Dwarven weapon skills

[Shiningbrow]

On 11/9/2022 at 12:44 PM, whitelaughter said:

Hmm, should appropriate Craft skills give half their value as weapon skills then? I certainly wouldn't want a smith swinging a hammer at my head!

 

On 11/9/2022 at 3:43 PM, Mugen said:

IIRC, first editions of StormBringer gave an weapon skill to artesans whose tool could be used in combat,

It was random, and could be higher than a warrior's best weapon skill.

There was no connection between both scores, though...

I wouldn't.

Even a well-experienced smith wouldn't have the same range of motions a  warrior with a hammer would have.. Smiths are basically a simple overhead strike (or much lesser taps). A warrior would be swinging from all manner of directions.

And then there's the parrying....

And the feints...

[Shiningbrow]

I know this is OT, strictly speaking, but was there any clarification as to the Iron Dwarf's armour stats? And, what's the ENC for that Iron "heavy chainmail"?

[Al.]

On 10/27/2022 at 1:46 PM, Barak Shathur said:

, given most dwarves won’t even have damage bonus due to their small size,

I see this artefact* slightly differently.

No less a figure than Steve Perrin mentioned in (one of) the RuneQuest playtest(s) that SIZ was always supposed to model mass not height and that given the chance he'd go back and make SIZ for Dwarfs 3d6 or 2d6+6 just like for humans.

If I still used SIZ in my [d100] games I'd make SIZ for Dwarfs 3d6.

 

* a younger, angrier Al would call it a 'problem' now I am happy to be less judgemental.

[davecake]

On 11/11/2022 at 6:20 PM, JRE said:

Isidilian was already around in the First age, but a flaming trebuchet looks like it should come from volcano powered Gemborg, in Maniria, and something Martaler of the Iron Forge could have given to a Heortling clan.

The timing (this occurred very early, before Gbaji etc, in the year 109 or so), so it’s probably going to be from one of the OpenHandist groups that was part of the Unity Council - which means Gemborg, Dwarf Run (which is very small at this point, around 100 dwarves), or Greatway. I personally think probably Greatway based on location, Gemborg is quite far away and Greatway are neighbours of the Liornvuli. Martaler/Gemborg was probably more elf friendly than Iron Diamond Voice/Greatway was later, which may indicate a motive for aiding the Liornvuli against the elf friendly Stravuli? Though the Greatway dwarves are willing to fight alongside the elves for the Council against the Shargashi/Shadzorings in 168. Anyway, it doesn’t matter much which OpenHandist Unity Council dwarf faction much. 

The dwarves of Imther don’t seem to be OpenHandist (they trade raw materials, not technological creations) and don’t trade with Heortlings, the dwarves of Jords Eye are OpenHandist but quite far away and not part of the Unity Council, so unlikely to have encountered the Liornvuli. 

[davecake]

On 11/7/2022 at 6:01 PM, JRE said:

Nida will be rigid in the caste allocation, so if you came from a work order for a lead caste, lead caste you are, even if you are freakishly large and suffer claustrophobia.

Some dwarven plumbing is very large indeed I am sure, and very large Lead dwarves have a use. Claustrophobia indicates a flaw that should be corrected by the Gold dwarves (indeed, it may be regarded as evidence of poor Gold performance of their duties to allow such a thing to happen). 

On 11/7/2022 at 6:01 PM, JRE said:

You can have dumb silvers, diminute irons and tonguetied golds.

Each of the castes encompass a fairly wide range of sub-specialties. A dumb silver might spend a great deal of time organizing specialised enchanting materials, maintaining spell archives, filling magic point reservoirs, tending to the physical needs of other Silvers during long rituals, etc, a diminutive Iron dwarf might be a scout and act as a forward observer, and stealthily lay explosive traps, a tongue tied Gold might organise curriculum and write documents for other Golds to deliver, conduct elaborate debates about the psychology of other races and the appropriate foreign policy. They allow for some variation in capability, as long as the caste as a group can perform their function. 

[Ludo Bagman]

On 11/14/2022 at 11:43 AM, Shiningbrow said:

I know this is OT, strictly speaking, but was there any clarification as to the Iron Dwarf's armour stats? And, what's the ENC for that Iron "heavy chainmail"?

The only data given is that the 70% magic resistance means that the dwarf is wearing 14 ENC of unenchanted iron.

The battle axe and hammer are enchanted (since they have increased armor points), the crossbow and bolts only have iron tips (negligible), so at most the shield (ENC 2) could be made of unenchanted iron which means that the armor weights 12-14 ENC–probably the whole 14 ENC.

Note that chainmail had 5 AP in RQ2, and ENC 2 for limbs / 1 for head/chest/abdomen for a human sized character (perhaps a little less for a dwarf). This gives a ballpark figure of twice the AP of human made armor for around twice the ENC.

[Squaredeal Sten]

All this dwarf lore and technique / interaction of the rules indicates to me that there is reason to write a Dwarfpack.

Not necessarily oriented toward Mostali PCs, but as a GM aid and sourcebook.  I currently feel that I am out of my depth running Mostali.  At least for more than a casual encounter as my players pass by Dwarf Run, which is the only Mostali encounter I have run.

1. Mostali history, mythology, and factions.

2. Mostali types, and stats.

3. Mostali psychology and behavior, a section oriented toward their interaction with Adventurers.

4. Mostali technology and how and how much to present to the players.  As I understand it this is steampunk mixed with sorcery, and the dwarfs don't let much out and do take it back.  Aggressively.  

5. Mostali in combat.  Not only weapon preference and  stats and the discussion of armor above, and a gunpowder section,  but tactics including the discussion of sorcery above.  Plus the Cannon Cult, which is a Mostali thing even though it's human cannoneers. 

I have a vision of a Mostali military intervention using pike and shot tactics.  Which does not exclude crossbows and war hammers.  The Swiss in the 1300s-1400s used crossbows and pole arms, and pike and shot is just a logical development of that.  Is this anachronistic for  "bronze age" setting? Yes but Glorantha..... is not all bronze age.

6. Mostal magic (Clearly their sorcery goes beyond the Lhankor Mhy oriented intro in the RQiG rules.)  

7. Mostali places with map and descriptions.   At least one city submap, which should have layers for the 3D nature of its layout.

8. Mostali encounters.

Sure, some of this is scattered through the Bestiary and the 4.5 pages in the Glorantha Souurcebook, and the Guide to Glorantha.  But much of the discussion above is not.  And there is value in bringing the pieces together and explaining how to work them.

 

 

 

[Barak Shathur]

47 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

All this dwarf lore and technique / interaction of the rules indicates to me that there is reason to write a Dwarfpack.

Not necessarily oriented toward Mostali PCs, but as a GM aid and sourcebook.  I currently feel that I am out of my depth running Mostali.  At least for more than a casual encounter as my players pass by Dwarf Run, which is the only Mostali encounter I have run.

1. Mostali history, mythology, and factions.

2. Mostali types, and stats.

3. Mostali psychology and behavior, a section oriented toward their interaction with Adventurers.

4. Mostali technology and how and how much to present to the players.  As I understand it this is steampunk mixed with sorcery, and the dwarfs don't let much out and do take it back.  Aggressively.  

5. Mostali in combat.  Not only weapon preference and  stats and the discussion of armor above, and a gunpowder section,  but tactics including the discussion of sorcery above.  Plus the Cannon Cult, which is a Mostali thing even though it's human cannoneers. 

I have a vision of a Mostali military intervention using pike and shot tactics.  Which does not exclude crossbows and war hammers.  The Swiss in the 1300s-1400s used crossbows and pole arms, and pike and shot is just a logical development of that.  Is this anachronistic for  "bronze age" setting? Yes but Glorantha..... is not all bronze age.

6. Mostal magic (Clearly their sorcery goes beyond the Lhankor Mhy oriented intro in the RQiG rules.)  

7. Mostali places with map and descriptions.   At least one city submap, which should have layers for the 3D nature of its layout.

8. Mostali encounters.

Sure, some of this is scattered through the Bestiary and the 4.5 pages in the Glorantha Souurcebook, and the Guide to Glorantha.  But much of the discussion above is not.  And there is value in bringing the pieces together and explaining how to work them.

 

 

 

I would buy it, for sure.

[jajagappa]

1 hour ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

8. Mostali encounters.

I've currently got 11 pages on dwarf-related encounters in my in-process Imther material for JC including thoughts on how to run interactions with dwarfs.

[Jeff]

On 11/14/2022 at 12:00 PM, Al. said:

I see this artefact* slightly differently.

No less a figure than Steve Perrin mentioned in (one of) the RuneQuest playtest(s) that SIZ was always supposed to model mass not height and that given the chance he'd go back and make SIZ for Dwarfs 3d6 or 2d6+6 just like for humans.

If I still used SIZ in my [d100] games I'd make SIZ for Dwarfs 3d6.

 

* a younger, angrier Al would call it a 'problem' now I am happy to be less judgemental.

Steve's take on dwarfs was different from Greg's vision. Greg was perfectly happy with dwarfs of a tiny SIZ as that fit what he imagined them to be better.

 

[JRE]

On 11/15/2022 at 8:41 AM, davecake said:

 I personally think probably Greatway based on location, Gemborg is quite far away and Greatway are neighbours of the Liornvuli. Martaler/Gemborg was probably more elf friendly than Iron Diamond Voice/Greatway was later, which may indicate a motive for aiding the Liornvuli against the elf friendly Stravuli? 

I confess I saw flaming trebuchet and I inmediately went Volcano! Flaming forge!

How did mortals know Martaler had a flaming forge (as most forges are flaming...)? Because he made flaming weapons! 

I also considered the factoid that Greatway refuses to deal south of the mountains, trading only to the north. But of course the debacle in the First Age may well be the reason why they only trade with the Balazarings now...

[JRE]

As for the Dwarf in the bestiary, I just assume the dwarves can make steel, so their unenchanted iron is better than the enchanted iron of others, except that they prefer to keep the magic dampening because they seldom use magic in combat.

The bestiary is quite specific the chainmail has 11 AP and the Full helm 12, which I consider as 10 AP for the chainmail (twice the value of a hypothetical bronze chainmail) plus quilting, and 12 (twice the value of a bronze full helm). That surely will make adventurers pause, specially when the loss of such an armor may bring an escalating response, starting with a few gobblers and ending with a company of iron dwarves...

 

[davecake]

16 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

All this dwarf lore and technique / interaction of the rules indicates to me that there is reason to write a Dwarfpack.

I’ve been thinking about something on Mostali for the JC. They will feature in our future East Isles material, so I’ll be doing a little work on them anyway. 

[davecake]

11 hours ago, JRE said:

That surely will make adventurers pause

And Mostali have a spell (Mostali maker magic, and requiring a permanent point of POW, so not casually used) that makes their armor not be bypassed by criticals, which should make adventurers pause even more. Elite Iron dwarves are scary, and can be serious Runemaster opponents - a group properly backed up by other castes can be Heroic opponents, Diamondwarves or True Mostali are Hero level themselves (admittedly going by Dragon Pass, not particularly powerful Heroes individually (the Dwarf is a bit weaker than Argrath, Beatpot or Gunda, etc), but able to command some extraordinary resources - enormous Jolanti, for example). 

[Professor Chaos]

1) I fondly remember Greg at a con answering a rulesy question with 'but Gloranthans don't know the numbers!'

(I also remember him quite possibly in the same session saying that RQ was always a poor representation of how he saw Glorantha compared to Hero Wars/Quest, but hey ho...)

2) So following minimaxing logic why on earth would the most successful actual army of our ancient times have chosen to be armed with a mere 1d6+1 gladius when they could have a 1d8+1 broadsword or a 1d10+1 long spear? 

And that would be because Roman legionaries fought side-by-side in disciplined ranks where after centuries of experimentation they found that pilum + gladius + scutum were the best combination against most enemies (and when those enemies eventually changed so did their equipment and tactics).

So Iron Mostali are armed that way because it works in the most important situations they will find themselves - which would be battles for existence against their primary Aldryami and Uz enemies and not random skirmishes with weird little gangs of human adventurers.

3) Formidable as they may be any Iron Mostali venturing outside of their mines is carrying around an almost unimaginable fortune on their backs which would make them very worthwhile targets and I therefore can't see them wandering about in anything smaller than platoon or company strength. 

4) So what happened to Apostate Dwarfs? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Professor Chaos

[g33k]

On 11/16/2022 at 9:04 AM, Jeff said:

Steve's take on dwarfs was different from Greg's vision. Greg was perfectly happy with dwarfs of a tiny SIZ as that fit what he imagined them to be better.

IMG, Mostali are *extremely* variable as to SIZ, but most run quite small.

They are, after all, more "designed" & "crafted" than any of the other species; even the unfortunates of the Stitched Zoo were assembled from pre-existing parts.

If the Mostali think they need some very-small units, they make those.

In general, they find smaller units are (much!) more-versatile:  they can get into tighter spaces to perform necessary repairs & adjustments, and the Mostali have a LOT of those spaces.  They can always get 2+ small units to collaborate on a project 1 larger unit could perform, but cannot split large units without making them non-functional.

[Godlearner]

17 hours ago, Professor Chaos said:

2) So following minimaxing logic why on earth would the most successful actual army of our ancient times have chosen to be armed with a mere 1d6+1 gladius when they could have a 1d8+1 broadsword or a 1d10+1 long spear? 

Because when fighting in formation, gladius is better. That is not visible in RQ because it does not reflect combat on tactical level as well as it does with other things. I have limited weapon use in limited spaces in my games and the players switched their weapon to reflect that. We just do not see character swinging a greataxes is corridors anymore. 

[SDLeary]

3 hours ago, g33k said:

In general, they find smaller units are (much!) more-versatile:  they can get into tighter spaces to perform necessary repairs & adjustments, and the Mostali have a LOT of those spaces.  They can always get 2+ small units to collaborate on a project 1 larger unit could perform, but cannot split large units without making them non-functional.

After all, its much much more reliable for an Iron Dwarf to fix the cannon barrel from within, if such a repair is needed.

SDLeary

[Barak Shathur]

20 hours ago, Professor Chaos said:

2) So following minimaxing logic why on earth would the most successful actual army of our ancient times have chosen to be armed with a mere 1d6+1 gladius when they could have a 1d8+1 broadsword or a 1d10+1 long spear? 

Because maybe RQG's weapon system perhaps does not reflect reality that closely? Like Godlearner said, a short stabbing sword is more useful in a tightly packed, othmosis style melee or otherwise cramped space than a long slashing one. There might be other benefits, like the ability to 'crowd' your longer weapon wielding opponent, where the shorter weapon also has some advantage. And possibly there are other advantages that are hard for us to imagine from our armchairs. None of this is reflected in the rules. So then you either have to write the rules so that a gladius would be the obvious choice for a legionnaire, or you give him what would be the most effective melee weapon for him under the rules as written. 

BRP, for example, has a technical way of making short swords useful weapons, by giving them Impale, unlike longer swords that only have Slash (which doesn't do double damage under that system). That's one way to simulate the different but equal status of those two particular weapons. Another way is the rule for close combat, where short weapons have an advantage (while long weapons have the ability to keep shorter ones at bay).

21 hours ago, Professor Chaos said:

So Iron Mostali are armed that way because it works in the most important situations they will find themselves - which would be battles for existence against their primary Aldryami and Uz enemies and not random skirmishes with weird little gangs of human adventurers.

And again, the rules as written seem to contradict this, certainly in the case of the primary melee weapon (warhammer) dwarves are given in the printed RQG. At least now that it has been corrected, and has Impale, it could be argued it is an effective weapon against such foes, but a battle axe would seem much more so (especially against the tree-like Aldryami). Warhammers are supposed to be good against armoured foes (although rules wise, battle axes are better), which, correct me if I'm wrong, neither Uz nor Aldryami in general seem to be. If anything, I would say, in RQG Iron dwarves would be likely to train more with a battle axe, that being more effective (rules wise) in every way, and keep a warhammer as a backup weapon, since it can double as a smithying and all purpose tool. Thus I would switch the percentages for those two skills. 

[Godlearner]

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

Another way is the rule for close combat, where short weapons have an advantage (while long weapons have the ability to keep shorter ones at bay).

I do it like this

With SR1 weapons, I may allow an attack or parry, but depending on the situation.

SR2 weapon can either attack or parry in the round (although they could also dodge),

SR3 and SR4 weapons regular combat options.

[Barak Shathur]

I want to say something about this idea of min-maxing, which people keep bringing up as some sort of critique of my position. This is a total straw man. What I'm talking about is evolutionary logic, which is a trademark of simulationist games like BRP/RQ etc. It just doesn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint that any individual or species, in matters of life and death, would choose anything less than the best option available to them. A species that completely irrationally handicapped itself would not survive for long, it would be transplanted by other groups and species that didn't. And the dwarves are extremely rational, and have been around for a long time as a species. This is a question about game design. It has absolutely nothing to do with min-maxing.

 

 

[Shiningbrow]

17 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

I want to say something about this idea of min-maxing, which people keep bringing up as some sort of critique of my position. This is a total straw man. What I'm talking about is evolutionary logic, which is a trademark of simulationist games like BRP/RQ etc. It just doesn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint that any individual or species, in matters of life and death, would choose anything less than the best option available to them. A species that completely irrationally handicapped itself would not survive for long, it would be transplanted by other groups and species that didn't. And the dwarves are extremely rational, and have been around for a long time as a species. This is a question about game design. It has absolutely nothing to do with min-maxing.

 

 

Then consider something that's missing from the rules - bladed weapons lose their effectiveness pretty quickly, compared to blunt weapons.

Block a well-placed bronze sword with a really good shield, and it should bend the thing and blunten it significantly (especially if that shield is rimmed with metal). Same with the axe (although, there's usually a lot more metal behind it to reinforce and strengthen it. However, the hammer or maul is just going to bounce off with virtually no damage.

Hammers and mauls are more effective in the long run against all types of materials - flesh, plant, and especially rocks and stones (and armours). Sure, swords and axes will punch through those armours - but they shouldn't be able to do it all day... hammers can.

i don't know if this has any bearing on it, but the hammers and mauls have more HP than the axes... (although, not as many as the swords, which probably represents the lack of wooden haft).

[Shiningbrow]

On 11/22/2022 at 7:32 AM, Professor Chaos said:

2) So following minimaxing logic why on earth would the most successful actual army of our ancient times have chosen to be armed with a mere 1d6+1 gladius when they could have a 1d8+1 broadsword or a 1d10+1 long spear? 

Because they were formation fighting... **

And because their opponents came from a tradition of fighting individually. Just as the Greeks were originally.

 

(** yes, @Barak Shathur wrote that above.. I know! Just re-emphasising the point)

[JRE]

The obvious problem is that RQ is Heroic skirmish combat, and has gradually become (as most RPGs) Hollywood / Hong Kong Heroic skirmish combat. So you can reproduce Hero (the movie) style combat, but not any large scale combat.

That is related to other combat complaints, such as Sun Dome Templars effectiveness or the distortion of high skill level or the ineffective shields. It is all linked to the deliberate choice to model heroic combat, so it is useless to extrapolate outside of what it covers. 

Some time ago I made a few army lists for Field of Glory (miniature wargame), using some Renaissance and Napoleonic troop types for magic users and special creatures, but that ruleset is no longer propular and it does not handle as well as DBA the magic effects. But once you have more that 5-6 people per side, RQ combat breaks down and you need different rules. And it is ok for me, as that is not the aim of the game. 

To return to the main subject, in all rulesets I am familiar with, a Renaissance infantry armor (as the famed pike and shot dwarves) can crush any ancient army of a similar value relatively easy, specially if they can use artillery. Interestingly more modern armies do not do that well (the lack of armor) except for the small detail of being 10 times bigger, and numbers and firepower are a class of their own. 

[Qizilbashwoman]

1 hour ago, JRE said:

The obvious problem is that RQ is Heroic skirmish combat, and has gradually become (as most RPGs) Hollywood / Hong Kong Heroic skirmish combat.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between Heroic and H/HK? Hasn't it always been RRR? (Also, if you haven't seen RRR, PUT IT ON IMMEDIATELY IT'S UNHINGED GLORY, it's on Netflix, and if this doesn't influence your Orlanthi anti-Lunar Rebellions there is something wrong with your soul)

Edited November 23, 2022 by Qizilbashwoman