Re: on skills

[Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>]

I got lost here. Last I heard we couldn't make rule changes, just
suggestions. Something change?

Also I don't agree with changing rules for the sake of changing them
or introducing a lot of changes at once. Change is _good_. The right
changes are better. Lets get creative with this stuff that you believe
requires special rule changes? Does it?

Lets not jump in and hack/slash the rules for the sake of doing it.
I for one will certainly not vote or agree with any rules that add
complexity and nothing else. If a sword breaker actually ends up
needing special rules, maybe I don't need a sword breaker. Haven't
for years. What does having a sword breaker add to the game? How
wide spread was their use in the really, real world? (ie not D&D).
Some historical pointers to increase our awareness are in order
here.

I'll tell you straight if I can destroy someone's main weapon, 
that puts most warriors out of the fight right there. So think
about the consequences. How easy is it really to break a sword?
Disarming is considerably more likely.

					-Steve

> *nod* we do, and some skills will need to be more than just the max damage
> by 30.
> Examples: Shield, Quarter staff, Main-gauche, halberd, pike, glaive,
> 	lochaber axe, shuriken, sai, swordbreaker, man-catcher, etc...
> These weapons have far more use than just simple hack and slash.  The
> halberd has a dismounting spike, quarterstaff while a simple weapon is
> really good for defense, glaive same reason as the quarterstaff,
> shuriken you can throw 50 of'em.  The swordbreaker is a 1d6 weapon,
> but it can break someone's weapon, the sai is a d4 but can disarm people.
> You get the idea.
>
> After thinking about it, I'm personally in favor of making it a sub
> skill, and just upping the costs.  This won't be a problem by the by 
> with the rare one that we up the cost on an existing weapon, only 
> changng the damage/cost on the whip, quarterstaff, javelin, spear, and
> dagger.  dagger and spear in my opinion should dump the seperate throwing
> skills and just incorporate it into the base weapon skill, with possibly
> a small increase in cost.  Whip will be dropping in damage unless Greg
> wants to put forth that this is a chain whip or something, cause that
> is the only way i can think of that this is a d6 weapon.  Quarterstaves
> are far more effective than a d4 damage, and they are about the ultimate
> in defensive weaponry.  Lastly is the shield, a pure defensive weapon/object.
> Do we want skill in this?  Personally i think so, if someone devotes the
> time, they should be better at it than the average bear, but it should
> cost more than 60.
> Also, punching and kicking, these should cost more than 60 and 120 t
> their damage dictates.  Having automatic weaponry is just REALLY handy.
> No pun intended. ;)
>
> Next up is wrestling...this skill either needs to be upped to about 300
> or so, or just dumped.  either is fine with me.  Its a hideously ugly
> skill for a BC of 180.
>
> Wright
>
>  
>
> > Steve's idea to split the dice pool and such is not bad... but this would
> > make people more effective than being forced to use only one sub skill in
> > a round like it is now.  If this were the case, som base costs would have
> > to go up, or subskills need to be purchased separately (an idea that I
> > brought up long ago).  This would contradict the edict from a while back
> > about not using multiple skills in a round.  We need to stay consistent.
> > 
> > Jevan
> > 
> > 
>
>