That's a full page of optional rules, man. Seriously.

Care to explain?

War says it reduces the highest value of the worn armor, if you stacking armor it'll apply to each one worn, obviously not a Helm or something, but if its like a Lined Coat and FFBA then it'll apply to each one.

Are you saying that Softweave reduces each item of worn armor (except helmets and the like) by Strength for purposes of encumbrance? So if you are wearing 10 pieces of armor, the total value for encumbrance purposes is reduced by Strx10?

Considering, that this particular part of the discussion is about optional rules... quite fitting, don't you think?

Bye
Thanee

I don't. Correcting Stahlseele's accurate statement by repeating the optional rule that had already been mentioned did not seem fitting, no.

It does....if you pay to have it on each item...If you only pay to have it on one item then you only get the effect for that one piece. As for your second sentence that's not even how softweave works and that's not what I am saying.

I think the problem is that whoever wrote the Softweave rules apparently did not consider Armor Stacking. Or the possibility of players trying to claim it's benefits separately for, say, each piece of PPP armor they are wearing.


-k

Which is really bizarre imo, sure it's mainly to help characters with low stats wear better armor but I can't believe no one thought about armor stacking.

PPP doesn't have a armor rating and gets no benefit from Softweave

*flails*

Check this post then. It is the first to mention healing Drain.

That is the "subtopic" here. The optional rule about healing Drain.

Bye
Thanee

That's the 'already mentioned' I was referring to, yes. That's why it seemed pretty flippant and unhelpful to mention it again, in the form of a bare page reference; as if he'd forgotten after 2 short posts? But, I certainly don't care enough to keep on about this.

Ok, but how can a "never" statement be accurate, when there is an option that says the opposite?

Bye
Thanee

Jeus, the armor system of SR is a bit fucked up, because it started as take your shirt and your Helm and get out in the action.
Simple, easy and working.
But by adding more and more modifikation it started to break apart. The basic rules stopped to support the advanced possibilities.

Then why have it in your own example?

...for that matter, how can you even use softweave on PPP since you also claim that PPP isn't separate worn armor? By the SoftWeave rules it shouldn't even be able to have softweave then.


Both those sentences are saying the same thing--let me break it down:

If a character with Body 6 and Strength 3 is wearing the following armor:

Formfitting Fullsuit (6/2 [3/2 for encumbrance])
Body Armor Bag (6/2)
Camouflage Jacket (6/4)
Armor Vest (6/4)

Without softweave, the value for purposes of encumbrance would be 21/12

With softweave reducing the highest value of each piece by Str., the value for encumbrance would be 9/12.

That means total value for purposes of encumbrance is reduced by 12, or 4 x Strength.

Its the folly of 2nd Ed D&D skills and powers. Start to get to much on and your worrying about that instead of about making things fun.

There is only one highest value, no matter how many different armors your wearing.

But.... That would make sense...

Yea i know, kinda weird concept

Pshh, that's not trying hard enough. If you put on Softweave FFBA and full PPP, that counts as 8/8 armor. So the ballistic and impact armor are both the highest armor, and both get reduced by softweave, right? Now if you have 8 strength, that means it counts as 0/0 for encumbrance. Also, the rules don't actually say you can only wear one suit of FFBA, and it does say it stacks with everything else, so that includes more FFBA, right? Now you put on 1000 suits of SW FFBA and PPP, so with 8+ strength, you now have 8000/8000 armor. This is the most powerful option so clearly it makes the most sense and you can't prove me wrong. If you're going to squint at the rules until they say what you want them to say, you might as well go whole hog with it.

Nah, it does not beat running naked!

Bye
Thanee

After All, you are totally immune to damage when runnin' naked.

Especially if you're on fire.

Oooh, an Elemental Aura... perfect...

You are, of course, also invisible while naked.

As mentioned elsewhere I used it as a "example" and specifically because a total of 8/8 is a clean number to work with, easy to remember, easy to do math on. Off the top of my head I couldn't think of something that had 2/6 and was also armor, hence the PPP system.

However you want to work the math Softweave will need to be bought for each item that you are deriving a armor value from, I.E. Stacking Armor, for items that do not have a value of their own and instead increase/decrease you cannot benifet.
From you example the effects all apply but are not culmutive

Formfitting Fullsuit (6/2 [3/2 for encumbrance]) -
Body Armor Bag (6/2)
Camouflage Jacket (6/4)
Armor Vest (6/4)

The total effect would be a 0/2,3/2,3/4, and 3/4 respectively so you would end up with a total of 9/8.

"That means total value for purposes of encumbrance is reduced by 12, or 4 x Strength"

I don't follow that process in my head as i calculate the numbers but yes, i guess you could say 4xstrength

Even while on Fire?

Especially since it is correct, mathmatically.

That's the kicker you see




One could argue that fire is not visible since it is never defined has having a certain luminosity nor a specific color.

Of course that way lies Madness



-3 with...Deepweed was it?

You mean like your stance on PPP and Armor Stacking, or Smartweave?

To be nitpicky here, fire actually is invisible you don't see the actual fire you see basically a mirage caused by the heat.

Psh, I looking at black and white with no supposition.

This is how it works. You should take my word for it, since I am an expert on shadowrun armor and know all the rules regarding them better than anyone.

I thought it was entertaining until I read this



Considering that's exactly how it doesn't work, it makes the rest of the statement invalid. C- at best

Angelone, is that different from saying that everything is invisible, you just see light reflected off it?

No, the fire is invisible, the flames you are seeing is just a mirage like the heat waves off hot concrete.

Right… so? It's still light coming from the fire. You might as well, again, say that stars are invisible, because you're only seeing the light they produce. At best, this seems worthlessly true, I mean.

Just trying to make a point about the level of nitpickery in this and the other thread.

I direct you to my signature, anything I said about Fire/Invisible is a tongue in cheek commentary.

Yeah, text is a surprisingly poor format. I can't wait til we can hook wires up to our heads and communicate that way.

Also my avatar shows how serious I am about most topics.

Do you mean "the other" thread, or the "other thread"?

Exactly

^ Im not even going to use punctuation in this post just because

Actually, I've got a better one! Softweave does not say that it reduces the highest armor rating by Strength to a minimum of 0, just that it reduces it by Strength. So if you have 1/0 armor, Softweaved, and 2 strength, it counts as -1/0 for encumbrance. Now we can go to town without that fishy "both armor ratings get reduced if they are equal" argument:

FFBA shirt on its own is 3/0. FFBA combined with 0/4 of PPP stuff (which adds to its rating) is 3/4. If you have a Strength of 6, and Softweave them, they count as -1/0 and 2/-1 respectively (remembering that FFBA halves encumbrance; I'm assuming it does this last and rounds against the player - this doesn't matter at all for the purpose of this example). So if you wear 2 Softweave FFBAs, and one Softweave FFBA + PPP, you have encumbrance 0/-1, but actual armor of 9/4. Slap on a jillion of those, and voila.

Dead serious?

No, I was going for drunk and kinda gassy. That was the closest I could find.

Which I thnk is the problem, because you read your own prejudices into that Black and White.
You (generic) can make written text read almost any way, based upon what is actually written. In some instances, what results is asinine. If the result is asinine it cannot be the intent of what was written, especially if there is a more sane reading.

That is entirely subjective and such not a valid point.

Nothing wrong with subjective points. Your ability to understand language depends largely on plausibility and appropriateness.

gensuntight

So, when there are two possible readings of the RAW, and one is silly while the other is not silly… you choose the not-silly one. This judgment can frequently be supported by broad consensus; silliness is usually a shared perception.

In a related way, I always choose the less powerful option, all things being equal. This is just me, though, not a general principle of language.