wrote:
> At 12:25 PM 12/22/2003 -0600, Mike Holmes wrote:
>
> But an item's worth and its value as an practical example
of its
> class are not necessarily linked. A Yelmalian might have a suit of
gilded
> leather armor fashioned to look like solid gold plate -- it is an
excellent
> work of craftsmanship, and has a cost of, say, 10W2. On the other
hand, it
> only protects as leather armor for a +1 augment (giving it an Armor
10
> value). You now have two values for one (probably important, but
still)
> piece of equipment. If our Yelmalian wants to augment his Look
Imposing
> ability with his glorious armor, should he add +5 to his skill? +1?
Some
> other value (just because it cost 10W2, that doesn't mean every
clack is on
> display)? You might have to take every piece of equipment as a
sidekick,
> just to account for all the abilities.... ("This is my sword,
Widowmaker,
> and my shield, Block All, my bow, Shoots Far, and my arrows,
Eyepiercer,
> Birdkiller, Swiftflight, um, Ted, Mary, John....")
I think that, just as a human follower implicitly has the usual human
abilities to walk, talk, run, etc, _normal_ uses of an object can be
assumed. So gilded leather would have a rating of "look good" (or
whatever) at some high value. As an aside, it would have the mundane
ability to be leather armor. Just as a magical sword that can cut
spirits can still be used as a perfectly good sword.
As for economic value, I think that is always what the market will
bear. I don't think you can make a blanket statement about the
economic value of anything being tied into its rating.
Just by-the-by, I think the proper ability of Frodo's mithril shirt,
the way it was used in the movie anyway, was "survive battle" at some
obscene level. So it is not all that useful except when survival is
in doubt, however it would still give the usual benefits of a chain
shirt (+3 on appropriate conditions).
--Bryan