RE: Parrying and mods

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

Ok, so we're going from, "we want to add something useful for the warrior
to spend eeps on," to, "We want to cap MODS, and perhaps (not likely) DP," 
arguably the two most important components in the warrior background."

(quotes denote paraphrasing)

Isn't that counterproductive to the original idea of ADDING to what a
warrior can do?

On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, B.J. Austin wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Sean L. McLane wrote:
> 
> > > From gwydion@purdue.edu  Tue Mar 28 10:21:39 2000
> > > Subject: RE: Parrying and mods
> > >
> > > So, until we have those numbers, why aren't mods limited in some
> > > manner (especially given their cost for certain backgrounds)?  I had
> > > mentioned yesterday that I thought they should be limited by the
> > > associated stat for the mod.  What does everyone else think?  After
> > > all, isn't everything in AQ supposed to be limited by something?
> > > Dan?  Beuller?
> > >
> > > Lyle
> > >
> > 
> > If you bring this up, then we should also bring up DP, which is also
> > not limited by any stat.
> > 
> > Potential for opening an ugly can of worms.
> > 
> 
> [Pop!]
> 
> Well, I'm for limiting mods by their associated stat but I'm unclear on
> how we'd go about limiting DP.  5 * HEA as max?  'Course, this brings us
> back into the arguement of what DP is actually a reflection of - a BIG
> discussion last year on the list if I recall and not one that I would
> enjoy rehashing.  I'm not touching that can.
> 
> BJ
> 
>