Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Major Doom on <12-26-10/1804:00>
-
I'm a bit confused about how helmets apply to calculating Encumbrance. I was reading the "Armor and Encumbrance" rule (SR4A, page 161), and understand that helmets do not count as stacked armor, but as a modifier to armor, followed by the second paragraph stating when a character's armor (highest of Ballistics or Impact) exceed's Body x2, then the character suffers penalties. This makes sense to me.
But reading the "Securetech PPP-System" (Arsenal, page 49) paragraph, it makes an indirect reference to helmets as the following:
These armor pieces do not count as separate armor for purposes of encumbrance; instead, these items modify the rating of armor worn by their rating just as helmets and shields do...
Does this mean that like the Securetech PPP-System, helmets do not count toward encumbrance or does this special case only applies to the Securetech PPP-System?
-
No, it means that PPP-System does not count as separate pieces of armor (ie, stacking), but rather modify your armor rating prior to determining encumbrance, just as helmets and shields modify armor prior to determining encumbrance.
There is nothing I can find that says the PPP System doesn't count towards encumbrance.
Example:
Body 3 character wearing Armored Clothing (4/0) experiences no encumbrance, since 4 < 3x2.
He then straps on SecureTech PPP Leg/Arm casings (+1/+1), Helmet (+0/+2) and Vitals Protector (+1/+1) for a final armor of 6/4. So he's still not encumbered( 4+1+0+1 < 3x2).
Picking up a Ballistic Shield (+6/+4), he immediately wishes he weren't so stupid... he's taking a -3 penalty to Agility and Reaction[4+1+0+1+6 (12) > 3x2 (6), (12-6)/2 = 3].
-
The way I understand it, the "do not count as separate armor" comment is saying that they do not count as Stacked armor, so you add the armor ratings together instead of taking the highest rating. For encumbrance penalties, both Securetech PPP-System, Helmets and shields figure into encumbrance by adding together ALL Ballistics/Impact ratings to see what the encumbrance would be. So, wearing each piece of Securetech armor would give you +3/+7 armor ratings, and if the Impact is greater than your Body x 2, then you would take the encumbrance penalty.
-
Yup, that's exactly how the book reads to me, too, FastJack.
-
Very good, thanks for the clarification.
-
Encumbrance is snow from the past, since "WAR!" has a cheap and available solution in form of YNT Soft Weave Armor, available to all kinds of clothing and armor.
-
Now now, that only helps up to a point, and by which, I mean Str x2 points of armor...
-
Soft weave just raises the limit to Body + Body + Strength (although it says so it a very roundabout way). I don't think it'll make that big a difference in practice. Heavy hitters tend to have Body high enough that they can already wear anything, while other folks have medium-low Strength.
@Chaemera: Pretty sure it's only +Strength. Like I said, it's roundabout. ;) There are lots of weirdly phrased rules like that in the new book. Like, it wasn't immediately clear whether tacnets give +1 to Leadership tests, or +1 to the results. And I'm still not sure what the Damage Value should be for burst mode suppression fire.
-
The Softweave costs more and has higher availability, reducing the Armor rating for encumbrance by your Strength score.
-
And my new Nightmare is a charismatic but weak Pixie adept with "Mind Over Matter" Power and a soft weaved Heavy Milspec with integrated Strength bonus. And his weapon of choice is a bow, cause of his enhanced skill, Quick Draw and MRSI So ftware... ::)
-
Bradd, your right, I read the rule on SoftWeave slightly off kilter (read as reducing the penalty, not the effective armor).
UV,
... may use one Mental Attribute in place of one Physical attribute for any tests.
increases the character's Strength attribute by it's rating.
Way I read that:
Strength 4, Charisma 5
Milspec Armor Strength Upgrade 3
Results in:
Strength 7, Charisma 5
Lifting test:
Strength (7) + Body
Mind Over Matter:
Charisma (5) + Body
EDIT
Granted, the Strength Upgrade would apply to the SoftWeave advantage, but you still need Body x 3 + Strength + Strength Upgrade >= 20. I'm assuming you also SoftWeave the helmet, which effectively reduces it to 0 for Encumbrance purposes.
-
So, it's basically a Windling Troubadour/Archer, right?
-
Pixie!
Body 2
STR 1 (maybe Impaired quality)
CHA 8
Mind Over Matter:
CHA as STR = from 1 to 8 = magical STR 8
Heavy Military Armor 16/14 (yes - I know the Availability is to high for the CharGen but not in play)
So 16 - (8+3 (Milspec ArmorStrength Upgrade 3)) = 5
Since Milspec is Encumbrance first at (Body x3) the Pixie has no problem, and could get Mobility Upgrade, too, if needed.
So this little gent is a tank and heavy hitter, too.
-
So, it's basically a Windling Troubadour/Archer, right?
Yes - and he kills Troll-Warriors for breakfast. ::)
-
Read Mind Over Matter again, it doesn't turn your Charisma score INTO your Strength score, it only allows you to use it in place of Strength for tests.
Once again, here's the relevant quote from War!:
The adept is truly a master of mind over matter and may use one Mental Attribute in place of one Physical attribute for any tests. The attributes used must correspond per the Astral Attributes table (p. 192, SR4A); for example, only Charisma may be used in place of Strength, only Logic for Agility, etc. Once the attribute substitution is chosen for this power, it cannot be changed.
See how there's nothing that says you use it for anything other than tests, or that your Strength score is in any way changed? I included the whole description so no one can accuse me of cherry-picking the quote.
Anything that modifies your Strength score still modifies your Strength score. Anything derived from / based off of your Strength score... still uses your Strength score.
Pixie!
Body 2
STR 1 (maybe Impaired quality)
CHA 8
Mind Over Matter:
CHA as for STR based tests= from 1 to 8 = magical STR 8
Heavy Military Armor 16/14 (yes - I know the Availability is to high for the CharGen but not in play)
So 16 - (81+3 (Milspec ArmorStrength Upgrade 3)) = 512
Since Milspec is Encumbrance first at (Body x3) the Pixie has a (12 - 6)/2 = -3 Agility / Reaction penaltyno problem, and could get Mobility Upgrade, too.
So this little gent is a tank and heavy hitter, too.
-
Okay - that is a little bit comforting, but it is only one part of my nightmare... still it isn't clear what that one Mental attribute in place of one Physical attribute for "any" tests means.
i.e. a weapon does (STR/2) +X DV and this DV is part of a test.
-
Okay - that is a little bit comforting, but it is only one part of my nightmare... still it isn't clear what that one Mental attribute in place of one Physical attribute for "any" tests means.
i.e. a weapon does (STR/2) +X DV and this DV is part of a test.
I interpret that as the threshold, not a test.
I think we're safe if we use the following:
You determine what your character does in a situation and how well she does it by making a test - rolling dice and dtermining the outcome by how well or poorly you rolled.
That, to me, defines a "test" as the act of rolling dice to determine success or failure. Further:
When a player makes a test, she rolls a number of dice equal to her dice pool.
Between those, I feel very comfortable saying that a reference to a test is a reference to a dice pool. It'd be nicer if they had said dice pool, but them's the breaks.
-
Soft weave just raises the limit to Body + Body + Strength (although it says so it a very roundabout way). I don't think it'll make that big a difference in practice. Heavy hitters tend to have Body high enough that they can already wear anything, while other folks have medium-low Strength.
Not quite Body + Body + Strength, look at how they worded it again:
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
So, for example, a troll with Body 8 and Strength 7 (9 from cyber) wearing a Full-Body FFBA (6/2, treat as 3/1 for encumbrance, Arsenal, pg. 48), SWAT Armor (12/10, Arsenal, pg. 49) with SWAT Helmet (+2/+2, Arsenal, pg. 49).
He's got an Armor of 20/14, but effective armor for encumbrance is only 17/13. He's taking penalties, and he can't wear any PPP-Tech or carry a shield.
If he SoftWeaves just the SWAT Armor, that reduces his effective armor for encumbrance to 8/13. Big bad troll could add a Ballistic Shield (+6/+4, SR4A, pg. 327) and be right back at the same penalty he was before, since his effective armor for encumbrance would become 14/17.
The wording in SoftWeave is vague enough to argue that he could SoftWeave each piece of worn armor and get his strength taken out of every other opportunity, too. It doesn't tell me "the highest rating of each piece of worn armor", but neither does it say "the highest rating of the total worn armor". I think they meant the latter, it reads that way, but who knows?
Edit
The biggest reason I have doubts they meant "total worn armor" is they don't tell me I have to buy it for every piece of armor to gain the benefit. And if I don't, what stops me from buying it for the cheapest piece of armor to game the system? These kinds of questions are only logically answered by the idea that SoftWeave applies its benefit to the specific piece of worn armor, implying that the benefit applies to every piece of armor individually.
-
I hadn't considered what happens when you softweave add-ons like helmets and PPP.
There's one other ambiguity: When it says to reduce the highest armor rating, does it mean that literally or in the context of the encumbrance rules? Let's take that troll in SWAT for example: Strength 9 with 12/10 armor. Does that mean you only reduce the higher of the two ratings, so that it's 3/10 for encumbrance? Or does it really mean to reduce the rating that counts toward encumbrance, such that the armor counts 3?
I suspect that the latter is what they intended, it's just naive and doesn't work well for complicated mixes of armor. I also wonder whether they intended softweave to work for things like FFBA, helmets, and PPP.
-
Based on the wording of the SoftWeave (as quoted above), I think it's pretty clear for a single piece of armor, it goes to the higher of the two values, such that before determining encumbrance, you look at it as though it were 3/10 and pick the 10 (assuming nothing else modifies your encumbrance, such as wearing helmets and PPP).
If it was supposed to directly reduce encumbrance, it should have been worded differently than "reduce the highest armor rating".
-
Since you only use the higher armor value to figure out encumbrance, you'd only apply the Strength score to that value.
-
@Chaemera: Perhaps. It just seems really weird to me that softweave makes no difference for some items (like 11/11 samurai armor) and a big difference for others (like a 2/7 chain shirt). It's also weird that it helps armor that is mostly Impact (like the chain shirt), and armor that is mostly Ballistic (like a 6/2 body armor bag), but it doesn't help balanced armors at all. Clearly they can make both kinds of protection light and flexible, just not when they're used together? That doesn't make any sense to me.
It makes more sense the way FastJack just said, that they mentioned the "highest armor rating" because that's the one you use (in simple cases) to figure encumbrance. It just falls apart in more complicated cases. I also think it works better if you apply it to the total armor rating and not to individual pieces. With mix & match armor, simply limit the amount of encumbrance reduction to the amount of softweave armor. For example, if your only softweave is an armor vest, you can't reduce encumbrance more than 6/4.
-
Since you only use the higher armor value to figure out encumbrance, you'd only apply the Strength score to that value.
This is an order of operations question, you say it goes as follows:
After reading the actual rules for determining encumbrance, you actually use and compare both. People simply short-hand to the higher value, since that's usually all that matters.
Body 4, Strength 6, wearing SoftWeave SWAT Armor (12/10)
12 > 10, therefore encumbrance is based on Ballistic (12)
12 - Str (6) < Body (4) x 2; therefore, no encumbrance.
10 > Body (4) x 2; therefore, encumbrance.
If this was what was intended, why didn't they write "Add your Strength to your Body x2 when determining encumbrance" or "Compare SoftWeave armor to Body x 2 + Strength instead of Body x 2 when determining encumbrance" and be done with it?
Instead, they said "for purposes of encumbrance, reduce the highest armor rating of worn armor by the user's strength" (actual quote below). This sounds a lot like how FFBA is written:
When determining encumbrance, however, add only half the rating (round down) of form-fitting body armor to the ratings of other armor when comparing them to the wearer's Body x 2
Which suggests to me:
Body 4, Strength 6, wearing SoftWeave SWAT Armor (12/10)
12 > 10, therefore subtract Strength (6) from Ballistic (12), giving 6/10
6 < 10, therefore, use Impact (10) when determining encumbrance.
10 > Body (4) x 2; therefore, encumbrance.
@Bradd: Here's how I see it helping equal armors (such as 11/11 Samurai). You apply your SoftWeave (Strength = 5) to make it (for encumbrance only) 11/6.
Now, add in PPP Forearm Guards (+0/+1), Helmet (+0/+2), and Shin Guards (+0/+1). So you've got armor 11/15, but you still only take encumbrance as though it were 11/10.
EDIT
To account for the following:
If either of a character's armor ratings exceeds his Body x 2, apply a -1 modifier to Agility and reaction for every 2 points (or fraction thereof) that his Body x 2 is exceeded.
Which basically means, order of operations is not a question.
-
My objection to the 11/11 armor wasn't because of game utility, but because it simply doesn't make sense to me as a material. (Also, note that you can't combine military armor with other pieces, so there's still a utility problem too.)
I think softweave makes much more sense, for both realism and simplicity of play, to say that it reduces encumbrance by your Strength, but only up to the highest softweave armor value (after adding softweave pieces together). That's almost exactly what the rule says to do, too.
-
The problem with trying to make sense of SoftWeave as a material in relation to its impact on Ballistic vice Impact armor is the attempt to mesh rules concepts (Ballistic and Impact armor) with real world concepts (kevlar, ceramic plating, etc). And, given the corrected reading of encumbrance, consider the following:
Samurai Armor (11/11) worn by a guy with Body 3, Strength 2. Okay, we know this is a bad idea on this guy's part, but bear with me.
Without SoftWeave, he's looking at the following:
If either of a character's armor ratings exceed his Body x 2, apply a -1 modifier to Agility and Reaction for every 2 points (or fraction thereof) that his Body x 2 is exceeded.
Modified by:
the character wearing the armor is only encumbered if either armor rating esxceeds the character's Body x 3.
So, Body x 3 = 9
Ballistic Encumbrance = (11 - 9)/2 = -1 Penalty to Agility and Reaction
Impact Encumbrance = (11 - 9)/2 = -1 Penalty to Agility and Reaction
The book says if either causes encumbrance, he takes a penalty for that one, so I conclude that these are cumulative, for a total -2 penalty to Agility and Reaction. That sucks for him.
Now, apply SoftWeave as written:
Pick either Ballistic or Impact, it doesn't matter which since this is pure crunch and should not be confused with fluff, and reduce by 2. I choose Ballistic.
Ballistic (11) - Strength (2) = 9
Ballistic Encumbrance = (9 - 9)/2 = 0 Penalty to Agility and Reaction
Impact Encumbrance = (11 - 9)/2 = -1 Penalty to Agility and Reaction
For a total encumbrance penalty of -1 to Agility and Reaction.
Let's try it your way:
Strength (2) gets added to Body x 3 (9) for a total of 11.
Ballistic Encumbrance = (11 - 11)/2 = 0 Penalty to Agility and Reaction
Impact Encumbrance = (11 - 11)/2 = 0 Penalty to Agility and Reaction
So now, he has no encumbrance penalties at all, whatsoever. He could wear the helmet and be back where he was without SoftWeave.
Me, I think "as written", SoftWeave works nicely, it lets the guy get out of some of the penalty without ignoring it completely. I think the argument regarding SoftWeave more evolves out of the idea that you only compared the higher of your armor values to your Body x 2 (or x 3 for mil-spec). Given that you make both comparisons, it only makes sense that the penalties are cumulative (or else they'd only ever tell you to look at the higher of the two) and thus, SoftWeave helps you out even when you're just looking at it modifying one of the two Armor ratings.
By modifying the higher rating, they ensure that it helps you even in situations where you only had encumbrance from a single rating. If they take it the route you suggest, Bradd, it would still work, but at double the (IMO) design-intention effectiveness.
-
The book says if either causes encumbrance, he takes a penalty for that one, so I conclude that these are cumulative, for a total -2 penalty to Agility and Reaction. That sucks for him.
Hang on, I don't interpret the rule that way. That's the trouble with words like "either": It's ambiguous as to whether it means one or all. I've always read it to mean that the higher one is all that matters, and I suspect that the author of the softweave rule did also. I don't think it's doubly effective, I think you're applying double penalties.
-
The book says if either causes encumbrance, he takes a penalty for that one, so I conclude that these are cumulative, for a total -2 penalty to Agility and Reaction. That sucks for him.
Hang on, I don't interpret the rule that way. That's the trouble with words like "either": It's ambiguous as to whether it means one or all. I've always read it to mean that the higher one is all that matters, and I suspect that the author of the softweave rule did also.
I agree that it may be ambiguous, plenty of rules are. That's when I apply literalism, "either" is non-exclusive, therefore, if both conditions are met, both conditions apply.
Barring an official errata, both interpretations are legitimate; however, I feel that mine better fits the system, SoftWeave, and the wording of encumbrance.
-
Either your way is correct, or mine is! ("Either" is often used to clarify that a choice is exclusive, so I disagree that it's necessarily non-exclusive.)
Also, let's consider a variation on your example. Suppose our guy has Body 3 and Strength 4. Going with your ruling: If he wears 11/11 samurai armor, the additional Strength doesn't help him at all. He still suffers a -1 penalty. However, if he wears 13/9 armor, it becomes 9/9 and he suffers no penalty at all. It's because of weird game artifacts like this, that I don't think it's what the author intended.
-
It's because of weird game artifacts like that that are why I think the existing encumbrance system is simply borked. :P
You are correct, "either" is often used connotatively to infer exclusivity, I'm used to dealing with the engineering world where "either" is viewed as a two-way "or" statement.
As in A OR B with the logic table:
In the analog case, you sum the results of the two conditions if both are true.
-
I'm a computer engineer, I know how it goes. :)
-
Thought of an even better problem with interpreting it exclusively.
If it is to be exclusive, and both armors would cause encumbrance, which applies? SR4A does not say to choose the higher of the two penalties. It does not say to choose the higher of the two armors, either. It is simply that you have chosen, without rules-guidance, to select the higher of the two armors.
But, since it says "if either of the armor ratings" (to paraphrase), you are required to test both armor ratings against Bod x 2 (normally), which then precludes selecting the higher armor ratings. So you've tested both, and both indicate that you should have an encumbrance penalty, determined by the difference of the armor and Body x 2 (normally), divided by two.
Do you test ballistic and stop testing if Ballistic > Body x 2? What if you started at Impact? If I test both to preclude someone avoiding a higher penalty, then I have no guidance on which penalty to apply, except the general approach of applying both. This is the only solution which does not require putting words in the mouths of the authors about which armor to test.
I agree, it would be stupid to use the lower of the two armors if it was intended to be an XOR situation. However, the simpler solution is to address both possibilities and combine the modifiers. This is consistent with wound penalties (you don't take the greater of Stun wound modifier or Physical wound modifier, you take both).
-
"If either of a character’s armor ratings exceeds his Body x 2, apply a –1 modifier to Agility and Reaction for every 2 points (or fraction thereof) that his Body x 2 is exceeded."
Consider 13/11 armor versus Body 5. If either 13 or 11 exceeds 10, apply a –1 modifier for every 2 points that 10 is exceeded. I find it natural to read that as a single comparison using the largest excess. The other way is awkward, at best. The possibility hadn't even occurred to me.
Also, there's a problem with reading it as two separate comparisons. Is that a –2 penalty (total of 4 points in excess of 10) or a –3 penalty (an excess of 3 plus an excess of 1)?
-
I'm going to have to agree with Bradd that you sum the overages, not that it matters much. Don't see this rule enforced often since sacrificing Rea and Agl for a point or two of armor is a bad call for anyone besides completely immobile characters looking to bundle up real tight... which is what a rigger cocoon is for.
-
both penalties are calculated for, so its a -3 (-2 for Ball. and -1 for impact)
This is how I read them by RAW
but with tailor made Armor (BOD x3) and the new and improveved Soft Weave Armor no Runner with a BOD and STR of 2 or More should ever fear these Penalties.....
Hough!
Medicineman
-
I'm not sure who or what exactly you're agreeing with, Kontact. :) I see at least three ways to do this, but my interpretation didn't have any sums in it. ;)
-
I'm not sure who or what exactly you're agreeing with, Kontact. :) I see at least three ways to do this, but my interpretation didn't have any sums in it. ;)
And that's why I like the method that requires the least interpretation. ;)
Which is where I get the same solution that Medicineman lists out.
You compare each, and add the penalties. If people don't want to be immobile, they don't wear all that armor. ;D
-
All I know is that my Pixie can now wear even more ridiculous amounts of armor for her size.
-k
-
I can only say that prior to Softweave, everyone I have played with has based Encumbrance on the more offending armor rating rather than on both cumulative. I can see where it could be handled as Enc=({Ballistic-[2xBody]}+{Impact-[2xBody]})/2 or, in English, add up the total by which each value exceeds Bodyx2 and divide by 2. However, I've never seen it interpreted that way.
-
That would actually be a good way of resolving this. And to deduct the Softweave bonus from this value, to determine encumbrance.
-
I can only say that prior to Softweave, everyone I have played with has based Encumbrance on the more offending armor rating rather than on both cumulative. I can see where it could be handled as Enc=({Ballistic-[2xBody]}+{Impact-[2xBody]})/2 or, in English, add up the total by which each value exceeds Bodyx2 and divide by 2. However, I've never seen it interpreted that way.
Crazy thing is, I interpreted as "the highest single" to violate Body x 2, before reading over SoftWeave, too. However, before SoftWeave (and probably still), none of my players wanted any encumbrance penalty, so they set their highest armor rating to Body x 2, or lower. So it never came up. And I think that's exactly why most people reflexively say "the higher armor rating", because wanting to avoid penalties, they avoid ever reaching the point where they need to invoke encumbrance rules and so, never thought about how you implement the verbatim wording. For myself, now that I've read it over, considered the implications, and run the numbers, I see no other interpretation than cumulative penalties for exceeding on both Ballistic and Impact armors.
-
So do you round up before or after adding the two penalties?
-
I do it like so (assuming penalties on both armors):
(Ballistic - Body x 2)/2 = Ballistic Encumbrance Penalty
(Impact - Body x 2)/2 = Impact Encumbrance Penalty
Ballistic EP + Impact EP = Final EP
So I suppose it would be before, since you would combine the penalties, not the armors, if we're to keep consistent with how other rules in the game work out (dice pool modifiers are calculated, then added or subtracted from the DP, IIRC).
-
[
Crazy thing is, I interpreted as "the highest single" to violate Body x 2, before reading over SoftWeave, too. However, before SoftWeave (and probably still), none of my players wanted any encumbrance penalty, so they set their highest armor rating to Body x 2, or lower. So it never came up.
Ditto, most of the time. Prior to this it could almost read "no one wants to wear armor with more that Bodyx2 protection" and be left at that. However, my Face does occasionally go one or two points over when he's expecting trouble.
-
I'm not sure who or what exactly you're agreeing with, Kontact. :) I see at least three ways to do this, but my interpretation didn't have any sums in it. ;)
I mean to sum the amount by which it goes over and then calculate the penalties, rather than calculate the penalties first and then sum them. So 3 over Bodx2 and 1 over Bodx2 is added together to be 4 over Bodx2 before the penalty is calculated.
At the same time, Chaemera's interpretation of the reading (re: the use of either) is more accurate from a strict RAW viewpoint. I totally recognize that. I just think that the underlying reason, that thick and bulky coverings are going to restrict movement in characters who are relatively thin, shouldn't logically make a strong distinction between impact or ballistic inflexibility, so why should the rulings?
But, anyway as we've already addressed, folk are all way too shy about encumbrance penalties to deal with any serious level of over-padding.