Re: Immobilize (was Re: Torites and armor)

[Andrew Luers <orc_food@yahoo.com>]

  Likr foo's way. read below

--- John  Hogg <johnhogg@laf.cioe.com> wrote:
> 
> 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))
> 


      You said it. We need SIMPLE rules on this if at
all. Most GM's most agree on it. I am still trieing to
understand the new Graple to hold rules. One player
says Div by three, the next four. I never got a write
up or was the new rule stated word for word before a
game. I been useing the old 4d6 rules.




> 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
> 
    I would not be comfortable with this power down of
a base 400 skill. 2d6 vs unarmed tergets. Robes are
not armor. You .. yourself stated how much protection
coth gives.


> 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.
> 

    Called shot? If you don't hit them in the eye, you
are going for the famly jewels. It is knowing where to
hit. That is why it has such a high base cast.

> (which I think we agree on)

  I don't


> 
> 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.

    I agree to that
> 
> 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.
> 

    I agree
   
> 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.
> 
> 

    DON'T DO IT.  The type of armor is the thing you
need to base it on.

  Andrew L