Armour

[Lloyd Dupont]

It's a common trope of movie and story: the light armoured quick guerilla fighter

now I was wondering, one of my player like the light armoured style of fighter, but clearly a big armor offer better protection, why would any one use light armour if they have the choice?

looking for ideas!

- it takes time to put the big armour on and it's annoying, should offer some kind of malus to agility, perception and stealth? And make some thing annoyingly slow (like going to the privy )
- it's expensive
- increased exposure, more hot in the sun, more cold in the cold? some other kind of malus?
- leather armour should protect better than it does? (seem like it protect little, as far I can see..)
- something else?

how to grade it?....

Edited October 14, 2019 by Lloyd Dupont

[soltakss]

It;s a game of averages and chance. If most of your opponents to 1d6+1 damage, then you can survive with little armour. Even 1d8+1+2d2 does 4.5 on average, so light armour is pretty effective half the time. Don't forget that you ignore any wounds below your Toughness, so someone with 4 APs and 6 toughness needs a 10-point wound to cause a damaging wound, that is near maximum damage for most weapons and Might. Of course, advantages and high damage rolls can cause problems, as can armour with less coverage, so the APs don't count.

I would prefer low APs with 100% coverage than high APs with 20% coverage.

[RosenMcStern]

28 minutes ago, soltakss said:

I would prefer low APs with 100% coverage than high APs with 20% coverage.

Also called the chainmail bikini