Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => Gear => Topic started by: viaRailGun on <04-06-13/0522:11>
-
what is it? what does it do?
please and thanks!
-
War!, p.161 - "For purposes of armor allowance, reduce the highest armor rating of worn armor by the wearer's strength."
It's a system to makes your armor easier to wear, allowing you to wear more armor without being overencumbered.
-
i hear different things about softweave. one story says it only applies to one piece of armor, i've also heard suggestions of using it on more than one piece of armor?
i'd like to hear different interpretations on this particular armor mod.
thanks.
-
i hear different things about softweave. one story says it only applies to one piece of armor, i've also heard suggestions of using it on more than one piece of armor?
i'd like to hear different interpretations on this particular armor mod.
thanks.
For the most part, those who interpret that it can only affect one piece do so because they dislike anything that helps to add more armor (those same people are the ones that complain about form-fit).
-
You DO realize not everything is about disliking minmaxers and actually based on developer opinion?
-
People also don't consider that the high Body meta-types (which are also the ones with high Strength) can barely reach their armor limit before encumbrance as it is, and those high Strength meta-types are one of the biggest "arguments" the anti-SoftWeave folks tend to use.
It's straight up meant to help those lower Body folks be more survivable.
-
"For purposes of armor allowance (see Armor and Encumbrance, p. 161, SR4A), reduce the highest armor rating of worn armor by the wearer’s Strength"
The way I see it, the phrase "highest armor rating of worn armor" can be interpreted in a few different ways.
- Option 1: The higher of the armor ratings (Ballistic vs. Impact) of each piece of armor worn (assuming it is softweave, of course). Each of these values is affected.
- Option 2: The highest of all the armor ratings selected from all your worn softweave armor. This one highest value is reduced.
- Option 3: The higher of your two armor values calculated from your worn softweave armor. Like Option 2, only reducing one armor value (likely the same result, but possibly slightly different result).
Option 1 results in your total armor value(s) being increased up to your Strength x number of pieces of armor
Option 2/3 resuls in one of the total armor values being up to your Strength Attribute higher than normal.
EDIT: Corrected Options 2 and 3 to correct for the possibility of reducing armor that is not softweave.
-
And the "Option 1" would be the one that most fits an intent to help the lower Body (and thus lower Strength) meta-types. The other interpretations serve primarily to affect those that, as stated previously, don't really have that much encumbrance issue.
-
So you're justifying interpretation not on description, not on wording, but on the effect you want it to have? Or am I missing something here? And how do those Interpretations only support those who have huge Body?
-
Those that have high Body already are also the ones that have higher Strength, and a higher Strength would be required to have any appreciable affect on the encumbrance.
-
I posted those options so that I could properly separate my opinion from the interpretations. Do those options seem accurate? I tried to list them out in an unbiased way.
-
"For purposes of armor allowance (see Armor and Encumbrance, p. 161, SR4A), reduce the highest armor rating of worn armor by the wearer’s Strength"
The way I see it, the phrase "highest armor rating of worn armor" can be interpreted in a few different ways.
- Option 1: The higher of the armor ratings (Ballistic vs. Impact) of each piece of armor worn (assuming it is softweave, of course). Each of these values is affected.
- Option 2: The highest of all the armor ratings selected from all your worn armor. This one highest value is reduced.
- Option 3: The higher of your two armor values calculated from your worn armor. Like Option 2, only reducing one armor value (likely the same result, but possibly slightly different result).
Option 1 results in your total armor value(s) being increased up to your Strength x number of pieces of armor
Option 2/3 resuls in one of the total armor values being up to your Strength Attribute higher than normal.
personally i agree with option 1. only ynt modified armor is affected.
i see a problem with option 2/3. armor unmodified by ynt would receive the benefit, i just don't agree with this. however, if following options 2/3, it would make sense only if all worn armor was ynt modified.
-
I posted those options so that I could properly separate my opinion from the interpretations. Do those options seem accurate? I tried to list them out in an unbiased way.
They do all seem to be the most likely interpretations. I still hold that the first does a better job of accomplishing an intent to make the lower Body (and hence lower Strength) meta-types more survivable, because, as I said, the others would require a higher Strength to have a meaningful impact on encumbrance.
-
"For purposes of armor allowance (see Armor and Encumbrance, p. 161, SR4A), reduce the highest armor rating of worn armor by the wearer’s Strength"
The way I see it, the phrase "highest armor rating of worn armor" can be interpreted in a few different ways.
- Option 1: The higher of the armor ratings (Ballistic vs. Impact) of each piece of armor worn (assuming it is softweave, of course). Each of these values is affected.
- Option 2: The highest of all the armor ratings selected from all your worn armor. This one highest value is reduced.
- Option 3: The higher of your two armor values calculated from your worn armor. Like Option 2, only reducing one armor value (likely the same result, but possibly slightly different result).
Option 1 results in your total armor value(s) being increased up to your Strength x number of pieces of armor
Option 2/3 resuls in one of the total armor values being up to your Strength Attribute higher than normal.
personally i agree with option 1. only ynt modified armor is affected.
i see a problem with option 2/3. armor unmodified by ynt would receive the benefit, i just don't agree with this. however, if following options 2/3, it would make sense only if all worn armor was ynt modified.
Oh, sorry.
It was my intent that the benefits of the Softweave only apply up to the armor values of armor that has the YNT Softweave. To correct this, insert the word "softweave" into the first sentence of each of the Options 2 and 3, such that both end with the phrase "your worn softweave armor".
EDIT: I went ahead and modified it in my original post...
-
Option one would work rather silly if you can Softweave SecureTech, FormFitting, Helmet, then either each set of a combined clothing set or just armor with free SecureTech, FF and Helmet. So I'm disagreeing with an interpretation that sounds like mass-munchkining. By the way, has anyone bothered asking the writers?
Also, stop discriminating against characters that take a decent Strength but not a massive Body.
-
It's phrased in a strange way - not surprising given the generally poor editing in WAR! You can read pretty much anything into it. I've seen it only applying to the single highest rating on any of your armor as the most common interpretation, although I'm sure that's really just the internet-wide conspiracy to hate elves, humans, and armor ::).
There's also the question of what if you softweave something like Urban Explorer that has even values? Nobody knows. Generally it's assumed that you pick one and stick with it.
If you go with Option 1 and allow people to start Softweaving PPP and such, things get really wacky. I did some quick back-of-the-napkin checks and you can get 20/18 armor with 3 Body, 5 Strength, and without any other debatable rules interpretations (so no stacking weaves or wearing more than one helmet).
-
You could also get 18/14 with 2 Body and 2 Strength.
-
Honestly I'd houserule SoftWeave myself as something very simple and extremely different: If ALL your armor (excluding SecureTech) is SoftWeaved for comfort, you take the best armor you have stacked (A set counts as 1) which basically is FormFitting or the one other you have, and reduce its Ballistic and Impact with Strength for Encumbrance. Since it's only a 10% cost, anything more seems like complete overkill.
-
i don't agree with softweaving armor that adds a bonus to B/I ratings(helmets,shields,masks), because they 'add' their rating to worn armor, hence becoming a part of the armor itself.
you're B/I values are still limited due to the amount of wearable armor(one of each: FF, armor, PPP set, mask, helm, shield)
i'm working with a BOD 4 and STR 5:
FFFBS (6/2) +ynt
urban explorer jumpsuit (6/6) +ynt
lined coat (6/4) +ynt (note: only the highest rated armor is applied to B/I ratings)
PPP ensemble (+2/+4)
ballistic mask (+2/+1)
helmet (+1/+2)
chummer says ok, but can we really trust computers like that.
edit: 17/15 B/I values seem a bit high?
-
I agree with Chandra, it seems strange that putting softweave on a Mortimer of London Suit should provide significanly more "benefit" than an Armor Jacket or even SWAT armor suit or Milspec.
For example, given a completely average Human (All Attributes 3)
An Armor Jacket is 8/6, softweave would reduce this to being considered 5/6 for encumbrance (good)
SWAT armor is 12/10, softweave would reduce this to being considered 9/10 for encumbrance (-2 penalty)
Light Military grade is 12/10, softweave would reduce this to being considered 9/10 for encumbrance (only -1 penalty because of the Body x 3 for encumbrance)
Now the Mortimer of London clothing would not normally encumber a person with 3 Body, with the Suit Jacket, the full set is 5/3 armor.
With Option 1, the softweave would be reduced to 0/3 (or possibly 1/2)
Options 2 & 3 would both reduce this to a more reasonable 2/3 (Option 2 by reducing the Suit Jacket, Option 3 by comparing the total values and reducing the total 5/3)
Using Option 1 on the full SecureTech set results in the set providing its 2/6 armor for only 2/0 for encumbrance purposes, and that would only require a Strength of 1.
The game is set up such that having a low Body is bad. That's just the way it is. If you feel that you need more armor, there are plenty of ways to improve things without resorting to munchkin'ing your armor sets.
-
Chummer is completely unreliable as it has shown in several cases, don't count on it to reflect RAI on any detabable issues. HeroLab might be a better shot, though they too have their RAI moments and unfortunately I can't check because I never bought War! for HeroLab.
Honestly I wouldn't allow SoftWeave on SecureTech, by the way. These are pads, not actual armor. Formfitting is extremely debatable, normal armor isn't, sets should probably sound as one.
-
If you do not allow armor accessories to be softweaved, then things don't get quite as out-of-control, but they still do get wacky as you softweave your FFBA and then each element of your armor set. At high strength, you can also do things like wear two different pieces of "base" armor, one with low B/high I, and one with high I/low B, and overlap them.
Not allowing Softweave on FFBA, counting it only once on sets, and not allowing it on accessories doesn't quite fix the latter problem. You should really just go with one Softweave per character, however you want to determine what it applies to.
-
"For purposes of armor allowance (see Armor and Encumbrance, p. 161, SR4A), reduce the highest armor rating of worn armor by the wearer’s Strength"
The way I see it, the phrase "highest armor rating of worn armor" can be interpreted in a few different ways.
[li]Option 1: The higher of the armor ratings (Ballistic vs. Impact) of each piece of armor worn (assuming it is softweave, of course). Each of these values is affected.[/li]
[li]Option 2: The highest of all the armor ratings selected from all your worn softweave armor. This one highest value is reduced.[/li]
[li]Option 3: The higher of your two armor values calculated from your worn softweave armor. Like Option 2, only reducing one armor value (likely the same result, but possibly slightly different result).[/li]
[/list]
Option 1 results in your total armor value(s) being increased up to your Strength x number of pieces of armor
Option 2/3 resuls in one of the total armor values being up to your Strength Attribute higher than normal.
EDIT: Corrected Options 2 and 3 to correct for the possibility of reducing armor that is not softweave.
Christ, the first option is true, it would state in the rules, that you could only use it on one piece of armour, if that was the intent. It is a clothing mod, applied per item. And just like normal encumbrance rules affects the highest of the two ratings to get your encumbrance value.
-
Christ, the first option is true, it would state in the rules, that you could only use it on one piece of armour, if that was the intent. It is a clothing mod, applied per item. And just like normal encumbrance rules affects the highest of the two ratings to get your encumbrance value.
i totally agree. in the event of a tie (for instance: urban explorer jumpsuit has 6/6), i'm assuming it's the players decision which value is affected.
-
either option pick is irrelevant, how encumbrance works is just a quick quantification of the rigidity of layers of armour based on their values.
If your players start getting cheesy with the armour they're wearing, start giving them penalties for wearing unsuitable clothing/armour for their environment. Good common sense, and not playing to win at min maxing, easily curbs any perceived exploitation of the rules and armour stacking.
For allot of my characters I just take YNT as a flavour upgrade, because none of them are human, and YNT was made for non basic metahumans.
The other thing is, there are rules for armour degradation, so use them. Have fun on the upkeep of your 10 bullet proof sweaters.
-
or just scrap'em and start anew. stockpile a few sets of armor, and bring'em out when the damaged set is at the "cleaners" ;)
-
Exactly, more gear should mean more overhead, if you want the big guns, you gotta feed em, you want armour you should have to take care of it.
If you're going to walk into a fight like you stumbled through several department stores, you should promptly be laughed at, then fall unconscious from heat stroke.
-
Honestly I think it's better to figure out the best way to use these rules and decide whether you allow them, rather than suddenly going "if you're doing this we're throwing in armor maintenance rules".
-
Page 44 of arsenal. If you're going to be using anything other than just SR4A, then you need to be using the additional armour rules.
-
Uhm... No. They're optional rules. There is no need to use, the GM can decide for themselves. I use Max Mod and Capacity, not Degradation, any GM can decide which they want to use. It's the same as MilSpec, Adept Geas, additional sourcebooks beyond (Extended) Core, Martial Arts, etc.
If a GM wants to use this, he has every right. But if my GM goes "oh you use material X? Well suddenly your armor starts degrading. Suck it up boys," he's gonna piss me off.
-
Then that's between you and your GM, the rules are there to help balance things out. If you wanna have an adventure where you can pile on all the armour you want without drawbacks, have fun.
-
I don't want that, actually. I'm not sure what gave you that impression, given how I asked for a non-munchkin version of the Softweave rules and stated what kind of approach I'd consider as houserule myself, which is FAR from stacking massively as you already read. Hell, I don't even allow any toys from War! myself in either of my two campaigns. But I want a proper way of this because IF I ever allow it, I want it done right, not done the way of "hai I got 18/16 with a Body of 3".
-
Then that's between you and your GM, the rules are there to help balance things out. If you wanna have an adventure where you can pile on all the armour you want without drawbacks, have fun.
You do realize that Michael Chandra is our GM?
-
I have to admit, I don't get it either. I heavily criticized the worst interpretation of Softweave because it's horribly munchkining. I gave a much lighter houserule possibility for it. That's all in this topic. Furthermore I have argued against usage of MilSpec in urban environments without consequences, in several heated debates on that matter. But suddenly I get accused of wanting to pile on tons of armour without drawbacks, while I neither allow it as GM nor would even want to as player. That accusation pretty much blindsided me.
-
And I stated multiple options for non munchkining, you don't have to worry about munchkining if you don't play the game by numbers but actually read each items description and actually stop to think about what the hell it looks like.
If your players are munchkins, as I've stated earlier, penalize them - drop some common sense and reasoning on them.
Consider other things, how well armoured are the guys they're facing? Are they going down too easily? Consider beefing them up, give the opposition at least the same capability. The door guards should be wearing some under body protection like a FFBA piece, and their clothing should also be armoured. The QRT Teams should be wearing FFBA and FBA with softweave, and your runner team should be running from them.
Armour is there in case a bit of you was sticking out of cover, or you were caught out in the open, the firepower of coordinated opposition should make standing out in the open and walking into fire a non option.
So weather it's coordinated tactics, or better equiped NPCs, or both you should be able to work it out and keep the opposition challenging and on the runner's level. As well, consider what your PCs are wearing, and how logically it should impact them.
-
You don't have to worry about munchkining if you don't play the game by numbers but actually read each items description and actually stop to think about what the hell it looks like.
I already do that. That's why we're in this discussion in the first place, and I already posted my own option.
By the way, my players aren't munchkins. If they were, I wouldn't let them anyway. They're not interested in SoftWeave, though one asked about Battle Rifles and was sad that I outlawed all of War! except overlapping suppressive fire and explosions. Telling that just in case you were wondering whether I got any personal investment in this discussion. Because honestly, I don't. The only reasons I am in this debate are so others can decide how they want to play out SoftWeave, or expect their GM to let it work, and because I got irked by the idea of introducing an optional rule in the middle of a campaign as punishment.
Back on subject, since there's no clear reading on it, how would people rule SoftWeave if they were the GM? Have it go per item? Have it per Set/FF/realarmor and exclude SecureTech and Helmets? Only allow it to work on one piece? Require it on all equipped pieces to let it work on one piece? Something else?
-
So really, you're hear to have other people tell you the answer you want to hear, and ignore all the rest.
-
...
I'm sorry. I thought I made this clear. I already gave MY answer. The answer I would use as GM if I didn't want to bother digging through the mathematical pros and cons of the other approaches. The one I do not consider an official interpretation of SoftWeave but, as stated, how I'd houserule it in my games IF I ever decided to use War. Which I have no intent of doing, not now, not ever, except for PERHAPS Battle Rifles and High-Power Chambering.
Now, do you have more meaningless false accusations to toss my way or can you please stop flamebaiting me, so people can get back to sharing their visions on SoftWeave so that people like the OP and their GMs can make a call on how they want to interpret and use it, if they allow it?
-
war. war never changes...
-
Well that is one of the things some people hold against it, RailGun. ^_^ They really want errata on some of the issues, such as SoftWeave, but never got them. So yes, war never changes. =P
-
FIVE bloody moderator reports on one thread? Time for a lock. And I suggest all of you who have reported posts and those that were reported on (I'm sure you can guess who you are) take the personal remarks to Private Messages so we don't have to lock threads asking for information on the game we ALL love.