I don't like the 4e stacking rules. How's this for a houserule: FFBA would still be special - half encumbrance is nice - but you'd be able to stack 2 pieces of armor with full protection from both, but also full encumbrance from both. FFBA would no longer be an exception in that field - if you had FFBA and one other piece of armor, you wouldn't be able to add a third. The PPP system, helmets, and other "+X Armor" accessories would be unaffected. Thoughts?

BTW, I increased the cost of FFBA significantly and upped the availability a bit, so it makes more sense that every punk on the street doesn't have at least a half-body suit.

At first I was going to say I like the armor rules as it, but your suggestions look pretty decent. Rather than nerfing or removing FFBA you simply make it less the must have armor for everyone.

Eh. 2 armors *plus* PPP, etc.? No thanks. Maybe if there was a sanity clause, 'no, you can't have two longcoats'.

As long as you don't stack the concealability bonus its not too bad, one longcoat plus full FFBA would net you almost the same armor for significantly less encumbrance.

Oh, I didn't mean game balance, I meant *sanity*. Like, 'dude, you're wearing too many coats'.

I've seen plenty of people wear multiple coats, its pretty much what those longcoats were designed for.

Long Coat over Full Body Armor?

'Cos no-one's gonna guess you've got an assault rifle under your trenchcoat when your dressed for war.

Not an undercoat and an overcoat, Fauxknight. Although the RAW already lets people wear that, just doesn't give the armor bonus.

Well, previous editions you could wear an armour jacket for protection with a long coat on top for concealability with no issues.

Now you need Body 7 to do it without penalties.

That seems to make... Oh, no, I see the point of FFBA, because it only counts half. I'm still not real fond of the rule, I mean if wearing two longcoats protects you twice as well, why wouldn't they just make a longcoat that has armor twice as thick? It'd actually be less encumbering than two longcoats.

Perhaps you should change it to FFBA as a second armor uses normal encumbrance rules, but a different second armor uses double normal encumbrance rules. And heck, allow a third piece, but that has triple (or maybe 4x) encumbrance.

As for PPP, make sure to specify that it can only be used once.

Or buy a non-armoured long-coat.

Lie! Such a thing doesn't exist.

I quite like your rules, honestly. And as for the two longcoats approach, I think it's much less likely that people want two overcoats but rather that they'd like to wear a bullet proof vest under their longcoat (so it can remain stylishly open and blowing in the breeze) or something of that sort. I also have a house rule to keep FFBA from being the norm.

If you enforce encumbrance rules, stacking doesn't get too crazy. I don't have an issue with someone wearing the max armor for their body, frankly. Allowing stacking of heavier armors is a big help to certain types of characters (Trolls, I'm looking at you!), as you would be able to max your armor earlier and without resorting to military armor. As a GM I would enforce sanity; no wearing 2 groin protectors, no wearing a long coat over powered armor, no stacking of concealability boni, no stacking FFBA, etc.

P.S. Does anyone else tend to read FFBA as "full frontal body armor"?

Sounds like something Mokoto would wear.

Does that make called shots to the rear end possible?

I would just do away with the 2 armors limit and allow full stacking of everythink.
AS long as you enforce the encumbrance limits and sanity check what people can and cannot wear together on case by case basis this shouldn't cause much problems and would allow for much more dynamic clothing options for characters.

The biggest think i hate about the standart encumbrance rules is that you cant for example go for that Motoko look karoline linked to and have your face go to meet wearing evening dress or second skin and an armored jacket/coat over it for extra protection on the way to and from the meet.

You *can* wear whatever you want. It just doesn't count for armor… and does count for encumbrance.

Meaning you can't wear it for extra protection

You can if the jacket has more protection than the evening dress.

God, I love GITS.

On topic, I think having simple 1 to 1 armor stacking within sanity would be a good idea. Certain fitted/skin tight armors, like FFBA, could be restricted to one set but provide half encumbrance as normal. These should also be higher avail/more pricey as they are *custom armor*.

For example, wearing 1 FFBA means it's going to be a real bitch to get into a second suit. However, you could wear an vest or a jacket over it without issue, assuming you have the body to handle it.

Another option is to develop more of the © armor clothing Sets as seen in Arsenal. A full Steampunk set is 7/7, AND stylish! A GM and a player could easily get together to design something that would allow a good armor set when the outer (*) wear is being used and have the rest of the set be more of a stylish social clothing set.

Eyes it is, but its get little repetitive when almost all of your female character are wearing it.

Hm... we just did it like that in 3rd edition:

First Layer: Full Armor, Full Encumberance
Second Layer: Half Armor, Full Encumberance
Third Layer: a Quarter Armor, Full Encumberance
Fourth Layer: one eigths Armor, Full encumberance

FFBA: Counts as a layer, but only half encumberance.

Was this RAW?

Let them pack on whatever they want. No checks... if they cannot move anymore it is their problem. (Just halve the armor value every new layer)

I think this would work in 4th edition too.

For example a 8/6 armor stacked with a 6/4 armor would slow down as a 14/10 armor and protects as a 11/8.
Add on a FFBA half suit (4/1) and it is a 12/11 encumberance and protexcts like a 12/8.

Not much difference.