Run and Gun "Preview" #1 Options

[Moirdryd]

FFBA is handy if you need to shed an outer layer in a hurry, or change that outer layer. How many waiters and porters etc do you think will be armoured (excepting doormen in some places). The fancy armour lines are just that, Fancy, used by the people who are often providing the protection and pay check to the folks doing the checking. Armoured jacket? That's just out of place in so many places that a Runner may have to blend in. Armoured Clothing? Better but again not always what you want to look like you belong. Regular cloth, far cheaper and easier to get ahold of looking right and you can get your FFBA underneath it all but undetectable.

The argument could be turned to almost anything in the game.... Why even bother with any gear outside of the core book, it's all usable and good. The answer being that sometimes people Want something in the game that's different, or may come up against a requirement that the core list doesn't exactly cover, or want a few mechanics to go with their narrative.

[Lobo0705]

Given that high quality business suites and regular streetwear (lined coats, armoured clothing) all have armour and significant levels of it, not to mention style wear like Mortimer of london, why does anyone give a shit whether you're wearing anything short of milspec armour anyway?

Yes you might get same strange looks walking into stuffer shack wearing an armoured jacket, but not because it is armour, but rather it simply looks out of place. Is any corporation or government office going to ask someone wearing a line of armoured suit that they have to take it off when the very best brands sport armour and everybody knows it?

I don't really see why you need rules for this when in the campaign you're probably going to draw more attention for NOT wearing armour because it's a wacky thing to do.

As Moirdyrd said, it comes into play if you are undercover.

Most secretaries, I would imagine, don't wear Armor Jackets to work.

The average janitor doesn't wear a Lined Coat.

I would bet you that the average employee doesn't even wear Armor Clothing to work - given that to buy 5 sets of Armor Clothing would cost them 2,250 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) - which is probably far more than the average person allocates to their shopping budget for 5 pairs of work clothes.

FFBA also happens to be half the price of, for example, the Berwick Line - while only having 1 point less armor. So when you have to attend a high-society function, you can rent a tux for a couple of hundred (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) , put the FFBA on underneath, and save yourself almost a 1000 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) .

[RHat]

And wearing FFBA means that if you're running from someone, you can ditch your lined coat, throw on a hat if you can find one (or take one off if you're wearing it) and suddenly not be the guy the pursuer is looking for, while still having armour.

[Bigity]

Wonder if there are/will be rules for trying to stay afloat wearing all that armor...

[Bigity]

Wonder if there are/will be rules for trying to stay afloat wearing all that armor...

[FuelDrop]

Wonder if there are/will be rules for trying to stay afloat wearing all that armor...

The curse of the double post strikes again!

[tasti man LH]

Wonder if there are/will be rules for trying to stay afloat wearing all that armor...

"What's that? You're going to try to jump into the sea to put out that fire that's dealing 7P per Combat Turn on you? AND you're wearing an Lined Coat, with FFBA, AND carrying an assault cannon on your person? Well, I'd say I'm being generous by giving you a starting -6 modifier and gaining an additional -1 for every Action Phase in the water. Now, just roll your Swimming + Strength..."

"...you DID take the Swimming Skill, didn't you?"

[Shinobi Killfist]

And wearing FFBA means that if you're running from someone, you can ditch your lined coat, throw on a hat if you can find one (or take one off if you're wearing it) and suddenly not be the guy the pursuer is looking for, while still having armour.

Or you could just have an armor vest under the lined coat and do the same ting with more armor and less cost. I like the current lethality level of SR5 so i hope it does not stack, but this does make it fairly worthless.

[FuelDrop]

Or you could just have an armor vest under the lined coat and do the same ting with more armor and less cost. I like the current lethality level of SR5 so i hope it does not stack, but this does make it fairly worthless.

FFBA makes great armoured long-johns (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[RHat]

Or you could just have an armor vest under the lined coat and do the same ting with more armor and less cost. I like the current lethality level of SR5 so i hope it does not stack, but this does make it fairly worthless.

Except that the armour vest is gonna be easier to find or spot due to bulk.

[Moirdryd]

Tbh I hope there is a perception chart of some kind in Run and Gun, but it's curious that the only thing with a Concealability rule is the FFBA (you'd think Second Skin would have it too).

[Samoth]

Except that the armour vest is gonna be easier to find or spot due to bulk.

No it isn't unless they explicitly make a rule that says so. Armored Vest displays no bulk per the RAW.

[Moirdryd]

Actually, RAW it's as noticeable as any other piece of vest sized gear. Fluff as written it is less so. Which is why we will have to wait and see what the rest of Run&Gun tell us....

[mister__joshua]

I actually really like the preview. I like having lots of options, even if they are essentially the same thing, as it gives more flavour and style to characters. This is one I'll be purchasing.

Saying that, I had to bring up my favourite line in the preview that made me laugh.

This is a preview of an in-progress version of
Shadowrun: Run & Gun, and proofing is still underway.
Spelling, grammar, "p. XX" references and
so on may be updated before heading to press.

Not will; may (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Lobo0705]

No it isn't unless they explicitly make a rule that says so. Armored Vest displays no bulk per the RAW.

They do have a rule. FFBA has a -6 Concealability Modifier. An Armored Vest has no Concealability modifier.

An Armored Vest is therefore, by the rules, easier to spot by 6 dice than FFBA.

[Fatum]

What happens when someone bricks your armour? It's supposed to fail spectacularly, if I remember the Core. Are you losing the armour rating? Is armour falling off you in huge chunks?

Also, I like what they did with FFBA, but the military-grade armour seems a tad bit overpowered.

[Jack VII]

They do have a rule. FFBA has a -6 Concealability Modifier. An Armored Vest has no Concealability modifier.

An Armored Vest is therefore, by the rules, easier to spot by 6 dice than FFBA.

I would have to disagree here since we don't have the finalized document yet, just an excerpt. There is no telling what else is in there rules-wise that could impact how concealing armor is handled. There could very well be a chart that shows how BBB armor is handled from a concealment perspective that did not make it into the excerpt. Without having the full rule set, I don't think you can actually implement these in a game if balance is a consideration.

[binarywraith]

What happens when someone bricks your armour? It's supposed to fail spectacularly, if I remember the Core. Are you losing the armour rating? Is armour falling off you in huge chunks?

Also, I like what they did with FFBA, but the military-grade armour seems a tad bit overpowered.

Even better is the question of what happens when someone bricks your suit. All those Vashon Island pretties have a wireless bonus to Social Limit, after all, which means they are quite brickable. Talk about a wardrobe malfunction!

I'm not sure if the military grade armor, or the (as described) literal Predator-style active camo on Second Skin is more of an issue. No idea how that'll work rules wise as they didn't include the rules for Ruthenium Polymer coating.

The only thing in the main book that uses a Ruthenium Polymer coating is the chameleon suit, and that doesn't have any actual rules or ratings for it, the suit just gives a blanket +2 dice on Sneaking tests to hide.

[Lobo0705]

I would have to disagree here since we don't have the finalized document yet, just an excerpt. There is no telling what else is in there rules-wise that could impact how concealing armor is handled. There could very well be a chart that shows how BBB armor is handled from a concealment perspective that did not make it into the excerpt. Without having the full rule set, I don't think you can actually implement these in a game if balance is a consideration.

Fair enough - I should say that FFBA is 6 dice harder to spot than an Armored Vest with what we have so far.

I would be shocked if they do not include something in the Run and Gun supplement that does not cover spotting armor, armor and social skills, etc, which will more fully flesh this out.

If they don't have some sort of rule with regards to spotting armor, then I'm unsure as to why they would bother to give FFBA a Concealability modifier. I suppose that it could be a typo, and that the part of the Concealability section on page 17 where it says "This feature means things are either more easily hidden beneath the girth or length of the piece, or the design of the piece means it is less likely to be detected." (emphasis mine) - should have been removed. I mean, they have a typo later on in the same sentence about the panther cannon and assless chaps. (Which sounds like a weird band name - "Next up, everybody's favorite Troll-rock band, Panther Cannon and the Assless Chaps!")

I also would not be shocked if they do not assign Concealability modifiers to other types of armor. Perhaps an Armored Vest might be -2, or -4 - I don't know at this time.

My point was that right now, since FFBA is supposed to be concealable, and they have an actual rule for it (i.e. a -6 modifier) and the only claim that an Armored Vest is concealable is the fluff text, it doesn't mean that the Armored Vest cannot be detected.

TBH, all it really means is that we don't know what the Concealability modifier for an Armored Vest is - yet.

[binarywraith]

Of course we don't know what the Concealability modifier for an Armored Vest is. That would require SR5 to have considered that armor is a thing that people might want to notice! We could never think of that, it's not like there have been four editions of previous rules that made note of it, or that common sense would indicate that rocking heavy armor in a civilian area would be suspicious in any way.

[RHat]

No it isn't unless they explicitly make a rule that says so. Armored Vest displays no bulk per the RAW.

For a second time, I'm forced to ask for a citation on that from SR5.

[tasti man LH]

For a second time, I'm forced to ask for a citation on that from SR5.

The Concealibility Modifier table in the core book says nothing about hiding armor clothing, and isn't even listed among the examples.

None of the armor clothing has anything listed under the descriptive text. The only thing of note is the Lined Coat and how gives an additional -2 Concealable modifier for hiding items underneath the coat. But nothing about trying to hide the coat itself.

[Jack VII]

For a second time, I'm forced to ask for a citation on that from SR5.

Well, the way he put it the second time is absolutely supported...

This modern flexible-wrap vest is designed to be worn under regular clothing without displaying any bulk.

So unless we're playing rhetorical games (which wouldn't surprise me), I think it would be safe to say that "no bulk" is pretty equivalent to "without displaying any bulk."

Since we know that the base armor never apparently interferes with movement (unless it apparently has the quality in Run&Gun) the only real reason to note that would be for the sake of someone else noticing it. As of now, it's up to each GM to interpret that how they see fit.

[RHat]

Well, the way he put it the second time is absolutely supported...

So unless we're playing rhetorical games (which wouldn't surprise me), I think it would be safe to say that "no bulk" is pretty equivalent to "without displaying any bulk."

Since we know that the base armor never apparently interferes with movement (unless it apparently has the quality in Run&Gun) the only real reason to note that would be for the sake of someone else noticing it. As of now, it's up to each GM to interpret that how they see fit.

Not displaying any bulk, however, is not the same thing as not being perceivable. The vest is still going to change how the clothing lies and such.

Remember, he's saying it's impossible to perceive, regardless of the specific wording he's using to do so. I'm looking, specifically, for a citation of THAT, because that is what he's claiming is RAW.

[Smash]

As Moirdyrd said, it comes into play if you are undercover.

Most secretaries, I would imagine, don't wear Armor Jackets to work.

The average janitor doesn't wear a Lined Coat.

I still don't understand who would care in a Setting like Shadowrun.

Security guy - Hey new guy, are you wearing an armoured vest under your overalls?
Runner posing as Janitor - Yeah, I live on the edge of Redmond.
Security guy - Oh '/nods understandingly'. Here, you better take this '/hands the new guy a light pistol'. Don't worry, we've got stacks of them out the back /wink.