Since there seems to be a few people still lurking out there, I'll throw this question out there for some input: Should there be an armor skill? I've been thinking about it and it doesn't make sense that there isn't. It would seem to me that the different types of armor are as individual as the different types of weapons. I wouldn't expect someone who is used to fighting in leather armor to be able to put on chainmail or plate and still fight the same, just as I wouldn't expect someone who is used to fighting with an axe to be able to pick up a sword or spear and use it just as effectively. In addition, I wouldn't expect an individual that has never worn armor to be able to put it on and fight effectively. For instance, if I were to put armor on(assuming I could figure it out), I would have no idea how to move in it, let alone fight effectively. I think each type of armor should be a skill with ranks. What does anyone else think?

Stephen/Halphin

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

---

Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Testez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail

I am not sure I can open Open Office documents but I certainly
understand your pain.

Marty in Mac land.

>I don't know if this is a consideration for many people here, but it is
>for myself anyway, hence this post.
>
>I'm ditching MS Office because I don't like it as software and I'm not
>going to use an illegal version anyway when I have a superior and
>perfectly legal, free alternative in Open Office. How much interest is
>there to have the stuff that we have in Word document format in the OO
>.sxw format? Because while OO can read MS Office documents, not all
>things carry over quite intact and anything I use myself I will edit so
>it'll be fully OO native.
>
>If you're interested, pipe up so I'll know how much call there is for
>that and see if I'll bother with more than just the stuff I use for myself.
>
>Edi
>
>
>
>To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--


"If you haven't got your health, at least you have something to talk about."

"They say that everything happens for a reason. I am just tired of
that reason being to make me unhappy or embarrassed."

"You can't make a baby in a month using nine women! But it sounds
like it would be fun to try."

Armor skill? No, you mean armorer skill, right?...

No, you do mean armor skill. That's ridic...

Hmmm...

I think that 'skill' is probably more than what you want to do. How involved of a mechanic would you have for this? Could it be a simple proficiency, like the Adventure Abilities (115) in "Poor Brendan's Almanac", where you either have it or you don't, rather than something involving ranks?

I imagine that many people would find this an unnecessary encumberance on their campaigns. But, with the "Math Club" collection of characters in my present campaign, I might think of adding something like this in.

I'd be interested in seeing what you come up with for this.

--Rodger


-------Original Message-------
Since there seems to be a few people still lurking out there, I'll throw
this question out there for some input: Should there be an armor skill?
I've been thinking about it and it doesn't make sense that there isn't. It
[edit]

--I am not saying that I disagree with your idea, however I believe

 the effect of fighting in armor is covered by the agility modifier 

of the heavier armors. Leather armor has  -1 modifier to agility, Chain 

has -2, Plate has -3, etc... This affects your fighting in the most 

realistic way, by lowering your initiative. In addition, if you play 

the encumburance rules, the heavier armors which weigh more take even more

off your agility unless you have the extra strength to deal with it.

This also makes sense because if you are strong enough, you can beat the 

effects of heavy armor.

Just my two cents, everybody let me know what you think.

Preston 

--------- Original Message ---------

DATE: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 20:50:46

From: hollywood314@juno.com

To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Cc:

Since there seems to be a few people still lurking out there, I'll throw this question out there for some input:  Should there be an armor skill?  I've been thinking about it and it doesn't make sense that there isn't.  It would seem to me that the different types of armor are as individual as the different types of weapons.  I wouldn't expect someone who is used to fighting in leather armor to be able to put on chainmail or plate and still fight the same, just as I wouldn't expect someone who is used to fighting with an axe to be able to pick up a sword or spear and use it just as effectively.  In addition, I wouldn't expect an individual that has never worn armor to be able to put it on and fight effectively.  For instance, if I were to put armor on(assuming I could figure it out), I would have no idea how to move in it, let alone fight effectively.  I think each type of armor should be a skill with ranks.  What does anyone else think?

Stephen/Halphin

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!


To Post a message, send it to:   dq-rules@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

____________________________________________________________
Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
Login To Lycos Mail

Martin, apparently there is some version of Open Office for Mac OS X,
though it's not as full fledged as the Windows and Linux versions. See
http://www.openoffice.org for more details.

Of course, if I produce anything else for distribution, I'll make an MS
Office version, as OO can save in that format straight out of the box
also, but it might require some modification with an actual MS Office
program. I just thought that as long as I'm converting stuff for my own
use, I might as well do a favor for anyone else who is interested. :-)

Edi

***************

Martin Gallo wrote:

>I am not sure I can open Open Office documents but I certainly
>understand your pain.
>
>Marty in Mac land.
>
>
>

Like Preston said, a separate skill really doesnt seem necessary if you
use the encumbrance rules. Just using chain mail, sword and shield is
going to drop the agility of an average human character by something
like 4 to 6 points because of the weight unless their strength is
somewhere in the 22+ range, something my brother noticed to his chagrin.
The weight of just weapons and armor stacks up *fast*.

Of course, fighting effectively in armor requires *some* training, so I
guess you could give an additional penalty for characters who haven't
practiced. I guess a week or two of practice per armor type would be
sufficient to remove the "non-proficiency penalty", but you'd still have
to deal with the weight. Someone in plate armor is going to be severely
penalized enough by that that they don't need any other handicaps on top
of it. The Armor skill only makes sense if you're ignoring encumbrance
for armor worn and weapons wielded, in which case it would work.

Edi

*************************

hollywood314@juno.com wrote:

>Since there seems to be a few people still lurking out there, I'll throw this question out there for some input: Should there be an armor skill? I've been thinking about it and it doesn't make sense that there isn't. It would seem to me that the different types of armor are as individual as the different types of weapons. I wouldn't expect someone who is used to fighting in leather armor to be able to put on chainmail or plate and still fight the same, just as I wouldn't expect someone who is used to fighting with an axe to be able to pick up a sword or spear and use it just as effectively. In addition, I wouldn't expect an individual that has never worn armor to be able to put it on and fight effectively. For instance, if I were to put armor on(assuming I could figure it out), I would have no idea how to move in it, let alone fight effectively. I think each type of armor should be a skill with ranks. What does anyone else think?
>
>Stephen/Halphin
>
>

Thanks for the tip.

I know a version exists for Mac users, but I am not using it. I have
other software that handles my meager needs quite well. I did not
express that part of the situation very well. My apologies.

>Martin, apparently there is some version of Open Office for Mac OS X,
>though it's not as full fledged as the Windows and Linux versions. See
>http://www.openoffice.org for more details.
>
>Of course, if I produce anything else for distribution, I'll make an MS
>Office version, as OO can save in that format straight out of the box
>also, but it might require some modification with an actual MS Office
>program. I just thought that as long as I'm converting stuff for my own
>use, I might as well do a favor for anyone else who is interested. :-)
>
>Edi
>
>***************
>
>Martin Gallo wrote:
>
>>I am not sure I can open Open Office documents but I certainly
>>understand your pain.
>>
>>Marty in Mac land.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--


"If you haven't got your health, at least you have something to talk about."

"They say that everything happens for a reason. I am just tired of
that reason being to make me unhappy or embarrassed."

"You can't make a baby in a month using nine women! But it sounds
like it would be fun to try."

It might be easier to just impose a PS penalty for characters who do
not exercise and/or train regularly. Much more realistic.

>Like Preston said, a separate skill really doesnt seem necessary if you
>use the encumbrance rules. Just using chain mail, sword and shield is
>going to drop the agility of an average human character by something
>like 4 to 6 points because of the weight unless their strength is
>somewhere in the 22+ range, something my brother noticed to his chagrin.
>The weight of just weapons and armor stacks up *fast*.
>
>Of course, fighting effectively in armor requires *some* training, so I
>guess you could give an additional penalty for characters who haven't
>practiced. I guess a week or two of practice per armor type would be
>sufficient to remove the "non-proficiency penalty", but you'd still have
>to deal with the weight. Someone in plate armor is going to be severely
>penalized enough by that that they don't need any other handicaps on top
>of it. The Armor skill only makes sense if you're ignoring encumbrance
>for armor worn and weapons wielded, in which case it would work.
>
>Edi
>
>*************************
>
>hollywood314@juno.com wrote:
>
>>Since there seems to be a few people still lurking out there, I'll
>>throw this question out there for some input: Should there be an
>>armor skill? I've been thinking about it and it doesn't make sense
>>that there isn't. It would seem to me that the different types of
>>armor are as individual as the different types of weapons. I
>>wouldn't expect someone who is used to fighting in leather armor to
>>be able to put on chainmail or plate and still fight the same, just
>>as I wouldn't expect someone who is used to fighting with an axe to
>>be able to pick up a sword or spear and use it just as effectively.
>>In addition, I wouldn't expect an individual that has never worn
>>armor to be able to put it on and fight effectively. For instance,
>>if I were to put armor on(assuming I could figure it out), I would
>>have no idea how to move in it, let alone fight effectively. I
>>think each type of armor should be a skill with ranks. What does
>>anyone else think?
>>
>>Stephen/Halphin
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--


"If you haven't got your health, at least you have something to talk about."

"They say that everything happens for a reason. I am just tired of
that reason being to make me unhappy or embarrassed."

"You can't make a baby in a month using nine women! But it sounds
like it would be fun to try."

> Martin, apparently there is some version of Open Office for Mac OS X,
> though it's not as full fledged as the Windows and Linux
> versions. See
> http://www.openoffice.org for more details.
>

It works now that we have an XWindows server. I've experimented a little, but prefer to stick with AppleWorks. I would say that you could just make everything a PDF, but I guess the peecee end of the universe doesn't have a "Save as PDF" button in their print dialogue... :)

Cheers,
Ron

> Of course, fighting effectively in armor requires *some*
> training, so I
> guess you could give an additional penalty for characters who haven't
> practiced. I guess a week or two of practice per armor type would be
> sufficient to remove the "non-proficiency penalty", but you'd
> still have
> to deal with the weight. Someone in plate armor is going to
> be severely
> penalized enough by that that they don't need any other
> handicaps on top
> of it. The Armor skill only makes sense if you're ignoring
> encumbrance
> for armor worn and weapons wielded, in which case it would work.

I've been watching this and thought I'd thrown in my two drachmas. The way I'm seeing it is that the skill is more of an "armour familiarity" skill that represents having worn and fought in the armour before. Instead of using a skill, it could just be represented by a penalty that gradually tapers off as the individual uses the armour from day to day. A version of this has already been mentioned, I believe. However, I don't believe that the penalties already present represent any sort of familiarity with using any given type of armour. Certainly, the cloth and leather types that are just basically heavy clothing would not really count for this, but the more intricate types of banded, chain or plate armours would. Just because a character is strong and fast enough to wear armour without penalty does not mean that they're used to using it correctly. In lieu of a skill, I think the game mechanics would be better served with a decreasing penalty for using "unfamiliar" armour.

Cheers,
Ron

I'm compiling a comprehensive weapons and armor chart from all sources I
can lay my hands on, and this issue came up when looking at the 1st edition:

In 1st Edition shields are listed as having a Prot rating, but no
defense (it reads Defense rating, but explicitly states shields absorb
damage like armor). It'd make sense for shields to have a protection
rating (in addition to the def rating they now have in 2nd/3rd Edi),
since when a character avoids being hit and the opponent's to-hit roll
is more than his modified SC, *but* less than his SC if you disregard
shield, the blow obviously hit the shield, and there's a chance the
shield might be damaged, and in some cases damage might seep through
(not normally, but when you just took a hit from that storm giant's axe,
it sure will feel more than just a simple tap...) Maybe the
shield-bearer should lose a point or two of fatigue, or have reduced MD
for a few pulses, or *something*, and if the damage dealt was great
enough (compared to the shield's prot rating) and the attacker satisfied
some minimum strength requirement (e.g. PS of 21 or greater or
something), the shield might actually be rendered useless and/or there
might be more damage in addition to or instead of the shield breaking.

I haven't worked this idea through, I'm just typing some rough
suggestions as they occur to me. Would greatly appreciate input.

Edi

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:45:19 +0300, Esko Halttunen
<esko.halttunen@luukku.com> wrote:

>In 1st Edition shields are listed as having a Prot rating, but no
>defense (it reads Defense rating, but explicitly states shields absorb
>damage like armor). It'd make sense for shields to have a protection
>rating (in addition to the def rating they now have in 2nd/3rd Edi),
>since when a character avoids being hit and the opponent's to-hit roll
>is more than his modified SC, *but* less than his SC if you disregard
>shield, the blow obviously hit the shield, and there's a chance the
>shield might be damaged, and in some cases damage might seep through
>(not normally, but when you just took a hit from that storm giant's axe,
>it sure will feel more than just a simple tap...) Maybe the
>shield-bearer should lose a point or two of fatigue, or have reduced MD
>for a few pulses, or *something*, and if the damage dealt was great
>enough (compared to the shield's prot rating) and the attacker satisfied
>some minimum strength requirement (e.g. PS of 21 or greater or
>something), the shield might actually be rendered useless and/or there
>might be more damage in addition to or instead of the shield breaking.
>
>I haven't worked this idea through, I'm just typing some rough
>suggestions as they occur to me. Would greatly appreciate input.

Way too complicated for my tastes.

I like the 2nd edition treatment of shields just fine.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"Make it stop! MAKE IT STOP!!"
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On second thought, yeah, it is. It was late and I was pretty tired when I typed that, after a crapload of other stuff that had my head exploding. So just forget it everyone. Shield prot rating would be appropriate in about one instance, and that's being hit from behind when you have the shield slung on your back, so I think we can safely disregard this whole topic. Sorry to have bothered you.

Edi


Bruce Probst wrote:

>
> Way too complicated for my tastes.
>
> I like the 2nd edition treatment of shields just fine.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
> Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
> "Make it stop! MAKE IT STOP!!"
> ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

I just started a discussion forum at QuickTopic for our topic
"What does DQ need?". To join in (or just to read) use your web
browser to go to:

http://www.quicktopic.com/22/H/UXVxTqduPDm6f
You don't have to register or sign in, and you can choose to
receive email for newly posted messages -- just click the
Subscribe button when you get there.
QuickTopic is a free, extremely easy discussion space. You can
start your own topic or document review in about 20 seconds by
visiting:
http://www.quicktopic.com/

dose anyone have a copy of dq 2nd. mine is very old and falling apart.
thanks
netguru@safelink.net

Check eBay. I saw one on there today and the bid was still under $10.

Good luck!
Jim

mikie wrote:

> dose anyone have a copy of dq 2nd. mine is very old and falling apart.
> thanks
> netguru@safelink.net
>
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

--
"It's better to light one candle
than to curse the darkness."
-Chinese Proverb and The Motto of the Christophers
http://www.christophers.org

mikie writes:

> dose anyone have a copy of dq 2nd. mine is very old and
> falling apart. thanks

Hmmm ... Ellipsis Publishing's DQ Resource page no longer has a
link to their transcript of the DQ2ed rules. I wonder if this
means they're (a) in the middle of producing another revision, or
(b) they've received a firm note from a lawyer, and have decided
to remove the file.


--
Viktor Haag : Software & Information Design : Research In Motion
+--+
Disclaimer mandated by employer: "This transmission may contain
confidential or privileged material. Any use of this information
by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
have received this transmission in error, please immediately
reply to the sender and delete this information from your
system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this
transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may
be unlawful."

Hi all,

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, Viktor Haag <vhaag@r...> wrote:
> mikie writes:
> > dose anyone have a copy of dq 2nd. mine is very old and
> > falling apart. thanks
>
> Hmmm ... Ellipsis Publishing's DQ Resource page no longer has a
> link to their transcript of the DQ2ed rules. I wonder if this
> means they're (a) in the middle of producing another revision, or
> (b) they've received a firm note from a lawyer, and have decided
> to remove the file.
>

Actually, neither and both. *grin*

a) Yes, I have another revision.
b) No. Besides, there are already plenty of "original" PDF scans in
the dragonquest files Yahoo group.

As for the former, I'm getting ready for a server shift in the near
future, so I've had a tidy up of larger files to make the shift
easier. Probably another month before I repost.

Heck, I didn't realise anyone was still interested in my little
revisions?

Kind regards, JAMES

>
> Heck, I didn't realise anyone was still interested in my little
> revisions?
>

Keep up the good work, James! You should drop us a line when you post revisions and keep us abreast of server changes, etc.

Cheers,
Ron

Thanks Ron,

I'll make a point of doing that a bit better in the future.

Take care, JAMES

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Copley, Ron" <rcopley@h...> wrote:
> >
> > Heck, I didn't realise anyone was still interested in my little
> > revisions?
> >
>
> Keep up the good work, James! You should drop us a line when you
post revisions and keep us abreast of server changes, etc.
>
> Cheers,
> Ron

Hi all,

Version 2.08a is back online at:

http://ellipsis.net.nz/dragonquest

I'm working to get a more recent version up, but time is working
against me at the moment.

Regos, JAMES


--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "James Flowers" <jflowers1965@y...>
wrote:

> Thanks Ron,
>
> I'll make a point of doing that a bit better in the future.
>
> Take care, JAMES
>
>
> --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Copley, Ron" <rcopley@h...>

wrote:

> > >
> > > Heck, I didn't realise anyone was still interested in my

little

> > > revisions?
> > >
> >
> > Keep up the good work, James! You should drop us a line when you
> post revisions and keep us abreast of server changes, etc.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ron

Hi everyone,

sorry for cross-posting

The latest draft of my rules I promiced sometime this week is in the
files section of the cathedral news group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DragonQuestCathedral/. Its called
Spirits and Religion V1.1.pdf

The next draft will probably include ideas from John's priest skill,
but it may take some time :--)

To encourage those who haven't read it here's the contents from the
doc

X. Spirits
98. Physical World Spirits
99. Boundary Sprits
100. Other Plane Spirits
101. Faerie
102. Ego Combat
103. The College of Shamanism
104. The College of Fey Magics
XI. Religion
105. Magical Religions
106. Priests of Magical Religions
107. Religious Magic
108. Graeco-Roman Pantheon
109. Religions of the Powers of Light
110. Cleric of the Powers of Light

There is a changes document with it so you can see what's been
changed from version 1.0

Enjoy

David

Hullo, Pat,

Yes, I know the original message that you posted was back in
January, and there were probably some other responses to this, but I
thought I'd add my 2 cf worth...

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, William Hough <houghpt@y...> wrote:

> Has anyone had fun (short-lived or not) playing a Rune
> Mage? What are they like? Are they unbalancing to a
> campaign? Just recently rolled up a BUC (back-up
> character) and am thinking about trying this path.

As a matter of fact, I've had two players play Rune Mages (from
the actual Arcane Wisdom material, not any of the later stuff), and
I've got an NPC Rune Mage in one of the current groups now. I don't
consider them to be all that unbalancing to the campaign because they
are one of the few Colleges of Magic that depend on materials to cast
spells (ie., the runesticks). The types of wood that you make
available as GM in a given area or that you decide exist in the game
world can have an influence on the nature of how the Rune Mage
functions, simply because by the very nature of the spell cast
modifiers that various woods give (not to mention the use of yew for
damage in certain effects) you influence the manner in which the Rune
Mage is going to go about using his or her spells and rituals.

The Rune Mage can be a character who is going to carry an awful
lot of physical weight, if you keep track of that for encumbrance
purposes, but more to the point, one finds that players playing Rune
Mages keep track of their sticks meticulously (because they have to),
and a large belt pouch for storing runesticks in an organised fashion
is useful in combat. :)

As for what they are like, well... Rune Mages owe a lot of their
nature and basis to the many forms of shamanism that exist in the
world (although their power is based more on the symbols of power
than it is on the spirits that surround us), but differs from
shamanism in that they have a somewhat more "materialistic" view of
things - as well they should, since they base their power on
runesticks, runestaffs, and the like. They tend to be down-to-earth,
understand the nature of balance in the world, and appreciate the
power that they wield through the runesticks. If the College has a
real weakness, it's that there are only three totem spirits described
for the game, and the College lacks additional Totem Spirits for the
Rune Mage to call on (since they would function well under the Summon
Totem Spirits spell), but I've never had time to do more work on this
sort of thing for the game. What makes the Rune Mage so interesting
is that they are highly depended on physical materials to cast their
spells, but that has a deficit, since it takes time to fashion these
runesticks - so while other characters are practicing their skills
and other spells and the like, the Rune Mage is whittling away and
conducting rituals and the whole bit. That means that Rune Mages
tend to have a bit more "focus" to their lives. :)

Hope this helps. :)

JohnK

Say. I've been using that online version of the book extensively for a little project of my own. Since I gave away my original book to my old group when I moved out of state, it has been my only available resource. Anyhow, something that has been slowing down some of my work is that fact that the distibution version (2.08a) you have out doesn't have the copy permissions on. This means that whenever I'm making my own edits of colleges, or want to print out a modified weapons table, I have to retype all of the info, kinda repedative. If possible, could you release a version that allows copying?

--- "James Flowers" <jflowers1965@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>Version 2.08a is back online at:
>
>http://ellipsis.net.nz/dragonquest
>
>I'm working to get a more recent version up, but time is working
>against me at the moment.
>
>Regos, JAMES
>
>
>--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "James Flowers" <jflowers1965@y...>
>wrote:
>> Thanks Ron,
>>
>> I'll make a point of doing that a bit better in the future.
>>
>> Take care, JAMES
>>
>>
>> --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Copley, Ron" <rcopley@h...>
>wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Heck, I didn't realise anyone was still interested in my
>little
>> > > revisions?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Keep up the good work, James! You should drop us a line when you
>> post revisions and keep us abreast of server changes, etc.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Ron
>
>
>
>To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

_____________________________________________________________
Sluggy.Net: The Sluggy Freelance Community!

Hullo, Rodger,

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, Rodger Thorm
<dqn@e...> wrote:

> Armor skill? No, you mean armorer skill,

right?...

Nope, he meant a skill for wearing
armour, not one for repairing it...

> No, you do mean armor skill. That's

ridic...

>
> Hmmm...

...and it does make you think, doesn't it?
<g>

> I think that 'skill' is probably more than

what you want to do. How involved of a
mechanic would you have for this? Could it
be a simple proficiency, like the Adventure
Abilities (115) in "Poor Brendan's Almanac",
where you either have it or you don't, rather
than something involving ranks?

Actually, one of the things that I did for
this was come up with a solution for this
when dealing with the fighting types of
characters. My two versions of the Knight
and Warrior skills include a modification for
the wearing of armour penalties, since it
seems to be that these two character types
would "adapt" (if that's the right term) to
wearing the armour and all. I suppose one
could make it a minor skill, but I don't
personally think that the Ranger or Merchant
or Assassin who has chosen to wear a form of
armour will get used to the penalty and not
suffer it accordingly. Just my take, of
course. :)

JohnK

Speaking of Rune Mages...has anyone modified this College or added new spells to it? I've always wanted to, but haven't gotten around to it. There is a lot of potential there.

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

hollywood314@juno.com wrote:

> Speaking of Rune Mages...has anyone modified this College or added
> new spells to it? I've always wanted to, but haven't gotten around
> to it. There is a lot of potential there.
>

Well, I've never actually done it, but... I always thought it would be
interesting to have the "runes" written as calligraphy, like kanji, on
special paper with special ink. It's a more Far Eastern feel that I
thought would be fun to try out.

Cheers!
Jim

--
"It's better to light one candle
than to curse the darkness."
-Chinese Proverb and The Motto of the Christophers
http://www.christophers.org

Hullo, hollywood314,

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:56:12 GMT, hollywood314@juno.com wrote:

>Speaking of Rune Mages...has anyone modified this College
>or added new spells to it? I've always wanted to, but haven't
>gotten around to it. There is a lot of potential there.

Yes, there is a lot of potential for the College. I haven't
modified the Rune Magics stuff, so much as I've added a bit to it.
Always want to add material for some new totem spirits, but haven't
gotten around to that, but I've added a few new spells and rituals to
the College that I felt were suitable, created using the AW rules.

.....Sleep (n.): The fleeting moment just before the alarm goes off.

JohnK
e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane

John,

Have you ever read "The Death Gate Cycle" by Weis and Hickman? If not, there is a race of beings that have runes tatooed on their skin. The individual recites a rune specific chant while tracing the specific rune to activate that power. I've always thought this would be a great adaption for DQ. I've always wanted to made that adaption but haven't ever gotten up the energy.

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

I'm trying to catch up on all of the posts on this topic. Unfortunately, I'm only a third of the way through. But, I like where it is going so far. I'm very eager to see what you have come up with. Thanks for the update.

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Hullo, hollywod314,

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 13:46:20 GMT, hollywood314@juno.com wrote:

>Have you ever read "The Death Gate Cycle" by Weis and
>Hickman?

Yes, I've read the first three of the books, but lost interest in
them afterwards.

>If not, there is a race of beings that have runes tatooed on their skin.
>The individual recites a rune specific chant while tracing the specific
>rune to activate that power. I've always thought this would be a great
>adaption for DQ. I've always wanted to made that adaption but haven't
>ever gotten up the energy.

Well, I guess now would be a good time, huh? <g>

....."The spell "*wasn't* supposed to turn you a bright blue, Ravi. At least I got the
part about breathing water right." - Amaria, Adept of Water Magics

JohnK
e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane

A while ago (2 years), via email, I recieved an updated version of the DragonQuest Ultimate Character Sheet from a person who did an extensive amount of work with the spells bit of the sheet and made spells autocalculate like they should. Unfortuntally at that time I was not ready to see it published for one very annoying reason., the person never left their name. I am now overhauling the character sheet once again, and would love to include the name of the person who put countless hours into the spells section. You have any clue who sent me their copy of DQUCS "6.2" please tell me so I can give them proper credit. I'd hate to spend hours simply redoing what they have done just because I don't know the name.

_____________________________________________________________
Sluggy.Net: The Sluggy Freelance Community!

Hello everyone:

I am new to this group. I started playing DQ about a year ago in
November. Prior to this I played AD&D, Champions...etc. I really
like playing DQ and the group I play with. They were very welcoming
and patient with my as I got the hang of the rules. They are a great
bunch. I have a question concerning missle weapon damage. It says
in the rules: when a character takes a hit from an arrow his/her AG is
reduced by 3 points. If the chacter gets hit by 2 arrows is her/his AG
reduced by 6 points...?

Hello everyone:

I am new to this group.  I started playing DQ about a year ago in
November.  Prior to this I played AD&D, Champions...etc.  I really
like playing DQ and the group I play with. They were very welcoming
and patient with my as I got the hang of the rules.  They are a great
bunch.   I have a question concerning missle weapon damage.  It says
in the rules: when a character takes a hit from an arrow his/her AG is
reduced by 3 points. If the chacter gets hit by 2 arrows is her/his AG
reduced by 6 points...?



To Post a message, send it to:   dq-rules@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

So for example, if you were hit with an arrow, but your armor absorbed
the damage, there would be no AG loss.

Juanc
On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 04:26 PM,
gmartinez@medioambiente.gov.ar wrote:

> Welcome so.!
>  
> You're right. If a "human side creature", recibed 2 misils, his/her Ag
> is reduced in 6.
>  
> If a "human side creature", recived a Javelin or a Spear, his/her AG
> si reduced in 5 by each efectic hit. An efective hit means, if that
> attach produce damage.
>  
> Gabriel.
>  
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: lukeon58 [mailto:lukeon58@yahoo.com]
> Enviado el: Jueves, 18 de Septiembre de 2003 05:32 p.m.
> Para: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
> Asunto: [dq-rules] New to this group
>
> Hello everyone:
>
> I am new to this group.  I started playing DQ about a year ago in
> November.  Prior to this I played AD&D, Champions...etc.  I really
> like playing DQ and the group I play with. They were very welcoming
> and patient with my as I got the hang of the rules.  They are a great
> bunch.   I have a question concerning missle weapon damage.  It says
> in the rules: when a character takes a hit from an arrow his/her AG is
> reduced by 3 points. If the chacter gets hit by 2 arrows is her/his AG
> reduced by 6 points...?
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   dq-rules@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>

<image.tiff>

>
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   dq-rules@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

So for example, if you were hit with an arrow, but your armor absorbed the damage, there would be no AG loss.

Juanc

On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 04:26 PM, gmartinez@medioambiente.gov.ar wrote:

Welcome so.!

You're right. If a "human side creature", recibed 2 misils, his/her Ag is reduced in 6.

If a "human side creature", recived a Javelin or a Spear, his/her AG si reduced in 5 by each efectic hit. An efective hit means, if that attach produce damage.

Gabriel.

-----Mensaje original-----

De: lukeon58 [mailto:lukeon58@yahoo.com]

Enviado el: Jueves, 18 de Septiembre de 2003 05:32 p.m.

Para: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Asunto: [dq-rules] New to this group

Hello everyone:

I am new to this group.  I started playing DQ about a year ago in

November.  Prior to this I played AD&D, Champions...etc.  I really

like playing DQ and the group I play with. They were very welcoming

and patient with my as I got the hang of the rules.  They are a great

bunch.   I have a question concerning missle weapon damage.  It says

in the rules: when a character takes a hit from an arrow his/her AG is

reduced by 3 points. If the chacter gets hit by 2 arrows is her/his AG

reduced by 6 points...?

To Post a message, send it to:   dq-rules@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>

To Post a message, send it to:   dq-rules@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Thank you for your answers on the affects of arrow on AG.

Thank you for your answers on the affects of arrow on AG.



To Post a message, send it to:   dq-rules@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the dq-rules
group.

File : /documents/DQ-Weapons_Armor_&_Shields.zip
Uploaded by : esko_halttunen <esko.halttunen@luukku.com>
Description : Compiled Weapons Armor and Shields Table for DQ

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/files/documents/DQ-Weapons_Armor_%26_Shields.zip

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

esko_halttunen <esko.halttunen@luukku.com>

Hello, all.

Some of you may remember me mentioning on DQN-list a project I had going
a few months back, one to compile all weapons, armor and shields from
the various editions of DQ and a couple of fan-made supplements such as
the PBA into one comprehensive listing. Well, that's done, and uploaded
to the files section of the DQ-Rules group. Grab a copy, read it through
and then pick it apart. The document is in MS Word, Open Office and
plain text format. Plain text files containing tables are in duplicate,
because my chosen text edit program, Crimson Editor, just does not agree
with Wordpad on table formatting, they both screw up column alignment in
a file optimized for the other, so there are two versions.

Besides the actual document (referred to as CWT, short for Compiled
Weapons Table), there is a readme file and another text file with a
detailed breakdown of what has changed from 2E (or 1E) and the reasons why.

The weapons list is expanded from what it was, there is a large section
on oriental weapons besides the new additions to the basic list, and
some rules (e.g. crossbows) have been heavily revamped so that they are
actually useful now. Armor list is twice as long as it used to be, with
old armors from 1E making a comeback and completely new armor types
introduced. Shield list is relatively intact, but there are a lot more
defensive weapons now, not just the main gauche, and there are optional
rules for martial arts.

I'd appreciate feedback on this and if you find any typos, please report
them so I can correct them.

Cheers,
Edi

I'm replying in this news group, if there's lots of replies in the
other list I'll repost.

First let me congratulate you on the work you've put in. I do have
some points however. This is on the Weapons section

It would be nice to have a length figure, useful for deciding if there
is enough room to maneuver a weapon and deciding reach

David

Armour

Cloth is a strong armour and has been used as such. The Greek hoplite
often used layers of linen glued together to make a strong Armour to
protect the body (Phillip of Macedon's grave contained an iron version
of this defense). Some medieval soldiers wore their padding over
their chain mail. It was far more effective at deflecting arrows than
chain mail. Chain mail tended to hold the point and allow the arrow to
penetrate the armour

Don't be so dismissive of hide armour. During the English Civil War
(mid 17th century) the soldiary wore a "Buff coat" This was a coat
made of raindeer hide and was (by the reports) capable of stopping all
but the strongest sword cut. These things were thick, the one I have
seen (Glasgow Kelvingrove Museaum) was about 5mm of solid hide, but it
did have full length sleaves so must have still been reasonably flexible

Bridandine is metal plates sandwiched between layers of cloth/leather
and riveted to both of these layers. A fine example in the Royal
Armouries at Leeds has a facing of red velvet with the heads of the
rivets gilded where they go through this layer. Some excellent
examples were dug up at Visby in Denmark, the weather was hot so the
bodies were buried before the armour was stripped. This site has also
provided insights to the Medieval styles of combat by the marks left
on their skeletons and Armour (well worth reading).

Lamellar. The metal plates were wired together and did not need a
backing (it still needed padding). This made a defense stronger than
scale (there was no direction from which penetration was easy), but
less flexible, but still more flexible than plate

What are your rules on alternative materials for the construction of
these armours?

David

Shields

I only have a problem with tower shields. I think of a tower shield
as something that covers the entire body and is essentially something
you shelter behind whilst reloading your crossbow (an example is a
parvase) Could you rename it scutum or large rectangular?

The legionary shields, your tower shield, (and the earlier shields
they were based on) I have seen are wood, just like the rest. There
are several preserved in deserts (the Fayum shield) or bogs (a large
oval Celtic shield); they're essentially plywood with a painted
leather covering.
This seams to have been the standard way the ancients made their
shields, the ply stopped the entire shield splitting along the grain
of the wood. Metal would have been either too heavy or too thin to
have been of use. There are a few metal shields found by
archaeologists, but in all cases they have been re-interpreted as ones
for ceremonial purposes or the wooden core they were actually built
around has rotted away

David

dbarrass_2000 wrote:

> I'm replying in this news group, if there's lots of replies in the
> other list I'll repost.
>
> First let me congratulate you on the work you've put in.

Thanks.

> I do have some points however. This is on the Weapons section
>
> It would be nice to have a length figure, useful for deciding if there
> is enough room to maneuver a weapon and deciding reach

I know you have the length listed for the weapons in your own weapons table, but I decided not to include that as a consideration because for the most part it does not matter on the DQ tactical display where one hex is 5 feet. It'd be necessary if your Repulse rules were used as standard (instead of applying the rule to just to polearms, which are substantially longer than most others and can be gripped variably to reach further than typical combat range).

Most swords can be assumed to be between two and three feet long, the larger ones between three and five feet, and polearms at six to seven feet and upwards. It's weapons like flail that are small in size but require a lot of clearance that are the tricky ones, but most GMs wouldn't need a definite length characteristic, I think, they can wing it case by case.

Edi

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

> Shields
>
> I only have a problem with tower shields. I think of a tower shield
> as something that covers the entire body and is essentially something
> you shelter behind whilst reloading your crossbow (an example is a
> parvase) Could you rename it scutum or large rectangular?

I suppose we could add a shield like that (which is basically a portable wall) as its own category, but how useful is that in a setting like this, since the action focuses on small group and individual combat rather than massive armies?

>
> The legionary shields, your tower shield, (and the earlier shields
> they were based on) I have seen are wood, just like the rest. There
> are several preserved in deserts (the Fayum shield) or bogs (a large
> oval Celtic shield); they're essentially plywood with a painted leather covering.

I know. I was a bit ambivalent about that, but the shields section really didn't get much of an overhaul, and I went with what the DQ 2E book said about that. I disagreed with it and agree with you, but it is easy enough to change later.

> This seams to have been the standard way the ancients made their
> shields, the ply stopped the entire shield splitting along the grain
> of the wood. Metal would have been either too heavy or too thin to
> have been of use. There are a few metal shields found by
> archaeologists, but in all cases they have been re-interpreted as ones
> for ceremonial purposes or the wooden core they were actually built
> around has rotted away

I know full metal shields would be damnably heavy. Layered wood, hide and metal (thin layer) have been used, afaik, at least that's what e.g. the Iliad describes for the ancient greeks. I'm not much of an expert on the material construction of shields, and I think the descriptions pretty much reflect this. Their purpose is to give some idea about what the things look like, not be a detailed treatise on the subject.

Edi

*************************

dbarrass_2000 wrote:

> Shields
>
> I only have a problem with tower shields. I think of a tower shield
> as something that covers the entire body and is essentially something
> you shelter behind whilst reloading your crossbow (an example is a
> parvase) Could you rename it scutum or large rectangular?
>
> The legionary shields, your tower shield, (and the earlier shields
> they were based on) I have seen are wood, just like the rest. There
> are several preserved in deserts (the Fayum shield) or bogs (a large
> oval Celtic shield); they're essentially plywood with a painted
> leather covering.
> This seams to have been the standard way the ancients made their
> shields, the ply stopped the entire shield splitting along the grain
> of the wood. Metal would have been either too heavy or too thin to
> have been of use. There are a few metal shields found by
> archaeologists, but in all cases they have been re-interpreted as ones
> for ceremonial purposes or the wooden core they were actually built
> around has rotted away
>
> David
>

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

> Armour
>
> Cloth is a strong armour and has been used as such. The Greek hoplite
> often used layers of linen glued together to make a strong Armour to
> protect the body (Phillip of Macedon's grave contained an iron version
> of this defense). Some medieval soldiers wore their padding over
> their chain mail. It was far more effective at deflecting arrows than
> chain mail. Chain mail tended to hold the point and allow the arrow to
> penetrate the armour

I'm not surprised. Such heavily layered cloth armor would, I think, be more like leather armor (or the listed soft leather), and the cloth/heavy furs line is the same as in the original DQ book, that's why it's there.

>
> Don't be so dismissive of hide armour. During the English Civil War
> (mid 17th century) the soldiary wore a "Buff coat" This was a coat
> made of raindeer hide and was (by the reports) capable of stopping all
> but the strongest sword cut. These things were thick, the one I have
> seen (Glasgow Kelvingrove Museaum) was about 5mm of solid hide, but it
> did have full length sleaves so must have still been reasonably flexible

I've tried on a leather cuirass (made by a friend's father who is a cobbler), and the thing was roughly 6 to 8 mm thick, and it'd have taken some serious hacking to get through that. My friends actually tested it, placed a block of wood inside the armor and took a full-strength stab with a sharp knife at it, and barely made a nick to it. The cuirass didn't weigh very much, certainly less than a comparable amount of hide, though it was a bit restrictive. A hide armor would not be quite as stiff due to lack of boiling (so the attached sleeves are viable), but it'd be heavy, and I don't think it's a bad implementation, the effectiveness is the same as leather armor. I suppose the description is a bit dismissive, but can be changed.

>
> Bridandine is metal plates sandwiched between layers of cloth/leather
> and riveted to both of these layers. A fine example in the Royal
> Armouries at Leeds has a facing of red velvet with the heads of the
> rivets gilded where they go through this layer. Some excellent
> examples were dug up at Visby in Denmark, the weather was hot so the
> bodies were buried before the armour was stripped. This site has also
> provided insights to the Medieval styles of combat by the marks left
> on their skeletons and Armour (well worth reading).

I don't think my description of brigandine was that much off, was it?

>
> Lamellar. The metal plates were wired together and did not need a
> backing (it still needed padding). This made a defense stronger than
> scale (there was no direction from which penetration was easy), but
> less flexible, but still more flexible than plate

I'll check the description and amend it. I used the Palladium Books Compendium of Weapons, Armor and Castles as a source for armor (has some very good illustrations), so it might have some errors.

>
> What are your rules on alternative materials for the construction of
> these armours?

I didn't really think about that very much when writing up the list. I think assumed base material is iron or low quality steel. Obviously softer stuff like bronze would give 1 less protection and weigh less. How much is debatable, maybe 0.5 to 1 weight factor less, depending on material.

Using better materials (such as high quality steel) would give one more prot and also weigh a bit less (0.25 to 0.5), and when you bring in mithril and stuff like that, it's up to the GM to decide.

For leather & hide armors, I think taking the basic NA rating of whatever beast (e.g. chimaera) would be a good default starting point and figuring it from there.

Edi

*************************

dbarrass_2000 wrote:

> Armour
>
> Cloth is a strong armour and has been used as such. The Greek hoplite
> often used layers of linen glued together to make a strong Armour to
> protect the body (Phillip of Macedon's grave contained an iron version
> of this defense). Some medieval soldiers wore their padding over
> their chain mail. It was far more effective at deflecting arrows than
> chain mail. Chain mail tended to hold the point and allow the arrow to
> penetrate the armour
>
> Don't be so dismissive of hide armour. During the English Civil War
> (mid 17th century) the soldiary wore a "Buff coat" This was a coat
> made of raindeer hide and was (by the reports) capable of stopping all
> but the strongest sword cut. These things were thick, the one I have
> seen (Glasgow Kelvingrove Museaum) was about 5mm of solid hide, but it
> did have full length sleaves so must have still been reasonably
> flexible
>
> Bridandine is metal plates sandwiched between layers of cloth/leather
> and riveted to both of these layers. A fine example in the Royal
> Armouries at Leeds has a facing of red velvet with the heads of the
> rivets gilded where they go through this layer. Some excellent
> examples were dug up at Visby in Denmark, the weather was hot so the
> bodies were buried before the armour was stripped. This site has also
> provided insights to the Medieval styles of combat by the marks left
> on their skeletons and Armour (well worth reading).
>
> Lamellar. The metal plates were wired together and did not need a
> backing (it still needed padding). This made a defense stronger than
> scale (there was no direction from which penetration was easy), but
> less flexible, but still more flexible than plate
>
> What are your rules on alternative materials for the construction of
> these armours?
>
> David

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

>
> I suppose we could add a shield like that (which is basically a

portable wall) as its own category, but how useful is that in a
setting like this, since the action focuses on small group and
individual combat rather than massive armies?

>

I wasn't sugesting you add it. I think, like you, it doesn't make
sense in combat, its more a portable terrain feature :--). I was only
querying the name

David

> > Bridandine is metal plates sandwiched between layers of cloth/leather
> > and riveted to both of these layers. A fine example in the Royal
> > Armouries at Leeds has a facing of red velvet with the heads of the
> > rivets gilded where they go through this layer. Some excellent
> > examples were dug up at Visby in Denmark, the weather was hot so the
> > bodies were buried before the armour was stripped. This site has also
> > provided insights to the Medieval styles of combat by the marks left
> > on their skeletons and Armour (well worth reading).
>
> I don't think my description of brigandine was that much off, was it?

OK I've re-read it, yes they are compattable

> > Lamellar. The metal plates were wired together and did not need a
> > backing (it still needed padding). This made a defense stronger than
> > scale (there was no direction from which penetration was easy), but
> > less flexible, but still more flexible than plate
>
> I'll check the description and amend it. I used the Palladium Books

Compendium of Weapons, Armor and Castles as a source for armor (has
some very good illustrations), so it might have some errors.

I have it also, and I've spotted things I disagree with

> > What are your rules on alternative materials for the construction of
> > these armours?
>
> I didn't really think about that very much when writing up the list.

I think assumed base material is iron or low quality steel. Obviously
softer stuff like bronze would give 1 less protection and weigh less.
How much is debatable, maybe 0.5 to 1 weight factor less, depending on
material.

If a material isn't as strong you can make it thicker, so I would say
either extra weight or less protection for things like bronze (its
simpler), if its bone, horn etc you could increase wieght and reduce
protection.

I have seen (in a book) lammellar armour made of leather, and cuir
bouli (leather bioled in wax) could be seen as plate made of hardened
leather (is this leather what you mean by leather)?

> Using better materials (such as high quality steel) would give one

more prot and also weigh a bit less (0.25 to 0.5), and when you bring
in mithril and stuff like that, it's up to the GM to decide.

Similarly I'd do one, not both

> For leather & hide armors, I think taking the basic NA rating of

whatever beast (e.g. chimaera) would be a good default starting point
and figuring it from there.

I once worked out it looses 50% of its streangth, based on the natural
armour of a cow for someone who wanted dragonskin armour

>
> Edi

David

--- Esko Halttunen <esko.halttunen@luukku.com> wrote:

> I didn't really think about that very much when
> writing up the list. I think assumed base material
> is iron or low quality steel. Obviously softer stuff
> like bronze would give 1 less protection and weigh
> less. How much is debatable, maybe 0.5 to 1 weight
> factor less, depending on material.

I looked up some densities for bronze and steel.
They're pretty close (bronze ~ 7.4-8.9 g/cm3, steel ~
7.5 ~ 8.0 g/cm3). So, I'd say same weight, less
protection.

Mort

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree