I would think so. For several reasons: Its in contact with me and its mine.
And if weapons did NOT have their wielder's resistance, it would be
very easy to just destroy the weapons of a hero rather than affect
the
hero.
We don't hear much of Jar-eel's weapons turning to dust (or her
armour
for that matter) or even such lowlives Alerwin's pots and pans. And
considering that even a magic iron broadsword has a lower magic
resistance than her... well... I know what I'd attack if I was forced
into such a miserable situation.
And it makes for a better game, or at least, a game where "whoops!
The evil magician casually destroys your weapons. No you don't get a
resistance roll, your weapons are dust..." happens. I'd prefer to
see
such magics as more interactive with the players.
> I think that the resistance should be based solely on the
material's
> resistance to the kind of attack. This is why I was proposing RQ's
armor
> values, but just as a zero-order approximation. Probably iron
should
be more
> resistant to magic attacks (as well as being more resistant in
general),
> while elemental metals should be less resistant to attacks based on
their
> But in absence of a scale one should be begin to make up
values from
> somewhere, shouldn't he?
> > opposing elements. And so on...
If you wish to do that, there is an element vs element chart which has been relatively serviceable. I've used it in just such a manner on occasion.
There are also target numbers reqiured to affect various metals and
materials with magic when being enchantmented provided in the back of
the HW rules under which would serve as a nice resistance, if you
wish
to go in that route.
> > Other than the resistance, this works more or less well for me.
I'll
> > give it a shot.
>
> Fine, let me know if it worked.
Playtest results from a demo down at Hairy T games.
Quote: WHAT? He blew up my armor and I don't get a save or anything? Fuck that.
There's an answer. Players like to have a feeling that they are interracting.
Jeff
Powered by hypermail