By RAW, is it possible to combine Heavy Mil-Spec Armor and the Secure PPP-Tech armor enhancement stuff?

You're a bad person for asking.

Don't really see why, and an actual answer would be appreciated.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Easy on the harsh language. There's no reason to be so angry at a guy asking a question where some obvious ambiguity exists. _

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.

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

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.

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.

That's a neat work-around.

"But I *want* to wear two cups!"

One runner two cups?

...okay that was bad.






-k

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.

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?).

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.



Yeah. It's silly that SR would follow in the footsteps of thousands of years of real life armor know-how.

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.

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.

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.

*shrug* It'd be more 'correct' to say that all reality is unknowable.

Proposing counterarguments is my opponent's job.

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.

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.

Yeah, I'm fine with a 'carried' object (shield), and with a 'helmet slot'. This is why common sense is called for.

I would have no problem with house ruling that a shield would stack with military-grade armor, although I would still have a problem with PPP stacking - I figure if you can't even wear an undersuit of FFBA with military armor, pads, even slimline ones, would be right out.

Worn armor is only one component of physical protection, though. Mundanes can get 'ware to boost their Reaction and durability (orthoskin, bone lacing, etc.), adepts can get powers such as combat sense or mystic armor, and mages can cast spells such as armor, combat sense, or deflection (or have a spirit possess them or a teammate, if they are a possession tradition).

The paragraph under PPP, that explains how they do not count as seperate armor (emphasis on "seperate", not on "armor") begins with... "These armor pieces...". So how can anyone deny that they are, indeed, armor?

Military-grade armor says, that "no other armor can be worn with...".

Crystal clear to me, no ambiguity there, really.

The only thing that the seperate armor pieces paragraph does is removing the "stacking" rule (only highest armor rating counts), so their bonus is added directly to the otherwise highest armor rating to determine the worn armor rating (see SR4A p. 161 for details on Armor & Encumbrance).

Bye
Thanee

Let's start here by defining some terms and quoting some rules.

Armor is any thing in the rules that has a Ballistic/Impact armor value. (SR4A, page 160)




See anything building up here?


Ok, so we have it down that armor is anything that has a B/I rating, and that MilSpec cannot be worn with any other armor. However, we also have that shields and helmets, while they do have B/I ratings, are not considered armor at all and simply modify the ratings of armor worn. Therefore, MilSpec can benefit from not only helmets (like is affirmed in their own description), but also by PPP and shields (and gel packs). You cannot wear an Armor Vest with MilSpec, not even to add armor for encumbrance, nor can you wear Snake Mesh Socks (page 54, Arsenal), and you cannot wear FFBA with it, as FFBA is counted exactly like armor with some rules modifications. Helmets, shields, and PPP are specifically not treated as armor - simply modifiers to existing worn armor.

Do not be deceived by descriptive names: the rules above would work equally well if you replace "armor pieces" in the description of PPP with "cupcakes."

Neraph wins. Well done.

It's not my first time. Especially not on this subject.

EDIT: I particularly like the part where you can't wear a certain type of socks with MilSpec armor. And technically, you can't wear any clothes, as clothes are listed as armor in the Core Book (SR4A, page 327).

Or, conversely, other people who have quoted parts of the books have already "won." When canon is ambiguous, quoting canon at one another over and over again in a never-ending spiral of "yes huh" and "nuh uh" is the natural consequence (which is precisely why this, and several other common arguments, has been an issue in the past).

One could just as easily highlight a few select quotes from Neraph's own examples, and just start with the facts that PPP is called armor pieces, and that their exception is specifically stated as only being for encumbrance purposes. It all depends on which segments of text any given reader wants to really emphasize.

Because the rules are a tangled mess that can be read either way, the real answer is "I dunno. Does your GM say you can stack mil-spec armor and PPP stuff?" Because that's the only opinion that really matters to any given game.

And the petunia said "Oh no. Not again."




I read milspec armor as already effectively having PPS and things like underwear armor as standard. As to the swat armors and PPS being able to get to that level, well it does casue significant encumbrance. Either of which a runner should never have a need to wear.

Yeah: until I got to the end, I assumed Neraph was arguing that helmets and shields were okay, and PPP *wasn't*. (Except, I know Neraph, so I knew he'd choose the munchkin/nonsense option. ) Even then, there's no reason to think that mil-spec's specific ban *doesn't* include all armor, helmets, shields, etc. The helmet issue is specifically allowed, so there's no reason to think 'no armor' means helmets aren't armor.

I'm perfectly happy to conclude that you can't wear any FFBA, armor socks, normal sock, armor clothing, or normal clothing with your *custom-fitted mil-spec armor full-body suit*. Far from being evidence *for* PPP, that seems totally logical, appropriate, and balanced. The sole hitch is the shield, and that's effortlessly solved by saying, 'shields are okay'. They're certainly not 'worn' like clothing is worn, anyway. No one said the rules were perfect (on the contrary). So… what makes more sense: one tiny wart, or a huge twisted mess that also allows even more power creep?

All this depends on if you interpret the "no other armor can be worn" forbiddance of Mil-Spec to really mean just "no separate armor", or a literal "no other armor at all, regardless of separate or additive B/I ratings".



-k

If you can prove the highlighted part, which from my perspective you just made up because I cannot see that part in the text you quoted at all, I will consider believing you.

So, how is "These armor pieces do not count as separate armor for the purposes of encumbrance" suddenly shortened to "These armor pieces do not count as armor"? Esp. considering that "These armor pieces ..." are quite clearly called "armor" in their own rules. And how can you actually believe, that something that is armor, works like armor, protects like armor, and has no other purpose than to be armor ... is not considered armor (or is not treated as armor or whatever)?

It is also useful to note, that if you actually read the part that is referenced in both paragraphs (helmets and shields as well as PPP), namely SR4A p. 161, you will see further evidence that they are, indeed, considered armor (just not "stacked armor"; hence the text reading "seperate pieces of armor" or "seperate armor" and not just "pieces of armor" or "armor").

How about "Note that some armor items, like helmets and shields, provide a modifier to the worn armor rating and so do not count as stacked armor." for starters.


You seem to think (at least how I read it) of helmets/shields/PPP as armor modifications instead of actual armor. But I don't see how this is the case (apart from the simple fact, that they are not listed as armor modifications). They are armor pieces, just like any other, with the sole exception, that they are not counted as "stacked armor" and are not treated as "seperate armor pieces" when it comes to calculating your total worn armor rating and your encumbrance. For any other purpose they are armor. This includes the limits of military-grade armor.

Bye
Thanee

P.S. And besides, if it works like you say, I can wear an Armor Jacket, FFBA, and then add the PPP stuff and count it TWICE, because it adds to my armor worn (and since I wear two pieces of armor, and it does not say anywhere, that it only counts to one piece of armor, it works for both of them)? Yay PPP!

Now, Im all for limiting armour to the plausible level, but a few things jsut got to me.

Ok, milspec military armour allows no other armor to be WORN. Shields would in this case be allowed as the exception as they are CARRIED, regardless that they use the same rules as other armour that they modify a rating.

After all, you still have hands on your milspec armour.

Yep, that is quite reasonable.

Bye
Thanee

It is worth noting that FFBA appeared in the rules before Mil-Spec armour, so once Arsenal introduced Mil-Spec, the devs forgot to edit the FFBA entry for the munchkins.

It is also worth noting that both FFBA and Mil-Spec armour are *both* contoured to the body, heavily implying that Mil-Spec armour is FFBA + normal armour + cutting edge military technology.

So yeah, I would be fine stacking Mil-Spec with helmets and shields, but not with FFBA.

In SR4 they both appeared in Arsenal. In previous editions both existed, yet under somewhat different rules.

Yes, The Jopp, that's it exactly: it's so much easier to give shields an explicit pass, than wreck the whole system to accommodate them.

And helmets are a given since that is a seperate part of the armor that you are likely to take off at some point for some reason.

So with milspec you can add in a hemet and a shield but not the FFBA and PPS.

I could actually be inclined to allow the Second Skin Line as a viable suit of armored underoos to wear inside the Milspec Armor. Mainly because it is ultra-thin form fitting armor that is basically latex skin with armour plating. The second thing that comes to mind is COST. Second skin line is custom built for the user and horribly expensive compared to more regular armors.

I see it very much like something from Appleseed. *drools*

Especially as the armour can come in any fashion you like...like transparent...

Heh. I still assume that FFBA is integral with mil-spec already.

Which is why I brought them up. It seems resonable that they should be allowed, however, RAW count them as armor, and thus, illegal to use. You can argue for reason, which I agree with, but this argument isn't about what's reasonable, only game mechanics and rules. It's completely reasonable to suggest that mil-spec armor for a human could have an armored leather jacket on top of it designed for an orc/troll. You can't do that though. Neither can you have a shield.

You, like many others, seem not to be able to distinguish fluff from crunch. In a game of rules we pay attention to the parts that actually have rules in them. As an example, it's nice to know that guns fire bullets, but that is largely meaningless - you need to look at the damage code and statline for the weapon to figure out what it does. Like the gyrojet pistol, something can fire not-bullets, but as long as it has a damage code we can figure out how it interacts with other rules-and-numbers constructs of the game world.

This argument is one of semantics. Allow me to demonstrate:



In fact, in order to reach the decision you and others have made about this, you need to completely ignore the section that explicitly notes the rules saying that this is not in fact armor but something worn that increases the armor value of other armors. I, however, am not ignoring the part that calls them "armor pieces" - it is just that that is a meaningless phrase when it has no rules attached to it.

EDIT:


It would be easier to agree with this assertion except for:


(emphasis mine)
And, like I posted above, PPP is added into this. So yes, they would be armor, just like any other armor, except the rules for them specifically say they are not separate pieces of armor at all.

*shrug* It's "for purposes of encumbrance". Not 'for the purposes of mil-spec's specific ban on other armor'.

I believe the blurb in the PPP section is a synopsis, a headline, if you will, of the Helmets and Shields section. It was intended to give you an idea of how it works while at the same time sending you to the location of the rules in order to find out specifically how it works. Otherwise, the rules for PPP would not have referenced the Helmets and Shields section at all, trusting that "for purposes of encumbrance" would be sufficient.

I know that's your position. But I'm saying that leap is into the realm of interpretation, not the unshakable RAW you claim. On the other side, I interpret mil-spec's ban as saying 'no other pieces of armor, period—except matching helmets, cuz we specific said so'. (Another alternative is that PPP refers to Helmets and Shields for comparison, but not as being *identical*.) So it all rests on our interpretations.

This is all just fun to me, of course, because making sense is much more important than RAW.

Don't get me wrong, I have quite a bit of house-rules. The thing is that on the internet, you have to make the case for RAW when you are discussing RAW. You can suggest house-rules and variants until you are proverbially blue in the face, but at the end of the day the most important thing to take away from an internet forum debating RAW is the RAW itself.

I take it to a place of philosophy.

EDIT: And while a consensus is a good thing to obtain, it cannot be used solely as a judge of what every table would do, which is why I argue for RAW so fervently.