2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

"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.

Ypu jjust repeated what i was saying while failing to grasp my point.

@Tramp GraphicsHow would you narrate a personal scale attack on someone with heavy battle armor that has 0 net Success or Failure and the Setback from Defense showed a Failure?

I would narrate it as the shot glancing off the reinforced armor plates, dealing no damage.
In the event that it hit with net Success and the Defense showed 1 Failure, I would narrate it as the armor's reinforced areas absorbing a little bit more of the damage.

2 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

In the event that it hit with net Success and the Defense showed 1 Failure, I would narrate it as the armor's reinforced areas absorbing a little bit more of the damage.

I would narrate it as the armour partially deflected the blow so it was doing less damages. It's the soak capacity of the armour that absorbs damage, not its defense. Even if both reduce the damages taken, they narrate differently.

6 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

@Tramp GraphicsHow would you narrate a personal scale attack on someone with heavy battle armor that has 0 net Success or Failure and the Setback from Defense showed a Failure?

I would narrate it as the shot glancing off the reinforced armor plates, dealing no damage.
In the event that it hit with net Success and the Defense showed 1 Failure, I would narrate it as the armor's reinforced areas absorbing a little bit more of the damage.

I would narrate it as a miss.

6 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I would narrate it as a miss.

and this is where you miss the point of sloping armor. as there are 2 ways to reduce damage. deflecting all the energy away and absorbing all the damage. a hit that is completely deflected away is not a miss it is a hit that was deflected away doing no damage. This is what the failures on a setback die would represent. a hit that does 0 damage because of soak is a hit that hit but no damage got through the soak. This is described in the armor section. page 178 the ability to defect damage away from the wearer. It can also represent cover. which is basically what flowing garments do they make it hard to target the wearer as you are guessing where the person actually is but cant be entirely sure.

16 hours ago, Daeglan said:

and this is where you miss the point of sloping armor. as there are 2 ways to reduce damage. deflecting all the energy away and absorbing all the damage. a hit that is completely deflected away is not a miss it is a hit that was deflected away doing no damage. This is what the failures on a setback die would represent. a hit that does 0 damage because of soak is a hit that hit but no damage got through the soak. This is described in the armor section. page 178 the ability to defect damage away from the wearer. It can also represent cover. which is basically what flowing garments do they make it hard to target the wearer as you are guessing where the person actually is but cant be entirely sure.

No, I'm not missing the point of sloping armor. Regardless of the slope, in order for the armor to deflect the strike, the strike still has to make physical contact to the target. By definition, that's a hit. For it to not be a hit, the strike must completely miss the intended target's body. In other words, no physical contact at all to the target. Armor does not help with that. Armor actually make the likelihood of the weapon hitting (even if deflected), more likely. A deflected hit is still a hit.

This is why I fundamentally disagree with armor granting Defense bonuses. Armor does not prevent hits. Armor mitigates the damage from hits, whether through deflecting the blow, or simply absorbing it, the armor is still mitigating damage, not causing a blow to miss. By contrast, clothing, like Heavy Robes, or a cape or cloak, which obscure the silhouette of the body, however, do make someone harder to actually hit, and thus, a Defense bonus is warranted for those types of billowy, body obscuring garments, not for body-conforming armor.

I've worn armor, both medieval armor and modern military armor (flak vest and Kevlar helmet), and have fought in the former in the SCA, and worn the latter in the US Army during Desert Storm, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, that armor makes you easier to hit than not wearing armor.

I think that you are getting caught up on what constitutes a hit.

If we take this argument into space, how would you narrate a turbolaser shot that "misses" as a result of 4 Failures that appeared on the Setback dice from a Mon Cal's shields?

Is it really that important if the hit because of setback dice or purple dice ? Even for narrating the miss, I think it's the need of the story that should prevails not the symbols on the dice.

10 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I think that you are getting caught up on what constitutes a hit.

If we take this argument into space, how would you narrate a turbolaser shot that "misses" as a result of 4 Failures that appeared on the Setback dice from a Mon Cal's shields?

A ship's shields create a bubble around a ship that is roughly ovoid. It doesn't conform to the shape of the ship the way armor does. As such, even if the shot gets through the shields (no failures on the Setback dice), there's still no guarantee that the shot will actually hit the ship itself. We see this in The Last Jedi. As such, a ship's shields actually make it harder for hits to strike the ship itself. It is the armor of a ship which absorbs any damage from actual hits.

1 minute ago, WolfRider said:

Is it really that important if the hit because of setback dice or purple dice ? Even for narrating the miss, I think it's the need of the story that should prevails not the symbols on the dice.

Yes, depending on the source of the Setback dice in question. It is important in that narratively, and realistically, Armor does not prevent hits, but absorbs or deflects damage from successful hits. whereas, cover, certain weapons, shields, and certain types of large, body obscuring clothing, actually make you harder to hit. So, if you're trying to narrate that the armor deflected a hit, vs a blow that misses entirely, or was deflected by a shield or sword, or cover, the former is still Soak taking all of the damage from a glancing blow (only one net success) resulting in no damage, while the latter (failures on the Difficulty dice or Setback dice from a weapon's, shield's, or cover's Defense bonus), those result in the blow not physically hitting the person.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Armor does not prevent hits, but absorbs or deflects damage from successful hits.

Exactly. And there isn't a mechanic for armor deflecting damage. Oh wait... there is. Defense!

Hit and contact can be described as two different things. If you deflect off the armor, you didn't "hit" you "contacted." It all depends on your definition of what a "hit" is.

9 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Exactly. And there isn't a mechanic for armor deflecting damage. Oh wait... there is. Defense!

Hit and contact can be described as two different things. If you deflect off the armor, you didn't "hit" you "contacted." It all depends on your definition of what a "hit" is.

I disagree. It's soak which should cover that. Contact is a hit. Whether or not it does damage is irrelevant. The blow still made contact, and can still have an effect, even if no damage was done. If contact is made, that is a hit.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I disagree. It's soak which should cover that. Contact is a hit. Whether or not it does damage is irrelevant. The blow still made contact, and can still have an effect, even if no damage was done. If contact is made, that is a hit.

But soak will almost never completely absorb damage (in purely mechanical terms) which translates in narration to it never truly deflecting damage (i.e. the shot glances off my breastplate, harmlessly deflecting into the sky).

I think we just need to agree to disagree on this one. The argument is pointless and extremely nit-picky on both our sides.

6 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

But soak will almost never completely absorb damage (in purely mechanical terms) which translates in narration to it never truly deflecting damage (i.e. the shot glances off my breastplate, harmlessly deflecting into the sky).

I think we just need to agree to disagree on this one. The argument is pointless and extremely nit-picky on both our sides.

Depends upon how durable the armor is ( things like the Armor Master talent tree, and Superior Armor Customization increaae armor soak values), as well as other factors, such as the Parry and Reflect talents, both of which reduce damage before applying Soak. As such, I have taken hits which ended up doing absolutely no damage. So, yes, Soak can stop all damage.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

Depends upon how durable the armor is ( things like the Armor Master talent tree, and Superior Armor Customization increaae armor soak values), as well as other factors, such as the Parry and Reflect talents, both of which reduce damage before applying Soak. As such, I have taken hits which ended up doing absolutely no damage. So, yes, Soak can stop all damage.

You just included Parry/Reflect in your calculation, and then said that soak can stop all damage.

Take a relatively base character who doesn't have 1,000 XP and hasn't been min maxed to the moon and back. Brawn 3, superior heavy battle armor with Armor Master 1 = Soak 7. enough to stop a blaster pistol with one success. Respectable and effective. But it can't turn a blaster rifle. Now, you add defense, and all of a sudden you can narrate the it as the blaster rifle shot deflecting off of one of the more reinforced areas.

This is ground we've already been over, I suggest we stop now. We've both made our points, and neither of us has changed our mind. We can just agree to disagree. I think that it is cooler and not inaccurate to narrate a shot as deflecting off of armor, you think that it is inaccurate. We can have different opinions on this, it doesn't change the mechanics of the game to narrate it as deflecting off of the armor, it does change the mechanics of the game to remove defense from armor.

Part of the point of defense, I imagine, is to have it as an intermediary between 1 Soak and 2 Soak while giving the impression of the armor's ability to turn away damage rather than just absorb it.

On 9/28/2019 at 5:05 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

You just included Parry/Reflect in your calculation, and then said that soak can stop all damage.

Take a relatively base character who doesn't have 1,000 XP and hasn't been min maxed to the moon and back. Brawn 3, superior heavy battle armor with Armor Master 1 = Soak 7. enough to stop a blaster pistol with one success. Respectable and effective. But it can't turn a blaster rifle. Now, you add defense, and all of a sudden you can narrate the it as the blaster rifle shot deflecting off of one of the more reinforced areas.

This is ground we've already been over, I suggest we stop now. We've both made our points, and neither of us has changed our mind. We can just agree to disagree. I think that it is cooler and not inaccurate to narrate a shot as deflecting off of armor, you think that it is inaccurate. We can have different opinions on this, it doesn't change the mechanics of the game to narrate it as deflecting off of the armor, it does change the mechanics of the game to remove defense from armor.

Part of the point of defense, I imagine, is to have it as an intermediary between 1 Soak and 2 Soak while giving the impression of the armor's ability to turn away damage rather than just absorb it.

Nope. This is because the rules explicitly state you don't apply Parry/Reflect until after you calculate whether it's a hit or not. This is because Parry and Reflect only apply to successful attacks.

On 9/28/2019 at 3:56 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

Depends upon how durable the armor is ( things like the Armor Master talent tree, and Superior Armor Customization increaae armor soak values), as well as other factors, such as the Parry and Reflect talents, both of which reduce damage before applying Soak. As such, I have taken hits which ended up doing absolutely no damage. So, yes, Soak can stop all damage.

See the thing is this system actually gives you a way to differentiate between the armor absorbed all the damage and the armor deflected it all away.

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

See the thing is this system actually gives you a way to differentiate between the armor absorbed all the damage and the armor deflected it all away.

And that is what I disagree with. There should be no differentiation. That's not how armor works.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And that is what I disagree with. There should be no differentiation. That's not how armor works.

Except it is how some armor works. It is why the term glancing blow exists. Because sloped armor meant that you had to hit square in order to put any power into a blow. That is not a miss

You hit the target. You just were not able to transfer energy into the target because it was directed away from the target.

On 9/30/2019 at 5:45 PM, Daeglan said:

Except it is how some armor works. It is why the term glancing blow exists. Because sloped armor meant that you had to hit square in order to put any power into a blow. That is not a miss

You hit the target. You just were not able to transfer energy into the target because it was directed away from the target.

A glancing blow is a glancing blow whether or not you're wearing armor. All a glancing blow is is a blow that wasn't thrown very well, and only just hit you, grazing you instead of full on. To quote the Webster's Dictionary:

Quote

glancing blow

noun

Definition of glancing blow

: a blow with less than full force that falls off to one side

//The falling tile struck him with a glancing blow on the head.

That can happen whether or not you're wearing armor. Armor does not make you harder to hit. it simply mitigates the resulting damage that may occur from a successful hit. When armor deflect a blow, that is damage mitigation, not a miss. That's not "Defense", that's Soak. That's Stopping Power, that's Damage Reduction.

This discussion made me think of this video. Sometimes the impact/hit is absorbed, deflected, or some of both.

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

A glancing blow is a glancing blow whether or not you're wearing armor. All a glancing blow is is a blow that wasn't thrown very well, and only just hit you, grazing you instead of full on. To quote the Webster's Dictionary:

That can happen whether or not you're wearing armor. Armor does not make you harder to hit. it simply mitigates the resulting damage that may occur from a successful hit. When armor deflect a blow, that is damage mitigation, not a miss. That's not "Defense", that's Soak. That's Stopping Power, that's Damage Reduction.

Armor can turn hits that that would have been lethal into glancing blows.

You are to fixated on there only being one way to mitigate damage. There is not one way to mitigate damage. Maile armor is pretty much soak. Plate armor is defense and soak. That video is a good demonstration of this.

Deflecting should be seen as soak not defence and Tramp is right no armours provide defence in the real world.

If SW FFG was a simulationist RPG, the way it handle soak and defence won't make sense and should be changed. But SW FFG is a narrative RPG that doesn't try to simulate how armours work in the real world. It's how the GM narrate the hit miss, bouncing from the armour, being absorbed by the armour or missing completly the target, that matters. Not the way points are divided between defence and soak.

2 hours ago, WolfRider said:

Deflecting should be seen as soak not defence and Tramp is right no armours provide defence in the real world.

If SW FFG was a simulationist RPG, the way it handle soak and defence won't make sense and should be changed. But SW FFG is a narrative RPG that doesn't try to simulate how armours work in the real world. It's how the GM narrate the hit miss, bouncing from the armour, being absorbed by the armour or missing completly the target, that matters. Not the way points are divided between defence and soak.

Yes they do the video above shows it in action. A few arrows were deflected away. A few hit square and were soaked. Have worn armor and had solid hits soaked and orher hits defelected they are very different.

Just gonna leave this here...

On 10/1/2019 at 10:04 PM, starwulfe said:

This discussion made me think of this video. Sometimes the impact/hit is absorbed, deflected, or some of both.

I was about to post the same video

On 10/1/2019 at 11:55 PM, Daeglan said:

Armor can turn hits that that would have been lethal into glancing blows.

You are to fixated on there only being one way to mitigate damage. There is not one way to mitigate damage. Maile armor is pretty much soak. Plate armor is defense and soak. That video is a good demonstration of this.

Because there IS only one way to mitigate damage.

On 10/2/2019 at 12:19 PM, WolfRider said:

Deflecting should be seen as soak not defence and Tramp is right no armours provide defence in the real world.

If SW FFG was a simulationist RPG, the way it handle soak and defence won't make sense and should be changed. But SW FFG is a narrative RPG that doesn't try to simulate how armours work in the real world. It's how the GM narrate the hit miss, bouncing from the armour, being absorbed by the armour or missing completly the target, that matters. Not the way points are divided between defence and soak.

Even in a narrative setting, there is a difference between not being hit and being hit with the hit being deflected or absorbed. As such, there should be no divide there. Defense should be provided only by those things that actually make someone harder to hit. A miss is a miss, a deflected hit is a hit. IF you're narrating a miss, it's a clean miss, not a deflection. A Deflection would be narrating a hit in which the armor soaked up all of the damage, allowing none to get through to injure the wearer. That is what I would narrate as a deflected shot. I would never narrate a miss as a shot deflected by the armor.

On 10/2/2019 at 2:34 PM, Daeglan said:

Yes they do the video above shows it in action. A few arrows were deflected away. A few hit square and were soaked. Have worn armor and had solid hits soaked and orher hits defelected they are very different.

No, they're not. If you look at that video, even the shots that are deflected do damage to the armor. Not only that, but the target is pushed back. The Deflection is still a result of a successful hit on the target It's still hitting the target. The deflected shots are not misses. They're hits. The deflection is damage mitigation, not "Defense". You'll also note that the arrows are destroyed, even with deflected. There is still energy transmission from the arrows through the armor and the body underneath, as well as back into the arrows.