Armor and wound DN/dice modifications : some new ideas?

[Angaros]

Hello everyone. Jocke's the name, a short time lurker and first time poster. I've just become the proud owner of a BW set and I like it a lot. I do believe it's Durgil's "fault" that I've become addicted. :)

I've been thinking and looking and reading about wound modifications and various armors and if I've understood Luke correctly, these are the oldest parts of the system which explains why they still use variable DNs. I have a totally untested and perhaps not very thought-through suggestion to make and I was hoping you all could look at it and give me some input. Instead letting wounds and VA modify DNs from the beginning, how about letting them start with modifying dice and if you "run out of dice" only then increase DNs. For example: Maldan the Brute with a sword skill of B4 takes a couple of hits and end up with a -3D to everything leaving him at a miserable B1 in sword. With such weak defenses he suffers another sting in the following volley resulting in a -2D modification, but having only B1 as a result of previous injuries, he can't very well use zero or negative dice. Is it over for him then? Not according to my suggestion. Since he's already at 1 die, he instead get's the DN increased 2 steps to DN6 (2 steps since it was a -2 modification). Call it clinging to the last hope if you will. The same could (more or less) work with armors. Assume the rulebook conventions about coverage and DNs for various types of armor and let VA work the same way wound mods work. A VA of 3 would equal -3D instead of +3DN meaning a full body leather coverage could still work to some extent, but a mere leather jerkin or hat wouldn't do much good. Same thing goes here: if you're down to 1 die, start increasing DNs instead. Obviously you can't succeed with a DN greater than 6. I also like what someone else presented: let successes reduce IMS damage. 3 successes is needed to deflect a Superb hit. Each success reduces the injury one step (from Superb to Mark, from Mark to Incidental and from Incidental to None). An alternative way of handling DNs and reduced dice would be to increase DN first and once the DN reaches 6 begin to reduce dice from the pool. I'm not sure which system results in the smoothest scale but it's worth checking out IMHO. An advantage of raising DNs first would be that it allows players (and npcs) to get multiple successes for a longer "time".

So, begin the flaming! :D

[Angaros]

Hello again and sorry about the double post. I have now pondered the above suggestions some more and come to the following conclusions:

First of all, I like the second option that I presented above. It represents only a slight change from the original system and seems to result in the best distribution of probabilities. It also gives the most edge to heroic and supernatural beings/individuals. In short, the second option stated that all wound and VA modifications were to be seen as a universal modifier which first applied to DNs raising them as far as possible (to DN6) and then affecting dice. To me, this seems like a natural evolution of difficulties. Think of it as with small injuries/modifications you become more uneven but retain your potential whereas with more severe injuries/modifications, your potential drops and your no longer able to perform as complex and demanding feats. This was perhaps what Luke intended. The major resulting differences between the modification I've proposed and the published rules are that modifications always raises DNs, and that quilted/leather and plated leather has become more useful as armor vs combat weapons (swords, axes etc.).

Some armor comparisons:
Original system: Guardsman wearing a quilt gambeson and sturdy leather leggings receives 4D @ DN6. Any weapon striking the guardsman having a VA greater than 0 will render the armor useless. This means that any weapon short of a dirk or dagger will go right through it.

Modified system: Guardsman wearing the same quilt gambeson and sturdy leather leggins receives 4D @ DN6. A run-of-the-mill sword or axe striking the guardsman will reduce the armor to 3D @ DN6. This means the armor still has a chance of deflecting the blow but remember that successes only reduce IMS damage in the modified system. A mark hit would require 2 successes from the armor roll to be negated completely. 3D @ DN6 has 42% chance of getting 1 success, 7.5% chance of getting 2 successes and only 0.5% chance of getting three successes. Which leaves the armor being weak but still serviceable against poorly armed thugs. A well-equipped sergeant-at-arms wearing a mail hauberk and norman helm would receive 5D @ DN4 (did I get this one right?). A sword hitting that guy would reduce it to 5D @ DN5. Still a great armor with a good 21% chance of deflecting a Superb hit.

The result is that while weaker forms of armor becomes more useable, there is still a need for good armor and lots of it, because lots of it means lots of dice and lots of dice means you'll be able to deflect those wicked superb hits so all in all I think the armor scale gets stretched while retaining it's balance.

Wound mod. comparison:
I am here going to assume the following scale for the modified system:
Superficial wound : 1 lvl (universal penalty level or whathaveyou)
Light wound : 2 lvls
Minor wound : 3 lvls
Serious wound : 4 lvls
Traumatic wound : 6 lvls
Why the leap at the last stage? Mainly because traumatic wounds are nasty, ought to be nasty and it mimics the original rules closer than 5 lvls would. Looking at the scale for any mortal (black shade skills and stats) this translates to: +1DN, +2DN, +2DN&-1D, +2DN&-2D, +2DN&-4D for the wound levels respectively. Now this is nastier than the hidden message is: don't get hurt. Now I'm one of those GMs who like a good fight and while I like it when fights are potentially mortal, I don't like it when players get smashed by two hits, or perhaps even by one, and where he who is wounded first, loses. So, the result of the modification worries me a bit, but I'll think about it some more and hopefully, I'll be able to come up with a solution. Also, someone with a white shade stat or skill can, in the modified system, take a traumatic wound without losing any dice. Supernatural, yes, but is it right? Needs more thought perhaps.

[rafial]

It also gives the most edge to heroic and supernatural beings/individuals. In short, the second option stated that all wound and VA modifications were to be seen as a universal modifier which first applied to DNs raising them as far as possible (to DN6) and then affecting dice. To me, this seems like a natural evolution of difficulties.

Interesting ideas, but keep in mind that a -1 DN is generally much harsher than the loss of one die from the pool. This is why the standard wound penalties are often bitched about, since they make superficial wounds much more of a liability that more "serious" wounds.

The general problem is that -1D, which roughly equates to +1/2Ob, is the smallest penalty that's easily accomidated within the BW dice mechanic without keeping track of individual dice within the pool.

[Angaros]

I know that raising DNs is harsher than reducing dice, but in a general perspective this option of raising DNs before removing dice from the pool (assuming you want to follow any of the presented options that is) seemed to produce the smoother scale than doing it the other way around.

Alos, raising obstacles is far more penalizing than removing dice. At DN4, the chance of success for 5, 4, 3 and 2 dice with +1Ob/-1D respectively is: 81%/94%, 69%/88%, 50%/75%, 25%/50%. Not nearly equal. Raising obstacles is nasty and it's my main point vs. dicepool games in general (something I can live with though).

Reversing the system won't make that much of a difference and it seems my conviction as to which option is the best is as weak as water-soaked toiletpaper. This option makes armor a bit more powerful (heavy armors at least), and doesn't really make that much of a difference on wound modifications, apart from rearranging the probability scale of course which was the whole point of choosing this option. :) If I was to use BW (which I hope I will soon), I would use either of these options. Not sure which one. Perhaps number one, or two, or one, or... crap. I don't know. :)

[rafial]

Alos, raising obstacles is far more penalizing than removing dice. At DN4, the chance of success for 5, 4, 3 and 2 dice with +1Ob/-1D respectively is: 81%/94%, 69%/88%, 50%/75%, 25%/50%. Not nearly equal.

I think we are agreeing here... :) I was comparing -1D to +(one half)Ob, not +1 Ob.

The thing that gets me about +DNs is how fast they nail you. Rolling Ob2 with 5D is 81%, but with a +2DN, it drops to a mere 19%. Even losing -3D only takes you down to 25% in the same situation.

[Angaros]

Aha. I thought you meant +1 to +2 Ob. :) Yes, I am now beginning to sway towards the dice-dn option again which I liked more in the beginning. I am still confident though that a combination system will work well. I need to playtest this... now where are those players of mine?

[Catalyst]

Well said about using die removal as a smaller step. How about this?

Sup: -1D
Lit: -2D
Mid: +1 Ob
Sev: +1 Ob and -1D
Trm: +2 Ob and -2D

Roll +3 Ob to -4D or something like that. It seems to me that the probability scale can be smoothed out somewhat by messing with the penalties with dice as the smaller step, it's just a matter of tailoring to personal taste.

(Sorry if this is a repeat of info that was already posted, this makes sense to me while the other stuff didn't, probably lack of sleep...)

[eruditus]

Just so everyone is on the same page, we have done some significant playtesting of Luke's wound revision (see Speading Fire section) and I feel it works very well. Personally I think -1 D has a more detrimental effect across the whole character and thus why dice are removed for more severe wounds.

Since the lack of dice is what knocks people out, what you suggest means that a Light wound would knock out someone with a Perception 2 yet a Midi would not. That does not seem to make sense to me.

Additionally, due to the ability to open end rolls, having one less die significantly reduces the chances of success for skills with low exponents, where with an increased Ob, that one success can turn to two. Thus by reducing your die pool you VERY significantly increase your chances for failure. Remember, its easier to reduce Obstacles (through in game actions and the expenditure of Artha) than it is to reduce die reductions.

[Kublai]

A slight tangent, but I was thinking that perhaps you could never reduce a Skill to below 1?

As for the wounding system, I like the new one though it is much harsher. However, the more frequent Steel tests allow you character to disengage from a losing fight much more easily! :wink:

I am looking forward to playtesting the straight +1 Ob for Supies and Lights rule, instead of multiple +1's.

[Angaros]

In another thread I presented the following modifications:

WL Pain / Trauma
-------------------
Su -1 / 0
Li -1 / -1
Mi -2 / -1
Se -2 / -2
Tr -3 / -4
Mo -* / -*

Where Pain affectes the next volley and Trauma is there until the wound heals. Sort of a TRoS cross-over. If you feel lenient, make the Light modifiers into -2/0 instead making Midi the first level where lasting injuries occur. In this system you only take Steel tests when you get Trauma, not for Pain.

As for reducing below 1... using the first option above, you could allow players a "last resort" of raising their DNs when they run out of dice. That is, someone with a stat or skill of 3 getting a Traumatic wound would not be able to act the following volley since he will be at -7, but the volley after that he could use the stat/skill with an exponent of 3, letting it act as a B1@DN6. This would work well for armors and VAs as well. Even for called shots. I was supposed to have playtested these rules tonight or tomorrow but it seems my players are tangled up in work. Morons. ;) So I'll have to postpone the testing to next week.