| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to say no, because what stops you from wearing 10 suits of second skin? More seriously, the armor upgrades are written to be limited, and I hesitate to mess with that.
There's no rule against it, but it certainly wasn't intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe. OTOH rule that the second skin cannot incorporate an armor upgrade that adds any further bulk and it should work just fine. It's permanently IL 1 - even when custom-built it has poor hardness (11), relatively few hp (24) and only a +3 bonus on item saves, which could prove to be a weak spot in the wearer's defenses... and the KAC/EAC bonuses already don't stack. Invoke the unwritten rule of common sense (only one second skin, duh) to solve the rulesmongering madness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Second Skin can be worn under other armor.
This assumption is the problem. Although the rules don't seem to explicitly state that you can only wear one armor at a time, it is a very reasonable assumption.
There is nothing in the description of Second Skin that would override that assumption. It can be worn under clothes. Armor isn't clothes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clothes are worn under armor. Second skin can be worn under clothes. Thus the logic goes second skin under clothes under armor. Given that clothing outfits include environmental protection options that are compatible with wearing all armor, it isn't unreasonable.
Second skin is basically a flight suit and it does talk in the rules about what happens if you are wearing armor over other armor. But I think it is a good question about if mod slot. I would think it logical if you are only getting the mod benefit from your best armor to keep you from wearing 10 layers of second skin.
it does talk in the rules about what happens if you are wearing armor over other armor
Can you help me find this bit. I've been looking and can't find it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep nothing specifically allowing it. I'd think I'd allow wearing exactly one suit of second skin, under everything else. Of course you only get the ACs of the best suit and any penalties would stack. If the outer suit became damaged, to where it was worse, the Second Skin could become your best armor. As for armor upgrades, I think I would allow some but not others, if it makes sense as an inner layer function. I.e a filtered re-breather or rad buffer in you next to skin layer would work, but not jump jets or a load lifter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Load lifter doesn't add bulk (which is why I went with "second skin with nil bulk armor upgrade") while most armor options do. Makes it easier, for me at least.
|
Bumping this up, since I'm curious on it.
Specifically, I'm playing SFS and just bought a nice new suit higher-level of light armor, finally upgrading from my Second Skin. It has an armor check penalty, though, so I installed a quicksuit upgrade so I can quickly get into it when needed. However, I am planning to wear Second Skin armor under my clothing most of the time.
So my question is: Do I have to remove the Second Skin first in order to get into my better armor? Or can I just use a standard action to magically Iron Man up with the better armor over my clothing and Second Skin?
I definitely agree that the armor bonuses shouldn't stack, and that probably the Second Skin upgrade wouldn't work while the other suit is up. But I'd just like confirmation that this is allowed.
yeah no
I do this all the time, and would absolutely allow it in games that I host.
I don't think there is any question that you can wear second skin under other armor. The upgrade is a bit more debateable, but I'm totally fine with it in my games.
I would not allow more than one second skin, or more than two layers of armor (should other armor be released that can be worn under clothes as well, for example).
Bonuses are take highest. Penalties stack, if any.
Doesn't everyone play this way? XD
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clothes are worn under armor. Second skin can be worn under clothes. Thus the logic goes second skin under clothes under armor. Given that clothing outfits include environmental protection options that are compatible with wearing all armor, it isn't unreasonable.That is not, however, a rule. You've simply chosen to assume it without basis from within the rules.
Are you trying to make this a flavor text versus rules text sort of thing?
If so, than "balderdash to that" I say! Balderdash! The whole book is the rules. Those that say one thing counts but another doesn't are dishonest rules lawyers simply trying to win an argument or get their way of things. However common it may be, there is no official, written support whatsoever for such a stance.
Balderdash!
I'm saying that being able to wear something under clothes doesn't inherently make you able to wear it under armour without penalty - all armour limits your movement to some degree, unlike regular clothes (hence the existence of a Max Dex value); if you were wearing armour under your armour, that would obviously get significantly worse.Clothes are worn under armor. Second skin can be worn under clothes. Thus the logic goes second skin under clothes under armor. Given that clothing outfits include environmental protection options that are compatible with wearing all armor, it isn't unreasonable.That is not, however, a rule. You've simply chosen to assume it without basis from within the rules.Are you trying to make this a flavor text versus rules text sort of thing?
If so, than "balderdash to that" I say! Balderdash! The whole book is the rules. Those that say one thing counts but another doesn't are dishonest rules lawyers simply trying to win an argument or get their way of things. However common it may be, there is no official, written support whatsoever for such a stance.
Balderdash!
So...what then? You'd house rule using the heavier armor penalties, but one point higher circumstance penalty (even though second skin has no penalties) or something like that?
Look, its one thing when your second skin puts up a force field and it pushes on your sweater. It's going to be a whole other thing when it puts up a force field and pushes on a metal plate generating it's own forcefield. Probably something involving a bruised rib.
|
|
Look, its one thing when your second skin puts up a force field and it pushes on your sweater. It's going to be a whole other thing when it puts up a force field and pushes on a metal plate generating it's own forcefield. Probably something involving a bruised rib.
I agree with this, but to me this is irrelevant. I think everyone on the thread seems in full agreement that the Second Skin protections shouldn't be allowed to stack with the outer armor. When the Second Skin is functioning as a high-tech version of long underwear, it is basically innert. No force fields are pushing on anything.
Nah, i don't care if someone layers up with 15 second skins till they look like the kid from a christmas story. You just can't shove an upgrade slot in all of them.
With the same reasoning
Its not remotely the same reasoning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the quick patch that the CRB should've mentioned:
"Second Skin is present in every armor as an undergarment for additional protection. "
Seems reasonable to have one of these under most armor, to have better comfort or simply to reduce weaknesses gaps. It also prevents shenenigans of more AC and/or armor upgrades.
Please explain why not?
1) Android upgrades specifically work. Armor mods don't have rules for stacking
2) android upgrades would be a non ability if they didn't work with armor. Armor mods still work if you can't stack them
3) you can only have 1 android slot. (unless you're playing a phone booth full of androids or something) How many second skins dow you want to be table to cheese out?
To be clear, I don't think I having one set of second skin under other armor (with or without the armor upgrade) is the least bit cheesy and I imagine there are a lot of roleplayers out there who would agree.
More than one second skin is most certainly the height of cheese though, and I don't honestly believe that anyone would attempt it outside of these theoretical examples in this debate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The android slot isn’t that big of a deal because you can customize armor to allow things like claws, breath weapons, prosthetic weapon arms, and bio augmentation wings to work through it, making a gap for your under armor modification to integrate shouldn’t be a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The android slot isn’t that big of a deal because you can customize armor to allow things like claws, breath weapons, prosthetic weapon arms, and bio augmentation wings to work through it, making a gap for your under armor modification to integrate shouldn’t be a problem.
Agreed.
For obvious reasons I wouldn't allow someone to wear multiple second skins, but logically, there's not much in-game explanation to stop it.
If a second skin can be made to fit a ysoki, human, shobhad, or sarcecian (or a ysoki second skin converted into one to fit a sarcesian), then there's no reason you couldn't (in-game at least) have second skins made that fit increasingly larger versions of "you."
I'd still never allow that though.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok reading through the armor rules there seems to be nothing stating you can wear only 1 set of armor. It wouldn't seem to give any bonuses except for armor upgrade slots, becaus eof the bonus stacking rules.
Here is the relevant section on clothing in other purchases page 230
Clothing (Environmental, Everyday, Formal, Professional, Travel) Clothing is mass produced throughout the Pact Worlds, and the residents of the system are never wanting for clothes. Clothing is often worn both under and over armor, and its benefits apply in nearly all situations. Clothing comes in several varieties based upon its intended purpose, as described below.
So the school of thought that disregards all flavor text would have this mean nothing. However if we apply the rules are the rules school of thought this paragraph has an in game effect. Specifically any item that meets the definition of clothing is often and therefore can be worn under and over armor.
Second skin explicitly calls out that it can be worn under clothing.
So the non controversial use is that a character can equip second skin and a suit of clothing while receiving the benefits of both.
The issue comes when you apply the rule that you can wear armor over your clothing. Some people are objecting to this on the basis of cheese. I don't think that is fair.
The specific case of force fields on the bottom layer should be a non issue.
It has this clause
Once active, the device generates an invisible force field around you, including all your worn and carried items.
I am wearing the armor so it is inside the field. Temporary hit points are a bonus so the bonus rules apply however. No buying a bunch of brown generators to become an unkillable god.
It seems like the main limiting factor in this would be your bulk limits and the time it takes to put on all these clothes. You would have access to all those armor upgrades however you still have to buy them. On page 204 it gives a method to swap out armor upgrades.
A creature can personalize armor by purchasing and installing armor upgrades, described below, which add bonuses or customized abilities to armor. Some individuals keep a collection of upgrades at hand, swapping them out as needed (requiring 10 minutes to replace the unit and resecure all connections). Explanations of entries for upgrades’ statistics follow.
So wearing stacks of second skin just saves you 10 minutes. The main limit for combat focused upgrades is how many credits you have at that level not how many armor slots you have.
Does this make the android ability less impressive probably but dark vision costs only 1750 via darkvision capacitors so it is the intent that you can replace racial abilities with money. Also infrared sensors exist as well for even less.
For home games limiting players to a soft cap is reasonable just to avoid nonsense but for sfs it seems perfectly within the scope of the rules to wear 20 second skins and but a bunch of low level utility upgrades in them.
It might be weird but you can also put on multiple skin tight gym shirts IRL so it isn't impossible.
Ok reading through the armor rules there seems to be nothing stating you can wear only 1 set of armor.
And is there anything saying that you CAN benefit from multiple sets of armor?
No. there isnt'.
So trekking through 6 sections of the rules in a convoluted argument that you can... doesn't show anything. You can make an argument that bad for any position you want.
No. The entire point of limiting armor upgrade slots is.. gasp, to limit the amount of upgrades a character can wear at once.
For home games limiting players to a soft cap is reasonable just to avoid nonsense but for sfs it seems perfectly within the scope of the rules to wear 20 second skins and but a bunch of low level utility upgrades in them.
Let me disabuse you of a notion a lot of rules lawyers seem to have about organized play.
Organized play is not the rules lawyer wonderland where DMs bow to the whim of your inane rules arguments.
Organized play runs on the rules. That's not even the raw. Its DEFINITELY not the inane, power grabbing, box of munchkin levels of "rules" that you're trying to ascribe to it here.
Show up at any starfinder society table trying that pile of horsefeathers and you're going to be told. no. And hell no. And label yourself as the worst kind of rules lawyer for life.
your argument that something is the rules is not the same thing as the rules. It's your argument. The DM is allowed, and in this case even encouraged, to toss it.
|
|
Ok reading through the armor rules there seems to be nothing stating you can wear only 1 set of armor.And is there anything saying that you CAN benefit from multiple sets of armor?
No. there isnt'.
So trekking through 6 sections of the rules in a convoluted argument that you can... doesn't show anything. You can make an argument that bad for any position you want.
I removed some of your qoute for brevity. Prehaps I am not making my point clearly.
The requirements to benefit from armor in the armor section are that you are wearing it.
The section on clothing spells out that clothing can be worn between 2 armor layers on page 230
"Clothing is often worn both under and over armor"
There is rules for determining what benefits you get when wearing multiple sets of armor.
First we go to the benefit stacking rules from the core rulebook.Page 266
When multiple bonuses apply to the same value, different types of bonuses all apply, but in most cases bonuses of the same type do not add together (or “stack” with each other), unless a source specifies otherwise. (For an exception, see Circumstance Bonus below.) Bonuses that do not list a bonus type do stack, both with each other and with all typed bonuses. Such bonuses, often referred to as “untyped” bonuses, are among the most utilitarian of all bonuses in the game
So we look at the bonuses you get to numerical statistics such as kinetic ac and energy ac and those do not stack from multiple armors.
The only benefits are that you can use the upgrade slots since they are a property of the item and not a bonus to your character. Also the environmental protections can be chained for longer duration.
I'l type up an order of operations of actions to test where the disagreement is.
|
|
Ok here is the order of actions taken by a player character named billy 99 skins Jim
1 spend four rounds donning second skin
page 196 Light armor requires 4 rounds to don or remove
2 put on a set of clothing which is an indeterminate amount of time.
page 230 Clothing is often worn both under and over armor
3 spend four rounds donning a second second skin
page 196 Light armor requires 4 rounds to don or remove
4 put on a set of clothing which is an indeterminate amount of time.
page 230 Clothing is often worn both under and over armor
Repeat until you upset someone.
The rules for clothing allow them to be worn both under and over armor. The only benefit is more environmental protection time and upgrade slots. The main limiting factor for armor upgrades is that you can have your armor taken and they cost credits to buy. Let's say billy 99 skins jim is level 5.
Billy has 9000 credits for all his gear. For armor that is at his level cost varies between 2000-3000. That is without any upgrades. Billy picks up a jetpack for 3100 credits. Lets assume he got good armor so he is now at about 6000 credits of gear. If he picks up a weapon that is also at his gear level he hits the credit cap of 9000 credits.
If you are getting an armor upgrade at you level it is fluctuates between a third and a fourth of your wbl.
The limiting factor for armor upgrades is that they cost credits which means that you have to give up offensive or defensive potential for the utility they give you. This isn't cheese this is effectively giving up offensive potential via spending money on them.
Looking at the cheaper armor upgrades in the core rulebook you have dark vision, drawing as a swift action, radiation protection, and more hitpoints for the armor. Nice but nothing really major and some are race features.
My contention is that the limiting factor for armor upgrades is your wbl not the amount of armor upgrades slots you have. Let say billy gets an armor at his level called an estex suit 2 for 2700 credits a jetpack for 3100 and an electrostatic field for 3000. Billy has 200 credits left to buy a gun and he still has a spare upgrade slot just from this one set of armor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed some of your qoute for brevity. Prehaps I am not making my point clearly.
Let me counter your argument
ahahaheem.. NO.
You cannot wear multiple copies of second skin each with their own armor upgrade.
|
|
I removed some of your qoute for brevity. Prehaps I am not making my point clearly.Let me counter your argument
ahahaheem.. NO.
You cannot wear multiple copies of second skin each with their own armor upgrade.
So it just the armor upgrades you object to? So you are fine with wearing 9 set of second skin as long as they don't have armor upgrades installed?
If you are the gm and a player takes the following actions at what point do you stop him?
1 equip second skin
2 put on cool space clothes
3 put on a different armor like freebooter cuz it looks cooler.
4 spend ten minutes installing infrared sensors on second skin
5 spend ten minutes installing a quick draw sheath on freebooter armor.
Do you just object to point 5?
Probably point 1 because no ones ever described their character putting armor on and my rules lawyer detecting whiskers would start twitching.
On a slow day Just point 5.
And to ask "which one of those upgrades is on? Also freebooter armor doesn't have an upgrade slot. "
NONE of your arguments were remotely close to demonstrating, or even arguing for, multiple armor upgrades in different armors working at the same time. Much less an argument where you can remotely contest a society DMs call about how something works.
The DM is required to go along with a rules citation you can get to quickly without interrupting the game.
The dm is NOT required to believe a good argument.
You are not even making a good argument. You are making a terrible argument. It is distractingly specific, it has the veneer of authority, but absolutely no depth or substance to it because it never goes to the point that you want.
The Aristotelian logic you're attempting to use works in a perfect non contradictory rules system with a perfect logician. It absolutely does not work in xfinder.
Probably point 1 because no ones ever described their character putting armor on and my rules lawyer detecting whiskers would start twitching.
Indeed. I would have just written it on the character sheet and (unless you audit regularly) you likely wouldn't even have realized I had broken your unwritten rule for several levels. lol.
Probably point 1 because no ones ever described their character putting armor on and my rules lawyer detecting whiskers would start twitching.Indeed. Since there is some rules support for it and nothing expressly prohibiting it, I would have just written it on the character sheet and (unless you audit regularly) you likely wouldn't even have realized I had broken your unwritten rule for several levels. lol.
*deep breath*
I am allowed to throw people off of my tables not throw people off of my tables. I am allowed to throw people off of my tables not throw people off of my tables. I am allowed to throw people off of my tables not throw people off of my tables. I am allowed to throw people off of my tables not throw people off of my tables.
Doing that would likely be interpreted as outright cheating rather than making an honest mistake.
There is no rules support for it.
Your electrostatic charge thing and jump jets are both fairly likely to come up.
|
|
Probably point 1 because no ones ever described their character putting armor on and my rules lawyer detecting whiskers would start twitching.
On a slow day Just point 5.
And to ask "which one of those upgrades is on? Also freebooter armor doesn't have an upgrade slot. "
NONE of your arguments were remotely close to demonstrating, or even arguing for, multiple armor upgrades in different armors working at the same time. Much less an argument where you can remotely contest a society DMs call about how something works.
The DM is required to go along with a rules citation you can get to quickly without interrupting the game.
The dm is NOT required to believe a good argument.
You are not even making a good argument. You are making a terrible argument. It is distractingly specific, it has the veneer of authority, but absolutely no depth or substance to it because it never goes to the point that you want.
The Aristotelian logic you're attempting to use works in a perfect non contradictory rules system with a perfect logician. It absolutely does not work in xfinder.
If the rules contradict that means it is a flaw in the rules. However you haven't cited any rules to back up your assertion. I have page numbers and quotes showing that you can wear a suit of armor clothes sandwich. It isn't some obscure splat book it is the core rule book.
You disagree and say that part of the armor doesn't function arbitrarily. My argument is just quoting page 230 when the dm asks "why are you wearing 2 sets of armor?" and then applying the bonus rules on how all that should stack. It is just like opening up the book to an aoe spell and then going to the aoe section to figure out how aoe effects work.
What rule supports your position? It seems to me you wouldn't let this work for unknown reasons at both your home games and starfinder soceity. Not only that but you would throw a player out of your table for this.
Here is what you said you would throw a player out of your table for doing.
I am a human and want darkvision. I buy second skin get some clothes and put on my better heavy armor on top. Does that seem reasonable to do?
Probably point 1 because no ones ever described their character putting armor on and my rules lawyer detecting whiskers would start twitching.Indeed. Since there is some rules support for it and nothing expressly prohibiting it, I would have just written it on the character sheet and (unless you audit regularly) you likely wouldn't even have realized I had broken your unwritten rule for several levels. lol.*deep breath*
I am allowed to throw people off of my tables not throw people off of my tables. I am allowed to throw people off of my tables not throw people off of my tables. I am allowed to throw people off of my tables not throw people off of my tables. I am allowed to throw people off of my tables not throw people off of my tables.
Doing that would likely be interpreted as outright cheating rather than making an honest mistake.
There is no rules support for it.
Your electrostatic charge thing and jump jets are both fairly likely to come up.
There are rules supporting it. You can wear second skin under clothes, and you can wear clothes under armor.
You're the one who is asserting otherwise without any real evidence to show for it.
And it's not cheating if it's supported by the rules, and you aren't clear about your house rules or (to be fair) your interpretation of the existing rules--or lack there of--up front.