d20 & hit points

[tlindsey]

I noticed that the new "D20 Modern" system introduces some significant changes to the core system, most notably that armor reduces damage instead of adding to Defense and the use of VP/WP instead of HP.

I really hope T20 uses something similar to this since the way that armor works in D&D and SWRPG today is that it just makes you harder to hit. This seems odd since wearing a hefty suit of armor should make you easier to hit while reducing the amount of damage you take.

- Ted

 

[apoc527]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tlindsey:
This seems odd since wearing a hefty suit of armor should make you easier to hit while reducing the amount of damage you take.

- Ted<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go buy yourself a copy of Spycraft for d20. It's an excellent product and addresses this issue. It's also just really darn cool.

 

[tlindsey]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by apoc527:
Go buy yourself a copy of Spycraft for d20. It's an excellent product and addresses this issue. It's also just really darn cool. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the tip, I'll check it out.

 

[DrSkull]

I know I was a first pretty interested in the d20 Call of Cthulhu hit point system, whereby if yo take 10 hit points in a single attack, you must save vs Fort DC 15 or die. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought that it doesn't help hit point inflation as much as it might, since high level characters also have really high Fort saves too.

I think the d20 Trav system is actually better in that bullets really are equally dangerous to all level characters.

------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson

 

[Gaming Glen]

Re: weapon damage

Dang, I have to buy some more D12s for myself, and have my store stock up on them when T20 comes out (some year

). I wonder if I can get black-with-red-numbers D12s?

Oh, what does a laser turret do for dice damage? d100s?

Glen
Dragon's Lair Games
Ft. Lauderdale, FL

 

[Luthyr]

Hrm. Gotta say I'm not a huge fan of armour increasing the AC/Defense of a person. Never liked it in D&D and probably won't like it in d20 derivatives. It's an old argument - armour doesn't make you harder to hit, it reduces the damage once you do get hit.

Now the Star Wars d20 Revised rules use the system where armour does not increase the Defense of a person whatsoever, but instead reduces the amount of Wounds a person takes from a hit. Makes sense. This is also the same sort of rules the d20 Modern system is going to use when it's released in the Fall. Unfortunately, I don't think the d20 Modern rules will be OGC until they are officially released unless a company makes a special deal with WoTC to get advanced rules and rights to publish with d20 Modern.

A word of warning - I know the Sidewinder western RPG got a handslap from WotC due to Sidewinder coming out with a Wounds/Vitality points system that was too close to the d20 Modern/Star Wars rules; I'd recommend talking with WotC whether Lifeblood/Stamina violates the OGL or not.

-- Randy Mosiondz

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Luthyr:
A word of warning - I know the Sidewinder western RPG got a handslap from WotC due to Sidewinder coming out with a Wounds/Vitality points system that was too close to the d20 Modern/Star Wars rules; I'd recommend talking with WotC whether Lifeblood/Stamina violates the OGL or not.

-- Randy Mosiondz

Lifeblood/Stamina is not based on the SW rules and therefore isn't an issue.

Hunter

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Luthyr:
Hrm. Gotta say I'm not a huge fan of armour increasing the AC/Defense of a person. Never liked it in D&D and probably won't like it in d20 derivatives. It's an old argument - armour doesn't make you harder to hit, it reduces the damage once you do get hit.

-- Randy Mosiondz

See my other post here for how armor reduces damage in T20.

Hunter

 

[Luthyr]

Very interesting system. Does armour still increase a person's AC/Defense (i.e. make the person harder to hit in the first place), or does it just reduce the damage caused?

-- Randy Mosiondz

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Luthyr:
Very interesting system. Does armour still increase a person's AC/Defense (i.e. make the person harder to hit in the first place), or does it just reduce the damage caused?

-- Randy Mosiondz

Yes, to keep it compatible with d20 (as d20 currently stands).

Hunter

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by hunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Luthyr:
Very interesting system. Does armour still increase a person's AC/Defense (i.e. make the person harder to hit in the first place), or does it just reduce the damage caused?

-- Randy Mosiondz

Yes, to keep it compatible with d20 (as d20 currently stands).

Hunter</font>[/QUOTE]And this despite playtester complaints galore about it!

Seriously, though, THAT is an easy option for the GM to ditch! I Know I will.

 

[Luthyr]

Re: increased AC for Armour

Originally posted by aramis:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yes, to keep it compatible with d20 (as d20 currently stands).

Hunter

And this despite playtester complaints galore about it!
</font>[/QUOTE]I'd listen to the playtesters on this one - say you have a nasty big suit of Power Armour (AR 10?) That means that you need a hit roll of 20 to even attempt to do damage to it. Keep in mind that first level grunts with +2 to hit (+1 BaB and maybe +1 Dex) armed with big nasty 10d10 damage weapons will hit and do damage to the guy in Power Armour ONLY IF THEY ROLL 18-20. It doesn't matter if they are at short range, they will do NO DAMAGE if they roll less than an 18 on their hit roll. The guy in the Power Armour doesn't even have to be very experienced, the grunts will simply fail to do ANY damage because the Armour prevents them from doing any damage. Enter the 10th level Imperial Marine with a +12 to hit. He hits and does damage to the guy in Power Armour A LOT more often.

Does this makes sense? Sort of. As long as you relate AC to being the chance of hitting AND doing damage. So in the case of many grunts with big guns, they're actually hitting the Power Armour, but they're simply not scratching the armour. At all. (And that's the part that I consider a bit silly - how do you hit but do no damage with a PGMP-13?) *sigh*

I'd really consider tossing AC bonuses for armour out the window, d20 compatibility be damned!

There's already a kickin' good system for reducing damage with armour in T20.

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by aramis:
And this despite playtester complaints galore about it!

Seriously, though, THAT is an easy option for the GM to ditch! I Know I will.

Umm, I can pull up a number of versions of the playtest files where we considered a Defense bonus system in place of AC. General consensus was to keep it close to the d20 system at the time.

This was a constant debate, whether to keep the system close to d20 as possible or to go ahead and diverge. What came out of all of that is a more dangerous combat system that can literally lay over the standard d20 combat system without any real modification.

What it does is give you options. You can use it as we present it, you can drop the AC bonus for armor, or you can just use plain old hit points. They can all be done without significantly altering the rules and other data. They can also all be done and keep the T20 damage reduction system. Or you can chunk it also!

Isn't the d20 system really about options? You will see some of these ideas that came up in playtesting made available as optional rules here on the website, etc.

Hunter

 

[Ron]

There is nothing wrong with armor leading for a greater AC and thus to reducing chance of hitting in d20. Remember that in d20 a missing attack may represent an actual hit that was unable to penetrate the armor. This is not much different, although simplified, than MegaTraveller rules, where a hit could inflict, depending of the armor, no damage, small damage or a lot of damage. In d20, only the first and last options are simulated, still it is not a unrealistic rule as many people argue for.

Personally, I prefer armor MT or T4 style, but I can understand that many people would rather trade the extra realism for simplicity of play.

 

[Uncle Bob]

This whole mechanic dates back to the Chainmail rules about 1972. It was a miniatures game, and heavily armored characters were harder to hit because in the simple mechanic hit=kill.

Each army was allowed a small number of "heros" who could take more than one hit and who were more likely to kill another figure (IIRC each started with 3D6 of "hit points" and every hit they took subtracted D6). Each army also had a couple of Lords, who were like Heros but more so.

Chainmail was mediocre "kitchen table" rules even for the early 70s, but it was the house system in the Wisconson gaming club where Arondson(sp) got his idea of letting players work they're way from ordinary soldier, to hero, to lord. Thus began the D&D mechanic we are still stuck with.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
This whole mechanic dates back to the Chainmail rules about 1972. It was a miniatures game, and heavily armored characters were harder to hit because in the simple mechanic hit=kill.

Each army was allowed a small number of "heros" who could take more than one hit and who were more likely to kill another figure (IIRC each started with 3D6 of "hit points" and every hit they took subtracted D6). Each army also had a couple of Lords, who were like Heros but more so.

Chainmail was mediocre "kitchen table" rules even for the early 70s, but it was the house system in the Wisconson gaming club where Arondson(sp) got his idea of letting players work they're way from ordinary soldier, to hero, to lord. Thus began the D&D mechanic we are still stuck with.

I think you mean Dave Arneson, one of the core of TSR's early efforts. Yeah, he and E.G. Gygax are credited as the authors of D&D 1st edition (I've the tan covers), and it used Chainmail as the combat system.

In any abstraction of such, several things need be considered: is armor deflecting the blow? Is the Armor spreading the impact out enough to ne negligible tissue and structural disruption? Is the Target even being touched?

Then you have those nice damage rolls: which subsume parts of the second (Energy dispersal) with the folowing additionals: Was the hit anywhere important? Was there sufficient tissue disruption to matter?

Hunter took a middle of the road approach: Armor factors into both. Many would rather it not factor into the to-hits; others would rather not factor it into damages. There was never a true concensus either way amongst the playtesters other than "Hunter has the final say."

Of course, if you want all the factors accounted for, play Rhand, Phoenix command, or some other Leading Edge Games product.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by aramis:I think you mean Dave Arneson, one of the core of TSR's early efforts. Yeah, he and E.G. Gygax are credited as the authors of D&D 1st edition (I've the tan covers), and it used Chainmail as the combat system.

Back in the late 70s-early 80s Dave Arneson was widely credited with inventing "role-playing", while Gygax edited the rules.

Hunter took a middle of the road approach: Armor factors into both. Many would rather it not factor into the to-hits; others would rather not factor it into damages. There was never a true concensus either way amongst the playtesters other than "Hunter has the final say."

From what I have seen and read, I think Hunter has done as well as possible with the D20 mechanic without unnecessary complexity.
My objection to games that strive for realism through complexity is that they are an illusion. They rarely accurately model real world effecta properly while making life difficult for the ref & players.

 

[tjoneslo]

Originally posted by Luthyr:
I'd listen to the playtesters on this one - say you have a nasty big suit of Power Armour (AR 10?) That means that you need a hit roll of 20 to even attempt to do damage to it. Keep in mind that first level grunts with +2 to hit (+1 BaB and maybe +1 Dex) armed with big nasty 10d10 damage weapons will hit and do damage to the guy in Power Armour ONLY IF THEY ROLL 18-20.

Starting Characters in T20 are not first level. The prior history system allows them to start generally between 4th and 7th level. The characters in my playtest group were between 7th and 17th level.

So the 7th level marine (+7 BAB, +1 Dex) with Weapon Focus (+1) at 100m (-1) against your battledress (AC20), requires a roll of 12-20 to hit, 40%. And does 7d20 damage, which will pretty much kill both the suit and the wearer.

 

[DrSkull]

Yeah, don't worry about not getting hit. You'll need to drop prone and go for cover a lot against your typical bad guy. THe armor reduction for decent armor is more of a factor than the AC bonus. Without the Damage Reduction for armor, you die rreally, really fast.