(Kinda long post)

I've heard many arguments so far, and I think I know where there's a disconnection happening as far as rogues are concerned. People aren't considering the drawbacks of heavier armor as inherant in the armor itself, and the training as paying for them.

If OHE training allowed you to use a dagger up to 20 ranks, then a short sword to 50, etc... until you were finally allowed to use a falchion/waraxe at 200 perhaps it would be easier to see. Instead OHE provides +AS and allows you to choose between the dagger and the falchion for their inherent strengths and weaknesses. The falchion doesn't puncture. It hits harder. It hits slower. It can't disarm a scales trap. If armor use worked in a similar fashion to OHE, you would gain +DS for training in it.... AND YOU DO! Through decreased AP and decreased penalties. The penalties are still there though, and are still an inherent part of the armor. This means you still choose which armor you wish to wear, and the heavier armors pay for their lower damage factor and higher critical protection through negatives to manueverability, stealth, and encumbrance. Its a choice one makes. The scales tip however when it comes to overtraining and the ARMOR verb. For those millions of XP and thousands of training points, the 50 rank bonus allows for my rigid armors to go without penalty. Hauberk seems a slight penalty. Those who wear double leathers or lighter get to have no penalties AND spend thousands of extra TPs on spells or tertiary tactics. The 50 rank bonus might as well not apply for full plate wearers, as they can only realistically reach the first threshold since doubling is cap.

Now a further bone is tossed to the rogues through ARMOR STEALTH and ARMOR EVASION skills. These have lighter armors at a complete 0 penalty, and Hauberks penalty reduced to extremely manageable levels. Plate wearing rogues however gain nothing from ARMOR STEALTH as the equation forces it to not count at all, and gain so little from ARMOR EVASION that it's almost insulting to point out that it can be used.

The arguments for the current system are that neither should realistically apply to platemail, that rogues should not wear platemail, and that allowing rogues in platemail an armor verb option would detract from warriors.

Argument one is sound. Sneaking in platemail should not be something that is done easily. However 1525 training points say that I've learned how to at least do so better than your normal turnip farmer. Again... the penalties have been paid for, compounding on them in another tier is not good OO programming. Evasion should provide some benefit that isn't laughable. Again, the manuever penalty has been paid for. Overtraining in armor should at least give me more than "You're allowed to use this falchion".

Argument two is completely asinine. Anyone who pigeonholes the concept of "Rogue" into hooded sneak-thief or sniper should open their minds. Sir Gowain was a rogue. Lancelot was a rogue. The Hound in Game of Thrones. There are charlatans, mercenaries, and bounty hunters. Does Boba Fett not wear what would be considered plate? A rogue is not a sneak thief by definition, anymore than a cleric is a benevolent Ghandi persona.

Argument three is the answer as I see it. Make the cost similar to the points necessary to show the 200 rank investment, and allow rogues the ability to do something in all armor types. Perhaps limb favoring. Perhaps taking a specific damage form. Perhaps applying some form of offensive flare in conjunction with the alchemy system, or perhaps making the armor temporarily look rather intimidating:

ARMOR INTIMIDATION
Through adding flecks of gore, bone, and mud to the outside of the armor, many foes find that they second guess engaging the defender. These moments of hestitation can manifest in slightly increased roundtime, slightly decreased EBP functions, or the possibility to momentarily forget a spell in mid cast. Chance for intimidation is AG per rank. Undead foes are immune.
Rank 1: 20 points
Rank 2: 30 points
Rank 3: 40 points
Rank 4: 50 points
Rank 5: 60 points

Open your mind. The rogues who wear heavy armor have already paid the price in the armor penalties and training costs combined.

I'm not asking for benefits. I'm asking for equity. When the armor list was implemented, it was done so completely ignoring the heavy armor wearing rogue. This means gifts for warriors, paladins, light rogues etc... and we're stuck as redheaded stepchildren on the holidays. Do light rogues "need" additional stealth or evasion over what they already train? No? Well then what about the rogues who spend an additional thousand training points? Do we get to sit on 200 armor points we can't do anything with because we don't "need" to improve ourselves?

Apples and oranges. In a perfect world, there is only one constraint and that is training point cost. If a warrior wants to learn enough spells to have doubled, so be it. Your cost is 400 mental for the second spell.

The problem is this isn't a perfect system, and there's more than just training point costs. There's also the ability to double and triple train. Some professions like warriors are allowed to triple in armor, some professions are allowed to triple in spells. Rogues are allowed to triple in hiding. I haven't asked for rogues to be able to triple in armor, so why is it logical that you counter with an argument about warriors tripling in lockpicking?

In the existing system, the training point cost makes it very hard for a warrior to double in picking and disarming, and makes it easy for a rogue. It also makes it cost enough to be a lifestyle choice if the rogue triples. Conversely, costs make it very hard for a rogue to double in armor. It is easy for a warrior. It also costs enough to be a lifestyle choice if the warrior triples.

If the warrior dedicates enough of his points to double in picking and disarming, they should (and can) pick and disarm as well as a doubled rogue. There are no "hidden professional bonuses" to the mechanics. If a rogue dedicates enough of his points to double in armor, they should (but cannot) wear and utilize armor the same way a doubled warrior can. There are profession based bonuses involved through the new ARMOR list that the heavy armor wearing rogue CANNOT USE.

Even if your question wasn't apples and oranges, it still flies in the face of facts.

<<<As a side, I was mentioning Gawain, Lancelot, the Hound, and Boba Fett as rogues who wore platemail. Your saying Gawain and Lancelot are knights through ritual does nothing to retract from the fact that they are indeed rogues through the mythology. John Cleese is a knight. Paul McCartney's a knight. I'm not sure if Douglas Adams made it or not, but I think you get the point. I wouldn't want to bet on any of them wielding a claid in mortal combat.>>>

There is absolutely nothing to support the idea that Gawain or Lancelot would be classed as rogues in any RPG system in the known universe. They were knights. They fought with swords, in heavy armor (unless the basis for your mythology is Richard Gere in First Knight--but even he was clearly not a rogue, he was a master of open combat.) They did not steal, they did not use stealth. They were lawful warriors (intrigue aside) who served a king. They could not be less rogue-ish.

Interestingly, Gawain was a great healer through his extensive knowledge of herbs. Perhaps he should be an empath?

I'm not really involved in the armor debate, but your analogy doesn't hold water. Try something else.

~ Heathyr and friends

PS: Boba Fett isn't even from the same genre. Who knows what his armor may be, but it's most certainly not plate mail.

>>There are no "hidden professional bonuses" to the mechanics

It has been well stated that rogues get a professional bonus to locksmithing at level ten. They also have a huge professional bonus to hiding, where it has been stated that a rogue who is 1x in hiding is better then a warrior who is 2x in it. Now if you were to say that there shouldn't be any hidden professional bonuses and any distinction should be made through the skills mangler, I'd agree with you, but I doubt that will ever really happen.

I am also unsure what sort of things you are looking for as far as your armor costs go, if you choose to wear fullplate you've already trained up 140 ranks of armor use for the advantages it provides. Better CvA, spell avoidance; Mostly lower AvDs making you harder to hit; Lower DFs, you take less damage; Higher crit divisors, making it harder to be injured; Extra encumbrance; max light fullplate allows you to carry an extra 37 pounds, next closest is halfplate at 25 and it only continues to get lower and lower.

I could be wrong but to me to seems like you've lost sight of the fact that all the armor skills for rogues and a few combat maneuvers were designed to make light armor a more viable option. I think more of the newer rogues are wearing lighter armor but a large majority of the older ones still wear metal breastplate or higher. Before these additions there was no real reason to be in lighter armor and for some there still isn't.

>>The problem is this isn't a perfect system, and there's more than just training point costs.

In a more perfect system it would probably be like D&D where you can multi-class and there would never be a level cap and we'd have nonstop area development so that everyone would always have something to hunt. And I think most other people know that I could add a whole laundry list of other things to this more perfect system. But that is impossible, like people, a system will never be perfect because everyone has different ideas on what exactly perfect is.

There are hundreds of variants on the Authurian legend. Coincidentally, your argument is exactly what I was pointing out as contrary in roguish pigeonholing. My concepts of Gawain as a rogue come from Tennyson, where he was more concerned with himself and matters of the flesh. He was morally rogue in this rendition of mythology. Lancelot was a vagrant, which is one of Merriam Webster's definitions of rogue; one who has no established residence and wanders idly from place to place without lawful or visible means of support. In fact, after serving as a knight, in almost every version of the mythology Lancelot ends his ties with Camelot and remains a rogue.

My point is that the word "rogue" is loose, and should not be pigeonholed as per your statement "They did not steal, they did not use stealth".

And as to Boba Fett's armor, the Fett family armor (passed down from Cassius as per the Lucas Arts storyline) is one of the heaviest available forms of full coverage plate in the Star Wars RPG series. Jango lost it and had to recreate it from what he remembered. Boba Fett wore his father's armor after painting it green. They were all Mandalorian designs - completely plasteel platemail.

>There are hundreds of variants on the Authurian legend. Coincidentally, your argument is exactly what I was pointing out as contrary in roguish pigeonholing. My concepts of Gawain as a rogue come from Tennyson, where he was more concerned with himself and matters of the flesh. He was morally rogue in this rendition of mythology. Lancelot was a vagrant, which is one of Merriam Webster's definitions of rogue; one who has no established residence and wanders idly from place to place without lawful or visible means of support. In fact, after serving as a knight, in almost every version of the mythology Lancelot ends his ties with Camelot and remains a rogue.

Wait...

You seriously want to equate emotional states and attitudes with professional skills?

You know, I could get go for this idea.

From now on, I want to have the ability to train in any skill 3x. Because my character is a farmer. People call him a farmer. Farmers throughout history, fictional or otherwise, have always been able to do anything and everything.

Let's make this happen!

-farmer

My concepts of Gawain as a rogue come from Tennyson, where he was more concerned with himself and matters of the flesh. He was morally rogue in this rendition of mythology. Lancelot was a vagrant, which is one of Merriam Webster's definitions of rogue; one who has no established residence and wanders idly from place to place without lawful or visible means of support. In fact, after serving as a knight, in almost every version of the mythology Lancelot ends his ties with Camelot and remains a rogue.

---

Sounds like you should roll him up as a warrior and you will be good to go!

-- Robert

There's an "original" Authurian mythology? I'd love to read it.

Whether or not people agree with my build of a GSIV rogue, I am not the only one in heavy armor. The mechanics allow for this type of a character, and while they may not be the best build or best for survivability, they are condoned. When the ARMOR list came out, there were no "useless" skills given to warriors. Fluidity may be considered useless by a Paladin in leathers, but the leather wearing paladin ALSO has places to use their points. The heavy armor wearing rogue has nothing to spend their points on. This is the glaring issue, and it would be nice if that issue was addressed - either through revamping of the current armor list formulas for EVASION and STEALTH, through the sharing of a third option with either the warrior or paladin, or through the implementation of one additional ARMOR list possibility.

I'm not asking for anything broken. Please stop making the issue out to be something larger than life.

>>After doing some testing and seeing the drastic difference in DS between a rogue in brigandine and a rogue in metal breastplate, both tripled in dodging and with 3 ranks in Armored Evasion, I can't honestly understand why you'd even consider plate armor to be an option. You are missing a huge amount of your defenses. In my opinion it is enough to offset the differences between the protection the plate offers over lighter armor. The fact that this is possible and that a rogue is almost better off in lighter armor puts a smile on my face.

It's not nearly as huge as you say. This is obvious by the fact that most rogues end up in MBP or higher.

I'd put a lot of fault on the CS/TD system. As a rogue, we get no +TD unless we train spells. The only way to increase our TD, is indirectly, through CvA.

But let's look at the numbers. Again, I'll use a 3x dodging rogue, with 25 AGI/INT bonus, as the example - He would only get 10 DS less in MBP. But he would LOSE 20 CvA! Why would I want to trade 20 extra TD, for a measly 10 DS?

Of course, there's also the added damage protection, which, when stacked with 60% redux, is a very nice thing.

And reverse encumbrance is also quite nice.

Honestly, I would LOVE incentives to move to lighter armor!! I HATE the idea of my character wearing full plate, and even bought and altered a full armor concealer, just so it wouldn't impact his image. But without it, I was struggling a great deal against CS spells. I used to wear double chain, before I upgraded, and I must tell you, the difference it made for my survivability was HUGE - I don't care what any numbers on paper say. And that was CHAIN, not brig.

But yeah, I did find myself tossing around the idea of wearing brig, if I could overtrain it and gain more benefit from evasion mastery, slippery mind, and pickpocketing. But since I can't, there's just no more incentive for me. Maybe if I someday get enough XP to learn 430/120, I would. But learning those spells is less rogue-like, in my opinion, than even wearing plate!!

>>I doubt you'll find a single person to agree with you that either Gawain or Lancelot, regardless of how "rogueish" they may be characterized in some variants of the original mythology, would be classified as rogues in Gemstone IV. They are clearly not rogues. In GS4, the PC class of "rogue" is defined in several ways. Their strengths are stealth, lockpicking, stealing, and maneuvers. This is not pigeon-holing, it's what they are. While you are still free to play a rogue any way you like, they are mechanically set up for those skills. They define the profession. Your arbitrary definitions of "rogue" in the outside world are based upon character traits, not game mechanics.

>>Gawain and Lancelot were knights. They may be portrayed with "rogueish" qualities in some variations of the mythology, but that doesn't make them PC rogues in GS4. There's just no way to justify that classification. You're stretching the truth to support your argument that rogues wearing plate mail is perfectly legitimate. In GS4 it's possible for rogues to wear plate, and that's fine. If you can pull it off, and that's how you want to RP your character, wonderful.

Your argument against him, in this case, only stands to solidify the very problem he is pointing out. Your opinion on what is, and what isn't, a rogue, is different from his. But who are you to dictate which is the correct opinion?

I think the basic thing he was trying to point out, is rather clear. I personally am with you, actually, in that I think it's stupid that rogues wear full plate. But I understand that the game is better off with more options, including the option of a rogue wearing full plate.

Granted, I don't think plate armor needs a boost like he is proposing. Most rogues would love to switch to lighter armors if it was viable for them, myself included.

And sadly, part of the problem is this small group of players (Yourself included, actually), who try to tote how perfectly viable light armor is, when the fact is that heavier armor is still by far the best choice for MOST rogues. Not everyone has a gajillion post cap XP to make light armor viable, and not everyone is an archer, which affords a little more leeway due to it's unfairly low TP costs.

<<<Your argument against him, in this case, only stands to solidify the very problem he is pointing out. Your opinion on what is, and what isn't, a rogue, is different from his. But who are you to dictate which is the correct opinion?>>>

I'm not arguing against him or his opinion on armor, I'm arguing against classifying Gawain and Lancelot "rogues" by GSIV standards. They may be portrayed with rogue-like qualities in certain variations of the mythology, but there's nothing to indicate they'd be best classified as "rogues" in GSIV terms. They are warriors. Period.

You can be a "rogue" by nature and still be a warrior by class, or pretty much any other PC class you choose (except maybe paladins). He's juggling context. I'm not offering an opinion on what is or isn't a "rogue" by any standards other than Gemstone IV mechanics. And by those standards, it's perfectly evident that neither Gawain nor Lancelot would be best categorized as rogues, in any version of the myth you care to choose.

The GS4 rogue archetype comes from fantasy RPG gaming, which all owe their roots to D&D. There are specific expectations for this class. Rogues are much more flexible in GS4, evidenced by the fact they can wear heavy armor and still perform their "rogueish" activities. That's pretty remarkable in itself, especially considering the real-life absurdity of that entails. I certainly don't see the need to exacerbate the problem by making it more viable than it already is.

I'm not sure I understand why some seem to consider light armor nonviable for a rogue, given the advantages others have already laid out. I'm not saying there's not cause for some sort of adjustment, but what exactly that might be I have no idea.

As I mentioned before, I'm not sufficiently invested in this discussion for my points to be considered "arguments", just simple observations.

~ Heathyr and friends

The Light Armor option for CD/TD resolutions is Slippery Mind, and it scales to be more useful in lighter armor. Up to a 27% chance to flat out negate a CS/TD resolution is nothing to scoff at.

There are also sets of armor (and shields!) that boost the TD of the wearer. They can be found in the Treasure System, and it has been offered as a service in the past. It takes up the same slot as padding, so many people seem to disregard it, though I've always felt it was an incredible option.
___
GemStone IV will be up shortly!
Sorry guys, my bad :(

<<<<I would LOVE to see more of this available. Currently it's pretty rare, and expensive, and usually just +5 TD at most. It's certainly not something you could base armor balance off of, considering the availability to most rogues.>>>>

Years ago, sorcerers were slated to get the spell Ensorcel. This would be the functional equivalent of wizards Enchant, but for TD instead of AS or DS. It seems to me the time is really ripe for that spell to be implemented. TD is the biggest concern for many classes, especially squares but semis too. Giving players the ability to ensorcel armor would broaden the options available, give us more choices (padding, flares, or ensorcel?). And of course it would be a good utility to put sorcerers in greater demand.

I'd love to see it happen, for all involved parties.

~ Heathyr

I always suggested it as (6 - Armor Group), so plate would get +1TD/Ensorcellment, while robes would get +5 per.

>When the ARMOR list came out, there were no "useless" skills given to warriors. Fluidity may be considered useless by a Paladin in leathers, but the leather wearing paladin ALSO has places to use their points.
WARSLAVE

Where exactly would a paladin use the armor points? You mean on ARMOR Casting?

Yeah...


>>There are also sets of armor (and shields!) that boost the TD of the wearer. They can be found in the Treasure System, and it has been offered as a service in the past. It takes up the same slot as padding, so many people seem to disregard it, though I've always felt it was an incredible option.
GS4-TAMUZ

>I would LOVE to see more of this available. Currently it's pretty rare, and expensive, and usually just +5 TD at most. It's certainly not something you could base armor balance off of, considering the availability to most rogues.
CIDHIGHWIND

Not really, no.

Is Kerl's Krodera quest stuff going to be expensive? Absolutely. Or the 6x/2x brig I just dug out of my locker? Not as expensive, but certainly not that cheap. Still, there are plenty of affordable options for any profession looking for TD.

For example a friend of mine found some 4x vultite chain with +8 perm TD last week. He asked for an appraisal on the PC and got told it was worth around 4 million. This certainly isn't expensive and when you consider what a set of 4x HCP chain sells for, it's extremely cheap. Granted, that's on the rarer side, but shields (which rogues can use just fine) and armor (of all types) can be found all the time from the treasure system with perm and temp TD. And not just limited to '+5 at most'.



-farmer

>These armors are simply not available to most rogues.
CIDHIGHWIND

I understand you want to change the mechanics to of the game to suit what you believe should happen. Regardless, whether or not you, or anyone else, chooses to take advantage of TD items, they exist. They are continually produced from the treasure system, in all types and in most cases are affordable.

So yes, they are available to most rogues.

-farmer

>>There's an "original" Authurian mythology? I'd love to read it.

>>Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae would be normally be taken as the original.

That's one of the best known and more detailed early versions. Gildas and a couple of others are actually earlier. Wace, Layamaon, and some others are nearly contemporary with Geoffrey, and they brought the legend closer to its more famous form, as did Chretien de Troyes. Malory is the most standard medieval version and the one that really informs most modern versions, though he comes a bit later.

But yes, there is a general cannon of early Arthurian works. And no, Gawain and Lancelot are not anything close to Gemstone-type rogues in any of them.

--David, has a PhD in medieval literature

"At a moment like this, I can't help but wonder, 'What would Jimmy Buffett do?'"

>You know? You all almost always leave me feeling I'm missing the point of the game. I think I'm 2X armor, and ok with it.

If there's anyone in Elanthia who is most definitely not missing the point of GemStone... It's probably Clunk.

Dave, Brandain's Bard

Just going to repeat an old old post of mine.

When lighter armor becomes more beneficial for rogues, when will we start seeing capped bandits not wearing heavy armor?

Oh, this also made me chuckle, "... a rogue is almost better off in lighter armor puts a smile on my face."

I would appreciate having cohesion for my rogues armor points, however. When you want rank 5 in an armor skill that requires 200 ranks of armor, there ought to be a benefit (greater than 1%) for wearing the armor you are trained for, ie; full plate.