>The citadel guards, as the book says, are overproud, even
>arrogant about their superior metal equipment.
>Now despite giving the guards an ability „overproud of their metal
>equipment", how would you handle the superiority of the metal weapons ?
>I dont think that edges really do it justice. Maybe an
>inprovisiational bonus/malus would be better ?
>So flintstone-spear against metalarmor -10 or something like that.
I'm of the school of thought that heroes aren't defined by their equipment -- several Viking heroes were proficient with a number of weapons. And you yourself say the guards are "overproud" of their weapons -- a +10 benefit seems like their pride is justified!
The equipment bonuses in HQ are small. I think it's obvious that a hunter with a knife is more dangerous than one without. So I wouldn't eliminate the weapon bonus. The difference in equipment is a factor within Balazar, so I would make it different -- perhaps half.
The other key difference in equipment is that the guards *have* equipment. Few Balazarings would have any significant armor at all, or a shield. That alone gives the guards something like a +3 over a Balazaring.
I think another big advantage of metal weapons is their durability. During an extended contest, when a Balazaring loses AP, he might also lose his spear tip (and the bonus it gives), especially when used against metal weapons. IIRC, Pendragon had a rule where swords broke spears on any tied roll. You could use something similar.
-- David Dunham Glorantha/HQ/RQ page: http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
Powered by hypermail