helmets. That being, Once per three rounds a character may apply a shields defensive bonus to their armor class. Otherwise, a shield acts as a second weapon and may be used to attempt to parry, or execute a second attack at 1/2 damage.
|
|
jdjarvis
Level 4 Theurgist
Hmmm,,,, had two user names, I'll be using this one from now on.
Posts: 123
|
Post by jdjarvis on Feb 20, 2014 15:00:10 GMT -6
simple no helmet "Helmet Rule" if attacked from behind or if surprised while not wearing a helmet foes may attack as if AC 9 regardless of other armor worn.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Feb 20, 2014 16:06:20 GMT -6
Bugger me that's billiant. I love it. Osteoachaeologically speaking, the head is a primary target. I hate the idea of helmet = +1 armor class, but When its in a table, it doesn't feel like a +1, it feels like just another category simple no helmet "Helmet Rule" if attacked from behind or if surprised while not wearing a helmet foes may attack as if AC 9 regardless of other armor worn. If you're backstabbed then you're AC 9 regardless.
|
|
jdjarvis
Level 4 Theurgist
Hmmm,,,, had two user names, I'll be using this one from now on.
Posts: 123
|
Post by jdjarvis on Feb 21, 2014 7:10:21 GMT -6
If you're backstabbed then you're AC 9 regardless. And if you're in combat, you can't really tell if someone's behind a character or in front of him unless you're using minis (in which case I'll scream "Heresy! Burn the Witch!"). [/quote] Miniatures and D&D are hardly heresy, they are mentioned on the cover of the rulebooks. That aside, we don't need minatures to resolve things like: "I slip behind the warrior Bob is fighting and crack him in the head" All we need is a resonable Dm and a reasonable player.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Feb 21, 2014 7:53:10 GMT -6
Yeah, then if bob didn't notice, he's "unarmored" regardless of what he's wearing.
Armor is a tool that is used like any other weapon of the fighting man, not some passive effect on him like a lycanthrope has. If he isn't imploying that tool against an atta k it doesn't do him any good.
|
|
jdjarvis
Level 4 Theurgist
Hmmm,,,, had two user names, I'll be using this one from now on.
Posts: 123
|
Post by jdjarvis on Feb 21, 2014 8:26:54 GMT -6
Yah then if bob didn't notice he's "unarmored" regardless of what he's wearing. Armor is a tool that is used like any other weapon of the fighting man, not some passive effect on him like a lycanthrope has. If he isn't imploying that tool against an atta k it doesn't do him any good. Most of your armor will do it's job as well as expected just by wearing it properly. Armor does enable and improve ones offensive capabilities (something every RPG I can recall fails to address). Shields certainly do improve in their effectiveness with skill. From personal experience helmets that reduce field of vision are a huge annoyance (except of course in keeping your face and eyes safe). Helmets still cut down oh hedaches when fake fighting.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 21, 2014 9:55:15 GMT -6
As was cited by Jamesm and Gronanofsimmerya there is the DMG helmet ruling. Nothing wrong with rolling an extra d6 along with the roll 'to hit', that is, a 3in6 chance that the 'to hit' dice will be compared with the AC of an opponent's head (barring combat with an unintelligent monster).
jdjarvis's ruling (see above) compliments this well: (paraphrased)
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 21, 2014 12:15:43 GMT -6
Yah then if bob didn't notice he's "unarmored" regardless of what he's wearing. Armor is a tool that is used like any other weapon of the fighting man, not some passive effect on him like a lycanthrope has. If he isn't imploying that tool against an atta k it doesn't do him any good. Um, a chainmail shirt is no more difficult to wear than a cotton nightgown - only heavier. It works just as well whether the wearer is looking at the blade trying to cut through it, or not.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Feb 21, 2014 13:00:16 GMT -6
Armor wards off occasional cuts and blows when you're attacking someone. Someone you aren't aware of could stick a knife in your leg, or kick you in the nuts fom behind, or shoot a double and take you to the ground and break your neck.
|
|
jdjarvis
Level 4 Theurgist
Hmmm,,,, had two user names, I'll be using this one from now on.
Posts: 123
|
Post by jdjarvis on Feb 21, 2014 13:22:19 GMT -6
Armor wards off occasional cuts and blows when you're attacking someone. Someone you aren't aware of could stick a knife in your leg, or kick you in the nuts fom behind, or shoot a double and take you to the ground and break your neck. Yeah it's easier to hurt someone hitting them where the armor isn't, that's the point of the thread isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Feb 24, 2014 14:25:07 GMT -6
I leave hit locations for Runequest.
In my D&D games, Fighting Men and Clerics not wearing helmets are treated as AC 9, period!
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Feb 24, 2014 15:15:46 GMT -6
Headgear makes you look cool.
|
|
|
Post by ritt on Feb 26, 2014 18:57:00 GMT -6
If anybody really gives a crap about the way Dave and Gary actually played it, all armor except plate had head covering of equivalent type included, and protective helmets of any kind were not subject to being broken. That provision only applied to such things as the 'Helm of Telepathy' to make it a difficult choice to wear it all the time. Thank you for sharing this. Very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Mar 1, 2014 8:14:56 GMT -6
I am intrigued by redbaron's substitution of helmets for shields in the original AC chart. To take it one step further I've considered creating an alternate AC chart for shield + helmet without armor (or with only peripheral pieces of armor). Haven't got very far on it yet, though. Also, found this detailing the various types of helmets and their evolution. Thought it was interesting.
|
|