Re: Armor proposal 1

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

On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Greg Mowczko wrote:

> Lots of trimming was done to the original.
>

Prolly a good idea  :)
 
> > From: John Hogg <johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu>
> >
> Damn Skippy has some good stats there John. I only have 1 adventure with all
> 3 defensive stats at 15 or above ( and I bought them up to that ).
>

I was probibly unclear here ...

1) I simplified the argument by only addressing combat mod

(as ripped up below because I didn't evaluate grappling for the argument
... that was not the point I was addressing ... i.e. percieved imbalance)

2) For simplicity as well as to indicate what the maximum starting
potential ought to be, I have, throughout my posts used a hypothetical 15
for agi, str, wil, and per.  I agree this is not the average of 10 or 11.

What I have said, time and again, is that with the current IRON armor, if
I put it on a physically good specimen, wind him up, and let him go, he's
still only hittable by a natural 20.  This -appears- to be the basis for
AQ's armor mechanics.  If this was in place before mods or other game
developments, I dunno.

(inserting SEANML)

<POINT>

However, with the current mechanic, the most protective armor on
the best unmodified specimen protects so well that an unmodified roll will
only hit 5% of the time.

All other armor protects less.

To add 2 to the dv of the most protective, unmodified armor makes it
IMPOSSIBLE to hit on an unmodified roll of a d20.

</POINT>
 
IMHO, that makes bumping the DVs on armor up unbalancing

> John who wants this? It may have been one of Wrights proposals but I
> doubt it was the one he wants. Wright? I have no problem with DVs as
> they are now. Its the movement penalties that I dislike. ( not entirely
> I could deal with 5 feet of movement more but that is all I ask ).
> While Wright's main beef seems to be why the AGI and STR disadvantages
> ( he agrees that PWR makes sence since that is Magic related ).
>

I am simply expousing rhetoric.  A discussion/argument is in progress
referring to the balanced or unbalanced nature of armor within the system.

While Wright (and others) has made the assertion that armor is
unbalanced, and has indeed illustrated that the heavier armors may have
reasons for being UNAPPEALING, he (and others) has not illustrated that
his proposal is in any way more mechanically balanced than the current
setup.

As such the argument continues.

> As stated before yes armor has been introduced by these adventurers.
> Modreor and Dom Foran started to make the Dragon Hide armor ( Drako
> hide doesn't work nearly as effectively ) and they didn't just sit
> on the knowledge. Mind you Dom has had some talks with some Dragons about
> the whole situation.
>

But have these characters put forth a handful of special orders, or have
they managed to actually make an industrial innovation?
 
> 
> They have to be what other background could they choose? Mage? Nomad?
> Priest? definitely not Auger ( secret society remember ). They all take
> years of training. Maybe marine but only if your parents brought you
> up on a ship ( then you could be a nomad as well ).
>

Noted ... usually the townies I run are more needed-at-the-time constructs
than plotted out actors anyway ... I'll be a bit more consistant with them
if the need arises in the future.
 
> > > They still only get 1 shield at a time.  Adamant is a 1 object spell.

I don't even USE earth mages either as a character mainstay nor as an
actor mainstay ... the "put a bunch of arrowheads in a bucket and cast
adamant" idea came from elsewhere, and at the risk of looking like a poor
source, I don't remember whom.  However, I WAS sceptical about the whole
issue and looked it up later.

Regardless, the point is still:

Heavy penalties ought not be groused at for armor as nothing else requires
expenditure of $ vs. ep for increasing DV.

If you wish to not have ANY penalty and have your DV boosted, invest in a
weapon, shield, helmet, clothing(or not) and spend the eps to get spells
that boost your DV.

> > 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).
> 
> Increased combat mod mean you can shoot a bow better? Oh wait you imply
> that since more people where armor their MDV is going to increase 
> substatially. Not the case really look at the DVs again. I can get a
> steel shield and suffer no minus plus add 4 to my MDV. That already is
> a case. Most of the armors are not to effective vs. Missiles or Grapple.
>

Again, apparently I was unclear.  Increasing movement rates decreases
ranged attack utility.  You get less shots before melee.  (for ALL ranged
attacks)


 
> > 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
> 
> Its all up to the choices you make in life.
> 
> 							Greg

Again, yes or no.

Yes, I may fashion a character in any manner I desire.

However, prescribing to the logic that innovation is driven by war, and as
such I should be making my character the most proficient at making war as
possible:

I can counteract an increase in DV by increasing my mods

As the potential for armor wearing opponents increases, I can best prepare
for this (and the resulting higher average DV for opponents) by increasing
my mods

BECAUSE EVERYONE has this first and formost in their minds (otherwise
armor would not be innovated), EVERYONE will buy up their mods because
it's something they CAN do.

--John