First off, I think the name is clunky. "Chinks in Armor?" We don't say "Eyeslits of Helm" or "Vital Parts of Torso." I'd go with Armor Gaps. Sure, that implies a lack of armor, not reduced armor, but chinks doesn't imply reduced armor, either. So, Armor Gaps for me.
Second, while I can appreciate the symmetry of -8 for Torso, -10 for elsewhere, my players generally stumble over the lack of penalties for a hit location. One idea I've toyed with is -8 plus half the location penalty rounded down. So torso -8, neck -10, arms and legs -9, hands and feet -10 . . of course, that makes eyeslits of a helm -12, not -10 . . . but hey, it's DF, I don't care, people start with a 20 in combat skills.
Third, I think there needs to be additional specific exemptions:
- doesn't affect Fine armor
- some locations/armors may lack gaps (I'm thinking invisible bucket helms, say, or the vitals in general)
- I don't allow this on eyeslits or vitals at all with swing/impaling or swing/piercing weapons. I just don't buy it due to the angles involved.
I prefer to use "armor junctions" for the hit locations with half-DR (which, I assume, are joints and junctions of the armor, so you are trying to stab in a narrow chink between two plates) and "armor gaps" for the hit locations with no DR, as described in the Low-Tech (such as armpits and so on).
ReplyDeleteAlso I give extra +2 to hit junctions and gaps if the target is wearing cheap armor, extra -1 for fine-tailored armor and extra -2 for very fine-tailored.
I like the term "armor junctions." I'll use that, perhaps, as it's a better description of the targeting point.
DeleteI don't use chinks in armor at all; instead I use the armor gaps rule from Low-Tech. For me it's simpler and more realistic.
ReplyDeleteIs it really simpler? The basic rule in LT is -8 / -10, just like Basic Set, and the harsh realism rules are a bit more involved. What makes it simpler? Standardized penalties, no DR, and a simple rule lookup for resolution?
Delete