[Grim Tales] Effects of Armor

[Yuan-Ti]

Yes, yet another GT thread by YT... sorry, guys.

The d20 Modern thread on Armor came just the morning after I wrestled through the rules and the dim warrens of my so-called memory trying to figure out how to handle players with a Defense Bonus AND Plate Armor. I seem to recall a thread a while back in which someone said that heavy armor was not so great in GT because... here my memory fails and I could find nothing in the rules.

I want to say the downside was that the Max Dex bonus also limits the defense bonus...

I also want to say the ACP was somehow applied to a character's attack roll...

Or maybe I dreamed the whole thing. Help!

Rationale: I do have a rationale for wanting to make heavy armor less interesting to my players. My game is set in 17th century Europe. Heavy armor had generally been abandoned on the battlefield by rank and file, and even cavalry had moved away from it. If the rules don't mirror why people would choose to stop wearing heavy armor then players will want it, regardless of the customs of the time/game. And I don't want to simply say, "You cannot find any heavy armor" because that would be patently untrue. Difficult to find, yes, but not impossible.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

You could just rule that firearms ignore armor (but not defense bonus). That way, heavy armor would be useful if you expected to engage in melee combat, but its impact on Dex bonus and/or defensive bonus would make it a liability when your opponent pulled out a pistol.

 

[Yuan-Ti]

You could just rule that firearms ignore armor (but not defense bonus). That way, heavy armor would be useful if you expected to engage in melee combat, but its impact on Dex bonus and/or defensive bonus would make it a liability when your opponent pulled out a pistol.

Good point. The problem is that in the early 17th century, firearms were not yet quite so prevalent. They were also slow to reload. This means most combats will have 1 round of gunfire, followed by a "boarding action"... If I were a PC, and not a skills character, I would see heavy armor as still very useful without some kind of drawback. Does that make sense?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Yes, yet another GT thread by YT... sorry, guys.

The d20 Modern thread on Armor came just the morning after I wrestled through the rules and the dim warrens of my so-called memory trying to figure out how to handle players with a Defense Bonus AND Plate Armor. I seem to recall a thread a while back in which someone said that heavy armor was not so great in GT because... here my memory fails and I could find nothing in the rules.

In GT, armor does not boost Defense, or even provide DR. It converts incoming damage into nonlethal damage (the 3.5 style, not the Modern style). At least, that's the fewer dead heroes variant. If there are any others, someone else will have to tell you.

I want to say the downside was that the Max Dex bonus also limits the defense bonus...

I also want to say the ACP was somehow applied to a character's attack roll...

The latter only applies if non-proficient. I don't know about max Dex bonus limiting the class Defense bonus. It's only going to cap the Dex bonus in D20 Modern.

Rationale: I do have a rationale for wanting to make heavy armor less interesting to my players. My game is set in 17th century Europe. Heavy armor had generally been abandoned on the battlefield by rank and file, and even cavalry had moved away from it. If the rules don't mirror why people would choose to stop wearing heavy armor then players will want it, regardless of the customs of the time/game. And I don't want to simply say, "You cannot find any heavy armor" because that would be patently untrue. Difficult to find, yes, but not impossible.

That shouldn't even be necessary. It takes three feats and slows you down besides. Although if you wanted to say that guns ignore some or all the subdual conversion, go right ahead. It's not like guns were that useful in that time period in small-scale combats that the heroes were likely to get into, due to the long reload time.

In DnD, so many people wear heavy armor because you get those feats for free, and because the only other way to boost AC is through magic items. Not in D20 Modern - you have to pay for them. I don't know about Grim Tales, though. I heard a rumor (now confirmed) that the Strong class in Grim Tales gets all three armor feats for free if it's the class you took at 1st-level. If that's true, that's kind of bad for some concepts. That's three of the best feats in the game for free right there... although it doesn't look quite as powerful as in D20 Modern. It will only get worse if you are spoonfed those feats, and is especially bad if you want to be a martial artist-style character. (Only the Strong class can take Combat Martial Arts at first level due to his BAB, and in Grim Tales there is no Martial Artist class, but damage bonuses for martial artists are available as Strong talents.)

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I want to say the downside was that the Max Dex bonus also limits the defense bonus...

You could do that, but I don't like it. Depends on an awful lot of other factors, just be careful that offense does not unduly outstrip defense. Remember, the Defense bonus substitutes for the lack of AC-boosting magic items.

I also want to say the ACP was somehow applied to a character's attack roll...

If you are not proficient with the armor you are wearing, ACP applies to your attack roll. (Also note that only characters starting at 1st level Strong Hero get Heavy Armor Proficiency for free.)

Rationale: I do have a rationale for wanting to make heavy armor less interesting to my players. My game is set in 17th century Europe. Heavy armor had generally been abandoned on the battlefield by rank and file, and even cavalry had moved away from it. If the rules don't mirror why people would choose to stop wearing heavy armor then players will want it, regardless of the customs of the time/game. And I don't want to simply say, "You cannot find any heavy armor" because that would be patently untrue. Difficult to find, yes, but not impossible.

Make ballistic weapons require a ranged touch, rather than a ranged attack roll.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

snip

A lot of interesting commentary, especially since I can't tell if you actually own GT or not.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

A lot of interesting commentary, especially since I can't tell if you actually own GT or not.

I did say rumor. Please correct the incorrect info, and I'll edit my post.

 

[Yuan-Ti]

Thanks, Severed and Wulf, for the responses. A couple of thoughts occur here...

First a question for Wulf -- it wasn't clear to me from reading the Fewer Dead Heroes variant if you mean DR to replace Armor Bonuses to AC, or to complement them. Which is it?

Now, my thoughts about what has been said.

- Hey, if the times were such that people didn't wear heavy armor for combat... why should a strong hero get Heavy Armor Proficiency for free? I'd have to throw the class some kind of benefit in return (in return for no heavy armor and only 1 martial weapon, the Tough hero gets 2 hps).

- I agree, limiting class defense due to armor was a dumb idea. To be fair, I thought it might have been Wulf's idea... I should have known better, though.

- Maybe firearms require only a touch attack? Now there's a fine idea!

If I go with DR, though, I may just rule that firearms inside 30 feet ignore DR and otherwise halve it.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I did say rumor. Please correct the incorrect info, and I'll edit my post.

The one thing you got right was the one you stated as rumor; what you stated as fact was incorrect.

First a question for Wulf -- it wasn't clear to me from reading the Fewer Dead Heroes variant if you mean DR to replace Armor Bonuses to AC, or to complement them. Which is it?

Complements it.

- I agree, limiting class defense due to armor was a dumb idea. To be fair, I thought it might have been Wulf's idea... I should have known better, though.

I don't think it's a DUMB idea at all. It's mechanically sound. I just don't care for it myself-- but I tend to run "High Adventure, Low Magic" whereas many folks use GT for "Low Adventure, Low Magic."

- Maybe firearms require only a touch attack? Now there's a fine idea!

And conversely, I wouldn't call this a fine idea-- I just sort of threw it out there. If you're using monsters at all, or anything with a natural armor bonus, then you can use the "ballistic = ranged touch attack" provided you ALSO use Armor as Damage Conversion-- so that bullets will still have some effect on, say, a rhinocerous, without necessarily putting the rhino on an equal footing with a naked human.

Finally, don't equate DR with Damage Conversion. I think Damage Conversion is superior in all ways to DR as a "fix" for your "grim and gritty" needs. Damage Conversion insures that all successful attacks, from daggers to elephant guns, have some combat effect.

With DR, you could end up with an umbrella under which a number of disparate weapons are all equally ignored.

There's a place for DR, but it should be a subset of really tough armor, not applied to all armor across the board.


Wulf

 

[Yuan-Ti]

Fewer Dead Heroes question... Thanks!

Armor Max Dex reducing Defense... Nah, I think it is a dumb idea for the ideas mentioned by Severed. Maybe "dumb" is too strong a word. I just don't like it myself, either.

Firearms as touch attack weapons... For the right campaign, I think it works. Not for mine, though, because the tech of guns in the 17th century was such that armor could in fact affect their impact. Maybe not a lot and not always, but potentially.

DR vs. DC... Doh! Yes, I mistakenly used "DR" but I mean the DC you suggest in the rules. I like it better. I still think I will have firearms ignore parts of it (halve it, most likely).

Thanks for the help... keep an eye out for my "how much damage should an arquebus do?" thread.