*heavy sigh* Ok, so, I know this topic comes up a lot, and is a heated debate, I'm trying to avoid that, but I want to get some feedback on what I think is a fairly simple (and possibly already stated house rule) to govern armor.

Simply, the rules on armor and defense, are janky as *bleep*. It's all kinds of messy, and I frankly find it to be highly annoying. Partly because some aspects of the rules contradict basic logic about how damage functions, especially when compared to another character in the same situation, but with different armor/defenses. So, I propose the following.

Armor just gives soak. That's it. I know most just give soak anyway, but there are also some types that also give like, a single point of defense, which translates into a setback die for incoming attacks, and some other occasional rules of similar vein. I find this annoying, because it then runs up against the rule of "defense doesn't always stack, depending on source, time of day, if the PC is constipated, etc." So, since a setback die would most likely equate to a single failure, which itself would negate a single success on an attack role (and thus translate to a point of damage on an attack), I just say let it instead be an additional point of soak.

It doesn't help you avoid getting hit by adding negative dice to an incoming attack, but if you do get hit, the tough material/shield thingy that is between your squishy bits and the incoming attack, help to reduce the damage down, possibly negating it entirely.

That's really it. Just, soak, nothing more, nothing less.

First off, I don't see this house rule as being inherently problematic.

That said, it could lead to some of the armors being even beefier, granting soak bonuses of 4 or more, especially if you start factoring in talents like Improved Armor Master. Or under this house rule, would Improved Armor Master still provide a point of defense, albeit one that perhaps can now stack with cover?

You should probably also either disallow the armor inserts from Cyphers & Masks, or just drop the mod to increase the armor's defense.

Soak is for reducing damage on a successful hit.

Defense is about increasing the difficulty for there to be a successful hit in the first place.

They have two separate functions which is why they are two distinct stats.

For example – a light-armored but very nimble foe (a space ninja, for example) should not have high Soak, but should have something that represents how their agility makes them harder to hit to begin with. The Defense rewards the character’s agile nature, whilst the lower Soak still represents that one solid-but-harder-to-land hit can do some real damage.

6 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

First off, I don't see this house rule as being inherently problematic.

That said, it could lead to some of the armors being even beefier, granting soak bonuses of 4 or more, especially if you start factoring in talents like Improved Armor Master. Or under this house rule, would Improved Armor Master still provide a point of defense, albeit one that perhaps can now stack with cover?

You should probably also either disallow the armor inserts from Cyphers & Masks, or just drop the mod to increase the armor's defense.

TBH I haven't really read to deeply into the various specs introduced later in the game line, but my idea was just a straight 1:1 change across the board. Yes it would make the beefier armors that much beefier, but that's kind of the point of those beefy armors right? They are so strong they make lesser attacks basically irrelevant, forcing the attackers to find more powerful ways to damage the target. Small weapons fire won't bother Iron Man for example, but a truck to the face would.

And yes, any talents that add extra defense to armor, would translate to soak as well. I've never really agreed with the idea that armor applies defense, based on how defense is defined in this game. Since defense is defined as making it harder to hit you in the first place, the idea that my shield (which just got HIT), is fulfilling that function, just irks me. It makes more sense to me for it to just apply soak in that example. Yes, I got hit, but you hit the tough thingy designed to take your hit, so I, the squishy meatbag behind it, didn't actually take damage. So then they make armor that provides both, which just makes my brain writhe with annoyance. Plus, it negates the problem that has plagued this system since the inception of things like "ok well your armor has defense, and you are taking cover, which also provides defense, sadly they don't stack." Which just makes no sense to me at all. It makes way more sense to just let the cover provide defense, since if it hits the cover YOU didn't get hit at all. But if it still gets past the cover and hits YOU, then your armor makes it where it just soaks the damage, making it a non-threat. It just feels more logical and elegant to me. Instead of having to try and determine what defense does/doesn't stack, and which value you use, etc.

11 minutes ago, Kualan said:

Soak is for reducing damage on a successful hit.

Defense is about increasing the difficulty for there to be a successful hit in the first place.

They have two separate functions which is why they are two distinct stats.

For example – a light-armored but very nimble foe (a space ninja, for example) should not have high Soak, but should have something that represents how their agility makes them harder to hit to begin with. The Defense rewards the character’s agile nature, whilst the lower Soak still represents that one solid-but-harder-to-land hit can do some real damage.

I am well aware of what the two things are, I don't need you to define them for me. My issue is that some items in this game, provide BOTH, which just doesn't make sense, and also causes conflicts on how different defense sources interact, if at all. So much conflict in fact, that they've tried to errata it for years, and still haven't really come up with a good system for it. It's probably on par with Conflict/Morality in the F&D line, as the most hotly debated and messy aspect of this games mechanics, simply based on the number of threads debating it over the years. With "I don't understand ship combat! Help!" being a close third

30 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

I find this annoying, because it then runs up against the rule of "defense doesn't always stack, depending on source, time of day, if the PC is constipated, etc."

Would it not be simpler to just say that Defense stacks to a max of 4?

30 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

So, since a setback die would most likely equate to a single failure, which itself would negate a single success on an attack role (and thus translate to a point of damage on an attack), I just say let it instead be an additional point of soak.

The big difference here, though, is that failure could negate the hit entirely , whereas an additional point of soak wouldn't. Or the setback die could generate a threat (equally likely as a failure) which would make a crit less likely.

Defense is more than just "add a failure and thus decrease damage taken by 1".

3 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

TBH I haven't really read to deeply into the various specs introduced later in the game line, but my idea was just a straight 1:1 change across the board. Yes it would make the beefier armors that much beefier, but that's kind of the point of those beefy armors right? They are so strong they make lesser attacks basically irrelevant, forcing the attackers to find more powerful ways to damage the target. Small weapons fire won't bother Iron Man for example, but a truck to the face would.

And yes, any talents that add extra defense to armor, would translate to soak as well. I've never really agreed with the idea that armor applies defense, based on how defense is defined in this game. Since defense is defined as making it harder to hit you in the first place, the idea that my shield (which just got HIT), is fulfilling that function, just irks me. It makes more sense to me for it to just apply soak in that example. Yes, I got hit, but you hit the tough thingy designed to take your hit, so I, the squishy meatbag behind it, didn't actually take damage. So then they make armor that provides both, which just makes my brain writhe with annoyance. Plus, it negates the problem that has plagued this system since the inception of things like "ok well your armor has defense, and you are taking cover, which also provides defense, sadly they don't stack." Which just makes no sense to me at all. It makes way more sense to just let the cover provide defense, since if it hits the cover YOU didn't get hit at all. But if it still gets past the cover and hits YOU, then your armor makes it where it just soaks the damage, making it a non-threat. It just feels more logical and elegant to me. Instead of having to try and determine what defense does/doesn't stack, and which value you use, etc.

I am well aware of what the two things are, I don't need you to define them for me. My issue is that some items in this game, provide BOTH, which just doesn't make sense, and also causes conflicts on how different defense sources interact, if at all. So much conflict in fact, that they've tried to errata it for years, and still haven't really come up with a good system for it. It's probably on par with Conflict/Morality in the F&D line, as the most hotly debated and messy aspect of this games mechanics, simply based on the number of threads debating it over the years. With "I don't understand ship combat! Help!" being a close third

Oh, Defense has been a bit of a mess over the years, sure. No debate there.

But in terms of its function, I don’t think replacing it with additional Soak in armor is the way to go.

The game is pretty brutal when it comes to damage as it is, and I suspect if you were to crunch the numbers (which I leave to my more mathematically skilled fellows on the board) you will find that the mitigation provided by 1 extra point of soak is outweighed by the loss of a Setback that might make the difference between there being any damage to mitigate at all.

Of course, this is a house rule – so as in all cases, it depends on the house.

2 minutes ago, c__beck said:

Would it not be simpler to just say that Defense stacks to a max of 4?

Yeah, that could work as well.

2 minutes ago, c__beck said:

The big difference here, though, is that failure could negate the hit entirely , whereas an additional point of soak wouldn't.

Actually an additional point of soak very well could, just like that one failure might negate the attack. If you succeed at the attack, but only get a total of say, 6 points of damage, and I have soak 6, you effectively did nothing to me. Sure your attack came into contact with my body, but it had no actual negative effect on me at all. They are effectively the same thing, the only real difference is which end of the math the single point negation happens. Now yes, most weapons have a baseline damage, and you add your suxx to that for a total amount, but that's basically the same as the biological soak every being has due to Brawn score, and soak from armor adds onto it.

12 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Sure your attack came into contact with my body, but it had no actual negative effect on me at all.

Mostly true, yes. But many weapon qualities only require that the combat check succeeds and doesn't care if damage is sustained by the target. Sure, you need to do at least 1 point of damage to trigger a Critical Injury, but Concussive, Ensnare, Knockdown, Stun, etc can all be triggered on a 0-damage hit but not on a miss.

Heck, Burn could also be triggered, but since soak exceeds even the success-enhanced damage of the attack it won't do anything. But Auto-Fire could be triggered to hit another target who might not have as high of a soak.

My point is that there are a lot more nuances than just "one more point of damage" to the Armour/Defense rating thing and I want to make sure you are taking all these things into consideration when making your own houserules. Which is why I proposed just allowing Defense to stack, because it is the easier solution as none of the numbers have to change and the impact on other parts of the rules system is minimal.

1 hour ago, KungFuFerret said:

*heavy sigh* Ok, so, I know this topic comes up a lot, and is a heated debate, I'm trying to avoid that, but I want to get some feedback on what I think is a fairly simple (and possibly already stated house rule) to govern armor.

Simply, the rules on armor and defense, are janky as *bleep*. It's all kinds of messy, and I frankly find it to be highly annoying. Partly because some aspects of the rules contradict basic logic about how damage functions, especially when compared to another character in the same situation, but with different armor/defenses. So, I propose the following.

Armor just gives soak. That's it. I know most just give soak anyway, but there are also some types that also give like, a single point of defense, which translates into a setback die for incoming attacks, and some other occasional rules of similar vein. I find this annoying, because it then runs up against the rule of "defense doesn't always stack, depending on source, time of day, if the PC is constipated, etc." So, since a setback die would most likely equate to a single failure, which itself would negate a single success on an attack role (and thus translate to a point of damage on an attack), I just say let it instead be an additional point of soak.

It doesn't help you avoid getting hit by adding negative dice to an incoming attack, but if you do get hit, the tough material/shield thingy that is between your squishy bits and the incoming attack, help to reduce the damage down, possibly negating it entirely.

That's really it. Just, soak, nothing more, nothing less.

well except there are different ways armor works despite what Tramp will wrongly claim about it. Armor can divert the energy away from the target. IE it doesnt absorb the hit. It just diverts the energy away from the target. Which is why they have soak and defense.

34 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Actually an additional point of soak very well could, just like that one failure might negate the attack. If you succeed at the attack, but only get a total of say, 6 points of damage, and I have soak 6, you effectively did nothing to me. Sure your attack came into contact with my body, but it had no actual negative effect on me at all. They are effectively the same thing, the only real difference is which end of the math the single point negation happens. Now yes, most weapons have a baseline damage, and you add your suxx to that for a total amount, but that's basically the same as the biological soak every being has due to Brawn score, and soak from armor adds onto it.

Not quite the calse. In the case of activated weapon qualities such as Disorient, Knockdown, and Stun, it's been clarified that the attacker just needs to make a successful attack to trigger them. The only "weapon quality" that relies upon inflicting damage is triggering a critical injury.

So with the scenario you gave, where an attack only does 6 damage but the weapon also has the Stun 3 quality, the attack might deal zero wounds, but the attacker could still spend 2 advantage to activate the Stun 3 quality. This means the lack of setback die on the attacker's check could lead to it being easier to trigger those weapon qualities. Again, not a huge problem, but just something to bear in mind.

5 hours ago, Kualan said:

Soak is for reducing damage on a successful hit.

Defense is about increasing the difficulty for there to be a successful hit in the first place.

They have two separate functions which is why they are two distinct stats.

For example – a light-armored but very nimble foe (a space ninja, for example) should not have high Soak, but should have something that represents how their agility makes them harder to hit to begin with. The Defense rewards the character’s agile nature, whilst the lower Soak still represents that one solid-but-harder-to-land hit can do some real damage.

Except that armor doesn't make you harder to hit. If you've ever worn real armor, you'd know this. It is actually easier to hit someone wearing armor than it is someone who isn't. All armor does is mitigate damage . Even "deflected" hits are still hits, and the armor is still mitigating damage. The only "armors" (and I use that term loosely here) that really should grant a Defense is things like Heavy Robes , or cloaks . That is because these items obscure the shape of the body because of their voluminous, billowy, and shapeless nature, thus making it harder to target vital organs, or even whole sections of the body.

In the example of your "space ninja", it isn't the armor that makes him harder to hit, though. It's his agility . The armor has nothing to do with it.

Pls no. Not this again.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

Except that armor doesn't make you harder to hit. If you've ever worn real armor, you'd know this. It is actually easier to hit someone wearing armor than it is someone who isn't. All armor does is mitigate damage . Even "deflected" hits are still hits, and the armor is still mitigating damage. The only "armors" (and I use that term loosely here) that really should grant a Defense is things like Heavy Robes , or cloaks . That is because these items obscure the shape of the body because of their voluminous, billowy, and shapeless nature, thus making it harder to target vital organs, or even whole sections of the body.

In the example of your "space ninja", it isn't the armor that makes him harder to hit, though. It's his agility . The armor has nothing to do with it.

You still dont get the difference between a glancing blow that does no damage and a solid hit that is completely absorbed. And I am not doing this again with you. You are out right wrong.

Just now, Daeglan said:

You still dont get the difference between a glancing blow that does no damage and a solid hit that is completely absorbed. And I am not doing this again with you. You are out right wrong.

Because there is no difference. A hit is still a hit. The only difference being how much damage is dealt as a result of the accuracy or force of the hit, and that is covered by the total number of successes rolled in excess of the difficulty.

5 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

*heavy sigh* Ok, so, I know this topic comes up a lot, and is a heated debate, I'm trying to avoid that, but I want to get some feedback on what I think is a fairly simple (and possibly already stated house rule) to govern armor.

Simply, the rules on armor and defense, are janky as *bleep*. It's all kinds of messy, and I frankly find it to be highly annoying. Partly because some aspects of the rules contradict basic logic about how damage functions, especially when compared to another character in the same situation, but with different armor/defenses. So, I propose the following.

Armor just gives soak. That's it. I know most just give soak anyway, but there are also some types that also give like, a single point of defense, which translates into a setback die for incoming attacks, and some other occasional rules of similar vein. I find this annoying, because it then runs up against the rule of "defense doesn't always stack, depending on source, time of day, if the PC is constipated, etc." So, since a setback die would most likely equate to a single failure, which itself would negate a single success on an attack role (and thus translate to a point of damage on an attack), I just say let it instead be an additional point of soak.

It doesn't help you avoid getting hit by adding negative dice to an incoming attack, but if you do get hit, the tough material/shield thingy that is between your squishy bits and the incoming attack, help to reduce the damage down, possibly negating it entirely.

That's really it. Just, soak, nothing more, nothing less.

As well what Kualan said, your house, your rules. If this makes the game better for you and yours it's never wrong.

That said, you bright this up for feedback, so...

Personally, c_beck hit the nail on the head I think about removing the defense from armor. Especially with weapon qualities and talents.

If you are interested, this is what works for our table:

Defense stacks (no Max of 4, we think that makes no sense)

Wearing 2 armors, use the highest in each but combine encumbrance.

That's pretty much it I think (away from notes/books at the moment). Everyone at our table believes it flows much more smoothly and we all have more fun with it.

Either way, no game system I have ever played in over 3 decades has been used as is, there is no perfect system. You do what you need to do to the game for you and yours too have fun.

Others may not like what you decide, but unless they are at your table, you shouldn't give a flying flippin kowakian monkey-lizard.

And a failure does not necessarily mean you missed. It means you failed to do damage. I get that this concept is difficult for you. I am not spending 20 pages going round and round about this because you can't figure out that this system gives you tools to do better narration by differentiating how damage is avoided. So stop with this. You are wrong and need to learn that a failure does not necessarily mean you missed.

4 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

You still dont get the difference between a glancing blow that does no damage and a solid hit that is completely absorbed. And I am not doing this again with you. You are out right wrong.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Because there is no difference. A hit is still a hit. The only difference being how much damage is dealt as a result of the accuracy or force of the hit, and that is covered by the total number of successes rolled in excess of the difficulty.

Both of you go sit on a lightsaber please! 🙄 😋

You two have derailed enough threads with your useless diatribe about armor.

Neither will convince the other if anything. Which means both of you are being deliberately childish and disrespectful of the the OP by taking over their thread for useless antics.

Just now, Daeglan said:

And a failure does not necessarily mean you missed. It means you failed to do damage. I get that this concept is difficult for you. I am not spending 20 pages going round and round about this because you can't figure out that this system gives you tools to do better narration by differentiating how damage is avoided. So stop with this. You are wrong and need to learn that a failure does not necessarily mean you missed.

Yes, it does mean you missed. You failed to hit , that is a miss. You're not going to change my mind about this, and you're not going to "prove me wrong" about this either. Armor does not make you harder to hit. It mitigates damage. That's what it does; that is all it does.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, it does mean you missed. You failed to hit , that is a miss. You're not going to change my mind about this, and you're not going to "prove me wrong" about this either. Armor does not make you harder to hit. It mitigates damage. That's what it does; that is all it does.

Then stop pushing. I have already pointed you to RAW that says the opposite of your claim. Drop it.

Just now, c__beck said:

Broken

17 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Then stop pushing. I have already pointed you to RAW that says the opposite of your claim. Drop it.

I'm not talking about RAW. I'm talking about how armor really works .

31 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Except that armor doesn't make you harder to hit. If you've ever worn real armor, you'd know this. It is actually easier to hit someone wearing armor than it is someone who isn't. All armor does is mitigate damage . Even "deflected" hits are still hits, and the armor is still mitigating damage. The only "armors" (and I use that term loosely here) that really should grant a Defense is things like Heavy Robes , or cloaks . That is because these items obscure the shape of the body because of their voluminous, billowy, and shapeless nature, thus making it harder to target vital organs, or even whole sections of the body.

In the example of your "space ninja", it isn't the armor that makes him harder to hit, though. It's his agility . The armor has nothing to do with it.

Could we please talk about armor without the entire conversation being derailed by your specific hangups?

Quote

I'm talking about how armor really works .

Nobody cares.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I'm not talking about RAW. I'm talking about how armor really works .

What part of I am not going round and round with you do you not get. We have been over this.

3 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

What part of I am not going round and round with you do you not get. We have been over this.

Then don't respond and try to "prove me wrong". This thread isn't about RAW. It's about a proposed House rule; a house rule being proposed because the OP feels that the RAW doesn't make sense, and I agree with him on this matter. The RAW doesn't match up with how Armor really works .