Re: Armor proposal 1

[Greg Mowczko <mooch>]

John. Will you listen. We ( Wright and myself the ones other than yourself
posting alot on this thread ) do not want DVs to go up.

Our arguments are. Armor is built a certain way on Jaern. The amount of
defence that this armor gives us is in the book. But with the design of
the armor the mobility does not mesh with reality ( if we were to take
the armor and utitlize it here on Earth ). Hey I could almost argue that
the design of the armor as described should give you a LOWER DV than
per the book. I won't argue this since the spread of defence would blur
the differences in armors too much.

> From: John Hogg <johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu>
> > > To add 2 to the dv of the most protective, unmodified armor makes it
> > > IMPOSSIBLE to hit on an unmodified roll of a d20.
> > 
> > No, they still hit on a 20.  a 20 ALways hits.
>
> You are correct, I misspoke
>
> However, I did make the point in a previous post that a 20 wouldn't crit,
> not that a 20 wouldn't hit.

If your DV is a 20 and they CRIT you they CRIT you. If you have a 21 and
they CRIT you they only hit you, unless they have a mod.

> > Did we say any penalties?  No.  Read what we say and stop spewing.
> > We've said the penalties are too harsh.  Read the proposal.  Penalties
> > are still absolutely there, they are just lessened in the proposal.
>
> I am not saying the mechanics of AP1 or AP2 are any more or less valid
> than the existing mechanics.
>
> Indeed, I have said that you have yet to illustrate using the criteria set
> forth in the argument for AP1 and AP2 that said proposals are in any way
> more balanced for use within the game than the existing rule set.
>
> If armor will be innovated until it protects as well as possible, and
> economics drives armor innovation, then armor ought not be innovated past
> where it is now because a form exists indeed DOES protect as well as
> possible (at least when evaluating the most common occurance of armor
> use, though I grant that the specimen used in the evaluation had
> attributes that were above average.)

Armors are NOT innovated until it protects as well as possible. Armors are
developed to be as utilitarian as possible for the protection they can
offer.

> Further, if I suspend both arguments entirely, and merely state that DV's
> ought to go up by 2 because armor doesn't protect enough, then those who
> engage opponents increase their mods so they may have the same chance to
> hit.

But they don't need to. Do you want DVs to go up by 2 John? Is that what
you are trying to say?

> > Flat out, Jaernian armor protects the torso, shoulders, and upper
> > arms.  No more.  Saying that that slows you to 1/2 or 1/3 of your
> > normal movment is foolish.
> > 
> > Wright
>
> Aha. We seem to be having a mechanical vs. conceptual disagreement here.
> I give a rat's ass about what armor looks like, feels like, or tastes
> like.

But how it looks ( as in covers ) does determine how effective it is and
how usable it is in versus to other ventures ( such as running, swimming...).

> -- John
							Greg