Items are for Wimps - Nakedness Rules

[KingOfPain]

Lets get naked!

Here’s a few issues we need to address.

A naked character does not play with PuG – It is sad enough that even with a “normal” character a PuG can make you feel totally useless, that you are just there to fill up party size limit.

Playing with other restricted characters – Playing with other with similarly restricted (in difficulty) characters should be okay, and of course, with a team of naked characters.

Solo Naked Character - Some quests and missions requires multiples of human drivers, at which time, the options are:
Acquire help from other players and as little as possible. You should play a key role.

Skip the quest or mission if there are ways around the area.

Henchies
The use of henchies should be ok so long as there are no melee henchmen. Soloing with non-tank henchmen will ensure the player to be involved, at least at first contact. Furthermore, if we feel henchies maybe too powerful, We can limit the party size to no more than half of the maximum allowed party size when using any henchman.

Minions are allowed

Armor
No armor allowed, of course. The only concern to this rule is that the Mursaats’ Spectral Agony spell may make a solo non-infused naked character impossible to play. Maybe one piece of base starting armor should be allowed when the character earns the right to be infused – for modesty reasons, of course. ;p Though a chest piece would be the obvious choice, which body part you want to cover is up to you. So keep your starting outfit in stash.

The one piece of infused armor is only legal where Mursaats are known to be found.

For a team of naked characters, I would like to see no infuse allowance until we have the opportunities to play with the Mursaats a few times before we decide.

No shield or focus items

Weapon
No weapon at all – characters cannot use melee and bow skills, and, all characters will go into melee range without attack when a skill is not keyed up for use...

Starter weapons will allowed warriors to melee, and rangers to use their bow skills while still keeping with the spirit of the rules. However, I would like to see that only primary warriors can use melee weapons, and only primary rangers can use bows. Furthermore, rangers are stuck with their starting bow, and, warrior are stuck with their starting maul. Warriors can acquire a sword or an axe if faster attack rate is preferred over slightly more damage from a hammer, but the sword/axe must be of base minimal damage without mods.

Non melee characters can equip their starting wand or staff else it will go into melee range but does not attack.

Comments, suggestions, anything I left out?


KoP

[Zed-F]

I don't like the idea of restricting bows only to primary rangers. Given that there will be a limited number of ppl playing, and a limited party size, and not everyone may be available every time the party gets together, restricting bows to primary rangers seems like a bad idea. Pulling is essential tactics with an underpowered group like this and we may well not have a primary ranger at any given time.

If you really want to restrict the team to only starter weapons, then let everyone pick whatever starter weapons they want. IIRC, starter weapons can be purchased for 0 gold in Ascalon city. Hopefully, starter armour can be as well; I'd really rather not have starter junk occupy my stash uselessly.

[KingOfPain]

Keep in mind this is a first draft and we just needed some basis to work with, so I am not opposed to "relaxing" the restrictions...

I am not a fan to bow pulls, but that's not to say it doesn't have it merits at times. How under powered and how much we can compensate with a group of people who are team players remains to been seen. I would rather see that if we get stuck somewhere and a few bow pulls pulls us through before we make that allowance. Again, I am still open to the idea.

The idea of even allowing any weapons at all is just so the meleer can melee at all, and not to shut off half of a ranger's skills - not to make things easier.

Would it be a good compromise to allow primary/secondary warriors to equip melee weapons, and primary/secondary rangers to equip bows?

The freedom to choose your own starting weapons (so long they are base damage with no mods) and base minimal AL for armors sounds like a good idea. heck, I am bound to make my nudist base on which class gets the best looking undies

KoP

[Havral]

So keep your starting outfit in stash.

No need! Should a character quit the game "naked", then a set of regular starter armour will be generated upon that character on logout. I believe it's possible to gain infinite amounts of starter armour (Though why would you, since you can't salvage or sell) by repeating this process.

However, it has been proven that enemies hit different parts of the body according to probablity. I am positive that it's the chest area that soaks up the most damage, while I believe it's either the feet or the hands that receive a kicking far less often. Naturally, restricting a character to wearing a chest piece would be more beneficial than, say, gloves or boots.

I'll try and dig up the specific numbers for you later.

[Zed-F]

My understanding is it's head/feet/hands 12.5%, legs 25%, chest 37.5%.

[KingOfPain]

We are Gluttons For Punishment ©

That is why I wouldn't even think of forcing someone to receive any more benefit than s/he wants.. that's a big no no

BTW, I forgot to mention that one piece of infused armor is only legal where Mursaats are known to be found.

Incase some of us doesn't know what naked means in terms of damage in GW - A character with 60 AL receives 100% damage, and 40 (more, or less) AL would mean double or half the damage depending on which side of the scale you are on.

A naked character will receive 282.8% of damage

Though, I don't know if this is capped at zero armor class.

No need! Should a character quit the game "naked", then a set of regular starter armour will be generated upon that character on logout

I just tested it and I am not seeing that happen.


KoP

[Havral]

Hmm, odd. I usually strip characters completely of all possessions if I plan on deleting them, and they always appear with starter armour on the character select screen afterwards.

[KingOfPain]

oh, they do appear dressed (iirc, if completely naked. even if you still have armor in the inventory) on the character selection screen, but the armors are not recreated.


KoP

[Hawkmoon]

So we'd have to keep just the one item of our starting armor that we wanted to eventually infuse in our stash, right? We can ditch the rest. That's not too great a burden on storage space. (When will A.Net implement Guild Storage??!!)

So then, a question - if we get this organized, I had intended to use my Me/E, who's about to exit PSA. The trouble is, I already upgraded his armor to the set you get from the PSA collectors - it's just an extra 2 AL, but do we want to insist on purity? I can create another char (though I'll have to delete a char - DAMN this 4-char slot limit!). Thoughts?

Hawkmoon

[KingOfPain]

I feel your pain on the storgae issue. You only have to keep one piece of armor you want but I would keep all five myself to make sure I can throw on whatever strike my fancy at any time. Besides, with this one piece of armor allowance there is a loophole you are free to exploit. It's not much a loophole at all, but different armor pieces may give different bonus depending on your profession.

I would want you too start anew when we get going because we don't want to miss your presence for 2 to 3 session when the rest of us are back in pre school

Now, if we can just get ShadowHM her vid card she can join in the fun too

KoP