IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Form Fitting Body Armor, Underwear that's fun (and safe) to wear!
Hartbaine
post Sep 5 2007, 08:12 PM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 141
Joined: 4-September 07
Member No.: 13,115



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Whipstitch
post Sep 5 2007, 08:18 PM
Post #2


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,883
Joined: 16-December 06
Member No.: 10,386



I guess I just don't see what the point is. The idea of armored clothing is already covered by umm, armored clothing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
James McMurray
post Sep 5 2007, 08:18 PM
Post #3


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957



Will you be allowing it to stack with other armor without penalties as in previous editions?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kyoto Kid
post Sep 5 2007, 08:19 PM
Post #4


Bushido Cowgirl
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,782
Joined: 8-July 05
From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats
Member No.: 7,490



...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]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
James McMurray
post Sep 5 2007, 08:20 PM
Post #5


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Sep 5 2007, 08:23 PM
Post #6


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Whipstitch
post Sep 5 2007, 08:33 PM
Post #7


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,883
Joined: 16-December 06
Member No.: 10,386



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?"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Draconis
post Sep 5 2007, 11:23 PM
Post #8


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 394
Joined: 19-May 03
From: In your base eating your food.
Member No.: 4,607



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jklst14
post Sep 5 2007, 11:37 PM
Post #9


CosaNostra Deliverator
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 346
Joined: 29-January 05
From: Philadelphia, PA
Member No.: 7,034



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.

:rotfl:

That being said, I actually kind of like the second scenario - as long as the rules aren't crazily complex.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Whipstitch
post Sep 6 2007, 12:05 AM
Post #10


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,883
Joined: 16-December 06
Member No.: 10,386



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
James McMurray
post Sep 6 2007, 01:55 AM
Post #11


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiskeyMac
post Sep 6 2007, 03:52 AM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 433
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Somewhere in Iraq
Member No.: 1,789



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
apollo124
post Sep 6 2007, 06:52 AM
Post #13


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 458
Joined: 28-March 05
From: NA/UCAS/IN/
Member No.: 7,246



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.

:rotfl: :D :grinbig: :rotfl: :D :grinbig:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Jopp
post Sep 6 2007, 08:55 AM
Post #14


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,925
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 948



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Whipstitch
post Sep 6 2007, 01:27 PM
Post #15


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,883
Joined: 16-December 06
Member No.: 10,386



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
James McMurray
post Sep 6 2007, 04:02 PM
Post #16


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957



I'd definitely do a straight conversion myself. Ok, what I'd actually do is wait for Arsenal. :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hartbaine
post Sep 6 2007, 06:26 PM
Post #17


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 141
Joined: 4-September 07
Member No.: 13,115



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Sep 6 2007, 06:38 PM
Post #18


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



QUOTE (Hartbaine)
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.

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
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.

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hartbaine
post Sep 6 2007, 07:13 PM
Post #19


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 141
Joined: 4-September 07
Member No.: 13,115



QUOTE
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.


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Sep 6 2007, 07:24 PM
Post #20


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Whipstitch
post Sep 6 2007, 09:36 PM
Post #21


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,883
Joined: 16-December 06
Member No.: 10,386



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wounded Ronin
post Sep 6 2007, 10:21 PM
Post #22


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,640
Joined: 6-June 04
Member No.: 6,383



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. 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?

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hartbaine
post Sep 7 2007, 02:46 AM
Post #23


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 141
Joined: 4-September 07
Member No.: 13,115



QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
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.

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Whipstitch
post Sep 7 2007, 03:21 AM
Post #24


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,883
Joined: 16-December 06
Member No.: 10,386



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheMadDutchman
post Sep 7 2007, 04:47 AM
Post #25


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 104
Joined: 19-June 07
From: Florida
Member No.: 11,950



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 05:05 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.