Re: Armor proposal 1

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

> 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.
>

AP 1 did indeed advocate increasing DVs ... has it been withdrawn?
 
> 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.

Then take a thinner breastplate, call it "breastplate" give it DVs equal
to chain and movement rates equal to chain (Hell, call it "big fraggin
belt buckle with "Humphrey" ingraved in it for all I care)

"problem" solved

I don't even mind new armor being introduced to Jearn, provided it doesn't
make the current armor obsolete.

Question, are the armor values related by any sort of formula?  I haven't
sat down with the book and flipped through to crunch numbers, compare it
to creature armor ratings, etc.  If there is an underlying relationship,
new armor types could be innovated to give broader selection AND not upend
the current system.

> 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.

whatever, regardless it only matters 5% of the time (as well as any armor
can provide without taking into account outside mods)

> 
> > 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.
> 

Yes, I agree.  That, among other premises in the argument, may be faulty.

However, if the purpose of armor is to keep the wearer from being hit
(someone else's premise), and because its so darned dog-eat-dog out there
everyone will defend themselves to the best of their ability (someone
else's premise) then armor will be refined to be as protective as
possible.

By saying that armor is indeed NOT refined to be as protective as
possible, one removes one of the cornerstone premises for innovation of
that armor.

> > 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?

Quite the contrary

AP1 put plate at a dv of 8, 2DV higher than 6

I think THAT is unbalancing, not the other way around.
> 
> > > 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...).
> 

again, concept vs mechanics

what DV it gives you determines how effective it is and how usable it is
versus other ventures (movement)

there are no called shots in AQ

as such, short of some of the crit tables, where you're wearing armor has
no bearing on the results of a hit.

--John