[Runequest] Three different topics.

strobus at sympatico.ca strobus at sympatico.ca
Thu Apr 22 23:34:58 EST 2010


I'm no weapons expert, but it seems to me the only advantage a sword has over a spear is that the sword might have a guard to protect the hand (if it's a late enough model), whereas I've never seen a spear that did.

 

Regarding the second question: I find that the RQ3 option of halving soft armour results in too much work for me to keep track of, as the GM. I've resorted to allowing crushing weapons to do +2 against really flexible armour (soft leather, cloth, or chainmail) and +1 against semi-flexible armour (scale, lamellar). That way the players can just tell me how much damage they do, and I don't have to remember in the heat of combat which of my players is using a mace and who is ising a sword.

 

The BRP method doesn't entirely make sense for me. The BRP rules try to accomodate both those who are using hit locations and those who arent. It's fine for the blow to be stunning if you aren't using hit locations, but if someone go crushed in the foot with a mace, I'm not sure why they would be 'stunned'. So I apply the flexible armour rule mentioned above, and apply the 'stun rule' only if the victim is hit in the head.

 

Best,

 

Chris
 
> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:12:38 -0700
> From: royce at efn.org
> To: runequest at rpgreview.net
> Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
> 
> Hi, Guys,
> If I may impose I have three things I'd like to throw it into one email.
> 
> 1. A question on parries.
> In RQ, parrying with a spear and parrying with a sword are equally
> practical. Is this realistic?
> 
> 2. A question on RQ III vs. 2nd edition BRP. The RQ III rule of flexible
> armor giving only half protection against crushing attacks (e.g. a mace). 
> BRP instead has a stun result for special hits with crushing weapons. 
> Which rule do you prefer, and why?
> 
> 3. The other day, the venerable D&D module B2, Keep of the Borderlands
> got mentioned. I would not hold it up as an example of excellent
> adventures, but I will jump to its defense for one reason. It is a very
> satisfactory primer on elementary RPG for youths. Back in the day, many
> kids around age 12-14 got started with peers.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Asher
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100422/9536edb7/attachment.html>


More information about the Runequest mailing list