Equipment - level/profession requirements, stat bonuses

[carlo aggaruzzi]

I'm opening this topic because Valina had some ideas on this, ahead of me being ready to write my typical essay. I like the material Valina shared with me already.

[Valina Ravenclaw]

And here is said material. For the sake of having a better discussion, I made no changes, allowing Carlo to then post his original reply if he so wishes.

I have long wondered about an IC rationale for level requirements and stat boni. The penny dropped when i read a recent discussion about HP and potion effect increasing with level. The concept I favor boils down to it reflecting what may be called a stamina increase.

It then becomes logical to assume that as armor becomes heavier and more constricting as a side effect of increased AC, one needs more stamina,or rather, a "higher level of stamina", in order to wear it without losing HP constantly just from wearing it.

Aa a corroborative aside, armored swordfighter in medieval times (Europe), when they dueled and did not find a weakness in the opponent's armor to push the blade through, used slashing attacks, the loser being the one who was exhausted first and could no longer properly defend.

Now to the stat boni: i need to explain each separately, with the exception of amulets and the effects of the enchanted skull helm that result from being enchanted: those are "given" as being magic in nature.

Dex: while intuition says that the best an armor can do is cause no hindrance, consider that dex in DG terms means the capability to avoid hits/damage from hits, but in a way different from AC. Items with dex boni therefore are designed to let attacks "glance off", thus offering a way to avoid the damage without needing to move the body out of the way=> more dex than from body alone.

strength: difficult one. Perhaps best to say their weight, well balanced as it is, allows you to "lay more strength into the attack". The effect would then rely on the law of impulse (e.g., consider that there is an "optimum weight" for items you want to throw, even if your stregth is the same every time). The "balanced" part also explains the one more weight unit you can carry: the item accounts for less than its nominal weight in terms of wearing you down.

Attack: easy. spikes and such.

Con: hard to reconcile with the "stamina needed" concept, but i found a take: armors have outer hard shell to withstand the edges of weapons, and inner padding to absorb the shock. Armors with above-average padding and/or an outer shell that has ian nherent padding effect means blunt impact wears you down less, effecively increasing your stamina, once you have enough of it to wear the armor at all.

Int: visors give explanation that sight is impaired. on helm, that works too. demon item -int effect is probably "magic", not as way out, just most likely explanation. int bonus more difficult. Maybe the item shields you from being blinded by averse conditions, or allows you to look when with different kit, you'd have to look away to protect eyesight.

I am unsure on wheter the mod scroll effect is magic or phisycally modifies the item. both takes have logical drawbacks.

Anyway, let me hear your thoughts.

[carlo aggaruzzi]

The following complements what Valina wrote, though there is more to say on this topic. These were my off-the-cuff thoughts.


Anyone can pick up a level 45 sword and can wear level 45 armor. But they can't fight effectively with such equipment unless they have learned how. New gear requires learning the differences in weight, balance, pinch-points, range of motion, range of vision, vulnerabilities, advantages, etc. This explains level requirements for equipment, in most situations. Regarding armor specifically, I like also Valina's point about heavy armor and stamina.

A rise in level doesn't just mean that you're stronger, quicker, tougher, or more enduring. It means you're more skilled. Sometimes that's a qualitative improvement in skill, sometimes it's a quantitative improvement, usually it's both. Up to a point, you can get better at executing maneuvers. Then you can get more consistent at executing them perfectly. You can learn new maneuvers, and get better at them, and more consistent at being perfect. You can learn the same maneuvers under different conditions - different terrain, against opponents of different heights and reaches, while carrying more weight, while wearing different gear. You can learn a new weapon. And so forth and so on. As You learn more weapons, techniques, maneuvers, styles, and conditions, you learn also the counters to each, because everything has a counter, discovered or not. So quantitative improvement becomes qualitative improvement. This is some of my conception of what levels are about. Knowing the opponents and environments is another part. It helps me devise ways to describe, explain, or portray things in character.

The difference between 10th-degree and 11th-degree black belt martial artists of the same discipline is hard to appreciate except by those approaching that level of skill. (And I'm told that, debatably, the differences are largely political rather than skill. But I think my point still holds true.) By level 45 and 46, I would think the difference in reflexes and conditioning is hardly noticeable. But the level 46 character has mastered one or two insights or has mastered another piece of apparatus that the 45 has not. And that has impact on combat effectiveness and sometimes the mastery of more deadly/protective equipment.


Profession requirements are harder to explain. They never made much sense in AD&D, where they originated for RPGs. They were an artificial rule to help provide game balance, with a lot of insufficient rationales after the fact. (Metal armor interferes with magic. Unless you're an elf. But you could wear a lot of metal belt buckles and strap metal darts across your chest, and that won't affect the magic. To quote Urkki, BAH!) I can't think of a good non-magical reason why enchanters' robes are nearly as effective as armor, or why enchanters can't wear armor. I can't think of why rogues can't use a hammer. And many other examples defy my explanation so far.

I can rationalize the rogues' near-exclusive ability to fight with two weapons as a technique that requires special training that only rogues focus on. I like the explanation for warriors' critical strikes Viktor and I collaborate on: clean physical hits or near-misses that leave the opponent off-balance or out of breath, that warriors achieve more often than others (in the Hit Points thread, I think). But losing the ability to use Initiates' items upon gaining profession has no good, non-magical reason that I've identified.

[Valina Ravenclaw]

The message you get in combat when you strike a critical hit as warrior mentions finding and lunging at a weak spot in the armor. This hints toward it being a wounding hit every time, doesn't it?

I admit that there is such a thing as a blunt attack on a thin part, which would count as attacking a weak spot and would not involve a wounding hit, but there is also the word "lunge" and the fact warriors carry bladed weapons.

[carlo aggaruzzi]

Regarding stat bonuses -

I think AC and Attack bonuses are pretty obvious, though I point out again that the Hit Point discussion shows that a hit is not always an actual physical hit.


I agree with Valina about Strength bonuses. Well-put. A Strength penalty might mean that the weapon doesn't transfer very well the strength of its user.

I think her take on Con bonuses is interesting. I have to think about it. It's not the exactly the way I was thinking. I might like it better.

I think Int bonuses/penalties relate to vision, as Valina recognized, and also the margin for error in an item's use. Visors are a good example of how an Int penalty can be interpreted as a reduction of vision. They help to protect your face, but you're more likely to miss in your attacks because you can't see so well. A shield can also hinder vision and increase the chance of missing, while providing a worthwhile advantage in defense. Armor, a hood, something around the neck, and helmets might reduce peripheral vision and ability to turn your head enough that you're more likely to miss (or especially good at leaving peripheral vision clear or head able to turn, to give a bonus). The darkness of a demon item, even if it's generally countered for the area by light sources, might cast shadows around themselves that make it more likely you'll make an errant attack or fail to defend properly with them. But also, there are some items that are long, like spears whose length and unwieldiness increase the chance of missing in single combat, and this is reflected by a penalty to Int. On the other hand, some weapons are so easy to hit with that you get an Int bonus because your chance to miss should be low while using them. For most people, an Int bonus or penalty shouldn't be interpreted as actually making you more or less smart. In the case of spellcasters getting more or less Power from plusses and minuses to Int, okay, some stuff affects your mental/spiritual ability to wield Valorn's magic. Maybe because of ability to focus attention.

Dex is complicated. It's tied up with AC. I think Valina's point works. I think also that it can be interpreted as somehow increasing the ability to keep a proper stance throughout combat. For some items, it might indicate the item allows you to baffle your opponent's vision or foil an attack. Tassles or flowing ends might distract your opponent if you know just when and how to make them move. Especially bright metal might be used to reflect light into an opponent's eyes at the right time. The darkness from demon items might be used to cause an opponent to miss also.

As with Hit Points, the lesson is, don't try to look for one paradigm that applies all the time. Flex to the range of sensible rationales. The intent of discussing these rationales is not to critique DG's system as a depiction of reality, but rather to help provide a range of realistic and interesting descriptions, explanations, and portrayals that can be used in the course of role-playing in DG.

[carlo aggaruzzi]

Not all warriors use edged weapons at all times. Any character could make an attack without any weapon at all, intentional or not.

I submit that a lunge is very ineffective with certain weapons, so I prefer to take it as a good descriptive word in the critical hit message rather than something to be taken literally all the time, despite the weapon you might be using. And I point out that even though it says you lunge at a weak spot, that doesn't mean you have to actually succeed in wounding. Lunging at a weak spot could cause your opponent (who knows it's a vulnerable spot) to stumble back, to lose composure, to strain or tire himself to prevent taking a wound. I still like the idea of a critical hit actually being a hit, but I prefer having a range of options if I'm telling it IC.

[skylsganin]

another small point would be that armour with no stat adds is still actually restrictive, so a positive stat addition is relative to that .
for instance .. a rapier that adds to dex is easier to move than the standard zero mod sword.
armour that adds constitution may have better joints or padding than the normal .. which means you can take slightly more punishment when wearing it .

[Ben]

Stats are an RPG staple... and one that I don't like. The battle system for the new now defunct japanese RPG game was actually going to be based entirely on developing skills, with very little stat increases. Stats DON'T make any sense... why is a level 40 warrior stronger physically than a level 15 warrior? If you join the US Marines, are all the Marines that have been serving for 10 years already 7 points stronger than you?

Of course not... especially if they are a slight-framed shorty, and you are some giant hulking brute. But in a SKILL system, the guy who has been a Marine longer probably is better at combat skills than you are.

Anyway, I have an entire list of things that would be done differently were I to make a new RPG. Unfortunately, I can't make a new RPG without Cory and I think he is sorta busy... hence threads like this to try to make sense out of the senseless. =D

Really, the only way to make an actually good RPG is to make a different RPG first and then figure out what the heck you did wrong.

[Valina Ravenclaw]

another small point would be that armour with no stat adds is still actually restrictive, so a positive stat addition is relative to that .

That does not work out if you try to figure in the option of wearing no armor. If the positive stat addition is relative to a "zero boni standard armor" representing a "standard restriction", it follows you should get a stat bonus from wearing no armor at all. If you were to consider this concept to be the sole reason for stat boni, the "no armor stat bonus" Would also have to be *at least* equal to the highest bonus offered by any armor for a particular stat.

Ben is right in saying stats are a "crutch" that is on the retreat, and at any rate, different to translate to rl terms. Maybe that's the reason some of our explanations, particularly concerning HP, try to explain stats as skills. But if one were to devote a lot of time to it, it should be possible to find the rl things they were meant to be a model for (model in the sense of: a simple concept approximating reality as good as possible while staying simple).

[carlo aggaruzzi]

I agree with Ben. Stats in game systems never translated to reality well, and that is why we can talk about so many different ways to interpret game mechanics into IC terms, and in some cases we have to surrender to suspension of disbelief.


Consider this. Numerically, a +1 to Strength from a sword is the same as a +1 to Strength from a pair of gloves/gauntlets/bracers. But in the way we conceive of them IC, I don't think I would say that the advantage of a good pair of gloves that provide extra sure grip (my way of rationalizing a +1 strength from gloves) would be as obvious an advantage as a heavy blade that accomodated powerful blows.


I missed something from before that I wanted to mention. I agree completely with Valina's point that magic is the only good explanation for bonuses from amulets, "enchanted" items like the enchanted skull helm, bracelets (I know there's at least one.), armlets, rings, and such. As I've said a few dozen time, I disdain the "It's magic" explanation whenever I can find a workable mundane explanation. I have said, "If everything is magical, nothing is magical."* Items with bonuses are a good example. A magical ring of protection should be special. It's magic! Those things should be special, they should get some oos and ahhs once in a while, at least. Even in a world where magic is seen a lot, a magic amulet is still not something that every family has. It's not a light bulb. It's more like a top-of-the-line PDA. Professionals who can make use of PDAs have them and learn to use them, if they or their company have the spare money to buy them. And in a way, some of the amulets are even more special. I doubt many business professionals can say they had to fight a zombie to get their PDAs. heh. The more things I can give non-magical explanations for, the happier I am when I do encounter magical portrayals.




*I've also said "If everything is epic, nothing is epic."