Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Different armour on parts of body, hence different Toughness, and area effects?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Different armour on parts of body, hence different Toughness, and area effects?

    How area effects handled when the target has different armour on parts of body, e.g. a plate corselet +3 on the torso, thick leather leggings +2 on the leg, and nothing +0 on the arms or head

    Just what is their Toughness versus the area effect ?

    I can find the paragraph in the old Deluxe edition ...
    Targets use their lowest armor value against
    area effect damage—armor must cover the entire
    body without gaps to provide any protection at all.


    But can't find equivalent in SWADE ?
    Last edited by steveculshaw; 02-05-2020, 09:55 PM.

  • #2
    That's because the equivalent does not exist in Adventure Edition.

    There are two key sections.
    Originally posted by Page 11
    Toughness is your hero’s damage threshold. Damage rolls that equal or exceed this number cause harm (explained later in Chapter Three).
    Toughness is 2 plus half your hero’s Vigor, plus Armor (use the armor worn on his torso—see page 69). Vigor over a d12 is calculated just like Parry, above.
    and
    Originally posted by Page 94
    Applying Damage
    If the damage roll is less than the target’s Toughness, the victim is beaten up a bit but there’s no game effect. If the damage is equal to or greater than his Toughness, he’s Shaken.
    Damage applies to Toughness. Toughness is based upon torso armor unless noted otherwise. As you point out, area effect attacks have no similar note.

    Also relevant is one of the notes under fire hazards.
    Originally posted by Page 127
    Armor: Armor protects normally unless the attack or hazard’s description says otherwise. A hero hit with a flamethrower is still better off if he has a Kevlar vest than not, for example.
    I hope you find the above post useful. And not insulting, because I was trying to be helpful, not insulting; being a pedantic jerk, that isn't always clear.

    Comment


    • steveculshaw
      steveculshaw commented
      Editing a comment
      Thanks for that

  • #3
    Sounds like GM's call and how gritty you'd like to have the setting.
    Personally, I would go for the least armored part, but would ignore the "sealed armor condition". Obviously, in a medieval-like setting, there is no sealed armor and I just assume, the HEROS will somehow turn their head away to receive full effect of an open helmet. In a Sci-Fi setting, sealed armor should be available and I might rule it different in this case.

    Comment


    • ValhallaGH
      ValhallaGH commented
      Editing a comment
      It's a GM call as much as deciding what random location a typical gunshot hits. That's not how the rules are written but you can run it that way.

  • #4
    Got an official response ... https://www.pegforum.com/forum/savag...-parts-of-body

    "The damage from Area Effects is rolled like other standard attacks against Toughness, which assumes torso armor. FFF!"

    Comment


    • Deskepticon
      Deskepticon commented
      Editing a comment
      Gameplay-wise it's a great rules change. AE attacks in Deluxe were very good.

      ... and the wording on "unarmoured" locations led to some weird rulings. One GM insisted that since nobody had facial protection, we all were subjected to "headshots" from the fireball, and all our eyebrows burned off giving us Persuasion penalties until they grew back. Funny at the time, but not a fair ruling, I thought.

  • #5
    If you wanted to house-rule something more complex, I've seen a few games handle it this way: against area effects or "full body" attacks (like falling, getting hit with a wrecking ball, etc.), take the average of (A) your torso armor and (B) your least armored location, and round down.

    So you have torso armor +4 but everything else is +1? Then you have armor +2 against area effects.

    Again, this would absolutely be a house rule, but it's a reasonable one.

    Comment

    Working...
    X