Re: [dq-rules] CWT Draft - Comments

[Esko Halttunen <esko.halttunen@luukku.com>]

Hello, Steve--

> The draft looks great.  I have a few comments that may need to be 
> made in multiple posts as my thoughts are not organized enough yet.
>  
Thanks! And don't worry about multiple posts, the thing is extensive 
enough to be bit of a mouthful to chew all at once.

> 1.  I like the idea of using the quarterstaff and certain pole 
> weapons for defensive purposes.  That was one of my complaints with 
> the existing weapons.  I attempted to remedy the problem in a 
> different manner.  I assigned each weapon a defensive modifier.  This 
> number is used when a character evades.  I believe an evading 
> character has a 10 + (4 x Rk)% chance.  The defensive modifier would 
> be used instead of the 4.  For instance, a quarterstaff had a 5, 
> while a battle axe had a 3.
>  
Hmm, interesting idea. I suppose it would work for some people or with 
some set of house rules. These things are a matter of opinion. :-)

> I like your system better.  I would suggest either increasing the xp 
> cost of the weapons that can also be used defensively, or creating 
> separate xp cost chart for the defensive capability.
>  
Thanks for the compliment. :-)
This might merit some consideration. It may not be strictly necessary, 
though, as the weapons as they were originally were rather unattractive, 
required two hands, took a lot of room to wield, had low damage 
(compared to swords and axes at least) and had severely limited ranks. 
Now they are competitive, but some disadvantages (e.g. room required to 
wield and 2-handedness) are still there. If we want to increase exp 
cost, I think 25 to 50 more to Rk 1 cost and then scaling from there 
should give a good result. I'm adamantly against separate defensive exp 
ranks because they add more unnecessary complications and it is easier 
to handle otherwise.

> Also, do you need to be evading, or at least passive action, to gain 
> the defensive capability of these weapons?  Or, is it automatic?  
> i.e. if you attack that round, do you still get the defensive bonus?
>  
Automatic, like the Main-Gauche, so you get Rk x Def Modifier to defense 
even when not Evading. When Evading, it's 10 + Rk x 4 + Rk x Def Mod. 
That was the whole point in making them more attractive to players, as 
the polearms basically sucked in their original form.

Edi

-----------------------

pitkinave44310 wrote:

> The draft looks great.  I have a few comments that may need to be 
> made in multiple posts as my thoughts are not organized enough yet.
>
> 1.  I like the idea of using the quarterstaff and certain pole 
> weapons for defensive purposes.  That was one of my complaints with 
> the existing weapons.  I attempted to remedy the problem in a 
> different manner.  I assigned each weapon a defensive modifier.  This 
> number is used when a character evades.  I believe an evading 
> character has a 10 + (4 x Rk)% chance.  The defensive modifier would 
> be used instead of the 4.  For instance, a quarterstaff had a 5, 
> while a battle axe had a 3.  
>
> I like your system better.  I would suggest either increasing the xp 
> cost of the weapons that can also be used defensively, or creating 
> separate xp cost chart for the defensive capability.
>
> Also, do you need to be evading, or at least passive action, to gain 
> the defensive capability of these weapons?  Or, is it automatic?  
> i.e. if you attack that round, do you still get the defensive bonus?
>
> Steve
>