Suggestion for weapon damages

[Adept]

Looking at the weapon table given I must say things seem to have gone a bit peculiar. Here are some suggestions, starting with general logic and going into specific values.

a) Axes do more damage than swords. A sword is versatile and a good defensive weapon (try fencing with an axe or a mace). An axe is generally cheaper and needs a shield to go with it. If you fight with a two handed axe, make sure you are good at dodging or wear heavy armour for defence.

b) The difference between a bastard sword used with two hands, and a true 2-h sword (called greatsword here) is not all that big. Certainly the damage doesn't shoot from 1d8+1 to 2d8. A 2-h sword also doesn't do more damage than a 2-h axe.

c) The damages for spears and other stabbing weapons are a touch high if they will have a special "impale" capability that will make them more effective on a special hit.

d) A pick should impale, or at least have an armour piercing ability. Othervice what's the point with the weapon?

So let's take the basic warsword (broadsword) as the starting point.

Suggested/fixed damage values

Warsword d8
Battleaxe-1h d10
Battleaxe-2h d10+1
Bastardsword d8
Bastardsw-2h d8+1
Greatsword 2d6
Great axe 2d8 (same for halberd)

 

[Harshax]

I know that MRQ is based off of previous editions of RuneQest, but still, it is its own beast. How much discussion can one have about houserules for a game that isn't even at the store yet?

Just being curious.

 

[andakitty]

Not much and not much.

 

[Adept]

Not much and not much.

It's not a suggestion for houserules. It's a suggestion for Mongoose to fix some sillyness from their game before they print and distribute it.

Do you seriously think the numbers in the preview are the result of meticulous study and research? I'd bet a lot of money they aren't. They are just something thrown together with the logic that it's "good enough".

Do you disagree with the logic I outlined for the changes, or do you just mean that Mongoose people are professionals and they wouldn't have made it that way if it wasn't correct?

 

[Harshax]

Do you seriously think the numbers in the preview are the result of meticulous study and research?

Absolutely not. RQ is not hard-core simulationism. It definitely has simulationist aspects, but it was still willing to leave a lot of room for relativism.

I'd bet a lot of money they aren't. They are just something thrown together with the logic that it's "good enough".

That would be a sucker's bet.

Do you disagree with the logic I outlined for the changes, or do you just mean that Mongoose people are professionals and they wouldn't have made it that way if it wasn't correct?

Neither. I am only stating that one cannot evaluate whether weapon damage is wonky until they see the mechanics for suffering injury, the scale of injury resistance between various types of combatants, the effects of armor, critical hits, and healing.

Believe me, you'll have plenty of time to dissect the system once you get a chance to browse it in the bookstore - and there is always a +.5 version possibility to fix problems with a new edition.

 

[SteveMND]

Do you seriously think the numbers in the preview are the result of meticulous study and research? ... They are just something thrown together with the logic that it's "good enough."

Even if so, are yours any less arbitrary? To come up with your numbers, did you go out and do case studies on cadavers and pig flanks to see what sort of tissue trauma occured with the various weapons? Did you then take that data and decide how best to translate all that objective data into a dynamic subjective system weighted towards so-called "heroic combat" involving a sliding numerical scale best represented by polyhedral dice?

Or did you look at the numbers and basically say, "Man, that just seems too low/high to be right?" I suspect the MG folks, when redoing the game, probably looked at previous edition's damage, and adjusted them as best they saw fit to mesh with the rest of the game rules changes they had made. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

To link back to the critical/fumbles discussion in another thread which discussed the comparison of weapon base damage to damage modifiers:

IIRC, I think one of the things that RQII didn't have but perhaps MGPRQ should have is differenent damage modifiers based on one- or two-handed use. Generally speaking, a person will get less momentum and power out a weapon that is swung with one hand compared to the same weapon swung with both hands, and it would be nice to see that modelled in the rules as well.

 

[Adept]

Do you seriously think the numbers in the preview are the result of meticulous study and research? ... They are just something thrown together with the logic that it's "good enough."

Even if so, are yours any less arbitrary? To come up with your numbers, did you go out and do case studies on cadavers and pig flanks to see what sort of tissue trauma occured with the various weapons?

Yes they are, and no I didn't. Not personally that is, but I do read a lot on the subject, study and experiment. Again, look at the logic I outlined before I set out the numbers. No doubt one could still fiddle with it. I was looking at the relative values given, and trying to fix the values so that the most obvious quirks would be eliminated.

In philosophy this is called coherentism. Trying to arrange the given postulates so that the overall system makes the most sense.

Or did you look at the numbers and basically say, "Man, that just seems too low/high to be right?" I suspect the MG folks, when redoing the game, probably looked at previous edition's damage, and adjusted them as best they saw fit to mesh with the rest of the game rules changes they had made. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

I looked at the numbers and said "Ugh, so they dropped the damage values accross the board but still kept the 2d8 for the greatsword... and how come axes do less damage than swords?".

I then took the basic 1h-sword as starting point (as I quess they did), and tried to scale the weapons around that.

To link back to the critical/fumbles discussion in another thread which discussed the comparison of weapon base damage to damage modifiers:

IIRC, I think one of the things that RQII didn't have but perhaps MGPRQ should have is differenent damage modifiers based on one- or two-handed use. Generally speaking, a person will get less momentum and power out a weapon that is swung with one hand compared to the same weapon swung with both hands, and it would be nice to see that modelled in the rules as well.

Yes indeed. That was the problem I was trying to talk about in the other thread... or at least a large part of it. The damage modifiers were also way too big.

 

[andakitty]

I think the numbers are what feel right to Matt, mostly. The research was done for the original RQ and are fairly similar for this version. Enough to be recognizable.

Speaking of house rules, here are my damage stats for those weapons:

broad(war)sword 1D10+1
gladius 1D8+1
dagger 1D4+2
battleaxe 1h 1D8+2
2h 1D10+2
great/pole axe 2D6+2
greatsword 2D8

...and I use variable armor values, 1D6-1 for cuirboilli, and so on. Just for the sake of comparison.

 

[Adept]

Why do swords make more damage then axes according to you? That is really confusing to me. Very high damages too. Must really mess up an unarmoured person on a hit.

 

[andakitty]

The model has more to do with Stormbringer than RQ. You might note that axes do more minimum damage and are more inclined toward average damage. That is something that was more or less standard with early BRP games, RQ, Stormbringer, and Magic World. With enhancements of mine mostly to give copious choices. But mostly it just feels right to me. Instead of modeling real life combat I try to model books and movies that I enjoy and somehow convey the excitement and thrill...without the blood, shit and fear.

Lets see...the first Conan movie, and the Conan stories, Lankhmar, Nifft the Lean, S. M. Stirling's 'Dies the Fire', David Drakes' 'Dragon Lord', Daley's 'Coramonde', the LOTR movies, 'Spartacus', Paul Zimmer Bradley's 'The Lost Prince'...the list goes on. Any movie or story that I really enjoyed, and gives me goose bumps.

There is a point in rpgs when the detail is no longer worth the trouble to me, and it becomes very much not fun (D20, I'm looking at you). So I don't really try to emulate actual historical effects, well at least only enough to differentiate the weapons and give the players interesting choices.

History is interesting too, but I like to simulate fiction that has similarity to history, if that makes any sense.

 

[Adept]

That's a pretty good explanation.

For me things have to "feel real" and make intuitive sense. I quess the difference is that I don't much like things like Conan movies, but instead enjoy believable "historical fantasy" like the books of Mika Waltari.

To each of us his/her own, eh?

 

[andakitty]

Mika Waltari!

We have something in common there. I read everything the man wrote, and really wish there was a modern, active equivalent. How about Rafael Sabatini, Edison Marshall, Samuel Shellabarger, Frank Yerby?

 

[andakitty]

And the fictional sources mentioned for rpg inspiration are ones that 'feel real' to me. I think we are mostly on the same page with slightly different interpretations. I did not mean to imply that you are just plain wrong. Your weapon damages look playable, and that is always my first, most important consideration.

It is worth noting that the reason I like high damage/low armor setups is D&D. Back when I started playing I would enjoy the games at low level, with few hit points. The higher the level with more hit points the less I enjoyed it. Other imbalances such as mages with no power and thieves with 20% pick locks and such just seemed...wrong. RQ came along and I never looked back. Although I did switch to Stormbringer when it came out. It also sates my simulationist soul and is a simpler and more playable version.

Anyway, history isn't always playable. I guess if I were doing a game in which historical simulation was my main purpose it would look a lot different. Then swords and axes would do the same damage, with a longsword being a status symbol, wounds that festered, and such. Games like Harn and Riddle of Steel. BRP (and MRQ?) suits me because I feel I can have my cake and eat it too.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

IIRC, I think one of the things that RQII didn't have but perhaps MGPRQ should have is differenent damage modifiers based on one- or two-handed use. Generally speaking, a person will get less momentum and power out a weapon that is swung with one hand compared to the same weapon swung with both hands, and it would be nice to see that modelled in the rules as well.

How about +1d3 damage but -20 to hit cos it's normally more awkward to grip the shaft/handle/insert-own-filthy-minded-term-here with these?

It might require some tweaking of the regular 2 handed weapons so that we don't end up with a ridiculous situation like a 1H axe doing more damage than a 2H axe.

 

[Slightly Norse John]

You have just managed to worry the snot out of me...

a) Axes do more damage than swords. effective on a special hit.

Is this a veiled confession of murder, or are you just happy to see us?

 

[Adept]

Mika Waltari!

We have something in common there. I read everything the man wrote, and really wish there was a modern, active equivalent. How about Rafael Sabatini, Edison Marshall, Samuel Shellabarger, Frank Yerby?

You have me there, I'm afraid. I haven't found time for historical fantasy for a while. The only thing I remember reading recently are the Egypt books by Wilbur Smith, "River God" and "Warlock". Not up to Waltari, I'm afraid. Mostly it seemed he was trying to re-write Sinuhe the Egyptean.

 

[Adept]

You have just managed to worry the snot out of me...

a) Axes do more damage than swords. effective on a special hit.

Is this a veiled confession of murder, or are you just happy to see us?

Uh...?

 

[andakitty]

The other writers are contemporaries of Waltari, who basically did the same genre...speculative historical fiction. Not really fantasy, as the stories were usually set in concrete historical periods. And many were made into top drawer movies from the 30's to the 70's. 'Prince of Foxes', 'Captain Blood', 'Captain From Castille', 'The Egyptian', etc. Good stuff. And I forgot Smith. Some of his are definitely in the same category. If you like that kind of fiction you owe it to yourself to look up some of their stuff. Especially Sabatini, I think. 'Prince of Foxes' is absolutely the best novel I have ever read set in the Renaissance.

 

[Adept]

If you like that kind of fiction you owe it to yourself to look up some of their stuff. Especially Sabatini, I think. 'Prince of Foxes' is absolutely the best novel I have ever read set in the Renaissance.

Thanks for the tip. I'll look it up.

 

[Slightly Norse John]

What I mean is, are you deriving this from gaming experience, or have you been doing 'research' in order to find out that you ought not to admit to on an internet forum?
I'm kidding, of course, but as far as axe- wielding goes, I have been attacked by experts (blunt- edged reenactment weapons) and there is an amazing amount of defensive usefulness in a hand axe. The beak means that you can hook and entangle or disarm, if not actually snap a sword blade, quite effectively. Greataxes are at least as useful defensively as a quarterstaff, because that's exactly how it's wielded in defence; you block with the haft like a staff.
The damage issue strikes me as just stat monkeying; one and two handed, yes, but within that, I'd reckon the overwhelming majority pf the deadliness or otherwise of the weapon, any weapon, comes from the hand and eye behind it.