Suggestion for weapon damages

[wartorn]

As an aside - does anyone have some insight into whether a stabbing short sword would be faster than a swinging one? Just curious.

Cobra

Well if it is anything like Boxing, the thrust could be viewed as using similar movements as a 'jab' with the swing being closer to a hook. With a well trained boxer, both are Fast, but the Jab is faster (and much less damaging). On the other hand the slower UpperCut shares some similarities in movement with a nice vigorous thrust to the body.

I would distinguish between (DnD haters don't cringe) Slow, Powerful Attacks designed to put the weight of the body behind them and Fast attacks designed to get the weapon in contact with the opponent as quickly as possible. You could go so far as to define a middle ground of 'Normal' attacks. Using boxing again we'd have something like Fast:Jab, Normal: Hook, Uppercut Slow: Haymaker

The issues with Weapon SR i'm trying to sort out in my head are: - are weapon lengths significant enough to be worth considering beyond extremes (Poleaxe versus Dagger) and in those extreme cases, does the possibility of the advantage being given to one or the other fighter under different circumstances (the Poleax at range, the Dagger up close) essentially make weapon length SR 'needless complexity'. In that weapon length becomes an extra consideration each round - everything else plus 'how long are these two combatant's weapons, and what situation are they in so I know how to apply their weapon lengths to this round'

Rather than resort to SR, would a system like that in GURPS where: weapons have Reach and there is the concept of Close Combat (two fighters in the same hex/space/square) be a better system for handling the concept of weapon reach? Here the position of the two fighters on the gameboard (Note: assuming miniatures here) clearly defines what circumstance should apply regarding their weapon lengths, and changes to that circumstance are resolved by movement instead of by statement of intent ('I want to close with my foe'). If I have a dagger my desire will be to move into Close Combat with my opponent (i.e into their space) and if I have a poleaxwith reach I will want to move and keep a space between my opponent and myself each turn. Note that in GURPS you can't move more than one space and attack (unless you want to endure one of several possible penalties.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

As an aside - does anyone have some insight into whether a stabbing short sword would be faster than a swinging one? Just curious.

Well if it is anything like Boxing, the thrust could be viewed as using similar movements as a 'jab' with the swing being closer to a hook. With a well trained boxer, both are Fast, but the Jab is faster (and much less damaging). On the other hand the slower UpperCut shares some similarities in movement with a nice vigorous thrust to the body.

With weapons, a major problem with speed is the weight and wieldiness of the weapon. The heavier a weapon, or the more care that is needed to ready it (flecible weapons come to mind!), the slower it is after you start fighting. If you imagine every attack in RQ (or any other game) as a single stroke, it works. But that's nonesense. The actual attack is the culmination of many attempts, testing the opponent for weaknesses, attempted attacks, minor feints and fakes, ducking and diving. That's why fixed Strike Ranks don't really make sense, and why weapon weight is important. The relative speeds of weapons & wielder are important, as that measures the speed at which you can act and react, but the overall speed is all about finding - or creating - an opening and opportunity.

So, my answer is, swinging is always slower than stabbing, as it moves the weapon further. But with a shortsword the difference would be neglegeable.

Wulf

 

[Archer]

The issues with Weapon SR i'm trying to sort out in my head are: - are weapon lengths significant enough to be worth considering beyond extremes (Poleaxe versus Dagger) and in those extreme cases, does the possibility of the advantage being given to one or the other fighter under different circumstances (the Poleax at range, the Dagger up close) essentially make weapon length SR 'needless complexity'. In that weapon length becomes an extra consideration each round - everything else plus 'how long are these two combatant's weapons, and what situation are they in so I know how to apply their weapon lengths to this round'

Actually, personally I do not think it is worth it. Unless you want to simulate reality (which I see as impossible) it might be worth it, but if you are going to run a rather heroic/cinematic/action-oriented campaign, you probably are better of not caring about it.
I find that combat systems that take into account movement in order to attack, dodge etc. and which allows you to "direct" an opponent one way or the other, or allows you to make spectacular cinematic manouvers (think Phanom Menace battle with Darth Maul), generally are my preference. It allows combat to take a whole other turn, as tactics become more important, and the end result usually becomes more unpredictable. Also it generally makes the players happy if their hero can be a real hero.
One of the most memorable combats during my time as a GM, was a battle in stormbringer where one of the players fought with his cousin in a duel on top a castle tower, both resorted to trying to drive the other towards the edge. Eventually the player succeeded, and his opponent plunged to the hard ground below.
This is a scenario my players still talk fondly about even today, just because of this duel.

Comparing that to the "tactical" approach of d20 D&D, there is usually a big yawn-factor whenever a scenario deals with combat.

Both systems deal with manouvering, but in vastly different ways.

 

[Adept]

As an aside - does anyone have some insight into whether a stabbing short sword would be faster than a swinging one? Just curious.

Cobra

A cutting shortsword need more weight, so the stabbing one is faster. I'm not sure how significant the difference would be though. All other things being even, parhaps it would be worth a +1 to the initiative roll, or something like that.

 

[Adept]

If you imagine every attack in RQ (or any other game) as a single stroke, it works. But that's nonesense. The actual attack is the culmination of many attempts, testing the opponent for weaknesses, attempted attacks, minor feints and fakes, ducking and diving...

Wulf

Except that on occasion it really is just one thrust or cut that get's home. The old RQ strikeranks don't really make that possible. You always fence, even if you are a weaponmaster and your opponent is a food-trollkin with a club.