How long do you need to wear armor to become "trained" in it

[Library Ogre]

I think EBA is definitely going to be more comfortable than pretty much any modern armor, and certainly any modern full-suit body armor, and insanely more comfortable than any medieval or medieval-styled armor (I'm thinking of the MDC medieval suits in Wroclaw).

[kaid]

I think any modern EBA would be more comfortable since it fixes the major problems with any hard armor which is overheating. Still I imagine there is at least an adjustment period as you get used to where all the Tab A and slot B's are and where any um biological hookups and plumbing attachments there may be.

Due to the climate control options in a lot of ways EBA could wind up being much more comfortable than non EBA armors

One issue with EBA though is people who are claustrophobic. I am guessing there are a pretty fair amount of folks who simply would not tolerate being totally sealed in like that. I have seen people panic in full scuba gear and something like full eba armor would be even worse for those folks.

[kaid]

Re-reading a thread talking about mages and armor and it referenced a passage from the RUE where it talks about how mages are not trained to wear armor and take additional penalties for wearing armor.

My question is this: For how long (i.e. how many levels or how many weeks) would someone who is not trained to wear armor have to wear armor to be considered "trained" in wearing it?

Well in the real world militaries tend to have recruits wear body armor for a few weeks to 'get used to it'
I can say that personally after about a month or so of wearing it everywhere constantly every day I was pretty used to it and wasn't overly hampered by it (other than its inherent bulk i.e. its movement penalties and weight)
I would say as a house rule that if your training up someone with no armor experience six weeks minus IQ+PE days is reasonably fair as a house rule. YMMV.

What real world military is running around in full body armor? none.
we've tested pieced armor but that went over like lead swim fins and then there's the future warrior pipe dreams.

People will complain about mages running around in body armor and anyone who has done MOUT operations knows how much fun we have with all the gear on us but nobody sees the problem with mages engaging in combat wearing more blankets wrapped around them than is on my bed?
Forget MOUT lets get into combat in the overgrown wilderness that is Rifts.
Now lets go back to complaining about mages in body armor again.

My mages are going to be practical and wear body armor and not going to be wearing the latest fashions from tent and awning.

Real world they keep testing it but it keeps not passing for two main reasons.

Weight vs protection. A lot of the hard suits add a lot of extra weight to already insane combat loads for minimal gains in protection. Clearly with MDC this is not an issue.

Heat generation. A lot of the areas of combat our forces are deployed to and likely will be deployed to are HOT. Normal body armor can cause heat stroke already and the kevlar stuff breaths reasonable well for armor. Hard suits wind up being like the full biological warfare gear that was causing grunts to pass out even doing minimal activity in iraq while wearing them. This is probably the best feature of EBA most have a huge operating temperature range while keeping the wearer at a very steady internal temp. If you can run at a normal body temp when the exterior is from polar levels of cold to steamy jungle levels of heat with no issues with humidity that is a huge winner.


Hell if we could do that today on something light enough/durable enough I am pretty sure you would see the military implement it.

[Pepsi Jedi]

I have been wearing body armor daily for 20+ years (not because I'm crazy geez....because of my job).

I still hate it. It is still uncomfortable. Its hot, restricts movement and is a general pain in the a$$.

I also feel weird when not wearing it, like I forgot to do something....

I think I got "used to it" in a day or two, but you never truly forget that you are wearing it.

My job issues us armor. We have had 4 different sets of armor over the years, each by a different company. Some are more comfortable than other...the latest set I refused to wear, it sucks! I just use my old set.

"Body armor" or "A vest"?

Because in Rifts, we're talking head to toe. Helment, neck, chest and back, sides, shoulders, upper arm, elbo, forearm, gloves, belt, crotch, upper legs, knee, lower leg, boots.

I don't know of any job that requires wearing full armor every day for 20 years... Not off the top of my head.

Wearing a bullet proof vest is a thing. Cops do it. Some private security, but its not quite the same thing. Even full out modern swat guys aren't covered like people in Rifts armors.

Your statement isn't even 100% true to Rifts, the thread, nor mages.

In Rifts, "vests" exist, there are at least a dozen types, and mages still receive the same penalty for wearing them as they do the armour you've described.

Additionally, you really can't say it would be more uncomfortable wearing some futuristic armour invented hundreds of years in the future, any more than anyone else could. For all we know, it's more comfortable than Fell's vest.

.... Um.. No.

Mages only start taking penalties to their magic if more than 50% of their body is covered. I.E. More than a 'vest'. And when talking about Armor in Rifts it defaults to full body eBA. Not the rare snow flakes along the edges, but the vast majority of armor as presented.

As for saying it'd be more uncomfortable. Sure I can say it. There's armor penalties, even for those trained in it. Armor penalties prove that it's uncomfortable and more difficult to move in, because if it wasn't, the penalties wouldn't be there. Typically the stronger the armor, the more the penalties.

Is it true 100.0000000000000000000% of the time that we're talking about full EBA? no. But most times that's what we're talking about. yes there are some non full eba armors but they're the minority and not the majority, and often seen as special cases vs standard.

It's going to be really hard to find ANY statement can cover 100% of rifts accurately. But when describing things on a forum. And someone asks a general query 'how long do you need to wear armor to become trained in it. They're not asking about the special snow flake, 1 in 50 type things. They're talking about the other 49.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Also as I tell my players, mages should do magic. Cast spells. They see guns and tech armor as inferior to their spell abilities.

This in a contentious topic here on the forum. Entire threads have been devoted to it and then got locked because things got too heated.

[off-topic]
I personally like the idea that outside of devices created by TWs, and TWs & Cybermancers, magic and tech dont get along.
I understand this isnt canon, but it is an idea I like.
There is an option Insanity that I came up with that applies only to magic users where they firmly believe that magic and tech dont mix so hard that they subconsciously use some PPE to disrupt any tech they try to use in an negative manner. There are different levels of insanity from no effect only belief, to personal only effect, to area of effect.
[/off-topic]

The concept in general actually is canon, with pages of text devoted to it in thebooks. Such as the book of magic, saying it flat out. It's not an 'iron clad rule' it's a "VERY FIRMLY DEFINED SETTING CHARACTERISTIC" that people sometimes ignore.

[eliakon]

Also as I tell my players, mages should do magic. Cast spells. They see guns and tech armor as inferior to their spell abilities.

This in a contentious topic here on the forum. Entire threads have been devoted to it and then got locked because things got too heated.

[off-topic]
I personally like the idea that outside of devices created by TWs, and TWs & Cybermancers, magic and tech dont get along.
I understand this isnt canon, but it is an idea I like.
There is an option Insanity that I came up with that applies only to magic users where they firmly believe that magic and tech dont mix so hard that they subconsciously use some PPE to disrupt any tech they try to use in an negative manner. There are different levels of insanity from no effect only belief, to personal only effect, to area of effect.
[/off-topic]

The concept in general actually is canon, with pages of text devoted to it in thebooks. Such as the book of magic, saying it flat out. It's not an 'iron clad rule' it's a "VERY FIRMLY DEFINED SETTING CHARACTERISTIC" that people sometimes ignore.

Let's please not threadjack this thread into that argument please?
If you want to argue the mages vs tech thing again, then please go start a new thread for it. But don't drag this one into a highly off topic issue like "do mages use technology?" (Since the answer is pretty much explicitly "Maybe, it depends on a lot of stuff.")

[Dog_O_War]

.... Um.. No.

Mages only start taking penalties to their magic if more than 50% of their body is covered. I.E. More than a 'vest'. And when talking about Armor in Rifts it defaults to full body eBA. Not the rare snow flakes along the edges, but the vast majority of armor as presented.

Blah, blah, blah*

*Presented as satire in-place of the rest of his actual quote, as it need not be addressed, despite the many words he used to say what I consider to be nothing.

Warning: If you weren't responding to these points, it would have been a simple matter to just indicate the message was truncated to the points you were responding to. Adding the 'satire' disclaimer shows you were aware this may cause offense in some form. Warning for baiting.

Um, does that what the non-proficiency rule says? Or does it say, "additional penalty" with no other caveats?

Because I didn't read any such caveats.

[eliakon]

I have been wearing body armor daily for 20+ years (not because I'm crazy geez....because of my job).

I still hate it. It is still uncomfortable. Its hot, restricts movement and is a general pain in the a$$.

I also feel weird when not wearing it, like I forgot to do something....

I think I got "used to it" in a day or two, but you never truly forget that you are wearing it.

My job issues us armor. We have had 4 different sets of armor over the years, each by a different company. Some are more comfortable than other...the latest set I refused to wear, it sucks! I just use my old set.

"Body armor" or "A vest"?

Because in Rifts, we're talking head to toe. Helment, neck, chest and back, sides, shoulders, upper arm, elbo, forearm, gloves, belt, crotch, upper legs, knee, lower leg, boots.

I don't know of any job that requires wearing full armor every day for 20 years... Not off the top of my head.

Wearing a bullet proof vest is a thing. Cops do it. Some private security, but its not quite the same thing. Even full out modern swat guys aren't covered like people in Rifts armors.

Your statement isn't even 100% true to Rifts, the thread, nor mages.

In Rifts, "vests" exist, there are at least a dozen types, and mages still receive the same penalty for wearing them as they do the armour you've described.

Additionally, you really can't say it would be more uncomfortable wearing some futuristic armour invented hundreds of years in the future, any more than anyone else could. For all we know, it's more comfortable than Fell's vest.

.... Um.. No.

Mages only start taking penalties to their magic if more than 50% of their body is covered. I.E. More than a 'vest'. And when talking about Armor in Rifts it defaults to full body eBA. Not the rare snow flakes along the edges, but the vast majority of armor as presented.

As for saying it'd be more uncomfortable. Sure I can say it. There's armor penalties, even for those trained in it. Armor penalties prove that it's uncomfortable and more difficult to move in, because if it wasn't, the penalties wouldn't be there. Typically the stronger the armor, the more the penalties.

Is it true 100.0000000000000000000% of the time that we're talking about full EBA? no. But most times that's what we're talking about. yes there are some non full eba armors but they're the minority and not the majority, and often seen as special cases vs standard.

It's going to be really hard to find ANY statement can cover 100% of rifts accurately. But when describing things on a forum. And someone asks a general query 'how long do you need to wear armor to become trained in it. They're not asking about the special snow flake, 1 in 50 type things. They're talking about the other 49.

And the more than 50% thing is.....questionable. Since it doesn't even say that you have to be covered in armor, just wearing artificial material.....meaning that RAW if your female mage puts on a pair of nylons she takes a hit on magic. If your mage puts on a cotton/poly blend shirt, you take a hit. That pleather trench coat? Yeah messes with your magic.......
Which is probably why the discussion of mages and armor tends to be.....heated and involve lots of people arguing what they think the rules should say not what they do say (because what they do say is, frankly silly, but it is RAW so.....)
.....And probably best left to its own split off topic.....

[kaid]

Yes its not so much the amount of body covering as it is the amount of synthetic material covering the body. Mages can wear some really bulky full covering hodgepodge stuff that is 75+ mdc with no penalties to casting. Heck you can get lemurian bio armor that is basically power armor that casters can use and cast out of just fine thats 100% covering and HEAVY protection.

Generally EBA causes penalties for casters mostly because you are unlikely to find EBA armor that is not also mostly synthetic. So the 5% penalty is a pretty minor part of why mages don't tend to use EBA nor is comfort.

Now if they can get something like the biomancer armors they can rock basically full eba protection no problem.

Generally mages wind up using lighter armor such as light or medium armors huntsman or other NG type armored clothing models or hodgepodge simply because they are light enough to not trip off the penalties for having to much synthetic armor. While you can get really high MDC value hodgepodge stuff it also tends to be pretty darn heavy stuff or expensive enchanted stuff.

[eliakon]

Yes its not so much the amount of body covering as it is the amount of synthetic material covering the body. Mages can wear some really bulky full covering hodgepodge stuff that is 75+ mdc with no penalties to casting. Heck you can get lemurian bio armor that is basically power armor that casters can use and cast out of just fine thats 100% covering and HEAVY protection.

Generally EBA causes penalties for casters mostly because you are unlikely to find EBA armor that is not also mostly synthetic. So the 5% penalty is a pretty minor part of why mages don't tend to use EBA nor is comfort.

Now if they can get something like the biomancer armors they can rock basically full eba protection no problem.

Generally mages wind up using lighter armor such as light or medium armors huntsman or other NG type armored clothing models or hodgepodge simply because they are light enough to not trip off the penalties for having to much synthetic armor. While you can get really high MDC value hodgepodge stuff it also tends to be pretty darn heavy stuff or expensive enchanted stuff.

Actually they are light enough that the GMs are willing to house rule that they don't set off the synthetic rule....
...as I pointed out the rule technically applies to clothing as well. So unless you make sure that you have completely natural clothing then......well sucks to be you.
But most GMs overlook that. Which is where the rule problem comes in, selective enforcement of a rule that was added as an afterthought with no clear thoughts on what it actually meant means that it has ripple on effects that are likely Not What Was Intended...
But that's probably for another thread.
For this thread all that matters is that non man-at-arms have this 5% penalty for some reason and the decision is "should you be allowed to buy it off"
RAW the answer is "No, there is no mechanic to do so, it is simply a feature of your class selection"
Consensus though seems to be that there is a fairly common house rule that says "Sure you can, if you spend X (where X is some variable amount of time) using/training with it"

[flatline]

Does synthetic material really matter in regular clothing?

The section describing the penalties on RUE p188 is titled "Wearing Body Armor". Pantyhose is not armor for game purposes. As such, it seems a stretch to assign the penalties. In my opinion, it is clearly outside the intention of the rules as written. Even a polyester zoot suit is not armor and so should not incur the penalties (even if it's poor taste).

[eliakon]

Does synthetic material really matter in regular clothing?

The section describing the penalties on RUE p188 is titled "Wearing Body Armor". Pantyhose is not armor for game purposes. As such, it seems a stretch to assign the penalties. In my opinion, it is clearly outside the intention of the rules as written. Even a polyester zoot suit is not armor and so should incur the penalties (even if it's poor taste).

It would matter if it said that it applied to armor though. The exact statement is "Covering oneself in metal or man-made materials, including plastic and ceramic plates, has the strange effect of hampering magic energy."
While this is in a section about armor it doesn't say that it only applies to armor (which also helps to side step the questions of "when does something go from mere clothing to armor?" (which is really important in an SDC setting...)) Thus with out a statement that "This rule only applies when the covering is used for armor" it doesn't just apply to armor. This is really important because if it only applies to 'armor' and nothing else it requires a specific definition of what is an armor, and when does it count (motorcycle leathers btw are listed as 'armor' as is 'padded clothing' and even 'thick clothing' in some books....)
This is further reinforced by the fact that the CS uses suits of EBA as a form of containment suits for mages which further muddies the waters by making it so that what ever it is that makes something armor is NOT something that is determined by the intent of the person wearing it. Since the suit is not intended to protect the mage, but to hurt them (so its a weapon not an 'armor') and yet it still affects their magic use.

Which is why I said that RAW the rule is.....well its likely far more expansive than the authors intended which is why the implementation of the rule is often so spotty and problematic.

[glitterboy2098]

honeslty i'd have dropepd the "metals and man made materials" bit, and just gone with "Sealed environmental armors"

since being in a sealed object like a sub or the like can effect how magics function when aimed outside said sealed object.

this would push magic users more to the non-Enviromental armors like huntsman and the like, without limiting their materials choices.

this would also make the extra penalty a bit more logical too.. a sealed EBA is going to be more restrictive to movement than a set of plates worn over regular outfits. and would require more experienced wearing to get used to it. a man-at-arms (which tend to wear such frequently) would thus be automatically used to such, while anyone else might not be.

[flatline]

Armor is typically far more substantial material than, say, pantyhose.

[eliakon]

Armor is typically far more substantial material than, say, pantyhose.

True...but that's not what it says....
And it starts to get into the question of 'how substantial is substantial enough?'
Is a MDC trench coat enough? What about an SDC trench coat? Cloth Armor?
Never mind the question of why is heavy winter clothing not enough, but light cloth armor is or why that light cloth armor and a suit of power armor both have the exact same penalty to spell casting.....

Like I said, what the RAW says and what many (if not all) GMs end up doing are different. But it is important to note what the RAW does actually say, especially since it is relevant to the question of what one should assume about other armors and their rules/penalties....

[Gamer]

Flatline. the section you referred to in R:UE wearing body armor makes no distinction between armor and clothing it simply says "If more than 50% of the body is covered in artificial material"

which means Bob the mage so much as wears a plastic rain coat and he's screwed..
Meanwhile Bob the wizard can make full on Star Battleships run with magic with no problem, yeah the concept of what interferes in P.P.E flow is messed up pretty good.

[flatline]

Flatline. the section you referred to in R:UE wearing body armor makes no distinction between armor and clothing it simply says "If more than 50% of the body is covered in artificial material"

Perhaps it makes no distinction because the section it is part of is specifically talking about armor so the author didn't feel like the distinction was necessary.

which means Bob the mage so much as wears a plastic rain coat and he's screwed..

He is inconvenienced. The penalties are actually pretty minor and, in my opinion, not significant enough by themselves to prevent a mage from wearing armor regularly.

Meanwhile Bob the wizard can make full on Star Battleships run with magic with no problem, yeah the concept of what interferes in P.P.E flow is messed up pretty good.

There may be value to the idea depending on how you want things to work in your setting, but I agree that it's poorly defined as written and would benefit from house ruling.

In my own setting, I ignore these penalties entirely and instead give targets a bonus to save if they, or the mage, are environmentally protected. Extra bonus if both are environmentally protected. This gives mages an incentive to not wear EBA, but doesn't bog down play with extra dice rolls.

[Jefffar]

We've reached that point where instead of making actual points we are quibbling over language. If you have some new evidence I suggest posting it, otherwise it will be time to end this thread.

[Killer Cyborg]

Does synthetic material really matter in regular clothing?

The section describing the penalties on RUE p188 is titled "Wearing Body Armor". Pantyhose is not armor for game purposes. As such, it seems a stretch to assign the penalties. In my opinion, it is clearly outside the intention of the rules as written. Even a polyester zoot suit is not armor and so should not incur the penalties (even if it's poor taste).

The section title doesn't matter as much as the rule.
The rules for Horror Factor, for example, are typically in a section labeled "psionics" or such.
The rule makes no mention of thickness or clothing type. You could be wearing a HAZMAT suit, or you could be wearing HU/N&S plainclothes armor, and by the rules it doesn't matter.
Only whether the material is man made, and how much of your body is covered.
So watch out for guys shoving a Hefty bag over you.


(Or just ignore the rule. It never makes any sense, and only pretends to balance anything.)


Edit:
The reason why the rule is in the armor section is because the rule is applicable to armor. But that's not the only time it's applicable.

[Mack]

So I was thinking about mages and armor, and the comment about being able to use a character's starting equipment. This got me wondering exactly what is the starting armor for mages. The below is by no means a complete list of all mages, but it's a decent representation.

RUE mages:

Ley Line Walker - light MDC body armor
Mystic - light MDC body armor
Shifter - light MDC body armor
Techno-Wizard - light MDC body armor (35 MDC main body) with two magic features

FoM Revised mages:

Battle Magus - Standard Battler Body Armor (45 MDC)... made of either MDC composite materials or magically created materials
Controller - Standard Controller body armor (35 MDC)... made of either MDC polycarbonite plates or magically created materials (no metal)
Lord Magus - Standard Lord Magus body armor (50 MDC)... made of either MDC composite materials or magically created materials
High Magus - Standard High Magus body armor (50 MDC)... made of either MDC composite materials or magically created materials
Conjurer - light MDC body armor
Grey Seer - light MDC body armor
Mystic Knight - Standard Mystic Knight Body Armor (70 MDC)... made of either MDC composite materials or magically created materials. (Per Madhaven p85 this is a magical, Medium suit of armor.)

Other Mages:

Temporal Wizards - light MDC armor
Warlocks - light MDC armor
Spirit West Shamans - N/A

Based on that info, I don't see any mage that starts with Heavy armor. The only one that starts with Medium armor is the Mystic Knight, but it's expressly described as having magical fabric.

Are there any examples of a Mage OCC starting with Heavy armor?

[dragonfett]

So I was thinking about mages and armor, and the comment about being able to use a character's starting equipment. This got me wondering exactly what is the starting armor for mages. The below is by no means a complete list of all mages, but it's a decent representation.

RUE mages:

Ley Line Walker - light MDC body armor
Mystic - light MDC body armor
Shifter - light MDC body armor
Techno-Wizard - light MDC body armor (35 MDC main body) with two magic features

FoM Revised mages:

Battle Magus - Standard Battler Body Armor (45 MDC)... made of either MDC composite materials or magically created materials
Controller - Standard Controller body armor (35 MDC)... made of either MDC polycarbonite plates or magically created materials (no metal)
Lord Magus - Standard Lord Magus body armor (50 MDC)... made of either MDC composite materials or magically created materials
High Magus - Standard High Magus body armor (50 MDC)... made of either MDC composite materials or magically created materials
Conjurer - light MDC body armor
Grey Seer - light MDC body armor
Mystic Knight - Standard Mystic Knight Body Armor (70 MDC)... made of either MDC composite materials or magically created materials. (Per Madhaven p85 this is a magical, Medium suit of armor.)

Other Mages:

Temporal Wizards - light MDC armor
Warlocks - light MDC armor
Spirit West Shamans - N/A

Based on that info, I don't see any mage that starts with Heavy armor. The only one that starts with Medium armor is the Mystic Knight, but it's expressly described as having magical fabric.

Are there any examples of a Mage OCC starting with Heavy armor?

But when does armor go from being light to medium or medium to heavy? Because you are calling the Mystic Knight's armor medium at 70 MDC with the Lord and High Magus having 50 MDC suits of Armor. To be honest, I personally consider 45 MDC to 69 MDC medium with less being light and more being heavy (until it becomes so heavy that it require's additional motors to help the wearer move, ie the Gladius Exo-Skeleton).

[Mack]

But when does armor go from being light to medium or medium to heavy?

GM's call. I agree that it's left undefined in the texts.

Because you are calling the Mystic Knight's armor medium at 70 MDC with the Lord and High Magus having 50 MDC suits of Armor.

Just to be clear, I'm not calling the Mystic Knight's armor Medium. Madhaven p85 calls it Medium.

To be honest, I personally consider 45 MDC to 69 MDC medium with less being light and more being heavy (until it becomes so heavy that it require's additional motors to help the wearer move, ie the Gladius Exo-Skeleton).

A reasonable definition.

Keep in mind my intent was to simply provide info on mage's starting armor. Though I have my own opinion, I'm not advocating for any particular conclusion.

[flatline]

My groups were always frustrated that RMB didn't say which armors are considered "light" or "heavy".

Crusader EBA was our go-to armor for mages since it has zero movement penalty and 55MDC was decent. However, I just noticed that in RUE, Crusader armor has 95MDC and a 10% penalty. I wonder why they changed that.

[flatline]

I just pulled out RMB and found what I was looking for.

RMB p209 in the list of properties common common to MDC body armor:
"Prowl Penalty: -10% in light armor, -25% in heavy."

Based on this, we assumed that if your starting equipment said light armor, then you could choose armor with a -10% penalty or less.

RUE has a similar, but different statement on page 267:
"Movement Penalties: -5% in light full armor, -10% in medium armor, and -15-20% in heavy types of armor"

There's 2 interesting things about this:
1. RMB only has "light" and "heavy" armor categories while RUE has "light", "medium", and "heavy". Why they added a new category, I have no idea. Other that starting equipment, I don't think the categories have any impact on the game.

2. Urban Warrior is the only RUE armor that qualifies as "light" (RMB Crusader would still be considered "light", but the RUE Crusader is "heavy", RMB Gladiator would also be "light", but RUE Gladiator is "medium"). RMB had several "light" armors: Gladiator, Crusader, Urban Warrior, Plastic Man, Juicer, Huntsman, and Bushman.

The change makes no sense to me and it reduces the options available to the players which, unless it improves the game in some other way, is always a bad thing in my book. Just one more strike against RUE.

[eliakon]

I think the idea in RUE was to have light armor be, well....light stuff. In RMB everything but the super heavy main battle armor was 'light' which lead to people wearing some pretty heavy duty armor as 'light armor'
in RUE we now have light armor which is the suits with low MDC, medium which has the middle range MDC, and heavy for the high MDC range....

[flatline]

I think the idea in RUE was to have light armor be, well....light stuff. In RMB everything but the super heavy main battle armor was 'light' which lead to people wearing some pretty heavy duty armor as 'light armor'
in RUE we now have light armor which is the suits with low MDC, medium which has the middle range MDC, and heavy for the high MDC range....

Unless you were a CS soldier, the highest MDC armor in RMB was 70MDC. Was it really a problem if folks chose this as their starting armor rather than something with 50 or 55MDC? I doubt it.

In RMB, my experience was that folks started with either RMB Crusader (55MDC) or Urban Warrior (50MDC) since at 11lbs, they were the lightest armors available. Most of us purchased Plastic Man (13lbs) with our starting funds as a backup suit since it was the cheapest EBA armor in the book.

The only "light" armor in RUE (Urban Warrior) has 50MDC.
Plastic Man, which has 35MDC, is a "medium" armor now.

[dragonfett]

I think the idea in RUE was to have light armor be, well....light stuff. In RMB everything but the super heavy main battle armor was 'light' which lead to people wearing some pretty heavy duty armor as 'light armor'
in RUE we now have light armor which is the suits with low MDC, medium which has the middle range MDC, and heavy for the high MDC range....

Unless you were a CS soldier, the highest MDC armor in RMB was 70MDC. Was it really a problem if folks chose this as their starting armor rather than something with 50 or 55MDC? I doubt it.

In RMB, my experience was that folks started with either RMB Crusader (55MDC) or Urban Warrior (50MDC) since at 11lbs, they were the lightest armors available. Most of us purchased Plastic Man (13lbs) with our starting funds as a backup suit since it was the cheapest EBA armor in the book.

The only "light" armor in RUE (Urban Warrior) has 50MDC.
Plastic Man, which has 35MDC, is a "medium" armor now.

[sarcasm]Yay for attention to detail and arbitrary numbers![/sarcasm]

[Pepsi Jedi]

I just pulled out RMB and found what I was looking for.

RMB p209 in the list of properties common common to MDC body armor:
"Prowl Penalty: -10% in light armor, -25% in heavy."

Based on this, we assumed that if your starting equipment said light armor, then you could choose armor with a -10% penalty or less.

RUE has a similar, but different statement on page 267:
"Movement Penalties: -5% in light full armor, -10% in medium armor, and -15-20% in heavy types of armor"

There's 2 interesting things about this:
1. RMB only has "light" and "heavy" armor categories while RUE has "light", "medium", and "heavy". Why they added a new category, I have no idea. Other that starting equipment, I don't think the categories have any impact on the game.

2. Urban Warrior is the only RUE armor that qualifies as "light" (RMB Crusader would still be considered "light", but the RUE Crusader is "heavy", RMB Gladiator would also be "light", but RUE Gladiator is "medium"). RMB had several "light" armors: Gladiator, Crusader, Urban Warrior, Plastic Man, Juicer, Huntsman, and Bushman.

The change makes no sense to me and it reduces the options available to the players which, unless it improves the game in some other way, is always a bad thing in my book. Just one more strike against RUE.

This one is rather simple.. when RMB Came out, it was the 'only' rifts book and only had a hand full of armors.

By the time RUE came out there were dozens and dozens of Rifts books with dozens and dozens and dozens of armors...

So instead of 5-8 that could fit into two categories, you had 50 to 100 that could it into more than two categories. Over a decade of progression and equipment had dropped into the game at that point.

As for it reducing options for players. No. There's tons and tons of options for players. It reduces the options for Mages, but the books have always pointed out that mages and armors don't mix anyway. It makes sense.

If (---In rifts---) They say Mages don't wear heavy synthetic armor. Then the game doesn't cater to give mages heavy synthetic armor, it's not a mistake or an oversite. It's the game reflecting exactly what you've been told.

[flatline]

So how does having three armor categories improve the game?

[Mack]

So how does having three armor categories improve the game?

How does it affect the game at all, positively or negatively?

[flatline]

So how does having three armor categories improve the game?

How does it affect the game at all, positively or negatively?

Lots of OCCs from earlier books have "light MDC body armor" as their starting equipment. Now that RUE has redefined "light body armor" after the fact, these OCCs are far more restricted in what starting armor they can choose than when the OCCs were introduced to the game.

[The Beast]

I think the idea in RUE was to have light armor be, well....light stuff. In RMB everything but the super heavy main battle armor was 'light' which lead to people wearing some pretty heavy duty armor as 'light armor'
in RUE we now have light armor which is the suits with low MDC, medium which has the middle range MDC, and heavy for the high MDC range....

Unless you were a CS soldier, the highest MDC armor in RMB was 70MDC. Was it really a problem if folks chose this as their starting armor rather than something with 50 or 55MDC? I doubt it.

In RMB, my experience was that folks started with either RMB Crusader (55MDC) or Urban Warrior (50MDC) since at 11lbs, they were the lightest armors available. Most of us purchased Plastic Man (13lbs) with our starting funds as a backup suit since it was the cheapest EBA armor in the book.

The only "light" armor in RUE (Urban Warrior) has 50MDC.
Plastic Man, which has 35MDC, is a "medium" armor now.

Perhaps they're classifying armors by the weight and not the MDC value...

[Mack]

So how does having three armor categories improve the game?

How does it affect the game at all, positively or negatively?

Lots of OCCs from earlier books have "light MDC body armor" as their starting equipment. Now that RUE has redefined "light body armor" after the fact, these OCCs are far more restricted in what starting armor they can choose than when the OCCs were introduced to the game.

On the flip side, there's a lot more "light" body armors to choose from, as well as at lot more other kinds of protection.

[Killer Cyborg]

SB1 describes the difference between Light, Medium, and Heavy in the context of the RMB.

[flatline]

SB1 describes the difference between Light, Medium, and Heavy in the context of the RMB.

For those of us who don't have SB1, can you summarize?

[Killer Cyborg]

SB1 describes the difference between Light, Medium, and Heavy in the context of the RMB.

For those of us who don't have SB1, can you summarize?

Certainly!
Although everybody who has the RMB should buy a copy of SB1 if they don't already have one. Without SB1, it's like you only have 3/4 of the RMB. There's quite a bit of crucial information in there.

SB1 p. 8

Question: What defines light, medium, and heavy body armor, the weight or the amount of MDC?
Answer: The amount of MDC protection compared to the weight.
Light Armor:Plastic Man, Crusader, Urban Warrior, CA-2 Light Dead Boy body armor and Dog Pack Riot armor are considered light armors because they weight under or around 12 lbs and offer 35 to 55 MDC.
Medium Armor: Juicer plate armor because it provides only 45 MDC and weighs 18 lbs.
Some might consider the Plastic Man armor to be medium because it provides only 35 MDC and weighs in at 13 lbs. The Huntsman and GB personal armor are also considered to be medium armor.
Heavy Armor: The Gladiator (70 MDC), Bushman Composite Armor (60 MDC), CA-1 Heavy Dead Boy armor (80 MDC) and all other types of armor that provide 60 or more MDC and weigh over 16 lbs but under 30 lbs (anything heavier is probably considered some sort of power armor or inefficient).

[Zer0 Kay]

I think that's just a nonsensical statement to talk mages out of wearing armor.

Not that training can't make an enormous difference, but there is no armor proficiency in this game anyway.

I think it is a cut and paste from PFRPG.

[Damian Magecraft]

I think that's just a nonsensical statement to talk mages out of wearing armor.

Not that training can't make an enormous difference, but there is no armor proficiency in this game anyway.

I think it is a cut and paste from PFRPG.

In the 1st edition version maybe...
2e has none.

[Zer0 Kay]

I think that's just a nonsensical statement to talk mages out of wearing armor.

Not that training can't make an enormous difference, but there is no armor proficiency in this game anyway.

I think it is a cut and paste from PFRPG.

In the 1st edition version maybe...
2e has none.

Mkay... I wouldn't know. I've only played 1e... Loved tomb of Gerseidi

[Mack]

Discovered another tidbit about mages and armor...

MA-2 TW Combat Mage Armor
Intended for use by spell casting mercenaries and warriors. The Combat Mage Armor is a suit of Huntsman or Peacekeeper armor... It does not interfere with the casting of spell magic.

There's two ways to take that:
1) The MA-2 modifies the base suits (Huntsman and Peacekeeper) so that a mage can use them without penalties.
2) A mage can use those two base suits without penalties. The MA-2 modifications only add TW enhancements.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Or
3) That was a line in a large book that slipped by the amazing Palladium editing and continuity staff. I.E. Wasn't cross checked and 'caught'.

[eliakon]

Or
3) That was a line in a large book that slipped by the amazing Palladium editing and continuity staff. I.E. Wasn't cross checked and 'caught'.

Since the basis of the discussion/argument in the thread is what the rules actually say.....
The opinion that it is a mistake and that we should throw out the parts that don't match our personal headcannon doesn't seem to be a very valid answer.....

after all

The problem is that your 'assumption' is in direct confrontation from very plainly stated fact to the contrary, when it comes to mages. If the book says they're not proficient in it's use, assuming they are, is.. well... There's lots of things that it could be called, but it doesn't seem to be correct as the writers/creators intended. As.. they've told us directly the opposite.

Since you seem to be one of the people arguing that the books are the only valid source.....

[eliakon]

Discovered another tidbit about mages and armor...

MA-2 TW Combat Mage Armor
Intended for use by spell casting mercenaries and warriors. The Combat Mage Armor is a suit of Huntsman or Peacekeeper armor... It does not interfere with the casting of spell magic.

There's two ways to take that:
1) The MA-2 modifies the base suits (Huntsman and Peacekeeper) so that a mage can use them without penalties.
2) A mage can use those two base suits without penalties. The MA-2 modifications only add TW enhancements.

At a guess? It is using a TW modification similar to that of the Warlock Marine power armor from Phase World.

[Blue_Lion]

My groups were always frustrated that RMB didn't say which armors are considered "light" or "heavy".

Crusader EBA was our go-to armor for mages since it has zero movement penalty and 55MDC was decent. However, I just noticed that in RUE, Crusader armor has 95MDC and a 10% penalty. I wonder why they changed that.

The armor name got reused by a heavy armor in SOT where they created gear for cyber knights. So when they published RUE they went with the most recent armor under the name. Thus removing one of the best armors in the game, from the core book.

[flatline]

My groups were always frustrated that RMB didn't say which armors are considered "light" or "heavy".

Crusader EBA was our go-to armor for mages since it has zero movement penalty and 55MDC was decent. However, I just noticed that in RUE, Crusader armor has 95MDC and a 10% penalty. I wonder why they changed that.

The armor name got reused by a heavy armor in SOT where they created gear for cyber knights. So when they published RUE they went with the most recent armor under the name. Thus removing one of the best armors in the game, from the core book.

Thank you for that explanation.

They probably thought they were doing the players a favor by including the heavier armor in RUE. How sad.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Or
3) That was a line in a large book that slipped by the amazing Palladium editing and continuity staff. I.E. Wasn't cross checked and 'caught'.

Since the basis of the discussion/argument in the thread is what the rules actually say.....
The opinion that it is a mistake and that we should throw out the parts that don't match our personal headcannon doesn't seem to be a very valid answer.....

after all

The problem is that your 'assumption' is in direct confrontation from very plainly stated fact to the contrary, when it comes to mages. If the book says they're not proficient in it's use, assuming they are, is.. well... There's lots of things that it could be called, but it doesn't seem to be correct as the writers/creators intended. As.. they've told us directly the opposite.

Since you seem to be one of the people arguing that the books are the only valid source.....

I maintain the statement. It's clearly not as intended. Rifts spans what, 50+ books now? Palladiums' editing and continuity is... lets be honest. Rudimentary at best. laughable at worst and very often contradictory.

If there's entire rules sections saying one thing. Then one equipment entry in a different book years or literal decades later says something to the contrary. You haven't suddenly discovered that all we knew is wrong!! What you've discovered is that the person that wrote that one equipment entry didn't remember those decades and 50+ books of stuff that's come before and wrote something that isn't consistent with the rules and world as stated.

One of the 'newer' books. I can't remember if it's black market or one of the NG's... has a small section on life spans of people on rifts earth. At first glance it looks impressive if weird in it's numbers. And that's all well and good. Till you remember there was two or three pages of detailed information already given in Lone Star that -directly- contradicts the information in the new book. Not by a little but by a huge amount, across the boards. Now clearly both can't be true. You have two options then. Go by the section in Lone star that's more detailed and gives rational on the stuff. explination for the life spans of the different things mentioned. Or the much smaller section in the newer book that is WAY Off the previous numbers and explanations.

One's 'newer' and it could be argued that the newest book has the information to go by. The other has more foundation and was clearly thought out a great deal more and has more foundation in the setting.

This isn't a case of "Oh The setting has changed! Huge swaths of people are dieing decades before they did in the other book!" In Rifts only 5-10 years have passed in the setting from the RMB to the most recent book. What you're seeing is the newer author wrote the page or so and thought it sounded cool. The editors (if there was one) DIdn't remember this was already covered IN DETAIL in Lone Star, 20+ books ago. So the new book got published with the hugely contradictory information.

In this instance we're talking of 2 or 3 pages of detailed information in one book being directly contridcted by a half page or page or so in the later book, which clearly hadn't 'seen/remembered' the first.

That happens (And is just one off the top of my head)

So yes. It's very easy for me to think that the person doing a blurb for a bit of armor in one book forgot the pages of explination and such in previous books and that such a small thing could slip through the editing process.

[eliakon]

Or
3) That was a line in a large book that slipped by the amazing Palladium editing and continuity staff. I.E. Wasn't cross checked and 'caught'.

Since the basis of the discussion/argument in the thread is what the rules actually say.....
The opinion that it is a mistake and that we should throw out the parts that don't match our personal headcannon doesn't seem to be a very valid answer.....

after all

The problem is that your 'assumption' is in direct confrontation from very plainly stated fact to the contrary, when it comes to mages. If the book says they're not proficient in it's use, assuming they are, is.. well... There's lots of things that it could be called, but it doesn't seem to be correct as the writers/creators intended. As.. they've told us directly the opposite.

Since you seem to be one of the people arguing that the books are the only valid source.....

I maintain the statement. It's clearly not as intended. Rifts spans what, 50+ books now? Palladiums' editing and continuity is... lets be honest. Rudimentary at best. laughable at worst and very often contradictory.

If there's entire rules sections saying one thing. Then one equipment entry in a different book years or literal decades later says something to the contrary. You haven't suddenly discovered that all we knew is wrong!! What you've discovered is that the person that wrote that one equipment entry didn't remember those decades and 50+ books of stuff that's come before and wrote something that isn't consistent with the rules and world as stated.

One of the 'newer' books. I can't remember if it's black market or one of the NG's... has a small section on life spans of people on rifts earth. At first glance it looks impressive if weird in it's numbers. And that's all well and good. Till you remember there was two or three pages of detailed information already given in Lone Star that -directly- contradicts the information in the new book. Not by a little but by a huge amount, across the boards. Now clearly both can't be true. You have two options then. Go by the section in Lone star that's more detailed and gives rational on the stuff. explination for the life spans of the different things mentioned. Or the much smaller section in the newer book that is WAY Off the previous numbers and explanations.

One's 'newer' and it could be argued that the newest book has the information to go by. The other has more foundation and was clearly thought out a great deal more and has more foundation in the setting.

This isn't a case of "Oh The setting has changed! Huge swaths of people are dieing decades before they did in the other book!" In Rifts only 5-10 years have passed in the setting from the RMB to the most recent book. What you're seeing is the newer author wrote the page or so and thought it sounded cool. The editors (if there was one) DIdn't remember this was already covered IN DETAIL in Lone Star, 20+ books ago. So the new book got published with the hugely contradictory information.

In this instance we're talking of 2 or 3 pages of detailed information in one book being directly contridcted by a half page or page or so in the later book, which clearly hadn't 'seen/remembered' the first.

That happens (And is just one off the top of my head)

So yes. It's very easy for me to think that the person doing a blurb for a bit of armor in one book forgot the pages of explination and such in previous books and that such a small thing could slip through the editing process.

Which would be possibly a valid argument....
....If the suit in question actually did break the rules and was being used to claim that the rules had changed.
The suit in question is a magically modified version of two other suits that now has a special property that has been seen in other magically modified suits in the game....
So no it isn't changing anything it is simply using the existing rules.
Just because you don't like the idea of a mage getting to wear armor doesn't mean that the rules down allow it. It just means that if your mage wants to wear certain armors and still have full spell use they need to have them modified in certain ways by Techno-Wizards so that they can do so.
Which, frankly, is how the rules have been since Phase World (actually adding armor penalties was a retcon but I digress there)

Which is why it is odd that you are calling out a line in a book that follows established precedent as 'wrong' and should be discarded.....
For no reason I can see other than "no I don't like it, everyone must ignore this actual, normal, canon thing'

[Pepsi Jedi]

Or
3) That was a line in a large book that slipped by the amazing Palladium editing and continuity staff. I.E. Wasn't cross checked and 'caught'.

Since the basis of the discussion/argument in the thread is what the rules actually say.....
The opinion that it is a mistake and that we should throw out the parts that don't match our personal headcannon doesn't seem to be a very valid answer.....

after all

The problem is that your 'assumption' is in direct confrontation from very plainly stated fact to the contrary, when it comes to mages. If the book says they're not proficient in it's use, assuming they are, is.. well... There's lots of things that it could be called, but it doesn't seem to be correct as the writers/creators intended. As.. they've told us directly the opposite.

Since you seem to be one of the people arguing that the books are the only valid source.....

I maintain the statement. It's clearly not as intended. Rifts spans what, 50+ books now? Palladiums' editing and continuity is... lets be honest. Rudimentary at best. laughable at worst and very often contradictory.

If there's entire rules sections saying one thing. Then one equipment entry in a different book years or literal decades later says something to the contrary. You haven't suddenly discovered that all we knew is wrong!! What you've discovered is that the person that wrote that one equipment entry didn't remember those decades and 50+ books of stuff that's come before and wrote something that isn't consistent with the rules and world as stated.

One of the 'newer' books. I can't remember if it's black market or one of the NG's... has a small section on life spans of people on rifts earth. At first glance it looks impressive if weird in it's numbers. And that's all well and good. Till you remember there was two or three pages of detailed information already given in Lone Star that -directly- contradicts the information in the new book. Not by a little but by a huge amount, across the boards. Now clearly both can't be true. You have two options then. Go by the section in Lone star that's more detailed and gives rational on the stuff. explination for the life spans of the different things mentioned. Or the much smaller section in the newer book that is WAY Off the previous numbers and explanations.

One's 'newer' and it could be argued that the newest book has the information to go by. The other has more foundation and was clearly thought out a great deal more and has more foundation in the setting.

This isn't a case of "Oh The setting has changed! Huge swaths of people are dieing decades before they did in the other book!" In Rifts only 5-10 years have passed in the setting from the RMB to the most recent book. What you're seeing is the newer author wrote the page or so and thought it sounded cool. The editors (if there was one) DIdn't remember this was already covered IN DETAIL in Lone Star, 20+ books ago. So the new book got published with the hugely contradictory information.

In this instance we're talking of 2 or 3 pages of detailed information in one book being directly contridcted by a half page or page or so in the later book, which clearly hadn't 'seen/remembered' the first.

That happens (And is just one off the top of my head)

So yes. It's very easy for me to think that the person doing a blurb for a bit of armor in one book forgot the pages of explination and such in previous books and that such a small thing could slip through the editing process.

Which would be possibly a valid argument....
....If the suit in question actually did break the rules and was being used to claim that the rules had changed.
The suit in question is a magically modified version of two other suits that now has a special property that has been seen in other magically modified suits in the game....
So no it isn't changing anything it is simply using the existing rules.
Just because you don't like the idea of a mage getting to wear armor doesn't mean that the rules down allow it. It just means that if your mage wants to wear certain armors and still have full spell use they need to have them modified in certain ways by Techno-Wizards so that they can do so.
Which, frankly, is how the rules have been since Phase World (actually adding armor penalties was a retcon but I digress there)

Which is why it is odd that you are calling out a line in a book that follows established precedent as 'wrong' and should be discarded.....
For no reason I can see other than "no I don't like it, everyone must ignore this actual, normal, canon thing'

No. It has nothing to do with my likes or dislikes. When proposed above it was implied that the armor was the same as others, and it didn't affect mages. And if it didn't affect mages then the others wouldn't either. IGNORING the point that it was a TW item and specially made/altered.

I pointed out that instead of ignoring a well established rule in the game/setting/system, it was very much more likely yet another in a mile long list of times when Palladium has had editorial or continuity slips. Either due to 1) Size of the media in question. Over 50 books and more than 2 literal decades of work, or due to the fact that editing for palladiums books is... Again I'll be nice. "Inconsistent".

[eliakon]

Or
3) That was a line in a large book that slipped by the amazing Palladium editing and continuity staff. I.E. Wasn't cross checked and 'caught'.

Since the basis of the discussion/argument in the thread is what the rules actually say.....
The opinion that it is a mistake and that we should throw out the parts that don't match our personal headcannon doesn't seem to be a very valid answer.....

after all

The problem is that your 'assumption' is in direct confrontation from very plainly stated fact to the contrary, when it comes to mages. If the book says they're not proficient in it's use, assuming they are, is.. well... There's lots of things that it could be called, but it doesn't seem to be correct as the writers/creators intended. As.. they've told us directly the opposite.

Since you seem to be one of the people arguing that the books are the only valid source.....

I maintain the statement. It's clearly not as intended. Rifts spans what, 50+ books now? Palladiums' editing and continuity is... lets be honest. Rudimentary at best. laughable at worst and very often contradictory.

If there's entire rules sections saying one thing. Then one equipment entry in a different book years or literal decades later says something to the contrary. You haven't suddenly discovered that all we knew is wrong!! What you've discovered is that the person that wrote that one equipment entry didn't remember those decades and 50+ books of stuff that's come before and wrote something that isn't consistent with the rules and world as stated.

One of the 'newer' books. I can't remember if it's black market or one of the NG's... has a small section on life spans of people on rifts earth. At first glance it looks impressive if weird in it's numbers. And that's all well and good. Till you remember there was two or three pages of detailed information already given in Lone Star that -directly- contradicts the information in the new book. Not by a little but by a huge amount, across the boards. Now clearly both can't be true. You have two options then. Go by the section in Lone star that's more detailed and gives rational on the stuff. explination for the life spans of the different things mentioned. Or the much smaller section in the newer book that is WAY Off the previous numbers and explanations.

One's 'newer' and it could be argued that the newest book has the information to go by. The other has more foundation and was clearly thought out a great deal more and has more foundation in the setting.

This isn't a case of "Oh The setting has changed! Huge swaths of people are dieing decades before they did in the other book!" In Rifts only 5-10 years have passed in the setting from the RMB to the most recent book. What you're seeing is the newer author wrote the page or so and thought it sounded cool. The editors (if there was one) DIdn't remember this was already covered IN DETAIL in Lone Star, 20+ books ago. So the new book got published with the hugely contradictory information.

In this instance we're talking of 2 or 3 pages of detailed information in one book being directly contridcted by a half page or page or so in the later book, which clearly hadn't 'seen/remembered' the first.

That happens (And is just one off the top of my head)

So yes. It's very easy for me to think that the person doing a blurb for a bit of armor in one book forgot the pages of explination and such in previous books and that such a small thing could slip through the editing process.

Which would be possibly a valid argument....
....If the suit in question actually did break the rules and was being used to claim that the rules had changed.
The suit in question is a magically modified version of two other suits that now has a special property that has been seen in other magically modified suits in the game....
So no it isn't changing anything it is simply using the existing rules.
Just because you don't like the idea of a mage getting to wear armor doesn't mean that the rules down allow it. It just means that if your mage wants to wear certain armors and still have full spell use they need to have them modified in certain ways by Techno-Wizards so that they can do so.
Which, frankly, is how the rules have been since Phase World (actually adding armor penalties was a retcon but I digress there)

Which is why it is odd that you are calling out a line in a book that follows established precedent as 'wrong' and should be discarded.....
For no reason I can see other than "no I don't like it, everyone must ignore this actual, normal, canon thing'

No. It has nothing to do with my likes or dislikes. When proposed above it was implied that the armor was the same as others, and it didn't affect mages. And if it didn't affect mages then the others wouldn't either. IGNORING the point that it was a TW item and specially made/altered.

I pointed out that instead of ignoring a well established rule in the game/setting/system, it was very much more likely yet another in a mile long list of times when Palladium has had editorial or continuity slips. Either due to 1) Size of the media in question. Over 50 books and more than 2 literal decades of work, or due to the fact that editing for palladiums books is... Again I'll be nice. "Inconsistent".

Ummm except that no one was ignoring that it was a TW item.
That was one of the two options presented
Either it worked because it was TW, or it worked because they were retconning those two suits.
Either one of those fits with the 'the rules are the rules'
Claiming that it doesn't really actually work and that the book is wrong is the definition of "my headcanon is better than the real canon"

[Pepsi Jedi]

No. It's pointing out there's a third and more likely option. That it was missed in editing and a mistake. It's nothing to do with "head Canon" It has to do with BOOK Canon.

Acting like book canon doesn't holdsway, because of one obscure (Maybe) mistake doesn't make it so.