Armor Penalties

[CRMcNeill]

A thought on Armor...

I’m sure we’re all aware of how the game stats for armor work: bonus to Soak offset by penalty to Dexterity. However, I’m thinking this is a bit too general.

I’m pretty sure someone has mentioned this in the past (Naaman, I’m almost positive), but perhaps the Armor Dex penalty should be applied to Strength skills and to Dodge/Running, instead.

If you think about it, the main penalizing component of most armor types is going to be the weight, with only the clunkier, joint-armored full suits really justifying a Dexterity penalty. In the case of all the Strength skills, the added weight of lugging around the armor will justify a penalty to Stamina (especially w/r/t the Long Distance Movement rules), Climbing/Jumping and Swimming, as well as Lifting. Penalizing Dodge and Running makes sense for similar reasons.

Thoughts?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[MrNexx]

Works for me, really. My only objection to the blanket Strength skill penalty would be Brawling.

Maybe a list of "Armor Penalty" skills, rather than a blanket penalty based on attribute? Dodge, Running, Sneak (easy to overcome with some materials, but you're still not going to be as quite or stealthy wearing plasteel plates), Climbing/Jumping, Lifting, Stamina, Swimming, and most Repair skills?
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/

[Whill]

[MrNexx]

[thedemonapostle]

as someone thats worn body armor (us army) i approve of this message.
now that youve opened this can of worms, have fun with it
_________________
Aim low, shoot high
I'm a pirate, need I say more?

d6holocron.com: Thedemonapostle

Thedemonapostle Star Wars Crossovers

[Mamatried]

The fundamnetals of armor is NOT protection, but the balance between Protection and Movement.

We know ffor a fact that even a knight in a full plate of armor could run fast, climb, even do backflips.

To me this is by far a 1D to dex, or a 1D to any skill, but in the few cases we do have armor bulky enough it will be pips only.

I would argue that a light full body armor like the scout trooper armor would have absolutely zero penalites to movement, it is for scouts that rely on movements so any penalty is just silly in that regard.

As to the somewhat bulker stormtrooper tyoe armor, again there si actually nothing but the underlaying bodyglove that would in any way restric movement, and since this is the same on both armors I wiuld even be inclined to remove penalty for this as well, maybe give it a +1 dex penalty.


But as to other skills, I can see a penalty to stamina under certain conditions, be this "endurance" related how fast and long can you run in the armor vs without. here wight will play a part, and I would argune a non trained persson donning said armor would feel the weight, but not someone trained, at least someone trained will far less be hindered by it.

I can see some pip penlties to the most fine movemnts and manipulation of the smallest things, BUT a soldier in the filed will at most remove his gloves to fix his weappn to negate this, a knight in a full plate would simply loosen his gountlets to free fis fingers slightly more and violoa he is done it.

to me it makes zero sense to have much of any penalties to any form of mobility with armor, this is becuse armor is designed not for protection, but for mobility and protection.

I do wonder what reasoning there is behind any such penalties, as they in no way reflect "realism", but a mere game mechanical balance.

Now we are not talking about EOD "bomb suits" as thses are NOT combat armor, and thus not made with mobility in mind.

I would say any full body would have at most 1D penalty, thses being the most primitive and the heaviest of heavies.

A noraml combat armor I would give absolutely zero penalties, as again there is no logic behind issuing them, again becuse armor is designed with maximum balance of protection and balance.

Any "knight in full plate" armor study, video or otherwise research would show that all RPGs out there have gotten armor and movement very very wrong.

What will removing the armor penalties do for game balance? IMO nothing other than make armor useful and an armored opponent truly something to fear, as rthey will do what you do and be protected while doing this,

I wonder if anyone can give me any example of a military armor that hinders movement and is in active use I would dare say they do not and have never existed.

Now again if I was to issue a penalty, it would be on endurace, the type of forced marching, lomg distance running and even climate for the non temperature adhusted armors.
but this would at best be in the 1-2 pip range not more.

In my game I keep most armors with 0 penalty and boy do they actually not rock that much.
A ggeneral Stormtrooper would , soes and should shoot as good as he can and is unhindered by armor, while he is protected. If I look at the stats they become a flat 3D for his strenght with the 2D+1D armor write up, +2D for the heavier and more advanced ones, still only bumping his str to resist damage at par with most heroes 2D-4D range, with the armored trooper falling in the 3D to 4D range and the exceptional 5D for the few troopers with a staggering 4D Str.

In order to make this a little more in touch with the game mechanics I have ruled that the penalty to DEX is becuse the wearer is untrained in armor, and that he is unfamiliar with the electronic systems, like hardley being able to see through the visor, actually understanding the targeting systems and the like, but this will not apply to anyone trained in the use.

A trooper/soldier is trained in armor and negates the penalties by 1/2, while a civilain that never worse armor even when cosplaying clone troopers on empire day would suffer this.

I have made a skill called "armor" and placed it under strenght, this skill negates your armor penalty by the amount of pips you place in it.

A stormtrooper with 2D strenght and an armor giving +1D penalty would spenad 6cp to get his skill to 3D, this would negate his penalty completely

the scout trooper would spend 4, for is +2 penalty, but will still have a +1 penalty "left" if his strenght was 2D.

However once you reach 3D strenght only the heaviest armors will require the soldier to place any pips/dice into the skill as it is a default on all my military templates and npcs.

This the same as with being able to use a "mini gun" type blaster, thes require a certain level of strength to propperly wiled and anyone not at that strength level will suffer or even be unable to wield the gun.

So I would completely remove all armor penalties since they actually do not make much of any sense.

[cheshire]

[CRMcNeill]

The obvious counter argument to the knight-in-plate-armor example is that, if they are capable of such feats while wearing armor, they would be even more capable without it. Under this proposal, a knight in full plate doing a backflip would have a Climbing/Jumping of 6D or 7D, hampered by a -1D skill penalty because of the armor.

Someone who can do a backflip under any conditions is going to be pretty athletically inclined anyway; a -1D penalty will be an inconvenience, not a hard cap on physical performance. A character can still do anything in armor that they could do without armor; it’s just slightly harder.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[cheshire]

They actually did a study on how encumbering full kit is for a firefighter, a soldier, and a medieval knight. The latter was obviously a reproduction.

Yes. The gear is an encumbrance. Just not as much so as in the public imagination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzI1UvlQqw

It's worth watching the video and reading the study to see what skills you think would be worth penalizing.

Though I think the real takeway from the video is "don't mess with Swiss firefighters."
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.

[Mamatried]

I the armor penalyt was on only certain skills then ok, but I dare anyone to explain how armor makes you a worse shot?

While some movement may in some cases be hindered, it is not hindered to the extent of the rules.

I would say again this is about training and familiarity.

I f I put on a modern army battle armor, I would be hampered, but if I had trained in wearing this.

I never soldiers strip out their armor to shoot better.

and I would say that the argument presented about the validity of the 1D raised above is falwed, as any trained person will be better at climbing or backflipping than any untrained person, regardless of clothing....and yes armor is clothing, protective clothing but still clothing.

Now if there was only a penalty to the most "fine motoric" movements and skills I would be ok with it, but as the rules are a flat 0 penalty is more logical than any penalty, after all in SWD& there are zero benefits from armor with this drastic penalty, and in all fairness armor is and should be better than no armor in almost anything other than taking a shower.

[Mamatried]

[cheshire]

[Mamatried]

[cheshire]

[Whill]