The formula I have for how armored evasion works, is: (Rank * (7 - Armor Group)) / 2.

But if I over-train my armor, and reduce its AG, does it count as the reduced AG amount for Armored Evasion, or the original AG of the armor? In other words, if I over-train brig armor (AG 3), so that it is as if I am wearing double leather (AG 2), would the equation be (Rank * (7 - 2)) / 2, or (Rank * (7 - 3)) / 2?

>>Overtraining your armor doesn't change its AG, it just lowers the action penalty. So no, it won't improve the benefit from armored evasion.

If this is true, it really should be changed. Any skill that is based on AG, should be impacted by armor overtraining.

It makes more sense that it counts as a lower AG, since it's a skill that directly ties into the action penalty of the armor. If my character is overtrained for his brig so that the action penalty is that of double leather, then Armored Evasion should treat it as the AG of the wearer's current action penalty.

There is plenty of incentive, because of heavier armors. Also, most people in light armors train armored stealth.

It makes no sense to me, that the skill uses AG instead of AP (same with many other skills.). If you overtrain your armor, it should be as if you are wearing lighter armor, in all things maneuverability (like evade mastery.). It was the logical conclusion I came to at first, and was how I had assumed it worked.

Currently, I fail to see the benefit of overtraining armor, if it works this way. Armor skill is expensive as a rogue, and the current benefits seem far too lame.

I personally fail to see any worthwhile benefits, for the investment. Hell, in its current state, I'd train in Trading before overtraining Armor Use. The benefits are pathetic considering the cost.

Postcap, why wouldn't you over train armor? After maxing PF, cman, and perception, over training would be the next step to better your maneuver avoidance. You'd improve your AP by 4 at 180 ranks, then again by 1 at 200 ranks when you get the fifth rank of armor evasion, that is assuming you are in fullplate.

Theres also the question of cost versus benefit. My rogue overtrains in armor and im beginning to regret it. I spend 15 physical points per level... and neither of the armor profession list skills provide me benefit except through trading for spells. Rogue B spends 130 points total for brig and walks away with immaculate hiding... no rt penalties... and little to no spell hinderence. They also dodge manuevers better and are far more survivable.

So i ask the name in red: why punish the hound? What is it about the unruly rogue soldier you feel deserves to be shunned in gsiv? Is it so bad that they get something back for their 1500 points invested? Thats more than a complete spell circle for pures!

Except people in light armor train in armored stealth, because armored evasion is kind of lame. It would be less lame, though, if it made your armor count as -1 AG every 50 ranks, like it SHOULD.

>2)Their armor skills are not affected by the AG of the armor.

Actually they are. Support, which is the equivalent of stealth/evasion, gives higher bonuses for heavier armor.

>Nobody every asks for armored evasion, because it sucks.

People ask for boxes to be opened.

Evasion is noticeably better than nothing for quite a few characters. Its what I use my armor points on and others will take it from me if there's nothing else going. I'll take support off a warrior instead if I can though, and a warrior will normally prefer me to open their boxes rather than bashing themselves.

>Slash/crush/puncture protection, makes armored stealth/evasion look like a joke.

They are supposed to. Do they make the ability to pick locks look like a joke? That's the valid comparison. They are there to create a significant and desirable service for warriors to provide to other characters. They are there to make warriors important to armor the ways rogues are to boxes. There's no more point a rogue moaning about warriors being better at armor than there is warriors moaning about rogues being better at box opening or either of them complaining about how clerics are better at raising the dead.

Apples and Oranges, my friends.

Should warriors be complaining because they don't pick locks as well as rogues? I think not.

-Marstreforn-
Icemule Trace Guru
Halfling Guru

Even a wizard/sorcerer/cleric/empath can single train in armor and eventually wear metal breastplate. Does that mean it's the best for them? I'll hazard a guess and say No. I would even say it's a ridiculous thing to discuss in the first place.

Again, the problem is the mindset that you need to wear plate armor in the first place and that is it the best option all around. I personally believe you couldn't be further from the truth. Some of the best combat builds I've seen are rogues not wearing plate. Was that vague enough? Hehe.

Making rogues better in plate goes against the very concept of the two Armor skills. While I'm not on the team that makes the call, I'd be willing to bet real money that if anything were to actually change it would be in the exact opposite direction you are trying to go with this.

-Marstreforn-
Icemule Trace Guru
Halfling Guru

>>Sure, you can always choose to go for the plate armor and hack and slash like a warrior. But if that's your conception of your character, why not just play a warrior?

Back when I first created Midgar, I was the only war rogue I knew of. I used to be asked this very question pretty much on a daily basis. "You don't pick or steal? Why didn't you just make a warrior?"

Why? Simple. Because of hiding and ambush (and back then, higher redux than warriors, too.).

>>I think we get too hung up on mechanics and forget to imagine what our characters are actually doing in the world. Generally speaking (though there are exceptions) sensible RP choices for a character are rewarded mechanically, even if such choices are not popular or widely understood. Sometimes it seems like there's more going on underneath the hood of the game than we really know.

I'd love for lighter armors to be more appealing to me, but they aren't. Instead, I got a full armor concealer, and my full plate has 0 impact on my character's image or RP. In fact, I never even use armored evasion around people, simply because it shows that I am wearing full plate. Is it sad that I feel full plate is the best armor for a rogue? Absolutely. But that's exactly why I'm upset over this change, because I was actually thinking of switching, but now I am not.

>>People are pointing at heavy armor because it would see the most benefit. If every 50 ranks lowered your AG by one, my AP would go from -35 to just -6, that is huge. Even for a rogue if you wore only metal breastplate or an augmented breastplate you could lower your AP from -20 to just -7 or -25 to -8(leather breastplate and Cuirbouilli leather, respectively), and that is just from over training in your armor. If you added in armor evasion after that like you are proposing, you'd have 0 AP. Then applying the bonus to evade mastery to your improved AP you'd go from having 1% per rank to 9%. Which means that you'd have most of the perks of robes while still being in heavy armor.

You do realize rogues can only train 202 armor ranks max, right? That means you can only overtrain full plate by 50 ranks, and unlike other armors, it doesn't reduce the AP by a full AG - It only goes from -35 to -31 (Hauberk is -18). So even if armored evasion based your AG on the currently trained AP of your armor, the benefit of overtraining for full plate would be almost nonexistent.

MBP would see a benefit, but it would come at an extremely high cost. About 3.6 million post cap experience, to be exact. That's what? Like nearly half the XP it takes to cap a character? And for what benefit? Even though you could get the AP in MBP low, it's not nearly as beneficial as say, spending those points in 3x hiding, or 3x dodge, or spells, etc.. The benefits of overtraining, even with MBP, would be miniscule in comparison to those skills. I could learn 430 for cheaper than overtraining MBP!!

Brig, on the other hand, I could reach armored evasion rank 3, without even having to 2x armor at all, at a cost of a mere 525k post cap xp, and train off almost all of its action penalty (It would be at -2 or -3, depending on if it truncates or rounds up.)). This actually seems like it could be worth the investment, if it worked the way I suggest it should.

So yes, if it worked the way I suggest, it would make light armor more appealing.

>>I am well aware of this, if you bother to fully read my post, you'd understand that. I said it would drop my AP from -35 to -6, I am not a rogue. You also have to keep in mind that rogues aren't the only ones who train in armor, and that warriors and paladins can both triple in it.

I am quite aware of this, and have done the math for it, even, before posting. You can drop it to -23 as a warrior or paladin. That is still in the AG range of plate (You'd have to hit -18 for it to count as chain.). So no change here. But, it's true it might encourage some warriors to get into MBP or lighter armor, which I think would actually be a cool change. More options = better game. But also keep in mind you can't overtrain armor to below half its original AP.

>>No armors drop a full AG from over training in armor. And while you find no benefit to over training in armor, I made it one of my postcap goals, nor am I the only one to do so.

I know no armor drops a full AG from overtraining armor. That's the whole reason I'm posting here!

But it DOES drop to the AP of the next lowest AG, in many armors. Hauberk, for example, if overtrained by 50 ranks, drops from -18 AP, to -12 (Brig) AP. When I mentioned the -1 AG per 50 ranks, it was referring to this. Those were the words of Coase, not I.

So to clarify, since I obviously wasn't clear enough: The maneuver related equations, should not be based on AG, but the current AP of your armor. That's all I'm trying to say.

>>But it DOES drop to the AP of the next lowest AG, in many armors. Hauberk, for example, if overtrained by 50 ranks, drops from -18 AP, to -12 (Brig) AP. When I mentioned the -1 AG per 50 ranks, it was referring to this. Those were the words of Coase, not I.

In addition the Armor Specialization List, we have implemented an additional benefit to continuing to train in the Armor Use skill: For every 50 ranks of Armor Use that a player has above the minimum ranks need to train away the RT adder for their armor, their armor's Action Penalty will be reduced by (Armor Group - 1), a maximum reduction of 50% of the original action penalty.

Is this to what you are referring to? That just means that in plate you'd see a reduction of 4 to your AP per over training threshold, (AG - 1) which is 5 - 1, for hauberk you'd see 4 - 1, which is 3. Meaning that in hauberk if you had 100 ranks over what you needed for the RT, 170, you'd have the AP of brig.

>>But, it's true it might encourage some warriors to get into MBP or lighter armor, which I think would actually be a cool change.

Some warriors and paladins do actually only go as high as MBP, only a few but they are out there. I, being the horrible person that I am, often encourage warriors to get into fullplate as soon as they can. That full coverage plate protection can make a huge difference, even the difference in CvA small as it is is nice, we are already at a disadvantage when being cast at so every bit helps. The other thing is that you can carry more with max light fullplate then you can with metal breastplate, I carry too much extra stuff on me so while I can carry a lot it can sometimes become an issue and end my hunts before I am done with my bounty.

>>The maneuver related equations, should not be based on AG, but the current AP of your armor. That's all I'm trying to say.

By this do you mean maneuver rolls? Like when you have spike thorn cast at you? Or the way that AP is applied to reduce dodge DS? Or more of what you were saying earlier that your modified AP should affect things like armor evasion and evade mastery?

>>Iunno when/where you rolled up that character, but there's been an uncounted number of pure physical or spell combat rogues since the beginning of GS. Of the four rogues I have/had over the years, only one learned to pick.

There were hardly any war rogues, say 15+ years ago. I definitely didn't know any back then. I'm certain I wasn't the only one, but it was uncommon enough for me to not know of others, myself.

My point is simply that there's more to a rogue than what people often try to say. It's the most versatile class in the game, in fact.

>>By your logic, there's no real argument to stop staff from making CS/TD calculations use the current AP of your armor to calculate CvA.

I fail to see the logic, actually. In fact I find this to be quite absurd.

>>Some warriors and paladins do actually only go as high as MBP, only a few but they are out there. I, being the horrible person that I am, often encourage warriors to get into fullplate as soon as they can. That full coverage plate protection can make a huge difference, even the difference in CvA small as it is is nice, we are already at a disadvantage when being cast at so every bit helps. The other thing is that you can carry more with max light fullplate then you can with metal breastplate, I carry too much extra stuff on me so while I can carry a lot it can sometimes become an issue and end my hunts before I am done with my bounty.

Exactly the same reason I am in full plate. That and the protection it affords, as well as reverse encumbrance potential. It would take a LOT for me to give up that much needed -CvA, and the current system just isn't enough to get me to do it. I could only see it as an option for me, if I were to learn 430 and/or 120, which I don't want to do.

>>By this do you mean maneuver rolls? Like when you have spike thorn cast at you? Or the way that AP is applied to reduce dodge DS? Or more of what you were saying earlier that your modified AP should affect things like armor evasion and evade mastery?

Overtraining in armor should, basically, make you better at any action that your armor hinders you at. Not only is it logical, but it only seems fair, for the investment it requires.

>>Doing the math I'm seeing these numbers for different armors and I'm not seeing why there should be any issue.

Why is there an issue? Because the reward you get for it is absurdly minimal. You point out how training TWO HUNDRED ranks in armor use, will allow certain armors to pretty much remove their action penalty. But that's not the issue. The issue is the cost vs. benefit. Look at what you get from having that action penalty reduced...

>>Torso chain and double chain have an AP of 0 when combined with Evasion rank 5. So 200 armor rank commitment.

Let's first start by pointing out that training 200 armor ranks requires millions of post cap XP. Now let's make the assumption that it is a rogue, trained 3x in dodge.

In torso chain, and 35 ranks of armor use, they would have rank 1 armored evasion, which would reduce the action penalty from -13 to -12 or -11, depending on how the equation rounds. Let's go with -12. And we will use 25 AGI/INT bonus as a baseline.

A character in this situation would see a bonus of +235 DS in offensive stance, from their dodging skill.

On the other hand, the character with 200 armor ranks and 0 action penalty in torso chain, would see a bonus of.....15 DS. FIFTEEN DS?!? For millions of post cap XP?

And that bonus is even less, if you don't 3x dodge (which many rogues, myself included, can't afford to do.), or if you carry a shield (which many rogues do, as well.

You know what I call a +15 DS bonus for such a massively high investment of TP's? A joke.

I MIGHT consider it, if I could get more benefit from armored evasion (this having to spent less TPs in armor use), evasion mastery, slippery mind, armored stealth, picpocketing, etc. - All skills which hinder you due to the fact that you are not able to move as well in heavier armors - Something that shouldn't logically be the case, if you've trained off the action penalty for that armor.

>>Those skills you named purposefully have lesser or no bonuses for heavier armors to encourage people to use lighter armors.

So in other words, wear lighter armor and don't bother overtraining it. Exactly my point. Overtraining armor is a joke.

>>And you seem to be forgetting that having a lower AP does more then just affect dodge DS but ones ability to dodge things such as ewaves, crawler burrows, griffin rides, construct slams, and other various things. For me, that extra 14 DS I gained by going from 150 ranks up to 280 ranks of armor was just icing on the cake, I was more after the ability to better avoid maneuvers.

I didn't forget. But none of those things are an issue for me. Especially in Nelemar.

First of all, you must have a retarded amount of post cap XP, to not only afford that much armor overtraining, but to afford the 3x dodging you'd need, to see a +14 DS difference. It's 16/8 per rank, for each tripled rank!!!

But back to my main issue here - The benefit rogues get from armor overtraining is even worse, since our armor skills are affected by our AG - Yours are not. I have far less incentive to get rank 5 in armor skills than you.

>>You may think it a joke but quite a few other postcap rogues seem to disagree with you on that front.

Probably because they have no clue how much it is actually doing for them. Or they don't have a fixskills available?

>>I don't think the idea is that they want you getting all 200 ranks of armor as an immediate goal just that it gets put on your list somewhere.

I think I already gave the list. It was long, and armor use was at the end of it.