[JustADude]

Okay, seriously, how is it that people are missing the fact that PPP and FFBA don't interact with each other?

You put on the suit of FFBA and get your 6/2(3/1) armor, then you put the PPP on top as completely separate articles of clothing/armor that make it 6+X/2+X(3+X/1+X). Throw standard Armored Clothing of some kind on top of that and boom, you're done.

If FFBA loses its bonus with PPP, it loses its bonus when worn with anything, making it a rather useless bonus.

[Ajax]

I didn't miss that... I cited the rules that say explictly that. No one in the Echo Chamber wants to listen, I guess. ::shrug::

[Medicineman]

then you put the PPP on top as completely separate articles of clothing/armor that make it 6+X/2+X(3+X/1+X).

Then You should write to CGL so that they change the whole PPP conception.
 by RAW it is a Armor Add -on (Like Helmets and Shields) that its rating is ADDED to already worn armor (thats why there is as + before the Numbers )

If FFBA loses its bonus with PPP, it loses its bonus when worn with anything, making it a rather useless bonus.

again :
PPP is not a seperate Armor its an Add-on
If You Use FFBA with PPP you don't have two different sets of Armor but only One !

with only One Dance
Medicineman

[jonathanc]

I've actually been somewhat curious about how you're using armored cyberlimbs; are they directly additive? If so, where are those rules? I thought armor on cyberlimbs was like strength or body; you used the higher number in a situation where the limb was in direct use, but otherwise you used the average of the limb and the person's body, since both were in effect?

So it's actually a huge mess.  The whole "use the limb/average the limbs" thing only apples to attributes which doesn't include armor.  Thus while an enhancement, cyberlimb armor isn't an attribute and doesn't ever get averaged.  With the lack of hit location rules, it's typically assumed that it stacks with overall armor and thus adds to one's "all-around" armor score like the other ware providers of armor like orthoskin and bone lacing.  The strongest argument that cyberlimb armor stacks is that the lower levels of Dermal Sheath explicitly only covers a section of the body and yet is implied to provide all-around armor. 

Now the argument if cyberlimb armor is too good or not likely belongs in another thread.

Looking at the letter of the rules, it's clear that cyberlimb armor stacks with "worn armor", but since none of the other cyberlimb enhancements stack on top of one another (i.e. buying two arms with R3 enhancements on each doesn't give you +6; you get two arms with +3 on each). This keeps the bonus within a fairly reasonable range (maximum of 4 to ballistic and impact), instead of allowing you to pile on upwards of 16 armor with no encumbrance.

That's how I'd rule it, anyway, and I believe I'd have RAW on my side if I did so.

[JustADude]

then you put the PPP on top as completely separate articles of clothing/armor that make it 6+X/2+X(3+X/1+X).

Then You should write to CGL so that they change the whole PPP conception.
 by RAW it is a Armor Add -on (Like Helmets and Shields) that its rating is ADDED to already worn armor (thats why there is as + before the Numbers )

So you add the PPP to the armor or armored-clothing ensemble you wear over the Formfit, not to the Formfit itself. Still doesn't mean the PPP and the FormFit have to have anything to do with each other.

And yes, unarmored clothing counts as armor, too: Clothing - 0/0

[Tsuzua]

Looking at the letter of the rules, it's clear that cyberlimb armor stacks with "worn armor", but since none of the other cyberlimb enhancements stack on top of one another (i.e. buying two arms with R3 enhancements on each doesn't give you +6; you get two arms with +3 on each). This keeps the bonus within a fairly reasonable range (maximum of 4 to ballistic and impact), instead of allowing you to pile on upwards of 16 armor with no encumbrance.

That's how I'd rule it, anyway, and I believe I'd have RAW on my side if I did so.

It will if you can prove that cyberlimb armor is an attribute.  Since the description under cyberlimb enhancements refers to Physical Attribute enhancements and Armor enhancements separately, it might be hard to do so.  Now you can argue if it's RAI or how you'll rule it and that's fine.  But there isn't as much RAW support to be sure.  To be fair, there's as much or only slightly better arguments for cyberlimb stacking everywhere.  As I said before, it's a mess.

Honestly it could been cleaned up with an example or a sentence.  Then again considering the cyberlimb examples given actually confuse the issue more (does the head provide protection?) that it addresses, maybe not.

[jonathanc]

Looking at the letter of the rules, it's clear that cyberlimb armor stacks with "worn armor", but since none of the other cyberlimb enhancements stack on top of one another (i.e. buying two arms with R3 enhancements on each doesn't give you +6; you get two arms with +3 on each). This keeps the bonus within a fairly reasonable range (maximum of 4 to ballistic and impact), instead of allowing you to pile on upwards of 16 armor with no encumbrance.

That's how I'd rule it, anyway, and I believe I'd have RAW on my side if I did so.

It will if you can prove that cyberlimb armor is an attribute.  Since the description under cyberlimb enhancements refers to Physical Attribute enhancements and Armor enhancements separately, it might be hard to do so.  Now you can argue if it's RAI or how you'll rule it and that's fine.  But there isn't as much RAW support to be sure.  To be fair, there's as much or only slightly better arguments for cyberlimb stacking everywhere.  As I said before, it's a mess.

Honestly it could been cleaned up with an example or a sentence.  Then again considering the cyberlimb examples given actually confuse the issue more (does the head provide protection?) that it addresses, maybe not.

From a playability perspective, either assumption results in...weirdness. If it doesn't stack, then there's no point in armoring more than one limb; if it does stack, then cyberlimbs represent a fairly abusive exploitation of the armor rules.

I think a good middle-ground would be to only allow cyberlimb armor to stack with itself for the purposes of determining called shots to avoid armor; this limits the amount of sheer damage soak you're getting from the limbs, but makes buying armor on all of your limbs an insurance policy against sharpshooters.

[jonathanc]

I think a good middle-ground would be to only allow cyberlimb armor to stack with itself for the purposes of determining called shots to avoid armor; this limits the amount of sheer damage soak you're getting from the limbs, but makes buying armor on all of your limbs an insurance policy against sharpshooters.

There are NO hit locations.

Doing this will do nothing but make cyberlimb armor completely worthless.

You either haven't read what I wrote, or haven't read the combat chapter in SR4A.

CALLED SHOTS
Target an area not protected by armor.  The attacking character receives a negative dice pool modifier equal to the target’s armor (better armor is more difficult to bypass). If the attack hits, the target’s armor is ignored for the damage resistance test; the target rolls only Body.

My idea is that if you have 4 cyberlimbs with Armor 2, you roll that armor 2 as part of your damage resistance test. But if someone tries to use a called shot on you to bypass your armor, then you stack the armor for each of the limbs, meaning that they would have to suffer a dice pool modifier of -8 (plus whatever other armor you're wearing) to ignore your armor.

[jonathanc]

I think a good middle-ground would be to only allow cyberlimb armor to stack with itself for the purposes of determining called shots to avoid armor; this limits the amount of sheer damage soak you're getting from the limbs, but makes buying armor on all of your limbs an insurance policy against sharpshooters.

There are NO hit locations.

Doing this will do nothing but make cyberlimb armor completely worthless.

You either haven't read what I wrote, or haven't read the combat chapter in SR4A.

CALLED SHOTS
Target an area not protected by armor.  The attacking character receives a negative dice pool modifier equal to the target’s armor (better armor is more difficult to bypass). If the attack hits, the target’s armor is ignored for the damage resistance test; the target rolls only Body.

My idea is that if you have 4 cyberlimbs with Armor 2, you roll that armor 2 as part of your damage resistance test. But if someone tries to use a called shot on you to bypass your armor, then you stack the armor for each of the limbs, meaning that they would have to suffer a dice pool modifier of -8 (plus whatever other armor you're wearing) to ignore your armor.

I think you're misreading the rules here. This is not an argument for different armor values for different "hit locations" (which again do not exist in SR). It is just that you can take a penalty to remove that much armor from the target's soak pool. Anything else is micromanagement and overcomplication for little or no good reason (Note: Realism is not a good reason, as this is a game.)

Are you just willfully misreading what I type? When did I say anything about hit locations? I'm talking about allowing cyberlimb armor to stack with itself for the purposes of the called shot rules only. By RAW, there's no real reason to believe that they stack at all; every other cyberlimb enhancement doesn't. If you don't let them stack at all for anything, then having armor on more than one limb is a waste of money and capacity. If you let them stack for everything, then you end up with PCs with the durability of armored cars.

By RAW, either way is a reasonable interpretation, but both interpretations are sub-optimal, IMO. I'm suggesting a house rule that is fairly simple, doesn't add any granularity, and works within the existing called shot rules. What the hell is your problem?

[Noctem]

considering how much of a tangent this has become, and that it's moving the conversation away from "character creation and critique",  I'd appreciate if you guys could create a new thread to continue your discussion.  Thanks

[Noctem]

Ok so we had our first session yesterday.  It was quite fun.  I didn't shoot anyone but I did manage some infiltration and what not.  We're currently investigated kidnappings of Ork women by these two humans driving an illegal reproduction of a Doc-Wagon.  Plot is getting interesting   Found a new contact who is a mechanic for vehicles.  Made some cash.

One bit that I thought was funny though is when the DM tried to make me believe that the two infiltration characters of the group ( myself and the face ) couldn't open a low security maglock even though we had a maglock key in our hands.  When I tried to reason with him he stated that he knew the rules and that he was "god" so I should just go with it.  He further stated that he didn't want to break the flow by checking rules for 2 hours during the session.  Anyway I checked the rules anyway, showed him that we could default and so on (he said we couldn't).  After that I just checked the rules whenever we had a situation that I wasn't clear about automatically while the DM kept things moving.  I figure the teamwork is going to be more important since everyone at the table is learning the game right now.  I just busted out laughing when he stated that he was "god".  Oh buddy.

[Cass100199]

... he knew the rules and that he was "god" so I should just go with it.

Wow. You might need a different group.

[Ajax]

Ok so we had our first session yesterday.  It was quite fun.

Snip

He further stated that he didn't want to break the flow by checking rules for 2 hours during the session.

I've been playing Shadowrun for decades, along with numerous other games, so I thought I'd just inject a bit of my expereince on this matter.  Although you GM made a mistake of the rules, he was dead on with his ruling.  Keeping the game moving, keeping the story consistent, and -- above all -- keeping the game fun is the primary job of the GM.  I have a strict policy of never letting a rules debate last longer than five minutes during play... I encourage my players to bring things up with me after the game or between sessions (we have a e-mail mailing list for the group), or whenever. But sometimes it is more important for the GM just to declare something is "Just So" and move on.

During the "learning curve" portion of any new game, players and the GM will make mistakes. Bring it to his attention between sessions, consult forums like this one, and double-check the books. That is how you learn the mechanics. But during a game, one should almost always err on the side of fun.

[Noctem]

@ Cass

I think it's more that he just got defensive when I asked if I could check the rules because it didn't sound right to me.  Afterwards when I would just check automatically he would turn to me and ask to see specific rules for what we were doing since I was already reading it for myself.

@ Ajax

I agree that rule debates aren't good for the flow of the game.  However that's not really what this was.  The GM tried to say that two characters who had invested into infiltration could not get passed a low sec maglock.  That didn't sound right to me at all.  He then declared that we would have to invest resources, time etc for a door that I believed we could get passed if we just took 30 seconds to look up the rule for defaulting on that skill.  The real problem is that we had a the SR core book on the table and that he would not let his players look at the rule because he was "god" and knew the rule.  He didn't.  The whole situation lasted 2 minutes give or take.  I checked the rule then and there because it's one thing if it was something obtuse or that could be interpreted by DM fiat, or if one player stated one rule and the GM stated another..  This was just the GM being defensive that I didn't think his interpretation of the situation was correct.  Afterwards he would turn to me and ask me what the rules said for a situation since I was already reading it for myself.

For me, when a situation like this arrives and the character I am playing is unable to get passed something as basic as this even though i have an item designed to do it, it breaks my immersion so to speak.  The GM is a good one, he just doesn't know the rules yet.  And for basic stuff like this I think we should look up stuff as we go so that we can all learn at the same time and use it in situations properly.  Second time we play after all.  I'll be doing some research until the next game to really familiarize myself with rules that will affect my PC.  Like combat, infiltration, etc..  I just hope the GM won't start debating the actual rules and create a rules debate himself lol.  I'll also keep looking up rules as we go from situation to situation.  An example is that our hacker was almost killed during the first session because the GM ruled some wonky stuff with hacking instead of taking 30 seconds and looking up the rule in the book.  If my character died because of the GM refusing to take a look in the rule book on the table, I wouldn't be very pleased, would you ?

[Cass100199]

Ok so we had our first session yesterday.  It was quite fun.

Snip

He further stated that he didn't want to break the flow by checking rules for 2 hours during the session.

I've been playing Shadowrun for decades, along with numerous other games, so I thought I'd just inject a bit of my expereince on this matter.  Although you GM made a mistake of the rules, he was dead on with his ruling.  Keeping the game moving, keeping the story consistent, and -- above all -- keeping the game fun is the primary job of the GM.  I have a strict policy of never letting a rules debate last longer than five minutes during play... I encourage my players to bring things up with me after the game or between sessions (we have a e-mail mailing list for the group), or whenever. But sometimes it is more important for the GM just to declare something is "Just So" and move on.

During the "learning curve" portion of any new game, players and the GM will make mistakes. Bring it to his attention between sessions, consult forums like this one, and double-check the books. That is how you learn the mechanics. But during a game, one should almost always err on the side of fun.

1) Big difference between "I need to keep the game moving and we'll come back to that later" and "I'm GOD. Don't question me". The first is well intentioned and right, the latter is a douche. The problem here is that a ruling was made without even trying to listen to the player, who made his character and would presumably have read the same rule(s). So, is keeping the game moving at the expense of one players fun worth it? I have to disagree. It wasn't the right call. As they are all learning, taking the time now to get the rules down would be beneficial to all in the long run.

2) Keyword searches make checking rules much easier. It isn't like the days of yore where you have to flip through the books anymore.