Weapon Damages

[Joerg]

23 hours ago, styopa said:

sing Paris as presented in the Iliad is about the equivalent of using Batman as an example of real melee skill.

Again, you might as well reference Batman as your "authentic example of reality".  /silly

A sword master could be trained in a handful of years. It was generally regarded that a master Welsh longbow man really had to do it his whole life from a young age.

So it is not fair to compare Einar or Paris to Musashi?

 

23 hours ago, styopa said:

 Not super persuasive, particularly compared to the actual documented performance of actual English longbow men in actual battles.

Not sure what you're talking about "long bow of steel piercing"...the d8+1 of a long bow write certainly will nearly pierce plate armor with merely an average roll.

The perormance was heavily dependent on the bodkin arrow, too. I don''t know the effective damage to arrows fired ratio at Crecy or Agincourt, but it cannot have been that high, and many of the effective hits will have been on the horses (which provide the much bigger and less armored target area).

Military archery is comparable to clout archery - any body hit is random luck, due to the time of flight of the arrow. Having a second arrow in the air before the first one impacts is entirely possible. Demanding to hit an individual moving target under those conditions requires heroic abilities and not just mere mastery.

Taking damage in an armored hit zone doesn't necessarily mean penetration of said armor, btw. A non-special will cause concussion in armored parts or a graze in unprotected parts.

 

23 hours ago, styopa said:

The self bow pretty significantly differs from the longbow, Iirc d6+1 vs d8+1.

Bows were fitted to the individual size and strength of the user. Training can make you master a heavier bow, but at some point the brute strength required will lower accuracy even with the first few shots.

The strenuous training is necessary to be able to keep firing the bow after the first dozen arrows. I experienced this kind of lack of training with my mere 80 lbs flatbow in the second half of a clout tournament.

 

23 hours ago, styopa said:

Not sure how it matters that they're found elsewhere?  No other culture mythologizes the longbow anywhere near the English, which is what i was referring to.  In none of those example cases are archers historically referenced as overwhelmingly dominant as English archers at the famous French battles.

Sending flemish crossbowmen home before the battle, maximally unfavourable ground for a lance charge, spiked posts yadda yadda - more fatal casualties were inflicted by the mallets used to drive in the stakes than by arrow wounds at Agincourt.

 

Having dabbled with archery and kendo just towards low levels of proficiency, I feel you underestimate the effort needed to become a master swordsman. A major factor there is to be good enough to avoid being hit, which is a lot easier for archers keeping out of the range of enemy weapons.

[soltakss]

Oh dear, bows and crossbows again. Someone just needs to compare them to slings for a 10 page flamefest.

[g33k]

2 hours ago, soltakss said:

Oh dear, bows and crossbows again. Someone just needs to compare them to slings for a 10 page flamefest.

Not to worry, lad!

At least nobody has come to point out to these sad longbow-fetishists how superior the mounted Mongol horse-archers were, militarily, and how lucky the brits were never to face THEM...   

<dives for cover before the flames become nukes>

 

[Hteph]

If a player dragget this semi-flame fest to me as a GM I would poit out that the mythic aspects are also important in my Glorantha. That means (to me) the sword (as an icarnation of death) always will hold an edge in combat, and as death was wielded to kill Yelm who could be seen as the representaion of both bows and spears, the latter two is pointely worse perhaps, than in our world.

Something similar could be said about axes and clubs .... swords and axes, however, we could trade blows over and in the end that they are quite equivalent but different.

(Just my two pints of naphta)

[styopa]

11 hours ago, g33k said:

slacker.

 

(I confess, too, that I had considered alternate hit-location rules for things like a left-forward vs right-forward stance, just shifting a point each of arm and leg hit-locations to the "forward side" from the "back side"; and a few other positions that might modify hit-locations)

It was actually born of my attempt to make a simple gun-combat 'resolve with one roll' system using a clear template with a radial graph that you could overlay on the picture of any target, and with one roll get both the location of the hit and seriousness of the injury.

Greatest hit location table for missile fire ever that wasn't really ever usable: Phoenix Command had IIRC 65 different hit locations (such as left or right eye, throat (vs neck) etc).

(Not to mention, who wouldn't love a system where the aim time modifier "a" at a number of combat-actions of aim t is given by a = x*log(t)+y, where x=b*log(w)+m and y=c*log(w)+p, for the gun's weight w and some constants b, c, m and p, which are things like the length between the given weapon's front and rear sights... http://pccs.understairs.nl/weapondesign.html ).  Part of me is still, oddly, a little bit in love with that objectively terrible system.

[DSC1978]

5 hours ago, Dr. H. teph said:

If a player dragget this semi-flame fest to me as a GM I would poit out that the mythic aspects are also important in my Glorantha. That means (to me) the sword (as an icarnation of death) always will hold an edge in combat, and as death was wielded to kill Yelm who could be seen as the representaion of both bows and spears, the latter two is pointely worse perhaps, than in our world.

Something similar could be said about axes and clubs .... swords and axes, however, we could trade blows over and in the end that they are quite equivalent but different.

(Just my two pints of naphta)

Ok, and if I were to demonstrate actually that from a system point of view, a 100% skill in archery is far more efficient than a 150% skill in swordsmanship, what would be your explanation

i actually don't care about whether one weapon is better than another one, but I would welcome a bit of uniformity as far as I am concerned (sorry to make this point again).

[Atgxtg]

On 8/19/2017 at 9:26 AM, styopa said:

That said, I think RQ2 (and thus the QS) makes this worse than necessary *a little* by capping worn armor at 6 points.  Maybe that's an acknowledgement of bronze age tech limitations, or an encouragement that everyone should be buffing with that Protection 1 or 2 before every fight, but considering that the most heavily physically-armored character in the game will be injured by even an AVERAGE hit by a battleaxe (assuming a 1d4 damage mod) seems shaded just a touch more lethal than realistic for me.  Even an average-damage arrowshot is nearly enough as well.

Yeah. The thing is RQ2 had SIZ on 3D6, so the average character didn't get a db. So most one handed weapons (1D8+1, 1D8+2, 1D10) were stopped by 6 point plate at least half the time. Now RQ3 upped SIZ to 2D6+6, and the average character got a 1D4 damage bonus, but this was offset by the increase in armor protection. Higher damage and lower armor is going to make this more lethal than RQ2 - especially if the Battle Magic/Spirit Magic is capped the way it was in RQ2. 

[trystero]

On 8/22/2017 at 8:11 AM, Atgxtg said:

...RQ2 had SIZ on 3D6, so the average character didn't get a db....RQ3 upped SIZ to 2D6+6, and the average character got a 1D4 damage bonus.... 

Not quite. The average RQ3 character has STR 10–11 and SIZ 13, so their total STR+SIZ is 23–24, and you need a total of 25 to get a +1D4 damage bonus. I agree that the RQ3 SIZ boost meant that damage bonuses were easier to get, but they were still not within the province of the average.

[olskool]

On 8/21/2017 at 8:27 AM, soltakss said:

Oh dear, bows and crossbows again. Someone just needs to compare them to slings for a 10 page flamefest.

I use the STR stat to determine the "Draw Weight" of missile weapons.  The higher the STR, the greater the weapon's draw weight and the more damage it does.  To determine the weapon's Range, I use STR modified by the SIZ needed to wield it (to account for the length of the "bow stave.") and the bow type (composite, self, recurve, or composite recurve).  By segregating the Range and Damage into separate formulas, you get a huge variety in missile weapon performance.   

[kaydet]

GURPS Low Tech has a supplement that contains all the math and tables you need to build whatever custom bow your mind could possibly imagine.

Certainly one must tailor one's expectations to the content at hand.

[GianniVacca]

On 19/08/2017 at 3:26 PM, styopa said:

Ultimately, (the QS and RQ2 armor limit of 6) does* is it makes ranged damage more lethal - you can dodge or parry melee blows, after all, but there's nothing one can do vs missiles.

You can Dodge missile attacks in RQ:G.

[Mugen]

As for myself, I prefer a system where low damage does not necessarily mean actual lasting wounds, but fatigue or bruses.

Hit Points are easily recovered, but critiical wounds reduce maximum Hit Points until fully healed.

[styopa]

On 1/4/2018 at 9:19 AM, GianniVacca said:

You can Dodge missile attacks in RQ:G.

Unfortunate.

I can see dodging any missile at extreme range, or thrown at normal range, but a crossbow bolt at point blank is like a gun: nobody's dodging that except accidentally.

[Psullie]

18 minutes ago, styopa said:

Unfortunate.

I can see dodging any missile at extreme range, or thrown at normal range, but a crossbow bolt at point blank is like a gun: nobody's dodging that except accidentally.

While I get what you're saying, muzzle velocity of even a low powered pistol is 3-4000 feet per second, a quarrel about 200 so no, they are not the same. 

However to dodge missile fire you need to see the archer fire, so in effect you're more trying to put off the shot rather than dodging a projectile already in flight.

[DavetheLost]

RQ has always had a realistic combat system. To me this is a feature, not a bug.

I can attest from personal experience that one good hit is all it takes to knock you out. I did SCA heavy combat and even though it was "just" bruising damage it was not unheard of for people to quit the field after taking a heavy blow, especially on a lightly armoured body part. I also had the joy of dropping an axe through the end of my thumb, half severing it. That wound took my hand out of commision for weeks, and it was a small wound. 

See also bow hunting. One hit from a broadhead arrow will drop a big game animal. A deer or elk is about man-sized and you cannot convince that all those hunters are scoring critical hits every time.

A replica Viking spear or Dane axe is easy to drive through flesh and bone. We tried it last year on a roadkilled carcass donated for the experiment. Cleaving ribs is easy for an average strength and size man.

In my experience and opinion weapons don't do enough damage. Armour values relative to weapons values in RQ are about right. Weapon damage relative to hit points could actually be higher for a realistic game. Getting injured hurts, a lot.  Much of the initial shock and trauma heals fairly quickly, if it doesn't kill you. But there will be residual stiffness, reduced mobility, etc.

That an RQ character can actually take more than one injuring weapon hit and still fight is pretty damn heroic.

 

Dodging a missile attack is not all that far fetched. I would assume it means that rather than standing there like a static target for teh full round you are moving. A dodge would indicate you are actively trying to throw off the archer's aim. Again a dodge is an abstraction of a number of a factors in play into a single die roll. In this case it is everything making the shot more difficult that the shooter has no control over. It makes sens to me, especially as you can see where the archer is aiming and see when he is preparing to release as well as the relese itself.  An alternative might be to apply a penalty to the archer's Ranged Combat skill to reflect the difficulty of shooting at a moving target...

[Yelm's Light]

4 hours ago, DavetheLost said:

Dodging a missile attack is not all that far fetched. I would assume it means that rather than standing there like a static target for teh full round you are moving. A dodge would indicate you are actively trying to throw off the archer's aim. Again a dodge is an abstraction of a number of a factors in play into a single die roll. In this case it is everything making the shot more difficult that the shooter has no control over. It makes sens to me, especially as you can see where the archer is aiming and see when he is preparing to release as well as the relese itself.  An alternative might be to apply a penalty to the archer's Ranged Combat skill to reflect the difficulty of shooting at a moving target...

I'm also an ex-SCA member, and I tend to disagree with this from a game mechanics perspective.  Dodge is inherently an application of the target's skill, not a modifier.  There are two rolls in your scenario:  the attack and the dodge.  (This is one place where Defense would fit more logically, but since it's no longer in the game, that is roight out.)

You also appear to be assuming that this occurs in the vacuum of archer vs. target.  In reality it's almost never that way.  Usually it's one of a cloud of arrows fired en masse, which one might be able to hide behind a large shield to avoid but it would be utterly useless to try to dodge.  Further, if it did indeed happen to be one-on-one (and wasn't a sniper shot, i.e. from cover or otherwise with surprise on the archer's side), range  becomes a consideration, as styopa brings up.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Yelm's Light

[DavetheLost]

you are right, I was specifically thinking of the case of a single archer. Dodging multiple arrows is not going to happen. Nor is dodging an arrow from an archer you can't see.  A nice big shield is definitely your best defense.

[g33k]

9 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

...Usually it's one of a cloud of arrows fired en masse ...

Remember that while genuine combat situations can yield a lot of lessons for RQ (and RPG in general) combat, they aren't the same.

In particular, I wouldn't expect PCs to face "a cloud of arrows" unless they were facing an actual army; a half-dozen missileers, (some (but not likely all) of whom  MAY have Multimissile) would be typical.

[styopa]

On 1/9/2018 at 1:46 PM, Yelm's Light said:

I'm also an ex-SCA member, and I tend to disagree with this from a game mechanics perspective.  Dodge is inherently an application of the target's skill, not a modifier.  There are two rolls in your scenario:  the attack and the dodge.  (This is one place where Defense would fit more logically, but since it's no longer in the game, that is roight out.)

You also appear to be assuming that this occurs in the vacuum of archer vs. target.  In reality it's almost never that way.  Usually it's one of a cloud of arrows fired en masse, which one might be able to hide behind a large shield to avoid but it would be utterly useless to try to dodge.  Further, if it did indeed happen to be one-on-one (and wasn't a sniper shot, i.e. from cover or otherwise with surprise on the archer's side), range  becomes a consideration, as styopa brings up.

Just brainstorming here, what would be the impact if - for missile fire - dodge (or even parry) acted like defense did?  Because I do agree that where in melee dodge is more of a 'transactional' event, it makes sense for missile fire for it to be rationalized as more of a 'state of jittery moving about'.  First missile attack it would be at full, 2nd at half, 3rd at 1/3 (or half again, if you prefer), etc. OR the character could say at the statement of intent "I think I'm going to get shot by all four archers drawing at me - preallocating in statement of intent would let them simply divide that rating evenly against that number of shots, making it likely worse against the first but better for those others.

This would also partially mitigate the inherent game-rule advantage of most missile fire getting multiple attacks/round, where the vast majority of melee do not - thus missile fire intrinsically denigrating the value of defenses.

Again, just spitballing - I'm so jetlagged right now I don't really have trustworthy brain cells to error-test the idea.

[Yelm's Light]

9 hours ago, styopa said:

Just brainstorming here, what would be the impact if - for missile fire - dodge (or even parry) acted like defense did?  Because I do agree that where in melee dodge is more of a 'transactional' event, it makes sense for missile fire for it to be rationalized as more of a 'state of jittery moving about'.  First missile attack it would be at full, 2nd at half, 3rd at 1/3 (or half again, if you prefer), etc. OR the character could say at the statement of intent "I think I'm going to get shot by all four archers drawing at me - preallocating in statement of intent would let them simply divide that rating evenly against that number of shots, making it likely worse against the first but better for those others.

This would also partially mitigate the inherent game-rule advantage of most missile fire getting multiple attacks/round, where the vast majority of melee do not - thus missile fire intrinsically denigrating the value of defenses.

Again, just spitballing - I'm so jetlagged right now I don't really have trustworthy brain cells to error-test the idea.

Or perhaps a conversion of Dodge into a Defense-like modifier for purposes of missile combat only, say 20% of Dodge (or whatever level you prefer, or even a sliding scale for multiple shots).

The problem with preallocation is that it's a fluid situation; archers can choose a different target, have more or less shots than the target expected, or become incapacitated in the space between declaration and resolution.

[olskool]

4 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

Or perhaps a conversion of Dodge into a Defense-like modifier for purposes of missile combat only, say 20% of Dodge (or whatever level you prefer, or even a sliding scale for multiple shots).

The problem with preallocation is that it's a fluid situation; archers can choose a different target, have more or less shots than the target expected, or become incapacitated in the space between declaration and resolution.

This is why I divide my Missile weapons' ranges into four Range Bands.  Those four range bands all have different Skill Modifications and Strike Rank costs.  I list the Skill Modification to simulate the difficulty in hitting a distant target that may be moving unpredictably due to the attack.  I list the Strike Rank Modification (please understand that I use a differing SR system that is randomized and counts down) to simulate the TIME (the Strike Rank cost) it takes to aim AND compute the needed "lead" to hit a moving target as well as the "flight time" of the projectile needed to reach the target.  My Range Bands are:

• SHORT RANGE (up to 1/4 Base Range):  Normal Skill Level (1 X Skill) and 1 Strike Rank to shoot (nocking an arrow is 5 SRs).  An arrow can be carried nocked.
• MEDIUM RANGE (From 1/4 Base to 1/2 Base Range):  Fairly Difficult Skill Level (0.75 X Skill) and 2 Strike Ranks to shoot to medium range. 
• LONG RANGE (From 1/2 Base to 3/4 Base Range):  Difficult Skill Level (0.5 X Skill) and 3 Strike Ranks to shoot to long range.
• EXTREME RANGE (From 3/4 Base to Total Base Range):  Formidable Skill Level (0.25 X Skill) and 4 Strike Ranks to shoot to extreme range.   

These chances are also modified by conditions (lighting, target running, small targets, etc...) and the shooter's health.  I find that this system really helps balance the power of projectile weapons' range and rate of fire by making the long shots more challenging (as they would be in the real world).

The Dodge Skill: 

        As I have stated in previous posts, my Dodge Skill is a special skill only possessed by certain warriors and martial artists.  The Dodge Skill does work against projectile weapons but the skill is INVERSED for projectile weapons.  What this means is that the Skill Chance Modifier for Dodge starts at EXTREME RANGE and gets progressively worse as you get closer to the shooter.  The Skill Modifications are:

• EXTREME RANGE:  Dodge Skill is Fairly Difficult (0.75 X Skill) at Extreme Range.
• LONG RANGE: Dodge Skill is Difficult (0.5 X Skill) at Long Range.
• MEDIUM RANGE: Dodge Skill is Formidable (0.25 X Skill) at Medium Range.
• SHORT RANGE: Dodge Skill is Impossible (0.1 X Skill) at Short Range.

This is the base skill for evading projectile weapons and it is modified by combat conditions as well.  

 

    I hope this may give you some insight into how to model projectile weapons for more realistic behavior during combat. 

    

       

Edited January 12, 2018 by olskool
My screen locked and I had to post what I had and modify it to finish.

[MJ Sadique]

First of all, Why people always think to dodge or parry an arrow is the best or only choice ?? When you are target by an shooter, the first thing real people think about is hiding behind a solid wall or jumping down under some cover.
-Hide skill can help you stay out of reach before the arrow is shot, I like the original rule but prefer a house rules with a skill' test (with a chosen risk/malus by the defender giving the shooter an equal handicap up to the double on critical success).
-Original RQ3 state that you can dodge a projectile but it cost you a full round (without stating why and how ), I prefer a Jump skill test which justify the full round handicap (a full 10/12RA lost because you need to get up before coming bak in the battle).

 

On 10/01/2018 at 3:21 AM, DavetheLost said:

... the case of a single archer. (1) Dodging multiple arrows is not going to happen. (2) Nor is dodging an arrow from an archer you can't see. (3) A nice big shield is definitely your best defense.

(1) true if limit your game to dragon pass but false elsewhere; Example : Vormaini can dodge arrows ! how ? see LAND of NINJA/Yadomejutsu, and I don't even speak about using Ki...

(2) false, if you cannot see, the malus is a -75%, you can still hear the arrow. Plus, Uz and some Hikimi (bats) don't see their enemies, they hear them.

(3) strongly disagree, unless you want to charge the target XD why ? read my opinion above about hide and jump !

On 11/01/2018 at 9:57 AM, styopa said:

1/ Just brainstorming here, what would be the impact if - for missile fire - dodge (or even parry) acted like defense did?

2/ This would also partially mitigate the inherent game-rule advantage of most missile fire getting multiple attacks/round, where the vast majority of melee do not - thus missile fire intrinsically denigrating the value of defenses.

3/ Again, just spitballing - I'm so jetlagged right now I don't really have trustworthy brain cells to error-test the idea.

1- Defence against projectile (arrows or axes) is not a simple task and as a peculiar move, it need a peculiar set of rules. The best rules are still based on RQ existing one

• Parry a projectile : Protect an extra localisation in advance, a better success protect more localisation; Dodge a projectile : Dodging by doing a greater success than the shooter
• Attacking a projectile : Oriental don't parry an arrow, they attack them to cut or deflect them (no problem with multiples arrows, visible or not ! ).

2- Handicapping archers because melee fighters are not the greatest around IS wrong. The C.I.A rules must be respected : Infantry get bashed by artillery !

3- Me neither, no brain cells nor time free

[Al.]

On 8/21/2017 at 3:48 PM, g33k said:

Not to worry, lad!

At least nobody has come to point out to these sad longbow-fetishists how superior the mounted Mongol horse-archers were, militarily, and how lucky the brits were never to face THEM...   

<dives for cover before the flames become nukes>

 

No flames. Agreement.

Mind you promoting officers on the basis of competence rather than birthright, being entirely self-sufficient in the field, using frozen rivers as roads and and and, probably had as much to do with the Mongol horde's success as having a heavier draw bow which could be shot from horseback.

Glad to see you wrote Brits not English, Nyd hyder ond bwa is Cymric not Welsc

[Skunkape]

I prefer a nuke from orbit, it's the only way to be sure!

 

As far as adding anything remotely close to a useful response, with RPGs, I'm more or a story person than an accuracy person. It's a game, do whatever you need to do to make it fun for yourself and your players. I like things to be somewhat accurate, but I don't worry too much about being 100% accurate, if I wanted that I'd play a minis war game, which even then is questionable about accuracy. Your own mileage may vary but do what makes you happy, but be consistent in how you handle the rules at the table. That way your players will have something to base their decisions upon and even if you aren't completely accurate with your rulings, if all of  you are having fun, then you've accomplished what you set out to do.

Course, there's nothing wrong with asking people for advice either. I like to hear other's experience as well.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Skunkape

[g33k]

18 hours ago, Al. said:

Glad to see you wrote Brits not English, Nyd hyder ond bwa is Cymric not Welsc

The "English" ended up "winning," I guess.  It was arguably the "English" longbow at Agincourt & Crecy... but it took some hard and "pointed" lessons from the Welsh... kind of like what happened on the Scottish border, come to think of it.  Testy folk, the Celts...