Body armor

[Watson]

How would rules handle characters wanting body armor on their characters (like a kevlar vest)?

The most simple way would perhaps be to say that the character has an Armor value of 1 or 2, but that seems too good, as they could wear it all the time (under clothes), with no negative aspects (!) and as there are no hit locations, there is 100% that the armor will work against any attack - too overpowered, in my opinion.

Would it simply be simulated by an Aspect (WEARING MY KEVLAR VEST), so that the player have to spend a Fate point to essentially get a 2 point worth of protection?

The kind of problem comes as a modern vest is relatively light and easy to wear. I could see that a full chainmail could provide 1-2 points of protection all the time, but have an aspect like HEAVY ARMOR, that can be compelled when running etc.

What is your take on using body armor in the game?

[Arcane]

The rules simply say armor provides armor.  I think it would be a little unfair to armor wearing characters, espeically Pure Mortals who have to rely on equipment to have any chance of contending with some supernatural foes, to generically penalize them in all situations beyond the rules.

That said, if you want someone to take advantage of the fact that someone is wearing kevlar, Assessments and Declarations are the way to go.  NPC's like cops or criminals could make an Assessment noticing someone is wearing a vest, thus they know he's expecting trouble and to watch him closely.  And a foe could make Declarations like "Hot and Distracting" to get a bonus to certain types of actions and maneuvers where it would be appropriate to get an advantage from that aspect.

[Radijs]

Don't forget Watson, stress != damage.

I'll refer to this thread: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27599.msg1182388.html#msg1182388
And in specific to the post made by 'noclue'.

[UmbraLux]

The most simple way would perhaps be to say that the character has an Armor value of 1 or 2, but that seems too good, as they could wear it all the time (under clothes), with no negative aspects (!) and as there are no hit locations, there is 100% that the armor will work against any attack - too overpowered, in my opinion.

Out of curiosity, why do you think an armor value of 1 would be "too good"?  Also, there are negative aspects to wearing armor.  Good armor isn't all that concealable, weighs a fair amount, and tends to be hot.
 

What is your take on using body armor in the game?

Civilian armor provides armor 1 when worn.  It may be a detriment out side of combat situations. 

[InFerrumVeritas]

No negative aspects?

Cops probably won't be happy about it.  You could say it was Armor 1 vs. specific damage (gunfire for kevlar, knives for mail) if you wanted to limit it.  Most people will think you're a bit odd.  I'd treat it as a taggable aspect during the summer.  Maybe even tag it to make Endurance checks harder (sure, that Good endurance most characters probably have means they've probably never thought about endurance checks...until they're done at -2).

[BumblingBear]

Unless it is in the character concept, actually having armor in the first place will take a resources roll or a fate point.

The way I run my games, the characters who have armor have to tell me they got it or put it on before a scene starts or they don't have armor for that scene unless a fate point is spent.

That way my players have a bit of choice in gear.

[admiralducksauce]

My take on body armor is that I like to keep the Armor values to 1 or 2.

Concealable vest: Armor 1
body armor worn over clothing: Armor 2
Vest with strike plates: Armor 3
I haven't had anyone ask me about anything greater, but I suppose at Armor 4 you'd be talking Army of Two gear, the kind of full-body coverage that'd let you rob a North Hollywood bank or go on Ghost Recon:Future Soldier missions.

I have also allowed some armor to take a Mild consequence for their wearers, basically being "my armor's ruined!" and doesn't work anymore.  I find this works best for archaic armor, shields, and vests with strike plates.

I'm lenient on allowing ballistic armor to work on knives and stabbing weapons (although that's easily defeated with a Declaration about needing a stab vest to stop stabs), although I rule that archaic armor does NOT stop gunfire (unless of course you've got a wife who lines your mail with kevlar and then you bullshit your Declaration well enough that the GM allows it). 

To counter that, well, you can aim as a Maneuver (either for the typical +2, which in effect can cancel out Armor:2, or tag for effect to say you're aiming for where there is no armor coverage) or Declare you've got armor-piercing ammo or something.  A lot of monstrosities have enough natural hitting power that wearing armor just makes the character in question think they can go toe to toe with something that they'd otherwise engage more indirectly (and smartly).  As a result, I really don't have much problem handing out body armor to my PCs.  They're all outlaw degenerates anyhow; body armor would be the last thing for which any police would stop them.

[Veet]

They're all outlaw degenerates anyhow; body armor would be the last thing for which any police would stop them.

Police aren't the only ones who could complicate a situation socially. People will remember seeing a guy wearing armor making them easier to find, kids think armor is cool which might attract innocent targets to defend. Lots of stuff to do if you are so inclined, just make sure it's interesting.

[ARedthorn]

I've done a couple things that might help you out-

1- called shots (usually using a tagged aspect from an aiming maneuver, or a stunt) have the added effect of bypassing most armor.

2- I give mortal armor it's own stress track. Any time the armor is the difference between taking stress and taking a consequence, that armor takes a point of damage as well. 2-3 points of damage for any given armor is enough to put it out of commission until there's some downtime good enough to replace or repair it.

[EdgeOfDreams]

The books also suggest that mundane armor only applies against attacks it was designed to stop.  Kevlar is great against bullets, but pretty meaningless against stabbing weapons and fireballs.  In games I've played, kevlar vests are pretty common, but the GM will often tell a player "Sorry, your armor doesn't apply against this attack", no fate points involved.  A concealable vest is pretty cheap and not very bulky, but players who want something bigger and tougher have to put up with the required resources rolls and the fact they *look* like they're wearing armor, which has plot implications.

[BumblingBear]

My take on body armor is that I like to keep the Armor values to 1 or 2.

Concealable vest: Armor 1
body armor worn over clothing: Armor 2
Vest with strike plates: Armor 3
I haven't had anyone ask me about anything greater, but I suppose at Armor 4 you'd be talking Army of Two gear, the kind of full-body coverage that'd let you rob a North Hollywood bank or go on Ghost Recon:Future Soldier missions.

I have also allowed some armor to take a Mild consequence for their wearers, basically being "my armor's ruined!" and doesn't work anymore.  I find this works best for archaic armor, shields, and vests with strike plates.

I'm lenient on allowing ballistic armor to work on knives and stabbing weapons (although that's easily defeated with a Declaration about needing a stab vest to stop stabs), although I rule that archaic armor does NOT stop gunfire (unless of course you've got a wife who lines your mail with kevlar and then you bullshit your Declaration well enough that the GM allows it). 

To counter that, well, you can aim as a Maneuver (either for the typical +2, which in effect can cancel out Armor:2, or tag for effect to say you're aiming for where there is no armor coverage) or Declare you've got armor-piercing ammo or something.  A lot of monstrosities have enough natural hitting power that wearing armor just makes the character in question think they can go toe to toe with something that they'd otherwise engage more indirectly (and smartly).  As a result, I really don't have much problem handing out body armor to my PCs.  They're all outlaw degenerates anyhow; body armor would be the last thing for which any police would stop them.

You might want to reconsider armor:3.

As I understand it, body armor really only goes up to armor:2.

Anything higher than 2 is like... tanks and supernatural monsters.

[gojj]

I agree with one exception. If a character had an extremely high craftsmanship, resources, and scholarship they could plausibly (given time) construct some kind of prototype armor that has an armor value of three, ask for some military quality armor if they have very high contacts with some connection to the military, or buy some off the black market. But it would probably come with an aspect like "Illegal for civilians" or something like that. It would be difficult but I don't think a pure mortal sporting armor 3 is completely out of the question.

[computerking]

It would probably come with an aspect like "Illegal for civilians" or something like that.

Or "Highly Conductive"
or "stiflingly hot"
or "damn it's itchy in this thing"...

[zenten]

I'd say that the sort of armour the bomb squad uses would count as armour 3.  I'd give it an aspect of "bulky" though.

[gojj]

Or "Highly Conductive"
or "stiflingly hot"
or "damn it's itchy in this thing"...

Or heck, just make it "How the hell did he get that?!"