[Novocrane]

If you're referring to wireless bonuses, I have to ask the same question: why on earth would anyone assume that those would stack?

Why wouldn't they? Where else do you limit bonuses that are not covered by a non-stacking clause?

Let's pretend we're using our wirelessly-enabled Berwick Suit to get a +1 social test dice pool bonus.  How is that represented in the game world?  The way I think it would make sense is for your suit to be able to project some tips on posture, give you advice on how to prevent wrinkling the suit, etc.  I mean, it's not like the suit has little cameras and empathy software all over it.

Or we could not. If the wireless bonus is defined as one thing, it is not another. ;P

So why would having a bunch of items on you that give you tips like this make you have multiple bonuses to your social tests?  It seems like the only thing that would matter is whatever you're wearing on the outside - so your [items that don't exist!] might make you feel better about yourself, but they're not helping in social situations in which they aren't visible.

Wireless bonuses don't have to make sense with one definition for all groups. That they work to add social dice is something we know, and each group can justify, deny, or house rule the 'why?' as they please.

[Reaver]

I totally get both sides of this argument.

I mean really, how far do you allow the stacking of some bonuses? With the expenditure of some money you're possibly cheating the longer term efforts of others.

Consider the starting Face character who finds himself low on the resource scale, after spending his cash getting just his basics sorted out, can't really afford a $4000+ coat, next to the troll sammie with too much money and a dump stat in CHA. But he does out of his way, buys every single piece of social modifier clothing he can.

That troll con very quickly end up have a social limit much higher then that of the Face.


And that I find a little unacceptable. While I agree that high status clothing should provide a bonus, I believe a single bonus for ALL clothing is appropriate. And, this is much more in line with other enhancement modifiers and limit increasers. In fact, I can't think of any other "double dipping" modifiers to tests or limits?

[Novocrane]

That troll con very quickly end up have a social limit much higher then that of the Face.

Are you basing this off numbers, or intuition?

[(Charisma x 2) + Willpower + Essence] / 3 (round up)

This is the formula we're working off for social limit. If the non-face troll is doing better than 5(8) Social Limit, with dice pools above 6(8), they're probably a secondary face themselves, if not primarily focused on it. Social Limit never stacks; that's incontrovertibly RAW. Social bonus dice ...

Mortimer of London (suit & coat)
Vashon Island (Ace of [X] outfit)
Ares Victory (Industrious security outfit)
Bunker Gear

How are you combining these for more than a +2, again? (and how are you avoiding the social modifier penalties from doing so?)

[Namikaze]

Novocrane, the whole discussion right now is about stacking bonuses from multiple pieces of gear.  It started with concealability modifier bonuses, and has moved on to Social Limit bonuses and wireless bonuses.  My argument is that none of those should stack.  The only argument that I could see making sense is to allow those bonuses to only stack with gear that already qualifies for the Custom Fit (Stack) rule.  The alternative being proposed is that the gear should be able to stack to "within reasonable limits."  My argument is that saying "reasonable limits" is pointless - someone's going to cry and bitch and moan when the GM lets someone stack three pieces of gear but not four.  To me, the "reasonable limit" is the Custom Fit (Stack) rule.  This eliminates all need for explaining to your player why X and Y gear can stack bonuses, but X, Y, and Z gear can't.

Under my scenario, a character wearing an Armante Suit with a Mortimer of London Ulysses Geat Coat would get the following:

Armor Value: 10 (only the coat applies)
Encumbrance: 0 (the coat doesn't grant added armor to the suit or vice versa)
Social Limit Bonus: +2 (from the suit, since it's the higher of the two and visible)
Concealability Bonus: -3 (from the coat, since it's the higher of the two)
Wireless Bonus: +1 (from either piece of equipment)

Additionally, the following would happen to a character with a Mortimer of London Berwick Suit and a Mortimer of London Argentum Coat:

Armor Value: 13 (9 from the suit, +4 from the coat)
Encumbrance: +4 (from the coat)
Social Limit Bonus: 1 (from either piece of equipment)
Concealability Bonus: -5 (-2 from the suit, -3 from the coat)
Wireless Bonus: +2 (+1 from the suit, +1 from the coat)

Also, just found this totally handy tidbit from the full-page sidebar on page 59 of Run & Gun:

SOCIAL LIMIT MODIFIERS
The value and status of simply wearing certain outfits help characters impress those around them, while on the other hand wearing camo fatigues at a social gathering isn’t the social standard. Some pieces of armor raise the Social Limit of the wearer.These modifiers do not stack; only the highest modifier of any visible clothing item counts (and “visible” means seeing enough of it that viewers get a solid impression of what the garment does on the wearer. Seeing, for example, only the edge of a cuff poking out from under the sleeve of a battered overcoat or the hem of a dress beneath a housecoat will not provide the modifier). Some increases are limited to certain social circles; those limitations will be listed along with the bonus.

[Reaver]

good catch Namikaze

[PiXeL01]

At my table the concealability modifiers stack.
My arguments for them to stack echo what has already been mentioned above but I thought I would add my voice to the crowd none the less.

An argument for why they should stack, especially for custom fitted clothes is that they are just that, fitted to a character's frame with the purpose of help concealing weapons in mind. A holster under a normal suit helps towards this end so why should it not under a special suit. Also wearing a coat on top further obscures the weapons carried.

The other argument is that Social Limit boni are stated as being unstackable, yet such a clause do not exist under the concealability heading.

Also that bonus help squat against sensors and hackers ^^

[SquirrelDude]

Followup question to my original one (thanks for answering it btw). Where can I find the rules for equipment capacity for armors presented in the core rules?

[All4BigGuns]

The other argument is that Social Limit boni are stated as being unstackable, yet such a clause do not exist under the concealability heading.

And while it states that the Social Limit bonuses don't stack, it does not say that the Social Dice Pool bonuses don't. Unlike in d20, if it doesn't say that something does not stack, it does.

[8-bit]

Followup question to my original one (thanks for answering it btw). Where can I find the rules for equipment capacity for armors presented in the core rules?

All of the armor in the Core Rule Book has a capacity equal to it's Armor Value. Thus, an Armor Jacket (Armor 12) has a capacity of 12. Page 437 is the page number.

[Novocrane]

And while it stats that the Social Limit bonuses don't stack, it does not say that the Social Dice Pool bonuses don't. Unlike in d20, if it doesn't say that something does not stack, it does.

Bingo.

Also, just found this totally handy tidbit from the full-page sidebar on page 59 of Run & Gun:

I was under the impression everyone was aware of the specific section that defines social limits not stacking. If I had known you or anyone else was not informed on such, I would have quoted it earlier when I said;

Social Limit never stacks; that's incontrovertibly RAW

[Namikaze]

Unlike in d20, if it doesn't say that something does not stack, it does.

Please provide some documentation from the books or a freelancer stating that this is the case.  Considering that almost everything that can stack states what it will and will not stack with, I'd be less inclined to agree to such a blanket statement.