Layerd Armour and other ways of Improving DR

[Calvin]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I can't imagine how such a garment wouldn't interfere with motion if it was layered with full-torso coverage.

I mean, IME, SAPI plates interfere with motion when worn with a full coverage ballistic clamshell (like the MTV) and they only cover chest vitals.

Maybe it would, but DR less clothes don't by raw, and it's not what I'm suggesting besides.

I'm suggesting either:
A sturdy (but DR0) garment sewn with mail sections over the vitals for people wearing no other armour.

Or

Extra mail sections added to existing armour in vital locations.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Calvin

Sure, but like I said, in the same paragraph pectorals are explained it also explains how to get by them. And if a -3 is randomly targeted 1/6th the time then it follows that a 1/6 doesn't still hit a -10 (which is the penalty to get by the pectorals)

Oh, well, that rule is just nutty. There is no credible arrangement for 1/6 coverage armor that will protect all the major blood vessels in the torso.

[Calvin]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Oh, well, that rule is just nutty. There is no credible arrangement for 1/6 coverage armor that will protect all the major blood vessels in the torso.

Well that would be different. GURPS doesn't assume any veins in the torso, but even if there were the hit location's modifiers are different. I think only cutting gets boosted (and only to 2x) otherwise it's a penalty to bleeding rolls and they happen more often. The 1/6 is for anything that gives a 3x wound modifer.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Calvin

Extra mail sections added to existing armour in vital locations.

I'm saying this shouldn't avoid layering penalties if it includes all vitals.

[Calvin]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I'm saying this shouldn't avoid layering penalties if it includes all vitals.

Okay, but why? Why should 1/6th of the torso (whichever 1/6th) cause DX penalties when the rules say it takes over 3/6th? Take the arms for example. The joint is 1/6th, cover that and another 2/6th and you're still under the limit and take no penalties. Why should extra armour on a joint not cause penalties but extra armour on the vitals should, despite rules to the contrary? This is especially odd if you take the full 3/6ths on part of the torso/chest/abdomen that doesn't include the vitals. You wouldn't get a penalty then either.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Calvin

Okay, but why? Why should 1/6th of the torso (whichever 1/6th) cause DX penalties when the rules say it takes over 3/6th?

Because my experience says that wearing rigid plates over vitals inside full coverage torso armor is limiting and uncomfortable. Probably because a plate that covers all the vitals (lungs, liver, kidneys ect.) is much larger than a pectoral (covering mostly just the heart and pulmonary arteries).

[Calvin]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Because my experience says that wearing rigid plates over vitals inside full coverage torso armor is limiting and uncomfortable. Probably because a plate that covers all the vitals (lungs, liver, kidneys ect.) is much larger than a pectoral (covering mostly just the heart and pulmonary arteries).

Sure, but what about the other half of what I said? Pick 3/6th somewhere else instead of 1/6th on the vitals and suddenly there's no penalty.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Calvin

Sure, but what about the other half of what I said? Pick 3/6th somewhere else instead of 1/6th on the vitals and suddenly there's no penalty.

You can't reasonably put rigid armor on joints either. Low-Tech assumes there's a gap there (p. 101), which might include a voider. I don't think there's a historical construction or loadout that ever layered armor on joints, so Low-Tech probably just ignores the possibility. If a player insisted on double voiders or something, I probably would inflict a penalty because that's just dumb, YMMV.

[Calvin]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

You can't reasonably put rigid armor on joints either. Low-Tech assumes there's a gap there (p. 101), which might include a voider. I don't think there's a historical construction or loadout that ever layered armor on joints, so Low-Tech probably just ignores the possibility. If a player insisted on double voiders or something, I probably would inflict a penalty because that's just dumb, YMMV.

When I first mentioned armouring joints my example was leather whitch is flexible and flexible armour is explicitly exempt from the armor gap rules. Both harsh and standard variants. The same applies here.

Sure, maybe a solid plate on the joint, vitals, whatever would be an issue. But that is very much not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that there's no reason why an additional flexible layer of armor on the vitals, joints, whatever at 3/6 coverage or less should cause DX penalties.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Calvin

Sure, maybe a solid plate on the joint, vitals, whatever would be an issue. But that is very much not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that there's no reason why an extra flexible layer of armor on the vitals, joints, whatever at 3/6 coverage or less should cause DX penalties.

Except for common sense and personal experience.

Wear twenty padded motorcycle jackets and see if your arms have the same range of motion...

Also a pectoral is a solid plate over the vitals in the upper chest...