[Runequest] Drowning, Falling and Poisoning in RuneQuest
vikingjarl at gmail.com
Wed Jul 15 00:52:42 EST 2009
There were various debates on the merits of this & over the years I've
modified my position. My feeling has settled on a system/house rule
where the AP is reduced by 1 if one of three conditions are met:
1) a natural (01) is rolled on the percentile die (Always a critical but
not all criticals)
2) if a Special is rolled that exceeds the value of AP+10 (AP+10 is my
way of creating HP for Armor that puts it in range of shields) This
tends to favor experienced fighters being more likely to damage armour
as happens in real life.
3) a blow (damage) that exceeds the HP of the armour (AP+10)
-over the years I've gone back & forth as to whether I treated the
armour as individual layers or as just one total value. Presently I find
it easier to just go with one total value. All AP reductions are applied
against physical (non-magical) Armour. Thus chainmail with a +2 armour
spell on it could be reduced from its AP of 7 but would only lose it's
magical +2 protection once it had been reduced to an AP of 0 & thus be
I've tried various methodologies as to creating HP for armour such as
doubling the AP, but I just went back to the original concept from the
notes - Evidently I have the last remaining copied of the original
play-test photo-copied rules that we worked from back in the 70's. They
fill a 2" ring binder. Obviously the HP of the armour progressively is
reduced as the AP is reduced.
I would still treat armor repairs by the layer - this calls for
appropriate skills to be used
I feel this gives a vaguely realistic rate of armour problems that
needed to be worked on. When I was fighting regularly in the SCA or
Ravens (a now expired organization that I joined in the late 50s that
used rebated steel weapons) at the rate of several practices a week & a
tourney every week-end with heavy fighting at all of them I found myself
having to break out the tools to repair a rivet (I quickly went from
pop-rivets to more durable & historical saddle rivets), pound out a dent
or something of the order that it would effect my fighting if left
unattended on the order of 4 months to a year.
Is that understandable?
lev at rpgreview.net wrote:
>> Yes, I have tried it & it works rather well. In fact it was one of the
>> design ideas that was used in the original play-testing back in the
>> 70's. The reason for it's lack of inclusion. One, people cry & there
>> became too much focus on armour hunting & repairing, two it was felt
>> that the shields & weapons falling apart seemed sufficient to simulate,
>> three expeience had shown that armour depletion tends to be slow &
>> subtle then a sudden cataclysmic failure - all of which would add too
>> much book-keeping to simulate accurately.
> Hey Sven,
> I quickly cede to your expertise on such matters... Are the values right?
> If we reduced APs by 1 each time it was penetrated would that be a fairly
> plausible value?
> It does seem odd that RQ does it for weapons, but not armour and shields..
> All the best,
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Runequest