Edge Protection rules update (draft)

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by tbone

Follow the URL in the sig. Comments and critique appreciated! (I've got tough skin with EP 15, so don't hold back.)

I'm not too keen on adding a new stat, though adding the split DRs does have some potential. I'll have to think about that one.


You may also want to rethink your Toughness combining with EP at 1:1, that seems a bit broken at present, insofar as it makes your Toughness too tough.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

I'm not too keen on adding a new stat, though adding the split DRs does have some potential. I'll have to think about that one.

It's a suggestion for a new EP stat, yes, but that also removes the "flexible" designation and its specific rules.

That would leave net complexity untouched – except that 4e's flexible armor rule doesn't actually do anything at low TL, so I admit it wins the simplicity comparison. By definition, a rule that doesn't do anything will always be less complex than a rule that does do something. : )

You may also want to rethink your Toughness combining with EP at 1:1, that seems a bit broken at present, insofar as it makes your Toughness too tough.

You mean the way that a point of Toughness* and a point of EP combine to form a point of DR? That's not an arbitrary decision; it's the actual result generated by the interaction of the two. If you try an example, I think you'll see it. Or maybe I misunderstand your point.

* To avoid confusion to passersby: this is an original working of toughness from muscle mass etc., not the official 3e trait Toughness. See article.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by tbone

It's a suggestion for a new EP stat, yes, but that also removes the "flexible" designation and its specific rules.

Hmm, just not sure about needing to add in something else like EP when at heart we're just talking about redoing how blunt trauma is applied.

Originally Posted by tbone

You mean the way that a point of Toughness* and a point of EP combine to form a point of DR? That's not an arbitrary decision; it's the actual result generated by the interaction of the two. If you try an example, I think you'll see it. Or maybe I misunderstand your point.

It just makes for some very tough people not getting hurt at all until they get cut, so what it really does is remove the whole getting hurt concept from getting hit hard on the armor which some of us are trying to incorporate into the armors. In other words, it seems to defeat the purpose of the whole blunt trauma concept.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Hmm, just not sure about needing to add in something else like EP when at heart we're just talking about redoing how blunt trauma is applied.

Sure; as with anything, what you come up with depends on what you want. If you want to model flexible armor with the effect "edge doesn't penetrate, so damage is crushing", then EP is your friend.

Actually, the statement "edge doesn't penetrate, so damage is crushing" on its own, sans stats, does the trick. All EP does is set some point at which the edge does penetrate the armor – something presumably possible with any real armor.

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

It just makes for some very tough people not getting hurt at all until they get cut, so what it really does is remove the whole getting hurt concept from getting hit hard on the armor which some of us are trying to incorporate into the armors. In other words, it seems to defeat the purpose of the whole blunt trauma concept.

The Toughness concept is dang realistic, IMO. Imagine punching a bodybuilder in the beefy pec; chances are you just plain can't hurt him that way. The same with any low-damage blunt blow: thick muscle will absorb it nicely.

If you want to model that effect (and that's IF), then certainly, a beefy build will withstand armor-denting wallops that would nastily bruise a skin-and-bones type. That would be an intentional and desired result of mixing the Toughness rules with flexible armor blunt trauma rules – a feature, not a bug!

I'm not trying to plug the Toughness rule here or in the EP article, though; it's only mentioned at the end of the article for completeness in dealing with the topic. It's a tangent.

[Brandy]

Tbone, it appears that the stated goal is to use EP and give GURPS armors roughly the same defensive values they have now. Many of us believe that armor, perhaps especially plate, doesn't give sufficient protection against the amounts of damage dealt by ordinary low-tech foes.

Is making suggestions for revamping the armor system (lower weight, higher defense for some armors) utilizing your EP rule something you plan to do, or is that something that others of us should take on utilizing your EP mechanic?

Good stuff, though. Now and always.

[Luther]

Agree with Bookman

[chandley]

This is good stuff, and it saves me a lot of work. I do think Ill be taking the less of blunt damage or the original wound modifier (for small piercing), as small bullets simply have less momentum to be doing crushing damage with. A small piercing bullet striking a 1" flat plate that fully stops the bullet will do less damage than a beanbag bullet fired from a caliber that rates as normal piercing, even at similar velocities. The mass is the thing.

But I like it, thanks for posting it in a nice, accessible form!

Chandley

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Bookman

Tbone, it appears that the stated goal is to use EP and give GURPS armors roughly the same defensive values they have now. Many of us believe that armor, perhaps especially plate, doesn't give sufficient protection against the amounts of damage dealt by ordinary low-tech foes.

I didn't address the question of whether GURPS armor offers correct defensive value or not, so I tried to keep overall value unchanged.

Revising it would be an interesting separate topic. Is there some concensus out there on what more "correct" defensive values would be?

Originally Posted by Bookman

Is making suggestions for revamping the armor system (lower weight, higher defense for some armors) utilizing your EP rule something you plan to do, or is that something that others of us should take on utilizing your EP mechanic?

The article text hints that EP could be one little option in a bigger treatise on all things body armor. Maybe if several minds wanted to pool ideas, we could create something worthwhile; I have received many suggestions & idea submissions in the past.

For what it's worth, I made a forum topic at http://www.gamesdiner.com/forum_armor_update for anyone who wants to suggest ideas. I'll give site newsletter subscribers a ping soon too.

Thanks!

[tbone]

Originally Posted by chandley

A small piercing bullet striking a 1" flat plate that fully stops the bullet will do less damage than a beanbag bullet fired from a caliber that rates as normal piercing, even at similar velocities. The mass is the thing.

I agree, if the point is that small-mass bullets should have small basic damage to begin with.

Going on a tangent: I've never warmed to handling of bullets in GURPS, even with 4e's change from crushing to piercing. Seems to me that all piercing should have a damage mod > x1, increasing with caliber size – anything that pierces the flesh should be more injurious than a blunt blow of equivalent force (= same basic hits).

Small caliber bullets would be represented by low basic hits, and a damage mod a little more than x1. DR would of course be useful vs the bullets, as it is now, but anything that prevents the piercing of flesh (i.e., EP) would also be of value, as it should be.

Of course, modeling bullets with "moderate basic hits, high damage multiplier" may have the effect of making body armor too effective overall vs bullets. An armor divisor vs body armor (at least low-tech armor) would fix that, and fits the common view that historical armor quickly proved itself far less useful vs bullets than it had vs low-tech weapons.

Well, all that's been argued in part or whole by others before, and I'm sure there are good counter-arguments too. How to best handle bullets is probably best left to its own thread.

[Brandy]

Is there some concensus out there on what more "correct" defensive values would be?

I think it is fair to say that there a good deal of agreement that armor is too heavy and not proof enough against penetration (though whether it offers the right protection against trauma is less-agreed-upon, I think). I wouldn't want to define consensus for such a large body of opinion, though, and it's probably not even realistic to seek it.

Originally Posted by tbone

For what it's worth, I made a forum topic at http://www.gamesdiner.com/forum_armor_update for anyone who wants to suggest ideas. I'll give site newsletter subscribers a ping soon too.

Great! I'll try and pop by and make a suggestion or two, but I'll give the nod to Luther as the local "human capabilities" expert and Dan Howard and Armored Saint as the local experts on all things armor (and if that leaves someone deserving out, mea culpa). I can certainly comment from the standpoint of a long-term GM who runs low-tech (tl3 and 4) almost exclusively and I can crunch the numbers with the best of 'em.