I have a question about defense . When you buy armor and it has defense of 1. Do you get to pick where you put the point of defense in

Range or melee or dose it give you a point to both?

Both unless it states otherwise.

Thanks

mouthymerc said:

Actually, I think you may be mistaken. I don't have the Beta text in front of me, so I can't provide a page reference atm, but if I recall correctly, the information comes from the defense section of chapter six.

There are actually 3 defense scores: general, ranged, and melee. Sources within each type stack, (e.g. you can add the defense values of two separate sources of general defense), but defense from separate sources does not stack. When targeted by a melee attack, the higher of the target's general and melee defenses are applied to the attack. Similarly, when targeted by a ranged attack, the targets ranged or general defense applied, which ever is greater. If a source doesn't specify it adds to ranged or melee defense, we consider it to be 'general' defense.

So, back to the question, personal armor adds to general defense, and stacks with all the sources of general defense. However, armor doesn't stack with melee OR ranged defense, but it can still protect the wearer from melee or ranged attacks.

This is our table's interpretation of the rules. I'll try to provide citations for the interpretation tomorrow when I have access to the book.

-WJL

He was asking about the defense of armor and where it applied, general, melee or ranged. As far as I know it is general, unless otherwise stated. As to your view on defense, this was clarified in a question put to the designers by DM, I think. Defense bonuses stack except those from the same source. So someone could wear armor and get a ranged defense from some other source. If each was one he would have a defense of two. Can't remember where I saw this though.

mouthymerc said:

Yes, this was actually my point when I said you were mistaken: Armor increases general defense rating. It does not increase melee or ranged defense as you answered above.

Although, if you don't have the Beta text, that probably sounds like annoying double-speak.

Anyway, I think we're on the same page on this, so no more discussion is neccessary.

mouthymerc said:

Yeah, I remember this post, but recall a very different interpretation, i.e. I think it clarified that same sources stack, separate source don't stack, use the higher of the general and specific defense ratings. We can discuss it further if we can find and review the post, but otherwise theres not much to be said and it becomes a series of "nuh-uh, yeah-huh" which would be a waste of everyones time. Avoiding that kind of nonsense is one of the reasons I always try to cite the passages for the rules.

-WJL

Actually, I asked a question of this sort to FFG a couple months ago, regarding the notion of there being three types of defense (melee, ranged, and general).

The response I got back was from Sam Stewart, and it laid it out that there's only melee defense and ranged defense.

So something like armored clothing, which provides Defense 1, is actually providing a +1 bonus to the wearer's melee defense and ranged defense. If that same person then dives behind cover, they'd have a ranged defense of 2 (+1 from armor, +1 from cover) and melee defense of 1 (+1 from armor). Alternatively, if that same person was wielding a vibroblade, they'd have melee defense 2 (+1 from armor, +1 from the Defensive quality) and ranged defense 1 (+1 from theri armor).

Now you couldn't dual-wield vibroblades and wear armored clothing to get melee defense 3, because the Defensive quality counts as being a "same source" (a weapon quality) even if it is two separate weapons. Same with wearing armored clothing and carrying a personal shield generator; they're both armor so you'd only get the defense boost from the shield generator since that has the higher bonus.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Could you provide a link to the post that contains that response, or repost Sam's response here? I'd like to have a link for future clarifications.

Thanks again.

-WJL

From the e-mail (my question used Sixth Sense as a specific example):

However, "general" defense just provides +1 ranged and +1 melee defense, so someone with Sixth Sense and armored clothing would have +2 ranged defense, and +1 melee defense.

Donovan Morningfire said:

Perfect. Thanks.

So you were spot on, MM. My bad.

-WJL

No worries. I always thought it was that way and really didn't realize that there was an issue till I saw DM's post about his e-mail. Anyways its all good.

Yeah, having ONLY ranged and melee defense makes a lot more sense, and vastly simplifies book keeping. I think I like this better.

-WJL

I'm back to my book, and they must have really changed how defense works between the Beta and the final product if what DM is being told is accurate. The passage I'm reading is page 134, Defense section, subsection "Melee and Ranged Defense". It makes it very clear that there are THREE kinds of defense, and they absolutely do not stack.

I guess I really don't understand how the interpretation that was provided to DM is compatible with this at all, and I would have hoped a change of this magnitude would have been reflected in the Beta updates…

That's kinda disappointing.

-WJL

LethalDose said:

See this is where the confusion for you arises I think. While there can be three different TYPES of defense (general, melee and ranged), you can not benefit from multiple SOURCES (for instance wearing multiple armors). You will generally only be attacked either in melee or at range, though. So a character wearing Heavy Battle Armor using the Defensive Stance talent would have a defense of 2 versus melee attacks, but only 1 versus ranged attacks. If he wanted to suffer 2 strain, he could take an extra maneuver to have a Guarded Stance and have a defense of 3 versus melee attacks with all those defense bonuses stacking as they sre from different sources. Now if you were wearing Heavy Battle Armor with a Personal Deflector Shield, and were shot at with a blaster, you could only benefit from either the battle armor (def 1) or the PDS (Def 2), but not both (no Def 3) as they are the same source (armor).

This is the way I have always read it. Make sense?

LethalDose said:

Just speculation on my part, but based on the Beta character sheet and Sam's response, I get the feeling that any mentions of "general" defense was seen by the FFG crew as shorthand for "provides a +1 to both ranged and melee defense." It could very well be that they decided to eliminate that shorthand in exchange for improved clarity of their intent with the rules.

mouthymerc said:

No, this is not where the confusion arises for me, at all. I understand how the mechanics are supposed to work, based on Sam Stewarts response. However, I am still frustrtated and the source of my frustration is that this is something that absolutely should have been clarified in the beta updates or simply better written to begin with. The book makes it appear that there are three defense ratings by stating:

"A characters defense rating can be characterized as one of three types:…"

but there are only TWO types defense ratings, and therefore should never be stated that it could be characterized as three. The rules just make a mess out of a really simple concept. The same passage also states:

"Multiple sources of defense do not stack".

Period, no qualifications about source type or similarity. But then Stewart definitively states that multiple sources DO stack (otherwise he would have just said "melee defense rating is one," instead of "+1 to melee defense rating"). So now players and GMs are left to figure out what stacks with what, even though the book says they don't stack and patchwork together a kind of mess that starts to stink of WotC's 'typed bonus' charlie foxtrot. And the game should be better than that. I think DM is spot on with 'general' simply being shorthand for 'both ranged and melee'. And a statement like would exceed what was actually written in both clarity and brevity.

Anyway, I appreciate the chance to get this clarified from where I was on the matter. And I'm not saying the game is $#!t or I won't buy it because of this, I'm simply venting frustration about a rule section where I think they writers really dropped the ball on rules clarity.

-WJL

Personally, I think that some of these things should stack. Like, if I'm wearing heavy battle armor and have a personal deflector shield, they *do* have to shoot through both things to hit me. I might allow certain defensive bonuses stack together in my own game. We'll see.