Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Modern 2.0: Equipment or Say goodbye to the 8 Strength Commando

I have a pet peeve: the 8 Strength commando toting a Desert Eagle and wearing heavy armor. Yes, I've seen it and yes, it annoys me.

So, all weapons and armor in Modern 2.0 will all have a Strength minimum.

The Strength min will determine (along with your Strength score natch) what weapons can be used one-handed, two-handed, two-weapon fighting, etc.

Armor's ONLY requirements will be Strength and money.


No feats. That's dumb too.

6 comments:

Larry Clapp said...

Are you assuming that any soldier that made it through basic training could correctly use any armor (a reasonable simplification, if you ask me, even in the event that it's not strictly true), or are you assuming that any strong person whatsoever could use any armor flawlessly, or are you just deciding that skills to use armor use up valuable feats and you think it's dumb and adds nothing to the game?

That is, in what way is it dumb? :)

Chuck said...

I think requiring ANY feats to use armor is dumb. Considering how big of a resource feats represent.

But in d20 Modern core, using heavy armor requires THREE feats!

That's especially dumb.

So I just decided to tie it into Strength. You can learn to use any armor without spending a finite resource, it's just a matter of what you're strong enough to wear effectively in the field.

DNAphil said...

I like the strength requirement for guns. The old Mayfair game Underground had Strength requirements for its various weapons. I like that.

Think there is some kind of training in properly using heavier armors, but not light ones. Seriously, do I need a feat to put on my Leather Jacket to go out to my car? But I can see some kind of training required for putting on full tactical armor correctly and being able to freely move about in it. Could you make the best of both worlds, and have one Armor Feat (which the combat orientated classes will get anyway) and then make the feats based on strength. So that I take the feat, so I can properly use say Medium and Heavy armor, and then my strength determines if I can wear the heaviest armor?

Just a thought.

Chuck said...

I can see the realism in requiring a feat to use armor or weapons, I just think it's dumb.

Consider this my way of giving back something to my peeps. My home boys.

My players were all sorts of happy when they realized they could just use armor without feats.

Paul King said...

I know all Modern character got SWP for free, which makes sense. However, to use a weapon correctly takes some training. For instance, I own a sword, but I don't know how to use it effectively.

Likewise for armor. I can see the lighter ones not needing a feat (leather jacket example above). But tactical armor (or full plate :D ) takes some know-how to put it on correctly so that you can move freely (or as freely as the armor permits).

Charles said...

Sure, I can see armor requiring some "know how" to use effectively, but what are we talking about here?

As I look over the breakdown of Army Basic Training at goarmy.com for example, I see days devoted to bayonet training, several days devoted to endurance and fitness and several days devoted to firearms.

There's not a single entry devoted to "armor training".

I can see armor requiring some practice to get into and out of, take care of, wear effectively, and so on.

ESPECIALLY medieval armor where you need to know what to wear UNDER it so the chains you're wearing don't turn you to hamburger during the 10 mile march to the other guy with the sword.

But three feats?

That's a holdover from D&D, an attempt to make heavy armor rare, somehow "special".

The average d20 Modern character gets between 10 and 12 feats over the course of his career, 6 total for character level, plus any bonus feats for advanced classes.

I just never saw the point of trying to use armor to suck three feats out of the game's "economy".

It's an artifact from D&D, an attempt to impose the "armor guy" archetype (one of the benefits of the fighter classes in D&D) on the modern world.

Now in Modern 2.0, getting rid of these annoying artifacts was one of my goals. I thought about tying armor use to a skill, like I did with firearms and weapons.

But I didn't want to make a skill just for that.

As I looked at the existing skills, Athletics came closest. But it's not part of normal athletic training.

It's a specialized skill.

Does that mean it MUST be represented in the game?

I'm of two minds on it frankly.