Gameplay Mechanics of Armor

[Chunkyman]

How do you want armor to affect gameplay?

 

I like the "Damage Threshold" system in New Vegas. Besides being a bit more logical, it is also fun from a gameplay perspective. How I think it should work for PE is that the heavier armor you wear, the more penalties you get to things like stamina, speed, attack rate, etc. For example, light armor would have almost no penalties to your character, but it wouldn't be very effective in blocking damage. On the other hand, very heavy armor would make you extremely hard to hurt but would cripple your DPS because of all the penalties.

 

This system would allow for a good variety in different tactics and play styles, which makes the game funner and adds to replayability.

 

I also want armor to be multi piece (slots for grieves, helmets, etc.) so that I can mix and match pieces that I find throughout the world, allowing for greater variety in what my character can equip.

 

Stat requirements are just annoying. I think a mage should have greater penalties for wearing armor than a beefy warrior, but I don't think flat out restrictions enhance gameplay in any way.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Chunkyman

[alphyna]

I don't really get the last question. Who would vote for one-piece armor in an old-school RPG? (And who did?)

 

That said, my companions' armor is another thing entirely. While everyone obviously hates DA2's system where you can't even switch the armor, only upgrade (and yes, I did absolutely love it), it has an important advantage: the style. I would very much like for my companions to maintain their style. If some lady prefers black then she can only wear black armor — or all armor becomes black when she puts it on. It's logical, useful (yay for color-coding!) and gives characters personality.

 

And now for something more controversial. I'm probably a minority here, but: frankly, I tire of having to check if some medium helmet can be worn by someone in my party. It's just tedious. So I'm actually for some restrictions for companions (limited armor inventory in general or simply one-piece). Then again, it's obvious I'm desperately lonely in this opinion.

[eimatshya]

I'm with OP on the damage threshold and no stat requirements thing (although I would be OK with stat requirements if they didn't prevent you from equipping the item; you should be able to wear any armor, but with penalties if you aren't strong enough like in VTM:B). I actually kind of like the single suit armor system from the Infinity Engine games, though. It means that you don't end up with hideously mismatched armor, and you still have a fair amount of customization through the cloak, hand, ring, head, and feet slots.

Edited September 22, 2012 by eimatshya

[PsychoBlonde]

IMO if they're not going to do a flat AC system like D&D (and that system has serious drawbacks so myeh), then I think they'll be better off going with a multilayered system.

 

1. Dodge/Parry: this is your ability to flat out avoid an attack altogether. Everyone should start with a base Dodge from race/stats and a base parry from race/stats. Heavier armor/weapons/shields should grant penalties to dodge and maybe cause you to get more fatigue at the end of battles (see my thread about degenerate rest). Larger weapons and shields (and training with those) should improve your Parry. And higher dexterity/agility/speed ought to increase your dodge. ONLY dodge should apply against missiles/area attacks unless you have some kind of special class ability.

 

2. Shields should grant a certain measure of Damage Threshold, aka Damage Reduction--not too much.

 

3. Heavier armor should reduce the % damage you take from attacks.

 

And, of course, you should be able to modify all of these statistics with items, spells, and abilities.

 

I don't like stat or class requirements on gear--there ought to be proper *tradeoffs* involved with heavier armor vs. lighter armor that push you toward (but don't require) certain setups. For instance, in the system I outlined here, only characters who can suck a lot of fatigue would want to go with heavy armor--that and people who are going to get attacked a lot so the damage will add up no matter how good their dodge is. But you could also build a dodge "tank" focused on not getting hit, and it'd have the benefit that they would still probably get hurt less by missiles and AOE attacks. There could be another tradeoff involved depending on how the aggro mechanics work--if you set the enemy AI so if they miss their attacks consistently, they change to a different target, it'll be difficult for dodge tank type to keep aggro. You can also make it that heavier armor reduces your resistance to movement penalties. Or that heavier armor reduces your chances of eating a critical hit and getting a wound (see the linked thread.) The degree of benefit/penalty needs to be tuned so that you can't (quite) have everything, but a number of different approaches work.

 

I have no problem with armored mages, and I don't really understand why D&D does, anyway, because an intelligent mage can easily get MORE armor class than a fighter in plate mail. Not to mention Stoneskin and Displacement and other advantages only available to mages. Mages should have precisely the same kind of benefits/detriments from armor as anyone else. Don't want mages using shields? Put in some REALLY SUPER AMAZING OSSUM two-handed staves for mages. That, and don't give mages a bunch of abilities that would stack with armor and make them basically indestructible. Prefer your casters in robes? Make it so their only magical defenses improve Dodge, so they're (probably) better off stacking dodge for defense. Make missile weapons/aoe effects the BANE OF THEIR EXISTENCE because they interrupt spells like ANYTHING. And if someone really wants to play a heavily armored sword-and-board front line tank mage, LET THEM.

 

Addendum: Oh, and dodge/parry should rapidly decrease in effectiveness when you're getting attacked by more than one enemy. This would *encourage* you to have a couple of heavies who can soak a lot of (greatly reduced) damage, while your fast, nimble dodge-oriented characters peel off enemies one at a time and annihilate them. But you could still have a dodge tanks by putting in a class (or a spell, or a race) who can dodge attacks from multiple sources at once--or who simply don't lose as much dodge from being flanked.

Edited September 22, 2012 by PsychoBlonde

[LadySpace]

I don't like stat or class requirements on gear--there ought to be proper *tradeoffs* involved with heavier armor vs. lighter armor that push you toward (but don't require) certain setups. For instance, in the system I outlined here, only characters who can suck a lot of fatigue would want to go with heavy armor--that and people who are going to get attacked a lot so the damage will add up no matter how good their dodge is. But you could also build a dodge "tank" focused on not getting hit, and it'd have the benefit that they would still probably get hurt less by missiles and AOE attacks. There could be another tradeoff involved depending on how the aggro mechanics work--if you set the enemy AI so if they miss their attacks consistently, they change to a different target, it'll be difficult for dodge tank type to keep aggro. You can also make it that heavier armor reduces your resistance to movement penalties. Or that heavier armor reduces your chances of eating a critical hit and getting a wound (see the linked thread.) The degree of benefit/penalty needs to be tuned so that you can't (quite) have everything, but a number of different approaches work.

 

I have no problem with armored mages, and I don't really understand why D&D does, anyway, because an intelligent mage can easily get MORE armor class than a fighter in plate mail. Not to mention Stoneskin and Displacement and other advantages only available to mages. Mages should have precisely the same kind of benefits/detriments from armor as anyone else. Don't want mages using shields? Put in some REALLY SUPER AMAZING OSSUM two-handed staves for mages. That, and don't give mages a bunch of abilities that would stack with armor and make them basically indestructible. Prefer your casters in robes? Make it so their only magical defenses improve Dodge, so they're (probably) better off stacking dodge for defense. Make missile weapons/aoe effects the BANE OF THEIR EXISTENCE because they interrupt spells like ANYTHING. And if someone really wants to play a heavily armored sword-and-board front line tank mage, LET THEM.

 

 

I originally voted in favor of stat requirements, but you've convinced me otherwise. Allowing for people to design their character builds to work best with whatever armor/shield.weapon combination they see fit - even ridiculous or largely ineffective ones - is just plain good design. Restrictions should be organic and emergent from the properties, bonuses, and detriments of equipment and playstyle, not built into each class for no reason. Plus, the PE approach to magic doesn't make it sound as though there's any good reason to restrict mages from wearing armor, nor does it sound like a good idea that warriors be punished artificially for making a lightweight fighter. Nicely argued.

 

That said, I disagree with your three-tiered damage avoidance system. In my view, dodging, parrying, and blocking are all one in the same, in that they allow the character to avoid a blow outright. The next step down should be armor, which grants damage reduction by a set amount (perhaps with a caveat that armor degrades over time and its damage threshold decreases, and of course with considerations for armor-piercing weaponry). There's no real need for a percentage reduction because hit points, which I am assuming will be used because they always bloody are, fulfill the same role: if a big, beefy godlike has three times as many hitpoints as a scrawny elf, then any damage dealt to the godlike will be one third as effective.

Edited September 22, 2012 by LadySpace

[Jozape]

How do you want armor to affect gameplay?

 

I like the "Damage Threshold" system in New Vegas. Besides being a bit more logical, it is also fun from a gameplay perspective. How I think it should work for PE is that the heavier armor you wear, the more penalties you get to things like stamina, speed, attack rate, etc. For example, light armor would have almost no penalties to your character, but it wouldn't be very effective in blocking damage. On the other hand, very heavy armor would make you extremely hard to hurt but would cripple your DPS because of all the penalties.

 

Agreed. To add to that, I would prefer if it's like Ultima, and we didn't have too much progression of armor, but instead tradeoffs in protection versus weight and what not. Although a few expensive options with the advantages of multiple types of armors is fine too.

 

I also want armor to be multi piece (slots for grieves, helmets, etc.) so that I can mix and match pieces that I find throughout the world, allowing for greater variety in what my character can equip.

 

Likewise.

 

Stat requirements are just annoying. I think a mage should have greater penalties for wearing armor than a beefy warrior, but I don't think flat out restrictions enhance gameplay in any way.

 

I generally don't like stat requirements either. IMO, if you can carry it in your inventory, you should be able to equip it and that's where the requirements should end. Unless we're talking about very special armor/equipment, like the mystic armor in Ultima 4 requiring the player to build up his virtues(I think, it's been a while since I played the game). But for generic armor, there should be no requirement other than if your character is strong enough to carry it.

[kenup]

Damage Threshold worked well, so that's cool.

 

Armour requirements should only when it makes absolute sense i.e. no robes(or whatever) restricted by faction(replacing alignment) or class. On the other hand heavy armour should require some strength and maybe feat(s), while a strongly enchanted armour or clothing may or may not require some mental/spiritual/mana/feat(s) stat.

 

And 100% behind multi-piece armour.

[Luckmann]

Where is the "Both" option for the first question?

[LokiHades]

DT, Penalty system (basically people who aren't trained to use their armor effectively), and Multipiece.

 

I always hated % reductions or DR. Essentially armor is useless at the cap (and there is always a cap), and would require the creators to either lower the cap on light armors/robes and keep the best armor maxed just to give them distinction. Lord knows this doesn't work if you want specialties for classes that have to do with armor (lets say, a warrior using armor more efficiently doesn't get that benefit in the endgame because his armor itself already hits the DR cap, thus his benefit is rendered moot or pointless).

 

it's a problem both Skyrim and Oblivion suffered as well as FO3 (Remember how everyone and their grandma would use Riley's Ranger armor?), where as in FO, FO2, and FONV, getting things like powered armor felt progressive.

 

I agree with the penalty system, but think an endgame class should receive benefit for their armor mastery (essentially, armor has become a part of them). Warriors won't be as impeded as when they start out, and mages robes will be infused with their energy for extra protection (neither of them outdoing each other though).

 

Multipiece is a must. Why? Sure a single set is easier to put into the game, but it's always satisfying when you're at the end game, and you have to retrieve 5-9 pieces of armors to complete what is essentially the best set for your class. Morrowind is a brilliant example of this with Daedric armor, where as Oblivion was bandits in glass and daedric and Skyrim didn't matter since you could craft it all the way.

 

Where is the "Both" option for the first question?

 

I'd like to see ability based DR though. Like getting a % reduction from a passive skill, or an active shield. Also should be a part of certain enemies and mobs (mainly bosses, so even high end players will have a bit of a challenge).

Edited September 22, 2012 by LokiHades

[PsychoBlonde]

There's no real need for a percentage reduction because hit points, which I am assuming will be used because they always bloody are, fulfill the same role: if a big, beefy godlike has three times as many hitpoints as a scrawny elf, then any damage dealt to the godlike will be one third as effective.

 

Except this isn't quite true, because healing spells will heal that godlike for just as much as they heal the scrawny elf unless you use a mechanic whereby you get healed for a percentage of your hp instead of a flat number--but this tends to penalize characters with low HP instead, because fewer hits are a larger percentage of their health. Healing always needs to be calculated into your system. Big HP numbers may allow you to take more hits (or bigger hits) before you need healing, but in a lot of games they seem to forget that you need a correspondingly large amount of healing when you have the big HP. Otherwise all that HP total does is front-load you so that the healers can maybe do a few other things like throw buffs or some crowd control before they have to start spam-healing to keep you alive. Damage output ties into this system as well.

 

That's why I suggest some kind of multilayered or multifactoral system even IF you assume different character types will have radically different HP totals, because, as you said, it allows for lots of emergent gameplay possibilities and oddball builds.

[PsychoBlonde]

I always hated % reductions or DR. Essentially armor is useless at the cap (and there is always a cap), and would require the creators to either lower the cap on light armors/robes and keep the best armor maxed just to give them distinction.

 

OMG. /RANT MODE ON

 

CAPS ARE BULL****.

 

I cannot say this enough. If someone figures out how to get 100% defense, this is a result of the devs being unable to do basic math. Do not penalize the player by putting in some lazy-ass hard cap on how much defense they can "actually" get. If you want 80% to be the max for some bizarro world reason, then only put in 80% worth of gear and abilities. It's not rocket science.

 

DIMINISHING RETURNS ARE ALSO BULL****.

 

This is the second lazy way devs go about preventing you from enjoying the benefits of your stacking efforts--every bit you add has less and less effect. No. DO THE MATH, figure out what the player can get, and tune your tradeoffs accordingly. Don't make every build hover uselessly around Mediocreville no matter how hard they try.

 

You know what systems like this accomplish? They turn boss fights into exercises in creative kiting/glitch-finding/exploiting, so you wind up with people building their characters to be as exploit-centric as possible rather than actually choosing to pursue excellence in this or that area.

 

/rant mode off

[LadySpace]

healing spells will heal that godlike for just as much as they heal the scrawny elf unless you use a mechanic whereby you get healed for a percentage of your hp instead of a flat number--but this tends to penalize characters with low HP instead, because fewer hits are a larger percentage of their health.

 

I'm not sure I understand the problem. Characters with lower HP totals who withstand the same amount of damage need more healing than do more resilient combatants. This makes perfect sense to me, and shouldn't be a balance problem provided that low-HP characters can find other ways to not die, including not only armor, dodging, and blocking, but also personalized healing methods, arcane shields, elemental resistances, and so forth. Playing a character who's frail and weak is going to require that character be sneaky or skilled or magically powerful in order to stay alive; I don't see that as a flaw, I see it as rational design.

 

 

 

CAPS ARE BULL****.

 

[snip]

 

DIMINISHING RETURNS ARE ALSO BULL****.

 

 

Agreed on both points.

[Jozape]

Yep, armor caps are evil. They have no place in my RPG experience.

[Chunkyman]

Yep, armor caps are evil. They have no place in my RPG experience.

 

I agree. They shouldn't throw in artificial caps for things, they should however make it difficult for you to achieve 100% immunity through normal means.

[Valorian]

Other. Damage reduction that isn't a percentage neither a fixed number. I'll repeat what i wrote in another thread.

 

The damage treshold value of armor should be rolled withing a range, like 3-6 for example. There should be a chance for weapons (with their own armor penetration value) to pierce through it and halve the damage reduction value. It would be rolled every time you get hit.

 

Fixed damage tresholds make many encounters obsolete. With an armor reduction range it'd be possible to get damaged even against foes with a low damage output. Minimum of 1 damage if the blow hits, I'd say, regardless of armor.

[septembervirgin]

We must keep in mind that *layering* armor is also an important concept. Padding, chain mesh, metal plate is sometimes the order of the day, although hardened lacquered leather can go over a cushion as can wood and specialized ceramics (as can be found in some Chinese infantry armor). Cushioning can get even more complex, with even old style "moisture wicking" coming into play, however I think it might be too complex to permit cushion layering as a customization.

 

But more on selecting the right cushion: putting a certain type of cushion under armor can drastically protect a person. Silk cushions can assist in removing arrowheads, just as an example. Hemp fibers, mulberry fiber paper, and steam compressed spiderwebs are other forms of padding. Twenty-fold mulberry paper armor can stop arrows (not longbow arrows, but arrows fired from normal bows of its period). The theory is that it's hard to penetrate a thick book even with an arrow. Some forms of sea fauna has also shown to be an archaic form of padding and if treated with the right tanins it isn't very smelly and works as a rubbery form of underpad. Rubber wasn't unknown to some ancient cultures but it is unknown to what full extent it was used for domestic and military purposes (often it was used for shoes); some forms of rubber would make an excellent medium between sheets of padding.

 

The actual armor itself, whether it is bamboo, wicker, or metal, is not usually as unwieldy as role-playing games insist. Full armor has always been made with mobility of the wearer in mind. In rare cases that armor has excluded swift movement, it is usually not a good representation of warfare armor of the period. There are depictions of knights leaping in advanced plate armor (that is, armor made in high renaissance and after) and the armor manufactured at the height of steel plate armor technology (up into 1727 or then about) was truly divine in structure.

 

As to hitting an armored person: hitting is not always easy, as armor can be contoured and someone who is familiar with armor can subtly maneuver in such a way to assist contouring the blow off the armor. This, without moving the body too drastically, hence permitting return attacks without handicapping the riposte. Some role-playing games do understand that armor not only prevents direct strikes but also assists in deflecting dangerous weapons that might otherwise penetrate. Steel armor usually cannot be penetrated by melee weapons, to my knowledge. Anyone who has put an axe-blade through a cool steel plate (or dents cool steel with a swung hammer) without significant mechanical assistance, please let me know!

 

As such, I think that steel armor should be rated for completeness and where it covers the wearer, it would render the wearer fairly invulnerable to direct damage by melee weapons. This is not a fantasy game trope, I'm aware, and probably won't be a feature in the game. A piercing weapon through eye holes or any weapon bared unto an unguarded face could prove usefully lethal, however.

[Shevek]

I would have liked more options in the first question. Perhaps exploring other PnP game systems might have been the way to go.

 

Anywho, I support any system whereby armor works as it should. In DnD, it works as, essentially, avoidance. That is not how it should be. It should be damage reduction of some kind.

 

I like how GURPs does it. Depending on the rigidity of the armor, well or poorly vs. crushing or impaling attacks.

http://ayinger.no-ip.info/fantasyArmor

 

I would like to see something similar where are armor gives resistances to different damage types.

 

I also have to point out that if you are gonna do piecemeal armor, each piece should only protect what it protects. In another words, guantlets should not protect your chest.

[Piccolo]

Here are some of the stats i'd like to see for armor:

• Weight (which obviously has an impact on stamina and how fast you can run)
  
• Movement (impacts how agile you are in combat. This differs from weight in that piece of plate armor might be fairly light, but still restrictive of arm/leg movement, whereas chainmail might allow for easy movement, but be quite heavy)
  
• Durability (how long the armor lasts before it starts to wear)
  
• Cost (not necessarily reflective of quality. Some pieces might simply cost more because they're rare or ornimental)
  
• Protection against piercing blows (such as spear thrusts, arrows, and blade stabs)
  
• Protection against cutting blows (standard sword hacks / slashes)
  
• Protection against crushing blows (heavy blunt weapons, such as hammers and maces)
  
• Protection against [insert magic/elemental damage type - e.g fire damage]
  

So basically, there should be pros and cons to every type of armor in the game, and the player will have to pick the armor that's not only right for their character but also right for a certain situation... instead of simply looking for an obvious "best" set that trumps all other sets.

[TrashMan]

A long time ago I modded BG2 to give different armors different damage reductions to slashing/blunt/piercing. Worked wonderfull.

 

Of course, a flat number might not work best, but rather a range.

Frankly I think the amount of protection armor affords you also depends on your proficiency with the armor.

While even a mage can wear plate, a knight is trained to use it effectively.

 

So basicly a mage in armor wouldbe hit more often and would fail to postion properly for effective deflection.

[Ashram]

Call me silly but I kind of like the armor class type thing....modified by armor pieces. I really like how SW SAGA did it with having a reflex defense (AC) will defense, and fortitude defense. Your armor increased your RD and FD depending on type. You needed certain proficiencies to gain the max abilities with the armor, but anyone could wear it.

[PsychoBlonde]

healing spells will heal that godlike for just as much as they heal the scrawny elf unless you use a mechanic whereby you get healed for a percentage of your hp instead of a flat number--but this tends to penalize characters with low HP instead, because fewer hits are a larger percentage of their health.

 

I'm not sure I understand the problem. Characters with lower HP totals who withstand the same amount of damage need more healing than do more resilient combatants. This makes perfect sense to me, and shouldn't be a balance problem provided that low-HP characters can find other ways to not die, including not only armor, dodging, and blocking, but also personalized healing methods, arcane shields, elemental resistances, and so forth. Playing a character who's frail and weak is going to require that character be sneaky or skilled or magically powerful in order to stay alive; I don't see that as a flaw, I see it as rational design.

 

Erm, if you have 200 hp and take 50 damage, you need 50 points of healing to be restored. If you have 60 hp and take 50 damage, you need 50 points of healing to be restored. They both need the same amount of healing. It deducts the same amount of healing resources from the overall party fund.

 

Having a big block of HP does not a superior tank make. Oh, it can help--so they don't get one-shot--but you can have all the HP in the world and if you don't have damage avoidance, mitigation, healing amplification, and threat generation, you're just a mana sponge. A mana sponge who probably doesn't do much damage, either.

 

Trust me, my main in DDO is a healer. An 800 hp monk tank with 185% healing amp, a 100 AC, 100 phys resist, and 18% dodge is a delight to heal, and half the time they heal THEMSELVES. A 1400 hp barbarian with -10% healing amp, 40 AC, 20 phys resist, DR 13/-, and 0% dodge is a nightmare. Oh, and there are WIZARDS in DDO with 800+ hp, and they die just as much as the ones with 4-500, more, even, because they don't watch their health, they wait until they're at 20% or worse to throw their 300 point reconstruct, which barely gets them back up to half. The ones with 500 health don't charge and get all the aggro in the first place.

[PsychoBlonde]

The actual armor itself, whether it is bamboo, wicker, or metal, is not usually as unwieldy as role-playing games insist. Full armor has always been made with mobility of the wearer in mind. In rare cases that armor has excluded swift movement, it is usually not a good representation of warfare armor of the period. There are depictions of knights leaping in advanced plate armor (that is, armor made in high renaissance and after) and the armor manufactured at the height of steel plate armor technology (up into 1727 or then about) was truly divine in structure.

 

Armor doesn't impede you directly if you're on a nice flat surface. It does make you tire out faster, and climbing ANYTHING is a huge, huge problem. If you're going to be out in the wilderness, that armor is going to slow you down because there ain't anything even remotely resembling a nice flat surface in the vast majority of the wilderness. And heaven help you if you get knocked down. It's going to take you extra time to get back up just due to the weight and the fact that even in the best armor, you still can't bend as freely as you can without.

 

That's why I suggested that heavier armor grant +fatigue (which you get at the end of combat in my system), and that it also give you -resistance against movement-impeding effects (like spells and traps etc.) Not that it grant overall slower attacks or overall slower movement. Although, if you wanted to add an extra component, you could have it induce movement penalties when you're going up/down hills and so forth--all you'd have to do from a mechanical standpoint would be to designate certain areas as "slanty" and when the armored character entered that area, they'd slow slightly.

 

I'd really love to see this sort of thing in the game.