RE: [Fwd: Steel tech and weapons]

[Greg Mowczko <mooch@ns1.cioe.com>]

Here ya go Joel I comment on yours and Lyle's in one swoop since he graciously
included your entire post at the end of his.

> From: Lyle H Janney <lhjanney@adpc.purdue.edu>
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: Steel tech and weapons]
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 08:03:38 -0500
>
> Well, guys, I've always treated the 2, count them, _2_ steel weapons I've
> ever had a character own, both long swords, as +1 to damage only.  I
> agree that there should be no bonuses to hit.  I'm not even sure that there
> should be bonuses to damage (again, all we're really doing is ensuring that
> the edge stays longer and allowing for the possibility of lighter/stronger
> weapons), but I'd rather have that than have a steel weapon equal a once-
> enchanted weapon. 

I've had steel weapons on and off for years. At the beginning I only used
the +1 to damage. But over the years I've seen a lot of GMs and players use
the +1 to hit as well and I adopted it on the "kill or be killed" principle.
Half the time I forget my weapon is steel anyhow.

> By the by, Greg, you should never play anything based simply on a
> precedent (as many a precedent has been set by GM's who simply made
> a mistake).  Only play by what is listed in rules or errata.  

I will GM on precedent based on precedents established by Dan which should
be errata but are never typed out. And how do you rule in a situation that
reoccurs that has NO rules? You have to go with what was either done in the
past or come up with something new. I personnally would rather fallback to
a previous "sane" ruling that players know already than making up my own.
Drowning for example. There are NO rules about drowning. Some GMs in the past
have said "O you missed your swimming and default last round? roll 5d6 vs.
HEA or die this round." That is an insane precedent but I have seen it over
and over in the last 10 years ( actually it pretty much stopped when someone
stopped GMing ). ( If/when someone chooses to follow up some rules for 
drowning please start a new Subject )

> The rules state
> that steel armor gives a +DV/3 (round down).  Hence: steel chain mail

Umm the rules do not state ( after briefly going through the book ) this.
They do coincide with this though so I guess you are going on precedence
here and not errata or rules.

> point I am trying to make is that a player, especially one who GM's,
> should know better than to play something based simply on precedent.
> As GM's, we _must_ play by the rules, or we set a bad example.)

Yes you do.

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:	Joel Gunderson [SMTP:belgarat@expert.cc.purdue.edu]
>> Subject:	Re: [Fwd: Steel tech and weapons]
>>
>> Jevan, Kevin and I had a relatively productive conversation on steel
>> tonight.  I think we came to a somewhat mutual agreement on the fact that
>> steel weapons should not give a bonus to hit.  Damage is acceptable,
>> however.  This makes them be a bit better than iron, and yet not devalue
>> the once enchanted weapon.  
[ careful edit ]
>> Just to make it a standard rule, I'd also like
>> to have it stated in an errata that the damage bonus will only be added to
>> edged weapons that do 1d6 of damage or more.  A short, piercing weapon
>> such as a dagger or shank will have no extra effect if it is made out of
>> steel as opposed to iron.  Obviously, there will be no bonus damage on
>> blunt weapons.
>>
>> Joel

	Thanks Joel for some same reasoning on the +1 thing. I never really
cared for the "steel shank" getting the +1 at all. I think we have also seen
a majority of people against giving any +1 to the to hit. 

>> P.S.  Let's hear some replies, please.  Jevan has been bitching about this
>> for awhile, and I think me and Kevin are the only other players that have
>> taken to replying to the group.

Hey I work online everyday from 9 to 6 and when I go home the last thing I
think of doing is reply to email. I've put my comments in on this and hope
to catch up to other mail needing comments.
							Greg