Saturday, November 28, 2015

Armour Ablation

dT&T makes warriors have a SR on LK to avoid armour damage IF they choose to make use of their double-protection advantage and it has to be used during battle. OK, let's think about that....

First off, what advantages to warriors get over wizards and rogues? In 5.5, really just the double protective value for armour; in 7.5 they also go one extra add per level for a weapon in combat (now I thought that was so infinitessimally small a bonus that I made it a whole dice per level, something that hardly made them dominate the game). In dT&T, they get the armour bonus plus the whole dice per level for weapons BUT they alone may suffer armour damage under game mechanics as opposed to GM fiat.

Secondly, does armour damage seem reasonable? I'd say yes - not essential and few want to take away from the pace of the game by cluttering it with clunky rules but worth considering.

Third up, is the new rule simple? A LK SR - what could be easier? I think we can remember that and get it down without loosing the plot.

Fourthly, is it fair? (I accept fairness is not guaranteed in life, the game or anywhere I've been.) I think not...

dT&T already does away with INT SRs for wizards casting spells (Hah! but I won't!) so why ping the less desirable warrior? More pressingly, why shouldn't everyone run the risk of armour damage? How about a LK SR for anyone whose armour takes more hits that its maximum defensive capacity? Take that, wizards and rogues! It just takes more whacking away to get a warrior to run the risk of holey armour.

I like the notion in dT&T that warriors can make running repairs to their armour and that of their mates.

So - I give this rule change a plus but will house-rule it myself in the Elaborative Spirit :)


  1. Ah yes the latest T&T, the answer to every Rune Quest players', none of whom ever liked T&T, worries about needing more paperwork for armor mechanics.

    Now why is this mechanism a "plus" in your book, though you think the rule is cumbersome?

  2. If I said it was cumbersome I must have erred. Its a plus because it provokes a little extra frisson for GM and players if used liberally - oh well, I preferred it to a blank page or no page at all