Armour feats - do they make sense?

[lmccauley]

I don't understand why you would need special training (i.e. a Feat) in order to get the full defense for armour. OK, I could imagine it would be of use to reduce skill penalties, but not to affect the equipment bonus to your AC.

Are armour feats just a mechanic to discourage heros from wearing armour? Is it an attempt to make characters more "heroic"?

Is there any logical reason why I couldn't just remove armour feats altogether from my game and rely instead on roleplaying and common sense ("Well officer, the reason I'm wearing Class IV body armour in the mall is...")?

Cheers,
Liam

 

[Bagpuss]

They make about as much sense as the autofire rules.

 

[MThibault]

I've always figured that any armor (in D&D or d20 Modern) doesn't just stop incoming weapons or ammo cold without any attention needed on the part of the wearer.

Unless you've got full body armor with equal protection from head to toe, you are going to have to be fully aware of the soft spots and potential weak links, and be working to keep those targets as small as possible.

The other consideration is deflection. Depending on the armor, just standing there is going to get you knocked over or seriously bruised and broken (chainmail especially) you want to use your armor to deflect blows when you can't get out of the way completely, not absorb the full brunt of the blow.

If you don't know what you are doing, and aren't comfortable with the techniques of minimizing the armor's limitations you won't be able to use it to its full potential.

So, in the abstraction of d20 combat this seems as sensible to me as anything.

Cheers

 

[lmccauley]

Talking specifically about ballistic armour (which is what is most relevant for my game), I've never heard of anyone offering a course or training in how to use body armour effectively (beyond instruction on how to put it on and take it off). I doubt whether anyone is instructed on how to position there body armour to deflect a bullet rather than take it full on - they would be instructed on how not to get hit in the first place!

I did see someone offering a training course on how to use a ballistic shield - and that made sense.

I'm still not convinced that there is any realistic basis for armour feats.

Anyone else?

Cheers,
Liam

 

[Ranger REG]

I don't know. Is it that easy for an average joe off the street to don a modern armor and adapt to it like a second skin when performing strenous activities? Maybe an average joe who have had prior military or law enforcement training.

 

[lmccauley]

It would be interesting to hear from anybody with law-enforcement experience - what training did you get with your body armour? If there was training, was it to maximise the effectiveness of the armour in stopping bullets, or was it to maximise mobility whilst wearing armour (represented by skill penalties in D20M)?

Cheers,
Liam

 

[Fellwind]

I've allways thought that the benefit from the armor feat should not be how much of a defense bonus you get, but to limit the armor check penalty and speed penalty.

Example (exagerated to show detail )

Full Plate, non proficient - Max Dex 0, - 50% speed, -8 climb, tumble etc...

Full Plate, proficient - Max Dex 1, -25% speed, -4 climb, tumble etc...

All of that representing training using the armor.

 

[lmccauley]

I've allways thought that the benefit from the armor feat should not be how much of a defense bonus you get, but to limit the armor check penalty and speed penalty.

Hmm, I like your logic there. Think I'll have a look at the book tonight and work out some skill penalties and possibly reduced speeds for non-proficient use of the ballistic armours.

I think a single feat would probably cover all armours, though.

Cheers,
Liam

 

[Shadowlord]

Although the entire modern book is very well done, they screwed up arms & armor.

The non-prof armor rules in d&d were quite good, and I would look into them. The easiest way to change the rules IMO would be to simply have a cumulative -2 armor check penalty and -2 penalty to equipment bonus (to a minmum of +1). Being proficient in armor would eliminated those penalties.

To make armor really worth it, add a 25% chance to avoid crits when being proficient in medium armor, and 50% chance to avoid crits in proficient heavy armor. This fortification does not apply to archaic armor.

 

[lmccauley]

Although the entire modern book is very well done, they screwed up arms & armor.

I woudln't necessarily go that far - I just think that the genre that D20M was aimed at was Heroic, rather than Realistic. And that's a valid design goal. It's just not appropriate for my game (and presumably not yours - in fact it was your thread that originally prompted me to look at armour in more detail).

The non-prof armor rules in d&d were quite good, and I would look into them. The easiest way to change the rules IMO would be to simply have a cumulative -2 armor check penalty and -2 penalty to equipment bonus (to a minmum of +1). Being proficient in armor would eliminated those penalties.

True, it might be the easiest, but I still haven't seen any persuasive reasons given for proficiency in ballistic armour to reduce your chance of being hit/reduce the chance of a hit doing damage.

To make armor really worth it, add a 25% chance to avoid crits when being proficient in medium armor, and 50% chance to avoid crits in proficient heavy armor. This fortification does not apply to archaic armor.

Great idea!

Cheers,
Liam