Double-dipping - Can't wear Armor and Vow

[Humabout]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

So in this situation, the DR comes with an Accessibility, Only when Nude and Painted Blue, which all in all, is a pretty significant accessibility in and of itself.

Not to mention that it requires a Will roll, in addition to stripping naked and painting oneself blue. I was kind of under the impression that that made it switchable, as well.

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

But it also the Right next Claws which has be Clefired that (but my bad on the page numbers, i mean 153-155 becuse i wanted to bring the section before it too)

you can voluntarily turn off claws with out switchable, and the would be lke retractable cats you still obvousl have them but they can be turned of if they get in the way.

Claws switchable, are like Wolverine's which when turned of you need special equipment to be able to detect that he has them when they are off.

Edit my Bad: http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?p=479362

This is what i was Thinking of

Here's the part of the Krommquote you seem to have missed:

Since DR with Force Field is inconvenient in ways that DR without is not, it's switchable as part of the package.

So, unless DR takes some modifier (whether enhancement or limitation) that implies switchability, it's still always on. The natural DR of armadillos and such is not switchable, for example.

Now, that said, an Accessibility is one of those modifiers, or even better, implies instant switching whenever the Accessibility condition changes. So, I might allow the spearman's invulnerability ability as DR with Accessibility (only when naked and painted blue) -30%, while thinking of it in the back of my mind as CWA -40% and Switchable +10%. But even thinking of it purely as an Accessibility, -30% seems fair enough, since it's definitely more limiting than canonical -20% examples like 'only when flying', while we don't want it to be as good a discount as CWA, where without a genre-specific Perk he couldn't or wouldn't put clothes on at all, even when the DR wasn't needed.

And Accessibility is still better than Trigger because of the activation time issue.

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by Humabout

Not to mention that it requires a Will roll, in addition to stripping naked and painting oneself blue. I was kind of under the impression that that made it switchable, as well.

Yes, requiring a roll of any kind would be one of those things that implies switchability.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by vitruvian

Now, that said, an Accessibility is one of those modifiers, or even better, implies instant switching whenever the Accessibility condition changes. So, I might allow the spearman's invulnerability ability as DR with Accessibility (only when naked and painted blue) -30%, while thinking of it in the back of my mind as CWA -40% and Switchable +10%. But even thinking of it purely as an Accessibility, -30% seems fair enough, since it's definitely more limiting than canonical -20% examples like 'only when flying', while we don't want it to be as good a discount as CWA, where without a genre-specific Perk he couldn't or wouldn't put clothes on at all, even when the DR wasn't needed.

And Accessibility is still better than Trigger because of the activation time issue.

You're missing the point though, it's got both the Accessibility Naked&Blue and the CWA, after all, if it didn't have the CWA with any accessibility you'd be able to run around with invisible armor or whatnot adding to it, the fact that you cannot add/combine the DR with any other DR is what gets it the -40% CWA discount...

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

You're missing the point though, it's got both the Accessibility Naked&Blue and the CWA, after all, if it didn't have the CWA with any accessibility you'd be able to run around with invisible armor or whatnot adding to it, the fact that you cannot add/combine the DR with any other DR is what gets it the -40% CWA discount...

No, you cannot double-dip. Cannot Wear Armor says that you cannot or will not wear armor, not that your wizard friend can't cast a spell on you granting additional DR (which is not armor, after all). That is pretty obviously redundant with the Accessibility that you need to be naked, because if you're naked you're not wearing armor either. If either of the limitations is no longer limiting at all when taken in combination with the other, then you cannot take both. That would be a terrible point crock.

That said, I'd allow you to combine Requires a Will Roll with either the Accessibility or the Cannot Wear Armor limitation, and you'll still get close to -80%. Add a power modifier, and you're there.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by vitruvian

No, you cannot double-dip. Cannot Wear Armor says that you cannot or will not wear armor, not that your wizard friend can't cast a spell on you granting additional DR (which is not armor, after all). That is pretty obviously redundant with the Accessibility that you need to be naked, because if you're naked you're not wearing armor either. If either of the limitations is no longer limiting at all when taken in combination with the other, then you cannot take both. That would be a terrible point crock.

That said, I'd allow you to combine Requires a Will Roll with either the Accessibility or the Cannot Wear Armor limitation, and you'll still get close to -80%. Add a power modifier, and you're there.

I'm not sure that I agree that it's double-dipping, after all, the fact that the DR is switchable isn't an advantage, it's a serious limitation, and if we need to pay the extra point for the Nonprotective Clothing perk to be fully compliant with the RAW, then we should do so, if for no other reason than to make it explicit that we don't want naked blue warriors running around with invisible chest armor.

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

I'm not sure that I agree that it's double-dipping, after all, the fact that the DR is switchable isn't an advantage, it's a serious limitation, and if we need to pay the extra point for the Nonprotective Clothing perk to be fully compliant with the RAW, then we should do so, if for no other reason than to make it explicit that we don't want naked blue warriors running around with invisible chest armor.

The double dippiing is nothing to do with switchability, it's that if you've got Accessibility (only when naked) and CWA, they're redundant with each other. CWA is worth nothing if you already need to be naked, and the Accessibility is worth nothing if you already are barred from wearing stuff due to the CWA.

And what's this about invisible chest armor? Neither the Accessibility nor Cannot Wear Armor hinges on whether your armor is visible or not. You can't wear it whether it can be seen or not.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by vitruvian

And what's this about invisible chest armor? Neither the Accessibility nor Cannot Wear Armor hinges on whether your armor is visible or not. You can't wear it whether it can be seen or not.

If your clothes are invisible you're still naked, and for many usages of naked having someone run around with their genitals exposed while otherwise clothed would still count as naked.

In addition, many of the legendary "naked" DR which was in place traditionally still allowed for the usage of sandals/boots, why people believed they were immune to spears while their feet could still be punctured by sharp rocks underfoot don't ask me, but there you go.

After all, there wouldn't be any cost differential between the Accessibility "must be naked and painted blue from the waist down", and the Accessibility "must be naked and painted blue".


Regardless, I'd still require the Nonprotective Clothing perk so that people can keep their shoes on.

[Valadrim]

Regarding "requires preparation"

I will admit that my knowledge of Celtic pre-battle rituals is probably less than some on these boards, but I don't believe that one minute would be enough for historic painting.

These were communal rituals in which the men gathered and not just applied paint but made it from their famous blue dye and, typically, their um "manly essences". I seem to recall this being done the night before and taking a while, but even if I am remembering wrong, this doesn't sound like a minute or so, sounds like 15 minutes at a minimum, but my guess is longer.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by jacobmuller

Basic set, characters, page 47, bottom of first column and top of second
Emphasis is mine. But I was surprised at being reminded that cannot is only a commonly assumed option. I don't know why I was surprised - seems to be the norm LOL

The 'will not' bit means you actually can't put the stuff on. It's making a pact with the GM that you won't even try it, and is much stronger than even Pact (Vow: Never Wear Armor). As such, you either physically can't wear armor or you can't even try to wear armor.

In other words, you still can't wear any armor at all. It's not optional - you can't choose to try and wear armor. Thus, Vow (Never Wear Armor) can never even be tempted to be broken, and thus you can't have it.