Topic: Wearin no armor...

[movalmedic]

Do those of you that have played for sometime find that the system encourages wearing armor too much?  I know that it’s a problem inherent to games that use armor as DB rather than armor reduction, but it seems, to my novice understanding, that HARP really encourages the use of heavy armor.  60 points of DB is quite sizable to the degree that it feels like someone not wearing armor is just dead meat.

[Felros]

Well, yes... and no.

Obviously, wearing armor has some advantages. Historicaly people has been wearing armor to avoid being hurt. 60 BD is a great number, almost needed, specially for a first-liner. In combat, is almost a must.

But it comes with disadvantages, too. First, you must spend points in the armor skill, and more for the most protective ones. Second, wearing that defensive yet cumbersome piece of metal incurs in a good penalty on all your maneuver skills. A fitted plate armor gives you a -20 to all your maneuver. -40 if it´s unfitted, which is a lot. More if you have not enough ranks in the Armor skill... And finally, the +10 PP casting penalty. You better don´t ever think on casting spells.

I really believe that armor is pretty balanced, but yes, it is a necessity for a warrior or those who pretend to be in the first line of a combat. Just forget to run if things go wrong.

[movalmedic]

That’s good information.  I wasn’t even thinking about what the trade off would be.  I was coming at it more from a type of thinking that agility, or quickness in this case, should help me avoid getting hit and armor should help me avoid getting too hurt when I do get hit.  Also, that a person wearing no armor would be harder to hit than a person in plate since they’d be so much more quick on their feet.  All of this was brought on by reading the optional rules regarding damage and armor types, which I think would only serve to make this system worse.  All in all, it sounds like it’ll be a pretty balanced system that, like many others, just requires a little suspension of disbelief to enjoy.  After all, it is a simulation of an imaginary world!

[ImaginosMusic]

Well, yes... and no.

Obviously, wearing armor has some advantages. Historicaly people has been wearing armor to avoid being hurt. 60 BD is a great number, almost needed, specially for a first-liner. In combat, is almost a must.

But it comes with disadvantages, too. First, you must spend points in the armor skill, and more for the most protective ones. Second, wearing that defensive yet cumbersome piece of metal incurs in a good penalty on all your maneuver skills. A fitted plate armor gives you a -20 to all your maneuver. -40 if it´s unfitted, which is a lot. More if you have not enough ranks in the Armor skill... And finally, the +10 PP casting penalty. You better don´t ever think on casting spells.

I really believe that armor is pretty balanced, but yes, it is a necessity for a warrior or those who pretend to be in the first line of a combat. Just forget to run if things go wrong.

I would add for more lightly armored characters, the Parry, Full Parry and Multiple Parry actions could save a life. The trade off is a sacrifice of OB to apply to DB.

[Witchking20k]

There should be out of combat balances for wearing armor.  Travel, Movement Maneuvering, and many Social Encounters should be penalized.  As a GM I always try and make sure I factor these in to a campaign.  Players wearing heavy armor should slow you down and draw a lot (you don't need to get crazy and use exhaustion or anything, it's just logical).  The implications into Stalk/Hide are common, but, maybe introduce a situation where climbing or swimming are used.  Even a ship or ferry ride should make a heavily armored character doff his chain mail.  Finally, what Noble lets a tank attend dinner?  As a rule the house guard would always be given the "appearance" of advantage.  Things like that can make the roleplaying commitment of wearing heavy armor a greater factor. 

[Random]

There are also Agile Defense and Instinctive Defense talents for those that want a 'dodge tank' type character.
They are a large DP investment but you can achieve similar results.  Especially if you combine then with soft leather and the Defending Weapon combat maneuver (I think that's in Martial Law though).   

[Zhaleskra]

In most cases, it is almost certainly better to wear armor, or have an armor effect. HARP also makes the assumption that characters are "parrying" a little, putting a little activeness in their defense.

Sure, better armor causes casting penalties and increases the casting time and the number of ranks you need in the spell. But if you really need that big spell to go off, those extra 2 rounds and the -50 are worth it if the armor prevents you from taking damage while you're casting.

[Witchking20k]

Also, one of the major differences between RM & HARP is that armour is factored into a flat DB.  A bonus for Surprise, Rear, or Flan attack basically negates some or sometimes all of it's effect.  The RM AT column obviously has some DB factored into it; but reduced crits and HPs are more tangible from one AT to the next.