This post is actually two separate thoughts I had while being bored in class this morning.
The first part is about Why T20 Armor Also Adds to AC. Armor giving a bonus to AC is something that took me a while to "accept" in D&D. The reason I accept it is that it works fine for low tech combat. I think that the system breaks down a little at the higher tech levels in Traveller. The best example is that of a Fusion or Plasma gun. These guns don't care that someone is wearing Cloth or even Combat Armor. To me, the weapon should be fired as a "ranged touch attack." The target's armor has nothing to do with how hard it is to hit, since this weapon is going to burn through whatever pathetic excuse for armor they happen to be wearing. This is true to a lesser extent with all high tech projectile weapons- you should have to simply hit your target, and then let the weapon's damage code worry about the Damaged Reducing effects of T20 armor.
My solution? Simple, simply say that all high tech weapons ignore a certain amount of Armor Bonus to AC only (ie, they don't act like real armor piercing ammunition, unless you actually have AP ammo). As it is, I can't see anyone ever using anything but AP ammo. An example would be that a standard Rifle might have a natural "AP" rating of 4. It would ignore up to 4 points of AC due to armor. It would NOT however, reduce the AR of the armor for purposes of dealing Lifeblood damage. Keep in mind, this is nothing more than a discussion based off thoughts in class. I'm not out to say that T20 did it wrong or flame it.
------
The second part deals with the actual damage codes. I think we can all agree that it's likely that T20 will be compared to other Traveller rules sets that are out there. The only other one I have any real experience with is the GURPS system (since much of the earlier stuff was before my time as a roleplayer). Obviously, we don't want GURPS style realism and the slow downs that such rules bring. However, WITHOUT actually playtesting these (I'm just running the math), it seems that T20 isn't as "realistic" as perhaps it should be.
Here's the example. Let's take a normal Rifle (1d12 damage, if I'm not mistaken) and a normal human male, unarmored. He has a Con, and hence Lifeblood score, of 10 (maybe 11). Now then, I guess it really depends on what situations you would allow free critical hits, or even a coup de grace on. If we set the man (who is a convicted Bad Guy) on a firing line and execute him, and DON'T allow any free criticals or coup de grace's, we have a 25% chance of disabling him, and a slightly smaller chance of actually dropping him to negative Lifeblood. This, by itself, is slightly silly. However, as I just realized, the situation isn't nearly as silly if you allow automatic criticals against such targets (or even a coup de grace). I'm curious, how do guys deal with "common sense" situations like these in T20 (or any d20 game)?
In actual combat, the situation becomes so much more vague that it really is no longer a problem. I am tempted to make a house rule that states that aimed shots (aim for a round or something) do extra damage, maybe a +2 or even +1 die. This way, snipers might actually be able to kill their marks with a single shot WITHOUT making funky Sniper PrC's (which you can do, if you like that sort of thing).
Anyway, what do people think of these thoughts? Are they justified? Does armor really make that big a difference in whether or not most guys get "hit" (define a hit as being "attack roll was greater than or equal to the AC of the target)?
The first part is about Why T20 Armor Also Adds to AC. Armor giving a bonus to AC is something that took me a while to "accept" in D&D. The reason I accept it is that it works fine for low tech combat. I think that the system breaks down a little at the higher tech levels in Traveller. The best example is that of a Fusion or Plasma gun. These guns don't care that someone is wearing Cloth or even Combat Armor. To me, the weapon should be fired as a "ranged touch attack." The target's armor has nothing to do with how hard it is to hit, since this weapon is going to burn through whatever pathetic excuse for armor they happen to be wearing. This is true to a lesser extent with all high tech projectile weapons- you should have to simply hit your target, and then let the weapon's damage code worry about the Damaged Reducing effects of T20 armor.
My solution? Simple, simply say that all high tech weapons ignore a certain amount of Armor Bonus to AC only (ie, they don't act like real armor piercing ammunition, unless you actually have AP ammo). As it is, I can't see anyone ever using anything but AP ammo. An example would be that a standard Rifle might have a natural "AP" rating of 4. It would ignore up to 4 points of AC due to armor. It would NOT however, reduce the AR of the armor for purposes of dealing Lifeblood damage. Keep in mind, this is nothing more than a discussion based off thoughts in class. I'm not out to say that T20 did it wrong or flame it.
------
The second part deals with the actual damage codes. I think we can all agree that it's likely that T20 will be compared to other Traveller rules sets that are out there. The only other one I have any real experience with is the GURPS system (since much of the earlier stuff was before my time as a roleplayer). Obviously, we don't want GURPS style realism and the slow downs that such rules bring. However, WITHOUT actually playtesting these (I'm just running the math), it seems that T20 isn't as "realistic" as perhaps it should be.
Here's the example. Let's take a normal Rifle (1d12 damage, if I'm not mistaken) and a normal human male, unarmored. He has a Con, and hence Lifeblood score, of 10 (maybe 11). Now then, I guess it really depends on what situations you would allow free critical hits, or even a coup de grace on. If we set the man (who is a convicted Bad Guy) on a firing line and execute him, and DON'T allow any free criticals or coup de grace's, we have a 25% chance of disabling him, and a slightly smaller chance of actually dropping him to negative Lifeblood. This, by itself, is slightly silly. However, as I just realized, the situation isn't nearly as silly if you allow automatic criticals against such targets (or even a coup de grace). I'm curious, how do guys deal with "common sense" situations like these in T20 (or any d20 game)?
In actual combat, the situation becomes so much more vague that it really is no longer a problem. I am tempted to make a house rule that states that aimed shots (aim for a round or something) do extra damage, maybe a +2 or even +1 die. This way, snipers might actually be able to kill their marks with a single shot WITHOUT making funky Sniper PrC's (which you can do, if you like that sort of thing).
Anyway, what do people think of these thoughts? Are they justified? Does armor really make that big a difference in whether or not most guys get "hit" (define a hit as being "attack roll was greater than or equal to the AC of the target)?
