| Dragon Warriors http://forum.libraryofhiabuor.net/ |
|
| More vulnerable armour http://forum.libraryofhiabuor.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=290 |
Page 2 of 3 |
| Author: | Cobwebbed Dragon [ Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: More vulnerable armour |
hermes421 wrote: Lee, please, do you consider that enemies can use your called shot penalties on the PJ (and avoid the "invincible" warrior) ? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. Called shots are available to PCs and NPCs (and goes for all combat manoeuvres and rules). When determining whether an NPC would use a called shot against a PC, consider whether the NPC would be able to gauge the relevant combat strength and likelihood to bypass the PC's armour without a called shot, just as the other players would have to. Maybe the NPC makes a few normal strikes against the character, hitting easily but not bypassing their armour so thinks they could make their roll to hit harder and still have a good likelihood to hit. The GM needs to avoid metagaming as much as the other players, of course, but experienced opponents will adapt their tactics faster than inexperienced combatants and GMs should factor this into whether they use called shots or not. |
|
| Author: | Kharille [ Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: More vulnerable armour |
Maybe alternative approaches, like engage a sapper. Imagine if such a knight fell through a pit 2m x 2m x 200m? Or better yet, one with 3m deep water? What about AF8 armour and getting hit with a siege weapon? I think rules of adventuring might be expanded upon. Surely if a guy in plate gets hit with several DRAGONBREATH spells might be inclined to remove it? I don't think we have rules for burning, something I'd like to expand upon. We have the warlock spell HELLFIRE but what about getting set alight? |
|
| Author: | Cobwebbed Dragon [ Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: More vulnerable armour |
Kharille wrote: Maybe alternative approaches, like engage a sapper. Imagine if such a knight fell through a pit 2m x 2m x 200m? Or better yet, one with 3m deep water? I like imaginative approaches like this - sometimes an unassailable foe requires some lateral thinking to overcome. Kharille wrote: What about AF8 armour and getting hit with a siege weapon? Death. Doesn't really matter how magical your armour is - if you're hit by a weapon designed to bring down a castle wall, it won't be very kind on a fleshy lump encased in a thin sheet of metal. Kharille wrote: I think rules of adventuring might be expanded upon. Surely if a guy in plate gets hit with several DRAGONBREATH spells might be inclined to remove it? I don't think we have rules for burning, something I'd like to expand upon. We have the warlock spell HELLFIRE but what about getting set alight? I'm reminded of the D&D Heat Metal spell, which was designed to make wearing metal armour or carrying metal objects unbearable and cause damage over time. The physics around thermal energy and temperature mean that something with a high temperature might still have a low thermal energy, so a Dragonbreath might be very hot for a very short period of time, but not really impart much thermal energy into an opponent's armour. Multiple strikes or higher-level spells might do more, but I'd suspect that if you could hit a knight with enough Dragonbreaths to the point that this would come into play, you've probably already killed the knight (even with an AF of 8, unless you roll _really_ badly). As for continuous damage from wearing burning clothes or being in a burning building, for example, maybe 1 point per round on top of the damage caused by the initial exposure (meaning most people would be dead in under a minute), with the option to use a full round action to drop and roll to put out burning clothes. Is something like that what you had in mind? |
|
| Author: | Esser2002 [ Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: More vulnerable armour |
I have been thinking about making a special rule for blunt weapons. Blunt weapons cannot make called shots. If a blunt weapon fails it's armour bypass roll it still deals 1 dam to the target. Long time ago my father made expanded rules for weapon groups, and the flail is hard to learn in those expanded rules. I though this might make it worth the longer training required to wield a flail. |
|
| Author: | Cobwebbed Dragon [ Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: More vulnerable armour |
Esser2002 wrote: I have been thinking about making a special rule for blunt weapons. I did that, too. In my game, blunt weapons can deform plate armour on a critical hit, increasing the armour's Reflexes penalty. Esser2002 wrote: Blunt weapons cannot make called shots. If a blunt weapon fails it's armour bypass roll it still deals 1 dam to the target. I like the idea of a minimum damage caused by blunt weapons (although I'd still allow them to make a called shot - why can't you swing a club at someone's head?) but would this require a rebalancing of the weapon's notations - possibly reducing blunt weapons' armour bypass? Otherwise, metagaming players are likely to prefer a blunt weapon, knowing they would always damage their targets. Thinking about it, I could probably tweak the algorithms in my Rank Equivalence Calculator to see if this makes as much difference as I think it might... One for the to-do list! Esser2002 wrote: Long time ago my father made expanded rules for weapon groups, and the flail is hard to learn in those expanded rules. I though this might make it worth the longer training required to wield a flail. I'd really like to see these, should you/your father be happy to make them public. I have a skills system in my own game, but it treats all skills as equally difficult (i.e., to learn to use a sword effectively requires the same amount of time and XP as to learn a flail). I'm always interested in hearing about other folks' approach to skills in DW. |
|
| Author: | Esser2002 [ Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: More vulnerable armour |
Esser2002 wrote: Long time ago my father made expanded rules for weapon groups, and the flail is hard to learn in those expanded rules. I though this might make it worth the longer training required to wield a flail. I'd really like to see these, should you/your father be happy to make them public. I have a skills system in my own game, but it treats all skills as equally difficult (i.e., to learn to use a sword effectively requires the same amount of time and XP as to learn a flail). I'm always interested in hearing about other folks' approach to skills in DW.[/quote] They are uploaded now Esser2002 wrote: Blunt weapons cannot make called shots. If a blunt weapon fails it's armour bypass roll it still deals 1 dam to the target. I like the idea of a minimum damage caused by blunt weapons (although I'd still allow them to make a called shot - why can't you swing a club at someone's head?) Just thinking that it would be hard and not really efficient to hit someone with a mace in the armpit. But sure, going for the head would work ;D And i can't really think of any other(easy) way to outweight the minimum damage rule. What is love about DW is the simplicity, so no time is spend looking up rules and stuff, so i am carefull with everything i add, and i would like to keep it as simple as possible. |
|
| Author: | wimlach [ Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: More vulnerable armour |
Couple of things I did when playing DW way back in the day: I swapped all the stats from the book given ones for comparable weapons so that the impact weapons had higher ABP but lower damage E.g. A sword became a d6, 5 while a morning star became d8, 4. Later when I did a lot more rewriting of the rules and had a single 'damage' dice for weapons, I had impact weapons or specialised armour defeating weapons simply halve the targets AF. |
|
| Author: | hermes421 [ Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: More vulnerable armour |
Quote: I had impact weapons or specialised armour defeating weapons simply halve the targets AF. I downloaded many illustrations of npc with a 2-hands warhammer. I had the same reflexions about impact weapons (at less 1 damage or better against AF) As an impact weapon, I suggest for a 2 hands warhammer those stats : D12 : 4 damages What do you think? |
|
| Author: | wimlach [ Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: More vulnerable armour |
hermes421 wrote: Quote: I had impact weapons or specialised armour defeating weapons simply halve the targets AF. I downloaded many illustrations of npc with a 2-hands warhammer. I had the same reflexions about impact weapons (at less 1 damage or better against AF) As an impact weapon, I suggest for a 2 hands warhammer those stats : D12 : 4 damages What do you think? If you want to stay somewhat historically accurate, you'd have the following two weapons: Warhammer - one handed - d10, 3 Maul - two handed - d12, 4 I'd likely combine this with some shuffling of the existing stats to make impact weapons a bit better against armour, and slashing weapons better against flesh: Shortsword d6,4 Mace d8,3 Sword d6,5 Morning Star d8,4 Two-Handed Sword d8,6 Battleaxe d10,5 |
|
| Author: | hermes421 [ Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: More vulnerable armour |
wimlach wrote: If you want to stay somewhat historically accurate, you'd have the following two weapons: Warhammer - one handed - d10, 3 Maul - two handed - d12, 4 I'd likely combine this with some shuffling of the existing stats to make impact weapons a bit better against armour, and slashing weapons better against flesh: Shortsword d6,4 Mace d8,3 Sword d6,5 Morning Star d8,4 Two-Handed Sword d8,6 Battleaxe d10,5 I understand your suggestion, more, I find it interesting . The only thing that disturbs me is that many vilains or NPCs have a sword in the scenarii, and they would hardly bypass the full plate armour of a knight PC. You didn t have this problem in your campaigns wimlach ? |
|
| Page 2 of 3 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|