Armor Rating and 8 to strike

[SkyeFyre]

Ok, I've tried to play by the rules for long enough. I've recently started to bend and start incorporating my own house rules. My most recent issue has come in the form of armor rating. With the change to the needed strike roll in RUE to 8, armor rating seems less effective (in reality it's not really but hear me out). My main problem is with armor ratings between 8-12. The armor provides a bit of protection, but I feel it diminishes the threat to characters.

It can be argued that it provides a bit of an advantage if someone just barely makes their strike roll. So on those rolls the armor wearer is able to absorb a shot and keep going. Just now they don't actually take any damage at all if it's below 8. Sounds like a win for the defender.

The problem is that if the armor cannot be damaged more often, it brings into question how important the armor is. Also, it messes with the economy and mechanics of the game. At one time the players needed to perform more repairs and manage their armor more carefully. Now armor has become more of a "just in case" type thing and no longer an absolute means of protection.

Basically, in every sense it puts ranged weapons at a disadvantage while making armor less important.

I'm debating if I need to change this rule so I'd like your thoughts on the subject. Has anyone just left it? Has anyone got some decent house rules to work with it? Let me know what you think.

[Giant2005]

The 8 required to hit isn't a straight roll like a natural 20 or 1, it is with modifiers. If you want your enemies to hit more often just give them Sharpshooting, give them sniper, give them targetting eyes, give them a balanced weapon. You could stack up enough bonuses that it is impossible for them to miss unless they roll a 1 or the defender dodges - you don't really need to change the game.

[SpiritInterface]

The 8 required to hit isn't a straight roll like a natural 20 or 1, it is with modifiers. If you want your enemies to hit more often just give them Sharpshooting, give them sniper, give them targetting eyes, give them a balanced weapon. You could stack up enough bonuses that it is impossible for them to miss unless they roll a 1 or the defender dodges - you don't really need to change the game.

The problem with requiring an 8 to just hit is that a 1st level character with wp e-pistol (+3 to hit) still misses 20% of the time. With requiring 5 or better to hit means that a character with training can hit human sized static target 95% of the time.

With modifiers for your moving, the targets moving and cover is it really necessary to make it harder to hit?

As for concealed or light body armor with AR of 12, yes raising the number needed to hit up to a 8 does diminish its effectiveness.

[SkyeFyre]

The 8 required to hit isn't a straight roll like a natural 20 or 1, it is with modifiers. If you want your enemies to hit more often just give them Sharpshooting, give them sniper, give them targetting eyes, give them a balanced weapon. You could stack up enough bonuses that it is impossible for them to miss unless they roll a 1 or the defender dodges - you don't really need to change the game.

I don't think you understand what I am trying to say. My problem is not that I want people to hit more often, it's that armor becomes less useful.

Before the 8 to strike rule a suit of armor with an AR of 12 would absorb damage 45% of the time.
After the 8 to strike rule a suit of armor with an AR of 12 will only absorb damage 25% of the time.

Before the 8 to strike rule a suit of armor with an AR of 8 would absorb damage 25% of the time
After the 8 to strike rule a suit of armor with an AR of 8 will only absorb damage 5% of the time.

Basically with this rule it's made armor 20% less useful. It doesn't hurt the defender at all, but it brings into question why you're even it wearing anymore.

[Zamion138]

What has an AR of 8? a really light vest, that covers the upper chest and not the belly?
an AR of 8 was probaly never the end all of protection, your head, arms ,hands,and feet. Were open to being shot off. Just like modern kevlar vest anyone that thinks wearing one makes them invincible is in for a rude suprise.
An AR of 12 is great it stops being hit more than 50% of the time....you have to roll a natrual 12 before +++'s or the strike hits the armor, So if im wearing plain clothes armor (triax made) and I kick in some doors, the guy inside has a shot gun (S.D.) inless he rolls a 12 to hit it strikes my light MDC armor and i only take the force through the armor not any fragments. even if the bad guy has a +8 to strike and rolls a 9 it still hits the armor. id have a hard time dodging since that makes it a 17 to hit but my armor will absorb it all anyhow.
for AR you dont get add your strike bonus to defeating the armor. Same with natrual AR except that if you get below the AR it does nothing (inless its an sdc creature and you have an MD weapon of course.)

[Noon]

The problem is that if the armor cannot be damaged more often, it brings into question how important the armor is. Also, it messes with the economy and mechanics of the game. At one time the players needed to perform more repairs and manage their armor more carefully. Now armor has become more of a "just in case" type thing and no longer an absolute means of protection.

I'm skeptical your gameplay hinged around this element.

Basically with this rule it's made armor 20% less useful. It doesn't hurt the defender at all, but it brings into question why you're even it wearing anymore.

Well, don't.

And the guy who is otherwise roughly equivalent but still does wear it may end up killing you.

It's only a small advantage (toward saving your own life), so why bother. It's only your life, after all.

[Killer Cyborg]

The 8 required to hit isn't a straight roll like a natural 20 or 1, it is with modifiers. If you want your enemies to hit more often just give them Sharpshooting, give them sniper, give them targetting eyes, give them a balanced weapon. You could stack up enough bonuses that it is impossible for them to miss unless they roll a 1 or the defender dodges - you don't really need to change the game.

I don't think you understand what I am trying to say. My problem is not that I want people to hit more often, it's that armor becomes less useful.

Before the 8 to strike rule a suit of armor with an AR of 12 would absorb damage 45% of the time.
After the 8 to strike rule a suit of armor with an AR of 12 will only absorb damage 25% of the time.

Before the 8 to strike rule a suit of armor with an AR of 8 would absorb damage 25% of the time
After the 8 to strike rule a suit of armor with an AR of 8 will only absorb damage 5% of the time.

Basically with this rule it's made armor 20% less useful. It doesn't hurt the defender at all, but it brings into question why you're even it wearing anymore.

House rule that Armor Ratings, or a fraction thereof, counts as a Parry/Dodge/Roll bonus.
Full AR might be too much, but 1/2 bonus might be reasonable.
On the low end, even stuff with AR 5 would be fairly helpful.
On the high end, it could make a character with Full Plate Armor into a walking tank... but I kind of think that they should be anyway.
To balance things a bit, you could rule that if the attack would have hit if not for the AR bonus, then the armor takes the damage.

[Armorlord]

A roll of 4 or less had been a miss for everything since the beginning.
I know a roll of 7 or less has been a miss in modern ranged combat for a while before RUE came around, though I'm having trouble locating where that started, came around the same time the penalties/movement to hit with speed and movement came out. I know I was already using them (in a vague fashion).
So the 8 thing isn't really a recent RUE change, but even that is only a few points higher than the older rule, so I don't see it throwing things wildly out of whack unless you weren't using '4 or less misses' rule before that.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Some GMs have house rules that add the AR of the armor to the to hit min. as a fix to the problem. As in with needed 8 min to hit, with a 8-16 the attack would hit the armor, and if the attack roll was 17+ would it hit the char.

[SkyeFyre]

Nevermind guys. I figured out my problem. My group's counted bonuses to strike against AR all this time and we've used the house rule so much that we've kind of forgot it was a house rule. Just using the AR on the straight roll fixes everything just fine. Thanks for the insight.

[Armorlord]

Nevermind guys. I figured out my problem. My group's counted bonuses to strike against AR all this time and we've used the house rule so much that we've kind of forgot it was a house rule. Just using the AR on the straight roll fixes everything just fine. Thanks for the insight.

While I recall natural rolls being the case in 1st Edition Palladium Fantasy, PFRPG 2nd, BtS 1st, Nightbane, and HU just say 'roll', Dead Reign counts bonuses but inexplicably denies them for headshots, BtS 2nd and AtB count 'rolls to strike' which seems to indicate strike bonuses would apply, and the MD settings of Robotech and Rifts pretend AR doesn't exist as best they can.
I did note that all of them had the 5 or better to hit anything. So the 8 or better for modern ranged combat is only 3 points worse.

[Killer Cyborg]

Nevermind guys. I figured out my problem. My group's counted bonuses to strike against AR all this time and we've used the house rule so much that we've kind of forgot it was a house rule. Just using the AR on the straight roll fixes everything just fine. Thanks for the insight.

Strike bonuses DO count against Armor Rating.
Otherwise it would specify that they were talking about the "natural" roll.
If you don't count strike bonuses, that would mean that an the best swordsman in the world would have just as hard of a time stabbing somebody past their armor as a novice that's never even picked up a sword before.

[SkyeFyre]

Nevermind guys. I figured out my problem. My group's counted bonuses to strike against AR all this time and we've used the house rule so much that we've kind of forgot it was a house rule. Just using the AR on the straight roll fixes everything just fine. Thanks for the insight.

Strike bonuses DO count against Armor Rating.
Otherwise it would specify that they were talking about the "natural" roll.
If you don't count strike bonuses, that would mean that an the best swordsman in the world would have just as hard of a time stabbing somebody past their armor as a novice that's never even picked up a sword before.

Ok then. I thought I was right, but someone said it was the other way around and I just took their word for it. Either that or I completely misunderstood them. Either way, thanks for clearing that up for me KC and I guess my dilemma still stands. Although it gives me an idea for my own house rule.

How does this sound?

Strike bonuses do not apply when calculating AR at level 1. At level two up to +1 of your bonus can be applied to the AR check, at level three up to +2 and so on. Makes it so that level 1 characters aren't blowing away AR, but that experienced characters who may have learned all the little quirks about armor can circumvent it.

I realize it's not perfect, but it's an interesting solution that would also give another sense of advancement for the already front heavy man at arms classes.

[Killer Cyborg]

How does this sound?

Strike bonuses do not apply when calculating AR at level 1. At level two up to +1 of your bonus can be applied to the AR check, at level three up to +2 and so on. Makes it so that level 1 characters aren't blowing away AR, but that experienced characters who may have learned all the little quirks about armor can circumvent it.

I realize it's not perfect, but it's an interesting solution that would also give another sense of advancement for the already front heavy man at arms classes.

Not bad.
Let me know how it works out.