Spear?

[Raleel]

I like armor piercing over sunder myself, though sunder does have the additional benefit of helping your allies. I’m not overly fond of the sunder implementation itself - you are trading damage to the target for damage to the armor, which is not often ideal. With such low hit points, if your goal is neutralization, sacrificing your damage makes little sense. If it’s not, of course, it makes perfect sense. 

[SDLeary]

Something that cropped up today:

Admittedly, he is talking about iron/steel weapons of the Middle Ages, but the design philosophy and implementation still applies.

SDLeary

[Raleel]

Great video. I could see one of the later period spears having armor piercing and the earlier era having bleed. 

[Barak Shathur]

Necro! I'm getting ready to GM this game, and Sunder still doesn't sit exactly right with me. I would like some opinions on this idea: Sunder as armour penetration in the sense that it ignores half of the AP of the location struck, rather than half the weapon's max damage or a set amount. One upside would be that it might easier to process if it's based on the type of armour rather than the particular weapon (i.e., a sundered articulated plate is always 4AP). Another is that it makes it relatively more useful against heavier armour, so that e.g. swords and spears are potentially better at getting through light armour thanks to their impale effect, while axes and hammers are better against mail and plate. My concern is, does this make sundering weapons too powerful? Especially in the case of two handed weapons, that already do a lot of damage.

Looking for feedback.

Edited September 24, 2023 by Barak Shathur

[Raleel]

Well, does it ignore half of all the armor it goes through? Natural, magical, worn? What makes it simpler than just a fixed amount, or half of the damage rolled? In this case, the former is simpler because it doesn’t change from armor to armor, and the latter is more realistic in that it varies with blow effectiveness. also, note, most swords can’t sunder. Only ones used in two hands. 
 

I went back and read the whole thread for context. I’d still recommend playing it a bit with the defaults before you run to the house rule. Even as a prolific house ruler.
 

The other thing I’d recommend is being careful with armor. It is very easy to over armor in mythras. Use pieces that make sense for a setting - most don’t have full suits or head to toe heavy armor. They have a breastplate and a helmet or a mail coat that doesn’t get the full legs.
 

Some of the best fights I’ve run in mythras had relatively light weapons and armor. my eyeball of it is shoot for maximum readily available armor with AP somewhere around half of the readily available damage. So, if the setting has a fair bit of short swords, linothorax is the armor that is common. Spears? Kick it up a notch to scaled. It keeps the fights dramatic and a cautionary tale.

[Barak Shathur]

1 hour ago, Raleel said:

I went back and read the whole thread for context.

That's commendable! I only went back halfway, to make sure I wasn't repeating myself 😄

1 hour ago, Raleel said:

Well, does it ignore half of all the armor it goes through? Natural, magical, worn? 

Good question. Maybe all non-natural armour, but magic enhancements are not affected. So a +2 AP gothic plate protects at 6AP when sundered.

1 hour ago, Raleel said:

What makes it simpler than just a fixed amount, or half of the damage rolled? In this case, the former is simpler because it doesn’t change from armor to armor, and the latter is more realistic in that it varies with blow effectiveness. 

What makes it simpler is that I, as GM, don't have to consider the individual combatants' weapons, which may vary. Instead I simply halve the armour struck, regardless of weapon. That woulds seem to generate slighly less overhead  (to me, at least). I agree that it's more realistic that the damage done varies with the quality of the blow, but on the one hand it means more variety and thus more overhead, on the other I lose the balancing (and somewhat realistic*) aspect of sunder being more effective the heavier the armour is, while producing a relatively modest effect on lighter armour.

1 hour ago, Raleel said:

also, note, most swords can’t sunder. Only ones used in two hands. 

I never said swords sunder. 

1 hour ago, Raleel said:

The other thing I’d recommend is being careful with armor. It is very easy to over armor in mythras. Use pieces that make sense for a setting - most don’t have full suits or head to toe heavy armor. They have a breastplate and a helmet or a mail coat that doesn’t get the full legs.

This is along the lines of what I was thinking too. Not too much heavy armour floating around.

1 hour ago, Raleel said:

I went back and read the whole thread for context. I’d still recommend playing it a bit with the defaults before you run to the house rule. Even as a prolific house ruler.

My impulse is both to change things that don't seem right to me, and also to limit the amount of house rules to a minimum. This would be my only one in this case. But I guess you're right. I'll follow your advice and feel it out before I change anything. Thanks!

* Realistic in the sense that a lighter armoured person can move around a lot more and thus evade some of the impact of a blow, while a more heavily armoured combatant is more static and thus absorbs more of the power)

[Mugen]

22 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

Necro! I'm getting ready to GM this game, and Sunder still doesn't sit exactly right with me. I would like some opinions on this idea: Sunder as armour penetration in the sense that it ignores half of the AP of the location struck, rather than half the weapon's max damage or a set amount.

I don't understand this part. Isn't Sunder the Special Effect that allows the attacker to destroy it's opponent's armor ?

Quote

The attacker may use a suitable weapon, such as an axe, to damage
the armour or natural protection of an opponent. Any weapon damage, after
reductions for parrying or magic, is applied against the Armour Point value
of the protection. Surplus damage in excess of its Armour Points is then used
to reduce the AP value of that armour(ed) location – ripping straps, bursting
rings, creasing plates or tearing away the hide, scales or chitin of monsters.
If any damage remains after the protection has been reduced to zero AP, it
carries over onto the Hit Points of the location struck.

I have to say I don't really like it either, but it's because I'm used to RQ3's idea that armors can't lose AP.

[Barak Shathur]

2 hours ago, Mugen said:

I don't understand this part. Isn't Sunder the Special Effect that allows the attacker to destroy it's opponent's armor ?

I was responding to this suggestion from Raleel:

"I would go for a book that covers that period better - mythic Constantinople. In there we find 

Puncturing – the weapon has a significant metal spike, usually slightly curved and designed to penetrate stiff armour. Can also apply to ammunition. Ignores a specific number of armour points equal to half the maximum damage capability of the weapon but only against rigid armour. So a puncturing dagger (1d4+1 damage) ignores 3 points of rigid armour.

said military pick would then gain 4 points of armor piercing, which would mean he could get through the plate 50% of the time."

I should have included the quotation (now I can't figure out how to quote from multiple pages, hence copy/paste).

[Mugen]

27 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

I should have included the quotation (now I can't figure out how to quote from multiple pages, hence copy/paste).

Look under the post you want to quote. There should be a "+" in a box next to the word "Quote". Just click the box to include it in the post you're writing.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Mugen

[Barak Shathur]

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

Look under the post you want to quote. There should be a "+" in a box next to the word "Quote". Just click the box to include it in the post you're writing.

Yes, that is what I do when I quote. However, I wanted to quote both you and Raleel, but since you’re on different pages of this thread I can’t. Going back and forth between the pages resets my post and anything written or quoted in it. 
 

23 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

What makes it simpler is that I, as GM, don't have to consider the individual combatants' weapons, which may vary. Instead I simply halve the armour struck, regardless of weapon. That woulds seem to generate slighly less overhead  (to me, at least). I agree that it's more realistic that the damage done varies with the quality of the blow, but on the one hand it means more variety and thus more overhead, on the other I lose the balancing (and somewhat realistic*) aspect of sunder being more effective the heavier the armour is, while producing a relatively modest effect on lighter armour

Sorry to belabour this point, but it struck me that armour penetration as halving AP is simpler also in the sense that it is only one calculation, while basing it on the weapon means two, halving the weapon damage and then subtracting it from AP. 

[Raleel]

2 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

Sorry to belabour this point, but it struck me that armour penetration as halving AP is simpler also in the sense that it is only one calculation, while basing it on the weapon means two, halving the weapon damage and then subtracting it from AP. 

 i think I'd rather subtract it off the weapon, as I don't want to figure out the AP armor for every location on a creature or armored being, every single hit. you've added (on humans) another 7 armor numbers. Multiply that by your number of combatants and sides

4 to a side * 2 sides * 7 location per person per side = 56 new values, 28 of which are not in player control, and thus likely to have to be generated new every fight. you have ~14% chance of rolling the same location and not having to go look up a new number and not having to check.

vs

4 to a side * 2 sides * 1.5 weapons per person per side (shields count, even balance of two handers and one handers) = 12 values, 6 of which are new every fight. You never have to figure out a new number outside of weapon changes/disarms.

If you are working in complete suits of armor, your way works, because you multiply by 1. Otherwise, it is actually more numbers. I don't think mathematically, once you have hit and figured out the actual AP and damage, it will impact the results overly.

This is similar to the full auto problem in Mythras. Rolling for every single bullet for location and damage is painful when you have so many shots. This, while it is less rolling, is still a check the location every time.

[Barak Shathur]

3 hours ago, Raleel said:

 i think I'd rather subtract it off the weapon, as I don't want to figure out the AP armor for every location on a creature or armored being, every single hit. you've added (on humans) another 7 armor numbers. Multiply that by your number of combatants and sides

4 to a side * 2 sides * 7 location per person per side = 56 new values, 28 of which are not in player control, and thus likely to have to be generated new every fight. you have ~14% chance of rolling the same location and not having to go look up a new number and not having to check.

vs

4 to a side * 2 sides * 1.5 weapons per person per side (shields count, even balance of two handers and one handers) = 12 values, 6 of which are new every fight. You never have to figure out a new number outside of weapon changes/disarms.

If you are working in complete suits of armor, your way works, because you multiply by 1. Otherwise, it is actually more numbers. I don't think mathematically, once you have hit and figured out the actual AP and damage, it will impact the results overly.

This is similar to the full auto problem in Mythras. Rolling for every single bullet for location and damage is painful when you have so many shots. This, while it is less rolling, is still a check the location every time.

Hold on, I don't need to figure out a new AP value for each piece of armour, only the ones being hit with an armour piercing weapon. It's the same as when using half max damage for the piercing. Except that with my method I know it's always half the AP, which I already have in front of me since I have to take that into account in any case for any armoured hit location that is struck. And then it's to my mind simpler to simply halve them, rather than subtract a value that will vary with the weapon being used. Say there's daggers, military picks and some third armour piercing variant in a fight. I now have to figure out the max damage for each one of those and subtract them from AP every time something gets hit. That's one extra step. I think my method is less labour intensive, at least for me. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Barak Shathur
typo

[Raleel]

21 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Hold on, I don't need to figure out a new AP value for each piece of armour, only the ones being hit with an armour piercing weapon.

yes, but you don't a priori know which pieces are being hit. Thus, figure out all of them before, or figure out the ones being hit on the fly.

22 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

It's the same as when using half max damage for the piercing.

the primary difference here is that you don't have to figure out how much the piercing is on each hit, just how much got through.

24 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Say there's daggers, military picks and some third armour piercing variant in a fight. I now have to figure out the max damage for each one of those and subtract them from AP every time something gets hit.

this is no different than figuring it out for the armor, just that there are normally 1-2 weapons on a person, not 7 locations. Now, to be fair, it is unlikely someone is going to have more than 3 types of armor on them, but it's pretty easy to see a chain shirt (chest, abdomen), padded arms and legs, and a pot helmet.

26 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

I think my method is less labour intensive, at least for me. 

ultimately, this is all that really matters, and I can't really tell you what is easier for you. I do think that I answered your core concern with

4 hours ago, Raleel said:

I don't think mathematically, once you have hit and figured out the actual AP and damage, it will impact the results overly.

I think it is the same, or close to it. It just means you are saying every weapon has the same AP (calculate based on the armor) rather than every armor has the same defense against AP (calculate based on the weapon). I don't think it makes much sense for plate to be more affected by armor piercing than leather armor, but shrug not my game.

[Mugen]

On 5/14/2022 at 9:10 PM, Barak Shathur said:

That still means it takes two successive hits for this special effect to have any impact. As far as I can tell, all the other special effects have a potentially immediate effect. Also, sundering armour feels a little "gamey" to me. Is this what axes do? Is it how axes were used historically? To me it seems the concentration of force of any hafted weapon is more likely to have a bludgeoning effect, simulated by reduction of AP, rather than permanently destroying a whole section of armour. Also as I said before, it gives me as a GM more book keeping to keep track of. Simple armour reduction seems both more realistic and easy to implement. But that's just me.

 

On 5/6/2022 at 5:54 PM, Barak Shathur said:

So short spear does more damage than other one handed weapons, why? Is it a typo? Shouldn’t it be 1d6+1 rather than 1d8+1?

19 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

Yes, that is what I do when I quote. However, I wanted to quote both you and Raleel, but since you’re on different pages of this thread I can’t. Going back and forth between the pages resets my post and anything written or quoted in it. 

I managed to quote all three posts above using the "+" box.

My message was not reset when I changed current page, but I had to select the Reply box first to make it reappear.

 

 

 

[Barak Shathur]

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

 

I managed to quote all three posts above using the "+" box.

My message was not reset when I changed current page, but I had to select the Reply box first to make it reappear.

 

 

 

 

 

On 5/9/2022 at 5:53 AM, Raleel said:

I would go for a book that covers that period better - mythic Constantinople. In there we find 

Puncturing – the weapon has a significant metal spike, usually slightly curved and designed to penetrate stiff armour. Can also apply to ammunition. Ignores a specific number of armour points equal to half the maximum damage capability of the weapon but only against rigid armour. So a puncturing dagger (1d4+1 damage) ignores 3 points of rigid armour.

said military pick would then gain 4 points of armor piercing, which would mean he could get through the plate 50% of the time.

 

On 5/10/2022 at 12:05 AM, Ian Absentia said:

With judicious application, it'll treat you right.

!i!

Ok, that worked. I have to quote all three in succession before putting anything in the reply box. What I did before was I quoted something and typed a response, then tried to add more quotes under it. Got it, thanks. 

[Barak Shathur]

On 9/25/2023 at 11:32 PM, Raleel said:

yes, but you don't a priori know which pieces are being hit. Thus, figure out all of them before, or figure out the ones being hit on the fly.

When a location is hit by an armour piercing weapon, I halve its AP "on the fly". Couldn't be any simpler. 

On 9/25/2023 at 11:32 PM, Raleel said:

the primary difference here is that you don't have to figure out how much the piercing is on each hit, just how much got through.

I honestly don't understand this. Maybe we are talking past each other?

On 9/25/2023 at 11:32 PM, Raleel said:

this is no different than figuring it out for the armor, just that there are normally 1-2 weapons on a person, not 7 locations. Now, to be fair, it is unlikely someone is going to have more than 3 types of armor on them, but it's pretty easy to see a chain shirt (chest, abdomen), padded arms and legs, and a pot helmet.

I still don't understand your argument. When a location is hit by an armour piercing weapon, I simply halve the total AP of that location, no matter how many layers.

On 9/25/2023 at 11:32 PM, Raleel said:

I don't think it makes much sense for plate to be more affected by armor piercing than leather armor, but shrug not my game.

This is a good point. Since I want to stay as close to RAW as possible, I'm going to steal the Puncturing rule from Mythic Constantinople that you described above for the Military Pick. Thanks for the discussion!