Jump to content
StephenMcG

No love for crushing?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, 10baseT said:

For example, a mace/maul/war hammer against plate would count the plate as 4 armor points instead of 6. (i did this in my head so my players didnt have any bookkeeping. It seemed to work well.

For a warhammer, I'm all with this, because they are really devised as can openers (at least medieval ones). Not so much for maces and mauls. For these against plate, the stun option seems best.

As an additional option, I would suggest that flexible armor only count half against such crushing weapons, ALL THE TIME. Leathers, Linen, Ring, and perhaps Scale.

SDLeary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RosenMcStern said:

A more precise modification could be -1 armour vs. hard armour, -2 vs. soft armour. 

And even that is wrong. Padding works great against maces and would be classified as soft armor. There is turning an edge, stopping a point,  and soaking up impact. Mail works be turning an edge, and since most blunt weapons do most of their damage by impact, mail isn't all that effective. But the padding underneath still is. It's just that against swords and axes you get a combination of protection. 

Plate over padding is probably about the best armor to wear against blunt weapons. the rigid plate helps to disperse the impact over a wider area, and the padding cushions the blow. 

 

One possible special for those who want to add something to crushing weapons other than the usual crush crit would be broken bones. They could take longer to heal. This wouldn't make crushing weapons any more powerful in the battle, but could make a difference afterwards. Especially if broken bones took more Heal to repair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Plate over padding is probably about the best armor to wear against blunt weapons. the rigid plate helps to disperse the impact over a wider area, and the padding cushions the blow. 

Casualty reports in the SCA (which fights with blunt wooden "swords" etc) report plenty broken arms inside undamaged plate armor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to this day, the knuckles on my left hand are bigger than my right due to being broken in the SCA.  I took a shot right over the grip of my shield.  Of course my opponent was 6'6" and about 350 LB( dark troll anyone?) so it was a very hard shot.  Mass weapons in the hands of a large opponent are a bitch to fight

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joerg said:

Casualty reports in the SCA (which fights with blunt wooden "swords" etc) report plenty broken arms inside undamaged plate armor.

Of course. It's much like the cameras with "unbreakable" cases. The camera is smashed to pieces, but the case remains unbroken. Steel, not surprisingly, can withstand impacts that flesh and bone cannot.But it only absorbs so much of the force and passes the rest onto the wearer. But you're still much better off with the plate than without it. Most "damage" to people wearing plate is impact/crushing, even damage from spears and swords. The plate stops the weapon from penetrating, but much of the force of the blow still goes through to the wearer. 

 

You can increase the padding to soak up more of the force, but that has it's own drawbacks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zozotroll said:

Why do we believe in ringmail?  Is this another Victorian crock of shit that got passed down t us?  

Well, there are Northern Pacific examples of Chinese coins and of metal rings sown onto a leather base - but these are waaaay outside the time reference-period of RQ. I'm also sure that some Japanese armourer in the 17/18th C tried it too. However, these are not really either common enough or "in period".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

A more precise modification could be -1 armour vs. hard armour, -2 vs. soft armour. IN this way you have Chain = 3 vs. crush, Plate = 5 vs; Crush, which is both realistic and somehow fair for the mace wielder.

Good feedback, i'll go this route, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

A more precise modification could be -1 armour vs. hard armour, -2 vs. soft armour. IN this way you have Chain = 3 vs. crush, Plate = 5 vs; Crush, which is both realistic and somehow fair for the mace wielder.

Good feedback, i'll go this route, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

A more precise modification could be -1 armour vs. hard armour, -2 vs. soft armour. IN this way you have Chain = 3 vs. crush, Plate = 5 vs; Crush, which is both realistic and somehow fair for the mace wielder.

Good feedback, i'll go this route, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lord High Munchkin said:

Well, there are Northern Pacific examples of Chinese coins and of metal rings sown onto a leather base - but these are waaaay outside the time reference-period of RQ. I'm also sure that some Japanese armourer in the 17/18th C tried it too. However, these are not really either common enough or "in period".

Bezainted, Studded Leather, Ring, all much the same in RQ terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say probably not as it says add the damage bonus, not the damage modification.  

Small people with clubs will be more dangerous in my Glorantha. 🙂 And larger creatures with clubs will deliver a few numb arms, legs and heads...

Stephen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Curious - What happens if someone has a negative damage modifier with a crush crit/Special ? Do you actually do less damage then with a normal hit?  

Maximum negative damage modifier will always be -1 since -1 is a higher number than -6. Personally I'd houserule it to zero on a crush.

Edited by PhilHibbs
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Maximum negative damage modifier will always be -1 since -1 is a higher number than -6. Personally I'd houserule it to zero on a crush

Ah yes of course. Think i’ll pinch that house rule :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, if there was a trollkin with a negative damage modifier using a club, I'd do the double negative special damage because it adds to the pathos.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Curious - What happens if someone has a negative damage modifier with a crush crit/Special ? Do you actually do less damage then with a normal hit?  

I believe Crush specifically states Damage Bonus not Damage Modifier. So someone with a negative Damage Modifier won't have to double it, because it's not a bonus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its plain history of game development, than any reallife meaning why crushing weapon special effects are handled as they are.

Need for damage mod. can be claimed as important for impale and slashing a it is for crushing. Without positive dam. mod character does not have enough power to strike a stick through somebody's body or sword's edge cannot sink deep enough to cut major arteries. How much strenght it takes to strike with small hammer somebody's bony area, kneecap or skull broken, not so much.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2018 at 4:11 PM, StephenMcG said:

Yeah, but lots of players (I am pointing no fingers) are highly motivated by that extra damage and, when you see your mate destroying trollkin with an impale and all your crush does is be a but more successful in hitting (which is also true of Mr Stabby) then the club is discarded and everyone begins to look the same...

I have played with the current rules since 1980 or so, I have never changed them and it is only reading the changes to slash in RQ:G that made me begin to question the status quo.  Why upgrade slash and leave crush unloved....  😞

As Jeff says, crushing works best with big/strong creatures. A giant or great troll with a tree trunk/maul is devastating when crushing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Jeff said:

Heck, if there was a trollkin with a negative damage modifier using a club, I'd do the double negative special damage because it adds to the pathos.

If the trollkin rolled < 0 he could actually heal you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 7:45 PM, Jeff said:

Heck, if there was a trollkin with a negative damage modifier using a club, I'd do the double negative special damage because it adds to the pathos.

🤣 Best Joke of the month  ...  doing a special attack made your attack weaker (1D6 - 1D4 upgrade to 1D6 -1D4 -1)

 

As fun as the topic is, I still ask : IF empaling n' slashing benefit everyone, why crushing should handicap the weaker ?

I really like the idea of Crushing giving a boost for bigger and stronger creatures but even if it's simple and good rules it has some flaw (... the trollkin pathos !). During my RQ3 era, I choose to create a second Bonus Damage type calculated with a Double Strength (DB with 2xSTR + SIZ instead of STR+SIZ) to give and advantage to stronger characters. This method cost a few second at creation but really help with crushing rule and feel more natural.

Using RQG standard, it could became something like :
Creature (average str and siz) : Bonus Damage / Double Strength Bonus damage

Pixies (5) : -1D4 / 0
Runner (7) : 0 / 0
Trollkin (10) : 0 / 1D4
Great troll (26) : 2D6 / 4D6

A "good" trollkin vs a Runner could get the upper hand in a fight even with same DB modifier; A Great troll will get a monstrous bonus as he should have ! Even a tiny Pixie could benefit from it. This could be a great, simple and efficient solution to crushing flaws but I'm pretty sure it will stay a house rule...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

Even a tiny Pixie could benefit from it.

One of our RQ2 GMs used Poleaxe-wielding Zombie Pixies in a scenario, as he had worked out that, with the STR bonus and DEX reduction, a Zombie Pixie could use a Poleaxe. So, there we were, minding our business in a Vivamort Temple, when suddenly, 6 Pixies appeared behind us and hit us with Poleaxes and Bladesharp 4, of course, being Pixies, they still retained their Invisibility power, so attacked us from being Invisible. Oh, how we laughed ...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soltakss said:

One of our RQ2 GMs used Poleaxe-wielding Zombie Pixies in a scenario, as he had worked out that, with the STR bonus and DEX reduction, a Zombie Pixie could use a Poleaxe. So, there we were, minding our business in a Vivamort Temple, when suddenly, 6 Pixies appeared behind us and hit us with Poleaxes and Bladesharp 4, of course, being Pixies, they still retained their Invisibility power, so attacked us from being Invisible ...

I envision this as invisible pixies, but NOT invisible pole-axes; so the appearance of animated weapons.

1 hour ago, soltakss said:

... Oh, how we laughed ...

Somehow, I do NOT envision this part.

😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×