[Runequest] Fwd: Shield & armor questions
NickMiddleton at dsl.pipex.com
Sun Jan 10 06:11:29 EST 2010
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Nick Middleton <avkl35 at dsl.pipex.com>
> Date: 9 January 2010 17:57:04 GMT
> To: RuneQuest Rules <runequest at rpgreview.net>
> Subject: Re: [Runequest] Shield & armor questions
> On 9 Jan 2010, at 16:58, royce at efn.org wrote:
>> 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?
> A Viking shield covers the shield arm any two other contiguous hit locations (one more than a target/heater and two more than a buckler) when used against missile attacks. The description of a Viking shield also mentions using the rim as a sword catcher / breaker, rules given under the Disarm special melee tactics section.
>> 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?
> Plate is rigid armour, chainamil flexible - per the errata, it has its protective value halved against blunt weapons. Also, historically chainmail has usually been relatively cheap in terms of skill and materials to make and maintain, where as plate has not.
> Nick Middleton
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Runequest