Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [FateRPG] Re: crunchy medieval combat

Expand Messages
  • Bryce Perry
    If you want to get really crunchy, give the Axe a bonus against someone using a shield. The beard of an axe can hook a shield and pull it away, exposing
    Message 1 of 49 , Mar 15, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      If you want to get really crunchy, give the Axe a bonus against someone using a shield. The beard of an axe can hook a shield and pull it away, exposing someone behind it. That might well be a maneuver, now that I'm thinking about it...

      On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Danni Coy <danni.coy@...> wrote:
       

      Ok I am getting somewhere I think...

      The Axe
      ------------
      The axe is an offensive weapon. Very effect requires both strength and finesse. You can't really defend with it. You can however intimidate your opponent into not attacking you - defence is rolled with your intimidate skill. A solid block - a success with style - will break the rhythm of the axeman, no defence is possible until a manuver is used to get the axemans rhythm back. The axe does a lot of damage and is good at penetrating armour.

      A small axe can alternatively be used with a shield.


    • Bill Burdick
      Depends on just how crunchy you want to be. If you care about things like flanking, phalanxes, and engagement, then weapon length can be a major factor, but
      Message 49 of 49 , Mar 16, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

        Depends on just how crunchy you want to be.  If you care about things like flanking, phalanxes, and engagement, then weapon length can be a major factor, but just using aspects might not be crunchy enough.  This is why I made the tactics rules.

        Bill

        On Mar 16, 2013 4:22 PM, "Christopher Bartlett" <themusicalbrewer@...> wrote:
         

        Surely, modeling weapon length is just as simple as a create advantage action with fighting or whatever skill you can justify.  You could I suppose tweak this action to be a stunt by saying that not only do you get the +2 for creating an advantage, but the opponent who is now disadvantaged by weapon length, i.e. the pike man with the dagger-wielder deep inside his range could receive a penalty as well, but at the resolution we are using the +2 advantage should be enough.  Am I missing something that would complicate this further?

         

                        Chris Bartlett

         

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.