[topcat]

Wondering if I'm just being crazy here or if it's a real issue.  I started off very much against it and looking for options to bring it back in line with prior SR editions.  Now I'm waffling.

SR6 embraced D&D's armor class mechanics with the move to defense rating.  I really like systems that separate the difficulty to hit someone and that someone's ability to soak damage.  SR6 adds in a weak soak roll to take the edge off damage (pun intended), but it's still fundamentally closer to D&D than not.

D&D's hit points adjust significantly over time, while SR6's damage boxes do not.  That feels like a meaningful difference and something that hurts the operation of the ARvsDR mechanics compared to D&D.  Or maybe it's just that SR is deadlier.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

There's a lot of cognitive dissonance about armor not providing soak.  It can be a daunting leap to make, given how big a change it was from 5e.

In my experience in actually playing 6we, I don't get the feeling that armor is doing nothing to help.  Yeah, it's not making you bulletproof like it did before, but neither does it feel like you'd be just as well off in a speedo/bikini.

[topcat]

I never felt like characters were bulletproof in SR5, though.  People keep mentioning 40+ armor ratings, but that's needed to have a 50/50 shot at soaking 13DV v-1, which was pretty easy to rack up in SR5.  The tank in my game was surprised at just how untanky he was the first time a CMDT unloaded on him with flechettes.  It was a far cry from earlier editions, especially when the attacker throws Edge in the mix.

[Giabralter]

it's a difference in design perspective. in previous editions, you could look at building a character with a body of 2 or 3 and compensate with armor to soak damage. this edition I'd go with body of at least 4 possibly 5 depending on how much edge I have on defensive rolls.

[Michael Chandra]

13P/-1 vs 40 armor indeed still hurts. Vs 20 soak, which is already a decent pool for many, it would obliterate. I really like that that part of the system is now out, less worry about '1 bad roll or 1 not-super-optimized player and bam down you go'. So to be honest, I very much like the new system. I understand there's people who find AR-vs-DR annoying, and know someone who's been working out a very detailed alternative, but I like the new system and its consequences myself.

Then again, I'm a 6w apologist.

[Ghost Rigger]

There are at least 5 scenarios in 6e where armor does literally nothing, only one of which is "the big attack number". In 5e there are 3 scenarios where armor does literally nothing, and they're all just variants of "the big attack number". Take that how you will.

[Michael Chandra]

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/literally?s=t

[Ghost Rigger]

Yes, I believe I am using the correct definition of "literally", as there are a number of scenarios where armor will neither generate you edge nor deny your attacker edge.

And armor? Doesn't do anything you say? Of course it does! A simple armored vest somehow gives its armor benefit (soak in 5e, DR in 6we) no matter if you're being shot in the face, in the crotch, anywhere at all! Doesn't matter that a vest only covers your torso!

Unless you're going up against damage so high no armor available to you could've made a difference. Or if your shooter uses an imaging scope, then you can't get edge from your armor period.Or on the more positive side, maybe your Body is so high you would've gotten the edge anyways. Or maybe you've already gotten 2 edge earlier that round so you can't gain any edge from anything. In that latter case you might "but surely you denied the shooter some edge by wearing armor". Maybe. Maybe your high Body alone was enough to deny him that edge, or he's already gotten 2 edge earlier in the round and can't get edge from anything. Look at that, 5 scenarios where armor does literally nothing.

Meanwhile in 5e there are 3 scenarios in which armor does literally nothing and they're all "you were fucked to begin with":

• the DV is so high that the additional soak dice from the armor, even before AP, cannot possibly prevent you from getting instagibbed (example: while setting up a 150P explosion in the basement of a building to destroy it, you cross the wrong wires and blow yourself up)
• the DV is so high that the additional soak dice from the armor, after AP, cannot possibly prevent you from getting instagibbed (example: APDS Bulls-eye Burst from a Barret Model 122 on a heavily armored streetsam)
• the AP is so high that your armor provides no additional soak dice (example: APDS Bulls-eye Burst from a Barret Model 122 on anyone else)

How is it that no matter how long these conversations go on, we always come back to "armor does nothing in 6e"?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Ghost Rigger you appear to be giving me rent-free living space in your head.  Too bad I can't physically live there and save a whole bunch of money.

Anyway, on your Five Scenarios where armor "literally" does nothing:

1) DV so high no armor in existence could have helped: Ok, not sure if DV was a typo for AR or a synonym for damage.. but either way: No Drek, Sherlock. If you're on the receiving end of an attack that enters "irresistible force" territory, then obviously armor doesn't help.  Nor should it; can we agree on that?

2) Imaging Scope: The Scope may be preventing you from gaining edge, but A) you're forcing him to spend an aim action for no other benefit in order to get that effect and B) your armor is still able to DENY your attacker edge.  That's still 2 more things than "literally nothing".

3) Attack was so wimpy your raw Body stat generated Edge on its own: sounds like the kind of situation where, if you have armor on in addition to the attack being pitifully weak to begin with, counts as a factor in your favor for the circumstantial Edge point?

4) Edge gain cap already hit: True, that sucks, but there's no cap on Edge gain denial.

5) Attacker's edge gain cap already hit: The inverse of 4) applies here.  Just because your attacker can't gain edge doesn't mean that you can't. Unless of course...

6) The implicit argument of maybe 4) and 5) are both in effect: Ok, sure, this is a corner case where armor is potentially mechanically ineffective.  To that I have three things to say A) It's a corner case; it won't happen very often.  Yes, really. You really shouldn't be making all THAT many attacks per round (usually) nor should you usually be faced with all that many attacks per round (grunt group rules are intended to be used).  B) You can always house rule the edge gain to "other than per round". Yeah yeah I'll see your "But but Oberoni Fallacy!" comment and raise you with "Frag Oberoni. I don't care."  Furthermore, there's C) Who knows what Errata will come to address the edge gain cap problems.  Maybe you, rightly enough, don't care yourself about B) and/or C).  And that's fair.  Even so, A) should still be enough.

[Michael Chandra]

I like '2 edge max per action' + '2 edge max per turn (edge immediately spent or lost on action that gained it doesn't count)', or something similar, but not sure if I think it's needed by errata. Just 'these restrictions can be modified by GMs to fit a more flashy or gritty gamestyle' would already suffice for me. But we'll see.

[Lormyr]

Yes, I believe I am using the correct definition of "literally", as there are a number of scenarios where armor will neither generate you edge nor deny your attacker edge.

This.

At this point I have 10 hours of GMing and 4 hours of playing SR6. Not a huge sum, but I also consider myself to be great at game mechanics. In that sense I find the correlation between looking at the rules and knowing what is going to happen with them to be akin to saying "One does not have to be standing in the rain to know that if they were to do so they would become wet.".

From my personal experience running and playing, primarily with min/maxers:

- On the characters with Body 5 (no one built less) with little to no other DR modifiers, body armor stayed very relevant in general.

- On the characters with Body 8+ and/or Body 5 with DR modifiers, body armor was sometimes relevant and sometimes not.

- On the trolls with Body 9 and DR modifiers, body armor almost never mattered.

[Ghost Rigger]

Ghost Rigger you appear to be giving me rent-free living space in your head.  Too bad I can't physically live there and save a whole bunch of money.

Who are you?

- On the characters with Body 5 (no one built less) with little to no other DR modifiers, body armor stayed very relevant in general.

My, my, I wonder why no one built with less than Body 5.....

[Lormyr]

2) Imaging Scope: The Scope may be preventing you from gaining edge, but A) you're forcing him to spend an aim action for no other benefit in order to get that effect and B) your armor is still able to DENY your attacker edge.  That's still 2 more things than "literally nothing".

If the use of the scope negating armor was the deciding factor on if the defender got edge, then I agree with you. Trade a minor action so defender doesn't get edge. While I don't know if I would call that "even", I agree it is at least not nothing.
 
But the image scope could also be used in a situation where Body alone or Body + non-armor mods could have granted edge, never mind the presence or absence of armor. That makes the scope particularly silly, and negates the above argument. Using a minor action to negate half the effect of an attribute is unbalanced by pretty much any standard.

[Michael Chandra]

"there are a number of scenarios where armor will neither generate you edge nor deny your attacker edge."

Still not the same as literally doing nothing. Hyperbole doesn't suit y'all.

[Lormyr]

"there are a number of scenarios where armor will neither generate you edge nor deny your attacker edge."

Still not the same as literally doing nothing. Hyperbole doesn't suit y'all.

Perhaps I am just not understanding your perspective. In that particular instance, armor does nothing. What do you believe makes that statement untrue in said instance?