 
|
|
|
( 21.08.2008 )
|
|
|
|
( 28.07.2008 )
|
|
|
|
( 21.04.2008 )
|
|
|
|
( 12.02.2008 )
|
|
|
|
( 10.02.2008 )
|
|
|
|
( 12.10.2007 )
|
|
|
|
( 17.07.2007 )
|
|
|
|
( 03.07.2007 )
|
|
|
|
( 13.04.2007 )
|
|
|
|
( 29.01.2007 )
|
|
|
Categories
Discussion
Main - Rune Quest
RE: Special Slash Proposal
|
Author:
Tom Cantine
|
Time:
26.01.2003 02:12
|
Text:
> Yor reason for suggisting theese rules is a valid one in my
> oppinion (an unbalance between crushing \ thrusting
> compared to cutting). I think your suggestion makes the cut
> unreasonably strong, though (overcompensating).
Then of the two, I think the second choice is probably better, i.e. allowing armour to affect both rolled hit locations. Of course, you're arguing against using either. (:
When
> rolling the second hit location, could that be anyone
> (illustrating that the sweep went from for instance left
> leg to head, or illustrating two cuts during that round?) I
> think balance is established by simply eliminating the
> impaling rules from thrusting weapons.
>
I wasn't going to impose any interpretation for how the two hit locations were damage. If the first hit location is a leg, and with the damage bonus reduces the leg below 0 hp, and the second location is the head, the interpretation could be that the poor fellow, in falling to the ground, hits his head on a rock. One might have less flexibility in interpretation if the rolled damage is affected by Bladesharp or if blade venom is involved, but I think these problems are soluble.
> On the imbalance between cutting and crushing, I haven't
> had time to think it over, hmmm....
After falling off my bike once, and being dazed for several minutes, it occurred to me that blunt trauma could in some circumstances be applied to fatigue points instead of hit points. I have since discarded the idea.
> The damage applying is actually the weak part of RQ rules.
> If beeing realistic, one should divide between piercing,
> cutting and chrushing damage, and armor should have three
> values, one for each. Brynje, for instance should be ok
> against chrushing, bad against piercing, and very good
> against cutting.
In the errata, they actually go a little ways towards this by saying that soft armour counts as half its value against blunt weapons. So, your 7 point chain mail is only good for 4 points against a mace.
> I'm considering to do this, but fear the work it takes. You
> allso have weapons designed to pierce plate armour, (the
> maces lookin like ice pegs) they shouldn't do more than
> -say 1d8 to an unarmoured target but still have a good
> chanse against plate (which have 8 ap's)
It shouldn't take too much work, actually. There are only a dozen or so different armour types, and three main types of damage. So it'd basically involve thinking up three dozen numbers, many of which could be simply taken from the existing table.
I wouldn't really worry about weapons designed to pierce armour, since that's already more or less reflected in the rules for the hammer, the only swinging weapon which can impale on a special. I always understood that impaling damage to represent a bit of extra punch to go through armour.
Another way to deal with it is to simply invent a new weapon feature, specifically designed to overcome armour, and then allow these features to be added to weapons, like the swordbreaker option in RQ3. So you could have a mace with anti-plate spikes on it, and say this feature cancels out 4 points of armour protection, but doesn't affect rolled damage.
Then a quick look over the existing weapons and decide if any of them should have this as a standard feature. Only the hammer, I think, is a likely candidate. Also, I think I'd want to rule that only certain sorts of weapons can have this feature added on.
|
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
|
|
|
