AR??

[goodhometownboy]

is it me or does AR seem confusing? well at least in the heroes setting? armor doesn't nothing because everyone has mass bounses? unless you have an are or 20 something.... how do you guys do AR... i can understand AR with old knights armor but what about robot armor? and full body armor? 2 shots over the ar and the player is dead?

[Nemo235]

You have to remember a couple things.

Combat can be deadly, even for supers.

Dodging and running away are options.

[drewkitty ~..~]

There are two types of AR, Natural AR (NAR/NatAR) and reguler AR (AR).

AR: This type is based off the protetion valuse of different anchent armors. To hit the person inside you have to roll over the AR to hit the person inside. if you roll under the AR and still strike you damage the armor. (opinion: to strike target number + AR = number you have to roll over to hit the guy inside. thus if you are trying to punch the guy and he it wearing AR10 armor, then to hit the guy inside you would need a roll of 14. OR they have to roll over the AR with the nat die roll.)

NatAR: this is is based off super powers that turn the hero "as hard as steal"...or in APS case into steal. Any hit that strikes below the NAR bounces off, or is ignored. With both there is no damage to the hero.

Now if you are making a hard suit sort of armor, I would give it a Nat AR of at least 4. A Nat AR 4 says that you have to reduce the SDC of the suit before you can damage the wearer.

Sometimes Nat AR is called Robotic AR, but they are the same.

[Noon]

AR helps you ignore grunts (who have low to hit scores)

[JTwig]

is it me or does AR seem confusing? well at least in the heroes setting? armor doesn't nothing because everyone has mass bounses? unless you have an are or 20 something.... how do you guys do AR... i can understand AR with old knights armor but what about robot armor? and full body armor? 2 shots over the ar and the player is dead?

Like Drewkitty said, there are different types of armor rating.

Natural/Robotic/Vehicle Armor Ratings: Any roll to strike below the AR does no damage.

Body Armor Armor Ratings: Any roll to strike below the AR does damage to the armor's S.D.C., while any roll to strike above the AR does damage directly to the person wearing the armor.

[lather]

I don't think the problem is with the AR.

[GreenGhost]

I don't like the whole AR System. It doesn't make any sense to me.

First of all; the AR Target Number is designed for those that don't use Hit Location to see whether or not a character is hit where unprotected.

The problem with this is that it's not very realistic (yes- realism is a big part for me). If an attacker rolls under a character's body armor's AR the character is protected. Now using this rule as it's written picture this: A character is wearing a concealed vest with an AR of 10. A sniper on a rooftop fires a round from the common caliber of 7.62mm and strikes the character in the chest, but rolls a 9. The character receives no damage. This is a rediculous rule considering the limited amount of protection that a concealed vest provides. True it's better than nothing, but for rifle calibers it does little to nothing to protect the wearer. I've converted the AR into the PV from the Compendium of Modern Weapons. It's much more realistic and gives the characters and players a sense of mortality.

I know realism isn't for everyone, but with my personal life experiences and what I know about weapons and penetration (I know there are those out there that know a lot more than me) I like the games that I GM to be more realistic. I've fallen from the "Reality Ladder" over the past few years trying to make players happy, but I think it's time to meet in the middle on this and get back to realism. In my 25+ years of gaming it's proven to make better games and players.

[lather]

In a shooting game I don't mind using the Modern Weapons rules.

Although we typically don't. But that's just because if we're shooting, we're usually playing RECON. If it's a game such as BtS or TMNT, we don't generally bother with the work required to use Modern Weapons system.

[GreenGhost]

In a shooting game I don't mind using the Modern Weapons rules.

Although we typically don't. But that's just because if we're shooting, we're usually playing RECON. If it's a game such as BtS or TMNT, we don't generally bother with the work required to use Modern Weapons system.

Personally- I don't see it as "work required." The way I do it makes combat a lot shorter (a lot less dice rolling and a lot more "game time"). It took me about 5 minutes to do the conversion of AR to PV and that was all the work I put into it

I can see where my "rule" wouldn't fit very well with RECON though

[GreenGhost]

GreenGhost, do you care to elaborate on your system? I have always had a hard time with the AR as it stands. I even had one GM tell me I couldnt return my friends plate even if there wasn't a scratch on it. Said it smelled or something like that. Then there was the opposite method in PFRPG, people would buy crap armor and enchant the heck out of it with stuff like flying and invisibility. Figuring that the armor would never get damaged cause it's AR was only 5.
Thanks
DD

I have the AR to PV Conversion at home. I'd have to find it, but then I'd have no problem giving it to you. It's pretty simple and not elaborate, but it works

As for modern bodty armor; it can start to stink. How long or short a period of time depends on how often it's being used, the length of time each use is and not to mention the climate. I know mine stank a few times. I'm not sure if the "plates" that you're talking about above is the "insertion plates" used in modern body armor or not. If it is they can also start stinking after a while too. How quickly they start to stink depends on what type of "insertion plates" are being used (i.e. ceramics, kevlar, steel, etc.). In my experience (and opinion) kevlar starts to stink before steel. I honestly have no experience with ceraminc plates- so I can't comment on that type.

I hope this answers your question and I'll get that AR to PV Conversion for you as soon as I can

[GreenGhost]

Plate Mail, my friend got killed and his armor hadn't been damaged at all. So being a loyal party member, I took his armor off of his corpse, scrubbed the blood stains off, and took it to a merchant. I figured he didn't need his armor any more, and I could always use some more money.

And no rush on those conversions.
Thanks
DD

LOL! That's why I use Hit Locations

[Noon]

Greenghost, doesn't the conceiled vest have an SDC rating - so if the shot destroys its SDC, whatevers left flows onto the target?

It's only natural AR that makes all the damage just disapear.

[Northern Ranger]

It's always been my way to use AR simply. The AR of any type of armor (and keep in mind folks I generally only play PF) is the number one needs to roll higher than in order to penetrate the armor the target is wearing. Now, when you have characters with exceptionally high strike bonuses, as most of us who have been playing this game for a while generally do, it isn't that difficult to roll higher than an AR. Therefore, I generally rule that the damage from any strike that goes over AR is divided between the targets armor and his/her body. For example, if a character rolled damage of 16, 8 points would come from the armor and 8 points would come from the AR. Not only does this keep the AR system in the game, it means the characters actually have to buy new armor on occasion. However, it still lets the armor do its job, protect the wearer.

PS- There are occasions, like on critical strikes, when I let the majority of the damage come off the body and the armor only reduces it by a minimum amount. I call damage reduction and each type of armor has a certain amount that it reduces damage by in these circumstances. (The better quality the armor, the higher the damage reduction.)

[GreenGhost]

Greenghost, doesn't the conceiled vest have an SDC rating - so if the shot destroys its SDC, whatevers left flows onto the target?

It's only natural AR that makes all the damage just disapear.

True, but think of it this way. A character wearing a concealed vest is hit by a .50 caliber round. Damage being 1D6x10 SDC- say the attacker rolled a pathetic "1" which equals 10 SDC worth of damage. Even though the SDC of the concealed vest is more than 10 (I don't remember off hand what the total SDC really is for a concealed vest) the bullet itself would have penetrated the armor. If playing realisticly a bullet can pass though SDC body armor without distroying all the body armor's SDC, but it would depend on the class of protection the body armor provides and the caliber of the bullet doing the impacting. I use the Compendium of Modern Weapons for this.

[GreenGhost]

It's always been my way to use AR simply. The AR of any type of armor (and keep in mind folks I generally only play PF) is the number one needs to roll higher than in order to penetrate the armor the target is wearing. Now, when you have characters with exceptionally high strike bonuses, as most of us who have been playing this game for a while generally do, it isn't that difficult to roll higher than an AR. Therefore, I generally rule that the damage from any strike that goes over AR is divided between the targets armor and his/her body. For example, if a character rolled damage of 16, 8 points would come from the armor and 8 points would come from the AR. Not only does this keep the AR system in the game, it means the characters actually have to buy new armor on occasion. However, it still lets the armor do its job, protect the wearer.

PS- There are occasions, like on critical strikes, when I let the majority of the damage come off the body and the armor only reduces it by a minimum amount. I call damage reduction and each type of armor has a certain amount that it reduces damage by in these circumstances. (The better quality the armor, the higher the damage reduction.)

It's cool hearing that someone else uses the AR in PF as the target number to "penetrate" the armor instead of finding a "kink" or gap in the armor. One thing that I've been thinking about for a while now is whether or not any bonuses to Strike would be appropriate for penetrating armor. True it makes complete sense to use Strike bonuses to actually hit an opponent, but I don't know if it makes sense that a Strike bonus would aid an attacker in penetrating armor.

One idea that I would like to experiment with is any possible damage bonuses (primarily PS Attribute bonuses) that may aid in actually penetrating armor. I know there are a lot of people in the forums that hate the idea of extra dice rolling in what seems to be an already lengthy combat system, but I don't think this would add any extra dice rolling (remember I haven't put this into test yet).

Here's an example; an elven character with a PS of 16 (+1 to damage) and a PP of 18 (+2 to strike, parry & dodge) is attacking an opponent wearing chainmail armor (AR of 13- if I remember correctly). The player for the elf rolls one 20 sided dice. Say the result of the 20 sider is an 11. Add your PP bonus to the 11 for a total of 13 to strike and add the PS bonus to to the 11 for a total of 12 to penetrate. This would result in making a successful strike to the opponent's armor, but not actually piercing or penetrating it. One dice roll with two results.

Like I said- I haven't play tested this rule yet- so I'm not sure how it'll work in game. If you try it out let me know how it worked for you (good or bad)

[Nemo235]

GreenGhost, I like your idea of the seperate PS and PP bonuses.
I just have one little quibble.
The attacker's roll to hit must be greater than the defender's AR.
If the AR is 13, an attacker must roll a 14 or greater.

Also I have a question:
Let's say on an attack roll the PS bonus misses, but the PP bonus is a hit.
Would you say the attack still causes knockback/knockdown?
I would think yes because the hit connected.

[GreenGhost]

GreenGhost, I like your idea of the seperate PS and PP bonuses.
I just have one little quibble.
The attacker's roll to hit must be greater than the defender's AR.
If the AR is 13, an attacker must roll a 14 or greater.

Also I have a question:
Let's say on an attack roll the PS bonus misses, but the PP bonus is a hit.
Would you say the attack still causes knockback/knockdown?
I would think yes because the hit connected.

Sorry- I guess I didn't clarify about that. You'd still be able to hit an opponent like normal (5 or higher), but if you didn't pierce or penetrate the armor by rolling higher than the AR then the damage would only be done to the armor and the character inside would be ok. Does that make sense?

As for your second question: yes- if the strike was successful (even if it didn't penetrate the armor) you would still have the possibility to knock an opponent backwards or off their feet. You could knock an opponent back and against a tree, off a horse, over the side of a bridge or off a cliff even if the armor hasn't been penetrated.

Like I said- I think this ideas has some merit and could be for interresting combat, but I've never tested it- so it could suck- lol.

[GreenGhost]

GreenGhost, I like your idea of the seperate PS and PP bonuses.
I just have one little quibble.
The attacker's roll to hit must be greater than the defender's AR.
If the AR is 13, an attacker must roll a 14 or greater.

Also I have a question:
Let's say on an attack roll the PS bonus misses, but the PP bonus is a hit.
Would you say the attack still causes knockback/knockdown?
I would think yes because the hit connected.

Sorry- I guess I didn't clarify about that. You'd still be able to hit an opponent like normal (5 or higher), but if you didn't pierce or penetrate the armor by rolling higher than the AR then the damage would only be done to the armor and the character inside would be ok. Does that make sense?

As for your second question: yes- if the strike was successful (even if it didn't penetrate the armor) you would still have the possibility to knock an opponent backwards or off their feet. You could knock an opponent back and against a tree, off a horse, over the side of a bridge or off a cliff even if the armor hasn't been penetrated.

Like I said- I think this ideas has some merit and could be for interresting combat, but I've never tested it- so it could suck- lol.

I like the sound of it.

Sounds very close to my recent brain farts:

I personally like the way GURPS handles Armor, but I am not sure how to apply it to palladium.


What I was considering doing was only using the actual natural roll against AR. Like if you rolled 15 against an AR of 13 would succeed, but a roll of 12 with a +3 strike bonus would not penatrate, all damage would go to SDC's of the armor (really I want to beef up SDC's too maybe just 20 or so, maybe 30 or even 40, especially for 2nd edition PF) . The strike bonuses would only apply to the contest of strike vs dodge/parry. Does that make sense? Just kind of kicking the idea around. What do you think about that?

I don't know how Gurps handles their Armor.

It looks like we're thinking the same way when it comes to penetrating body armor. The only thing that I can think would make it a little better is by giving a bonus to penetrate the armor due to the character's PS. The way I see it is- the stronger the character the better chance they would have to pierce an opponent's armor. Maybe make it simple like- a PS of 18 would have a +3 to Damage and Penetrate Armor. The "Penetration Bonus" wouldn't apply to bow weapons unless there is a special condition.

[GreenGhost]

GreenGhost, I like your idea of the seperate PS and PP bonuses.
I just have one little quibble.
The attacker's roll to hit must be greater than the defender's AR.
If the AR is 13, an attacker must roll a 14 or greater.

Also I have a question:
Let's say on an attack roll the PS bonus misses, but the PP bonus is a hit.
Would you say the attack still causes knockback/knockdown?
I would think yes because the hit connected.

Sorry- I guess I didn't clarify about that. You'd still be able to hit an opponent like normal (5 or higher), but if you didn't pierce or penetrate the armor by rolling higher than the AR then the damage would only be done to the armor and the character inside would be ok. Does that make sense?

As for your second question: yes- if the strike was successful (even if it didn't penetrate the armor) you would still have the possibility to knock an opponent backwards or off their feet. You could knock an opponent back and against a tree, off a horse, over the side of a bridge or off a cliff even if the armor hasn't been penetrated.

Like I said- I think this ideas has some merit and could be for interresting combat, but I've never tested it- so it could suck- lol.

I like the sound of it.

Sounds very close to my recent brain farts:

I personally like the way GURPS handles Armor, but I am not sure how to apply it to palladium.


What I was considering doing was only using the actual natural roll against AR. Like if you rolled 15 against an AR of 13 would succeed, but a roll of 12 with a +3 strike bonus would not penatrate, all damage would go to SDC's of the armor (really I want to beef up SDC's too maybe just 20 or so, maybe 30 or even 40, especially for 2nd edition PF) . The strike bonuses would only apply to the contest of strike vs dodge/parry. Does that make sense? Just kind of kicking the idea around. What do you think about that?

I don't know how Gurps handles their Armor.

It looks like we're thinking the same way when it comes to penetrating body armor. The only thing that I can think would make it a little better is by giving a bonus to penetrate the armor due to the character's PS. The way I see it is- the stronger the character the better chance they would have to pierce an opponent's armor. Maybe make it simple like- a PS of 18 would have a +3 to Damage and Penetrate Armor. The "Penetration Bonus" wouldn't apply to bow weapons unless there is a special condition.

Yeah something like that makes sense. The reason i want to beef up SDC's of armor is that in PF everyone starts with about 20-50 sdcs, and thats more than leather and chainmail has in some cases. I don't know about any one else, but my skin is a whole lot easier to penetrate than chain mail or hard leather or even soft leather.


To me armor should have 2 AR's. 1 vs swing attacks, 1 vs peircing.
and likewise weapons should have 2 damage ratings: swing and stab.

Chainmail is effective against swing attacks, but not near as effective against peircing attacks (ex. arrows).

I've noticed the low SDC for armor as well. A coule of hits on a suit of chainmail and it's just dead weight and offers no protection.

The armor having 2 ARs makes sense, but would it cause confusion or bog down a game? How would you determine the 2nd AR? I'm interested in hearing more about this. It'd make combat more realistic and that's what I prefer

[GreenGhost]

It really sounds good to me man. It would even help players be more detailed in their character's combat. This would in return help the GM to know exactly how their NPC would react to a character's attack in combat. For example; if a NPC attacked a character with a sword thrust and the character made a successful parry the NPC's back may be exposed to the character.

I really think this is a great idea that you have. Do you have a formula or how do you figure out what the piercing damage would be?

[GreenGhost]

I noticed that almost every example you listed had a lower AR versus piercing. I was just wondering about balance. Do piercing attacks do less damage. I guess after 9 or so inches, another foot and a half of steel going through the same hole wouldn't make that much difference. Still sounds interesting.
DD

Oh and isnt there a compendium of ancient weapons and armor?
One last thought, if we are striving for realism, how would blunt weapons interact with armor.

I think it's easier to pierce armor with a thrust (or arrow or bolt) than a sword swipe so I think the lower AR for piercing makes sense. As for damage; I was originally thinking that piercing damage would be more, but when you said, "a foot and a half of steel going through the same hole" wouldn't make much difference made a lot of sense. So- thanks to you for that

Yep- there is a weapons book for PF. Castles, Armor and Weapons (or something like that). I have it and think the book is pretty good.

As for blunt weapons I would think that they'd damage the armor on a normal strike, but maybe (now I haven't thought this through completely yet, but...) if when using a PS bonus towards the "Armor Penetration" and the strike roll is higher than the AR then the character receives a particular amount of damage under the armor. I don't know 50% or 75%. What do you think?

[bigbobsr6000]

Swords: Piercing attack reduces the AR by –1 per number of damage die used by that weapon. EX: 2d4 = -2 to AR of armor attempting to be pierced. If the weapon is designed for piercing, reduce the AR further by –1 per size of weapon. Small –1, medium –2, large –3, etc. EX: A punching dagger that does 1d4 reduces AR by –2. A –1 for small punching weapon and a –1 for one damage die.

Blunt Weapon: AR x 5% absorbs that much of damage. Rest is transferred to the wearer. AR of 12 = 60% (12x5%=60%) damage absorption from blunt weapon. EX: Armor of AR 12 hit by hammer (attacker rolls 12 or less) that does say, 3d4+5 (+5 PS Bonus) rolls a 10+5=15 points of damage. 60% of this is “soaked” up by the armor. This means (15x60%=9) 9 points damage to the armor and 6 points of damage to the wearer. Plus, a chance (GM’s discretion) to be knocked back or down.

Slash Attack: Must exceed AR to do damage to the wearer.

Ranged Weapons (Bullets and Arrows): 5% chance per number of damage die to pierce the armor and bypass the AR. EX: Weapon does 5d6 damage = 25% chance of piercing the armor to damage the wearer. Reduce damage by 1 damage die to the wearer to simulate the projectile slowing down from passing through the material and the material absorbing some damage. This means you must roll percentile first to see if it pierces the armor before assigning damage. If does not pierce armor all damage goes to the armor. Plus, a chance (GM’s discretion) to be knocked back or down.

NOTE: The ranged weapon penetration is based on a normal round or arrow. Non-armor piercing or metal jacketed. Nor does it take into account close range. These additional factors I leave up to the GM. I triple the piercing chance within 10 feet. Double it out to 20 feet. (For arrows in particular). If using an armor punching arrow or armor piercing bullet it lessens the AR by -2 per damage die and does full damage to wearer if penetrates. This replaces percent chance to penetrate. Of course this only out to the weapon’s first range increment. Another note you may want to increase the chance of crossbow to pierce armor vs. hand drawn bow as they normally launch arrows harder.

As to the single damage die, use half damage carries through minimal of 1.

As always, feedback welcome. Thanks, Big Bob……………………

[bigbobsr6000]

Some of that sounds straightforward, but I'd hate to figure 25%, 60%, or 85% of various dice of damage (which could easily range by multiple dice pools) on the fly. Easier to use a less realistic, more simplistic damage reduction system. A balance must be struck.

Realism or speed of Combat Round? HHhhmmmmm........decisions.......decisions?? Of course this has plagued gamers since the dawn of time.

[GreenGhost]

Swords: Piercing attack reduces the AR by –1 per number of damage die used by that weapon. EX: 2d4 = -2 to AR of armor attempting to be pierced. If the weapon is designed for piercing, reduce the AR further by –1 per size of weapon. Small –1, medium –2, large –3, etc. EX: A punching dagger that does 1d4 reduces AR by –2. A –1 for small punching weapon and a –1 for one damage die.

Blunt Weapon: AR x 5% absorbs that much of damage. Rest is transferred to the wearer. AR of 12 = 60% (12x5%=60%) damage absorption from blunt weapon. EX: Armor of AR 12 hit by hammer (attacker rolls 12 or less) that does say, 3d4+5 (+5 PS Bonus) rolls a 10+5=15 points of damage. 60% of this is “soaked” up by the armor. This means (15x60%=9) 9 points damage to the armor and 6 points of damage to the wearer. Plus, a chance (GM’s discretion) to be knocked back or down.

Slash Attack: Must exceed AR to do damage to the wearer.

Ranged Weapons (Bullets and Arrows): 5% chance per number of damage die to pierce the armor and bypass the AR. EX: Weapon does 5d6 damage = 25% chance of piercing the armor to damage the wearer. Reduce damage by 1 damage die to the wearer to simulate the projectile slowing down from passing through the material and the material absorbing some damage. This means you must roll percentile first to see if it pierces the armor before assigning damage. If does not pierce armor all damage goes to the armor. Plus, a chance (GM’s discretion) to be knocked back or down.

As always, feedback welcome. Thanks, Big Bob……………………

VERY NICE! I like it! The only one that I, personally, would increase is the Ranged Weapons (primarily arrows and bolts). I would think they'd have a better chance in piercing armor due to their. I would say as much as 15% per damage die. I do like the idea of some of the lethality being reduced due to the armor impact. What about a shortbow that does 1D6 damage though?

[GreenGhost]

It really sounds good to me man. It would even help players be more detailed in their character's combat. This would in return help the GM to know exactly how their NPC would react to a character's attack in combat. For example; if a NPC attacked a character with a sword thrust and the character made a successful parry the NPC's back may be exposed to the character.

I really think this is a great idea that you have. Do you have a formula or how do you figure out what the piercing damage would be?

No I don't have a formula, I am just brainstorming here...I have not play tested any of this, just throwing ideas out, anyone wishing to help is appreciated.

I read though that there were certain arrow heads that were designed to bust open the links in chainmal and leaving a huge whole. Infact in certain places in Europe it was illegal to carry them in peace time and was punishable by death, for fear that the carrier would be attempting to kill the Lord/Noble.


I am not sure after reading up on the English longbow that peircing was anymore or less effective against platemail. Platemail was still very effective against arrows. People in platemail were juggernaughts, but still they had openings that could not be protected.

So maybe platemail should be AR 17/17. (swing/peirce)
But Studded Leather 13/10.
Chainmail (corrected) should be 14/11.
Doublemail 15/13

It's been a long time sense I played with my old group (11 years), but I believe we played that even when you rolled over the AR, you split the damage between Armor and PC. 50/50.

I agree with you on all, but the piercing of platemail when it comes to arrows. When I was living in Indianapolis, IN there was a museum that had one of those temporary display that showed several pieces of platemail armor and the arrow used to pierce it. They had another display with pieces of platemail (from different sets of armor) so you could see what the armor look like when worn. I thought it was pretty impressive. The majority of the display showed punctures in the torso area. Seeing that, IMO, I'd probaly lower the Piercing AR down a bit.

[bigbobsr6000]

Swords: Piercing attack reduces the AR by –1 per number of damage die used by that weapon. EX: 2d4 = -2 to AR of armor attempting to be pierced. If the weapon is designed for piercing, reduce the AR further by –1 per size of weapon. Small –1, medium –2, large –3, etc. EX: A punching dagger that does 1d4 reduces AR by –2. A –1 for small punching weapon and a –1 for one damage die.

Blunt Weapon: AR x 5% absorbs that much of damage. Rest is transferred to the wearer. AR of 12 = 60% (12x5%=60%) damage absorption from blunt weapon. EX: Armor of AR 12 hit by hammer (attacker rolls 12 or less) that does say, 3d4+5 (+5 PS Bonus) rolls a 10+5=15 points of damage. 60% of this is “soaked” up by the armor. This means (15x60%=9) 9 points damage to the armor and 6 points of damage to the wearer. Plus, a chance (GM’s discretion) to be knocked back or down.

Slash Attack: Must exceed AR to do damage to the wearer.

Ranged Weapons (Bullets and Arrows): 5% chance per number of damage die to pierce the armor and bypass the AR. EX: Weapon does 5d6 damage = 25% chance of piercing the armor to damage the wearer. Reduce damage by 1 damage die to the wearer to simulate the projectile slowing down from passing through the material and the material absorbing some damage. This means you must roll percentile first to see if it pierces the armor before assigning damage. If does not pierce armor all damage goes to the armor. Plus, a chance (GM’s discretion) to be knocked back or down.

As always, feedback welcome. Thanks, Big Bob……………………

VERY NICE! I like it! The only one that I, personally, would increase is the Ranged Weapons (primarily arrows and bolts). I would think they'd have a better chance in piercing armor due to their. I would say as much as 15% per damage die. I do like the idea of some of the lethality being reduced due to the armor impact. What about a shortbow that does 1D6 damage though?

Thanks, for the FB. The ranged weapon penetration is based on a normal round or arrow. Non-armor piercing or metal jacketed. Nor does it take into account close range. These additional factors I leave up to the GM. I triple the piercing chance within 10 feet. Double it out to 20 feet. (For arrows in particular). If using an armor punching arrow or armor piercing bullet it lessens the AR by -2 per damage die and does full damage to wearer if penetrates. This replaces percent chance to penetrate. Of course this only out to the weapon’s first range increment. Another note you may want to increase the chance of crossbow to pierce armor vs. hand drawn bow as they normally launch arrows harder.

As to the single damage die I use half damage carries through minimal of 1.

Hope this helps, feel free to use and abuse as you see fit, thanks, Big Bob………………..

[GreenGhost]

Sounds good to me. The range idea is cool too. Have you play tested it?

[bigbobsr6000]

Sounds good to me. The range idea is cool too. Have you play tested it?

Yep! The players were: "But I go all this armor for protection...WWwwaaaaa!......WWwwaaaaaa!......" But players, you get to do it to the baddies as well. "WWwwaaaa?....oh...o.k......I guess." After the initial "What the...?" they liked it.

[Mouser13]

Also seen someone else do it that armor has 1/10 of its current M.D.C. damage reduction and said that armor piecreing missiles/items bypassed this. Though they did it to stop the .22 handgun slowly chipping away at the tank.

[GreenGhost]

Sounds good to me. The range idea is cool too. Have you play tested it?

Yep! The players were: "But I go all this armor for protection...WWwwaaaaa!......WWwwaaaaaa!......" But players, you get to do it to the baddies as well. "WWwwaaaa?....oh...o.k......I guess." After the initial "What the...?" they liked it.

I know what you mean. Sometimes I think getting the players to understand that the rules apply to them and me is the hardest thing.

[bigbobsr6000]

Sounds good to me. The range idea is cool too. Have you play tested it?

Yep! The players were: "But I go all this armor for protection...WWwwaaaaa!......WWwwaaaaaa!......" But players, you get to do it to the baddies as well. "WWwwaaaa?....oh...o.k......I guess." After the initial "What the...?" they liked it.

I know what you mean. Sometimes I think getting the players to understand that the rules apply to them and me is the hardest thing.

Thanks for the FB. Let me know if you try this and how it works so I can get another play test input as I just have mine own. It seems to work well just a little more math in the combat round. But once we all got used to it, it didn't affect the speed of gameplay that much.