Too many Armor Feats?

[Pagan priest]

Am I alone in the feeling that there are too many armor feats required in d20 Modern? Light, Medium, Heavy, and now d20 Future adds Powered to the mix, each a prerequisite to the rest. I do not recall anything in Heinlein's Starship Troopers that would indicate that the Moble Infantry learned anything about tactical assault vests before suiting up in the powered armor.

I know that D&D does it this way, but is there any reason to actually leave it this way? Is it enough to simply require only one feat, the onw for the class of armor that the character is actually going to wear?

 

[Sugarmouse]

Bear in mind that Heinlein's armoured suits were based on negative feedback to mimic and enhace your natural motive power. Although you could stick a mudfoot into a Marauder suit and point him at the enemy - he still needs special training for the snoopers, interface, and, to quote, pick up an egg.

In most RPG cases powered armour is actually 'power assist armour' - armour that is basically heavy plating, which requires either interlaced myomer bundles, or something like hydraulics to help move the sheer weight of the plating. Alternatively, powered armour (in a SW sense) could also just be heavy armour with special gadgets thrown in (like Stormtrooper armour), as well as an AV-1C.

The above should make sense, but then again its still morning for me... and I need my coffee.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Am I alone in the feeling that there are too many armor feats required in d20 Modern? Light, Medium, Heavy, and now d20 Future adds Powered to the mix, each a prerequisite to the rest. I do not recall anything in Heinlein's Starship Troopers that would indicate that the Moble Infantry learned anything about tactical assault vests before suiting up in the powered armor.

Powered Armor is better than medium armor, so you have to pay more feats. Unlike in DnD, where you often get armor feats for free, in D20 Modern you have to pay for the feats. To put a sharper point on it, the penalties for not being proficient in armor are so huge that there's no point of wearing armor you're not proficient with (unlike, say, psions in DnD who can wear full plate, and as long as they don't mind falling down the stairs once in a while and avoid ranged touch powers, suffer no penalties at all).

This means that your character abilities (your feats!) are more important than your equipment.

Modern > DnD.

I know that D&D does it this way, but is there any reason to actually leave it this way? Is it enough to simply require only one feat, the onw for the class of armor that the character is actually going to wear?

No.

 

[Furluge]

Actually each armor is not a prequisite to the rest. Powered armor only has prequisites for light and medium. So therefore it looks to me like once you get medium armor and you want more you make a choice, you can go the heavy armor or powered armor route. Seems pretty fair to me.

 

[Olive]

Remember, d20 M/F PCs have heaps more feats than DnD PCs... so it's not that big a deal.

 

[Pagan priest]

Remember, d20 M/F PCs have heaps more feats than DnD PCs... so it's not that big a deal.

Yes it is... I have never had a character with enough feat slots for what I want to do. I Modern, I also do not see it as being realistic. The differences between light and medium armor are very small. The diffeences between light or mdium and heavy are a little more significant. The last time I ws going to run a Modern game I house ruled that light and medium were one proficiency.

Occasionally, these boards get someone who is or recently was in the Army. Does the Army train the troops to wear an undercover vest, and then a tactical vest before training them to effectively use the Land Warrior equipment? I don't think so.

Going back to Heinlein's powered armor, yes, the MI were trained in its use... they got the feat as a class bonus (AdC: Moble Infantry), at least that is how I would explain it. Or maybe they didn't get it as a bonus feat, but as a normal part of leveling up, but the important thing here is that they did not need to learn lesser armors to learn to be effective in powered armor.

 

[jaerdaph]

In Mongoose Publishing's OGL Horror, which is built from the Modern SRD, Medium Armors are merged into the Light Armor list, so you only have two Armor feats in that game.

 

[ragboy]

Occasionally, these boards get someone who is or recently was in the Army. Does the Army train the troops to wear an undercover vest, and then a tactical vest before training them to effectively use the Land Warrior equipment? I don't think so.

No. I understand the concept of being proficient in certain classes of armor and operating efficiently with them on. The big bite to realism is the hierarchical model. In the same way that I didn't have to learn to drive an M113 armored personnel carrier before I could proficiently drive an M1A1, you certainly shouldn't have to know how to wear a flak vest before you can wear one of those new-fangled tortise-shell things that the Rangers get.

If you're running for realism, I'd nix the prerequisites. I have no experience with powered-armor or battle suits or battlemechs, but I'd have to use the M113 / M1A1 analogy with that one, too. If you get training (i.e. a feat) to run around in futuristic heavy armor, it seems logical that you could do this without learning to wear a flak vest first. Of course, in game terms, I believe the prerequisites are there for game balance.

Going back to Heinlein's powered armor, yes, the MI were trained in its use... they got the feat as a class bonus (AdC: Moble Infantry), at least that is how I would explain it. Or maybe they didn't get it as a bonus feat, but as a normal part of leveling up, but the important thing here is that they did not need to learn lesser armors to learn to be effective in powered armor.

To add some flexibility and a little realism, you could have the character wear armor that he/she isn't proficient in for an entire level, then give them the feat for the armor for 'free' when they level up...simulating that they learned by doing rather than by training, and took the penalty for an entire level as payment.

 

[Pagan priest]

No. I understand the concept of being proficient in certain classes of armor and operating efficiently with them on. The big bite to realism is the hierarchical model. In the same way that I didn't have to learn to drive an M113 armored personnel carrier before I could proficiently drive an M1A1, you certainly shouldn't have to know how to wear a flak vest before you can wear one of those new-fangled tortise-shell things that the Rangers get.

If you're running for realism, I'd nix the prerequisites. I have no experience with powered-armor or battle suits or battlemechs, but I'd have to use the M113 / M1A1 analogy with that one, too. If you get training (i.e. a feat) to run around in futuristic heavy armor, it seems logical that you could do this without learning to wear a flak vest first. Of course, in game terms, I believe the prerequisites are there for game balance.

To add some flexibility and a little realism, you could have the character wear armor that he/she isn't proficient in for an entire level, then give them the feat for the armor for 'free' when they level up...simulating that they learned by doing rather than by training, and took the penalty for an entire level as payment.

Hmmm, I'd call that a real can of worms, cause then someone is going to say "I've been shotting this gun for 2 levels now, so I should get a free prof for that, too!"

In some ways, it looks like realism and cenematic play both lean towards dropping the prereqs for armor proficiency.

 

[Vigilance]

It does seem a little silly that it's three times harder to "learn" to wear armor than fire an M-16 though.

To me anyway.

Chuck