I've been thinking ( I know, dangerous precedent), but some of the equipment categories and how they are used really don't make a lot of sense. I realize a lot of it was inherited and has a long tradition, but stil..

Take rings for example. What self-respecting warrior would ever wear a big gaudy ring. Or really any ring? The damn things constantly get in the way, a simple bash could dent it and cause you to lose a finger and it'd probably make gripping your weapon tricker. There's a reason baseball players don't wear rings.. Not to mention how utterly silly the concept of wearing gloves AND rings is. The only time I've ever seen that was on some high fasion ladies who wore very thing black gloves and rings on top of the gloves.

Now I know the stats from rings are nice and that's why most folks wear them, but for a lot characters they're just goofy in concept. So why not make some trade-offs? If you have big heavy gauntlets, no rings. If you're a prissy little mage with silk gloves or bare hands...rings. To balance things out a bit, the stats of those big heavy gauntlets would have to change some, but I can't imagine it being all that difficult.

I'm also thinking about things like savages: what savage would ever wear rings? I could see necklaces of teeth and such and maybe bracer(-lets), but something like a ring ought to count more severely against a savage than wearing leggings or a vest of leather. I don't actually know if they do or don't, but I'm just saying...

I focused on rings just because they're the first thing on the equipment list and one of the most egregious style breakers. I'm guessing others can come up with other things that would look equally goofy.

Would it require a little re-balancing of the gear? Yep! Would it be a pain? Not for me, I'm not an IMM. But it might mean figuring out how to improve stats for somethings in the trade-off for not wearing rings without making other combinations even more powerfull.

Hey it's just a Monday kind of idea, flame away

>Take rings for example. What self-respecting warrior would
>ever wear a big gaudy ring.

I definitely would, if it would help me. If I could wear a ring that would allow me to say, jump a foot higher, I would definitely wear it to play basketball. I think (or at least I hope) that the number of people who are insecure enough in their sexuality to eschew magical rings that provide a real benefit are very few.

This comes up occasionally, but it comes down to this. When death is on the line I'm going to be wearing a magical tutu with matching garter belt and boustier if I think it'll keep me alive. Do I really care what other people say about my clothes when I'm rampaging across the battlefield?

As for the issue of practicality, I think you're wrong. There are some very odd things that occur (cloaks over robes over platemail). Rings are generally okay, however. Some rings might be incompatible with some gloves, but gauntlets are fairly roomy; They have to be to provide flexibility. How many married people do you know that take off their rings every time they put on a pair of gloves? To do anything sensible there'd have to be a "volume" stat on all gear and maybe a large ring couldn't be worn with small gloves. Somehow I don't really think a system like that would add anything to the game.

I certainly wouldn't want to see a rebalancing like this, since I disagree with the basic principle.

To be honest, try a simple experiemt. Put on your senior class ring if you have one (or similar sized one) and then put on some gloves. Most wedding rings are simple bands of gold, but ask your wife about the pain of her engagement ring and wearing gloves.

As to your first point, that's the whole argument about style. Some giants are going to feel comfortable charging into the fray with a tutu on. Heck, some might even prefer wearing a tutu, nothing wrong with that. But if you imagine a clash of warriors, tutu's are not likely the first thing you think of. Unless you're very strange.

My point was that folks DO wear rings precisely for the reason you stated. And it's goofy.

And remember, change is good.

>To be honest, try a simple experiemt. Put on your senior
>class ring if you have one (or similar sized one) and then put
>on some gloves. Most wedding rings are simple bands of gold,
>but ask your wife about the pain of her engagement ring and
>wearing gloves.

Right, so some rings are too big to wear comfortably under gloves. But from what you're saying it sounds like you think most are, and I'm not sure about that. I don't have my item list at hand, but I'd be surprised if most rings are big gawdy affairs. I think most are fairly plain. Could be wrong though.

>As to your first point, that's the whole argument about style.
>Some giants are going to feel comfortable charging into the
>fray with a tutu on. Heck, some might even prefer wearing a
>tutu, nothing wrong with that. But if you imagine a clash of
>warriors, tutu's are not likely the first thing you think of.
>Unless you're very strange.
>
>My point was that folks DO wear rings precisely for the reason
>you stated. And it's goofy.
>
>And remember, change is good.

Change is good, sure. But I just don't like this change very much. Part of the problem is that if you apply this logic to rings you should apply it to other things. Arm and wristwear, for example. Or body/about body/neckwear. I've never tried, but I'm pretty sure I could get a character wearing four robes. I find that image a lot goofier than a warrior wearing a ring under gauntlets. Maybe we just have different associations with rings, but I don't even think most rings are out of place on a warrior. Sure, a big, flashy gemstone ring would be a bit out of place, but most ring's don't have a name (and I don't know descriptions offhand) that indicates gaudiness to me.

If anything, the strangest thing is when a giant takes off his platemail and hands it to a gnome to wear. Or a gnome trots around happily wearing the huge skull of the ancient dracolich. If anything, it's these bizarre size mismatches that come across as silly. Much like the rings bit, I think that fixing it would make the game less fun, even if it did help the style consistancy a little.

>I've been thinking ( I know, dangerous precedent), but some
>of the equipment categories and how they are used really don't
>make a lot of sense. I realize a lot of it was inherited and
>has a long tradition, but stil..

This is not entirely true.

>Take rings for example. What self-respecting warrior would
>ever wear a big gaudy ring. Or really any ring? The damn
>things constantly get in the way, a simple bash could dent it
>and cause you to lose a finger and it'd probably make gripping
>your weapon tricker. There's a reason baseball players don't
>wear rings.. Not to mention how utterly silly the concept of
>wearing gloves AND rings is. The only time I've ever seen that
>was on some high fasion ladies who wore very thing black
>gloves and rings on top of the gloves.

The thing is, all this is a load of crap. In midevil times, it was customary for knights and others of noble descent to wear the signet ring of their family on either the forefinger or thumb, even in battle. These signet rings were prized loot.

Also, the rings were wide silver or gold rings, so they wouldn't get dented by a simple bash.

The realism problem in equipment is not the fact that eq slots per say would not be viable, but instead the fact that equipment descriptions might not fit the actual use. How the hell do you fight with a mitre, or a crown on your head. Why don't spiked gauntlets cause extra hth damage? Why won't cranialing a guy with a long spiked helmet cause him to break his neck (helmets with long spikes and such were usually decorational and used by horsemen who were generally able to avoid any strikes to the head).

Last of all, I think things are just fine as is. I will rather imagine a fire giant warriors charging into battle using magically enhanced spandex, than try to discern red helmet #876 from red helmet #1013

>The thing is, all this is a load of crap. In midevil times, it
>was customary for knights and others of noble descent to wear
>the signet ring of their family on either the forefinger or
>thumb, even in battle. These signet rings were prized loot.
>
>Also, the rings were wide silver or gold rings, so they
>wouldn't get dented by a simple bash.

How many nobles were there on the battlefield?
>
>The realism problem in equipment is not the fact that eq slots
>per say would not be viable, but instead the fact that
>equipment descriptions might not fit the actual use. How the
>hell do you fight with a mitre, or a crown on your head. Why
>don't spiked gauntlets cause extra hth damage? Why won't
>cranialing a guy with a long spiked helmet cause him to break
>his neck (helmets with long spikes and such were usually
>decorational and used by horsemen who were generally able to
>avoid any strikes to the head).

Actually here I agree and it was part of what I was trying to get across about rebalancing. I think spiked gauntlets *should* increase HTH damage akin to the way spiked boots do to kick damage. There would have to be a trade-off: wear the gloves, lose the rings. And in game balance, it would be tricky in order to prevent too powerful of combinations.

My thinking was that this would actually increase the diversity of playing styles as folks made trade-offs in how to attire themselves and you would have fewer mages looking like warriors and vice-versa.

I think you are maybe focusing on rings a little bit too much as they are in today's world. Yes, I take my wedding ring off to play volleyball. But if I was in a street fight (god help me) and had a razor ring, I'd probably keep it on.

Way back before Balgrimnr, we actually had several people asking us why they could only wear two rings (one for each hand). After all, they said, I have 4 fingers and a thumb on each hand.

Beyond the obvious game balance issues (sweet, +20 dam just from opal rings!) we made the point that while you could definitely wield a weapon with one ring on, attempting to do so with a ring on each finger would probably make you look silly.

As to savages and rings, again, I think it's a roleplay choice and dependant on the ring. If I were playing a savage, I'd probably be fine with any ring that had +dam on it because the roleplay assumption is that the ring has something about it that makes me hit harder. Little spikey things, studs, or the like. Similarly if it was +STR. A banded ring that's invisible and adds to hp and mana? Eh. Maybe not so much.

Rings and gauntlets? I do agree that it's a teeny stretch to say that wearing a razor ring inside a pair of heavy gauntlets will add to your +dam. More likely to add to your +sliceoffyourownfinger. But I would direct you to http://www.mwart.com/xq/ASP.productlg/pid.1552/qx/limited-edition-gauntlet-of-the-dark-lord-sauron.htm for how I envision rings with heavy gauntlets. Granted we're not all the Dark Lord Sauron (well, I am, but you guys aren't. Are you?) and obviously that's the One Ring not a razor ring but the point stands.

I think a similar question is how do you hold a weapon with a metal hilt while wearing metal gauntlets? One handed?
Or how do non-magical gauntlets/gloves fit both a reduced gnome and an enlarged giant?

As Basil Exposition said to Austin Powers in The Spy Who Shagged Me: "I suggest you don't worry about such things, and just enjoy yourself. (Aside) That goes for you, too!"

since that used to be the custom.

Hey Twist!

I picked on rings because they were first on the list and the strangeness of wearing rings and gauntlets has always seemed just plain weird. But I think the same thing about leggings/greaves WITHOUT wearing a belt. Well, greaves I could imagine, though you'd look like a Roman centurion without the skirt, but leggings? What keeps them up unless you wear a belt?

I keep imagining a giant charging into battle with his hoohaa hanging out but everything else covered up with heavy plate armor. I mean where's the slot for the codpiece!

And neckwear, I can imagine 2 necklaces, but 2 cloaks around the neck (not counting one around the body)? How do you manage than and still fight without getting wrapped up like you would after a rampant night in the sheets?

Admittedly, this topic was just a discussion starter. It would be a huge undertaking though I could imagine it starting piecemeal (i.e. rings/gloves then the next logical trade-offs...) The motivation was in a place where you value a diversity of playing styles as evidenced by the specializations, edges, this just seemed a logical place to also consider.

Heck maybe it would only begin applying to new gear added to the game.

And I'm not too worried about it It was just another one of those random ideas I had.

>Would it require a little re-balancing of the gear? Yep! Would
>it be a pain? Not for me, I'm not an IMM.

I think right there's pretty much your answer.

There's a ton of things on my list that I think would be a lot more fun for the players, as well as a lot more fun for me to work on. If I ever run out of those things, we'll talk.

>>Would it require a little re-balancing of the gear? Yep!
>Would
>>it be a pain? Not for me, I'm not an IMM.
>
>I think right there's pretty much your answer.
>
>There's a ton of things on my list that I think would be a lot
>more fun for the players, as well as a lot more fun for me to
>work on. If I ever run out of those things, we'll talk.

I'd also argue that "a little re-balancing" is a huge underestimate. There are a total of 12,052 objects currently in the game.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Hey I only said it wouldn't be a pain for me

Though I'd imagine only certain sub-classes of object would have to be dealt with at any one time, like rings and gloves (to beat a dead horse).

The biggest pain would be expanding the code you already have for checking wearing masks and helms to a few other classes of equipment.

Of course, that's fun of being in the peanut gallery and tossing out random ideas.

nt