Fancy Clothing from Desperate Allies

[afrodave 2]

I didn't see a post on this topic. If I missed it, apologies. 

Desperate Allies has some great clothing for social characters, Lector's Outfit, Noble Regalia, Performer's Attire, Resplendent Robes, even Banal Apparel. 

I do not see anything about their bonuses stacking.  I'm not interested in stacking armor for higher soak and/or defense. 

Can characters combine those clothing with each other or with normal armor, to gain the social bonuses?

Examples:

Extra fancy Noble Regalia, by adding Performer's Attire?

Exotic design of Armored clothing by building in Resplendent Robes?

Having Banal Apparel over one's Padded Armor?  

[Donovan Morningfire 8,644]

It's mentioned in the FAQ that you only get the mechanical benefits of one set of armor.

So for instance, you can wear a set of Armored Clothing and a set of Noble Regalia, but you only benefit the mechanical effects of one of them.  Just want to make this particular point clear before I proceed.

Now with that being said, there's nothing (except the GM really) is stopping you from combining the two items into a single set of armor.  So of the examples you cited, combining a set of Padded Armor and set of Banal Apparel into a single set of armor, making it a single item that gives you the +2 to soak as well as the upgrade to checks to notice the wearer, as a for instance.

In terms of cost, I'd say a good rule of thumb is take the higher-priced item of the two that you're combining and increase it's cost by 50%.  So for the Padded Armor + Banal Clothing, such an item would cost 750 credits.

Or, you can choose to make a house rule that says that you can stack the benefits of two sets of armor, provided one of those two has a soak value of 0, and that the wearing the second set of armor doesn't reduce it's encumbrance for being worn, and adds a minimum of at least one to the wearer's encumbrance value.  It's cheaper to be sure, but the extra "armor" is going to be heavier to wear.

[Concise Locket 1,027]

I would say "no" for the simple fact that the cut of clothing is affected by what's underneath it. There are some exceptions to the rule - armored clothing being the most obvious - but armor looks like armor, and clothes look like clothes. In the movies, the clothing worn by nobles is always diaphanous and/or robe-like. If clothes are going to provide mechanical bonuses to Social tests, then they should probably look and function how they're intended.

To me, what you're proposing wouldn't be solved by buying multiple items from a rule book but by making a Mechanics test to create a custom piece of equipment.

[Vondy 658]

6 hours ago, Concise Locket said:

I would say "no" for the simple fact that the cut of clothing is affected by what's underneath it. There are some exceptions to the rule - armored clothing being the most obvious - but armor looks like armor, and clothes look like clothes. In the movies, the clothing worn by nobles is always diaphanous and/or robe-like. If clothes are going to provide mechanical bonuses to Social tests, then they should probably look and function how they're intended.

To me, what you're proposing wouldn't be solved by buying multiple items from a rule book but by making a Mechanics test to create a custom piece of equipment.

Ornate and shiny heavy armor with fillagree, plumes and flowing cape...

And medals. Lots and lots of ribbons and medals.

And a dress sword.

You see where I'm going with this, right?

Edited June 4, 2018 by Vondy

[Donovan Morningfire 8,644]

On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 7:13 PM, Vondy said:

Ornate and shiny heavy armor with fillagree, plumes and flowing cape...

And medals. Lots and lots of ribbons and medals.

And a dress sword.

You see where I'm going with this, right?

The very image of a major modern general?

[Raicheck 38]

On 6/4/2018 at 5:13 PM, Vondy said:

Ornate and shiny heavy armor with fillagree, plumes and flowing cape...

And medals. Lots and lots of ribbons and medals.

And a dress sword.

You see where I'm going with this, right?

I'd allow it.  I'd also probably impose some setback dice on stealth checks, or on certain combat checks as your shinies keep getting in the way. 

 

[Vondy 658]

3 hours ago, Raicheck said:

I'd allow it.  I'd also probably impose some setback dice on stealth checks, or on certain combat checks as your shinies keep getting in the way. 

 

Yes, well, that level of gauche ostentation will get you noticed!

[Dafydd 126]

From a purely aesthetic perspective, if you try combining all those outfits on one person, they're going to look ridiculous.

[Vondy 658]

24 minutes ago, Dafydd said:

From a purely aesthetic perspective, if you try combining all those outfits on one person, they're going to look ridiculous.

The term "poppinjay" comes to mind.

[penpenpen 806]

On 6/7/2018 at 6:27 PM, Dafydd said:

From a purely aesthetic perspective, if you try combining all those outfits on one person, they're going to look ridiculous.

Which might be to your benefit if all you want to draw attention to yourself.

Then again, if you just want to draw attention to yourself, good or bad, the easier (and cheaper) option might be no clothes or armor at all.

Unless you're a wookiee. Then public nudity is par for the course.

Edited June 9, 2018 by penpenpen

[Vondy 658]

2 hours ago, penpenpen said:

Which might be to your benefit if all you want to draw attention to yourself.

Then again, if you just want to draw attention to yourself, good or bad, the easier (and cheaper) option might be no clothes or armor at all.

Unless you're a wookiee. Then public nudity is par for the course.

That's what a large supply of rainbow colored hair chalk is for.

[Dafydd 126]

On 6/9/2018 at 2:59 AM, penpenpen said:

Which might be to your benefit if all you want to draw attention to yourself.

Then again, if you just want to draw attention to yourself, good or bad, the easier (and cheaper) option might be no clothes or armor at all.

Unless you're a wookiee. Then public nudity is par for the course.

Never underestimate the shock value of a shaved Wookiee.

[LugWrench 260]

On 6/6/2018 at 4:12 AM, Donovan Morningfire said:

The very image of a major modern general?

More like a 'Dandy'.

[LugWrench 260]

On 6/11/2018 at 3:10 AM, Dafydd said:

Never underestimate the shock value of a shaved Wookiee.

Not exactly a wookiee, but you get the idea...

[Bellona 25]

What IS that? It looks like someone photoshopped an elephant onto something else with paws and ... I don't know what that head is?!?

[Darzil 678]

I would guess shaved bear, black bear by the remaining hair

[EliasWindrider 1,624]

On 6/2/2018 at 6:01 AM, Donovan Morningfire said:

It's mentioned in the FAQ that you only get the mechanical benefits of one set of armor.

So for instance, you can wear a set of Armored Clothing and a set of Noble Regalia, but you only benefit the mechanical effects of one of them.  Just want to make this particular point clear before I proceed.

Now with that being said, there's nothing (except the GM really) is stopping you from combining the two items into a single set of armor.  So of the examples you cited, combining a set of Padded Armor and set of Banal Apparel into a single set of armor, making it a single item that gives you the +2 to soak as well as the upgrade to checks to notice the wearer, as a for instance.

In terms of cost, I'd say a good rule of thumb is take the higher-priced item of the two that you're combining and increase it's cost by 50%.  So for the Padded Armor + Banal Clothing, such an item would cost 750 credits.

Or, you can choose to make a house rule that says that you can stack the benefits of two sets of armor, provided one of those two has a soak value of 0, and that the wearing the second set of armor doesn't reduce it's encumbrance for being worn, and adds a minimum of at least one to the wearer's encumbrance value.  It's cheaper to be sure, but the extra "armor" is going to be heavier to wear.

True but second skin armor is specifically designed to be worn UNDER CLOTHING so that one set of armor I would allow to stack with the clothing options.