Neither do I per se, but the point of Redoutable is to make armor more wearable, IMO. Dropping the extra Travel Fatigue seems an essential part of that if using such a thing. I might be inclined to go with only dropping Encumbrance by normal Heart but dropping Travel Fatigue by 1-2.Bocephas wrote:I don't see Redoutable needing modification in regard to Fatigue rating (lowering it by favored heart). My armor adjustments only lower Enc of armor by 1 point per D6 of armor and 2 points for a helm. With 5D6 armor and helm, that's only 7 points less than the RAW. The sample dwarf in rulebook would go from End 31/Fatigue 20 to End 31/Fatigue 14. That makes the fatigue level at about half his End for the strongest weariness resistant culture in the game. I don't think that's a bad thing.
Seems like a valid idea. There's the potential issue of making characters more powerful, but if you're cool with that...Bocephas wrote:But while we are at it, what are your thoughts on using a house rule (I can't recall where I saw it) subtracting Body from total Enc. If that rule were used, perhaps it would be best to leave the armor Enc values as they are in the RAW. The sample dwarf, with Body 6, would be in the same boat, with End 31/Fatigue 14. My problem is that the armor Enc values just look off to me when compared to the Enc values of weapons and shields. I don't like the way the numbers look on the page to begin with, and the Body fix won't change that. But I would prefer to just go with the most logical fix.
That'd be my inclination. In addition to dropping Encumbrance by some amount.Bocephas wrote:Back to Redoubtable, I am not sure the best way to incorporate it into reducing the extra load armor adds to travel gear (1, 2, or 3 points depending on level of mail). Maybe the simplest thing is to just say Redoubtable cancels 1 point of armor's travel load (3D armor = 0, 4D armor = 1, 5D armor = 2).
Well, going by my group at least, that's already the case. And Glorelendil's combat calculator tends to agree that in most fights, and for most foes, shields are better than two handed weapons.Bocephas wrote:As for shields, I wanted to give them a little more bang for the buck. I feel shields have played such a key role in combat historically that their use should be the default, not a choice among equal options. If the extra +1 to parry makes using a shield a little better than using a 2H weapon, I think that's okay. Weapon and shield combos should be what you see people using most of the time, in my opinion. Also, by bumping bucklers up to +2, it leaves a +1 category open for those people wanting to dual wield with a dagger or short sword in their off-hand (without turning dual wielding into something over the top). My thought was letting dual wielders chose between +1 to parry or +1 to attack rolls (another idea I've seen floating around somewhere). This still keeps the buckler superior defensively.
Shields are really good already, making them better doesn't seem necessary.
Neither do I, really, I was just making a point.Bocephas wrote:Back to swords, I can see your point given the current game mechanic of weapons being given out freely to heroes, so long as they possess the skill. In that respect, and in skill points, they do "cost the same". I do not like the idea of increasing xp cost or requiring a reward.
Well, as to that, PC weapons and NPC weapons aren't always statted identically. If it makes you feel better, assume that the spear and axe stats used by PCs are 'masterwork' or at least 'finely made' versions of the weapons that actually do cost as much as swords, with the cheaper versions having worse stats...with there being no cheaper version of swords.Bocephas wrote:But, there has to be some way to distinguish between a very expensive weapon (sword) and a very inexpensive one (spear). At some point, economics has to play a role in creating a logically consistent game world. If swords and spears are basically the same, then nobody would be taking the time to make swords.
If you want 'cheap version' stats, I'd drop damage by 1 and maybe Injury a bit.
If they're otherwise statistically equivalent? Yeah, that's a huge advantage. Missing by 1 is probably more common than missing by any other number due to the way the system works.Bocephas wrote:I don't see a +1 to attack rolls being a huge advantage, given that you're rolling a Feat die and multiple D6s to hit. I don't see it being enough to change character concepts, but that's me.
Eh, like I said, small bonuses make quite a difference in this system, so I'm a bit leery of them applied to a specific weapon type.Bocephas wrote:Another idea is to treat the difference as more of a "status symbol" kind of thing. Perhaps carrying a sword or long sword could grant a +1 bonus to Awe checks (helping with Intimidate Foe tasks). I would still prefer to have some kind of full time (but small) combat advantage.
