Q on Heavy armor penalty to ranged attacks

Aneira · **Joined:** Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:28 am **Posts:** 1538

I feel sorry for that IMM.

Marfik(2008) · **Posted:** Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:14 am

Dulrik wrote:

Are there people actually wearing that voluntarily right now?

A simple solution would be to add a 'sheathed' or 'cinched to belt' slot that worked with most armor-type belts that you use by holding what you want to sheath and typing 'sheath'.

Snuffles · **Posted:** Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:51 am

Marfik wrote:

Dulrik wrote:

Are there people actually wearing that voluntarily right now?

A simple solution would be to add a 'sheathed' or 'cinched to belt' slot that worked with most armor-type belts that you use by holding what you want to sheath and typing 'sheath'.

That would be so incredibly cool, even cooler if it didn't come in pink colors, but still cool. :wink:

Sheathing your weapon gets my vote! Make it so.

jhorleb · **Posted:** Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:31 am

Now that my original question has been partly answered - what about centaur shoes? Do heavy armor centaur shoes count against you for the shooting penalty?

ObjectivistActivist · **Posted:** Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:33 am

jhorleb wrote:

Now that my original question has been partly answered - what about centaur shoes? Do heavy armor centaur shoes count against you for the shooting penalty?

When D quoted the news list item that said ANY pieces of heavy armor worn count against the ability to shoot, I'm pretty sure both portions of the original question were answered.

jhorleb · **Posted:** Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:39 am

Right, then I'd consider this a bug. If it's not, the help file about centaur shoes of heavy material types not hindering centaurs should be fixed.

Syndal · **Posted:** Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:17 am

This makes me a sad panda. I actually liked some of the waist containers, the waterthread medicine belt or whatever(from the CoH) is the best. :cry:

Okay..Been playing 5 years or so, granted I've not played too many heavy armor classes, but seriously, off the top of my head, I can't think of ANY high quality heavy armor(meaning diamond/addy) "about body" pieces that are containers. All the high-quality robes and stuff are mithril/energy aren't they?

To sum this up, this change is evil. :oops:

P.S./Edit : Oh snaps, I check my spell/skill list and...This already got put in? Who wants to trade their mithril belt for my addy one!? :lol:

Goldlantern · **Posted:** Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:48 pm

That's proof that the change needed to happen, right there.

Jardek · **Posted:** Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:43 pm

Syndal wrote:

This makes me a sad panda. I actually liked some of the waist containers

Seconded, but there are always winners and losers in every code change.

Cyra · **Joined:** Sat Aug 24, 2002 6:56 am **Posts:** 1858

-Johnix- wrote:

There are enough reasons to let the belt slot as it is and equally enough to change it. I agree with Cannibal that wearing a heavy backpack and fighting (as a light armor class) is much worse than wearing a heavy belt and fighting. On the other hand there used to be times when fighting classes were looking for adamantite belts (as I have twice pointed out in the past) because sorcerers were using/hoarding some of them. A good solution would be to change the few adamantite/adamantine waist containers out there that have no ac to actual belts. I can think of three at the moment and more that are steel/tanso. Otherwise it will work as a nerf for shamans/rogues/swasies/bards.

edit: The change has already taken place so nevermind. :P

First, containers provide no protection in armor slots. If you're wearing a container in the waist slot you weren't getting any benefits.

Second, I hate hoarding sorcerers.

Shattered Kingdoms

Q on Heavy armor penalty to ranged attacks

Who is online