Elric's plate armor and Gandalf's sword

[Ravenheart87]

Jmucchiello: smathis was talking about a setting he's writing...

If I'd known that.... nevermind.

Well, next time read before you write.

[Geoffrey]

I just finished reading Lord Dunsany's 17-page story "The Fortress Unvanquishable, Save for Sacnoth", which is collected in The Sword of Welleran and Other Stories. In this story, the magician Gaznak wields a sword as he fights in a full suit of armor that leaves only his wrists, face, and neck uncovered.

[nanstreet]

I just finished reading Lord Dunsany's 17-page story "The Fortress Unvanquishable, Save for Sacnoth", which is collected in The Sword of Welleran and Other Stories. In this story, the magician Gaznak wields a sword as he fights in a full suit of armor that leaves only his wrists, face, and neck uncovered.

I guess my reaction would be, how does this translate to game terms? If wizards in some stories wear armor and use swords, but in other stories they do not, then why? Are they really wizards acting like warriors, or warriors who can also cast spells? It kinda makes me wish for some sort of multiclassing rule.

But, I guess it doesn't matter, as long as the wizard who doesn't don plate and choses a staff over a sword isn't gimped by the rules, or at least there is some tradeoff involved.

ETA: It seems Harley Stroh addressed this concern on page 1:

Joseph's current rules as written allow for wizards to be trained in a variety of weapons, including the long sword. The might of a warrior isn't that he gets to carry a sword, but what he can do with it.

Elves and wizards can certainly don any armor they'd like, but heavier armor does impede spell casting. Those who seek to bend reality to their will risk body and soul; when you're knocking on the door at R'lyeh, imprecision is not an option.

The penalty for casting in armor can be temporarily offset by spellburn (MtnJeff's elf sacrificed a whopping 12 attribute points this past weekend to get a crucial spell off), ala Elric and his patron Arioch, but just like in Melniboné, magic always comes at a price.

//H

It looks like armored mages will work out fine, as there is a tradeoff.

[Geoffrey]

If wizards in some stories wear armor and use swords, but in other stories they do not, then why? Are they really wizards acting like warriors, or warriors who can also cast spells?

This is true also of warriors: some wear armor, some don't. Some are heavily armed. Some aren't.

I think that the second question is merely a matter of semantics: Is a track athlete who both does the high jump and the 100 yard dash really a sprinter acting like a jumper, or a jumper who can also sprint?

[GnomeBoy]

I'd like the option to make a viable fighter who wears little to no armor, as in numerous early D&D illustrations (and elsewhere).

[geordie racer]

I'd like the option to make a viable fighter who wears little to no armor, as in numerous early D&D illustrations (and elsewhere).

Maybe wearing heavy armour could make you roll a smaller dice type for your MDoA so it's harder to be a swashbuckler in plate, easier with little or no armour.

Or to keep it simple, if unarmoured you get to roll a bigger dice type for MDoA.

[jmucchiello]

Maybe wearing heavy armour could make you roll a smaller dice type for your MDoA so it's harder to be a swashbuckler in plate, easier with little or no armour.

Or to keep it simple, if unarmoured you get to roll a bigger dice type for MDoA.

I hope one of these makes the final book. Great idea.

[finarvyn]

I'd like the option to make a viable fighter who wears little to no armor, as in numerous early D&D illustrations (and elsewhere).

While I hate to have too many sub-classes or the like, certainly there is precident in literature for having two types of fighters: the strong fighter and the agile fighter. Some fighters wear heavy platemail and carry big nasty weapons, but the pirate or swashbuckler musketeer type clearly does not. I don't think there are specific options in place for this at the moment, but I like some of the suggestions in this thread so far.

[nanstreet]

I'd like that lightly armored warrior to be an option, too.

I'm not in favor of messing with the MDoA die size, though, as that also affects the probability to hit for the Warrior class. Maybe adjusting the target MDoA number would work, but since it is currently set at 3 there isn't much room to work there. While I'd like swashbuckling Warriors to work well, I also don't want to make armored Warriors bad at being Warriors because they don armor.

[Ravenheart87]

While I hate to have too many sub-classes or the like, certainly there is precident in literature for having two types of fighters: the strong fighter and the agile fighter. Some fighters wear heavy platemail and carry big nasty weapons, but the pirate or swashbuckler musketeer type clearly does not.

And don't forget the half-naked barbarians and the chain-bikini wearing amazons!

[GnomeBoy]

I'm not sure where there's wiggle room to insert a mechanic that (IMO) has been missing since day one.

...except maybe something can be done in the area of movement...? If a fighter were unarmored, and stayed in one place, could he use the move action to raise his AC? I'm unclear if there are 'full attacks' in DCC RPG -- but if there were, trading off some offensive prowess to gain some defense seems reasonable, like dodging and weaving while getting in that one strike.

If there are no 'full attacks', I'm back to square one.

The adjusted MDoA die is interesting, but doesn't address the AC issue, unless I'm missing something. And I don't think there should be a penalty to donning armor, even if only because so many will cry foul.

[mshensley]

I'm not sure where there's wiggle room to insert a mechanic that (IMO) has been missing since day one.

This has long been a sticking point with me and D&D (in all it's forms). It really sucks at being able to represent a competent, unarmored warrior which is far more common in fantasy literature than the walking tank that is so prevalent in game.

[GnomeBoy]

I'm not sure where there's wiggle room to insert a mechanic that (IMO) has been missing since day one.

This has long been a sticking point with me and D&D (in all it's forms). It really sucks at being able to represent a competent, unarmored warrior which is far more common in fantasy literature than the walking tank that is so prevalent in game.

Trust me, I wish I'd thought to throw this idea out to the forums much earlier... D&D hasn't it -- maybe DCC can!

[Geoffrey]

Here's an idea:

Initiative is rolled on a d6, to this roll the players add their Armor Class value and the highest roll at the table attacks first. This helps simulate how cumbersome armor can be during combat. The lighter the armor the better, as the higher AC value adds more to the Initiative roll. In most sword & sorcery literature the combatants tend to wear lighter armor or none at all, and handling Initiative in this manner helps simulate this pretty well I think. (Edit: In most cases, the Armor Class value added to an Initiative roll is not adjusted due to any magical properties the armor might have. This, of course, is something each Game Master will need to decide for their own game, and also may vary from one magic set of armor to the next.)

link: http://swordandsanity.blogspot.com/2011 ... rview.html

(The above of course assumes descending AC scores.)

[geordie racer]

I'm not in favor of messing with the MDoA die size, though, as that also affects the probability to hit for the Warrior class.

Maybe I'm wrong but from what I've read the Action Dice is not the 'To Hit' dice. I thought that you roll a d20 and an Action Dice, one determining whether you hit, the other whether you do a MDoA.

I'm not penalizing a platemail-wearing Knight's chance to hit, just his chance to pull off cool stunts in comparison to a less-armoured fighter.

[Professor P]

Perhaps unarmored/lightly armored fighters receive an extra attack per round or every other round at the end of the round using a d16 and no d3 to hit and perhaps a reduced damage die as well. This way the unarmored/lightly armored fighter gains no extra defense (the fighter would have little to no armor after all), but fighting prowess would increase due to more damage potential. On its face, this dichotomy gives an advantage and disadvantage to each type of fighter.

[smathis]

Perhaps unarmored/lightly armored fighters receive an extra attack per round or every other round at the end of the round using a d16 and no d3 to hit and perhaps a reduced damage die as well. This way the unarmored/lightly armored fighter gains no extra defense (the fighter would have little to no armor after all), but fighting prowess would increase due to more damage potential. On its face, this dichotomy gives an advantage and disadvantage to each type of fighter.

I'm liking a lot of the ideas on this thread. Throwing one in the pile myself, based loosely on Professor P's...

In addition to their d20 die, Unarmored Fighters get an extra d16. Lightly armored fighters get a d12. Each round this extra die can be used along with an attack roll or as a "Parry" against one attack. The Fighter can choose to assign either the d20 to the Parry or the extra die. Or the Fighter can choose to attack or defend with both dice. In any instance where both dice are rolled, the highest roll of the two is kept.

Parrying an incoming attack is accomplished by the Fighter rolling a die, adding his BAB and attempting to exceed the attack roll of his opponent.

Example:
Kronjob the Fighter is unarmored and in melee against a goblin. Kronjob has a d20 and a d16 to roll. His BAB is +4. On his turn he decides to use his d20 to attack and his d16 to parry. He rolls an 11 on the d20 for a modified roll of 15. That hits. The goblin attacks and gets a 23. Kronjob can't parry that with his d16+4 so he takes a hit. The next round Kronjob decides to roll the d16 to attack and saves his d20 to parry.

Later in the combat, Kronjob decides it's time to finish the goblin. So he dedicates both dice to an attack roll, giving up the ability to parry this round. He gets a 1 on the d20 and a 14 on the d16. He takes the 14 for a modified roll of 18. Another hit. The goblin's dead.

[nanstreet]

I'm not in favor of messing with the MDoA die size, though, as that also affects the probability to hit for the Warrior class.

Maybe I'm wrong but from what I've read the Action Dice is not the 'To Hit' dice. I thought that you roll a d20 and an Action Dice, one determining whether you hit, the other whether you do a MDoA.

I'm not penalizing a platemail-wearing Knight's chance to hit, just his chance to pull off cool stunts in comparison to a less-armoured fighter.

What I'm playing with right now is base attack bonus. In traditional D&D, fighter types get +1 at level 1, +2 at level 2, +3 at level 3, and so on. In DCC RPG right now, warriors get d3 at level 1, d4 at level 2, d5 at level 3, and so on.

By "d3 at level 1," I mean the warrior rolls a d3 on every attack roll. This attack is d20+d3+Str mod; next attack is d20+d3+Str; etc. It's not a d3 made at the level-up time, but rolled anew every attack.

The sum of these dice forms the attack roll, which is compared to AC as usual.

If the overall attack roll hits, AND that d3 is a 3 or better, the warrior can perform a cool stunt declared at moment of attack. We call this a Mighty Deed of Arms.

The MDoA die seems to be both the modifier to hit and to determine if a MDoA is possible, so unfortunately changing the MDoA size would also change the to hit modifier.

Here's an idea:

Initiative is rolled on a d6, to this roll the players add their Armor Class value and the highest roll at the table attacks first. This helps simulate how cumbersome armor can be during combat. The lighter the armor the better, as the higher AC value adds more to the Initiative roll. In most sword & sorcery literature the combatants tend to wear lighter armor or none at all, and handling Initiative in this manner helps simulate this pretty well I think. (Edit: In most cases, the Armor Class value added to an Initiative roll is not adjusted due to any magical properties the armor might have. This, of course, is something each Game Master will need to decide for their own game, and also may vary from one magic set of armor to the next.)

link: http://swordandsanity.blogspot.com/2011 ... rview.html

(The above of course assumes descending AC scores.)

I like that idea. It would be a big advantage in the opening round. Not sure if it would make up for lack of armor in the later rounds of combat. Anyone have an impression of the average length of DCC combats?

[geordie racer]

The MDoA die seems to be both the modifier to hit and to determine if a MDoA is possible, so unfortunately changing the MDoA size would also change the to hit modifier.

Oh right, my mistake

The above of course assumes descending AC scores

It's a good idea but for this.

In some S&W games with ascending AC I've used Armour Class = Dex if unarmoured , (only applies to Fighters + Thieves). Players of PCs with average or low DEX have stuck to armour

or better still: AC=Dex unless you've got better armour.

or alternatively: If not wearing armor, Dex AC bonus is doubled.

I pinched these ideas from my thread here, trying to find something with elegant simplicity.

[Machpants]

I'm not sure where there's wiggle room to insert a mechanic that (IMO) has been missing since day one.

This has long been a sticking point with me and D&D (in all it's forms). It really sucks at being able to represent a competent, unarmored warrior which is far more common in fantasy literature than the walking tank that is so prevalent in game.

Remember the walking tank is also prevalent IRL because it works! If you want to sacrifice some verisimilitude in combat there is no problem buffing the loin cloth clads defence in some way.

The other option is to stress the problems of full time armour wearing. Yes you can do cartwheels and jump and run in full plate harness. But you cannot wear it all day without dying of heat exhaustion etc. That is the point of differential for RPGs/literature, IRL you only wore your armour when you need it and (almost) always had time to get it on before battle. In fantasy games/literature it is worn all the time, action can come at any moment! Yes you are nigh untouchable in full plate but considering it takes ages to get on, complete with help to tie the all the points, means you'll very rarely have it on when it matters.

Although this is probably all too complex for DCC!

Back to your regularly scheduled better ideas

[GnomeBoy]

Remember the walking tank is also prevalent IRL because it works! If you want to sacrifice some verisimilitude in combat there is no problem buffing the loin cloth clads defence in some way.

The other option is to stress the problems of full time armour wearing ... Although this is probably all too complex for DCC!

Oh, man!

Should I bust out the Fatigue rules I wanted to play test with DCC RPG in a new thread...?

[JediOre]

Oh, man!

Should I bust out the Fatigue rules I wanted to play test with DCC RPG in a new thread...?

Friend, I'm going to beat you with plate mail until you put those rules away!

[finarvyn]

While I hate to have too many sub-classes or the like, certainly there is precident in literature for having two types of fighters: the strong fighter and the agile fighter. Some fighters wear heavy platemail and carry big nasty weapons, but the pirate or swashbuckler musketeer type clearly does not.

And don't forget the half-naked barbarians and the chain-bikini wearing amazons!

Forget the chainmail wearing Amazons? I live for that stuff!

I'm not sure where there's wiggle room to insert a mechanic that (IMO) has been missing since day one.

This has long been a sticking point with me and D&D (in all it's forms). It really sucks at being able to represent a competent, unarmored warrior which is far more common in fantasy literature than the walking tank that is so prevalent in game.

A nifty little house rule that I've done is to allow the DEX (agility) bonus to influence AC as long as no actual armor is worn. I've tried using the bonus or using 2x the bonus and find that 2x works really well. (For example, and 18-DEX character with +3 bonus would have an AC of 10+6 or 16 which is a lot like Platemail, so those agile swashbucker types can still live a long time.)

[Hamakto]

I'm not in favor of messing with the MDoA die size, though, as that also affects the probability to hit for the Warrior class.

Maybe I'm wrong but from what I've read the Action Dice is not the 'To Hit' dice. I thought that you roll a d20 and an Action Dice, one determining whether you hit, the other whether you do a MDoA.

I'm not penalizing a platemail-wearing Knight's chance to hit, just his chance to pull off cool stunts in comparison to a less-armoured fighter.

Just for clarification...

MDoA works like this for Warriors:

To Hit: d20 + MDoA Die + STR bonus
Damage: Weapon Die + MDoA Die + STR bonus

Does the MDoA trigger? 3 or higher on MDoA

[Ravenheart87]

One of my friends asked this question after seeing this playtest handout, that I couldn't answer: why is the wizard trained in bows? Especially in longbow. It seems to be a strange choice for me. While I have read about plenty of wizards with swords, I can't remember any using bows. Did I miss something from Appendix N? Or is it just to make the wizard useful as artillery, when he's not casting any spells? If yes, why not the classical dart?