I know that defenses don't stack, but I can't remember what the call on the rest was...

1) Character has a widget that provides deflection 2 and another that provides deflection 1. When targeting him is it 2 setback on the check, or 3 setback?

2) Character in +1 cover with a gadget that has 2 Deflection. When targeting him is it 3 setback on the check, or 2 setback?

3) Character has a gadget that provides +2 ranged defense, and a gadget that provides deflection 2. When targeting him is it 2 setback on the check, or 4?

Thanks

I think there was a dev question posted not to long ago about this. You always select the greater option that works, but I'm not sure if cover overrides what defenses you have or not..

Isn't it if it says it provides 'X' whatever, it doesn't stack, and if it says '+X' to whatever, it does? Beats the F out of me, I swear they tried to make the whole concept as hard as possible to understand....

So, what is “deflection” in this case?

With regards to combat in this game, I am aware of Soak and Defense, and not much else.

Force users can have Parry and Reflection, but that’s specific to their particular talents.

I don’t know of anything called “Deflection” in this game.

Deflection adds setbacks to ranged checks IIRC, it comes from shields in F&D and I think some of the other splat books. I would say Deflection and Defense stack as they are technically different sources?

Deflection adds setbacks to ranged checks IIRC, it comes from shields in F&D and I think some of the other splat books. I would say Deflection and Defense stack as they are technically different sources?

Ranged Defense would add setbacks to ranged checks, yes. And one potential source for Ranged Defense is shields, yes.

But that’s not “Deflection”.

Found it:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/108101-ffg-developer-answered-questions/?p=1859254

If you look closely at the description for Defensive and Deflection quality, it says "increases the wearer's melee/ranged defense by an amount equal to its Defensive/Deflection rating". So unlike cover and armor that gives a static defense rating, Defensive and Deflection increase our current melee/ranged defense rating. So it stacks with either armor or cover, which ever is the highest.

So to answer the OP's questions...

1- Deflection widgets don't stack (I asked Sam about dual wielding sabers with defensive/deflection and he said they don't stack) ; so you would gain the highest rating, which is 2.

2- Cover with Deflection stacks, so ranged defense of 3.

3- Depends on what the gadget is... does it give deflection (like a riot shield)? then they don't stack ; does it give defense (like personal deflector shield)? then it stacks.

Hope this helps.

If you look closely at the description for Defensive and Deflection quality, it says "increases the wearer's melee/ranged defense by an amount equal to its Defensive/Deflection rating". So unlike cover and armor that gives a static defense rating, Defensive and Deflection increase our current melee/ranged defense rating. So it stacks with either armor or cover, which ever is the highest.

So to answer the OP's questions...

1- Deflection widgets don't stack (I asked Sam about dual wielding sabers with defensive/deflection and he said they don't stack) ; so you would gain the highest rating, which is 2.

2- Cover with Deflection stacks, so ranged defense of 3.

3- Depends on what the gadget is... does it give deflection (like a riot shield)? then they don't stack ; does it give defense (like personal deflector shield)? then it stacks.

Hope this helps.

Yes! So on 3, I'm thinking Riot shield + personal Shield, so 4?

As was noted above, in case of multiple sources of the same bonus (in this case, the Deflection quality), you'd only take the best bonus.

So if using a Riot Shield (Deflection 2) and a personal shield (Deflection 1) with armored clothing, you'd have a total Ranged Defense of 3, as you only get the better of the two Deflection bonuses.

So, Defense is for Melee only, right? And Deflection is for Ranged only, right?

So, it seems pretty obvious that they don’t overlap and they don’t stack.

Moreover, Defense 2 doesn’t stack with Defense 1, although it would stack with Defense +1. Likewise with Deflection.

Am I missing something here?

So, Defense is for Melee only, right? And Deflection is for Ranged only, right?

So, it seems pretty obvious that they don’t overlap and they don’t stack.

Moreover, Defense 2 doesn’t stack with Defense 1, although it would stack with Defense +1. Likewise with Deflection.

Am I missing something here?

Defense is for melee and ranged unless otherwise specified.

Defensive is for melee

Deflection is for ranged

Defense provides #, Defensive and deflection provide +#

And from what I've seen here, they do stack, but only the best of each.

I'm glad I'm reading these threads The calculations for defense in the generator were allowing all equipped sources of "+defense" to contribute, instead of just a single source with the highest total defense. The book's not too clear on that. It's not just a simple matter of "set defense to X" using the highest, and "increase defense by X" stacking. You have to get a final result for each piece of equipment (regardless of whether or not it even has a set defense value), then compare it to every other piece of equipment and use the highest between them. You could be getting your melee or ranged defense from your armor, your weapon, a piece of equipment, OR a cybernetic implant, but never more than one; only one source can contribute to each value.

I entered Braendig's sample character and with my new calculations, I'm now getting the proper 2/3 defense. I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of shocked people after the next release I can already hear the requests for a GM Grant...

Oh, and soak does stack... sorta. The sources of soak just have to be of a different type. So, you can get soak from your armor and from a cybernetic implant and stack 'em bothup. What you can't do is add up soak from multiple items belonging to the same "source", like two sets of armor, or two cybernetic implants.

The CRBs do say this, but they're all a bit fuzzy on what a "source" is and it's not really spelled out anywhere. The generator recognizes four "sources" when it comes to stacking soak: armor, cybernetics, weapons, and gear (non-cybernetic gear). Beyond that, I have no idea what they mean.

Ogg, can you just add a flag that -does- allow defense to stack from multiple sources? Or maybe a config panel with a bunch of checkboxes (with sources) that are allowed to stack?

As long as you're reworking it.

I know that the inability to stack defense is something that I house rule away as stacking setbacks aren't nearly as impressive as anyone would like to think they are against solid opponents.

Ogg, can you just add a flag that -does- allow defense to stack from multiple sources? Or maybe a config panel with a bunch of checkboxes (with sources) that are allowed to stack?

As long as you're reworking it.

I know that the inability to stack defense is something that I house rule away as stacking setbacks aren't nearly as impressive as anyone would like to think they are against solid opponents.

Well... I could just have a checkbox in GM Grants that allows blanket stacking of +def from all equipped sources. However, that may not be what people necessarily want, or even need. For instance, maybe only +def from a particular "source type" would stack, basically how soak stacks now (that is, the highest def from weapons would stack with the highest def from armor, or cybernetics, etc.). Or, like you mentioned, people may want individual items to stack, while others don't (which I honestly do not want to deal with).

In general, I would much rather spend time adding features that support the RAW than adding complex house rules that most people won't even use, or if they do use them, will probably not exactly do what they want them to do. For now, I'll probably just wait and see how people react to the "fix" before thinking about how I might allow them to circumvent the rules

The CRBs do say this, but they're all a bit fuzzy on what a "source" is and it's not really spelled out anywhere. The generator recognizes four "sources" when it comes to stacking soak: armor, cybernetics, weapons, and gear (non-cybernetic gear). Beyond that, I have no idea what they mean.

One of the things FFG really needs is a glossary of terms that are consistent within the system.

Ogg, can you just add a flag that -does- allow defense to stack from multiple sources? Or maybe a config panel with a bunch of checkboxes (with sources) that are allowed to stack?

As long as you're reworking it.

I know that the inability to stack defense is something that I house rule away as stacking setbacks aren't nearly as impressive as anyone would like to think they are against solid opponents.

Well... I could just have a checkbox in GM Grants that allows blanket stacking of +def from all equipped sources. However, that may not be what people necessarily want, or even need. For instance, maybe only +def from a particular "source type" would stack, basically how soak stacks now (that is, the highest def from weapons would stack with the highest def from armor, or cybernetics, etc.). Or, like you mentioned, people may want individual items to stack, while others don't (which I honestly do not want to deal with).

In general, I would much rather spend time adding features that support the RAW than adding complex house rules that most people won't even use, or if they do use them, will probably not exactly do what they want them to do. For now, I'll probably just wait and see how people react to the "fix" before thinking about how I might allow them to circumvent the rules

I was thinking more along the line of sources (talents, weapons, armor, modifications, equipment?) that one could allow to stack or not.

It's actually pretty simple. If an effect says "Increase" or "+1" defense, then it stacks. If it doesn't say "increase," then it doesn't stack.

Take, for example, the maneuvers to "assume a guarded stance" and to "take cover." A guarded stance gives a PC melee defense +1, whereas cover grants a PC ranged defense 1 (or higher). The defense from taking a guarded stance stacks with any melee defense granted by armor, because armor is the source and the guarded stance simply increases the defense. However, the defense from cover doesn't stack with armor, because they are both sources of defense.

It's actually pretty simple. If an effect says "Increase" or "+1" defense, then it stacks. If it doesn't say "increase," then it doesn't stack.

Take, for example, the maneuvers to "assume a guarded stance" and to "take cover." A guarded stance gives a PC melee defense +1, whereas cover grants a PC ranged defense 1 (or higher). The defense from taking a guarded stance stacks with any melee defense granted by armor, because armor is the source and the guarded stance simply increases the defense. However, the defense from cover doesn't stack with armor, because they are both sources of defense.

In this situation, the source used for melee defense will be the vibrorapier (Melee Defense 3), while the source for ranged defense will be the lightsaber (Ranged Defense 2). The Defensive qualities of the lightsaber (+2 to melee defense) won't come into play at all, since it's not the source for melee defense. Neither the armor, nor the cover maneuver, will contribute to either defense value. If the PC drops his vibrorapier, his melee defense will drop to 2, since the source for melee defense will then become his lightsaber, which will then have the highest melee defense value of all of his defense sources.

Interesting example. The way I read those numbers, the base for Melee Defense should come from the Armor, since it grants a flat number, as opposed to generating a bonus. On top of that, you would add the Defensive score of the Vibro-Rapier, so a total of Melee Defense 4.

As for the Ranged Defense, the base comes from the Cover, which grants a flat number. The addition on top of that would come from the Lightsaber, so a total Ranged Defense of 3.

So, the base number for a type of defense comes from a source that grants the highest flat number, and then you choose the appropriate highest stacking number on top of that.

What am I missing here?

In this situation, the source used for melee defense will be the vibrorapier (Melee Defense 3), while the source for ranged defense will be the lightsaber (Ranged Defense 2). The Defensive qualities of the lightsaber (+2 to melee defense) won't come into play at all, since it's not the source for melee defense. Neither the armor, nor the cover maneuver, will contribute to either defense value. If the PC drops his vibrorapier, his melee defense will drop to 2, since the source for melee defense will then become his lightsaber, which will then have the highest melee defense value of all of his defense sources.

Interesting example. The way I read those numbers, the base for Melee Defense should come from the Armor, since it grants a flat number, as opposed to generating a bonus. On top of that, you would add the Defensive score of the Vibro-Rapier, so a total of Melee Defense 4.

As for the Ranged Defense, the base comes from the Cover, which grants a flat number. The addition on top of that would come from the Lightsaber, so a total Ranged Defense of 3.

So, the base number for a type of defense comes from a source that grants the highest flat number, and then you choose the appropriate highest stacking number on top of that.

What am I missing here?

Not according to Sam's answer to Braendig's question. His example included armored robes, which have defense of 1, and they didn't come into play, only the lightsaber. So I guess there's nothing special about having a "base" defense, other than that value being the starting point instead of 0. As Sam said:

All of the other defensive sources are from different items, and do not stack.

"Different items" include the armor. Now, Cover isn't an item, but it is a "defense source", so I'm pretty sure it works the same.