Zornhau Forums

thorgarth wrote:... And by the way Hathor Bjornson has around 440 lbs

Er, no. He is 240lbs/110kg. Not 440lbs.

Check it above.

Benedict wrote:

thorgarth wrote:... And by the way Hathor Bjornson has around 440 lbs

Er, no. He is 240lbs/110kg. Not 440lbs.

Check it above.

Benedict, the guy is 6´9" and a namesake, truly a mountain. Do you think he weights 110 kg? Depending on where you look, his weight varie from around 185g to 200kg. I think his personal page on FB has him weighing 186kg or 409 lbs.

thorgarth wrote:Benedict, the guy is 6´9" and a namesake, truly a mountain. Do you think he weights 110 kg? Depending on where you look, his weight varie from around 185g to 200kg. I think his personal page on FB has him weighing 186kg or 409 lbs.

You are right. Both me and Agamemnon are wrong, he was 240lbs/110Kgs during his basketball years. As a strongman he is listed at 416lbs/189kg. Raising his BMI from 25.9 to 44.5.

According to The World's Strongest Man :
Hafthor Bjornson Records

• Squat raw 250kg (WR is 477kg)
• Bench Press raw 230kg (335kg)
• Deadlift raw 420kg (WR is 500kg)

But please, let's not derail the thread from what actually matters.

Regarding the Bulk issue personally I prefer to use the weight carried and translate it directly to a given penalty per certain thresholds. Certain "bulkier" or more unwieldy may impose further penalties despite the Brawn diference or threshold.

In some systems this mechanics are easier to apply, but in this case you could apply this special penalties only in certain cases like speed and initiative related rolls.

I personally tend to like 33's proposal more, for the same reason why I originally opposed the change to the tapped attribute values and/or divided attributes. It just adds another element where players are tempted to "engineer" their chars in order to avoid certain negative effects or fish for positive ones.

33 makes it smoother and less abusable. And I see no real clutter added. The proposed bulk system isn't really more difficult to apply than the one presented by Agamemnon and Henri.

Closing words: I really love what has been done so far for SaS! Just this one element seems a bit over simplified for my taste, so hopefully this discussion leads to the last tiny refinement to make this game truly flawless.

just wanna weigh in an say I'm definitely with 33 and Ben on this one. Double bonuses in a roundabout way as in your current proposal make me sad.

Made an xls detailing current write-up and thirtythr33's suggestion.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxQ8wU ... sp=sharing

By Max/No Actions, I have something like this in mind:

youtu.be/JpUrXJNcS_8

Ofc I am assuming some things, as I miss details.

One thing that really struck me was this:

Agamemnon wrote:Insignificant: Anything that is part of normal clothing, or an fit easily in a pocket or small purse. A worn doublet or pair shoes, jewelry, a coin purse, a piece of chalk, flint and steel. It counts as 0 bulk.

Significant: Significant. Anything that has nontrivial weight or bulk to it, but can still be comfortably carried or worn. A pistol, a sword, a dagger, a buckler, a belt-pouch full of insignificant items, a small coil of rope, a sheaf of arrows, a coin purse, a wineskin, a powder horn. Each counts as 1 bulk.

Cumbersome. Anything heavy or awkward that can’t easily be ignored, but can still be worn or carried with ease. A backpack or large sack full of insignificant items, a large coil of rope, a crossbow, a cranequin or windlass, a longbow, any other firearm, a shield, any weapon with Extended reach or that must be carried in the hand. Each counts as 2 bulk.

Armor also counts against bulk, with different pieces having their own value. A gambeson is 0, where a maille hauberk is 3 Bulk.

Where do helmets fit in? Anyway. Which means that I can be waltzing in a battlefield wearing maille (+3) brandishing a battleax (+2), a greatsword (+2) and a large shield (+2), for a total of 9 Bulk. Average person is 4-5, Professional is 6-7, correct? With this gear the average person is at -5cp/+5req, the professional at -3cp/+3req. But I'm talking about a brute with Brawn 10. No penalties and 1 more bulk to spare. Now the question.

Agamemnon wrote:You can also have 3 items readied at any given time (i.e. drawn in combat or otherwise quickly accessed without having to fumble through a pack.) These represent belted weapons and such. You can ready up to 3 additional weapons (total six) for +1 bulk.

Which means that with the above setup the Brawn 10 brute can also have at the ready a heavy crossbow (+2), a rondel (+1), and a heavy flail (+2), which all three total 5 bulk, for a mere increase of 1?

Getting him to Bulk 10, meaning no penalties at all?

To continue this inquiry, one can ready in any order he wants?

Example: Maille armor (+3), plus 3 Significant weapons (rondel, arming sword, falchion) for a total Bulk of 6.

Then for +1 bulk load three additional Cumbersome weapons (large shield, heavy crossbow, poleax; these worth Bulk 6 - the amount he is already carrying) for a grand total of 7?

If the above are true then Brawn 7 means zero penalties on a battlefield when wearing maille and carrying 6 arms, and Brawn 9 means zero penalties on the battlefield when wearing plate and carrying 6 arms.

thirtythr33 wrote:
This method:

• Starts the penalty low, so even Brawny people are guarantees to get a penalty in plate armor
• Such a low threshold also makes it clear you really don't get to conveniently forget about it
• Keeps the increase shallow enough that a weaker character can still wear significant armor and be effective
• Scales with every point of Brawn, no dead levels
• Actually less math involved than in Enc minus Brawn method, once you have your threshold table filled

.

Indeed this enables weaker characters to use significant armor and be effective, but then why wouldn't anyone, or better yet, everyone, be fully armored from the ground up? There should be a significant difference, an impact, on the fighting capacity due to armor worn. Your overall agility, movement, perception of the space around you, your capacity to react, etc, is significantly different wether you are using a light armor or a heavy layered armor and rigid, closed helm. Otherwise everyone would look like robocop...

Benedict wrote: Where do helmets fit in? Anyway. Which means that I can be waltzing in a battlefield wearing maille (+3) brandishing a battleax (+2), a greatsword (+2) and a large shield (+2), for a total of 9 Bulk. Average person is 4-5, Professional is 6-7, correct? With this gear the average person is at -5cp/+5req, the professional at -3cp/+3req. But I'm talking about a brute with Brawn 10. No penalties and 1 more bulk to spare. Now the question.

Agamemnon wrote:You can also have 3 items readied at any given time (i.e. drawn in combat or otherwise quickly accessed without having to fumble through a pack.) These represent belted weapons and such. You can ready up to 3 additional weapons (total six) for +1 bulk.

Which means that with the above setup the Brawn 10 brute can also have at the ready a heavy crossbow (+2), a rondel (+1), and a heavy flail (+2), which all three total 5 bulk, for a mere increase of 1?

Getting him to Bulk 10, meaning no penalties at all?

To continue this inquiry, one can ready in any order he wants?

Example: Maille armor (+3), plus 3 Significant weapons (rondel, arming sword, falchion) for a total Bulk of 6.

Then for +1 bulk load three additional Cumbersome weapons (large shield, heavy crossbow, poleax; these worth Bulk 6 - the amount he is already carrying) for a grand total of 7?

If the above are true then Brawn 7 means zero penalties on a battlefield when wearing maille and carrying 6 arms, and Brawn 9 means zero penalties on the battlefield when wearing plate and carrying 6 arms.

Hence the fact that I defend that certain items, be it weapons or armor, should always impose certain penalties, no matter how brawny he is. I any case you guys are forgetting something, though with this level of granularity I reckon it wouldn´t be used. A guy with 10 brawn is a giant of a man, hence his armor would also be of above average bulk. Thus a full plate armor who has an average bulk value of 12 would have around 14 or even 15 for a brute with 10 brawn.

Again, I much prefer the direct use of actually weight carried vs weight capacity of the PC (Load), with penalties modified by certain "bulkier" items.

thorgarth wrote:There should be a significant difference, an impact, on the fighting capacity due to armor worn. Your overall agility, movement, perception of the space around you, your capacity to react, etc, is significantly different wether you are using a light armor or a heavy layered armor and rigid, closed helm. Otherwise everyone would look like robocop...

The way it is now there is a big problem. There is a threshold up to which you function at full capacity. Then bam! penalties accumulate really fast. Granularity has gone out of the window, making specific builds a lot more desirable than others. Sure, attributes have become a lot less dumpy, yet no one in his right mind can now neglect Brawn. Also note that -1D6 is a lot different than +1REQ.

As for the examples above, which is more desirable?

With current write-up Brawn6 at Bulk 11 gets -5CP and +5REQ, when Brawn 10 gets -1CP and +1REQ.

With proposed tweak Brawn6 at Bulk18 gets -3 dice when Brawn10 gets -1 die.

Trust me, a -2 dice penalty is no laughing matter. It wasn't even under 'Bastards where dice exploded. Now its even more significant. A REQ - pronounced "wreck" - penalty is wrecking (pun intended) things for lower Brawns.

thorgarth wrote:Hence the fact that I defend that certain items, be it weapons or armor, should always impose certain penalties, no matter how brawny he is. I any case you guys are forgetting something, though with this level of granularity I reckon it wouldn´t be used. A guy with 10 brawn is a giant of a man, hence his armor would also be of above average bulk. Thus a full plate armor who has an average bulk value of 12 would have around 14 or even 15 for a brute with 10 brawn.

Likewise a guy with a Brawn of 2 is a really lean and short fellow and his armor is less bulkier by this kind of logic. Which requires different bulk ratings accounting for user size (Brawn 1 to 10), be it weapons, armor, or whatever. Not my cup of tea.

thorgarth wrote:Again, I much prefer the direct use of actually weight carried vs weight capacity of the PC (Load), with penalties modified by certain "bulkier" items.

There is a twofold problem with this suggestion.

• You have to monitor specific weight per item. Too much bookeeping. In extremes its not unlike DnD monty haul syndrome, where a single gold piece can tip the scales and you end up encumbered.
• Requires numerous rules exceptions per bulky item. It is a band aid, and bad at that, because it adds even more bookeeping.

All in all I prefer it when things are both granular and modular without diverting much from the core mechanic. But that's me.

Benedict wrote:

thorgarth wrote:Hence the fact that I defend that certain items, be it weapons or armor, should always impose certain penalties, no matter how brawny he is. I any case you guys are forgetting something, though with this level of granularity I reckon it wouldn´t be used. A guy with 10 brawn is a giant of a man, hence his armor would also be of above average bulk. Thus a full plate armor who has an average bulk value of 12 would have around 14 or even 15 for a brute with 10 brawn.

Likewise a guy with a Brawn of 2 is a really lean and short fellow and his armor is less bulkier by this kind of logic. Which requires different bulk ratings accounting for user size (Brawn 1 to 10), be it weapons, armor, or whatever. Not my cup of tea.

thorgarth wrote:Again, I much prefer the direct use of actually weight carried vs weight capacity of the PC (Load), with penalties modified by certain "bulkier" items.

There is a twofold problem with this suggestion.

• You have to monitor specific weight per item. Too much bookeeping. In extremes its not unlike DnD monty haul syndrome, where a single gold piece can tip the scales and you end up encumbered.
• Requires numerous rules exceptions per bulky item. It is a band aid, and bad at that, because it adds even more bookeeping.

All in all I prefer it when things are both granular and modular without diverting much from the core mechanic. But that's me.

I can understand that other players may be more comfortable with different levels of detail and granularity. Personally I prefer a bit more detail, hence the fact that the size of the character should influence the size of wearable items, specifically armor.

As for the preference for actual weight carried vs load capacity it doesn´ actually need to create a micro-managing problem (which is in fact the only issue I have with the mechanic in MML). There should be some buffers included which creat a threshold bellow which certain items are not counted unless taken in bulk, which is actually the solution given here for items with 0 Bulk.

Anyway, one of the things I´ve already hinted here is that there seems to be almost a compulsion to wear the heaviest armor possible, simply put because the system doesn´t seem to (and if I´m wrong I apologize) reflect the benefits of fighting light, with close to no weight or encumbrance. What I mean is the modifiers due to encumbrance shouldn´t be from Zero to Negative but from Positive (from fighting lightly) to Zero (with average Bulk value) to Negative (fighting with above average, for your brawn or whatever stat it reflects this reality, bulk).

e.g. A nimble fighter wearing a gambeson (no helm or open helm) and using a light weapon is much faster, agile and has a better perception of the fight (and thus can react better and faster) than one fighter close to it´s brawn value in bulk (due to armor and weapons) and much better than one enclosed in a fun plate armor with great helm and using a heavy 2handed mace. It´s not just that this later case should be penalized, the lighter warrior should have some bonus to his capacity, and thus creating a more dynamic system. One that actually allows for the use of light armor. Of course light armor makes you faster (or better yet, doesn´t make you slower) BUT you really can´t rely on it´s capacity to save your skin when your opponent finally gets you.

In the light of this I would propose something like this:

- First of all not using Brawn directly, but this Stat*2+5. This gives us a bit more granularity to better adjudicate the various bulk values. Designate this Stat as Load.
- Taking into account a scale of 1 to 10 in Brawn values, and using 4 or 5 as average values, this would mean that "Load" would be 15 for a brawn 5 character.
- A full suit of plate should impose a penalty on an average person so consider a bulk of 18 or something like this. Consider 2 bulk value per length of weapon (some weapons could have a 3 bulk per length given their specific qualities like being heavily front loaded, etc...).

With this in mind:

Not Encumbered (0 bulk to 1/4 load) -(+3)
V. Light Encumbrance (up to 1/2 load) - (+2)
Light Encumbrance (2/3 Load) - (+1)
Average (up to Load) - 0
Medium Encumbrance ( Load +1/4) - (-1)
Significant Encumbrance (Load + 1/2) - (-2)
Heavy Encumbrance (Load +2/3) - (-)
Extreme Encumbrance (Load*2) - (-4)

e.g. A guy with Branw 5 would have Load= 15

Not Encumbered (Up to 4 Bulk) -(+3)
V. Light Encumbrance (up to 8 bulk) - (+2)
Light Encumbrance (up to 10 Bulk) - (+1)
Average (up to 15 Bulk) - 0
Medium Encumbrance ( Up to 19 Bulk) - (-1)
Significant Encumbrance (Up to 23) - (-2)
Heavy Encumbrance (Up to 25) - (-3)
Extreme Encumbrance (Up to 30) - (-4)

This would mean that a person with Brawn 2 hardly would use a Full Suit of Plate, but then would it be logic to do so AND function? Most likely it would mean that such a person would use a chest plate with lighter armor protection other less critical zones. Or even more likely would use an altogether lighter armor even for chest.

Actually, all this isn't reflected in reality. Correct me if I missed something, but a historical fighter ALWAYS wore armor if he was able to afford it. Light troops were peasants without the funds to equip protective stuff. As soon as plate armor became affordable, nearly everyone who went to battle wore it, until the time when blackpowder was introduced to the battlefields (I know, this is simplified, but it applies to close 90% of cases). Nobles in Germanic tribes were the first to acquire maille from the Romans and Celts. Warriors who fought naked were either crazy (including funny ideologies) or poor.

So armor wasn't so much in the way, as anyone who had it considerd not wearing it. I believe that fantasy fiction made us think that fighting unarmored had any advantage at all. There is a good reason why the Roman legions were superior for many decades over the "barbarian" tribes (in open battle) until they themselves started to wear armor or applied other fighting techniques (hit and run, horse archers, etc.).

The question is: does SaS want to be historical fiction? TRoS started out that way and BoB inherited a lot of that. Armored fighters were mostly superior due to very powerful damage soaking against certain Insta-death(TM) if you are hit without protection.

Anyways, until now, 33 and Benedict have presented their vision and I personally like it more that the weight depending stuff. Researching proper weights alone is a pain in the ass. Often the weights in RPG books are very far from reality. Flat bulk values depending on other game-parameters like the AV or reach are easy to apply and don't need any cross-referencing and book-keeping beyond what is required anyways.

I am and will always be in favor of rules that allow for a free-flow gaming experience where a minimum of rules-searching, math and book keeping is required. SaS has done many steps in this direction, which I like a lot. Keep it coming!

EinBein wrote:Actually, all this isn't reflected in reality. Correct me if I missed something, but a historical fighter ALWAYS wore armor if he was able to afford it.

Exactly. Historically the guys who were most succesful were the ones who created/adopted/refined new technologies first. In the case of warfare that means better armor and higher grade materials for arms, leading to more options for tactical innovations.

Homer spends almost one rhapsody explaining why Hector's superb spear throw could not possibly pierce Achilles' new shield. The Greeks repelled a vastly superior in terms of numbers and logistics army from Persia because of tactics and better armor. Alexander the Great was mainly succesful because of his mobile armored cavalry and his heavily armored yet mobile infrantry. And so on.

Apart from the historical references though, there are also some points from a rules-point-of-view we should consider. See below.

thorgarth wrote:Personally I prefer a bit more detail, hence the fact that the size of the character should influence the size of wearable items, specifically armor.

That is understandable. Still it creates inconsistencies with the core of the game as it is. Should his bigger size affect his movement range? Give him a reach advantage? I can imagine you saying "yes". However 'Bastards opted to adress such things abstractly, and the answer was "no". This abstract approach was one of the coolest points of 'Bastards, as opposed lets say to TRoS.

thorgarth wrote:Anyway, one of the things I´ve already hinted here is that there seems to be almost a compulsion to wear the heaviest armor possible, simply put because the system doesn´t seem to (and if I´m wrong I apologize) reflect the benefits of fighting light, with close to no weight or encumbrance.

No need to apologize. Still I must point out that you have misinterperted some things.

If you base your observations from the 'Bastards draft, which I assume you do, there are explicit reasons why you should or shouldn't wear full armor:

1. You need high Priority in Class to afford the best possible armor. Meaning less points for Attributes and Proficiencies.

2. Armor penalizes directly your Combat Pool (CP).

CP is used for : Initiative in 1vsMany situations, position for effect, power maneuvers (AC), resolve attack/defense, resolve preempting attacks, and all the above spread into 2 consecutive phases (Tempi).

Combine that with a smaller CP (see the previous point) and you end with something like this:

You have 12CP (Agility 3 + Cunning 3 + Proficiency 6) and your opponent has 17CP (Agility 4 + Cunning 4 + Proficiency 9). You wear a full plate suit (-3CP) and he is wearing a long gambesson (-0CP). Making it a 9CP vs 17CP situation.

Which means he can muster almost double your CP and do a lot of nasty thins to you, like Gouge or Snap, which by the way bypass armor altogether. Or smack your genitals with a warhammer, or any other armor piercing weapon.

3. Heavy armor is either worn by nobility in ceremonies, or anyone who can get it in a battlefield. Waltzing around in town in battlefield gear will get you arrested, spending the night in a dungeon, if lucky. Otherwise you end up in the wrong end of a rope, while someone else enjoys that heavy armor.

Fighting lightly is already a thing: you use full CP.

Also consider this. A static bonus is a lot more impactful on lower CPs than higher CPs. Giving a +3 bonus for fighting lightly is a bigger boost to a CP of 5 as opposed to a CP of 17.

In 'Scoundrels, unless grossly mistaken, your CP is: Reflex + Proficiency (+Drive if applicable). Reflex is (Agility+Cunning)/2 round up. Which means smaller CPs than the ones presented in 'Bastards. Meaning a max -4CP penalty is not small at all, no matter what your total CP is.

EinBein wrote:Researching proper weights alone is a pain in the ass.

Couldn't agree more. And an even bigger PITA to keep track of during play.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Another thing. The CP penalty of 'Bastards was really neat. One of the suggestions floating around was that weapons and shields should also get their respective CP penalties. In my mind this would be perfect.

A more detailed encumbrance system, at least for my point of view, is unecessary. Still if you are hell bent that this is the right way to go, I'm onboard with this.

Still I'll say it once again: I honestly believe that 33's suggestion does more justice to the concepts already presented by you guys so far. Just saying.

Benedict wrote:

EinBein wrote:Actually, all this isn't reflected in reality. Correct me if I missed something, but a historical fighter ALWAYS wore armor if he was able to afford it.

Exactly. Historically the guys who were most succesful were the ones who created/adopted/refined new technologies first. In the case of warfare that means better armor and higher grade materials for arms, leading to more options for tactical innovations.

Homer spends almost one rhapsody explaining why Hector's superb spear throw could not possibly pierce Achilles' new shield. The Greeks repelled a vast superior army from Persia because of tactics and better armor. Alexander the Great was mainly succesful because of his mobile armored cavalry and his heavily armored yet mobile infrantry. And so on.

Apart from the historical references though, there are also some points from a rules-point-of-view we should consider. See below.

thorgarth wrote:Personally I prefer a bit more detail, hence the fact that the size of the character should influence the size of wearable items, specifically armor.

That is understandable. Still it creates inconsistencies with the core of the game as it is. Should his bigger size affect his movement range? Give him a reach advantage? I can imagine you saying "yes". However 'Bastards opted to adress such things abstractly, and the answer was "no". This abstract approach was one of the coolest points of 'Bastards, as opposed lets say to TRoS.

thorgarth wrote:Anyway, one of the things I´ve already hinted here is that there seems to be almost a compulsion to wear the heaviest armor possible, simply put because the system doesn´t seem to (and if I´m wrong I apologize) reflect the benefits of fighting light, with close to no weight or encumbrance.

No need to apologize. Still I must point out that you have misinterperted some things.

If you base your observations from the 'Bastards draft, there are explicit reasons why you should or shouldn't wear full armor:
1. You need high Priority in Class to afford the best possible armor. Meaning less points for Attributes and Proficiencies.

2. Armor directly penalizes your Combat Pool (CP). CP is used for : Initiative in 1vsMany situations, position for effect, power maneuvers (AC), resolve attack/defense, resolve preempting attacks, and all the above spread into 2 consecutive phases (Tempi). Combine that with a smaller CP (see the previous point) and you end with something like this: You have 12CP (Agility 3 + Cunning 3 + Proficiency 6) and your opponent has 17CP (Agility 4 + Cunning 4 + Proficiency 9). You wear a full plate suit (-3CP) and he is wearing a long gambesson (-0CP). Making it a 9CP vs 17CP situation. Which means he can muster almost double your CP and do a lot of nasty thins to you, like Gouge or Snap, which by the way bypass armor altogether. Or smack your genitals with a warhammer, or any other armor piercing weapon.

3. Heavy armor is either worn by nobility in ceremonies, or anyone who can get it in a battlefield. Waltzing around in town will get you arrested, spending the night in a dungeon, if lucky. Otherwise you end up in the wrong end of a rope, while someone else enjoys that heavy armor.

Fighting lightly is already a thing: you use full CP.

Also consider this. A static bonus is a lot more impactful on lower CPs than higher CPs. Giving a +3 bonus for fighting lightly is a bigger boost to a CP of 5 as opposed to a CP of 17.

In 'Scoundrels, unless grossly mistaken, your CP is: Reflex + Proficiency (+Drive if applicable). Reflex is (Agility+Cunning)/2 round up. Which means smaller CPs than the ones presented in 'Bastards. Meaning a max -4CP penalty is not small at all, no matter what your total CP is.

EinBein wrote:Researching proper weights alone is a pain in the ass.

Couldn't agree more. And an even bigger PITA to keep track of.

Several points here but starting with the last, which seems a false issue simply because either weight or bulk, whichever measuring unit is used it has to be researched, pondered and balanced in a systematic way. Actually Bulk, which is based on several factors imposes other difficulties that a straight weight factor does. And in any case I used Bulk in the example I gave above.

Now to the beginning . Regarding the progressive use of heavier armor this is basically due to the progressive use of heavier (meaning more powerful weapons) and the better technology which makes heavier armor not only more affordable BUT less cumbersome, although social and historical factors also influence the use of armor and weapons. BUT you need to take this into context. And to make this point easier to understand I will use the extreme example, seemingly contradictory, of the joust/tournament full suits of plate. Those armors were indeed almost impossible to penetrate under normal conditions, even those suits used for melee combat (in some, if not most cases, the suit is the same as for mounted combat - some interchangeable pieces). BUT how long do you think a warrior could fight while wearing such suits. And how well would he be able to react to a faster opponent or even see/perceive his opponent´s movements if he was much faster (given the VERY LIMITED field of vision with the helms used)?

The fact is the heavy armor affords a greater deal of protection which in most cases outweighed combat capacity. This is due to the fact that historical combat was MASS combat, not very small skirmishes of 4 or 5 vs 4 or 5. In mass combat you would be attacked from several angles, by enemies that engaged you directly and indirectly, on and off. It´s a very chaotic scene where passive protection is much more important then active offensive capacity.

On the other hand how do Elite teams approach combat (modern)?!? Using the best gear, no doubt, but you will see that they go much lighter then the common troops.

Now, on a 1 vs 1 or very light scale combat Armor is less important because other factors take on a larger importance. Agility and movement capability, reflexes, endurance (yes, sounds contradictory but endurance is very important at this level of combat), perception, active defenses AND offensive capacity. If your movement and perception is heavily affected because you are wearing heavy armor AND helm and using a very heavy weapon you WILL look like a turtle compared to a lighter and nimbler opponent. He will be able to circle around and get out of your limited field of vision a lot of the time, which you will try to counteract, and thus expanding more energy. And how can your opponent afford to do that in this case and not in mass combat? well, simply put, he has the "space" and opportunity to do it because he isn´t threatened by a legion of enemies which may strike him from any angle at any time. Even in Formation combat there were always several possible angles and enemies that can strike at you, and everything was always in motion.

Not so in low scale combat...

Regarding what you said about the possible benefits of using lighter armor. Well yes, you need to spend a higher priority to have access to heavier armor but that only applies at the start... After game starts one can always adquire heavy armor without such restraints, and if heavy armor was so much better, under every condition and without exception, that would happen 24/7.

The example you gave on point 2 it´s a bit biased. By giving the fighter wearing the gambeson higher skills/atribute you create a false sensation of the overall impact of the use of heavy armor. After all if both were identical in terms of stats the diference in the dice pool would only be -3 for the fighter wearing full plate and not near half.

As it stands fighting lightly isn´t "the thing" because there is no benefit in fighting lighter than your normal "bulk limit", meaning all is the same be you wearing no armor and fighting with a short sword or using a armor and heavier weapon IF it doesn´t pass your base Brawn threshold. This realities are not the same thing.

But again it´s a matter of level of detail.

In any case the impact of head protection NEEDS to be addressed. It has a definite impact in combat, mainly because of vision and perception limitations, but also given the fatigue factor of enclosed, heavy helmets.

thorgarth wrote:Now, on a 1 vs 1 or very light scale combat Armor is less important because other factors take on a larger importance. Agility and movement capability, reflexes, endurance (yes, sounds contradictory but endurance is very important at this level of combat), perception, active defenses AND offensive capacity. If your movement and perception is heavily affected because you are wearing heavy armor AND helm and using a very heavy weapon you WILL look like a turtle compared to a lighter and nimbler opponent. He will be able to circle around and get out of your limited field of vision a lot of the time, which you will try to counteract, and thus expanding more energy. And how can your opponent afford to do that in this case and not in mass combat? well, simply put, he has the "space" and opportunity to do it because he isn´t threatened by a legion of enemies which may strike him from any angle at any time. Even in Formation combat there were always several possible angles and enemies that can strike at you, and everything was always in motion.

Can't say that I disagree with the above. However all of the above are irrelevant with the discussion at hand.

Because the discussion is not about how to model combat realistically in a game in general. The discussion is about the transition from an excisting set of rules that has specific encumbrance effects to a new set of rules with a new encumbrance mechanic.

thorgarth wrote:Regarding what you said about the possible benefits of using lighter armor. Well yes, you need to spend a higher priority to have access to heavier armor but that only applies at the start... After game starts one can always adquire heavy armor without such restraints, and if heavy armor was so much better, under every condition and without exception, that would happen 24/7.

Depending on what a kind of game one runs.

If its DnD ported to 'Scoundrels, then yes, you can always go and buy the suit after Da 1st or 2nd Dungeon. Just teasing.

If its not that kind of game, then its not that easy to acquire that plate suit. One has to raise his financial status AND social status to afford it and not be persecuted or scorned for using battle gear. One could steal it and flee from the Law for it. So no, it won't happen "under every condition and without exception".

To be more exact, in most high fantasy games this statement is true. 'Bastards and 'Scoundrels aim at more down-to-Earth gritty situations. Yet nothing prevents you from running high fantasy with it.

Still those ifs are irrelevant. The only way to measure things fairly is to use session 1 characters. Otherwise we get an endless string of "what-ifs" from both sides and pointless arguing.

thorgarth wrote:The example you gave on point 2 it´s a bit biased. By giving the fighter wearing the gambeson higher skills/atribute you create a false sensation of the overall impact of the use of heavy armor. After all if both were identical in terms of stats the diference in the dice pool would only be -3 for the fighter wearing full plate and not near half.

With all the above in mind, I believe that claiming the example is biased is a bit extreme. As I said above, an endless string of "what-ifs".

Still I'll answer to your querry.

A 3 dice difference would mean that the unarmored guy would have 3 extra dice to do any of the following

• Position for effect, giving a Disadvantage on his armored foe
• Favor an unarmored vital and retain 2 extra dice
• Fuel a 2AC maneuver, like Counter
• Overinvest with bigger chance of higher MoS
• Preempt and strike a vulnerable location

It should be noted that a full plate suit covers everything but armpits, face, crown, and back of the knees. With a closed helm you get to -4. You can also spend one extra die to cover either armpits or back of knees. That's -5CP.

Still a 3dice difference is not small. It is significant.

Because if they both have 16CP it becomes 13v16. With the overinvesting scenario above that could eaily be 7v11 during first tempo.

Which means 74.842% MoS1 for the unarmored guy vs 14.355% MoS1 for the armored guy. I rest my case.

thorgarth wrote:As it stands fighting lightly isn´t "the thing" because there is no benefit in fighting lighter than your normal "bulk limit", meaning all is the same be you wearing no armor and fighting with a short sword or using a armor and heavier weapon IF it doesn´t pass your base Brawn threshold. This realities are not the same thing.

That's why I support thirtythr33's proposal over the current write up. Because it penalizes more evenly all Brawn ranks, without making low-med Brawn / stellar Reflex builds less desirable.

I like it when Benedict and I agree on things. He's gone and made all the excellent points I was thinking as I read through the last 2 pages of this thread, so I don't need to type anything.

Agamemnon wrote:But there are 26 locations -- and at least 34 if we assume that you now need to track the backs of the legs and the spine as separate armor locations as you've suggested.

Heh. I was counting Left and Right as a single locations. You can make a pretty simple modification to treat all the locations separately, including back and hamstring. I don't know exactly how you got 26 or 34 locations though. I count 28.

Here's the complete chart I used:

SINGLE LOCATIONS (10)
Crown
Face
Neck
Ribs
Armpit
Back
Abs
Hips
Groin
Hamstring

LEFT AND RIGHT DUPLICATES (2x 9)
Shoulder
Upper Arm
Elbow
Forearm
Hand
Thigh
Knee
Shin
Foot

Yes, you have two armpits and two hamstrings but I am counting them each as single locations because I have never seen a piece of armor that would cover each side with separate pieces. Anything that covers armpit or hamstring is constructed as a shirt, skirt or leggings (Gussets are sewn onto an undershirt, for example).

So, considering these locations that means Maille has 28 total locations it can cover and plate can have 26 (Plate can't cover Armpit or Hamstring). That would give you the following two options, depending on taste:

CASE1
Plate: 1 Bulk per 2 hit locations, rounded up. (2 for breastplate, 9 for corselet, 13 for every slot)
Maille: 1 Bulk per 3 hit locations, rounded up. (3 for Byrnie, 7 for Hauberk, 10 for every slot)

CASE2
Plate: 1 Bulk per 3 hit locations, rounded up. (2 for breastplate, 6 for corselet, 9 for every slot)
Maille: 1 Bulk per 4 hit locations, rounded up. (2 for Byrnie, 5 for Hauberk, 7 for every slot)

Keep in mind that the reason the Byrnie and breastplate have very similar bulk is because it is covering the shoulder and armpit, which the breastplate doesn't. Likewise why full maille is so close to full plate, because it covers armpit and hamstring additionally.

Personally, I think I would prefer the slightly higher penalties in CASE1. In the second case though, it happens that Maille and Plate would cost exactly the same amount of Bulk per total AV, which irrationally pleases me greatly (12AV= 1 Bulk).