Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

Are you accounting for different races and supplicated armour?

Replace magic plate with very high dex and the armour spell, then you've broken 40. Still, anyone claiming they run around with that is probably bluster. It can be done though, a high dex character with full mage and cleric spells could break it. I doubt a single character could, except maybe a mage with shield feats?

There are definitely clerics of certain faiths with certain builds that can reach 40, though not without the help of dragonskin. This is because there is a spell out there that grants a huge deflection bonus to AC, add that to magical tower shield and shield spec + expertise, etc... I have a specific thing in mind here, but I'm sure there might be other ways for a cleric to manage, or at least near 40.

But yeah, as far as purely fighters go, I've never understood how anyone could get even near 40 AC, and I've seen some brag about this sort of AC without even dragonskin and the like. I tend to just wave these off as gross exaggerations meant to impress.

As a note, because I very, very seriously considered doing it with Areia so it interests me, give a mage max DEX and expertise alone, and that mage could rocket up to 38 AC without breaking a sweat. Make that mage a gnome or halfling and you're up to 39. It's really kind of terrible but super amusing to me how wizards of all the classes can so easily get outrageous armor class levels. I mean, mega AC plus one extra ridiculously low level spell equals what feels like better tank than any fighter could hope to be, at least as far as defending against purely melee opponents goes.

I was generally only accounting for different races in terms of size an discounted supplicated armor because to me saying you have 40 AC is saying you have 40 AC in over half your wear locations. Not just 1 or 2.

Which right now looks like baseless boasting.

[quote="Rock crusher & rock crusher & sons"]
Those finger wigglers aint welcome here noo
[/quote[

Enough said about wizards and clerics. We're going sword art online with this thread.

Next area I wanted to ask about is visors. Are they just for show?

I'm fairly sure the majority of visors in the game don't do much of anything, save of course the magical ones if there are any.

A note I thought worth bringing up, though. My thief is the sort to go straight for the eye gouging in most any fight. She's just a dirty fighter like that. But anyway, before I ever attempt this, I always try to look at the PC or NPC to see whether its wearing a visor or other face protection. It's a judgement call on the part of the thief as to whether what's worn could reasonably protect the eyes from gouging, or even whether a mob would be wearing such protection even if the code doesn't say it is wearing it. But I think that's something to keep in mind as far as one benefit of visors and the like. It's not a coded thing, but it should change the way at least some characters interact with yours in combat.

There are magical visors, but I haven't been able to determine if they have any effect or not as of yet.

Areia wrote:I'm fairly sure the majority of visors in the game don't do much of anything, save of course the magical ones if there are any.

A note I thought worth bringing up, though. My thief is the sort to go straight for the eye gouging in most any fight. She's just a dirty fighter like that. But anyway, before I ever attempt this, I always try to look at the PC or NPC to see whether its wearing a visor or other face protection. It's a judgement call on the part of the thief as to whether what's worn could reasonably protect the eyes from gouging, or even whether a mob would be wearing such protection even if the code doesn't say it is wearing it. But I think that's something to keep in mind as far as one benefit of visors and the like. It's not a coded thing, but it should change the way at least some characters interact with yours in combat.

Slightly off-topic, but I always wondered about the reasoning behind this. It's mentioned in the 'gouge' helpfile, but is it not reasonable to assume a thief might smoosh a bunch of mud into someone's visor? Or sap? We allow some reasonable interpretation of skills here in most cases. Would this not cover a small range of vision-occluding techniques? I only ask because it's always stood out, in a game where fighters suffer no stigma swinging a sword at others in full-plate.

I don't have a rogue but it seems like flinging things into people's eyes through the slit would be down to dirt kick more than gouge.
I'd be interested to know why both skills exist since they seem to do the same thing.

As for fighters swinging swords against other people in full plate and being able to hurt them. The only unrealistic portion of that is that people come out with armor in tact. I can be corrected by people with more factual proof than what I've read online and in historically accurate novels. But From what I know, Its completely possible to deal great injury to someone in full plate.

Hammers were prized for being able to deal blunt force to someone wearing a breast plate for example and shatter their ribs. And in the east. Samurai were more likely to use axes and polearms on the battlefield to punch through armor. A blow from a war sword, delivered with enough force was even still enough to fracture bones or pierce the more thinly armored portions of someone in a suit of armor. Like under the arm or breaking through the chain links of an aventail.

Althasizor wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but I always wondered about the reasoning behind this. It's mentioned in the 'gouge' helpfile, but is it not reasonable to assume a thief might smoosh a bunch of mud into someone's visor? Or sap? We allow some reasonable interpretation of skills here in most cases. Would this not cover a small range of vision-occluding techniques? I only ask because it's always stood out, in a game where fighters suffer no stigma swinging a sword at others in full-plate.

dirtkick
"Dirtkick kicks dirt (or whatever else might be available) into your
opponent's eyes and blinds them momentarily. Not exactly sporting, perhaps,
but it can provide a rogue a competitive advantage in combat, however
fleeting."

I think this skill is a bit more fitting for what you describe and is also available to thieves. I can see why the presence of this skill means that the gouge skill is a bit more strict in its definition and thus should not be used when your opponent is wearing a visor.

Yemin wrote:I'd be interested to know why both skills exist since they seem to do the same thing.

Dirtkick has a shorter lasting effect and it is also available to bards. Dirtkick also costs more stamina to use.