Just musing about Specials...

[Lloyd Dupont]

With impale doing double weapon damage, impaling weapoon seems the absolute king of the battle field, ain't they?

And with double bonus damage on blunt weapons.. those monster paw are deadly!!

 Poor bleeding weapons.. they are so weak! 😞

 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Lloyd Dupont

[Atgxtg]

Yeah, that's pretty much been the case since the early days. The old RQ slashing crticals used to help edged weapons, but back then impales did max+rolled. 

BTW, monster paws aren't exactly blunt. 

Oh, and if you wanted to downgrade impales there are a few options. I've known some GMs who only double the damage after armor, the idea being that it's not exactly easy to skewer someone in plate armor. 

 

[Lloyd Dupont]

Double damage after armor! that is great! Loving it! 🙂

Don't most monster do crushing specials?

Edited July 7, 2023 by Lloyd Dupont

[Barak Shathur]

I find the weapon specials really well balanced, and they are one of the things I really love about BRP. If you check the melee weapon tables, impaling weapons tend to do less basic damage than slashing ones (usually 1d6+1 vs 1d8+1/2). So a slashing weapon does more damage on a regular hit, while impaling weapons do better on specials. Both are thus interesting choices. This dynamic disappears in e.g. RQG, where both do double damage on specials but slashers have the same higher base damage, making the latter the no brainer choice par excellence, and I think the same will happen in BRP if you downgrade impales. Also remember that impaling weapons get stuck. A PC in my campaign died because he couldn't dislodge his spear from the orc boss in time. But it's your choice of course, it's all a matter of taste. 

Crushing weapons also tend to do slightly less basic damage than slashing ones in BRP, and thus only make sense to use if you have 1d6 damage bonus or more (after which DB increases almost exponentially). I don't love this as much, but at least it gives a certain meaning to crushing weapons -  they become brutal weapons for big brutes. My favourite version is RQIII, where according to the errata crushing weapons halve the AP of flexible armour (like mail) on each hit, not just specials. Realism and simplicity in one!

I think impaling specials are one of RQ's great contributions to simulationism, making spears really attractive in contrast to D&D's sword fetishism.

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

The old RQ slashing crticals used to help edged weapons, but back then impales did max+rolled.

Which version was this? In RQIII, slash and crush specials simply created a higher likelihood of knockdown, nothing else. 

 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Barak Shathur

[Mark Mohrfield]

12 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Which version was this? In RQIII, slash and crush specials simply created a higher likelihood of knockdown, nothing else.

RQ2. The impaling rules were standard, the slashing rules were optional and presented in the appendix.

[Barak Shathur]

1 minute ago, Mark Mohrfield said:

RQ2. The impaling rules were standard, the slashing rules were optional and presented in the appendix.

Oh. And what were they?

[Atgxtg]

35 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

I find the weapon specials really well balanced, and they are one of the things I really love about BRP. If you check the melee weapon tables, impaling weapons tend to do less basic damage than slashing ones (usually 1d6+1 vs 1d8+1/2).

Not really. Look at broadsword, long spear, pike, lance, etc. There really isn't much of a drop compared to slashing weapons. A handful of slashing weapons do a point more than a comparable impaling weapon, but usually at the cost of defense, as wooden hafted weapons tend to break easier. And a 1 popint difference doesn't compare the double damage of the impale. 

35 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

So a slashing weapon does more damage on a regular hit, while impaling weapons do better on specials.

Not really. Impaling weapons hold their own with most of the slashing weapons. You might have a one point advantage with some weapons, but usually at a cost elsewhere. For instance a Pike (2D6+1) has a better SR , lower DEX requirement,cost less, and  and more hit points than a Rhompilia (2D6+2). 

If we bring up mounted combat then impales are unmatched, since not many PCs can match the db of a horse.

35 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Crushing weapons also tend to do slightly less basic damage than slashing ones in BRP, and thus only make sense to use if you have 1d6 damage bonus or more (after which DB increases almost exponentially). I don't love this as much, but at least it gives a certain meaning to crushing weapons -  they become brutal weapons for big brutes.

The RQ2 crush was nasty for big brutes too.

35 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

 

 

My favourite version is RQIII, where according to the errata crushing weapons halve the AP of flexible armour (like mail) on each hit, not just specials. Realism and simplicity in one!

Semi-realism. Padding is very effective against blunt weapons in real life. I rather be wearing a nice gambeson that curibouilli if hit by a mace. But in the RQ3 errata half of armor protection was the padding.

35 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

I think impaling specials are one of RQ's great contributions to simulationism, making spears really attractive in contrast to D&D's sword fetishism.

I think it helps to mirror the late bronze early iron age battlefield, where spears dominated. In fact, historically spears still dominated the battlefield until superseded by firearms. Knife and Spear (bayonet) are still the secondary weapons today. 

 

The "sword fetishism" thing is due to sword having more status historically and in the legends. Everybody cam name (at least one of) King Arthur's swords, but few ever know about Rhongomiant. So I think it's less of a game system thing and more of a genre thing. D&D went with a model Medieval/High Fantasty/LotR model while RQ was made for Glorantha. Had D&D been based on, say, Ancient Greece, the sword probably won't have been showcased.

35 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Which version was this? In RQIII, slash and crush specials simply created a higher likelihood of knockdown, nothing else. 

 

RQ1-2. The Slash rule was one of the many optional rules tucked away in the legendary RQ appendix.  The Slash let you roll your weapon damage twice, and weapons got stuck like with impales. . At the time, as I mentioned previously, impales were max+rolled and so were still  technically better than slashes, but this was still nasty. Especially since some of the two handed weapons. A slashing greatsword doing 4D8 or a slashing pole axe doing 6D6, might not match the autokill/location take out that   1D10+12 longspear or 2D6+14 pike had in RQ2, but not by much.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Atgxtg

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Mark Mohrfield said:

RQ2. The impaling rules were standard, the slashing rules were optional and presented in the appendix.

Point for beating me to the post.😊

[Barak Shathur]

57 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Not really. Look at broadsword, long spear, pike, lance, etc. There really isn't much of a drop compared to slashing weapons. A handful of slashing weapons do a point more than a comparable impaling weapon, but usually at the cost of defense, as wooden hafted weapons tend to break easier. And a 1 popint difference doesn't compare the double damage of the impale. 

Not sure what tables you're looking at here. Since this is the BRP forum, I'm talking about BRP (latest version specifically, but I believe in this respect it's identical to BGB). None of the 1H impaling weapons do more than 1d6+1 damage, (with the exception of Lance, but only when used on horseback), while almost all of the 1H slashing weapons do 1d8+1, 1d8+2 or 1d10+1 damage. When human limbs have 4 or 5 hp, this is a considerable difference. Of course, this only applies if you use hit locations.

And weapon HP is around 15 to 20 for almost all weapons in BRP, they aren't going to break that easily. 

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Not really. Impaling weapons hold their own with most of the slashing weapons. You might have a one point advantage with some weapons, but usually at a cost elsewhere. For instance a Pike (2D6+1) has a better SR , lower DEX requirement,cost less, and  and more hit points than a Rhompilia (2D6+2). 

Current BRP doesn't have SR or Rhompilias, and Pike does 1d10+2. Maybe you're looking at RQG?

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

If we bring up mounted combat then impales are unmatched, since not many PCs can match the db of a horse.

As it should be.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

The RQ2 crush was nasty for big brutes too.

I'll take your word for it. Not that familiar with RQ2. 

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Semi-realism. Padding is very effective against blunt weapons in real life. I rather be wearing a nice gambeson that curibouilli if hit by a mace. But in the RQ3 errata half of armor protection was the padding.

I respectfully disagree 100%. A nice gambeson isn't going to do much against a mace unless you have something stiff on top to spread the impact. The combination however is very effective.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

I think it helps to mirror the late bronze early iron age battlefield, where spears dominated. In fact, historically spears still dominated the battlefield until superseded by firearms. Knife and Spear (bayonet) are still the secondary weapons today. 

Yep. Spears dominated battle fields since they in addition to being cheap and having good armour penetration had reach, which is crucial in mass combat, and as you say not just during the Bronze Age. In a duel however they are quite limited. Against someone of equal competence armed with e.g. a sword and shield, you basically have one shot before he's ducked inside your spear point, putting you on your backfoot completely.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

The "sword fetishism" thing is due to sword having more status historically and in the legends. Everybody cam name (at least one of) King Arthur's swords, but few ever know about Rhongomiant. So I think it's less of a game system thing and more of a genre thing. D&D went with a model Medieval/High Fantasty/LotR model while RQ was made for Glorantha. Had D&D been based on, say, Ancient Greece, the sword probably won't have been showcased.

Well, the two game systems I mentioned represent two different genres. So yes, it's a matter of game system in this case. I think you're contradicting yourself a little here.

 

[Atgxtg]

19 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Not sure what tables you're looking at here.

Quite a few, since the slash rule was brought up. In RQ3 Broadsword impales. Most of the examples I gave, and the slash rule  were from RQ2.

19 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Since this is the BRP forum, I'm talking about BRP (latest version specifically, but I believe in this respect it's identical to BGB).

Remember the BRP forum is a catch all for all BRP games not just the BGB. THe OP in thise case is also working on his own variant rule and is going over various bits and pieces of the rules to see what he wants.

19 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

None of the 1H impaling weapons do more than 1d6+1 damage, (with the exception of Lance, but only when used on horseback),

That's true in the BGB but not in other BRP games. RQ2, and RQ3 both hand 1H impaling weapons that did more than 1D6+1.

19 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

 

while almost all of the 1H slashing weapons do 1d8+1, 1d8+2 or 1d10+1 damage.

Hand Axe, Claw and Wakizashi are about in in the BGB.

19 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

When human limbs have 4 or 5 hp, this is a considerable difference. Of course, this only applies if you use hit locations.

In BGB/UGE BRP that is true. But it's not true in all BRP games. 

19 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

And weapon HP is around 15 to 20 for almost all weapons in BRP, they aren't going to break that easily. 

Again only in BGB/UGE. Other versions of BRP use other breakage methods.

19 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Current BRP doesn't have SR or Rhompilias, and Pike does 1d10+2. Maybe you're looking at RQG?

Current version of BRP isn't the only BRP game. Remeber this furm of the site covers nmore that just the BGB.

19 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

As it should be.

Not really. I mean a swung sword, ace or mace from a horseman riding by at 30 mph should still benefit from the charge. Not as much as an impaling weapon, but it should still hit harder than someone just swinging the thing. ANd the's not so much the sharp point that makes it more deadly by the fact that you are getting all the horses momentum behind it. A quarterstaff could be deadly in a charge. 

19 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

I'll take your word for it. Not that familiar with RQ2. 

You don't have to take my word. The rule was that you got to add your db in twice. So obviously, a big brute with a high db, such as a troll could get really scary with the crush rule. Even something like a singlestick (1D6) could be nasty if wielded by a Troll with a few points of of the Strength spell up, and a current db of 3d6.

 

In general the crush and slash options were something of a mixed bag. While they did help level the playing field somewhat against impaling weapons, they also made an already fairly deadly RPG more lethal, as an unparried special would usually take out a hit location.

19 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

I respectfully disagree 100%. A nice gambeson isn't going to do much against a mace unless you have something stiff on top to spread the impact. The combination however is very effective.

Okay, you disagree. However having worn mail over padding I can say it's quite effective against impact. The mail will spread out the impact as the links pull on each other. I soft armor was so ineffective vs blunt weapons as you think then mail wouldn't have been so prevalent. 

The real advantage from maces and such is that they tend to be a little heavier than cutting weapons with more of the weaight in the head so they tend to have more of an impact. 

19 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Yep. Spears dominated battle fields since they in addition to being cheap and having good armour penetration had reach, which is crucial in mass combat, and as you say not just during the Bronze Age.

 

Not to mention the fact that they can be used in formation with multiple spearman being able to attack an oncoming foe. 

Most of the little perks for weapon type is really a game design thing. People look at tables of weapons and compare stats that wouldn't even be known in real life. Players wonder why people would use one weapon when some other weapon on the table is clearly better. Except it is only clearly better on the RPG tables. That's why daggers tend to suck in RPGs. In RPG terms they tend not to do much damage compared to other weapons, lack reach, aren't very durable, etc. In real life they are very useful can kill and are still issued to soldier instead of "better" weapons. 

19 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

In a duel however they are quite limited. Against someone of equal competence armed with e.g. a sword and shield, you basically have one shot before he's ducked inside your spear point, putting you on your backfoot completely.

No.Go look up Lidybeige's Sword vs Spear video- the long one. The spearman has the advantage over the swordsman, especially if they are of equal skill, and it is not that easy to close on a spearman without getting stabbed, and more than once.. Thrusting weapons like spears are faster than swinging weapons too, so the spearman will tend to get more than one attack. The Romans expected to get three thrusts with a spear or gladius to one swing from a sword or axe.

19 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Well, the two game systems I mentioned represent two different genres. So yes, it's a matter of game system in this case. I think you're contradicting yourself a little here.

Yes it's a matter of genres. That's the point. D&D was modeled on medieval combat with some high fantasy elements tossed in. RQ was based on bronze-iron age combat from Glorantha. Now BRP came out of RuneQuest (not the other way around), and the BGB and current UGE came from a various BRP games such as Strombringer, RuneQuest and Call of Cthulhu. So they reflect the impaling weapon bias of the source (Glorantha). Had RQ been a medieval RPG, or D&D been a Ancient Greece RPG the rules would have been different.

 

[Barak Shathur]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Quite a few, since the slash rule was brought up. In RQ3 Broadsword impales. Most of the examples I gave, and the slash rule  were from RQ2.

This being the BRP forum, and since there are separate forums for RQ and Stormbringer, I'm basing my response on the BRP system. If you're including other systems it changes the nature of the discussion quite a bit. Yes, in RQIII (and RQG), broadswords can both slash and impale, while warhammers can crush and impale. 

 

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Remember the BRP forum is a catch all for all BRP games not just the BGB. THe OP in thise case is also working on his own variant rule and is going over various bits and pieces of the rules to see what he wants.

See above. I'm curious whether the OP is basing his game on BRP or all the various systems mentioned.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

That's true in the BGB but not in other BRP games. RQ2, and RQ3 both hand 1H impaling weapons that did more than 1D6+1.

Indeed, and the weapon tables were balanced slightly differently as a result (mainly talking about RQIII here).

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Hand Axe, Claw and Wakizashi are about in in the BGB.

I think there's a typo here but yes, these represent lighter slashing weapons. Note that I said 'most', not 'all'. If you compare the best 1H slashing vs impaling weapons in BGB my point stands.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Not really. I mean a swung sword, ace or mace from a horseman riding by at 30 mph should still benefit from the charge. Not as much as an impaling weapon, but it should still hit harder than someone just swinging the thing. ANd the's not so much the sharp point that makes it more deadly by the fact that you are getting all the horses momentum behind it. A quarterstaff could be deadly in a charge.

I generally agree here, and I guess I accept the simplification that leaves mounted lances as far and above the most effective weapon for mounted charges. I'd say the leverage of a lance pointed directly at a surface is far greater than that of a swung sword, axe or mace, but yes, realistically they too ought to benefit from the extra momentum imparted by the mount. But then you'd have to add some sub-rule for these weapons (maybe increase rider's DB, or add mount's DB but stepped down one level, or...). More overhead in other words.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Okay, you disagree. However having worn mail over padding I can say it's quite effective against impact. The mail will spread out the impact as the links pull on each other. I soft armor was so ineffective vs blunt weapons as you think then mail wouldn't have been so prevalent. 

The real advantage from maces and such is that they tend to be a little heavier than cutting weapons with more of the weaight in the head so they tend to have more of an impact. 

Having also worn mail over padding (both heavy and light, flexible and stiff) and fought with blunt weapons (SCA rattan swords) I'd say mail over padding certainly helps, but not near as much as cuir bouillie over padding, not to mention plate. The weight of mail, especially as it swings like a heavy curtain at various distances from the body, can catch some of the impact of a blow, and the padding then reduces it even more. Mail that hangs directly over the padding, such as over the shoulders, does squat for a direct hit in that spot. 

The reason mail was prevalent was that most hand weapons in the historical eras we are discussing were edged or pointed weapons, the reason which being that they are most effective against lightly armoured foes, which most partakers in battles (a lot of peasant levies) up to the renaissance tended to be. And mail excels against these weapons, since they rely more on slashing and piercing than crushing. Maces, warhammers and axes are indeed heavier (in particular more top heavy). They are shorter and slower than swords and spears, making them easier to evade for a lightly armoured fighter. But where a sword might have trouble taking down a mailed opponent, a good hit from a flanged mace would probably break something on the inside. So again, your statement here proves my point. 

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

No.Go look up Lidybeige's Sword vs Spear video- the long one. The spearman has the advantage over the swordsman, especially if they are of equal skill, and it is not that easy to close on a spearman without getting stabbed, and more than once.. Thrusting weapons like spears are faster than swinging weapons too, so the spearman will tend to get more than one attack. The Romans expected to get three thrusts with a spear or gladius to one swing from a sword or axe.

Yes. I've watched it before, though I can't remember if it was the longer or shorter version, and I hashed it out on the Mythras forum a year or two ago. To begin with, most of the fights where the spear wielder was matched against a single broadsword fighter, the spear won - as he should, here the spear gets the full advantage of it's greater reach. However, broadswords (arming swords really) were never intended to be used without a shield. And the sword and shield combination beats the spearman handily most of the time in this video. This is the situation most representative of historical reality. Also, the weapons look impossibly light, and the spearman's stabs are just touches (he doesn't want to injure his sparring partner, obviously!) which wouldn't be near enough to stop a real opponent. He would have to commit much more to each stab, preventing him from stabbing with such frequency and putting him more off balance and less able to retreat so quickly. And if they were wearing armour...forget about it. You could never retreat as quickly as your opponent advances without losing your balance eventually.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes it's a matter of genres. That's the point. D&D was modeled on medieval combat with some high fantasy elements tossed in. RQ was based on bronze-iron age combat from Glorantha. Now BRP came out of RuneQuest (not the other way around), and the BGB and current UGE came from a various BRP games such as Strombringer, RuneQuest and Call of Cthulhu. So they reflect the impaling weapon bias of the source (Glorantha). Had RQ been a medieval RPG, or D&D been a Ancient Greece RPG the rules would have been different.

You keep making my point!

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

This being the BRP forum, and since there are separate forums for RQ and Stormbringer,

This is the general BRP forum, for all BRP based games, not one specific to the BGB, All the various systems mentioned as as much BRP as the BGB. BRP was always Chasoium's umbrella term for it's various RPGs.  Plus considering that the BGB itself was cobbled together from previous Chasoium games using the "basic role playing system" they aren't "other systems" they are the BGB sources. At least 90% of the BGB comes from those other games.

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

 

 

I'm basing my response on the BRP system.

Then why did you bring up the RQ3 blunt weapons vs. flexible armor rule? If you can go outside the BGB why can't anyone else?

If you are going to jump into a conversation and bring in RQ3 then you can hardly claim that you are sticking only to the BGB.

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

If you're including other systems it changes the nature of the discussion quite a bit. Yes, in RQIII (and RQG), broadswords can both slash and impale, while warhammers can crush and impale. 

Other systems were included from the get go, and you incldued RQ3 when you brought up the blunt weapon vs. flexible armor rule from RQ3. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

See above. I'm curious whether the OP is basing his game on BRP or all the various systems mentioned.

 

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

Indeed, and the weapon tables were balanced slightly differently as a result (mainly talking about RQIII here).

Balanced slightly different as a result to what? Could you clarify your statement here.

I think the main reason why the damages different from RQ2 and RW3 is that the authors drew more heavily from other BRP games such as Strombringer.

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

I think there's a typo here but yes, these represent lighter slashing weapons. Note that I said 'most', not 'all'. If you compare the best 1H slashing vs impaling weapons in BGB my point stands.

If we have to compare just "the best" weapons then I say your point doesn't stand. But your point that 1H thrusting weapons are limited to 1D6+1 in the BGB holds true. 

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

I generally agree here, and I guess I accept the simplification that leaves mounted lances as far and above the most effective weapon for mounted charges. I'd say the leverage of a lance pointed directly at a surface is far greater than that of a swung sword, axe or mace, but yes, realistically they too ought to benefit from the extra momentum imparted by the mount. But then you'd have to add some sub-rule for these weapons (maybe increase rider's DB, or add mount's DB but stepped down one level, or...). More overhead in other words.

Yeah, but not much overhead. Basically something like adding half the db (1d3 per d6) would do it and it could be incorporated into the existing charge rule. In fact, I could see adding something for partial db when someone doesn't get fully up to speed. 

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

Having also worn mail over padding (both heavy and light, flexible and stiff) and fought with blunt weapons (SCA rattan swords) I'd say mail over padding certainly helps, but not near as much as cuir bouillie over padding, not to mention plate. The weight of mail, especially as it swings like a heavy curtain at various distances from the body, can catch some of the impact of a blow, and the padding then reduces it even more. Mail that hangs directly over the padding, such as over the shoulders, does squat for a direct hit in that spot. 

It sure did more that squat for me on the shoulders. Now I was getting hit with bamboo and even a blunt steel sword (stupid thing to do), but padding stopped quite a bit.

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

The reason mail was prevalent was that most hand weapons in the historical eras we are discussing were edged or pointed weapons, the reason which being that they are most effective against lightly armoured foes, which most partakers in battles (a lot of peasant levies) up to the renaissance tended to be.

But if maces were more effective against mail then those other weapons wouldn't have been so prevalent. It became the armor of choice becase it was the best armor of available until plate came along.

Look if some weapon showed a marked advantage over other weapons, and is cheaper and easier to produce then everybody would use it. If maces could just blow through mail then everybody who wanted to take down a knight would have grabbed a mace or a tree limb.

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

 

 

And mail excels against these weapons, since they rely more on slashing and piercing than crushing. Maces, warhammers and axes are indeed heavier (in particular more top heavy). They are shorter and slower than swords and spears, making them easier to evade for a lightly armoured fighter.

Mace was also quite effective (with padding)) against maces and other blunt weapons. Otherwise it wouldn't have lasted as long as it did. THe only reason why mail went out of service was that plate became cheaper to make.

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

But where a sword might have trouble taking down a mailed opponent, a good hit from a flanged mace would probably break something on the inside.

If that were true then knights would have had the mace as their preferred weapon over the sword, as they were more likely to fight armored foes. 

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

 

 

So again, your statement here proves my point. 

. You disagreed with my statement, then made one of your own about what "probably" might happen. So how did my statement prove your point? 

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

Yes. I've watched it before, though I can't remember if it was the longer or shorter version, and I hashed it out on the Mythras forum a year or two ago. To begin with, most of the fights where the spear wielder was matched against a single broadsword fighter, the spear won - as he should, here the spear gets the full advantage of it's greater reach.

Which was what I said. 

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

However, broadswords (arming swords really) were never intended to be used without a shield.

Which wasn't what you said previously. You said Sword had an advantage vs. Spear. It doesn't. Sword and Shield vs. Spear is a different situation.

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

And the sword and shield combination beats the spearman handily most of the time in this video.

And all of the fighters are more experienced with sword than with a spear. That showed just how much of an advantage the spear gave. 

Note that when the spearman also carries a shield (although that negates his reach) or works in a group things shift again.

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

This is the situation most representative of historical reality.

No the historical reality would have a group of spearmen fighting together. Not facing off against swordmen one on one. 

Plus also historically most people who carry a sword had more experience that those with a spear, since the sword was a more expensive weapon of the upper classes, `who tended to be trained warriors, as opposed to most spear wielders, who were not. And experience is the biggest advantage.

 

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

Also, the weapons look impossibly light,

Not to me. I've seen real weapons, they aren't all that heavy.

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

and the spearman's stabs are just touches (he doesn't want to injure his sparring partner, obviously!) which wouldn't be near enough to stop a real opponent.

Yes, his touches are light, and wouldn't be near enough to stop a real opponent, so what? The same was true with the swordsman's attacks, yet I don't see you mentioning that. Naturally both combatants could have hit harder and really inflicted serious injuries or death. That they didn't doesn't invalidate the results.

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

He would have to commit much more to each stab, preventing him from stabbing with such frequency and putting him more off balance and less able to retreat so quickly.

And he still should recover and react faster than the swordsman would be able to with the sword. 

 

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

And if they were wearing armour...forget about it. You could never retreat as quickly as your opponent advances without losing your balance eventually.

That's your claim, but you provide nothing to back it up other than your say so. In real fighting spearmen did backpedal, and they did fend off aggressive attackers. Men hunted with spears, for reasons. And "eventually" could be long after he skewered the swordsman. 

[SDLeary]

8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Semi-realism. Padding is very effective against blunt weapons in real life. I rather be wearing a nice gambeson that curibouilli if hit by a mace. But in the RQ3 errata half of armor protection was the padding.

Padding was only 1 or 2 points. So outer flexible armor (I would really restrict this to Maille, scale is much more resilient in this case) plus padding, halved with clubs, maces, etc. 

AFA a gambeson, now that's a much heavier padded garment; many more layers, more padding in between. Much heftier than an arming doublet/aketon.

SDLeary

[Lloyd Dupont]

I am trying to go with rule as written as much as possible here... so BGB...

The big part of the rule changes will be Perks (stunt, whatever you called them) and Magic (1. both Spell and Perk use INT slot, 2. Spell have 'branches' - spatial, soul, elementalism, nature, etc... - and 3. Spells have rank/level -1 to 3 or 5 TBD), beyond that I only tweaks things here and there that tickles me, and I try to keep it to a minimum...

And this unexpectedly great discussion has convinced me to go all in with the BRP combat as is.... though I am still adding a Sunder and a Hooking specials

And Iast, as I woke up, I realize, many monster special might be Bleeding instead of Crushing in fact..

[Atgxtg]

13 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Padding was only 1 or 2 points.

Yeah, RQ (and most other RPGs) undervalue padding. It's really what soaks up most of the damage. The mail, scale, etc. stops the sharp edges and points from penetrating, but the padding absorbs most of the impact. Not that the metal didn't help, just that a big thick cushion is made to soak impact. 

13 hours ago, SDLeary said:

 

So outer flexible armor (I would really restrict this to Maille, scale is much more resilient in this case)

It depends on the backing for scale. Scale on lather, yeah it's more resilient and even semi-rigid. Scale on Cloth, less so. 

13 hours ago, SDLeary said:

 

plus padding, halved with clubs, maces, etc. 

Yes, I know how RQ3 did it, I'm just saying that's not how it really works. Padding is what is essential in stopping/absorbing impact, and that's what it is the foundation for all the orther armors. No body wears just scale or just plate, they wear in over a foundation of padding. 

13 hours ago, SDLeary said:

AFA a gambeson, now that's a much heavier padded garment; many more layers, more padding in between. Much heftier than an arming doublet/aketon.

SDLeary

The gamebson is an arming doublet/aketon. Its the same thing. 

[Atgxtg]

13 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

I am trying to go with rule as written as much as possible here... so BGB...

It's your game go with it.

13 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

The big part of the rule changes will be Perks (stunt, whatever you called them) and Magic (1. both Spell and Perk use INT slot, 2. Spell have 'branches' - spatial, soul, elementalism, nature, etc... - and 3. Spells have rank/level -1 to 3 or 5 TBD), beyond that I only tweaks things here and there that tickles me, and I try to keep it to a minimum...

And this unexpectedly great discussion has convinced me to go all in with the BRP combat as is.... though I am still adding a Sunder and a Hooking specials

Even that isn't quite clear cut, as there are a lot of options in BRP as is. Are you going to use hit locations and sectional armor, etc. 

With the Sunder special does it just automatically break the opponent's weapon  on a special or is there some sort of roll the prevent that? Do the hit points,the weapon quality,etc or the parry object matter or is it just special = broken weapon? 

13 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

And Iast, as I woke up, I realize, many monster special might be Bleeding instead of Crushing in fact..

The claws and teeth on predators are made to tear and rend fur and flesh so that their prey can be eaten. So bleeding makes sense. Crushing would probably made more sense for herbivores who have to mash up plant matter. 

[Lloyd Dupont]

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Even that isn't quite clear cut, as there are a lot of options in BRP as is. Are you going to use hit locations and sectional armor, etc. 

I am glad you ask. I do prefer location HP but I am becoming increasingly convinced that location HP don't work very well with BRP.
- first there is the ridiculously high weapon damage. even though this could be overlook.
- but all sort of area damage got broken. Dragon does 4D6, it's super deadly. Now with location I divide by 7. 24 becomes 3 or 4, almost but a scratch? and should I subtract armor from that? Classic Fantasy - Mythras is better written for area damage + localized HP in my mind, but I was planning to use BGB monster and the Big Book of Monsters (written for BGB as well)
- what about poison?

All of that to say.. got any advice for smoothly using localized HP?

BTW, those characteristic penalty on the major wound table, like -D6 CON.. are they permanent?

Anyway an idea that crossed my mind but feels gimmicky is to use General HP but location wound. i.e. all damage is general but if a single attack's damage is high enough for a wound, I'll inflict it, and also limit damage to twice the limb HP. That said, area attack and poison will always be without location and cap and perhaps use the major wound table?

 

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

With the Sunder special does it just automatically break the opponent's weapon  on a special or is there some sort of roll the prevent that?

I was thinking, if the damage exceeds the armor, the damage can be applied to the armor instead of the target. On a crit when armor doesn't count, the armor might even be destroyed in 1 hit...

Edited July 9, 2023 by Lloyd Dupont

[SDLeary]

10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

The gamebson is an arming doublet/aketon. Its the same thing. 

In the broadest sense, yes they are the same thing. However there are differences. 

An Arming Doublet is specifically designed to be a base layer for a type of armor, primarily designed to pad against chafing of the armor itself, but also able to absorb some force that armor might allow through. In the case of later doublets, also have tassels or buckles to attach voiders, or actually have voiders sewn onto, to cover gaps in the armor. In the case of not being able to fully arm, a doublet can give some minimal protection.

A Gambeson (the way most think about them) was designed primarily as an outer garment, often though not always reaching the knees. There is some evidence that it was worn under armor, starting in the 12c, but has also been used on its own from about the 10c. and is believed to have been used on its own long before that. Some sources state that a Gambeson had padding that made the garment two thumbs thick, and fairly rigid. Not something you really want to wear under armor that will restrict things further. At least in England, the Gambeson was replaced by the Buff Coat.

SDLeary

P.S. – An interesting but lengthily discussion over at MyArmoury HERE.

P.P.S. – And the obligatory (questionable?) quote from Wikipedia.

Quote

There are two distinctive designs of gambeson: those designed to be worn beneath another armour, and those designed to be worn as independent armour. The latter tend to be thicker and higher in the collar, and faced with other materials, such as leather, or heavy canvas. This variant is usually referred to as padded jack and made of several (some say around 18,[7] some even 30[8]) layers of cotton, linen or wool. These jacks were known to stop even heavy arrows[8] and their design of multiple layers bears a striking resemblance to modern day body armour, which substituted at first silk, ballistic nylon and later Kevlar as fabric.

 

[SDLeary]

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

I am glad you ask. I do prefer location HP but I am becoming increasingly convinced that location HP don't work very well with BRP.
- first there is the ridiculously high weapon damage. even though this could be overlook.
- but all sort of area damage got broken. Dragon does 4D6, it's super deadly. Now with location I divide by 7. 24 becomes 3 or 4, almost but a scratch? and should I subtract armor from that? Classic Fantasy - Mythras is better written for area damage + localized HP in my mind, but I was planning to use BGB monster and the Big Book of Monsters (written for BGB as well)
- what about poison?

All of that to say.. got any advice for smoothly using localized HP?

Not for using localized HP, but for modifying the system for better results:

• Use Heroic Hit Points (SIZ+CON)
• Figure location HP as normal

Use resulting values as Major Wound threshold values for said location and: 

• Any wound under the value in a single blow is a regular wound, no major effects, but it still hurts like hell.
• Any wound at or over the value in a single blow is a Major Wound; suggested to follow guidance from BRP:UGE p.133 "Damage Equal to or More Than the Location's Hit Points"
• Any wound double the value or above in a single blow is a Critical Wound; suggested to follow "Damage Equals or Exceeds Double the Locations Hit Points"
• Any. wound triple the value or above in a single blow is a Mortal Wound; limbs are irrevocably maimed or severed. Head, chest, or abdomen shots result in death

Note that you are still reducing Total HP for these wounds, so you can still die from a thousand cuts.

SDLeary

[Lloyd Dupont]

6 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Figure location HP as normal

Do you mean that, say chest, is 4/10 of (CON+SIZ)/2 or (CON+SIZ) when using heroic HP?
Perhaps I should use heoric HP.. dying from just a short fist fight is way too easy in BRP ^^
 

Anyway, with the suggestion outlined.. it seemed to me to go with the latest idea I had but was unsure about, i.e.
 

7 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Anyway an idea that crossed my mind but feels gimmicky is to use General HP but location wound. i.e. all damage is general but if a single attack's damage is high enough for a wound, I'll inflict it, and also limit damage to twice the limb HP. That said, area attack and poison will always be without location and cap and perhaps use the major wound table?

So, I take it, this is not just my idea. It's a common one. And obviously a reasonable one. Perhaps even good hey? 🙂
I might use that after all then....

[NickMiddleton]

9 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

…
- but all sort of area damage got broken. Dragon does 4D6, it's super deadly. Now with location I divide by 7. 24 becomes 3 or 4, almost but a scratch? and should I subtract armor from that? Classic Fantasy - Mythras is better written for area damage + localized HP in my mind, but I was planning to use BGB monster and the Big Book of Monsters (written for BGB as well)

Dragon breath in UGE differs from the BGB and is I’d suggest an error in transcription. The BGB version is quite explicit: “If the optional hit location system is being used, this damage affects each of the target’s hit locations: 4D6 is rolled once; and the damage is applied to all hit locations equally.” I.E. one 4D6 roll, average 14, so 14 points to each location…

 

9 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

- what about poison?

UGE and BGB seem aligned here; from UGE: “ If the poison overcomes your character’s CON, then its full POT is done as damage to hit points. If the poison does not overcome the character’s CON, it has a lessened effect—usually only doing half the poison’s POT in damage (round up). See page 186 for sample poisons. Poison damage is always damage to total hit points or to a characteristic.”

 

[Lloyd Dupont]

What is the UGE thing I see people talking about a lot recently?! 😮

Anyway I got the BGB2011 and the BGB2023 and.... mm.. checking the cover page... UGE is Universal Game Engine subtitle on the front page is it?
And BGB is the 2011 edition, because it's golden. 

Oh, I think I got it!! 😄 

Well.... if we correct this error in transcription, that really edges me towards single HP pool! 😄

Although SDLeary's suggestion, which more or less run along the alternative idea I had seems fine. Might ask my players what they think and go with that hey! ^_^
Still undecided about the heroic HP though...

Edited July 9, 2023 by Lloyd Dupont

[SDLeary]

4 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Do you mean that, say chest, is 4/10 of (CON+SIZ)/2 or (CON+SIZ) when using heroic HP?
Perhaps I should use heoric HP.. dying from just a short fist fight is way too easy in BRP ^^

Using Heroic HP. Raises Core thresholds (Chest, Abdomen) just enough to mitigate things a bit, while leaving limbs and head vulnerable.

 

4 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Anyway, with the suggestion outlined.. it seemed to me to go with the latest idea I had but was unsure about, i.e.

Similar. I took your quote to state that you were also still tracking the location points as well. Here, they are just values to be exceeded, with multiples of that value causing progressively more serious results. Only point track involved here is General HP.

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

13 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

I am glad you ask. I do prefer location HP but I am becoming increasingly convinced that location HP don't work very well with BRP.

It is possible to use hit locations without using location HP. 

13 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

- first there is the ridiculously high weapon damage. even though this could be overlook.

What makes you think the damage is ridiculously high? I'm not saying it is or isn't, I'm just trying to grasp what you mean. 

EDIT: Other than your dragon example. That is ridiculously high, but in also someone of a BGB one off.

13 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

- but all sort of area damage got broken. Dragon does 4D6, it's super deadly. Now with location I divide by 7. 24 becomes 3 or 4, almost but a scratch? and should I subtract armor from that? Classic Fantasy - Mythras is better written for area damage + localized HP in my mind, but I was planning to use BGB monster and the Big Book of Monsters (written for BGB as well)

Uh, no. You aren't supposed to divide the 4d6 by anything. Why should you? Getting hit by a living flamethrower is supposed to be super deadly. Now the BGB is the only version of dragon that have the breath attack each hit location though. Most other version of BRP have it attack general hit points or one hit location.

Also keep in mind that in BRP game hit location damage (with some exceptions) counts against general hit points too. So it's not like MRQ/Legend where character can get hacked apart like the Black Knight from Monty Python & the Holy Grail and keep fighting.

13 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

- what about poison?

In general you don't use hit locations for poison, mostly because poison doesn't usually just kill you right leg or paralyze your left arm while leaving the rest of you alive and okay. 

Most BRP games use the poison's POT vs. the victims CON on the resistance table and apple the damage to general hit points I tend to use POT vs. Hit Points as mass (SIZ) makes a huge difference in how much of a toxin (or drug) is required to have the desired effect. It is going to take a bit more poison to drop a 4 ton elephant that it would to drop me.  

13 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

All of that to say.. got any advice for smoothly using localized HP?

Well for the most part you aren't supposed to reduce damage. It is supposed to be nastier than general hit points. The idea is that people tend to get taken out of the fight when their lose limbs, or have their skull caved in, rather that keep on fighting until they are out of general hit points. 

Yes that means that a dragon that does 1D6+9D6 with it's claws is going to rip an unarmored man apart with a claw swipe. That is the intention. It's also why you don't see dragonslayer as a profession in BRP games  they way you do in, say, Warhammer.BRP in any form, isn't really the game to play giant monster hunters. 

 

13 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

BTW, those characteristic penalty on the major wound table, like -D6 CON.. are they permanent?

Yes. You see BRP combat isn't like D&D where character get hacked, bashed stabbed, burnt, etc., over and over yet aren't actually hurt all that much. In a BRP game a wound that causes a lost of hit points represents a serious injury. Once that will usually take weeks or even months to recover from without magical aid. Major wounds, served limbs and the like are indeed permanent injuries that will plague a character for the rest of their lives, although magic might, when available, be able to change that. 

But another aspect of this is that characters aren't supposed to take as much damage as they would in a D&D game. Most attacks against a PC adventurer should be parried or absorbed by armor, leaving them relatively unscathed. Any hit that inflicts more that 2 points of damage to the actual character is actually rather serious. A hit location reduced to zero hit points, or a major wound (depending on what rules you are using) is designed to take a character out of a fight and might be leathal or hanve long term effects. But if you PCs are taking major wounds all they time somebody is doing something wrong. 

 

This is sort of a basic core concept of the game, and something you should probably understand before messing with the game mechanics. 

 

13 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Anyway an idea that crossed my mind but feels gimmicky is to use General HP but location wound. i.e. all damage is general but if a single attack's damage is high enough for a wound, I'll inflict it, and also limit damage to twice the limb HP. That said, area attack and poison will always be without location and cap and perhaps use the major wound table?

Uh, that is pretty much how it is supposed to work. Let me give you a general overview of how damage works.

1. All damage is applied to general hit points. Poison,falling damage, crossbow bolts, dragon claws, broadswords, all get applied to general hit points.

2 If you are not using hit locations, then you usually use the random armor protection. So full suits of plate will protect for 1D10 or some such. 

3. If you are not using hit locations then any attack than inflicts damage equal to or greater than half of a character's total hit points is a major wound.

4. If you are using hit locations than you usually use sectional armor. So a mail byrnie would protect for 7 points, but only cover the chest, and abdomen.

5. If you are using hit locations then damage that gets past defenses is applied. to the hit location struct and to general hit points. This reflect that fact that someone can be incapacitated (reduced to below 3 HP) or killed (reduced to zero HP) without having any specific hit location disabled. For instance someone could get hit by mutiple arrows, each in a different location, and still drop from shock or blood loss. 

6. While hit locations appear more deadly on the surface, compared to general hit points, the reverse tends to be true. Random armor tends to characters taking more damaging hits, and hit locations usually result in a combatant being taken out of a fight before they are at death's door. 

7. As the BRP BGB/UGE cobbled rules from various previous BRP games, not every rule or variant was initially written to work together with every other rule.  Jason Durall himself noted on the forums that the old BRP rules were not all balanced with each other or play nice together.

GMs who want to incorporate something should consider how it works with other rules. . For instance the "MAGIC" rules for magicians in BRP evolved from the from the original Magic World booklet in Worlds of Wonder, which used general hit points, and (oddly enough) fixed armor protection, without any sort of major wound .  So it's damages work out well in a game that uses general hit points, fixed armor, and lacks major wounds. Use it with hit locations, random armor, or major wounds and it becomes much more deadly and powerful. A 3D6 fire attack was a serious attack that might drop or kill an armored warrior, in Magic World, but that same attack is far more dangerous if you use random armor and major wounds (looking at you Stormbringer). GMs really need to figure out what want and how it fits together with other rules. This wasn't a big deal for most of us when the BGB came out, as most of us already had some of the previous games where all these rules came from and so we knew what rule  worked with what other rule and what didn't, and why certain rules where used in game X but not in game Y. For instance, Magic World was a close as Chaosium got to a generic High Fantasy RPG and the rules were written to emulate that style of play. Strombringer reflects the world of Elric, RQ1-2 reflected the world of Gloratha, and so on, and well all knew that. But it makes it tougher on new GMs who get the whole thing dumped on their lap, without the history of where rules came from and why.

13 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

 

I was thinking, if the damage exceeds the armor, the damage can be applied to the armor instead of the target. On a crit when armor doesn't count, the armor might even be destroyed in 1 hit...

Uh, why? Nothing personal but I don't think you understand how combat in BRP is supposed to work. It is supposed to be brutal and nasty with people taking major wounds, losing limbs, getting run through by spears and such. Most of those injuries aren't things that characters are expected to shrug off and walk away from. It's just that such injuries should be happening to the NPCs far more often than to the PCs, thanks to the PCs being more highly skilled (better parry & dodge), better equipped (armor soaks more damage) and better magicked (protection/sorceror's armor, magical healing).

Now there are variants than make characters more resilient, and if you want that look at using rules and options that work towards that, and not use rules that work against that. For instance, using general hit points, fixed armor and no major woulds like Magic World did.

 

 

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

What is the UGE thing I see people talking about a lot recently?! 😮

UGE or Universal Game Engine is the new name for the latest release of the BRP BGB. It is basically the same game with a new layout, more color and updated errata. 

5 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Anyway I got the BGB2011 and the BGB2023 and.... mm.. checking the cover page... UGE is Universal Game Engine subtitle on the front page is it?
And BGB is the 2011 edition, because it's golden. 

Oh, I think I got it!! 😄 

 

Yup. That's it. 

5 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Well.... if we correct this error in transcription, that really edges me towards single HP pool! 😄

 

That might be more in line with what you want. To to be clear here, in most BRP games, combat is brtual and deadly, with parrying and armor being vital to character survival. PCs are excepted to get hit and hurt they way they are in D&D. Losing half you hit points in D&D probably means having a good fight, but losing half your hit points in a BRP game usually means you are out of the fight, and might be dead or permanently impaired.  That is the expected norm, and GMs/players should be aware of that or they will get a nasty surprise. 

That said there are variants designed to emulate other genres and styles of play that make the game less (or even more) deadly. IMO Strombringer has the most lethal mix with major wounds and random armor with Superworld probably the least lethal. Worlds of Wonder's Magic World with general hit points fixed armor, and no major wounds, might be the second least lethal. It's worth noting that  both Superworld and Magic World had the highest damage attacks in BRP. In most BRP games PCs won't have a 8D6 attack.  

5 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Although SDLeary's suggestion, which more or less run along the alternative idea I had seems fine. Might ask my players what they think and go with that hey! ^_^
Still undecided about the heroic HP though...

It all comes down to what sort of game you want to run and what you and your group expect. Then pick options that a tailored to that. You shouldn't pick a rule that you like without considering how it works in relation to you desired goals. If you want PCs to be able to soak 30 point damage spells (pretty much an autodrop in most games) then don't use rules like major wounds.