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.

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 - 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 , put the FFBA on underneath, and save yourself almost a 1000 .

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.

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

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

The curse of the double post strikes again!

"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?"

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

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

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).

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

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....

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.


Not will; may

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I was simply arguing his second quote, rather than the first.

For what it's worth, I agree that it's possible to perceive, I just think a reasonable interpretation of the fluff would suggest to a GM that they apply some kind of dice penalty to the perception check.

Concealbility in the area of -2, perhaps?

Honestly, if FFBA is -6, I would think (using the fluff as a guide) armor clothing (-4) and armor vest (-2).

I was going to put vest as more concealable than clothes, but I just re-read the descriptions of both.

ETA: Probably put the Actioneer at (-2) as well as it is described as "discreetly" armored.

A reasonable GM would know that going visibly armored is likely a social faux pas, and invent a system to actually let people notice that, yes.

A reasonable writer who had ever played the game system he's working on would have thought of that in the first place.

Or, you know, remembered that the concealability table in SR4 didn't cover nearly everything either.

I think that the fear is that making the game over complicated will make it less accessible to new players.

The solution is to have optional rules which allow players to fine tune the game to their tastes, possibly up to and including rules for rope degradation based on weather time storage and care of use. That isn't something that needs to be in the core book, but having a splat book dedicated solely to stating the nitty gritty details wouldn't be out of the question. Given some of the complaints about 5th maybe itd be a good seller.

If nothing else, that actually sems like a pretty good candidate for a PDF or two. Maybe a Grifter addition to the Coyote's/Assassin's Primer line (Variant Face to go with Variant Rigger and Variant Sam) would be a good thing for the social stuff, too.

Be careful which fluff you use as a direction of what the rules actually mean.


"Devices that are bricked never
fail non-spectacularly. Smoke, sparks, pops, bangs, sizzles, nasty smells, and occasionally even small fires are
common features of a device in the process of becoming a brick."

And nothing is worse than when your wireless thong breaks out in a fire when bricked.

Adds new meaning to wardrobe malfunction.

I would think a reasonable person could see the gulf of difference between the implications of the armor vest text and the bricking text. Although, is there something particularly wrong with the text you are quoting? That's pretty much how every GM I have encountered handles bricking.

Suffice to say, I would be pretty unimpressed if I purchased armor clothing and every single NPC I encountered detected it as such since the description of it being "almost impossible to detect as armor" was merely fluff. There is clearly a purpose to that statement.

And yet, everyone knows that the Berwick Line is armored (Yadda, Yadda, Yadda)... all someone has to do is recognize the Fashion you are wearing to know that it is potentially armored.
Not really all that difficult an endeavor...

And yet, the line of clothing you refer to is clearly not the "Armor Clothing" from the BBB, which was what was referenced.

"Armor Clothing" is most likely offered by a variety of different clothing manufacturers who also sell regular non-armored clothing, so distinguishing between the two may very well be challenging.

Perhaps... But the same goes there too. Manufacturers make things (and if you do not think that those things are distinct and different lines, you are probably deceiving yourself), and those who follow those things will be in the know. No need to actually SEE the discrete armor in that case.

Much the same as gun nuts can debate for endless hours the minutia of gun manufacture that the average person does not even care about. They know, so it shows. I know people who follow Fashion to that degree of insanity.

Not really.

1)There are plenty of clothing manufacturers (particularly catalog and online) that create products that are made with different quality materials, one tends to cost more than the other, but they are identified as the same product.

2) If personal armor is as ubiquitous as suggested by the books, there are almost certainly versions that don't even have a visible label.

With that said, if someone does have knowledge ranks in Fashion, I would certainly allow them to make a check.

The Curse of the Double Post Strikes Again!

Considering how common firearms and gangs are, why wouldn't everyone wear some form of armor if they are leaving their home?
Especially considering how relatively cheap armor is.

If you are poor you need it just because of where you live.
If you are rich you need it because you are a target (and if you can afford a 1000 nuyen suit you can afford to pay a little extra for protection).
Everyone else would need it just in case of spill over.

I can see the super rich using it has a fashion statement (I'm so rich I can afford clothes that don't look like they are armored or our Security is so good that we don't need it).

Given if you are sporting a lot of armor in a high security zone you are going to stand out but in the Sixth World I would think that the lack of some form of armored clothing would make you stand out more.

Hell, I bet Doc Wagon gives a discount if your employees are wearing some form of armored uniform.

yes, there is a problem with that.

what happens when someone bricks your wired reflexes and reaction enhancers? the descriptive text would suggest that you should be completely paralyzed, and quite likely in need of immediate hospitalization; sparks and fires and smoke inside your body, and particularly right next to your spinal cord, are generally considered to be bad things. it further suggests that you would need surgery to repair your cyberware, which most likely should need to be completely replaced (and you probably now have a legitimate medical need for it because any of your actual spinal column that was around likely just got destroyed)

but that's not what happens. instead, you just lose your bonus. and you don't need any sort of specialized service to get it repaired, just an electronics kit that magically reaches inside your body and repairs everything no problem.

in fact, that's kinda screwy with cyberware in general. and tbh, should cause additional problems with certain regular gear... i wouldn't want contacts or earbuds to get bricked with the descriptive text in place, but officially all that happens is they stop working. and you can replace the parts that just lit on fire, shot sparks all over the place, and released a bunch of smoke for absolutely free; a person with street lifestyle, no money, and an electronics kit can repair it just as easily as a person living a high lifestyle with thousands of nuyen in the bank and an electronics kit (provided their skill level is the same). there isn't even any permanent damage to the equipment unless the person repairing it does something horribly wrong.

You're making a presumption that all of the things listed must happen, but the text doesn't support that. It's a non-exhaustive list of examples of what can happen when a device is bricked. IMO, the reason for the list is to explain that a device getting bricked is particularly obvious to the owner of the device. For internal cyberware, I imagine internal diagnostic software would light up like a Christmas tree, the area could be warm to the touch/glow, etc. Should this cause additional damage to a body? Maybe, but CGL decided that was either a little too complicated for what they wanted or imbalanced.

The game uses abstraction all over the place, if that doesn't reach your realism threshold, you can certainly introduce house rules for

So, you are saying use the fluff to determine this thing (armor and the concealability thereof), but don't use the fluff to determine this thing (such as what happens when your gear is bricked).


What is what I was pointing out.

???

I would use both. Like I said previously, the list is not exhaustive and a GM can certainly expand on it to provide appropriate examples for internal cyberware.

A description that includes the word "never" seems pretty all-encompassing.

Pretty much how I read that too... Never means Never. *shrug*

Of course the issue isn't the word "never" but the definiton of the phrase "fail non-spectacularly" and what that entails. IMO, it means it will always be noticed by someone, particularly the owner and it's up to the GM how to determine what a "spectacular" failure means for internal cyber.

*shrug*

With that logic, again form fitting has no benefit. Because no matter what you are wearing that manufacturer [robably has an armored line and I might just not be able to detect the armor, but it is probably there.

I know you're having trouble with the semantics here, but I think we can all pretty well understand that 'never fails non-spectacularly' means 'always fails spectacularly', right?

"Smoke, sparks, pops, bangs, sizzles, nasty smells, and occasionally even small fires are common features of a device in the process of becoming a brick."

That line's got no real ambiguity to it, and the implications of any of the above common features occurring in internal cyberware are quite obvious.