new weapon tables

[Enpeze]

The first time I saw the weapons table I rolled my eyes. I just thought: Why do they not use the original weapon damages which have always be fine for me. (ok except the rather demonic kick damage in RQIII :? )

But now I am more relaxed. I think I can live with the most damage values of the weapons. there are some weapons I would change or add, but the rest is ok.
Things on the weapon table I would change are:
-shield damage: too high IMO, I cannot agree that bash with a kite or target shield has the same damage as a gladius
-addition of special weapons like net, whip etc
-a warhammer is practical for penetrating armor. So I would lower the damage of it to say 1d6 but armor should only count half. The same is valid for other armor penetrating weapons.
-a flail or ball & chain have some advantages against targets behind shields. So I would apply a special rule for this.

 

[andakitty]

The thing I'm having the most disagreement with are the 2h weapons. thy seem much too high in realtion to the 1h ones. The rest I can live with but it would seem more balanced to me if greatsword was 2D6 and greataxe 2D4+2. Or something along those lines.

 

[atgxtg]

I would like to see:


1)Some non-lethal damage rules. Stuff so punches and kicks are not the same as stabbing someone with a knife.

2) Special effects for certain attacks. For instance a shield bash that doesn't do much damage, but can put a foe off balance for a game effect (check for knockdown, or lose an action, or free action or something).

3) A bit more diversity with weapon damages. Around 40% of the weapons do 1D8 damage. Unless there are special effects due to weapon type that we are not aware of, too many weapons are going to be inearly ndentical in terms of game play.

4) I don't like that a shortsword does less damage than a rapier, and has the same AP/HP. I'd rather have seen rapier's do 1D4 or 1D4+1 but triple damage on an impale.

5) I think the new AP/HP values are way off. A quarterstaff is tougher than a shortspear? A dagger is tougher than a shortsword? And generally the longer a sword (or other weapon is) the easier it is to break. The reason why most ancient cultures developed a shortsword was due to the fact that they couldn't produce a metal tough enough to keep from breaking when shaped to over 2 feet or so in length.
The longer the weapon the more it acts like a fulcrum, and the easier to break.

I'm really leaning towards pulling out the RQ2 or RQ3 weapon tables.

 

[andakitty]

What a coincidence! I was just looking at the RQ2 weapon table and thinking how much more balanced and accurate it looked. However, I am waiting for the MRQ book before coming to any conclusions. And I don't think I will do any houseruling anyway. The MRQ table may not be perfect but it looks perfectly playable. Not worth fretting over to me. 8)

 

[atgxtg]

What a coincidence! I was just looking at the RQ2 weapon table and thinking how much more balanced and accurate it looked. However, I am waiting for the MRQ book before coming to any conclusions. And I don't think I will do any houseruling anyway. The MRQ table may not be perfect but it looks perfectly playable. Not worth fretting over to me. 8)

I know what you mean. Until MRQ comes out, we don't know for ceertain how some things work. Maybe there are new rules that make the new weapon damages make sense. Or maybe Mongoose just chanced the numbers in order to keep things differenert from RQIII/BRP.

If not, it isn't hard to scan & print out the RQIII damage tables-and it only means tweaking 1 page. (Hmm, maybe RQ3 but use 1/2 or 3/4 of the AP).