SagaciousAscendingHero
Member
Has anyone done a rework up of the armors, similar to the Armorium for weapons?
Armor Fix?
- Thread starter SagaciousAscendingHero
- Start date
cyl
Creepy smile
Well there was this thread where you have good inspiration: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6803
But there's no real problem with armors except that hardness doesn't do its job.
The problem comes more from the damage trait of some weapons and the Piecing tag.
But there's no real problem with armors except that hardness doesn't do its job.
The problem comes more from the damage trait of some weapons and the Piecing tag.
cyl
Creepy smile
Well if you fix hardness to act as a post soak mitigator, min damage no longer remains a problem... but it's true, min damage IS a problem in the actual system :|
We tried a version of the game where min damage was either 1 or your overwhelming tag. My character was rich, and bought a heavy suite of mortal armor. This, plus the spamming of Iron Skin Concentration, means she never too more than 1 die of damage, and that only happened on the rare instance when she didn't successfully roll ISC.
Flyck
Senior Member
I think I'm most in favor of capping the Armor Reduction from Piercing to the Attacker's Strength value, and using CYL's Hardness modification.
Hence, piercing has a more profound effect the higher your Str. At a Str of 5 with a Piercing weapon, you'll shave off 5 L/B soak from any armor value (with still no effect on natural soak values). Strength suddenly becomes a bit more valuable, and the heavier armor values don't take quite as bad of a hit from Piercing weapons (5L/5B max lost as opposed to 7 to 8 L/B). The Piercing soak reduction = Strength of Attacker does penalize weaker armor more (like chain shirts or breastplates), but artifact versions only loose out on about 1 or 2 more points of soak.
As far as CYL's Hardness mod (take current hardness values, and basically divide them by 3 rounding up), and apply it directly against Ping damage, you help to mitigate the 'ping-spam' issue.
With these house-rules the massive 2-handed piercing weapons don't blow through *quite* as much soak as they normally would, and wearing expensive artifact heavy-armor is no longer a death-trap against high-rate ping spammers. I think it would make a major difference to the value of armor in general (or at least artifact armor that you're spending a bunch of background points for).
Hence, piercing has a more profound effect the higher your Str. At a Str of 5 with a Piercing weapon, you'll shave off 5 L/B soak from any armor value (with still no effect on natural soak values). Strength suddenly becomes a bit more valuable, and the heavier armor values don't take quite as bad of a hit from Piercing weapons (5L/5B max lost as opposed to 7 to 8 L/B). The Piercing soak reduction = Strength of Attacker does penalize weaker armor more (like chain shirts or breastplates), but artifact versions only loose out on about 1 or 2 more points of soak.
As far as CYL's Hardness mod (take current hardness values, and basically divide them by 3 rounding up), and apply it directly against Ping damage, you help to mitigate the 'ping-spam' issue.
With these house-rules the massive 2-handed piercing weapons don't blow through *quite* as much soak as they normally would, and wearing expensive artifact heavy-armor is no longer a death-trap against high-rate ping spammers. I think it would make a major difference to the value of armor in general (or at least artifact armor that you're spending a bunch of background points for).
Virjigorm
Member
My group never adopted the "power combat" minimum damage rules that were offered when the 1st edition players' guide released. This was the rule that was made standard in 2e with the min damage = Essence concept. I've always felt that this minimum damage rule was just giving free damage dice to characters with the charms to buy their own anyway. It also makes the O and P tags useless on weapons. Using the old min damage rule, you only get 1 die if they soak it all. This also only applies to lethal and aggravated damage. It makes high damage attacks matter and restores the value of good armor, Piercing weapons, and Overwhelming damage. I honestly can't figure out why they ever instituted the newer rule in the first place. If anything, (min damage = Essence) sounds like a good Solar Hero charm to me.
cyl
Creepy smile
Simple math: Martial Artist vs Tank... Martial Artist couldn't draw first blood from Tank (and we're not talking super heavy MM armor here).
'tis why this rule was made in the first place IMHO.... that and the fact that 2 tanks could fight for hours (IRL time) before one of them bites the dust.
wordman
Two Thousand Club
Because in (pre power combat) 1E, everyone bitched about how armor made you invulnerable.Virjigorm said:
cyl
Creepy smile
Yeah that too :mrgreen:wordman said:
Kyeudo
One Thousand Club
So it was broken one way, then they fixed it so hard it broke the other way? That definately sounds like Sidereal work there.wordman said:
Virjigorm
Member
I've never seen any invulnerability in armored characters, even after converting to 2e without using the new min damage rule. Sure, the DB in superheavy plate isn't getting killed by a cheesy ping tactic from a group of extras, but I don't find that unreasonable, and those extras only get 1 die in either system. Is a stamina specialized Lunar with all his armor charms up really hard to kill barehanded? Yeah, even for a Sidereal martial artist. Can a Sworn Brotherhood of DBs in heavy artifact armor give a young Solar circle a run for it's money, or maybe even defeat them? Sure.
It seems to me that if every character can deal at least 5 damage per attack as soon as they get their Essence to 5, what value do the big weapons or damaging combat charms have? If a grand goremaul and a steel dagger come out of the combat steps with the same damage result, what's the benefit of the slower heavy weapon? Why bother getting Hungry Tiger if you can just flurry with bare hands and deal 5 dice per hit, regardless of armor? Hardness might factor in against some low damage attacks, but most hardness values are too low to matter against all but extras. I know that every character does not have 5 essence, but I use the number because any PC with a hundred exp can get there, especially if they are using a combat tactic like this.
I don't mean to suggest that heavy armor and weapon users should be at a lopsided advantage as a result of the rules. I do think, however, that the current minimum damage rule overwhelmingly favors fast-attacking ping damage tactics, which I feel slow the pace of the game and foster boredom among players and ST when overused. If using the old rule means that dagger-wielders need to use charms, stunts, or poison to work around the defenses of heavily armored opponents, my players and I can live with that amount or realism.
It seems to me that if every character can deal at least 5 damage per attack as soon as they get their Essence to 5, what value do the big weapons or damaging combat charms have? If a grand goremaul and a steel dagger come out of the combat steps with the same damage result, what's the benefit of the slower heavy weapon? Why bother getting Hungry Tiger if you can just flurry with bare hands and deal 5 dice per hit, regardless of armor? Hardness might factor in against some low damage attacks, but most hardness values are too low to matter against all but extras. I know that every character does not have 5 essence, but I use the number because any PC with a hundred exp can get there, especially if they are using a combat tactic like this.
I don't mean to suggest that heavy armor and weapon users should be at a lopsided advantage as a result of the rules. I do think, however, that the current minimum damage rule overwhelmingly favors fast-attacking ping damage tactics, which I feel slow the pace of the game and foster boredom among players and ST when overused. If using the old rule means that dagger-wielders need to use charms, stunts, or poison to work around the defenses of heavily armored opponents, my players and I can live with that amount or realism.
cyl
Creepy smile
Hence the hardness fix.
It dampens the ping spamming option to a minimum, preserves the interest of high damage heavy weapons (since it competes with their Overwhelming Values witout completely defeating them), but ensures that the lowest magical armor makes you immune to the weakest blows (like a kick from an extra).
The problem is: balance.
While a weapon is a mean to deal significantly more damage, an armor is not a mean to take significantly less damage (because of the P tag and the ridiculously high damage ratings).
Weapons always defeat armors and not by a few points compare grimcleaver vs super heavy armor, a nice 9 post soak damage... even if you reduce the cost of armors, it's still not even close to being balanced.
One blow and you have a significant chance of loosing 2+ HLS... while you have 7 of them.
The ping in itself is not a bad idea, it helps preserving a certain pace in the combat and a sense of danger... but the other parts of the system (damage ratings, P tag, useless hardness, and charm activation restrictions) make players paranoid and have them focusing on defense (bad
) instead of allowing them to have fun with their awesome powers & toys (good 
).
It dampens the ping spamming option to a minimum, preserves the interest of high damage heavy weapons (since it competes with their Overwhelming Values witout completely defeating them), but ensures that the lowest magical armor makes you immune to the weakest blows (like a kick from an extra).
The problem is: balance.
While a weapon is a mean to deal significantly more damage, an armor is not a mean to take significantly less damage (because of the P tag and the ridiculously high damage ratings).
Weapons always defeat armors and not by a few points compare grimcleaver vs super heavy armor, a nice 9 post soak damage... even if you reduce the cost of armors, it's still not even close to being balanced.
One blow and you have a significant chance of loosing 2+ HLS... while you have 7 of them.
The ping in itself is not a bad idea, it helps preserving a certain pace in the combat and a sense of danger... but the other parts of the system (damage ratings, P tag, useless hardness, and charm activation restrictions) make players paranoid and have them focusing on defense (bad
) instead of allowing them to have fun with their awesome powers & toys (good ).
wordman
Two Thousand Club
If the root of the "armor problem" is ping spamming, then I'm still fairly convinced that the main issue is actually flurries, not armor. If your entire combat system is based around "ticks" of time, and "speed" of action, then the whole notion of flurries doesn't even make any sense within the simulation. But, whatever. This has been discussed before.
I suppose a more constructive comment my be to re-mention the degrading ping idea. In fact, that whole thread may be of use to the original poster.
I suppose a more constructive comment my be to re-mention the degrading ping idea. In fact, that whole thread may be of use to the original poster.