Immobilize (was Re: Torites and armor)

[John Hogg <johnhogg@laf.cioe.com>]

Not so structured as saying each DV point your armor gives you = an
additional die ... that would get clunky with magic and such ... more
along the lines of having the GM adjudicate each situation case-by-case.

(I know the consistancy argument is coming (sigh))

The skill is vague enough to simply say the area struck needs to be
unarmored ... gouge that gargoyle in the eyes ... 6+ check ... 

Would I be comfortable with a 3d check against robes ... sure ... got to
whack you a bit harder in the bread-basket, or other cushioned spot or
I've got to reduce my choice of places to hit you that will drop you on 
a surgical strike, and get a sensitive spot that's not covered by anything
protective

Immobilize reads a whole lot like a called shot (which doesn't exist in
our combat system), increase the difficulty of the skill check as the area
you need to whack gets smaller.

(which I think we agree on)

However, in the case of metal armors and the like, the material the armor
is made from isn't so important ... If I have a suit of iron chain, and an
identical suit of steel or adamant chain, I'd argue that, while their
appropriate DV's increase, and it gets appreciably harder to get a
damaging attack past their defenses ... I'd still like a skill like
immobilize to ignore that somewhat as any exposed joints or organs will be
equally exposed by the "cut" of the armor, as it were (i.e. how the
armor's made would be more important than of what it's made).

In adjudicating it, I'd like to consider what type of armor the target's
wearing to gauge how hard it would be to hit a reasonably important
unarmored area, but not necessarily include the material the armor's made
from.

My knee to the groin of someone in plate made of iron will be as
ineffective as someone in armor charmed +4 adamanted glass plate of the
same design ... but if that design allows me to jam a thumb in their ear
or eye, or exploit a joint placed there for comfort or movement, it would
be equally hard or easy to do such a thing regardless of the material of
the armor.

So that's why I'd rather get away from straight-up analogy with DV, though
I would still tend to make the different types (robes, leather, chain,
plate ... etc) of armor harder checks.



On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Steven E. Ames wrote:

> Clothing and Robes are different. Clothing does not provide any DV.
> Standard everyday attire or business clothing gives you 0 CDV. Hence you
> can immobilize most people with no extra effort. So... you don't have to
> be naked to get zero CDV... you just can't be wearing anything armored
> or padded. Normal clothing also does not affect your movement rate (GM
> adjudication for those tight leather pants you like to wear).
> 
> I'm still pondering your extra difficulty check... are you suggesting
> something along the way of an extra die per CDV? So 3d6 for robes, 6d6
> for plate?
> 
> -Steve