 
|
|
|
( 02.11.2011 )
|
|
|
|
( 27.05.2011 )
|
|
|
|
( 17.11.2010 )
|
|
|
|
( 23.09.2010 )
|
|
|
|
( 23.07.2010 )
|
|
|
|
( 09.01.2010 )
|
|
|
|
( 09.01.2010 )
|
|
|
|
( 01.08.2009 )
|
|
|
|
( 07.07.2009 )
|
|
|
|
( 15.06.2009 )
|
|
|
Categories
Discussion
Main - Rune Quest
Special Slash Proposal
|
Author:
Tom Cantine
|
Time:
25.01.2003 07:09
|
Text:
I have never been comfortable with the RQ3 rule that while thrusting weapons impale on a special success, slashing and crushing weapons both simply do automatic knockback.
It makes sense that blunt weapons should do knockback on a special success, but surely there’s a bigger difference between a broadsword and a mace than 1 point of damage? After all, the whole point of a sword’s sharpness is to go THROUGH the target without slowing down, while a mace in contrast is intended to transmit as much of its momentum as possible into the target.
So, I propose the following rules for special success with slashing or chopping weapons. First, roll hit location and damage normally. Then, unless the target has rolled a special parry success or better, roll a SECOND hit location and roll weapon damage (no damage modifier) for that location as well. Armour counts on both locations, but only once; if the second hit location is the same as the first, the armour for that location does not count a second time. If the two rolled hit locations are the same, and the damage done reduces the location to zero hit points, the weapon may become stuck in the target just like an impale. (Of course, if the location is severed by the slash, the weapon will not be stuck.)
Alternatively, armour could count against both rolled hit locations in all cases, even if they are the same location. This makes a certain amount of sense, since an impale only needs to make one small hole to go deep and hurt bad, while slicing all the way through a torso, you have to slice across all the armour in front of it too. So armour would be more effective against slashes than thrusts, but against an unarmoured target, they'd be roughly equivalent. The slash is just uglier to look at.
|
Message threads
| Topic: |
Author: |
Time: |
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
25.01.2003 07:09
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
25.01.2003 13:27
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
26.01.2003 02:12
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
26.01.2003 11:37
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
26.01.2003 21:58
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
27.01.2003 15:19
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
27.01.2003 23:42
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
28.01.2003 15:19
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
29.01.2003 06:13
|
|
|
|
Peter Beirne
|
13.02.2003 18:48
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
13.02.2003 20:23
|
|
|
|
Peter Beirne
|
17.02.2003 19:10
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
17.02.2003 19:50
|
|
|
|
Peter Beirne
|
17.02.2003 20:17
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
19.02.2003 02:20
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
19.02.2003 05:41
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
19.02.2003 17:01
|
|
|
|
Peter Beirne
|
19.02.2003 20:06
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
19.02.2003 22:07
|
|
|
|
Peter Beirne
|
20.02.2003 00:40
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
20.02.2003 16:33
|
|
|
|
Peter Beirne
|
20.02.2003 18:00
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
20.02.2003 22:20
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
21.02.2003 18:26
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
21.02.2003 19:17
|
|
|
|
Peter Beirne
|
21.02.2003 20:51
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
22.02.2003 00:41
|
|
For any questions or comments about this site,
contact the webmaster
www.runequest.za.org is hosted by
www.wack.co.za
W&C Information Consultants CC
|
|
|
