Goodman Games

An interesting idea came up in the Classic Modules thread. To simulate the unarmored warrior (like Conan in some stories). If a Warrior doesn't wear armor than him AC is equal to his agility. It would give a moderate to high agility unarmored warrior a fighting chance.

What do you think? How about other classes?

This is a classic OSR house-rule. Use it, it's cool. It doesn't have to be class specific, because "not getting hit" is a universal ability. Or you can add their class level or Attack Bonus. In fact using Ability Scores as a sort of "defense" is something that a lot of old-schoolers have been using in place of "skill" checks, in a way it's sort of a passive DC. For example, if a portcullis starts coming down, about to block the way, and a warrior tries to stop it, I would (as the judge) roll something against their strength. If I roll higher than their strength, the portcullis falls.

House rules are fun, and the best way to tweak a game for a particular group.

I originally talked about this issue in the Classic Modules thread. In my mind many of the Appendix N warriors are not the classic heavily armored warriors of DnD. In fact most of them do rely on skill and parrying and dodging versus armor. Sure Conan wears mail or leather from time to time but most of the time is lightly armored. You do not see Kane, Corum or Elric as heavily armored warriors either. That was my thought behind asking for a rule for unarmored warriors.

The DCC RPG is heavily Appendix N flavoured so I thought seriously it would include such a possibility. I like the AC as armor ruling and perhaps also a rule that adds a level based bonus to lightly armored warriors if they so choose (removing the possibility of wearing heavy armor). Just an idea to kick around I guess.

It's sad to say, but the Final rules don't have special rules for unarmored warriors. as was noted before, it's a classic house rule that's simple and easily adopted. You don't need anyone's permission to do so. I'm kinda bummed I didn't include this rule in my zine! I guess there is still time to do so.

I do have concerns about it though. Since the standard rule is still AC= 10+ agility modifier, and Wizards have never been able to wear armor, do they get to benefit from Agility as AC when not wearing armor? Why or why not? What classes do? This forum is as good as any to discuss this, don't you think? Discuss!

.

I would not give this to wizards. Why? Because to me that rule would mean extensive combat training, twitch-like reflexes and simple martial ability to parry with a weapon. Wizards are arcane masters of lore but not combat monsters. They spent their time reading books of eldritch knowledge while the warrior was pouring sweat and blood into his mastery of combat. To me they should have a choice to fight armored or unarmored/lightly-armored. I even consider giving warriors a level-based bonus to AC if they are unarmored/very lightly armored. It represents their continual mastery of this aspect of combat.

I could perhaps make a little leeway for elves and maybe thieves but possibly without the level-based bonus/not so high of a bonus to represent that their sole focus in not on martial matters.

There's an old-edition rule (i forget which, 0e?) that Fighter's with high Dexterity could Parry, which was effectively a bonus to their AC (enemies had penalties to their attacks.) This could be the same thing as Agility as AC. Also remember the abstract nature of "D&D" combat. Hit Points reflect more than "taking damage" they represent ability to "not get killed." It could be argued that a Warrior's higher HP threshold effectively does the same thing as having some sort of "bonus" AC. They can already take more "hits" than other classes, armored or not. Warriors already get their Level added to Initiative and their Lucky Roll added to a single weapon type. Warriors are really tough in DCC as written, especially with their MDoA. I see 1st & 2nd-level Warriors doing 10-12 pts of damage consistently.

I take all of this into account but to me AC as well as HP represent the ability "not to get killed". Warriors should excel at both in my mind. There is a reason why in S&S they are the best represented class. They are the man of courage and skill to face ungodly abominations. Plus, as said, most of them did not wear significant armor.

This could be represented in the "parry" rule sure. I totally agree on that. Alternatively MDoA should allow for a "wall of steel" type move where the warriors anticipated all incoming attacks with parries giving him additional AC. But to me the option to go unarmored/lightly armored is crucial in Appendix N warriors.

The recent old school game Myth and Magic has a class talent for warriors that represents this precisely and it really is balanced and workable.

Is Myth & Magic the 2e retro-clone? If it is, it's OGL, and therefore any tidbits are portable to any other d20/OGL game.

How does it work? Could it be adopted to DCC RPG? Could you swap, say the Level mod to Initiative for it? You [should] share it. Write up a DCC RPG version of it, and post it here. If I like it, I'll include it in Crawl! and you can get a free copy of the issue it's in. [If you want...]

Remember that MDoA aren't limited to the seven examples in the book. There are in fact* 666 different MDoAs that a Warrior can do. Could this Wall of Iron be one of them? Write that up too, follow the 7 examples in the rule-book as models.


*totally not true, or absolutely true if you believe there are only and exactly 716 spells in the universe.

Myth And Magic starter sets are freely available and are OGL. And yes Myth And Magic is the 2e retroclone.

I am going for beer and karaoke today but I will look at the talent and see if I can come up with the DCC RPG version of it. I think it could be swapped for the level bonus to intiative or some other warrior feature. I remeber it being very balanced and useful so I think it will work in DCC.

As for Wall Of Iron - with a bit of luck I will write that up too. I just need to re-read my BETA rules to do that but I think this type of move should be fairly popular. It is kind-of similar to the total defense action in 3e but not being as passive. Think of it as series of parries but including a strike or two as counter (allowing the warrior to attack - just without his MDoA die to damage for example).

Beer and Karaoke?! Two of my favorite things, well actually I HATE Karaoke [Hell], but I love going to Karaoke with my friends... and beer... I have the strange luck to live in the part of LA city that has 2 breweries within a couple miles of each other. Tonight is my gaming night, so it'll be Beer and Gaming tonight. I'm running my group through a One-Page Dungeon called "The Heart of the Minotaur", someone is going to get really upset tonight when they lose their character to the curse...

But, yes, that's the spirit! I look forward to seeing what you do. I'm the Judge in my campaign, and I do love Sexy Swordsperson rules but no one's brought up any sort of thing. But I'd adopt this simple version if there was interest:

Sexy Swordspersons:

Warriors who don't wear armor can use their Agility score as their Armor Class instead of the standard AC=10+Agility Modifier rule. Shields are permitted and add to AC.

I would like to see some reference to level, the agility = AC is certainly simple. I just wonder if there is a way to have it increase slowly with level, or more correctly, have more of your agility available. Say max non armoured AC is 10+ attack bonus (for warriors), 8 + attack bonus for elves, halflings and thieves and finally 6 + attack bonus for clerics, dwarves (who I see as armoured) and Wizards (adventuring wizards would eventually get a bit better at dodging.

I know this is a bit more complex but it means an Agility 17 warrior would get full value at level 5 (with max die result being the max i.e. 1d7 = 7)

How about that, I don't like having a level 1 Warrior possibly having the same AC as a fully plate armoured Warrior. But by the time he is a mighty 5th level? Hell yes.

Once I have the full rules I will figure out the max ACs and see if the non-Warrior numbers make sense. ATM I don't have the rules in front of me so I am just guessing outside the Warrior

EDIT: in fact I would put Thieves at 10+attack bonus as maximum (like warrior) cos IIRC their attack bonus has a very slow increase. I cannot remember the elf progression at all....
EDIT 2 : In fact I would imagine with Wizards 6+attack bonus may never go beyond 11 so take the numbers with a pinch of salt and just PEACH the general idea! Thief and warrior 10+att, everyone else 8+att or something...

A version of this would be just to add the Class Attack bonus to AC. For the Warrior and Dwarf you can have them roll their Attack bonus (Deed Die) anew every round, turn, encounter, or use the max value of their Deed Die, whatever feels right. The Attack bonus would be a perfect for this since it represents skill at fighting. I wouldn't combine this with Agility = unarmored AC though. In fact, I like this better, but only for warriors.

Sexy Swordsperson v.2:

Warriors who don't wear armor may add their Attack Bonus (Deed Die rolled once) to their AC. This is in addition to the standard Agility Modifier. Shields are permitted as usual. A new AC bonus is rolled anew anytime initiative is rolled.

I rule that fighting defensively is a Deed. You get the number rolled on the Deed die as your AC bonus, but that means you need to succeed on your deed. I'd rather see it done like this, for a couple reasons. Fighting defensively is still active. Making it a deed represents that. Second, deeds are already part of the warriors class abilities. They're exceptionally flexible, which makes them powerful. Judges should make their warriors put their deeds to work!

I just noticed that a Defensive Maneuvers is one of the "7" deeds, and it's very similar to "fighting defensively" and "Wall of Iron" suggested above. But weaker compared to the two.

I thought the book Conan always fought with an iron vest (something which was very different than movie Conan). Which Appendix N personalities fought without armour? I suppose you could make a case for the Grey Mouser, but he was hardly a warrior anyway.

Conan wore armor on occasion but there were multiple stories when he fought without any armor. The Grey Mouser fought without armor and believe it or not Fafhrd did not always wear armor. Point being many of them, if they wore armor, wore a minimal amount compared to DnD warriors.

Elric did not wear significant armor and neither did Corum. John Carter wore minmal to no armor. If we include Solomon Kane in Appendix N (and I think we should) we also wore no armor.

Also as I am skimming my copy of the DCC RPG pdf there are several pictures of lightly armored/non-armored warriors. Take for example the picture at page 376. Clearly no armor. So I think the vibe of the DCC rpg should really include non-armored warriors.

The solution is already in the rules - DCC models the Appendix N fiction damn well.

Conan - mid level Warrior who has high Agility, who does a Defensive Deed if necessary and isn't afraid to Burn Luck.

Makes sense but still there is no incentive not to wear armor. Which some Appendix N characters chose in an obvious fashion because it limited them. But I am nitpicking. Although I would like to see an option for unarmored warriors from the get-go that does not include burning Luck. Those warriors did not dodge because of luck, they did it because of skill at arms. But this is my version of it so I will dig into that Myth And Magic talent and see what I can come up with. I think it should always be a viable choice between being unarmored/lightly armored and a heavy plate fighter.

Speed, check, fumble penalty? Isn't that enough? When one of the PCs dies because he couldn't run fast enough, or rolled a nasty fumble, they'll think about twice next time, whether it's a good idea to always wear heavy armour or not.

Agreed on all counts. Still the norm in most campaigns is that the fighter would want the heaviest armor possibly. Heavy armor=more AC. More AC=less hits. Less hits=survival. This is the player mentality I encountered (as a player myself no less) so that is why I am willing to give an option for unarmored fighters. Plus my campaign world lacks ample material for armor so generations of fighters generally fought unarmored

How 'bout you rule the Defensive maneuver gives the full Deed Dice roll benefit on a roll of 3 or 4 as long as you are not wearing armor?

I'm just shy about making a new class for every little niche. That's what happened to modern editions. I wouldnt try to tell anyone what to do in your home game. But to give alternatives, above are listed a few situations where heavy armor is a disadvantage. Make sure those situations come up. Second if armor is rare, then it's expensive. Bump up the costs of armor of a coin value or two, and make sure opponents don't have any either. For a simple mechanical deterrent, along with more severe fumbles, as written, you could have a wider natural fumble range ie medium armor fumbles on 1-2 heavy armor on 1-3. Dont allow dex bonus to AC while wearing metal armor.

Don't get me wrong, I love lightly armored fighters, I'm an Errol Flynn fan so I love seeing crazy Deeds being called. That's why I want to see them used.

The supplement I'm working on ("Transylvanian Adventures") addresses this issue and offers a conversion for DCC classes as well -- in case a group wanted to use parts of TA in their DCC game.

To be clear I am not calling for a new class for this. Just a choice for warriors. Light-armor/no armor seems a big Appendix N trope so I am experimenting a little with DCC to get this effect. Crom forbid me from having a new class for it. Just a possibility for fighters to be unarmored and still effective. To me skill versus heavy armor is very much an appendix N situation. And in my game as said armor is to be had by the the richest class basicly. That includes NONE of the adventurers They are chance-seekers, those who prophecy speaks about - but none of them comes from a noble background. As such the world had to train warriors to fight unarmored. This also explains why the rich engage in war - they have the possibility to outfit a band of warriors to do their bidding in warfare. That is war in my world is rather small scale.

I am thinking of doing what Caveman said for example. There is other tinkering on my side but I have to try it out.

Smathis: Care to give a small sample? I would love to see this and how you worked on it. I planned to buy Transilvanian Adventures anyway