Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 609303" data-attributes="member: 18">Morgenstern - Uh, it was my understanding that they used AP-rounds, specifically, not just "bigger guns". In fact, I specifically heard that they went to a gun-shop and *bought* AP rounds on the spot, then came back and shot the back robbers with them, and their armour which had resisted the police weapons, including the weapons issued to SWAT, up to that point, failed them.I completely understand your objection to the VP system, but that's what it really is, an objection to the system itself, not to armour DR. I mean, even without DR, a big, easy-to-dodge bolt, which, if it hit you, would kill you, will do more VP damage than some super-accurate blaster, even if the latter was virtually impossible to dodge. It's an artifact of the system, and can't *really* be used as an objection to DR specifically, I'd say.Either you accept it, and move on, or you're always going to have problems with the basic VP/WP system, I suspect. I mean, I had that problem for a while, as it annoyed me that you didn't have the option to NOT lose VP by dancing around, but if you don't think of VP as endurance, but more as luck, or drama points, or whatever, it makes more sense.Actually, it could be largely be solved, simply make all weapons do either equal VP damage, or damage based on how hard they are to dodge, which would lead to people using the latter weapons, then switching to the "big guns" for the kill, I think, and be rather silly.It is somewhat abstract, but I think it works well enough, and I don't see why, personally, *just* because it's abstract, armour should protect VP. I mean, surely you can turn the argument around and say "Because it's abstract, armour should not protect VP, it's a sort of mystical thing, and wearing a steel plate isn't going to help you out". I mean, unless you have something more specific in mind... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />So I think that is a "deadlock", with regards to the arguments on either side.Now, taking in mind that there is no convincing argument either way on those basis, I take it to the next logical step.Armour *should* protect you as much as it does "IRL", at least in a realistic game. Now, weapons must do enough damage to be fairly lethal under VP/WP, so we're talking 2d6 for a 9mm, and so on (I prefer 1d12 for a 9mm, myself, but that's a different issue). They have to be able to kill a typical unarmoured person in one shot, and they can, at that damage. Don't often, but can.However, RL armour *CAN* stop bullets DEAD, and I don't know about your players, but mine know this. If we have armour that protects against the correct caliber of bullet (I believe it's Class-II w/plate for 9mm), then it should stop *most* of the damage from that round to WP. So Class-II w/plate should be 10, meaning only 1-2 points from a 9mm will ever get through.If you have 10 points of armour on VP, though, it makes you very hard to kill, very hard indeed. SMG fire will bounce off you like a light rain.Now, you say that Spycraft does 2 points of subdual damage for every hit that is absorbed fully. Is this to WP? If not, it's pretty tiny. If it is to WP, then it's screwing up the WP/VP rules completely, which say when you are losing WP, you are NOT being hit! This could be a problem if someone fired an acid round, for example. The armour absorbs the impact damage, but, in doing so, suggests that you have been hit, and that the acid should take effect.In SW, if you lost VP under those circumstances, it would have been a miss. I suspect this is a difference to Spycraft.As for the burst fire rules, they're yucky. Ugh. I've never seen worse, and I've seen more RPGs than most people have seen hot breakfasts. The idea that you can penetrate armour by firing more bullets with same velocity and approximate trajectory is nuts, unless those bullets are so numerous as to destroy the armour (which they won't be, with non-solid armour). I mean, what, there's a steel plate in front of me, if I fire one 9mm round it twenty times, nothing will happen, but if I fire a burst, mystic faeries will appear, and despite the bullets doing the exact same thing, the plate will buckle? Bizarre! That's not what the police did. It's not volume of fire, it's where you hit, and what you hit with.They need revision too, but that's another thread. The firearms combat rules are definately the weakest part of d20 Modern, I'd forgotten quite how back they are.You say "You need rules for AP munitions". Hehe, not to be all "read my post", but I did actually mention that, in some detail! Too boring I guess! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />In the end, what it comes down to here is how you see VP/WP.I see it the SW Revised way, which is VP represent not being hit, and basically end up as some kind of quasi-mystical "luck-force", "script immunity" or "drama-points", and are part of the game's "suspension of disbelief". .You seem to see it the Spycraft way, which is that VP represent being hit *slightly*, dodging, and not being struck full-on, but that you ARE being hit, and will take effects from things like acid, fire, and so on, even if you don't lose WP (IIRC Spycraft correctly. It is entirely possible I do not!).It's a different outlook, and a different mechanic.A counter-argument to the Spycraft way of seeing VP as "wind", "dodge-ability" or whatever, is that if you wake up in the middle of the night, are confused as heck, and tired out of your tiny skull, but not helpless, you will still have full VPs, unless you've been attacked recently! I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but you get your VPs when you're stunned, confused, and so on, right? Even when you could not possibly intentionally dodge? You are only denied them when you are actually *helpless*, no?Either way, you're making an abstraction, and either way, there are problems. I feel the SW way of "You're not hit AT ALL" is better for the game, and "cleaner", rules-wise, even if it makes it quite difficult to tranq-dart people.</blockquote>

Verification