8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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 .

100% total simulationist stuff doesn't work well in many games, and especially not in Star Wars, when there are blades of supercharged plasma that can cut through any substance, a type of metal that can stop laser blasts at basically point blank rage with no damage to the wearer, and medicine that can heal brain injuries in five minutes but the internet doesn't exist. It's a stupid argument. SW works off rule of cool and its own weird universe rules, and its armor is no exception.

Also, the house rule seems fine - not game breaking, though just keep in mind the stuff others have mentioned!

1 minute ago, StarkJunior said:

100% total simulationist stuff doesn't work well in many games, and especially not in Star Wars, when there's blades of supercharged plasma that can cut through any substance and a type of metal that can stop laser blasts at basically point blank rage with no damage to the wearer. It's a stupid argument. SW works off rule of cool, and its armor is no exception.

Also, the house rule seems fine - not game breaking, though just keep in mind the stuff others have mentioned!

While I agree with that for the most part. There are some things which, if not done right, can totally break the immersion of the game for some people . How armor works in an RPG, ( any RPG) is a real pet peeve of mine and can have a major impact on my ability to immerse myself in the game world . It's one of the factors that made me stop playing D&D. The saving grace of the armor system in place in this game is that Armor primarily provides Soak. "Defense" is secondary at most. I would prefer it if wasn't there at all, or, better yet, there was a Defense penalty, except in the case of items like Heavy Robes, cloaks, and such, which obscure the body.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

While I agree with that for the most part. There are some things which, if not done right, can totally break the immersion of the game for some people . How armor works in an RPG, ( any RPG) is a real pet peeve of mine and can have a major impact on my ability to immerse myself in the game world . It's one of the factors that made me stop playing D&D. The saving grace of the armor system in place in this game is that Armor primarily provides Soak. "Defense" is secondary at most. I would prefer it if wasn't there at all, or, better yet, there was a Defense penalty, except in the case of items like Heavy Robes, cloaks, and such, which obscure the body.

This is a narrative system that give you tools to help one narrate what is going on. Defense is useful for that. If you get it through your thick skull that failure does not necessarily mean you missed. Case in point Luke lightsaber glanced off of Darth Vaders Shoulder doing no real damage to Vader. That is an example of Defense in action. A hit dealing no damage.

In other words, armor defends your soft squishy parts making it hard to hit them. You may still get hit but the important parts were saved.

5 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

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.

True, the loss of potential setbacks would make weapons with special abilities more effective, but I also don't see that as too big of a problem really? Like, lets say you do some attack that has a disorient effect, like say, some flashbang or whatever, but it's also able to do some damage because it's a....I dunno....a plasma bang, whatever it's Star Wars. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that someone with a really high armor rating, because they've got a really nice suit, is able to just shrug off the damage, but still be blinded and/or be dizzy from the bright lights and loud noise. Like that scene in the first Iron Man, when Tony unleashes his chaff flares in Jebediah's face in his suit, making him blinded for a moment. He didn't get actually hurt, but it still disoriented him.

But it is a good point to consider that those effects would be slightly more likely to go off. Though, honestly that's only an issue for armor types that provided Defense at all. As I recall, most don't, at least not the most commonly acquired types don't. So for armor types that don't provide defense anyway, it wouldn't make any actual difference on the probability of triggering the special effect. Still, good to note though.

6 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

This is a narrative system that give you tools to help one narrate what is going on. Defense is useful for that. If you get it through your thick skull that failure does not necessarily mean you missed. Case in point Luke lightsaber glanced off of Darth Vaders Shoulder doing no real damage to Vader. That is an example of Defense in action. A hit dealing no damage.

And that is what doesn't make sense for me or the OP since it's not how armor works. A hit is a hit, if you fail on a roll to hit then it's a miss . Period. That's basic logic . Saying anything contrary to that doesn't make any logical sense and that can break suspension of disbelief and can break immersion in the game world . So yes, as far as I am concerned, a failed roll to hit is a flat out miss . Period. Nothing you say will change my mind about that . Luke's "glancing blow" off of Vader's armor, I chalk up to Vader's shoulder pauldron being made of Cortosis and it soaking up the damage from Luke's blow. I do not attribute it to Defense. I attribute it to the Armor's Soak value.

6 minutes ago, Varlie said:

In other words, armor defends your soft squishy parts making it hard to hurt them. You may still get hit but the important parts were saved.

Fixed that for you to make it sound better, given the context of what you are saying. You're bits are still getting hit, they just didn't take any damage. As the shooting range scene in Super Troopers illustrates the difference

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Nothing you say will change my mind about that .

Then why are you debating about it?

5 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

True, the loss of potential setbacks would make weapons with special abilities more effective, but I also don't see that as too big of a problem really? Like, lets say you do some attack that has a disorient effect, like say, some flashbang or whatever, but it's also able to do some damage because it's a....I dunno....a plasma bang, whatever it's Star Wars. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that someone with a really high armor rating, because they've got a really nice suit, is able to just shrug off the damage, but still be blinded and/or be dizzy from the bright lights and loud noise. Like that scene in the first Iron Man, when Tony unleashes his chaff flares in Jebediah's face in his suit, making him blinded for a moment. He didn't get actually hurt, but it still disoriented him.

If you're cool with that being an option then go for it. As long as you're aware of how your rules change will impact the rest of the game, I say go for it and have fun!

It's as they always say, playtest, playtest, playtest! Oh, wait, that's "location", not "playtest". Shoot 😒

8 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Then why are you debating about it?

Because @Daeglan seems bound and determined to either "prove me wrong" or change my mind on the issue. And, as I said, this is a serious issue in games for me. Since this discussion is about a House rule that can potentially fix this. I joined the discussion, and he came in to contradict me, yet again, even though we had gone on at length about it before. That's a problem.

I have a feeling that nobody here is going to change anybody's mind about anything .

But to address the OP once more - I'd be interested to hear any feedback you have on this if you decide to playtest it in a game.

Better house rule to fix the things that seem to be bothering you: remove the defense limits and stacking penalties. Those are the things that make no sense, and they don't have any beneficial effect on how the game plays.

51 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And that is what doesn't make sense for me or the OP since it's not how armor works. A hit is a hit, if you fail on a roll to hit then it's a miss . Period. That's basic logic . Saying anything contrary to that doesn't make any logical sense and that can break suspension of disbelief and can break immersion in the game world . So yes, as far as I am concerned, a failed roll to hit is a flat out miss . Period. Nothing you say will change my mind about that . Luke's "glancing blow" off of Vader's armor, I chalk up to Vader's shoulder pauldron being made of Cortosis and it soaking up the damage from Luke's blow. I do not attribute it to Defense. I attribute it to the Armor's Soak value.

It is how armor works. It is why armor shapes have have charged to make it harder to make a solid hit. They went from flat tops on helmets to conical ones. From smooth curved breast plates to pointed breast plates. For someone who claims to fight in armor it is surprising for you not to get that glancing non damaging blows exist. There is a reason armor on tanks changed shape.
They even have a physics equasion explaining how it works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloped_armour

A failure to hit is not necessarily a miss.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

It is how armor works. It is why armor shapes have have charged to make it harder to make a solid hit. They went from flat tops on helmets to conical ones. From smooth curved breast plates to pointed breast plates. For someone who claims to fight in armor it is surprising for you not to get that glancing non damaging blows exist. There is a reason armor on tanks changed shape.
They even have a physics equasion explaining how it works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloped_armour

A failure to hit is not necessarily a miss.

Except through history the changing of shape fro armour was never linear. But there is one thing all armours have in common whatever the time period and localisation on earth : they are designed to protect the wearer against wound first, not to make the wearer more difficult to be hit. That came only with WWI when combat uniforms were changed to better blend with the environment so soldier would be more difficult to hit. At the same time those suit weren't protecting much, there weren't armours, except the metallic helmet that was reintroduced at that time. Then camo designs were added to combat uniforms while flak vest and other protection for the body were introduced.

For Star Wars RPG it means only armours with a camo design or stealth quality should give any defence and that defence should stack. That should apply to the white Stormtrooper armour on Hoth and other ice planet. There tht armour blend very well with the environment. 😉

And slopped armour isn't designed to make tanks more difficult to hit but to make them more difficult to be penetrated by hits and to be damaged. Because to deflect a hit, that hit must hit first. That seems obvious but from what I've read not for everybody.

For me in Star Wars RPG when a hit is deflected it's soak that works. When a hit is absorbed it is soak again. Armour's soak is for both simulating the capacity to deflect hits and the capacity to absorb damages from a hit. Defence it there to simulate de difficulty to hit. That's why I agree with the OP (and Tramp Graphic) giving defence to an armour doesn't make sense most of the time. And for me the fact you'll get more or as much soak from your Brawn attribute than from the armour you wear doesn't make sense too.

24 minutes ago, WolfRider said:

Except through history the changing of shape fro armour was never linear. But there is one thing all armours have in common whatever the time period and localisation on earth : they are designed to protect the wearer against wound first, not to make the wearer more difficult to be hit. That came only with WWI when combat uniforms were changed to better blend with the environment so soldier would be more difficult to hit. At the same time those suit weren't protecting much, there weren't armours, except the metallic helmet that was reintroduced at that time. Then camo designs were added to combat uniforms while flak vest and other protection for the body were introduced.

For Star Wars RPG it means only armours with a camo design or stealth quality should give any defence and that defence should stack. That should apply to the white Stormtrooper armour on Hoth and other ice planet. There tht armour blend very well with the environment. 😉

And slopped armour isn't designed to make tanks more difficult to hit but to make them more difficult to be penetrated by hits and to be damaged. Because to deflect a hit, that hit must hit first. That seems obvious but from what I've read not for everybody.

For me in Star Wars RPG when a hit is deflected it's soak that works. When a hit is absorbed it is soak again. Armour's soak is for both simulating the capacity to deflect hits and the capacity to absorb damages from a hit. Defence it there to simulate de difficulty to hit. That's why I agree with the OP (and Tramp Graphic) giving defence to an armour doesn't make sense most of the time. And for me the fact you'll get more or as much soak from your Brawn attribute than from the armour you wear doesn't make sense too.

The mistake you are making is soak is absorbing damage. Defense is defelecting an attack away from you. so the armor doesnt have to absorb the effect. The whole point is to give the GM a narrative tool for describing different kinds of hits. a failure from set back dice coming up failure means the defense worked and should be narrated as such, IE defense from robes mean the hit missed because they missed where you actually are. or on hard armor it glances off the surface. The types of armor are a narrative tool to help you describe effects better.

There is always a part of me that, when I read these sorts of threads, wants to take all the folks (like me) who have real armor to fight in, fly us all out to a field, fight until the last combatant stands, and have THAT PERSON make the new house rule.

I just need the videographer. And the field. And the airfare. Anyone wanna spot me? I'm good for it.

21 hours ago, Daeglan said:

It is how armor works. It is why armor shapes have have charged to make it harder to make a solid hit. They went from flat tops on helmets to conical ones. From smooth curved breast plates to pointed breast plates. For someone who claims to fight in armor it is surprising for you not to get that glancing non damaging blows exist. There is a reason armor on tanks changed shape.
They even have a physics equasion explaining how it works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloped_armour

A failure to hit is not necessarily a miss.

Wrong. Armor does not make you harder to hit. Period; end of story. Armor minimizes the amount of damage you take from getting hit. Whether that's be deflection, or absorption the effect is the same, the damage is reduced. The target is still struck . A glancing blow is simply a blow where the damage was very minor . In game terms, that simply means that the damage roll (for games which use separate rolls for damage) was very low. In this system it would be a roll where only one net success was rolled. That is a glancing blow. If there are no net successes, then it is at best a near miss, if not a clean miss.

19 hours ago, WolfRider said:

Except through history the changing of shape fro armour was never linear. But there is one thing all armours have in common whatever the time period and localisation on earth : they are designed to protect the wearer against wound first, not to make the wearer more difficult to be hit. That came only with WWI when combat uniforms were changed to better blend with the environment so soldier would be more difficult to hit. At the same time those suit weren't protecting much, there weren't armours, except the metallic helmet that was reintroduced at that time. Then camo designs were added to combat uniforms while flak vest and other protection for the body were introduced.

For Star Wars RPG it means only armours with a camo design or stealth quality should give any defence and that defence should stack. That should apply to the white Stormtrooper armour on Hoth and other ice planet. There tht armour blend very well with the environment. 😉

And slopped armour isn't designed to make tanks more difficult to hit but to make them more difficult to be penetrated by hits and to be damaged. Because to deflect a hit, that hit must hit first. That seems obvious but from what I've read not for everybody.

For me in Star Wars RPG when a hit is deflected it's soak that works. When a hit is absorbed it is soak again. Armour's soak is for both simulating the capacity to deflect hits and the capacity to absorb damages from a hit. Defence it there to simulate de difficulty to hit. That's why I agree with the OP (and Tramp Graphic) giving defence to an armour doesn't make sense most of the time. And for me the fact you'll get more or as much soak from your Brawn attribute than from the armour you wear doesn't make sense too.

Exactly.

19 hours ago, Daeglan said:

The mistake you are making is soak is absorbing damage. Defense is defelecting an attack away from you. so the armor doesnt have to absorb the effect. The whole point is to give the GM a narrative tool for describing different kinds of hits. a failure from set back dice coming up failure means the defense worked and should be narrated as such, IE defense from robes mean the hit missed because they missed where you actually are. or on hard armor it glances off the surface. The types of armor are a narrative tool to help you describe effects better.

No, it isn't. Soak is reducing damage. Depending upon whether the armor is hard or soft , that can be either through deflection or through absorption. Either way the damage done from a successful hit is reduced. Defense is making you harder to actually hit . That is what Defense is. A shield, a piece of cover, or concealment. These make a person harder to hit . Armor reduces damage be it through deflection or absorption. A deflected hit can still do damage if the blow is hard enough . Luke's strike on Vader's shoulder was a deflected hit, yet it still did some damage, albeit relatively minor. Remember, Vader yelled out in pain when he was struck. He was hit. It was the Armor's soak value that took most of the damage, not any "Defense".

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Wrong. Armor does not make you harder to hit. Period; end of story. Armor minimizes the amount of damage you take from getting hit. Whether that's be deflection, or absorption the effect is the same, the damage is reduced. The target is still struck . A glancing blow is simply a blow where the damage was very minor . In game terms, that simply means that the damage roll (for games which use separate rolls for damage) was very low. In this system it would be a roll where only one net success was rolled. That is a glancing blow. If there are no net successes, then it is at best a near miss, if not a clean miss.

Exactly.

I never said it makes you harder to hit. You need to learn there is a difference between making a solid hit and making a hit that doesnt hit well enough to cause damage.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

I never said it makes you harder to hit. You need to learn there is a difference between making a solid hit and making a hit that doesnt hit well enough to cause damage.

I thought you said you weren't going to do this?

Just now, Daeglan said:

I never said it makes you harder to hit. You need to learn there is a difference between making a solid hit and making a hit that doesnt hit well enough to cause damage.

That's because there is no difference . The only difference is the amount of damage done before the armor reduces it further. There is no other difference. period. A success is a hit, a failure is a miss. Period.

I'm with Kunfu on this. I've even reverted to house rules for fixes.

I think the designers had intended for Soak to be damage absorption and Defense to be anything to avoid being damaged in the first place. Thus, shields (vehicle or personal) prevented you from being hit, this they gave Defense. Parry provided Defense not Soak. Soak was armor (vehicle or personal) in that it didn't keep you from getting hit, just negated the damage. The problem arose when trying to differentiate between the various armors from light to heavy . If you start at 1 Soak and work your way up to the heaviest armor, you end up with very large Soak at one end. Thus, the fix was to give some armors Defense to further differentiate them while hand-waving the difference between Soak and Defense narrative explanations. Instead of making Heavy Battle Armor have a Soak of 3 or 4, it has Defense 1 and Soak 2. Armored Clothing is different then Padded is different then Heavy Clothing due to inclusion of Defense or not.

What did I do about it? Not much in Star Wars.

In Genesys, for a fantasy setting, I did do something about it. I removed Defense from armor and left it for things like defensive weapons and hand-held shields. Armors only have Soak. Then, I split Soak into Blunt Soak and Cutting Soak. Blunt is versus punches, clubs, staves, etc. Cutting Soak is vs. spears, swords, arrows, etc. Thus, Mail armor has a better Cutting Soak but a weaker Blunt Soak. Plate is good vs. both. Soft Leather has only a Blunt Soak of 1 (no cutting protection), while Hardened Leather has Blunt and Cutting Soak of 1.

In Star Wars? Perhaps divide Soak into Energy and Kinetic? Energy is Soak vs. blasters, lasers, and lightsabers. Kinetic is Soak vs. firearms, punches, vibroswords, frag grenades, etc. Then you can fiddle with such things as giving Heavy Battle Armor a Soak of 2 versus both Energy and Kinetic with Laminate having a Soak of 2 vs Energy (it's reflective), but only 1 vs Kinetic. Or however else you want to fiddle with it (HBA could be 2 Energy, 3 Kinetic, if you want it to be even better then Laminiate at 2 Energy, 1 Kinetic). You are given more options to differentiate them how you wish.

5 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That's because there is no difference . The only difference is the amount of damage done before the armor reduces it further. There is no other difference. period. A success is a hit, a failure is a miss. Period.

Defense is not a sure thing.

I return to this thread to add:

Y'all fight this out in real life, in armor, or you will never be truly satisfied.

Make it a pay-per-view or ask for donations on Twitch or something so you can make back your travel costs.

16 hours ago, Sturn said:

In Star Wars? Perhaps divide Soak into Energy and Kinetic? Energy is Soak vs. blasters, lasers, and lightsabers. Kinetic is Soak vs. firearms, punches, vibroswords, frag grenades, etc. Then you can fiddle with such things as giving Heavy Battle Armor a Soak of 2 versus both Energy and Kinetic with Laminate having a Soak of 2 vs Energy (it's reflective), but only 1 vs Kinetic. Or however else you want to fiddle with it (HBA could be 2 Energy, 3 Kinetic, if you want it to be even better then Laminiate at 2 Energy, 1 Kinetic). You are given more options to differentiate them how you wish.

That's how WEG d6 did I, IIRC. Armour had physical/energy protection differentiation while shields protected against everything.

I, personally, prefer the simpler single-protection-number, but this idea has merit. And it also give slugthrowers a special place in the hierarchy of weapons. Instead of being "worse blasters" they would have a niche: when you know your target has a high energy protection but lousy kinetic/physical protection.