From: boris (mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com)
Date: Sun 06 Jun 1993 - 17:10:38 EEST
>
> That's why I'd prefer to change the defaults so that
> buckler has a high default, say 25%, and the others have a lower
> default, like 10%, but can passively protect some number of hit
> locations. I agree with you that the larger shields shouldn't have all
> that many more AP than smaller shields. They have more surface area, not
> more cross-section. You could say that large shields passively protect 8
^^^^^^^^^^
> location values, medium 4, and bucklers 0. Combined with rules like my
> house rules that allow people to direct blows at subsets of the full hit
> locations this would add some color (and maybe too much complexity) to
> combats.
>
> Also there is a game balance consideration: Unless you give buckler a
> high default skill there's no reason for a character to take it. Who
> would choose a shield that offers less protection AND is harder to use?
>
> What do all the other playtesters think of this idea?
>
> Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
>
Higher defaults for smaller shields make sense, as well as higher APs.
Currently a buckler gives fewer APs than a shortsword, maybe even a main
gauche (I don't have my rules here, so I may be off some). The only
reason *anyone* in my campaign uses them is that, inspired by the RQIII
box art, I allow weilders of two handed weapons to use a buckler at half
skill, strapped to their arm. And since I don't think the APs of polearms
and spears are increased if they're iron, the wind lords and storm khans
can thus get some advantage from iron bucklers.
I think, if I were to start another campaign, I would rescale the shield
APs. Probably give all of them the APs medium shields have currently, and
use your idea that, even without a parry attempt or with a failed (though
not a fumbled) parry, the shield provides passive (i.e. half) armor to
a number of locations. Large shields would cover maybe four (eight? what,
Loren, all of you and your buddy's butt? ;-), a medium two, and a buclker
none, as you said.
Also, to offset the advantages of using large shield, I'd probably have
an additional encumbrance penalties. I didn't like skill reductions that
RQIII had for negative fatigue, and since RQIV no longer has FPs that isn't
viable now anyway. I think a better idea is to add one to a character's
DEX SR for every multiple of STR of ENC they have; if their ENC <= STR, no
change, if STR < ENC <= 2*STR, +1 DEX SR, etc. This seems very realistic
to me; when I've been backpacking or just carrying a lot, I react slower
than normal. Perhaps also have +1 DSR for each fatigue level lost as well,
but that's a different matter.
-- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive Maurice Beyke | for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if mabeyke@ingr.com | you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." Intergraph doesn't want Nietzsche my opinions. 0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:27:26 EEST