Jump to content
StephenMcG

No love for crushing?

Recommended Posts

I remember first playing RQ2 and the best result in combat was an impale.  You lived for those moments arrows or slingshots would impale an opponent.

slashing and crushing were added on but they were always the poor relations of special attack rolls.

Now, Reading RQ:G I see that slashing has grown up and is at least as good as impaling but crushing remains the poor relation.  If you don’t have a damage bonus, don’t use a hammer seems to be the message.  It seems an unnecessary reduction in diversity of weapon types. 

I intend to give damage parity for special attacks, I see good game reasons for consistency in this.  

Impales get value because they stick in the target with the potential for causing damage if the opponent moves.

slashes will get value as they will cause bleeding.  This will require immediate first aid or Healing 2 .  Moving and fighting will risk the bleeding getting worse.

crushes will get value as they will get a resistance roll to see if they temporarily disable the location crushed.  This will be similar to subdual rules but for any location.  I am also inclined to give subdual using a crushing weapon slightly better chances of subduing on a successful hit.

 

Thoughts?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought crush was a great joining of mechanics and Glorantha culture.

I agree, for many humans it is the poor relation of the specials, but it really does give a reason for trolls to use their maces.  Trollkin are probably better using spears, but Dark Trolls and other large ones truly shine with crush.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not just the diversity factor to keep into account, but the appropriateness, as Mechashef pointed out. The bigger the weapon (and the attacker), the more convenient it is for the attack to be based on brute force. If you cannot pack enough strength into that crushing blow, it is unlikely that you will stun your opponent. Impaling weapons, instead, are effective even when small: eight inches of steel in the heart will leave you as dead as three feet would. 

As long as there are some adventurers who benefit from using blunt weaponry (trolls and minotaurs), I would say that balance is preserved. Demanding that all adventurers have a benefit when using a certain kind of weapon is perhaps too much - and not quite realistic.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never take too much realism into my fantasy roleplaying.  😄

I guess it comes to your group and how you look at weapon choices.  I quite like my players to be using different things because of the look/feel/narrative of the sheets rather than being drawn to the weapons that give you greater game advantage.  Thus my instinct for all special attacks to have similar game advantages wrt damage but to give each a different special advantage.

I think that the stunning impact of a crush would quite happily provide distinct advantages to trolls and centaurs using big clubs without robbing those unfortunates whose stats limit them to a light mace from the benefits of a special attack.

 

Stephen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such unfortunates should simply use a thrusting sword - or play a stronger character if they love maces.

Ah.... and light maces did not exist in the real world. They are a game construct, like ringmail armour. Does this tell you anything ? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep pulling me out of my game and into the real world!  

Coshes and clubs do exist though and often because you have a character where you do not have the characteristics necessary to give yourself a high STR score or the wherewithal to purchase a sword.  Again - not sure the system should be making such decisions on behalf of my players.

 

Stephen

Edited by StephenMcG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you should also ditch STR and DEX requirements, as they deprive your character of the freedom to choose a rapier if his DEX sucks. :) Why should the system make that decision for you ?

To cut it short: I do not see any problem if you give all special successes " double damage" like impales, and then narrate the reasons why you did so much damage. 

However, for me a system which rewards a choice you would not make in real life (such as picking a blunt weapon when you are small) breaks suspension of disbelief in a severe way. Looking at the real world does not necessarily "break the magic". 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, StephenMcG said:

Coshes and clubs do exist though and often because you have a character where you do not have the characteristics necessary to give yourself a high STR score or the wherewithal to purchase a sword.  Again - not sure the system should be making such decisions on behalf of my players.

What decision is the game system making for you?

Share this post


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

I remember first playing RQ2 and the best result in combat was an impale.  You lived for those moments arrows or slingshots would impale an opponent.

slashing and crushing were added on but they were always the poor relations of special attack rolls.

Now, Reading RQ:G I see that slashing has grown up and is at least as good as impaling but crushing remains the poor relation.  If you don’t have a damage bonus, don’t use a hammer seems to be the message.  It seems an unnecessary reduction in diversity of weapon types. 

I intend to give damage parity for special attacks, I see good game reasons for consistency in this.  

Impales get value because they stick in the target with the potential for causing damage if the opponent moves.

slashes will get value as they will cause bleeding.  This will require immediate first aid or Healing 2 .  Moving and fighting will risk the bleeding getting worse.

crushes will get value as they will get a resistance roll to see if they temporarily disable the location crushed.  This will be similar to subdual rules but for any location.  I am also inclined to give subdual using a crushing weapon slightly better chances of subduing on a successful hit.

 

Thoughts?

If you are a great troll or a giant, crushing damage gets far better than impale or slash. If you are really strong, use a crushing weapon.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

What decision is the game system making for you?

If I dont have a damage bonus that I should not use a crushing weapon.  It is obviously not a direct thing but the lack of good characteristics tends to steer you down towards a club which will rob you of any bonuses for rolling well that your more stabby colleagues get.

Obviously I am straying far from simulation and delving into more gamist territory but I think the RQ2 system (for most player characters) said do not use hammers and maces, use bows and spears if you want to be effective.  RQ:G now provides similar damage for slashing weapons.  Crushing weapons should be left to beasts and trolls...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things i did with maces and mauls (any hard crushing weapon really) is i gave them a sort of, well think of it as armor piercing but it's not piercing, an AP of say like 1 or 2, against rigid armor. 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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, StephenMcG said:

If I dont have a damage bonus that I should not use a crushing weapon.  It is obviously not a direct thing but the lack of good characteristics tends to steer you down towards a club which will rob you of any bonuses for rolling well that your more stabby colleagues get.

What's wrong with a shortsword?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely nothing.  But there is plenty wrong with a club.  Sometimes your character just needs a club and doesn't need the system actively working against that choice...purely for the reason that it works on clubbing rather than stabbing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, StephenMcG said:

Absolutely nothing.  But there is plenty wrong with a club.  Sometimes your character just needs a club and doesn't need the system actively working against that choice...purely for the reason that it works on clubbing rather than stabbing...

You can certainly use a club even if you have no damage bonus. But what it means is that without a damage bonus, a club doesn't get a damage specific benefit from a special success as opposed to a normal success (although you still get all the basic benefits of a special success).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jeff said:

You can certainly use a club even if you have no damage bonus. But what it means is that without a damage bonus, a club doesn't get a damage specific benefit from a special success as opposed to a normal success (although you still get all the basic benefits of a special success).

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....  😞

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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....  😞

You clearly don't have any dark troll player characters. They LOVE the new Crush rules.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jeff said:

You clearly don't have any dark troll player characters. They LOVE the new Crush rules.

A spear is a weakling's weapon, meant for trollkin and humans. But a mace? Now that is a weapon worthy of my 2D6 damage bonus. And you should see Rock the Great Troll go!

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, 10baseT said:

One of the things i did with maces and mauls (any hard crushing weapon really) is i gave them a sort of, well think of it as armor piercing but it's not piercing, an AP of say like 1 or 2, against rigid armor. 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.

This is WRONG. Maces are good anti-armour weapons, but their effect is more remarkable on flexible armour, not rigid. Chain mail is almost ineffective against maces, whereas with your houserule chain becomes better than plate vs. maces (And yes, this story of mace vs plate is also in Savage Worlds, but it is still WRONG in SW, too). 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. However, this houserule would make trolls terribly dangerous.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what is wrong with dangerous trolls?😁 

 

I dont see the differences as a bug, but a feature.  There are real differences, so a choice becomes a real choice.  I am 5'7", never going to make it in the NBA.  So need t make different choices.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

Maces are good anti-armour weapons, but their effect is more remarkable on flexible armour, not rigid...  modification could be -1 armour vs. hard armour, -2 vs. soft armour... However, this houserule would make trolls terribly dangerous.

So just make it vs soft armour, it's only +2, hardly overwhelming bonus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

So just make it vs soft armour, it's only +2, hardly overwhelming bonus.

"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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 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.

Instead of rolling damage bonus twice, I assume, a bit much to have both. However, keeping maximum damage bonus on a critical instead of maximum weapon damage would be interesting. Maximum meaning numerical maximum, not magnitude maximum, so -1D3 would be -1. Or zero, as a special case. "Maximum damage bonus, or no bonus if negative".

Share this post


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

Such unfortunates should simply use a thrusting sword - or play a stronger character if they love maces.

Ah.... and light maces did not exist in the real world. They are a game construct, like ringmail armour. Does this tell you anything ? :)

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

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Zozotroll said:

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

Actually there are plenty of examples of what are described as a light mace in the rules - "a haft with a round or carved stone weight at one end suitable for bashing and crushing."

Share this post


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

I never take too much realism into my fantasy roleplaying.  😄

But where is the "too much realism" line?  RQ melee has always drawn their line more to the gritty/dangerous/realistic end of the spectrum vs. (FrEx) D&D...

3 hours ago, StephenMcG said:

I guess it comes to your group and how you look at weapon choices.  I quite like my players to be using different things because of the look/feel/narrative of the sheets rather than being drawn to the weapons that give you greater game advantage.  Thus my instinct for all special attacks to have similar game advantages wrt damage but to give each a different special advantage.

I've got no problem with not all weapons being quite so equal.  Some weapons really ARE better.  Wielded by human-level strength, having pointy/slashy sharps really IS more dangerous (in general) than blunt force.  Having the rules reflect that is OK with me; in fact, MORE than OK -- the unrealistic results damage my suspension of disbelief, weakening my own fantasy roleplaying.  <shrug>  YGMV?

 

3 hours ago, StephenMcG said:

Coshes and clubs do exist though and oftnd a club is often) en because you have a character where you do not have the characteristics necessary to give yourself a high STR score or the wherewithal to purchase a sword.  Again - not sure the system should be making such decisions on behalf of my players.

Well, but a cosh is always (and a club is often) intended to be a sub-lethal weapon.  They are mostly useful so peasants who rob their betters don't trigger a manhunt for murdering the nobility.

Honestly, yeah:  I DO want the system to represent this sort of thing.

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

×