Second Skin & Other Armor


Rules Questions

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Halek wrote:
If the rules contradict that means it is a flaw in the rules.

While true, You're committing a huge equivocation here.

If the rules as i interpret them contradict each other that means there is a flaw in the rules.

Deliberately or accidentally equating those two is bad rules interpretation. It's something you have to actively avoid, especially if you want to go into a gray area.

Quote:
However you haven't cited any rules to back up your assertion.

I'm rather skeptical I could change your mind with a rules citation. Even more skeptical of what argument against your position might click and get you to change your mind. You have decided what the rules say, you resolve contradictions in your favor.

I am absolutely certain how that would be ruled at 99% of tables. And how well your claims that "its the rules you have to go along with it" is going to go over when you try to present a spurious argument for a rules position as the rules.

Quote:
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.

But absolutely nothing that even hints at what the mechanical effects of that sandwhich are. Its like a properly cited chemistry book to talk about aristotle. Its nice... but completely off topic.

Quote:
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.

Except that the armor upgrade slots aren't bonuses, so quoting the bonuses sections is completely irrelevant.

Quote:
What rule supports your position?

There are no rules for stacking second skin and other light armors. If you try to do something there are no rules for you're stuck with how the DM says it works.

Balance, sense, reason, evidence. Things that are part of the rules despite the raw is law crowd.

There is absolutely no point in limiting armor to a number of slots if you can play a Christmas story with second skin and get all the slots.

The cockpit of powered armor is too small to fit a person wearing heavy armor. If you’re wearing light armor while in powered armor, you gain the higher of the EAC bonuses and the higher of the KAC bonuses between the two suits of armor, and you take the worse maximum Dexterity bonus and armor check penalty.

This is the only mention of stacking armor. Note that it completely lacks any mention of getting both item slots. So its fairly likely that you don't get both slots.

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).

This would be kind of pointless if you could just stack up first level armor.

If you install upgrades beyond the maximum, the armor and all upgrades attached to it cease to function until you remove enough upgrades to bring the armor down to its maximum number of upgrade slots or fewer.

If you are wearing armor with 3 upgrade slots and have 12 upgrades on, you've passed the limit and all of your upgrades shut off.

Quote:
It seems to me you wouldn't let this work for unknown reasons

Saying the reasons are unknown is not genuine.

-you have made no effective argument that armors can stack their upgrades

-doing so would violate the entire point of limiting upgrade slots in armor

-doing so would be unbalancing to the game.

You disagree with those reasons. They are not unknown. You can't pretend that only raw reasons exist. People make rules judgements based on other factors.

Quote:
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?

Someone doing that with AN armor upgrade is going to get told no.

Someone attempting to do that with six armor upgrades is getting das boot.

I'm not trying to be mean. As a nameless, mostly faceless person you will likely never meet I'm trying to correct a misconception you have about how rules in organized play work before it causes problems with people you game with regularly. Because trying to game with other people with the paradigm you're using IS going to cause problems with the people you're gaming with.


Ravingdork wrote:


There are rules supporting it. You can wear second skin under clothes, and you can wear clothes under armor.

you can wear second skin under armor-----?? something happens-----?? ---> both sets of armor upgrade slots function.

Gnome underwear business plans are not rules arguments.

They are DEFINITELY not rules arguments so good that contradicting them counts as house rules.

Dark Archive

Ok so here is how you apply mechanical effects in this game. Look at the relevant section of the book first.

In our case armor says certain things happen when you wear it. One of which is it has a number of armor upgrade slot you can fill. Others include environmental protections and higher ac.

Page 230 shows we can wear multiple armor. This is were the section about bonus rules comes into play.

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. page 266

So you do not get double the kac or eac from stacking them but other things that you don't have an ingame value on your character sheet for are not bonuses. For example an armor made of adamantium is still made of adamantium even if you put on two of them.

While this is clear enough the rules call out armor bonuses as not stacking on the same page.

Armor bonuses don’t stack with other armor bonuses, but they do stack with all other bonuses to Armor Class page 266

So when you apply the bonus rules to wearing 2 sets of armor you only get the higher of the ac bonuses but other things inherent to the armor are unchanged. You can activate environmental protections separately. If you have an ability that strengthens one set of armor you are wearing you have to choose which it applies to. If an enemy technomancer explodes one of them with their mind your other still functions.

Just like all those other things your armor upgrade slots remain separate on each armor.

You said you are fine with wearing multiple armors. Your objection arises when we apply the rules and have armor upgrades continue working as normal. Why would you rule that they work any differently from environmental protections?


Halek wrote:
So when you apply the bonus rules to wearing 2 sets of armor you only get the higher of the ac bonuses but other things inherent to the armor are unchanged.

This does not logically follow. At all. It is a complete, total, and utter non argument for your position.

Quote:
Why would you rule that they work any differently from environmental protections?

Because environmental protections are a binary yes/no thing. You don't gain any advantage from stacking them. There's no double protected. From a simulationists standpoint only the outside EP is on and the inside one will be completely irrelevant until the outside one shuts off for some reason.

Dark Archive

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Halek wrote:
So when you apply the bonus rules to wearing 2 sets of armor you only get the higher of the ac bonuses but other things inherent to the armor are unchanged.

This does not logically follow. At all. It is a complete, total, and utter non argument for your position.

Quote:
Why would you rule that they work any differently from environmental protections?

Because environmental protections are a binary yes/no thing. You don't gain any advantage from stacking them. There's no double protected. From a simulationists standpoint only the outside EP is on and the inside one will be completely irrelevant until the outside one shuts off for some reason.

I am going to lay out premises here since I think there is a disconnect.

If i put on 1 suit of armor with an upgrade slot filled with infrared sensors I gain dark vision and whatever bonuses the armor gives. Do you disagree with this statement?


I understand you perfectly,

If i put on 1 suit of armor with an upgrade slot filled with infrared sensors I gain dark vision and whatever bonuses the armor gives. Do you disagree with this statement?

Correct

Your next question is

If you put on 1 suit of armor with an upgrade slot filled with infra red sensors in a second skin and then freebooter armor over that, I get the infrared sensors and the freebooter armor ac...

BZZZZT. no.

There is no rule that directly tells you what happens when you try that.

You tried to argue A--> B---> C therefore D but the link between your premise and your conclussion was tenuous at best.

In a perfectly coherent aristotolean system A--> B---> C therefore D would be the only thing you need to examine.

Starfinder is NOT that system. You also need to look at Z Y X--->therefore--> Not D.

It is entirely possible to have a position that can be rationally argued from the available evidence but is never the less entirely wrong, simply because a better evidenced better argued position went the other way.

Game balance is one of the ways of doing that. The existing of armor slot limits is another. The statements quoted about armor seem to say that your upgrades will shut off it you put too many on. None of them are a perfect/direct refuation of your position, but they don't need to be. Your position isn't rationally connected to the evidence (it simply doesn't follow from anything you've said).

Dark Archive

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Halek wrote:
So when you apply the bonus rules to wearing 2 sets of armor you only get the higher of the ac bonuses but other things inherent to the armor are unchanged.

This does not logically follow. At all. It is a complete, total, and utter non argument for your position.

Ok so when we apply bonuses such as from armor we apply the rules from the core rulebook that say what to do. I will spoiler it for sake of not more walls of text.

Rules from page 266:
Throughout the course of her adventures, a character often comes under the effects of conditions, circumstances, magic, technology, or other factors that provide her with bonuses or penalties to certain game statistics, such as her Armor Class (AC), attack rolls, or saving throws. The situations that can grant bonuses or impose penalties in Starfinder are practically limitless, but bonuses and penalties all function using the rules described in this section. While it’s always a good idea to keep track of all bonuses and penalties affecting your character at any given time, such tracking is particularly important during combat. After all, that +1 morale bonus to attack rolls from the envoy’s get ’em improvisation might mean the difference between either landing the blow that fells a security robot or allowing it to remain standing (and subsequently take out a wounded ally). GMs should take care to note all bonuses and penalties that are in effect during combat, but ultimately, it’s usually up to the player to track the bonuses and penalties affecting her character at any given time so that she has an accurate handle on how she performs in combat. The rules that govern bonuses and penalties, as well as the different specific types of bonuses, are described below. BONUSES The term “bonus” in Starfinder can refer to a benefit you receive outside the typical framework, such as if a monster gains a bonus feat. Sometimes the total you add to a die roll after all calculations is referred to as a bonus, such as your initiative bonus or an attack’s damage bonus. Other bonuses are divided into specific different types, representing the varying conditions and circumstances that provide bonuses to various numbers or values within the game. 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.

Armor upgrade slots are either an untyped bonus in which case they stack or are not a bonus at all in which case we default to the normal armor rules and look at that you can still use multiple armor upgrade slots. Sometimes multiple on one armor.

You haven't shown any rules requiring you to count up how many armor upgrades you have on your character. The armor section on page 205 is clear on this.

"Each suit of armor contains a certain number of upgrade slots. This represents the maximum number of times the armor can be modified while still functioning. If you install upgrades beyond
the maximum, the armor and all upgrades attached to it cease to function until you remove enough upgrades to bring the armor down to its maximum number of upgrade slots or fewer."

We aren't meeting the shutdown criteria so the armor upgrades continue to function.

In regards to game balance being a factor I disagree. That isn't game balance but game design. Just because some equipment options are better doesn't mean the rules don't mean what they say. That is an issue of poorly designed rules not game balance.

The rules show on page 230 that i can wear second skin a tshirt and stationwear all at the same time.

You are the one trying to inject rules that are not there like character limits for armor upgrades.

Here is a summary of our positions please clarify if I am misrepresenting you that wasn't my intent.

Halek: Applying the rules from the core rulebook means you can wear at minimum a set of second skin clothes and another armor. Your armor upgrades continue to function since the shutoff criteria haven't been met.

BigNorseWolf: Armor upgrades shouldn't stack because of game balance reasons and they won't at my table.

Addressing what I BELIEVE to be your primary concern. This is not unbalancing for a character to do.

The limiting factor for armor upgrades that are useful in combat is credits. A 5th level character has 9000 credits of stuff via WBL An on level gun and armor cost approximately 6000 credits. This leaves the character with 3000 for everything else. A 5th level armor upgrade costs around 3000 credits.

Using this hack trick exploit whatever you want to call it means that you can pick up a grab bag of less powerful abilities that make up for lack of depth with more versatility. If we look out of core we can pick up a bunch of minor boosts to various movement modes instead of a jetpack.

Also keep in mind the quicksuit armor upgrade exists. It means that any armor upgrade you want is only 1300 for quicksuit 110 for ceromial troop plate and a standard action away. This drops that cost down but the limiting factor is credits not armor upgrade slots.

For abilities directly useful in combat if you want to remain competitive you have to keep your gear at your level. You can't afford 20 armor upgrades at your level.

A level 10 character has 66,000 credits. For a gun at their level it is oh look it is around 20,000 credits. The limiting factor is money to spend on combat relevant upgrades. It just doesn't really matter how or why the soldier has darkvision at level 10 and yelling about how broken this is and how unbalanced it makes the game shows a lack of understanding about the wbl system and how it impacts player optimization.

This is on the scale of the fusion hop on cost savings and just means that oh no that player character has a +2 bonus to acrobatics checks for only like 700 credits.

Lower level upgrades that characters can purchase a lot of become worth less and less as they level up and are able to afford oodles of them. By the time 700 credits is a drop in the bucket that +2 bonus is as well. It follows like this for most armor upgrades. There are a few standouts like jump jets and hydrojet but most aren't worth buying even with this exploit.

TLDR The rules say you can do this and you are freaking out over nothing.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The rules do not say you can wear armor over or under armor.
The rules say you can wear clothing over and under armor.

In other words, the rules allow an item from the clothing section of table 7-33 to be worn over and under an item from table 7-14 or table 7-15.

Exception: light armor may be worn while wearing powered armor, but not heavy armor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Armor has limited slots for upgrades, likely for balance.

Armor with more upgrades installed than it's maximum ceases to work at all, no longer providing a AC bonus.

Finding a 'neat' little way around that hard limitation is rules abuse. Just because the rules don't say you can't doesn't mean you won't get kicked off a SFS table, or told to fix that cheese in a home game.

Acquisitives

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The big problem is that it really doesn't make sense for Second Skin to allow armor upgrades in the first place. It is a body stocking. It is hard to see how it even provides environmental protections ... presumably a low level force field of some kind.

But even if the Second Skin does have infrared sensors built into it ... it is certainly not a stretch to say that another layer of armor over that Second Skin would cause the infrared sensors to stop working.

I don't think it necessarily breaks the game to allow it ... but in general I think it makes sense in term of in-game logistics, the rules, and the overall mechanics that the Second Skin upgrade would stop functioning.


Halek wrote:
In regards to game balance being a factor I disagree. That isn't game balance but game design. Just because some equipment options are better doesn't mean the rules don't mean what they say

Except the rules never get close to saying what you're twisting them to say.

Quote:
Armor upgrade slots are either an untyped bonus in which case they stack or are not a bonus at all in which case we default to the normal armor rules and look at that you can still use multiple armor upgrade slots. Sometimes multiple on one armor.

This does not follow. At all. False dichotomy.

You are either a trout or a seahorse
You are not a trout.
Hello mister seahorse

Quote:
Also keep in mind the quicksuit armor upgrade exists. It means that any armor upgrade you want is only 1300 for quicksuit 110 for ceromial troop plate and a standard action away. This drops that cost down but the limiting factor is credits not armor upgrade slots.

It also uses up an entire second suit of armor (doubling your cost rather than merely adding 110 credits per extra slot), it takes up a slot to do so, and you can't have 7 upgrades active at the same time. You can't be firecold/electric/acid resistant and flying and sporting a goldfish in your pet container AND have the best ACs around.

Quote:
It just doesn't really matter how or why the soldier has darkvision at level 10 and yelling about how broken this is and how unbalanced it makes the game shows a lack of understanding about the wbl system and how it impacts player optimization.

Neither the ad homs nor the mischaracterization of shooting down your argument on the basis of being entirely vacuous as "yelling" is going to go over well.

Quote:
BigNorseWolf: Armor upgrades shouldn't stack because of game balance reasons and they won't at my table.

-There is no rule that says you can do it. Your arguments to the contrary are terrible, gnome undnerwear business plan level random and vacuous.

-There are lots of rules that hint (but do not say) that you can't.

-The entire point of limiting armor upgrade slots is to... limit armor upgrade slots.

This will not fly at 99% of tables. If there is a case of legitimate table variation along a 50 50 split, or a 50/25 split, or I have some oddball ruling I'm quite happy to admit as much. This is not one of those cases.

This will not only not fly, this will crash and burn. Badly. Trying to defend blatant munchkinism like this as "THE RAWWWWWWW!!!!" and push your rules interpretation onto the DM and the system is going to get a no, followed by suspicion of every rules argument you try to make afterwards for similar chicanery. It is that bad. You have misread the rules that badly.

Your interpretation of the rules is not the same thing as the rules. Your interpretation can be wrong.

In this case, it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the fundamental issue is whether or not you can wear multiple suits of armor in the first place.

General -
Unspecified.
Note that Pg 230 only talks about the relative positions of armor and clothing. It says nothing about multiple suits of armor. The text of Second Skin merely states that it can be worn under armor - it means nothing that isn't already stated on pg 230.

Specific -
a)you can wear a suit of light armor under powered armor.
b)you cannot wear heavy armor under powered armor.

Other than those two specific cases, as far as I am aware there is nothing stating one way or another. That leaves it up to the GM to determine.

Acquisitives

GhostInTheMachine wrote:

General -

Note that Pg 230 only talks about the relative positions of armor and clothing. It says nothing about multiple suits of armor. The text of Second Skin merely states that it can be worn under armor - it means nothing that isn't already stated on pg 230.

The text of Second Skin says "This flexible body stocking fits tightly against its wearer and can be worn under ordinary clothes." The "under ordinary clothes" part is consistent with what is on p. 230, but it isn't the key element of that sentence in regard to wearing it and another suit of armor, it is the part that says "flexible body stocking [that] fits tightly against its wearer." The specific description of Second Skin suggests that it is distinct from other forms of armor in this regard (except maybe for Clearweave, which calls itself "formfitting fabric," even though it seems intended to wear over other clothes).

Given Halek's dedication to munchkining this out, I'm inclined to think that it shouldn't be allowed, just to avoid the cheese potential.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe GhostInTheMachine has it correct.

There’s a rule saying you can wear light armor under a suit of PA.

There’s no rules saying any other combination of armors is allowed. With Paizo logic and writing, this means 1 of two things. Other combinations of armors are not allowed, because they don’t have a call out to be allowed, OR Paizo forgot to put some rules text in the book. Now, paizo’s writing is bad enough that the second option is 100% plausible, but you can’t argue that a rule exists when it does not, all you can do is use the rules that are in the book and ask Paizo nicely to fix it if they messed up or to say “Nope, we didn’t mess up” if they didn’t mess up.

On top of that, I see a whole lot of ‘The armor is described as being a thin form fitting body stocking, so of course I can wear a dozen of them!’ To that I say: Stop using descriptive text to act like rules. That armor is in the ‘Light Armor’ chart. It, and all other armors in that chart, behave exactly the same way, whether they’re described as being like a body stocking, a wookie suit, or a clown nose.

Dark Archive

Descriptive text is rules. It is in the rulebook and that means it is part of the rules.

Page 230 uses the word both not either.

Clothing is often worn both under and over armor

In order for it to be in a state of both under and over armor you have to be wearing 2 armors. Aka you can wear 2 armors.

How else can clothing be in a state of both over and under armor?

The armor section never states you must wear only 1 set of armor. It has numerous opportunities to say this but it refrains from doing so. You just would apply the stacking rules so you don't gain much from it. It gives special provisions disallowing wearing heavy armor and power armor at the same time.

The rulebook doesn't limit you to wearing 1 suit of armor but you are only going to get the AC from 1 suit of armor.


Halek wrote:
Descriptive text is rules. It is in the rulebook and that means it is part of the rules.

Eh... sort of, not always.

Halek wrote:

Page 230 uses the word both not either.

Clothing is often worn both under and over armor

In order for it to be in a state of both under and over armor you have to be wearing 2 armors. Aka you can wear 2 armors.

How else can clothing be in a state of both over and under armor?

Underwear underneath the armor to prevent chafing. A jacket over the armor for fashion.

Halek wrote:

The armor section never states you must wear only 1 set of armor. It has numerous opportunities to say this but it refrains from doing so. You just would apply the stacking rules so you don't gain much from it. It gives special provisions disallowing wearing heavy armor and power armor at the same time.

The rulebook doesn't limit you to wearing 1 suit of armor but you are only going to get the AC from 1 suit of armor.

So, if I have the money at level 20, I could wear 10 suits of estex mk IV, and thirty second skins, under my hardlight specialist armor, giving me 96 armor upgrade slots to do with as I wish?

Doesn't sound munchkin-y at all. Might as well make this character a kobold too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't give the over/under on armor under underwear and over outerwear over one percent.

Acquisitives

This is probably an argument for another thread ... but is there any official ruling on the armor upgrades in the light armor/power armor situation?

The rules for light armor/power armor say how to handle EAC/KAC and penalties, but I see nothing in that section that would suggest to me how to account for the light armor upgrade.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

No. There is not.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Layer 1: under garments (clothing)
Layer 2: freebooter's armor (armor)
Layer 3: outer garments (clothing)

As per the rules you want on page 230, clothing over and under armor.

Layer 1: second skin (armor)
Layer 2: outer garments (clothing)
Layer 3: freebooter's armor (armor)

Nothing in the rule permits this. There is no text anywhere that allows you to wear 2 sets of armor because you sandwiched clothing in between.


Gabbers "Gab" McTalkington wrote:

This is probably an argument for another thread ... but is there any official ruling on the armor upgrades in the light armor/power armor situation?

The rules for light armor/power armor say how to handle EAC/KAC and penalties, but I see nothing in that section that would suggest to me how to account for the light armor upgrade.

There isn't, so it's safest to layer your most "personal" ones on the light armor so they make intuitive sense. A Computer Interface, Auto-CPR Unit, Endurance Module, and stuff like that shouldn't be an issue on your inner layer. A movement mod would be pretty problematic on light armor (unless it's a Teleportation Module), and even an energy resistance booster might annoy a minority of GMs if it's not on the Power Armor.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Halek wrote:
Descriptive text is rules. It is in the rulebook and that means it is part of the rules.

No. Just no. This is the source of much facepalming when it comes to rule lawyering. Descriptive text is there to provide context and make reading the book interesting and not merely an act of logical kung fu.

Some people enjoy logical kung fu (I happen to be one of them), but many people do not. Paizo wants to sell to the larger group, not the narrow one.

It would be much clearer for Paizo to separate out all rules text from flavor text, perhaps putting flavor text in a different font-face (like flavor text in many card games), but they did not. Perhaps it was deemed that the additional cost in editorial and typesetting wages was not worth it, perhaps they just didn't think it was necessary.

Halek wrote:
The armor section never states you must wear only 1 set of armor.

It is literally impossible for the book to list all of the things that are not possible. "It doesn't say I can't" is not a good argument. I don't think the book says that a gnome can't fly purely because they choose to... but that doesn't mean they can.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

*cough* If the issue is people stacking force field augments, why not simply rule, as common sense would indicate, that force field augments do not stack?


Metaphysician wrote:
*cough* If the issue is people stacking force field augments, why not simply rule, as common sense would indicate, that force field augments do not stack?

It's less the forece fields and more 1 of everything.

Dark Archive

Garretmander wrote:
Halek wrote:
Descriptive text is rules. It is in the rulebook and that means it is part of the rules.

Eh... sort of, not always.

Halek wrote:

Page 230 uses the word both not either.

Clothing is often worn both under and over armor

In order for it to be in a state of both under and over armor you have to be wearing 2 armors. Aka you can wear 2 armors.

How else can clothing be in a state of both over and under armor?

Underwear underneath the armor to prevent chafing. A jacket over the armor for fashion.

Halek wrote:

The armor section never states you must wear only 1 set of armor. It has numerous opportunities to say this but it refrains from doing so. You just would apply the stacking rules so you don't gain much from it. It gives special provisions disallowing wearing heavy armor and power armor at the same time.

The rulebook doesn't limit you to wearing 1 suit of armor but you are only going to get the AC from 1 suit of armor.

So, if I have the money at level 20, I could wear 10 suits of estex mk IV, and thirty second skins, under my hardlight specialist armor, giving me 96 armor upgrade slots to do with as I wish?

Doesn't sound munchkin-y at all. Might as well make this character a kobold too.

Ok for underwear it doesn't exist in the core rulebook. Sets of clothing do though. I think you are coming at this from good faith so I am willing to explain if you have more questions.

In regards to munchkinery at level 20 yes you could have 96 upgrade slots. Now let's look at what you can do with them. limiting to the core rulebook just for brevity. Let's calculate out what it costs you opportunity wise to fill those slots. If they aren't filled they do nothing. Also keep in mind it'll take 12 minutes of putting on nothing but second skins every morning.

WBL of a level 20 character is 3,775,000 credits
Your second skins cost 250*30= 7,500
Your extex mk ivs cost 49250*10= 492,500
Your hardlight specialist armor costs 928,000
Total cost of just armor no upgrades is 1,428,000
remaining money 2,347,000 credits left
Now to fill your 96 upgrade slots you need 96 upgrades there are 36 in the core rulebook
The cost to have all of them ignoring armor type restriction is 2,770,750 Not entirely accurate but this is core only and you can sub out armory stuff if you want to.

If you tried to fill all your slots you would have 2347000-2770750= -423750
You would run out of credits before buying all of them. Admittedly your estex mk ivs are doing nothing so lets not buy those. that gives you only -374500 credits. Now for now I am gonna assume I messed up the math somewhere and hand you bonus credits of 500,000 to be generous.

You now have 125500 credits to spend on a level appropriate weapon and any other gear like ability enhancers or magic items
Now this depends on the exact kind of gun you want but for most types you can afford a gun around level 15 with bonus wbl credits.
So if i made a mistake worth 500,0000 you can get a gun that is 5 levels behind everyone else. If I didn't you are in debt for 423750 credits and can't actually use those slots.

I think this shows that concerns about game balance are missing the point. Most armor upgrades are situational at best some actively harmful in some situations and other so minor as to not worry about.
If a character spends an ungodly amount of money on armor upgrades sure they can use them but they pay that price in less resources to spend on other areas. No magic items or augmentations for you if you actually use your 36 armor slots. The limiting factor for most armor upgrades isn't your slots on the armor but your credits available.

I hope this isn't overkill I just wanted to show that it is not munchikenery since the benefit is so minor.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Halek wrote:
I hope this isn't overkill I just wanted to show that it is not munchikenery

Just one problem with that: It is. You're trying to dodge the opportunity cost inherent to limited upgrade slots, and trying to claim that you can do this because you're not explicitly barred from this.

Doesn't pass the smell test.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Halek wrote:
I hope this isn't overkill I just wanted to show that it is not munchikenery since the benefit is so minor.

If you don't spent all of your time on the front lines and invest in level +2 armor repeatedly armor simply won't stop you from being hit.

Not every character needs a level appropriate weapon. My level 9 mystic still has the price tag on his level 1 semi auto pistol.

For a lot of characters armor its a place to store upgrades. Being able to munchkin (and it absolutely is munchkin) 4 or 5 armor upgrades into an armor that normally has 1 slot drastically reduces the amount a lot of characters need to spend in armor and expands their capabilities beyond what their WBL would suggest.

Ysoki refractor suit 6 4,120 +7 +7 +5 – – 2 L

Estex suit III 7 5,500 +7 +8 +5 –1 – 4 1

Why is the estex suit more expensive, have 10 times the bulk AND an armor check penalty on light armor? The one extra KAC?

Because it's got twice the armor upgrade slots.

The benefit you're looking to get for the cost , the absolute wall of conspiracy board argument, and fundamental disconnect between anything you've managed to cite and an actual rules conclusion make this argument the tripple threat of munchkinry

Sentence: *sucks helium* Lolipop guild.


Halek wrote:
I hope this isn't overkill I just wanted to show that it is not munchikenery since the benefit is so minor.

This is a category error; whether or not it is munchkinry is irrelevant to whether or not it is rules legal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GhostInTheMachine wrote:
Halek wrote:
I hope this isn't overkill I just wanted to show that it is not munchikenery since the benefit is so minor.

This is a category error; whether or not it is munchkinry is irrelevant to whether or not it is rules legal.

I think it is. To me, the difference between a munchkin and a power gamer is that the power gamer is within the rules and the munchkin is abusing rules and skirting gray areas with inane logic


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
GhostInTheMachine wrote:
Halek wrote:
Descriptive text is rules. It is in the rulebook and that means it is part of the rules.
No. Just no. This is the source of much facepalming when it comes to rule lawyering.

It's only ever the rules lawyers that I see trying to divide the RULE book into descriptive text and rules text, precisely so they can ignore the context that you are referring to, GhostInTheMachine.

Halek wrote:
Ok for underwear it doesn't exist in the core rulebook. Sets of clothing do though.

And to be clear, second skin references "ordinary clothes." Whatever that is. One could easily argue that any of your sets of clothing that grant bonuses of any kind are not considered "ordinary" clothing.


Arguing over how many slices of bread you need in a clothes armor sandwhich is pretty silly unless you have some argument that multiple sets of armor do something when worn.

Second Seekers (Jadnura)

"Eh. One question. What's underwear? "


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Jessica Norveg wrote:
"Eh. One question. What's underwear? "

It's wear that unders. Duh.

XD


At my table they can have a single Second Skin under other armor, however, they only get extra environmental protection.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
The Artificer wrote:

At my table they can have a single Second Skin under other armor, however, they only get extra environmental protection.

I'm the same, but I also allow the armor upgrade. If armor can be modified to allow for your climbing suckers, I see no reason why it couldn't be modified to allow your armor upgrades from your second skin to to poke/work through.

If the designers later released another light armor that was said to work under clothes or armor, I'd likely allow that one to function too (in lieu of the second skin).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So I am going to take this into the real world.

I play a lot of baseball.

Baseball pants are tight and form fitting, and provide some modicum of protection. Underneath the baseball pants, I wear sliding shorts and as a well as a sliding pad on my left knee. Both are form fitting and padded, and provided nice protection from abrasions and bruises. It is very comfortable to wear.

It would no be comfortable to wear two sets of baseball pants, sliding shorts, shorts/pants/shorts. I would decrease my effectiveness at playing baseball, running etc and I would also look ridiculous.

Again, this is not based on rules, more on common sense.

I would imagine that Second Skin has similar properties to Sliding Shorts and Baseball pants, form fitting, skin tight but with built up layers to protect joints and vital areas.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

But what if the second layer of baseball pant had been specifically modified to fit over other baseball pants? Would that not alleviate at least some of the issues you mentioned?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
But what if the second layer of baseball pant had been specifically modified to fit over other baseball pants? Would that not alleviate at least some of the issues you mentioned?

then you don't run twice as fast or slide twice as far or take half as much damage from skidding across the ground.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

That makes sense to me.

Thanks for putting up with my devil's advocacy.


Ravingdork wrote:

That makes sense to me.

Thanks for putting up with my devil's advocacy.

It would be nice if you labeled that sort of thing, as poes law is in effect...


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

That makes sense to me.

Thanks for putting up with my devil's advocacy.

It would be nice if you labeled that sort of thing, as poes law is in effect...

Sorry, I thought it was obvious on account of my having already said I'd never allow most layering scenarios at my table.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
But what if the second layer of baseball pant had been specifically modified to fit over other baseball pants? Would that not alleviate at least some of the issues you mentioned?
then you don't run twice as fast or slide twice as far or take half as much damage from skidding across the ground.

Why not just use double thick Baseball pants? LOL

Honestly though, the rules overall are pretty vague when it comes to this, I would not allow it, but I can see the argument why someone would.


Ravingdork wrote:


Sorry, I thought it was obvious on account of my having already said I'd never allow most layering scenarios at my table.

That is vastly different than what you think the rules are...

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Rules Questions / Second Skin & Other Armor All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.