Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bofinger
To some extent this might be true. But armour is going to carry with it some disadvantages that maybe the armour wearing talent can't completely obviate. I don't know what those disadvantages should be but as examples: - A character in a closed helm is going to have a pretty awful notice roll.
- A heavily armoured character might fall into quicksand and drown.
- A heavily armoured character might clank noisily, or find it hard to climb a rope.
- A character who normally wears heavy armour and finds himself in a fight while unarmoured would be less effective than a character who habitually fights unarmoured. This might happen because he was sleeping in a tent, or having sex with a delightful half-succubus lady of his acquaintance, or meeting the dowager countess for cucumber sandwiches and snuff, or just walking down the street on what seemed a lovely peaceful day.
Comparing the knight (armour and armour wearing talent) with the barbarian (no armour) the knight will be better in some situations and worse in others. If they're roughly equal in practice the player will make a decision based on his character conception and we're fine. |
Yes. And, encumbrance from weight and lowered MA are significant effects even if the full DX penalty were negated by armor talent.
My core idea is you could have effectively the same combat ability as you get with a character who jacks up their DX with EP to overcome armor DX penalties, except they'd just have about the same adjDX in armor for fighting as before thanks to armor-wearing and weapon-expertise levels, with the difference that they aren't DX 18 or whatever for other purposes, and getting an actual DX 18 for all purposes would require a lot more EP. i.e. a very experienced warrior is agile and can fight effectively in armor and is good at fighting with his weapon, but if he picks up the Dancing talent he's not going to be Fred Astaire, etc.