Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

I'll defer to Dan the Great on that one.

Well, this is neither here nor there, you can see the inside of the rivets on the inside back of the armor. It is clearly put together with very modern snap rivets (sometimes called pop rivets). I'd go with no additional protection of any kind for having those extra rivets on it.

A tragedy to be sure. All hail the sometime-in-the-unknown-future release of Low Tech.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

I guess not, but if they're relatively tough, they might help against slashing attacks.

Cabaret Chicks on Ice, you mean? ;)

Yeah, it's eagerly awaited.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

Rivets ("studs") were used historically for three things: 1) as decoration; 2) to join pieces of cloth or leather together; or 3) to attach metal plates to a cloth or leather foundation. No. 3 is what has been misinterpreted as "studded armour" because only the rivet heads are visible. Examples include brigandines, coats of plates, corrazinas, etc. The studs only serve to hold the real protection in place and provide no DR themselves. If you add studs to leather you are likely to actually reduce the DR since attacks are less likely to glance off. Their only real use is for abrasion resistance which is why some biker jackets have them.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

And a leather coat with some pieces of metal attached is what I'd call 'studded leather' or 'reinforced leather'.

Which, incidentally, should probably have GURPS stats.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

But it is not what the so-called armour books call studded leather. The term is used to describe leather with metal studs and nothing else. If you have to use something then call it reinforced leather. Add +1 to the DR and be done with it.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

I don't care what it's called, but I fail to see why 'studded leather' is automatically a wrong way to describe a leather coat with metal attached by means of studs.

And I agree that adding a +1 to the DR is correct, but that leaves the questions of weight and cost. Currently, I have used the Light Scale values, but perhaps cost should be a little higher and the DR modifiers in my house-rules slightly different.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

We are trying to guide you away from ambiguous terminology.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

All the gods preserve us from ambigious terminology! ;)

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

I sure that as a lawyer you are well acquainted with the problems often generated by ambiguous terminology. It is certainly drilled in these philosophy classes I'm in. :) I am sure all the more in law school.

Re: The Point Always Beats the Edge Revisited and MA-compatible
 

Indeed.

But unlike philosophy*, the study of law thrives on and welcomes ambigiouity. Unecessary precision is just as unwise as unecessary ambigiouity.

The Basic Set makes no reference to 'reinforced leather'. It does mention 'studded leather'. Therefore, any fair attempt to add to the rules there, and not redo them alltogether, may mention 'studded leather'.

If I were choosing the name, that's one thing, but I'm simply using a term from the rulebook.

*Or perhaps, according to Douglas Adams, just like philosophy. ;)