|
I'm trying to nail down what Lashunta Tempweave looks like. Unfortunately it is one of the many armors not shown in the core book, but I have had some success looking in scenarios for it.
The text is: Lashuntas developed tempweave light armor by threading temperature-regulating wires through reinforced clothing. The result is a protective, flexible outfit that maintains a comfortable temperature for the wearer. Most tempweave outfits feature a fitted tunic over breeches, making them a popular choice for explorers venturing to hot or humid environments.
So, it sounds like safari clothes (which don't seem that armor-y) But what I've pieced together is... a mix. These are the only 3 official characters I've found that supposedly wear it.
Reynald Talbot
Vrisken and...
To conquer the Dragon (name withheld for spoilers, but it's the cover art)
Does anyone have any other examples of this stuff? Hopefully something more consistent?
Based on the description it could have any look, it just have to be "reinforced clothing" (e.g. biker "armor) and no tshirt. :)
Most PCs will want to flavor their armor as having a significant component of force fields so that they can use augmentations and gear (like gloves) that need to penetrate the armor to effect targets.
Most PCs will want to flavor their armor as having a significant component of force fields so that they can use augmentations and gear (like gloves) that need to penetrate the armor to effect targets.
Yep, pretty much this.
Most PCs will want to flavor their armor as having a significant component of force fields so that they can use augmentations and gear (like gloves) that need to penetrate the armor to effect targets.
I don't see the point.
If your GM is a forgiving GM, he'll let you to use gloves above the armor or substitute the armor with the gloves. If he is confrontational, he can pretty much rule that the force field forbids you to touch people with the glove, because the force field is above it.I don't think it's a good precedent to rule out some armors just because they DO have a picture in the book (or a description) and they are not significantly built on force fields, or have force fields in places you don't need (like having force fields in the head, but not in the hands, and thus banning you from using gloves.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A GM that would make that kind of ruling does not sound like someone worth playing with.
Most PCs will want to flavor their armor as having a significant component of force fields so that they can use augmentations and gear (like gloves) that need to penetrate the armor to effect targets.I don't see the point.
If your GM is a forgiving GM, he'll let you to use gloves above the armor or substitute the armor with the gloves. If he is confrontational, he can pretty much rule that the force field forbids you to touch people with the glove, because the force field is above it.I don't think it's a good precedent to rule out some armors just because they DO have a picture in the book (or a description) and they are not significantly built on force fields, or have force fields in places you don't need (like having force fields in the head, but not in the hands, and thus banning you from using gloves.)
If you're wearing a hard shell armor and you have a weaponized prosthesis, how do you shoot through the armor encasing your arm?
If you have a bone blade necrograft in your arm, how can you extend it if your armor is in the way?
If you have a shockfist biotech augmenation, how can you touch people and use it if your armor necessarily includes physical gloves?
If you have an optical laser, can you use it if you've been portraying your armor as including a polarized face shield?
If you have customized gaps, you need to cover those with something...something like a forcefield that only stops things from one direction. You need to have forcefields incorporated into some armor, so you might as well use their existence to explain and justify some of the less all encasing armors that don't cover all (or even most) of your body yet still provide excellent protection against environmental harms.
I don't think it's a good precedent to rule out some armors just because they DO have a picture in the book
Why not? Paizo invented an entirely new unwritten mechanic that neutered spellcasters and spellcasting creatures the campaign over for Pathfinder simply because some of their artwork showed floating runes and dancing lights around some of their spellcasters.
If it's good enough for Paizo to ruin games, it's good enough for GMs too, right? :P
Right? :'(
*cough* Just as a reminder, Armory has the "modifying armor" rules paragraph. I don't have the exact wording on hand, but its basically "no matter what, at worst a suit of armor needs modification by an armorer to function for anybody". This should apply to cybernetic mods just as much as extra arms or larger body size.
I totally love that rule.
*cough* Just as a reminder, Armory has the "modifying armor" rules paragraph. I don't have the exact wording on hand, but its basically "no matter what, at worst a suit of armor needs modification by an armorer to function for anybody". This should apply to cybernetic mods just as much as extra arms or larger body size.
Does it? There's no such thing at the beginning of the armor section, and a ctrl-f on "modifying," "modified," "modify," and "customized" finds no such thing.
Maybe this will help.
The recently released Starfinder Armory makes it abundantly clear that ALL gear can be used by ANY playable race.
Gear in general is meant to work for pretty much every playable race at any given time under the vast majority of circumstances. Worst case scenario, some token credits need to be spent or an Engineering check needs to be made to modify it to the new user first.
The designers clearly didn't want this to be much of an issue.
It even makes sense in game. With such a wide variety of alien morphology out there, vendors would want the gear they are selling to be versatile. Those that didn't learn this quick, likely went out of business eons ago.
I don't think this is much in debate, I just think allowing/flavoring this as forcefields to fill in gaps is the only thing that really makes sense. Activating environmental protections on a light armor that doesn't have an integrated helmet is clearly doing something around your head to preserve your air and keep out radiation.
This seems to work best conceptually if armor is some mix of solid components and gaps that are being filled in by some sort of projected energy or force. For light armor the gaps are big indeed. For heavy armor it might just be your face (with projected thermal imaging if you have that modification?) if you choose to go helmetless, for power armor it might nothing except some customized slits/gaps you built in special to accomodate any unusual abilities/implants you have.
Nanomachines too. It's the only logical explanation (besides forcefields) for your armor can survive a myriad of attack forms (even when you don't) and not lose any atmosphere.
I don't think it's a good precedent to rule out some armors just because they DO have a picture in the bookWhy not? Paizo invented an entirely new unwritten mechanic that neutered spellcasters and spellcasting creatures the campaign over for Pathfinder simply because some of their artwork showed floating runes and dancing lights around some of their spellcasters.
If it's good enough for Paizo to ruin games, it's good enough for GMs too, right? :P
Right? :'(
That was different. First, it nerfed spellcasters, which is good. Second, glowing runes are cool. :P
Most PCs will want to flavor their armor as having a significant component of force fields so that they can use augmentations and gear (like gloves) that need to penetrate the armor to effect targets.I don't see the point.
If your GM is a forgiving GM, he'll let you to use gloves above the armor or substitute the armor with the gloves. If he is confrontational, he can pretty much rule that the force field forbids you to touch people with the glove, because the force field is above it.I don't think it's a good precedent to rule out some armors just because they DO have a picture in the book (or a description) and they are not significantly built on force fields, or have force fields in places you don't need (like having force fields in the head, but not in the hands, and thus banning you from using gloves.)
If you're wearing a hard shell armor and you have a weaponized prosthesis, how do you shoot through the armor encasing your arm?
If you have a bone blade necrograft in your arm, how can you extend it if your armor is in the way?
If you have a shockfist biotech augmenation, how can you touch people and use it if your armor necessarily includes physical gloves?
If you have an optical laser, can you use it if you've been portraying your armor as including a polarized face shield?
Marc Silvestry was once asked how his comic book character Stryker, who had 3 cyberarms, all of them in the right side, could keep balance.
His answer was "because it's a comic book".
I still don't see any "necesity" to transform everything in force fields, or to punish certain armors just because we do have a picture of them somewhere in the rulebook.
In any case, if you really need some kind of explanation, Ironman's armor is a pretty good example of how a hardened armor can open itself to allow inner weaponry to shoot. Including, but not limited to, an artifact in Tony Stark's chest, and micromissiles that are hidden in the armor's arm, but that could be just as easily hidden in tony's arm because the hardened armor react and move itself to allow it to get out.
And that's before we even talk about nanotechnology.
Most PCs will want to flavor their armor as having a significant component of force fields so that they can use augmentations and gear (like gloves) that need to penetrate the armor to effect targets.I don't see the point.
If your GM is a forgiving GM, he'll let you to use gloves above the armor or substitute the armor with the gloves. If he is confrontational, he can pretty much rule that the force field forbids you to touch people with the glove, because the force field is above it.I don't think it's a good precedent to rule out some armors just because they DO have a picture in the book (or a description) and they are not significantly built on force fields, or have force fields in places you don't need (like having force fields in the head, but not in the hands, and thus banning you from using gloves.)
If you're wearing a hard shell armor and you have a weaponized prosthesis, how do you shoot through the armor encasing your arm?
If you have a bone blade necrograft in your arm, how can you extend it if your armor is in the way?
If you have a shockfist biotech augmenation, how can you touch people and use it if your armor necessarily includes physical gloves?
If you have an optical laser, can you use it if you've been portraying your armor as including a polarized face shield?
Marc Silvestry was once asked how his comic book character Stryker, who had 3 cyberarms, all of them in the right side, could keep balance.
His answer was "because it's a comic book".
I still don't see any "necesity" to transform everything in force fields, or to punish certain armors just because we do have a picture of them somewhere in the rulebook.
In any case, if you really need some kind of explanation, Ironman's armor is a pretty good example of how a hardened armor can open itself to allow inner weaponry to shoot. Including, but not limited to, an artifact in Tony Stark's chest, and micromissiles that are hidden in the armor's arm, but that could be just as easily hidden in tony's arm because the hardened armor react and move itself to allow it to get out.
And that's before we even talk about nanotechnology.
Yes, so you can have nanotechnology create an invisible full coverage bubble around all the unprotected parts when you activate your environmental protections on helmetless light armor. Which isn't a force field.
No. You can say that the solid, hard parts of your armor are made of nanotechnology, and thus can "be alive" and move.
Or, you know, just move. Like ironman
Iron Man's later suits were made of nanomachines. :P
So you're envisioning that light armor that normally covers 40% of your body expands outward to completely (visibly) surround you when you activate your environmental protections, with no change, positive or negative, in how it protects you when it's not fully surrounding you?
Well, I'm not. I'm imagining it's always sparse looking, using force fields to cover the gaps. The nanos simply instantly repair the physical portions that would otherwise be destroyed by combat damage.
Well, I'm not. I'm imagining it's always sparse looking, using force fields to cover the gaps. The nanos simply instantly repair the physical portions that would otherwise be destroyed by combat damage.
Same!
Starlord has a nanite? Helmet that covers his face when he needs it, as well as some force fields covering his hands
are any GMs actually saying that armour doesn't allow various cybernetics to work? It seems like a restriction that wouldn't serve any purpose except to ruin a players fun
So you're envisioning that light armor that normally covers 40% of your body expands outward to completely (visibly) surround you when you activate your environmental protections, with no change, positive or negative, in how it protects you when it's not fully surrounding you?
No.
I'm not ruling out the possibility of Force Fields that fill the gaps.I'm saying that there is no need to make force fields mandatory in order to use cyberware, or anything else.
Take for example the picture of Freebooter armor 1, in page 200 of the CRB. That armor has gaps, and obviously have force fields that fill the gaps to allow enviromental protection, as per the game suggestion. That's fine. Do you want to use a hidden implanted semiauto piston in your forearm? No problem, the force field allows you to do that.
Now look at the Graphite Carbon skin right next to it. It covers forearms. Clearly. Why on hell should a player be penalized because they got Carbon Skin as armor, and the picture of it covers the forearms?
Look at Kalo Encounter Suit in page 71. Why should you be penalized for use that armor, instead of, say, the Squad Defiance Serie in page 200 of the CRB? Both are heavy armor. They have their own set of armor check penalties, movement restriction, and bonuses to AC, KAC, and max Dex. The picture of it should not be an aditional and arbitrary restriction (or bonus)
Ok, I don't disagree with that.