Jump to content

Dwarven weapon skills


Barak Shathur

Recommended Posts

We have gone from the Hero (120-150% skill) being able to typically beat 1 skilled or 2-3 mook level (RQ2-3, Princess Bride or Conan level) foes to 2-3 skilled or 6-8 mooks (RQG).

I have not seen RRR, but after the endorsement I will check. I do not have Netflix, which may explain it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JRE said:

We have gone from the Hero (120-150% skill) being able to typically beat 1 skilled or 2-3 mook level (RQ2-3, Princess Bride or Conan level) foes to 2-3 skilled or 6-8 mooks (RQG).

I have not seen RRR, but after the endorsement I will check. I do not have Netflix, which may explain it.

Ah, I see. I mean, I still think 2-3 mooks is not hugely different in scope from 6-8; it's just "which kind of heroic narrative are you telling?" I've always thought of the Iliad and the like as good models, and they are all "the heroes with divine blessings destroy armies, and the minor heroes like Odysseus do it differently"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JRE said:

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. 

This is the main point. The amount and detail you wish to simiulate is strictly on an individual basis. If you feel you need more ,then add more. If most of your combat is against monsters, then you do not really need that level of detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was precisely that Roman legionaries used 1d6+1 shortswords rather than 1d8+1 broadswords because they worked better in the formation fighting that was their job.

And yes RQ doesn't represent that sort of close combat (or any combat involving more than a literal handful of characters on either side) at all well. 

Neither however does it represent well the sort of fighting even those small groups might get into inside buildings or tunnels or on bridges or in forests or anywhere else that you may not have room to swing or poke the high damage weapons adventurers tend to pick. 

But to reflect that you need yet more spot rules in a system already overladen with them. 

So in the end you just have to accept that for all its fiddliness and granularity RQ is not and cannot and should not be a realistic combat simulator.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Professor Chaos said:

My point was precisely that Roman legionaries used 1d6+1 shortswords rather than 1d8+1 broadswords because they worked better in the formation fighting that was their job.

And yes RQ doesn't represent that sort of close combat (or any combat involving more than a literal handful of characters on either side) at all well. 

Neither however does it represent well the sort of fighting even those small groups might get into inside buildings or tunnels or on bridges or in forests or anywhere else that you may not have room to swing or poke the high damage weapons adventurers tend to pick. 

But to reflect that you need yet more spot rules in a system already overladen with them. 

So in the end you just have to accept that for all its fiddliness and granularity RQ is not and cannot and should not be a realistic combat simulator.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed. But certain design choices are better simulation wise, without adding bloat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Professor Chaos said:

My point was precisely that Roman legionaries used 1d6+1 shortswords rather than 1d8+1 broadswords because they worked better in the formation fighting that was their job.

And yes RQ doesn't represent that sort of close combat (or any combat involving more than a literal handful of characters on either side) at all well. 

Neither however does it represent well the sort of fighting even those small groups might get into inside buildings or tunnels or on bridges or in forests or anywhere else that you may not have room to swing or poke the high damage weapons adventurers tend to pick. 

But to reflect that you need yet more spot rules in a system already overladen with them. 

So in the end you just have to accept that for all its fiddliness and granularity RQ is not and cannot and should not be a realistic combat simulator.  

I think we can say that it all comes from a model for damage that is inherited from D&D and basically considers that "damage" is essentially kinetic energy. Hence the higher damage output for big weapons, and the bonus damage for strong and massive opponents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mugen said:

I think we can say that it all comes from a model for damage that is inherited from D&D and basically considers that "damage" is essentially kinetic energy. Hence the higher damage output for big weapons, and the bonus damage for strong and massive opponents.

Which is why I like the impale rule as implemented in the earlier versions of RQ and also BGB, where a lighter weapon such as a short sword can do more damage than a heavier one on a special success, simulating the effect of precision in contrast to brute force. This effect was unfortunately neutralised in RQG by also giving slashing weapons double damage on specials. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...