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.

10% or less, hopefully.

That being said, I actually kind of like the second scenario - as long as the rules aren't crazily complex.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, wasn't that Transporter 2?

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.

Oh I know, still it'd be nice if the option showed up in Arsenal in one of those sidebars.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

…and chaffing, and pinching!

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.

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.

Actually, the original rules in SR1 did not allow you to layer it, either...