On another note, in the new Desperate Allies book, there's a new item, "Second Skin Armor," that is explicitly designed to be worn underneath clothing. It has no hard points, but seems to imply that the devs were expecting some stacking to occur within the system.

The RAW is specific in that like effects do not stack unless otherwise noted. I have not seen the DA write up but unless Second Skin Armor explicitly states that it breaks this rule it doesn't, ever (unless you choose to House Rule it). This has nothing to do with "realism" so there is no point arguing about it it's about the game mechanics.

Ah. I meant physically stacking, not stacking of benefits. Wearing multiple sets of armor seems to be expected. Such that one could still have only one effective armor providing Soak or Defense.

Fair enough. I get what you are going for.

At least F&D has allowed us to slap some plates onto our clothes and throw on a heavy robe to have armor equal to heavy battle armor... it even has two hard points.

There's also the personal deflector shield which is listed as a piece of armor. Most people I've talked to would allow it to be worn along with other armor. I do, but I don't allow the defense bonuses to stack.

I agree with this. I'd probably allow banal clothing under some other armors, but there's no benefit to be conveyed.

Okay, here's a question for all the other GMs.

Would the The Custom Tailored jacket from Far Horizons (the one that adds a blue to negotiate, charm and deception) stack with the regal robes from Desperate Allies (the one that lowers the difficulty talking to other nobles)? On the surface it seems a bit cheesy, but if the player makes the effort with going out of their way to make sure the clothing accessorizes with each other and sells it in story as opposed to just buying whatever off the rack - I might let them.

What do you think?

Are there hard points on that diplomatic attire? On its face I would not allow this , in my mind it's like wearing a prom gown and a wedding dress at the same time.

Now if there aren't hard points on the diplomatic attire, if a player asked to be able to buy a custom tailored diplomatic robe in order to make it a little more beneficial and maybe convey an extra boost die, I'd go for that. I would charge accordingly.

There's also the personal deflector shield which is listed as a piece of armor. Most people I've talked to would allow it to be worn along with other armor. I do, but I don't allow the defense bonuses to stack.

The Defense stacking rules are weird. Officially , if a character wearing heavy armour that provides a Defense bonus (say, Boba Fett) takes cover, he gains no Defense from the cover since it doesn't stack with his armour's bonus.

He's literally as easy to hit behind cover as if he were standing in the open.

There's also the personal deflector shield which is listed as a piece of armor. Most people I've talked to would allow it to be worn along with other armor. I do, but I don't allow the defense bonuses to stack.

The Defense stacking rules are weird. Officially , if a character wearing heavy armour that provides a Defense bonus (say, Boba Fett) takes cover, he gains no Defense from the cover since it doesn't stack with his armour's bonus.

He's literally as easy to hit behind cover as if he were standing in the open.

Which is weird... but it does mean a dood in heavy battle armor has no reason to hide behind a crate instead of flying around with his jetpack...

Not true. Falling damage is so nasty that there's good reason not to fly a jetpack in combat.

First life lesson I ever learned... don't use a jetpack. no matter how badly it seems like you need a jetpack, you don't need a jetpack. Just say no my friends. Just say no.

So I guess Jetpacks with Capes are an even worse idea?

Directly from the FAQ

"When a character can choose between two static
defense values, (for example, if he is in cover and is
wearing armor that has a defense value), he chooses
the better of the two values. Then any armor, talents,
and item qualities he has that “increase” his defense
value are added to the static value he chose. (Cover
has been clarified in the errata to reflect this.)

As a side note, the prone condition simply adds [1 setback die]
or [1 boost die] to ranged or melee attacks targeting the character
(respectively), and therefore may stack with the
character’s defense value."


pg 207 EoTE:CRB also talks about stacking SOAK (note: armor is a source, multple instances of armor cannot stack).

So characters can very well wear two sets of armor, but they only use the best value of Def and Soak, not a stacked value. That of course is if it makes sense that your character could ineed wear both sets. This can allow a character to use the Def of one set and the SOAK of another. Again, if deemed plausible by the GM. In a large majority of cases however, expect a book to make contact with your head at some point.

So I guess Jetpacks with Capes are an even worse idea?

In my game, only if it makes sense (no HBA over Laminate). THEN, the encumbrance stacks but nothing else does. You end up with the best Soak, best Defense, and best HP from each, with the encumbrance of both. So, Laminate over Heavy Clothing would give you no benefit. If you use only the RAW core book list, there really isn't anything that can logically be en worn together that actually gives a benefit unless you come upon a deflector shield. Ex: Deflector Shield (2 Def 0 Soak 0 HP 3 Enc) with Armored Clothing (1 Def 1 Soak 1 HP 3 Enc) would give you 2 Def 1 Soak 1 HP 6 Enc with a Rarity of 8 and 11,000 total credits. You gain 1 HP and 1 Soak over the shield at the cost of 1,000 credits and doubling encumbrance. Not a game breaker and makes sense. In comparison HBA is 1 Def 2 Soak 4 HP 6 Enc at 7 Rarity and 5,000 credits.

This discussion came up quite some time ago, and the consensus at the time was that Armor values don't stack, but if one is wearing multiple armors (ie. heavy clothing & a blast vest), you would only get the benefit of the better of two armours. So if 1 armor type was armor 1, defense 1, and the other was armor 2 and defense 0, the net result would be armor 2, defense 1.

But you'd have encumbrance issues too...

The rules only explicitly state that multiple instances of the same armor don't stack, not that multiple different types don't.

The rules only explicitly state that multiple instances of the same armor don't stack, not that multiple different types don't.

Yes they do , they state clearly you only obtain Soak from any single source, and that a suit of armor represents one single source.

The rules only explicitly state that multiple instances of the same armor don't stack, not that multiple different types don't.

Yes they do , they state clearly you only obtain Soak from any single source, and that a suit of armor represents one single source.

There are a couple ways to interpret this quote. I can see how you'd interpret it as "armor" being a single source of soak (while dermal plating is a different source), but this is an implicit interpretation, not an explicit reading. But the only thing it explicitly states is that three suits of identical armor (in this case, heavy assault armor) cannot all give the character their combined soak. Due to the way it is written, an equally valid interpretation would be that only identical pieces of armor do not stack their soak values.

Is there somewhere I've missed that explicitly states that all armor is considered a single source of soak?

Dermal plating isn't armor, it's a cybernetic enhancement, that's not an interpretation, that's what's written.

The rule about additional sets of armor also never states "identical". It simply gives an example of the same kind of armor but points out those are both armor and both represent a single source. You're inserting identical into the reading.

Dermal plating isn't armor, it's a cybernetic enhancement, that's not an interpretation, that's what's written.

Is it specifically and explicitly written somewhere that they're different sources because dermal plating is cybernetics while heavy assault armor is armor, or are you implying that because of your interpretation of the rule?

Dermal plating isn't armor, it's a cybernetic enhancement, that's not an interpretation, that's what's written.

Is it specifically and explicitly written somewhere that they're different sources because dermal plating is cybernetics while heavy assault armor is armor, or are you implying that because of your interpretation of the rule?

Yes it is explicitly written in the rules. Dermal armor is listed under cybernetic enhancements in gear. Armor is listed under armor in gear.

The rule about additional sets of armor also never states "identical". It simply gives an example of the same kind of armor but points out those are both armor and both represent a single source. You're inserting identical into the reading.

No, I'm not inserting the word "identical". I'm using the word "identical" because the only example it gives of items not stacking are three identical pieces of armor .

Dermal plating isn't armor, it's a cybernetic enhancement, that's not an interpretation, that's what's written.

Is it specifically and explicitly written somewhere that they're different sources because dermal plating is cybernetics while heavy assault armor is armor, or are you implying that because of your interpretation of the rule?

Yes it is explicitly written in the rules. Dermal armor is listed under cybernetic enhancements in gear. Armor is listed under armor in gear.

Not to mention that Dermal Plating is even used in the example for stacking, lol.

EDIT:

In response to Simon, that's pretty much one of the biggest debates going on from the start but I believe there's an interview floating around here somewhere in which it was asked what was meant by "source" since the example in the book is so poor and it was answered that all armor is one source, but it's still unsure as far as I know. Seems that the large consensus is that soak from armor, just like defense, is a best value only.

Dermal plating isn't armor, it's a cybernetic enhancement, that's not an interpretation, that's what's written.

Is it specifically and explicitly written somewhere that they're different sources because dermal plating is cybernetics while heavy assault armor is armor, or are you implying that because of your interpretation of the rule?

Yes it is explicitly written in the rules. Dermal armor is listed under cybernetic enhancements in gear. Armor is listed under armor in gear.

You're not understanding my question. I'm not asking if one is cybernetics and one is armor. I'm asking if there is some place in the book that explicitly states that all armor is considered a single source.

Okay, here's a question for all the other GMs.

Would the The Custom Tailored jacket from Far Horizons (the one that adds a blue to negotiate, charm and deception) stack with the regal robes from Desperate Allies (the one that lowers the difficulty talking to other nobles)? On the surface it seems a bit cheesy, but if the player makes the effort with going out of their way to make sure the clothing accessorizes with each other and sells it in story as opposed to just buying whatever off the rack - I might let them.

What do you think?

No.

A robe and a jacket fit the same basic clothing slot. However, if the PC wants an extra bonus, he would do better to just roleplay the scene well instead of trying some stitching shenanigans. Or he could use Advantage/Triumphs on his Negotiation check to find a really nice robe and have his sigil embroidered onto it. That way he is really looking sharp.

That said, I do think a few items that fall under "Armor" can be used in conjuncture with each other. For example if a PC is wearing Heavy Clothing and wants to throw on a Tracker Vest (adds to Encumbrance Threshold) then I don't see any reason to disallow that just because both are "Armor". It's just a stylistic difference between Armor (the vest) and Gear (backpack, utility belt, satchel, etc.)

Dermal plating isn't armor, it's a cybernetic enhancement, that's not an interpretation, that's what's written.

Is it specifically and explicitly written somewhere that they're different sources because dermal plating is cybernetics while heavy assault armor is armor, or are you implying that because of your interpretation of the rule?

Yes it is explicitly written in the rules. Dermal armor is listed under cybernetic enhancements in gear. Armor is listed under armor in gear.

You're not understanding my question. I'm not asking if one is cybernetics and one is armor. I'm asking if there is some place in the book that explicitly states that all armor is considered a single source.

You're using the example in a strict literal interpretation as the rule, it isn't. The previous sentence tells you the rule same sources of soak don't stack. A suit of heavy armor and subdermal plating are different sources of soak and therefore stack. A suit of armor represents a single source of soak and therefore you can't stack them. You're on the right page.

Dermal plating isn't armor, it's a cybernetic enhancement, that's not an interpretation, that's what's written.

Is it specifically and explicitly written somewhere that they're different sources because dermal plating is cybernetics while heavy assault armor is armor, or are you implying that because of your interpretation of the rule?

Yes it is explicitly written in the rules. Dermal armor is listed under cybernetic enhancements in gear. Armor is listed under armor in gear.

Not to mention that Dermal Plating is even used in the example for stacking, lol.

Nobody is saying that it doesn't. What I'm saying is that the rules do not explicitly state that all armor is one type of source (armor), while dermal plating while dermal plating is another type of source (cybernetics). In fact, all it says is that heavy assault armor and dermal plating are two different sources, and that three instances of the same armor (heavy assault armor) are all the same source. it doesn't state explicitly, for instance, that heavy assault armor and heavy clothing are from a single source.