NEWS

So what do you do for encumberance?

  • 40 Replies
  • 8346 Views

ScytheKnight

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1911
« Reply #15 on: <03-05-15/0004:14> »
My current character is STR-1 & I don't carry much on him to try & represent that, but he's not naked either.

His "Heavy" load is the following
Armor Jacket + Helmet
AK97 + 2 Spare Magazines + Survival Knife
Backpack + First Aid Kit, Trauma Patch, & Commlink    (Maybe a few other things too.  Not much)

Note that Helmets are +2... so STR 1 you;re still taking -1 AGi and REA.
From To<<Matrix message>>
"Speech"
Thoughts
Astral
Mentor

Novocrane

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2225
« Reply #16 on: <03-05-15/0013:29> »
Not quite; you need to pass the wearer's strength by a full 2 points to take penalties. Str 1 means you can only get +1 armour from accessories, though.

Herr Brackhaus

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3041
« Reply #17 on: <03-05-15/0648:02> »
Not quite; you need to pass the wearer's strength by a full 2 points to take penalties. Str 1 means you can only get +1 armour from accessories, though.
Agreed on the first part (rule is AV that exceeds the wearer's strength by 2 points, which in the case of a STR 1 character would be 3), but the second one I don't recognize. Got a reference for where it's said that STR limits the AV you can get from Accessories?

Novocrane

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2225
« Reply #18 on: <03-05-15/0720:05> »
Quote
The maximum bonus a character receive from these items is limited to their Strength attribute.
It's directly before the part about Agility / Reaction penalties.

Herr Brackhaus

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3041
« Reply #19 on: <03-05-15/0728:55> »
Interesting. So a character with STR 1 could wear Full Body Armor with the accompanying helmet (AV +3), and since he only gains +1 AV would not get any penalties. I wonder if this is the intent of the rulemakers, as this would mean that the penalty could never apply for STR 1 characters.

Now that I think about it, would it ever apply if both of those conditions are true?

A STR 6 character could only ever gain a +6 bonus, and so the bonus would never exceed his STR attribute by 2 points.

"The maximum bonus a character receive from these items is limited to their Strength attribute. For every 2 full points by which the bonus exceeds the character’s Strength, the character suffers a –1 penalty to Agility and Reaction."

Lucean

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1159
« Reply #20 on: <03-05-15/0917:33> »
Since the text is about receiving a bonus then it can't be both, yes. Interesting find ... I already stumbeled about that passage before but forgot about it. So while thinking to limit the bonus they can receive is fair to give a penalty for low STR, it doesn't seem to work by RAW.

Herr Brackhaus

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3041
« Reply #21 on: <03-05-15/0958:06> »
I personally think this is just something that needs errata. To my mind, the AV bonus should either be limited by strength (first line) or it should potentially impose penalties if you go above your strength attribute (the latter).

In other words, I'd strike the first line from the book and solely go by the second. Another option that would be more restrictive would be to combine the two lines by slightly altering the text to read as follows:
"The maximum bonus a character receive from these items is limited to their Strength attribute. For every 2 full points by which the bonus Armor Value of accessories exceeds the character’s Strength, the character suffers a –1 penalty to Agility and Reaction."

This would essentially mean that a STR 1 character wearing Full Body Armor and accompanying helmet (+3 AV) would take a -1 penalty to Agility and Reaction, and he would only gain +1 AV instead of +3. Similarly, a STR 5 character in Full Body Armor with accompanying helmet (+3) and carrying a riot shield (+6) would only gain +5 AV but would take a -2 penalty to Agility and Reaction. I don't personally like this option, but I think this might be what the spirit of the rule is intended to imply.

Not that examples are anything to go off of, but Wombat is a STR 5 character that seems to get the +8 armor from his accessories, so I personally believe the first line is just an artifact from the editing process, personally.

Rift_0f_Bladz

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1045
  • Go big or DIE
« Reply #22 on: <03-05-15/1119:38> »
The tables I have played at always use the second interpretation, full + armor value, with penalty if go over Str by a full 2 points.
Quote- Mirikon on 7/30/2019 at 08:26:51
Agreed. This looks like a 'training wheels' edition, that you can use to introduce someone to the setting, and then shift over to something like 5E or 4E. Like how D&D 5E is best used as training wheels for D&D 3.X.

Turned in Toxshaman for ¥1 million/4 once.

Namikaze

  • *
  • Freelancer Ltd
  • Prime Runner
  • **
  • Posts: 4068
  • I'm a Ma'fan of Shadowrun!
« Reply #23 on: <03-05-15/1144:30> »
Yeah I've never heard of someone taking the armor bonus down to compensate for low strength.  It sure doesn't seem realistic anyway.  Oh, I'm wearing a full suit of plate armor over my SWAT armor.  But don't worry, I'll only get the benefit of using the elbow plate, so I still get to do jumping jacks.
Feel free to keep any karma you earned illicitly, it's on us.

Quote from: Stephen Covey
Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.

Herr Brackhaus

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3041
« Reply #24 on: <03-05-15/1407:15> »
Rift_0f_Bladz
Wait, Full + Armor Value? So the normal, non-accessories Armor Value counts against encumbrance too? Meaning, if you're a strength 6 human wearing Full Body Armor with helmet (+3 AV) at AV 15+3=18, you take a whopping ((18-6=12)/2=6) -6 penalty to Reaction and Agility?

Or did you mean just the Armor Value of accessories, on it's own?


Namikaze
I could see the first rule being something that was playtested and forgotten about. As written, those two sentences really doesn't make sense because the second clause will never apply because of the first. I do agree that wearing unlimited amounts of armor just because STR is limiting how much armor you can get seems silly, though.

That being said, I think it's perfectly plausible in many cases to wear multiple pieces of armor without it slowing you down like the 4th Edition rules seemed to do. A character wearing an Actioneer Business Suit and a Lined Coat isn't exactly being weighed down much more than if he was wearing Armored Clothes or just plain old clothing under his Lined Coat. In all cases, his armor is limited to the highest value, in this case 9. I've heard the stories that you and others have mentioned, but at least in my case I've never actually encountered a player who thought wearing two armored jackets was even remotely plausible. Maybe I've just been lucky...

Namikaze

  • *
  • Freelancer Ltd
  • Prime Runner
  • **
  • Posts: 4068
  • I'm a Ma'fan of Shadowrun!
« Reply #25 on: <03-05-15/1433:45> »
Namikaze
I could see the first rule being something that was playtested and forgotten about. As written, those two sentences really doesn't make sense because the second clause will never apply because of the first. I do agree that wearing unlimited amounts of armor just because STR is limiting how much armor you can get seems silly, though.

Well the extreme example I gave was more to prove the point that if you have, let's say +10 armor from accessories, but only 1 strength, you shouldn't be allowed to take only +1 armor value from that +10 and still move around just fine.  You should be getting the full +10, but also have to deal with the massive encumbrance.

That being said, I think it's perfectly plausible in many cases to wear multiple pieces of armor without it slowing you down like the 4th Edition rules seemed to do. A character wearing an Actioneer Business Suit and a Lined Coat isn't exactly being weighed down much more than if he was wearing Armored Clothes or just plain old clothing under his Lined Coat. In all cases, his armor is limited to the highest value, in this case 9. I've heard the stories that you and others have mentioned, but at least in my case I've never actually encountered a player who thought wearing two armored jackets was even remotely plausible. Maybe I've just been lucky...

Yeah, the multiple armor thing doesn't bother me so much as the idea that wearing a huge amount of armor accessories (those that are supposed to count toward encumbrance) can just be ignored by saying you're not going to take the full benefit of those accessories.
Feel free to keep any karma you earned illicitly, it's on us.

Quote from: Stephen Covey
Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.

Malevolence

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1552
  • Matrix Addict
« Reply #26 on: <03-05-15/1433:57> »
Armor Jacket, 12 AV
Helmet, +2 AV
In both cases, the number is considered the Armor Value. For the helmet, it is preceded by a '+', making it +AV, or + Armor Value. This made perfect sense to me to refer to it this way. But, yes, he meant accessories as they are the only items that use that nomenclature that don't also explicitly except themselves from the encumbrance rule (Mage Armor and Dermal Plating, etc specifically state that the additional armor they provide does not contribute to encumbrance).
Speech Thought Matrix/Text Astral

Herr Brackhaus

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3041
« Reply #27 on: <03-05-15/1438:09> »
Aaah. I've not heard anyone referring to armor accessories as "+ armor", but as you say that makes sense now that I think about it.

I thought he meant the plus as a Boolean operator, I.e. full AND armor value of accessories. Thanks.

Tarislar

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1820
  • Uzi's + Fireballs .... Why I love Shadowrun!
« Reply #28 on: <03-05-15/1606:26> »
Everyone I've ever played with goes by the example below the rules passage.
The examples never once mention capping the bonus from the armor to the STR rating.

So we basically read it as it is below.

Quote
The maximum bonus a character MAY receive WITHOUT PENALTY from these items is limited to BY their Strength attribute.
For every 2 full points by which the bonus exceeds the character’s Strength, the character suffers a –1 penalty to Agility and Reaction.


Novocrane

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2225
« Reply #29 on: <03-05-15/1615:06> »
Quote
So a character with STR 1 could wear Full Body Armor with the accompanying helmet (AV +3), and since he only gains +1 AV would not get any penalties.
Quote
Well the extreme example I gave was more to prove the point that if you have, let's say +10 armor from accessories, but only 1 strength, you shouldn't be allowed to take only +1 armor value from that +10 and still move around just fine.
I read those two lines as interacting completely differently. Kind of surprised that people interpreted it in a way that negates the existence of penalties, then didn't like the results that followed.

Quote
The maximum bonus a character receive from these items is limited to their Strength attribute.
Each accessory can only provide as much bonus armour as you have strength.

Quote
For every 2 full points by which the bonus exceeds the character’s Strength, the character suffers a –1 penalty to Agility and Reaction.
There's no reason to base penalties off the modified accessory bonus - just the base accessory bonus.

Strength 4 with a ballistic shield is only gaining +4 armour, but they're carrying +6 and taking a -1 penalty to Agi / Rea. If they throw in a helmet, they're gaining +6 armour, but carrying +8 and taking a -2 penalty.