Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Armor and Encumbrance

Posted by: i101 Jan 27 2008, 04:51 PM

QUOTE

If a character is wearing more than one piece of armor at a time, only the highest value (for either Ballistic or Impact) applies.

Hum ... Somehow I dont get this part in the Corebook. Why should a character wear more then one piece at a time, if only the highest value applies? Sounds senseless to me. Would be nice if PC could combine armor like in SR3. Player character wears an armor jacket (8/6) plus armor clothing (4/0). Armor clothing counts only half. 8+2 = 10/6.

What do you guys say? Btw. I bought me the Arsenal and expected something like that ... Cant find it ... Or havent I looked accurately?

Posted by: Ravor Jan 27 2008, 05:05 PM

Personally I like the fact that they done away with stacking armor although it took som getting used to at first.

However with that said, as long as you've got the stats for it, it is still a good idea to wear multiple layers of armor, that way if you have to take your lined coat off for whatever reason you at least still have something.

Posted by: FriendoftheDork Jan 27 2008, 05:21 PM

I didn't have a problem with this, as I never liked the armor stacking in previous editions anyway. A big good armor already consist of stacking various layers of material anyway, designed for maximim protection at minimal encumbrance. Stacking more should result in additional encumbrance and not be worth it.

And a good armor like security armor or even armor jacket should be better than armor vest+lined coat anyway.

In any case, armor is already very cumbersome in this game, so I can't see why anyone but trolls and orks with lots of body wants to wear more.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jan 27 2008, 07:31 PM

...everytime I think of the concept of armour layering, the vision comes to mind of the little kid wrapped up with so many layers of winter clothes by his overprotective mom that he can barely move.

Posted by: Ryu Jan 27 2008, 07:35 PM

If you have different kinds of armor, there might be great advantage to wearing two amors specialising in different armor ratings. Arsenal has quite a bit more armor types.

Posted by: bibliophile20 Jan 27 2008, 07:50 PM

QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)

...everytime I think of the concept of armour layering, the vision comes to mind of the little kid wrapped up with so many layers of winter clothes by his overprotective mom that he can barely move.

Yes! I'm not alone in that visualization!

Posted by: Shrike30 Jan 27 2008, 08:35 PM

Form-Fitting Body Armor (from Arsenal) *does* stack with whatever you're wearing over it, and when you throw an Armored Jacket over a full suit of it, you're in the Military Armor range for protection, at least against stuff that uses Ballistic. I'm not sure stacking it that way was such a good idea, honestly... maybe it should add half it's rating?

People who want to "stack" armor items when I'm GM'ing can usually come up with an arguement for the armor being close to something else. An armored jacket and camo suit pants, for example, might get specs more representative of an ad hoc "full body armor" suit, to represent the increased coverage, albeit without some of the perks of FBA like being able to be chemically sealed.

Posted by: Riley37 Jan 27 2008, 11:30 PM

QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)

...everytime I think of the concept of armour layering, the vision comes to mind of the little kid wrapped up with so many layers of winter clothes by his overprotective mom that he can barely move.

A pair of guys robbed a bank in Los Angeles some years ago and then had a long shootout with police. They were wearing a *lot* of armor; not layered munchkin-style, but enough that body hits didn't stop them. However, they also could not move quickly, and cops kept following them, and wore them down. There's a video on YouTube.

Posted by: kzt Jan 28 2008, 12:02 AM

They were idiots, who didn't run when the running was good. If they had driven away after suppressing the cops they would have probably been able to get away. Instead they decided to stay and shoot it out. Eventually enough cops showed up with enough guns. . .

Posted by: Siege Jan 28 2008, 12:03 AM

The responding officers had 9mm handguns and shotguns.

Neither of which are especially effective against targets wrapped in heavy armor, armed with AKs.

The only surprising thing is the lack of fatalities among responding LE units.

I don't recall a technical review of the type of armor the two were wearing.

-Siege

Posted by: kzt Jan 28 2008, 12:04 AM

QUOTE (Siege)

They had HK rifles illegally converted to full auto IIRC. Never seen an analysis of the body armor either.

Posted by: Siege Jan 28 2008, 12:05 AM

QUOTE (kzt)

Actually, it's kinda funny - it wasn't more officers, per se but rather the responding units started borrowing heavier weapons from a local gun shop which ended up forcing the robbers to fall back.

-Siege

Posted by: Siege Jan 28 2008, 12:08 AM

QUOTE (kzt @ Jan 28 2008, 12:04 AM)

QUOTE (Siege @ Jan 27 2008, 05:03 PM)

They had HK rifles illegally converted to full auto IIRC. Never seen an analysis of the body armor either.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/01/bank.shootout/

The news report lists an AK-47 or similar - I'll have to see if I can find a more technical evaluation of the incident than the news reports.

-Siege

Edit: http://www.student.oulu.fi/~hmikkola/shootout.html

QUOTE

According to Commander Scott LaChasse of the Los Angeles Police Department's (LAPD) Criminal Intelligence Group and Lt. Tom Runyan, Commanding Officer of the LAPD SWAT, during the shootout at the bank, the suspects fired an estimated 1,110 rounds from three fully automatic AK-47s, a .223 fully automatic Bushmaster rifle, a .308 semiautomatic H&K and a semiautomatic 9mm Beretta handgun. One squad car sustained 57 hits. A sidewalk kiosk, used for cover by officers on the scene, was perforated with 150 bullets.

QUOTE

BODY ARMOR - BANDITS AND SWAT
We can learn much about body armor from the North Hollywood Shootout. While the suspects had armored themselves to the point they were protected from their feet to their necks, it was obvious they had "overdone" it. They were unable to move swiftly and with tactical flexibility and this hampered their ability to escape. They were unable to "flex" to the degree that they needed to take complete cover positions behind low profile cover. The SWAT officers that responded had a reasonable level of tactical armor protection and had mobility that allowed them to rapidly deploy from their vehicle. They were able to prone out and regain their feet rapidly.

Posted by: Jack Kain Jan 28 2008, 12:08 AM

You might want to be able to just throw your armor jacket over your Auctioneer Suit.
Doesn't helmets and shields also count under this.
Couldn't your body 4 samurai go over budget by wearing the armor jacket with riot shield and helmet?

Posted by: kzt Jan 28 2008, 01:03 AM

QUOTE (Siege)

Actually, it's kinda funny - it wasn't more officers, per se but rather the responding units started borrowing heavier weapons from a local gun shop which ended up forcing the robbers to fall back.

They did that too. But the last guy got taken down by part of the SWAT team that had been training not too far away and mounted up with their gear when they heard about this.

The initial response was like 4 cops. There were over a hundred by the time it all ended IIRC.

Posted by: lunchbox311 Jan 28 2008, 03:45 AM

They just did not have enough body and were suffering from encumbrance.
Probably a body of 3 or so with 10/8 armor.

Posted by: Riley37 Jan 28 2008, 08:46 PM

QUOTE (kzt)

The initial response was like 4 cops. There were over a hundred by the time it all ended IIRC.

John Connor: "Mom, the cops are here!"
Sarah Connor: "How many?"
JC: "All of 'em, I think."

As kzt points out, the robbers had a narrow window to get away, but they gave the police time to swarm. I'd guess that the robbers partly wanted the money, and partly wanted to be invincible deadly warriors, and ended up testing the latter way too far. The cops handled it well.

My troll PC got a suit of Full Battle Armor and took on a squad of well-armed guards. He staged all the damage from P to S, used a few Edge rerolls on a huge dicepool, and eventually dropped, but by the time the opposing force wore him down, the rest of the party were in position to drop the guards from behind. One of the guards' better moves was a coordinated Called Shot volley to his knees, forcing a knockdown.

If you used SR to play a Star Wars game, would the stormtroopers mostly have encumbrance penalties from their armor? I imagine that Darth Vader wears the most he can without penalty.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 28 2008, 09:26 PM

QUOTE (Riley37)

If you used SR to play a Star Wars game, would the stormtroopers mostly have encumbrance penalties from their armor?

Well, it'd certainly explain a lot if all stormtroopers had 3s in attributes but were all wearing the 10/8 Full Body Armor from the BBB, wouldn't it?

Posted by: i101 Jan 28 2008, 11:07 PM

I decided that i will allow a 2nd layer of armor for my group. The 2nd layer counts only half. There were and will be situations where the PC had to take their armor jackets and coats of. A 2nd layer of armored cloth or a west seems fair enough.

Posted by: Teulisch Jan 29 2008, 01:24 AM

one of the most logical choices in layering that has no game advantage, if you get dressed in armored clothing, then throw on your choice of lined coat or armored jacket. so if you take your jacket off (which society or the temperature may require) you wont be 'naked' with no armor.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Jan 29 2008, 10:14 AM

The problem with the 'no layering' rule is that it makes layerable armor insanely good - while being silly at the same time: Someone wearing a armored vest over a survival suit is significantly better protected than someone wearing not... the question is 'how much'.

And there still is no ruling how AltSkin factores in.

Posted by: ElFenrir Jan 29 2008, 12:01 PM

One thing i LIKED about armor stacking...it made sense. A slimline vest under a jacket was a bit more protection. Now, keep in mind...im far from the expert on body armor. But isn't layering more armor indeed more protective? Of course, with the disadvantage of decreased mobility(which was shown with the Quickness and Combat Pool Penalty). I sorta recall the old gyro-mount...added armor, took off a LOT of recoil...but halved the combat pool.

It did get to the point that layering armor just wasn't worth it...if someone with, say, a 5 Quickness in the old game layered an Armor Vest with Plates underneath an Armored Jacket, with Form-Fitting Body Armor underneath THAT...they took such a penalty that their combat pool was reduced to the point of it being useless. (I think someone with quickness 5 and those three were somethign like 5+4+4=13 points of ballistic, only which counted 9(since the 4's were halved). 13-5=8, and they lost four dice from their combat pool. Someone with a 6 or 7...it wasn't worth it...since those four dice could add to defense, anyway.

Now, i was against turning someone into the Stay-Puff Marshmallow Troll, but i never saw the problem with the whole ''clothing under jacket'' ''vest under jacket'' or ''form-fitting body armor under jacket''. A simple vest under the jacket only gave an extra point.

However, i admit, in SR4, since the armor is so freaking strong anyway, there isn't too much need to layer anymore. The form-fitting giving an extra bonus, though, well, to me, makes sense. So im kinda glad that's in. Just so long as it doesn't go too overboard.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 29 2008, 04:08 PM

Well, I admit I haven't had enough time to look much at any of the customization rules in Arsenal yet, but:

One option for the armor-jacket-over-armored-clothes thing is to just say that you can wear both, they don't stack for armor, they don't stack for encumbrance, when you're wearing both you use the jacket for all intents and purposes, but if you lose the jacket you still have something left.

But in a lot of cases you should be able to add more armor for more protection.

Now, between the Tweaking the Rules for armor in Arsenal, the new armors, especially that one line of arm pads and belly guards that stacks with all armor, I really have to reserve any opinion/bitching about armor until I've had time to absorb all the new stuff.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 29 2008, 05:10 PM

My argument against armor layering is that it's fiddly and doesn't really lead to many meaningful decisions being made; it's functionally not very different from just wearing a more effective suit in the first place. I really don't see why people don't just start calling whatever goofy ass armor setup they cook up to be an "armored jacket equivalent" or whatever is appropriate and have the GM charge a bit extra for the right to only lose a portion of your armor when someone say, removes your jacket.

Posted by: kzt Jan 29 2008, 06:40 PM

It's also somewhat counter-reality. Two layers of armor isn't typically nearly as effective as a single thicker layer. And if a bullet isn't significantly slowed down by passing through your jacket, wearing 10 jackets won't stop bullets as effectively as wearing 2 inches of steel plate, and allowing the players to do that is silly. The most extreme example I can think of is if you say that a piece of paper will stop 1 point of damage, then logically I should make my tanks out of reams of paper, because that would give them 500 points of armor.

Posted by: TheOneRonin Jan 29 2008, 09:28 PM

At the expense of "Reality"™, I would use the following guidelines to deal with layering armor.

-Players can wear as many layers as the GM approves (some common sense needed here)

-For the amount of protection given, set the base at whatever the highest single rated piece is.

-The next highest rating piece of armor adds 1/2 (round down) it's B/I rating to the base armor rating. Successive pieces add 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, etc to the base rating.

-Add up the full normal ratings of each piece to determine encumbrance.

For example, Johnny Samurai with BOD 6 wants to layer his armored jacket and armored vest over his armored clothing.

The armored jacket has the highest rating: 8/6
The armored vest is next with: 6/4
And finally the armored clothing: 4/0

He sets the base rating at 8/6.
Then he gets 1/2 the protection from the vest: 3/2
And finally he gets 1/3 (round down) the protection from the clothing: 1/0
His total protection is 12/8

You add the ratings together to determine encumbrance, coming out with: 18/10

Since his body is 6, he is 4 points over his max, giving him a 2 point penalty to Agility and Reaction.

If he had instead decided to wear full body armor + a helmet, he would be at 12/10 AND wouldn't suffer any penalties.

In general a single BETTER piece of armor should be a better solution than layered lesser pieces of armor.

However, if a player doesn't have access to better armor, or needs to to be able to blend in with people on the street, layering is worth the price.

Disclaimer: This isn't how I run armor in my game, so I don't claim to have play-tested these rules.

Posted by: Riley37 Jan 29 2008, 10:34 PM

A ream of paper will sometimes slow or stop a bullet. It's bulkier and heavier than other materials with equivalent stopping power. Indeed, the same mass of paper pulp, dried into a single layer, might do as well or better than the "laminated" version. That's why most tank-makers prefer materials such as steel plate. But when tankers know that they're gonna fight from a fixed position, what do they do? Putting sandbags onto the tank is not exactly unheard of, is it?

I like the idea of diminishing returns on multiple layers.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Jan 29 2008, 11:05 PM

QUOTE (kzt)

Actually, standard ballistic testing involves layering aramide sheets - and it's the number of sheets that counts.

QUOTE (Riley37)

Indeed, the same mass of paper pulp, dried into a single layer, might do as well or better than the "laminated" version.

Usually, it will do worse.

Posted by: lunchbox311 Jan 29 2008, 11:42 PM

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

This site will give you an idea of how modern day regular materials stack up against most firearms. [Including cars, drywall, books, etc.]

It is a stark contrast to what SR likes to show.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jan 30 2008, 12:15 AM

I wouldn't call it stark contrast. Drywall gives 2 points of armor by the SR4 rules, which is roughly the equivalent of wearing a leather jacket. Fat lot of good that does you. I'd say the dopiest thing SR4 and penetration is the way shotguns/buckshot works, really. 00 is a lot nastier than it's given credit for.

Posted by: Siege Jan 30 2008, 12:33 AM

Game encumbrance rules are like sex: read all you like, but you're not gonna get it until you try it.

-Siege

Posted by: Magus Jan 30 2008, 02:02 PM

So are the layering Armor rules back? I don't have Arsenal yet, but a player of mine does. He told me he can layer all his armor again. All I know is Shadowrunner Underoos are back and they do stack. So does all armor stack again?

Posted by: Fuchs Jan 30 2008, 02:07 PM

Not in my game.

Posted by: i101 Jan 30 2008, 02:21 PM

@Magus. Nah. It aint back. But Clothing lines, Gel Packs, PPP Systems and Form-Fitting Armor are back! At the end we have the same outcoming. Addiontal layerd armor would overdo it simply in combination with the above mentioned armor add ons/systems.

Thank God for the arsenal.

Posted by: Prime Mover Jan 30 2008, 04:19 PM

Don't have Arsenal yet so was wondering. Sounds like form fitting is stacking with other armor. Does this count towards armor total when determining max armor for double body rule?

Posted by: Ravor Jan 30 2008, 04:49 PM

1/2 value if I remember correctly, and there are optional rules that allow Runners that allow Runners to wear body*3 armor.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jan 30 2008, 05:00 PM

QUOTE (Ravor)

1/2 value if I remember correctly, and there are optional rules that allow Runners that allow Runners to wear body*3 armor.

...I think our group is going to adopt this rule.

Posted by: Roadspike Jan 31 2008, 04:44 PM

QUOTE (Riley37)

If you used SR to play a Star Wars game, would the stormtroopers mostly have encumbrance penalties from their armor? I imagine that Darth Vader wears the most he can without penalty.

I'd actually hazard a guess that the Stormtroopers have 4 Bod, 4 Str, and 10/8 armor. They seem to be somewhat hampered by it, but not brought to a complete halt. You'll note they tend to kick the crap out of other NPCs who aren't furry and cute (Tantive IV defense force, Hoth's defenders, etc).

Vader, on the other hand, stacked the armor on with the intention of becoming (cue mad cackle) Invincible! (cue more mad cackling). Or rather, the Emperor did for Vader. Looking at the fluid motions of Anakin Skywalker, and the exceptionally good prosthetics available to members of an underground rebellion just 20 years later, I'd guess that Vader's got an absolutely ridiculous amount of armor on, and it's slowing him down greatly.

****

Now back to your regularly scheduled armor layering discussion (man I need to get Arsenal).

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jan 31 2008, 05:36 PM

...OK, so does Zoé Second Skin work like Form Fit or is it a standalone? In 3rd ed it stacked with other armoured clothing just like Form Fit did.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jan 31 2008, 05:36 PM

IIRC, at least some versions of the Star Wars RPG have suggested that the reason Storm Troopers don't take armor penalties is because their armor is actually powered armor, which takes some special training to use properly, which offsets the penalties.

As for Vader, why would someone who's only realistically threatened by powerful force users with lightsabers trade speed for armor (which counts for absolutely nothing against the force or lightsabers). That just seems like a poor tactical choice.

Posted by: Fortune Feb 1 2008, 12:11 AM

QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)

...OK, so does Zoé Second Skin work like Form Fit or is it a standalone? In 3rd ed it stacked with other armoured clothing just like Form Fit did.

Just got the book and skimmed over the section, but I saw no mention that Second Skin was to be treated the same as Form-Fitted Body Armor in terms of layering. But I wouldn't have a problem house-ruling that right in.

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Feb 1 2008, 12:14 AM

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

All the versions I've seen (D6 WEG ) has a modifier for it beacause it's clunky. It's good armor, but it restricts movement (-1 Dex actions).

I really need to get me a copy of Augmentation. Sadly, I think this is one book I'll purposefully only buy on pdf instead of a book just so that I don't have to look at the cover that often.

Posted by: Whipstitch Feb 1 2008, 12:26 AM

I dunno, I still feel like people are making too big of a deal out of the -2 penalty a body 3 person faces when wearing full body armor. That's no worse a distraction than using your offhand to do something. Besides, encumbrance only applies to agility and reaction, and the fitter you are the less it bothers you.

Posted by: Fortune Feb 1 2008, 12:37 AM

QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0 @ Feb 1 2008, 11:14 AM)

I really need to get me a copy of Augmentation.

I thought you already had Augmentation!

You don't have to worry about rushing on Arsenal though ... I'll send you all the stats you need for the stuff I'm going to use out of it in your games.

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Feb 1 2008, 12:50 AM

*headsmack* Arsenal. Apparently I need to get more sleep too.

Posted by: Jhaiisiin Feb 1 2008, 02:08 AM

This is way off topic, but Vader's armor is a cortosis alloy which actually naturally inhibits lightsabers. Still does nothing to the Force though.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Feb 1 2008, 02:36 AM

QUOTE (Whipstitch)

...when a character has mediocre physical & just OK combat skills (such as my Matrix Specialist Violet) The last thing I want to do is put her at even a bigger disadvantage by over encumbering her. For one she is also the team's B & E expert so she just doesn't find some safe hidey hole to "jack in" from (yeah I know they don't do that anymore - I'm old school). I want her to be able to use her full agility & reaction if a fight goes down when she's out there.

Posted by: Whipstitch Feb 1 2008, 02:41 AM

It's not your opinion I take issue with, it's that people keep throwing around terms like "brought to a complete halt" or "incapacitated" when it just isn't so.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Feb 1 2008, 03:00 AM

...reduced DP = greater chance of glitch/critical glitch. That extra armour won't be of much help if VI trips & falls trying to dive for cover when the lead starts flying furiously.

Now for someone like the Short One, OK I'll admit it would not have as big an impact as she has a high enough DP in her combat & athletics to absorb a -1 or -2 modifier. However, I would have to draw a tighter line on wearing Full Armour with regards to any Stealth moves. You just can't be very sneaky sealed up in a tin can.

Posted by: Siege Feb 2 2008, 11:43 PM

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Jan 31 2008, 06:36 PM)

Vader doesn't run. Nor does he dance like a grasshopper on crack.

On a slightly serious note, it wasn't so much a case of a man wrapped in power armor as a cyborg being integrated into a life-support system with armor to protect the internal workings. Basing this off of Return of the Jedi - I still haven't seen the #3/#6, depending on your counting scheme.

Point for point, he was slow and cumbersome in personal action (again, based off RotJ), which would be fatal in a novice 'saber fighter. But when you're the Dark Lord of the Sith^LA, you're cool enough to work around it.

-Siege