Re: Armor proposal 1

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

On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Wright Frazier wrote:

> 
> 3 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 8 = 16(20 with shield)
> 	A low rater will have a 2-3 CM, and 2-3 skill.  We'll say 2 for this.
> 	So that give'em a +2 sometimes +4 to hit.  Thats still hitable
> 	at low rate against a person in platemail.  But for that 8pts

more like

3+3+3+1+1+8 = 18 (22 with shield)

which puts things at a 5-15% chance to hit.(though appropriate stats would
need to be 15+)

This then allows skippy the wonderrate2 to wander into any reasonably
small village (i.e. w no or irregular guards), set the place on fire, take
whatever, and still hold off the entire populous with a #2 pencil.

Of course, If I waited until about rate 10, I could throw a few more DP
behind me and add a few multi attacks.

THAT is unbalanced.

> > 
> > Which leads to "Armor doesn't protect enough" (again)
> > 
> > So we raise the DVs (again)
> > 
> > So everyone buys up mod (again) which gets progressively more expensive
> > 
> > (see where I'm going here?)
> 
> In a pointless circle of your own twisted logic. ;)
> 

YES!  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

> > Certainly, the penalties to AGI, STR, and PWR aren't offset, but how else
> > can one increase one's character's DV merely with bankroll, not with ANY
> > expenditure of ep
> 
> Buying magical items.
>

eps to make (somebody else's, but certainly more in most cases than an
auger with a forge and blacksmithing)
 
> That was an off the cuff list.  There have been many more.  Khelek,
> Chak, Karin, Kurin, Malcolm, Dutch, Chambrai, Burnhard Brimstone,
> Legion Wolf, also come to mind.  There have been plenty of characters
> with smithing abilities.  Your point is invalid.
> 

Did they use these abilities to produce anything new?  Did they do it more
than a handful of times, or was it custom made (yeah, I know ALL armor
ought to be custom).  i.e. is this now the norm that you propose, or a
small amount of special orders?
> 
> I base mine on what armor should do, one way or another.  You just
> base yourse on a rate 2 newbie trying to hit some guy for the most
> part.
>

I based it on the premises made by others before I began addressing this
thread.

> > 
> > Jaern rotates around adventurers ... it is the function of the setting.
> > (Reminded of the "fairy cake" incident with Zaphod Beeblebrox  :)   )
> 
> In Rougtero may be, but thats a microcosm.  Look at another microcosm,
> Geleia, and adventurers are just the chaos factor, and not the prime
> motivators or power holders.
>
You misunderstood what I meant ... The AQ universe revolves (figureatively
... also not getting into planetary motion theory) around the adventurer,
or more specificly, the player playing an adventurer.  They OUGHT to shape
the world because it's their world (or we'd be playing something else).

If I adhered to the "there are other people to hire" POV, then there'd be
a whole lot of bored players come Saturday while my actors hired someone
competent who acted like a team.

Mind you the SETTING never lets the characters know they're hot shit  :)

 
> > 
> > I'm not arguing that point
> > 
> > Your arguement is that armor is driven by its effectiveness, esp. in wars.
> > Wars are fought by armies.  Armies are taken from a cross section of
> > population at large and taken from the work force.  As the population at
> > large is under rate 5, IRON armor is tremendously effective in combat
> > between massed < rate 5ers.
> 
> Irregular armies are.  Professional armies are run by professional
> soldiers(aka regular armies).  Jaern has a mercenary class of folks.
> Also remember, the average person is bkg warrior.
> 

1)	I thought the example of standing armies was (paraphrased) silly
because of the cost, or some such thing ... the example still holds for
low end warriors though, but bump the chance to hit up 1 or 2.

(insert pending "and that's what AP2 did! here)

2)	That shopkeeper/farmer/beggar/whatever is a rate x warrior?  Damn!
now I know who can take those damned minibolting kids out!

3)	If everyone's a warrior, how does one GET an irregular army?

> Jaern is mainly capitalistic, and we have seen what 200 years of capitalist
> domination has done on earth.  Everything on Jaern is sea travel, and
> its done effectively, efficiently, and regularly.  That means there

(John unsuccessfully holds back access-to-Geleia comment here)

> is a big exchange of ideas goin on.  That also means that people who

Capitalism does NOT facilitate a FREE exchange of ideas, it can emphasize
secrecy, especially when the good/info/etc would demand a high price, or
give way to a more leveraged position.

How many Taurusites blabbed about refining steel?
 
> are less well off materially will beable to encounter those more well 
> off and take their stuff.  Taking their stuff = the #1 reason to
> make war.  And war means dying, and noone wants to die, and so
> folks get the best protection they can.

> > Hand out adamant shields to footsoldiers
> 
> They still only get 1 shield at a time.  Adamant is a 1 object spell.
>

Yes and no

The object grouping rules allow you to -provided all elements are in
contact in some way- make a group of objects considered one object for
mechanic purposes

Adamant is 1 object with a weight restriction

check the wording on this though, I've got an older book.  It's in the
chapter dealing with what constitutes the different targets of spells.

> 
> Because the mechanic is badly written.  That is the whole point of
> this, its a bad mechanic.  The penalties of the armor are FAR in
> excess of what the design of the armor should provide.  Further they
> are far in excess of the benefit they provide.  That is how it
> unbalanced.
>

OK, I'm not going to argue on the value of the underlying mechanic, I'm
saying that armor, WITH THE CURRENT RULE SET, is not UNBALANCED.  A great
deal of work appears to have gone into having a person fully armored only
be able to be hit by a 20 and moving down incrementally from there.

What I'm saying is that, before arbitrarily assigning a slightly higher
value to armor as a "solution," one ought to see what that does to the
premise of what the armor appears to be based on, as well as evaluating
them at low, mid, and high rates.

Further, that the argument of "wars drive innovation past where it is now,
while accurate on its face", is inaccurate with the premises you or others
have provided that:

Armies are made of people formerly in the work force.
Such people are sub rate 5
Specially trained personnel are too expensive to train to consider the
mainstream of combat forces.

Therefore, as most innovation has been done presumably to work under these
situations, evaluating armor at LOW rates will cover the largest amount of
use of that armor.

Increasing DV of armor will only lead to EVERYONE buying up their combat
mods.

If indeed everyone who can wear armor will wear the best, increasing
mobility of armor will lead to more people wearing it (presumably your
point) but in so doing, if EVERYONE is wearing the best they can get,
EVERYONE'S dvs will be a little higher.  Leading back to EVERYONE buying
up their combat mod a little.

In the end, you will have either increased the CM of every adversary you
face enough to offset the increased benefit of armor, netting 0 change.

Or,

You've reduced the most telling disadvantage of armor, making armor
wearing opponents more common.  As such, CMs increase accordingly, and
ranged attacks become less frequent (i.e. you've just lamed the bow out
again).

Regardless, new characters get to spend a bit more on CM before they even
begin to think about fleshing out their character, because they need to
work harder to be able to hit.

John