Armor -> bonus to MD treshold

[Shadowlord]

I'm listening. I don't wanna make heros immmune to MD, but you give an extreme example. Not everyone plays a tough hero with CON 18 and wears heavy armor and spends a feat to become even more tough. He should then have a MDT of 24 or 26 (21 by the book), which isn't a big difference anymore (it's BIG).

 

[jeffhartsell]

Figure a tough hero that has con 18, improved MDT, light armor, medium armor, and heavy armor feats maybe should get the benefit of a high MDT. As Shadowlord states, that would be 21 by the book and 24 or 26 depending on +3 or +5 due to the heavy armor. And this PC spend *4* feats to get to the best armor and MDT. For the +9 AC the PC also takes a -8 skill penalty and has a 20 ft move. Those are not insignificant penalties considering the PC spent 3 feats to get the +9 AC.

And as a reminder... that +9 AC is the same as a fast hero with 20 dex would get at level 8 with only light armor.

Basically, you are giving heavy armor a small tweak to make up for the extra feats and penalties it imbues. Since realistically a low dex character HAS to where heavy armors to keep up in AC.

High DEX characters kick butt in low-power games, especially a ranged-weapon heavy system.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, okay, your argument makes some sense.

Why don't the two of you give both house rules a try and report back how it works out. I know I am curious to hear the results.

 

[jeffhartsell]

I am leary to introduce house rules into d20M until we've test driven. It took us a year before we added house rules to our 3e game. The game was so new we did not want to mess with it.

But, we do have the advantage to know the weaknesses of core d20. And heavy armor is one of them, right now high DEX and light armor PCs with range have a big advantage over the low-dex melee PCs in DnD.

That is why lots of people recommend DR for armor.

 

[Tellerve]

I have to agree that most everyone shy's away from heavier armor in Dnd, at least in the campaigns I've played in. In modern I can only imagine it being worse. People will want to have higher dexterity as guns are available. Not only that but there is no fighter class that automatically gives you the feats for armor. AS was stated you've gotta pay 3 feats to be able to use armor properly and then heavy armor does kinda bite as written, because it is very much like normal Dnd heavy armor. Giving those people some MD I think is a fair shake, and I think I'll go ahead and think about putting it into my campaign. 'course I think my campaign is really just a quick few adventures but nonetheless I'll figure some way to have a quick character and a guy in heavy armor together and see if one is brutalized or not by the players.

Tellerve

 

[Shadowlord]

:But, we do have the advantage to know the weaknesses of core d20. And heavy armor is one of them, right now high DEX and light armor PCs with range have a big advantage over the low-dex melee PCs in DnD.

That is why lots of people recommend DR for armor.

Basically, you are giving heavy armor a small tweak to make up for the extra feats and penalties it imbues.

That's exactly the reason why I wanted to introduce this rule!
I'm not in favor of changing everything to V-W cos the mas dam rule is really great but it doesn't fix the problem with armor (especially heavy). An amazingly simple solution was IMO to add some bonus to MDT.

I tried it and I think light armor doesn't need a bonus to MDT as it hardly has any check or movement penalties. So I came up with this:
light +0; medium +2; heavy +4.
I think it's the best solution.

 

[jeffhartsell]

Shadowlord, are you allowing the MDT bonuses for those that do not have the feats?

 

[Shadowlord]

Actually yes; why not? I could allow them if you're proficient only but it doesn't make such a big difference. I'm using this rule for D&D :

MASSIVE DAMAGE

Any time a character takes damage from a single hit that exceeds the character’s massive damage threshold, that damage is considered massive damage. A character’s massive damage threshold is equal to the character’s current Constitution score; it can be increased by taking the Toughness feat (which grants a +3 bonus to massive damage treshold instead of hit points) or by wearing armor. Light armor increases the massive damage treshold by +0, medium armor by +2 and heavy armor by +4.

When a character takes massive damage that doesn’t reduce his or her hit points to 0 or lower, the character must make a Fortitude save (DC 15). If the character fails the save, the character’s hit point total is immediately reduced to –1. If the save succeeds, the character suffers no ill effect beyond the loss of hit points. Creatures immune to critical hits are also immune to the effects of massive damage.

 

[Mistwell]

So all the justification for this rule about how it costs SO much to be able to use the armor from eating up 3 feats...that justification goes out the window, or at least is seriously compromised.

Now anyone can carry heavy armor in the car with them, and if they get into a fire fight where they are pinned down and the shooting will likely take a while (not an uncommon situation), just put the heavy armor on and you are much safer from MD, with no real penalty (no feat cost, +3 AC protection which is equal to a 16 Dex, lots of MD protection, and no worries about skill penalty or movement cost since neither will come into play in a medium distance fire fight).

 

[Shadowlord]

Ok, let's make it "when proficient only". I don't care so much; for me it's making heavy armor a bit more attractive "altogether" and making up for the heavy restrictions it imposes. With these "restrictions" I was thinking check penalty, movement limit and Dex limit firstly, then followed by weight and feat cost.

Thanks for helping me figure it out; I think it's a great rule I'm gonna use in D&D too (I do so already - no real problems).
I'd like to ask some people to playtest it too and tell me what they experienced.