Why does an RQ spear do more damage the longer it is?

[Joerg]

This gets muddled up even more if you consider that a hit in a melee round might consist of several contacts of the weapon with the target, even though only one hit location gets the damage. A series of chain punches in kung fu may connect twice per strike rank.

For all its appearance of gritty detail, the RQ combat system is an absraction.

[soltakss]

20 minutes ago, Joerg said:

For all its appearance of gritty detail, the RQ combat system is an absraction.

Exactly.

It is possible to pick combat apart and expose all of the flaws, then to design a system that overcomes each flaw.

However, different people see different flaws, so unless we catch all the flaws that everyone sees and builds a new system around that, what is the point?

Even then, unless the system is as easy to use, easy to play and as fun as the RQG combat system, then what is the point?

[RandomNumber]

1 hour ago, soltakss said:

It is possible to pick combat apart and expose all of the flaws, then to design a system that overcomes each flaw.

However, different people see different flaws, so unless we catch all the flaws that everyone sees and builds a new system around that, what is the point?

Even then, unless the system is as easy to use, easy to play and as fun as the RQG combat system, then what is the point?

Agree with this. 

I've been idly toying with how to remove some of the back-and-forth tedium that sometimes arises ('Great, I hit the Broo at last!', 'The Broo parries'..). When I finished playing RQ in the late 90's I had fully converted to PenDragon Pass - it flowed so well.

After a few diverting mental excursions that variously involved spreadsheets and me learning to code APIs I landed up back with RQG not being so bad after all.  Given Roll20 is my only option to play RQG I am certainly unwilling to hack anything that would mean I can't use the character sheet.

 

[SDLeary]

5 hours ago, Eff said:

Yes. But in the RQG rules, a greatsword is a pure slashing weapon, unlike the other straight swords, which are all cut-and-thrust, so by default you're not using the thing for halfswording or poking people. I'm not sure if this is an oversight or a particular vision I'm just not getting. 

I think it’s a combination of things. First, an artifact of previous editions. It was slashing only in RQ3 as well.

Second, no one on staff (to the best of my knowledge) looking at current HEMA and other combat research. There could be multiple reasons for this.

There could be other reasons though. Perhaps Humakti have simply not discovered the maneuver yet.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

 

6 hours ago, simonh said:

Honestly I’ve been uneasy about the correlation between weapon size and damage for a while. I can see the momentum argument, but take medieval daggers like the Rondel. These things were vicious weapons specifically used to kill armoured knights. If you could get in close to an armoured opponent the dagger was how you got through a gap, put some weight behind it and ended them. This is shown graphically several times in The King, notably Timothée Chalamet as Henry uses this tactic in a duel early on. It also seems to be how Richard III met his end.

If you are in HtH, a rondel is not going to do a damn thing. You have to immobilize your opponent first, so tha you can get enough leverage to punch through, or find a gap to exploit. Otherwise it would only damage on a crit.

SDLeary 

[simonh]

24 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

 

If you are in HtH, a rondel is not going to do a damn thing. You have to immobilize your opponent first, so tha you can get enough leverage to punch through, or find a gap to exploit. Otherwise it would only damage on a crit.

Against an opponent in advanced plate and mail yes, you need to close or grapple first, fair point. They're still pretty wicked weapons though. 

I'm not too bothered, Daggers do the same average damage as a one handed sword, they just don't max out as high on a lucky roll.

[Akhôrahil]

14 minutes ago, simonh said:

Against an opponent in advanced plate and mail yes, you need to close or grapple first, fair point. They're still pretty wicked weapons though. 

I'm not too bothered, Daggers do the same average damage as a one handed sword, they just don't max out as high on a lucky roll.

As a Short Sword - 1d8+1 for the regular "broadsword" is better than 1d4+2.

[Nick Underwood]

On 8/29/2021 at 2:03 PM, Akhôrahil said:

Short spear 2H, 1d8+1. Long spear, 1d10+2. Pike, 2d6+1. Similar with 1H Short Spear and Lance.

There is no logic to the increased damage due to length when stabbing with spears (unless you concoct a strange scenario). 

There is a some logic however to the idea that longer weapons are better battlefield weapons because of increased reach. 

So I assume the increased damage for longer weapons is to make them better weapons overall (especially in formation) within a combat system that doesn't adequately represent reach advantage. (Including SR rules.) 

[Darius West]

On 8/29/2021 at 10:26 PM, Akhôrahil said:

 I don't believe pike head were historically unusually large?

That entirely depends on the period.  There were pike heads that were sheathed in spiked metal for a meter or more down their shaft to prevent people hacking the head off.  During the time of Alexander the sarissa was made of cornel wood which is hard and springy, and while they had large broad steel heads of up to about 2.5'long and perhaps 6"-8" wide, they had a heavy bronze butt spike (for setting against charges), and a bronze tube so that the sarissa could be collapsed to a more manageable size for transport, and the broken down section with the spearhead could be used as a spear, given that sarissas were 18'-22'long. 

As to the actual shape of pike heads, some were small leaf heads, but some were more like partisans, or had boar spear crossbars. Some had very long spearheads.  Japanese pikes, aka the nagae yari used by the Oda clan, generally had very long blades rather than haft protection sheaths.  While the spear is a very ancient weapon, the pike really only comes into its own with the invention of mounted warfare, and it evolves a lot over time.  In Glorantha, the evolution of the pike/sarissa is a very Dara Happan affair, obviously to counter the endless Pentan invasions, but we can assume the sarissa is the model for pikes based on previous info, save with a bronze head. and they definitely have large broad spearheads with some haft protection.

So, yeah, pike heads were actually pretty big by-and-large, but does that really change the damage argument?  Does having a big heavy weapon necessarily make it do more damage?  I would argue that this is something of an ancient 1970's Dungeons and Dragons convention in RPGs, and while it may hold true for 2h swords or halberds being swung down at full force, I am seriously unconvinced that stabbing weapons with similar head width really do more damage than each other. Does a 6" wide spearhead on a 4' shaft do less damage than a 6" spearhead on a 22' shaft?  I have serious doubts.

23 hours ago, Eff said:

Yes. But in the RQG rules, a greatsword is a pure slashing weapon, unlike the other straight swords, which are all cut-and-thrust, so by default you're not using the thing for halfswording or poking people. I'm not sure if this is an oversight or a particular vision I'm just not getting. 

RQG greatswords are described as being slashing weapons, but are invariably depicted as having pointed heads.  2d8 provides a lot of variation in damage, and imo that is what we need to consider here.  When I GM I play that greatswords that special (slash) or critical are being employed to their full potential as slashing weapons.  On the other hand, not every damage roll is memorable, and those which land below half damage can be narrated as being examples of halfswording, poking, or pommel strikes, to flavor the combat a bit.

Edited August 31, 2021 by Darius West

[Akhôrahil]

4 minutes ago, Darius West said:

Does having a big heavy weapon necessarily make it do more damage?  I would argue that this is something of an ancient 1970's Dungeons and Dragons convention in RPGs, and while it may hold true for 2h swords or halberds being swung down at full force, I am seriously unconvinced that stabbing weapons with similar head width really do more damage than each other. Does a 6" wide spearhead on a 4' shaft do less damage than a 6" spearhead on a 22' shaft?  I have serious doubts.

In a much more detailed game, you could start having rules about width of spearheads and the like (a wide spearhead will do more tissue damage and can do pushing cuts, but is also much worse at armour penetration). That's too detailed for regular RQ, though. Length of spearhead (as well as langets) seems like it would be more about the weapon's own hit points.

[Joerg]

4 hours ago, Darius West said:

So, yeah, pike heads were actually pretty big by-and-large, but does that really change the damage argument?  Does having a big heavy weapon necessarily make it do more damage?  I would argue that this is something of an ancient 1970's Dungeons and Dragons convention in RPGs, and while it may hold true for 2h swords or halberds being swung down at full force, I am seriously unconvinced that stabbing weapons with similar head width really do more damage than each other. Does a 6" wide spearhead on a 4' shaft do less damage than a 6" spearhead on a 22' shaft?  I have serious doubts.

I can only talk about arrowheads. Broadheads cause the most internal damage, but aren't used against armored opponents because they don't penetrate that well. Bodkins are great for armor penetration, but don't cause that much internal damage. However, you still do some damage where a broadhead would at best cause a slight punch.

RQG (thankfully) doesn't compare weapon properties with armor properties where such considerations would flow into the simulation.

With arrows, a greater weight falling from the same height will have better penetration - most military use of arrows was ballistic. Greater mass means greater penetration. There can be too much penetration, e.g. when hunting fowl, which is why arrows for that often have blunt points or splints orthogonal to the shaft to prevent the arrow from flying through the target.

Direct heroic shooting like Paris or Teucer did, going almost into the thick to take out foes at almost point blank, is something else, and tries to aim for gaps in the armor of a moving target. While shooting into a melee, avoiding engagement or dodging out of it where and when possible. At least the audience of Homer thought that an archer dancing through the thick of combat was somewhat likely. RQG doesn't - "no moving while shooting". Yes, it is highly detrimental for accuracy. But so is riding a horse or other mount.

 

Back to spears in melee - I wonder how much of the damage values are derived from looking at thrown penetration for different spear weights. And possibly durability when sticking the point into a target.

[Akhôrahil]

8 minutes ago, Joerg said:

"no moving while shooting"

One thing I like about no moving while shooting is that it provides a particular tactical niche for javelineers. Your javelin skirmishers can both pack a shield and keep up attacks on the run better. In most games, bows just blow javelins out of the water.

[David Scott]

Chapter 7 has some relevant info, although the whole paper is interesting: Lethal Threshold: The Evolutionary Implications of Middle Pleistocene Wooden Spears

I also found the one and two handed grips useful.

[Baron Wulfraed]

1 hour ago, David Scott said:

Chapter 7 has some relevant info, although the whole paper is interesting: Lethal Threshold: The Evolutionary Implications of Middle Pleistocene Wooden Spears

I also found the one and two handed grips useful.

I'd sure like to see the "knife" that came in at 4.5kg (Chadwick 1999, table 7.1) -- 10lbs! I have a great sword (from Museum Replicas) that probably masses half of that.

[David Scott]

31 minutes ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

I'd sure like to see the "knife" that came in at 4.5kg (Chadwick 1999, table 7.1) -- 10lbs! I have a great sword (from Museum Replicas) that probably masses half of that.

She did suggest that some of the previous data was a bit odd by comparison. 

[Akhôrahil]

59 minutes ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

I'd sure like to see the "knife" that came in at 4.5kg (Chadwick 1999, table 7.1) -- 10lbs! I have a great sword (from Museum Replicas) that probably masses half of that.

”That’s not a knife - this is a knife!”

[Baron Wulfraed]

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

”That’s not a knife - this is a knife!”

Even his was likely under two pounds... Two pounds gets you a full steel duty pistol (1911 government model, say, 2.5lbs unloaded but with magazine). Most carpentry hammers run 1-1.5lbs.

[dumuzid]

On 8/29/2021 at 7:35 PM, Eff said:

something like a zhanmadao

This is how I've always characterized the 2-hand sword wielded by a Marazi amazon NPC in my current campaign.

[Nick Underwood]

On 8/31/2021 at 6:10 PM, David Scott said:

Chapter 7 has some relevant info, although the whole paper is interesting: Lethal Threshold: The Evolutionary Implications of Middle Pleistocene Wooden Spears

Thanks David. I spent a fun morning browsing this instead of working. Some great experimental archaeology ("The participant reported that he was trained to use a bayonet right-handed regardless of handedness." Eat that Lindybeige!) But the evolutionary implications... not so impressive. (Quite surprised you can get away with that at PhD level.)

I lost the section, but I'm sure I saw reports of penetration *increasing* with throwing range - which seems to defy the laws of physics. I can only imagine that increased range permits an increase in angle of release for the throw which is closer to optimal for our biomechanics. Seems Runquest was right and I've been wrong--damage should not be reduced at longer ranges. (At least with heavier thrown weapons)

More bad news... "there are significant physiological differences between humans and chimpanzees, in particular those of a bipedal stance and a derived hand morphology which would restrict chimpanzees from performing certain tool tasks in hunting scenarios, such as forceful two-handed thrusting or throwing spears from a distance." There goes my Yelmalio baboon damage bonus...

[Nick Underwood]

On 8/31/2021 at 8:30 PM, Akhôrahil said:

I'd sure like to see the "knife" that came in at 4.5kg...

Tada!!

The mass included the instrumentation measuring the force. Although why that varies so much, I was too lazy to look.

http://68.57.235.185/Murdercube/files/Exotic Weapons/Knives, Swords/Biomechanics of knife stab attacks.pdf

[Professor Chaos]

I don't have my books to hand but didn't short swords and spears have higher base attacks in RQ1 and 2 than long ones which were then rather obviated by cultural weapon skills in RQ3+?

In effect this means your Roman legionary though he may do less damage if he hits than the longsword twirling Gallic warrior he is facing, will assuming similar levels of experience and training be more likely to both hit and to score a critical or special.

Which to me makes sense - the longer and heavier the weapon the harder and slower it is to wield and so shorter, lighter, faster weapons should get an in effect to hit bonus.

Unfortunately RQG has rather gone the other way.

Also great point on javelins vs bows - the Romans conquered pretty much the whole civilised world armed with several different types of throwing spear and very few or no bows.

Alexander's all-conquering army had just two regiments of archers and many more javelineers.

Hannibal's army had IIRC no bows at all - just javelins and a few Baearic slingers.

Wargamers however love having a choice of ranged weapon units and so have long overrated the bow in rules terms and this has been carried over into RPGs.

An 'ancient' RPG should however reflect a world where the javelin was the primary missile weapon of almost every culture rather than a cod-medieval one of longbows and crossbows.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[icebrand]

On 8/30/2021 at 7:40 AM, Eff said:

Yes. But in the RQG rules, a greatsword is a pure slashing weapon, unlike the other straight swords, which are all cut-and-thrust, so by default you're not using the thing for halfswording or poking people. I'm not sure if this is an oversight or a particular vision I'm just not getting. 

Why not let the players half sword (1d8+1) or poke (1d6+1@) ? Maybe at -20%?

[Qizilbashwoman]

1 hour ago, icebrand said:

Why not let the players half sword (1d8+1) or poke (1d6+1@) ? Maybe at -20%?

bronze greatswords typically don't have a pointy end. it's like a long-ass cleaver with the end giving the blade structural integrity, because bronze ain't hard, it deforms, especially big-ass pieces. a poke would literally be a poke.

[SDLeary]

14 hours ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

bronze greatswords typically don't have a pointy end. it's like a long-ass cleaver with the end giving the blade structural integrity, because bronze ain't hard, it deforms, especially big-ass pieces. a poke would literally be a poke.

Both of these look pointy enough to poke. 🙂

To be fair though, I think the Spring and Autumn and Warring States swords are outliers. To my knowledge, no other culture mastered bronze enough to be able to create real longswords/two-handed swords.

SDLeary

 

Edited September 3, 2021 by SDLeary

[Kloster]

19 hours ago, Professor Chaos said:

Also great point on javelins vs bows - the Romans conquered pretty much the whole civilised world armed with several different types of throwing spear and very few or no bows.

Alexander's all-conquering army had just two regiments of archers and many more javelineers.

Hannibal's army had IIRC no bows at all - just javelins and a few Baearic slingers.

Wargamers however love having a choice of ranged weapon units and so have long overrated the bow in rules terms and this has been carried over into RPGs.

An 'ancient' RPG should however reflect a world where the javelin was the primary missile weapon of almost every culture rather than a cod-medieval one of longbows and crossbows.

On that point, RQ follows you, because a javelin does 1D10+1 (+1D2 on the average) damage, as the best bows (Composite and Elf) do 1D8+1 damage. The real advantage of bows are range and weight if you carry more than a few shots.