RangerWickett
Legend
I have a game design preference question.
Personal Armor
Most every RPG has armor that either makes it harder to meaningfully hit you (e.g., increasing AC like Pathfinder) or absorbs damage (e.g., damage reduction like Rogue Trader/L5R) or occasionally a sort of hybrid (in World of Darkness, the more you hit by the more damage you deal).
But no tabletop RPG I know of has you track damage to your armor. Your armor can defend against dozens of attacks but always remains just as functional, unless someone actively uses some special attack to try to damage the armor.
Vehicles
By contrast, every game I've played with vehicles has treated them as objects that can be independently attacked and damaged, albeit sometimes with a mechanic for damaging the people inside the vehicle. The Millennium Falcon can take X damage before it's destroyed, and X is the same regardless whether it's empty, being piloted by experienced smuggler Han Solo, or being piloted by novice Rey. The different pilots might be better able at dodging attacks, but the person in the cockpit doesn't change how many HP the ship has.
This is the same for battlemechs in Battletech, for cars in World of Darkness, and for mile-long spaceships in Rogue Trader.
The Question
When do you switch between these two modes?
Iron Man wears armor. I figure it gives him AC or DR, but it's still Tony Stark's hit points that determine if he's able to keep fighting. You can knock him out without having to destroy the armor. And if Pepper Potts is in the armor, it still protects her, but she's probably got fewer HP.
If Tony gets into the Hulkbuster armor, that's much bigger. Is it still giving him AC or DR? Or does it now have its own HP total? Can you defeat Tony without destroying the armor?
Or to use a PF context, synthesist summoners can 'wear' their eidolons. Should armor work this way? Or would you prefer rules where the summoner just gets some defensive boost, and maybe some temp HP and new attacks?
Personal Armor
Most every RPG has armor that either makes it harder to meaningfully hit you (e.g., increasing AC like Pathfinder) or absorbs damage (e.g., damage reduction like Rogue Trader/L5R) or occasionally a sort of hybrid (in World of Darkness, the more you hit by the more damage you deal).
But no tabletop RPG I know of has you track damage to your armor. Your armor can defend against dozens of attacks but always remains just as functional, unless someone actively uses some special attack to try to damage the armor.
Vehicles
By contrast, every game I've played with vehicles has treated them as objects that can be independently attacked and damaged, albeit sometimes with a mechanic for damaging the people inside the vehicle. The Millennium Falcon can take X damage before it's destroyed, and X is the same regardless whether it's empty, being piloted by experienced smuggler Han Solo, or being piloted by novice Rey. The different pilots might be better able at dodging attacks, but the person in the cockpit doesn't change how many HP the ship has.
This is the same for battlemechs in Battletech, for cars in World of Darkness, and for mile-long spaceships in Rogue Trader.
The Question
When do you switch between these two modes?
Iron Man wears armor. I figure it gives him AC or DR, but it's still Tony Stark's hit points that determine if he's able to keep fighting. You can knock him out without having to destroy the armor. And if Pepper Potts is in the armor, it still protects her, but she's probably got fewer HP.
If Tony gets into the Hulkbuster armor, that's much bigger. Is it still giving him AC or DR? Or does it now have its own HP total? Can you defeat Tony without destroying the armor?
Or to use a PF context, synthesist summoners can 'wear' their eidolons. Should armor work this way? Or would you prefer rules where the summoner just gets some defensive boost, and maybe some temp HP and new attacks?