# Underpowered Guns in d20 Modern (rant, long)



## blaskowicz (Aug 27, 2004)

This is example is just loosely based on an actual gaming experience.

Consider an elite soldier, manning a .50 heavy machinegun (an M2HB, for example), entrenched behind sandbags, in a roughly circular clearing in a forest, about 100 feet in diamenter, of fairly level terrain. He is wearing a tactical vest, carrying an MP5 submachinegun, and is in perfect health.
For the stats: Strong Hero 3/Soldier 3, Str 16 Dex 18 Con 16, HP 65. His defense is 24 (+4 class, +7 armor, +3 dexterity). He has partial cover against enemies shooting from the forest. Among his feats are: Advanced Firearms Proficiency, Burst Fire, Weapon Focus (M2HB), Medium Armor Proficiency, Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot. His equipment is a mastercraft M2HB (+1 to hit), an MP5 machinegun (which is already mastercraft), a mastercraft combat knife and a mastercraft tactical vest (+1 to defense).
His full attack is +11 with his M2HB (2d12+2, from the specialization of the soldier advanced class), +10 with his MP5 (2d6), or +9 with his combat knife (1d4+5, +2 from improved melee smash strong hero talent).

Now, our other character is an unmounted, completely out of place, medieval knight. He is carrying a bastard sword, a heavy steel shield and he is wearing full plate armor. He is also in perfect health.
For the stats: Strong Hero 6, Str 18 Dex 16 Con 16, HP 60. His defense is 26 (+3 class, +9 armor, +3 shield, +1 dexterity). Among his feats are: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword), Heavy Armor Proficiency, Lightning Reflexes, Weapon Focus (bastard sword). His equipment is also mastercraft.
His full attack is +12/+7 with his bastard sword (1d10+7, +3 from improved melee smash strong hero talent).

The knight is attacking the machine gun position, coming from the forest. The soldier only notices him when he enters the clearing, 55 feet from his trench, when combat starts. The soldier rolls better initiative and goes first.
His options, at this point are:
 - Shooting the area where the knight is, which he must roll to hit AC 10. He can only miss if he rolls a 1 (which could be considered the event of the gun jamming, or some other outside ocurrance that disturbed him). The knight's reflex save is +8, so, he has to roll a 7 or better to negate the damage, which is fairly easy (70% chance).
 - Use the burst fire feat and shoot directly at the knight. Since he is flat-footed (even though he knew he was going to get shot...), his defense is reduced to 25. His attack is reduced to a +7 (-4 from burst fire). He has to roll an 18 to hit the knight (a lowly 15% chance).
In either event (unless the soldier rolls and confirms a critical hit with his burst fire option, a less than 5% chance), the knight is still standing, and, the chances are good that he is still unscathed.

The knight goes next. Since his fast movements are not a factor in this battle (his full plate and shield are doing all the work), he decides to run towards the soldier's position, jumping the trench at the end of his movement (we'll not go into detail at this point, but it isn't hard to perform this leap if the knight has maximum ranks in the jump skill).

The soldier goes again, and he is in a very bad situation, with a sword wielding, full plated warrior already inside his trench, threatening his square. The knight is still without his dexterity bonus to defense (from running), and his defense is 25. The soldier's options at this time are:
 - Shooting the area where the knight is, same as above.
 - Use the burst fire feat and shoot the knight. His defense is reduced to 25 from the run action. His attack is reduced to a +8 (-4 from burst fire, +1 from point blank shot). He has to roll a 17 to hit the knight (only 20% chance).
In both cases, he provokes an attack of oportunity from the knight. He can also:
 - Draw his knife and attack the knight, with which he needs a 16 to hit. It is actually better to stab a man in full plate than it is to shoot him with large caliber machine guns.
 - Take a 5-foot step and draw his MP5. He can shoot the knight without automatic fire with this weapon, having to roll only a 14 to be able to inflict 2d6+1 points of damage (from point blank). This is perhaps his best option.

Chances are the knight is still standing after his action.

From now on, there is only a slim chance the unlucky soldier will win the battle. Being unable to fire his machine gun without provoking an attack of opportunity, he either has to keep taking 5-foot steps and shooting with his MP5, without burst fire, or use his combat knife. And there is a high probability that the knight will just get tired and sunder the MP5 before he gets to inflict much damage.
I cannot begin to imagine what is exactly happening when the soldier misses the knight. Is he dodging the bullets? Or perhaps the anti-aircraft rounds are bouncing off his medieval armor and shield (which would seem to be generally the case, since the greater defense bonus comes from them)?
Realism aside (to put it lightly...), I want your thoughts on this. Is this really how it happens, or am I missing something in the rules? Or, if this is correct <sigh>, do you have any sugesstions on how the rules should be changed? My friend and I are working on a complete d20 based modern setting (with a sci-fi tone), and we want firearms to be deadlier than this.
I know this system is supposed to be cinematic or whatever, but these two characters are at the same level, and the guy with fewer feats and only a basic class undeniably has the upper hand in the battle, which sounds wrong to me.


----------



## C. Baize (Aug 27, 2004)

One method is to change the autofire rule.
I houseruled it as an opposed roll... Attacker's BAB sets the Reflex DC.

Let's say your hapless soldier only rolled an 11 on his attack roll when he saw the knight...
With his +11, that would make the Reflex DC 22, to avoid it.


----------



## Aries_Omega (Aug 27, 2004)

*Fixes to that stuff*

First of all I think the d20 superheroes RPG Deeds Not Words handles it best when it comes to modern day vs. middle ages. Non-modern armor...such as plate mail...is very...VERY ineffective vs. modern weapons. They use a variant of the "Armor is DR rule" in which all armors have a DR and a BDR....Ballistic Damage Reduction.

In the non-d20 RPG, Cyberpunk 2020 the rule is any shot to the head does x2 damage once it gets through a helmet on a normal hit. CP 2020 is one of the most realistic combat systems for modern combat out there...yet also very complicated if you don't play the system a lot. In my own d20 Modern (homebrew Cyberpunk style campaign) I make all firearms do the following damage based on caliber which I broke down into 4 categorys.

Light Pistol: 2d4
Medium Pistol: 2d6
Heavy Pistol: 2d8
Very Heavy Pistol: 2d10

And thats just for pistols. I wanted to make it so that even at high levels if you are this suped up cyberneticlly enhanceced combat god..."if some drek head gang banger hopped up on some 'lace is wavin der piece at ya head...you should still worry. You're cybernetic...not Superman" as one of my players said in character one time. I think with some minor tweaking I did with d20 Modern it made it grimmer and felt more like Cyberpunk 2020 in many respects.

I hope this helps somewhat.

Aries


----------



## tjoneslo (Aug 27, 2004)

The HMG will take, on average, 4 hits to bring down the knight, assuming no critcal hits. The Sword does 12 HP damage per hit vs the HMG doing 15 HP vs the MP5 doing 7HP. So either you need to increase the damage of guns, or have fewer HP. 

Doesn't D20 Modern have a Con Based Massive Damage rule? If the Solder can roll 17 on his HMG damage, the Knight must make a Fort save (DC = damage) or die. 

My Suggestion: use the T20 combat option: No class defense bonuses. Use the Stamina (HP)/Lifeblood (CON) system, where all attacks do damage to both, but the armor only reduces the Lifeblood done in the attack. 

Getting rid of the class defense bonuses will double the solders chances of burst fire hitting the knight on the first round. T20 halves the armor bonus of the archaic armor and shields against firearms, also improving the soldiers chances. 

In T20, assuming similar characters, the HMG (does 2d12) against the knight. The Knights AC is 16 (+4 armor, +1 shield +1 Dex) - vastly improving the to hit chances. When hit, the knight takes 15 stamina (out of 60) and 5 lifeblood (out of 16). If the soldier gets a critical the knight takes 30 lifeblood, enought to kill him outright.  Is that more along the lines of your thinking?

The problem is that D&D (and D20 in general) is balanced to provide characters who can withstand a few solid hits at 3rd to 5th level. This makes for an exciting combat. D&D then allows characters to add hit points, and magical damage powers to keep this balance. D20 Modern and all of the other modern/future games don't provide much in damage enhancements for their character. So the usual manner of providing balance is to fix the characters HP. Either through a WP/VP system (See Unearthed Archana or Star Wars) or by providing a strict Massive Damage rule (See CoC and D20 Modern(?)).


----------



## CalicoDave (Aug 27, 2004)

I've seen some d20 rules that treat firearm attacks against archaic armor as ranged touch attacks.  This would go towards the idea that firearms made plate armor impractical on the battlefield.

D.


----------



## Aaron2 (Aug 27, 2004)

blaskowicz said:
			
		

> I know this system is supposed to be cinematic or whatever, but these two characters are at the same level, and the guy with fewer feats and only a basic class undeniably has the upper hand in the battle, which sounds wrong to me.




If you change your situation to a first level knight versus a first level soldier, you'd get the opposite result. The problem isn't the damage done by weapons, its making the battle between high level characters. Regardless of what you make the weapon damage, you can come up with a similar result just by upping the character's levels. 

Besides, whose gonna setup a single heavy machine gun with less than 20 yards clearance between it and total cover. That's just a contrived example.

I do, however, agree that the autofire rules are whacky. I do something similar to the other poster and set the save DC based on the attacker's attack bonus (varies slightly based on the area being sprayed).


Aaron


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 27, 2004)

How about getting the Suppressive Fire and Improved Autofire feats from _Ultramodern Firearms d20_?

Suppresive Fire allow to designate an area (5-foot square for semiautomatic firearms; 10-by-10 area for firearms using autofire attack) you've just attacked. If anyone is inside that area leaves or moves within (from one square to another square inside the area), you can make a ranged attack using one of your AoO.

Of course, Improved Autofire just increase the DC from 15 to 20.

I'd opt for Burst Fire if the above don't work and he's still coming at me. Oh, and don't forget to use Action Points.


----------



## blaskowicz (Aug 27, 2004)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> If you change your situation to a first level knight versus a first level soldier, you'd get the opposite result. The problem isn't the damage done by weapons, its making the battle between high level characters. Regardless of what you make the weapon damage, you can come up with a similar result just by upping the character's levels.
> 
> Besides, whose gonna setup a single heavy machine gun with less than 20 yards clearance between it and total cover. That's just a contrived example.
> 
> ...




I do not think the damage is inappropriate, 4d12+2 (with burst fire feat) is a lot of damage. As you agreed, the problem is the poor rules for autofire. The penalties are too high for the burst fire option (due to recoil, I suppose). 
But, my friend just got the d20 future book, and, while looking at the weapons, I noticed that there is the same penalty for burst fire when using a laser rifle, which shouldn't have any recoil (I may be wrong on this, since I just got a quick look at it). I also notice that the damage of these ultra-tech weapons doesn't increase significantly (only a single die in most cases).
These facts indicate, to me, that the writers have a clear intention of keeping ranged weapon fighters at the same level of melee weapon fighters, which shouldn't be the case in a modern or futuristic setting.
We are discussing many of your options for our setting, thanks for the feedback so far, and keep them coming!


----------



## trancejeremy (Aug 27, 2004)

Dumb example, but, did you see the movie "The Rundown" starring that wrestler?

For most of the movie,the wrestler guy fights against people with guns, bare handed. And he wins.

Blade would be another example. Though he's part vampire.

But yeah, the gun rules in d20 Modern are pretty bad. I don't expect them to be realistic, but they just don't make much sense a lot of the time, like the example you gave.

Personally, I would ditch the d20 Modern combat system in favor of spycrafts. That's what I do.

Basically, armor makes you harder to damage, not hit, as it absorbs damage. And armor often has a weakness to certain damage types. For instance, archaic armor has a weakness against firearms, and is only half-effective.  The Knight would probably still make it to the Soldier, but he would have been hit a number of times, so his WP would be down.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 27, 2004)

How can you make a laser weapon fire in automatic fire mode?


----------



## Aaron2 (Aug 27, 2004)

blaskowicz said:
			
		

> But, my friend just got the d20 future book, and, while looking at the weapons, I noticed that there is the same penalty for burst fire when using a laser rifle, which shouldn't have any recoil (I may be wrong on this, since I just got a quick look at it). I also notice that the damage of these ultra-tech weapons doesn't increase significantly (only a single die in most cases).
> These facts indicate, to me, that the writers have a clear intention of keeping ranged weapon fighters at the same level of melee weapon fighters, which shouldn't be the case in a modern or futuristic setting.




I don't have d20 Future so I can't coment on it. What I do is give weapons a bonus to hit when firing bursts or full automatic. However, every weapon has a seperate range increment for automatic fire to reflect the weapon's recoil. There is a point where your actually less likely to hit because the range penalty is greater than the to hit bonus. This way I can adjust the stats for each weapon so fully automatic pistols (like the old Mauser) are useless at all but the closest ranges but tripod mounted machine guns can blaze away at great distances.

A fully automatic laser wouldn't work so well since there is no shot spread. Each laser "bolt" would hit the exact point the last shot hit.


Aaron


----------



## deranged DM (Aug 27, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> How can you make a laser weapon fire in automatic fire mode?



 The simplest method for "automatic" lasers is a continuous beam - for the "autofire" effect, you would sweep it across the target. The penalty for burst fire would be keeping the weapon trained on a (presumably non-stationary) target.

(The reason you need to keep the beam on target is to achieve significant penetration - shorter "linger time" means that damage may not be sufficient).


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 28, 2004)

The most stupid thing about it is not the recoil or the damage of the attack, but the fact a guy in full plate armour can run across open ground covered by a machine gun, with the guy only being able to attack him once before he gets to him. I doubt any of the 100m sprinters would make than run without being riddled with bullets.


----------



## Salcor (Aug 28, 2004)

Very well put together arguement I have to say.  Although, I agree with may people, in that the problem is not in the damage, but in the armor.  Perhaps, verse archaic armor firearms would have a armor piercing bonus equal to their damage dice.  Since a 50 Cal can penetrate a V8 engine block and keep going it is going to punch through a suit of Full Plate with ease.
    I also agree, that some actions should still invoke attacks of opprunity from people with firearms.  Running normal invokes an attack of oppurtinity, so maybe we should add the rule that a stationary weapon, (50 cal, M60, prone soldier with an M16) can declare firelanes, and anything in the firing lane invokes an attack of oppurtinty. Or perhaps that could be a new feat

Salcor


----------



## DMScott (Aug 28, 2004)

blaskowicz said:
			
		

> I know this system is supposed to be cinematic or whatever




It is indeed, and you picked two very cinematic characters to build your example. In effect, you have Arnold Schwarzenegger as Conan the Barbarian charging Jesse "the Body" Ventura as whatever his guy was called in Predator. You shouldn't expect anything like a realistic result when you set up an action movie scene like that. If you want a slightly more realistic example of modern grunt vs. ancient grunt, make them first level characters and see how it goes. Other options include twiddling the autofire rules or toying with the hit point rules. Both of those are again cinematic in nature - in action movies, the star never gets dropped by a hail of machine gun fire, and if a star does get hit by a bullet it turns out to be "just a flesh wound".

If you really want to turn d20 Modern into d20 Realistic, I suggest digging up Ken Hood's grim 'n' gritty hit point rules, which dialed the HP progression way down, and instituting the Call of Cthulhu massive damage threshold of 10 HP. Only offer saves against autofire for people under cover, and raise the damage on most explosives. Might end up with an interesting game, but make sure you don't set up situations where PCs have to do action-movie heroics like take down people manning machine gun emplacements - heroic in the face of modern weaponry is pretty much synonymous with stupid.


----------



## jezter6 (Aug 28, 2004)

I think the problem in the whole is the HP system. Yes, it represents 'other' damage due to dodging and using energy, but it STILL allows for multiple blasts from a high powered rifle before the enemy goes down.

If you want a more refreshing change, think of switching to a M&M style system where there are no hit points and there's as fair a chance as getting ripped to shreads from that rifle as there is taking no damage at all.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 28, 2004)

Your example is, first of all, placed at a very inconvenient level for the soldier.  A few levels less and all of his chances to deal damage greatly increase.  Just one level more and he can make two burst fire attacks against the knight, who already has his second attack but has to get to close range to use it.

Second, a greatsword should do at least as much damage as a machine gun.  At the ranges you're describing, a well-trained, armored man with a sword would have a very good chance to survive small arms fire and triumph.  A machine gun, now, would likely punch through his armor without missing a beat.

This illustrates a central problem with the AC system in D&D applied to d20 Modern.  Medieval armor is designed with deflection foremost in mind, and is pierced primarily by targeting its weak points.  Modern armor is designed with diffusion foremost in mind, and is pierced primarily by using a kind of weapon it doesn't protect against.

If you use armor as DR, full plate will ablate a good part of the machine gun bullet.  Contrary to popular belief, it _should_ ablate a good part of the bullet, about as much as most modern heavy armor.  What it almost certainly _won't_ do is _stop_ the bullet, which is what armor as Defense does.  A machine gun doing an average of 20 points to an armored man on burst fire, with the capacity to fire twice, sounds very reasonable to me.


----------



## blaskowicz (Aug 28, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> How can you make a laser weapon fire in automatic fire mode?




In GURPS, lasers with autofire capability add the damage of all hits before subtracting damage resistance from armor. That (and the fact they inflicted impaling damage) make them the weapon of choice in future settings. Those rules reflect the fact that you can keep the beam trained on a focal point, almost assuring the penetration of all but the heaviest of armors most of the time.
Perhaps the wounding factor would have to be decreased (since you are blowing through a single hole in the target), but I liked the portraying of lasers (and some other energy weapons) as recoiless, and thus, easier to keep steady while firing full automatic.
We are thinking about reducing the penalty for burst fire with energy weapons to -2 in our setting. We are also strongly considering basing the reflex DC for area attacks on the attacker's roll, as suggested by C. Baize.


----------



## Pagan priest (Aug 29, 2004)

blaskowicz said:
			
		

> Now, our other character is an unmounted, completely out of place, medieval knight. He is carrying a bastard sword, a heavy steel shield and he is wearing full plate armor.  His defense is 26 (+3 class, +9 armor, +3 shield, +1 dexterity).




Umm, my book is down in my car, but doesn't the d20 Modern book say something to the effect that archaic armors only count as half AC, rounded down versus firearms?  That would make his defence only 19, and much easier for the soldier to hit with burst fire.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Aug 29, 2004)

Honestly, I don't have much of a problem with the situation you're describing, but that could be because that's the exact sort of feel I want in my game. One on one, with only a one round distance, I would like the melee character to win. Especially with stats that high. 

Trying to keep both forms of combat viable is a delicate balancing act though. I don't think that's the primary part of your concern through, so I'd suggest VP/WP, increasing the amount of damage that guns can do (say by one die), using armor as DR, or restricting available armor. 

Also, and this is just a personal thing, while I like the idea of burst fire getting a DC set by the shooter, I also think that defenders should get a bonus for armor (having it act as cover has been the most prevalent suggestion).


----------



## Aaron2 (Aug 29, 2004)

Pagan priest said:
			
		

> Umm, my book is down in my car, but doesn't the d20 Modern book say something to the effect that archaic armors only count as half AC, rounded down versus firearms?  That would make his defence only 19, and much easier for the soldier to hit with burst fire.




I searched through the SRD but didn't find any reference to such a rule. It might be in the book but I don't know where it would be. 


Aaron


----------



## Emiricol (Aug 29, 2004)

I'd grant armors tech levels (similar to what D20 Future does).  Archaic, Modern, Advanced and Futuristic.  Weapons from one tech level firing at a person wearing armor from a lower tech level make a simple ranged touch attack, and the AC is deducted from damage (or half AC, if you want something grittier).

 I suggest this not because it's realistic, but because it is simple, the tech levels are intuitive enough to remember, and the system doesn't require a lot of mid-battle mathematics added to the process.


----------



## zen_hydra (Aug 29, 2004)

A Browning .50 cal round should punch right through the knights breastplate and the knight, and come out the backside leaving a fist size hole.  At that range, no one should survive being shot by a .50 cal machine gun.  You can play it off as being cinematic, but in my opinion, that is right up there with diving on a grenade and walking away from it (due to high hit points and a high fort save).


----------



## Aaron2 (Aug 29, 2004)

zen_hydra said:
			
		

> A Browning .50 cal round should punch right through the knights breastplate and the knight, and come out the backside leaving a fist size hole.  At that range, no one should survive being shot by a .50 cal machine gun.  You can play it off as being cinematic, but in my opinion, that is right up there with diving on a grenade and walking away from it (due to high hit points and a high fort save).




You making the assumption that all hits are bullets in the middle of the chest. That's a pretty big assumption. I could say something like "no one should be able to survive having a dagger stabbed through their eye into their brain. Therefore, daggers should do 4d12 points of damage."


Aaron


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 29, 2004)

I think there are a few problems with this example:

As has already been mentioned, archaic armor isn't going to protect you from gunfire. Even if the rules say they do 

Shooting at a man with a horse, using autofire, means the horse either dies or runs away. So now the knight, who really should take Tough levels for Intimidate and Ride as class skills) is trying to get his mount under control again.

The M2HB is a lot more powerful in real life, putting out way more bullets, etc etc. The knight would die. Then again, if you make weapons overpowered, PCs and NPCs gravitate towards such weapons. The game would no longer be about characters, but who has the biggest weapons.

Laser weapons - Burst Fire should work differently for them, at least in terms of flavor text. I guess keeping the laser dot on roughly the same place on a moving target is hard to do (-4 to hit) but does more damage (+2 dice of damage)... the pulse rifle is silly, IMO. Firing multiple "bursts" from a laser weapon is simply not as strong as firing a continuous beam.


----------



## Pagan priest (Aug 29, 2004)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> I searched through the SRD but didn't find any reference to such a rule. It might be in the book but I don't know where it would be.
> 
> 
> Aaron




I've searched book, errata, and FAQ, to no avail.  I'd sware that I saw that rule someplace, but I can't find it, so maybe it was a house rule suggested somewhere.


----------



## RPGRealms (Aug 29, 2004)

Pagan priest said:
			
		

> I've searched book, errata, and FAQ, to no avail.  I'd sware that I saw that rule someplace, but I can't find it, so maybe it was a house rule suggested somewhere.




It is a rule in T20.


----------



## Mr. Draco (Aug 29, 2004)

Wouldn't it be really fast and easy to implement a "Defense adjustment" equal to twice the difference in PLs from the attacking weapon and the armor?

I.E.- PL 7 weapon attacking PL 3 armor (the armor would receive a -8 modifier to defense, or up to maximum armor defense modifier).  So, if the armor only provided a +5 defense, then it would provide no bonus, however, if the armor provided a +9 defense, it would only provide a +1.  Also, if it was a PL 7 armor being _attacked_ by a PL 3 weapon, then the armor would provide an additional +8 defense.


----------



## Pagan priest (Aug 29, 2004)

RPGRealms said:
			
		

> It is a rule in T20.




Well, that would explain why, no matter how hard I looked, I couldn't find it in the d20Modern book...


----------



## ragboy (Aug 29, 2004)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> You making the assumption that all hits are bullets in the middle of the chest. That's a pretty big assumption. I could say something like "no one should be able to survive having a dagger stabbed through their eye into their brain. Therefore, daggers should do 4d12 points of damage."



When you're talking about a .50, where you hit them is immaterial. Unless it's a digit. You hit them in the arm, their torso's shredded. Their leg; they have no legs. There's really no middle ground with that bullet. And medieval armor is not going to ablate the round. Not one iota. I've fired a .50 into a BMP at 500 meters, and you know what you can see? Light. Through the holes. Straight through. It's an anti-materiel weapon. (Technically, it's illegal to fire at troops by the Geneva convention..but that's beside the point). It was designed to punch through lightly armored vehicles and aircraft. A knight in armor at practically any range is dead, dead, dead with a trained soldier behind the weapon. And if it's vehicle mounted with a fire control system, then he's even more dead, faster and at greater ranges. I had a tank commander that could hit a troop target at 500m with one shot every darn time (within the 1 minute engagement time). 

But, like others have said. This is a cinematic game. If you want to play d20 Realistic with any weapon, then your heroes won't last long...at least not all of them. 

Anyway...


----------



## ragboy (Aug 29, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> The M2HB is a lot more powerful in real life, putting out way more bullets, etc etc. The knight would die. Then again, if you make weapons overpowered, PCs and NPCs gravitate towards such weapons. The game would no longer be about characters, but who has the biggest weapons.



That probably depends on your campaign world, more than anything. If you're seeing .50's (or any guns, really) lighting up bad guys on the street, then it's either a wartime game or you're definitely playing at a high cinematic level. (By 'your,' I don't necessarily mean you Psi). If you're not and the characters still want to get heavy ordnance, then a few terms in prison tends to cool them off some.


----------



## Pagan priest (Aug 29, 2004)

True, but in the context of the game, a hit may mean a bullet dead center of the torso, or it may mean a grazing blow that barely bleeds.  That is the whole point of the hit point system... that luck factor that is the difference between a gaping hole where your heart and lungs used to be, or two holes in your shirt and a scratch along a rib.


----------



## Dalamar (Aug 29, 2004)

Ignore the end of the post. Here I was making a brilliant answer to hove the mount couldn't cross that dretch easily, and after posting, I notice that the knight was _un_mounted.   Oh well, not going to remove all that nice analyzation just for that, maybe somebody will get good laughs off my stupidness from it.
I did, however, notice one interesting thing. In d20 Modern, heavy armor does not decrease one's running speed to x3 according to the SRD (and 55ft would still be just within the character's running distance in DnD too).

((What's the average weight of a human male in d20 Modern? I'm working off the SRD, and with a quick look-through, I couldn't find that information. However, the weight that the horse is carrying is 75lbs from the equipment that the character has, plus some lbs for a saddle, plus the weight of the character. And the horse's light load limit is 150lbs.
So unless the knight is really thin (weighting in at only around 70lbs), the horse has a -8 (+1 Str, -6 speed 20ft, -3 Medium load) Jump modifier (and when jumping with a mount, you use the rider's Ride or the mount's Jump, whichever is less), so making that Jump check to cross the drench isn't such an easy thing after all unless the drench less than 5ft in width. For a 5ft drench, the mount actually needs to jump 10ft to get its whole area over the drench (otherwise its rear would end up in the drench), needing to roll an 18 on the Jump check. So the soldier likely has several rounds before the knight gets over that drench.))


----------



## Caliber (Aug 29, 2004)

RPGRealms said:
			
		

> It is a rule in T20.




Its also a rule in Gamma World d20, which uses d20 Modern as its core mechanics.


----------



## Sebastian Ashputtle (Aug 29, 2004)

A perfect summary of what's wrong with playing modern-type games in the d20 system.

This is why I use D&D for all my fantasy gaming, and GURPS for anything modern.


----------



## Emiricol (Aug 29, 2004)

That would be one viewpoint, yes.


----------



## RPGRealms (Aug 29, 2004)

Caliber said:
			
		

> Its also a rule in Gamma World d20, which uses d20 Modern as its core mechanics.




Its a -2 AC modifier for archaic armor and a +2 AC modifier for advanced armor against firearms and bows in Gamma World.


----------



## Krieg (Aug 30, 2004)

ragboy said:
			
		

> When you're talking about a .50, where you hit them is immaterial. Unless it's a digit. You hit them in the arm, their torso's shredded. Their leg; they have no legs.



A bit off-topic perhaps, but...

In a word...Bull.

November 1990, NW of Al-Jubayl Saudi Arabia at Camp (Hall whatever) 15. About 100 yards inside the main gate was an emplacement with a Browning M2. The Marine manning the position was bored & tapping his thumbs on the butterful trigger while humming to himself. He negligently fires two rounds from the weapon. At the gate is a M-1009 CUCV with two Navy Seabeas waiting to gain entrance to the camp. The first round entered the vehicle through the radiator, passing through the valve cover at the top of the engine & through the dash. It then struck one of the Seabeas in the left shoulder, passing through his clavicle just inside the shoulder joint before exiting through the rear of the vehicle.

The Seabea lived. His torso was not "shredded". He did not lose his arm. He eventually regained 90% of his original range of motion in his arm.

I was the duty driver for the guard shift. The duty NCO, A-duty & myself reached the scene within 5 minutes of the incident. I personally helped load the Seabea into the medavac. 

Under most circumstances a .50 round punches a half inch (not "fist sized") hole completely through a human target.

I speak from personal experience. 

Of course in a real world scenario the Knight in question would never reach the gunner alive, but that is the difference between an RPG and real life.

(Sorry but sometimes the exagerations touch a nerve.)


----------



## Sebastian Ashputtle (Aug 30, 2004)

Isn't it neat how every second poster on enworld is ex-military? There are probably more ex-military enworld members than there are current members of the entire US Armed Forces!   

By the way, did I mention I'm a former Navy SEAL? That was after my stint in the Israeli army, of course.


----------



## blaskowicz (Aug 30, 2004)

Sebastian Ashputtle said:
			
		

> A perfect summary of what's wrong with playing modern-type games in the d20 system.
> 
> This is why I use D&D for all my fantasy gaming, and GURPS for anything modern.




That's an alternative we are considering also. The problem is we'd have to scrap everything we already did for d20, which we put a lot of work into. Also, we got a lot of players here too lazy to learn GURPS rules....
But I am also a strong "D&D for fantasy/GURPS for modern supporter". When we get our hands on the new 4th edition (of GURPS) we are going to re-evaluate our decision, also based on what we saw of d20 Future.


----------



## Sebastian Ashputtle (Aug 30, 2004)

blaskowicz said:
			
		

> That's an alternative we are considering also. The problem is we'd have to scrap everything we already did for d20, which we put a lot of work into. Also, we got a lot of players here too lazy to learn GURPS rules....
> But I am also a strong "D&D for fantasy/GURPS for modern supporter". When we get our hands on the new 4th edition (of GURPS) we are going to re-evaluate our decision, also based on what we saw of d20 Future.




I was very disappointed with d20 Future.  I mean, there was nothing wrong with it, but it was just...disappointing.  It was far too short for what it was trying to cover, but I think that reflects WotC's attitude towards d20 Modern...the red-headed stepchild.   

The escalating power levels of d20 are perfect for D&D...but I've finally become disillusioned with d20 Modern.  

Now where the hell is GURPS 4e????


----------



## Krieg (Aug 30, 2004)

Sebastian Ashputtle said:
			
		

> Isn't it neat how every second poster on enworld is ex-military? There are probably more ex-military enworld members than there are current members of the entire US Armed Forces!
> 
> By the way, did I mention I'm a former Navy SEAL? That was after my stint in the Israeli army, of course.



I am glad that my life and the lives of the other veterans on this board is a source of amusement for you.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 30, 2004)

Sebastian Ashputtle said:
			
		

> Isn't it neat how every second poster on enworld is ex-military? There are probably more ex-military enworld members than there are current members of the entire US Armed Forces!
> 
> By the way, did I mention I'm a former Navy SEAL? That was after my stint in the Israeli army, of course.



Maybe its because many countries still force their men (and sometimes women) into the military service? 
Even I was in the military (Luftwaffe, Bundeswehr) for 10 months. Sure, I could have rejected and do civil services for 11 months, but I was to lazy to file the required complaint against it and search for an appropriate job to fulfill the civil service. So, I, as a peace-loving, completely inagressive person have received a little combat training - not combat experience, though. 

For the described scenario:
The soldier isn`t forced to use burst fire, is he? He can simply fire single shots (even if this might waste 9 rounds of ammo each shot, if the weapon doesn`t feature burstfire or single shot mode), making it a lot easier to hit the knight.


----------



## Festy_Dog (Aug 30, 2004)

Sebastian Ashputtle said:
			
		

> Isn't it neat how every second poster on enworld is ex-military? There are probably more ex-military enworld members than there are current members of the entire US Armed Forces!
> 
> By the way, did I mention I'm a former Navy SEAL? That was after my stint in the Israeli army, of course.






			
				Krieg said:
			
		

> I am glad that my life and the lives of the other veterans on this board is a source of amusement for you.




I have to go with Krieg on this one, that statement was just harsh. This thread, having subject matter comparing the effect of real-world firearms as opposed to the effect of the same weapons in a game would naturally attract those with personal experience in the matter. Just as you would expect a doctor or nurse to post opinions based off personal experience to a query on the rate of natural healing in a game, you can expect those with experience in firearms to post to a thread querying the realism of firearms within a ruleset. You can hardly get an accurate cross-section of the types of user that visit the ENWorld forums by taking a sample from the posts within a thread with content that relates to a specific area of knowledge. The fact that you see more people with military experience posting in this thread (and in my personal opinion there haven't been enough to consider the number unrealistic) simply means that in this instance they believed their opinion would help shed some light on the matter.


----------



## Tetsubo (Aug 30, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> I am glad that my life and the lives of the other veterans on this board is a source of amusement for you.




Well, I for one don't consider it a laughing matter. I never served myself but many of my family members have (Grandfather, Father, Aunt, Uncle, three cousins and a Great Uncle). One even had a Destroyer Escort named after him.


----------



## swrushing (Aug 30, 2004)

In the examples given, you can look at several different ways to fix it. 

So far, i have not liked any of the models for how hit point systems handled guns. Whether its d20 modern with the regular hit points and MDS or stargate wiuth its regular hit points renamed vitality pts and con damage with saves, the wall-o-hit-pts has not managed to create the sense-o-risk.

In one of our D20 modern runs, we actually realized that, when a guy was swarmed by skeletal hands, we would be better off hosing him down with autofire, cuz he could take the 2d6 while the hands could not. We didn't because we could not bring ourselves to suspend disbelief.

The key is the lack of any effect other than accounting damage from the majority of hits. The wall-o-hit points means most of the time you can take a hit and still get to do stuff just fine, with only exceptionally having something get in your way. This means players and Gms are willing to "trade hit points for results". The knight is willing to trade a chunk of hit points for "crossing the field" based on thinking he will be in good enough shape to get the win once he is there.

IMO, its the design trying to keep fighting to "two conditions: up or down, fine or dead" that is the problem. This makes it a fairly risky prospect to make "any hit dangerous" because you might just kill characters too quikly.

The solution i found was to (among other things) get rid of the "will trade hit points for events" by making it likely that one result from getting shot was, due to shock, not getting to complete your actions. Imagine if the result of that first barrage was not only to eat some hit points off the knight but to also cost him an action, so he is stuck out in the open NOT CLOSING. 

What I immediately adopted for my stargate game was a modified damage save system which has tweaked as time went on to be even slightly worse than the initial.

A short summary...

An M16 hit provides a DC 29 save to be made. A P90 SMG or Fn-57 pistol has a DC of 27. These do not assume any feats, crits or special circumstances.

A typical level 6 character has damage save bonus within say +6 to +9, assumes light tactical armor. A lvl 15 character has saves of between +8 to 13.

Save made =  -2 unfavorable circumstance modifier for 1 round (being shot is distracting) This applies to all other results as well.
Save failed by 1-4 = lose next half action
save failed by 5-8 = dazed for 1 round (aka lose next whole action)
save failed by 9-12 = stunned for 1 round (-2 ufc lasts as "lingering damage")
save failed by 13-17 = scene kill (half action loss as "lingering damage")
save failed by 17 or more = mission kill (life threatening, dazed as "LD")

Scene kill means out for scene, either unconscious or incapacitated.
mission kill means out for long time.

lingering damage is the condition you remain in after the immediate effects until medically treated and you heal up, taking days or weeks barring "unusual circumstances. Its easily figured as it is whatever damage level is 3 higher on the chart.

Damage save scales slowly, about +1/3 levels for combat guys and +1/5 levels otherwise.

So a lvl 6 character with say a +8 expects from an M16...
roll 17-20 = lose half action
roll 13-16 = lose whole action
roll 9-15 = stunned for 1 round
roll 5-8 - out for scene
roll 4- out for mission.

So, he expects that its 80% likely a hit keeps him stopped, not advancing, hung out for the next shot.

This cuts down a lot on the "will do something expecting risky hit points to pull me thru" stuff like charging the machine gun nest. It makes "getting to cover" vital.

Now, using action points, a character can delay the effects or reroll bad rolls and so forth, so, once in a while, in a dramatic moment, a hero can probably make the rush across the field (but even with these points its not even close to being automatic), but a "typical guy" NPC (without action pts) cannot.

In practice, players respond very strongly to events that will cost their character actions, treat them very seriously, with respect.


----------



## Aaron2 (Aug 30, 2004)

swrushing said:
			
		

> In one of our D20 modern runs, we actually realized that, when a guy was swarmed by skeletal hands, we would be better off hosing him down with autofire, cuz he could take the 2d6 while the hands could not. We didn't because we could not bring ourselves to suspend disbelief.




I have to say, I've never run a game with both skeletal hands and automatic weapons. 



> Now, using action points, a character can delay the effects or reroll bad rolls and so forth, so, once in a while, in a dramatic moment, a hero can probably make the rush across the field (but even with these points its not even close to being automatic), but a "typical guy" NPC (without action pts) cannot.




I don't see the difference between burning hit points to keep going and burning action points to do the same. A typical NPC won't have the hit points to survive a 2d10 rifle round anyway.

However, I do like the idea of damage cause momentary losses of actions. I mean, they character is going to have to check to see if the hit he felt was bad or if it was just his canteen. I'm thinking that any hit that does 10 points of damage causes a loss of one move action while any hit that does 20 points  or more (most likely also a critical hit) causes the loss of the entire next action.


Aaron


----------



## swrushing (Aug 30, 2004)

[/QUOTE]



			
				Aaron2 said:
			
		

> I have to say, I've never run a game with both skeletal hands and automatic weapons.



Urban arcana... magic and guns all in one setting.


			
				Aaron2 said:
			
		

> I don't see the difference between burning hit points to keep going and burning action points to do the same. A typical NPC won't have the hit points to survive a 2d10 rifle round anyway.



A typical NPC, as in a typical person in the world, sure, most of them will be fairly low level, at best first. But the typical adversary or character of interest (as opposed to say the master villains) will often be above first-second level and will be able to survive a 2d10 rifle shot.

The main differences between hit points as a buffer and hero pts as a buffer are that hero points have other useful things they can do (which makes spending them for this a trade off while the only thing hit points do is soak damage), hero pts are limited to the PCs and exceptional adversaries and they do not limit the level of the character. In order to keep an adversary from having enough Hp to soak a rifle round, you also have to keep their level down which means no high skill ranks, no accurate shooting etc. You have to retard or limit the entire character to keep the hit points low enough the easy damage rifles do.




			
				Aaron2 said:
			
		

> However, I do like the idea of damage cause momentary losses of actions. I mean, they character is going to have to check to see if the hit he felt was bad or if it was just his canteen. I'm thinking that any hit that does 10 points of damage causes a loss of one move action while any hit that does 20 points  or more (most likely also a critical hit) causes the loss of the entire next action.





Whether or not you keep hit points as the core or drop it, We do agree that adding a loss of actions sort of effect to getting hurt would help avoid some of the hit point silliness.

I would probably use half MDT and MDT as my benchmarks in that type of system, to allow some variety between characters.


----------



## Aaron2 (Aug 30, 2004)

> The main differences between hit points as a buffer and hero pts as a buffer are that hero points have other useful things they can do (which makes spending them for this a trade off while the only thing hit points do is soak damage), hero pts are limited to the PCs and exceptional adversaries and they do not limit the level of the character. In order to keep an adversary from having enough Hp to soak a rifle round, you also have to keep their level down which means no high skill ranks, no accurate shooting etc. You have to retard or limit the entire character to keep the hit points low enough the easy damage rifles do.




I've never felt the need to make a character that was good but also not survivable (a super-mook). However, I don't play d20 Modern so a to-hit bonus of +4 is pretty scary without the Defense bonus (which I feel are waaaay too high). That being said, I can see why you would want to do so, therefore, I cede the point.


Aaron


----------



## swrushing (Aug 30, 2004)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> I've never felt the need to make a character that was good but also not survivable (a super-mook). Aaron




I do it all the time. Whether its computer geek or scientist geek or even history geek, i find i get lots of use from guys who are "top men" in their field but who wont reasonably expect to be able to shrug off a pistol round much less a rifle round with little concern.

As an anecdote, one of the oddball things i encountered was the write up of an aged scientist who had spent 50+ years marooned on a planet studying an acnient library all alone in stargate sg-1 rpg. In the show, we see this guy as aged, stick thin, shuffling geek guy and in the RPG write up, given the levels he needed to get to be "top science guy" skill ranks/points, he ended up with over-adequate combat stats and hit points so he could take out the moderately experienced and in his prime marine Kowalski (6th level soldier) in hand to hand without breaking a sweat.

I had already moved from their hit points system to damage save at that point, and so it just reinforced my happiness in that decision when i saw how their hit point system did this.


----------



## Aaron2 (Aug 30, 2004)

swrushing said:
			
		

> In the show, we see this guy as aged, stick thin, shuffling geek guy and in the RPG write up, given the levels he needed to get to be "top science guy" skill ranks/points, he ended up with over-adequate combat stats and hit points so he could take out the moderately experienced and in his prime marine Kowalski (6th level soldier) in hand to hand without breaking a sweat.




Oi. That's not helping my case. What level was this guy? What were his Dex and Con? With a Con of 8, he should end up with about 1-2 hit points per level. This kinda reminds me of Buffy where, in the later episodes, Cordelia was going toe-to-toe with vampires. D20 Modern makes matters worse by removing the Skill Focus feat. Having a Skill Emphasis feat that stacks with itself add +3 every three level; an easy way to halve the level required for any desired skill!

I think there is a general trend to over leveling and over stating NPCs. There is no reason that the "best whatever" in any given universe -has- to be 20th level. Forex: Conan, in Hour of the Dragon, is nowhere near 20th level. Its just silly and it exacerbates any problems with d20's abstractions (or any game for that matter)


Aaron


----------



## Dismas (Aug 30, 2004)

What are their occupations. Sounds stupid I know, but I am just doing some maths and the feat count, without know the occupations, seems out, that is if I add in preq feats then I end up with too many for the character.

Another option would be to use the Injury system from Unearthed Arcana (originally from Mutants and Masterminds). Instead of taking damage you make a Fort Save DC based on damage dealt. If you fail by 1-10 you suffer a -1 on future checks, more than 10 and you become disabled etc.


----------



## swrushing (Aug 30, 2004)

[/QUOTE]



			
				Aaron2 said:
			
		

> Oi. That's not helping my case. What level was this guy? What were his Dex and Con? With a Con of 8, he should end up with about 1-2 hit points per level.



let me point out that the stargate system is d20 but its own sort of animal and not exactly like d20 modern, though similar. 

It actually is one which has feats/abilities that raise the skill level caps (feat by 3, ability by 10) so you can sometimes avoid this.  however, it also has all its classes at either d8, d10 or d12 hit die, si the scientist has d8s for hit points at each level.

As i recall, the scientist guy was around 15th level, divided between mostly scientist and a few explorer (for the surviving on his own on alien world.)
His con was not below 10, i think 12. 



			
				Aaron2 said:
			
		

> Having a Skill Emphasis feat that stacks with itself add +3 every three level; an easy way to halve the level required for any desired skill!



Unfortunately, feats also being linked to levels still makes level the key ingredient.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 30, 2004)

In my Modern Dispatch article on armor as DR I say that you should treat modern firearms as a ranged touch attack against archaic armor.

That means the knight would be severely disadvantaged.

Chuck


----------



## Krieg (Aug 30, 2004)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> Well, I for one don't consider it a laughing matter.



I was doing my best to stay restrained.

Placing a wounded sailor who was very close to death on a poncho & carrying him to the medavac was not a laughing matter. Nor was seeing the horrified face of the Marine who was responsible through his own negligence.




> One even had a Destroyer Escort named after him.



_No, they've got no time for glory in the Infantry. 
No, they've got no use for praises loudly sung,
But in every soldier's heart in all the Infantry
Shines the name, shines the name of Rodger Young._

May I ask which ship?



			
				swrushing said:
			
		

> .../snip/...The solution i found was to (among other things) get rid of the "will trade hit points for events" by making it likely that one result from getting shot was, due to shock, not getting to complete your actions. Imagine if the result of that first barrage was not only to eat some hit points off the knight but to also cost him an action, so he is stuck out in the open NOT CLOSING.../snip/...



While your solution is probably not something I would ever use personally, it is a very cool way of handling the problem.


----------



## jasper (Aug 30, 2004)

Technically, it's illegal to fire at troops by the Geneva convention..but that's beside the point). Really Ragboy What Convention? Give year article and number because I never been able to find it the Genvea convention. In fact the old cartoon manual I read on the 50 gave you the lead distance on paratroopers depending on the size of your thumb. I think that hairy chestnut is told by sergants to us green troopers so we will fire on the enemy and not think about it. Of course in Army I was told there was no ice in Germany and you could not get ice cold beer. 

Now t20 has dr and reduce archaic armour. Ac/3 round up. Dr I don't remember since I have the screen. A hit takes hitpts off and x con pts off.   damage reduction takes place before the hits on con. 

Set up a fifty  with only 20 yards of clear field of Fire. Sound like a normal Snafu army drill to me. Of course I got mad when they chained down the fifty on the firing range.  We were limited up to 1500 meter targets.  Very limited firing ranges in some places in West Germany.  But at least on 50 team I got to ride in front of duce and a half. 

Remember sometimes the game plays like arnold vs Predator. Not the ibm computer guy (What is a blade?) vs german arty in band of brothers.


----------



## Aaron2 (Aug 30, 2004)

jasper said:
			
		

> Technically, it's illegal to fire at troops by the Geneva convention..but that's beside the point). Really Ragboy What Convention? Give year article and number because I never been able to find it the Genvea convention.




My understanding is that it supposedly violates the "The Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907; Article 23 (e)" against weapons that cause "superfluous injury." ...

Here is that article. Note that the original document is French.
"Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden
(a) To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
(b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;
(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
(g) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
(h) To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war. "

Of course, doing anything but wave at the bad guy can easily be construed as violating this nonsense.

The Geneva convetions thing has been given new momentum with John Kerry's oft quoted 1971 remark, "I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. ... All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions ..."


Aaron


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 31, 2004)

Ask yourself one question:

Would a character be significantly more able to survive being hit with a 6' blade of finely forged steel, wielded by a 6'6" master swordsman (orc fighter 13, Str 22), than he would be a single machine gun bullet fired by an equivalently trained elite soldier (human strong 3/soldier 10)?

Modern weapons are devastating.  So, in the right hands, are 'archaic' weapons.  Place a swordsman and a gunner at point blank range and the swordsman is likely to win.  Give them the best armors of their respective eras - full plate and a forced entry unit - and the swordsman really should be even more likely to win, since full plate would offer some protection against small arms fire, while a sword or worse yet mace would maul someone relying on modern anti-ballistic armor.

If you make archaic armor less effective against modern weapons, modern armor should also be made less effective (or not effective at all) against archaic weapons.

Damage-wise, by the way:

Sword minimum: 15
Sword average: 21
Sword maximum: 26

Machine gun minimum: 6
Machine gun average: 17
Machine gun maximum: 28
Machine gun (burst) minimum: 8
Machine gun (burst) average: 30
Machine gun (burst) maximum: 52

With 8 points of full plate DR (using armor as DR), the machine gun's burst averages 22 points of damage and can do up to 44.  The average is enough to cause a massive damage save in anything less than a 20th-level, max-Con human.  Do you _really_ need to increase its lethality past that point?  If so, doesn't the greatsword's much lowerlethality _also_ need just as much buffing?


----------



## Tetsubo (Aug 31, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> I was doing my best to stay restrained.
> 
> Placing a wounded sailor who was very close to death on a poncho & carrying him to the medavac was not a laughing matter. Nor was seeing the horrified face of the Marine who was responsible through his own negligence.
> 
> ...





USS Frankovich. Last I knew it was mothballed in Maryland. It was named after my paternal Grandmother's brother. She had the champagne bottle that she christened it with. The bottle was in a metal mesh. I always found that fascinating as a child. Her brother was a pilot in the Pacific theater during WWII. While on a recon flight his flight group was attacked by the Japanese. His wing gun jammed. He put the plane on autopilot and attempted to "kick" the gun into action. He was shot while doing this. It was a brave attempt even if a bit fool-hardy. I know he was sorely missed by my Grandmother. 

No one else in my direct family was lost in military action. Though my Father had both feet crush when a 500 pound bomb fell out of its housing and landed on his boots. A painful way to learn not to remove the bomb carriage before checking if the bomb is locked in place. 

Sorry for the thread hijack.


----------



## blaskowicz (Aug 31, 2004)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Ask yourself one question:
> 
> Would a character be significantly more able to survive being hit with a 6' blade of finely forged steel, wielded by a 6'6" master swordsman (orc fighter 13, Str 22), than he would be a single machine gun bullet fired by an equivalently trained elite soldier (human strong 3/soldier 10)?
> 
> With 8 points of full plate DR (using armor as DR), the machine gun's burst averages 22 points of damage and can do up to 44.  The average is enough to cause a massive damage save in anything less than a 20th-level, max-Con human.  Do you _really_ need to increase its lethality past that point?  If so, doesn't the greatsword's much lowerlethality _also_ need just as much buffing?




As I already said, the damage is adequate, the numbers needed to hit are not. The knight in the example could have been at double or triple that distance and he would still stand a good chance of making it to the gunner unscathed. As many posters agreed (some of which experienced soldiers), full plate armor will not help "deflect" .50 caliber rounds, at least not to such degree.
And, to my understanding, you cannot fire single shots with the M2HB (in d20 modern rules), since it only has the "automatic" rate of fire.
I am not against the cinematic approach of the DnD hit point mechanic, mind you. But, as it stands, I will have my players clad in full plate armor and wielding halberds and greatswords against aliens.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 31, 2004)

swrushing said:
			
		

> I do it all the time. Whether its computer geek or scientist geek or even history geek, i find i get lots of use from guys who are "top men" in their field but who wont reasonably expect to be able to shrug off a pistol round much less a rifle round with little concern.
> 
> As an anecdote, one of the oddball things i encountered was the write up of an aged scientist who had spent 50+ years marooned on a planet studying an acnient library all alone in stargate sg-1 rpg. In the show, we see this guy as aged, stick thin, shuffling geek guy and in the RPG write up, given the levels he needed to get to be "top science guy" skill ranks/points, he ended up with over-adequate combat stats and hit points so he could take out the moderately experienced and in his prime marine Kowalski (6th level soldier) in hand to hand without breaking a sweat.
> 
> I had already moved from their hit points system to damage save at that point, and so it just reinforced my happiness in that decision when i saw how their hit point system did this.




Seems to me he should have had Con 8 or 10 (base) plus aging penalties... that would give him decent (but not great) hit points, a terrible Mas, a low Fortitude save, and so forth. I don't know what the Scientist class' Defense bonus is like, but the Smart class has the lowest possible one, and if armor has any effect on unarmed combat, the scientist should have a hard time hurting Kowalski. One or two gunshots later, said scientist is lying on the floor, bleeding. To be fair, not sure about Kowalski's unarmed damage. Or the scientist's unarmed damage, for that matter.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Aug 31, 2004)

Although I'm coming into this late, has anyone suggested the first issue of Modern Dispatch? It it gives DR rules for Modern Armor, and I think makes medieval armor completly ineffective against modern weapons.

Also, in D&D Firearms make ranged touch attacks (thus ignoring armor). There is no reason one couldnt do the same thing here against a target wearing mideival armor.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 31, 2004)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> Although I'm coming into this late, has anyone suggested the first issue of Modern Dispatch? It it gives DR rules for Modern Armor, and I think makes medieval armor completly ineffective against modern weapons.
> 
> Also, in D&D Firearms make ranged touch attacks (thus ignoring armor). There is no reason one couldnt do the same thing here against a target wearing mideival armor.




Apparently heavy samurai armor could deflect musket fire. Maybe it should be done by PL?


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 31, 2004)

Any type of 'full' armor (full plate, modern anti-ballistic armor, and so on) confers at least some protection against a rifle or smaller firearm.  Some studies even indicate that muskets, with the greater mass of their shot, would be better at penetrating archaic armor than most modern small arms.  Now, AP bullets would be a different story, but we're talking standard load.

Since modern armor is specifically designed with modern weapons in mind, it does offer more protection against them while being lighter weight than its archaic equivalent - but on the other hand, a suit of full plate confers at least some protection against both guns _and_ swords, whereas a swordsman will essentially consider modern 'armor' no different than tough clothing, probably no better than leather armor.

One option would be to make armor -1 or -2 per PL difference from a weapon.  This actually works well for modern/medieval armor and weapons, although ancient/futuristic skews it into the realm of the silly.

Also, D&D guns are not ranged touch attacks, nor, goodness knows, should they be.

However, the original gist of this thread was a machine gun and a greatsword, and I do somewhat see what the original poster was getting at.

No personal armor yet developed significantly impacts the damage potential of a heavy machine gun.  The 'forced entry unit' in the d20 Modern book describes basically the pinnacle of modern anti-ballistic armor technology... and it probably shouldn't take one point of damage/to-hit off a heavy machine gun's attack.  Same with full plate.

Possibly the biggest problem is the difference between a heavy machine gun (2d12) and a regular assault rifle (2d8).  In a realistic system, the former should be much stronger, or the latter weaker, or both.

I'm a bit iffy on an assault rifle doing about as much on average as a greatsword (9 vs. 10 for a Str 14 wielder, probably 'average' for an NPC greatswordsman), but neither should come so close to a heavy machine gun (average 13 for a non-specialist) without extreme stats and/or special (probably magical) abilities.


----------



## Pagan priest (Aug 31, 2004)

Anybody remember Agincourt?  The flower for French chivlary, plate armor and all, died under a hail of arrows.  .50 bullets ought to be a little better at going through armor than an arrow.  Of course, the English archers had the wit to set up behind stakes, and the knights had to cross a vast, open _muddy_ field to get there.


----------



## Aaron2 (Aug 31, 2004)

Pagan priest said:
			
		

> Anybody remember Agincourt?  The flower for French chivlary, plate armor and all, died under a hail of arrows.




The battle at Agincourt occured in 1415 which slightly predates the developement of full plate and probably did much to spur its developement.

Anyway, the question isn't "can a bullet penetrate plate armor" but rather, is there any possiblilty that medieval plate armor can deflect a bullet that would otherwise cause injury or will the armor slow down a bullet enough to reduce the  damage caused. I'd say give archaic armor a +1/+2/+3 bonus for light/medium/heavy armor.


Aaron


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 1, 2004)

At Agincourt, the English weren't aiming their arrows. They were firing their arrows _upwards_ at the start of the French charges, letting gravity do its work. This isn't something that comes up often in a Modern or DnD game, however, so there aren't any rules for long-range _boosting_ armor penetration.

On another note, the arrows often hit horses, who had lighter arrows, throwing their riders off. Plate armor wasn't so heavy that knights couldn't get back up (at least, the non-jousting armor wasn't) but a knight walking in plate is pretty slow. They made nice targets for when they got close enough for the English to _aim_ at them.


----------



## ragboy (Sep 1, 2004)

jasper said:
			
		

> Technically, it's illegal to fire at troops by the Geneva convention..but that's beside the point). Really Ragboy What Convention? .



Yeah, I don't know. The Hague Convention thing quoted earlier is also included in the Geneva convention. As a tanker, that was what I was always told. Can't seem to find anything at the moment that specifically says that the Ma Deuce is prohibited for shooting at crunchies. And we trained to shoot every darn weapon on the tank at crunchies... and did in combat...so who knows?

I still have a hard time believing that any person not surrounded by a significant amount of steel can survive a barrage from a .50. I haven't built a house rule around guns yet (have yet to play d20 Modern with any regularity), but I like the damage save idea. I'll have to try that out.


----------



## takyris (Sep 1, 2004)

For my money, this is right.  If the knight starts the fight less than thirty yards from the soldier, the soldier is boned.  I, having never served in the military, have no idea whether the M2HB was made to be able to fire at enemies who appear quite suddenly at short range, but with a range increment of 110 feet, it seems like the d20 Modern people intended it to be a weapon that created a lovely kill zone for several hundred feet if you kept hosing people down with it.

From playing d20 Modern a fair amount, though, I'd suggest that autofire with a 2d12 weapon makes short work of almost anybody.  Forget a Soldier level.  Make that soldier a Strong6 so that he gets 2 attacks, and put the knight a bit further away -- far enough so that the knight's one actual disadvantage (his inability to move quite as fast) comes into play and the soldier gets 2 rounds in which to act -- and the knight is boned.  Someone else will do the math, but as an English major who played a bunch, I can say that one of those shots will almost definitely force an Massive Damage check, and a 6th level person with a Con of 16 only has a Fort save of +6.  That's about a 40% chance of going down right there.   And if only one of those shots forced a massive damage save, I'd be very surprised and disappointed in my dice.

As far as armor goes... correct me if I'm wrong, historians, but wasn't full plate invented at least in part to combat firearms?  It lost the race, of course, but for awhile, armor had grooves and chestplate angles that could ablate an incoming shot and cause it to glance off.  Didn't help against a full-force dead-on shot, of course, but was pretty good at turning grazes into misses.

That's just what I remember from reading, however.

To most other comments: Abstract Combat System.  11 points of damage to a character with 65 hit points is a near-miss that hits the ground nearby and gets dirt in his eye and kicks up tiny shrapnel that gives him a nasty scrape across the arm and causes him to have to dive to the ground to seek cover, scrambling back up a bit more slowly and breathing hard and less likely to be quite as lucky or quite as fast next time.  Really.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 1, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> How can you make a laser weapon fire in automatic fire mode?



Well, that depends on how lasers are handled in the game...

If every time you pull the trigger, it puts out a sustained bolt for the entire round, you cannot...

If, instead, it is a split second shot of light, then you can have full auto ones, as multiple crystals are rotated through and the power pack discharges vast amounts of power.

Then, you have the "pulse" option, which isn't full auto fire, allows the barrel and lasing material to cool, and ionization and flourescence to clear, resulting in better clarity of the beam.

And that, boys and girls, is the problem with beams...

beam clarity and atmospheric attenuation.

But that's for another post...

So, Ranger, that's how. If you wish, I could get far more detailed, but yes, energy weapons (including MASER) can be put on fully automatic, but if the pulse use is ignored, then eventually, flourescence and ionization, as well as damage to the lasing material, will weaken the beams.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 1, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> For my money, this is right.  If the knight starts the fight less than thirty yards from the soldier, the soldier is boned.  I, having never served in the military, have no idea whether the M2HB was made to be able to fire at enemies who appear quite suddenly at short range, but with a range increment of 110 feet, it seems like the d20 Modern people intended it to be a weapon that created a lovely kill zone for several hundred feet if you kept hosing people down with it.




If that was a real situation, the news would read: "Fool in stolen museam armor shot into crap by soldier."

30 yards is ninety feet. Plenty of time for me to yank the ma-duece around, depress the levers, and blow him full of holes.


----------



## takyris (Sep 1, 2004)

Well, mileage will vary, I s'pose.

For my money again, the value of a given roleplaying system isn't in whether or not you can break it, but whether the unbroken area covers the majority of play.  From that perspective, d20 Modern is fine.  If a bunch of historians want to come in and say that full plate worked great against a thrusting greatsword (or whatever the long thrusting swords that they used against full plate were) but would be like tissue paper if a bullet hit it, that's totally good with me.  Until then, my money is on the assumption that full plate actually does a decent job of stopping the average bullet -- which is to say, a glancing shot.  The reason it went out of style was because rifles got a lot easier to make than people who could handle themselves in full plate, and because not every shot is a glancing shot, and you can put a whole bunch of rifleman on the field...

But my copy of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is still sitting in Borders.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 1, 2004)

The two obvious fixes are 

1.  The bullets should be making touch attacks - medieval armour (1mm steel plate) has effectively zero effect on .50 HMG rounds.

2.  The bullets should do more damage - I have .50 rounds do 8d6 damage, which is still on the low side if you have a 9mm pistol doing 2d6 and a 6th-level greatsword-wielding knight power-attacking for probably 20+ damage/hit.

Less obvious, you could use the far superior Twilight:2000 burst fire rule, where 

3. You simply roll 1d6 per bullet vs a target at short range in the open (reducing number of dice for longer range & cover), and every '6' is a hit.

I used all 3 of these rules in my AD&D/Cyberpunk crossover games, they worked great and made high-level AD&D heroes appropriately wary of modern heavy weapons.


----------



## mmadsen (Sep 1, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> At Agincourt, the English weren't aiming their arrows. They were firing their arrows _upwards_ at the start of the French charges, letting gravity do its work. This isn't something that comes up often in a Modern or DnD game, however, so there aren't any rules for long-range _boosting_ armor penetration.



Long range does _not_ boost armor penetration, and firing up so that the arrows back down is _not_ "letting gravity do its work"; the energy required to get the arrow up is the same as the energy released by the arrow coming back down.

Shooting an arrow down from a great height would "let gravity do its work," but an arrow isn't a high-mass projectile, so gravity wouldn't contribute much.  Dropping a large rock, on the other hand...


----------



## Aaron2 (Sep 1, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Long range does _not_ boost armor penetration, and firing up so that the arrows back down is _not_ "letting gravity do its work"; the energy required to get the arrow up is the same as the energy released by the arrow coming back down.




In addition, a falling arrow will impact the armor at a fairly steep angle, increasing the armor's effective thickness. On top of that, a very sharp arrowhead, needed to punch through armor, is easier to deflect than a duller point. You'll see that after Agincourt, knights dropped surcoats and went into battle in highly polished "white" armor. Armor that was designed to deflect arrows. At this time they also started to seriously armor their horses. The horse was the knight's vulnerable spot since the crusades, where turkish archers targeted them instead of the rider. A knight without his horse was worthless since he could never close with the more lightly armored turkish infantry.

In WW2, most armor piercing rounds had blunt noses to help prevent them from being deflected by angled tank armor.


Aaron


----------



## blaskowicz (Sep 1, 2004)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> However, the original gist of this thread was a machine gun and a greatsword, and I do somewhat see what the original poster was getting at.
> 
> No personal armor yet developed significantly impacts the damage potential of a heavy machine gun.  The 'forced entry unit' in the d20 Modern book describes basically the pinnacle of modern anti-ballistic armor technology... and it probably shouldn't take one point of damage/to-hit off a heavy machine gun's attack.  Same with full plate.
> 
> Possibly the biggest problem is the difference between a heavy machine gun (2d12) and a regular assault rifle (2d8).  In a realistic system, the former should be much stronger, or the latter weaker, or both.




Exactly my point...
The system does not take into account the huge difference between regular assault rifle and heavy machine gun hits because armor does not help resist damage, it helps avoid it completely. Being missed by an M4 and taking no damage is the same as being missed by a Barret rifle...
It SHOULD be easier to incapacitate/kill an armored target with heavier caliber weapon.


----------



## Krieg (Sep 1, 2004)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> 30 yards is ninety feet. Plenty of time for me to yank the ma-duece around, depress the levers, and blow him full of holes.



I just had an image of someone wildly spinning the handwheel on the T&E Mechanism knowing full well that they will never get the weapon depressed in time to engage such a close target. 

OK I'll shut up now.


----------



## buzz (Sep 1, 2004)

Sebastian Ashputtle said:
			
		

> A perfect summary of what's wrong with playing modern-type games in the d20 system.



Well, d20M at least. d20 covers a lot of games with a lot of different rules, so I wouldn't dismiss all of them. Anyone know how _Grim Tales_ handles all this? I still haven't had a chance to read it yet.

I guess ignorance is bliss. My gun-fu is pretty minimal, so I've been having lots of fun with d20M.


----------



## swrushing (Sep 1, 2004)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Possibly the biggest problem is the difference between a heavy machine gun (2d12) and a regular assault rifle (2d8).  In a realistic system, the former should be much stronger, or the latter weaker, or both.




Taking these numbers... assuming an average COn of 14.

2d12 will force a MD save by getting 14+ 45% of the time.
2d8 will do so 10% of the time.

Its not just about wearing thru the hit points in d20M, its also about the MDT and how easily the hits get to it. At 13 hp per hit, it might take 4-5 hits to drop a mid level guy, but the MDS will have a chance of dropping hikm before then.


----------



## apoc527 (Sep 2, 2004)

*Many, many thoughts*

Well, this has been an interesting read.  That first post certainly does a lot to point out some of the deficiences of d20 Modern, even if you DO subscribe to the "highly cinematic is good" camp (which I don't).  

I would post my two cents, but it would be more like $100.  I have spent SO much time on modifying d20 for two different d20 Modern projects (Mutant Chronicles d20 and X-com d20, which will hopefully be played in the near future) that I could write for hours on this subject.  I will spare you that, however, and just say a "few words" instead.  

Here goes...

1) Armor

Armor as Defense works great in D&D.  That's about the end of it.  There are some issues there too, such as crossbows vs. chainmail, but I can get over it.  Any game with magical fire swords can do what it wants as far as I'm concerned. 

In d20 Modern (or any modernish, sci-fi game) things are different (at least to my somewhat discriminating eye).  Armor is perhaps BEST (subjectively, of course) modeled as a combination of Defense and DR, but that can be time consuming to convert (though Unearthed Arcana has a good starting point).   There are so many issues and an equally immense number of ways of repairing these so-called defects.  For example, suppose you want a system whereby .50 BMG rounds totally ignore pretty much all personal armor.  Simple, you can keep armor as Defense OR as DR and give all weapons a "Penetration" value.  If the "Penetration" value is greater than the Defense bonus or DR, then the armor has no effect vs. that particular weapon.  If you want it to be less "all-or-nothing" give weapons their own Armor Piercing value that simply subtracts from the Defense bonus or DR of the armor.  I've done both of these things in writing up theoretical rules.  

For X-com d20, here's what I'm doing: armor grants both DR and a Defense bonus.  The Defense Bonus will be small, but it will represent the ability of armor to completely deflect some hits that would otherwise be grazes.  Think of it as "Passive Defense" (from GURPS).  The DR will be the main protection of the armor, and may end up going pretty high for the famous Flying Suit (a highly advanced form of personal armor...that flies).  Weapons may or may not have a Penetration value.  I haven't decided quite yet.  The benefit of using a Penetration value is that you can keep the actual damage dice to a minimum (because instead of relying on a large die roll to penetrate DR, you simply apply the DR only if the Penetration isn't good enough to ignore it...again, you can do this partially or as an all-or-nothing gambit).  Anyway, on to HP.  

2) Hit Point Systems

This is also tricky in a Modern setting.  In D&D, damage is easily abstracted.  Whose to say precisely how well that sword hit the orc?  In d20 Modern, bullets tend to be less random.  That's partially covered by d20 Modern's "2dX" damage value for all guns.  Two dice will tend to produce a more predictable result than the typical 1dX of melee weapons.  No problems there.  The problems arise with the ever-increasing hit points of characters.  

There are many options.  To name a few:

1) Vitality/Wound from Spycraft or Star Wars. 
2) Stamina/Lifeblood from T20.  
3) Damage saves from Mutants and Masterminds.
4) Massive Damage from d20 Modern or CoC.
5) Simple HP from D&D.  

What works best is going to depend on the feel you want for your campaign.  (Duh).  Personally, I think the T20 system doesn't work too well, especially when you take into account the weird armor and the relatively unfinished nature of the rulebook.  There is a concept that I have borrowed from Dream Pod 9's Silhouette game system that will hopefully work very well for me.  It's very obvious, and likely many people have House ruled it into their games already in one form or another.  

Thus, X-com d20 will use a sort of scaling threshold massive damage system.  The idea is simple.  Using the basic concept of the massive damage save, I will create a number of thresholds whereby the effects of even TAKING that much damage start to have serious consequences.  Likely, it will look something like this when I'm done:

1/2 Massive Damage Threshold (as figured using normal game rules): Flesh Wound.  Make a DC 10 Fort save.  Failure indicates that you have been Stunned for 1 round.    Success indicates that you are merely Dazed until your next turn.  A -1 Wound penalty applies to all future skill checks, saving throws, attacks, and whatever else you think it should apply to.  

MDT: Deep Wound DC 15 Fort Save.  Failure indicates that you are instantly reduced to -1 HP and are dying.  Success indicates that you are Stunned for 1 round.  Furthermore, you are Fatigued regardless of the outcome of the save.  (This limits movement, I believe, but if it doesn't, it should.)

2x MDT: Mortal Wound DC 20 Fort save.  Failure indicates that you are instantly reduced to -5 HP and are dying.  Success indicates that you are Stunned for 1d4 rounds.  Furthermore, you now take a -3 Wound penalty to all rolls.  Additionally, you are considered to be Exhausted until this Wound is healed.  

And so and so forth.  At the GM's discretion, you can include simple bleeding rules (I recommend 1 HP/minute for Flesh wounds, 1 HP/round for Deep, and 1d4 HP/round for Mortal wounds).  I have rules for multiple wounds and how they can be treated with First Aid and the like.  

Once I develop them more fully, I may go ahead and post them if there's any interest (there really wasn't at the official d20 Modern forums, but if it's different here, I'm happy to share.)  

There you go...that was a lot more than 2 cents, but hopefully not too bad.  

-Apoc


----------



## blaskowicz (Sep 2, 2004)

apoc527 said:
			
		

> Well, this has been an interesting read.  That first post certainly does a lot to point out some of the deficiences of d20 Modern, even if you DO subscribe to the "highly cinematic is good" camp (which I don't).



I am not against cinematic, but those two characters are at the same level, both experts at their forms of combat, and there is a clear disadvantage in using firearms. Many posters argued there would be saves from the massive damage threshold, which the .50 would very likely cause. IF it hits, that is, which is highly unlikely.




			
				apoc527 said:
			
		

> For X-com d20, here's what I'm doing: armor grants both DR and a Defense bonus.  The Defense Bonus will be small, but it will represent the ability of armor to completely deflect some hits that would otherwise be grazes.  Think of it as "Passive Defense" (from GURPS).  The DR will be the main protection of the armor, and may end up going pretty high for the famous Flying Suit (a highly advanced form of personal armor...that flies).  Weapons may or may not have a Penetration value.  I haven't decided quite yet.  The benefit of using a Penetration value is that you can keep the actual damage dice to a minimum (because instead of relying on a large die roll to penetrate DR, you simply apply the DR only if the Penetration isn't good enough to ignore it...again, you can do this partially or as an all-or-nothing gambit).  Anyway, on to HP.



GURPS has dropped PD as of 4th edition, or so I heard. But we will consider this option, I will even take a look at Unearthed Arcana (never had time to analyze all those optional rules).




			
				apoc527 said:
			
		

> Thus, X-com d20 will use a sort of scaling threshold massive damage system.  The idea is simple.  Using the basic concept of the massive damage save, I will create a number of thresholds whereby the effects of even TAKING that much damage start to have serious consequences.  Likely, it will look something like this when I'm done:



The idea is simple, and sounds interesting to me. I am concerned, however, about the time it takes to make all these extra saves. Especially if we are talking about highly damaging weaponry.




			
				apoc527 said:
			
		

> There you go...that was a lot more than 2 cents, but hopefully not too bad.



Not bad, I would say.


----------



## Aaron2 (Sep 2, 2004)

blaskowicz said:
			
		

> IF it hits, that is, which is highly unlikely.




Here's my obligitory "what I do" response about autofire. I'm not too fond of d20M since you are given two choices; one where you take a penalty to hit for more damage, and another where your chance to hit is fairly low (and, more important, doesn't even consider armor!). There is no option for "spray and pray"; for firing multiple shots to increase the likelyhood of a hit.

My rules ....
I let the firer choose the width of any autofire attack. He can pick a 5' spread (basically shooting at one guy or down a narrow corridor) and get a bonus to hit (+2 for burst, +4 for full auto). He rolls to hit against all targets in the area. If the firer chooses a wider spread (10 ft' or more), the bonus decreases as the spread widens up until its actually a penalty (a pretty severe penalty at, say, 50' wide). Again, he rolls to hit against all targets in the affected area. 

If the firer fires full auto, he has the option of continuous fire. If he does so, all character in the affected area on their next action must drop prone or get behind total cover or they suffer an additional attack (with an additional -4 penalty) during their action. NPCs must make a Will save to act.

Finally, if the firer hits with a shot while performing an autofire attack, he can make another attack roll for a second hit. He can continue racking up hits until he misses or runs out of bullets. 

_Autofire Example: A squad of Americans try rush a German MG42 sandbag bunker. During the German’s turn, he decides to try and cover their approach. The Amis are spread out but the German want to pin them down. The Amis are 60 feet away but only 30 feet apart (measuring the distance from the American soldiers furthest apart). The German is a recent conscript and poorly trained so his normal attack bonus is only +1. A 30 foot spread results in a -2 Autofire Attack Bonus. The German makes an attack at -2 against all American soldiers in the spread zone (whose depth is one range increment due to the flat ground). The German then decided to continuous fire as he as plenty of ammo. During their turns, if the Americans continue to rush forward rather than dive for cover, the German can make an extra -6 attack against them. This attack can occur during the turn of each individual American soldier. If any of the American soldiers are NPCs, they must make a Will Save (DC 8) to perform any actions other than diving for cover._

Under my rules, the soldier would make a +15 attack against the knight, hitting on an 11 or better and rolling for multiple hits. If the knight continued charging, the soldier would get an additional +11 attack.


Aaron


----------



## mmu1 (Sep 2, 2004)

There are two issues here:

1. Armor as AC boost is obviously the wrong way to go, as has been pointed out several times already. Against assault rifles and up, the stuff might as well be tissue paper - it doesn't help much if it slows down the bullet to the point where it can "only" penetrate 8" into your chest cavity rather than go all the way through, or (for heavy machine guns) leave it with enough energy to blow right through your chest once, instead of three or four times over.

2. When comparing modern guns and archaic weapons, many games (certainly d20) underestimate how easy guns are to use, and how high the practical rates of fire actually are. Any system that assumes a proficient user will only be able to get off one shot in six seconds unless he sacrifices a lot of accuracy or gets special training (feats) is hopelessly unrealistic. Six seconds is an eternity when using a gun.


----------



## takyris (Sep 2, 2004)

And a dagger through the eye does just as much damage, no matter what kind of armor you're using.  C'mon, guys.  The "armor is tissue paper" argument is great when describing a dead-on hit to the body that doesn't hit at any real angle and can use its full power for penetration -- which, in d20 terms, is what we'd refer to as a *Crit*.  Is a full suit of platemail really no good whatsoever against even a glancing shot, a shot that would just have grazed the target in passing?  Heck, Native Americans used canvas shields that were no good against bullets that hit dead-on but could deflect a bullet that came in at an angle, and that was, y'know, a flat strip of leather tied to a hoop like a drum.  You'd think a full suit of platemail might do *something* against a glancing shot -- which, in d20 terms, is what we refer to as a *hit*.

(Caveat, however: I run a d20 Modern game that is mostly by the normal rules, and I run a fantasy game with VP/WP-ish hit points and armor functioning as DR only against WP damage.  I'm not against armor-as-DR at all.  I like that.  But I can see armor as Defense as well, and I don't think that this situation is as bad as advertised.)


----------



## mmu1 (Sep 2, 2004)

A full suit of platemail has practically no ability to deflect modern military firearm rounds, certainly not at the distances 95% of RPG combat occurs at.

This _armored vehicle_

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/j/M-113.jpg

doesn't provide adequate protection from the kind of machine gun discussed in the first post, and it weighs in at around 12 tons.


----------



## takyris (Sep 2, 2004)

mm1, no offense intended (seriously -- I respect your opinion), but would you mind going into more detail on that?  Does "not sufficient protection" mean that every shot fired at the vehicle gets through, that even a glancing shot fully penetrates the armor?  If that means that a dead-on shot will penetrate, I don't think that invalidates the point I was trying to make (that the Defense bonus means that it's turning glancing shots into misses, just like it would on the low-damage hits if armor provided DR instead of Defense).  I'm not arguing that a dead-on shot won't penetrate.  I'm arguing that I haven't seen evidence that full plate is useless in all respects against even that big honkin' gun.

If someone shows me that even a graze or glancing shot will fully penetrate full plate without any change in angle, any deflection away from the body, then I'm fine with saying, "Yeah, it doesn't model well here."  And then we can probably change the text of that particular gun to read "Ignores the first 8 points of Defense bonus from armor" or something like that.  (Unless this "doesn't change the angle at all" is true for all firearms.)


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 2, 2004)

> Six seconds is an eternity when using a gun.




Not if you're not using a heavy machine gun, IMO. You're going to be spending time aiming and taking cover (since your opponent is probably shooting at you too).

But of course, Modern isn't _supposed_ to be realistic. If it were, the heroes would stay home for fear of being shot and suffering death or permanent injury. Body armor doesn't usually cover your head and neck.


----------



## Krieg (Sep 3, 2004)

takyris, standard ball .50 caliber ammo will penetrate over 1" of rolled steel at 200m (with SLAP rounds penetrating 2-3 times as much). 

The metal used in a typical plate harness would not be more than 16 ga or so, that translates to .06". 

An M2 would have no problems completely penetrating the armoured knight (front and back) out to any practical range (we are talking more than a 1k here) _regardless_ of angle of incidence.


----------



## takyris (Sep 3, 2004)

krieg: Thanks.  Those were the stats I was looking for.

Then a related question: Would a flak jacket help you at all in that situation?  Is the problem in full plate not living up to its numbers in a modern situation, or is the problem that guns that heavy should really be making touch attacks or area-effect nastiness, automatically using a certain number of bullets per round?

Or should all archaic armor be scaled back (ie, "Take the D&D value and subtract 2")?  Or should we assume that when d20 Modern says "full plate", it means "this totally awesome *modern* suit of full plate, made with shock-absorbant fibers and, you know, polymers in important places and stuff"?


----------



## S'mon (Sep 3, 2004)

.50 long rounds as used in the M2HB HMG will penetrate personal body armour without difficulty - the Barrett .50 Sniper rifle uses the same round and has no difficulty killing armoured men at over 1500m.  The example I know of is IRA snipers using Barrett .50 vs RUC (police) men in flak jackets at over 1km ranges (firing from across the Ireland/Northern Ireland border) - 10 hits, 9 immediate fatalities, one man was hit in the hip & survived.  If you ever _see_ a .50 round you'll know why...  this is a weapon designed to kill _light armoured vehicles_, vs humans it's massive overkill.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 3, 2004)

tjoenslo wrote:
>>The problem is that D&D (and D20 in general) is balanced to provide characters who can withstand a few solid hits at 3rd to 5th level. <<

A few solid hits from 9mm parabellum (eg from an Uzi SMG) is one thing, a few solid hits from .50 HMG is quite another - this is where d20Modern departs from even cinematic plausibility.  The stopping power of the .50 is at least 8 times that of the 9mmP; if damage averages 7 from 2d6 from the 9mm it should average 56 from the .50!  To allow for non-lethal glancing hits 2d6x8 might be better and quicker than 8d6.  Of course MDTs and VP/WP systems muddy the waters - my old Cyberpunk/D&D game worked fine with regular hit points, no massive damage checks, and realistic weapons damage - 9mm softnose doing 1d6, .45 ACP (eg Colt .45) 1d6+1, 5.56N rifle (Eg M16) doing 2d6, 7.56N (eg FN-FAL) doing 3d6+1, .50 HMG doing 8d6... I think 30mm autocannon as seen on the Apache did 30d6/hit.  
This approach makes high-level heroes tough to kill with small-calibre handguns, but still respecting of anti-vehicular weaponry!


----------



## S'mon (Sep 3, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> The M2HB is a lot more powerful in real life, putting out way more bullets, etc etc. The knight would die. Then again, if you make weapons overpowered, PCs and NPCs gravitate towards such weapons. The game would no longer be about characters, but who has the biggest weapons.




Yeah, but nobody in any game is going to be carrying around an M2HB as a personal weapon (unless PCs are wearing Power Armour or the GM is a milksop)!  Certainly with realistic damage, the tendency is to gravitate to the biggest practical man-portable weapon; in the modern day that'd be a 7.56mm assault rifle like the FN-FAL.  Frankly, those _are_ the most effective infantry weapons - far moreso than light 5.56N rifles like the M16 or British L85/SA80.  They have better range & far better stopping power.  Real-life downsides are: 

1.The big bullets mean you carry less ammo; 

2.The big & high velocity bullets have big recoil, making autofire impractical (the British SLR version of the FN-FAL had autofire removed entirely), it takes a fairly strong firer to fire accurately & rapidly even on single-shot, and the rate of fire will certainly be lower than with 5.56N.

3. Hits are often immediately fatal (about 25% fatality as opposed to about 5% for 1 hit from a 5.56N, rising to around 50% depending on lack of medical treatment etc) - this high fatality rate is regarded as a _bad thing_ by western militaries because supposedly if you wound an enemy his friends will break off fighting to tend to him.  This may be true in the West, IMO it's a dubious argument in most combat arenas.  High fatality rate also means that if your troops fire into demonstrators you get many more corpses (14 on Bloody Sunday 7.56 rifles, 4 at Kent State 5.56 rifles).  So light rifles are better for 'peacekeeping' operations where you wish to avoid enemy-civilian casualties.

All that said, a big strong capable guy with a fully loaded 7.56N-firing rifle is much more dangerous than a big strong guy with a 5.56N-firing rifle, and with a realistic RPG combat system it's natural big strong PCs will want such weapons.  If small weedy PCs also prefer them, the system isn't reflecting the drawbacks of the weapon.  Likewise a cinematic system that makes it practical to fire an M60 from the hip will see a lot of PCs toting M60s...  hopefully _no_ system lets you do this with an M2HB, though.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 3, 2004)

One advantage of using realistic damage (say 2d6x4 for .50) is that you can then give armour realistic damage reduction (DR) and it all works out - say a flak vest gives DR 4, so on a lucky glancing hit (roll 2x4= 8 dmg) the wearer takes only 4 hp damage & survives.  But for AC/deflection based armour you have to let the heavy gun ignore armour; certainly full plate shouldn't grant more than +1 AC vs a .50.


----------



## Aaron2 (Sep 3, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Of course MDTs and VP/WP systems muddy the waters - my old Cyberpunk/D&D game worked fine with regular hit points, no massive damage checks, and realistic weapons damage - 9mm softnose doing 1d6, .45 ACP (eg Colt .45) 1d6+1, 5.56N rifle (Eg M16) doing 2d6, 7.56N (eg FN-FAL) doing 3d6+1, .50 HMG doing 8d6... I think 30mm autocannon as seen on the Apache did 30d6/hit.




One thing to consider is that an M1 Abrams only has a hardness of 20 (which I think is too low). You don't want .50 rounds taking out MBTs.*

Also, with your typical civilian only having 4-8 hit points, 2d12 is already lethal. 


Aaron


*at 8d6, it will take an average of 8 rounds to kill a M1.


----------



## Aaron2 (Sep 3, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> One advantage of using realistic damage (say 2d6x4 for .50) is that you can then give armour realistic damage reduction (DR) and it all works out - say a flak vest gives DR 4, so on a lucky glancing hit (roll 2x4= 8 dmg) the wearer takes only 4 hp damage & survives.  But for AC/deflection based armour you have to let the heavy gun ignore armour; certainly full plate shouldn't grant more than +1 AC vs a .50.




You have a problem either way. Archaic plate armor might not stop a bullet that does 1d6 but it will stop a bayonet that does 1d6. In either case you need some sort of penetration value. Plus, armor as DR has a problem with coverage. For example, if you set the DR for a flak vest at 4, you become immune to daggers even though the vest only covers a portion of you body.  


Aaron


----------



## S'mon (Sep 3, 2004)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> One thing to consider is that an M1 Abrams only has a hardness of 20 (which I think is too low). You don't want .50 rounds taking out MBTs.*
> 
> Also, with your typical civilian only having 4-8 hit points, 2d12 is already lethal.
> *at 8d6, it will take an average of 8 rounds to kill a M1.





Yeah, in my Cyberpunk/D&D game an Abrams' M1A2's sloped frontal armour had DR of, I believe, 1200 - 300 times as good as a flak vest.  You're not getting through that with a .50.  

Personally I think the whole d20Modern approach sucks, it reflects neither gritty nor cinematic reality.  I prefer to start with a realistic system and let exceptional PC abilities (like having 100+ hit points) make it 'heroic', rather than create an inherently unrealistic system made all the moreso by PC abilities.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 3, 2004)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> One thing to consider is that an M1 Abrams only has a hardness of 20 (which I think is too low). You don't want .50 rounds taking out MBTs.*
> 
> Also, with your typical civilian only having 4-8 hit points, 2d12 is already lethal.




"Your typical civilian" is the guy you expect to fall over and pass out after being hit in the thigh by a 9mm round (ie, most of us).  While real tough-guy types can keep fighting after taking multiple hits from 9mm, .38 Special et al; IMO **.50 HMG** rounds should not be bouncing off 6th level heroes leaving only minor abrasions!  I'm willing to accept that a 'hit' on a high-level character might be a scratch, but the "oh, it really missed but damage represents fatigue" argument leaves me cold.  In the d20M RAW, .50 rounds are not effective against a mid-level warrior; the original poster's point.  That offends against even cinematic realism IMO.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 3, 2004)

>>Archaic plate armor might not stop a bullet that does 1d6 but it will stop a bayonet that does 1d6. In either case you need some sort of penetration value. Plus, armor as DR has a problem with coverage. For example, if you set the DR for a flak vest at 4, you become immune to daggers even though the vest only covers a portion of you body. <<

Penetration value - yeah, I agree, or at any rate you need different rules for archaic & modern armour, they function on different principles.

Coverage - yup, agree fully.  I give armour a Cover AC rating (Conan game does a similar thing w Finesee attacks), eg vest +4 Cover AC; if you beat that then the hit is to an unarmoured area & ignores DR, if you get between Touch & Cover AC then hit struck armour & DR applies.


----------



## Krieg (Sep 3, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> _Then a related question: Would a flak jacket help you at all in that situation?_



To put it bluntly....No.

FWIW most "flak" jackets were designed to protect against shrapnel caused by artillery. The PASGT armor that was the standard US issue until recently was incapable of stopping small arms fire at combat ranges.


----------



## Kelleris (Sep 3, 2004)

> Yeah, in my Cyberpunk/D&D game an Abrams' M1A2's sloped frontal armour had DR of, I believe, 1200 - 300 times as good as a flak vest. You're not getting through that with a .50.




Doesn't that seem a bit high?  I mean, you aren't getting through that with _anything_.  It seems to me that conjuring a _meteor swarm_ ought to deal at least as much damage to a tank as a modern missile would - not enough to destroy or disable an Abrams, probably, but enough to scratch the paint at least.

For that matter, I would think that a _+5 adamantine vorpal blade _ in the hands of a superhumanly strong high-level fighter would be able to carve up an Abrams given a fairly reasonable amount of time, say a minute or so.  Er, assuming no interference.    :\


----------



## S'mon (Sep 3, 2004)

Kelleris said:
			
		

> Doesn't that seem a bit high?  I mean, you aren't getting through that with _anything_.  It seems to me that conjuring a _meteor swarm_ ought to deal at least as much damage to a tank as a modern missile would - not enough to destroy or disable an Abrams, probably, but enough to scratch the paint at least.
> 
> For that matter, I would think that a _+5 adamantine vorpal blade _ in the hands of a superhumanly strong high-level fighter would be able to carve up an Abrams given a fairly reasonable amount of time, say a minute or so.  Er, assuming no interference.    :\




A modern man-portable missile fired at the front of an Abrams would barely scratch the paint, yup - you'd need something like a direct hit from a Tomahawk to destroy it.  It's just possible to damage an Abrams' engine block by coming up behind it and shooting it up the derriere (grand-ma friendly)  - this was done in Iraq during the US invasion, by Iraqi forces using RPG-7 grenade launchers (which do 55d6 in my system, derived from Twilight:2000), but it's difficult to do & still didn't harm the occupants.  Few D&D spells are designed as armour-penetrators, a meteor swarm is more like FAE (Fuel Air Explosive) - it'll incinerate infantry & light armoured vehicles but I don't see why you'd expect it to penetrate over a meter of depleted-uranium-enforced armour.  If you want +5 adamatine vorpal blades to carve through anything, have them ignore DR/Hardness or whatever, like Luke's lightsaber.  But scaling realistically from human-scale to vehicle scale it'll remain impossible to penetrate Chobham armour with your 20th level Fighter, who's probably only doing 120 or so damage/hit!  Of course that's plenty enough to destroy APCs, IFVs, Apache attack helicopters... plenty of superhuman stunts remain possible to high-level PCs, even with a realistic aproach to scaling damage & armour.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 3, 2004)

I guess an Abrams'-killing Sorcerer could use a Ranged Touch Attack to send his meteor swarm down the Abrams' gun barrel?  

Personally I like a fairly gritty (rather than anime-like) style when the 40th level PCs take on the US 1st Armoured Division; if the PCs are smart when they realise their meteor swarms and other attacks are bouncing off the tank's frontal armour, they'll attack vulnerable areas like the tracks, viewfinder, exhaust... just like infantry have to do IRL.


----------



## ragboy (Sep 3, 2004)

Kelleris said:
			
		

> Doesn't that seem a bit high? I mean, you aren't getting through that with _anything_. It seems to me that conjuring a _meteor swarm_ ought to deal at least as much damage to a tank as a modern missile would - not enough to destroy or disable an Abrams, probably, but enough to scratch the paint at least.
> 
> For that matter, I would think that a _+5 adamantine vorpal blade _in the hands of a superhumanly strong high-level fighter would be able to carve up an Abrams given a fairly reasonable amount of time, say a minute or so. Er, assuming no interference. :\



Though it depends on the cinematic level of your game, that DR is probably accurate. The only thing that's getting through the front and side hull and turret armor of an M1A1-M1A2 is another M1A1-M1A2's main gun shot. Mobility kills are much easier, even with something as wimpy as a heavy grenade or RPG. But, you're not penetrating crew compartments with anything less than a 120mm DU round. In general terms, I'd put the armor at something like this: 

Front hull, front skirts, and the front sides and back of the turret: Very High (120mm or higher)
Rear and side hull and top of the turret: High (25mm can penetrate)
Rear skirts, track and anything outside the tank: Low (.50 can chew them up). 

I watched a T72 shoot an M1A1 at point blank range (about 50 yards) in the side of the turret and the round bounced off. 

My tank ran over a mine on the front left and it destroyed the track, and 2 roadwheels, but did not penetrate the bottom hull armor or the heavy skirt (though it did blow it off its hinges). Another tank in our division backed over a mine and it penetrated the rear hull and caught the engine on fire. 

As to the damage from an M1A1/A2, that's another story. That same engagement, both my tank and several others shot through T72's to kill other T72's behind them. Two catastrophic kills (turrets flying in the air and massive fireballs) with one shot. 

I have a couple of presentations from GD Land systems from the current war as well, with pictures depicting armor performance. There's actually a very disturbing incident where an unknown (possibly hand-held) weapon penetrated the softer skirt and the actual side hull armor injuring the gunner. If anyone's interested I can dig those up and send them along.


----------



## Krieg (Sep 3, 2004)

ragboy said:
			
		

> There's actually a very disturbing incident where an unknown (possibly hand-held) weapon penetrated the softer skirt and the actual side hull armor injuring the gunner. If anyone's interested I can dig those up and send them along.



General consensus is that it was either an RPG with a newer warhead design (PG-7VR) OR an AT-14 Kornet, with the RPG being the most likely culprit.


Considering the location of the attack, my money would be on the former as well.


----------



## takyris (Sep 3, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> IMO **.50 HMG** rounds should not be bouncing off 6th level heroes leaving only minor abrasions!  I'm willing to accept that a 'hit' on a high-level character might be a scratch, but the "oh, it really missed but damage represents fatigue" argument leaves me cold.  In the d20M RAW, .50 rounds are not effective against a mid-level warrior; the original poster's point.  That offends against even cinematic realism IMO.




S'mon, why the difficulty accepting "it's only a scratch/graze/near-miss"?  Do you have similar trouble accepting it when it's a six-foot-six behemoth with a greatsword swinging at a guy with a lot of hit points?

The high-level character has enough experience to be out of the way when that gun starts firing.  The idea that more hit points means that a character is capable of absorbing more gunshot wounds to the chest is, well, just as silly in my opinion as you seem to feel the "damage for high-level characters means a graze or near-miss" theory is for you.

And really, while we can certainly talk about how it could conceivably be broken if you use bad flavor text -- "My bad guy shot the team's Tough Hero point blank but only rolled a 2 on 2d12, and he has DR 2/-, so he got shot point-blank with this heavy machine gun for *no damage*!  The system is broken!" -- 2d12 damage per round of autofire is going to take out most PCs pretty quick.  Or maybe my players just have lousy dice-luck.  In any event, nobody in my game takes Massive Damage or Autofire saves lightly.

Again, however, I'd note that for all my defense of the system, I switched to armor-as-DR and VP/WP.  It's more work, but my players and I currently like it better.  My feeling so far is that 99% of the time, the existing d20 Modern rules end up giving about the same *end result* as using WP/VP and armor-as-DR, but the numbers by which you get to that end result are different.  Therein lies the room to break (and then complain about) the system.


----------



## Kelleris (Sep 3, 2004)

We see to be thinking of "destroyed" in different ways here.  To me, immobile and unable to attack is destroyed - your tank has just become a terrain feature with pre-existing occupants, not a vehicle or a creature.  A "destroyed" vehicle is the same as a "killed" monster - it's not going to hurt you anymore.  You don't have to force a dragon through a fine mesh screen to render it dead, so I don't see why everyone equates a destroyed vehicle with a smoldering crater and atomized armor.

     I would put a _meteor swarm's_ damage at around a Tomahawk, actually - that's what I meant by missile.  An RPG in my book = a _fireball_ spell (well, with a high enough caster level).  The _meteor swarm_ would peel a small bit of armor off the tank, blast any sensor apparatus to pieces, probably heat the hull up to an inconvenient level (I know nothing about the heat-dissipation abilities of an Abrams, so maybe not), most likely do enough damage to the main cannon to render it non-functional (a cylinder of metal is much more likely to break with a direct hit than piles of reinforced armor), and probably screw up the treads as well.  That is a destroyed tank.  That the men inside are fine is immaterial - when you kill a dragon, the wizard it swallowed could very well still be alive.

     Also, again IMO, the aforementioned high-level fighter with a _+5 vorpal adamantine greatsword_ would do similar damage.  He would not dice it into one-inch cubes - he would destroy it.

    Then again, we may just be on totally different pages here.  I am constantly annoyed by character's inability to damage the scenery in D&D.  It takes some of the fun out of casting a _meteor swarm_ for me to know that a 3-5 foot thick stone pillar has piles of hit points, hardness, and half damage versus fire.  If I cast a high-level blast spell, I want the building I'm in to stand a reasonable chance of collapsing.  Under the current rules, you can barely level a cottage with a _lightning bolt_.

     Also, I'm not sure I like the linear increase in damage for weapons.  8x penetration should not equal 8x the dice because hp progressions only look linear.  If we accept the assumption (built into the CR system) that gaining two levels doubles a character's capablities, a 20th-level character should have about 750 times the damage-soaking ability he had at 1st level.  For me, this is why that 5th boost to a weapon's enhancement bonus is so much more expensive than the first and why damage bonuses from Strength are linear and carrying capacity is not.


----------



## jezter6 (Sep 3, 2004)

Apoc,

I liked a good part of your 1/2 MDT, MDT, and 2xMDT system. I think that, coupled with a system earlier in the post that looks reminicent of M&M damage system, would probably be awesome.

Go ahead and post them when they're developed, because I'm looking for just that type of system.


----------



## mmu1 (Sep 3, 2004)

A quick bit of trivia relating to the DR on an Abrams, and whether it's realistic: IIRC, Modern authorities on the subject of tanks estimate (since the current values are obviosuly secret) the frontal turret protection on many modern Main Battle Tanks with composite armor to be equivalent to nearly 1 meter (40 inches) of high-quality rolled armor plate.


----------



## ragboy (Sep 3, 2004)

Kelleris said:
			
		

> We see to be thinking of "destroyed" in different ways here. To me, immobile and unable to attack is destroyed - your tank has just become a terrain feature with pre-existing occupants, not a vehicle or a creature. A "destroyed" vehicle is the same as a "killed" monster - it's not going to hurt you anymore. You don't have to force a dragon through a fine mesh screen to render it dead, so I don't see why everyone equates a destroyed vehicle with a smoldering crater and atomized armor.
> 
> I would put a _meteor swarm's_ damage at around a Tomahawk, actually -



And if you have _meteor swarm_ in your campaign, then obviously, it should be taken into account when used against a tank. If you're playing a more realistic game, then probably not. But, in order to support all that game-wise, you'd have to have location armor and a corresponding location hit system, and degradation of systems, etc. etc. Lots of dice and tables, if that's your poison (and I love Battletech, but not for role-playing).  

The problem as I see it (and I don't use that word like it is a big problem) is that d20 Modern grew out of D&D which is heavily slanted toward super-heroism, melee and magic and an abstract hit point system. Makes things flashy, mano-y-mano and speeds up the system, but sacrifices reality. That "reality" is just in starker contrast because most people know without a doubt that if they charged a .50 cal gun emplacement wearing medieval armor, then they'd be a bloody spot in seconds. 

The toggle on reality is totally up to the DM and players. 

If you're taking d20 Modern and using it in a realistic combat environment, then the numbers have to be tweaked as that realistic toggle gets closer to realism. And other rules have to be bolted on (like a hit location system for vehicle-on-vehicle combat that takes into effect system degradation, etc).

So, yeah, guns are underpowered, but there's a reason for it. Tanks are underpowered, and probably should be in the generic d20 modern setting. An elf carving up an M1A1 with a vorpal sword stretches the bounds of reality, but then again, it should.  So, if your campaign is designed to have an armored knight charge across a field and take out a .50 cal gunner, then the rules are just right. If not, fix it.


----------



## Kelleris (Sep 3, 2004)

> In order to support all that game-wise, you'd have to have location armor and a corresponding location hit system, and degradation of systems, etc. etc.




What about what I said implies this?  Now, if you want anything short of a cruise missile (maybe a nuke?) to do something to a tank with generic DR 1200, _then_ you'll desperately need hit location charts.  All you need for a _meteor swarm_ (or a blast of _fireballs_, or a powerful incantation) is hardness and hit points.  If you get through the hardness and hit points, the tank is disabled, destroyed basically.  I was just trying to point out that "destroyed" and "molten slag" are not the same thing.  If a powerful magical attack, including the kinds available to high-level d20 Modern characters, destroys a tank under the basic rules, I'm just saying that that's not unreasonable.  Obliterating a main battle tank would be, but not destroying it.  Not the same thing as far as any d20 game I've ever seen is concerned.  Or do slain monsters just fade off the map in some games?  Demanding that any attack be able to vaporize a tank to destroy it is like requiring a character to disintegrate a monster to kill it.  Basing the tank's hardness on 40 inches of high-quality steel is as bad an idea as basing an elder earth elemental's hit points on what it takes to destroy a wall of equal weight.

The core rulebook for d20 Modern, incidentally, says that they went for an action movie feel, so saying that it's somewhat unrealistic is a design flaw is a bit silly.  I agree with you there - I'm just saying that DR 1200 goes way back over into unrealistic (in a game world with magic) after hurtling clean through realistic.

Also, how do you feel about my argument that the linear hp progression conceals a geometric basis.  I'm of the opinion that d20 sneaks geometric mechanics into decidedly linear-looking progressions with aggravating frequency, but whenever I bring it up (re: fighters, level gain, etc.), nobody pays attention to the point.  I like to think it's my intimidating logical prowess, but I somehow doubt that's it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 4, 2004)

> Also, how do you feel about my argument that the linear hp progression conceals a geometric basis. I'm of the opinion that d20 sneaks geometric mechanics into decidedly linear-looking progressions with aggravating frequency, but whenever I bring it up (re: fighters, level gain, etc.), nobody pays attention to the point. I like to think it's my intimidating logical prowess, but I somehow doubt that's it.



You didn`t ask me,  but I think you are right. I am not sure if it´s every 2 or maybe every 4 levels the effective power doubles, but the basic idea is definitely true, if I think about it.
Speaking of thinking about it: 
Whenever you level, multiple of your statistics increase. If you double your number of hp, you would consider that doubling your character`s power. But whenever you double a characters hp, you usually have to double his total HD, which means you will also add new feats, skillpoints, abd increase saving throws and base attack bonus, and possibly add new spells. 
That`s probably also the reason why items costs (and assumed wealth by level) go up geometrically...



> And if you have meteor swarm in your campaign, then obviously, it should be taken into account when used against a tank. If you're playing a more realistic game, then probably not. But, in order to support all that game-wise, you'd have to have location armor and a corresponding location hit system, and degradation of systems, etc. etc. Lots of dice and tables, if that's your poison (and I love Battletech, but not for role-playing).



Kelleris already explained it in the post above, but I want to say the same (maybe just different):
HP are abstract. That doesn´t only apply for creatures. It applies for vehicles and objects. If a tank has 50 hp and a hardness of 20, this isn`t meant to say he will be destroyed just because you empty several clips of ammunition into him, just targeting the main front of the tank. You attempted to hit "vital" areas - targeting the points of the tanks you can affect AND that are required for the tank to be more than just a big chung of metal. 
That´s the reason why you don`t need target locations, and they in fact fail to work with the hp system. HP are abstract. Whenever you hit someone (or something= and deal hp damage, you somehow affect him, increasing the chance that you will take him out of the fight. If it´s because you exhaust him, or slowly damage or destroy parts of it that are vital for the basic function is something that is not exactly modelled - it´s something you have to think up, decide on the spot - what ever makes sense in the situation.

The HP system certainly isn`t perfect, and maybe not even the best one available - especially with its extreme abstraction. But it works, it can create enjoyable games - unless you can`t overlook its weaknesses, which is certainly a problem for many people. 
But there are some things where the D20 combat system really is good: It gives you a lot of options in combat. You can use tactics - often "realistic" ones, and I think that is also important for many players.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 4, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> S'mon, why the difficulty accepting "it's only a scratch/graze/near-miss"?  Do you have similar trouble accepting it when it's a six-foot-six behemoth with a greatsword swinging at a guy with a lot of hit points?




You completely misunderstand me - I can accept a hit that reduces hp being explained as "it's only a scratch" but NOT as "it totally missed, yet you lose hp anyway".  If it missed, it missed - ie the to-hit roll was not a hit.  If it hit, it did damage, whether a scratch, critical wound, or instant kill.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 4, 2004)

I don't really use a geometric-power-increase assumption for my modern d20 games - a 12th level warrior isn't worth 2 10th levellers, he's worth maybe 2 6th-levellers or a couple dozen 1st level, depending on circumstance.  I don't much like "a 10th level character is tougher than an MBT", either.

I've been using input here to update my Cyperpunk d20 rules - I found a handy version online (d20cyberpunk.rtf) that was very similar to my old AD&D version, using that as base.  My system is intended so the 12th level Russian Solo can take on the US M1A2 MBT, not by breaking it apart with his bare hands but by using _tactics_ - that DR 1200 is for attacks vs the M1A2's sloped frontal armour of course, you can get it down to DR 150 if you sneak around the back...  easy meat for a HEAT RPG round.  d20Modern seems almost viscerally hostile to this approach, making it unusable except for modern-Hollywood-action 'Mission Impossible' or 'True Lies' stuff and totally unsuitable for 'war story' or even Gibson-esque Cyberpunk (ok, for Matrix-type Cyberpunk it's fine...) *sigh*


----------



## S'mon (Sep 4, 2004)

Fireballs - I'd equate these to an HE mortar round in their effects - great vs people & unarmoured vehicles.  The best D&D spells for attacking vehicles are the landscape-shaping ones like Rock to Mud...


----------



## Krieg (Sep 4, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Fireballs - I'd equate these to an HE mortar round in their effects - great vs people & unarmoured vehicles.



Personally I would say they are much closer in effect to thermobaric weapons, which are very similar to older FAEs (Fuel Air Explosives).

High explosve mortar ammunition relies on shrapnel for casualty or destructive effects. I don't see a Fireball as being mechanically similar.


----------



## takyris (Sep 5, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> You completely misunderstand me - I can accept a hit that reduces hp being explained as "it's only a scratch" but NOT as "it totally missed, yet you lose hp anyway".  If it missed, it missed - ie the to-hit roll was not a hit.  If it hit, it did damage, whether a scratch, critical wound, or instant kill.




Ah.  That clarifies some of it.  Thanks.

So, to make sure I understand you:

You have no problem with an enormous greatsword deliving a tiny minor cut to somebody, but you do have a problem with the notion that the greatsword did not make physical contact but drove the person back, caused him to lose footing, forced him to dive to one side in such a manner that he's off-balance and more vulnerable to future attacks, and so forth?  (Not an attack -- want to make sure I'm getting this.)

I guess my reasons for liking a combination of both ideas (minor scratches and complete misses) are as follows: 

- My own experiences: As a martial artist, I am fully behind the notion that there are some strikes that I block but, in so doing, set myself up for the really big followup strike by my opponent.  In d20 terms, I think of those strikes as costing me some hit points, and the big followup strike costs more -- because not every big followup strike is a critical, and doesn't do a ton of damage.  Thus, even in a gunfight between two folks with cover, I'm fine with the first three shots representing "near misses", as the shooter gets closer and closer and slowly makes note of the timing of when his opponent peeks out to shoot.  Then that last shot, the one which finally takes the guy down is a real hit.  In d20 terms, I can work with "the first three shots, while damaging, were just fatigue and shock and scariness, and the last one really results in a gunshot wound, even though the numbers say '30 down to 22, 22 down to 12, 12 down to 8, 8 down to -1'...."

- Weirndess of multiple wounds: While I love *Die Hard*, I don't want every campaign to involve a hero who starts with 80 hit points, ends with 7, and is a bleeding wreck.  Sometimes I want 7/80 to look "winded, tired, slower than he usually is, but with no more than a few small scrapes from his duel with Duke Ranciar".  

- Possible realism with guns?: I don't know squat about gunfights, but from the squat I know, I don't think that most gunfights involve even people we'd consider "high-level" getting grazed dozens of times during a fight.  Most heroic war stories I've heard involve people getting nearly shot a bunch of times, maybe hit once really bad, or something along those lines.  I'm sure exceptions exist, though.

EDIT: Uh, failed to complete my last sentence for some reason... dur.


----------



## Kelleris (Sep 5, 2004)

*whew*

I was afraid that someone would take offense to something overly-blunt I said.  Although that doesn't seem to be the case, apologies if you did.

Thanks for the comment, Mustrum, I was beginning to wonder if I was the only person here who thought that way.  I do have to 'fess up on one point, though, which you made me remember - doubled power from +2 levels doesn't necessarily mean that each individual factor (feats, class abilities, saves) is doubled in importance, although I think that's indicated in the case of hp.



> I don't really use a geometric-power-increase assumption for my modern d20 games - a 12th level warrior isn't worth 2 10th levellers...




Aside from the examples I quoted, my main reason for arguing this is that it's the assumption that the experience point award system uses: 2 Cr 10 creatures is an EL 12 encounter, 4 is EL 14, 8 is EL 16, and so forth until the numbers break down at large  mobs of creatures.  It may not be _true_, but it is the impression the game designers seem to have been laboring under.

I have to say, though, that it doesn't work quite as well in D20 Modern, although I think they use the same system, because high-level Modern characters are not usually as radically better-equipped than their low-level counterparts as they are in D&D.



> Fireballs - I'd equate these to an HE mortar round in their effects - great vs people & unarmoured vehicles. The best D&D spells for attacking vehicles are the landscape-shaping ones like Rock to Mud...




I was just citing equivalencies in terms of raw damage.  If you were actually planning on blowing up a vehicle, the RPG is better, because it ignores some of the thing's hardness.

And the _best _D&D spell for attacking vehicles is _disintegrate_.  That 10' cube pretty much puts whatever you point it at out of commission.  I'd feel a little dirty doing it, though.    

takyris - I like your explanation of what hp means.  Wish I could add something to it, but that's pretty much exactly what I do.  Well, except that I enjoy occasionally rendering my PCs into bloody wrecks.


----------



## takyris (Sep 5, 2004)

Kelleris said:
			
		

> takyris - I like your explanation of what hp means.  Wish I could add something to it, but that's pretty much exactly what I do.  Well, except that I enjoy occasionally rendering my PCs into bloody wrecks.




Oh, definitely, yes.  I have one player who categorically refuses to use the "barely missed" methodology.  He plays Tough heroes, and they come out of a lot of fights looking like Bruce Willis at the end of, well, almost any Bruce Willis movie.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 5, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Personally I would say they are much closer in effect to thermobaric weapons, which are very similar to older FAEs (Fuel Air Explosives).
> 
> High explosve mortar ammunition relies on shrapnel for casualty or destructive effects. I don't see a Fireball as being mechanically similar.




I meant in effect, not in mechanics.  Sure, mechanically a fireball is like a small FAE/FAX attack.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 5, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> Ah.  That clarifies some of it.  Thanks.
> 
> So, to make sure I understand you:
> 
> You have no problem with an enormous greatsword deliving a tiny minor cut to somebody, but you do have a problem with the notion that the greatsword did not make physical contact but drove the person back, caused him to lose footing, forced him to dive to one side in such a manner that he's off-balance and more vulnerable to future attacks, and so forth?  (Not an attack -- want to make sure I'm getting this.)




Eh, yes, I have a problem with the idea that "causing him to lose footing" is reflected in a loss of hit points requiring days to heal!  The D&D hit point mechanic was designed to reflect _damage_, not near misses.  Essentially, it reflects damage proportionate to total hp, so 25/50 looks much the same as 3/6, and  3/50 looks much worse than 3/6.

Trying to twist a damage mechanic to reflect something it was never intended to reflect just doesn't work well IMO.  The D&D/d20 ruleset does a fair job of representing Bruce Willis in Die Hard, or other tough heroes who can take a hit & keep fighting (which is not uncommon in real life - though IRL people have a tendency to drop dead later on once adrenalin fades & they realise how badly wounded they are, which doesn't happen in D&D).  It does a terrible job of reflecting genres where high-level heroes are never hit (and killed by a single bullet if they are hit).  Different genres need different rules.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 5, 2004)

Kelleris said:
			
		

> Aside from the examples I quoted, my main reason for arguing this is that it's the assumption that the experience point award system uses: 2 Cr 10 creatures is an EL 12 encounter, 4 is EL 14, 8 is EL 16, and so forth until the numbers break down at large mobs of creatures. It may not be true, but it is the impression the game designers seem to have been laboring under.
> 
> I have to say, though, that it doesn't work quite as well in D20 Modern, although I think they use the same system, because high-level Modern characters are not usually as radically better-equipped than their low-level counterparts as they are in D&D.




I think it works _better_ in Modern, because of the lower focus on gear. Really, does anyone think a 14th-level fighter NPC is equivalent to a 14th-level fighter PC? It's a lot closer in Modern, however - the NPC gets fewer APs, that's about it.


----------



## takyris (Sep 5, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Eh, yes, I have a problem with the idea that "causing him to lose footing" is reflected in a loss of hit points requiring days to heal!




As opposed to the much more reasonable "You were at -9 hit points, six seconds away from death as a result of having been hit by a car and then blown up by dynamite, but thanks to surgery and first aid, you'll be able to compete in that iron-man triathalon in three days with no physical problems whatsoever" scenario? 



> The D&D hit point mechanic was designed to reflect _damage_, not near misses.  Essentially, it reflects damage proportionate to total hp, so 25/50 looks much the same as 3/6, and  3/50 looks much worse than 3/6.




I'd like to amicably disagree.  I think that at 3/6, you should look worse than at 25/50.  Just in terms of how many of those hit points are coming from Con (your actual toughness and ability to soak damage), that makes more sense to me.  The guy with 3/6 has just taken a punch to the jaw.  The guy with 25/50 has been shot at multiple times and possibly scraped up his knee diving for cover or something.

After long-duration full-contact sparring, I'm sore for at least two days, sometimes three -- and that's a combination of getting banged up but not seriously injured as well as general muscle soreness.  I can easily see a 10th level hero who has about 50 hit points, and 25/50 represents being scuffed a bit but mostly just sore and with a couple pulled muscles from trying to avoid that claymore that was coming his way.  In two days, he'll be at 45/50 without resting all day or even getting First Aid -- meaning that he might have one sore muscle still, or something like that.  Give him First Aid in the form of "Here, take these, they're good for muscle pain", and he's fine in two days on average.  Two days to complete health feels much more like pulled muscles than bullet wounds.



> It does a terrible job of reflecting genres where high-level heroes are never hit (and killed by a single bullet if they are hit).  Different genres need different rules.




Well, I disagree, but it's all in how you interpret things.  No system is perfect for everything.  You twist it so that the injury concept works for you, and I twist it so that the healing concept works for me.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 5, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> As opposed to the much more reasonable "You were at -9 hit points, six seconds away from death as a result of having been hit by a car and then blown up by dynamite, but thanks to surgery and first aid, you'll be able to compete in that iron-man triathalon in three days with no physical problems whatsoever" scenario?




Yeah, I find this is a big problem when I run the low-magic Conan game, where healing is nonmagical.  In 1e if you fell to negative hp you were always incapacitated for at least a week, that was much more plausible and could still be used as desired now as a house rule, I'll prob use it for modern games now I think about it, thanks  .  In many ways 3e moved away from realism, and this causes trouble when trying to play 'real world' genres.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 5, 2004)

3/6 = 25/50 in that in 3e they take the same time to heal, since healing rate is proportionate to level.  25/50 might be a single stab wound or multiple minor wounds, 3/6 most likely a single wound of equal seriousness.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Sep 5, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> In many ways 3e moved away from realism, and this causes trouble when trying to play 'real world' genres.




This assumes that d20 Modern was designed for 'real world' games, yet it really wasn't.  It was designed for 'cinematic action'.  Big difference.  To use but one example, the film DIE HARD is about as close to 'real world' as LORD OF THE RINGS.  Which is to say, both are sheer fantasy.
 

But again comes the eternal question: since when did 'realism' become fun?


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 5, 2004)

Chainsaw Mage said:
			
		

> But again comes the eternal question: since when did 'realism' become fun?




I don't know, but some people see D20 Modern as more realistic than DnD. Even if you're not using FX, it's not more realistic and isn't supposed to be.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 6, 2004)

Chainsaw Mage said:
			
		

> This assumes that d20 Modern was designed for 'real world' games, yet it really wasn't.  It was designed for 'cinematic action'.  Big difference.  To use but one example, the film DIE HARD is about as close to 'real world' as LORD OF THE RINGS.  Which is to say, both are sheer fantasy.
> 
> 
> But again comes the eternal question: since when did 'realism' become fun?




By 'real world genre' I meant anything set in what's nominally the real modern or historical world, without monsters, supernatural, or sf elements.  So Die Hard qualifies, as does Cross of Iron and Unforgiven.  The directors of these films had to consider 'suspension of disbelief' so that what happens on screen looks (to most people) like it could really happen IRL*.  I find 'Cross of Iron' level cinematic realism to be a lot of fun.  

*Of course truth is stranger than fiction, and all that.  In movies when people get shot they fall over, if they're mooks they're dead or unconscious.  IRL some (unarmoured) people have been shot 16 or more times and kept on fighting, which you'll usually not see on TV unless it's a Slasher movie or a docudrama about that FBI ambush that went wrong...


----------



## S'mon (Sep 7, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I think it works _better_ in Modern, because of the lower focus on gear. Really, does anyone think a 14th-level fighter NPC is equivalent to a 14th-level fighter PC? It's a lot closer in Modern, however - the NPC gets fewer APs, that's about it.




Do you think a 14th level PC is equal to 2 12th level or 4 10th level NPCs in d20 Modern, though?


----------



## Aaron2 (Sep 7, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Yeah, I find this is a big problem when I run the low-magic Conan game, where healing is nonmagical.  In 1e if you fell to negative hp you were always incapacitated for at least a week, that was much more plausible and could still be used as desired now as a house rule, I'll prob use it for modern games now I think about it, thanks.




I have a Wounds chart that I roll on whenever a character drops below 0 hps. Depending on the attack, the results can range from simple unconsciousness to losing an arm, leg or head. Many of the result cause ability damage, some of it permanent. I have used it for years in my D&D game and it works well. It still keeps the cinematic element (since there is no death spiral) but usually prevents a character from dropping to -9 and being ok 1 round later thanks to a Cure Serious. I created the chart by figuring out the chance of a character stabilizing based on the normal rules. (For example, a character dropped to -1 hit point has a 65% chance of stabilizing on his own, therefore, my chart only gives a 35% chance for any extra damage.)

Finally, every bad result also has a Fort save to remain conscious (but disabled). So, a high level character can continue fighting even after losing an arm (ala Chinese Ghost Story II) or crawl to safety after a monster bites off their leg. Both are DC 30. 

Of course, in D&D, losing an arm or leg is no big deal. Neither is permanent ability damage. 


Aaron


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 7, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Do you think a 14th level PC is equal to 2 12th level or 4 10th level NPCs in d20 Modern, though?




A group of lower-levels is probably better (more APs to hand out, and since damage is sort of front-loaded and doesn't scale very well)...


----------



## Zoatebix (Sep 8, 2004)

That sounds kind of neat, Aaron2.  Care to share more?


----------



## ledded (Sep 8, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I don't know, but some people see D20 Modern as more realistic than DnD. Even if you're not using FX, it's not more realistic and isn't supposed to be.



Some good discussion in this thread.  Rather than trying to hit tons of the points I'd like to comment on, I just want to throw this one out there.

I've heard a lot of realism/cinematic argument, with both sides having good points, until I don't even refer to it as 'realism' any more.  I guess what a lot of folks really want when they say 'realism' is that they want reliable physics; in Modern games that often becomes much more apparent because people are much more educated about all things modern than they are about greatswords and plate armor.  You tend to be a lot more forgiving about the things you dont have as much experience with.

But still, even some of the hard-core 'realism' fans are really just wanting to see the physics they know something about, whether it be guns, cars, etc to feel more real, so they can better immerse themselves in the _fantasy_ of the game.  Either that, or they just want to nitpick  

Personally, I like my games to run a bit more gritty, with physics as closely matching what we experience in real life, so that the fantastic or cinematic moments feel _so much more_ so when they happen in game, and aren't just the everyday occurrance.  I prefer to suspend my disbelief for the truly unnatural occurances in-game, rather than try to suppress my normal senses to accomodate something that obviously shouldn't work that way.

The designers of d20 system games have went a direction that they did for various reasons involving playability, etc, and sometimes, with the type of system they espouse, you have to sacrifice physics or believability for game play.  Which is why we do our research, house-rule what we dont like or cannot accept, and I go on with life.


----------



## Aaron2 (Sep 9, 2004)

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> That sounds kind of neat, Aaron2.  Care to share more?




There is not much more to share. Its fairly straightforward (only 2 pages). There is a chart based on the target's negative hit points. Roll 1d20 on the chart and you'll get a result like "18D". The number is the Fort save DC to stay conscious and the letter is any extra effect. You look up the "D" on another chart based on the attack type. For example, a "D" from a Piecing weapons yields:

-----
"The weapon has been driven straight through your shoulder." 
Take 1d4 points of ability damage:
	1-3	Strength
	4-5	Constitution
	6	Dexterity
Bleed to death 2d6 rounds
-----

I tried to make it as close as possible to the similar table in WFRP (since that is the game world I use). The Bleed to death part replaces the normal stabilization rolls. For NPCs, there is a quick result line so you don't have to roll for them. 

Unfortunately, my web page is down until I find a new service. If your interested, email me at akkala@cyberramp.net and I'll send you the 24k PDF file (or a .doc file if you feel you'd like to change some of it).


Aaron


----------



## Zoatebix (Sep 9, 2004)

Hmmm... maybe I'll just make an addendum to the Grim Tales action point rules - the GM reserves the right to do something mean (sever a limb, etc.) to a disabled or dying character in exchange for awarding an action point to said character.


----------

