Back to Crafty Games Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 31, 2014, 04:48:53 AM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Welcome to the Crafty Games Forums!

Note to New Members: To combat spam, we have instituted new rules: you must post 5 replies to existing threads before you can create new threads.

+  Crafty Games Forum
|-+  Community
| |-+  License to Improvise
| | |-+  Soldier Armor Use: Alternatives.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Soldier Armor Use: Alternatives.  (Read 779 times)
SilvercatMoonpaw
Control
******
Posts: 1212



View Profile
« on: June 16, 2012, 12:49:20 PM »

Let me just get this out of the way first:

The vast majority of the time the Soldier's Armor Use is perfectly fine.  But I'm someone who thrives on corner-cases, and there are definitely corner-cases where a PC could legitimately want to be a Soldier but not wear anything that could be considered armor.


So I figure I might as well try to figure out some alternatives:

Deft Moves I: You gain a +1 bonus to Defense when unarmored.

With obvious later increases.  The main issue here is that I can't tell whether this is enough or it needs a tiny bit extra the way Armor Use had the armor buying discount.

The other idea I'm considering is the Assassin's Unspoken Name feature since it occupies the same level slots.  It kind of fits the idea of the Soldier being an inherent badass.
Logged
Krensky
Control
******
Posts: 7068


WWTWD?


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2012, 01:25:58 PM »

That's better than Armor Use.

Large chunks of Armor Use go to offsetting the DP of heavy armors.

Sure, they don't get the DR, but most people consider not getting hit better then DR soaking, especially since Defense protects against DR ignoring attacks and isn't effected by AP.

Honestly, for those extreme corner cases I'd just say the Soldier's wearing padded or a harness (AC, page 29) with whatever fittings (if any) seem appropriate. And I'm a GM who goes out of my to disincentivize 'gaming the system'.
Logged

We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. - Werner von Braun
Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.
There's no upside in screwing with things you can't explain. - Captain Roy Montgomery
SilvercatMoonpaw
Control
******
Posts: 1212



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2012, 01:33:36 PM »

Honestly, for those extreme corner cases I'd just say the Soldier's wearing padded or a harness (AC, page 29) with whatever fittings (if any) seem appropriate.
That goes against my statement of "ot wear anything that could be considered armor" which was made specifically to head off statements like this.


So "Deft Moves" is bad.  Good to know.
Logged
Krensky
Control
******
Posts: 7068


WWTWD?


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2012, 01:36:18 PM »

The thing is, give me an example padded or a harness wouldn't cover. Well, I suppose technically naked, but a harness isn't really much different then naked.

I mean, the whole point of the harness is to make something that, by the rules, is armor but isn't actually armor so you can trigger armor based abilities and wear fittings.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 01:38:53 PM by Krensky » Logged

We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. - Werner von Braun
Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.
There's no upside in screwing with things you can't explain. - Captain Roy Montgomery
SilvercatMoonpaw
Control
******
Posts: 1212



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2012, 01:43:11 PM »

My example is always some kind of Beast PC.  I think even civilized Beasts might find straps and whatnot uncomfortable.  Plus the might think it makes them look silly.

EDIT: I honestly have something of an aversion to any feature that requires equipment.  Armor Use isn't the last one, it's the just one where I thought maybe I could design a class feature on my own that was just as good.  That didn't happen, so I'll just look into other classes' features.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 01:47:06 PM by SilvercatMoonpaw » Logged
Sletchman
Control
******
Posts: 4108


Gentleman Scholar.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2012, 02:43:37 PM »

I disagree with Krensky here, and think it's fine.  His own argument goes against him - by using it with Padded + Fittings or a Harness, the existing ability is actually better (these soldiers will have +5 Defence and some DR and Resistances, rather then just the Defence bonus, since these Armours have no defence penalty).  At worst case, it changes the Soldiers Defence column from Medium to High, with a limitation (a not small one either: mid-level soldiers can easily achieve over 10 DR, making them effectively immune to many weapons - this guy is 2 points harder to hit, and immune to nothing).

I say go for it.  It's pretty edge case, but I like it.  I could also see the Assassin's ability working for the Soldier, so go with how you feel.
Logged
SilvercatMoonpaw
Control
******
Posts: 1212



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2012, 05:31:08 PM »

I could also see the Assassin's ability working for the Soldier, so go with how you feel.
Unspoken name is also just plain cooler.  Also considered the Lancer's Bred for War.

Really the difficulty is that FantasyCraft classes are so variable it's so hard to figure out what doesn't[/b] fit just due to lack of restriction on vision. Grin
Logged
Sletchman
Control
******
Posts: 4108


Gentleman Scholar.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2012, 07:11:36 PM »

Yup.  I would personally be hesitant to use any other classes' features, so I'd go with your Deft Moves option over grabbing a D ability from a different class, but either way works for sure.
Logged
SilvercatMoonpaw
Control
******
Posts: 1212



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2012, 08:01:27 PM »

I would personally be hesitant to use any other classes' features.....
Considering that both the Burglar and Explorer have the same D-ability (Uncanny Dodge) I'd say there's an acceptable precedent.  The only hard rule I'm using in this tweaking is that only two classes are ever allowed to have the same D-ability.
Logged
Jake
Operative
****
Posts: 459



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2012, 10:49:55 PM »

I would personally be hesitant to use any other classes' features.....
Considering that both the Burglar and Explorer have the same D-ability (Uncanny Dodge) I'd say there's an acceptable precedent.  The only hard rule I'm using in this tweaking is that only two classes are ever allowed to have the same D-ability.


I was just thinking that if you wanted to play an unarmored soldier Uncanny Dodge should fill the slot.
Logged

Founding member of the 10kBLF (Ten Thousand Bullets Liberation Front).
SilvercatMoonpaw
Control
******
Posts: 1212



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2012, 02:54:52 PM »

I was just thinking that if you wanted to play an unarmored soldier Uncanny Dodge should fill the slot.
It's not that it's a totally bad idea, it's just that I want to keep down the amount of sameness between classes.
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!