S&P 36 Damage Tables

[Lord Twig]

Have you played anything more than starting characters?

In MRQ? No, it's only been out a couple of weeks.

That said, they did have weapon skills in the 70s and 80s, and damage bonuses that averaged a d6.

One guy Charged with a war maul, hit, and the opponent failed his Dodge. 3d6+1d4 and the results were 6,6,6, and 4. To the chest, which had 3 points of armor.

Uhm... ouch.

It is not the skill level I am worried about so much as the armor and damage level. A beginning character will have maybe 1 or 2 armor points in a location. With weapon damage the way it is that makes for a fairly fast and deadly game. But if everyone has 5+ armor in each location then things may slow down quite a bit.

Note I have not played a high powered game myself (or any game at all yet actually) but that is how it appears from the rules.

I am also concerned about the rate of growth of characters. The 2 or 3 experience rolls per adventure seems pretty slow to me.

 

[atgxtg]

tongue-in-cheek?

Sorry, as someone who's native tongue is not english. Exactly what does "tongue-in-check" _mean_? I know what the words mean, but what are the expression supposed to mean?

I have seen it sometimes, but I have never seen an explanation for this odd expression.

/Archer - In serious need of increasing his Lore (English Language Bizarre Knowledge) skill...

Tongue-in-cheek is a term that refers to a style of humour in which things are said only half seriously, or in a subtly mocking way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek

Or even a self-mocking way. :wink:



I suspect a good deal of the nastiness that takes place on the net is probably due to simple misunderstandings. Between tone and cultural idioms it is pretty tough. If the language isn't isn't someone's primary language a second language it makes i even tougher as you probably were taught "proper' English as opposedd to colloquial English.

 

[Lord Twig]

Tongue-in-cheek is a term that refers to a style of humour in which things are said only half seriously, or in a subtly mocking way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek

Ah, thank you for enlightening me.

And thank you for giving me the reminder that I _should_ wikipedia this kind of questions first....

No problem!

I was just going to answer you, but couldn't think of a good way of defining it. So I checked wikipedia. Since I was directly quoting I wanted to list my source.

 

[Archer]

Or even a self-mocking way. :wink:

I suspect a good deal of the nastiness that takes place on the net is probably due to simple misunderstandings. Between tone and cultural idioms it is pretty tough. If the language isn't isn't someone's primary language a second language it makes i even tougher as you probably were taught "proper' English as opposedd to colloquial English.

I was taught "proper" english in school. But then I started with computers very early in life (ZX Spectrum 48K at age of 10), I quickly outgrew the material used in school, and well, then I began with RPGs soon after, and then I seriously had to learn english. And I am still learning....

I am fairly proficient in English, but there are still some cultural references, sayings, and other "odd" phrases that I have yet to fully grasp
But that is something I could say about my native tongue as well...

As for net communication, yes, it can certainly be hard sometimes to read the "tone" in which a specific text was written. That is unless you talk with someone over the net for a very long time, or know them IRL.

Emoticons help somewhat, but not always.

 

[RMS]

I am fairly proficient in English, but there are still some cultural references, sayings, and other "odd" phrases that I have yet to fully grasp
But that is something I could say about my native tongue as well...

It doesn't help that there are so many different versions of English too. The colloquialisms often catch us off guard too, though it's probably easier to catch them when you speak one version natively.

What is your native language out of curiosity? There's no indication in your posts. At least you can communicate with us. I tried hard to learn another language when I was in school (German), but when I actually traveled there I couldn't get close to keeping up and everyone there spoke better English than I could even get close to in German. Plus, they all wanted to practise their English on me anyway!

 

[GoingDown]

It is not the skill level I am worried about so much as the armor and damage level. A beginning character will have maybe 1 or 2 armor points in a location. With weapon damage the way it is that makes for a fairly fast and deadly game. But if everyone has 5+ armor in each location then things may slow down quite a bit.

Yes, that happens. But it is just the same as in older Runequests as well. Somebody in your adventuring party just needs to have some bladesharps... and advanced characters more propably have some damage-boosting things.

 

[Halfbat]

I started work on a Ancient Rome setting, and I would love to see your take on the galdius and spaetha (as opposed to shortsword and warsword). Even the sica would be good for the gladiators.

Looks like we're going similar ways, here!

For me the main reason for separating the weapons was for flavour rather than any belief that the gladius was a be-all-and-end-all weapon*. From my viewpoint use of weapon sub-types can help in a rapid cultural association (e.g. GM:"The group of guys just inside the town gates look a little too neat for street-thugs." Player: "Ok. Are they armed? What with?" GM:"Each has a gladius on the right and a dagger." Player: (Smile fades) "Not the legionairres, again...")

Excuse the following explanation, but I know some peeps may not appreciate the difference between a gladius/spatha/sica.

As far as I can seen, the gladius is probably the quintessential shortsword and can be classed as one. However, I felt that the gladius was mainly a slightly more efficient and better made shortsword than most of those around at the time, still mainly a stabbing weapon but with a useful edge. It seems slightly heavier and slightly stronger than its counterparts but the hilt isn't overly defined...4 AP perhaps, but I'm not sure (btw I don't think the pugio can justify 4AP at all).

I don't think I could justify giving the gladius 1d6+1 damage, but should still do the same damage as a shortsword at least, so I'm tentatively experimenting (I suppose everyone is at this stage). The spatha is a bit different, originally being a mixed-use cavalry sword and later evolving into more efficient versions for a sword of its length (cavalry preferred the spear iirc).

The sica was effectively a curved long knife, but fairly solid, still, and was often matched against gladiators with gladius' so didn't seem to be that much inferior.

This gives the following (and, yes, I'm a bit wary of the +2's):

GLADIUS Skill:1H Sword, Dmg:1D4+2, STR/DEX:7/7, ENC:1, AP/HP:3/10
SPATHA Skill:1H Sword, Dmg:1d6+1, STR/DEX:11/7, ENC:2, AP/HP:4/10
PUGIO Skillagger, Dmg:1d4, STR/DEX:-/-, ENC.5), AP/HP:3/6
SICA Skillagger or 1H Sword, Dmg:1d3+2, STR/DEX:-/9, ENC:1, AP/HP:3/8

Hope these ideas help....

(btw pure "Daggers" (as in the RAW) I'm not making available.)

-----------
*e.g. along with the pila and longbow being "magic" weapons! It would be nice to see ranged weapons have reduced damage at longer ranges (cf Conan's reduced armour piercing at longer ranges), but that might get complicated. I also struggle with the idea of the AP of an axe being the same as a sword, but that's another problem...

 

[Archer]

It doesn't help that there are so many different versions of English too. The colloquialisms often catch us off guard too, though it's probably easier to catch them when you speak one version natively.

That is true. My use of the English language probably should be called used of the English languages. I suspect that I am mostly affected by the movies, tv series etc. I watch, which would mean that it is more American English I am using...

What is your native language out of curiosity? There's no indication in your posts. At least you can communicate with us.

My native tongue is Swedish.

I tried hard to learn another language when I was in school (German), but when I actually traveled there I couldn't get close to keeping up and everyone there spoke better English than I could even get close to in German. Plus, they all wanted to practise their English on me anyway!

Hehe, it is tough learning a new language. Unless you have something that spurs you like I had with english; RPGs and Computers

 

[atgxtg]

I started work on a Ancient Rome setting, and I would love to see your take on the galdius and spaetha (as opposed to shortsword and warsword). Even the sica would be good for the gladiators.

Looks like we're going similar ways, here!

For me the main reason for separating the weapons was for flavour rather than any belief that the gladius was a be-all-and-end-all weapon*. From my viewpoint use of weapon sub-types can help in a rapid cultural association (e.g. GM:"The group of guys just inside the town gates look a little too neat for street-thugs." Player: "Ok. Are they armed? What with?" GM:"Each has a gladius on the right and a dagger." Player: (Smile fades) "Not the legionairres, again...") [/quote}

Thanks for the damaged. I've been toying with a few different ideas (maybe even use the RQ3 damages), and will probably write up 3 or 4 different damage tables and see which one I like the best. Ditto with the armor-to keep in in check with the weapon damages.I've also started work on backgrounds, professions and some advanced skills. THe legionaires should be interesting since I'm working in the immunes.

I was curious about you sica write-up as a couple of the gladiator fighting styles use it.

BTW, I saw somethin on the History Channel that showed how and why the gladius was so effective. A man can thrust a lot faster than he can swing, and exposes less of himself in doing so. A line of Roman soldiers with everyone constantly stabbing was sort of like a machine.


I was thinking of dropping bow damage at range too. I sterting working on a bow table with a list of draw weights and STR requiments. It all depends on how much detail people want to add. Maybe halving the damage die if firing beyond effective range seems like a simply way to do it. Or maybe use 1/2/effective/maximum and drop the damage die 1 step with each band.. Realistically, I'd like to do something more incremental, but that is probably too complicated for most people's tastes.

 

[Richard]

Thanks for the Roman details Halfbat, all good stuff. I tried to adjust weapon damage with game balance in mind and came up with the following as a first attempt. All comments and improvements welcome (Yup those Signs+Portents 36 tables are scary!).

p.33 Weapons. Several entries here just don’t ring true. Who the hell is ever going to use a warsword when a warhammer does an extra point of damage and is cheaper too! Come to that why bother with heavy lumps of metal, sharp cutting edges and pointy bits at all when a quarterstaff does the same damage at a fraction of the price? A knife might not be the most deadly of weapons but if it does the same damage as unarmed combat,1d3, why bother? Setting against a charge with a shortsword...? Here’s a few suggested alterations. Nothing dramatic, just sorts a few blips.
I suggest that bashing weapons automatically apply all critical damage as knockback. Stabbing weapons impale on a critical but don’t knockback. Those using weapons capable of either, I’d say a warsword falls into this category, must state their intention beforehand or a non-impaling ‘swing’ is used as the default attack option.

Bastard Sword used 2-H does 1d8+2 (Otherwise it does no more in the original list than a 1-H warhammer would. That extra arm should count a wee bit more).
BattleAxe used 2-H does 1d6+3 (Similar reasoning to above).
Bills,Glaives and Halberds may hit any location of a mounted opponent and be set against a charge. For hits on cavalry using pole arms fitted with hooks you could oppose weapon and ride skill rolls to decide if the rider stays on horseback.
Knife does 1d3+1.
Heavy Mace used 2-H does 1d8+2 (Reasoning as above).
Quarterstaff does 1d6 (Otherwise it matches warswords, rapiers etc rendering them rather overpriced and redundant methinks).
Shortswords cannot be set against a charge!
Warhammers do 1d8 damage (Makes the warsword a reasonable alternative).

 

[Archer]

I think that weapons which you can use one-handed, should at least be upgraded one step in their damage dice if you use two hands to wield it. Just adding a +1 or +2 to the damage hardly shows the added benefit you get by using a weapon two handed.

As I have said earlier in other threads, there are a lot of sections in the rules where I just do not understand the designers reasoning behind the rules design. That is unless they _want_ us to rewrite all their rules and release our own games.
But if I am to do that, I would rather finish my own system, and do not hassle with a license etc. of someone elses work.

 

[atgxtg]

I think that weapons which you can use one-handed, should at least be upgraded one step in their damage dice if you use two hands to wield it. Just adding a +1 or +2 to the damage hardly shows the added benefit you get by using a weapon two handed.

As I have said earlier in other threads, there are a lot of sections in the rules where I just do not understand the designers reasoning behind the rules design. That is unless they _want_ us to rewrite all their rules and release our own games.
But if I am to do that, I would rather finish my own system, and do not hassle with a license etc. of someone elses work.

Shifting A +1 bonus to damage is practically idential to shifting 1D8 to 1D10. Average damage is the same, just a 1 point difference obn either end. A +2 bonus is actually better than a die shift. 1D8+2 is better than 1D10.

 

[atgxtg]

Richard,

You have done a lot of work reinventing the RQ3 rules! most of your thoughs dovetail well with the RQ3 dmage tables.

Bastard Sword used 2-H does 1d8+2 (Otherwise it does no more in the original list than a 1-H warhammer would. That extra arm should count a wee bit more).

Used to do 1D10+1, mathmatically about the same.

BattleAxe used 2-H does 1d6+3 (Similar reasoning to above).

Used to do 1D8+2, mathmatically about the same.

Bills,Glaives and Halberds may hit any location of a mounted opponent and be set against a charge. For hits on cavalry using pole arms fitted with hooks you could oppose weapon and ride skill rolls to decide if the rider stays on horseback.

Used to be able to hit any location except those blocked by the mount (opposite leg), in which case they strick the mount.

Knife does 1d3+1.

It used to do 1D3+1.

Heavy Mace used 2-H does 1d8+2 (Reasoning as above).

It used to do 1D10.

Quarterstaff does 1d6 (Otherwise it matches warswords, rapiers etc rendering them rather overpriced and redundant methinks).

It used to do 1D8, but suffered as this was low for a 2H weapon, and the staff had fewer APs than a sword, so the staff hurt you defensievely as opposed to the sword or expecially vs the sword & Sheild.

Shortswords cannot be set against a charge!

That is just a typo, they are supposed to get the impale option instead.

Warhammers do 1d8 damage (Makes the warsword a reasonable alternative).

Used to do 1D6+2 but could impale, allowing them to punch through plate armor.

 

[Richard]

Yes atgxtg's right enough it seemed to me RQ3 had the balance about right on this. Aramis's point on two handed use maybe counting for even more damage is quite reasonable but my concern was the overall combat balance considering other factors such as armour and the lesser effect of many parries. Plate now just gives you 6 rather than 8 points of protection for instance. I think boosting damage further comes down to personal preference.

 

[Archer]

Shifting A +1 bonus to damage is practically idential to shifting 1D8 to 1D10. Average damage is the same, just a 1 point difference obn either end. A +2 bonus is actually better than a die shift. 1D8+2 is better than 1D10.

Hmm, you are correct. On average it is equal or better. Just another part of the "old ways" I will have to shed when GMing RQ.

 

[atgxtg]

Wow! Two of Two! I must have been on a roll last night! :wink:

I have been working on a couple of alternate damage tables myself (about 4, I'm trying to see which one I like beest for my Ancient Rome "book"). If someone want's the RQ3 damages and AP values, and doesn't have the RQ3 books, I could put that one up.

It would certainly give a more RQ3 feel to the whole combat system.


Another way to handle the 2H weapon damage would be to keep the 2H weapon damage a bit low, but kick up the Damage bonus. If you shifted the db by two rows, or just calculated it as STR+STR+SIZ for 2H weapons it would have a major impact ( ) .

 

[Zotzz]

I would love to see the RQ3 damage tables. I am new to RuneQuest and am trying to get a lilttle perspective on some of the complaints.

In the games of MRQ I have run so far combat seems extremly deadly so I shudder to think of how a character survived very long in the old RQ2/3 days. :shock:

 

[atgxtg]

I would love to see the RQ3 damage tables. I am new to RuneQuest and am trying to get a lilttle perspective on some of the complaints.

In the games of MRQ I have run so far combat seems extremly deadly so I shudder to think of how a character survived very long in the old RQ2/3 days. :shock:

I"ll work it up. Should have it done tonight.

As to how characters surived in RQ3, they had better defenses. To give you a quick idea, run MRQ but use the weapon HP values for AP values (almost a perfect match to RQ3). So if you parried the guy's broadsword (1D8+1+1d4 w/db) with your target shield (12 AP) he probably wan't going to hurt you. If he rolled good, he might hurt your shield though (whenever the AP were exxceeded they dropped 1 point. You could literally see you shield getting whittled away). THe the special success rules added a little spice too. You might get knocked back while making that parry, or have the sword point poke through your shield if he was thrusting.

 

[atgxtg]

Okay, here is a close combat weapon table based upon RQ3 data. Stuff that is is red italics is stuff that wasn't in RQ3, but that I trtied to extrapolate data for.

 

[Richard]

I considered the damage bonus bump up for the 2-H problem but got cold feet as I'd already used this 'fix' to work out more realistic charge damage, see other thread someplace, and in my own reworking of the Critical/Beating Armour/Damage Balance problem.
I was concerned about possible damage bonus overkill in my own game. A chappie, with +1d2 damage bonus, who successfully crits when charging with a 2-H Great sword ends up doing 2d8 (Assuming you don't max out weapon damage)+2d6. Then again saying that out loud it sounds about right and isn't that big a change from 16+1d2+1d4. Maybe a minor accuracy penalty for charging would be fair?
We could be on to an excellent easy to remember multi purpose mechanism here - Charge?Crit?2H attack?...bump up that damage bonus a couple of notches! (My crit rule alternatives are easy to use but a bit wordy. I'll post them if anyone seems interested or gets in touch privately. Doubtless they'll need tweaking)