armor rules to encourage sword & sandals choices

[geoffrey]

I've been obsessed lately with Greek mythology, particularly the Argonauts' quest for the Golden Fleece. So how can I get fighting-men to seriously consider no armor? In an idle moment I came up with the following:

Initiative
1. A guy wearing no armor always wins initiative over a guy wearing armor.
2. A guy wearing leather armor always wins initiative over a guy wearing chain or plate.
3. A guy wearing chain always wins initiative over a guy wearing plate.
4. Shields do not affect initiative.

Number of Attacks
1. A guy wearing no armor gets 2 attacks per round against an opponent wearing chain or plate.
2. A guy wearing leather armor gets 2 attacks per round against an opponent wearing plate.
3. Shields do not affect number of attacks.

The above is the fruit of 5 minutes of thought. I wouldn't be surprised if these ideas fall apart upon reflection or play-testing.

Thoughts? I value even (or perhaps especially) critical ones.

[bluskreem]

A brilliant little initiative system was just posted on "Sword against the Outer Dark" that might just fill your needs. For his system you add the character's armor class to their initiative roll.

[aldarron]

Hmm, my knee jerk reaction is, I Like It! I'd be inclined to change #1 in number of attacks to 2 attacks per round against any armor. Leather Armor, it seems to me will slow you down about as much as chain mail and plate. The overall idea makes sense too in that armor type is related to "troop" type (ala CHAINMAIL) which is given in OD&D as something that effects movement rate/encumbrance. If Armored Foot moves slower than Light foot they should move slower in combat too, right?

Nice one Geoffrey.

[vito]

Would weapon length have any effect on this?
It seems to me like a man with a pike should hit before a man with a sword, and a man with a sword should hit before a man with a dagger.

[talysman]

I like the basic concept, although I'd probably simplify it to just give initiative to the higher AC and maybe an extra attack to the unarmored vs. the armored, ignoring shields in both cases. Also, another incentive for the Argonauts to not wear armor is the fact that they're on a ship. Check out the drowning rules in Book III...

Vito: For Liber Zero, I include a brief comment that the shortest weapon goes first except in a charge, in which case the longer weapon goes first. Fighters using long weapons can also maneuver outside the reach of opponents with shorter weapons. A man with a dagger thus would hit first unless the man with the sword stepped back, then struck his opponent before the man with the dagger could get in close again.

[geoffrey]

Jan 8, 2011 21:33:23 GMT -6 bluskreem said:

A brilliant little initiative system was just posted on "Sword against the Outer Dark" that might just fill your needs. For his system you add the character's armor class to their initiative roll.

Awesome. That's better than the first half of my suggestion. Here it is copy-and-pasted:

Initiative is rolled on a d6, to this roll the players add their Armor Class value and the highest roll at the table attacks first. This helps simulate how cumbersome armor can be during combat. The lighter the armor the better, as the higher AC value adds more to the Initiative roll. In most sword & sorcery literature the combatants tend to wear lighter armor or none at all, and handling Initiative in this manner helps simulate this pretty well I think. (Edit: In most cases, the Armor Class value added to an Initiative roll is not adjusted due to any magical properties the armor might have. This, of course, is something each Game Master will need to decide for their own game, and also may vary from one magic set of armor to the next.)

And my own clarification: Dexterity adjustments to AC do not count for initiative purposes.

[aldarron]

Upon reflection, and a good nights sleep, I'm still liking the "less armor = extra attack" idea.

However, the idea of altering initiative doesn't inspire me so much. The random initiative system in AD&D has always rankled me. I find it kind of ironic that folks object to having thier characters behavior determined by the outcome of things like morale throws and skill rolls but happly accept that thier characters ability to give or recieve the first blows in a fight is entirely dependant on a couple random rolls (surprise and initiative).

It seems to me, the most important factors of determining who gets the great advantage of being the one who strikes first in a fight is first Position, secondly Agressiveness and last, the quickness and length of the attacking weapon. I don't see armor really affecting initiative much except where all else is equal, in which case the unarmored guy would have a slight edge, maybe, depending on circumstance.

So basically I prefer either a Holmes like "dexterity" or a DGUTS type morale system (as in D@D) to determine the aggressor or use a judgement call with weapon type being an influencing factor.

[foxroe]

IMHO, in an abstract combat system, where an attack roll represents and opportunity to damage a foe during one minute of combat, I would think that the unarmored combatant would be more susceptible to being wounded (at least that's my understanding of what worsening AC represents). Plus you might end up with magic-users emboldened to flail away at armored opponents all of the time.

I think the initiative system you outlined (or the one referenced above) are both elegant solutions to encouraging a more barbaric/bronze-age/swashbuckling fighter.

[jonathan]

I would probably take a look at the pseudo retro-clone, Mazes and Minotaurs for ideas.

Specifically, instead of standard armor types, I might use shields, helmets, and breastplates. Each item of armor improves AC by two points.

[cooper]

I really like what 'old school hack' did with this. Face it, not wearing armor is inferior to wearing armor (ask a modern soldier) despite the cumbersome qualities, instead of thinking up ways to make the "character build" of an unarmored character advantageous to play, why not embrace the concept of someone who would eschew armor in combat and give the "awesome points"?

Grant anyone who wears no armor a +15% exp bonus if the survive to the end of an adventure. If they use only their bare hands in combat, give them another % on top.

If you want to play a 'bad ass' don't fiddle the character by actually making "less armor = more survivable" which is what granting bonuses for not wearing protection invariably becomes.

Keep it "hard mode" but give a reward for success.

That said, there are already rules in place in 0d&d via chainmails man to man section that grant extra attacks per round to lightly armored foes vs heavily armored ones after the initial closing round of combat. Why not just use those? True it doesn't specifically talk about armor, but the assumption has always been, 'lightly armed, lightly armored'.

[leon]

Jan 8, 2011 21:15:39 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I've been obsessed lately with Greek mythology, particularly the Argonauts' quest for the Golden Fleece. So how can I get fighting-men to seriously consider no armor?

And why would you want to do that? In Greek warfare and consequentially in Greek mythology, wearing armour was far more preferrable than not wearing it. So why would you want to have unarmoured fighting-men? The only thing that should probably be "boosted" is the importance of the shield.

[premmy]

Jan 9, 2011 19:34:41 GMT -6 leon said:

Jan 8, 2011 21:15:39 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I've been obsessed lately with Greek mythology, particularly the Argonauts' quest for the Golden Fleece. So how can I get fighting-men to seriously consider no armor?

And why would you want to do that? In Greek warfare and consequentially in Greek mythology, wearing armour was far more preferrable than not wearing it.

An important point, there. Having said that, just for the sake of mental excercise:

- Stick and carrot. Numbers in D&D work in a way that really renders an unarmored combatant non-viable. If you put penalties on armour without advantages of equal utility, you render close combat characters unplayable. For instance, that +15% (or whatever percent) XP bonus someone suggested will be little good if you character doesn't live long enough to level up. Either have bonuses that are relevant to keeping that Fighter alive, or heavily rejigger the combat system (which I assume you don't want to do).

Specific ideas:

- Characters without armour double their normal DEX bonus to AC. Only really works if your system of choice has reasonably large (say, going up to +3) and reasonably frequent (decent chance of a +2 or better during character creation) bonuses.

- Certain magic spells might only work on unarmored characters. Said spells should be protective in nature and their effects should be greater than the normal impact of armour, in order to balance the fact that they're not 24/7.

- The same with magic items. Achilles was rendered almost invulnerable by the waters of the Styx. Maybe bottled Styx water can provide a similar if temporary protection.

- Bonuses to wrestling because you have no straps and such that the enemies can grab. Even bigger bonuses with an oiled body. Only works if you have viable rules for wrestling.

Having said all that, there's nothing wrong with some sticks as long as they don't outweight the carrots. For example:

- Armour provides a penalty to athletic feats (climbing a tree, jumping over a chasm, swimming(!)). Only works if you allow non-Thieves to attempt such things with a reasonable chance of success. Emphasising the latter because lots of DMs seem to be very passive-agressive about this matter. "Oh, you want your Fighter to move quietly or climb non-sheer walls? Sure, why not, I'm not an overzealous niche protector for Thieves. I'll let you roll on that. You'll have such a low chance of success that you'd be better off not trying."

- Greek-style stories. Maritime adventures. Falling in water. (Make sure you're fair about this and enemies play with the same rules. Also make sure that knocking someone overboard is not too easy.)

- Play up the effects of weather. Wearing metal armour all day (or even for shorter periods of excercise in extremely hot climate) WILL cause serious exhaustion and dehydration. Also drive home the point that you can't don or remove armour in a matter of seconds.

[jjarvis]

I'm with leon, why make wearing armor less effective in combat?

Here's the awful truth- Armor improves your initiative in that it provides the well armored man with more options. You can get away with maneuvers that would leave you dancing in your uncoiled intestines if you were unarmored.

Armor does wear you down and causes fatigue. An easy way to model this that doesn't require more record keeping is to assign different movement rates to folks in different degrees of armor.

An unarmored guy with a sword doesn't get two attacks agaisnt an armored guy , he gets to watch his sword arm fall to the ground a few heartbeats before he is slain.

Shields are awesome. Shields are insanely useful in melee combat they are a big hunk of wood covered in leather and metal that gets hit by the opponents weapon and it isn't you.

Helmets however are a huge pain in the ass except of course for saving your life. Anything in your field of view even the slightest bit reduces your perception.

Armor is made for fighting- doing things that aren't fighting while armored up and armor is a huge pain.

Encourage athletic/acrobatic action outside and around combat. Let the unarmored guys usually succeed. Factor in armor as a penalty to acrobatic actions.
A simple method is to roll a d12 or even d10 vs base armor where one must roll AC or under to jump across a pit or climb quickly. Those that want to be active frequently will wear less armor.

I've done a fair bit of almost real fighting and very fake fighting with a variety of equipment. I have spent many a day wearing different types of armor with my favorite and most frequently worn armor being a full metal breastplate with padding, studded leather braces, gauntlets and metal greaves. I only wear a helmet when required by regulations or if I'm actually concerned about getting my head beat in because helmets are darned annoying (I tend to bonk my helmeted head into things overhead).

[premmy]

Jan 12, 2011 8:08:52 GMT -6 jjarvis said:

Shields are awesome. Shields are insanely useful in melee combat they are a big hunk of wood covered in leather and metal that gets hit by the opponents weapon and it isn't you.

That's an excellent point. Giving shields an appalling +1 AC bonus has always been one of the more egregious problems with D&D.

[jjarvis]

Shields do get the short end and they are an area of D&D combat I find myself visiting again and again.

To avoid drawing this thread too far off topic I posted (yet another) variant for shield use in D&D and related games here on my blog: aeonsnaugauries.blogspot.com/2011/01/shields-again.html

[leon]

Jan 12, 2011 9:23:07 GMT -6 jjarvis said:

Shields do get the short end and they are an area of D&D combat I find myself visiting again and again.

To avoid drawing this thread too far off topic I posted (yet another) variant for shield use in D&D and related games here on my blog: aeonsnaugauries.blogspot.com/2011/01/shields-again.html

That's pretty good. Another idea I had was to keep the shield's poor AC but allow it to "block". While this works better with S&W ascending armor class and base to hit bonus system, it's not difficult to convert to OD&D. Basically a small shield allows to block one attack, a medium shield two and a large shield three attacks each round. If the attack hits you are allowed to block it with your shield. You roll a D20+Base to Hit bonus+strength+shield's AC bonus and if the result is equal or higher than the attacker's you block the attack. For added complexity (I don't use that) you could rule that if the result is equal to the attacker's then the shield breaks (if it's not magical).

[kesher]

Not to put words in Geoffrey's mouth, but as for the "realism" of armor being desirable in combat (though certainly true), I don't think that was the point.

Swords & Sandals, as a genre, and here I guess I'm thinking of Frazetta illos, too, doesn't give the same physics to armor. Same thing with John Carter and even, to a degree, with Conan. In D&D standard, it's pretty much pointless to be a fighter without platemail. However, this violates genre expectations.

The suggestion via M&M is useful here. Another direction to go might be to use ascending AC, and make the character's DEX score their initial AC (instead of a base of 10). Then light armor could add a +1, medium a +2, and heavy a +3. A helmet could give a +1, and a shield (especially thinking of Greek here) a +2 or 3, with a +4 or 5 against missile weapons.

[Morandir]

I do something similar (I found the idea online), but I give each class a different base AC. FM start at 14, Clerics/Thieves 12, and MUs 10 (using ascending AC obviously; it would be 5/7/9 with descending). Armor adds to AC as you indicated. A Fighter could then wear leather and shield and have a very respectable AC of 16 (3), without sacrificing too much mobility.

Another thing to do is simply redefine what your armor categories are. Light armor (AC 9/10) is a battle harness and wide belt; medium armor (AC 7/12) is a light jerkin, with bracers; and heavy armor is a bronze breastplate or mail shirt, with metal bracers and greaves (and perhaps pauldrons). Thus a lightly armored man looks like John Carter, while a heavily armored man looks like a Greek Hoplite or a Roman Legionary.

[coffee]

Another way to do it is to reduce the availability of armor altogether.

If there is only bronze armor, and it doesn't add much to one's AC (or not as much as Dex does), players won't waste money on it. Like plate in 3d edition; the downside totally outweighs the upside.

Recalling my reading of the Iliad, I don't recall armor saving many lives. Instead, it was a trophy for one to gain after defeating another single warrior in a duel. (Granted, it's been nearly 30 years since I read it...) Trophies are cool and all, and players do love their bragging rights. But how much cooler is it to defeat a guy who is armored up like a turtle when you are only wearing street clothes?

[leon]

Jan 13, 2011 4:30:41 GMT -6 coffee said:

Recalling my reading of the Iliad, I don't recall armor saving many lives.

It's been quite a while since I read it as well, but heroes always wore their armour in battle. But when Homer described the fatal blow, it was one which hit on an unarmoured part of the body, if memory serves. So armour did protect and was a precious spoil of war. And of course armour was also described and used in other such works like the Argonautica.

Personally I find it far more impressive to have fighting men in helmets and bronze armour which glistens in the sun (there are quite a few instances in Homer where he describes the "beauty" of the armour) than to follow the Hollywood stereotypes of body builders with hairless (by wax or laser) oiled chests*.

*Yes, Greek hairless youths did wrestle naked and oiled up in the gymnasiums but a) their bodies were far more symmetrical than the body builder monstrosities we see in movies and b) this wasn't the way men went to war.

[geoffrey]

I admit to my imagination on this score being hopelessly unhistorical and even inconsistent with my favorite fantasty movie: Jason and the Argonauts. For much of the movie, the Argonauts wore armor.

My imagination on this point is dominated by my favorite part of the movie: On the island with Talos. In those scenes, none of the Argonauts wears armor. It's more like: "Loin cloth? Check. Sandals? Check. Spear? Check. I'm ready to go!"

Side note: No hairless contemporary bodybuilders in my fantasy world! I imagine them to look more like Nigel Green's Hercules in Jason and the Argonauts.

[leon]

Jan 13, 2011 9:55:36 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

My imagination on this point is dominated by my favorite part of the movie: On the island with Talos. In those scenes, none of the Argonauts wears armor. It's more like: "Loin cloth? Check. Sandals? Check. Spear? Check. I'm ready to go!"

Obviously if you are fighting Talos, armour won't do you much good. One hit and you are squashed like a fly so you need maximum mobility, so not wearing armour in such cases is a big advantage.

I'm not sure how this would be modelled with D&D rules though. The normal attack roll vs. armour class routine doesn't help much. Talos' attacks could be treated as a dragon breath though (since they can be considered "area" attacks). So armour could give a penalty to saving throws against attacks from such huge creatures (you are not as mobile). But this must change the way Dragons, Giants and other such huge creatures attack.

BTW, in the story it was Medea who "pwned" Talos with her magic. The fighters couldn't fight this man of bronze. So M-U: 1 fighting men: 0.

[geoffrey]

Here's an idea, inspired by Gary Gygax's barbarian character class:

Fighting-men receive the following bonus to AC for high dexterity:

Dex 15 gives a -1 bonus.
Dex 16 gives a -3 bonus.
Dex 17 gives a -5 bonus.
Dex 18 gives a -7 bonus.

Here's the catch: The ENTIRE bonus is lost if armor is worn (though helmets and shields do not affect the bonus).

Thus, a fighting-man with an 18 dexterity wearing nothing but loin cloth and sandals would have an armor class of 2. Give him a shield, and he has an AC of 1. Put a suit of chainmail on him instead, and his armor class worsens to an AC of 5.

Of course, the above would be mostly useless with rolling abilities 3d6 in order. Fortunately, I had already planned on being generous with ability score determination, so most PCs could have an 18 dexterity if they so choose.

[Mushgnome]

My suggestions:

1. Simply rename "leather, chain, plate" to fit your notion of what light, medium, and heavy armor look like in your campaign, for example "loincloth, chainmail bikini, bronze breastplate." (Similar to Morandir's suggestion above.)
2. Make shields better somehow. One idea I've toyed with (but never playtested) is that a shield absorbs the first 1d6 damage taken per round, assuming the shield-bearer is aware of the attack and actively defending.
3. Non-magical armor provides no protection against magical attacks and creatures. Therefore it makes sense to wear armor into battle against a human army, but against, say, a gorgon, it will only slow you down.
4. Magical armor will protect you against magical attacks, but heavy magic armor is rare or nonexistent in the campaign. Thus a Hero wearing non-magical plate is AC3 against non-magical grunts, but only AC9 vs. magical foes. Give him +3 leather and he is AC4 vs. all foes.
5. As mentioned several times already, encumberance, movement penalty, and especially drowning are incentives against heavy armor except in a toe-to-toe battlefield situation.
6. Use a Chainmail-based combat system. Weapon vs. armor type is only important for low level PCs and ordinary troops. Combat between Heroes and mythical beasts is resolved on the Fantasy Combat Table, which ignores weapon and armor type.