Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 09:39:28 +1000
I'm continually chafing under the reach penalties rule - you know,
the one that says that the longer weapon in hand to hand, gives the
wielder a -1 TN (and in SR II, the opponent gets a +1 TN).

Now this is all well and good, but there should be rules for getting
in close. Once that happens, the situation reverses.

If you think about it, the rules as they stand encourage longer and
longer weapons. Everyone with armed combat should be carrying telescoping
poleaxes or horse lances or something equally absurd.

Any suggestions for a rules modification to correct this?

luke
Message no. 2
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 21:05:58 -0400
>>>>> "Luke" == Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
writes:

[long weapons]
Luke> Now this is all well and good, but there should be rules for getting
Luke> in close. Once that happens, the situation reverses.

Assuming you can get in close without being skewered first.

[...]

Luke> Any suggestions for a rules modification to correct this?

How about using some common sense. Do you really need rules to tell someone
that he can't use a 12-foot long pole-axe in close quarters in a 5-foot
wide tunnel? Why is it that everyone who's asking for fixes to problems
either here or on rec.games.frp.cyber are looking for more rules to patch
the holes in existing rules?

Oh, BTW, telescoping weapons exist today. Collapsable batons are about 10
inches long collapsed, 30 inches long extended, and carry quite a bit of
weight behind them. They're also easilly available and don't require permits.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
this space intentionally left blank | fnord fnord fnord
Message no. 3
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 12:33:07 +1000
[long weapons]
Luke> Now this is all well and good, but there should be rules for getting
Luke> in close. Once that happens, the situation reverses.

Rat> Assuming you can get in close without being skewered first.

That's right; rules to cover the `getting in close' is what I'm asking
for ideas on.

[...]

Luke> Any suggestions for a rules modification to correct this?

Rat> How about using some common sense. Do you really need rules to
Rat> tell someone that he can't use a 12-foot long pole-axe in close quarters
Rat> in a 5-foot wide tunnel?

No, I thought that was so blindingly obvious that it never crossed my mind
that I should have to spell it out. But ok: this is a limiting factor on
the weapon absurdity with any reasonable GM. But they'll still be a problem
in any outdoor incident.

Rat> Why is it that everyone who's asking for fixes to problems either here
Rat> or on rec.games.frp.cyber are looking for more rules to patch the holes
Rat> in existing rules?

I'd rate this question about 7 on the Weird scale. Read my lips: the rules
for hand-to-hand and weapon length are too simplistic, and encourage absurd
weapons. So the drama possible in many situations is never realised, because
the rules basically come down to this:

The guy with the longest weapon wins.

If you can think of a way to fix this without changing the rules, then I'm
prepared to be amazed.

Rat> Oh, BTW, telescoping weapons exist today. Collapsable batons are about 10
Rat> inches long collapsed, 30 inches long extended, and carry quite a bit of
Rat> weight behind them. They're also easilly available and don't require
Rat> permits.

So absurdly long weapons can be easily carried and even concealed, to deliver
to the fight scene. So there's a problem.

luke@************,irritated
Message no. 4
From: Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 21:49:27 -0500
Two characters of equal ability in their weapons. One has two knives. The
other has a pike.

Okay, the guy with the pike can do some damage at long range. He has no
maneuverability (you try jumping off a building or running with an 18 foot long
piece of wood and steel). Once the opponent gets within that 18 foot radius,
the pike guy is basically trashed on unless he has a secondary weapon.

The guy with the two knives. He has maneuverability all over the place. He
has a shorter combat reach than the guy with the pike (anyone who has ever seen
a good knife-wielder...*cringe*), but can move SO much faster both in combat &
out of combat...

> If you can think of a way to fix this without changing the rules, then I'm
> prepared to be amazed.

Sure, simple. Two scenarios.

If a character is walking around Seattle with an 18-foot-long pike, I'd just
have Lone Star pick him up for "possession of an unauthorized polearm" or some
legal garbage like that.

If he has a telescoping weapon, it's going to be weak(er). Have it break. ;-)

Gian-Paolo "Pikes are lame unless you have twenty of them side by side" Musumeci
Message no. 5
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 13:06:49 +1000
Gian-Paolo Musumeci:

> Two characters of equal ability in their weapons. One has two knives. The
> other has a pike.
>

> Okay, the guy with the pike can do some damage at long range. He has no
> maneuverability (you try jumping off a building or running with an 18 foot
> long piece of wood and steel). Once the opponent gets within that 18 foot
> radius, the pike guy is basically trashed on unless he has a secondary
> weapon.

Exactly my thoughts.

> If you can think of a way to fix this without changing the rules, then I'm
> prepared to be amazed.

Sure, simple. Two scenarios.

> If a character is walking around Seattle with an 18-foot-long pike, I'd just
> have Lone Star pick him up for "possession of an unauthorized polearm" or
> some legal garbage like that.

No, it telescopes, so it's easily concealed.

> If he has a telescoping weapon, it's going to be weak(er).
> Have it break. ;-)

Sigh. No good GM would do that.

How does this sound? (Opinions from people with practical knowledge,
or keen Shadowrun rules people - [Hi, Rat :-)] - especially welcome.)

+ The person with the longer weapon gets -1 TN (Why? Who knows.
FASA says so.)
+ The other person gets no TN modifiers, but can only use their
skill defensively (to avoid the weapon), and can get no damage
on their opponent.
+ If the person with the shorter weapon gets more successes in
an attack, they can `close'. This means they are closer than
the opponent's weapon length.
+ Once a person with a long weapon has had someone `close' with
them, the situations are exactly reversed. The longer weaponed
person can reverse this in the usual way (see above).

luke
Message no. 6
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 23:46:47 -0400
>>>>> "Luke" == Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
writes:

>> If he has a telescoping weapon, it's going to be weak(er).
>> Have it break. ;-)
Luke> Sigh. No good GM would do that.

First, given reasonable materials and length, a telescoping weapon isn't
significantly weaker than a normal one, even today. Some are even stronger
due to better materials being used to compensate for the multipart
construction.

Second, this kind of thing should only happen in a botch situation, anyway.

The most likely thing to happen, though, is that the haft gets stuck in the
extended position because you snapped it open too hard.

Luke> How does this sound? (Opinions from people with practical knowledge,
Luke> or keen Shadowrun rules people - [Hi, Rat :-)] - especially welcome.)

Given that a) the pole arm wielder has enough room to wield his weapon
properly, and b) the skill of both the poler and knifer are equivalent,
there are two possible outcomes:

* knife supprises pole, comes up inside his guard, and delivers some nasty
slices before pole can do anything
* pole chops knife into mincemeat before knife can close

The latter is more likely unless knife is very lucky (or pole very
unlucky). Even against knife, pole still has an advantage in that he can
use his weapon to push knife out of range (a nice effect of going fully
defensive). For an historical example, the naginata was a very effective
weapon against ninja and samurai armed with knives and swords. The blade
can be used to stab, slice, or hack, and the haft makes an effective
quarterstaff.

There is a practical limit as to what you can wield in a close-quarters
fight. 25%-30% longer than the weilder is tall is about the maximum length
that's going to be useful in that kind of situation. Anything longer and
you might as well drop the damn thing because it's only going to get in
your way. If you want a mechanic, try this: you can't use combat pool dice
against any close-quarters opponents if your weapon is too long. That's
about the right effect. You still get the T# bonuses because you can try to
push your opponent out of range, but it isn't going to be easy because your
weapon's mass and length are working against you at that point.

BTW, if you know a SCAdian, ask them about Sir Visivald sometime. The
halberd was his weapon of choice and he was /very/ good with it.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "One likes to believe in the freedom of
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | baseball." --Geddy Lee
Message no. 7
From: Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 09:24:28 -0500
> Sigh. No good GM would do that.

Well, make it be a roll, but still...telescoping weapons just aren't as strong
as solid ones.
Message no. 8
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 10:38:06 -0400
>>>>> "Gian-Paolo" == Gian-Paolo Musumeci
<musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
>>>>> writes:

>> Sigh. No good GM would do that.
Gian-Paolo> Well, make it be a roll, but still...telescoping weapons just
Gian-Paolo> aren't as strong as solid ones.

But they're strong enough to hit someone with without breaking. Now, if you
wedged one against something and had a troll pushing against the end it'd
eventually break, but striking force is not going to break a collapsable
baton today, and I doubt that materials science is going to degrade
significantly in the next 60 years.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Guns cause crime and cars cause vehicular
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | homicide.
Message no. 9
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.EFN.ORG>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 08:46:56 -0700
Maybe I play with a funny bunch Luke, but this hasn't ever come up in any
of my games. But, if you are GMing, and some idiot is carrying a
"telescoping POLE ARM (!!)" just have the thing break.

On Mon, 4 Jul 1994, Luke Kendall wrote:

> [long weapons]
>
> Luke> Any suggestions for a rules modification to correct this?
>
> Rat> How about using some common sense. Do you really need rules to

> No, I thought that was so blindingly obvious that it never crossed my mind
>
> Rat> Why is it that everyone who's asking for fixes to problems either here
> Rat> or on rec.games.frp.cyber are looking for more rules to patch the holes
> Rat> in existing rules?
>
> I'd rate this question about 7 on the Weird scale. Read my lips: the rules
> for hand-to-hand and weapon length are too simplistic, and encourage absurd
> weapons. So the drama possible in many situations is never realised, because
> the rules basically come down to this:
>
> The guy with the longest weapon wins.
>
> If you can think of a way to fix this without changing the rules, then I'm
> prepared to be amazed.

Luke, it doesn't need fixing because of the way combat works in SRII.
This isn't a choereographed dance scene like in GURPS. This is
symbolic. There is no way to "get in close" in SRII. And, from having
personally seen an expert with a Halberd, I can tell you truely that
there is no "in close" against an expert. The stave of the thing is a
weapon too.

I can also tell you, simply from common sense, that there aren't, and
probably won't ever be, any colapsing polearms made. They take too much
strain in use, so any collapsing version would be too heavy to handle.
And, how do you hide the head of the thing?


> Rat> Oh, BTW, telescoping weapons exist today. Collapsable batons are about 10
> Rat> inches long collapsed, 30 inches long extended, and carry quite a bit of

30"? OK, It has +1 Reach, and does about (STR+1)M damage.

> So absurdly long weapons can be easily carried and even concealed, to deliver
> to the fight scene. So there's a problem.

Nope, no problem. Physical combat really does work pretty much the way
SRII plays it. On the other hand, if someone brings in a Bill or a
Fauchard then have Lone Star arrest them. (Halberds are about 6' long,
Bills ran from 6' to 8' and the Fouchard was 9' to 12'.) The Bill was a
melee weapon, the Fouchard was used against Riders. In real combat the
fighters dropped the Fouchard after the first swing/stab because it took
to long to ready. Halberds and English Bills, on the other hand, were
designed to be used in melee combat. And they were nasty, they were one
of the main reasons that a horsed knight worried about getting unhorsed.
Those weapons had leverage and could total the armor of the day.

> luke@************,irritated
>
Ivy
Message no. 10
From: Chris Lubrecht <lubrecht@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 12:48:41 -0400
Rat,
Sir Visavald? Just fought against him two weeks ago. He is proof
positive that a six foot polearm can be used in close. My head only
stopped ringing yesterday. :-) Ihave also seen people use long spears
against close-in opponents. The method involves fouling weapons and
playing balance games, then using the head of the spear like a dagger or
other thrusting type thing.
My big question on this thread is how can you have a telescoping
polearm? That is a long distance to telescope, even with springs. You
would be dead before your pole was fully extended!(ooohhh, did not mean
it that way--sorry)
Any way, a long weapon can be just as nasty in close as a short one,
provided the wielder knows what he is doing. Also I don't understand how
anyone could fight with a polearm over 6' or 7' long. Over that and IMHO
it might get unwieldy, spears, pikes, maybe--glaves, halberds, mauls,
ect, IDTS.

Nigel
Message no. 11
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 13:08:28 -0400
>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Lubrecht <lubrecht@***.EDU> writes:

Chris> Rat,
Chris> Sir Visavald? Just fought against him two weeks ago.

Cool! Glad to hear he's still active. (Did I spell it VisIvald? Sorry :).

Chris> My big question on this thread is how can you have a telescoping
Chris> polearm? That is a long distance to telescope, even with springs.
Chris> You would be dead before your pole was fully extended!(ooohhh, did
Chris> not mean it that way--sorry)

Telescoping weapons usually aren't spring-loaded. Just a quick, snapping
motion from the wrist is enough to extend a collapsable baton and lock it
open. But even retracted such weapons are still useful. A telescoping pole
arm would probably collapse down to a length of 2 to 3 feet in 3 or 4
sections, plus the length of the head if it's a large head. Speartips can
retract into the handle, but a larger head just won't fit.

BTW, collapsable pole arms probably would be penumatically extended, not
spring-loaded.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "Good, bad... I'm the guy with the
gun."
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | --Ashe, "Army of Darkness"
Message no. 12
From: Chris Lubrecht <lubrecht@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 14:41:49 -0400
Actually I think it is Visivald, I just can't type. It was Visivald's
squire who got me into the SCA, (Kennard of Bath).

Even a pnematic pole arm would be wierd, I think it would also be too
heavy. Also I don't think you could just flick your wrist to extend it if
it wasn't. Wait a min...What about a telescoping great sword :-)

Bo staff or that ilk maybe, but not polearms

Nigel
Message no. 13
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 15:04:37 -0400
>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Lubrecht <lubrecht@***.EDU> writes:

Chris> Even a pnematic pole arm would be wierd, I think it would also be
Chris> too heavy.

Debatable. The haft would have to be some kind of laminated composite
material with a high tensile strength, good hardness, and light weight,
probably reinforced by an aluminum or titanium alloy.

Chris> Also I don't think you could just flick your wrist to extend it if
Chris> it wasn't.

Collapsable batons are pretty hefty. Take a 20 to 30 inch length of steel
pipe, and that's about right, maybe a bit on the light side.

Chris> Wait a min...What about a telescoping great sword :-)

Heh. You'd loose anything resembling a cutting edge if you tried. Not to
mention being very weak along the flat edge. Batons have cylindrical cross
sections, of course.

Chris> Bo staff or that ilk maybe, but not polearms

You could probably get a 6 or 8 foot haft collapsed down to about 2 feet
with three or four sections. Yeah, it would reqire a bit more force than a
wrist snap, just because of the length.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "It is a proud and lonely thing to be a
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | Stainless Steel Rat."
this space intentionally left blank | --"Slippery" Jim DiGriz
Message no. 14
From: Doctor Doom <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 19:23:23 -0500
Von luke:

> > If he has a telescoping weapon, it's going to be weak(er).
> > Have it break. ;-)
>
> Sigh. No good GM would do that.

Correction: No good Game Master would /arbitrarily/ do that. Should his
opponent elect to launch an attack upon the polearm, then entertain the
possibility of its fracturing, but do not /declare/ that it snap.


Colonel Count von Hohenzollern und von Doom, DMSc, DSc, PhD.

Doom Technologies & Weapon Systems -- Dark Thought Publications
>>> Working on solutions best left in the dark.
<<<
[ Doctor Doom : jch8169@*******.tamu.edu ]
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"Attack, attack, and when in doubt, ATTACK!" -- Frederick the Great of Prussia
Message no. 15
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 13:31:01 +1000
Doctor Doom:

> Von luke:
>

> > > If he has a telescoping weapon, it's going to be weak(er).
> > > Have it break. ;-)
> >
> > Sigh. No good GM would do that.
>

> Correction: No good Game Master would /arbitrarily/ do that.

Quelle fromage! Naturlich!

luke@*******.R.us
Message no. 16
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 02:25:50 -0700
On Mon, 4 Jul 1994, Luke Kendall wrote:
> How does this sound? (Opinions from people with practical knowledge,
> or keen Shadowrun rules people - [Hi, Rat :-)] - especially welcome.)
>
> + The person with the longer weapon gets -1 TN (Why? Who knows.
> FASA says so.)

Because that's reality. I like using kubotans and 29" Arnis
sticks, but I hit a lot easier with my 6' Bo or 7' Naginata. Guess
what? It's a lot easier to hit someone with the Naginata than with the
kubotan. The Reach rules are a pretty good game mechanic for affecting this.

> + The other person gets no TN modifiers, but can only use their
> skill defensively (to avoid the weapon), and can get no damage
> on their opponent.

This doesn't really work because it only reflects one style of
dealing with long weapons, the "Avoid it until you can get hit" style.
There are quite a few "counterstrike" options open -- counterstriking
being the idea of attacking with your parry, or parrying with your
attack. Same thing really. Your rules would say I'd have to close
before I could attack, whereas I can do both simultaneously.
But, when I'm unarmed and practicing knife defense techniques --
I expect to get cut. My tactics are to prevent that blow from being
decisive. The simple fact is that it *is* easier to attack with a longer
weapon -- ain't no two ways about it. Superior skill, alertness, etc.
may offset or neutralize this advantage, but don't kid yourself, it exists.
Once, in a flush of inspiration, I tried to develop what I
considered to be *accurate* rules for martial arts for Shadowrun. I
finally gave them up, because they were complex, slowed things down, and
didn't really add anything to the game that I couldn't supply with
description.
Sort of a wargame mentality, I suppose. An attempt at greater
realism by trying to provide a game mechanic that can encompass any
possible situation -- my advice is to just play it through roleplaying.
Not that there shouldn't be rules. Just that they should be
reasonable in scope, and allow for quirks of fate without trying to
quantify something that is in essence, unquantifiable.

>luke

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 17
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 11:49:24 -0400
Awright. Here goes...

Long weapons can be used QUITE effectively up close and personal. This
is the voice of experience after having the tar beaten out of me by
people proficient with long weapons from my days in SCA. You may think
the "getting in close" is the solution to all your problems, but this
gross and blatant oversimplification stems from AD&D and bad fantasy
novels. It doesn't work that way. Instead of solving your problems, you
just enter into a whole set of new ones. Or, more likely, the guy you
are fighting takes a step or two backwards, and you are back where you
started. And if he CAN'T step backwards, there are rules for that in
SRII, so use those.
Also, when was the last time you walked around with a fourteen foot
pike on your little jaunt around town? Polearms are large, obvious, and
probably illegal to carry around in 2054. (Just a guess, but I bet Lone
Star expects trouble if they see a Troll hikin' around with a halberd in
hand.)

Marc
(who agrees with Rat in that there are no rules modifications necessary)
Message no. 18
From: "J.W.Thomas" <cm5323@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 17:09:24 +0100
Just pick a fight in an enclosed area.
(sewer, tunnel, corridor, alley)
where the poler can't swing it/stab straight/carry it
Or get to a corp zone

if you have to fight...
Try and pin it
hide behind something
get them arrested for carrying a deadly weapon
pull the suppessed MAC and hose them

s'easy
CHOPPER
Message no. 19
From: "Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 00:14:33 -0700
luke asks:

>How does this sound? (Opinions from people with practical knowledge,
>or keen Shadowrun rules people - [Hi, Rat :-)] - especially welcome.)

>+ The person with the longer weapon gets -1 TN (Why? Who knows.
> FASA says so.)
>+ The other person gets no TN modifiers, but can only use their
> skill defensively (to avoid the weapon), and can get no damage
> on their opponent.
>+ If the person with the shorter weapon gets more successes in
> an attack, they can `close'. This means they are closer than
> the opponent's weapon length.
>+ Once a person with a long weapon has had someone `close' with
> them, the situations are exactly reversed. The longer weaponed
> person can reverse this in the usual way (see above).

I would have to say that I don't like these rules. The reasons are:

1) People with shorter reach weapons cannot hurt those with longer reach
weapons until after they beat them on a roll.

2) Once someone is inside of your reach, you can't hurt them.

I would suggest the following:

1) Abandon the the double screw, reach rules. The character with the longer
reach subtracts the difference his and his opponents reach from his target
number. The character with the sorter reach has not mod.

2) Once the character with the shorter achieves more successes on his combat
sucesses test, reverse the modifiers. That is to say that the character
with the longer reach has no modidier while the one with the shorter
subtracts the difference between his opponents and his reach from his target
numbers.

3) If a character surprises his opponent (by surpises rules or GM ruling) he
automatically takes the advantageous position in the fight.

Thus if a sam with spurs takes on a ganger with a combat axe, the ganger starts
with a -2 to his target number while the sam has no mod. Assuming the sam gets
more sucesses on this exchange (he has more skill and combat pool) the next
exchange will have the sam with -2 to his target number and the ganger with
no mod.

What do you think of that?

*******************************************************************************
* See Ya in Shadows * * "Trust No One." *
* Jason J Carter * Carter@***.EDU * The late Deep Throat *
* The Nightstalker * * The X-Files *
*******************************************************************************
Message no. 20
From: "J.W.Thomas" <cm5323@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 17:30:04 +0100
>
> Thus if a sam with spurs takes on a ganger with a combat axe, the ganger
starts
> with a -2 to his target number while the sam has no mod. Assuming the sam
gets
> more sucesses on this exchange (he has more skill and combat pool) the next
> exchange will have the sam with -2 to his target number and the ganger with
> no mod.
>
> What do you think of that?
>
personally, i just use the reach TN modifier, so the longer
weapon is easier to hit with, unless the conditions are
'cramped'ie has not got weapon lenght clear on each side ( and
overhead in some cases)> in which case mods are reversed.
but thats just the way i am

CHOPPER
Message no. 21
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Dumb rule encourages poleaxes
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 09:25:43 +1000
Jason J Carter suggests:

> 1) Abandon the the double screw, reach rules. [...]
>

> 2) Once the character with the shorter achieves more successes on his combat
> sucesses test, reverse the modifiers. [...]
>

> 3) [Surprise] automatically [gives] the advantageous position in the fight.
>

> What do you think of that?

I like.

Let's see... `Sword' has skill 4; `Hands' has skill 8. So we'd expect
Sword to have 3 successes. `Hands' to have 4. This sounds right to me.

And I appreciate the subtlety of giving a TN bonus to the longer weapon
rather than a TN penalty to the shorter. Gives skill level the emphasis
it deserves.

thanks,
luke@*******.by.a.day.of.flu

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Dumb rule encourages poleaxes, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!