One thing I could consider is not have an immediate penalty for wearing armor, but start applying as each round passes. Assuming 1 minute rounds, nothing, then scaling penalties by armor type for subsequent rounds--measuring fatigue. Also, I wouldn't have to worry about armor soak issue.

Quote from: vgunn;957339Thanks for these numbers. It does help!

A 1d4 monster is about as weak as you can get. I don't want into negative numbers if possible for starting melee.

I figured since you said B/X, THAC0 would be a number you already had--so I'm glad you liked that idea.

What sort of percents are you wanting to attain for various levels? You can change the calculation to avoid negative Melee values, so for these tables, just see if the success chances are what you want.

In the tables below, I've converted the d20 roll into a % chance of success.
A negative number means they only succeed by rolling a 20. (I think--not sure about your rules.)
Numbers above 100 mean they only fail by rolling a 1.

Here are some numbers for Melee from 0 to 40.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]891[/ATTACH]

Here are the numbers from -20 to 20.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]892[/ATTACH]

Wow. Much appreciated!

Let me look at these numbers!

Quote from: vgunn;957399Wow. Much appreciated!

Let me look at these numbers!

Oh. Column A is number of dice (HD). Column B is HD size (HD type).

Quote from: vgunn;957195Tristram, because wearing bulky armor makes you easier to hit (at least in my opinion). But the armor will absorb more damage.

You might want to look into Palladium's combat system.

Quote from: vgunn;957195Tristram, because wearing bulky armor makes you easier to hit (at least in my opinion). But the armor will absorb more damage.

But are you tracking bulkiness separately from Armour quality? Because the two are far from synonymous. Chainmail is heavier and more restricting than plate, for example.

Tristam, I'll probably the way I handle AC after the all feedback (this site and some others). Also some good articles as well.

http://www.benjaminrose.com/post/mob...l-plate-armor/

How would we model this in a roleplaying game?

It seems to me that plate armor wouldn't make one any easier to hit, as long as you have the minimum strength required to move your arms and legs. You would get tired faster, for sure. I remember seeing a video from the historian Mike Loades that showed some guys fighting in full plate armor. They got tired really fast. I can't find that video now. But in my experience, most fights don't last long enough for that to be a factor. You might want to start factoring it in after a full minute of intense fighting, if the combat lasted that long.

So if I remove the aspect of making you easier to hit, I would want to model it making you fatigue as time passes in combat.

Video about how tiring it is to wear plate armor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...3XNOALA#t=223s

And continued here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3qqfrL8Frk

This guy wasn't used to wearing armor, but he was reasonably fit. He only lasted 2 minutes 16 seconds before becoming completely exhausted.

Now, playing with 1 minute rounds I should be able to model this in the game.

In round one you have no penalty for wearing armor. After that penalties reduce your melee score.

Round 2: Heavy -1, Medium 0, Light/None 0
Round 3: Heavy -2, Medium -1, Light/None 0
Round 4: Heavy -3, Medium -2, Light/None -1
Round 5: Heavy -4, Medium -3, Light/None -2
Round 6: Heavy -5, Medium -4, Light/None -3

You could, say at x-level, perhaps add a perk for Fighters that allows you to add an extra round before beginning to tire and start taking penalties.

Still, I think that wearing armor should provide a soak. A thought give medium armors a soak of one-point and heavy armors a soak of two-points if you are hit. Shields don't add AC, but provide an additional soak point. So hit you were wearing plate and using a shield, you'd soak 3 points of damage every time you were hit.

The equation then becomes:  Monsters HD + (either HD Type or To Hit bonus) Player's Melee score. Roll over number to succeed.

The AC penalty for fatigue comes off their Melee score. This looks good to me.

The issue I see is generating the needed range on the Monster's side. Take a 5e Goblin for instance. 2d6 (+4 to hit). 2+6=8. A first level Fighter is +2, so they'd need to roll a 7 or higher to avoid getting it. If you go with 2HD +4to Hit, this is a 6, minus the fighters bonus and they only need a 5 or higher to succeed.

Is this too easy?

I could go Monster HD+Type+to Hit Bonus In the example, this would give the Goblin a 12 (2+6+4). The Fighter would need to roll an 11 or higher to avoid being hit. 50% chance at 1st level.

Also remember the AC penalty applies as well to monsters wearing armor.

Quote from: vgunn;957279I'd love to hear your reason behind armor not soaking.

I don't like armor soaking (or damage reduction) because it doesn't effect weapons equally. It will encourage all PCs to carry the heaviest weapon possible because that will be reduced by the lowest percentage. Instead I use an all-or-nothing armor save. Plate saves on a 11+ d20 roll which, overall, reduces the amount of damage by 50% but doesn't require any math.

As to fatigue, I use a simple system by counting the number of rounds. Heavy armored fighters can fight for a number of rounds equal to CON/2. CON for medium armor, and CON*2 for unarmored. This way, fatigue only shows up in longer (and, hopefully, more important) battles and you only need to keep track of which PCs are fatigued rather than tracking individual penalties.

Sounds complicated to my tastes.