>1) As the examples show, it isn't always armor and weapons and how
>they balance. A better tool should make life easier. You can do
>first aid by ripping strips off your tunic and using branches for
>splints, but proper tools and equipment will help.
I agree. The operative word being "Better" however. That is, with the standard equipment, I'd give no bonus. With good equipment, yes, there will be a bonus. With poor equipment, there would be a penalty - probably not as bad as no equipment, but a penalty sure.
>2) Using relative values, you have to compare each pair of
>contestants for equipment all of the time. I think this actually
>ends up be more intrusive than just having tha values added in, and
>trying to remember that occasionally they don't apply.
The other option is to constantly do the math, which is just as intrusive. In fact, for how I play, this will be much quicker, because I will probably ignore relative differences unless, say the player brings them up. In which case it's precisely the same thing as finding the augment previously.
>* never is not quite the case. You may occasionally have very poor
>equipment that negates penalties but doesn't supply a bonus, like a
>wooken practice sword and a light wicker practice shield for sword
>and shield--they let you use the skill perfectly well, they just
>don't add any useful value.
Think of it this way: compared to what you're advocating, I'm just reducing all equipment bonuses by a couple of points, and saying that anything that's not exceptional is zero based.
Mike
Powered by hypermail