Soak only goes so far until Pierce and Breach get involved. That's where Defense becomes super valuable.

2 hours ago, StriderZessei said:

Soak only goes so far until Pierce and Breach get involved. That's where Defense becomes super valuable.

That doesn't mean it's appropriate . Armor restricts movement to varying degrees, and weighs you down. In other words, it's encumbering . As such, it's actually easier to hit someone wearing armor than someone not wearing it. This is why games such as Cyberpunk and Mekton grant armor a Stopping Power, which is subtracted from the damage rolled, and Encumbrance Value , which is subtracted from your Reflex, but no Defense quality.

30 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That doesn't mean it's appropriate . Armor restricts movement to varying degrees, and weighs you down. In other words, it's encumbering . As such, it's actually easier to hit someone wearing armor than someone not wearing it. This is why games such as Cyberpunk and Mekton grant armor a Stopping Power, which is subtracted from the damage rolled, and Encumbrance Value , which is subtracted from your Reflex, but no Defense quality.

Other systems do include a defense type quality. So pointing to a different system does not really mean anything. It just shows your extreme bias. Nothing more.

Just now, Daeglan said:

Other systems do include a defense type quality. So pointing to a different system does not really mean anything. It just shows your extreme bias. Nothing more.

The only other system I know which does is Dungeons and Dragons , and how they handle armor is one of the reasons why I stopped playing that system . It's not a bias. It's a matter of how armor really works . Real armor does not make you harder to hit. It simply reduces, or eliminates, the damage from a successful hit. For instance, a modern bullet-proof vest is rated by how powerful of a round the armor can routinely prevent from penetrating. Regardless of whether the vest stops the round, the wearer is likely to have a huge bruise at the very least from the hit. The armor doesn't keep the person from being hit. The same is true of hard plate armor. It doesn't the blow from landing, it simply (potentially) stops the weapon from penetrating to cause life-threatening injury. The wearer is still struck, and can potentially still take blunt force trauma or be knocked down or back from the blow. The armor does not stop the person from being struck . It provides no "Defense" it provides stopping power . That is how armor works. This is empirical fact , not opinion, not bias. It is how armor works. The best RPGs follow that model by having armor use a Damage Reduction system rather than a Defense system. This game uses both, but the Damage Reduction takes precedence , and the Defense is basically an afterthought .

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

The only other system I know which does is Dungeons and Dragons , and how they handle armor is one of the reasons why I stopped playing that system . It's not a bias. It's a matter of how armor really works . Real armor does not make you harder to hit. It simply reduces, or eliminates, the damage from a successful hit. For instance, a modern bullet-proof vest is rated by how powerful of a round the armor can routinely prevent from penetrating. Regardless of whether the vest stops the round, the wearer is likely to have a huge bruise at the very least from the hit. The armor doesn't keep the person from being hit. The same is true of hard plate armor. It doesn't the blow from landing, it simply (potentially) stops the weapon from penetrating to cause life-threatening injury. The wearer is still struck, and can potentially still take blunt force trauma or be knocked down or back from the blow. The armor does not stop the person from being struck . It provides no "Defense" it provides stopping power . That is how armor works. This is empirical fact , not opinion, not bias. It is how armor works. The best RPGs follow that model by having armor use a Damage Reduction system rather than a Defense system. This game uses both, but the Damage Reduction takes precedence , and the Defense is basically an afterthought .

Incorrect. Both GURPS and Palladiun and several others have.

And i have repeatedly told you RAW says a failure does not neccessarily mean you missed. It just means you were unsuccessful in damaging your target. **** even D&D recognized and unsuccessful attack is not necessarily a miss. It is just not good enough to cause damage. How many times in the SCA have you landed a blow with out enough force for your opponant to notice?

4 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Incorrect. Both GURPS and Palladiun and several others have.

And i have repeatedly told you RAW says a failure does not neccessarily mean you missed. It just means you were unsuccessful in damaging your target. **** even D&D recognized and unsuccessful attack is not necessarily a miss. It is just not good enough to cause damage. How many times in the SCA have you landed a blow with out enough force for your opponant to notice?

And I say that's a bunch of bull . A success is a hit and failure is a miss. Period . A failure means you did not hit your target; the blow dod not land. Whether or not you take damage is a matter of the stopping power of the armor. If the Armor's stopping power is greater than or equal to the damage rolled, then you take no damage. That is what determines whether you're damaged or not. That is how armor really works. D&D is not a good measure for a game. It may be the oldest, but it is certainly not the best. In D&D, it's all or nothing, either the armor stops you from being hit or you take full damage from any successful hit. Armor in D&D does nothing to reduce damage . That is why that system is broken .

As for how many times I've landed a blow that the opponent didn't notice? None . For starters, I was a combat archer, though I did do some training in heavy fighting. Money kept me from pursuing that. However, every arrow I shot that hit its mark was noticed and recognized by my target. And, for the record, I was using a 30 lb bow with arrows made of golf tubes tipped with foam rubber tips , shooting at people wearing full plate armor.

Regardless of whether a given blow was powerful enough to be considered a " injuring" blow is irrelevant. It's still a landed blow. The blow still hits . And even if the target doesn't notice the blow (fat chance), there are referees on site of all battles and tournaments to make sure hits are recognized, be they minor or damaging. And, I've known plenty of heavy fighters who have left the field with bruises and the like from blows they've taken even wearing full plate armor that "deflected" the hit. So a "deflection" still damage reduction. It's not the armor making you harder to hit. All it is doing is making you harder to damage .

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That doesn't mean it's appropriate . Armor restricts movement to varying degrees, and weighs you down. In other words, it's encumbering . As such, it's actually easier to hit someone wearing armor than someone not wearing it. This is why games such as Cyberpunk and Mekton grant armor a Stopping Power, which is subtracted from the damage rolled, and Encumbrance Value , which is subtracted from your Reflex, but no Defense quality.

1. I was addressing the OP's original topic, not your inane bickering.

2. Armor comes in various shapes, sizes and forms. Yes, some armor is intended to work as way of decreasing the impact its wearer suffers from a projectile or strike. However...

3. Some armor is intended to reduce or obscure its wearers silhouette, shape, or size, thus impeding an opponent's ability to land a direct hit . To use a fantasy example, look at Batman's armor: it does provide protection with its pseudo-scientific, kevlar-laced fiber-mesh whatever. It ALSO obscures his form with its dark color, cape and accouterments to make him a trickier, more intimidating target, without hampering his ability to utilize his own agility.

Look, you're clearly a bright guy. Just stop being so gods-damned obstinate and narrow-minded in your definitions of what is or isn't armor in a fantasy universe about space wizards and aliens, in an RPG system that has been optimized to allow mechanics to bend for the sake of narrative. Seriously, you're starting to turn into another ParaGoombaSlayer.

Keep arguing about this, and I'll have no choice but permanently ignore you, which I would hate to do, because you clearly have a great understanding of the game's mechanics RAW.

28 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Incorrect. Both GURPS and Palladiun and several others have.

And i have repeatedly told you RAW says a failure does not neccessarily mean you missed. It just means you were unsuccessful in damaging your target. **** even D&D recognized and unsuccessful attack is not necessarily a miss. It is just not good enough to cause damage. How many times in the SCA have you landed a blow with out enough force for your opponant to notice?

While I do agree with everything you're saying from a narrative perspective, RAW does state that a successful attack, advantage can be spent to activate weapon qualities even if no damage was inflicted, with the exception of crits.

So while I would have no problem letting my Colossus Armorer narratively bat soaked blaster bolts away with his bare hands, a la Vader in ESB, he'd still be subject to, say, Knockdown or Disorient.

2 minutes ago, StriderZessei said:

1. I was addressing the OP's original topic, not your inane bickering.

2. Armor comes in various shapes, sizes and forms. Yes, some armor is intended to work as way of decreasing the impact its wearer suffers from a projectile or strike. However...

3. Some armor is intended to reduce or obscure its wearers silhouette, shape, or size, thus impeding an opponent's ability to land a direct hit . To use a fantasy example, look at Batman's armor: it does provide protection with its pseudo-scientific, kevlar-laced fiber-mesh whatever. It ALSO obscures his form with its dark color, cape and accouterments to make him a trickier, more intimidating target, without hampering his ability to utilize his own agility.

Look, you're clearly a bright guy. Just stop being so gods-damned obstinate and narrow-minded in your definitions of what is or isn't armor in a fantasy universe about space wizards and aliens, in an RPG system that has been optimized to allow mechanics to bend for the sake of narrative. Seriously, you're starting to turn into another ParaGoombaSlayer.

Keep arguing about this, and I'll have no choice but permanently ignore you, which I would hate to do, because you clearly have a great understanding of the game's mechanics RAW.

Yes, and if the "armor" is designed to obscure the shape of the body (such as what a larger cloak or heavy robes do), then a Defense bonus is appropriate because that does make you harder to hit. However, plate armor, chain, a gambeson, a bullet proof vest, etc, don't make you harder to hit since they don't obscure the shape of the body. All they do is reduce the damage from a successful hit. As such, these armors should not have a Defense bonus. They should only grant a Soak value, one appropriate to the strength and durability of armor.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, and if the "armor" is designed to obscure the shape of the body (such as what a larger cloak or heavy robes do), then a Defense bonus is appropriate because that does make you harder to hit. However, plate armor, chain, a gambeson, a bullet proof vest, etc, don't make you harder to hit since they don't obscure the shape of the body. All they do is reduce the damage from a successful hit. As such, these armors should not have a Defense bonus. They should only grant a Soak value, one appropriate to the strength and durability of armor.

Do gambesons or chainmail have Defense ratings in SWRPG? 😛

3 minutes ago, Kualan said:

Do gambesons or chainmail have Defense ratings in SWRPG? 😛

A gambeson is padded armor, so, yes .

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

A gambeson would be equivalent to padded armor, so, yes .

Padded Armor doesn't have Defense. It's just Soak +2.

10 minutes ago, Kualan said:

Padded Armor doesn't have Defense. It's just Soak +2.

Exactly .

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Exactly .

Right...only you said they did? 🤔

1 minute ago, Kualan said:

Right...only you said they did? 🤔

I misread your post then. I interpreted it as you asking if they had an equivalent to armors in the SWRPG.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I misread your post then. I interpreted it as you asking if they had an equivalent to armors in the SWRPG.

Ah, gotcha. No harm no foul.

6 minutes ago, Kualan said:

Ah, gotcha. No harm no foul.

No problem. So, to answer your actual question, no, they shouldn’t have a Defense Rating.

2 hours ago, StriderZessei said:

While I do agree with everything you're saying from a narrative perspective, RAW does state that a successful attack, advantage can be spent to activate weapon qualities even if no damage was inflicted, with the exception of crits.

So while I would have no problem letting my Colossus Armorer narratively bat soaked blaster bolts away with his bare hands, a la Vader in ESB, he'd still be subject to, say, Knockdown or Disorient.

Sure. And that is thenadvantage of having defense. It makes an attack not successful.

4 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Sure. And that is thenadvantage of having defense. It makes an attack not successful.

" Exactly. "

On 1/5/2020 at 6:08 PM, Daeglan said:

Sure. And that is thenadvantage of having defense. It makes an attack not successful.

On 1/5/2020 at 6:13 PM, StriderZessei said:

" Exactly. "

Which means the attack missed . a grenade doesn't need to hit its target for its Blast quality to work, a person can be knocked down even if the attack misses because he is put off balance trying to dodge, and ends up falling, etc. That is why Weapon qualities work even if the attack fails.

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That is why Weapon qualities work even if the attack fails.

No, only certain qualities (Blast, Guided) can be triggered on a failed roll. EotE CRB page 154:

Quote

Weapon qualities can only trigger on a successful attack, unless specified otherwise.

3 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

No, only certain qualities (Blast, Guided) can be triggered on a failed roll. EotE CRB page 154:

Yep.

26 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Which means the attack missed . a grenade doesn't need to hit its target for its Blast quality to work, a person can be knocked down even if the attack misses because he is put off balance trying to dodge, and ends up falling, etc. That is why Weapon qualities work even if the attack fails.

No it means the attack was not successful. Which can be everything from fired in the wrong direction to didnt hit well enough to do anything.

Just now, Daeglan said:

No it means the attack was not successful. Which can be everything from fired in the wrong direction to didnt hit well enough to do anything.

Which means it missed . An unsuccessfull attack is a missed attack. If I throw a punch at someone , and I fail to land it, the punch misses . If I shoot at a target and I fail in my shot, it misses . It's that simple. A success is a hit a fail is a miss.