Is Ankheg armour worth it? (was Re: tales of the sword coast)

[vincentm]

In article <eAl8ysrn$GA.234@cpmsnbbsa03>, "Doc_MS"
<Doc...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> See my answers below...
> Doc
> > 2. How come a magic amulet of protection won't work
> with a ring of
> > protection?
> Again probably because of play balance. Plus I
> vaguely remember a rule in
> PnP AD&D about only being able to wear one protection
> item. What really
> annoys me is that you can't wear magic armor and
> protection items. Still
> with some strategic shuffling of items I know I've
> been able to get my
> Paladin down to AC -9. I think I can get her down to
> -10 if I get the Helm
> of Balduran. Haven't tried it yet though. Bottom
> line not being to double
> up protection magic isn't fatal.

I also note that you cannot use +1 protection items with
the Ankheg armour. Since the Ankheg armour seems the same
as full plate, is it better to use full plate so you can
use +1 ring/shield/amulet?

* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful

[Rich C. Velay]

vincentm wrote:
>
> I also note that you cannot use +1 protection items with
> the Ankheg armour. Since the Ankheg armour seems the same
> as full plate, is it better to use full plate so you can
> use +1 ring/shield/amulet?
>

RCV: Based purely on AC, no. But for a weak character, the Ankheg
plate is MUCH lighter and that may well be enough to offset the "lost"
+1 AC. Note also that the Ankheg plate is not as effective in
protecting versus all atacks as "true" full plate - but again the weight
issue might be more important than AC.

After all, the best "AC" comes from never being hit! That's why ranged
weapons are so important - with good ranged attacks, you can defeat
melee armed opponents before they ever close fo an attack!
Rich

[Nick Youmans]

"Rich C. Velay" <vel...@sprint.ca> wrote in message

> RCV: Based purely on AC, no. But for a weak character, the Ankheg
> plate is MUCH lighter and that may well be enough to offset the "lost"
> +1 AC. Note also that the Ankheg plate is not as effective in
> protecting versus all atacks as "true" full plate - but again the weight
> issue might be more important than AC.
>
> After all, the best "AC" comes from never being hit! That's why ranged
> weapons are so important - with good ranged attacks, you can defeat
> melee armed opponents before they ever close fo an attack!
> Rich

also...a druid can wear it! It is probably the best armor they can get
(except maybe a +3 leather -- or something like that in DT)

Nick

[Rich C. Velay]

RCV: No, it IS the best. Leather armor is almost a waste of time,
given the number of ranged weapon armed opponents in the game. Leather
armor is +2 versus piercing weapons, like all missile [inc. bow]
weapons. So normal Leather armor is AC 8, but with a plus two to your
opponents THAC0, making it effectively AC 10 versus bows and X-bows and
darts and the like.
Even +3 Lthr [and I know of no such beast myself] would only give AC 7
versus ranged weapons - hardly worth the weight! Even a set of "only"
+1 Studded would be preferable, and +2 Studded is wonderful.
Rich

[m...@tady.org]

Leather +3 is at the bottom of DT. Otherwise, you are right. :)

--J
Replies to: jNpolak(at)Ojuno(dot)Tcom

[Rich C. Velay]

m...@tady.org wrote:
> > RCV: No, it IS the best. Leather armor is almost a waste of time,
> > given the number of ranged weapon armed opponents in the game. Leather
> > armor is +2 versus piercing weapons, like all missile [inc. bow]
> > weapons. So normal Leather armor is AC 8, but with a plus two to your
> > opponents THAC0, making it effectively AC 10 versus bows and X-bows and
> > darts and the like.
> > Even +3 Lthr [and I know of no such beast myself] would only give AC 7
> > versus ranged weapons - hardly worth the weight! Even a set of "only"
> > +1 Studded would be preferable, and +2 Studded is wonderful.
> > Rich
>
> Leather +3 is at the bottom of DT. Otherwise, you are right. :)
>

RCV: Well it HAS been a long time since I was in DT, and I only went
once - that when I first got the expansion. I hate tricks, traps and
puzzles, so... laffs
Personaly [just as in PnP], I much prefer the lower level parts of the
game, say up to chapter 4. After that I get bored pretty quick. So my
knowledge of the expansion adventures is sadly lacking, and my memory of
those aspects of the game is dim at best.
Rich

[Doc]

I do exactly as you say, wear Full Plate instead of the Ankheg armor so I
can wear my Ring of Protection +2. The only reason I can see to wear the
Ankheg stuff is if you have a really low strength. The only advantage it
has is that it weighs much less than full plate.

Doc

vincentm <vincentm...@madison-hill.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:032a80ac...@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com...

> In article <eAl8ysrn$GA.234@cpmsnbbsa03>, "Doc_MS"
> <Doc...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> > See my answers below...
> > Doc
> > > 2. How come a magic amulet of protection won't work
> > with a ring of
> > > protection?
> > Again probably because of play balance. Plus I
> > vaguely remember a rule in
> > PnP AD&D about only being able to wear one protection
> > item. What really
> > annoys me is that you can't wear magic armor and
> > protection items. Still
> > with some strategic shuffling of items I know I've
> > been able to get my
> > Paladin down to AC -9. I think I can get her down to
> > -10 if I get the Helm
> > of Balduran. Haven't tried it yet though. Bottom
> > line not being to double
> > up protection magic isn't fatal.
>

> I also note that you cannot use +1 protection items with
> the Ankheg armour. Since the Ankheg armour seems the same
> as full plate, is it better to use full plate so you can
> use +1 ring/shield/amulet?
>
>

[Nick Youmans]

<m...@tady.org> wrote in message ranged attacks, you can defeat

> Leather +3 is at the bottom of DT. Otherwise, you are right. :)

Which is right where I left it!!!

ok...maybe I sold it...i don't remember ;-)

Nick