I'd like something confirmed for me please.

Somehow, somewhere, I picked up the impression that natural armours also 
subtracted armour points from Endurance blows. Whether or not it 
materialized in my mind or was picked up from someone else I don't know but 
there's no evidence of such a statement in the rulebook.

Hence I can only conclude that I have been mistaken and that the only 
definition of 'Natural Armour' is armour that occurs naturally to  the 
entity i.e. the armour the entity was born with. In all other respects it 
functions the same as ordinary armour - only protecting against Fatigue blows.

Thanks,

Keith.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Historically, some people have played it one way, some have played it
another. GMs tend to evolve personal viewpoints, as do those players with
characters with natural armour. This has led to a certain amount of
confusion and variation.

Personally, I play that Natural Armour is simply armour which is on all the
time and stacks with most other armour - this seems sufficient bonus for
those who claim natural armour has to be better. Almost all animals have
natural armour (3 points seems typical for large herbivores), and it seems
odd that all these creatures would have endurance protection.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Smith [mailto:phaeton@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 25 February 2002 7:37 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Natural armour


I'd like something confirmed for me please.

Somehow, somewhere, I picked up the impression that natural armours also 
subtracted armour points from Endurance blows. Whether or not it 
materialized in my mind or was picked up from someone else I don't know but 
there's no evidence of such a statement in the rulebook.

Hence I can only conclude that I have been mistaken and that the only 
definition of 'Natural Armour' is armour that occurs naturally to  the 
entity i.e. the armour the entity was born with. In all other respects it 
functions the same as ordinary armour - only protecting against Fatigue
blows.

Thanks,

Keith.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

In my experience it has always been played that Natural Armour counts off
Endurance blows as well as normal blows.
The theory is that an Endurance blow finds the gaps in your armour/defence
and delivers lethal damage.  Natural Armour doesn't have gaps therefore it
always provides protection.

This is the way I have seen this GM'd and played.  For the most part it's
irrelevant as very few player characters have natural armour (though the
number is gradually increasing) and those that do usually have a write-up
that explicitly states how it works.

If it does offer EN protection then it means those cows, pigs, and other
dangerous creatures take a bit longer to kill.  However it also means that
the dragon is impossible to kill unless you have much bigger numbers on your
weapon than they do on their armour.  In fantasy tradition the dragon is
usually slain by finding the gap in its armour - not possible if its armour
protects against all damage.

I quite like the idea someone came up with a number of years ago which was
that only Spec Grev blows ignored all armour.  Endurance blows ignore
external armour.  FT blows apply all armour.
I think at the time Adventurer was being built and the idea got incorporated
into that and then never made it back to that standard rules.

I'd be interested in reviving the idea but I think it would alter the
balance of combat too much.



-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 25 February 2002 8:57 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Natural armour


Historically, some people have played it one way, some have played it
another. GMs tend to evolve personal viewpoints, as do those players with
characters with natural armour. This has led to a certain amount of
confusion and variation.

Personally, I play that Natural Armour is simply armour which is on all the
time and stacks with most other armour - this seems sufficient bonus for
those who claim natural armour has to be better. Almost all animals have
natural armour (3 points seems typical for large herbivores), and it seems
odd that all these creatures would have endurance protection.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Smith [mailto:phaeton@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 25 February 2002 7:37 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Natural armour


I'd like something confirmed for me please.

Somehow, somewhere, I picked up the impression that natural armours also 
subtracted armour points from Endurance blows. Whether or not it 
materialized in my mind or was picked up from someone else I don't know but 
there's no evidence of such a statement in the rulebook.

Hence I can only conclude that I have been mistaken and that the only 
definition of 'Natural Armour' is armour that occurs naturally to  the 
entity i.e. the armour the entity was born with. In all other respects it 
functions the same as ordinary armour - only protecting against Fatigue
blows.

Thanks,

Keith.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> In my experience it has always been played that Natural Armour counts off
> Endurance blows as well as normal blows.
> The theory is that an Endurance blow finds the gaps in your armour/defence
> and delivers lethal damage.  Natural Armour doesn't have gaps therefore it
> always provides protection.

This has been my experiance also, both as a GM and as a player who for a
while had Natural Armour.

> If it does offer EN protection then it means those cows, pigs, and other
> dangerous creatures take a bit longer to kill.  However it also means that
> the dragon is impossible to kill unless you have much bigger
> numbers on your weapon than they do on their armour.

As it should be :-)

> In fantasy tradition the dragon is
> usually slain by finding the gap in its armour - not possible if
> its armour protects against all damage.

Instant death Spec Grev :-)

> I quite like the idea someone came up with a number of years ago which was
> that only Spec Grev blows ignored all armour.  Endurance blows ignore
> external armour.  FT blows apply all armour.
> I think at the time Adventurer was being built and the idea got
> incorporated into that and then never made it back to that standard rules.
>
> I'd be interested in reviving the idea but I think it would alter the
> balance of combat too much.

I don't see why there is much of a change. If people are playing that NA
protects against endurance damage then the only change is that Spec Grevs do
a little more damage against the occasional creature. I would have thought
the impact would be barely noticable.

Unless I am misunderstanding your point.

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Ooh OOh Pick Me!

I created a umm... flavourless, unbalanced uh thing that ahhh did
something...

Ok, I admit I lied - I can't back it up.

[Slinks away trying to find someone to take him seriously]

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Arona [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2002 9:39 p.m.

How many people consciously go out of their way to contribute an ability
that is lacking in flavour or balance, and that is impractical to implement?
Show of hands, please?


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> How many people consciously go out of their way to contribute an ability
> that is lacking in flavour or balance, and that is impractical to 
> implement?
> Show of hands, please?

Mandos tries to recall who did rewrite the character Gen.....

</tounge-in-cheek>

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

At 10:04 25/02/02 +1300, you wrote:
>In my experience it has always been played that Natural Armour counts off
>Endurance blows as well as normal blows.

Then your experience has been very different to mine. I've found that when 
I've played Starflower in her drake form, most GMs have expected me to 
subtract full damage off endurance blows, ignoring her natural armour.

>The theory is that an Endurance blow finds the gaps in your armour/defence
>and delivers lethal damage.  Natural Armour doesn't have gaps therefore it
>always provides protection.

Which is a moot point. Natural armour certainly is thinner in some regions 
than others - I'd give a giant turtle maybe 10 NA points on top - but only 
a point or two underneath.

I think Keith's main point is that it isn't specified in the rules - all we 
could find is a statement suggesting that an animal's fur, hide and scales 
provides armour which is called natural armour, with no hint that this 
might have any special properties.

Jacqui


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Flavourless gruel is ideal for the poor who should be grateful for what get from their betters -- or
those poor unfortunate whose systems can't take anything too sensational.  Perhaps DQ players fall
into one of these two categories (possibly the later, to judge from the dyspeptic attitude)

> > How many people consciously go out of their way to contribute an ability
> > that is lacking in flavour or balance, and that is impractical to
> > implement?
> > Show of hands, please?
>
> Mandos tries to recall who did rewrite the character Gen.....
>
> </tounge-in-cheek>

Sorry -- was it unbalanced, was it impractical.  In both these categories it was a clear improvement
over the original without actually excessively changing the words or format.  As for flavour, it may
be a bit vanilla -- but it's *real* vanilla (the second greatest spice, I understand, according to
the market).

Speaking of flavour ... I like Ignorance or its ilk  --but as an *extra* spell, not as a substitute
for Mind-mage invisibility. And Ignorance undoubtedly falls within the Mind College (as an aside, I
never think of the cliché Air-mages as ignorant -- just apathetic about anything other than themself
and the current moment).

regards, Michael
[who still wants to say more about the other postings ... so much to do, such a little coffee break]

PS: my computer's email spell-checker dislikes "Undetectability" and wants to substitute
"indefectibility" -- a quality assuredly lacking from the spell.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --