No love for crushing?

[RosenMcStern]

Simon, only in your games can adventurers be "minding their business in a Vivamort temple". Invisible, poleaxe-wielding undead pixies is the least you can... no, sorry, you should expect to meet there.

[soltakss]

13 minutes ago, g33k said:

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

Oh, he played them exactly by the rules, they became visible as they attacked us, from behind, flying so they could hit us anywhere they wanted. So, an empty corridor suddenly became full of Poleaxes that seemed to be fighting by themselves, until we saw the teeny-weeny Pixies holding them. We received a penalty to hot as they were (a) small and (b) flying. Oh the joys ...

[PhilHibbs]

The double damage bonus and max damage bonus doesn't really make much sense, but that's ok. It's an example of where the RuneQuest scaling doesn't quite work seamlessly. Really, the damage done as you go up the SIZ scale should mostly come from being able to wield bigger and bigger weapons. The bonus should only distinguish between a strong Great Troll and a weak Great Troll, or a strong 12m Giant and a weak 12m Giant. RuneQuest is centred on the human scale (attribute average 10-11), and the RQ2 human scale at that, where SIZ was 3D6 just like all the other charactistics.

The fact that damage bonus keeps going up and up as you go up the creature SIZ scale just inevitably leads to the awkward mechanic where much of the damage from hitting someone with the trunk of a fully grown oak tree is coming not from the tree, but the damage bonus of the giant wielding it.

Perhaps that is why a 9m giant is shown as having a Maul that does 2D8, the same as a weapon that a strong human can wield, plus 7D6 damage modifier. Looks like that is a general principle, weapon damage stops going up when you're above the human scale, and it's all about the damage bonus.

[StephenMcG]

29 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Perhaps that is why a 9m giant is shown as having a Maul that does 2D8, the same as a weapon that a strong human can wield, plus 7D6 damage modifier. Looks like that is a general principle, weapon damage stops going up when you're above the human scale, and it's all about the damage bonus.

Had not thought of this before.  I think that it would require a lot of thought though.  If a weapon requires 30 STR to use in combat, should it get all the damage bonus for that STR or should it only get bonus for STR that is higher.  Should there be a point where using a weapon where the damage bonus is higher than the weapon damage, should it actually damage the weapon? It is very easy for things to get very complicated.

[PhilHibbs]

1 minute ago, StephenMcG said:

Had not thought of this before.  I think that it would require a lot of thought though.  If a weapon requires 30 STR to use in combat, should it get all the damage bonus for that STR or should it only get bonus for STR that is higher.  Should there be a point where using a weapon where the damage bonus is higher than the weapon damage, should it actually damage the weapon? It is very easy for things to get very complicated.

Brings a whole new flavour to the phrase "well knock me down with a feather". OK, WHACK! 7D6! 😁

[Jusmak]

I like that concept, of stregth categorizing how large and effective weapons creatures can use. Damage could as well be described through that brocedure more than dam. mod.

I think too, that sharp weapond are a bit more dangerous than blunt weapons. However I had concussion to head by very small girl armed with bo (staff). Clubs are very common weapons, police forces use those rubber ones. Sticks are devastating in skilled hands braking so many small bones easily. Sticks work with speed, not weight. Reallife blunt weapons are fast, not heavy and cumbersome. If nothing else, I would give them atleast stunning effect, when hits head. Bone can stop dagger penetrating and cause major wound, but blunt weapon brakes that bone, causing much pain. Headstrikes with hammer at at leat equally dangerous as withbladed weapon. Like TV crime series, a dead body with found with wound made by blunt weapon is quite common.

[Noita]

Clubs are for when you are on dodgy business in New Pavis.

 

[Atgxtg]

On 10/16/2018 at 9:00 AM, PhilHibbs said:

The double damage bonus and max damage bonus doesn't really make much sense, but that's ok. It's an example of where the RuneQuest scaling doesn't quite work seamlessly. Really, the damage done as you go up the SIZ scale should mostly come from being able to wield bigger and bigger weapons. The bonus should only distinguish between a strong Great Troll and a weak Great Troll, or a strong 12m Giant and a weak 12m Giant. RuneQuest is centered on the human scale (attribute average 10-11), and the RQ2 human scale at that, where SIZ was 3D6 just like all the other characteristics.

No, it not just Strength but strength and mass. being able to back up the impact with more mass would make a significant difference. Using the idea of zombie pixies, realistically (not a word that remotely applies to zombie pixes, btw) if a pixie connected with something it relatively low mass would mean that the pixie would probably be thrown around with the impact. 

On 10/16/2018 at 9:00 AM, PhilHibbs said:

The fact that damage bonus keeps going up and up as you go up the creature SIZ scale just inevitably leads to the awkward mechanic where much of the damage from hitting someone with the trunk of a fully grown oak tree is coming not from the tree, but the damage bonus of the giant wielding it.

Yeah, but that because the "tree" doesn't seem to get any bigger. A 12m tall giant should probably be able to wield a bigger tree than a 6m giant, but RQ rarely scales up such weapons. It still mostly works through because functionally it doesn't make much difference where the damage dice come from and because the damage at that point is so high that a of a die or two one way or the other doesn't matter. When it comes to normal characters, the difference between 8 dice damage and 10 dice probably only makes a difference to whoever tries to identify the body. 

On 10/16/2018 at 9:00 AM, PhilHibbs said:

Perhaps that is why a 9m giant is shown as having a Maul that does 2D8, the same as a weapon that a strong human can wield, plus 7D6 damage modifier. Looks like that is a general principle, weapon damage stops going up when you're above the human scale, and it's all about the damage bonus.

Oddly enough though, if you look at some of the bigger monster natural damages, they do go up a little  with SIZ. 

[Questbird]

On 10/11/2018 at 2:35 AM, RosenMcStern said:

"Halve soft armour vs. mace" was the official rule (after errata) in RQ3, and I have used it for 15+ years with extreme effectiveness. -2 could create trouble because it would make a gambeson ineffective, whereas when you wear mail it is actually the gambeson underneath the chain which provides a minimal protection against the crushing effect.

 

I like simple yet effective rules like this.

[Mugen]

On 10/16/2018 at 3:00 PM, PhilHibbs said:

The double damage bonus and max damage bonus doesn't really make much sense, but that's ok. It's an example of where the RuneQuest scaling doesn't quite work seamlessly. Really, the damage done as you go up the SIZ scale should mostly come from being able to wield bigger and bigger weapons. The bonus should only distinguish between a strong Great Troll and a weak Great Troll, or a strong 12m Giant and a weak 12m Giant. RuneQuest is centred on the human scale (attribute average 10-11), and the RQ2 human scale at that, where SIZ was 3D6 just like all the other charactistics.

The fact that damage bonus keeps going up and up as you go up the creature SIZ scale just inevitably leads to the awkward mechanic where much of the damage from hitting someone with the trunk of a fully grown oak tree is coming not from the tree, but the damage bonus of the giant wielding it.

Perhaps that is why a 9m giant is shown as having a Maul that does 2D8, the same as a weapon that a strong human can wield, plus 7D6 damage modifier. Looks like that is a general principle, weapon damage stops going up when you're above the human scale, and it's all about the damage bonus.

It's rare that RPG systems handle well such scale differences. Those that do (and care to have a consistent scale of attributes) use exponential scale for attributes, and were specifically designed to be able to handle mundane humans and super-heroïc beings.

BRP SIZ is vaguely exponential for low values, but the whole system is not consistent.

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, Mugen said:

It's rare that RPG systems handle well such scale differences. Those that do (and care to have a consistent scale of attributes) use exponential scale for attributes, and were specifically designed to be able to handle mundane humans and super-heroïc beings.

BRP SIZ is vaguely exponential for low values, but the whole system is not consistent.

BRP/RQ3 SIZ is entirely exponential between SIZ 8 and 88. The SIZ formula was taken from the Superworld boxed set, but values at the low end (1-7) and above 88 were adjusted. The low end adjustments were probably to prevent negative SIZ scores for small creatures, and values at the high end become linear. 

 

Since the formula woks out as +8 STAT is double the value (i.e. +8 SIZ is double the mass) and the damage bonus is +1D6 per 16 SIZ then it's really +1D6 every time you multiple the force by four.At least in the 8-88 range, which covers most things in the game.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Atgxtg

[Ultor]

It seems to me that one way to increase the value of a special smashing attack is to say that if it hits the head, it automatically counts as a subduing attack as per the Rune Fixes additions. And/or give the successful crusher a free immediate Knockback attempt as per p. 224. This might make staff-wielding Little Johns a bit more effective.

[Darius West]

On 10/14/2018 at 5:43 AM, soltakss said:

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 ...

I assume the laughing was due to the Murphy's Rules in play?