Kevlar Armor DR 14
David Zvekic
Is the DR 14 PD 2 weight 2 lbs, soft kevlar $200 conceled armor in the
basic set realistic?
If it is realistic would there be any reason that a single cop wouldn't
wear it underneath their uniform?
as a GM I find this armour annoying because it is far too convenient.
I've resorted to saying that wearing it too much will cause body odour
to get PC's to at least change armour or take it off when they sleep.
David Z
Jeff Rahn
David Zvekic wrote:
Uh-huh. Now compare it to TL8 Monocrys. At 3lbs it has DR8 and PD2.
Inferior in almost every way to Kevlar. I would almost recomend making it
heavier and/or less effective (DR-wise). The alternative would be to make
Monocrys more effective...but that really doesn't apply to your quandry.
Remember when dealing with Kevlar (or monocrys for that matter) to use
the "blunt trauma" rules. Every 6 rolled, regardless of DR, does a point of
damage. Use hit location tables too. If you can't get penetration on torso
hits, a good shooter will start aiming for less protected areas.
Also, I may be wrong on this, but I don't think cops wear body armor on
every assignment, and I don't think they can usually choose. It's assigned
equipment. That's my impression, but not being a cop...I'm not sure.
Hope this is some help. (^_^)
Andrew Priestley
Jeff Rahn wrote:
The armor listed is fairly realistic. The basic body armor vest today is more
than able to stop 9mm, .45 ACP, .OO Buckshot, .38 Spcl., etc. ammunition, and
will generally stop most .44 Magnum and .357 Magnum ammunition, depending upon
loads, range, etc. But boy is it gonna hurt like a bastard. Some tactical
vests are capabl;e of withstanding point blank bursts from 7.62mm NATO
machineguns at a weight of around 10 pounds. That's really impressive.
Monocrys is decidedly under-rated in GURPS. It should offer a clear
performance improvement over Kevlar, Spectra Etc.
I would actually consider allowing 1 point of blunt trauma for every die roll
of 5 or more myself.
Body armor is often issued to street cops in high risk neighborhoods, and is
increasingly made available to cops in nearly any neighborhood or
municipality. Subsidies for personally purchased body armor are also common in
municipalities where body armor is not standard issue. One thing that is
rarely mentioned, Kevlar body armor degrades with exposure to UV light, most
manufacturers recommend that the ballistic panels be replaced every two years
or so. Also, once a vest has been hit with a bullet, it is generally retired
as unreliable, they cannot be readily repaired.
Iceman
Andrew Priestley
David Zvekic wrote:
> Is the DR 14 PD 2 weight 2 lbs, soft kevlar $200 conceled armor in the
> basic set realistic?
>
> If it is realistic would there be any reason that a single cop wouldn't
> wear it underneath their uniform?
Because it is stiff, stuffy and warm to wear. I wore a light duty vest
every day for about four months during the Gulf War, for standing guard
duty. I got used to it and reached a point where I didn't go out without
it (high terrorist risk where I was stationed), but that would have been
much more difficult if it had been August as opposed to January-May.
>
>
> as a GM I find this armour annoying because it is far too convenient.
>
> I've resorted to saying that wearing it too much will cause body odour
> to get PC's to at least change armour or take it off when they sleep.
>
> David Z
Soft body armor of the type described above is not too uncomfortable to
sleep in, especially if you are already wearing standard BDUs, etc.
Sleeping with a weapon (also Standard Operating Procedure in the US
military while deployed to the field), is much more uncomfortable, but it
is possible.
Iceman
Not Important
In article <3575F64F...@ziplink.net>, Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
>
>
>Jeff Rahn wrote:
>
>> David Zvekic wrote:
>>
>> > Is the DR 14 PD 2 weight 2 lbs, soft kevlar $200 conceled armor in the
>> > basic set realistic?
>> >
>> > If it is realistic would there be any reason that a single cop wouldn't
>> > wear it underneath their uniform?
>> >
>> >
>> > I've resorted to saying that wearing it too much will cause body odour
>> > to get PC's to at least change armour or take it off when they sleep.
>> >
>> > David Z
>>
I once bought a Kevlar lined Leather Jacket (When I had lots more money than
sense. It seemed like a good idea at the time.....) Anyways, that weighed in
at about 25lb.... Anything THAT heavy is too much for casual wear....
Other than that, you're spot on.
Andrew Priestley
Not Important wrote:
According to the catalog I have, new PACA Goldstar body armor vests made of Kevlar 129 and
Goldflex weigh 2 pounds for Level IIA protection and 3 pounds for Level IIIA protection at a
price of around $600.00 U.S. More conventional materials though seem to be between 4 and 5
pounds for level IIIA protection with materials like SpectraShield and Twaron, and about 4
Pounds for Level IIA in pure DuPont Kevlar. One Kevlar Spec Ops tactical vest weighs in at
12 pounds for an XL size with an additional 4 pounds for a composite trauma plate which
should defeat rifle rounds.
So, while 2 pounds is possible, it isn't too common right now. Prices also seem to be a bit
higher than listed in the original post, coming in around 400 dollars on average, with prices
going as high as 650.00 for some vests and down to 300 for older, heavier technologies.
Some explanation of protection levels in body armor:
Level IIA body armor should protect against projectiles up to and including
.357 Magnum rounds at 1,250 feet per second velocity and 9mm NATO at 1,090 fps; this level
vest would have few problems handling a .45 ACP load which has greater than 100% more surface
area for the armor fibers to grab.
Level IIIA body armor is more protective, being able to defeat hits from .44 magnum
projectiles and buckshot, as well as some long range rifle shots. Trauma plates can provide
additional protection against close range rifle hits. Unfortunately, I don't have any
official data regarding the minimum standards required for Level IIIA protection, so I am
speculating a bit.
Iceman
Kevlar, and Kevlar 129 are registered trademarks of the DuPont corporation, all other
products are trademarks of their respective companies.
Peter Meilinger
David Zvekic (dav...@distributel.ca) wrote:
: Is the DR 14 PD 2 weight 2 lbs, soft kevlar $200 conceled armor in the
: basic set realistic?
: If it is realistic would there be any reason that a single cop wouldn't
: wear it underneath their uniform?
: as a GM I find this armour annoying because it is far too convenient.
: I've resorted to saying that wearing it too much will cause body odour
: to get PC's to at least change armour or take it off when they sleep.
One thing that might work depends on the type of campaign you're running.
I don't know how real police feel about kevlar vests, but in the
movies it's generally regarded as wimpy to wear one. "Real men" don't
do so and all that, so if you're in a cinematic game I'd have the NPCs
start making fun of the PCs and see if that does any good.
Pete
Xiphias Gladius
mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
>One thing that might work depends on the type of campaign you're running.
>I don't know how real police feel about kevlar vests, but in the
>movies it's generally regarded as wimpy to wear one. "Real men" don't
>do so and all that, so if you're in a cinematic game I'd have the NPCs
>start making fun of the PCs and see if that does any good.
As far as I've been able to tell, real police really like the idea of
possibly being able to survive if thigns get nasty. . . I've seen several
officers wear them in fairly nice neighborhoods during the day when
nothing untoward was likely to happen, so I think that quite a few
officers just consider them to be part of their uniform.
We could, of course, just *ask*, you know; it's not like police are that
difficult to find, and they're used to dealing with the public.
- Ian
Charles Griswold
Andrew Priestley wrote:
> Soft body armor of the type described above is not too uncomfortable to
> sleep in, especially if you are already wearing standard BDUs, etc.
> Sleeping with a weapon (also Standard Operating Procedure in the US
> military while deployed to the field), is much more uncomfortable, but it
> is possible.
>
> Iceman
Do you mean sleeping with your weapon within ready reach, or sleeping
with it attached to your person?
I assume you're talking about a rifle, and not a pistol.
-- Charles Griswold (WARNING -- do not export this .sig :)
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
Peter Meilinger
Xiphias Gladius (i...@pentagon.io.com) wrote:
: mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
: >One thing that might work depends on the type of campaign you're running.
: >I don't know how real police feel about kevlar vests, but in the
: >movies it's generally regarded as wimpy to wear one. "Real men" don't
: >do so and all that, so if you're in a cinematic game I'd have the NPCs
: >start making fun of the PCs and see if that does any good.
: As far as I've been able to tell, real police really like the idea of
: possibly being able to survive if thigns get nasty. . . I've seen several
: officers wear them in fairly nice neighborhoods during the day when
: nothing untoward was likely to happen, so I think that quite a few
: officers just consider them to be part of their uniform.
Makes sense to me. I only threw in the disclaimer because I thought
I'd read somewhere that a lot of cops thought they were uncomfortable.
: We could, of course, just *ask*, you know; it's not like police are that
: difficult to find, and they're used to dealing with the public.
This is true. But I remember one time a group of gamers were discussing
what kind of standard equipment should be found in police cruisers and
stations. One of my friends wanted to call up the BU Police number and
ask how many pairs of handcuffs they had and how many shotguns, but
I pointed out that that might not be the best idea.
Pete
Lurker
In article <3575CE71...@distributel.ca>,
David Zvekic <dav...@distributel.ca> wrote:
>Is the DR 14 PD 2 weight 2 lbs, soft kevlar $200 conceled armor in the
>basic set realistic?
I had an armor design project for a composites course, so I
got fairly familiar with the existing grades of armor out there.
The basic kevlar vest (or spectra, lighter but it can be melted,
is flammable, and looses much of its strength by 160F) will
provide about DR 10 to DR 14 protection. Its thus no good against
rifle rounds but should reasonably stop all but high end pistol
rounds. This conforms nicely to modern, class II body armor,
which is in the 2lb-4lb range.
Armor that can stop rifle rounds quickly reaches about 14-15lbs
(class IIIa, III, or IV armor), though its ability to stop
knives and ice picks skyrockets over normal ballistic fabric
vests.
I'd recommend doing a search under "body armor" on yahoo.
When you turn up some websites, look for one that covers
"NIJ safety levels." It shows what different vests realistically
stop. Most also describe, in some way or another, the comfort
level offered by their armor.
>
>If it is realistic would there be any reason that a single cop wouldn't
>wear it underneath their uniform?
Most of the police in Atlanta wear body armor under their shirts,
whether they're foot patrol in the summer, patrolling MARTA (the
Atlanta subway), or on bike patrols in shorts around the Georgia
Tech campus. It can get fairly hot though, especially the vests
with full side closure. The police have to pace themselves or
they end up sweating like, well, pigs.
>
>as a GM I find this armour annoying because it is far too convenient.
Armor vests only cover the torso. PC's can bleed to death from
leg and arm wounds and should realistically take weeks to months
to recover from a solid limb wound. You just need to spray them
with autofire once to learn'em a good lesson. Or shoot them with
rifles (hunting rifles in the 7d range).
Also, it is too convenient. There have been too many incidents of
criminals causing a lot of damage because police can't take them down
with a few shots. You can still order armor out of catalogs, off
the web, or from gun magazines without too much trouble. Police
are starting to fight this easy access to body armor.
>I've resorted to saying that wearing it too much will cause body odour
>to get PC's to at least change armour or take it off when they sleep.
You should make them loose sleep if they try to wear armor to bed
and hit them with fatigue penalties the next day (its not *that*
comfortable to wear - ballistic fabric vests are rather stiff). Hit
them with fatigue penalties if they wear body armor in hot weather
or exercise hard in it.
>
>David Z
--
Mike Miller
Materials Engineer-wannabe from Georgia Tech
Lurker
Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
>
>One thing that is
>rarely mentioned, Kevlar body armor degrades with exposure to UV light, most
>manufacturers recommend that the ballistic panels be replaced every two years
>or so. Also, once a vest has been hit with a bullet, it is generally retired
>as unreliable, they cannot be readily repaired.
First, most kevlar and spectra vests are wrapped in nylon shells.
They are not too vulnerable to UV light, especially after being
worn under a uniform. If you expose the bare ballistic fabric to
UV light, there might be a problem. The manufacturer's are just
being cautious and law suit-wary.
Second, vest damage is a point most people miss. Modern ballistic
fabric vests are damaged when they stop a bullet. Fibers break or
are kinked and loose their mobility and ability to spread the energy
of a bullet when they are hit. Modern body armor is essentially
one-use items. Sure, they'll stop quite a few bullets in a given
incident, but I wouldn't wear a used piece of armor again unless
I didn't have a chance to acquire a replacement. Treating modern
ballistic fabric armors as ablative might be a useful way of
controlling players gone wild with modern armor.
Xiphias Gladius
mell...@bu.edu (Peter Meilinger) writes:
>This is true. But I remember one time a group of gamers were discussing
>what kind of standard equipment should be found in police cruisers and
>stations. One of my friends wanted to call up the BU Police number and
>ask how many pairs of handcuffs they had and how many shotguns, but
>I pointed out that that might not be the best idea.
The proper way to get information about *anything* dangerous without
unduly worrying the people you're asking is to say, "I'm an amateur
mystery writer, and I was wondering. . . ."
Mystery writers have good reason to want to know where to get cyanide, how
to contact assasins, how to make bombs, what a police cruser has in it,
how to disable to brakes on an elevator. . . .
- Ian
Paul Reitsma
> I'd recommend doing a search under "body armor" on yahoo.
> When you turn up some websites, look for one that covers
> "NIJ safety levels." It shows what different vests realistically
> stop. Most also describe, in some way or another, the comfort
> level offered by their armor.
Oddly, I happen to have one hanging around from a previous thread on
this NG... http://21stcenturyhardarmor.com/nij.htm
This page lists NIJ I to IV, and their home page has the weight stats on
a few products (ex. a III-A vest is 9-10 lbs, but should stop all .44
Mag rounds and 9mm FMJ). No comfort descriptions, though.
-P
Not Important
In article <3576A505...@ziplink.net>, Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
>
> According to the catalog I have, new PACA Goldstar body armor vests made of
> Kevlar 129 and
>Goldflex weigh 2 pounds for Level IIA protection and 3 pounds for Level IIIA
> protection at a
>price of around $600.00 U.S. More conventional materials though seem to be
> between 4 and 5
>pounds for level IIIA protection with materials like SpectraShield and Twaron,
> and about 4
>Pounds for Level IIA in pure DuPont Kevlar. One Kevlar Spec Ops tactical vest
> weighs in at
>12 pounds for an XL size with an additional 4 pounds for a composite trauma
> plate which
>should defeat rifle rounds.
>
DAMN!!!
Body armor's gotten a LOT lighter in the last 6 or 7 years.....
Not Important
In article <6l6h66$b6v$6...@news.corpcomm.net>, Charles Griswold <gris...@rconnect.SMITE-THE-SPAMMERS!.com> wrote:
>Andrew Priestley wrote:
>
>> Soft body armor of the type described above is not too uncomfortable to
>> sleep in, especially if you are already wearing standard BDUs, etc.
>> Sleeping with a weapon (also Standard Operating Procedure in the US
>> military while deployed to the field), is much more uncomfortable, but it
>> is possible.
>>
>> Iceman
>
>Do you mean sleeping with your weapon within ready reach, or sleeping
>with it attached to your person?
>
>I assume you're talking about a rifle, and not a pistol.
When I was in, the First Sgt. would wander around at night to see whose rifle
he could steal. SOP was to sleep with your arm wrapped in the sling....
Mark Jones
David Zvekic wrote:
> Is the DR 14 PD 2 weight 2 lbs, soft kevlar $200 conceled armor in the
> basic set realistic?
>
> If it is realistic would there be any reason that a single cop wouldn't
> wear it underneath their uniform?
>
> as a GM I find this armour annoying because it is far too convenient.
I know the feeling. I came up with the "Hot & Sweaty Armor Rule" to deal
with it. The rule states that anyone who _routinely_ wears body armor
(except when they seriously anticipate combat shortly) suffers a DX penalty
equal to the PD of the armor to all actions. This rule was intended to
simulate the reality that many cops _don't_ wear their vests all the time
because they aren't comfortable.
> I've resorted to saying that wearing it too much will cause body odour
> to get PC's to at least change armour or take it off when they sleep.
My PCs wouldn't be bothered by that--so I gave them the above DX penalty to
hit them where they live.
Mark Jones
Andrew Priestley wrote:
> David Zvekic wrote:
>
> > Is the DR 14 PD 2 weight 2 lbs, soft kevlar $200 conceled armor in the
> > basic set realistic?
> >
> > If it is realistic would there be any reason that a single cop wouldn't
> > wear it underneath their uniform?
>
> Because it is stiff, stuffy and warm to wear. I wore a light duty vest
> every day for about four months during the Gulf War, for standing guard
> duty. I got used to it and reached a point where I didn't go out without
> it (high terrorist risk where I was stationed), but that would have been
> much more difficult if it had been August as opposed to January-May.
So, as someone who has worn it, what do you think of the "Hot & Sweaty Armor
Rule"? A DX penalty equal to the PD of the armor aplied to PCs who
_routinely_ wear armor all the time, as opposed to when they can reasonably
expect trouble. I've used this in several campaigns it seems to work fairly
well. It forces the PCs to weigh the costs and benefits a little more
realistically.
chewbaka
My department began issuing threat level IIIA soft body armor with steel
insert trauma plate about 3 years ago. Safariland was the manufacturer. I
wore mine exactly 3 days. These vests are designed for people who are
walking around most of the time. My patrol shift is 12 hours long. About 8
hours is sitting in my unit driving around. The vest continued to ride up
under my chin until I pulled over and took it off. Also I live in Louisiana
very hot and humid, even at night (last night at 3 am it was 87 degrees with
heat index it was 94 degrees). If you are comfortable with your vest PLEASE
wear it.
Chewbaka
Mark Jones wrote in message <35773F04...@teleport.com>...
Tomer Cohen
Well i was in the army that is the IDF (Israely Defence Force) and i was
wearing the kevlar vest all day long (sleep time included) and boy does it
anoy but after a cuple of weeks u get used to it and the smell of yourself
and it's realy afective too, my frind got stabed but nothing penetrated the
vest (just a blue mark) and the staber was cought.
so i think wearing the vest all the time in hazardes locations is no problem
at all (done it!! :) )
T C Israel
Knight
Of course, just search for The Terrorists Cookbook if you looking for
bomb-making reality checks. I don't think that making bombs should be
that hard in GURPS. I know someone who is definately using the default
skill who cooked up some thermite and used it to burn off a section of
park railing.
-A.I.N.O.M.
Knight
Would now be a good time to ask a question about armour legality? What
types of armour are legal in different parts of the world? Does buying
lots of armour for yourself and your vehicles attract supicion on the
part of law-enforcement agencies? What about the future?
Geoff Ellingwood
I'm no expert on armor legality, but I would expect that, like a lot of
stuff that's useful in combat, you can have it for a good reason. Of
course, it's hard to justify a need for a Kevlar vest in day-to-day life
if you're an accountant or something, which is why it's pretty rare for
people to have one.
Vehicular armor is a little different. If you go buy some sheet metal and
weld it into the inside of a van yourself, nobody will know (or probably
care). But any special job might raise suspicious, and the more exotic
the material, the more likely somebody will notice. And, as I mentioned,
you generally need a good reason.
The future? It depends on the world. If we're talking probably future, I
don't think things will change very much. OTOH, a Cyberpunk world is a
walking arsenal, and some Space campaigns are very weapon-unfriendly..
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"May all your wishes be granted" Geoff Ellingwood
- Ancient Chinese curse elli...@uiuc.edu
www.students.uiuc.edu/~ellingwd
"#define QUESTION ( (bb) || !(bb) )"
- Shakespeare
"You don't need a space ship
They don't know you've already lived
On the other side of the galaxy"
- Tori Amos, "Black-dove (January)"
Andrew Priestley
Not Important wrote:
Yup, that's pretty much what goes on. We had one kid in our platoon who was a master at sneaking around and
stealing weapons. One morning the XO woke up to find about 15 weapons leaning against the tree outside his tent.
You have never seen a man that pissed off in your life. He started reading off serial numbers, and as each man came
up to recover his weapon he was dropped for about 100 push ups and received a summary Article 15, which is worth
about 115.00 out of an already small paycheck.
We were required to secure the weapon in our sleeping bags with us, most wrapped the sling around their arm as
well. Bloody front sight assembly can cause some serious marks.
Iceman
Andrew Priestley
Mark Jones wrote:
> Andrew Priestley wrote:
>
> > David Zvekic wrote:
> >
> > > Is the DR 14 PD 2 weight 2 lbs, soft kevlar $200 conceled armor in the
> > > basic set realistic?
> > >
> > > If it is realistic would there be any reason that a single cop wouldn't
> > > wear it underneath their uniform?
> >
> > Because it is stiff, stuffy and warm to wear. I wore a light duty vest
> > every day for about four months during the Gulf War, for standing guard
> > duty. I got used to it and reached a point where I didn't go out without
> > it (high terrorist risk where I was stationed), but that would have been
> > much more difficult if it had been August as opposed to January-May.
>
> So, as someone who has worn it, what do you think of the "Hot & Sweaty Armor
> Rule"? A DX penalty equal to the PD of the armor aplied to PCs who
> _routinely_ wear armor all the time, as opposed to when they can reasonably
> expect trouble. I've used this in several campaigns it seems to work fairly
> well. It forces the PCs to weigh the costs and benefits a little more
> realistically.
Nah, you get used to it after a while. I would assess a fatigue penalty though
for warm weather wear. -1 fatigue per hour in temperatures above say 80 degree
fahrenheit seems about right. Dex penalties just wouldn't apply, the things
don't really interfere with your joints too much (at least not the good ones)
and after they break in a bit, flex around the waist fairly good (in a level
IIA) vest.
Iceman
Andrew Priestley
Knight wrote:
> Would now be a good time to ask a question about armour legality? What
> types of armour are legal in different parts of the world? Does buying
> lots of armour for yourself and your vehicles attract supicion on the
> part of law-enforcement agencies? What about the future?
Body armor is perfectly legal in most of the US and perhaps all of it.
It has no offensive capability, so not even the powers that be in
Massachusetts, (Peoples Republic of) can find a good reason to outlaw it.
Armoring vehicles is mostly just expensive, but definitely would draw some
suspicion, especially if you are not a VIP or wealthy. A lot of
executives, government figures, etc. have vehicles with resin bonded
kevlar pannels in the doors and body panels, lexan laminated windows,
redundant electrical, fuel and brake systems, hardened engines, puncture
proof tires and honeycombed gas tanks. When the FBI comes a calling
they just explain why. As long as you aren't doing anything wrong, you
have nothing to worry about.
Iceman
Andrew Priestley
Mark Jones wrote:
> David Zvekic wrote:
>
> > Is the DR 14 PD 2 weight 2 lbs, soft kevlar $200 conceled armor in the
> > basic set realistic?
> >
> > If it is realistic would there be any reason that a single cop wouldn't
> > wear it underneath their uniform?
> >
> > as a GM I find this armour annoying because it is far too convenient.
>
> I know the feeling. I came up with the "Hot & Sweaty Armor Rule" to deal
> with it. The rule states that anyone who _routinely_ wears body armor
> (except when they seriously anticipate combat shortly) suffers a DX penalty
> equal to the PD of the armor to all actions. This rule was intended to
> simulate the reality that many cops _don't_ wear their vests all the time
> because they aren't comfortable.
>
> > I've resorted to saying that wearing it too much will cause body odour
> > to get PC's to at least change armour or take it off when they sleep.
>
> My PCs wouldn't be bothered by that--so I gave them the above DX penalty to
> hit them where they live.
This rule is punative rather than realistic. If you were to take this as
realistic, you would have to apply it to the wearing of all medieval armors as
well, which, aside from plate, are stiffer and far heavier for much lower
levels of protection.
Some solid GM controls against the regular use of body armor woudl be frequent
questioning by sharp-eyed police officers, a lot of strange looks from sharp
eyed citizens, and potential difficulties in post offices and banks where
firearms are generally illegal and since the wearing of body armor generally
tends to indicate the possession of a firearm, you could get in really big
trouble.
Legal harrassment would tend to make characters much more circumspect about
wearing body armor all the time.
Iceman.
Tomansky
Andrew Priestley wrote:
> Armoring vehicles is mostly just expensive, but definitely would draw some
> suspicion, especially if you are not a VIP or wealthy. A lot of
> executives, government figures, etc. have vehicles with resin bonded
> kevlar pannels in the doors and body panels, lexan laminated windows,
Of course, you mean "DuPont's KEVLAR® brand aramid fiber panels",
and "General Electric's Lexan® brand polycarbonate thermoplastic
laminated windows". :)
David Levi
Spm073
A few personal notes on armor and ballistic vests.
1) KEvlar body armor is relatively comfortable in its newer versions. A few
private companies are making medium threat level vests which can actually be
wadded into a ball and are super-flexible. I wore one for a while, but it
never seemed like I was adequately protected. Comfort actually reverses once
you wear a veswt for a year or two, until your few horrible uncomfortable and
insecure without it.
2) Despite manufacturers claims of rifle-resistant armor, be careful of
letting too much resistance be packed into a vest. Even Level IV vests and
armor plates which supposedly can resist rifle rounds, barely even slow down a
.223 round. We did some tests on ballistic panels for portable shields and a
1.5' level IV panel got swisscheesed by it and surprised quite a few of us.
3) TRauma plate hits by rifle rounds have a 50% survival rate under 100yrds
and usually only at an angle. The vest only helps to keep all of the insides
from coming out of the body. Several Peruvian Army soldiers found this out in
1996, when they got centerpunched by a .223 and even a 7.62 NATO. Both
suffered penetration through their plate. Ballistics also showed that a 35'
angle shot had a lethal compression effect on the vest as well. There are no
reports of someone taking a close-range (10' and under) rifle shot centermass
without fatal results. Of course, a thorugh and through around the plate with
a .223 increases your survival rate.
4) As for military or commercial armor-plating. While sheet metal is OK,
getting enough of it or another bullet-resistant material is possible, but
boosting the vehicles suspension to perform at an acceptable rate is another
thing, and most mechanics are hard-pressed to do this work.
Mark Jones
Andrew Priestley wrote:
> Mark Jones wrote:
>
> > I know the feeling. I came up with the "Hot & Sweaty Armor Rule" to deal
> > with it. The rule states that anyone who _routinely_ wears body armor
> > (except when they seriously anticipate combat shortly) suffers a DX penalty
> > equal to the PD of the armor to all actions. This rule was intended to
> > simulate the reality that many cops _don't_ wear their vests all the time
> > because they aren't comfortable.
> This rule is punative rather than realistic. If you were to take this as
> realistic, you would have to apply it to the wearing of all medieval armors as
> well, which, aside from plate, are stiffer and far heavier for much lower
> levels of protection.
Very true. It was a punitive rule--and since I wasn't running a midieval game,
the equivalent rules for those didn't matter.
> Some solid GM controls against the regular use of body armor woudl be frequent
> questioning by sharp-eyed police officers, a lot of strange looks from sharp
> eyed citizens, and potential difficulties in post offices and banks where
> firearms are generally illegal and since the wearing of body armor generally
> tends to indicate the possession of a firearm, you could get in really big
> trouble.
>
> Legal harrassment would tend to make characters much more circumspect about
> wearing body armor all the time.
Oh, I use legal harassment, too. But the DX penalty for routine use of armor was
what got the best results.
Insinsativ
I have spoken to several law-enforcement officers on this subject, and all
agree that for a majority of law-enforcement agencies in the United States, the
wearing of a second-chance vest is standard operational procedure. For
realism, however, I would reduce the DR to 10, this is sufficient to stop many
pistol rounds but will not usually stop a rifle bullet (and won't even
noticably alter the speed of a .50 cal bullet, which still should pass through
the armor, the victim, and the armor again, before lodging in the victim's car
engine and killing the car, too!).
Dr Kromm
Can someone tell what the *problem* with PCs wearing light, effective
body armor is in a modern-day game? So it makes the PCs hard to take
out with a bullet -- so what?
Kromm.
--
Sean M. Punch o E-mail: o 4122 rue Rivard
(a.k.a. Dr Kromm) | At SJG: kr...@io.com | Montreal, Quebec
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=o Local POP: kr...@cam.org o Canada H2L 4H9
GURPS Line Editor | WWW: | Home: (514) 288-9600
and Net Guru o http://www.io.com/~kromm o Work: (514) 288-9615
Protaganis
All these have been extremely valid points, except for missing one major
thing... A standard butchers knife can go through a kevlar vest in nothing
flat, and the same is true for a crossbow (by the way, both these items are
legal in most states) and any decent arch enemy would know enogh about their
habits to realize this, the only area that would be safe, would be under the
second chance plates, which I believe in civilian vests are made of metal. This
method is easier and more circumspect than hauling around a big .50 rifle. But
an excellent last solution is to use called shots, who wouldn't get paranoid
about an arch-villain who would let you live, after shooting you in both arms
and legs???
Charles Griswold
Andrew Priestley wrote:
>
> Knight wrote:
>
> > Would now be a good time to ask a question about armour legality? What
> > types of armour are legal in different parts of the world? Does buying
> > lots of armour for yourself and your vehicles attract supicion on the
> > part of law-enforcement agencies? What about the future?
>
> Body armor is perfectly legal in most of the US and perhaps all of it.
> It has no offensive capability, so not even the powers that be in
> Massachusetts, (Peoples Republic of) can find a good reason to outlaw it.
>
> suspicion, especially if you are not a VIP or wealthy. A lot of
> executives, government figures, etc. have vehicles with resin bonded
> kevlar pannels in the doors and body panels, lexan laminated windows,
> proof tires and honeycombed gas tanks. When the FBI comes a calling
> they just explain why. As long as you aren't doing anything wrong, you
> have nothing to worry about.
>
> Iceman
Why should you have to explain anything to the FBI? It's perfectly
legal to have armor and armored vehicles. Last time I checked, you
didn't have to explain to anyone why you're doing something that's
legal.
I'd just tell them, "I did it 'cause armored VW bugs are cool." :)
Charles Griswold
Out of curiousity, wouldn't a .50 cal bullet put a hole clean through
the average engine block?
Xiphias Gladius
Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> writes:
>Knight wrote:
>> Would now be a good time to ask a question about armour legality? What
>> types of armour are legal in different parts of the world? Does buying
>> lots of armour for yourself and your vehicles attract supicion on the
>> part of law-enforcement agencies? What about the future?
> Body armor is perfectly legal in most of the US and perhaps all of it.
>It has no offensive capability, so not even the powers that be in
>Massachusetts, (Peoples Republic of) can find a good reason to outlaw it.
And in high school (in Massachusetts), I had a handful of friends who wore
the stuff. Just really as an affectation or fashion statement, I suppose.
One person always wore a chainmail shirt under his clothes, and another
friend sewed layers of Kevlar and Nomex into a cloak.
The one with the Kevlar cloak almost never wore it, because it was far too
heavy (this was a few years ago, when Kevlar was heavier), but the one
with the chainmail suit wore it regularly. He was 150 lbs before he got
dressed, and 185 fully loaded.
- Ian
Spm073
YEs, but the plates either metal or ceramic are very heavy. And as an old DI
of mine always said, "never trust your equipment more than yourself" meaning a
heavy vest=decreased speed=getting hit=bad results either way ,, no vest=more
speed=making you a difficult target. ANyone who relies on surviving a fatal
hit is erroneously accepting the fact that it is ok to get hit at all.
prei...@my-dejanews.com
> All these have been extremely valid points, except for missing one major
> thing... A standard butchers knife can go through a kevlar vest in nothing
> flat, and the same is true for a crossbow (by the way, both these items are
> legal in most states) and any decent arch enemy would know enogh about their
Actually, apparently not, at least for modern vests. According to the URL I
posted a couple days ago, a level III-A vest will stop a 150 pound crossbow
from 10 feet. Previously, I'd also thought that modern body armour was very
vulnerable to sharp weapons, but it seems they've made strides in fixing
that...
-P
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Andrew Priestley
Xiphias Gladius wrote:
Even today, Kevlar isn't exactly light in layers significant enough to provide
protection.
You travelled with an "interesting" bunch sounds like. I wore a Level IIa
vest to night classes in college for a while, but I went to school in a pretty
nasty neighborhood and was relatively paranoid for such a young bugger, at the
time.
Iceman
Andrew Priestley
Xiphias Gladius wrote:
nasty neighborhood and was relatively paranoid for such a young kid, at the
time.
Iceman
Andrew Priestley
prei...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
Crossbow, arrow penetration depends upon the point, a medieval crossbow bolt would
be stopped dead, a bodkin pointed medieval arrow would go right through. A modern
Boradhead would penetrate pretty good, but the more blades it used, the less
chance it would have since each blade increases the area of the impact. A trauma
plate would stop most of them.
A lot of modern trauma plates are Lexan or Titanium.
Iceman
Andrew Priestley
Mark Jones wrote:
> Andrew Priestley wrote:
>
> >Very true. It was a punitive rule--and since I wasn't running a midieval game,
> the equivalent rules for those didn't matter.
>
> > Some solid GM controls against the regular use of body armor woudl be frequent
> > questioning by sharp-eyed police officers, a lot of strange looks from sharp
> > eyed citizens, and potential difficulties in post offices and banks where
> > firearms are generally illegal and since the wearing of body armor generally
> > tends to indicate the possession of a firearm, you could get in really big
> > trouble.
> >
> > Legal harrassment would tend to make characters much more circumspect about
> > wearing body armor all the time.
>
> Oh, I use legal harassment, too. But the DX penalty for routine use of armor was
> what got the best results.
Its just not even remotely realistic, since the systems are designed not to interfere
with regular activity. haul the guys into jail, or outfit the bad guys with big
guns. It is your game, but if I was playing in it, I would kick and scream about it.
Iceman
David Zvekic
Dr Kromm wrote:
>
> Can someone tell what the *problem* with PCs wearing light, effective
> body armor is in a modern-day game? So it makes the PCs hard to take
> out with a bullet -- so what?
>
> Kromm.
>
It makes the villians harder to kill too.
Many players think wearing armour is uncool because in movies most
heroes (except batman and robocop) and most villians almost never wear
armour. It is not fun for these players to be FORCED to wear armour to
keep up with their armour clad buddies, and armour clad villains when
they are always bombarded with heroes in popular liturature that don't
need it.
In the James Bond game rules for armour were left out on purpose. And
when they suggested possible rules for armour in one book they
intentionally made the armour unreliable (and admitted it). The reason
was that on average it will be the villians, guards and henchmen who are
most likely to be armoured and the PC's would be at a huge handicap if
armour was part of the game and would never be able to to act like the
'real' James Bond.
It is just a reality check thing. I was curious if armour was so
effective and so convenient, and had no effect comfortwise etc, why it
seems that in movies so few people appear to use it and it is such a
suprise when they do.
Also in movies when someone gets shot even if they are wearing armour
they always act like they are stunned and wounded. After the fight is
over they wake up and say something like 'gosh it was damn lucky I
decided to wear a bullet proof vest' and the other characters are
astounded.
I was wondering if GURPS has it right, and hollywood has got it wrong.
Is getting shot in the chest with a DR 14 vest really going to knock
wind out of the average hero down (like in it almost always does in
Hollywood). Or would it be fair to give characters who think wearing
armour is uncool to get a quirk, or to give characters who think armour
is unreliable a 5 pt delusion?
The only significant reason I can find in the game to *NOT* wear the 2
lb DR 14 concealable armour *all the time*, is if your character was
*deluded* into thinking it only had a DR of 3 or 4.
The other issue is that the 2 lb armour seems to be so much more
effective then all other armours I have seen in GURPS anywhere up to
about tech level 9.
Examples of armour in the High Tech book appear heavier and more
expensive than the DR 2 armour.
What is the tech level 8 replacement for the 2 lb kevlar dr 14 vest?
Xplo Eristotle
David Zvekic wrote:
>
> Also in movies when someone gets shot even if they are wearing armour
> they always act like they are stunned and wounded. After the fight is
> over they wake up and say something like 'gosh it was damn lucky I
> decided to wear a bullet proof vest' and the other characters are
> astounded.
>
> I was wondering if GURPS has it right, and hollywood has got it wrong.
Well, Hollywood exaggerates things to suit itself, but it has a point.
Without solid plates in the armor, the kevlar will still prevent penetration,
but the impact will still cause serious bruising; I've heard of ribs being
broken in a few places. Remember that all the kevlar will do is spread the
impact over a wider area, so it's still like being hit by a baseball at over
100 MPH while unarmored.. not fun.
Even with solid plates, I understand you still get pummeled a bit.
GURPS has a "blunt trauma" rule to handle this: every 6 rolled rolled for
damage against a soft-armored target inflicts 1 point that ignores armor.
> The only significant reason I can find in the game to *NOT* wear the 2
> lb DR 14 concealable armour *all the time*, is if your character was
> *deluded* into thinking it only had a DR of 3 or 4.
The things to remember here is that real people are not fictional heroes.
Compared to them, we're mostly petty wimps, and even the ones that aren't
don't want to suffer needlessly.
Body armor is hot, stiff, and heavy. Now, your average hero would laugh this
off as unimportant, but in real life, when you start sweating, and you get an
itch on your belly that you can't scratch, and after a few hours the armor
starts weighing on you, anyone who's not actually IN combat, or likely to be,
is going to want to take the thing off, and quick.
> The other issue is that the 2 lb armour seems to be so much more
> effective then all other armours I have seen in GURPS anywhere up to
> about tech level 9.
>
> Examples of armour in the High Tech book appear heavier and more
> expensive than the DR 2 armour.
>
> What is the tech level 8 replacement for the 2 lb kevlar dr 14 vest?
It's monocrys.. but as you (and others) have pointed out, it's woefully
vulnurable and/or overweight.
Xplo "Endymion" Eristotle xp...@infomagic.com
# Grand Master - Lunar Inquisition #
Yog: http://www.infomagic.com/~xplo/index.html
Andrew Priestley
David Zvekic wrote:
> Dr Kromm wrote:
> >
> > Can someone tell what the *problem* with PCs wearing light, effective
> > body armor is in a modern-day game? So it makes the PCs hard to take
> > out with a bullet -- so what?
> >
> > Kromm.
> >
>
> It makes the villians harder to kill too.
>
> It is just a reality check thing. I was curious if armour was so
> effective and so convenient, and had no effect comfortwise etc, why it
> seems that in movies so few people appear to use it and it is such a
> suprise when they do.
Hollyweird.
> Also in movies when someone gets shot even if they are wearing armour
> they always act like they are stunned and wounded. After the fight is
> over they wake up and say something like 'gosh it was damn lucky I
> decided to wear a bullet proof vest' and the other characters are
> astounded.
Very true. Even if the vest stops the bullet, ribs can get broken and the
impact can even stop your heart. At the least, in a standard lightweight
vest, you will have a mother of a bruise. I am considering stating outright
in my games, that body armors of X class protect absolutely from penetration
by bullets of x,y and z calibers, but damage over DR gets through as blunt
trauma. If a pistol bullet does 18 points of damage, and the vest's DR
stops 14 points of it, 4 points of blunt trauma are still done to the
wearer. The vest stopped the bullet, but the impact is still bone crunching
and does real damage. If the character is down HPs to begin with, these 4
points could kill him or her.
>
>
> I was wondering if GURPS has it right, and hollywood has got it wrong.
>
> Is getting shot in the chest with a DR 14 vest really going to knock
> wind out of the average hero down (like in it almost always does in
> Hollywood). Or would it be fair to give characters who think wearing
> armour is uncool to get a quirk, or to give characters who think armour
> is unreliable a 5 pt delusion?
>
> The only significant reason I can find in the game to *NOT* wear the 2
> lb DR 14 concealable armour *all the time*, is if your character was
> *deluded* into thinking it only had a DR of 3 or 4.
It can be very, very hot and stuffy (fatigue loss, possible dehydration or
heat prostration). Even very concealable armor shows through thin clothing
and tends to make the wearer look a little barrel chested and
hunch-shouldered. A sweater or a winter coat hides this well, but a sharp
eye will spot it and suspicion and possibly law-enforcement, will be
aroused.
Iceman
Tomansky
Charles Griswold wrote:
> Out of curiousity, wouldn't a .50 cal bullet put a hole clean through
> the average engine block?
Penetrate 50-100 cm of steel? Not even if it were depleted
uranium. Maybe through a part, at an angle.
David Levi
Xplo Eristotle
JefWilson wrote:
>
> In article <357C0888...@infomagic.com>, Xplo Eristotle
> <xp...@infomagic.com> writes:
>
> >David Zvekic wrote:
> >
> >> What is the tech level 8 replacement for the 2 lb kevlar dr 14 vest?
> >
> >vulnurable and/or overweight.
>
> thread I never thought about Kevlar being ablative, but it's certainly a rule
> in my game from now on!
That's great for long-term maintainence, not so great in the
extreme-short-term. From fight to fight, durability is good.. but dammit, when
shots are fired, I want a one-pound, 24 DR vest, or the closest thing I can
get to it. *_*
Say, where did you get this idea that kevlar was ablative.. and monocrys isn't?
Spm073
One thing to remember is that the size of the bullet is the not the key feature
for penetration ballistics.
Police snipers using a high powered .308 have gotten through and through hits
on engine blocks. One test, we conducted found that a .308 can penetrate the
length of a car from bumper to bumper including the key components (i.e.
disabling) parts of the engine itself.
JefWilson
Andrew Priestley
Spm073 wrote:
I would find that hard to believe except that in my early shooting days, I used to
shoot at a makeshift range in the woods, using a two foot diameter tree trunk as
our target. We didn't shoot there for long though since one day, my buddy and I
decided to look down range to see where the bullets were eventually stopping.
After walking about a mile down range and still finding holes through trees, we
decided to scrap the range and find something better...neither of us wanted to hear
about some kid going missing in the neighborhood, following a walk in the swamp.
We had thought we were fairly safe, but as we realized that a .308 round has no
problem at all penetrating 24 inches of wood, we decided something with a nice,
tall, sand berm behind it and restricted access, would be a good thing.
Still, what kind of car were you guys shooting through, a Yugo?
Iceman
Andrew Priestley
JefWilson wrote:
ALL armor is ablative after a while. Even plate ablates over time, it just takes
a lot to ablate it. The damage rules in GURPS take this into account, by
reducing the effectiveness of armor after it absorbs x hit points of damage.
Kevlar functions in essentially the same way, so does monocrys. That said,
monocrys is pathetically weak. Considering that materials technology should
continue to advance at a similar scale as it is now, flexible body armors should
continue to get both lighter for the same protection, and better protecting at
the same weight. I have put together some custom armor systems for my
characters, though I can't locate any of them immediately since I haven't used
them in a while. Suffice it to say that I got the GM to approve a system
extrapolated from current armor, that benefits from speculative materials
advancements taking place thirty years into the future. It worked pretty well
too.
Iceman
Iceman
Spm073
Actually it was a 1988 Chevy caprice. Through the left rear backup light
through the truck (and the spare) through the back seat/front seat/, firewall
and through the engine block at an angle which gutted the ignition assembly and
sent shrapnel into the fuel pump.
David Zvekic
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
> David Zvekic wrote:
> >
> > Also in movies when someone gets shot even if they are wearing armour
> > they always act like they are stunned and wounded. After the fight is
> > over they wake up and say something like 'gosh it was damn lucky I
> > decided to wear a bullet proof vest' and the other characters are
> > astounded.
> >
>
>
> Without solid plates in the armor, the kevlar will still prevent penetration,
> but the impact will still cause serious bruising; I've heard of ribs being
> broken in a few places. Remember that all the kevlar will do is spread the
> impact over a wider area, so it's still like being hit by a baseball at over
> 100 MPH while unarmored.. not fun.
>
So are you saying that DR 14 is unrealistic?
If the DR is actually 14 then the most damage you can take from most
handguns is 2 points of damage (from blunt trauma), and that is
unlikely. More likely you will take nothing. I should think that a 100
mph fastball is probably on the order of 3-6 points of damage.
If you assume that the impact of a bullet against kevlar armour is like
a fastball against bare flesh then a DR of 8-10 is more realistic for
the 2 lb kevlar armour.
> Even with solid plates, I understand you still get pummeled a bit.
>
> GURPS has a "blunt trauma" rule to handle this: every 6 rolled rolled for
> damage against a soft-armored target inflicts 1 point that ignores armor.
>
1 or 2 points of damage is nothing to write home about. And the odds are
you wont roll a single 6. Guns which do 3 dice of damage will beat DR 14
on a roll of 3 sixes so the most you can take this way is 2 points of
damage and it isn't likely to occur.
> > The only significant reason I can find in the game to *NOT* wear the 2
> > lb DR 14 concealable armour *all the time*, is if your character was
> > *deluded* into thinking it only had a DR of 3 or 4.
>
> The things to remember here is that real people are not fictional heroes.
> Compared to them, we're mostly petty wimps, and even the ones that aren't
> don't want to suffer needlessly.
>
Right, but is every single character in gurps intended to be a hero? It
doesn't say in the armour description, 'DR 14 for heroes and DR 8 for
everyone else'.
> Body armor is hot, stiff, and heavy. Now, your average hero would laugh this
> off as unimportant, but in real life, when you start sweating, and you get an
> itch on your belly that you can't scratch, and after a few hours the armor
> starts weighing on you, anyone who's not actually IN combat, or likely to be,
> is going to want to take the thing off, and quick.
>
Well 2 lbs is not heavy. A pair of jeans weigh 2 lbs.
It shouldn't be too hot and stiff most of the time. Especially if the
campaign takes place in a temperate zone and mostly at night.
During the day, in the south I could easily see it getting hot. Kind of
like wearing winter clothing.
The real question which I seem to get contradictory information on is
this:
DR 14. Is this a realistic level of protection? Does concealed kevlar
actually cause 9 mm rounds to usually do no damage at all, and limit
them to 2?
I'm not 100% sure, but as far as I can remember a Glock-17 (or 22 or
whatever the the one from the basic set is) does 2d+2 damage. Against a
DR or 14 it means that on average the glock will do no damage. It has a
1 in 36 change of doing 2 damage and a 11 in 36 chance of doing 1 point
of damage.
On average against such armour, it would take probably 3 or 4 entire
clips worth of ammunition to kill the average person assuming you aimed
for the body. Is this right? And someone with a natural toughness of 2
would be impossible to kill.
Is this realistic?
Cheers!
DZ
Xplo Eristotle
David Zvekic wrote:
>
> Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> >
> > Without solid plates in the armor, the kevlar will still prevent penetration,
> > but the impact will still cause serious bruising; I've heard of ribs being
> > broken in a few places. Remember that all the kevlar will do is spread the
> > impact over a wider area, so it's still like being hit by a baseball at over
> > 100 MPH while unarmored.. not fun.
>
> So are you saying that DR 14 is unrealistic?
I'm describing what happens when armor gets shot. I was never attempting to
specify whether or not the DR is realistic.
> If the DR is actually 14 then the most damage you can take from most
> handguns is 2 points of damage (from blunt trauma), and that is
> unlikely. More likely you will take nothing. I should think that a 100
> mph fastball is probably on the order of 3-6 points of damage.
I was guessing at the speed of the ball; 100 MPH "feels" right to me. Also
baseballs aren't terribly dense.
In any case, the broken ribs are probably a rare case, in which case we can
call that a critical hit. Normal impacts (supposedly) leave nasty bruises,
which a couple of points of crushing damage to a circle of flesh a few inches
across would probably cause.
> If you assume that the impact of a bullet against kevlar armour is like
> a fastball against bare flesh then a DR of 8-10 is more realistic for
> the 2 lb kevlar armour.
And where are you getting this from?
> > GURPS has a "blunt trauma" rule to handle this: every 6 rolled rolled for
> > damage against a soft-armored target inflicts 1 point that ignores armor.
>
> 1 or 2 points of damage is nothing to write home about. And the odds are
> you wont roll a single 6. Guns which do 3 dice of damage will beat DR 14
> on a roll of 3 sixes so the most you can take this way is 2 points of
> damage and it isn't likely to occur.
Look, I didn't write the blunt trauma rule, I just quoted it. If you have a
problem with it, invent a house rule, or take it up with Kromm or Hunter or someone.
> > > The only significant reason I can find in the game to *NOT* wear the 2
> > > lb DR 14 concealable armour *all the time*, is if your character was
> > > *deluded* into thinking it only had a DR of 3 or 4.
> >
> > The things to remember here is that real people are not fictional heroes.
> > Compared to them, we're mostly petty wimps, and even the ones that aren't
> > don't want to suffer needlessly.
>
> Right, but is every single character in gurps intended to be a hero? It
> doesn't say in the armour description, 'DR 14 for heroes and DR 8 for
> everyone else'.
I never said or implied that. Stop putting words in my mouth.
> The real question which I seem to get contradictory information on is
> this:
>
> DR 14. Is this a realistic level of protection? Does concealed kevlar
> actually cause 9 mm rounds to usually do no damage at all, and limit
> them to 2?
You're missing the point. Kevlar DOESN'T protect against all damage, it
protects against penetration. And with that in mind, yes, kevlar actually
prevents 9 mm rounds from putting chunky holes in your chest.
> I'm not 100% sure, but as far as I can remember a Glock-17 (or 22 or
> whatever the the one from the basic set is) does 2d+2 damage. Against a
> DR or 14 it means that on average the glock will do no damage. It has a
> 1 in 36 change of doing 2 damage and a 11 in 36 chance of doing 1 point
> of damage.
>
> On average against such armour, it would take probably 3 or 4 entire
> clips worth of ammunition to kill the average person assuming you aimed
> for the body. Is this right?
I'll let someone else take this.. but that IS the point of body armor. If it
didn't work, people wouldn't use it. And anyone who fires three clips of ammo
into the body of someone who's obviously armored is just asking for his target
to walk up to him and thumb his eyes out, IMO.
Andrew Priestley
David Zvekic wrote:
> Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> >
> > David Zvekic wrote:
> > >
> > > Also in movies when someone gets shot even if they are wearing armour
> > > they always act like they are stunned and wounded. After the fight is
> > > over they wake up and say something like 'gosh it was damn lucky I
> > > decided to wear a bullet proof vest' and the other characters are
> > > astounded.
> > >
> > > I was wondering if GURPS has it right, and hollywood has got it wrong.
> >
> > Well, Hollywood exaggerates things to suit itself, but it has a point.
> >
> > Without solid plates in the armor, the kevlar will still prevent penetration,
> > but the impact will still cause serious bruising; I've heard of ribs being
> > broken in a few places. Remember that all the kevlar will do is spread the
> > impact over a wider area, so it's still like being hit by a baseball at over
> > 100 MPH while unarmored.. not fun.
> >
>
> So are you saying that DR 14 is unrealistic?
> If the DR is actually 14 then the most damage you can take from most
> handguns is 2 points of damage (from blunt trauma), and that is
> unlikely. More likely you will take nothing. I should think that a 100
> mph fastball is probably on the order of 3-6 points of damage.
>
> If you assume that the impact of a bullet against kevlar armour is like
> a fastball against bare flesh then a DR of 8-10 is more realistic for
> the 2 lb kevlar armour.
>
> > Even with solid plates, I understand you still get pummeled a bit.
> >
> > GURPS has a "blunt trauma" rule to handle this: every 6 rolled rolled for
> > damage against a soft-armored target inflicts 1 point that ignores armor.
> >
>
> 1 or 2 points of damage is nothing to write home about. And the odds are
> you wont roll a single 6. Guns which do 3 dice of damage will beat DR 14
> on a roll of 3 sixes so the most you can take this way is 2 points of
> damage and it isn't likely to occur.
>
> > > The only significant reason I can find in the game to *NOT* wear the 2
> > > lb DR 14 concealable armour *all the time*, is if your character was
> > > *deluded* into thinking it only had a DR of 3 or 4.
> >
> > The things to remember here is that real people are not fictional heroes.
> > Compared to them, we're mostly petty wimps, and even the ones that aren't
> > don't want to suffer needlessly.
> >
>
> Right, but is every single character in gurps intended to be a hero? It
> doesn't say in the armour description, 'DR 14 for heroes and DR 8 for
> everyone else'.
>
> > Body armor is hot, stiff, and heavy. Now, your average hero would laugh this
> > off as unimportant, but in real life, when you start sweating, and you get an
> > itch on your belly that you can't scratch, and after a few hours the armor
> > starts weighing on you, anyone who's not actually IN combat, or likely to be,
> > is going to want to take the thing off, and quick.
> >
>
> Well 2 lbs is not heavy. A pair of jeans weigh 2 lbs.
> It shouldn't be too hot and stiff most of the time. Especially if the
> campaign takes place in a temperate zone and mostly at night.
>
> During the day, in the south I could easily see it getting hot. Kind of
> like wearing winter clothing.
>
> The real question which I seem to get contradictory information on is
> this:
>
> DR 14. Is this a realistic level of protection? Does concealed kevlar
> actually cause 9 mm rounds to usually do no damage at all, and limit
> them to 2?
>
> I'm not 100% sure, but as far as I can remember a Glock-17 (or 22 or
> whatever the the one from the basic set is) does 2d+2 damage. Against a
> DR or 14 it means that on average the glock will do no damage. It has a
> 1 in 36 change of doing 2 damage and a 11 in 36 chance of doing 1 point
> of damage.
>
> On average against such armour, it would take probably 3 or 4 entire
> clips worth of ammunition to kill the average person assuming you aimed
> for the body. Is this right? And someone with a natural toughness of 2
> would be impossible to kill.
>
> Is this realistic?
>
> Cheers!
> DZ
A non armor piercing 9mm NATO bullet is never going to penetrate a level II or
Level IIIA vest in good repair. After someone blasts away at it for a while, it
should be weakened enough to be penetrated, but that should take maybe 30 solid
hits. This doesn't say that anyone wearing that vest is cheerfully walking down the
street, he is still being pelted by brass and lead bullets moving at 1090 fps or
so, and that hurts! He should probably be taking 1 point of damage from each hit,
with a half point of that being actual bruising damage and the other half
stunning. A full magazine from an SMG is going to render this guy into a quivering
mass of bruised flesh easily dispatched by a walk-up shot to the head.
The problem is that in real life, bullets do maximum damage on a curve representing
loss of energy to drag over distance. But at say 10 yards or less, a 9mm bullet
should be doing about maximum damage. GURPS doesn't model this well, using a
random die roll to determine how much damage the bullet does, allowing a range of
3-18 points for a .44 magnum, even if the target is right in front of the muzzle.
Pretty dumb. I've heard it said that this reflects winging shots, but that is
accounted for by the to-hit roll. If you roll 5 under what you need to hit, you
ain't winging the guy.
This is where the body armor idea breaks down, not over the capabilities of the
body armor, but around how GURPS models bullet damage. There are two ways of
dealing with this, get a ballistics chart for a bunch of common calibers and figure
out what percentage of energy is lost by the projectile at different ranges and
model that to GURPS, allowing that the bullet does max damage within increment 1,
damage -1 at increment 2 and so on out to max range. Realistic, but a lot of work,
and it takes some of the suspense and random heroicness out of things. Or, you can
lower the protective values of the armor, so that the average shot does at least
one point of damage, but which allows an average bullet, hitting a new vest, to
penetrate and do very significant damage, which is not realistic. Another model is
to adjust the rules, and say that for each roll of 5 or greater on each damage die,
the character takes 1 point of damage. This narrows the threshold of
invulnerability and models reality a bit better when using die rolled damage.
Iceman
JefWilson
In article <357C6FCE...@infomagic.com>, Xplo Eristotle
<xp...@infomagic.com> writes:
>> Not if you consider Kevlar to be ablative, and monocrys not. Before this
>> thread I never thought about Kevlar being ablative, but it's certainly a
>> rule in my game from now on!
>
>That's great for long-term maintainence, not so great in the
>extreme-short-term. From fight to fight, durability is good.. but dammit,
>when
>shots are fired, I want a one-pound, 24 DR vest, or the closest thing I can
>get to it. *_*
>
>Say, where did you get this idea that kevlar was ablative.. and monocrys
>isn't?
First of all, kevlar that's been hit by a bullet is replaced in the real world.
Second, there's the fact that monocrys replaces kevlar in spite of being
heavier for the DR. Yes, this is circular reasoning, but at least it's
internally consistent.
Xplo Eristotle
JefWilson wrote:
>
> In article <357C6FCE...@infomagic.com>, Xplo Eristotle
> <xp...@infomagic.com> writes:
>
> >> Not if you consider Kevlar to be ablative, and monocrys not. Before this
> >> thread I never thought about Kevlar being ablative, but it's certainly a
> >> rule in my game from now on!
> >
> >That's great for long-term maintainence, not so great in the
> >extreme-short-term. From fight to fight, durability is good.. but dammit,
> >when
> >shots are fired, I want a one-pound, 24 DR vest, or the closest thing I can
> >get to it. *_*
> >
> >Say, where did you get this idea that kevlar was ablative.. and monocrys
> >isn't?
>
> First of all, kevlar that's been hit by a bullet is replaced in the real world.
And monocrys isn't? (Or rather, wouldn't be?) They're the exact same thing,
just a different substance, and I doubt that the monocrys is much more durable
than kevlar as an armor material (of course, there's no good way to know).
> Second, there's the fact that monocrys replaces kevlar in spite of being
> heavier for the DR. Yes, this is circular reasoning, but at least it's
> internally consistent.
It's internally consistent, but it doesn't make practical sense. Reiterating
what I pointed out earlier, durability is meaningless in battle, because
kevlar and monocrys are both capable of sustaining enough shots to protect the
wearer during the combat's duration. With that taken out of the equation, the
only thing left is weight/DR ratio, and the monocrys is actually WORSE than
the kevlar.
If we assume for the sake of argument that your PC gets in a fight, during
which he is shot twice in the chest, which would you (and he) rather wish that
he had been wearing: a 2 lb, DR 14 vest (kevlar), or a 3 lb, DR 8 vest
(monocrys)? Don't know about you, but I'd rather be leaving the scene with my
guts intact, not getting left behind as a well-dressed corpse...
JefWilson
In article <357E8EFA...@infomagic.com>, Xplo Eristotle
<xp...@infomagic.com> writes:
Well, let's look at the next fight, which would you rather be wearing: nothing
(because you couldn't afford or find your contact to replace the kevlar), or a
3 lb, DR 8 vest which will be good for a few combats yet.
Certainly if you don't expect to get shot at, but want to take precautions,
kevlar's the way to go. If you _do_ get shot at regularly, you may decide to
go for something more durable.
Xplo Eristotle
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
> If we assume for the sake of argument that your PC gets in a fight, during
> which he is shot twice in the chest, which would you (and he) rather wish that
> he had been wearing: a 2 lb, DR 14 vest (kevlar), or a 3 lb, DR 8 vest
> (monocrys)? Don't know about you, but I'd rather be leaving the scene with my
> guts intact, not getting left behind as a well-dressed corpse...
Being bored, I constructed a little experiment; please note that all given
figures, my procedure, etc. are merely meant as illustration, and not "hard
scientific evidence".
Assume that a man gets shot six times in the chest; none of the hits hit the
vitals. Roll damage. Repeat using a medium pistol (2D) and a large one (3D),
for each armor vest described above. My results:
Monocrys, 2D: 0, 3, 2, 0, 0, 1 = 6
Monocrys, 3D: 8, 0, 7, 2, 3, 4 = 24 (x1.5 for bullet bonus = 36)
Kevlar, 2D: 0, 0, 1B, 0, 1B, 0 = 2
Kevlar, 3D: 1B, 1, 0, 1B, 3, 1B = 4 (x1.5 for bullet bonus = 6) + 3 from blunt
trauma = 9
"B" signifies blunt trauma as opposed to penetration. So with the 2D pistol,
the only difference is some hospital time for the poor sucker whose armor
couldn't completely stop the bullets.. but with the 3D pistol, the kevlar guy
is in the hospital, and the monocrys guy gets to make four death saves at HT
10, or three at HT 12. And THEN the bleeding starts, and that guy's gonna be a
crimson fountain...
Of course, the monocrys, being (by Jef's logic) non-ablative, is still in
perfect shape, and can be given to the next poor sucker in line. You might
want to tape up those bullet holes, of course, or at least bleach out the
blood so that the "next sucker" doesn't get too suspicious. *_*
David Zvekic
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
> David Zvekic wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Without solid plates in the armor, the kevlar will still prevent penetration,
> > > but the impact will still cause serious bruising; I've heard of ribs being
> > > broken in a few places. Remember that all the kevlar will do is spread the
> > > impact over a wider area, so it's still like being hit by a baseball at over
> > > 100 MPH while unarmored.. not fun.
> >
> > So are you saying that DR 14 is unrealistic?
>
> specify whether or not the DR is realistic.
That is right. But your description of what happens when someone gets
shot doesn't jive with what happens when someone wearing DR 14 armour
gets shot. What I should have asked is this:
Does the statement you are making imply that DR 14 is unrealistic?
(a fair question since it is also the original one)
>
> > If the DR is actually 14 then the most damage you can take from most
> > handguns is 2 points of damage (from blunt trauma), and that is
> > unlikely. More likely you will take nothing. I should think that a 100
> > mph fastball is probably on the order of 3-6 points of damage.
>
> I was guessing at the speed of the ball; 100 MPH "feels" right to me. Also
> baseballs aren't terribly dense.
>
> In any case, the broken ribs are probably a rare case, in which case we can
> call that a critical hit. Normal impacts (supposedly) leave nasty bruises,
> which a couple of points of crushing damage to a circle of flesh a few inches
> across would probably cause.
>
So does this imply DR 14 is unrealistic?
> > If you assume that the impact of a bullet against kevlar armour is like
> > a fastball against bare flesh then a DR of 8-10 is more realistic for
> > the 2 lb kevlar armour.
>
> And where are you getting this from?
>
Well you just said the bullet will probably cause a couple of points of
crushing damage. With a DR of 8-10 then the bullet does just this. With
a DR 14 the bullet probably causes no damage at all. (I didn't make the
rules).
> > > GURPS has a "blunt trauma" rule to handle this: every 6 rolled rolled for
> > > damage against a soft-armored target inflicts 1 point that ignores armor.
> >
> > 1 or 2 points of damage is nothing to write home about. And the odds are
> > you wont roll a single 6. Guns which do 3 dice of damage will beat DR 14
> > on a roll of 3 sixes so the most you can take this way is 2 points of
> > damage and it isn't likely to occur.
>
> Look, I didn't write the blunt trauma rule, I just quoted it. If you have a
> problem with it, invent a house rule, or take it up with Kromm or Hunter or someone.
>
The original question was about if the rules were realistic. I don't
have a problem with the rules unless they are unrealistic. I would like
the rules to simulate what will realistically happen, not what I want to
happen.
> > > > The only significant reason I can find in the game to *NOT* wear the 2
> > > > lb DR 14 concealable armour *all the time*, is if your character was
> > > > *deluded* into thinking it only had a DR of 3 or 4.
> > >
> > > The things to remember here is that real people are not fictional heroes.
> > > Compared to them, we're mostly petty wimps, and even the ones that aren't
> > > don't want to suffer needlessly.
> >
> > Right, but is every single character in gurps intended to be a hero? It
> > doesn't say in the armour description, 'DR 14 for heroes and DR 8 for
> > everyone else'.
>
> I never said or implied that. Stop putting words in my mouth.
>
I asked a question. I didn't say you said anything. What were you
trying to imply?
> > The real question which I seem to get contradictory information on is
> > this:
> >
> > DR 14. Is this a realistic level of protection? Does concealed kevlar
> > actually cause 9 mm rounds to usually do no damage at all, and limit
> > them to 2?
>
> You're missing the point. Kevlar DOESN'T protect against all damage, it
> protects against penetration. And with that in mind, yes, kevlar actually
> prevents 9 mm rounds from putting chunky holes in your chest.
>
GURPS doesn't have a penetration stat. It is Hit Points and Damage. A
club will do swing damage with 0 penetration.
GURPS doesn't model the difference between 1 point of chunky hole in the
chest damage, and 1 point of buise damage. It is all 1 point of damage.
You are missing *my* point. The original question about DR 14. This is
Damage Resistance 14. Not penetration resistance.
> > I'm not 100% sure, but as far as I can remember a Glock-17 (or 22 or
> > whatever the the one from the basic set is) does 2d+2 damage. Against a
> > DR or 14 it means that on average the glock will do no damage. It has a
> > 1 in 36 change of doing 2 damage and a 11 in 36 chance of doing 1 point
> > of damage.
> >
> > On average against such armour, it would take probably 3 or 4 entire
> > clips worth of ammunition to kill the average person assuming you aimed
> > for the body. Is this right?
>
> I'll let someone else take this.. but that IS the point of body armor. If it
> didn't work, people wouldn't use it.
Yes. but Does it really provide DR 14?
And anyone who fires three clips of ammo
> into the body of someone who's obviously armored is just asking for his target
> to walk up to him and thumb his eyes out, IMO.
>
Certainly if their target is wearing supernatural DR 14 armour. But if
the bullets actually do 2 points of damage (which they don't in GURPS
Hi-Tech, they do slightly over 0.3611 damage mean value for a 2d+2
bullet) on average like you said they would, then 5 shots would KO the
average person, and 10 shots would be fatal.
The GURPS rules say that it will take about 55 shots to kill someone
(score 20 points of damage).
My original question was (paraphrased): In real life can someone expect
to require 55 shots to kill a kelvar vested target.(i.e. is DR 14
realistic) The question was not 'If it takes 55 shots to kill someone
should I still keep shooting even when they are about to walk up to me
thumb my eyes out'.
No, I'm not putting words in your mouth. I am re-iterating my original
question for anyone who is interested in voicing an oppinion.
I've already personally decided what I'm going to do. The DR 14 is
realistic to a certain point, but the blunt trauma rules are not very
realistic (in my oppinion). I'm going to change my blunt trauma rules
to be 1 damage for each 5 rolled, and +1 damage if _any_ sixes are
rolled. Up to 3 damage per bullet, but still probably no damage. This
means with a ROF of 3 it is still worthwhile to shoot someone who is
wearing armour (and it is still worthwhile for them to take cover), and
that a full burst from a submachine gun will probably KO but not kill
such an armoured target.
Andrew Priestley
JefWilson wrote:
> In article <357E8EFA...@infomagic.com>, Xplo Eristotle
> <xp...@infomagic.com> writes:
>
> >It's internally consistent, but it doesn't make practical sense. Reiterating
> >what I pointed out earlier, durability is meaningless in battle, because
> >kevlar and monocrys are both capable of sustaining enough shots to protect
> >the
> >wearer during the combat's duration. With that taken out of the equation, the
> >only thing left is weight/DR ratio, and the monocrys is actually WORSE than
> >the kevlar.
> >
> >If we assume for the sake of argument that your PC gets in a fight, during
> >which he is shot twice in the chest, which would you (and he) rather wish
> >that
> >he had been wearing: a 2 lb, DR 14 vest (kevlar), or a 3 lb, DR 8 vest
> >(monocrys)? Don't know about you, but I'd rather be leaving the scene with my
> >guts intact, not getting left behind as a well-dressed corpse...
>
> Well, let's look at the next fight, which would you rather be wearing: nothing
> (because you couldn't afford or find your contact to replace the kevlar), or a
> 3 lb, DR 8 vest which will be good for a few combats yet.
>
> Certainly if you don't expect to get shot at, but want to take precautions,
> kevlar's the way to go. If you _do_ get shot at regularly, you may decide to
> go for something more durable.
Now that makes sense :-)
Does it really matter how durable the vest is if it lets through lethal damage in
every firefight? I'd rather buy a friggin' bolt of kevlar and learn how to stitch
up ballistic panels for the vest and have to do it after every firefight, than have
a vest thats ready to wear again after I get out of the hospital. It doesn't make
sense. You wear armor to keep the important bits inside and undamaged. If you
have a piece of armor available that weighs 2 pounds and protects for 14 hits
compared against another vest that weighs 3 pounds and protects against 8 hits,
this is a no brainer. You are lighter and better protected with the first option,
plus, at TL8, Kevlar is a low tech fabric and cheap, so you buy it by the bolt and
stich up your own stuff on an industrial sewing machine. Very simple. You will
stay alive longer to appreciate those long gear maintenance sessions between
missions.
Also, If you are in the military or police and get hit, you just turn the thing in
for a replacement. The government pays for it.
Iceman
Andrew Priestley
David Zvekic wrote:
Snipping a long and defensive bit.
David, look at my response to your question below, it sort of explains the problem. The
root problem is not that DR 14 is unrealistic, but that bullet damage in GURPS is modelled
around giving a shot player a chance at living, so instead of doing max damage at point
blank range, the bullet does a random amount of damage in a range. In real life, if you
get shot at point blank range by a .45 ACP, you take max damage for a 230 grain bullet
cranking along at 850 f.p.s.
Iceman
Xplo Eristotle
JefWilson wrote:
>
> In article <357E8EFA...@infomagic.com>, Xplo Eristotle
> <xp...@infomagic.com> writes:
>
> >If we assume for the sake of argument that your PC gets in a fight, during
> >which he is shot twice in the chest, which would you (and he) rather wish
> >that
> >he had been wearing: a 2 lb, DR 14 vest (kevlar), or a 3 lb, DR 8 vest
> >(monocrys)? Don't know about you, but I'd rather be leaving the scene with my
> >guts intact, not getting left behind as a well-dressed corpse...
>
> Well, let's look at the next fight, which would you rather be wearing: nothing
> (because you couldn't afford or find your contact to replace the kevlar), or a
> 3 lb, DR 8 vest which will be good for a few combats yet.
No, let's look at the aftermath of the first fight. What would you rather be
wearing: weakened (but still protective) kevlar, or little pieces of your
internal organs? The 3 lb, DR 8 vest won't help much in those other combats
you postulate if there's no one to wear it. *_*
> Certainly if you don't expect to get shot at, but want to take precautions,
> kevlar's the way to go. If you _do_ get shot at regularly, you may decide to
> go for something more durable.
If I get shot at regularly, but can't afford to replace my armor when needed
(or if my employer won't supply it) then it's high time I found either a new
employer, or a new line of work.
Xplo Eristotle
David Zvekic wrote:
>
> Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> >
> > David Zvekic wrote:
> > >
> > > Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Without solid plates in the armor, the kevlar will still prevent penetration,
> > > > but the impact will still cause serious bruising; I've heard of ribs being
> > > > broken in a few places. Remember that all the kevlar will do is spread the
> > > > impact over a wider area, so it's still like being hit by a baseball at over
> > > > 100 MPH while unarmored.. not fun.
> > >
> > > So are you saying that DR 14 is unrealistic?
> >
> > I'm describing what happens when armor gets shot. I was never attempting to
> > specify whether or not the DR is realistic.
>
> That is right. But your description of what happens when someone gets
> shot doesn't jive with what happens when someone wearing DR 14 armour
> gets shot.
My description "jives" just fine with what happens when someone wearing
*flexible* DR 14 armor gets shot.
> > > If you assume that the impact of a bullet against kevlar armour is like
> > > a fastball against bare flesh then a DR of 8-10 is more realistic for
> > > the 2 lb kevlar armour.
> >
> > And where are you getting this from?
>
> Well you just said the bullet will probably cause a couple of points of
> crushing damage. With a DR of 8-10 then the bullet does just this. With
> a DR 14 the bullet probably causes no damage at all. (I didn't make the
> rules).
Ah, minor semantic conflict. I don't, personally, consider bullet damage to be
"crushing" (and I have no idea why SJ does either). Bullets kill by putting
holes in people, and as far as I'm concerned, that's impaling, not crushing.
But getting back to the point.. when I say a couple of points of crushing
damage, I mean REAL crushing damage, blunt trauma.. not the "crushing" damage
of a bullet penetrating flesh. Since medium pistols don't penetrate kevlar on
a regular basis, DR 8-10 is obviously too low.
> > > > > The only significant reason I can find in the game to *NOT* wear the 2
> > > > > lb DR 14 concealable armour *all the time*, is if your character was
> > > > > *deluded* into thinking it only had a DR of 3 or 4.
> > > >
> > > > The things to remember here is that real people are not fictional heroes.
> > > > Compared to them, we're mostly petty wimps, and even the ones that aren't
> > > > don't want to suffer needlessly.
> > >
> > > Right, but is every single character in gurps intended to be a hero? It
> > > doesn't say in the armour description, 'DR 14 for heroes and DR 8 for
> > > everyone else'.
> >
> > I never said or implied that. Stop putting words in my mouth.
>
> I asked a question. I didn't say you said anything. What were you
> trying to imply?
I wasn't saying that heroes can shrug off an extra six points of damage, I was
saying that heroes could shrug off the nastiness of armor being hot, heavy,
and stiff. Considering that my next paragraph quite clearly pointed out that
in real life, armor IS hot, heavy, and stiff, I would have thought the
connection between the two, as well as with your statement that you couldn't
find any reason why someone wouldn't wear armor all the time, was fairly obvious.
I guess that'll teach me to take things for granted. *_*
> > > DR 14. Is this a realistic level of protection? Does concealed kevlar
> > > actually cause 9 mm rounds to usually do no damage at all, and limit
> > > them to 2?
> >
> > You're missing the point. Kevlar DOESN'T protect against all damage, it
> > protects against penetration. And with that in mind, yes, kevlar actually
> > prevents 9 mm rounds from putting chunky holes in your chest.
>
> GURPS doesn't model the difference between 1 point of chunky hole in the
> chest damage, and 1 point of buise damage.
Why yes, actually it DOES model this, as far as armor is concerned, thanks to
blunt trauma rules. If you want to say that the blunt trauma rules are
unrealistic, and make them hurt a little more, fine.. but don't go
misinterpreting how the rules work (and why) and then complaining when they
seem broken.
> > I'll let someone else take this.. but that IS the point of body armor. If it
> > didn't work, people wouldn't use it.
>
> Yes. but Does it really provide DR 14?
Yes, it really provides DR 14! The point you're missing is that kevlar DOES
NOT WORK the same way as full plate, because it's not the same kind of armor!
I'm getting sick of this. Figure out how the rules work, and WHY, and then
come back here and argue this, if you still have something to say after that. *_*
Roger Carbol
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
(on the topic of Kevlar and monocrys)
> They're the exact same thing,
> just a different substance,
Sorry. I just had to quote you on that.
.. Roger Carbol .. r...@shaw.wave.ca .. more equal than others
Not Important
realism.
Take a .45 automatic. Put it against the head of an average person. pull the
trigger. Is he dead? In GURPS, the answer is 50/50....
I like GURPS. But it's not very good at firearms.....
>
David L. Pulver
A note on comparing apples and oranges:
The kevlar second chance standard vest under discussion (2.5 lbs.,
DR 14) protects locations 9-10 and 17-18. It doesn't protect the groin
(location 11).
The light monocrys vest at 3 lbs. and DR 8 protects the entire torso
including the groin (locations 9-11 and 17-18).
A better comparison is the second chance hardcorps "basic vest" without
inserts which protects 9-11 and 17-18 with DR 16 for 6 lbs.
Medium monocrys provides DR 16 and protects 9-11 and 17-18 for 5 lbs.
This would suggest that monocrys is actually about 1.2 times as
protective as the best kevlar.
Geoffrey Brent
My email address is spam-protected. To reply,
remove the duplicate.
David L. Pulver <dlpu...@kos.net> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.3.96.980611001344.16789A-100000@mercury>...
> The kevlar second chance standard vest under discussion (2.5 lbs.,
> DR 14) protects locations 9-10 and 17-18. It doesn't protect the groin
> (location 11).
Location 11's the whole abdomen, not just the groin, isn't it ?
Geoffrey Brent
Wicked Lester
> >
> This follows along well with what I call my "acid test" for any game system's
> realism.
> Take a .45 automatic. Put it against the head of an average person. pull the
> trigger. Is he dead? In GURPS, the answer is 50/50....
> I like GURPS. But it's not very good at firearms.....
> >
Actually a .45 in the brain will do an average of
(7 - 2(skull) )* 4 = 20 (30 points if you are using hi-tech rules for bullet size)
That means two death rolls, dead 75% of the time.(4 death rolls using hi-tech, dead 15
times out of 16).
--
Space is big.Really big.You just won't believe how vastly hugely
mindbogglingly big it is.I mean you may think it's a long way down
the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.Listen...
Douglas Adams - The Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy
Geoffrey Brent
My email address is spam-protected. To reply,
remove the duplicate.
Not Important <bb...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<357f5...@news.greatbasin.net>...
> This follows along well with what I call my "acid test" for any game
system's
> realism.
> Take a .45 automatic. Put it against the head of an average person. pull
the
> trigger. Is he dead? In GURPS, the answer is 50/50....
I think you've missed a few things here here:
A .45 does 3d damage or so, IIRC ? When you say "put it
against the head", you're actually talking about the _brain_
in GURPS terms, location 3-4. A typical hit will do 10 points
damage or so. -2 for skull DR is 8. Multiply by 1.5 for bullet
size, 12 points. Quadruple damage for all brain hits: 48 points
damage. That leaves Joe Average at -38 hit points, requiring 6
HT rolls to survive - he only has a 2% chance of survival.
Sure, if you put a .45 against someone's temple and fire
they don't have even that chance of survival, but GURPS is
intended to model combat. In combat, your shot might not
be quite straight; it might glance. If you get the opportunity
to put the gun against their head and pull the trigger, I'd
assess maximum damage automatically, which will cause
an automatic kill. But there's really precious little need for
rules on what happens when you shoot someone through
the temple with a .45. We already know what happens, we
don't need to pay SJG to tell us _that_...
(I do know one system where average guys can often shrug off
firearm hits with no lasting damage, and even the weediest has
better than a 50-50 chance of surviving a point-blank shotgun
hit to the chest, but it's not GURPS.)
I tend to view the HT rolls as a "save vs. instant death". If
you're at -40 hp and you make all your rolls, you're not
_immediately_ dead. You may still be damaged beyond
your own ability to recover, and quite possibly beyond
anybody else's ability to save you, but you're not dead _yet_.
OTOH, the "make one HT roll and if you succeed, you come
to in a few hours, really weak" is probably generous.
Here are my suggested trauma rules:
Make HT rolls as normal to stay conscious, and to avoid
instant death (that's one roll at -HT, and one at every 5
points afterwards.)
If you're at 0 hp or below, you'll eventually fail a HT roll
and pass out (unless someone heals you back up first.)
When you pass out, make a "trauma roll". This is against
your HT.
Modifiers:
-1 for every multiple of HT below zero
-1 additional for every bullet/impaling injury to the vitals.
(The vitals include a lot of things that won't kill you instantly
but are very likely to kill you later on - kidneys, stomach,
etc.)
+2 if someone successfully renders you first aid;
maybe +4 if they have full paramedical equipment
(adrenaline, oxygen, etc.)
+4 or more for a successful Surgery roll, depending
on equipment available. Not cumulative with first aid.
If you succeed, you stabilise and will regain consciousness
in 1 hour for each point you went below zero hp. Brain injuries
can last much longer. You'll still be very weak until you heal the
damage you've taken.
If you fail, you're still bleeding, or something equally bad.
Lose 10 HP, but don't make the instant death rolls. Instead,
roll again in an hour (probably at a penalty for the extra 10
hits.) Repeat every hour until you stabilise, or reach -5 HT
and die.
Examples:
If Joe Average is shot in the vitals for 2d+2 damage (medium
pistol), he takes an average of 27 points, putting him
at -17. Two HT rolls to avoid instant death (serious heart
wounds, ruptured aorta, or what-have-you.) If he avoids those,
he rolls HT-2 to stabilise. Without medical attention, he has
about a 45% chance of recovering on his own. If the ambulance
gets to him within an hour or so, his chances jump to about
95%. (Clear airways, keep his heart going, provide transfusion,
etc.) But remember, this is only if he doesn't die immediately.
It takes him at least 17 hours to regain consciousness.
If he's shot in the brain with a .45 for average damage, as
above, he's at -38, so he rolls at -3. Without medical attention,
he has a 20% chance of surviving _if_ he's not killed instantly.
With medical attention he'll probably survive.
If he takes a knife through the shoulder for maximum damage
(9 points, doubled for impaling, 18 points, so -8 HP) he rolls at no
penalty and has about an 80% chance of surviving on his own,
though quite possibly losing a lot of blood. With a friend there
to bandage him, he gets +2 on his roll and has a 98% chance
of survival.
These rules aren't much more complicated than the default
ones; I think they do a slightly better job at modelling serious
injuries. Comments, anyone ?
Geoffrey Brent
Lance
Geoffrey Brent wrote:
> My email address is spam-protected. To reply,
> remove the duplicate.
>
> Not Important <bb...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> <357f5...@news.greatbasin.net>...
>
> > This follows along well with what I call my "acid test" for any game
> system's
> > realism.
> > Take a .45 automatic. Put it against the head of an average person. pull
> the
> > trigger. Is he dead? In GURPS, the answer is 50/50....
>
> I think you've missed a few things here here:
>
> A .45 does 3d damage or so, IIRC ? When you say "put it
> against the head", you're actually talking about the _brain_
> in GURPS terms, location 3-4. A typical hit will do 10 points
> damage or so. -2 for skull DR is 8. Multiply by 1.5 for bullet
> size, 12 points. Quadruple damage for all brain hits: 48 points
> damage. That leaves Joe Average at -38 hit points, requiring 6
> HT rolls to survive - he only has a 2% chance of survival.
I think the central objection of the original poster (wow, I've got
telechronomotivapathy; I can tell what he was meaning whereever
he was!) was that you do not roll average damage; not only might
you survive average damage, but you might take substantially less
than average damage. A .45 does 2d, not three, so the roll could
go as low as 2 points: the skull absorbs those, and the guy takes no
damage at all!
A standard deviation from the average would be what, a 4? This
would result in two points quadrupled for a total of 8, enough for a
bad headache, but not a killing shot per se.
Having said this, though, I'll note that even a three point (becomes one,
becomes four) shot to the brain will automatically stun the target, and
th (result eight) will knock him out, no roll (assuming a HT of 16-)
Knocked out, with a head wound, any sensible bleeding rules will kill
you pretty soon.
Also, there are automatic success rules in GURPS (B87) and in a situation
this cut and dried, the GM would be justified in saying "Bang, he's dead"
when it comes to damage. Me, I'd still have you roll to hit, looking for
critical miss results only (so I'd give you a +20) since there are a number
of firearm critical misses that have nothing to do with aiming.
By the way, the Brain section says "multiply basic damage by four
(regardless of weapon type)" Unless I'm missing an errata, you won't
be getting that 1.5 multiplier?
--
Lance Berg
http://empyre.net
Andrew Priestley
David L. Pulver wrote:
> A note on comparing apples and oranges:
>
> The kevlar second chance standard vest under discussion (2.5 lbs.,
> DR 14) protects locations 9-10 and 17-18. It doesn't protect the groin
> (location 11).
>
> The light monocrys vest at 3 lbs. and DR 8 protects the entire torso
> including the groin (locations 9-11 and 17-18).
>
> A better comparison is the second chance hardcorps "basic vest" without
> inserts which protects 9-11 and 17-18 with DR 16 for 6 lbs.
>
> Medium monocrys provides DR 16 and protects 9-11 and 17-18 for 5 lbs.
>
> This would suggest that monocrys is actually about 1.2 times as
> protective as the best kevlar.
Except that it is only as good as the best Kevlar now, rather than being a
clear improvement over the Kevlar garments of the next ten years. While
the data may have looked good when it was first brought out, it is
painfully outdated now.
Iceman
Andrew Priestley
Lance wrote:
My point was that bullets do not do damage on a random curve. They do damage
based on mass and velocity. So a given bullet weight at a given range, carries
a given amount of kinetic energy. A realistically modelled damage system would
calculate damage according to range for each basic cartridge type, and that's
how much damage a person would take from the hit. This would really take away
from the game though, because players would be dying left and right. Instead,
they decided to model it on a random curve, so that the same, dead-center hit
could yield as little as a couple of points, or kill the guy outright. Its not
realistic, but it is playable and gives the player a chance of coming through a
firefight alive. So you have a couple of choices, accept the rules as they are,
or modify them to suit your needs. Personally if I want an NPC cannon fodder
piece dead, it doesn't matter what armor he is wearing, the PC will kill him,
usually with one shot, maybe two, because PC weapons tend to do maximum damage
against cannon fodder. your mileage may vary.
Iceman
David L. Pulver
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Andrew Priestley wrote:
> Except that it is only as good as the best Kevlar now, rather than being a
> clear improvement over the Kevlar garments of the next ten years. While
> the data may have looked good when it was first brought out, it is
> painfully outdated now.
I'm sure you can find different brands if you shop around. GURPS Space
says that monocrys has twice the DR of kevlar for twice the cost. If
you're using the basic set rather than the space values for kevlar, just
double the DR in basic set and use that instead of the space/ut numbers.
John Freiler
Geoffrey Brent <z221...@student.unsw.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> A .45 does 3d damage or so, IIRC ? When you say "put it
> against the head", you're actually talking about the _brain_
> in GURPS terms, location 3-4. A typical hit will do 10 points
> damage or so. -2 for skull DR is 8. Multiply by 1.5 for bullet
> size, 12 points. Quadruple damage for all brain hits: 48 points
> damage. That leaves Joe Average at -38 hit points, requiring 6
> HT rolls to survive - he only has a 2% chance of survival.
> Sure, if you put a .45 against someone's temple and fire
> they don't have even that chance of survival, but GURPS is
> intended to model combat. In combat, your shot might not
Actually, I think that it may be a little higher than 2% survival. That
98% mortality rate is for instant death. Once bleeding is factored in,
death is a certianty. So, most folks would croak instantly, but a few
would die after a few seconds (sometimes the bidy takes a few seconds to
realize that it's been blown apart and should really stop functioning).
In fact, I think that there ought to be blow through for the brain:
People have survived (admittedly very rarely) having a bullet pass through
their brain, and the implied 'brains always stop a bullet' is a hard rule
to live with.
<nifty heavy damage rules ssnipped>
John
Squirrellyman
Andrew Priestley wrote:
> My point was that bullets do not do damage on a random curve. They do damage
> based on mass and velocity. So a given bullet weight at a given range, carries
> a given amount of kinetic energy. A realistically modelled damage system would
> calculate damage according to range for each basic cartridge type, and that's
> how much damage a person would take from the hit.
I whole-heartedly disagree! Actually, I agree with everything you say
up to the point "and that's how much damage a person would take from the
hit."
Yes, that's how much force will hit the target, but that's not
necessarily how much damage the target will take. Two identical bullets
will give varying amounts of damage based on exactly where they hit.
Identical bullets shooting someone in the leg could have vastly
different effects based on exactly where they hit. One bullet might
just graze the leg, tearing skin and a little muscle. Another might
shoot through a bone, shattering it and causing much more damage. And a
third could shoot through the bone and sever a main artery. THIS IS THE
HEART OF A DAMAGE SYSTEM BASED ON A RANDOM CURVE.
Anyway, this whole "acid test," although not without its merits, doesn't
accurately test a combat system, IMHO. The "gun against the head" test
is an extreme case. You would want to test the average case, where
average would be whatever the PC's normally come across. (It could vary
from GM to GM and campaign to campaign).
-Dave
Andrew Priestley wrote:
>
> Lance wrote:
>
> > Geoffrey Brent wrote:
> >
> > > My email address is spam-protected. To reply,
> > > remove the duplicate.
> > >
> > > Not Important <bb...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> > > <357f5...@news.greatbasin.net>...
> > >
> > > > This follows along well with what I call my "acid test" for any game
> > > system's
> > > > realism.
> > > > Take a .45 automatic. Put it against the head of an average person. pull
> > > the
> > > > trigger. Is he dead? In GURPS, the answer is 50/50....
> > >
> > > I think you've missed a few things here here:
> > >
> > > A .45 does 3d damage or so, IIRC ? When you say "put it
> > > against the head", you're actually talking about the _brain_
> > > in GURPS terms, location 3-4. A typical hit will do 10 points
> > > damage or so. -2 for skull DR is 8. Multiply by 1.5 for bullet
> > > size, 12 points. Quadruple damage for all brain hits: 48 points
> > > damage. That leaves Joe Average at -38 hit points, requiring 6
> > > HT rolls to survive - he only has a 2% chance of survival.
> >
Charles Griswold
Lance wrote:
> I think the central objection of the original poster (wow, I've got
> telechronomotivapathy; I can tell what he was meaning whereever
> he was!) was that you do not roll average damage; not only might
> you survive average damage, but you might take substantially less
> than average damage. A .45 does 2d, not three, so the roll could
> go as low as 2 points: the skull absorbs those, and the guy takes no
> damage at all!
The bullet glanced off his skull without penetrating.
> Also, there are automatic success rules in GURPS (B87) and in a situation
> this cut and dried, the GM would be justified in saying "Bang, he's dead"
> when it comes to damage. Me, I'd still have you roll to hit, looking for
> critical miss results only (so I'd give you a +20) since there are a number
> of firearm critical misses that have nothing to do with aiming.
>
On the other hand, people have been shot point-blank in the back of the
head with a pistol, and survived with no brain damage. "Bang, he's
dead" doesn't cover situations like this.
-- Charles Griswold (WARNING -- do not export this .sig :)
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
Xiphias Gladius
Charles Griswold <gris...@rconnect.SMITE-THE-SPAMMERS!.com> writes:
>Lance wrote:
>
>> I think the central objection of the original poster (wow, I've got
>> telechronomotivapathy; I can tell what he was meaning whereever
>> he was!) was that you do not roll average damage; not only might
>> you survive average damage, but you might take substantially less
>> than average damage. A .45 does 2d, not three, so the roll could
>> go as low as 2 points: the skull absorbs those, and the guy takes no
>> damage at all!
>The bullet glanced off his skull without penetrating.
Which *happens*. I remember when I was a younger lad reading in
"Encycopaedia Brown's Book Of Real Criminals" (or something like that)
about a man who was shot three times in the head with a .357 at point
blank range. None of the bullets penetrated his skull.
He was later quoted as saying, "My ears are still ringing. Those shots
were loud."
- Ian
David Zvekic
Lance wrote:
<snip>
>
> By the way, the Brain section says "multiply basic damage by four
> (regardless of weapon type)" Unless I'm missing an errata, you won't
> be getting that 1.5 multiplier?
>
I took "weapon type" in this context to mean the difference between
crushing, cutting and impaling. I apply the 1.5 damage multiplier (for
large bullets) in my campaigns. To me this damage multiplier is not a
function of the 'type' of damage, but of the size of the wound cavity.
And certainly a larger wound cavity in the brain ought to do more
damage.
I do however make crush, cut and impale damage all have the same x4
modifier.
I don't know what SJ's original intentions were.
David L. Pulver
Actually, in GURPS the 0.45 caliber Colt M1911 does 2d damage with a 1.5 X
multiplier, not 3d damage with a 1.5 X multiplier, with the damage
multiplier not applying since it is superceded by the brain hit
multiplier.
Thus, the brain hit average result is 7 - 2 (skull) = 5 X 4 = 20 hits.
Your average dude has to make only _death_ roll, which means it is indeed
only a 50% chance of an immediate fatality, although bleeding, etc. can
croak him faster.
I would argue, of course, that if you actually shove the colt next to his
skull and pull the trigger, you've scored an automatic critical hit at
least and max damage is quite reasonable an assumption....
Andrew Priestley
Squirrellyman wrote:
> Andrew Priestley wrote:
> > My point was that bullets do not do damage on a random curve. They do damage
> > based on mass and velocity. So a given bullet weight at a given range, carries
> > a given amount of kinetic energy. A realistically modelled damage system would
> > calculate damage according to range for each basic cartridge type, and that's
> > how much damage a person would take from the hit.
>
> I whole-heartedly disagree! Actually, I agree with everything you say
> up to the point "and that's how much damage a person would take from the
> hit."
>
> Yes, that's how much force will hit the target, but that's not
> necessarily how much damage the target will take. Two identical bullets
> will give varying amounts of damage based on exactly where they hit.
> Identical bullets shooting someone in the leg could have vastly
> different effects based on exactly where they hit. One bullet might
> just graze the leg, tearing skin and a little muscle. Another might
> shoot through a bone, shattering it and causing much more damage. And a
> third could shoot through the bone and sever a main artery.
But all things being equal (same hit location etc), they should all transfer the same
amount of damage to the target, and in a random system that just isn't so. The same
bullet striking in exactly the same spot, can either do 18 points of damage, or 3
points of damage, by GURPS rules.
> THIS IS THE
> HEART OF A DAMAGE SYSTEM BASED ON A RANDOM CURVE.
>
> Anyway, this whole "acid test," although not without its merits, doesn't
> accurately test a combat system, IMHO. The "gun against the head" test
> is an extreme case. You would want to test the average case, where
> average would be whatever the PC's normally come across. (It could vary
> from GM to GM and campaign to campaign).
>
> -Dave
>
>
The whole "curve represents the possibility of not hitting something vital" thing is
valid,... to a point. BUt any shot that hits dead-bang on is going to do max damage
for that range. Shot placement is modeled in the hit location charts, and you can
refine that slightly by saying hits by a narrow margin are flesh wounds. The thing
is. According to the current rules, you can damned near critical hit someone with a
roll 5 under what you need to hit them, and only do 2 points of damage, because the
random curve allows this spectacular success to be turned into a flesh wound. That
isn't realistic....but I don't propose changing it, because it makes the game playable
and survivable for players. Again, I reserve the right to apply different rules
against the bad guys, without telling the players of course.
Now we could go through the mathematical gymnastics of accurately modelling damage to
range, and tweak the hit location tables to account for grazes from (just hit hims),
but that isn't really productive or necessary since it would really overbalance the
combat system, turning an RPG into a wargame. GURPS has already gotten too top heavy,
so lets not bother. If you want body armor to be a little less invulnerable, adjust
the blunt trauma rules a bit so that every roll of 5 or more on damage dice, comes
through as blunt trauma, even though the bullet is absolutely stopped. Its simple,
it's effective, and it models reality. I would even go so far as to say that on a
liight vest such as a IIA class concealable, that any bullet hit, regardless of actual
damage, causes at least one point of blunt trauma, which may be only shock, but will
seem real enough at the time.
I was not arguing that we should drop GURPS damage rules, but if a little more realism
is what you are after, you can tweak some without totally freaking out the whole
system.
Also, quite realistically, human beings regularly survive being perforated by heavy
caliber bullets that according to GURPS rules, can do enough damage to kill them four
times over, that's where Blow through rules are a good thing. There are multiple
cases of men being hit by multiple 7.62mm Russian bullets and continuing to fight,
carry their buddies to choppers, etc. (Sergeant Roy Benavidez comes to mind.)
Iceman
MA Lloyd
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Andrew Priestley wrote:
> But all things being equal (same hit location etc), they should all transfer the same
> amount of damage to the target, and in a random system that just isn't so. The same
> bullet striking in exactly the same spot, can either do 18 points of damage, or 3
> points of damage, by GURPS rules.
You are missing the point. The 3d curve accounts for the fact that they
DON'T hit exactly the same spot under exactly the same conditions.
Hit locations are much, much larger than bullets.
> The whole "curve represents the possibility of not hitting something vital" thing is
> valid,... to a point. BUt any shot that hits dead-bang on is going to do max damage
> for that range. Shot placement is modeled in the hit location charts, and you can
> refine that slightly by saying hits by a narrow margin are flesh wounds. The thing
> is. According to the current rules, you can damned near critical hit someone with a
> roll 5 under what you need to hit them, and only do 2 points of damage, because the
> random curve allows this spectacular success to be turned into a flesh wound.
I don't think the reasoning on that is quite right. Why do you think
better to hit rolls are necessarily more damaging. They are further from
missing - in the sense of still being hits if the target were smaller,
but that just means they are closer to the center of the target area.
The geometric center of a hit location isn't necessarily the worst place
in it you can be hit.
-- MA Lloyd (mall...@mik.uky.edu)
Neko2048
For clarification...
Mr. Pulver, are you stating that it is allowable under the rules to ignore the
rules in Ultra Tech in favor of Space? If this is the case, doesn't that
weaken the effort to try and assemble all technical data in the High Tech/Ultra
Tech books?
There should be some kind of apparent hierarchy to the books, one should think.
I would never have considered that Space (which is outdated by Ultra Tech)
would not be the book I would look to for the "better" rules (at least,
regarding Monocrys).
Also, as a general note to everyone involved in this thread, for the argument
being placed, why doesn't the character who has a problem with kevlar's PD 2,
DR 14 simply move up to the 6 lb, DR 16 Medium Monocry rather than go down to
the lesser effective 3 lb, DR 8 Light Monocrys.
As a side note, my game group and I have always thought that Light Monocrys was
effectively a stop-gap protectiveness that one could work into standard
clothing (for the increased cost, of course). For purposes of
style-over-substance (while still having the characters protected in some
form), I have always allowed Light Monocrys as shirts and pants, while Medium
can be worked into items like business and leather jackets. Heavy cannot be
worked into anything and anyone requiring that much protection might as well go
for CID jackets if they want the "heavily armored" look.
Of course, this is speaking in terms of a Cyberpunk/TL 8 setting (where
Cyberpunk is considered a part of TL 8, but not ALL of it).
Just my thoughts on the matter. I admit that it seems strange that Medium
Monocrys protects with just 2 points more for three times the weight...
Neko
"Life is hard and then you Tao"
Lance
Charles Griswold wrote:
> Lance wrote:
>
> > I think the central objection of the original poster (wow, I've got
> > telechronomotivapathy; I can tell what he was meaning whereever
> > he was!) was that you do not roll average damage; not only might
> > you survive average damage, but you might take substantially less
> > than average damage. A .45 does 2d, not three, so the roll could
> > go as low as 2 points: the skull absorbs those, and the guy takes no
> > damage at all!
>
> The bullet glanced off his skull without penetrating.
>
This is an aimed shot with the opening of the barrel held against the skull,head
on. And remember, I've already postulated forcing a "to hit" roll, to
avoid the critical misses. The gun in question was a .45ACP, not an anemic
round. Odds of a "glancing blow" here are vanishingly small...
> > Also, there are automatic success rules in GURPS (B87) and in a situation
> > this cut and dried, the GM would be justified in saying "Bang, he's dead"
> > when it comes to damage. Me, I'd still have you roll to hit, looking for
> > critical miss results only (so I'd give you a +20) since there are a number
> > of firearm critical misses that have nothing to do with aiming.
> >
>
> On the other hand, people have been shot point-blank in the back of the
> head with a pistol, and survived with no brain damage. "Bang, he's
> dead" doesn't cover situations like this.
>
I'll grant you, it does happen. I'm perfectly happy rolling for damage,
actually.The person posting the complaint, though was saying that he felt there
would be
no chance of survival under the circumstances; if he feels this way and is the
gm,
this is the rule for him! "Bang, he's dead" covers this pretty well...
Xiphias Gladius
My fiancee' seems to remeber that, in the Fringeworthy system, an attack
did a fixed ammount of damage, and variable damage effects were covered by
an incredibly complex "to-hit" table.
So, in that system, at least the way Lis recalls it, a .45 would do a
certain ammount of damage; but the effect on the target would be different
if the hit was in the eye or the pinky.
In some ways, that seems to be approximately the system that Iceman is
saying would be more realistic. However, as Iceman points out, such a
system would be incredibly cumbersome to retrofit to GURPS.
And, Lis's memory of Fringeworthy is that, even in a system designed for
that mechanic, it was so cumbersome as to make combat unplayable.
- Ian
Geoffrey Brent
My email address is spam-protected. To reply,
remove the duplicate.
Lance <emp...@success.net> wrote in article
<357FC2CE...@success.net>...
> > A .45 does 3d damage or so, IIRC ? When you say "put it
> > against the head", you're actually talking about the _brain_
> > in GURPS terms, location 3-4. A typical hit will do 10 points
> > damage or so. -2 for skull DR is 8. Multiply by 1.5 for bullet
> > size, 12 points. Quadruple damage for all brain hits: 48 points
> > damage. That leaves Joe Average at -38 hit points, requiring 6
> > HT rolls to survive - he only has a 2% chance of survival.
>
> I think the central objection of the original poster (wow, I've got
> telechronomotivapathy; I can tell what he was meaning whereever
> he was!) was that you do not roll average damage; not only might
> you survive average damage, but you might take substantially less
> than average damage. A .45 does 2d, not three,
Yes, I was thinking of the .44 magnums listed in GURPS rather
than a standard .45. Sorry 'bout that.
And yes, you can roll less than average damage - it's worth
considering, I left it out because it made things more complicated
without changing the guy's chances much at 3d damage. With
2d damage, you're right, the spread does boost his chances of
survival.
> so the roll could
> go as low as 2 points: the skull absorbs those, and the guy takes no
> damage at all!
>
> A standard deviation from the average would be what, a 4? This
> would result in two points quadrupled for a total of 8, enough for a
> bad headache, but not a killing shot per se.
With two or three dice, there's no need to talk about standard
deviations; it's usually easier to look at the individual probabilities.
You get a 4 or less, on two dice, one time in 6. (1/36 for 2, 2/36
for 3, 3/36 for 4.)
> Having said this, though, I'll note that even a three point (becomes one,
> becomes four) shot to the brain will automatically stun the target, and
> th (result eight) will knock him out, no roll (assuming a HT of 16-)
> Knocked out, with a head wound, any sensible bleeding rules will kill
> you pretty soon.
>
> Also, there are automatic success rules in GURPS (B87) and in a situation
> this cut and dried, the GM would be justified in saying "Bang, he's dead"
> when it comes to damage. Me, I'd still have you roll to hit, looking for
> critical miss results only (so I'd give you a +20) since there are a
number
> of firearm critical misses that have nothing to do with aiming.
>
> By the way, the Brain section says "multiply basic damage by four
> (regardless of weapon type)" Unless I'm missing an errata, you won't
> be getting that 1.5 multiplier?
I checked Compendium II this morning, and it seems to agree with
you - the rule is "if the location has its own damage modifier, use
this _instead_ of special weapon damage mods" or words to that
effect. This would seem to include bullet size modifiers - but I think
it's more realistic if you apply them separately.
So yeah, the rules aren't quite as realistic as I thought they were.
But if you modify them to what I thought they were, they get
better ;-)
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
My email address is spam-protected. To reply,
remove the duplicate.
Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote in article
<357FCBA3...@ziplink.net>...
> My point was that bullets do not do damage on a random curve. They do
damage
> based on mass and velocity. So a given bullet weight at a given range,
carries
> a given amount of kinetic energy. A realistically modelled damage system
would
> calculate damage according to range for each basic cartridge type, and
that's
> how much damage a person would take from the hit. This would really take
away
> from the game though, because players would be dying left and right.
Instead,
> they decided to model it on a random curve, so that the same, dead-center
hit
> could yield as little as a couple of points, or kill the guy outright.
Its not
> realistic, but it is playable and gives the player a chance of coming
through a
> firefight alive.
How do you measure "damage" ? Bullet A and Bullet B may weigh
the same and hit at the same velocity, but that _doesn't_ mean they
do the same level of injury to the victim. An "arm" hit might go through
muscle, or it might go through muscle and bone, or it might go through
muscle and brachial artery. Similarly, a "vitals" hit might go through
the heart, or it might go through a lung, or it might glance off a rib and
not do much at all. The bullet's power has a lot of effect on how much
damage it does, but so does its exact trajectory.
"Center of visible mass" is the targeting philosophy I've always heard.
There are several excellent reasons why this is popular, but it doesn't
mean that the shot that lands closest to that will necessarily do the
most damage. The shot that's a little off, but glances off a rib into the
heart, will do more damage than the shot that's right on target but
glances off a rib and misses.
So my view is that in most cases, the damage roll represents the
"luck of the trajectory". If you're in a position to choose your
trajectory - for instance, if you can walk up to your target and
shoot them where you like - you should probably do maximum
damage.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
My email address is spam-protected. To reply,
remove the duplicate.
Xiphias Gladius <i...@dillinger.io.com> wrote in article
<ian.89...@dillinger.io.com>...
> My fiancee' seems to remeber that, in the Fringeworthy system, an attack
> did a fixed ammount of damage, and variable damage effects were covered
by
> an incredibly complex "to-hit" table.
>
> So, in that system, at least the way Lis recalls it, a .45 would do a
> certain ammount of damage; but the effect on the target would be
different
> if the hit was in the eye or the pinky.
>
> In some ways, that seems to be approximately the system that Iceman is
> saying would be more realistic. However, as Iceman points out, such a
> system would be incredibly cumbersome to retrofit to GURPS.
Warhammer 40K used a similar system for attacking vehicles, IIRC.
Each vehicle came with its own targeting template, and you got a
transparency with grid marks and an X in the center.
You placed the X where you were aiming and rolled for deviation. A
good weapons skill would let you adjust that result slightly. The final
result determined whether you hit at all, and if so where; different
locations had different armour levels and damage effects.
Didn't seem like too bad a system, but it's a real pain if you want
a _generic_ game and don't want to have to buy templates for every
possibility.
Rolemaster also combined the to-hit and damage rolls, but it was
a bit more abstract, and sometimes led to unlikely results. ("You
hit with your warhammer. Roll an 'E' puncture and a 'C' crush crit."
"Wow. I impale his kidney and break his neck with the same blow.
How did I manage to do that ?" or "You score 40 hit points and an
'E' slash crit." "OK... I cut his leg off. Wait a moment, I've already
cut both his legs off. So where _did_ I hit, and do I still do 40 hit
points ?)
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
My email address is spam-protected. To reply,
remove the duplicate.
John Freiler <ra...@westnet.com> wrote in article
<6lolh3$of2$1...@mycroft.westnet.com>...
> Geoffrey Brent <z221...@student.unsw.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> > A .45 does 3d damage or so, IIRC ? When you say "put it
[Let's pretend I was talking about .44 magnum here, since I was
assuming 3d damage.]
> > against the head", you're actually talking about the _brain_
> > in GURPS terms, location 3-4. A typical hit will do 10 points
> > damage or so. -2 for skull DR is 8. Multiply by 1.5 for bullet
> > size, 12 points. Quadruple damage for all brain hits: 48 points
> > damage. That leaves Joe Average at -38 hit points, requiring 6
> > HT rolls to survive - he only has a 2% chance of survival.
>
> > Sure, if you put a .45 against someone's temple and fire
> > they don't have even that chance of survival, but GURPS is
> > intended to model combat. In combat, your shot might not
>
> Actually, I think that it may be a little higher than 2% survival. That
> 98% mortality rate is for instant death. Once bleeding is factored in,
> death is a certianty. So, most folks would croak instantly, but a few
> would die after a few seconds (sometimes the bidy takes a few seconds to
> realize that it's been blown apart and should really stop functioning).
Yup. Under the trauma rules I suggested earlier, that's pretty
much the situation - if he doesn't die instantly, he has about a
20% chance to recover on his own, which gives him a total 0.4%
chance of survival without medical attention.
(Though with a head wound, he may be unconscious for days,
and will very likely die of exposure/malnutrition if he's not found.)
> In fact, I think that there ought to be blow through for the brain:
> People have survived (admittedly very rarely) having a bullet pass
through
> their brain, and the implied 'brains always stop a bullet' is a hard rule
> to live with.
I dunno about that. I'm planning on building myself a tank with two
layers of armour, and human brains in between. Guaranteed to stop
_anything_ :-)
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
My email address is spam-protected. To reply,
remove the duplicate.
David L. Pulver <dlpu...@kos.net> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.3.96.980611154935.12990A-100000@mercury>...
>
> Actually, in GURPS the 0.45 caliber Colt M1911 does 2d damage with a 1.5
X
> multiplier, not 3d damage with a 1.5 X multiplier, with the damage
> multiplier not applying since it is superceded by the brain hit
> multiplier.
Out of curiosity - why _doesn't_ the 1.5x multiplier apply here ?
The rules say it doesn't, but I would have thought if bigger bullets
hurt normal tissue more than smaller they should have the same
effect on brains. Cumulative multipliers are nasty, but brain hits
should be.
Geoffrey Brent
David L. Pulver
On 12 Jun 1998, Geoffrey Brent wrote:
> Out of curiosity - why _doesn't_ the 1.5x multiplier apply here ?
> The rules say it doesn't, but I would have thought if bigger bullets
> hurt normal tissue more than smaller they should have the same
> effect on brains. Cumulative multipliers are nasty, but brain hits
> should be.
I've no idea. Didn't write those rules. (I still miss the old first
edition rules, and think guns should be impaling...)
David L. Pulver
On 11 Jun 1998, Neko2048 wrote:
> For clarification...
>
> Mr. Pulver, are you stating that it is allowable under the rules to ignore the
> rules in Ultra Tech in favor of Space? If this is the case, doesn't that
> weaken the effort to try and assemble all technical data in the High Tech/Ultra
> Tech books?
You can ignore whatever you like... I'm discussing rules intent, not
actual rules.
> There should be some kind of apparent hierarchy to the books, one should think.
> I would never have considered that Space (which is outdated by Ultra Tech)
> would not be the book I would look to for the "better" rules (at least,
> regarding Monocrys).
Well, the 2nd edition of space was written AFTER ultra-tech 1st edition,
etc. These things come and go.
> Also, as a general note to everyone involved in this thread, for the argument
> being placed, why doesn't the character who has a problem with kevlar's PD 2,
> DR 14 simply move up to the 6 lb, DR 16 Medium Monocry rather than go down to
> the lesser effective 3 lb, DR 8 Light Monocrys.
One wonders. I did make that point...
> As a side note, my game group and I have always thought that Light Monocrys was
> effectively a stop-gap protectiveness that one could work into standard
> clothing (for the increased cost, of course).
Yes, that's true.
> Just my thoughts on the matter. I admit that it seems strange that Medium
> Monocrys protects with just 2 points more for three times the weight...
Well, again, you get protection over the abdomen, which the 2.5 lb. vest
doesn't offer.
David L. Pulver
On 12 Jun 1998, Xiphias Gladius wrote:
> My fiancee' seems to remeber that, in the Fringeworthy system, an attack
> did a fixed ammount of damage, and variable damage effects were covered by
> an incredibly complex "to-hit" table.
Actually, the attacks did random damage.
Knight
This thread seems to have changed, but if anyone is still concerned about
brusing through armour, I have an idea. Why not halve any damage that is
stopped by the armour, and apply it as shock penalties? It reflects the
fact that a lot of pain is being caused by what, in GURPS terms, isn't
all that much actual damage.
Wicked Lester
David L. Pulver wrote:
This is news to me. Could someone please tell me where it says that
bullet size doen not apply to brain shots.
--
Space is big.Really big.You just won't believe how vastly hugely
mindbogglingly big it is.I mean you may think it's a long way down
the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.Listen...
Douglas Adams - The Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy
Neko2048
Ah...
Thanks for your word-efficient reply, David. Strangely enough, that did help
somewhat... :D
Xiphias Gladius
Knight <10671...@compuserve.com> writes:
What I think would be more realistic (having never been shot, mind you),
although much more complex:
Kevlar would stop the first, say, 8 points of damage cold. The next 8
points of damage would be reduced by 50%, and changed to
plain-old-crushing damage (no bullet size modifier or whatever).
Everything over that would blow through.
How do people feel about that sort of stepwise approach? Is it just too
complex to be bothered with?
- Ian
Andrew Priestley
Xiphias Gladius wrote:
I think it would vary by the vest.
Try this though, using the same GURPS soft armor rule but with a twist.
Any bullet hit to Kevlar body armor vest does a minimum of one point of
crushing damage.
For each roll of 5 or more on a damage die, the character takes an additional
point of damage from the impact, even if the DR of the vest exceeds the damage
done by the bullet.
Optional rule: for every 6 full points of damage done, an additional point of
crushing damage is taken by the wearer.
This, I believe, more closely resembles the actual affects of getting shot
while wearing a vest, without twisting the existing game mechanics out of
whack. Under this model, most people getting shot, while wearing body armor
would receive at least two points of damage. Two points of damage in GURPS is
nothing to sneeze at, that's probably a cracked rib's worth of damage, maybe
more, and if any of you have ever cracked a rib, you know how painful that is.
I would also toy with a GM's optional rule that PC armor is never penetrated
by pistol or SMG shots or shotgun buckshot, but any damage that exceeds armor
DR is received as crushing damage rather than bullet damage. This will keep
the PC's breathing longer, but not necessarily forever.
Iceman
Andrew Priestley
David L. Pulver wrote:
> On 12 Jun 1998, Geoffrey Brent wrote:
>
> > Out of curiosity - why _doesn't_ the 1.5x multiplier apply here ?
> > The rules say it doesn't, but I would have thought if bigger bullets
> > hurt normal tissue more than smaller they should have the same
> > effect on brains. Cumulative multipliers are nasty, but brain hits
> > should be.
>
> I've no idea. Didn't write those rules. (I still miss the old first
> edition rules, and think guns should be impaling...)
!st edition firearms rules were much more realistic, though they might
have needed some recalibration. But using that mechanic, you could
readily model the mechanical accuracy of the weapon based on tolerances,
action type and quality, sight radius, etc. The current system seems to
try to put too many eggs into one basket so to speak (though it doesn't
work badly.)
Iceman
aegrof
Geoffrey Brent wrote:
> > In fact, I think that there ought to be blow through for the brain:
> > People have survived (admittedly very rarely) having a bullet pass
> through
> > their brain, and the implied 'brains always stop a bullet' is a hard rule
> > to live with.
>
> I dunno about that. I'm planning on building myself a tank with two
> layers of armour, and human brains in between. Guaranteed to stop
> _anything_ :-)
>
> Geoffrey Brent
Perfect tool for your next evil cybernecromancer!
Josiah
--
---
please remove the .qqq from our address before replying