Topic: Can someone please explain Claw Law vs. Reverse Claw Law...

[devMind]

...and Spell Law vs. Reverse Spell Law? I'm looking at the Condensed Combat PDF, and one part of the combat sequence requires a value from the "Armor DB Mods Area." The table is cross-indexed by armor type and type of weapon attack table: Arms Law, Spell Law, Claw Law, Reverse Spell Law and Reverse Claw Law. Could someone please explain what RSL and RCL are and when they are used and why? In the "Attack Statistics Area," "Gp/Gs/En/Sw" (what's that?) is listed as Reverse Claw Law. "Shock Bolt," "Ice Bolt" and "Lightning Bolt" are listed as Reverse Spell Law, whereas "Water Bolt" and "Fire Bolt" are Spell Law. Why? What's the difference?

Thanks.

-dm

[VladD]

Reverse attack tables are where higher ATs are actually worse than lower ones. The damage relation has been reversed.

Some logical reverse tables are: Lightning bolt, Grapple, Unarmed Sweeps.

Grappling with someone carrying 50 extra pounds and perhaps some additional handholds will be more easy than an oiled up naked person. With Lightning and shock bolt (didn't know Ice bolt was inverse) it is the metal in the higher ATs that makes it more easy to strike those ATs. (Although one might argue that it forms a Faraday cage, sweaty and grimy padding and direct connections with skin and the outside will negate the Faraday cage principle).

Gp/Gs/En/Sw = Grapple, grasp, envelope, swallow table: it was a sort of attempt to stick a grapple critical on an opponent.

[devMind]

Cool. Thanks.

[Defendi]

[Insert argument about the conductivity of metal vs the conductivity of flesh here.]

[devMind]

[Insert argument about the conductivity of metal vs the conductivity of flesh here.]

Heh. Yeah. But at some point I think ya gotta forsake "realism" for game play.

[Defendi]

Or sometimes you have to forsake realism for how everyone THINKS it should work. 

[intothatdarkness]

[Insert argument about the conductivity of metal vs the conductivity of flesh here.]

[Insert counter-argument, complete with 10 reference tables and list of 17 rules, proposing another variation to the existing tables. Argument later circles back to original Defendi position, but adds 6 more tables.]

[markc]

Wait, did not someone ask the guys at Myth Busters to put a pig in armor and shoot lightning at it?
MDC

[Cory Magel]

It's 'Magical' lightning.

[Defendi]

Sure, the funny thing though is I've always thought the spell law charts did a good job of modeling it if you're in full armor.

I'm letting myself get pulled back into the argument. 

[devMind]

...the Arms Law Armor DB Mod values for...

AT 1 == 15
AT 20 ==  50

Against these armors, the Weapon OB Mod of a falchion...

AT == +0
AT 20 == +4

To Hit...

AT 1 == 61
AT 20 == 5

So when it's all said and done, someone in plate is much easier to hit.

What I don't understand, then, is the lower crit thresholds for a warrior in full plate than a guy standing around buck naked. E-Level crit thresholds...

AT 1 == 111
AT 20 == 109

Soft leather? 131. In fact, it is easier to deliver a critical hit against a foe in plate than a target wearing any other kind of armor. So according to the Condensed Combat mechanics, someone wearing plate is both easier to hit and easier to critical. You're almost always going to end up with an easier time hitting someone in heavier armor as well as delivering a nastier crit. How can this be?

This doesn't jibe with the Attack Tables. Staying with skin and plate, the falchion Attack Table shows decidedly less damage and lower crits for the heavy armor. The way it looks to me, applying Condensed Combat mechanics, it just doesn't turn out this way.

What am I missing?

[VladD]

Your observations are all pretty valid. That is why RMU is taking a different route. Plate will be the ELITE warrior's armor and the best one, except in certain specific cases (the reverse tables).

As the penalties are laid out now, Plate armor will become available only nearing lvl 20, although I am hoping RMU will screw it back to around lvl 10-12; Other armor; such as lamellar and brigandine will become more prevalent, as well as maille. The choice warriors must make should be: will I go with rigid leather, or scale/ lame or mail. Kurbul ( cuire bouille) will be fine against Krush and impact and even against slash attacks, but piercing will slice right through and Scale/ Maille protects well against slashes, less against Puncture but not against Krush.

Take a look at the tables from RMU and imagine them fine tuned, to get a more accurate simulation of how weapons react to the different types of armor.

[jdale]

The crit thresholds are very close (for A crits, 71 for skin vs 75 for plate; for E crits 111 for skin vs 109 for plate). But this applies after the armor DB mods, which as you noted are -15 for AT 1 and -50 for AT 20. So that's a -35 offset. (The weapon mod sometimes shifts things in the same direction, sometimes not, depending on how well suited the weapon is for penetrating armor.)

Step that offset back and you'll see the actual IAV needed to achieve an E critical is 126 for falchion vs skin and 155 for falchion vs plate. For A criticals, it's 86 for skin and 121 for plate. (This also includes the weapon mod.)

Now compare the table in Arms Law. Falchion vs AT 1, A critical at 85, E critical at 124. Falchion vs AT 20, A critical at 121, E critical at 147. The CCS yields results that are fairly similar to Arms Law.

There happen to also be a number of issues with the tables in Arms Law, many of which are being addressed in RMU, but assuming your intent in using the CCS is to try to replicate the Arms Law tables, it works pretty well.

[devMind]

Do you subtract the THT threshold before using the number to determine crit-level? I think this was my mistake.

Thanks everyone for the quick replies. This is a great forum.

[jdale]

I believe you just compare the modified number to both the THT threshold and to the crit thresholds. I don't think you subtract the THT threshold before comparing the number to the crit thresholds.