Weapons being damaged
- Thread starter Quire
- Start date
In the RAW weapons are ONLY damaged by precise attacks targeting the weapon. :?
I am toying with attacking or parrying weapons doing damage on a crit. Weapons will damage weapons with the same or lower AP. So a Sword can damage a spear but not the other way around.
The exception is shields - they can damage any weapon or be damaged by any weapon (though are pretty resistant to damage due to their high AP.
I am toying with attacking or parrying weapons doing damage on a crit. Weapons will damage weapons with the same or lower AP. So a Sword can damage a spear but not the other way around.
The exception is shields - they can damage any weapon or be damaged by any weapon (though are pretty resistant to damage due to their high AP.
Quire said:
The shield exception is to my house rule - not the RAW. A sheild can damage any weapon (including a bigger shield should the case ever come up) and be damaged by any weapon. Otherwise weapons would not ever damage shields as their AP will never equal a sheilds.
The AP rule works well, a sword can damage any weapon, an axe will damage a spear but not a sword, and so on. Intentionally trying to strike a swords blade with your axe blade would fall under the precise attack - so you can break a sword with your axe if you try, it will just never happen as a side effect of parrying.
I looked over the weapon table pretty carefully when considering this rule and nothing really erroneous jumped out at me as to what weapons could damage what. The only real oddity is the dagger being able to damage anything as it has 4 AP, but as it does so little damage it is not that big a deal.
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
Borrow from Stormbringer 5. A critical hit causes loss of 4 HP, a critical parry causes loss of 2 HP, to the weapon or shield in question.
Or change those values as you see fit, since HP for weapons are larger in SB5. Maybe -1/-2 instead.
Or change those values as you see fit, since HP for weapons are larger in SB5. Maybe -1/-2 instead.
Quire said:
Well, I was using max damage. Greatswords became pretty awesome. I since have switched to using roll double damage on Crits, and applying full damage to the parrying/parried weapon was usually even harsher.
Currently on the crit I do a seperate roll of normal damage against the weapon. So if you crit with a warsword against a spear you roll 1d8+db as damage against the spear (and all damage exceeding AP goes to the weapon). So you do critical damage against the target and normal rolled damage aginst the weapon.
Verisimilitude
Mongoose
Rurik said:
Here's pretty much what I do:
On attack critical ONLY, if attack AP is higher than parry weapon AP, and Parry was successful, parrying weapon takes damage. BUT I do "normal" damage, not the max damage from the crit.
Any damage beyond what the weapon can take is passed on to target. (usually to the weapon arm, I don't roll it)
I only use it on "attacks" because, by nature, a parry is a deflection, not an interception. A crit on attack, with normal success on parry, means they got the weapon in the way but can't deflect the furious blow.
And that is the logic I use for shields also, as they are generally meant to intercept, not deflect, thus taking and recieving damage.
.
I like the RQ3 system, where the defender can damage the attacker's weapon on a failed attack, with a successful parry, also disarming him on a critical parry.
I like a greater chance for weapons to get damaged. Seems more realistic, and makes people spend more of their hard earned money on repairs, unless they can fix it themselves of course. It also puts a greater emphisis on having secondary weapons. (ya gotta use that dagger sometime right?)
I also use the system where weapons can only damage other weapons with equal or lower AP. (shields aside)
I like a greater chance for weapons to get damaged. Seems more realistic, and makes people spend more of their hard earned money on repairs, unless they can fix it themselves of course. It also puts a greater emphisis on having secondary weapons. (ya gotta use that dagger sometime right?)
I also use the system where weapons can only damage other weapons with equal or lower AP. (shields aside)
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
Rasta said:
Actually there is a considerable difference between blocks and parries/wards. The former basically interjects the weapon/shield directly in the path of the attacking weapon. The latter involves deflection of the attacking weapon off-line, sometimes in combination with footwork, which doesn't expose the parrying weapon to the same forces.
In many of the medieval fighting manuals it is expressly stated that you should never block with the edge of your blade, since it exposes the weapon to damage. You should be parrying with the flat of the weapon, not its edge.
In fact when such blocks occur, both weapons usually end up being chipped or dented.
Unfortunately, using your weapon damage rules would make weapon lifespan highly unrealistic. The average weapon would break once every combat session or two. A somewhat excessive breakage rate.
In reality, it is rare for a weapon to break. It's not impossible, but usually its due to poor metallurgy or diabolical fighting technique, rather than a flaw in the design of the weapon itself *.
What normally occurs is what I described above, where bladed weapons lose their edges, preventing them from inflicting so much damage. One of the Viking Sagas records a battle where one side were fighting in chainmail byrnies. The swords of the defenders became so beaten up that they couldn't harm their armoured opponents, and rushed to a chest full of fresh swords, which they used to turn the battle. The blades didn't break, they just lost their cutting ability.
Of course this doesn't work with mass weapons such as maces, hammers or poleaxes, which are effectively indestructible on the battlefield.
Even when attacking a weapon directly it is difficult to actually inflict serious damage upon it. Axe versus spear? Go out in your back garden and try it!
You'll find its neigh impossible to break a hafted weapon unless it is braced (or trapped) against something solid. Most of the striking force is dissipated when the attacked weapon is knocked to the side.Of course shields are something different, since they are braced against the body/arm of the defender, and thus can be damaged much more easily. They are also normally made of thin wood and leather (sometimes with bits of metal for extra protection) so as to be light(er) in the hand, and hence far more vulnerable than a weapon. Again, the Viking Saga's describe duels where the objective was to smash your opponent's shield(s) to pieces before hitting the man behind it.
This is however a game and if you want fragile weapons you can have them. But historically (at least by the late middle ages), such breakages were rare.
Have fun!
Pete
* - From the prevalence of historical records and gradual changes in their fighting style, there are some weapons which seem slightly more prone to breakage than others. Japanese katana's and renaissance period rapiers especially. The latter are very narrow blades which became designed more for fashion than practicality (hated by old weapon masters such as George Silver), and were used more for thrusting and parrying thrusts, than against heavier, more solid weapons. Katana's are edged weapons specifically designed to slice with razor sharp yet fragile edges, since few opponents used heavy armour except sometimes on the battlefield. They too became lighter, narrower for more 'civilian' use, and thus more vulnerable. In fact one of the reasons why Miyamoto Musashi is said to have used a wooden sword in later years might not have been his growing desire for peace, but the tactical consideration that wooden swords are sometimes actually more resistant to damage than a katana!
You've made a lot of refrences to the Vikings. I feel what you have said in the context of Vikings is very correct. Vikings used Iron however, which is a lot more durible than Bronze, which is the common metal in Glorantha. If you study the bronze age, I think you will find a lot more sword breakage was common. That's why there was a prevalance of useing short swords. There are Roman acounts about fighting the Celts (who used bronze broadswords) where the celt weapons were wrecked after the first blow.
I know that my rule probably makes it more common that real life, but I feel there should be something in the rules to allow weapons to get damaged more frequently than they do now. There is no rule for dulling, so mabey view the rule as just makeing the weapon ineffective instead of it breaking.
We've been playing with these rules for a while now, I like how it playes out in my group. It's probably not for everyone though.
I know that my rule probably makes it more common that real life, but I feel there should be something in the rules to allow weapons to get damaged more frequently than they do now. There is no rule for dulling, so mabey view the rule as just makeing the weapon ineffective instead of it breaking.
We've been playing with these rules for a while now, I like how it playes out in my group. It's probably not for everyone though.
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
That's a very good point. I was writing about iron/steel weapons, not ones made out of bronze. Although bronze retains its edge better than iron, it is far more brittle.
However, you'll forgive my mistake over the weapon metallurgy being discussed since when I look at the MRQ weapon list I see weapons which cannot be made out of bronze... 2-H-Swords, rapiers, warswords etc. As you pointed out, bronze age swords such as the classical kopis or xiphos never grew much larger than about 2 feet long (60cm).
Making a blade any longer than that is pointless, since they snap almost immediately... thus backing up Rasta's house rules perfectly for a Glorantha setting!
Cheers!
However, you'll forgive my mistake over the weapon metallurgy being discussed since when I look at the MRQ weapon list I see weapons which cannot be made out of bronze... 2-H-Swords, rapiers, warswords etc. As you pointed out, bronze age swords such as the classical kopis or xiphos never grew much larger than about 2 feet long (60cm).
Making a blade any longer than that is pointless, since they snap almost immediately... thus backing up Rasta's house rules perfectly for a Glorantha setting!
Cheers!
Aramanthus
Mongoose
I have a question about your house rules. How does it apply to weapons such as "Stormbringer" and it's brothers and sisters. (Remember there is an incidence in the Book Stormbringer when Elric summons thousands of swords all nearly equal to "Stormbringer" and "Mourneblade".) Of course this would apply to other magic weapons. The Elric series has plenty of them to draw upon.
I have always pretty much assumed that Gloranthan Bronze is relatively similar to Iron in its' properties.
It is clearly stated as being not exactly the same material as Earth bronze. RQ 3 never had different stats for weapons and armor in Glorantha and in it's 'default' setting of Fantasy Europe. Likewise MRQ is a 'generic' system that makes no difference in weapon stats between Glorantha and other settings where Iron would be the default metal such as Lankhmar).
As such 'Iron' in Glorantha could be seen as superior to Earth Iron, since it gets bonuses over normal arms and armor (or at least did in RQ3).
At least that is the way I always figured it.
It is clearly stated as being not exactly the same material as Earth bronze. RQ 3 never had different stats for weapons and armor in Glorantha and in it's 'default' setting of Fantasy Europe. Likewise MRQ is a 'generic' system that makes no difference in weapon stats between Glorantha and other settings where Iron would be the default metal such as Lankhmar).
As such 'Iron' in Glorantha could be seen as superior to Earth Iron, since it gets bonuses over normal arms and armor (or at least did in RQ3).
At least that is the way I always figured it.
I've personally always givin enchanted items higher AP. So your magical sword, depending how powerful it is (not familiar with "Stormbringer") could have 6-8 or more AP, thus not being able to take damage from lower AP weapons. (I don't double AP so assuming the standard sword has 4)
I'm getting my source from RQ3, where it states the standard metal of Glorantha is an equivilant to our bronze, in color and characteristics. Of course this would seem to contradic the fact that there are longswords and rapiers made of this metal, where bronze wouldn't be appropriate.
I've always assumed that the inconsistancy was due to Mostal, or some other god. (where all the other contradictions in G-town come from)
Regardless, in a post above we heard about the qualities of iron becoming dull rather than breaking. I still think it is realistic for higher possibility of weapons to become unusable in a fight. The rule that only targeting a weapon to causes damage is unrealistic.
Rasta said:
RQ has never actually made a rules/stats distinction between bronze and iron for different settings is what I am getting at. Despite what it says in the game text a Gloranthan Bronze sword has the same statistics as a Fantasy Earth Iron sword.
I suppose one could look at it as saying that those stats are for the default metal for the setting - i.e. a bronze sword is going to be about as effective versus bronze plate as an iron sword will be versus iron plate or a steel sword will be versus steel plate. They all should do a pretty similar amount of damage against an unarmored foe.
Or we could just write it off as rules quirk.
I also miss the 'incidental' damage to weapons. I could be way off but I suspect most weapons that broke broke as a result of wear and tear over time or just pain bad luck rather than intentional strikes. Upthread I threw out my ideas on the subject, which is that on a critical (attack or parry) a weapon does normal damage to an opposing weapon of equal or lower AP.
I think that is a good idea. I like it! How would it work with a critical attack though?
I completely agree. I guess it boils down to the rules that me and my players are used to doing, and we like weapons to break a lot. :twisted:
and it's usually that bad guys that suffer the most, since my players focus on getting high AP weapons.
To each their own tho.
