4 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I was about to post the same video

Because there IS only one way to mitigate damage.

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.

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.

Ummmm no one said no energy was imparted to the target. Just that more energy was diverted away. Also no one said the target was not hit. All we said is you have a way to differentiate a soaked hit and a deflected hit.

On 10/3/2019 at 9:13 PM, Daeglan said:

Ummmm no one said no energy was imparted to the target. Just that more energy was diverted away. Also no one said the target was not hit. All we said is you have a way to differentiate a soaked hit and a deflected hit.

And, I'm saying that they're one and the same thing, so, no, you don't need to differentiate between them. You simply need to differentiate between a hit and a miss .

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And, I'm saying that they're one and the same thing, so, no, you don't need to differentiate between them. You simply need to differentiate between a hit and a miss .

No they arent. No matter how much you insist. Itnis not.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

No they arent. No matter how much you insist. Itnis not.

Yes, they are the same thing. The only difference between a "soaked" hit, and a "Deflected" hit, if anything, is whether or not any damage got through to the wearer, regardless of whether the attack penetrated. A deflected hit is still a hit. The armor still mitigated the damage inflicted. That's what armor does. That is all armor does.

23 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, they are the same thing. The only difference between a "soaked" hit, and a "Deflected" hit, if anything, is whether or not any damage got through to the wearer, regardless of whether the attack penetrated. A deflected hit is still a hit. The armor still mitigated the damage inflicted. That's what armor does. That is all armor does.

I think you need to pay attention to the fact they have different levels of effectiveness

I would say that you can differentiate between soak and defence if you want. In reenactment stuff I've done, a lot of groups wear metal armour (plate or maille) over a padded gambeson or something similar. If you hit someone with a club, you could easily describe the metal armour 'deflecting' the attack, as the club bounces off. It's why weapons like swords and knives were developed. The gambeson can be described as 'soaking' up the hit, because it's not bouncing the club off, and is instead absorbing the damage. I think personally it's down to the material being used in the armour. Perhaps that's why heavy clothing is using soak, while armoured clothing (I assume a metal plate sown into the lining or something similar) has a defence rating. That's my take anyway.

59 minutes ago, Rabobankrider said:

I would say that you can differentiate between soak and defence if you want. In reenactment stuff I've done, a lot of groups wear metal armour (plate or maille) over a padded gambeson or something similar. If you hit someone with a club, you could easily describe the metal armour 'deflecting' the attack, as the club bounces off. It's why weapons like swords and knives were developed. The gambeson can be described as 'soaking' up the hit, because it's not bouncing the club off, and is instead absorbing the damage. I think personally it's down to the material being used in the armour. Perhaps that's why heavy clothing is using soak, while armoured clothing (I assume a metal plate sown into the lining or something similar) has a defence rating. That's my take anyway.

exactly. and you will notice that soak always works. Defense MAY work, It also MAY NOT work depending on the result of the roll. And because they are handled differently that means a GM can do a better job of narrating what happened. Roll a failures on the setback dice the hit was mostly deflected away, roll blanks the hit was not deflected. roll threat a crit was avoided. and so on.

23 hours ago, Rabobankrider said:

I would say that you can differentiate between soak and defence if you want. In reenactment stuff I've done, a lot of groups wear metal armour (plate or maille) over a padded gambeson or something similar. If you hit someone with a club, you could easily describe the metal armour 'deflecting' the attack, as the club bounces off. It's why weapons like swords and knives were developed. The gambeson can be described as 'soaking' up the hit, because it's not bouncing the club off, and is instead absorbing the damage. I think personally it's down to the material being used in the armour. Perhaps that's why heavy clothing is using soak, while armoured clothing (I assume a metal plate sown into the lining or something similar) has a defence rating. That's my take anyway.

The hard armors also have Soak, and at a higher rating than the soft armor . The "Defense" rating is secondary, and usually minimal . And, really doesn't belong.

In either case, Hard or soft, the armor is mitigating damage, not preventing a hit . The only difference is absorption vs deflection . Both dissipate the energy from a blow , however, and spread the force over a larger surface area. The only difference is that soft armors tend to absorb and cushion the blow, whereas with hard armors, the hit simply bounces off , if it doesn't penetrate, in which case, the armor still takes a good portion of the damage.

Regardless, in your reinactment example, the deflected hit is still a hit, and the target still feels the blow, even if he's not injured by it. I know. I've been hit wit Rattan "swords" in similar armor in the SCA. The blows all bounce off. but they're still hits, and you still feel, and are affected by, the hit. Ergo, a deflected hit still hits. It's not a miss. As such, Deflection is still Soak , not Defense.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The hard armors also have Soak, and at a higher rating than the soft armor . The "Defense" rating is secondary, and usually minimal . And, really doesn't belong.

In either case, Hard or soft, the armor is mitigating damage, not preventing a hit . The only difference is absorption vs deflection . Both dissipate the energy from a blow , however, and spread the force over a larger surface area. The only difference is that soft armors tend to absorb and cushion the blow, whereas with hard armors, the hit simply bounces off , if it doesn't penetrate, in which case, the armor still takes a good portion of the damage.

Regardless, in your reinactment example, the deflected hit is still a hit, and the target still feels the blow, even if he's not injured by it. I know. I've been hit wit Rattan "swords" in similar armor in the SCA. The blows all bounce off. but they're still hits, and you still feel, and are affected by, the hit. Ergo, a deflected hit still hits. It's not a miss. As such, Deflection is still Soak , not Defense.

Except mechanically deflection is not JUST soak. It is also defense. No matter how much you dislike it that is the rules as written. So knock it off. you are wrong. No one has EVER said deflections were not HITS. so stop focusing on that aspect.

19 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Except mechanically deflection is not JUST soak. It is also defense. No matter how much you dislike it that is the rules as written. So knock it off. you are wrong. No one has EVER said deflections were not HITS. so stop focusing on that aspect.

No, it isn't. It's pure soak . It's pure Damage reduction. It's pure stopping power . It is the ability of the armor to stop, or at least reduce, the damage done to the wearer. Defense is the ability to prevent someone from being hit in the first place . That is the issue. Armor does not prevent someone from being hit at all. It does not make someone harder to hit. It actually makes someone easier to hit. This is true of all armor . This is because armor is encumbering . It weighs you down , and limits mobility to varying degrees. Armor reduces, or potentially stops damage . That's what it does. That is all it does. It does not prevent you from being hit in the first place.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it isn't. It's pure soak . It's pure Damage reduction. It's pure stopping power . It is the ability of the armor to stop, or at least reduce, the damage done to the wearer. Defense is the ability to prevent someone from being hit in the first place . That is the issue. Armor does not prevent someone from being hit at all. It does not make someone harder to hit. It actually makes someone easier to hit. This is true of all armor . This is because armor is encumbering . It weighs you down , and limits mobility to varying degrees. Armor reduces, or potentially stops damage . That's what it does. That is all it does. It does not prevent you from being hit in the first place.

So explain why laminate armor has defense. What does that defense represent? Itndoes not have obscuring qualities like robes do. It is basically plate armor. It has defense.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

So explain why laminate armor has defense. What does that defense represent? Itndoes not have obscuring qualities like robes do. It is basically plate armor. It has defense.

Because too many game designers (and players) still have that flawed D&D mentality that armor prevents you from getting hit. That's why. It shouldn't have any Defense bonus. No armor should. It's a flaw in the game design brought on by flawed thinking . Armor should only have a damage reduction . Thankfully, that "defense bonus" is a secondary feature, not it's primary (or worse, only) form of protection for the wearer.

The Heavy Robes from Rise of the Separatists isn't armor. It's large, billowy clothing that obscures the shape of the body . That is why it makes sense for it to have a Defense bonus, because it actually does make you harder to hit. Proper form fitting armor should not have a Defense bonus.

If you look at games like Cyberpunk 2020 and Mekton Z, the different armors in that system only grant Stopping Power , which is subtracted from the damage done from a successful hit. They also have an Encumbrance Value , which can potentially reduce a character's dexterity, thus, making the character easier to hit. That is how armor is done properly in a Role-playing game. Armor mitigates damage. That is all armor does.

16 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Because too many game designers (and players) still have that flawed D&D mentality that armor prevents you from getting hit. That's why. It shouldn't have any Defense bonus. No armor should. It's a flaw in the game design brought on by flawed thinking . Armor should only have a damage reduction . Thankfully, that "defense bonus" is a secondary feature, not it's primary (or worse, only) form of protection for the wearer.

The Heavy Robes from Rise of the Separatists isn't armor. It's large, billowy clothing that obscures the shape of the body . That is why it makes sense for it to have a Defense bonus, because it actually does make you harder to hit. Proper form fitting armor should not have a Defense bonus.

If you look at games like Cyberpunk 2020 and Mekton Z, the different armors in that system only grant Stopping Power , which is subtracted from the damage done from a successful hit. They also have an Encumbrance Value , which can potentially reduce a character's dexterity, thus, making the character easier to hit. That is how armor is done properly in a Role-playing game. Armor mitigates damage. That is all armor does.

No we dont. You are the one who thinks failure means they missed. It does not necessarily mean that. It means they failed to hit in a damaging way. You can make contact and do no damage. Some of the attachments for armor make your armor more slick that it is hard to land a damaging hit.

3 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

No we dont. You are the one who thinks failure means they missed. It does not necessarily mean that. It means they failed to hit in a damaging way. You can make contact and do no damage. Some of the attachments for armor make your armor more slick that it is hard to land a damaging hit.

No, Failure does mean a miss . It is exactly what it means. IF you fail in your attack, it means you missed . It's that simple. IF you hit, but fail to do damage to the wearer underneath, that means the armor absorbed the damage . That is damage reduction . That's Soak, that's stopping power . It is not Defense. Defense is the ability to prevent an attack from hitting you, not simply in a :"damaging way"; hitting you at all . Armor does not do that.

No it clearly doesnt per the people who made the game. They are not so binary as to say that. They say failure means you did not accomplish your goal. But you can for example fail to do damage but lnock someone prone. Which clearly means you may have hit them in a non damaging way. The issue here is your focus on binary results. This system has multiple axis of defense. And the devs clearly do not view a failure as meaning you did not make contact. They have never viewed it that way.

19 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

No it clearly doesnt per the people who made the game. They are not so binary as to say that. They say failure means you did not accomplish your goal. But you can for example fail to do damage but lnock someone prone. Which clearly means you may have hit them in a non damaging way. The issue here is your focus on binary results. This system has multiple axis of defense. And the devs clearly do not view a failure as meaning you did not make contact. They have never viewed it that way.

No. Failure means you miss. That's what it means. The Knockdown ability requires a successful hit . So, to knock someone prone you need to actually hit them (meaning at least one uncancelled success) . I'm not focused on binary results, I'm looking at how armor really works.

14 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. Failure means you miss. That's what it means. The Knockdown ability requires a successful hit . So, to knock someone prone you need to actually hit them (meaning at least one uncancelled success) . I'm not focused on binary results, I'm looking at how armor really works.

Not according to the devs.

9 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Not according to the devs.

According to reality .

Despite talking about present armour as it should be, I would argue that @Tramp Graphics is oversimplifying how armour works both in games and in reality. I would also like to make the point that it's fairly arrogant to believe that decades of TTRPG developers never took to time to do research into the mechanics of armour in the real world so they could convert it into their games. However that is a separate issue.

According to the EotE core book: defence rating is one of the factors determining how difficult it is to land a successful attack during combat. Defence rating represents the abilities of shields, armour or other defensive systems to deflect attacks entirely, or absorb or lessen incoming blows.

This means that the defence isn't meant to cause an attack to miss (as in the shot going wide etc), it is meant to help reflect or absorb the attacks (like a deflector shield on the arm, or additional armour plating).

Also, to be frank, the concept that heavy robes add defence because they are extra poofy is pretty daft (why wouldn't the enemy just aim centre mass if we're talking about reality?). No one as seen a guy in a cape and thought 'that's a wide fellow, better aim for the edges'.

In terms of what a faliure means, that's really down to the GM. If I have a player marching towards a imperial check point in the heaviest armour they could get their hands on, and the NPC's fail on their attack roll, it's going to be a lot cooler narratively if plasma rounds are just bouncing off of this armoured lunatic.

Regardless, I don't believe anyone will change anyone elses mind on this subject, all things considered, so I'm going to leave this alone after this post.

6 minutes ago, Rabobankrider said:

Also, to be frank, the concept that heavy robes add defence because they are extra poofy is pretty daft (why wouldn't the enemy just aim centre mass if we're talking about reality?). No one as seen a guy in a cape and thought 'that's a wide fellow, better aim for the edges'.

The difficulty comes in determining where center mass is. The "center" of the silhouette in this situation doesn't necessarily equate to the center of the target.

Fair point, but assuming that they follow the general pattern of most robes jedi wear:

It shouldn't bee too hard to spot figure it out. They would have to be very, very billowy to cause serious confusion if you ask me. If it was some kind of smoke monster or something similar or some kind of shimmer effect then that would be fair enough (I know that I said that was my last post, I just wanted to clarify).

I was picturing something more like this:

Not perfect, but you can see how her robes obscure her figure, and when she is in motion, it becomes even harder to pin down where exactly she is.

It all depends on what sort of robes you have.

That actually makes more sense to what you were saying compared to what I imagined, point well proved.

https://images.app.goo.gl/9KTpPeZvftNBUgEj7

This garment is worn by the germans tomake the wearer harder to hit. Because as P47 it is hard to aim accurately at a moving target you cant identify where exactly the target is

14 hours ago, Daeglan said:

No we dont. You are the one who thinks failure means they missed. It does not necessarily mean that. It means they failed to hit in a damaging way. You can make contact and do no damage. Some of the attachments for armor make your armor more slick that it is hard to land a damaging hit.

I'd also say, that failure is a miss. Of course we can describe it otherwise and it's perfectly fine to interpret it like you want, but there's still the following problem (I brought this up before):

In case your character shoots a stationary laser CANNON at an enemy in short range, who wears a battle armor (defense 1) and gets one net success, he would deal 70 damage, so without doubt instant kill.

But what if the setback had shown a failure und so would have had canceled the success?

There's no way to argue, that the battle armor could absorb that amount of damage. The only realistic interpretation would be to state, that it was a miss.

And that leads to the point already made: an armor can mitigate the damage, but not make the wearer harder to hit.