Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Form Fitting Body Armor

Posted by: Hartbaine Sep 5 2007, 08:12 PM

I converted this over from previous versions for a player who insists that her Face would never be caught dead in anything less than skin tight vinyl.

Formfitting Body Armor-
Level 1 (Vest Only) 2B/0I 8R 350¥
Level 2 (60% of body) 4B/2I 10R 550¥
Level 3 (90% of body) 6B/3I 12R 700¥

Breakdown-
Level 1 = It's not as good as armored clothing, since it isn't covering much but the torso. Obviously being so close to the body it's does't much against impact damage.

Level 2 = Certainly better, now with the inclusion of better protection to vital areas, which assist in deflecting impacts.

Level 3 = About equal to an armored vest thanks to breakthroughs in armor technology several layers of spiderweave and hardened ceramic-titanium applied to vital areas for superior protection.

Opinions? I think it balanced well, and if she gets into a brawl it's not going to help her much and it's pretty close to what was previously published. Honestly no players have ever really used it so I wasn't sure what 2070 armor technology would have done to make it better.

Posted by: Whipstitch Sep 5 2007, 08:18 PM

I guess I just don't see what the point is. The idea of armored clothing is already covered by umm, armored clothing.

Posted by: James McMurray Sep 5 2007, 08:18 PM

Will you be allowing it to stack with other armor without penalties as in previous editions?

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Sep 5 2007, 08:19 PM

...I like it. Been waating all too patiently for Arsenal with the hope they will bring it back. Also miss a lot of the other armour clothing like the Industrial Line Coveralls and the Zoe Fashion armoured clothes.

Back in SRIII my character Leela commissioned the Heritage™ line Starlet™ series following her nova hot debut concert. This combined several styles of lightly armoured gowns with the Second Skin™ underarmour.

[edited to deal with a momentary random bout of keyboard lysdexia]

Posted by: James McMurray Sep 5 2007, 08:20 PM

QUOTE (Whipstitch)

I guess I just don't see what the point is. The idea of armored clothing is already covered by umm, armored clothing.

FFBA isn't armored clothing, at least not in SR terms. It's more like a thick layer of underwear you'd use in addition to your armored clothing. A more mechanically advantageous version of wearing a long coat over your Armani armored suit.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Sep 5 2007, 08:23 PM

There was pretty much a reason why Form Fitting Body Armor wasn't brought over, and that's because it as "broken" as originally written. There was absolutely no reason not to wear it. Your conversion follows in those same steps. I mean, why bother with an armored vest when you can wear level 3 instead?

If it does show up again, I'm betting it follows more along the lines of weaker Orthoskin (I: Bal +1, II: Bal +1/Imp +1 but -1 to all Physical Skills, III: Bal +2/Imp +1 but -1 to all Physical/Combat Skills), or maybe offering a +1 bonus to Body for Damage Resistance Tests per level. That's assuming that the new armors don't already assume/incorporate form-fitting armor into their stats.

Posted by: Whipstitch Sep 5 2007, 08:33 PM

Exactly! The concept is simply a fairly generic armor system that would supercede the fairly generic armor system already in place; in SR4 as it stands, the point at which armor becomes too bulky to combine seamlessly with most styles is essentially anything greater than a 6/4, aka the armored vest (which btw, essentially IS armored underwear), and the few things that seem innappropriate to combine with a vest could simply be handled by having appropriate armored clothing instead. I see what people are getting at with the idea of a modular armor system and I see how it could be useful, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether it's a good idea or not.

Personally, I prefer this scenario:
GM: "They took your armored jacket; you have no armor".

Over this scenario:
GM: "Okay, you lost your jacket but still have your bullet proof brassiere and kevlar miniskirt... Wait, is that 30% or 60% coverage? Bueller?"

Posted by: Draconis Sep 5 2007, 11:23 PM

QUOTE (Whipstitch)

Over this scenario:
GM: "Okay, you lost your jacket but still have your bullet proof brassiere and kevlar miniskirt... Wait, is that 30% or 60% coverage? Bueller?"

10% or less, hopefully.

Posted by: jklst14 Sep 5 2007, 11:37 PM

QUOTE (Draconis)

QUOTE (Whipstitch @ Sep 5 2007, 08:33 PM)

Over this scenario:
GM: "Okay, you lost your jacket but still have your bullet proof brassiere and kevlar miniskirt... Wait, is that 30% or 60% coverage? Bueller?"

10% or less, hopefully.

That being said, I actually kind of like the second scenario - as long as the rules aren't crazily complex.

Posted by: Whipstitch Sep 6 2007, 12:05 AM

If people really want a secondary set of back up armor worn under the heavier categories (and honestly, that's about all this ruleset accomplishes that the current system doesn't), it'd probably be simplest to houserule it so that armored clothing does not stack with other worn body armor types for the purposes of damage reduction OR encumbrance. It'd be easier than handling things piecemeal, anyway, and armored clothing could feasibly be most anything. Having a constant 4 impact (unless people strip you) is hardly a gamebreaker either way, although I couldn't see my group ever bothering with it.

Posted by: James McMurray Sep 6 2007, 01:55 AM

SR3 had modular suits of clothing armor that worked fine. Generally what you endedup doing was spending more money to get a 5/3 suit with better concealability.

Posted by: WhiskeyMac Sep 6 2007, 03:52 AM

I always felt that FFBA was kind of like the Deliverator's outfit from Snow Crash, Sam Fisher's Tac-Op Suit or even Raiden's Skullsuit from MSG2. That's usually how I treated it in regards to encumbrance and protection. Good for glancing blows and long distance shots but not too good for up-close protection.

And with level 3 FFBA you had to be wearing the booties, the gloves and the hood to get all the armor benefits. Otherwise, it's just level 2. Which is still pretty good.

Posted by: apollo124 Sep 6 2007, 06:52 AM

QUOTE (Whipstitch)

Over this scenario:
GM: "Okay, you lost your jacket but still have your bullet proof brassiere and kevlar miniskirt... Wait, is that 30% or 60% coverage? Bueller?"

Hey! I've seen that picture somewhere! Bullets are flying, the guys in armor are hunkered down and the babe in the armor bra and miniskirt is killing the bad guys.

Posted by: The Jopp Sep 6 2007, 08:55 AM

make it simple and treat it similar to a helmet and skip levels.

It does not give as much protection as a good helmet (+1/+2) due to not being restrictive to movement and is not subject to the rules that armour that goes over body gives penalties.

Form fitting armour
Cost: 500
Armour: +1/+2

Coverage: Covers arms, legs, hands, feet and abdomen. Includes a lightly armoured face mask/hood that can fit under a helmet.

Posted by: Whipstitch Sep 6 2007, 01:27 PM

It should be noted that it's not necessarily the kevlar miniskirt that I'm against here. If someone wants to wear Armored Clothing but describes it is something unlikely to accomplish much in real life, I'm not about to stop them (now, were I running a game and they wanted to be half naked and benefit from an armored jacket, that could be a different story). But I am generally against putting in rules for something that's essentially already there. Anyway though, if you guys are really deadset on bringing the old (imo, unnecessary and mildly broken; it was either too good or useless crap with a brandname tacked on) modular armor from SR3, I really don't see why you couldn't just do a straight conversion. About the only thing that would really need tweaking is the prices, since armor values are one of the few things that didn't really change much with the move to 4th. Heck, the Actioneer suit James referred to is still in the game actually, and it still provides 5/3 armor and a concealability bonus. I just don't see the need to fluff things up when the current system can simulate just about anything via abstraction.

Posted by: James McMurray Sep 6 2007, 04:02 PM

I'd definitely do a straight conversion myself. Ok, what I'd actually do is wait for Arsenal.

Posted by: Hartbaine Sep 6 2007, 06:26 PM

QUOTE

There was pretty much a reason why Form Fitting Body Armor wasn't brought over, and that's because it as "broken" as originally written.

Help me to understand this. How, when FFBA follows the same rules for layering that all other armor does, is it broken? Second, considering FFBA was introduced in the Street Sam Catalogue in 93' and rules for layering armor weren't introduced until Fields of Fire in 94'. A year later the enforced the layering rule and FFBA was no exception. I do not see the broken part.

QUOTE

There was absolutely no reason not to wear it. Your conversion follows in those same steps.

If that's the case, why did my character never wear it? Oh... I know! Because my players and I go for keeping true to our characters and their personalities and not lookin for ways to min/max the best possible numbers. It's a bit better than armor clothing, sure. And thanks to a stun baton in last night’s game she now knows that if that's going to be her 'personal style' she's going to be hurting in melee combat.

QUOTE

I mean, why bother with an armored vest when you can wear level 3 instead?

Excellent point! Why bother with an Armored Vest (6/4) when you can buy a Lined Coat (6/4) instead! The coat offers better conceal for weapons, and it covers about everything from the knees to the collar. Yup... why bother with an Armored Vest indeed...

Again, I don’t see your point.

Now, back to the FFBA, I had a thought. Perhaps making the level 3 version forbidden instead of restricted. Wearing a full suit of completely concealable armor after all the crap that been going on in the world since 64’ (i.e. all the drama between editions the world seems a bit more grittier now) could carry quite a stiff penalty.

Also just piss everyone off all who has a severe hatred of underwear... since it's specifically designed to be worn under everything else a character wears, when layering it it's considered 2 points less for factoring how much in encumbers. It protects the same, but is less cumbersome. Now, I won't even defend this, it could easily be seen as 'broken' depending on your game style. The issue that always caught me with FFBA was that it's specifically designed to be worn under everything (including other armor) but it never lived up to its usefulness because of the layering rules.

Considering a technology level where chameleon suits and complete cyber body replacements are available the idea of composing a set of military armored underwear for troops to layer doesn't seem like to far out there of an idea. Considering most military fatigues are the equivalent of an Armored Jacket (8/6) adding this form of protection would still be cumbersome to the average grunt but in certain environments be more help than a hindrance (like when swatting bugs).

Thoughts?

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Sep 6 2007, 06:38 PM

QUOTE (Hartbaine)

In its last incarnation, Form-Fitting Body Armor was just free armor for anyone. It didn't have any impact on layering, could be worn with any other type of armor without consequence, it was completely concealable, and it was one of the few pieces of armor that could effectively be treated with Ruthenium Polymer. Just bonus armor for no particular reason. "Power creep" at its worse.

QUOTE

Honestly? Because you apparently weren't a very good roleplayer, and instead consciously made that decision due to how broken the armor was and not what your character would have chosen to wear considering the in-game impact of said armor. There were -no- drawbacks to wearing it for Christ's sake! You'd be stupid not to if you ever knowingly and willingly put yourself in harm's way.

QUOTE

Excellent point! Why bother with an Armored Vest (6/4) when you can buy a Lined Coat (6/4) instead!

One's designed to be concealable, the other is blatantly obvious but gives you the equivalence of a Concealed Holster.

Again, why bother with an Armored Vest who's only perk is that it's less noticeable than other armor when you can, instead, have full-body protection that's even less noticeable than a vest?

QUOTE

Now, back to the FFBA, I had a thought. Perhaps making the level 3 version forbidden instead of restricted. Wearing a full suit of completely concealable armor after all the crap that been going on in the world since 64’ (i.e. all the drama between editions the world seems a bit more grittier now) could carry quite a stiff penalty.

Now you're into the line of making it into something other than what Form Fitting Body Armor was (100% legal, free armor with no bad consequences at all) and creating something completely new. Which is fine. But stop trying to pretend that you're weird interpretation of what it was is what it actually was.

Posted by: Hartbaine Sep 6 2007, 07:13 PM

QUOTE

I'm ignoring the blantant insults and the calling me stupid part. You seem like a rather intelligent person so I'm sure you don't see the need to stand here and insult one another like kids on the playground.

However, please cite the source of this assumption that it never added to layering armor. It's not under the items description, and sure isn't specifically mentioned as an exception in any 'Layering Armor' rules.

On top of that is specifically says under the items descrption "Not usable with any other forms of body armor." (SR7104 p.40) Now, in my games we ignored that last part and just layered like normal, but that's just my games and they certainly aren't canon. Please tell me where you're getting your information from.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Sep 6 2007, 07:24 PM

Last paragraph of the description, modified by the official errata.

p. 51: Form-Fitted Body Armor
Add to the end of the last sentence of the second paragraph the phrase: "...nor does it count against any Quickness tests (p. 285, SR3).

Source: http://www.shadowrun4.com/resources/errata_cc.shtml

Armor rating is halved if it was the lowest rating, but it has 0 impact on the character.

Posted by: Whipstitch Sep 6 2007, 09:36 PM

I'd a appreciate it if a mod deleted this post. I opened my big mouth and then immediately noticed something that rendered my comment completely superfluous.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 6 2007, 10:21 PM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

Yeah. FFBA was the bane of my existence when I GMed SR3. There was never a reason not to use it and it was total bullshit about how it could provide ballistic protection and yet be clingy and sexy like underwear and not provide any sort of encumberance malus. Broken, broken, broken, made me enraged.

Posted by: Hartbaine Sep 7 2007, 02:46 AM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

Huh, I actually didn't know it was republished for SR3. Still I don't see the big issue, considering most of the broken things they introduced into SR FFBA never really was close to being on my top 5 lists of thorns in the side.

I will concede to your source however. I also doubt it will be left out of 4th edition, they just haven't gotten around to putting it back into a book yet.

I can't believe people are so irritated by FFBA but stealth camo ninja clothes that offer full body protection seems okay. Eh, to each their own. The gear works for my game and my players, so it'll be used. If it becomes a problem, I’ll fix it.

Posted by: Whipstitch Sep 7 2007, 03:21 AM

It's not really irritating so much as inexplicable. There is already generic armor in the game that can essentially take any form. It's just not what you are using.

Posted by: TheMadDutchman Sep 7 2007, 04:47 AM

In previous posts there have been some comments about the actual coverage of that the armor provides. I have not found in SR 4 and do not recall from any previous editions any rules for hit locations. Now, of course, I am aware of the SR4 rule for bypassing armor by taking a penalty of dice to hit equal to the ballistic rating of the armor.

My question is do any of you in your games actually take into account what parts of the body are actually covered? Do any of you roll randomly for hit location or anything like that?

I ask this because if not than if really doesn't matter what the fluff description of armor is. If it never comes up (beyond the previously mentioned called shot) whether a shot is going to the legs, torso, head, or hand, than it doesn't matter if the armor is a vest, armored underwear, a lined coat, or whatever because you'll get the armor's protection.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Sep 7 2007, 06:13 AM

I don't. I only mentioned it as a counterpoint early. Armor Ratings already take cover and amount of protection into account. An Armored Vest, for instance, is way more powerful than Armor 6 on the chest; that's the average for the whole body.

Posted by: psychophipps Sep 7 2007, 08:47 AM

A mention of the fact that modern body armors have to worn tight to the body to be most effective is in order here. You don't want the vests/coats to twist, flop or otherwise move in any way other than to stretch in a manufacturer-designed manner to absorb the impact of the bullet. Also, don't forget that all but the lightest of Kevlar protection is still a bit stiff to reduce blunt trauma so circus-style contortions in armor jackets is pretty well out the window.
I've tried random rolls for SR and in the grand scheme of things, they really don't add much to the "fun factor". They have decent enough "shoot around the armor" rules (even if they are totally brutal to the shooter) and armor is fairly easily handled by the ubiquitous "-4 dice = +4 damage" rule what with dice averaging only 1/3 successes.

Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )

Posted by: Draconis Sep 7 2007, 09:38 AM

QUOTE (apollo124)

QUOTE (Whipstitch @ Sep 5 2007, 03:33 PM)

Over this scenario:
GM: "Okay, you lost your jacket but still have your bullet proof brassiere and kevlar miniskirt... Wait, is that 30% or 60% coverage? Bueller?"

Hey! I've seen that picture somewhere! Bullets are flying, the guys in armor are hunkered down and the babe in the armor bra and miniskirt is killing the bad guys.

Yes, wasn't that Transporter 2?

Posted by: Draconis Sep 7 2007, 09:44 AM

QUOTE (TheMadDutchman)

I miss games with hit locations. Some people say rules systems these days are "streamlined", I say they're "dumbed down" for 12 year olds.

Posted by: Critias Sep 7 2007, 10:06 AM

Shadowrun's never had hit locations, so I don't really see what that particular subject has to do with "rules systems these days."

Posted by: Draconis Sep 7 2007, 10:39 AM

QUOTE (Critias @ Sep 7 2007, 10:06 AM)

Shadowrun's never had hit locations, so I don't really see what that particular subject has to do with "rules systems these days."

Oh I know, still it'd be nice if the option showed up in Arsenal in one of those sidebars.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Sep 7 2007, 10:43 AM

The option's technically already there with Called Shots and bypassing armor (which represents your overall protection, not just for a specific part; its as much penetrating the armor as missing it when shooting someone by default). A hit location system just won't mesh with Shadowrun's base mechanics; you can't successfully combine an abstract system with a detailed hit one without having to rewrite most of the rules in the process.

Armor, again, is a prime example of this. That Armored Vest doesn't provide Armor 6 against a gunshot. It's more like Armor 30-40 or so. However, it only protects your torso, leaving your arms, legs, and head wide open... which is why it only has an Armor of 6. It's also why a Lined Coat has the same armor rating; it's not nearly as tough as the Armored Vest is, but it covers a much larger area.

You'd have to completely reevaluate and redo every single piece of armor in the game if you created a hit location system. And that's just the first step. You'd also have to redo Wound Modifiers (shot to the foot adjusts your ability to move, not shoot; shot to your hand adjusts your ability to shoot, not move), damage values (shot to the head > shot to the foot), Armor Penetration values, and... just tons and tons of other things. And not only those things, but every other rule in the game that affects those things; directly or indirectly.

In the end, you have to create a completely new system just to add it in. If you don't, you wind up with a system that's ten times sillier than it was without it. As has been demonstrated time and time again whenever someone tries to show off their brilliant house rules for how to do it.

Posted by: Draconis Sep 7 2007, 11:22 AM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

Oh I'm aware of the abstract vs concrete problem and the fact that this isn't the first time this has come up. Your use of the word "brilliant" amuses me.
Hmm of course I wouldn't want to get shot in the groin, which is a distinct possibility, so maybe I'll just forget about it altogether.

Posted by: Hartbaine Sep 7 2007, 06:10 PM

Does it really need a set of rules? If someone shoots at a guys hand and the hand isn't armored then as the GM just make a call, add it or don’t'. Sometimes I add armor to a hit location if it makes sense, other times, like when a person has the gun barrel an inch from the person's unprotected skull that I simply say "Okay, Crit Success on a stealth roll... you geek the guy."

Why overcomplicate obviously simple scenarios? Headshots like above are pretty cut and dry. In the middle of combat with people in motion and ducking behind cover, makes things like bypassing armor and targeting extremities much more difficult and a GM should simply say it's possible but given the circumstances (which vary from scene to scene) that it simply is or is not possible (maybe they can't bypass armor from where they're positioned, or they can't target his left hand because they're on his right side...).

I've used the Called Shot rules as is since 4th was released and its so far been fine, I've noticed no shift in the balance of power. Simply because what's good for the Goose is good for the Goons. For awhile they were on a 'Called Shot to the head Halo style' kick... so the Goons went on a 'Called Shot to the head Halo 2 style' kick... now they use it when it makes sense to do so (like precision shooting around cover to hit a sniper, or capping the legs of fleeing gang lieutenants, and in one instance the shoulder of the kid at Big Kahuna Burger for messing up an order). Once in awhile they throw one in for flair and I'm cool with that and they know it's cool until they start making it commonplace.

Posted by: Jaid Sep 7 2007, 06:26 PM

QUOTE (TheMadDutchman)

I ask this because if not than if really doesn't matter what the fluff description of armor is. If it never comes up (beyond the previously mentioned called shot) whether a shot is going to the legs, torso, head, or hand, than it doesn't matter if the armor is a vest, armored underwear, a lined coat, or whatever because you'll get the armor's protection.

well, the fluff descriptor also determines how easily concealed your armor is. while the vest and the long coat have the same armor ratings, the vest is better if you want to hide your armor, whereas the coat is better if you want to hide your gun underneath your coat =P

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Sep 7 2007, 06:29 PM

QUOTE (Hartbaine)

Does it really need a set of rules? If someone shoots at a guys hand and the hand isn't armored then as the GM just make a call, add it or don’t'.

The absurdity of that's already been mentioned. What you're saying here is that the flimsy material of a Lined Coat is exactly as tough and resistant to damage as the plate-enhanced Armored Vest, despite the abstraction of their armor values reflecting both their resistance and their coverage.

Hell, that's why the actual Called Shots to bypass armor still have the armor rating used in the calculations.

Posted by: Hartbaine Sep 7 2007, 07:32 PM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein @ Sep 7 2007, 01:29 PM)

Actually no, I made no mention of what type of armor or whether or not it was protecting said location. I simply said that for the GM to make a call if it seems logical to him/her. Instead of making it a big deal simply say yes or no, or decide for yourself what you, as the GM, feel is appropriate and keep the flow of the game going, it’s about the characters and players not the rules and goons. Eyeball it and move on.

I would hardly consider monofilament ballistic fabrics and spider weave threads to be flimsy material, mostly because, well, it's 2070 and they specifically state that armor technology is nothing to laugh at. Considering that neither you, I, nor anyone else here has been to Shadowrun Land this little fact cannot be disputed. Everything we say about what exists in that world unless already provided by the core book is mere speculation. There are no rights or wrongs, why are you trying so hard?

Armored Clothing has the same rating as the power of a light pistol, that's one hell of a t-shirt and jeans ensemble. I would think that armor provides just as much protection to one area of the body as it does the other parts it covers, which is why GMs need to make a call on when it can or cannot be bypassed.

If a player wants to call a shot to a goons leg while he’s wearing an Armored Vest (torso protection) I'm not going to add the goons armor as a penalty to that, it doesn't make sense to. The armor is nowhere near the area being protected (certainly not -6 dice worth of area). Would I with a lined coat? Yes, most certainly I would apply it (it's not only concealing the legs as he runs but the lined coats composite materials are designed to deflect gunfire) and always do unless there is some damn near awesome reason the character has thought up that I shouldn't.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Sep 7 2007, 07:59 PM

QUOTE (Hartbaine)

Actually no, I made no mention of what type of armor or whether or not it was protecting said location. I simply said that for the GM to make a call if it seems logical to him/her.

Which was exactly my point earlier.

Your choice is to either create even more absurd situations (ignoring the abstraction of armor, which is your -overall- coverage AND the resilience of the armor, not merely the resilience of the armor itself) or revamp the entire system to work with hit locations. By the abstract nature of the rules, that Armored Vest is just as relevant for your hand as it is your chest, which is why it's Ballistic 6 instead of Ballistic 35ish. There's no such thing as "only covers your chest" as far as the rules go. It's all-or-nothing.

And of course GMs have the right to make stuff up on the fly. It's the entire point of having a GM. That doesn't mean the stuff he's making up on the fly is logical or within the intent of the rules he's handwaving away. Absurdity is absurdity whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. You can flippantly say that as a GM, you're within your right to say that guns only shoot marshmellow bullets and no one ever gets hurt, but instead gets intoxicated by their marshmellowy goodness. And you'd be correct; you do have the right to say and do that as a GM. That doesn't mean it makes a lick of sense or is at all appropriate within the context of the actual rules.

Posted by: Apathy Sep 7 2007, 08:04 PM

[Homer] MMMMmmmmmm, deadly marshmallows....(drool)

Posted by: Hartbaine Sep 7 2007, 08:29 PM

QUOTE

Your choice is to either create even more absurd situations (ignoring the abstraction of armor, which is your -overall- coverage AND the resilience of the armor, not merely the resilience of the armor itself) or revamp the entire system to work with hit locations.

Not at all, it's as simple as "This is your penalty for the shot, roll." and that's it. Less than 2 seconds of speech using rules already provided and I never had to slow the game down by looking up all the bonuses or penalties. Nothing absurd about that.

From "The Abstract Nature of Rules":
"If something in these rules doesn't quite fit or make sense to you, feel free to change it. If you come up with a game mechanic that you think works better - go for it."

So where am I in the wrong? Sometimes I follow the rules to the 'T' and other times I just make shit up on the fly, it's all good.

You do have me confused with someone else Doc, I never said I wanted to revamp the entire system to work with hit locations. The called shot system IMO already accounts for that. Someone else mentioned it, but I sure didn't. I'll be damned if I want to take on that endeavor. Nuh uh, now way.

Although I am curious since this train has completely derailed from Ballistic Underoos what would a few opinions be on damage to extremities? Just eyeball it based on the boxes that are done? "You take 8 physical to your leg... it's gone." Or "You take a single box, the bullet is lodged in your thigh, lower you movement by 3 points."

Anyone done something like that before?

Posted by: TheMadDutchman Sep 7 2007, 08:33 PM

It has been expressed in previous posts that the armor value is more of an average when considering it's usefulness and also the amount of body covered by the armor.

I'm not normally a rules lawyer but I felt an uncontrollable urge to look into this. After scowering over the armor sections of the combat book and reading over the armor section of the equipment section I found notion that expresses this idea. Some will counter, and I will agree w/ their statement, that it is implied by the way that helmets and shields work (adding an overall bonus to your overall ballistic/impact protection). However, I feel that implying things is bad pool. It sets a bad example for future rules and rulings.

Also, it has been stated (based on the above implication) that a lined coat is somehow less sturdy than an armored vest but only has as good a rating because over the percentage of the body covered. Again, having read the descriptions of both the armored vest and lined coat I can find nothing to support this claim.

My point is that is someone said to me: "I want my character to wear an armored vest but I want it to be a pair of boxers instead of a vest" I'd have no reason to deny the claim. The only fixed in stone descriptor is really that it provides 6/4 protection and is designed to be worn under the clothes. My assumption, rather comical though it might be, will simply have to be that unless someone calls a -6 penalty that character is forever being shot, kicked, or stabbed in the junk.

Posted by: Apathy Sep 7 2007, 08:54 PM

Anything designed to cover the waist/hips/thighs would have to be much more flexible, thus precluding the use of inflexible plates, and lowering its protection value. If it's not flexible, then it should give movement penalties to simulate the problems of running with a couple heavy metal plates in your shorts.

Posted by: Thomas Sep 7 2007, 08:58 PM

QUOTE (Apathy)

…and chaffing, and pinching!

Posted by: Galedeep Sep 7 2007, 09:41 PM

I've come across this complaint before, back when I played...

The Other Game.

The Doc is completely right; it's all abstracted. The stuff in the full length jacket? Yeah, it's tough. But it isn't rigid. It'll stand up to a shot, and take a good chunk of the force behind it out of the picture, but it will still slam into you pretty hard. The armored vest? It doesn't cover your legs or arms. So, if someone shoots you, hits, but doesn't do damage, describe it as hitting your vest. Someone hits you, and DOES do damage, describe it as hitting your leg.

You can go on and on about how hard it is to run with that bullet lodged in your leg, but in-game, adrenaline and desperation mean you don't take movement penalties. I guess I'm saying we could, I don't know, pretend. Maybe, play a role without trying to nail everything down with numbers when common sense works just as well. We could call it...Umm...Roleplaying?

Description; it's a good thing.

Disclaimer: This whole post is firmly tongue-in-cheek. Honestly, I hardly know of a better place to keep it. To each their own. I'm just saying I get what Doc is saying, and that's how I play it as well. If you don't agree, and you can work up a good way of looking at it otherwise, awesome! If I ever join one of your games, I'll just have to learn some houserules. Until then, my way has worked for me.

Good gaming, everybody!

Posted by: TheMadDutchman Sep 7 2007, 09:49 PM

QUOTE (Apathy)

See, I'm going to have to dispute this.

First of all I agree this would preclude the use of inflexible plates.

However, if you read the description of the armor vest (the armor I was basing my example off of) the armor is actualy constructed of a SOTA flexible-wrap material. Key word being flexible so it wouldn't give movement penalties.

Posted by: NightmareX Sep 8 2007, 10:34 AM

Personally, I always liked the safe underwear. Didn't get a whole lot of mileage out of it save with my namesake character (in the later years) but liked it just the same, and I'll be disappointed if it doesn't reappear.

That said, I'd have to agree with Doc - in this edition, something like what he noted here would be best, save perhaps the nerfing penalties.

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

If it does show up again, I'm betting it follows more along the lines of weaker Orthoskin (I: Bal +1, II: Bal +1/Imp +1 but -1 to all Physical Skills, III: Bal +2/Imp +1 but -1 to all Physical/Combat Skills), or maybe offering a +1 bonus to Body for Damage Resistance Tests per level.

Regarding hit locations, I use this simple house rule: player wants to know where he hit the goon after the attack and resistance rolls (assuming it's not a called shot), I roll a hit location die and/or just make up something appropriate. No muss, no fuss.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Sep 8 2007, 11:49 AM

QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)

There was pretty much a reason why Form Fitting Body Armor wasn't brought over, and that's because it as "broken" as originally written.

Actually, the original rules in SR1 did not allow you to layer it, either...