Re: on skills

[Wright Frazier <khelek@ns1.cioe.com>]

re: swordbreakers and breaking.  Read the rules, in my original post.
	its not very easy to do.  On the average, it will take a 5
	die skill check to have a 50/50 chance of breaking a weapon
	with a str of 17.

	How common were they?  Fairly, but their main use was in personal
	combat and law enforcement.  In Japan they were very common and
	used by law enforcement(the Jitte) to disarm or break the weapon
	of offenders.

Destroying a weapon is by no means an easy thing, and a disarm would
be more common, but it still was done.

Wright



> 
 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
> > > 
> > > 
> >
> >
>