Since the issue came up in Spoonist's house rules... In our campaign, we use the following house rule for shield and armor damage:

Every roll of 6 on the damage dice causes the protection of the shield to drop by one, reflecting damage. Shields are generally unrepairable, but luckily they are dirt cheap. Note that shield damage only happens if you actually manage to interpose the shield. Otherwise, see below...

Every two rolls on the damage dice on the SAME roll that are NOT blocked by a shield (failed roll or the shield is smashed to smithereens by the same blow) will cause the armor protection value to drop by one. Armor can be fixed by 'field-repair', which basically restores the lost armor points but only for the next hit; after that, the armor degrades to its true, damaged value. Fixing the armor permanently costs about 10% of the full price per point (rule of thumb: 0.25 libra / point for Norman Chain. 0.5L / pt for Reinforced, 1L / pt for Partial Plate). Yes, this can cost more than getting a new suit.

Rebatted weapons and jousting lances do NOT cause shield & armor damage, unless they do real damage due to circumstances.

Example:
Knight A has a shield and a reinforced chainmail. Knight B does 5d6 of damage.
1. Knight B hits, Knight A gets his shield up. The damage roll is 2+3+4+5+6 = 17. Knight A takes no damage (12+6), but his shield degrades to 5 points from now on (one roll of 6).
2. Knight B hits again, Knight A gets his shield up anew. The damage roll is 3+4+4+5+5 = 21. Knight A takes 4 points of damage (21-12-5), but his shield stays the same (no rolls of 6).
3. Knight B hits, Knight A doesn't get his shield up. The damage roll is 1+2+2+3+6 = 14. Knight A takes 2 points of damage, but his shield does not get damaged (since it is out of the way) and his armor takes no damage either (only one 6).
4. Knight B hits again, Knight A misses with his shield again, and the damage roll is 1+1+6+6+6. Knight A takes 8 points of damage, and his armor takes one point of damage (since two or more 6's were rolled, but not 4 of them).
5. Knight B hits, Knight A gets his shield up. The damage roll is 1+2+3+6+6 = 18. Knight A takes 2 points of damage and his shield takes 2 points of damage, lowering its protection to 3.
6. Knight B hits, Knight A gets his shield up. The damage roll is impressive 6+6+6+6+6 = 30. Knight A takes 16 points of damage and is likely unconscious if not dying, so he won't mind the fact that his shield is smashed (first 3 6's) and his armor takes additional point of damage (the remaining 2 6's).

I really like the simplicity of using the 6's. I might steal that.

How do you handle all the bookkeeping? Its at least two extra values per knight.

How do you handle spare armor?
With a system like that having spares of everything would be really effective use of libra.

How do you handle monsters armor? The same?

How do you handle this in mass battles - do you assume armor damage after a while?

I really like the simplicity of using the 6's. I might steal that.

How do you handle all the bookkeeping? Its at least two extra values per knight.

How do you handle spare armor?
With a system like that having spares of everything would be really effective use of libra.

How do you handle monsters armor? The same?

How do you handle this in mass battles - do you assume armor damage after a while?


Generally, bookkeeping is a breeze. Shield damage tends to only last the one combat, after all, and people have spare shields. Shields are so cheap that unless there is a particular reason why they shouldn't have a fresh spare (such as, they are in some cavern somewhere without their squires and (pack) horses), we just assume that they do.

People don't generally have spare armor, since major armor damage is very rare. I think the worst so far is one guy who got -2 to his reinforced chain. But if you have the money, go for it and add an extra pack horse.

Monster armor tends to be integral part of themselves, and hence doesn't 'break'. Which also cuts down the GM bookkeeping. :P

We do not assume any damage in battle, but simply fold it into the damage resolution of the battle round. So if the enemy knight hits them in battle round, then we look at the 6's again. I guess we could handwave 'regular' wear and tear resulting from battle and say that the armourers in the army fix it up afterwards, and this is accounted by 'loot-you-never-see'.

The shield rule is simple and seems very quick. Since shields are going to be damaged on more rolls than not, it might be worth beefing up the base protection to something like 8.

I have used this shield rule (from Saxons, I think):

One of the damage dice is rolled a different colour. If it is a six, the shield breaks. No book-keeping at all :)

The armour rule seems like a lot of extra time per damage roll for little gain. Every time soneone rolls damage, you have to mentally sort through the dice, compare total damage to armour, check how many dice are left after removing it, etc.

Also, it's unclear to me:
Let's say the target has 10 points of armour and doesn't get his shield. I roll 6, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1 = 21 points. How many dice have exceed armour?
I could make 10 points from the 4, 3, 2, and 1. that leaves the 5 and 6 - 2 dice, so one point of armour loss.
Or I could make 10 points from the 6 and 4, and have the 4, 3, 2, and 1 left over = 4 dice, so the armour loses 2 points.
Which is it?

Personally if I was using armour damage, I'd consider armour repair part of the maintenance cost of being a knight, and just assume it happens for free. I'd probably have a level of damage beyond which the armour couldn't be repaired and needed replacing; anything less than that would be free.

I think spoonist makes a great point regarding spares (not to mention the battle system, hinting at other situations where single rolls might account for many hits against armour). Armour damage would seem to encourage players to have multiple sets of armour and be constantly changing between them, and having both armour and shield attrition increases player mortality a little too much IMO.

I like the idea of shield damage, since it can be done with zero book-keeping, and if a shield is broken, it can add a little tension for a round or two as the player tries to get a replacement (or his squire gets him one). It makes fights more interesting in a way that armour damage doesn't.

Gah. Sorry, Darren, I seem to have skipped 'of 6' in that first posting there. It was supposed to read:
"Every two rolls OF 6 on the damage dice on the SAME roll that are NOT blocked by a shield..."

So if you roll two 6's in your damage roll, but I managed to interpose my shield (partial success), those 6's eat two points of my shield. If I failed in my roll, they eat one point of my armor, instead.

Hence, it is pretty much as fast as the Shield rule, but comes up much more rarely, and is making armor quite a lot more resistant to damage. After all, you need to roll at least two 6's at once and the other guy has to fail his skill (or be shieldless).

Deadliness... depends a bit. It is roughly statistically equivalent to what you do, having the shield breaking in one die roll of 6. The armor damage comes into play rather rarely, as if you do get hit without your shield with a roll of two or more 6's, the chances are that you are out of the fight after that, nursing your wounds anyway. Furthermore, the same rules apply to the enemies as well, allowing the PKs to harm them more easily, rather than turning the fight into a game of 'who rolls a crit first?'. So the fights might cause more minor wounds, rather than one killing blow, reducing the deadliness. I admit that I have not done rigorous bookkeeping to test this hypothesis, though.

That two rolls of 6 makes a lot more sense, and is pretty quick to play. Armour wont get damaged as frequently so my earlier mortality concerns can be ignored.

I do have some concerns about the long-term effect on the campaign: as GM, I now have to decide whether the opponents pcs are facing have damaged armour or not, and that's an extra decision every combat which has minor effect. If enemies don't have damaged armour, PCs with damaged armour will frequently just swap theirs for the defeated foes (assuming they dont damage it when winning!), and then not have to bother with repairing, etc.

That said, it's a much more low-maintenance rule than I previously thought, and doesn't seem unbalanced at all.

It's an interesting house rule, but while it adds a touch more "realism" I'm not sure it is worth the extra time and accounting.

I do have some concerns about the long-term effect on the campaign: as GM, I now have to decide whether the opponents pcs are facing have damaged armour or not, and that's an extra decision every combat which has minor effect. If enemies don't have damaged armour, PCs with damaged armour will frequently just swap theirs for the defeated foes (assuming they dont damage it when winning!), and then not have to bother with repairing, etc.


Generally, I simply rule that if there is no particular reason for it to be otherwise, the enemies show up with armors in full repair. Exceptions could be bandits, robber knights or in the wilderness or after a fierce battle, when they might not have had time or the opportunity to have an armourer fix them. The players seem pretty paranoid about keeping their armors fully repaired, as long as they have the chance and the money to make it so. Like said, I think the worst so far was -2 to Reinforced Chain during a year of rather heavy questing and low income.

I am a bit confused by your concern about swapping armor... How is this any different from the situation where the knights simply take the armor as loot and sell it, since their own armor is not damaged? We do enforce some SIZ guidelines about whether the armor (especially the platemail types) will fit properly. Too different a body type and the armor needs to be refitted to the user or simply sold. In any case, I would not think this is a problem: source material is full of knights claiming the better armor of their defeated foes and using it in subsequent fights.

It's an interesting house rule, but while it adds a touch more "realism" I'm not sure it is worth the extra time and accounting.


We find that it adds a bit of a 'holy crap!' -factor, when half of the knight's shield goes flying after a particularly palpable hit. :)

Also, many a duel has started with knights slowly chipping the shields of their opponent away, until only shield bosses (prot 1) remain, and the damage starts to accumulate. And the oft-heard (OOC) question on the battlefield is 'Are there any intact shields lying around that I could pick up quickly?'.

Sure, it adds a bit of calculation, and it does make knights bit less invulnerable in the long run. The latter is more of a bonus in my book, though. PKs with chivalric bonus, partial plate and shield are already darn hard to damage without critical hits (by the standard 5d6 NPK). And the same is true for enemy knights, of course, although they are less often Chivalric (and the PKs tend to boast 6d6 in damage).

It's an interesting house rule, but while it adds a touch more "realism" I'm not sure it is worth the extra time and accounting.


We find that it adds a bit of a 'holy crap!' -factor, when half of the knight's shield goes flying after a particularly palpable hit. :)

Also, many a duel has started with knights slowly chipping the shields of their opponent away, until only shield bosses (prot 1) remain, and the damage starts to accumulate. And the oft-heard (OOC) question on the battlefield is 'Are there any intact shields lying around that I could pick up quickly?'.
I'd agree for the shields, it adds lots of roleplaying context in battles. (But then one could use the simpler system outlined above from Saxons). I'd disagree for a point or two in armor.
But as long as its fun - keep up the good work.

I'm thinking of ´taking this up with my players - maybe we should simplify our shield rules towards your use of '6' instead of a calculation based one.
But I like the progress off Whole 6p, Cracked 3p, Broken 0p, for simplicity.

Regarding the boss thing - wouldn't that be round-shields and roman shields only? A common heater didn't have a boss.

Regarding the boss thing - wouldn't that be round-shields and roman shields only? A common heater didn't have a boss.


Yes. I was using it as short-hand/figuratively to imply that the shield was chopped down next to nothing. :)