Re: [dq-rules] CWT Draft - Comments

["Deven Atkinson" <deven@bright.net>]

I think the original rules are good as written.  While these weapons might
be used in a defensive manner in an emergency, I do not think that would be
standard procedure during an evade.
I have always felt that defensive usage of this sort would damage the pole
weapon somewhat vs. class B and some large class C weapons.  The last think
I would want is my battle axe shaft notched or cracked.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "pitkinave44310" <hollywood314@juno.com>
To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 8:40 AM
Subject: [dq-rules] CWT Draft - Comments


> 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
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   dq-rules@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>