<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hej Lev,<br>
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:<br>
1) a natural (01) is rolled on the percentile die (Always a critical
but not all criticals)<br>
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.<br>
3) a blow (damage) that exceeds the HP of the armour (AP+10)<br>
<br>
-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 entirely destroyed.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I would still treat armor repairs by the layer - this calls for
appropriate skills to be used<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Is that understandable?<br>
<br>
Skal,<br>
Sven<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lev@rpgreview.net">lev@rpgreview.net</a> wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:49527.127.0.0.1.1247544637.squirrel@127.0.0.1"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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,
Lev
_______________________________________________
Runequest mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Runequest@rpgreview.net">Runequest@rpgreview.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net">http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>