Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Kelly Martin <kelly@*******.BLOOMINGTON.IN.US>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 15:11:19 EST5
"Bryan" == Bryan Linn Schuler <schu1545@****.GMI.EDU> writes:

Bryan> I've never agreed with that you can only quickdraw pistols. I
Bryan> know of a few japanese sword forms which are based on a
Bryan> quick-kill strike as you draw the blade. The results are a
Bryan> usually lethal move starting from sword in sheath to sword
Bryan> slashed through victem's vitals in usually about 1 second od
Bryan> movement.

i suppose i can accept this, but only to a very limited extent. i
would definitely require a skill test to pull that stunt off. it's
not consistent with the quickdraw rule, in that you can't "fire" a
sword with a simple action.

Bryan> That and a small SMG (like a MAC-10 or mini-uzi) in a side
Bryan> mounted holster can easilly be drawn and fired twice in 3
Bryan> seconds.

that's two simple actions: draw, and fire burst. firing a firearm in
anything less than full-auto is a simple action. also, if your SMG
has a concealability of 4 or greater, it falls under the quick draw
rule.

Bryan> Same thing with drawing and throwing knives. It's usually one
Bryan> quick-fluid movement to draw and throw. I know personally, I
Bryan> can draw and throw at least 2 in 3 seconds.

ditto; throw weapon is a simple action.

you can either (a) quickdraw and fire/throw, using one simple action
with having to make a reaction(4) test, or (b) ready and then
fire/throw, using two simple actions. i'd be willing to extend the
quickdraw to include thrown weapons like knives or shirukens.

i was incorrect when i said that you can only quickdraw a pistol.

k.
--
kelly martin <kelly@*******.bloomington.in.us>

It is not by their choice that Scientologists
continue to practice Scientology.
-- Andrew Milne (a Scientologist), on alt.religion.scientology

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.