Armor AC vs Firearms bullets [Archive] - Wizards Community

Armor AC vs Firearms bullets [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
_super_
06-27-06, 09:19 PM I can used the Armor AC bonus to shoot of Firearms because they don't can stop a bullet and don't have a especifc rule for this question.
In the game "Masque of the Red Death" a opitional World for the Ravenloft game they let me understand who is doesn't possible aplly AC for Armors to the shoots, but they "Let me Understand" because do not have a rule for this.
CryoSilver
06-27-06, 09:22 PM I don't quite understand what you're trying to say, but I assume it's "Should I apply my armor bonus to AC against attacks from firearms, because firearms have significant penetration?"

The answer is yes, for pure balance reasons.
Kaegro_Arytiss
06-27-06, 09:23 PM ...you're asking if a person would still get their armor bonus against being shot with a bullet from a gun?
Vaalingrade Ashland
06-27-06, 09:23 PM Yes, you can use armor AC vs. bullets. Armor in DnD world is different from real world armor. On top of which, real world armor was just as vulnerable if not moreso to arrows and x-bow bolts.

In short, AC from Armor should apply to attacks from firearms.
Lord Schpungus
06-27-06, 10:02 PM Yes. It's the only fair way to adjucate.
narukagami
06-27-06, 10:10 PM What kind of firearms are we talking about? I'm assuming old matchlock muzzleloaders?

In that case, absolutly yes. Anyone who says otherwise needs to look into the history of firearms.
Eikre
06-27-06, 11:05 PM I second that. Firearms and heavily armored mounted troops coexisted as problem and answer on the same battlefields for three centuries. We still use armor as an effective way to protect ourselves, and the philosophy is unchanged: Get a hard piece of material and wear it.

Also, ever heard of Ned Kelly?
Thorak
06-28-06, 12:59 AM Armor does protect you against small arms fire. Even medieval plate, against modern firearms. Sure, shoot the guy with a Barrett, and it'll penetrate, but a 9mm is as likely to bounce off as anything else. The armor-penetrating rounds from muskets were .50 caliber or more. They weren't exactly small bullets. Heck, I've played with Enfield muskets for three summers, those things were used to hunt elephant. With single shots. And they weren't abnormally large-bore.

Modern weaponry is much smaller bore than earlier firearms, typically. Because there has been a shift from "kill them, and kill the three men behind them" to "wound them". This is why the US Army's main weapon uses such a small round; a wounded man uses more enemy resources than a dead man.
Sunrider
06-28-06, 02:42 AM Modern weaponry is much smaller bore than earlier firearms, typically. Because there has been a shift from "kill them, and kill the three men behind them" to "wound them". This is why the US Army's main weapon uses such a small round; a wounded man uses more enemy resources than a dead man.

Hardly the only reason:

Modern rifles/assault rifles have a much higher muzzle velocity than earlier weapons - whereas earlier rifles (as in early-early, not WW2) had muzzle velocities in the transonic range, modern rifles have muzzle velocities in the 750m-1000m per second range. Since KE = 1/2 mv^2 (barring relativistic changes to mass, which are hardly a factor here...), a light, faster-moving bullet can deliver as much energy to a target as a slow, heavy bullet. Light bullets also weigh less than heavy ones; therefore, you can carry a lot more of them.
Faster bullets also have a flatter trajectory when fired over the same distance. Over typical combat distances, this means that estimating a target's range becomes less important, making aiming easier (we're talking typical soldiers shooting at human-sized targets on the battlefield here, not trying to hit a 0.1-inch bullseye on a target range).
A light bullet fired at high velocity produces less recoil than a heavy bullet fired at low velocity, given the same muzzle velocity, due to its lower momentum. Recoil throws guns off-target. The situation only gets worse when the only thing holding the gun steady is the firer's hands, rather than a bipod or tripod (this is one of the reasons a machinegun firing the same ammo as an assault rifle has a greater effective range, e.g. M249 vs M16 firing NATO standard 5.56mm SS109 rounds, loaded into the same box magazine). Heavy bullets and high-momentum projectiles aren't compatible with automatic fire from assault rifles.
Although light bullets are more affected by air resistance than heavy bullets (thus becoming a factor at long range - this is one of the reasons a 7.62mm machinegun usually has a greater effective range than a 5.56mm machinegun, despite the lower muzzle velocity), this isn't really a factor over typical combat distances (point-blank to around 400m). For most combat situations, it's more useful to be able to get more rounds into the air, flying in the general direction of the enemy, than to be able to hit a human-sized target at 1000m, but being left without a fully-automatic option due to the recoil generated by a large round. That's what you have sniper rifles for (and, guess what - sniper rifles tend to use larger-calibre rounds, since rate of fire isn't so important, but accuracy is).
Given the same KE and bullet design, a faster, smaller-calibre bullet will have more penetration than a slower, large-calibre bullet (obviously a 12.5mm round fired from a Barrett will have more penetration than a 5.56mm round fired from an M16, but that's hardly the same KE...). When firing against armour, penetration is vital (this is why FMJ bullets are preferable to wadcutters in combat - while a wadcutter may 'mushroom' and leave a wide wound channel in a game animal, it will also 'mushroom' against a tactical vest and not penetrate; the FMJ bullet will do less damage, but enough to disable a human... plus, it can actually penetrate the armour to cause injury in the first place). The tradeoff, of course, is in damage done to the target and in stopping power - whereas a faster bullet may penetrate completely, depositing less energy into its target, a slower bullet is more likely to be stopped by the target, depositing all its energy into the target. Also, the slow, heavy bullet will have more momentum than the fast, light bullet - this also gives the heavy bullet more stopping power. However, you're trying to stop a human wearing armour, not an elephant wearing nothing - smaller rounds have more than enough stopping power to take someone out of a fight (if you really want to, you can always kill them later anyway).

Some of these comparisons are relevant to early rifles, while others are more relevant to WW2 rifles (which had muzzle velocities similar to modern assault rifles, fired heavier bullets, had greater KE and a longer effective range). With regards to the WW2 rifles - sure, they had a greater effective range, but, so what? If most combat occurs at point-blank to 400m range, what's the point of being able to fire accurately to 1000m, but only one round every few seconds? Much better to have an assault rifle with a shorter effective range, but firing 50 times as quickly - over typical combat distances, you have much greater firepower. Not to mention that the modern rifle itself is shorter, lighter and smaller...

There are more reasons, but this is probably enough for the moment...

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
_super_ 06-27-06, 09:19 PM	I can used the Armor AC bonus to shoot of Firearms because they don't can stop a bullet and don't have a especifc rule for this question. In the game "Masque of the Red Death" a opitional World for the Ravenloft game they let me understand who is doesn't possible aplly AC for Armors to the shoots, but they "Let me Understand" because do not have a rule for this.
CryoSilver 06-27-06, 09:22 PM	I don't quite understand what you're trying to say, but I assume it's "Should I apply my armor bonus to AC against attacks from firearms, because firearms have significant penetration?" The answer is yes, for pure balance reasons.
Kaegro_Arytiss 06-27-06, 09:23 PM	...you're asking if a person would still get their armor bonus against being shot with a bullet from a gun?
Vaalingrade Ashland 06-27-06, 09:23 PM	Yes, you can use armor AC vs. bullets. Armor in DnD world is different from real world armor. On top of which, real world armor was just as vulnerable if not moreso to arrows and x-bow bolts. In short, AC from Armor should apply to attacks from firearms.
Lord Schpungus 06-27-06, 10:02 PM	Yes. It's the only fair way to adjucate.
narukagami 06-27-06, 10:10 PM	What kind of firearms are we talking about? I'm assuming old matchlock muzzleloaders? In that case, absolutly yes. Anyone who says otherwise needs to look into the history of firearms.
Eikre 06-27-06, 11:05 PM	I second that. Firearms and heavily armored mounted troops coexisted as problem and answer on the same battlefields for three centuries. We still use armor as an effective way to protect ourselves, and the philosophy is unchanged: Get a hard piece of material and wear it. Also, ever heard of Ned Kelly?
Thorak 06-28-06, 12:59 AM	Armor does protect you against small arms fire. Even medieval plate, against modern firearms. Sure, shoot the guy with a Barrett, and it'll penetrate, but a 9mm is as likely to bounce off as anything else. The armor-penetrating rounds from muskets were .50 caliber or more. They weren't exactly small bullets. Heck, I've played with Enfield muskets for three summers, those things were used to hunt elephant. With single shots. And they weren't abnormally large-bore. Modern weaponry is much smaller bore than earlier firearms, typically. Because there has been a shift from "kill them, and kill the three men behind them" to "wound them". This is why the US Army's main weapon uses such a small round; a wounded man uses more enemy resources than a dead man.
Sunrider 06-28-06, 02:42 AM	Modern weaponry is much smaller bore than earlier firearms, typically. Because there has been a shift from "kill them, and kill the three men behind them" to "wound them". This is why the US Army's main weapon uses such a small round; a wounded man uses more enemy resources than a dead man. Hardly the only reason: Modern rifles/assault rifles have a much higher muzzle velocity than earlier weapons - whereas earlier rifles (as in early-early, not WW2) had muzzle velocities in the transonic range, modern rifles have muzzle velocities in the 750m-1000m per second range. Since KE = 1/2 mv^2 (barring relativistic changes to mass, which are hardly a factor here...), a light, faster-moving bullet can deliver as much energy to a target as a slow, heavy bullet. Light bullets also weigh less than heavy ones; therefore, you can carry a lot more of them. Faster bullets also have a flatter trajectory when fired over the same distance. Over typical combat distances, this means that estimating a target's range becomes less important, making aiming easier (we're talking typical soldiers shooting at human-sized targets on the battlefield here, not trying to hit a 0.1-inch bullseye on a target range). A light bullet fired at high velocity produces less recoil than a heavy bullet fired at low velocity, given the same muzzle velocity, due to its lower momentum. Recoil throws guns off-target. The situation only gets worse when the only thing holding the gun steady is the firer's hands, rather than a bipod or tripod (this is one of the reasons a machinegun firing the same ammo as an assault rifle has a greater effective range, e.g. M249 vs M16 firing NATO standard 5.56mm SS109 rounds, loaded into the same box magazine). Heavy bullets and high-momentum projectiles aren't compatible with automatic fire from assault rifles. Although light bullets are more affected by air resistance than heavy bullets (thus becoming a factor at long range - this is one of the reasons a 7.62mm machinegun usually has a greater effective range than a 5.56mm machinegun, despite the lower muzzle velocity), this isn't really a factor over typical combat distances (point-blank to around 400m). For most combat situations, it's more useful to be able to get more rounds into the air, flying in the general direction of the enemy, than to be able to hit a human-sized target at 1000m, but being left without a fully-automatic option due to the recoil generated by a large round. That's what you have sniper rifles for (and, guess what - sniper rifles tend to use larger-calibre rounds, since rate of fire isn't so important, but accuracy is). Given the same KE and bullet design, a faster, smaller-calibre bullet will have more penetration than a slower, large-calibre bullet (obviously a 12.5mm round fired from a Barrett will have more penetration than a 5.56mm round fired from an M16, but that's hardly the same KE...). When firing against armour, penetration is vital (this is why FMJ bullets are preferable to wadcutters in combat - while a wadcutter may 'mushroom' and leave a wide wound channel in a game animal, it will also 'mushroom' against a tactical vest and not penetrate; the FMJ bullet will do less damage, but enough to disable a human... plus, it can actually penetrate the armour to cause injury in the first place). The tradeoff, of course, is in damage done to the target and in stopping power - whereas a faster bullet may penetrate completely, depositing less energy into its target, a slower bullet is more likely to be stopped by the target, depositing all its energy into the target. Also, the slow, heavy bullet will have more momentum than the fast, light bullet - this also gives the heavy bullet more stopping power. However, you're trying to stop a human wearing armour, not an elephant wearing nothing - smaller rounds have more than enough stopping power to take someone out of a fight (if you really want to, you can always kill them later anyway). Some of these comparisons are relevant to early rifles, while others are more relevant to WW2 rifles (which had muzzle velocities similar to modern assault rifles, fired heavier bullets, had greater KE and a longer effective range). With regards to the WW2 rifles - sure, they had a greater effective range, but, so what? If most combat occurs at point-blank to 400m range, what's the point of being able to fire accurately to 1000m, but only one round every few seconds? Much better to have an assault rifle with a shorter effective range, but firing 50 times as quickly - over typical combat distances, you have much greater firepower. Not to mention that the modern rifle itself is shorter, lighter and smaller... There are more reasons, but this is probably enough for the moment...