Fumble Table

[homerjsinnott]

I don't know anybody who used max damage for a crit, we used impaling crits sure but normal damage rolls.
We also ruled that you needed a large amount of room for long 2H swing weapons. So you couldn't use them indoors and teachers were hard to find
Etc. Very, very few people in any of our games use them and they were always way behind in skill (also cause you started at basic).

We did. Isn't that the official rules: max damage, ignoring all armor (even spells if I recall correctly). That's not exactly how I handled it in play, but it worked out that way.

I ruled that slashing weapons did max damage on a special, impaling weapons did double damage on a special, and crushing weapons did max damage bonus on a special. Any critical received the special result and ignored armor. Battle/spirit magic protection spells reinforced armor so were also ignored if armor was ignored. Rune/divine magic always gave full protection, since it was from the gods. That made Shield an extremely useful spell.

Of course, a successful parry still stopped a fair amount of damage, and I houseruled that each level of success for a dodge reduced the level of attack success by one, so a successful dodge turns a crit into a special, etc.

Dodge thing, this was in RQIV yes?

And usually broke the shield I should imagine.

It was too harsh, way too harsh, rules smules, it made combat too deadly even for me and ask my players, I was mean. I once killed a player with a sharpend stick.... ummm, did I say player? I meant character. Yes yes! that's it, a character.

I think the rules changed during RQIII.

I don't understand why one type of magical protection should work and not another? seems a bit inconsistant to me, and lets be honest Shield was potent enough anyway. Anywho, none worked against a critical in any games I was in or reffed.

I don't think the whole Slash/Impale/Crush thing was very balanced.

 

[Adept]

I don't think the whole Slash/Impale/Crush thing was very balanced.

Indeed it was not. It messed up many of my games when I was a young GM and didn't know any better yet.

The basic logic, I think, was to have impaling weapons (like arrows and spears) do less basic damage than other weapons, and more on a good hit that penetrated deep into the body. That part was ok, I quess, but the rest just went overboard.

I wish I would have had somebody more experienced around to tell me to keep the armour to a six point maximum (for hoplite panoply) and not go overboard with huge weapons.

 

[andakitty]

*ouch*

I don't remember RQ3 being that deadly. No surprise, since I jumped from RQ2 to Stormbringer, which I have the most actual play time with. Just ouch. :shock:

 

[RMS]

Not a bad take RMS. Better than my original struggles to go literally by the rules in the first years. That "cutting weapons did max damage on a special" bit is a bit stern though.

Meh... things ended up doing too much damage in RQ-3 anyway, is what I remember. High level characters ended up with iron chainmail before long, and even that didn't help against the criticals.

The cutting weapons doing max damage isn't too bad. The most common weapon in the game is a broadsword that does 1d8+1, so on a special it does 9 points of damage, plus any damage bonus. An average male human has 12 HP, so that isn't even fatal against an unarmored human. Give the opponent armor and magic, and allow them to parry, and it's not that big of deal.

The one you should really complain about is the Crush damage. Such weapons are generally in the hands of trolls. When that great troll hits you with a war maul you'll wish it was max weapon plus rolled bonus, rather than rolled weapon damage plus max strength bonus!

My games must have been much different from other peoples. My players hardly ever ended up with anything heavier than ringmail, and the vast majority of their battles were fought in leather or no armor, even at higher power levels. I've always stressed that if it isn't a set battle, then people aren't going to be wearing metal armor around all the time, especially in some place like Prax. I've had very few characters die in my 20+ years of running RQ though. Several have been taken for ransom and lots of have had to cast their precious healing magic (Heal Wounds is the first divine spell anyone goes for, isn't it?).

 

[RMS]

Dodge thing, this was in RQIV yes?

I don't really know, but it may have been. I participated in the earliest discussions for that, but then lost track of it.

And usually broke the shield I should imagine.

I've used some houserules for shields too, so that they are frequently shattered in a swing or two (with crits or specials) rather than wittled away, per the rules.

I think the rules changed during RQIII.

The impale and critical rules are indeed different in RQII vs. RQIII. In RQII, an impale is max weapon damage plus rolled weapon damage. In RQIII, its simply roll damage twice and add it up. I don't think RQII ever had automatic max weapon damage. Armor was just ignored on crits. I could be misremembering here.

Don't forget the biggest advantage in RQIII of specials: every point of damage is counted against SIZ to determine knockback. For a normal hit, only damage in excess of SIZ counts. Many a character in my games has been taken out of a fight, after successfully parrying, by hitting something hard with knockback, or by simply falling down.

In my latest game, the characters have become extremely powerful, and a duel between two people resulted in multiple huge knockbacks that completely failed to do any real damage due to massive amounts of protection magic. It was a fun fight to run. Beware of Humakti Swords, though. This one was dealing out damage in excess of 50 points with some swings, and averaging over 35!

I don't understand why one type of magical protection should work and not another? seems a bit inconsistant to me, and lets be honest Shield was potent enough anyway. Anywho, none worked against a critical in any games I was in or reffed.

I considered changing Protection too, and would consider it in the future. I had a reason for it at the time. It just doesn't make any sense to me that you can bypass a magical barrier around a character. Bypassing the armor by finding an opening makes perfect sense. In fact, my initial reaction to the new rule on this is very positive. That's how real armor works: it really is pretty much all or nothing. It either stops the blow completely (minus a little concussion) or does very little to slow it. I'll stop the tangent now...

I always thought Shield was underpowered if it could be completely bypassed with a lucky shot. Surely the gods are powerful enough to give out better protection than that. Plus, it takes 4 points of Shield just to equal a good suit of plate, and even if you're a priest that'll require a good amount of time to relearn.

I don't think the whole Slash/Impale/Crush thing was very balanced.

My houserules (which are very similar to the RQII Slash/Impale/Crush thing) worked out very well in practise. However, I really don't care about balance, as such, when I game. I want things to work logically, at least as far as I understand things to actually work. It was at least balanced enough, that I didn't see it driving player decisions for what weapons they chose, which is good enough for me.

 

[Adept]

The cutting weapons doing max damage isn't too bad. The most common weapon in the game is a broadsword that does 1d8+1, so on a special it does 9 points of damage, plus any damage bonus. An average male human has 12 HP, so that isn't even fatal against an unarmored human.

So did you play without location hitpoints then? That nine points (+1d4) is pretty damn fatal when it hits head or chest, and enough to sever a limb.

 

[sexy_davey]

The cutting weapons doing max damage isn't too bad. The most common weapon in the game is a broadsword that does 1d8+1, so on a special it does 9 points of damage, plus any damage bonus. An average male human has 12 HP, so that isn't even fatal against an unarmored human.

So did you play without location hitpoints then? That nine points (+1d4) is pretty damn fatal when it hits head or chest, and enough to sever a limb.

Broadswords could impale, don't forget, so a special (impale) would do 2D8 + 2 - more than a greatsword...

 

[RMS]

The cutting weapons doing max damage isn't too bad. The most common weapon in the game is a broadsword that does 1d8+1, so on a special it does 9 points of damage, plus any damage bonus. An average male human has 12 HP, so that isn't even fatal against an unarmored human.

So did you play without location hitpoints then? That nine points (+1d4) is pretty damn fatal when it hits head or chest, and enough to sever a limb.

No, we played with hit locations. (Another house rule that I used is that "stabbing weapons" use the missile hit location table rather than the melee one.) That'll take off the arm of an average person with a 3 hp arm, but most PC-types are hardy enough to have 4 hp arms, so no limb removal there...just lots of damage to repair later...or immediately with that Heal Wounds! Plus, under the rules a limb can be replaced immediately with something as basic as a Healing 6 spell. I made healing rarer in the world overall, but the players always came up with a logical reason to have someone really good with it.

 

[RMS]

Broadswords could impale, don't forget, so a special (impale) would do 2D8 + 2 - more than a greatsword...

That was a typo I'm sure, so I never allowed it. A broadsword is a slashing weapon (especially in the ancient era), not a thrusting weapon. A gladius would be appropriate for imaling though.

 

[Adept]

Broadswords could impale, don't forget, so a special (impale) would do 2D8 + 2 - more than a greatsword...

That was a typo I'm sure, so I never allowed it. A broadsword is a slashing weapon (especially in the ancient era), not a thrusting weapon. A gladius would be appropriate for imaling though.

Even if one conciders the broadsword to have a thrusting tip (many did) it wouldn't be d8+1 damage, or even the 1d6+1 damage of a shortsword (which is a thrusting weapon with an excellent thrusting tip). I'd allow thrusting for something like 1d4+1 for the RQ-3 broadsword.

An excellent (slender) thrusting tip is bad for a cutting weapon. The tip generates a lot of drag on a cut, so a sword is either a thruster or a cutter, or average on both but excellent on neither.

 

[RMS]

Broadswords could impale, don't forget, so a special (impale) would do 2D8 + 2 - more than a greatsword...

That was a typo I'm sure, so I never allowed it. A broadsword is a slashing weapon (especially in the ancient era), not a thrusting weapon. A gladius would be appropriate for imaling though.

Even if one conciders the broadsword to have a thrusting tip (many did) it wouldn't be d8+1 damage, or even the 1d6+1 damage of a shortsword (which is a thrusting weapon with an excellent thrusting tip). I'd allow thrusting for something like 1d4+1 for the RQ-3 broadsword.

An excellent (slender) thrusting tip is bad for a cutting weapon. The tip generates a lot of drag on a cut, so a sword is either a thruster or a cutter, or average on both but excellent on neither.

I won't claim to be an expert on ancient weapons, but my understanding is that this is what distuinguishes something like a broadsword from other various swords: it's "broad" because of the broad blade, and hence a slashing weapon with very little use as an impaling weapon. Plus, as I understand it, we're well past the ancient period (when RQ games are typically set) before steal is developed enough to build large heavy weapons that can maintain a fine point. I know that early iron weapons, like broadswords, had to be straightened on a fairly regular basis, so it's hard to imagine one holding a point sufficient to punch through much (other than skin of course!).

 

[Adept]

I won't claim to be an expert on ancient weapons, but my understanding is that this is what distuinguishes something like a broadsword from other various swords: it's "broad" because of the broad blade, and hence a slashing weapon with very little use as an impaling weapon. Plus, as I understand it, we're well past the ancient period (when RQ games are typically set) before steal is developed enough to build large heavy weapons that can maintain a fine point. I know that early iron weapons, like broadswords, had to be straightened on a fairly regular basis, so it's hard to imagine one holding a point sufficient to punch through much (other than skin of course!).

A "broadsword" is an anachronistic term. In the era of smallswords and rapiers the scots would only go so far, and their swords (the 1-h baskethilt claymore) were called broadswords. The blades were broad by the standards of the day (compared to rapiers).

The legend of bending swords seems to be because funeral weapons were ritually "killed" before burying them with their owners. Bending a sword or breaking it in two killed it pretty well.

That said, swords do bend & break, even if they are good modern steel.

Many bronze swords seem to have a nice thrusting tip, and are closest to a shortsword in a RPG system.

But still, when something is called a broadsword, I'd say it's a striking sword that is good for cutting with the edge.

 

[homerjsinnott]

I always thought Shield was underpowered if it could be completely bypassed with a lucky shot.

I'm not sure criticals can be described as lucky, otherwise they wouldn't be a factor of skill.

Surely the gods are powerful enough to give out better protection than that. Plus, it takes 4 points of Shield just to equal a good suit of plate, and even if you're a priest that'll require a good amount of time to relearn.

Four days is a lot of time? Well the gods maybe powerful, but game balance is more so. you talk about logic but you say that magic works in one instance but not another?


Shield was immensely powerful, it lasted 3*as long and was the equivalent of 4 points of Spirit magic, how is that not potent?

My houserules (which are very similar to the RQII Slash/Impale/Crush thing) worked out very well in practise. However, I really don't care about balance, as such, when I game. I want things to work logically, at least as far as I understand things to actually work. It was at least balanced enough, that I didn't see it driving player decisions for what weapons they chose, which is good enough for me.

Nor did mine, but we mostly stuck with occupational weapons, but that still doesn't change the fact that crushing weapons were not as good for human PC's as the other two. You don't say what you did to correct this.

 

[homerjsinnott]

Broadswords could impale, don't forget, so a special (impale) would do 2D8 + 2 - more than a greatsword...

That was a typo I'm sure, so I never allowed it. A broadsword is a slashing weapon (especially in the ancient era), not a thrusting weapon. A gladius would be appropriate for imaling though.

No it wasn't.

The term Broadsword in runequest was a generic term used for swords that were used with one hand and were longer than a short sword, they had a sharpend point so could be used to thrust, so could impale.

Longsword might (and only might) be a better term.

 

[Adept]

Nor did mine, but we mostly stuck with occupational weapons, but that still doesn't change the fact that crushing weapons were not as good for human PC's as the other two. You don't say what you did to correct this.

Why should they be equally powerful exactly? Trolls use lagre clubs (and slings) because they are rather primitive technologically, and fear fire. It's hard to be a great smith without fire.

There is a reason why sharp weapons have dominated warfare (until gunpowder).

 

[homerjsinnott]

Nor did mine, but we mostly stuck with occupational weapons, but that still doesn't change the fact that crushing weapons were not as good for human PC's as the other two. You don't say what you did to correct this.

Why should they be equally powerful exactly? Trolls use lagre clubs (and slings) because they are rather primitive technologically, and fear fire. It's hard to be a great smith without fire.

Trolls can and have used fire, ask any ZZ redsmith.
why should they be equal?
Game balance?

There is a reason why sharp weapons have dominated warfare (until gunpowder).

What about flails, footmans maces and hammers?

I want there to be pros and cons for all weapon types. I don't care about anything else to be honest as long as it feels right, cause in the end it's all make believe anyway.

 

[RMS]

I always thought Shield was underpowered if it could be completely bypassed with a lucky shot.

I'm not sure criticals can be described as lucky, otherwise they wouldn't be a factor of skill.

Fair enough, but they still happen very infrequently so aren't something you're depending on, so come down to blind luck on when they happen. The odds aren't lucky, but the actual timing is.

Surely the gods are powerful enough to give out better protection than that. Plus, it takes 4 points of Shield just to equal a good suit of plate, and even if you're a priest that'll require a good amount of time to relearn.

Four days is a lot of time? Well the gods maybe powerful, but game balance is more so. you talk about logic but you say that magic works in one instance but not another?

The four days are a minor part of the time required to travel to and from the closest temple, do appropriate favors, etc. to be allowed to relearn the spell. Shield can only be cast once per journey/trip, whereas Protection can be cast over-and-over, so long as the player has enough magic points (and they regenerate constantly).

Well, surely logic is in the eye of the beholder since we're talking about magic, but remember that divine magic and spirit magic are two completely different things with completely different sources and abilities to affect the game world. There's absolutely no logical reason for them to work the same way. In fact, it's far more interesting if they don't. Plus, like I mention above, if your interest is game balance then Protection has all kinds of advantages over Shield in it's ability to be reused. Shield is basically one shot and it's gone until you get a break at a place with a temple.

Shield was immensely powerful, it lasted 3*as long and was the equivalent of 4 points of Spirit magic, how is that not potent?

For some divine spells, that extra time was a big issue, but not with Shield. Most RQ combats are done in a couple of minutes, so either Shield or Protection will easily last the entire battle. For purely mundane purposes, Shield is twice as good as Protection per point, but costs actual POW to gain (and under the written rules is gone forever after casting, unless you're a priest), and can only be cast infrequently with much effort to reload. In fact, the biggest advantage of Shield is that it offers some magical protection and that it doesn't cost any current MP to cast, but then by the time people have enough Shield to be useful (and reusable) they typically have lots of MP storage devices, so Protections, etc. go up immediately in every fight.

My houserules (which are very similar to the RQII Slash/Impale/Crush thing) worked out very well in practise. However, I really don't care about balance, as such, when I game. I want things to work logically, at least as far as I understand things to actually work. It was at least balanced enough, that I didn't see it driving player decisions for what weapons they chose, which is good enough for me.

Nor did mine, but we mostly stuck with occupational weapons, but that still doesn't change the fact that crushing weapons were not as good for human PC's as the other two. You don't say what you did to correct this.

Nothing. Why bother? Crushing weapons aren't as good. They're advantages are being readily available, cheaper, and easier to use (higher starting % in RQ). If they were as good as sharp or pointy things in actual combat, people wouldn't waste all the effort making sharp and pointy things for combat.

 

[Adept]

Game balance?

There is a reason why sharp weapons have dominated warfare (until gunpowder).

What about flails, footmans maces and hammers?

I want there to be pros and cons for all weapon types. I don't care about anything else to be honest as long as it feels right, cause in the end it's all make believe anyway.

Game balance is overrated. I'll take realism any day of the week.

Clubs were great until helmets were invented, then they lost much of their effect. Flails and maces became popular when plate armour started to be so good that edged weapons just couldn't defeat it reliably. A mace is meant to stun or crack bones through plate armour.

Also on the subject of game balance, RQ's huge damage for the greatsword and poleaxe meant that in the old days most human PC's wanted one or the other

A troll on the other hand used the trollmaul, or a heavy mace with shield.

God I'm glad I'm not 15 anymore.

 

[RMS]

Broadswords could impale, don't forget, so a special (impale) would do 2D8 + 2 - more than a greatsword...

That was a typo I'm sure, so I never allowed it. A broadsword is a slashing weapon (especially in the ancient era), not a thrusting weapon. A gladius would be appropriate for imaling though.

No it wasn't.

The term Broadsword in runequest was a generic term used for swords that were used with one hand and were longer than a short sword, they had a sharpend point so could be used to thrust, so could impale.

I know alot of people that think that way, and since it's a game it's fine. Plus, if you set your game later, it may even make some sense (though at reduced damage for thrusting as someone else mentioned), but one of the things I enjoy about RQ is the ancient feel to it, and a large sword at that time was used as I describe it.

 

[Halfbat]

I like the criticals, as they did add a lot to the game when guided carefully, and am fine in them being derived from the SCA or fencing or archery experiences but I do think the serious impact of them was sometimes way too much. We had to adjust them occasionally or make them more pertinent.

Didn't someone do some work on working out what would happen between two 10,000 soldier armies, once?