Re: Re: armor values

From: Wulf Corbett <wulfc_at_...>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 03:28:02 +0100


On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 19:12:27 -0700 (PDT), bryan neff <nagilfar_at_...> wrote:

>I do have one question regarding armor numbers. IMO
>the edges given for most creatures armor seem low
>and/or out of porportion. I wonder what other who play
>with edges/handicaps think?

While I agree in principal that armour & weapons are underrated in HW, the reasons behind it are very much in HW style. The standard weapon Rank is 3, the standard armour Rank is 3, the standard minimum energy attack is the minimum bid of 3. So...

>For example dragon scales are ^9, but human plate and
>shield is ^5--so are dragon scales not even x2 as
>strong? Hmmm. I would think a 3 to 1 ratio would be a
>bit more realistic. I also noticed krarschtkid chitin
>is rated as a ^5--same as plate and shiled? Hmmmm. My
>other concern was the changes in troll skin
>armor--dark do not have any, and great trolls ^1.

Dragon skin is immune to a minimum bid attack with ANY normal weapon, you have to be quite energetic with a normal, Rank 3, sword. And, of course, it's not at all certain that AP loss means injury or even physical impact, it just means you have the advantage. Troll skin isn't really armour - any hit on it will hurt, it just won't necessarily cause injury. But even hurt and uninjured, even the fear of hurt and uninjured, means AP loss.

Maybe Trotsky could explain his exact philosophy in assigning these values, but this makes sense to me. If you want to see REAL armour, try the Granite Gargoyles...

Wulf

Powered by hypermail