How should armor function?

[Panthera]

And for this reason, I think it makes a lot of sense to have at least rudimentary damage types, which I think were indeed in D&D. I'm not a physicist, but I think that suit of platemail that would easily save you from a slashing attack would do very little for you if someone smacked you in the sternum with a big old club. I am seriously saying I don't know, but I'm at least comfortable suggesting the armor would do less in that case. So plate could have a massive slashing DR and a smaller clubbing DR.

Because who's going to let you into the club dressed like that anyway?

Actually, a club wouldn't be effective against plate armor. It's heavy metal shaped to avoid a clean blow from a wide surface. You'd need the historical warhammers against it, with a small point of impact.

Indeed. For those that think a blunt force alone would defeat plate armor, think of it as the difference between stepping on a nail and stepping on a wooden plank. You're still hitting it with the same force. The metal (and padded lining beneath) spreads the effect out along a larger area. Now, for smaller surfaces like fingers it can still hurt a lot, but it's better than having it broken or severed.

 

[Zyrxil]

Indeed. For those that think a blunt things would defeat plate armor, think of it as the difference between stepping on a nail and stepping on a wooden plank. You're still hitting it with the same force. The metal (and padded lining beneath) spreads the effect out along a larger area. Now, for smaller surfaces like fingers it can still hurt a lot, but it's better than having it broken or severed.

People think that because, it did. That's what Maces were historically used against, heavy armor. You're basically beating your enemy to death in lieu of being able to stab them cleanly through the abdomen due to blades glancing off the plate. And piercing weapons were used on joints, hence chance of armor penetration.

 

[Panthera]

Indeed. For those that think a blunt things would defeat plate armor, think of it as the difference between stepping on a nail and stepping on a wooden plank. You're still hitting it with the same force. The metal (and padded lining beneath) spreads the effect out along a larger area. Now, for smaller surfaces like fingers it can still hurt a lot, but it's better than having it broken or severed.

People think that because, it did. That's what Maces were historically used against, heavy armor. You're basically beating your enemy to death in lieu of being able to stab them cleanly through the abdomen due to blades glancing off the plate. And piercing weapons were used on joints, hence chance of armor penetration.

Maces were invented to smash heads in long before armor came around. They had to be made of metal and adapted with flanges and points to be truly effective against armored opponents. They were popular mostly because they were cheap. They also sucked as personal combat weapons - pointed 'tucks' were the preferred can openers. Ordinary club maces don't beat armor just because they're blunt.

 

[OSK]

A really simple way to handle armor is just to have it give you more hit points. Hit points are already an abstraction of how much damage you can take before dying or being incapacitated, so it makes sense that someone wearing armor can weather more blows than someone without.

 

[spectre]

Problem with this is that not everybody understands this abstraction.
What follows: OMG lolololo, magicl hax armr meak me moar helfy!?

Just like those people who thought plate aromor in D&D allowed you to dodge better.

In essence, if we reverse it, that is make armor reduce damage, we still get the same result - hps last longer.

And that is actually better, because it allows you to elegantly handle situations like armor piercing weapons vs. armor and no armor.

(This is just imo, of course, because I simply prefer it when you have an added property:i gnores armor protection to deal more damage if target is wearing armor.)

 

[mondblut]

Im in favor for a more lethal, fast combat. A rock-papper-scissor kind of system, wherein the loser is dealt serious damage or ourtright killed. No hp. Armor would work as an extra life that is spent, broken, when a fatal blow hits you.

Don't forget quickload hotkeyed to RMB for convenience

 

[Mystary!]

Wouldn't be a problem if you had fewer, more important fights. Which could be avoided or handled with diplomacy or whatever. I'm tired of the mass slaughter, filler, cannon fodder type of fights.

 

[Castanova]

Wouldn't be a problem if you had fewer, more important fights. Which could be avoided or handled with diplomacy or whatever. I'm tired of the mass slaughter, filler, cannon fodder type of fights.

Just because the fight is "important" doesn't detract from the fact that with a no-hitpoint system you're either playing an action game or a luck-fest.

 

[Mystary!]

No.
You can use injuries instead. And there should be plenty of ways to effect the outcome of any given fight. Rock-paper-scissor is just the idea, replace it with different moves and counters, high-middle-low attacks, defensive and offensive stances, contingency moves, armor, weapons suited for different purposes etc. The bottom line is, combat is lethal and fast. Beating on eachother for 5 minutes just isn't fun or realistic.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Beating on eachother for 5 minutes just isn't fun or realistic.

Much experience on medieval melee combat then? Did you fight in the Crusades? Or in War of the Roses? Maybe you were a Norman invader in early England? Or perhaps a Gothic knight during the 15th century?

 

[J1M]

No.
You can use injuries instead. And there should be plenty of ways to effect the outcome of any given fight. Rock-paper-scissor is just the idea, replace it with different moves and counters, high-middle-low attacks, defensive and offensive stances, contingency moves, armor, weapons suited for different purposes etc. The bottom line is, combat is lethal and fast. Beating on eachother for 5 minutes just isn't fun or realistic.

Except most combat is also very unlikely to go differently if you rewind it and repeat. No matter how many times the star wars nerd fights the 300lb kid in grade 12 he is going to lose.

 

[DefJam101]

Armors should only affect mobility, as in, it actually decreased above mentioned defensive skills, because a guy with rags is surely to dodge much faster than someone in full plate mail, plus armors should be taken in account of damage reduction, and if durability is in place, the reduction in damage has to be proportional to how conserved the pieces of armor are.

I can tell you that this is false from personal experience. Armor tires you out faster, but it doesn't really restrict your mobility except maybe for your maximum sprint speed.

What kind of armor are we talking about here? Being loaded up with trauma plates is definitely going to decrease your mobility, personal experience be damned. You urban warrior, you.

 

[Mystary!]

Beating on eachother for 5 minutes just isn't fun or realistic.

Much experience on medieval melee combat then? Did you fight in the Crusades? Or in War of the Roses? Maybe you were a Norman invader in early England? Or perhaps a Gothic knight during the 15th century?

No but looks at some of these moves, from a medieval fighting manual
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io9I4wZ8FZk
They are all used to disable the enemy quickly. There actually not much "fencing" going on, you find an opening and go in for the kill. With an armored opponent things might be a bit different, but there ares till openings one could exploit.

 

[racofer]

What kind of armor are we talking about here? Being loaded up with trauma plates is definitely going to decrease your mobility, personal experience be damned. You urban warrior, you.

I've already made my statement on this matter, which should have settled it already, but people are just to delusional and alienated to perceive absolute truth when it slaps them in the face.

 

[Yeesh]

But I don't think anyone can make a good case for bulky armor somehow making you harder to HIT, instead of harder to damage.

It does not make you "harder to hit". It reduces a statistical probability you'll suffer "damage" in a given period of time. Which is just how real armor works, statistically.

I can accept this, and I'll even admit I've never thought of it that way before... if you'll accept that my ignorance is understandable considering that the mechanism in which this version of armor takes effect is both traditionally and officially called the "to hit" roll. I don't think it's hard to see why people envision the system as armor making you harder to hit. You know what else would cause you to statistically take less damage over time? Armor could reduce the number of attacks your opponents get per round. Statistically the same, but intuitively wacky.

Hey you know what game has a reasonable armor system? Dungeon Crawl. In another thread it was mentioned that the game has a good use-based/XP hybrid skill system, and now armor. In that game hard armor has a random damage reduction WITH a guranteed minimum. So it can save you from big attacks, but it doesn't make you immune to everything else. And it reduces your ability to dodge. AND your stealth. AND those reductions are ameliorated by your armor skill WHICH goes up with use.

Can't we all just play Dungeon Crawl?

 

[spectre]

No.
You can use injuries instead. And there should be plenty of ways to effect the outcome of any given fight. Rock-paper-scissor is just the idea, replace it with different moves and counters, high-middle-low attacks, defensive and offensive stances, contingency moves, armor, weapons suited for different purposes etc. The bottom line is, combat is lethal and fast. Beating on eachother for 5 minutes just isn't fun or realistic.

Except most combat is also very unlikely to go differently if you rewind it and repeat. No matter how many times the star wars nerd fights the 300lb kid in grade 12 he is going to lose.

If we take extreme cases like that, then yes. More often than not the first blow is critical and it all just goes down really fast. Especially so when the difference between combatants is significant.
However, I've seen some drunken fights, and I've heard about even more of them, and one recurring theme was, that often the outcome was unpredictable. Either someone got lucky, or somebody else didn't, or the surefire leet pressure point groin kick didn't work a planned. It's not about skill and body mass, but also (paramountly?) the will to fight and the effects of alcohol and drugs sometimes.

 

[Haba]

The system I've been tinkering with makes a clear division between health and stamina. Any loss of health can prove fatal, while stamina recovers slowly.

Attack can:

- be dodged / miss totally
  * no effect, opportunity for counter attack

- glance off armor, doing no damage
  * no effect / superficial fatigue / miniscule armor damage

- hit squarely, but fail passing the armor
  * no health lost, fatigue / armor damage

- penetrate the armor
  * slightly reduced health loss, fatigue / major armor damage

- bypass the armor
  * full health loss, fatigue

The idea is that heavy armor slows you down somewhat and more importantly - drains your stamina faster. A seasoned armor user is faster and doesn't get fatigued as soon, but will still feel the effect. In general a heavily armored foe might seem slower, but it is mostly just conserving stamina – they can still be quite fast, but with greater risk.

So a more agile character will have a slight advantage from increased mobility, while wearing lighter armor. He'll attack more often and have a better chance in dodging attacks from heavily armored foes. Unnaturally fast character can even pass slower foe’s defense and attempt to backstab.

Basic gist is to build the armor/fatigue system so that different equipment radically changes the tactics you employ. You don’t want to wade in deep water/snow in full plate mail, and you’ll want to position yourself so that you can safely recover your stamina in between the fighting. Lighter armor makes you much more vulnerable, but then again it provides you with more mobility.

 

[GarfunkeL]

That video is quite illustrative, thanks! And I'm sure no-one denies that fighter always wanted to end a melee quickly but that's not necessarily what always happened.

Unnaturally fast character can even pass slower foe’s

Sorry, couldn't resist:

 

[SCO]

Domestic violence apparently produces extraordinary devotion.

 

[flabbyjack]

Layered armor bonuses stack as per platemail over chainmail.

Accurate attacks should have a chance to ignore armor layer(s). IE - medieval knights used to get killed, KILLED I says, by peasants with daggers. That's right, the strongest soldiers on the battlefield being killed by the cheapest soldiers. Trouble is -- first someone else would have to knock the knight down, where his helpless ass would get shanked between the plates of armor(Arm-pit, neck, etc). Yes I am aware that generally knights were to be ransomed, but such behavior nevertheless happened to heavily armored warriors.

Even helmets need eye-holes, if you shank someone in the eye with a thin rapier all the armor in the world wouldn't matter.

 

[OSK]

 

[Serus]

Just copy Darklands combat system, it had the best simulation of medieval combat in rpg game so far including most ideas posted here: difference between health and stamina, between damage output of a weapn and its ability to penetrate armor and of curse between avoiding hits (thanks to skill) and protection from being injured when hit (armor).

 

[denizsi]

I don't understand why people are so crazy for armor absorbing damage, instead of preventing it. It's like German infantry destroying a Soviet tank with enough shots from MP40s.

Beating on eachother for 5 minutes just isn't fun or realistic.

Much experience on medieval melee combat then? Did you fight in the Crusades? Or in War of the Roses? Maybe you were a Norman invader in early England? Or perhaps a Gothic knight during the 15th century?

My favourite internet speak, second only to "Much experience on game development? If you know better, why don't you make your own game?" type.

 

[Tycn]

Absorbing damage doesn't necessarily mean not preventing all of it.

I reckon Fallout pretty much nailed it.

 

[spectre]

Fallout's other problem, however, was bad balancing of character hit points, weapon damage and ammo modifiers.