CF: Re: AC and armour

[Anthony Thyssen <>]

"Mark Wedel" on  wrote...
| On Dec 2,  4:29pm, Frank Tore Johansen wrote:
| > Subject: Re: CF: bracers ac+1?
| 
| > This is an old AD&D-ish thingy.  No logic at all, just based on the AD&D
| > rule that magical bracers and normal armor dont mix, which seemed fine
| > enough at the moment.  Means that mages who want no encumberance
| > whatsoever can ditch armor and go for the best bracer that can be dug up.
| > Since then, I guess armors have gotten a little better, without similar
| > boost in bracers.
| ...
| But bracers that good could be added - just make sure it is armor type
| and not bracers (since only one armor can be worn at a time, wouldn't
| change things much).  Bracers would only have AC value, and no armor,
| so they would still not be as good as armor in most cases (bracers AC
| 2 would be near artifact status, and most artifact armor gives extra
| protections also.)
| 
Ok lets clear up one confusion I have.  What is the difference between
AC and armour?   All I have seen is a big mumbo-jumbo on how hit and
damage is calculated and I don't want or should need to wade through
that morass. 

Howabout putting that info in a ``internals guide'' and replace it with
just a simple guide of what the meanings of the various things are.

Another confusion I have is that of speed and weight.  Even with a ring
of speed +2 my speed is terriable!


  Anthony Thyssen ( System Programmer )    http://www.sct.gu.edu.au/~anthony/
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
    Not all rumors are as missleading as this one.  -- Nethack (The Game)
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
     PGP Public Key available -- finger -l 
-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to ]