Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Anthroforms and Armor
Posted by: ShadowWalker Oct 26 2011, 10:35 PM
If you have an Anthroform drone. One that is metatype shaped and sized. Would it be possible to put standard clothing, armoured clothing, security armour, etc on it?
Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 26 2011, 10:41 PM
Why would you ask? 
The basic answer is yes, of course. Bleh.
Posted by: Squinky Oct 26 2011, 10:56 PM
Yeah.
And you will want it, since it is easier to to heal a person than repair a drone.
Posted by: ShadowWalker Oct 26 2011, 11:03 PM
Figured this was the case, but the rules say nothing as far as I can see. Just trying to outfit an AI using an anthroform drone as it's home. Basically an Android.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 26 2011, 11:10 PM
The rules seem to get a little messy, though. Vehicles can't 'wear' (benefit from) personal armor; you can't duct tape a flak jacket to any vehicle, drone, whatever, and have it *do* anything. There's no real reason to expect the personal armor that your anthroform totally *can* wear to provide any *protection*.
So, the answer to your question was 'yes', but you asked the wrong question. 
Posted by: Miri Oct 26 2011, 11:19 PM
So, the answer to your question was 'yes', but you asked the wrong question.
Because of the layered armor rules sure, I can hang with that. What if you don't have any vehicle armor on the anthroform?
Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 26 2011, 11:29 PM
It's still a vehicle, so it has to use vehicle rules. *shrug*
I'm not saying this is the best way to deal with the vehicle/person crossover; I'm saying that the rules *don't* effectively deal with that issue. A proper house rule would explicitly address it, while somehow dealing with balance. Eclipse Phase, for example, has something attempting (attempting) to address this problem.
Posted by: ShadowWalker Oct 26 2011, 11:47 PM
Where do you find the layered armor rules?
Posted by: Miri Oct 26 2011, 11:59 PM
Page 161 4A. Armor and Encumbrance.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 27 2011, 12:02 AM
Not that they apply to vehicles or vehicle armor.
Posted by: ShadowWalker Oct 27 2011, 12:08 AM
That says only the highest value applies. If you use vehicle rules for armor encumbrance. Armor above the body decreases acceleration and speed by 20%.
So having any kind of armor on a Manservant over 3 would decrease the acceleration and speed by 20% or from a 5/15 to a 4/12.
How the heck would you work in cyberlimb armor?
Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 27 2011, 12:11 AM
Cyber armor directly stacks (with personal armor), and counts for total encumbrance.
Cyberlimb armor on a vehicle is never-intended insanity.
Posted by: ShadowWalker Oct 27 2011, 12:34 AM
Cyberlimb armor on a vehicle is never-intended insanity.
Mechanical arm does say:
So although it's GM says yes/no, it is still implied as being possible if the GM says yes.
Still trying to figure out how much armor to put on a manservant. 3 or more.
Is there anyway to increase the body of a drone?
Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 27 2011, 12:36 AM
If you do allow limb armor, it's still encumbering the drone. Take the hit for each point.
No.
Posted by: Squinky Oct 27 2011, 06:11 AM
There was a post about a structural integrity upgrade that allowed body upgrades. It's not official though. Pretty much you are stuck with whatever body you start with. Perhaps cyberlimb body upgrades would help, but not for more vehicle upgrade slots. If you are going with a motorcycle go-bot thing, you can always add a sidecar
The Otomo states that it can wear and use most equipment made for normal folk. If you are "modding" a manservant or something else into something similar, I see this a good reinforcement to the idea that man like robots can use armor.
Me, I would go with vehicle armor. If it were an Otomo I would stop at 6, anything past that lowers its speed to "Robo-Cop" levels. It will make most low level threats less likely to ding you up, but not become overpowering and piss off the GM. I wouldn't stack it with cyber-limb armor, my view is that cyberlimb upgrades can be used, but if it is in the vehicle rules you should go that route first.
I've weirdly been statting out a AI that runs around in an Otomo lately, and it does take a lot of research to find the right ways to roll for tests. Good luck.
Posted by: Udoshi Oct 27 2011, 07:08 AM
What you should be asking is "how many hits on Disguise do i need?"
Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 27 2011, 10:16 AM
Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 27 2011, 11:41 AM
Nope. Because that's awful, and the rules don't actually say it anyway. Given an ambiguity (what FAQ?), I'll take the less broken version.
Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 27 2011, 12:10 PM
Even though the FAQ seems to be right on this particular rule for a change I was not talking about it. P. 161 of SR4A only talks about worn armor. Cyberlimb Armor is not worn, as you cannot don and doff it. It is installed into the limb. So unless you show me a rule saying cyberlimb armor does count for encumbrance by RAW it doe not. It also stacks for the same reason.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 27 2011, 12:13 PM
I don't see why that particular line applies only to worn armor. The first paragraph does, the second might not. Again: if ambiguous, choose the option that's not stupid.
Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 27 2011, 12:34 PM
What's stupid about a limb that is designed to carry that much armor not encumbering the user? Using cyberlimb mods on a drones full mechanical arms however is only at the GMs pleasure anyways so there you can do whatever you want without creating houserules.
Even going with the weird idea that sentence one applies only to worn armor, sentence two doesn't and the last sentence again is restricted to worn armor only. How do you calculate the encumbrance for the ensemble of cyberlimb and worn armor? Cyberlimb armor is an armor item but not worn. So you do not add it to any worn armor items by RAW.
BTW this ruling would also mean that Mystic Armor (Adept Power) and the Armor Spell encumber the recipient as well. Is that the intention?
Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 27 2011, 01:06 PM
No, the magic ones are specific exceptions; they're not physical.
I'm willing to say that you're wearing a limb, so that's not a problem. 'Worn armor' is not my distinction in the first place. I'm not saying the rules for various armor are good, but I didn't write them, and I'd rather avoid a problem than "what does 'is' mean"-lawyer the RAW. As long as we're stuck with crazy cyber armor, we have to deal with its awfulness.
Yes, if we assume the GM will never say 'ok', then this vehicle-arm problem doesn't exist. I think we know we can't assume that.
Posted by: Modular Man Oct 27 2011, 01:37 PM
May every group/GM rule that as they/She/he sees fit.
Personally, I'd rather say that an athromorphic drone cannot wear armour on top of maxed vehicle armor... not from my view of the rules, but rather from a point of game balance. You could also apply that "A drone may carry three times its body as armor" to worn armor as well.
Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 27 2011, 03:33 PM
SCNR *hides
Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 27 2011, 04:09 PM
The problem is that it's just dumb. Start with a tank, add a cyberlimb with armor: now your tank is tankier? Ugh. Rinse and repeat with more limbs. Even ignoring balance, it's just bad.
Posted by: ShadowWalker Oct 27 2011, 09:14 PM
SCNR *hidesArsenal pg 133
Arsenal errata
Insert the following text between the fourth and fifth sentences to the final paragraph of the Armor modification description:
“When either of the Armor totals exceeds the vehicle’s Body, reduce the vehicle’s Acceleration and Speed by 20% (round up).”
So a Manservant-3 can have 9 points of concealed armor or 9 points of standard armor and 9 points of smart armor. With either configuration the movement would be 4/12.
Of course the 9+9 armor configuration is very obvious in appearance.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 27 2011, 09:22 PM
Aha, that solves the problem of 'other' vehicle armor nicely: "A vehicle can either have normal armor or concealed armor." Therefore, it cannot have cyber, magical, clothing/personal, etc. types of armor. 
(No, English doesn't quite work that way, alas.)
Posted by: ShadowWalker Oct 27 2011, 10:52 PM
oops, posted in the wrong place. dang it.
Posted by: ShadowWalker Oct 27 2011, 10:57 PM
double post
Posted by: Dez384 Oct 27 2011, 10:58 PM
First appearing in 2065, the Otomo remains the most common
model for full-body cyborgs (see p. 158, Augmentation). Each
Otomo is custom built with a unique appearance and designed to
replicate the look of a specifi c metatype and sex. Th ey are most
commonly used as high profi le bodyguards, personal assistants,
and pleasure drones by those with extensive resources. These
drones are capable of wearing and using most gear designed for a
metahuman of their model type.
Similar Models: Evo Consort, Monobe Mimic
Std. Upgrades: Cyborg Adaptation, Mimic, Touch Sensors, Walker
If you put an armor jacket on this drone (since it can use most gear designed for a metahuman), would the armor stack with any armor modded to the drone (akin to regular armor over armored cyberlimbs)? Could the armor jacket act like a barrier?
Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 27 2011, 11:31 PM
That's what we're talking about. I say no, for various reasons:
• balance, and basic anti-foolery
• vehicles/vehicle armor aren't people/don't have people armor, and the rules don't exist to integrate them
• armor items are not barriers (this comes up with the Reinforce spell as well)
• "A vehicle can either have normal armor or concealed armor."
• vehicles have separate 'encumbrance' and strict armor cap rules, so it probably wouldn't matter. (These rules are arguably for vehicle armor, but vehicles arguably can't have any other kind, so it balances out. 
)
In terms of 'use metahuman gear'… they can. They can wear the armor/clothing, and they can wield weapons. It doesn't imply that they can benefit from the armor's Damage Resolution effects.
Posted by: Squinky Oct 28 2011, 01:30 AM
It is my belief that the designers intended the Otomo to wear armor and receive the benefits of that armor. Especially since the base model starts at 0 armor. There isn't really anything that states otherwise plainly.
The issue is does that normal armor stack with the vehicle armor, and I have always thought that it would. I have nothing to support this, just my opinion. So an Otomo with a lined coat 6/4 plus 6 vehicle armor would have 12/10 armor, but only 6 will work as vehicle armor.
Pretty much you just need to come to a consensus at your table.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 28 2011, 01:33 AM
It is my belief that they failed whatever their intention was regarding the vehicle/person integration, whether for armor, skills, whatever. There *should* be good rules for it, if they want anthroform machines in the setting.
Off the cuff, I'd prefer anthroform machines to be a third (sub)category of vehicle, and their available vehicle mods should be explicitly laid out. For example, they'd be barred from vehicle armor entirely, but they can have cyber and personal armor; we'd also need to know how it works (vehicle armor has an explicit 'hardened' effect), but I'd be fine with simply saying 'they ignore stun'. Another option is that they can be like Warforged (heh): either cyber/personal armor, or vehicle armor.
Anything else requires rules for duct-taping flak jackets to cars.
Posted by: last_of_the_great_mikeys Oct 28 2011, 04:44 AM
Hmmm. Can you have a posession based mage summon a spirit to posess said android if it's a prepared vessel? Or perhaps even put a familiar into it? (I say a golem is cooler than an android!) Then add the armour!
Posted by: ShadowWalker Oct 29 2011, 05:16 PM
Where are the rules for vehicle armor and the hardened effect? what page and book?
Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 29 2011, 05:41 PM
Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 29 2011, 06:32 PM
The rules specifically state that any modified DV (Base + Net Hits) that does not exceed the vehicle's armor has no effect on the vehicle.
The rules ALSO state separately that vehicles are immune to stun.
The two rules are not intrinsically linked by the text of the books.
-k
Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 29 2011, 06:53 PM
Posted by: Neraph Oct 29 2011, 06:57 PM
The rules ALSO state separately that vehicles are immune to stun.
The two rules are not intrinsically linked by the text of the books.
Discarding logic you're right.
The rules specifically state that any modified DV (Base + Net Hits) that does not exceed the vehicle's armor has no effect on the vehicle.
Where is that point?
Page 167, SR4A, last sentence of Vehicle Armor.
Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 29 2011, 07:05 PM
Posted by: Neraph Oct 29 2011, 07:06 PM
If it functions like character armor, the damage is downgraded to stun if it does not exceed the armor value. Since it has already been established that vehicles do not suffer stun damage, it is ignored.
We don't disagree - that was my point. I was simply providing the attribution you were looking for.
Posted by: Dakka Dakka Oct 29 2011, 07:08 PM
While I quoted you it was actually meant as a rebuttal to KarmaInferno's stand point.
Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 30 2011, 12:34 AM
Ultimately they function the same for most purposes, but if something is immune to stun, A) why bother also mentioning that modified DV below the armor rating has no effect and B) why not state "because of A, you have B" instead of "You have A. You have B."
-k
Posted by: Shortstraw Oct 31 2011, 12:11 PM
Please an 18 armed spider-blimp with guns akimbo is way more fun.
Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 31 2011, 01:30 PM
Hm. Thinking about how cyberlimb armor would be used in defense, I propose this house rule:
You can have as much cyberarm armor as you want. Only one limb's armor can be added to the defense roll against any given attack.
What do ya'll think?
-k
Posted by: Neraph Oct 31 2011, 02:05 PM
You can have as much cyberarm armor as you want. Only one limb's armor can be added to the defense roll against any given attack.
What do ya'll think?
Interesting, but I prefer the "average all the limbs to find the average amount" rules extension personally. It only requires you to broaden an existing rule as opposed to making a new one alltogether.
Posted by: Miri Oct 31 2011, 02:32 PM
I was thinking he said that because you stick one arm up to block whatever attack. So someone swings that sword at you, you puts your giant Hellboy like arm in the way to take the hit while your slimmer more agile opposite arm slides the ceramic knife between a couple of ribs.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)