FinalHavenLarp.com

And I really only have 1 rule and that is I do not want to ever unnessissarily update the rule book so I guess that puts me on Heidi's side when this is all over.

Though I tip my hat to Ark it is not a bad idea and I will ponder it.

If I didnt post though then I would not be able to maintain my title as lead instigator

General Maximus wrote: Hedi,
Thanks for giving me a smile today. I think we can agree to disagree. It seems we are always have polar opposite opions. Which is alright
Can't wait for the next disscussion.

You're most welcome. As long as you are smiling or chuckling and it's not a huge vein pulsing on the side of either YOUR head or mine, we are doing just fine TYVM.

so we can get the number straight, exactly how much is the upkeep reduction for wearing real heavy armor?

Maximus, like i said that is not "final" in any way, the amount of CR or armor and trade off could be changed, CR regen, and so on.

yes you could not wear armor and have alot of saok, but not as much as if you had armor, and im glad that it would be an actual choice to not wear armor.

Chris, glad to throw out an idea

The CR trade off thing is a neat idea. I'd definitely drop it to fall under the same rules as per the encumbrance rules that currently exist (quality and helms not counting) (thus effectively a 3 to 1 ratio and a max of 3). This would avoid things like making Swash much more powerful than it already is as a free 6 CR would be devastating there and in a few other combos.

Just as an aside, if you did the CR to everyone thing we'd also have to look at the numbers for knockout again.

i dont think increasing knockout by a point or two would be hard, especially givin how sick vorpal knockout is right now.

and 3 seems a little small though i do see the point that 6 is alot, i would probobly go with 4 points

1 point loss per 3 points of armor

4 CR
3 armor - 3 CR
6 armor - 2 CR
9 armor - 1 CR
12+ armor - 0 CR

The only issue with 4 is you now have seperate rules for this and other armor rules. It fits alot better with the current armor rules. Otherwise you have to either say helmets count for this but not for discipline/path or that quality counts which will confuse people. In the end, 3 is more than 0 and people would still be getting something for nothing.

Not saying 4 isn't possible, it's just that people don't understand the rules as is, so doing this in the same manner as an already existing mechanic not only reinforces that mechanic, but makes understanding the new one that much easier.

so you would just want something to the effect of

no armor 3 CR

light armor 2 CR

medium armor 1 CR

heavy armor 0 CR

so its currently 3,2,1,0 that could also be 4 with 4,3,2,1

i know you see it as getting something for nothing, wich it is, but if the number of something is too small, people will still wear "bad" armor just for extra points

so
6 was half as good as armor - too much
4 is a third as good - i like it
3 is a fourth - i feel its too little

so how good do we want the armor to be, if its too good people wont care about the CR and just try to wear anything they can to count towards soak, if its to crapy people wont wear it at all, i still feel 3 is too low but agree with your simple is better

I really don't like the idea of upping soak, and this will up a *lot* of character's soak - everyone's, depending on how this rule pans out.

I'm going to assume that this rule is so that you can represent the fact that armor slows you down.

We are already actually inhibited by the armor we wear. It actually does slow us down.

I don't see what this brings to the game. If it's to represent that it's harder to avoid blows due to the fact that you lose mobility while wearing armor then it's pointless because your phys rep already does that.

Umm...

When did the GMs state we were going to change the armor rules? I'm with Fesko in that I don't want to see soak upped more for that will mean damage will need to be upped more and for me at that point we're playing something like CARPS.

heh, I had forgotten this was an attempt to get people to wear good armor. This won't minimize the extremist attitude to be honest. It'll always be "This person has more $$$ than me and it's not fair." no matter how much you help them.

But, that being said I do like the idea (and why I went with 3). To get better armor, you need an armor marshall who the GMs support and is willing to say, "No, that armor isn't good enough" Now, there is no set mark for what that is, as if it looks good and is obvious for what it is supposed to be then I'd say it's ok. With the CR, you can move that bar up a little. If someone shows up in something barely passable, you tell them "You can use this for the next event or two, but after that,

Now as for the moving up categories, I still have no issue with a one level up or down allowance, with or without the added CR.

As for the upping people's soak, it'll only up the non-coms and light combat people so it shouldn't affect much. Damage would not need to go up since the max soak would not increase, just the average which means little in most combats.

Just to come right out and say it, you can expect no rules to change. I am the rule meany person and I dont want to see them change anymore.

Only until we get to Mike and convince him to convince you otherwise.