JohnLokiBeard said:
Anyway, let's see how Durand Durand's playtest went, that might show if this one House Rule can survive outside of its home environment.
Sorry, we haven't playtested this rule tweak yet.
We have had a few scheduling conflicts and just had a monster combat with about 36 combatants (5PC's with 8 goons versus 2 waves of foes), it took most of the evening, but was a good sample of just how damned maimed and deadly MRQ combat is [especially if, like my shepherd PC, you don't have armour]. I thinkg it was pretty well decided by the GM not to try tweaking rules this session.
I think our next combat will be against a smaller group of enemies, and we might be able to play some alternate rules then.
Looking at basic damages, I was thinking we could lower shield AP to match material constructions AP of other weapons, and adjusting weapon HP to make damaging weapons in combat feasable, perhaps making most swords at 7-10HP, thus requiring a 11-14 point blow to damage, not unreasonably hard with a +1D6 DB and a Warsword, or perhaps just a bladesharped weapon or a great weapon of some kind. Once a weapon is damaged then it becomes easier to damage and less effective at parrying too, so not a bad system.
We should always remember that with ancient smithing techniques, longer sword blades were easier to break than shorter ones, a matter of leverage I think, until decent steel and tempering techiques came along, so I am against bigger weapons having a lot more HP than smaller ones.
I'm jsut starting to move house at the moment, so will try to get back on the forum withing a week or two.
DD
