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

Re: Armour vs DB

Expand Messages
  • Chris Trobridge
    In-Reply-To: ... DB is limited in some ways. Only the Qu part tends to count all the time- atleast as
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 31, 1969
    • 0 Attachment
      In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9509041304.B17588-0100000@...>
      > I think its interesting that the RM rules indicate that a parry must be
      > split among multiple attackers, but the same DB may be used throughout.
      > An obvious solution might be to call for spliiting the DB against
      > multiple atackers - any comments?

      DB is limited in some ways. Only the Qu part tends to count all the
      time- atleast as long as you're up. Shield DB only counts over a limited
      arc and I think adrenal defence only counts if you're aware of the attack?

      I think the problem lies more in the ineffectiveness of armour.

      Chris
    • Chris Trobridge
      In-Reply-To: ... monsters ... We ve always split parry between the attacks - but then I ve never checked, as I tend to
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 31, 1969
      • 0 Attachment
        In-Reply-To: <199509040956.VAA24015@...>
        > Correct me if I am wrong but theParry is against the creature, not each
        > attack. He would need to split his Parry if fighting 2 or more
        monsters
        > but not one monster with 3 attacks.

        We've always split parry between the attacks - but then I've never
        checked, as I tend to concentrate more on the spell casting side of
        things. My GM got that part completely wrong, so may be he's made small
        mistake here?

        Chris
      • Chris Trobridge
        This currently the subject of debate in my group. I have an RMSS wood elf Sorceror who has spent heavily on weapons skills. As a result she has an 85DB (Qu +
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 31, 1969
        • 0 Attachment
          This currently the subject of debate in my group.

          I have an RMSS wood elf Sorceror who has spent heavily on weapons skills.
          As a result she has an 85DB (Qu + magic + armour), AT10 and a 60OB.
          Someone else has a fighter with 35DB (shield+armour), AT18 and 111OB or
          so.

          His complaint is that while the fighter is better 1-on-1, the moment we
          are fighting multiple attacks (eg half the ceratures we met had 3 each)
          the fighter is far worse off because he has to split his parry 3 ways,
          while the DB remains unsplit.

          I pointed out that I had probably spent far more in excelling in 1 weapon
          than he had, but he felt that the 'heavily armoured' fighter type was
          fundamentally inferior and was just a waste of time.

          Chris
        • John Smit
          ... Correct me if I am wrong but theParry is against the creature, not each attack. He would need to split his Parry if fighting 2 or more monsters but not
          Message 4 of 6 , Sep 4, 1995
          • 0 Attachment
            >This currently the subject of debate in my group.
            >
            >I have an RMSS wood elf Sorceror who has spent heavily on weapons skills.
            >As a result she has an 85DB (Qu + magic + armour), AT10 and a 60OB.
            >Someone else has a fighter with 35DB (shield+armour), AT18 and 111OB or
            >so.
            >
            >His complaint is that while the fighter is better 1-on-1, the moment we
            >are fighting multiple attacks (eg half the ceratures we met had 3 each)
            >the fighter is far worse off because he has to split his parry 3 ways,
            >while the DB remains unsplit.
            >
            Correct me if I am wrong but theParry is against the creature, not each
            attack. He would need to split his Parry if fighting 2 or more monsters but
            not one monster with 3 attacks.

            Regards

            John Smit
            jsmit@...
          • THAMBIRATNAM@redash.qut.edu.au
            ... I think its interesting that the RM rules indicate that a parry must be split among multiple attackers, but the same DB may be used throughout. An obvious
            Message 5 of 6 , Sep 4, 1995
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sat, 2 Sep 1995, Chris Trobridge wrote:

              > His complaint is that while the fighter is better 1-on-1, the moment we
              > are fighting multiple attacks (eg half the ceratures we met had 3 each)
              > the fighter is far worse off because he has to split his parry 3 ways,
              > while the DB remains unsplit.

              I think its interesting that the RM rules indicate that a parry must be
              split among multiple attackers, but the same DB may be used throughout.
              An obvious solution might be to call for spliiting the DB against
              multiple atackers - any comments?

              David T.
            • Olof Englund VOS
              Hi! If you but Rolemaster 3rd edition (Rolemaster standard system 3?) what external modules are still compatible with it? There is the different companions
              Message 6 of 6 , Sep 5, 1995
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi!

                If you but Rolemaster 3rd edition (Rolemaster standard system 3?) what
                external modules are still compatible with it? There is the different
                companions (1-7?, elemental, spells and so on) and war law, but do they
                still work/are they still needed with rm3?

                Olle

                -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ A wise man once said:
                @@@ D D - The Disk Doc "Sex is not the answer, it is the question.
                oenglund@... The answer is yes."
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.