Topic: Tough Hide & Armor

[TwilightKing]

For the life of me, I cannot find the answer to the question I have.

If a creature has the talent Tough Hide, can it still wear armor? I want to say I ran across a rule for it a couple years ago, but cannot remember.

Thanks!

[Matthias]

There is an old entry in a thread about HB #11:

black flag on November 30, 2007, 11:01:47 am
If a monster with Tough Hide want wear an armour, how handle this?
The DB for monsters with Tough Hide must be down with the DB torso too?

Rasyr's Response:
Tough Hide -- use only 1/2 normal DB given for the type of Tough Hide. Compare the normal DB Bonus to those of full suits of armor to determine which column it should be attacked on.

Tough Hide With Armor - use the better attack column to use. They do get BOTH DB bonuses from the Hide and Armor, so no further adjustments required.

While this is about HB #11 and the CCS, it implies that creatures with Tough Hide can wear armor and they do receiving stacking DB.

[TwilightKing]

Thank you very much!

[janpmueller]

The Nagazi Warrior mage in our campaign is a walking (and very polite) fortress...

[Right Wing Wacko]

Hmmmm...
Almost sounds too good....
I wouldn't allow the DB's to stack... well, not the entire DB's anyway...
And what about MM's? Wouldn't wearing armor over thick hide restrict movement more than usual?

I think further thought is needed...

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

HARP is not a perfect system. It does have its little flaws and idiosyncrasies. One of those being that the DBs from different armors (natural vs worn) should add together. This causes issues sometimes. And can give races with natural armor a major advantage over those that don't have such if used with worn armors.

Therefore:

When attempting to stack two different types of armor, the DB mods and the maneuver mods add together to give the total mods.

When stacking natural armors and worn armors, the natural armor is treated as having the same maneuver penalties as a full suit of armor that provides the same DB mod. If using armor by the piece rules, then the same applies, but broken down into the areas covered by armor.

Example 1: Nagazi have a Natural Armor that grants a +20 to DB. This equates to wearing a full suit of soft leather. Therefore, if the Nagazi decides to wear a full suit of chain, then his maximum maneuver penalty would be -60 from the chain and another -20 from his natural armor (i.e. soft leather).

Example 2: Our same Nagazi warrior decides to wear a Plate shirt, but no other armor. His DB would be 20 (natural) and 24 from the Plate shirt, for a total of +44 DB. His maximum maneuver penalty would be -40 from the plate shirt, and since he is wearing armor over his natural armor, we would add in the maneuver penalty for the equivalent for the area covered. Since his natural armor equates to soft leather, we would then use the maneuver penalty for a soft leather shirt, which is -8. This gives our Nagazi a maximum maneuver penalty of -48 and a minimum maneuver penalty of -8.

[WoeRie]

I like the rule, it is simple and seems pretty balanced - idea point for that.
But what about magic? I think for magic using characters it is still very powerfull. Hearing of a Nagazi Warrior Mage...

[masque1223]

It does seem good for balance, but not particularly for realism.  It's their skin, after all, and if I'm reading the rules correctly, they wouldn't suffer the same penalty for the natural armor without worn armor as well.  It's not an issue that has come up yet in my campaign, but I don't think I would stack the maneuver penalties that way.  Maybe add some penalty, but not the same penalty as for the worn equivalent of the natural armor.  Half or 25%, perhaps.  There should be a difference between one's own skin and something worn over it, IMO.   

[janpmueller]

I agree concerning the realism. What I thought was that, once a blow is strong enough to penetrate the worn armor, maybe the skin isn't that much of a help.

The fact that DB is a number implies that you can add or subtract it, but maybe in real life armor means it can stop blows up to a certain strength. Soft Leather helps against scratches and badly handled knives, but not against a battle axe. Two layers of soft leather aren't as much help as chain mail would be.
Still, I'm always for simplicity, so I really like that DB is simply a number. Unfortunately, as Rasyr pointed out, this is one example where this is a little problematic.

Just an idea: When wearing multiple layers of armor, the 2nd layer doesn't add it's full DB to the protection. To reflect that any blow that can penetrate the stronger layer will probably be able to go through the weaker layer as well, count the weaker layer only with 1/2 of the DB. The penalties remain.

Thus, a Nagazi (+20) wearing a plate shirt (+24) will have a total DB of 34.
A Nagazi wearing a rigid leather shirt (+12) he'll have a DB of 26.

Bye,

Jan

PS: Hm. I just read the quote in the 2nd post. Sorry, I believe this is exactly what I oh so creatively came up with. I probably read it unconsciously. Can anyone please post a difficult solution to physics, so I can read it absent-mindedly, then write it down and feel clever? Thanks!

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Guys, if you think HARP is worried about or was meant to have anything to do with realism, then you are playing the wrong game. 

Seriously, HARP is more concerned about maintaining balance than it is about realism. If you are wanting realism, then quite likely the ruling I made above isn't going to be for you at all.

But what about magic? I think for magic using characters it is still very powerfull. Hearing of a Nagazi Warrior Mage...

Spells -- magic -- they have their own costs that have to be dealt with. Yeah, they can improve their DB now, but can they do in an hour or have they used too many PP?

Plus, one of the side effects that I give to magical armor spells is that it glows slightly. Not enough to shed illumination, but enough to keep the wearer from hiding in dark places.

[masque1223]

Guys, if you think HARP is worried about or was meant to have anything to do with realism, then you are playing the wrong game. 

My previous campaign was D6 Star Wars.    HARP is one of the most simulationist games I've EVER run.  I have a lot of GURPS books, but I just mine them for material to use in other games.  That's about the only more simulationist game I can think of that I'd be remotely interested in running.

[Fidoric]

Just an idea: When wearing multiple layers of armor, the 2nd layer doesn't add it's full DB to the protection. To reflect that any blow that can penetrate the stronger layer will probably be able to go through the weaker layer as well, count the weaker layer only with 1/2 of the DB. The penalties remain.

I don't agree with that. Even if a blow penetrate the toughest armor it is slowed down maybe enough to be stopped by the second (weaker) layer of armor. I find that Rasyr solution is a very Harpish one  : quick, easy to use and balanced.

[Pat]

In our game this was discussed in great length and we decided that the effects of Natural Armour and Armour don't stack (house rule).

Our biggest concerns were the Nagazi as previously stated. It seemed unbalanced to us that a Nagazi figher wearing plate mail should get bonuses over and above everyone else (and +20 to DB is a significant bonus as it's the equivilent of wearing an extra suit of soft leather.)

Having Tough Hide is already a bonus since your never out of armour if your sleeping, swimming, climbing etc so why make it more of an advantage?

And, as explained to our HARP group, if it's available to the party it's available to monsters as well. Imagine giants with Tough Hide major (+40 DB) wearing Plate Mail and carrying a wall shield. The base DB would be:
Lesser Giant..+10 stats +50 Survival instinct  +40 tough hide  +60 plate +40 wall shield. This equals DB 200 or 190 if Armour penalties are applied. Ouch.

And, lastly, in our group tough hide applies to the ML armour adjustment system. While this may not apply to all groups, to us it brings balance to monsters (a monster with tough hide that is considered to be unarmoured for damage calculation severly affects how tough that monster is. Especially if the monster is receiving extra damage, extra stun, extra bleed and man penalties for not wearing armour. To our group,this just did not make sense.)

So should we reduce damage further than wearing plate already does because the player/monster has tough hide? IMO I don't think so.

Again, this is just my opinion, but Tough hide is useful for mages and monks that do not have easy access to armour. To me, it shouldn't be designed to make fighters tougher than they already are since they generally have the toughest hide (plate), best OB, and best damage adjustment (ML) available.

[Fidoric]

Imagine giants with Tough Hide major (+40 DB) wearing Plate Mail and carrying a wall shield. The base DB would be:
Lesser Giant..+10 stats +50 Survival instinct  +40 tough hide  +60 plate +40 wall shield. This equals DB 200 or 190 if Armour penalties are applied. Ouch.

Yes ! That's exactly how I think it should be. Imagine a 6 meters high giant clad in layers of steel plate... I won't ever consider pitting one of my characters against it. It would be folly. It's a close think to attack an armored vehicle with a honed spoon. So 190 DB is correct for IMO.

OTOH, if you want to restrict the use of armor for creatures with a tough hide, maybe you can consider that their thick skin makes it more difficult for them to evacuate body heat and wearing armor is very impedending to them, making them almost unable to exert any physical activity.

[Pat]

Imagine giants with Tough Hide major (+40 DB) wearing Plate Mail and carrying a wall shield. The base DB would be:
Lesser Giant..+10 stats +50 Survival instinct  +40 tough hide  +60 plate +40 wall shield. This equals DB 200 or 190 if Armour penalties are applied. Ouch.

Yes ! That's exactly how I think it should be. Imagine a 6 meters high giant clad in layers of steel plate... I won't ever consider pitting one of my characters against it. It would be folly. It's a close think to attack an armored vehicle with a honed spoon. So 190 DB is correct for IMO.

Also, would this 6 metre high plate mail clad, 190 DB creature still be considered lvl 10 as per a normal lesser giant? If it would be considered a higher level then shouldn't a level 1 fighter in plate be considered a higher level than a level 1 fighter in rigid leather? And should a Nagazi level 1 fighter with plate and tough hide be considered a higher level again?

This is another reason why I don't believe that armour bonuses and tough hide should stack. It artifically creates a high DB character that GM's then need to combat by making monsters tougher but this can then be too tough for more (trying to find a word here, accurate, reasonable, logical, balanced all spring to mind) players to face.

It can be difficult for GM's to balance encounters as is without adding in the effects of Tough Hide stacking with armour.

[janpmueller]

Is the idea behind "not stacking" DB that you would ignore the Tough Hide once a player wears armor? This, I'd think, is a little harsh, seeing that other races have other abilities / talents. Playing an armored race should feel like an armored race, just like, e.g. gnomes can sense magic, which is very helpful and feels like playing a magical race.

Of course, one advantage is that even when naked (swimming etc.) a tough hide character benefits, but to remove the bonus completely while wearing armor seems awkward. Some rule should exist that benefits those characters, while not unbalancing a group - our group is having real problems. Once a foe who is a match for the Nagazi fortress decides to go for a different PC, he's in real trouble.

[Right Wing Wacko]

Hmmm... removing the natural armor DB when wearing armor doesn't seem fair and doesn't make good sense. But letting the PC have full advantage of natural armor with worn armor at the same time is unbalancing. 
I suggest adding more  MM penalties to natural armor guys while wearing armor, or reducing the DB gained from one armor or the other...

but these "fixes" still leave a bad taste in my mouth... I am not convinced they are accurate or the best way...

 

[Thos]

I don't think I've seen this suggested yet... How about not stacking the DBs, but if the character with tough hide +20 is hit then the critical is reduced by 20? I'm not sure that's a perfect fix, but that way the DBs don't stack and the character still benefits from having the tough hide.

[Right Wing Wacko]

I don't think I've seen this suggested yet... How about not stacking the DBs, but if the character with tough hide +20 is hit then the critical is reduced by 20? I'm not sure that's a perfect fix, but that way the DBs don't stack and the character still benefits from having the tough hide.

Sounds good to me!
Have an idea point!

[Pat]

I don't think I've seen this suggested yet... How about not stacking the DBs, but if the character with tough hide +20 is hit then the critical is reduced by 20? I'm not sure that's a perfect fix, but that way the DBs don't stack and the character still benefits from having the tough hide.

Sounds good to me!
Have an idea point!

To me this would make tough hide more powerful not less. If the reduction comes off of the critical then the maximum critical received from a medium attack would be 80. (100-20 for tough hide)

I don't think this would work