Iridium Core V1 musings : Combat

Where we discuss Iridium Standard, Lite and what everyone wants out of the system.
Post Reply
User avatar
skynet
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:37 pm
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
Contact:

Iridium Core V1 musings : Combat

Post by skynet »

Hello everyone! I've been away from these forums for some time now but I've come back because :
  • I like Iridium
  • I'm starting a new campaign. Soon.
Of course, that got me thinking about the system a bit. First of all, it's going to be Iridium Core V1. Since the game was supposed to be d20 (I chickened out... It's quite a piece of a system...), I thought V1 has a more "old school" ring that will appeal to my players. So there you go.

Now, my main problem with Iridium (in all its incarnations, that is) is the combat mechanics. Bill, you probably remember all those posts I wrote, bitching about armor and damage and defense and... Here are my main concerns with V1 combat :
  • Damage
  • Armor
  • Tactics (dodge, parry, block...)
--------------------------------
DAMAGE & ARMOR
--------------------------------
Weapons can deal an AWFUL lot of damage. A LOT. For now, I'll do as I've always done with Iridium to date : I'll stick with it. My other game was not combat intensive, so I didn't encountered many problems. But ablative armor is not my kind of armor. I like that your chainmail gets less effective as it's beaten up, but not that it's considered as another pool of hit points with a different name. So I've come up with this new mechanic that can seamlessly incorporate to the system by replacing the ablative one. Any piece of armor has two rating :

SOAK : The soak rating will tell you how much damage will be absorbed by the armor. However, the value is not in damage points, that is, a rating of 4 will not just absorb 4 damage points. It will lower the number of damage dice, then the type of dice and finally, the number of damage points. Here are some examples :
  • 5d12 vs 4 soak : The armor will soak 4 dice, bringing the total down to 1d12. Roll for damage
  • 2d8 vs 3 soak : The armor will bring the number of dice to 1d8 with 1 point of soak. The two points left will bring the dice type down to d6, then to d4. So, 1d4 damage.
  • 1d8 vs 3 soak : The armor will bring the dice type to d4 with two points and the last soak point will impose a penalty of -1 to the damage rolled. so, 1d4-1 damage.
There you go for soak. This way, weapons will still inflict damage on a hit, but a lot less, depending on the armor.

INTEGRITY : The integrity rating will determine if the armor is damaged by an attack. It represents an amount by which an attacker must roll over the defense of its adversary in order to "break" the armor. If the attack surpasses the defense by this much, the soak rating of the armor goes down 1 point. If the armor is reduced to 0 soak, it's no longer effective. Here's an example : An attacker rolls an attack of 23 against his opponent defense of 13. Since he hits by 10 and that the integrity of the armor is only of 8, the soak rating goes down 1 point.

* * *
That's it. I still have to assign ratings to the armors, but this is how the system would work.

--------------------------------
COMBAT & TACTICS
--------------------------------
I don't mind that the skills of %based and combat is d20 based, the the should not cross each others path. As the system stands, Parry, Block, Dodge and Disarm are %based rolls. Also, they are not modified by the quality of the attack they try to counter. But, in order to interact with the weapon use skills, they must be d20 based. Let's suppose they are and then consider these alternatives :

PARRY : Parry is now an combat roll opposed to the attack roll of the opponent. Parry is bought like any weapon skill specialties, except that you can't by up damage because a parry doesn't deliver any. So you can buy pluses to the parry roll like pluses to the attack roll and additional parries like additional attacks.

Also, weapons should have a parry penalty that reflects their ability to maneuver in order to deflect an attack. This should not be a positive number, except for rare weapons built for parry (like a main-gauche or something like that).

Having a parry skill in the weapon you want to parry with is NOT mandatory. If you want to parry with your weapon without skill, you have to roll a d20, plus your dexterity bonus, minus the parry penalty of the weapon and you'll have to use your own attacks as parry actions, up to half the normal number of attacks with your weapon. With specialization, you can up your chance to parry and add a number of parries with a specific weapon. Note that you cannot trade parries for attacks.

A successful parry deflects the attack entirely.

BLOCK
In Iridium, a block is a parry for unarmed attack. I'll change this entirely. You want the old block? You do a parry. This is the new block : interposing a shield between one's body and a weapon. With this system, a shield becomes a weapon like any other weapon. The Shield Use skill is a one-time buy that prevents you from having a -8 to you block attempts. Here are the base stats for a shield :

Shield - # of att. : 2, Dam. : 1d10, Block bonus : (depends on the shield used) (Note : Since it is also an armor, different types of shield will have different soak and integrity values)

Mechanically speaking a block should be treated like a parry, except that it has a number of uses that do not depends on the number of attacks you possess with the weapon you're using. The shield has a base of two actions and more can be bought using the correct shield specialty (like parry, you can only buy pluses to "hit" to aid you block roll and additional "attacks" to have more blocks). So it's easier to block with you shield than to parry with your weapon, since it doesn't eat up you attacks. Also, shields don't have block penalties (like parry penalties for weapons) since they were built to do this.

However, the main difference is that a shield is treated like another layer of armor on the arm used to carry it. Chances are that not much damage will penetrate (soak ratings for shields should be high, since they're made of a thick layer of wood/metal, unlike armor which would get too heavy if it were that thick), but you'll probably feel the BANG of bigger weapons and have a sore arm after the fight, which is better than a severed arm or a big gash in the chest! And, eventually, your shield will break...

DODGE
Iridium Core V1 treats dodge as a skill you roll every round in order to boost your defense without any penalties. Here what I've changed : a dodge is an attempt to get out of the way, be it in close combat or under a rain of arrows. It doesn't allow you to do anything else than to try to save your a... eh, skin. So, an unskilled dodge roll is a d20 roll plus your Dexterity initiative bonus against a difficulty of 10. For every two points you roll higher than 10, you have +1 bonus to defense. You can buy a Dodge skill like a weapon specialty, but only the bonus to "hit", which will represent bonus to get out of the way. There's only one type of dodge skill, unlike parries and blocks.

If you already acted this round, you can dodge with a -5 penalty and you are force to continue your dodge the next round, with a fresh roll, that is. That's because dodge is almost a panic attempt to get out of the way. It's not "Oh! An arrow! I'll try to sidestep it." kind of move. This is represented by your defense. You always try to sidestep an arrow. No, dodge is "F**K!!! Get out of the way!!! Out! Out! Drop everything and run!". So if you want to break up from a combat, you can make a dodge and the next round, assuming you can still walk, you would be considered out of combat, except if you're in a plain, assaulted by archers. Then you would have to find cover and dodge your way there.

* * * * * * *
And that's it, people! Wow, that's my longest post EVER! Note that these rules are not playtested. Yet. Feel free to comment and suggest. I like feedback. I'll give some myself when I've tested the rules in-game.

Cheers!
Last edited by skynet on Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HinterWelt
Posts: 845
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:29 pm
Location: Downers Grove, IL
Contact:

Re: Iridium Core V1 musings : Combat

Post by HinterWelt »

Skynet,
Always glad to see you posting. A few concerns.

Damage and Soak
I like this but I think you will find that characters will be dropping like flies unless you drop Targeting as a skill. Even at 1d4, a Lizardman's STR bonus will drop just about anyone. I am not sure what setting you would be playing in. This would not be too big a concern in Shades or Roma but even there you have things like Yeti and Giants.

Integrity
Here, you will see creatures with high DEX are deadly to armor. STR will have no effect. PCs who are Elves will rule. They will dismantle even the most powerful armor in a few attacks.

Parry
This is a substantial departure from how we do it now. Not bad in all. I will be interested in hearing how it works out for you. I am a bit concerned with the minuses tied to weapons but we will see how that works out for you.

Block
hmm, I really have some worries on this front. Again, as above, you make one huge exception out of how a shield works. This is not bad but consider that I wrote the base game and I am not even sure precisely what you are getting at. ;) Also, as above, the elf will swiss cheese your shield in short order. I do like where you are going with it though. The idea of using the weapon specialization and having it be a superior parrying device is good...and sort of what I shot for in the original V1.

Dodge
Unskilled attempts should be LUC + STAT (AGL in this case) and you try to roll under that total on a %.

My thoughts on how to make it simpler: Just make it your action for the round. You want to Dodge? That is all you do.

Now, all of the above said, it is just suggestions and concerns. The game is, of course, yours to play and modify as you see fit and I am just trying to help out. Hopefully your mods will work well. They do sound interesting.

Also, I am not sure if you looked at the V2 stuff yet. If you have time, look it over here:
http://www.hinterwelt.com/HWEForum/view ... f=24&t=340

Thanks for posting again and keep up up to date!

Bill
HinterWelt Enterprises
Bill Corrie

User avatar
skynet
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:37 pm
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
Contact:

Re: Iridium Core V1 musings : Combat

Post by skynet »

Thanks for your answer, Bill.
HinterWelt wrote: Damage and Soak
I like this but I think you will find that characters will be dropping like flies unless you drop Targeting as a skill. Even at 1d4, a Lizardman's STR bonus will drop just about anyone. I am not sure what setting you would be playing in. This would not be too big a concern in Shades or Roma but even there you have things like Yeti and Giants.

Integrity
Here, you will see creatures with high DEX are deadly to armor. STR will have no effect. PCs who are Elves will rule. They will dismantle even the most powerful armor in a few attacks.
You know what? I thought about that, but I didn't see a simple way to use Strength without requiring a new roll. Also, I tend to consider mechanics from a standard human point of view. Also, I prefer small but constant progression when it comes to bonus associated with stat. Giving this, it's possible that I revisit the progression of the stat tables, with bonuses coming sooner and progressing slower, and definitely not ending at +40 for 26 Strength! Although I understand the bell-curve of the progression, it just doesn't cut it for me. I like it slow and steady. Your bonus progression is optimized for high stats. Fact is, I don't like high stats, I like average, with some a bit higher and that's it. I think it's not very good "sportsmanship" to have a stat of 22 right at character creation : "Yes, I can't miss my Dex roll unless the GM throws a BIG penalty! Even then...". That's not my idea of fun. :wink:
HinterWelt wrote: Parry
This is a substantial departure from how we do it now. Not bad in all. I will be interested in hearing how it works out for you. I am a bit concerned with the minuses tied to weapons but we will see how that works out for you.
The penalties are there to give an edge to attack and not defense. Maybe I won't keep them. I'll depends on how it goes.
HinterWelt wrote: Block
hmm, I really have some worries on this front. Again, as above, you make one huge exception out of how a shield works. This is not bad but consider that I wrote the base game and I am not even sure precisely what you are getting at. ;) Also, as above, the elf will swiss cheese your shield in short order. I do like where you are going with it though. The idea of using the weapon specialization and having it be a superior parrying device is good...and sort of what I shot for in the original V1.
In essence, the shield is almost identical to standard Iridium V1 : it's a mobile armor. I just associated it with the block skill and made it possible for the shield to block ANY hit, not just hits to parts of the body covered by the shield. Since it's armor, any damage that gets trough will be inflicted on the arm that holds the shield. Note that damage may be soaked again by whatever armor the arm is protected with, so, most of the time, not much with get trough. Since the shield can also be used as a weapon, there should be two specialties for each type of shield : shield block and shield bash. Also note that using a shield with shield bash is subject to the penalties imposed by two-weapon fighting (but the shield bash specialty is already considered off-hand, since it's how you'll normally use it). Is this in any way enlightening?
HinterWelt wrote: Dodge
Unskilled attempts should be LUC + STAT (AGL in this case) and you try to roll under that total on a %.

My thoughts on how to make it simpler: Just make it your action for the round. You want to Dodge? That is all you do.
That what I did : dodge is now your action for the round (but you can use it after your actions with a penalty). But I like it when the results of a dodge (or any rolls, for that matters) is not always the same. This way, it's not always +4. It can be anything from 0 to +10 if for any reason you can roll that high. But there is a chance I'll make it easier, like rolling over a difficulty of 5 instead of 10. That should make it more effective. But I don't know yet, since I haven't tested it in combat. Keeping the difficulty to 10 might discourage players from using it since they wouldn't be that sure to obtain a bonus to their defense...
HinterWelt wrote: Also, I am not sure if you looked at the V2 stuff yet. If you have time, look it over here:
http://www.hinterwelt.com/HWEForum/view ... f=24&t=340
Of course! I started the thread about combat in V2 and how it was hard for Joe Average to hit Bill Average. I thing I like V2 better, but the d20 combat of V1 was more appropriate for my campaign. :D

Anyway, I'll look into it with your suggestions and concerns in mind. See what I can come up with. V2 Lite sure looks more like what I'm aiming at without too much modifications, but I wanted to see what I could do with V1 Core. Maybe that'll change also...

User avatar
HinterWelt
Posts: 845
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:29 pm
Location: Downers Grove, IL
Contact:

Re: Iridium Core V1 musings : Combat

Post by HinterWelt »

skynet wrote:Thanks for your answer, Bill.
Sure thing. Again, please take my responses int he spirit of cooperation they are offered in.
skynet wrote: You know what? I thought about that, but I didn't see a simple way to use Strength without requiring a new roll. Also, I tend to consider mechanics from a standard human point of view. Also, I prefer small but constant progression when it comes to bonus associated with stat. Giving this, it's possible that I revisit the progression of the stat tables, with bonuses coming sooner and progressing slower, and definitely not ending at +40 for 26 Strength! Although I understand the bell-curve of the progression, it just doesn't cut it for me. I like it slow and steady. Your bonus progression is optimized for high stats. Fact is, I don't like high stats, I like average, with some a bit higher and that's it. I think it's not very good "sportsmanship" to have a stat of 22 right at character creation : "Yes, I can't miss my Dex roll unless the GM throws a BIG penalty! Even then...". That's not my idea of fun. :wink:
Actually, it is a curve (more like exponential) than a bell curve. I have had this criticism leveled at Iridium before. I find it a bit strange. For me, and I have no problem with linear progressions, it was a case of setting up a system where you progress in increasing amount. This was an attempt to model the "Elf is super dexterous" kind of phenomenon. I appreciate it is not to everyone's tastes but I do think it models that pretty well. Folks with 22 Dex are extraordinary. They should be. Some races will have those out the gate. Usually, they will fall short in other stats.

That said, you might like the progressions in V2 better.;)
skynet wrote:

In essence, the shield is almost identical to standard Iridium V1 : it's a mobile armor. I just associated it with the block skill and made it possible for the shield to block ANY hit, not just hits to parts of the body covered by the shield. Since it's armor, any damage that gets trough will be inflicted on the arm that holds the shield. Note that damage may be soaked again by whatever armor the arm is protected with, so, most of the time, not much with get trough. Since the shield can also be used as a weapon, there should be two specialties for each type of shield : shield block and shield bash. Also note that using a shield with shield bash is subject to the penalties imposed by two-weapon fighting (but the shield bash specialty is already considered off-hand, since it's how you'll normally use it). Is this in any way enlightening?
Hmm, I think I see where I went off the rails. See, you block ANY hit with a shield currently by taking Parry with the Shield.

About your soaking from above, lets take some numbers. Lets say Human vs human. The defender and attacker have Max stats. This means the the defender has a 20 DEF, 30 Base FP. The attacker has a +5 Damage bonus, +3 to hit. Without specializations or magic weapons, he needs a 17 to hit. He would be able to tick off 3 Integrity if he scores a 20 on his to hit roll. If using a zwei-hander he is going to be at 5d10 and two Attacks. If you are wearing armor of Soak of 4 then that means the damage would be reduced to 1d10 +5. That means anywhere from 6 to 15 points of damage. To the head or chest, that would kill. Now, if you up the Soak, and get it down to 1d4 it is still 6-9 FP. Would you still have minuses for armor;i.e. Plate = -6 to DEF? If so, you push the to hit ratio up and someone, even if wearing plate, goes down FASTER than someone wearing leather. It could be argued that armor is a hinderance...in extreme cases. Now, go the other way. If you wear leather and it protects for 1 Soak. The attacker deals 4d10 + 5 straight through to the body (your most likely amount of damage here will be 25 points). Wont take a limb but just about anywhere else will be taken out (1,4 = 15 FP, 7,8 = 30FP).

Again, i want to say that I think you have an interesting idea here and I look forward to you playing it. I think you will have a brutal level of fatality though. On fix may be to level the FP on the body. If you had either Base or 2xBase FP to all areas you might do better. Just a thought.
skynet wrote:
Of course! I started the thread about combat in V2 and how it was hard for Joe Average to hit Bill Average. I thing I like V2 better, but the d20 combat of V1 was more appropriate for my campaign. :D

Anyway, I'll look into it with your suggestions and concerns in mind. See what I can come up with. V2 Lite sure looks more like what I'm aiming at without too much modifications, but I wanted to see what I could do with V1 Core. Maybe that'll change also...
I thought you had but it has been a while. :D

Thanks,
Bill
HinterWelt Enterprises
Bill Corrie

User avatar
skynet
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:37 pm
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
Contact:

Re: Iridium Core V1 musings : Combat

Post by skynet »

HinterWelt wrote: Actually, it is a curve (more like exponential) than a bell curve. I have had this criticism leveled at Iridium before. I find it a bit strange. For me, and I have no problem with linear progressions, it was a case of setting up a system where you progress in increasing amount. This was an attempt to model the "Elf is super dexterous" kind of phenomenon. I appreciate it is not to everyone's tastes but I do think it models that pretty well. Folks with 22 Dex are extraordinary. They should be. Some races will have those out the gate. Usually, they will fall short in other stats.

That said, you might like the progressions in V2 better.;)
True, I prefer the progressions in V2. And understand that it's not a critic by any means. I totally respect Iridium the way it is now. I just feel that it's not perfectly suited for my game style. :D
HinterWelt wrote: About your soaking from above, lets take some numbers. Lets say Human vs human. The defender and attacker have Max stats. This means the the defender has a 20 DEF, 30 Base FP. The attacker has a +5 Damage bonus, +3 to hit. Without specializations or magic weapons, he needs a 17 to hit. He would be able to tick off 3 Integrity if he scores a 20 on his to hit roll. If using a zwei-hander he is going to be at 5d10 and two Attacks. If you are wearing armor of Soak of 4 then that means the damage would be reduced to 1d10 +5. That means anywhere from 6 to 15 points of damage. To the head or chest, that would kill. Now, if you up the Soak, and get it down to 1d4 it is still 6-9 FP. Would you still have minuses for armor;i.e. Plate = -6 to DEF? If so, you push the to hit ratio up and someone, even if wearing plate, goes down FASTER than someone wearing leather. It could be argued that armor is a hindrance...in extreme cases. Now, go the other way. If you wear leather and it protects for 1 Soak. The attacker deals 4d10 + 5 straight through to the body (your most likely amount of damage here will be 25 points). Wont take a limb but just about anywhere else will be taken out (1,4 = 15 FP, 7,8 = 30FP).

Again, i want to say that I think you have an interesting idea here and I look forward to you playing it. I think you will have a brutal level of fatality though. On fix may be to level the FP on the body. If you had either Base or 2xBase FP to all areas you might do better. Just a thought.
It's quite possible that I'll boost the FP. I already fiddled with that in my other game. Not much, but I rearranged some locations. Also, armor probable won't have a soak of 1, which is more adapted to thick clothing or something negligible like that. I don't have the exact ratings for now, but they should be higher. And the bonuses to damage that are harder to soak are kind of what I was aiming at. I don't like it when the armor soaks EVERYTHING. I'll probably up the cost for damage bonuses in specialization though, since those bad boys just got more powerful...

Again, thanks for the feedback!

User avatar
skynet
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:37 pm
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
Contact:

Re: Iridium Core V1 musings : Combat

Post by skynet »

I've been thinking, Bill. Of all the issues you point out in my new mechanic, these are the ones that bug me the most :
HinterWelt wrote: Damage and Soak
I like this but I think you will find that characters will be dropping like flies unless you drop Targeting as a skill. Even at 1d4, a Lizardman's STR bonus will drop just about anyone. I am not sure what setting you would be playing in. This would not be too big a concern in Shades or Roma but even there you have things like Yeti and Giants.
Like you suggested, I should maybe boost the FP to avoid excessive lethality. And/or tone down the damage bonus from Strength... I don't know yet. I'll look into it.
HinterWelt wrote: Integrity
Here, you will see creatures with high DEX are deadly to armor. STR will have no effect. PCs who are Elves will rule. They will dismantle even the most powerful armor in a few attacks.
I thought about that. My reasoning was that a more precise attack could better destroy an armor by striking a sensible spot (like a leather strap hold a part of it, etc.). To tell you the truth, I like that the integrity mechanic is tied to the attack roll, but I don't like want it means : even feeble but agile combatant can destroy armor. What do I want? I want the armor to be crushed by the force of a blow, by the strength of an opponent. But how? I tried to link it to the damage of the attack or the strength of the attacker, which would be more logic, but I can't seem to make it work any other way. I don't want this mechanic to be a burden. I want it to be fun and exciting! I'm open to suggestions, if you have any ideas about how to make this work the right way.

And, just so you know, my campaign will take place in the Northern Crown setting from Atlas Games. I saw you already mentioned it on your forum. It means no races, but magic and occasional creatures are present.

User avatar
HinterWelt
Posts: 845
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:29 pm
Location: Downers Grove, IL
Contact:

Re: Iridium Core V1 musings : Combat

Post by HinterWelt »

skynet wrote: Like you suggested, I should maybe boost the FP to avoid excessive lethality. And/or tone down the damage bonus from Strength... I don't know yet. I'll look into it.
Hmm, seriously, crib the STR bonuses from V2. I think they would work better. The concern you need to be aware of in a Human PCs only setting is that the monsters may wreck the scale.
skynet wrote: I thought about that. My reasoning was that a more precise attack could better destroy an armor by striking a sensible spot (like a leather strap hold a part of it, etc.). To tell you the truth, I like that the integrity mechanic is tied to the attack roll, but I don't like want it means : even feeble but agile combatant can destroy armor. What do I want? I want the armor to be crushed by the force of a blow, by the strength of an opponent. But how? I tried to link it to the damage of the attack or the strength of the attacker, which would be more logic, but I can't seem to make it work any other way. I don't want this mechanic to be a burden. I want it to be fun and exciting! I'm open to suggestions, if you have any ideas about how to make this work the right way.
hmm, first thoughts would be to tie it to Armor Bonuses in STR but then you have no way to tie it to degree of success in attacks...

Let me think on it a bit. See what comes up.

Thanks,
Bill
HinterWelt Enterprises
Bill Corrie

User avatar
Kester Pelagius
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:32 pm
Location: Earth, Mutter's Spiral
Contact:

Re: Iridium Core V1 musings : Combat

Post by Kester Pelagius »

I've been avoiding doing much with discussions re: Iridium's combat system, waiting to see what the newer editions would implement, mostly because I'm working with the Nebuleon rule set, but what the hey I'll dive in. There is a problem and, for me, it began with this:
Combat for the Iridium System is a blend of simplicity and
realism. This means that some sacrifices have been made to
make it simple while other aspects have become more
complex.
If it's complex then it ain't simple. This sentence works some insidious mind-fu on the reader. If you're new to RPGs then you'll be expecting simplicity but find rules that, in a word, aren't. I always try imagine what someone with no familiarity with RPGs is going to be thinking when I read rules. The explanations could be a bit clearer as to understand what's going on you probably need to roll up a couple sample PCs and game combat out to get a feel for it. Then, after I'm done picking nits, I look at the guts of the system and try to see if it really works.

Now I'm not knocking the Iridium system. Truth be told the reason I was interested in this system is it's very VERY similar to a system I wrote up in the 90s. If you think: "Defense is calculated (AGL+CON+DODGE SKILL)/6" is too much math then don't even ask to see MY system's formulae. My combat system began as simplicity itself then "evolved" into this monster. Did I mention it's a %ile system? Yeah, really fun! :wink:

That said I think I understand what Bill was trying to do. Problem is there's only so may ways you can twist this type of system before it needs overhauling. You can tweak bits of it but, ultimately, what you end up with are a lot of patches. Bill's mechanic choices are no more problematical than the one's I implemented, in fact in many ways the system looks smoother. It's a bit of a dog to read but, from what I remember of my testing the combat, it seems effective for what it's trying to do.

Problem is, like you noticed, it does leave a bit to be desired if you want to do something that it isn't designed for. Simplicity in a complex system has it's drawbacks after all.

SOAK/INTEGRITY may be a workable adjunct/patch. But, as you've outlined it, and this is just my opinion, it needs simplifying. Then again I may be misreading your intent. If so I appologize. That said. . .

Why are you tying INTEG to DEF?

Armor is PASSIVE. It's worn. It's just there. I'd begin by assuming that the armor is always in full effect and implement a HIT LOCATION rule. Obviously half plate isn't going to provide the same protection as full plate, nor should it. Nor, for that matter, will every weapon type have the same sort of effect.

SOAK is good. But, if you think it through logically, as written, it's really only good for blunt force trauma. IE: battering attacks. What if someone is attacked with armour piercing arrows? A lance?

How does SOAK work under such a circumstance?

Conversely a SLASH attack on LEATHER armor is going to be much more effective than on PLATE, right?

How does this system take these facts into account? Remember Iridium is also striving for REALISM. That said, I like the initial ideas here, good job!
Currently working on Mutant Dawn.

User avatar
skynet
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:37 pm
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
Contact:

Re: Iridium Core V1 musings : Combat

Post by skynet »

Kester Pelagius wrote: Why are you tying INTEG to DEF?

Armor is PASSIVE. It's worn. It's just there. I'd begin by assuming that the armor is always in full effect and implement a HIT LOCATION rule. Obviously half plate isn't going to provide the same protection as full plate, nor should it. Nor, for that matter, will every weapon type have the same sort of effect.
First, integrity is tied to defense for the sheer sake of playability. I don't want to burden the system too much with additional rolls. But there's also a "logical" basis behind it. Integrity represents the margin by which the attacker must beat the opponent defense in order to connect hard enough on the armor to damage it. A hit with a lesser margin is good enough to cause damage, but not "spot on" enough to cause real damage to the armor. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's a first draft. Like I asked to Bill, if you have any idea to tie it to the strength of the blow without requiring to much additional mechanics, feel free to share!
Kester Pelagius wrote: SOAK is good. But, if you think it through logically, as written, it's really only good for blunt force trauma. IE: battering attacks. What if someone is attacked with armour piercing arrows? A lance?

How does SOAK work under such a circumstance?

Conversely a SLASH attack on LEATHER armor is going to be much more effective than on PLATE, right?

How does this system take these facts into account? Remember Iridium is also striving for REALISM. That said, I like the initial ideas here, good job!
But the standard Iridium combat rule don't take this kind of details into account anyway (except for some type of arrows). So I didn't try to incorporate it in this alternate mechanic. That being said, I'm totally with you on this. I really like armor systems that take these details into account. Qualifying the type of attack and having different types of armor protect accordingly is great! But it would also add to the complexity of the system, so I'll wait before considering this.

Thanks for your input, Kester!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest