Layering Penalties when not Layering?, Applying Quickness Penalties Options

[RedmondLarry]

The standard rules for Armor and Combat Pool (SR3 p. 285) can invoke a reduction in Combat Pool, based on the ratings of the Armor worn, even when not layering multiple pieces of armor.

The description of penalties to Quickness and Quickness-linked Skills is placed in the section on "Layering Armor" (same page) and appears to cause a penalty only when wearing multiple pieces of Armor.

For example, a Quickness 3 character in Heavy Security Armor (7/5) would clearly invoke a reduction in Combat Pool. But apparently not a penalty to movement or Quickness-linked Skills as he is not layering armor.

The words go on to say that adding a Helmet does not count as Layering but does count toward the Quickness Penalty.

Question: Do you believe the rules intend for this character to have the penalty to movement and Quickness-linked skills when wearing Security Armor? Do you believe these words mean that adding a Security Helmet will make the Quickness penalty apply? How has this been played at national conventions?

[moosegod]

Never been at a national.

I don't think quickness penalities should apply. After all, the reduction in combat pool is penalizing enough.

[Glyph]

The Quickness penalties are there to reflect the difficulty of moving in layered armor. Security armor would not get this, although it would of course still give Combat Pool penalties. I take the Security Helmet comment to mean that it counts towards Quickness penalties if the character is layering armor, even though the helmet itself adds its entire rating to the ballistic and impact ratings rather than being subject to the normal halving rules for layering armor.

By the way, the Combat Pool penalties are not that much, at least for high-Quickness characters. Someone with a Quickness of 6 wearing heavy security armor and a security helmet would only lose 1 point of Combat Pool (although someone with a Quickness of 3 would lose 4 points of Combat Pool). It's the encumbrance which is actually more of a disadvantage - by itself, it might not encumber a character with a 5 or 6 Strength, but it leaves you a lot less leeway for other gear. Plus, it is extremely conspicuous.

[Tanka]

I've always taken it as per weight. If they wear one piece of armor (My group just loves Secure Jackets.) and carry little else, even if their Quickness isn't high enough (5/3), it doesn't do anything to Quickness-related tasks or to their CP. It's just a weight they've learned to carry throughout time.

Of course, this is just a house-ruling on it. By all terms and rules, they would be forced with the said things in the book. Not enough Qck implies a loss of CP/more difficult Qck-based tasks.

[Ol' Scratch]

Of course. Quickness wasn't an uber enough Attribute in the game, apparently, so the designers had to make it even more important. Nevermind that Strength, whose only common uses in the game is to determine melee damage and encumbrance (when a GM bothers to use it) is a more logical choice for determining the penalties (which could/should still affect Quickness). All hail Quickness! :)

I do think it's silly that trolls, who should be able to all but ignore the impending nature of lots of armor since it's a minor inconvenience to them, actually get penalized the hardest (being the only standard race to have a Quickness penalty) by those rules. I realize that they didn't want trolls to become even bigger tanks than they already are, but sheesh... I do like a little believability every now and again. :D

Although a lot of people like to try and pretend the rules actually say that you can't wear more than two pieces of armor and gain a benefit from it (and yes, the context of those rules are clearly the opposite of that intent), actually adding such a rule would have solved the problem with an armored troll tank if they had used Strength instead.

But, oh well. God bless house rules. :D

[Sphynx]

First, under Layering Armour, it clearly states that Helmets and Shields don't count towards layering (last sentence).

Second, Quickness penalties are ONLY for layering Armours, so Glyph is quite right, unless you're wearing an Armour Jacket or something over your Security Armour, there is no Quickness penalty, only Combat Pool.

Sphynx

[RedmondLarry]

Thanks all. I have been running it as moosegod, Glyph, and Sphynx describe, but I wanted to make sure that was accepted as canon. If anyone feels we're interpreting it wrong, please speak up.

If we follow this interpretation, we get the strange case of not applying Quickness penalties for a Secure Jacket + Security Helmet, but we do apply them when they are layered with Form Fitting Body Armor. Even though the FFBA doesn't count toward calculating the penalties, we are now clearly layering, and Helmets do count toward penalties anytime layering is in effect.

[TheScamp]

[Kagetenshi]

The rules actually do clearly state that only two pieces of armor apply their armor value in any way, shape, or form. That's another flamewar, though.

~J

[Cochise]

[Kagetenshi]

You're correct, you can use different pieces of armor for the two armor types. It still clearly states that only two pieces of armor add to any given armor type, with the exception of things like helmets and shields which specifically state otherwise.

~J

[Ol' Scratch]

It's just poorly worded. If only two pieces of armor were strictly allowed, it wouldn't say things like "When wearing more than one layer of armor" and "Generally, only a jacket or coat can be layered over clothing-style armor. Much more than that and the character starts to look like a walking punching bag." Emphasis mine. Note that nowhere does it say that you cannot wear more than one layer, and nowhere does it state that you gain no benefit from it (and if it were restricted to only two layers, they would have definitely have said this).

The poor wording is simply in a single sentence of the text where it tells you how to calculate the layered values. The context of the rules, what they're really trying to say, is that only the highest rating value is kept at its full rating while additional ones are halved. You may look retarded (I personally worsen Concealability of armor for each layer worn) while doing so, but it should be acceptable.

Feel free to write info@dumpshock.com (I think that's the address) to ask about it, and maybe request clarification for the FAQs or even Errata. I'm not a big fan of either whether they agree with me or not, but it never hurts to have a semi-official (ie, not in print) answer.

[Shockwave_IIc]

I have to agree with Dr F (aww i don't feel to good :grinbig:)

Besides unless the layers are all low rating and thin you will look out of proportion (insert your choice of social mods here). And the penelties will add up. Just remember to come down on the players if they go over.

Either way it's your game, house rule it or not as you see fit

[Kagetenshi]

So your argument is that a sentence that clearly states its intention and is backed up later by a suggestion that the writers really didn't intend for more than two pieces of armor is the poorly-worded one?

~J

[Ol' Scratch]

Yes, because it doesn't clearly state it's intention. If it did, all the other sentences would support it -- which they don't. Occam's Razor; if one sentence opposes several other sentences, chances are the one sentence is the incorrect one, not all the others.

Using your logic, even though Form-Fitting Body Armor doesn't count for Quickness or Combat Pool penalties, you can never gain benefit with it (or some other armor) if you're wearing more than one other piece of armor (such as armored clothing and a long coat). Even though it's intended to compliment your normal armor (the armored clothing and long coat). It's also ridiculously illogical. Why wouldn't it continue to provide protection in such a scenario?

[Zazen]

I don't see where they are in disagreement. You can wear as much armor as you want, but only two will count for each armor type calculation. They're not mutually exclusive.

[Modesitt]

>>Perhaps someone should inform these guys of those rules.<<.

[Ol' Scratch]

Exactly. :)

[Kagetenshi]

And there is no one who is not in some way crippled who cannot move more than one meter in a second without running, but you can have a Quickness 1 character without them being in any way crippled.

Keep your realism away from the game when discussing canon rules. It has no place.

~J

[Zazen]

No kidding. There are a zillion unrealistic aspects that make this game great, and keeping people from being walking coat racks is, in my opinion, a minor one.

[Fortune]

[Modesitt]

I seem to have misrepresented my views.

My belief is simple. The rule of no more than 2 pieces of armor counting towards any particular value is not only utterly unrealistic, it's not particulairly unbalancing to allow 3 or more pieces of armor to be layered on. It's OK to have unrealistic things for the sake of game balance or for the sake of story or simplicity or some other reasons. But if a rule really can be read in one or more ways as this rule can be, reading it in the unrealistic manner isn't the best of ways to go.

There ARE penalties and bonuses to wearing more than 2 pieces of armor already. If you're OK with taking some movement penalties, you can wear more armor. It's a simple trade off that happens in real life and SR reflects this through the layering mechanic. You raise your ballistic armor, you lose combat pool and raise your TNs related to quickness. If you have a higher quickness, you can get more armor with less or no penalties. It's just one more perk of having a higher stat. Raise you intelligence, you get more combat pool. Raise your willpower, you have more dice for soaking up spell damage. Whether the quickness stat is too widely used or not is a completely different discussion however.

Honestly, I think the problem many have with it isn't the layering mechanic, it's form fitting body armor. Just imagine a world without FFBA.

[Kagetenshi]

Ok, I'm fine with it then.

~J

[Modesitt]

Edit'd because I am apparently an idiot whose browser had refresh issues.

[Ol' Scratch]