[Grim Tales] Effects of Armor

[HeapThaumaturgist]

This is what I do in my game. We have smoothbore firearms, which are pretty expensive but not exactly RARE.

I can post the stats, but they basically do 1d6+2 (tiny handgun) to 3d8 (full musket) and a range of things inbetween. All 3-X damage, though, because I'm weird that way.

In GT (and this wasn't in the 3.5 SRD that I can see), Encumbrance affects your attack bonus. Medium load nets you a -3 on all attacks, etc etc. This means that characters in plate are going to have to have really really high STR to keep from being encumbered by the armor.

The thing I've found with Modern/GT is that it works backward from the AC/AB scaling of D&D. In D&D, your AC means less and less as you level because AC bonuses don't scale to monster AB. Eventually it's all you can do to stay 50/50. In GT/Modern, AB stays so low from multiclassing and generally low Attack Progression, while AC (Defense) goes up far more rapidly. The design element was to up Defense to make up for the lack of magic, but Attack doesn't get the same consideration and, indeed, gets nerfed heavily by any sort of multiclassing or staying away from Strong. Most of my 5th level PCs have +2 ABs but 20-ish Defenses. They can't shoot themselves in the foot if they tried. And in my game, nobody wears anything heavier than Leather. That mostly for the Damage Conversion.

I've begun implementing Fractional Attack Progression. Just to alleviate some of the nerf-sticking multiclass PCs get.

I think making firearms Ranged Touch would overpower them at all but the smallest damage bonuses. And at small damage, there's little chance of forcing MDTs. Culling Class Defense during Flat-Footed moments can help, but introduces alot of He Who Goeth First situations. I think just increasing Attack Bonus with fractional attack progression might help. Also using "Ordinaries" from Modern works to introduce threats without huge CR. Basically an Ordinary is a normal PC without Talents or Bonus Feats. DR = Level -1. You can then introduce CR 1 Ordinaries who are Strong2 with good Dex and firearms that have a +3-+4 attack.

--fje

 

[Serps]

If you want players to lighten up on armour, why not make Armour and defense bonuses not stack? That way, once a character gets +8 defense bonus, they'd only choose full plate for the damage conversion.

in the end, you'll end up with PCs using heavy armour until their defense goes up, then switching back to leather and letting their natural skills keep them safe.

 

[GlassJaw]

If you want players to lighten up on armour, why not make Armour and defense bonuses not stack? That way, once a character gets +8 defense bonus, they'd only choose full plate for the damage conversion.

in the end, you'll end up with PCs using heavy armour until their defense goes up, then switching back to leather and letting their natural skills keep them safe.

That's similar to what I mentioned in another thread (probably the one that Yuan-Ti mentioned). My idea was that the Armor Max Dex bonus also limits the Def bonus as well.

The main "problem" with rules such as this is that it creates a finite cut-off point in which the character suddenly has a better AC without armor. It actually lowers overall armor classes at the higher levels too. Unfortunately, with an armor class-based system, if you want to have both armor and defense bonuses, there's really no way around it.

 

[Yuan-Ti]

Thanks for all the thoughts and comments, everyone. I think I am going to go with a couple changes --

- Strong Hero does not get Heavy Armor proficiency for free (not sure what bone to throw them instead, just yet; this really has to do with setting specifics more than balance, but it will have that further effect)
- Armor will definitely have DC
- Firearms will likely halve the DC inside 30 feet

Heap, look for me to hash out my weapons in a thread soon. I'd like to hear your input, bearing in mind that my weapons are more primitive, if I recall, than the ones in your campaign.

 

[Mavnn]

My thought on this one was to limit the bonus to touch defense from class to the Armours DEX check.

So having a high class defense will always help you avoid getting hurt, but wearing the heavy armour will limit how hard you can be to touch.

Think of it as being so used to your armour that you can use it to greater effect: you twist just a little to take the blow on a stronger piece of armour. On the other hand, you're still wearing a huge lump of metal, so you can't just jump out the way.

Michael

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Strong Hero does not get Heavy Armor proficiency for free (not sure what bone to throw them instead, just yet; this really has to do with setting specifics more than balance, but it will have that further effect)

Considering that the Strong Hero only gets the bonus features if you choose it at 1st level, your replacement better be something good, otherwise there's little reason to take it at 1st level in favor of the other classes with better 1st level perks.

I can definitely see changing it if heavy armor isn't thematically appropriate for your campaign. Maybe a free Weapon Focus or Weapon Finesse?

You'll know if you did it right if either everybody, or nobody, ever wants to line up Strong Hero as their 1st level class.


Wulf

 

[Narfellus]

Ok, if anyone can answer i'm just curious. Historically, why DID heavy armor become obsolete? It seems to me a sheet of metal would help shield damage from a bullet, or at least reduce the damage. Was it prohibitively expensive, or cumbersome, or antiquated in usefulness or prestige, or did gunpowder just punch holes in it like warm butter?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Was it prohibitively expensive, or cumbersome, or antiquated in usefulness or prestige, or did gunpowder just punch holes in it like warm butter?

It was cumbersome, of course, which meant it was really only suitable for cavalry.

Armored cavalry was expensive and "elite." (The longbow was inexpensive but still "elite.")

When the "rate of exchange" on less trained troops meant that you could raise and train enough of them to overcome their disadvantages in the face of such elite troops, it was simply economic extinction for the elite troops.

It wasn't such an issue to see the knights go, but the loss of the longbow was really too bad. (My opinion on that might have more to do with the social and political differences between these two kinds of warriors.)

Longbows were superior to firearms in so many ways-- it just simply took too long to train a longbowman. If you say to yourself, "My longbowman is as effective as three of your musketmen," that's all well and good, until the economics are such that your enemy can train FOUR musketmen for every one of your longbowmen.

Wulf

 

[Yuan-Ti]

Just to add to what Wulf said, there were a couple of other issues going on, in addition to the economies of gunpowder weapons...

One is that the stopping power of firearms increased to the point in the early 1600s that wearing cumbersome armor did not appreciably increase your chances of survival against firearms. Pikemen wore metal armor longer than did musketeers and both gave it up in favor of various leather armors by 1650 (before giving it up for cloth by the mid- to late-1600s). Even cavalry, during this time, went through a period where they often wore only leathers -- but that was because European cavalry stopped using shock weapons and instead relied mostly on pistols. Once charging with sword drawn came back into fashion, cavalry started wearing breastplates again.

The other issues, I recall, were supply and marching. Warfare became more and more expensive, involving larger armies, and requiring more maneuver. States were less interested in issuing armor, soldiers were less interested in humping it around the countryside, and generals preferred armies that could move quickly.

But to sum it up -- as melee combat became less important on the battlefield and firearms became more effective against armor, armor went away. Cavalry kept it longer because they were primarily engaged in melee combat (again, except for the period when they relied on pistols).

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

So, then, maybe the answer is to line up lots of mooks with firearms and put cover 55 feet away.

The dwarf in our Urban Arcana game found out that 20' movement can suuuuuuuuuck. I don't think the DM planned things quite that way, but the little guy was trucking all over the place using most of his time taking double moves just to get into tactical position. Then the foe could take a single move out and around a corner and there he was, taking another double move just to keep up.

Make 'em sweat for that armor. Keeping track of how long it takes to put on, take off, and how unusual it is in normal social environments will get people taking chain REAL quick. Every D&D game I play, my characters invariably have a chain shirt lying about for slipping on in the middle of the night or wearing under day clothes when we're in town shopping. How fun it is to find that while everybody else is going into combat naked during the invariable Ninjas Attack At Night! moment, my PC has the warm security of metal over his PJs.

Heavy armors had a specific use in a specific moment in time. Make your characters realize why nobody goes grocery shopping in Full Plate these days.

--fje