Layered Cutting Edge Armour

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Well I think the problem is this is all on a spectrum, and the DX layer penalty is a hard and fast cut off.

And as you say not only is it on spectrum of thickness to impeding wearer function, but there a whole bunch of variables on top of that. Like fit, acclimatisation, differing physical properties of the materiel outside of abstract thickness, how the layers interact as worn things etc, etc.

As I said earlier the just giving DR as defining point here is itself a problem because at TL8 even going by minimum thickness/DR you can make some pretty thin and light layers that give DR, and this only becomes more true at higher TLs.

Ultimately I think the -1 DX per layers works as a general solution for covering several factors. But I do think a more nuanced system for looking at the limiting factors wearing armour has, as the more you look at it and the more armour begins to mean different things the more questions it raises.

And this isn't merely a theoretical problem. Rigid armour with a flexible underlayer that is a direct analogue to lower-TL padding is a mainstay of inspirational fiction for modern monster hunters and supers games.

Knight of the Cross Michael Carpenter, in the Dresden Files, wears mail and plate made from modern steel alloys to protect him from the claws and teeth of the monsters he fights. Instead of low-tech fabric padding, however, his has para-aramid padding and can therefore provide reliable protection against pistol and submachine rounds and might even help against lower powered rifle rounds.

Any PC who fights monsters in melee will eventually inquire about such armour, perhaps using titanium alloy plate and improved ballistic polymer if using the stats from Cutting Edge Armor. It would feel really weird to tell them that using improved ballistic polymer for the padding instead of lower tech solutions suddenly imposes a -1 DX penalty. Especially as they could be using an underlayer of ballistic padding that may be thin enough to remain flexible even on the Chest and thin enough on the limbs to be concealed as light clothing or even lingerie, but still get DR good enough to stop fragments or low-powered pistol rounds on its own.

In my experience, any PCs in a campaign with the kind of secretive, powerful and well-funded conspiracies that populate typical supers worlds and any kind of world with secret powers or creatures will also want to explore the possibilities of a ninja suit made out of the best flexible ballistic materials possible to wear on its own or to conceal under normal clothing.

In either case, having the option of putting on a rifle-proofed tactical vest designed to go over it seems logical and it would seem churlish and illogical to claim that the mere act of designing the ensemble so that the underlayer can be worn seperately would necessarily impose a -1 DX penalty, if a tactical vest of that same total thickness (which is itself many layers of material) would not.

Well-tailored, classy, but bulletproof men's suits are another mainstay of supers, conspiracy games or secret powers (inc. urban fantasy). Just because the final ensemble adds together the DR from the undershirt and the jacket, for example, shouldn't necessarily mean that the custom-tailored suit which weighs 10-12 lbs. is less comfortable or more restrictive than tactical gear weighing 15+ lbs.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Tyneras

I'm not entirely sure I buy the thickness argument. Layered t-shirts feel far more restrictive around the shoulders than a thicker single sweater (as an ad-hoc experiment I just did). Interactions between the layers strikes me as too important to ignore.

Thing is there are a lot of factors here. Does that thick sweater bunch at the joints, (more so than the layered t shirts). After running around in each for while does the sweater breath better then the layers of T-shirts etc, etc.
There are material difference a single thick sweater is likely of different weave and different material than the T -shirts. The T-shirts will be of a different cut from the sweater (the sweater being designed to be worn over something like a T-shirt).

But all those factors can work in both directions increasing issues if they are ignored as much as reducing them if they are catered for.

Then of course there's the issue that armour has a job to do as well as being comfortable to wear, which comes with it own set of requirements that have their one knock on effects here that are relevant to with t-shirts or sweatshirts

Originally Posted by Icelander

On any tactical armour loadout professionally designed to be worn together, the outer layer ought to be securely fastened to the inner layer where it will provide the desired protection at the cost of as limited restrictiveness as possible, not just riding outside it willy-nilly.

There certainly exists and has existed throughout multiple tech levels, what amounts to munition armour for issue to soldiers of all sizes and shapes, which will often give a -1 DX penalty or worse, with or without having multiple layers.

Good-quality gear, however, should generally not give a DX penalty unless it is deliberately sacrificing comfort and flexibility to ensure necessary protection, i.e. it has DR near the limits of what the materials can be expected to provide without unreasonable thickness.

Yeah I agree it should be subject to balance of variables. However there is probably some point were as thickness increases the combination of mitigating factors has a harder and harder time compensating for it even as more time and resources are devoted to them.

Basically there's always a trade off, and while we can hold off when the trade off kicks in in terms of directly inhibiting the wearer in various ways (different materials, better fitting, better interaction and tailoring between layers etc) at some point it going to come in

And of course there's the omnipresent issue of just the weight, which again while it can be acclimatised to does have a feedback here.


Looking at that MTV that sir_pudding talked about earlier, would that be "Munitions grade" in GURPS terms, I don't know, maybe?

Certainly not by intention I'm sure, but as a byproduct of the real world trade offs of having to mass produce 10,000's of units of 30lb torso armour for a range of people on a budget? Yeah maybe

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Icelander

And this isn't merely a theoretical problem. Rigid armour with a flexible underlayer that is a direct analogue to lower-TL padding is a mainstay of inspirational fiction for modern monster hunters and supers games.

Knight of the Cross Michael Carpenter, in the Dresden Files, wears mail and plate made from modern steel alloys to protect him from the claws and teeth of the monsters he fights. Instead of low-tech fabric padding, however, his has para-aramid padding and can therefore provide reliable protection against pistol and submachine rounds and might even help against lower powered rifle rounds.

Any PC who fights monsters in melee will eventually inquire about such armour, perhaps using titanium alloy plate and improved ballistic polymer if using the stats from Cutting Edge Armor. It would feel really weird to tell them that using improved ballistic polymer for the padding instead of lower tech solutions suddenly imposes a -1 DX penalty. Especially as they could be using an underlayer of ballistic padding that may be thin enough to remain flexible even on the Chest and thin enough on the limbs to be concealed as light clothing or even lingerie, but still get DR good enough to stop fragments or low-powered pistol rounds on its own.

In my experience, any PCs in a campaign with the kind of secretive, powerful and well-funded conspiracies that populate typical supers worlds and any kind of world with secret powers or creatures will also want to explore the possibilities of a ninja suit made out of the best flexible ballistic materials possible to wear on its own or to conceal under normal clothing.

In either case, having the option of putting on a rifle-proofed tactical vest designed to go over it seems logical and it would seem churlish and illogical to claim that the mere act of designing the ensemble so that the underlayer can be worn seperately would necessarily impose a -1 DX penalty, if a tactical vest of that same total thickness (which is itself many layers of material) would not.

Well-tailored, classy, but bulletproof men's suits are another mainstay of supers, conspiracy games or secret powers (inc. urban fantasy). Just because the final ensemble adds together the DR from the undershirt and the jacket, for example, shouldn't necessarily mean that the custom-tailored suit which weighs 10-12 lbs. is less comfortable or more restrictive than tactical gear weighing 15+ lbs.

Yeah I agree the more you look at the RAW "-1DX per layer but not for thin arming garments" is seems to best fit some TLs more than others. But as I said above that doesn't mean the issues of armour here suddenly vanish at some point in time, they just change.

Ultimately without creating whole joined up solution that cover all situation to this (as said I kind of have mine already), I'd cater for the kind of bespoke situation you outline above with monster hunters etc, is by saying the well funded and/or technically capable ones are capable of resourcing their way round this issue. Since they tend not to restrained by the economic realities of producing armour for groups that issue it with their own constraints on it

But the further they push it the harder it become for them to do so.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Yeah I agree the more you look at the RAW "-1DX per layer but not for thin arming garments" is seems to best fit some TLs more than others. But as I sad above that does man the issues or armour here suddenly vanish at some point in time, they just change.

Yep, which is why I think it would be good to base the guidelines for layering penalties on a a combination of the percentage of Maximum DR possessed by the flexible underlayer (proxy for both thickness and restrictiveness) and the total thickness of the combined armour.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Ultimately without creating whole joined up solution that cover all situation to this (as said I kind of have mine already), I'd cater for the kind of bespoke situation you outline above with monster hunters etc, is by saying the well funded and/or technically capable ones are capable of resourcing their way round this issue. Since they tend not to restrained by the economic realities of producing armour for groups that issue it with their own constraints on it

But the further they push it the harder it become for them to do so.

How much would you add to Cost for tailoring an underlayer an outer layer, so that the underlayer could be worn on its own, but could also add the outer layer for added defence?

I would be fine that saying that wearing just the outer layer imposes a -1 DX penalty in such cases, as it is missing assumed padding, and that only an underlayer that approximates the fit and padding of the original removes this penalty.

I don't think this is Fine tailoring or any similarly expensive option. I just think it amounts to standard Good-quality gear, as opposed to mass-produced models which may come out cheaper than the design system yields for custom models, with a design switch of making the outer layer fit the wearer while he's wearing an underlayer of a certain thickness and modular fastenings for the outer layer, which I'd think are realistically worth no more than an extra $50-$100, to an absolute maximum of $500 or so for fastenings that are both works of art and extremely user-friendly, reliable and secure.

Then again, I wouldn't allow this unless the combined thickness of both layers was below published examples of armour which do not give a DX penalty and I probably wouldn't allow it unless the underlayer was thin enough to be concealed as ordinary clothing.

Custom-designed modular armour which exceeds these DR guidelines without giving a DX penalty might still be possible, but would be Fine-quality and extremely expensive. An example would be a bodysuit of 1/8" thick improved ballistic polymer over the limbs, 1/6" thick over the Abdomen and 1/4" thick over the Chest, which can also be used as the underlayer to a tactical vest of another 1/4" thickness of improved ballistic polymer combined with a fitted cuirass of 1/5" thick titanium composite plate over the Chest. Total thickness is less than that of OTV + SAPI or IOTV + E-SAPI.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Yep, which is why I think it would be good to base the guidelines for layering penalties on a a combination of the percentage of Maximum DR possessed by the flexible underlayer (proxy for both thickness and restrictiveness) and the total thickness of the combined armour.

Wouldn't that mean if the overall thickness of the entire was greater the penalty would be reduced for the underlying layer? I.e say I had 2mm thick under layer and then a 1mm thick plate over layer for total of 3mm. Why would it get less restrictive if I instead had a 4mm plate over layer for total thickness of 6mm.

Ultimately I think its going to be hard to spilt the issues of layering and the issue of the armour as whole. The problem being any issues will potentially any one of or combination of:

1). a factor of the layer in and off itself
2). a factor of how the layers interact (which is also an issue of what counts as layer)
3). a factor of the overall set of armour

For example I'm not sure using the proportion of actual DR to Maximum DR as a proxy for restrictiveness would work, because restrictiveness is not much of linear relationship across all materials.

Originally Posted by Icelander

How much would you add to Cost for tailoring an underlayer an outer layer, so that the underlayer could be worn on its own, but could also add the outer layer for added defence?

If it had originally be designed to be part of a whole? Not very much so long as it had DR value in and of itself (i.e didn't give value only by being an intrinsic part of a larger whole). You'd just stipulate that the bulk of the infra structure used to fasten it to it over layer was on the over layer so it didn't get in the way when just the underlayer was worn.

More specifically I would say there would be an increase in the design cost (your adding an extra stipulation to the item's capabilities) which if it's bespoke is part of the per item cost. But for mass produced goods once the deign was done I can't imagine it would add much to the manufacture cost. Since it really just where that infrastructure is placed.

Of course if what your doing by wanting this is creating some completely new way of joining two layers of armour then it might be more.

Which I guess is just me saying it's a very specific question in terms of individual items. Sorry not much of an answer!

Originally Posted by Icelander

I would be fine that saying that wearing just the outer layer imposes a -1 DX penalty in such cases, as it is missing assumed padding, and that only an underlayer that approximates the fit and padding of the original removes this penalty.

I don't think this is Fine tailoring or any similarly expensive option. I just think it amounts to standard Good-quality gear, as opposed to mass-produced models which may come out cheaper than the design system yields for custom models, with a design switch of making the outer layer fit the wearer while he's wearing an underlayer of a certain thickness and modular fastenings for the outer layer, which I'd think are realistically worth no more than an extra $50-$100, to an absolute maximum of $500 or so for fastenings that are both works of art and extremely user-friendly, reliable and secure.

Then again, I wouldn't allow this unless the combined thickness of both layers was below published examples of armour which do not give a DX penalty and I probably wouldn't allow it unless the underlayer was thin enough to be concealed as ordinary clothing.

Custom-designed modular armour which exceed these DR guidelines without giving a DX penalty might still be possible, but would be Fine-quality and extremely expensive. An example would be a bodysuit of 1/8" thick improved ballistic polymer over the limbs, 1/6" thick over the Abdomen and 1/4" thick over the Chest, which can also be used as the underlayer to a fitted cuirass of 1/5" thick titanium composite plate over the Chest.

I know it not much of answer but I think its really going to be bespoke prices for bespoke kit.

As for good quality versions of standard mass produced stuff (you thinking in terms of things like the MTV here?) pricing is hard to say because economy of scale messes a lot of this up. Real world prices and theoretical prices based on material cost, are never going to relate well.

So yeah personally I'd start with the quality multipliers here and see if the end result pass a "sniff test".

Sorry really not much of an answer here!

[Tomsdad]

Something else on the joining layers question.

Its going to depend on what these layers are. Some outer layers might not be complete layers in their own right but additions to the underlying thing. For example trauma plates that are designed to slip into pockets that are integrated into the "underlayer".

Although I guess it's fair to say these such "underlayer" aren't really going to fit your definition of concealable.

Of course "concealable" itself is a broad term it could just mean something that can have something worn over the top!

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Wouldn't that mean if the overall thickness of the entire was greater the penalty would be reduced for the underlying layer? I.e say I had 2mm thick under layer and then a 1mm thick plate over layer for total of 3mm. Why would it get less restrictive if I instead had a 4mm plate over layer for total thickness of 6mm.

I'm thinking that if armour that is made of only one layer would not give at penalty at a given thickness, the best armour designed to be modular could do was equal that thickness and usually could be slightly less thick without giving a penalty.

There is probably a thickness at which armour is going to give DX penalties regardless of whether it is one or more layers.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

For example I'm not sure using the proportion of actual DR to Maximum DR as a proxy for restrictiveness would work, because restrictiveness is not much of linear relationship across all materials.

Maximum DR in the Cutting Edge Armour rules (and related articles) appears to be intended to stand as a gamable abstraction of how restrictive the material in question is and how much of it a human wearer can feasibly wear as armour. It does not have a completely fixed relationship to thickness, as some materials can be up to 0.5 inch thick as armour for humans and others can only be much thinner while still remaining effective armour.

I would think that if the Maximum DR value is a short-hand for 'how much of this material can a human wear without being so hindered as to make it useless as tactical armour', some percentage of it would be useful as a guide to such questions as 'how much of it can one wear without suffering any penalty', 'how much of it can one wear over joints without suffering a penalty to use that limb' and 'how much can you wear on your legs without a mobility penalty'.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

If it had originally be designed to be part of a whole? Not very much so long as it had DR value in and of itself (i.e didn't give value only by being an intrinsic part of a larger whole). You'd just stipulate that the bulk of the infra structure used to fasten it to it over layer was on the over layer so it didn't get in the way when just the underlayer was worn.

More specifically I would say there would be an increase in the design cost (your adding an extra stipulation to the item's capabilities) which if it's bespoke is part of the per item cost. But for mass produced goods once the deign was done I can't imagine it would add much to the manufacture cost. Since it really just where that infrastructure is placed.

This pretty much matches my thinking. It's not trivial to design gear with comfortable, high-quality fastenings that are adjustable to individual users and available in versions that fit their individual bodies, as evidenced by the fact that plenty of mil-spec gear does not fit this description by any stretch of the imagination.

On the other hand, high-quality commercial versions of survival gear, clothing and load-bearing equipment demonstrate that the Cost, in GURPS terms, of privately purchased gear with adjustable straps and fastenings fitting that description is not all that much in the context of assault gear that already costs $2,000+ for materials and tailoring.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Of course if what your doing by wanting this is creating some completely new way of joining two layers of armour then it might be more.

Nope. Buckles, straps and velcro will do fine, as long as the outer layer fits snugly over the underlayer and the weight will be distributed sensibly.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Which I guess is just me saying it's a very specific question in terms of individual items. Sorry not much of an answer!

It boils down to a Feature of the outer layer ('Designed to be worn over thickness X padding instead of just moisture-wick underwear') and high-quality attachments for the outer layer that increase Cost by a flat figure, say $100 for a Chest outer shell, $150 for something like Chest + Shoulders + Fauld and $250 for more-or-less full body outer layer. You might add some minor Weight, say +0.2 lbs. to torso armour and +0.05 lb. per limb, with full body outer layer adding +0.5 lbs., to account simultaneously for the extra fastenings and the miniscule increase in size for the outer layer, in order to accomodate the thicker padding.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I know it not much of answer but I think its really going to be bespoke prices for bespoke kit.

As for good quality versions of standard mass produced stuff (you thinking in terms of things like the MTV here?) pricing is hard to say because economy of scale messes a lot of this up. Real world prices and theoretical prices based on material cost, are never going to relate well.

So yeah personally I'd start with the quality multipliers here and see if the end result pass a "sniff test".

Sorry really not much of an answer here!

On a related note, it bothers me that armour that looks fashionable uses a x4 or x20 multiplier in Cutting Edge Armor, but nearly everything else, including armour in Low-Tech, uses Cost Factors for the same concept.

I really don't think that it should cost more to make well-tailored armour made from superior materials look fashionable and cool than it does to make armour badly made from cheap materials do it.

Also, as soon as you have the technology to make a bulletproof suit that looks and behaves as a normal suit, it doesn't really cost you much extra to make that suit an exact replica of an elegant gentleman's suit in his size. Odds are, especially at TL9+, that you are using some kind of computer-assisted fabrication process that measures your intended user and custom-tailors the suit to him anyway.

In cases like that, a suit that both protects and looks stylishly appropriate at a Status 2+ gathering would seem to have more in common with Combination Gadgets.

Yes, it's more expensive to have one that is both, but maybe it's not $20,000 to have a Stylish suit made from improved ballistic polymer if it is $5,000 to have a normal suit made from it and a normal Stylish suit runs about a $1,000. It gets worse for the Fashion Original level, which is around a $5,000 in a gentleman's suit, but which would cost $100,000 if made out of improved ballistic polymer.

I just don't see how using the advanced ballistic material, instead of, say, Nomex, makes the design work of the fashion designer so much more expensive. Yes, it's specialised work designing nice-looking suits made from thick and strong materials instead of comfortable fabrics of clothing thickness, but it's not necessarily more specialised or more difficult when using space-age composites than when using rubber and steel.

[Anthony]

Pretty sure some of the reason for the armor layering penalties is game balance, which in turn is mostly because of linear DR addition.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Pretty sure some of the reason for the armor layering penalties is game balance, which in turn is mostly because of linear DR addition.

When you can buy armour by thickness, which provides a linear DR addition, the layering penalty has no game balance function any more and only serves to artificially penalise some types of armour designs over others. By the design system, a full bodysuit of DR 36 Improved Ballistic Polymer doesn't impose any DX penalty, but if you were to use the system and continue to use the base armour layering rules, wearing a custom-fitted DR 6 cuirass designed to go over a torso underlayer of DR 2 improved ballistic polymer would.

That's backwards.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Pretty sure some of the reason for the armor layering penalties is game balance, which in turn is mostly because of linear DR addition.

There are definitely restrictive effects from certain body armor configurations in real life.

Is there some reason to think that DR shouldn't be linear?