My Assistant
Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
  |
 Form Fitting Body Armor, Underwear that's fun (and safe) to wear! |
 Sep 7 2007, 06:13 AM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Immortal Elf  Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890  |
I don't. I only mentioned it as a counterpoint early. Armor Ratings already take cover and amount of protection into account. An Armored Vest, for instance, is way more powerful than Armor 6 on the chest; that's the average for the whole body.
|
 |
 
|
|
Sep 7 2007, 08:47 AM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,192 Joined: 6-May 07 From: Texas - The RGV Member No.: 11,613 |
A mention of the fact that modern body armors have to worn tight to the body to be most effective is in order here. You don't want the vests/coats to twist, flop or otherwise move in any way other than to stretch in a manufacturer-designed manner to absorb the impact of the bullet. Also, don't forget that all but the lightest of Kevlar protection is still a bit stiff to reduce blunt trauma so circus-style contortions in armor jackets is pretty well out the window.
I've tried random rolls for SR and in the grand scheme of things, they really don't add much to the "fun factor". They have decent enough "shoot around the armor" rules (even if they are totally brutal to the shooter) and armor is fairly easily handled by the ubiquitous "-4 dice = +4 damage" rule what with dice averaging only 1/3 successes. Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! ) |
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2007, 09:38 AM
Post
#28
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 394 Joined: 19-May 03 From: In your base eating your food. Member No.: 4,607 |
Yes, wasn't that Transporter 2? 8) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 7 2007, 09:44 AM
Post
#29
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 394 Joined: 19-May 03 From: In your base eating your food. Member No.: 4,607 |
I miss games with hit locations. Some people say rules systems these days are "streamlined", I say they're "dumbed down" for 12 year olds. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 7 2007, 10:06 AM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Shadowrun's never had hit locations, so I don't really see what that particular subject has to do with "rules systems these days."
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2007, 10:39 AM
Post
#31
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 394 Joined: 19-May 03 From: In your base eating your food. Member No.: 4,607 |
Oh I know, still it'd be nice if the option showed up in Arsenal in one of those sidebars. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 7 2007, 10:43 AM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
The option's technically already there with Called Shots and bypassing armor (which represents your overall protection, not just for a specific part; its as much penetrating the armor as missing it when shooting someone by default). A hit location system just won't mesh with Shadowrun's base mechanics; you can't successfully combine an abstract system with a detailed hit one without having to rewrite most of the rules in the process.
Armor, again, is a prime example of this. That Armored Vest doesn't provide Armor 6 against a gunshot. It's more like Armor 30-40 or so. However, it only protects your torso, leaving your arms, legs, and head wide open... which is why it only has an Armor of 6. It's also why a Lined Coat has the same armor rating; it's not nearly as tough as the Armored Vest is, but it covers a much larger area. You'd have to completely reevaluate and redo every single piece of armor in the game if you created a hit location system. And that's just the first step. You'd also have to redo Wound Modifiers (shot to the foot adjusts your ability to move, not shoot; shot to your hand adjusts your ability to shoot, not move), damage values (shot to the head > shot to the foot), Armor Penetration values, and... just tons and tons of other things. And not only those things, but every other rule in the game that affects those things; directly or indirectly. In the end, you have to create a completely new system just to add it in. If you don't, you wind up with a system that's ten times sillier than it was without it. As has been demonstrated time and time again whenever someone tries to show off their brilliant house rules for how to do it. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2007, 11:22 AM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 394 Joined: 19-May 03 From: In your base eating your food. Member No.: 4,607 |
Oh I'm aware of the abstract vs concrete problem and the fact that this isn't the first time this has come up. Your use of the word "brilliant" amuses me. Hmm of course I wouldn't want to get shot in the groin, which is a distinct possibility, so maybe I'll just forget about it altogether. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 7 2007, 06:10 PM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 141 Joined: 4-September 07 Member No.: 13,115 |
Does it really need a set of rules? If someone shoots at a guys hand and the hand isn't armored then as the GM just make a call, add it or don’t'. Sometimes I add armor to a hit location if it makes sense, other times, like when a person has the gun barrel an inch from the person's unprotected skull that I simply say "Okay, Crit Success on a stealth roll... you geek the guy."
Why overcomplicate obviously simple scenarios? Headshots like above are pretty cut and dry. In the middle of combat with people in motion and ducking behind cover, makes things like bypassing armor and targeting extremities much more difficult and a GM should simply say it's possible but given the circumstances (which vary from scene to scene) that it simply is or is not possible (maybe they can't bypass armor from where they're positioned, or they can't target his left hand because they're on his right side...). I've used the Called Shot rules as is since 4th was released and its so far been fine, I've noticed no shift in the balance of power. Simply because what's good for the Goose is good for the Goons. For awhile they were on a 'Called Shot to the head Halo style' kick... so the Goons went on a 'Called Shot to the head Halo 2 style' kick... now they use it when it makes sense to do so (like precision shooting around cover to hit a sniper, or capping the legs of fleeing gang lieutenants, and in one instance the shoulder of the kid at Big Kahuna Burger for messing up an order). Once in awhile they throw one in for flair and I'm cool with that and they know it's cool until they start making it commonplace. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2007, 06:26 PM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
well, the fluff descriptor also determines how easily concealed your armor is. while the vest and the long coat have the same armor ratings, the vest is better if you want to hide your armor, whereas the coat is better if you want to hide your gun underneath your coat =P |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 7 2007, 06:29 PM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
The absurdity of that's already been mentioned. What you're saying here is that the flimsy material of a Lined Coat is exactly as tough and resistant to damage as the plate-enhanced Armored Vest, despite the abstraction of their armor values reflecting both their resistance and their coverage. Hell, that's why the actual Called Shots to bypass armor still have the armor rating used in the calculations. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 7 2007, 07:32 PM
Post
#37
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 141 Joined: 4-September 07 Member No.: 13,115 |
Actually no, I made no mention of what type of armor or whether or not it was protecting said location. I simply said that for the GM to make a call if it seems logical to him/her. Instead of making it a big deal simply say yes or no, or decide for yourself what you, as the GM, feel is appropriate and keep the flow of the game going, it’s about the characters and players not the rules and goons. Eyeball it and move on. I would hardly consider monofilament ballistic fabrics and spider weave threads to be flimsy material, mostly because, well, it's 2070 and they specifically state that armor technology is nothing to laugh at. Considering that neither you, I, nor anyone else here has been to Shadowrun Land this little fact cannot be disputed. Everything we say about what exists in that world unless already provided by the core book is mere speculation. There are no rights or wrongs, why are you trying so hard? Armored Clothing has the same rating as the power of a light pistol, that's one hell of a t-shirt and jeans ensemble. I would think that armor provides just as much protection to one area of the body as it does the other parts it covers, which is why GMs need to make a call on when it can or cannot be bypassed. If a player wants to call a shot to a goons leg while he’s wearing an Armored Vest (torso protection) I'm not going to add the goons armor as a penalty to that, it doesn't make sense to. The armor is nowhere near the area being protected (certainly not -6 dice worth of area). Would I with a lined coat? Yes, most certainly I would apply it (it's not only concealing the legs as he runs but the lined coats composite materials are designed to deflect gunfire) and always do unless there is some damn near awesome reason the character has thought up that I shouldn't. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 7 2007, 07:59 PM
Post
#38
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Which was exactly my point earlier. Your choice is to either create even more absurd situations (ignoring the abstraction of armor, which is your -overall- coverage AND the resilience of the armor, not merely the resilience of the armor itself) or revamp the entire system to work with hit locations. By the abstract nature of the rules, that Armored Vest is just as relevant for your hand as it is your chest, which is why it's Ballistic 6 instead of Ballistic 35ish. There's no such thing as "only covers your chest" as far as the rules go. It's all-or-nothing. And of course GMs have the right to make stuff up on the fly. It's the entire point of having a GM. That doesn't mean the stuff he's making up on the fly is logical or within the intent of the rules he's handwaving away. Absurdity is absurdity whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. You can flippantly say that as a GM, you're within your right to say that guns only shoot marshmellow bullets and no one ever gets hurt, but instead gets intoxicated by their marshmellowy goodness. And you'd be correct; you do have the right to say and do that as a GM. That doesn't mean it makes a lick of sense or is at all appropriate within the context of the actual rules. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 7 2007, 08:04 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
[Homer] MMMMmmmmmm, deadly marshmallows....(drool)
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2007, 08:29 PM
Post
#40
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 141 Joined: 4-September 07 Member No.: 13,115 |
Not at all, it's as simple as "This is your penalty for the shot, roll." and that's it. Less than 2 seconds of speech using rules already provided and I never had to slow the game down by looking up all the bonuses or penalties. Nothing absurd about that. From "The Abstract Nature of Rules": "If something in these rules doesn't quite fit or make sense to you, feel free to change it. If you come up with a game mechanic that you think works better - go for it." So where am I in the wrong? Sometimes I follow the rules to the 'T' and other times I just make shit up on the fly, it's all good. You do have me confused with someone else Doc, I never said I wanted to revamp the entire system to work with hit locations. The called shot system IMO already accounts for that. Someone else mentioned it, but I sure didn't. I'll be damned if I want to take on that endeavor. Nuh uh, now way. Although I am curious since this train has completely derailed from Ballistic Underoos what would a few opinions be on damage to extremities? Just eyeball it based on the boxes that are done? "You take 8 physical to your leg... it's gone." Or "You take a single box, the bullet is lodged in your thigh, lower you movement by 3 points." Anyone done something like that before? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 7 2007, 08:33 PM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 104 Joined: 19-June 07 From: Florida Member No.: 11,950 |
It has been expressed in previous posts that the armor value is more of an average when considering it's usefulness and also the amount of body covered by the armor.
I'm not normally a rules lawyer but I felt an uncontrollable urge to look into this. After scowering over the armor sections of the combat book and reading over the armor section of the equipment section I found notion that expresses this idea. Some will counter, and I will agree w/ their statement, that it is implied by the way that helmets and shields work (adding an overall bonus to your overall ballistic/impact protection). However, I feel that implying things is bad pool. It sets a bad example for future rules and rulings. Also, it has been stated (based on the above implication) that a lined coat is somehow less sturdy than an armored vest but only has as good a rating because over the percentage of the body covered. Again, having read the descriptions of both the armored vest and lined coat I can find nothing to support this claim. My point is that is someone said to me: "I want my character to wear an armored vest but I want it to be a pair of boxers instead of a vest" I'd have no reason to deny the claim. The only fixed in stone descriptor is really that it provides 6/4 protection and is designed to be worn under the clothes. My assumption, rather comical though it might be, will simply have to be that unless someone calls a -6 penalty that character is forever being shot, kicked, or stabbed in the junk. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2007, 08:54 PM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
Anything designed to cover the waist/hips/thighs would have to be much more flexible, thus precluding the use of inflexible plates, and lowering its protection value. If it's not flexible, then it should give movement penalties to simulate the problems of running with a couple heavy metal plates in your shorts.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2007, 08:58 PM
Post
#43
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 407 Joined: 9-February 05 From: Oklahoma City, OK, USA Member No.: 7,070 |
…and chaffing, and pinching! :eek: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 7 2007, 09:41 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 121 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,325 |
I've come across this complaint before, back when I played...
The Other Game. The Doc is completely right; it's all abstracted. The stuff in the full length jacket? Yeah, it's tough. But it isn't rigid. It'll stand up to a shot, and take a good chunk of the force behind it out of the picture, but it will still slam into you pretty hard. The armored vest? It doesn't cover your legs or arms. So, if someone shoots you, hits, but doesn't do damage, describe it as hitting your vest. Someone hits you, and DOES do damage, describe it as hitting your leg. You can go on and on about how hard it is to run with that bullet lodged in your leg, but in-game, adrenaline and desperation mean you don't take movement penalties. I guess I'm saying we could, I don't know, pretend. Maybe, play a role without trying to nail everything down with numbers when common sense works just as well. We could call it...Umm...Roleplaying? Description; it's a good thing. Disclaimer: This whole post is firmly tongue-in-cheek. Honestly, I hardly know of a better place to keep it. To each their own. I'm just saying I get what Doc is saying, and that's how I play it as well. If you don't agree, and you can work up a good way of looking at it otherwise, awesome! If I ever join one of your games, I'll just have to learn some houserules. Until then, my way has worked for me. Good gaming, everybody! |
|
|
|
|
Sep 7 2007, 09:49 PM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 104 Joined: 19-June 07 From: Florida Member No.: 11,950 |
See, I'm going to have to dispute this. First of all I agree this would preclude the use of inflexible plates. However, if you read the description of the armor vest (the armor I was basing my example off of) the armor is actualy constructed of a SOTA flexible-wrap material. Key word being flexible so it wouldn't give movement penalties. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 8 2007, 10:34 AM
Post
#46
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 831 Joined: 5-September 05 From: LAX, UCAS Member No.: 7,687 |
Personally, I always liked the safe underwear. Didn't get a whole lot of mileage out of it save with my namesake character (in the later years) but liked it just the same, and I'll be disappointed if it doesn't reappear. That said, I'd have to agree with Doc - in this edition, something like what he noted here would be best, save perhaps the nerfing penalties.
Regarding hit locations, I use this simple house rule: player wants to know where he hit the goon after the attack and resistance rolls (assuming it's not a called shot), I roll a hit location die and/or just make up something appropriate. No muss, no fuss. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 8 2007, 11:49 AM
Post
#47
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Actually, the original rules in SR1 did not allow you to layer it, either... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 12th April 2022 - 04:58 PM |
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.