20 hours ago, RickInVA said:

Respectfully, your view that "Defense is preventing a hit entirely" is your position/opinion/premise, not necessarily fact.

Regarding my sloped armor hypo you admit that "Full deflection is only one possible outcome", which I myself said. But, that means it is an outcome.

You also don't refute my statement that applying 2020 earth reality to the Star Wars universe is senseless. Just because something doesn't exist now doesn't mean it never will.

But all that aside...

Lets say you are the game designer. You desire to have an armor, something worn by characters for the reduction and/or prevention of damage, that functions in such a way that sometimes, but not always, an attack against the wearer, directly because of the effect of the armor (that is important!), does no damage to the wearer. As an explicit example, your desire is that if the character has one (1) wound remaining, that any weapon, regardless of the amount of base damage it causes, and equally regardless of the amount of Soak the character has from other sources, directly because of the effect of the armor has an increased chance , not certainty, to do no damage to the character. However, if the special ability fails that damage proceeds as normal (i.e. it is prohibited to attempt to implement this mechanic as Soak, that already exists and is not this mechanic by definition). You feel the game you are a designer for needs armor with this ability. How would you, Tramp Graphics, implement this in the game? And for the sake of the argument you have to do so, your boss has instructed you on pain of dismissal to design a game mechanic to accomplish this end.

What do you do?

Because Defense is preventing a hit . More specifically, Defense makes you harder to hit . This is because Defense adds Setback Dice to your attack roll . The Attack roll, or combat check , as it's called in this system, is your roll to hit the target. Defense doesn't make you harder to damage . That is covered by Soak . That's the difference. Defense makes you harder to hit , whereas Soak makes you harder to damage .

If I were a game designer, the only stat that I would give armor is a damage reduction stat. Call it Soak, call it DR, call it Stopping Power . The point is that armor reduces damage . That is all it does. That is the only thing it does. It does not make you harder to hit. The only other stat is would have is an encumbrance value . And that would actually make it easier to hit the wearer.

14 hours ago, Sturn said:

No it isn't. Show me the word hit in any of the 3 core books where it actually describes fully the attack action . The word hit is not there. You obviously may call it a hit or whatever you wish. But the mechanics of what is happening, the details, are pretty clear. It is describing a success with the explanation that a success applies damage. The RAW actually has one section in each book where it describes what an attack action does, and it never once says hit. It says success, and speaks about a success applying damage. That's it. No mention that it's all about a hit or a miss, only about a success and damage or a failure and no damage. While you can call it a hit, it is not a hit in the sense of a "hit or miss" as you are claiming. It's a narrative system. Why would they limit how you can describe a successful attack to just a hit or miss?

Is hit another word for a success? Sure. I'm sure referees describing the success of a roll have used many words for what happened: a hit, a strike, a wack, a slap, a punch, a blast... Whatever you call it though, you have to look at the actual description in the RAW for this system to tell you what that hit, strike, wack, slap, punch, or blast actually did. It's written out pretty plainly - it's a success, with success applying damage.

You're darkly comically way to invested in this one word that you have completely closed your mind to even considering that others may have a point. I was actually on your side about Soak at the start of this. You should consider why your possibly one proponent has jumped ship. It sunk quite a while ago. You're gurgling water while claiming the boat is still afloat.

For your sake, I hope you are actually sitting at home laughing repeatedly as you type these responses as your friend pats you on the back complementing you taking Troll to a new level of mastery.

I already did. Numerous times . It's stated in the full text for Parry , for Reflect , and for Circle of Shelter .

Both Parry (F&D CRB page 149) and Reflect (F&D CRB page 150) begin with the phrase: "When the character suffers a hit ..." Circle of Shelter (F&D CRB page 140) starts with the phrase, "When an ally engaged with the character suffers a hit from a combat check ,". All three talents use the phrase "suffers a hit ". That is where the RAW uses the term hit . In order for a weapon to apply damage to a target, the weapon has to actually hit the target. A sword or lightsaber will not cut an opponent if it doesn't actually strike the opponent; if it doesn't hit . A blaster bolt won't kill a storm trooper if it doesn't strike the storm trooper, if it doesn't hit . A combat check determines whether or not you hit your intended target. Unless you're using an area effect weapon, such as a grenade, you must actually hit your target to damage him. The weapon doesn't do damage if it doesn't hit in the first place. So yes, a combat check is a roll to hit the target. a Success means you hit, and thus can do damage, knock the target over, disorient him, concuss him, etc. A failure means you miss. Thus, no damage, no Knockdown, no Disorient, no Concussive.

36 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

@Tramp Graphics

How would you explain what is happening with a personal shield generator, which gives no soak but has a defence rating.

Or how do you explain deflector shields on a ship? For the shields to do their job, they actually have to be narratively hit with a projectile. Successfully hitting, but doing no damage, bouncing off harmlessly.

32 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I think that PDS are broken and should have some Soak or Armor added to them (see "Personal Deflector Shields 'Fix'" thread), but Tramp has already answered this question (I think I was the one who brought it up) by saying something along the lines of "the shield bubble is bigger than the ship, so the turbolaser can hit the shield and yet not make contact with the target."

30 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Oh I see. 🤔

@P-47 Thunderbolt nailed it. Energy shields, including personal scale ones, create a bubble around the target, actually preventing the target from being hit. This is shown clearly in the prequels with the Droidikas, and and in TLJ, with the Resistance fleet.

Check time stamp 2:38. Look at how large those shields are, and how far out they extend from the droidikas they surround. You can see the blaster bolts dissipate off the Droidikas' shields without coming anywhere close to the droids themselves. The droidika's are never hit. That is Defense.

15 hours ago, Sturn said:

No it isn't. Show me the word hit in any of the 3 core books where it actually describes fully the attack action . The word hit is not there.........….The RAW actually has one section in each book where it describes what an attack action does, and it never once says hit. It says success, and speaks about a success applying damage. That's it.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I already did. Numerous times . It's stated in the full text for Parry , for Reflect , and for Circle of Shelter .

Parry, Reflect, Circle of Shelter, do not describe the attack action. They are talents which can be applied to the attack action in which the writer used the term "hit". To determine what a hit actually is, you would have to refer to the actual attack action. Which is why I bolded that stuff in my quote above.

In step three of "Perform a Combat Check" it refers to "successful attacks" and I believe that is the baseline. However, sometimes "hit" is simply the best word to use gramatically or for brevity. An example in the CRB where it uses the word "hit" in in the section on two-weapon combat: If he succeeds he hits with his primary weapon as normal. He may also spend... ...to hit with his second weapon as well.

Trying to lawyer out the words used doesn't make a ton of sense when the words are used interchangeably by the devs.

1 minute ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

In step three of "Perform a Combat Check" it refers to "successful attacks" and I believe that is the baseline. However, sometimes "hit" is simply the best word to use gramatically or for brevity. An example in the CRB where it uses the word "hit" in in the section on two-weapon combat: If he succeeds he hits with his primary weapon as normal. He may also spend... ...to hit with his second weapon as well.

Trying to lawyer out the words used doesn't make a ton of sense when the words are used interchangeably by the devs.

The problem has never been what a successful hit is. the problem is an unsuccessful attack may or may not make contact with the target.

I will agree that defense, to an extent, though perhaps not wholly, does devalue soak when it is applied to Armors.

Because narrating "You hit, but did no damage because it glanced off." Should probably be covered by not being able to penetrate its soak. So having two ways to narrate that, one through a defense rating and also through soak isnt really necessary.

Further, sometimes GMs narrate hitting monsters, like a Rancor for instance, but the blow having no effect or glancing off its hide, due to its size and the thought that "I'm an amazing marksman, there's no way that I would miss from 20 feet away." But that is already covered by a larger silhouette being mechanically easier to hit, so I guess I dont agree with that much either.

I cant and wont agree however, that it's really an issue worth arguing over. Especially when people start fussing over language or singular words used in the CRB. To me, this argument seems to boil down to narration. If a shot or blow is perceived as hitting or not, regardless of what the dice say. With that in mind I do think its poor form to try and make rules or enforce an opinion.. or fact.. when it comes to how a GM chooses to narrate the outcome.

Just now, Sturn said:

Parry, Reflect, Circle of Shelter, do not describe the attack action. They are talents which can be applied to the attack action in which the writer used the term "hit". To determine what a hit actually is, you would have to refer to the actual attack action. Which is why I bolded that stuff in my quote above.

Yes , they do. They describe the effects of a successful attack action, and what the individual talents do to mitigate those effects. An attack action is attacking with a weapon, or your bare hands, as the case may be. An attack action is making an attack. You are trying to hit a target so that you can, in turn, inflict damage . Only the most obtuse or willfully ignorant person would try to claim that you can injure a person with a weapon without striking him, without hitting him. An attack action is an attack . it is an attempt to hit the target . That is what the rules say, as clarified in the talents I mentioned.

1 minute ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

In step three of "Perform a Combat Check" it refers to "successful attacks" and I believe that is the baseline. However, sometimes "hit" is simply the best word to use gramatically or for brevity. An example in the CRB where it uses the word "hit" in in the section on two-weapon combat: If he succeeds he hits with his primary weapon as normal. He may also spend... ...to hit with his second weapon as well.

Trying to lawyer out the words used doesn't make a ton of sense when the words are used interchangeably by the devs.

Thank you. It's also stated under Making Ranged Attacks at Engaged Targets . To quote the second paragraph:

Quote

When attacking a target engaged with an ally, the attacker upgrades the difficulty of the check by one. In Addition, if the attacker's check succeeds, but rolls at least one Despair, that Despair is automatically spent to make the attacker hit one of the individuals engaged with the target (or the GM's choice) instead of hitting the target.

Under Attacking Prone Targets and Attacking while Prone , it also uses the term "hit", multiple times. The second paragraph begins with the phrase, "Prone targets are easier to hit with certain combat checks..." Likewise, the third paragraph begins with, "Prone characters are harder to hit with ranged attacks..."

Need I go on? The combat rules repeatedly use the terms " to hit ", or " hitting " when talking about making a combat check. A combat check, by RAW , is a roll to hit .

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

The problem has never been what a successful hit is. the problem is an unsuccessful attack may or may not make contact with the target.

No, they can't. That is completely contradictory to what a combat check is an attempt at. A combat check is a roll to hit. If you fail in your combat check, you fail to hit the target . You miss . That is RAW .

Just now, CloudyLemonade92 said:

I will agree that defense, to an extent, though perhaps not wholly, does devalue soak when it is applied to Armors.

Because narrating "You hit, but did no damage because it glanced off." Should probably be covered by not being able to penetrate its soak. So having two ways to narrate that, one through a defense rating and also through soak isnt really necessary.

Further, sometimes GMs narrate hitting monsters, like a Rancor for instance, but the blow having no effect or glancing off its hide, due to its size and the thought that "I'm an amazing marksman, there's no way that I would miss from 20 feet away." But that is already covered by a larger silhouette being mechanically easier to hit, so I guess I dont agree with that much either.

I cant and wont agree however, that it's really an issue worth arguing over. Especially when people start fussing over language or singular words used in the CRB. To me, this argument seems to boil down to narration. If a shot or blow is perceived as hitting or not, regardless of what the dice say. With that in mind I do think its poor form to try and make rules or enforce an opinion.. or fact.. when it comes to how a GM chooses to narrate the outcome.

This system has a range of outcomes. from damage+crit to damage to no damage but able to activate traits. to not being able to cause effects. So because this system is not binary as Tramp insists defense makes sense as it allows for a broader range of outcomes.

1 minute ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

I will agree that defense, to an extent, though perhaps not wholly, does devalue soak when it is applied to Armors.

Because narrating "You hit, but did no damage because it glanced off." Should probably be covered by not being able to penetrate its soak. So having two ways to narrate that, one through a defense rating and also through soak isnt really necessary.

Further, sometimes GMs narrate hitting monsters, like a Rancor for instance, but the blow having no effect or glancing off its hide, due to its size and the thought that "I'm an amazing marksman, there's no way that I would miss from 20 feet away." But that is already covered by a larger silhouette being mechanically easier to hit, so I guess I dont agree with that much either.

I cant and wont agree however, that it's really an issue worth arguing over. Especially when people start fussing over language or singular words used in the CRB. To me, this argument seems to boil down to narration. If a shot or blow is perceived as hitting or not, regardless of what the dice say. With that in mind I do think its poor form to try and make rules or enforce an opinion.. or fact.. when it comes to how a GM chooses to narrate the outcome.

As was explained by the Devs, the only reason why they granted armors a Defense was to keep Soak values from getting out of control by limiting the Soak values granted by unmodified armor to 2 . Which means that even the best, fully modified armor is not going to have a Soak more than 4, at most. And that would keep even the strongest character (Brawn 6) with a total Soak of 10 .

4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, they can't. That is completely contradictory to what a combat check is an attempt at. A combat check is a roll to hit. If you fail in your combat check, you fail to hit the target . You miss . That is RAW .

That is what I'm trying to explain Tramp. A combat check, per the RAW, is a check to see if you successfully damaged the target or not. It's not asking to roll to see if the bullet whizzed by or struck the person. It literally says success, or a hit if you wish, means damage was applied. Which means a failure (a miss if you wish) can be described as bouncing off of armor, a complete miss, it was blocked by a weapon, etc. The rules aren't telling you what narratively happened. A player or referee can describe what actually happened in many ways. But to say the mechanics of what you are rolling is whether the "shot" actually impacted the silhouette of the target or whizzed by, is not backed up by this game system.

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

This system has a range of outcomes. from damage+crit to damage to no damage but able to activate traits. to not being able to cause effects. So because this system is not binary as Tramp insists defense makes sense as it allows for a broader range of outcomes.

Yes, and all of them rely on the attacker hitting his target. IF you fail a combat check, you miss your target, and therefore, those weapon qualities or crits cannot be applied . They all require a successful hit . Defense makes a successful hit harder to accomplish , and thus, it becomes harder to apply those other effects. Defense makes you harder to hit. If you don't hit, you can't apply those effects. Armor does not make a person harder to hit. Even a deflected hit still hits. Even a deflected hit can still knock down a target, can still potentially disorient a target, (if he's hit in the helmet), etc. A deflection is Soak ,

5 minutes ago, Sturn said:

That is what I'm trying to explain Tramp. A combat check, per the RAW, is a check to see if you successfully damaged the target or not. It's not asking to roll to see if the bullet whizzed by or struck the person. It literally says success, or a hit if you wish, means damage was applied. Which means a failure (a miss if you wish) can be described as bouncing off of armor, a complete miss, it was blocked by a weapon, etc. The rules aren't telling you what narratively happened. A player or referee can describe what actually happened in many ways. But to say the mechanics of what you are rolling is whether the "shot" actually impacted the silhouette of the target or whizzed by, is not backed up by this game system.

No. It's a check to see if you hit a target. Any potential damage comes after that , and Soak is what determines how much, if any of that damage gets through to the target. You can't damage a target if you don't hit the target. The only exception to that is with Blast . A bullet can't damage someone if it doesn't actually strike him. A sword or lightsaber cannot cut someone if it doesn't actually make physical contact with him, if it doesn't hit him. An attack has to actually hit in order to do damage. That is by RAW. That is also by basic logic and physics.

9 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

This system has a range of outcomes. from damage+crit to damage to no damage but able to activate traits. to not being able to cause effects. So because this system is not binary as Tramp insists defense makes sense as it allows for a broader range of outcomes.

Which is one thing I definitely like. The more possible outcomes, the more possible ways to narrate things is great, and allows for GMs to add much more flavour to combat.

I do agree that trying to limit those narrative outcomes and it being just "miss or hit". Is a step backwards.

Just now, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Which is one thing I definitely like. The more possible outcomes, the more possible ways to narrate things is great, and allows for GMs to add much more flavour to combat.

I do agree that trying to limit those narrative outcomes and it being just "miss or hit". Is a step backwards.

No, it isn't. The hit or miss of an attack aren't the "narrative" outcomes. They're the real effects of what weapons do. A sword will either hit you or it will miss you. A bullet will either hit you or miss you. It's one or the other. It is a binary outcome. Where it hits, is narrative, but whether or not it hits is not .

The narrative effects are determined mostly by the Advantages , Threats , Triumphs and Despairs , as well as by how much damage was actually done. However, in order to inflict damage in the first place, the attack must hit . That's how weapons work. It's hit or miss, succeed or fail. Succeed and you hit, fail and you miss . If a weapon hits, it has the potential to cause damage (minus Soak), knock you down, disorient you, give you a concussion, cause a critical injury, etc.

It is how you then describe that hit or miss that is narrative. But the actual outcome of the roll is black and white. it's hit or miss . Advantages, Threats, Triumphs, and Despairs simply add additional narrative effects on top of that binary outcome.

Armor reduces the damage inflicted by an attack, through Soak, but cannot prevent you from being knocked down , or the effects of any of those other potential Weapon Qualities triggered by a successful hit with the required Advantages. Armor does not make you harder to hit. It only mitigates damage .

14 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it isn't. The hit or miss of an attack aren't the "narrative" outcomes. They're the real effects of what weapons do. A sword will either hit you or it will miss you. A bullet will either hit you or miss you. It's one or the other. It is a binary outcome. Where it hits, is narrative, but whether or not it hits is not .

The narrative effects are determined mostly by the Advantages , Threats , Triumphs and Despairs , as well as by how much damage was actually done. However, in order to inflict damage in the first place, the attack must hit . That's how weapons work. It's hit or miss, succeed or fail. Succeed and you hit, fail and you miss . If a weapon hits, it has the potential to cause damage (minus Soak), knock you down, disorient you, give you a concussion, cause a critical injury, etc.

It is how you then describe that hit or miss that is narrative. But the actual outcome of the roll is black and white. it's hit or miss . Advantages, Threats, Triumphs, and Despairs simply add additional narrative effects on top of that binary outcome.

Armor reduces the damage inflicted by an attack, through Soak, but cannot prevent you from being knocked down , or the effects of any of those other potential Weapon Qualities triggered by a successful hit with the required Advantages. Armor does not make you harder to hit. It only mitigates damage .

And this is an example of how you really keep demonstrating how you dont actually understand this system at all. and not it is not just hit or miss. because this system does not work that way AT all. It is not just hit or miss. it is Success or failure with depending on your results other options are also there positive or negative.

55 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

As was explained by the Devs, the only reason why they granted armors a Defense was to keep Soak values from getting out of control by limiting the Soak values granted by unmodified armor to 2 . Which means that even the best, fully modified armor is not going to have a Soak more than 4, at most. And that would keep even the strongest character (Brawn 6) with a total Soak of 10 .

Actually, there is a set of armor that has 4 Soak, but 0 Hardpoints. Use Tinkerer to add an HP, then grab Superior Armor Customization, then get Armor Master, and that leaves you with a Soak of 12 before any ranks of Enduring (and 6 from the armor). (you can see why they limited Soak to 2 for most armors )

Regardless of any real world parallels or lack thereof (which I disagree with you on), I like the system. I think it is mechanically sound, and a fun way of mechanically manifesting the narrative feature of weapon fire being deflected.

There are a few spots where it breaks down, though: planetary scale weapons, some explosives, and lightsabers (though that last one breaks down with any literal interpretation of attack results, so I'll give it a pass on that one).

15 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And this is an example of how you really keep demonstrating how you dont actually understand this system at all. and not it is not just hit or miss. because this system does not work that way AT all. It is not just hit or miss. it is Success or failure with depending on your results other options are also there positive or negative.

Yes, it does. A weapon can not do damage if it does not strike its target. It cannot do damage if it doesn't hit . That isn't just game mechanics, that's physics . A bullet can't hit you if it doesn't strike you. A sword can't cut you if it doesn't hit you. A combat check determines whether or not you hit the target. That is by RAW, as stated in multiple sections, paragraphs, and chapters. A combat check determines whether you hit or you miss. Success means you hit, Failure means you miss. Advantages, Threats, Triumphs, and Despairs add additional narrative effects to that outcome, but they don't make a hit a miss, or a miss a hit. A success is still a hit, and a failure is still a miss. That is by RAW. I have demonstrated this with cited quotes from the F&D CRB , including page numbers.

1 minute ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Actually, there is a set of armor that has 4 Soak, but 0 Hardpoints. Use Tinkerer to add an HP, then grab Superior Armor Customization, then get Armor Master, and that leaves you with a Soak of 12 before any ranks of Enduring (and 6 from the armor). (you can see why they limited Soak to 2 for most armors )

Regardless of any real world parallels or lack thereof (which I disagree with you on), I like the system. I think it is mechanically sound, and a fun way of mechanically manifesting the narrative feature of weapon fire being deflected.

There are a few spots where it breaks down, though: planetary scale weapons, some explosives, and lightsabers (though that last one breaks down with any literal interpretation of attack results, so I'll give it a pass on that one).

Probably a custom one from Gadgets and Gear, I presume, not a stock one. And I'd love to actually see it, and know the source.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Probably a custom one from Gadgets and Gear, I presume, not a stock one. And I'd love to actually see it, and know the source.

Fully Operational page 42 Creshaldyne EOD-Mk II Explosives Disposal Armor. 4 Soak, 0 Defense, 8 Encumbrance, 0 HP, and you lose your free "movement" (I assume a typo, not sure what it meant. I'd guess something along the lines of Ponderous for Hutts)

Oh, and I put it on a Chadra-fan Demolitionist: https://swsheets.com/c/vfra9chmq-undecided-wip

50 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it isn't. The hit or miss of an attack aren't the "narrative" outcomes. They're the real effects of what weapons do. A sword will either hit you or it will miss you. A bullet will either hit you or miss you. It's one or the other. It is a binary outcome. Where it hits, is narrative, but whether or not it hits is not .

The narrative effects are determined mostly by the Advantages , Threats , Triumphs and Despairs , as well as by how much damage was actually done. However, in order to inflict damage in the first place, the attack must hit . That's how weapons work. It's hit or miss, succeed or fail. Succeed and you hit, fail and you miss . If a weapon hits, it has the potential to cause damage (minus Soak), knock you down, disorient you, give you a concussion, cause a critical injury, etc.

It is how you then describe that hit or miss that is narrative. But the actual outcome of the roll is black and white. it's hit or miss . Advantages, Threats, Triumphs, and Despairs simply add additional narrative effects on top of that binary outcome.

Armor reduces the damage inflicted by an attack, through Soak, but cannot prevent you from being knocked down , or the effects of any of those other potential Weapon Qualities triggered by a successful hit with the required Advantages. Armor does not make you harder to hit. It only mitigates damage .

Tramp, brother.

Your repeating yourself. We all have known where you stood on the subject and your opinion for the last 13 pages. And who knows how many threads prior.

If you take issue with people narrating if an attack hits but has no effect even when a dice roll shows failure, then I dont know what to say to you. I dont believe anyone has the right to tell any GM how they decide to narrate things. The mechanical effects, however, should be non negotiable.

So my question to you, what is your issue? Is it how people choose to narrate? Or do you have an issue particularly with Defense on certain armor? Because defense IS on armor. And some of these armors are bulky, really making it easier to hit. So what is the purpose of that defense? People have given their opinions. Sloped armor.. etc. Why not come up with a reason that makes sense with the rules?

Right now, it's as if you're on a Carousel expecting to go somewhere other than round and round.

And isnt there a saying about trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results being the definition of insanity?

Are you INSANE my friend??

9 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Right now, it's as if you're on a Carousel expecting to go somewhere other than round and round.

And isnt there a saying about trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results being the definition of insanity?

Are you INSANE my friend??

To be fair, one could say the same thing about us...

3 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

To be fair, one could say the same thing about us...

Speak for yourself Thunderbolt!

Your ALL crazy. CRAZY I SAY

22 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Fully Operational page 42 Creshaldyne EOD-Mk II Explosives Disposal Armor. 4 Soak, 0 Defense, 8 Encumbrance, 0 HP, and you lose your free "movement" (I assume a typo, not sure what it meant. I'd guess something along the lines of Ponderous for Hutts)

Oh, and I put it on a Chadra-fan Demolitionist: https://swsheets.com/c/vfra9chmq-undecided-wip

16 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Tramp, brother.

Your repeating yourself. We all have known where you stood on the subject and your opinion for the last 13 pages. And who knows how many threads prior.

If you take issue with people narrating if an attack hits but has no effect even when a dice roll shows failure, then I dont know what to say to you. I dont believe anyone has the right to tell any GM how they decide to narrate things. The mechanical effects, however, should be non negotiable.

So my question to you, what is your issue? Is it how people choose to narrate? Or do you have an issue particularly with Defense on certain armor? Because defense IS on armor. And some of these armors are bulky, really making it easier to hit. So what is the purpose of that defense? People have given their opinions. Sloped armor.. etc. Why not come up with a reason that makes sense with the rules?

Right now, it's as if you're on a Carousel expecting to go somewhere other than round and round.

And isnt there a saying about trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results being the definition of insanity?

Are you INSANE my friend??

7 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

To be fair, one could say the same thing about us...

3 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Speak for yourself Thunderbolt!

Your ALL crazy. CRAZY I SAY

You say "Crazy", and "insane" like they're bad things. 😝

I'm an artist . Have you ever heard of a "sane" artist? Of course not. It's a contradiction in terms. It's like Jumbo Shrimp , or Military Intelligence .

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

If I were a game designer, the only stat that I would give armor is a damage reduction stat. Call it Soak, call it DR, call it Stopping Power . The point is that armor reduces damage . That is all it does. That is the only thing it does. It does not make you harder to hit. The only other stat is would have is an encumbrance value . And that would actually make it easier to hit the wearer.

Well, I'll give you this...your consistent and dedicated to your view. I feel your view is too grounded in 2020 Earth physics and not open enough to the magic of Star Wars, but that is just my view.

However, given your stance on shields, what prevents a suit of armor from having a built in shield? Maybe that built in shield flickers on and off at some rate so that it might, but might not, be active when the potential hit occurs? Maybe it has a type of proximity sensor that tries, often unsuccessfully, to turn it on at the right time? Maybe it does all that because an "always on" mode would take too much power and be unsustainable? Maybe if you allow your imagination to play "what if" a little....

5 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

Well, I'll give you this...your consistent and dedicated to your view. I feel your view is too grounded in 2020 Earth physics and not open enough to the magic of Star Wars, but that is just my view.

However, given your stance on shields, what prevents a suit of armor from having a built in shield? Maybe that built in shield flickers on and off at some rate so that it might, but might not, be active when the potential hit occurs? Maybe it has a type of proximity sensor that tries, often unsuccessfully, to turn it on at the right time? Maybe it does all that because an "always on" mode would take too much power and be unsustainable? Maybe if you allow your imagination to play "what if" a little....

The Mandalorians armor has circuits in it.

On 1/22/2020 at 8:38 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

There's nothing dishonest about it. And as for "oversimplifying". There's nothing " over " about it either. The simpler the explanation the better. In other words, you are overcomplicating matters. Always follow the KISS rule. Keep it Simple Stupid. Follow that rule and you never go wrong.

As for D&D, they also have a "fourth" outcome, which is part of the failure: A Critical failure , AKA a Fumble . Most RPGs have a similar mechanic. However, both the Critical Success and Critical Failure, are still, at their hearts, successes or failures. It's ultimately, still a binary outcome-Success or Failure, hit or miss. Criticals just compound the effect of that success or failure.

Wow.

You've really done it.

What a profound statement.

"The simpler explanation the better."

You've managed to sum your argument up in a single statement that is in itself proof that it's wrong.

Because while a simple explanation is better in general terms, it's not when it makes the explanation incorrect. Simplification is a trade-off, but I guess it's too much to ask of you to grasp such nuances. You don't get play fast and loose with the definiton of the word "binary" and then quote the dictionary on the precise meaning of other terms.

The core of your dishonesty is that you pick and choose when it's ok to oversimplify and when to get in to excruciating detail. When you get called out on being flat wrong, you argue that if you simplify things enough, you are correct in principle, and then in the same breath you go into to nitpicky detail to defend your other arguments.

That makes you a lying liar that lies .