Jump to content

Barak Shathur

Member
  • Posts

    384
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Gamer since 1982. D&D, Drakar & Demoner, MERP/RM and now RQ/BGB
  • Current games
    RQ/BGB
  • Location
    Sweden

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Barak Shathur's Achievements

Participant

Participant (2/4)

131

Reputation

  1. Well. I thought MW was supposed to be a generic fantasy game.
  2. Unrelated question: what is a “sea axe”? Is it like a viking long axe? I sure hope they don’t mean a seax 😄
  3. The rules regarding parrying are a bit confusing. On the one hand, there is the Att/Def matrix which indicates a binary parrying system, on the other there is discussion of weapon damage being rolled against the parrying weapon's HP. The two are incompatible, how is it supposed to work? (nevermind, I figured it out)
  4. I've started up my BECMI campaign using the Mythras Classic Fantasy Imperative, and it works like a charm! I really recommend giving that a try (shouldn't be too hard to convert from BRP). I think it has some upsides over the earlier version (and it's free by the way). It's seriously some of the most fun I've had in roleplaying in a long time.
  5. When a location is hit by an armour piercing weapon, I halve its AP "on the fly". Couldn't be any simpler. I honestly don't understand this. Maybe we are talking past each other? I still don't understand your argument. When a location is hit by an armour piercing weapon, I simply halve the total AP of that location, no matter how many layers. This is a good point. Since I want to stay as close to RAW as possible, I'm going to steal the Puncturing rule from Mythic Constantinople that you described above for the Military Pick. Thanks for the discussion!
  6. I was comparing scimitars to broadswords and falchions. This is not a valid comparison. Sabres and scimitars are both long, curved swords. Scimitars are strong weapons, at the least on a par with broadswords. But in Mythras, they are simply worse. I happen to find the sabre stats pretty much how I would have designed a scimitar, so I'm using those. What's your problem? This you?
  7. Ok, that worked. I have to quote all three in succession before putting anything in the reply box. What I did before was I quoted something and typed a response, then tried to add more quotes under it. Got it, thanks.
  8. I’m comparing weapons that were roughly contemporaneous. But you know what, Sabre has the perfect stat line for a Scimitar, and in a 10,000 year perspective they’re similar enough that it seems unnecessary to differentiate between them, IMO. I’m gonna call it Sabre/Scimitar and run with that. Thanks!
  9. Aren't scimitars sold a little short in Mythras? Basically an expensive broadsword without Impale. Or an inferior falchion. If you were to boost it, what would you do? I guess it is possible to impale with a scimitar, but it would be a bit boring to make it just an expensive broadsword. One could add a damage point, with the argument that they have very good cutting power, but I don't like the idea of damage creep. Also might make them a bit overpowered. One idea I have is to reduce ENC to 1, like a sabre, the logic being that they are somewhat less clunky to handle than broad or long swords. But that's a little contrived maybe. My ideal solution would be some kind of armour penetration vs soft armour, since they have such cutting power, but that's not a function in the rules. Thoughts? Added: another idea would be some kind of improved bleeding, say a grade more difficult on the endurance test or something. But, that does seem a little too house-ruley maybe. Anyway, am I the only one who finds Mythras scimitars a bit pointless, pun intended :,(
  10. Hold on, I don't need to figure out a new AP value for each piece of armour, only the ones being hit with an armour piercing weapon. It's the same as when using half max damage for the piercing. Except that with my method I know it's always half the AP, which I already have in front of me since I have to take that into account in any case for any armoured hit location that is struck. And then it's to my mind simpler to simply halve them, rather than subtract a value that will vary with the weapon being used. Say there's daggers, military picks and some third armour piercing variant in a fight. I now have to figure out the max damage for each one of those and subtract them from AP every time something gets hit. That's one extra step. I think my method is less labour intensive, at least for me.
  11. Yes, that is what I do when I quote. However, I wanted to quote both you and Raleel, but since you’re on different pages of this thread I can’t. Going back and forth between the pages resets my post and anything written or quoted in it. Sorry to belabour this point, but it struck me that armour penetration as halving AP is simpler also in the sense that it is only one calculation, while basing it on the weapon means two, halving the weapon damage and then subtracting it from AP.
  12. I was responding to this suggestion from Raleel: "I would go for a book that covers that period better - mythic Constantinople. In there we find Puncturing – the weapon has a significant metal spike, usually slightly curved and designed to penetrate stiff armour. Can also apply to ammunition. Ignores a specific number of armour points equal to half the maximum damage capability of the weapon but only against rigid armour. So a puncturing dagger (1d4+1 damage) ignores 3 points of rigid armour. said military pick would then gain 4 points of armor piercing, which would mean he could get through the plate 50% of the time." I should have included the quotation (now I can't figure out how to quote from multiple pages, hence copy/paste).
  13. That's commendable! I only went back halfway, to make sure I wasn't repeating myself 😄 Good question. Maybe all non-natural armour, but magic enhancements are not affected. So a +2 AP gothic plate protects at 6AP when sundered. What makes it simpler is that I, as GM, don't have to consider the individual combatants' weapons, which may vary. Instead I simply halve the armour struck, regardless of weapon. That woulds seem to generate slighly less overhead (to me, at least). I agree that it's more realistic that the damage done varies with the quality of the blow, but on the one hand it means more variety and thus more overhead, on the other I lose the balancing (and somewhat realistic*) aspect of sunder being more effective the heavier the armour is, while producing a relatively modest effect on lighter armour. I never said swords sunder. This is along the lines of what I was thinking too. Not too much heavy armour floating around. My impulse is both to change things that don't seem right to me, and also to limit the amount of house rules to a minimum. This would be my only one in this case. But I guess you're right. I'll follow your advice and feel it out before I change anything. Thanks! * Realistic in the sense that a lighter armoured person can move around a lot more and thus evade some of the impact of a blow, while a more heavily armoured combatant is more static and thus absorbs more of the power)
  14. Necro! I'm getting ready to GM this game, and Sunder still doesn't sit exactly right with me. I would like some opinions on this idea: Sunder as armour penetration in the sense that it ignores half of the AP of the location struck, rather than half the weapon's max damage or a set amount. One upside would be that it might easier to process if it's based on the type of armour rather than the particular weapon (i.e., a sundered articulated plate is always 4AP). Another is that it makes it relatively more useful against heavier armour, so that e.g. swords and spears are potentially better at getting through light armour thanks to their impale effect, while axes and hammers are better against mail and plate. My concern is, does this make sundering weapons too powerful? Especially in the case of two handed weapons, that already do a lot of damage. Looking for feedback.
×
×
  • Create New...