Hi,
I heard some time ago that there were optional rules for armor degradation. I just don't remember where they were. Can anyone tell me where they are?

Or better yet, sum them up here. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Arsenal Page 44-45

Aw... Thanks but it's not really what I hope that rule would be. Oh well, time to think of a new one!

Seems like a pretty good rule. Simple, reasonable, not crippling.

Proposed house rule:

"At the player's option, a piece of armor may instantly reduce one attack's damage by an extra 4 levels (or by the armor's protection rating, whichever is lower), as though the player had rolled an additional 4 successes on the soak roll. That piece of armor's protection is permanently reduced by 4 (both ballistic and impact). If the armor's protection is reduced to zero or less, the armor is destroyed."

… How is the player controlling their armor? :/ That seems pretty metagamey. Let them use Edge (which is expensive), instead of cheap armor.

If anything, I would make it so that even if the armor "stopped" the attack (converted to stun), there was a small chance of it degrading. While it did keep the bullet/blade/whatever from penetrating and dealing physical damage, the attack might have weakened the armor anyways; Gel packs rupturing, ceramics/plates breaking, fibers being pulled out of place or any other stress on the armor caused by the attack.

The proposed rule makes more sense if the armor has an ablative coating to it, would make it kind of a limited use hardened armor, probably only available for the heavy duty / military full body armors, it wouldn't be player's choice, but it could auto reduce a set amount of DV, up to a point. Say it can do 8 DV total, but a max of 4 at a time or something, so it wouldn't be foolproof against panther cannons, but would help against automatic rifle fire and the like. Have it even take effect with non-elemental stun damage, but from the same DV reduction pool.

I have to agree with Yerameyahu, the current rules are adequate and actually work quite well. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Players only exist in the metagame, and players don't have much armor at my table.

Characters exist in the game, and they tend to have more armor.

Don't confuse yourself: edge isn't something characters control, either. Players have all the toys.

Whether you nitpick his choice of words or not, I still don't see the logic behind the character being able to suddenly make their armor absorb a considerable amount of damage at the cost of the armor getting severely damaged.

The character can't, just like the character can't decide to get really lucky and roll twice as many dice as he usually would be entitled to roll. (In fact, the character seldom rolls dice at all.)

Your players are doing it wrong then.

Nifft, you're not making sense. I said the player is controlling the armor. You then said the *player* is the one controlling Edge, and *then* you said that the character doesn't roll dice. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It sounds like you fully agree with me.

You shouldn't try to use fancy words like "metagamey" if you can't distinguish between players and characters.

If you can make that distinction, you should have no problem realizing that the player controls things which the character never could.

There's no need for the tone. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) My point remains exactly the same, but I'll restate it if it helps: the player should not have control over the armor. Especially for so powerful an effect. It is introducing a new and illogical metagame element, akin to Edge you buy and wear. I did not say that all metagame elements (like Edge) are bad. Just yours. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

It's a traditional response when some little forum troll tries to pull sophomoric "it sounds like you fully agree with me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) " cruft.

Armor degradation suits both realism and game-ism, since armor becomes a limited resource, and since armor really does suffer from being put to use. Putting the onus on the player suits both game-ism and "storytelling" -- player agency -- which some players seem to like.

It sure sounds like you think you can do better, though! I look forward to seeing your ideas. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

My my, I wonder where all that's coming from.

I already *did* better: I said use the existing option. It's passive and balanced. I'm fine with armor degradation. I'm not fine with a weird activation power. I'm sorry we don't agree, but you can handle it like a normal person, instead of lecturing in circles. If you want that in your game, I'm not stopping you or anyone else.

Personally I can't stand armor degredation rules in any system and would never use them as a permanent rule. They add too much accounting for too little benefit IMO. I did have some critters with acidic claws whose touch reduced armor's protective value, but it was a one-time thing and it allowed armor degredation to be another tool in the "make the players worry" arsenal instead of something else we can forget to use (like knockdown).

I hear that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Weapon degradation is even worse; ever play Final Fantasy Legend? Bleh.

Still, if you *did* want it, I like the Arsenal rule well enough.

Indeed, it is functional and easy.

We eventually decided on the players adding 5% of their weapon and armor costs onto their lifestyle expense to cover routine weapon and armor maintenance. Solvent, oil, pads, etc for cleaning the weapons. Stitching, webbing, armor plates, etc for maintaining the armor. We tried to nickel and dime it all but ended up taking the global coverage route. Although if they sustained catastrophic damage to their armor or critically glitched their gun/blade and damage resulted, that was not covered in the maintenance.

All of them, which I why I used lots of mutants, robots, and monsters that had ways around weapon degradation. Still weapons do only have soo much usage before they start to degrade. Guns will get clogged up with carbon and swords will dull their edges, hopefully basic maintenence is considered part of a characters lifestyle and downtime unless the character specifically doesn't have the resources or the mental facilities to do so.

I'm not a big fan of armor degradation, but it depends on how you want to play the game. Generally speaking armor should be able to take a couple of hits without losing significant protection, but armor does degrade and need maintained. Ceramic ballistic plates in particular are not meant to withstand constant fire, and need replaced after they've been hit, which should in no way require the armorer skill. We do have to throw realism out though because if a round does penetrate your armor, you are generally in pretty big trouble.

As far as the proposed house rule of purposefully sacrificing armor, it doesn't sound too bad, but expect a little metagaming out of it. I imaging players in that game would be more likely to wear a cheap top layer of armor, and keep a few spares at home in order to be able to take advantage of this rule.

Player 1: This is my super uber form-fitting body armor, its got all the mods.
Player 2: ...and what are all those?
Player 1: Those are my discount armored trechcoats, I get a good deal on them because of my black market pipeline armorer contact.

I apply the -1 to the rating of ballistic and impact armor if the attack is physical, regardless if the the level of armor reduces it to stun.

I agree that weapon, armor, and all gear having degradation is *realistic*. I just also agree that it's not usually fun. It depends on the specific game, but I'd avoid it in general. The Arsenal rule is common/severe enough to do something, but also rare/mild enough not to be a huge pain. It's not realistic, sure.

At my table, if a person is shot at, and the dodge fails, The bullet has hit the armor. If one or a billion bullets hit the armor, the armor is degraded by one Ballistic at the end of the combat. Likewise with melee (falling, etc.) and impact. If a player glitches on a roll that armor dice have added to, the armor degrades by one after the roll, of appropriate type.

For instances of more than one armor item, The largest value of the items (but appropriate type:Ballistic/Impact) will reduce first. For example, a untested lined coat will degrade before a untested gel pack.