Re: A New Idea??

["piperlorne" <piper_lorne@msn.com>]

The idea of a defense bonus for certain weapons is a good one, I 
think, but not new.  You can find a link to some defensive weapon 
bonus ideas here:

http://www.iosphere.net/~eric/dq/wds186.htm

I only allow defensive weapon bonus in certain instances, as an 
extension to evading, or after a character has reached at least rank 
4 with his weapon through standard training... then I allow a 
character to gain the benefit of an attack as well as a defensive 
bonus with the weapon in the same pulse.  Characters have to spend 
seperate experience points and additional training time and money 
(with someone already skilled in Defensive Weapon Skills with that 
weapon) to acheive Defensive Weapon Skill ranks with each weapon, 
beyond the standard training required. 

I only allow defensive weapon bonus to be acheived with certain 
weapon classes (doesn't make sense with a bow or sling, for example, 
or grenado) and in certain situations (against melee attacks, in 
general, not in ranged or close combat).  

The Defensive Weapon Skill acheived with a given weapon can never 
exceed the standard weapon skill acheived.   

I've also included some limitations for my characters based on MD 
and ST ratings above the required rating for their weapon....a 
character can only receive a defensive bonus (defensive weapon rank) 
equal to 2x the # of ability points they are above the minimum 
requirement for a weapon.  For example, if a given weapon requires a 
MD of 12 to wield and the character has a MD of 14, I'll allow them 
to acheive rank 4 with that weapon in Defensive Weapon rank, after 
they've reached at least Rank 4 with the weapon as an offensive 
instrument via standard training and experience point expendature.  

As for adding an 'offensive' bonus for shields, note that DQ rules 
already allow for such a 'bonus' by way of attacking with two 
weapons in the same pulse with penalties (primary vs. secondary 
hand).  So, I allow characters to attack with their sword in a 
primary hand as well as a shield bash from the secondary hand in the 
same pulse, but give them negative modifiers both to Strike Chance 
and initiative (the attacks won't necessarily happen 
simultaneously).  I do, however, allow the attacks to have a 
cummulative effect on the target for purposes of determining whether 
or not the attacker has stunned the target.  I'm a EMT by 
profession, and I think this makes sense in most cases.  

It's an intriguing idea, however, to add some seperate rules for 
buckler.  I'll run it by my player group here, see what everyone 
thinks.   

Get to playing, amigo!  The DQ universe needs active thinkers.  

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, Martin Gallo <martimer@m...> wrote:
> While laying in bed last night trying to figure out how to resolve 
my 
> lifes latest disaster, I  mentally wandered to DQ. I got this 
idea. I 
> have not developed it very far, and am not playing ANY RPG right 
now 
> so have no true way to test the idea, but here goes...
> 
> I am thinking about completely changing the turn sequence. Players 
> will still roll for initiative as before, but now when an engaged 
> figure activates, the combat for both characters is resolved. If 
the 
> acting or non-acting character wishes to withdraw and still have 
half 
> an action, that is fine. If both fight, that is it for the pulse 
for 
> both of them. My reasoning is that time is a little more 
interwoven 
> that way. It may not kake a difference, but I found it idly 
curious.
> 
> I am also thinking of changing combat so that defense includes a 
> modification for the weapon. I was looking at adding something to 
> every weapons BC and then granting a defensive modifier for each 
> weapon that would be multiplied by rank and added to defense.
> 
> These changes seem to satisfy my 'craving' for realism without 
> overburdening the game system. I hope to someday get to test it 
out, 
> and I have not figured out the defensive values for each weapon. I 
> know that weapons like rapiers are not very defensive, but a good 
old 
> broadsword can defend pretty well (not quite like a shield, but 
> some). I may even add an offensive bonus for shields since some of 
> them are used more offensively (bucklers) than others (towers).
> 
> Feel free to try and talk me out of this. It may just be a sleep 
> deprived vision of madness (and I am pretty angry today).
> -- 
> 
> 
> "If you haven't got your health, at least you have something to 
talk about."
> 
> "They say that everything happens for a reason. I am just tired of 
> that reason being to make me unhappy or embarrassed."
> 
> "You can't make a baby in a month using nine women, but it sounds 
> like it would be fun to try!"
> 
> "Does it ever occur to women that maybe it is their butts that 
make 
> their pants look big?"