Jump to content

Wolfpack Six

Regulars
  • Content Count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Wolfpack Six

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    AD&D1, RQ3, WFRP1, Fantasy Wargaming, Darklands,
  • Current games
    Homebrew/mash-up rules based on KAP system, set in a Medieval-to-Renaissance European world

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hello all, Apologies in advance if this question has been asked before. Was just wondering if there is a RAW provision for fighting with two weapons at the same time -- i.e., one weapon in each hand. Could be a sword and a dagger, two swords, an axe and a dagger, or whatever. If there is such a rule, what is the reference? If not, and if you've allowed it in your game, how have you handled it? Thanks, WP6
  2. Right. I wasn't saying that you'd resolve the combat as a brawl for the PK using a broken weapon. He'd use whatever skill would be used based on what the weapon would be ruled as the equivalent of. (Awkward sentence, I know...) Maybe. Just spit-balling here. Sure. At the end of the day, a separate rule might not be worth the effort. Still, I like to "What if?" things...
  3. Yeah, the whole thing with swords not breaking is really their "superpower", so to speak. Semi-related question: Do Great Swords break (normal) Swords on a tie? Well, if you're using a mace versus a sword, and the sword breaks the mace, you're left at best with a "headless mace" which, to me, would be a club (less effective mace). At that point, would it be better to keep fighting with it, to fight unarmed, or to go for another weapon? Maybe throw it like a rock while you're going for another weapon? I suppose it would be situationally dependent. Interesting point a
  4. Thanks. Right now, it's more of an academic interest for a personal project that I've rejuvenated recently, and the question of what broken weapons are in game terms came up. One of my notes had broken weapons counting as "casual weapons", as in the brawling rules (in that case, a broken weapon would be the equivalent of a dagger); but I don't remember if that's something I just made up or if it was something I saw somewhere else. So I wanted to see if there was an official ruling on broken weapons. I can't imagine, say, a sword that's blade is broken in half being completely useless
  5. Hello all, Quick question (I think)... What does a broken weapon count as, RAW? Is there a rule? Or is it the GM's call? Thanks, WP6
  6. ...Where does one find the rules for the Prince Valiant story-telling game?
  7. Just as an aside, aside from Greg Stafford's desire to just use the sword breaking other weapons mechanic as his way of giving them their own distinct advantage, it seems predicated on the notion that only swords were all-metal and, therefore, not prone to breakage and "harder" on other weapons. The thing is that there were all-metal maces (probably even more devastating to other weapons if they clashed); and even weapons with wooden handles would have metal strips along their length to protect them from breakage. So, to me breakage is, to use a video game term, "OP" (overpowered).
  8. I get that. And I get that breaking an opponent's weapon is really the signature "power" of the sword, RAW; but, honestly, it seems unrealistic to me... and even in this case, I mean even in the context of Arthurian fiction. I haven't re-read the source material in quite some time, but I just don't remember swords breaking other weapons as much of a "thing" at all. Like I said, I'll address it separately, probably in a different thread. This one has gone totally off the rails as it is! Maybe not. But even if the spearman doesn't do much, if any, damage against a more he
  9. I would like to address breakage separately, but okay for the sake or argument. Well, the key point here is to model, simply, the effect of the spear's reach versus someone wielding a significantly shorter weapon. As in the Lindbeige videos you offered as an example previously. I am thinking that by forcing a sword-armed knight to fight defensively againt a spear armed opponent, the effect is that even if the knight wins the round, he cannot yet do damage. While if the spearman wins, he can. Even if the spearman has less of a chance of succes, if he hits, he really hits.
  10. I can see the logic behind this idea: it is a bonus consistent with the bonus afforded a Great Spear. What this solution doesnt address is dismounted combat between an opponent with, say, a sword and one with a spear. This is why I suggested fighting defensively vs. a spearman until you win a round, then close in with the sword.
  11. Yes, it is your opinion. You refuse to acknowledge that fact, but it remains a fact. The authors of RPGs decide what RPGs are, according to their own tastes. There is no objective definition of an RPG other than perhaps to say that they are games in which you play the role of fictitious characters. Your arrogance and condescension are only outmatched by your stubborn adherence to what you think is true. "A GM should..." According to whom? You? Not that I disagree with the notion that games should be enjoyable, but dude, get over yourself. And again, I don't think
  12. Yes, it is your opinion. And you seem to think that everyone should share it. Look, you're free to believe what you want about the purpose of RPGs. And if some, perhaps many, people agree with you, that's fine. It's your opinion. I'm good with that. But you are insisting upon one view of what you think RPGs are or ought to be, and then you seem to be trying to pass off your personal view as "the core foundation". That is a load of nonsense. All this broo-ha-hah over a possible tweak in spears that you don't have to use if you choose not to. You seem terribly afraid of some
  13. That is your opinion. For me and those with whom I play, an RPG is also a contest, and the story emerges from the actions and interactions of the players while they're engaged in it. Sure you can. You, as the player, try again. Sure, you can look at it that way if you choose. It depends on how you write the adventure, but I'd say in general they are. That is a story element that I think anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence and appreciation of Arthuriana can accept. But you know, that raises some interes
×
×
  • Create New...