Re: Knights & Barbarians (solutions)
- --- In email@example.com, "Christopher Loh" <chloh77@...> wrote:
>out flat. It should be.
> Actually I have no qualms that Dishearten should kill the warrior
>fragile aginst Firestorm.
> The main gripe that I have is that, knights and mages are equally
>that the chance of rolling an extremely high or low damage is reduced
> The reason why spam suggest doubling hp and doubling spell damage is
with the number of dice involved.
>I wonder how a battle of mages would work out? It would look good to
have some sorcerous duel. Something like the Djinn in bloodsword book
3 with the magi. I suppose a sorceror could throw a bastion around
himself, negate it and hurl something back.
- I started this thread about Knights and Barbarians and I have enjoyed the direction the discussion has taken.Like three degrees of separation we seem to have ended up in a discussion on increasing health point scores, I think because of a concern that knights and barbarians are not much 'tougher' HP wise than sorcerers and the like.As I have already suggested, I think that knights and barbarians deserve a few extra skills but perhaps that is best left to each GM's discretion rather than a major ruleschange. I too love the simplicity of the DW rules. I note for instance in our game with Nim that 2 characters have picked up 'Skills of the Mighty' despite not yet having achieved the rank (or indeed the profession!) to have those skills. That's entirely up to the GM and I think that the rules' simplicity allows that freedom for GMs which can be so much fun.Its ok with me for the discussion to continue but I will sign off by saying I'm against any major or even minor renovation of the fantastic DW rules.R.
kharille <kharille@...> wrote:--- In dragwars@yahoogroup s.com, "Tom Cusworth" <tom.cusworth@ ...>
> I wholeheartedly agree with the good doctor. In real life, there's
a one in
> three chance of dying if you are stabbed. I am speaking from
> - I work in trauma theatres in Glasgow and, sadly, there are a lot
> stabbings in this fine city. Now, I know that some of you will say
> is not real life and it's a fantasy game, but who's to say that a
> game can't give the player's characters a realistic chance of
> I play and run DW as Oliver intended. My players find it's fun
that way. To
> me, Attack is always your chance of hitting and Defence is the
chance of not
> being hit. Armour Factor is the chance of what you are wearing
> blow and Evasion is the intended victim's chance of getting out of
> Hit Points represent how long you can stay in the fight before you
> That's as complicated as I like it. If my players are stupid
enough to think
> with their swords all the time and not think tactically, then
> on them. They should know better by now (I've had enough of their
> die on them).
> The statistics above are based on the most common implement used
to stab in
> this city - the humble kitchen knife! Imagine what those
statistics might be
> if the victim was attacked by a longsword or an axe? In the hands
> who actually knows how to use it! Don't fancy his chances much, do
> So, I suppose the point I'm making is this; DW, for me, is deadly
> I like it that way, as it gives an element of uncertainty to each
> run. The players invest a lot of time and effort into their
> they wish to squander that effort, then so be it. Their loss,
> they understand that and like it that way.
I heard, read that some british soldier stabbed an iraqi more than
60 times before he shut up and died. How many of those who get
chibbed in glasgow actually die? Thing is, as far as I know unless
you get some artery in the upper torso/head the guy might not
actually die so readily. Then again, a blood transfusion isn't so
readily available in medieval times.
I read that before antibiotics a lot of people had amputations,
infected wounds and could die with a dirty abdomen wound. Maybe
this should be better reflected.
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.