Re: [dq-rules] CWT Draft - Comments

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

Deven Atkinson wrote:
> 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.

Hmm, good point, as they are rather large for that type of use when you're dodging and shifting as you would be during an evade maneuver. But modeling everything separately is going to increase complexity in the rules, which is not necessarily a good thing. I wonder what the others think.


> 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.

True, but you don't actually direct block strikes from something like a great axe. You use the shaft to block it at the haft and deflect, or from closer to the hilt, otherwise your weapon haft will be kindling. It's a thought though, maybe an optional rule about increasing breakage chance against the big class B and C  weapons. Again, more input would be nice. :-)

Thanks for the insightful comments. :-)

Edi

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

> 
> ----- 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
> >

..............................................................
 Lähetä oikeat joulukortit omalla kuvallasi! Maikkarin netissä.
 http://www.mtv3.fi/postikortit/