Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin
If the design system disagrees with (accurate) Real World data the design system is wrong.
|
I agree with you there. That's one of the reason's I started this post; to see how we can "fix" the design system.
But "Is this armor really flexible?" is a valid question. From my really quick internet scan, from what I see, people have died from explosions despite the armor not being penetrated, which suggests Blunt Trauma.
But rather than making the armor "Flexible", could that not have instead been addressed with a rule along the lines of collisions, where a full body impact in a collision renders all armors effectively Flexible and thus the wearer is susceptible to Blunt Trauma? (p.B431) So the armor could be non-flexible, but against an explosion it counts as flexible? (I'd even be more specific and say "crushing explosions")
Granted, that that would be a house rule and impact how all other armors work, so not sure the full possible side-effects of such a rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin
As to the issue of the DX penalty I would suggest that the bomb suit is effectively a layered suit of armor and to see the rules on layering armor.
|
Hmm. That's certainly one way to address the bulkiness of the armor. And would explain why it has a base DR 20 which is over the so-called "Max DR." I like that.
Still doesn't fix the fact that I'd be at 50% the mass of High-Tech, though. (and 40% the cost, but I'm a bit less concerned about that; as you said, it's rare enough to justify a mark up)