User avatar
Harlath
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun 19 Jul 2020, 10:40

Re: Heavily armoured armies are unviable

Sun 21 Nov 2021, 19:25

This issue is not new with 2e. I’ve always thought (1e and now 2e) that TOR should distinguish between donning armor for a battle, and wearing it every day while on an adventure.

It makes sense, there’s textual precedent, but mostly it would be fun to, every now and then, get all suited up for a big battle.

Maybe if there are official rules/guidelines for running big battles this could be part of it. But I don’t expect so: the 2e philosophy seems to be moving a different way.
I think that's pretty cool, and as you note fits the text. Aragorn doesn't travel in armour, but puts on mail before the Battle at Helm's Deep.

- Reduce armour+helm load by -3 or Valour (whichever is higher) when donning armour before battle. [Reusing existing magical qualities!]

@Spat - easy to miss things, glad to help. :)
 
Niallism
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2021, 13:56

Re: Heavily armoured armies are unviable

Mon 22 Nov 2021, 04:47

Essentially these are stats for adventurers, heroes, and explorers, not soldiers. Fantasy armies march leagues in heavy armour. Real historical armies either marched leagues in lighter armour, or used wagons to carry their gear. Adventurers aren't soldiers. Professional soldiers probably have higher endurance, and fewer skills of other kinds, if you want to balance PCs against soldiers. D&D and other RPGs tend to take away armour choices, and just say 'You should wear the best armour the system allows you'. In TOR, armour has a cost, so each person's cost-benefit analysis will be different.

Armies are all about logistics, but stories don't focus on boring things like that.

You'd need an entirely different system to model armies in TOR. If there was an actual real battle that PCs were going to be in, I would just have them choose what they want. And if they wear a lot of armour, well they're going to be Weary and spend every point of Hope just to survive, unless they are very experienced adventurers. That sounds like a battle to me. Every choice is a terrible one, in battle, and if you survive you'll have spent every resource you possess.

You'd also need an entirely different combat system. Large-scale battles aren't just a series of personal duels. They're much more about random chance, morale, discipline, training, technology, and leadership. Boring unheroic stuff.

In terms of realism, I think this is fine. In terms of fiction, it matches Tolkien, but not the fun epic battles of some high fantasy fiction.
 
Sebastian
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu 01 Oct 2020, 04:58

Re: Heavily armoured armies are unviable

Mon 22 Nov 2021, 14:41

Being weary doesn't mean, you're out of combat, it just means that 1s, 2s, and 3s on the d6 don't count. And if you rolled a lot of them during an attack, chances are high, that you'd miss, even if you're not weary. On the other hand, two piercing blows and you are dead. So I'd say, better weary and still able to fight, than dead.
 
User avatar
Aiden Harrison
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun 18 Apr 2021, 09:49

Re: Heavily armoured armies are unviable

Mon 22 Nov 2021, 16:50

Being weary doesn't mean, you're out of combat, it just means that 1s, 2s, and 3s on the d6 don't count. And if you rolled a lot of them during an attack, chances are high, that you'd miss, even if you're not weary. On the other hand, two piercing blows and you are dead. So I'd say, better weary and still able to fight, than dead.
This ^^^

The weary effect on the d6 is one of my favourite rules in the One Ring. Being in a fight is a tiring affair, doing it in a coat of mail even more so, but a skilled warrior will still be landing blows even when close to exhaustion - ie has a lot more d6 to roll.
 
Asgo
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2021, 12:18

Re: Heavily armoured armies are unviable

Mon 22 Nov 2021, 22:35

Being weary doesn't mean, you're out of combat, it just means that 1s, 2s, and 3s on the d6 don't count. And if you rolled a lot of them during an attack, chances are high, that you'd miss, even if you're not weary. On the other hand, two piercing blows and you are dead. So I'd say, better weary and still able to fight, than dead.
This ^^^

The weary effect on the d6 is one of my favourite rules in the One Ring. Being in a fight is a tiring affair, doing it in a coat of mail even more so, but a skilled warrior will still be landing blows even when close to exhaustion - ie has a lot more d6 to roll.
given that you basically have free choice to start your character with any kind of armor you wish, you almost have to make weariness a close thing for maxed out armor to come into effect in a somewhat balanced fashion. Of course it may depend on how prolonged your combat sessions are, if that feels to strongly or not.
But I generally agree on that is a nice mechanic and it should have an effective place for heavily armored people.


On the topic of "donning armor", a thing I probably would rule is, that putting on armor takes time, which would at least matter if your are being surprised with combat.
I probably would use something that scales along the protection value of your main armor (not counting shields or helms).
Let's say it takes the protection value in actions (for simplicity counting main,secondary and opening volley rounds the same), one of those for each value of protection and your armor only counts once it is completed. You can stretch it out over more turns doing some actions in between or doing it all up front. That would mean a 1d armor could count after a volley at the beginning of the first close combat round, while the minimum time for a Coat of Mail would be 4 "actions", lets say a standard opening volley and and 1 and a half turns.
If you have time out of the combat sequence to prep, all that wouldn't come in to play at all. Of course forgoing the armor to fight directly is always an option.
Also I might consider a 1d Leather(under-)shirt as part of all armor so that you could put on the first bit (or still have it on) and bail on the rest for this combat instance.

Of course you may ask, why would I ever be caught out of armor? Well,
- given that pack horses are a thing, I would say packing (parts of) you armor for lighter travel on your beast would work, and might be at least a good RP reason. ;)
- and I wouldn't give a full rest restoration sleeping in full armor, since Strength already plays into resting, I would say that if your main armor load value exceeds your Strength score then apply the prolonged rest rules for wounded - which would mean depending on your strength the first two armor levels might be good for restful sleep.
 
gyrovague
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue 28 Apr 2020, 16:52

Re: Heavily armoured armies are unviable

Tue 23 Nov 2021, 08:58

I personally wouldn't let too much realism intrude. Did Gimli sleep in his armor? Realistically, no way. But if somebody wants to go full hauberk for their character, I'm not going to start ruling that they don't have their armor on during a surprise attack at night. Anybody who would be deeply bothered by that from a verisimilitude standpoint is probably bothered by a lot of stuff in TOR.

Nor do I think there is a need to distinguish between adventurers and professional soldiers, or to only think of this in the context of large battles. There's a particular chapter in TfW, for example, where I think it would be fun if part of the preparations involved the availability of heavier armor. I think there is still room for a rule variant that treats donning armor for a battle differently than wearing it on an adventure, for the simple reason that it adds variety and a decision-point. Applicable situations would require two things:
1) Players know a battle is imminent, with enough time to make deliberate preparations
2) The availability of heavier armor, and helms and shields.

Now, to make it desirable to don heavier armor, a third factor is required. As the rules stand, if a player has previously decided that the right trade-off point for their character is a leather jerkin, or no armor at all, then knowing a battle is imminent shouldn't really change that calculus. So in order for the conclusion to change, something has to be different. A reduced Load (say, 1/3 of current, which would mean 1 Load per 1d of protection) would achieve that.

Remember that the actual availability of armor in any situation is up to the LM, so it's not like the company suddenly gets armored up every time they smell a fight. And it's still a few points of Load, so even if armor were available you wouldn't go throwing it on just because you thought there might be a fight.
 
Themadviolinist
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat 10 Jul 2021, 16:01

Re: Heavily armoured armies are unviable

Tue 23 Nov 2021, 15:25

If interested in verisimilitude, I would point out that the load points of armor are usually thought of as in context with also carrying other things. For battle, you are presumably not fighting while wearing your backpack etc, especially in the context of a prepared battle, so some sort of load break would be appropriate.
 
gyrovague
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue 28 Apr 2020, 16:52

Re: Heavily armoured armies are unviable

Tue 23 Nov 2021, 23:59

If interested in verisimilitude, I would point out that the load points of armor are usually thought of as in context with also carrying other things. For battle, you are presumably not fighting while wearing your backpack etc, especially in the context of a prepared battle, so some sort of load break would be appropriate.
Yeah, great point.

It just seems wrong that if you put your traveling gear into storage and wear a hauberk for an hour you instantly have the same fatigue as if you had been traveling with that hauberk for a month.

I would want to avoid fiddly rules that require any kind of bookkeeping, so a rule that simply applies when you are not traveling seems appropriate.
 
User avatar
Voronwe
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon 01 Jun 2020, 22:54

Re: Heavily armoured armies are unviable

Sat 27 Nov 2021, 12:50

Edit: we can also assume heavily armoured fighters take Hardiness (to reduce chance of being Weary) or Prowess (to boost chance to hit even when Weary).
Very good point here, It has escaped me ‘til I read your post. I agree in full.

No need (IMHO) for additional rules; if you want your adventurer to be more of a soldier than a standard one, please make the right decisions when building up your character. If you want your character to excel in fighting and in war matters, focus your choices and spend your points in the proper skills and virtues. I would find a bit (or more than a bit) unfair of players to try to get everything: flexible and multidisciplinary characters but as skilled and apt in armour and battle as “professional” (very focused) warriors/soldiers.

You want a great warrior? Go and take Hardiness, Prowess, Close-fitting armour and so on. Otherwise, I find rather accurate, realistic and fair to have your character tiring very fast in heavy armour.
 
Inculta
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed 06 Oct 2021, 00:47

Re: Heavily armoured armies are unviable

Mon 06 Dec 2021, 02:55

It makes sense from a historical standpoint. The concept of extremely heavy infantry was mostly limited to knights that fought on horseback. In several battles it was recorded that foot knights couldn't even get back up if they got knocked down. Heavy armor was used to offset how vulnerable they were on horseback in melee combat, and horses were used to offset how heavy their armor was. Dwarves and Orcs having heavy armor is fine for lore reasons. Remember that you can raise your Endurance, and I think there are cultural blessings that reduce the penalty of armor too.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest