On May 16, 3:33 am, Andrew Sidwell <takka...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I've been thinking about this bit in particular for a little while now
> (as I'm sure you can tell), and it seems to me that the
> workman****p/magic difference is best expressed in terms of [base AC vs.
> magical AC] and [damage dice vs. bonuses]. The only problem with that
> is acid damage reducing magical bonuses.
Yes.
> I would suggest that acid damage actually hurt the weapon dice, reducing
> them by one point of average damage (EyAngband should have code to do
> that); and also having it reduce armour's base AC. Keep backups of
> those original values, though, so a scroll of repairing/store service
> can return it back to its former glory.
Yes, yes, yes. This is brilliant.
> Just a thought. I do think having three different elements to AC/damage
> (base, magic, workman****p) is over-the-top, though (even if the player
> only sees two elements, the law of leaky abstractions [1] means that
> they'll still have to be aware that there are three).
>
> [1]http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html
And yes again. My only quibble is that as a mathematician, I would
call "abstraction" something like "approximation", or "idealisation".
Nick.
|
