Suggestion for weapon damages

[Adept]

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?

Right how slow of me. No Chopping Block research, I'm afraid:

http://www.choppingblock.org/

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 hachet is pretty nifty on defense, especially when wielded in the off hand. I'm not so sure about the defensive value of the danish axe (which I think you are talking about). I'd think the real defense with it is based on the threat range, same as with a halberd. Still, I'm no expert on axes. Compared to a sword an axe seems to be "all offense", as it were.

As for staffs a quarterstaff is actually used like a big sword, gripped at "one quarter" length, and not like in a Robin Hood movie. A surprisingly solid weapon, especially if you have enough space to use it freely.

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.

Sure, but the values given seem very random. I still can't imagine how people come to the conclusion that swords do more damage than axes.

 

[andakitty]

I have a tomahawk (from Cold Steel), and I vouch for the damage it can do. I would say it beats any knife out big time. Among other things it is easier to throw accurately than knives.

Hey, Adept. Do a Google search for Warlords of Alexander. The weapon values are interesting, and they are ancient (circa 300 BC) era. Very nasty, and you get to see how the author rated such Greek weapons as the sarissa, aspis, rhomphia, and so on. It also has a very interesting major wound system. All in all, *ouch*. It looks as though it could be used with MRQ when it comes out, since it is designed to be used with any BRP game in print.

 

[Adept]

I have a tomahawk (from Cold Steel), and I vouch for the damage it can do. I would say it beats any knife out big time. Among other things it is easier to throw accurately than knives.

Hey, Adept. Do a Google search for Warlords of Alexander. The weapon values are interesting, and they are ancient (circa 300 BC) era. Very nasty, and you get to see how the author rated such Greek weapons as the sarissa, aspis, rhomphia, and so on. It also has a very interesting major wound system. All in all, *ouch*. It looks as though it could be used with MRQ when it comes out, since it is designed to be used with any BRP game in print.

I'll check it out.

 

[Longsword]

As for staffs a quarterstaff is actually used like a big sword, gripped at "one quarter" length, and not like in a Robin Hood movie. A surprisingly solid weapon, especially if you have enough space to use it freely.

That's interesting. I've never heard of that before.

I did some training with the White Company in New Zealand, principally longsword + shield and quarterstaff. I never saw anyone attempt to use a staff like that. Our swords master taught people to use it two-handed i.e. hands apart. Used two-handed, the staff was quite effective defensively and you could counter very quickly. A skilled quarterstaff user can certainly hold off an average sword + shield opponent 1:1, assuming no other issues (e.g. space, footing, etc). Used two-handed, you can also do effective lunges when opportunities permit.

I'd like to find out more about this.

 

[Adept]

I did some training with the White Company in New Zealand, principally longsword + shield and quarterstaff. I never saw anyone attempt to use a staff like that. Our swords master taught people to use it two-handed i.e. hands apart. Used two-handed, the staff was quite effective defensively and you could counter very quickly. A skilled quarterstaff user can certainly hold off an average sword + shield opponent 1:1, assuming no other issues (e.g. space, footing, etc). Used two-handed, you can also do effective lunges when opportunities permit.

I'd like to find out more about this.

As far as I know that technique was known as "half-staff", because you hold it at the middle. Also used, but not the quarter-staff technique.

What kind of a weapon are you talking about when you say "longsword". In the naming traditions I know (the historical ones) a longsword is what is these days called a bastard sword. I'm guessing you don't mean that, since there's little point in using a shield with that weapon.

 

[andakitty]

You know, I once read in a book on swords (I don't remember the title, just the statement) that the term 'longsword' originated in Roman times as a reference to any barbarian sword or any sword other than a gladius. And that that was the only actual historical record for the term. For what it is worth.

 

[Adept]

You know, I once read in a book on swords (I don't remember the title, just the statement) that the term 'longsword' originated in Roman times as a reference to any barbarian sword or any sword other than a gladius. And that that was the only actual historical record for the term. For what it is worth.

The 1300 era italians (and I think the english as well) used the word for the hand-and-a-half swords of the time.

 

[andakitty]

Indeed. I thought the English term for such a weapon was 'bastard sword'. And by Italians I presume you mean more Norman conquerers, the ones who set up the Kingdom of Sicily and others? And used the same weapon terminology, I assume. It has been a while since I read about this, and it's not a common hobby.

 

[Gaheir]

I've got a concern dating back to preview 2 (I wasn't active in this forum, at the time) that I haven't seen addressed, so perhaps it is just me. It seems to me that the combat round is too short. Looking at the characters having as many as four actions (let's assume most will be in the three range) and perhaps as many reactions. Assuming, again, that actions are melee and ranged attacks or spells, and that reactions are dodge and parry, perhaps opportunity attacks as well, that is 6 separate actions in a very short time. Would the old 12 second round seem more reasonable, even for a formidable warrior? I am not a re-enactor, nor a fencer, so perhaps I am underestimating just how many potentially effective actions can take place in such a time.

 

[andakitty]

Hey, Gaheir. Five seconds sounds fine to me. You can always think of it in terms that some game I once read did...'one round is enough time for all participants to make all actions allowable to them'. No problem. I honestly don't know if 5 seconds is right, per se, but when I think about sword fights in some movies (ever see the fight between el Cid and the kings champion in El Cid?) it seems too long.

 

[Archer]

You can do surprisingly much in a seconds time. So the length of the round is not so much a trouble, as is the fact that you use rounds that are related to a certain amount of time.

"Sorry, you can not do that, the round just ended."
(that was a joke unless someone did not get that).

Since combat in RPGs use the arbitrary and rather unrealistic approach of dividing combat into rounds, where each person takes his turn acting, it usually goes like this. Person #1, Person#2 etc. You get the idea. And no-once cares about how long a round is, because what you do in a round has become more important. As such it would be better to simply state; "A round is as long as it takes for all involved characters to make all their actions.".

The only place where I can see the need to measure rounds in time, is for spells duration. And that can easily be remedied in other ways.

 

[wartorn]

...
"A round is as long as it takes for all involved characters to make all their actions.".

The only place where I can see the need to measure rounds in time, is for spells duration. And that can easily be remedied in other ways.

Archer I agree with you completely. Some people will have a problem not so much with spell timing but movement distances - which has the issue of being somewhat verifiable in the real world.

Say, for example, you and your Cohort are making an assault on a palisade surmounted by archers (and say... a gibbering madman with a bucket of stones?). You'll want to know how many rounds you'll have to spend running with a 'damned ladder' under fire from arrows and miscellanea.

 

[Adept]

Indeed. I thought the English term for such a weapon was 'bastard sword'. And by Italians I presume you mean more Norman conquerers, the ones who set up the Kingdom of Sicily and others? And used the same weapon terminology, I assume. It has been a while since I read about this, and it's not a common hobby.

No, I mean italians living in Italy the peninsula that is. I can't remember where master Fiore lived unfortunately. I can check it out for you.

 

[Adept]

I've got a concern dating back to preview 2 (I wasn't active in this forum, at the time) that I haven't seen addressed, so perhaps it is just me. It seems to me that the combat round is too short.

Personally I absolutely hated the 12 second combat round. That was very, very far from intuitive in most cases.

I use the GURPS style 1 second rounds myself, and my Hârnmaster and Warhammer GM's use 2 second rounds. Both work.

In RQ 3 there was a lot of bizarre standing around waiting to act on strike rank six, and things like that.

Short rounds = no multiple actions, of course. In fact in the system I use personally one person in a fight (one-on-one) has the initiative, and attacks, while the other usually parries/dodges, and tries to steal the initiative. Feels much more real than the tick-for-tack "I hit, now you hit, now I hit" routine in most games.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Personally I absolutely hated the 12 second combat round. That was very, very far from intuitive in most cases.

I use the GURPS style 1 second rounds myself, and my Hârnmaster and Warhammer GM's use 2 second rounds. Both work.

Personally I liked the 12-second round. From experience in reenactment and LARP that was about right for a couple of useful actions and reactions at most. What with testing the opponent, defensive twitches, and action-reaction movement, there's a couple of seconds between any useful action. 5 or 6 seconds for a single action would do.

I always detested the GURPS 1-second round - it would be fine if you couldn't just attack-attack-attack-attack constantly every second, but virtually every combat was over in about 5 seconds (game time, that is!), which is utterly ludicrous for anything over a single blow or a completely one-sided trouncing. Certainly doesn't allow for any sort of heroic maneouvering or posturing.

Wulf

 

[Archer]

Archer I agree with you completely. Some people will have a problem not so much with spell timing but movement distances - which has the issue of being somewhat verifiable in the real world.

Say, for example, you and your Cohort are making an assault on a palisade surmounted by archers (and say... a gibbering madman with a bucket of stones?). You'll want to know how many rounds you'll have to spend running with a 'damned ladder' under fire from arrows and miscellanea.

Well, I have yet to see realistic movement rules also, so it really does not matter that much. It is easier to just take the distance, and arbitrary judge how many rounds it is dramatically appropriate and sensible for the characters to run under fire.

 

[Gaheir]

If not for the esthetics I would agree with Archer that a round should be considered to take as long as it takes for all actions to take place. It makes sense, but the old military gamer in me tends to look at scale and time a little too seriously, I guess. A one or two second system seems even less likely than 5 seconds. Does combat consist of lunge, lunge, lunge? It is certainly not a game maker or breaker, (time of a round is probably one of the easiest things to house rule), but I will extend them to twelve seconds, both to homage the original game and to seem more reasonable. (As Wulf said, a "useful action" in 5 or 6 seconds is reasonable-3 such in a 12 second period is within reach.)
This becomes more so, if it turns out that spells are a combat action. If most spells count as a single action, and you can cast three in a five second period, that pretty much limits them to point and say go. If gathering foci or runes is involved it becomes very problematic.

 

[Gaheir]

A slight oops. It was Andakitty, not Archer, who stated that a round should be long enough for all actions! Sorry!

 

[Archer]

A slight oops. It was Andakitty, not Archer, who stated that a round should be long enough for all actions! Sorry!

Incorrect
But it matters little.

As for spells, I suspect that they will take X amount of actions to cast, with very few, and the very fast spells only taking one action to cast.

 

[wartorn]

Personally I liked the 12-second round. From experience in reenactment and LARP that was about right for a couple of useful actions and reactions at most. What with testing the opponent, defensive twitches, and action-reaction movement, there's a couple of seconds between any useful action. 5 or 6 seconds for a single action would do.

Some situations, like grappling or a Jet Li fight scene work better in the one second format, but I agree the 12 second round is a nice digestible chunk of time. I always took the Strike Ranks as implying an initiative order and not necessarily reflecting the 'actual' sequence of events. So the standing around until SR 6 (which I also disliked) was justified in my little head by 'My opponent is going on SR 7, this is simply saying that I am faster than him'.

I always detested the GURPS 1-second round - it would be fine if you couldn't just attack-attack-attack-attack constantly every second, but virtually every combat was over in about 5 seconds (game time, that is!), which is utterly ludicrous for anything over a single blow or a completely one-sided trouncing. Certainly doesn't allow for any sort of heroic maneouvering or posturing.

Wulf

Totally agree with you. One of the problems in GURPS is that everyone is a weeble wobble (an egg shaped toy that cannot fall over). On each round barring injury what you did the previous round typically doesn't matter (unless you feinted or all out attacked). For example you can Dodge and Retreat and in the next second immediately switch to All Out Attacking, without regards to initiative (as Adept pointed out) or momentum.

Also, speaking about unarmed martial arts at least, people circle one another looking for openings because attacking is risky (or sometimes just to rest) - it's not something you can just jump into and then out of at will. I've never had the fortune of training in Western MA / reenactment but I'll assume the same basic rules apply, since the risk is even higher when long sharp / pointy things are involved.