Dragon Warriors
http://www.libraryofhiabuor.net/forum/

More vulnerable armour
http://www.libraryofhiabuor.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=290
Page 1 of 3

Author:  Esser2002 [ Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:58 am ]
Post subject:  More vulnerable armour

I dislike the fact that some weapons (say dagger) cannot pierce some armour (say plate) unless a critical hit is rolled, and that has a mere 5% chance of happening. Should not a master assasin be able to hurt a dumb peasant who found a plate armour, even if he is armed with a dagger? And even if the critical hit happens, the damage will be minimal compared to other weapons.

I have been thinking about two ways to do this, a more simple way and a slightly more complex way.
The simple way: The power of a blow from a weapon can never be completely negated, and if a armour bypass roll fails, the defender takes 1 point of damage.

The complex way: A character can choose to focus on hitting the weak spots of the opponents armour when attacking. A attacking character can reduce his attack score momentarily for the duration of the attack, and for each three points he subtracs from his attack he gains a +1 on the armour piercing roll.

What do you guys think? Is the system fine as it is? Which of my two rules do you think would work better? Do you have your own houserule or solution?

Author:  Cobwebbed Dragon [ Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More vulnerable armour

Esser2002 wrote:
I dislike the fact that some weapons (say dagger) cannot pierce some armour (say plate) unless a critical hit is rolled, and that has a mere 5% chance of happening. Should not a master assasin be able to hurt a dumb peasant who found a plate armour, even if he is armed with a dagger? And even if the critical hit happens, the damage will be minimal compared to other weapons.

I have been thinking about two ways to do this, a more simple way and a slightly more complex way.
The simple way: The power of a blow from a weapon can never be completely negated, and if a armour bypass roll fails, the defender takes 1 point of damage.

The complex way: A character can choose to focus on hitting the weak spots of the opponents armour when attacking. A attacking character can reduce his attack score momentarily for the duration of the attack, and for each three points he subtracs from his attack he gains a +1 on the armour piercing roll.

What do you guys think? Is the system fine as it is? Which of my two rules do you think would work better? Do you have your own houserule or solution?

I allow for called shots in my rules. Each armour type has a called shot penalty which can be applied to the Attack score of someone wanting to bypass armour. For ranged combat, the called shot penalty is doubled.

Author:  Esser2002 [ Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More vulnerable armour

Cobwebbed Dragon wrote:
I allow for called shots in my rules. Each armour type has a called shot penalty which can be applied to the Attack score of someone wanting to bypass armour. For ranged combat, the called shot penalty is doubled.


How high are the called shot penalties? And if you take the penalty, are you ceartin to penetrate if you hit or does it just give a bonus?

Author:  Dreadnought [ Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More vulnerable armour

In my games, Knights, Barbarians, Assassins, Warlocks, and Hunters, can all choose to use a d24 instead of a d20. If they do this, a 1 or a 2 becomes a critical hit - so it basically changes the odds of a critical hit to 1 in 12, rather than 1 in 20, at the expense of making it slightly harder to hit in general terms. They can also choose to use a d30 and crit on a 1,2,3, increasing their chance of a critical to 1 in 10, but if they do that, they will critically fail on a 20 or a 30 (increasing their chance of a critical failure to 1 in 15) as well as significantly reducing their chance of a miss. They also double damage on a critical if they take this option.

The other professions can use the d30 for a double damage critical on a 1 or a 2, with again a critical miss on a 20 or a 30.

Author:  Kharille [ Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More vulnerable armour

Thinking about the possible revision of the rules, maybe maces can be d8,3, swords d6,4, and maybe other variations. I thought peasants killed chaubretian knights with stilettos, daggers should do the trick if they're stuck in mud/prone/exhausted/stuck with 20 longbow arrows.....

Author:  Cobwebbed Dragon [ Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More vulnerable armour

Esser2002 wrote:
Cobwebbed Dragon wrote:
I allow for called shots in my rules. Each armour type has a called shot penalty which can be applied to the Attack score of someone wanting to bypass armour. For ranged combat, the called shot penalty is doubled.

How high are the called shot penalties? And if you take the penalty, are you ceartin to penetrate if you hit or does it just give a bonus?

It's a complete bypass - no bonus.

Consider the demonologist's Phylactery spell, which states that a -8 penalty to Attack is sufficient to strike a ring on caster's finger in combat. To my mind, this would mean that a -8 penalty to attack is sufficient to pretty much strike anywhere, including vulnerable places in armour.

But my attack adjustments for the bypass of armour are:
  • Padded and Hardened Leather, both -3 to Attack
  • Ring and Chain, both -5 to Attack
  • Plate, -7 to Attack

And, like I say, these penalties are doubled for ranged combat.

Note that there are a lot of tacit assumptions in these numbers - for example, that plate comes with a full-face helm that is covered; an open face presents a tempting target and a knight caught by surprise might only be -6. As with all rules, situational circumstances should trump any devotion to the rules.

Also note that the description of the Grey Hood in the Bestiary mentions that blows to the head do double damage, so GMs may allow a -6 penalty to hit the head to cause double damage (in addition to bypassing armour!).

Lastly, DW is a system of contradictions, and the Golem's method of determining a called shot may appeal to some GMs, but I prefer to incorporate it into the Attack score modifiers as it entails less dice rolling.

Author:  Cobwebbed Dragon [ Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More vulnerable armour

Kharille wrote:
Thinking about the possible revision of the rules, maybe maces can be d8,3, swords d6,4, and maybe other variations. I thought peasants killed chaubretian knights with stilettos, daggers should do the trick if they're stuck in mud/prone/exhausted/stuck with 20 longbow arrows.....

I agree, more variety in weapons would certainly add more tactical options to combat. I'd probably allow a stiletto as a (d4+2, 2) weapon - specialised in penetrating armour, but less damaging to the flesh. For anyone that doesn't have them, there is a free download of additional weapons for Dragon Warriors still available from the Magnum Opus site:

http://www.magnumopuspress.com/wp-conte ... eapons.pdf

These are also available in Signs & Portents and later republished in the Players' Guide.

Author:  hermes421 [ Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More vulnerable armour

that s an interesting topic which remind me the problemI found for harming a knight with a + 3 full plate armour (I removed the + 3 bonus in my rules for letting a chance in the bypass armour roll).

Author:  hermes421 [ Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More vulnerable armour

Lee, please, do you consider that enemies can use your called shot penalties on the PJ (and avoid the "invincible" warrior) ?

Author:  Cobwebbed Dragon [ Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More vulnerable armour

hermes421 wrote:
that s an interesting topic which remind me the problemI found for harming a knight with a + 3 full plate armour (I removed the + 3 bonus in my rules for letting a chance in the bypass armour roll).

A +3 plate has an AF of 8, very difficult to bypass and I'd suggest that the way to defeat a knight so armoured would not be a direct confrontation - I'd probably structure an adventure along the lines of:
  • A violent confrontation with the knight (on whatever pretext suits your campaign), in which they discover his nearly impenetrable armour - do the PCs fight on, possibly to their deaths or retreat?
  • A chapter on learning the secrets behind the armour and a possible vulnerability
  • A chapter on figuring out a way to exploit that vulnerability (obtaining reagents, rituals, weapons that work against it, etc.).
  • A second confrontation with the powerfully armoured knight in which they test this vulnerability - maybe evening the odds. Or maybe not...

+3 armour is a powerful artefact and shouldn't just be dropped in the lap of the adventurer. And, of course, if the PCs triumph and take the armour for themselves, as a GM, you can exploit its weaknesses should the player knight get a little too cocky! And if word gets out, maybe the knight's reputation is ruined - claims that he is only a successful knight because of his armour: hiding his honour behind fey-touched trinkets. And would the baron to whose house the knight has sworn allegiance be happy with one of his knights wearing better armour than him?

Such powerful artefacts are a constant source of adventure and danger - just owning one might be more trouble than it's worth!

Or, just change the +3 bonus to AF to a +3 bonus to Defence. Still a significant magical bonus, but not game-breaking.

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/