Bleeding Rules Questions

[frogspawner]

Are 'Bleeding' effect specials intended only to work when the blow actually penetrates armour and causes 1hp+ of damage? Other specials work irrespective of armour (including the Crushing 'stun' effect, I think).

Similarly with poisons. If a snake's d2 bite has to get through armour to have any effect, it doesn't seem likely enough to happen.

[aknaton]

Are 'Bleeding' effect specials intended only to work when the blow actually penetrates armour and causes 1hp+ of damage? Other specials work irrespective of armour (including the Crushing 'stun' effect, I think).

I would rule that at least 1 hp must penetrate the armor to have the bleeding to take effect. But thats me.

[Shaira]

Are 'Bleeding' effect specials intended only to work when the blow actually penetrates armour and causes 1hp+ of damage? Other specials work irrespective of armour (including the Crushing 'stun' effect, I think).

Similarly with poisons. If a snake's d2 bite has to get through armour to have any effect, it doesn't seem likely enough to happen.

Personally I'd say so, yup. That's how I've been playing it, although the rules aren't explicit. Otherwise you've got an effect which ignores armor - which seems very powerful for a "Special" result. I'd say the Special attack which has a Bleeding result must do at least 1HP damage for the Bleeding to kick off, otherwise no effect - that seems to be the principle which the other Specials use (ie Crush adds to your damage, but doesn't automatically punch through armour).

Re: poisons and so on - definitely. You need to at least do 1HP damage for poison to affect the target, IMHO. You can walk through a pit of poisonous vipers in steel boots, as long as one of them doesn't score a critical and clamber over the top! :-)

One thing I did notice in the rules when playing recently: the Chaotic Feature "Spits Acid 2D10 POT" doesn't automatically gel with the Acid Spot Rules (unless I'm missing something - quite possible ). We had a case where a Legionnaire in 7pt chain got sprayed with POT12 acid, and the rules didn't overtly cover that. I'm GMing a fantasy campaign, so scientific accuracy isn't all that critical with acid effects, etc, so I'm in two minds as to whether to just treat Acid almost as Poison (in this case with armor protecting, and the damage getting through requiring a CON roll to resist, possibly with 1pt of AP damage to the armor too) or to just say that the Chaotic Feature uses "Very Strong Acid" and use the spot rules, although the Chaotic Feature then becomes very powerful.

Cheers,

Sarah

[frogspawner]

I would rule that at least 1 hp must penetrate the armor to have the bleeding to take effect.

Personally I'd say so, yup. That's how I've been playing it, although the rules aren't explicit. Otherwise you've got an effect which ignores armor - which seems very powerful for a "Special" result. I'd say the Special attack which has a Bleeding result must do at least 1HP damage for the Bleeding to kick off, otherwise no effect - that seems to be the principle which the other Specials use (ie Crush adds to your damage, but doesn't automatically punch through armour).

Thanks. I thought so too, but it seems to make slashing weapons rather inferior to crushing ones - because of that other Crush special effect, stunning. And other types, in fact - because their specials either make armour irrelevant (entangle, knockback, crush/stun) or help to punch through it (impale, crush/damage). Maybe the slash special should be a bit more effective - perhaps, doing 1hp damage minimum regardless of any armour...?

Re: poisons and so on - definitely. You need to at least do 1HP damage for poison to affect the target, IMHO. You can walk through a pit of poisonous vipers in steel boots, as long as one of them doesn't score a critical and clamber over the top! :-)

I know that's the official way, but it means a single deadly-poisonous snake is virtually no threat at all. I currently require a roll (something like CONx10) to avoid poisons, even if the bite/blow doesn't penetrate. That seems to me to restore the right level of fear... (Using my suggestion above might make this unnecessary, though).

One thing I did notice in the rules when playing recently: the Chaotic Feature "Spits Acid 2D10 POT" doesn't automatically gel with the Acid Spot Rules...

I see what you mean - it's a glitch caused by carrying the table directly over from RQ2. Slightly disappointing. But treating it as poisonous acid, of whatever strength (perhaps reflecting the 2d10 result, perhaps not), which has the rolled poison-potency if/when it gets through the armour, seems like a good fix.

[RosenMcStern]

Thanks. I thought so too, but it seems to make slashing weapons rather inferior to crushing ones - because of that other Crush special effect, stunning. And other types, in fact - because their specials either make armour irrelevant (entangle, knockback, crush/stun) or help to punch through it (impale, crush/damage).

Stun is a bit overpowered, yes. But the fact that a crushing weapon can break (or at least damage) the opponent's weapon on a special hit is dangerous, too. I like this effect, but why limit it to blunt weapons? All non-impalng weapons should be able to do this. The unbalance towards crushing weapons is the only thing I really do not like about the combat rules.

I would rather have blunt weapons do 1 pt. less damage as they did in RQ3. We have already debated this for long one month ago, and I am happy with the higher minimum and lower maximum of maces, but a Heavy Mace does the same average damage of the equivalent 2H sword and axe of the same size, and this makes not sense to me. Better drop maces to 1d6+2 and 1d4+2 for regular blows, and give weapon-breaking capabilities on special hits to all swinging weapons: if a light mace can break a spear, also a halberd can.

Maybe the slash special should be a bit more effective - perhaps, doing 1hp damage minimum regardless of any armour...?

The real problem is that, apart from the special effects (impale/bleed/stun) all weapons but slashing weapons have damage adjustments on a special hit. This is unbalancing. An option would be max damage (or less averaged damage: roll the dice twice and pick the best results) on a special hit with a slashing weapon, excluding martial arts.

BTW, the damage done by the hand-held dagger is possibly wrong: 1d4 when the knife is 1d3+1?

[NickMiddleton]

The real problem is that, apart from the special effects (impale/bleed/stun) all weapons but slashing weapons have damage adjustments on a special hit. This is unbalancing.

I don't personally see this as a problem though. I used to bother a lot about these sorts of details, and when I had the chance as a steel weapon re-enactor quizzed various historians, archaeologists and museum curators as well as doing a lot of reading about battlefield and forensic archaeology about actual weapon effects and the like. Plus some long conversations with various military types of my acquaintance (and a a trauma nurse with a PhD in the causes and treatment of head injuries).

In the end, my personal feeling is that actually, impaling archaic melee weapons ARE typically the most devastating, and that blunt (crushing) weapons ARE typically more (for high strength / mass combatants) effective than cutting (slashing) weapons. It's a generalisation, and probably only accurate to within an order of magnitude, but it's more than sufficiently close for gaming purposes.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[RosenMcStern]

Hmm, I think you can be right. Swords became really popular when metalworking improved, whereas the spear was the favoured weapon in the Ancient Era. The real advantage of swords over axes, spears and mauls is not in battle, but in the fact that you can easily carry them with you in a non-combat situation. There is no way you can carry a spear hanging from your belt! However, to really simulate this gamewise you must enforce the "No war weapons carried in cites" rule very strongly, which is not easily accomplished with all groups. There will always be someone who whines "Why can he carry his deadly shortsword with him while I must leave my harmless War Maul at the gates?"

In addition to this, swords can be used with very fine fencing techniques, but this is already covered by Martial Arts.

[frogspawner]

In the end, my personal feeling is that actually, impaling archaic melee weapons ARE typically the most devastating, and that blunt (crushing) weapons ARE typically more (for high strength / mass combatants) effective than cutting (slashing) weapons.

Are you sure? I've heard tell of axes being pretty nasty - and they're 'just' slashing weapons too.

The real advantage of swords over axes, spears and mauls is not in battle, but in the fact that you can easily carry them with you in a non-combat situation. ... In addition to this, swords can be used with very fine fencing techniques, but this is already covered by Martial Arts.

I'm not convinced of these points. Would swords not have to be handed-in too? And any weapon can have the Martial Arts ability applied to it, under the rules as they are, so that doesn't help (unless we say that should be restricted).

Might not the advantage of swords be that they could be used in an impaling manner, when circumstances allow? (Though this isn't within the rules either - yet).

[Jason D]

Are 'Bleeding' effect specials intended only to work when the blow actually penetrates armour and causes 1hp+ of damage? Other specials work irrespective of armour (including the Crushing 'stun' effect, I think).

Similarly with poisons. If a snake's d2 bite has to get through armour to have any effect, it doesn't seem likely enough to happen.

Both are correct.

A bleeding attack or a poison attack need to do at least 1 point of damage.

It makes bleeding attacks less immediately powerful, to be sure, but the ablative effect of a steady HP drain (potentially requiring immediate medical attention) balances it out.

[RosenMcStern]

I'm not convinced of these points. Would swords not have to be handed-in too? And any weapon can have the Martial Arts ability applied to it, under the rules as they are, so that doesn't help (unless we say that should be restricted).

Might not the advantage of swords be that they could be used in an impaling manner, when circumstances allow? (Though this isn't within the rules either - yet).

A light sword is often worn as a ceremonial weapon. It is certainly more justifiable than having characters walk aroung with polearms.

A martial arts school must exist in order to learn it for a weapon. I have never heard of a M.A. style for axes, but there are plenty of schools that teach advanced techniques with swords (fencing, kendo, etc.). Your RW Will Vary.

Finally, I have fought for ten years with players using broadswords mainly as impaling weapons and inventing all the weirdest explanation to have me introduce impaling bastard swords in RQ3. I do not want that madness back in BRP :shocked:

[frogspawner]

A bleeding attack or a poison attack need to do at least 1 point of damage.

Thanks for the confirmation - you can't get much more official than that!

A light sword is often worn as a ceremonial weapon. It is certainly more justifiable than having characters walk aroung with polearms.

A martial arts school must exist in order to learn it for a weapon. I have never heard of a M.A. style for axes, but there are plenty of schools that teach advanced techniques with swords (fencing, kendo, etc.). Your RW Will Vary.

It strikes me that Swords should be a sensible weapons choice - just on their combat-effectiveness (not for social constraints, which would vary between campaigns). But as the rules stand, battle-axes and light maces are better, or at least equal, in every respect.

Now you may well be right about the Martial-Arts schools - if swords were the only weapons with which such expertise was possible, that would indeed make them the weapon of choice for heroes and would-be heroes!

Anyone ever heard of martial arts that use maces, axes, or whatever?

[NickMiddleton]

Are you sure? I've heard tell of axes being pretty nasty - and they're 'just' slashing weapons too.

Ah, but we are immediately shading into distinctions that are probably finer than is worth bothering with in an RPG combat system. The axe has characteristics of a typical crushing weapon, in that it has its striking mass concentrated at the end of its haft, so even without its cutting edge, it can deliver a lot of force in a small area, whereas a sword's striking mass is distributed throughout its length (and biased towards the hilt), and thus isn't as effective, weight for weight, as an axe.

As I said, it's a very broad approximation, but for me it's acceptably accurate for game play.

I'm not convinced of these points. Would swords not have to be handed-in too? And any weapon can have the Martial Arts ability applied to it, under the rules as they are, so that doesn't help (unless we say that should be restricted).

The usual distinction I make in my games is between "weapons of war" and utility items or dress weapons. So greatswords are as problematic as long spears, but a dagger or an officer / nobles broadsword (as a badge of office / rank) would probably be acceptable.

Might not the advantage of swords be that they could be used in an impaling manner, when circumstances allow? (Though this isn't within the rules either - yet).

RQII and III allowed some swords to be use in either cutting or thrusting mode, and allowed them to impale in thrusting mode. It's a reasonable house rule if the current set up bothers people - albeit even in RQIII most of swords couldn't trust / impale IIRC.

Cheers,

Nick

[Dredj]

How comprehensive are the bleeding rules in BRP? I'm still on a survival horror kick and bleeding rules come in extremely handy for that>:->