Re: Armor proposal 1

[John Hogg <johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Wright Frazier wrote:

> Current						
> Plate				-1str, agi, and pwr
>   Iron		6  4  2  20

IF warrior has plate, shield, helmet, and longsword ...

CDV = 20 ... a crowd of townspeople close on our hero ... and only hit on
crits
MDV = 16
GDV = 15 ... but grappling to hold hold and throwing rocks works a bit
better
 

> Proposal 1: Increased movements and looser penalties
> Infitting with the more water planet theme, Jaernian
> armor is lighter and less encumbering.  It leaves
> the limbs bare and free for movement.

I've got no problem with having adamant armor act as the next lightest
armor for movement purposes (e.g. armor's MUCH thinner) ... I'm just not
so sure steel is appreciably lighter than iron.  Certainly steel's weight
and durability match iron's much more closely than adamant.


Either way, replace the wording of proposal 1 with:

Armor made of materials superior to iron* conveys the movement penalty for
the next lightest group of armor.

(then I don't have to re-word swimming ;)   )

* I'd replace iron with steel

> 
> Proposal 2: Increasing the protection of armor to make it fit
> 	    with its penalties.

> Plate
>   Iron		8  6  2  20	-1 str, agi, and pwr

CDV=22
MDV=18
GDV=15

Oh, no combat crits, but grappling and hurling rocks still works passably.

With this setup

A) you've effectively made me spend 600 more eps on my actors that are
SUPPOSED to come at you ... big whip.
The marines will still grapple you
The magic types will still spell you

B) Even with those NOT designed to come at the party, this doesn't do
much. That is, a mob of townspeople (typically they're NOT supposed to
come at you), clubs, pitchforks, and torches in hand don't have a chance
to crit him ... they just do base damage ... so I double how many there
are.

What I'm saying is this phase of the proposal does nothing other than keep
those actors with pointy sticks from having a chance to crit against a
starting character.

Not a lot of impact here, or at the least, not so much I think things
ought to be re-worked.

(of course, I'd prolly bitch it you changed things a whole bunch as well
... there's just no pleasing some people)

> Notes:
>  1) On both proposals the protectiveness of chain armor was
> 	increased vs. missile weapons.  Why?  Because mail
> 	WILL deflect some blows or absorb the impact of
> 	said blows far better than layers of cloth will.
> 	

I'll give you that

>  2) GDVs did not increase because I couldn't come up with a good
> 	reason to justify their increase.  The only so so one was
> 	for chain mail because its fairly clingy and slick on
> 	the wearer, and that makes it very difficult to get and
> 	maintain a hold on.

Yeah, I can't tell you how many chain link fences I've slid right off ...
wait a minute ... (yeah, I know the links are smaller, but they're not so
small you can't get a fingerhold in 'em)



John Hogg			johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu

"I am amused by the simplicity of this game.  Send me your finest meats
and cheeses!"				--Kenny Mayne