[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dq-rules] CWT Draft:More Thoughts
Hi--
I've always had a few thoughts/issues with some of the weapons in DQ. Since we are discussing Edi's work and trying to make it a comprehensive work, I figured it wouldn't be out of place to include some of my other thoughts:
1. Pike
There is no rule regarding a mounted character charging a character using a pike. It seems to me that the entire purpose of the pike was to stop cavalry charges. Thus, there should be some of rule regarding this.
This might as well be extended to all type A long pole weapons,
especially if used in formation. The pike would be the most effective
though, because of its length. It's pretty useless except in formations
.
Maybe a mounted, charging character should make an AG check to avoid inpaling themself.
I'd be more inclined to require a horsemanship check negatively modified
by how many hexes the figure charged, and if that fails then the horse
gets hit. The way pikes were used against cavalry was not to target the
riders but the horses, because the sudden stop of momentum would throw
the riders and prevent the horses from trampling the pikemen. Especially
heavily armored knights were easy to butcher once they were unhorsed and
lying on the ground.
2. Lance
I've never felt that the damaged accorded the lance accurately reflected its use by a mounted charging character. In addition, the breakage chance should be extremely high.
Lance breakage should be automatic or nearly so, I'd reverse the
breakage chances from normal. Unless the lance was made of metal, of
course, but such things would be very special things indeed (e.g. made
of mithril or something like that) and very, very rare.
3. Quarterstaff/Type (i) Pole Weapons
I agree with the earlier statements that type (i) pole wpns should only be used as a quarterstaff if the user has the quarterstaff skill. Thus, I think that the defensive bonus of 2% per Rank, should only be available when the character is using the weapon as a quarterstaff. I wasn't sure if that was what the intention was.
Those weapons share many characteristics with quarterstaff and can be
used if one has been trained in them, whether or not one has also been
trained in a quarterstaff, so the bonus was not meant to be restricted.
I believe I addressed this once in one of the previous messages, but
repetition does no one any harm, as some may have missed it. :-) The
reason why all of those weapons are rated for quarterstaff type damage
is because striking with the butt of the weapon (something which
halberdiers for example would be trained to do) would do damage akin to
quarterstaff obviously. That the weapon can be used in this manner does
not in any way confer upon the character the ability to proficiently use
a quarterstaff because the butt attack is secondary and the whole manner
of using a pole weapon is different than a quarterstaff.
4. Lucern Hammer
Any thoughts on including a lucern hammer on the list?
I thought about it. Of course it can be added, but it was, as I
uderstood, a very specialised weapon designed to defeat plate armor, so
it would have some average damage rating and armor piercing capability
against plated armors (half-plate, full and improved plate, probably
also lamellar), no? Wasn't it also called bec-de-corbin?
5. Throwing Knives
Is there any merit in adding throwing knives? My group has used the same statistics and rules of throwing darts for throwing knives. Is it worth adding?
If you mean by the small ones good only for throwing, as opposed to a
regular dagger or knife that is thrown, this makes sense, but bigger
throwing knives (the one-foot long types with wide, heavy blades, for
example) would use the respective dagger and knife stats, I think. It's
easy to do by simply adding a couple of lines to the dagger/knife and
throwing dart notes.
I don't know if I'm way off base on any of this, let me know if I am.
No, you aren't. Input is always good, questions are always good, because
nobody can think about everything, and thus other viewpoints are needed. :-)
Edi
----------------------------------
hollywood314@juno.com wrote:
I've always had a few thoughts/issues with some of the weapons in DQ. Since we are discussing Edi's work and trying to make it a comprehensive work, I figured it wouldn't be out of place to include some of my other thoughts:
1. Pike
There is no rule regarding a mounted character charging a character using a pike. It seems to me that the entire purpose of the pike was to stop cavalry charges. Thus, there should be some of rule regarding this.
Maybe a mounted, charging character should make an AG check to avoid inpaling themself.
2. Lance
I've never felt that the damaged accorded the lance accurately reflected its use by a mounted charging character. In addition, the breakage chance should be extremely high.
3. Quarterstaff/Type (i) Pole Weapons
I agree with the earlier statements that type (i) pole wpns should only be used as a quarterstaff if the user has the quarterstaff skill. Thus, I think that the defensive bonus of 2% per Rank, should only be available when the character is using the weapon as a quarterstaff. I wasn't sure if that was what the intention was.
4. Lucern Hammer
Any thoughts on including a lucern hammer on the list?
5. Throwing Knives
Is there any merit in adding throwing knives? My group has used the same statistics and rules of throwing darts for throwing knives. Is it worth adding?
I don't know if I'm way off base on any of this, let me know if I am.
Steve