I allow cover to work as indicated on 213. Our wookie FSE with four ranks in the left side of Sense was upgrading his enemies attacks difficulty twice and adding two setback dice (one from cover, one from armor) to attacks against him. The four trandoshan bounty hunters I sent after him and his partner didn't have much trouble plugging him several times regardless. Not to mention that despair (which ended up blowing up the wookie's cover) and good quantities of threat/advantage came up often enough to even things out.

Nor did the super-sized mutant gundark I unleashed on them. He had a rather handsome brawl pool.

Dice bloat simply hasn't been an issue thus far.

Besides, the rule works both ways and my NPCs have taken just as much advantage of it as the players.

But now, just to add some confusion to a topic that was getting un-confused fast:

The description of the Defensive weapon quality states: "A character wielding a weapon with the Defensive quality ncreases his melee defence by the weapon's Defensive rating."

Should that stack with other melee defence? And how about general defence, that offers both types?

Officially, I believe the stance would be that it won't stack. Armored clothing and a vibrosword (or 2) isn't only going to provide you with a melee defense of 1. Consider the vibrosword the 'cover' of melee combat.

Unofficially, it appears many people are going to allow for armor stacking.

But now, just to add some confusion to a topic that was getting un-confused fast:

The description of the Defensive weapon quality states: "A character wielding a weapon with the Defensive quality ncreases his melee defence by the weapon's Defensive rating."

Should that stack with other melee defence? And how about general defence, that offers both types?

Officially, I believe the stance would be that it won't stack. Armored clothing and a vibrosword (or 2) isn't only going to provide you with a melee defense of 1. Consider the vibrosword the 'cover' of melee combat.

Unofficially, it appears many people are going to allow for armor stacking.

So you're saying we have a Team 202 and a Team 213? That's a shame. It's barely a better love story than Twilight. I think I will plant my flag in the "page 202 interpretation is the correct one" camp and call it a day. It's been fun, cadets.

But now, just to add some confusion to a topic that was getting un-confused fast:

The description of the Defensive weapon quality states: "A character wielding a weapon with the Defensive quality increases his melee defence by the weapon's Defensive rating."

Should that stack with other melee defence? And how about general defence, that offers both types?

Obviously, I am not THE Sam ^TM but here is hows Defensive (lets say from vibrosword) would stack with armor.

Illustration:

I have the following: Armored Clothing (1 defense) Cover (1 defense) FSE talents (+1 ranged +1 melee) vibrosword (+1melee)

My Ranged is (1+1 = 2) Cover and armored clothing don't stack (so you get one or the other) plus the one point from the talent.

My Melee is (1+1+1 = 3) Cover wouldn't apply (melee) so armor is only choice +1 from talent, +1 from vibrosword.

That part I am 100% on, if I am wrong you can all make me roll a Gungan if I ever play at your table.

Now what happens if I am using two vibroswords, since both give me defensive would my melee (in the above example) increase to 4?

My answer is yes, I haven't seen any rules (that I recall anyway) stating I wouldn't get both bonuses to my defense. I'll review the guide and see if I find anything to the contrary.

The talents stacking with the armour I get, and the vibrosword bonus on top of that I also get. I wouldn't let a second vibrosword stack, though. That would be defence from multiple similar sources, and that definitely doesn't stack.

That would be defence from multiple similar sources, and that definitely doesn't stack.

That's my gut reaction too from other games I have played, I couldn't find a source on that in EOTE though.

I'm pretty sure I saw it stated that you don't get defence from wearing two suits of armour on top of each other. Same thing applies with a vibrosword, in my opinion. Not to mention that you're using it in your off hand, where it's bound to be less effective. If it really became a huge issue I might allow the player in question to "trigger" the defensive ability with a couple of Advantage even though it's a passive ability, but my gut reaction says no.

Here's the thing about defense from cover and armor stacking. Logically it doesn't actually make sense.

When you're dealing with basic cover (a crate, or a table top, or the like), it offers defense in the form of the shooter not actually knowing where your body & limbs are behind that cover. Sure, they have a general idea, but there's a lot of leeway, and that table top certainly isn't actually stopping the blaster bolt. (No more than a table top would actually stop a bullet.*) The armor, on the other hand, involves deflecting or absorbing the shot if it does connect.

So, you have two bits of overlapping, not stacking, defense. If the shot punched through the table and it was off target, then your armor doesn't come into play. If the shot punched through the table, and was on target regardless, the table didn't do anything to protect you from that shot, so it's all up to your armor.

When you start getting into good cover (durasteel walls, etc) that grants 2 setback dice then you've got something that will actually stop the incoming fire, at which point, a shot that hits the wall doesn't involve your armor, and a shot which is deflected by your armor didn't intersect the wall in the first place.

* Even a wimpy .22LR fired from a handgun, will punch through a typical restaraunt table top and still put a hole in something on the other side. The slugthrower and blaster pistols are certainly more akin to actual combat-rated calibers, like 9mm, .40, or .45.)

I'm pretty sure I saw it stated that you don't get defence from wearing two suits of armour on top of each other. Same thing applies with a vibrosword, in my opinion. Not to mention that you're using it in your off hand, where it's bound to be less effective. If it really became a huge issue I might allow the player in question to "trigger" the defensive ability with a couple of Advantage even though it's a passive ability, but my gut reaction says no.

I don't believe that any off hand rules exist in EotE. In effect, everyone is ambidextrous.

There are rules for using a weapon in each hand, harder to hit full stop (in the sense that you take the worst of both to make the pool) and then you need advantages to be able to hit with the one in the off hand. PAGE 210

Here's the thing about defense from cover and armor stacking. Logically it doesn't actually make sense.

When you're dealing with basic cover (a crate, or a table top, or the like), it offers defense in the form of the shooter not actually knowing where your body & limbs are behind that cover. Sure, they have a general idea, but there's a lot of leeway, and that table top certainly isn't actually stopping the blaster bolt. (No more than a table top would actually stop a bullet.*) The armor, on the other hand, involves deflecting or absorbing the shot if it does connect.

So, you have two bits of overlapping, not stacking, defense. If the shot punched through the table and it was off target, then your armor doesn't come into play. If the shot punched through the table, and was on target regardless, the table didn't do anything to protect you from that shot, so it's all up to your armor.

When you start getting into good cover (durasteel walls, etc) that grants 2 setback dice then you've got something that will actually stop the incoming fire, at which point, a shot that hits the wall doesn't involve your armor, and a shot which is deflected by your armor didn't intersect the wall in the first place.

* Even a wimpy .22LR fired from a handgun, will punch through a typical restaraunt table top and still put a hole in something on the other side. The slugthrower and blaster pistols are certainly more akin to actual combat-rated calibers, like 9mm, .40, or .45.)

Finally someone explains the inverse of my arguement. I hadn't thought of it this way. I don't agree with it, but I at least can understand a counter arguement now.

For a GM that doesn't want to stack armor that has players that do, this explanation may work for you.

Hiding behind the table makes it harder to hit you (1 setback), and if they do happen to land that shot against you, they still have to get past the armor (1 setback). You're choosing to ignore 1 or the other effect. If they miss, the table defense worked, however if they hit, the table didn't save you and the armor came into play....but by not allowing the second setback, you didn't allow the armor a chance to come into play. One way or the other, you are saying that something the character did didn't serve any purpose. Either wearing armored clothing, or taking cover was a completely worthless option for the character.

Consider melee. Armored clothing and a vibrosword. Someone swings a force pike at you. First you try to deflect the blow with the sword (1 setback). That deflection could completely save you from the damage, or reduce the severity of the blow, or cause the enemy to trip up and fail in some other way whether the enemy hits or not. Next, if they somehow bypass your sword deflection, they still need to bypass your armor (1 setback). The armor could make their attack fail completely (combined with the reduced effectiveness from you trying to deflect with the sword), or it could further reduce the severity of the blow, or it could cause the enemy to trip up and fail in some other way (ever swing a bat at something you thought was soft only to hit something extremely hard, it will surprise you).

If you don't stack the sword and armor, then again, you are telling the player that using the sword was a worthless choice. They should have just used a vibro axe as it would do more damage, and give you more potential for special effects.

Both the table and the armor, or the sword and the armor have a chance at stopping the attack, spoiling the severity of the attack, or causing the enemy to screw up somehow. By saying 1 or the other doesn't stack, you are essentially saying that it is worthless. Why does hiding behind a table provide a setback dice against attacks for 3 characters, but doesn't add any defense for my character? Why do those guys with swords get as much defense as me when I have both sword and armor?

Consider melee. Armored clothing and a vibrosword. Someone swings a force pike at you. First you try to deflect the blow with the sword (1 setback). That deflection could completely save you from the damage, or reduce the severity of the blow, or cause the enemy to trip up and fail in some other way whether the enemy hits or not. Next, if they somehow bypass your sword deflection, they still need to bypass your armor (1 setback). The armor could make their attack fail completely (combined with the reduced effectiveness from you trying to deflect with the sword), or it could further reduce the severity of the blow, or it could cause the enemy to trip up and fail in some other way (ever swing a bat at something you thought was soft only to hit something extremely hard, it will surprise you).

If you don't stack the sword and armor, then again, you are telling the player that using the sword was a worthless choice. They should have just used a vibro axe as it would do more damage, and give you more potential for special effects.

Both the table and the armor, or the sword and the armor have a chance at stopping the attack, spoiling the severity of the attack, or causing the enemy to screw up somehow. By saying 1 or the other doesn't stack, you are essentially saying that it is worthless. Why does hiding behind a table provide a setback dice against attacks for 3 characters, but doesn't add any defense for my character? Why do those guys with swords get as much defense as me when I have both sword and armor?

I believe you gain no bonuses for Cover in Melee, nor do you gain any bonuses against Ranged fire with a sword (unless your a Jedi with a Lightsaber...). Regardless, you're trying compare two different types of combat and falling into the trap of thinking that because the system represents these two types of defenses the same way that they are equal. Their not.

Keep in mind, and I've posted this before, that the dice only represent the effects of cover or blocking, or deflecting etc. within the scale and granularity available to the system. It's not going to be 100% accurate because it a narrative game not a simulation and in this system the difference between being behind cover and wearing armor of the same basic value just isn't great enough to justify another die.

From my understanding Cover is a setback dice and Armor is a defense bonus tot he player which is calculated into soak when looking my character core rulebook.

So say I am standing behind a console for cover, and I have on some heavy clothing, and fyor is trying to shoot me well he has to roll a setback dice because I am behind the console and if I have any ranged defenses like armor then I would soak the dmg calculated

The soak value of the armor works regardless of armor, but some armor also gives you a defense of 1 (I.e. one setback die). The rules don't allow that defense to stack with the defense acquired through cover.

I wasn't saying anyone gained cover in melee or any benefit from the sword in ranged combat. Thats why I drew out seperate examples for both melee and ranged combat.

And yes, I understand the scales of defense arguement.

This is where things break down though. The non-stacking defense sounds like minutiae from D20 in a way.

First thought everyone has when reading about defense stats is that they stack. Instinctively, people will believe these are cumulative. That is why this post even exists. It's illogical. Everyone's intitial belief about armor is technically wrong. The book even seems to contradict itself making the situation even harder to swallow.

Players are going to create characters that would benefit from cumulative cover, and as a GM you have 1 of 2 choices. Either allow it (which many seem to be doing), or deny it. Denying it though is tedious as a GM. You need to be able to back up your illogical rule, and seldom does reading 1 sentance in a book work if a player is set on their character working in a certain way. You'll argue the rule, they'll argue logic.

You can argue dice pools (as the Devs did), but the player can easily point out that we're talking 1 die in a dice pool that already has 7-10 dice easily.

You can use the above narrative about how either 1 or the other protects you, but they both can't as they are mutually exclusive, but an intelligent player can point out the logical fallacy of that arguement.

You can use the scale arguements and do some napkin math to back up your stance, but they toss that out as a statistical flim flam and demand evidence.

All in all, none of it matters though. If your group is pro-stacking, stack. If your group is anti-stacking, don't stack. We all seem to be doing the same thing, telling each other they can play how they want and then defending their own stance as if it's under attack. lol

We know the rule and can choose to apply it as we see fit.

"do what you want, but know this...you're wrong." -- the internet

/thread

All in all, none of it matters though. If your group is pro-stacking, stack. If your group is anti-stacking, don't stack. We all seem to be doing the same thing, telling each other they can play how they want and then defending their own stance as if it's under attack. lol

We know the rule and can choose to apply it as we see fit.

Well, you are of course entitled to play it as you want but beware when changing fundamental level rules in combat, they often have unforeseen consequences, especially if you're making multiple changes. These guys did an awful lot of play-testing to keep combat from getting out of hand and until you see how things run at higher levels of experience and with the addition of more powerful characters, armor, weapons, and Jedi stuff, one really can't know how changing this will upset the game's balance. I've played in many a game that was house ruled to broken, and it just lowers the fun level. If it ain't broke don't fix it, and this doesn't look broken.

If the only problem you're having is trying to explain why cover and armor don't stack it doesn't seem to me a good enough reason to house rule doubling a character's defense (or upping by a third or whatever).

or take my approach

player: "why doesn't cover and armor stack"

gm: "because".

I'm not saying the gm should always get what he wants, but when it comes to rules as stated in the book, and there's no super compelling reason to house rule it, sometimes "just because" is all that is necessary.

Well i disagree, it's only 1000 credits to buy an armour that gives 1 defence so many could afford it at character creation with extra obligation, or after one or a few sessions at least most should be able to buy it if they want to. It's not that rare or expensive.

My entire group took extra credits, 4 of the 5 took the 2500/+10 obligation. They are well equipped for a starting party. As a result they are also starting with 100 obligation. So if they do anything to bring further obligation they won't be spending XP any time soon either.

Here's the thing about defense from cover and armor stacking. Logically it doesn't actually make sense.

When you're dealing with basic cover (a crate, or a table top, or the like), it offers defense in the form of the shooter not actually knowing where your body & limbs are behind that cover. Sure, they have a general idea, but there's a lot of leeway, and that table top certainly isn't actually stopping the blaster bolt. (No more than a table top would actually stop a bullet.*) The armor, on the other hand, involves deflecting or absorbing the shot if it does connect.

So, you have two bits of overlapping, not stacking, defense. If the shot punched through the table and it was off target, then your armor doesn't come into play. If the shot punched through the table, and was on target regardless, the table didn't do anything to protect you from that shot, so it's all up to your armor.

When you start getting into good cover (durasteel walls, etc) that grants 2 setback dice then you've got something that will actually stop the incoming fire, at which point, a shot that hits the wall doesn't involve your armor, and a shot which is deflected by your armor didn't intersect the wall in the first place.

* Even a wimpy .22LR fired from a handgun, will punch through a typical restaraunt table top and still put a hole in something on the other side. The slugthrower and blaster pistols are certainly more akin to actual combat-rated calibers, like 9mm, .40, or .45.)

Finally someone explains the inverse of my arguement. I hadn't thought of it this way. I don't agree with it, but I at least can understand a counter arguement now.

For a GM that doesn't want to stack armor that has players that do, this explanation may work for you.

Hiding behind the table makes it harder to hit you (1 setback), and if they do happen to land that shot against you, they still have to get past the armor (1 setback). You're choosing to ignore 1 or the other effect. If they miss, the table defense worked, however if they hit, the table didn't save you and the armor came into play....but by not allowing the second setback, you didn't allow the armor a chance to come into play. One way or the other, you are saying that something the character did didn't serve any purpose. Either wearing armored clothing, or taking cover was a completely worthless option for the character.

As I said, if the shot was on target despite the table being in the way, the table didn't actually *do* anything to prevent you from being injured by the shot. Thus, the setback die represents the armor. If the shot was *off* target because of the table being in the way, then the armor did nothing because the shot never interacted with it, so the setback die represents the table. Since an on-target shot is unimpeded by the table, and an off-target shot is unaffected by the armor, it makes no sense to get 2 setback dice out of it.

You can get cover from a sheet of 1/8" wall-board. Do you get twice as much cover from two sheets of 1/8" wall-board? You can get cover from any opaque surface, including a black curtain.

Do you want to spend time counting how many crates and flimsy partitions the players have managed to put between themselves and the enemy? That's the end result of stacking the defense from cover and armor based on the "its two different things providing the bonus" argument.

Don't be afraid to put those improved cover objects 'on the map'. If a crate/wall/whatever is actually tough enough to stop the shots, give them the 2 dice for the cover. Otherwise, yes, taking cover behind a table is pretty pointless when you're wearing full-body armor that will stop bullets and blaster shots. Think of the old scenario where a couple of guys in full ballistic armor kept cops busy for *hours* in one city because they couldn't land a killing shot. The baddies pretty much stood out in the open for the fight. (As I recall, the last one was eventually taken down by a lucky side-angle shot that entered the guy's body through the under-arm area where the vest portion wasn't covering.)

That's what you're dealing with with Defense 1 armor. Defense 2 armor is full-body anti-rifle grade stuff that even our military guys don't wear. (Think of a more streamlined version of a bomb disposal suit.)

Think of the old scenario where a couple of guys in full ballistic armor kept cops busy for *hours* in one city because they couldn't land a killing shot. The baddies pretty much stood out in the open for the fight. (As I recall, the last one was eventually taken down by a lucky side-angle shot that entered the guy's body through the under-arm area where the vest portion wasn't covering.)

Good points. But, if you are speaking of the North Hollywood shoot out, it was well under an hour (the shooting part). More like a half hour. One died from a self-inflicted wound while being shot by a cop in the back of the neck. The other died from bloodloss from multiple shots to his unprotected legs. So yes, your comparison completely works even if the shoot-out was closer to a half hour versus, "hours". Eta: Both suspects were also shot (penetrated through armor) at least 10 times each. There has been talk (I can't confirm) that they were also on some sort of drugs. It could have been "Brawn" and pure crazyness in addition to superior armor.

or take my approach

player: "why doesn't cover and armor stack"

gm: "because".

I'm not saying the gm should always get what he wants, but when it comes to rules as stated in the book, and there's no super compelling reason to house rule it, sometimes "just because" is all that is necessary.

In my mind, it's because Defence adds to how hard it is for you to be hit in the first place, not how much damage it soaks up. With that in mind, if you are hunkered down behind cover, you aren't using your armour to its full advantage, and so if you get hit, you'd have been hit whether you were behind the cover or not.

Therefore, if you use cover, you aren't using your armour to avoid shots, and so the defence doesn't stack.

I think i am at the point that I just don't understand why this is still being debated. I haven't really played many RPG's and I've dived into this one as the GM. But it is my understanding that the core Rulebook there is more as a general guideline and is always completely open to interpretation, keeping balance in mind. The way I'm going to deal with this is just bring it up with my players, explain to them both sides of the argument and let us decide together how we want to play it. Reminding them that if they want to stack the defense then the NPCs can do so as well, thus more than likely prolonging the battles, in my mind, unecessarily.

I know I'm dredging this back up again, but there is one added "fix" to consider. It requires a house rule though.

Why does any of the armor have a Defense value? Why isn't armor just limited to Soak, except for the Personal Deflector Shield? I think it could be a hold-over from FFG Warhammer which needed another defensive value to incorporate to further differentiate more and varied types of armor then we have in a Star Wars universe.

Vehicles and spaceships have both Armor (hull plating) and Defense (shields) ratings. If the craft doesn't have shields, it doesn't have Defense. So, why does personal armor without shields receive a Defense score? If the counter-argument is some armor can "deflect" away an attack, that is just some verbage to justify the use without much logic to it. Can I put some slanted hull armor plating on my X-wing to allow it to deflect away attacks and so gain a defense value without using shields? Armor soaks, shields deflect, is much more simple and believable.

Removing the Defense from personal armor only changes Armored Clothing and Heavy Battle Armor. They both still have Soak values, so they are still useful. You can compenstate by changing Price, Encumbrance, or Hard Points to fill in what they have lost and/or make them different enough from other armors to be a consideration. The Personal Deflector Shield would not change, it would keep it's 2 Defense, as it is of course a shield.

From a simplistic stand point it just makes sense to me. A knight in shining armor holding a shield should have a Soak value from his plate armor and Defense (setback die) from his shield. One absorbs blows, one makes it harder to be hit in the first place.

A bonus would be nearly removing the argument over environmental cover stacking with personal armor defense.

I think i am at the point that I just don't understand why this is still being debated. I haven't really played many RPG's and I've dived into this one as the GM. But it is my understanding that the core Rulebook there is more as a general guideline and is always completely open to interpretation, keeping balance in mind. The way I'm going to deal with this is just bring it up with my players, explain to them both sides of the argument and let us decide together how we want to play it. Reminding them that if they want to stack the defense then the NPCs can do so as well, thus more than likely prolonging the battles, in my mind, unecessarily.

Agreed. That's an important factor. If you house rule this then everyone from minions to nemesis will get the benefit as well. That has a potential ( I think guarantee) to prolong the encounters. What I have been finding is that the encounters have been, to date, very fast and furious stuff. Guys have been getting up and standing around the table as the anxiety raises cause it can go either way and very quickly. Then its over as fast as it began and they are smoking cigars at the local cantina reminiscing about their recent escapade. Keep in mind, this is a narrative game first, tactical game last.

But each to his own.