For a while, I thought this was the intent. As-is, there isn't a super-strong incentive to train armor use beyond the initial spell/action penalty. Once I got to 150 ranks as a paladin at level 50, I stopped cold-turkey. I may do it as a post-cap goal to get to a fifth rank of armor fluidity, but it's low priority. Having superfluous armor use ranks also contribute to reducing spell penalty, it would go from a sometime post cap to a early post-cap or maybe even pre-cap effort as well.

I was just thinking/talking about some way to further reduce spell hindrance, either as a service or something. This would be a most agreeable solution.

Wyrom says, "Ordim is the reason savants won't be coded as well."

It should do something for the pure in robes/light leather too or you are just reinforcing a mutant path at the expense of the design.

Increasing evade DS for the lighter armors with overtraining would make sense to me flavor-wise.

Perhaps opening up armor specialization to all classes and allowing more options, similar to cmans. Or allowing more armor specs to be utilized at once if you are heavily over-trained. 1 extra armor spec per every 100 ranks? For example a paladin with 200 ranks of armor use could have armored fluidity and armored casting active at the same time.


As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear.

AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4

Alternatively, Armor Use could work like Shield Use and raise your defensive strength the more you train it. Or you could add Armor Specializations, available to all professions, that give a small bonus each time you train one to one of: DS, TD, padding, resistance to X, dodge/maneuver hindrance, spell hindrance, etc. Probably just for one AG, though.

>I think it's the semi arms professions that have the potential to gain the most out of the gate, but the pot should be a bit sweeter for squares, too.

Its those that use armor that is fully trained in the middle of their training range that stand to gain the most from penalty reduction formulas, which is quite likely to be armored pures and magical rogues for hindrance though perhaps rangers should be there and increasing the hindrance benefit for being in brig rather than chain would be a good idea for ranger design.

>I'm not sure I'm following, Rath. Let me clarify my side - and if you were already there, let me know. If any character is wearing armor up to and including full leather, there is no hindrance, and action penalty (maneuver) is trainable to zero, without over training. I believe you said robes and light leather. Perhaps I should be taking that to mean 'soft leather' (the AG).

If you are thinking empath or cleric, yes. If wizard, maybe not.

If you are shifting the balance of costs and benefits, you should do it in a way that favors the archetype rather than the mutant. Extra hindrance reduction from extra armor training favors the mutant and does nothing for the archetype (it could be beneficial to rangers, but you were selling it for pures). Rule changes that have mutant favoring side effects are fine, but the main intent of a rule change should not be to reinforce mutant designs while doing nothing for the archetype.

>I had thought about padding too, but a caster in robes or soft leather is probably hunting in guarded and trying to not get hit, so additional evade DS would help with that goal while padding only works if an attack gets through.

Something designed to help a pure in guarded shouldn't have its main effect on a square in offensive. Those most dependent on evade DS in light armor are monks and rogues, and rogues can overtrain armor the most (actually mutant warriors and paladins, but rogues can overtrain the most without being mutant). I'm not that keen on padding either, for the same reasons, but I don't think it favors those its not intended for quite so badly, and thats why I suggested moving the minimum in the randomisation too, since I think that particular way of tweaking the formula is a bit better for pures.

...

Lack of things to train post cap is a problem, and pures training armor use could be one way to address that, but benefits ought mainly to flow to pures who train virtually no armor use at the moment and keep their current armor, rather than encouraging them to use heavier armor as well training more armor use. The wizard in AsG 5, not the wizard in AsG 9, the empath in AsG 8, not the empath in AsG 13 are the ones that should gain the most.

>Rule changes that have mutant favoring side effects are fine, but the main intent of a rule change should not be to reinforce mutant designs while doing nothing for the archetype.

Archetypes change, though. Even if a game had just one designer over its entire lifetime, his or her notion of what a rogue is, or what a warrior is, will change. For example, in some games rogues are restricted to light armor, and wizards can't wear any. In some, only rogues can ambush, and in others only certain professions can dual wield. There are also differences between archetypes and current "optimal" training in certain professions. There are also professions here that are more or less unique, or unique to Simu games, or implemented in unusual ways. There are also professions that may have more than one archetype. I wouldn't want to limit what a procession CAN do just because it doesn't help the archetype. I wouldn't want it to change the archetype, either, unless that's the design direction.

It would probably be a lot on the back end but what about the option to assign armor points to key areas:
Spell failure reduction - You assign enough points you can reduce it to either 0% or a very low amount, for pures this would mean a lot of points into higher ASG armor.
Carry capacity - aids in how armor weight effects encumbrance, alters the formula for races.
Padding - adds phantom padding to armor classes, a lot invested for minimal gains. Maybe something like pures getting phantom HCP at cap investment points or one step above HCP?
Maneuvers - further improves maneuverability in armor classes. investing points into this alters the formulas further to your advantage.

So you'd have the existing system of armor ranks reducing armor penalties etc, then using the points you earn to further improve it, allowing for more build options and providing benefits to the archetypes while allowing more mutant builds.

Wyrom says, "Ordim is the reason savants won't be coded as well."

The point about aiding mutants is quite valid. I have a THW using empath with 101 ranks of CM, THW skill and also 30 ranks of MOC in order to have a focused MStrike. Giving her perks for further training in armor would make her obnoxious.

I do have a practical question for the armor mavens, though. I have a rogue 97 trains who is in 7x HCP hauberk. I'm overtraining her in armor ... currently 116 ranks ... and armor evasion. I plan to go to 130 ranks to get the minimum spell MnE hindrance, since she knows e-wave. However, she also has a set of FGB, which has the same padding but a lower AsG. What specific benefits would accrue from dropping back to the Brigandine? Aside from the obvious lower spell hindrance, that is. Better dodging? She has 190 ranks of dodge skill now; how much more would lowering her armor to Brig help this?

I'm not worried about a DS difference of 4-10. If I am interpreting you correctly, the defensive difference between brig and hauberk would be small, in which case, if I am facing CS casters, I'd be better off with hauberk because of the more favorable CvA.

I am also wondering about the effect of armor on my ability to evade an attack totally. Naturally, heavier armor makes it harder to duck an attack, but by how much? (Note that I have 3 ranks of armor evasion at the present time.) What is the effect of using hauberk vs brigandine on my ability to totally evade an attack?