adonthell-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Adonthell-devel] Shield and Armor Rules


From: Andrew Phillips
Subject: Re: [Adonthell-devel] Shield and Armor Rules
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:37:22 -0800

Test Armour                                     
Type       Coverage     Armour Item          Base value Base * coverage Total 
Armour value
Chest            0.5    Heavy Leather Vest      8                4              
         4
Boots            0.1    Heavy Leather Boots     6             0.6               
        2.5
Gloves           0.1    Heavy Cloth Gloves      4              0.4      
Bracers          0.1    Wood-slat Bracers       6              0.6      
Greaves         0.1    Stiff Leather Greaves    5              0.5      
Shoulder        0.1     Traveler's Cloak          4               0.4   
Total Coverage  1                               
                                        
Type     Coverage       Armour Item          Base value         Base *Cov   
Total Armour value
Chest           0.7     Heavy Leather Vest         8                5.6         
       5.6
Boots           0.2     Heavy Leather Boots       6                1.2          
           4.2
Gloves          0.1     Heavy Cloth Gloves         4                 0.4        
Bracers        0.2      Wood-slat Bracers          6                1.2 
Shoulder       0.1      Traveler's Cloak              4                0.4      
Shield           0.5                                          0                 
 0
Greaves        0.2      Stiff Leather Greaves       5                 1 
Total              2    

On 3/16/06, Andrew Phillips <address@hidden> wrote:
> I think one thing that might be complicating our attempts to arrive at
> a sum 1 coverage modifier is the inclusion of the shield. What if all
> worn armour has a sum coverage modifier of 1 and shields (as armour
> that is carried, but not worn) have their own size/coverage modifier.
> A small buckler would have a different coverage modifier than a large
> kite shield or tower shield.
>
> Andrew
>
> On 3/16/06, Andrew Phillips <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > Also, should individual parts of paired armour be individually
> > > > equipped? For example, bracers and gloves come in twos. It makes no
> > > > sense to split up greaves or boots, but sometimes gloves or greaves
> > > > don't come in pairs and don't even -need- to come in pairs. For
> > > > example, why wear a bracer on your shield arm?
> > >
> > > That's true, but I'm not sure whether we should go into such detail. I
> > > would add one equipment slot for each of these items, and wouldn't
> > > distinguish between ones and pairs.
> >
> > You have a good point. In this case, individually equippable bracers,
> > or even gloves, would need to be sufficiently powerful to make it
> > pointful to wear them individually. But since we're not spitting them
> > up, gloves and the like should probably have a single coverage
> > modifier. This would make the numbers easier to work out as well.
> >
> > > To explain this idea a little more: a inventory is a list of slots.
> > > For equipping items, each character will have a special inventory that
> > > holds a list of slots named after the type of equipment that fits into
> > > this slot. What slots this equipment inventory contains can (easily)
> > > be changed at runtime, if necessary. I might have to refine the code a
> > > little that is already in place, but the implementation of armour sets
> > > based upon this shouldn't pose a big problem.
> > >
> > Thanks for the clarification. And many of the equippable items will
> > have restrictions on them anyway - mostly based on class and
> > alignment. For example, monks cannot equip metallic armours. As a
> > compensation, I think they should get an automatic +1 agility at first
> > level and the ability to train skills and combat feats that increase
> > their ability to dodge and parry. These rules, of course, are just a
> > proposal.
> >
> > Another armour restriction that might make some sense is too tie one's
> > move silent ability to the weight of one's armor. For example, if a
> > thief, ranger, or even fighter has ranks in move silently, equipping
> > half-plate and full plate armours may disable this ability.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
>




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]