IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

14 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Mil-Spec Armor and Secure PPP-Tech
tim
post Mar 6 2012, 01:15 AM
Post #1


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14-December 09
Member No.: 17,967



By RAW, is it possible to combine Heavy Mil-Spec Armor and the Secure PPP-Tech armor enhancement stuff?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerameyahu
post Mar 6 2012, 01:39 AM
Post #2


Advocatus Diaboli
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,994
Joined: 20-November 07
From: USA
Member No.: 14,282



You're a bad person for asking. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tim
post Mar 6 2012, 01:40 AM
Post #3


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14-December 09
Member No.: 17,967



QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Mar 5 2012, 08:39 PM) *
You're a bad person for asking. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Don't really see why, and an actual answer would be appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerameyahu
post Mar 6 2012, 02:05 AM
Post #4


Advocatus Diaboli
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,994
Joined: 20-November 07
From: USA
Member No.: 14,282



I'm sure it would, but I don't have the RAW off the top of my head. I suspect that the MilSpec is incompatible with everything, but that could just be my sure knowledge that it *should* be. Don't worry, this is Dumpshock; someone will be along shortly. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And the 'why' is pretty obvious: if anything could be easily added to MilSpec (esp. heavy, jesus), it already would've been.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tim
post Mar 6 2012, 02:16 AM
Post #5


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14-December 09
Member No.: 17,967



QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Mar 5 2012, 09:05 PM) *
I'm sure it would, but I don't have the RAW off the top of my head. I suspect that the MilSpec is incompatible with everything, but that could just be my sure knowledge that it *should* be. Don't worry, this is Dumpshock; someone will be along shortly. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And the 'why' is pretty obvious: if anything could be easily added to MilSpec (esp. heavy, jesus), it already would've been.

The main relevant line of the MilSpec Armor entry is: "No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor." The case where I see that being applicable would be wearing a suit of Form Fitting armor under the MilSpec, or in the case of other direct armors.

The relevant line off of SECURETECH PPP-SYSTEM, would be: "Each piece of armor is available in at least three styles: as discreet protection designed to be worn beneath other clothing, as an obvious strapped addition to other visible armor, and as sports equipment. These armor pieces do not count as separate armor for purposes of encumbrance; instead, these items modify the rating of armor worn by their rating just as helmets and shields do (see Helmets and Shields, p. 317, SR4, and Armor and Encumbrance, p. 149, SR4)."

The SECURETECH PPP-SYSTEM entry seems to state, rather explicitly, that it is available as a modification to the armor, the same as a helmet. And would be compatible with the Heavy MilSpec.

Bit of a note: The reason why I even have this stuff is because we are doing a modified version of Shadowrun. GMs has allowed Heavy MilSpec armor to be modified into a functional heavy armored space suit, with a appropriate enhancements given to it of course. Its a space setting, far off from earth. Not entirely sure what we are going against, but I do know that we are part of an illegal salvage operation that cleans out ruins of colonies, dead ships, or possible even takes down ships ourselves if the pickings are that slim. I want the most protection that I can actually get.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bibliophile20
post Mar 6 2012, 02:19 AM
Post #6


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,180
Joined: 22-January 07
From: Rochester, NY
Member No.: 10,737



I wouldn't allow it in my game, personally. (Now, a gang leader wearing a poorly fitting scavenged suit taken off of a body, with the PPP-Tech strapped on? Hell of an image, and one that fits well. But he wouldn't actually get any bonus dice for armor; intimidation, yes, armor, no.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glyph
post Mar 6 2012, 02:29 AM
Post #7


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,632
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,449



If "No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor" is somehow unclear to you, I don't know what anyone else can say to you. Obviously, you intend to be a rules weasel - so do so. Good luck convincing your GM.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tim
post Mar 6 2012, 02:35 AM
Post #8


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14-December 09
Member No.: 17,967



QUOTE (Glyph @ Mar 5 2012, 09:29 PM) *
If "No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor" is somehow unclear to you, I don't know what anyone else can say to you. Obviously, you intend to be a rules weasel - so do so. Good luck convincing your GM.

If I had intended to be a "rules weasel" I would have just conned him into accepting it. But I came here, asking for some clarification on it. If you cared to read for two seconds instead of blindly accusing me, you might have noticed the "these items modify the rating of armor worn by their rating just as helmets and shields do" part of the SecureTech-PPP System paragraph. Seeing as the Shadowrun rules have been unclear on their exact meaning in other cases, and that I wasnt sure if that was solely in reference to the Encumberance of the armor, or also to the armor bonus itself, I asked. That, and the table that lists the stats for them does not state them as 0/1s, or anything that is simply "Number/Number" as with the majority of armos, but instead as "+Number/+Number" which is where part of the confusion comes from.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glyph
post Mar 6 2012, 02:51 AM
Post #9


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,632
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,449



PPP is armor meant to be used in conjunction with other armor - basically, just about everything but military-grade armor, which specifically states it cannot be used with any other armor. That is why it gives plusses instead of a flat rating. Unlike FFBA, it adds to encumbrance normally. Functionally, it is treated similarly to things like riot shields or helmets. None of this changes the unambiguous wording describing military-grade armor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerameyahu
post Mar 6 2012, 02:58 AM
Post #10


Advocatus Diaboli
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,994
Joined: 20-November 07
From: USA
Member No.: 14,282



tim, this is certainly a discussion we've had here before. In depth, repeatedly. The points you're arguing have indeed been argued. So you'll have to forgive us. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Now, if you're playing a dramatically abnormal SR game, that is a whole nother kettle of fish. The solution is unequivocal house rules, though, not what most consider a deliberate misreading of the RAW. At best, such a thing has to be regarded as an unintended loophole.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
almost normal
post Mar 6 2012, 05:38 AM
Post #11


Running Target
***

Group: Banned
Posts: 1,105
Joined: 23-August 10
Member No.: 18,961



QUOTE (Glyph @ Mar 5 2012, 09:29 PM) *
If "No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor" is somehow unclear to you, I don't know what anyone else can say to you. Obviously, you intend to be a rules weasel - so do so. Good luck convincing your GM.



Easy on the harsh language. There's no reason to be so angry at a guy asking a question where some obvious ambiguity exists. _
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Udoshi
post Mar 6 2012, 05:54 AM
Post #12


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,756
Joined: 28-August 09
Member No.: 17,566



QUOTE (Glyph @ Mar 5 2012, 07:29 PM) *
If "No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor" is somehow unclear to you, I don't know what anyone else can say to you. Obviously, you intend to be a rules weasel - so do so. Good luck convincing your GM.


Agreed 100%.

If worn armor adds to your ballistic or impact armor ratings, then it is very clearly armor, and doesn't stack.

It DOES, however, count towards encumbrance.

When you get into the nitty-gritty details of armor stacking in SR4, there are basically a list of specific things which DO and DONT stack - and they are spelled out pretty specifically as compatible or not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KarmaInferno
post Mar 6 2012, 06:36 AM
Post #13


Old Man Jones
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,313
Joined: 26-February 02
From: New York
Member No.: 1,699



If you want a fluff justification, I'd say that mil-spec armor already includes PPP-type elements as part of it's build and stats.




-k
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pbangarth
post Mar 6 2012, 06:43 AM
Post #14


Captain Canuck
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,904
Joined: 14-August 03
From: Toronto - centre of the universe
Member No.: 5,463



Or, you could take SWAT armor and helmet, add FFBA and PPP up the wazoo, and have better armor than the heavy mil-spec for a lot less money.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TwoDee
post Mar 6 2012, 07:46 AM
Post #15


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 24-February 12
From: Los Angeles, California
Member No.: 50,638



QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Mar 5 2012, 10:36 PM) *
If you want a fluff justification, I'd say that mil-spec armor already includes PPP-type elements as part of it's build and stats.




-k


I and my GM have always ruled it as Mil-Spec armor being customized to the wearer, designed to perfectly move with his body's contours and weight. Adding random football pads to that just imbalances the whole thing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
almost normal
post Mar 6 2012, 02:55 PM
Post #16


Running Target
***

Group: Banned
Posts: 1,105
Joined: 23-August 10
Member No.: 18,961



QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Mar 6 2012, 01:36 AM) *
If you want a fluff justification, I'd say that mil-spec armor already includes PPP-type elements as part of it's build and stats.
-k


That's a neat work-around.

"But I *want* to wear two cups!"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KarmaInferno
post Mar 6 2012, 02:58 PM
Post #17


Old Man Jones
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,313
Joined: 26-February 02
From: New York
Member No.: 1,699



One runner two cups?

...okay that was bad.






-k
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ShadowDragon8685
post Mar 6 2012, 03:03 PM
Post #18


Horror
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,088
Joined: 15-June 05
From: BumFuck, New Jersey
Member No.: 7,445



You know, I have to say that the OP's right.

By a strict reading of the rules, "PPP doesn't count as another form of armor, but adds to existing armor" doesn't interfere with Milspec's prohibition against stacking, because it's not stacking, it's an add-on.


I don't see how it can be any clearer without actually printing "but it doesn't work with Milspec armor" in the PPP description.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerameyahu
post Mar 6 2012, 03:38 PM
Post #19


Advocatus Diaboli
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,994
Joined: 20-November 07
From: USA
Member No.: 14,282



It doesn't say, "PPP doesn't count as another form of armor". It says, "These armor pieces do not count as separate armor for purposes of encumbrance". Those aren't the same. They definitely are 'pieces of armor': "Each piece of armor is available in at least three styles".

Milspec specifically says 'no other armor', with the explicit sole exception of 'the appropriate helmet'.

Now, this interpretation has the added benefits of being more balanced, non-ridiculous (pads under your fitted armor?), and non-illogical (why would custom fitted super armor need PPP?).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
almost normal
post Mar 6 2012, 03:49 PM
Post #20


Running Target
***

Group: Banned
Posts: 1,105
Joined: 23-August 10
Member No.: 18,961



The problem is that you're trying to make sense of the RAW.

RAW says that if you were to hold a shield in one hand while wearing Mil-spec armor, it wouldn't work, but if you were to slam said shield into the ground and stand behind it, you'd get it's barrier.

The OP is right that PPP seems to suggest it'd still work, and using KI's idea, it's already factored in.

QUOTE
Now, this interpretation has the added benefits of being more balanced, non-ridiculous (pads under your fitted armor?)


Yeah. It's silly that SR would follow in the footsteps of thousands of years of real life armor know-how.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerameyahu
post Mar 6 2012, 03:59 PM
Post #21


Advocatus Diaboli
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,994
Joined: 20-November 07
From: USA
Member No.: 14,282



It's like I didn't specifically say 'custom-fitted super armor'; if anything could easily be added, it already would've been.

Yes, the rules imply that you can't use a shield (if it's a 'piece of armor'). Honestly, I'm fine with that; milspec armor users have no business with shields. But the correct solution otherwise is to add a second specific exception, not throw out everything for the sake of shields. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'm not saying they're good rules. I'm saying there's no reason to intentionally interpret PPP into milspec, and several reasons not to.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
almost normal
post Mar 6 2012, 04:04 PM
Post #22


Running Target
***

Group: Banned
Posts: 1,105
Joined: 23-August 10
Member No.: 18,961



It'd be far more correct to say there's no reason that you can see, as opposed to a complete denial of any means of thinking other then your own.

Just sayin.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerameyahu
post Mar 6 2012, 04:08 PM
Post #23


Advocatus Diaboli
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,994
Joined: 20-November 07
From: USA
Member No.: 14,282



*shrug* It'd be more 'correct' to say that all reality is unknowable. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Proposing counterarguments is my opponent's job. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
snowRaven
post Mar 6 2012, 04:59 PM
Post #24


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,665
Joined: 26-April 03
From: Sweden
Member No.: 4,516



I'm with the majority here.

It is very obvious from the description of the milspec armors that padding wouldn't be added on the inside - it's custom tailored to the wearer's body, so it would include padding etc inside. It probably incorporates both PPP-like stuff here, and Formfitting, already built into the structure of the armor.

As for strapping them to the outside...that would be wearing the armor, which is forbidden. It's not that it just won'tr stack - it's apparently impossible to wear any other armor when you are in a milspec suit.

A milspec suit is the cutting-edge of personal armor engineering - that right there is good reason to say 'no, nothing else will improve on it at the moment'.

I'd let a shield work though, because to me that isn't really 'worn armor' - but that's me. Oh, I'd also let someone wear whatever helmet they want with the milspec suit instead of the military helmet, so if you really want you can have a PPP helmet if you play at my table. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dr.Rockso
post Mar 6 2012, 05:29 PM
Post #25


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 583
Joined: 6-November 09
From: MTL
Member No.: 17,849



I'd say that under-the-armor PPP is pretty explicitly ruled out in the mil-spec description. I think a case can be made for over the armor PPP if it's heavily modified to fit around the bulky mils-spec. The character would of course be ridiculous looking and have trouble fitting through doors while the player will likely be dragged out back and beaten with the Stick of Pain™ by the GM.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

14 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st July 2014 - 09:40 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.