Zornhau Forums

thorgarth wrote:From what I´ve gathered in BoB the CP loss was very similar if not equal to plate. How will it be treated under this new bulk system?

The armor values are going to be the same as they were in the dueling kit, at least for now. They already operate in the desired range and no one seemed to have a problem with the penalties as they existed so I'm not going to reinvent the wheel.

thorgarth wrote:In terms of armor detail granularity is a "bit" rough (for instance there is only one entry for mail armor, treating single, double, butted or brazed mail as offering the same level of protection),

There is really only so much granularity you can get in the number ranges we have. For our purposes maille is maille. Butted maille wasn't even really used as armor in the area that we focused our stuff on covering (Europe from medieval to renaissance period) so is outside of the scope of things that we are worried about. It was used in the east to some degree, along with weapons we're not presently trying to model, but if it absolutely came up I'd just give it a -1r discount and a make it 2M and be done with it. We likewise didn't really find "double maille" to be worth fooling with because the period in which it might have seen some use was a short window that we aren't concentrating on., Even then no one really had a full suit of "doubled maille," they's just have a thicker weave through the chest. Even "Regular" maille isn't homogeneous in its density and weight throughout the body. It's usually heavier on the chest and lighter the further you go out on the limbs. If you really wanted, it's simple enough to make it +1 or +1r in cost and bump the AV to 4M.

As an aside, plate has a similar issue. If we were going to really get into all this, we'd need to start differentiating between the inside and outside of the elbow the way we do for the knees. We'd need to model the differences in what is actually covered by late 14th century plate vs 15th vs 16th century plates. We'd further need to get into the differences in armor quality between cheaper, softer-iron plates that your beggar-knight might wear and the top-of-the-line stuff worn by the most wealthy. We'd need to model the difference between the thickness and effectiveness of this plate on the chest (where later armors often even had layered pieces, breaking the cuirass into plackart vs. breastplate) vs the significantly thinner material that encased the arms and legs as a function of weight distribution. We'd need to account for harnesses that were meant for different purposes (mounted plate vs foot plate, combat plate vs jousting or tournament plate), and so on.

At some point, however, we have to draw the line for what the return on investment is for this kind of modeling. While the game has a very detailed combat system and (at least in the author's opinion) one of the most realistic weapon v. armor interactions you can model, we don't want the minutia of this stuff to become cumbersome and detract from the whole point of all this -- telling cool stories.

Agamemnon wrote: At some point, however, we have to draw the line for what the return on investment is for this kind of modeling. While the game has a very detailed combat system and (at least in the author's opinion) one of the most realistic weapon v. armor interactions you can model, we don't want the minutia of this stuff to become cumbersome and detract from the whole point of all this -- telling cool stories.

Agree. Different games have different levels of detail. I reckon I will leave realistic weapon vs armor interactions to Metal Magic and Lore RPG and focus on the different combat system interaction given by SaS (though I´m having a very hard time accepting weapons stats as they are in the BoB DuelKit, basically hoping they have been changed already in SaS).

Here´s to hoping the new draft will be available to download next Thursday.

Agamemnon wrote:Luckily, it was also my birthday so I had a fresh supply of whiskey over which to mull the topic.

Happy birthday!

Agamemnon wrote:Leave bulk the same, but split armor off into its own category. Each item has a bulk ranging from insignificant to cumbersome (0-2) with insignificant items not really needing to be tracked unless the character is wearing them as a readied item, and most things just being a "significant" 1 bulk item.

So a carried breastplate has Bulk 2 and a worn breastplate has Bulk 0 and a CP penalty? I kind of really like this idea.

Agamemnon wrote:Armor is now it's own thing. It works on the exact same scale that it did in the previous draft (see: the Dueling Kit) but with a tweak. Your Grit tap value reduces the penalty for armor bulk. This works out well since a suit of full plate is 3 and a closed helm is 1. It's mechanically impossible under the normal character generation rules to have a GTV higher than 2, so someone in heavy armor will always feel a penalty from it.

If you are going back to using the fractional CP penalty, there is no reason you have to use the GTV; you can use Grit/4 and carry the fraction forward. Ie, Someone with Grit 5 gets to ignore their first 1.25 CP penalty from the armor tables. That way every point is valuable, instead of only Grit 4, 7 and 10.

Agamemnon wrote:As an added side-effect, making armor bulk track separately from item bulk means that you can choose to ignore one of those without ignoring the other. If your players are only ever really carrying their sidearm and a knife or whatever, then you don't need to worry about that section.

I also really like this point because it means you can pick up and drop items without having to recalculate your CP penalty. Likewise, you can put on a helmet without having to check your bulk.

Agamemnon wrote:The main thought on that is that we don't penalize dice pools on ability checks anywhere else. If the task itself is harder we increase the req. If it's an extremely situational thing (particularly involving state of mind or the like) then it's a dis/advantage. Adding +1 req is easier than mentally juggling +1r for task difficulty but also -1d encumbrance, but take an advantage for...

In combat, it's a -1 because combat already has you doing a ton of dice juggling so it is easier to just reduce the pool by X.

I think I would be in the -dice camp.

• It has more symmetry with -CP, making it easier to remember.
• +1Req is a 4x larger penalty than -1CP.
• -1dice is only 2x larger than -1CP.
• The Req is set by the GM, not the player. When I'm setting the Req for a task, I should be able to picture the task in my mind and say "This is Req4 to climb the rockface" and have the Req be invariant across player character.
• It is the players responsibility to manage his Encumbrance and pool sizes, therefore the penalties should be on something they are tracking (TNs or dice).
• Conceptually, wearing an overloaded backpack isn't making the cliff any more difficult to climb. It is making the person less able to climb. Rainfall making the cliff slippery is something that would be +Req.
• TNs are off limits because wounds and dis/advantage takes that up

Plus, I like the idea of picking up a fallen comrade in combat and having Bulk equal to their Brawn. Moving them a "Short range" to cover is a Req1 task. If you are an average guy (B4) moving a big guy (B7) you can drop all your weapons and take 3 Enc. It seems more reasonable that he should be rolling 1 dice at Req1 (67%) rather than rolling 4 dice at Req4 (20%).

Agamemnon wrote:At some point, however, we have to draw the line for what the return on investment is for this kind of modeling. While the game has a very detailed combat system and (at least in the author's opinion) one of the most realistic weapon v. armor interactions you can model, we don't want the minutia of this stuff to become cumbersome and detract from the whole point of all this -- telling cool stories.

I agree. There is no point in including all the different kinds of maille if they have identical rules. If, on the other hand the different kinds of maille have slightly different and intricate rules (like butted maille has -1AV to maille piercing weapons or something) then it just slows down the game without adding any depth. The optimal granularity is only adding distinctions that are large enough that they will actually change the tactics involved in the combat because that creates gameplay.

thorgarth wrote:(though I´m having a very hard time accepting weapons stats as they are in the BoB DuelKit, basically hoping they have been changed already in SaS).

I had the exact same reaction when I first saw the weapons in the dueling kit. "How is the only difference between a Spear and a Zweihander that the Spear does a Piercing Thrust and a Zweihander does a Cutting Swing!?"

Well, it's because a lot of the detail of the weapon differences is in what maneuvers are available (precision thrust vs mastercut) and what is hidden in the wound wheel (armpit vs randomized) and damage tables (low impact vs lopping off limbs).

Agamemnon wrote:The armor values are going to be the same as they were in the dueling kit, at least for now. They already operate in the desired range and no one seemed to have a problem with the penalties as they existed so I'm not going to reinvent the wheel.

It might be worth bumping up the penalty a little, since the majority of characters will have GTV1 and will reduce the penalty by 1CP. Or round up the penalty instead of down. Otherwise an average person can go up to 1.75 with no penalty (A Hauberk is 1.5 and pikeman is 1.25 in dueling kit).

If you are in the mood for streamlining, reducing book-diving and promoting custom armor combinations, the "per slot" idea can work here too.
0.25 CP pen per slot of Plate or segmented.
0.25 CP pen per 2 slots of Maille.
Assuming that left and right pairs are a single slot, just like in the dueling kit, and hamstring and back are separate slots. If you care about your armor enough to break symmetry you can handle a few fractions.

In the book you would just list all the sets like you do in the dueling kit. Then in a paragraph titled like "not enough choices?" give the CP per slot rule and let people design their own frankenstien loadouts if they like.

Here's some comparisons, showing the dueling kit penalties and the per slot method:



It all matches up really well. The only exemption to the rule would be that closed helm cost should be increased to 1cp from 0.5 because of the reduced visibility and breathing. The full suit, demilancer and corselet are 0.75 more expensive, but that will be offset by the average person having GTV1. Even if you have GTV0, closed helm and full suit is 4.75, which rounds down to 4.00 and is the absolute worst case scenario (Dueling Kit worst case adds up to 4.0, which is the same). This method also has the nice effect of stopping some from taking all the proofed plate pieces with 0CP penalty just because it has no drawback.

You can even combine the Per Location penalty and Grit/4 mitigation.

thirtythr33 wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:Armor is now it's own thing. It works on the exact same scale that it did in the previous draft (see: the Dueling Kit) but with a tweak. Your Grit tap value reduces the penalty for armor bulk. This works out well since a suit of full plate is 3 and a closed helm is 1. It's mechanically impossible under the normal character generation rules to have a GTV higher than 2, so someone in heavy armor will always feel a penalty from it.

If you are going back to using the fractional CP penalty, there is no reason you have to use the GTV; you can use Grit/4 and carry the fraction forward. Ie, Someone with Grit 5 gets to ignore their first 1.25 CP penalty from the armor tables. That way every point is valuable, instead of only Grit 4, 7 and 10.

Excellent suggestion. In essence 1Grit = 0.25CP Penalty. No dead levels at all.

So in essence you have two load scores, independent and interacting at the same time.

Worn Armor (maybe call it Mobility?) : Directly reduces CP, reduced by G score on a 1 : 0.25 ratio.

Carried stuff (Bulk) : Does nothing by itself, unless you exceed B score.

Encumbrance = Mobility + Bulk. If Encumbrance > B then difference is a die penalty, on a 1:1 ratio.

thirtythr33 wrote:I think I would be in the -dice camp.

• It has more symmetry with -CP, making it easier to remember.
• +1Req is a 4x larger penalty than -1CP.
• -1dice is only 2x larger than -1CP.
• The Req is set by the GM, not the player. When I'm setting the Req for a task, I should be able to picture the task in my mind and say "This is Req4 to climb the rockface" and have the Req be invariant across player character.
• It is the players responsibility to manage his Encumbrance and pool sizes, therefore the penalties should be on something they are tracking (TNs or dice).
• Conceptually, wearing an overloaded backpack isn't making the cliff any more difficult to climb. It is making the person less able to climb. Rainfall making the cliff slippery is something that would be +Req.
• TNs are off limits because wounds and dis/advantage takes that up

My thoughts exactly.

TNs are shifted by wound, adv, and dis. No more room there to do anything.

Anything external and indipendent to the character should be Req. Anything that comes from the character should be a die shift.

With that climbing example: high winds, while being shot at, heavy rain, a crumbling rockface, etc all should be +Req. Attempting the feat while drunk, encumbered, blindfolded, using subpar climbing gear (or even worse barehanded) etc should be dice penalties.

Benedict wrote: So in essence you have two load scores, independent and interacting at the same time.

Worn Armor (maybe call it Mobility?) : Directly reduces CP, reduced by G score on a 1 : 0.25 ratio.

Carried stuff (Bulk) : Does nothing by itself, unless you exceed B score.

Encumbrance = Mobility + Bulk. If Encumbrance > B then difference is a die penalty, on a 1:1 ratio.

I think the CP penalty is also meant to impact on attribute rolls.

I believe it is best summarized as:

Bulk ranges from 0 to 2
0 = Insignificant
1 = Significant
2 = Cumbersome
A piece of armor being worn has 0 Bulk

Only 3 items may be readied at a time.
An additional 3 items may be readied for 1 Bulk.

Gain 1 Encumbrance per Bulk above your Brawn
Gain 1 Encumbrance per Armor Penalty above your Grit/4
For each Encumbrance subtract 1 dice from the pool of any physical task, including combat

EDIT: I split off the Damage Cap and Conversion conversation off to viewtopic.php?f=13&t=373

Things like the "situational 3% bonus to throwing this weapon" are why i don't like d% systems. Also, that combat flowchart in that MML teaser pdf... that is one of the ugliest flowcharts i've ever seen.


Anyway, I really like the idea of Grit x 0.25 as a penalty reduction.
There really needs to be a better name for this - in the game i wrote before happening upon Grand Heresy, i had both Encumbrance from weight and "Impediment" that was a direct stat of the armours... just for lols gonna include that table i figure:

I like to play around a lot as you can see

So it's Thursday...
(i'm so on edge, i wanna create characters already hahaha)

nemedeus wrote:So it's Thursday...
(i'm so on edge, i wanna create characters already hahaha)

Was about to write the same thing...

It's like 6am in the US. Let the poor bastard get his coffee atleast.

thirtythr33 wrote:It's like 6am in the US. Let the poor bastard get his coffee atleast.

Ha. Thank you.

The official teaser for this week is the roll20 demo, but I'm in the middle of laying out the character creation chapters (it's always the first thing in the book but the last thing you can actually write) as we speak. I may wind up releasing that stuff as an early update if I can get the thing done and higgins to sign off on it, rather than having you wait another week. So close.

I would be happy with plain text, tbh

Meanwhile, at GH HQ, Outpost Barbossa...



I'm thinking Barb may at some point snap and kill me. That's too many ref tags for one man to bear.

Keen?

thirtythr33 wrote:Keen?

Thats the weapon's threat range. If it crits on a 19-20, with the Keen property it crits on a 17-20.

Jokes aside, probably a cognitive derived attribute, but of what purpose?

Also, why are Reflex and Speed different things when they derive from the same Attributes are can essentially be described as the same thing?

Or is reflex supposed to still be Agility + Cunning like in the last version?