1 hour ago, Jareth Valar said:

I admit, I'm just as guilty for falling for troll bait, but I agree whole heartedly.

Personally, the OP about adding Defense to Soak doesn't seem too awful, if it's only from the armor, IMHO.

Sixth Sense and the other one (can never remember that one) seem to be fine as is, especially since they are about training to avoid attacks. It would also solve the problem some have with Cover and armor Defense not stacking. I also don't see a problem with Defensive or Deflective as is either.

So trading the Defence of armor for extra Soak should usually net you an extra point, at most 2 for "of the shelf" armor. It may break down a little when dealing with crafted armor, but I haven't rum those kinds of numbers so I can't be sure.

It does risk essentially turning all ar.or into a universal boring bla sameness. Why would.you choose any other armor than the one.with the highest soak? No trad off...all the same may as well pick the highest soak one...

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

It does risk essentially turning all ar.or into a universal boring bla sameness. Why would.you choose any other armor than the one.with the highest soak? No trad off...all the same may as well pick the highest soak one...

I'm not disagreeing with that concept, but some may feel it's a fair trade for their games. Which is is perfectly fine by me. If everyone played games the same way, that too, would be boring.

10 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And? That doesn't change the facts. So, deal with it how you will. It's not just that I posted videos from Youtube. I've worn armor. I've fought in armor. I’ve been hit in armor. I've researched it. I know the effects of armor from first hand experience . So, it't not opinion. It is fact .

Your facts seem to be somewhat undermined by other facts contradicting them.

More importantly, real world facts are in no way at all relevant to narrative RPG rules.

10 hours ago, Daeglan said:

It does risk essentially turning all ar.or into a universal boring bla sameness. Why would.you choose any other armor than the one.with the highest soak? No trad off...all the same may as well pick the highest soak one...

Part of it would be the various perks granted by the armor, like Mandalorian armor (aside from being MANDALORIAN ARMOR ) is Vacuum Sealed, has an in-built comlink and has 5 HP.

Another thing to factor in is encumbrance.

I may differ from many people on this, but I pick armor based on what I think looks cool or makes sense for the character. I don't really care too much about the stats (I do care, just not a ton).

17 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The reflected and parried attack hit the blade of the lightsaber, which in turn is held by the hand, and thus is an extension of the arm. The attack hits the parrying/reflecting weapon, which is an extension of the wielder of said weapon, and, as such is essentially a part of him, not apart from him, as is the case with energy shields, which are basically mobile cover . The attack doesn't simply pass harmlessly by . This is similar with armor, which is essentially a second skin . And, if you think about it, you don't parry an attack that's going to miss anyway, you parry an attack that will otherwise hit you directly. And, as I said, just because the characters we see on screen seem to pull of parries and reflects effortlessly, doesn't mean it really is that easy or effortless. Those characters have "plot armor" and are often the exception, not the rule.

Now, with Parry , we do see characters on screen parrying blows, but still getting knocked around, pushed back, and taking a pounding. This certainly falls under "taking hits", and at least getting the "weapon qualities" from said hits inflicted upon them. And I could say the same thing is probable with Reflect as well, to a certain degree. Think about it, Look at how hard it is for these characters to reflect really heavy weapon ( Gunnery ) attacks, such as E-webs, light vehicle weapons,, or even heavier firepower. They pull it off, but it certainly takes a lot more physical effort.

As for my "dogged insistence that Star Wars armor comport with real armor". That "dogged insistence" doesn't just pertain to Star Wars . It pertains to any RPG setting or system.

This is a complete contradiction of your core point this whole thread. Back when I pointed out 2 Triumphs destroyed a lightsaber even on a failed attack check your contention was that it wasn't a hit on the target (the character) but a lucky blow on their weapon and now you're saying a parry which isn't actually touching your target at all but their weapon is now really hitting the target. You warp everything around the outcome you want.

And now you're trying to tell my why my lying eyes don't really see what they see on screen - it just seems effortless? It's just because of plot armor? Oh, is that what happened to Zett? He had plot armor? Reflect and Parry in this system do not really operate the way you see it on screen. Face it Tramp, you can't point to anything really in the setting on screen that supports you and that is why you retreat to what seems logical to you as to "what is really happening" but can't be seen.

You could say the same thing is PROBABLE with Reflect as well, TO A CERTAIN DEGREE? Ok, now you're just admitting the setting as we see it operate on screen negates your point but you can't admit it. We see what I said we see - effortless reflecting of blasters. Your theoretical light vehicle/E-web situation is just that - theoretical. We don't see it happening that way - if I recall correctly we see Kanan deflect shots from a TIE (effortlessly). Give me an example of this happening on screen (and I'll bet you that the blasts get through not because of the force of the impact as you're saying but because there are so many of them).

And getting knocked around, pushed back and taking a pounding isn't at all what a hit with a lightsaber is in this setting. What your saying is that you can have a lightsaber v lightsaber duel and parry every single strike against you and fall unconscious grievously wounded (in game terms above your wound threshold and with Crits on you!) just as if you'd been actually hit by the lightsaber. In other words you didn't actually parry any of the attacks. We do not see this on screen - ever.

Simply put, reflect/parry in the setting causes a miss (no damage) but this system models it as a reduced damage hit (that can crit you or even drop you unconscious).

18 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

This is a complete contradiction of your core point this whole thread. Back when I pointed out 2 Triumphs destroyed a lightsaber even on a failed attack check your contention was that it wasn't a hit on the target (the character) but a lucky blow on their weapon and now your saying a parry which isn't actually touching your target at all but their weapon is now really hitting the target. You warp everything around the outcome you want.

And now you're trying to tell my why my lying eyes don't really see what they see on screen - it just seems effortless? It's just because of plot armor? Oh, is that what happend to Zett? He had plot armor? Reflect and Parry in this system do not really operate the way you see it on screen. Face it Tramp, you can't point to anything really in the setting on screen that supports you and that is why you retreat to what seems logical to you as to "what is really happening" but can't be seen.

You could say the same thing is PROBABLE with Reflect as well, TO A CERTAIN DEGREE? Ok, now you're just admitting the setting as we see it operate on screen negates your point but you can't admit it. We see what I said we see - effortless reflecting of blasters. Your theoretical light vehicle/E-web situation is just that - theoretical. We don't see it happening that way. Give me an example of this happening on screen (and I'll bet you that the blasts get through not because of the force of the impact as you're saying but because there are so many of them).

And getting knocked around, pushed back and taking a pounding isn't at all what a hit with a lightsaber is in this setting. What your saying is that you can have a lightsaber v lightsaber duel and parry every single strike against you and fall unconscious grievously wounded (in game terms above your wound threshold and with Crits on you!) just as if you'd been actually hit by the lightsaber. In other words you didn't actually parry any of the attacks. We do not see this on screen - ever.

Simply put, reflect/parry in the setting causes a miss (no damage) but this system models it as a reduced damage hit (that can crit you or even drop you unconscious).

part of the reduces damage is this system does not consider the damage of an attack as a single hit. So a partial reduction in damage means you parried or reflected away some of those attacks.

20 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

part of the reduces damage is this system does not consider the damage of an attack as a single hit. So a partial reduction in damage means you parried or reflected away some of those attacks.

Maybe. This has got me thinking. At my table it's not uncommon to narrate the action around a single check as being a flurry of shots or strikes or whatever along with parries, dodges, etc but when it comes to actual hits doing damage we (always?) narrate that as coming from a single shot/strike that got through. Still as I mentioned above, my Jedi players have had some break of immersion from Reflect/Parry not actually preventing an attack from landing. Even though the game is really in the theater of the mind I don't think (for me or them) that imagining a single checks as a bunch of strikes really being parried except that one got through really captures the feel.

EDIT
Thinking more about why that approach doesn't capture the feel for me is that you know the mechanics and stats of the game instinctively at some point and concrete things like how much damage a lightsaber does with a "single hit" makes it a bit harder to abstract away to "this much damage over a check". Also there are mechanics which work against this immersion like at my table with Saber Swarm or duel wielding where you are explicitly getting extra hits, with a different weapon in the case of duel wielding.

Also, we see plenty of examples on screen of characters reflecting/parrying throughout entire encounters and walking away without a scratch (you can abstract this away too as saying low Wounds "damage" isn't really damage but then immersion is broken again when stim packs are applied or Medicine checks made).

But this is an interesting idea worth thinking about more.

5 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Maybe. This has got me thinking. At my table it's not uncommon to narrate the action around a single check as being a flurry of shots or strikes or whatever along with parries, dodges, etc but when it comes to actual hits doing damage we (always?) narrate that as coming from a single shot/strike that got through. Still as I mentioned above, my Jedi players have had some break of immersion from Reflect/Parry not actually preventing an attack from landing. Even though the game is really in the theater of the mind I don't think (for me or them) that imagining a single checks as a bunch of strikes really being parried except that one got through really captures the feel.

it being a flurry of blows is the only way a partial damage reduction with a lightsaber makes more sense to me . But then I dont see any attack as single blows or shots. Because even in the rules attacks are described as multiple shots or swins.

46 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

it being a flurry of blows is the only way a partial damage reduction with a lightsaber makes more sense to me . But then I dont see any attack as single blows or shots. Because even in the rules attacks are described as multiple shots or swins.

Yeah, I often think about it or narrative a single check being a bunch of activity (strikes, dodges, parry's etc) but there’s just too many things that break my immersion about it regarding reflect/parry playing into that (see my edits above)

Kanan and Ezra both reflecting TIE blaster bolts effortlessly.

At about 1:19 Kanan reflects one and then jumps down from the top of the ghost - though it could fairly be seen as the bolt had enough impact from the deflect to just push him off but it's a very minor impact from which he effortlessly recovered (certainly not the kind of devastating shock doing wound damage or wearing Kanan out, etc). Ezra also effortlessly reflects multiple shots earlier (see Ezra around the the :56 mark).

21 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

And people who claim the same experiences as you disagree entirely.

Yes, because they're trying to interpret reality through the lense of the existing game system.

21 hours ago, Daeglan said:

I have fought in armor and have experienced armor deflecting attacks. Armor is shaped the way it is to optimize this.

Yes, and you were still hit , weren't you? A deflection doesn't change that. Armor is shaped to optimize damage mitigation. How it does so varies from armor to armor.

20 hours ago, Jareth Valar said:

I'm happy for you.

It doesn't change the facts, as you claim them. Argue as hard as you want, that won't change the fact that people claim your facts are not what their facts are. And we're just supposed to take your word for it? HA! I can claim to have won the Nobel Prize, doesn't mean anyone would believe me no matter how much I could state otherwise.

I bet if someone posted an essay from an armor designer claiming you are incorrect, you'd say he/she was wrong too. No, as has been everyone's experience with your posts, you'll just twist things to still claim your perceived superiority.

The problem is, nobody cares about your "facts". You have poisoned your own well.

You say how armor functions is a big part of how you feel about a system. Cool. Good for you. Accept that not everyone shares your obsession. And that they are entitled to.

Say, for the sake of argument only, that things are as you say they are. So what? Did you win a prize or something? Want a cookie? The game is still what the game is and people will still disagree with you. You would have accomplished nothing other than pissing off allot of people whose main goal is to enjoy a game and probably don't really give a rats @$$ about real world anything. This is a game forum, not an armor design forum. Save your crap for those.

This thread is about trying to fix a problem multiple people see with the rule granting Armor Defense bonuses because they don't make sense to them, given how armor really works.

11 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

Your facts seem to be somewhat undermined by other facts contradicting them.

More importantly, real world facts are in no way at all relevant to narrative RPG rules.

Not true. You have some people trying to interpret real world armor by the game rules. If an attack is deflected, it's because it first hit the target. The target was still hit.

8 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Part of it would be the various perks granted by the armor, like Mandalorian armor (aside from being MANDALORIAN ARMOR ) is Vacuum Sealed, has an in-built comlink and has 5 HP.

Another thing to factor in is encumbrance.

I may differ from many people on this, but I pick armor based on what I think looks cool or makes sense for the character. I don't really care too much about the stats (I do care, just not a ton).

At least in Collapse of the Republic . The version in No Disintegrations , doesn't come with those features.

7 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

This is a complete contradiction of your core point this whole thread. Back when I pointed out 2 Triumphs destroyed a lightsaber even on a failed attack check your contention was that it wasn't a hit on the target (the character) but a lucky blow on their weapon and now you're saying a parry which isn't actually touching your target at all but their weapon is now really hitting the target. You warp everything around the outcome you want.

And now you're trying to tell my why my lying eyes don't really see what they see on screen - it just seems effortless? It's just because of plot armor? Oh, is that what happened to Zett? He had plot armor? Reflect and Parry in this system do not really operate the way you see it on screen. Face it Tramp, you can't point to anything really in the setting on screen that supports you and that is why you retreat to what seems logical to you as to "what is really happening" but can't be seen.

You could say the same thing is PROBABLE with Reflect as well, TO A CERTAIN DEGREE? Ok, now you're just admitting the setting as we see it operate on screen negates your point but you can't admit it. We see what I said we see - effortless reflecting of blasters. Your theoretical light vehicle/E-web situation is just that - theoretical. We don't see it happening that way - if I recall correctly we see Kanan deflect shots from a TIE (effortlessly). Give me an example of this happening on screen (and I'll bet you that the blasts get through not because of the force of the impact as you're saying but because there are so many of them).

And getting knocked around, pushed back and taking a pounding isn't at all what a hit with a lightsaber is in this setting. What your saying is that you can have a lightsaber v lightsaber duel and parry every single strike against you and fall unconscious grievously wounded (in game terms above your wound threshold and with Crits on you!) just as if you'd been actually hit by the lightsaber. In other words you didn't actually parry any of the attacks. We do not see this on screen - ever.

Simply put, reflect/parry in the setting causes a miss (no damage) but this system models it as a reduced damage hit (that can crit you or even drop you unconscious).

Look at Vader in RotJ . He parried multiple attacks from Luke in that final stretch, but was eventually beaten down and then criticalled with his hand being cut off.

7 hours ago, Daeglan said:

part of the reduces damage is this system does not consider the damage of an attack as a single hit. So a partial reduction in damage means you parried or reflected away some of those attacks.

Exactly. At least we can agree on something. 😎

7 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Maybe. This has got me thinking. At my table it's not uncommon to narrate the action around a single check as being a flurry of shots or strikes or whatever along with parries, dodges, etc but when it comes to actual hits doing damage we (always?) narrate that as coming from a single shot/strike that got through. Still as I mentioned above, my Jedi players have had some break of immersion from Reflect/Parry not actually preventing an attack from landing. Even though the game is really in the theater of the mind I don't think (for me or them) that imagining a single checks as a bunch of strikes really being parried except that one got through really captures the feel.

EDIT
Thinking more about why that approach doesn't capture the feel for me is that you know the mechanics and stats of the game instinctively at some point and concrete things like how much damage a lightsaber does with a "single hit" makes it a bit harder to abstract away to "this much damage over a check". Also there are mechanics which work against this immersion like at my table with Saber Swarm or duel wielding where you are explicitly getting extra hits, with a different weapon in the case of duel wielding.

Also, we see plenty of examples on screen of characters reflecting/parrying throughout entire encounters and walking away without a scratch (you can abstract this away too as saying low Wounds "damage" isn't really damage but then immersion is broken again when stim packs are applied or Medicine checks made).

But this is an interesting idea worth thinking about more.

The problem is that a round lasts one full minute . As such, a Combat check can't really can't be considered a single strike. It pretty much has to be the result of multiple blows or shots. If it were a three second round, like in Cyberpunk , then having a combat check equal a single attack makes more sense. But not when a round equals a full minute.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

At least in Collapse of the Republic . The version in No Disintegrations , doesn't come with those features.

Yes, I was specifically referring to a specific model of armor that gives perks, I know there are variants.

35 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Exactly. At least we can agree on something. 😎

Great ! Now everybody can accept to agree to disagree on everything else, can't they ?

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

10 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Look at Vader in RotJ . He parried multiple attacks from Luke in that final stretch, but was eventually beaten down and then criticalled with his hand being cut off.

Yes he was burning through “strain” but his parry’s prevented him from taking any actual wounds unlike the actual hit that made contact with him which injured him. This scene perfectly shows the completely different effects of parry (may tire you but you don’t take any damage) and the effects of actually being hit. It took a hit to drop him, he didn’t drop from parrying.

And I suppose you concede on reflect now.

18 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The problem is that a round lasts one full minute . As such, a Combat check can't really can't be considered a single strike. It pretty much has to be the result of multiple blows or shots. If it were a three second round, like in Cyberpunk , then having a combat check equal a single attack makes more sense. But not when a round equals a full minute.

Good point. But parry/reflect and the “multiple narrative strikes” still have issues I’ve mentioned. Not to mention I don’t think anyone plays it this way (seriously does anyone narrate attacking for a whole minute and the defender doing defense stuff for a whole minute then taking their turn to attack for a whole minute...; the minute length is typically only applied narratively for non combat skill checks).
Which is why I think the RAW says not only that a round is a minute but also it’s adjustable and it just means time to move somewhere and do something so it scales to what you’re doing.
And while I do like your sudden use for the narrative description it renders your armor argument a bit ridiculous where you obsessed over making contact and a hit is a hit and the physics over it when all along it’s a minute of being attacked and the armor’s effect is the aggregate of that whole thing (meaning RAW is perfectly suited to your conception of armor because RAW doesn’t describe a particular attack but “narrative minute of attacks” so the armor behaved exactly as you want somewhere in that minute but has an aggregate effect mechanically).

9 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Maybe. This has got me thinking. At my table it's not uncommon to narrate the action around a single check as being a flurry of shots or strikes or whatever along with parries, dodges, etc but when it comes to actual hits doing damage we (always?) narrate that as coming from a single shot/strike that got through. Still as I mentioned above, my Jedi players have had some break of immersion from Reflect/Parry not actually preventing an attack from landing. Even though the game is really in the theater of the mind I don't think (for me or them) that imagining a single checks as a bunch of strikes really being parried except that one got through really captures the feel.

EDIT
Thinking more about why that approach doesn't capture the feel for me is that you know the mechanics and stats of the game instinctively at some point and concrete things like how much damage a lightsaber does with a "single hit" makes it a bit harder to abstract away to "this much damage over a check". Also there are mechanics which work against this immersion like at my table with Saber Swarm or duel wielding where you are explicitly getting extra hits, with a different weapon in the case of duel wielding.

Also, we see plenty of examples on screen of characters reflecting/parrying throughout entire encounters and walking away without a scratch (you can abstract this away too as saying low Wounds "damage" isn't really damage but then immersion is broken again when stim packs are applied or Medicine checks made).

But this is an interesting idea worth thinking about more.

We saw a medicine check to treat a crit in the Mandalorian. And stim packs make more sense when you think of them as pain killers and stimulents. Hence why they have diminishing effectiveness. And a medicine check is using different stims and pain killers and bacta patches to deal with wounds. They can also treat the real injuries...crits. which is also treated pretty rapidly in the mandalorian

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

We saw a medicine check to treat a crit in the Mandalorian. And stim packs make more sense when you think of them as pain killers and stimulents. Hence why they have diminishing effectiveness. And a medicine check is using different stims and pain killers and bacta patches to deal with wounds. They can also treat the real injuries...crits. which is also treated pretty rapidly in the mandalorian

Yeah. The rapidity isn’t my issue but the fact you need some sort of treatment after parrying/reflecting that breaks the immersion. I still like the narrative possibilities with this, still thinking about it

To play off what Tramp and Daeglan have said, immersion might be much better improved if players regularly narrated attack checks as multiple attacks and defenses to that like armor/parry/reflect as being effective for most of the attacks but “one” or more “get through” resulting in what ever damage is left over (if any). Though this may make narration tiresome.

35 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Yeah. The rapidity isn’t my issue but the fact you need some sort of treatment after parrying/reflecting that breaks the immersion. I still like the narrative possibilities with this, still thinking about it

Having done actual sword fightling it is super tiring. Like after a couple minutes your ability to keep counterings drops off significantly. It wouldnt surprise me if stim packs also gave you stuff to improve blood oxygen absorption adrenaline boosters blood sugar boosters etc.

21 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

To play off what Tramp and Daeglan have said, immersion might be much better improved if players regularly narrated attack checks as multiple attacks and defenses to that like armor/parry/reflect as being effective for most of the attacks but “one” or more “get through” resulting in what ever damage is left over (if any). Though this may make narration tiresome.

As gm chris says if you do it your players will pick up on it.

Back to the OP, as mentioned before I think adding more soak to armors will tip the balance of the game too much in favor of armor compared to what we see in the setting, but to those still bothered by adding defense dice, let me propose the following house rule:

For each point of Defense a suot of armor has the wearer gains one rank of Durable.

Meaning that stuff like heavy battle armor not only protects you from getting bruised and banged around, but also reduces the likelyhood of serious or lethal damage by reducingcrits.

Or, every point of Defense adds one to the attacks crit rating, reducing the likelyhood of attack causing a crit in the first place.

That is a nice idea.

6 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Good point. But parry/reflect and the “multiple narrative strikes” still have issues I’ve mentioned. Not to mention I don’t think anyone plays it this way (seriously does anyone narrate attacking for a whole minute and the defender doing defense stuff for a whole minute then taking their turn to attack for a whole minute...; the minute length is typically only applied narratively for non combat skill checks).
Which is why I think the RAW says a round is a minute but it’s adjustable, it just means time to move somewhere and do something so it scales to what you’re doing.
And while I do like your sudden use for the narrative description it renders your armor argument a bit ridiculous where you obsessed over making contact and a hit is a hit and the physics over it when all along it’s a minute of being attacked and the armor’s effect is the aggregate of that whole thing (meaning RAW is perfectly suited to your conception of armor because RAW doesn’t describe a particular attack but “narrative minute of attacks” so the armor behaved exactly as you want somewhere in that minute but has an aggregate effect mechanically).

The round is the actions of everyone involved. So it's one minute for them all to do it and it happens more or less at the same time. So it's not one minute for one guy and then another for the next, it's one minute of frantic movements, fighting and shooting. But yeah, it can be longer or shorter to better fit the narrative of the GM.

12 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not true. You have some people trying to interpret real world armor by the game rules. If an attack is deflected, it's because it first hit the target.

Come to think of it, real-world armour, real-world weapons, basically real-world anything isn't applicable to any of this.

52 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Come to think of it, real-world armour, real-world weapons, basically real-world anything isn't applicable to any of this.

That's the (or one of) maddening thing about arguing about armor rules being "realistic" is that the entire damage system is absurdly abstract. Just the idea of accumulating wound points is ludicrous from a realism perspective and any system to factor armor into that will be equally so.