ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Watson on July 27, 2011, 10:30:22 AM
-
How would rules handle characters wanting body armor on their characters (like a kevlar vest)?
The most simple way would perhaps be to say that the character has an Armor value of 1 or 2, but that seems too good, as they could wear it all the time (under clothes), with no negative aspects (!) and as there are no hit locations, there is 100% that the armor will work against any attack - too overpowered, in my opinion.
Would it simply be simulated by an Aspect (WEARING MY KEVLAR VEST), so that the player have to spend a Fate point to essentially get a 2 point worth of protection?
The kind of problem comes as a modern vest is relatively light and easy to wear. I could see that a full chainmail could provide 1-2 points of protection all the time, but have an aspect like HEAVY ARMOR, that can be compelled when running etc.
What is your take on using body armor in the game?
-
The rules simply say armor provides armor. I think it would be a little unfair to armor wearing characters, espeically Pure Mortals who have to rely on equipment to have any chance of contending with some supernatural foes, to generically penalize them in all situations beyond the rules.
That said, if you want someone to take advantage of the fact that someone is wearing kevlar, Assessments and Declarations are the way to go. NPC's like cops or criminals could make an Assessment noticing someone is wearing a vest, thus they know he's expecting trouble and to watch him closely. And a foe could make Declarations like "Hot and Distracting" to get a bonus to certain types of actions and maneuvers where it would be appropriate to get an advantage from that aspect.
-
Don't forget Watson, stress != damage.
I'll refer to this thread: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27599.msg1182388.html#msg1182388
And in specific to the post made by 'noclue'.
-
The most simple way would perhaps be to say that the character has an Armor value of 1 or 2, but that seems too good, as they could wear it all the time (under clothes), with no negative aspects (!) and as there are no hit locations, there is 100% that the armor will work against any attack - too overpowered, in my opinion.
Out of curiosity, why do you think an armor value of 1 would be "too good"? Also, there are negative aspects to wearing armor. Good armor isn't all that concealable, weighs a fair amount, and tends to be hot.
What is your take on using body armor in the game?
Civilian armor provides armor 1 when worn. It may be a detriment out side of combat situations.
-
No negative aspects?
Cops probably won't be happy about it. You could say it was Armor 1 vs. specific damage (gunfire for kevlar, knives for mail) if you wanted to limit it. Most people will think you're a bit odd. I'd treat it as a taggable aspect during the summer. Maybe even tag it to make Endurance checks harder (sure, that Good endurance most characters probably have means they've probably never thought about endurance checks...until they're done at -2).
-
Unless it is in the character concept, actually having armor in the first place will take a resources roll or a fate point.
The way I run my games, the characters who have armor have to tell me they got it or put it on before a scene starts or they don't have armor for that scene unless a fate point is spent.
That way my players have a bit of choice in gear.
-
My take on body armor is that I like to keep the Armor values to 1 or 2.
Concealable vest: Armor 1
body armor worn over clothing: Armor 2
Vest with strike plates: Armor 3
I haven't had anyone ask me about anything greater, but I suppose at Armor 4 you'd be talking Army of Two gear, the kind of full-body coverage that'd let you rob a North Hollywood bank or go on Ghost Recon:Future Soldier missions.
I have also allowed some armor to take a Mild consequence for their wearers, basically being "my armor's ruined!" and doesn't work anymore. I find this works best for archaic armor, shields, and vests with strike plates.
I'm lenient on allowing ballistic armor to work on knives and stabbing weapons (although that's easily defeated with a Declaration about needing a stab vest to stop stabs), although I rule that archaic armor does NOT stop gunfire (unless of course you've got a wife who lines your mail with kevlar and then you bullshit your Declaration well enough that the GM allows it). :)
To counter that, well, you can aim as a Maneuver (either for the typical +2, which in effect can cancel out Armor:2, or tag for effect to say you're aiming for where there is no armor coverage) or Declare you've got armor-piercing ammo or something. A lot of monstrosities have enough natural hitting power that wearing armor just makes the character in question think they can go toe to toe with something that they'd otherwise engage more indirectly (and smartly). As a result, I really don't have much problem handing out body armor to my PCs. They're all outlaw degenerates anyhow; body armor would be the last thing for which any police would stop them.
-
They're all outlaw degenerates anyhow; body armor would be the last thing for which any police would stop them.
Police aren't the only ones who could complicate a situation socially. People will remember seeing a guy wearing armor making them easier to find, kids think armor is cool which might attract innocent targets to defend. Lots of stuff to do if you are so inclined, just make sure it's interesting.
-
I've done a couple things that might help you out-
1- called shots (usually using a tagged aspect from an aiming maneuver, or a stunt) have the added effect of bypassing most armor.
2- I give mortal armor it's own stress track. Any time the armor is the difference between taking stress and taking a consequence, that armor takes a point of damage as well. 2-3 points of damage for any given armor is enough to put it out of commission until there's some downtime good enough to replace or repair it.
-
The books also suggest that mundane armor only applies against attacks it was designed to stop. Kevlar is great against bullets, but pretty meaningless against stabbing weapons and fireballs. In games I've played, kevlar vests are pretty common, but the GM will often tell a player "Sorry, your armor doesn't apply against this attack", no fate points involved. A concealable vest is pretty cheap and not very bulky, but players who want something bigger and tougher have to put up with the required resources rolls and the fact they *look* like they're wearing armor, which has plot implications.
-
My take on body armor is that I like to keep the Armor values to 1 or 2.
Concealable vest: Armor 1
body armor worn over clothing: Armor 2
Vest with strike plates: Armor 3
I haven't had anyone ask me about anything greater, but I suppose at Armor 4 you'd be talking Army of Two gear, the kind of full-body coverage that'd let you rob a North Hollywood bank or go on Ghost Recon:Future Soldier missions.
I have also allowed some armor to take a Mild consequence for their wearers, basically being "my armor's ruined!" and doesn't work anymore. I find this works best for archaic armor, shields, and vests with strike plates.
I'm lenient on allowing ballistic armor to work on knives and stabbing weapons (although that's easily defeated with a Declaration about needing a stab vest to stop stabs), although I rule that archaic armor does NOT stop gunfire (unless of course you've got a wife who lines your mail with kevlar and then you bullshit your Declaration well enough that the GM allows it). :)
To counter that, well, you can aim as a Maneuver (either for the typical +2, which in effect can cancel out Armor:2, or tag for effect to say you're aiming for where there is no armor coverage) or Declare you've got armor-piercing ammo or something. A lot of monstrosities have enough natural hitting power that wearing armor just makes the character in question think they can go toe to toe with something that they'd otherwise engage more indirectly (and smartly). As a result, I really don't have much problem handing out body armor to my PCs. They're all outlaw degenerates anyhow; body armor would be the last thing for which any police would stop them.
You might want to reconsider armor:3.
As I understand it, body armor really only goes up to armor:2.
Anything higher than 2 is like... tanks and supernatural monsters.
-
I agree with one exception. If a character had an extremely high craftsmanship, resources, and scholarship they could plausibly (given time) construct some kind of prototype armor that has an armor value of three, ask for some military quality armor if they have very high contacts with some connection to the military, or buy some off the black market. But it would probably come with an aspect like "Illegal for civilians" or something like that. It would be difficult but I don't think a pure mortal sporting armor 3 is completely out of the question.
-
It would probably come with an aspect like "Illegal for civilians" or something like that.
Or "Highly Conductive"
or "stiflingly hot"
or "damn it's itchy in this thing"...
-
I'd say that the sort of armour the bomb squad uses would count as armour 3. I'd give it an aspect of "bulky" though.
-
Or "Highly Conductive"
or "stiflingly hot"
or "damn it's itchy in this thing"...
Or heck, just make it "How the hell did he get that?!"
-
Armour is armour. If you wear it, you have its protection. It's as simple as that. You don't have to spend anything.
However, armour is generally pretty obvious. If you wear military quality armour, you're not going to be able to conceal it very well, unless you're wearing a huge coat all the time, which is conspicuous. Then, if you have to take it off, everyone is going to see that you have armour on, and they're going to assume that you're looking for trouble.
Aspects needn't come into this. Spending fate points doesn't grant you armour, for example. You don't need an Aspect, "Heavy suit of armour," for it to make trouble. If a cop sees that you're walking around armoured up like you're part of a SWAT team, they're going to stop you and maybe call in backup if you look like trouble. People aren't going to let you into clubs looking like trouble. Etc.
-
Armour is armour. If you wear it, you have its protection. It's as simple as that. You don't have to spend anything.
However, armour is generally pretty obvious. If you wear military quality armour, you're not going to be able to conceal it very well, unless you're wearing a huge coat all the time, which is conspicuous. Then, if you have to take it off, everyone is going to see that you have armour on, and they're going to assume that you're looking for trouble.
Aspects needn't come into this. Spending fate points doesn't grant you armour, for example. You don't need an Aspect, "Heavy suit of armour," for it to make trouble. If a cop sees that you're walking around armoured up like you're part of a SWAT team, they're going to stop you and maybe call in backup if you look like trouble. People aren't going to let you into clubs looking like trouble. Etc.
The point of the Aspects is to give the character choice.
If there is an aspect I can compel, the player gets a chance to use a fate point to say "Oh, well that cop was looking the other direction when I went by. He didn't notice my armor."
The whole point of the FATE system is that the gm is not in total control.
For games where the GM wants to be in total control, other systems work better. Just imo.
-
I'd like to point to YS:202 for clarification on what is an appropriate level for personal armor.
-
Something I'd point out is that while a vest or similar may not have an aspect already attached to it per se, it does serve as great justification for declarations. So if you're looking to bypass someone's kevlar vest you could always target his "Unprotected Legs." Creating that aspect through a simple alertness declaration and then invoking the aspect for additional damage (which would likely be enough to offset the armor) or invoking for effect to bypass it completely.
Since it's still the GM's world they would of course be capable of making the same aspects without the need for a declaration.
-
This is, in fact, exactly what we do, 90% of the time.
The other 10% is actually represented by an item of power one of my characters use that provides inhuman toughness and recovery. The item is a jacket that belonged to any one of several people very famous for having survived what they had no right to have (investigating it's origin is a planned adventure of it's own, and on the off chance one of them visits this board....). So, the item has the very obvious catch of "doesn't protect head or legs," (as well as one more difficult one they don't know about that ended up being a problem for the original owner).
-
Weapon X ... countered by ... Armor X
Its up to the GM what is the max value of X. While a sniper would be, say 5, one really can't have an armor 5 to counter it, unless he/she can lift and hold a tank or something.
However, armor is a loose term. You shouldn't just think Kevlar vest. How about a lucky charm? Since armor stacks, having a lucky charm of +1, a rabbit's paw key-chain for another +1, say a riot vest of +2 and maybe a horse shoe necklace for another +1 and there you go, +3 of that +5 armor has to do with plain simple luck (and lets leave it abstract), and the +2 is when the bullet actually hits you.
Ofc, a DM might say the items would go to attack, not armor, or at least nix you having any but one or two but its a plausible example.
And what I enumerated are NON MAGICAL items, lets keep the pure mortal pure now :D Its the fact that humans believe superstitions are real give those objects power. Ofc not all superstitions work, but the most common should.
On another matter, having dark sunglasses should give you an aspect, to tag once free per scene, against accidentally soulgazing with someone. Declaring you have steel bullets with a Guns or Resources is also very much acceptable, you just have to put some effort in thinking it and keep thinking out of the ol' box.
-
Since armor stacks, having a lucky charm of +1, a rabbit's paw key-chain for another +1, say a riot vest of +2 and maybe a horse shoe necklace for another +1 and there you go, +3 of that +5 armor has to do with plain simple luck (and lets leave it abstract), and the +2 is when the bullet actually hits you.
Armor does not stack.
-
Armor does not stack.
^ This.
YS:202 the Marginalia at the bottom.
-
It should stack, its how Kevlar works in the first place.
And I sustain me original point that armor 5 would look like either a 10 power block halved to 5 armor(which is a silly thing to do), or a tank.
-
What I mean is that, as the system does not have hit locations, it feels strange that having armor that only covers a part of the body still provides 100% protection (i.e. always works, the hit always strikes were the armor is). A kevlar vest is one thing, but what if a character only has a helmet? It feels even more weird that it always provides protection when attacked. If the armor [that is only covering part of the body] is an aspect instead, the player can choose when the attack strikes the armored part of the body by spending a Fate point.
If the armor covers most of the body I fully agree that it shall have a ‘permanent’ protection value such as 1 or 2.
-
It should stack, its how Kevlar works in the first place.
And I sustain me original point that armor 5 would look like either a 10 power block halved to 5 armor(which is a silly thing to do), or a tank.
(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060605112733/uncyclopedia/images/b/be/God_kills_catgirl.gif)
-
@Watson: Meh, I'd give the defender the benefit of the doubt on vests and assume that most people target center mass. If someone wants to bypass the vest the burden to do so would be on them (by creating/invoking an aspect). I'd agree with you on the helmet though. If that's all they're wearing then I would assume the helmet does not protect them unless they declare something to the effect of "Good thing it hit my helmet!"
-
What I mean is that, as the system does not have hit locations, it feels strange that having armor that only covers a part of the body still provides 100% protection (i.e. always works, the hit always strikes were the armor is). A kevlar vest is one thing, but what if a character only has a helmet? It feels even more weird that it always provides protection when attacked. If the armor [that is only covering part of the body] is an aspect instead, the player can choose when the attack strikes the armored part of the body by spending a Fate point.
If the armor covers most of the body I fully agree that it shall have a ‘permanent’ protection value such as 1 or 2.
Fate is not a crunchy system.
Think of it this way.
A large pistol or small rifle is a Weapon:2. IIIA body armor is Armor:2 in the dresden files.
If someone shoots rolling a 0, and the defender dodges rolling a 0, the armor nullifies the bullet like it would in real life.
Now in the game, the better someone's defense roll is, the better they hid behind cover or got in the prone.
The better the attack roll is, the better aim the shooter has.
So after two stacked aspects used on an attack roll (one of which being "Aiming), and a fate point spent on the attack, this results in a MUCH higher attack rolls, symbolizing the attacker hitting something other than the armor.
Does that make more sense?
And for the poster saying armor stacks...
No, it doesn't. And an Armor:5 is utterly ridiculous for a PC. I would allow someone to have it /if/ they were willing to spend refresh on it.
Armor:5 is definitely tank grade.
-
(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060605112733/uncyclopedia/images/b/be/God_kills_catgirl.gif)
This makes me want to bring up physics more often... ;D
-
If we bring up real physics, wouldn't that mean that we deny the existence of God? Xp
-
The point of the Aspects is to give the character choice.
If there is an aspect I can compel, the player gets a chance to use a fate point to say "Oh, well that cop was looking the other direction when I went by. He didn't notice my armor."
The whole point of the FATE system is that the gm is not in total control.
For games where the GM wants to be in total control, other systems work better. Just imo.
I'd have the opponent make a declaration about it. They get a free tag (so not fate point for the player), but the player can spend a FP to resist. Still in control, but they've already gotten the bonus.
To avoid armor, you can do a maneuver to say that you're aiming at their face, etc. They system supports it, but only when it's relevant. Not necessarily optimal, but maneuvers and spending FP...
-
Ultimately, when rolling to set up an Aspect to take advantage of a defect or weak spot in an opponent's armor, you aren't necessarily making a Declaration/Assessment that it exists (though you are, somewhat) so much as giving it narrative importance as a source of plot advantage.
And no, in the RAW, "Armor" (the abstract mechanism, usually provided by physical armor but also by other things depending on context, which reduces a successful attack by X shifts of stress) does not stack with other sources of "Armor" (the abstract mechanism, usually provided by physical armor but also by other things depending on context, which reduces a successful attack by X shifts of stress).
-
To avoid armor, you can do a maneuver to say that you're aiming at their face, etc. They system supports it, but only when it's relevant. Not necessarily optimal, but maneuvers and spending FP...
A maneuver just gives you an aspect. It doesn't bypass armor benefits. Of course, the invoke gives you a +2' which could be considered the effect from avoiding the armor. So it works fine.
-
A maneuver just gives you an aspect. It doesn't bypass armor benefits. Of course, the invoke gives you a +2' which could be considered the effect from avoiding the armor. So it works fine.
Indeed. The abstract concept behind the rules is that armor makes one more resistant to taking stress, so one has to be "better" at causing harm to cause more stress.
It makes plenty of sense to me.
-
A maneuver just gives you an aspect. It doesn't bypass armor benefits. Of course, the invoke gives you a +2' which could be considered the effect from avoiding the armor. So it works fine.
If you tag that manoeuvre for a +2, that represents aiming at an arm, leg, etc not covered by the Kevlar. Kevlar is Armour:2, so a +2 negates that. If they had heavier armour, the +2 could represent aiming at a weak point, for example. The heavier the armour, the longer it takes to aim for an unarmoured location (stacking aspects for one massive tag).
Just my [-2].
-EF