Poor character can start with a crossbow but not a longbow which is cheaper.

Spears being fast, and therefore better than hand weapons. I would think hand weapons are better than spears since that is what they used in the middle ages.

12 arrows = 2 encumbrance. I’m going to rule that the 2 enc is for the quiver not the arrows. I think I’ll let my PC carry 36 arrows inside the quiver for the 2 enc. cost. Every additional dozen after that is an additional 1 point of encumbrance. (I’d like to hear experienced GM opinions on this house rule.)

One quick question: Is the only way to get defense and soak is with armor? (I know toughness = soak but apparently agility does not confer any defense bonus right?) So an unarmored PC with a toughness of 3 would have 0 defense and 3 soak correct?

(I’m aware of the defense action cards but I’m interested in knowing what happens if I don’t have any defense action cards to play.)

BTW, I'm still reading through the rules and creating PC's but I can safely say I already love this game.

I'll admit I'm going from memory, but according to the equipment section longbows are rare in the Reikland. It's an elfy thing. That's probably why it doesn't appear in that starting package. There just aren't that many of them. How that accounts for pricing, I can't say.

I like it that a spear has an advantage over a 'normal' hand weapon, in the middle ages it was used commonly on battle fields and by guards, so it may have been a better weapon in certain situations. But it seems that a hand weapon has no advantage game-wise over a spear, being more expensive, having a higher CR and not having fast, so that is a bit odd.

The normal way to gain soak is indeed with armour (that sometimes also provides defence). Your example would be correct. Having a high agility by itself does not provide any bonus, but it can be necessary for some action cards that would help with defence.

Agree with the other poster that the Rarity of the Longbow is why it isn't listed as one of the "free" items under Poor; however, I am allowing characters to purchase any items they can afford regardless of rarity during chargen, so a Poor character can still start with a Longbow, he'll just spend most of his starting money to do so.

I also assume the encumbrance value of 12 arrows/bolts includes the quiver, but I had not considered increasing the carrying capacity of the quiver beyond 12 before now. The Encumbrance rules really bother me. A starting character with 3 Str wearing leather and carrying a hand weapon, crossbow or longbow, and a quiver of arrows/bolts is at 12 encumbrance. Throw in a waterskin and a rucksack with a spare set of clothes and a few knicknacks and they're pretty much maxed out. Forget about carrying camping equipment, climbing gear, a lantern, or trade tools. Doing so will put you over the limit and cause you to take 1 misfortune die on all physical checks per point over encumbrance that is cumulative with Fatigue penalties and at 18 encumbrance, you lose the free maneuver each turn too. That's pretty harsh. I expect most GMs to ignore Encumbrance unless the players start acting like pack mules. In any case I will probably increase the carrying capacity of a quiver to two dozen without increasing the encumbrance. I think 3 dozen is bit too much though.

Yes, you only normally gain defense or soak by wearing armour. The defensive benefit of high Agility is reflected in your ability to qualify and use the Dodge (or its Improved variant) action. You need Agility 3+ to qualify for the Dodge action and 4+ to qualify for Improved Dodge. Although it is not a constant benefit like the defense bonus added by armour, this is still a pretty significant benefi.

Encumberance is a real problem, but the equipment section recommends you don't worry about trifling things like books and candles and what not... I've expanded that somewhat to mean: anything other than weapons or armour so long as it doesn't get ridiculous. Even still, a character with 3 strength can barely wear his armour, carry a shield, a melee weapon, and a ranged weapon. Much less anything else!

While I have yet to actually try it out I do not see any real problems with encumbrance on paper.

If you are carrying armour, a handweapon And a ranged weapon including ammunition And on top of that a backpack with assorted equipment a normal man Should be quite encumbered. To be ambushed by a Beastmen party while on the road and carrying heavy backpacks should leave the characters at a disadvantage. As far as I can tell there's no restrictions from encumbrance while in story mode which is were most of the traveling will take place, I assume.

I doubt it's a perfect system but to me it seems reasonably balanced and not overly harsh, perhaps even somewhat realistic. Soldiering is a tough career. Most armies have a substantial baggage train and most adventurers should have a good nagg or mule to carry the treasure.

From just reading about it it seems like a decent balancing system that either keeps the characters from dragging around to many weapons or a decent moneysink (the cost of beasts of burden, their food, stable place and so forth).

Just my two shillings.

Most fantasy rpg's do armour encumbrance so totally wrong. Plate is not as heavy as many beleives.

From wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour

Composition

Plate armour could have consisted of a helmet, a gorget (or bevor), pauldrons (or spaulders), couters, vambraces, gauntlets, a cuirass (back and breastplate) with a fauld, tassets and a culet, a mail skirt, cuisses, poleyns, greaves, and sabatons. While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds) if well made of tempered steel.[2] This is less than the weight of modern combat gear of an infantry soldier (usually 25 to 35 kg), and the weight is more evenly distributed. The weight was so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle. Modern re-enactment activity has proven it is even possible to swim in armour, though it is difficult. It is possible for a fit and trained man in armour to run after and catch an unarmoured archer, as witnessed in re-enactment combat. The notion that it was necessary to lift a fully armed knight onto his horse with the help of pulleys is a myth originating in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.[3][4] (And, in fact, the mere existence of plate armour during King Arthur era is a myth as well: 6th century knights would have worn chainmail instead.) Even knights in enormously heavy jousting armour were not winched onto their horses. This type of "sporting" armour was meant only for ceremonial lancing matches and its design was deliberately made extremely thick to protect the wearer from severe accidents, such as the one which caused the death of King Henry II of France.[citation needed]

Tournament armour is always heavier, clumsier and more protective than combat armour. The rationale is that nobody wants to get killed in a game, but on battlefield the question is about life and death, and mobility and endurance is more important aspect on combat survival than mere passive protection. Therefore combat armour is a compromise between protection and mobility, while tournament armour merely stresses protection on cost of mobility.

And here I was thinking that the encumbrance rules were too lenient.

El Cuajinais said:

Well, actually, spears and polearms were the weapon of choice for the rank and file in the middle ages. Swords were more common in Roman times because the Roman Legions were really well-trained and maintained. Armies in the middle ages were pretty much you (the lord), your few retainers who know what they're doing and are rich enough to own their own weapons and armor, and as many peasants as you can pick out of the fields and arm on your own dime. Those are the two biggest advantages1) You didn't need much training to use a spear, and 2) You could make a lot more spears than swords with a limited amount of metal. The only thing easier to use (though not cheaper) is a musket =P

For arrows typically the quiver was for a dozen(12) or score (20) arrows. So having a 12/24 for a quiver isnt overly a problem. Do note a quiver could hold more (somewhere in the vicinity of double for storage capacity) but that made the arrows themselves alot harder to draw.

Also a good rule of tumb for the length of an arrow is from finger tip to sholder (sometimes a tad longer but close enough) as that was the draw of a bow, so they are by no means a small thing.

And arrows were heavier back then.. yeah? Not made out of carbon composites or whatever they use nowadays.

Long Bows are also a Brettonian thing...

My own take is that hand weapons are civilian weapons, whereas a spear is either a hunter's tool or a weapon of war. It's not the kind of thing you can just carry on the streets of Altdorf.

Guys, Posted this response on an another thread about encumbrance. Thought it might be relevant seeing some of the above discussion:

Just a thought, but if you feel that the encumberance rules are a bit heavy (no pun intended) you could try doing something similar to the Riddle of Steel system.

I think (its been a while) that with Riddle, the encumbrance values for armour that you are actually wearing is half what is listed. There is apparently a big difference between wearing a chain shirt (that has been made to fit you) and carrying one rolled up in a backpack. Its supposedly all about weight distribution.

I have never actually wandered around in armour and tested this theory (as some previous posters may have) but at face value it makes sense to me.

I know Riddle tries to be more of a simulation type of game than WFRP (dont have the rules yet so Im only going off general consensus here) but they are both similar in the respect that they work on dice pools and your encumbrance has a direct effect on your dice pools when in combat.

Thoughts???

In case anyone reading this hasn't noticed the rule on arrows in a quiver; 20 arrows in a quiver = 1 point of encumbrance. This can be found on page 82 of the rulebook in the sidebar titled 'Encumbrance and Common Sense' where it says that 20 incidental items stored in an effective manner have an encumbrance value of 1 and it specifically lists 'arrows in a quiver' as incidental items that fall under this rule.

I don't know what the 12 arrows to 2 encumbrance is for though. Maybe holding them in your hands?

There does indeed seem to be a lot of "Quirk" in the rules. Things that could be " hand waved" away. But when I think about them to hard it makes my head hurt, and my vision blur.. I just can not wrap my mind around certain ways the rules come across. Such as a Robe having the same "Defence" as a Breast plate. I know the game is suppose to be more abstract. But stuff like this doesn't stop me from wanting to rewrite chunks of the rules.

Opps