[Runequest] Shield & armor questions

strobus at sympatico.ca strobus at sympatico.ca
Sun Jan 10 05:46:14 EST 2010


Hey there Asher,

1. From a purely defensive standpoint, it might not seem as good, but the Viking shield has other benefits beside just AP. For one, it has soft edges and can be used to accomplish a sword-breaking manoeuvre on a special success against an unsuccessful attack (STR vs attacking weapon AP on resistance table). Also, it's a larger shield than the Target or Buckler, so if covers an extra hit location when slung (useful against arrows). Lastly, it has a weapon SR of 2 instead of 3 - meaning someone attacking with it can go sooner. I'm not sure if the last in intended, but there's no correction for it in the errata.

2. We always treated Chain Mail as soft armour for the purposes of the 'soft armour only counts for half against bludgeoning weapons'.

As for agreeing with it or not - sadly I have no actual experience with these things, so I'll defer to others. My experience with asking questions like this is that you get a lot of different answers, and, if you're lucky, impressive anecdotes from Vietnam.

Chris

> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 08:58:27 -0800
> From: royce at efn.org
> To: runequest at rpgreview.net
> Subject: [Runequest] Shield & armor questions
> 
> Greetings,
>    If I may impose on the expertise and experience of my fellow RQ'ers, I
> have two questions.
>    First question:  In RQ 3, the Viking Round shield seems a poor choice
> -- if I base my decision on armor points to encumberance ratio.
>    (The Viking Round shield has 10 AP, but an encumberance of 4.  The
> buckler has 8 AP and ENC = 1; the Heater/Target has 12 AP and ENC = 3.)
>    Is this a good basis for judging the merits of the shields?  If so,
> then why would anyone choose such a shield?  If it is not a good basis
> for judging merit, then why not?
> 
>    Second question:  In RQ 3, chainmail offers 7 AP, while platemail
> offers 8 AP.  Only a 1-point difference.  A lot of money and
> encumberance to gain that 1 point of additional protection.
>    Do you agree with this?  If so, why?  If not, then what might you
> suggest for a house rule?
> 
>    Many thanks ahead of time for any answers, insights, etc.
>    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/20100109/a302995d/attachment.html>


More information about the Runequest mailing list