Looking through these forums, I continue to see reference to RAW. What is this and where can I find it? Sorry if this is something simple I should understand.

RAW = rules as written. You can find them in the books. That is generally opposed to RAI (rules as intended) which are sometimes clarified by dev answers, or other contradictions within a book or across the line.

Rebellious Androgynous Wombats

1 hour ago, biggreen10 said:

RAW = rules as written. You can find them in the books. That is generally opposed to RAI (rules as intended) which are sometimes clarified by dev answers, or other contradictions within a book or across the line.

Not opposed to RAI, but rather occasionally different from RAI. RAI can help with rules interpretations, or can override RAW, at the GM's discretion, and are basically just another tool for the GM to use.

Most of the time, a practiced and knowledgeable Gamemaster will be able to deftly marry the the two, with a healthy dash of RAF (Rules As Fun) thrown in

Poor writing or choice of words can lead to RAI being different than RAW. Like the defense rules. That we have gotten various dev rulings on.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

Poor writing or choice of words can lead to RAI being different than RAW. Like the defense rules. That we have gotten various dev rulings on.

Yup! That's definitely the most glaring example. But no matter what, it's easy enough to arrive on your own ruling, often based on the intended outcome of the rules. For example, with the Defense rules, the developers didn't want stacking of setback dice to get crazy out of hand, so they made a rule about what could stack with what. If you know the reason behind the rule, it's easier to know when the rule is being bent or broken

It's also important to note that you're gonna have developers with their own house rules. They subscribe to "RAF" as much as anyone!

I feel a little silly now. Thank you all for the information.

1 hour ago, jimwallace312 said:

I feel a little silly now.

Don't. RAW/RAI are among those terms that get used so often that many of us simply don't think about the fact that their meaning is far from obvious to noobs new players. It's never a bad idea to ask!

Welcome to the game!

We've been playing for a little over a year now but I have just recently started to get deep into the forums and such. Thank you

Yeah, I had to ask this question last year when I first started on these forums.

You certainly don't need to feel tainted or dispirited for needing further enlightenment.

People can't tell you "no" until you ask, and if something is confusing to you, it's probably confusing for everyone else. Most people use the word 'osmosis', when they really mean 'diffusion' and glasses of water don't "sweat." They condensate.

And yes, I tend to ramble a bit.

On 10/6/2017 at 10:16 AM, KungFuFerret said:

Rebellious Androgynous Wombats

Reasonably anonymous wookies

Random Angry Imperial

Really Aggressive Wampas

Rambunctious annoying werewolves

Ridiculously aged wine

Really again wedge?

On 10/23/2017 at 8:58 PM, Daeglan said:

Random Angry Imperial

I see wut you did there

Retro Active Whinging.

On 10/7/2017 at 0:08 AM, Daeglan said:

Poor writing or choice of words can lead to RAI being different than RAW. Like the defense rules. That we have gotten various dev rulings on.

Speaking of which, what is the verdict on defense sources? Can you wear armor and take cover and have those defenses stack? How about armor and a shield? Armor and a lightsaber? It just doesn't make sense to me that you'd only benefit from one source of defense, unless defense is actually potential defense, in which case the restriction makes more sense.

1 hour ago, Nivrap said:

Speaking of which, what is the verdict on defense sources? Can you wear armor and take cover and have those defenses stack? How about armor and a shield? Armor and a lightsaber? It just doesn't make sense to me that you'd only benefit from one source of defense, unless defense is actually potential defense, in which case the restriction makes more sense.

Officially it's still what the book says, but it's also the most hotly debated, and contested bit of ruling in the system. Even the devs are like "eeehhh, we're not sure either, we're working on it....get back to us later maybe." I think the smartest thing for anyone to do, is to just decide one way or another at the table level, and go with it, and to heck with the RAW. Because it doesn't make sense realistically, but then a lot of the game doesn't, specifically space wizards with laser swords, so why single out one rule?

They said they intentionally kept them from stacking, as a design choice, to keep the combat quick. Stacking defense = more negative dice = more failed attacks both ways = longer/more tedious combat encounters. And they wanted to combat to stay quick and brutal, thus no stacking.

And I get that, from a design and intent standpoint, and I even respect it, but it does make a lot of concepts of builds less than as effective as we see in the films/comics/tv shows, when no matter how much stuff you slap on that guy, he's still only got a Defense of 1

Just now, KungFuFerret said:

And I get that, from a design and intent standpoint, and I even respect it, but it does make a lot of concepts of builds less than as effective as we see in the films/comics/tv shows, when no matter how much stuff you slap on that guy, he's still only got a Defense of 1

After a bit of thinking, I think I get what Defense really means. Instead of being the lump sum of all sources of Defense you have, it's the maximum potential Defense you have. Essentially, if you're taking cover (1 Defense) and have some kind of really good armor (2 Defense), you only have 2 Defense, but narratively it's an amalgamation of both the cover and the armor.

2 minutes ago, Nivrap said:

After a bit of thinking, I think I get what Defense really means. Instead of being the lump sum of all sources of Defense you have, it's the maximum potential Defense you have. Essentially, if you're taking cover (1 Defense) and have some kind of really good armor (2 Defense), you only have 2 Defense, but narratively it's an amalgamation of both the cover and the armor.

Yeah I understand that, as it's pretty similar to the rules in D20 systems for stacking bonuses of the same type, but it still doesn't make any sense to me.

I mean, by that logic, lets say you have a PC who is wearing a full suit of some type of armor, that provides them with +1 Defense, and they have a shield type item that also provides them +1 Defense. Per the RAW, they would only have 1 Defense. Ok, no problem.

Then, standing right next to that guy, is another person who is completely nekked, head to toe, nothing on. They also have a shield. Per the RAW, they are just as protected as the person wearing armor/clothing that is designed to provide protection.

That's where my brain has a short circuit about it "making sense" from a realistic stance. I get it from a video game structure stance, I really do, but it defies logic. Which again, I'm fine with defying logic, because space wizards with laser swords. But it's still an amusing bit of mental gear stripping I have to account for, if I'm working according to RAW.

17 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

I mean, by that logic, lets say you have a PC who is wearing a full suit of some type of armor, that provides them with +1 Defense, and they have a shield type item that also provides them +1 Defense. Per the RAW, they would only have 1 Defense. Ok, no problem.

Then, standing right next to that guy, is another person who is completely nekked, head to toe, nothing on. They also have a shield. Per the RAW, they are just as protected as the person wearing armor/clothing that is designed to provide protection.

A blaster bolt isn't going to pass through both the shield and the guy's armor. It will either deflect off the shield or be absorbed by the armor (in the event that it doesn't just miss). A shield is a shield no matter what kind of clothes the guy is wearing.

The difference comes into play in the event that the shot hits. The naked guy is going to get hurt more than the armored guy.

31 minutes ago, Nivrap said:

A blaster bolt isn't going to pass through both the shield and the guy's armor. It will either deflect off the shield or be absorbed by the armor (in the event that it doesn't just miss). A shield is a shield no matter what kind of clothes the guy is wearing.

The difference comes into play in the event that the shot hits. The naked guy is going to get hurt more than the armored guy.

Who says a blaster bolt wouldn't go through one but be stopped by the second layer of defense after some of it's plasma and energy has been dissipated by the initial barrier? That' how actual physics works for things like ballistic plating and armor.

As to him getting hurt more is talking about soak, but this is something I think most people who have the soak vs defense debate, is that mechanically they amount to the same thing. If I roll a failure or two on a Defense dice, assuming we are talking about a shot that hits, it will reduce the damage inflicted. Remember, successes are both chance to hit, and damage inflicted. Which is what that point of Defense on the clothes is supposed to represent, just like the Soak.

21 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Who says a blaster bolt wouldn't go through one but be stopped by the second layer of defense after some of it's plasma and energy has been dissipated by the initial barrier? That' how actual physics works for things like ballistic plating and armor.

As to him getting hurt more is talking about soak, but this is something I think most people who have the soak vs defense debate, is that mechanically they amount to the same thing. If I roll a failure or two on a Defense dice, assuming we are talking about a shot that hits, it will reduce the damage inflicted. Remember, successes are both chance to hit, and damage inflicted. Which is what that point of Defense on the clothes is supposed to represent, just like the Soak.

A bolt won't blast through a shield unless the GM wills it to be so, which would probably be a despair considering it's essentially destroying the player's equipment.

The main difference between soak and defense when it comes to armor is that defense represents the potential for the armor to completely dissipate the shot (a capability which most armors don't have anyway), while soak represents the amount of the shot that is dissipated if the shot still goes through. Essentially, defense ratings on armor represent the potential for total soak.