Topic: Monday Mayhem - Armor Impact... Stop the hit or reduce the damage?

[Thom @ ICE]

OK, I had another topic in mind for today, but I'll shelve that for tomorrow based upon a comment from Witchking20K which brought this one to the forefront....


Should armor reduce the attack roll (either via net results on opposing rolls, or just reducing the attack directly - or should the amor reduce the damage that is calculated?


I guess for me the question is really - is a "hit" when you make contact, or is a "hit" when you cause damage?
If you go with when you make contact then armor should probably be a reduction of the final impact.
If you go with when you do damage then armor should be applied to the attack roll.


For me - I like the concept of landing a blow on the hit, but not having it do damage due to the armor because sometimes just making contact can pass along a secondary effect and it could damage the armor.  Similarly, the weapons can receive attack bonus/defense bonus/damage bonus.  Because the rapier might be able to strike the target more easily (attack bonus) than a claymore, but once they hit the Claymore does more damage (damage bonus).  Wearing armor like plate might make it easier to hit you, but it successfully absorbs a lot of the damage... 


Now this of course adds more complexity as you need to determine success of the hit, then adjust with modifiers for determining final damage - but it also makes the attack a much simpler calculation.  Combining this with the opposed roll concept:


Attack = Attack Roll + OB from Skill + Magic + Weapon Attack Bonus + Misc Modifier for situation
Defense = Defense Roll + DB from Skil + Magic + Weapon Defense Bonus + Misc Modifer for situation
Damage (if attack exceeds defense) = Net + Weapon Damage Bonus - Armor Bonus


Using standard attack the attack chart would be standard regardless of armor, and the armor would impact the critical roll/result (either reducing the Crit level or reducing the result rolled on the crit chart)


Note: No Quickness bonus for defense, because there is no quickness bonus for offense.   


Now, your armor can have different Armor Bonus values for different attack types.
You could even incorporate a Defense penalty for wearing more restrictive armor if you wanted to.


Armor wasn't designed to help you avoid being hit - it was designed to help you avoid being hurt when you were hit.


What do you all think?

[egdcltd]

I would say that, unless the armour has some sort of enchantment or improvement that allows dodging or causes attacks to miss in some other way (concealment for instance) it would reduce the damage - although certain types of armour would be more vulnerable to certain types of weapons. Chain mail, for instance, would be less effective against a rapier or similar blade.

[intothatdarkness]

I would say that, unless the armour has some sort of enchantment or improvement that allows dodging or causes attacks to miss in some other way (concealment for instance) it would reduce the damage - although certain types of armour would be more vulnerable to certain types of weapons. Chain mail, for instance, would be less effective against a rapier or similar blade.

+1. Misses should be accounted for (especially in missile combat), but that doesn't always take place.

[Thom @ ICE]

egdctld - agreed, so in that case, you are talking about calculate the blow landing first, then adjust the damage (maybe minimally for chain vs rapier - puncture attack) or maybe significantly (as in chain vs cutlass - slashing attack).

[jdale]

Affecting the attack roll is far easier. Affecting the damage makes that process more cumbersome.

That said, affecting the damage is probably more realistic and also might permit making the attack rolls more consistent with how other skill checks are resolved.

For a game with simpler resolution and less detail for damage, I think affecting the damage is the way to go. E.g. in GURPS, you have a defense roll based on the passive defense of your armor + an active defense (dodge, parry, or shield block), with a defense roll negating the attack. Then you have a damage resistance for your armor that reduces hits received. It's simple enough. But in RM you have hits, injury penalties, stun, bleeding...  damage is much more complicated.

[egdcltd]

One area where armour could affect the chance to hit would be in the armour type vs the weapon type. For example, leather armour, or other light, flexible armours, could make it easier to dodge weapons such as heavy European medieval swords. Said swords might also be less effective against such armour than, say, a katana, as those swords were designed to hit people wearing large chunks of metal and were therefore not as sharp as they could be.

You could make it really complicated, depending on the amount of realism you are aiming for.

[Jinor]

On a side note, European swords designed to attack people wearing plate tended to be thin bladed as the point was to find the gaps, not to whack someone senseless with a heavy blade. There were way better weapons against plate armor than a large sword e.g. warhammers, maces etc.

A system covering the most common armor vs weapon combinations realistically would be quite complicated. The current RM does a decent job while keeping things fun.

[egdcltd]

On a side note, European swords designed to attack people wearing plate tended to be thin bladed as the point was to find the gaps, not to whack someone senseless with a heavy blade. There were way better weapons against plate armor than a large sword e.g. warhammers, maces etc.

A system covering the most common armor vs weapon combinations realistically would be quite complicated. The current RM does a decent job while keeping things fun.

You are probably going to miss the gaps more than you hit them, though, and a razor sharp blade is not going to do well against metal.

And yes, realism would be complicated. A computer program would be the easiest way.

[tbigness]

IMO Armor reduces the damage after the hit. Light armor is designed with greater movement flexability in mind. While heavy armor is made to absorb the damage due to not being as maneuverable. The RM charts are effective in creating this with minor damage up front at a better hit capacity for heavy armor. While great damage but higher hit range for lesser armored. A tank is a tank and is made to reduce or negate damage, but is easier to hit.

[Cory Magel]

Should armor reduce the attack roll (either via net results on opposing rolls, or just reducing the attack directly - or should the amor reduce the damage that is calculated?

I say the second, the armor reduces the damage.  I won't get into an in-depth reply on this one, because there's only one example I need to think this way (which you already cover): When an attack only needs to make contact.  Yes, there are many various topics and factors that work into this, but that factor is a fairly cut and dry one.  It's easier for someone to make contact (not necc cause damage) on someone in heavier armor than the other way around and that has an impact in enough situations that I want that distinction there.

[yammahoper]

In my SM games, armors are rated for resistance versus ME, LE and BE.  My Storm Trooper armor for example is ME 20, LE 10 and BE 3.  Any Muzzle Energy 20 or less bounces off and muzzle energy over 20 are reduced by 20. Same for LE and BE (laser energy and blaster energy). 

So, could ancient armors be rated versus St mods?  AT 13 requires a St mod of +5 or blows bounce of it?

Percolating...

[Thom @ ICE]

Since you are going to reduce anyway, just apply the mod to the crit roll so that if it gets reduced it delivers less damage, and if it gets reduced below 0 it bounces off.

[Warl]

Armour reduces damage and effect.

[VladD]

I'm a bit late to this discussion but armor in melee and ranged combat is pretty complicated.

The light armors (Cloth, padded, leather) are simply meant to cushion blows or turn near hits. The user should primarily use his weapon or his movement to get out of the way. A fight between people without serious armor is over in 1-3 exchanges: 3 when you both suck, 2 when you are equal and 1 when either is better.

Medium armors, such as cuir bouille, scale and maille can stop a lot of damage but there is some way of circumventing the defense so the user still needs to do a lot of fencing or the armor protection will be worthless. Maille is pretty bad against Krush, Scale and cuir bouille can be penetrated by Puncture easily. Medium armors do work against slash or hlancing blows decently. So a fighter with medium armor is safe from most glancing blows.

Heavy armor (Lamellar and Plate) is designed to work well against most attacks. In a fight, the emphasis lies on circumventing the armor, not penetrating it. This makes a fight very one sided if an armor user is fighting someone in light armor.

A fact that I discovered wearing armor personally is that defending yourself as if you are wearing no armor in a full armor is going to make you fatigued very quickly. Better to concentrate on getting your opponent down than to avoid getting hit. This is not to say that you should try to head bash every attack from the opponent, but you will be better off trying to minimize your defense in favor of offense.

Shields play a big role in employing the right defense. 2 handed weapons never were common before the advent of full heavy armor. A shield was integral to a person's defense, either in a shield wall or when fighting in a skirmish. Also against arrows a shield was the main defense.

Helmets have been indispensible since forever. A shield and helmet made a warrior at least somewhat safe.

Also one should remember that armor was made to stand against the weapons of the day. Celtic and Roman mail were very different from the maille of Charlemagne or William the conquerer and those were not the same as the maille worn by 16th century men-at-arms. Cuir bouille was very prominent in the far east but nearly non existent in Europe. Europeans liked stabbing a lot and Eastern warriors took more slashing and hacking. In the Americas armor was pretty undeveloped. Against their weapons (wooden swords, clubs, spears, etc) the best armor was air cured leather with fur attached. So that was what the conquistadores encountered, while they wore plate.

[Warl]

VladD, I think you over simplify that a Bit. Technological level had some effect on the development of armour in some societies.

It is shown quite well that the level of Metal smiting between the conquistadores and the aztechs was quite different, which lead both to different weapons and different armours. It wasn't that the Armours were always "designed" specifically for the weapons of their culture. They made do with what they had.

In Japan, they had a very limited supply of Iron ore to work with, so though they had swords, just and the European and middle eastern areas did, they Use boiled hide reinforced with Bamboo under and overlays. The Occasional "Well-to-do" Samurai might have had a Metal disc over his vitals, though even here the Type of metal varied to some degree. Few it was that would use the precious and heavy Iron on armour.
Was heir Armour the Most effective against slashing Weapons, which were the most common for thier culture aside from the Yumi, no but they didn't have the metal resources to put into iron or steel Armours. And Note that here we are talking about.
To say that their armor styles were only influenced by the fact that their weapons were mostly for slashing is an over simplification. I do not argue that it had some effect on that in eastern cultures, but it was hardly The Defining point.

[Thom @ ICE]

Interesting info in general... thanks for sharing.
(Warl - your comments are noted as well)

The light armors (Cloth, padded, leather) are simply meant to cushion blows or turn near hits. The user should primarily use his weapon or his movement to get out of the way. A fight between people without serious armor is over in 1-3 exchanges: 3 when you both suck, 2 when you are equal and 1 when either is better.

In regards to this one comment.... very interesting that the assertion is combat ends in 1-3 exchanges, yet the combat tables don't reflect such a sudden end.  Few and far between are the combats that end in so few exchanges.  And with the current single attack roll resolution, the idea that skill plays that much more impact than the random roll of the dice is not supported - but certainly this is something I am aiming to address.

[VladD]

This is a quote from one of the fencing masters, written in a historical fencing treatise. My HEMA teachers likes to emphasize that a fight is basically over in 1 or two exchanges, but that a good fighter should follow up with a good kill move to ensure victory: I see it (translated in RM combat) you win initiative, you roll decently for attack and crit and you get a stun round and some damage. The second round you are at an advantage. If you roll badly for your attack or crit then the opponent might come back at you with a move of his own.

The gist of historical fencing is that you thwart the attack of your opponent with the same move that you attack/ threaten him. Getting your weapon in line instead of staying/ standing in his line is actually what it comes down to. Longer weapons, such as long swords or pole arms are better for this than swords and axes, etc. and medium weapons are better for this than daggers or body weaponry.

 

[jdale]

I wonder to what extent that is real and to what extent it merely justifies how the sport of fencing works. Since fencing does not use hit points, a valid hit must be considered to defeat the opponent (or at least remove a limb).

[VladD]

@Jdale: even a light tap with a hammer or even worse; a blade, will hurt quite a bit. I agree on the fencing point, but considering medical practices during those times, any break of skin can be lethal and therefor you need no points: you get hit and you might die.

@Warl:

Of course resources would certainly play a big role, but we are talking about centuries of collective research. With a lot of battle fought, people tend to work with what they have if it is effective. If it did not work they would try something else.

Retainer armor in Japan remained cuir bouille for a long time, but samurai had many different forms of scale and lamellar armors in metal. Limited resources does not mean they get a few Kg from the ground, still the mines are producing tons per year and despite what you might think, iron does not rot away: it is reused and reworked. So in the later periods, the better off samurai will be wearing metal armor. This was specifically because samurai switched from front line duty to archery. So they needed some way of protecting themselves from the other samurai with yumis. Other samurai specialized in cavalry, btw, who also needed additional protection.

The Aztecs and Incas and such are a different story: They had almost no metal working skills and used wood and obsidian for weapons. They had padded armor that worked well against their weapons and was light and did not hinder the user much. It is not unknown for conquistadors to ditch their metal armor and use the indigenous armor because it worked and was less a hindrance.

[Warl]

Interesting info in general... thanks for sharing.
(Warl - your comments are noted as well)

The light armors (Cloth, padded, leather) are simply meant to cushion blows or turn near hits. The user should primarily use his weapon or his movement to get out of the way. A fight between people without serious armor is over in 1-3 exchanges: 3 when you both suck, 2 when you are equal and 1 when either is better.

In regards to this one comment.... very interesting that the assertion is combat ends in 1-3 exchanges, yet the combat tables don't reflect such a sudden end.  Few and far between are the combats that end in so few exchanges.  And with the current single attack roll resolution, the idea that skill plays that much more impact than the random roll of the dice is not supported - but certainly this is something I am aiming to address.

this 1-3 exchange theory was also based on the observation of nobles in battle. They were often better trained and better equipped than the conscripts they were "wading" through. So yes, a higher skilled better equipped warrior is going to move through the lesser ranks with 2-3 strikes per opponent.
But when faced with another noble trained equipped opponent, the exchanges took longer..

So it was really a Biased observation to conclude that "most" exchanges were ended in 2 to 3 moves.

When Watching SCA fights, Even in those situations with less likelihood of getting injured, maimed or killed making people more bold, Exchanges between opponents goes beyond the 2-3 move exchange mold.