So question time

Armor with Melee defense 2

Defensive Training 2

Lightsaber gives Defensive 2

What exactly is the Melee D for this character?

OggDude is saying 4

I believe that Defense is capped at 4.

6 hours ago, bblaney001 said:

So question time

Armor with Melee defense 2

Defensive Training 2

Lightsaber gives Defensive 2

What exactly is the Melee D for this character?

OggDude is saying 4

You can only get Defense from one item.

If you have a Lightsaber that gives you 1, and armour that gives you 2, then you have 2. The 1 from the Lightsaber is completely ignored. Now, talents +x on Defense don't care what item they give that + to, and they all stack, up to the cap of 4.

So there's a couple of different answers, but the most recent one is that OggDude's is doing it correctly, since per the last FAQ/errata update all Defense values are capped at 4, and that defense values will stack so long as they're listed as "+1" or something similar. Thus the defense bonus from cover and the defense bonus from armor don't stack, as they're both listed as flat values.

However, here's the thing, is that the Defensive Training talent replaces any existing Defensive quality the weapon might have. So if you have a character with Defensive Training 1 and a weapon that normally has Defensive 2, then the weapon changes to be Defensive 1 as per the talent.

So in your example, the lightsaber's inherent Defensive quality is removed and replaced with the value imparted by your two ranks of Defensive Training, leaving you at a 4 melee defense.

4 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Thus the defense bonus from cover and the defense bonus from armor don't stack, as they're both listed as flat values.

This never makes any sense to me, at all. 2 people, hunkered down behind the same cover, one is naked, the other is in fully enclosed combat armor....per the game mechanics, they are equally as squishy, because apparently bare skin is just as resistant to damage as high tech armor.

I get the idea of capping it at 4, just for simplicity of rolling and keeping the scene going forward at a reasonable pace. But the idea that they don't stack because it doesn't say (+) in front of it, makes zero sense.

It seems far simpler to just say "they stack to 4, period. doesn't matter the nature/type of defense, if it's from a different source, they stack...up to 4" If armor didn't provide Defense at all, and was simply just additional Soak, then this would make a lot more sense. But they didn't build it like that, which makes this rule very silly to me.

3 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

This never makes any sense to me, at all. 2 people, hunkered down behind the same cover, one is naked, the other is in fully enclosed combat armor....per the game mechanics, they are equally as squishy, because apparently bare skin is just as resistant to damage as high tech armor.

I get the idea of capping it at 4, just for simplicity of rolling and keeping the scene going forward at a reasonable pace. But the idea that they don't stack because it doesn't say (+) in front of it, makes zero sense.

It seems far simpler to just say "they stack to 4, period. doesn't matter the nature/type of defense, if it's from a different source, they stack...up to 4" If armor didn't provide Defense at all, and was simply just additional Soak, then this would make a lot more sense. But they didn't build it like that, which makes this rule very silly to me.

That part of the system wasn't well thought out at all, hence the problems and the flip floppy answers we have received over time.

If I have a sword and am trying to deflect attacks, but I also have armor on....however my defense is the same as the guy with just armor, or just a sword. That was the original ruling on the issue and it's just crazy when you apply reality to it. Same with your wall/armor vs wall/no armor defense scenario. All RPGs have arbitrary rules that don't make a lot of sense when nitpicked, but the defense rules for this game really stand out as non-nonsensical.

4 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

This never makes any sense to me, at all. 2 people, hunkered down behind the same cover, one is naked, the other is in fully enclosed combat armor....per the game mechanics, they are equally as squishy, because apparently bare skin is just as resistant to damage as high tech armor.

I get the idea of capping it at 4, just for simplicity of rolling and keeping the scene going forward at a reasonable pace. But the idea that they don't stack because it doesn't say (+) in front of it, makes zero sense.

It seems far simpler to just say "they stack to 4, period. doesn't matter the nature/type of defense, if it's from a different source, they stack...up to 4" If armor didn't provide Defense at all, and was simply just additional Soak, then this would make a lot more sense. But they didn't build it like that, which makes this rule very silly to me.

That's because Defense isn't a matter of how "squishy" you are. It's a matter of how hard you are to hit . Cover conceals you, thus making you hard to hit. Armor doesn't make you hard to hit at all (just the opposite, in fact). It's good for stopping damage . A shield is good for parrying, as well as partial concealment, thus making you harder to hit. The same with a cloak, and certain other "voluminous" garments, as well as certain weapons. They're all designed to prevent an attack from striking the target. That's what Defense is for.

32 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That's because Defense isn't a matter of how "squishy" you are. It's a matter of how hard you are to hit . Cover conceals you, thus making you hard to hit. Armor doesn't make you hard to hit at all (just the opposite, in fact). It's good for stopping damage . A shield is good for parrying, as well as partial concealment, thus making you harder to hit. The same with a cloak, and certain other "voluminous" garments, as well as certain weapons. They're all designed to prevent an attack from striking the target. That's what Defense is for.

And some armor actually provides the Defense trait, which is why the idea that they don't stack is stupid. If all armor, only provided Soak, then it wouldn't be an issue, and you wouldn't even need to make the distinction that Armor and Cover defense bonuses don't stack. But they DO offer Defense, which is why we have to provide the distinction that they don't stack. So if it's a trait the equipment has, then they are saying "it makes you harder to hit". Sure, that doesn't make sense, from the idea of "being hit" meaning "something actually struck you", but if it means "You took actual damage", that's different.

Also, are you trying to actually say that a shield isn't good at stopping damage? Really? Because that's just silly. The whole POINT of a shield is to stop the damage, by making it hit the shield. You are still being physically struck, it's just not hurting you, which is the same as the concept of armor. So you can't have it both ways, though I'm sure you're going to go into great detail as to how you can. If a shield is defense, per your above quoted example and definition, then so is armor, because they both simply prevent you from actually taking damage, not preventing you from being hit. Quite the contrary with a shield, it's whole point is to be hit in the first place.

6 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

And some armor actually provides the Defense trait, which is why the idea that they don't stack is stupid. If all armor, only provided Soak, then it wouldn't be an issue, and you wouldn't even need to make the distinction that Armor and Cover defense bonuses don't stack. But they DO offer Defense, which is why we have to provide the distinction that they don't stack. So if it's a trait the equipment has, then they are saying "it makes you harder to hit". Sure, that doesn't make sense, from the idea of "being hit" meaning "something actually struck you", but if it means "You took actual damage", that's different.

Also, are you trying to actually say that a shield isn't good at stopping damage? Really? Because that's just silly. The whole POINT of a shield is to stop the damage, by making it hit the shield. You are still being physically struck, it's just not hurting you, which is the same as the concept of armor. So you can't have it both ways, though I'm sure you're going to go into great detail as to how you can. If a shield is defense, per your above quoted example and definition, then so is armor, because they both simply prevent you from actually taking damage, not preventing you from being hit. Quite the contrary with a shield, it's whole point is to be hit in the first place.

Which is itself something I don't agree with. The only "armor" that should provide any Defense is a robe or cloak . This is because a robe or cloak conceals the shape of the body. Being hit flat out means something actually struck you, period, whether or not you took damage. And, no, I'm not saying that a shield doesn't stop damage, just that it's primary purpose is to prevent you from getting hit in the first place. It's essentially mobile cover , not armor.

Defense is both mechanical and narrative.

When you think about it mechanically, Defense provides 1 Setback die:
If it rolls 1 Failure, it might prevent a hit. This represents it negating the damage in some way.
If it rolls 1 Failure and doesn't prevent a hit, it simply reduces the damage by one.
If it rolls 1 Threat, it might prevent a crit or represent other negative narrative effects stemming from a less successful attack.

When you think about Heavy Battle Armor narratively, it has reinforced areas that provide improved protection. Sometimes absorbing or deflecting damage entirely, other times further reducing damage, and sometimes preventing catastrophic injury.

When you think about Heavy Robes narratively, it obscures the wearer's figure, potentially causing the attacker to miss, other times it might be doubled up in a certain spot and absorb some of the damage, or cause the attacker's shot to be less precise, and sometimes it can prevent catastrophic injury as the less precise shot misses a vital area.

Both aspects of Defense can exist simultaneously: A shield (or armor) defeats damage in one way, heavy robes or obscuring smoke defeats damage in a different way.

I believe that defense should stack (though I agree [with a caveat] that you can't stack armor). The way I handle defense is that all defense stacks, but is capped at 4.

The way I handle personal deflector shields (similar to the Emperor Norton's Starship House Rules) is that they provide 1* Planetary scale shielding (with a SST of 3**) that can be boosted to 2 for 2 turns for the cost of 2 SS.

The reason for this is that it allows them to shrug off small arms (and blaster rifles or even HRBs once boosted), but they can't take hits from planetary scale weapons.

*not using Norton's shielding+2=damage subtracted.
**not using Norton's take 3 system strain to use shielding rule

4 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Defense is both mechanical and narrative.

When you think about it mechanically, Defense provides 1 Setback die:
If it rolls 1 Failure, it might prevent a hit. This represents it negating the damage in some way.
If it rolls 1 Failure and doesn't prevent a hit, it simply reduces the damage by one.
If it rolls 1 Threat, it might prevent a crit or represent other negative narrative effects stemming from a less successful attack.

When you think about Heavy Battle Armor narratively, it has reinforced areas that provide improved protection. Sometimes absorbing or deflecting damage entirely, other times further reducing damage, and sometimes preventing catastrophic injury.

When you think about Heavy Robes narratively, it obscures the wearer's figure, potentially causing the attacker to miss, other times it might be doubled up in a certain spot and absorb some of the damage, or cause the attacker's shot to be less precise, and sometimes it can prevent catastrophic injury as the less precise shot misses a vital area.

Both aspects of Defense can exist simultaneously: A shield (or armor) defeats damage in one way, heavy robes or obscuring smoke defeats damage in a different way.

I believe that defense should stack (though I agree [with a caveat] that you can't stack armor). The way I handle defense is that all defense stacks, but is capped at 4.

The way I handle personal deflector shields (similar to the Emperor Norton's Starship House Rules) is that they provide 1* Planetary scale shielding (with a SST of 3**) that can be boosted to 2 for 2 turns for the cost of 2 SS.

The reason for this is that it allows them to shrug off small arms (and blaster rifles or even HRBs once boosted), but they can't take hits from planetary scale weapons.

*not using Norton's shielding+2=damage subtracted.
**not using Norton's take 3 system strain to use shielding rule

I disagree with your assertion that "both kinds" of Defense can exist simultaneously, since I disagree with your assessment that Defense can represent the armor taking some of the damage. That mechanic is covered exclusively by Soak. The Defense provided by heavy Robes is specifically stated in the rules themselves to be a result of the garment obscuring the shape of the body. The garment doesn't even provide any Soak. It's strictly a 1 Defense. Rolling a failure means you failed to land a blow on your target, period. It does not mean that the armor absorbed the damage. That too is represented purely by Soak. So, Defense, both mechanically and narratively, is the ability to prevent the target from being struck .

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I disagree with your assertion that "both kinds" of Defense can exist simultaneously, since I disagree with your assessment that Defense can represent the armor taking some of the damage. That mechanic is covered exclusively by Soak. The Defense provided by heavy Robes is specifically stated in the rules themselves to be a result of the garment obscuring the shape of the body. The garment doesn't even provide any Soak. It's strictly a 1 Defense. Rolling a failure means you failed to land a blow on your target, period. It does not mean that the armor absorbed the damage. That too is represented purely by Soak. So, Defense, both mechanically and narratively, is the ability to prevent the target from being struck .

Well if the attacker rolled 4 Success and the Setback from the armor rolled 1 Failure, what was the effect of the Setback? It reduced damage by one. It didn't prevent him from being hit in the first place.

I would consider Rex's pauldron as an example of Defense. When he was shot by the commando droid, the Setback rolled 1 Failure, representing the pauldron reducing the damage. Alternatively, it rolled 1 Threat, preventing a critical injury. Either one fits fairly well. I cannot remember if it was mentioned in the episode or if it was mentioned in a book, but it was posited somewhere that Rex's pauldron saved his life by absorbing some of the damage.

17 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Well if the attacker rolled 4 Success and the Setback from the armor rolled 1 Failure, what was the effect of the Setback? It reduced damage by one. It didn't prevent him from being hit in the first place.

I would consider Rex's pauldron as an example of Defense. When he was shot by the commando droid, the Setback rolled 1 Failure, representing the pauldron reducing the damage. Alternatively, it rolled 1 Threat, preventing a critical injury. Either one fits fairly well. I cannot remember if it was mentioned in the episode or if it was mentioned in a book, but it was posited somewhere that Rex's pauldron saved his life by absorbing some of the damage.

No, it didn’t. In the example of Rex, his armor’s Soak absorbed some of the damage. The damage of a weapon is determined by its base damage plus net successes, not total successes, so the Armor defense value has no impact on the damage taken. By your logic, the base difficulty dice themselves are providing a measure of damage reduction because they potentially provide Failures to the roll. That is not how it works because damage isn’t even calculated until after it’s been determined whether you hit or not.

7 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it didn’t. In the example of Rex, his armor’s Soak absorbed some of the damage. The damage of a weapon is determined by its base damage plus net successes, not total successes, so the Armor defense value has no impact on the damage taken. By your logic, the base difficulty dice themselves are providing a measure of damage reduction because they potentially provide Failures to the roll. That is not how it works because damage isn’t even calculated until after it’s been determined whether you hit or not.

Setback dice are added to the base difficulty. The base difficulty is how difficult it is to hit the target in the first place. Failures on the difficulty dice indicate that the shot was less accurate and didn't do as much damage as it could have. So yes, to a degree, damage reduction. If the attack was less difficult, the attacker wouldn't have been able to do as much damage.

In the GM chapter, there is a section on interpreting dice rolls (pages 311-313 of the AoR CRB) and it references how effects stemming from one type of die can narratively differ from the same effect stemming from a different type of die.

The way I cancel symbols to decide narrative is I cancel out the symbols on the Ability and Difficulty dice, then I cancel Proficiency/Challenge dice, and lastly I cancel Boost/Setback dice. Then I look at the latest stage where there were net Failure, and then I take the next stage as the "Success stage" (i.e. net Failure after A/D, net Success after P/C, net success after B/S, P/C would be the "Success stage").

If after cancelling Ability/Difficulty and Proficiency/Challenge dice there are 2 net success, but then the Setback from armor reduces that to 1 net success I would narrate it as your armor providing better protection.

Would you please explain to me the effect of a Failure result on a Setback die (from armor) on a roll that had net Success?

Having actually fought in armor @P-47 Thunderbolt is correct. Sometimes armor defectes a strike away. It didnt soak up the impact it deflected it away which requires less material. A solid hit however can only be absorbed by padding and spreading the impact out over a larger area.

The germans had a garment called a waffenrac. The way it worked is it had a big puffy skirt that hid your legs down to your knees. You enemy would miss a lot because they couldn't see where your legs were.

Armored robes have both soak and defense. They absorb some. They deflect and hide some.

Follow-up Question

Let's assume I have gear and talents, that add up to defense 7. It gets capped at defense 4 of course. Now I get shot by a guy with a talent or item that lets him remove a setback die.

How many setback dice are in the pool? 3 or 4?

Edit

Just had another look at the errata. "No character can have a defense rating higher than 4.”

So just 3, right?

1 hour ago, Rogues Rule said:

Follow-up Question

Let's assume I have gear and talents, that add up to defense 7. It gets capped at defense 4 of course. Now I get shot by a guy with a talent or item that lets him remove a setback die.

How many setback dice are in the pool? 3 or 4?

Edit

Just had another look at the errata. "No character can have a defense rating higher than 4.”

So just 3, right?

Generally speaking, you'd be correct that the attacker would only have 3 setback dice, since defense caps out at 4.

That being said, it's well within the GM's purview to let the PC keep their defense at 4 in this circumstance given they have so much defense sources, but that'd be a house rule.

5 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Generally speaking, you'd be correct that the attacker would only have 3 setback dice, since defense caps out at 4.

That being said, it's well within the GM's purview to let the PC keep their defense at 4 in this circumstance given they have so much defense sources, but that'd be a house rule.

That might be worth asking the devs...

Personal armor providing defense remains questionable when it comes to bigger guns. If your character Naruto-runs into Imperial area 51 and gets shot at by an AT-AT, but only avoids damage with the setback his battle armor provided, it's getting strange.

"Hey where's my 70 damage? Your armor may reduce it, but does not make you able to dodge all of it!"

"The cinematic narrative does not care sleemoooo, also game mechanics and you're a stormtrooper!"

*yeets forward and hurls the AT-AT to the sky with move*

(Sorry, it was so vivid in my mind)

1 hour ago, Vader is Love said:

Personal armor providing defense remains questionable when it comes to bigger guns. If your character Naruto-runs into Imperial area 51 and gets shot at by an AT-AT, but only avoids damage with the setback his battle armor provided, it's getting strange.

"Hey where's my 70 damage? Your armor may reduce it, but does not make you able to dodge all of it!"

"The cinematic narrative does not care sleemoooo, also game mechanics and you're a stormtrooper!"

*yeets forward and hurls the AT-AT to the sky with move*

(Sorry, it was so vivid in my mind)

If the defense avoided the damage they missed.

On 9/23/2019 at 6:12 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Setback dice are added to the base difficulty. The base difficulty is how difficult it is to hit the target in the first place. Failures on the difficulty dice indicate that the shot was less accurate and didn't do as much damage as it could have. So yes, to a degree, damage reduction. If the attack was less difficult, the attacker wouldn't have been able to do as much damage.

In the GM chapter, there is a section on interpreting dice rolls (pages 311-313 of the AoR CRB) and it references how effects stemming from one type of die can narratively differ from the same effect stemming from a different type of die.

The way I cancel symbols to decide narrative is I cancel out the symbols on the Ability and Difficulty dice, then I cancel Proficiency/Challenge dice, and lastly I cancel Boost/Setback dice. Then I look at the latest stage where there were net Failure, and then I take the next stage as the "Success stage" (i.e. net Failure after A/D, net Success after P/C, net success after B/S, P/C would be the "Success stage").

If after cancelling Ability/Difficulty and Proficiency/Challenge dice there are 2 net success, but then the Setback from armor reduces that to 1 net success I would narrate it as your armor providing better protection.

Would you please explain to me the effect of a Failure result on a Setback die (from armor) on a roll that had net Success?

Key phrase there: "added to the base difficulty . The Setback die along with the Difficulty die determine the difficulty to hit , not to damage . So, no, it is not Damage Reduction. A poor hit is a poor hit, which would be a glancing blow as opposed to a direct hit . A direct hit is obviously going to do more damage than a glancing blow.As such, all the Setback die is doing is adding to the base difficulty to hit; which is what the Difficulty and Challenge dice also do . These dice determine how difficult it is to hit the target. They don't reduce the final damage. The damage is set purely by the net successes of the attack. It does not reduce the final damage. While that determines the base damage, that is not the same thing as reducing the damage of the actual hit. That is setting the base damage of the attack before soak comes into affect. The Armor reduces that damage. This is true of many systems, including those with damage completely determined by the roll of the dice, such as a pistol that does 5d6 damage, for example. In this example, you roll 5D6, to get the base damage, to the target, after which, the target subtracts his DR/Soak/Stopping Power of the armor from the damage. Done. The Difficulty dice, Challenge Dice, and Setback dice determine the base pool which affect how well the attacker hit. The armor's soak value only affects the final damage resulting from said hit. Thus, the Setback dice are not reducing damage. They reduce the chance of hitting . That is what Defense is. Armor has no effect on preventing an attack from hitting. It only mitigates damage from a successful hit.

On 9/23/2019 at 11:23 PM, Daeglan said:

Having actually fought in armor @P-47 Thunderbolt is correct. Sometimes armor defectes a strike away. It didnt soak up the impact it deflected it away which requires less material. A solid hit however can only be absorbed by padding and spreading the impact out over a larger area.

The germans had a garment called a waffenrac. The way it worked is it had a big puffy skirt that hid your legs down to your knees. You enemy would miss a lot because they couldn't see where your legs were.

Armored robes have both soak and defense. They absorb some. They deflect and hide some.

I've fought in armor as well. And, a hit that gets deflected is still a hit . It still hits you. Whether it's a direct hit or a glancing blow that the armor turns aside, it still struck you. That is damage reduction, or, if you want a more "inclusive term, damage mitigation .In other words, that "deflected hit" from your example is an example of the armor completely mitigating the damage of the attack so that you, the target take no damage at all. That is Soak , not Defense. Armor does not, in any way , prevent you from getting hit; it absorbs or mitigates damage.

I think that we are simply talking about different things. I believe that Tramp is talking strictly through the lens of mechanics whereas Ferret, Daeglan and I are more talking about how to narratively interpret the dice pool.

18 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I think that we are simply talking about different things. I believe that Tramp is talking strictly through the lens of mechanics whereas Ferret, Daeglan and I are more talking about how to narratively interpret the dice pool.

No, I'm also talking narratively . Here's an example,from a game I'm currently in. My character Kurokage makes an aimed attack with two Aim maneuvers, using one of his ancient swords against a Dark Side acolyte, also wielding an Ancient Sword (Defensive +1) who has a melee Defense of 1 , which resulted in:

Lightsaber (ancient Sword) : 2eA+1eP+2eB+2eD+1eS 2 successes, 4 advantage

As a result, he did seven points of damage from the attack minus any soak from the Acolyte's armor. He also inflicted a critical injury. Narratively, it went down as "Centering himself, he focuses on targeting his opponent's head, before striking the acolyte with the back of his blade (Precision Strike). Failing to parry, theacolyte is knocked away from him several meters (Push Away), and also knocked unconscious(Easy Crit).

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, I'm also talking narratively . Here's an example,from a game I'm currently in. My character Kurokage makes an aimed attack with two Aim maneuvers, using one of his ancient swords against a Dark Side acolyte, also wielding an Ancient Sword (Defensive +1) who has a melee Defense of 1 , which resulted in:

Lightsaber (ancient Sword) : 2eA+1eP+2eB+2eD+1eS 2 successes, 4 advantage

As a result, he did seven points of damage from the attack minus any soak from the Acolyte's armor. He also inflicted a critical injury. Narratively, it went down as "Centering himself, he focuses on targeting his opponent's head, before striking the acolyte with the back of his blade (Precision Strike). Failing to parry, theacolyte is knocked away from him several meters (Push Away), and also knocked unconscious(Easy Crit).

You are talking about degrees of success.

Did the defense deflect all the damage or just some? Did the obscuring armor result in a glanzing hit or a miss.

23 hours ago, Daeglan said:

You are talking about degrees of success.

Did the defense deflect all the damage or just some? Did the obscuring armor result in a glanzing hit or a miss.

"Obscuring armor", such as a cloak or the Heavy Robes in Rise of the Separatists , make you harder to actually hit by obscuring your body shape and its vital areas. Cover and Concealment do the same thing. However, a cloak of heavy robe will provide little, if anything, in the way of stopping power if the attack actually manages to hit. By contrast, a suit of heavy armor will soak up a lot of damage, but makes you very easy to hit because it is heavy and restricts mobility . In the example above, the Setback from my opponent's Melee Defense didn't help her at all. I completely bypassed her defense ( no Failures or Threats on the Setback Die). So, it was pretty much a direct hit.