What to do as Wizard between Mine's End and the Quest?

Marc Hartstein <marcmagus.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnfqn1ab.fse.marcmagus@cabinet.tower:

> On 2008-02-07, chuckcar <chuck.DeleteThis@nil.car> wrote:
>> Rachel Elizabeth Dillon <rachel.DeleteThis@akrasiac.org> wrote in
>> news:slrnfqmkc7.te1.rachel@autumnfox.akrasiac.org:
>>
>>> On 2008-02-07, chuckcar <chuck.DeleteThis@nil.car> wrote:
>>>> I don't see what's so hard about it, the AC is dropped by a maximum
>>>> of three unless the enchantment is less than three in which case
>>>> it's dropped to AC 0. So if you have a +5 shield, you get a +2
>>>> shield if it's completely rusty/burned. Nothing else matters. And
>>>> this can only be fixed by foo-proofing it of course.
>>
>> I was basing my "correction" on armr-3.4.3 and your reading of it.
>> The fact is that it was another error in the spoilers that we've now
>> found.
>
> The spoiler is correct. Your reading of it was incorrect.
>
> There is no error in the spoiler, although it's possible it could be
> rewritten to make this point clearer (perhaps simply with an example).
>
Ok, but I don't see where it talks about a piece of armor enchanted
above +0 being resistant to losing it's AC due to erosion. Please
explain if this is not what is being said here. If it is, doesn't that
consistute a bug? BTW I *did* conjure up a +5 dwarven iron helm, wore
*just* that and then a rust monster and my AC didn't go up. Just to
ensure my point is understood: a +0 dwarvish iron helm can loose two
points, a +0 dwarvish cloak can't lose any along with a +1 dwarvish
cloak? They just appear rotted/corroded.


--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 >> Stay informed about: What to do as Wizard between Mine's End and the Quest? 

On 2008-02-08, chuckcar <chuck.RemoveThis@nil.car> wrote:
> Marc Hartstein <marcmagus.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:slrnfqn1ab.fse.marcmagus@cabinet.tower:
>
>> On 2008-02-07, chuckcar <chuck.RemoveThis@nil.car> wrote:
>>
>> There is no error in the spoiler, although it's possible it could be
>> rewritten to make this point clearer (perhaps simply with an example).
>>
> Ok, but I don't see where it talks about a piece of armor enchanted
> above +0 being resistant to losing it's AC due to erosion. Please
> explain if this is not what is being said here. If it is, doesn't that
> consistute a bug? BTW I *did* conjure up a +5 dwarven iron helm, wore
> *just* that and then a rust monster and my AC didn't go up. Just to
> ensure my point is understood: a +0 dwarvish iron helm can loose two
> points, a +0 dwarvish cloak can't lose any along with a +1 dwarvish
> cloak? They just appear rotted/corroded.

It's not what's being said, but I can see how it could seem that way.
There are two contributing factors to the AC reduction you get from a
piece of armor. The first is the "base ac" which is dependent on what
kind of armor it is, and can be reduced by damage by up to 3 points,
but to a minimum of 0. The second is the bonus from any enchantment
on the armor, and is independent of damage.

+0 dwarvish iron helm AC reduction of 2
rusty +0 dwarvish iron helm AC reduction of 1
thoroughly rusty +0 dwarvish iron helm AC reduction of 0
+5 dwarvish iron helm AC reduction of 7
rusty +5 dwarvish iron helm AC reduction of 6
thoroughly rusty +5 dwarvish iron helm AC reduction of 5

+5 dwarvish cloak AC reduction of 5
thoroughly corroded +5 dwarvish cloak AC reduction of 5

Notice that the +5 from enchantment can never be taken away by
corrosion. So, as you say, a dwarvish cloak (regardless of
enchantment) cannot lose any of its benefit from corrosion. A
dwarvish iron helm (regardless of enchantment) can only lose two
points.

Regarding the original discussion, this means that fireproofing a
dwarvish cloak or a (T-|Hawaiian) shirt is a complete waste of time.
In general, it's often more valuable to use a scroll to improve the
enchantment of something which can use it (particularly if some part
of your kit is still +0) than to fooproof something.
 >> Stay informed about: What to do as Wizard between Mine's End and the Quest? 

Marc Hartstein wrote:
> On 2008-02-08, chuckcar <chuck DeleteThis @nil.car> wrote:
>
>>Marc Hartstein <marcmagus DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:slrnfqn1ab.fse.marcmagus@cabinet.tower:
>>
>>
>>>On 2008-02-07, chuckcar <chuck DeleteThis @nil.car> wrote:
>>>
>>>There is no error in the spoiler, although it's possible it could be
>>>rewritten to make this point clearer (perhaps simply with an example).
>>>
>>
>>Ok, but I don't see where it talks about a piece of armor enchanted
>>above +0 being resistant to losing it's AC due to erosion. Please
>>explain if this is not what is being said here. If it is, doesn't that
>>consistute a bug? BTW I *did* conjure up a +5 dwarven iron helm, wore
>>*just* that and then a rust monster and my AC didn't go up. Just to
>>ensure my point is understood: a +0 dwarvish iron helm can loose two
>>points, a +0 dwarvish cloak can't lose any along with a +1 dwarvish
>>cloak? They just appear rotted/corroded.
>
>
> It's not what's being said, but I can see how it could seem that way.
> There are two contributing factors to the AC reduction you get from a
> piece of armor. The first is the "base ac" which is dependent on what
> kind of armor it is, and can be reduced by damage by up to 3 points,
> but to a minimum of 0. The second is the bonus from any enchantment
> on the armor, and is independent of damage.
>
> +0 dwarvish iron helm AC reduction of 2
> rusty +0 dwarvish iron helm AC reduction of 1
> thoroughly rusty +0 dwarvish iron helm AC reduction of 0
> +5 dwarvish iron helm AC reduction of 7
> rusty +5 dwarvish iron helm AC reduction of 6
> thoroughly rusty +5 dwarvish iron helm AC reduction of 5
>
> +5 dwarvish cloak AC reduction of 5
> thoroughly corroded +5 dwarvish cloak AC reduction of 5
>
> Notice that the +5 from enchantment can never be taken away by
> corrosion. So, as you say, a dwarvish cloak (regardless of
> enchantment) cannot lose any of its benefit from corrosion. A
> dwarvish iron helm (regardless of enchantment) can only lose two
> points.
>
> Regarding the original discussion, this means that fireproofing a
> dwarvish cloak or a (T-|Hawaiian) shirt is a complete waste of time.
> In general, it's often more valuable to use a scroll to improve the
> enchantment of something which can use it (particularly if some part
> of your kit is still +0) than to fooproof something.

Like I earlier already wrote the following pieces of armor don't need
fooproofing as their base AC is 10 eg. AC reduction is 0:

T- and Hawaiian shirts, fedora, dunce cap, mummy wrapping and orcish and
dwarvish cloaks.

Topi
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
"How come he didn't put 'I think' at the end of it?" - Anonymous
 >> Stay informed about: What to do as Wizard between Mine's End and the Quest? 

Carl <carlhnelson.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in
news:c862264e-7c89-4683-8f9e-0f6b2fe76068@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 8, 12:51 pm, chuckcar <ch....DeleteThis@nil.car> wrote:
>> Marc Hartstein <marcma....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:slrnfqn1ab.fse.marcmagus
> @cabinet.tower:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 2008-02-07, chuckcar <ch....DeleteThis@nil.car> wrote:
>> >> Rachel Elizabeth Dillon <rac....DeleteThis@akrasiac.org> wrote in
>> >>news:slrnfqmkc7.te1.rachel@autumnfox.akrasiac.org:
>>
>> >>> On 2008-02-07, chuckcar <ch....DeleteThis@nil.car> wrote:

> Your armor class is reduced by the base amount shown above. However,
> if
> armor is damaged, that amount of reduction is lowered by the greatest
> degree of erosion (damaged = 1, very damaged = 2, and thoroughly
> damaged = 3), but that will not lower the AC reduction beyond zero.
>
> [CN - So a thoroughly rusty +0 dwarven helm or orcish helm gives an AC
> reduction of zero.]
> [snip]
>
> Your AC is THEN [emphasis by CN] further reduced by the enchantment
> (e.g., +1) of the
> armor. [snip]
>
> [CN-so a +5 thoroughly rusty dwarven helm gives an AC reduction of 5]

What *really* kills me is that ever since I learned how to foo-proof
(about the time I started posting here) I've been assuming that the +'s
go away so to speak and been foo-proofing to ammend it. I can think of
*maybe* one assension that could have been.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 >> Stay informed about: What to do as Wizard between Mine's End and the Quest? 

On 2008-02-09, hcobb wrote:
> On Feb 7, 8:44 am, Ohle Claussen <ohle.claus....DeleteThis@ds.mpg.de> wrote:
>> > Once your pet elves make it to the other side of the checkers board
>> > and get kinged make sure you equip them properly.
>>
>> I don't get it. Are you advising taming elves and withholding them equipment
>> before they level up? Whatever for?
>
> It simply isn't worth expending much effort to optimize the gear of a
> low level elf,

Why wait if you plan to level it up anyway?

> but the Kings are the toughest tamable non-magical
> generic humanoid. (At least they don't sleep around on the job.)

Why would you want a humanoid?

--
Ohle Claussen | GPG-Key-ID E7149169
----------===========----------
BOFH Excuse #429:
Temporal anomaly
 >> Stay informed about: What to do as Wizard between Mine's End and the Quest? 

On Feb 10, 6:34 am, Ohle Claussen <ohle.claus....DeleteThis@ds.mpg.de> wrote:
> On 2008-02-09, hcobb wrote:
> > It simply isn't worth expending much effort to optimize the gear of a
> > low level elf,
>
> Why wait if you plan to level it up anyway?
>
> > but the Kings are the toughest tamable non-magical
> > generic humanoid. (At least they don't sleep around on the job.)
>
> Why would you want a humanoid?

Because they can wear dragon scale mail and other useful armor.

Foocubi are better for the special ability, but harder to tame.

-HJC
 >> Stay informed about: What to do as Wizard between Mine's End and the Quest?