I don't understand why defense or (Does soak stack up?) I mean if you are wearing three layers of steel armor it's gonna stop a bullet better than one layer.

Just spitballing ideas, but I think this is to keep people honest. If you allow these things to stack, players will make arguments for why they can wear three suits of Armor if their brawn will allow that level of encumbrance. It is just a way to keep people from gaming the system. However, If it makes sense to you as a GM or you can convince your GM that something would stack, (completely between your group and the GM) allow it. It is your game, after all.

Wearing 3 suits of armor will most certainly be cumbersome.. I'd put Agility based penalties and slow movement down. If I were to do this.

When it comes to multiple sets of armour, it really comes down to common sense. Some things will not stack. Some people do allow some things to stack if it makes sense. But that is personal preference.

Anything can happen if you hand wave it.

To the point of why, it's to prevent players from becoming invulnerable. Pretty simple really. To keep a blaster rifle relevant.

In reality the tech of personal armor throughout history has always been overcome by clever tweaks to existing weapons.

Wearing multiple sets of armor is ok sorta if common sense is applied, like a vest over a flight suit. The argument of having enough Brawn to wear so much armor you look like the Michelin Man doesn't mean you could effectively move. Wearing real armor is a PITA and more increases the PITA.

If you're intent on equipping players with better armor than available I'd be more inclined to provide the experimental suit with a Soak 3 as a way of doing that. Makes the armor more precious to them.

(These points should have a "You bought the game, nobody can tell you not to change anything you don't like" caveat.)

Soak doesn't stack because a lot of people (not everyone) find it can get silly (there have been a fair number of "dealing with 'too much' soak" posts around these parts).

Stuff that grants Defence (as opposed to stuff that increases Defence) doesn't stack because, I imagine, the designers were trying to keep things simple and fast (and combats where people are missing more often tend to be longer).

It is silly that defense doesn't stack. That rule keeps shields from being a worthwhile piece of gear.

It is silly that defense doesn't stack. That rule keeps shields from being a worthwhile piece of gear.

The write up for shields themselves makes their worth questionable regardless of stacking issues. Limited time of use, long recharge time, failure on a Despair. Even if you could stack their defense I'm not sure how worthwhile they would be.

Extra Armor will make you Soak go up, it will not make it easier for you to AVOID the damage (which is what defence represents).

So soak does stack?

Defense doesn't stack because if something will deflect a shot, then layering it can't add anything.

It's like holding a shield in hand, but then ducking behind cover. If the cover is blocking the shots, holding that shield behind the cover won't do anything more.

Yep, page 134: Soak-

"Different sources of Soak stack, such as Heavy Assualy Armor and Subdermal Plating. multiple applications of the same source do not stack. - a character cannot wear three suits of heavy assault armot and stack the Soak bonus from each."

This means that you cannot wear 3 times ths SAME type of armor (for obvious reasons, like you can't do that with real life armor), however you CAN use 3 layers of different types of armor, in order to get you soak to stack

Defense doesn't stack because if something will deflect a shot, then layering it can't add anything.

It's like holding a shield in hand, but then ducking behind cover. If the cover is blocking the shots, holding that shield behind the cover won't do anything more.

Yep, This is the difference between Defense and Soak. One asks how well do you avoid being hit, while the other asks once you've been hit, how how do you reduce the damage

It is silly that defense doesn't stack. That rule keeps shields from being a worthwhile piece of gear.

The write up for shields themselves makes their worth questionable regardless of stacking issues. Limited time of use, long recharge time, failure on a Despair. Even if you could stack their defense I'm not sure how worthwhile they would be.

I don't understand why defense or (Does soak stack up?) I mean if you are wearing three layers of steel armor it's gonna stop a bullet better than one layer.

While more layers do give more protection, it isn't as important as you would think. The armor type works or it doesn't.

Shoot a .22 rifle at a thick piece of cardboard. It goes right through. Now stack 5 layers of cardboard. It still goes right through. Next, shoot a .22 at a piece of 1" steel. It doesn't go through. Stack 5 layers of 1" steel together. The .22 still doesn't go through.

Layering made no discernible difference.

A modern police officer wears a IIIA vest which gives considerable protection versus most handgun rounds. Fearing rifle rounds, police officers aren't donning two IIIA vests - the rifle round is still probably going to zip through both of them and the officer is going to be very uncomfortable and slown down. If he wants to stop rifle rounds, he dons a heavier IV vest intended to do so, he doesn't layer.

Yep, page 134: Soak-

"Different sources of Soak stack, such as Heavy Assualy Armor and Subdermal Plating. multiple applications of the same source do not stack. - a character cannot wear three suits of heavy assault armot and stack the Soak bonus from each."

This means that you cannot wear 3 times ths SAME type of armor (for obvious reasons, like you can't do that with real life armor), however you CAN use 3 layers of different types of armor, in order to get you soak to stack

They already addressed this, "Armor/Clothing" is a single source.

Of course it's your game. If you like the idea of fighting NPCs with a soak of 8+, go for it. After all, when it comes to base mechanics, anything you can do the NPCs can do too....

I think the only point where it does make sense, is to have cover and armor bonuses to defense stack. Cover is effectively reducing the size of the target available. (if anything, cover should really increase difficulty vs ranged attacks, since the target is smaller, as if firing on something of a different silhouette). The armor bonus to defense is a function of that armor's ability to deflect an attack. While I feel like an increase in difficulty is the better option, I do think that in lieu of that, stacking the setbacks imposed from both armor and cover is acceptable.

The problem here is that if you DON'T stack them, armored players/NPCs have zero incentive to seek cover. Ask any soldier if, because they are armored, they feel no need to seek cover in a firefight. Further, NPCs/PCs without armor can be on near-equal footing if they can get to cover in most cases (excepting the increased soak).

Yesh Keith, but in that case it is basically (at least in my games) assumed that when you are fully in cover you cannot be targeted at all. It is only when you yourself pop out to shoot at others that you can be targetted at all... I had our politico hide behind a rock as cover last session and not do anything to get into the line of fire at all from then onward, the enemy where unable to target him completely.

Wow, that were a lot of "at all"'s in one post....

I mean if you are wearing three layers of steel armor it's gonna stop a bullet better than one layer.

The main issue here, from where I'm sitting, is that armor isn't just a way to reduce damage. Armor is also heavy, it also takes up physical space, and nearly all armor has a "weak point" of some sort, either by lack of coverage or by some inherent limitation it imposes on the wearer. If you simply take the Soak mechanic of armor and apply it like it's in a game-mechanical vacuum (devoid of considerations that come along with a physical being wearing a physical suit of armor), then you are potentially ignoring a lot of "good reasons why" the developers made the rules work the way they work.

Not that there's anything wrong with applying sensible house rules. But as a secondary issue, there's also game balance and dice pool bloat to consider. If you allowed PCs to "stack" armor on top of armor, you might get quickly out of hand with characters that can't be damaged (since weapon damage is also a factor in these "defense" mechanics).

There's also cinematic considerations. Armor can work as well as light cover, but they don't work well together. This has realistic and cinematic elements by way of justification.

So, yeah short answer is "because game balance," but there are also lots of different points to consider if you're going to be considering house-ruling something; among which are game design theory, setting realism/believability, and playability.

Why not be blunt about why they don't stack.

Say you are in body armor, in a tank.

Anything that blast through the tank, is very likely still going to hit you even in the body armor. Need an example of this being true? watch any war footage ever with tanks. Are there stories of people surviving? sure, all over, but that would be a "lucky roll".

Not sure how to make it more clear than that, so I won't regurgitate too many other arguments/comments from other sources.

If you want to house rule that hiding in that tank in body armor magically is harder to hit/kill than just a person in a tank in a tee-shirt go ahead, but it seems silly.

It is silly that defense doesn't stack. That rule keeps shields from being a worthwhile piece of gear.

The write up for shields themselves makes their worth questionable regardless of stacking issues. Limited time of use, long recharge time, failure on a Despair. Even if you could stack their defense I'm not sure how worthwhile they would be.

Well that's another issue in that shields should not use the defense mechanic and should instead provide soak.

My only point is that 10 minutes of use, 3 hours of recharge, and breaking on a Despair, means a PDS is pretty crummy regardless of how much Soak or Defense it provides given their cost.

I mean if you are wearing three layers of steel armor it's gonna stop a bullet better than one layer.

The main issue here, from where I'm sitting, is that armor isn't just a way to reduce damage. Armor is also heavy, it also takes up physical space, and nearly all armor has a "weak point" of some sort, either by lack of coverage or by some inherent limitation it imposes on the wearer. If you simply take the Soak mechanic of armor and apply it like it's in a game-mechanical vacuum (devoid of considerations that come along with a physical being wearing a physical suit of armor), then you are potentially ignoring a lot of "good reasons why" the developers made the rules work the way they work.

As someone whose actually worn armor once or twice I'll back this up 100% the stuff is heavy, cumbersome, and can get hot.

If you're wearing something like an armored coat, over a catch vest, over laminate armor, over heavy clothing I'd say you only get the Enc reduction bonus from the Laminate. Or that the others are only 1/2 rounded up or something.

I do really like the Enc reduction that worn armor gets though. It's totally true that the easiest way to carry armor is to just wear it.

In my opinion, armor just should not stack. The game is a narrative system. If you layer armor, you effectively have made a whole new type of armor. As a GM, if you want to create more types of armor with higher Soak and different qualities, go for it. If you want to make new mods like "Ballistic Plates (1 HP): Increase ranged defense against slugthrowers and explosives by 1 [250 credit]", go for it.

If you're a player, you should be having this conversation with your GM. My answer would be, "Come on bro. Do you want an arm's race?" In my opinion, even if you allow serious penalties to Agility and Combat checks, you're inviting players to try to munckin out and figure out the way to circumvent the penalties with bracing, aiming, maxing out just combat skills.

If we want to talk IRL...I, also, have spent my fair share of time wearing body armor. You can't layer the stuff because it's sized to fit and protect properly. You don't go out and get the S, M, L, and XL armor and layer them and expect it to work. That would be like Joey wearing every piece of Chandler's clothes...."could I be wearing anymore clothes?"

Yep, page 134: Soak-

"Different sources of Soak stack, such as Heavy Assualy Armor and Subdermal Plating. multiple applications of the same source do not stack. - a character cannot wear three suits of heavy assault armot and stack the Soak bonus from each."

This means that you cannot wear 3 times ths SAME type of armor (for obvious reasons, like you can't do that with real life armor), however you CAN use 3 layers of different types of armor, in order to get you soak to stack

As long as you understand that all worn armor is considered the same source. So you cannot stack for example Heavy Clothing and Heavy Armor or Laminate.