On 8/21/06, Lalo Martins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:01:23 -0700, Mark Wedel wrote: > > ERACC Subscriptions wrote: > >> I propose that robes and other cloth items (not cloaks) should be a new > >> class > >> of item called "clothing" not "armor". A new body spot created for that and > >> archetypes updated. Special robes that may impart armor-like > >> characteristics > >> could then be adjusted in the archetypes for prevention of abuse (if that > >> appears to become a problem).
Having more general clothing in the game, would add more depth for role playing (formal whatevers). If it's armor, set it's type to armor. > > technically, this is pretty easy to do. > > > > But balance wise, this is more an issue. Whenever new body positions are > > added, it basically means the player becomes more powerful. > > I think the solution to the problem eracc described on irc is not new body > spots, but just a new type. I don't think you can wear gloves and > gauntlets at the same time, or a robe over a breastplate. (You can wear a > breastplate over a shirt, and usually you'll want to, but for game > purposes, let's say that's, er, a different kind of shirt.) Yes. > Then flags like can_use_armor only need to check the type -- which I > believe is the way it is already. > > yes-lets-stop-the-disgusting-naked-Rugillites-ly yours, THANK YOU. -- Andrew Fuchs _______________________________________________ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire