Preview 2
- Thread starter estarriol
- Start date
Try wikipedia-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaivehomerjsinnott said:
homerjsinnott
Mongoose
t-tauri said:
So we are talking about spears then?
A
Archer
Guest
Polearms. Modern historical references in the english language (and I suppose the french language as well) to the word Glaive refers to the polearms bearing this name, or the name glaive guisarme.
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
Exactly as much player input as any other game. "I want to run True20 SG-1. I do not want to run Spycraft SG-1. If you want to play SG-1, we play True20. Otherwise, lets play something else".homerjsinnott said:
Would you prefer the players dictated what game AND system the GM runs, regardless of their preference? Doesn't your GM have any choice?
Wulf
homerjsinnott
Mongoose
Wulf Corbett said:
Mostly reff myself, would rather play but what can you do?, but I try to come to a compromise with my players over system changes but you are right, I have the final word, but I try to make the changes as gradual and as painless as possible.
Just looked at the weapon list again after giving it a break for a couple of days, and it no longer looks quite so horrible, not enough to break the game anyway. It does seem unbalanced, though. Maybe if they reduced the greatsword to 2D6 and the greataxe to 2D4+2 (or something similar)it would look more reasonable to me. Oh, well. As long as the combat system works I can adjust the weapon table to taste easily enough. I have never been completely happy with any weapon tables anyway. There are probably other factors in the skill descriptions that will 'adjust' the balance of power between the weapons (I hope!).
A
Archer
Guest
Quick and simple rule I have used for introducing new weapons into BRP clones.
Measure roughly in length of the weapon, and consider other factors about it.
Small, barely longer than your hand - 1d4
Short, from your elbow to your fingertips - 1d6
Long, longer than "short" above, but not as long as a person - 1d8
Very long, at least as long as a person - 1d10
Modifiers (cumulative);
Extra sharp/added spikes for damage; +1
Extra well balanced/added weight to deal damage; +1
Jagged edge/Barbed point; +1
Measure roughly in length of the weapon, and consider other factors about it.
Small, barely longer than your hand - 1d4
Short, from your elbow to your fingertips - 1d6
Long, longer than "short" above, but not as long as a person - 1d8
Very long, at least as long as a person - 1d10
Modifiers (cumulative);
Extra sharp/added spikes for damage; +1
Extra well balanced/added weight to deal damage; +1
Jagged edge/Barbed point; +1
Howdy,
Yeah, I am a little worried about some of the damage listings (2d8!?!). Indeed, they are easy enough to change, but the core game should have a firm foundation without relying on alterations out of the gate.
Another concern is the -40% chance to AVOID A DEFENDER'S ARMOUR. Wow, did this get through playtesting? I can see criticals doing this, but with only a -40% to bypass any armour, this seems too deadly (especially with some of the high damage weapons). Maybe there are new combat rules that make sense of this, or maybe we are not getting the full picture (which is likely).
Still, a little worrying....
Ken
Yeah, I am a little worried about some of the damage listings (2d8!?!). Indeed, they are easy enough to change, but the core game should have a firm foundation without relying on alterations out of the gate.
Another concern is the -40% chance to AVOID A DEFENDER'S ARMOUR. Wow, did this get through playtesting? I can see criticals doing this, but with only a -40% to bypass any armour, this seems too deadly (especially with some of the high damage weapons). Maybe there are new combat rules that make sense of this, or maybe we are not getting the full picture (which is likely).
Still, a little worrying....
Ken
Hey, Archer. That system for assigning weapons would work really well for Tekumel (weapons molded from Chlen hide, usually very baroque shape with spikes and so on...). I have made up anumber of BRP weapon lists, thats not the hard part. As kwinland? said, the somewhat unbalanced look of the base list is worrying. It doesn't look well thought out so far. Let us hope it looks better when all is revealed...not that it wouldn't play OK as is. But I know a LOT of players who would just say 'the best thing is the 2h weapons, wow lookit the great hammer! And that would be that. 
Well, at least the spears look better than average for frpgs. 
Well, at least the spears look better than average for frpgs. kwinland said:
Yeah, that opened my eyes too. Once your skill is about 70-80 I don't see much point in not calling this shot against heavily armored oponnents.
Never mind when you are a master+ wih a weapon.
Also, assuming there is a version of Bladesharp out there (this is Runequest, isn't it?)....
Bladesharp 4 becomes -20% to ignore armor and do +4 damage (to the unarmored location).
A
Archer
Guest
Well, the values for weapon damage are pretty much the same as in Stormbringer 5.
If they also has gone with the damage system from stormbringer (Dmg > 1/2 HP = Critical hit), then even the weapons dealing 1d6 of damage is sufficient.
In stormbringer, the large weapons has a great disadvantage, they are long, and can not be used in battle when an opponent are breast to breast with you (basically grappling).
So you need a weapon that is Long, one Medium, and one Short, in order to have a weapon for each distance on which you can fight in a melee.
Considering the fact that heavy plate armour will not be easily accessible in Glorantha, one can deduct that the heavier weapons is also not very acessible. There is very little use for a heavy great sword when there are no mounted knights in plate armour.
If they also has gone with the damage system from stormbringer (Dmg > 1/2 HP = Critical hit), then even the weapons dealing 1d6 of damage is sufficient.
In stormbringer, the large weapons has a great disadvantage, they are long, and can not be used in battle when an opponent are breast to breast with you (basically grappling).
So you need a weapon that is Long, one Medium, and one Short, in order to have a weapon for each distance on which you can fight in a melee.
Considering the fact that heavy plate armour will not be easily accessible in Glorantha, one can deduct that the heavier weapons is also not very acessible. There is very little use for a heavy great sword when there are no mounted knights in plate armour.
Archer said:
And they can, in theory, be adjusted to fit different settings, much as we did with Conan and D20. . .
A
Archer
Guest
Very good point.
However, I think in regard to lethality, assuming MRQ use same number of HP as RQ3 and Stormbringer, the 2d8 Greatsword will be just about right. I have played BRP clones with Greatsword damage of 2d10+2, which was too lethal (even with plate armour 8 AP), and Greatsword damage of 1d10, which made it rather useless against platearmour (8 AP).
The question for me, is not really if the weapons deal sufficient, too much, or too little damage. It is if they deal reasonable damage compared to how much armour protects.
And converting weapons from d20 (if not Conan) to MRQ should be quite simple. That goes quite far with magical weapons too, at least the most basic ones. A +1 Longsword would grant +5% bonus to wield and would deal 1d8+1 damage.
However, I think in regard to lethality, assuming MRQ use same number of HP as RQ3 and Stormbringer, the 2d8 Greatsword will be just about right. I have played BRP clones with Greatsword damage of 2d10+2, which was too lethal (even with plate armour 8 AP), and Greatsword damage of 1d10, which made it rather useless against platearmour (8 AP).
The question for me, is not really if the weapons deal sufficient, too much, or too little damage. It is if they deal reasonable damage compared to how much armour protects.
And converting weapons from d20 (if not Conan) to MRQ should be quite simple. That goes quite far with magical weapons too, at least the most basic ones. A +1 Longsword would grant +5% bonus to wield and would deal 1d8+1 damage.
homerjsinnott
Mongoose
Archer said:
Added spikes, jagged edge and barbed point, I think would reduced HP, increased the price and make them harder to wield.
The reason almost all combat weapons don't have frilly bits is because they make the weapon unbalanced, brittle and harder to make.
Polearms are a bit of an exception mainly because you were fighting in such a large mass, to some extent you just pointed and hoped.
As most of you know, 2d8 was the damage for a greatsword in RQ2 and beyond (maybe even before)
The -40%for bypassing armour does seem strange and too easy, unless the basic hit and parry has changed (which it may well have) I won't use it.
JohnLokiBeard
Mongoose
Archer said:
What about walktapi, dragonsnails, jackobears, scorpionmen, trolls, giants, anything smaller you want to just hack aside asap? And wrecking your opponent's shield is still useful.
A
Archer
Guest
JohnLokiBeard said:
True. But that does not mean that sword smiths will just start to mass-produce great swords. The great swords evolved to combat plate armour, epecially mounted knights.
There must be a reason why a weapon evolves, or else it will not exist.
Spears would still be a very good weapon against mentioned creatures. So there would be no need to create a bigger sword just to combat them.
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
On Earth they did. In Glorantha, they were developed (even in Glorantha, swords don't evolve...) to combat Dragonsnails, Dragons, etc.Archer said:
Spears would be equally as good against knights as against anything with rigid armour. Greatswords would be as good against anything with armour. And there are a few of those in Glorantha...
Besides, there's a far better reason why Greatswords exist in profusion in Glorantha. Players want them, they always had them before, they want them again. Strangely, crossbows don't seem to have the same demand.
Wulf
A
Archer
Guest
Wulf Corbett said:
Sorry, I failed my English Language skill roll
Developed, true. They were developed to combat plate armour.
You have a valid point, they could have been developed to combat hard to kill monsters in Glorantha.
Wulf Corbett said:
Yes, and in fact they were employed in this manner. But the spear, at that point in time, were mostly used by file-and-rank soldiers, not knights. And that perhaps is the greatest difference. Not the effectiveness of the weapon, but how the warrior weilding it percieved it.
True, lances were weapons used by mounted knights, but spears were seldom employed by the knights themselves.
The main reason, I think, is the practicality of "carrying" the great sword on a horse, compared to a spear. Especially if it is a secondary weapon to be used while on foot.
If you would enligthen me as to what is the proper words for "carrying" a weapon on a horse, in the english language, I would appreciate it. I of course mean the situation when you have the sword in a scabbard, tied to the saddle.
Wulf Corbett said:
Hmm, this is very true. I can not argue with that.
However, considering the general historical period of which most of Glorantha seems to be equivalent too, spears would be more common. Especially the spear and shield combination of fighting in formation. Swords would only be secondary weapons.
But then, as you have pointed out, players want them.
